#meaningful criticism in my opinion

[arolesbianism]

Everyday I see another youtube video or whatever say smth along the lines of "this character is badly written because they're unlikable/annoying/insert negative description here" and everyday I end up massively disappointed because I came here for analysis on the actual writing of a character not just a description of the feelings they made you experience

[britneyshakespeare]

Had the extremely upsetting experience of a mutual of like 6 years going off on me for occasionally making posts about supporting Harris because apparently that makes me a g n cide denier who refuses to learn and grow, with all of my views just being assumed not even from what I've told them I believe or what I've posted before, but just because I DON'T post particularly the kind of things they THINK I should be. When I pointed out how much they were just completely assuming about stuff I'd never talked to them about, I was told it doesn't matter what I do in real life or "care" about if I simply disagree with their conclusion and vote for her anyway. Like they were absolutely not sorry for the level of maliciousness they not just assumed of my character, but for some reason thought appropriate to bring directly to me before unfollowing me. No apology whatsoever for how discomforting or upsetting that might be and certainly no acknowledgment that I could disagree with them and still be a good person. I just got another even longer rant about how they fundamentally can't fuck with me because of this one thing, no matter WHAT else I do in my real life (which I pointed out that they do not know), and how I'm directly supporting fascism.

Like seriously what is it about Tumblr that makes people think they know someone based off of occasional posts? There were just such DEEP assumptions they were making of me and going off of very little or absolutely nothing. Around the time I first became mutuals with that person I used to express my personality and beliefs and talk about what was going on in my life a lot more openly, but I've significantly scaled back on doing that in many ways for many reasons. One of my major ones is privacy and the way I've had strangers outside my followers and following circles just find random things I say and dogpile me for it. I was fundamentally changed after some T Fs did that to me like 3 years ago. I also just didn't have many conversations w that person anymore (I message people in general on here like 10x less than I did circa 2018-2019, which I'm somewhat sorry about!). My point is to say I think this person felt comfortable assuming that they knew me, especially who I am in 2024 at the age of 25, much better than they actually did.

One of the specific things they accused me of was being afraid of learning and growing (because I don't perform social media activism on here like they think I should). Like AFRAID to take criticism. When again I've never received criticism from them or had to respond to any criticism on here before as pertaining to my views on... well, absolutely any of the issues they accused me of not caring about. They essentially treated it as if the only thing in the world I cared about was the US election and characterized me as the most out-of-touch liberal they could possibly imagine, because I'm not "pushing" Kamala Harris to be better (Oh?? Should I do that on here?? Does she read my blog??).

And most hypocritically what they said was that I only *sometimes* *vaguely* post pro-Harris things (I often post like 5 or fewer things in a day though?). But here's the kicker. "Because I know I'll get shit for it. And rightfully so."

Really????? Not a single person, anon or not, in my messages or in a tagged post or anything, has ever given me shit before for saying who I'm voting for. I'm actually NOT afraid of "getting shit" for that opinion, I just don't start fights with people who are anti-voting. And why should I??? I genuinely don't believe in trying to change the minds of strangers on the internet about that sort of thing. I'm just not confrontational about it; that is so not the same thing as being "afraid of getting shit." I'm not posting ENOUGH about my support for Harris, therefore I'm afraid. But therefore they can also make all these assumptions about me being their strawman for an ignorant Harris supporter.

I'm afraid of getting shit but I still post anyway? But if I weren't afraid of getting shit I'd be posting a lot more?? This is ALL based on their assumptions of what my blog *should* look like, based on what I really and truly believe. My level of posting every now and then is an accurate gauge of my feelings on complex, sensitive, global issues. Because I'm voting for the Democratic presidential candidate and I'm ok sharing pretty much just that little glimpse of myself.

I really don't think that person knows just how inappropriate and insulting that is to just say all of that to me. Like they really know what's going on in my head. Their first message began and ended with like "I'm sorry I love you I just can't take it anymore" but they clearly weren't sorry enough to try and be more respectful to me, and they didn't love me enough not to default to extremely ungenerous assumptions and attacking me based off of those instead of any actual words I've said that they take issue with.

Online radicalization is real and it's not necessarily bad because your political views can start to fall well out of the contemporary Overton window. The way you find it appropriate to treat people whose views, however common, seem to fundamentally misalign with yours... that does matter. You can't just assume the worst of everyone and then act on that in how you approach them as individuals. And then be shocked that you don't stay friends with them. You can't be confrontational with someone about an issue you've never had an honest conversation about, and then expect them to take your bad faith in them as reasonable well-meaning criticism.

I'm afraid of criticism??? I'm afraid of criticism. No I'm not. This person and I have never had an issue before where they criticized me and I got harshly defensive. It was ALL projection. The entire tone of their messages was as if all their anti-voting posts recently were somehow in communication with the occasional go-vote-for-Harris posts that I make. That's not a conversation. I don't post for your satisfaction. I don't post in "response" to my mutuals I disagree with. I just post what's on my mind, sometimes, about some things. I really again can't stress enough how baffled I am by this

[corvidclub]

fandom debating the gender roles of loumand of like 'housewife picking lint' Armand vs 'hysterical wife' Louis is so dull honestly like why can't they both be wives? why can't a woman recently freed from an abusive hetrosexual marriage in the midst of her feminist artistic awakening enter into a decades-long toxic lesbian relationship complete with bed death and inability for her to recognize the abusive nature of her wife due to the perceived equality of their relationship? did any of y'all consider that??

[rawliverandgoronspice]

i know many have said this but your totk thought pieces are SO cathartic to read, it puts my grievances into words as i found the story to be all vibes and no substance. i'm really curious to hear your opinion on the yiga in totk, as unlike ganondorf they actually have fleshed out motives. i'm happy with their goofy team rocket portrayal but disappointed with their absence in the plot. at times it felt like they only existed for zonai schematics and depths tutorial advice.

Heyy!! Thank you so much, I am very glad to read this. It's always good to be reminded that there is a use for all this virtual ink despite the growing complaints. At the same time, I know many people who were really disappointed who almost felt like they were going crazy in the never-ending wave of praise, and... Yea. Like the game is enormously good in many ways, but I don't think it's bad to point out that there is massive room for improvement still; that way, the next game can be even better! I'm also not sure why people think it's a lost fight by default, like Nintendo will NEVER improve and NEVER change, even though they clearly listened to the complaints about the lack of immediacy, the weapon durability system, the dungeons... I even think they listened for the story, even though I feel very little love for what they prioritized and how it was done and, to be a little ungenerous and not 100% fair, I think a lot of people conflate narration and setpieces --but it apparently worked for the majority, so?? They did improve. It's only a lost cause if people are not vocal and already call themselves perfectly content with what already exists (which, for people who are, I guess is fine --but I'm not fine with this, so I am Annoying on the Internets). I guess that's how I justify the time spent writing about it? Who knows. Anyway! Thanks!

The Yiga Clan was so fun! Everytime they showed up I was so delighted by their shenanigans and the energy and the life and conflict they bring to the table inherently. I suppose they could have been integrated better (but like, nobody was well integrated in my opinion, and they were pretty low in my list of priority of "good integration" I suppose, since they were tied to the Sheikah and therefore a more relevant presence in BotW anyway), but I also kind of love that they have all of this secret content you only unlock by investing in their presence in Hyrule, which isn't at all that obvious to stumble upon for the unassuming player. The Yigas were one of the high points of the game for me, even though we do lose some of their original motivation (which was never super present in BotW either tbh), and we continue having this problem of no meaningful opposition to Hyrule's supremacy, but. The silliness was a breath of fresh air and Kohga and his onesided courtship of Ganondorf that we keep on rudely interrupting was really Something, and I had a great time making his life worse and also probably saving his life in the long run in a roundabout way Kohga baby no you Can't Fix the Demon King he won't magically become different and special for you no matter how many mechas you build him I'm sorry :((

[meerawrites]

Media doesn’t exist in a bubble.

Inspiration is fine. Stealing is not. Copyright law exists to protect still living creatives IPS. I agree copyright law needs to be reformed. But the public domain (Dracula ~ 1897, most of the old western or european centric literary canon) is right there! Waiting, I dare say, with baited breath to be meta analyzed and fictionalized in the present.

Just, don’t be a liar and art thief in real life. I’ve had people steal poetry from me before. Which I typically am fine sharing. But credit where credit is due. I’m protective of my original characters and works for this reason.

“Any painting painted with feeling is more a portrait of the painter than the sitter.”

(The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde).

Creatives work hard. Original, fan work, or even role-play.

I think it’s reasonable to demand to be treated better, paid fairly, respected, and not stolen from. Inspiration is fine, it’s praise even. Plagiarism is an academic offence and will get you kicked out of every university, classroom, college, or academic forum.

What is copyright?

Crash course: copyright and intellectual property.

— Said with a big middle finger to AI companies and art thieves, your obd svt ~ M . S

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk…

On why we retell old stories.

Latest fan work.

My first novel.

wip novella.

You don’t own fanfics. They’re inherently public domain because they aren’t your IP. Agree or disagree with AI, there are no grounds for “protection” from AI because it isn’t your IP to begin with. That’s what you chose when you chose this medium

Oh dear.

Okay, you get an answer, because at least you took the effort to write your ask out properly, even if you are hiding behind the grey, sunglassed circle.

Do I, or any fanfic author for that matter, have any legal claims to our work? No, not really, no. (Although if someone took a fic, filed off the serial number--deleted the fandom specific elements--, and then had it published for financial gain, yeah, that would be a case.)

BUT

Fandoms are built on a social contract that says we respect each others work, the effort people put into their art. We don't steal or disrespect the work of our peers. By feeding people's fanworks to AI you both steal and disprect it, and we need to make people realize that before it's too late--before fandom falls apart, because there will be no more real, actual fanworks.

Disrepectfully,

Orlissa

(i can't believe I have to say this)

[wardensantoineandevka]

every time anyone that's even slightly critical of C3 calmly writes a post that's longer than 750 words in an attempt to unpack what they feel is not working in the campaign or what's happening in the fandom, there's a rash of its defenders going "why are the haters always writing these long posts all the time, we don't need anyone to be writing novels, why is the post so long. it's so ridiculous that anyone is writing essays."

personally, especially if I was trying to position myself as having intelligent and complex opinions and capable of paying attention to episodes that are five hours long on a weekly basis, I would not admit I thought 1.5k words was dissertation length.

it's especially funny because many of the same people keep stamping their feet that critics never explain their perspectives or stances, then they're mockingly dismissive when doing so doesn't fit into a tweet.

not to make it sound grave, but it's anti-intellectual, it's simplistic. above all: it's juvenile, childish, asking to be treated as a child. wah, so silly anyone could possibly have a meaningful thought that requires enough space it doesn't fit on my phone screen at once.

[mywitchyblog]

Reality Shifting and Race Changing Explained: A Deep and Comprehensive Analysis of the Practice through the Perspective of a Person of Color.

Introduction :

Reality shifting, a practice where individuals consciously move their awareness to alternate realities or dimensions, has gained significant popularity and attention. Within this phenomenon, race changing—where shifters assume a different racial identity in their Desired Reality (DR)—has become a particularly contentious topic. Proponents of race changing see it as a way to explore different perspectives, foster empathy, and experience personal growth. However, critics raise concerns about cultural appropriation, identity integrity, and ethical implications. This essay will delve into the shifter's perspective and debunk arguments against race changing in reality shifting, examining the diverse viewpoints and underlying controversies.

Disclaimer : before interacting pls read the entire post carefully if you do not understand a part of it do not hesistate to tell me and i would gladly explain you in more details.

And as the title says im a person of color (POC) so i will give my opinion on the matter. I am lowkey (more high key lol) pissed that i see white people telling and talking about it as if they opinion is law its time you let people directly concerned by the matter speak on a subject that concerns them.

Taglist of people who might be interested in this post that i will update progressively i will also at the end provide a pdf version of the document if this post reaches 100 reactions if it reaches 150 to 200 i will also provide the one against age changing) :

@shiftinghoe @shiftersroom @leydenkilgore @jolynesmom @shiftinginferno @norumis @angelscatastrophe @thanossnap

My Age changing Post for those interested

Masterlist

Part I: The Shifter's Perspective

A-Immersive Nature of Reality Shifting

Reality shifting goes beyond elaborate daydreaming or role-playing. It's a full-fledged immersive experience where individuals become their "Desired Reality" (DR) selves entirely. This deep embodiment isn't just physical; it encompasses cultural, emotional, and even historical elements.

Shifters often perceive themselves with entirely different physical characteristics in their DR. This goes beyond appearance – they feel comfortable and familiar in their new bodies, experiencing unique sensations and abilities tied to their DR race. Imagine an East Asian shifter feeling their epicanthic folds affecting their vision or an Afro-Caribbean shifter experiencing the textures of their hair and the specific needs of their skin.

But it's not just physical. Shifters become integrated members of their DR culture. They might find themselves fluent in the language, complete with cultural nuances and dialects. They possess an intrinsic understanding of traditions and social norms, not just intellectually, but on a lived level. Family histories, community connections, and social networks become as real and meaningful as those in their original reality.

Perhaps the most profound aspect is the emotional and psychological alignment. Shifters report feeling emotions differently based on their DR cultural background. Their worldview, values, and beliefs shift to reflect their new identity, offering unique perspectives. Many even have a full set of memories associated with their DR life, from childhood experiences to major events.

Shifters don't just inhabit a new identity; they become part of a complex historical and societal narrative. They understand the weight of historical events that shaped their DR community and experience firsthand the societal advantages or disadvantages of their DR race. They feel a deep sense of cultural pride alongside the challenges and discrimination that may come with it.

For example, a Japanese shifter might not only speak the language fluently but also understand the intricacies of keigo and feel the emotional weight of concepts like "gaman" or "uchi-soto." They could have memories of local festivals, the excitement of catching goldfish, or the solemnity of a New Year's visit.

Similarly, a Latinx shifter might effortlessly switch between languages, understand the cultural significance of quinceañeras, and feel a deep connection to their abuela's traditions. They could have vivid memories of family gatherings filled with traditional foods, laughter-filled conversations, and the warmth of close family bonds.

This immersive experience allows shifters to see the world through a completely different lens, gaining insights otherwise impossible. In their DR, their new identity isn't a costume – it's as authentic and valid as their original self. This creates a profound sense of belonging and allows them to explore different aspects of identity in a meaningful way. This depth of experience is what proponents of race changing in reality shifting often highlight as a potential benefit.

B-Personal Growth and Empathy Development

Reality shifting, particularly when it involves changing race, offers a powerful pathway for personal growth and empathy development. Proponents believe this to be one of its most valuable benefits. Here's a breakdown of its potential:

Expanded Perspective: Shifters inhabit a different racial identity, gaining visceral, firsthand experiences. Imagine a Black shifter feeling the sting of racism, or an Asian shifter navigating the pressures of the "model minority" stereotype. This fosters a deeper understanding of racial dynamics beyond textbook knowledge.

Cultural Competence: Shifters become immersed in a new cultural context, enhancing their cultural competence. They gain insights into cultural nuances, values, communication styles, and nonverbal cues. For instance, a shifter embodying a Middle Eastern identity might understand the significance of hospitality, appreciating the cultural roots of seemingly excessive generosity.

Challenging Biases: The immersive nature of shifting exposes personal biases. Shifters confront and work through unconscious biases and stereotypes that may seem harmless from the outside, but feel hurtful or limiting from a different perspective. This uncomfortable process can be ultimately transformative.

Emotional Intelligence: Experiencing life through a different racial lens boosts emotional intelligence. Shifters develop empathy for the struggles and joys specific to different races, better understand emotional cues across cultures, and gain enhanced self-awareness through reflecting on their reactions in their new identity.

Social Justice Awareness: Shifters often report a heightened commitment to social justice and equity. Experiencing discrimination firsthand motivates them to become allies in their original reality. Understanding privilege (or lack thereof) associated with different races fosters nuanced discussions about systemic inequality.

Personal Identity Exploration: Race changing in shifting can prompt deep reflection on personal identity. Shifters might question aspects of their original identity, explore their cultural heritage and family history, and gain a greater appreciation for the fluidity and constructed nature of racial categories.

Linguistic and Cognitive Benefits: Shifters who become fluent in new languages experience cognitive benefits like enhanced cognitive flexibility from thinking in different linguistic frameworks and improved problem-solving skills as they navigate cultural and linguistic differences.

Artistic and Creative Inspiration: The rich experiences gained through race changing can serve as a wellspring of artistic and creative inspiration. Writers might create more authentic characters, while visual artists gain new perspectives on color, form, and cultural symbolism.

Professional Development: Insights gained through race changing can translate into professional growth. Shifters develop a stronger ability to work in diverse teams, enhance their cross-cultural communication and negotiation skills, and gain a deeper understanding that can be valuable in multicultural environments.

Healing and Trauma Processing: In some cases, embodying different racial identities has helped shifters process personal or intergenerational trauma. For instance, a shifter with a family history of racial oppression might find healing in embodying an identity free from that specific trauma. Conversely, embodying an identity that has experienced historical trauma might help shifters connect with and process their own unrelated traumatic experiences.

Part II: Debunking Arguments Against Race Changing

A-Cultural Appropriation

One of the primary arguments against race changing in reality shifting is that it constitutes cultural appropriation. This issue is complex and sensitive, requiring careful consideration.

Cultural appropriation involves adopting elements from one culture by members of another, often without a full understanding or respect for the original culture. This practice is typically characterized by a power imbalance, where the appropriating group holds more social, political, or economic power than the culture being appropriated. It also involves a lack of attribution, where the source of cultural elements is not acknowledged, leading to stereotyping and commodification of cultural symbols, often out of context and for profit.

Applying this argument to reality shifting, critics assert that when individuals assume a different racial identity in their desired reality (DR), they may trivialize the lived experiences of that racial group. They argue that such individuals might cherry-pick enjoyable aspects of the culture while avoiding its challenges and potentially reinforcing stereotypes or misconceptions about the culture.

However, several counterarguments challenge this perspective. Many shifters approach race changing with the intention of understanding and empathizing with different racial identities, rather than exploiting them. The immersive nature of shifting often involves a deep engagement with the culture, as opposed to the superficial adoption of isolated elements.

Moreover, cultural appropriation typically involves a dominant culture taking from a marginalized one, but in shifting, this power dynamic isn’t present. Shifters embody the new identity fully, integrating their experiences into the fabric of the DR, which can make their engagement more authentic.

Unlike typical cases of cultural appropriation, shifters often report experiencing both the positive and negative aspects of their new racial identity, including potential discrimination and societal challenges. This level of immersion extends far beyond wearing traditional clothing or using cultural symbols, as it involves a comprehensive engagement with the culture's values, traditions, and worldview.

Reality shifting is a personal and introspective practice, usually conducted privately or in small groups, rather than as a public display that might perpetuate stereotypes or commercialize the culture. This personal and nuanced approach differentiates it from more harmful forms of cultural appropriation seen in popular culture or commercial contexts.

Despite these counterarguments, there are still ethical concerns to consider. The ability to "opt out" of a racial identity at will is a privilege not available to those who live that identity full-time. There is also a risk of oversimplification or misrepresentation, even with the best intentions. The personal nature of shifting does not negate the potential for internalized stereotypes or biases to influence the experience.

Instead of viewing race changing in shifting as clear-cut cultural appropriation, it might be more accurate to see it as a complex form of cultural engagement. This practice has the potential for both positive outcomes, such as increased empathy and understanding, and negative outcomes, like reinforcing stereotypes or trivializing experiences. It requires careful reflection and ethical consideration from practitioners and might be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering the shifter's intent, approach, and outcomes.

The argument that race changing in reality shifting constitutes cultural appropriation could be seen as a false analogy fallacy, inaccurately equating the personal, immersive, and often respectful experience of shifting with the exploitative and superficial nature of cultural appropriation as traditionally understood. Some proponents suggest that, when conducted respectfully and thoughtfully, race changing in shifting could be seen as a form of cultural exchange rather than appropriation. This perspective posits that the immersive nature of shifting fosters genuine understanding and appreciation, with shifters often feeling a responsibility to respect and honor the cultures they embody. The insights gained can contribute to more meaningful cross-cultural dialogue and understanding in the shifter's original reality.

In conclusion, while the argument against race changing in reality shifting raises important ethical considerations, the issue is more nuanced than it might initially appear. The deeply personal and immersive nature of shifting, coupled with the often sincere intent of practitioners to gain understanding and empathy, sets it apart from more straightforward cases of cultural appropriation. Nevertheless, it remains crucial for shifters to approach the practice with respect, self-reflection, and a willingness to grapple with its complex ethical implications.

B-Fetishization

Another significant criticism of race changing in reality shifting is that it may lead to or represent a form of racial fetishization. This concern is both sensitive and complex, and warrants a thorough examination.

Racial fetishization involves reducing individuals to stereotypical racial characteristics, objectifying people based on their race or ethnicity, and exoticizing racial features or cultural elements. Often, though not always, it includes a sexual component. Critics argue that race changing in shifting might encourage shifters to focus on stereotypical or exoticized aspects of a race, leading to a superficial engagement with racial identity that is more fantasy than reality. This practice could potentially reinforce harmful stereotypes or racial preferences.

However, several counterarguments challenge this perspective. Many shifters who engage in race changing are not primarily motivated by sexual desire or attraction to stereotypical racial attributes. Their goal is often to understand and embody the full spectrum of experiences associated with a different racial identity, rather than to indulge in fantasy or stereotypes. The immersive nature of reality shifting encourages shifters to deeply engage with and appreciate the culture they are exploring. This process frequently fosters empathy and understanding, rather than objectification, as shifters report experiencing both positive and negative aspects of their new racial identity, extending beyond surface-level engagement.

Additionally, many shifters approach race changing as a means of personal growth, aiming to challenge their own biases and expand their worldview. This experience often leads to increased cultural sensitivity and awareness, rather than reinforcing stereotypes. In their desired reality (DR), shifters often experience a fully realized and complex identity that includes family histories, cultural practices, societal challenges, and individual personality traits, going far beyond mere racial characteristics.

Despite these counterarguments, it is important to acknowledge potential risks. Shifters might unknowingly bring racial stereotypes or biases into their DR experiences. There is also a risk of focusing on more "appealing" aspects of a racial identity while downplaying its challenges or complexities. The ability to "try on" different racial identities at will is a privilege that could lead to a form of racial tourism if not approached thoughtfully.

From a psychological standpoint, the experience of race changing in shifting could be seen as a form of identity exploration rather than fetishization. It serves as an exercise in perspective-taking and empathy development and provides an opportunity to confront and work through internalized racial biases.

Culturally, it is worth considering whether race changing practices in shifting might lead to more nuanced representations of diverse racial identities in media and art, foster more open dialogue about race and identity in society, or risk oversimplifying complex racial issues.

Ethically, shifters should be encouraged to reflect critically on their motivations and experiences, seek diverse perspectives and real-world knowledge about the races they embody in their DR, and be mindful of the line between appreciation and fetishization. The argument that race changing in reality shifting constitutes fetishization could be seen as a straw man fallacy, as it misrepresents the shifters' intentions and the nature of their experiences, reducing a complex and often empathetic practice to a simplistic and objectifying one.

Some proponents argue that race changing in shifting could help deconstruct harmful racial categories by highlighting the constructed nature of race, encouraging people to see beyond racial stereotypes, and fostering a more fluid understanding of identity. Comparing this practice to other activities, such as actors portraying characters of different races, virtual reality experiences designed to foster racial empathy, or imagining oneself in someone else’s shoes through literature or film, reveals that race changing in shifting may differ fundamentally from these practices in its approach and intent.

In conclusion, while the criticism of fetishization raises important concerns about the potential risks of race changing in reality shifting, a closer examination reveals a more nuanced picture. The deeply personal and often transformative nature of these experiences, combined with the typical intent of fostering understanding and empathy, sets it apart from more straightforward cases of racial fetishization. Nevertheless, it is essential for shifters to approach the practice with self-awareness, respect, and a commitment to genuine cultural engagement rather than superficial or stereotypical representations.

C-Race Changing is Racist

The argument that race changing in reality shifting is fundamentally racist is a serious allegation that requires careful examination. This perspective is based on several concerns: it may trivialize the real struggles and discrimination faced by racial minorities, allow individuals to "play" at being another race without encountering the associated societal challenges, perpetuate the idea that race is something that can be donned or discarded at will, and reinforce the notion that race is merely about physical characteristics or stereotypical behaviors. This criticism often stems from worries about cultural insensitivity, fears of minimizing systemic racism, and the historical context of racist practices such as blackface and yellowface.

However, this argument can be contested on multiple grounds. Firstly, many shifters engage in race changing not to mock or belittle other races but to gain a deeper understanding and empathy for those experiences. The immersive nature of shifting often results in increased awareness of racial issues and a stronger commitment to anti-racism in the shifter's original reality. Furthermore, shifters in their desired reality (DR) often experience life as an integrated part of the culture they embody, including facing discrimination and navigating societal challenges associated with that racial identity. This depth of experience goes beyond superficial engagement.

Additionally, race changing can lead to significant personal transformation. Many shifters report profound growth, challenging their own biases and increasing their cultural competence. These experiences foster a deep sense of connection and solidarity with different racial groups. Race changing could also be viewed as an immersive form of education about racial experiences, potentially offering more impactful learning than traditional methods.

Despite these counterarguments, it is crucial to acknowledge potential issues. Shifters have the privilege of opting out of their new racial identity and returning to their original reality, a luxury not available to those who face racism daily. There is also a risk of oversimplifying complex racial experiences into simplified narratives. Without proper reflection, shifters might misuse or misrepresent aspects of the racial identities they embody.

To address these concerns, shifters engaging in race changing should approach the practice with humility and a willingness to learn. Complementing their shifting experiences with real-world education about racial issues and using insights gained to actively combat racism in their original reality can help mitigate potential problems. Critical reflection on their experiences and motivations is also essential.

From a psychological perspective, race changing in shifting can be seen as a form of perspective-taking, which has been shown to reduce prejudice, an exercise in empathy development, and a way to confront and work through unconscious racial biases. Sociologically, it is worth considering whether widespread engagement in race changing might lead to increased racial empathy, contribute to a more nuanced understanding of race as a social construct, or challenge existing racial categories.

A comparative analysis with other practices such as diversity training programs, role-playing exercises in anti-racism workshops, and the concept of "passing" in racial identity reveals that race changing in shifting might differ fundamentally in its approach and intent. The argument that race changing is inherently racist may be seen as a hasty generalization fallacy, drawing broad conclusions based on limited understandings of shifters' experiences and motivations.

Some proponents argue that, when approached thoughtfully, race changing in shifting could be an antiracist practice by fostering a deeper understanding of diverse racial experiences, motivating action against racism in the shifter’s original reality, and challenging fixed racial categories. Considering how race changing intersects with other aspects of identity, such as gender, class, or sexuality, further complicates the discussion and could lead to a more nuanced understanding of intersectional identities.

In conclusion, while the argument that race changing in reality shifting is inherently racist raises important ethical concerns, a closer examination suggests a more complex picture. The potential for increased empathy, understanding, and antiracist action indicates that, when approached thoughtfully and ethically, race changing in shifting might contribute to combating racism rather than perpetuating it.

Part III: Community Dynamics : 

A. Shiftok Culture and Hypocrisy

The community of shifters on platforms like Shiftok has become a significant space for discussing and sharing experiences related to reality shifting. However, this community is often marked by striking inconsistencies in its attitudes and practices, particularly when it comes to race changing. These inconsistencies reveal underlying biases and a selective application of ethical standards within the community.

One of the most glaring examples of this hypocrisy is the community's disparate treatment of shifts involving fictional races versus real-world racial identities. Users enthusiastically support and celebrate shifts into races from popular fiction, such as elves from "Lord of the Rings" or Veela from "Harry Potter." These shifts often involve adopting stereotypical characteristics of these races, such as ethereal beauty or magical abilities, without any criticism. Similarly, shifts into anime characters, even when these characters are explicitly Japanese or of other Asian ethnicities, are widely accepted and applauded.

In stark contrast, when a user mentions shifting to experience life as a different real-world race - for example, a white person shifting to be Black, or an Asian person shifting to be Latino - they often face harsh criticism and accusations of racism or cultural appropriation. This double standard extends to cultural practices as well. Users might criticize someone for shifting to experience a traditional Japanese tea ceremony as a Japanese person, calling it appropriation. However, they remain silent when shifters adopt fantastical versions of cultural practices, such as magical rituals in The Vampire Diaries Universe, which are often based on real-world cultural elements such as Hoodoo and Voodoo.

The inconsistency becomes even more apparent when considering shifts into races that face oppression or discrimination in their fictional universes. Shifting to be a Na'vi from "Avatar," who face colonization and violence from humans, or becoming a vampire who must hide from hunters and deal with societal prejudice, are widely accepted and even romanticized. These shifts often involve experiencing fictional forms of racism or oppression, yet they don't receive the same scrutiny as shifts involving real-world racial experiences.

This romanticization of struggle is particularly problematic. Users might enthusiastically describe the thrill of being a hunted vampire or the nobility of fighting against oppression as a Na'vi, while simultaneously criticizing those who wish to explore real-world experiences of discrimination through shifting. This glamorization of fictional oppression trivializes real-world struggles and reveals a lack of critical thinking about the implications of different types of identity shifts.

The community's acceptance of shifts into historical periods further highlights this hypocrisy. Shifting to experience life in different historical eras, which inevitably involves a change in cultural context, is generally supported. For instance, shifting to be a noble in Victorian England is rarely questioned, while shifting to be a person of color in modern-day America might be condemned. This inconsistency reveals a troubling bias in how the community views and values different cultural and racial experiences.

Perhaps the most striking example of this double standard is the widespread acceptance of shifting to become a Na'vi from the movie "Avatar." This shift involves taking on a completely different racial identity, often with spiritual and cultural elements inspired by real-world Indigenous cultures. Yet, this is rarely criticized, while shifting to be an actual Indigenous person would likely face significant backlash.

These inconsistencies in the Shiftok community undermine the credibility of criticisms against race changing and point to a need for more consistent and reflective ethical standards within the shifting community. They reveal that many users are more comfortable with the idea of exploring different identities and experiences of oppression when they're framed as "fictional," even though the immersive nature of shifting means these experiences are just as real to the shifter as any "real-world" shift would be.

This hypocrisy not only stifles meaningful dialogue about race and identity within the context of shifting but also reflects broader societal discomfort with addressing real-world racial issues. It highlights the need for the shifting community to engage in more nuanced, thoughtful discussions about the ethics of identity exploration, the nature of reality in shifting, and the responsibilities that come with experiencing different racial and cultural perspectives.

B. Judgmental Attitudes and Ignorance

The shifting community, particularly on platforms like Shiftok, often displays a complex web of judgmental attitudes and ignorance about the nuances of shifting practices. This creates a challenging environment for shifters exploring different identities, especially when it comes to race changing. (in this part and all the other parts of this essay, “real world”=CR aka this reality ik they are no such thing as the “real world” but for the sake of the argument i employed that term).

Many users within the community are quick to condemn those who shift into different racial identities, particularly when these involve real-world races. This rush to judgment often stems from a superficial understanding of shifting practices and a lack of empathy for the motivations behind such explorations. Harsh comments, gatekeeping behaviors, and in extreme cases, online harassment, have become unfortunately common responses to shifters who engage in race changing.

However, this judgmental attitude is starkly contrasted by the community's acceptance and even celebration of shifts into fictional races or non-human identities. This inconsistency reveals a deep-seated ignorance about the nature of shifting and its implications. Users often justify their acceptance of shifts into fictional races like Elves or vampires from various mythologies by arguing that since these races are fictional, they're somehow "safer" or less problematic to explore. This reasoning, however, fundamentally misunderstands the core principle of shifting: that all realities, whether based on fiction or the "real world," are equally real and valid from the perspective of the shifter.

This ignorance leads to a troubling double standard. Shifters who explore the experiences of fictional races facing discrimination - like the Na'vi battling colonization or werewolves hiding from hunters - are often met with enthusiasm. The community readily engages with these narratives of struggle and oppression when framed in a fictional context. Yet, when shifters attempt to explore real-world experiences of racial discrimination, they face harsh criticism and accusations of appropriation or fetishization.

This attitude demonstrates a lack of critical thinking about the ethical implications of different types of shifts. The community fails to recognize that from the perspective of shifting theory, the distinction between "fictional" and "real-world" races becomes arbitrary. The experiences of discrimination, cultural immersion, and identity exploration are just as real and impactful for a shifter whether they're embodying a Na'vi or shifting into a different human race.

Moreover, this ignorance extends to a misunderstanding of the depth and complexity of shifting experiences. Many critics within the community underestimate how fully shifters can embody and experience a different identity, regardless of whether it's fictional or based on a real-world race. They often fail to grasp the profound impact these experiences can have on a shifter's perspective, empathy, and personal growth.

The judgmental attitudes and ignorance prevalent in the community have serious consequences. They stifle open and honest discussions about race and identity within the shifting context. Shifters who feel judged may withdraw from the community or hide their experiences, limiting opportunities for collective learning and growth. The hostile environment can discourage exploration of different identities, potentially limiting the personal growth and empathy development that shifting can facilitate.

Furthermore, this environment of judgment and ignorance often leads to the mischaracterization of shifting experiences. Complex and nuanced explorations of identity are frequently oversimplified or dismissed. The potential benefits of respectful identity exploration through shifting are overlooked, while stereotypes about shifting and shifters are reinforced.

To address these issues, there's a clear need for more education within the community about the nuances and complexities of shifting experiences. Promoting a deeper understanding of the psychological and experiential aspects of shifting could foster more empathy and less judgment. Creating spaces for open, non-judgmental discussions about controversial shifting practices could help combat ignorance and promote a more nuanced understanding of the ethical implications of different types of shifts.

By confronting these judgmental attitudes and areas of ignorance, the shifting community has the opportunity to create a more inclusive, understanding, and supportive environment. This could not only improve the experiences of individual shifters but also contribute to more nuanced and productive discussions about identity, race, and the ethics of shifting practices. Ultimately, addressing these issues is crucial for the growth and maturation of the shifting community as a whole.

C-Understanding Morality and Multiracial Identity in Shifting

The concept of infinite realities in shifting brings about profound implications for our understanding of morality and identity, particularly when it comes to race. Each Desired Reality (DR) has its own unique set of morals and cultural norms, presenting a challenge when applying Original Reality (OR) ethics to these varied experiences. This moral relativism in shifting creates a complex landscape where what is considered ethically acceptable in one reality may not hold the same value in another.

The shifting community's approach to fictional races inadvertently highlights this moral complexity. Many shifters enthusiastically embrace identities like Na'vi from "Avatar" or vampires from various mythologies, often without the same level of ethical scrutiny applied to shifts involving CR races. This discrepancy reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of shifting itself. If we accept the core principle that all realities are equally real and valid, then the distinction between "fictional" and "real-world" races becomes very blurry to a point where said distinction vanishes since what is fictional in this reality is 100% real in that DR.

This paradox becomes even more apparent when we consider that many of these fictional races face discrimination, oppression, or complex social challenges within their realities. Shifters who take on these identities are, in essence, experiencing forms of racism or societal prejudice, yet these experiences are often romanticized or seen as less problematic than explorations of real-world racial discrimination. The Na'vi fighting against human colonization or Mutants from the X-men hiding from societal persecution are, within the context of shifting, as real and significant as any historical or contemporary struggle against oppression.

The romanticization of these fictional races raises its own set of moral questions. For instance, the glorification/romanticisation of vampire culture in shifting could be seen as problematic on multiple levels. It potentially trivializes issues of consent and power imbalances, and could even be construed as a form of necrophilia, given the undead nature of vampires (vampires are dead not alive ergo necrophilia in a way. This argument that I use is to further emphasize the hypocrisy of the shifting community since yall wanna talk about fetishization and romanticisation). This level of ethical scrutiny is rarely applied to fictional race shifts, despite the community's readiness to criticize CR race changing on similar grounds.

For multiracial shifters, this moral landscape becomes even more complex. A multiracial individual might choose to shift to embody only one aspect of their racial heritage in their DR, reflecting their sense of connection and belonging to that part of their identity. This choice doesn't negate their other racial identities but rather reflects the fluid and personal nature of racial identity itself. However, the community's inconsistent approach to race in shifting can create additional challenges for these individuals. They may find themselves navigating not only their own complex identities but also the arbitrary distinctions and judgments imposed by the community.

The multiracial shifting experience underscores the limitations of rigid racial categorizations and highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of race and identity within the shifting community. It challenges shifters to consider how their experiences across different realities might inform and expand their understanding of racial identity in their OR.

Moreover, the moral relativism inherent in shifting raises questions about the nature of ethical growth through these experiences. If a shifter encounters and adapts to vastly different moral frameworks across their DRs, how does this impact their core ethical beliefs? This moral fluidity could lead to a more nuanced and empathetic worldview, but it also risks ethical inconsistency or moral relativism taken to an extreme.

In conclusion, the intersection of morality and racial identity in shifting presents a rich area for exploration and discussion. It challenges our understanding of ethics, identity, and the nature of reality itself. By engaging with these complex ideas, the shifting community has the opportunity to foster more nuanced, empathetic, and inclusive approaches to race and identity. However, this requires a willingness to apply consistent ethical standards across all forms of shifting, whether they involve "real" or "fictional" races, and a commitment to deeper reflection on the moral implications of these profound experiences.

Conclusion : 

Ultimately, we can argue that race changing in reality shifting isn't inherently problematic and can, in fact, be a powerful tool for personal and societal growth. The ability to experience life from diverse racial perspectives has the potential to challenge deeply ingrained biases, foster genuine empathy, and contribute to more nuanced discussions about race and identity in our society.

However, we must tread carefully to ensure that these practices do not veer into appropriation or fetishization. This requires:

Approaching race changing with respect, humility, and a genuine desire to learn.

Engaging in thorough self-reflection before, during, and after shifting experiences.

Complementing shifting experiences with real-world education about racial issues and histories.

Being mindful of the privilege inherent in being able to "opt out" of a racial identity.

Using insights gained from shifting to actively combat racism and promote understanding in one's original reality.

Fostering open, honest dialogues within the shifting community about ethics and best practices.

Developing clear community guidelines that address the complexities of race changing.

By maintaining this careful balance, race changing in reality shifting can serve as a unique and valuable tool for promoting intercultural understanding, challenging racial prejudices, and fostering a more empathetic and inclusive society. As with any powerful tool, its value lies not in the practice itself, but in how we choose to use it. With thoughtful consideration and ethical guidance, race changing in shifting has the potential to contribute positively to our ongoing dialogues about race, identity, and human experience.

[simpforsolas]

So I've seen a some discussion of people both criticizing and defending the DATV companions for being nice to each other. And I think the arguments from both sides are being a little bit misconstrued, which is honestly understandable. I think that often when something bothers us in fiction, it's hard to put into words exactly what it is. So as we try our best to express ourselves, it may not end up getting to the point of what the issue actually is (this is also why it can be tough for writers to properly address criticism - the readers providing the criticism might not be accurately diagnosing the root of the problem, so their attempts to fix it are shallow and don't actually address the issue).

Now I obviously don't speak for everyone, but I do think that a good amount of the people saying they want the DATV crew to be meaner don't actually mean they literally just want people to be rude and insulting each other for no reason. I think it boils down to three things that the new crew was missing:

Inability to really feel how the companion's backstories form their unique worldview

Lack of conflict between companions

Limited relationship dynamics between Rook and the companions

Inability to feel how companion's backstories form their worldview

In previous Dragon Age games, the characters frequently discussed and argued topics of philosophy, faith, politics, and beliefs. They came from all different backgrounds. You had Morrigan, a hedge mage raised to believe in self-preservation, teaming up with an Andrastian circle mage and former templar. Their beliefs and worldviews are, at their core, at odds with each other. The game doesn't necessarily try to make you believe one way or another, it simply drops you into the world and allows you to interact with these character, see their interactions with each other, and draw your own conclusions. In Dragon Age Inquistion, you have Cole, a spirit of compassion, teaming up with Vivienne, who believes the circle teachings that spirits are demons and want to possess people, and Sera, who represents the perspective of the common people that are afraid of all things magical or fade-related. You have Solas, a staunch individualist who believes in freedom for all, Cassandra, a faithful Andrastian who follows her own inner compass even when at odds with the institution of the Chantry, and Iron Bull, a Ben-Hassrath agent who believes in the Qun not because he's a philosopher and has decided that's what works best, but because that's how he was raised and so far, the Qun has worked for him. So in previous Dragon Age titles, you have people whose worldviews and beliefs are fundamentally at odds with each other, and whose actions and dialogues are a direct result of those beliefs. Veilguard really downplayed the importance of religion in Thedas, which isn't necessarily a problem in and of itself. In DA2, the only companion with strong religious beliefs is Sebastian. However, you had Anders who believed strongly in mage liberation, Fenris, who believed strongly in the dangers of magic, and Isabela, whose lack of belief and lack of respect for religion/beliefs led to one of the game's biggest conflicts. Discussion of religion and philosophy was always a huge part of the Dragon Age games, so when they almost entirely removed that element and didn't replace it with other types of belief that could lead to meaningful differences of opinion, we were just left with nothing of substance to really talk about. This isn't saying that the companions don't have things they believe in, but it's just not the same as characters from previous games. In general, their backgrounds don't form a unique worldview that results in differences of opinions and interesting conflict. Which brings my to my next point:

Lack of conflict between companions

There's a huge spectrum between "everyone is friends and always gets along" and "everyone hates each other and is happy when their ally is sold into slavery." In fact, fans often get really into fictional relationships that have quite a bit of conflict. Speaking for myself, I love relationships where two people may fight or disagree, but they truly care for one another and would willingly put themselves in harm's way to protect one another. So I think when a lot of people say the companions get along too well, they don't necessarily mean that they want them to all hate each other (maybe some do). They mean that they just want there to be interesting interpersonal conflicts. (I personally would love for a companion pair to argue a lot, but when it comes down to it, they actually really care about each other) Why do we want this? Well first, conflict just makes things more interesting. But I think that it also ties into point 1. In this game, the companions simply don't seem passionate enough about what they believe to argue for it, or, if they are, there's not anyone who challenges their beliefs and forces them to defend their position. I would say that Emmrich is very passionate about his love for spirits and necromancy, two things which are seen as weird and dangerous by most people in Thedas. However, there's almost no chance for him to passionately argue for his worldview because no one challenges it. There is that one scene with Taash finding his passion for working with the dead creepy, but as soon as the issue comes up, it's resolved. Compare that to Solas, where a big part of his characterization is love for spirits and frustration with fear and ignorance leading people to discriminate against what they don't understand. Having to face opposition to his beliefs, both in the world and within the inquisitor's inner circle (and sometimes the inquisitor themself), gives the writers the opportunities to emphasize core parts of his characterization.

On a final note for this section, it's just more interesting when different pairs of companions have unique relationships with each other. Solas and Cole's wholesome, mostly conflict-free friendship is made sweeter because you can compare it to Solas and Sera's relationship. It makes the relationships more meaningful when you can contrast it to how those same people click or don't click with other companions.

Limited relationship dynamics with Rook

The final issue I want to talk about is how all this ties into Rook. In previous games, you could learn a lot about a character's beliefs by seeing what they approved and didn't approve of. Anders approves of supporting mages, Fenris doesn't. Leliana approves of compassion for strangers, Morrigan doesn't because why should she help people who can't help themselves, and also it's a waste of time. Cole greatly approves of helping people, Solas slightly approves of you asking questions, Cassandra approves of expressing belief in the Maker, and so forth and so on. Then depending on the choices you make, your approval actually makes a difference in how these companions view you as their leader. But in Veilguard... well either the companions don't have strong feelings about things, or Rook isn't allowed to make decisions that oppose the beliefs they do have. Because of this, there's basically no conflict between Rook and the team. From my understanding, worst relationship you can get with the team is "distant boss whose employees don't invite them to their work parties," but that's not the same as Cassandra hating you so much she gets drunk or getting specific rival scenes like in DA2 where companions react entirely differently because Hawke consistently acted in opposition to their beliefs.

Final thoughts

So when people criticize the companions not getting along, I think it's less to do with the fact that people want them to hate each other, and more to do with the fact that we want companions who have a strong worldview shaped by their backstory, and for that worldview being challenged to lead to interesting conflict. Whether that challenge comes from other companions, the world, or Rook themself, I don't care - I just want interesting and meaningful conflict that is arises because the companions are strong characters who believe in something.

[scoobydoodean]

what is your opinion on people calling dean a heavy misogynist? i don’t agree personally but i feel like you could put my thoughts into better words

First, I have to chuckle a little at "heavy misogynist". Apparently, some people have begun to realize their fave is also guilty of misogyny crimes therefore they focus on making sure all of us know Sam is a light misogynist and Dean is a heavy misogynist. I just find that amusing.

This is a broad topic in a long show, so I won't endeavor to address every conceivable incidence of misogyny in the show I can think of. Instead, I'm going to create a few headings, at least one of which I think most criticism falls under.

Misogyny through the writing team

How Sam's misogyny gets a pass

Purity culture wank and Dean performing for Sam

How Dean actually treats women

Misogyny Through The Writing Team

First, Supernatural in of itself has issues with misogyny—as in, the writers of the show (including female writers) have issues with misogyny which they are happy to put on display semi-frequently. The show started in 2005, during a period of time where casual sexism was absolutely rampant on TV and no one thought anything about it. Female celebrities were regularly mocked and dragged on cable television in a way men simply weren't. They were called bitches and skanks and whores, and even "progressive" voices were inundated with casual misogyny and a fixation on purity culture (that largely applied to women only). Quite simply, I think fandom tends to be far too generous toward the writers, assuming certain things were "flaws" the writers intentionally wrote for the characters.

Put another way, there are some criticisms I prefer to level at the writing team rather than the characters, because what is written plainly reflects their ignorance in the real world rather than any intent to give Sam or Dean or any other character meaningful flaws—much less outright terrible ones that greatly harm their image. I'll give a few examples:

2.17 "Heart" makes me very uncomfortable as I sit here in 2024 and observe how Sam and Madison's romance develops. Me feeling that way does not mean the authorial intent of 2007 Sera Gamble was that I think to myself, "Man Sam comes off as uncomfortably rapey here." Hopelessly bad with women, perhaps—but not creepy.

In season 2, the writers begin to develop a running “joke” that Sam is afraid of not just clowns but also little people. The latter “joke” is (wisely) dropped fairly quickly. I have never criticized Sam for being afraid of little people, and I never will. It is readily apparent to me that this running "joke" reflects the ignorance of the writing team rather than an intent to give Sam meaningful or interesting flaws. Their intent was to use little people as the butt of a joke. I personally find this "joke" distasteful, and the idea of trying to take that and somehow "dunk" on Sam for the bigotry of the writers is more distasteful to me.

This is also how I feel about the running "joke" of a porn magazine and website (BAB) that solely features Asian women, that is put on display on multiple occasions during the show—first in 2.15 "Tall Tales", where the context is Gabriel infecting Sam's laptop with a virus from the website and making him believe Dean is responsible. BAB continues to make "Easter Egg" appearances in the show afterward. While often associated with Dean by fandom, the writers clearly think of BAB as a general, "funny" (it isn't), running gag with no more depth than "haha men like porn funny". An issue is stolen by a sentient teddy bear in 4.08 "Wishful Thinking". An issue is owned by the teenager who swapped bodies with Sam in 5.12 "Swap Meat". The Men of Letters also collected a considerable number of issues (8.17). I simply do not believe the writers thought for a single moment about BAB being a grossly racist gag. They most certainly did not write it as an intentional criticism of Dean from that perspective. It reflects nothing but their ignorance and racism here in the real world, and absolutely SHOULD be criticized from that REAL WORLD impact.

How Sam's misogyny largely gets a pass

One of the things I have not been able to stop noticing on this rewatch is Sam's issues with misogyny, and how often Sam's misogyny comes out in conflicts with Dean... starting from the very first episode of the show. Pretty much any time you get anything that feels like it might be a misogynist Dean or horn dog Dean moment... Sam either just has or is about to follow that up with some misogyny of his own.

In 1.01, right after entering Sam's apartment and meeting Jess, Dean mentions the Smurfs on Jess's shirt. We think to ourselves "Okay. A little misogynist... a little horn-dog Dean." Sam is happy to 1-Up that in two ways. First, Jess voices her intentions to go get dressed. Dean dismisses this, but while doing so, makes it clear he intends to leave the room with Sam, as he'd like to have a private conversation with Sam anyway. Sam objects, walking over to Jess and putting an arm around her, demanding Dean say whatever he needs to say right then and there. Maybe this would feel supportive if Jess wasn't in her underwear and hadn't just made it clear that now that the panic over a possible break-in is over, she'd really like to not be in her underwear in front of a stranger. But nope. By god she needs to stand there so Sam can prove a point about misogynist Dean! Second, Sam immediately (and I think quite erroneously) jumps to imply Dean is trying to cut Jess out of the conversation because she's... a woman? Or... something? He makes a big show of moving over Jess and standing beside her, saying anything Dean has to say, he can say in front of Jess. However, the moment Sam actually understands that Dean is here because John is missing on a hunting trip, he dismisses Jess to speak to Dean alone... because he's lying to her. By painting Dean erroneously with this "The men are talking" bullshit that had nothing to do with anything, Sam sets himself up to be viewed as a misogynist by his own framing of the situation and what it means to leave Jess out of a discussion. He also reveals his own alleged principles as a performative illusion. Despite being his intended life partner, Sam never intends to tell the woman he loves about his past as a hunter (he makes this clear later on the bridge). However, I think because Sam's actions usually co-occur with what gets called out more directly or more immediately recognized as misogyny from Dean (should have gotten him for the Smurf's comment, Sam!) Sam's misogyny often flies under the radar... and he's really... pretty bad.

I spoke here at length about how Sam tends to look down on women who interact with Dean (often before meeting them). There is absolutely an intersection with purity culture here and there's discussion in that thread about that as well, and whether this is a "2000s writers" issue or intentionally written flaws.

In 1.06, Sam cuts Dean off before Dean can accept an offered beer from Rebecca, but then as soon as Sam needs Rebecca out of the room, Sam asks her to not just bring them those beers... but also fix them sandwiches. Rebecca says, "What do you think this is, Hooters?" and Dean mumbles, "I wish" and we somehow lose sight of the fact that Sam literally just asked a woman to make him sandwiches which is possibly the number one misogynist man trope. Sam vaguely suggests Dean is a misogynist in 1.19 for nudging Sam to go on a date with Sarah Blake and possibly get information on the case, because that would be "using" her, but Sam wants to "use" Meg Masters in 1.22 and he wants to "use" Ruby to get what he wants, and when he said getting information from women was "Dean's job", he was also showing he was perfectly willing to use Dean and Sarah—he just doesn't want to get his hands dirty. It also comes to light in 1.19 that this is more about Sam's belief that he has to protect women from him, and Sarah herself ends up calling Sam antiquated for it.

I mentioned before that Sam doesn't plan to ever tell Jess who he is, and he makes the same plans with Amelia. Dean, meanwhile, confides in Cassie (it's what leads to their breakup) as well as Lisa.

I also have to mention... one of the funniest things I see deancrit samgirls in particular dig at time after time after time is Dean calling women "bitches". Never mind that Sam also calls women like Ruby and Bela bitches and calls a woman a bitch in front of Madison. Apparently none of these occurrences count because... *looks at notes* reasons. "Bitch" only counts as misogyny when it's Dean saying it. Also, let's not mention that Sam exclusively uses the word "bitch" to refer to women, while Dean also calls men and creatures bitches at different points so it isn't a gender specific insult for him.

Dean is definitely the "heavy" misogynist here... right? (I guess Sam is a "tall" misogynist instead).

Purity culture wank and Dean performing for Sam

Dean is commonly treated in fandom as if he's some kind of sex pest, and quite blatantly... he isn't one. Women almost always proposition Dean first (thejabberwock has sets on this here and here), but him asking people out also isn't inherently creepy in any way? Co-occurring with Sam's purity culture inundated judgements, we often see fandom's own as well, where Dean is some kind of sex pest because he... likes women? Or... because he has sex with consenting women who also want to have sex with him? Sometimes it's giving purity culture wank, sometimes it's given big radfem energy... but regardless, I sometimes see people talk about Dean like him so much as making eye contact with a woman is a violent sexual threat, and that's just laughable—as is denying the agency and autonomy of consenting women in general.

Even though it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, I'll also add that Dean... doesn't even actually have sex with the frequency that people talk about it? Dean has sex with Cassie—who was a long term partner of his in 1.13. He has sex with an actress in 2.18, and with Doublemint twins in 3.01. He has sex with a waitress 4.05. He plans to have sex with someone in 3.04, but turns her down when he realizes she's a prostitute who's working. This happens again in 10.07. I'm on season 4 of my rewatch and haven't been formally keeping up... but Dean is not actually having a lot of sex? We get implications he's been out partying a few times, and can maybe infer he scored, but we don't actually know.

I'm not a huge fan of performing Dean, in the sense that I think over the years I have seen it wildly overstated far too many times. But I do think Dean sometimes plays a character for Sam especially. Dean tells us this himself in 2.03 "Bloodlust" when confiding in Gordon. He never says so directly when it comes to the sexy sex guy doing sex persona, but his actions reveal him. One can think of plenty of examples of Dean saying horny stuff about women to Sam... but what about his actions?

How Dean actually treats women

Finally, there's how Dean actually treats women... and one would be very hard pressed to prove to me that Dean is sexist toward the women in his life. He's been close friends with multiple women and worked with women on hunts on multiple occasions and never once batted an eye. Jo in 2.06 is sometimes floated as an example, but it's actually discussed within the episode. Dean makes it very clear that he thinks women can do the job just fine. What he has a problem with is Jo's lack of experience and her romanticization of the job (especially during a period where Dean has fallen deeply out of love with the job himself). Everything we see as the series progresses supports Dean's assertion as truth. He's very good friends with Charlie, Jody, and Donna and doesn't go around excluding them on hunts while favoring men. That is not a thing that happens. While he initially tries to talk Claire out of the life (as he does everybody—this is not unique to women—see Adam for example) when she decides to hunt, he supports her regardless. There is nothing uniquely overprotective about how Dean treats women who hunt. End of. Dean has no illusions about traditional gender roles or any of that nonsense, jumping to clean dishes after dinner at Jody's and cooking breakfast for Lisa and Ben. (Our knowledge of Dean and the chores he does for his family already tell us this—but regardless). Even Demon Dean, an entity with no love for anyone and close to zero principles, targeted men who abuse and threaten women, and when Crowley ordered him to kill Lester's wife to fulfill the terms of Lester's demon deal, Demon Dean instead became so deeply annoyed with Lester's hypocrisy (he cheated on his wife first) and his assertion that it's different when men cheat, that he killed him and smiled while doing it.

So anyway, nope—I don't think Dean is a "heavy" misogynist.

[le-trash-prince]

To be blunt on this topic:

I 👏 do 👏 not 👏 care 👏 if 👏 people 👏 don’t 👏 like 👏 a 👏 show! I don’t care if you don’t share my ship or stan my fave! That is not what we are saying!

What I fucking care about is:

Pretending your subjective opinions are objective truth.

Refusing to meet art on its own terms and insisting that if it doesn’t do what you want it to, it is a failure.

Acting like queer Asian shows should prioritize Western tastes—YES, even if you are a POC. We are still Westerners! We still have Western, English-language speaking privilege across the globe, and it would be nice if we could stop acting like everything should be about what we want. I cannot believe how difficult it is for people to understand this point.

Making broad, sweeping claims on what is and isn’t queer. It is valid if you do not feel seen by a piece of queer media. But that does not make it less queer or less meaningful to other queer people. You can dislike a show without making it into the Death of Queer Art. Again, your opinions and feelings are real, but that does not make them objective truth.

Also! The double standard of “I’ve seen an increasing number of posts on BL tumblr lately” without mentioning what those specifics are just so that you can just make up what stance those people had. But if other people reference multiple posts without linking or tagging anyone, they are being rude and vague posting instead of, I don’t know, airing out their thoughts on their own blog.

People are not going to remember every post they see and bookmark it in case they come up with a response later. Not everything has to be a dialogue! We do not actually owe anyone a conversation.

I have said it before and I will say it again, but the majority of people complaining about holier-than-thou criticism on BL tumblr lately are actual queer creatives who wish people could approach a story on its own terms. Pretending like that makes us capitalists just to make us look absurd is a take and there’s a reason so many people had something to say about it.

[weemietime]

There isn't a whole lot of content on Tumblr about schizoid personality disorder so I thought I would make a little informational post. SZPD is a cluster A personality disorder, of the odd/eccentric cluster alongside schizotypal and paranoid. It is on the schizophrenia spectrum, and comprises the negative rather than positive symptoms of schizophrenia.

This primarily means we have avolition, catatonia, flat/blunted affect (demeanor), limited interoception (emotional sensations), lack of bonds to others including primary family members, and indifference to the opinions of others.

Whilst this isn't a diagnostic criteria, many of us are also asexual and aromantic, meaning we don't want to have sex with other humans (but usually do masturbate) and have no interest in romantic companionship.

My most disabling symptom is avolition, because I have comorbid ADHD. This means when I don't have my medication (dextromethorphan 120mg) I just sit there and zone out and can't even hold a conversation or move my body, nor even do things like feed myself. It is genuinely crippling and I am unemployed because of this, even though my meds help, they don't cure me and I need a lot of time alone.

Schizoid is something of an "anti-human" disorder, because we fail to form basic social bonds with others including primary caregivers. As a child I got diagnosed with inhibited RAD because I could not tolerate human contact. This differs from autism because autistic people generally want to socialize, they just lack the skills. I don't want to socialize and it takes tremendous effort for me to do so.

To even make this post I had to wait for my meds to click in as I was just sitting there mindlessly beforehand. While we have low internal sensations of emotions like caring, love, happiness, trust, sadness, etc. we aren't typically antisocial/dissocial and don't have a pattern of exploiting others or dishonesty. This requires too much effort.

There is a schizoid version of narcissism but it is separate to narcissistic personality disorder. NPD is characterized by a very fragile ego. You can't contradict or disagree with NPD because they are unable to regulate the emotions caused by conflict. Conversely, SZPD does not care about the opinions of others at all and places little value on them.

Our sense of superiority is legitimate, meaning we just do genuinely believe we are smarter than other people. So your mileage may vary on how insufferable you find that. I recognize this trait in myself and work to actively challenge it since it is illogical for me to think I am more special than anyone else. But, my ego is very stable, so criticism doesn't bother me the way it would in NPD.

Interoception means the sensations you feel inside your body. We lack this, so even stuff like hunger and tiredness don't impact us until we are very hungry or extremely exhausted. I don't have the feeling you would to look at a family member and get a sense of love or trust. I have a logical sense of obligation that I developed through choosing what I value based on reason. I describe this as care, and I place importance on my friendships, but there is no emotional component to this, it is all cognitive.

Tangentially: I'm somewhat of an optimistic nihilist, believing that there is no grand purpose to existence. Yes, even as a religious person. I don't think G-d ultimately has a purpose either, as an agent of the universe. (I don't believe G-d created the universe.) We have a human nervous system, so we base our rubric for morality on suffering and decide what is meaningful both collectively and individually.

I don't believe in true freedom of will (but I do believe we have agency), because we know that Bereitschaftspotential or reaction potentials occur in the brain up to two seconds before we become conscious of a volitional desire. Our consciousness occurs because of quantum synchronicity in the brain, so our free will is in a bit of an in-between state rather than fully determined or fully free.

So, we are not born deciding "I'm going to be an abuser," that happens because of brain abnormalities. It's no different than the forces of creation and destruction at work like a virus infecting a host cell. I don't place much importance on concepts of self-hood, I view myself as the electrical and chemical processes that occur in my brain, which happen without my choosing, that I can influence and impact through my own agency.

Anyway, these are just some basic schizoid meanderings for you all and I hope that this was informative or interesting in some way. Peace.

[the-rebel-archivist]

Finally finished Veilguard a few days ago and took some time to process and put my thoughts in order. In brief: 8/10 game as a whole, a really fantastic gaming experience, but 5 or even 4/10 as a dragon age game since it does no meaningful exploration of any nuance or moral complexity and seems to have forgotten what made Thedas distinct. My thoughts, critical and positive, coming from a place of love for the series with little to no spoilers:

Thedas has always been special to me because it was a nuanced world. Different groups had different opinions based on their pasts. City elves and the dalish had divergent histories. Injustice against magic was common, but you could understand the justification for it even when you didn’t agree. Now, the worldbuilding is flattened. A mageocracy is fine, it’s only bad apples. Slavery is never addressed. City and dalish elves are basically the same but one lives in the forest. There’s no conflict about what’s best from each individuals’ perception, all groups are monoliths.

“Elves won’t follow the gods just because they’re elves,” yes they would, in past lore. Perhaps not all but some would - these are their Creators. The game refuses to deal with religious belief in any meaningful way, to the point that I don't know if its impact is fully understood. Dalish religion is as much about cultural preservation as religion and it would be CRUSHING to lose that connection to the past when it had been all you could cling to for thousands of years.

And no, seeking out relics of Arlathan would not make up for the foundation of your society shattering and what that would mean to the dalish. Bellara being guilty that her gods are evil is not the takeaway I expected when I thought the dalish would explore that everything they believed was a lie. I'd also like to briefly comment on how an elf can comment that they weren’t raised dalish but adopted their tattoos. Their closed practice tattoos. Closed even to city elves unless they fully joined a clan. Removing cultural boundaries didn’t make the material less 'problematic', it just created a new blind spot.

“They’d never sanitize the Crows” I said before release. Assassins who walked the line between murderer and hero depending on perspective. But in this game they give you absolute truth: they’re freedom fighters. Responsible government who, the mob is benevolent and that is never subverted. They see themselves as the 'good guys' and so they are.

“They wouldn’t put powerful mages in charge of the shadow dragons” I said. “Surely they will explore the nuance of Neve having the privilege of magic in a mageocracy even when she comes from a lower class beyond ‘everyone is welcome in the shadow dragons’.” “Surely if Maevaris is connected her intersectionality as a magister and altus and trans woman will come up - not what Tevinter expects, helping with change, but still privileged and upper class. Surely low class non mages and slaves would be leading the Shadow Dragons, not the powerful being benevolent.”

But no. All factions in the game are black and white, good and evil, no moral complexity. The bad people want power and collect bad people who want power and only bad people do bad things. The antagonists I liked most were the ones with a motivation beyond simply power and they were few.

And that’s setting aside the fact that all of the mystery and fantasy was removed from the setting by the end. The things that mattered before, the religious conflicts, the approaches to history? All false or meaningless now that we know absolute truth. Everything that set Dragon Age apart from generic fantasy was flattened. All of the lore for the world that I had spent hours, days, years in and creating fanfic for became simple groups of good and bad, subjectivity replaced by objective truth. It’s not a world I want to unravel and explore anymore.

That hurts more than the slap in the face that was every cameo and past reference. If they wanted a soft reboot, why include them at all? Every time I saw or heard about a past character or event I felt hurt and angry and it actively harmed my experience of the game. When the choices are pared down to only do something "meaningful" with them and then that meaningful thing is a codex that had been so disdained in dev comments? I do feel pretty let down. Especially when that codex isn’t even personalized.

They never use Rook or the inquisitor’s first name in text once. Vocal I get, but no codex? The Inquisitor, a person depersonalized into a symbol, signing off “Yrs. The Inquisitor” when we input their name in CC was a twist of the knife I didn’t expect. It’s like every time I lower my expectations to grant grace they need to be lowered yet again.

Similarly, the romances in the “most romantic game yet” are paper thin throughout the game depending on your choice, with few chances to truly connect on an emotional level and have deep conversations in some routes. It’s not all about kissing but having the chance to say how you feel, or try to.

But that’s part of a larger problem, that this is a “found family” but Rook is the outsider in it. Rook isn’t asked how they’re handling things or about who they are or what they want except by Solas. The team needs them to fix problems but has little interest in giving back. The companions are lovely, but I can’t help wishing they were friends with me and not just each other. Or wanted to romance me and not just each other, as they begin to flirt before I can and have more banter comments than the player romance. At least if no one got me I know Davrin got me.

These last comments are the reason it’s 8/10 as a game rather than 10/10 for me - the lore I care about but others won’t. The lack of connection is a genuine issue, along with how unbalanced it is depending on romance. I just feel sad at the lost potential to reflect and gain support from companions.

On a positive note, this is the most fun Dragon Age game I’ve ever played. The gameplay is top notch and combat is so fluid and fun. I felt excited to fight rather than dreading the next battle. Really getting into the roleplay of a slippery rogue

The environments are so gorgeous. Lighting, animation, level design, sound design, all spectacular. I’m bad with maps and yet I never got lost and always managed to find my way around. Secret passages to treasure were just the right length to be satisfying. The puzzles were exactly the right amount of investment for the reward. I never felt frustrated by them but also not disappointed by the simple ones, there was a good balance. I had a lot of fun uncovering them. So many areas looked like a perfect representation of thedosian places I had never been to and wanted to visit.

Every time I was in the necropolis it felt like coming home. Maybe it’s because the lore was the most similar to past lore, maybe it’s just because it was cool, but I loved being there. I loved the wisps most of all. And I loved Emmrich’s journey and sympathetic exploration of death. The Hossberg Wetlands were also a standout area. Absolutely horrible (complimentary). Evka and Antoine my beloveds and the environment storytelling was fantastic. Like a hideous combination of the Fallow Mire and Chateau d’Onterre and I was so there for it. Davrin’s story broke my last flight loving heart.

The set pieces and narrative flow in the major battles and main story missions is really wonderful. I also did enjoy the faction reactivity, even if there were few chances to explore the intersectionality of being a particular lineage with a particular faction. I’ll make our House proud Viago!

It’s such a fun game that when I play I can almost forget all of the things that I dislike until a codex or cameo punches me in the face. It has such great gameplay that I can finally discuss DA with my partner who refused to play the other games in the series. But what a monkey’s paw. I know from their previous work that they can foster nuance. From the art book that their instincts were there from the beginning. But somewhere after multiple reboots they made a world with contradiction and complexity removed, more reactive to fan discourse than to telling a complex narrative.

It kills me because if the nuance and subjectivity and moral complexity had been there, I would have considered this the best Dragon Age game ever made. It will always be the most fun. But it is legitimately more fun for people who don’t know lore than people who do, and that is soul-crushing. It's the most beautiful Thedas has ever been, and the least like Thedas it has ever felt.

I’ve played it once. I already started a replay. I enjoy the game a lot when I am playing it, overall. But I miss Thedas, and I miss that the “world worth saving” that I cared for is a slate wiped clean and this new world is a more simplistic place.

[max1461]

So here's the thing, right. My position on the US/China is kind of like my position on Israel/Palestine, or, for an opposite-valence example, my opinion on liberal market economies vs. central planning. There is an obvious right answer that I think anyone looking at the facts without factional allegiance would come to, not "this is a difficult problem but here's my opinion" (which is how I feel about a lot of political issues), but "there is an unambiguously correct broad-strokes answer, although of course there's plenty of room for disagreement on specifics".

To run through these:

1. The US and China are both Great Powers working principally in their own national interests, neither should be understood even remotely as "the good guys". Both have acted and continue to act belligerently on the international stage, but the US's track record in this domain is much, much worse. Both engage in mass surveillance and some degree of domestic human rights abuses, but China's track record in this domain is much, much worse. The rise of China means the rise of hundreds of millions of people out of deep poverty, and this is unambiguously something to be celebrated, even if the Chinese government is plenty worthy of criticism. Everyone should be desirous of peace and cooperation between these two countries as greatly as possible.

2. Israel/Palestine, well, I've already made a recent post about that I don't want to repeat myself here. I'll just find it and quote it:

Israel is an apartheid state, brought the Gaza conflict on themselves, and while this doesn't remotely excuse Hamas' targeting of civilians on Oct. 7th or make their Islamist stance sympathetic, it does leave the ball basically wholly in Israel's court to end this conflict and develop some kind of solution (one-state, two-state, etc.) in which the status quo of apartheid no longer obtains.

I would also add that Israel is, if not committing a genocide, certainly attempting to commit one in Gaza, that Israel was founded on a genocidal war in the form of the Nakba, and that flirtation with the idea of finishing the job has always been a major part of Israeli political discourse. There is just no way to be all three of (1) a supporter of Israel, (2) actually informed about this issue, and (3) a decent human being. Being a supporter of Israel in 2025 is, yes, quite comparable to being a supporter of Nazi Germany in the 1930s.

3. Liberal market economies are flawed in many ways, but central planning is flawed in very many more. Every humanistic critique of capitalism, critiques of private-ownership-as-power-structure, apply equally or more strongly to centrally planned economies as they have been instantiated in Marxist-Leninist states. It's possible some of these critiques would apply less to a centrally planned economy in a genuinely democratic state, but at least so far a Marxist-Leninist state has never implemented meaningful democracy as more than a brief experiment, and liberal states have implemented only poor simulacra of meaningful democracy. This is getting a bit tangential to the economic issue... In addition, many of the purely economic critiques levied by liberals at central planning—that centrally planned economies produce less wealth and allocate it less it well—are indeed valid. This doesn't absolve market economies of their flaws, it's extremely worthwhile to work towards some better alternative, but central planning is not it.

Anyway, while I would place myself firmly on the pro-Palestinian side of the Israel-Palestine conflict, on both (1) and (3) I consider myself something of a centrist. As much as I don't think central planning is the answer, I am certainly no partisan of markets. As for what I am a partisan of, well, I've made lots of posts about that.

[thedubiousdallon]

Okay, fuck it, I've built up enough goodwill with this sideblog - let's risk it all by sharing my opinions on how Amy is handled in Ward.

It's kinda complicated I think.

Okay, now that I've resisted the urge to immediately hit post for the bit: I think the way her interludes are written substantially flattens her character in a way that I find distasteful and unpleasant, but I find the overall shape of her arc and her role in the narrative compelling. The things I dislike have been well-covered by plenty of other people in the fandom, so I'm going to focus on the things I like.

To talk about Amy's role in Ward, I first need to talk about my interpretation of Ward as a whole. To me, Ward is, above all else, about trauma and recovery. Society is traumatized by the end of the world, the shards are traumatized by the death of Scion and their loss of purpose, individuals are traumatized by all the things individuals are traumatized by. As an aside, this reading is a big reason why I'm not too bothered by a lot of the world building choices that other people frequently (and fairly) criticize - I think many of them serve this theme effectively.

One specific facet of that reading that I find particularly compelling is Ward's interest in people who are traumatized not just by the harm done to them, but by the harm they've done. Characters don't just regret what they've done, they don't just want to be better, they are traumatized by it, and their reactions to that trauma are as messy and complicated as any other traumatized people. I don't always agree with the stances the text takes on how to deal with having done harm and been traumatized as a result, but I find the exploration of the topic compelling.

Enter The Altruistic Amy Dallon.

Amy's arc in Worm was, to a degree, a prototype of this kind of storytelling. She is repeatedly and horrifically traumatized, the actions she eventually takes in response to that experience inflict equally horrific trauma on her victim, and she is further traumatized by her own actions almost to the point of ego death. She removes herself from the environment she was in, begins rebuilding her sense of identity and ethics, and reemerges having grown, prepared to do better going forward and to make reparations for her past actions as best she can. Arc done! It's satisfying and cathartic, and we leave content in the knowledge that the part she's on will take her to better places. It's the quintessential appeal of a redemption arc, and it's a strong example of its type.

There's something people like to say a lot when talking about mental health and personal growth in real life, and that is that progress isn't linear. It's an important truth to understand.

It's rarely true in fiction. Very often, in redemption arcs, in personal growth arcs, after a series of false starts and setbacks, the character reaches a critical point where they resolve their conflict and either overcome it or succumb to it. From that point on, their nature or behavior is fundamentally changed - if they've grown they never relapse past a certain point, or do so only fleetingly, or else never improve past a certain point. This makes sense from a storytelling perspective, but it doesn't map to how growth often works in real life.

In Ward, Amy occupies the very rare narrative position of being who completes her arc of growth and redemption, who crosses that critical threshold of lasting, meaningful change... but backslides anyway, to the point of essentially losing all that progress.

It's an outcome that I find very believable for her, honestly. Her newfound worldview and conviction were forged in the very insular environment of the Birdcage - of course they would be impacted by her new environment. She says at the end of Ward that she had been able to excuse all of her worst behavior because she had convinced herself that she could fix anything - and at the end of Worm, I can see how she would come to think that! She's been pardoned and released from Forever Prison, she overcame her old aversion to brains to create Khepri and thereby saved the world, she's formed a positive relationship with the father she never thought she'd meet, she's receiving love and support from parents she never felt good enough for, she's using her powers to help people in a way that doesn't make her want to die, and she even "fixed" Victoria, when failing to do that before was the final nail in the coffin she just finished clawing her way out of! The sheer number of seemingly impossible things she's accomplished, of apparently irreversible failures she's seemingly put right, is mind boggling! It'd be the easiest thing in the world to let that go to your head!

Her social circle is also a perfect environment to enable her worst tendencies - there's no one left in it whose opinion she trusts that's willing to call her on her shit. Marquis doesn't see anything wrong with her behavior, Carol is trying to make up for a decade of neglect and unwarranted criticism, Mark just wants everybody to get along and be happy, and Riley and Rinke are pretty shaky on this whole human decency thing themselves! With a (not unjustified) pride in how far she'd come, a circle of willing enablers, a complete lack of moderating influences, and a bulletproof get-out-of-moral-culpability-free card, and two years to spiral, I find her backsliding to be completely believable. And given that Victoria is the fly in the ointment to all of this, that her continued refusal to have anything to do with Amy gives lie to Amy's belief that she can fix anything, and thereby puts the entire edifice of her self-rationalizations at risk, it also makes perfect sense to me that Amy would become fixated on her, on proving that she really can fix anything.

Of course, being believable isn't the same thing as being compelling. The thing that makes all this so resonant for me is that, at the end of Ward, after being this grasping spectre that haunts Victoria the whole book, after rejecting countless opportunities to demonstrate a hint of self-awareness or the slimmest motivation to change - Amy does. She sits down with a therapist. She rips off the band-aid - both the metaphorical one and the literal one made out of Victoria's skin, jesus christ Amy - looks at what she's done, at how she went awry, and resolves to do better. And we end with her in essentially the same place she was at the end of Worm: prepared to do better going forward and to make reparations as best she can. But the journey she has taken to get there gives the destination entirely new meaning for me. She's already fumbled her chance at redemption! But her journey gives lie to the idea that you only have one chance, or two, or any finite number! Every moment you draw breath is a chance to do better.

To me, Amy Dallon's arc in Ward shows that the most important step you can take is the next one, and no matter how many times you walk up and down that road, it never stops being true. And I find that compelling as hell.

[batmanlovesnirvana]

VERY unpopular opinion ( yes again ) :

I don’t like the Marauders fandom sometimes.

LOOK.

I like the concept of the Marauders ( the idea of that era and the rich backstories the characters could have had ) but the way the fandom portrays them is completely disconnected from who they actually were.

James Potter and Sirius Black weren’t a couple of scrappy, misunderstood queer kids fighting against a world that hated them.

They were the exact opposite.

…

Both of them came from old money — not just rich, but aristocratic families with generations of wealth, power, and influence behind their names. The Potter and Black families were basically wizarding nobility. They would have been raised with enormous privilege, taught from birth that they mattered more than other people simply because of their bloodline, their social status, and their inherited power.

Fandom loves to project this modern idea of them being rebellious underdogs, queer-coded victims of a cruel system, when in reality, they were the system.

Even Sirius, who famously rejected the pureblood supremacist ideology of his family, still grew up as a wealthy, attractive, powerful white boy who knew exactly how much weight his name carried. His “rebellion” was real and meaningful in some ways, but it didn’t strip him of his inherent societal privilege. He was still Sirius Black.

James Potter, even more so, was a golden boy ; the heir to an immense fortune, from a beloved and respected family, with everything handed to him. He wasn’t an outsider. He was the insider.

If I had been a student at Hogwarts during their time, James and Sirius wouldn’t have been these charming, secretly-soft gay icons the fandom wants them to be. They would have been those insufferable rich white boys who thought the world revolved around them, the kind that coast on money, popularity, and privilege, and who genuinely believe they’re better than you even when they’re trying to be “nice.”

And just to be clear — I’m not saying this as a Snape fan or apologist. I’m not trying to paint Snape as some poor misunderstood victim either. I’m simply pointing out that the way fandom has collectively reimagined the Marauders ( especially James and Sirius ) says a lot more about fandom’s romanticization of wealth, privilege, and modern social issues than it does about the actual source material.

At the end of the day, James and Sirius were cool, popular, rich, talented, and good-looking — they knew it, and they acted like it…

That doesn’t make them evil, but it definitely means they weren’t the downtrodden, queer-coded rebels that fandom tries so hard to project onto them.

( And finally, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion and to how they see these characters. This is just my opinion. I actually like the Marauders as characters! Just because I criticized the way fandom tends to characterize them doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy reading about them or seeing different takes. I’m only pointing it out because honestly, people can get real sensitive when it comes to their favorite ships and characters — especially since the word “nuance” seems to barely exist on this app anymore. )

plz send me ur opinions on this, I’d love to read them :)

[soaringwide]

Pick a Card: Finding the right career

Hello :p

Today's reading is a career guidance, where we're going to look at your strengths and weaknesses when it comes to your career, what motivates you and the potential for growth to see what career would suit you the most.

This reading is meant for people who are wondering about what path to take, or those wishing to make a change. We'll also look at how you'll be able to tell it's indeed the right choice.

As always this is a general reading that may not apply to everyone 100%.

Note that if you like my reading style, I offer private readings. You can learn more about that in my pinned post.

Pile 1

Cards: 5 of Cups, 6 of Swords, Justice, the Lovers, 2 of Cups, 3 of Pentacles, 9 of Swords, 5 of Swords, Knight of Swords, King of Wands, Knight of Wands, Ace of Swords, Knight of Cups, 6 of Wands

It seems you are not that driven by money, but rather, by a strong sense of righteousness. It seems you are well aware of the human pains and struggles. You know how fragile life can be, and you think it's important to do something meaningful, not only for you own sense of purpose, but also for the sake of others.

Really, where other would pursue careers for fame or money, for you it's just about following your truth and speak your mind and heart. There is a real quest for meaning and doing what's right and a relentless pursuit to leave what doesn't align with truth behind. Where other would just accept what's not fair as something that cannot be changed, you refuse to take that stance and strive for change.

However, I see that you have a hard time with social or collaborative jobs. You don't like mingling with people, a networking event is probably your own personal hell, and you'd rather work on your own without having to rely on anyone's opinion. Could be a problem in your line of work since it's showing up strongly in this reading. It's also possible that you tend to be very critical of those around you, because you see their flaws clearly, and it's stopping you from seeing the good in people.

You are motivated by the idea of building something worth marveling for. You want to create something that will inspire and educate those around you and have a long lasting impact on your community. You want to be seen as a reference, and even though you don't want to have other people put their nose in your work, you still want to contribute to humanity's knowledge with the results of your hard work. There is the idea of a common effort towards a greater goal.

However, for you it'll be important to develop some skills. The cards point at some inner work that have to do with putting yourself down, devaluing yourself by comparing yourself to others. It's a source of great despair for you and something you need to work on. People are not metrics, we are all different in one way or another and comparing yourself to others the way you're doing it is actually detrimental to the quality of your work, as well as your well-being. It's also possible that all the conflicts in the world affect your mental health a great deal, connected to what you witness in the world. It will be important to keep going and not burn yourself out.

There is a lot of raw potential for growth in the realm of ambition and leadership, which it seems you haven't fully embraced yet. You can be a figure of authority in your field, leading with your sharp mind and ambitious assertiveness. You have the potential to be a strong willed, determined professional that can't be stopped by anything and will tackle the most difficult project.

For these reasons, I think the career it's pointing at has to do with the realm of communicating ideas, perhaps writing, academia or journalism. You will be able to cut through lies and outdated ideas with your words, seeking to bring clear communication. There is again the idea of service made to others, led by your sense of purpose and thirst for truth. This career would put you in the public eye where you would be celebrated openly for your work and ideas. I see this pile as someone who investigates, either matters of the world, society, politics, economics or science. In all cases, it allows you to combine your cleverness, your empathy and ambitious nature.

Finally, you'll be able to tell it's the right path for you because it will ignite your passion. You won't be able to think of anything else but the task at hand, and what to do to achieve it. The greater the challenge, the more fiery your determination will be. It will definitely not be something you hesitate on and will feel like a calling.

Pile 2

Cards: the Emperor, Judgement, 2 of Pentacles, Page of Pentacles, 5 of Pentacles, the High Priestess, 9 of Swords, King of Pentacles, 10 of Pentacles, the Hierophant Rx, the Tower, the Hanged Man, 3 of Cups, 8 of Swords, Queen of Pentacles, 9 of Wands, 7 of Swords

Your qualities when it comes to this career are about being a reliable figure in the life of those you help. The helping aspect comes up strongly as it will show in this reading, and basically it already show in your strengths. It's like you help people come to life again in some way. You are strong when it comes to leading the way towards transformation, and have a strong impact on people. They can sense they can come to you for support and you give a vibe of wisdom and order.

However, it seems that you are also quite inexperienced and this is making you hesitate quite a lot. There is probably a strong learning curve when it comes to this career and you're not quite there yet. You may be lacking something, whether its the status or the resources, in order to fully embody your qualities. So it seems your situation right now is a weakness, and that it's not so much coming from you.

What drives you is, again, the desire to help those in need, those in pain who don't know where to get help from, when it seems there is no way out or hope left. You see their pain clearly and it somehow motivates you and gives you a sense of purpose in life. You might be religious or spiritual in some way and this feeds your motivation to help and care, like some type of mission.

When it comes to skills you can to develop here, there is a need to remain detached in the face of adversity to not let it submerge you, perhaps to let go of your own fatalistic vision of life. There is a lot of talk around you, and perhaps you listen to the words of others too much and it's making you confused and directionless. You must get your mind in order and be firmly set into your own stability, by being pragmatic and protective of your own well-being. Stop listening to everything everyone says and remain grounded in your own judgement.

So all that is telling me that your career has to do with helping the sick, be they mentally or physically impaired. You show up as a very nurturing figure, someone who wish to see people thrive and get back to health, and I see you surrounded by people with bandages, or people who are disabled in one way or another (again for some of you it could be mentally or physically). Your future career may be nurse, rehabilitation or support worker, or even doctor of some kind.

It seems that for some of you, this career will be embraced after you've been somewhat forced by life to take a different turn, something you hadn't anticipated and shows up as a surprise. For others, it could simply mean that you will be surrounded by catastrophic accidents and unforeseen circumstances, and I'm picturing an emergency room when I'm writing this. Like, you will be forced to grow because the chaos surrounding you will call for someone to do something, and you've got what it takes to do so.

You will know this is the right path for you after contemplating your decision for a long time. You'll mull over your choices and options, and even discuss it with loved ones in order to make sure its the right one for you because you don't take it lightly as it will come with some type of sacrifice for your time and energy. Basically you'll need to dedicate yourself fully to this and you know this. But overall, once you're decided, you'll be very happy of your choice and eager to enjoy the good sides that comes with the job.

Pile 3

Cards: 8 of Swords, 2 of Pentacles, 3 of Swords, 9 of Wands, King of Cups, the Fool, the Star, the Empress, 10 of Swords rx, 2 of Swords, Death, 5 of Wands, Page of Pentacles, 10 of Pentacles, the Magician, Judgement, 7 of Cups

When it comes to your strengths, you're someone who can fuel themselves with the shit that life throws at them, never fully loosing their balance. You know how to get yourself out of tricky situation where you're blinded, and you're able to transmute your pains and power through the difficulties, never giving up even when it seems all odds are against you. What makes other abandon just make you angrier and more determined to succeed. You are extremely resilient and this gives you an outlook on life that anything is possible. If something doesn't work you discard it and move on to the next thing.

However, it seems you are sometimes too eager to try something new without committing to one thing for a long time. You're a Jack of all trades and it's hard to get you stay in the same spot for long. It's like, you keep wanting to try to see if this path is better than this one, or if this thing would be more exciting than this other thing, and so on. You emotions also tend to shift easily and influence the way you see things, it's like, you feel things so intensely it's overwhelming and that's just the way you function and it's hard to live differently.

When it comes to what drives you, you get a great sens of purpose coming from beauty and aesthetics, or even arts. The path towards beauty and pleasure, is the highroad to heaven for you. You are truly an aesthete at heart, and want nothing more than to honor what you find sublime in the world, as for you it is the purpose and the meaning of life.

When it comes to what skill you can develop, you got two cards signifying blockage and defeat, which makes me think this has a lot to do with overcoming you own issues surrounding your creative expression, which stem from your mind. It's like, nothing is really getting in your way but your own thoughts. You have trouble releasing your perceived failure so you're stopping yourself from trying anything different, fearing it will only confirm your loss. Perhaps that's the reason you keep switching things all the time, because can you really fail if you never tried until the very end?

There is a deep potential for growth though, and it has to do with the way your compare yourself to either other people, or to your own ideal self. It's like, you've got this image in your mind of what you should achieve and you're tormenting yourself for not being able to achieve it. What you don't understand it's that it's counter productive and that you have to put an end to this way of thinking. You need to break the pattern in order to be free.

All of this makes me think that your job has to do with some type of artistic or creative career where you bring ideas into the world, pulling them from a space unique and special to you. The idea of transforming things, putting values into question, bending rules is also quite important, as well as is the idea of communication to a larger audience. I will also add that you might not box yourself into just one type of creative expression, but rather  dabble into many different things. It seems you are  not so much passionate about one medium but rather as I said earlier by the pursuit of beauty in all its form, so I totally see you trying out different things and it seems that you'll be good at most of them naturally.

You will know it's the right path for you because it'll allow you to have a vision. It's like, you'll find a tiny window with a tiny opportunity and it'll ignite you mind, making you think about all that's possible in every different direction, and the legacy you could leave. It's really all about triggering your long term motivation and what will make you want to dedicate your life, or long time anyway, to. As we saw earlier, you have commitment issues regarding your creative pursuits so this will have to do with sticking to it in the long term, even if that means doing multiple things in parallel or taking breaks and coming back to things.