#my past does not exist to justify my present

[cultivating-saplings]

I really wish that there was more room in The Discourse for trans people who were actually their assigned genders for a while to talk about that particular experience without being treated as though they're perpetuating damaging rhetoric

like I was a girl for a long time there! I was not an especially successful girl by the gendered standards that I was expected to adhere to, but I was absolutely a weird little girl and I wish that my failure to grow up into a cis woman didn't always come with a well-meaning denial of the version of myself that I used to be

[blueish-bird]

sorry if I don’t remember your name or conversations/experiences or basic things about myself, every few weeks my brain gets factory reset and I have to relearn how to be alive

[mochiajclayne]

thoughts on sasusaku + sarada and their...family

Will start this out by stating that this is a combination of observation and analysis so take it with a grain of salt.

(If you like sasusaku/ss, this ain't for you so please do yourself a favor and scroll away.)

naruhina + boruto version.

This is definitely the most fucked up thing to ever come in fruition in the sequel and they weren't even justified in Gaiden. LMAO. 

Diving into this family's issue at hand, it's pretty much about Sasuke being an absent father and being away from his family for more than a decade--not to mention that Sasuke is able to freaking report to the Hokage but not even pay a visit to his family.

Gaiden was pretty much good at covering the topic already but let's break down how dysfunctional it is:

The lack of evidence signified about Sasuke and Sakura being married. We see pictures of Sakura and Sarada at important moments of her life but not a single wedding photo. Sarada pretty much asking Sakura if she's really Sasuke's wife is valid because she won't doubt from the beginning if there was telltale evidence supporting that information. There isn't.

The "family" photo. Sasuke was roughly seventeen in that photo, not to mention it's next to Sakura who is in her 30s at that point. Isn't it strange? No updated photo since they got married? What's fucked up is that she had to cover up the rest of Taka behind that photo. That raised more questions, specifically, Sarada asking who those people are and who is the one wearing glasses like she does.

And, yeah. The glasses thing. It was a simple yes or no question. Sakura saying that she doesn't know is inane because they had spent time as Team 7 in the past, not to mention the sporadic moment they see each other (Orochimaru's hideout, that bridge where she tried to kill him but failed), and during the war. I don't know where she's looking but Sasuke hasn't worn glasses at all and if she can't answer that simple question, that says more about her. Anyway, that fed the idea that she doesn't know a single thing about her husband at all and Sarada notices this. Naruto who was able to say information about Sasuke unprompted, pretty much what Sarada needed to hear--yeah, I know. Shocker.

Sasuke's first meeting with Sarada. I've seen enough takes about him being an absent father. I'm not disagreeing with that. However, I present another perspective: Sasuke doesn't even know what his daughter looks like even though it's been shown that he was in Konoha at the time that Naruto is already Hokage (which would mean Sarada would be around seven or eight years old) and Sakura is in that same room, too. You're telling me that she couldn't have at least fucking introduce Sarada and Sasuke to each other? It's easy to shift the blame to the absent father because he simply isn't there but when Sakura, who knows the mission and with uncertainties on its duration, couldn't have made the initiative to simply give the kid an assurance that yeah, this is your dad, he exists and to Sasuke, she's Sarada and she's seven and she wears glasses. If making them meet is too much, at least a fucking photo would suffice it. But no. Nothing of the sort coming from Sakura. Why? Because she's okay with Sasuke being absent. She doesn't see any issue with it.

Communication. This is a controversial take and I will keep it simple. If Naruto and Sasuke can communicate and contact each other, what's stopping Sakura from reaching out to Sasuke? Isn't she his wife? She could literally write her own letter and send it alongside Naruto's but no efforts had been made on that. This is the benefit of the doubt but if Sakura at least reached out, then it's up to Sasuke to either intentionally ignore that or respond to her. My point here is initiative--it has been shown time and time again that she can do that, we've seen instances of it in the prequel. Did she stop because she finally got what she wants and is content with whatever crumbs she could hold on to? 

Sarada's birth. The sketchiest of them all. Some people wrote excellent analysis on this so please do check them out. My two cents on this is Orochimaru discussing cloning to Naruto and pretty much piquing Sarada's curiosity about the concept (which later on led to DNA testing as courtesy of Suigetsu). Sasuke pretty much reacted this way:

Usually, ellipsis in media is used when the character is pondering/thinking about something. It also represents speechlessness or a pause. Now tell me, if Sarada's birth isn't sketchy and was in some sort of way, normal, why did Sasuke casted that wayward side glance? The entirety of Gaiden as well as this page was meant to make the readers question Sarada's conception. For a backstory, Kishimoto sure left more questions than answers.

Everything is unconventional like Sakura not keeping the umbilical cord and Karin has it instead, no records at Konoha Hospital when Sakura works there and can coordinate with the proper department/s to handle paperworks, traveling while pregnant (ma'am you are a medic-nin, make it make sense), etc. I will leave this as it is, again, it has been discussed extensively by various blogs here.

In conclusion, even in adulthood, Naruto and Sasuke knows each other best. They become expert parents (at least) around each other's kids. In a fucked up way, I think it's a silent cry for help aka look I'm good with your kid and we could've been good parents together but we were forced into these marriages.

Sasusaku ended up canon but it still doesn't change the fact that Sakura knows little to nothing about Sasuke to the point that Sarada picked up on that and even threw it at her face. At the end of the day, Naruto remained as the one and only that knows Sasuke's heart best.

[sapphia]

no actually you know what? fuck jack black. i get that he was put in an awkward position, but this pretending that we wouldn’t be better off with trump dead is stupid and actually dangerous. many people DO wish that bullet had killed him and that’s perfectly justified and rational because trump is an evil, corrupt despot.

and fuck him for being another american cancelling another new zealand gig, especially over american politics. australia too, because we just don’t get that many gigs down here. but nz really does get fuck all, and after not getting anyone here for 3 years due to covid, now everything is open again, we’ve had a spate of bands cancel last minute largely because they decided it wasn’t worth coming — I’m not even exaggerating, it’s been like 10+ concert cancellations just in the past year . The Weeknd, Morrissey, David Kushhner, Justin Bieber, just to name a few of the big ones, and my personal bugbear is when Blink-182 publicly cancelled their South Island gig two weeks out, when they’d known it wouldn’t happen for over six months, and it was entirely and blatantly to play another Australian gig where they could make more money.

None of which I expect Jack Black to be fully aware of, because who’s paying attention to NZ, right? But that is the point — we’re involuntarily strapped into this wild ride of American politics, which not only affects us but is actively being imported by our own right-wing politicians, despite having no say in the matter and almost zero input beyond the ability to express our general international disapproval of the candidates. And now we get our Tenacious D concert cancelled because someone shot Trump, missed, and obviously everyone with a brain is disappointed he didn’t die?

But heaven forbid you *say* that.

It’s dishonest, it’s american-centric, it’s policing the left in ways the right will never police themselves as fucking always, and it’s just another example of allowing Republicans to dominate the conversation and present their batshit-insane candidate as a normal nominee. Most fucking candidates don’t get shot by their own party supporters. Maybe ask why that happened before complaining that the Democrats are sad he missed.

Cancel culture only exists for the left.

[airyravenmaid]

SAGAU: My Style

Back at it again with sharing my personal ideas with the Self-Aware Genshin AU. I don't see myself writing a full-on fanfic about it because I do NOT trust myself with characterizing everybody properly, and some of the ideas I have in mind wouldn't make for a good universal experience for all, if that makes sense. So, instead, I'll just stick to pitching like I'm at a silly ol' business meeting and providing a simple layout. Now, keep in mind, this is going to focus more on my rendition of an Imposter AU specifically, which means I'm also going to do a little nitpicking of some common tropes in it that I find could be done better or even differently. It won't be me saying that anybody who writes them in the traditional sense is bad or doing a bad job, just what I'd do differently. So, without further ado, check out my mish-mushed ideas below the cut:

It all starts with the Creator Themsleves, aka, us. Or, rather, us before we became us. Not making sense? That's fine, but lemme delve into that a little better. Game lore-wise for this AU, there actually was a fully existing, fully breathing Creator that's been around since even before the Archons (but not by too much; Zhongli's still no spring chicken in spite of this). Yes, they did create Teyvat and all that's good in it like the flora, the fauna, and the creatures, and they had a close bond with said Archons not just as people serving, advising, and worshipping their God/ruler, but also in a legitimate friendship (so, no, they're not 100% subservient or gutless ass-kissers-- it's more of an equal dynamic). Maybe one Archon of your choice (within reason) being close enough to the point of being (secret) lovers, if you'd like. Such explains the Archons' deep attachment to the Creator, and their eagerness to see them again after tragedy-- like, say, the Cataclysm that razed Khaenri'ah-- renders them comatose and not to awaken again until present day. Until then, the Creator's body lies safely in sleep like Princess Aurora within their main temple/palace, occasionally visited by their old companions (minus Ei, who's in her hidey-hole until the Inazuma AQ's, but that goes without saying).

But, just before they do wake up, here comes a little (presumably Celestia-sent) POS known as the Imposter, who worms their way into the temple where the Creator lies, steals their garbs and replaces them with normal, less divine attire before sending their body far away apparently never to be seen again and lying on that resting spot acting as the Creator on the verge of waking up. And since no one knows what really happened, it looks like the promised day has come without issues, and the Imposter is welcomed by nearly all back to a throne that never actually belonged to them. As for the actual Creator... they're in good hands, because Teyvat would never mistake another for the All-Parent that breathed life into it and acts to protect their body hidden amidst nature in whatever region they landed in (your choice) until they really do wake up.

And when our in-game body does wake up, our real-life consciousness is transferred into it and overwrites our old, godly memories with our normal ones. Since I can't stand isekais that require us dying an early death IRL (like, at all, actually), we're either magically transported to Teyvat the old-fashioned magic way, or part of our consciousness goes into our in-universe body and leaves our physical forms in reality alone, thereby creating two versions of us going around two separate worlds. For better wording, that is, but that's the gist of it. Either way, we're the real deal Creator, but one without our old memories (apart from short visions we get of our old divine life that come up every now and again) as far as everyone else in Teyvat is concerned. They're not totally wrong, anyway. I was thinking this could be justified to everyone by our "past self" saying pre-slumber that they will reawaken without the knowledge of this world (aka, the Genshin one), but it will still very much be them/us.

By the way, when we stumble into the main town or city of whatever region we wound up in, the locals don't just immediately attack us for looking like the Imposter. While sometimes, I do enjoy kicking back and enjoying pure angst, I otherwise found that aspect of Villain/Imposter!SAGAU to be, comment dit-on... absurd, especially with nobody in Mondstadt (outside of that one nun not buying it and simply scolding him) giving two honks about Venti despite him looking like (being) Barbatos, and nobody in Liyue even noticing the resemblance between Zhongli and Rex Lapis/Morax. And given how much those nations revere their god, the argument of us being a higher deity cannot be made. So, instead, at absolute worst, people are just really unnerved by the uncanny resemblance we have to the Creator, but otherwise don't get alarmed... until the Imposter catches wind of us and changes that. The reason people start attacking us at all is because the Imposter weaves a forewarning of the Creator's antithesis equal to them in power known as the "Destroyer" will descend on Teyvat, attempt to steal the throne using the Creator's face, and do worse to the world than the Abyss Order ever could try to if not stopped. And, this may sound like something they just made up to get us killed, but in a way... it's true, only issue is that the acolytes + citizens have the wrong idea of who's who, of course. Plus, the actual, all-powerful Creator, if pushed too far by say... an incredibly lengthy and traumatic manhunt after being mistaken for the Destroyer, is capable of tearing the world limb from limb, because those who create can as easily destroy, but those who destroy can never create.

Speaking of "all-powerful"... why are we always completely powerless in these SAGAU works apart from crying and/or getting really angry (which ARE realistic and valid reactions to the shit we're going through, but it's not mutually exclusive to getting cool abilities)? Because we're not actually from Teyvat? Even Aether and Lumine have the power to wield the elements despite coming from somewhere else, and for us to not get that same honor is frankly dull as dishwater. That's a lot of missed potential to dip into the fantasy aspect of a fantasy game like Genshin Impact. It's here I'd like to take some inspiration from a show I've enjoyed for years known as none other than "Avatar: The Last Airbender". Not to mention, the term "avatar" generally refers to a "divine incarnation in human form", hello??? Ahem! In other words, instead of being completely incapable of defending ourselves, we-- being the almighty Creator-- are able to wield all seven elements at once, but we have to gradually learn how to effectively use and master them. We do start with one element (any of your choice), then work our way up in order of the loading screen. IE: say your element is Cryo, you'd have to go Geo -> Pyro -> Hydro -> Anemo -> Electro -> Dendro. Such was the same in our past life, but we had the Archons to teach us and help us master those abilities through time.

Which means now, we need other people to help us do it again in our new "incarnation", and that's in the form of 5-star Vision holders since they fit the bill of "master" a bit better, being the rarer, stronger characters and junk. Of course, this is likely with discretion, because some might not be wise to learn from (such as Klee, funny as that'd be). I'm also discounting learning from the Archons because not only has our time with them from the previous life passed, but I don't find it fair to learn from a powerful god of that element, even if we're a god ourselves. It's more balanced learning from someone beneath that level (so, yes, an adeptus would still qualify). Also, important note here: not every single playable character is going to try and kill us for the Creator-Destroyer thing. NPCs are one thing because, let's be real, they're sheep, but it isn't realistic or in-character for everybody playable to want us dead. While a fair chunk would probably be on board for the sake of not letting the world blow to smithereens (and not because, you know, Same Face Syndrome, because that's completely insane), some might not outright believe the alleged prophecy for one reason or another, such as not being fond/trusting enough of the apparent "Creator" to just listen to them right off the bat, or getting to already find out who the real Creator is and knowing we're not the enemy. Whatever the reason is, we're going to have allies, including ones that join us in our quest to defeat the Imposter and take back the throne to restore balance to Teyvat. This can also include those who initially sided with the Imposter, but for one reason or another such as seeing our gold blood, they have a change of heart and tag along for the ride. For us to just go about Teyvat on the lam with nobody having our back is just... depressing, and not even in the fun way, either. I understand this faction of SAGAU tends to be purely angst-based, but come on, it doesn't have to all be a total bummer all the time. There's no rule that says we can't go through the angsty, heartwrenching stuff with traveling companions to call our own there for us through it all.

Now, of course, whoever those traveling companions are is really up to you because not all of us are gonna wanna tag up with and learn from the same bitches as the next guy. So, it's anybody's game with anybody's reasoning and circumstances (such as which region we wake up in, who our first companion(s) would be there, then which region we move onto, and even what element we have to learn next). Also, fitting the max. number of characters you can have on one team, it'd just be four actively traveling alongside us through Teyvat with other allies remaining where they are, whether they helped us master an element or not. But, no matter anybody's personal tastes and choices, I really wish there was more of a thrilling "fantastical group adventure" kind of element to this genre of SAGAU, because the potential is there, just-- seldom reached, from what I've seen, personally. I'd be more than happy adding onto this with anything I might have missed, but that's basically the gist of my view of this AU.

[anonagon9]

TVT Adminpocalypse

TW: transphobia, acephobia, bullying, suicide

Hey, for those of you not aware, TV Tropes has gotten very bad in the last six or so months. I'll do my best to give a short summary.

2022: Fighteer, a mod notorious for using his post to bully others, takes a self-imposed leave after several users call him out on this pattern of behavior. Due to user backlash at general moderator behavior, a mod code of conduct was established. While self-enforced, the moderator discussion thread existed, in part, to discuss future incidents.

September 2023: User AgProv is suspended for calling Dylan Mulvaney a man. In his appeal, he tries to get around the issue by using they/them pronouns. Though Mulvaney uses both she/her and they/them, as this appeal was clearly done in bad faith, AgProv had been bounced from the site. A few hours later, however, Kory, a site programmer, unilaterally overrides the bounce on behalf of otherwise non-present site owners, citing he was a productive user with several edits. When called out on this, Kory doubled down, using thumps and suspensions to shut down conversation. Notably, AgProv was later suspended for messy editing, but to this day has not needed to appeal his transphobia suspension through the typical process.

Later that month: Fighteer is asked back by the admins, citing a need for manpower. Fighteer's "apology" amounts to being burnt out and justifying his meanness as being an "equal opportunity" bad cop. He promises to step back from areas of the site where he'd been an issue previously. This does not last. By the end of this one-two punch, the moderator discussion thread is reworked into a narrow policy clarification thread with issues of misconduct being exclusively handled by emailing the admins.

Past seven days: Fighteer makes a post in the social media thread stating that people threatening suicide over a possible TikTok ban should just do it. In another post, he considered this an act of terrorism. These post were thumps, but no other visible disciplinary action was taken. This is despite the US Politics thread being closed for celebrating the death of Henry Kissinger. Again, attempts at discussion were swiftly shut down. Notably, Kory all but stated that Fighteer, despite all the issues, was worth having as a mod.

So for anyone reading, consider spreading the word. While that alone won't fix the underlying problem of private tech companies pushing for content at the expense of user experience, if enough people, and especially, advertisers, catch wind of this, it may create enough of a PR disaster where the administrators will change course rather than quintuple down. For anyone who, understandably, does not wish to do that, then please, if you haven't already, get an ad blocker and make sure it's on for that site.

Thanks!

[nikethestatue]

Something I find interesting and infuriating is antis are now saying to justify why they don’t like Elain or want her to be the next FMC is “there’s not much to her on the page” or she “barely has a personality,” or “Elain stans and Elriels simply self-insert and there’s not much substance to her.” They are so close to understanding ironically this is how most of them are with Lucien or Gwyn. What do you think of this take?

I also think it’s a weird one as we do know more about Elain than say Eris, but that doesn’t stop them from obsessing over him and wanting him to be the next MMC/love interest. Are they being dense or they genuinely just aren’t paying attention to what Elain say/does on the page?

Yeah, this argument is old and tired and holds no water whatsoever. You know why? Because we know as much about Elain as we know about Azriel.

Let's not kid ourselves here.

The dude's said 100 words across 5 books, we know next to nothing of his past, his present and what he actually does, and yet he's been shipped with every character in existence, whether dead or alive.

The self-inserts are the girls who think that Azriel-like guy will fall madly in love with them one day and will fulfill all their secret hopes and desires. Look at the proliferation of the Azriel x Reader fanfics! No need to even bother with a name for a female character, as long as she is fitted together with Azriel. THAT, my friends, is self-insertion at its finest. Its purest form. Commissioning 550 arts of Azriel with Gwyn in scenes that don't and never existed, with her taking on every single canon attributes of Elain is self-insertion.

90% of Eriels or Elain stans simply came to this place because they read the books and recognised that's where SJM was going with both Elain, and Azriel.

Many of us are either fed up or not particularly interested in yet another stabby sword girl as an FMC. Maybe we like her for her imperfections. She is not boring, she is rather complex and we are interested in the story she is going to tell--and is both brave and cowardly, quiet and social, conservative and rebellious, a people pleaser with an independent streak, calm and composed, fractured and weak, lazy yet helpful.

A good number of my friends have stepped away from romantasy as a genre because we are all tired of the same exactly FMC in every series. How many brave stabby girls with secret powers and trauma can we read about already? They are all the same. Some of us, prefer Elide to Aelin, or Yrene to Bryce. Personally, if someone told me: you can read a book about Danika Fendyr or Elain Archeron, I would always choose Elain Archeron. Because there are 50 Danikas out there, and maybe 3 Elains.

[nicklloydnow]

THE ARTIST AND HIS TIME (1953)

“I. As an artist, have you chosen the role of witness?

This would take considerable presumption or a vocation I lack. Personally I don't ask for any role and I have but one real vocation. As a man, I have a preference for happiness; as an artist, it seems to me that I still have characters to bring to life without the help of wars or of law-courts. But I have been sought out, as each individual has been sought out. Artists of the past could at least keep silent in the face of tyranny. The tyrannies of today are improved; they no longer admit of silence or neutrality. One has to take a stand, be either for or against. Well, in that case, I am against.

But this does not amount to choosing the comfortable role of witness. It is merely accepting the time as it is, minding one's own business, in short. Moreover, you are forgetting that today judges, accused, and witnesses exchange positions with exemplary rapidity. My choice, if you think I am making one, would at least be never to sit on a judge's bench, or beneath it, like so many of our philosophers. Aside from that, there is no dearth of opportunities for action, in the relative. Trade-unionism is today the first, and the most fruitful among them.

II. Is not the quixotism that has been criticized in your recent works an idealistic and romantic definition of the artist's role?

However words are perverted, they provisionally keep their meaning. And it is clear to me that the romantic is the one who chooses the perpetual motion of history, the grandiose epic, and the announcement of a miraculous event at the end of time. If I have tried to define something, it is, on the contrary, simply the common existence of history and of man, everyday life with the most possible light thrown upon it, the dogged struggle against one's own degradation and that of others.

It is likewise idealism, and of the worse kind, to end up by hanging all action and all truth on a meaning of history that is not implicit in events and that, in any case, implies a mythical aim. Would it therefore be realism to take as the laws of history the future - in other words, just what is not yet history, something of whose nature we know nothing?

It seems to me, on the contrary, that I am arguing in favor of a true realism against a mythology that is both illogical and deadly, and against romantic nihilism whether it be bourgeois or allegedly revolutionary. To tell the truth, far from being romantic, I believe in the necessity of a rule and an order. I merely say that there can be no question of just any rule whatsoever. And that it would be surprising if the rule we need were given us by this disordered society, or, on the other hand, by those doctrinaires who declare themselves liberated from all rules and all scruples.

III. The Marxists and their followers likewise think they are humanists. But for them human nature will be formed in the classless society of the future.

To begin with, this proves that they reject at the present moment what we all are: those humanists are accusers of man. How can we be surprised that such a claim should have developed in the world of court trials? They reject the man of today in the name of the man of the future. That claim is religious in nature. Why should it be more justified than the one which announces the kingdom of heaven to come? In reality the end of history cannot have, within the limits of our condition, any definable significance. It can only be the object of a faith and of a new mystification. A mystification that today is no less great than the one that of old based colonial oppression on the necessity of saving the souls of infidels.

IV. Is not that what in reality separates you from the intellectuals of the left?

You mean that is what separates those intellectuals from the left? Traditionally the left has always been at war against injustice, obscurantism, and oppression. It always thought that those phenomena were interdependent. The idea that obscurantism can lead to justice, the national interest to liberty, is quite recent. The truth is that certain intellectuals of the left (not all, fortunately) are today hypnotized by force and efficacy as our intellectuals of the right were before and during the war. Their attitudes are different, but the act of resignation is the same. The first wanted to be realistic nationalists; the second want to be realistic socialists. In the end they betray nationalism and socialism alike in the name of a realism henceforth without content and adored as a pure, and illusory, technique of efficacy.

This is a temptation that can, after all, be understood. But still, however the question is looked at, the new position of the people who call themselves, or think themselves, leftists consists in saying: certain oppressions are justifiable because they follow the direction, which cannot be justified, of history. Hence there are presumably privileged executioners, and privileged by nothing. This is about what was said in another context by Joseph de Maistre, who has never been taken for an incendiary. But this is a thesis which, personally, I shall always reject. Allow me to set up against it the traditional point of view of what has been hitherto called the left: all executioners are of the same family.

V. What can the artist do in the world of today?

He is not asked either to write about co-operatives or, conversely, to lull to sleep in himself the sufferings endured by others throughout history. And since you have asked me to speak personally, I am going to do so as simply as I can. Considered as artists, we perhaps have no need to interfere in the affairs of the world. But considered as men, yes. The miner who is exploited or shot down, the slaves in the camps, those in the colonies, the legions of persecuted throughout the world - they need all those who can speak to communicate their silence and to keep in touch with them. I have not written, day after day, fighting articles and texts, I have not taken part in the common struggles because I desire the world to be covered with Greek statues and masterpieces. The man who has such a desire does exist in me. Except that he has something better to do in trying to instill life into the creatures of his imagination. But from my first articles to my latest book I have written so much, and perhaps too much, only because I cannot keep from being drawn toward everyday life, toward those, whoever they may be, who are humiliated and debased. They need to hope, and if all keep silent or if they are given a choice between two kinds of humiliation, they will be forever deprived of hope and we with them. It seems to me impossible to endure that idea, nor can he who cannot endure it lie down to sleep in his tower. Not through virtue, as you see, but through a sort of almost organic intolerance, which you feel or do not feel. Indeed, I see many who fail to feel it, but I cannot envy their sleep.

This does not mean, however, that we must sacrifice our artis's nature to some social preaching or other. I have said elsewhere why the artist was more than ever necessary. But if we intervene as men, that experience will have an effect upon our language. And if we are not artists in our language first of all, what sort of artists are we? Even if, militants in our lives, we speak in our works of deserts and of selfish love, the mere fact that our lives are militant causes a special tone of voice to people with men that desert and that love. I shall certainly not choose the moment when we are beginning to leave nihilism behind to stupidly deny the values of creation in favor of the values of humanity, or vice versa. In my mind neither one is ever separated from the other and I measure the greatness of an artist (Molière, Tolstoy, Melville) by the balance he managed to maintain between the two. Today, under the pressure of events, we are obliged to transport that tension into our lives likewise. This is why so many artists, bending under the burden, take refuge in the ivory tower or, conversely, in the social church. But as for me, I see in both choices a like act of resignation. We must simultaneously serve suffering and beauty. The long patience, the strength, the secret cunning such service calls for are the virtues that establish the very renascence we need.

One word more. This undertaking, I know, cannot be accomplished without dangers and bitterness. We must accept the dangers: the era of chairbound artists is over. But we must reject the bitterness. One of the temptations of the artist is to believe himself solitary, and in truth he hears this shouted at him with a certain base delight. But this is not true. He stands in the midst of all, in the same rank, neither higher nor lower, with all those who are working and struggling. His very vocation, in the face of oppression, is to open the prisons and to give a voice to the sorrows and joys of all. This is where art, against its enemies, justifies itself by proving precisely that it is no one's enemy. By itself art could probably not produce the renascence which implies justice and liberty. But without it, that renascence would be without forms and, consequently, would be nothing. Without culture, and the relative freedom it implies, society, even when perfect, is but a jungle. This is why any authentic creation is a gift to the future.”

[psychic-refugee]

I've seen posts from the past year and more so recently, blaming Jenna for "not doing enough" regarding Percy.

This is just my two cents on the issue.

I think people grossly overestimate Jenna’s influence and ability to control her brainless, rabid fans. I do not think people will be like, “oh if Jenna supports him then he must be innocent.” As far as I’m concerned, that’s just as much of a fantasy as Wenclair or Jemma happening.  

Like 90% of her fans that hate Percy have no critical thinking skills, are creepy weirdos who infantilize her and make pornographic AI “art” of her, and their ardor of her is predicated upon whatever fantasy relationship they have with her in their head or fantasy relationship she has with Emma.

They cannot be counted upon to make rational conclusions from evidence that actually exists, they rely on willful ignorance and “what if” scenarios to justify their hateful actions. We cannot assume or even reasonably expect they can be counted upon to change their minds if Jenna gives more definitive statements supporting him than she already has.

Additionally, her opinion on the matter is of no relevance. She didn’t know him nor was she present when the rumours say the alleged incidences took place. She can only speak of Percy as she knows him now. She CAN’T proclaim his innocence to something that she didn’t witness nor has anything to do with her.

Further, she does indeed have her own career to think about. She doesn’t work for him and it’s not her job to rehab the unfortunate effects of a baseless rumour on his reputation and career.

People are forgetting that not only are they friends, but they’re CO WORKERS. Things get dicey when you mix personal friendships and business.

They have to balance both worlds. Sometimes hard decisions have to be made, and people need to learn to embrace the suck.

In the end, this is Percy’s problem, and he doesn’t have the right to ask friends and coworkers to go beyond what they’re comfortable doing, nor go against professional advice, if any has been given on the matter.

I think it’s really unfair to have these expectations of Jenna and the rest of the Wednesday cast/friends.

I also want to point out that we have no evidence that Percy himself has ever asked any of his friends/coworkers to do what you all seem to expect they are obligated to do. If Percy has no such expectation, then we as fans should have no expectation, much less think we have any kind of entitlement to demand these things.

What support she has given, people need to learn to accept and be grateful for it. She’s still his friend on “socials” for whatever that’s worth to people. She hasn’t disavowed him publicly, which we’ve seen she has no issue with stating her position on important matters.

I cannot stress enough how we don’t know what goes on between them in private messaging and real life. Perhaps all the support she has for him is done in private. Privacy is their prerogative and right.

As @shiptillitsinks has stated on her post, Jenna has given support via the podcast when it first happened. As far as I’m concerned, her support has been asked and answered. She does not have to keep repeating herself.

Whatever is happening with the professional side of their relationship, such as WSSF, they know their own business best. That's all I can say on that matter.

[irithnova]

I want to uh make a post about Mongolia's relationship with his history and I guess some fandom depictions I'm uncomfortable with.

I think nations who have imperialist histories have some complex feelings around them because their entire existence, despite their immortality or perhaps God like status, is at the mercy of their people and rulers. Nations are human inventions, the identity of the nation is what it's people makes it. They didn't exactly ask to be born or to be representatives of an entire group of people - they just are. Nations are also subjects to their "bosses", like whoever is the Leader, King, Queen, Emperor, President is at the time. The extent to which nations support said ruler and how much autonomy they had under them vary from ruler to ruler, century to century. It's not always wise to conflate a nation with it's politics however it can become incredibly disingenuous and runs the risk of imperialism apologia when it's ignored entirely.

It would be silly to say my analysis of Mongolia's particular relationship with his imperialist history fully covers every nook and cranny of emotions nations have about their own imperialist histories, however by explaining Mongolia's relationship with his it allows for me to explain a few different ways I think nations may look back on imperialist pasts and also allows me to air out some grievances about Mongol Empire depictions.

First of all - I think nations operate on a different moral compass. A lot of things they do seem extremely weird to most humans - like casual and open relationships. So nation morality would be different. For example, if a nation backstabbed (or even literally stabbed) another nation 400 years ago which in turn caused a lot of destruction, depending on what has happened in those 400 years, there may not even be a grudge there. They might even be friends. And that friendship could easily be broken depending on what happens in the next 400 years. A nation who was public enemy #1 1000 years ago may be well liked in the modern day.

Me saying that nations follow a different moral code does not mean that I am trying to justify wrong doing. However as literal... Gods perhaps, of course things will be different. I think all nations are in a morally grey area, as they are primarily driven by self interest. That ensures their survival after all. I believe all nations have done right and wrong, on global scales and interpersonal scales. No one is exempt from this.

My uncomfortable feelings stem from when exceptions are made for certain nations in order to downplay their assholery because of a bias - while other nations get the same old assholery treatment. I think you see where I'm getting at. I believe it is stepping into dangerous territory when one nations asshole status or imperialist past and even present/relationship with its government is magnified to such an extent that it becomes an offensive and stereotypical depiction.

If we talk about the treatment of China for example - magnifying the crimes of the CCP to the extent where your China depiction becomes nothing more than a Sinophobic caricature. A large part of Sinophobia is the assumption that a majority or even all Chinese people are part of a CCP hivemind - any warmth or humanity stripped from them as they are painted as cold, calculating and scheming orientals, every action having some sinister intent.

This over conflation of nations with their government is often reserved for China compared to the likes of the US or Russia. Again - it is foolish to not associate the nation with its government at all or only in very small parts and can lead into tricky territory. However over conflating a nation with its government and unsavoury actions committed on the nations behalf - especially when this is done selectively, quickly becomes offensive and in many cases even racist, and shows a persons prejudices against certain groups of people.

This is where Mongolia comes in.

This racialisation of the Mongols being uniquely evil in their imperialism isn't exactly a new invention so it's not a surprise that this depiction of Mongolia being a uniquely bad or evil nation personification compared to everyone else, even to other nations who have also engaged in imperialism/nation's who's engagement in imperialist ventures are far more recent or are still actually ongoing is a theme that's prevalent in the fandom.

You could take rochu fics for example where Mongolia is portrayed as the boogeyman they bond over their hatred for even 800 years after the fact (I won't even touch upon how incredibly historically inaccurate these fics are because we'll be here all day but just know - it's bad) and Mongolia has a terrible marauding personality still. However despite more recent and even currently ongoing Russian and Chinese imperialist ventures (even historical imperialism that goes way back with China before Mongolia even existed), including Russian and Chinese imperialism that has affected and still affects Mongols in the current day they aren't depicted so disgracefully.

In fact if anything, in the 21st century, Mongolia is at the mercy of both Russia and China, but people love to pretend that that is not the current reality because they need a token one dimensional "savage" nation to contrast against the more "virtuous" or "moral" nations.

The idea that the Mongols were somehow unique in their imperialism means that in turn, everything about Mongolia and it's culture and history is seen as inherently barbarous, almost as if they predispositioned to acting "backwards."

To say that Mongolia is 100% regretful of everything or 100% regrets nothing are both rooted in the racist notion that the Mongols were uniquely bad in what the Mongol Empire did.

I'm going to be talking about Western Exceptionalism here and how it relates to my point about "over conflating a nation with its government and unsavoury actions committed on the nations behalf - especially when this is done selectively, quickly becomes offensive and in many cases even racist, and shows a persons prejudices against certain groups of people."

You might have heard of the phrase "Conquerer (if you're) from the West, barbarian (if you're from the East)." It's basically a quote which summarises Western exceptionalism. In the West, the likes of Napoleon, Alexander the Great and Charlemagne are depicted as great conquerors and shrewd military commanders. They are almost universally viewed with this lense of admiration despite the fact that these men also had pretty hefty death tolls under their belts and established Empires.

Furthermore, people are willing to be more nuanced or clinical or objective if they do choose to speak on America or England's imperialist past in historical hetalia posts and circles. Not only that, but especially with the US, his "rise to power" is often lionised. America is not painted as some sort of bloodthirsty savage even if someone has a more critical take on him, and his technological developments are often highlighted. Meanwhile Mongolia has often been portrayed as a mindless brute, his people a faceless horde, and whatever advancements that the Mongol Empire accomplished are downplayed or downright ignored in order to fit the "Mongol barbarian" narrative.

As touched upon previously, the depiction of Mongolia that he regrets nothing often results in extremely racist depictions. Of course he has regrets - literally every nation does.

As a whole do I think Mongolia regrets the Mongol Empire? No. But there are certainly aspects of it that he finds regrettable.

I personally think a majority of nations who have had imperialist histories don't 100% regret it or at least aren't prostrating themselves begging for forgiveness over it - so no he's not unique in that aspect at all.

We need to remember that without Chinggis Khaan/the formation of the Mongol Empire, there would be no "Mongolia" as we know it or "Mongolians" as we know them. They essentially would have been another obscure group recorded a few times in Chinese chronicles and given little attention. He is essentially their founding father .

When I say that as a whole that Mongolia does not regret the Mongol Empire, that does not mean that I think that when he remembers those days, he gets a huge fucking boner thinking about how many people died under the Empire and that's the source of his happiness when he looks back. Mongolia's pride and fondness of his past is less to do with the death toll (despite what offensive fandom depictions and racists would lead you to believe) and more to do with what he was able to achieve at the time - this is not dissimilar to how other nations with Imperialist histories remember it.

For example, in England, Winston Churchill is almost venerated for his leadership during World War 2. A majority of British people don't celebrate Churchill because he was a raging racist who purposefully starved 3.8 million people in Bengal to death (that's not me justifying the insane Churchill worship that they participate in though), but celebrate him because of - again, his leadership during World War 2. Similarly, Mongolia/Mongolians don't celebrate Chinggis Khaan because they think his kill count was epic - but because it was Chinggis Khaan who solidified the Mongol identity and brought Mongolia onto the world stage after years of obscurity and the risk of simply being absorbed into neighbouring groups and forgotten. Just like how the US celebrates his founding fathers , Mongolia celebrates his own.

Mongolians are said to be a proud people - especially of their history. I mean they have a huge Chinggis Khaan statue for a reason. While I don't think Mongolia is always living in the past, he definitely remembers those times fondly. To regret it and prostate himself begging for forgiveness over it would essentially be him regretting the fact he's alive. What he was able to achieve was undeniably impressive - from a relatively obscure group of people surrounded by much more powerful and threatening neighbours and at risk of being absorbed to forming a strong, consolidated identity and creating the largest Empire to ever exist (before the rise of the British empire much later on. Sorry Mongolia you're number 2 how).

Does he think about the death toll? At times, yes. But like all nations with imperialist histories or even all nations who have been in conflicts - while he acknowledges it, there is little emotional investment in it. He doesn't look back at it in bloodthirsty pleasure but he also doesn't break down in hysterics. Perhaps it's turning a blind eye, sure. But again. Nations operate on a different moral code. And maybe it's even self preservation to an extent. If all nations dwelled on the numbers who died under them, they'd surely go mad.

I remember seeing a pretty funny comment on the r/Mongolia subreddit and it essentially went:

Did they deserve it? No

But are we proud of it? Yes

I think Mongolia agrees that yeah a lot of those people who died under his empire didn't exactly "deserve" it, but views it as a sort of necessary evil. And I think we need to remember that nations are not humans so nation morality is not going to be identical to human morality. This "necessary evil" mindset is a view that I think a majority of nations have when remembering a majority of the conflicts they participated in.

For example, with the destruction of the Khwarazmian Empire, sure, Mongolia isn't going to sit there and say "those kids deserved it", but he will say that it was something of a necessary evil, because Muhammad II (the ruler) decided to decapitate his envoys for no good reason despite agreeing to a peace treaty/trade agreement with the Mongols shortly before this. He'd give similar explanations for other scenarios. None of the explanations include "I did it because I just needed to kill 100,000 more people to reach my kill count goals."

This is not the only explanation he'll give. There are also instances where he will admit that yeah that was unprovoked or that was kind of shitty and I think that he owns it. Not own it as in "I'm proud of it I loved killing them" nor as in "wow I'm so irredeemable please forgive me", but he's pretty frank about it happening and won't deny it if someone asks. This is a pretty common mindset I've seen with Mongolians, they're not exactly in denial of what bad things took place during the Mongol Empire but it doesn't make them any less proud of what was accomplished.

And of course he does have regrets/ looks back and find things regrettable - as all nations do. I do think he is sore about certain things. An example of something that he thinks is regrettable was the burning of the House of Wisdom during the siege of Baghdad in 1258. There were perhaps certain cities that he would have actually liked to preserve but regrettably they weren't kept in tact. He thinks that perhaps the number of casualties could have been lower had X or Y not happened.

An example of something that I think he wholeheartedly regrets (while not to do with his empire but also in the past) was the Zhungar genocide. This regret over what happened with the Zhungars/Oirats (another Mongolic people) is a common sentiment amongst Mongolians and is quite a sore topic when discussed. This is despite the fact that Mongolia and the Oirat confederations were constantly at each others throats.

Mongolia is not unique in how he views his empire or imperialist ventures. It's pretty typical of how most nations with imperialist pasts handle it if you ask me. "I don't regret it entirely, however there are things about it I certainly find regrettable or unsavoury.", "It was something of a necessary evil, me and another kingdom were fighting over a piece of land so of course people were killed in the process", "I wholeheartedly regret this and wish it never happened."

The mindset and emotions depends on the conflicts, what happened, they circumstances surrounding them, the aftermath. Maybe nations are unjustified or even hypocritical in being upset about one conflicts destruction while pretty much turning a blind eye to another - I think a lot of them are somewhat aware of this themselves. However nothing about nations really makes sense. Perhaps nations need not question their actions.

What I'm saying this: No I don't think Mongolia is particularly unique in the way he views his imperialist history and I'm kind of tired of Mongolia being portrayed as uniquely evil because of his empire 800 years ago whereas nations such as the US and Germany are viewed much more favourably and conflated far less with government decisions and atrocities despite them being far more recent. It just shows me the way in which you view Mongolians, and it's not pretty.

Anyways other thoughts: No Mongolia isn't constantly thinking about his empire and I don't think he's emo about it. It is a source of pride and well there are lots of tributes to Chinggis Khaan around Mongolia of course hahah but like... He's definitely in the here and now and isn't "stuck in the past" malding and smoking 100 cigarettes a day about how powerful he used to be I mean look at how much Mongolia politically is getting involved in the international scene. I do think he does get fed up at his government but that's not the same as being depressed or hopeless over it - I think he rarely ever feels downright hopeless because if his broke ass could become an empire I guess anything could happen, but perhaps downtrodden at times. He doesn't see much sense in wallowing in pain. Not that he hasn't done that but from an objective sense he thinks it's dumb and useless so refrains from doing so as much as possible. Unless something happens to him that's so bad he's just thrust into that state of mind or something which has admittedly happened a few times but he tries to get back up quickly I feel. Anyways yeah Mongolia 👍

[sandu7174]

Men and Women Are the Same.

🤍Reblogs are appreciated!🤍

Some of you may be wondering: “What? Men and women are the same? That’s not entirely true.” But it is. Let me explain.

Most people believe that to be a woman is to have female sex organs, developed breasts, little body hair, high-pitched voice, wide hips, more estrogen than testosterone and XX chromosomes and that to be a man is to have male sex organs, no breasts, moderate to large amount of body hair, deep voice, narrow hips, more testosterone and estrogen and XY chromosomes, to name a few key features. And even though most men and women exhibit their respective typical gendered traits, it’s not the case for everyone.

This is proven by the existence of intersex and transgender people, which also proves that neither sex nor gender is binary. There are plenty of women (cis and trans) who have one or more of the traits exhibited by the typical man and vice versa. There are also plenty of people who blur the lines between what a typical biological male is and what a typical biological female is, be it that they were born with certain ambiguous traits (intersexuality) or got them later in life (medical transition). And even though certain types of traits are associated with a certain gender, the fact that those same traits can be found in people of other genders means that those differences are irrelevant. With regard to equality and dignity, those differences would be irrelevant either way.

Don’t get me wrong, when I say that men and women are the same, I do not mean that everyone should be or is bisexual and nonbinary or whatever. I am not here to dictate people’s personal sexual and romantic preferences and gender identities. I also don’t mean that everyone should receive the exact same resources regardless of their sex or gender, I don’t think cis men should be going to see a gynaecologist or that cis women should be getting a prostate exam etc. What I actually mean when I say that men and women are the same is that we shouldn’t decide how we treat someone based on their sex or gender. Even though there are a lot of cultural and societal complications when it comes to sex and gender, it doesn’t justify unequal treatment of people.

Including nipples. Which is what my artwork emphasizes. Topfreedom is an important part of the feminist movement that is often ignored and brushed away like it is somehow irrational and unnecessary. What REALLY is irrational and unnecessary is the fact that cisgender men can have bigger breasts than many cis women (see: fat men and gynecomastia), and yet those same cis women are still the ones who get censored, sexualised, banned and harassed simply for daring to do what men have been doing for 100 years, and that PROVES that topfree inequality is actually not about breasts at all; it’s about misogyny and oppression.

There certainly are some physical differences when we compare the average man and the average woman (note: AVERAGE, many people are not average); hormonal differences, cultural differences, genital differences etc. But when we look past all that onto the actually meaningful difference? There is none. Gender is a social construct, and while that doesn’t mean that gender doesn’t exist (it evidently does exist as a social construct in our society in which social constructs reside), it does mean that gender is completely and utterly meaningless. It has no purpose other than to let us identify ourselves within arbitrary standards. And it’s often used as an excuse to harass and oppress people, which is what sexism is.

The breasts of female-presenting people are not sexual organs. They’re just not. They develop to feed babies, and that’s it. Men looked at female breasts and decided they were sexually explicit, leading to the widespread practice of treating female nipples as taboo. That’s not right! It’s cruel and it doesn’t reflect the idea of what a fair society is at all.

It’s time we fight back and spread the joyful, powerful and freeing message of gender diversity, inclusivity and equality.

[museofthepyre]

Did a fun Q&A thing on insta about my ocs, here are the highlights, lore and shit! For context I am writing this into a horror-ish book as we speak. Brewing my dastardly schemes (gay tragedy).

Q: Is Eden also a cannibal?

A: Eden isn't a cannibal in the way Harlow is. I mean he eats people but only because Harlow's cooking is too good to turn down /hj. Eden's thing is... kinda the opposite.

He's slowly being consumed by the rot that's festering within him, a manifestation of hatred and shame. To him love is consumption, and he is inedible. Insert vulture metaphor here w Harlow. For every rotting corpse there is a very greatful vulture who will look past the decay, and see your worth. Eden is ultimately finished off by something that loves him, a consumptive love, unconditional and indiscriminate.

Q: ABOUT THE ROT, HOW DOES IT WORK? HOW IS IT AFFECTING HIM??

A: This rot is really the only story element that isn't totally grounded in reality. It's an illness that's a manifestation of his self hatred/ repression/ internalized shame- not an actual condition.

It appears at first like it just affects his chest- but it’s been slowly burrowing deep into his body. Its spreading like roots/ mycillium through his flesh and will finish him off in one foul swoop once it's finished spreading.

In the meantime, it manifests like a chronic illness- his muscles are all atrophied and he feels constantly drained of life. It's taking small pieces of flesh to sustain itself while it spreads (the chest cavity is the result of that-though the REAL damage is invisible. It's the ticking time bomb roots beneath the seemingly unaffected surface). It functions like a slow acting Chronic Wasting Disease (aka zombie deer disease, humans can't get it in reality, but it was the inspiration)

Q: What happened when Harlow discovered Eden was a guy

A: Eden is trans, and closeted in his life. Harlow is the first person he ever discusses his truth with.

At first, Harlow was just kinda... confused? Transness is not a concept he was familiar with. At ALL. The idea alone was completely unheard of to him. Again this is the Bible Belt in the 8os, the area so rarely encountered visible transness- trans people existed of course, but so many stayed hidden to survive. The roaring tre of bigotry did not have much tuel in that regard... no trans people to propagandize against. It was not on the public's vitriolic radar. In that way, Harlow hadn't developed the knee-jerk reaction of hatred... he was more fascinated than anything, but it did challenge him to understand at first.

Unlike his journey with accepting homosexuality this was not so much a task of unlearning as it was just... learning.

Also Eden's whole rotting thing adds another layer to this Harlow is stupid and takes everything VERY literally- he thought Eden's condition must be divinely brought.

Harlow saw a gift from God, a rare flower planted in inhospitable soil, wilting before it ever got the chance to bloom. Like the angels sent to Sodom and Gamorrah in human disguises, to test the townspeople's virtue. To present them with something foreign yet beautiful, to judge their inherent goodness based on how they treat it. Like in the biblical story, the townspeople were so vile and inhospitable that it endangered the angels and forced them to leave, burning down the town behind them. Harlow saw this as prophecy. He was eager to get to the “burning down the town” part.

Part of my motivation for incorporating that specific biblical story is SPITE btw since so many people use it to justify homophobia. Reverse uno idiots. I'm putting you in my GAY BOOK as a metaphor for hateful queerphobic societies.HA!

Q: Describe the rot in Eden's chest in sensory detail (texture smell “cause" etc) I want rot details!!

A: I used CWD and necrotizing fasciitis as building blocks for this thing... starts in the brain, spreads like roots through the body, eating away at muscle and skin as it does. Once it's fully spread, it'd rapidly worsten and bring death within a matter of hours.

In the meantime it sustains itself off of non-fatal bits of flesh (his chest here, since it's a manifestation of self hatred and all, and dysphoria is a bitch). It is an open wound so it'd feel scabby and it is perpetually weeping... which is how Harlow finds out about it so quickly (seeps through white nightgown after being left unbandaged for a few nights). He would also have to take care to hide the smell of decay

It advances throughout the story and by the end there's barely any soft tissue left on his chest, nothing alive anyways. The final overtake begins, and his organs enter the early stages of consumption (which happens very rapidly in one foul swoop). That's when they decide it's time for boy dinner!

Q: How smart are they

A: GREAT QUESTION! HARLOW IS FUCKING STUPID. LIKE not only does he lack emotional intelligence entirely, but he's also very impulsive and reckless. The ONLY reason he's getting away with his murders is because the society around him has shot itself in the foot with its homophobia. Noooobody is suspicious of him for the string of missing attractive dudes. They're looking for a "vengeful woman" profile, or possibly a "debt collector with many social connections" or something. Not some solitary redneck who barely shows his face in town and is very polite and quiet when he does. He appears, in all respects, like a normal guy in public.

Once they have mutual blackmail (and also start caring about each other)... Eden realizes that if Harlow gets caught, he's fucked too. So partially for the sake of self-preservation, and... partially out of pity for this stupid stupid man... Eden starts to help him cover up.

Harlow is pretty disillusioned as to how society functions as a whole, since he grew up pretty far from it. Eden is the opposite, he was suffocated by it and learned how to be sneaky as a result. Eden is very good at getting people to trust him, he's good at lying, he's good at acting. Thing is, he's overly trusting to his own detriment. He's desperate for genuine connection and easily deceived himself. He's bad at reading people.

Q: What happened to Harlow's mom?

A: Harlow's mother died due to complications during childbirth. He never had a maternal figure in his life, he was raised as an only child by his father, who had become calloused and would never remarry. Harlow dropped out of high school and kept to himself at his house/ in nature after that very isolated from society. Considering all this... he not only lacked a maternal figure, but any female influence... at all. Which manifested as this warped and idolized understanding of women as a whole

He thought of women in a very high and almost mystified regard- like how a child would imagine a mythical creature. One massive blank filled in by a clueless imagination. He respected them greatly, he feared them like gods, and he felt a need to repent to them as such. He never properly processed the guilt he felt over his mothers death-largely thanks to his father's handling of it. This guilt left him feeling indebted, like he owed the world for what he “took", like if he ever so much as inconvenienced another woman it would be an irredeemable sin.

This all sounds like it comes from a good place, but it's really all just deluded naivety this is not a positive trait of Harlow's. It contributed a lot to his toxic masculinity, the pressure he put on himself to "be a man", etc.

He's not a white knight, he's a cowardly dog.

This is why he didn't just kill Eden on the spot after being caught, he needed to make sure...)

MORE TO COME IM SURE I LOVE GETTING QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE FREAKS IF ANYONE HERE HAS ANY

[linkspooky]

You've written about Overhaul in the past. Any tips on writing him accurately?

Overhaul's actually one of the most complex villains in the story that's not a part of the league of villains, however since he's pretty unlikable and has mostly negative and unsavory character traits he's not discussed as often. However when it comes to writing him, there's a lot of rich material to mine here.

So my starting point whenever trying to write a character and make them as in-character as possible, is to figure out what the author intended for them in story. What role are they supposed to play? What function do they serve? In my opinion, Chisaki was an attempt by Horikoshi to twist a lot of traditional "good guy" traits into a villainous character that the audience would despise.

One of my biggest ways of doing this is to compare them to other characters, especially haracters who aren't given as much screentime because there are lots of cogs in a story and often the purpose of one character is to highlight a personality trait in another character because they share it.

Now I'm going to explain Chisaki's characterization by comparing them to another character, but here's the curveball here: I'm not going to use Shigaraki. Because I can explain it real quick with Shigaraki, the purpose of Chisaki is to show how Shigaraki's leadership differs from Chisaki because Shigaraki sees his allies as more than just pawns to be utilized. However, to come to understand why Chisaki wholeheartedly believes that everyone exists to be used thoroughly to further his own ends, we're going to look at a different character.

Hawks and Chisaki are both bird-themed. They are both orphans who were taken in by an organization at a young age, Chisaki by the Yakuza and Hawks by the hero commission. They are both also extremely fanatically loyal to that organization and do everything possible to ensure that organizations survival, in part because they feel they have to repay being taken in.

They are both characters who were introduced to the league of villains, trusted by Twice, only to turn around and kill a member of the league. For Hawks it was literally Twice himself he killed. They were also initially presented as cooperating with the league, but when they reveal their true colors it shows how they view people in stark contrast to how the league views and treats it's own members. Which like, Hawks does not come out looking pretty in the comparison.

Hawks doesn't actively abuse children so he has that over overhaul, but he does drag them onto battlefields that are basically an active warzone where the villains are fighting to kill. Which means that much like Overhaul, he tends to treat children the way he was treated: Ie, weaponizing them.

If you are familiar with Hawks mindset, "I am a pawn, so therefore everyone else is a pawn that I can maneuver around to obtain my objective" then it's easy to extrapolate the same onto Chisaki. Hawks talks about dirtying his hands, Chisaki is literally a germaphobe who has panic attacks if he gets blood on his hands (I'm exaggerating only slightly).

Chisaki is introduced with a deep psychological need to stay clean and avoid everything he considers filth, dirty, or diseased a rampant paranoia of his which spreads to his hatred of quirks. We never get the reason why Chisaki hates quirks, besides the fact that the advent of heroes threatened his home in the Yakuza, but if we're going to extrapolate here it's probably due to the grotesque nature of his own quirk. He literally targets Eri because their quirks are similiar and he finds hers to be incredibly disgusting, and justifies his abuse of her with that logic.

My pet theory is that he was either abandoned by his parents because of hsi quirk, or that he was taken in by AFO at some point and deliberately targeted by his quirk like Toya was (people have pointed out that the wallpaper here and the children playing int he background resemble the house that Toya was taken to).

So, what we get here is Chisaki hates quirks, and he likely hates his own quirk possibly because of how he was treated in childhood because of it. He was definitely exploited by the same man who took him in due to that quirk, considering the fact he's a yakuza enforcer and has probably been committing violent crime since childhood. Once again, a Hawks trait, to be born with a prodigious quirk and yet find that quirk incredibly filthy.

Hawks and Chisaki are a study in how characters can be painted to have "good guy" and "bad guy" traits, when really they're only being painted that way because of circumstances or surroudnings. Hawks in a lot of ways acts the same as Chisaki, he just happens to be manipulating people for the heroes, not to restore the Yakuza. Chisaki values no one, everyone including his childhood friend, the people he takes in off the streets, are pawns to be utilized by the best of their aiblity. He even tries to teach Shigaraki to play Shogi (Shigaraki not knowing how to play probably signifying how much he views people differently).

So, Chisaki's willing to utilize everyone around him in service of a goal, the worth they have is to how he can use them to benefit his larger goal in mind and he's got no qualms about it.

Villainous trait, villainous trait, you say but Hawks does the same thing basically maneuvering everyone on the battlefield in the first and second wars the way Chisaki does, he just does it for an entirely different goal. He's even willing to personally betray and mutilate someone who trusted him in order to achieve that goal. Chisaki's point of no return is him completely massacring Nemoto in order to fuse with him when the tables started to turn against him in his fight against the hero. Hawks stabs Twice in the back in order to prevent him from using his quirk to stop the raid. In both cases it's a personal betrayal of someone who was good to them and trusted them.

You could say Hawks did it for the greater good, but for CHisaki who only knows his Yakzua way of life he's doing it for the survival of the only life he knows. Which is why I say they're so similiar, Hawks isn't really protecting innocent people, he's protecting his role in the hero commission. He takes what he was raised to do to the extreme.

Which is another central character trait they share, Chisaki's biggest defect is that he never, ever gives up on anything ever. A traditionally heroic trait especially in the shonen manga where the character never gives up ever, but his determination is twisted into something hideous because he has no qualms about making sacrifices to get what he wants.

Since childhood Chisaki has done absolutely everything to protect the family's dignity, to the point where it was disturbing. He never changes his mind, never backs down, even when the man he's trying to repay goes against him, but it comes from the same source as Hawks.

He believes he owes the person who took him in, and does everything he does in service of that debt.

So the last part is Chisaki's germophobia himself. Now Chisaki is a man completely divorced from his own sense of guilt who doesn't really hesitate before making heinous actions, but I wouldn't say he feels nothing,the man's clearly not mentally well. If anything I'd say his own germophobia is a metaphor for the guilt and self-loathing he feels and chooses to ignore.

He usually has breakdowns shortly after using his quirk as well. He'll absolutely brutalize people and then have a breakdown about the blood that they've gotten on him. Which suggests he you know, probably does not enjoy bloodshed in any real way. You could even compare it to Shigaraki's statement that he always feels like there's a constant sickness no matter what he destroys, which is likely his repressed guilt that AFO played off as some kind of urge to destroy, or the way Shigarki carries his hands of his family on him so he'll never forget his own self-disgust at murdering them.

Chisaki is living completely divorced from his own sense of guilt, until he's not. Once you remove him from his position of power, when he's away from the mission and forced to sit in his prison cell in tartarus he's reduced to a shambling mess that just constantly apologizes over and over to his boss and begs for the chance to see him again.

Which means that Chisaki represses all of his emotions to perform a task, and when he si not performing a task or functioning in a role he falls to pieces, because he doesn't have any sort of life except for serving in the yakuza. He's even referred to as a "gangster without a heart" because he literally has nothing else and no identity.

Chisaki's gotta be a gangster and he'll even throw a coup and put his boss in a coma for fear of losing that place in the world, because what else is there for him?

He even hates being called by his real name, much like Hawks, so his central issue is really a lack of identity because he was raised in a fishbowl with no other place to belong in the real world. Except we saw Chisaki when he was taken out of his fishbowl, and all he did was flop around like a magikarp.

As for general guidelines on his voice:

The germaphobia is a constant thing with him. Don't put your shoes in my table. Don't breathe in my direction. Hey stop bleeding on me your blood is filthy.

He talks down to people in general. He's extremely condescending with Shigaraki right off the bat, and states to his face that the only worth that Shigaraki and the League will ever have is pawns to be used as a part of his plan.

He flips between being detached, and extreme anger. Basically he's able to act cold and detached when things are going his way, and when people resist his plans or manipulations he then switches to browbeating, bullying or just otherwise lashing out in anger. If the square peg won't fit in the round hole, then just hit it harder until it does. He's cold and calculating until his calculations fail then he just brute forces it.

He's generally pretty good at negging people, he's got Eri convinced that her quirk is disgusting and she's the source of the misfortune around her. He's also got a bunch of street rats incredibly loyal to him by convincing them they can literally do no better in life than being used as a part of his plan.

He also has a softer and more polite side that only comes out in front of the boss. This is his childish side too. When he's fighting Deku and has basically lost, he flashes back to his boss patting him on the head and thanking him for protecting the family's honor. He literally just craves validation from the closest thing he has to a father figure. He'll go to any lengths to get it.

In general Chisaki should be disturbingly inhuman too, not just in his actions, but in his rationale and how far he can go and how little he considers other people in the equation. Even his own childhood friend and fellow yakuza finds him to be offputting. His boss asks him point blank, "What are humans to you?"

Basically, he's creepy, weird, anti-social, uses everyone around him, and is also completely divorced from his own feelings and sense of guilt which lets him run roughshod over other people's feelings.

So, y'know. Hawks.

Except Hawks puts on a charming and likable personality, whereas Chisaki's personality is having no personality.

[esyra]

Insinuating Hamas are going to just willingly give themselves up to Israeli police to be tried in court for Oct 7? That seems unrealistic at this juncture.

Yes, captured Hamas criminals can and should be trialed like the Nazis were trialed.

The rest will be judged by their God.

This is no longer criminality, Hamas is an existential threat. This is not retaliation, it is kill or be killed.

Otherwise this is what Hamas has promised, hear it from their own mouth, don't take my word for it:

https://www.memri.org/tv/hamas-official-ghazi-hamad-we-will-repeat-october-seven-until-israel-annihilated-victims-everything-we-do-justified

I'm sorry, do you live in a society? Do you know how the law system works? Does anyone willingly gives themselves up? Doesn't the United States has a mass shooter on the loose? Is he gonna give himself up? Walk up to the court and say, "Let's start this"? Wait, I have a better idea: let's bomb the State in which he was born until he comes out! Now that's a great idea.

No, genuinely. Did you read what you wrote?

I'm gonna finish this up saying Memri TV is used as a joke by actual Arabs and Arabic-speaking people because:

1. They're always mistranslating and decontextualizing information;

2. Memri was founded by a former Israeli intelligence officer and an Israeli political scientist;

3. Both of them are strongly connected to Likud, Israel's far-right party;

4. They're sometimes really funny, like "by Allah behave yourself, I will give you a taste of my shoe" is a classic!

I'm not being able to access the link (I don't know why, it doesn't seem it's missing a part but it's not loading) but if that's part of his recent interview for Lebanese television then, Memri as always mistranslated bits. Overall, the interview was about him saying that al-Qassam will continue fighting against Israel's occupation, that they won't stop until they're free from Zionist oppression and "treacherous Christianism" — likely in reference to Christians cheering on Israel's actions, which goes against Christ's learnings that Islam also believes in. What he did said about October 7 is the following: "We did not wanted to harm civilians, but there were complications on the ground."

But I guess "collateral damage" is only for the Americans and Israelis.

Fun fact: he also said Israel is an existential threat to Gaza's existence, and he has past and present on his side because guess who keeps suffering mass displacements and massacres every single year? Palestinian territories!

Unless you're happy to be a hypocrite, then please understand what you're saying. Both in Gaza and West Bank, Israel has consistently confiscated, robbed, harassed, dispossessed, arrested (without charges), killed and expelled Palestinians from their own homes. If you think killing is acceptable to those who are in danger, then why are you arguing with me against Hamas?

[snarky-art]

You want the collapse of a foreign country with such passion that it is frightening. It’s normal to be against war, but dreaming about the collapse of the country is already alarming. All countries have done terrible things in the past. And what is this reason to wish these countries death? Take the history of the United States, there is colonialism and the genocide of Indians. So you wish death on the United States? I’ll tell you a secret: the Arabs are also colonialists, and they destroyed the culture and identity of many peoples.

I myself want the war to end, but I don’t wish death on anyone, unlike you.

Ok I’ll answer this in good faith but this will most likely be the last one I do that with until I start clowning.

I didn’t wish death on anyone lol

I actually explicitly stated I don’t want that in my last ask.

Supporting freedom for a nation under an oppressive genocidal regime does not mean wishing death, it means the opposite.

I support the Land Back movement here in the US too, along with multiple other movements for social justice here too. Like yeah no shit all countries have done awful stuff. We gotta make that shit right. That isn’t a good argument and it doesn’t justify what’s happening to Palestine.

Reparations are important and I as a white person still benefit from the white supremacist ideology that is still present and active on a systemic level in the US. Power structures are an important part of the equation for this stuff.

Right now, Israel has all the systemic power over Palestine, and that’s being used to eradicate them. That’s fucked.

All my friends from there are dead and so are their families. They were just people. And they were targeted both for existing in Palestine and because they were Palestinian. One of them and her sister died going to get food that was laid out as a trap to lure them there. The other in his sleep when bombs fell on him and his siblings in tents. The other bled out after his legs got caught under rubble and his legs had to be amputated, without anesthesia too. The other starved to death. This was after she lost what was left of her family because the hospital where her little brother, her only remaining family, was recovering from losing his eye and ear and suffering severe burns on the left half of his body from a fire started by a bomb, was also bombed.

Israel does not need to be bombing hospitals in the name of their safety. That do not need to continue over 75 years of genocide for their state to exist. They do not need to continue forced sterilization and ethnic cleansing for their state to exist.

You will never convince me genocide is ok.

Also, for future reference, Native American, Indigenous Peoples, First Narions, or the name of the tribe/cultural group for the person you’re talking about is preferred also for Indigenous US groups. Indians are from India.

Free Palestine🇵🇸🇵🇸🇵🇸

[cyle]

Hi Cyle, so Tumblr has something like 600 million blogs in total. I'm wondering whether the costs of hosting so many blogs is an issue & whether it'll systematically delete them like how Flickr was gonna delete a bunch of photos at some point cuz of server costs or something. Because the main reason I use Tumblr is to dig through archives, so that would be a bummer.

I love rediscovering the past here, Tumblr is absolutely teaming with dormant blogs, aesthetics from late 2000s and early 2010s, it's the most wonderful thing to me, rediscovering those ancient posts like I'm wandering through an abandoned library in the middle of a forest. I vaguely remember some talk about a "time machine" feature, so that gives me hope that the dormant blogs are here to stay.

Expanding on the time machine thing, how would that be implemented? Maybe like a date configuration on the dashboard and the ability to see old blogs and posts and hashtags and whatever else as if they were new and active depending on how far back you set your date. Would be great for getting the dormant stuff back into circulation. Maybe if this is well thought through and implemented practically and functionally, Tumblr will become the first platform to not actually be bound by time, by the present moment. So it can exist in any time in history, all the way back till it's inception in 2007. different users interacting in different time periods at the same time.

Maybe that would be confusing but I can sort of see it working, again if it's implemented well. Because there's just so much history on this platform. And it's famous for having old posts circulate now and then with the reblogs.

And another point... It wouldn't be limited to the number of posts today, cuz there would be "new" posts happening in all the other dates too. So there would be way more "new" posts for users to interact with. I think we might need parallel timelines. Or not! Just add more and more new posts to the old time periods when you've set your Tumblr time machine to that date. Ahhh it's a work in progress in my mind but talking about it makes me genuinely excited and hopeful haha.

I'll explain it more comprehensively if it's a point of interest for the team (this is just a 3am brainstorm). Because it could have some genuine benefits in making Tumblr feel more alive and bigger as a platform - like how it used to be. It is very much alive now because it does still have and always has had a great community. but a time machine might blow that up to astronomical proportions. All diff communities from across Tumblr history at the same time. After all "2014 tumblr" is probably the most used phrase that includes Tumblr in it. But Pre 2010 Tumblr was something else altogether.

Would love to hear your thoughts on this and any info u feel like dumping about the whole server cost query for the 600 million-ish blogs and how you manage them. Kind regards ^^

hey, long ask!

we have been experimenting with a new recommendation source of posts we’re calling “evergreen posts” which tries to surface great posts from tumblr’s whole history. you may see some in the For You tab.

having an actual “time machine” to go to specific times at tumblr is kind of already possible as a hack of the max post ID in the dashboard URL if you have “endless scrolling” disabled on web.

we could make that more of an obvious actual feature but i don’t think enough people would want to use it to justify the cost. neat hack day idea tho! someone did make a search time machine once for hack day.