#negative engagement and positive engagement are different things. engagement is engagement. so most Good

[bitchfitch]

I may have just convinced my shrink to start using Tumblr.

[saintsenara]

Thoughts on Ron and Hermione as a ship?

thank you very much for the ask, @thesilverstarling!

i’ll state my position straight away: book ron and hermione are the best of the canon couples.

they will have a long and extremely happy marriage made rich by great and stalwart love, lust, fun, and faithfulness, rather than held together by duty and couples’ therapy like so many readers and authors (including jkr, who seems to have decided to spend the years since the conclusion of the series failing to understand anything about her own characters) tend to think.

i will state another position straight away: lest i seem like i’m just a fan with blinkers on, i think this even though hermione is, by far, my least favourite member of the trio. if she were real i would detest her, and i dislike how she is treated by the narrative as always justified in her negative characteristics. i like fanon hermione - perfect and preternaturally good - even less.

as a result, i think that it’s ridiculous that jkr has said that she thought ron needed to ‘become worthy’ of hermione. they belong together as equals - which is what they’re set up in the narrative as being from the off - and i hate seeing that undermined.

because ronald weasley? he’s an icon. and he doesn’t get anywhere near the respect he deserves in fandom.

there are multiple reasons for this - ron’s narrative purpose is to be the everyman sidekick, and so he is able to be less special than harry or hermione (the helper-figure); the amount of aristocracy wank in this fandom means that the weasleys’ ordinariness is less appealing to writers than making harry have twenty different lordships and call himself hadrian; the narrative interrogates ron’s flaws - especially his capacity for jealousy - much more intensively than it interrogates either hermione’s (cruel, inflexible, meddling) or harry’s (reckless, self-absorbed, judgemental) - but one i feel is particularly significant is that ron is such a british character that many of his traits are not understood as intended by non-british readers.

in particular - as is outlined in this excellent meta by @whinlatter - ron’s sense of humour isn’t indicative of immaturity or a lack of seriousness, but is, in fact, evidence that he’s the most emotionally aware of the trio.

ron is shown throughout the series to understand how both harry and hermione need to have their emotions approached - and i think there is no piece of writing which says this better than crocodile heart by @floreatcastellumposts:

That was what she liked most about Ron, she thought vaguely. He was very good at being suitably outraged on your behalf. For Harry, for her, for Neville. That sort of thing mattered, when you were hurt or embarrassed or wronged in some way. You needed to have someone else on your side, to be as emotional as you felt, maybe even more so, so that you might feel a bit more normal. It was very decent of him, and she was not sure he realised he did it.

ron’s inherent emotional awareness is an enormous source of comfort to other people. he does the work which isn’t flashy or special - he makes tea and tells jokes and is just there - but which is needed in healthy human relationships far more frequently than a willingness to fight to the death for the other person.

[as an aside, this normality - even though i think it is assumed rather than justified by the text - is also what ginny provides for harry. if you believe that hinny are a good couple but romione aren’t… i can’t help you.]

but let’s look at some specific reasons why ron and hermione belong together:

their communication styles mesh perfectly. ron is the only person hermione knows who feeds her love of being challenged and debated, and who is able to engage in this way of communicating without becoming irate when she refuses to back down. ron is good at picking his battles, but he’s also good at recognising that hermione’s tendency to argue isn’t intended to be confrontational a lot of the time - it’s just the way she works through feelings and problems. he’s far more easy-going about her tendency to nag, interrupt, try to provoke arguments, or speak condescendingly than he’s given credit for - and hermione evidently respects this, since when he does tell her not to push a situation (above all, when she’s trying to needle harry into talking about sirius), she listens to him.

that ron and hermione’s tendency to bicker is taken by fans to be a bad thing is because it’s something harry - from whose perspective the narrative is written - doesn’t understand. harry is extremely conflict-avoidant - he tends to take being pushed on views and opinions he has to be insulting; and he has a tendency to assume that he is right which is just as profound as hermione’s. he and ginny communicate not by debating, but by ginny having no time for his rigidity and refusing to indulge it - but ron and hermione bickering about everything is not a negative thing within their specific emotional dynamic.

[as another aside, this glaring chasm in communication styles is why harry and hermione would be a disaster as a couple.]

they each provide validation the other needs. it’s clear - reading between the lines - that hermione is a tremendously lonely person. the friendlessness of her initial few weeks at hogwarts seems to be a continuation of her experience as a child, and - outside of ron and harry - that friendlessness endures through her schooldays. i’m always struck, for example, by the fact that, when she falls out with ron in prisoner of azkaban, she has no-one else to spend time with, and that this is only avoided in half-blood prince because harry decides not to freeze her out. i don’t think her friendship with ginny is anywhere near as close as fanon seems to imply (ginny has no interest in being nagged either), nor do i think that she’s anywhere near as close to neville (not least because she is so condescending to him) as she’s often written to be.

and this loneliness seems to stretch beyond hogwarts. the absence of hermione’s parents’ from the narrative is - in a doylist sense - clearly just a device to maximise time with the trio all together, but the watsonian reading is that she doesn’t have a particularly good relationship with them. hermione’s obviously upper-middle-class background - the name! the skiing! the holidays in the south of france! - can be presumed, i think, to come with a series of expectations from her parents which she feels constantly that she’s not entirely meeting, particularly expectations attached to academic success.

[for example, the grangers - were she a muggle child - would undoubtedly have ambitions for her to attend an elite university and then go into a prestigious career. tertiary education of the type that they’re familiar with doesn’t seem to exist in the wizarding world - most careers seem to be taught by apprenticeship - and this, alongside all the other divides between the magical and muggle worlds which contribute to the distance between them, would be one very obvious area in which she felt the need to prove herself to them.]

ron, too, has quite a difficult relationship with his position in the family - voldemort’s locket is not wrong to point out that he seems to receive considerably less of his mother’s emotional attention than ginny or the rest of his brothers - and he too is constrained by expectations which he doesn’t know how to explain he has no interest in - above all, molly’s desire for her sons to achieve top grades and go into the ministry.

he also suffers while at hogwarts from being ‘harry potter’s best friend’, something which harry never appreciates. but hermione does. she recognises ron’s jealousy and never allows harry to minimise it (and she and ron are very much aligned on having no respect for harry’s saviour and martyr complexes). she appreciates ron’s strengths - above all his kindness and his sense of humour - and makes him feel as though he’s achieved things with them. and ron does the same for her; he is hugely observant when it comes to her, and he challenges and defends her.

the two of them clearly spend a lot of time together one-on-one while harry’s involved in his various shenanigans (including outside of school - hermione has often arrived at the burrow days or even weeks before harry, and they seem to write to each other frequently when apart). they do this within a relationship which is fundamentally equal. one issue with hinny is that, post-war, harry is going to have to get used to seeing ginny as a peer, rather than as someone he has to protect. but ron and hermione never have that issue - equality is baked into their relationship from the off.

because, to be quite frank, fandom overstates the role that jealousy plays in their relationship. it’s true that ron certainly doesn’t acquit himself brilliantly when it comes to hermione’s relationship with viktor krum (it’s because he’s bi and doesn’t know it yet), and a tendency to externalise his insecurity into trying to make others also feel insecure is one of his primary negative traits (hermione does this too, via her patented lofty voice when she’s trying to condescend to people). but this is often taken as the initial red flag for how the relationship would crash and burn, and ron’s toxic jealousy is often used in fan-fiction as the trigger for emotional and physical violence towards hermione which, frequently, seems to drive her into the arms of either draco malfoy or severus snape… who are, of course, the first people we think of when we hear the words ‘not prone to jealousy’...

but i think it’s important to point out several things in defence of ron’s jealousy over krum. firstly, hermione evidently regards his jealousy as ridiculous - she’s upset by it, yes, but her upset must be understood as being caused by the fact that she wanted him to ask her out. she doesn’t think he’s being possessive, she thinks he’s being stupid. secondly, hermione is equally as jealous over ron’s crush on fleur delacour and relationship with lavender brown. she behaves just as cruelly when it comes to lavender as ron does when it comes to krum - and the narrative only treats her actions as more sympathetic or justified both because harry dislikes lavender too, and because, by that point in the series, jkr has dispensed with any inclination to ever criticise her.

but, outside of this teenage pettiness, ron is never jealous of hermione over things which matter. he is never jealous of her intelligence or competence or ambition or success (indeed, he defends her constantly from attacks designed to undermine her in these areas). for someone who struggles with being overshadowed by harry, he is never upset at being overshadowed by her. he is clearly going to be happy to support her in any of the career ambitions she can be written as having post-war.

and, on this point, i think it’s worth interrogating why so many readers still seem to feel uncomfortable with the idea of ron and hermione having a dynamic where she is the more ‘powerful’ one. [it’s always a bit trite to say ‘but what if the genders were reversed?’, but actually that’s not irrelevant here]. if hermione ends up taking the ministry by storm and ron becomes a stay-at-home father or has a job which is just to pay the bills, what, precisely, is wrong with that? why, precisely, should hermione regard ron making that choice for himself as a negative thing? hermione so often seems to leave ron in fan-fiction because of a lack of ambition - something which seems to be particularly common in dramione - but, in canon, she is shown to not particularly care if ron and harry do the bare minimum when it comes to studying etc. she nags them to do their work so they don’t get in trouble. she doesn’t nag them to do it to the same standard that she would.

and, actually, i think that ron being less ambitious than hermione is something which is key to how well they work. because ron provides not only emotional support, but emotional clarity.

hermione is shown throughout canon to - just as harry does - have a tendency to become obsessive to the detriment of her own health. she is also often - as harry is - emotionally or intellectually inflexible, and finds it hard to move on when what she feels or believes is proven to be wrong. both she and harry are micro-thinkers, who lean towards knee-jerk assumptions and stubborn convictions (and, indeed, hermione has a remarkably hagrid-ish tendency towards blind loyalty).

ron is none of these things. ron is a big-picture thinker (it’s why he’s so good at chess). he’s a pragmatist. he’s the least righteous of the three. he understands that faith and loyalty are choices, and that sometimes these choices will lead to outcomes which are bad or hard. he is the one of the three most willing to own up to having made mistakes. he is the one least likely to act on gut instinct (and, therefore, the hardest to fool - i think it’s worth emphasising that he clocks that tom riddle is tricking harry immediately, the only one of the trio to do so). he understands that things are a marathon, not a sprint. he is the least obsessive.

and these traits contribute to aspects of his character which are underappreciated. ron worries about hermione making herself ill during exams, or when she is using the time-turner, and makes an effort to get her to set healthy boundaries and redirect her anxiety. ron stands on a broken leg in front of sirius or goes into the forest to fight aragog not out of righteousness, but out of choice. ron takes over the burden of preparing buckbeak’s defence when it is clear that hermione is approaching burnout. ron is completely right that harry hasn’t done any long-term planning for the horcrux hunt, and his anger does force harry to tighten up after he leaves the trio. ron has a clear head in the middle of battle. ron makes harry and hermione laugh. ron is unafraid of human emotion. ron arrests harry’s tendency to brood over the little things by looking at the bigger picture. ron will always come back.

ron is bringing his politician wife regular cups of tea and making sure she doesn’t work all night. he is helping his lawyer wife to feel less upset over losing one case by reminding her that she’s won ten others. he is noticing stress creeping in and whirling her off for a dirty weekend, or even just a takeaway on the sofa. he is teaching his daughter to be proud of her ambition and his son to treat women as equals and both of his children that all you can do when you fuck up is apologise and try to do better. he is making hermione smile on the worst days of her life. he is helping her strategise her long-term goals when she gets stuck on the short-term ones. he is telling her straight when she needs to get it together. he is seeing a misogynistic head of department call hermione a ‘silly little girl’ and choosing to tell him exactly what he thinks of that.

ron is the ultimate wife guy. hermione is a very, very lucky lady.

[azure-cherie]

🔸Positive things people say behind your back 🔸

🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸

🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸🔸

Hello , i hope you are doing well, this is a general reading so take what resonates and leave the rest , thank you so much for letting me read your energy, engaging, commenting, reblogs and feedbacks are very appreciated and help me to get better in what i do and also help me in picking your energy better . I'd be grateful for it <3

Pile 1 :

People think you're very grateful and kind , that you have a vibe that is very hard to find , they admire how genuine you are and how when you're angry you let it out and when you're sad you let it out you don't keep it within yourself you rather accept the emotions, you don't run or supress the negative emotions but treat them like your friend . They say that you are someone who is actively healing their shadow side and they are so happy with your progress. They also consider you are a conformist and someone who is sophisticated and we'll behaved at most times . That you are genuine and have no two faced actions. They love the mole on your face and say that you can try to be a model because of your long legs. Your face glows and radiates the elegance that can win hearts and it's such a win . They would love to be friends with you they are tired of hating you.

Chanelled words & placements:

Porsche , blue berry, down to earth , new in town , old city girl , merkantilism , copper, susan, lord have mercy , Virgo 6th H , rahu 12th , Venus - mercury, asteroid hekate prominence, asteroid Vishnu prominence, chitra Nakshatra , Bharani nakshatra.

Pile 2 :

Very first thing i get is they love the way you cook , maybe you upload pictures and damn these people wanna have some. Hey call me over as well ;) , they say you're very talented and can make so many things . You don't realise right that how powerful your creativity is it brings deep realisations to people like it reminds me of a surrealist whose channelled art brought so many realisations to the people . You are a dream girl you have a very different kind of vibe , you have this sense of freshness to you that's so lovely . You're someone who can guide others and give them real advice and that's honestly so admirable, they say that they admire your choices like they really follow what you wear for example you bought some boots and then the others start buying that too you make things worth using . You're really a star

Chanelled words and placements:

You're so fine , doja cat , euphoria , gentle , tailor , mocktail , enigmatic, prophetic, lavish , mutuals , Osiris , cancer , 6th H , gemini , asteroid Persephone/proserpine prominence, Uttara Phalguni Nakshatra, moon dominance.

Pile 3 :

What people admire about you is your presence how you can light a room up and how brave you are , you can take up any responsibility and ace it. You always wanna be perfect you're a 10 and that makes you so likable , they like your lips and the lipstick you use . Your dad might be influential, you give the vibes of young money . They say how pretty you look in light colours, they love your money management skills , you're light hearted and don't take things seriously they really like that as well about you . They say that you smell good and are very keen with cleanliness which is really good . You're so fun when your walls are shed and your guard is down , they see how beyond the guard you're a very fun person. They want to take trips with you . They like how generous you are with money . Tip : don't be too selfless hold your ground .

Chanelled words and placements:

orange , marchantia, Ophelia , dancing queen , mid - day meals , cookies , medium , mindful , mediator , tip toes , fine grip, dark feminine , Saggitarius, 3H , 2H , 7H , Virgo , Aquarius , revati nakshatra.

Pile 4 :

You actually have so fine grip on people's minds , your words stay with them for a long long time , they really admire your intelligence so much, they feel like they can ask you anything and you will have an answer to it , you're like so cool , so intelligent, conversations with you never feel boring or stagnant. They admire your way of motivating people, they really love your car and your skin. Your skin is so beautiful and supple , i think you could be in the astro or tarot community as well people really admire your knowledge. Your mom wants to say she's proud and she's sorry for behaving to harsh , and your flowers that you grow in the garden feel so nurtured by you . You are divinely blessed.

Chanelled words and placements:

Dior, mirror , coquette, cute , rabbit , dancing in the dark , beauty and the best , marinate , lashes , belly dancing, Taurus , 11th H , 9th H , asteroid siren prominence, asteroid kleopatra prominence, mercury dominance Jupiter dominance.

[venvellan]

da2's arishok is a good villain. if you have a fundamental understanding of the qun and listen to his thought process, the things he does makes sense. he uses the qun to justify slaughtering kirkwall's people, which is utterly inexcusable and what makes him a villain, but his character is complex enough to make dealing with him that much more thought provoking. he sends agents to kill petrice because she was killing his people, he doesn't give up the elves because they committed their lives to the qun, no matter how recently they converted, and he refuses to leave without the tome (and isabela) because his idea of justice hasn't been done. his logic makes sense, generally, though it is wrong on more than one occasion. he isn't moral, but he is methodical.

i feel this way about solas, too. i like da2's arishok for the same reasons that initially draw people to solas, i think. when we meet them, i find them interesting and educational to talk to, someone worthy of respect, and someone very honorable in their own way. similarly, many of my issues with solas compare with flaws in the qun/the arishok.

solas asserts that all of his beliefs are correct, and we're never allowed to challenge him on any of it. if he has high enough approval, he'll approach you to go, "yknow, i thought you were all [insert prejudice or stereotype] but YOU showed me that some of you guys are actually okay," which is NOT what it looks like for someone's beliefs to be challenged.

brief aside, i want to be fair in that we don't get this opportunity with many of the companions, and it's not even an inquisition specific issue. the dialogue format is agree, joke, be mean, and it's flawed, but it works in the majority of interactions. we don't really get to engage in nuanced discussions with characters, but there are positives and negatives to the system overall. it is possible to challenge and shape a character within this dialogue system (i.e., garrus vakarian) but in dragon age that really only comes in the form of harden/unharden. it was a little more doable with origins' system, but it really hasn't been a huge part of any dragon age game. most characters' beliefs remain largely unchanged by you regardless of how you play.

solas also possesses a strong sense of duty and purpose, though what duty he has, what his true goals are, he keeps hidden as long as he can. the most damning comparison though, to me, is how willing he is to destroy the world and bring back "his people," while the qunari fight to conquer the world and homogenize society into "their people."

in any case, with both him and the arishok, you can see the wheels turning in their heads. you can see why they do what they do, even if it's wholly immoral. it makes their threat a lot more personal, a lot scarier, psychologically, that a "normal" person, who doesn't want to cause suffering, can hold such specific beliefs and such strong conviction that knowing that they'll hurt people doesn't give them any pause. the root of their motivation is understandable. solas wants to right his wrongs, at his core. the arishok implicitly believes that the qun is safer, better for its people than life outside the qun. we can see that they're taking it too far, but they don't care. it makes them good villains.

"i am not corypheus, i take no joy in this." sure, which is a very similar sentiment, emotionally, to the qunari sense of duty. you can say you don't enjoy it all you want, you're still committing genocide. you can hate the qunari all you want, but you fight with their ferocity, their unshakeable faith in their own cause. their need to "do what's right," no matter who's caught in the wake.

i understand why people like solas, i go back and forth on it myself, but i don't think he's all that different from the arishok in method and motivation. they're each thrust into a world so different from what they believe is "right" that they demand it change around them. if we had to kill the old arishok, then if solas refuses to give up, he will have to die. he doesn't get to do genocide just because he's romanceable. he's a good character, he's a good villain, but he's not a good guy, and unless he stops before he does any real harm (which he will not do), he should share the arishok's fate.

[tossawary]

Tried watching some of "Star Trek: Enterprise" during work (that's the pre-Kirk one). The emphasis on the fact that Humans and Vulcans have been acquainted for, what, 100 years or so...? Like, okay, this show is going to be about various Human and Vulcan characters learning to get along over the course of the show, I presume, so the show wants them to have a very rocky start. I get that. "Star Trek" is constructed by writers to be a vehicle for heavy-handed "why can't we all just get along" messages and always has been, and that it why it is (and I mean this both positively and negatively) Like That.

But the fact that Vulcans and Humans are apparently so poorly acquainted (and yes, obviously, this is happening in the context of potential conflict with the Klingons and Humans launching out into the rest of space, so tempers are running high) even after all this time is... somewhat amusingly nonsensical from an in-universe, more realistic perspective. It's funny.

Firstly, you'd think that a supposedly logic-based culture that prioritizes cooperation for the purpose of communal betterment (the Vulcans) would have worked out by now that Humans are not going to suddenly all take to the teachings of Surak, and so would have efficiently adjusted their rhetoric to more effectively appeal to Human perspectives. Experienced Vulcans would adapt to structure their explanations and arguments slightly differently, surely?

Like, wow, there's not a single Vulcan ambassador who has studied styles of Human argument and personally found it logical to "speak their language" a little more rather than make huffy appeals to Vulcan authority? Any Vulcan anthropologists or sociologists seeking to understand Human cultures? Realistically, there's no way that all Vulcans would agree 100% of the time on what is logical behavior and what isn't. Some Vulcans might decide that smiling puts Human colleagues at ease and do so (even if they shouldn't HAVE to, Humans shouldn't expect Vulcans to perform emotions for them), because it makes cooperation easier, which is logical.

But that's just not what the writers want here. Which is fine! They want their rocky start here. They're doing their usual "why can't we all just get along" arc, which is fine and great and I'm fond of it, even if I also personally find that "Star Trek" has been incredibly clumsy about their anti-racism stuff most of the time.

(So many shows typically have one Vulcan character regularly on the ship, rather than have, say, two Vulcans with different opinions on things in order to explore interesting discussions on cultural differences and the definitions of "logic". It makes the shows' depictions of Vulcan logic feel a little "tell, don't show" sometimes. I think it's a missed opportunity. Just as it's a missed opportunity not to put neurodivergent Human characters on a ship so aliens and androids don't have to be the stand-ins all the time.)

Anyway, secondly, you'd think that Humans would all know by now that Vulcans don't like handshakes? There's a scene where a Human tries to shake a Vulcan's hand and she ignores him, and I was like, "Okay, wow, INCREDIBLY rude to offer a Vulcan a handshake."

(Side note: I am aware that "Star Trek" repeatedly has Vulcans engage in handshakes with Humans, such as during first contact and when Spock is being introduced to Kirk in "Strange New Worlds", but it always reads to me as Vulcans choosing to go along with the gesture out of politeness. I still think it's a little rude for Humans to offer a handshake in the first place, if they can't accept a refusal with good grace. Plenty of real people across different cultures really don't like handshakes.)

And for an audience member unfamiliar with "Star Trek" and Vulcans, especially a USAmerican, the Vulcan silently refusing the handshake is going to come off as incredibly rude. I haven't watched further but I assume that this scene was intentionally written to demonstrate the issue of culture clash. Two people can deeply offend the other without fully meaning to do so. I'm guessing the Human didn't know just how rude he was being offering the handshake and that the show will elaborate on this.

But, realistically, I cannot fully suspend my disbelief that Humans and Vulcans have been acquainted for 100 years without it being common knowledge that Vulcans don't like handshakes. That would be absurd. Some Vulcan ambassador, familiarizing themselves with Human cultures, would have realized by now that it would not be offensive to inform Humans that, like many Human cultures, Vulcans do not like to make physical contact. And realistically, the Human liaisons, presumably trained diplomats who understand basic politeness and courtesy, would have been like, "We apologize for any previous offense. We didn't know. How do you prefer to be greeted? We will inform our people not to offer you handshakes again and to respectfully greet you in the manner of your preference."

I don't know if these Human characters know yet that Vulcans are touch-telepaths. The Vulcans would not have to share that information to make it politely clear that they don't like handshakes. If it IS known by Humans that Vulcans are touch-telepaths (it would be on their Future Wikipedia page), you'd think people prejudiced against Vulcans would be very aware of the telepatht and more inclined than most not to make physical contact.

Personally, realistically, I would think that any Human expected to make contact with Vulcans would have received a mandatory briefing on manners and basic cultural different. Any Human officer on a ship expected to go make contact with currently hostile KLINGONS and other known Non-Human cultures should be thoroughly educated in basic rules of interaction, for the safety of the ship if not basic civility. So, any Human officer offering a handshake to a Vulcan is either being intentionally disrespectful or is just incompetent (doesn't already know basic facts about the culture of Earth's first, longest, and closest ally) (didn't read the cultural briefing).

This happens in front of the Human captain too, so either the captain doesn't care to call out the offense and apologize (seems likely, he seems pretty hostile here so far) or didn't know it was offensive. Which is also just... stunningly unprofessional for someone who is supposed to be an ambassador for the entire planet of Earth.

And again, the episode is presumably intentionally constructed this way so that the characters can get to know each other later and learn to get along where the audience can observe them. Every single "Star Trek" show I've watched has had protagonist characters be prejudiced and even bigoted in clumsy ways that feel like they ought to be textbook cases of "What NOT To Do" in Starfleet Academy classes, so that the show can deliver basic messages about how prejudice is bad and we all have the potential for it and we can all get better. It is "Star Trek"'s whole thing. "Star Trek: Enterprise" isn't at all alone on this, because all of the shows have done this.

But my goodness is it amusing when a "Star Trek" episode presents a cultural clash problem that more realistically speaking probably would have been better settled about 100 years ago in-universe.

[olderthannetfic]

Nearly 75% of fic on AO3 has less than 5 reader comments. Can we please acknowledge that lack of engagement in a positive fashion is the norm in fandom and that writers are expected to work for nothing in return yet readers are allowed to be entitled?

The source of my number

https://www.tumblr.com/transholmes/738776926733336576/and-even-those-numbers-on-the-lower-end-are

--

Hahahahaha.

Oh, anon.

Okay, first of all, I just posted a bunch of graphs showing exactly this, so not only am I well aware of it, but you also clearly don't read my tumblr much and are just here because some friend of yours is upset that I responded negatively to them about their dumb bookmarking opinions.

Second and more importantly...

No, no one is expected to do anything.

That's crazypants influencer talk where you think your hobbies are jobs that you have no choice about doing.

I suppose I do expect fans to have something at least marginally worthwhile to say—or else I'll block them for being whiny little bitches who make my day dumber as well as less amusing.

But mostly, what I expect is that people will do hobbies because they are fun. If I ever decide that writing fic is too boring, I will stop.

I write because it's fun.

I write original work for money too, and if you want to read that, you're going to have to pay Amazon your cold, hard cash. But I still do it because I enjoy the actual act of writing... at least a lot of the time.

What I see in the bookmark boo-hooing is a bunch of people who haven't noticed the last eighty thousand rounds of this same dumb wank and who not only expect to get the last word but expect that somehow I'm going to signal boost it on my tumblr as that... a tumblr known for contentious debates and nobody ever getting the last word till everyone's exhausted and never wants to hear about paper plates or beans again.

I also see that some of the thinnest-skinned people have fic patreons.

Now, I chose not to bring this up before because it sounds a bit below the belt in that "And thus you're morally impure and thus I can ignore your argument" way... But it's a consistent pattern in these conversations over time, and I do think it's relevant. The biggest sensitive babies are always the ones most afraid of bad reviews but also low engagement, and I think it's because they're caught in some half-pro, half-not limbo where they want the best of both worlds but keep getting the worst of both.

If you behave like a professional who is owed compensation, you can expect a more professional style of response to your work.

And what does the pro world look like? Radio silence. The occasional harsh review. Nobody caring why you wanted to write X or why you couldn't finish Y on time.

If you're here to socialize, you should look for a beta or a couple of good friends who like your blorbos and your style of fic, and then you can squee together about what you've written. It may not come in the form of visible AO3 comments. It may be in private chat.

In some cases, it may just be friends you can talk to about your writing but who aren't actually going to read it. I have plenty of friends who read different things than what I write.

That's what socializing and hobbies look like, dude.

It's fine to point out that many writers do get discouraged by low comment counts and then stop, so if I, as a reader in a fandom, want more, it behooves me to befriend writers and make them feel good.

But at the same time, writers get discouraged or move on to the next fandom all the time for all kinds of reasons. If the critical mass and the zeitgeist aren't there, then they aren't.

Do your hobbies for reasons internal to you.

If the main point is external validation, get into BDSM and find someone excited to indulge your praise kink. It will work a lot better than chasing fame via art.

[pleaseeeimjustagirl]

You’re Postponing Your Dream Life

Self-sabotage behavior is the reality that a lot of us live with and it's postponing our dream lives. This post is going to be personal because I’m not just posting this for you girlies but for myself as well<3.

What is self-sabotage?

Self-sabotage is behavioral patterns and thoughts that you engage in most of the time without even realizing it. This makes it harder for you to achieve your goals. Sometimes we see this as our brain fighting against us but our brain is trying to protect us. All of these protective mechanisms (self-sabotaging behavior) were created by your brain to keep you safe from any harm. What is familiar to us our brain sees as safe and what isn’t is seen as harmful. And when you decide you’re going to change your life by starting that business, becoming an influencer, losing weight, or whatever it is your brain goes into protective mode.

What causes self-sabotaging?

♡  Childhood trauma. In your childhood trusting relationships with your caregivers/parents were broken. You might have dealt with abuse, them talking down on you, or other traumatic events. Causing you to have trust issues, low confidence, and more.

♡ Fears. You don’t believe you can make it and you’re scared of the things that you’re going to have to give up. You’re scared of people laughing at you. Or you have a fear of failure.

♡ Negative self-talk. You don’t speak to yourself kindly and are always looking down on yourself causing you to have a lack of self-esteem.

There are so many different things that could cause you to have self-sabotaging behavior. Ask yourself questions to get to the root of the issue.

Signs you’re self-sabotaging 

♡ Procrastination. You know what you have to but you keep putting off the task and saying you’ll get to it and you never do.

♡ Perfectionism. I struggle with this one a lot. You think everything has to be perfect for it to be worthwhile and if it isn’t you become frustrated and there is no point in finishing the task.

♡ Comparison. You always compare yourself to the next person and how they are successful and you are not or how they can make it and you can’t.

♡ Imposter syndrome. You don’t feel that you’re good enough to attain your dream life even though you do.

♡ Controlling. You always need to be in control of everything around you and the dream life you are chasing involves you giving up control and having to accept the unknown.

♡ Negative. You have a negative way of thinking and a scarcity mindset i’ll link my blog post on scarcity mindset read it if you deal with this.

How to overcome self-sabotage

♡ Reframe your mindset. Once you stop seeing self-sabotage as your brain fighting against you and start viewing it as trying to protect you. Then you will be able to be more compassionate and ask yourself what is going on and why you are afraid. What I do I will have a whole conversation with myself out loud asking myself what is wrong, and why I feel this way.

♡ Keeping a journal. Observe your patterns and write down all the things that keep happening and the emotions you feel. If you find yourself in the same situation ask yourself why. For example, if you are trying to lose weight but whenever you’re stressed you binge then you know high-stress situations cause you to want to binge eat now you start to find another outlet to release your emotions.

♡ Positive self-talk. Speak to yourself the way you would speak to the child version of you. Pour into that little person the way you wished others would have. Read/listen to affirmations. Focus on the things you can change and less on what you can't. Start to speak positively. In the beginning, it won’t feel real but the more you say it the more you will feel it. 

♡ Start small. Don’t just jump right into everything take everything a step at a time. We can overwhelm ourselves when we do that and whatever we are doing will start to feel like a bother/chore.

♡ Be realistic. Set realistic goals based on where you’re at right now in life. Aiming to high can create a feeling of failure and self-doubt. Set achievable goals and break them down explaining the steps you need to take to get there.

Book recommendations

♡ The Mountain Is You by Brianna Wiest I 100% recommend reading this book the author goes deeper into self-sabotaging behavior and how to overcome it. I have this book and I have been reading it and she has awoken me to a lot of my issues I didn’t know I had like my perfectionist issues. She has so many other good books that she has written!

If you have any tips please share in the comments and I am open to any request or question love you girliesss<3

[666writingcafe]

Jealousy?

MC

"Would you mind answering a question for me?" Barbatos asks me once we've exchanged pleasantries and settled down in the parlor.

"Depends on the question." A faint smile crosses his lips.

"I was just wondering how you could choose to associate yourself with Solomon." The irritation in his voice is rather evident, and I'm reminded of the staredown the two men engaged in a couple days ago.

"What do you have against him?" I sound a bit too defensive for my liking. I'm not trying to pick a fight with Barbatos; I simply want to know why he seems to detest the sorcerer so much.

He sighs before replying,

"Perhaps the version of Solomon that accompanied you here has cleaned up his act--and good for him if he has--but the one I know is fiendish, a blight upon the world, and destruction incarnate. He throws anyone he can under the bus if it meant avoiding trouble for himself. Being here for an extended period of time may cause your sorcerer to revert back to old habits, and I don't want to see you get hurt."

"Why? You hardly know me."

"You're right." He pauses. "I'm not sure, really. I mean, you seem like a good, honest person, but what do I know? Maybe you're just as bad as him, and I shouldn't have even bothered taking you under my wing." While coming from a practical place, his words do sting.

"And yet you did." Barbatos sighs again.

"And yet I did," he repeats, taking a sip of his tea. "The decision came from a gut feeling I had, and those rarely fail me. I just hope that you don't prove me wrong."

My turn to drink some tea.

I'm not used to Barbatos being this open about his emotions, especially while he's on duty. Perhaps time has granted him the ability to remain calm and composed when he's on the clock, but still. It'll be a bit before I get used to this particular attitude of his.

"Are you ready for your first lesson?" he asks, pulling me out of my head and back to the present moment. It takes me a second to remember exactly why I'm over at the castle today in the first place, but once I do, I quickly nod my head.

"Good. We'll start with a fairly basic anatomy topic: pheromones." Interesting place to start. Is he finally going to let me ask the question I had about Lucifer?

"In a lot of ways, demons bear a closer resemblance to animals than to humans," he continues. "While their strength in the latter is fairly minimal, the former uses them as a effective method of communication. Our pheromones can tell others what we're feeling as well as mark our territory, among other things.

"Demons have a baseline scent that's present no matter what they do. For example, I smell like mint, and Lord Diavolo like old leather. Different pheromones will bring out specific notes of the baseline scent. Positive emotions tend to make it sweeter, while negative emotions bring out its bitter and sour side. If those emotions are tied to one of the seven sins, then the scent becomes more potent, sometimes to the point of being nauseating to anyone that happens to catch a whiff.

"Am I making sense to you so far?" I nod my head. I don't have any questions yet, but I have a feeling that even if I did, Barbatos wouldn't let me ask any of them just yet.

"Now, Lucifer and his brothers have stayed in the castle for the last couple months, and in that time, I've picked up on all of their scents. Lucifer had one of the more pungent ones. Understandably so, since he's probably the most emotionally scarred from the war, but it got to the point where I couldn't be around him for longer than a few minutes. And making some of my favorite dishes proved to be impossible after a while, for even the smallest amount of nutmeg would make my stomach turn.

"But the moment you returned his credit card to him, Lucifer's scent noticeably shifted. For once, he actually smelled pleasant. And then it became stronger. By the time he left my side, I was craving a giant slice of coffee cake." At this point, he stops talking, allowing me to finally speak.

"So, you're telling me that my simple nice gesture was enough to turn him on?"

"It would appear that way, yes." Unbelievable. "If I pointed it out at the time, though, Solomon probably would have run after Lucifer to tease him about it, and that would most definitely piss Lucifer off. Plus, he would adamantly denied feeling that way at all, and given his initial behavior towards you, I didn't want to see you upset by him completely disregarding your kindness."

As I mull over Barbatos' words, I'm suddenly reminded of a specific moment. One where Lucifer had his mouth covered with a handkerchief, looking like he was about to throw up.

I wonder...

"If it's not too much trouble, would you mind telling me what I smell like?" I ask, causing Barbatos to smile.

"Not at all. In fact, I was just getting ready to ask you if you wanted to know, so this works out great." He sets his tea down on a nearby table and gets up, walking around and stopping behind the chair I'm sitting in. I momentarily feel part of his face on top of my head as he audibly sniffs. I'm sure that if someone walked past us right now, they'd be weirded out by what they saw.

Or maybe not. I don't know if intentionally smelling someone like this is standard demon behavior. Maybe it is, and I'm overthinking it.

"Vanilla buttercream frosting," Barbatos announces. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me. It at least explains a few things, if nothing else. Frosting can get overwhelmingly sweet.

"That might actually work," he mutters to himself as he sits back down.

"What would?" Barbatos finishes his tea before clasping his hands in front of him.

"There's a creature on the grounds that needs tamed. He's both ferocious and extremely dangerous, so Lord Diavolo had me put a spell on him to prevent anyone from coming into contact with him. If I told you how to undo the spell, would you like to take a stab at it?"

"What makes you think I'd be successful?"

"You don't smell threatening."

"No; I smell like a goddamn dessert. The creature will probably think I'm food and try to eat me."

"And if that's the case, I'll bail you out." He pauses. "There are creatures like this one that are very selective about who they will submit to, and I believe that you fit this particular one's criteria. Plus, you'll earn the title "Ruler of the Underworld", and you can use that as a way to get people to quit treating the brothers like shit." I find myself snorting in amusement.

"Like a mere title is going to make people change their entire ideology."

"People can think whatever they like. They just have to learn to keep some of those thoughts to themselves or else face severe consequences." The grin on his face is lowkey terrifying. I don't know if I want to be on the wrong end of that smile.

So, I end up agreeing to take on the responsibility of taming this creature.

Taglist: @lost-in-time-wanderer, @fuzztacular, @dianedancer18, @sweetbrier2908, @flare-love, @completelyshatteredbrokenmschf, @thunderlightning351, @l3v1chan, @anxious-chick, @5mary5, @expressionless-fr

[howlsofbloodhounds]

So glad someone else sees the weirdness of people being gross about fem body nightmare it always comes off as somewhat fetishy too bc they reduce him to just being hot

Yes! Absolutely. Seeing the weirdness not only in how nightmare is treated, but also how killer is treated! If he supposedly respects his boss, then why the hell is he drooling over him and treating him vastly different just because nightmare has tits now?

I also see this a lot with female killer or feminine killer—female killer always has huge breasts and small waist and it hardly seems like killer. Even when it’s just normal killer wanting to dress or express himself more feminine, it makes me uncomfortable when it’s done in an overly sexual manner for no reasons?

And of course nightmare and killer are adults, so there’s absolutely nothing wrong with being attracted to them or writing/drawing them in adult situations with eachother or others, it’s just that it feels very fetishized and hyper sexualized to have characters drooling over nightmare when hes just existing and also has breasts.

Even with killer as he is now, vastly hypersexualized as a character for not even any real reason either. He only flirted like once or twice in his canon drawings, clearly as a joke even and mostly because people asked rahafwabas to draw those things with killer, and yet it somehow became his entire character. Not to mention how people took “flirty” and “romantic” and immediately went “lustful creepy pervert.”

To the point where people just cant seem to let these aspects of killer’s character be just that; aspects, something interesting and fun, but not his whole entire character.

Don’t yall find it interesting to explore how a character who views themselves as emotionless and is dissociated from themselves and their actions most of the time navigates things like physical intimacy?

Especially when this character has very likely not felt any kind or comforting touch that wasn’t just a way to keep him further manipulated and controlled? How his experiences with abuse and torture and control have become so normalized it taints every aspect of his life, from the ideas of consent to the idea of boundaries.

Can he even feel much sensation that is too gentle, would it send him reeling in discomfort and disgust at first. would he hate how his body reacts even if it’s something that feels good—wouldn’t he feel viscerally unsettled if someone could provoke bodily reactions like flushing cheeks or a beating “soul beat” or even genuine arousal from him.

wouldn’t he think with contempt if his body reacts positively or negatively to receiving comfort. wouldnt he try to find a way to maintain control and detachment because too much stimulation or stress or feeling threatened or trapped or controlled or afraid for his safety and life could trigger higher stages and he lashes out and literally could kill his partner(s) because his mind mistakes the situation for something else. wouldn’t he need a level of either trust or control to willingly engage in something that feels deeply threatening.

Anyway i got off topic, but you’re absolutely correct. I love female or feminine Sanses, especially with the apple twins, and i don’t think there should be any need to hyper sexualize and fetishize the female body. (especially if these feminine/fem presenting or female bodies also happen to be trans/queer bodies; such as with transfem dream.)

like just let nightmare exists as nightmare, regardless of if he happens to have breasts or not—and don’t have his subordinates drooling all over him and behaving super strange just cause nightmares got boobs now.

(and I also don’t wanna see any situation where nightmare who usually doesn’t have boobs has boobs one day and the gang make a big deal about it, since nightmare is a shapeshifter and all. he could realistically just decide he wants boobs one day and the gang could just go “interesting. Anyway..” and hardly even that.

unless it’s to like, ask for today’s pronouns or something, i don’t see no need to comment on the breasts unless in the context of, nightmare is engaging in intimacy with their partner(s) or something. a context where it would make sense. Anyway just be normal about female/fem killer and nightmare please.)

[girl-named-matty]

𝘏𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘢 𝘌𝘭𝘸𝘺𝘯 - 𝘏𝘰𝘨𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘖𝘊

get to know my oc

♡︎ Name: Helena Elwyn

♡︎ Birthday: November 12th, 1859

♡︎ Birthplace: England

♡︎ Gender: Female

♡︎ Age: 36

♡︎ Sexuality: Bisexual

♡︎ Ethnicity: White & Indian

♡︎ House: Ravenclaw

♡︎ Blood status: Half-blood

♡︎ Love interest: Aesop Sharp

(Helena as Professor Elwyn)

♡︎ APPEARANCE

♡︎ Hair: Helena's hair is jet black and she likes to keep it cut short. She'll wear her hair in different styles occasionally. She loves when her hair is long but due to working in the Auror force for 10+ years, she's opted to keep it short and out of the way.

♡︎ Eyes: Brown

♡︎ Height: 5'10" (177 cm)

♡︎ Other: Helena does have a scar on the left side of her face but she uses magic to cover it up. She got the scar while on the job as an Auror when she was attacked. The experience left her traumatized as she was a young Auror at the time and so she covers the scar in attempt to not remember the attack so vividly.

♡︎ PERSONALITY

For the most part, Helena is really laid back. While in school, she tended to get along with most everybody as long as they weren't complete and total jerks. She had her set group of friends she liked to hang out around. She'd do well in school, was a prefect, etc... She does occasionally get up to mischief but she'll never downright put people in danger. She likes dealing with things through humor (as long as it isn't serious) and she's all around a pretty empathetic person, especially to those around her who are younger than her. She has a very "Mama bear" personality.

♡︎ Positive traits: She's very quick with everything, quick on her toes, quick thinking, etc... She's very empathetic and good at comforting. She's usually a happy-go-easy kind of person too.

♡︎ Negative traits: When her patience is tried one too many times, she will get physical. That is one problem she's always had. You say something offensive or stupid to her one too many times and you will be getting a fist to the face.

♡︎ Likes: Potions, dueling, cross stich, gardening & crafts

♡︎ Dislikes: Negative people, people who don't listen, impulsivity (which she struggles with sometimes if tested too much)

(Helena Elwyn in her days as a student at Hogwarts)

♡︎ QUICK BACKSTORY

Helena was born and raised in England to a muggle father and a muggleborn mother. Helena's mother is from India while her father is native to England. She has two sisters, Asha and Edwina (all of their names end in "ah"), both of which are witches just like her. Helena attended Hogwarts and got into the Ravenclaw house while her two sisters got into Hufflepuff and Gryffindor. She did well in school, became a prefect in her 5th year, graduated and went on into the Auror program when she was twenty years old. She would've joined at 18, however she got engaged to a man who she thought was her forever man so she pushed joining the Auror force off. When she was 19, only a year later she found out he had been cheating on her almost the entire time. She quickly called off the engagement and joined the Auror force. She worked as an Auror for fifteen years before retiring. After that, Hogwarts opened up a position in potions as a secondary Professor. Helena took this job offer and has been working there as a Professor since.

♡︎ RELATIONSHIPS

♡︎ Her mother - Helena's relationship with her mother is very strong. The Elwyn home was filled with love, mainly because of her mother. She is a very sweet, loving, and kind person, making her relationship with her daughter very strong.

♡︎ Her father - Helena's relationship with her father is also strong, however he was gone often for work so Helena didn't seen him as much as she saw her mother. They did as much as they could while she was growing up but since her father was a muggle and she was not, they did live two very different lives.

♡︎ Asha - Helena has a very close relationship with her younger sister. They studied together much growing up and they got along well.

♡︎ Edwina - Likewise with Asha, they were close. But their time spent together was more so talking than anything else. Edwina had a colorful imagination and Helena was often the one she went to air her thoughts out to.

♡︎ Aesop Sharp - Helena had known Aesop for years. They went to school together, however they were in different years and houses. They were friends in school, however they lost touch after graduation. They were reunited in the Auror force where they began their on and off relationship. After Aesop was injured and left the force, their relationship ended officially. They were then reunited again when Helena retired and picked up the job offer at Hogwarts. After being reunited so many times, they realized that it wasn't just a coincidence and rekindled their love. They were married two years later.

And that's all, thank you for reading! ♡︎

[darcytaylor]

I am honestly seeing some of the most fascinating examples of cognitive dissonance in this fandom with the reaction people have to Luke and A vs the idea of Nic with Jake Dunn. People who have been all up in arms around the age difference between L&A are suddenly ok with the idea of N&JD and giving the most reaching answers to justify it. At the end of the day, they are extending a grace to Nic’s side of things in a way they wouldn’t ever give Luke and, personally, I find it difficult to watch. I actually am starting to feel bad for everyone involved.

I’ll say it, the promo tour honestly was a mistake that is going to haunt the two of them for a long time. They did too good of a job selling something to a fandom who were already probably a bit overcommitted and now it’s basically an uncontrolled animal.

I have seen a lot of cognitive dissonance, especially when it comes to celebrities! I do think the issue is putting people on a pedestal and then also having the halo effect (having a positive impression of a person which then influences the perception of their specific traits and behaviours). It’s a weird phenomenon, and for the most part, people don’t even realize it’s happening - I think that's part of why it makes it so fascinating.

Because I’ve been aware of this happening (not only in the Bridgerton universe), it doesn’t shock me that this would be occurring now. I’ve observed people being inconsistent to various situations, and it seems to be a common pattern across different fandoms and public figures.

Cognitive dissonance and the halo effect explain why fans engage with and interpret celebrity behaviour in such varied ways. They can blur perceptions of reality, with people’s positive or negative impressions of a celebrity affecting their judgments and sometimes leading to a lack of critical consistency.

Another challenge I think, is that this can make honest discussion difficult within fandoms. Criticizing someone that others love can be seen as hateful, while defending someone others dislike can make you the problem. This environment can stifle open dialogue and create tension.

I try to carefully consider my responses, hoping they encourage more critical thinking about certain situations. Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts by being in my asks!

I don't know if the promo tour was a mistake as of now - there were definitely some flaws. It created some drama (that seems to still be in discussions), it created some heighten expectations and emotions, and all of that led to extreme reactions. I think the tour sold a vision that intensified the fandom's engagement, making it hard to manage and control.

We will see what happens once the focus is more so on Season 4!

[racefortheironthrone]

Do you think that intersectionality hurts or advances activism; for example let's say a climate change organization calling for a ceasefire?

Both.

In its positive aspects, intersectionality is grounded in reciprocal solidarity. It is an ideological and philosophical position that we are all connected and "no man is an island, entire of itself...Any man's death diminishes me/Because I am involved in mankind."

It is also a very pragmatic understanding that there aren't enough of us to win on our own. In addition to the concrete analysis of political struggle that we all share common enemies and have overlapping interests, the fractured nature of human society and identities means that coalition-building isn't a choice, it's a necessity.

In its negative aspects, intersectionality results in this weird, toxic narrowing of social movements to a point where only the most oppressed people possible are allowed to be in charge and make decisions and speak for the movement, and everyone else is a guilt-ridden privileged outsider who needs to shut the fuck up and lower their hands and listen and not make it about them - but only after they donate their time and money.

This is pretty much the opposite of what intersectionality was originally meant to convey: the whole point is that everyone exists in different positions on the various axes of oppression, discrimination, etc. (and these positions can change pretty damn quickly), and thus depending on the issue, certain people might have more of a lived experience and need to be listened to and have greater needs and need to have their agenda items prioritized, and who those people are going to be is fluid and dynamic rather than fixed.

And this brings us back to my earlier thing about reciprocal solidarity. I completely reject the notion that I exist within social movements solely as an ally to other people, because in truth I participate in these movements in no small part because I need help from other people on a whole host of issues. However, I remain in coalition when it comes to other issues (especially those in which my personal constellation of intersectionality puts me in a position of relative privilege), both out of a humanistic understanding that their lives and needs are equally important and out of that pragmatic understanding that if I help them on their stuff, they'll return the favor when it comes to my stuff. And over time, the experience of being in coalition will expand people's mindsets on issues that don't directly affect them and get them to act in solidarity more consistently.

And that's what I think is so good about social democracy and similar movements that have a comprehensive political "line" or policy agenda, because if we sit down and engage in good faith in democratic coalition-building negotiations where everyone understands what they are getting and what they are giving and that everyone gets a say but not an exclusive one, then we short-circuit this kind of toxic, self-destructive behavior and can move on to doing the work that needs to be done.

[islandoforder]

My thing re: Porter was only that he wasn't praising Fig for what he disapproved of with Gorgug. Like, Fig was doing things differently than Gorgug was, and it didn't have anything to do with protecting one's friends or anything like that, it was a matter of embracing fury in order to do so. He's still not a great teacher, though I do think Zac meant "I go into a worry" to be a flaw and that he wasn't looking for someone to just say "that's valid".

brace for a reply that's at least twice as long as intended haha

okay i think we do actually agree on more than we don't - i do think that 'i go into a worry' is a sign of gorgug not being raised to be comfortable with negative emotions, and the ramifications of that (love the thistlesprings, no hate to them, but their hardwon earnest positivity is probably a lot harder to recognise and appreciate as a teenager who has literally the weight of the world on his shoulders a bunch).

the point i was trying to make was about this exchange from porter to gorgug: "Most of what I see from you in class is, your rage is a place that you go to to put your body on the line for your friends. It's very selfless, very noble. Do I see you actually capable of wielding the destructive power of rage, when the chips are really down?"

to me, this reads as porter saying that his rage stemming from his protection of his friends, that selflessness, that loyalty, is not a good enough motivation, that his rage HAS to be destructive to be valued in porter's eyes, even though he has literally established in this conversation that gorgug is v good at the basic tenets of being a barbarian. he's not saying that gorgug isn't using his rage at all, he's explicitly saying that it's not the right flavour of rage for him. this exchange bugs me so much just because his little speech to fig about her paladin powers being inspired by her friends is very explicitly praising the exact same type of selfless nobility and loyalty. it feels even more hypocritical as this is the same convo with gorgug where he says he feels "heartbroken" and the same convo with fig where he says lucilla was too emotionally involved in fig's decisions in an inappropriate way.

i think it's also a bit tricky bc since emily has decided to engage with/agree with porter (and possibly with bts convos with zac there's no way to tell) brennan has (rightfully!) pivoted. it's a good move as a dm of a campaign to react to your players and how they interact with your npcs, but it does lead to a sort of retconning over the points porter was initially making. like on a mechanics of roleplaying level i get it, but if we just look at the character, it makes him inconsistent and hypocritical more than anything.

it's also hard to know where exactly i'm bringing my own feelings about teaching into it, but in this specific scenario, where gorgug is struggling to articulate his rage and negative emotions, i think not only is porter's behaviour to gorgug not helpful but is actively unhelpful, let alone how he acts with and what he says to fig, knowing they're close friends and gorgug will inevitably hear these double standards. i know it worked in the show, but i think that's bc the players chose to have it work, rather than it being a good or healthy method for a teacher to take. i've honestly got other issues with him too, but not on the point you were making so i'm not gonna keep ranting haha

[damnfandomproblems]

"Ok but the ask you’re responding to is specifically saying that there’s a difference between depiction or endorsement and endorsement is a problem that many self-identified proship people are just refusing to acknowledge because it’s more convenient to argue every anti is against any bad thing being depicted ever. "

Here is the definition of endorsement: an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something

Here is the definition of depiction: to show or represent by a drawing, painting, or other art form

Please take notice of how the definition of depiction does not mention realism and how the definition of endorsement is specified as an act of giving public support/approval. If someone writes/draws something themed around abuse but portrays it wildly inaccurate, but they do not specifically say, "Hey yeah, I support this thing IRL," it is not an endorsement of that thing. It is just a depiction, however inaccurate, however inappropriately inaccurate

"You do get that pretty much all stories that depict murder, terrorism, torture etc. don’t portray it positively, right. Heck, terrorism is something people famously define by whether it’s justified or not, and there’s a fair few common terrorist tactics most will agree cannot be justified at all like bombing civilians and the like regardless of your cause (not the least because because they aren’t even going to further said cause). If a story said that someone was objectively in the right for doing a 9/11 analogue I doubt most “antis” would be cool with that."

Maybe it's because I don't engage with children's media, but most stories I read or watch flip-flop between portraying all those topics either accurately or inaccurately, and either positively or negatively. Children's media portray things as is because children's brains aren't fully developed and they need to be taught right from wrong, truth from lie, and reality from fiction. Once your brain is developed enough to separate the difference, bad things can be portrayed as good and good as bad because a strong moral framework that won't waver on just stories alone should have already been developed

Saw movies are just gore porn, same with slashers and most horror in general. You root for the villain because you watch those movies special for the brutal unexcusable violence, violence portrayed purely for entertainment and thus can absolutely be considered "romanticize" if not just straight up sexualized. John Wick, you root for him to kill all these people because one person hurt him, you root for him to take countless humans lives over the grief and pain of a singular animal life. You root for the glorified romanticized violence, cheer for it, in fact.

Also, with the attitude towards America today, I can already bet there are people already out their claiming that 9/11 was deserved, and those kind of people exist everyone, and that includes within anti groups. This argument is just a straw man fallacy. Also, more so than anything, if someone was to write a story from the perspective of someone who believes the attack was deserved, I can guarantee that it would most likely be, with 99% certainty, be aimed at adults. Adults, that I remind you, should be developed enough to understand that this is a story with an unreliable narrator, and that just because they the character glamorize the tragedy doesn't mean that they the person should too. Most proshippers and antis and everyone else not sucked into that toxic waste pit of shipping/censorship discourse would be able to accept that, and even if they think it's distasteful, understand at the end of the day it's just a story that trys to take into the mind of someone horrid to try and make sense of their horridness

"Also there’s a key factor you’re ignoring here. There are circumstances where it is justifiable to kill someone. Most concede at least self defense cases."

Definition of murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Definition of manslaughter: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

In most places, killing self-defense isn't murder, it's manslaughter.

Murder very, very rarely is considered justifed by most people. Manslaughter, however, tends to be more debatabled. But even then, debatable is the key word. Their is no definited, absolutely line in the sand of accepted manslaughter and unacceptable manslaughter. People absolutely do argue about self-defense killings. Some believe it's just as bad as murder. Some feel it's a gray thing where the killer still needs some of consequence, some believe it's fully excuseable.

What you see in movies more often than not, though, is murder, not manslaughter. It is deliberate and/or done after the threat has been lifted. More often than not, from my experience, it's revenge killings, not self-defense.

This argument is just morality wank and the "key factory" of "justifiably" is completely subjective. It's a variable, not the control

"Like, another ask tried to use John Wick as a gotcha because it’s a “toxic love and bad actions portrayed positively” or smth because John Wick being motivated by into killing several gangsters who broke into his home, killed his dog, and are shown to murder people (including a priest who worked for them), by his love for his dog. And somehow that’s just as bad as someone being in an abusive relationship and that being seen as a good thing."

Are you talking about a real being in an abusive relationship and being told that's good, or about a fictional character in a fictional relationship experiencing fictional abuse portrayed inaccurately? I am assuming it's inaccurate fiction you're talking about, fiction, that once again would be aimed at adults, who can understand that this depiction is inaccurate. Just like how they can cheer on for John Wick and his romanticized violence in the context of a story and hate that same violence when acted out in real life, they can cheer on for a fictional inaccurate abusive relationship in the context of fiction and hate that same abuse when acted out in real life

Not only that, once again, whether abuse or murder is worse, be it in fiction or reality, is debatabled. Many can argue that romanticized and/or real murder is worse than abuse because murder is final wherest abuse can be healed from with time and effort

"Like, absurd as that comparison is on its own, it also relies on that killing being equivalent to any other form of killing regardless of context. And that’s silly because obviously there’s a difference between killing someone in self defense or as justified retaliation (again, the mobsters in this example are in fact murderers of people too) versus just murdering innocent people. "

The difference is subjective, "justiced retaliation" is extremely subjective, all of this argument is subjective

"You can’t say that with rape, incest, pedophilia etc. There’s not a circumstance where that can be justified. Every case is horrible and unjustified, there are not types you can rightly portray as a good thing or as morally acceptable."

Don't get me wrong, I agree that real life rape, incest, pedophilia is all wrong, but there are people who disagree. Justifiably is always subjective in the real world, and laws in many places reflect that justifiably, child marriage is still legal in many places, so incest, and so is rape. If I was to really push and play the devil's advocate and come up with a 1 in a trillion bullshit argument, how justifiable would rape be if their was a gun to your head, maybe even to your familes heada too, and you werw told to either assult this person or be murdered? I could easily agrue that rape in that situation is justifiable under the argument that preserving life is more important than preventing momentary trauma

"I never thought I’d have to explain this but here we are."

You didn't have to do anything. You felt like a little knight, a ray of light, the hero abmist the icky villains who just couldn't stand aside. We're here because of your egotistical sense of self-righteousness, not of genuine necessity. Don't conflate the two

Posting as a response to a previous ask.

[skunts-own-truth]

This is written hours after our game, so it won’t be an action-by-action write up, but I did want to write a little battle report for my first game of This Quar’s War:

It was a small game, two teams of 5 Rhyflers (basic troops,) and their Yawdryl (a sergeant,) with a very simple game-type. Whoever had the most models standing at the end of the game would earn 5 points, and 2 points would be earned per-model that crossed the middle point of the table onto the opponent’s side.

I was playing the Crusaders, who are slightly better at reaction shots with their Bogen rifles, and my roommate was playing the Coftyrans who are a little better at close combat with their basic gun than the Crusaders but a little worse at reaction shots. The two forces felt pretty even, at no point during the game did I feel like any stat differences made something unfair… despite how things actually went once dice hit the table.

We decided to do 3 full turns, and off the bat we were engaged with Quar’s turn mechanics. During each turn, the active player’s opponent draws a card that indicates the number of activations the active player is allotted. This card is kept hidden from the active player, but at the minimum you know you have 3 activations for your force. At most you can have 5. The fact that you don’t know how many you have until you get to your 3rd action makes moment to moment play very tense. Just spending an activation to move can be nail biting, as your Rhyfler runs across the battlefield to get a shot off at one of his foes you could find that you actually don’t have that 4th activation… and that poor lad is now sitting out in the open, with no cover to dive behind. I can’t tell you how often this made us both burst out laughing as we took unnecessary risks in that hope that we had a 4 or 5 activation turn!

Turn 1 was mostly positioning. We drew through the activation deck one by one, moving our Quar about. My fellas ended up taking the middle of the board, and pot shots from my roommate’s royalist bastards had my brave crusaders forced deeper and deeper into the middle. See, when you get shot at and you decide to dive for cover (which gives your opponent a rough negative to shoot you,) even if they miss you, their roll determines who moves your model as they dive. This means your opponent can position your fellas, and this happened to me a lot. It’s frustrating, but in a good way! You get “gobsmacked” if this happens to you, making your fellas easier to shoot at since they can’t react to shots. So, he pushed me to the middle and surrounded my lads, until I was completely outflanked with very little cover.

Turn 2, I managed to knock out his Cryfen LMG toting Rhyfler before it could do some real damage, and his Yawdryl which made him split his forced a bit more than he wanted to- but it really wasn’t enough. He had the positioning and cover, and my little Quar dropped one by one. When Quar go down, they stay down until a friendly model spends an action to check on them. This can be kinda scary because technically your Rhyfler isn’t dead until he is checked on and found dead. He can stand right back up on lucky roll, and to the surprise of my roommate I did manage to stand up my downed Quar six times during the game, but again, the positioning wasn’t in my favor and each time I brought something back it was an activation spent.

Turn 3 ended fast, we didn’t even get through 4 cards in the activation deck. I was down to two Quar standing, and I decided to die fighting. As my roommate’s forces closed in and backed my remaining Rhyfler up against the wall of a building, he fired and I used my reaction to return fire… which was a mistake. If I had dived for cover it would have saved my Rhyfler, but I was banking on him to miss so I can get a lucky reaction shot off. No dice. My guy was shot dead, his reaction lost as he fell to the ground.

With that, he managed to total 13 points to my 0. Just a total loss for me, really! Was just under an hour of playtime, even with us checking rules and rereading things to each other. My poor Crusaders. Hopefully next game I’ll get them a win in!

Listen, the game rules. I love it. It’s fast, it’s quirky, it plays for fun but is still fair, and it has adorable little anteater guys. What more can you ask for? I say go buy Clash of Rhyfles from Wargames Atlantic, if you’re itching for a new skirmish game that isn’t real world WW2 themed or Warhammer. I was! I didn’t even know I was, but the moment I locked eyes on this game I knew it was for me.

Plus…

The cavalry in the setting looks like this. Maybe one day we’ll get some of these little freaks in plastic? 👀 Personally, nothing would make me happier.

[wordsandrobots]

Have you ever watched other big robot shows or space operas? like Evangelion, LoTGH, Patlabor, Gurren Lagann?

I have, though none of those you listed (Evangelion is the only one I've actively avoided, since I know enough about it to know I need to be in the right frame of mind to engage with it; the others I've just not gotten around to). I don't know if all of the others I've watched count as 'big', but I'll get you a quick breakdown of what I can recall seeing.

For Japanese space-opera in general, I've watched bits and pieces of Leiji Matsumoto's work and have a special fondness for the 2013 CGI Harlock adaption, weirdly enough. For whatever reason -- certainly a lot of the feelings that ended up latching on to Iron-Blooded Orphans were involved -- I just really vibed with what it was doing. Indeed, I think I generally vibe with a lot of Matsumoto's aesthetic approach despite not necessarily liking what he's saying with it. I've also seen the live-action Space Battleship Yamato movie , which I didn't like in the slightest.

I don't think Cowboy Bebop quite counts as space opera, but I've of course seen that too (it was required viewing for my generation) and count it among the best animes ever, just on artistic merit alone. I've also seen Crusher Joe, which certainly isn't that good but was somewhat fun nonetheless.

For mecha specifically, I've never gotten into Macross despite knowing the overall basics. I've only properly seen Macross Plus, but it didn't leave much of an impression. It's kind of odd, actually, since I'd have to say I prefer the artistic direction of Macross' mecha to most of Gundam (love a good transforming jet fighter). Still, story will out, I suppose.

For what I have seen, there's Code:Geass, obviously, in all its utter-batshit glory. Terrible, awful show. I had a whale of a time.

Eureka Seven basically does everything Gundam has ever tried to do over most of its run, better, with much more depth and clarity. Like, seriously, all the stuff the first three Gundam shows are flailing around trying to Say Something About, Eureka Seven nails in the most heartbreaking ways imaginable. It's ridiculously well done for what it is, partly because it actually commits to its main character being an ordinary teenage boy in ways that most things don't (which it also has in common with at least Gundam 79 and Zeta Gundam, only, again, done better).

I more or less enjoyed Argento Soma. It has some very interesting art design and direction, and the general idea is compelling. But it's also rather less than the sum of its parts, overall, and is perhaps tamer than it could have been.

I watched the first season of Eighty-Six and a few of the second season episodes before ditching it like a hot rock when the subs pulled out actual Nazi rhetoric. It had already ditched the moral horror of the first season for something more bland, anyway.

Then there's Fafner in the Azure which is flat-out the best mecha show I've ever seen. I know I rave about Iron-Blooded Orphans and have tons to say about it, but Fafner operates on a completely different level. I have *nothing* to say about Fafner which is not 'for the love of everything, go watch Fafner'. It is an incredible piece of work, that absolutely demands a chronological, beginning-to-end watch, because it is one of the few things I've come across that *needs* to be so long, to say everything it is saying, as well and deftly as it is saying it. It's gruelling, heart-shattering, nail-biting and utterly uplifting in how it centres community and sacrifice for the sake of others. I'm not sure I've seen anything with such a clear idea of what 'we are fighting to defend humanity' means, positive and negative. It will rip your heart out of your chest and you'll thank it for the pleasure.

Also, it does a similar 'two characters are in love with the hero and it's mostly chill' thing to IBO, edging very close to being polyamory too, expect they're all total dysfunctional messes and also occasionally dead so it doesn't work out so well. Plus two of the three are guys, meaning the 'in love' thing is more heavy implication than overt statement but, boy are they implying heavily.

Oh, and I have also see Brave Bang Bravern! It is deeply silly but also contains some wildly out-of-place torture apologia that I still can't quite wrap my head around in terms of what the writers were thinking. Possibly they just wanted to get in some gratuitous bondage? Which, I mean, fair, but still. Odd show (even on top of the deliberateness to its camp).