#not because it’s morally reprehensible somehow?

[lgbtlunaverse]

I feel like too often people frame Nie Mingjue's issues as ignorance borne from safety. Like, they think that because of his privilege as a sect leader he doesn't know what it's like to be in danger and forced to make hard choices to survive. And I disagree. Strongly.

First of all, Nie Mingjue is very familiar with death not only from war but from. You know. Actively dying since the age of fourteen. Let us not forget Nie Mingjue is dead! Super dead! And maybe he didn't die the exact way he expected to but he did, absolutely, know he was going to die. To act like Nie Mingjue is unfamiliar with the scenario of "do something you find morally reprehensible or die" is to ignore that he has been living that exact scenario and chose death.

Nie Mingjue knows death is a risk for someone like Jin guangyao, in fact he explicitly acknowledges it even in his worst moments like the stairs in chapter 49. Had his issue been ignorance, then he would've responded to Jin Guangyao saying that he's in danger and has to sacrifice others for his own safety with "No you aren't you'll be fine." But he doesn't. He accepts the fact that jgy is in danger with no qualms and says: then you should die.

That's not him betraying his values, those are his values. He is, essentially, pro-suicide. Jgy is like hey I have a moral dilemma what should I do and nmj straight up goes "Kill yourself" and earlier that same chapter when he was faced with a moral dilemma he went "I'm gonna kill myself." He believes the solution to moral dilemmas is suicide! He is extremely consistent about this! When it's pointed out to him that it would have been dangerous for Wen Qing to oppose Wen Ruohan it doesn't phase him because he thinks putting yourself at risk to do the right thing is the only moral choice. The idea that he can only hold this belief because he is himself somehow not in danger, again, requires you to ignore that he is dying the whole time. And it doesn't deter him. He is the idea of self-sacrifice as a moral good taken to its absolute logical extreme. Someone who is ready to die and demands the same from everyone else.

It makes him a very fun case study for fandom, because a lot of fandom spaces also tend to revere self-sacrifice as the ultimate good, and yet we get very uncomfortable when someone starts demanding it of characters we love. Like woah, hold on, that's a bit too far isn't it? Only we the audience get to do that!

[dejabooooo]

Ok I’m doing it. Idk if anyone will read this but here’s a compilation of all the stancest crumbs from bill’s book along with a stancest endgame theory:

I say theory because I can’t think of a better word atm. I know this is obviously not the intention of the text. I am merely taking the information we were given and twisting it to fit my sick agenda. It’s what bill would have wanted (Well maybe not quite like this but lol fuck him anyway).

So! Obviously billford was the star of the show here, but as I learned a little bit more about the codes I didn’t just learn what they say. I learned that all the stancest ship fuel is contained within them, and even tho it’s not much in comparison, what we did get is pretty profound!

There was a brand new code alphabet introduced in this book that we’ve never seen before. This cute little bros code that Stan and Ford invented when they were kids. Besides this image, this code is used only three times in the entire book.

The first (and insanely subtle) instance is on this page where ford concludes that Stan is the only person he can turn to after bill drives him to his breaking point:

It’s very small and hard to make out. On the window amid the equations.

It says: “miss you”

Pertaining the contents of this page, my first thought was that this is probably meant to be interpreted as a message directed at Fiddleford. But that wouldn’t really make sense given how it’s presented. This wasn’t written in after the fact. It couldn’t be directed at Fiddleford, they’re standing together arm in arm. It’s a code only Ford and Stan know, and this pic wasn’t taken long after they separated. This message must be about Stanley.

Ford uses the code on the next page, the last lost journal page where he’s talking about reaching out to Stan. It translates to: “have I been too harsh all along?”

This is so gut wrenching to me because he’s never written in this code literally anywhere else in the entire journal. And he says this vulnerable little line about Stanley in this code he probably hasn’t used in years but still remembers, in this code that only Stan would be able to understand besides himself.

The last usage is by Stan. Because the rest of the family is watching him write this, to the rest of them it just looks like he’s censoring his cussing for the kids’ sakes. But to ford, stan’s slyly writing him a little message that only he can see…

And what does it say?

“Love ya bro”

Ford’s arc in this book is realizing he should put his attention and concern in the ones that love him rather than fueling his obsessive hatred toward the one who hurt him. He comes to understand that he’ll be happier if he’s open about his past and rely on his family whose affection isn’t conditional like bill’s was. He moves past his shame, and comes out of the paranoid isolation that bill had encouraged him into.

And of course he receives this comfort from his whole family. But I think it’s very interesting how bill is framed as this toxic ex, Fiddleford is framed as the one he should have put his trust in during that pivotal time in 80s where ford ultimately blew his chance, and then there’s Stan.

Stan is hardly brought up at all but his presence lingers in more than few of Ford’s vulnerable journal entries. Stan is the one who put Bill in his place. Stan is the one who made Ford realize where his priorities should be. Stan is the one who’s accepted him all along and is the one remaining by his side in the end.

Bill even blames Stan for stealing ford from him like a jealous ex who can’t stand the fact that ford has moved on with someone else. (This is directed at the reader but it mirrors his frustration with the stans when they worked together to defeat him)

In conclusion: incest somehow ended up being the healthiest partnership option all along. Who knew?

BONUS CODE THAT CAN BE MISCONSTRUED IN A MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE WAY:

At the bottom of the first lost journal page where he’s talking about his loneliness and yearning for human connection, he mentions Stan in a code again. After embarrassing himself in front of the waitress he says: “Stanley could have made her laugh” 💔

[jewish-sideblog]

There’s a reason why the western goyishe left is so preoccupied with labeling people as Zionists, and why there’s so much hypocrisy coming out of these spaces night now. It’s because there’s a broader problem regarding leftist views on violence. There’s a belief that violent cruelty is only morally reprehensible if it is forced upon the “innocent”, and that any and all violence is justified against perceived wrongdoers.

It’s the reason why we always hear that“Six million innocent Jews” died in the Shoah, as if six million dead in a genocide isn’t worthy of condemnation on its own. It’s the reason why debates on the internet about oppression always focus on innocence as opposed to violence.

“George Floyd was innocent,” they say, “there’s no evidence he paid with a counterfeit bill!” The left and the right spent endless time debating that three years ago. Why does it matter if Floyd had intentionally used a counterfeit bill or not? Hell, even if he ran a counterfeiting empire— death by suffocation is not a just punishment for counterfeiting. But for many leftists, a lack of “innocence” would somehow validate the unjust violence he suffered and died from.

“There is no excuse for bombing a hospital,” is the response when they think Israel bombed a hospital. But when it turns out that Hamas actually bombed the hospital, suddenly there is an excuse. “There is no excuse for ethnic cleansing,” is what they say when Israel cleanses Gazans. Meanwhile, they maintain their full support for Hamas, whose stated goal is to ethnically cleanse Jews from the Middle East. Excuses are only offered to those deemed innocent. They view Palestinians, even Hamas, as universally innocent. Israelis and Zionists, even children, are seen as universally guilty.

That’s why the antisemitic stream of the anti-Israeli narrative clings so tightly two ideals: That all Israelis are colonists, no matter what, and that Hamas isn’t actually a terrorist organization committing war crimes. If either of those ideological columns fail, then either the presumption of universal Palestinian innocence fails, or the presumption of universal Israeli guilt fails. Then leftists start asking themselves questions:

Have I been in the wrong? Have I been antisemitic? Am I innocent in all this? And if I’m not, does that mean that violence against me could be justified? Most will choose cognitive dissonance and reaffirm their harmful beliefs, rather than face the answer to any of those questions.

But the truth is that innocence doesn’t have an effect on the justification of violence. There isn’t an excuse for bombing a hospital, intentionally or accidentally. There isn’t an excuse for ethnic cleansings of Arabs or Jews or anybody else. Violent oppression is still bad when it happens to harm people you disagree with. Violent oppression is still bad when it harms bad people.

[cringefailvox]

my ultimate fantasy for hazbin s2 is a reveal of something in alastor's past that he can't explain away or justify, something genuinely morally reprehensible, and he and the other residents of the hotel have to navigate around each other with the renewed sense of "right, he's actually a bad guy."

i feel like the show and the fandom both sometimes forget that alastor is actually legitimately morally corrupt because he's superficially nice and abides by certain rules and social mores. but he like, does murder people. that's a real thing that he does.

i feel like he can get woobified a little and portrayed as like, a byronic hero who's always actually in the right but judged and misunderstood. there's an element of truth to that, but he's mostly a selfish and cruel person who does awful things because he doesn't care.

it would be personally EXTREMELY satisfying to see him face real consequences for the way he treats people, especially from the hotel that he seems to have grown to care about. fuck that deer UP!!!

REAL AND TRUE. it's always interesting to me the way murder is evaluated in fandom next to like, sexual assault, as being the more redeemable crime somehow, which i think is quite evident in the way people talk about alastor vs valentino -- neither of these characters is remorseful or even particularly in a hurry to justify the horrendous things they do, and yet i've noticed a general tendency towards letting alastor off the hook for the serial killing but not budging on the line that val is irredeemable. and like, ofc with the caveat that this is fiction and neither of them are real, but it's interesting sometimes how people measure crimes with a value system predicated on distance, where serial killers are so removed from the average person that it's nearly outlandish, definitely a spectacle, but sexual assault is real and immediate in a way that hits people harder. there's also the matter that alastor is part of the main cast and val is a secondary antagonist -- but anyway this is getting off topic from what you were asking

i absolutely agree that i'm excited to see the show really begin to grapple with the ethics of the main cast, esp alastor, because it's like. we know he's a terrible person. the gang knows he's a terrible person. but it really comes back to the bit in episode five, when lucifer (rightly, in this case, but unhelpfully) points out that alastor represents all the worst things about sinners, that he epitomizes everything lucifer loathes about hell, and charlie's response pivots neatly away from that ethical problem: "he's defending this hotel. it might be a bit more sadistic than i'd hoped, but he's doing it for me." alastor can be as morally bankrupt as he wants so long as it's in the service of a cause that charlie perceives as good

this actually makes perfect sense for charlie's character and it's sooo fascinating. she doesn't actually seem to care about how horrific everyone in hell behaves all the time -- what she cares about is those people dying en masse without any value judgment from heaven, she's affronted that it's all numbers to them, she really seems like she's only spearheading this redemption program because she thinks it'll bring down overpopulation and stop heaven, not because she was genuinely bothered by the rampant sin before. "happy day in hell" is all about how much she loves hell and keeps putting an optimistic spin on all the property damage and cannibalism and public bdsm. she doesn't care about alastor being evil because he's not her redemption poster child, but she DOES care about angel getting into turf wars and doing drugs in the hotel because it reflects badly on her. girl i need to see your personal ethics and values get cracked the fuck open so bad

[frankingsteinery]

for some reason people seem to think that mary somehow stumbled into writing a commentary on marriage/incest accidentally, and that the themes of frankenstein are all about her trauma due to her experiences as a victim of the patriarchy, as a woman and a mother surrounded by men - as if she wasnt the child of radical liberals who publicly renounced marriage, as if she herself as well as percy shelley had similar politics on marriage, as if she would not go on to write a novel where the central theme is explicitly that of father/daughter incest years later…

the most obvious and frequent critique of victor i see is of his attempt to create life - the creature - without female presence. it’s taught in schools, wrote about by academics, talked about in fandom spaces - mary shelley was a feminist who wrote about feminism by making victor a misogynist. he’s misogynistic because he invented a method of procreation without involving women purely out of male entitlement and masculine arrogance and superiority, and shelley demonstrates the consequences of subverting women in the creation process/and by extension the patriarchy because this method fails terribly - his son in a monster, and victor is punished for his arrogance via the murder of his entire family; thus there is no place for procreation without the presence of women, right?

while this interpretation – though far from my favorite – is not without merit, i see it thrown around as The interpretation, which i feel does a great disservice to the other themes surrounding victor, the creature, the relationship between mother and child, parenthood, marriage, etc.

this argument also, ironically, tends to undermine the agency and power of frankenstein’s female characters, because it often relies on interpreting them as being solely passive, demure archetypes to establish their distinction from the 3 male narrators, who in contrast are performing violent and/or reprehensible actions while all the woman stay home (i.e., shelley paradoxically critiques the patriarchy by making all her female characters the reductive stereotypes that were enforced during her time period, so the flaws of our male narrators arise due to this social inequality).

in doing so it completely strips elizabeth (and caroline and justine to a lesser extent) of the power of the actions that she DID take — standing up in front of a corrupt court, speaking against the injustice of the system and attempting to fight against its verdict, lamenting the state of female social status that prevented her from visiting victor at ingolstadt, subverting traditional gender roles by offering victor an out to their arranged marriage as opposed to the other way around, taking part in determining ernest’s career and education in direct opposition to alphonse, etc. it also comes off as a very “i could fix him,” vibe, that is, it suggests if women were given equal social standing to men then elizabeth would have been able to rein victor in so to speak and prevent the events of the book from happening. which is a demeaning expectation/obligation in of itself and only reinforces the reductive passive, motherly archetypes that these same people are speaking against

it is also not very well supported: most of the argument rests on ignoring female character’s actual characterization and focusing one specific quote, often taken out of context (“a new species would bless me as its creator and source…no father could claim the gratitude of his child so completely as i should deserve theirs”) which “proves” victor’s sense of male superiority, and on victors treatment/perception of elizabeth, primarily from a line of thinking he had at five years old, where he objectified her by thinking of her (or rather — being told so by caroline) as a gift to him. again, the morality of victor’s character is being determined by thoughts he had at five years old.

obviously this is not at all to say i think their relationship was a healthy one - i dont think victor and elizabeth’s marriage was ever intended to be perceived as good, but more importantly, writing their relationship this way was a deliberate critique of marriage culture.

[ninicaise]

some ppl are rlly out there claiming to be damen fans while completely misunderstanding and minimizing every aspect of his character except for how much he suffers lmfao.

if you think slavery wasn't a core flaw in akielon culture and damen wasn't on some level morally reprehensible for being a perpetrator in that system then i'm sorry but you do not like damen as much as you think you do. if you think the akielon slavery system is somehow justifiable in-universe because in the originally slavekink type of worldbuilding the slaves wanted to be in that position bc they were naturally submissive then you missed the entire point of damen's character arc.

the issue isn't that i can't see slavery through the lens of kink exploration, i'm very good at suspension of disbelief. but pacat said it himself, the consensual kink part of the story and worldbuilding got away from him because damen refused to comply with that narrative. so at that point a theme of "slavery bad" starts making its way into the story through damen. the slave kink excuse is no longer valid because damen himself starts questioning it, within the story. the narrative (DAMEN!!!!!) sets this moral standard, not the reader.

now. i'm not claiming damen deserved any of the horrible treatment he got from laurent, bc he did not. i'm speaking in terms of strictly what happened in the story. in the story, damen is a former slave owner, realizing slaves are in a very vulnerable position because he himself is put in a very vulnerable position with the worst master and owner imaginable is a core part of his story, his narrative, and the most telling thing about his personality and beliefs.

damen took those negative experiences, that pain and anger he felt at being captive, brutalized, humiliated, and robbed of his free will, and he was able to transfer those onto other people, his subjects, people he himself might've hurt by taking away their own free will. he was able to grow from his trauma through self-reflection and to see reality beyond a life of normalization of systematic violence from which he benefited, resolving to make a significant change as soon as he got the power to do so. that level of empathy and integrity is incredibly admirable of him.

and so you can't have your cake an eat it too. if you claim to love and enjoy this part of his character, you cannot in good faith claim the evil (in a thematic sense) he was fighting against and managed to defeat was not that even that evil anyway. you are saying his judgement is clouded by personal trauma, that he is biased and even overdramatic, and seeing a problem where there isn't any. this is in fact, disrespectful to damen's character. believe it or not.

[khalixvitae]

I never post here anymore due to personal stuff, but I want to reach out on all my socials about this because people need to see it. Can I just say that I am so incredibly disheartened by some people’s responses to what is happening in the South Eastern US/Appalachia? I really can’t explain the level of devastation that is unfolding here under Hurricane Helene. There are people trapped in my childhood neighborhood without power or water because of downed trees and power lines and flooding. I couldn’t get ahold of my family for more than a day because there was a massive cell service outage in my state. Parts of where I grew up will not have electricity for three weeks. My family could be without electricity for three weeks. I didn’t know if my best friend was okay for 12 hours because there was no way to communicate and we live two hours away from one another. I’m entering day 3 of not having electricity.

And frankly, we’re on the luckier side. A town my family has visited every year for the last 20 years is fucking gone- leveled by flooding from a failed dam. Everything including the road is completely washed out, and this is in the fucking mountains. And that’s just what we know about so far during what is still widespread cell service failure. There are entire interstates that have washed out or fallen apart during mudslides- whole towns are gone, and people cannot call for help.

And the number of people I’ve seen, people who say they’re advocating for MY rights as a trans/queer person, who have fully dismissed this in favor of taking to twitter to make comments about how it’s “Trump Country anyway” and how we “deserve it” and “should’ve voted blue to keep this from happening” is brutal. Every time something happens to us down here, out of touch middle class liberals are so quick to blame our collective region of the country for struggles we do not have the time, energy, money, or legislation to prevent. As if we’re fucking stupid and should be purged, like we somehow matter less because our politicians are a breed of fucked up that a whole lot of us disagree with. We aren’t a monolith and we are right fucking here, and mocking us on twitter in the middle of a humanitarian crisis is not going to help your case, I promise.

I cannot explain to you what it’s like to hear somebody with your mother’s accent describe that they can’t pull people out of cars quick enough because the flood water is moving too fast. Everything I’ve ever known is either blipped off the power grid or under water. I’m begging you, please see us as people who are suffering and not as a monolithic entity.

There are trans and queer people here, just like everywhere else. We are suffering at the hands of legislation we don’t believe in, legislation that thinks we should die, and now a mounting natural disaster that we still don’t know the full extent of. There are poor communities, communities that are predominantly BIPOC, disabled people, it goes on. There are a whole lot of us who don’t fit the criteria of the pro trump agenda, who don’t match the bill of what an American southerner looks like in the minds of those who have never been here, who are actively suffering. We ARE voting blue both locally and on the federal level.

But here’s the kicker: it doesn’t fucking matter that we’re here. My life doesn’t mean anything more than my neighbor who might hate who I am to their very bones. Nor am I more deserving of aid than them, even if I hate them right back. The concept of withholding aid or hesitating to help particular regions because of what their government officials believe is heinous. Hell, even if regular civilians believe it too, it’s still wrong and morally reprehensible. Similarly, providing aid with the caveat of “converting those stubborn hicks” to the cause is downright evangelical and fucking evil. This is a humanitarian crisis, and people need help. And truly if you think it would be better if the south couldn’t vote, or that we collectively deserve this on some moral or karmic basis, I really need you to think critically about those exact talking points because they should sound shockingly familiar. Governments should help their people, and that should be a bipartisan priority. I don’t give a fuck what anyone says- people who are ignoring this because of where it’s happening are vile and need to get themselves sorted out. And the people who do think this is some sort of universal comeuppance for this part of the country can- and I mean this truly deeply, from my heart of hearts- go straight to hell.

I’m going to be posting resources to help those in need in the Appalachia region, as well as Florida. I’ll include shelters, food banks, etc. I’ll have them out soon. I don’t use this blog really anymore but this is the least I can do.

[la-pheacienne]

Alright I'm choosing violence yet again because that's what we do in this house.

You guys are seriously creepy about adultery. Like. Seriously. It's not even a joke. In the beginning I thought this bizarre attitude was limited to fandom discourse but I don't think that's the case anymore. I think you guys will eventually need to come to terms with the fact that :

1) Adultery is not criminal behavior, at least in the Western world, since... quite a while actually.

2) Married people can and do fall in love with other people and even occasionally fuck them and this is a very real part of human experience that you need to eventually face.

3) Women who cheat on their husbands are not actually whores.

4) Being "the other woman" (funny phrase) does not automatically give you the seal of ultimate shame, depravity and ruined vagina unlike what your grandma may have told you.

5) Nobody is actually going to give you a golden cookie if you're a faithful god-fearing woman in your own marriage.

6) The fidelity of a man is not and should not be a reward for being a "good"/"correct" woman and having a faithful husband is not the Ultimate Badge of a Woman's Worth and Value unlike popular belief.

7) Likewise, having a man cheat on you does not make you Unworthy, Pathetic and Forever Ruined, it just means they wanted to fuck someone else. A man is not and should not be responsible for your value or worth, not even your husband.

8) From the list of all the harmful things a man can inflict on a woman, cheating is actually the least harmful. It is somehow rebranded as the most harmful, for obvious reasons patriarchy, which leads us to the centuries old pervasive mentality of "he's x, y and z (enter abusive, controlling, boring, horrible in bed) but AT LEAST he LOVES ME he's fAiThFuL and has eyes onLY for ME isn't that rOMaNTIC??". No, it is not. A man can cheat on you after years of being a supportive partner, giving you the best sex of your life, being a great parent for your kids, in short, after years of making your life better in all the ways that matter. A man can be blindly faithful to you and also be a horrible lover and a boring, controlling or abusive partner. Fidelity is socially treated as the number 1 undisputed proof of a man's love for a woman and number 1 undisputed proof of his value as a partner and it absolutely should not be so. This is actually a dangerous mentality and you learned it from me today.

9) Marriage vows are not engraved on our skin, they are not the unbreakable vows of harry potter where if you break them you lose your life, they are not the 10th commandments, they are not the vows of the night's watch. Marriage vows are nothing more than an legal agreement between two people and the state, and agreements are sometimes breached. People's genitals are not automatically covered with sealed concrete when they sign the paper, as much as it would like it to be so. People may agree on fidelity for life but they do preserve their bodily and sexual autonomy and free will even after marriage and sometimes they do prioritize that over their agreement because humans are just like that. I get that this very simple fact sucks, I do. But life sometimes sucks, relationships are unpredictable, people change their minds and can't/don't always want to resist on their desires or needs, and things don't always go as planned because as a general rule, you can't control other people's choices. Only your own.

10) Cheating is a morally reprehensible act, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people who cheat are inherently the epitomy of moral depravity or that their faithful partner is the saint in the relationship. Maybe they are, maybe they're not. Maybe they are both problematic, maybe the cheater is the victim, maybe the faithful partner is actually the problem. It fucking depends. In the year of our lord 2024 you need to perhaps acknowledge that this obsession with fidelity in marriage as the Absolute Hallmark of a healthy relationship and the Ultimate Seal of moral purity is actually a by-product of harmful strict patriarchal/religious values, real life is less black and white and the world is not split between faithful partners with a halo over their head and filthy cheating partners that should be lynched. This is bordering on biological essentialism and let's just say that's not the vibe.

11) A big part of the disgust "cheaters" inspire to a certain category of people is simply thinly concealed sex-averse puritanism, rebranded as ethics. Not all of us fall for that.

12) Feeling hurt, betrayed, traumatized, furious or disgusted after being cheated on is a totally valid reaction. Feeling outraged or disgusted on behalf of other people being cheated on isn't a valid reaction. The scarlet letter was published almost two centuries ago. You are still wayy too comfortable talking about other people's sex lives and passing judgment on account of what they are doing with their own genitals. Likewise, you do not have a say on the cheatee's choice to stay in the marriage. Some people do stay in marriages where they have been cheated on, and no, they are not necessarily weak people with no backbone and/or victims and/or financially dependent on their partner and they don't necessarily need saving. A marriage is an agreement between two (2) people and they are free to agree on whatever the fuck they want. You don't know everything that's going on between them.

The sooner you accept the above facts the easier human relationships will be for you, and as a minor but useful side-effect, navigating certain fandom spaces may become less tedious for you and me both. it's a win-win situation.

[hp-confessions]

I can’t get into Dramione not bcs I think that the ship is somehow morally reprehensible but because I just can’t see Draco as this cool guy he’s usually portrayed as in dramione fics. Like, I don’t think he’s evil, but canon Draco is a pretty pathetic guy, he’s cowardly, narrow minded, obsessed with status and power. Even to the golden trio he’s more like a mild nuisance than an equal adversary. So I just can’t take it seriously when he’s described as this super smart powerful guy who’s only one step behind Hermione in grades, who’s super politically savvy, who’s charming and cunning, who’s brave and resilient, etc. you get it. And in dark fics when he becomes this high ranking death eater, Voldemort’s right hand man… I’m like… how?! He just doesn’t have it in him to become like this. I guess there’s things called character development and redemption and sure I think he can learn to be a better person (or worse). But I can’t buy that he has it at his core to ever become any kind of a force to be reckoned with and be an equal partner for Hermione (or Harry for that matter in Drarry fics)

~

[maxdibert]

It’s the old chestnut that Snape fans from the livejournal days will recognize from discussions of Deathly Hallows when it first came out - the morality of the story basically boils down to ‘it’s fine when a Gryffindor does it’. Encapsulated by that low moment when Harry casts an Unforgivable and McGonagall approves of his gallantry rather than being horrified by what war makes of children. There’s a horrible streak of predestination to her characters. If a character is pretty, reasonably provided for, and sorted into Gryffindor then they are good even if their actions are by any objective standard not. If they’re unloved from birth, they remained unloved. Snape had to die without Harry ever having to reckon with the living man in the full knowledge of his true loyalties because she didn’t know what to do with the one character who wrote himself out of that binary.

For me, the best example of this is Tom Riddle. Rowling establishes that Tom is incapable of feeling affection because he wasn’t conceived out of love, essentially implying in a children’s series that if your parents didn’t truly love each other and you were the result of a poorly handled drunken night, then your life is more or less cursed. It’s like saying that if you aren’t born into a traditional nuclear family and your conception happened under questionable circumstances, then you’re doomed to choose the wrong path, that you’re somehow less of a person, that you won’t be able to feel the same way as others. This was something I thought when his backstory was revealed in the books, and honestly, even back then, as a teenager, I found it horrifying. Especially because, both in my case and that of most people around me, our families are quite dysfunctional or far from conventional, so that really hit me the wrong way.

Rowling has a very conservative worldview in general, and she projects that into the world she’s created through the moral foundations that govern it. As you rightly said, there’s no room in that story for people who weren’t born into privileged environments. If you were unlucky enough to be poor, to have parents who didn’t love you, or to have any sort of illness, then you’re either going to end up being really evil or even poorer and more miserable than rats. This ties into the blatant classism present in her work. And I’m not just referring to the blood-status dichotomy, but to the subtle classism that Rowling normalizes in her narrative, which is less subtle than she likely believes, because she probably isn’t even aware of it. It’s just another projection of her own biases. Rowling rewards characters who do good, even though they’ve always had it easy because they come from functional backgrounds, with the tools to make good decisions, positive role models, and healthy emotional relationships with their surroundings. Essentially, she glorifies people who were raised to be good for doing good, as if that were some kind of achievement. On the other hand, she demonizes characters simply because they don’t fit into her moral framework, without taking into account the social background that shaped them. She blames these characters for not overcoming their past, their traumas, and their hardships, for not somehow magically learning the difference between right and wrong, while completely ignoring all the socioeconomic and cultural mechanisms that play a huge role in shaping one’s worldview, especially in the choices made during youth when one is most vulnerable.

Basically, Rowling displays a complete cognitive dissonance in her work, creating very similar characters with equally reprehensible behaviors but treating them in completely different ways just because one reminds her of her high school crush and the other of a guy she didn’t like. And that’s a huge mistake and a sign of mediocre character development.

[qqueenofhades]

One of my more "radical" leftist friends admitted after the 2016 election that they voted for Jill Stein. I asked them why and they said, and I quote, "I don't really know."

Anyway, thank you for the thoughtful post about polling. I'm still terrified of another Biden-Trump match up, but I suspect you are right that many of these online leftists yelling about sending a message to "genocide Joe" were not likely voters to begin with.

Well I mean, in Online Leftist world, voting is an essentially meaningless act anyway, so if they do bother to do it, why not make some sort of "protest" against the Corrupt System, even though (as I said) Jill Stein is literally a Manchurian candidate sponsored and funded by Russia precisely in order to dupe gullible leftists who want to Send a Message to the Democrats. She has no platform and no policies. She just exists to hurt Democrats and she is another part of the reason HRC lost in 2016, but hey. That sure showed us, or something.

And the thing is, while I'm not discounting that there could be some slippage of the youth vote, it would be much more effective as a threat (much as I would still deeply disagree with it, since the stakes are far too high with Trumpian fascism to fuck around with this bullshit) if we had literally any shred of evidence that they were planning to vote at all, that they were planning to vote for Biden and this is somehow the one thing that made them decide otherwise, or that their arguments were at all widespread beyond their tiny hermetic internet echo chamber. As I have said, I have not thus far seen compelling evidence that any of this is true, and believe me, I am ALSO keeping a close eye on things because this year will probably kill me before it's over. But when the Online Leftists have already spent three years lying about and trashing everything Biden has actually done, it is difficult to believe that they were in fact intending to vote for him, that they should be priced into any election analysis, or that they are as impactful as they think.

I suspect they're mostly being used to try to convince other people (who may or may not have planned to vote) that it is morally reprehensible to vote for Biden solely because of Gaza, no matter how illogical that is and how many orders of magnitude worse Trump would be on literally everything. And while I'm not denying that they may well peel off a few of the wishy-washy leaners and that's why their rhetoric is dangerous, I deeply doubt that they themselves were ever any kind of electoral or voting participant at all, because they keep telling us loudly that they're not. The media is running hard with this angle because they desperately want more Biden in Trouble stories, but actual election results keep proving them wrong, over and over. For all our sakes, let's hope very much this trend continues.

[junglejim4322]

I think if people who have these rigid ideas when it comes to moral media consumption took 5 minutes to look into the background of the stuff they like they’d instantly have a heart attack and an aneurysm and a stroke and pass away and die. And yes this includes a lot of people who don’t see themselves this way at all amazingly enough. People condemn movies that made them mildly uncomfortable or have reprehensible people involved in the making because they somehow don’t realize the great majority of works do. Remember carol the movie carol with the lesbians? Semi autobiographical story made by a neo nazi. You don’t even want to know the tip of the iceberg when it came to the content of the original Hannibal book series. And I don’t mean edgy erotic cannibalism I mean some of the most appalling homophobia and transphobia ever written.

And no I’m not singling these out to make a callout post for harold and Hannibal in fact I enjoy both those works enough and they’re not unique cases at all they’re just two examples of something I’ve commonly noticed are liked by people who pearl clutch over anything not in their personal idea of morality and acceptability while being absolutely clueless that there’s probably a way more loaded history there than whatever movie or show or anime of the week that they’re losing their mind over lol

[thegutterbunny]

Leftism Tires Me.

I'm just gonna put this here because nobody's gonna see it anyways. I'm just trying to organize my messy ass thoughts. Lately, I've been feeling really disillusioned with leftism, but I don't have the proper words for why. Every time I try to google "leftists are annoying" or something all I get is right wing shit. A lot of this is based on experiences I've both IRL and Online. A lot of this is me struggling to put feelings to words. I feel like my personality just doesn't JIVE right with leftists. I'm pretty materialistic, I love stuff. Mostly books, games, kink gear, and clothes. I drool at other people's wardrobes and goth decorated bedrooms. I don't really care which online stores are the "bad ones". I DO want them demonias. They look cool. I like fan servicey/sexy character designs. They're hot. I want more hot characters that aesthetically appeal to me that I can gawk at. I hate when twitter users and talking heads pretend like they are above such "base tastes". I think people are too uptight about having a squeaky clean record of consuming media. Steering away from problematic artists and art into an ever-shrinking circle of "safe" art and artists. It should depend on what you're personally comfortable with, I think. I've dropped artists that I think are reprehensible. Not ever out of some sense of morality and duty, but because they gross me out and I can't look at them the same. Other artists do or have done terrible things, but that adds to the flavor somehow. Makes them more interesting and worth diving into. Sometimes it even humanizes them. Sometimes the art is SO GOOD I just don't give a shit. The constant emphasis on the collective over the individual is off putting to me. I think rules based on morality always end up having to be made arbitrarily because when building a moral system you ALWAYS run into contradictions and inconsistencies. This is because morality is this thing we made up. We don't find morals in nature. They weren't "discovered". Morality isn't divine. Morality is a TOOL. Which is why this idea that being a small part of something "larger than myself" freaks me the fuck out. Sacrificing pieces of myself... Be it my time, my identity, my aspirations, and my body to a machine called "revolution" is off-putting in an existential way. "Your feelings matter until they don't" is that unspoken leftist creed. Philosophers and philosophy enthusiasts are the most annoying irritating motherfuckers to be around. OH HOW I HATE THEM. NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER VENT OR SPILL YOUR GUTS TO A PHILOSOPHY NERD. NEVER MAKING THAT MISTAKE AGAIN.

Sometimes I feel like leftists are more concerned with defending leftism itself than actual people and their feelings. They sanctify the lens they view the world through other then the people they view through that lens. They can be just as biased, stubborn, and incurious as everyone else. Look, not everyone has the time or energy to look through constant studies or be scholars, I get it, but summa y'all just unthinkingly latch onto narratives and refuse to unclutch only because everyone else around you has latched onto the narrative too. The amount of times I've seen someone latch onto a narrative without even thinking about it... Just based on vibes... FUCK. This last one... Speaking as an autistic person... Is rough. Leftist spaces are SUPER cliquey and ran by the same Social Capital rules as anywhere else. There are the same invisible lines to tread here as anywhere else that torture me as someone who's blind to where they lay. Break and self censure yourself to fit in. Nobody's in disagreement. It's just you, and if you disagree we'll all quietly and silently move away from you without a word like everyone else. It depends on the exact space you're in. Whatever friend group or discord server, the feel can "change". People with the most charisma are rewarded with attention, admiration, and a feeling of belonging. Being awkward, shy, quiet, or having the neurodivergent "stench" makes to ostracized. Just. Like. Everywhere. Else. FUCK. YOU.

OK that's enough schizo posting. There's even more I could touch on, but I'm tired and I wanna play Silent Hill 2. If anyone who's read this has the time, what's the diagnosis? What should I do with myself? Am I beyond saving or whatever? I don't even want to "leave leftism" or whatever the fuck, but there's so much... Pressure... here. So much judgement. I want something better for myself but I look everywhere and I can't find it.

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

Watching this video essay about Yellowjackets and somehow HOTD came up and I saw the tweet and I roll my eyes so hard

Uh. Yeah. Bc she uses the faith (basically Catholicism or Christianity) to act as this pious queen when she is paying maids to keep their mouths shut about her own son raping them.

And she didn't just hang up some four pointed stars, if I remember, she REPLACED, the targs sygils with the faith of the seven stuff.

Alicent stans just love to forget her fanaticism until they can use it to make her look more pathetic. I have to say, accusing Rhaenyra of religious fanaticism is a new to me lmao. I've only ever seen people call her a godless whore, but I'm not on X, so maybe I've been spared.

Targaryen antis don't seem to grasp just how much of the Valyrian culture the Targaryens have given up for the sake of Westeros. Calling the Valyrian wedding ceremony an "arcane marriage ritual" is not only insulting to the Valyrian culture but also completely hypocritical.

Valyrian culture was steeped in magic, they themselves have magic in their blood. Is it any surprise their marriage customs would be the same? That's like expecting the Starks' ceremonies to happen separate from the Old Gods. The Targaryens have given up their gods, most of their magic, their language, and their marriage traditions. They never forced other people to follow their traditions, they never forbade following the Faith and the Old Gods, they fucking conformed as much as possible aside from the incest, which was the only way they know to preserve the last bit of Valyria's magic.

Alicent wouldn't be seen as a religious extremist if she didn't actively repress and hate other religions. She badmouths the Valyrian traditions, not just the incest, but also their love of dragons and their art. She removes all the Valyrian and Targaryen heraldry and artifacts and replaces them with the the symbols of a religion known for being intolerant and repressive.

As I said earlier, the Valyrian culture is dying out and the Targaryens have given up so much of their mother land. Removing the last pieces of someone's culture just because you follow a different religion is fucked up. Alicent isn't even the actual ruler or a Targaryen, it's not her place to choose to abandon their Valyrian heritage while her husband is too sick to interfere.

But the real issue of Alicent's actions are her motivation. She doesn't actually care about morality and her own religion, she cares about supporting Aegon and undermining Rhaenyra. That's why she criticizes Valyrian incest then turns around and forces Helaena to marry Aegon. That's why she calls Jace and Luke savages when her own son bullies his siblings constantly and later rapes women. That's why she harps on about honor and decency while actively protecting and covering up the actions of a rapist, a murderer, and a kinslayer. That's why she removes the Valyrian heraldry while Rhaenyra is gone and replaces them with the symbols of the Faith.

She's literally the definition of the hypocritical woman for Trump. She harps on and on about morals then turns around and does reprehensible things for her own gain. She complains constantly about a culture different from hers and actively tries to remove its influence. She hates people who don't conform to her ideas.

Alicent isn't a good person, period. She's a hypocrite, constantly upholds the patriarchy, sacrifices others for the sake of her interests, and is xenophobic. The efforts to take her flaws and project them on other characters, usually Rhaenyra, by her stans is ridiculous and really shows how little they actually like her character. They like her aesthetic and the idea of a perfect suffering victim.

[nothorses]

Hey this is vaguely related to the conversations you were having and I hope you’re ok with me dropping it in your asks. But when I came out as FTM I felt like I was forced to try and fit into this patriarchal idea of cis manhood by others. Like I couldn’t just be a person with a wide array of interests and desires if I wanted to be a man. Even by like, trans allies and other trans people.

I often see even other trans men using toxic masculinity but trying to be “positive” about it like “you aren’t a man unless you are comfortable in femininity or engage in politics this way” or even “do [blank] for these other marginalized communities” boiled down to “repent for being a gender traitor” IMO.

I feel like this sort of thing is tied to this like “binary vs non-binary” in a tangible way. I’m just not sure and I could be wrong and I’m curious about your thoughts. It’s been on my mind for weeks, these kinds of patterns in trans spaces and discussions and I personally have no conjunctive answer.

I think I understand what you're getting at, and I have definitely noticed this kind of thing in my own experiences and relationship to gender. I identified as nonbinary for as long as I did because I legitimately felt pressured to; I was surrounded by people who felt, and implied, and stressed, that masculinity and manhood were bad things & it was somehow morally superior to be nonbinary instead. I was afraid of being, or being seen as, aggressive and dangerous and morally reprehensible, and identifying as nonbinary felt like the Better Thing To Do.

This isn't, like, unique; Baeddels openly believed that this was the better way to go, and/or that nonbinary people were just Secret Trans Men pretending to be "non-men" in order to "avoid accountability":

Which kind of reinforces the myth that Being Nonbinary Is Morally Superior in and of itself: "trans men are just pretending to be nonbinary because it would make them Better People, but we all know that they can't really be nonbinary" is not actually challenging this assumption that being further from manhood would be morally superior. though denying the fact that nonbinary people can exist at all is still incredibly, disgustingly exorsexist.

this line of thinking didn't just come from this one specific strain of radical transfeminism. radfem ideology as a whole is, imo, more like a pink coat of paint on regular-ass cisheteropatriarchy. I think the ways in which radtransfeminism understand trans men and nonbinary people are incredibly indicative of this; trans womanhood has been sort of half-unpacked, but there are still so many deep anxieties around trans men and (some) nonbinary folks "betraying womanhood" and "infiltrating women's spaces", "mutilating" our bodies, etc.

I mean, it's internalized transphobia. my grandma wants to call me "grey" instead of "greyson" for the same reason that my trans ally lesbian peer wants to use "they/them" pronouns for me instead of "he/him": it obfuscates my connection to manhood, and in many ways, my defiance of the gender binary they're comfortable with. it makes my gender identity sort of "uncertain", and positions me a little closer to womanhood. it's more comfortable for them.

when I did identify as nonbinary and use "they/them", I was consistently misgendered as "female". again, I was being nudged back toward womanhood and the identity that was more palatable for others (including some trans people!). I was being nudged back towards the gender binary.

there is clearly also a trend here of nudging nonbinary people back into the binary in the "other" direction: again, the above example of Baeddels insisting that nonbinary people who were AFAB are "actually" trans men. Truscum often believe the same of dysphoric nonbinary people. Baeddels tended to believe that nonbinary people who were AMAB were "actually" trans women in denial, too. Exorsexism is a hell of a drug.

But yeah, I think you're right; I think the common thread between all branches of transphobia is a desire to protect the gender binary, and I think that necessarily problematizes any idea of a socio-politically "binary" trans person.

It's important to understand how exorsexism is unique beyond that, too; there are still differences between the experiences of trans people who do identify exclusively as one "binary" gender, and trans people who don't. I just think the categories are less perfect and binary (lol) than folks tend to think of them.

[magpod-confessions]

i saw the ask that was saying jonelias hate was homophobic but wtgfs hate wasn’t lesbophobic and didn’t want to reblog it because i didn’t want to get involved in drama but. yikes.

the wtgfs thing- no, it is absolutely not lesbophobic to be more interested in the main characters than a side ship. that does not change the fact that misogyny and lesbophobia are a pervasive issue in popular and fandom culture. i feel like it’s possible to acknowledge that main wlw ships being ignored for a side mlm pairing is something that happens, and that’s bad, and it is also not inherently misogynistic to be less invested in a side wlw pairing.

the jonelias thing- yes, treating jonelias like some terrible morally reprehensible thing is silly, and no it’s not somehow inherently sexual. there are many darker/more questionable ships that are significantly more widely accepted, and not everybody is going to be interested in jmart. a lot of people like corruption arcs and would have found that to be more interesting. however, you cannot just call someone a bigot because they prefer the canon ship over your fanon interpretation. a lot of people aren’t going to like a ship like jonelias, for plenty of different reasons. maybe it doesn’t fit the way they see the characters, they would prefer jon regaining his humanity and healing in a healthy way, maybe they just don’t like it. that doesn’t make them inherently homophobic. you can disagree with someone and dislike their ships without it meaning they are a bad person.

the mean lesbian thing- i feel they missed the point here. the issue isn’t jonny writing women as mean lesbian stereotypes. none of the characters even have a canon sexuality beyond tim and jon liking multiple genders and jon being somewhere on the ace spectrum, and even those are vague. the issue is fandom stereotyping, seeing women in a terrible situation under pressure getting angry at a man and then deciding they must be mean man hating lesbians. seeing a man who has a sense of humor and is presumably bisexual and deciding he’s a flirty slut with the emotional capacity of a teaspoon. seeing a violent woman who cares for another woman and deciding she must be a masculine butch lesbian and other interpretations are somehow wrong. etc.

can we please all just acknowledge that nuance exists and differing opinions aren’t evil

.