#not looking to start a discourse

[lena-in-a-red-dress]

Okay. So. I watched the Laci Peterson documentary on Netflix. The two jurors? Don't think they could have found a more sanctimonious piece of shit pair of dudes. They piss me off almost as much Scott Peterson does.

(Continued rant under the cut-- hidden for my non-murderinos out there)

Idk. Ever since my writers group dudes needed to see a guy be more evil than "let me impregnate this selkie, then she'll want to stay" to justify his fictional thematic death, my opinion of men's judgement on crimes against women has hit an all-time low. Just... the way they talked about the case and how high and mighty their judgement and opinions were.

"I don't care about this, I only care about that" like shut the fuck my dudes. Look, I understand the perils of our criminal justice system and the overincarceration of innocent men, and I understand the need to get to as close to the truth as possible. But in a system designed by and built to protect conventionally attractive white men like Scott Peterson, who are you to pick and choose what's relevant and what's not? Who are you to decide the difference between what's circumstantial and what's context?

Ugh. Idk. I don't like a lot about what happened with the press on the case, and my own red flags about Scott Peterson (besides what the documentary highlights) include "who tf goes open water fishing after determining its too cold to golf" (also, golf is a red flag in and of itself) and "only monsters park their massive pickup truck in a spot marked for compact vehicles", so.... I'm not exactly an authority on the matter.

But I do question the fuck out of men sitting on juries for crimes against women. Especially men like these two douche canoes. I don't care what the eventual verdict was. I pity the women who had to sit on the jury with those two pricks.

[sforzesco]

something. about. the horror of being sent on an impossible (death) quest and obligations and hospitality politics. the trauma of not having a home, and then the trauma of being in a house that becomes actively hostile to you, one that would swallow you whole and spit out your bones if you step out of line. all of this is conditional, your existence continues to be something men want gone.

it's about going back as far as I can with the perseus narrative because there's always a version of a myth that exists behind the one that survives. the missing pieces are clearly defined, but the oldest recorded version of it isn't there! and there's probably something older before that!! but it's doomed to forever be an unfilled space, clearly defined by an outline of something that was there and continues to be there in it's absence.

and love. it's also about love. even when you had nothing, you had love.

on the opposite side of the spectrum, this is Not About Ovid Or Roman-Renaissance Reception, Depictions And Discourses On The Perseus Narrative.

edit: to add to the above, while it's not about Ovid, because I'm specifically trying to peel things back to the oldest version of this story, Ovid is fine. alterations on the Perseus myth that give more attention Medusa predate Ovid by several centuries. this comic is also not about those, either! there are many versions of this story from the ancient world. there is not one singular True or Better version, they're all saying something.

Perseus, Daniel Ogden

Anthology of Classical Myth: Primary Sources in Translation, edited & translated by Stephen M Trzaskoma, R. Scott Smith, Stephen Brunet

[bixels]

In case anyone who’s not on Twitter is wondering what it’s like now, I just got punched in the throat by four random consecutive discourse posts on my timeline as follows:

>bojack horseman is pathetic and anyone who likes “cartoons for adults” should have their harddrives checked for cp.

>anime is/isn’t carried by black culture, citing dandadan referencing a rihanna dance in its intro (it was a qrt exchange so both sides were present).

>angel dust is good sa victim representation and the person who made that video essay about them needs to be cyberbullied (or the inverse).

>this random stranger online made a post about how they’re bisexual and a trans ally but aren’t interested in trans people romantically or sexually, let’s make assumptions about their failure as a queer person and also dox them.

So that’s what you’re missing out on.

[blluespirit]

back on my 'zuko is aroace' agenda. if i have to see one more post arguing about shipping i am going to start biting people. he's actually a single dad and never marries thanks bye.

[yrsonpurpose]

RED, WHITE & ROYAL BLUE (2023) book → screen (x)

[high-voltage-rat]

Okay rvb gang real talk for a sec. I think y'all should put a little more thought into the way you draw and characterize Captain Butch Flowers. Specifically with regards to the widely accepted facecanon having native-coded features.

Facecanons in rvb generally fall under 2 categories: the ones based off of information about the person's race and background we receive in the canon, and ones that are purely headcanon, based on vibes. For example, we're told Simmons is Dutch-Irish, so it's common to draw him as a white redhead. Tucker being black is as close to directly stated as we ever get re: any of the reds and blues' races. But Sarge is often drawn as a white man despite no information being given about his race- it's usually chosen by the headcanoner based off the vibes we get from his behaviour.

So when it comes to Flowers, let's think for a second about how the fandom generally interprets his character. In canon, we see him on blue team making his soldiers a bit uncomfortable with his overly familiar behaviour, having a cheerful and upbeat demeanour. We also see him in PFL working with Wyoming to do recon, then getting hit with a tomahawk, throwing it back at the enemy, and then using his grenade launcher to bring down a crane and kill chain guy and girl. Later he's in charge of choosing soldiers to place in blood gulch, where we see he has no problem feeding soldiers through the fodder machine and covering up for Freelancer- including essentially killing Jimmy. What we see in fandom, though, is a guy who is cheerfully menacing, casually hyperviolent, bubbly facade, likes knives, 'probably has a torture basement', etc.

So I would like us to think for a moment about why, exactly, people took those vibes, that interpretation of his character, with the more violent aspects overinflated, and decided to draw him with native-coded features. I would like us all to take a second and consider the connotations behind the pile of art out there where a brown man with long dark hair in a braid is splattered in blood. To me, this particular choice just feels like another "native s*vage" trope, and I think it has really not been thought through.

Indigenous headcanons in rvb are admittedly pretty difficult. Rvb is a problematic media through and through, and there's always going to be something offensive in the way a character is portrayed. I myself hc the Grifs as kānaka maoli, due to them being from Hawai'i and Kaikaina's name- but between Grif's laziness and Kai's hypersexuality, it definitely falls into some other offensive stereotypes about indigenous people, and particularly native Hawaiians.

But to me, the distinguishing thing is that these are facets of their characters that have something deeper behind them- there are reasons for these traits that are explored both by canon and the fandom meta. Grif's laziness is a result of his personal struggle with having to care for his sister alone, as well as his general disdain for the army as an institution. Kai's sexuality is her way of seeking fun and connection in her life, likely in part due to feeling abandoned by their mother, and then by her brother. In the case of the Grifs, fandom treats them well by taking these established character traits, and not overinflating, but contextualizing them, and treating them as part of a larger whole. Grif is loyal to his friends, he's clever and observant when he's willing to show it. Kai is independent, business-savvy, and assertive. These other character aspects exist in the fandom portrayal, so their depictions don't feel like a glaring stereotype. In the right hands, with enough care and love, their negative traits can even be used to explore the impact of colonialism- how the stereotypes are based off the conditions and circumstances forced on us by its influence.

Flowers, on the other hand, has a fandom portrayal that feels like an artificial exaggeration of a single aspect of his canon character. There's very little depth behind it, no real contextualization- he hasn't been fleshed out by fandom, he's almost been reduced by it. Naturally, contextualization is going to be harder because he's a minor character and we don't hear much- if anything- about his background. But it is still an active choice by people who make fan content of him to emphasize certain traits, and it's thus far been the traits that fall into some very harmful tropes.

So my suggestion, as an indigenous person, is this. You don't have to change your facecanon, necessarily- but put some thought into it. Whether you're depicting him as an explicitly native person, or just with native-coded features, consider the connotations. Reconsider exaggerating his violent side so much: technically speaking, we've seen him kill 2 people somewhat indirectly, in the same mission that North killed like 5 in a similar manner and Tex literally murdered C.T. with a tomahawk. Do you emphasize their violence in the same way? Why did you choose to do so for Flowers? If you want him to be unsettling, his enthusiastic facilitation of PFL's activities in blood gulch and lack of qualms about using and discarding sim troopers is there to work with- something non-violent but no less sinister, something less aligned with common harmful stereotypes when applied to indigenous people, and much more founded in canon as a distinguishing part of his character.

Just stop to think "is this portrayal a reinforcement of the "native s*vage" trope?", and "is this really that founded in canon?". Think about whether someone with no experience in rvb fanon would look at your content and see more than a native guy in mystery blue guy's armour doing gratuitous violence for no reason.

Consider the less explored but canonical aspects of his character, flesh them out with headcanon. Sure, he killed chain guy and girl, but he also yanked a tomahawk out of his arm after falling from height and kept fighting- explore his resilience, what drives him. His strategic mind, using the environment against his enemies, carefully balancing the illusion surrounding blood gulch and constructing specific social dynamics. Hell, even delve into why he believes in Freelancer enough to do what he's done without issue. Flesh out your portrayal, dial back the singularity of the vibes you give him.

Indigenous people aren't exempt from being awful, or violent, or complicit in corrupt systems- but if you portray a native character that way without any depth or reason behind their choices, you often end up reinforcing a stereotype.

...and if gratuitous violence is what you want, if you like that creepy knife-obsessed murder guy, then yeah. Maybe consider changing your facecanon. Cause I'm a little tired of seeing characters who look like my people always soaked in blood and acting like they have innate uncontrolled urges to kill. Depictions like that about us were part of what formed the justification for our genocide, so please try not to perpetuate that.

[lee-minhoe]

hanjitonin for @strayklds 💖🎁

[incorrectskyrimquotes]

cicero and sheogorath are both so fucking annoying and someone needs to be brave enough to say it

[terriblygrimm]

come together, right now, over me

[kenneth-black]

This scene holds such a special place in my heart like LOOK AT THAT MAN!!! 🫣🥵🤤

[the-final-sif]

what is your opinion on the situation?

I've been at work all day so I haven't been able to sit down with stuff fully, it also seems like Caiti is planning to release a statement later today with more information I think? So I'd like to get her response there, but based on what I've seen so far I think I fall more on the side of "people made some dumb choices and should learn from them" than anything else.

Consent is messy and it gets messier when people start lying or are drunk. In this case, both Caiti and George were drunk. From what I understand, either Caiti had a 21+ wristband from the vidcon party, or her friend group did and assumed since she was drinking with them, she was also 21+.

Honestly, when it comes to the matter of underage drinking, I don't think it's even remotely fair to place blame on Dream/George for that. The blame there lies with Caiti deciding to drink while under 21, and on her friends, Ghostie and the other person present who were both over 21. Unlike Dream/George, both of them knew Caiti and knew exactly how old she was and were letting her drink. They were also letting her drink with no one sober and no one making sure she got home.

Now, Caiti is 18 and also I'm not a goddamn square, I'm not gonna stand here and be like "oh no drinking at 18 clutch my pearls" but like, if people are going to blame other people for that situation, that very much lies with Caiti's friends who knew they had an underage person drinking with them. I feel like people are weirdly assigning blame to Dream/George for not like, iding every person they hang out with (particularly if she had a 21+ bracelet at vidcon, which would mean she already got IDed). While completely avoiding placing any blame on the people who 100% knew they were taking an 18 year old drinking without a doubt.

Putting that aside, from my understanding George's side is he believed at the time that she was having fun, and the most they did was cuddle on a couch with other people there. He believed at the time that everything was cool, and that she later decided she was uncomfortable with what happened.

Honestly, I don't really think that's an unfair reading. At this same party, her best friend was there and from Ghostie's own words, she also didn't realize Caiti was uncomfortable until several months later when Caiti told her. If her best friend didn't notice she was uncomfortable or see anything wrong, then I find it hard to think anyone else would pick up on it.

There's certainly risks taken here that I wouldn't have taken. I think that George needs to do better with checking for consent and maybe vetting the people you're hanging out with. Although I also understand that doing a full background check on everyone you ever meet is an absurd requirement and if, at the time, they trusted the person that they actually invited, I get how that shit happens. Per consent, given that he was also drunk, I get how it may've appeared to him that he had consent. I do think it's still something to work on, but I'm also perfectly aware that in real life, people are often going off vibes and social cues, and sometimes those don't mash.

I also think that Caiti's friends have been pretty shitty throughout this. They take no responsibility for having let an 18 year old drink and then ditching her. They are absolutely milking drama out of this shit and they have a weird obsession with blaming Dream for shit he had no fault in.

As for Dream, I don't think he did anything wrong here. Full stop. If Caiti's best friend didn't notice that she was uncomfortable or unhappy, it's insanely unreasonable to expect Dream to have managed that. He was also drunk and hanging out with people, and he had no way of knowing Caiti was underage. None of that shit was his fault, and his statement seems very measured and reasonable. People are trying to blame him for things that he had absolutely no part in, and the UK group are absolutely trying to pull that shit.

Overall, sounds like several people involved made dumb choices, I hope they learn and grow. Otherwise all of this honestly sounds like shit that should've been talked out privately and not tossed to the internet for speculation. Human beings are messy and will fuck up sometimes. This feels like a case of miscommunication and people making risky choices that left people with some hurt.

Again, I may change my mind with further evidence presented, but that's how it feels to me.

[captainjonnitkessler]

Sometimes people will say things like "minority and mainstream religions should be treated equally". But this is a trap and they will get VERY mad if you say that you do treat them as equally false or equally damaging, because what they actually meant was "it should be considered equally wrong to criticize or disrespect any religion in any manner".

[butwhatifidothis]

it annoys me so much when people say "edel had no other choice" as a thought terminating cliche. like even IF that were true, how one goes about that is still a characterful thing that gets minimized to "so it's not her fault stop being mean to her she just did what she had to". like. does she feel regret? does she apologize ot the people she's hurting? does she view it as righteous? who knows, becuase the argument is only ever used as a "stop being mean to my wife" line and not a character thing.

Yeah cuz like. Okay so let's say that starting the war was absolutely not her fault because xyz circumstance robs her of any substantial say in the matter.

What about using Demonic Beasts? What about her siccing her army and different set of Demonic Beasts on her own "friends" so that she could make more Demonic Beasts? Stealing from a gravesite to do so? What about starving her citizens, and being the only lord TO starve her citizens in their route? What about killing Judith as she ran away from her? Hell, invading the neutral Alliance in the first place? What about helping the Death Knight get away with stealing Flayn if 25 turns pass? What about saying nothing about Kronya even after Solon reveals himself at Remire? What about giving Jeritza a hunting ground to enable his bloodlust and not, like. Professional help?

She couldn't even mention a means she's working on to do anything about her starving citizens? Did she have to blame Claude (and everyone really) not immediately bowing down to her as to why the Alliance was violently invaded, and not her violent invasion being the reason it was violently invaded? What about persecuting Church followers who didn't do shit to anybody, did she have to do that shit too? Never freeing Brigid and instead stationing her men there on her route and sending Hubert there off of it; that was forced on her too? Taking Byleth's credit during the siege instead of letting them get the recognition they deserve - what, just, fate forcing her hand once again?

Are we really going to sit here and say because the war "needed" to happen, Edelgard was forced to do literally all of that (and more)? That because Edelgard was "forced" into war, she was also forced to do literally anything involving the war?

Like you said, her stans saying that she "had no choice" but to start the war does nothing to say anything about her as a character, because they also reject everything else she did regarding her war as having anything to do with her agency. They treat "she had to do this" as a means to protect the moral purity they want her character to have so they don't feel bad rooting for the villain to win, not as something that goes on to mean anything for her.

And I'm not asking for her to save literally every single person ever from any harm ever to prove her care about not going to war exists, I'm asking for LITERALLY ANYTHING. Because she quite literally does nothing to mitigate harm from anybody in this war, and regardless of whether the war was "forced" on her hands or not she absolutely could have done something to make sure her people suffered as minimally as possible. Which damn sure isn't seen in her hiding behind them as she sits in her throne room (a thing Dimitri and Claude absolutely don't do, with either similar or less time to prepare to protect their people). Or starves them, a thing uniquely said about her route (as literally all the other ones have the army go with lacking food supplies). Or allows Thales to conscript them under threat of death. Or openly saying that she thinks weak people would only stay weak after her war because they're "too used to relying on others" - because when her war takes everything away from people, it'd be THEIR fault for staying weak, which is *chef's kiss* so kind and caring amiright guys. Definitely shows off that she understands and/or cares about the ramifications of her war onto the people, and not that she has her head shoved squarely and firmly up her ass.

What does it meaningfully mean for the war to not be Edelgard's fault, if she's not going to do anything to indicate that she cares about other people enough to want to not force war on them? Hell, when she very explicitly shows she doesn't particularly care about how it'd affect people, if it affects people in a way that doesn't align with her beliefs? When she very explicitly says she's perfectly willing to sacrifice her people for her higher cause, and then goes on to sacrifice her people for her higher cause? If she doesn't even try to help others because the war was forced on her, that at best makes her one of powerless victim or uncaring defeatist - neither of which fit the resolute caring ambitious revolutionary they paradoxically also want her to be. So, again, what does it actually mean for the war to not be a result of Edelgard's agency, if she regardless of that still shows callous indifference to those harmed by the war?

It's a question no one who posits this about Edelgard is able to answer, because as you said, it's not meant to be anything more than a shallow defense against her own actions. Letting Edelgard have even the slightest smidgen of agency in her own actions means accepting that she is a massive fucking penis. A huge gaping asshole. A plain ol' jerk. Which again! Is INFINITELY more engaging to watch than this marionette strung along by literally everyone around her into "looking" like a villain, only being her "true" self when she's feeding kittens and dwawing her cwush and burping her googoo gaga babyass girlfriend they also tend to make (f!)Byleth over her shoulder

[a-mel0n]

i dont even know why i open 911 tiktok anymore

[ingravinoveritas]

So, some folks have probably seen by now that the trailer for Michael's appearance on The Assembly this Friday has dropped, and the first question shown is, "How does it feel to be dating with someone who's only 5 years older than your daughter?"

Already, I am seeing people clutching their pearls in response to this, particularly on Twitter. Saying that it's an inappropriate question, that this person has an opportunity to ask Michael anything and chooses this, that he looks so uncomfortable, and so on. One piece of context that seems to be missing is that (to my knowledge), none of the interviewers are fans of Michael's. They were given the opportunity to do research prior to the interview and developed their questions based on that, but none (again, AFAIK) are coming from the vantage of being a fan. So immediately, that gives a different sense of where the interviewers are coming from and how this shapes and informs the interview itself.

What also came to mind is that if Michael is uncomfortable, it's worth thinking about why that might be. It seems like a lot of fans have created this perfect portrait of Michael and Anna's relationship in their minds, so if we are to follow the logic of that--if his and AL's relationship is as sunshine and roses as many people believe it to be--then Michael might be surprised by the question, but probably wouldn't be uncomfortable. Yet in the trailer, we can see the change in his body language and the way he tenses up immediately after the question is asked. Because for as talented an actor as he is, Michael absolutely cannot seem to hide his true feelings as himself.

I also definitely think that whatever answer he gives to that question will be a PR answer. Which is not to suggest that Michael will be dishonest, but rather that he will be polite, but likely without saying what he really feels about their relationship. Again, do I think he owes anyone his full, unvarnished emotions? No, of course not. But Michael is a fully grown adult man who is more than aware of the consequences of his actions, and he does not need to be "protected" or shielded from such questions. So if fans are uncomfortable with Michael's discomfort in talking about a relationship he's been in for the last five years, it might be a good idea to think about why that is.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that the editing of the trailer is already confirming some of my previously-held fears where the autistic/neurodivergent interviewers are portrayed as rude/weird, and Michael is "so brave" for taking on the "challenge" of being interviewed by "those people." It's somehow a combination of objectifying and dehumanizing, putting us (I include myself, as an autistic person) in the category of "other" for actually saying out loud what other people are only thinking. This both entirely disregards the producers/editors tacit encouragement as part of the format of this, and Michael being willing to answer, and demonizes/places the blame on the ND interviewers instead.

That is my take on the trailer, at any rate. I still intend to watch the full show once it's released, and am hopeful that the joyful atmosphere found in other parts of the trailer will prevail throughout the show. Happy as always to hear from my followers with your thoughts, so feel free to chime in...

[batcavescolony]

I didn't think if have to explain this, Human mediocrity is hundreds of times better then ANYTHING an AI could come up with.