#of denouncing his beliefs because it was the only thing in his life for so long. it was his life and i feel like the settlement slowly

[dykedvonte]

what do you think Danse does to keep himself busy after blind betrayal, specifically if he's living in sanctuary? I just love your takes on him a lot haha

I think Danse is very lost in any settlement but especially Sanctuary. It was the first and very close-knit at that with the small group the Sole Survivor founded it with. Each time they would invite a new companion to live there it was like adding a pillar to the community and represented what the Minute Men stood for when it came ot uniting and protecting the commonwealth as one. I am not going to say it's cliquey, in fact I feel like SoSu and Preston/Sturges would go out of their way to make newcomers feel welcome but for Danse that is very different.

He (from my playthrough experience) is one of the later companions. I ran around a lot and got a good portion of the companions and their quest before act one was done. He is also one of the few companions who openly thinks lowly of life in the commonwealth and certain citizens (if not all citizens to an extent). He did not introduce himself to Sanctuary to make friends or roots. So when he gets stuck there under the SoSu's "orders" (not letting him rot in sorrow in some random bunker) he doesn't have any comfort or companionship, in fact, I think he has more tensions and beef tbh.

I imagine the first weeks or even a month or two were rough. I don't think it is stated enough that like Danse went to that bunker intending to follow Brotherhood protocols and kill himself. SoSu may have convinced him not to in the moment but with someone like Danse, so rigid and stuck in an ideology even after it spits in his face, it's not unlikely he has a weird guilt about being alive at first. It doesn't help that I know in my heart that a few of the more petty or insensitive companions or settlers would tease him about it (playful meanness) thinking he was adjusting well (or not caring) to the Sanctuary life and coming to terms with his identity. Sometimes they go too far and it's easy to tell he's gotten back into the headspace, looking at his reflection, trying to remember concrete dates for his memories, etc..

I have this head canon that SoSu recognized this pattern as they had to have immense survivor's guilt (especially after being in Kellogs brain) about surviving the vault. They had the same idea about making things "fair" for the other vault dwellers and Shaun was the only thing between them and those thoughts for a while. For the first weeks it was a lot of SoSu monitoring him and making sure he was adjusting and not falling back into that thinking, y'know the whole "I am a disgrace and abomination against the Brotherhood and humanity. The only thing I can do to no longer sully the honor of either is to kill mys-" Like stopping that with minor distractions.

It would be a lot of small work and building projects and patrols for lost scavengers or to make sure no one is stalking the place. It's nice for him for a while, he's getting social interaction and he's not dead in the eyes of at least one Brotherhood member, especially one of as high rank as the SoSu. But it's also really unhealthy. Danse was trained and raised in a militaristic pseudo-religious faction. As much as there seemed to be casualness towards comrades there was a strict structure and order. He shoves the SoSu into that role and probably gets nick-named as their shadow during this period.

They are his only goal as he has nothing else and it shows bad. The rest of the settlement notices he trails after them and only really does his own thing when it's part of a task he was doing for, with or assigned by the Sole survivor. It's not an obsession with them specifically but he has lost his entire understanding of life and this is the one thing that stayed concrete. He does what he's asked of because following the Sole survivor has at least kept him belonging somewhere and why mess that up?

I am sure SoSu is not oblivious and is actively trying to figure out how to get Danse to start socializing and trying to actually settle into the community but for the time being Danse would treat himself like the machine he perceives himself as; Overworking himself as he believes machines don't need the same amount of rest, isolating himself and mostly trying to not have a mental breakdown every time he get into the power armor that is very much not his issued Brotherhood of Steel tech. He openly does this in respect of the General who hates it and makes everyone else uncomfortable.

this was very long just to say I think Danse just works himself to the bone all day and purposely puts thoughts in his already fragile psyche that everyone hates him and only tolerates his presence to not seem Synth-phobic and the Sole survivor's favor.

[crumb]

please tell me you guys watched that video Noah Schnapp put out trying to backtrack and save his pathetic career. Please listen very carefully to the language and words he uses. He's choosing his wording VERY carefully in order to save his career and try to pacify those who support Palestine without actually denouncing genocide or zionism. "I feel my thoughts and beliefs have been so far misconstrued..." babe you were yelling from ig post to ig post about being pro israel, calling Palestinians terrorists, and being a proud zionist. How has that been misconstrued?? "I only want peace and safety and security for all innocent people affected by this conflict" He makes sure to use the qualifier 'innocent' several times in the video when referring to Palestinians, victims of a genocide not a conflict. But as we know, zionists don't see Palestinians as innocent so who is he talking about? This kind of tentative language helps him try to appear like he actually cares about Palestine while still condemning hamas without addressing the actual root of the issue—israel and the IOF. "We all hope for the same things..." Do we? You're a zionist. Zionism is settler colonialism and based in white supremacy. Please be more specific on what you hope for. "...That being, those innocent people being held hostage in Gaza be returned to their families. And equally hope for an end to the loss of innocent life in Palestine..." Zionists LOVE to go on and on about the hostages without mentioning the very real danger those hostages face from israel and the IOF bombs themselves. Israel is carpet bombing Palestine indiscriminately when they very much have the tech to make extremely detailed and targeted attacks. Did you see the way they targeted the specific apartment unit in Lebanon? In Gaza they're wiping out whole city blocks. Israel and the IOF don't actually care about the hostages. If they did they wouldn't be razing Gaza and boasting about their plans to use the land for beach condos. If israel and the IOF actually cared about israelis, why are they basically using the Hannibal Directive? Especially at the music festival on October 7th where the IOF killed a number of their own civilians. If israel cared about the hostages, why aren't they willing to release the hundreds of Palestinian hostages they have who are being jailed illegally and without charges? 'oh but they did! They released some during the pause so they could get hamas to release some israeli hostages' yeah and then the IOF rounded up and captured more Palestinians than they released that very same day. "...I think anyone with any ounce of humanity would hope for an end to the hostility on both sides. I stand against any killing of any innocent people" Once again with the manipulative qualifiers 'both sides' and 'innocent people'. How can you expect an occupied people who have been living through apartheid and genocide for 75 years to not eventually fight back? To not understand why October 7th happened you have to be either completely uneducated about even the most basic history of Palestine and/or so deeply entrenched in propaganda and denial that it doesn't even matter if you do know about the history because you truly believe you deserve an ethnostate on a piece of land that has inhabited several diverse groups over thousands of years. It was never a land of 1 singular homogeneous group. To want it to be that, is actually insane.

[melancholiast-clair]

talk to me about fandom misogyny and valkyire!!! am really interested

OKAY. hi. i have a lot of thoughts about this. this has turned in part into like... a val defense, i'm not even gonna lie to you, but there's some more specific discussion of fandom misogyny in there as well 😭

first of all, i find it to be much more rampant on the reddit community - go figure, lol - but it's definitely also present in the tumblr community to a more subtle degree.

it is also often mixed with some pretty deep ableism and sanism, so there's gonna be a brief discussion of that as well, just as a quick warning!

putting everything below the cut because this is. a long post. sorry!

if you're less familiar with the reddit community, one of the most frequent discussions is the talk about valkyrie's 'deserved' method of death and the comments regarding how her actions post-dotl make her an uninteresting or even disappointing character.

the discussions of how the only satisfying end to her character would be to die exactly how she thinks she's going to die - on her knees - both disappoint and sicken me. it feels like people are genuinely misunderstanding landy's inclusion of that as a theme; we are supposed to view valkyrie as an ultimately good character, and her belief that she's going to die on her knees is based entirely in a sense of deep guilt that we are not supposed to support. if you want to argue that she's actually terrible, go ahead, but i am of the belief that canon - and the intention behind most of her action - disagrees.

one of the most important things i feel like i need to outline is that she and skulduggery are extremely similar people. she spent a huge chunk of her life being absolutely dependent on him, and she learned the majority of her worldview and moral compass from him. valkyrie's life revolves around skulduggery.

i think it's both fascinating and extremely disheartening how people immediately shift their opinions once valkyrie is no longer considered a child. even when she's still a young adult - because like... surprise, reddit community, 24 is not actually old or a well-rounded adult, especially for someone who's spent her entire life isolated from typical childhood experiences - people immediately begin to demonize her actions. sometimes, this is even rightful - skulduggery and valkyrie have always been morally gray characters at best, and to judge their actions is an entirely fair stance to take. unfortunately, the majority of people who partake in this criticism aren't judging valkyrie and skulduggery.

they're judging valkyrie, all the while hailing skulduggery as their favorite character and continuing to excuse what he does and says while they denounce valkyrie for the same actions. going into the reddit comments when someone asks for 'least favorite characters' or asks people to rank characters always leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth, and there are so many posts asking why valkyrie is the main character or why the series would choose to focus val when characters like skulduggery are there.

there's also a lot of hatred for valkyrie's trauma responses post-dotl, especially her inaction in book ten, which i find particularly distasteful. in book ten, she has just returned to roarhaven after spending five years wallowing in her own guilt and is immediately met with confirmation from people all around her that she deserves all the hatred she's projected onto herself for something she could not have stopped. of course she's frozen and disbelieving in herself when things start to go down; she's spent literal years blaming herself for the deaths of over a hundred people and almost everyone around her except for skulduggery - who she knows will defend her no matter what she does - is telling her she's to blame.

i get exhausted reading people calling her a bitch over and over, raging about how she's no longer a child and can no longer be excused for her despicable actions - but she hasn't had anyone to teach her why anything she's done is wrong. she learns that the people who insist darquesse are her fault are wrong, but in learning this learns to dismiss people who call her wrong. and it makes sense, because those are pretty much the only extremes she faces - completely in support of her, or completely against her.

another thing i observe in this fandom is the obsession with pushing women characters aside. this is present in lots of fandoms, of course, but it is particularly prevalent within the skulduggery pleasant fandom.

the amount of the fandom that completely ignores valkyrie in favor of the dead men is immense, and it's kind of insane. excluding the main character and the only woman who ever joined the group is like... absolutely wild. and it's not like valkyrie isn't compelling - she faces a lot of similar issues to the rest of the group. if you're specifically looking for a war setting, you have plenty within the books themselves - or if you want to go against mevolent, stick with phase two.

but it's not just val. characters like tanith, china, darquesse, even stephanie/the reflection (which. the love/hate from the fandom towards her is a whole other discussion i'd love to get into) - they all get cast to the side in favor of the dead men. darquesse, a character who on paper sounds like the person literally everyone would, like... at the very least simp for - 6 feet tall, tatted out, crazy built and eternally powerful - is so often completely dismissed. china, a pioneer of an incredibly fascinating and individual branch of magic, gets pushed aside even as signum linguistics themselves get explored.

in the end, this is a fandom like any other with a lot of central misogyny. i don't completely blame the fandom - derek landy has his own issues with misogyny in his writing, and that certainly makes overall canonical content influential towards this behavior - but i am tired of it. sorry if this is a bit of a mess, im just kind of... blabbing.

[thewriterowl]

So, I'm exhausted and stressed and can't focus fully on writing fan fiction but seems ready to unleash creative spew on the SW-series we have gotten and how it could've been SO much better. I wanted to start with one, the one that seemed to have been the trigger of this weird ripple of poorly written series and see if I can unleash more for others (Not you Andor, you are perfection)

Book of Boba Fett

Scrap Din. Completely. Remove him. He doesn't even touch the show. Mentioned is acceptable, maybe even a sort of cameo where Fennec comes in to see Boba talking to him but hears nothing as they disconnect. Boba makes some note on what Djarin is doing as a way to express how much time has passed since the end of Season 2 of the Mandalorian. Maybe. But that's it.

Instead, there will be more memories opening up the episodes, even after Boba heals and is back to true form. For one, I think it would be beneficial to show a bit more young-Boba and show how angry and hateful and scared he was after Jango's death (let's get some re-makes of Clone War scenes) and how it shows his anger is consuming him. Show clips of him connected with Cad Bane and the dent in his helmet. Give little pieces to show how he went from that very angry and feral child to the rather composed man in Empire Strike's Back-Return of the Jedi to where he is now.

The tension of the politics are stretched out more. We will see Boba trying to actually take on a leadership role as Daimo but has the urge to be like he was before. And it's only when he starts allowing more of his self out does the good leader really blossom (ie. his brilliance of having the dinner above the supposed empty cage). He can even have conversations with Fennec of, "I was reckless and stupid with my anger before. And I got a face full of a scars and a head with less hair because of it." With her, ever the snarky wise one, going, "Being angry doesn't mean you be stupid."

Street kids are good, but not with the motorbikes. I feel they should've been more like the one character Kenobi met (his daughter in real life) who was telling him to get high and forget his problems--it's easier that way. They felt too punk and it was out of place for this planet at this time. They steal, maybe Robin Hood things here and there but are mostly out for their own group and themselves; exactly how Boba and Fennec were just a short time ago. Fennec could even connect to that girl and scoff in memory, "You're tough...I met a kid just like you on a job before" and now we have the presences of Omega within this series and how important she is here and not just in a singular location and can give audience the hope Omega and Boba will one day meet (season 3 of Bad Batch sorta helping confirm or deny this). While Boba is able to connect and warn them to not be like him and let their anger and hatred fool them into trusting arrogance. maybe someone makes a point, or maybe Boba realizes it himself, but this sounds very Jedi-esque and that haunts him.

Boba spent so many years hating the Jedi (mainly Mace) so having these moments of maturity would make him pause. It would end, of course, with him denouncing the belief because he is Mandalorian, like his father before him, and not everything is about the Jedi, because he fully believes in revenge and anger just not like how he used to. Now, he controls it. It doesn't control him. And he can let his hate for the Jedi finally go (ghost Mace, who was probably watching him the whole time is so relieved and lets the man go as well; not in the show but just in my heart).

The Tribe is not dead and, instead, at least a few survived (ie the child and the warrior and a few others; we did not get that incredible train scene for them to be all killed off camera) and we see Boba, who is dealing with the trauma of everything in his life, have a moment where he breaks down and apologizes to them (maybe not anything specific; maybe not really to them but to his younger self who never had a chance) seeing this as his fault. They forgive him, cause he needs forgiveness in some way, and offer him a home within their smaller tribe but he isn't ready for that and they accept it. Now, they are the ones who return to him and assist him in the final battle. This will also lead up to where it comes full circle for him. He will offer them a place within the city but they do not accept (they are a colonized people after all; I do not see them wanting to be within that city) and instead are welcomed to his territory as a home-base to return to should they ever wish and they part on good terms and promises of seeing each other again. It would end with Boba watching them leave into the setting suns, feeling longing but also a sensation of peace that they were going where they should go and he was where he was needed. So, he turns from them as they disappear into the melting suns and grunts out, "Just a simple man who made his way in the universe." And FIN.

We can keep a lot of the other craziness--he has his Rancor (i love this part of the story), he deals with corrupt politicians, Peli meets her next boy-toy cause Din (name cameo) suggested her for Boba's use, Black Krrsantan is in the picture, Cad Bane is the big bad who shoots down Vanth (and that final end scene is still there), and so many other ridiculous parts! They could all connect and make sense!

And there can be this theme that is trying to beat Boba over the head about anger. Because we have seen anger so much through the eyes of Jedi--this can really be a new type of accepting and letting things go. More akin to the anger we see constantly simmering and boiling over in Andor but in a more personal way and showing that it doesn't need to be snuffed out but honed (controlled). It can be why Boba seems so mild at times, it's because he is learning about who he is to be, but then is able to show us the (fan) Boba that was so popular is still there--he's just someone who is trying to fill a role he thinks he has to completely change for.

[eruverse]

More thoughts on hws Indonesia (headcanon):

-I don’t assign ethnicity to him because there’s nothing to assign him with? The Javanese which is the largest ethnic group here doesn’t even exceed 50% of the population. Therefore he’s not of any ethnicity (Indonesian is, btw, a nationality). But he would act Javanese in a number of situations, esp when it comes to formal politics because the Javanese dominates the political stage by large.

-Yes Islam is majority religion here, but for me Indonesia is not Muslim exactly — and if he is, the first thing he would do is to denounce the ‘Middle Eastern’ fundamentalist Islam and uphold ‘Islam Nusantara’ or Islam adapted to local beliefs and way of life. But anyway, he practices syncretism of many types of faith to a high degree that at times he’s more pagan than anything.

-I also don’t really assign looks to him in a way like… look, Indonesians are really diverse in looks. You can find every skintone from fair to really dark here (tho because we’re in the equator obviously fair here doesn’t mean fair people in northern hemisphere would think about), every hair texture from super straight to coily, every eye shape from slanted and small to really big, every mouth shape from basically nothing to full. And these could be present across ethnicities even though ethnic groups typically have certain stereotypes. To my knowledge, people living in different islands typically also have pretty distinct looks, kinda, from each other… I myself am only familiar with 3 islands out of like 17.000 so my idea of common Indonesian look could massively differ from other Indonesians’ and it would be laden with bias to the point there might not actually be such a concept as a ‘common Indonesian look’.

However, I myself base Indonesia mostly off of this dude from the movie ‘Oeroeg’ because I like it a lot and I think it conveys well what kind of a person Indonesia is in my mind:

-What kind of person HWS Indonesia is in my mind?

When I think of HWS Indonesia, I think of a dude who is: extroverted and ready to mingle with everyone, with a significant amount of charisma and a hint of badboy. He is capable of utmost generosity and the highest level of cruelty at the same time. He is born of chaos and for chaos; it actually takes a lot out of him to just not cave in and let everything descend into disorder, and by that, he thrives off it so much to contain him is almost to make him ill. Always needs to move and you cannot predict where he wants to go; he will always slip off your fingers, and the moment you think you have a keen grasp of him is the exact moment he will leap off. Highly lucky; he believes God’s favor is always on his side and he is actually right. Highly resilient to the point of unkillable, but he’s not like this due to physical strength exactly and more of being a slippery snake even from fate. Of nothing, but at the same time, of everything — everything the wild ocean waves are made of, everything the hurricane is weaved from. A succumber of fate, but at the same time, its master.

[doublel27]

I can’t get me head around Carlos’s wedding, because either it was always set up as a sham for health insurance, in which case how did that get through his Catholic/ law enforcement family, or it was a genuine wedding? And in either scenario how did Carlos’ sexuality never come up? Even if they thought he had turned straight, how are they apparently not surprised when he’s with TK?? I’m not actually that mad at the plot point, it’s entertaining in the absurdity and I’m glad Carlos has his own friends, but I wish there had been even a crumb of set up…

If we ignore *waves hands over season one and many other things since* all that, I believe it was a real wedding.

I want to be very clear, from my personal experience I come from a white upper class family on the coast with parents who lived and worked in San Francisco in the 1980s. My father talked to us about trans people in a positive light in the 90s when one of his colleagues transitioned and was much happier. I grew up with a father who left Catholicism and in a fairly liberal Congregational church which was the first church to include trans rights on their charter. My sister and I fought to get our individual church to adopt the charter out of the national organization and won that in 2005. I came out to my parents in 2007-2008. My sister came out to my parents in 2014. My parents have two trans children-in-law. I grew up exceptionally lucky.

That being said, when I came out to my mom, I got a lot of lines like “You can still change your mind in the future if you want to.” “I don’t want life to be harder for you.” And “I am just so grateful that you can get still married in this state even if it won’t look like I planned it.”

That’s my mother in the context I presented.

I can only imagine for Carlos who grew up Catholic, a denomination which this year the pope stated that “Being gay should not be a crime but is still a sin.” It’s 2023. That’s their position in 2023. Carlos came out to his parents in 2013, maybe earlier. The position was harsher internationally, and in Texas it was likely just as harsh, even in Austin.

When Carlos called himself the project in 4.02, it’s because while the American Psychological Association denounced conversion therapy for sexual identity in 1997, religions were still using it. The Catholic belief that you can “repent sin” and “try to do better from sinning” is an essential tenant. There is a very real belief that you can change it if you try hard enough. That you aren’t trying hard enough if you give in.

Carlos coming out and then marrying a woman could easily be seen as Carlos resisting the sin of his sexual desires. In Texas in 2013, you could not marry a same-gender partner. People who had children in Texas and were living with same-gender partners were getting their children taken away from them for living with a person they were unmarried to. That’s the reality of Carlos’s context when he came out.

So I think he married Iris for real. But then they fell apart. Again his family never talked about it. Iris moved out. Moved in with a new boyfriend eventually, and Carlos never talked about it. But divorce is a HUGE deal to both individuals of the Catholic faith and individuals in Texas.

If you get a divorce, as a practicing Catholic, any other marriage is invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church (or at least that’s what I learned from friends growing up). You need an annulment in order to consider the next marriage legitimate in the eyes of God. Now, they won’t consecrate a marriage between two men, but clearly his faith is something that is important to Carlos that he’s struggled with.

I am sure his parents speculated about the reasons for the separation, going back to his coming out. They would have known about Iris’s disappearance. They would have waited to see. I’m sure by the time they saw him with TK, they weren’t surprised.

I agree, there are 60,000 different choices that could have been made to set this up. But as they weren’t, we’re just going to make it through.

[wickedanddeadly]

Striker Sullivan's Bio

" If someone were to harm my family or a friend or somebody I love, I would eat them."

Most of Striker's younger years were spent alone, traveling the world and just being a free spirit. At that time he bumped into a woman who was full of fire and sass. Somehow she had located his private little getaway in the Caribbean but wasn't as keen on staying there as he was. Striker had no problem in helping her find her way back to civilization. Only days later would he come to learn that she was a werewolf, just like him. That would explain his willingness to help her and why he had been so drawn to her.

With a little time spent together, she somehow managed to break through his loner heart. After meeting her people and falling in love with the woman who stumbled across him he had been convinced to place his lone wolf days behind him. Striker was welcomed into the clans with open arms. Little did he know this was the means to an end.

The covens came together and said it was foreseen that the two of them should be wed, that once a premonition is seen it becomes laws and has to be obeyed and followed or consequences would follow. While Striker didn't approve of being told what to do, if he planned on putting those lone wolf days behind him and becoming part of a clan then rules were rules regardless if he agreed with them. It wasn't like he had no feelings for the woman and in time perhaps he would have come to the same conclusion.

After only a short month the couple underwent the ceremony and wed in front of the covens. Two years later they welcomed their first and only child into the world (Matthew). Fatherhood was nothing short of a wonderful experience for Striker. He loved his son more than he loved himself.

As the years began to pass Striker found himself butting heads with the covens over different rules and regulations that he found to be outlandish. This caused a riff to be placed between him and his wife. More and more they began to fight until at last it became too much for Striker to deal with. He couldn't be a part of their community any longer. Perhaps it was partly because he had been such a lone wolf that instilled his beliefs, but he fully believed everyone had the right to live their life their own way and not the way some crazy elders jacked up on peyote believed they should.

The hardest thing Striker ever had to do then followed when he denounced his spot within the coven and took his leave from the clans. The hard part was leaving his son behind as he set out once again as a shunned outcast.

Through the years Striker followed his dreams in music, playing in little gigs here and there for extra cash when it was needed, and he stayed in touch with his son as much as he could, despite the elder's disapproval of the matter. He would face any consequence they wanted to try and deliver him as long as it meant his son never felt he had abandoned him.

Powers and abilities

Master Hunting Skills Accelerated Healing Night Vision Shapeshifting High Level Intelligence Superhuman Agility , Endurance , Senses , Speed , Strength & Stamina Strategist Feral Mind Survival Expert Weaknesses

Silver That Penitrates The Flesh Decapitation Aconite/Wolfsbane Semi-Mortality Basic stats

Height: 5'10" Hair: Dark Brown Eyes: Dark Brown Highly Tattooed Relations

Courtney Sullivan ( Ex-Wife ) Matthew Sullivan ( Son ) Kimberly Sullivan ( Daughter-In-Law ) Phoebe Sullivan ( Grand Daughter ) Face Claim - Johnny Depp

[raysrambles]

so i have this document (well, it's actually three documents, because whenever they get too long they start lagging and crashing my computer) called Rants & Thoughts where i put.. well... rants and thoughts. anyways i thought it might be fun to post some of em on here, since that's basically what i do here anyway! so that's a really long winded way of saying "here is my unedited stream of thoughts about the trump assassination attempt"

warning for talk of gun violence because this is about, y'know, gun violence

Chapter 399 - Hypocrisy, Conspiracy, And Martyrdom: This Week’s Political Crisis

Context: On Saturday, July 13, 2024, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks attempted to assassinate former U.S. President Donald Trump with an AR-15. Trump was grazed on the ear but was not majorly wounded. One bystander was killed shielding his family from the gunfire, and two more were injured but are in stable condition as of Sunday. Crooks was fatally shot by Secret Service snipers on the scene. Here’s my thoughts:

It’s so disgusting to see people (the far right) proclaiming that the ENTIRE left wing is responsible for this. I mean, I’ve seen people unironically using Twitter posts celebrating the assassination attempt to prove that ALL LEFTISTS WERE BEHIND THIS. I’ll tell you this right now, as one of the ‘woke leftists’ that y’all are terrified of, I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS. I think it was heinous and deplorable that anybody would attempt to shoot ANY presidential candidate. Do I think Trump is a racist, self-absorbed, disingenuous fool who is completely out of touch with reality and is/was a genuinely god-awful presence for this country? Yes. Do I think that it was at all okay to make an attempt on his life, for any reason whatsoever? No. Congratulations, your whole “all the leftists were in on it!” conspiracy has just been disproven by one person. That doesn’t say much for the validity of your beliefs, now does it?

I am actually appalled that everybody is calling and treating Trump as a martyr. Trump is no martyr. Perhaps we could call him one if he held any genuine beliefs whatsoever, but all evidence explicitly states that Trump is disingenuous in every claim he makes. He does not believe anything he says; he wants power and he’ll say whatever out-of-touch shit he needs to in order to get it. What beliefs is he supposedly the martyr of? Anti-woke? Anti-trans? Anti-BLM? Anti-gun control? All of your “points” are made not as actual points, but simply to counter points that the “other side” made. If you can show me an example of a real, actual belief that Trump has stood for reliably and continuously, I will be blown away. Yes, that is an invitation to do it, if you think you can.

No, Biden did not do this. Obama did not do this. Sanders did not do this. You are losing your mind. Unfortunately, the world does not simply operate in black and white terms. Just because you dislike someone doesn’t mean they have caused every single bad thing in the world. Also, the only thing we’ve heard from the aforementioned three and several more famous Democrats is moral support for Trump and the people who were hurt in the shooting. Obama called for a re-evaluation of being civil in politics. Sanders denounced political violence. Biden not only denounced it, but immediately demanded that all of his political ads be pulled off of TVs, because it was disingenuous to attack Trump politically right after this. Also, not only is it just gross to suggest that the Democrats, the left, the Biden administration, etc. were responsible for the shooting because it’s gross to accuse people of that with no evidence, it’s also gross towards YOUR side, because you’re suggesting that Crooks was a product of some bigger conspiracy instead of acknowledging him for what he is: a fucked-up person who thought it was in any way acceptable to SHOOT PEOPLE.

So. Political violence. Pretty bad, right? If you’re going to criticize Biden for possibly indirectly suggesting this (putting Trump “in the bullseye” or whatever), I think you’re wrong, but good for you. Being critical of politicians is good. Let’s do more of that. Please scrutinize every action political leaders take! Blind faith has never led us anywhere but dictatorships! (I’m looking at you, Project 2025!) But if we’re gonna do that, you’re totally okay with us scrutinizing Trump’s involvement in the January 6th insurrection right? We’re denouncing political violence of all kinds, because it’s awful and horrible, right? RIGHT???

That reminds me: it’s pretty awful that that kid had a gun and shot people with it. I mean, he had a fucking AR-15. He shot four people, killing one of them, and one of whom was Trump. Gun violence is a fucking awful issue we have in this country, and it’s a serious wake-up call that a guy like this managed to get his hands on a semi-automatic rifle that he ended up being able to use in such a terrible way. Really, what do you even need one of those for? The only reason I can think of is hunting, but in hunting you certainly do not need to fire multiple rounds with one pull of the trigger. And it’s by dumb luck that only one person was killed; had Trump moved slightly over, had someone been in an ever-so-slightly different position, more people could easily have been killed. We’re all agreeing that it’s absolutely horrible that that happened, right? It’s a serious disaster that somebody like that got his hands on an AR-15! So, now you all agree we need to crack down on gun ownership, right? Because it’s so awful when gun violence happens? I mean, school shootings, violent hate crimes, and other gun violence is fine, but somebody just shot THE DONALD TRUMP, SAVIOR OF AMERICA AND WARRIOR OF THE FREE(dom to shoot children if we feel like it). UNACCEPTABLE! So! You agree with me that we need gun control to solve this, right? RIGHT??????

[woolfean]

The Atheist

”I no longer believe in God”, a release from his voice, administered with trepidation. Only this very moment dallying courage triumphed over his hesitation and fear of declaring his belief. The room was quiet, saints erected with divine power; he there felt confined, airless. He felt his sanity stretched, thinking of God; thinking of Hell: that the Forces of Heaven shall purge this city, the world: he thinks of London and Big Ben; the streets and their beauty compared to Italy and its blue and green hills; he thinks of Rome and its rusty Earth and now life in Bacolod, here in its very moment: life continues; the motors flows and think we are all smoke evaporated after our fragile life. He always felt the intensity of his life; he felt all the strokes, the pound like he came to listen to Beethoven and Brahms. The life he shepherded felt spoilt; Bacolod is no compensation for the life of writers, artists and intellectuals living in Paris and London; then never did he feel it was enough compensation for the beauty of Rome, Italy, and London, too. Life gets thickens all the time. Spoilt. Greasy. All moments that seem perpetually moving are exacerbated. He felt the dull weight of his atheism. He simply cannot believe in God anymore. “There’s hell”, he said, yet stupefied by his inability to believe God. The room was no English; he could not sit in the fire, reading Milton. Exhausted dropped in the bed like a mummy wrapped by the thick veil of darkness. The mahogany burgundy table, the windows open, dead was the air, insipid. The book was dropped weightless on the table. Schubert is playing on his laptop. “He is divine”, he said lacking of technicality to describe Schubert. He had his hand the book of Flannery O’Connor and Diary of Virginia Woolf. He had loved reading; it was a dear occupation to him. A regret occupied him: memory slipped through. He still lay there, obnoxiously controlling his sanity. How many years did he think of not reading a book because he knew for he will analyse his belief and knew that he'll abandon God? The failed transition to atheism was the greatest madness he’d ever known. A rotten respite coming back like a worm to dig up his mind that he cannot never rid. “Stoic apple” he said mockingly, “so receptive and enduring”  He carried his religious burden like a cross. “I must read Irish. I must not alone read James Joyce - there’s Mary Lavin and there is Elizabeth Bowen - but I think Bowen wrote of London, of life in the war, of marriage. London survive as an organism, a civilization she observed it. How about Frank O’Connor? Seán Ó Faoláin. But they want to liberate, I think, Ireland from Christianity. I must still read Irish.”

A complication that he had to refresh his mind He had a satisfactory of writers that reflect his biases. More than that: the feeling of having the same life and struggle for the restoration of his faith. Then, who shall we run into Greene, Updike, and Eliot? It is the insistence of his comfort to read them. The renewable literature for his decayed, rotten religious belief. Annie Ernaux's books look modest on the table covered in white, tantalizing as cream. He looked at it; then his eyes jumped from one another and saw the multitudinous of his books. There, is the book of many writers that have cast their voices into us. His breathing is continuous yet short and he knows his anxiety corrupting him again. The chest look pumping and waiting for a rescue. He can feel the dashing of air on his throat - then stopped; continuous swirling on his neck down to his chest. “Oh God. Don’t! I have not lived yet.” But one thing we know is he cannot die because he is afraid of hell. He was afraid that he could not afford to sacrifice for that. He loved his life, and if he denounced his atheism, he’d lose himself: his whole life. Thinking is what makes him. He is his own thinking. Bacolod is nothing but the remains of Sodom, a city of Sin, of false light: an impious city full of celebrations. Will he condemn the life he lived he had said? Then he was a Sodom of himself, deprived of love, lavishes the life of the flesh. “Should I read books?” he uttered. Thinking made him insane. All thinking men are mad, he said. He fled away from God for his incessant desire to anchor himself to his whole belief and found himself in the immensity of his boat in the rainstorm. “Crane, yes, Stephen Crane,” How envied the freedom of bird; never feared of immensity: yet we are in this small ship. How long we can tolerate these: these changing scenes of life: increase the volume of madness: never ceasing?” The mind seems to settle in like a pear drop on the soft air. He rose; then, he strode and strode like a pendulum in the room. “What should I read? Then he thinks of Philosophers. Then, who he thought to read? The books of Jose Saramago, Par Lagerkvist, and Nikos Kazantzakis lay flat there. He opened the book of Par Lagerkvist, “Barabbas” the man who cannot believe in God but he cannot pray nor affirm his faith. He can only say, “I want to believe.” The windows opened, and seems moths rushes to him to infect the reflection, "Am I still him?Now, he felt distance to his past belief. Doggedly, he flings on his belief. “I shall read yet what I ought to read? Theology. Not this time.” But what seems to matter with him about the man relationship of God and Man when finished Woolf’s diary: he can only think of its beauty. Now, there is no going back. Yet what a faint feeling of religious crisis still attached to him. The tightening grip of the dominant church on his ideology made him apolitical. No one can change his belief now. “I can finally read Milton, now!”. He can now read English Literature without holding back. In the cabinet he stacked the multitudinous and voluminous works of English Literature: the voluptuousness of poetry: its meditation. “To lay ground, the soft bluish sky and white clouds flew like a white dove and will read Keats or Shelley.” The struggle is over. He felt no longer shackled by religious dogma. Hell was no longer his concern. He felt it over. “To crouch in the ground like a bird. To immensity of the world.” Now he felt his courage. For he thought that everything was over: the moment was revealed to him: God had left him, the air was dead, and the world lay flat and motionless. He thought of hell. The vivid fire struck him. God is unreachable, and he cannot restore his faith. He whispers to stricken air with disquietude “Oh God!”

[cryptidblue1]

I'm having Thoughts on how I want RoF to go in regards to Pale King's reaction to Lavender and the Vessel Brigade as a whole. Because as much as I really like the whole awkward family reconciliation trope. I think that with how I made the vessels basically escape the abyss right before Pale King got his perfect vessel that he may not be as easily capable of accepting Lavender or any of the Vessels.

Doubly so because the vessel brigade are basically curbstomps all over Pale King's entire belief and conjectures regarding how the Void actually works in regards to taking over a god infused body. Because before the entire vessel project the only thing that could really be used to test what the Void actually does to living beings are kingsmoulds and whatever the Collector is. Unless you subscribe to him actually using living subjects to test things. So, Pale King literally based everything, pinned his hopes, and shackled himself to the guilt of killing every offspring he would ever have with Pale Lady.

So having what is basically a herd of reanimated corpses of children he sacrificed roaming about, and one of them somehow having an ability to remove the infection from the waking world would not be something easily accepted. Because what does that mean in regards to his theories, the time, the sacrifices. All of it a waste because the vessel plan clearly was not the Only Answer as he believed, and this also makes it now a question on would this particular child have the abilities needed to fight against the Radiance if they had been allowed to live and grow as his child and not a vessel of the void?

Like that very thought likely would be so intrusive and confidence shaking if not confidence breaking, because what else has he gotten wrong in his quest to stop the infection? Was there always another way that he couldn't see?

Which then gets into if you're in Camp: Pale King is inherently arrogant by being a Higher Being, thus would denounce any flaw of himself until forced to accept it or hide from it. Or in the Camp: Pale King knows he can make mistakes, but he does everything to not make such because he knows full well how devastating such a mistake would be for his kingdom and the lives in it.

So nothing regarding the first or even subsequent meetings between Pale King and the vessels is going to be anything but horrible feelings and misunderstandings because Lavender is basically just stumbling along trying to fix something they believe they broke when they got forced down the path of not being a pure vessel, and none of the other vessels actually know anything about what is going on considering they kinda just exist and are still figuring out how life works to begin with. Which can get even more complicated because I don't think either side wants it known by everyone and everything about the vessels being void beings, and thus having to actually explain how they came to be.

Though that makes me wonder if at some point the Pale King has to basically bullshit that void beings can happen under very specific circumstances and just let the Knights come to some off the wall conclusion based on what little they know and what they believe from observing Lavender's behavior.

Like this is a Tangle of Emotions I need to figure out, because I can't keep stalling on this meeting, but I have way too many thoughts on how badly this could go, especially as I'm pretty sure from the vague outline forming of this plot that Bad Times happen if Pale King can't accept in the most distant of ways the vessels as living beings.

[joannechocolat]

On media storms, and transphobes, and free speech, and the establishment.

(Dated 22nd August, 2022.)

Unless you were asleep last week, you’ll have noticed I made the news. I made the news a lot. The Daily Mail (twice); the Times (twice); the Telegraph; the Observer, plus radio and any number of online and international outlets, including UnHerd, where stories go to die.

The story has taken many forms. That J.K. Rowling feels “betrayed” by my “lack of support” for her: that my views on trans rights makes me ineligible for any public role; that people are calling for my removal from the Board of the SOA; that I’m a monster because I replied to a post from a satirical Twitter account with - shock, horror - a smiley.

I haven’t talked to anyone in the Press, in spite of many journalists asking, so this “story”, was taken from Twitter, where stories evolve at such a rapid rate that by the time they make the broadsheets, no-one really knows what shape the story started out at all.

But this is what it has become. I’ve been repeatedly (and wrongly) accused of a number of things, which when you unpick them, boil down to one thing. That as Chair of the Society of Authors (the authors’ trade union), I’ve abused my position to discriminate against people who don’t agree with my support of the trans community.

Full disclosure: this isn’t new. Ever since I was elected Chair in 2019, I’ve been getting increasing amounts of abuse, pressure and demands for “debate” from people with gender-critical views. Some of them are colleagues; some women I once considered friends. Some of these women now have become single-agenda tweeters, railing night and day online about what defines a woman, and spreading misinformation and fear about the trans community. Many of these women claim to be afraid, and to have suffered cancellation for their views. Some of them feel that as Chair of the SOA, I should have taken their side in Twitter debates, signed petitions, joined hashtags to validate their beliefs.

But here’s the thing. The SOA represents everyone. It has over 12,000 members. It needs to stay neutral to represent all its members equally. And it has a strict policy of non-intervention in Twitter debates between members, even when they get nasty, because Twitter can be a nasty place, and the SOA can’t be everywhere. That’s why I tweet in my personal capacity unless I specify otherwise. 

The gender critical lobby has had real difficulty understanding this. Over the past two years, I’ve been under increasing pressure to “speak out” about individual cases (I can’t); ally myself with transphobes (I won’t) and “denounce” death threats to J.K. Rowling (which I do, but apparently not often enough.) Over the past two years I’ve received countless abusive tweets, urging me to kill myself, or resign from the SOA, or hoping that I would die of cancer, all from the gender-critical lobby.

The latest eruption began last week, with the stabbing of Salman Rushdie, a man whose life has been under threat since most of us can remember. Last Friday, an Islamist fanatic managed to get close enough to stab him, leaving him with terrible injuries. The literary world was shaken. Friends of Rushdie’s spoke out in horror. But those of us who only knew him for his books were also deeply shaken and upset. Because this wasn’t just a violent attack on an author, horrific though that may be. It was an attack on free speech, a principle all creators hold dear.

Free speech is a term that has been misused a lot recently, especially by people wanting their say, but denying it to others. In fact, free speech is like oxygen: you can’t remove it from someone else without also losing it yourself, which means that, if you believe in free speech, you can’t then go around deciding who deserves it and who doesn’t. Rushdie is a great writer. But even if the victim of the stabbing had been a minor writer, a bad writer, or a writer with problematic opinions, the same attack on free speech would have happened, threatening writers everywhere. The principle of free speech matters. And it matters to all of us.

I wrote about this a bit on Twitter, where many authors were still upset, struggling how best to respond to the horrific attack. Twitter being Twitter, there were also a number of angry Islamist accounts, crowing about the Rushdie attack and targeting anyone who expressed sympathy. Some were abusive, some even threatening. Several people I follow were sent messages on the lines of: Shut up or we’ll come for you next. I got one myself. So did J.K. Rowling. But on Twitter, size matters. What J.K. Rowling, with her 14 million followers, says is instant news. So when J.K. Rowling announced that she’d had a death threat from an Islamist account saying: You’re next, her name trended for two days, and Rushdie’s all-too-real attack was overshadowed by a Twitter threat.

Now, it isn’t up to me to decide whether the death threat was credible, or whether J.K. Rowling should be afraid. I don’t know how many threats she’s received, or how many she thinks are credible. Having had them myself, I know they can be upsetting and frightening. But a threat on Twitter is not the same as being stabbed in the eye, and I didn’t see the need to comment.

 Instead I put up a poll, asking fellow-authors if they’d ever received a death threat. I wanted to use it as a way of talking about author safety. As it happened, Chuck Wendig had been posting about his latest death threat the day before Salman Rushdie was stabbed (a weirdly specific death threat, in which his correspondent expressed the hope that Chuck would be, er - raped to death by a dolphin), and the tone of my first poll reflected the jokey nature of our interchange. In the light of the Rushdie stabbing, though, I realized that wasn’t appropriate. I deleted the poll almost at once and started again with a more neutral wording, but the folk on Twitter who watch me for any ammunition they can use had already screencapped it and passed it around. It made the papers, variously as: Harris  Mocks Rushdie or Harris Mocks Rowling, but I was doing neither.  Death threats – to anyone, including J.K. Rowling – are absolutely wrong. They’re also a crime. Crimes are for the police to sort out. Free speech, however, is a legitimate principle for a union to uphold.

But free speech isn’t always the speech that you agree with. Free speech can be confrontational. It can be unfair. It can even be upsetting. I’ve upset a lot of gender-critical people with my own use of free speech; my refusal to join their hashtags, sign their petitions, enter their debates. That doesn’t mean to say I don’t believe in theirs, or that I wouldn’t fight for their rights as fiercely as for anyone else. But that has never been enough for the people who want me gone.  

Since last week, the wave of people demanding my resignation – or just my removal – from the SOA has grown. Many of those who have joined the “debate” are not members. Many are not even authors. Nearly all are transphobes, though. Because that’s what all this is about. Not all gender critical people may be transphobes, but all transphobes are gender critical. Graham Linehan has been posting about me since 2020, calling for me to be dismissed. He doesn’t know what the SOA does. He doesn’t care. He’s just one of many prominent transphobes who believe that someone who believes in the rights of trans folk doesn’t deserve a voice of their own.

I have a trans son. He came out very recently, and I haven’t discussed it online. Last week, I discovered that some of my principal detractors had found out about this. After talking to my son, and with his permission, I went public. I love my son more than words can say, and I didn’t want anyone to think that I was ashamed of him. Kathleen Stock, among others, gloated that this was proof of my bias. She (rather chillingly) denounced me for having “undeclared trans-identified offspring,” and claimed that this was the “real” reason for my support of trans folk. Kathleen Stock finds it hard to believe that someone might uphold a principle without having a personal interest. Actually, I’ve been a supporter of trans rights for much longer than this. Like I said, I believe in supporting the rights of all marginalized groups.

So, just what are they saying now? That I’m jealous of JKR? I’m not. I love my life, and I love my son, and I wouldn’t change that for anything. That because of my pro-trans beliefs, I should be cancelled or lose my job? That would be ironic, wouldn’t it, coming from people who are claiming to have been cancelled for their gender-critical beliefs. And full disclosure; it isn’t a job. It’s an elected position, as part of a Board of twelve people. It’s voluntary, time-consuming, often thankless, and unpaid, and I do it because I care about authors’ rights. All authors’ rights; whether they’re famous of not; whether I agree with their politics or not.

But this assault isn’t going to stop. Given how many people pretend to be “fearful of speaking out”, they’re certainly doing a hell of a lot of it. I’ve had open attacks this week from a certain sector of the author community – all London-based, all cis, all white, all influential people (many of them men) with lots of friends in the right-wing media – saying that they are coming for me. One person compared it to the March of the Ents, going after Saruman. The literary establishment, is seems is desperately afraid of progress.

Here’s the thing, though. I’m stubborn. I’ve never fitted into the London literary scene, so the fact that it now feels the need to mobilize against me means very little to me. This week, I’ve had death threats, attacks in the media, and countless abusive messages. I don’t care. I’m not afraid. I was elected to this role to help protect authors’ rights. That means yours, whoever you are, and those of all other authors. If you’re a member of the SOA, then we have elections yearly. You too can stand for the Board, and be elected, and add your views to the diversity of views already expressed there. Till then, I’ll do what I’ve always done. Raise awareness of authors’ rights. 

They grow us tough in Yorkshire.

[neil-gaiman]

How Did you come up with the first eve in the story about adams wives? I haven’t been able to find anything about her after I read it and I want to know if she’s an actual biblical character or just someone you made

She's from the Midrash. I learned about her as a 12 year old, from my barmitzvah teacher. There was a point in there, long after I'd put her into Sandman, where I was starting to think I'd imagined her, when I ran across her in Robert Graves's Hebrew Myths....

Excerpt from: The Hebrew Myths by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai (New York:  Doubleday, 1964), pp 65-69

Chapter 10: Adam's Helpmeets

(a) Having decided to give Adam a helpmeet lest he should be alone of his kind, God put him into a deep sleep, removed one of his ribs, formed it into a woman, and closed up the wound, Adam awoke and said: 'This being shall be named "Woman", because she has been taken out of man. A man and a woman shall be one flesh.' The title he gave her was Eve, 'the Mother of All Living''. [1]

(b) Some say that God created man and woman in His own image on the Sixth Day, giving them charge over the world; [2]  but that Eve did not yet exist. Now, God had set Adam to name every beast, bird and other living thing. When they passed before him in pairs, male and female, Adam-being already like a twenty-year-old man-felt jealous of their loves, and though he tried coupling with each female in turn, found no satisfaction in the act. He therefore cried: 'Every creature but I has a proper mate', and prayed God would remedy this injustice. [3]

(c) God then formed Lilith, the first woman, just as He had formed Adam, except that He used filth and sediment instead of pure dust. From Adam's union with this demoness, and with another like her named Naamah, Tubal Cain's sister, sprang Asmodeus and innumerable demons that still plague mankind. Many generations later, Lilith and Naamah came to Solomon's judgement seat, disguised as harlots of Jerusalem'. [4]

(d) Adam and Lilith never found peace together; for when he wished to lie with her, she took offence at the recumbent posture he demanded. 'Why must I lie beneath you?' she asked. 'I also was made from dust, and am therefore your equal.' Because Adam tried to compel her obedience by force, Lilith, in a rage, uttered the magic name of God, rose into the air and left him.

Adam complained to God: 'I have been deserted by my helpmeet' God at once sent the angels Senoy, Sansenoy and Semangelof to fetch Lilith back. They found her beside the Red Sea, a region abounding in lascivious demons, to whom she bore lilim at the rate of more than one hundred a day. 'Return to Adam without delay,' the angels said, `or we will drown you!' Lilith asked: `How can I return to Adam and live like an honest housewife, after my stay beside the Red Sea?? 'It will be death to refuse!' they answered. `How can I die,' Lilith asked again, `when God has ordered me to take charge of all newborn children: boys up to the eighth day of life, that of circumcision; girls up to the twentieth day. None the less, if ever I see your three names or likenesses displayed in an amulet above a newborn child, I promise to spare it.' To this they agreed; but God punished Lilith by making one hundred of her demon children perish daily; [5] and if she could not destroy a human infant, because of the angelic amulet, she would spitefully turn against her own. [6]

(e) Some say that Lilith ruled as queen in Zmargad, and again in Sheba; and was the demoness who destroyed job's sons. [7] Yet she escaped the curse of death which overtook Adam, since they had parted long before the Fall. Lilith and Naamah not only strangle infants but also seduce dreaming men, any one of whom, sleeping alone, may become their victim. [8]

(f) Undismayed by His failure to give Adam a suitable helpmeet, God tried again, and let him watch while he built up a woman's anatomy: using bones, tissues, muscles, blood and glandular secretions, then covering the whole with skin and adding tufts of hair in places. The sight caused Adam such disgust that even when this woman, the First Eve, stood there in her full beauty, he felt an invincible repugnance. God knew that He had failed once more, and took the First Eve away. Where she went, nobody knows for certain. [9]

(g) God tried a third time, and acted more circumspectly. Having taken a rib from Adam's side in his sleep, He formed it into a woman; then plaited her hair and adorned her, like a bride, with twenty-four pieces of jewellery, before waking him. Adam was entranced. [10]

(h) Some say that God created Eve not from Adam's rib, but from a tail ending in a sting which had been part of his body. God cut this off, and the stump-now a useless coccyx-is still carried by Adam's descendants. [11]

(i) Others say that God's original thought had been to create two human beings, male and female; but instead He designed a single one with a male face looking forward, and a female face looking back. Again He changed His mind, removed Adam's backward-looking face, and built a woman's body for it. [12]

(j) Still others hold that Adam was originally created as an androgyne of male and female bodies joined back to back. Since this posture made locomotion difficult, and conversation awkward, God divided the androgyne and gave each half a new rear. These separate beings He placed in Eden, forbidding them to couple. [13]

Notes on sources:

1. Genesis II. 18-25; III. 20.

2. Genesis I. 26-28.

3. Gen. Rab. 17.4; B. Yebamot 632.

4. Yalqut Reubeni ad. Gen. II. 21; IV. 8.

5. Alpha Beta diBen Sira, 47; Gaster, MGWJ, 29 (1880), 553 ff.

6. Num. Rab. 16.25.

7. Targum ad job 1. 15.

8. B. Shabbat 151b; Ginzberg, LJ, V. 147-48.

9. Gen. Rab. 158, 163-64; Mid. Abkir 133, 135; Abot diR. Nathan 24; B. Sanhedrin 39a.

10. Gen. II. 21-22; Gen. Rab. 161.

11. Gen. Rab. 134; B. Erubin 18a.

12. B. Erubin 18a.

13. Gen. Rab. 55; Lev. Rab. 14.1: Abot diR. Nathan 1.8; B. Berakhot 61a; B. Erubin 18a; Tanhuma Tazri'a 1; Yalchut Gen. 20; Tanh. Buber iii.33; Mid. Tehillim 139, 529.

Authors’ Comments on the Myth:

1. The tradition that man's first sexual intercourse was with animals, not women, may be due to the widely spread practice of bestiality among herdsmen of the Middle East, which is still condoned by custom, although figuring three times in the Pentateuch as a capital crime. In the Akkadian Gilgamesh Epic, Enkidu is said to have lived with gazelles and jostled other wild beasts at the watering place, until civilized by Aruru's priestess. Having enjoyed her embraces for six days and seven nights, he wished to rejoin the wild beasts but, to his surprise, they fled from him. Enkidu then knew that he had gained understanding, and the priestess said: 'Thou art wise, Enkidu, like unto a godl'

2. Primeval man was held by the Babylonians to have been androgynous. Thus the Gilgamesh Epic gives Enkidu androgynous features: `the hair of his head like a woman's, with locks that sprout like those of Nisaba, the Grain-goddess.' The Hebrew tradition evidently derives from Greek sources, because both terms used in a Tannaitic midrash to describe the bisexual Adam are Greek: androgynos, 'man-woman', and diprosopon, 'twofaced'. Philo of Alexandria, the Hellenistic philosopher and commentator on the Bible, contemporary with Jesus, held that man was at first bisexual; so did the Gnostics. This belief is clearly borrowed from Plato. Yet the myth of two bodies placed back to back may well have been founded on observation of Siamese twins, which are sometimes joined in this awkward manner. The two-faced Adam appears to be a fancy derived from coins or statues of Janus, the Roman New Year god.

3. Divergences between the Creation myths of Genesis r and n, which allow Lilith to be presumed as Adam's first mate, result from a careless weaving together of an early Judaean and a late priestly tradition. The older version contains the rib incident. Lilith typifies the Anath-worshipping Canaanite women, who were permitted pre-nuptial promiscuity. Time after time the prophets denounced Israelite women for following Canaanite practices; at first, apparently, with the priests' approval-since their habit of dedicating to God the fees thus earned is expressly forbidden in Deuteronomy xxIII. I8. Lilith's flight to the Red Sea recalls the ancient Hebrew view that water attracts demons. 'Tortured and rebellious demons' also found safe harbourage in Egypt. Thus Asmodeus, who had strangled Sarah's first six husbands, fled 'to the uttermost parts of Egypt' (Tobit viii. 3), when Tobias burned the heart and liver of a fish on their wedding night.

4. Lilith's bargain with the angels has its ritual counterpart in an apotropaic rite once performed in many Jewish communities. To protect the newborn child against Lilith-and especially a male, until he could be permanently safeguarded by circumcision-a ring was drawn with natron, or charcoal, on the wall of the birthroom, and inside it were written the words: 'Adam and Eve. Out, Lilith!' Also the names Senoy, Sansenoy and Semangelof (meanings uncertain) were inscribed on the door. If Lilith nevertheless succeeded in approaching the child and fondling him, he would laugh in his sleep. To avert danger, it was held wise to strike the sleeping child's lips with one finger-whereupon Lilith would vanish.

5. 'Lilith' is usually derived from the Babylonian-Assyrian word lilitu, ,a female demon, or wind-spirit'-one of a triad mentioned in Babylonian spells. But she appears earlier as 'Lillake' on a 2000 B.G. Sumerian tablet from Ur containing the tale of Gilgamesh and the Willow Tree. There she is a demoness dwelling in the trunk of a willow-tree tended by the Goddess Inanna (Anath) on the banks of the Euphrates. Popular Hebrew etymology seems to have derived 'Lilith' from layil, 'night'; and she therefore often appears as a hairy night-monster, as she also does in Arabian folklore. Solomon suspected the Queen of Sheba of being Lilith, because she had hairy legs. His judgement on the two harlots is recorded in I Kings III. 16 ff. According to Isaiah xxxiv. I4-I5, Lilith dwells among the desolate ruins in the Edomite Desert where satyrs (se'ir), reems, pelicans, owls, jackals, ostriches, arrow-snakes and kites keep her company.

6. Lilith's children are called lilim. In the Targum Yerushalmi, the priestly blessing of Numbers vi. 26 becomes: 'The Lord bless thee in all thy doings, and preserve thee from the Lilim!' The fourth-century A.D. commentator Hieronymus identified Lilith with the Greek Lamia, a Libyan queen deserted by Zeus, whom his wife Hera robbed of her children. She took revenge by robbing other women of theirs.

7. The Lamiae, who seduced sleeping men, sucked their blood and ate their flesh, as Lilith and her fellow-demonesses did, were also known as Empusae, 'forcers-in'; or Mormolyceia, 'frightening wolves'; and described as 'Children of Hecate'. A Hellenistic relief shows a naked Lamia straddling a traveller asleep on his back. It is characteristic of civilizations where women are treated as chattels that they must adopt the recumbent posture during intercourse, which Lilith refused. That Greek witches who worshipped Hecate favoured the superior posture, we know from Apuleius; and it occurs in early Sumerian representations of the sexual act, though not in the Hittite. Malinowski writes that Melanesian girls ridicule what they call `the missionary position', which demands that they should lie passive and recumbent.

8. Naamah, 'pleasant', is explained as meaning that 'the demoness sang pleasant songs to idols'. Zmargad suggest smaragdos, the semi-precious aquamarine; and may therefore be her submarine dwelling. A demon named Smaragos occurs in the Homeric Epigrams.

9. Eve's creation by God from Adam's rib-a myth establishing male supremacy and disguising Eve's divinity-lacks parallels in Mediterranean or early Middle-Eastern myth. The story perhaps derives iconotropically from an ancient relief, or painting, which showed the naked Goddess Anath poised in the air, watching her lover Mot murder his twin Aliyan; Mot (mistaken by the mythographer for Yahweh) was driving a curved dagger under Aliyan's fifth rib, not removing a sixth one. The familiar story is helped by a hidden pun on tsela, the Hebrew for 'rib': Eve, though designed to be Adam's helpmeet, proved to be a tsela, a 'stumbling', or 'misfortune'. Eve's formation from Adam's tail is an even more damaging myth; perhaps suggested by the birth of a child with a vestigial tail instead of a coccyx-a not infrequent occurrence.

10. The story of Lilith's escape to the East and of Adam's subsequent marriage to Eve may, however, record an early historical incident: nomad herdsmen, admitted into Lilith's Canaanite queendom as guests (see 16. 1), suddenly seize power and, when the royal household thereupon flees, occupy a second queendom which owes allegiance to the Hittite Goddess Heba.

The meaning of 'Eve' is disputed. Hawwah is explained in Genesis III. 20 as 'mother of all living'; but this may well be a Hebraicized form of the divine name Heba, Hebat, Khebat or Khiba. This goddess, wife of the Hittite Storm-god, is shown riding a lion in a rock-sculpture at Hattusaswhich equates her with Anath-and appears as a form of Ishtar in Hurrian texts. She was worshipped at Jerusalem (see 27. 6). Her Greek name was Hebe, Heracles's goddess-wife.

[ask-hunterxhunter]

Hey so I asked about the trouble trio and pregnancy and labor, and I was wondering if you can also do the ask for the yandere trouble trio handling pregnancy, childbirth and holding their newborn for the first time.

Phinks

Part of Phinks’ behavior depends on your mental state. Are you still trying to “escape” or have you given up (whether due to Stockholm Syndrome or depression, it doesn’t matter)? He certainly would be a little more “relaxed” once you’ve given up, but not to the point of stopping every “precaution” he has taken to keep you with him (and surprisingly, seeing you despondent or depressed wouldn’t make him help, quite the contrary).

A few aspects from him expecting his first child in a normal, healthy relationship would carry over, such as his worry, him reading books on the subject, discussing with you how to make the house (or wherever he’s currently keeping you) safe for the baby… But even those would be tainted by what he’s become as a yandere.

 Oh, he would remain protective of you during those months… However, this means the usual precautions he takes to keep you from leaving will be increased. By now you should know that begging for him to let you go is useless and if Phinks catches you crying as you imagine what sort of life this child will have (or even what kind of person it might become having Phinks as a father), he will just pin it down to “hormones” and whatnot, proceeding to “soothe” you the same way he usually does: By telling you how wonderful things will be if you just accept this life and how much he loves you… Depending on how pregnancy affects you, it may be even worse than before.  

 It doesn’t help he may actually believe that this baby (regardless of… The circumstances) is proof that you two are meant to be a family. It’s quite disturbing, especially when he places his hand on your stomach, whispering how he can’t wait to see the baby, how “mommy and daddy are waiting for you”... It’s not like his tone or his expression denounces his obsession, but perhaps exactly because he seems like a normal man in love, it makes this situation so unsettling. Remember that Phinks is not completely unaware of what he’s doing to you, however, he firmly and wholeheartedly believes that you will fall in love with him eventually and then, everything will be fine.

 Oh, and this isn’t the “desperate, tragic and sorrowful” sort of belief, just so you know. It’s more like how he kills people and shrugs it off with zero remorse because he believes in the Spider.

 When the time comes, Phinks will take you to a hospital, but you should know this doesn’t mean you have better chances of escaping: It will most likely be a place where “less-than-upstanding” people go to and the doctors will look away if paid to do so (even telling him when you try to do anything to call for help). If he can’t find such a place, he will take the doctors aside and make it clear that they are not to interfere with his relationship with you… And of course, by now, Phinks may have other means to make sure you don’t (or better yet, can’t) ask anyone for help.

 Once the baby is born, Phinks acts pretty much as he normally would with his baby: Nervous about holding them, unsure of how to bond… But because you are in this situation and by now you know better than you’d like, you can feel a dark undertone in all of his actions… No, it’s not your imagination. At least not quite. It’s simple because you know that despite how he behaves, this is not a healthy relationship and there is no love. And regardless of how you feel about this baby, it’s enough to make you shiver as you imagine what will happen now (both to the baby and you).

 Regarding Phinks’ feelings towards the child… It’s a little complicated. I won’t say he sees the child only as a mere “proof”, “means” or “an element of his ideal life with you” and he certainly wouldn’t get to the point of using the baby against you to get you to behave… But I also can’t say his feelings would be untainted and free of such things.

 It’s hard to say if Phinks’ yandereism would extend to the child, but I think it’s safe to assume his feelings wouldn’t be quite as healthy as when he is in his normal state.

 Shalnark

Remember how excited and even cute Shal can be when he learns that you’re expecting? This doesn’t change when he becomes a yandere. What changes is how this makes you feel. His behavior isn’t so endearing when he’s been keeping you against your will and insisting that what he does is out of love.

 Once he learns you’re pregnant, he will go on about how happy he is, and oh, you two are going to have a child! Isn’t this wonderful? Don’t worry, darling! He is sure Chrollo will allow him to “take leave” of some of the “less-important” missions to stay with you! Isn’t that nice? And of course, whenever he is away, there is either someone else from the Troupe guarding you or he relays on the security system he made himself! That way, he can make sure you’re perfectly safe!

 Yeah, Shal honestly acts as if you two are a happy, married couple, having no problem with “sweetly chastising” you for not playing along when you refuse him a little too much for his tastes… Don’t be fooled into thinking he is too far gone to understand what he has done: He understands far too well. He just doesn’t care. As long as you’re with him, it’s fine. Even if you’re still taking time to adapt and return his affections, he’s sure having a baby will help things along. After all, you’re a family now!

 Tell him as much as you want that this isn’t love, that no child can grow up happy in such a dysfunctional “household”, that the two of you are not a family and that you don’t love him. His reaction will be the same as always, just laugh it off. You say such silly things at times, dear.

 If you thought yandere!Phinks touching your stomach and saying sweet nothings was disturbing, you haven’t seen yandere!Shalnark doing it. He is also not afraid of using some emotional manipulation, holding you close when you’re in a fragile state, whispering how things would be better if you accepted his love, and so on. The times when his façade falters enough for him to show his actual nature are even worse. He keeps smiling, but there is definitely something cold in his eyes when he tells you to not flinch when he tries to feel if the baby is kicking.

 His excitement, especially when he’s talking about getting things ready for the baby, or he brings you some present or takes you out so you can buy stuff for the baby is far from being a “cute and pleasant” experience as most parents expect it to be. In fact, it’s quite sickening.

 Shalnark is not afraid of using every method he can to stop you from asking for help or trying to run away… Yes, this includes using his Nen on you (or asking Chrollo if some ability of his could help). He may allow you to have some control over your body and not completely take away your voice, but he will be nearby, interfering whenever he suspects you’re “getting ideas”. You’re out buying stuff for the baby and he is there, suggesting this or that, walking with you on aisles of stuffed toys… And the employees around have no idea how bad you want to scream, to run, to make a signal, anything… Shalnark, however, may notice it and remind you how he can (and will) kill anyone who tries to take you away from him (if he has done so already, he may even ask you if you want those people to die like that person).

 It’s the same whenever you have to see a doctor or when it’s time to give birth: You’re laying there as the doctors get things ready around you, Shal will just kiss your forehead as he whispers how this will be just until you’re both back home. All while giving you that sweet smile of his.

 With the baby, Shal appears a bit like he would if he were in a normal state, but it’s not as much as Phinks and certainly not enough to hide his mental state. Perhaps some of the “love” he claims to feel for the child is genuine, but this doesn’t mean his yandere tendencies would not be involved. Quite the contrary: He would teach his child to follow in his footsteps and join the Spider and remember that, even in his normal state, those teachings had a feel of “programming” to them. This is even stronger with Shal as a yandere.

 Note that his behavior isn’t in the “chasing the ideal of a family rather than truly caring for them” thing, but you already know that having a real family with Shalnark is impossible.

Feitan.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you… Your new nightmares for the next few days. I’m not kidding, if you thought Feitan was creepy as a yandere, you haven’t seen him as an “expecting-father” yandere. Like the others, he will try to spend more time with you and, like with the others, this isn’t so enjoyable when, oh, yeah, this is the man who has kidnapped you. Somehow, you get the feeling it’s not a good idea to push Feitan’s buttons for a while and you’d be right: If he hasn’t chained you yet, he’ll certainly do so if he catches you trying to escape while pregnant. He may even tell you that you should be careful, after all, stress might be bad for the baby, right? Oh, Feitan isn’t mocking you, but this doesn’t make his words pleasant.

 Regardless of how you became pregnant or your feelings towards the child, you have the admit that the idea of a baby being raised by Feitan is frightening. You have to control yourself, for Feitan will notice your smallest signs of discomfort that are related to him and the child (hesitating when he talks about the baby’s future or touching your stomach when the pregnancy begins to show)… Even if you try (again) to argue this isn’t love, that he kidnapped you, and so on, Feitan’s reaction will be the same as always: Tell you how you’re making things worse by resisting. He may not get to the point of acting as this child proves that you’re meant to be together, but does point out this means the two of you are now forever connected. Always using that patient tone that makes it clear that he can wait for you to love him back (as he honestly believes you will someday).

 Whether or not he allows you to go out depends on your behavior and even if you manage to fool him into thinking you won’t try to leave/call for help, he won’t lower his guard (and is likely to have Shalnark or someone else from the Troupe around to interfere should you try anything). If he so much as suspects he can’t trust you yet (or is being overprotective), then you’ll be buying things for the baby on the internet. As for a doctor, Feitan knows a few who do house calls… And will ignore any pleas for help, given a moderate fee. Of course, the same goes for the hospital.

 Several women and men say that something changes in you when you have a child; when you hold the baby in your arms for the first time. You can’t speak for those people, but you can say that whatever change happens in Feitan, it won’t be for the better. The first time he holds his child, there is a faint smile and he looks almost normal but you know him: It’s highly unlikely his obsession won’t somehow interfere with his feelings towards the baby. You’re right. The exact details will depend on his state, but it will happen.

 He would make sure to spend as much time as possible with you and the baby, his affections still a silent type, based more on actions than words, creating scenes of normalcy that contrast greatly with the reality of the situation. There wouldn’t be much difference in his behavior as a father at first from how he would be in a healthy relationship… Well, except when he talks about the child’s future or when he insists on holding you and the baby. Those are some of the moments when traits of his yanderism become more obvious (in Feitan’s own way, of course). No, the difference in his behavior would come later, as the child grows up (and would be based on how exactly the child develops and their own personality).

 Now, Feitan wouldn’t get to the point of hurting his own baby or keeping them from you as punishment, but that doesn’t mean he wouldn’t use them as a sort of emotional blackmail. For example, if you’re “being difficult” (trying to reject his attentions, flinching when he comes too close, so on), he may smile and point out this may not be good for the child… After all, you don’t want your child to think mommy is afraid of daddy, do you?

 He resembles a lot of what kind of a father he would be normally, but his desire to teach the child the ways of the Spider would be severely increased. Again, like with Shal, it’s not quite the “chasing an ideal that can never be” or seeing the child as an object, but his affections would not be completely pure. In this state, he would also be way less accepting of the child refusing to join the Spider someday.

 And just so you know, he would not be afraid to chain them as well should they ever try to help you escape.

[butwhatifidothis]

So if it is MEANT to be a villain route...Why are the villanous actions NEVER ADDRESSED by ANY of the characters outside of "Huh. I wonder if there was a better way to do this."

Why did they have Rhea go insane and torch a city? Why make potray Rhea as a villain when you could potray her as the hero whos genuinely trying to do good? Why have a majority of the characters still be able to be recruited regardless of if it makes sense? Why have the ending narration mostly be possible? WHY have Edelgard succeed and somehow turn her tyranny into a society that "ensures a free and independent society fot all."

If it's REALLY a villain route, why is there not a single character ending mentioning things like rebellions and conflict? Hell, the ending narration shows not a hint of villainy and potrays its ending as heroic.

"Embracing her newfound power, Edelgard could at last set about destroying Fódlan's entrenched system of nobility and rebuild a world free from the tyranny of Crests and status."

Again, if it was TRULY meant to be the villain route, it would have been POTRAYED as such. Instead of a villain route, we got "A route where one of the villains is made the protagonist and her views and villainous actions are never questioned OR addressed and outside of the conquest and starting the war, everyone is mostly happy."

Alright so this is going to seem like a nonserious answer, but I'm 100% serious when posting this image as part of a genuine answer to this question:

On CF, your actions are never addressed because of ignorance. On the surface, your actions seem like they've helped Fodlan, but as soon as the player looks any deeper it starts to become evident that something isn't right.

If Edelgard made a free and independent society for all, why are the people spied on in Hubert's ending with Dorothea? Why are rebellions secretly being put down in his ending with Shamir? That's not free, in a general sense or from specifically tyranny. That's a direct contradiction from two of the characters that can only be played on CF, and this is only found on CF.

Rhea is portrayed as a villain because she is Nabatean, and Edelgard hates Nabateans, and you are playing a route that emphasizes her ideals - which include wiping out all of the inhuman, bestial, vile, cruel Nabateans that have been plaguing humanity’s world. Rhea goes insane on CF because unlike all of the other routes, where the player and the lord never go out of their way to trample and spit on their enemies' trauma, that's what you are doing the entire time you play CF to Rhea - for months once Byleth returns, and that’s being extremely generous and not counting the entire war. You help drive Rhea and the other Nabateans away from their homes when taking over Garreg Mach - like Nemesis did to Rhea after the Red Canyon Massacre! You're helping someone try to kill off the rest of her people - like Nemesis did at Zanado! You're trying to kill Rhea with the Sword of the Creator, her mother's mutilated corpse - like Nemesis did! You're doing so with the descendent of Wilheim - spitting on the legacy of the one human Rhea could trust during the War of Heroes! You're literally recreating the single worst moment of Rhea's life, all so that you can help the one who views her as less than human.

Portraying Rhea as "the hero who's genuinely trying to do good" goes against Edelgard's viewpoint of all Nabateans being evil, and you're never meant to question Edelgard or make her change her beliefs. You as the player are actively discouraged from talking back to Edelgard, as she will noticeably get upset whenever you do - many times you will even lose support points with her, and this is especially bad for specifically Edelgard because you have to get to a certain support level with her to enter her route, with you having less chapters to do so because she won't talk to you until after Byleth achieves the Sword of the Creator in Chapter 4.

Look at how Rhea, Dimitri, and Claude are portrayed on CF. Rhea and Dimitri are demonized, while Claude is given some leeway from Edelgard. Now notice who of the three of them always speak their minds over Edelgard's villainy to her face, and which of the three of them bends to Edelgard's view of them as the bad guy. Dimitri and Rhea never allow themselves to bend to Edelgard - they call her out and call her actions evil. Claude, on the other hand, will remove himself from Fodlan and then afterwards make himself out to be a bad guy whom Edelgard managed to take down. He puffs up her ego, and he gets to live, while the two that don't must die. Edelgard is the one always out for the kill, and only by submitting to her is anyone allowed to live - which, I don’t think needs to be said, isn’t very heroic of her.

I've had my fair share of complaints over the characters that can be recruited over to CF, but even with those complaints... look at how those characters behave on CF. None of them are Felix levels of negative character development, but they all act noticeably worse on CF vs how they are on the other routes. To name some notable examples: Ignatz goes from wanting to paint Garreg Mach as it stood five years before to preserve its beauty to wanting to paint the violent downfall of the Alliance, Lysithea wants to abandon House Ordelia, which is in direct contrast to her core character motivation, Ingrid is willing to throw away her lifelong dream of being a knight of Faerghus, which she herself says is her spitting on her dead betrothed’s dreams, Leonie works with Jeralt’s killers, etc. etc.. And mind, CF is the route that locks out the most units - there's the obvious ones like Dedue and Gilbert who were already route exclusive, but then there's Seteth and Flayn, Catherine, Cyril, and Hilda. CF is the only route to have even non-exclusive units be completely unavailable no matter what.

Edelgard doesn't make a society that is "free," like I said above - having a secret police monitor the people's actions, or is ready to put down anyone who tries to rise up against her, is literally the opposite of free. Edelgard can and will ban plays she doesn't like - not free. Edelgard only allows state-sanctioned religion, if she does allow it - not free.

CF is a route that wants to make the player believe the lie that you're not the villain, because you are playing from the perspective of someone who herself doesn't think she's the villain, but like. Look at what you're doing. You're invading two countries for the express, explicit purpose of taking them over and making them your own. You're working with someone who's been trying to reunite Fodlan back under Adrestia as early as the prologue when she tried to have Dimitri and Claude assassinated. You're helping TWS. Your Imperial presence makes Church people flee - which, given that Edelgard wants Rhea and those involved with the Church dead, I don't blame them. You're working with someone who is starving her people so that she can carry on with her war.

CF lies to the player - Edelgard lies, constantly. She says she's willing to let Rhea live, but literally the scene before she says she seeks to fuckin' Exodia Rhea. She lies about Arianrhod. She lies - or is flat-out wrong, which isn't much better - about the Church hoarding wealth and about the Church splitting up the Empire. She lies about not knowing about TWS pre-ts. She helps spread the lie of Duscur being the ones who killed Lambert. She lied about not knowing where Flayn was when she was kidnapped. She lies to her people by making them believe she’s making the orders during the war, not Byleth. There's a student who doubts all of what Edelgard says right before the timeskip happens and who isn't sure about his decision to stay, and then there’s a man who calls Edelgard “a tricksy one” on the last explore section for lying about attacking the Kingdom capitol. She’s wrong about the history of Nemesis and Seiros, calling Nemesis killing all of Rhea’s family a “simple dispute.” She lies to her people about an entire war against a group who just a little bit ago were her allies. Lies and ignorance are staple points to CF as a route, it’s baked into it, so the idea of the CF going “oh no you totally are the good guys” literally as the city burns down around the players doesn’t come from nowhere.

And like... the ending narration “shows not a hint of villainy?” Um.

Her stepping on the flags of the Alliance and Church? Her recreating a painting of Napoleon - that little known imperialist - down to the hand of justice? Her denouncing gods constantly and then being ushered in by a statue with heavy resemblance to Nike, Goddess of victory? Hubert plotting away from the sight of the rejoicing people? Yeah, there’s a lot of hints to villainy.

Again, CF isn’t “portrayed” as a villain route because it’s you falling for the lies of Edelgard. You have a wool over your eyes. You accept everything Edelgard says as fact, even when she actively contradicts herself - sometimes as radically as in back-to-back scenes. You view yourself as a savior to humanity, even when you plunge it into darkness. You don’t think you’re the villain, so your actions aren’t going to be put in an explicitly villainous light - at least, not by anyone on your side.

This post showcases the difference between non-recruited characters fighting non-CF!Byleth vs CF!Byleth. Characters are mostly saddened by having to fight Byleth in the former, while they are mostly betrayed on CF. Byleth is very clearly seen as being wrong for having sided with Edelgard on CF by the non-recruited characters - Edelgard’s actions may not be directly criticized (save for by Dimitri and a few others), but it makes no sense for these characters to be this shocked and betrayed by Byleth siding with her if her actions were so good. Leonie deadass calls you a traitor to Jeralt, Ingrid says that you are not fit to rule Fodlan specifically for siding with Edelgard and the Empire after all she and they have done, and Dimitri questions you as to why you chose Edelgard and her “savage, bloody path,” just to name a few notable examples. You, as the player, are being criticized for siding with Edelgard. You say that the villainous actions are “NEVER ADDRESSED by ANY of the characters,” but what else are these reactions but characters addressing your villainous actions?

And like... “a route where one of the villains is the protagonist” bro that’s a villain route. Like. I’m not trying to be mean, but I am genuinely confused as to what you were trying to get at here.

Like. In a vacuum? I might can get the idea of CF not being a villain route a little better, were it the only route available (though even that is a very big stretch). But you have three whole other routes where there’s no conquest, there’s no working with TWS, there’s no using Demonic Beasts, there’s no killing/exiling the remaining (immediately known) Nabateans, there’s no continuous and long-standing lies that never get outed, the lords never stay flat out wrong about the events of the game, non-recruited characters aren’t shooting Byleth up the ass with accusations of being a traitorous lemming who’d follow Edelgard off a cliff... and they achieve peace. Those endings, with Dimitri Claude and “Rhea” (SS ain’t really her route even though it should’ve been but ye), lack the following in any of their endings:

Censorship

Spying on the people

Constantly putting down rebels in secret

State-sanctioned religion

(mind, this last one is in direct contradiction to CF’s ending narration that says that Church is destroyed)

None of this happens on AM, VW, and SS. They all have peaceful endings. They all have Fodlan see the light of dawn, and that is never contradicted in their endings. CF is the only route to have all of these things happen in it - I think that’s enough for it to be considered a villain route lol

[headspace-hotel]

Today a post crossed my dash where the OP was a "radfem" and they had a post on their blog saying the mainstream has abandoned feminism and only radfems still care about women's rights

It makes me so fucking furious that these horrendously stupid, evil people have appropriated feminism that I can't breathe.

Just last week I was blocking "radfems" on that post about plastic surgery but when I went to their blogs, half of them were not "radfems" at all, but Nazis, Qanon conspiracists and white supremacists. All intermixed in the reblogs and reblog threads, seamless and indistinguishable from one another with nary a single objection or warning from the "radfems."

I have encountered several "pro-life radfems." Plenty of radfems are antivaxx. I have found on their blogs, not feminism, but repulsive eugenicist posts, bizarre pseudoscience, outright lies about history, slurs, skin-crawling endorsement and defense of the prison system (!!!!), and most of all, beliefs about women and being a woman that make me, a woman, feel intensely degraded.

Matt Walsh doesn't just happen to be both transphobic and an anti-feminist. He is transphobic BECAUSE he's an anti-feminist. Matt Walsh believes in a world of rigid traditional gender roles where women exist to get pregnant and have babies, without abortion and birth control (no, really, birth control is listed as one of the evils of feminism in one of the above posts, and he has posted negatively about it in other places).

Right-wing extremists like this believe similar things about HRT and bottom surgery as they do birth control and sterilization. I cannot POSSIBLY stress this part enough. It is very, very common to see posts in right-wing circles suggesting that birth control is unsafe, unnatural, not properly studied or tested for safety, and that it destroys "natural" biological functions for no good reason.

As well, there has been panic and moral outrage over young girls being prescribed birth control, and the supposed eagerness of doctors to prescribe birth control, complete with the accusation that this is "sexualizing" children.

Transphobia is almost always just a description of an individual's failure to be a Good Christian Housewife and broodmare. Trans women are portrayed as ugly, angry and aggressive, overly sexual, and worst and most important of all, unable to give birth. (I'm sure this has nothing to do with the expectation that women are supposed to be pretty, submissive, sexless, and exist to have babies...)

Whereas with a trans man it's completely different, he is insulted not as a failure or parody, but with this horrible fixation on how his body has been "ruined" or "mutilated"—specifically focused on the ways his body can't have and nurture babies. There is a great imposition of mourning and "loss" upon the bodies of trans men, as if having breasts or a uterus is something so fundamental to your being that losing either is a horrific act of violence to your self, instead of just a surgery.

I also want to draw attention to this:

This? Literally, word-for-word, exactly what was said to cause gay kids 20-30 years ago. Literally identical. So many times I've seen/heard Christian organizations and books say that gay men are gay because they had absent fathers. This was a central assumption of conversion therapy—that by healing a man's latent need for his father's love, he would be made not gay anymore.

Cannot believe the audacity of TERFs claiming trans people are an attack on lesbians. Do you SERIOUSLY think Matt Walsh is fighting for the rights of lesbians. Do you really believe that lesbians would be worse off if Matt Walsh got smashed flat by a pickup truck tomorrow. "Alas, we lost a great ally today" local "radical feminist" says, referencing the enflattening of Matt Walsh, a man who loudly, publicly denounced feminism and thought the point of women was to be baby factories starting at 16

Anyway. Not my usual content but I had to say this because this bullshit is scary as hell and I want to firmly announce my support of bodily autonomy and human rights and dignity

Radfems commonly ask "What did J.K. Rowling do wrong besides say that 'woman' is a real biological category?" as a 'gotcha' and, well...

(referencing Matt Walsh's documentary, 'What is a Woman')

this is matt walsh (skip to 1:30)

If you don't want to click the link, this is where he says that girls are "most fertile" at 17 and that getting pregnant at 16 was the norm throughout history and that "teen pregnancy" isn't a real problem, only unwed pregnancy.

This is Matt Walsh's blog post explaining exactly what he thinks of feminism.

This is another post explaining what Matt Walsh thinks of feminism.

This is what Matt Walsh's twitter says

(Yes, he self-identified as a fascist on Twitter back when the interaction with JKR took place.)

If J.K. Rowling agrees with Matt Walsh on 'what a woman is,' she is anti-feminist, misogynistic scum.

[distort-opia]

😞 One wild arguement I saw is it's wrong to say J made Jason more interesting because " it implies trauma makes people more complex, therefore it's good". These are characters and trauma does in fact make them more interesting??? Yes literature has impact on the real world but as a genre superhero comics would not work without this. ( Almost) No one would tune into Bruce Wayne economics class 101. That J plotline made Jason more recognisable- non fans literally know him mainly for it, individualised him further and got him more fans, and got his fans to care even more about him because J is fucked beyond belief, and gave Jason an overarching mission. Alas, J is not some evil entity possessing writer's minds, but a very convenient and efficient device to push these characters to their limits. Why would you want that gone, I don't get it. To hate him as a character based on his morality is more than valid( Jason beating him up is some good shit), but to hate the existence of him as a character is strange imo. He drives the plot forward. ( And carries archetypes and universal themes therefore is bound to stay as a relevant and popular character, but that's another topic)

Some things are just deep emotional gut reactions, I think. This applies to real life as well. You just might really not vibe with a person, or with a character, and they might get on your nerves even though there's little rational reason for it. It doesn't really matter to that emotional side of you that a character might have a deep convoluted history, or is very important to the narrative. And I do believe this is a perfectly normal thing, disliking a character doesn't necessitate a reason. You can just say you don't personally resonate with them and move on. I only think pure, vitriolic hatred raises many questions, because a lot of the time it also involves treating the character as if they're a real person, and/or also hating the fans of that character. After all, since one can't harass a fictional character (on account of them not existing), the next best option is harassing the real fans (who sadly are within this mortal plane).

This all ties into the first thing you mention, Anon -- that argument regarding trauma denotes an inability to differentiate between reality and fiction, and a type of black-and-white moral thinking that's hard to combat. Conflict drives a story forward. It's simply a narrative device, and of course, traumatic events will be part of that conflict. What made Bruce Wayne become Batman, the main character we all follow? The death of his parents. What prompted Jack Oswald White to become the Joker, his main antagonist? The death of his wife and unborn child. What made Dick Grayson take on the Robin mantle? The death of his parents. What prompted Jason Todd to become the Red Hood? His death at Joker's hands.

And so it goes. At their core, Batman comics especially are about dealing with trauma. There's horrible events happening in canon all the time, but that doesn't mean the writers or the fans think that trauma is good. An adult story is not meant to teach you moral lessons; you're supposed to bring your own critical thinking to the table. Joker happened to be the vehicle through which Jason underwent major conflict, which then became a turning point in his evolution and made him into a fascinating anti-hero. (Not even going to delve into the interesting aspect of Jason's death that is the fact fans voted for him to get killed off.) As you say, characters are, at their core, tools in a story. And again, anyone can just dislike Joker, but the intense wave of hatred towards him specifically is... well, it isn't entirely about him. He's become a fandom scapegoat in a lot of ways, and a popular method to signal loud and clear that you're denouncing the "evil toxic serial killer" for many fans. But that's a whole other can of worms that I've gotten into elsewhere already.