#one of the most egregious examples of it i've seen

[rustbeltjessie]

And, if it purports to take place somewhere you have been, but was clearly filmed somewhere else entirely, it is your sacred duty to say: "It doesn't look anything like that!"

when a film or tv show takes place somewhere where you have been, it is your sacred duty as viewer to say “i’ve been there” every time you recognize a place

[spiderfreedom]

the male gaze distorts reality

started watching movies again (just don't like movies really) and one thing that surprised me was how the male gaze isn't just about staring at hot naked ladies, but how it distorts reality. the male gaze creates 'people' and 'situations' that simply don't exist.

the biggest example to me is the femme fatale. the devious woman using her sexuality as a weapon. whether the trope is a blonde bimbo bubblingly bouncing her boobs, or a sophisticated older brunette casually letting the strap fall off her shoulder and threatening to reveal her bust, they are different incarnations of the same concept. the women are knowingly using the sexual desire of men against them.

i watched a particularly egregious example where a group of women were sent to seduce a group of men, hanging off their shoulders, caressing their chests, with the promise of further sex if they came to another room. the true purpose was to humiliate them by getting them to disrobe in front of other people.

when i was a kid watching these scenes, i was convinced that this was a real thing women did - there were women out there who knowingly used their sexual appeal to get men to do things they otherwise wouldn't. it had to be such a recurrent trope for a reason, right? it even shows up in movies for children - remember the hot pink pegasus seducing hercules's pegasus?

but as an adult, i find myself confused watching these scenes. i've never seen anything like this happen. i've never met someone who says they do things like this. it's one thing to be flirty and dress in a sexually attractive way to get free drinks, but it's quite another to be so sexually forward to 'deceive' and 'trap' men. not to mention, it's... dangerous. if the man even believes he's being deceived, he can turn violent. it's a foolish move.

maybe the only real life example I can think of is honeypots. but honeypots are actual spies, trained by governments, and spies are selected to have less empathy than the average human being. do we really think that among untrained women there are so many seductresses with the skill of trained spies?

"what about sex workers/prostitutes?" while the honeypot spy is employed by a government agency, prostitutes are paid by the very people they are "seducing." prostitutes have to put on an act - they need to pretend to be the sexually active and perpetually horny woman men both want and fear. but most prostitutes are not like this; they are in it because they need money fast, not because they think fucking strange men for pay is a sexy and desirable career path (fun fact - read the diary of madam pompadour, the most famous courtesan and the embodiment of aristocratic seductress, and you will find she actually did not like having sex with the king and dreaded it. not even our real life courtesans can live up to our fantasies.)

the entire idea of a woman using her sexuality against men is simply a male fantasy - and the flipside is that it's a male anxiety, too.

men wish that women would approach them and find them desirable and initiate sexual intercourse with them, without the men having to do any of the work. there's nothing inherently wrong with fantasizing that a hot person finds you so special and hot that they want to have sex with you right away. men and women of all sexual orientations entertain these secret fantasies.

but then, there's the fear - "what if these hot women are actually only pretending to be interested in me, to get something from me? and i'm too horny to think straight and i actually give it to them?!" and that is the male anxiety, that for a moment, they actually end up losing the upper hand. despite the fact that such a situation is actually pretty rare in real life (I asked several male friends if they had personally or second-hand encountered such a situation in real life, and none could say they had), it is a common trope in fiction. it is especially lascivious in film, where the seduction before the fall can be portrayed in softcore porny ways.

"this is a foolish idea, everyone knows fiction and reality are separate." well, we know they are separate, but do you know which parts? if you don't already know the facts of the situation beforehand, how can you tell when fiction is lying to you and when it's drawing from reality? do you think the young, sexually inexperienced kids watching disney's hercules know that 'seductresses' aren't a common threat when we watch this scene? or will they learn and think "ok, a thing that happens in grownup life is that hot ladies seduce men, and you gotta watch out for them!" what basis does a child or even a teenager have to know this is false? especially when this is a common trope?

"women are sexually available and active - and deceitful" is a harmful trope. when you read about the ancient greeks stereotyping that women are lustful, they don't mean it in an "aww shucks, these girls just love having sex!" kinda way, they mean it in a "women are unfaithful and will use any means to get dick, including taking advantage of their hotness" way (this is why 'whore' is the ultimate insult for women). because if this trope were real, then it would be dangerous, wouldn't it? honeypot spies are dangerous for this reason. luckily for us, it is not real, but the male anxiety surrounding it continues. the male desire/anxiety around it informs porn tropes about 'punished sluts'. it informs incel tropes about the 'cock carousel'.

and this is what i mean when i say the male gaze distorts reality. it fabricates, out of whole cloth, a person that does not exist in any meaningful way - a woman who seduces men while demanding no emotional involvement, who is eager and willing at all times, who can turn the very desire for her existence against those men to get what she wants. she is not repulsed by or afraid of the men she pretends to be attracted to. before, we had to content ourselves with art and novels glorifying this false woman, but film allows her to exist in flesh and blood. cast a real woman, have her speak words and move her body in ways dictated by a man, and suddenly she appears much more real. grow up with enough of these, and even women writers can start to think these "seductresses" are real people. she can try to reclaim her and turn her into a badass boss babe, or she can condemn her as immoral and pathetic, but the deception is complete - the argument is no longer about whether this woman exists (she does not), but about whether she is justified in her ways. the female writer does not realize she was nursed on the male gaze for years, and it will take serious seeing with her own eyes to realize what is the real world and what is male fantasies and fears.

[theirisianprincess]

This girl is one of the most egregious examples of comphet I've ever seen, up there with Tomoko Kuroki and Itsumi Toudou.

I can't even fathom the twists of logic she had to make to actually say this.

[zettaireido-emotion]

Camus character analysis: games VS anime

If you finished the Uta no Prince-sama anime and your opinion of this man is "wow, he's kinda terrible," I don't blame you. in fact I've seen a lot of people say this

In this post, I want to talk about his characterization in the games and give my two cents on what the anime was trying to do with him, especially in his single focus episode Saintly Territory (S3E6).

Disclaimer: I wrote this on a whim because I'm sick and stuck at home so if anyone reads this, sorry I might go all over the place

Spoilers for all of the games!

The "be my slave" thing

Starting with Anime Camus's most egregious crime: treating Haruka like a servant/slave (however you want to translate it)

Basically in his focus episode, Haruka is tasked with writing a song for Camus. She wants to learn more about him in order to write it, but Camus will only let her follow him if she acts as his servant. She accepts without complaining, Cecil is rightfully angry, Haruka continues anyway and the song gets completed.

Now, am I about to say that Game Camus would never do this? No because he literally does lmao.

The anime doesn't pull this "servant" plotline out of nowhere, here's the context in his route:

Haruka accidentally overhears Camus talking about a plot to assassinate Saotome on the phone. When he notices that she heard everything, he basically tells her that he has to kill her now. But if she served him, he'd be able to keep an eye on her, make sure she doesn't leak anything, so she could escape death.

Okay uh "work under me or DIE" isn't exactly better, nor is it a good start to a love story, but I'm not finished!!

(A side note: I have to add that the anime made him look like an even bigger asshole and borderline dumb when it came to the things he made her do. Like he expected her to know that snapping your fingers means you want coffee without prior explanation. bro

^This might have been for comedic effect but I promise he can be actually funny and endearing.)

What the anime couldn't cover

The Camus episode wraps up with Haruka pulling through and writing a song that makes Camus "sincere," he says it's cool at the very end and that's the episode. I think the problem is that we technically didn't see him being sincere or what that even means to him, besides when he was singing (banger song btw)

It's a shame because in a 20-minute episode you really can't show the game experience of slowly piecing together what this man's problem is.

First of all, in Debut and AS you'll be quick to notice that he always has homeland and duty on the mind, constantly reminding himself that he's in Shining Agency/Japan for a reason, and it's NOT to have fun or make friends

The truth is, he slowly starts to appreciate the banter with his colleagues, music, and working there in general.

But because of his initial mindset, he has to rationalize & justify every connection he forms, like "it's just for work" or worse: "actually it was ALL A LIE and I NEVER ENJOYED A SECOND OF THE TIME WE SPENT TOGETHER, I'm such a great actor haha"

He uses that to fool himself and to push the other person away so it doesn't happen again. This scene is probably the best example:

(I'll be using google lens because it's faster but I checked that the tls were okay)

He also does this in the Non-Fiction drama, which may or may not have actually happened, but I think it's still a pretty good reflection of what could happen in reality because he tells Ranmaru their bond was a lie, then mopes around in his guilt thinking about the good times and wondering why he's sad, and THEN later doubles down on the "it was a lie, I don't care about you" because he just can't let himself get attached to anything.

Basically, he's terrified at the thought of forming actual bonds because he genuinely thinks he's nothing if he stops being a cold weapon:

At one point he does admit he sucks (as a love interest)-

-which is pretty huge by utapri standards. I love these games, but the amount of times where a male lead does something icky, and everyone, including Haruka, acts like it's normal or like it's Haruka's fault is ehhh but I digress

Upbringing

Of course he's very proud of his homeland and status, but sometimes it's to the point of thinking he can't be anything other than his title. So why is he like this?

We got to hear about his childhood from Camus himself a few times, and it often ended with Haruka thinking "wait? that's kinda messed up?" and Camus insisting it's nothing/it's normal so yeah that's something...

His parents were in an unhappy arranged marriage, and his mother was forced to birth an heir which traumatized her so much that she can't see Camus without falling ill. Overall it's a pretty tragic situation since what happened to her was horrible, though not Camus's fault either. Even now she refuses to see him, and I wouldn't say that makes him sad because he never really met her, but simply knowing of her sacrifice probably adds a lot of pressure. As in, he only exists for this one purpose (inheriting his father's title and serving the country), so if he doesn't play his part correctly, it would have all been for nothing.

He was raised by his father not as a child or son but as the heir, always treated and judged as an adult (even during physical training apparently, make of that what you will)

When Haruka asks about childhood memories he has a very hard time finding something that doesn't have to do with his duties or the nation. And then admits he didn't truly have a "childhood" since he was never treated like a child

As for the queen, I think his love for her is sincere: she taught him a lot of things growing up, and according to him, she's also a victim trapped by her duties so he wants to ease the burden.

So hypothetically, if he found things or people that made him happy in Japan, he would feel obligated to lock them away because that happiness is incompatible with his life: he'll have to leave when his mission ends, he shouldn't be spending time on things that aren't "useful" as he doesn't have the free will to pursue them

In his mind he's completely tied down by the fact that he was born and raised for a single reason, and the fact that he does want to serve the queen.

(This is Saotome describing him btw)

Also it might sound ridiculous to bring his self-worth into question because of how pretentious he is, but I've counted a few situations where he seemed to have complete disregard for his own life, only worrying about Haruka and Cecil's safety in scenes when they were present. And he thinks wanting to be loved unconditionally is a childish thought he shouldn't have.

"Double Face" was a lie. There's like at least 10 layers

On the surface he does have two personas, his perfect polite butler act for the media, and his cold bitchy attitude off camera. But honestly, even when he's not acting as a butler, he's often putting up a front to hide any form of vulnerability (from himself as well)

His main struggle is finding who he is outside of what he's being told to do. Before, he never actually stopped to think about what he WANTS because it just never occurs to him, or if it does he ignores it.

That's why realizing that he has his own desires is essential to his character development, and him staying with Quartet Night (and Haruka in his routes) is so important. It's why Reiji feels the need to reach out and when he does, Camus either freezes up or tears up;

This all makes him the opposite of Ranmaru (being true to yourself and sincere), and similar to Ai (gradually learning to view the world in a less cold and logical way), but I kind of want to save that for another post lmao

He is especially hard on Cecil because Cecil says & does whatever he wants, and everything still works out for him, which is a way of life that Camus can't imagine for himself at all (despite maybe wanting it?)

That he can realize this and eventually admit out loud, despite all his pride, is also one of my favorite things about him

Season 2 does hint at something, so that's pretty cool!

Side note, I really love that his theme in the new Oracle series is "Change," the melting of ice.

So what was the anime supposed to do??

Of course there's no way to show all this in a single episode or even during the runtime of the anime, and I never expected them to because the story is very surface-level (that goes for all characters).

It's just unfortunate since the anime is the most accessible and well-known utapri media in the western fandom, and the character's main episode is bound to leave the biggest impression.

I understand the choice of being laser-focused on the servant plotline, it's supposed to be funny (?) and waters him down to a trope that's easy to understand at first glance (the step-on-me guy I guess)

Still, I can't help but compare it to Ranmaru's episode, who was also hard to work with in the games but was chill in S3E7 and got to pet cats. Anime onlys will never know how much Camus loves to dote on his dog smh.....

[wardensantoineandevka]

folks, I'm once again telling you that the CritRole Fandom wiki is REALLY bad. most of the competent editors left over a year ago, and those left either prioritize speculative editorializing so that the articles are full of extremely presumptive unconfirmed half-truths OR they don't give a shit about non-CritRole stuff so their non-CritRole coverage is abysmal and completely wrong.

One of the most egregious examples right now is in their Candela coverage bc the editors have interpreted a figure of speech from Beatrix as literal, so there's this straight up weird incorrect statement in a couple of the articles:

This flat out isn't true! When Beatrix said that Nathaniel opened up a hole the Finnertys fell into, she meant it figuratively in reference to Nathaniel's work as a recruitment officer (see: when she talks to Nathaniel later in 2.02 at the Silverslip chapter house). She blames him indirectly in a domino effect; she's not referring to a literal portal, she's blaming him as having played a Pied Piper bringing them into the war! This is not only wrong, it's wrong about a MAJOR plot point of Candela Chapter 2 in a way that would fundamentally alter the narrative, given how important it is to Sean to avenge his brothers' deaths, but I've seen the above incorrect information repeated in the fanspace multiple times by multiple people in the months since.

Don't assume everything you read in a wiki article is true, especially the CritRole Fandom wiki but any wiki (even the solid ones!). Check things against the citation when you can! Do your due diligence.

Also someone please edit the articles to remove this or something. I can't bc I'm persona non grata there. But, forreal, it's funny how bad the editors at the Fandom wiki are at this until you realize that this gets repeated throughout the fanspace.

[avelera]

I feel like one unexpected side-effect in the (slight) uptick of queer ships becoming canon (seriously guys it's so slight if you look at the actual numbers) is learning how often slash fandom doesn't actually want the baggage that comes with their ship becoming canon.

I mean, of course they want it. The fandom wants the confirmation that they're not delusional, that they're not mocked, that the sparks they sensed between two possibly-queer characters is real.

But the side-effect of a ship becoming canon with anything more than a kiss to mark the end of the story is that it might become canon not in the way you wanted.

So long as the characters are in the will-they-won't-they, you can imagine what their first time would be like. You can imagine how they act in a relationship together. You can imagine the tone of the relationship.

You can imagine it in ways that are incredibly personal and meaningful to you.

But the minute a ship becomes canon at a point where the story still needs to progress, you're going to get divergence from the way you imagined it going.

They're going to bicker about things you never imagined would be a point of contention between them in the story, that it might have even been meaningful for you that they had never fought over previously, possibly because the story just didn't have the time for them to fight over that beforehand. Or perhaps this writer leans more into interpersonal conflict as a plot point, where you preferred the couple facing an external threat. There's as many ways to imagine the tone of a relatinship as there are people in the world.

They're going to have a different first-something than you imagined. First kiss, first date, first time sleeping together. For it to be canonical it has to be committed to the page which means it has to be set. Maybe you thought it would be awkward where it was smooth, or smooth where it should be awkward. Maybe you though the kiss would be a bigger deal to them than the sex or vice versa. Maybe canonically they flub the romance of that first time for the sake of comedy. Now that's canon too. You can ignore it with fic, obviously that's what fandom is about, but now it's AU, not "what-if?".

There might be interruptions to the love story, breakups, fights, separations, that aren't the end of the relationship but do mark an action beat that is necessary to keep the story moving and interesting. Unless the last canonical beat is them riding into the sunset together, it's inevitable and usually marks the end of a story because domestic fluff where nothing happens isn't actually a genre that can be sustained in original fiction without a plot.

Look, as queer ships become canon, this is going to be inevitable. OFMD S2 was the most egregious example I've seen recently of everyone who had engaged with the fandom having a different version of how they wanted Stede and Ed to behave once they were together. I couldn't help but laugh when I saw that the fandom fervency shifted from the canonical established queer ship (after it had the audacity to move beyond the establishing kiss and then the will-they-won't-they phase of reuniting), to the potential of a character who was never even canonically established as queer (Izzy) because everything about his story still lived in the potential land that fandom thrives in. And I don't entirely mean that as a criticism, just as a bitter irony!

Fandoms don't necessarily want a ship confirmed, they think they do, but that potential which was so enshrined and infuriatingly drawn out with regards to queer ships for so long and that's only just barely breaking just a little from when it was outright forbidden to show queer characters getting together (and it still is in most of the world if you go by population, and heavily discouraged by the mainstream powers that be in most places even where it's not banned, the limitations on international markets you get from having canonical queer characters even as side characters still makes it prohibitive for big budget flicks, since it means cutting themselves off from those markets in terms of recouping costs.)....

ANYWAY the point I'm making is that a few queer ships becoming canon has led to a perhaps predictable but depressing amount of outrage when 1) a popular queer ship doesn't become canon, but that's been building for a while now, but also 2) when the popular ship becoming canon doesn't become canon in the way the fandom wanted. Which was also inevitable but goddamn as a veteran of fandom for over two decades now, I can remember not that long ago when your queer ship becoming canon just not in the way you hoped would have been a damn nice problem to have!

[project-sekai-facts]

I've seen a lot of talk about ENSekai removing queer subtext from a lot of the game, but are there any super egregious examples of this? Not doubting, just want to know what I might have missed as an EN player (especially re:mizuki but jut in general)

Actually the stuff with Mizuki remains entirely intact. I guess it would be pretty hard to censor especially considering how important it is to her storyline. The queer erasure comes entirely from stuff like (f/f or m/m) shiptease or implications of characters being gay. It's not all the time, and An/Kohane are mostly immune to this as well, but every now and then if there's a single line of dialogue that could imply a character is queer it gets edited. Probably the most egregious examples of this would probably be Asahi in Curtain Call, Toya in Walk on and on, Nene in Amidst a Dream, and one line from a 4koma with Honami/Kanade.

I linked the posts I've made on them if you want more details. The Amidst a Dream one is 4k words one was co-written with @/stageeofsekaii and goes into detail of various other examples of censorship (including what i just listed) and weird translation choices as well. So yeah, that’s about the most of it.

[shysublimecoffee]

Look this is just an opinion not a fact don't get into such a tussle over a stanger opinion on a book of all things which are meant for entertainment. How I view this doesn't effect you nor do you take it as fact in fact youre free to disagree don't care.

It fucking says a lot about Shen Jiu as a character and the fandom as a whole in fanfics when the majority of them make him in fanfics having a better turn around in his life is always when a respected man is attached to hip usually( Liu Qingge) or acts as a voucher for people to even see him past his shell or his lies about the true reason he goes to the brothel goes out the window because otherwise he's a liar, a no-good and lecher and scum villain and because he's so emotional and volatile people do not respect him as a peakleader at all. He doesn't have a voice like it's telling me he's so female-coded cause ladies knows how dangerous people giving character assassination at your person could do tons of damage to your future prospects in future life and honestly I really like even though the ficwriters don't outright say it cause it subtle how majority every man and person in his life have taken away his autonomy and I find the most egregious example SY not actually giving a fuck about the person of the body he's inhabited and him not emoting at all when he saw the OG being abused and still validating LBG like if even the modern man from another era doesn't give a shit either someone who has to have sensible morals in society and even he doesn't care . This dynamic reflects a lot how society often undermines individuals who don't fit its norms, stripping them of their autonomy and dignity. SJ's struggle for respect and recognition in the story mirrors real-world issues of power and validation.

Everyone prefers SY. I'm not going to act as if I'm better though in real-life same I'd like him more too but his martial siblings barley tried. If they dislike him whatevs, but you guys are not at all suspicious about the 180 change in behavior how the kid he used to hurt and abuse is now being loved and pampered wtf??? Don't you guys owe him that much to investigate.

They could have tried to dig deeper aside from the one time they test him for possession but they didn't because they prefer the new and improved him". It actually so telling how the author chose someone of such a rich and idle pampered background to be transmigrated to the villain who's origin the very opposite of that and yet seemingly integrated himself better and incorporate better relationship with them then SJ.

The cultivation world, as well as the characters within it, reflect deep-seated classist attitudes. SJ's rough background and survival tactics make him an outsider, whereas SY, coming from a more privileged background, can navigate and be accepted more easily.

What does that actually say exactly that someone of a better background get along with the peaklords but not SJ because with our SJ he's a fighter and biter, he plays dirty to win in their eyes, he a lecher every inconceivable things is literally placed onto him just based on their perception of him. Is it that unconsciously they could tell SJ is not of of them or am I looking to deep haha??? The cultivation world is very classist is not news to anyone and that being the exploration in MXTX next book and how WWX background being how he literally met his end because of it says an actually lot how she took the things from this story and incorporate it into her next book.

The entire story had me retrospectively think hard how SJ voice is silent and yet to me at least he stills haunts the narrative because of it then when you get to the reveal about his backstory it makes you fucking think of him as an actual person and not just an object as a vehicle for the main character to just insert himself in because no matter the nature of a person it stills their body.

Like i've seen some fans even reflect this saying it not his fault that he transmigrated or he deserved it's technically his body and that he's a better person than SJ. At first, I agreed but then I took some time to process this. I don't care about SJ actions and his nature if it at the expense of his fucking body. SY can live for many many years but he's not SQQ unless he reincarnated like Airplane like it makes me want to me want to debates about transmigration. SY is his own person an adult with memories he has his own thoughts and feelings so when he transmigrated he took over the manual controls but that doesn't mean he's actually SQQ because he's not he's a pampered millennial.

In Otome Isekai (OI) stories, the original souls often face bad endings, while the transmigrators, who are modern characters inhabiting and thriving in these disliked bodies, desperately try to avoid such fates. They manage to charm the original male leads and are so focused on changing the story's trajectory that they can't accept its original path. This comparison to OI highlights how these characters' actions mirror Shen Yuan's (SY) predicament. The original person's identity and struggles are dismissed for the sake of the new character's journey, leading to the erasure of the original identity.

I don't vibe much with Shen Yuan because he seems very indifferent. The world revolves around him and his bias, much like many other transmigration novels where the MCs are similar. I find it hard to connect with a MC whose actions, even bold, lack a genuine foundation with other characters because they continue to see them not as people but character roles they're supposed to fulfill. He does everything to save himself, not from the sincere intention. His reaction to the death of GXY was cold af.

I don't like transmigration stories for this reason. They're often treated more as reader-inserts for fix-it fanfiction. We rarely learn about the characters' past lives, so we end up thinking of them as the person they transmigrated into, rather than who they were before. All we know of before was he was cyber-bullying and harassing the author and a troll so an asshole, basically.

If you guys don't know about OtomeIsekai basically we have bunch of modern day Koreans jumping into european white women bodies and inhabiting their bodies and living vicariously through them basically wish-fufillment bullshit trash . 9/10 nobody notices because this is a person who is widely disliked and despised and because no-one cared for the OG soul it easier to just go under the radar hell even the MC don't give a shit to so we have another MC that become so beloved in the eyes of the ML and how she bewitched everyone into loving her.

Transmigration is literal horror. " His Present" a short story I read from novel-updates where it literally based on this very concept where his loved ones preferred the imposter ugh made me bawl.

It makes me think about transmigration. Does it truly matter if the person who took over lived much longer than the original soul does that make them "THEM" ? I actually do appreciate SJ backstory being added but like now with transmigration just popping off on internet novels where the concept is everywhere where the original soul is discarded and the new one is celebrated, kinda adds a layer of tragedy and ethical dilemma to the narrative. It questions the validity of the new identity and the consequences of such an erasure. I'm always biased for the OG souls maybe that why a lot of SJ fics make him the character who is most suppressed by his role as scum villain succeed in making him heard to be listened to and mattered.

Imma nap lol this rant was loooong!!!

[hime-bee]

Small yandere rant below

Everyone has their own idea of what they think a yandere should and shouldn't be. I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Because no matter how egregious it is, there's always gonna be at least one other person who agrees with you. If you don't like the way someone writes a yandere in a fanfic or a game, you can distance yourself from it. You don't even have to let it be known.

Personally, I really do enjoy the yandere trope, it's one of my favorites. But the way I see it is admittedly different than others who follow me might. For example, the current yandere OC's I have (Leumin, Vivian, Mikka), are all at varying levels of yandere. Some people may think Leu is too extreme, or not extreme enough. If I had to say, without spoiling the sequel, Leu is very much a "I can fix him or make him worse" kind of yandere. His disposition depends solely on MC.

While I am still working on the sequel to Inclement Idée Fixe, I've been more focused on other side projects and learning new game development software instead. I won't lie, the yandere community here (and on Itch.io) just rubs me the wrong way a lot of the time, specifically the way someone of y'all treat creators. Most of my interactions have been positive, for the most part, but I've also seen more discourse here than I have in most other fandoms. It's concerning ngl, and it makes me want to distance myself even further from it. I want to keep making things I, and others, can enjoy, but if that comes at the cost of my mental health then it's really not worth it. So whether or not I actually finish the sequel is highly dependent on whether or not I'm still willing to interact with the yandere community

I really think it just comes down to being a decent person, really. No one is forcing you to consume yandere/dark content. You're responsible for your own internet safety at the end of the day, as an adult. So please don't blame others who make the content you don't like when you're actively engaging with it.

[about-faces]

I'm still loving Gotham Nocturne and I wish it was getting the love/respect/attention is deserves. I've spoken several people who haven't been reading the current Detective Comics run because they're Batmanned Out (good lord, do I get it) and they see it as just another attempt at some kind of "ultimate Batman story with Batman fighting the ultimate evil," which I strongly disagree with.

THAT SAID... as time has gone on, and the story seems to be reaching its finale, there are a few things that stand out of me as problems with this epic storyline.

1.) It's one of the most egregious examples of "writing for the trade paperback." This simply isn't a story that's meant to be read month-to-month. It's too slow, with too little "happening," at least on the superficial level. Paradoxically, it's NOT a story that should be binged! The best comparison that comes to mind is Better Call Saul, since that's the only other example of serialized media that's meticulously slow-paced yet INCREDIBLY RICH for those willing to engage with it on its level rather than expecting it to be Breaking Bad (or in Nocturne's case, a typical Batman story.) Ram V is capable of writing super-engaging monthly issues, as the fantastic Rare Flavours proves, but that brings us to...

2.) The story is sprawling. Maybe even TOO sprawling. When it comes to people who are sick of Batman, I try to sell them on the fact that this story is about GOTHAM AS A WHOLE, right down to the villains who call it home, and how everyone there is as intrinsically a part of Gotham as Batman is. But ensemble stories like that are tricky, and it makes the focus feel all over the place at times, with alternately too much and too little attention being paid to the main players, Batman included. It's a balance that was handled beautifully with Batman: The Audio Adventures, but it seems a bit more awkward here. Again, it's hard to pull off!

Like, we have characters pop up and then vanishing without explanation. We got Azrael back in the AzBats armor for the first time in decades, like, holy shit! That should be a HUGE development! And then, poof, he vanished! There's simply no time to explore Jean-Paul's character because there's so many other things the narrative needs to explore.

This feels like it would have really benefited from a companion series, something to focus on the characters the way the backup stories have done, but just more so. I think about how Peter Tomasi would write companion books to the main big storylines written by Geoff Johns, Grant Morrison, and Scott Snyder, and how he'd focus on character, which always enriched the greater "big important storyline." Which, in turn, also brings me to...

3.) The backup stories have really lost a lot of their punch since they stopped being written by Si Spurrier and were taken over by Dan Watters. Watters is incredibly capable, make no mistake, and his Cheshire/Lian Harper story is one of my favorite parts of this entire saga. But by and large, his tales focus more on the spooky and weird sides of what's happening with Nocturne, whereas Spurrier's stories were more focused on characters navigating the weirdness of the events. As a result, Spurrier gave us what I consider to be some of the very best stories about Jim Gordon, Harvey Dent, and Victor Fries ever written. I really miss those, and how they enriched Ram V's (possibly overly-ambitious) narrative.

Ultimately, Gotham Nocturne feels like the Batman equivalent to an arthouse film, which means it's going to be appreciated by a handful of nerds while leaving most other fans cold, and I can't really blame them. If anything makes me sad about all this, it's how all this incredible character work with Bruce, Harvey, Victor, Talia, and others is going to be ignored. Hell, it already is, given the complete lack of acknowledgement we've seen in other Bat-books for what's going on in Nocturne.

At this point, I just hope it sticks the landing in the finale, because I want to be able to have a complete, satisfying epic to recommend to people who want something a bit richer than the typical "guy in Bat costume punches clown" stories we usually get.

[aotopmha]

One thing that really hasn't changed about the Sonic fandom in the years I've been away from it is the very specific obsession with the most miniscule details.

It used to be the green eyes, now it's Amy being slightly less of a token obsessive love interest or there being a sniff of a continuity/references to previous games in the story.

(I mean, it also used to be voice acting and model wars, and those are actually still alive, so the more things change, the more things also stay the same.)

But that's literally all Amy was by Sonic 06, down to one of her abilities being able to turn invisible to stalk Sonic better and it's so crazy to me how people actually defend that as "having more personality" these days when all Frontiers and Generations did was tone it down just a little bit (which is actually in line with her arc in the original Sonic Adventure).

I think Heroes might've actually been the worst of it, but I think Amy definitely deserves to have more to her character than just her crush on Sonic.

The only bit of that criticism I think is understandable here is her "losing her spunky attitude", but I don't see it with the minor changes with her in Generations in particular. And Frontiers is kind of a more somber story to begin with.

These small changes are always framed as this egregious misstep when it's really something like the character having a mildly less extreme reaction or a reference to a different relevant element to what people want.

The Time Stones are pretty relevent to bring up in a game about time travel considering getting all of them was what lead to the bad/good future at the end of CD, for example.

And Sonic and Tails vaguely alluding instead of referencing locations really doesn't make a difference to me. This is just basic continuity stuff every story does to me.

I think a few ended up strange, like the silly implications of how dialog worked out in that scene with Sonic and Knuckles, but it's just strange instead of deeply offensive to me.

And the outrage I've seen about these details is just so funny to me.

Especially since Generations itself is a nostalgia game to begin with and is the time to make references.

(All of this said, apparently the jp version is pretty much the same outside of some of the added Modern Sonic dialog, so ultimately it's inconsequential as far as true substance goes?

Generations has a really simple story to begin with, so these don't do much to ruin anything, either.

I do understand the game preservation aspect of these changes, though. They definitely should've kept the old cutscenes as a toggle or option to still look at; remasters should include the game in its original form for the sake of preservation.)

As far as criticism of that aspect goes, to bring a different example, I think I really liked the cutscene with Sonic in the Shadow portion of Generations because it clearly was in good fun with the characters taking a jab at each other about those events that happened, in other words, true continuity.

A bunch of moments in Frontiers really felt like stilted "remember this" moments, rather than just a story with these characters and I think this is what some truly take issue with, rather than "the references" themselves.

People just want a fully new story with these characters.

I think this is also why Shadow's portion has a more positive response. It's just continuing his story.

And in my case, actually retroactively somehow making me care about his character after Sonic Adventure 2.

I think the main thing is that I just did not buy any of the turns his story took after Adventure 2.

The clone stuff in Heroes was alright enough, but not enough for me to think he was fine to be brought back.

And Shadow (05) was just a mess with a character conclusion I found zero satisfaction in because just "forgetting" everything you clearly cared for is just as bad as obsessing over it.

Looking into the Shadow The Hedgehog game just to refresh my memory has been a wild journey because while the forced, immature elements are mostly the localisation as I've always known, the story still is the same mess otherwise.

And Shadow Generations somehow, miraculously put all of that insanity together into a simple, but heartfelt package that somehow didn't end up too tryhard and made sense emotionally.

You have to work through trauma to truly move on from it. You can't just say you move on and have it be the end of it, just not how it works in my eyes, unless you want the characters to feel completely alien, which I think Shadow is intended to be the complete opposite of.

I think the fact that Maria remembered stuff from her time on Earth is an issue for some people (and an apparent inconsistency with the animation), but I think there are advantages to both: if she doesn't remember/know anything about Earth, it's a big additional tragedy added to her character of never being able to see a world she grew to love through all she learned about it.

If she does remember good times on Earth, it, in turn, makes more sense why she would love it so much and want everyone on it to be happy. If she has seen the beauty of it and wishes to go back and never can, it is a tragedy all the same.

In my eyes, neither of these really take away or add to her character nor Shadow's because their bond exists regardless of whether she knew what Earth was like for herself or not.

This game actually also made me care about Maria as a character, in fact, I'd posit she became a character because even Shadow's own game didn't really go into what her illness felt like or what her general life was like on the ARK or how she felt about everyone around her.

But to loop back to my point of people liking it, it's just really nice to have a complete, substantial story again.

I don't need it, and I especially like my Sonic stories more cheesy and silly, but if you're going to do a serious story, do it this way.

Be straight to the point and sincere and add some silly elements to not go too far in the indulgently tedious hyper-drama direction.

Revisiting this crazy and wierd, but fun series has been a lot more fun than I ever thought it would be, even if I think this fandom is one I'll probably mostly keep my distance from.

All bigger ones have their issues, but the bad parts of the Sonic fandom are just not anything I even want remotely anything to do with or tolerate.

I'll watch some more of those massive video essays, though.

[a-very-tired-jew]

Remember when I said age is a factor regarding how informed a person is? About how life experience, world experience, education, and biology all play a role in how you process information and come to conclusions? https://www.tumblr.com/a-very-tired-jew/746376840485257216/youre-not-as-informed-as-you-think-and-age-does?source=share Well I have seen some token "Good Jews" exhibiting this exact thing as of today (04/20/2024).

Fig. 1. User (Early 20s) claims Zionism is antisemitic, repeats Bund talking points, and repeats the genocide claim.

Fig. 2. Same user says they needed to deprogram from indoctrination.

Fig. 3. Same user as above claims elder Jews (read: Jews that are older than them) are indoctrinated. These are the most egregious examples that this Good Jew has with another Good Jew in this particular discord (you know which one). What we see in Figure 1 is the same Bundian philosophy that got Jews betrayed and killed in the USSR. It's the same philosophy that we have tried over and over again with the same results: Jews tortured, killed, and exiled by the larger goy communities we thought we were accepted in. I would hazard a guess that this young person is not aware of the Dreyfus Affair or other issues in "Liberal" societies that led to Zionism.

In Figure 3 this same person states that older Jews are indoctrinated and in Figure 2 states that they needed to "deprogram" from their "indoctrination". They posit that the reason young Jews are anti-Zionist is because they haven't been indoctrinated yet and/or have deprogrammed themselves from their childhood. However...this is typical teen/young adult behavior where they're "Fighting the narrative" and lashing out at the perceived "status quo of indoctrination". I've heard these words for years, hell I said them myself. But because this person is under 25, around 22/23 from my understanding, they simply don't have the experience or education to really understand what they're talking about. Yes they are Jewish. But the points I made about age in my other post still stand. The likelihood that they have the world and life experience is very slim. Add in that they use inflammatory language that is often associated with the current batch of young antisemitic activists and...well...you get the picture. But let's talk about the greater implication here. This is one glaring example in a discord. There are more throughout our own community. There are young Jews who are screaming at their elders and repeating talking points that they heard on tiktok, social media, and at protests*. The very same protests where they will hear chants of "Gas the Jews", "Hitler was right!", and so on. At what point do they realize that even if they care for innocent lives (which I have yet to see anyone besides outright racists and bigots call for actual genocide) that allying themselves with antisemites who would kill them in an instant is a bad idea? In part, I think it has to do with Westerners distrusting their Democratic governments as we have seen them repeatedly drop the ball on issues. They yearn for a revolution against the status quo because the future is bleak (and trust me, as an ecologist I understand climate anxiety and as a millennial I understand that and so much of the other shit too). But this yearning to have meaningful change in their own country has been coopted by terrorist organizations bent on killing Jews. That energy around positive activism and meaningful change has been manipulated by an organization that has been caught on tape saying they would manipulate these very people to bring about their violent intent. And here's the thing...many of us elders have gone through that very same phase of rhetoric. I remember being an edgy anti-Zionist myself when I was a teen and young adult (I was of the Bundian philosophy as well, and yes I had grown up Reconstructionist, there's a lot to unpack there for a later time). I remember thinking my elders were brainwashed and just scoffing at their retorts. I remember thinking that they had just fallen for the propaganda and needed to open their eyes. As I got older and became more educated, as well as had more world experiences and reached certain biological milestones, my views changed. Not because I became more conservative, but because I was no longer an emotional, hormonally driven young adult who thought they knew more than others. There's a saying in academia that goes something like "In undergrad you think you know everything, in masters you realize you were woefully uninformed, and in your doctorate you realize you don't know shit about anything." But if you tell them that, they just say it's Hasbara (propaganda) because those same orgs have told them it is. Only hindsight and time will let them go beyond their surface level reactionary reasoning and see the bigger picture. They think they've been deprogrammed, but in reality they've fallen for a different manipulation that will use their good intentions to do harm.

*This is reminiscent of young LGBTQ+ behavior where the young queer kids are yelling at their elders, telling them they don't understand, and the elders are warning them about something dangerous. The youngins then come back and cry "why didn't you warn us?" to which they respond "you didn't listen".

[irithnova]

About my Siberia ocs...

So I think it's important to balance their characterisation in a way in which they are distinctive characters with interesting personalities and backstories but also acknowledges the challenges they face without making their entire character essentially "They're sad all the time because of Russia" or "Stop talking about their struggles under Russia I don't like politics."

I think both are problematic however I find the latter to be far more distasteful because well. This is a nation personification OC we're talking about and not only that, they're essentially nations within a nation (Russia) by virtue of colonisation and so are minority groups within the larger nation. Hell - because of displacement and immigration from European Russia , a lot of these groups are minorities within their own lands. It's a special case when dealing with minority groups/occupied people personifications and it's particularly egregious when someone wants to forgo any kind of acknowledgement of these power imbalances yet still insists that their interpretation is sensitive.

I've seen some pretty bad OCs of Siberian groups which are the product of the creator going "I hate politics stop talking about politics!" or, an almost direct quote, "I hate when people shove politics into historical hetalia." Which... Is an interesting take to say the least considering how history feeds into politics and vice versa. Historical hetalia is a beast in an of itself and is one of the only hetalia communities/bubbles in which "no politics" will get you laughed out the door from what I've seen considering *gestures to my previous statement*. If you've ever taken a history course - you'll know how much history and politics are intertwined.

This is how you get interps which consists of the likes of "Russia was wandering around the empty lands of Siberia" which not only blatantly disregards the brutality of the Russian colonisation of Siberia but also promotes the concept of "Terra Nullius" or "Virgin Land". I'm quoting myself from an even bigger post I have in store which focuses on anti Mongolian sentiment however stereotypes about Mongolians and Siberian groups often overlap because of their placement in Northern Asia, hence why it applies to both,

"In addition, to hone in on Mongolia being an "untouched, pristine" land - this is also a common trope that is launched towards traditionally nomadic "unsettled groups” (such as Siberian and Native American groups). The concept of "Terra Nullius", a Latin word meaning "nobody's land". It completely disregards the presence and rights of the people who inhabit the land and has been historically used to justify the colonisation and displacement of such groups - their land belonged to "nobody" so it was essentially up for grabs...It divorces the people from their landscape and paves the way for dangerous misconceptions and justifications to blossom.

Here is an example of "Terra Nullius" in action in a Russian propaganda poster, encouraging Russians to move to Kazakhstan."

Or interps such as "[Siberian group] has forgiven Russia for everything he did/most things he did and is in love with him" which implies that the mistreatment of the Siberian groups is merely something in the past when it is in fact ongoing. The mistreatment of Siberian groups such as the Sakha, Buryats, Chukchi and Tuvans has been all the more highlighted in their disproportionate mobilisation in the invasion of Ukraine - and the heaps of scapegoating that was subsequently shovelled onto them.

That's not to say ethnic minority soldiers in the Russian army shouldn't be held accountable for their crimes - however that and the fact that they themselves are victims of Russian imperialism can both exist as true statements. The scapegoating is so bad that even Pope Francis joined in, blaming the brunt of the war crimes committed onto "Non Russians" such as Buryats and Chechens, as they do not come from "Russian culture."

Back to my main point... I think the resistance to do research on and publicly acknowledge how these groups live under Russia and what kind of struggles they face in some kind of bid to "not paint them as victims!!11" is sorely misinformed and ignorant. Because well. They are victims.

Not in the sense that you should portray them as sad, pitiful, weak little meow meows but in the sense that yes they are living under Russian occupation and are an occupied people who's been subjected to centuries of Russification, and so compared to making an OC of Mongolia who is an independent nation state at least I think there is far less room to be hauling around "leave politics out of historical hetalia!" "don't talk to me about politics!" "stop victimising them!!" because then it leads to tone deaf interpretations such as "They've forgiven Russia for everything and is in love with him ♥️💖", "Russia is actually [Siberia groups] father", "Here is my singular Siberia OC who represents ALL Siberian groups and by the way Russia is their father" (yes these are all real interpretations I've seen and I've made a separate really strongly worded post ranting about it) and worse. I mean I've literally seen an "aph Siberia oc" who was Russia and France's love child. Terra Nullius executed Hetalia-style.

I don't really think I need to elaborate on why a singular Siberia OC is problematic - Siberia is filled with a myriad of different groups who speak different languages, have different origins and ways of lives and practices, different religions, who've experienced eras of peace and conflict with each other, etc and yeah to shove them all into one personification is an erasure of the sheer diversity that is in Siberia. I definitely don't need to elaborate on why making Russia a father to any of these groups is problematic, to say very the least.

On the point of "don't only portray them in a victimising lense", I think making Siberian groups all depressed all the time is also a Russia-centric perspective. Of course it's ignorant at best to not acknowledge their shared suffering because of Russia however when this point and this point alone is central to their character I believe in a way that it strips them of their autonomy and ability to feel things and do things outside of Russia's gaze. There is absolutely a lot of joy to be had despite their current situation, perhaps even in spite of their current situation. It's ok to give them odd quirks and put them in funny situations as well as acknowledge that they are an occupied people and approach that territory carefully when need be.

For example, I made my Buryatia bubbly and loud but made my Tuva a bit more deadpan because I see them as a pair who often associate with each other and I think the dynamic is funny. I also made Buryatia an overbearing "husband" to Soyot who is perpetually tired™ from all the se- .

I made a crack dynamic between Sakha, Evenkia and Dolgan where Evenkia was Sakha's teacher at first but then became a deadbeat dad leaving Sakha to primarily raise Dolgan, thus Dolgan takes after Sakha and is uh lawyermaxxing👍. Yukaghir is the little old lady of the group who is often forgetful but very nifty and Chukotka acts like a big sister to people which Koryak (who I see as her brother) always finds annoying and they often bicker. Ket is on the slightly edgy side and is extremely particular about his routines and Nganasan terrifies Nenet because he eats reindeer whereas Nenet doesn't.

All of these quirks/ more lighthearted interpretations and "they are an occupied people under Russia" can coexist. One should not be thrown out for the sake of the other.

I think there's also problem - though I've seen this far less, in making Siberia ocs purely as a middle finger at Russia. As in, you made the OC because you wanted to say loud and proud FUCK RUSSIA which well yeah, fuck Russia, but I highly doubt your interest in this group lies outside of wanting to #own the Russians which is dehumanising in and of itself. At least pretend to care about the history and culture instead of using an entire group of people to make a virtue-signally oc purely to try and upset some Russians.

Anyways yeah Siberia 👍

[maniculum]

Another example from Der Natueren Bloeme, sent to me by @joeyportfolioey, who says:

The first of the manuscripts in the Koninklijke Bibliotheek, KB KA 16 (ca. 1340-1350), you've already posted. It has another scorpion in its section on the zodiac (f. 19r), though. This one sticks out its tongue, which is fitting, because the bestiary text compares the scorpion to a man who will flatter you to your face, but will stick out his tongue when you turn your back.

Unusual choices in this drawing. First, the decision to add trees & grass but still have the animal floating in the air. I can't get after them for scale or perspective, because this is obviously an intentional stylistic decision, just an odd one. Maybe they're trying to represent the habitat in which this creature can be found? That would be a pretty good move on their part.

Second, the everything about this animal. You can kind of see how completely reasonable stuff combines together to have a weird effect. Top-down view? Sure, if I were drawing a scorpion for a bestiary, that's the most reasonable angle to get a good sense of what the animal looks like. I'm sure many modern diagrams of scorpion anatomy do the same. Sticking out the tongue? As pointed out above, this fits with the text, good job. Weird googly eyes? Look, eyes are hard, I get it; put that little black dot just a millimeter out of place and it looks wrong to us. All of that together, though, makes it look like someone ran this animal over. That thing has been flattened.

Also, one more thing before we get into the points. That's... a deer, right? Everyone else sees that? Not in the Old English sense of "a 'deer' is just a generic word for 'animal'", but like a deer deer. A cervid. Which really just makes the "flattened" thing worse, because deer get hit by cars pretty often, so this is just like... yep that's some roadkill there. Chrissakes, it has hooves. Okay, yeah, it has six legs, and the body & tail are more lizardy than anything else, but still, hard to look at it and not think "deer". Or at least "Appalachian cryptid". Anyhow, points:

Small Scuttling Beaſtie? ½ (the scale isn't clear, but the resemblance to a deer makes me think it isn't that small)

Pincers? ✘

Exoskeleton or Shell? ✘

Visible Stinger? ½, there's something going on at the end of its tail but I wouldn't call it a stinger.

Limbs? 6

This does manage to dodge the penalties, though, because I'm pretty restrictive about those. As much as I might look at it and think "deer", that is identifiably not a deer, so no penalty. And I've already committed to the "mammal" penalty only applying if it has four legs and fur, so the extra pair of legs exempts it. (I actually haven't seen any that fit that particular requirement; I just picked it as the most egregious way a medieval artist could draw the Wrong Type of Animal.)

Vibes... I do not like the not-deer. I'm also not thrilled with it looking like it had a bad encounter with a cartoon steamroller. It's not horrible, but I'm not a fan. 2/5.

Total score:

3.6 / 10

Show me one that hasn't been run over and I'll reconsider.

[caesarflickermans]

I wanna hear a true unpopular HG opinion, it can be abt anything! I like ur takes so I’m just curious lol

To me the fandom en large overestimates friendships between characters. I understand this is coming from the depth of the source material and the wish to find connection for characters in trying times, but I simply do not think it is realistic.

It is true that victors share a unique bond due to understanding each other‘s trauma. However, they at most spend 2-3 weeks per year together, and none if they aren't mentors. Their means of communicating outside of that time is defined by surveillance, thus suppressing the discussion of sensitive topics that might further any such friendships. There are examples that I would see as exceptions, such as Chaff and Haymitch & Finnick and Johanna, but I see these as a rarity to the norm. Neither of these friendships survived the circumstantial time, so whether these would survive after the war is also an open question.

A prominent example of this fanon is Annie's and Johanna's fanon friendship after the war. I simply do not see that being based on anything but wishful thinking. While Johanna knew Finnick and they were indeed friends, Johanna has no relationship with Annie. For all we know, as Annie is unlikely to have ever mentored, Johanna might have met Annie at most a handful of times. I do not see Annie's pregnancy as a convincing reason for Johanna to move to District 4. Even if she did, I doubt these two would last living together for more than a week. In my headcanon, Johanna dies young and alone as she does not have a support system that can help her with her morphine addiction. Her life is a tragedy! That's the point!

I have seen the same being said about Plutarch and the rebels, whereupon their acquaintances amount to fully-fledged friendships. Especially Panem-wide friendships, i.e. with Haymitch or Beetee, are simply unrealistic in the face of constant surveillance—and the fact that Haymitch doesn't even have a phone. The time in 13 is significant but short, and I do not think that anything comes out of it as the time and environment are a whole separate setting which do not aid in keeping in touch once that time and environment is no more. I've seen even more egregious cases with Plutarch specifically and can not ever envision him to befriend the likes of Effie or Coin, simply because he would find the former irritating and the latter suspicious. Fellow rebels fulfil a use for Plutarch, so he would not care to establish or maintain a friendship with someone like Tigris. They are fellow rebels fighting to bring down that system, not friends caring about the other's life.

Overall, I see most of these headcanons as constructing a fanon more comforting than the actual canon at hand. It's comforting to imagine everyone deeply cared about one another instead of the circumstances that brought together strangers and separated them once the time passed.

[utilitycaster]

Hi I’m a new critter and I love your account and both your meta and your takes on “drama” I genuinely want to know (if you don’t mind saying of course) what you consider to be the most egregious, bad faith cr take that you’ve ever seen. I just like reading your criticism because it’s both incredibly articulate and smart but also very satisfying

Hi anon,

Thank you! I do have to say this is a difficult question with a boring answer but I'll give you a tangential one as well to make up for it.

Obviously, the misogyny and death threats in C1 are the worst! Anything that rises to the combination of structural oppression and literal death threats is going to be the worst, even before you factor in how utterly tiny the stakes were here (and, frankly, you shouldn't factor that in; doesn't matter what the cause is, big or small! Do not send death threats!)

The reason I tend not to talk about that is because there's very little to say. It's misogynistic death threats. That's awful, inexcusable, and dangerous in any context. But if someone doesn't understand how terrible this is, I don't think I can say anything to add to that.

Anyway because that was true, but obvious and not terribly revealing, I have been thinking a lot about mean-spiritedness in the fandom and I'll talk about that here. It's something I try to be cognizant of, because here's the thing: I talk a lot of shit. I'm aware I talk a lot of shit. There's many reasons why I talk a lot of shit. But I do try very hard not to be mean-spirited. I think there is a very clear distinction between criticism, even harsh criticism, of things you don't like, whether it's in execution, concept, or they just aren't to your taste; and mean-spiritedness, which is much more based in a desire to do harm to others.

I think again the example I've mentioned recently of people harassing Liam until he took a song off a Caleb character playlist is the pinnacle. This doesn't have any real goal re: criticism - it doesn't address an issue with the character nor the narrative and the only personal preference it reveals is "I, a random fan, don't like that this song was used in this context" which is not really relevant and you can skip it. Harassment is never justified, and even behavior that skirted harassment really served only to be a dick to Liam. It didn't have a single result other than "Liam takes the song off and feels kind of bad for a while," which I suspect was in fact the goal for most people, and that's pretty abhorrent.

Harsh criticism is not necessarily constructive, but it is with the intent to reveal - either a personal preference, or what you believe to be a flaw (structural, thematic, etc) within the story. It might not have a goal - personal preference really is just "I don't like this guy" and that's fine. Mean-spiritedness, however, exists just to spew bile and do harm.

So the following (most of which are paraphrased, but all are things I've personally seen on Tumblr alone, and nearly all are from the last year or so) aren't per se the most egregious or bad-faith takes, but they are absolutely mean-spirited. They have all destroyed my estimation of the people saying them for the most part beyond repair, and in many cases, if they have not hurt my estimation of the ship or character they were intending to support, they have certainly increased my estimation of the things they were intending to oppose. (And it goes without saying: any harassment - any - is automatically mean-spirited).

"I hope Fjord and Jester have divorced [author's note: they were not married] and I hope it hurt."

"I hope Caleb and that floaty fuck have broken up by the solstice."

"I hate Ashton, and Campaign 3 wouldn't be any different if they weren't there."

"My wishlist for this episode is that Chetney hits on Fearne and Ashton cockblocks him"

"I hope Fearne makes that robot eat his stupid coin"

"I'm not surprised that Yasha missed, because Yasha is bad at everything."

"Funny how Vex goes against her husband but does everything that Keyleth says" [Author's note: later proved to be hilariously untrue]

"No one cares about Travis's characters."

"Oh, Liam meant that Essek's own guilt would still exist by 'It won't help the inside?' I thought he was just being a fucking twat."

I think some people go into fandom not because they want to talk about characters, but because they see it as an opportunity to hit someone. I think some people believe they are entitled to a "win" (not normal to want nor possible to achieve and often less about the story and more about the fandom agreeing with them) and will engage in any tactic no matter how underhanded if they don't think they're getting it. That's what mean-spiritedness is in the end. It's not a single opinion, and often it goes under the radar compared to more stupid but less clearly unpleasant takes - a lot of the above didn't result in a ton of discourse because most people see these and rightfully go "oh that person is a tar pit" and block them - but it's certainly, outside of bigotry (which is also frequently also mean-spirited) - the most bad-faith approach to fandom on the whole.