#petty greviances

[thisweeksobsessionis]

Lucy's intro. (and my problem with it)

okay so this is a petty minor grievance. that you get with tv shows when you start to nit pick. i don't like or hate Lucy. she's very meh, and felt more like the early 2000's "Men in woman's body, cool girl" Archetype. i was meh on the kiss, didn't think it needed to happen but i like how she kept professional after.

my minor nitpick however is how her character was introduced by making bucks character take a step to the left. not out of character but not right either.

So for her intro in 5x11 they have to jump onto a speeding car to evacuate a family with a bomb underneath it. Lucy and buck are the ones chosen to jump into the bed of the truck.

we go to buck first where he's stalling at Ravi, going "you know i, i can do it i just got to figure it out first" and immediately it felt wrong for bucks character.

he has never hesitated in jumping into dangerous situations he doesn't stall, he runs in head first and figures out the solution as he goes. the only other time he stalled was in season 1, after Devon's death (the roller coaster fall) and he wasn't hesitating cause of the danger or fear for his own life but because he was struggling with failing to save someone.

back to the 5x11 scene, were as Buck fumbles around Lucy just jumps straight onto the bus no hesitation and you know that's wrong, not because Lucy jumped right away, but because buck didn't. the writers messed up. They needed to emphasize the fact that Lucy was this badass female firefighter character who jumps straight into danger like buck. however they did so at the expanse of bucks characterization in order to over emphasize Lucy's. they could have simply had Lucy get their first so she jumped first and than buck right after. or the 118's firetruck had to swerve out of the way of a pothole or something, or they could have had a cool moment were they jumped at the same time landing side by side to show how their equals in their competent recklessness (even though it makes sense to jump one at a time, so you don't risk hitting each other, it's tv and would have been a cool shot)

like i said it's a minor nitpick, i know. and one i could easily forget. But I've watched enough shows that it clued me in on what her personality and storyline was going to be. And unfortunately I was correct. it was a small moment that hinted at the bigger issue.

[yurucamp]

actually never mind. i just read an old ask you answered about enjoying living and your wonderful response provided more than enough insight. i dont know you but i am genuinely happy for you, i'll take from those cues and enjoy living as well. there would be little point to constantly pour out frustrations in things are internally in order

hello!

with regards to your previous message, i think it's impossible not to feel frustration, not to get annoyed with people and things, and not to want to express those feelings! i honestly really doubt that any people, even those who sell themselves as having achieved true mindfulness, can achieve freedom from anger, annoyance, and despair, so i don't think there's anything wrong with sharing that feeling (of being annoyed).

personally i'm frequently (very) annoyed by things -- as for why i don't often vent /publicly/ online, i don't think that strangers can really console me, so i don't see the purpose of it. i am wont to complain in a conversation with an individual... but whether that's a better way to express annoyance i truly have no idea and you shouldn't listen to anything i say.

i certainly hope that you won't see me as an enlightened person who's free from airing petty greviances, it's certainly not true!! i do enjoy life and i think that collecting and treasuring the things you love about life is crucial to living, but i don't think you should be ashamed of negative emotions either

take care!

[wednesdaytonight]

i kept thinking about today how few photos of me my mom and all of them have of me, i was always in a play, i did so many things that involved being in costume and dressing up, i did choir and chorus and carol, i folk danced, i did academic competition and got awards for it, i did recreational sports, i participated with my whole heart in holidays, ive graduated from everything but college, ive won scholarships that had dinners but theres like no evidence of anything like that, if i died it would be like i never existed, so easy to just put my current existence in a bag, at a recent wedding an aunt went out of her way to take pictures of my cousin just like posing in front of something cool and doing stuff, my cousins are all over my grandparents house, im the first born to my mom eldest grandchild youd never guess that based on the photo density in the houses, i found and destroyed a set of naked photos of me from like age 5 tho people act like im making a big deal out of something parents just Do harmlessly which sure yeah, well anyway i usually leave out that i met the group of people my parents sold that stuff to, they were like at a folk festival i was working and were all like hey where are your parents we haven't seen you in ages i cant believe they wouldnt let me fuck you can you believe that haha and i was like trapped there by customer service conventions in my extremely heavy and way too hot for the summer folk outfit, i have a lot of negative associations with folk dancing time period in my life but i off handedly mentioned it to someone and they were like oh wow thats cool, more or less and i was kind of momentarily stunned like, huh,,,,,,i guess it is kind of cool

[whitehotharlots]

Associationism: A postmortem for liberal decency

In the last half decade, liberal political writing has undergone a profound seachange. This has infected all strata of media: from braindead outlets like Adbusters, to intentionally digestible pap such as USA Today, to our august papers of record (only two of which remain; one is owned by the world’s richest man), all the way up to self-styled intellectual journals and peer-reviewed scholarship. This change can even be found in literal children’s media and grade school curricula. It deserves to be examined.

For lack of a better term, I refer to this shift as an adoption of associationism. Cause and effect has been abandoned as an analytical frame. The devices that used to be relied upon to adjudicate cause and effect, such as scientific method, statistical analysis, balanced reporting, and even basic “X leads to Y” logic, have likewise been marked as problematic vectors of evil.

Now, you might say this has been a long time coming. Scientific method has been used to design and excuse a bevy of historical wrongs, and balanced reporting is often deployed to obscure morally unambiguous phenomena. Those are fair points, but an astute observer will notice that these adjudication mechanisms are still deployed within liberal discourse, just that they are now used only selectively. Rigor and attention to context are now considered problematic--white, male, cis-normative, whatever--and this allows for otherwise inherently evil mechanisms of truth adjudication to be deployed only when they are guaranteed to enforce the desired narrative, often by writers who are shamelessly fabricating evidence. I mean, why not? It’s fascism to be fact checked, after all. 

Importantly, moral and factual correctness have become collapsed into one another. A statement or belief is True to the extent that it is Right, and vice versa. There exist no confounding variables or contradictory phenomena. The liberal writer’s job, therefore, is to center their own subjective perception (referred to as “lived experience”) or the subjective perception of someone in a supposedly more marginalized position, and then craft a narrative that puts this perception beyond all moral (and therefore factual) reproach. 

The liberal writer’s process is, generally, as follows:

Zero in on a moral outrage of some kind, be it pressing and manifest or petty and completely subjective--everything has the same weight within this frame. 

Narrate this outrage via the “lived experience” of a subject who shares the writer’s opinion.

Cherrypick a handful of statistics, studies, or expert opinions that appear to lend validity to the writer’s understanding of the outrage, being careful to ignore any context or ambiguities that might soften or even fully discredit the outrage. 

Demonize anyone or anything that problematizes--through their opinions or their existence--the writer’s understanding of the outrage. This is achieved typically by associating the problematizer with supposedly empowered groups, who are evil.

Clarify in no uncertain terms: anyone who does not share this outrage is a member of the evil groups, even if they are very literally not a member of those groups. 

This has all been framed as a form of radical moral clarity, providing space for marginalized voices to express their once-unutterable truths, which will in turn bring about the changes this country desperately needs. But, oh no, it turns out that every media organization in this country is stolidly against any actual reform. All of our major presses and news outlets are still owned by austere capitalist psychos, including the aforementioned richest human being in the history of the world. Universities are still MBA-run shitholes that would have students march into incinerators the moment that doing so became more profitable than providing them with resources for identity affirmation. And media aggregation--the manner through which words appear before people’s eyes, 90-odd percent of the time via a screen--is controlled by a small handful of the most megalomaniacal companies on earth. 

So, while we have indeed radically changed our practices of communication and truth adjudication, doing so has not resulted in any radical social changes, or even really any structural changes whatsoever. We’ve just made it radically more difficult to come to an honest understanding of the causes of social malignancies, which in turn has made it radically more easy for the vampires who run this country to make everyone else’s lives radically worse. Radical, dude!

There is no idea so cruel or horrible that it cannot be made to appear progressive under this new frame. Come up with any hypothetical, no matter how evil, and within a few seconds a media-savvy reader should be able to fashion an adequately woke headline: 

Hypothetical examples: 

Abolishing school lunch programs: “Should We Really Be Nourishing White Bodies?”

Pro-female genital mutilation: “The Inherent Transphobia of Those Who Oppose ‘Female Circumcision.’” 

Let’s start using napalm again: “Once Considered an Effective Tool of Precision Warfare, Napalm Was Demonized by Those Who Fear Non-Normative Bodies”

Indian Residential Schools: “Sheltered From Whiteness, These Communities Were a Place Where Native Excellence Could Thrive”

Here we see the Associative aspect of Associationism. Cause and effect no longer exist, and so malignancy is a contagion, the result of the presence of bad people who cause badness. Members of statistically majoritarian groups are presumed to be empowered, and therefore oppressive. And since majoritarian groups contain by definition a majority of people, you will be sure to find their members among the detractors of your position. And even if the members of that majority make up a minority of your detractors, that’s still okay, because context is a white supremacist construct used to obscure moral clarity, and you just so happen to be the arbiter of morality by virtue of being yourself. 

Now, to be fair, not every piece written in this style is done in the pursuit of abject evil. Some are, but a solid plurality are instead written in an attempt to remediate a genuine social wrong. The trouble is, they’re being printed in venues controlled by people who do not desire reform; written in thrall to a political party that does not desire reform; and reliant upon the subjective perspectives of academics, politicians, and NGO bloodsuckers who do not desire reform. This leads, inevitably, to an understanding of social problems that occludes all possibility of reform, only now the discoursal boundaries are so droolingly retarded that you cannot mention the fact that these discussions do not contain even a hypothetical description of how reform might take place.

The point is, radically altering the manner in which social problems are understood, measured, and discussed does not lead--automatically or otherwise--to those social problems being positively addressed. Shifting rhetorical frames can be a precondition for change, yes, but it can just as easily be a means of calcifying the status quo. Unequivocally, our embrace of associationism has accomplished the latter.  

We can easily discern the utility of associationism so far as our elite castes are concerned: it’s getting harder and harder to simply deny the existence of malignancies, so instead let’s just insist that everyone understand them in the dumbest possible way. Their popularity among the non-elites is due primarily to American Puritanism: the more upsetting and uncomfortable something makes us feel, the more we assume it must be working. 

But Puritanism is a two-way street, and the true believers tend to be the ones at the base of the food chain. Regular folx will go through the motions in an earnest desire to do something, anything, to cleanse themselves of whatever horrible brutality video they found on their timeline this morning. They can be annoying, but you can’t blame them. The real malignancy of associationism is how it’s allowed a small group of conniving cocksuckers a means of enhancing their professional status by making their cruelest impulses appear progressive.

I started this essay with the intention of digging deep into Chris Lehmann’s abominable TNR piece in which he insists that the men driven mad and homeless after participating in our genocide in Vietnam were actually doing greviance politics. By the time I finished, he had been very thoroughly destroyed. I still think it’ll be worth the effort to do a deep dive to show the machinations of his horrific essay, but has already gone long so I’ll save that for later this week. 

[werevulvi]

Has radical feninism improved your life at all? What do you get out of it that other subbranches of feminism or trans activism don't give or offer?

You know what? Sometimes I ask myself the same question, lmao. It's a harsh branch, and I find myself unhappy with it as I have with any other ideology. But despite that, I still hold onto radfem, at least half-assedly. Because despite the greviances I may have with some of it, it is the only branch of feminism that is based on reality. The harsh, painful reality that tries to break me down. And I guess keeping my chin up in that sorta weather makes me feel stronger and more powerful.

Radfem helped me forgive myself for being female, and to dig into my internalised misogyny, which helped me find self-love. That is invaluable. Although that's not saying I think I owe radfem in any way. It also made me more angry at the world and feeling more trapped and hopeless. Because if I can't escape my female sex, then wtf can I even do? And can I even cry "misogyny" when I'm being rejected things I always thought I could take for granted as a woman/girl, perhaps even discriminated against, based on my masculine appearance? Or is it all my fault?

I felt my internalised misogyny get better after tons of self-therapy and healing, only to feel it again plummet to the bottom again, when I noticed that I'm being treated on some kind of a mass scale just for the way I look. Can feminism help me? Is that selfish of me to even utter? Who knows. I am not a collective of common women's issues to bring to the table. I am just me. Me and my stupidly unique issues.

But what I need to remember is that my suffering is none of radfem's fault. It only opened my eyes. I knew I might likely hate what I'd see if I did. Yet, I still chose to open my eyes. What depresses me is patriarchy, and frankly trans activism and it's near constant putting sticks in my wheels.

It might be petty, but to me, understanding that biological sex is immutable is not only the scientifically correct understanding of biology, but also the most logical one, but perhaps most of all... it's the only thing I can base my womanhood on. Trans activism is incredibly quick to discredit me as a woman because I transitioned and don't like "looking like a woman" (I dunno what that looks like, but I know it's not how I look) because they deem it transphobic to base womanhood (or manhood) on biological sex. Even when I do not even discredit trans women as women. (I mean I kinda do, but not like publically. I tread around that topic like a sleeping wolf.)

Honestly, I'm way too much of a nihilist (realist/pessimist) to even be able to hope that patriarchy can be torn down, within my lifetime or ever, so in regards to making real life changes... feminism is kinda pointless. The world is just too rotten. But I guess I see it as that I'd rather die trying, you know.

Although my allegiance to radfem specifically is waning. I don't like the collectivism part of it, nor do I like most suggested solutions like the Nordic model for solving the issue of prostitution (I'm a Swede, we have it here, it's awful, I'd rather vote for the Australian model.) As a starch centrist and libertarian, I also strongly disagree with the heavy socialist (not rarely even communist) thread that runs through radfem. Although I really don't care to fight others for being socialists, I just can't fully agree with that.

So with my string of rather small, but still, perpetual disagreements with probably most radfems... I'm straying all the more from the ideology as a whole. I'd say I more consider myself just a gender critical feminist nowadays. Which yeah, is probably "practically the same" for an outsider, but for someone's who's been digging around in it for a while... there's whole lotta difference between, for example Andrea Dworkin (radical feminist) and Posie Parker (gender critical feminist) and not just because the latter wears more makeup than the former did, lol. But that's not saying I'm 100% onboard with Posie's opinions either. They're both just examples.

With that all said, I think it's important for me now to take what I agree with about radfem and leave the rest behind me. Take what I like about trans activism, and leave the rest behind me. Think for myself, form my own opinions and walk my own road, come what may. I've never been much of the type that flocks or relate to whole communities.

But has radfem improved my life at all?

Yes, definitely. It taught me there's nothing wrong with being female. It taught me that womanhood has nothing to do with outward appearance or what sex stereotype you wish look like. It made me aware of my internalised misogyny, and helped me understand my sexual traumas better as well. All of that and more... helped me heal tremenduously. It made me realise that it's in being female I find all the gender comfort and stability I'll ever need... without even trying. That was groundbreaking for me, and it still is. Radfem gave me the view of womanhood that I sorely needed, which trans activism never could. And I am forever grateful for that. I said those same words 2 years ago shortly after I first detransitioned, and I will keep saying it.

I may casually call myself a "cis" woman, but it's just political and it's fun because the TRA's hate it. Someone like me openly identifying as a cis woman is exactly what the world needs... I think. Because that might actually change things. And that is... I think, probably the most impactful thing I can offer for feminism. My refusal to "look like a woman" (again, unsure what that means), yet being proudly a woman based solely on my biology. But I digress.

But point is I'm a "cis" woman by my own standards. I could never even possibly touch that label with a ten inch pole by TRA definition of it. This matters, because to them it's only trans and cis, and vast majority of people do not fit that model. No matter how much I listened to TRA's, they only ever had me spinning in circles, and radfem finally broke me free from that seemingly endless sphere. But I digress. Again. Fuck, it's 2am and I'm spiritually already asleep in bed. Was just gonna write a few sentences for a reply, I said. It will go quick, I said. Well, oh well... I think it's been an hour, and I need a smoke. So I won't proof-read this mess.

Sometimes I wonder if that's the only true "female liberation" there can be: to finally understand your trauma, and starting to defend/trand up for yourself and other women.

What radfem gave me was kind of a chance to turn my life all around, and finally transition from victim to survivor. And I think that's not a small gift. It's about the greatest thing I've ever gotten.

But please do keep in mind that I am a very multi-layered person. And most of the time I'm not even fully aware of what most of my brain is doing. Even when it’s not 2am. I'm not nearly as self-aware as I think I am, literally. I'm a bit fragmented still. Who knows what my billion different aspects and opinions are doing, but they’re surely not communicating, lmao. Alright I'mma go to sleep now. Sorry this response became so disorganised. It was a good vent though, and gave me a lot to think about, so I hope you like it.

[xazz]

IT IS A NIGHT OF PETTY GREVIANCES FOR XAZZ

Gave a person a lot of nice-ish items for a pwyw pair review on FR, and I have 100+ dragons

They did 4

AND I AM KINDA REALLY BITTER AND MAD ABOUT IT!!! Like I just need to sleep and I'll be over it BUT for now I'm annoyed that they did FOUR of my 100+ dragons when I gave them about 100k treasure in item value. Salty? Me??? Never. Never giving that person a single treasure AGAIN.

I play this game called Astro Kings and my guild leader wants us in a certain formation around the guild center to better protect the guild hall. And he was like "bookmark your home spaces" which I did. And then I moved away to go be a petty annoyance around the galaxy and gobble up baby planets and guilds and freely kill allllllll the space pirates myself

Check on my space later because I was dumb as fuck and rallied to a thing I shouldn't have and... THERE IS A GUY IN MY FUCKING SPOT

And I know it isn't a bit deal. It's just a square my planet sits on, and I'm not even there and probably won't be back FOR A WHILE. But I had book marked it and it was MY SQUARE. And now some fucking male is on it and I'm just... I am weirdly territorial on fake things I consider mine. So I'm just feeling petty agrivation that my square is being squatted in by some guy with more power than me so whatever I say will be ignored anyway.

Whine whine whine I hate video games

[tidefated]

NAME: Sky

STAR SIGN: Capricorn/Aquarius cusp

HEIGHT: 5′7″ ( but guess what I’m getting a back brace for my Scoliosis & going on T so that will be going up soon! )

PUT YOUR MUSIC PLAYER ON SHUFFLE, WHAT ARE THE FIRST SIX (6) SONGS THAT POPPED UP?:

Ok I split this up & did 3 from my instrumental and 3 from my lyrics playlists as I keep them separate since I can only play instrumentals at work alskd. 

Time - Hans Zimmer

Evergreen - Two Steps From Hell

Wonder Woman: Rise of the Warrior - Position Music

Never Stop - Hidden Citizens

Don’t Fear the Reaper ( cover ) - The Spiritual Machines

Paint it Black - Hidden Citizens

EVER HAD A POEM OR SONG WRITTEN ABOUT YOU?: Erm. Two songs. Actually.

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU PLAYED AIR GUITAR?: I taught myself one(1) Metallica song by ear and then stopped.

WHO IS YOUR CELEBRITY CRUSH?: Bold of you to assume I know who any celebrity is without double checking on google first.

WHAT’S A SOUND YOU HATE AND A SOUND YOU LOVE?: The vague yelling/fighting sounds that perpetually come from outside my goddamn window // rain falling on the roof yes I am that fucking hipster judge me I dare you

DO YOU BELIEVE IN GHOSTS?: Yup ._.

WHAT ABOUT ALIENS?: I think it is arrogant to presume we are the only things out there and even more arrogant to think anything out there gives a flying fuck about us, but also I do not like to think about this shit so I Do Not. <---- I agree with Holmes but it’s less that I don’t like to think about it and more that doing so gives me a slight headache because there’s so much we don’t know and it inevitably leads to a research journey with a dictionary at my side that goes nowhere because I was not designed to understand outer space.

DO YOU DRIVE?: Legally? No. But I learned when I was 13.

WHAT WAS THE LAST BOOK YOU READ?: The Price of Freedom by AC Crispin is the last book I finished. I’m in the middle of Basic Witches by Jaxa Saxena and Jess Zimmerman, and have just started Sea Warriors: Fighting Captains and Frigate Warfare in the Age of Nelson by Richard Woodman.

WHAT WAS THE LAST MOVIE YOU SAW?: Just marathoned PotC 1-3 at home, last movie in theatres was Jurassic Word ( I am still emotional over dinosaurs )

WHAT’S THE WORST INJURY YOU’VE EVER HAD?: Mmm so I’ve had the back of my head cracked open but as I don’t remember a thing from that bc I was like 4 and my memories of that age are spotty as hell, the worst that is actually relevant would be the breaks to my hip & ankle for which I never went to the hospital when I was 10/11 ish. I always know when it’s gonna storm bc my hip locks up it’s great.

DO YOU HAVE ANY OBSESSIONS RIGHT NOW?: Gestures vaguely at the ocean, my entire blog, and everyone I follow atm. <---- same, Holmes.

DO YOU TEND TO HOLD GRUDGES AGAINST PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE YOU WRONG?: It kind of varies/kind of? I don’t like. Actively think about how much I dislike someone or bring them up when there’s no need, however if I am forced to interact with someone who has done me a serious wrong I will 1) play the rabbit “I’m happier than you” game, and 2) find small but impactful ways to be petty- but only certain greviances warrant this. Otherwise nah I only have so much spite to direct at people. 90% of the time my grudges turn into ways to be genuinely better off out of spite tho, so it’s beneficial in the end.

IN A RELATIONSHIP?: Nah- I’ve contemplated dating around really casually just so I can say I’ve had the experience and learn a little more about myself/make friends in the process, but ultimately I’ve found that the idea of what a romantic relationship is supposed to be like that people subscribe to is downright smothering for me.

RULES: tag followers you want to know better!

TAGGED BY: @oceanfoamed​

TAGGING: @intolerablexsacrifice​! Just so I can say someone I know wasn’t already tagged by Holmes!

[rissa-rey]

I have a lot:

TV Tyrion is a watered down version of book Tyrion and book Tyrion is overrated AF. I don’t think he makes a good Hand to Daenerys and I hope the books don’t go down that route and Selmy survives.

I hate post-season 4 Jaime. Book Jaime is my favorite character so this is very distressing for me.

Lyanna Mormont is even more overrated than book Tyrion. Everyone screaming “YAS QUEEN!” at a 10 yr old little girl spouting off “fierce dialogue and witty comebacks” are really just cheering on a child parroting back some truly misogynistic bullshit. I’m not here for it. The actress is great though.

I liked TV Shae. I liked her relationship with Sansa. And I don’t blame her for denouncing Tyrion and taking up with Tywin—it’s not like she was in a great position to do anything else. Just another example of a woman being punished for taking her life in her own hands.

The dragons are boring and overused. They work in the books because GRRM uses them sparingly. They lose their mystique on the show.

Don’t even get me started on their mother...

Or Dorne. The Sand Snakes were the worst. Ellaria is an OC on the show. And a shitty one at that. Doran is clever in the books and wouldn’t be caught dead getting knifed by his dead brother’s paramour. And his dead brother’s paramour wouldn’t be caught dead knifing Doran—they genuinely care about one another in canon.

Arya is overrated on the show. Her anti-woman bullshit is out of character. Maisie is an amazing actress, I just wish we got to see her actually BE Arya. Book Arya is one of my favorite characters.

A lot of the actors are overrated IMO. Sophie Turner is not one of them. Even young Sophie—for what they put her through on this show, she’s seriously undervalued by fandom at large. She expressed more emotion at 14 than some adult actors on this show did at 20-something or 30-something.

I’ve never stanned Stannis. Before or after what happened to Shireen. He’s boring AF and annoying.

Davos is overrated on the show. I blame Liam Cunningham. I love him too much too. I actively overrate him too.

I don’t ship Sansa with any of the following: Sandor, Littlefinger, Ramsay, Joffrey, or anyone else who was ever in a position to abuse her and took advantage of that fact. Including the Tyrells—sorry, not sorry.

A small, tiny, petty part of my soul wants Cersei to win. But only if she and Sansa air their greviances, split the country in two and spend the next 30 years passive aggressively side-eyeing as competing rulers locked in a cold war of shading the shit out of each other. The more rational part of me wants and expects her to die.

Jon probably should have stayed dead. I always say that I’ll laugh myself silly if after all this drama George does just this in the books. He won’t but I said what I said.

I’m sure I can think up more but that is already a LOT.

Unpopular Opinion: Game of Thrones edition.

reblog with/comment your unpopular opinions.

[grippedbydestielfever]

Blame is an odd thing...

Why do we blame the nice ones?

That might sound a bit like a tag to a horror movie, but I assure you, it has a purpose. Or something.

When The Force Awakens came out, I was naturally as ecstatic about it as anyone who got introduced to Star Wars so young, you don’t remember ever being suprised by Vader was Luke’s father. (spoiler alert ; )

And on the whole, if delivered beautifully. And even more than that. For example, I now find droids adorable. And Poe Dameron is the most beautiful and exciting thing that happened to the SW verse since Ewan McGregor.

My favourite part though, my very favourite part, as unoriginal as this probably makes me, was the last thirty seconds. Because, well, Luke Skywalker.

My favourite character in the SW, hands down. Always has been, always will be. So naturally, feeling distinctly starved after the literal cliff hanger, I jumped into the fanfic feet first, and waited for the awesome older Luke fic. And I did find some, wrote some more. Watched endless Mark Hamill vids. Seriously, the man is cooler than his character, as if that’s somehow possible.

But it was what I found besides all that that surprised me. I might be a bit biased, but I think it’s safe to say that like Obi Wan Kenobi before him (see what I did there ; ), Luke is one of the nicest, kindest, most selfless, compassionate, caring characters you’re ever likely to come across. He forgave Darth Vader.

So why then, is there such a tendency in the fandom to blame Luke for things? Overwhelmingly, he is blamed for Ben Solo becoming Kylo Ren. Blame a lot more than Snoke even. He is blamed for abandoning Leia, abandoning the Resistance, abandoning Rey. Generally, there seems to be a tendency to paint him as grumpy, unappealing, selfish, inept, even cowardly. With absolutely no evidence. I mean, what is the argument there, that a guy in black who tortures and mentally rapes two of the heroes, including a teenage girl, keeps his helmet on the pile of ash of his victims’ bodies, kills Han Solo, and is somehow more whiny, petty, and toddler like that Anakin Skywalker in AOTC, is somehow like that because the kindest and best hero in the galaxy, who literally had to watch his own nephew destroy his entire world for a second time, somehow failed at something, or everything. That this is somehow all Luke’s fault.

The logic got lost of me somewhere in there. It also reminds me of Obi Wan and Anakin, of getting into fandom after ROTS and finding, even years later, stories and theories that say the Jedi deserved what they go for being corrupt-not sure how the massacred millions and the murdered toddlers factor into that corruption-that Obi Wan was somehow at fault for training Anakin wrong, that he actually had failed him. That Vader’s mad ravings after he had just murdered everyone Obi Wan ever cared about and strangled his own pregnant wife somehow had some truth, some substance, some genuine greviance to them. The idea that Vader’s resentment towards Obi Wan, a man he loved as a father, a brother, who literally gave his whole like to protect everything Anakin loved, that his anger that he holds onto for twenty years, that his eventual killing of Obi Wan in front of his own son, was somehow justified by something Obi Wan failed to do. By Obi Wan somehow failing to see that the Council should have treated Anakin differently. Or that the way the Council apparently treated Anakin was somehow justification, or even explanation, for his turning around and murdering everyone.

It’s like the Anakin was in the right when he told Mace they should arrest Palpatine argument. Which is literally tossed out a window when Anakin’s response to Mace saying no- probably perfectly reasonable when you consider the man under his lightsaber had just murdered several Jedi, and would go on to murder billions in the next few minutes and years-was to cut Mace’s arm off and let him be thrown out a window.

Okay, this may have turned into a rant. Apologies. But in all seriousness, I do find it confusing who we chose to venerate, and who he chose to villify. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely adore Vader turning back in to Anakin at the end of ROTJ. I think Luke’s refusal to fight his father, his love and forgiveness for Vader and some of the most beautiful and amazing moments ever put to Sci Fi cinema. But I also think that characters like Luke Skywalker, like Obi Wan Kenobi, suffered incredible losses, gave selflessly of themselves to the galaxy, asked for nothing in return, and saved the galaxy in the process. And I wonder why what he remember is Vader turning back, becoming Anakin again, and not Luke’s selfless courage and love in forgiving, in saving, his father. Not Leia’s incredible courage in the face of losing her planet, her people, and her innocence.

Why we sympathize with Kylo Ren, and not the people he hurt, the people he killed. Why our hearts break for the boy in that mask, and not the girl he terrorized, the pilot he broke, the mother and uncle-who were our heroes once, and still are, just greyer and more wrinkled-why we seek to redeem those who broke the galaxy, and now seek to remember those who put it back together again.

Redemption is something honourable, amazing, wonderful. Forgiveness is an astounding thing.

But love and compassion are what make those things possible, and maybe we need to remember to have a little more for the people who sacrificed everything for those they loved, and asked for nothing in return.

The people who got hurt, and have a right to say ouch on the way down.