#racism isn't irony

[satansluckycigarette]

To the right wing assholes on TikTok and Twitter mad about Mexican and women Vikings, that is not cultural appropriation. Vikings were pirates: they raided and plundered Christian Europe for their gold and for revenge against Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire for the "missionary" expeditions into Norse territory to give our ancestors Christianity or the sword. As pirates, they took along with them wished the same as they did. Shieldsisters were just as powerful as shieldsmen. And, as time progressed, others joined with the Vikings. Arabic mercenaries fought alongside Vikings during the First Crusade, Moors descend both from Northmen and from North Africans and are- objectively- black Vikings, even Chinese soldiers fought alongside Vikings in conflicts with the Rus. To say otherwise is to deny history.

What *is* a disgrace to our heritage is to use satire- the tool the gods taught our ancestors to hold the chiefs and kings of this world to account- to harm the oppressed. That is cultural appropriation: that is a sacrilege.

[akajustmerry]

jk terfling makes one fucking a tweet referring to "silence" from the literary community about Neil Gaiman and suddenly there's article after article like "well, jkr is making a point actually when you think about it..." no she fucking isn't!!! first of all the literary community hasn't been silent I've seen 100s of authors sharing the vulture article. secondly, jkr doesn't actually give a fuck about women or victim's. She literally supported Johnny Depp while he was abusing Amber Heard. she's proved her propensity for misogyny, transmisogyny, racism, and gender essentialism over and over. I guarantee the only reason she's even talking about Gaiman is 1) because she never misses an opportunity to jump on a news story that proves her transphobic belief that men are naturally predatory so she can continue to frame trans women as public threats and 2) she fucking loves the attention. She's not making any kind of valid point and she won't ever again because she's a bigot and people really need to internalize that instead of champing at the bit to validate her views. The irony of her calling out Gaiman for his misogynistic violence is that she doesn't even recognise how much responsibility she herself has for increased transmisogynistic violence against trans women in the UK and across the globe, and disguising that violence using feminist rhetoric just like Gaiman did will never make it any less abhorrent. I hope they both rot.

[nature-nerd-sarah]

I see a lot of folks specifically criticise TikTok for being algorithmically driven garbage that's terrible for its users' mental health. That is true for TikTok, but it's also true for Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, and a whole host of other sites. Social media is just generally bad, in many different ways. My guess as to why some people specifically go after TikTok is that they still haven't gotten over yellow peril mentality and don't like that it's owned by scary Chinese people.

[bluecrocss]

Yes. You are racist. (Buckle up, this is gonna be a long one)

So approximately half a year since the premier of the Disney+ Percy Jackson show, and almost two years since the announcement of the Trio's casting, I would like to take this moment to look back at the insane, racist and anti-black backlash that was launched at Leah Sava Jeffries and a few other cast members from the PJO fandom.

I'm not concerned with the trolls who are openly racist, who resorted to racist slurs and outright threats, everyone agrees that they "took it too far". I want to talk about the rest of you, the "I'm not racist, but.." people, the "What's wrong with wanting book accuracy?" people. Just to let you know, for the unasked question... yes, yes you are.

I've noticed the Percy Jackson fandom has been lording some weird superiority complex over a certain *unnamed* fandom that has fallen out of grace due to their recently outed bigot of an author. But honestly, y'all are not much different. The amount of vitriol and anti-blackness I have seen from this fandom (beyond just bullying a 12 year old girl), y'all don't have a leg to stand on.

Below is a breakdown of the most common arguments I have seen used to justify y'alls absolutely insane bigotry. I am going to explain why none of these justify the amount of anger and vitriol y'all have sent towards Leah, Rick or any of the cast.

I am not here to argue, and this is not a democracy. I am giving you a chance for some self-reflection and to understand that this pattern of violence directed towards POC actors (mostly black women) has never been justified in the name of "book accuracy"/"comic book accuracy"/"ending forced diversity" or whatever other excuses y'all try to make up.

If you still try to justify or argue further for any of these points, I will just block you. I am not coddling you through your racism. If anyone has seen any other dumb arguments floating around that I might've missed, feel free to sound off in the comments.

She's not book accurate:

Neither is Percy, Luke, Grover, Dionysus, Poseidon, and just about every other named character.

Rick already made it clear that physical features were not the priority with casting, rather it was actors that embodied the role. So why are the biggest complaints about Annabeth and Zeus? 🤔

What? You're gonna say everyone else got backlash too? I see you trying to obscure the main issue by playing dumb 😉

See my friend, yes, there were one or two comments about how Percy's hair should be black or how Luke is supposed to be blonde, but as soon as Leah was cast, none of those actors got any significant backlash. In fact, Walker and Charlie literally have an army of fan girls at their beck and call, calling them the perfect Percy and Luke, despite neither being "Book accurate". But then again, have we not observed the pattern of White boy of the month vs WOC to hate for the year? (Yes, I know Charlie isn't white. Further adds to the irony, doesn't it).

Why include character descriptions if you won't stay true to them, you cry? Well, my dear sweet moron, see, books and TV are two different mediums. Because in literature, you can't *Literally* SEE the characters, the author has to add descriptions to paint a picture in your mind, in TV... that's not an issue. So unless the character's appearance is necessary to the plot (like Luke's scar, or Nico being Italian) the show runners can actually focus on more important things.. Like ACTING and PERSONALITY.

2. It's just not how I imagined her:

News flash, babe! ANNABETH ISN'T REAL. None of these character are. They are concepts that originated from the brain of Mr. Rick Riordan. It doesn't matter how YOU imagined her. There are millions of people who read these books that imagined her several different ways. When the creator of the character watched Leah's audition and said, 'Yes! She embodies the character I created!", your imagined version of Annabeth ceased to matter. And guess what? The books still exist... they have not been burned. Your version of Annabeth has not disappeared. Go read the books.

3. Zeus can't be black/Gods have to be Greek/*Insert Character* can't be black:

Y'all did not read the books, I swear. You have to be fake fans looking to troll atp.

The gods move based off the center of western civilization. They change their forms/environment to reflect the culture they are occupying (they did it with Rome, now they're doing it with America). The gods change forms all the time. How we see them is not their true form as a mortal would disintegrate if they were to see their true form.

America is a cultural melting pot (specifically NY where Mount Olympus is now based). If the god's choose forms that reflect the current society they inhabit, they could literally be any race (keep in mind NYC is only 33% white).

All of this is literally SPELLED OUT in the Lightning Thief.

Furthermore, if you're going to push the ethnically Greek thing... Poseidon is British with a British accent and Hermes is Latino. The only ethnically Greek actor is Dionysus (who still doesn't look book accurate). Y'all are sounding like some white supremacists because do you forget that race is a social construct?

Before the advent of the transatlantic slave trade, I can promise you that the Greeks and the Anglo-Saxons did NOT view themselves as the same people. Why are y'all not taking issue with Poseidon's actor then?

Also, Percy Jackson has canonically had a slew of explicitly black demigods since the second book (including Harriet Tubman, which I have mixed feelings about 😭), so I genuinely have no idea where some of y'all are going with this point.

4. She was our smart blonde representation:

Don't pmo. I swear to God!

White, blonde women have NEVER been excluded from Hollywood. Representation is not something you lacked. The dumb blonde stereotype was a simple branch off of a larger misogynistic "dumb woman" stereotype. It has not truly been relevant since the mid 2000s outside of childish jokes.

This iteration of Percy Jackson will probably not go beyond the first 5 books, based off pacing and the age of the actors. So here's a fun game: 5 bucks to the first person who can find me a quote in the first 5 Percy Jackson books, where Annabeth laments her insecurities about being blonde (hint: there aren't any).

Also, her blonde hair does not hold her back at Camp because she is head of the Athena Cabin who are highly respected (and guess what?), ARE ALL BLONDE!

Her insecurities about her hair color are two or three lines at most in the later books, not this fundamental, core part of her character y'all all of a sudden wanna pretend it was. And guess what, as a non-blonde black girl, I was able to read those scenes of Annabeth feeling undervalued because of her looks and relate to her even if she didn't look like me at the time.

Why all of a sudden can y'all not do that with a black Annabeth? By every metric black girls are undervalued for their intelligence in academia more than white girls are, regardless of hair color. So your little representation of a woman undervalued by her looks would still hold. Do y'all dehumanize black women so much, that you are incapable of empathizing with show!Annabeth's plight in the way I could with Book!Annabeth simply because she doesn't look exactly like you?

Your issue isn't that she isn't blonde, it's that she is NOT WHITE.

Furthermore, Becky Riordan had tweeted previously (before the show was even cast) that Annabeth never needed to be blonde (probably recalling the BS y'all put Alexandra Daddario through), so even if they cast a white Annabeth, the blonde hair was never a guarantee. the author and producers all agree that it was not a significant part of her character. It's been a non-issue since day one.

Also, stop acting like smart blondes are rare in media... If you don't go watch some Legally blonde, Iron Man (Pepper Potts), Zack and Cody (Maddie), Liv and Maddie, FMAB (Winry), Captain Marvel, She-Ra, Buffy, The boys (starlight) etc. etc., and go sit down somewhere 🙄🙄🙄 (those were literally all things I've watched recently, off the top of my head, btw 💀)

5. It's not about race, but...:

Yes it is. It was always bout race. No other actors got as much hate as Leah. Her grandmother and other family members on IG had to mute their comments because they were getting so many threats.

Alexandra Daddario had to come to her defense on Twitter. Rick had to put out an official statement on his website. This girl has endured years of psychological torment for simply having the best audition. No one else is book accurate, no one else is ethnically Greek (except Jason Mantzoukas). Walker literally has British and German ancestry.

Why was she being called racial slurs on reddit and in youtube comments?

I know what you're gonna say, "I actually had problems with the entire cast", "I actually had a bigger issue with Walker's hair color", blah blah blah. Then why aren't you in Walker's comment sections? Why are you only making your displeasure known on posts defending/advocating for Leah? Why is she always your first example of 'wrong casting"?

Well, she "looks the most different"... Look up the term "scapegoating".

"Oh, I don't agree with the harassment. I just don't like the casting." Guess what? She's already been cast. They are not going to uncast her. What do you get out of still complaining about it.

All the vitriol you're stirring about her when you complain about her on Social media, it is directing people to send her hate, even if you're not writing it directly. It's is not enough to "not agree" with the racism, it is your duty to actively prevent it. And btw, these are young gen z actors, they are active on social media. They see the edits of themselves (even comment on it) and they most likely see these little "harmless" complaints you're posting. Are your upset feelings really worth contributing to the racist dogpile on this poor girl?

6. Why couldn't they atleast give her blonde braids?:

Why should they? Y'all wanted blonde because of the "dumb blonde" trope... that doesn't apply to POC.

A blonde black girl is gonna be viewed the same as a non-blonde black girl (or at worst, someone might decide she's "ratchet" or some shit for wearing colored hair). What difference would it make?

Why shouldn't Walker dye his hair, then?

7. Annabeth has Gray eyes:

Less than 3% of the global population has "gray eyes". Even if they cast a white actor, they would've needed contacts. Her being black is not the reason Annabeth's eyes aren't gray. Simply put, it is a plot element they removed, like the whole "names have power" element, or Ares having flames for eyes, or Dionysus using his powers to grow strawberries at Camp.

That's how adaptations work. Unnecessary plot elements are cut to save time and budget. This has nothing to do with her casting. They probably also didn't want to make child actors wear contacts (not a new practice).

8. Even if Rick chose her, he was wrong/Disney is forcing him to be okay with it:

Where do I start? Rick created the character. He can't be wrong. Do y'all have no self-awareness? Death of the author has no place here, because y'all are hung up on an aspect of the character that is not relevant to her arc or development.

Y'all's justification for wanting a "book accurate" Annabeth is that she was such an inspirational and important character growing up, and yet your behavior is so in conflict with the character you claim means so much to you. You're narrow minded, dismissive of bigotry and injustice, and disrespectful to the wishes of the creator of your favorite character; everything that Annabeth would never be. Y'all were never genuine fans of the books. You're bigots that needed an outlet for your rage.

Keep in mind, Rick has said countless times that PercaBeth directly mirrors his relationship with his wife. Y'all think he would have allowed them to cast someone who doesn't live up to the woman who has been by his side for decades? The mother of his children?

Regarding Disney forcing him, show me one piece of direct evidence that proves Disney in anyway pressured Rick to cast her. Cuz if you can't, that's baseless speculation. And if you have to resort to baseless speculation, maybe try to examine why it's so important to you to hold on to this belief.

9. So, I'm racist because I hate "race swapping"?:

To start, there is a difference between "race swapping" and "color blind casting". Often times, when y'all complain about the former, you're actually mad about the latter.

It would be "race swapping" if Rick and the team decided ahead of time that they wanted a black Annabeth and ONLY allowed black actors to audition. But the actual reality was that they accepted auditions from everyone (there were white actors and non-black poc that also auditioned for the role) and chose the best person who embodied the role. They didn't "make Annabeth black" and they didn't "make Zeus black", they cast black actors for those roles.

Y'all think you're being slick with your wording. Dismissing that is implying that they did not earn their roles fair and square. Which is racist. It's the equivalent of going up to a black college student and telling them they only got in because of affirmative action. You're dismissing the achievements of a person solely because of their racial background.

For all you people complaining about "unfairness" and "forced diversity", I would think hiring based on merit would appeal to you 🤔

71% of theatrical Hollywood leads were white in 2024 in comparison to 29% POC and you still think "black washing" is a thing? You still get this angry over a black person fairly earning a role because you think in a time where Hollywood only knows to do remakes and adaptations, that the majority of lead roles still *have* to be reserved for white actors?

Once again, white people have never been excluded from Hollywood for being white. Representation has never been something you lacked nor is it something you can lose. Your anger comes from seeing a black face where you think they don't belong. Because you feel you are owed a disproportion of representation in Hollywood.

10. Woke agenda/DEI/Forced Diversity:

If you are unironically using any of these terms in a negative light, it's already too late for me to reason with you. Look up the term "dog whistle". If you are sharing the same terminology with Elon Musk and his fanboys, maybe reevaluate some things.

POC are objectively underrepresented and have been historically excluded through actual laws and policies in Hollywood. There is no such thing as "forced diversity", you have bought in to a right wing conspiracy theory.

"Woke" is a term that was intentionally appropriated from the black community. It originally meant being aware of injustice and systematic threats to the community and is now being weaponized by bigots. Good job.

Diversity and inclusion is a good thing.

11. But POC deserve to have their own stories told:

We do. And we have been fighting for it for over a century now, and we've made great strides, no thanks to y'all.

No thanks to y'all gaslighting us about how little representation we get or that representation matters at all. No thanks to y'all pushing the idea that POC can't sell globally and obscuring POC actors in international promos. No thanks to y'all continuing to whitewash even to this day (Bullet train, the beguiled, gods of Egypt, atla, every portrayal of Jesus ever, etc.). No thanks to y'all calling every piece of media that has more than one black lead and more than one queer couple "woke". No thanks to y'all throwing a fit every time a black person in a fantasy setting isn't a slave.

Fact of the matter is, y'all never cared about POC "getting their own stories", you're only parroting our own words back to us now as a politically correct way of saying, "leave white roles alone" lmao

Well fun fact, actors of color getting opportunities to play lead roles and allowing poc to "tell their own stories" are not mutually exclusive. If y'all cared that much, instead of bullying a 12 year old actress, you could actually support up and coming independent POC writers, directors, and studios 😱

12. Studios need to stop "setting up" actors of color:

Do me a favor and google the term DARVO.

Your racism is not the fault of the studios for giving a POC actor a role that they earned. It is not up to the rest of society to tiptoe around racists to avoid their vitriol. It is our responsibility to hold them accountable and protect minorities from unwarranted hate. At most, you can say it's the responsibility of the studios to provide adequate support to POC actors who face this backlash.

At the end of the day, Hollywood only allows very few spots for POC actors (especially WOC), while simultaneously pushing a new white boy every month to put in everything. Putting minorities in these roles that are usually closed to them, usually opens the door to more actors of color than before.

Brandy being cast as Cinderella did a lot to push her into the mainstream (yes, she was already extremely famous in the black community atp), Halle Berry being the first, black, bond girl literally shot her to icon status, and even going as far back to what Anna Mae Wong did for Asian American actresses with her "femme fatale" roles.

At the end of the day, even with the backlash, *some* rep does more good for POC actors than *no* rep. The solution to racist backlash isn't to take away those opportunities, but rather to not be racist??? 🙄

Also, for everyone that claims that "POC race-swapping" is just as bad as "white-washing", despite white washing having a longer history and objectively causing more harm, note how the backlash to white washing never lasts as long as the harassment that POC get.

Like, no one brings up Scarlett Johansson's ghost in the shell role anymore, but you can best believe Candace Patton is still fending off racist trolls. As much as people hated the atla movie, people moved on quick from Nicola Peltz playing Katara since she was just a kid that accepted the role (re: daddy bought her the role), but y'all would not have any of that consideration for Leah Sava Jeffries.

But I digress...

13. What if we made Tiana white? Wakanda white? Hazel white...:

Ah, my favorite inane point. I was so excited to get here :)

See, I could start out by pointing out how "White washing" and casting a POC actor as a traditionally white character are not equivalent.

I could point out the history of hollywood ACTIVELY excluding POC actors and POC stories. I could point out how grossly over represented white people are in hollywood. I could point out that POC characters are so few in comparison that whitewashing them causes actual harm, where white people have never lacked rep.

I could point out how, because poc characters and stories are so often tokenized that their racial/cultural background is often directly tied to their character's identity, in opposition to a lot of white characters, since hollywood treats white as the "Default".

See, I could make all those points, but the thing is, the people who make this argument already know all that. They are trying to waste time by drawing me into a pointless circular argument that will sum up to "fair is fair", while ignoring all the context and nuance I previously provided.

So you know what? Forget it. Let me play your game.

I am actually fine with a white Tiana. Would it make sense, for her and her family to experience Jim Crow era racism, in the south while white? No. But we can look past it. Disney was never known for historical accuracy anyway 🤷🏿‍♀️

However, in exchange, the live action frozen will have a black Elsa and Anna, live action Rapunzel will be black, live action Merida will be black, we're re-filming Cinderella and Beauty and the beast to cast a black belle and Cindy, snow white will need to be recast as black, and we also get aurora whenever the live action sleeping beauty is announced. But then y'all can keep Tiana, deal?

You want a white T'Challa? Fine! (I'm partial to Ryan gosling), in the meantime, we'll be recasting Iron man, Captain America (Steve version), Bruce banner, Thor, Loki, hawk eye, black widow, ant man, captain marvel, Bucky, Peter Parker etc. All the avengers and their side characters, then y'all can have Sam Wilson, war machine and the whole of Wakanda (will it make sense that a sole, hidden, African nation is randomly made up of white people? Who cares? We get the avengers!).

You want white Hazel? You got her! I hope you have no problem with us taking Percy, Nico, Will, Poseidon, Jason, calypso, Rachel, Tyson, Silena, the stoll brothers, Sally Jackson, Hades, Hepheastus, ares, etc. But y'all can have Hazel and Beckendorf.

If we're gonna do this, let's commit all the way. Fair is fair, after all.

14. Leah isn't as "pretty" as Book Annabeth/Movie Annabeth:

I wish I could say this wasn't a genuine point I had read, but when all else fails, they will always go for a woman's appearance.

Now first of all, as a rule, I will never hold black women to white beauty standards. Our hair will never be long and silky enough, our nose will never be narrow enough, our skin will never be fair enough and our eyes will never be light enough (Might I recommend Toni Morrison, when you get the chance?). But Leah is unfairly gorgeous idc what any of you say, and you're not gonna have me use my defense of Leah as an opportunity to bash Alexandra either because she is also beautiful. These two queens slayed to the best of their abilities within this toxic ass fandom.

I find it funny, however, that so many of you harped on the "blonde" issue because you thought it was important that Annabeth be seen beyond just her looks, but quickly devolve to bashing an actress's looks when it comes to why she's not right for this role 🤔

I would also like to sincerely apologize that the 13 year old girl they cast in the show, wasn't as sexually attractive to you as the 24 year old woman they cast in the movie and sexualized through like 25% of her screen time (I'm actually not sorry. You're very weird if this is an actual point for you).

15. I don't agree with sending hate to the actor, but she's just not right for the role:

Once again, what are you doing by complaining about her casting on no other basis than her race?

The creator of the character said she embodied the role. She has already been cast, and Disney would be in a legal/production hell to recast her atp. Just because you're not directly leaving comments on her social media doesn't mean you're not part of the hate mob.

No matter how you look at it, your issues with her casting come from a very entitled and narrow-minded place. When you join in on these dialogues you are bolstering a sentiment that pushes more people to harass this teenage girl. When you leave these "harmless" complaints, on show content, fan posts or posts defending her, she's liable to read them because the cast regularly interact with fans online.

What do you have to say that is so important that it trumps protecting a young girl from the long-staying trauma of racism, of being told she doesn't deserve something she worked for because of how she was born?

16. I can't even criticize the show without being called racist:

Get. Over. Yourself.

Y'all are not the victim. Have fans of the show gotten protective of Leah and the young cast? Yes.

With good reason. This fandom is unbearably toxic.

Racism outweighs your need for a "perfect adaptation", sorry.

If you explain yourself properly and keep your critiques fair (like, even I don't think this was a perfect season, and will be sharing my thoughts shortly), no one is gonna call you racist.

You're preempting with that because in all honesty, you're probably planning to use your "critiques" of the show to pivot to one of the many points that I just outlined, and you want to pre-empt the criticism.

If a black Annabeth is the end all be all for you, just don't watch the show, no one's holding a gun to your head. Geez.

17. I'm Black/POC and I don't agree...:

Hey, Candace Owens... No one gives a shit.

First of all, for all the "I'm POC and I don't agree" people, you don't speak for us. Anti-blackness is rampant in just about every culture globally. You being not-white doesn't somehow make you less prone to hating black people.

But for the "I'm black and I don't agree" leftovers (assuming you're not just a 👩🏼‍💻 behind a keyboard). Black people are not a monolith. You're not obligated to think a certain way because you're black.

But consider why you're putting yourself up as a barrier to protect this hate mob. It's one thing to just state why you don't like Leah's casting, but to start off your spiel with "I'm actually black" as a way to weaponize the very identity politics you're critiquing... very strange. Not to mention, what are you defending?

The black community is coming together to defend one of our own, a kid who has been receiving death threats since she was 12, and this is when you feel the need to back the opposition?

I mean whatever... sometimes the house slaves would snitch to the master. There will always be some of y'all in the woodwork. It is what it is.

But when the exact ideology you defend is turned against you, when a Baltimore elected official is being accused of getting his job through "DEI", when conservatives are claiming that they wouldn't "trust a black pilot", don't decide that's where you'll finally draw your line in the sand.

All that being said, This is my Annabeth:

May every tongue that rose against Leah Sava Jeffries Shrivel and die in 2025 🙏🏿 My girl will keep winning ❤️

(video by @/waleahhasmyheart on TikTok)

[utilitycaster]

Inspired actually by me nonstop thinking about the Young Witch Solving The Disappearance Of Her Neighbor's Cat In The Alps tweet since last night and a number of other unrelated posts I have been thinking about the concept of maturity in media, because I think there's a lot of different dimensions to that. It's a series of spectra, rather than a binary, and if you use the terms "mature" or "immature" you can quickly realize that a lot of our societal metrics for what's adult-appropriate vs. child appropriate are very skewed in specific and in my opinion untrue and unhelpful directions. This could honestly be a 10 page essay and I may very well write that when I'm on break but just to give you my outline here:

Stimulation - is it grabbing your attention with bright lights and loud sounds and fast action, or do you have to actively focus? Action films can be just as "jangly keys" as children's animation despite being an "adult" work, whereas something like Mad Men can have vivid colors but would bore a child to tears in terms of pace and action. However, and this will be an ongoing theme, you can have a very choppy, fast-paced narrative that is complex and a very slow and dull one that is incredibly simple and childish.

"Ratings" Subject Matter: Sex/Violence/Profanity. This is the one I think is most misleading, because you can have an incredibly puerile R-rated film, and you can have an immensely complex narrative without any of the above. [note: I have zero patience for people who act like sex and violence are inherently unnecessary wastes of time; they are merely things within a narrative that can be executed well or poorly, but it is true that something can have a simple plot and constant bright lights and stimulation and essentially be big old jingling mobile for infants but there's a sex scene in it so it's Adult Now. Unfortunately a lot of people are like "and this is why YA is inherently better" which we shall see is not the case.]

Other Difficult Subject Matter (I don't have a good name for it, but to give examples, death, racism, genocide, abuse, serious or chronic illness, etc). This one is tricky because all of the above are topics present in works for quite young children, because they can experience all the above or have someone close to them experience them, and fiction is a powerful teaching tool. Obviously the nature of how this is presented varies, and later points will cover it, but while in my opinion the simple presence of these topics says nothing about the work's level of maturity on its own I'm including it because you do get people who think that children should be shielded from all the above and would consider the mere inclusion of those topics as inappropriate. They're wrong, but it's definitely an axis of judgement/categorization that exists.

Adult-level processing of information (probably a misnomer in that teens can do this but like, teens read adult books all the time, and as Tumblr has shown us, many adults cannot do this): does the narrative require you be able to pick up on subtext? Do you need to understand what is relevant to the story and what isn't? Do you need to be comfortable with or at least able to tolerate not knowing entirely what is going on right away? Do you need to have a sense of irony? Is there an unreliable narrator?

Adult-level processing of moral complexity (in my limited, not a parent or educator experience, I honestly think teens do better with the information processing than this, ie, this is one of the last things to develop; also Tumblr is even worse): does the narrative require you accept that sometimes things are unfair and will never be fair? Do you need to accept a story in which the Quote Unquote Bad Guys walk free without real consequence? Do you need to accept a story in which no one's actions are entirely defensible or in which no choices are easy and clean and harmless? Do you need to attempt to understand an alien perspective? Is there senseless tragedy? This incidentally is how you separate out the children's books from the adult books on topics like illness or catastrophic events; a lot of children's books end with a message of "it's hard and sad, but it will be okay eventually" and focus on very relatable POV characters which is understandable! But, to use an example as someone who went to a Jewish school with a robust Holocaust education, elementary schoolers read Number the Stars in which the (entirely fictional) Jewish family escapes to Sweden; middle schoolers read Night in which Wiesel's (real) father dies painfully in front of him.

None of this is to say that escapism/cozy fiction/whatever you want to call it is bad - I am not interested in a diet entirely made of thorny moral quandaries and no happy endings. I enjoy a stupid turn off your brain action movie, or a fluffy romantasy. But I do think that a demand that every ending be happy and that Justice Be Served in every story is no less immature than saying "ew, there's kissing in this???"

[ticklepinions]

Everyone should read the following. If we are a community you need to understand a few things.

Are you entitled to say anything you want due to "free speech"? Hell yeah!

Should you? Absolutely the fuck not!

The blatant racism, anti-queerness, transphobia, misogyny and fatphobia I have seen is down right abhorrent. And if you display any of these ideologies or opinions, you simply do not belong here. You shouldn't be comfortable making a safe space for yourself as you make this lovely community unsafe for the rest of us.

There is nothing political about human rights. But unfortunately that's where we are in this life. I'll try not to be biased but certain political leanings tells me all I need to know about you. POC conservatives will always make me laugh. You are nothing but a pawn for the cis/hetero/whites who don't give a shit if you live or die. Nothing but a slur, a body to dispose of. You may share their views but they are not sharing the power and privilege they have with you.

Let's talk about certain individuals who act so tough under the "big strong amurican sharing their views just to get shitted on, fucking snowflakes". Why do you want to be oppressed so badly? Why do you purposely antagonize people and then when they defend themselves you try dismissing them by saying how they're wasting their time... The irony of it all. The sheer ignorance.

I feel sorry for you people. Truly, I do. But I'll be damned if I let any of you try to tear any of us down for having opinions and ideologies (hint hint see the irony?) that fight for the rights of people who don't have them.

And let me get something clear- from the river to the sea. We all should not stop fighting till all of us are free. There are so many resources out there to educate yourself, yet you choose to remain ignorant. You do not belong here. You act as though you are better than everyone else because you have "edgy" opinions, opinions that literally call for the deaths of the marginalized and oppressed. You do not belong here. You have the gall to tell people they are wasting their time, when their sheer existence alone is putting them at risk for isolation and death (by the same bigoted people you support). You do not belong here.

If an elephant (Israel) has it's foot on a mouse's (Palestine) tail, tell me which one is truly the one at risk. There is a gen0cide going on. If Israel is trying to reclaim it's "land" why bomb it? Why destroy it? With a military with their degree they should be able to eliminate all these "terr0rists" with minimal to no "collateral damage" (aka the 30,000 innocent Palestinians, 2/3rds of which were woman and children, with countless injured, orphaned, homeless and starving). Why bomb hospitals, mosques, sacred places? Standing with Palestinian people is not antisemitism, it's anti gen0cide and war crimes (a multitude of which Israel has shamelessly committed).

And I'm not on anon. I stand for the people of Palestine. I stand for justice. I stand for equity. I stand for the freedom of all oppressed people.

And I implore everyone who follows me to educate themselves. The right path does not lead you to discriminate against the marginalized. Continue to fight my friends, continue to amplify the voices of those unheard, continue making this community and those you belong to, safe for all and unsafe for those who think otherwise.

For you @knismosexual + @littleonelee

I hope you truly reflect on how your actions impacts this entire community and the communities you live in. Until you learn how to act right, unfortunately this community isn't for you. You shouldn't feel welcome here. You shouldn't feel like you belong here. DMs are wide open if you have any thoughts. But again I say, supporting transphobic, racist, anti-queer, misogynistic, discriminatory views is not simply an "opinion" or personality to adopt. You are hurting real people, accepting the deaths and harassment that plague them every single day. You have no place in this community.

[legoliomanikas]

Brief Thoughts About Aventurine, Religion, and Colonialism

This isn't a comprehensive summary, just things I started thinking about. It's kinda funny how things just completely fly past you when you don't think about them regularly, cuz I'm a very not-religious person so it took reading someone offhandedly refer to aspects of Aventurine's backstory as his "religious beliefs" for me to realize how important those actually are.

(2.1 Story Spoilers + reading the Sigonia relic set description will help for some context)

Despite his employment in the IPC calling for Aventurine to help amass capital in the name of Qlipoth the Preservation, we don't really hear him talk about Qlipoth often and his backstory basically omits mention of his relationship to THEM; the focus is entirely about his relationship with Gaiathra Triclops and HER blessing of luck.

The present Aventurine has changed a lot from his young self due to the influence of the IPC, in direct ways such as his newfound wealth and ruthless business practices, and in indirect manners such as how the IPCs involvement in the inter-tribal relationships of Sigonia resulted in higher tensions between the Avgins, Katicans, and other tribes.

However, his belief in Gaiathra Triclops has remained intact into his adulthood. It has soured as he begun to view HER blessing of good luck to be more akin to a curse, but it feels like a very deliberate writing decision to have him still hold onto the belief system of the Avgin. It would have been reasonable if he had later turned to the protection of Qlipoth, as joining the IPC had resulted in the wealth and status he has now, but he doesn't really do this.

Even if the colonialism took much away from him, he still wishes to retain his culture. (The value he places in the items his parents left for him and sister: the charm, the necklace, and the shirt, is further testament to this, as examples outside of his religious beliefs.)

Prayer is also something that we rarely see depicted often in Star Rail, which makes the segments of Aventurine praying with his younger self and sister stand out a lot more. The only character I can recall off the top of my head with an extended prayer sequence is Sunday at the end of 2.0, which is also notable.

One thing that I was wishing the Penacony plot would at least lampshade is the irony of sending Aventurine, a slave working for the IPC, to retake a planet that had led a slave rebellion to escape the IPC's control. While I'm now uncertain if they will address that directly, I do wonder that as we learn more about Sunday, if his relationship with Xipe the Harmony will end up being used as a way to foil him to Aventurine and/or serve as indirect commentary on the situation between the IPC and Penacony. (This is pure speculation)

But yea anyways, it's pretty interesting seeing mihoyo try to incorporate other aspects of racism and colonialism that extend beyond displays of outright hatred, such as how Aventurine's retainment of his culture's religious practices is depicted in a positive light. (Another thing that stuck out to me is how they depicted the fetishization of racial traits negatively, with the way some characters remark on his eyes, how the Avgin's untrustworthy reputation partially lies within their physical attractiveness, and how his relationship with his own appearance has changed as a result, as this is something I rarely see fictionalized but I won't elaborate on this here bc its off-topic.)

Obviously, mihoyo doesn't have the best track record when writing minorities and there's still a fucktonnnnn to be criticized about their decisions in Aventurine's lore as well (the most egregious of which being deriving the name for his planet from an actual slur), but it does seem like they are at least trying to add more depth to their depictions.

[chaoticly-shy-dragon]

I'm back with more demigod dead boy detectives (parts one and two for those interested)! In short, Edwin is a son of Athena (born at the turn of the 20th century) who spent seventy years in the fields of punishment by accident - after he escaped it was 1989 and most of the gods had moved to America of all places.

And despite all that, St Hilarion was still functioning as a demigod heaven. Edwin is not happy. At all.

Charles on the other hand is having an interesting time all around. The backstory for him that I came up with starts from before he was born. The OG pjo au that I read had his father be Ares and yes?! I adore the Frank Zang of him?

But his mom and Ares didn't click in my mind until I realized that Ares is in an on-and-off relationship with Aphrodite - who is cutting and sharp and tough but also soft and ditsy and a bit shallow. His past lovers don't all need to be veterans or kickboxers. It was an eureka moment, to be honest.

Charles' mom (name still in the works) met Ares in a museum showcasing ancient pottery and jewelry - some of them Greek - most of which depicted old heroic tales or bore the scars of the years. They started talking completely by chance - Aphrodite had stood Ares up and he didn't feel like going back to what he was doing. He decided to check this collection out - to reminisce or to try and remember fallen friends. Or just to sulk. Either way, he was there.

Charles's future mom sees him and the conflicting aesthetic of his clothing and the display he was looking at makes her want to talk with him. They hit it off. He asks to see her again and the rest is history.

They are together for four months before she gets pregnant. As expected from a god, Ares disappears from her life with only a few words. Charles's mom is left alone with a baby, in a shitty apartment with no family in the country.

It sucks. Like a lot.

Then she meets Paul Richard Rowland.

(I'm sorry but I can't do Paul's name dirty in a pjo au, I just can't. Although the irony was amusing enough to make me consider it for a whole second.)

They hit it off even with the occasionally crying baby in the next room. Soon they are engaged to be married - and married soon afterward. Charles's last name is changed and would you look at that - a happy family.

Not.

Charles is a charming and athletic boy with a love for ska and a bit of a temper. His dad is a cunt and his mom is quiet. That's fine until it isn't.

In an argument, it gets out that Richard isn't Charles's actual father (he is 14 when that happens). Stuff gets progressively worse after that (both with Richard and with the monsters - Richard's whole "something is wrong with you" really drives in the "I am different" mindset you really don't want in an untrained demigod) until Charles' mom gets desperate and contacts the boarding school - Ares had assured her that it would always have a spot for Charles.

(The phone number is that of the school board of all the still functioning demigod establishments. Had Charles been a girl they would have referred the mom to one of the all-girls or mixed schools. It's a system run by descendants, wind spirits and satyrs.)

((It's not as efficient as say sending satyrs to schools, but they only have so many satyrs. They do the guardian routine! Honest!))

Fast forward and Charles has been to St Hil for almost a year and a half. He is a semi-full-year camper in the sense he went home once for one summer and then only for two to three days a year.

He gets along with his siblings and the cricket team. He is friendly and nice but 80s racism and classist bullshit exist - he can't be too vocal with his thoughts and opinions less he is ostracized by his peers, he has to play a role he only has half the script of. The demigod thing isn't always a blessing.

He is a deft hand with daggers and knives, he is skilled with a sword - but he would prefer to play cricket or go to concerts. No magical barrier means nightly patrols and the occasional monster attack.

Cue the death scene. It plays like canon but with weapons. He is chased into the freezing lake by his siblings and his former mates. (And Charles had been so excited about having siblings - but this - they - he couldn't call brothers.)

There aren't any naiads during the winter - or they are sleeping deep into it. No one intervenes. He manages to escape his pursuers by going deeper into the woods until he comes across an old shed.

Charles goes in.

(He didn't hear the sharp snap of twigs and branches in the other direction of the one he was going. He didn't notice the second pair of footsteps shadowing his own.)

((He does see the lantern.))

And they finally meet. Isn't it grand? (TBC)

[anshelsgendercrisis]

You condemn antisemitism at every turn, but then you turn around and fully support a colonial regime that does nothing but exterminate Muslim and Christian Arabs, or anyone from the Middle East who isn’t aligned with your agenda. They brand them as inferior, uncivilized, barbaric, and even less than human—animals. Yet, you conveniently ignore the systemic violence and ethnic cleansing being committed daily. The irony is astonishing. How do you manage to stay silent on the massacre from yesterday? People being burned alive while attached to their IV machines, hospitals bombed, children murdered in cold blood—yet you remain too afraid to call out your own soldiers, the real terrorists here, the ones whose hands are soaked in the blood of innocent civilians.

But of course, you'll find another excuse, right? Was KHHHHHamas there ? Isn't that the tired line you always use to justify these atrocities? Is that the excuse you'll use for shelling homes, schools, and hospitals too? Zionism is not just an ideology—it’s a racist and colonialist sect bent on domination and erasure. It doesn’t matter how you try to twist it; the fact remains that your system is rooted in supremacy and the subjugation of others. And don’t think we haven’t noticed the growing global awareness. The world is waking up to the truth, despite the propaganda you hide behind.

Even a survivor of Hiroshima, a man who knows what it means to witness mass death, broke down in tears over the horror happening in Gaza. The suffering of children, civilians, families—and yet, instead of empathy, Israel attacked him, proving once again that anyone who dares to question your narrative is immediately branded an enemy. Doesn’t this only solidify what we’ve been saying all along? Your ideology is rooted in racism, colonialism, and oppression, and no amount of excuses, fear-mongering, or manipulation can hide that anymore.

The hypocrisy is glaring: cry foul when it comes to your own suffering, but endorse and enable genocide when it serves your cause. You can’t have it both ways. Justice and humanity cannot be selective. The blood of Gaza’s children is on your hands, and no amount of justification will cleanse it. The world is watching, and no longer buying into the endless cycle of excuses, deflections, and lies.

sorry chief not reading all of that.

[walks-the-ages]

I still can't get over people defending "Inherently Evil Fantasy Race" in 2024 when people by saying, without a shred of irony or deeper thought into their ableism, that:

"[Inherently Evil Fantasy Race] are not ontologically evil, they're just all naturally born narccicists and sociopths and that's why they're all individually evil for every single one we see, except for a handful of half-elf hybrids that are used textually to justify eugenics"

🤦

You can't try to defend an author's racism by claiming their Fantasy Race isn't Inherently Evil, if your "evidence" for them not being Inherently Evil is that...

... based on absolutely nothing within the text, you've personally decided that the entire Fantasy Race is just, on an individual level that nevertheless encompasses the entire Fantasy Race

"they're all just Demonized Mental Illness #1 and #2 and thats why they are Evil"

[jewish-vents]

Here's what I don't get as a non-Zionist Jew critical of Israel:

Why do anti Zionist Jews and Gentiles refuse to acknowledge the antisemitism of their spaces? Yes false accusations of antisemitism exist, I've seen it.

However, why is the response then: NO antisemitism exists? It's ridiculous and stupid. Is the support for Palestinians so fake and fragile that if they do acknowledge the existence of rampant unchecked Jew hatred they will begin to waver?

This behaviour has long pushed me away from the anti Zionist crowd. Years and years ago I realised I couldn't speak to these individuals whose response to Israel's "everything is antisemitism" was "nothing is antisemitism" which forced me to leave. That's my fault though: when your hatred for Israel is the focus rather than supporting Palestinians, that will happen. I really wanted to surround myself with people I thought were against the oppression of Palestinians and Israel's role in that. I ended up seeing hypocrisy, double standards and a weird antisemitic obsession with Israel where it is the root of all evil. Not to sound like one of those people but I noticed the vibes were off since day one. They are incapable of seeing Jews as people and it's so in your face it's laughable.

Lastly: I find most anti Zionist Jews repulsive because of this. They are the first to say "There's no antisemitism in the college protests". But how would they know? They refuse to interact with the concept of antisemitism because they think doing so would make them one of the bad ones. You're turning your head away, how would you know? Then invalidating your fellow Jews' experiences. If your anti Zionist colleagues are happily harassing Jews under the guise of "they're evil child killers genocide supporters nazis etc", how are you not concerned? This response is not normal. It's like when racists get overjoyed when they see a non-white person committing crimes because this means they can be racist and no one will bat an eye because "well that person is bad right?". In this case, the ultimate crime is being a Zionist which is so convenient because many Jews are. That means it's open season. The irony isn't lost on me how these people harassing Zionist Jews are communists who don't give a fuck that communism has oppressed people.

There's also the nuance of our small numbers. There's only like 15 million of us. Most have never met a Jew. Most know nothing about us. These are facts. That makes these behaviours even more dangerous. Also "we can't trust what anyone says is antisemitism because of liars" sounds quite familiar. I've seen and heard this about rape. I've seen and heard this about people of colour (conservatives screaming "everything is racism now" hello?). Overall it is plain old antisemitism. The Jews are liars is nothing new and getting quite old.

.

[butwhatifidothis]

The fact that someone in 2024 can say "a person is bad because the blood from another race mixed with theirs and made them bad" without any shred or irony or self awareness is ghastly.

Probably comes from the idea that they are "good people," so they can't say racist shit or be racist because racism is bad and they are good people.

Which leads to shit like Shandale and multiple other people repeatedly saying shit like "The Nabateans as a race are ontologically evil and deserve the genocide that happened to them and the humans who genocided them were the good guys." "The Nabateans need to have their rights stripped away from them and live as second-class citizens to atone for what other Nabateans did." "The Nabateans are so savage and violent and evil that having their blood mixed with yours makes you evil like them." The Nabateans are evil, so they deserve to be erased. They deserve to be oppressed. They deserve to be killed. All of them. Even the children. No exceptions.

But they're not a "real" race so it's fine to advocate for their genocide. It's fine to cheer on their genociders and wish they were "properly" portrayed as the good guys they clearly are. It's fine to say "only humans should rule over humans" as if that isn't an ear-bleedingly loud dog-whistle for racial supremacy. Shandale is a good person so Shandale can't say Bad Person things, of course.

And the worst part is that Shandale knows what they're saying sounds bad. They fucking hate it whenever anyone with enough nuts in that cesspit of a discord directly tells them "hey yo this is some racist ass shit you're spewing out, can you like, stop?" They and the people who agree with them pull the "YOU'RE pulling the real world into this, and THAT'S so distasteful and bad!!" because Shandale knows that they only have that cover to hide behind. Shandale isn't saying what they're saying because they aren't aware of what they're saying or don't know why what they're saying is bad, they're saying what they're saying because they found the race they can scapegoat into getting away with saying this.

They all very clearly desperately want to say this shit. They will all go on for hours upon hours at a time vehemently going to bat for this hateful rhetoric, to the point that they will quite literally make shit up about what the Nabateans have done to make them evil. They owned slaves! They destroyed culture! They were tyrants! All of them! Genuinely every single one of them! All that shit is the CORNERSTONE to Shandale and their buddies' rhetoric, and they fucking made it up! It makes you wonder why they're so desperate for this clearly untrue thing to be true, and none of the answers to that question do them any favors to put it kindly.

And everyone in that server with the means to kick Shandale and all the other people who are clearly fucking racist and are using Nabateans as a scapegoat to vent their clearly fucking racist views would rather DM me to tell me ~oh so kindly~ that I should stop airing their moldy tattered laundry (in exchange for the mods following their rules of their server that they've been ignoring for fucking years) than do fucking ANYTHING about the mod that is peddling the racism. Shandale and their buddies don't need any shred of awareness - or more accurately, any shred of acknowledgement - because they know the second they bare their asses to the world the other mods will fucking scramble to cover for them. It's all beyond pathetic and disgusting

[promise-keeper-papyrus]

You know what would be interesting?

What if Asgore's Kingdom reaches the surface, where they quickly realize that humans and monsters are already existing peacefully (so they won't be dealing with many racist humans)?

What if the modern surface life isn't as great as Asgore's Kingdom thought that it was gonna be?

Basically, a 'be careful what you wish for' or a 'grass is always greener on the other side' type of story...

*Taxes and Bills.

*How expensive food and clothes can be.

*The kingdom's currency probably doesn't work for the surface, so maybe only Asogre and Toriel can afford to buy a house at first (since they're royalty and probably have tons of golden treasure somewhere).

*The rest of the kingdom can only afford apartments or something like that, so around half of the kingdom stays inside the mountain.

*The complicated hassle of getting a surface job, especially for the main characters: If they want a great or better job, then they'd have to talk about the jobs and experience they had before... And the main characters previous jobs involved either destroying humans, or creating ways to hurt humans... honestly, not a great work on paper.

*The kingdom monsters would probably have to settle for boring or average jobs like working for a store or being a fast food employee.

*Oh man, imagine the delicious irony, if Mettaton was forced to work for fast food in order to get surface money and Burgerpants ends up being his boss!

*Racism of any kind is a big no-no on the surface, so if Undyne says something insulting about humans (even accidentally) then the surface monsters are gonna give her the stink eye, much to her shock.

*Undyne and maybe Mettaton might've been thrown in jail at least once, for their tempers and/or violent tendencies and Asgore was forced to pay their bail.

*Afterwards, Toriel would force them both to go to therapy and/or anger management class, so this wouldn't happen again.

*Papyrus would probably thrive on the surface, despite it not being as perfect as everyone believes that it is.

*He would enjoy his job as a waiter, the customers would like his positive attitude and he would get great tips as a result.

*He would eventually move on to being a cook, although he would get constructive criticism and proper training from the Head Chef.

*Alphys would be a little disappointed with how dull and complicated life on the surface is, but mostly neutral.

*She would probably become a shut-in for a while, until Toriel makes her go to therapy.

*Sans would be the same at first: telling jokes/puns, pulling pranks and taking naps.

*He also might get arrested once for creating an unauthorized hot dog stand.

*Papyrus would eventually drag his brother's boney butt to therapy as well.

*Meanwhile, Frisk and Flowey get adopted by the Monster Kid's family.

[fantasyinvader]

If you really think about it, Edelgard and the Agarthans are what people usually think of when it comes to bad churches in JRPGs.

Follow me on this.

There's multiple references that Edelgard's war is motivated by her ideals, based on what Edelgard thinks is the best for society. However, the implications surrounding her father indicate that these "ideals" or beliefs come from Thales and the Agarthans. They're based on a time when they were the power behind the throne of Nemesis, when the Agarthans were viewed as gods by the surface dwellers. And considering that Edelgard was given these beliefs as a child with the specific motivation of having her start a war against the Nabateans, Edelgard's beliefs come from indoctrination which includes her understanding of the world around her.

And when reality shows that her understanding isn't correct, she looks the other way and ignores it. It's pretty easy to argue this inability to accept the truth is Edelgard's fatal flaw.

Since Edelgard believes her ideals are the best thing for the world, even if she doesn't know how she'll impliment them, she seeks war to wipe out anyone that opposes her from using them to supposedly create a better world. She views the teachings of the Church as making mankind weak, using that as justification for not just wiping out the Church but conquering Fodlan as well with hints that their's more to come. She even takes over the Church after her victory, controlling it and leading to a new institution the devout Mercedes won't support. It's said in Hopes that what her Southern Church preaches, what Edelgard says is the word of the Goddess, appeals to those who the actual teachings of the Goddess don't appeal to. It's not just the Nabateans they want to genocide, it's any opposing opinions or beliefs that challenge their rule they want to wipe out. And let's not forget, meritocracy is a power structure where the people at the top get to decide what constitutes as "merit," ergo they shape the system based on their own beliefs.

The Agarthans are also said to have their own gods, which likely informed their own beliefs such as their racism towards any non-Agarthan viewing them as beasts.

The Agarthans have influenced the corrupt nobility around Fodlan towards their own ends, and Edelgard herself isn't innocent of this. After all, despite the claims she's only after Church by her fans, she still got the support of Caspapa by promising him control of the former Alliance territories meaning conquering it was always part of her plan. Edelgard and the Agarthans themselves are the ones behind the events of the first part of the game, with connections to many of the paralogues showing how they've fucked with many of the characters. Edelgard also supplies aid for TWSITD's actions, including human experimentation in order to bolster her war assets.

Considering Edelgard herself, she initally makes herself out to look like heroine. Her being revealed to be a villain all along, followed by just how manipulative she actually is in order to support her zealous crusade, ultimately lead to the fact that people really should not trust her yet people will fight for her, kill for her, and die for her even when her claims doesn't add up or in spite of their unknowing condemnation of her over events of White Clouds.

Then there's the fact that the plan is for Edelgard to supply the Agarthans with salvation, but not only does her outfit resemble a demon her personal weapon is marked with the Crest of the Beast. She's a false prophet, not the messiah just a naughty girl. It indicates that her beliefs are falsehoods, lies people buy into as she leads them astray. Then there's the whole "Edelgard wants to replace the Goddess with herself" line.

These are ALL typical Church bad tropes in video games. The fact that they're used by the people trying to destroy a Church, to wipe out the teachings of Sothis so they can place themselves as the absolute power in Fodlan, is meant to be an ironic subversion. Edelgard is everything she's supposedly against.

[dazeddoodles]

Going anon cuz I don't want shit from that one guy, but like.. Looking at his posts is genuinely frustrating. Ah yes, the genocidal manipulator is being demonized for being an adult. Ah yes, Camilla is being demonized, not like she was going to send her daughter off to some conformity camp. AH YES, THE OWL HOUSE IS BEING MISANDROUS BECAUSE MALE CHARACTERS DIDN'T GET ENOUGH SCREENTIME, NOT LIKE THE SHOW WAS CANCELLED AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE TIME. Now personally, I don't think non-canon ships involving canonically taken characters are bad (as long as you aren't presenting it as canon or forcing it onto others. Stay in your own spaces), but writing a rape AND cheating fic is disgusting and I have no more words honestly.

They're like a prime example of bad "criticism" of a show just being their real world homophobia, transphobia, sexism, and racism.

Like no shit the bigot is mad the show isn't about the white male characters, is demanding the characters be straight, is saying the underage brown female protagonist isn't hot enough for them (and then write her getting raped anyways).

I'm pretty sure in that post where they claim all the TOH adults are villainized (except the two who are in a gay relationship because ofc they also hate Raine's existence and purposely misgenders them) is just them projecting.

Specifically how they mostly defended Belos and Odalia saying they did nothing wrong and are just hated for being adults. It was written exactly the the same as their dms to other people insisting they did nothing wrong and that they are being villainized for being and adult (and totally not for their bigotted harassment).

So yeah they genuinely see themselves in the villains of the show and don't realize the irony.

[ghostpoetics]

The Picture of Dorian Gray is interesting. Oscar Wilde was a part of aestheticism, or "art for art's sake." This was pretty big because in Victorian England, art was often meant to serve a function; this isn't a new idea. Often, the function was to be didactic, or to prescribe a moral lesson.

That said, I would argue that there is a theme in Dorian Gray about Victorian standards of beauty. There is a strong irony in Dorian being the epitome of (racist, white supremacist) beauty standards: fair skin ("looks as if he was made out of ivory and rose leaves"); "crisp gold hair"; "frank" blue eyes. The irony is because Victorians associated being beautiful with being a good person and being outside this standard with being a bad person. They often used phrenology and physiognomy (most evident in Stoker's description of the Count in Dracula) to tell the reader whether someone is good or bad. And of course, using someone's facial features and the size and shape of one's forehead, nose, etc. to determine whether someone is good or bad has its roots in racism, xenophobia, and antisemitism.

Therefore, there is a disruption of Victorian preconceptions when Dorian fixates on maintaining his youth and beauty and is assumed to be virtuous because of his appearance when he is a horrible, callous person.

That is to say that I think a take on Dorian Gray that explores the beauty/fashion industry would work very well, given how so many of these companies perpetuate unrealistic and negative standards. Dove was being applauded for its body positivity in an ad a while ago, alongside its insistence that it wants to promote self-esteem and good body image, but they reject potential models with any acne or too many freckles. While Dove speaks about being inclusive and promoting women of color, so many of these companies, including Dove, sell skin-lightening creams in countries like India; they promote the idea that light skin is more attractive than dark skin. Unfortunately, there are horrible ways the modern fashion and beauty industries mirror imperialistic Victorian values that, with the right creators, could be explored well in a contemporary Dorian Gray adaptation.

Unfortunately, I was already cynical about any and all Netflix book adaptations, and, regarding the author's biography and the book's themes, I feel like Dorian Gray cannot be removed from its queerness, despite statements such as the PinkNews article, which says, "While The Picture of Dorian Gray isn't explicitly queer, given that it was first published in 1890..."

I would take umbrage with the author's definition of "explicitly queer," given that the book was submitted as evidence of Wilde's "gross indecency" in the counter lawsuit that sent him to prison and shortened his life through years of hard labor and an injury he sustained that later developed into fatal meningitis. Despite Wilde's edits to "restrain" the book's queerness, it was explicit enough to be used as evidence to prove Wilde's homosexuality. I think it's a mistake that highly limits the history of queer art to reduce "explicitly queer" to only depictions of kissing and sex.

Anyway, those are my rambling thoughts about the Dorian Gray Netflix adaptation. Besides the brother thing, I was already skeptical because it's Netflix...