#racism isn't irony

[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.

[a-very-tired-jew]

The Columbia University Taskforce on Antisemitism 2nd Report is out. And it's a doozy. https://president.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Announcements/Report-2-Task-Force-on-Antisemitism.pdf

Before I get into the nitty gritty of it let me pretty much summarize and paraphrase the Taskforce's position: "Holy shit the antisemitism on campus is so much worse than we thought, and it's repeatedly done by people saying they're 'just anti-Zionists'".

Let's start with the Taskforce's working definition of antisemitism.

Fig. 1. Columbia Taskforce on Antisemitism definition of antisemitism

This is a pretty good definition as it includes such things as Holocaust Denial, perceived ties to Israel, double standards, and all the usual things. It pretty much encompasses everything we have witnessed and experienced since Oct 7th. However, the Taskforce then follows it up with this bit.

Fig. 2. Columbia Taskforce on Antisemitism says their definition should not be used outside of training and education.

By saying that their working definition of antisemitism should not be used outside of training and education purposes the Taskforce is pretty much admitting upfront that the antisemitism they are reporting on falls well within their definition and breaks Columbia University code of conduct to the point where the perpetrators would and should receive various punishments ranging from suspensions to expulsions to revocations.

This is an example of the double standards that Jews experience. If this was a taskforce working to find evidence and address any other form of bigotry and racism then there would be recommendations made using the working definition. The irony is that they talk about double standards right in their definition. Now, of course the whole argument comes down to First Amendment Rights. But speech that induces and instigates violence against individuals and/or ethnic/racial groups is not protected. Considering that the Taskforce found calls to violence against Jews then this is not covered. Furthermore, while supporting terrorism is covered by the First Amendment, material support includes distributing terrorist approved and produced materials, of which many students and groups like CUAD are on record doing (even on their own social media) is not.

The report then does what we always, always, always see when it comes to anything with antisemitism. It recommends training on antisemitism AND islamophobia. Now, I am for this personally. A lot of others might be like "Why link the two?! It's always like this!" but I think training on both serves a purpose.

Explicit training and education on what is antisemitism and what is islamophobia. Such things as criticism of the Israeli government's actions, Hamas's actions and rhetoric, the Nakba and the Farhud, the Arab League, and so on being the things that come to mind as examples of not antisemitism or islamophobia. Then getting into the things like stereotypes and conspiracies and how criticism can easily fall into these, how people often seed in "innocuous" conspiracies that are actually the gateway to more serious hateful ones and how to recognize that ploy.

By having courses and training on what is and what isn't either of the two you start to address that leftover guilt since the 9/11 era that has prevented any and all criticism of Islam, Islamic groups, and Islamic regimes for fear of being labeled "Islamophobic". We have seen since Oct 7th the projection of "Jews are weaponizing antisemitism to prevent criticism of Israel" from groups that defend the use of Hadiths that call for the death of Jews under the guise of "you're being Islamophobic" as a means to prevent criticism.

Now, will such education and training actually address these issues? Of course not. They'll likely be opposed and never implemented.

Let's move on, shall we? The report then gets into it's introduction and tells us that they heard from nearly 500 students ranging from undergrads to post-docs about their antisemitic experiences. These testimonies come from Zionists, anti-Zionists, non-Zionists, and those the Taskforce couldn't exactly label. Furthermore, those that did not attend the listening sessions did what we've seen all antisemite do since 10/7; they denied the experience of these students and the Taskforce acknowledges this.

That's huge.

Acknowledging that the greater Columbia University community is denying the antisemitic experiences of these students whom are across the political spectrum and academic experience is signaling to the antisemites that the victims will not be drowned out by the mob with pitchforks.

They then follow it up with this.

Fig. 3. Acknowledgement that the antisemitism students are experiencing does lead to physical violence and has historical precedent.

The Taskforce is admitting and acknowledging that Columbia University has failed in fulfilling part of its mandate in protecting students and addressing acts of bigotry, hate, and violence towards students and students of a particular group. By also acknowledging that antisemitic rhetoric has a historical precedent of leading to physical violence they are also admitting that they know how bad it is and it needs to be addressed.

They then recommend that the university change its policies because of the utter failure to address these incidents. Further elaborating that some of the incidents actually violate state and federal law and that the university is culpable in such cases and the university itself is, once again, adhering to double standards for its Jewish and Israeli students.

The report then goes into the incidents students experienced starting with section 1B. Student Experiences in Day-to-Day Encounters. I will not go over that here in detail, but it contains multiple testimonies and excerpts from testimonies about the antisemitism the Jewish students experienced since 10/7. What is important to note is that the Taskforce acknowledges the "slippage" of anti-Zionism into antisemitism in the majority of these incidents, that the perpetrators don't think they're doing so, but to everyone else it is very clearly happening.

Fig. 4. Taskforce stating that anti-Zionist activities have fallen into classic antisemitic tropes and canards on Columbia's campus(es).

Furthermore, the Taskforce acknowledges that Jewish and Israeli students purposefully had their words misinterpreted to villainize them. Any attempt at facilitating discussion or understanding was dismissed with heavy prejudice.

The Taskforce also talks about how social media has played a role in the harassment of Jewish and Israeli students.

Fig. 5. Student testimony and screenshotting of antisemitism online from Columbia students and orgs.

Moving on to section C. Student Experiences in Clubs, we find one of the most heinous incidents.

Fig. 6. Founder of an LGBTQIA+ group defends their antisemitism then acknowledges it and brags that they got away with it.

This incident highlights one of the issues we have seen since 10/7 where people place Jews as "white oppressors" to validate their antisemitism. They engage in open antisemitic conspiracy and defend it through the use of progressive language that makes it difficult, if not impossible, to address their bigotry. Why? Because a person like this will fall back to being a minority themselves to say that they can't be a bigot. This type of defense is hypocritical and is solely used to silence any attempt to address their hate, to which this student fully acknowledges as she bragged that she got away with it.

This is why Columbia University apologizing to Khymani James after expelling them for their comments about "Zionists don't deserve to live" and that we were "lucky" they weren't out there killing them right now is so abhorrent. Across the internet we saw accusations of white supremacy and silencing BIPOC and queer voices because of Khymani's sexual identity and ethnicity. Is this not the kind of weaponization that antisemites accuse Jews of? This is projection and the testimony above and the Khymani incident highlight this type of behavior. You don't get to be a hateful bigot simply because you're a minority, but the double standard for Jews is a consistent issue.

As the report continues we then find out that the CUAD is not just one group, but actually a coalition that has multiple student clubs and organizations underneath it. CUAD demands that its member clubs and orgs adhere to its mission and rhetoric. According to the report, any student in a club or org that didn't express outright (((anti-Israel))) sentiment was silenced and eventually ousted and/or removed. In almost all incidents, any group signing on or joining the CUAD coalition did not abide by their own rules and excluded any and all Jewish and Israeli students from the process. If they spoke up they were told their opinions did not matter and were removed.

This coalition is further expanded upon in section E (I'm skipping D as it is about curriculum issues and is much shorter). Testimony points out that CUAD is a coalition made of over a hundred student organizations and that they are also bringing in outsiders to the campus. So the claims of "outside agitators" are moot because it was CUAD who brought them there in the first place. The intent was also never to be a peaceful protest or encampment as multiple testimonies talk about the violent language and actions within the encampments and across the campus(es). Specifically the language being used during "vigils" was not about peace or in memorium, but celebrating death and highlighting violence. The issues that the Taskforce learned are, I think, best encapsulated by this paragraph from page 36 in section G.

Fig. 7. Paragraph highlighting how Columbia is now seen as an antisemitic university.

I can attest to Columbia now being seen as the antisemitic university. Its reputation is entirely tarnished by the administrations refusal to act on the very real and violent antisemitism that has been present on its campus since the days after 10/7. I know professors who have turned down jobs, grad students that have withdrawn applications, and donors that have stopped giving.

This report by Columbia University's own personnel provides evidence that contradicts the narrative we have been told by members of the CUAD encampment(s) as well as people across social media; that the antisemitism is fake and made up to prevent criticism of Israel. The Taskforce admits that they were astonished by how bad it actually was and that the university refused to do anything. This should be telling to anyone who has witnessed these claims by people trying to dismiss concerns regarding antisemitism in the pro-Palestine movement. We've seen this across social media and this site where antisemites accuse Jews of being Nazis while they themselves spew antisemitic rhetoric straight out of the Protocols and the Third Reich.

Antisemites will always try and paint Jews as the actual perpetrators of hate, violence, and villainy while they themselves commit those very same acts (that is not to say that no Jew has every committed a crime or any such act themselves, but the projection that we have seen by antisemites is massive). This Taskforce report has multiple testimonies of Jewish students just trying to exist and go about their lives to only be harassed and assaulted for the crime of living while Jewish.

I am going to end this post here as the next section after the testimonies and incidents of antisemitism goes into recommendations for the university and actions to be taken. That is a separate post that will be couched in this one later on.

[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)

[thatwitchrevan]

it skeeves me out how some people talk about the Yellowjackets 'losing their humanity/minds/empathy/etc' especially in the sense of comparing them to each other, saying Natalie or Akilah for example are more human(e) than Misty or Lottie or Shauna when the whole point of the show is each of these people are traumatized, each of these people have committed violence, each is complicit in death and cannibalism, each is suffering, each is struggling to survive.

obviously the show depends on a massive extended metaphor/theme of the characters becoming one with the Wilderness, becoming animalistic predators, etc, but I think there's a difference between acknowledging and discussing that theme, and actually without irony or figurative speech claiming that their humanity is diminished, especially comparing them to each other and saying that the more violent, wrathful, unstable ones are less human.

It ties into ableism, racism, as well as the dangerous association of humanity with moral purity, distancing ourselves from our capability of causing harm by dehumanizing those who commit violence we struggle to understand; and I think it misses the POINT of Yellowjackets and stories like it which is that human beings can seem animalistic and feral in their violent and erratic behavior but that is because we are not uniquely above the rest of the natural world, not because violent, antisocial, or mentally atypical behavior separates us from the rest of humanity.

And if you watch the latest episode, you'll see the Yellowjackets stalking and hunting like predators, making animal calls and roars, running fast and low and feral, and then having deep conversations, protecting the strangers they ran after, letting a little frog out of a jar, trying to call home. Lottie was eating blood from a guy's head wound and she also went up and asked if she could help her wounded friend. She didn't lose her humanity. Humanity isn't something you can lose anymore than those frogs can stop being frogs. She simply killed another human. It's something humans do all the time.

[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???"

[cyranonic]

Dragon Age: The Veilguard, a Belated Review

Well, I finally finished playing Veilguard and I've got some thoughts. For context, I'm a big fan of the previous 3 Dragon Age games and of fantasy RPGs in general, so my review is very much informed by that. The TLDR is: Veilguard isn't the worst game ever, but I really did not like it and I feel like it exemplifies a lot of my problems with the modern media landscape. Full explanation below the cut:

There were definitely some things in Veilguard that I enjoyed. It looked nice; combat was intuitive and snappy; VAs did great work. But I am fundamentally more interested in story than technical stuff so I want to focus on that. Some individual story arcs were fun out of the context of the whole. A few of my favorite parts:

Assan!!! Cutest baby boy!! His bond with Davrin was probably the most emotional part of the whole game for me lol

Emmerich's personal quest overall was enjoyable in a zany, campy way. I adopted the skeleton. No regrets.

Solas memory quests! I liked how we kept seeing him sacrifice his own people for the greater good. Set up the theme of the story well and allowed for some good Dreadwolf tricks and gambits.

Bellara taking up the Varric mantle, except that she write romance serials made me laugh (no one tell Cassandra about this; she will lose her mind)

It was actually really sweet when Lucanis and Neve got together

However, even the things in the game that did work for me were all slightly tainted by some bigger overarching issues I have with the tone, lore, companions, and execution of the story overall.

Problem 1: Tone

A lot of other reviews have mentioned that the tone of Veilguard feels cartoony or simplistic, and I unfortunately agree. All of the dialogue has this slightly obnoxious, Marvel movie-esque, jokey tone to it. Serious moments are often undercut by Rook's quip-heavy responses and there is a lot of that irony-poisoned, insincere, self-awareness that would be great in a Deadpool movie, but not a Dragon Age game.

I'm not against humor in a Dragon Age game and, in fact, I love and cherish the comedic moments in the earlier games (purple Hawke forever haha). I think the difference is that earlier Dragon Age games took the story, world, and characters very seriously. The humor was the characters themselves being funny within that very serious world, not the whole tone of the game itself being light-hearted and wacky.

For example, let's examine Johanna Hezenkoss, the villain of Emmerich's quest. I overall enjoyed the quest a lot, but one cannot ignore how silly the tone of it is. Johanna is a necromancer who is now half-lich--the classic Dragon Age trope of a mage gone wrong. However, she is never really treated as a seriously disturbing threat or a genuinely tragic figure. She is basically a wacky mad scientist, complete with a funny crawling hand gag. It isn't bad writing, exactly. It did get some chuckles out of me. But it does exemplify the tone of the game overall--nothing feels like a big deal because it all seems vaguely silly and self-aware and on-the-nose.

In a less fun example, I am quite unhappy with the ways that this game tries to avoid dealing with the canonical racism and social inequity that previous games established. Like yes, we get some mentions that the Shadow Dragons work to free slaves in Tevinter, but no characters or quest lines ever really make the player confront that reality. It feels distant, impersonal, and stripped of complexity. I will readily acknowledge that Dragon Age hasn't always dealt with elf racism plotlines perfectly, but I respected them trying and messing up more than Veilguard just... not trying. For example, the animated show they made (Dragon Age: Absolution) dealt more maturely and interestingly with Tevinter's slave society than any part of Veilguard and I wish we had gotten more of that in a game that finally brings players into Tevinter as a main setting.

Problem 2: Lore

It would not be an exaggeration to say that a huge part of the appeal of Dragon Age as a game is simply the world that the writers created. Earlier games developed a Thedas that felt big and epic and complex. They created a setting that gave players a true fantasy experience, full of mysteries and unique societies and fun languages to learn and a rich history.

Veilguard feels very strangely uninterested in capturing that epic fantasy feeling. I cannot count the number of times that characters talked about concepts or used terms that sounded incredibly modern and bizarre given what we know about Thedas. In scenes with Morrigan, it was so obvious how older games were far more comfortable with characters sounding more archaic (dropping a 'tis on us occasionally).

Additionally, some aspects of lore were simply brushed over in very weird ways. For example, why did the Venatori so eagerly join up with elven gods, when in prior games they were, um... fairly anti-elf??? Also, why did everyone in Thedas apparently forget about the concept of Mage Circles? Did anyone give a single flying fuck about the Chantry in this game? Not particularly. Why won't anyone just call the Evanuris "the Evanuris"? Are you embarrassed by your own made-up words, game? Why does every character call them "the gods," even if they are not an elf??

One aspect of the game where Veilguard's disinterest in building its own lore really bothered me was with Taash's quest. Obviously, I have no issues with an non-binary character appearing in a fantasy setting. But the fact that Taash just kinda independently developed the term "non-binary" was very immersion-breaking to me. This might sound lame, but I want to learn some sort of cool fantasy term or an ancient pre-Qun concept of third genders or something. Just give me more fantasy stuff in my fantasy story please!!

Also, I know this controversial, but it also breaks my immersion that even playing as an NB character from Tevinter, no one ever brings up how canonically homophobic Tevinter is (thinking of Dorian and Krem here!) I think there is definitely a place for games that depict queer characters in fantasy settings being happy and accepted, but I don't think Dragon Age has ever been the franchise that people went to for comforting and hopeful visions of a fantasy society. Thedas has always been a dark, brutal, borderline dystopian world, but it still has the potential to tell queer-affirming stories about the struggle against oppression and living in defiance of your society. I wish Veilguard had done that.

Another part of the lore that felt very poorly done was the Titans. I loved the hints we had gotten in previous games through characters like Sandal and quests like The Descent DLC. But when the reveal happened in this game, all the characters kind just went "oh. huh. wild." Also I found the confrontation with, uh, evil red Harding to be very confusing and anti-climactic. The writing of the scene did not clearly telegraph what the red Harding thing even was? And then all of the rage of the Titans was very easily suppressed by Rook saying... "remember you are still you"??? Huge anticlimax that was poorly built-up and all the characters reacted to with little more than a shrug and a "dang, sucks for the Titans. I'd be pretty steamed too, I guess!" I want confrontations with the Titans to feel alien and epic and dangerous (and definitely not easily resolvable through a single dialogue option).

Problem 3: RPG elements

I feel like the developers of Veilgaurd did not want it to be an RPG and instead pushed the writers into created a more generic action/adventure game, but dang it!! I play Dragon Age because I like RPGs! I like to make choices that feel important and complicated! Veilguard gives the player a few significant choices, but I did not like them much and here is why:

Firstly, Minrathous vs. Treviso. This choice feels very forced. You have no real reason to pick one over the other unless you are planning to romance Lucanis or you are trying to role-play as a character from one of those cities. And you have no other options. I like RPG choices that either feel tactical or rooted in the lore of the world, and this is neither. The choice does not impact the game's outcome; no matter what option you choose, you can still ally with that faction and everyone will just kinda forgive you. From a role-play perspective, the game goes out of its way to reassure you that the city you Blight will eventually rebuild through grit and tenacity, etc.

Secondly, picking a character to die heroically. I hate this one because it feels like the game is trying to give you some "real consequences" and play into the larger theme of regret and leadership. But it once again, picking feels random! The game telegraphs very obviously that your choice will probably lead to this character dying or getting injured, so it isn't even shocking when it happens. And, yet again, everyone forgives Rook so quickly and immediately after the death. I actually liked the Bellara vs. Neve choice way more because I was surprised by the outcome, and that gave it more emotional weight. I thought it was just a random call; I didn't know one would be kidnapped!

Finally, the multiple endings. This was a choice that was not actually a choice. Getting the "true ending" was not based on decisions; it was just a check to see if you actually finished the game you just spent a bunch of money on. Like... yeah, obviously I finished all of the companion quests and faction quests?? I paid a lot of money to play this game so I did, in fact, play it.

For comparison, I thought a lot about BG3, which is another fantasy RPG that I played recently. That game allows you to make lots of choices that feel like part of the role-play and impact the ending of the game (is my Tav evil? Does my Tav want to rule the world with the Absolute's power or do they want to save it? Is my Tav willing to compromise with evil in order to make life easier?) Veilguard does not let you role-play much with Rook. You cannot create an evil Rook. You cannot play as a Rook who wants to tear down the Veil or side with the Evanuris. That's fine, I get that BG3 was a really hard game to make, but it makes Veilguard less of an RPG.

A closer comparison might be to look at a choice from a previous Dragon Age game. One decision that comes to mind was the choice between the Mages and the Templars in DAII. This isn't a particularly tactical choice (you still have to fight both bosses regardless) nor is it a choice that significantly changes the ending of the game. But it is a role-playing choice! By that point in the game, the player has gotten tons of information about the mage/templar conflict. They have seen multiple perspectives on the issue and seen the problems with both points of view. Therefore, the choice is fun because it feels like a declaration of belief. You, the player, are forced to pick which organization you see as less flawed or more ideologically valid, and by that point in the game, you care about that choice. Your companion characters are deeply invested in this conflict too, and so, if you care about them, then you care about the decision even when it doesn't change the ending.

With the choices in Veilguard, I was either not invested in the choice because the situation felt so arbitrary, or the choice was not really a role-play choice at all, but simply a sign of completing the game.

Problem 4: Companion Characters

Perhaps the most disappointing part of Veilguard to me is the characters, because I feel like they all had potential to be fascinating, but the writing played it way too safe.

A lot of the companions were strong concepts (a noir detective from Minrathous! an assassin possessed by a demon! a scholarly necromancer!) but I feel like their storylines never gave them much depth and often felt strangely unfinished. I think Lucanis and Harding suffered the most from being incredibly underwritten (Lucanis' Spite plotline feels like they just forgot to add another mission in?). Other characters had personal quests that were oddly paced (Bellara's brother is dead! Wait, no, he's alive. But we might have to kill him! Just kidding, we don't have to kill him. Oh no, he still died!) or with stakes that were not properly set-up (why does Neve care so much about a random templar guy who we never meet or learn anything about prior to her telling us that he died?)

Ultimately, I think the biggest issue I had with the companion characters is it felt like the writers never wanted to take any risks. There were no genuinely surprising twists like with Solas or Anders or Morrigan. There were no major RPG decisions like with Alistair or Isabella. There were no characters who were genuinely unlikable or flawed or at least morally ambiguous. I'm not insisting that companion characters all be dicks, but flawed characters feel more real, human, and therefore more empathetic to me. I love Cassandra because her faith and devotion to her cause does blind her to injustice. I love Fenris because his trauma has made him so defensive and prickly. I love Zevran because his survival strategies are horribly messed up.

I wish Veilguard had given us characters that felt more flawed. I wish they had been brave enough to show us companion characters acting terribly--lashing out in pain, or struggling with their core beliefs, or even fully betraying the party if their approval was low or the player made certain choices! Let me make Lucanis evil if I destroy Treviso! Let me see Neve genuinely go down a dark path and become the dark mage she has always fought against! Let me see Davrin truly asking himself if the Grey Wardens are a cause that he has the heart to fight for anymore!

In general, while it was cool to explore lots of different factions and parts of Thedas, the game never really put those perspectives into conversation. The threat of the Evanuris was meant to be so overwhelming and apocalyptic that in-fighting wouldn't really make sense. But I want in-fighting! I want the Veiljumpers to have serious issues with the Lord of Fortune surrounding ancient artifacts! I want the Grey Wardens to distrust the Antivan Crows because they are criminals. I want the Mournwatch and the Shadow Dragons to debate about what types of magic should be forbidden. Let things be complicated!

Veilguard, I beg you, let situations be emotionally difficult. Allow the player to be uncomfortable at times. Trust that the story will be better if the characters do not constantly announce to the player how they ought to feel and what is the Right and Correct Perspective.

Problem 5: Theme

This last point is less of a criticism and more of a diagnosis of sorts. Veilguard clearly has a theme relating to regret and how leaders are forced to bear the burden of regret for their decisions. Overall, I think the theme was pretty solid and I actually really liked most of the parts about Solas and Rook, their bond, and the Varric twist. No complaints there (although a symptom of a larger disease that Solas and Varric, characters from prior games, were my favorite parts of this game).

However, I think the rest of the game would have been so much stronger if the writers are really honed in on this theme in the side-quests and companion quests. In general, a lot of Veilguard felt slightly directionless and lacking cohesion. If other story arcs and faction quests had also shown the player different examples of "regret as a prison," that could have been a cool way to make those parts of the story feel more meaningful.

But even if the theme were more fully explored in companion quests and side quests, I still think that the game needs more focus in order to tell an effective story. Honestly, if I were writing the game, I would have limited the setting to Tevinter and the conflict to the issue between Rook and Solas. The Evanuris are fine villains, but immediately making the stakes so massive and global makes the story kinda scattered. I would have waited until the endgame to let them out.

If anyone ever wants to read by in-depth "how I would fix Veilgaurd" post, please let me know lol. I have many ideas.

Conclusions:

I don't want to jump on the Veilgaurd hate train too hard, because a lot of people have not been making their criticisms in good faith. But I do feel disappointed by this game, not just because I am a fan of the franchise, but because it feels like it plays into a bigger issue with narrative art today.

Veilguard fails because it feels deeply corporate, sanitized, insincere, and pathologically afraid of getting messy. Even if that means its lows are never that low, I would prefer it to swing hard and miss hard. I like art that actually has something to say other than "hello, here is more of the thing you like, please give us money." Some games are giving us these amazing stories, but not many of them are coming from big studios. I wish Dragon Age had gone in the direction of being a smaller, shittier, but infinitely more loved franchise. I wish the graphics still looked like ass, but I could fall in love with a mass of horrible polygons anyways because the writing was so compelling.

Instead, we got this glossy, over-worked, and pretty underwhelming game. Veilguard is a game for the modern era of soulless, irony-poisoned, pandering capitalists and I hate it, thanks. I hate it.

[jesncin]

Your recent Lois post reminded me of an idiotically racist fandom I was a part of, where not only did people only ever focus on the brown Asian character to ship her with the boring white character, but literally always replaced all her character traits with “just the girlfriend” to depict said white character as more impressive or dominant in comparison. To this date, I have only seen 1 piece of fanart over 3 years that depicted the brown Asian character with the confidence she actually had in relation to the white character. Despite this, I still see everyone praise this fandom as being incredibly progressive and free of racism, and frame anyone who thinks otherwise as not being able to handle “valid alternate interpretations”. (The irony being these same people would lose their minds if the fandom treated the white character a fraction of the same way as they did the brown character) .

Oh absolutely I get you. I think fandom doesn't recognize that a racist dynamic or interpretation isn't solely like- racist caricatures/ slurs/ hate crimes or anything particularly heavy and blatant all the time. Sometimes it's our biases seeping into an interpretation, watering down a WOC to being "just the girlie" and using a ton of progressive language to cover it up ("she doesn't need a man!" "what's wrong with her being feminine" "free her from her relationship with a white man!" {<- performative way to say you don't like interracial couples} etc etc).

The Spiderverse fandom was a nightmare with this kind of stuff, especially with Hobie and Pavitr. Hobie is suddenly characterized as aggressive and dominant meanwhile Pavitr is feminine and uwu small boy when that's pretty much the opposite of their characterization in the movie. White queer fandom was too busy pushing "why can't men be feminine" without realizing they were infantilizing an Asian character and adultifying a Black character through blatant racist stereotypes.

"Fandom doesn't know how to be normal around characters of color" has just been my motto tbh. It's weird how I can list all my grievances with MAWS Lois explicitly as horrible regressive representation for an Asian character, and I still get push back from people who comfortably say "I see nothing wrong with all that. I think she has the right to be a xenophobe. This doesn't bother me."

[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 Zhang 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)

[waytootiredforthistoo]

On The Grammys (AOTY)

I've had this conversation probably 6 times this week already, and I'm going to try to get my thoughts down in one coherent place so that I can start just pointing back to this instead of yapping endlessly again.

I think more people need to be cognizant of how racism and classism play a role in how they talk about the AOTY results from this year. I wanna be clear about my bias from the start, I'm a Swiftie through and through, Fearless was literally the first album I was ever allowed to buy on my own. I loved Tortured Poets, and I still think Beyonce's win on Sunday makes sense.

I'm not going to try and convince anyone that her album was better than your fav's, and if your whole argument is "I love ___'s album so much! I think it was the best album of all time!" Then I love your enthusiasm, and I want to hear all about why you love it! Pop off! But if your thought process revolves around thoughts like "Beyonce just isn't that popular," or "people didn't really listen to Cowboy Carter like that," or "A country album? As AOTY?" Then I'd like to invite you to take just a minute to consider how racism and classism might play a hidden role in how you got to those conclusions.

(more below the cut)

I'll start with the classism bc I feel like that will somehow be the most controversial, but also the most straight forward. Cowboy Carter is a country album. Full stop. Country. Album. If you look at literally the first song on the album she explicitly talks about how hard she has had to work to have this album perceived as country. "Used to say I spoke too country, and the rejection came. Said I wasn't country 'nough. Said I wouldn't saddle up, but if that ain't country, tell me what is? Plant my bare feet on solid ground for years. They don't know how hard I had to fight for this." Beyonce is from Houston, Texas. She is southern, and she is, in this album, writing country music. Since 1969, 5 other country albums have won AOTY. A lot of people have large prejudice against country music and a lot of the time it's just thinly veiled classism.

I am literally from the deep south, but every day I get on the internet and people act like I'm supposed to be embarrassed by my love of country music (quite frankly, it happens a lot irl too). For some reason, the only acceptable verbiage to praise country is "I hate country... well, obviously except Dolly. And oh, I like Kacey Musgraves," or "actually Taylor was better when she still did country," and this or that and on and on and at what point can you just admit that you might like the genre? That maybe every single song doesn't tickle your fancy, but that maybe that's true of every single genre ever, and that maybe you shouldn't make a blanket statement of hatred about someone else's deep rooted cultural tradition! I know we're poor! I know we're not always the most educated! I know we make bad decisions sometimes! But why does that empower people to say that our cultural traditions and music are uniquely bad and mockable? Why does the poorness of our music, the instruments we traditionally had available to us, the themes that are relevant in country music make it fair game for you to make fun of to my face?

I think, perhaps, it is the world's hottest take to imply that Beyonce of all people could possibly be subjected to classism, the irony is not lost on me, but I still think it's true! I think people have a distinct prejudice against country music that is almost always based in classism and ignorance on their part (I have never had a person who 'hates all country music' be able to tell me any songs/artists they've actually listened to that solidify that hate. They can only name major artists with recent scandals, songs that got too annoyingly popular on the radio- as if that is a country specific problem, or their slew of exceptions, the good country songs).

Also, if your argument is that you don't think this was a country album because a black person wrote it I need you to fuck all the way off bc that's straight racism and you are not who I'm trying to reach with this post.

On to my second main point, which is one I hear a lot. It has to do with the alleged popularity of Cowboy Carter, especially as it relates to the other albums nominated. If you think Beyonce's album wasn't popular because it wasn't playing in the spaces you were in or around the people you hang out with, I invite you to take a second and think about who and where those people and places were. I so sincerely do not mean this as any kind of indictment on anyone, but demographic studies have shown numbers like 76% of Black Americans being Beyonce fans. Do you hang out with Black Americans? Black people? Americans? It's not shocking that her biggest demographic is the one she comes from. It's not shocking that if you're not spending your time in spaces with people who like her, that you would hear less of her music. (to be clear, every racial demographic in America polls at over 50% Beyonce fans, but I am aware than generally in other countries her biggest audiences are often black women).

SNL did a skit about this literally 8 years ago. It's called "The Day Beyonce Turned Black" and it's obviously goofy, but it really highlights my point here. Beyonce had just put out Formation, which had a lot of overt references to her blackness, and white people lost their shit about it. If you don't remember the skit, it birthed this reaction image, which you've probably seen:

If you find the concept of Beyonce winning AOTY genuinely unfathomable, I invite you to consider the possibility that maybe it just wasn't for you, but that doesn't mean that it also wasn't for millions of other people. If you don't know anyone who listened to Cowboy Carter then I'd say maybe look at who might be missing in your friend group demographics because the album had a billion streams, so clearly it's hitting with somebody.

Another thing point worth mentioning bc it has come up a shocking amount to me, is that if you are one of the people who genuinely believes this win must have been part of some kind of conspiracy, but you also haven't even listened to the whole album then that's maybe also worth taking into account! Is it possible that Cowboy Carter would have been your favorite album this year too if you gave it a proper chance? Is it possible that the Grammy voters were simply making a more informed decision than you were?

Again, I just want to say that I don't want to tell you that you have to also believe that Cowboy Carter deserved Album of the Year, and not liking Beyonce doesn't make someone a racist/ classist. I just want people to be mindful of how quickly the rhetoric we use around our favs can backslide into some pretty nasty prejudices if we're not keeping an eye on our blind spots. (Hell, I'm sure I have plenty of blind spots of my own in this post, and I welcome any other thoughts/ critiques/ perspectives/ questions)

[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.

[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

[frostfall24]

sorry this took a minute but for the character ask: could you do 10 and 17 for asja??

🥺ohh i get to post about the baaaaby

10. What is their main character arc in the story? Where do they start and how do they develop? Do they get a happy ending or is their story a tragic one?

Asja probably has it the worst out of any of my characters. As an Omen, she's practically doomed from the start, but because she's so young (7 years old at the start of Misguided Ghosts, i will update you soon i swear...) and has never known anything other than neglect and abuse, she doesn't even think it's wrong.

Her baby sister Stjarna acts as the first hint that something's wrong. Asja is only 4 when she's born so she isn't really able to think overly critically about it, but she LOVES Stjarna. This kid is perfect in her eyes, and she couldn't imagine ever mistreating her. So why do their parents not care? And what's wrong with *her* then? At this point in time she can't really recognise that it's because they're Omens, because Stjarna is Omen, and she's perfect! It makes no sense!

Asja exists to highlight the sheer irony of the Golden Order's racism against her kind (and by extension, all the other races they shun). From the start she is treated as sub-human or animal. So she starts behaving that way. So her parents and caretakers begin to fear her, because now she's "dangerous". They abandon her in the Shunning Grounds for this, and she's only forced further into that behaviour in order to survive- and to keep Stjarna safe. She's 7 when she's forced to confront the fact that she could die at any moment. She's 7 when she has to choose to starve in order to feed her sister, or to feed herself and watch the toddler die instead. She's 7 when she has to fight other children for scraps. She's 7 when she hopelessness of it all causes Frenzy to start calling her. She's 8 when an Omenkiller invades the Shunning Grounds, and despite all those months of suffering to keep Stjarna- the one person she loved and the one person that kept her sane- alive, theres nothing she can do to save her.

And in order to be considered a person, she just has to be fine, after all of that. Because if she's feral after months of living in squalor with other Omen that have met her same fate, after being told she's sub-human since she was a baby, after having to fight other children for scraps just to survive, then she's proved everyone right about her.

BUT ALL THAT BEING SAID, SHE EVENTUALLY HAS A HAPPY ENDING!! My other OC Orvyn (who I will yap about momentarily) is the one who rescues her from the Shunning Grounds, but he still has to learn to overcome the biases of the Order himself when it comes to her. He's horrified by the SG, and it was definitely a wakeup call, but one instance doesn't remove a lifetime of internalised bigotry. He helps her because she's a child, so it's a lot easier to say that she was entirely a victim. Plus, even if she's more of an "animal", no living thing deserves to live in those conditions in his eyes (not wrong? but still lowkey terrible LOL).

She got absolutely fucked up by the Omenkiller so she's not exactly capable of running away, which forces the two to stay together longer. Orvyn slowly realises that wait no! this isn't how omens are! this kid is just severely traumatised and terrified. He starts to notice little things like her drawing in dirt, or hugging her tail for comfort, or how when she cries, its over the little girl that had a name.

theres a positive feedback loop there. orvyn begins to realise his mistakes, so he begins to treat her more like a kid than a soggy kitten (though i do call her this endearingly in ooc discussions. i cannot think see one of those videos of rescue kittens getting bathed without thinking of her lowkey). in turn, she begins to become just that little bit more sociable even though she's afraid of him. it gets to the point where he's lowkey just her dad now. they both got attached oops.

all in all her arc is mainly about regaining her personhood, and learning to understand that she's worthy of the second chance she's been given. the poor kid internalised a lot of self hatred and it takes a lot of time for her to overcome it. eventually this comes full circle too. as an adult she pioneers research on omen healthcare and becomes a sort-of perfumer in order to offer that second chance to others like her.

She also learns how to commune with wraiths and put them to rest in order to help those she couldn't save, starting with Stjarna.

17. Are there any motifs or symbols associated with the character? How are they represented, in their design, personality or in some other way?

i dont think i really have any visual motifs or symbols BUT i do have a fun tidbit with her name that i TOTALLY planned from the beginning, trust fr. asja is a norse word that translates to aid, protection, help, as well as appearance or shape. when she was born she was named to have something to publicly mourn, as her parents pretended she was stillborn. but it also has hidden meaning. her parents had hoped she would be the "burnt pancake" for a lack of a better term. the chances of having two omen children are INSANELY rare. with asja having got it out of the way, it would hopefully protect the rest of the bloodline.

but NOPE. the seemingly impossible happened and #2 popped out horned. the name takes on a double meaning, as asja now becomes stjarna's protector and caretaker.

in the future theres then TRIPLE meaning. asja helps the wraiths find their rest, protecting them from their eternal torment in death

[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.