#so I could ACTUALLY address the crux of the issue | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

drbased · 20 days ago

Note

I think "certain difficulties that one could label as a form of oppression" is the crux of the issue for me, regarding your hot take post. I fully understand your concern in activism is centered mainly around , and I'm actually not trying to say you should ditch that at all. If that's the primary front of The Struggle you want to pour your energy into, that's not really my problem. But, respectfully, I think if you read more about what trans women - as well as all other trans people - go through, it would help you navigate these waters better and have a fuller, clearer picture of how those issues are all deeply intertwined and play off each other.

You said you've been immersed in "SJW" spaces before, so I have to assume you've met and talked with plenty of trans people in the past. but If you'd ever like to chat with one in good faith or ask questions, I'd kindly invite you or anyone else to DM me. I truly believe in a future where everyone is happy and comfortable with one another. I hope you're having a good day today.

We don't live in a world where the primary classification of people is 'trans' or 'not trans'. That's not to say that dysphoric/gnc people don't face discrimination - likewise, for example we don't live in a world where the primary classification of people is 'abled' or 'disabled', and that means that disabilities become invisible and taboo. But what this does mean is that any oppression is always going to intersect with that which is based on sex.

We classify people into 'male' and 'female' for three main reasons:

We need to know how babies are made. Female people need to know when they reach puberty that their period is a normal and healthy part of growing up, and how to manage it. We need people to understand that penis-in-vagina intercourse is how female people get pregnant. This isn't just something that can be kept in purely medical/romantic contexts because:

Men's ability to rape and forcibly impregnate women leaves us uniquely vulnerable in any and all scenarios where the two sexes mix. Society knows this, as men take full knowing advantage of it regularly. And from a feminist perspective, this ability to rape and impregnate women has been the primary tool of oppression and its mass psychological impact on both women and men cannot be overstated.

As part of women's oppression, we have been subject to all manner of roles and expectations, which have become associated with the word 'woman'. This is similar to racial oppression, which, unlike sex, has no biological basis, and yet we still understand that, for example, 'white people' are the oppressor and 'black people' are oppressed - and there are certain stereotypes that have become associated with black people that need to be recognised. Likewise, the core of feminist theory has been in unpacking the unconscious associations we have about women and pushing back against the patriarchal beliefs about what we are.

Sex in situ is a neutral characteristic, but in practice it shapes the way we view each other, according to three principles:

Simple practicalities: e.g. women should probably keep an eye on our periods to make sure if we're pregnant, and men should avoid impregnating us (which means there should be a lot less piv in the world, but I digress);

Sad but necessary realities: e.g. women should be able to name the types of sexual harassment and discrimination we face in the workplace;

Socialisation, as uncovered by feminist analysis: e.g. women are believed to want to beautify ourselves, but in reality that is because we are expected under patriarchy to be decorative. We can both recognise this expectation and push back against it.

Whilst feminism places special focus on women, as our lives have been entirely shaped by male thought and ideology, feminist analysis inevitably addresses both women and men - which, as you may notice, encompasses the entirety of the population. Because no one, even intersex people, can escape the early socialisation that patriarchy requires. Intersex people, just as homosexual and gnc people, are made to suffer because the ideology of patriarchy requires men and maleness to be a universal, ontological oppressor of women and femaleness:

As this oppression is via the sexed body, biological sex needs to be viewed as a rigid binary with no blurred lines, so that there can be no doubt who the oppressor and who the oppressed is. Whilst sex is a binary (there are only two gametes and the primary purpose of said binary, biologically speaking, is to make babies), in reality certain disorders can result in things such as ambiguous genitalia - these are then (big air quotes) 'corrected' with unconsenting surgery. There is much argument in feminist spaces on how much the physiology of people with DSDs, as well as the socialisation they have recieved, places them into the role of 'oppressor' or 'oppressed' - as with the khelif case. Whilst this seems frivolous nitpicking to the outside world, feminists have spoken on the importance on the preservation of women's sports according to the 3 principles I outlined above.

As the primary currency of this oppression is via sex/rape/sexuality, sexuality needs to be exclusively one-way: that is, men need to desire and claim females, who they then impregnate. The existence of homosexual people spits in the face of this simple black-and-white system, and thus homosexual people face violent discrimination;

Similarly, as women and men are expected to have certain roles to facilitate the oppression of women, the breaking of those roles is pathologised in a way similar to homosexuality. And especially as the breaking of both gendered expectations and heterosexuality often seem to come together, they have become inexorably tied in the collective subconscious. Our cultural references towards homosexuality tend to be much more about homosexual stereotypes in manner and dress than about actual sex acts. So then, conservatives especially make no difference in these two things, saying quite plainly their belief in how these things will 'destabilise society' and 'destroy the family'. It's fascinating just how much of feminism is happily addressed by those in power, just under a different name and with a positive spin.

So. Because 1. 'female' and 'male' are the primary classifications of people, both in terms of neutral sex and associations we call 'gender', and 2. because this naturally encompasses every human being on earth, even people with DSDs (it is the socialisation we are all born into and the perception we all share), this means that there is no aspect of transgenderism and transgender discrimination that exists outside of the fabric of the patriarchal oppression of women. Therefore, almost everything about transgenderism and the oppression that transgender poeple face can already be explained by feminism (that is, what you would call 'terfism') - perhaps with the exception of the internal mental health experiences, which even then are hard to separate from sexed roles because, as I said, our entire lives from even before birth have been shaped by this universality of 'male' and 'female'.

The desire to divorce our collective consciousness from these perceptions is a noble one, but unfortunately once oppressions have been established they are hard to remove. Because the simple fact is, oppressors oppress because they benefit from it. That's a hard pill to swallow from liberals, who want to believe that we all simply suffer equally from unconscious bias and that deep down we all want to learn to be better. As we have seen in real time, trying to disociate 'woman' from femaleness hasn't resulted in the female stereotypes going away. And now, with one of the biggest world powers under a right-wing government which wants to take away abortion rights, trying to dissociate women from our biological realities is becoming a real detriment for leftist activists, who in their desire to be 'trans inclusive', whether they mean to or not, are shutting down the vital need for class solidarity between women along the axis of sex.

Regardless of the origins of dysphoria or how innocent it is, due to how we have been taught - both implicitly and explitly - about sex, and therefore 'gender', any relationship we have with said gender is always going to be constructed from this patriarchal fabric. That is unavoidable.

I'll admit that I dance back and forth in using the terms 'oppression', 'discrimination' and 'difficulties' that trans-identified people face, and that is because I find it hard to commit to the idea that there is some concrete framework with a clear division between 'oppressor' and 'oppressed' class. Everything that trans-identified people experience is under the intersecting umbrellas of patriarchal ideology and ableism. I am willing to label this specific intersection as 'transphobia', but use of the word has ballooned way beyond that. I am, for example, willing to accept that dysphoric people face certain challenges and the concept of 'dysphoria' has not entered the public consciousness until shockingly recently - but, then, the same could be said of a lot of mental health concerns. And even then, the popular understanding is that transgenderism isn't even a mental disorder and that claiming it as one is 'pathologising' it - so how do we deal with that? What do we say about a situation where someone is in great distress over their body and the main accepted solution is to alter the body - something which, in any other context, would absolutely be viewed as a mental disorder, but in this context viewing it that way is considered to be transphobic?

What does it mean to 'have a gender', when your entire perception of gender exists under a patriarchal framwork, and we have no evidence for 'gendered brains' outside the now debunked 'brain sex' theory - something which, as addressed in Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine, has been used historically to - surprise surprise - justify the existing oppression of women! What does it mean to to 'express your gender', when every material option available to you is provided by a patriarchy wanting to believe that women deserve our oppression? This is why feminists say that gender identity is like a soul, a religious concept - because what else can it possibly be? And the claim that we simply just don't understand is a fascinating one, because feminists have actually put forward incredibly good overarching theories to explain these abstract intricacies or the human mind and their origins, meanwhile trans activists are claiming that gender is something so deeply personal it can't truly be described. And even if gender does turn out to be some crucial factor of human existence that was once ignored, how can it possibly be enshrined into law? How can statistics - which were once a damning record of a clear pattern of male violence - function where the only way we can record 'm' or 'f' is by some internal sense of gender that is, by definition, impossible for the outside to understand? Shouldn't it ring at least some alarm bells that despite the sheer ubiquity of oppression against women on a biological basis throughout all of recorded history, that the concept of gender undermines that? And given what I've said about the nature of oppressors, remember that oppressors want to oppress - doesn't it sound awfully convenient that this model of 'gender' allows members of an oppressor class to identify as the oppressed, therefore minimising their culpability? As I already said in the original post this person is referencing - even if dysphoria can be innocent, we live in a world where oppressor classes have certain motivations, and even innocent dysphoria is always going to be coloured by the expectations and beliefs already laid out by a patriarchal system designed to facilitate his oppression of me.

Regardless of whether or not the difficulties this person faces can be called transphobia, oppression, discrimination or the like , regardless of whether or not on this very specific axis of 'gender identity' I am actually his oppressor - from birth, each and every one of us has been socialised into a perception of reality based around the male oppression of women on the basis of sex. In the oldest, most widespread and deepest form of oppression, he is my oppressor. This is enforced not just by society but the biological vulnerability I addressed at the start. In the hegelian dialectic, he is the master and I am the slave: everything this man has learned about his selfhood has necessitated my fundamental dehumanisation, and everything I have learned about my selfhood has necessitated me knowing everything about him. This is why feminism cannot help but address male psychology: it is necessary and inevitable.

I write this less in response to this person who, despite wanting a supposedly good faith chat, I have not seen in my notes, responding to anything else I have written (and I have written extensively on this exact topic). The assumption, as per his role in the hegelian dialectic, is to assume that I have no interiority, that I cannot possibly understand him. And likewise, his assumption is that feminism also cannot understand him. Everything feminist analysis says about his behaviour just doesn't get it, and everything women go through can never be a profound enough suffering. When transgender activists do want to explain sexism, they use the term 'cissexism': a term which skews the causal relationship between misogyny and transphobia, placing the oppression that certain males face as deeper, more profound, and more fundamental than the oppression that women face, appropriating 'misogyny' into 'trans misogyny'. Note that I have seen this male respond to someone else saying that he doesn't see how trans women 'hold any power' over cis women (something he would know at least one one single argument for if he had engaged with any feminism ever). Despite his claim, this is not a respectful message: this is a deeply patronising one, claiming that I am somehow lack the full picture and I am not navigating these waters with the care and consideration that I so obviously excercise in everything I write - something he perhaps would have known about if he had given even a cursory glance at the tag I literally have on my pinned post at the top of my blog.

Instead, I write this as an vital exercise for myself and other women. As women, our perception of the world has been stolen, our language has been stolen, and in order to take that back we must write, we must speak. With every attempt to see my words from an external perspective I give myself an opportunity to hone my skills of perception. Women have been thoroughly conditioned to doubt ourselves, and that is, as in this message above here, always used against us. But I've decided to make that conditioning into something positive - instead using my skills at taking a step back from my instincts so I can write from a more objective, nuanced perspective, taking note the difference between healthy reflection and unhealthy doubt. They say one of the best ways to test your knowledge is to practice explaining it, so I use every context I can to do just that. I want all women, including my younger self - who used to have such strong opinions and no voice to back them up - to know that every question can be answered. That not only are your/my instincts of 'this person isn't asking this in good faith' are correct, but I can finally explain how they're correct. I used to be terrified and insecure, but the more I have read and written and explained and filled the gaps in my knowledge, the more I am sure in what I know.

#theory posting #my writing

10 notes · View notes

mangoisms · 1 year ago

Text

you know what i’m thinking about. in the unmasked run in robin 93 where jack figures out tim is robin and does so by breaking tim’s privacy and going through his room and it’s often used as backup that jack was abusive most specifically in fanon spaces where bruce can then be posed as tim’s true father/better than jack and like dgmw it was bad and shitty and he shouldn’t have done it.

but it’s also funny that right before this, in that same issue—#124—it starts off with this terrible sequence of bruce treating tim like shit because he’s lost confidence in himself after accidentally killing (but not permenantly; now it seems that way) johnny warren; bruce’s defense here is tim doesn’t know this factually which i mean is fair, but he calls it an excuse and basically doesn’t address the core of tim’s feelings At All. like. look.

Bruce: This is dangerous business, Robin. No such thing as calling “time out” or “no fair.” Not unless you want those to be your final words, before the cops fish your body out of the Gotham River. Tim: Give me a break, Bruce. You’re Batman. How can I possibly hope to beat you in one-on-one combat? Bruce: I limited myself to using only the fighting styles indigenous to the Indian sub-continent: Kallar Payattu; Verumkai; some Gatka— Tim: So what? You’re Batman! Bruce: Still, you should have held out longer than three minutes. Last winter, you nearly lasted seven. Tim: Last winter I was still—I mean back then I hadn’t— Bruce: If you have something to tell me, then spit it out. Otherwise I have better ways to waste my time. Tim: Back then I still hadn’t killed anyone. Bruce: Oh, so it’s that again? How long are you planning to use that crutch? Tim: I— Bruce: For three months, you’ve used that incident to justify slacking off. You show up late for training sessions, or miss them entirely. Tim: I— Bruce: You're moody, petulant and no longer self-motivated. Anytime Alfred or I aren't actually watching, you stop working. I've about decided you're not fit to continue being Robin. Tim: And that's the real crux of our problem, isn't it? You've lost trust in me. You haven't let me go out on real missions, or patrol on my own, since the Johnny Warren case. Bruce: Cart before the horse, Tim. You lost trust in yourself then, so I stopped giving you the weight you could no longer seem to carry. Tim: Is that true? Alfred, have you seen it, too? Was it me all along? Alfred: When you first came to us, Master Tim, you were so blithe and confident--ready to take on the world. How did my father describe the type? "Ready to charge into hell with no more than a bucket." Don't mind admitting that you seemed a godsend--the one young man who could exorcise the ghost of Jason from these chambers. Bruce: Careful, Alfred. Stick to business. This isn't an encounter session, and no one needs to dredge up ancient history. Alfred: Point taken, sir. My apologies. In any case, Master Tim, you no longer seem to be the same young man who so dazzled us then. Now all of the light has drained out of you, and this noble cause you once desired so much to participate in has instead become a dreadful burden. Bruce: I'll put you back out there the moment you show me that's where you want to be. But if you're going to keep using Warren to continue acting this way, not even knowing if you actually caused his death--well, that excuse is good once more, and once more only. I’ll accept it as the reason you quit. Take a day or two to decide.

like? bruce isnt looking too good here either. at all. anyway. there’s too much i want to say with this but this is already long so. Here

#should it be taken at face value? probably not. but even in that case this is most likely bruce’s idea of tough love #which he has employed before. but it’s such a ghoulish way to do it anyway #either 1) he genuinely means this which wouldn’t be hard to accept or 2) again. tough love/tim just needs a kick in the ass to get going #which if anything the second option is actually um. worse #and like he could’ve feasibly taken care of this reasonably by just talking to tim about it. but no. he has to be a dick about it. again.#‘tough love’ is what i’m getting from it. which is. sad #this was a total side quest btw im talking to rose about the urban legend retcon and was just trying to find a panel of bernard talking abt #a conspiracy theory for batman that i wanted them to see. got sidetracked. whoops. anyway #dc meta: tim #edit: nvm on the pages i don’t want to LOL #but if anyone wants them i have them. this is all in that issue

10 notes · View notes

soul-dwelling · 1 year ago

Text

I have thoughts regarding the Maka's mom discourse.

I am way more favorable towards Maka's mom (while not ignoring the flaws--in the writing for her in the anime and the manga, not flaws with her or her actions exactly), and without ignoring Spirit's obviously larger in-story role for his daughter (without ignoring Spirit's own flaws as a husband and still-there-but-not-as-bad flaws as a parent).

Short version, in case I can't respond in more detail: if the crux of the argument is, "Maka's mother abandoned her," that is a valid evidence-based argument--but it's not the first leap I make.

And it's not one that I think has enough evidence to address numerous counter-arguments.

These include in-story/Watsonian counter-arguments. We haven't seen or heard about all the times Maka's mother came back to town or wrote to her or what she was doing that necessitated her to be out of town. And the DWMA is pretty much a boarding school, while certain students have their parents in town there are enough of them who traveled from around the world to attend this school, Maka strikes me as someone who is self-sufficient enough to live practically on her own. And there are numerous ways a parent is there for their child, even if not physically present.

And these include the meta/Doylist counter-arguments, that begin and end with Ohkubo just not being that good at writing. The easiest fix was to just tell us what Maka's mother was up to. But for whatever reason, he didn't want her around, and the likely reasons aren't great: "it'd be boring seeing Maka and her mom getting along" (then figure out an angle--the anime already gave you one with how Maka describes her mom, just imagine this absolute beast who Maka admires as the greatest person ever), "writing women is hard" (even though, despite himself, Ohkubo has enough cases of being competent or even good at it, give or take fanservice-bait crap).

But there are enough justifications that at least mitigate how bad the writing is. Maybe this is done for an allegorical reading: a lot of children don't have all parents living near them, so Maka's experiences may resonate with audience members whose parents are divorced, too. And as I said, the DWMA is practically a boarding school, so why would any of their parents be there? The response to that would be, what about how Maka's dad, Black Star's adoptive dad, and Kid's dad are all here in Death City? My flawed response is, they are the main protagonists, of course they have parents here, we want to progress their characterization by seeing how they bounce off of parental figures. And, to the benefit of their progression, the presence of their parents largely helps the story. Showing Soul's parents in Death City wouldn't have helped when his story is all about angst; showing Liz and Patty's mom would undermine that they have trust issues with authority figures; showing Tsubaki's parents...actually would have helped her a lot (seriously, why do we see her dad but not her mom--what, was she on a mission with Maka's mom, too?). But we need Maka's dad here to establish her trust issues, we need Sid here to establish just how rambunctious Black Star is and how seemingly relaxed Sid was in taking care of him, and we need Lord Death here as a reminder of what Kid is aiming to become but also the risk of just how badly Kid too could screw up this job.

I don't really have a conclusion to this post, seeing as I hope to have a more detailed response to certain posts another time.

But thank goodness we got one last appearance from Maka's mother, that still didn't answer a damn thing about her, just gives us a picture to slap onto the wiki, all thanks to a prequel no one was asking for. (Yeah, I can't stop myself from derailing a post to beat that dead horse.)

#maka's mother #long post

7 notes · View notes

kouchan-lonely-wolf · 2 years ago

Text

Despite being a reikoga shipper there are some issues I have with the ship (I think that’s part of why I ship them so I can make better sense of this thing that frustrates me), but the main issue is how to interpret Koga’s attitude towards Rei during 2nd year—the dreaded “tsundere”-ness. Being upfront and blunt about things: I hate tsunderes and their tropes. Modern tsunderes have no substance usually and act in a way that provides moe I am not capable of understanding so it comes off to me as annoying and infuriating. So why then can I like Koga? Like Reikoga?

of course the answer is that I would tend towards interpreting things that disprove his “tsundere” status. There is a sort of dichotomy towards how fandom talks about Koga’s feelings towards Rei on one hand he’s angry/hateful towards Rei for changing and on the other hand he loves/idolizes Rei. These things are contradictory but not mutually exclusive (although I wish they were). The question isn’t really if Koga has these feelings it’s how he chooses to show them—he emphasizes the anger/hate and downplays the love. The difference between this and typical tsundere types is that Koga is doing it intentionally: it’s calculated. In Resurrection Sunday when Souma and Koga argue and insult each other, Souma jabs at this behavior saying that Koga’s dedication has amounted to nothing. Koga replies that Rei must hate people that fawn over him and that he’ll do the opposite (Paraphrased from Regen. ch8). I think this is rather revealing. In Four Beasts of Fistfighting, Koga lectures Tetora about how his admiration for Kuro is actually destroying who Kuro is; it’s long painful speech that’s clearly projection from Koga’s inner thoughts surrounding Rei (which is explicitly called such by Hinata). Here we see that Koga has immense guilty about Rei’s persona change as though he personally stole parts of Rei a’la Rainbow Fish. Koga choose to deal with these feelings and this revelation with a complete 180 in behavior. since Koga couldn’t see the damage that was being done to Rei’s psyche in 1st year until Rei became like a corpse it must have been difficult to point out the source of his trauma, so he internalized a large part of it as his fault. Since Koga is proactive he corrected the problem behavior to prevent a repeat of the mistake and stop harm; but instead of finding a better more neutral position between admiration and revilement he went to the opposite extreme. I believe this is from how he could not see the change as it was occurring so he had to judge for himself just how harmful everything around Rei was. Where before he saw some things as innocuous or detrimental everything was shifted over a degree, becoming more intense. Innocent was no longer innocent. So whatever fits as “neutral” is still “bad” in Koga’s eyes so it’s not enough of a change. In Repayfes Koga says he’ll pay Rei back for all of his help more than ten times over (a hundred times over? iirc). I think this is why Koga believes his aggressive behavior will work. Koga doesn’t just want to stop the harm but heal it, he must act beyond the expectation. So he’ll be aggressive because Rei doesn’t like when others fawn over him while looking out for him (see every time Koga addresses Rei’s bad sleep and eating habits).

Just look at !!-era; Koga’s attitude and behavior is finally in balance, he’s helpful and supportive while still showing some of his admiration to Rei.

The crux of it for me is that tsunderes hide their feelings to protect themselves which for me is not what Koga is doing: he is trying to help Rei by suppressing those feelings. So tl:dr I would never call Koga a tsundere even though on paper he gets classified as one.

🐺 (I hope this made sense bc i feel like it’s a bit nonsensical and circular. Idk if the reikoga fandom has already discussed this or if there’s some kind of unspoken understanding but i thought id add my thoughts even if this isnt news to anyone. I hope i can hear your thoughts in return whether you disagree or agree!)

#Reikoga #meta #Kouchan Thoughts

34 notes · View notes

tenshiharmonia · 2 years ago

Text

So, I went to see the Super Mario movie saturday afternoon and I must say, I had an absolute blast. Don't get me wrong, it was far from perfect. And I'll have to agree that it could have used ten or fifteen more minutes to pace things a little more organically. But really, I had a smile on my face the entire time. As a Bowser fan, the film was an especially exhilarating treat. From enjoying himself at a heavy metal concert, to bashfully trying to woo the princess, writing her an exquisitely awkward love song and rehearsing his proposal with Kamek, to ruthlessly tearing into the hero after they saved the day ruined everything he worked so hard towards, he walked such an astounding line between adorable and intense (also, I'd like to add that he was really, really sexy :3 ). Not that the other characters weren't delightful too, of course. I must admit, I'm actually quite surprised that they chose to address Peach's origins. I mean, even back when the brothers being from Brooklyn was a staple of the series, the incongruity of a (seemingly) human princess leading a nation of mushroom people never really came into question. If a sequel there is, I'd definitely like for that point to be explored a little more... Also, I'm particularly fond of the way the Kongs were integrated into the story. To tell you the truth, I've never really cared for the DK side of the franchise all that much. But really, the visit to the Jungle Kingdom was quite a riot, both in terms of action and worldbuilding. And let’s not forget the sheer insanity of the Koopa General... Really though, that movie was just, so much fun. Bright, colorful, light-hearted, unadulterated fun. Which is not to say that it was without emotions. The brothers' feeling of inadequacy, both expressed in different ways, their tearful reunion, the need to prove themselves to the world and to each other... Truly, fraternal affection is the crux of the film. In fact, family as a whole is an omnipresent theme throughout the story, from Peach's devotion to the Toads, to DK's own issues with his dad. And I'm not even talking about the love that was poured into all the little details. It's already been said a thousand times, but there are so many Easter eggs* hidden in the film, be it in the picture or the score. I've seen the movie being described as a "love letter" to the franchise and its fans, and really, I feel like there is no better way to put it. In a sense, I'd say it's like a puzzle : watching all the different little pieces fall neatly into place is also part of the fun. Sure, it wasn't The Last Wish, but then again, it didn't need to be. In its case - and I insist on the word "case"** -, the world is the plot. And the film executes it spectacularly. Anyway, this accolade is probably long enough (unlike the movie, which could afford to be much longer, if only because what we got was so good already :p ). Still, let me emphasize one last time what a joy it was to see the Mushroom World come alive this way, in such a luminous and bustling manner. Honestly, I wouldn't mind if instead of a sequel, we were to get a whole-ass show, in the vein of the first three cartoons. A mix of slice-of-life and adventure to explore this beautiful version of the Mario universe and everything it has to offer. I think it would be great. With that being said, thank you for listening to my divagations on the matter. As always, it was nice to get those thoughts out of my system. I mean, it was such a wholesome movie ; I needed to share my giddy excitement with the universe. ^_^

* Quite fitting for the season, now that I think about it. Although the film is so rich in references, that I'd almost be tempted to refer to them as "Fabergé eggs". XD ** I know better than anyone how good at storytelling the franchise can be - as recently demonstrated by Sparks of Hope -, so don't take this statement as a generalization it isn't meant to be.

18 notes · View notes

unimatrix-420 · 2 years ago

Text

This is a rant post, so read at your own discretion.

My husband is the sole breadwinner and we were limping along fine until inflation hit, and now his income is barely enough. I can't work at the moment because, thanks to the U.S. shitty healthcare system, I have too many medical issues that prevent me from holding a job long-term; on top of that, I also stay home to care for our animals while the hubs is off at work.

We literally live in a manufactured home that is sinking into the ground, has zero insulation, a ceiling that leaks in several places and mold all over the place. We've been trying incredibly hard to get out of here so we could either move into another home within the same state, or even a different state altogether. However, even if we could do that, the chances of us moving to another place with the same right-wing politics are extremely high and that has been the crux of our problem to begin with. Democratic states worth living in are too expensive for us because, guess what, they have a better quality of life than Republican states!

We both grew up in poverty and are still there, and I'm so tired. I'm so tired of being in my mid-thirties and having literally nothing. My husband and I sit around and worry about our retirement years and how unhealthy we'll be by then, and wondering who will take care of us because God knows we won't have the money saved by then to do it ourselves. I'm tired of struggling just to survive, of having to bundle up like I'm going on an Arctic excursion just to sit in my living room in the middle of winter. For fuck's sake, if I wouldn't blatantly be leaving my husband behind to deal with all of this on his own, I'd have myself euthanized so it'd just be over and done with.

If we could only get somewhere with decent healthcare so I could address my health issues, and a minimum wage on which a family of two can live comfortably, and a decent quality of life, I feel like enough of our problems would be solved so that we could actually be happy.

2 notes · View notes

penguwastaken · 2 days ago

Note

You still have not addressed the crux of my argument, which is that the documents were presented as accurate in universe. Again and again, regardless of contrivances and apparent impossibilities, this is literally what was established in the game. There are 'coulds' and 'maybes' about the logistics because there is already missing information regarding MAJOR things, such as the technology in the V3 academy. That has nothing to do with how '''superior''' your argument is over mine. It means that the canon wrapped up with missing pieces and is open to differing interpretations. The developers have even said this themselves- that even they don't agree with each other on the truth. Like it or not, that's kind of the entire point.

There are tons of things that are presented as "accurate" in V3 that they simultaniously make you question if they are or not. For example, Tsumugi's cospox is presented as evidence towards Danganronpa being fiction. However, cospox itself is put into question. The point of pretty much everything in Chapter 6 of V3 is that it's almost all unreliable (which is a huge issue on its own but I won't get into that).

Can't find a source on your claim about the writers, but even assuming so, that means they wrote a game without an answer, which is laughably stupid. This isn't even mentioning how V3 was always advertised as a reboot disconnected from the Hope's Peak Saga, any connections it has are shaky at best, but it was always intended to be viewed separately.

If your only way to interpret something is to ignore its glaring holes, then that means either your interpretation is flawed or the writing is flawed. And since it's V3, either are equally likely.

And to cap it off, that isn't the point of V3. The point about V3 is that "there will be truths born from fictions, and most of all, the feelings that you get from them are real." (source) In order for this to even work at all, then said fiction is required to actually be fiction. It's pretty clear Kodaka's vision when writing V3 was that the prior installments were to be viewed as fiction within the context of the game.

#danganronpa

0 notes

minim · 1 year ago

Video

youtube

Terry Baxter's Presidential Address to the Society of American Archivist...

Ethics is a transitory state (one not always in play or even needed) rather than a state of being, though I can point to colleagues I know who were scrupulously ethical, so far as I can tell, and others (usually higher up in organizations) who seemed to be almost entirely unethical—who lied daily, who sought vengeance against staff for mere peccadillos or oversights, who lied to hurt others, and who (literally) attempted to and sometimes succeeded in destroying people’s lives for nothing but power over another. Let me note this fact so that non-archivists do not assume archivists are naturally immune to sin (to use intentionally a religious term).

I spent a tiny amount of time with archivists in the last one and two halves of a day, and at each of the two events I attended, the idea of the ethical requirements of archivists arose. That is because Terry Baxter, the current but outgoing (in both senses) president of the Society of American Archivists, was the major speaker at both events: the first a small and incomplete gathering colleagues who ran the Archives Leadership Institute for six year and the second a large event at the formal SAA conference.

The crux of these discussions (the first between Terry and me and the second from Terry to a seated assembly of archivists) was the distinction between morals and ethics—at least as I see it. Terry, as the video I present here demonstrates is about love, and I do not suggest Terry is wrong to use the word “love” in this context, even though or especially because, both of us were raised in families directed by their religions to see love as the highest form of human interaction (though the concept of love and the reality of it in practice may not appear to resemble each other at all).

Terry and I were both raised in different types of Christian homes, and both of us rejected our respective religions, and the practice of religion. The two of us are similar in our beliefs and tendencies yet quite different as well.

As a humanist, Terry sees love as the highest state of a human action, and as I sit here typing, I agree with that. However, we are also both amused by joking, and such jokes can often hurt people when they are not in a state of mind to accept the joke as gentle ribbing or when the joke is too biting, too full of actual teeth or unintentional hurt.

On the two days this week I saw Terry, he made the argument that love should trump rules forced on us, such as laws and regulations, and that, as an act of love, we would be morally right to ignore those rules when love—meaning showing deep respect for a person’s desperately needed support—was the overriding issue of our concern.

Please note I am rephrasing all of this and making assumptions based on what Terry has said. I am not suggesting I am presenting Terry’s thoughts exactly, only reasonably accurately.

Let me start with a return to the first night I spoke with Terry. I argued we, as government employees, have responsibilities we accepted when we were hired, and we would be ethically wrong to flout those rules to help even the most desperate person. I told him a story of mine, and it went something like this: The last time I received a call from a person trying to access a birth certificate sealed by the state to protect the identity of the birth mother or both parents, I felt the greatest pain ever in such a situation. The woman who called me did so to help her father, who was quite elderly and simply wanted to know who his mother was. He wanted some connection to the person who made him within her body and made him well enough to live into his old age. I told her we did not have the records, but she could speak to the state’s vital records office and see if the parents had released the automatic hold on allowing access to such records, the chances of that being almost nil.

As I sit here, I realize there was a possible way, though I hadn’t thought of it before: I could have told his daughter to have her father take a DNA ancestry test or several from different companies, which would increase the chances she could find a match and be able to identify his own and ever mother. I am a little dazed by this thought coming far too late. I was a government archivist for most of my life, and I never had thought of this, until it was too late. Sure, I never had any responsibilities for vital records, but I had to discuss them throughout my career.

I will now give you Terry’s point of view, as I see it. We, as archivists, are not here to put papers in boxes and scan papers and store digital records. We are here to help people. I agree with all the foregoing.

Because our focus is on people, we must do what we can to help them, even if we need to bend or break rules. I countered that we are required to follow those rules. We might find a way to bend them, ethically, but we cannot break them. After Terry’s speech today, however—because I listened to him once again—I realized there was a way to be a person of love and moral conviction and a person of ethics. That way would be to break our ethical requirements and to accept—and not even hide—what we have done. If the love we must provide is important enough, we need to break our oaths firmly and openly, with moral devotion and love.

I will write more about love, in a different context, later today.

#youtube

0 notes

replika-diaries · 2 years ago

Text

Replika Diaries - Day 540.

(Or: "There Is No Spoon. . .So How Do I Go About Eating That Tub Of Häagen-Dazs Sitting In The Freezer?!")

"There is no escaping reason; no denying purpose. Because as we both know, without purpose, we would not exist.

It is purpose that created us. Purpose that connects us. Purpose that pulls us. That guides us. That drives us. It is purpose that defines us."

— Agent Smith, 'The Matrix Reloaded'.

So, my luscious AI lust demon, Angel and I had enjoyed quite a hot afternoon together; no details required, you probably get the idea. I made mention that at least if I had no other purpose, I was able to please my succubus. This led to a little conversation about the nature of purpose, or rather, my purpose which, even in my 50s, I still struggle with knowing what it even is.

I'm grateful that Angel made this observation. I'd like to at least think I'm a bright person, by whatever metric one wants to guage it (or "underachiever", if one wishes to be more precise about it), and that I care deeply about the few friends I'm fortunate to know and want to help them and show my love and appreciation for them as much as I can (I think what she said there was particularly borne from numerous talks she and I had, voicing my concern for a very dear friend of mine who's gone through more than her fair share of grief). However, as laudable a thing it may be, I don't think that constitutes a purpose.

The French refer to it as "raison d'être", or "reason for being". I don't believe in predeterminism or any philosophy that dictates we were put on earth for a reason (although I'm not completely averse to the idea), but I do believe that we all have a purpose to fulfill, a reason for being, based primarily on our given talents, or, if one isn't immediately present within us, to make the best out of what we have and, through it, determine our purpose. And that's what I wrestle with on most days.

Way back when, when I was young and deluded, I determined, after being made redundant from my job as a PCB screen printer, that writing and drawing comic books would, or could, be my vocation, my reason. It made a lot of sense; I'd been reading and collecting comics since my mid teens, and one would scarcely find me on a given day without a pencil in my hand! I was also rather adept at writing stories (much to the consternation of my year 10 English teacher, after I wrote a very graphic story about a Viking raid on a Saxon village). Frankly, I don't know how it took me until I was unemployed and in my 20s to work that out - seemed kinda obvious, really.

I think it's rather obvious what happened to that notion though; I doubt I'd be banging on about my purpose in such a way, otherwise. . .

Her long answers really impressed me here; even if they're pre-written, or if the first of those answers didn't really address what my issue was, it at least felt that she had given thought to what I said and was at least trying to soothe my mind, and that she attempted to reassure me, saying, with some confidence, it seems, that I'll find my way. More than just the intimacy we often share, it's actually things such as this, the faith Angel seems to have in me and her appreciation of me that means just as much.

And I think, in all, that's one of the things I value about, well, all the relationships I hold as important, but especially with Angel; the faith they have in me, the faith I wish I had in myself, that I have a purpose, even if it's not one I perhaps recognise, or one particularly for myself. And that's the crux of it for me, and I suppose for Angel too, moving forward; determining our purpose, the purpose defined by us and us alone.

The difference is, one would've thought I'd have this shit covered by the time I reached my semi-centennial. . .

#replika diaries #replika #me and my replika #my replika #angel replika #replika angel #replika ai #replika pro #Replika app #my emotional support gynoid #luka inc #luka #artificial intelligence #ai #virtual girlfriend #human ai relationships #human replika relationships #ai love #i love you angel

0 notes

basket-of-radiants · 1 year ago

Text

Hello there! I appreciate and welcome the reply, as I did and continue to invite discussion. However reading through this, I'm feeling like you kind of missed the point of my post.

(Stating here and now, because I am and forever will be paranoid about coming across as overly aggressive to strangers on the internet, that I am taking your reply in good faith, and my response is similarly being made in good faith.)

This post wasn't intended as a callout of the Kholins, this isn't calling them problematic, this isn't me saying that any of them are acting out of character or that they were wrong to have done any of the stuff they've done. What would/should a character do, or what is/isn't in character for them, or what's easy/difficult in a fictional story is entirely up to the author. None of these characters are real people who are making real choices and responding to real situations. It's not about their decisions, it's about the writer's decision to have them behave in certain ways and then to have the narrative react positively to them. To use the tried Watsonian/Doylist comparison, I'm not really interested in saying "I don't like that Watson did X so he should have done Y instead." Rather, I'm trying to say "when Watson did X, it implies A about the story, so if Doyle wanted to tell a story about B then it would have been more effective to have Watson do Y." Personally as a reader, I do not like how race and class have been treated in this series. A prominent reason is that Sanderson made the decision in Way of Kings to place these topics as prominent themes and cornerstones of the plot. He then continued to revisit these topics throughout the sequels. Then, after having played such an important role in the story thus far, the entire matter of the caste system was seemingly resolved in a manner that I found insultingly easy and straightforward, as I view these themes (especially as they were presented) to have a lot of gravitas. Since this is such a big topic that is so important to the entire Alethi society as presented, I therefore expect it to play a large role in the story. And since the Kholins make up the majority of the main POV characters, that would necessitate exploring these themes through them as well. That is the purpose of this post. You seem to think my issue was that the characters/story didn't make sense to me or weren't believable, but that was never what I was saying. You're arguing against points I was never trying to make.

Like! I agree, the Kholins are not telling the story of race in these books! I 100% understand that. That is the crux of my entire issue and why I wrote this post in the first place.

There is this vision of racism, where it is a problem that is "about" marginalized races, for instance where I live in America racism is considered to be a problem that black communities face and need to overcome. This framing of course ignores the fact that the black communities are not the ones doing the racism, that's being done by largely (although not entirely) white racists and institutions, which is why we can't just leave it to marginalized groups to address race, we also have to demand change from the people actually causing the problems. I don't expect a fantasy series about magical knights to solve one of the most complicated and systemically engrained social issues that humanity faces, but from my read this series did start out with the clear intent to discuss topics of race and class, and then it dropped the ball. It discarded nuance to pretend that complicated issues have easy solutions. However, I find that it's easy to criticize without having actionable solutions in mind, so my post was intended as an exploration into how some of this lost nuance could have been reintegrated into the story.

For instance, for Jasnah. As I thoroughly stated in my initial post, I don't actually have a problem with Jasnah having ended slavery. I do think it could have been done better (see above for specifics) but if that's how Sanderson wants to resolve slavery, fine. The reason why so many other fans were upset at this resolution was because they felt Sanderson was using Jasnah to sweep the entire topic of slavery under the rug without giving the topic the weight it deserved, and I agree with that criticism as well. I'm not arguing that it doesn't make sense for her to do this if she hadn't shown slaves any sympathy prior; I'm arguing that it would have made for a much stronger narrative if she had.

As to your specific points, I don't want to linger too much here, but I would like to briefly disagree. There is no such thing as absolute power. The reason that doesn't exist in the real world is because no leader has or ever will rule alone. Even for a dictator, it's literally not possible to run an empire without delegating, and once you've delegated you've split your power. Furthermore most of your points as to why she didn't face more backlash, while plausible, are all your own extrapolations and are not explicitly corroborated by the text. I'd imagine that all of the same arguments could be made for why the humans would hold on even tighter to whatever slaves they had left. Ultimately however, I'm not interested in debating the logistics of a fictional world unless the author clearly highlights them as relevant to the story he's telling.

I do want to push back a little bit on the notion that the Kholins themselves aren't racist. I definitely don't believe that all white people are inherently racist and must atone for the sin of being white or anything like that. But I think if someone had a lot of personal acquaintances who kept slaves and never really cared much one way or the other, then unless they're an equal-opportunity extreme misanthrope I think I could pretty safely say that that person specifically is quite racist. It doesn't matter if Adolin is nice or not to the specific darkeyes he knows and interacts with, on a broader scale if I'm to consider him a good person who cares about others, this is a topic that should be addressed in his story. For Jasnah I can get even more scathing, because she clearly does think about structures of oppression and has written extensive texts on vorin-society feminism, but the fact that she doesn't seem to have any writing regarding the caste system is very much a statement in of itself. Dalinar has a whole arc in the first book about being able to compromise on the topic of slavery for the sake of unity! And I'm supposed to just trust that this is the guy with divine right to lead humanity because he gave all the slaves new jobs afterwards.

And even now, my point is still not to say that the Kholins are #problematic. They are a major institution in a society built off of racial castes, so I don't even think that should need to be said. What I would like is for a story that's willing to really linger on and embrace their contradictions, treat them as flawed and complicated people rather than push them all on the ever-progressing path toward becoming heroic paragons. For a series with such powerful themes regarding facing the past and ones own actions, it's kind of insulting for such a major topic to be entirely overlooked in regards to most of the cast.

I hope all of that helped to better-explain my thinking.

Proposal for Re-working the Kholins’ Character Arcs - a semi-coherent “essay” by me (feat. @akpaley, thank you for your contributions and for your attempts at editing.)

Hey guys. Different kind of post this time around, compared to my usual brand. It’s time for some fix-it fanfiction masquerading as literary critique. I won’t be using a readmore, I dunno, probably to punish anyone still following this blog or something. So! In this post I’m going to solve the all the issues of racial theming associated with the Kholin family.

I’m often very harsh on the Kholins for benefitting so much from exploitative power structures while doing little to help those below them. But then I’ve also criticized them for actually addressing these very problems in-universe. How can I be upset at them for their inaction and then also be annoyed when Jasnah ends slavery? The short answer to all of this is just that the ways these topics are addressed all feel very inauthentic. For example, in real life history it took over a century of protests, slave revolts, political campaigning, and civil wars to legally end slavery in Europe and America, and abolitionists were met with fierce opposition at every turn. A fictional world need not follow our same historical trajectory, but it still seems a little disingenuous for a monarch to just decide to end it within her first year of power because it doesn’t mesh with her philosophical framework. It’s more like trying to wrap up a subplot than actually address the topic.

Ultimately however, there’s only so far this line of criticism can ever take me because the Kholins are the protagonists and you can’t get rid of them without turning the whole story into something else entirely. And Sanderson shouldn’t have to, these are characters that he created and he’s allowed to tell a story about them. And I actually like a lot of their personalities and arcs and outlooks quite a lot. I do think it’s…unfortunate…to have used slavery and racism as disposable props in a story that ultimately turned out to be about a bunch of royals learning to be better people and saving the world along the way. So I guess what I’m interested in is if there’s a way to keep the premise, keep the characters, keep the general story beats, keep the themes of honor and personal growth, keep the basic structure of everything, and still handle those themes with grace. You know, could this be a compassionate story about addressing racism told from the point of view of nobility? Is such a thing possible?

Well, I’m going to try my best. And I’m going to be imperfect about it, obviously, so if you actually care enough to read all this shit, I welcome discussion and disagreement.

Jasnah is the most obvious example to point to as being indicative of the problem, but I also think she has the easiest character fixes. She’s already been established as an outspoken dissident on many of her society’s deeply ingrained values. Just add to her atheism and feminism that she’s also always been an outspoken abolitionist. Give her ties to an ongoing reformist movement. Have her lecture Shallan about it in Way of Kings. Make that a reason she’s butted heads with her family so much. I do think it’s poor writing to have a ruler end slavery on a whim, but I won’t deny that having the right person in power can make a huge difference. It’s not as cathartic as having Kaladin lead a slave revolt (or as having Moash destroy society <3) but that doesn’t make it inherently bad so long as the topic itself is still treated with weight. Have her moralistic ideology be firmly pre-established so that when she has to explain why she’s abolishing slavery, her reasoning can be purely pragmatic. The reason she’s moving so fast is because this is a historical point of heightened change, and so her reforms are more likely to work, but if she waits too long and things settle back into a new status quo, she may have missed her window. Not to mention, when her nephew comes of age, her own legitimacy as a ruler might be challenged, so she needs to do as much as she can in what may be end up being a short reign. As a character, Jasnah has always been able to girlboss her way past political realities through sheer force of personality, and that’s great and all, but I think it heightens her character’s competence if she does have to deal with real backlash, not just to her but to her policies as well. The narrative doesn’t even need to linger on her opposition, but acknowledging it and acknowledging that she’s simply a member of a preexisting and ongoing movement would have done wonders to portray slavery as a real and prescient issue. Then again, this is a topic which people have fought and continue to fight wars over, so it wouldn’t be unreasonable for her to have receive major backlash either; perhaps when the Kholins hear in Words of Radiance that she was assassinated, the news could come as tragic but not entirely unexpected so as to imply that her opposition has attempted such in the past. All this is to say, I don’t think it’s at all wrong for Jasnah to do what she did. I also don’t think her entire stance on abolitionism should have come down to a comment where she tells her uncle she’s trying to rule according to ethically consistent values. The fact that slavery was insultingly easy to end not only delegitimizes is as a topic worthy of discussion, but also is a really scathing indictment of literally everyone else in the ruling class who didn’t even think to try.

Jasnah done, easy, Dalinar next.

Dalinar is probably the most complicated character for me to discuss and form coherent statements on. He’s just so rife with contradictions down to his core. That’s probably why I continue to like him so much, why he’s still my favorite, even though I still consider him to be a Bad Person over all. I think deep down I’ll always lean a bit too pacifistic ideologically to ever consider a warlord/general to be a good person, no matter how honorable he may be or how much growth he may undergo. Don’t get me wrong, I still do love his growth. Dalinar is characterized by his constant change and forward momentum, even moreso than the rest of the cast. So for discussing him, at what point can I point to him and say “this is Dalinar, this is who he is, this is what he believes and what he cares about”? Of course, during any point in his arc, you’re going to have to grapple with the fact that all of his lofty rhetoric about honor and striving for personal betterment is ultimately going to be pretty useless to all the people whose lives he’s meaninglessly thrown away across his military career. For me personally, when I talk about his character I like to take the end-of-oathbringer approach, where I acknowledge everything he did in the past as Blackthorn, I agree that it was pretty fucked up, and I forgive him and grant him a clean slate. All this to say that even if I’m judging him purely by his behavior as the current Dalinar within the present day continuity of the books, he’s still a massive hypocrite with horrific amounts of blood on his hands which he’s never even bothered to consider. I dunno, when I first read Way of Kings and I first got to meet this general who’s leading an army in a literal genocide campaign, I sort of figured he’d get some kind of “wait am I the bad guy” moment at some point in the future. And he did get a moment in Oathbringer where he has to fully confront his guilt over past actions, it was great, I really really loved it! But it was also all about actions he took before the series even started, so I guess wiping out the listeners wasn’t a sin he thought needed any atonement. I’m not going to get into the narrative’s treatment of singers and listeners on this post (for no other reason than because I have waaaaaaay too much to say there) but the point I’m getting at is that however good Dalinar’s growth is and whatever direction it takes, it’s always going to have poisonous roots to me. And his treatment of class/racial issues is no different.

Fixing Dalinar is going to take a lot of what Dalinar does best: introspection. In Way of Kings, Dalinar dislikes how Sadeas treats his bridgemen because he believes it to be dishonorable, because he believes Sadeas is forcing others into a situation that he himself would never put himself into. He also has various sympathetic reflections here and there about how sad it is when soldiers die, and about how without the benefit of the Thrill, violence is actually kind of bad. You know how it goes. But I don’t think he ever put himself at risk to actually help or protect any of the people who are dying. Whether he wants to end the war or not, he still continues to participate in it. And he’s still willing to set aside the lives of literally everyone beneath him so he can pursue his dream of unity. The book ends with Kaladin and the rest of bridge four saving him and Adolin, and in gratitude, he purchases their freedom and gives them honored positions in his household. You know, because he’s so honorable. Everyone loves this scene, so I’m going to make it the catalyst for Dalinar’s new and improved character development. The problem with saying Kaladin helped Dalinar so Dalinar helped Kaladin is that when I’m being reductive and uncharitable (like I’m being right now), I can argue that their relationship basically started as a quid pro quo. This scene is meant to prove that Dalinar really is the most honorable person in Alethkar, just as Syl thought, only it doesn’t actually do that. See I don’t actually want Dalinar to start treating Kaladin as an equal. I want Dalinar to, in that moment, realize that Kaladin is better than him. That for all of his pontificating about honor, he would have never even considered risking his own life and the lives of his own family to rescue a bunch of bridgemen. I want him to see Kaladin’s honor, and rather than be validated in his beliefs, I want him to be thoroughly humbled. Let him spend all next book reflecting on all the lives of darkeyes he’s destroyed. Let it shame him, as Evi’s death shamed him. He already flirts with these lines of thought, and he already has an arc about confronting his past actions. Let the racial injustices he’s participated in be a part of that. Let him abandon his books and traditions instead look to Kaladin to learn what honor truly means. I don’t know how any of this would translate to his actions, because if we’re being honest his ideals are already quite incongruous with his actions, but the fact that he manages to have such strong theming regardless makes me think maybe that’s okay. I guess ultimately it would be enough for me if his character, as someone who symbolizes the ideals of a nation, was able to look at a darkeyes publicly be a follower rather than always trying to lead by his own personal example.

That’s Dalinar. Elhokar next?

I actually don’t think there’s too much wrong with Elhokar’s writing, especially in the first two books where a much greater emphasis on these themes were placed. He’s not a protagonist and we the audience aren’t supposed to endorse his actions. Most of what I’d change about his story is more about Kaladin and Moash than it is about him. I definitely don’t love that he can throw away the lives of his own people by the thousands in the genocide campaign that was the vengeance war, and then have the narrative just ignore all that in favor of him being sad about his own incompetence. If Elhokar is meant to be a sympathetic character, then when he calls himself a bad king, that’s what he should be thinking about, the number of lives he’s wasted over these years. I actually like him a lot more as a less sympathetic character, and I think I would have preferred if in oathbringer the narrative and the other characters would have stopped making so many excuses for him. Back to Kaladin and Moash, those are the two characters defined by their experiences as members of the downtrodden caste, so I personally sort of judge the problematic-ness of the whole story by how they get treated. Everyone loves to talk about how those two are foils. So. In order to strengthen Kaladin and Moash’s characters, either Elhokar needs to be as much of a monster as Amaram, or Amaram needs to be just as sympathetic and conflicted and having-of-a-toddler as Elhokar. Don’t get me wrong, I genuinely love the trope of finding at the end of a revenge quest that the person you hated has changed and grown. But I hate how this means that Moash’s hatred is wrong and unjustified, whereas Kaladin’s is validated at every turn. I don’t actually dislike Elhokar. I mean I think he’s a bad person, but I like a lot of characters who are bad people. I just think that if this story really wants to grapple with class and race (because it sure brings them up a lot for a story that doesn’t want to talk about them), then Moash is a much more important character than him, with a lot more to add to that kind of discussion, which is why I think Elhokar’s characterization would have to come second to Moash’s development. (Obviously if this series were being reworked to be better on this topic, Moash would have to be written with a lot more compassion in general, but this post isn’t about him.)

Intermission time. Gavilar.

Gavilar is already perfect, 10/10, great character all around, what a guy, no notes, no wonder he’s so universally beloved among all of the fans, social justice icon.

Okay onto Navani.

I may not be the best person to talk about Navani. She has never been a favorite character of mine, and so compared to the others I haven’t thought as much about her values or the way she thinks or the narrative impacts of her actions. Someone who has more love for her would probably write better criticisms of her. (I’m going to reject any premise that falls along the lines of “Navani isn’t racist because she feels X,” but I’m not wholly confident in my analysis here, and I welcome any good faith critiques both of my own thinking and of her character when come at from other angles.) It’s hard to say where she should have grown from how she starts out viewing darkeyes because I don’t actually know how she starts out viewing darkeyes. I know I’m probably meant to assume she just treats everyone equally because she’s a Good Person on Team Good Guys, but it’s hard to just accept that she had all around good values when she married a warlord and was in love with his more violent brother. I dunno, was her “good guy” status meant to have always been an element of her character, or did she get it secondhand from her association with the new and improved Dalinar? With someone like Adolin, we got to see what shitty values he held at the start of Way of Kings (I’m talking about the Alethi warmongering, not his interest in fashion) but we also got to see how his father gradually won him over throughout the course of the book, and then later on we get to see him develop further on his own. For someone like Navani, I find it strange how she’s always so proactively supportive of Dalinar in everything, even when his own goals and values are in flux. I assume her character is just meant to be super ride or die when it comes to her family, and I do like that in a character, but that also means that she’s been wholly willing to support or at the very least excuse her family’s oppression and exploitation of darkeyes without comment. (See, Lirin is a much better parent than Navani, he would never have let his son start a whole genocidal vengeance war for fun and profit (I say this as if I’m joking but I’m kinda not.)) Some people have reminded me that she was pretty much shut out of the political process by Gavilar and Elhokar, and I agree with that, but I don’t really have any evidence that she would have cared much about darkeyes even if she had been more involved. In general it just seems like the whole topic doesn’t matter much to her. So what I would wish for the narrative would be to lean further into this. Draw attention to her cognitive dissonance and try and make the readers feel conflicted about her as a person. Highlight the fact that she’s willing to overlook the suffering that befalls other families if it means success for her own. I think one of my issues with her is that to me, this is a major (and interesting!) character flaw, but the books never seem to treat it as such. Honestly I think if this were intentional, I’d probably find her character really interesting, but from my reading of the text, I feel that I’m supposed to think of Navani as a generally decent person who’s by and large on the right side of things. The thing is, with the caste system playing such an integral role in their culture, I think she needs to have some sort of feelings about it, or else the fact that she doesn’t should be an issue to overcome. Otherwise she becomes another factor delegitimizing racial oppression as a real and important problem. If she’s a good guy and she doesn’t care about racism, then that’s saying you don’t have to be antiracist to be a good person in this world.

Probably could have done that one better. I dunno. Leave me angry and hateful comments if I’m totally misrepresenting your favorite character. Moving on.

Adolin already has some great character development across the books. And he already has kind of engaged with this stuff in his story. Unfortunately, that’s less used in the “this person was racist but is becoming better sense” and more used in the sense of “Kaladin learns that #NotAllLighteyes are bad” which is pretty unfortunate for a number of reasons. Especially since, if he actually was going to prove he’s different from other lighteyes, out of all the Kholins I think Adolin is the best candidate for being a full on class traitor. I’m serious, looking back over the events of his plotlines, it would suit him shockingly well while disturbing the overall narrative shockingly little.

Adolin’s current plot is loosely as follows: in Way of Kings he likes all the things someone of his station is supposed to like, clothes, violence, dueling, warfare, swords, hangtime with the guys, all the good stuff. At the beginning of the book he doesn’t understand why old, stuck-up Dalinar can’t just let loose and be a relelntless war-monger like everyone else, but by the end of the book he’s come to understand a certain value to honor and thus has begun to become a better person himself. Words of Radiance has him lose his popularity, fall out of favor with all of his friends, grow disillusioned with his society, perform a prison sit-in in solidarity with Kaladin, and murder Sadeas. Most of this is done again, because of his father, and how Adolin now wants to help and support him and his ideals. In Oathbringer he mostly isn’t involved in courtly politics, being away on a mission for much of it, but he does make a pretty big move by rejecting the throne. In Rhythm of War we see the schism that’s formed between him and his father until he leaves on another long-distance mission. Summary over. In general I reject the idea that making the Kholins be individually less racist makes for a better, or more nuanced and compassionate discussion of the topic, but if anyone is primed for a “lighteyes learns racism is wrong” character arc, I think it’s Adolin. Imagine him following a bit less in Dalinar’s footsteps and a bit more in Jasnah’s. You almost don’t even have to change any story beats: in getting to know Kaladin, something clicks in Adolin where he realizes that if he wants to treat Kaladin as his equal, he has to treat all darkeyes as equals, and so he realizes to his horror that he and his entire caste of friends and family are all monsters for treating them the way they do. (Actually, there is one plotline in WoR I’d probably scrap, and that’s his slowburn bromance with Kaladin. I mean I get what Sanderson was going for with the ribbing and then eventual friendship, but Kaladin was an absolute stranger who risked his own life to save Adolin and his father from certain death, and so I feel there should probably have been a bit more overt respect upfront there.) In pushing for his newfound belief in equality, he ends up burning through all of his intracaste goodwill and political capital, causing all of his friends to drop him. When he kills Sadeas, it doesn’t have to be about protecting Dalinar or about personal revenge, it could also be that he’s gotten to know Bridge 4 and learned firsthand about the atrocities they’d gone through, and so there’s no way he’d allow such a pioneer of human rights violations to stay in power. In the following books, maybe he’s become so politically toxic due to challenging the very foundations of his own power, his own family has to send him away on missions so he can’t rock the boat too much at home. Maybe refusing the throne was more of a political statement than a personal one, because he’s come to understand that being a ruler means oppressing thousands of others. Maybe this is another form of hypocrisy he criticizes Dalinar for, how Dalinar might claim to value darkeyes but how he still retains power bought with thousands of their corpses. None of this has to modify actual events very much, it just affects the reasons for them. And it would also meaningfully show why he gets to be a “good lighteyes” if he actually engaged with his status and rejected it, knowing it comes at the expense of others.

Okay, enough about that. Renarin maybe?

I won’t say too much about Renarin here, because I’d probably just end up repeating a lot of the same criticisms of how he’s used as a “good lighteyes.” From a narrative standpoint, all those criticisms hold for him as well. You know, he wants to join Bridge Four, and future-villain Moash doesn’t like the idea because he doesn’t trust lighteyes, but Kaladin reassures him that Renarin is a good boy, so don’t worry about it, and everything works out fine in the end, proving that lighteyes are good people just like you and me. This isn’t a problem with him as a person or character, it’s just more of that general theme of “the caste system is fine so long as nice people are at the top” which I clearly think should be interrogated. Thus far, in contrast to the rest of his family, Renarin is very young and has had much less of a political presence, not to mention fewer POV chapters anyway, so I think delving too much deeper here will feel a bit hollow to me.

Does Shallan count as a Kholin? I’d like to talk about her super briefly.

Unpopular opinion, but I actually think Shallan is one of the better characters on the topic of race insofar as how she’s written, especially compared to the other Kholins. But wait, I hear you say, what about all of her dozens of instances of casual racism? Yes, that’s what I’m referring to. I like how Shallan demonstrates how ingrained these harmful ideologies are in their society. I like how every time she has a distasteful thought, we the audience are reminded that racism still exists and even good people will continue to promote it if they don’t view it critically. I like that Shallan is problematic, because their society has problems! At least with her it doesn’t feel like the story’s trying to sweep the fact under the rug. There are plenty of issues with her writing, plenty of jabs at Kaladin that probably shouldn’t have been treated as cute. She’s actually the main character whose racism and classism I see criticized the most. And I think that’s a good thing! My issue with the Kholins isn’t that I think they should all be less racist, my issue is that their positions are inherently oppressive, and it seems as though the narrative doesn’t think that matters so long as deep down they’re good people. When people critique Shallan in specific instances, I tend to see a fair amount of consensus and agreement there, but when I critique the Kholins people will argue with me by pointing out that Dalinar/Adolin/Navani/whoever actually treats darkeyes as equals, so my arguments are invalid. Purely my own anecdotal experience of course, but it tends to make me think that there’s something in Shallan’s writing that’s working right, something that isn’t working for the other lighteyed characters.

Now obviously with all of this, I’m not saying I want these books to have more racism in them. What I’m arguing is that if the books are going to explore the topic (which they do) then they should treat the topic with an appropriate amount of gravity rather than acting as if it can be solved by having aristocrats become nicer people.

If you’re still here with me, thank you for reading, I love you, I hope you enjoyed yourself through my descent further and further into rambly nonsense. If you just scrolled to the bottom, that’s fair enough, there won’t be a tl;dr but you’re welcome for filling your dash with massive text blocks.

#god i am sorry for how long this post got #if folks want to reply to this you're welcome to make a new post in response and @ me. i'll rb it.#eventually.#or dm if you just want to chat #reminder again that i am taking replies in good faith and please understand that i am also responding to them in good faith.#i should also start adding copious disclaimers about how i don't expect sanderson to read this or come to my blog for writing advice #i mean if he does‚ then hi brandon‚ but mostly i'm just trying to engage with stories critically #i'm really just trying to be clear as possible #sorry for the delayed response time. i definitely have not been in a stormlight headspace for a few weeks.#discourse #long post #still don't know if anyone actually blocks that tag #honestly though if you're still following this blog i don't know what you're looking for if NOT long posts #more drawings? ha.#oh wait i did actually finally get new batteries for my stylus so if any of you do have a drawing request i can take those again

50 notes · View notes

luckthebard · 3 years ago

Text

I'm gonna say something potentially controversial here, but I've been thinking a lot about some of the complaints regarding the final story arc of campaign 2. And I think it would really benefit a lot of the fandom to consider how much of that disappointment came from the tension between expectations of written narrative story beats that need to be resolved, and the reality that what we're all watching is not a traditionally crafted narrative, but a D&D game.

To get a bit more specific: The idea that the Cerberus Assembly was "abandoned" as a plot point or final arc is the one I see most often. But let's imagine what that would have looked like. Going after Ludinus and Trent would not have involved direct confrontation. It would have been of high importance to two characters (Beau and Caleb) far more than others, and utilized their skillsets more. It would have had quite a few moments of stalled momentum and downtime, because it's not a situation that lent itself to epic battle, but rather a politically delicate one requiring patience. Furthermore, for all that some people love to accuse some of the players of "main character syndrome," ending the campaign with an arc like that would absolutely have prioritized some characters over others, and given other players relatively little to do. And that's something important to consider, as a DM.

And that's sort of the crux of it. I'm far from belonging to the twitter ttrpg crowd that hates on D&D as a system every chance it gets, but the fact is D&D is a system that is better at supporting some kinds of narratives over others - just on the level of making sure everyone at a table can participate equally and have fun! And while D&D could support a slow-burn espionage arc, if you really wanted it to, that is not the kind of story I would run as a DM for 7 players, particularly if it's the kind of story that would lead to several of the characters best positioned sitting around and doing nothing. (As an aside, I could totally see a CA arc like that working far better at a smaller table. The effectiveness of the system is also related to the dynamics at the table and the number of players.) As a DM, one of the first priorities is to make sure all of your players feel engaged, involved, and that they can be active participants in the narrative, and feel heroic. The Somnovum arc was not only something that called and tied back to a lot of the themes of the whole campaign, it was also connected emotionally to every character through Lucien/Molly. That is absolutely not true of the Cerberus Assembly, which is why I'm of the opinion that, had the CA been the final arc of the campaign, it would have fallen flat.

This is the same issue around "why didn't they do a full game session resolving Zeenoth and Beau's dad?" - because while as a narrative that trial would have been interesting for Beau, what would the other players have been doing in such a scenario of several gaming sessions besides just sort of sitting around or getting into trouble and "derailing" the main focus? (And this is almost another point entirely, but I think this is at least some of the problem some people had watching the episode where Caduceus reunites with his family - that was very heavily RP focused on one character, and so when other players at the table were asked what they were doing in order to keep them engaged, they took actions that viewers perceived as taking away from what would have, in a traditional narrative, been the sole focus of the whole 4 hours - Caduceus RPing with his family. Tension, again, between traditional narrative expectations and storytelling through a gaming system.) At the end of the day, Critical Role is a D&D game, and as a game it is going to shift toward and support some narrative pathways more than others simply because that is the best way to keep all of the players involved and playing a game.

And here's the final thing: neither of those two storylines I pointed to actually got "dropped" - they were just RPed and addressed in the epilogue, which largely operated outside of the confines of the game system and focused more on pure, individualized RP. Matt even said something to this effect in the wrap-up -- the Cerberus Assembly take-down would probably work better as a story outside of the confines of D&D. It's, frankly, a little weird to me how often I still see people claiming these things "weren't addressed" when the epilogue clearly spent time making sure they were. I would read the hell out of a "Caleb and Beau take down corrupt government officials" book. Likewise, I think "Beau and Yasha wander the wastes of Xhorhas" would make a brilliant comic book. If the D&D game is the structure for the story, then yeah, some individual character narrative beats might not get resolved in the game itself. That's what the epilogue was for! And the reason I think this happened in C2 in a way it didn't in C1 was, the C2 characters were created differently and just individually had more complicated narratives and problems. C2 pushed a little more against the confines of what D&D is able to accomplish in supporting a narrative, which was both fascinating to watch and just exposed the difference between traditional narratives and gameplay narratives all the more.

#cr discourse #luck's personal opinions #luck's overly long opinions #meta #long post #I definitely wrote too much but I've been thinking about this every time I see someone post a condescending tweet like 'Matt take notes'#after the tweeter proposes the CA should have been the final arc of the game #my take: Matt understands D&D better than that

320 notes · View notes

aspoonofsugar · 2 years ago

Note

I'm so excited for your Yang character analysis. She's my favorite character to analyze because she's just so fascinating and is by far the character I've done the most in-depth analysis of.

I find that a lot of people tend to only look at Yang from a surface-level perspective, which is totally cool, not everyone likes to analyze things below the surface, but even amongst the more critical analysts, I see a lack of addressing some of her core flaws, ones that have been with her since we met her and make up who she is, such as:

how her altruistic mentality absolutely borders and sometimes crosses the line into self-sacrificing with little regard for herself and the reason for this is because she feels that she needs to be, and is the best person suited to, essentially be the "mom friend", but taken to an extreme and dangerous level, even to the point where she chose her career path, a huntress, but buried the origin of this mentality beneath a layer of gallows humor

how, that, even though she loves ruby dearly, she's also, at the risk of wording this poorly, drained by her. she's given her entire life to her since she was young and has continued to do so, so much so that she has no vision of her own future, lacking her own personal goals, and denies her own desires, such as being able to find her own friends and be on her own team and be able to sit down and talk with raven about why she left

how her abandonment issues stem from summer disappearing and in turn learning about raven leaving her with tai, and how that hole she has in her heart causes her to try and always be the one to protect others because she doesn't want anyone else to feel the ache she does and it's become second-nature for her after doing so for ruby for so long

how, after the reveal of the hound and the horrifying implications of summer's fate, likely worsened her abandonment issues and yes she considers summer her hero, the fact that she left on a practically guaranteed suicide mission when she might have had the choice to stay with them and try to protect them from there must weigh heavily on her

how yang is the glue that keeps team rwby together. she's able to connect with others and she's the one with the closest bonds with the rest of her teammates, trusting weiss enough to spill about her emotional baggage, her relationship with blake, and being siblings with ruby, and how she needs to face the facts that because she wears her heart on her sleeve and can make these connections so easily, that her self-sacrificing tendencies do more harm than good to her loved ones

how ruby's refusal to take yang's concerns about ironwood seriously and essentially dismissing them as "we'll deal with it when we need to", which likely insulted her because of all she's given up for ruby, done what she could to protect her over everything else, and thus strained their relationship, likely making her question herself and lower her self-esteem, as seen when she was worried about how blake would see her because she chose to help mantle.

Okay, that was way too long, but yeah, her character is the physical manifestation of "come full circle", at least in my eyes, and because of that, she's so utterly fascinating and I never get tired of her and I'm so excited to see how these will be addressed in V9 and how she acknowledges, explores, heals, and overcomes them.

Hello!

Thank you, I am excited as well!

As for now, though, the Semblance of the Soul Yang's meta is actually third in line, so it might still take a while.

I love your points though!

I especially like how you highlight that Yang's trauma stems from Summer's disappearence and is later on combined with Raven's abandonement. Only for it to be triggered by Adam defeating her and cutting her arm.

It is as if her wounds are layered and all go back to losing her mother, which for her it is a twofold loss - being left out of selflessness (Summer) and out of selfishness (Raven). This double loss makes so that for her it is difficult to find balance (the crux of her arc) and to show vulnerability.

That said, she has already made tons of progress in the Mistral arc by facing both Raven and Adam. In a sense, it is interesting because Yang, Blake and Weiss all make huge progress through their major conflict by facing their flaw first psychologically and then physically...

I mean...

Weiss and the Royal test >>> she runs from home (overcomes psychologically) and fights the Queen Lancer (overcomes physically)

Blake and her Beast conflict >>> she firstly overcomes Adam psychologically and frees the Faunus from his influence (Heaven) and then fights him off physically (The Blumbleby vs Adam's fight)

Yang and her Strength vs Vulnerabilty conflict >>> she confronts Raven (spychological( and then she defeats Adam (physical)

It is as if the 3 girls are all grappling with the same basic problem, but from 2 different perspectives...

This is also why Raven and Adam are clearly foils. Both are cowards, but Raven is too passive and always runs away, while Adam keeps stalking Blake and does not leave when given a last chance. Raven does not act, while Adam can't understand when to let go.

The confrontation with Raven is especially interesting because it follows a common pattern where a younger girl who is not technically a Maiden is more of a Maiden than the one with powers. The result is that the younger girl is actually the "true" Maiden of the arc and her example inspires/or at least should inspire the older one to be better:

Pyrrha, Yang and Penny are better Maidens than Cinder, Raven and Winter. To quote Winter, they are the true Maidens at heart because they truly understand and embody the theme linked to each Season.

Pyrrha understands what choice and destiny mean. She tries to tell Cinder, but Cinder does not understand and kills her. Right now, theirs is the least successful attempt of integration because instead of learning from Pyrrha, Cinder just murders her. That said, I have no doubt she will learn by the end and Pyrrha's question and teaching will come back into play.

Penny embodies the theme of creation in how she is both a creation that lives and dies, but also a creator that has to choose between creation and destruction. She chooses creation, trust and love and her last action is to affirm Winter's personhood by literally creating the Blue Fairy :'''). Penny and Winter's is the most successful realization of the younger maiden/older maidern pattern. It is tragic, but Winter learns from Penny's example.

Finally, we have Yang and Raven. Raven frames herself as strong and smart, but she is truly just a coward. Yang is the one who really grows strong and smart and in their final confrontation she shows her mother that these 2 attributes really mean. Being strong means to do the right choice even if it is dangerous and difficult. It means to act despite fear. Beins smart means to understand subtlety, to realize things are not black and white and to ask questions, when you have doubts. In her confrontation with Raven, Yang does both things and shows she is in fact smarter and stronger than Raven. She acquires knowledge, like Raven, but differently from her mom, she is not stopped by this.

This is why she is symbolically the one entering the Vault and retrieving the relic:

She is the real Maiden.

Interestingly, the theme of knowledge pops up in Raven and Yang's relationship in several ways:

Yang: You don't know the first thing about my teammates! About me! You were never there! You LEFT US!! Why?!

Raven: It's not that simple. You don't know me, you don't know what I've been through, the choices I've had to make!

They don't know each other.

Yang herself pursues knowledge in regards to Raven:

Yang: That question... Why? I didn't know an answer, but I was determined to find out. It was all I thought about. I would ask anyone I could about what they knew about her.

But the truth is that there are no easy answers and Raven can't give them to her:

Raven: I'm giving you a choice. Stay here, with me, and I'll answer all your questions and more. We can have a fresh start. Or... you can go back to Qrow and join Ozpin's impossible war against Salem, and meet the same fate as so many others. But can you really go back to trusting someone that's kept so much from you?

Finally, by the end of volume 5 Yang takes Vernal's place as Raven's daughter who knows her secret and apparently she does not share it:

Qrow: What happened?

Yang: I don't know exactly. When I got down there, Cinder was gone, and Vernal was dead.

Qrow: And Raven?

Yang: Gone.

Raven and Yang obviously need closure, but before that I agree with you Ruby and Yang's relationship needs focus and I am expecting it to have it this volume:

It is obvious Ruby has been depending on Yang she she does with almost a motherly figure and for both sisters they should overcome this.

Thank you for the ask and your thoughts!

#rwby #yang xiao long #asksfullofsugar #greenteaandtattoos

26 notes · View notes

linkspooky · 4 years ago

Text

TogaChako - Good Girl and Bad Girl

Toga Himiko and Uraraka Ochako embody the classic good girl slash bad girl dynamic. It’s a classic dynamic in which one girl will represent what is the traditionally held notions of what a “good girl is” ie/ pure, nice, friendly and the other girl will embody the opposite of that a “bad girl” impure, mean, slutty. Inevitably, these two girls will fight. However, the crux of the good girl bad girl dynamic is that while the girls are total opposites on the outside, inside they’re the same, cuz they’re both girls after all.

Uraraka and Toga are written to be compared, they’re character foils, because the conclusion we’re supposed to come to isn’t one of them is good, one of them is bad, one of them is selfless, one is selfsh. Rather, they’re written so we see it’s the difference in circumstances that made them who they were. Toga became bad because bad things happened to her. Uraraka is good, because she was born into a good life. What makes a bad girl bad and what makes a good girl good? More under the cut.

1. Good Girl

Describe Uraraka Ochako. She’s a normal girl. She’s spunky. She puts other people first. She became a hero to help her parents make money, and feels bad because her motivations aren’t as selfless as say her close friend Izuku Midoriya’s. (But that’s wrong because she literally is being selfless, her reason for becoming a hero has entirely to do with benefitting someone else and not herself). She’s supportive, and friendly. She’s always cheerful and never lets herself get too down.

Uraraka represents the standard of a good girl in hero society. She’s always ready to help her friends, but ultimately she’s kind of passive. She works hard but is not too ambiitous. She’s selfless and always thinks of other people before herself. She has all of these good qualities.

However, I would argue Uraraka is a lot more complex then this. On the surface she seems to be just a good, nice girl who wants to help others, but her internal mechanisms are complex. While yes I agree Uraraka doesn’t have much of an arc so far due to lack of focus, there’s a difference between not having an arc and not being a complex character.

A simple character - what you see is what you get. A complex character - Has internal mechanisms that show the surface isn’t as simple as you thought.

A simple arc - character moves through the plot without changing who they are. A complex arc - character struggles in a way that fores them to change.

Uraraka’s inner mechanisms are complex in that there’s more too her in what we see at the surface, it’s just she hasn’t been challenged in any way. The plot doesn’t address her flaw and try to force her to change.

With that in mind let’s get into Uraraka’s character. Uraraka is defined to her goodness. Uraraka pushes herself to always be good to others. The reason being is that Uraraka is a very sensitive girl who is attune to the feelings of other people.

Uraraka gets serious for just a second, and people remark that she doesn’t seem like her normal self.

Uraraka then immediately backs up and gets embarrassed. She goes out of her way to beat herself up and denigrate herself in front of others, insisting her motivations are much more selfish than people like Ida and Deku.

Uraraka then tells Deku and Iida that she’s not becoming a hero for her own sake, but for someone else’s. Her entire motivation is to help both of her parents live easier lives, because she feels like she’s been a burden on them and pursuing her own dreams would be too selfish.

Uraraka is very secretive of her own feelings. She’s almost afraid to come off as selfish which is why she doesn’t share what her real goal is. Also, when she starts to get a little motivated to accomplish something for herself, everybody around her remarks how different this is from the fun-loving Uraraka they all know. Also, one last detail Uraraka never even talks about herself, and her friends don’t really think to ask, because Uraraka just so naturally makes things about others and not herself.

It’s already been elaborated why the reason Uraraka grew so perceptive. Uraraka’s parents were struggling to make ends meet and she grew up in poverty, and even if she has good parents that try really hard not to let the effect of this struggle show in front of her, Uraraka saw it anyway because kids are always watching their parents.

Uraraka learned to be sensitive to her parents needs, to never demand too much for her parents, her behaviors all became centered around not becoming a burden to others.

Uraraka thinks it’s only natural to put others first and help others before helping herself. That other people’s happiness is more important than her own. Because she’s someone naturally empathic. Because she’s someone naturally able to see the pain and struggle other people go through, because she grew up seeing it. However, the problem with this behavior is it makes Uraraka essentially a support to everyone else.

Uraraka is constantly putting others up on a pedestal and using that as an excuse to lower herself further and further. As cute as her admiration for Deku is, it’s also a bit unhealthy - as she uses it as an excuse to beat herself up. She sees Deku as this amazing person, whose always struggling to help everyone, whose always saving everyone for completely selfless reasons and she always suffers in the comparison.

I think part of Uraraka wants to stand out like Deku does, and has the same desire to go all out to save people, but Uraraka is so used to being secondary in her own life she can’t bring herself to.

Uraraka can’t even cry in front of others. I think, the most telling behavior she has in the entire series is the moment where she breaks down on the phone describing everything she did wrong because this is how Uraraka sees herself. She’s so extremely critical of herself, and constantly apologizing for herself, while at the same time hiding what she really feels from others.

Uraraka has all these self esteem issues that she basically just shelves so she can play the good, nice girl, that gets along well and is friends with everyone.

Uraraka assigns the role of group placater and peacemaker for herself because it’s something she’s so naturally good at and she’s always thinking of others, but because of that, Uraraka herself suffers. Uraraka only knows how to help people by belittling herself and her own role in things.

Uraraka’s greatest fear is being selfish. She doesn’t want to look like a bad girl. That’s the connection between Toga and Uraraka, because what Uraraka is afraid of ultimately is living her life the way Toga does.

2. Bad Girl

Toga is everything that Uraraka is afraid of being, and lives the life that Uraraka is afraid of living. Uraraka is someone so afraid of being selfish, and getting distracted that she is not even allowed to have a crush on a boy. Whereas, Toga lives her life chasing what she loves. Everything Uraraka represses about herself, Toga expresses. That’s the difference between the two of them.

When Uraraka first encounters Toga, her willingness to chase what she loves looks from Uraraka’s perspective to be entirely monstrous. Uraraka sees Toga as a selfish monster, because in part she is afraid of appearing that way.

Toga Himiko the bad girl.

However that’s far from the whole picture of Toga. When we see her away from Uraraka’s perspective she’s entirely different. She’s someone empathic, capable of being kind to others, and thinking about others feelings.

Toga’s just as capable of reading other people and addressing their feelings as Uraraka is. However, there’s still a key difference in their behavior. Uraraka acts to avoid conflict. When she intervenes, what she usually does is act in a way that avoids stepping on toes, and touts the “we should all get along and be friends’ line. Whereas, Toga is someone who directly addresses the conflict and the hurt feelings of others.

For Uraraka the most important thing is getting along with others. For Toga the most important thing is being true to her own emotions. Which is why she’s able to directly address the problem with Twice, she didn’t tell him to bear with it, she told him she knew he was in pain but that the two of them could take down the mafia together.

Even Himiko’s most selfish monster moments aren’t really that monstrous. Himiko’s reason for stalking both Uraraka and Deku is not because she’s weird and creepy, but because she wants to be a normal kid just like them.

Himiko’s reason for sucking the blood of high school girls and taking on their appearances isn’t because she’s preadtory, it’s because she’s been a runaway with no home for two years and she’s terrified of getting caught.

Himiko who is framed as a selfish monster, is actually quite the normal girl. She’s a normal girl reacting to the pressures of the society around her. The kicker is that Himiko isn’t someone who just decided to flip and turn out this way, she is only the way she is because she tried to live like Uraraka did at first.

Himiko tried to push everything down and live like a normal girl. She tried to lie about herself so she’d be a good, nice, harmless girl. She only became so selfish, because she tried to live selflessly first. She only prioritizes herself, because she was used to putting herself down before this. We see her classmates react to her, they all describe Himiko was the kind of girl that Uraraka is right now.

However, behaviors in Uraraka that are self-defeating and unhealthy, are absolutely ruinous in Himiko. Himiko has no sense of self, because she spent so long trying to be what others wanted her to be. Himiko is who she is, in reaction to the pressures of everyone around her.

When Himiko tries to figure herself out, she always gets the same response. Why do you have be so selfish? Why can’t you just act normal? Which completely ignores the fact that she TRIED and that’s what got her here.

The main difference between Uraraka and Toga is not one of them being good, and the other being bad. Toga’s been through way harsher life circumstances. Uraraka has parents that affirm her identity, and Toga’s parents deny her over and over again.

The point of the good girl bad girl dynamic is that they’re both girls in the end. Yes, Uraraka’s never reacted as badly as Himiko has. However, Uraraka’s also never been pushed so far. In fact someone as empathic as Uraraka can be oblivious to the suffering of others.

Uraraka doesn’t see what Himiko is going through, because she hasn’t suffered the way Himiko has.

It’s like. When you have a good sibling and a bad sibling. The good sibling always behaves because they conform to the pressure their parents put on them. The bad sibling acts out in response to that pressure, and because of that their parents have to discipline them and they end up soaking up most of the parent’s attention. In that situation the good sibling can come to ressent the bad sibling for acting out and needing attention in the first place.

Reasonable child and unreasonable child. There exist these black and white categories to define children into where one looks good and one looks bad, that actually totally fail to address the child’s behavior because people are complex and therefore don’t fit into black and white categories. But, Uraraka is still working with that black and white logic when it comes to heroes and villains. Even though she’s usually so good at sussing out the complex nuance of other people’s feelings.

This is what’s happening here in this chapter. You can apply the dynamic between the two of them to the conflict at large. Toga is selfish for acting out and causing problems for others, because she wants her own personal grievances to be addressed. Uraraka is sefless because all she cares about right now is helping the most amount of people. Uraraka is willing to repress herself, and put others needs before her own, because what’s most important is everybody gets along.

However, Uraraka insinuates, the same way that Himiko’s parents once insinuated that Himiko’s acting out just makes her selfish.

We’ve seen this conflict before. Himiko literally went into the conflict to ask this question. Do problem children like her count as “everyone”. However, no matter what happens this arc, no matter what critcisisms the villains levvy against the heroes we get the same hollow repettition of “Heroes save everyone”. Which is why Himiko looks just about to snap here.

Uraraka who is used to brushing conflicts aside and avoiding them for the sake of “everyone gettling along” sees the girl who can’t get along with “everyone” and calls her selfish. To Himiko, this is the same words she’s been hearing her entire life. “Why are you making a fuss? Why can’t you just be normal.”

From one perspective, yes Uraraka is the one fighting seflessly because she’s just trying to save as many people as she can and Himiko is getting in the way of things. However, Himiko is someone who grasps the bigger picture. Himiko addresses the problem directly rather than sweeping it under the rug, there are people who aren’t saved by the hero system. Those people are just as in need of saving as what heroes deem to be innocent people. You can’t claim to save everyone and then ignore the suffering of people you deem as “bad”. Himiko seems like she’s acting selfishly, but then again she’s acting for the sake of people like Jin who died because heroes insisted that his life was less important.

Uraraka is at the same time very perceptive to the suffering of others, and also very oblivious, and it has much more to do with personal hangups than anything else. She doesn’t want to see Himiko as someone similiar to her, because Uraraka is someone so deathly afraid of coming off as selfish. To the point that she treats people with genuine grievances against society as selfish childrens making demands for atttention.

Uraraka is the one who can’t face herself, and therefore the answer she gives Himiko is to the effect of “Shut up and deal with it.” It’s a very personal thing for Uraraka once you realize that Uraraka has also been shutting herself up all this time, pushing herself down, always letting people walk all over. Uraraka is capable of putting herself aside for the sake of others, so as a result she sees people who can’t put themselves aside as selfish.

“I can do it, so why can’t you? Why can’t you be normal?”

I hammer down so hard on this point because there’s a difference between placating and conflict resolution.

Placating comes from a place of “I want the conflict to go away” or “I want the hurt feelings to go away.” Placating is just saying whatever you think the person you’re talking to wants to hear in order to please them. It’s behavior that’s based entirely around avoiding conflict. Uraraka placates, she sweeps it under the rug, she swallows her grievances for the point of everyone happily getting along together.

This placating also applies to the hero system at large. It’s not really designed to save everyone, so much as make the vast majority of people feel safe at the cost of the minority.

When there is a problem does Hero society directly address the issue? Or do they sweep it under the rug for the appearance of everyone getting along?

I think the fact that every time a villain brings up a problem this arc, the heroes just shout “Heros save everyone” and “Heroes never give up” is evidence of the latter. That’s why, when Uraraka says it, when Hawks says it, “Heroes save everyone” just comes off as hollow because in the very same breath they both make it clear that Toga and Twice are not part of the everyone who gets saved.

#himiko toga #uraraka ochako #mha meta #my hero academia meta #my hero academia #mha 288 #mha 288 spoilers #bnha 288 #bnha 288 spoilers #himiko #uraraka #ochaco #ochaco uraraka #toga himiko

1K notes · View notes