#that you entirely conflate the two groups

[ardentperfidy]

.

[etz-ashashiyot]

Hi, I saw your post about Jewish indigeneity and as a non-Jewish, non-indigenous person, have a genuine question that I hope you will take in good faith. At what point of conflict and violence do we say that being indigenous to a region does not actually confer land rights? I understand that having land stolen is a travesty and a part of genocide, and I don't mean to be dismissive. But at some level of conflict and violence, is it not healthier for individals to learn to love the place they are at, the people around them, and the new culture they can build together? I think there are ways to do that which are not assimilationist. And I think the ongoing suffering in war cannot be justified by mere land claims. I am presenting this to you hoping you can help me understand your view better, especially if you disagree with me. What am I missing? Thank you for considering my questions.

I'm gonna be honest: the fact that this is coming from a blank blog makes me far less likely to want to answer it, especially because I haven't been on tumblr as much lately and thus don't know if this is a copypasta ask.

Who are you? Have you read my pinned post? Have you read the many, many sources in it?

I am going to give you extremely truncated answers, but understand that you have a lot of reading to do that is not possible to summarize in an answer to a tumblr ask. (Edit: this got a lot longer than I expected, but I stand by my words that these are truncated, incomplete answers. You need to read several books to actually develop a reasonable understanding of this.)

At what point of conflict and violence do we say that being indigenous to a region does not actually confer land rights?

Never. What you are asking here conflates two separate concerns: (1) the rights of an indigenous group to the land they are indigenous to, and (2) the ethical responsibilities said indigenous group has towards other human beings, in particular those who also live on that land. People don't lose their indegeneity and thus their ties to the land by being bad people. "Indigenous" is not an indicator of moral purity or uprightness. It means that they have deep cultural, historical, and (often) religious roots in a particular land that cannot be severed without totally destroying the group as such.

Eretz Yisrael will always be the homeland of the Jewish people regardless of whether we have control over it or not, whether we have a sovereign nation there or not, whether we are permitted to live there or even visit there or not. All of our religious and cultural practices tie back to eretz Yisrael, even ones that have been adapted to the diaspora. Religiously observant Jews pray facing Jerusalem three times a day, our liturgy is infused with references to the land, the Temple in Jerusalem, the redemption (of the people to the land) and/or specific attributes of the land. Our sacred texts occur in and make constant reference to the land and our observance of the mitzvot and how that relates to the land. (A ton of the religious laws we are given are land-based because it developed as an agricultural religion, and a huge number of the rest are related to the Temple in Jerusalem.) We have three pilgrimage festivals that pre- forced diaspora, all Jews would make back to Jerusalem to make specific sacrifices. We still observe these festivals in ways adapted to the diaspora, but you need to understand that the essential condition of diasporic Jewry is one of constant longing to return to the land. We observe these things today to keep the knowledge alive so that someday, future generations of Jews can use that knowledge in eretz Yisrael. Jews are of that land and can never be severed from it without becoming something entirely different.

Now. Does that give us a right to act with total impunity? Absolutely not. We still have moral obligations to our fellow human beings that we have to observe no matter what. That is true of all peoples everywhere, indigenous or not.

But the idea that you can "punish" an indigenous group by severing their roots is to say that total cultural annihilation is a valid punishment ever, which is genocidal rhetoric.

I understand that having land stolen is a travesty and a part of genocide, and I don't mean to be dismissive.

You answered your own question here, don't you see? Reread what you wrote here, as many times as you need to, until you get it.

But at some level of conflict and violence, is it not healthier for individals to learn to love the place they are at, the people around them, and the new culture they can build together?

You need to read some Jewish history.

If you are asking this question about Israel, and in particular the Israel / Palestine conflict, you need to read more Jewish history.

"....to learn to love the place they are at" Jews in the diaspora tried this. Please read this list.

"...the people around them" Do you think that Jews were expelled, pogrommed, and genocided multiple times across numerous locations because we didn't "love the people around us" enough? For real? Read about the Kielce Pogrom and get back to me on that.

"...the new culture they can build together" Ah. I see. Yes this is the thing:

We don't fucking need a new culture. We have been fighting to practice the culture we already have in peace for thousands of years.

I think there are ways to do that which are not assimilationist.

Well. You're wrong. You are one in a long long long long long long long long long long long line of gentiles who think that "Jews can just..." and (1) you're wrong; read what the Nazis did to ethnic Jews who converted to Christianity, the history of "new Christians"/conversos/etc. but also even if that were guaranteed to work (2) why should we have to change our culture instead of other people not trying to kill us for it?

And I think the ongoing suffering in war cannot be justified by mere land claims.

This war is not about land claims though; not really. Hamas wants every Jew dead. That is why they started this war. They have promised a new October 7th every day until the whole land is entirely judenfrei. Of course there are reasonable Palestinians with legitimate policy objectives, but that's not who's driving this war, and the ones in Gaza who speak up about it tend to get abducted or have their families disappeared and are tortured until they escape, die, or are silenced.

Are there legitimate things to be discussed about Israel's approach in this war and/or in general? Sure. But this isn't "mere land claims." This is about the safety, lives, and self-determination of half the global Jewish population, the vast majority of whom are only there in the first place because they themselves or their parents/grandparents/great-grandparents fled (or were forcibly relocated) there as refugees of genocide. Israel is the only remaining place in the world for certain smaller Jewish sub-ethnicities. If Israel is destroyed, so much will be lost. And, we will be back to being subjects of the whims of hostile foreign powers who have proven again and again that they will just periodically expel or murder lots of us when it is politically useful for them to do so.

That is what is at stake for us.

The fact that you think that our connection to the land is "mere land claims" and not an existential part of our identity says volumes by itself, but the fact that you don't know what is actually at stake for us says even more. It tells me that you have a lot of reading to do.

What am I missing?

Empathy. History. Context.

Read People Love Dead Jews - I think it will help you understand more of these issues. There are other helpful sources in my pinned post too.

[weirdmageddon]

i posted this on twitter also but it’s still eating at me. i’m so fucking embarrassed to be jewish rn. i dont want to be associated with this ongoing bullshit from israel. why do we need our own state. theyre just making every jew across the globe look bad in general even though many of us are conflicted about zionism and the legitimacy of israel as a state

people have hated jews throughout history for no fuckin reason but now israel exists but now its like. GIVING people reasons to hate us as a group. note that i DON’T conflate zionism with jewishness, but a lot of people in the world don’t know the difference because theyre uninformed and been dripfed cultural antisemitic tropes their whole life and that’s the scary part is them falsely putting two and two together. like what the fuck israel stop youre just putting fuel on the fire for people around the world to hate an entire group of historically persecuted people if youre being this shitty with your insane colonialism and apartheid like……I Want No Fuckin Part Of This. you’re spelling our own doom. you cant just swoop in and go “mine now” and then oppress the people you took land from under a regime without my blood boiling at the injustice no matter WHO you are. even if my lineage is tied to you. so when news outlets support israel it doesn’t feel like they have the best interest of jews as a people in mind. it’s in the interest of a zionist ethnostate and whatever that christian zionism belief is about the jewish people returning to the holy land as prerequisite for the second coming of jesus. its not like they care about us as a dispersed ethnocultural group, it’s all for that religious narrative that a bunch of people in the US are backing.

saying you want all jews to die is antisemitic. beating someone up because they’re jewish and no other reason without knowing their views is antisemitic. criticizing human rights violations perpetrated by israel and the belief that one group deserves more rights another is not antisemitic. and the fact that israel has the ability to pull that antisemitism card in response to criticisms of the violations they commit because their state is the “jewish homeland” drives me fucking insane. take fucking accountability for your actions. and yes, there do exist full-on anti-jewish groups in the middle east that go beyond hatred of israel’s policies and existence as a state and i’m tired of people pretending there aren’t in fear of appearing to seem like they support the state of israel. on the other side of things many people overestimate this by fearmongering and saying EVERY arab is out to get jews worldwide, telling people like me “they want YOU dead”. this is not the belief every person in the middle east and it really rubs me the wrong way that people group millions of individuals into all-encompassing lumps like this. many people there do understand nuance of this political situation.

even if i have that “right of return” by israeli law or whatever, i don’t feel obliged to it; it does not register as fair. why do i have a “right of return” when i’ve never even been there in the first place while palestinians who have homes there can’t return to them? what’s the basis for that? substituting objective reality with an imaginary reality? i don’t think like that. i can hypothetically come and go whenever i please but palestinians are severely limited in mobility? what makes me more entitled to that land than the people who lived there for centuries? nothing that comes from natural law thats for sure. it’s all artificial and inflated.

but at the same time i also dont want to be the target of antisemitism and caught in the fray just for being ethnically jewish. once people start calling for the genocide of entire groups we’ve got issues (and you better believe this absolutely applies to the palestinian victims in gaza too), because people who dissent to the violence perpetrated by the loudest are caught in there with the people who are perpetrating the violence. lack of nuance. people conflating israel and its zionist apartheid policies with jewish ethnicity and culture worldwide. other people conflating being terrorist anti-jew with muslims worldwide (like that 6-year old palestinian-american boy that was just stabbed to death in chicago). scary times man. but as a jew i can’t just opt out of this if it’s how i was born as. i don’t have control over that. but i can control what i think and what my beliefs are

[timdrakemybeloved]

rant time:

people LOVE sirius black, and they don’t even know it. they want their faves to be sirius black so fucking bad, but their faves just aren’t, so what do they do? they give all of sirius’ complex, sometimes bad, sometimes good, extremely iconic and well known character traits to their faves, and make sirius one dimensional. meanwhile canon is right there proving them wrong, and their faves are a knock off sirius black, and canon sirius just does it better 🤷🏾‍♀️. they hate him so bad bc their faves could never.

like they make barty crouch jr and that evan rosier dude impulsive and sometimes cruel copy pastes of sirius in “slytherin skittle” fanon, even though we have like two seconds of canon from rosier and everything we know about barty is from insane circumstances. we know nothing about rosier, and we only know that barty is good at dada, kind of a competent teacher, insane and devoted to the dark lord. the entire time we know barty, he’s literally pretending to be someone else. and he’s succeeding, so much so that dumbledore, who knew moody for forever didn’t realize.

they makes regulus a heroic champion for disenfranchised groups even though he literally does not give a fuck. he didn’t care until his house elf was harmed. and they make sirius a bad guy for not rescuing regulus like hello?? sirius rescued himself. it was not his responsibility to rescue regulus. if regulus wanted to be rescued so damn bad, maybe he should have done it himself. they make regulus a scapegoat in the black family as if he wasn’t the perfect son who believed in their bigoted beliefs and swore as a death eater willingly… like if you want a rebel, someone who was disowned for their beliefs SIRIUS IS RIGHT THERE. and andromeda now that i think about it.

they make sirius short and dramatic and twinky and one dimensional and dumb so remus can be a tall genius who pulls people left and right. meanwhile, sirius got all o’s while putting in zero effort his entire time at school, he’s tall and charming and he’s an extremely complex character. oh and REMUS IS SHOWN READING A BOOK ONE TIME. how does that make him a genius. sirius is in fact one of the least one dimensional characters in the entire series, one of the few people with a nuanced view on dark and light, good and bad, death eater and non death eater, slytherin and non slytherin. and he teaches harry that, he tells him how the world isn’t divided into good people and death eaters, he tells him how everyone has good and bad in them and the only thing that matters is your actions. i firmly believe that if sirius found out about harry almost sorting slytherin, he would not have been phased.

they make sirius conflate harry with james, when that’s literally not true. he lashed out when harry wouldn’t agree to meet in gof, because harry cared more about sirius’ safety than sirius did, because sirius needed to help harry. and the “nice one, james” isn’t even canon to me, or canon in the books. but his priority, always, is harry’s safety and happiness. just because molly weasley wants to hide information from harry, that he’ll later find out anyway in horrible ways from people who use it against him, doesn’t mean sirius is a bad parent. just because molly thinks hiding information from harry will signal to voldemort that harry is a child and shouldn’t be attacked, doesn’t mean sirius is a bad parent.

sirius is actually the best parent for harry, because he understands that whatever harry wants, harry will be a target. harry needs information to keep him safe. i mean, see what happens when people don’t tell harry that the dark lord wants something in the department of mysteries and would try and trick him there! sirius is VERY vocal about harry not being reckless, and harry listens to him! when he send a note not to be reckless, harry thinks snidely about sirius’ hypocrisy and then does exactly what sirius asks, like a normal teenager. this is the balance needed to be an effective parent to a child like harry potter. and you know who DOES conflate harry and james, even though they’re two very different people with very different pasts? SNAPE.

and what is it with people giving harry a third parent, and it’s like…. regulus, who they erase lily for. they erase james too bc in what world would james go for a death eater? he has SUCH rigid beliefs, to the point of harming people for being death eaters in school. or it’s remus, who doesn’t give a fuck about harry, and doesn’t even remotely have a relationship with him. he gives up chances to be in harry’s life constantly, and he’s not at all reliable or a constant figure in harry’s life. or it’s fucking snape, who verbally abused harry for the entire series… like do y’all really think the dark lord was monitering snape and crucio-ing him if he sees signs of snape being a neutral teacher? snape’s actions towards harry (and neville actually) are reprehensible and entirely his responsibility, not some act to satisfy voldemort.

and sirius is right there!! harry trusts him, harry loves him, harry VIEWS HIM AS A PARENT, and those factors literally aren’t there for any other adult in the series. sirius was there for harry the second he could be, and he reached out over and over to make sure harry knew he could come to him, and you know what? harry did come to him. when harry had a dream of voldemort and his scar was hurting, when harry was entered into the triwizard tournament, sirius did so much for harry and never complained because he loved him and he was devoted to harry.

and sirius has a fuck ton of flaws too! he has ptsd and anger issues, he lashes out at harry when he wants harry to meet (because he values harry’s safety far over his own, while harry doesn’t), he hurts people intentionally, he hates kreacher (not because he’s a house elf, but because of his actions, and sirius’s trauma), he can be reckless, he doesn’t give a shit about legality, like he’s a flawed dude. but some things he’s not are an unmitigated asshole to children, a bigot, or an irresponsible parent.

[hiiragi7]

Purple and Yellow-Colored Transness - An Intersex Trans View of Transition

It is strongly my opinion that an intersex lens is fundamentally necessary to understand transness, as much as race, disability, class, & culture is.

Yet, much of the time, when intersex is applied to transness it is used as a fetishization - and use without consent of the used is abuse. (Audre Lorde, Uses of the Erotic)

Our perisex trans siblings so often use us as a tool for pornography, as an object to shove insecurities and pain and desire onto, as a temporary escape from dysphoria and thought, as an imagined excuse to supposedly avoid oppression. Afterwards, we are discarded, much like an object that has fulfilled its purpose.

Intersex people do not exist for the purpose of abuse, incestual or otherwise. Intersex is power, intersex is love, intersex is experience.

As a group so deeply harmed and betrayed by our perisex trans siblings, it is no wonder why so many of us reject any lens which suggests there is intersexuality to be found in transness - I doubt that many of us have ever seen what it may look like outside of as an abuse of our bodies, our identities.

And yet, I cannot help but feel that there is an inherent intersexness to be found in transness. Rather than rejecting this, erasing this, I feel it is absolutely necessary to embrace without conflating or fetishizing this. This is not to say, however, that we are one in the same; in fact, within our differences is where I find a lot of our power lies. It is our ability to share experiences without using one another which is vital.

I struggle with this feeling, knowing so much more work must be done, knowing it cannot be fully expressed yet.

When my trans sibling is excited over newly developing traits we now both share, I would love to partake in that joy not only as trans joy but a joy of intersex traits as well. When sex characteristics I have been shamed for my entire life for having naturally becomes something which another person not only seeks out but actively falls in love with as it happens, is this truly only trans love? Is it not also an intersex love?

And yet, at the same time, I find myself choosing my words carefully; I fear they will be stolen from me, used as a weapon against myself and my community. We are still made so fetishized, so invisible, so abused, even amongst siblings. Because of this, I fear the answer to my question is that we are not yet at a point where trans love is an intersex love, but rather what I am seeing is a trans love of traits detached from any intersexuality at all. Even in cases where our bodies may look so similar, you don't see all of me - You only know me as trans, never intersex. You only know my variant sex characteristics as something possible through transition or pornography, and have erased any mention of me in them.

I see my trans self reflected in my intersex self, and my intersex self reflected in my trans self. My body no longer produces its own hormones; I get mine from a clinic that provides gender affirming care for trans people, the same place where just two days ago I had to spend time educating a nurse who learned the word intersex for the first time that day because of me. The surgeries which I both have gotten and will get in the future are both as trans as they are intersex. The letters from my doctors to appease insurance say I am transitioning and that this is a requirement for treatment of gender dysphoria, some of my medical papers say I am intersex and seeking a urethral reconstruction. Both of these hold truth to them.

There are intersex people and trans people who share scars in the exact same places, from procedures which were similar, but were done for different reasons. One grieves where the other celebrates. One tells a story of their identity being stolen from them, one tells a story of finally being able to be themselves. In some cases, both of these are the same people at different points in time in their life.

[utilitycaster]

different anon, but the "theist DNI" ask was hilarious to me because I am still reeling from the post and especially OP going "the gods aren't really gods (because they're not omnipotent but just really powerful)" in it and then in the replies doubling down on the standpoint of "gods aren't real" - apparently just over the bank, basically conflating real world and Exandria in one fell swoop with this Universal Truth(tm) - because of course they can't produce any analysis of worth. they refuse to engage with basic tenets of the setting that do not fit their particular worldview. it really time and again comes back to people being unable to engage with religious concepts beyond a very superficial and milque-toast "Christianity evil, actually"

Yeah, this is true for like...a lot of the people claiming Campaign 3 is Great and we are all Not Leftist nor Intellectual Enough nor Capable of Parsing Black and White Morality; they say that and then they make and reblog posts with messages like "well you see the Good Brown People who were Colonized will Always be radicalized solely in the name of their own liberation haha don't look at any historical events from the last century", and in the end I do think it is all mostly in the name of trying to support the conclusion that killing the gods is definitely the right answer, and trying to work backwards from there to make the text fit.

I really didn't address the point that their arguments about the gods not being "real gods" were absolutely nonsensical (pro-tip: in a media analysis you can't just reference other works of fiction nor, if any of these ignoramuses did, literary and/or political theory, without actually analyzing them and drawing comparisons in the service of a thesis; "gods in this work are different than the gods in Exandria" is not actually a meaningful statement given that it's like yes Runescape and Exandria are two entirely different settings, things are different) but as always, follow the thread and the implications and you'll find the problems: so if the problem is that the gods are powerful but not all powerful, or don't admit they're not all powerful...does that mean they're ok? If they had given Ashton and Imogen what they wanted, would that mean that killing the titans and Aeor was totally fine? Is your argument that the gods are a colonizing force because they are from outside of Exandria and because they (with the people of Exandria) killed the titans (but the people of Exandria are ok for doing this for reasons of [crickets]) or is your argument that they are a colonizing force bc they didn't kiss your blorbo so sweetly on the head and tell them everything they were doing was good and correct? Because this really is leaning towards the latter. It is, again, an individual grievance falsely claimed to be a system of oppression.

And that's really the key. We are looking at a party with a lot of valid personal traumas, but virtually nothing in the way of in-world systemic oppression, and I do not think it is a coincidence that this party has a unique appeal for a group of people who are overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly from financially stable upbringings, overwhelmingly from wealthy Western countries, and overwhelmingly people who were raised Christian, left the religion, became some kind of dullard nihilist who labors under the misapprehension that this makes them leftist, and really, really fucking hate being reminded that they are not, in fact, remotely close to being Christianity's greatest victims. It has a unique appeal for people who are obsessed with painting themselves as powerless to enact change - who, as I said in earlier tags and also like a billion posts dating back to at least early 2023, fetishize and glorify a lack of agency - because then haha you can't blame them! they can't do anything! I think they're REALLY mad, actually, that one of the most prominent critiques of Campaign 3 has become "this indecision and inaction and endless waffling is actually insufferable" because that drives a spike through the idea that you can evade judgment through doing nothing, despite this being like, one of the most basic ethical concepts. And again just as I don't think the CR cast is doing THAT message on purpose any more so than a (horrendously flawed to the point of failure) anticolonialism message, I just think that the mismatch of plot and character and the multitude of issues in the execution have unintentionally presented themselves in this manner.

Anyway yeah this inability to consider the idea that maybe Bells Hells have a wildly limited viewpoint and so do you is superficial, it's self-obsessed, and it's so goddamn banal.

[c-h4nn]

i want to ask if you have trusted sources on the Mohican people?

Sure! The name "Mohican" is thought to stem from confusion on the part of James Fenimore Cooper and his book The Last of the Mohicans. Historically, there was the Mahican (Mohican) tribe of New York and the Mohegan tribe of Connecticut (2 entirely separate tribes), which were likely conflated in the book and during its reception. "Mahican" is more common in historical references. "Mohican" is used more often today.

The Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians does use Mohican, which should be respected. I must emphasize that the Mohegan Tribe is, again, entirely separate. I will also stress that there was never a "last of the Mohicans" - these two Tribes have persevered and have active communities today.

The Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians already has quite a bit of historical and cultural information available on their website. Always refer to them first, if possible.

Language resources: 1 2

Here are four textbooks, if you're really invested: 1 2 3 4

Some information about the Seven Years' War (the French and Indian War).

Hendrick Aupaumut's Letter to the New York State Legislature.

Some of the history behind the Last of the Mohicans. Don't use Cooper's book as a reference, though.

The Stockbridge Mohicans/Indians: 1 2

Besides the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians' website, there is little other cultural and spiritual information available. With caution, I suggest referring to the neighboring related Algonquian tribes for that, such as the Lenape. But do take care to not generalize groups and blend them like Cooper did. Natives are not a monolith.

I will also urge you to research the broader context of colonial settlement, westward expansion, and Indigenous displacement during this period, as well as the role of Christian missionaries/preachers and praying towns, wars and colonial policies (e.g., the Indian Proclamation), and tribal relations. There are many nuanced reasons as to why the Stockbridge-Munsee Community is presently located in Wisconsin and not New York.

The first image is of a Stockbridge Indian revolutionary. The last three are of Etow Oh Koam, a Mohican diplomat and one of the four Indian Kings. (The other three were Mohawk.)

[meimi-haneoka]

Clear Card Trivia 4 ~ The most ancient Magicians of Europe, the Magic Association and their role in Clear Card

Welcome back to my corner focused on eviscerating all the thematics, hidden messages, trivia, aspects of Cardcaptor Sakura Clear Card!!

We're at the 4th "episode" of this series (you can find the previous ones under the #clear card trivia hashtag) and this time around the tone of the thematic will change a little bit. We get into a darker corner. Yes, because when it was time to decide for the next thematic I would delve into, I felt it was finally time to address everything concerning The Magic Association and Akiho's clan, the so-called Most Ancient Magicians of Europe.

I've been feeling the need to delve into these two "entities" appearing in Clear Card for long time and for several reasons. One of those is that there are still so many people out there who tend to conflate the two and confuse "who did what". It's time we dot the i's and cross the t's on who's who. And rest assured I made sure to mention every single thing we know (and don't know) about them. For this reason, the post is a bit long, but I wanted to make it as comprehensive as possible.

Moreover, these two groups of people hide a very deep and important role inside Clear Card's story. Despite representing the darkest, most horrible part of this arc (I'd daresay if we have to find a villain in CCS at all costs, we have quite found them), I can see and appreciate a lot the social commentary CLAMP made through them.

If you're curious to know what this social commentary is and read in one place everything we know about these magicians, just follow me under the cut!

The Magic Association of England

Let's start with them. The first mention we have of the "Magic Association of England" (in Japanese イギリスの魔法協会 or they've been called 魔術師協会 - Magicians association - too ) is in volume 4, chapter 15, when Eriol over the phone reveals their existence to Syaoran, and even correctly speculates that Yuna D. Kaito might be one of their members.

Basically, the Magic Association of England is a congregation of powerful magicians (not necessarily related by blood) who associate together for their mutual personal benefit. Their headquarters are, of course, in England.

They are recognizable in the story by their long black robe with purple lining and a headpiece that covers their heads and faces entirely, shaped vaguely like the head of a dragon.

It seems like they are organized according to a hierarchy, for two reasons: some of them wear an additional layer of clothing on their shoulders, as a way to indicate a "higher rank" of magicians (they're probably the oldest ones, or the ones who run the entire thing), but they also assign "titles" to their magicians basing on their level of magic - Kaito is basically the strongest (while not being part of the higher hierarchy, because he doesn't wear the additional piece of clothing) and he's been assigned the title of "D". That's what the "D" in his (fake) name means, nothing else. We can assume there are magicians of rank C, B and A too, in this Association. They even seem to have a collective magic circle, as we can see in more than one scene, but more clearly in chapter 79:

As Eriol implies very early in chapter 15 (and as we will have plenty of opportunities to see with our own eyes), their activities are shady at best and criminal at worst (that's why Eriol replies to an unaware Syaoran "Your clan probably hasn't mentioned them to you yet, because of the plenty bad rumors about them").

It also seems like they constantly try to recruit new members and actively look for powerful magicians to add to their ranks. Like they did with little Kaito, reaching him at the unknown location he was living in (beware, this is often a point of confusion but the men with the caucasian-like headpieces we see in the flashback are not part of the Magic Association. It is just a "circle of people" where little Kaito lived for a period after being separated by his parents.)

Not only that, but in order to achieve their main goal, they also seem to form "alliances" with other influential parties. This is apparently done for the common goal of broadening the Association, their authority and influence in the magic world, as stated by little Kaito himself in volume 13, chapter 60. Although, little Kaito also says that they won't think twice in betraying those alliances as they see fit, and it seems to be customary because the boy says that it's guaranteed to happen.

And "alliance" is the type of relationship that connects them to the next subjects of this post.

The Most Ancient Magicians of Europe

The "Most Ancient Magicians of Europe" (in Japanese 欧州最古の魔術師達) get introduced for the first time in volume 6, chapter 25. Yet, the very first mention of a "clan" Akiho belonged to appears as early as volume 5, chapter 21, when Akiho explains to Kaito she recognized the robe passed down in her clan in the vision she had unwittingly shared with Sakura.

Their ceremonial outfit is composed by a white robe with a light blue cloak hemmed in yellow, just like the removable headpiece covering entirely one's face when pulled up. They also have a collective magic circle identifying the magicians part of the Clan:

As opposed to the Magic Association, this clan is a big family of magicians, all related by blood. They do not seem to have a common last name they go by, like the Li Clan does for example. This gives an inkling about their very broad reach. Although the ones closest to Akiho seem to have their headquarters in England just like the Association, the name suggests that their scope and/or presence might be spanning all over Europe. The family is so big that Lilie basically married one of her distant relatives, part of the same clan.

In this regard, I have to make a very important clarification about a translation mistake in the ENG localization that affects concretely the plot. This mistake made it to the printed volumes.

As you can see here, the ENG translation basically makes a Clan member state that they have the same blood as Clow Reed. We all know that Clow Reed was born from an English father and a Chinese mother and since in this scene the Clan is talking about their rivalry with the Li clan, it is almost automatic to assume that they are the Reed Family.

This is a very egregious translation mistake, as the correct translation is the version that the scanlation group RhapsodyInBlue uploaded back in the day:

A "They are of Clow Reed lineage" (as the Li's indeed are) turned into "For the blood of Clow Reed", giving birth to quite a big misunderstanding.

This clan has never been officially confirmed to have any blood ties with Clow Reed.

Any indication in that sense is pure speculation and fan theories. I know "it's the official English translation that says so!" but unfortunately this is not the first and definitely not even the last translation mistake that affects severely the understanding of the plot.

The only thing we know for certain about the Most Ancient Magicians in Europe (I'll call them "Squid Clan" going forward, cause this is a common nickname I've been using forever in fandom) is that they hold a grudge against Clow for unknown reasons (they wouldn't be the first ones) and consequently they are constantly competing with the Li Clan (blood relatives of Clow) for who is more powerful and influential between their Clans. Although we don't know if it's mutual, this rivalry is nothing recent, as it was already there when Akiho and Syaoran were born, and it's certainly part of the cause that pushed the Squid Clan to turn Akiho into an artifact (to compete with Syaoran of the Li Clan). Syaoran is very well aware of who they are, as he's the one recognizing the robe in Sakura's dream in volume 10, chapter 46.

Another thing that I wish to point out is that, although fandom spaces sometimes call this Clan as "Shinomoto Clan" or even arbitrarily call Lilie as "Lilie Shinomoto", none of this has been hinted at or even confirmed in canon. In fact, the sticker with a phrase from Lilie that is being given out at the CLAMP Exhibition held in this period in Tokyo, indicates her name as just "Lilie", not "Lilie Shinomoto", while all the other characters are fully featured with their first and last name. As it's been revealed in chapter 80, Akiho uses an alias in everyday's life, following a common practice in magic clans. So it's very likely that the entire name "Akiho Shinomoto" is an alias and "Shinomoto" got nothing to do with the Clan Akiho was born in at all.

When they were still alive, Akiho's mother and father were the most powerful magicians in that Clan, with dreamseer Lilie being the top magician. And as we can hear from her own words, the Squid Clan's collective goal is to put their hands on the magic of the entire world and on any means to operate it. That is particularly evident in the purpose for which they have turned Akiho into an artifact. It is also what seemingly steers their interest when it comes to marrying off their members: feelings and happiness of the parties concerned are of no importance, all that matters is how profitable that union will be for the Clan in terms of power. That's why they were thrilled to know Lilie and her husband decided to marry, but then considered it a failure and said they should've never let them meet when they lost their life in an accident and all they left to the Clan was a magicless little Akiho.

Kaito and the Magic Association

Next, let's review how both of these groups affected the other characters.

The Magic Association approached little Kaito in the community he was living in (unknown location) when he was very little, asking him "to help them out". They had certainly sensed his astounding powers for someone so young and saw an opportunity to make their Association grow. Little Kaito didn't particularly want to help them out (or do something for someone else, for that matter), but due to his already problematic growth process and emerging child depression (from what we can see in the flashback, he was seemingly feared and kept at arm's length by the people of that community, so he was already growing up in solitude - I wouldn't exclude they were the ones calling the Association to have him taken away), he didn't even feel strongly against the idea, so he just decided to accept.

What followed were years where Kaito kept growing up in solitude despite being surrounded by so many adults, fending for himself, feeding on anything that was edible enough (Lilie will find him eating a Calorie Mate for lunch), without a shred of love, care or emotional education, simply used as a tool and exploited for his strong magic powers. The boy had the opportunity to train and develop his powers even further, quickly becoming unrivalled in magic battles.

Along the story, Eriol (in a short chapter) came into possession of secret documents about Kaito's life in the Association (the sheets bring the Association mark) and he said that they included his "spectacular war records". What exactly he meant with that term isn't clear, but it's legit to assume that the Association might had young Kaito fight against other magicians (we don't know the extent of the violence of those fights).

Kaito's impressive performances in magic earned him the title of "D" in the Magic Association, the highest title that can be bestowed on a magician in their environment, and he was allowed to attend the Association's meetings with the higher members of the council. During a "character exposition" moment, Eriol reveals that the request that the Association made to Kaito the most was to use time magic for their benefit. This, well knowing the effects that time magic has on the caster. They had a young boy performing that dangerous magic, shaving off his own life span, while they continued undisturbed and unaffected.

Note that in all the flashbacks we saw of Kaito in the Association, we never saw him taking initiatives in their activities, but just merely following passively the orders he received. From his bored behavior we can see in volume 7 chapter 31, he wasn't particularly keen in attending their meetings either. Even the abomination the Association did on Akiho, he never took any part in it, he was merely informed at "fait accompli" (this might be harder to get for how they translated this in the ENG version, but in the flashback in Japanese the Association talks in past tense, as something that had already happened).

From all the hints and scenes we can see of young Kaito in the Association, up to the conversation he had with Lilie and the multiple warnings he gave her about their intentions, my idea is that Kaito wasn't aligning with their wicked morals and felt uncomfortable among them, that's why he strived to be left alone as much as possible, but as they were the only adults he could cling to, and with an already crippled self-esteem, he didn't even have enough willpower to leave that place forever.

Until Akiho came into the picture.

When both Kaito and Akiho were two little children, the Squid Clan requested to the Association to have their most powerful magician "checking up" on little Akiho at a distance for any trace of magic power in her body.

This is the incident that basically started everything: Kaito said with honesty that the girl had no powers, "just like a blank book", with the hope that her Clan would kick her out and let her live a normal life. Sadly, some years later, that same comment had been taken literally by Akiho's blood relatives and gave birth to a very sick plan for Akiho's purpose in the Clan.

Despite seeking his assistance due to his massive magic powers, the Association was at the same time very wary of Kaito. His unbothered and disinterested behavior might also be the reason why the Association and the Squid Clan didn't trust him and decided to engrave the "Seal of D" on him when he offered himself to escort Akiho in her travels around the world, unknowingly seeking for magic to write on her body (I'll talk about this whole matter in the next paragraph).

The "Seal of D" is a magic of "confinement" that works only on magicians with a title of "D". It's easy to imagine why this thing exists in the first place: magicians with such enormous magic powers are convenient but also pose a threat to the authority of the Association, especially considering how there's no sense of comradery and loyalty in this group of people, and they're ready to betray anyone at any moment. The "Seal of D" works as some kind of "trap" that is triggered by the undesired behavior of the magician (in this case, they had programmed it as "should the magician tamper with the magic artifact in any way, activate the Seal of D on him"). Young Kaito had no qualms about accepting to let them engrave it on himself, because at that point he already had a rampant self-loathing and probably the guilt of what he realized he had contributed to cause was already wrecking his mental state. They even had the nerve to ask him "Do you understand what it entails?", as if shaking the responsibility off themselves. Of course he didn't know. He didn't have a complete idea of what he would have to sacrifice, at that time.

Following Kaito's refusal to return Akiho to their abusers (roughly around 1 year prior the events of Clear Card), they excommunicated him officially from the Magic Association and started persecuting both of them. In volume 7, chapter 33, we saw one of those attempts at attacking them to take Akiho back, promptly repelled by Kaito in secret to not let Akiho notice anything. It is easy to guess there had been other attempts in the past. This is also very likely the reason why for Kaito it was absolutely vital to live in Eriol's ex-mansion once they arrived in Japan, as the house was naturally a perfect place to store and protect magic artifacts.

When Kaito exchanged the artifact implanted in Akiho's body with his own pocket watch, the Seal of D and everything that happened afterwards was triggered automatically, sealing Kaito away in a hidden dimension where time was destroyed, stripping him of his humanity and caging him in the form of a dragon, unable to talk, to move or use his magic. Any attempt to free him would trigger an endless stream of magic attacks, like Sakura and Syaoran had the displeasure to realize later.

One peculiar thing that I'd like to remark and that contributes to emphasize even more how despicable those magicians were, is that when Eriol started investigating to understand who Yuna D. Kaito was, with the help of the Li Clan he found out that the "official version" of why Kaito was excommunicated from the Association was that he had "lost" an important taboo artifact that shouldn't have been removed from its premises for no reason. Furthermore, rumors over rumors said he didn't "lose it", he actually ran away with it. All of this is of course a lie spread to make Kaito look like a delinquent who stole the magic artifact (Akiho), when in fact they were the ones willingly sending Akiho away. It is very likely they were the ones spreading this misinformation to both make Kaito look like a criminal but also to not lose face in front of the magic world.

Kaito's permanence in the Magic Association worsened exponentially an already precarious situation with his growth, exacerbating his low self-esteem, denying him a childhood where he could know the warmth and comfort of love, exploiting his magic powers at his own expense, while not meeting any resistance from him, reacting to this abuse with a concerning "apathy" as some sort of self-defense mechanism, for something he could not comprehend entirely yet, and so he could not effectively consent to it. It is a kind of "silent abuse", where they didn't use violence on him (at least not for what it was shown and not till he was still living with them), but still wrecked him on the inside in ways that are not visible to the eye, and it will probably take years and years to heal. Akiho alludes to those scars in volume 6, chapter 29, when she confides to Sakura her fear that Kaito might be suffering in silence from scars "invisible to the eye".

Because of this, his relationship with other people and the way he goes about pretty much anything might appear particularly troublesome and hard to understand. He definitely doesn't react to things as someone with a healthy upbringing. His abuse and exploitation has been explicitly mentioned by Mokona sensei in a Twitter Space, so even if it's pretty evident once you carefully read the chapters of his backstory, it's confirmed even on the author side.

Akiho and the Most Ancient Magicians of Europe

Cosmos, whom we've known as "Akiho Shinomoto" in the story, was born into the clan of the Most Ancient Magicians of Europe as a result of the love and union between Lilie and her husband, both part of the same clan and respectively first and second strongest magicians in that family. It is immediately horrifying the realization, along the story, that Akiho's abusers are people of her own family, tied to her by blood.

But let's proceed in order.

As soon as the accident that killed Lilie and her husband happened, the Clan took care of their only surviving daughter.

Ever since the first panels of Akiho's backstory, the Clan members are shown having great expectations about what kind of magic she would develop, as everyone else in that family had done till that moment. When they heard about Lilie and her beloved's engagement, they were already fantasizing about what incredible powers their offspring would have. That's all they ever cared about. At the "ripe old age" of about 1-2 years, the baby girl was expected to show some signs of magic as soon as she started walking, but she had none. It is roughly in this period that they had Yuna D. Kaito, from the Magic Association, evaluate her at a distance. Even though the boy declared she had no trace of powers, they seemingly decided to wait and see.

But by the time the girl turned 6/7, when she was old enough to read books, still no fragment of magic appeared in her. That was, for the clan, something unacceptable. And the beginning of Akiho's tribulations.

It was in this moment that they started to compare her to Syaoran, of the Li Clan in Hong Kong, and the concern with her non-existent powers began to look more and more like an obsession. They actually started seeing her as a stain on their Clan's pride. Suddenly, the focus was all on how they could surpass the other rival Clan, and Akiho was isolated, left in the grip of loneliness. A magicless member of the family was a member who didn't even deserve being talked to. An interrogatory, at most. They didn't really care if the little girl wanted to socialize, if she wanted to play, if she was the only young person in that Clan, missing her parents who died so early on. All the questions Akiho stubbornly made them about her parents were sistematically ignored, save for one little detail that she was able to snatch from them, probably out of exhaustion: that both her parents loved mint chocolate. It was an apparently insignificant detail, which for Akiho became everything she knew about her parents, and the only "proof" she had of her connection to them. She was also denied any picture of mom and dad, probably considering her unworthy of them.

In the short story n. 2, Akiho tells Kaito that her Clan denied her even plushies. Even if she asked for some, they would tell her "if you've got time to play, then you've got time to read". In this sense, it is a miracle that Momo managed to stay, via the guise of a plushie, by Akiho's side throughout her childhood.

The girl grew up, and the situation stayed the same, or rather, it worsened. The members of the Clan became more and more cruel, calling her “worthless”, “useless” right to her face, in one scene they even doubted she could really be the daughter of her powerful parents. They kept making all kinds of attempts and experiments to see if she would develop any powers. As Akiho herself told Kaito in volume 13, chapter 60, she remembered how they'd repeat countless times how unfortunate it was that Lilie, a dreamseer, wasn't able to foresee her own demise, and that if all they would leave behind was such a worthless, magicless child, then they should've never let the magician and her husband meet. Basically, declaring in front of Akiho that it would have been better if she had never been born at all.

This was the moment where they completely went out of their mind and remembered Kaito's comment on her: if she was "like a blank book", they would make sure to turn her into one.

With the collaboration of the Magic Association, they executed a magic ritual to turn a human being into a magic artifact, engraving a magic tool inside Akiho's body (the infamous book that we will see in its entirety in volume 16, chapter 79. Note, this is DIFFERENT from the white Book of Time guarded by Momo that Akiho carries with her everywhere). We never saw entirely the scene of the crime, but the few flashbacks CLAMP depicted are horrifying enough: Akiho floated over an altar, seemingly tied to it by a chain made of pearls around her ankle. She was completely surrounded by members of the Clan and the Association, and we could even spot both the Clan's and Association's magic circles hovering over and under her. In a particular scene, we saw Sakura in Akiho's place, and she seemed to be suffering. Probably what Akiho herself went through during the real thing. After the successful completion of the procedure, it seems the magicians burned the book they took this taboo ritual from, as a way to have the exclusitivity of the artifact for themselves.

The ritual didn't come without a price though, even for those who executed it. The magicians discussed the toll that such a taboo ritual would take on them, but since their greed was stronger than anything else, they still considered it worth the loss. When the Association's higher members informed Kaito of the successful experiment (and bragged about how magnificent it was), they also mentioned the price they had to pay: several members of both the Clan and the Association lost some magic spells and rituals forever.

It is to be noted that Akiho doesn't seem to have any recollection of this ritual and what happened during it, nor she's ever aware that she carries a magic artifact in herself, so it's pretty much legit to assume they've put her to sleep throughout it. Or....the trauma caused her some memory loss.

Either way, from that moment onwards, Akiho was just considered "an artifact" created and owned by both the Clan and the Magic Association, for their own consumption. The plan was to make little Akiho travel the world to hoard all the magic she could absorb from several grimoires, as that was less risky (in their sick mind) than bringing all the grimoires to her. And in chapter 80, we saw the amount of grimoires that Akiho had unwittingly engraved on herself along the years.

As if this wasn’t horrifying enough, the spell hoarding all the grimoires progressively tried to crush her soul and conscience, until it would get destroyed completely. So when the artifact would've reached its limit, it would've been the death of Akiho as a human being. Only a shell of her would remain. And judging by what was said by Kaito in volume 8, chapter 35, they actually hoped for her to lose her consciousness completely, so they could make use of her more easily.

As we all know, that's when Kaito decided to step up and change the course of his and Akiho's lives forever, offering himself to accompany her in the travel they planned for her.

Just like in Kaito's case, rehashing Akiho’s past in the Clan is important to understand her personality and behavior fully. CLAMP, in the Clear Card manga, have portrayed the story of her past in a very peculiar way: it starts as any other fairytale, with light tones and cute designs. But as the story progresses, and the horror ensues, the tone of the tale changes, and so the drawing style too. It becomes serious, darker and “realistic” (as opposed to the initial cutesy style). What started as a possible generic fairytale, turned into a real nightmare.

Mokona sensei described Akiho as having "nerves of steel" in a Clamp Space, and that certainly helped the girl surviving her childhood in her Clan. Yet, certain things will simply wreck you up inside, willing or not. And in the flashback of volume 6, chapter 25, we could see little Akiho struggling to comfort herself with the fantasy stories she would read to keep herself company. Despite wanting to enjoy them and smile, tears of loneliness still cut through her eyes. The mental abuse the Clan inflicted on Akiho showed its effects throughout the manga, with various moments where the girl's optimistic and cheerful nature would crack at the memory of what she had to endure while she lived with her relatives. Her apologetic behavior, constantly seeking for validation, is another symptom of that trauma. All of this, ignoring that her abuse didn't stop at mere verbal one. Because what they engraved into her with that ritual crosses any boundary and trespasses into physical abuse too. This is truly the most horrific part of Clear Card and it's no surprise that's been received by the fandom with criticism and concern while the serialization was going on.

Yet, I think the fact CLAMP wanted to introduce and depict the abuse these two magic groups perpetrated *in Cardcaptor Sakura*, of all stories, totally makes sense and in the next paragraph I will hopefully explain why.

How Sakura Was Affected By Them

Now that we have eviscerated both the Magic Association and the Squids Clan in every possible aspect, it's time to look at what CLAMP tried to depict through their presence in the story and what kind of role they have in the journey of self-understanding and growth for the main character Sakura Kinomoto. None of this is possible without taking in consideration all that I've explained above. ☝️

Truthfully, the Association + the Clan touched and affected (or we should say wrecked) Kaito and Akiho the most, directing their dangerous attentions towards Sakura only a couple of times. But they were very important for her growth too, since they represented the first "taste" of what awaits her as one of the most powerful magicians out there, and they led her to make the most important decision she's ever made till that moment.

After all, Eriol said it loud and clear. Powerful magicians are naturally drawn to Sakura, since she is a powerful magician herself. And Sakura was meant to meet all the magicians she encountered throughout her story.

The first point of "contact" with these two groups of criminals happened in volume 6, chapter 27, in the infamous scene of Fujitaka's library. The strong energy present in that place (capable to protect Clow Reed's book and the guardians) triggered the artifact inside Akiho, opening it (almost) completely. It was heartbreaking to watch Akiho push Sakura away with the last crumble of consciousness left in her, seemingly to protect her, before the Clan and the Association took control of her body through the artifact and started commenting on Sakura's powers. Several members of the two groups, both male and female voices, took turns in talking through Akiho, almost as if they possessed her. A scene that, if they'll decide to keep it in the anime adaptation, will be creepy at horror movie levels. Of course this is another one of those details that was completely lost in the English translation, as they didn't keep the difference in fonts that you can see in the Japanese one, hence you don't understand that it's not Akiho speaking, but most importantly there are several people speaking through her. I think what's most disturbing of this depiction is how it conveys perfectly how much they consider Akiho a property. A property they can exploit and literally manipulate and make use of as they please.

As soon as the Clan and the Association realized who Sakura was (till that moment she was very likely shielded by that protective spell that Eriol and Kaho applied on the girl, the same that Momo and Kaito had to see through to find her), they immediately tried to absorb her power into Akiho. That, as I've pointed out earlier on, would've instantly meant the death of Akiho's soul, as her "capacity" was almost full by the time she reached Tomoeda. This attempt will be foiled by Kaito through time rewind at his own expense, but the criminals will try again in volume 7, chapter 34, when Sakura used her magic in stopped time. This triggered Akiho's artifact again, and this time they successfully managed to trap Sakura into the big book that emerged beneath Akiho's feet (the same scene we saw afterwards in chapter 70, once the artifact passed to Kaito). Once she was inside the book implanted in Akiho, thanks to her intuitive powers Sakura was able to see a flashback of the moment when Akiho was turned into a magic artifact, living it (and suffering it) from Akiho's point of view. Even this attempt to absorb Sakura's power was foiled by Kaito once again, with a time rewind.

In chapter 46 Syaoran mentioned the existence of the Clan to Sakura after seeing their robe in her dream. Other than that, Sakura won't come in direct contact with them again till the end of the story (the attacks at the fake moon were triggered automatically and they didn't have a direct intervention from the Squids/Association), but I'm pretty sure that once she regained all the memories of the un-rewritten world (including the memories erased by the time-rewinds, as we can see in some scenes featured in the "film strips"), she had already pretty much connected all the dots, hence why she proposed to Kaito and Akiho to erase their existence from the memories "of those people".

At the moment of the climax in chapter 78/79, Sakura finds herself in a situation where she starts to grasp that behind Akiho, the real Akiho, and this guy she doesn't remember but who's Akiho's most important person, there are people who want to hurt those two. She doesn't know much, just what Akiho told her in bits and pieces throughout the story, but that's already enough for her to come to a very important conclusion (and decision).

The conclusion that in front of straight-up cruelty, she can't compromise, she can't keep being the good little girl who tries to be everybody's friend. Cruelty is inexcusable in Sakura's eyes, as it should be. All the more if the ones being hurt are those who are important to her.

Sakura finally learns with her very own eyes that in this world there isn't only the love, protection and comfort she grew up in, but there's wickedness and evil too. That such cruelty isn't a "far away thing" but it can actually hurt people very, very close to her. Of course, CLAMP calibrated on the target audience the depictions of such cruelty and Sakura's involvement with it, never crossing certain lines. The culmination of this realization is Sakura's decision to erase the existence of her friends from their abusers' memories, saying "What I'm about to do is probably not right, but I can't be on everyone's side". I thought that was one of the most powerful, most empowering messages that CLAMP hammered in our brains with Clear Card's finale. Our Sakura isn't a perfect, spotless angel. Within reason, she will stain her moral record a little bit, if it's necessary to protect the people important to her.

And here it's the right moment to introduce the symbology of the Magic Association and the Clan in this story. This is strictly connected to why Sakura made that decision, and why CLAMP decided to not have Sakura confronting the magicians directly.

A Message of Hope Through Social Commentary

Long time ago I had a very interesting discussion with a Japanese CCS fan on Twitter. This fan was wondering why the two groups seemed so important, like the source of all the problems behind this arc, yet they kept being depicted with their cloaks and headpieces pulled up, effectively hiding their identities from the readers' eyes. And the fan had found a very valid reason for it.

One of Ohkawa's private Twitter Spaces pretty much confirmed it for me, later on. Back then the topic was "prejudice" and chatting away, she ended up discussing a bit about CCS and particularly about Kaito's behavior in the chapters that were being serialized at the time. Her message between the lines was clearly "I know you think of him in a certain way right now, but don't let your better judgement be consumed by prejudice. When this story will be over, try to reconsider his behavior". The whole Space was centered on her effort in everyday's life to not let prejudice rule her decisions and assessment of situations.

With Clear Card's story over, I can finally attest that it truly was a story where CLAMP constantly tested our prejudices, time and time again. Not only with Kaito, but with Syaoran and other characters too. And the Japanese fan I was mentioning above explained that in their idea, the reason why CLAMP kept the Squids and Association's faces hidden the whole time was to prevent us from applying a prejudice over them too.

Their appearances don't matter. They can become distracting. This story isn't about them. It doesn't matter what skin color they have, if they're tall or short, if their hair is blonde or dark. We barely know they are located in England, we don't even have a name to call them with. Inside this story, all we need to know about them and focus on are their intentions and actions. Their actions are what define them and what we should be judging them for.

And that's when I realized the "no faces" approach also allowed for CLAMP to turn these two groups of people into a symbolic representation of abusive systems. Thanks to the fact that they're faceless, the readers can literally see in them whatever they can relate to basing on their own experiences: abusive families, exploitative working environments, but also modern society on a larger scale. Never doubt for one moment that CLAMP aren't still doing social commentary in their latest works, even after all these years.

Particularly, in this story Akiho's family is "just" a magic clan, but on a metaphorical level they are the representation of abusive families that burden children with expectations that destroy them psychologically. Think about how strong this metaphor is: "the spell that's been activated on Akiho by her clan will suffocate her soul until it gets destroyed completely, making her easier to manipulate" which is like saying "the family loads the children with lots of expectations, so much that they end up losing their identity, becoming 'puppets' of their family members". Some time ago I've read of a disabled Japanese fan who saw themselves in Akiho's character. Her lack of powers and the way she was treated by her family reminded the fan of their own disability, and what they had to endure everyday due to society's expectations and ableism. They were grateful to CLAMP for introducing a character like Akiho, with a story like hers, and for showing that Sakura and all the Tomoeda kids accepted her and loved her for who she was.

In this way, it becomes clear that the Squids and the Association are representative of systems and concepts that are just too big for a little child to fight against on their own. And that's indeed what happened in this story to Sakura (and Akiho) too. Those magicians are ruthless, organized in big groups and magically very strong. There's no way an eventual fight would've been on equal footing for her, no matter how strong she is. She's just a 13 years old girl, she shouldn't be taking on herself the burden to go against such an overwhelming danger.

Just like in real life, darkness will always accompany light and evil will always exist alongside good. It's unrealistic and unfair to expect that a child could be facing evil all on their own. Even if they are supported by other dear people, it's just impossible and utopian to hope to eliminate evil from existence like Sakura would've eliminated the Squids and the Association in an eventual magic fight. Sakura is the heroine of the story, yes, but she isn't magically nor mentally equipped for such a thing. CLAMP didn't want to lie to us and to their youngest readers. Some battles might be just too overwhelming to fight, and if there's ONE thing they hammered like crazy in this arc is that, no matter what you do, even if you're protecting someone you love, you always have to remember to keep yourself safe at the same time. Reckless heroism doesn't really benefit anyone. That was valid for Syaoran, for Kaito and for Sakura too, in the end.

That's why CLAMP, through Sakura's choice, decided to not let her have a direct confrontation with those two groups of criminals. Besides, let's be honest. There's no way she could've made them convincingly "change their mind" and pressured them to turn suddenly into good people with just a couple of idealistic phrases. It would've honestly looked like a joke and an insult to all the readers who had to endure abuse in their own lives. Oh, how nice, Sakura turned the Big Bad Evils into good people! ...Sure, but what about the pain, neglect and suffering that were inflicted on those who were just little children? Erased by wiping those people's slates clean?

Honestly, the only viable way that wouldn't have insulted the reader's intelligence would've been a straight-up violent fight, and that would've been not only jarring to see in CCS, where violence is certainly not how you solve problems, but also probably resulted in Sakura's death. Which of course, no one wanted to see.

So what do we do when we find ourselves in front of an evil too big to confront, too big to fight on our own? We just give up? We just succumb?

Nope. That's indeed why CLAMP have Sakura deciding to erase the memories as an ultimate, well calculated attempt to free Akiho and Kaito from the grasp of their abusers and at the same time stop the attacks that were threatening to kill all of them. Instead of focusing the resolution of the problem on the abusers, engaging in a fight with them that would've probably worsened the situation, she decided to prioritize the people she loves and ensure their safety first and foremost. I believe CLAMP never wanted to make it all about Sakura vs. Evil Magicians in the finale. That's not the kind of story they wanted to tell. I believe their constant focus and concern in the finale was the marginalized, abused party and how Sakura could help them out from her "privileged" position of a girl blessed with love and protection from all sides. How she could make use of her gifts (both her magic power but also her safety network of people she loves and who love her in return) to do good. Real, effective good.

So, summarizing all the above: by not showing any of the Squids/Association's faces or names, CLAMP successfully conveyed the idea that in the climax Sakura didn't judge and repelled individuals, but rather, the systems they were representing. Sakura didn't oppose "Mark, blue eyes and dark hair" "Elizabeth, green eyes and blonde hair" but actually their systems AND their actions, the atrocities they committed. And what I appreciated is that she didn't need for Akiho to tell her every single thing about her past in order to make her decision, because that's something for Akiho to disclose IF and WHEN she'll feel ready to. She just needed to hear and concretely see that her friends were being literally hunted, and let herself be guided by her affection for Akiho. Sakura did all of this prioritizing her abused friends, the oppressed minority (here it comes out again the topic of minorities so dear and precious to the CCS franchise) while ALSO protecting herself, by not engaging in any dangerous fight with those horrible people.

CLAMP's message for all those children (and even adults) who are suffering for situations that are just too big to defeat on their own, is to first and foremost figure out how to break away from the abusive environment. Run away (like Kaito did), cut ties (like Sakura helped to do), find help so that the poison can't reach you and bring you down again. You have to look for help first and foremost, but also find in yourself the will to be helped.

Akiho and Kaito received help from Sakura, but they also wanted to be helped by her (that's the part where Sakura asked them for their consent on the memory-erasing spell not one, but THREE times). And that's pivotal. The two things are interconnected and salvation isn't possible if you don't genuinely find in yourself the will to be saved.

Once you can break away from the source of abuse, you can start anew. You can take control of your life once again, lick your wounds, heal, move on and find happiness again. That's the concept of "we won't go back, we'll go on" that echoed loud and clear in Sakura's words during the finale.

I think the wish that inspired CLAMP while they were writing Clear Card's story is that any of their readers who are stuck in suffering can hopefully find their own support system.

Though the "Clans" or "Magic Associations" will keep existing out there, we don't have to face them alone. Our loved ones can help us getting out of that toxic environment and never look back.

[ultimatefartwizard]

NOT FUCKING AGAIN! THE MUSICAL ( TF EARTHSPARK MESSAGES AND MANDROID'S GENOCIDAL HORRORS EDITION)

Holy shit I am losing my mind... @monocle-teacup you better read this <3 (dead serious though cuz wtf)

Also of course as always, spoilers ahead this time for season 2 of earthspark so dont want it? skedaddle (s2 isnt worth caring about though, trust me)

Also again nobody go witchhunting or harassing anyone, this is discussion of media and someones poor takes on some clear themes in a show.

Okay you're using THE TERRIBLE WRITING OF S2 TO PROVE YOUR LITTLE HORRIBLE SLIMY GENOCIDAL GREASEMAN IN THE RIGHT???? WHY ARE YOU VOUCHING FOR HIM. WHY DO YOU SAY HIS IDEAS ARE RIGHT AUUUUGH-

How you continue to have terrible takes astounds me 💀 You can't be serious man how are you this like,,, braindead? And ignoring all of what S1 is trying to teach even before S2 came out? oh wait.

You choose your attraction of a gross ass man over LITERAL IN YOUR FACE PLOTPOINTS BECAUSE YOU'D RATHER MEATRIDE YOUR BABYGIRL MANDROID OVER EVERYTHING THE SHOW HAS BUILT UP. Not like you probably ever cared to connect any of the dots.

Oh, to help you do that, I have a previous post I made where I pinged you! You should read it before you read anymore, it'll help with what I'm about to preface here. Please READ IT.

Okay, time to dig into literally EVERYTHING ALL OVER AGAIN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEEM TO LET GO OF THIS MAN AND HIS OBVIOUS LACK OF HUMANITY IN HIM AND CONTINUE TO SEE SOMETHING THATS NOT THERE. I will start off by saying the quality of the writing for season 2 and season 2's entire disregard for season 1 don't discredit season 1, no matter what nonsense there is. I hate season 2 for all its going for thus far and its just genuinely a waste of my braincells to try watching it again. There are also things not specifically related to mandroid but are also pet peeves that show your lack of attention to detail.

How. Did you miss this. Humans have been living with bots for 30 to 40 years at this point they don't bat an eye at them because THEY THINK THEY'RE JUST SOME BOTS CASUALLY WALKING AROUND. They don't give a fuck about the terrans; only a select few know they are even earth-born bots. Transformers have been living amongst humans casually don't you think they wouldn't give two fucks and know not to gawk at random robots walking around like they just started existing?

You saw the Philadelphia episode (I hope? because you act like you haven't) or really any episode they are just chilling and walking around, you didn't notice nobody gave a damn? What about Optimus, Elita 1, and other bots? Would you randomly gawk at a group of sapient beings walking amongst you who've been there for a lifetime?

No.

They had to hide FROM GHOST not FROM THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE. Ghost would have tried to capture them and imprison them by deeming them a threat for merely existing, not humans as a whole. The fact you miss this entire detail is incredibly sad.

Okay now onto Mandroid stuff because you never stop meatriding him MY GOD

Huh, maybe you need to USE YOUR BRAIN and realize he was not protecting earth. He -thought- he was, because he perceived them as vermin who need to be wiped out and a threat to humanity. Like I said before in my last post DECEPTCONS DO NOT EQUAL ALL OF TRANSFORMERS OH MY GOD. Plus with this season its clear there can't be the same writers on this team. They have sacrificed the story for toymaking opportunities DON'T YOU THINK MAYBE HE'S NOT RIGHT JUST BECAUSE S2 SOMEHOW SAYS THE -CONS IN SPECIFIC (NOT ALL BOTS MY FUCKING GOD)- ARE TO NOT BE TRUSTED AND ARE DANGEROUS? USE YOUR CRANIUM THAT EVOLUTION HAS GIVEN YOU. Mandroid conflated every single transformer with a twisted ideal in his head born out of hate, not from a true sense of danger nor did he separate cons and autobots or unaligned bots in his head from the conglomerate "evil" he thinks they are.

As above so below, you're DEFENDING HIS TERRIBLE GENOCIDAL BEHAVIOR BY BEING LIKE "HE MIGHT HAVE DONE BAD STUFF BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY HE WAS JUST PROTECTING EARTH" over a giant guardian robot who's being mind controlled and had no intention to do this or will of her own. Why are you so adamant on convincing yourself he was a good or commendable man? Where is your basic comprehension of anything in this show at all. HE TRIED TO COMMIT GENOCIDE ON A WHOLE RACE OF BEINGS WHO HAD BEEN COEXISTING ON EARTH FOR YEARS. It's not something you can go 'erm acshually-" on.

He literally killed EVERYONE who was a transformer; even if their death wasn't permanent they still died because he saw them all as a disease needing to be eradicated.

He has no sense of humanity, only hate in his heart and the need to destroy. How do you think he was protecting earth when he had succeeded at murdering an entire population off the face of the earth even if it's only for about 5-10 minutes? HOW ARE YOU THIS BLIND TO MEATRIDE HIM THIS HARD.

I honestly doubt they knew about her, let alone understood the glyphs everywhere. They were just mapping ancient tunnels and figuring it out; Croft also probably forbid anyone from entering due to the DWELLERS, not Terratronus; she was well off course and well protected/hidden by dirt and freaky alien monsters. Even if they somehow DID know, GHOST probably just utilized Terratronus to justify imprisoning dozens of transformers; whether they were cons, neutral, or autobots that didn't want to be part of a government mass incarceration and control program. Mandroid probably didn't give a shit at the moment because he was busy trying to squash literal children like bugs. Shut up about this stupid attempt at the executives making money off of random plot bullshit and toymaking opportunities.

AS STATED IN MY LAST POST: YOU ARE CONFLATING DECEPTICONS WITH ALL TRANSFORMERS, AS MANDROID DID. ONE GROUP DOES NOT EQUAL ALL OF THEM, AND DOES NOT MAKE TRANSFORMERS AS A WHOLE DANGEROUS IF THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO CAUSE TROUBLE. MANDROID SAW ALL TRANSFORMERS AS A THREAT EVEN IF THEY HAD BEEN LIVING WITH HUMANS PEACEFULLY FOR DECADES. YOU ARE HERE SIMPLY REITTERATING A STUPID AND NULL POINT THATS PROVEN WRONG AGAIN AND AGAIN IN S1. His reasoning behind his actions are "we need to get rid of these filthy dangerous vermin who are invading our precious planet." Also the chaos terrans being born evil is a horrible plotpoint and groups being born evil is terrible writing, just like the entirtey of Season 2 because these new writers on the team understand nothing about the show as is. (Yes, most of the writers in s2 never worked on s1)

This one. this one enraged me. This is the most recent post I'd seen about mandroid as of writing (june 8th) and you have SERIOUS AUDACITY to say this. HE KILLED ALL OF THE MALTO BOTS AND TRIED TO KILL ROBBY AND MO; WHAT MAKES YOUR FUCKING MANDROID LOVING SHRUNKEN AND POCKED BRAIN THINK THAT HE WOULD TEAM UP WITH THEM LIKE SOME BUDDY BUDDY ADVENTURE? HE ATTEMPTED AND COMMITTED GENOCIDE, UNETHICAL EXPERIMENTATION, CHILD MURDER, AND MORE.... HE WOULDN'T MAKE JUST """""SMARTASS COMMENTS""" HE'D STRAIGHT UP HATECRIME ALL OF THEM.

I'm not gonna be nice with this last one. You are incredibly media illiterate if not just lacking basic cognition to think he of all people would willingly team up with people he wanted to kill off during season 1. You watched the finale of season 1 and GATHERED NOTHING FROM IT. You, in all your 34 years of life, somehow have not obtained a single gram of "maybe I shouldn't vouch for and defend a person who's xenophobic and wants to commit genocide" despite enjoying writing and HISTORY. HOW ARE YOU ONE TO ENJOY HISTORY YET MAKE NO CONNECTIONS TO ATTROCITIES COMMITTED BY PEOPLE TO WHAT MANDROID IS DOING AND HOW THEY ARE WRONG AND ENTIRLEY UNFORGIVABLE. At this point I believe you to be willfully ignorant to pass off your crush on this man as okay and convince yourself he is right somehow; even going as far as to utilize this new season as an excuse for him.

Your audacity to think he is anything other than a pathetic horrible man with terrible and morally bankrupt goals and actions somehow will be nice to groups of people he hates astounds me to no end. The show gives you all you need to connect the dots and you haven't. I'm aware i'm likely talking to a brick wall because you're likely willingly ignorant to excuse yourself or will never read this but I will call out this nonsense regardless. It comes off as extremely weird and bordering on you just believing in the ideologies he spouts.

I will say this again to make it clear; Mandroid is a stand-in for people who believe in racist and xenophobic ideas, and will stop at nothing to destroy them. The transformers are an allegory for refugee immigrants, and the terrans are first gen decedents. You continuing to believe his lies and defending him just borderlines on you upholding racist ideals. (That might sound deranged af of a claim but considering the context... yeah)

TLDR for lazy people: This fool pinged in this post is claiming a character who ATTEMPTED TO COMMIT GENOCIDE as being in the right somehow with his ideals/actions and not a total morally bankrupt person. Meatriding getting in the way of logic.

-No cheers to you, Wizard and Cupid

[beardedmrbean]

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Sunday that they didn't mislead Americans about President Biden's decline or ability to serve despite the president dropping out of the race after being faced with a February 2024 clip of him declaring the debate over Biden's health was "right-wing propaganda." 

NBC News' Kristen Welker confronted the senator with a clip of Schumer talking about Biden on February 13, 2024. Schumer said, "His mental acuity is great. It’s fine. It’s as good as it’s been over the years. All this right-wing propaganda that his mental acuity has declined is wrong." 

After playing the clip, Welker asked Schumer what he would tell Americans who think they were misled by top Democrats. Schumer reportedly told the president he needed to drop out of the race after the debate.

"We didn't. Let's look at President Biden. He’s had an amazing record. The legislation we passed, one of the most significant groups of legislation since Lyndon Johnson’s great society, putting in 235 judges, a record, and he’s a patriot. He’s a great guy, and when he stepped down he did it on his own because he thought it was better, not only for the Democratic Party, for America. We should all salute him. We should all salute him," Schumer said. 

Welker then asked Schumer if he was confident Biden could have served a second term.

"Well I'm not going to speculate. As I said, I think his record is a stellar one, and he’ll go down in history as a really outstanding president," Schumer responded.

The "Meet the Press" panel also discussed the Schumer interview and MSNBC host Symone Sanders Townsend argued Schumer should have pushed back much harder on Welker. 

"The question on the table is, is the president all the way there? And the answer is unequivocally yes," Sanders insisted. "People can say that you feel as though President Biden might be a little too old to do the job, but he's doing the job, his mental acuity is there. So I think there is a conflation of two things there. It’s his mental capacity and serving another four years as old as he is, but those are two separate things, in my opinion, and these people that have known Joe Biden for their entire lives and I know President Biden, and it's like, can you all defend me a little more?"

Politico's Jonathan Martin argued that it wasn't worth defending Biden, because the president chose himself over the good of the party. 

"He’s not exiting in a way that I think reflects well on his party and Democrats are deeply, deeply unhappy about it, and they should be, frankly," Martin said.

Marc Short, who previously worked for Vice President Mike Pence, said it hurt Democrats to try to tell Americans what they saw with their own eyes during Biden's debate against Trump. 

"But it's not true that the president doesn’t have mental acuity," Sanders shot back before Short said, "of course it is."

"He can at least put a sentence together," Sanders argued, suggesting that President-elect Donald Trump could not put a sentence together.  

Short asked, "are you sure?" Sanders confidently said yes and noted she spoke to Biden recently.

[demigod-shenanigans]

"making your only aspec character choose celibacy is not a great look" No hate, but as an asexual, I'm not really sure what this means? To me, an asexual who's spent a significant amount of time feeling pressured into finding a partner because that's what's "normal" making the deliberate choice to give that up and escape that expectation makes perfect sense and definitely isn't a bad thing. Especially considering that Reyna had an issue with Aphrodite; her being a Hunter of Artemis means that she's under Artemis' protection, which means she wouldn't need to worry about anymore interference from the other Gods like that. Her shedding the weight of Camp Jupiter and of other peoples' expectations, taking her fate into her own hands and choosing what she and she alone wants makes sense.

And asexuals are allowed to choose celibacy, and saying that it's a "bad look" feels bizarre when there are lots of aces who *never* want to have sex. Why would them doing something that frees them from allo judgment and expectations (bc, let's face it, people are more likely to understand the Hunters then they are asexuality) be a bad thing? If anything, Rick choosing that for her made me feel very seen because I would've done the same. The only critique I might have is that she feels extremely aroace to me and that I'd have liked that to be canon, but frankly I don't think Reyna is the type to want explicit labels. Idk, I just don't understand that post or why an asexual finding a way to get away from allo nonsense would be bad. It feels like a reasonable next point in her arc to me.

I’ve talked about my issues with Reyna joining the Hunters before and they’re actually largely unrelated to her asexuality and more about how it disregards all the parts of her arc which weren’t about her sexuality, which can be found here if you’re curious

I want to make it clear that I personally am sex-repulsed asexual and never ever want to have sex so this isn’t about me thinking that is in any way strange. It’s not. I’m entirely familiar with the concept because it applies to me.

This is also in absolutely no way about real people (aspec or otherwise) choosing celibacy. You do you! There is no right or wrong way to be aspec in real life, and if that’s a choice someone wants to make, awesome! Good for them!

My issue with Reyna joining the Hunters specifically in regards to her sexuality is that a lot of allo people already think asexuality is just about people choosing not to have sex, rather than our feelings in regards to sex just being a part of who we are.

Anyone can choose to become celibate, regardless of sexuality, but sex-repulsed asexuals can’t just choose not to be sex-repulsed. Conflating the two when you as an author aren’t aspec and this is your largely allo audience’s first and only introduction to an arospec character in your series, that is a problem, because it furthers the idea to allo readers that asexuality is a choice you can eventually opt back out of.

This would be different if Rick was aspec himself. It would also be different if there were more aspec characters in the series because that way Reyna’s choice is one of multiple options rather than the one introduction to a heavily underrepresented sexuality that gets muddled by her joining the Hunters and will potentially end with more people thinking asexuality is a choice.

I’m glad it made you personally feel seen because it’s a choice you would make! I think that’s awesome, and I know a lot of aspec people love the Hunters because they can imagine themselves as being seen and understood and safe there.

I hope I made it a little clearer here what I meant? It’s not at all about ace character joining the Hunters = bad, it’s about Rick choosing to include a single ace character in his entire series and then a) refusing to actually on-page make them say the word asexual and b) not making a clearer distinction between asexuality as something that you are and the choice to join a group of eternal maidens whose celibacy is largely not related to their sexuality. (There’s also a point to be made here about how Rick specifically said he didn’t make Reyna a lesbian because he felt like that was perpetuating stereotypes about lesbians only being lesbians because they get rejected by guys, but I don’t really get how making a person who was rejected a bunch ace doesn’t then perpetuate that same stereotype about ace people? Anyway, that might be a different debate)

Again, I think it’s awesome that it made you personally feel seen! I wasn’t trying to be hurtful at all and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I get feeling isolated and frustrated at allo nonsense because I’ve been there. A lot of this comes down to the fact that we could stand to have more than one total aspec character in a book series that’s, what, 19+ books long now?

[teebeeache1234]

"we want to take care of each other, and if that's 'radical,' then something is wrong."

saw someone else write this in a comment section and i couldn't say it better myself. human rights issues are so often reduced to political partisanship---and the weaponization of this kind of rhetoric restrains the social progress of humanity, whether consciously or not. it allows us to dismiss real hatred and discrimination that goes far beyond partisan politics in the name of political civility. and for those who don't participate in the idea of political civility, it further distorts the innocuous movement for the equal rights of all people into a targeted, malicious and personal attack on someone's values, pitting two sides against each other over humanitarian issues that should be entirely non-partisan.

supporting ideology that calls for the extermination or oppression of a group of people should not be considered a "political opinion." these are issues that threaten people's right to dignity and life. the mindset of "it's just politics" and "it's just an opinion that everyone is entitled to" is a dangerous and slippery slope, one that has facilitated those in our past to turn a blind eye in the face of horrific mass genocide. it's damaging to mask bigotry and oppression under the misnomer of politics.

it should also not be the norm that, if one chooses to ignore or uphold the clear violation of another person's human rights under the guise of political civility, it is seen as "peaceful," or ironically, in our christocentric country, as "loving thy neighbor." these are issues that challenge our fundamental right to be human day-to-day, and this is a conversation that everybody is a part of regardless of whether they think it aligns with their political beliefs and regardless of whether they want to be involved or not. so no, i do not believe that it is correct to say that, for instance, in the recent 2024 election, it is "contributing to a society of division" when a person questions their relationships with people who support the trump campaign's hateful and oppressive beliefs, or that it is "radicalized" to stand firmly in protest of them. because truthfully it isn't based on political differences, but on the reality that the 2024 election was an election that trivialized human rights.

i acknowledge that social politics are largely what define partisan politics today and that it is nearly impossible to separate the two, as social politics are often presented by our politicians as issues that affect all the other areas of politics as well. however, i believe that this is an idea that has been long built and established by the two-party system to develop the political agendas of each party, muddying our ability to distinguish the difference between when we should use pragmatism, empathy, or our identity to guide our beliefs. this is not so much a rant focusing on political extremism or the far-right, but to highlight the pernicious nature of conflating humanitarianism with politics. it's not a left-wing problem or a right-wing problem, it's a universal societal state. i hope for a day we are able to, as a society, understand that advocating for the basic rights of others is a choice that transcends political sides---a choice that is deeply rooted in who you are as a person, who we are as a people, and the future you're choosing for our world.

[guardsbian]

The full "Contact Us" message I wrote to FR staff (regarding the initial phrasing of "Lolita-inspired fashion" can be found under the cut. In the end I think most of my concerns were heard and addressed, considering the contents of the revised rules.

My message was resolved with a "thank you" message and a link about an hour and a half after the revision was released. Even though everyone who submitted feedback likely received the same message, I do, at this time, genuinely believe that my feedback was read and understood by staff. (So, thank you, if any happen to catch this post!)

Drakessis

May 16, 2024, 19:35 PDT

I am concerned about the use of "Lolita-inspired fashion" as a catch-all term for subject matter it does not represent. As it stands, the term's usage implies that dressing a child-analogue in the equivalent of Victorian doll's clothing or Hello Kitty-inspired accessories would imply "that the hatchling is an adult in a child's body." The underlying concern, of course, being that ill-intentioned users may use this implication to sexualize the subject. However, this is not a fair representation of what Lolita fashion actually implies, and feeds into misconceptions which individuals within the subculture are constantly attempting to combat.

At its simplest, Lolita fashion is a subculture influenced by Victorian and Rococo stylings— two eras which FR regards as lore-compliant. The fashion puts an emphasis on cuteness, such as the type illustrated by Sanrio characters and the whimsical worlds of works like Alice in Wonderland. The subculture's purpose for many is the same counter-cultural self-expression seen in the Goth subcultures, Steampunk subcultures, Scene subcultures, and many more (many of which the community of FR often embraces). There is very little to set Lolita fashion apart from the existing, accepted aesthetics showcased on Flight Rising; which is what makes the specification of the subculture as something inappropriate all the more unexpected and discouraging.

The rule creates the impression that an adult engaging with any fashion, items, or interests more commonly associated with children is inherently sexual, which— given the teenager-friendly rating of the site versus its adult playerbase— I am sure FR does not intend to do. In that case, however, what differentiates the Japanese "Lolita" subculture from the American "kidcore" or "pastelcore" subcultures? Both cases have their potential for misuse (by those who would attempt to skirt the rules regardless of what is written), but only one is explicitly prohibited in these guidelines.

(It's not difficult for one to, perhaps, interpret this disparity as the fetishization or alienation of East Asian individuals and subcultures. Which, granted, may be in response to existing behavior within the community— however, justifying this attitude via the written guidelines only hurts those victimized, being given less opportunity to speak up about a community-wide issue without being labeled as "discussing moderation.")

Even if no changes are made in the process of moderation, then at least a change in language should be made. People who participate in the Lolita subculture already face a constant stigma labeling their fashion choices as being "sexual" or accusing them of romanticizing Nabokov's work. There are existing topics/"styles" which would undoubtedly, without exception, sexualize young characters and exceed Flight Rising's rating, and their conflation with safe for work subcultures does nothing but harm those who are mislabeled as accessories to or derivatives of these groups.

The crux of my message is that Lolita fashion is NOT the same as the "loli/lolicon" genres which sexualize children, much in the way that kid/pastelcore fashion is NOT the same as "DDLG" or associated fetishes. I am sympathetic to the fact that Flight Rising would likely rather not call out these topics by name, but instead referring to an ENTIRELY unrelated subculture is not the way to sidestep the issue. In the end, it will only alienate well-intentioned players.

Thank you for reading my feedback. I hope it can contribute something of use to this discussion.

[olderthannetfic]

https://www.tumblr.com/olderthannetfic/740136068340482048/the-funniest-dni-i-ever-encountered-in-all-my-12?source=share

As a House Martell stan, it's been interesting to watch the evolution of that particular corner of the ASOIAF fandom over the years. For a while, because they were less present on the show (and their actual focus on the show was pretty bungled), they were mostly the favorites of superfans who'd read the books and therefore were deeply devoted to the whole ASOIAF universe, and given how much that means memorizing various types of Targaryen incest over the years, were almost never antis. A lot of people were also drawn to that they were the ~sexy, liberated house, as well as there being a fair number of POC who identified with some of the few non-white people in those books who were actually fully-realized characters (in the books, not so much in the show). IME it was usually people who were also shipping a lot of the other popular "problematic" ships in the fandom like Jaime/Cersei and Sansa/Petyr Baelish.

Then, at some point - particularly after the show ended and the fandom shrunk a lot - it got infected with a bunch of people writing long essays about how Daenerys and the entire Targaryen family were inherently "white supremacist" (previously, it had been more common for POC and other fans who focused on anti-racism to stan Daenerys, and point out that what the final season did with her was some white bullshit that tried to conflate killing oppressors like slavers with killing poor downtrodden people) and there ended up being a fandom fight between those people who saw the Targaryens as the more racist house or the Starks, but they all stanned Martells but in a very shallow sort of way just because they were the POC house. It's also worth nothing that Dorne has equal primogeniture - women can inherit, and in the books it's Doran's eldest daughter, Arianne, who is his heir, even though he has two younger sons - and it also is more accepting of LGBTQ+ people and bastards and general "sex outside of marriage" than most of the rest of Westeros, so it attracts a lot of people who are into them for that reason. I mean, I like them for that reason among others, but of course that's going to be a magnet to people who want to prove that they're extra special progressive for stanning them over like, the Lannisters.

Also, probably worth noting, the people in the second group were generally younger. Book-centric fans generally tend to be older IME in ASOIAF fandom. I feel like whenever a fandom is younger, there's more likely to be more anti behavior.

Anyway it was very weird to get back into ASOIAF when I read Fire and Blood and then when House of the Dragon started airing, and feeling like "my corner" of the fandom had become completely unrecognizable in my absence.

Also, I suspect it's probably drawing in some people who just really like Pedro Pascal. (It was better when it was drawing in the Alexander Siddig stans from DS9 fandom, snerk. Although even that fandom has had an obnoxious influx of younger purity-policing virtue-signalling types discovering it these days, writing stupid discourse about how Garak/Garashir is problematic and people should instead ship characters who don't like each other that much and don't interact much one-on-one because the combinations of them are more progressive or something.... sigh! Anyway, probably not helped by the fact that Game of Thrones completely wasted him, even though his character was one of the best ones in the books and a big one that drew me into loving House Martell. He would've been great as book!Doran, but alas....)

I'm also going to say that as others have pointed out, I'll always be mystified by the fact that ASOIAF even HAS antis. If you're that opposed to incest, age-disparate relationships, violence, etc. anything controversial, how can you stan the actual canon of that show? Or the books, which arguably have even more rape and incest and ephebephilia going on. It just seems like you'd have to have a very adversarial relationship with canon to a point that I just don't understand why you don't pick another fandom. Of course, it's probably really just that antis are hypocrites.

--

Hypocrites, yes. But also drawn to material that they're not comfortable being drawn to. The younger they are, the more the cognitive dissonance makes them act out.

I don't condone it, but I do understand it.

[doberbutts]

not the prev anon but re: "Israel has a right to exist" not being a Zionist statement and saying otherwise us antisemitic. - that's a bad faith reading because we're not talking about Israelis, we're talking about the state of Israel. The settler colonial state Israel doesn't have a right to exist. That doesn't mean that people have to leave, it just means that Palestinians need to have a say in how to use their land again and expelled families need to be able to return to where their homes once were. That in itself is not an antisemitic point of view unless you conflate the state of Israel with Jewish people, against the wishes of antizionist Jews everywhere.

I wish I could say it was a bad faith reading but I have unfortunately literally seen people uncritically posting that Israel as a state should be dissolved and as part of it all Israelis should be sent back where they came from because they're all settlers and not a single one of them can consider themselves indigenous to the land. I'm not making that up. I'm not reading ill intent into anything. It's not a strawman. I've genuinely seen people saying this.

That's ethnic cleansing too. And anyone protesting this gets called a Zionist and a colonizer and a settler- often by Americans who are not indigenous and are living stolen land themselves. Though, recently, I even saw an indigenous person saying exactly this, and like... did you see the asks I was sent immediately after saying "I don't like that people are saying go back where you came from" because that anon absolutely did directly state that they are of the opinion that as part of the dissolution of the Israeli state and land back, Israelis should be expelled from the area en mass whether they want to leave or not.

So there are, absolutely, people conflating the two. And people are calling for genocide to answer for genocide.

Also, as said before, it becomes very difficult to say who the land "belongs to" (idk this might be the Native in me but land does not belong to anyone, how self-centered to think that the Earth can be divided into pieces by humans who have been here only a short time compared to its whole lifespan, but w/e that's a point for a different day) when both Arabic Israelis and Arabic Palestinians are indigenous to the land. Do they not get a say? They also trace their roots to that area. They are indigenous too- so how can giving "their land" to the other indigenous group be considered "land back"?

It's not like in the US, where most of the colonial efforts are being driven by people who never originated here in the first place. It's way more complicated than that.

Do I think "the state of Israel" has the right to exist? Personally I think that the entire area needs a serious policy re-write and constitution put in place to equalize rights between Israelis and Palestinians and ensure that it stays equal, a ceasefire needs to happen, the genocide of the Palestinians needs to stop, and a peaceful solution with both Israelis and Palestinians living together in harmony needs to be reached. People need to be able to move back into their homes, people need to be able to be free of displacement and constant fear, and without relying on segregation because we all know how "separate but equal" turns out. Would that dissolve the state of Israel? I mean, as it currently stands, probably by definition yes.

Do I think "Israel" itself has the right to exist? The word "Israel" has existed since about 13th century BC. The word "Palestine" has existed since about 5th century BC. Those are the earliest known mentions of these names and not even within those borders (Israel's document was found in Egypt, Palestine's in Greece) so who knows how long the area itself was calling itself one thing or the other or who the scholars of the time talked to to get that name in the first place. The exact borders of these have shifted since then and exactly who controls those borders have largely traded hands back and forth for literal millennia, which is why I'm saying it's way more complicated than that and that both of these people have a claim to the land that stretches back thousands of years. I think it's a little haughty of me to say that something that's existed for the past roughly 3000 years doesn't have the right to exist.

[utilitycaster]

Re: villain stans, I really do think you're conflating two groups of people and I feel the need to point it out because the art of haterism deserves pinpoint precision. The thing is that I would consider myself, broadly speaking, a villain stan and I also can't stand the people you're complaining about in that post because I think they've missed the point entirely. They've ruined the entire villain-loving ecosystem. I can't even facetiously say "they've never done anything wrong, ever, in their entire life" about characters that may as well be called Murders McWarCrimes, and whose death or comeuppance I am eagerly awaiting alongside everyone else in the fandom, because some of these idiots actually mean it when they say things like that -- and usually about some of the blandest, most disappointing villains I've seen in a long time. It's like passionately defending the storytelling equivalent of a slightly offensive shade of beige.

Look, some of us see the "time to boo and hiss" signs the narrative is putting up, but I'm not looking to experience every story like it's a children's pantomime. Maybe sometimes I want a wrestling match instead. I know the heel is going to lose. That's their job. It's what they're for. But if imagining that they might win is outside the realm of possibility... well, it's probably not a very good story. The stakes are not compelling. There's a reason that I would describe, say, c1 Briarwoods as delicious and c3 Delilah as overstaying her welcome. A good antagonist is a vital part of the story ecosystem and I enjoy seeing that role played well.

But I don't get to relish in characters being terrible people who do terrible things anymore, because now villain fandom is always overrun by people who read one Wikipedia article on moral relativism and want to have debates about what if Murder McWarCrimes is good actually? No! No, they are not! And if they were, that would be stupid and boring!

And so I reach across the metaphorical aisle to you that we may share in one of the hater's greatest delights: the knowledge that no one likes those idiots, and everyone wishes they would just shut up, even the people they think are on their side.

Hey anon,

I will admit usually when I get a long ask telling me I am conflating things I roll my eyes and wait for someone to say "i am feeling uncomfortable when we are not about me" but, the truth is, I very much was, and you are correct to the point that I think we are fully in agreement.

To be clear: I am pro people enjoying themselves in, as you say, the wrestling fan enjoying the heel way! I agree - a good story needs a villain who feels like a genuine threat. I can appreciate a villain for what they are and enjoy them very much as a character! I am personally unlikely in most cases to root for them but people who look at the story, analyze it, and say "this will be a fun guy to care about, even though I know the victory's probably going to the heroes, and I will be normal and not terribly resentful" are entirely valid and my post is not about them (except to say carry on as you were). It sounds like you're in this latter category and so: carry on as you were, you guys are great.

But I am definitely conflating two flavors of annoying villain stan:

the first is, as you very eloquently put it, the Person Who Read One Wikipedia Article About Moral Relativism and ooooooh what if Mr. Murder McWarcrimes was sufficiently sad about bad things in his life such that the murder and war crimes are correct actually.

The second is the person who does understand that they are looking at a villain who is a bad person but seems actively confused that like, a largely hopeful or heroic narrative will probably not end with Mr. Murder McWarcrimes stabbing everyone to death and then evil laughing against a red lightning-filled sky and seems mad that people are like "actually I like Kit the Heroic Hero". Actual Play D&D is not a place where you'll find these people because a TPK is technically possible regardless of the existing themes! But like...for example, I have to imagine theatergoers in 1983 who weren't idiots did not walk into Return of the Jedi like "oh man I think Darth Vader's gonna win the whole thing and he'll blow up everyone and institute more Space Fascism over the nuked out husk of Endor." Like, as you say, the villain needs to have some bite to be worth my time, but deep in my heart, there are stories where I know that victory is assured by the nature of the plot and it's much more about how it will be assured and what sacrifices will be made, and so it's weird when someone seems to be existing in a denial that that's the story and is like NO Mr. Murder McWarCrimes is NOT going to get a comeuppance and everyone is going to DIE at his hand.