#the bad part of negative emotions are the fact that they cause actions that we mortals would count as bad

[azurechicken]

It always gets me how Justice did not change at all, like, he is not corrupted at all. It makes everything more tragic than it already is. The only thing that changed was his perception, which of course, naturally came due to the change of hosts. I'm mostly taking Awakening Justice into account and how he acts because that is where we can carefully observe him by himself, without Anders' influence on the matter. And his influence is everything on the point I am trying to make.

When we first meet Justice, he is fulfilling his nature of bringing justice to the people he thinks that need it. He is very outspoken about it, and is already ready to take action with or without Warden's help. For a supposedly peaceful spirit that Anders claims to have ruined with his anger, Justice is acting pretty angry here himself (This is not the only time either). This is one of the first things I want to point out that did not change much about the spirit. Justice was always fierce about his cause. However, what stands out to me in these scenes is when the witch calls him out on his idea of justice.

Justice, is that what you are calling it? What of their punishment, burning my house to the ground and with me in it?

Well, in this case, the witch is a demon and mocking Justice for funsies. But what she says actually gives a bit more insight about what kind of a spirit Justice is. The actions do not speak louder than intent to him, as long as it is within the lines he set for himself. In a way, he was always okay with a few… casualties in the name of justice. Even though it is as simple as burning down a house this time. Isn't violence for violence vengeance after all?

While we are on the topic of vengeance, let's not forget the way he is eager on avenging Kristoff, vowing to kill every darkspawn for his cause (I mean the way he literally calls it avenging is enough debate for some people but I want to continue). So how come wanting to take revenge on the offenders that wronged not only his host but many other people, is any different? How did this route did not take him to the road of vengeance but attacking the templars, who are also offenders that wronged his host and other people, is corrupting him?

The answer is of course, that it is not, it did not. There is no difference between those two for Justice, there is no difference between vengeance and justice. Punishing the ones who deserve it is all there is. There is no gray area for spirits the way there is in the mortal world, and we see this clearly in the way he judges Velanna and Nathaniel for their crimes. Despite what I said about him seeing intent before action, now he cannot see beyond their wrongs. This simply shows that if the intent is as clear as violence for violence, he understands. But he does not understand the gray area of Velanna mistaking the innocents as guilty, or Nathaniel taking back what used to be already his.

 

There might be none for Justice, but there is a difference between darkspawn and templars for mortals. For one, darkspawn are generally mindless, and has no moral compass for us to judge. Whereas templars are just people with different ideals about life, to put it kindly at least. (Which is worse, being a mindless cruel monster, or having the mind and morals to choose to be something else but going for being one anyway? Lol another discussion for another time). Templars are the gray area that Justice lacks the understanding of. When he vows to kill every templar like he did with the darkspawn, he does not suddenly turn into a demon, he is simply punishing the ones that were doing wrong, as he does.

From here we can say that spirits' judgments and mortal's don't exactly match up. Though, there is one idea that seems to match better than others, and that is corruption. As far as we learn from Justice, spirits do not know about corruption any better than we do. Spirit do bad, spirit go bad, right? So, when Justice starts to feel things that are associated with demons, such as envy, he starts to fear corruption. He says he does not want to learn how a demon feels, but he also states that he does see the wishful thinking of a demon wanting to cross the Veil for this world. He is conflicted at best about the whole thing. Still, he does not consider himself corrupted regardless. I think that the reason behind that is simply the fact that generally, the Warden can ease his worries when Justice confides in them. And that is another thing that says a bit about him. He seems to accept the lack of understanding he has in the world, and chooses to listen to someone who does. Though, not just a random anybody, someone he deemed just.

So, let's see. A fade spirit with identity issues and an anxious spirit healer walks into a bar…

When they merged and Justice accepted Anders' cause for himself, and when they went all crazy on the Templars, Anders was scared. He feared the worst immediately because he is taught the worst about possession. He knew that Justice was angry because of him and his ideals about mages. So he blamed himself, called it a corruption he caused. And as I mentioned, Justice is accepting of the fact that he has a lack of understanding of some things. Plus, he was already scared of corruption. So, when Anders, who is an educated mage about possessions and corruption claims that he is slowly corrupting the spirit, they held onto it.

Everyone in their life from this point on, do nothing but egg them on about it, on top of it all. They might not corrupt each other, but everyone else does by pushing them the idea that they are now an abomination. Anders starts to fear the nonexistent corruption more, and Justice is confusing the inability to just wipe all the bad out with sloth. We are talking about a being who comes from the Fade, which can be bent at will and a place of immediate action. This works well in Awakening because we are already fighting darkspawn nonstop, and we are in the middle of a war. But in Kirkwall? Everything requires planning and suspended ideals. Templars bring injustice everywhere they go, yet there is not much they can do. After many years of being held back, it is no wonder Justice is surfacing more and more, itching to fulfill his purpose. Because he was always outspoken, angry at the injustice in the world and eager to bring justice. He did not change, but Anders' morals and his' just did not align the way they thought it would. They forgot that in Justice, there was always a part that was vengeance.

At the end, Justice was one of the most stable parts of Anders' story. He couldn't count his vow in Awakening complete without reaching the root of the problem, which was the broodmother. And he could not do so in Kirkwall without getting rid of the Chantry. Because chantry is the root of the Templars, and being a bystander while you can help solve everything easily is unjust all the same.

Anders and Justice had the same cause, different morality and they were just confused because they didn't know any better.

[ghostingcrows]

I used to talk about this a lot but 

IDW Prowl is probably one of the most complex characters in the comics and I absolutely hate it when hes reduced down to “the asshole character”

Cause like

Yeah sure hes got a bit of a stick up his ass

But I feel like people just end there analysis of him there

Has he committed a lot of war crimes and done unethical stuff

Yes

But so has literally EVERYONE else in this universe

Starscream is literally the pinnacle of war crimes

The comics make a point calling out even Optimus for his questionable actions and orders during the war with the Dinobots saying he makes them do the dirty work for him

Megatron literally commits genocide and yet his story ends with an alternate version of him going free and exploring the universe with the LL

The literal war lord was treated better and is looked upon more positively than Prowl and I think it just came down to how fucked Prowl got by the writers

Because while Megatrons redemption was all in your face and you got a shit ton of flashbacks that try to justify the eventual atrocities he would commit you don’t get that with Prowl

Even when Prowl is absolutely in the right you constantly have it disregarded by characters making jokes about him overreacting (being mad OP is sending the space tyrant away with free reign of his own ship isn’t overreacting btw-) and as such you start to think of him as a genuinely irrational character when hes not

Prowl is bad at keeping the relationships he forms yes 

But he is not always at fault for that

While his relationship with CD ended poorly Chromedome is also shown to be kinda of a dick sometimes and commits his fair share of fucked up things such as when he literally ATTACKS PROWL AND FORCES HIS WAY INTO HIS MIND TO PROTECT HIMSELF FROM THE CONSEQUENCE OF HIS ACTIONS WHEN PROWL THREATENS TO TELL REWIND ABOUT THE SHITTY STUFF HE DID IN HIS PAST

This leads to Prowls inevitable snowball out of control when this attack leads to an opening for Bombshell (I think its been a while since I read the comics) to use his tech to mind control him forcing him into combining with the contructicons

Something we learn is an immensely intimate thing with their minds being kinda melded 

This was something Prowl did not want 

And when all was said and done and he was calmed down he still had to live with that gesalt he was forced into with them following him around like fanboys

Nobody ever even really stopped to check in on him 

And as such he understandable went a little bit insane

He had just faced an immensely traumatic invasion of his body and mind and on top of stress form feeling like everything was out of his control and like he couldn’t stop the bad things from happening alongside bitter emotions being brought back up with a return visit to Earth and reunion with spike AND the fact that he feels like Optimus doesn’t trust him and like hes just letting Starscream do whatever he want (something that understandably freaks him out seeing as how he spent 4 million years fighting Starscream) he just kinda snaps

He trys to destroy the space bridge so that no one else can leave or get through and so he can regain some semblance of control

Is it wrong

Yes

But he was not in a good state of mind and no one was helping him at all 

And immediately following his arrest afterward Prowl is confronted by OP who is supposed to be his friend and when Prowl doesn’t say the right things to him to placate him Optimus’ response is to punch him out a window and beat the shit out of him

And not being given any room to breath this is immediately follow up my him getting kidnapped by Tarantulas who is very obviously an impactful and negative part of his past

Prowl just has bad event, one after the other, happen to him over and over again and not only does no one check up on him afterwards to see if hes okay but everyone actively makes fun of him for being understandable unstable

Prowl is a fucking tragedy and not many people seem to be able to see beyond what characters in the comics think of him

[theerurishipper]

Every now and then I still see arguments about how "Chat Blanc and Ephemeral were meant to inform us that Adrien couldn't take part in the final battle," the implication here being that there is no possible way for Adrien to ever react in a convenient manner to this news, and that his only reactions could be "he loses control and goes berserk," or "he gets controlled by his dad." I have already expressed my views on these takes, which is that they are excuses and justifications for bad writing. But I still feel that in trying to insinuate that they are valid explanations for Adrien's inability to be part of the finale, the point of those episodes is missed, and I'll elaborate on why they aren't even good excuses now.

Despite what Thomas Astruc may suggest on Twitter, that the problem is not with Adrien in these episodes. As evidenced by episodes like The Collector and even the aforementioned Chat Blanc, Adrien is perfectly capable of fighting his father. The issue that presents itself in these scenarios isn't that Adrien can't control himself and can only react poorly, it's that Gabriel chooses to hurt his son. None of these situations happened because of anything Adrien did, they happened because Gabriel manufactured the situation into something that he could use to gain control over his son.

The issue here isn't that Adrien finding out makes him react poorly (which is a hot take of its own), the issue is with how he finds out. In both Chat Blanc and Ephemeral, Gabriel manipulates the situation to his advantage. He knows Adrien's identity before Adrien knows his or even knows that his own identity has been compromised. Gabriel is in control of all the information, and he engineers the situation to cause the most traumatic reaction in Adrien so that he can exploit it and take advantage of Adrien's distress. The issue here isn't Adrien's reactions, it's the fact that Gabriel is in control. By framing the message of Chat Blanc and Ephemeral as proof that Adrien can only react poorly to Gabriel's revelations and abuse and using that as an excuse to justify him sitting out the conclusion to his own arc is bafflingly weird to me.

And it just ends up sending the message that Adrien is apparently "too emotionally immature" or whatever the salters say, and therefore he can't ever find out about his father, or it'll only cause disaster. The blame for not being able to walk out of the situation and continue fighting the good fight with no negative effects whatsoever is placed on Adrien by insinuating that it's some inherent flaw in him that he'll never overcome, rather than acknowledge that things only happened the way they did because Gabriel specifically manipulated events and information to achieve his desired outcome. Rather than blame the abuser for his actions, the blame is placed on the victim for his reactions. That's not good.

And it ends up with the alarming implications that abuse victims are irrational and too emotional and are to blame for their reactions instead of it being the abuser's fault for driving them to this point, which is some gross abuse apologia. Indeed, the finale of Season 5 takes this one step further by having Marinette lie to Adrien about his father, because knowing would surely have him react in ways that are inconvenient for herself and everyone else to deal with (this is the writers' motivation, not Marinette's). And we can't have Adrien's trauma matter other than when it is beneficial to Marinette, now can we?

But I digress. Back to my point.

There is a simple solution to the problem of Gabriel taking advantage of Adrien. Since the issue is that Gabriel is able to manufacture the situation to his advantage because he gets to know all the information beforehand, have a reversal of that and have Adrien find out first. Have Adrien find out that his father is Monarch first, and that way, he'll have time to process everything and react to it with the support of his loved ones before he goes to fight his father with clarity and asserts his freedom. It would be a great extension of Adrien's arc of reclaiming his agency and freedom from Gabriel to have him be in control of the situation while Gabriel is blindsided.

A part of Adrien's arc is about finding relationships in which he has unconditional love and support. Have those come into play as he confronts Gabriel. Have them actually matter. There are so many ways to do this.

Have Marinette be present alongside him and have her be able to support him in a meaningful way as he faces down his father.

Have Felix prove he cares for Adrien by telling him the truth about his father and his amok.

Have Nathalie actually support Adrien by letting him know important stuff and giving him his amok back.

This is a non-exhaustive list, but my point is that there are so many ways to override the very specific situations that were present in Chat Blanc and Ephemeral and tilt the scales in Adrien's favor. It would be a better way to deal with this than to just dismiss the point of those episodes by making it seem like the problem lies with Adrien and his reactions than the fact those things only happened because of Gabriel's specific manipulations.

But there is one very simple solution to this whole issue, and it is right there in Season 5 itself. There is proof written straight into the show that Chat Blanc and Ephemeral are not the status quo. See Marinette giving into Gabriel's threats in Chat Blanc and contrast that with her going up against him and defying him outright in Pretention in a way more personal confrontation. The difference between the two episodes is that Marinette is allowed to grow. She is allowed to develop as a character and prove that she is different from the Marinette who gave into Gabriel's threats. So if she is allowed to change and develop as a character and react differently, then why can't Adrien?

Adrien's major problem in any of these situations is that Gabriel is a controlling asshat. To ensure that these situations do not happen, Adrien needs to break free from Gabriel. I posit that the easiest way to allow Adrien to not react in ways that "don't end well," is to allow him to grow and develop as a character. It would allow him to start truly breaking free of his father in such a way that when the time comes for the final confrontation, Adrien is not so easily susceptible to his manipulations and can fight back against him. It would allow him to have agency in the situation that he did not have at the times Chat Blanc and Ephemeral took place.

But unfortunately, the writers did not want to give Adrien growth and development and agency, because that would mean making him something other than Marinette's prop and love interest. That also seems to be the point of the amok rings, since their only relevance in the story is to make up a reason so that Adrien cannot go against Gabriel and needs Marinette to do it for him, and the show presents this as some great quandary to which there is no discernable solution other than simply removing Adrien from the battle altogether so that Marinette can complete his arc for him. And it sucks.

In conclusion:

[hyakinthou-naos]

I’m new so plz be patient

I’m kinda scared of the gods especially Apollo and idk what I should do

He’s are not always the nicest in the myths but idk how accurate some of the characters are. I’m scared of offending or angering him, but I also feel a connection to him

I was raised evangelical and they don’t have the healthiest relationship with their god so idk if it’s just my upbringing or not

Thank you ☀️(I’ve also asked other blogs in case you see the same question)

Khaire Miles, and thank you for your question!

I want to start by saying that it is okay to be afraid; there should be no shame in fear or trauma, and The Theoi should *never* be angry with you for having emotions.

A slight tangent, but (from a mental health perspective) emotions in it of themselves are neither “good” nor “bad” - it is what you do with those emotions that denotes morality*.

*Of course there is a lot of nuance in this type of discussion, but an important bit of nuance I want to add is that (in this context) emotions are not the same as beliefs.

As humans there is so much pressure to “control” and “fight” our emotions. But in my experience, it is much easier and more productive to allow yourself to feel your emotions without judgement and then try to understand why you feeling the way you are - instead of trying to “fight” your mind.

I also want you to know that you are not alone in how you feel! I was raised Roman Catholic, and I was scared/hesitant to work with any male divinities (Apollo included) when I began my venture into Hellenic Polytheism.

I was put off by the way myth depicted deities such as Lord Apollo, King Zeus, and even Queen Hera. These emotions and beliefs were due in large part to the fact that I was operating under the mindset of “mythic literalism” or “fundamentalism” (which is present in most Christian denominations).

“Fundamentalism: noun

a form of a religion […] based on the belief that everything that is written in the scriptures is completely true”

- Source: Oxford Learners Dictionary

However, current theories around ancient Hellenic worship - as well as the current worship by Hellenic Polytheists - tend to favor viewing Greek Myths through the lense of Mythic Symbolism instead of Mythic Literalism.

“Literalists tend to seek factual or historical bases for a given mythological narrative while advocates of one the many symbolic approaches prefer to regard the narrative as a code requiring some mode of decipher-ment.”

- Source: “The Flood Myth” by Alan Dundes

To simplify - if you view Greek Myth from a Literalist perspective, then you’re going to believe that Hades/The Underworld is a physical place you can get to if you dig deep enough below the ground. If you view Greek Myth from a Symbolic perspective, then you’re going to view Hades/The Underworld as a metaphor or symbolic explanation of what life is like after death.

So, did King Zeus literally cheat on his wife with dozens of women - ignoring his marriage vows and often assaulting women in these various myths? No.

Greek Myth existed and continues to exist as stories, to explore human morality - to explain that which we don’t yet understand - and to provide a framework for belief and ritual. The reason why so many myths portray The Gods in a negative light, is because the actions of The Gods are supposed to be a reflection of humanity. Humans can be terrible, we can cause unspeakable harm to ourselves and others - but humans can also be wonderful, creating joy and kindness in situations where these things are lacking.

This paradigm shift, from Mythic Literalism to Mythic Symbolism, is something that can be challenging and difficult to navigate. I was a practicing pagan for 10 years before I ever comfortably worked with a male deity - and now Lord Apollo is the principle god in my personal pantheon.

Lord Apollo is an incredibly complex and wonderful deity. He is artistry and creativity, he is joy and light - he can also be one who requests discipline and rigor, one who holds his ground and embodies social justice. He is many things to many people, but to me he is nothing to fear. I firmly believe he has been guiding me my whole life, and I would not worship him if I thought for a second that he was not a moral or just entity.

I hope this has been helpful to you in some way, if you have any additional or follow up questions please don’t hesitate to reach out.

Eirene - peace and farewell,

- Aön

[good-to-drive]

Hi! I swear I don't mean to be annoying but genuinely curious what's the difference between Paul fans praising Paul in a post vs say, fans of any other beatle. Is it the overt defensiveness? Also, isn't reiterating Paul's sins every time kind of being like the 'John beet wif' meme everytime there's positive discussion re the band/John ?

Hi!

Don't worry, you're not annoying, but I was planning on deleting this (frankly I delete most of the asks I get from Paul girls) until I realized you're (perhaps unintentionally) coming very close to a legitimate point. Also, I get the feeling that you're genuinely interested in an answer, which is always nice.

That being said, I do want to point out that I never said I have a problem with people praising Paul. If you follow this blog, I praise him a lot. I very specifically said I have a problem with people being "delusional and defensive about celebrities," and the fact that you translated this to "praising Paul" honestly raises an interesting point, but also imho seems like a very harsh perspective on him. There are so many wonderful things to say about Paul that are not remotely unreasonable, because there are many wonderful things about him as a human being.

Also, "bringing up Paul's sins" was actually a comment from a reblog, and while I think they also make a good point it's separate from what I originally said. What I said is that it's frustrating that delusional and defensive behavior from stans brings out negativity towards the celebrity when the celebrity themselves did nothing wrong, and that this is really prevalent in discussion around Paul because in the mainstream Beatles narrative he's usually the hero to John's villain.

All that aside, where I think you're very nearly making a good point is where you compare this to discussing John's history of violence.

The tendency to black-and-white people is present in every conversation, it's just part of how we speak as a culture (or possibly as a species). I like to call it the AITA mentality – the tendency to approach situations from the perspective of “who's the bad guy?” rather than actually trying to draw insight and understand the motivations, emotions, schemas, and experiences involved. (Not that r/AITA invented this mentality, but they did crystallize it into an acronym.) In this fandom that's usually Paul as a kind of heroic victim and John as pitifully evil, which is itself arguably (partly) a delayed reaction to unfair criticism of Paul in the past. It does both men a terrible disservice, converting them into one-dimensional caricatures rather than real, fascinating people.

Reversing this mentality to “Paul was the real villain actually” would very much be unreasonable, which is ironically the exact point of my original post, but the larger point is that the way stan culture poisons any meaningful discussion of a major historical figure by calling it “bashing” to acknowledge actions/beliefs/experiences that conflict with a black-and-white narrative is genuinely sad and frustrating. It makes it hard for people who are legitimately interested in them to have a conversation, and is in my experience a much more prevalent issue than people pushing back by bringing up things that shatter the one-dimensional image.

In regards to John specifically, it would indeed be impossible to understand him without taking into account the predilection to violence that defined so much of his early life and helped develop his belief system, and that's a point that he himself made multiple times. I don't really care for the condescending "John beet wif" characterization of people who acknowledge this, or even people who are disturbed by it. I've said many times that there are valid reasons to condemn everyone in this story. When I say there's a lack of nuance, I don't mean we need to ignore the real harm that John, Paul, George, and Ringo all caused. That's not nuance. Nuance is acknowledging how and why they came to that point, that it was one facet of a larger and more complex character, and trying to develop insight into their social roles and perspectives without trying to snap them into preset hero or villain roles.

And your bringing up John's history of violence was (ironically) a very illustrative example, because he himself was so insistent on it being acknowledged. He did not want to be spoken about in black-and-white terms, not even if it meant being heroized, so it's unnecessary and counterproductive to demand that he should be. Positivity about the band can -- and indeed must -- coexist with knowledge of who they were as full, complete human beings. It's sometimes hard and disillusioning, I get that, but it's just so fucking essential.

[abysshydra]

re: the whole thing about locking up persecutors; just thought I'd share my own thoughts on that, if its alright?

We have both a persecutor & a prosecutor, and I [the primary protector] very much do not like either - mainly for the harm that our persecutor causes to our mental state, and for the negative emotions and discomfort our prosecutor causes.

That said, even though I don't like them very much, I recognize that they're still beings deserving of love [And I do love them. They're part of this system, this little internal family of ours. I really can't *not* love them, honestly.]. I know that they're here for a reason. Our prosecutor doesn't really mean to cause harm, it just holds a lot of the negative aspects of our disorders, and struggles with coping. Our Persecutor is only trying to protect us from potential harm, and that's why he's often angry and quick to lash out. And honestly, even if either of their feelings or actions weren't justifiable, it wouldn't matter. They exist, and they deserve a chance to grow and, if they wish, to heal.

The idea of locking them up is completely repulsive to me. They don't deserve that.

Currently none of our persecutors, including me, actually do any damage. We don't act on impulses, but our presence does make our system uncomfortable (in the way that we hold bad urges and bleed them into front)

But our ex-persecutor was anything but.

Maybe He didn't act physically or overtly enough for others to notice, but He wreaked havoc upon our and mostly host's (at that time) mental state. He was in control, He was a dark intrusive thought, continously dragging into the same direction over and over until it came back to Him. There were no explanation why, as He didn't want to protect and He didn't want to control a system as a whole. He just acted on that cult-like manner.

Although we have no capabilities to lock up anyone, we see wanting to get rid of some headmates as having a similar treatment. And yet we never wanted to get rid of Him or any of our headmates, that includes me and other persecutors. Despite the fact that some of us ruined our connections, none actually came and said "I fucking hate you", didn't even thought of it.

I mean, we were lucky I guess that He changed after syscovery, because we didn't know we even had him before. That damage he has done now floats in our mind as another favorite dynamic we love to represent in writing. He changed, but others did not, I did not and I don't want to.

From a disordered perspective locking up basically a part of You, a collective You, is not only repulsive, but also harmful in the long run. This is a part that is traumatized like others in the system, regardless of their motivation the main cause is trauma. They are a trauma or stress response, maybe holders of symptoms, regardless. People preach on not being vile to those who became bitter from being traumatized yet treat persecutors like garbage. They are also people, they are also traumatized. They deserve to be treated with respect too.

Locking them up is a punishment and not a prevention. Punishment NEVER saved anyone.

[emophilzablr]

WILBUR SOOT CHART ANALYSIS.

— Most of my analysis focus more on the negative impacts simply for the fact that I am attempting to contextualize most of his actions we discuss, as we talk mostly about his love life and his lyrics, and well, the bad parts of him, since we are critical. Though I will talk about positive aspects at a lot of points. I chose to do from Sun to Mars as those are the most "important" aspects, I might do something on the more secondary placements another day. Enjoy! Send asks and curiouscats about it, if you have something to say.

Virgo sun, 2nd house.

Plus, Virgos look for something concrete, while the rest of him, we will get to it, is kind of fighting against it. Virgo is Wilbur’s essence, it's who he truly is, it's the most important aspect, so for him to heal this part, specially as his.

His Sun is in the second house which might cause most of his insecurities, Wilbur seeks security, he seeks to do exactly right, the moment he fails at relationships, at any goal, it's prone to destroying him. Every failure is hell.

Libra Moon, 3rd house.

Here we get to the hell in and out of it itself, so Libra moon by itself is not a problem, yet, in this house and in conjunction with Virgo, it really causes a reaction of emotions that is rather complicated. Because here it is, Virgo already needs to have strong connections, they can though live without them, Libra moon cannot, it's absolutely horrifying to not have, Libra needs desperately to have a partnership with someone, living without it can cause a deep, deep set, emptiness. Also, there's a trait shared by Virgo and Libra moon, their ability to find problems everywhere, specially in other people, which causes conflict, and after that, the feeling of losing this partnership because of this problem, once again, destroys him.

And now the 3rd house, where it all goes even more to shit, Virgos are rational, avoid emotions, so to balance that out, the moon should act as a facilitator to that, but well, as much as Libra moon is not bad at feelings, the 3rd house is. It's 8 or 80, emotions are either extremely rationalized and looked over, avoided, or it's in big bursts. AND AND AND, this we saw so CLEARLY in him, his opinions are always changing, and there's a tendency of him to change for people, change who he is. ALSO!!!!! This placement has something very important, they seek a change of scenery, they need to move constantly, start new things, because they will get anxious and restless with, well, settling with something and staying somewhere for a long time.

Plus, I don't even have to explain, this moon placement also really really is influenced by early childhood memories, so the struggles of his childhood are very, very influential in who he is.

Leo rising.

This one kinda makes me feel bad for him, so basically, Leo risings are painfully self aware and conscious of their appearance and how they're sounding, that remembering every person who ever rejected him fits this so perfectly. Now, put that together with Virgo, his insecurities are SO strong in his life, like he's so insecure it's SAD.

But most of who he is comes from it too, Leo risings are always popular, always take leading roles, always start shit, the band, the content creation, the writing of lore, as much as his insecurities come from here too, he's also always going to be popular, because it's part of his nature. He has a natural charm that is seen in Libra moon too.

Virgo mercury, 2nd/3rd house

It's a good placement to be honest, it does end up bringing insecurity too but, it just means he's intelligent, good communicator, curious, likes to go deep, to create, pay attention to details, though he really enjoys being known by his intelligence so any time he isn't, it definitely isn't his favorite thing.

Both 2nd and 3rd houses are great, big highlight on intelligence and big highlight on creativity, also big nerd, loves reading, researching, being connected and having interests. The 3rd house especially is crazy, he has so many interests, and he always goes deep in them.

This placement literally says, this man is autistic, or at least autistic coded.

Leo Venus, 1st house.

That's what you guys want isn't it you cunts, let's talk about love. Well, if you want to know the good, they're love bombers, extreme love bombers, they will court you, they enjoy the chase, they need you, they will die for you. Well, for a while at least. The expectations are always extremely high, so high it's almost impossible to reach them, and when you do, they have this urge to be the absolute focus of your life, they want to be seen as God by you basically, that's where most his relationships fail, he imagines this relationship, and then gets hurt by the fact that reality isn't exactly what he thought it would be.

Wilbur is insecure, by nature, by every placement, so well, as much as some people might think not, him having this placement means he is incredibly high maintenance in love, incredibly so. He needs to be reassured, he needs to hear, he needs declarations. I think that's what killed him with Amelia, he wasn't the light of her life, and she replaced him, quickly. That scarred every single relationship he had ever since, that Libra factor of avoidance comes back here, he might leave and be bored before the person even proves themselves, because the trauma of having everything he wanted in love proven to him not true really scarred him.

Shubble could be in the same situation, the conflict of getting that spotlight from her and from other people, the expectations he put. ALL HIS PLACEMENTS WERE CONSPIRING AGAINST THEM! Absolutely insane.

He will not only love bomb btw, he will leave everyone and everything behind for a relationship, he deposits not only his self worth, but his happiness and his livelihood for LOVE! Silly, but so me and so bpd…

Talking about BPD, it's in the first house, which means, deep love can turn into DEEP resentment when it ends. Also he needs so badly to be liked by others that as well can cause all these feelings, not liking him, or rejecting him, can be seen as a crime.

Mars in Leo, 1st house.

Again, he needs admiration, he needs the spotlight, not having it is awful, simply not his reality. This placement reinforces that he needs to mean something, to be something, to be something great, something big, and it makes his fear of not being even deeper, all of his placements seem to simply reinforce each other, to deepen his fears and insecurities.

— Ending notes: Wilbur is an intelligent person, with leadership skills and a very very strong urge to be loved, to be devoted, to shine, to be something big. His biggest fears are the lack of that, the feeling of mediocrity, boringness, and settlement. He's anxious and insecure, to a point that it ruins most of the good things in his life, a natural overachiever, who never seems to rest. Hopeless romantic, he needs love, and quick, and deep, and intense, but also is afraid of it simply not being that, because trying made him realize it rarely is. He's interesting, high maintenance and sometimes hard to deal with, but still, all his placements show loyalty, charm, kindness and power.

This power especially, he needs to be in control of himself, of others, of how he is perceived and he needs to control his appearance to others, he strives to be perfect, universally loved, but always, no matter how much of that he seems to have. It simply isn't enough.

[raionmimi]

Someone once told me that they loathe Medb because she objectifies people, and I can't help but agree. From her creation of Cu Alter to her relationship with Skadi, and then something Fergus mentioned twice, once in the manga and once in Summer 4. But, rather than seeing this in a negative light, as the person who mentioned this, I couldn't help but find this an interesting fault because the story, for the most part, treats this as neither fully bad or completely good Because viewing it through this lens makes Skadi and her relationship uniquely realistic because, while Medb is doing it for completely warped and selfish motives, it also highlights the fact that Skadi needs a self-severing person in her life to get over her troubles and eluvates her in such a intersting manner. Or, in another situation, how she basically earns Cu alter's respect via sheer tenacity through that viewpoint but also caused the american singularity. I had these thoughts swriling around my head the past few days I couldn't help but to wonder what the biggest Medb fan would think about this.

A lot of people, including your friend, view America as a "I have you now, my pretty" scenarios from what I've seen. America plays it up that Medb "gets to have" Cu as an object of affection. Higashide specifically wanted the player to think that, so it comes off as a surprise in the reveal when Alter admits that he's fighting for Medb's wish on his own free will the whole entire time.

(TL;DR: at the bottom before the cut)

When you go back, you realize that there is a lot of foreshadowing that this was the case the whole time. Namely that Cu Alter has so much autonomy and free will for someone who is supposedly "under control." Medb never gets mad at him when he disagrees with her, and the fact that he would debate with her at all is extremely telling when she's usually pretty pushy as a person when it comes to what she thinks is the correct line of action

Both Medb and Cu have their own ideas of what it means to be a king and a hero. For Cu, we know that he doesn't care for honors and titles, but Medb had to work her ass off to get a title for her own safety and to be taken seriously by others. Cu (probably) thought he was well meaning for telling Medb that he didn't want to hurt or kill her because she was a woman, but to her, it was insulting that he wouldn't view her as a warrior when she had gone through a fuckton to get to where she was. He accepted that he was going to die in a blaze of glory, while she can't understand how he can just go throw his life away without ever properly taking her on when everyone thinks of her as the villain of his story.

So there's an obvious disconnect between the two. The fact that they DO talk about this, change each other's minds, and disagree is where the development lays. By the end of the singularity, Alter is able to recognize Medb's efforts as a queen, which was the main validation she wanted from him. Medb also arguably understands that Cu isn't how she thought he’d be that if you notice, anytime they're together, she no longer brings up how she thinks he should act. She just thinks what he does is really cool instead, so they’ve basically gotten the chance to get to know each other better and come to some sort of understanding

The only problem is that Higashide never actually addresses the issue on Cu's end. Personally, I don't really mind tooo too much because Medb's emotions is what I care more so about in the dynamic, but it still leaves a very huge "What even are his thoughts about this?" And I dont mean Alter, I mean the original Cu. It's very clear by the stark difference in how Medb talks to Alter and Cu that she thinks Cu is much colder to her than he actually is. But she also was able to talk to Alter more genuinely because with his emotions suppressed, it was like talking to someone who would never actually respond in a way that would be too overwhelming where she'd have to be on guard. But that's only a stepping stone to the actual problem.

Cu cares a great deal about Medb as a person because if he wasn't aware of her circumstances when they were alive, he does now that they're servants. He mentioned her in HA before she was even in FGO and says that a ton of bad things happened to her and she's a product of what happened to her. But he still doesn't do anything about it in a way that's actually helpful. He treats Medb like someone he feels like he has to take care of, even if she's troublesome, instead of acknowledging his own flaws that got him into the situation with her in the first place.

He still has chivalrous view of women that can be seen as patronizing like telling Medusa in Extella that he doesnt want to fight or kill women when Medusa had the clear advantage. He chooses Nero over Tamamo because Tamamo reminded him too much of Medb. He talks about how he wants to be more reliable to Medb in his voiceline, even to the point of making a promise to her that we still have NO idea what it could possibly have been about. He avoids Medb when she's up to mischief, yet when she asks for help he is immediately willing to do whatever. Even to the point that Knocknarea in LB6 is confused as to why he's so eager and willing to help her.

Cu's thoughts are a huge piece of the puzzle missing that if you don't pay attention to how he handles Medb, it comes off as one sided when it's more like two people avoiding communicating the root of a problem.

I highly doubt that his side would ever occur as the closest there has come to being critical of Cu's actions is the consequences of his thing with Fand and Emer in the Vday events with Caren and Bazett. Do agree that sometimes, other writers will just use Medb's love for him as a gag to idk fill up the spaces or something. It can be funny but if that's all she does, then ya I get the criticisms esp when their actual convos are way funnier. I have more thoughts on them, but I've already wrote so much lmao

Very cool and poggers of the manga to have Cu Alter kneeling down and accepting a kiss from her tho

TL;DR: Medb and Cu have lore to build off of + that there are flaws to be addressed. Makes the subtle growth very cool and leeway for further Medb development and complexities.

---

Putting the rest under the cut because I'm critical of the way Sakurai writes Medb and Skadi. Read if u want, but know that I'm kind of a hater so I'd rather you look at something you like instead.

Sakurai's writing with Skadi doesn't have the benefit of lore to easily play around with though. TL;DR at the bottom.

The problem is that the writers never really fleshed out Scathach that much, nor did they have the latter interact much with Medb. The whole premise of this dynamic is that Medb thinks Skadi is Scathach and she's surprised that "Scathach is acting different than she usually does" and keeps trying to get Skadi to act "like she usually does"

But Medb doesn't even really know Scathach, they hardly talked. Like ever. There's like 5 lines of dialogue from between 2018 to now between the two across the American singularity to events and voice lines. Most of the time, they don't even directly talk to each other. Unlike her thing with Alter, Medb has never come to an understanding with Scathach, nor does she really have any reason to care about her

The writing has to rely on existing character dynamics that... was hardly there to begin with makes it crumble that much faster to me personally. It'd make more sense if they had actually written a LOT of interaction with each other to the point of them influencing each other's characters, whether in a positive or negative way. But as it stands, it'd make more sense for Medb to react to the gap difference between Ushi and Taira than Scathach and Skadi because the writers chose to give more depth to Ushi and Medb as frenemies.

I was never a fan of Medb Skadi writing because it comes off as a cheap way to introduce Skadi into the Chaldea dynamics. It's nothing like Ushi or Ex and Medb, Knocknarea and Castoria's level of development, where it'd make sense. Not to mention, nothing about Skadi is remotely what Medb is interested in. If it had been the other way around, where Skadi was introduced first and then Scathach showed up, it'd make a bit more sense given who Medb usually hangs out with or talks to

Sakurai mainly utilizes Medb as a mouthpiece of how cute and uwu Skadi is rather than having any meaningful development between the two across multiple events. It just gets weird and sometimes even creepy at times, esp when you remember Higashide's Medb had never been sexual towards Alter. But Sakurai's Medb sexually harasses Skadi when Medb herself is a SA victim?? And she writes Medb as calling herself tainted in a diff event????? Even Minase treated Medb better in the Prisma Illya event. Like, I don't hate Sakurai, but she can be very hit or miss with me on certain things.

You can compare Skadi to almost any other character that Medb has interacted with, and it's severely lacking. Neither one's lore is really addressed until Skadi's interlude and even then, Medb doesn't really have much to do with it, she's just "I will lend you a Cu (caster) because I'm already holding two Cu's hands right now"

I don't mind if people like Skadi, but I just don't think Sakurai handles Medb and Skadi well together. It comes off as either shoe horned yuri bait at worst, and not knowing where to put Skadi since she didn't have much connection to any character in her LB at best that she just slapped her onto Medb for the vague Scathach connection. There is no lessons learned, no real understanding of each other, and it's just Medb doing what she wants. There's no balance or substance that I personally like

I admit that I have not read her summer event parts to know how she develops with other characters though. I'm still very :// about the transphobia with her changing Caeneus's spirit origin without his consent because she "wanted Caeneus to fit in with the other girls" which doesn't help much when she calls Caeneus tainted because of their SA in the lostbelt.

I just don't really care much for the character or the writing between her and medb, so that's why you'll hardly ever see me talk about her.

Apologies because I know you went in talking positively, but I agree with your friend on this one. It does come heavily across as objectification and one of those ships you'd meme on as "gay ship for straight ppl (with a male audience in mind specifically)" and is not treated well, so I personally ignore it.

TL;DR: I dont like Skadi writing or Medb/Skadi writing. I do not mind if other do tho, so like its just do ya own thing, yfeel?

Anyways, ship Castoria x Knocknarea

[horizon-verizon]

HOTD did irreparable damage to this fandom cause now there’s people who wants to read Aemond’s POV probably thinking he’s a mama’s boy victim of bullying by his YOUNGER nephews when in fact he would just be calling every single woman who appeared in front of him a whore in every chapter and insulting their genitals. Aemond’s POV is just the transcript of an Andrew Tate video, I need his illiterate and delusional stans to be serious.

This raises a series of questions.

1st, how did they come to the conclusion that Aemond, of and before all people, needed PoV-written chapters?

2nd, do they just want chapters from his perspective alone?

If they want Aemond's PoV as well as Rhaenyra, Alicent, Jacaerys, Viserys, Helena (basically those who are either women, the protagonist, or those benefiting from/on the protag's political and emotional side) than it's actually not that big of a problem or moral flaw to have that wish. We should know how bad actors and evil people think in order to challenge those ideas, and it's in of itself intellectually challenging/thrilling to make connections from the material observed and compared to the side that you are on. Not out of respect for the other side (we cannot abide misogyny), but simply because thinking is fun and part of critical thinking is to read through other's assessments and see how they develop. (Of course, it gets less pleasurable the more morally rehensible the other side is or when the consequences of the other side's thinking is negatively consequential to one's own way of living or being outside of debate.)

Plus, for all his evil, it could also be "fun" (at least more than reading Aegon or Daeron) in a similar way it is fun reading Cersei's chapters. Because his logic, his actions, and their dissonance, I predict, would be so absurd from intense repression and the need to show others that you are "worthy" of the societal respect and political benefits you think (or in Cersei's, definitely are, when we keep to gender) you do not have.

But, as I think you are getting to, it also depends on what exactly they expect to gain from listening or reading Aemond's PoV, and why the emphasis is made for an Aemond PoV, even if they are fine with having other PoVs from non-green or female perspectives. Do they think that it would reveal a morally damning piece of info that it would make or force others to hate Rhaenyra and the blacks forever and ever, that Rhaenyra's PoVs would show that she herself is an evil being as many greens already argue? Or do they genuinely wish to have a richer story and challenge themselves/examine psychosocial patterns from systems and certain ideologies and philosophies?

3rd, do they want PoVs of show! Aemond, or PoVs of book!Aemond?

If not, what happened to "there are two canons", "they do not inform or bring any sort of context for the other", and "people/the HotD fandom/those who never even read the book and only watched the show do not try to use the book/series lore to help themselves and others understand what is going on in the HotD show" stuff?! (Rhetorical question)

[writing-with-olive]

for social change, what's your hottest take?

ohoh this is a fun one.

There's no such thing as a good or bad person. There's just circumstances and choices.

I'd leave it at that but people tend to hear that and think what i mean is that we can't hold people accountable or go "what about <insert historical person here>?"

i'm gonna go into what i mean. read through before you come at me.

If someone's good or bad, that's an innate character judgement. They just... Are. The logical next step of this is to believe that of course they made the choice they did. It couldn't be helped. It also makes it very improbable to make a choice that didn't align with their good/bad category placement, they're just not cut out for that. But that's just now how life works.

Every single "good" person in history has made mistakes, and every single "evil or bad" person in history has some things right. Even on the extremes. We consider them to be good or bad because on average, we as people struggle with nuance, and these individuals, on average made decisions that either significantly bettered or worsened society around them.

These decisions though, weren't because of some innate quality that people had. They were responses to a wealth of factors: what they'd been taught to value, their psychological state, what resources they had, what they knew in the moment, and a bunch of other things. But at the end of the day, they were decisions. They could have chosen not to do that thing, good or bad.

As pedantic as this feels in the abstract, it does have very tangible social change consequences.

As many humans struggle with nuance, many also struggle with accountability. If a person is just a good or bad person, it doesn't matter what's happening in the world around them. But people respond to their circumstances, and those who enable positive choices, and those who enable negative choices are still partially accountable for the outcome of the situation.

Example of this: a kid A gets upset on a playground and lashes out at another kid B, hurting B in the process. We could call A a "bad kid," but if that's how conflict resolution and emotional regulation's being modeled at home, is A really bad? or did they just use the tools at their disposal to the best they knew how? The parents here are partially accountable for A's actions because they enabled that behavior.

What I'm getting at here is that if we stop at calling people good and bad, we're not going to get at the underlying issues that perpetuate problems. In the example, kid A is still going to have to apologize and do what they can to make amends for their actions, they did harm, after all, but unless this knowledge gap is filled by those who can see it needs to be filled, the problem will continue.

That's the circumstances part of "there are just circumstances and choices." The other side is that even a person we see as "good" can do major harm, and a person we see as bad can do major good.

Example of this: if close friend X is always super kind when you're around, and does a lot of good work, maybe volunteers, and then you hear from his son that X is a perpetrator of domestic abuse, does the fact that you see abusers as bad people and X as good mean that X is inherently not perpetrating domestic abuse?

No. The answer here is no.

Another (real) example: if someone radicalizes a lot of people towards a hate group and then gets deradicalized themself and start an organization centered around getting others out, does the fact that they caused part of the problem to begin with mean that what they're doing now doesn't matter because they're already bad?

I would argue no here. It might not undo the problem and collateral damage but it does matter.

What I'm getting at is that people can help people in one area of life and then turn around and hurt others in a different area. If we believe that "good" people are incapable of doing harm, we're going to abandon those who feel the direct brunt of the damage being caused and we'll be afraid to call out the actions taking place, and it will continue to go unchecked. If we believe that "bad" people are incapable of doing good, then we inherently forfeit any battles we fight trying to make positive change. How can a person do better if we lock them into a narrative where their only options are to continue harm?

Similarly, this goes to how we view ourselves. One the one hand, a lot of people who consider themselves to be "good people" have done a lot of harm because of the belief that hurting others makes someone a bad person and they're not a bad person so therefore they could not have done harm - it's the other person's fault, or it wasn't actually hurting someone because there just wasn't another way. Or the other hand, if people consider themselves to be "bad people" then that must mean they're the ones causing the harm, regardless of whether or not they are.

Having this in mind also protects us against scapegoating mentality. What actions are the people we're told are good making? Why are they making them? Likewise, what actions are the people we're told are bad making, and why?

In the end, people are in control of the choices they make. Being kind and compassionate is a choice. So is being violent or destructive. People will always have their reasons because most of us like to see ourselves as the hero of our story, but a choice made is still a choice made. We all have to answer for that.

[and for the people who are picking their worst villain from history and saying what about them? yeah they made horrible choices. but it was in their power to make a different choice. the weren't predestined for badness, they were taught that it was okay (or weren't taught that it wasn't) and chose to do it anyway. they also chose not to right those wrongs. they probably didn't even see themself as anything but a hero, especially since they were kind to at least someone. and that's the dangerous part, because anyone, given the right conditions and resources can go down that path.]

TL;DR, a good and bad binary doesn't reflect reality, it obscures a lot of problems, lets enablers of bad choices get off free and leaves those of good choices in the shadows, makes it harder for people to change for the better, makes it harder to call out when people change for the worse, enables scapegoating, and makes it harder to recognize the agency we have over our own actions and the consequences thereof. That's my hot take.

[princeescaluswords]

So I'm trying to write a "Scott has enough patience so he becomes the monster everybody kept forcing him to be" fanfic (keyword on the trying lol I'm not good at writing fanfics) and it got me thinking something.

What would make him actually snap, taking all the comments until the point he's tired of being the good guy and for once shut all of those comments down by going to the other side of the cause? I mean, he almost died -and actually died three times which is weird how he's handling it like he's pro at it -that could factor the mental side. The consistent negative comments from the "evil" characters (and from his own pack too wtf bro) so why can't the fandom write him an actual good evil plot??

Scott is smart enough on his own, he got outshined by Stiles and Lydia's since they're a lot smarter academically than Scott's (they dared asking him wtf AP stands for??? Just because he does bad in one class doesn't mean he's bad in every class ya get me? He stupid but he's not everyday stupid) so giving him some moments of darkness, and him actually do a type of "I don't harm innocents but I'll slit your throat if you harm one" type of manipulation evilness then expect me to die because I want that Evil Scott more than the typical Scott is a bad friend/true alpha/beta/hE forCEd [blank] shenanigans

Davis did Scott dirty by not making him bad from the Meet Nemeton Day episode alongside Stiles...full of potential to make Scott actually face his mental and emotional health but they have to make the definitely not supernatural token human jackhammer to become the bad boy of the week.

Sorry for the rant I just want you to know how I feel it could go down if Scott had a few loose screws and go downhill.

I sense the frustration coming off this post and it's something I can empathize with but I feel I have to caution you -- and people who feel as you do -- about a bad habit we fans of Scott fall into. We let fandom's poison color our appreciation of our favorite character.

Peter never said that biting Scott was a mistake, and that he wished he had bitten Stiles that night in the wood. When Peter complained about Scott it's because Scott had too strong a will to fall for his manipulations. His complaints were never about Scott's inadequacies, but about Scott being 'morally bland' and 'incorruptible.' When fandom states that Scott wouldn't have a chance against Peter, the first person in line to disagree would have been Peter, considering his canonical behavior.

Derek didn't resent the Master Plan because he recognized that Scott's actions saved him and his pack. In fact, he chose to learn from Scott and became a better person. Part of that evolution is that he stopped caring about the Hale legacy or revenge; the only reason he came back to Beacon Hills was for Scott. In the end, Scott's influence enabled Derek to become a True Alpha as well. His last words weren't to Stiles or Peter, after all. It's only parts of the fandom that think that Scott took something away from Derek or brainwashed him into a cult.

Theo and the Doctors recognized that the threat to their plans that Scott represented. After all, he was the only one that had to be eliminated. Deucalion told Scott that it was him that Gerard was truly afraid he couldn't beat. This was what was on the screen, and that's the only thing that fans of the show should take into account.

And not just the villains. The Sheriff of Beacon County turned to Scott when the crime was supernatural. Satomi Ito. His mother. Hellhounds. Banshees. Even Stiles. They all believed, even if they were angry with him, that Scott would be able to save the day. They didn't care that he got a D on a test or that he took summer school, because they weren't looking for a reason to dislike him. That's what parts of the fandom do, and for the chance to shift attention to the nearest shitty entitled white boy.

Because Scott did have moments of darkness and violence, no matter how much parts of the fandom want to diminish them, but the difference is he overcame them, no matter how much parts of the fandom want to act as if he didn't. Heroes have something different that marks them as such, and they have had it since humankind first started writing heroic stories. I would tell you what it is, but I'll let Derek say it from The Divine Move (3x24).

DEREK: When there's no chance of winning, he keeps fighting. When all hope is lost, he finds another way. And when he's beat down, he stands up again.

Scott's darkness is Despair. It's the temptation to give up, to recognize that his opponents are too powerful for him to care about other people, that he can't win without becoming like them, that what he wants is forever out of his reach because of what was done to him.

This includes Night School (1x07) when he barely manages to shake off Peter's mental enslavement. This includes Battlefield (2x11) when he has every reason to give into Gerard's manipulations, including his own mother's pleas and threats to Stiles and Allison. This include Motel California (3x06) when he convinces himself that his suicide would be the best thing he can do for everyone else. This includes The Divine Move where he pushes aside the memory of Allison dying in his arms to take care of Stiles while finding a way to win. This includes the entirety of Season 4 to the moment he rips that skull off his head. This includes the end of Status Asthmaticus (5x10), when he asks "why would they come back?" instead of focusing on what was done to him.

This is what happened, in both the show and the movie. This is what this story was about. This is why he is the heroic lead protagonist. This is why we like him, not because he never touched the darkness, but because he did touch the darkness and he rejected it. Well, maybe I'm being too presumptuous, but that's why I like him.

But too often, I think we've allowed ourselves to be blinded by an overwhelming majority of fandom who wanted a white guy instead so much that they'll look for ways to bash Scott. And they have to bash him really hard in order to make the real hero a guy who broke into Scott's house, threw him up against the wall and threatened to kill him on their third meeting and then bit four kids to serve as soldiers in a war. They have to bash really hard in order to make the real hero a guy who was so much of a coward that he worked with the woman who burned his family alive in order to get what he wanted. They have to bash really hard to make the real hero a teenager so fundamentally insecure that he lied to every single person he loved about an accidental death and then worked with there enemies to cover it up, selling his best friend out in the process.

So we spend time defending Scott from these people and their fanon creation -- and don't get me wrong, it's a good thing we do that -- but we have to remember that they are wrong. Absolutely wrong. Because their alternative version comes from banality and racism, and the story they wanted would be full of brutality, selfishness, and the capitulation to the worst instincts of human nature.

So my advice to you is to keep that frustration, but direct it at the media that actually deserves it.

[wheelercore]

I want. I want to talk about Victor Creel. Because we see a lot of his actions from Henry's perspective, and Henry being only 12 at the time I think it clouds a lot of what he says about him. Also I love making shit up about minor characters.

Henry viewed Victor as naive and a bit clueless and maybe stupid. Understandable, as Henry might have a lot of anger for him due to him never seeing Virginia's abuse of Henry. Never seeing Virginia as the "true" demon of the house instead opting to put the blame on a abstract concept of a demon haunting their home. A parent who overlooks or genuinely does not see the abuse the other parent is perpetuating upon their child in their own home is an of itself a form of horrible neglect.

There is also this righteous anger in Henry for Victor also because of his actions in the past, particularly during his service in the military which is shown as a baby burning in it's cradle- but I'm sure Victor has seen much more horrible horrible things during the war and subsequently feels massive guilt for.

Henry over the course of the season showed people the sides of themselves that they actively hid, holding a mirror to them. Victor was actively hiding this part of him, the part that is riddled with guilt and trauma for the things he saw and did during the war. I've seen this discussed before, but there seems to be this heavy implication that Victor has PTSD.

Victor's actions seemed to be naive and clueless from Henry's standpoint because Henry, being 12 and this being the 50s, has very little concept of post traumatic stress disorder. Hell, in s2 Owns mentions PTSD specifically in reference to Will saying that theyre just now learning more about it almost decades after WW2 when Victor served. Hopper mentions some of his war buddies who suffer from similar symptoms, in reference to Vietnam, and in s4 Hopper speaks more about his experiences surrounding the war and it's effects on him + how that bled into his family life (this being a bit more physical rather than mental with the death of his daughter).

I think that moment for Hopper was an intentional mirror to Victor. It's using a physical ailment (his exposure to whatever chemical it was that got carried in him caused his daughter to get sick) as an allegory for Victor's mental ailment that he carried with him from the war to his family. Hoppers daughter that got sick is a mirror to the effect Victor's emotional neglect and blindness towards Virginia's abuse had on Henry.

Victor was emotionay withdrawn, most likely dealing with his own issues and not connecting with Henry. Most likely overworking himself as a negative coping tactic and therefore never being home enough to witness Virginia's abuse of Henry, or being too tired when he got home to notice. Avoiding people, including friends and family, is also another symptom of PTSD to avoid stressors- and also again could contribute to Victor being oblivious to Henry's issues.

But what I think is the biggest indicator? We know it was Henry all along, and it was real, but the way Victor speaks about the "demon" that he is convinced was haunting his home. How he can feel it, how it's always around him, always there haunting him and his family. He couldn't tell it was Henry (or anything going on that was related to Henry), because he was consumed by this idea of a foreign malevolent being in every nick and cranny. Him constantly being on guard, and it sounds frankly like paranoia.

When we get that shot of Victor sitting out on the porch with a shotgun in his hand, despite the fact that the "demon" is inside the house and Victor believes this. At night, when he should be sleeping or getting ready for bed, he's outside watching out for other forces that could harm his family- most likely because the events inside the house were triggering his PTSD and now he saw dangers inside and out of his home. Or, just as bad, this was something he did regularly regardless of whether he was convinced he was being haunted or not.

But I think it's overlooked a lot because Victor does not display, at least not from what we've seen, "stereotypical" symptoms of PTSD in media (ie often harmful). Especially with how afflicted veterans are often portrayed in media. It's subtle and Victor is portrayed as this clueless, naive, and even a bit pathetic man to the point where Henry himself believed it because that's how Victor portrayed himself as his way of toeing the line of conformity.

And we know st loves to play with perspectives and how characters are portrayed.

[katyspersonal]

It is still hard to believe.. yet at the same time, everything makes too much sense.

Ever since I saw how much he seemed to hate me and wish ill on me and be in genuine agreement that I was a danger for society for ableist reasons, I've been doubtful. Maybe I was in the wrong, after all? Maybe I did cause harm with my words, after all? Why else would someone act this way? Because being scared and perceiving me as someone harmful from how I sounded at my worst is still harm. Negative emotions sap the HP, I am aware of that. Not to mention that apparently turned out he mentioned being afraid to interact with people that interacted with ME.

But when I got crashed with the reveal that, in fact, he never saw me as a human being to BEGIN with, but only as a name in "heretics" list, everything fell back into place. I've never been happier to get back to square fucking uno. Mic was right about that type of people being just NPCs all along. He saw something many years before I did, and I was right to chase that white rabbit.

All that vitriol, all that ill will, ditching people that as much as were kind to me felt so personal. I was convinced, CONVINCED that I HAD to have done something bad to him, even if collateraly, to evoke this. And yet, apparently, it is okay in the eyes of those sorry Choirlings to treat people this way mindlessly and spread hateful fear-mongerish propaganda under guise of "awareness" without bothering to learn whether it is justified . People just... can do this shit carelessly and tell you that they do not want to know you as a person, which by effect means they don't want to know whether they were fair to you or not. Internet does something with people. At the very least, I was genuinely concerned that I might have hurt him, and it was a reasonable conclusion from how he reacted. But, no. People just throw words, actions and posts carelessly. They don't care how it effects the person or whether it would change a darn thing about the world to the better or whether the claims are ever true. Of course it "was not personal", because they don't see me as a person. Or even themselves.

"This is what queer people do" no, this is what cultists that are hostile to the "outsiders" do. And the fact that he told these words to another queer person should be even more telling. I can feel Mic laughing in my head, even if we parted the ways for months now on very negative terms. His mistake was simply in deciding to respond to those people in kind. But learning that I was correct in looking at him and thinking "this is what happens with people that "communities" grind and toss away like trash". He was a trans man and yet his own "community" denied him his own identity for failing to follow the rules and imposed ways to look at things or even at his own body and mind. This is why I do not turn to "communities": people within them are so paranoid that they start eating their own. When there is a suspicion that one of them is a bad apple, the bastards start interrogating and honestly dip into extremely private matters without any decency. And not even baring one's entire life and soul guarantees being saved. I was not guilty for understanding such a simple thing, it were my enemies who lacked common sense. And I should have never doubted my perception only because I got concerned about a single Choir boy. But no one can understand how liberating it feels for me, a person with lifelong story of being gaslighted, abused, brainwashed and manipulated to finally be confident about my perception. I am still yet to deal with anger, I have been extremely irritable and disturbed ever since that exchange. I even got into a fight at workplace. I know WHY I am so angry.... I am not mad at anyone, but hyperactive because my mental hardware is being rewritten. Erased, destroyed, and created again, but finally with a crucial change. But it should be the first step to my healing. To my independence. I don't need Mic to see things. I don't need "community" to see things. I don't need Kris, I don't need my abusive stepdad. This is what finally seeing things without anyone's help feels like, and I want to nurture and improve this ability. I've realized, at last, that I am not as stupid and confused about world and people as I always thought. The confidence in my ability to make choices. The knowledge that I have nothing to apologize for (except for being rude and hostile, and it is not damning, everyone reacts differently when scared).

But also this is why I don't want to end up hating the whole world. As long as THIS is the state of identity-based communities, there will be people that get thrown out of them for being "misfits". Identically homeless people keep increasing in numbers, and they should stay this way. Because if we were to make our own community, we'd just start yet another vicious cycle. Because humans are evil, and this evil comes through social organizing. We must walk our own ways and maybe communicate and make small friends groups at best- just like individual Hunters scattered across the game, or covenants too small to be communities. To Hell with the Choir boys, they don't deserve me shedding a single tear over them if they don't even bother to acknowledge me as an individual. DEFINITELY to Hell with Alfred and Logarius (you know who they are if you followed since summer). And also to Hell with that lunatic, even if meeting him was so, so rewarding in the end. No one deserves me humbling up and doubting myself and crying for them. No one, no one, no one....

[if-confessions]

-_- why are they so many shitty authors out there? not like in writing, but as a person.... engaging with really shitty and all-the-phobic people when their project (or them) claims to be supportive of minorities. or they are the one being all-the-phobic... even when faced with the facts, they pretend nothing is happening or like we are haters. it feels so bad cause their stuff is my fav games out there. i don't know what to do...

Hi Anon, Or should I say, Anons... since you were not the only one sending me this kind of ask. I'm bundling my answers here.

I can't tell you what to do... This discussion (separating the art from the artist) is a very personal one, and the answer will differ per people and/or per case. Some people separate the work from the author the moment they viewed it, some people cannot. Others will think about the links to the piece before making the decision, like: the extent the work was personal to the author, the extent their morals and views were included in the work, the type of action and gravity of said action the author did, the extent the work is important to the reader, whether revisiting the work after knowing a certain negative aspect about the creator changes the experience of the work... and that's the only aspects I can think of right now. As a result, some people will stop consuming content from that creator altogether, some will only consume without supporting the author (monetarily or promotionally), some won't stop consuming no matter what... There's been many videos and articles on that topic over the years by the way.

As for your first question...

🤷

I've been wracking my brain on how to answer this part. Had a lot of thoughts but nothing was coherent enough, or would flow in a way that made sense. So I tried to find all the common themes or the big points from them. Sidenote: not condoning hateful or phobic behaviour here, the points below are not excuses for shitty behaviours, I was genuinely trying to answer the why as objectively as possible. (hopefully your question wasn't rethorical...)

People characterise things differently (often influenced by their background and experiences). What is shitty to someone might be "normal" behaviour to someone else.

People have different views on things and sets of morals, which can sometimes explain why their actions can be hypocritical. Whether siding/engaging with [insert]-phobic people would invalidate their claim to be supportive of minority, they might not see it that way.

People don't like to be wrong or admitting they were wrong. It's hard to question yourself and your actions, only to find out how much hurt you've done, when it's much easier to believe the other person is in the wrong. oh the ego...

People who don't care about facts about a subject won't care if you try to debate with them (rationally or trying to persuade them). It sometimes will have the reverse effect (push them further into their position).

People don't like to be judged. On anything. Their actions. Their views. Their relationships. We can pretend that we don't, but most of us do at the end of the day. (And we can have very emotional/reactionary responses because of those)

People will often do things that will benefit them: promoting their project as minority friendly when they dislike them so they can get more readers, addressing something so it gives them brownie points with their community (or attracts more people to their side), not addressing anything with the hopes that it blows over (with internet moving on to newer things pretty quickly, that often works), or rebutting the confrontation by doubling down and invalidating the claim of the sender as troll (whether or not it is deserved), etc...

People are flawed. And hypocrites. And shitty. Everywhere.

Hope this shed a light on something? It probably won't, my brain is a mess...

[Old Comments in tags: I probably spent way too long on trying to answer this I really wanted to be objective on the question I don't want to dictate people's actions regardless of my position or views or thoughts I personally have trouble separating the art from the artist (and vice versa) /]

[angstmonsterwrites]

I have a close family member who struggles with a massive, childhood-abuse related guilt complex. This individual also has difficulty with an occasional hot temper and some nit-picky behavior as a result. I want to break down the cycle of faulty assumptions and belief systems that have arisen in this loved one, because it's occurred to me that they're quite common.

1) The belief that having any needs or wants of others isn't merely an inconvenience or burden --it's a shameful crime and evidence they're a bad person. (Of course, it's always normal and acceptable for anyone else to have needs/wants.)

2) The belief that continuing to have needs and wants in spite of #1 will drive others to hate them.

3) Because of #2, the deep fear or belief that others do in fact secretly despise them, or are fast coming to resent them.

4) The belief that in order to avoid #3, they must be continuously useful and super generous to make up for their inherent badness. Boundaries are hard to come by or maintain. Honest communication shuts down, and they do their best to stuff any difficult feelings.(People-pleasing/ doormat/ fawning behavior.)

5) As a result of the emotional exhaustion caused by #4, the resentful feeling or belief that no one puts up nearly the effort or care they do may set in. There's a small element of truth to that, because constant people pleasing to make up for one's own perceived unlovableness is typically excessive and unhealthy. Showing love and kindness through helpful actions is great, but it becomes poisonous when the motive is fear or a sense of inadequacy. The terrible irony is that part of why others aren't doing as much for them is often that they continuously turn down most offers and efforts on others' part to show mutual kindness.

6) Between the belief that others harbor secret hatred and the feeling that no one else is putting in an similar effort, they start to feel used and offended. They project their negative thoughts and ideas about themselves onto those they're trying to please or even those they genuinely care for, such that when the guilt hits really hard, it feels like an attack from those other people.

7) Because of #6, conflict occurs. When things finally settle down and everyone's brought to the point of stating their true intentions, they defeatedly admit they took something personally or misunderstood it because they were feeling guilty. Their guilt warped their perception of others' thoughts, feelings, intentions, etc. into something much worse than was really going on.

8) They feel deeply ashamed over having caused unnecessary conflict or a heated misunderstanding, and double down on their guilt because they feel they deserve it. Self loathing increases. The incident of conflict then serves as "evidence" that people not only secretly hate them, but that they do so with good reason. They may very much want to believe it when others reassure them they're not hated, but it feels too far fetched to be true.

9) They attempt to communicate their needs and concerns better for a bit--and may even do a very good job of articulating their feelings for a short while-- but their guilt and shame quickly stifles or complicates those efforts, leading back to #1. They may shut down somewhat, and grow defensive of keeping their more "inconvenient" emotions under lock and key. Unfortunately, without recognition of the overall pattern and cycle, this behavior might seem to others as normal boundary setting.

There is only one point at which this cycle can be broken, and that's #1. I strongly dislike the notion that we teach others how to treat us, as it absolves those others of responsibility for their own actions, but how we see ourselves does inevitably impact how we relate to others, and how they in turn respond to us. People can only work with the information they have, and unresolved or unmanaged guilt complexes drive so, so much misunderstanding and needless conflict. However, it is impossible to guilt and shame oneself out of feeling guilty and ashamed.

Trying to think of oneself in a positive light might be too much of a reach to start, but anything is better than believing oneself to be fundamentally bad and wrong. A place of steady neutrality is a good starting point. "I'm a normal human being having normal human feelings, with typical human needs for support," for instance, is far preferable. It doesn't demand cheery forced celebration of oneself, but also represents a marked move away from the kind of self-denigration a guilt complex thrives on.

[edelgarfield]

i was making a post abt lestat iwtv being bpd coded and how through that lens the way other characters treat him, and the way fans justify it rly unsettles me (i was focusing on the friends that i watched the show with, though im sure the fandom does it too, but im not touching that with a 10 ft pole)

but i stopped bc i realized i was pretending to talk abt lestat but i was actually talking abt me and watching the show & hearing the way my friends talk abt someone who exhibits symptoms of my disorder was really upsetting

so like there's a thousand posts in the bpd (and other communities on tumblr) that say something along the lines of "everyone's sympathetic until i start exhibiting symptoms of the mental illness i told you i have." and yes, that's true & it sucks.

but i was thinking abt past relationships & even some of the friendships that i have at the moment. people LOVE receiving affection & attention from people with bpd. like that's ALSO something that gets talked about all the time, we can be super compassionate, empathetic, etc etc. people love having someone they KNOW isn't going to leave, they love being able to walk in & out of my life at their leisure, they love getting showered with gifts & having someone who will do virtually anything for them. this is extremely common behavior.

those are all a direct result of my bpd. people don't care at all when i'm exhibiting THOSE symptoms. in fact they actively enjoy & benefit from it. people LOVE the fact that I have bpd. a TON of people actively encourage those symptoms and use them to their advantage. my fear of abandonment makes me extremely easy to manipulate and i've had PLENTY of people do that. my shittier friends will invoke my triggers or withhold affection or ghost me in order to get the response they want. they know they can win an argument by threatening to leave.

so people will actively encourage & use my bpd to their benefit, but then get upset with me as soon as i display a negative symptom of the disorder they've been encouraging. like obviously i'm 100% responsible for my behavior & no matter how i'm treated that's not an excuse to hurt another person or try to manipulate them.

but the "positive" symptoms of bpd (the affection & desperation & attention) don't feel positive for ME. they feel good on the receiving end but for me it's still awful, I'm panicking & empty and it hurts a lot. but nobody cares how I feel, they only care how my disorder affects them. and i work really hard to regulate & control myself! it takes a lot of effort on my part to keep my bpd from hurting other people but no one thinks about how their actions hurt me. like again it's not other people's job to manage my illness but there's also a bunch of extremely minor things people could do that would make it 100x easier on me. but i feel like i can't ask for them bc any time someone w/ bpd asks for ANYTHING it's seen as manipulative & toxic. i'm always second guessing whether it's "okay" to be honest about how i'm feeling bc i worry about even accidentally making someone feel pressured to help me. i feel like i can't explain that i have bpd bc as soon as i do people will see any emotional vulnerability from me as a form of manipulation.

so like, it just feels incredibly unfair that people are allowed to manipulate & benefit & enjoy the symptoms of my disorder no matter how much it hurts me, but as soon as it affects them in a way they don't like, i'm manipulative & an inherently bad person and all the things they enjoyed about me previously are suddenly recolored as an elaborate scheme. like i'm 100% responsible for any emotional manipulation or cruelty that's caused by my bpd, that's completely fair. but nobody cares about the way people use my bpd for their own benefit or use it to manipulate me, that's just considered acceptable. if someone is benefiting from my bpd in a way that hurts me, nobody cares bc i'm just crazy and it's my fault for getting hurt,