#the concepts but couldnt apply them properly. and i was RIGHT!!!!!

[cramenjoyer]

scientist agreeing w the dr who headcanon i made up when i was 14 abt the chemical composition of gallifreyan soil...... hello??

[zevranunderstander]

i have so many thoughts right now, but if gerudos were real, like, there are so many aspects of their culture that would be way different and its not even just that they dont make sense because the writers didnt properly think about them, they don't make sense because of the explicit desire of the writers to sexualize them and because the assumptions the writers had were so deeply western & christian that they just assumed them to be the default and oughhh i hate it so much

a culture of desert people would not fucking wear silks and expose tons of skin & hair all the time. especially OoT designs make no practical sense? its literally just so that they look hot and the following games kind of kept that design (they didnt appear in a lot of titles afterwards so this wasnt a super established part of the zelda canon, they clearly could have chosen a more practical design for their clothes for botw and totk, but, yk, they didnt)

and like. a society that doesnt really get the concept of "men", Why On Earth would they be monogamous and heteronormative? why would they care about men? like? even if your answer is "for reproduction", why would they strive to be in a *relationship* with a man? like? men arent exactly native to the regions they live in? why would *every* woman hike out to find some dude to date?

and like. i thought it was SO interesting that ganondorf has 2 moms, right? like, even though theyre twin sisters and not a lesbian couple, why WOULDNT a society like that raise children among sisters or friends or as a group, outside of relationships? but the concept never comes up again and they all apparently travel hyrule when they are old enough and look for a husband. (and you know its just like that because they couldnt even *consider* people thinking there was anything gay going on there)

and why would the gerudo make a man their king? thats kinda like if we as a society noticed an intersex person and immediately made them the pope? people usually do not really LIKE people that arent Like Them, and dont just make them their leader? only a person having a very patriarcial worldview (which just DOESNT MAKE SENSE for the gerudo to have) would decide that the only man born would be their leader?

and in every instance where you encounter gerudo talking about men, they clearly see them as weaker than them, like, you see this in so many interactions, that gerudo think of women to be the Stronger Gender, so why does that not apply to male gerudos? like? ganondorf is kind of a Sorcerer Who Has A Sword, so why would a folk of warrior women think of him as inherently superior to them and stronger than them in some way?

why would they even consider one instance of another gender to be something that should be split into a binary and identify it as a different identity than them?? why do the gerudo have a preconceived notion that male gerudos should wear different types of clothes than women??? why does ganondorf have different pronouns??? why do the gerudo have gendered language at all??

and for the newer games specifically, why would the gerudo be so boy-crazy? like, dont get me wrong i genuinely liked that they didnt just make them Tough Mean Women in the new game and allowed them to also be a bit silly and whimsical, but there would have been other ways to do that than making them Literally Obsessed With Men?

i think its fitting that a person who hasnt socialized much with men might be a bit akward and might not know what to say or might not be able to relate to them very well, but then why do they not seem to be bothered by talking to women of other races? i mean, they might be all women but theres probably more reason to be akward around a zora if you never met one than there is reason to be akward around a man if you never met one? does that make sense?

also. why on earth would men not be allowed in their town. WHY do these women go out and find husbands, but then the husbands are not allowed in town, that makes literally zero fucking sense. like i said these people shouldnt really care about gender as a binary in the first place, and instead just maybe be really bad at differentiating between genders. but why would they care that much that men dont enter their town?

like make it make sense nintendo

[demaskblue]

Lets unpack that! (anyone more informed please feel free to correct me, im still learning!)

As kindly a certain someone has suggested thats nothing but reactionary propaganda, how unbiased of you to get such a twisted opinion, i dont blame you for it as its sadly very easy to come across!

Not only that but certainly EVEN if he was it would go against everything he stood for, including the very reason why they wanted to get rid of him! Not only that but ''his'' group or cohalition/coworkers found themselves in the CPS also known as the Committee of public safety which mind you included 9, then later on 12 members which were their own people and had formed their own opinions!

Robespierre was deemed ''too soft'' and in fact was more ''moderate'' (and im using that very LIGHTLY TBH) compared to other people which were really ugh ACTUAL KILLERS (check joseph fouche for reference!)

He didnt have the power to just lift a finger and go ''haha KILL'', man was actually pretty much against violence as a concept, thanks to the way his thoughts were shaped by Rousseau and tbh he was religious. While yes he did ''support'' the killing of CERTAIN people (mostly people unwilling to surrender their power which mind you were abusing a system oppressing the poor) it wasnt anyone based on race/ethnicity/sexuality/religion, see specimen Louis XVI as an example, they not excused but EXPLAINED by a necessity of having them gone to not put the Revolution aka people lives at cost and it was a normal and supported opinion at the time!

If you were to call him such names i wonder what your reaction to more firey people such as Marat would be! Now thats someone to call insane (tbh love him for it). He couldnt have the power nor wanted to do what he was doing, but he knew that it was out of NECESSITY. Such as doing something unpleasant for the sake of everyone. Mind you, the public (while having breaks and their moments thanks to propaganda) liked the guy and tbh they needed him just as anyone else, why did they need him? He stood up for those unable to speak of themselves and had pretty based views which people needed. He did have his ups and downs like partecipating in the shut down of girls political clubs and was against women being violent (flop moment tbh, women cant have anything huh /lh + same applied to men) and cancelling his best friends paper just to save his ass instead of communicating properly, he was pretty sound and totally not the voice of insanity some ''sources'' made him to be.

Also the term genocide is used wrongly here, in the basis of what would be not knowing better but it refers to extermination of an entire group of people based on race, ethnicity, religion and more. Tbh if you were to use that against him only in the ''he partecipated the killing of people'' way id have to say its appropriate but guessing you havent gotten updated on it: youd have to consider lots of people that during that time were in fact murderers, even some of your faves.

+Genocide wouldnt be the right term to use! its way too heavy and i would have agreed if you said he partecipated in the killing of people OUT OF CONTEXT

Also i'm assuming you're using maniac in a general way as you would say ''unhinged'' ''violent'' ''insane'' and while the dude certainly had his issues... he was known for having ''lets try to minimize any violence and outrage'' agenda going on, while he did partecipate in the law of 22 prarial, which is the law drafted and proposed by Georges Couthon to basically speed up trials it didnt put them in invulnerable positions, and based on votes members of the committee themselves were able to be put on trial. Said law says that a rumor was enough to send you to trial. While it is weird and certainly a.. take to process tbh, you have to keep in mind the political and storical context to explain it. Doesnt mean its ok but remember to consider multiple points of view. HE WASNT PERFECT NOR HE WAS LIKE THE BEST PERSON OUT THERE but he certainly wasnt a dictator. You can criticise his bad takes without painting a caricature of him.

If you're interested on something more tangible than a long reblog mass of text and which goes in detail about Robespierre giving you a great portrayal of the guy i can't suggest enough ''Robespierre: A revolutionary life'' - Peter McPhee which you can check out for free

-> HERE <- - https://www.pdfdrive.com/robespierre-a-revolutionary-life-d191380141.html

Its a good and easy read, tbh a good introduction if you wanna get into french revolution, nothing against you , just that you're simply wrong and i suggest researching it before making such claims, tbh i dont blame you for having such views. Schools may be at fault for it ;P BUT you missed the entire point of the first post lmao

Made this for convenient use