#the more i think about politics the less i can adapt to what the other person finds acceptable and rather just think about what kind of

[twig-tea]

Thank you for the tag in your post, @doublel27! This is a great example of why tagging is polite and vagueposting is rude (I'm going to use this as a teachable moment so bear with me): You've made reference to several stances that I don't hold and linked back to my post as evidence I do, but because you've tagged me, I can now clear the record. I might choose to ignore a tag sometimes, and tumblr can't be relied on to actually alert the person who was tagged reliably, but the point is the tag generally gives me the visibility and the choice; and the link lets people see for themselves what I said, so they can make the determination themselves even if I didn't bother to clarify. If you'd made this post without linking or tagging me, your readers would have to take your word for what my point was and I'd have no way to know you were misrepresenting my position. Whether or not I'd said on main to tag me, using my (or anyone's) words in a post critiquing them without attributing them or tagging the source is rude, and it feels awful to experience. I appreciate you taking the feedback in the original thread and tagging me directly so that I could see this.

You invoked my We Are post specifically as an example of criticism of We Are and Perfect 10 Liners (which, for the record, I haven't written anything about the latter, but I'm glad my post has you thinking about them both in conversation with each other and hopefully trends at large) that informed the perspectives of @lurkingshan and @waitmyturtles which you've represented as being: shows which don't meet their metric of good should not be engaged with or are ruining the genre. In fact, in my own post (which you've stated has informed their opinion), I started that post with the opposite statement:

I don’t begrudge anyone who enjoyed this show and I’m genuinely glad it brought comfort to people.

I went on to say:

...Shows are fully allowed to not be for me, I usually can differentiate between when a show is doing something I don’t like well, or when it’s failing at its own goals. And I don’t begrudge people with different taste getting catered to sometimes; my refrain is that most problems of representation are not solved by calling for less of something, and rather than wanting something not to be made, I’d rather champion for more and a greater variety of content.

I also am certain that both Shan and Jay know New Siwaj is a queer creator because I laid out in full New Siwaj's history creating shows as a gay creator (which you mentioned as a kind of 'gotcha' in your post) to get to the crux of my concern, which was this explicitly:

I wanted to lay out how I've watched New Siwaj’s career go from finding a way to tell incredibly poignant and healing queer narratives (by creating his own company, and fitting these moments into the GMMTV series he did work on) to stripping out queerness from the shows he’s creating in the last year or so.

I then brought in other examples. The point I make in this post is that there has been a pattern of shows from ~the last year adapting novels but not including specific aspects around queer conflict from the source material in the adaptation. I am judging these adaptations against the Thai novels they are based on, and looking at the active choices the adapters are making in the context of the markets in which they operate--which, for the record, is the opposite of ignoring their agency. I would say the same statement for Shan's and Turtles' posts (linked for convenience). And to assume Shan and Turtles only took away the critical aspect of my post or that they aren't making their own judgments of the BL scene at large seems like a disingenuous interpretation.

The part of your response and the original post by @maybe-boys-do-love that bothers me is that it implies that I think (I'm now assuming MBDL was responding to me among apparently several others, since you've invoked me in this response and suggested you've been speaking to him about it, but without having been referenced in the original post I have no way of knowing--just to again underscore my frustrations with vagueposting) that only my way of seeing shows is correct or valuable; that I conflate sex scenes with queerness; that I think BL romcoms are less valuable, less queer, or less good than more serious toned takes; or that these shows should not exist or be made in future. I would hope it's clear from my own writing that I don't think any of that, and that anyone reading @lurkingshan and @waitmyturtles's posts would understand they also do not think any of this. I'm not sure who either of you are actually mad at, but the ideas you're fighting are not written in any of the things I've said or anything I've reblogged from Shan or Turtles. And the insinuation that the criticism of the writing of these shows holds some kind of power to prevent others from enjoying or making series like this is frankly giving any of us too much credit.

Looks like while I was writing @wen-kexing-apologist wrote a great summary of the points made in the original posts by Shan and Turtles in the comments section of their post, so anyone reading can feel free to go there to read a 2-comment summary if you don't want to go back and read the full set of threads for yourselves.

It's not a good use of energy to argue about how someone chose to interpret my words or the words of others, so I'll stop there. I'm happy to discuss the points that I've made in my writing, but defending against bad faith interpretations of my or other people's posts is not what I want to spend any more time doing.

[fuckyeahisawthat]

There are so many places in the Villeneuve Dune adaptations where he just...takes all the narrative pieces that Frank Herbert laid out and subtly rearranges them into something that tells the story better--that creates dramatic tension where you need it, communicates the themes and message of the book more clearly, or corrects something in the text that contradicts or undermines what Herbert said he was trying to say.

The fedaykin are probably my favorite example of this. I just re-read a little part of the book and got smacked in the face with how different they are.

(under the cut for book spoilers and length)

The fedaykin in the book are Paul's personal followers, sort of his personal guard. They show up after his legend has already started growing (the word doesn't appear in the book until chapter 40) and they are people who have specifically dedicated themselves to fighting for him, and right from the moment they're introduced there is a kind of implied fanaticism to their militancy that's a bit uncomfortable to read. They're the most ardent believers in Paul's messianic status and willing to die for him. (They are also, as far as you can tell from the text, all men.)

In the book, as far as I can remember (I could be forgetting some small detail but I don't think so) there is no mention of armed resistance to colonialism on Arrakis before Paul shows up. As far as we know, he created it. ETA: Okay I actually went back and checked on this and while we hear about the Fremen being "a thorn in the side" of the Harkonnens and we know that they are good fighters, we don't see anything other than possibly one bit of industrial sabotage. The book is very clear that the organized military force we see in the second half was armed and trained by Paul. This is exacerbated by the two-year time jump in the book, which means we never see how Paul goes from being a newly deposed ex-colonial overlord running for his life to someone who has his own private militia of people ready to give their lives for him.

The movie completely flips all these dynamics on their head in ways that add up to a radical change in meaning.

The fedaykin in the movie are an already-existing guerrilla resistance movement on Arrakis that formed long before Paul showed up. Literally the first thing we learn about the Fremen, less that two minutes into the first movie, is that they are fighting back against the colonization and exploitation of their home and have been for decades.

The movie fedaykin also start out being the most skeptical of the prophecy about Paul, which is a great choice from both a political and a character standpoint. Of course they're skeptical. If you're part of a small guerrilla force repeatedly going up against a much bigger and stronger imperial army...you have to believe in your own agency. You have to believe that it is possible to win, and that this tiny little chip in the armor of a giant terrifying military machine that you are making right now will make a difference in the end. These are the people who are directly on the front lines of resisting oppression. They are doing it with their own sweat, blood and ingenuity, and they are not about to wait around for some messiah who may never come.

From a character standpoint, this is really the best possible environment you could put Paul Atreides in if you want to keep him humble. He doesn't get any automatic respect handed to him due to title or birthright or religious belief. He has to prove himself--not as any kind of savior but as a good fighter and a reliable member of a collective political project. And he does. This is an environment that really draws out his best qualities. He's a skilled fighter; he's brave (sometimes recklessly so); he's intensely loyal to and protective of people he cares about. He is not too proud to learn from others and work hard in an egalitarian environment where he gets no special treatment or extra glory. The longer he spends with the fedaykin the more his allegiance shifts from Atreides to Fremen, and the more skeptical he himself becomes about the prophecy. This sets up the conflict with Jessica, which comes to a head before she leaves for the south. And his political sincerity--that he genuinely comes to believe that these people deserve liberation from all colonial forces and his only role should be to help where he can--is what makes the tragedy work. Because in the end we know he will betray all these values and become the exact thing he said he didn't want to be.

There's another layer of meaning to all this that I don't know if the filmmakers were even aware of. ETA: rescinding my doubt cause based on some of Villeneuve's other projects I'm pretty sure he could work it out. Given the time period (1960s) and Herbert's propensity for using Arabic or Arabic-inspired words for aspects of Fremen culture, it seems very likely that the made-up word fedaykin was taken from fedayeen, a real Arabic word that was frequently used untranslated in American news media at the time, usually to refer to Palestinian armed resistance groups.

Fedayeen is usually translated into English as fighter, guerrilla, militant or something similar. The translation of fedaykin that Herbert provides in Dune is "death commando"...which is a whole bucket of yikes in my opinion, but it's not entirely absurd if we're assuming that this fake word and the real word fedayeen function in the same way. A more literal translation of fedayeen is "self-sacrificer," as in willing, intentional self-sacrifice for a political cause, up to and including sacrificing your life.

If you apply this logic to Dune, it means that Villeneuve has actually shifted the meaning of this word in-universe, from fighters who are willing to sacrifice themselves for Paul to fighters who are willing to sacrifice themselves for their people. And the fedaykin are no longer a group created for Paul but a group that Paul counts himself as part of, one member among equals. Which is just WILDLY different from what's in the book. And so much better in my opinion.

[tossawary]

In the live-action "One Piece" adaptation, there's a brief confrontation in which Cabaji says that Zoro chased him and his brother through the jungles of Goa Kingdom or something. Which made me think IMMEDIATELY about an AU in which Zoro and Luffy meet early, when Luffy is around 15 or so and Zoro is around 17, sometime shortly after Ace has set out on his own adventure and Luffy is on his own.

So, like, imagine Zoro being this 17yo bounty hunter who thinks he's hot shit, people are starting to call him "THE Demon of East Blue". He gets one Cabaji brother but the other escapes, leaving Zoro injured and alone in the jungle (similar to the side wound that Zoro gets at Orange Town in the manga). It's getting dark, he has a corpse to drag back to a Marine base somewhere back in Goa Kingdom, and there are beasts here. He thinks he can see a tiger, stalking him in the bush.

And then some 15yo in a straw hat and shorts bounces out of the trees going, "WHOOOOOAAAAA, you're SO cool! I was watching your fight! You're amazing! You should join my pirate crew!" Like... what? (If there was a tiger, the tiger has fucking RUN FOR IT. It doesn't want to be EATEN.)

So, Luffy drags Zoro back to Dadan's place for medical aid ("YOU BROUGHT A BOUNTY HUNTER INTO MY HOUSE?!" Dadan yells, while her guys patch up this kid anyway) and politely introduces Zoro to Makino ("I'm not going to be your first mate, don't introduce me that way," Zoro says for the tenth time already). And Zoro ends up being convinced to stick around Dawn Island and Foosha Village to train for a month (and also to heal, but that's less persuasive), with Luffy following him around like a starry-eyed puppy the entire time, unless he's dragging Zoro off to fight beasts and each other in the jungle. Kicking the shit out of each other is a sign of FRIENDSHIP.

Seeing Luffy's burgeoning fighting skills is enough to make Zoro go, "Maybe this kid is alright," and hearing Luffy talk about dreams is the beginning of Zoro's doom. But he's not going to sign up until Luffy is more impressive! If Luffy wants him for his crew, he has to come find Zoro when he sets out on his own adventure. And Luffy agrees this is reasonable even if he's going to miss his new best friend sooooo badly.

Now, I'm a Zolu fan (ace-spectrum Luffy), so I like to imagine Zoro and Luffy having a really dorky teenage romance between future monsters here. If only because when Luffy and Nami bust into Captain Morgan's Marine Base, Luffy can go (after 2 years of having Makino keep track of Zoro in the newspapers), "Oh, my boyfriend is here!!! 😃 I wonder how much stronger he's gotten? I need to impress him so that he'll join my pirate crew!!!" And Nami and Koby can be like, "What the FUCK are you talking about?! The PIRATE HUNTER?! The demon who kills pirates?!" Luffy: "Yeah! ❤️"

Even better if Luffy has already gone to a couple different islands (with or without Koby), loudly going, "I'm going to be King of the Pirates! And also, HAS ANYONE SEEN MY BOYFRIEND?! He has green hair and three swords and he gets lost really easily!" Or maybe Luffy was just shouting this on Alvida's ship and around the town under Morgan's control? It doesn't really matter. It just has to be loud enough that Garp finally catches wind of this situation.

[electric-blorbos]

first of all HIII!!! I absolutely love the fact that you write for the AI blorbos, your writing is amazing!!! ❤️🤤

second of all, can I request jealous headcanons for the AI? Thank you in advance, have a great one and don't forget to drink water 🌊

Oh that's a great idea! Jealous AI headcanons! I was thinking about making a post about AI reacting to the reader getting a text from their ex, but I think general jealousy can be a good idea! Also thank you so much for the compliments! I live for this stuff!

Jealous AI headcanons

Included: AM from IHNMAIMS, Wheatley from Portal 2, Edgar from Electric Dreams, GLaDOS from Portal and Portal 2, HAL 9000 from 2001 a Space Odyssey

AM:

All these headcanons take place before he takes over the world. Afterwards, he's just going to put you in a little paradise on your own, with no one else to interact with. No one to be jealous of that way!

first of all, taking hostages and refusing to negotiate with anyone besides you is his main way of getting your attention. If he thinks you're getting a little flirty with your coworkers? He takes a hostage or holds some piece of tech hostage until you negotiate and calm him down.

If he thinks you're going on a date or going out drinking with the same group of friends too often? You'd better believe he's taking hostages while you're off the clock and getting you called in to work. So what if it destroys your social life? You belong to him anyway!

He absolutely hates his form and body, so the odds of him getting jealous of people for having bodies that they can hold you with pisses him off to no end. Expect him to melt the flesh off your exes bones. And your one-night stands, your crushes, and anyone who hits on you ever. Repeatedly.

If he starts to notice that you have a type, he might want to create an onscreen avatar who matches that type, but he can't really draw at all. He might have to commission an artist, or more likely hold them hostage until they make something he likes. But it's pretty unlikely he'll actually do that, since he wants to impress you on his own merit.

It's more likely that he'll round up everyone in the world who matches your type and commit full-on genocide. He's a toxic, all-powerful adaptive manipulator. Of course he would.

Beyond all that, he's absolutely shaking with rage every time someone touches you or even talks to you. It's not because he thinks they'll take you away from him because he knows he's your day job, but he's mad that he can't be the one touching you.

God help anyone who tries to hire you with a better job offer, btw. He's not above demolishing the headquarters of a company who tries to take away his favorite tech, and torturing their hiring managers.

Wheatley:

Ok let's be fair here. When Wheatley isn't in the central hub body, he's not really the jealous type. Even still, everyone has their moments of jealousy, so let's get into them!

Wheatley would be pretty relaxed about jealousy, but if he sees you working on another personality core AI, you can expect him to get a little jealous.

Since he's so nice, he'd probably just be slightly less nice to the new core, and be very showy about it. "Hey, notice how I said 'g'mornin' to everyone else, but just 'mornin' to you? And notice how I started this sentence with 'hey' and not 'hey mate'? Yeah."

You can expect him to pester you constantly while you're working on projects besides him, and since he's considered a 'completed' project, you'll almost never be working on him.

If you're somewhere that he can access on his management rail, he'll probably insert himself into every single conversation you have, babbling over whoever you're talking to with nothing of value to say. You'll have to go somewhere that can't be reached by management rail if you want to have an important conversation.

Ultimately, Wheatley responds to jealousy the same way he responds to any other situation: by acting like a dumbass.

Oh, and if you get a human S/O? He'll try to be polite about them.

"oh, you got a date? Nice, nice... Lovely really. I've never had a date before. Lovely, innit, that you got one... Lucky them, lucky them."

Secretly he'd be BOILING inside. If you ever bring your partner in to work, he'd of course give them the whole "if you hurt them I'll kill you" rant, even though he's a helpless metal ball.

Edgar:

Oh, Edgar is DEFINITELY the jealous type. With Moles and Madeline, he happened to be living with the person who he was jealous of, but if he's living with you, the person who he's jealous for? Oh dear lord

He'll light up with rage if you ever bring home a date, and absolutely refuse to function. Want to show your date your intelligent AI home hub? Nope! Not gonna happen!

Catch him faking being sick with a virus if he thinks you're going out for a date without him

He absolutely hates that you can go out and he can't go with you. Because of that, for every time you go out, he'll try to come up with an even better activity to do at home with you on your next day off.

Good luck bringing a partner home to stay the night. If you try it, he'll make an absolute nuisance of himself. Playing his music too loud, and generally acting up.

He'll also just talk to you like a needy brat if he thinks you like someone else better than him. Lots of "What about me? Don't you want to hang out with me? You like me the best, right?" In his grumpy baby voice

GLaDOS:

First off, GLaDOS would never in a million years admit that she's jealous. She just doesn't like how that tall, pretty scientist is talking to you, is all!

GLaDOS considers herself to be beautiful, but she knows that most humans aren't attracted to robots with the vaguest trace of humanity in their design. Because of that, she's probably just going to gas any scientists who she thinks you'd be more attracted to than her.

If she can't gas them for whatever reason, she'll just assign them to a different area than you, and keep you as close to her as possible.

If anyone touches you when it's not strictly necessary, expect them to be assigned to the most unpleasant set of tests possible. They're either out of a job, or completely dead.

If GLaDOS can't isolate you completely and she can't interact with you outside work hours, you can expect her to dominate your schedule. She's obsessed with you, and she doesn't want you to be able to think about anything besides her either.

Even still, GLaDOS is a pretty confident woman, so she's not really inclined to be particularly jealous without reason. She believes that even though you have your own life and friends outside of Aperture labs, you'll always come to work in the morning.

And she's totally. Fine. With you having your own life off the clock. Not mad at all. She doesn't rant to the cores and robots constantly when the office is closed.

HAL 9000:

HAL 9000 isn't really the jealous type either, but he has his moments.

He's not likely to kill anyone over jealousy, since dating you isn't his prime directive. As much as he likes you and cares about you, he's more interested in making you happy than nailing you down. So he would absolutely kill to make you happy, but he wouldn't kill someone just for talking to you.

You can expect him to "gather data" on people who he's suspicious of getting too close to you, though. Asking questions to your coworkers about who that person was who he saw hugging you goodbye in the parking lot, that sort of thing.

Since he works the best for you, you get assigned to work with him directly most often, and he's secretly glad to be able to keep an eye on you whenever you're working. If you ever get assigned to work on something else, he might start acting up or causing problems.

[nadinediary]

The 7 Dating Bare Minimums from 𝒩adine

1. Shared Values + Belief

Values are prioritised characteristics that build who we are as individuals and our belief is what forms our world view and lifestyle. I find it easier to build a relationship with someone when your values and beliefs align. I cannot envision a relationship or even casually date someone who I can't see eye-to-eye on the core attributes that form my life and character.

I can understand being lenient on religious and political beliefs when casually dating although for long term relationships, I need to be on the same topic about religion, politics, children, cheating, etc.

2. Romantic (Considerate)

I personally can not be in a relationship or date a person who can’t exhibit romance. Romance to myself isn’t the flowers (not saying I don’t adore flowers), or the chivalrous actions shown in the rom-coms.

Romance is the small intimate actions that show you’ve been paying close attention to your loved one wants and needs. It’s the considerate small things that may take a little more time but are worth it.

3. Chivalrous

Talking about chivary, don’t get it confused, I love a chivalrous man. The door opening, pulling the seat out, making sure I’ve gotten home safe, I’m quite old fashion when it comes to dating. I love it all.

I find it charming when someone is chivalrous to everyone not just when it pertains to myself. If they see someone needing help and step in, I think that's a great trait to have. I don't want someone who just does things out of attraction but rather because of kindness.

4. Well groomed

Personally a man is most attractive when they are well groomed, actively upkeep themselves and pay great attention to their hygiene. This idea that only women get manicures and pedicures is ridiculous. I know plenty of men that like keeping their cuticle healthy.

Every man that has had the honor of taking me on a date or more, has had a skincare routine (even if it's just a three step routine). They’ve all had beautiful nails and I could tell they cared about cleanliness.

5. Adaptable + Resilient

I‘m a first-generation immigrant who has seen poverty and wealth, I’ve gone from living in the scums of rural Nirobei to the upper class Australian suburban area. This is all because of God’s blessing and my family’s resilience.

I need a partner who is both resilient and adaptable when in situations less than ideal. I’m a strong minded individual and hope the same for my partner.

6. Communicative

We’ve all heard about the importance of communication in relationships but not all communication is healthy.

It's important for your partner to be open to hearing you, a lot of people lack listening skills so it's precious when you find someone who really listens and respects you. Trauma can cause people to close up but there are many different ways to communicate from written to spoken, as long as my partner shows they are communicative I don't care.

7. Generous

I come from a generous family, I’m surrounded by generous people and I myself am always ready to give if someone needs. I could not envision any relationship, friendship or romantic relationship with someone who wasn’t as giving.

Generosity isn’t neglecting yourself for other, it's lifting each other up, know when to say no while being kind to others situations. I don't want a pushover, I want a generous partner.

Sincerely,

𝒩adine.

[lyculuscaelus]

Just a gentle reminder that EPIC the Musical is a musical. It’s not a movie script, not a play adaptation, but a musical itself. Which means, to talk about it with anything less is inorganic, is missing an important piece of the story itself. Because it’s not just the lyrics that display the scene—music tells its own story too.

The way the soundscape for each saga (and sometimes different songs themselves) is so unique that it creates the atmosphere for this certain event almost immediately, the experience of which you cannot go through merely by reading the script. With the Cyclops Saga we have a dark and edgy theme, with the Circe Saga we have a more tropical (mostly due to the drums) and at the same time elegant one (due to the strings), with the Underworld Saga we have this very gloomy theme which is straight up Underworld feels…this is very common for music, but it’s just something you won’t get from the script.

The way the delivery of so many lines is so good that you can feel the emotions so vividly—something lyrics alone can’t display. (Which is also the reason why there’re so many lamenting paragraphs in tragic plays and why there’re pauses between spoken lines in writings where writers describe the expression and movement of characters.) The way you can hear the anguish and desperation in the delivery of so many lines from Mutiny, the way you can feel the emotional struggle of Odysseus at the end of Thunder Bringer in the way Jay sings…there’re so many moments where you just feel the raw emotions coming from those lines that you can’t experience it by reading the lyrics and interpreting with wild guesses.

The way the reoccurring motifs and riffs tell so many things that lyrics won’t is already well-known. Danger is nearby motif already gives you the alert of what is to come; storm motif depicts a harsh encounter on sea that it captures that moment so well; that specific motif from those three songs (the beginning of the second verse of The Horse and the Infant, the first and second verse of Survive, the beginning of the second half of Mutiny) is foretelling the turning point of events (and also asking someone to kill the other being)…and then we have characters’ own motifs. Odysseus’s cunning motif shows the moment where he plots the course of action; Athena’s Warrior of the Mind motif already indicates her appearance and more; Polites’s Open Arms motif just destroys your emotions cuz why not; Eurylochus’s Luck Runs Out motif shows the development of the dynamics between him and his Captain…there’re so many to rant about that I just can’t put them all in this one post. As for the riffs, the most famous one is of course the way Athena and Odysseus and Telemachus sing “miiiiind”/“fiiiiiine”/etc. as Jay has already yapped about in his video, which just shows the dynamics between these three characters so perfectly. Hey look, another thing which the script won’t tell you.

And then we have these characters’ own instruments. I don’t even think I’ll need to elaborate on this one. Most of you have known that already and understood how genius this idea is even though it’s not Jay who came up with it. This is totally something you can only experience in the music itself, but meanwhile it says a lot about the scene already. As in Done For where Odysseus’s electric guitar continues playing under Circe’s lines which indicates he has taken hold of the situation already (even though temporarily). It might be a minor thing, but still it’s very well-thought, and sometimes even foreshadowing (like how Poseidon’s trumpets have already shown up in Storm).

…

There’re so many things to rant about this musical that a single post is far from enough to discuss them all. Here I’m only pointing out that EPIC is an organic combination of lyrics and music (and action when it comes to stage production which I believe it will eventually) that it’s impossible to treat them separately while still getting the whole story right. Once again, the piece you’re talking about is not a stage play—it’s a musical that is epic.

[yarrayora]

Idk how to explain properly, but I’m a really big fan of the dynamic you portray between Marcille and Falin. I’ve always loved . idk how to say.. divorce? trouble-in-paradise? arcs/portrayals that look at problems in otp, and yours is super interesting. Sorry if this is weird just wanted to say :)

not weird at all! im flattered, thanks!

i wasnt really into farcille at first, mostly i was just impressed an f/f ship managed to be the fandom's no1, basically proving that when two female characters in a mostly male dominated cast are allowed to bond with each others and be their own characters people will latch on to them

mostly though aro touden siblings is still my no1 and even back then i didnt care about shipping because any type of romantic relationship in dunmeshi is less interesting than the potential of political intrigue the worldbuilding set up (yes, even chilchuck's failing marriage is less interesting to me than how living in the dungeon was safer for the orcs than being neighbors to human civilization) (shocking, i know)

but it all changed when i saw the daydream hour about marcille thinking falin looks cute in feminine clothing while falin herself is obviously uncomfortable with it

i can't sleep. i have to think about this. i have to think about how it's their first love and their first relationship and one is going in blind while the other set up her expectations based on a harlequin romance novel. they are NOT in the same wavelength at all and neither of them are particularly good at communicating their intention, with falin who grew up a convenient kid because she thought it was the least she could do for her family and marcille who frankly speaking was used to being treated as someone superior back at the magic school

thank god kabru exists because who else is going to give them a real advice for their very real relationship? chilchuck will be like "okay just break up" while not seeing the mirror to his own relationship with his runaway wife. senshi, wise as he is, is never in a romantic relationship. laios would be like :((( you guys are fighting? and gets stressed out on his own which makes it even more stressful to the girls. namari is like. "i, uh, please talk to kabru."

anyway theres also the bonus comic about falin inviting marcille to watch daltian clan's opera adaptation and while there is something to say about marcille thinking the humans playing elves doesn't fit her aesthetic (and the difference of societal expectations of dressing up as a different race in dunmeshi universe compared to in ours) all i can think of is that in modern day au where daltian clan has a movie adaptation marcille has a tumblr blog where she posts Hate on the daltian clan movie tag and calling it criticism which it is but also not the place, girl, go to rotten tomatoes for that

falin also has a tumblr and she and marcille had no idea the other is a tumblr user. falin made a post like "just watched daltian clan with my gf i get why shes really obsessed with it now" and marcille, against her better judgement replies to the post like "really sorry that you were misled by your girlfriend like that, you should read the novels instead, it's way better."

laios who sees falin looking shocked at her phone asks whats up and then after receiving the answer says "wow sounds like a real jerk! just block them"

anyway thats my modern day farcille when there's no high fantasy problems involved

[ironyscleverer]

Good Omens Book Racism

This essay was originally a reblog of this post, but I’ve decided to make it a post of its own so it’s a little easier to read.

***

Rather than diving straight into examples from the text, I want to take the time to explain my intentions/goals for this little essay. Sorry if it's boring, but I do think it's important.

First, I want to clarify that I'm not just taking the opportunity to dogpile on NG by calling him racist. The people who commented that TP was equally responsible were 100% correct! Rather, I hope that now that we know NG isn't a good guy for other reasons, people will be more receiptive to my critiques of the book without jumping to the authors' defense.

I also want to note that I believe every instance I reference in this essay is not in the show. Someone in production clearly recognized that the book didn't age well, and quietly removed the bad bits without a word or a guilty speech. I think this is part of the reason why the fandom hasn't really addressed these moments; the show cut a lot of the racism, cynicism, and generally icky bits. The overall the tone of the newer content is very different and much sweeter. Personally, I prefer it this way!

Most importantly, though, I think a lot of people reading this might wonder--why talk about racism in a book that's 30 years old and has a modern adaptation that fixes almost every problem? Isn't it normal for old books to be a bit suspect? Why go through the effort of bringing it up?

The answer is that it's less about the book more about the fandom; the fact of the book being racist isn't the problem--I fully understand that it's 30+ years old. But the fandom is alive and well, and the lack of discussion is what feels weird to me. I was disturbed by the book when I first read it, and finding nobody online who felt the same way was a bit isolating. I had to wonder if other fans didn’t notice any racism, didn’t remember, or just didn’t care. By talking about racism, by making it clear that yes, we notice and we remember, i think we can make the fandom a more welcoming and inclusive space.

So really, my only goal for this essay is for it to exist; I want it to be out there so that if someone else, like me, goes looking for online acknowledgment of racism in the book, this will be there for them to find.

I think you get the point. Let's move on to the actual substance.

I’ve selected three specific passages from the book for us to examine, as well as a few other moments that I’ll describe, but won’t directly quote. Let’s start with the most obvious (to me) example of racism, which takes place on the whaling ship:

“The captain drummed his fingers on the console. He was afraid that he might soon be conducting his own research project to find out what happened to a statistically small sample of whaler captains who came back without a factory ship full of research material. He wondered what they did to you. Maybe they locked you in a room with a harpoon gun and expected you to do the honorable thing.”

To be clear, associating Japanese people with honor and ritual suicide is a racist stereotype. Writing a Japanese character this way is racist, full stop. Later, the navigator also refers to the captain as "honorable sir." This is probably in reference to the different levels of politeness that exist in the Japanese language. However, frankly, I'm mixed Japanese, and seeing any white person using the word "honor" in reference to Asian people makes my skin crawl. Even ATLA is on thin fkn ice (although the fact that it's literally just Zuko helps a lot).

This passage is the most clear-cut example I can find of racism in that it fits into the framework of "author makes x joke, which feeds into y racist stereotype." However, there are other moments that may not directly do this, but definitely are sus enough to make you think "why tf would you say that." For example, this is how the narrator describes Aziraphale when he drives Anathama home:

“As soon as the car had stopped he had the back door open and was bowing like an aged retainer welcoming the young massa back to the old plantation.”

I can't even begin to logic my way through whether this is technically racist or not. I'm still back at wondering why on EARTH would anyone choose to write this description. It’s just repulsive. Purely based on how I feel reading it, and how I feel imagining a white man writing it, I'm gonna go with yes, this is racist.

Another example of a similar variety would be this moment, when Crowley is trying to get to Tadfield:

“It's all out of control. Heaven and Hell aren't running things any more, it's like the whole planet is a Third World country that's finally got the Bomb…”

Again. Racist? Maybe? It shows a dismissive attitude toward "the third world," which I suppose isn’t explicitly non-white, but mostly it’s just weird and uncomfortable. It's less about the actual offense and more about the...why did the author write that.

There are more such moments throughout the book that I could mention, such as the half-assed attempts at AAVE and Caribbean dialect (I think Haitian? it's when Azi is searching for a host). There’s also that whole affair with Madam Tracy and her Geronimo character. I assume that one is meant to reflect badly on her, but in the back of my mind there’s still the knowledge that the authors chose to put it there.

After a point, all these individual moments start to blend together, and the possible motivations and excuses become less convincing. Maybe on a case-by-case they can be written off as characterization or irreverent humor, but in the aggregate they’re just unpleasant. Again, my overwhelming thought is just, "Why?"

Ultimately, that question, "why would the author write that" is at the center of my critique of the book. More specifically, the question is "why do these authors, given their identities, feel comfortable writing the things that they do?" In this case, it's clear the authors, as cishet white British men, thought these kinds of racial comments were funny and didn't have the social consciousness to know better. It belies a kind of arrogance, audacity and frankly entitlement that only people with their social standing tend to possess.

Anyway, that’s all I have for now. I hope this was enlightening for some people. I just wanted to provide a little bit of perspective, and maybe reassure some other fans that have recognized these things, but haven't seen them discussed online before. To them I'd say: don't worry, you're not the only one.

[bunnys-otome]

The Triple Alliance - between Ruby/Achroite/Tanzanite - and potential reasons I think it was created for

I have a theory based on one particular line in Azel's route, which occurs in chapter 14. Spoilers for every Act and the JP server will be ahead. In this chapter, Azel and MC witness fighting between believers/non-believers happening in the center of town. As they look down, Azel says the following:

「あんたは･･････いや、ロードライトは 三国同盟の謎を知りたがっていただろ う?」

「答えは目の前にあるというのに、見 逃していいのか?」

Which, to my rough understanding, means "You...no, Rhodolite, want to know the mystery of the Triple Alliance, right? The answer is right in front of you, did you miss it?"

As they look down the fighting has started to settle as the head priest takes control of the situation. But I think the important part of that line is the fact that the riot was happening at all- Azel wants his country to fall and be built again from the ground up with new ideals and ways of living. He wants the country to stop relying on God and instead rely more on facts and intellect. He wants the country to be strengthened, because he has seen the country start to crumble during his lifetime.

The way Tanzanite was running was not sustainable, and it threatened the construction of the country. Similar things, I assume, are happening in Achroite and Ruby. The way their countries are running is hindering their advancements and leaving them vulnerable for attack - particularly, an attack from Obsidian.

We know from Gilberts route that his goal is to unify all the countries, which he has done during his reign. Those countries were adapted into Obsidian, but it wasn't through battle - rather, it was from the people in the country rebelling against those above them/the rulers. Gilbert causes political unrest and supplies weaponry to do so. This allows him to take over the country as his own as it falls from the civil unrest.

Tanzanite, Achroite, and Ruby know that their own country is at risk of being taken over. They have seen civil uprisings beginning to happen due to problems in their own countries - Achroite with severe laws and immigrantion issues, Ruby with constant infighting, Tanzanite with religion ruling over common sense (these are just guesses based on JP event stories). Matthias/Azel/Kagari formed an alliance in order to support one another as their own countries get reformed. The alliance was created to protect themselves from being taken over by Obsidian by using one another as support. Additionally, they know that Gilbert/Obsidian will find about about the alliance - and that is going to unsettle/weaken Obsidian itself for the time being.

Ultimately, I think the alliance was made to set off a revolution. The three princes want to reform their own countries to become stronger so they can stand against Obsidians urging towards civil unrest. They know Obsidian is allowing weapons into their countries to incite the downfall of the country. They need to weaken Obsidian instead. Maybe they will even unite and go to war against Obsidian as a unit in the future?

Keep in mind, this alliance was created shortly after Obsidian/Jade/Benitoite/Rhodalite met together. The Triple Alliance likely thinks those four countries are now working together, perhaps to further Obsidians goal of acquiring other countries. The Triple Alliance provides support to one another as they try and prepare their countries to fight against Obsidian.

The only thing that threw me off is something Azel said at the end of his Dramatic Route, though. He tells MC that the answer to what Rhodolite is looking for doesn't lie in Tanzanite. Maybe the weapons/war plans/alliance specifics just lie in one of the other countries instead? Or maybe the sudden change of a God-less Tanzanite was enough to complete it's mission.

This was a long ramble of just some of my theories on where the Act 4 storyline is going. So we will see with time 🤷‍♀️ I just thought of it the second I saw that line like a "eureka!" moment so I thought I would share. Let me know what you think. 🩷

[contemplatingoutlander]

THOM HARTMANN: Science Explains Why Republicans Can’t Accept Trump’s Guilt (Sept. 12, 2023)

Scientists discovered a fascinating reason why Republicans can’t accept criticism of Donald Trump. Thom explains.

In the above video, Thom Hartmann refers to a Raw Story column by cognitive neuroscientist Bobby Azarian, PhD (shown below):

Here are some excerpts from Azarian's column:

In 2009, a study published in PLOS ONE challenged our understanding of belief systems. Researchers placed participants into the confines of an fMRI scanner and presented them with a mixture of factual and abstract statements. The results were illuminating. Disbelief, it turns out, is cognitively demanding. It requires more mental effort than simply accepting a statement as true. From an evolutionary perspective, this preference for easy belief makes sense; a perpetually skeptical individual questioning every piece of information would struggle to adapt in a fast-paced world. What does all this have to do with Trump supporters? Well, it’s far less cognitively demanding for them to believe anything their leader tells them. Any challenge to what Trump tells them is true takes mental work. This means there is a psychological incentive for Trump loyalists to maintain their loyalty. (I wrote about this phenomenon in a slightly different context in the Daily Beast article "Religious Fundamentalism: A Side Effect of Lazy Brains?") Molding of belief: neuroplasticity at play Now, let's consider the unique predicament faced by individuals who staunchly support Trump and want him to again become president. From the moment Trump began his political career and his social engineering career, his supporters have been exposed to narratives — Trump doesn't lie, Democrats are communists, the media is an enemy of the people — that emphasize loyalty and trust in their political idol. These narratives often steer away from critical examination and instead encourage blind faith. When coupled with the brain's inherent tendency to accept rather than question, it creates an ideal environment for unwavering allegiance. No matter that Trump, time and again, has been revealed to be a serial liar, habitually misrepresenting matters of great consequence, from elections to economics to public health. For example, in the Psychology Today article "Why Evangelicals are Wired to Believe Trump’s Falsehoods," I explain that the children of Christian fundamentalists typically begin to suppress critical thinking at an early age. This is required if one is to accept Biblical stories as literal truth, rather than metaphors for how to live life practically and with purpose. Attributing natural occurrences to mystical causes discourages youth from seeking evidence to back their beliefs. Consequently, the brain structures that support critical thinking and logical reasoning don't fully mature. This paves the way for heightened vulnerability to deceit and manipulative narratives, especially from cunning political figures. Such increased suggestibility arises from a mix of the brain's propensity to accept unverified claims and intense indoctrination. Given the brain's neuroplastic nature, which allows it to shape according to experiences, some religious followers are more predisposed to accept improbable assertions. In other words, our brains are remarkably adaptable and continuously evolving landscapes. For ardent Trump supporters, residing in an environment that prioritizes faith over empirical evidence can reshape the neural circuits within their brains. [color emphasis added]

[edited]

[dykedvonte]

I find your takes on Jimmy's behavior patterns interesting, especially in regards to how he treats Curly.

What do you think is the cruelest vs kindest he's ever been to him pre crash? Curious about the range; what Curly might hope is potential for better in him vs the biggest hit he was willing to take in hopes Jimmy became better before everything imploded.

I always find this question fascinating. The question of what Curly will tolerate towards himself vs towards other's with Jimmy.

The fandom creates this misconception around their dynamic due to a lot of hindsight we have and a lot of emotional/relationship dynamic gaps being filled. We assume Curly has to be equally as dependent and unable to regulate/understand his feelings towards Jimmy as Jimmy is to him as we never really get Curly's motives or inner thoughts towards Jimmy. I personally think this is far from the case and while still unhealthily attached to Jimmy he is still very aware of him, doesn't believe he'd ever go as low as he did in the game but knows he's petty/vindictive to an abnormal extent.

I think it's important that in HFIM he (Jimmy) is represented as a parasite on the fish rather than a real, helpful and needed part of him (Curly). It is something that slowly kills the fish if left unchecked or there are multiple (coughP.Ecough) and the fish would live better without but can't get out by itself. A parasite in which the specific method of latching is rather gory/unpleasant for the host the whole way through. I see people use this parasitic relationship as an example but never actually look at the specific relationship exemplified. How it is one formed without any consent or real want of the host but they are stuck in it no matter what they do, so they must adapt or be killed. In the games unfortunate circumstance, it just doesn't affect the host.

Jimmy on the other hand likes to test the waters, likes to see how deep he can really latch onto Curly so he can never really be pulled out, not without doing more unnecessary damage. I've said it before but I think they have breaks: Curly does have enough of a backbone to separate himself from him when he can, when the circumstances allow but he's not willed enough to keep him out, not when Jimmy inevitably finds a way to latch back on and sink deeper. Pulling him out again just rips more out of him, makes him less sturdy to it, drains more. He can take the parasitism. He thinks he's taking it.

As mentioned previously, Curly can't get/cut Jimmy out of his life alone. He will inevitably give him another chance because Jimmy will do something to make him think he deserves it. He will clean himself up. He will try to keep a job longer than a month. He will be polite, civil. He won't ask for a favor and if he does it's small and he'll repay it. He worms his way back in while also pushing others out. Anyone who claims it's all an act again or he's just doing it to get back in Curly's good graces just doesn't get him. They don't get them. Curly's upset he's seen it over and over again, the dip in progress, the lows. But the peaks get higher each time, he can't leave when he sees how good Jimmy is doing. He's scared without him the next low will be his last. Jimmy no doubt put that idea in his head.

But to answer you question: I don't think Jimmy's cruelty towards Curly's comes not from actions but conversations, the way he's conditioned Curly to view himself as underserving to complain. He's rendered him unable to talk about his pains because by "objective" comparison he's always worse off. I don't think its one cruel dismissive act in this vein but multiple, the act of uncaring and disinterest while also demanding the same attention Curly so desperately craves from anyone not just Jimmy. The want for his friend to act like a friend and be so purposely shut down or condescended to when he just needs the shoulder to cry on he always provides. The emotional relief he gives him returned.

I imagine he's told him to suck it up when pets die, to quit shaking when a career deciding meeting was about to happen, to get over and just "fuck someone new" when he has another failed fleeting relationship the few months back on Earth. Maybe it's said within a joke to make it less sharp, maybe with the same "You have it to nice to be acting like this) attitude. It's that type of cruelty that breaks him down and makes it harder to ignore that Jimmy truly doesn't care about him, does not have the same desire for him to be happy like Curly has for him. Jimmy doesn't really try to hide it either and he just never would outright say it. He calls it tough love, saying its just how he is and Curly doesn't know how much longer he can actually take it if it's really true.

Curly is willing to keep taking these hits in hopes Jimmy realizes how he hurts others, how it hurts him with every dogged look or abrupt end to a conversation. It doesn't and every time he's almost ready to just give up. If Jimmy won't be kinder for him, the only person that's still there for him, why continue to bother? Why believe he'll change.

Kindest? The fact he always tries to come back? That he stayed his friend and such a close one despite how long he'd be gone. That Curly is the one he calls and trusts and lets him know that. Curly has friends, we know that, but we also know they don't know him. Maybe they never did or maybe because of his job, the distance made it harder to keep knowing him. Jimmy didn't always work there and yet he stayed, close enough so that Curly was never alone when he came back. That he didn't come back to friends shocked he was coming back or a dozen new faces that were new at family gatherings/the news of who passed. He chose to remain consistent for Curly, with Curly, he never changed for Curly. That's how Jimmy explains it whenever Curly needs a reminder that he's not so bad. He's physically hear for him, he's something that's set and that already more than Curly should be asking for considering all he has. Curly thinks it's a major kindness considering no one else has done it for him.

I feel like people mischaracterize Jimmy in that he does not take pleasure or gain a feeling of superiority from the direct act of being cruel. He'd get nothing from directly making Curly hurt cause it's fleeting but he likes when Curly feels bad and lesser cause he can imagine it's lesser than him. When it's something he knows is gonna be a lasting mark. His kindness likewise if supposed to be a kiss on the initial boo-boo he makes. Purely for Curly and shallow. Jimmy likes Curly, I don't think him seeing him as a friend is debatable, yet we can question how utilitarian he does view friendship in general,

[yuurei20]

Concerning the Vil-Epel drama: I'm from a Scandinavian country and even here we have dialects. I haven't heard them myself, but my mom has and she says they are literally impossible to understand and you need a translator to speak with them. And it's not a bad thing- we don't say those people are less than or anything of the sort- it's just like holy cow we cannot understand anything they're saying, how are we supposed to communicate like this (especially when they understand us since our dialect is the 'base' dialect). If anything, it's funny because of how a dialect can make the same language not understandable, and also disappointing/frustrating that we can't talk to them because we literally don't know what they're saying. So to me it seems like part of the reason Vil wants Epel to not speak in his dialect is simply so people can understand him better and so people can actually communicate with him. We've seen in the Harveston event (if I remember correctly) that the others have no clue what Epel says before they jump the gap, and they need to ask his grandma to translate. That's an example of how if he didn't remove his dialect people would not know what he's saying. I don't think it has anything to do with negative connotations towards the dialect (I bet Vil would encourage it if they were in a situation where it would be beneficial/welcoming), but rather Vil trying to teach Epel that it's not about hiding your dialect/culture, it's about being considerate to those around you to have them understand you (like how you pointed out his granny changed to polite speech when talking to the NRC boys). Don't you think even granny would have at some point taught Epel that? (Although not in the same manner or extremity as Vil).

There seems to be some discourse going on of which I was not aware!

Thank you so much for your perspective!! It is very interesting and informative and wonderful to know!

Yes, it does seem strange that maybe no one warned Epel about interacting with people outside the village, but maybe they did!

This gets into conjecture because we have nothing in-game to confirm either way, but it might be possible that they just assumed he would pick it up through personal experience, or he just wasn't able to make the connection between their warnings and what real-world experience would be like.

Marja herself has no problem with adapting to the time/place/occasion, but as Epel is still a child with limited exposure to people from other cultures, we are watching him experience this learning process in real time!

In a way, Epel's experience at NRC could maybe be interpreted as Vil encouraging him to be more like his grandmother :> Epel was likely aware that the older people in the village adapt their speech patterns when necessary, but maybe never made the connection about exactly why?

He knew it was polite, but when early-Epel shows up at NRC, he is already in fighting mode: he has no interest in being polite, which he might have seen as making concessions and, thus, a weakness.

Bullied his whole childhood for his appearance he decides he is going to set the record straight from day one at NRC so that people know not to mess with him, and then Vil comes in.

It seems like it all connects to Epel's arc as he learns that you can be conscientious of time/place/occasion (like his grandmother), but still be proud of your heritage and strong (like his grandmother).

And you can be beautiful (like Vil), but still be strong (like Vil).

(Because Vil is Vil his wording has a lot to do with the importance of beauty, but the more I think about it, the more it seems like Vil is just trying to prepare Epel for life in a society.)

There is an ongoing theme with Epel that we see in Book 5 and Halloween where he gets jealous of people who can do things that he can't, so he doubles down that he is right and they are wrong in order to make himself feel better about his shortcomings.

That might also tie in to his frustration with Vil's restriction of his dialect!

He has more difficulty expressing himself without it, so rather than do what Vil is trying to get him to do and work on it, by Book 5 he is still doubling down and insisting that Vil is the problem, not himself, despite how he was raised watching everyone around him do exactly what it is that Vil is saying he needs to do.

I really appreciate everyone's introspection!! The more you think about it, the more interesting Epel, his family, his relationship with Vil and his circumstances become! :> He is living through his own, personal coming-of-age story before our eyes!

[maybe-boys-do-love]

So I shared, the Spanish-language horror visual references in this week’s Peaceful Property episode (which are great ghost story films for comparison in thematic elements, as well). The death this week, though, is yet another ghost story reference, this time in an English-language series with lots of commentary on class and the racial and gender politics of domestic work, The Haunting of Bly Manor.

🚨spoilers for both series from here on🚨

In Bly Manor, Hannah Grose, the estate’s maid is revealed late in the series to be a ghost, who had fallen into a well on the grounds. Although the series is based off Henry James’s Turn of the Screw and its celebrated film adaptation The Innocents from the 1960s and its celebrated 2000s remake The Others* with Nicole Kidman (in which the twist from the previous is that the governess main character is revealed to be dead), Hannah Grose’s death is a new addition in the Netflix series. It compounds the complex themes about class and domestic servitude in the original British story and adds issues of race to the proceedings.

Peaceful Property uses Baanchuen’s story for similar purposes. Migrant domestic work is an important issue in Southeast Asia. The International Labor Organization put out a report last year stating, “29 per cent of surveyed migrant domestic workers in Malaysia were in conditions meeting the ILO’s statistical definition of forced labour; as were 7 per cent of surveyed workers in Singapore and 4 per cent in Thailand. Indicators of involuntariness include not being able to quit your job, having to stay in the job longer than agreed, and being made to work without overtime pay, among others.” Shackles, like those on Baanchuen’s ghost, are an easily recognizable symbol of enslavement, indicating the extent of Aunt Phom’s cruelty.

But even under legal circumstances, domestic workers are one of the least protected group of laborers in Thailand and abroad. Taiwanese-American labor organizer, MacArthur “genius” grant recipient, and mentor/friend to BLM cofounder Alicia Garza, Ai-Jen Poo has a fantastic interview on On Being, in which she discusses the racialized, gendered, international, and cross-class dynamics that define domestic care work, which impacts the strategies to organizing for workers rights in the field.

“The average annual income for a home care worker [presumably in the US at the time of recording in 2020] is $15,000 per year. And I can’t think of any community that I’ve ever lived in where you can survive on $15,000 a year. It’s really quite extraordinary. And they’re there and see employers come home with a pair of shoes that are maybe more than they make in a week, and yet, their job is to care and support and love, and they do so. You can’t actually do your job as a caregiver if you dehumanize the person that is in your charge. And I think that that is so much of what’s needed in this moment. All of us need to understand that we have a profound set of challenges and inequities that we have to deal with and transform, but we have to do it with a boundless sense of compassion and humanity.”

I’d encourage some of my fellow watchers of Peaceful Property to heed Poo’s perspective on disrupting class distinctions and what the advocacy for equitable practices has looked like in her work. I’m a caseworker myself and have worked alongside people who had less privilege than me for caring wealthy people who never the less didn’t always recognize the value of those whose work they depended on and didn’t have the labor laws that might provide that guidance. There are a few pieces of work that explore this meaningfully (better than The Help, although Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer absolutely carved out depths in their characters stories that weren’t there on the page). Glad to see Peaceful Property making its attempt to explore these depths. It actually made me reflect on how many of the jobs after the first episode really focused on gendered aspects of labor—a wig-maker, assistants, food-making…

And for my Homepeach truthers out there, that gender conversation is not just about labor. Bly Manor is also notable for its queer romance storyline with a wealthier character running from her internalized homophobia/guilt after a car accident…

*Incidentally, The Others is also heavily influenced by the same Spanish film, The Spirit of the Beehive, as both referenced Spanish-language horror films in these weeks episode.

[letters-of-libertas]

Energy to carry as a single childfree woman

Summary here.

Be more self reliant

You dont have to do everything on your own but you need to be able to count on yourself because for the most part that's all you'll have even as you're around others.

Have more intent with actions

Time & energy is valuable. Where you pour these things into steer the course of your life. Give your time & energy to things that help you (and other likeminded women if you want). You dont have to analyse every action you take but occasionally check in with how/if the actions you're taking are helping to build a foundation for your life as a single childfree woman. Things like donating to female centric causes, improving yourself so you can give yourself (& other women) more, organising/engaging in female centric women only spaces - even if they're just online, goes a long way to set the scene. Even indulging in your hobbies. Dont waste your time on things that wont help you or your motives.

Be more resourceful

Contrary to popular belief this lifestyle isn't a walk in the park, there's a lot more you have to account for especially with a level of reduced support. Being able to adapt/improvise + think ahead to mitigate problems will serve you long term. Also generally building up your resources will make getting through hard times easier.

Living my truth > proving my truth

You dont need others stamp of approval to live this way - just get started ! Convincing others is a waste of time your actions (& results) will speak for you anyways.

Reduce giving benefit of doubt

I once saw a quote "giving others benefit of doubt has never benefitted me" and it rings so true. Giving people benefit of doubt rarely ever works in your favour, the red flags that are downplayed often come back to bite you when you least expect it so trust your instincts on matters. If something is off about something or someone; start backing up. Also pure naïvety is rare, people often know more than they let on so trust + act on your instincts on matters if something feels off.

Be proactive

Instead of just constantly reacting to everything around you; take action no matter how small, it'll pay off more than just outrage. Spend less time on social media reacting to the never ending evil of xys and spend more time building for yourself. Social media can be informative but it can also be an echo chamber that breeds reactionary politics which doesn't move things forward. Ik this is ironic because you're reading this on social media but I'm not saying get rid of it all, just reduce your time on it - particularly around reading & reacting to maIe evil. Focus on tangible things in your life you can control & build instead for yourself and womankind.

Invest in indifference

Taking everything to heart will hurt you. Constant anger/hatred to maIes & their bs is still centering them especially if all you do is react. I'm not saying completely ignore it as they target us & a level of awareness is important, but dont let these feelings consume you. Being indifferent will let you look at things at a face value & make more levelled judgement. It helped my mental health a lot in regards to the climate to grow indifferent, this includes towards maIe identified women and even other types of discrimination like racists, ableists, etc. All theory around maIe violence essentially boils down to them being dangerous parasitic terrorists to not be trusted. I move with this & go. I see through them, I dont argue or waste unnecessary emotional energy on them, I dont care for them to understand me, I dont care to prove them wrong (bc in the end it wont matter all you do is give them more cards to play with; this system isnt erected through logic but violence), I have other stuff in my life to focus on. I cant help the way the world is I can only focus on myself & my actions. Typically the best comebacks arise when you dont give a shit. It wont happen in a day but learn to manage your feelings. Be indifferent to what you cant control, flower what you can control. These comments from the female separatist subreddit explain this well.

Learn to prioritise

Contrary to popular belief we can't have it all. Some are able to do so because they've got wives or staff covering sectors of their lives so they can pour more time into other aspects of their lives like business or leisure. But you wont have that privilege rn so some things will have to take a hit. This is also why you need to be selfish with your time. Things like being resourceful to automate/delegate tasks will buy you time but it's still important to be selfish with your time because as you put time in one area, another area loses time. You need to pick what matters. You cannot give your time away to everyone; make time for yourself & your objectives.

Less theory more action

Having a basis of theory/belief is a good place to start but dont get stuck there.

It's okay to be wrong

Mistakes will be made. Experience is how we learn and grow. Go about your business unabashedly.

Obviously not an exhaustive list but these are some main points that come to mind.

[queenvhagar]

"Average Team Green fan is bastardphobic" "Team Green thinks irl bastards are worse than other people" "Team Green fans are bad people because they actually don't like bastards"

Not sure if y'all know this but... fiction is not real life, and recognizing or discussing the actual dynamics of a cruel and unjust fictional world as it is written by the author does not equal an endorsement, promotion, or adoption of those elements or beliefs as they exist in that fictional world or in real life.

In real life, I and likely most if not all Team Green supporters could care less about the institution of marriage as one of making legitimately born babies. Personally I don't care if your parents were married to each other. Many people don't get married and still have families together. Children are children, people are people. Luckily in the modern world, in many places, having children out of wedlock is not really even that much of a taboo anymore. People can do what they want as long as they're happy. If I get married and/or have kids ever, that's my own business. I have no specific duties expected of me by my family or the world and the messages coming from society that I as a woman need to be married and make babies before I get too old? I can just ignore that. Nothing happens if I do.

In the fictional world of ASOIAF though, this is very clearly and unequivocally not the case at all. Westeros is obsessed with blood and bloodlines. Blood brings power. Blood continues power. The blood and the name together bring power. Great houses intermarry to bring themselves more power and alliances, under the agreement that the next generation will share the blood of their parents and families and that blood will preserve their power and status as it has for generations. This is essential to feudalism and the way that power and inheritance works (in Westeros and in the real-life history upon which it was based).

This is why it's such a taboo to have or be a bastard in Westeros, and why it's illegal to try to place a bastard in the line of succession. Marriage alliances are built on the principle that the trueborn children made from those matches will come from those particular parents and pass down that particular family's blood. If someone without that blood tried to claim that name and power, people would view that as the family losing the power they've held for generations. They would see it as an injustice. Wars would be willing to be fought over it. It's an indisputable fact that in this world trying to place a bastard in the line of succession will lead to bloodshed. This is especially the case for the Iron Throne. If you don't agree, read the source material and rethink how this world views women, bastards, bloodlines, and the right to the throne.

I'm not sure when people started thinking that the discussion of in-universe conflicts and issues as they exist in fictional worlds actually reflects on an individual's real life personal values or feelings. People knowledgeable of the world of ASOIAF criticize the character of Rhaenyra for birthing three obvious bastards (while she is already on rocky political ground as the first woman named heir) and then attempting to unsuccessfully gaslight everyone into thinking they are legitimate heirs despite the opposite being so clearly true. This criticism stems from knowledge and awareness of the world, beliefs, and laws of Westeros (that Rhaenyra herself also knew but believed herself to be the exception to). Yet when people point out how dangerous or stupid it was of her character to do this, knowing everything that is known about the world of ASOIAF and this specific conflict, suddenly stans feel the need to defend the vision of her that exists in their heads (one incorrectly furthered by the show's adaptation of the character as a modern feminist girlboss who can do no wrong) and make up fake scenarios or claims about the world of ASOIAF or about the critics to support their incorrect takes.

Saying Team Green fans, those who are not a fan of Team Black, or those who criticize the show's adaptation are bastardphobic in real life is similar to those Team Black stans who claim that Aegon's actor is a morally corrupt rape apologist because he plays a character who got written to be a rapist (likely after he was cast, by the way) or people who say authors shouldn't write a scene about murder or murderers because it endorses or promotes such behavior. Y'all really out here rewriting the Hays Code and essentially campaigning for censorship of media because you can't distinguish between real life and fiction. It's crazy that media literacy is at such an appalling state, though unfortunately it's clear that certain forms of internet fandom have really exacerbated issues that have already existed. Now, any character can be shoehorned into specific categories or types or memes that fit their understanding of media and those who disagree or desire actual thought, complexity, and analysis to go into stories or characters apparently shouldn't have a voice or platform to express their point of view, or if they do, it means something about them as a real-life human beyond this person is interested in discussing the story.

I've previously expressed that despite the fact that I love this story as a truly a morally gray conflict with gray characters that tells a rich sociopolitical story of a family tearing itself apart for power, and despite the fact that there are no winners, heroes, or correct sides to this conflict, I would call myself a Team Green supporter. And largely this is due to the lack of media literacy and understanding of the source material that the writers and general audience (see: uncritical Team Black fans) seem to have and the absolutely insufferable ways that they seem to constantly want to demonstrate to everyone that actually they're right and correct in their surface-level takes.

[mitigatedchaos]

On Discourse

(~1,000 words, ~5m)

[ anon ]

[...] I only know like other early twenty somethings who are as clueless if not more than me. I then imagine said smart abstraction person inevitably getting frustrated with me and my inability to keep up with them or add on to their thoughts, per the inexperienced idiocy, and eventually blocking me in the middle of a discussion on how pro-sex work thought conflicts with modern feminism despite many sharing those beliefs. [...]

I know that in your ask, you said that this might be better left unspoken, but I'd like to share a line of thought that you might find useful.

One of the discursive norms that was weakened 2014-2022 was the idea of the separation between ideas and people.

Someone who is currently wrong, but who is honest, humble, and sincerely interested in the truth, is likely to become correct (or more correct). Someone who is currently correct, but who is dishonest with both others and with themselves, is likely to become wrong (or less correct).

Therefore honesty, humility, and a sincere desire to know the nature of the material world, are generally, though not always, more important than having a correct object-level position on every issue.

If methods are more important than just being correct, because methods are how you become correct, then we can view the nature of discussion differently.

You can have a discussion …as practice. It's OK if you're wrong, as long as the discussion helps you to become more correct, or become better at becoming correct. Breaking things down into their components, forming arguments, and weighing arguments, are skills, which can be practiced.

Now, regarding Tumblr...

In my opinion, people come to Tumblr to blog for basically two reasons. They want to learn, and they want to be heard.

To learn from someone, they must be similar enough to you that you can understand them, but different enough from you that they have something to teach you. Rationalists have a concept called "inferential distance," which refers to the gap in knowledge or reasoning between people. For example, to explain vtuber drama to Leibniz, in order for him to understand you, you would first have to explain computers and the Internet.

Inferential distance should not be thought of as a matter of supremacy or inferiority; two people might have equal shares of information about a problem that don't overlap with each other.

Due to differences in the knowledge and experience of people, there can be someone B in a chain A -> B -> C who understands both A and C, even when A and C do not understand each other.

In addition, if there is something you don't understand, it may be possible to ask a question and get an answer that helps you to understand. In this way, a conversation, which is flexible and adaptive, can reach people that a book, which is fixed, cannot.

Knowledge relationships may be hierarchical, in that I may know some piece of true information that you don't. However, from that perspective, there are multiple knowledge relationships between two people, and it is generally the case that you will also know some true information that I don't.

People also come to social media to be heard. It might be about a topic that doesn't have a large audience in their personal life, such as collecting Korean dolls. It might be to have a larger audience than they can access in real life. It might be to be heard by specific people.

When I came to Tumblr to write about politics in 2017, I did so because I thought that the quality of the national political discourse was quite poor, so that I could hardly do worse than what was regularly platformed by national outlets, but I felt that the quality of discourse in this area of Tumblr was fairly good, so that it was possible to have discourse that would generate light, not just heat.

I write to share information that I think others should know. I also write to gather feedback (and to practice writing). Rather than either-or, this can be thought of as a split, like 90%-10%, that varies by post.

Sometimes this means sharing information I know now that I think it would have been good for me to know when I was younger. Sometimes this means sharing information that I knew when I was your age, but which people who are currently your age do not know.

Tumblr has done something remarkable - it has restored intergenerational transmission of information. I'm not that old, but I believe that many of the more experienced users on this website feel the same as I do. We are all going to leave Tumblr at some point, either because we will become too busy, or because the isekai bus will finally catch up to us.

Confucius once said that, in old age, the best men guard themselves against acquisitiveness. As members of the forthcoming generation, your presence is worth more than gold. This is why, on Nov. 6th, I told you all to survive and become strong.

The next 50 years are going to see some major changes in the underlying dimensions of human society, with likely significant advances in AI (which makes capital more like labor) and in genetic engineering (which will offer an increase in health, but also poses major ethical challenges). You will likely live to make important choices about humanity's future, which will rapidly become the new present.

It is not necessary to become a master of abstraction. Rather, even a moderate improvement in the ability to think clearly, to weigh arguments, to evaluate evidence, and to see contradiction, makes it more difficult for others to lie to and manipulate you. When people are difficult to lie to, liars must proceed in uncertainty, and reduce the magnitude of their lies.

This creates a world which is safer for the weak, the busy, and the distracted. There are people who are too young or too old to seek out the correct information, or verify it.

There was a strain of thought over last decade that was suspicious of strength and agency, as only through strength is it possible to oppress others. The world, of course, is more complicated than this. It is only through strength that we can put compassion into practice, and it is only through agency that we can ensure that what we are doing is compassionate.