#the most powerful thing we can do to her is make her irrelevant

[caligvlasaqvarivm]

Classpecting? Tell me of some powers a Mage of Space would harbor!

yayyyyyy sad mage time

aspect = fundamental personality traits and class = character arc and emotional struggle

space is about the big picture, the interconnected nature of all things, the present moment, journey > destination, recycling, and reproduction. its players tend to be patient, passive, and feminine; their main struggle is with being overly permissive and forgiving, allowing bad actors too much faith and too much freedom. they're very distractible and tend to be frivolous and silly, having difficulty staying on task and quickly able to jump from topic to topic, goal to goal, thought to thought. when everything is interconnected, it's easy to lose sight of the finer details!

mages, meanwhile, have the very powerful ability to choose the future - literally able to pick a series of events that will definitely come to pass once they speak it aloud as a prophecy. in exchange for this great power, they start the game very fucking miserable, having been subject to their aspect at its worse for so long that they've normalized shitty outcomes. As a result, mages will start the game picking out shitty futures.

Space, at its worst, is passive aimlessness - cold, uncaring, unfeeling, and distant. A Mage of Space will probably start the game lonely and in some form of bondage or subjugation to a stronger personality or even a nefarious entity. The Space proclivity for lightheartedness and silliness will mitigate the Mage's inherent sadness somewhat, but this doesn't make the mage any less of a potential problem - a Mage of Space, in order to distract themselves from their own shitty situation, will likely be an utter space case, babbling prophecies about irrelevant topics that ultimately come to be distractions for the party, as well. (We can see this fixation on irrelevant topics in Porrim's utter failure to complete the frog breeding, opting instead to be a bra-burning feminist over the course of her game - or Jade's willingness to simply go along with the visions in her clouds and her maybe-evil dog and all her impulsive whims, to the point the trolls consider her the most culpable for the creation of bec noir - or Calliope and her little fanfictions and cosplays distracting her from the very real danger her brother posed to her until it was too late.)

What's the party supposed to do if the host is completely lost in their own world? A malfunctioning Mage of Space in the party means a game stuffed full of Irrelevant Bullshit. A constant barrage of things coming into play that do nothing to help the team, and do everything to distract them and take them away from more important tasks. Conversely, a Mage of Space that's able to deal with their emotional issues has a grasp on all things that could potentially come into play in the future, and is able to summon with their prophecies only the ones that will be of help to the party, no matter how irrelevant or frivolous they initially may seem. After all, everything is connected, and a Mage of Space better than anyone else will be able to pull at those threads of interconnectivity to weave a wonderful, silly future.

[du-hjarta-skulblaka]

I was watching Hunger Games (mainly bc I was bored but like. The books and the first movie honestly slap) and it struck hard how Locked Tomb honestly has the potential to be the next Big YA Thing. Frankly the only reason it's not already is probably because every bit of marketing slapped on it emphasises that it's queer

Which. That's what we need. Tazmuir could fucking topple Joanne and piss on her bones! If only more people read these fucking books!

[horse-girl-anthy]

Revolutionary Girl Utena: Gender in Context

beneath the cut, I discuss the RGU's portrayal of gender in the context of 1990s Japan.

in Ikuhara's interview with Mari Kotani, he stated that in traditional Japanese society, "prince" meant "patriarch." the same is true in Western societies--there was a time when a prince would be an heir to a royal line. by 1997, this meaning had died out of large parts of the world. even the association between princes and traditional masculinity was fading. Saionji, the weakest, most pathetic man in the show, is a parody of historical Japanese masculinity, with his kendo and his blatantly regressive beliefs about women.

in RGU, prince may still mean patriarch, but in a far more subtle fashion. Ikuhara and Kotani discussed the changing expectations for men in the latter half of the 20th century--it became gauche to fight over a woman with one's brawn, so instead, power struggles were played out in the arena of looks and sex appeal. one can see this reflected in the character Akio, whose power as a prince arises from his ability to turn "easy sensual pleasure based on dependency" "into a selling point with which to control people."

Akio has his moments of showboating masculinity, but when preying on Utena, he operates by making himself seem non-threatening and soft.

not only that, but he purports to want to allow students to express their individuality and thus approves of Utena's masculine form of dress. this is a front--by the end of the show, he's telling Utena that girls shouldn't wield swords. thus, through Akio's character, the show argues that traditionalist patriarchy in Japan isn't gone, but instead has only been papered over with false progressivism.

with all that said, there seems to be more to the character. he's taken the family name of his fiance, Kanae, and whatever material power he has in the school is dependent upon her family. in Japanese society, this is considered a humiliating position to be in, something that only a shameless man would do. the show never gives the audience any insight into how Akio feels about this--is he unbothered entirely, or are his actions against the Ohtori family an expression of his repressed anger? does he harm the children under his care to compensate for his humiliation?

this aspect of Akio's character may seem irrelevant in light of the larger, immaterial social forces at work in the show. however, I would argue that it was included for a reason. Akio, despite his status as ultimate patriarch of Ohtori, is in fact a highly emasculated character, to the point where lead writer Enokido even said that he is driven by an infantile mother complex.

to explain why Akio was portrayed this way, we have to discuss Japanese history. the nation suffered a major defeat in WWII and was forced to accept whatever terms the United States laid out for it. for an examination of how the Japanese have never truly processed those events and have plunged into modernity with reckless abandon, I recommend Satoshi Kon's Paranoia Agent. to sum it up briefly, in a very short period, the nation regained its economic footing, and by the 1980s had the largest gross national product in the world. this economic boom may have allowed Japan to maintain a sense of sovereignty, dignity, and power, but it was inherently fragile.

the infamous "bubble economy" lasted from 1986 to 1991. during this time, anything seemed possible; financial struggles appeared to be a thing of the past, and capitalist excess reached new heights. the ghosts of this period can be felt across Japanese media; for instance, think of the final shot of Grave of the Fireflies (1998), where the two dead children look down on Kobe, glowing an eerie green to imply its impermanence. the abandoned theme park from Spirited Away (2001) is explicitly referred to as a leftover from the previous century, when many attractions were built and then tossed aside in a few short years.

the bubble popped in 1992, leaving an entire generation feeling cheated. the bright futures they'd been promised, which had actually materialized for their parents and older siblings, had been lost to them overnight. economic crises are often accompanied by gender panics. to quote from Masculinities in Japan, "The recession brought with itself worsening employment conditions, undermining the system of lifelong employment and men’s status of breadwinners in general. The unemployment rate was rising, and although it never reached crisis levels, men could no longer feel safe in their salaryman status. Their situation was further complicated by the rising number of (married) women entering the workforce."

with this in mind, Akio's character can be taken as a representation of masculinity in crisis in 90s Japan. he's forced to rely on women for his position in life and has failed to save his only relative, Anthy. he tries to escape his misery through hedonism, perhaps an allegorical representation of how men tried to maintain their old standard of living after the economic bubble burst.

but of course, Akio is not the main character of RGU--the story is about girls. mangaka Yamada Reiji discussed the series in the context of the 90s, stating the following:

while I opened this essay by discussing the prince, the same points could be made about the princess. despite the increasing irrelevance of royalty, princess is still an important concept. how does it relate to the socioeconomic landscape of the 90s?

in Yamada's view, RGU is full of relics of the 80s; for instance, the figure of the ojou-sama, an entitled young woman who never lifts a finger for herself. during the economic bubble, it was increasingly common for women to be entirely taken care of by the men in their lives. Yamada names Nanami as a clear ojou-sama type character: she weaponizes her femininity, demanding to be rescued, doted on, and served.

however, by 1997, the ojou-sama could no longer expect to get what she wanted. from the 80s to the 90s, the percentage of women in the workforce increased around 15%; it was no longer viable for most women to be "kept" by their families. as the men experienced the humiliation of not being able to provide for their wives and children, women were undergoing a disillusionment of their own.

Yamada blames Disney for creating the ideological structure which led women astray. obviously, the company is known for its films about princes rescuing princesses. in Yamada's recounting, during the 80s, the company was infiltrating Japan through its theme parks as well; across the country, Disneylands were opening up, and people were buying into the escapism the corporation offered. Japan, as America, became a country of eternal children. its people were waiting for a prince to appear and save them.

but fairy tales can't stave off reality forever. Yamada claims that RGU embodies the rage of young women who woke up one day and realized that they had been raised on a lie. this anger pervades the work from beginning to end.

though RGU was created in a particular social context, its lessons can be extrapolated to any time and place. as the first ending tells us:

I hope this essay helped provide more context for the series. thanks for reading!

[nellasbookplanet]

people have been fawning over how humanlike the gods are for a month now, but now its wrong to compare them to mortal powers because they're otherworldy beings that can't possibly be thought of in human terms? or is the suggestion that they're like mortals, but they're just an innately superior group of people that deserves to have power over everyone else?

Hello anon! Are you the same person who got all up in my askbox yesterday? You certainly seem to have an equally poor grasp on what I actually said and a willingness to make it somebody else's problem. However, I no longer have a headache and am feeling less cranky, so lets treat this as a genuine question.

I never said it's wrong or even inaccurate to compare the gods to humans/mortals. What I said is that some seem over-eager to equate them with groups or systems where they don't actually fit, or to project our own world onto them. This tends to lead to poor textual analysis. For example, equating the gods with mortal rulers (specifically tyrannical rulers, even), the one percent, a higher social class, rich people, or colonizers of mortals all read as comparisons made from the assumption 'gods are the most powerful sentient beings of Exandria; therefore I will compare them to the most powerful people of our world'. Do these comparisons make actual sense as parallels? No! Kings and rich people and colonizers aren't innately more powerful than others because we don't live in a fantasy world where magic is real. You can take said power from them and redistribute it fairly. You cannot do this with the gods.

Ultimately, the last few words in your ask neatly sum up the problem with this mindset: do the gods deserve to hold this power over everyone else? Lets look at this through a comparison: do sorcerers like Imogen deserve to hold power over everyone else? She, like most sorcerers, was born with powers others do not have and has no way to get rid of them. They cannot be taken from her and redistributed to the masses to make things more equal, because they are a part of her innate self. In using them, Imogen can do good, but she also sometimes ends up hurting people by reading their thoughts without consent or, at times, even meaning to. So, does Imogen deserve this power? By now, you might see the problem. It doesn't matter whether she deserves her power because you can't take it from her without killing her, no matter how unfair you think it is that she has it. 'Do they deserve their power' is an irrelevant question that people keep coming back to. What you're actually asking is, 'do the gods deserve to live', or even 'do we have the right to kill them' which is a lot more loaded.

The gods already evened the playing field as much as was possible by locking themselves behind the divine gate, severely diminishing their influence on Exandria. They can no longer cause any more harm than any mortal, because now they must act through mortals such as clerics and paladins, through which they do a lot of good (or have we already forgotten about c1 and c2, or even the resurrection of Laudna by a divine cleric and the actions of FCG in c3?). If this still isn't enough for you, you might want to ask yourself whether what you actually want is fairness and the good of the people of Exandria, or if you're just looking for pointless revenge for the sake of it.

[bandtrees]

this has always been one of my favorite lines in this scene it’s so striking to me. i think debating over callum’s level of lucidity and what can or cannot “fix” him is deeply antithecal to what the story is trying to express with him - but the idea that callum is still there and still a person who does have the capacity to love mingus, just not in a way she can ever comprehend or accept, because she can't comprehend or accept anything outside her narrow worldview, is sooooo good.

there is no way of actually knowing if callum is proud of mingus, much less recognizes her at all - but it's added to by the fact there's only so much of that she would accept even if he could. ultimately, she wants validation and power, his prestige, from him, she wants a supportive parental figure she never had - there's only so much of that callum is able to provide even in a world where her stint to fix his memory actually worked. he's like a hundred. he never even MET her. to say nothing of all he's missed in the past fifty-odd years. to say nothing of how his age may have messed with his mind deteriorating even without the pre-existing brain damage.

and mingus' phrasing here implies he doesn't even look at her when she visits - which brings me to the visit that radicalized her: the one after her surgery, where he was watching gingi out the window.

obviously, callum watching gingi is mostly for the thematics of it all, how similar the two of them are in ways mingus refuses to recognize, but theres also the thought of... callum's been sitting alone in that room for over half his life, barely lucid if at all. of course he's going to be drawn to a brightly-colored thing making noises and knocking stuff over outside. if he can't respond to stimuli of the people around him he's at the very least going to latch onto something more visually interesting than Brown Wall and Brown Figure.

but it's not like mingus can think of it like that, because she's internalized so much about her grandfather and built up such a specific, personalized vision of him - she doesn't see him as an elderly man with (a fictional equivalent to) dementia, she sees him as President Callum Crown™, the man she personally has to please and live up to the legacy of and make proud, disregarding the fact that's not something he has the mental capacity to even do - because she's so obsessed with validation and complete control that the only way she can get it is by either subjugating others and forcing it out of them (what she does with her townsfolk), or just completely projecting on someone who, for her purposes, is basically a blank slate.

which is maddening to her in its own way, see how crazy she drives herself trying to restore callum's memory in the first place - but also, would she be happy even if callum could see her for who she is? post-game, when she's working on herself, that's an irrelevant question as she's pushed past that need, but as we know her? absolutely not.

i love the ch3 standoff between norm and mingus as a show of "Okay guys let’s see who can dehumanize this disabled guy harder (via pedestal-putting) and justify themselves for it better" and why i think it is so important that it’s gingi who reads the postcard and ultimately speaks for callum instead of either of them, or even the narrator. they can’t read, and they struggle to, but they manage to get it right even when people are telling them to stop. and the fact they’re able to do it at all, are given the chance to do so, and are ultimately the one to wind down this conflict shows that the world of dialtown, while not perfect, really is how callum would have wanted it.

both gingi and callum are some of the most altruistic and human characters ever, and the crux of their parallels is that they are denied this by close-minded people because they happen to Behave Strangely. it's why seeing mingus act the way she does hits so hard - she loves her paw-paw, yes, but if she were to see him in a vacuum, a one-limbed man who can hardly think, much less speak for himself: or even his younger self, who was struggling to make ends meet with his odd inventions...

...well, the feeling norm's imagining here would probably be mutual. mingus' relationship with bigotry is a very fascinating one, she's very close-minded but views certain oddities (ie her flesh-head) as having earned their place and thus being fine - she's a freak too, by her own admission, but she's doing it for a just and wider purpose, so it's fine. which is, ironically, the ideology callum forced upon himself.

callum was obsessed with helping people, pushing himself to do more and more, because it was the only way he ever found respect. if he didn't help people and have grand visions for the world and make himself "useful" to society at large, then what would he be, if not a freak?

mingus and her paw-paw are very similar people, from their well-intentioned extremism, to their stubbornness and paranoia, to their inability to view themselves as anything more than a vessel for that grand cause they believe in (callum in the dialup, mingus in restoring her paw-paw's memory) - which is funny, because if mingus was able to view callum, and herself, as a flawed human person, she would come to understand how similar they really are.

:(

[glitter-stained]

Jason Todd Meta: My opinion on the csa headcanon

Does Jason's behaviour suggest he was a victim of csa?

There is very little, in terms of clinical signs, that’s going to point to csa specifically, because most symptoms, for psychiatric disorders, aren’t specific to one disorder or cause. One thing that’s usually a good hint would be children making very sexual statements/references/jokes/behaviours that are very inappropriate in context (a good example of this would be Roman Roy from Succession); night terrors are bed wettings amongst children/teenagers over a certain age. But that is absolutely not necessary: many, if not most victims of csa don’t display these specific signs, and a twelve years old that suffers from night terrors is not necessarily a victim of csa. The one thing that tells you for sure, in a person with trauma, that they have been a victim of csa, is that they’re telling you they have been a victim of csa. I’m insisting on that part because there’s a whole bunch of therapists (cough cough psychanalysts) that will tell you confidently that your psychiatric symptoms stem from a childhood sexual trauma (cherry on top of the shit cake if it’s incestuous) that you didn’t know about because you’ve repressed it. I repeat, that’s bullshit. If you meet a clinician who tells you that, RUN. So, a warning: this is probably the least “psychological analysis” of my “Jason psychological analysis posts”, because Jason’s symptoms do not allow us to conclude formally for or against a history of sexual abuse. But that doesn’t mean we can’t do some meta, make sure we're on the same page with what's analyzed here, some textual analysis, discuss what the csa headcanon does and does not imply in terms of his behaviour. I think it’s a good idea to start with it so we know where we’re standing with our analysis, regardless of the fact it’s maybe not the most interesting in terms of psychopathology and neuropsychology.

A couple of disclaimers:

I only talk about the comics I want to talk about. This is for two reasons, which are that 1) I do what I want and if I don’t like/don’t find something interesting, I’m not gonna waste time on it; and 2) I’ve been reading comics for a couple of months only, and there are, like, a lot of them. If there are comics you wanna see analysed under that lense, feel free to suggest them! I might not want to, but it also could be that I haven’t read them yet. Additionally, I'm not interested in questioning the morality of Jason's actions here. Ethics are fun, and I like talking about them sometimes, and morality sometimes has a place in talks about demonization but largely speaking this isn't the space for that. I separate talk about morality and psychology stuff as much as I can for a reason, so if you are looking here for excuses for his behaviour or arguments as to why he is a bad person, you're in the wrong place. Moral judgement is irrelevant here for the most part.

On the events of Red Hood: Lost Days:

Jason has, at some point in the comics, been a victim of csa. When Talia kisses Jason before pushing him off a cliff right after he got out of the Lazarus Pit, and when she initiates sex with him in Lost Days, that’s not consent!! That’s a grown woman taking advantage of a traumatized teenager who is, on top of that, deeply indebted to her. That’s a predatory act, with a steep power imbalance, it’s sexual assault, and on top of that there’s an element of suggested pseudo-incest. That decision was retconned, and thank god, because it was a brutal assassination of Talia’s character based on a good bit of racism, and also because the way it was portrayed doesn’t make it clear that Jason is a victim in a situation rather than that super annoying trope of “teenage guy gets to bang a hot MILF and hahaha lucky him”, writing a male character in a situation of SA without acknowledging it as SA or taking it seriously is one of the tropes I hate most, it reinforces stigmatisation and isolates victims. For all of these reasons, I’m not gonna include that element in my analysis, but it’s important to note that if you do include those scenes in your conception of it, then Jason is undeniably a victim of csa and everything discussed about it applies to him.

What if it were a lie?

I’ve said it before (and I’ll say it again), I deeply, violently hate headcanons/tropes where a character lies about being a victim of csa (whether it’s for manipulation, personal gain, any reason really I don’t care). It’s rare as fuck in real life, however it’s a common trope that feeds into fear of being wrongfully accused that causes push-back and increases social stigmatization. CSA is a painful thing associated with intense feelings of shame and already a deep fear of not being believed. Imagine making a considerable effort to seek help after something terrible happened/is happening to you, and you have to brave your fear of not being believed on top of that, and once you’ve made all that effort you get rejected and villainized because it’s just easier for the person you’re reaching out to not to believe it. So I’m awfully weary of this type of headcanon, and I think a general rule of thumb is “if your interpretation of what the character is saying is that he’s talking about how he was abused, especially if he’s talking about sexual assault, then it happened.” If you don’t like that, if you don’t feel like that’s good representation, then you can question the story, think it should be retconned, or rethink your interpretation of what the character says if it’s ambiguous, but hcing that the character lied about his assault is not a hypothesis we’re going to accept here no matter what. So we can start by scratching that one out: Jason never lies about being a victim of csa, or wilfully hints at it even though that’s untrue, at any point.

Two other ideas I’ve seen floating around that I think are worth mentioning:

No, just because Jason lived in the streets as a kid doesn’t mean the only way he survived was through underage prostitution. I genuinely don’t understand that idea, yes being a street kid makes you extremely vulnerable, yes it makes the risk of resolving to underage prostitution to survive higher but it’s absolutely not a fatality. That idea is, quite frankly, weird. Do you automatically assume if a real life person tells you they were in the streets for some time at a kid that they are a victim of csa? Also, I've seen the idea go around that because some people have a strong reading/hc of Jason as bi (which I have no problem with I love bi Jason), that would be an argument in favour of the csa hc. Please don’t do that. There’s no link between queer sexual orientations and childhood sexual abuse, that’s a harmful myth that we should work to deconstruct or, at the very least, not continue to vehiculate.

Another important thing to keep in mind: childhood sexual abuse =/= childhood sexual trauma.

Now, a traumagenic situation is a situation that might induce trauma (so development of, acute stress disorder, ptsd, cptsd, derealization, any traumatic pathology really). These situations exist on a continuum of probability to be traumatized by this situation. For example, a flood, a car accident, witnessing a murder and being sexually assaulted are all traumagenic situations, but the probability of developing trauma from them are very different. It hinges on personal, situational, social, and environmental risk factors (that have nothing to do with being weak, anybody can develop trauma). A definition for traumagenic situations can be found in the diagnostic criteria for ptsd in the dsm-5:

A. “Exposure to actual or threatened death, serious injury, or sexual violence in one (or more) of the following ways:

1. Directly experiencing the traumatic event(s).

2. Witnessing, in person, the event(s) as it occurred to others.

3. Learning that the traumatic event(s) occurred to a close family member or close friend. In cases of actual or threatened death of a family member or friend, the event(s) must have been violent or accidental.

4. Experiencing repeated or extreme exposure to aversive details of the traumatic event(s) (e.g., first responders collecting human remains; police officers repeatedly exposed to details of child abuse). Note: Criterion A4 does not apply to exposure through electronic media, television, movies, or pictures, unless this exposure is work related.”

Note that the this last criteria has been added from the DSM-5 in order to explain cases of PTSD observed in at-risk jobs like cops exposed to repeated detailed child abuse, first responders collecting human remains, or, crucially, vigilantes repeatedly exposed to brutal crimes. This means that Jason, when he works on the Dumpster Slasher case, when he is horrified to find Gloria in the immediate aftermath of her rape (and later finds her dead body, because witnessing the consequences of these traumatic events is also an important component of that second-hand trauma), is being exposed to a very traumagenic situation. As I said before, that doesn’t necessarily mean you will experience trauma (thank fuck for that), but there are factors that influence that. SA related situations has an already pretty high probability of inducing trauma. On top of that, age is a big factor in that: the younger you are, the less resources, emotional regulation, development and coping mechanisms to face the traumagenic event you have (though there is such a thing as “too young to have PTSD" -when your memory is simply not developed enough for the memory to traumatize you because you will not remember the event.) At fifteen, with his memory fully developed but his brain going through so much changes because of teenagehood and his past history, Jason would be at risk. On top of that, you’re more at risk to get traumatized if you’re already stressed out when the event happens, so Jason’s mental state at this point in his robin run is also a risk factor. All to say, it’s very plausible for Jason to have sexual trauma without being a victim of sexual abuse in relation to canon events. Besides, in headcanon territory when it comes to Jason’s childhood before Robin, there are so many ways to be exposed to sexual violence : witnessing/finding his mother being a victim (considering the position of extreme vulnerability Catherine was in), witnessing assault in the streets, being the victim of attempted SA and escaping, watching street kids get picked up and later find their bodies/being told by other kids, as a cautionary tale, in excruciating detail, testimonies of their own assault… Or for example, if we’re thinking about Arkham Knight, being constantly threatened with SA, it being hinted and joked about and hanging over him like a sword of Damocles is something I could see Joker and other inmates do that could definitely induce sexual trauma even if it doesn’t happen ; what matters most, in trauma, is that the fear is real. Mechanically, when we’re looking at the way trauma works even on a biological level, the overwhelming fear is at the core of the pathology. (This is also why you can develop PTSD after a psychotic episode.) Like, my point isn’t that one of these things happened to Jason, or that he has to have sexual trauma from the events of the Diplomat’s Son or anything -mostly just that this is a possibility, something very serious that happens and an important nuance that I never see in discussions on the csa headcanon, and while it’s not exactly what the debate is about, I think it’s something important to ponder.

Do you consider the csa hc to be canon?

So, there are a lot of Jason stories, and I’m very pro “not take in account what is said in comics you dislike in your conception of canon” because if I did that absolutely no bat character would be readable, I have to believe that no character is defined by their worst writers. And boy, does Jason have a lot of bad writing… On top of the personal retcons, there are also the canon retcons: like Battle for The Cowl is retconned… Unless someone decides to reinject/revamp it into the narrative (please don’t please don’t it’s irrecuperable let it lay with the Flying Todds where it belongs). So, let’s see. There are three writers/arcs that imply/mention the csa hc: Starlin’s writing of Jason’s post-crisis Robin Run (canon though some stuff in it seems to have been retconned), Winick’s writing in Green Arrow: Seeing Red (canon as far as I know), and Battle for the Cowl (retconned). It’s worth noting that one of those are considered to be foundational works for Jason’s character (Jason’s post crisis Robin Run and Starlin’s part in it), and another was written by Winick, who wrote the other two foundational Jason stories: Under The Red Hood and Red Hood: Lost Days. On a personal level, I’m very mitigated about what I like and accept about it. I base my whole love and characterization of Jason about his post-crisis Robin Run, I love that little guy so much, Starlin’s take on Jason’s Robin Run is absolutely canon to me (which does not mean I like Starlin as a writer, thank you very much). On the other hand of the spectrum, the only reason Battle for the Cowl isn’t my least favourite comic ever is because The Killing Joke exists, absolutely not canon, get this thing away from me. And then in the middle, my feelings on Seeing Red (on the entirety of Winick’s Jason really) vary depending on the day, because I do like a revenge story that challenges the status quo with tropes of “bad victim” and it sets up Jason as a character based on love rather than morals which I adore, but there are also some elements of psychophobia in the writing that I (who approach stories through the filter of psychopathology first and foremost) can’t just look past, and also the way it intertwines with classist stereotypes. So do I consider Seeing Red to be canon? In good faith, yes, but whether I’ll accept it as such really depends on the day. In terms of the csa headcanon: it’s heavily hinted in BTFC but not outright said, it’s there as a undercurrent in Starlin’s run because of his intention (to make Jason die of AIDS). And then we have Seeing Red. Basically Jason lists elements about Mia’s life, including her past with underage prostitution (so, just to be very clear, csa), and says they’re very similar, having both lived on the streets, and understand having to do bad things when it’s necessary. This is not the same as saying “I was a victim of csa”, and what he’s saying could be interpreted differently (we know that he was stealing tires, and “only what he needs to survive”, so he could have been referencing small-time theft.) So, it could be a reference to something else, I totally understand why some people want to interpret differently. It just… Feels like such a weird and weak argument to be equating boosting tires to underage prostitution, to me it’s very ooc (in comparison to UTH Jason), and it would feel like weak writing from someone like Winick. Aka it’s not technically canon, and you don’t have to accept it as such(I understand the mentality of "I'm rejecting this interpretation because it feels like demonization of csa victims" perfectly), but personally I think it takes a lot from Jason’s character in Seeing Red and from this story in general.

[meraki-sunset]

i have a question about hiveswap as im just getting into it, considering that the events of hiveswap and hauntswitch both take place in the late 1900s, whats the point exactly?

we already know whats going to happen and that all of the characters are doomed fail on their goals and then die no matter the outcome. the caste system is never abolished, HIC stays in power, both earth and Alterna get destroyed, and doc scratch continues his plan without a hitch

none of it seems to really matter or serve any purpose other than worldbuilding for 2 already doomed worlds (3 if you count the cherub portal implying a lost society of cherubs)

Well, it is. It is worldbuilding, that’s what precuels are. They add extra context to events you already know will happen, they add to how they happened, how we got there. That doesn’t make them pointless.

It may seem irrelevant at first glance, but Hiveswap actually has a very important role.

It sets the stage for the arrival of the players on both Alternia and Earth-A

The events of Hiveswap are happening with an equivalent distance in years between both Alternia and earth

Which means the Beta children are about to arrive in their meteors (1995 - 1996) a little after the time when Joey and Jude are having this adventure (1994), which means the Alpha trolls will get to Alternia soon too.

Both timelines are mirrored in time, they both have the same exact amount of time before the end.

We know the Beta kids hadn’t arrived yet to earth during Hiveswap because it’s 1994, and that the Alpha trolls hadn’t arrived either because Trizza is the heiress, and there can only be one at a time, so Feferi isn't there yet.

This series of events are necessary for Doc scratch’s plan, otherwise he wouldn’t have intervened, giving Xefros a surveillance free communication channel, so Joey and him aren’t detected by the authorities.

He needs them under the radar so they can (while trying to send Joey back home) connect people with each other, cause necessary problems, kick start important events.

All which will set the stage for the 12 troll player’s arrival.

What do I think it’s the most important event Doc Scratch needs Joey and Xefros to make happen?

Trizza has to die. There can only be one heiress at a time, and if Feferi is about to arrive, then Trizza has to go.

The events of Hiveswap/HauntSwitch will cause the death of the heiress, either fighting against the Condesce, at the hands of the revolted trolls Joey and Xefros will influence, crushed to death by Feferi’s own meteor, who knows. But if this is the "equivalent to 1994 on Alternia" and all that is happening it’s really happening as a mirrored version of Earth’s timeline, then the 12 trolls should be to arriving at different dates during the following year. Which means she doesn’t have much time left, as we know Feferi was the only heiress on Alternia during Homestuck. And we’re 13 years away from the end of the world. It needs to happen now.

It's the same tactic Doc used with Rose, Vriska and Terezi

The only reason he ever “helps” anybody it's because he needs them to make things happen.

He needs Joey and Xefros alive, he needs the rebellion to go through (even if it fails, it'll fail in a way that it's usefull for him), he needs Trizza gone so Feferi can come to Alternia and so the final stage of this plan of millions of years connecting dots and manipulating people to create a hostile planet for the new players to grow stronger that their predecessors, can begin. The rise of the new players.

I personaly think Tyzias might be the one to intercept Karkat or at least be involved in it.

It could be her, Joey or maybe someone else, but whoever intercepts him will have to know about the signless and according to Tyzias’s password (69) she already knows about him and she knows his symbol, and seems to be a follower in the down low. Tyzias also must knows how the singless promised that there would be another troll like him, and according to Doc scratch's explanation:

The followers of the summoner decreased enormously, but the Doc said himself that there were still some of them hidden and I think he was talking about Tyzias and her alies.

Sometimes we forget that there was intervention from the suferer's followers to ensure Karkat's survival

That’s why he has the sufferer’s symbol, someone who knew it gave it to him. And we know Tyzias knows.

The ectobiologist and team leader also seems to always be the last one to turn 13, (as well as the last to wake up as their dream self) so Karkat should be the last one to arrive, ending that chain of events.

Of course this all means that, by the time the end of the world happens, and asuming they’re all still alive, all Hiveswap trolls would be adults carrying duties off planet and would die the day of the apocalypse during the Vast Glub along with all troll Civilization.

The same would happen to Joey and Jude, assuming Joey is successful and returns to Earth. They would die on the 13th of April 2009 with the rest of humanity, not knowing they had a part in it or that their lost brother was the detonator of the end of the world.

It’s tragic in the end, but it’s necessary. Someone has to play that role.

They are the stagehands who prepared the stage for the first act of the play they were never meant to see.

And who knows, it may not be the end of them, maybe we’re too quick to assume they didn’t get saved somehow. By some random paradoxical event or deus ex machine that teleported them away from danger. We’ll have to wait and see how it plays out.

It's been a while since i wrote an analysis, i really missed that ^u^

[duskmachine]

I can't take it anymore. The new Chainsaw Man chapters are so good I have to talk about them. Spoilers for chapters 176-178 below.

Love Yoru here. She undermines the sacrifices Asa has made and describes them as "trifling things" because in Yoru's eyes she has a much bigger goal. She constantly makes fun of Asa because Asa is a child and therefore values things much lesser than the dreams of the War Devil. It's so insane because right in the next panel,

Asa acts like an adult! Would you sacrifice the things you have fought for the sake of your own gain? You say one thing but mean another. Asa is much like Yoru in this regard, she wishes to fulfill Denji's dreams (whatever they may be) and protect him. But in reality, she wants to do these things for the sake of proving she is a "good" person.

This connects back to the church briefly touched on in the previous chapters! What makes a good person? Action or intent? Many people go to church to follow tradition, and follow the values of this religious system because it will secure them in, what they believe to be, heaven. If one does good for the sake of personal gain, can we say that person is "good"?

Yoru and Asa both are willing to destroy what they had wanted to protect in order to gain this "goodness". Asa, without really understanding, is harming Denji while trying to do right by him. And Yoru, who is willing to kill her comrades for...

This! She is willing to give up everything for the sake of proving she is a "more fearsome devil"! She ridicules Asa for the "trifling things" she values, and yet she is sacrificing her own kin for the sake of the most petty bullshit dick measuring contest EVER. One that Chainsaw Man does not even care about. It's not a contest between two of the most "fearsome devils" it's a desperate devil attempting to find any means to remain relevant.

This is some teenager angst coming from a centuries old horseman of the apocalypse.

Armless, mouthless, and with zero agency she comes to realize her pettiness and chooses to steal the freedom of choice from her children. They must serve her as her mouth and her arms. Children then are:

Asa was saved by her mother from the Typhoon Devil. In reality, despite Asa's flaws she is a teenager. She wants go to college, have a home, have friends. Her story reflects Denji's. She wanted a normal life where she was loved and yet, her agency was taken by a devil much more powerful than her and now she must find meaning and power in a position stripped of those things.

In a way she is attempting to find a silver lining, "If I can protect Denji, that means I'm still a good person despite everything". Which is so tragic, because in more ways than one, she was never truly able to make a sound decision due to the lies she was told and the possession of her body.

And come this horrifying sequence of events. Where Asa finds herself as the War Devil, hollowed out of her original heart. Her dream desecrated by war waged for the most petty bullshit dick measuring contest EVER. And isn't that all war? As the Statue of Liberty reveals itself to be a cocooning child of war. True freedom, in the hands of law makers and of devils, is defined by one's ability to wage war and decide who, in the end of mindless violence, is the true victor.

Individuals willing to kill children understood to be a parents' property, or a state's property, are devils through and through.

This is the fundamental horror of being a child, of being poor, of being irrelevant. This is the fate devils and humans similar to Yoru avoid by constantly participating in petty bullshit dick measuring contests.

Denji and Yoru are children who have been hollowed out so devils and humans can wage violent wars that destroy colleges, homes, and families with these children's bodies and hearts.

[affogato-analysis]

Caitlyn as a symptom of Piltover’s violence

No because i need to throw hands with both her haters and lovers.

Mass spoilers for Arcane, season 1 & 2, for every characters.

(post is like 2k words)

(small edit it's been five hours and you guys are so kind and positive?? i love you so much, the conversations are so fun! the reblogs i see u and ily, my ego is soaring! i got more arcane rants coming if u wanna tag along idk lmao)

(thanks a lot is all i mean to say)

Was what Caitlyn did in season 2 act 1 terrible? yes. Does that make her a terrible person? debatable. Is she the best girl ever and above any criticism? also no what the fuck.

What happens to Caitlyn, essentially, is that she loses her mother and burns for justice and vengeance, and is willing to do all she can to reach her goal. Which is not an uncommon arc in Arcane, to be willing to burn it all for your family and getting overwhelmed by anger and loss.

The main difference is the scale and power dynamics. Because the chembarons have their shimmer, Vi has her gauntlets, Powder and Jinx have bombs, Silco and Vander have allies but they quite match each other when it comes to power until the very end.

So why is Caitlyn’s case so apart from the others? Here’s the thesis: Caitlyn is a symptom and the harm she causes is a consequence of Piltover’s domination over Zaun. I will argue for it thank you.

The main characteristic of Caitlyn, in the context of Piltover leading a targeted assault on Zaun, is that she is the one with power. Caitlyn is, first and foremost, a Kiramman. The show’s explicit about the power of the name, because with the name comes respectability, status, wealth. The Kiramman family is a powerful one, that’s why Ambessa chooses her above Salo. Both Cait and Salo have enough hatred for the Undercity to follow her lead if she plays her cards right, but Caitlyn, even if not officially appointed, has the power to exist in the Council’s room. Salo is nothing beyond the Council — and while it gives him power, his own family or personal entreprises are irrelevant enough that we do not know of them — while Caitlyn is powerful even without the Council — she does bypass every standard enforcers recruitment procedures to get Vi in, and thus we are told that she is one of the most important if not the main funder of the enforcers. In a state holding its peace through sheer violence and constant repression (especially after Jinx’s rocket), if one private actor owns your police force, you are at that actor’s mercy (which, yes, does turn on Cait when Ambessa’s soldiers take over).

Most importantly for us, the Kiramman hold one monopoly of power over Zaun. A vital need of Zaun they are the only ones to answer. Yes, we’re talking about the vent system. Caitlyn, in her anger and in her determination to do whatever it takes to get to Jinx, is willing to use every power she has. That includes her rifle and her aim, when she takes the shot at Jinx despite Isha and Vi standing in between, but also the vent system.

And as we’ve said, Caitlyn is going through a fairly usual character arc in Arcane of becoming a monster for love, for family, only to be brought back by love and family (Vander i’m looking at you) (and then that culminated into nothing to serve Viktor’s character arc tihi) (i mean it when i say Caitlyn has an amazing arc). It just so happens that Caitlyn owns Zaunites’ right to breathe. Is it immoral to weaponize it? Absolutely, and we can deplore the lack of political repercussions on the Kiramman in the show but that’s a more general criticism: the audience and the Zaunites are expected to just forgive Piltover to ally against Noxus. We can have sincere grievances about that (i do, and a lot of caitlyn hate comes from there from what i’ve seen) but it’s not a Caitlyn exclusive problem.

The thing is, Caitlyn’s weaponizing of the vent system isn’t the root of Piltover’s oppression or of enforcers’ violence. It’s a symptom of this violence. Cait can weaponize the vents because she owns them, because Zaun’s clean air is her possession. Because Zaun’s vital needs are dependent on Piltover. Cait doesn’t even realize just how much she’s hurting Zaun. She knows she’s gassing them but, and to her credit, it’s a fairly targeted assault (what Cait is doing isn’t terrorism!) but she is a reminder that whatever little fresh air they have, it’s still a mercy from Piltover. Piltover engineers a problem and a solution and holds that solution above Zaun’s head to silence their protest. This is domination, this is the root of that vent system being oppression still: the Kiramman hold Zaun’s air hostage and it took two mourning girls for that hand to cut off the air flow.

Caitlyn makes herself an enforcer of that violence in her grief, and that’s the symptom of a deeply ingrained disease. The root of that disease is always, always the inequalities between Piltover and Zaun.

The violence is the symptom of a system that is critically failing, repression means your governing body is illegitimate, weaponizing clean air is oppression to its finest.

To argue this point a bit further, we’re gonna circle back to Silco and Vander and how their power dynamic influences their behaviors and how their power struggle drives the entire undercity.

Vander and Silco both benefit from powerful allies. Vander has Grayson, Benzo and his position as bartender of the Last Drop makes him a valued member of the Undercity for Zaunites. Silco has Singed, Sevika and an entire network himself. They are two pillars of Zaun, creating a status quo that they work to maintain (at least their own position of domination) while furthering their own goals: Vander wants to raise his kids, Silco wants the independence of Zaun. Two vastly different sets of goals admittedly and that’s what leads them to reach out to vastly different individuals to help maintain it. Vander seeks out Grayson with whom he strikes a deal, while Silco allies with Singed for shimmer.

And when power suddenly shifts, when the right conditions appear, when the status quo is shaken, that’s when Silco asserts his power over Vander and his domination over the Undercity. Vander is put in a vulnerable position (his deal with Grayson isn’t enough anymore and he’s arrested) and Silco seizes the opportunity, deploys a power he has a monopoly over (shimmer). And after Silco wins against Vander, he can deploy his power over all of Zaun.

The status quo between Piltover and Zaun is constantly imbalanced. Piltover has already won at the beginning of the show and has been asserting, over and over again, through violence and in an abusive fashion, its domination on the Undercity. Caitlyn is like Silco in that comparison, she uses a power over which she has a monopoly (vent instead shimmer), in an unbalanced situation that puts her in the situation of the oppressor.

(And facing her, there is someone who is willing to turn that power against her. Just like Vander using Shimmer to protect his children, Sevika and Jinx using the vents for their own colorful clouds.)

Cait isn’t a poor innocent victim of circumstances but you have to acknowledge context and, in a show where parallels are so frequent, you can’t pretend she’s a completely unique character going through a completely unique arc completely unrelated to anyone else. If you hate her, hate a lot of other people too!

And, as is typical in Arcane, characters are monsters for love, and brought back by love.

And Caitlyn’s arc shows that! Past arc 1, she was lost. Vi had left, Jayce was missing, her mother was still dead even if after all she did, her father was a shadow of himself, the only one she had was Ambessa who was fueling her vendetta to further her own colonialist agenda. Suddenly she was alone, serving as a puppet on top of a pile of gold and too much power she couldn’t control. She can’t call back the gas once it’s out after all, she can’t call back the martial law Ambessa installed now that the resentment is growing in Zaun and that Ambessa is the one holding the reins of enforcers.

That’s why her switching sides was so immediate: when Vi calls her cupcake, she brings the girl forth, before the monster. She gives her love and Cait latches onto it, and uses it to pull herself away from that trap she walked right in. “Why does anyone commit acts others deem unspeakable? For love” & “Is there anything as undoing as a daughter?”: love is forever the way in and out of hate.

I am very disappointed that we never got a proper conclusion to the tensions between Zaun and Piltover. I wish we had witnessed negotiations between Ekko/Sevika/Jinx/a representative of Zaun and the Council, I wish they had gotten control of the vent system, promises of fair trade, independence, something. I wish Caitlyn had been made to apologize and deliver herself the keys to the vent system to Zaunites. I wish for a lot of things about the political resolution in season 2 and the show did not go how i wanted it to. Does deviating from what I wanted inherently make the show bad? No, although I do think it wasn’t the greatest this time around.

I however can not talk shit about the character arcs. Not all are as well crafted as Caitlyn but i will take no more Caitlyn slander on the basis of “she’s a fascist!”. 1- that’s not what fascism is, although she did walk a line close by; 2- she’s a symptom of oppression, and by reproducing she makes herself an agent of it. She weaponises Zaun’s air because she can because she’s in power because she’s the heiress to the Kiramman. Doesn’t make what she’s doing less harmful, but it has to be treated in context. Caitlyn is still a twenty something grieving girl with her entire world shaken up, she just so happens to also be the heiress to an extremely wealthy and powerful family in an oppressive system and every path that opens to her, in the midst of her hatred, brings her to reproduce that domination in the most efficient way she has access to: the vents and the enforcers.

And, yes, by reproducing domination she is also an engineer of it. It’s important to acknowledge that what she's done is bad to put it simply, but do not denature her character to fit a conception of her that is easy to hate. I will put part of the blame on internalized misogyny too, as it pushes us to have less leniency and tolerance for women’s mistakes. No because I haven’t seen half that much hate towards Silco who, reminder, made the Undercity kneel by giving them severe shimmer addiction (engineering an issue and making himself the sole owner of the solution while maintaining it as a form of domination, everyone see where i’m going with this?).

Again, do I wish we’d seen more of the political consequences on Caitlyn of that? Yep, absolutely. But I will not blindly hate on her while ignoring the global context of her actions and I invite you to do the same.

Tell me, do you hate Jinx for her so-called terrorist acts or do you see them as part of resistance against Piltover? You can not see the context when you like it only i’m afraid, and, in an unprecedented show of nuance for the internet, we can understand context and acknowledge moral complexity and still hate someone.

Hate Caitlyn if you want, but do it in a constructed way so we can argue together please! I need to talk about this show so badly, please hate the enforcers and the change in Cait’s character but do so in a well-argued fashion, i beg of you.

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

WIBTA if I officially reported a coworker for indirectly interacting with me?

♊️ to recognize.

My coworker Frieda and I used to be friends but we didn't mesh together and we had the ugliest friend break up ever. What happened between us irrelevant to this AITA but both of us were assholes to each other but the people following our situation closely are telling me she's much worse, and I think so too. Some people even told me I'm NTA but could've handled it better.

We agreed to stop talking to each other and she was the one who's most vocal about not wanting to interact with me, but, she continued to harass me every once in a while, literally taking away the tools from me by force while I'm still using them (we are supposed to use them in turns), getting in my personal space for no reason to the point of 'accidentally' brushing her arm against mine, and literally trying to make me late to go home.

That last bit was was my last straw and I unofficially reported her to the manager, she got a stern warning to stay away from me but she wasn't punished. The manager told me stay away from her as well and (unofficially) report her again if she attempts anything.

Now, my Ex friend doesn't do anything terrible to me, except she keeps keeps commenting to other coworkers on the things I say. She doesn't say bad things, but she has no right to include herself in my conversations.

Example:

A coworker I'm friendly with mentioned her upcoming birthday, I was busy with work so I didn't say anything, but everyone else wished her a happy birthday.

She turned to me, since I was the only one who hadn't wished her a happy birthday yet and was like "hey OP, my birthday is next Thursday!"

I said "oh alright I'm bringing a gift for you."

She said anything, then Frieda freaking turns to her and says "yep, gifts are the most important!"

Dude. Like she didn't even bring it up because she was considering asking the coworker about what kind of gift she wants or anything, she just said it because I did.

Like, if it was just a one time thing I wouldn't care, but she's doing this often, like it feels she's purposely trying to talk to me in a roundabout way. It happening almost in daily basis.

Another example if you don't believe me, everyone was talking about coffee. Like a whole conversation about it. When one coworker commented he doesn't like coffee, I asked him if he likes tea and he said yes, then she chimes in and asks him how he likes his tea? Girl ya'll are talking about coffee leave me alone. Stop including yourself in my conversations.

One of the reasons I'm upset about this is that Frieda is a social butterfly while I'm socially awkward. I'm having a hard time interacting with coworkers as is, it feels as if she's constantly stealing the attention away from me and silencing me. I know she won't like it if I do the same thing to her and won't try, and I always butt out whenever she's talking to other coworkers. It's hard talking to the coworker that's sitting next to me if she's literally coming from across the room to talk to them, which is not wrong in itself nor do I think she's purposely doing it with the intention to steal them away from me, but it makes me struggling to talk to everyone else. But her literally butting in my conversation is the thing I'm actually upset about and what I plan to report her for.

Now, I know my manager told me to tell her if Frieda bothers me again, however, I don't want to do that. I know my manager is trying to be fair but she friendly with Frieda and won't actually punish her because it's unofficial and she'll just talk to her about it, it won't be satisfying to me which is why I'm thinking of directly going to HR and reporting.

By the way, HR doesn't have the power to fire her easily so it's not like I'm putting her in actual immediate risk, but an official complaint about her will be stuck in her profile and as per the law, once she get 3 official warnings she can be fired. I'm not exactly sure, but I think another coworker has reported her already for making a joke in poor taste so this will most likely be the second warning. She often gets in fights with people so I do think it's only a matter of time of it happening. I never get in fights myself but man does she really push people's buttons. In the span of 1 year at work she has already fought with 7 coworkers already (the one I know about anyway, could be more since I have no idea what she up to these days)

I feel I might be TA because I might be overreacting, as she's just talking to other people but I still want to report her. I'm making documentation already but debating whether I should do it or not. WIBTA if I report her?

What are these acronyms?

[anneapocalypse]

On Cullen's Earnestness

In my current playthrough of Dragon Age: Inquisition, this one early war table quest caught my eye that I think offers a good bit of insight into Cullen’s character.

In “Truth or Dare: The Imperial Court,” Vivienne alerts Josephine to a letter she’s received from an acquaintance, purporting to “warn” Vivienne of the suspect company she has taken up in joining the Inquisition. The letter reads thus:

My dearest Vivienne,

You cannot have heard the shocking allegations against the Inquisition, or surely you would never have been seen with them. Allow me, as a friend, to open your eyes. People are saying that Divine Justinia is, indeed, alive, but that the Inquisition—her closest advisors and most trusted servants—have orchestrated all this chaos on her orders. That it was Seeker Pentaghast and Sister Nightingale who sabotaged the Conclave in order to eliminate the opposition within the Chantry, and cut off the heads of the mage rebellion and templars in a single stroke. To save your own reputation, you must escape this acquaintance immediately.

With deepest concern, Vicomtesse Elodie de Morreau

In the context of the Game, we may understand that this Vicomtesse, while she may call Vivienne a friend, likely has no great concern for her reputation.

The Inquisition is the horse on which Vivienne is betting in order to better her own position (which is considerably shakier than she lets on, but that’s another post); Vicomtesse Elodie is simply making a different bet. If Vivienne heeds her warnings, and the Inquisition never achieves public favor, then Elodie’s advice was correct and Vivienne is indebted to her. If Vivienne heeds her warnings and the Inquisition does gain public acclaim, then Elodie has disrupted Vivienne’s opportunity for advancement, and she also wins. And if Vivienne does not heed her advice and the Inquisition remains a pariah, Elodie gets to watch Vivienne go down with it, smugly saying “I told you so.” Only if the Inquisition thrives and Vivienne with it does Elodie lose this bet—and Vivienne is clearly interested in seeing that outcome, and helping it come about.

The important thing is that the specifics of the accusations against the Inquisition are absolutely irrelevant here. This conspiracy theory about Justinia being secretly alive and the Left and Right Hand doing a sabotage to secure Chantry power—it’s all nonsense, and I doubt the Vicomtesse truly believes it. More critically, she likely does not care whether it is true. Repeating this rumor is just a means to a desired outcome.

If you’ve ever argued with a conspiracy theorist who seemed to simply change their position every time you backed them into a rhetorical corner, you may have realized that facts are largely ineffective at combating this sort of thing.

And of the three advisors, Cullen is the only one to get hung up on the content of the rumor, rather than its source and its purpose. Josephine and Leliana, seasoned players of the Game, both recognize this stupid rumor for what it is. Both of them ignore the substance of it and instead focus on its purpose: turning public opinion against the Inquisition. Josephine proposes to combat it by seeking noble favor elsewhere and leaving it to those allies to do the work of actually arguing against the rumors. Leliana is more interested in finding out with whom the rumor originated.

Leliana also makes the particularly savvy observation that if they were to combat the rumor by attempting to prove Justinia’s death, they would simply be providing their opponents more ammunition to use against them later. Leliana recognizes that “The Divine is alive, and you’re hiding her!” isn’t an earnest accusation, it’s bait. And if you take the bait, if you say, “Actually the Divine did die; here’s her remains to prove it,” then your enemies can say, “Aha! And how do you know she’s dead? It’s because you people killed her!” Or, best case scenario is they just bait you into wasting a lot of your time proving the accusation false, which is exactly what happens if you let Cullen take the bait.

Again, you might have had a similar experience if you’ve ever tried to “debate” a person whose strategy is making outrageous claims, letting you waste a lot of time earnestly debunking them, and then ignoring all your arguments and simply making another, equally outrageous claim.

In Cullen’s case, what happens is poor Knight-Captain Rylen is tasked with leading a field trip of Orlesian nobles through the grisly ruins of the Temple of Sacred Ashes, while asking them to please not touch the red lyrium, and no, you cannot take a charred corpse home as a souvenir, please milord I must ask you not to touch the red lyrium. I’m sure that was an excellent use of everyone’s time and resources.

But it’s easy to understand why Cullen responds this way! It’s a very instinctual and human response! “Well, you’ve just said a thing that is very obviously untrue. I’ll prove to you that it’s untrue! And this will solve the problem of you being wrong, and then we can all move forward together. Right?”

It’s an eminently reasonable response, so long as you assume that the other party is being reasonable and engaging with you in good faith.

Cullen assumes they are. Josephine and Leliana know they’re not. (Vivienne also knew this; hence her handing the letter over to Josephine to deal with instead of bothering to reply herself.)

And you can probably see how Cullen’s earnestness, his desire to believe that other people are also operating earnestly and in good faith, could lead him down some dangerous paths.

Knight-Commander Meredith was also a conspiracy theorist. The difference is that her conspiracy theories were about people she had near-absolute power over, with terrible consequences. And working under the authority of someone he wanted to believe in, someone he absolutely would have taken as entirely earnest (because in many ways she was earnest, at least in her belief that magic was dangerous and must be controlled), it would have been easy for Cullen to assume she must be acting in good faith, even when his misgivings arose. “She needs a spine of iron to survive her position,” he says to Hawke. And like anyone arguing in bad faith, Meredith could move the goalposts when it suited her. No signs of blood magic discovered? That only proves how well they’re hiding it. The tower must be searched top to bottom. The First Enchanter objects? He must be one of them. Dissent among her own templar ranks? Must be the blood magic controlling their minds. As Dan Olson puts it in his video In Search of a Flat Earth, conspiracy theories make facts subservient to outcomes, which is why the "facts" can easily be rearranged and discarded at will—all that matters is the actions those facts justify.

Of course Meredith’s beliefs were, again, quite different—more dangerous, and far more earnestly held than this silly Orlesian rumor about the Inquisition. She was also under the influence of red lyrium at the height of her paranoia. But conspiracy theories often feed on paranoia, and Meredith’s beliefs were still ultimately beliefs that could be bent to justify the outcome she (and her superior, Grand Cleric Elthina) desired: mages must be controlled, whatever the cost.

Cullen has managed to extricate himself from Meredith’s mindset. But he hasn’t yet learned, I think, that conspiracy theories and irrational beliefs can’t be overcome simply by reason. That’s also very understandable for someone in his position. When you’re in the process of overcoming some very wrong beliefs yourself, things you earnestly believed, it’s very natural to want to believe that everyone else is just as earnest and can be persuaded; in fact, you have a personal stake in believing that, because if other people can be redeemed, that means there’s hope for you.

Do I think this justifies the things Cullen was complicit in during his time as a templar, or any misguided opinions he may voice during his time with the Inquisition? No, that’s not why I’m saying all this. But I think it’s an interesting aspect of his character and one worth exploring. Cullen is often characterized as the blunt instrument advisor, his answer to most war table questions being “send troops”; in Josie’s words “the hammer for whom every problem looks like a nail.” But I think some of his offered solutions do offer compelling insights into his character, and this one certainly does—as well as an interesting example of how this approach to the world and other people can go wrong.

[anxresi]

They're absolutely right...

...It's the writers that deserve the lion's share of the backlash, for poor, innocent, boring-as-hell Zoe is merely a tool of the oppressor, aka Mr Astruc. What's being oppressed, you may well ask? Well, interesting storylines, proper continuity, two-dimensional personalities... I could go on. Everything that makes a show compulsive and rewarding viewing that Miraculous Ladybug conspicuously and utterly lacks in every department due to his increasingly destructive machinations, basically.

This pink-streaked plot device masquerading as a serious character can (along with another equally pointless individual called 'Soquerline' who was so unmemorable I almost forgot she was ever a thing) exists for one reason and one reason only: to diminish Chloe's relevance and role in the show to the sum of precisely nothing. Well after S5, job done I guess guys. Well done. Well done indeed. (Although apparently not... they're bringing Miss Bourgeois back for more torture in the London 'special'. Guess Tommy Boy just can't keep away from his favorite punching bag, can he?)

The irony is though, having such a super-sweet but dull-as-ditchwater Mary Sue to replace a well-established and multi-layered person such as Chloe actually sends out a seriously awful message. Why? Because if I was a bad kid and saw S1-3 Chloe, I'd think 'what a fascinating redemption arc, I can inspired by that and do better.' But after seeing S4-5 Chloe and what an arguable downgrade as a replacement the incredibly tedious Zoe is, I'd be more like 'well, obviously there's no point in trying to be good, because you'll probably turn into a psychopath overnight with no explanation in the middle of your genuine efforts to improve. And if what the show is presenting to me as the ideal for a teenage girl to be is the waste-of-blank-space that Zoe clearly is... then a life of deliquency sounds more tempting with every passing minute! Now, where did I put my spray can?'

The most shameless aspect to this whole argument though, is by those trying to paint the hapless Zoe as some kind of lesbian icon. Pardon? She got a plot-mandated crush on Marinette in one episode and somehow that makes her insipid and needless presence an asset for the gay community? Somehow a few people have got it into their heads if you 'dare' to make someone non-straight in cartoons these days you deserve a big pat on the back for that 'risk' alone. WRONG. They should also be fleshed-out, complex, necessary characters whose sexuality isn't just define them or deflect from deserved criticism as to what the hell they are doing there if they turn up in the middle of proceedings with no prior explanation. See: The Owl House for how it's done.

And that's all Zoe being gay is... an irrelevant trait Mr Astruc can point to cynically and say ' you're a bigot for disliking her whatever your reasons are, so I'm not listening to you' instead of engaging with the actual argument which is SHE IS NOT AND WAS NEVER NEEDED IN THE SHOW. Everything you required to make Chloe the brilliant character she could've been was RIGHT THERE in the script but you CHOSE to rub it all out and scrawl some hastily scribbled doodle with no personality other than being 'very nice' in her place. A tragedy. The worst case of self-vandalism I've ever seen. No wonder Jeremy Zag wants to start from scratch with his rebooted movies. More power to him, IMHO.

Needless to say, nearly all the above in the quoted post about her father loving her (we haven't met him yet, it's DEFINITELY not Andre Bourgeois, his name ends in 'Lee' for a start) her supposed growth (the only 'growth' she's had is when she turned into that giant golden Chloe after being akumatized) her alleged pansexuality (all in the desperate mind of the OP) her 'abusive' family (I think you'll find Chloe had it FAR WORSE over the course of the show in that regard, so why not idolise her?) is complete bunkum. and to be frank I couldn't compose a much delusional post if I tried. Sometimes I wonder: what planet are some people on to reach such implausible conclusions? I don't understand it, I'll never understand it and quite frankly I feel quite sorry for the arbiters of such risibly deluded takes.

Last but not least though, we have...

Now this I ALSO agree with 1000%. And I know just the place to 'flush' her... ;)

[mywitchcultblr]

I find it amusing how some anonymous users call you a hater and a child throwing a tantrum (as if sending hateful messages wasn't). How can they be so blind to this?

The DLC writing is dogshit at best, and I am being generous. FromSoftware not only butchered Miquella's character but other things too. What happened to him wanting to cure his and Malenia's curse? There's no mention of that. The Haligtree—supposedly a home for the shunned and mistreated? Nothing. Granting Godwyn a true death? Nada. The Eclipse? Pfff. The Outer gods and the unalloyed gold? What about him being Torrent's former master? (As the promotional art implied) And the steed choosing the Tarnished? If I recall correctly, wasn't Torrent meant to pick lords? So this means Miquella trusted Torrent enough to let it choose him a consort, yet our role there is practically non-existent. Besides that, as far as I'm concerned, for one to become a god, one must be in contact with the Elden Ring, such as Ranni did, yet we don't see that in the DLC. And the thing that bugs me the most is Miquella abandoning parts of himself, like his love. Like, yeah, "Age of Compassion," but there's something you need for that and it is, y'know, love??? Where's the sense in that? Wasn't the whole point of him become a god and fix Marika's mess in the Lands Between? Not following her steps.

I'm not even going to mention Radahn because his presence here is as irrelevant as in the game.

THANK YOU ANON! Finally someone with sense! People who are saying "Oh you are just angry because the DLC doesnt confirm your headacanon or expectation." The expectation exist because of hints and lore that already exist in the base game, of course you will want to see the big pay off in Shadow. Imagine if you are Dr. Who fan and seeing 13th Doctor turned into a weeping angel but then in the next episode it doesn't go anywhere and she's immediately fine again

I will list others things that aggravate me about SOTE

The battle between Malenia and Radahn: In the base game, their battle is implied to be over runes, and because he was halting the stars and thus Miquella's fate. Malenia invaded Caelid to get Radahn's rune and solving the halted fate business, while general boi also wanting to accumulate more power so he can be Elden Lord with taking hers. Simple but effective.

But now its over a marriage with Miquella?

While it made sense for him to ally with the Haligtree so Radahn can get into the fast track of becoming Elden Lord through marrying Miquella, there's 0 build up anywhere in the base that will led us to believe Radahn even got to do anything with Miquella.

Also while he is a warmonger and certainly not a good person (I dont care what chuds on reddit said, just because a guy likes his horse that doesnt make him nice, I don't even hate Radahn or anything) he genuinely cares about HIS OWN HOLDING.

Now from what I gather from the DLC, he will agree to become Miquella's consort if he got an epic battle first. So now the motivation for Malenia vs Radahn iconic battle is... It was a deadly sparring ritual before the groom settle down? Radahn can you at least do it in a neutral zone so this battle wont destroy your OWN LAND?! There's no way Radahn didn't know that sparring with Malenia could endanger Caelid, especially with the fact that she has ROT. Radahn might be a brute archetype but he's not stupid, yet this DLC made him looks like an absolute oaf who doesn't care about whatever Caelid will survive or not...

2. Mohg: I always thought he will return, he gives me the vibe of a villain who say "I'll be back!" and I thought there's no way the Formless Mother will allow her champion to die just like that. Yeah he's back but in the worst way possible that will make his fans despairing and his haters say "I hate Mohg but he didn't deserve this."

His arc in the base is good, it is conclusive and it made sense.

A guy who was born hated, abused, and shunned by his own mother decided to say FUCK IT and created his own order, cavorting with an Outer God, committed heresy left and right, then kidnapped his half brother so he can force/convince/manipulate/doing blood ritual whatever so Miquella will make him a consort. Then the Tarnished ruined his plan, killed him. It was a well-rounded arc. Its good enough. I always admired his tenacity to give a middle finger to his family. But now? This weird over engineered brainwashing-kidnapping thing undermined the authority of both Mohg and the Formless Mother. Did she even care about Mohg? Why the Formless Mother didn't try to stop Miquella or at least warned Mohg about it?

And what the fuck Mohg is actually doing down there? What was his plan to elevate his order and replace Marika's? How he will do it if he never wanted to become Miquella's consort? With his drip alone? Maybe there are things that I missed about Mohg's plan in the DLC?? But this DLC narrative now undermined his arc and the Formless Mother.

3. Mesmer: While he is still intriguing and judging from youtube (No i havent reach him personally, because you know I'm busy but I spoiled myself, I always do for something as big as BG3 or Souls) I thought he would play a bigger role in Shadow, but not really? He's kinda overshadowed by Radahn who is not supposed to be there

Also Rellana's existence sounds like a sitcom level plot twist? Its kinda funny LMAO "Oh you think Renalla's boss fight sucks and you think she is weak? HERE WE HAVE HER TWIN SISTER RELLANA! ITS THE UPGRADED VERSION OF CARIA 1.0!" (I do like the expansion and exploration of the Carian's family tho)

4. "What about him being Torrent's former master? (As the promotional art implied) And the steed choosing the Tarnished? If I recall correctly, wasn't Torrent meant to pick lords? So this means Miquella trusted Torrent enough to let it choose him a consort, yet our role there is practically non-existent." : THIS YOU ARE SO RIGHT ANON, Torrent chose the Tarnished and Miquella asked Ranni to give the spirit calling bell to whoever Torrent chose. THAT'S MEAN THE TARNISHED ALREADY HAS A CONNECTION WITH MIQUELLA, I'm willing to bet over my right arm, this Promised Lord that Miquella/Malenia mentioned is either supposed to be Godwyn or THE TARNISHED THEMSELVES!

Look Miquella need a lord strong enough to back his claim and help him to change the world right? Why insisting on chasing after Radahn (that never mentioned to have any connection or alliance with Miquella) WHEN YOU CAN HAVE THE GUY WHO DEFEATED RADAHN AND MALENIA THEMSELVES! The Tarnished is already strong enough to challenge MOTHER FUCKING GODFREY and won! It make 0 sense for us not able to become his consort. What do you mean you can make the dream of a guy who is literally called THE DUNG EATER came true and subjugated everyone into a world of pain because shit eater is an edgelord who thinks omens and their suffering are totally cool, but not MIQUELLA'S? Its so bullshit. In the grand scheme of things, Dung Eater is as relevant as a random Tibia Mariner.

I'm still hoping we can see Miquella's ending, I hope its gonna be added. I saw someone mentioned that there's actually Miquella's ending but not implemented? I hope it can be added and at least some aspect of the missing story/plothole fixed, because Elden Ring 1.0 was quite different than what we have now...

This guy on reddit also echoed my statement

5. Godwyn: I don't care what some people said "Oh Godwyn is not supposed to be there, its just your headcanon." Brother... This DLC is about Miquella and Mesmer (even though sadly Mesmer's role seems to be diminished :/) there's should be any mention about Godwyn because Miquella and Malenia loves him very much.

There's a statue of them hugging each other, and if I'm not mistaken there were people who data mined and found tidbits about Miquella trying to resurrect him and there's stuff about Miquella giving up his throne

Show us Miquella failed to resurrect Godwyn, show dont tell! (so it wont impact Fia's ending) or please give us a mentions about him by Miquella, or knights who used to serve pre-dead and rotting Godwyn appearing in Lands of Shadow, something, anything! its like his own family, doesn't give a fuck to solve the problem that his rotting body caused.

6. The gloam eyed queen and Melina: I thought GEQ will be mentioned, since this DLC also delved into Marika's past, I mean GEQ was her rival and she's nearly becoming THE God instead of Marika. But eh nothing about her or Melina :/ Tho I do like tidbits about Marika's past and her village

There's other things... But eh I'm tired of typing lol. I do enjoy Elden Ring, I really do, and I had such a high expectation for SOTE :/ so yeah I became loud about my disappointment because I'm invested

[deadboydetectives-confessions]

Sorry Interface – I saw that long CK confession and clearly, I have too much time on my hands because it annoyed me enough that I have to submit a rebuttal.  So here is a point-by-point counter argument because I am tired of you CK defenders *not getting the point*.

“He’s a trickster”

Just because someone is a trickster figure does not mean they are exempt from being an ass.  That’s just making excuses.

“He’s all about equality. Punishment fitting the crime.”

Okay yes, the CK trapping Edwin in Port Townsend *is* a fitting punishment for trapping a cat.  This is true.  However, the CK’s first offer to get the bracelet off was for Edwin to have sex with him. That is textbox sexual coercion. 

“If he hadn’t trapped Edwin, Niko would’ve died.”

Irrelevant to the CK’s actions.  He did not trap Edwin with the intention of saving Niko.  That was total coincidence and is not related to the ethicality CK’s actions.

“I don’t know why people keep calling TCK a predator.”

See point 2.  The CK trapped Edwin in town and the first (and easier) option to escape was to have sex with him.  That is sexual coercion; plain and simple.  The CK only gave Edwin the counting cats option as a way to wear him down and make excuses to see Edwin again.  Every time he saw Edwin after the initial rejection, he was *still* making sexual advances towards Edwin that were clearly unwanted.  It isn’t like he just ‘let it go’ after their first meeting.  Remember “I will STOP PLAYING NICE!” moment in ep 6?  He just kept pushing up until Edwin was taken to Hell.

“he (CK) literally did everything Monty did.”

No, he didn’t.  I don’t like Monty either, but Monty legitimately thought Edwin had feelings for him and acted on those feelings.  And also, Monty never *trapped Edwin so he couldn’t leave*.  That is a pretty big distinction.

“We don’t know how old Monty is either” “Suspend your belief about ages” & all other age discourse things

This is the part where we agree.  Any age discourse in this show is dumb because of all the non-aging characters.  No one of the main cast should be perceived as ‘off limits’ to anyone else in the main cast purely due to age.  That is stupid.

However, there are power dynamics at play, and forcing someone to remain in a town against their will does count as one of those!  The CK holds Edwin’s freedom over his head for most of the show and presents a deal that is inherently impossible for Edwin to properly consent to because he is unable to leave.

You can like the CK and find him interesting or sexy or whatever.  That isn’t the problem.  The problem is that a lot of you out there do not seem to understand that what he did was *wrong* plain and simple.  Characters do not have to be morally correct (see Charles pushing NN off cliff, Edwin trapping the cat, Crystal and… everything she did in her past), but as fans we should be able to look at a piece of media and properly analyze it and see actions for what they are. 

The CK *is* a predator who tried to coerce Edwin into sex for freedom.

.

[eilinelsghost]

I've not posted much when it comes to my feelings/critique of Rings of Power (because the discourse there is a toxic hellscape that I have not wanted to touch with a 10 foot pole), but I've come away from the final episode so frustrated that I can't help saying one thing.

In trying to be clever with their "references," what the showrunners have ended up doing instead is taking the narrative power away from several of LoTR's key moments so that when those instances show up in the "later" trilogy, they are shorn of their meaning and arrive instead as hollow echoes of what RoP is putting forward as their original instances.

This is most clearly seen in Season 1 when Galadriel's pivotal moment in Fellowship of the Ring is taken from her, placed in a man's mouth first, and consequently shifts the entirety of her narrative arc/test to be about her relationship/temptation by this specific person instead of being the full fruition of what brought her to Middle-earth in the First Age. Her test (as noted in the Shibboleth of Fëanor, found in HoME volume 12: The Peoples of Middle-earth) is the rejection of "all that she had desired in her youth," which is specifically tied to her involvement in the rebellion of the Noldor and subsequent rejection of the Valar's pardon.

If Galadriel's test is thus reframed to be primarily about refusing the power Sauron offers, then she does that here in the Second Age (per their depiction) and this scene thereby makes her choice at the Mirror irrelevant because it turns it into a test she had already passed. (The irony here is that so many bad faith critiques were that the show made Galadriel too independent & fighter-y when in fact they took all of her independence and cut the knees right out from under it by making her entire story about Sauron instead of its own complicated arc. But I digress.)

In Season 2, we receive an additional host of these attempted referential echoes, but I will focus on one in particular because it operates in exactly the same way that Galadriel's Season 1 scene does. It is once again the final episode, once again a character whose journey we have followed through the whole season (throughout both seasons, in fact), and once again it is taking a key moment in the LoTR narrative and shifting it to be instead something that has already happened in the Second Age - specifically, the scene with the Stranger (now disappointingly officially identified as Gandalf) and "the Dark Wizard". This effectively lifts Gandalf's refusal of Saruman's offer in FoTR and places that exact temptation (join me and together we can weild the power that Sauron has) centuries earlier so that when he is faced with it at Isengard in the Third Age, Gandalf is merely repeating his earlier decision and facing nothing but an echo of a temptation he has already mastered.

These characters are now caught in a Groundhog's Day of their defining moments, repeated ad nauseam till it is reflex and not conviction.

In attempting to construct resonance and connection between the two narratives, what RoP has done instead is shore up a hall of empty mirrors, each reflecting back upon itself to the point where the origin becomes meaningless and the beauty of its narrative power is lost.

[gatheringbones]

[“Those of us who stay in gaslighting relationships have decided—usually unconsiciously—that we need to be able to tolerate anything, and that we have the power to fix anything.

Melanie, for example, needed to believe that she was a kind, nurturing person whose all-encompassing love would create—single-handedly if necessary—a happy marriage. No matter how badly Jordan behaved, she should, she could, and she would be loving enough to make things work. Facing how unhappy she was with Jordan meant giving up this idealized version of herself and accepting that she couldn’t overcome her husband’s difficult ways solely through the power of her love.

Likewise, Jill needed to see herself as so strong and so talented that no boss could ever bring her down. She wanted to believe that she could do good work in even the most difficult situation and that, by the sheer force of her abilities, she could transform a bad job into a good one. Acknowledging that her boss didn’t care how good she was felt like giving up her very self.

As you can see, these are fantasies of power. We’ve made up a vision of ourselves as able to transform any situation if only we do things right. Instead of giving up on our gaslighter and moving on, we try desperately to prove that we can change him. Failing that, we try to convince ourselves that his bad behavior doesn’t really matter because we are so strong.

The roots of this effort reach back to childhood. Parents who are disappointing and unreliable put their children in an emotional corner. To face the truth about them—that they sometimes behaved like self-absorbed children—would be overwhelming. What two-year-old, four-year-old, or even twelve-year-old can bear to realize that her mommy can’t protect her, that her daddy may not come through? How terrifying to be a child with unreliable, unloving parents! We know we’re not old enough or strong enough to take care of ourselves, so if they won’t do it, who will? And if even Mommy or Daddy won’t love us, we must be so unworthy and unlovable that no one else will. So instead of seeing things with such terrible clarity—instead of realizing that our parents can’t take care of us or love us the way we’d like because of their own limits—we begin to blame ourselves (“It must be my fault”), just as we’ll later do with our gaslighter.

But we don’t stop there. We make up fantasies to compensate for the reality of neglect and disappointment, fantasies that seem to give us more control. If we are strong enough and powerful enough, maybe it won’t matter that our parents can’t come through for us—we can take care of them, instead! “No matter what Mommy does, I’ll be okay,” the little girl might say to herself. Or “No matter how much Daddy disappoints me, it doesn’t matter.” We try to see ourselves as strong, tolerant, understanding, forgiving—anything to make our parents’ failings irrelevant.”]

robin stern, the gaslight effect