#theme: discourse

[derangedfujoshi]

Stalking is a crime, yes that includes your yandere boyfriend

Assault is a crime, yes that includes your whumper/whumpee scenarios

Being part of a mob is a crime, yes that includes your sexy son of a mafia boss

Killing is a crime, yes that includes your blorbo

Zoophilia is a crime, yes that includes you liking Nick Wilde

All your "exceptions" from what is and isn't condemnable in fiction are, in real life, a crime as well. Every dark trope falls in the "it would be a crime to commit this irl" category, it's not just the big age gaps with adult/minor ships and the incest, it's ALL of them. All of them are crimes in the real world, by law. The sentence may vary but you'd still be sent to prison. "But I only like it in fiction!"

So do we.

So do we, so can you get off your high horse and just admit that liking dark themes in fiction, ANY dark theme, does not reflect your moral compass in real life and for the love of everything STOP pretending fake murder is better than fake incest? You sound preposterous.

[tossawary]

It's very ironic to get comments on "Scum Villain" fics that are essentially revenge fantasies against certain characters, given... uh... everything about "Proud Immortal Demon Way" and how the story of SVSSS interacts with that in-universe story.

Sometimes, it's mildly amusing. Sometimes, it's a little disturbing, depending on how violent and disproportionate the fantasy is, because even if I've written some villain as a real asshole, I don't want to open my inbox to people wishing death and gory violence on anyone. A couple times, it took me a hot second to figure out that the violent fantasy wasn't directed at ME specifically.

Thankfully, that extremism is quite rare, so it's more often people wishing milder physical pains or, uh, complete social humiliation on certain characters, sometimes just for the "crime" of being mild inconveniences or slightly unfriendly to the fic's protagonist. Most of the time, I assume this is some form of playful exaggeration on the commenter's part, a reader exorcising mild annoyance at a fictional antagonist and expressing some sympathy or compassion for the hurt protagonist. A reader mentioning they kind of want to see a character grovel pathetically for forgiveness only to get kicked in the face is not necessarily a reader who wants that revenge fantasy to actually happen in the story.

Sometimes, though, it is hard to tell if someone genuinely thinks that all of Cang Qiong Mountain Sect should be destroyed because Luo Binghe was abused or Shang Qinghua was overworked. Like, I sure hope this is just hyperbole! I sure hope that you don't honestly think that "an eye for an eye" or "I take two of your eyes and also your tongue because you took one of my eyes" are, like, reasonable justice policies! I sure hope that you don't sincerely think that collective punishment is in any way a good thing and that a random junior disciple on the tenth peak (who probably doesn't even know who Luo Binghe is) deserves to suffer because the original Shen Qingqiu was a really shitty person.

But revenge fantasies like "Proud Immortal Demon Way" are popular for a reason, so I can never quite be sure! In every fandom, you have Peerless Cucumbers demanding that villain characters be castrated or killed for being abusive pricks, who cheer on the fictional revenge fantasy of hurting someone ten times as much as they hurt you, and some fans would be absolutely horrified by that kind of "retribution" in real life and others would... cheer that real life "punishment" on as well.

I don't really have a strong point to make with this post! This post is too long to be a casual reminder: "Hey, I hope you're always keeping in mind that messages you send on the internet are being directly received by real people who 1) can't read your tone and 2) don't know your 'real life' opinions to immediately know if you're joking." And I'm focused more here on how amusingly ironic this type of commenting is in regards to SVSSS and PIDW specifically.

Like, it's fun sometimes to get a little "Peerless Cucumber" about our favorite protagonists! (Shen Yuan said a lot of shit on the internet about PIDW but apparently generally doesn't really want people in SVSSS to suffer.) But once your revenge fantasy starts getting a little too detailed in regards to public humiliation and social ruin, torture and dismemberment, arson and leaving someone to get eaten alive by fire ants, making everyone who ever mildly slighted you beg for their life at your feet... It's like, "Bro, I don't think this comment is even Peerless Cucumber levels anymore. You are straight-up getting into original Luo Binghe territory here."

[myfandomrealitea]

Fucking insane how people will see something I post that they agree with but they have to virtue signal that they're not a proshipper before expressing their agreement/support even when the post has nothing to do with proshipping.

[centrally-unplanned]

Atomic bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki: Based or Cringe?

Hiroshima = based, Nagaski = cringe, we having it both ways today baby!

But okay to not meme, this is a very complex question. Fundamentally, the mass-scale strategic bombing of civilian targets in World War Two was a dubiously effective policy that killed millions of innocent people. I judge no one for strategically bombing tank factories with the accuracy you had in 1943, that is just the harsh realities of that war, but that is not a description of what Allied strategy was (or not just, they also bombed tank factories). There were legions of air power proponents executing a strategy of "maximizing civilian casualties to break the back of the enemy", killing babies was the point, and the horrors of things like the firebombing of Tokyo are literally inconceivable to those who have never been in such times. Morality is not divorced from results - if it worked, if it made Germany & Japan surrender after a night of bloodied streets, then I would be hard-pressed to fault them. But that isn't what happened. It probably did something, sure, but the calculus is grim.

From that lens you can see Hiroshima as a culmination of a horrible strategy; but I don't think that is the only lens you have. World War Two was, in my opinion without peer, the highest stakes conflict humanity has ever fought. Nazi Germany's combination of dystopian vision and backed-by-steel ambition makes it the worst government to ever exist; Japan is certainly in the top 10 as far as these things go. And while we with our tables of GDP and steel output can say the Allies had it in the bag, that is never how people fighting a war see things.

Additionally, the methods of World War Two emerged from the almost-as-cataclysmic horrors of World War One; a conflict that utterly destroyed the governments of half the countries that fought it in. And their replacements were...not great! It was not a war that broke imperialism to usher in liberalism, even if steps were made that way. After WW1, people were desperate to find a way to fight the next war in a way that wouldn't condemn themselves to endless trench warfare they had gone through, one that wouldn't bring them to the brink of collapse, even if it fucked over the other guy.

Strategic bombing was born from this impulse - its founders truly hoped it would break the back of opposing nations, that once you "won air superiority" and started smacking Berlin the white flag would be raised. This didn't happen, but you didn't know that in 1941. Or in 1942. Or in 1943. Maybe it's just around the corner in 1944? You really want to stop now? 90% of Strategic Bombing Commands quit just before their enemy's will is finally broken, don't you know? In hindsight it is easy to say, in 1944, that they should have taken to foot off the pedal, that the war was won, and that this strat wasn't the way. And to be clear, they should have, they should have done that. Better men would have done that. But that is the high bar I am holding them too, not the floor. In this time period most people just didn't think civilians got spared in war, it was a different time. Morality's aim is universal, but the steps of the individual towards them can only be contextual. I think they were wrong, and to be clear by 1945 it was becoming quite obvious that the war was over and this was unnecessary. But few of us are so immune to the sins of inertia in a war.

From that lens, Hiroshima is the most justified civilian-targeted strategic bombing conducted in the entire war. Because unlike the inertia-creep of the Dresden firebombing, it had a very clear purpose - compel the Japanese government to surrender by demonstrating a weapon they could not hope to defeat, something that would save tens of thousands of American lives and likely hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives. I believe it did do that - not only do I think it was at least as important as the Soviet declaration of war, but the one-two punch of timing them together was a calculated psychological blow that certainly didn't hurt.

But more importantly Truman was not privy to the sessions of the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War, he could only guess where they stood. Within that context Hiroshima was a calculated gambit that makes sense; because strategically bombing civilian targets was the order of the day at that time, and that all the big solo-military targets were essentially bombed away at that point, the idea of some kind of "display" against a dummy target or something - to a government the US had barely any communication with, wasting a scarce resource - was just not politically in the cards. Hell, neglecting to bomb Kyoto for cultural reasons, and doing things like dropping leaflets warning civilians ahead of the attack to flee, were already tail-end of the humanitarian practices of the time. I cannot armchair judge Truman for making hard calls with the stakes as high as they were.

However, Nagasaki was a classic interia case. It was done because the US had the bomb and we were bombing cities. It made even less sense than campaigns before, because now the US had a "reason" to think surrender might be imminent, so giving it a few days had far more logic. This one I judge much more harshly. It was the decision of a system that just did violence by default. Which of course it was, it was World War Two. But results are morality - Hiroshima probably saved Japanese lives. Nagasaki did not. Them's the breaks.

[ingravinoveritas]

If at this point you still think Michael and David would somehow be uncomfortable with people shipping them after they've just created their own actual couple-themed Christmas card, I don't even know what to tell you...

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

oh btw the existence of real witches with magical powers destroys any commentary toh was trying to make about the witch trials.

because guess what? the witch trials were just a glorified form of misogyny. it wasn't directed towards people with actual magical powers (obviously) or even people with any power or autonomy at all. the witch trials was a way to make sure that women stayed powerless and any attempt to be an individual, outside of social expectations, would get them killed.

so applying all of that to a setting where witches are real and can defend themselves defeats the whole point. yes, these witches are still nice people (mostly) but the commentary about puritan dogma and the witch trials doesn't really hold up because they're mixing it with fantasy. witches aren't an oppressed group, they are not helpless and tortured in the way women were in the era of witch trials.

i think real world social commentary could definitely be applied to a fantasy setting and carried out efficiently, but not in this instance. toh trashes the direct connection between witch trials and misogyny, and makes it seem like people who publicly burned women at the stake or hanged them.. kind of had a point because witches exist and are naturally stronger than human beings. it doesn't matter if the witches are good or not because this is no longer an act of discrimination and oppression, as it was in the real world.

[chilledstrawberrysoda]

My ultimate aftg pet peeve is when someone from booktube or booktok reads the books one time and thinks they can make a video explaining it like no get out of here, I have read these books 10+ times over the last 9 years and listened to the audiobooks 5 times and this morning I still noticed something that I misinterpreted upon the first 15 read throughs. I think the only person that would be genuinely qualified to do a full plot analysis and breakdown would be Nora because these books have so much nuance and complex characters and world building that reading it once is not enough to explain it to other people.

[mihai-florescu]

"Fiction isnt reality itself, but it does affect reality, so you have to be mindful of your own consumption and how you interact with it after, especially if you're going in a fandom setting" is not a crazy statement to understand, and yet it feels like it on the internet

[synchodai]

Idk where all these takes thinking that Helaena was indifferent to Jaehaerys's death come from. She literally said she was sad about it. Her rationalizing that she shouldn't be is very realistic grief processing for a neurodivergent person. I've worked with children on the spectrum who will tell me that they're angry or sad and are trying not to be because they know it'll make others even more upset or because a scraped knee heals eventually and all these other rationalizations.

But they are upset. And like what Alicent did with Helaena, you have to tell them having emotions by itself isn't a bad thing. Most of the time, it's simply something you can't control or reason away. Alicent was doing well to tell her daughter that she had a right to her grief — that she shouldn't use "other people have it worse" as a way to push it down.

Alicent has her own wonky processing by believing it was her fault that Jaehaerys died ('the gods are punishing me for my sins. an unrelated accident happened because i, personally, have done awful things' aka classic catholic guilt). So she was seeking absolution from her father who refused to give it to her.

But Helaena does. Helaena forgives her. In a way, I interpreted this scene as both of them comforting each other in the ways they needed. When Alicent shrugs off her own grief and begins talking about how she's more worried about Helaena, her daughter tells her what she wanted to hear by giving her that absolution.

Could the scene have made it clearer that this mother and daughter are helping each other with their radically different ways of processing grief? Could I have misinterpreted the scene? Of course. But as it was, it was pretty clear that Helaena was sad about Jaehaerys.

[codes-and-stuffs]

DEEP SIGH idk guys i think that people who insist double life is the "gayest smp" need to like engage with more smps with actual queer narratives

like it's funny and all but are you aware some smps actually have characters grapple with their sexuality or have canonical gay couples or have nonbinary characters or have people come out or have aroace characters or like. like i ADORE the life series but i am tired of people insisting it's actually queer yknow?

[mxtxfanatic]

Ngl, I’m actually pretty uncomfortable reading my old posts defending the goodness of the common people and their right to defend themselves—as persecuted groups or as individuals—from hierarchical tyranny, given how easily in this current irl moment a not-insignificant amount of people have fallen into supporting an active genocide, because I cannot separate this from how much pushback I got (and still sometimes get) for being consistent in my politics

[likeastars]

I saw a reactor talk about how he didn't really like that Rebellion got so philosophical and high concept when the original series was so grounded in the real life experience of a teenage girl, but I love that shit. I love that we're doing philosophical metaphysical discussions about love and life and interplanetary evil mindfuckery caused by doomed codependent yuri. I looooove watching a Madoka Magica movie and not understanding SHIT and only managing to get through the first fifteen minutes without a headache after two rewatches and thirty tumblr posts from people who have memorised The Bible

[the-far-bright-center]

It's baffling to me that a certain subset of the SW fandom is willing to accept some of TCW’s most ridiculous story arcs and blatantly OOC characterisations as literal canon, but then pretend that they 'can't believe' that Padme could possibly fall for Anakin in the actual Prequels films.

Really? You can believe that space-godzilla goes on a rampage and destroys a sector of Coruscant, that several of the main characters are kept as slaves by an evil cat-queen, that Obi-Wan fakes his own death (complete with a pretend funeral) and callously traumatises everyone who cares about him in the process, and that Maul somehow survives TPM and is at one point a ROBOTIC SPIDER ...

... but you can't believe that two child prodigies who formed a bond while mutually aiding one another can meet again years later under intensely emotional circumstances during the outbreak of a galactic war and legitimately fall in love with each other and get married?

Really???

[ingravinoveritas]

I recently watched the trailer for OFMD season 2 and was suddenly struck by the tangible difference between OFMD and Good Omens. I'll start off by saying that I'm definitely more into GO than OFMD--though I've seen all of the episodes (so far) of each--but there is something about OFMD that I think really sets it apart from GO 2, which is that OFMD doesn't apologize for its queerness, whereas GO still does.

(It should go without saying, but this does not apply to Michael and David, whom I feel solidly fall under the category of being entirely unapologetic in portraying Aziraphale and Crowley and their relationship.)

But articles like this (which Neil actually had the cojones to share recently) that claim homophobia "doesn't exist" in Good Omens entirely miss the point, which is that it does exist in the world of GO--Shadwell calling Aziraphale a "southern pansy," for instance--and that Michael and David are showing these characters to be who they are in the face of homophobia in the form of religious repression. And while homophobia exists in OFMD as well, GO clings to a sense of nicety, of apologizing to the straight audience Neil is still aiming to reach, whereas OFMD does not care one bit about appealing to a straight audience.

OFMD is unafraid to tell a straight audience "This is not for you. You can enjoy it all you like, but we are not doing this for your approval." In OFMD, you have characters of every flavor of queerness who are just able to be who they are, without having a label affixed or checking a box (lesbians, enby folks, gay people, and so on). The actors are able to define the characters in their own unique ways--Jim with a beard drawn on with kohl, Wee John dressed as Divine in drag--so that being queer is not the main focus of who the characters are, but rather what allows them to be who they are, and the audience is trusted to understand that. I do not feel that this is the case with GO, and the result is constant fighting and policing over pronouns and identities, despite the fact that none of it would matter at all if people stopped relying on Neil to define the characters for them.

Yes, I know they're very different shows and characters. But watching the trailer for OFMD 2, I didn't feel like I had to worry about being disappointed, or that I had to search for the queer representation, because it was already there...

[mcsm-confessions]

Cassie Rose might genuinely be a better person than me because if I was forced to either starve to death or kms horrifically by being eaten alive by endermites as punishment for killing 3 people, and when i escaped years later and them found out minecraft Hitler dropped a nuclear bomb on a whole city and mass murdered basically an entire world because he was mad at his friends got off scott free to skip through the daisies because he felt sorry? I wouldn't even bother with threatening hate mail I'd just literally kill Jesse and blow up Beacon Town myself lol

~~

[creatrixanimi]

One time i somehow got on a redit thread on will wood bc i looked him up or something and Im constantly thinking about one person I saw getting really aggressive about his fans liking him for queer reasons and they said something like "he's a cis het 30 year old man he probably doesnt know what 'so gender' means" and like ok yeah being parasocial is not good but saying that he doesnt know what "so gender" means is laughably wrong. The guy has a song about gender identity and also at one point dressed like this:

Like theres discouraging parasocial weirdness like assigning stranger's sexualities and then theres what is essentially gasligthing people into thinking they just made everything they like up about a musical artist they like. For some reason.