#then they would not be saying his ideology on its own is WRONG

[daylighted]

dean winchester x angel!reader — innocence is a virtue.

or, how on earth is he supposed to corrupt you? you? or, dean's newest passenger princess is killing him slowly and violently.

cw, fluff but with sexual elements. mostly fluffy though. reckless driving DO NOTTT do this!! professionals only!! dirty minded!dean. honestly just horny!dean really. innuendos galore.

word count : 2.9k

notes, guys can i be so honest i have not even gotten to the seasons where angels come into spn. this is all based on the lil bits n pieces i know of the future stuff ok. ik i'm a fraud but BE GENTLE IF IT'S OOC OR ANYTHING < /3

req. by anon & in honor of kas's dean & angel fics bc i LOVEEE them

★ ˚⋆

dean, honestly, had never met someone quite like you. when he'd told cas in passing that he was about the most naive, innocent thing he'd ever met, all he did was give him one of those looks he reserved only for dean. he thought, then, that it was just because he was being a bit of a shithead, and cas was telling him without telling him so.

very quickly, he found out how wrong he was about both of his assessments.

the day you came down to earth and graced everyone, literally, with your presence, dean was smitten. never before had he met someone so sweet. so honestly pure. until you, he thought that purity was nothing but an ideology based on impossible feats. a pipe dream and a half for the faithful. no, the reality was that he just hadn't met you yet.

sam was pouring himself into research, too focused to realize that dean was all but whittling away in his starvation, so when he offered to go grab some cheap shit from the diner a few minutes from the motel, all he got in response was a mumble of agreement and a wave of his hand from him.

but you, who'd been sitting on the motel bed, stiff as if you had something stuck up your ass holding you in place, turned to him and asked to come with. that struck dean off kilter immediately, because he hadn't been asked for anything in a long ass while. sam just usually assumed he'd be writing shotgun wherever they went. john — no, he'd never ask his son anything, usually buried that sentiment in harsh demands and orders. cas asked him lots of questions, but permission was not often one of them.

and when he looked at you, read over your features and saw the genuineness in your wide, expectant eyes... god, how could he say no?

so you sat there in the passenger seat. dean had to buckle you in with a joke that flew right over your head — another joke you would not get, even though he was fucking killing it with them right now — about not wanting to send you flying if they got into a wreck.

you proceeded to unbuckle and buckle and unbuckle again a few times, seemingly fascinated with the click of the mechanism. dean wanted to be annoyed. genuinely. if sam had started pulling this shit, dean would have pulled over and drove a few feet ahead as a warning to cut it the fuck out.

but with you, it was adorable in its own right. god, it was! somehow it surprised you, every time it clicked, even if you'd already done it eight times. like, how did anyone expect him to get pissy at you when you were doing those sharp, surprised gasps every few seconds? a few more times and he'd be pulling over to give you something to gasp at, he thought idly.

and then winced, scrunching up his face, when he realized how deep in the gutter his head was. no, he wouldn't touch you. wouldn't even try to plant that idea in your pretty little head.

dean didn't want to corrupt you. if there was one thing he was certain of, it was that he wanted to keep that pretty little head as clear as his nose was, alright? he wasn't going to be the one to break you into what this world was, its hardships and its cruelties — and its more deviant pleasures.

but fuck, you made it so hard to keep his head straight.

you did this thing, he realized too, on that silent, clicky drive, where you tugged your bottom lip between your teeth when you were in deep thought. thought about what, fuck if he knew, because if you said something to him in the moments that he watched you do it, he'd never know. he was watching your mouth but not to listen.

dean was about to start reprimanding himself in his head, for what must have been the third time already, when you said something, nearly making him slam on the brakes in his surprise.

"how are you doing this?" you asked, as if that wasn't the vaguest question he'd heard in his entire life.

dean blinked a couple of times as he waited for elaboration that never came. he switched hands on the steering wheel, resting his right loosely over the gearstick. "doing..." he trailed off, shaking his head slowly in a gesture to make you keep talking, "what, exactly?"

you did not catch the hint, and he was probably a fool for expecting you to. it took a few more seconds of you staring very intently at his thighs for you to speak up, and by then, he was fucking squirming in his leather seat, trying to not let it get to either of his heads that you were so blatantly staring at his dick.

"this," you answered, twinges of frustration evident in your tone. he couldn't blame you. he was getting frustrated in this car ride, too. "making it move."

christ. he was going to hell. he was going to hell again, this time because of his own drifting thoughts.

"you're gonna have to be a little more clear, dove," he managed through his teeth, voice strained, "'cause i don't think we are on the same train of thought right now."

another blink, and another few seconds pass. your hand shot up in his direction and he flinched, honestly flinched, convinced from the filthy thoughts circling in his head that you were about to grab him by the—

"this," you repeated, and he almost bristled at the attitude, almost told you off about virtues or whatever, when he finally got it. your arm stuck out in gesture to his legs, which pushed the gas pedal and rested against the doorframe, as he drove.

dean closed his eyes briefly, metaphorically swapping his metaphorical wrist for his headspace. he was not, was not, the person that should be introducing you to this world.

dean shifted again, bringing his left leg closer to the leather seat as he readjusted into more of a comfortable position. he hadn't even realized how tense he'd gotten on this short car ride until now. he was as straight backed as you were, and breathing just as slow. "driving?" he asked anyways, like an idiot.

"driving..." you repeated, like the word was as fascinating to you as the process was. "how?"

the diner sign was right there. it was teal and glowed, retro in style, announcing benny's bistro as open.

he drove past it.

dean knew that you did not sign up for a driver's ed course with him with your question, knew even more that he was risking his baby for a pathetic attempt at flirting with someone who did not even know the definition of the word, but to hell with it. you'd asked to come along with him, and therefore placed yourself in his hands for his guidance. the least he could do was make some sort of effort, couldn't he?

"c'mere," he grumbled once he'd pulled baby off into an unassuming back road, parking it dead in the center. you'd need all the open space. he patted his spread thighs a couple of times.

your stupidly pretty pink lips sucked into your stupidly straight teeth. fuck. "why?"

"just—" he cut himself off when he realized he was about to get snippy. you didn't deserve snippy. he was just hungry and horny and you were pretty and he was...

he was pathetic. looking for reasons to get you into his lap. he'd already been to hell, what are they gonna do, drag him back by his ear?

"just do it," dean finished on a sigh, his hand dropping to the front of his leather seat, grabbing the handle and shoving the seat back as far as it could go. there you were, staring at his dick again, making him feel hotter and more bothered.

he felt his heart stop solidly in his chest when you started to climb over the middle console, so oblivious to the faceful of ass he was getting. dean was practically praying to god at that point. he knew he'd been a shit until then, and definitely a sinner by every means, but if he could grant him a little fucking strength—

you plopped your happy little ass right between his muscular, jean-clad thighs. you were warm, was his first thought. he was screwed, was his second.

"what now?" you asked him, that innocent lilt to your voice as you did, and he felt like a dirty little freak for wanting to bend you over the steering wheel moments before ( who was he kidding? for still wanting to bend you over the steering wheel ).

dean took both of your hands and placed them on the steering wheel. once he'd closed your fingers around the wheel, he dropped his hands to your thighs.

"this one," he patted the left one, and nearly went molten behind you, when you lifted that thigh and placed it on his palm. "nuh uh," he tried to lightly correct, "this one you don't use. jus' keep it out of the way." dean's voice was strained in his ears, in his throat.

you slipped your thigh out of his grasp, pressing it up against the inner of his own thigh, your foot tucked around his ankle. you were so trusting and compliant. he was so, so screwed, and so, so awful for thinking about breaking that sweet naivety.

"this one," he said, patting your right thigh, and when you didn't move it this time, he smiled, just a little, to himself. "you use to make it move."

the flush on your cheeks that followed his tease was so damn pretty it took his breath away.

he lifted his leg, not able to reach the pedals with you sat between them and his seat all the way back. he pointed his boot at the left pedal, knowing you were watching each of his movements intently. "that's the stop pedal. push it down to stop." he repeated the process he'd done with your legs, boot pointing at the right pedal as he explained it. "that's the ignition."

pause.

"that's the go," he corrected, sparing you any momentary confusion and any more questions, he hoped. dean could not keep sitting here idle with you between his legs. "makes the car drive. harder you push, faster it goes."

hell, hell, hell. he wasn't going to hell, because he was already in it, strung up and burning.

"i'll handle the gears," he added quickly, when he caught your head turning downward to the shift stick. "don't wanna overwhelm that pretty little head of yours, dove, with too much at once."

dean rested his right hand on the gear stick, his left hand gripping the handle on the driver's door for dear life. he needed the support; you were driving him up a wall with his claws out, and you were about to be driving him. driving his baby. it took a lot of coaxing from sam for dean to let sam behind the wheel. all you did was ask how do you make it move? and he was letting you drive.

you. who did not even know what a car was. who was learning how to drive literally that moment.

god help him. he'd prayed more in this fifteen minute drive than he had in years.

you pressed down on the gas pedal, and the car revved all pretty and loud. dean watched with bated breath as the response to your efforts registered in your head, the way your eyes lit up in that curious glimmer, the fucking teeth biting on your lip.

once you let up, he pushed on the gear stick's release, and tugged it down from park to drive. the car slowly began to move down the dirt path.

you slammed the brakes so hard that his head knocked into the back of your shoulders. "fuck, dove, gentle."

and you were, when you shifted your foot over to the gas pedal again. you pushed it down on it tentatively, the car starting to glide down the dirt road, the sound of pebbles grinding beneath the tires.

"better," he mumbled in your ear, leant forward to keep his eyes on the windshield. it's not that he didn't trust you, he just... yeah, he didn't trust you. "just like that, dove."

the praise, though, goes in one ear and out the other, because the gentle ease of baby's tires along the road is interrupted by you slamming the gas. the tires squeal. clouds of dirt and dust puff out from behind the car as it takes off.

dean's heart went from in his ass to in his throat in a manner of a second. "whoa, whoa, whoa!" he exclaimed, a nervous laughter bubbling out of his throat. "slower, slower, will ya? crashin' in the middle of nowhere is the last—"

you hit the brakes again, still hard but less this time. just enough to send his head knocking into your shoulder again as the car slowed.

slowed, but still headed toward the ditch. "right, see your hands?" he asked, chin nuzzling into the plush spot between your neck and your shoulder so he could see better. "twist 'em. nice n' gentle for me, to your left, yeah, good girl. makes the whole car move, yeah? jus' keep it on the dirt, not off "

you follow his instructions, and dean feels a swell of pride at this. maybe he should have gone into driver's ed or some shit. he was a good ass teacher.

"like this?" you asked, drawing him out of his self glazing. your voice, soft and hesitant, breathless with your excitement, has his chest heaving.

"yeah, dove, jus' like that," he rasped, his left hand moving from the doorframe to rest where your thigh met your hips. the car kept its slow pace down the long dirt road, and for the first time since you'd gotten your hands on the wheel, his heart doesn't feel like it's pounding in his throat. "no, no, don't stop. keep goin', you're doing so good for me."

his phone starts to buzz in his pocket, and like that, his self indulgent driver's ed lesson comes to a screeching halt. "you jus' keep on going like this, alright?" he asked you, patting your hip with his hand before he reluctantly let go.

he definitely answered the phone with more attitude than necessary. couldn't help it. he was having a great time. "what, sam?"

"everything alright?" sam asked, and then dean felt like a prickhead for giving him shit at all. "s'been thirty minutes."

dean sighed, his eyes lifting again to look out the front windshield. a stop sign was quickly approaching, and you didn't even need his guidance for that. you were slowing to a stop all on your own. he was so fucking proud, it was sick. "all good. long line at the burger place."

it was dead empty, four miles back.

"we'll be back in a few, alright? chew on one of your books or somethin' while you wait, make 'em useful."

"dean—"

he hung up before he could hear sam's sighed response.

his hand fell to your waist again, squeezing lightly to stop you from lifting your foot off of the brake just yet. "play time's over. calvary's callin' us back."

dean pushed the gear stick into park again before he moved both of his hands to your hips, helping guide you back into the passenger seat.

he adjusted the seat again, his hands finding their typical place on the wheel. he did a very illegal u-turn at the four-way intersection and headed back down the road that you'd driven him down.

"have fun?" he asked after a beat, eyes flicking over to see you. you looked so pretty in the orange glow of the sunset, your face lit up in deep gold.

you turned to meet his eyes, and he had to look away quickly, the bright glimmer of adrenaline in them knocking all the wind out of him. "yes."

"good." dean meant it. there were so few things he'd risk everything for, but that toothy smile of yours jumped to the top of that list.

"dean?" your voice rung out again, earning him another glance your way in acknowledgement. "what part of the car was in my back the whole time?"

dean faltered, eyes blinking in a bout of surprise and lips parting, searching for a response he did not have. his eyes dropped down to his lap for a second, dread and embarrassment pooling like ice water in his stomach at what he hoped wasn't— yeah. yeah, it was.

"i dunno, dove," he mumbled through his teeth, staring straight ahead, fingers tapping on the steering wheel, doing basically anything to not meet that curious look of yours. especially knowing you'd have your lip in your teeth all over again. "might have t'take it to the shop, while we're in town... get it checked out or somethin'..."

he was so damn screwed.

tags, @figthoughts @jasvtsc @titsout4nicholas @deanswidow @deansbite

[communistkenobi]

struggling to reconcile my dislike of the use of “choice” in relation to transgenderism. sex assignment itself is not a choice and I don’t find it meaningful or helpful to think I “chose” to be transgender. in fact there were many things I “chose” to do prior to transitioning to make this feeling go away and it did not. Choice is further wrapped up in intentionally de-politicised ideas about social action and agency, constantly positioned in opposition to “structure” or “social pressure” or what have you. “Choice” is what happens only in the absence of domination, it is the expression of the “individual” trapped within us all. What this leaves you with is a subject who appears to rise above the power of history, making decisions ‘of his own free will’ in spite of all this violence as a result of, um, well that’s not important! Let’s not look at the law or the state or history to see where these ideas of personal individual freedoms come from or how they are themselves enforced through violence. It’s just an individual acting on his desires! To “choose to be trans” in popular consciousness means to be given the privilege of being free from patriarchal social pressures. And this is a line terfs often use - trans people are reinforcing patriarchy by deluding ourselves into thinking we can “simply choose” to be another gender. I think committing to the idea of choice as a concept and all its attendant ideological baggage (overwhelmingly structured by bourgeois legal frameworks in the popular imaginary) forces you into some deeply flawed analyses of power and domination.

And I likewise hate that the other dominant framework is “born this way/born in the wrong body” because of how it naturalises the very political and violent nature of sex assignment and its embeddedness within state census data, administrative architecture, the pathologisation of sex and desire (all of which are not natural or eternal), and so on. furthermore I deeply respect the position other trans people have when they say that they chose to be transgender - outside of conversations of individual validity, I think that is a politically useful and powerful way to position yourself. Even if we were to accept that being transgender is fully a choice, people would still do it, because being trans is not disgusting or shameful. I am not a sick individual, or a tragedy, or a danger to others, I am transgender and that is an incredibly meaningful and fulfilling part of my life. To frame this as a sexual perversion or life-long condition means reinforcing the idea that transgenderism is a shameful deformity (we have much in common with our disabled & intersex comrades in this regard), that the cissexual body is the exclusive site of beauty and authenticity.

And so this is where I find the idea of autonomy much more useful - while ‘choice’ is situated as a thing that individuals do, autonomy is power that is granted to you. I can’t meaningfully demand choice as a political goal, but I can demand autonomy. I don’t want choice, I want the autonomy to act on my desires, and the way that will happen is through the state provision of free hrt, surgery, name and gender marker changes, and so on. Autonomy feels like a much more productive articulation of “choice” because it necessitates that we think about who and what grants autonomy, for what purposes, in which contexts. Who gives a shit about choices! Transgenderism is not a social position an individual can have in society, it is produced through cissexualism, through state and medical sex assignment, through coercion and pathologisation and violence - all of which can be changed.

As a direct comparison, I don’t think people should be given the “choice” to have an abortion, but the autonomy to do so - sure you can choose to get one, but unless there is the medical, financial, and social infrastructure available to you to act on that decision, then that is not a meaningful choice you can “make.” Abortion being legal (and therefore an action you are granted the ‘choice’ to take) doesn’t mean it is actually realisable as a decision, it just means that whoever already has the power & resources to act on that legality will, and those that don’t, won’t. Who decides which people have those resources and which don’t? Well let’s not worry about that, the important thing is that people have choices!

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Sigal Samuel at Vox:

There’s a dominant narrative in the media about why tech billionaires are sucking up to Donald Trump: Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos, all of whom have descended on the nation’s capital for the presidential inauguration, either happily support or have largely acquiesced to Trump because they think he’ll offer lower taxes and friendlier regulations. In other words, it’s just about protecting their own selfish business interests. That narrative is not exactly wrong — Trump has in fact promised massive tax cuts for billionaires — but it leaves out the deeper, darker forces at work here. For the tech bros — or as some say, the broligarchs — this is about much more than just maintaining and growing their riches. It’s about ideology. An ideology inspired by science fiction and fantasy. An ideology that says they are supermen, and supermen should not be subject to rules, because they’re doing something incredibly important: remaking the world in their image. It’s this ideology that makes MAGA a godsend for the broligarchs, who include Musk, Zuck, and Bezos as well as the venture capitalists Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen. That’s because MAGA is all about granting unchecked power to the powerful. “It’s a sense of complete impunity — including impunity to the laws of nature,” Brooke Harrington, a professor of economic sociology at Dartmouth College who studies the behavior of the ultra-rich, told me. “They reject constraint in all of its forms.” As Harrington has noted, Trump is the perfect avatar for that worldview. He’s a man who incited an attempted coup, who got convicted on 34 felony counts and still won reelection, who notoriously said in reference to sexual assault, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” So, what is the “anything” that the broligarchs want to do? To understand their vision, we need to realize that their philosophy goes well beyond simple libertarianism. It’s not just that they want a government that won’t tread on them. They want absolutely zero limits on their power. Not those dictated by democratic governments, by financial systems, or by facts. Not even those dictated by death.

The broligarchs’ vision: Science fiction, transhumanism, and immortality

The broligarchs are not a monolith — their politics differ somewhat, and they’ve sometimes been at odds with each other. Remember when Zuck and Musk said they were going to fight each other in a cage match? But here’s something the broligarchs have in common: a passionate love for science fiction and fantasy that has shaped their vision for the future of humanity — and their own roles as its would-be saviors. Zuckerberg’s quest to build the Metaverse, a virtual reality so immersive and compelling that people would want to strap on bulky goggles to interact with each other, is seemingly inspired by the sci-fi author Neal Stephenson. It was actually Stephenson who coined the term “metaverse” in his novel Snow Crash, where characters spend a lot of time interacting in a virtual world of that name. Zuckerberg seems not to have noticed that the book is depicting a dystopia; instead of viewing it as a warning, he’s viewing it as an instruction manual.

Jeff Bezos is inspired by Star Trek, which led him to found a commercial spaceflight venture called Blue Origin, and The High Frontier by physics professor Gerard K. O’Neill, which informs his plan for space colonization (it involves millions of people living in cylindrical tubes). Bezos attended O’Neill’s seminars as an undergraduate at Princeton. Musk, who wants to colonize Mars to “save” humanity from a dying planet, is inspired by one of the masters of American sci-fi, Isaac Asimov. In his Foundation series, Asimov wrote about a hero who must prevent humanity from being thrown into a long dark age after a massive galactic empire collapses. “The lesson I drew from that is you should try to take the set of actions that are likely to prolong civilization, minimize the probability of a dark age and reduce the length of a dark age if there is one,” Musk said. And Andreessen, an early web browser developer who now pushes for aggressive progress in AI with very little regulation, is inspired by superhero stories, writing in his 2023 “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” that we should become “technological supermen” whose “Hero’s Journey” involves “conquering dragons, and bringing home the spoils for our community.” All of these men see themselves as the heroes or protagonists in their own sci-fi saga. And a key part of being a “technological superman” — or übermensch, as the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche would say — is that you’re above the law. Common-sense morality doesn’t apply to you because you’re a superior being on a superior mission. Thiel, it should be noted, is a big Nietzsche fan, though his is an extremely selective reading of the philosopher’s work.

[...]

The broligarchs — because they are in 21st-century Silicon Valley and not 19th-century Germany — have updated and melded this idea with transhumanism, the idea that we can and should use technology to alter human biology and proactively evolve our species.

Transhumanism spread in the mid-1900s thanks to its main popularizer, Julian Huxley, an evolutionary biologist and president of the British Eugenics Society. Huxley influenced the contemporary futurist Ray Kurzweil, who predicted that we’re approaching a time when human intelligence can merge with machine intelligence, becoming unbelievably powerful. “The human species, along with the computational technology it created, will be able to solve age-old problems … and will be in a position to change the nature of mortality in a postbiological future,” Kurzweil wrote in 1999. Kurzweil, in turn, has influenced Silicon Valley heavyweights like Musk, whose company Neuralink explicitly aims at merging human and machine intelligence. For many transhumanists, part of what it means to transcend our human condition is transcending death. And so you find that the broligarchs are very interested in longevity research. Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Thiel have all reportedly invested in startups that are trying to make it possible to live forever. That makes perfect sense when you consider that death currently imposes a limit on us all, and the goal of the broligarchs is to have zero limits.

Vox has an insightful article on the disastrous vision that broligarchs like Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel, and Mark Zuckerberg subscribe to.

[our-hextech-dream]

i haven't seen anyone fully articulate what i personally felt disappointed by wrt viktor's s2 persona and ending so i guess i have to do it myself even tho i'm bad at talking!! can someone who is better at this just read my mind and say it fancier and more coherently?

agency, the loss of

i have seen people already mention the way disability came into play at the end and what a wild choice it was for jayce - born able-bodied and healthy - to be the one to tell viktor - trapped in a body that was actively killing him - that actually your disability is a part of you and made you who you are and you owe everything to it. ... huh? jayce (by which i mean the writers), do you think without his disability, viktor wouldn't have still been a genius? yes, viktor is disabled - that's not even remotely what makes him a compelling character and power player. it is his mind not his body that makes him who he is. the fact that he had to waste almost his whole life fighting against that body to achieve anything is the entire crux of his frustration - imagine what he could have dedicated his mind to if he weren't constantly struggling to find a way just to survive another year, another month, another week, one more day. have you thought about it? because he has. so yeah that whole conversation, trash. bruno mars just the way you are ass one direction that's what makes you beautiful ass argument. viktor was not going crazy over cosmetic surgery, he was trying not to die.

but it strikes me as just one more expression of an overarching theme for s2 viktor - that of the complete and total loss of his agency. (more on a meta level than in the show itself, but also in the show!) i said after act 1 that viktor had died in that explosion and jayce was going to be chasing that corpse until the end, and i was correct. viktor bounced from one mindset to another, never seeming to have any consistent ideology of his own that couldn't be changed as soon as the plot demanded it. at any given point he was just kinda... wandering around, doing some random shit with the powers that worked through him. gone was the viktor who used his own hands and mind to influence the world directly, to bend it to his will. i always always felt this and i stand by it - taking viktor's abilities as an inventor and scientist away and turning him into some arcane mage jesus figure was a mistake and a disservice to his character. arcane said no this boy wasn't smart or determined, his ability to build and invent and seek and learn don't matter and never mattered, he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and as soon as the arcane got its goop on him he just became the most specialest magic pixie dream boy to ever live and his own goals, dreams, ideals, morals, talents, skills, and hard work ceased to matter in any meaningful way. he never had to work to master magic to be able to use it to further his goals, because he immediately stopped having goals.

viktor became a non-character. he became whatever ideological and technological threat level the show needed to challenge to heroes and never more. he ceased to have any control or understanding over what was happening to him, rather he just gave up and decided to use his magic indiscriminately for whoever made the most convincing argument, a choice that would have been completely antithetical to his character up to that point if he'd still been alive. 'fuck zaunites, sure i'll turn them into robots so a foreign power can use them to attack and take over piltover and zaun, who cares. it's not like these are the people i've spent 30 years of my life trying to protect and save.' <- something viktor would never ever ever have agreed to! ever! no matter what! they have played us for absolute fools.

ambiguity, the loss of

the thing i wanted the most and was expecting because of the way viktor's original lore was set up was that the series would end with viktor and jayce unreconciled and with mutually exclusive worldviews, both fully believing they were right and the other was misguided but not evil or irredeemable, setting them up for future conflict. this felt like what was being set up when arcane made it a plot point that jayce was being convinced to turn hextech into weapons while viktor started getting unethical and unhinged with the experimentation. they both had good reasons to do what they did - and i'm absolutely not going to insult jayce's intelligence by claiming he was just manipulated into it by anyone, give me a fucking break - but the point was that both of them were doing something the other thought was misguided and dangerous. and they also felt that if they could just make the other person see their completely logical and rational pov, they could fix the divide between them and make up and be best science buddies again.

but then at the end arcane completely gave up on viktor having any belief in his own ideals. it just turned into 'aw actually he was just lonely all along and none of that science stuff or difference in morals or worldviews mattered bc he's got a buddy now and he's completely unequivocally on jayce's side. :)'

it was like. insanely selfish. as in, self-centered, concerned *only* with the self. the viktor i liked, and the one i wanted to flourish and hoped arcane would canonize, was someone who was entirely dedicated to zaun, to righting the wrongs of piltover and helping the people in the way he thought best - no matter what jayce or piltover thought about it. an ambiguous villain, just like all the other really well-written ones in arcane.

accountability, the loss of

viktor killed people. not sky, who was an accident despite his fixation on her; i'm talking at least a hundred or more zaunites during his stint as the machine herald. he ripped their minds out and made them play house with him, then turned them into weapons of war for ambessa's siege, and all of those people - primarily sick, desperate zaunites - died. this was always the entire crux of the conflict between (league) viktor and jayce giopara. viktor was willing to destroy people and use their bodies for his own gain unapologetically because he thought what he was doing was a blessing and the people were better off under his control because they would never feel fear or anger again. agree, disagree, depends on your view of free will and human nature, but the fact is that everyone who came to viktor hoping for a chance to be healed so they could pursue their own dreams and lives had those dreams and lives ripped away from them and they never got justice or even a single scrap of acknowledgement from the narrative.

in arcane, the horror of viktor's actions just... fade away into the background. viktor and jayce waltz off into magicspace together, leaving viktor's dead, ruined victims for piltover and zaun to deal with. he doesn't return their minds or bodies, he doesn't even seem to remember or care about what he had just been doing to other sentient living human beings. he's not sorry, he doesn't feel regret, he got what he wanted (a friend) and fuck everybody else.

because the narrative just shrugs and handwaves and says no no forget all that it doesn't matter it was just the hexcore or whatever, viktor becomes a flat, uninteresting character. he loses the depth that villains like ambessa and silco had, villains who had their victims validated by the story, who faced challenges in their arcs specifically because of the people they had hurt despite thinking they were doing the right or noble or most important thing. and not just the villains! even the heroes had to wrestle with the people they stepped on on the way to their lofty goals. but not viktor. he just floats away scot free, completely blameless, having no affect on the world and the world having no affect on him.

on arcane's status as the new canon lore and the Implications™

reminder that arcane is somehow supposed to tie into the world of runeterra at large, but now viktor and jayce both have been seemingly entirely removed from it. if it only mattered that they knew the people we'd already seen them interact with, okay, i guess. but that isn't the case. they both have a ton of connections to other champions - from regions other than p&z even - that haven't been introduced and don't have any plausible explanation for how they could have met in the past, which means they should have been set up to meet somehow in the future. implying that jinx escaped and has gone traveling the world is the perfect way to incorporate her in-game relationships with people like lux - she could have met her while traveling! but jayce and viktor don't get that plausible continuation of their story and development of further relationships - they just disappear out of existence. (ambessa also has this problem because they killed her, but unlike jayce and viktor she does have a huge amount of unexplored backstory where she could have spoken to (for example) swain and hwei and shyvanna at some point.)

note 1 - jayce and viktor are so old that they don't have any voice lines in game when meeting other champions. but other champions who are either newer or who have had voiceover updates do talk to them, which is how (aside from the old lore) you can infer that they do have relationships with other champions including ones who weren't in arcane.

note 2 - maybe riot actually doesn't care and none of the champions are really supposed to know each other or be involved in each others' lives canonically, they just have random quippy voice lines that imply that. which would fucking suck. having the lore of the game have no impact on the game itself and vice versa would objectively suck. if the characters talk to each other on the rift and say something interesting, i want that to have meaning. i want to be able to extrapolate the state of the world and the relationships between the characters from the things they verbally say with their mouths. i'm not arguing about this. the voicelines should be seen as the most high irrefutable canon that there is for the game because it is the ONLY source of lore in the game itself.

anyways there's my bible i guess. i miss evil laser robot viktor i want him to perform unethical brain surgery on me (fixing my adhd but also turning me into his personal puppet attack dog) and then give a weapon to a child so they can kill their bullies.

[hugthesquids]

Steven is a hybrid, NOT a fusion

So this is just an essay to this topic I really wanted to make:

Steven is a hybrid, not a fusion. I think this is very important to Steven's identity and the message of the show as a whole.

Not only that, this is actually confirmed by the Crew, that Gem Steven and Human Steven aren’t full beings of their own, but just two halves of a whole.

Identity

One of the core themes of SU is identity. Every character has something in their arc to do with their own identity, either finding it, or accepting it, or fighting to have it be accepted after being denied it.

Identity is so ingrained into SU that its main antagonists, Homeworld, the Diamonds and especially White Diamond, their ideology and society are literally the anti-thesis to identity and individuality. The whole reason Peridot defected is that she was just another number to them, but to Steven she was a person. Every gem is just a cog in the machine, and even the Diamonds themselves are not exempt from this as White treats every one of them in the roles she sees them fit to be.

Blue laughs at Garnet calling herself a Garnet, Amethyst is reduced to just being a defective gem and a mockery of a Quartz, and Pearl is just a Pearl, an objectified servant who is only as important as the owner she belongs to, bereft of her own identity.

And no one has been denied their identity as much as Steven has.

Not only on the Homeworld side but also among friends and family.

There is obviously the whole Rose Quartz and Pink Diamond thing, either being treated as her or having to live up to her or just being an extension of her.

There are also his family and friends who deny Steven's gem or human side, only seeing him as one of them and not the hybrid he is. His dad treats him like a gem, which neglects him in the human department. And his mom only considers his human side, which makes her blind to all the gem stuff he has to deal with that she inadvertently leaves him with.

The Crystal Gems veered into only seeing him as the human, making him feel left out of their group to the point of crying about the idea the gems would abandon him of he didn’t prove his useful worth as a gem, to then veering into seeing him only as the gem he was later on, making them blind to the human neglect that caught up to him later on as we see in SUF.

And in CYM, White treated him just like a gem embedded onto a human child, as two separate people.

Ironically, it’s White Diamond in SUF that actually has Steven the most spot on. When the Diamonds changed their ways, White actually sees Steven as the hybrid he is, “Half a Diamond, half a creature of earth, in all the universe there's no one else that could know what you’re going through”. He is one of a kind hybrid.

This only further highlights the importance of that scene in Change Your Mind (CYM).

CYM

With identity being so central to SU and White Diamond and the entirety of Homeworld’s ideology being the anti-thesis of identity, it’s no wonder that the most crucial scene and theme in CYM has to do with the identity of the protagonist himself, the one who’s been struggling with identity the most.

The whole point of CYM is that Steven's identity has been denied for so long, which is why Gem Steven screams at White who's trying to deny him being anything other than Steven. Steven literally says "I'm me, I've always been me" after becoming whole again.

Steven is Steven. Him being anything else, a fusion, having a brother, having this separate Pink Diamond gem attached to him is so wrong and goes against everything the scene stands for, and by extension what Steven Universe stands for.

Gem Steven and Human Steven are two halves of a whole hybrid, not a fusion or anything else. They’re not meant to exist separately, they’re not two individual beings.

Split Steven is a shattered Steven.

This is why that scene in CYM is so important, because Steven was forcefully split apart—essentially shattered because White denied his identity. Shattering has been shown to be essentially the worst offence one could do.

Which also fuels why Steven has such a visceral reaction to WD in SUF compared to anyone else, even Spinel who almost killed his entire planet and reset the gems he didn't have that visceral reaction to. Treating him like a fusion would take away the sheer violation of being a whole being shattered in two that he experienced in CYM.

As we see when split, the two halves act like they’re shattered where the pieces are still conscious but can only focus on becoming whole again, as we’ve seen is the case for shattered gems. And the way Steven’s parts “fused” back together, works just like how the shattered gem parts “fused” back together after Yellow Diamond put them back together.

This is actually confirmed by the Crew, specifically Joe Johnston, the one who wrote and storyboarded this very scene in CYM and is a director on the Crew:

Question: "If gems can’t fuse with humans how did Steven’s gem fuse back with him?"

Answer: “Think of the split Stevens like they’re two halves of a whole. The two Stevens are each only half of a being, they can’t not fuse back into a full Steven. If you kept them apart they would only ever be focused on becoming whole again, seeking their other half. A little like two magnets that get close to one another and then snap together.“ - Joe Johnston

We see this in action during CYM.

A heart without body, a body without heart

Both Human and Gem Steven are lacking what a full human and gem is, and both their body and mind seem to not be fully there. They’re obviously not fully functional beings of their own, but are missing what the other has, because they’re one full being split apart, like bones without muscle, heart without body.

The show makes it especially clear with how the PoV was literally cut in half in that scene.

Another way they make it clear is showing how both halves are lacking vital parts on their own.

Gem Steven struggles to be animated like a normal gem with his face mostly blank, unblinking and has very mechanical movements. He also almost looks like a hologram instead of a proper light form as the gems have. Meanwhile Human Steven obviously can't even walk and is very pale and weak.

Gem Steven is pragmatic in his thinking, while the human side is very empathetic. Human Steven gets concerned when Gem Steven pushes White back along with his controlled friends and shouts “don’t hurt them”, but Gem Steven isn’t hurting them or shows any interest in engaging with them but sees pragmatic side of stunning them so White doesn’t keep attacking which delays Gem Steven’s movement to reach Human Steven.

Both have emotions still, as we see Gem Steven’s anger at White denying his identity, which is an anger that has been building up for so long as nearly all of Steven’s trauma comes to this, and him being denied being Steven ended up with Steven essentially being shattered.

Gem Steven seems to be fast to act on his defensive reflexes when attacked by WD but struggles with his mind on the finer details. Human Steven is the opposite. We see how Human Steven is the first to reach out and crawl to his gem, and it’s only when Human Steven falls that Gem Steven seems to realise what’s going on, since he’s not used to operating on half a brain.

When Gem Steven screamed, he didn’t realise it also hurt his human side and it’s only when he sees him crying that the camera pans to the gem’s face like an “oh” realisation.

It’s only when they’re united again, Human and Gem Steven in physical contact that they gain what they’re missing. Gem Steven becomes more animated, able to smile and blink, and Human Steven gains more energy and is livelier, able to keep up with the dance.

They're literally missing pieces of themselves which is why each half doesn't function properly.

Shattered like a heart ripped from the body, or like a brain cut in half with a right brain and left brain. There is no separate gem and human consciousness when they are whole, there is only Steven.

If you try to separate him, it’s creating an artificial divide. It’s like when you cut a brain in half irl (yes that’s a medical practice that existed); so yeah the two brain halves will act differently when split, but they’re not meant to be split in the first place. And when whole the brain will not even consider there being two separate parts.

This is why it’s wrong to treat Steven as two separate individuals.

What fusion are and what Steven is not

The show has also made a very clear distinction what a fusion is.

A fusion is a relationship between two or more individuals, separate beings with identities of their own. And as we've seen with Garnet's arc, it's important that fusions aren't co-dependent, something Rebecca Sugar herself talks about and the components are still allowed to be individuals of their own outside that relationship. Garnet makes it very clear that Ruby and Sapphire are their own people.

That's why it's very wrong to treat Steven as two separate people as that would basically nullify the meaning of Steven saying "I'm me, I've always been me", in response to seeing his gem side being actually Steven and no one else or external entity, it's just him.

It would also go against what fusions stands for, because even a “permafusion” like Garnet had to go through an arc of recognising the components as their own individuals who should be allowed to explore themselves who they’re outside of their fusion.

Another thing that we see about fusions is that they are a conversation between two people. Steven doesn't have that, he doesn't have a mental plane with a human and gem Steven because he's just Steven. He can't "unfuse" from mental disagreements since there are no two people arguing, he's just one person.

And he can't "unfuse" by taking damage either. He can only be forcefully pulled apart like ripping a heart out of a body or cutting a brain in half, not meant to exist without the other.

Unlike fusions, he can’t exist being split apart; he is only half a human and half a gem when split, not two whole functional human and gem. Again, stated as canon by the Crew.

Identity and the neglected hybrid

SU is inherently a very queer show with queer themes interwoven into it (heck, it was the whole reason the show got cancelled, since the wedding happened and Rebecca didn't want Ruby and Sapphire's relationship denied).

And the same goes for identity.

The core message of the show is identity and Homeworld its anti-thesis.

Pink and Rose got to choose her identity outside of the Diamond she was expected to be, Pearl chose hers to be more than a servant, Ruby and Sapphire became Garnet, Amethyst is not defined by her "defectiveness", and lastly we have Steven, someone who has been denied his identity the whole franchise, which is why it's so powerful to say Steven is Steven.

And we know the show is called Steven Universe and we see things from his PoV. Which makes sense why his identity is central to the show.

SU was about Steven being denied even being Steven, while SUF is him knowing he is Steven Universe but struggles to figure out what Steven Universe even is, as most of this identity has been built in the shadow of constant conflict and the neglect he inadvertently encountered.

I don’t think I can write this section without also writing a whole essay and analysis on Steven’s perspective in SUF to really understand what he’s going through.

But I’ll at least say this.

Steven being a hybrid is so central to Steven’s character. He’s one whole being, one person going through all of this chaos, trauma and neglect. And this trauma and neglect stems from his hybrid nature and how no one really knows how to accommodate him.

This is why it’s so important that Steven is a hybrid, not a fusion or anything else. Because acting like his gem is a separate entity to him really takes away the pain and identity struggles that Steven goes through.

Steven in SUF never treats his gem as a separate being to himself (neither his human side either). His frustration with his family, as we saw with the argument in the van, is that they only see one side of him.

And it’s ironic that being blind to his human and hybrid side is exactly what causes his gem powers to act up. The feeling of being brushed aside, unheard, blind to his pain and needs. Meanwhile in contrast we saw that someone like Priyanka, who actually treats him as a human and gem is the one who manages to help him. Acknowledging that the very human experience of his trauma and stress response is what causes his gem powers to act on that stress response.

This is why it's important that Steven is Steven, not two people in a trench coat.

[queenvhagar]

I believe Rhys Ifans’ statement “Both sides are genocidal war criminals… I think we should all enjoy seeing how they die[,]” would be wrong because the entire time the story HOTD is fundamentally about how one group, the greens, IE Alicent, Otto, and Aegon Hightower, seek to maintain the status quo of an oppressive power structure versus Rhaenyra, the blacks, whose very existence seeks to jeopardize that power structure (the patriarchal society of Westeros).

It is made explicitly clear that the chief architect of team green in the usurpation of Rhaenyra’s throne that the only reason that they cannot have Rhaenyra on the throne is explicitly because she is a woman. It’s a theme that is present throughout the entirety of HOTD’s season one as this conflict builds up.

For instance, the conversation between Alicent and Rhaenys at the end of season one where Alicent justifies why she is participating in the usurpation of Rhaenyra’s throne to Rhaenys by saying that it is not a woman’s place to rule the Seven kingdoms and instead it is a woman’s place to gently guide the hand of the men who do rule.

The story of HOTD, the civil war for the succession of the Iron Throne following the death of Viserys, the Dance of the Dragons, is fundamentally a conflict that is built on the foundation of misogyny and the writers are making that explicitly clear.

The weird false equivalency when ppl imply that both sides are equally genocidally crazy, that treads to reduce the nature of this conflict down to just simple good old fashioned greed which it really isn’t.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Rhaenyra is perfect and of course I understand that over the course of the war, she’s going to do some pretty terrible things but it’s been made pretty clear that Rhaenyra’s done everything in her power to avoid this turning out into a war in the fist place.

I just don’t think by any stretch of the imagination regardless of what Rhaenyra does throughout this war, that you’re supposed to enjoy watching her die. I don’t think that’s how her character is written and I don’t think that’s what the narrative goal of her end is supposed to be. Her character is a character by all accounts some victim of the patriarchal society that she lives in. Even if she does go down the “mad queen route,” it will only be to explore how the patriarchal society has completely twisted her. How this war that was started because she dared to be queen of the seven kingdoms completely ruined her and ruined her family.

I would very much appreciate your thoughts on this and would like to learn more if this take of mine is confusing and blinded.

I think this take might be correct if you're solely going off of the show and its interpretation of Team Black as modern feminists attempting revolutionary societal change led by divinely ordained and pure Rhaenyra vs Team Green as conservative misogynists led by incompetent and unorganized abuser Aegon...

Fire and Blood is not this, though. Sexism and misogyny is one element of power and power imbalance in Westeros but it's not the only one, nor is it the only factor into why Rhaenyra's claim was disputed, despite what the showrunners are trying to portray on screen.

The reality is two ideologically different sides with fairly equal claims to the throne are trying to seize power, leading to a war that ruins the land and the family that started it. Team Green has Aegon, firstborn son of the last king, following Andal tradition going back thousands of years and most recently reinforced in the Council of 101 AC that made his own father king. Team Black has Rhaenyra, eldest daughter named by the previous king but not supported by precedent. Rhaenyra unfortunately also had some political scandals that went against her in having bastards, having Velaryons killed and mutilated, and marrying Daemon despite fear of him in power being the reason she was named heir in the first place. Any of these are valid reasons why some people might be against her coming into power. It's more than "she's a woman and I don't like women."

Rhaenyra did not press her claim to raise up the women of the realm, nor did she do it out of a desire to save the world. She wanted it because she wanted power that was promised to her. But the show can't let women simply want things for themselves. Rhaenyra has to be an advocate for peace and want the throne for some higher purpose instead of just wanting power for power's sake.

The Greens were motivated by power to push for Aegon's claim, and surely misogyny in the society helped to get Aegon on the throne, but they also put Aegon on the throne out of fear for the lives of all of Viserys' sons, who would have to be taken out of the picture to secure Rhaenyra's atypical claim lest war and rebellion potentially break out against her at any point in her reign, and Team Black had already shown willingness to resort to violence to help themselves (Rhea's death, Laenor's death, Vaemond's death, Velaryons' tongues getting cut out, Aemond's eye cut out without any punishment and instead Aemond threatened with torture over speaking the truth about Rhaenyra). It's not just "we hate the idea of a woman ruling, we hate women, and we're terrible, incompetent people."

Fire and Blood is a tale of two sides fighting for even more power than they already have who are willing to do horrible terrible war crimes against each other and innocents in order to obtain their end goal of the Iron Throne, and realistically you are interested in seeing all of them die and face the consequences of their actions. The story has weight, the characters are real and human and messy and tragic, the war is unjustified in its means and methods and purpose. It's the failure of Viserys' legacy and a reflection of the flaws of monarchy and specifically the ideals Targaryen supremacy. No side is right and the other wrong. Nobody's a hero.

This is where the show has failed in its adaptation. It has abandoned its themes, along with several characters, characterizations, and plot points, in order to create their own narrative that fits a story that they think will sell best to the casual modern viewer: essentially, redemption for Daenerys fans after the catastrophe of Game of Thrones' ending. By making up prophecy and dream stuff to give to Rhaenyra and also giving her some of that Dany "change the world" mentality that was absent in the source material, the writers can cut apart the character of Rhaenyra and make her into a new Daenerys, and this time they can give the fans want they wanted for Daenerys. Except Rhaenyra is not Daenerys at all, and their only similarity is dragon riding queen seeking to inherit their father's throne. Changing the narrative so Rhaenyra becomes the new Daenerys and a true hero of the story ruins the underlying themes of Fire and Blood and specifically the Dance.

Rhys Ifans likely read Fire and Blood and actually knows what he's talking about. The point of the Dance isn't "heroic woman attempting to overthrow the patriarchy is burned and destroyed by the patriarchy and agents of the patriarchy." The takeaway isn't just "misogyny and sexism are bad and hurt women" like the show hammers in so heavily every single episode. It's "the pursuit of power by the already powerful comes at the cost of innocents, war is never justified no matter what (and certainly not justified by manifest destiny, someone's dream of saving the world, or even 'misogynists stole my throne') and the violence of war destroys indiscriminately." There should be catharsis when gray characters who have done good but also horrific bad in the pursuit of power finally face the consequences and die early deaths. Like, for example, the end of Succession: none of the Roy siblings get what they want, and we understand why, and even though parts of their character are sympathetic and tragic to us, we can objectively view them as flawed and selfish people whose decisions led to this ultimate, inevitable conclusion where they don't get what they want, and it's deserved. This is what House of the Dragon should have been. Tragic, flawed characters on both sides acting selfishly but realistically to seize power from each other and ultimately failing. But the writers opted for an oversimplified morality tale of good vs evil to push their version of feminism into the story where it doesn't belong, at the detriment to the characters and the story to the point it goes against the themes and messages of the source material.

[hrrtshape]

hi i wrote this in history class and i love sharing my work because i am at my core a bit of a narcissist. thank you.

evaluate the impact of social policies in two authoritarian states

history is a graveyard of good intentions and bad executions. or maybe bad intentions and good executions, if you’re into that kind of thing. after the world wars left europe looking like a bar fight gone nuclear, monarchies crumbled, republics limped along, and in the gaps between the rubble, men like hitler and stalin saw an opening. ideology was just a costume, fascism for hitler, communism for stalin, but the goal was the same: absolute power. social policy, in these regimes, was not about governance but control. it was a scalpel, a whip, a branding iron. and the scars remain.

hitler’s germany was less a state than a stage, a gesamtkunstwerk of fascist aesthetics, racial pseudoscience, and propaganda so thick you could cut it with a butter knife. the social policies weren’t policies, they were blueprints for erasure, national rebranding via ethnic cleansing. the volksgemeinschaft was the star project, a neatly packaged lie about unity that really meant: if you weren’t aryan, if you weren’t straight, if you weren’t fit, you weren’t anything.

the nazi youth was an indoctrination pipeline with a one-way ticket to fanaticism, designed to sculpt little blond ideologues who could march in step and snitch on their parents if they so much as frowned at a picture of the führer. by 1945, these children, raised on propaganda, starved of dissent, were fighting to the death in berlin’s ruins. social policy had not just reshaped society, it had bred a generation to die for its leader. then there was lebensborn, a eugenicist’s fever dream where women were encouraged, forced, to birth the next generation of perfect little germans. the state crept into bedrooms, into cradles, until women were less people, more assembly lines.

meanwhile, in the soviet union, stalin was playing the long game. where hitler aimed for genetic purity, stalin’s social policies went for ideological sterilisation. the great purge wasn’t just about eliminating enemies, it was about rewriting the very concept of trust. who needed loyalty when paranoia worked better? one wrong joke, one overheard sigh, and you were on a train to siberia, a name on a list that no one would ever say out loud again.

social engineering, soviet-style, meant raising a nation of informants and workers who understood that the state didn’t serve them; they served the state.

women’s rights followed a similar trajectory: briefly expanded under lenin, only to be pulled back under stalin. abortion was banned, divorce became an obstacle course, and women were expected to serve both as workers and mothers, bearing children for the state while also labouring to build it. unlike nazi germany, which idealised women in their domestic roles, the ussr simply demanded more of them, stretching them between production quotas and reproductive quotas with little concern for their exhaustion. to exist was to be vulnerable. but for those who remained, life was carefully orchestrated. censorship choked intellectual life; literature, art, education all bent to the doctrine of socialist realism, glorifying the state and its leader. even childhood was not spared, young pioneers were trained to revere the state, and if that meant reporting their own parents for anti-soviet sentiments, so be it. the cult of stalin was omnipresent, a godless god demanding fealty.

both regimes, then, used social policy not as governance but as architecture, shaping society to fit a single, inflexible vision. nazi germany built its world on race and militarism, on defining the 'ideal' at the cost of millions of lives. stalin’s soviet union constructed its own prison, a state where citizens were both inmates and wardens, policing themselves into submission. these were not simply governments. they were systems of control, living organisms that fed on compliance and fear. and the echoes of their policies, their rigid social architectures, still hum beneath history’s surface.

history isn’t a morality play. there are no heroes here, no villains, just men with too much power and a willingness to write their names in the blood of the people they ruled. and history, being the terrible listener that it is, keeps repeating itself, over and over, like a broken record no one ever gets around to throwing away.

[millidew]

its been almost 6 years since kaito and ouma have infested me. here's me talking out of my ass for over 2k words

to love the ouma-kaito dynamic is to love the themes of v3. to see one of them as 100% correct and the other as 100% wrong is to hate the themes of v3.

there must be balance. which is one of the themes!

at first, they each represent one end of their spectrums: lies, distrust, and logic VS truth, trust, and emotion. but it's not all black and white— they're far more similar than they think

to get the obvious visual foiling out of the way: short vs tall, scrawny vs muscular, pale vs tan (relatively...), round eyes vs sharp eyes, cool purple vs warm purple, black and white vs a colorful galaxy, and a tight "straitjacket" vs what's basically loose pjs

they're visual opposites, but they're also both purple, charismatic leaders, would rather die than their let go of their respective roles of hero and villain, and both want to end the killing game. they're also both SO dramatic. they cannot be separated.

all this is to say that they're the same, just taking different approaches (i mean, just compare their early FTEs. what are you two FUCKING talking about. your ass is NOT a pirate kaito shut up). ouma hides drops of truth within his lies and lives to poke holes in others' poorly concealed lies. kaito talks about being honest, but is also constantly lying to himself and others. and it's so fitting for them to essentially die with each other.

lying your way to the truth, and 10 other tricks to surviving a killing game:

v3 is a game that asks: who are you? why are you even alive? what parts of you are really "you"?

in other words: what is true and what is a lie? does it matter?

the flashback lights are all lies. tsumugi can literally rewrite their "truth" as she wishes. and of course, there's the fact that they're all fictional characters come to life.

and there's the big lie of ch1, brought back in ch6. although this is less relevant to me, personally, because kaede fully intended and did try her damnedest to kill so either way she's still at fault soo

the theme of the survivors is that they all have a reason to fight to live even if the world is hell, because they're pushed forward by the connections they made— kaede's encouragements, the training with kaito that led to shuichi and maki's happiness, and himiko's memories of tenko and angie. even though maki loses kaito, because she had those good times with him that led to her change in self-worth, she'll be okay in the end. she's not enforcing her own loneliness anymore.

basically, "maybe the real reason to live is the friends we made along the way"

shuichi explicitly says that his feelings are true, even if they're born of lies. to lie, there has to be a truth. to be truthful, you can't lie. yin yang and all that

it's even shown with the game mechanic of perjury. kaede and shuichi can literally lie for the sake of finding the truth

he rejects being forced to choose between "hope" and "despair," breaking the cycle. it's pretty easy to apply this to the other dichotomies in v3: truth vs lies, trust vs distrust, logic vs emotion. even heroes vs villains.

ultimately, i think v3 aligns more closely with kaito's ideology, because of course truth and trust is a good thing....!, but not without poking massive holes in it too. because kaito's a prideful hypocrite and the game does NOT let you forget it <3 more on that later

little white lies AKA ouma is sick of your shit part 1:

"is the truth worth it? aren't feel-good white lies ok? what even is a lie?" ouma asks with his little hater heart. (ch1 and ch4)

here, we see ouma questioning the individual nature of common sense ("gut instinct", if you will)— how can kaede decide if his talent is a lie? what is a lie? if ouma is 99% lies by weight, what is ouma??? an annoying grape??

we all want the truth, right? but the truth can be ugly. that's what ouma's always showing.

this is something shuichi also tackles with his feelings on his own talent. by exposing the truth, he causes pain to others. but this isn't about him, so you'll just have to keep that in mind

in the death road to despair in ch1, it's kaede's optimism that causes misery to the rest of her classmates. they're lying to themselves when they try to do it over and over. again, ouma calls her out on it, pissing off kaito who supports kaede 100%. the idea they can all get out and become friends is…also really unlikely. and even with kaede's murder "for the greater good", ouma disparages her for doing it in the first place: she lost the moment she seriously considered the thought, and played right into monokuma's bloodthirsty lil' paws.

right after the ch3 execution, himiko still refuses to let herself feel… until ouma calls her out on it. stop lying to yourself. and they all let it out, crying together. it's a good thing, and spurs on himiko's arc to be more true to herself. you did a good thing, ouma. now onto ch4! yay!

the "truth of the outside world", and ch4 as a whole, is probably the most in your face way of showing this. but more on that later.

the boys are back:

if you want a good relationship with someone, vulnerability is key, one that ouma unfortunately can't replace with a lockpick. you have to be honest. maki and shuichi were honest to kaito, which let him help them out.

ouma is definitely not vulnerable, up until the very end. ouma's distrust of everyone pushes them away, leaving him alone— without the "reason to fight to live" the others have— living out of spite and determination, until he dies for that too. like maki, he reinforces his own loneliness, but unlike her, he never makes those connections that make him change into a more well-rounded person.

kaito's better than him, which is a really low bar, but the game goes out of its way to tell you that he's still hiding secrets and adamantly refuses to let down his hero persona, harming both himself and those around him. you are COUGHING UP BLOOD, you are NOT okay. while his sidekicks still know something is wrong, he refuses to truly let them in, instead just brushing them off.

and that pisses ouma off. at the very least, ouma's honest about being a liar. kaito, in his eyes, is a coward. (not only that, people still like him despite being a liar..... but that's probably more to do with kaito being way less of a dick).

ouma, in kaito's eyes, is also a coward. he can call ouma a two-faced coward as much as he wants, but pot, meet kettle

chapter 4 AKA ouma is sick of your shit part 2:

ok. seriously onto ch4 this time. it's the perfect set up to the insanity of ch5. the tension is insane. also, ouma does not shut up about kaito having a crush on him. ok man.

from now on, it's the kaito & ouma show, the truth & trust & hope & emotion & hero VS lies & distrust & despair & logic & villain show.

and the game puts kaito, and all his themes, in the wrong. poor gonta and shuichi are just along for the ride

the stubborn belief that worked so well for maki in ch2 makes kaito refuse to believe, despite the evidence pointing to it, that gonta is the blackened, endangering everyone. and this is the cause of kaito and shuichi's rift which ouma takes great pleasure in. i'm sure this greatly validates his own distrust and loneliness, seeing it as the superior option

kaito's a liar, shuichi's a liar, and gonta is...not a liar but still technically wrong. YOU'RE ALL LIARS AND KAITO/SHUICHI STANS. YOUR FAVE IS PROBLEMATIC. OUMA'S FUCKING PISSED

it's the hypocrisy that gets to him the most imo

does he know?

anyways, it's a great showdown between their two ideologies. up until now, i'd say the score was roughly 3:1 in kaito's favor, but now it's definitely more even. it even features ouma punching kaito instead of the other way around like last time: something made possible imo because of kaito's sickness, which ouma forces him and everyone to acknowledge by doing this

this is a massive L for the hero side.... can the sidekicks clutch this victory and save the princess?

(interestingly enough, note that kaito doesn't even seem to hate ouma after all that. at the start of ch5, he puts ouma and gonta in the same category as having snapped under the pressure due to monokuma. his feelings, of course, change later on.)

...

are you sure about that

yeah, the truth sucks sometimes, huh?

what now?

chapter 5 AKA the boys are back 2 AKA voyage without passion or purpose AKA the sickest chapter name ever

ch5 combines ouma and kaito's ideologies through their swansong, their magnum opus, their collective theatre kid dream

the hangar man. THE HANGAR. no more cameras. no more prying eyes. no more heroes. no more villains. NO PASSION (KAITO). NO PURPOSE (OUMA). WHAT'S THE POINT. IT ALL BLURS (probably because of the blood loss)

think about it this way: kaito is literally dying, hypocritically refusing to let his friends in. ouma is metaphorically dying, because he lacks the "reason to fight to survive" everyone else has, because he has no trust, no friends, no bitches... anyways

(also the poison, which is. you know. is also literally killing him but shush)

the closest he had was, imo, miu for a little, then kaito in ch5. but in the end, it's all spite, not connection, that drives him. ouma kills himself to prove a point, and they both die as a middle finger to the mastermind— a hollow victory, in many ways.

think about kaito sitting alone in the exisal, hacking his lungs out in the metallic silence of the belly of the beast, having just learned one of the truths behind ouma's act, then killing him, then having to lie to all your friends for the hope that ouma's final, crazy plan works out. he's finally stooped to ouma's level. he's so used to the smell of blood by now. does ouma's blood on his hands look any different from his own?

even kaito's motto: "the impossible is possible! all you gotta do it make it so!" is pretty much an admittance. you can make a lie (impossible) the truth (possible).

also ouma bleeding out looking like shit laying in kaito's galactic coat like a cape. kaito squeezing his eyes shut before before pressing the buttons. these images changed lives.

the lying truthersssss...working together!!! to literally pretend to be each other!!! to blur into one being!! trusting each other to see it through for their shared goal!! at first glance, maki thinks it's her fault— that ouma manipulated kaito using her, but kaito disagrees, saying it was for the sake of ending the killing game.

this is all to hammer home the idea that we shouldn't see them as "hero" or "villain." the cast sees them as it first, but of course, we know that's not so simple by the time kaito steps out of the exisal.

in the end, they fail, but kaito puts his and ouma's dreams in their hands. they can do it better this time.

plus, kaito finally stops lying to himself and others about being a liar, the thing ouma gave him endless shit for. it only took him 5 chapters

is it wrong to call "that was a lie" ouma's catchphrase?

i still can't believe maki believed him. love makes you stupid i guess

extra thoughts:

you might be wondering why i call him "ouma" and not "kokichi." i do the same with some other characters: kirigiri, togami (though i switch between that and byakuya nowadays), and komaeda. it's because i don't know them like that. we are NOT friends. "kirigiri" is out of respect however

don't you think ouma has his own "sidekicks," his "villain lackeys," if you will, in DICE?

kaito's execution music should've had the "reach for the stars" line from sdr2 and i'm still mad about it

and they should've both in that exisal idc

kaito somehow exited that exisal with a new jacket. it's my headcanon that, in respect of a fellow theatre kid, ouma stole a second jacket from kaito's room and put it in the exisal

VR au post game low(high)key codependent oumota is everything and i'll happily read 1000 fics about it

also just outside of the Themes of it all, and tbh my main draw to this duo... they're so funny. they are SO. FUNNY. THEY'RE SO GOOFY TOGETHER. STOP TRYING TO ONE UP EACH OTHER

they should run around and beat each other with toy hammers. it's enrichment.

this isn't like thematically relevant but their love hotel events really show how well they could work together. they want a rival to pump them up and fight back so bad!! they'd have the craziest vigilante beef

WHY IS THIS 2.1K WORDS/???!> i am so weak to rivals man

tldr: look at this meme.

tldr 2.0: a true kaito fan is also a true ouma fan and vice versa. you may not like it, but they're two peas in a pod. don't worry though, they're not happy about it either.

[prettyboykatsuki-moved]

I know you've mentioned you dislike for light(which I am sooo for I hate him) but can I ask how death note as a series influenced you with characterization? Same with haikyuu I love it sm

i know death note and haikyuu are polar opposites in series content but in my opinion, they both do a really good job in handling the cause and effect of character interaction and demonstrating the influence of a chain events on both a characters mindset and their actions.

in death note, you spend most of the series listening the lights monologue - but you don't really get to see whats wrong with his ideology until L comes in the picture and consistently challenges lights ideas, intelligence, and demeanor. lights paranoia increases with each push and pull of their relationship - and it's explicitly because light and L understand each other. they're probably the only people in the world who knows the other so intimately and there's legitimacy to their relationship that unifies them that even light cannot completely ignore.

the complexity of L's death is largely responsible for lights spiral out as a character. on the roof top scene just before L dies, he confronts light head on for the first time. aware of both his betrayal and circumstances, and their participation in this cat and mouse game. ultimately, L hears the bell toll. in the end, light is unable to tell L the truth even up to his death

but their connection, their bond is undeniable. when L dies, even at the peak of ligths god complex - he is no longer a version of himself that is able to keep up with kira. they needed each other. without the threat and challenge of L in lights life - he was unable to carry out his work. they became crucial, integral to each other, over the course of the series.

the way death note goes about building, developing, and executing this relationship is brilliant. light, on paper, is a genius with a perfect life. so extraordinarily intelligent in his own right that becoming god of the new world felt truly feasible to him because he viewed all people as somehow beneath him.

but l comes into his life and challenges him. rouses him. forces him to outsmart him all the time. they truly, deeply, and sincerely understood each other under the layers and layers of circumstances - so much so that it makes you wonder how their lives would've been had they had a relationship from the start.

death note mostly influenced how i handled a character dialogue and conversation. how do people interact with each other? how are actions interlocked with a characters word choice? for what reasons would a characters internal monologue be incongruent with their behavior and how does this effect the relationship? what does it say? what things are they choosing to lie about etc

this is already very long so ill try to keep the haikyuu section shorter - but haikyuu is easily the most formative piece of media in my life and teen years and i think it accomplishes similar feats with its characterization.

the story relies primarily on character interaction in a way that feels very similar to me. there's no supernatural elements, no magic to demonstrate the efforts of the characters. reaching new heights is something that is done alongside another person. growth and develop and practice on your own can only take you so far. you are most influenced by who you are around. this is a common theme in sports manga but no manga does it as good as haikyuu

anyways. sorry for this ramble. these series r both super dear to me.

[watermelonsloth]

Hope (aka the most important thing to understanding the Naruto story)

There’s a lot that I like about the world, characters, and story of Naruto and I’ll be the first to admit that most of them are completely accidental on Kishimoto’s part. The fact that even bad people fall into a gray area, the idea that a country will prioritize its own survival over the health of its people, the different ways that characters are shown to cope with disillusionment and trauma, the humanity and dignity given to the majority of its cast, and that, even though most of its characters aren’t that deep, the story has the illusion that any member of its cast—if the camera lingered on them for long enough—has a-whole-nother 700 chapters worth of story to tell are all just the unintentional result of how he explored (what I interpret to be) the main idea of Naruto.

I’m not trying to say he’s an incompetent writer, quite the opposite. I think the fact that so many of the things I like are left mostly unexplored is evidence that they were accidental additions. The reason I think this is because of how Kishimoto handled the idea at the core of all this: maintaining hope and inspiring it in others.

It’s pretty difficult to fully explain my thought process here in just a few snappy sentences (I promise I would’ve written a shorter post if I could), but this idea is infused in so many aspects of the series that going over all of them here would be ridiculous to both read and write. Especially since this is just a tumblr post. So, with the understanding that there is much more to talk about here, we’re just gonna focus on the largest parts of this. Namely: talk-no-jutsu, the curse of hatred, and the ending.

Talk-No-Jutsu

Talk-no-jutsu (TNJ) is fundamental to the Naruto series, but I’m not confident that too many people know why it’s so fundamental. To refresh, TNJ is whenever Naruto wins a battle simply by talking to his opponent, usually after beating them up enough to get them to listen (this is still a shounen action). It seems like a writing cop-out at first glance, mostly because Naruto isn’t actually consistent in disproving his opponents ideology. This is because TNJ is not about proving his opponents wrong, it’s about restoring the hope that they’d lost.

As an example, let’s look at my favorite TNJ scene: the Neji vs Naruto fight.

First, some context. The Chunin Exams arc is about rejecting the labels other people try to place and enforce on you. Both Shikamaru and Ino prove themselves to be smarter than people assume based on their lazy and superficial exteriors, Hinata tries to prove that she is more than the failure she was a dubbed, Rock Lee is out to prove that he can become a great ninja despite what he’s been told his whole life, Sakura cuts off the symbol of her conformity to the opinions of others to protect her teammates, and Sasuke fights to be more than Itachi said he was against Orochimaru then only wins his preliminary fight after rejecting what Orochimaru tries to turn him into.

Neji is the most obvious example of this; being branded with the label placed on him that can be enforced through physical pain. He was told it was his destiny to be labeled this way and, unlike the characters listed above, he believed it. I won’t say that looking at this as a fight about Hard Work vs Natural Talent or if great people are born or raised is an invalid reading, but I do think it’s a surface level one. After all, the Hyuga believe in destiny, not just Neji. Destiny is used as a weapon of suppression. Neji going on about destiny isn’t him expressing a life philosophy, it’s him taking what his abusers said to heart—that his abuse was a force of nature that he could only futilely fight—and using that to abuse others. He attempts to shame Hinata and Naruto into submission just as he was.

Because Neji gave up. He gave up on proving the clan wrong and he gave up on himself.

But Naruto didn’t.

In their fight, Naruto doesn’t buy Neji’s bullshit. He hears Neji’s sob story and essentially says that Neji wasn’t a victim of a force of nature, he was a victim of people. People that could be fought. Naruto didn’t offer Neji a solution, but he did offer Neji the hope that he had other options. And if Naruto, the supposed ostracized failure, was able to beat Neji in a fight and get the crowd to cheer for him, maybe he had a point.

As I’ve said, Naruto doesn’t really give people solutions to their problems nor does he have a perfect counter to their ideology (you can decide if that’s a good or a bad thing); all he really tells them is that despite everything they’ve gone through, they still have the option to hope that things could be different. Inari doesn’t have to reject the very concept of heroism, Zabuza doesn’t have to view himself or others a tools to be used and thrown away, Gaara doesn't have to believe that no one will ever love him, and Tsunade doesn't have to look at hope and dreams as things only the naive partake in before they either die or become as jaded as her (etc.). That might seem like cold comfort, but to people who were repeatedly beaten down by life then told cynicism and acceptance were their only options, maybe it’s enough to try again.

The Curse of Hatred

Where hopelessness was explored and countered in classic Naruto, shippuden takes a look at what hatred can do to people and the world and asks what can be done about it.

The concepts of resentment, anger, and vengeance—all referred to as “hatred”—are explored primarily through Sasuke. He’s, of course, not the only one—Deidara, Nagato, and Obito all also come to mind. Deidara resented Itachi for forcing him to join the Akatsuki just as Sasuke resented Itachi for getting all their father’s attention and Naruto for progressing faster than him. Nagato was angry at the five great nations for all that they’d done just as Sasuke was angry at Itachi and Konoha for all that they didn’t. Obito swore vengeance against the world for taking Rin from him and Sasuke swore vengeance against anyone he deemed responsible for his pain.

That’s not even talking about how Black Zetsu and Danzo sowed hatred between people to make them more vulnerable to manipulation and maintain power respectively. Or how Orochimaru fed into people’s—primarily vulnerable children’s—anger for personal gain.

Throughout the series, hatred is framed as a very human but very corrosive emotion. Literally in the case of it eating away at the seal holding the nine tails (I know it’s technically the nine tails chakra being released that’s eating at the seal, but save for the Neji vs Naruto fight, that only happens when he’s intensely angry). Naruto giving himself over to hatred and the nine tails burns through his skin, Deidara blows himself up out of pride and hatred, Kaguya, Madara, Obito, and Nagato all try to destroy the world out of their hatred, and the mangekyou sharingan—often directly tied to the memory that brought the Uchiha great hatred—makes its user go blind. The warring states era isn't a part of the series to add to the world building, it’s a demonstration that a world led by hatred only results in an endless cycle of violence.

The corrosive nature of hatred is very much shown through Sasuke’s development throughout shippuden. He gets progressively more hateful and more mentally unstable. His target goes from one person to a group of people to the whole of Konoha and at the same time he goes from putting his life on the line to protect his teammates to completely disregarding their wellbeing to actively attacking them, practically on a whim. At the start of shippuden, Sasuke only fights people he deems it necessary to and by the five kage summit arc, he’s actively picking fights just for the hell of it. His hatred makes him a shell of who he once was.

His hatred is tempered somewhat by his conversations with Itachi and the Hokage, and he’s distracted from it during the fights against Obito, Madara, and Kaguya, but it isn’t until his fight against Naruto that it’s truly resolved.

By the time of their final fight, Sasuke embodies all that Naruto has been fighting against. Sasuke has given up both on connecting with the world and the world willingly coming together, and he fully hates all the people who’ve caused him pain and all the people who didn’t protect him from it. But Sasuke’s not the only one who’s changed. Naruto’s felt the hopelessness of his sensei dying, of his home being destroyed, of his friend dying in his arms. Naruto’s faced his hatred for the father that abandoned him with the consequences of his actions, his hatred for the village that ostracized him then did a 180 like it never happened, the history of hatred passed down through both the Ashura reincarnations and the nine tails jinchuuriki. He’s fully prepared to fight all of Sasuke’s demons and win. And he does.

Not because Naruto gives him a solution or has an ironclad counter to his ideology, just because, despite everything that happened, Naruto never gave up hope that Sasuke would come home and he never gave up hope that the world could come together. And that unshaking belief was enough to give Sasuke the hope to try again.

The Ending

Apparently Kishimoto said in an interview at one point that he’s had the ending of Naruto planned from the beginning. I’m always skeptical of quotes like this when it comes to long running series, but I do think there is some amount of truth to this. I’m perfectly ready and willing to believe that two parts of the ending were set in stone earlier in the writing process: the final fight between Naruto and Sasuke and the final exchange between Naruto and Sasuke in 699.

The final exchange is of Naruto handing Sasuke back his headband to keep until they get a chance to properly see who’s stronger with future Sasuke reminiscing on their relationship and how he’s changed thanks to Naruto as the narration. The final line is what I really wanted to talk about though:

“To keep enduring until it comes to be, no matter what. And to those whom that task falls on… perhaps that’s what it means… to be a ninja.”

The word that’s used is “enduring” but I still fully believe this to be a quote about the theme of hope in Naruto. After all, hope is shown to be the greatest force of resistance. More than that though, this scene leaves the story off on a vague but hopeful note. It leaves the audience with the implication that Sasuke spends the foreseeable future exploring the world and finding himself in his own image after so many people spent the series trying to mold him to fit theirs while Naruto continues working to become Hokage, with the promise that Naruto and Sasuke, despite diverting paths, will reunite again, and with the statement that the true purpose of ninja is to cultivate and maintain hope.

I personally like this ending—so much so that I kind of wish we never got an epilogue or sequel—but I know that’s not the most popular opinion. An opinion that seems much more popular is that people wanted the series to end with Naruto and/or Sasuke and/or Team 7 changing the shinobi system in one way or another. But I don’t personally see it that way. As I think I’ve made pretty clear, this series wasn’t ever really about giving solutions. It was about endurance, resilience, and hope. It wasn’t necessarily about fixing problems, it was about facing them.

[dingodad]

“and being able to accept these non-literal relationships is a key part of homestuck.” <- going off of this post, who would you say is Vriska, in the same way Equius is to Dirk? I honestly think that she and Dave have some very interesting foiling regarding what it means to be a hero and also, the role certain pressures have had on their lives - i think Bro as a role model / trainer / manipulator folds into one person what Mindfang / Spidermom / Doc Scratch are to Vriska. Or maybe Dave isnt Vriska - maybe instead Vriska is Dave? Or perhaps there is somebody Entirely Different who is Vriska. Please feel free to tear this apart and counter it if u think i got it wrong. 

there are clear parallels to be drawn between Dave and Vriska and their creepy brotheruncles, but ultimately Doc Scratch is EVERYONE'S creepy uncle so I don't think there's any value necessarily in asserting that all of his voyeurbotting victims are the same. and once you start saying "this troll = this human and therefore all trolls = a human" that's when the doppelganger stuff becomes too literal and starts to break down. but there are also reasons why Vriska in particular isn't the "troll version" of a human.

i mean the idea of "human trolls" and "troll humans" is kind of a misdirection from the start - it's far more apt to think of these characters in terms of "act 5 versions of acts 1-4 characters" - e.g. sollux as to dave - or then "act 6 versions of act 5 characters" - dirk to equius, but also in more subtle ways, via Hussie's book commentary; "In the same way that Nepeta is a proto-calliope" (Book 4, p. 151) or "Jane as a distillation of a rough idea that began [with Feferi's introduction]" (p. 332).

the reason there is no "act 6 version" of vriska the same way there's an act-6-equius is because the act 6 version of vriska IS vriska. where side-characters like nepeta and feferi die and are subsumed into the void, an "ideological incestuous slurry" into which things melt and are then recycled into new characters, vriska by her very nature persists until the story has no choice but to put her back on the field. in the sense that the recombination of dead trolls into hybrid sprites is a visual metaphor for homestuck recycling pieces of its own dead characters, this is perhaps the main reason tavrisprite was so "irreconcilable", even where other combinations like erisol and gcatavros were apparently stable; vriska simply refuses to be recycled!

[makeila04]

Disclaimer: I've been thinking about this, and maybe it's just insight. Anyway, it's just an opinion and a way to organize my ideas and perhaps understand this better in the future.

I notice that many people want to see characters through their own modern agendas and values, which, well, you can do; it's your freedom. Especially when it comes to a character like Adler, who is mysterious, dry, and difficult to read. There's no clear answer, so everyone projects their ideas onto him. Again, I don't think it's wrong (and whether it is or not doesn't matter).

But realistically, Activision would never outright say that any of its characters are sexist or racist because it would be outrageous. So they leave a lot of things up to interpretation. Therefore, there will never be a definitive answer.

Does he treat women differently? It depends on how you look at it. Is he traditional? In some ways, yes, but in others, he's more pragmatic than ideological. Does he resent minorities? It doesn't seem like it, but it's not like the game focuses or will focus on that, because it's irrelevant to any Call of Duty.

Adler is a man of his time, yes, but he's also a CIA agent who works with anyone as long as it serves him. Russell Adler is, above all, pragmatic and professional.What bothers me is that many of the people who ask aren't really looking for an answer, they're looking for validation.

Besides, there's a pattern in all these questions they ask me: they want me to confirm or deny a suspicion they already have. 1- Some want you to confirm that Adler is a misogynist. Because they need to see him as the "bad guy" who treats women differently or is more closed-minded. 2- Others want you to confirm that Adler is NOT a misogynist. Because they admire him and want to see him as a fair and modern guy. 3- Some just want to understand him better. Because the game doesn't give enough context about how he sees the world, and you're one of the people who has analyzed his character the most. I honestly love the third type of questions, and they're the ones I answer the most, or because they're repetitive. But I do get questions of the first and second types. They ask, but they're not really looking for an answer; they're looking for validation. They want you to confirm what they already think, and if I don't, they ignore me or keep insisting.

The problem is that I really try to analyze. I seek to understand the context, their generation, their environment, and how that influences their personality. But there are people who don't want an analysis; they want me to prove them right. The problem is… I don't have it and probably never will, and if anyone is looking for validation in my opinions or hypotheses, I recommend they look elsewhere.Adler, Weaver, Woods, Hudson, Mason, etc. are men of their time, practical-minded and unattached to ideologies. There's no clear evidence of misogyny, racism, or whatever, in the game, just their dry, work-focused demeanor because we always see them working, because that's what these games are always about: wars.

I repeat, we always see him working, and Adler is VERY professional and, above all, pragmatic, but he was born in 1937, in San Diego, California, USA!! I have to remind you that he and other white people did NOT go to the same places, schools, they couldn't use the same bathrooms, white people and black people, and they couldn't ride in the same train cars either!?!?!?! Adler was only 30 years old in the late 60s… And things were just starting to change from 1990 onwards… and in 1991 he was already 54 years old. I don't see his mentality changing that much… And I repeat, this is Activision, they're looking to sell, so they're never going to tell us that Adler openly hates Marshall or Sims for being black, or Weaver for being Soviet, when Adler joined the army at 18 and went to Vietnam in his 20s…

The historical and social context in which Adler, or any of his contemporaries, grew up cannot be ignored.

A man like Russell, born in 1937 in the United States, especially in an environment like San Diego, was inevitably raised in a society with strong racial and cultural segregations.

While Adler is a pragmatist at work and doesn't seem to overtly express prejudices in what we see in the games, that doesn't mean he doesn't harbor them on a deeper or more unconscious level. It's also important to remember that he spent his entire life in militarized environments, and the US military of his time had a culture that not only reflected the nation's social prejudices, but in many cases reinforced them.The fact that we don't see Adler openly expressing contempt or discrimination on screen doesn't mean there isn't some of that in his psyche. Activision simply wouldn't show it because it wouldn't sell well today. But considering his age, background, and the time he grew up in, it stands to reason that even if he doesn't openly hate someone because of their race or nationality, he might still have certain deep-rooted biases or prejudices.

There's also the issue of anti-Sovietism. Adler literally joined the army at the height of the Cold War and spent his life fighting both Soviets and communists. His contempt for the Russians is probably as strong as Mason's at the beginning of Black Ops 1. With Weaver, there may be some pragmatism and professional respect, but I doubt that will completely erase their negative perception of him for being Soviet.

In fact, recall that in Black Ops 1, with Mason and Woods, we hear many soldiers distrust Weaver for being Soviet, while they frown upon Mason, Woods, and Hudson for associating with Greg…precisely because he is Soviet. This is proof that the Cold War profoundly shaped the mindset of Adler and the American soldiers of his generation. In Black Ops 1, it's made clear that even within the CIA and the military, distrust of the Soviets was visceral, to the point that even Weaver, who was on their side, was still viewed with suspicion simply because of his origins. This reinforces the idea that Adler is not a "modern man" in terms of mindset. He's neither politically correct nor progressive. His upbringing and life experience made him extremely pragmatic, nationalistic, and distrustful of anything that didn't fit his worldview. If this is how Weaver, a loyal CIA agent, was treated, how would Adler treat someone he considered "outside" his inner circle? He wouldn't say it out loud because he's a professional, but the suspicion would always be there. Now, was Adler someone who openly hated minorities? Probably not in the sense of going out to lynch someone or joining the Ku Klux Klan, but it would be naive to think he didn't have deep-rooted racial prejudices. Most likely, like many men of his time, he suffered from pragmatic and structural racism: 1- Not immediately respecting a Black man unless he proved exceptionally competent. 2- Assuming Latinos and Asians were inferior in terms of skill or intelligence. 3- Considering Russians not just as enemies, but as fundamentally untrustworthy. This wouldn't make him a monster by the standards of his time; he'd simply be an average man of his generation, the Silent Generation.For example, in the CIA, Adler joined the Army at 18, meaning he spent most of his adult life in a hypermasculine, hierarchical, and deeply conservative environment. The U.S. Army wasn't racially integrated until 1948, when Truman signed Executive Order 9981. However, the integration wasn't instantaneous or welcomed by all. White soldiers, especially those from the South, didn't want to fight alongside Black men. When Adler joined the army in the 1950s, there was still strong resistance to this integration. It wasn't unusual for Black troops to be treated as inferiors, assigned to less prestigious duties, and forced to endure daily humiliation. Did Adler learn to see Black people as equals? Probably not. What he did learn was to work with them if they were useful.

This is where pragmatism and professionalism comes in. For Adler, efficiency and results trump any ideology. If a Black man or a Russian is capable, then he can work with them. But that doesn't mean he sees them as personal equals or invites them into his home for whiskey. For Adler, loyalty is more important than race, but that doesn't mean his upbringing and times haven't shaped him. Just because he works with Sims or Marshall doesn't mean he doesn't harbor certain prejudices deep down. He simply ignores them because they are competent soldiers. But if Sims did something to challenge that, Adler would probably think, "Of course, they're all the same in the end." I wouldn't say it out loud, but that bias would be there.

The same applies to Grigori Weaver. Although Weaver is more American, by 1991, Adler will never stop seeing him as Russian. And for a man who lived through the Cold War fighting against the USSR, that's a problem. The Russians are the enemy, and Adler has killed too many to easily make exceptions. Could his mindset have changed over the years?The answer is: unlikely. Adler was born in 1937 and was 54 years old in 1991. By the standards of his generation, he was already an elderly man. And while some people change over time, beliefs formed in youth are incredibly difficult to eradicate. If Adler were a young man in the 1990s, we might think he would have evolved his view of the world. But by 1991, the world had already changed, and he was already a fifty-something war veteran with scars both physical and mental. Why would he change his worldview at this point? More importantly, he doesn't seem like the kind of man who cares about political correctness or adapting.He's not a man who adapts to new trends. He lives in a world of covert operations, assassinations, and dirty wars. For him, everything still works by the same old rules: force, strategy, and manipulation. So if anyone expected Adler to be completely free of racial or anti-Soviet prejudices in 1991, they'd be delusional. He most likely hides them better, rationalizes them, or masks them with pragmatism. But in his mind, racial and national hierarchies still exist. Russell Adler is neither a saint nor a secret progressive. He's a product of his time, shaped by a world where racial discrimination and anti-communist paranoia were the norm. Activision will never admit this because it would be a public relations disaster, but if you analyze the context in which he lived, it's illogical to think of him as a man without biases or prejudices. And most importantly, he had no reason to change his mind. By the time times changed in the 1990s, Adler was already at a stage in his life where cultural shifts didn't matter to him. For him, the world continued to operate the same way it always had: with power, loyalty, and death. Activision gives us a watered-down, marketable version of Adler. But if we analyze it honestly, he's a man of the Cold War, not of the modern era. And I personally hate judging the mentality of the past with modern mentality and values, because that's something I was always taught in history not to do, because it violates the historical context of why people acted one way before and another way now. Continuing with the historical context to better understand what I'm talking about: Russell Adler was born in 1937, in San Diego, California, a place and time where racial segregation and anti-communist paranoia weren't extreme ideologies, but rather the common sense of American society. To understand his mindset, one must look not only at the history of his country, but also at the generation to which he belongs: the Silent Generation (1928-1945). Unlike the Baby Boomers, who grew up in times of social change and revolution, the Silent Generation was raised to respect authority, order, and hierarchies. Growing up during the Great Depression and World War II, they learned that the world is harsh, that rules must be followed to survive, and that questioning the system is not an option. In the mindset of this generation, extreme individualism and self-construction were alien ideas; what mattered was stability, duty, and tradition. This means that Adler not only grew up in a segregated United States but was also raised with deeply conservative and authoritarian values, probably. For him, the world has fixed structures, and those who try to change them are a problem. Adler grew up in a society where Black, Latino, Asian, and Native Americans were second-class citizens. He didn't need to be a white supremacist to believe white people were on top; the world simply told him that's the way things were. This doesn't mean Adler actively hated other races, but it does mean that their respect didn't come by default.

And this is where his pragmatism comes in. The Silent Generation is known for its "duty first, feelings second" mentality, and Adler isn't going to refuse to work with someone just because of their race or nationality… as long as that person is useful.He would never say this out loud, because Adler isn't stupid. But deep down, the idea of ​​white superiority was ingrained as a silent certainty. Adler enlisted in the army at 18, right in the 1950s, a time when the US military was just beginning its racial integration following Truman's 1948 order. But just because a law says something doesn't mean the culture changes overnight. Black soldiers were still treated as inferiors, assigned to less prestigious duties, and southern whites openly refused to fight alongside them. Adler grew up within this military structure, where Black people could be soldiers, yes, but always with a suspicion of their abilities. The same goes for the Russians. In Black Ops 1, American soldiers despise Weaver simply because he's Soviet, even though he's working for the CIA. If this was true of Weaver, how would Adler view the Soviets in general? As the absolute enemy. He can work with them if necessary, but his instinct is distrust and hostility. Let's remember that in Black Ops Cold War we literally infiltrated a Soviet headquarters and Adler doesn't trust Dimitri Belikov, but he knows that he doesn't.

He has no choice. And not to mention that he kills Bell at the end of the game for being a loose end; he was just an asset, someone valuable for his Russian, just like Weaver. Except Greg is still alive because he lasted longer.

And let's not forget that Adler wasn't just a soldier, but a CIA agent specializing in assassinations and covert operations. His job wasn't to be open-minded or question the morality of his actions. His mission was to do whatever was necessary for the security of the United States. He literally kills and silences people.

The Silents are an extremely rigid generation. They were raised with the idea that the world works in a specific way and that trying to change it is either futile or dangerous. When we arrive at Black Ops 6 in 1991, Adler is 54 years old. For young people in the 90s, the world was already changing: 1- Racism was no longer socially accepted in the same way. 2- The USSR was collapsing. 3- New generations were beginning to see things differently. But for Adler, none of this mattered. For him, the world still operates under the same old rules: power, loyalty, and betrayal. Just because the world changes doesn't mean he has. Older people don't usually change deeply held beliefs formed in their youth, much less someone as stubborn as Adler. Activision will never show us this side of him because it would be scandalous, but if we analyze it logically, it's impossible for Adler not to have structural prejudices. Not because he's a monster (although he is), but because he's a man of his time, and his time was different. Russell Adler isn't a hero of modern times. He's a man shaped by the Cold War, segregation, nationalism, and a mindset where loyalty and competition were more important than anything else.Was he an open racist? No. Did he have deep-rooted prejudices? Absolutely. It's a mistake to analyze Adler, Woods, Mason, Hudson, Weaver, or whoever else with a 21st-century mindset. He's a product of his time and his generation, and his world was never ours. Finally, my biggest question: Why would Activision never show these things? Well, because it's NOT in their interest (they're a company, they just want to sell and reach the widest possible audience), and because this is never what Call of Duty was about.

If there's one thing the major video game companies AVOID AT ALL COSTS, it's admitting that their main characters have political or social positions that would be considered problematic today. In the case of Call of Duty, where the protagonists are war-hardened soldiers, it's obvious that the vast majority—especially those born between the 1930s and 1950s—have a conservative, sexist, and nationalist mindset. Not because they're villains, but because that was the norm of their time and environment. But Activision would never say this openly. 1- Because they can't alienate their modern audience Call of Duty is one of the best-selling franchises in the world. Its audience isn't just older people who grew up in the 80s and 90s, but also teenagers and young adults living in an era where sexism, racism, and extreme ideologies are sensitive topics. If Activision were to confirm that characters like Adler, Woods, or Hudson were misogynistic, sexist, or reactionary, there would immediately be controversy on social media, in the media, and in communities. Nowadays, big companies are afraid of damaging their image and losing sales. They prefer to keep their characters neutral or ambiguous in terms of politics and values, so anyone can interpret them however they want. If they said Adler was sexist, they would lose the interest of many young or progressive gamers. If they said Adler was a feminist or progressive, they would lose other gamers who see him as a "tough, classic hero." Activision's Solution: Don't confirm anything and let the public make their own interpretations. What a coincidence, that's what we're doing here. 2- Because the military and the CIA are the "good guys" in their narrative Activision has a close relationship with the US military and other government agencies. The image Call of Duty projects is patriotic and pro-military, because that sells well in the US and other markets. Admitting that its most iconic characters were openly sexist, racist, or misogynistic would put the military in a bad light. For example: - If they said Hudson treated women in the CIA with contempt, or that Woods disrespected female soldiers, the military's image would suffer. - If they confirmed that Mason was politically right-wing or an extreme nationalist, they would create unnecessary controversy. Personally, I think that if someone still thinks the CIA is good, it's either because they're American (even so, many Yankees hate the CIA) or because they're simply ignorant. We have the famous Condor Plan in America, the MK-ultra disaster, and in general the impunity with which they've always operated. Activision is not going to shoot itself in the foot with the narrative. This is still pro-American propaganda in a way, except we always knew that from the start (personally, it doesn't bother me). But we also can't ignore the real facts, or at least I can't, because, as I say, I like to do extensive analysis. Activision's Solution: - Show the characters as "professional" and neutral. - Have them work with women and minorities to give the impression they were men ahead of their time. 3- Because their characters should be "cool" to everyone. Call of Duty protagonists aren't super-deep characters with complex development. They're power fantasies. Most players don't want to control a character with controversial ideologies. They want tough, mysterious, and combat-efficient guys. Otherwise, you'll end up like Concord… and Activision wants to avoid the same thing with its golden goose.

Example: - If they said Woods has sexist attitudes because he grew up in the 40s and served in Vietnam, many fans would stop seeing him as "the cool, tough guy" and start criticizing him. (Although in Black Ops 2 he literally calls a woman "fucking nurse" at the end of the game, but hey, he'll be 95 by 2025.) - If they confirmed that Adler had an ultra-conservative view on the role of women in society, he would lose some of his appeal for many players. Activision's Solution: - Ignore the issue entirely. - If a woman appears, have the protagonists simply respect her (e.g., Park, Dumas). - Don't delve into their political or social opinions.4- Because avoiding controversy = more sales.Video game companies don't have ideologies; they just want to make money, and I can tell you that's literally what I study. If Activision confirmed that its characters have reactionary, conservative, or sexist values, they would get in trouble with the press, players, and social media.

Example of how people would react: - If they said Adler is a misogynist: "Are you seriously glorifying a character who mistreats women? How disgusting."

- If they said Adler is a feminist: "They blew it. Now they want to make it seem like Cold War tough guys were woke. How ridiculous." If neither option works for them, it's easier to just say nothing.

Activision's solution: - Leave everything up to the player's interpretation. - If asked, say generic phrases like: "Adler respects competition regardless of gender." - Avoid any in-game dialogue that makes it sound too extreme in any direction. 5- Most importantly: Because the story of Call of Duty isn't about morality, it's about action. If Call of Duty were an RPG series with deep moral decisions, then they would have to explore machismo, racism, and classism within the military. But Call of Duty is a series of shooters and military missions. Its story isn't designed to question the morals of its characters, but to make the missions feel epic. In Cold War, Adler kidnaps and manipulates Bell in a way that, in any other game, would make him look like a villain. But the game doesn't condemn them or present them as "bad guys," because the point isn't to analyze their ethics, but to show shocking scenes. If this happens with torture, why would they explore the machismo or conservatism of the characters? They wouldn't, because that's not the focus of the game. Keep the story focused on the action and the war, not on the characters' morals. Don't make the player question their actions too much. Avoid dialogue that shows extreme positions. Keep only conversations that provide context. Conclusion: Call of Duty is a military fantasy, not a social analysis Adler, Woods, Mason, Hudson, and Weaver were raised in deeply conservative, nationalist, and sexist environments. If they existed in real life, it's logical to think they would have the prejudices of their time.

But Activision will never openly admit it because:- They can't risk alienating their modern audience. - They don't want the military or the CIA to look bad. - Their characters must remain "cool" and appealing. - Avoiding controversy always means more sales. Call of Duty is a shooter, not an exploration of morality. In short, the Call of Duty characters were probably sexist, conservative, and prejudiced, but the game will never show it because it's not convenient. They prefer to keep them ambiguous and functional, so that each player can interpret them as they wish.

Disclaimer: He estado pensando en esto y tal vez solo sea perspicacia. Como sea es solo una opinión y una forma de acomodarme las ideas y quizas entender esto mejor en un futuro.

Noto que muchos quieren ver a los personajes a través de sus propias agendas y valores modernos, lo cual, pues, puedes hacerlo, es tu libertad. 

Especialmente cuando se trata de un personaje como Adler, que es misterioso, seco y difícil de leer. No hay una respuesta clara, así que todo el mundo proyecta sus ideas en él, repito, no creo que esté mal (y si lo es o no tampoco importa).

Pero siendo realistas, Activision nunca diría abiertamente que ninguno de sus personajes es machista o racista porque sería un escándalo. Así que dejan muchas cosas a la interpretación. Ergo, nunca habrá respuesta definitiva.

¿Trata diferente a las mujeres? Depende de cómo lo mires. ¿Es tradicional? En algunos aspectos sí, pero en otros es más pragmático que ideológico. ¿Le molestan las minorías? No parece, pero tampoco es que el juego se enfoque o se vaya a enfocar en eso, porque es irrelevante para cualquier call of duty.

Adler es un hombre de su época, sí, pero también es un agente de la CIA que trabaja con quien sea mientras le sirva. Russell Adler es ante todo pragmatico y profesional.

Si me molesta que muchos de los que preguntan, en realidad no buscan una respuesta, buscan validación.

Además, hay un patrón en todas esas preguntas que me hacen: quieren que confirme o niegue una sospecha que ya tienen.

Algunos quieren que confirmes que Adler es misógino. Porque necesitan verlo como el "hombre malo" que trata diferente a las mujeres o que tiene una mentalidad más cerrada.

Otros quieren que confirmes que Adler NO es misógino. Porque lo admiran y quieren verlo como un tipo justo y moderno.

Algunos solo buscan entenderlo mejor. Porque el juego no da suficiente contexto sobre cómo ve el mundo, y tú eres una de las personas que más ha analizado su personaje.

Honestamente amo las preguntas del tercer tipo y son las que más respondo o porque se repiten, pero si me llegan preguntas más del primer y segundo tipo. Preguntan, pero en realidad no buscan una respuesta, buscan validación. Quieren que les confirmes lo que ya piensan, y si no lo hago, ignoran o siguen insistiendo.

El problema es que yo realmente intento analizar. Busco entender el contexto, su generación, su entorno y cómo eso influye en su personalidad. Pero hay gente que no quiere un análisis, quiere que les de la razón. El problema es que…no la tengo y probablemente jamás la tendré y si alguien busca validación en mis opiniones o hipótesis le recomiendo buscarlo en otro lado.

Adler, Weaver, Woods, Hudson, Mason, etc. son hombres de su época, con mentalidad práctica y sin apego a ideologías. No hay evidencia clara de misoginia, racismo o lo que quieran, en el juego, solo su actitud seca y centrada en el trabajo porque los vemos trabajando siempre, porque siempre se tratan de eso estos juegos, guerras.

Repito, siempre lo vemos trabajando y Adler es MUY profesional y por sobre todo pragmático, pero nació en 1937, en San Diego, California, ESTADOS UNIDOSS!! tengo que recordarles que él y los demás blancos NO iban a los mismos lugares, escuelas, no podían utilizar los mismos baños los blancos que los negros y tampoco podían ir en los mismos vagones!?!?!?! Adler recién tiene 30 años para finales de los 60s... Y apenas cuando las cosas iban cambiando fue 1990 en adelante... y él en 1991 ya tiene 54 años. No lo veo cambiando tanto la mentalidad... Y repito, esto es Activision, buscan vender, asi que nunca nos van a decir que Adler odia abiertamente a Marshall o Sims por ser negros o a Weaver por ser sovietico cuando Adler se metió al ejercito con 18 años y fue a Vietnam en sus 20s…

El contexto histórico y social en el que Adler, o cualquier otro de sus compañeros coetaneos, creció no puede ignorarse.

Un hombre blanco, como Russell, nacido en 1937 en Estados Unidos, especialmente en un entorno como el de San Diego, inevitablemente fue criado en una sociedad con fuertes segregaciones raciales y culturales.

Si bien Adler es un pragmático en el trabajo y no parece expresar prejuicios de forma abierta en lo que vemos en los juegos, eso no significa que no los tenga en un nivel más profundo o inconsciente. También hay que recordar que pasó toda su vida en ambientes militarizados, y el ejército estadounidense de su época tenía una cultura que no solo reflejaba los prejuicios sociales de la nación, sino que en muchos casos los reforzaba.

El hecho de que no veamos a Adler expresando abiertamente desprecio o discriminación en pantalla no significa que no haya algo de eso en su psique. Simplemente, Activision no lo mostraría porque no es algo que vendería bien en la actualidad. Pero considerando su edad, formación y el tiempo en el que creció, lo más lógico sería que, incluso si no odia abiertamente a alguien por su raza o nacionalidad, sí tenga ciertos sesgos o prejuicios profundamente arraigados.

También está el tema del antisovietismo. Adler literalmente se enlistó en el ejército cuando la Guerra Fría estaba en su apogeo y pasó su vida luchando contra soviéticos y comunistas. Su desprecio por los rusos probablemente es tan fuerte como el que Mason tenía al inicio de Black Ops 1. Con Weaver puede haber algo de pragmatismo y respeto profesional, pero dudo que eso elimine por completo su percepción negativa hacia él por ser soviético.

De hecho, recordemos que en Black ops 1, con Mason y Woods, escuchamos a muchos soldados desconfiar de Weaver por ser sovietico, mientras miran mal a Mason, Woods y Hudson por relacionarse con Greg...justamente por ser sovietico. 

Es una prueba de que la Guerra Fría moldeó profundamente la mentalidad de Adler y los soldados estadounidenses de su generación. En Black Ops 1, se deja claro que incluso dentro de la CIA y el ejército, la desconfianza hacia los soviéticos era visceral, al punto de que incluso Weaver, que estaba de su lado, seguía siendo visto con recelo solo por su origen.

Esto refuerza la idea de que Adler no es un "hombre moderno" en términos de mentalidad. No es políticamente correcto ni progresista. Su formación y su experiencia de vida lo hicieron extremadamente pragmático, nacionalista y desconfiado de todo lo que no encajara en su visión del mundo.

Si así trataban a Weaver, que era un agente leal a la CIA, ¿cómo trataría Adler a alguien que él considere "externo" a su círculo de confianza? No lo diría en voz alta porque es un profesional, pero la sospecha siempre estaría ahí.

Ahora bien, ¿era Adler alguien que odiaba abiertamente a las minorías? Probablemente no en el sentido de salir a linchar a alguien o afiliarse al Ku Klux Klan, pero sería ingenuo pensar que no tenía prejuicios raciales arraigados. Lo más probable es que, como muchos hombres de su época, tuviera un racismo de tipo pragmático y estructural:

No respetar de entrada a un hombre negro a menos que demostrara ser excepcionalmente competente.

Asumir que los latinos y asiáticos eran inferiores en términos de habilidades o inteligencia.

Considerar a los rusos no solo como enemigos, sino como seres fundamentalmente indignos de confianza.

Esto no lo haría un monstruo según los estándares de su tiempo; simplemente sería un hombre promedio de su generación, la generación silenciosa.

Por ejemplo en la CIA, cuando Adler se unió al ejército a los 18 años, lo que significa que pasó la mayor parte de su vida adulta en un entorno hipermasculino, jerárquico y profundamente conservador. El ejército de EE.UU. no fue integrado racialmente hasta 1948, cuando Truman firmó la orden ejecutiva 9981. Sin embargo, la integración no fue instantánea ni bien recibida por todos. Los soldados blancos, especialmente los que venían del sur, no querían pelear al lado de negros.

Cuando Adler llegó al ejército en los años 50, todavía existía una fuerte resistencia a esta integración. No era inusual que las tropas negras fueran tratadas como inferiores, asignadas a tareas de menor prestigio y obligadas a soportar humillaciones diarias. ¿Aprendió Adler a ver a los negros como iguales? Probablemente no. Lo que sí aprendió fue a trabajar con ellos si eran útiles.

Aquí es donde entra el pragmatismo. Para Adler, la eficiencia y los resultados están por encima de cualquier ideología. Si un hombre negro o un ruso es capaz, entonces puede trabajar con él. Pero eso no significa que los vea como iguales en términos personales o que los invite a su casa a beber whisky. Para Adler, la lealtad es más importante que la raza, pero eso no significa que su crianza y su época no lo hayan marcado.

El hecho de que trabaje con Sims o Marshall no significa que en su fuero interno no tenga ciertos prejuicios. Simplemente los ignora porque son soldados competentes. Pero si Sims hiciera algo que lo pusiera en duda, Adler probablemente pensaría: “Claro, al final todos son iguales”. No lo diría en voz alta, pero ese sesgo estaría ahí.

Lo mismo aplica a Grigori Weaver. Aunque Weaver es más estadounidense, para 1991, Adler nunca va a dejar de verlo como ruso. Y para un hombre que vivió la Guerra Fría peleando contra la URSS, eso es un problema. Los rusos son el enemigo, y Adler ha matado a demasiados como para hacer excepciones con facilidad.

¿Podría haber cambiado su mentalidad con los años?

La respuesta es: poco probable. Adler nació en 1937 y tenía 54 años en 1991. Para los estándares de su generación, ya era un hombre mayor. Y aunque algunas personas cambian con el tiempo, las creencias formadas en la juventud son increíblemente difíciles de erradicar.

Si Adler fuera un hombre joven en los 90s, quizás podríamos pensar que habría evolucionado su forma de ver el mundo. Pero en 1991, el mundo ya había cambiado, y él ya era un veterano de guerra cincuentón con cicatrices tanto físicas como mentales. ¿Por qué cambiaría su visión del mundo a esas alturas?

Más importante aún, no parece el tipo de hombre que se preocupe por lo políticamente correcto o por adaptarse a las nuevas tendencias. Él vive en un mundo de operaciones encubiertas, asesinatos y guerra sucia. Para él, todo sigue funcionando bajo las mismas reglas de siempre: fuerza, estrategia y manipulación.

Así que si alguien esperara que en 1991 Adler estuviera completamente libre de prejuicios raciales o antisoviéticos, se estaría engañando. Lo más probable es que los oculte mejor, que los racionalice o que los enmascare con pragmatismo. Pero en su mente, las jerarquías raciales y nacionales siguen existiendo.

Russell Adler no es un santo ni un progresista secreto. Es un producto de su época, moldeado por un mundo donde la discriminación racial y la paranoia anticomunista eran la norma. Activision nunca va a admitir esto porque sería un desastre de relaciones públicas, pero si analizamos el contexto en el que vivió, es ilógico pensar que sea un hombre sin sesgos o prejuicios.

Y lo más importante: no tenía razones para cambiar su mentalidad. Para cuando los tiempos cambiaron en los 90s, Adler ya estaba en una etapa de su vida donde los cambios culturales lo tenían sin cuidado. Para él, el mundo seguía funcionando igual que siempre: con poder, lealtad y muerte.

Activision nos da una versión diluida y vendible de Adler. Pero si lo analizamos con honestidad, él es un hombre de la Guerra Fría, no de la era moderna. Y personalmente odio que se juzgue la mentalidad del pasado con mentalidad y valores modernos, porque es algo que en historia siempre me enseñaron que NO se debe hacer, porque es atropellar el contexto histórico del por qué se actuaba de una forma antes y ahora de otra.

Continuando con el contexto historico para comprender mejor a lo que me refiero:

Russell Adler nació en 1937, en San Diego, California, un lugar y una época donde la segregación racial y la paranoia anticomunista no eran ideologías extremas, sino el sentido común de la sociedad estadounidense blanca. Para comprender su mentalidad, no solo hay que mirar la historia de su país, sino también la generación a la que pertenece: la Silent Generation (1928-1945).

A diferencia de los Baby Boomers, que crecieron en tiempos de cambio y revolución social, la Silent Generation fue criada para respetar la autoridad, el orden y las jerarquías. Fueron niños durante la Gran Depresión y la Segunda Guerra Mundial, y aprendieron que el mundo es duro, que hay que seguir las reglas para sobrevivir y que cuestionar el sistema no es una opción. En la mentalidad de esta generación, el individualismo extremo y la autoconstrucción eran ideas ajenas; lo importante era la estabilidad, el deber y la tradición.

Esto significa que Adler no solo creció en un EE.UU. segregado, sino que también fue criado bajo valores profundamente conservadores y autoritarios. Para él, el mundo tiene estructuras fijas, y quienes intentan cambiarlas son un problema.

Adler creció en una sociedad donde los negros, latinos, asiáticos y nativos americanos eran ciudadanos de segunda clase. No necesitaba ser un supremacista blanco para creer que los blancos estaban en la cima; simplemente, el mundo le decía que así eran las cosas.

Esto no significa que Adler odiara activamente a otras razas, pero sí que su respeto no venía por defecto.

Un hombre negro tenía que demostrar ser excepcionalmente competente para ganar su confianza.

Los latinos y asiáticos eran vistos como inferiores en términos de habilidades o inteligencia.

Los rusos no eran solo enemigos políticos, sino seres fundamentalmente indignos de confianza.

Y aquí es donde entra su pragmatismo. La Silent Generation es conocida por su mentalidad de “el deber primero, los sentimientos después”, y Adler no va a rechazar trabajar con alguien solo por su raza o nacionalidad… siempre y cuando esa persona sea útil.

Nunca lo diría en voz alta, porque Adler no es estúpido. Pero en su fuero interno, la idea de la superioridad blanca estaba instalada como una certeza silenciosa.

Adler se enlistó en el ejército a los 18 años, justo en los años 50, una época donde el ejército estadounidense apenas estaba comenzando su integración racial tras la orden de Truman en 1948. Pero que una ley diga algo no significa que la cultura cambie de la noche a la mañana.

Los soldados negros seguían siendo tratados como inferiores, asignados a tareas de menor prestigio, y los blancos del sur abiertamente se negaban a pelear junto a ellos.

Adler creció dentro de esta estructura militar, donde los negros podían ser soldados, sí, pero siempre con una sospecha sobre sus capacidades. Lo mismo con los rusos. En Black Ops 1, los soldados estadounidenses desprecian a Weaver simplemente porque es soviético, aunque esté trabajando para la CIA.

Si esto pasaba con Weaver, ¿cómo vería Adler a los soviéticos en general? Como el enemigo absoluto. Puede trabajar con ellos si es necesario, pero su instinto es la desconfianza y la hostilidad. Recordemos que en Black ops cold war literalmente nos infiltramos en una sede soviética y Adler no confía en Dimitri Belikov, pero sabe que no le queda de otra. Y ni mencionar que mata a Bell al final del juego por ser un cabo suelto, era solo un activo, alguien valioso por su ruso, así como Weaver. Solo que Greg sigue vivo porque duró más tiempo.

Y no olvidemos que Adler no solo fue un soldado, sino un agente de la CIA especializado en asesinatos y operaciones encubiertas. Su trabajo no era ser abierto de mente ni cuestionar la moralidad de sus actos. Su misión era hacer lo que se necesitara para la seguridad de EE.UU. Literalmente se dedica a asesinar y silenciar personas.

Los Silent son una generación extremadamente rígida. Fueron criados en la idea de que el mundo funciona de una forma específica y que tratar de cambiarlo es inútil o peligroso.

Cuando llegamos a Black Ops 6 en 1991, Adler tiene 54 años. Para la gente joven de los 90, el mundo ya estaba cambiando:

El racismo ya no era socialmente aceptado de la misma manera.

La URSS estaba colapsando.

Las nuevas generaciones comenzaban a ver las cosas de otro modo.

Pero para Adler, nada de esto importaba. Para él, el mundo sigue funcionando bajo las mismas reglas de siempre: poder, lealtad y traición.

El hecho de que el mundo cambie no significa que él haya cambiado. Las personas mayores no suelen modificar creencias profundas formadas en su juventud, y mucho menos alguien tan testarudo como Adler.

Activision nunca va a mostrarnos esta faceta de él porque sería un escándalo, pero si lo analizamos con lógica, es imposible que Adler no tenga prejuicios estructurales. No porque sea un monstruo (aunque lo es), sino porque es un hombre de su tiempo, y su tiempo era otro.

Russell Adler no es un héroe de los tiempos actuales. Es un hombre moldeado por la Guerra Fría, la segregación, el nacionalismo y una mentalidad donde la lealtad y la competencia eran más importantes que cualquier otra cosa.

¿Era un racista abierto? No. ¿Tenía prejuicios profundamente arraigados? Absolutamente.

Es un error analizar a Adler, Woods, Mason, Hudson, Weaver o quien sea, con una mentalidad del siglo XXI. Él es un producto de su tiempo y de su generación, y su mundo nunca fue el nuestro.

Finalmente mi mayor pregunta, ¿Por qué Activision jamás mostraría estas cosas? pues, porque NO les conviene (son una empresa, solo buscan vender y abarcar el mayor público posible) y porque call of duty jamás se trató de esto.

Si hay algo que las grandes compañías de videojuegos EVITAN A TODA COSTA, es admitir que sus personajes principales tienen posturas políticas o sociales que hoy serían consideradas problemáticas.

En el caso de Call of Duty, donde los protagonistas son soldados endurecidos por la guerra, es obvio que la gran mayoría—especialmente los nacidos entre los 30s y 50s—tienen una mentalidad conservadora, machista y nacionalista. No porque sean villanos, sino porque esa era la norma de su época y de su entorno.

Pero Activision jamás lo diría abiertamente.

1- Porque no pueden alienar a su público moderno

Call of Duty es una de las franquicias más vendidas del mundo. Su audiencia no es solo gente mayor que creció en los 80s y 90s, sino también adolescentes y adultos jóvenes que viven en una época donde el machismo, el racismo e ideologías extremas son temas sensibles.

Si Activision confirmara que personajes como Adler, Woods o Hudson eran misóginos, machistas o reaccionarios, inmediatamente habría polémicas en redes sociales, medios y comunidades.

Hoy en día, las grandes compañías tienen miedo de dañar su imagen y perder ventas. Prefieren mantener a sus personajes neutrales o ambiguos en cuanto a política y valores, para que cualquiera pueda interpretarlos como quiera.

Si dijeran que Adler es sexista, perderían el interés de muchos jugadores jóvenes o progresistas.

Si dijeran que Adler es feminista o progre, perderían a otros jugadores que lo ven como un "héroe rudo y clásico".

Solución de Activision: No confirmar nada y dejar que el público haga sus propias interpretaciones. Que qué casualidad, es lo que nosotros hacemos aquí.

2- Porque el ejército y la CIA son los "buenos" en su narrativa

Activision tiene una relación cercana con el ejército estadounidense y otras agencias gubernamentales. La imagen que Call of Duty proyecta es patriótica y pro-militar, porque eso vende bien en EE.UU. y otros mercados.

Admitir que sus personajes más icónicos eran abiertamente machistas, racistas o misóginos haría que el ejército quedara mal parado.

Por ejemplo:

Si dijeran que Hudson trataba con desprecio a las mujeres en la CIA, o que Woods no respetaba a las soldados, la imagen del ejército se vería afectada.

Si confirmaran que Mason era políticamente de ultraderecha o un nacionalista extremo, crearían controversias innecesarias.

Personalmente creo que si alguien aún piensa que la CIA es buena es porque o es estadounidense (aun así, muchos yankees odian a la CIA) o porque simplemente es ignorante. 

Tenemos el famoso Plan Cóndor en América, el desastre del MK-ultra, y en general la impunidad con la que operan desde siempre. Activision no se va a pegar un tiro en el pie con la narrativa. Esto sigue siendo propaganda pro-estadounidense de alguna manera, solo que eso siempre lo supimos desde el primer momento (personalmente no me molesta.) pero tampoco podemos ignorar los hechos reales, o al menos yo no, porque como digo, me gusta realizar análisis extensos.

Solución de Activision:

Mostrar a los personajes como "profesionales" y neutrales.

Hacer que trabajen con mujeres y minorías para dar la impresión de que eran hombres adelantados a su tiempo.

3- Porque sus personajes deben ser "cool" para todo el mundo.

Los protagonistas de Call of Duty no son personajes súper profundos con desarrollo complejo. Son fantasías de poder.

La mayoría de los jugadores no quieren controlar a un personaje con ideologías polémicas. Quieren manejar a tipos rudos, misteriosos y eficientes en combate.

Sino, te pasa como a Concord… y Activision quiere evitar lo mismo con su gallina de los huevos de oro.

Ejemplo:

Si dijeran que Woods tiene actitudes machistas porque creció en los 40s y sirvió en Vietnam, muchos fans dejarían de verlo como "el tipo rudo y cool" y empezarían a criticarlo. (Aunque en Black Ops 2 literalmente le dice al final del juego “puta enfermera” a una mujer, pero bueno, tiene 95 años para 2025 el nono)

Si confirmaran que Adler tenía una visión ultra-conservadora sobre el rol de la mujer en la sociedad, perdería parte de su atractivo para muchos jugadores.

Solución de Activision:

Ignorar el tema por completo.

Si aparece una mujer, hacer que los protagonistas simplemente la respeten sin más (ej. Park, Dumas).

No profundizar en sus opiniones políticas o sociales.

4- Porque evitar la controversia = más ventas

Las compañías de videojuegos no tienen ideologías, solo buscan ganar dinero, y se los digo yo que es literalmente lo que estudio.

Si Activision confirmara que sus personajes tienen valores reaccionarios, conservadores o machistas, se meterían en problemas con la prensa, los jugadores y las redes sociales.

📌 Ejemplo de cómo reaccionaría la gente:

Si dijeran que Adler es misógino: "¿En serio están glorificando a un personaje que trata mal a las mujeres? Qué asco."

Si dijeran que Adler es feminista: "Lo arruinaron. Ahora quieren hacer ver que los tipos rudos de la Guerra Fría eran woke. Qué ridículo."

Si ninguna opción los beneficia, es más fácil simplemente no decir nada.

Solución de Activision:

Dejar todo a la interpretación del jugador.

Si se les pregunta, decir frases genéricas como: "Adler respeta la competencia sin importar el género."

Evitar cualquier diálogo en el juego que lo haga sonar demasiado extremo en cualquier dirección.

5- Lo mas importante: Porque la historia de Call of Duty no es sobre moralidad, sino sobre acción.

Si Call of Duty fuera una saga de RPGs con decisiones morales profundas, entonces tendrían que explorar el machismo, el racismo y el clasismo dentro del ejército.

Pero Call of Duty es una saga de disparos y misiones militares. Su historia no está diseñada para cuestionar la moral de sus personajes, sino para hacer que las misiones se sientan épicas. 

En Cold War, Adler secuestra y manipula a Bell de una forma que, en cualquier otro juego, lo haría ver como un villano. Pero el juego no los condena ni los presenta como "malos", porque el punto no es analizar su ética, sino mostrar escenas impactantes.

Si esto pasa con la tortura, ¿por qué explorarían el machismo o el conservadurismo de los personajes? No lo harían, porque ese no es el enfoque del juego.

Mantener la historia centrada en la acción y la guerra, no en la moral de los personajes.

No hacer que el jugador cuestione demasiado sus acciones.

Evitar diálogos que muestren posturas extremas. Mantener solo las conversaciones que dan contexto.

Conclusión: Call of Duty es una fantasía militar, no un análisis social

Adler, Woods, Mason, Hudson y Weaver fueron criados en entornos profundamente conservadores, nacionalistas y machistas. Si existieran en la vida real, es lógico pensar que tendrían prejuicios de su época.

Pero Activision jamás va a admitirlo abiertamente, porque:

No pueden arriesgarse a alienar a su público moderno.

No quieren que el ejército o la CIA se vean mal.

Sus personajes deben seguir siendo "cool" y atractivos.

Evitar la controversia siempre significa más ventas.

Call of Duty es un shooter, no una exploración de la moralidad.

En resumen, los personajes de Call of Duty probablemente eran machistas, conservadores y prejuiciosos, pero el juego nunca lo va a mostrar porque no conviene. Prefieren mantenerlos ambiguos y funcionales, para que cada jugador los interprete como quiera.

[ge-nde-rr-env-y]

i played owen carvour in a production of spies in sydney, and tcb i have a confession i added a line. in the man behind the curtain reveal, owen says "if it hadn't been for my spot on aim and interest in foreign policy, i might have been an actor." i had about a month between application and audition and i was sitting on the first paragraph for so long and i got a bit bored. so i added "and you know, being blackmailed by the english" to that list. it added this manic, pained spark to the moment. fuel for the fire.

i dont know what joey thinks about owens history, but i gave him a timeline. born 1926 (nov 14th. scorpio bitch.), his fine family home destroyed in the Blitz, he enlists for some income (and maybe to escape home) at 17 in 1943, too young, but he's slick and clever enough to pass as an adult. 1945, right before the end of the war, he sees something he shouldnt have. the higher ups in a below the table deal that could ruin a lot of rich and powerful peoples lives if it reaches the wrong hands. owen carvours hands were the wrong hands. but he's a remarkable soldier, he's quick, he's a master tactician, and he's Good At Lying. hes useful. so instead of taking him out. someone says "hey kid. howd you like to be a secret agent. -also if you say no you'll die-" no choice. he'll continue to live at the behest of a governments will.

he doesnt Like being a spy, but its not the worst thing in the world. he likes the more decadent aspects, certainly, and deception not only comes naturally, but brings a sort of thrill.

he doesn't like being a spy until he meets curt mega. this part of his history is a bit blurry, but i imagine them meeting sometime near 1952 (because of the song Video Killed The Radio Star), surely on the job somewhere. curt makes spying fun. and curt is the first real thing owen has had reliably since 1943. he doesnt change, hes delightfully predictable, and despite him appearing somewhat less intelligent than owen, he has this knack for seeing straight through to owens heart. curt is daring, where owen might be intially more cautious. curt has the guts to get the two of them *into* situations, where owen has the tactician skill to get them *out*.

i think owen got comfortable. tragically, the two of them were so in sync, so reliant on each other, that he didnt see the fall coming at all.

it wasnt the fall that hurt. it was watching curt walk away. he'd always thought that if this were to happen, theyd go down together.

CHIMERA found him in the rubble, a boy who'd always been controlled, who'd never really got a chance to live a life of his own, and saw a man who was easy both to manipulate, and to empower.

they weren't aggressive about their agenda because they knew what would happen. the founder/ceo (a man i have decided is named Thomas) simply let owen recover in their facilities and let him free when he was able to leave, with an explanation of their plan, and an offer of further help should he require it.

owen broke within a month. a string of killings across europe simply attributed to an individual named The Deadliest Man Alive. CHIMERA drags owen back by the scruff of his neck.

"what the hell do you think you're doing."

"what? who are they going to arrest? owen carvours fucking dead."

its very important to me that owen wasnt brainwashed by CHIMERA. every choice has to come from him because the catharsis of him fully believing in the ideology he carries out with his chest for the first time is just delicious.

he doesnt. hate curt. i dont think. he loves curt, and he hates the institution of Espionage that forced them into this. but ultimately, that institution is so driven into curt that owen cant get what he really wants, which is to break curt out of that and have him all to himself. coldest goodbye reprise is a moment of sorrowful acceptance for both of them. owen understands that curt is always going to be a spy, no matter what, and giving up on the fantasy he had.

[darth-jess]

To the Anti-Jedi/Pro-Anakin Crowd

Pt. 3 of It's Okay to Love the Jedi and Anakin at the Same Time

(See my other posts –> It's Okay to Love Anakin and the Jedi at the Same Time, and To the Anti-Anakin/Pro-Jedi Crowd)

The Jedi Order (regardless of whether you ascribe to Canon or Legends) is an incredibly beautiful religious order that survived for thousands of years with a philosophy of compassion and understanding, as well as a dedication to preserving life and protecting those who could not protect themselves.

When you think about who Anakin is at his core– someone who very literally risks his own life to help others with no thought of reward as a nine year old boy– he easily embodies what it means to be a Jedi, and Qui-Gon recognizes this.

For me personally, it doesn't make sense to love Anakin and hate the Jedi Order, because Anakin truly loved being a Jedi. And the only thing more important to him than being a Jedi was being with Padmé.

We pro-Anakin people can discuss all we want about how the Jedi wronged Anakin, but it will never change the fact that being a Jedi was his calling and he loved it. It was his passion. He felt like he was truly doing good as a Jedi. Which is why Padmé never asked (and never would have asked) Anakin to leave. She knew how much it meant to him, she understood the purpose it gave him.

We also cannot ignore the fact that the Jedi Order is not perfectly represented by its members. Just as we cannot pick out one single person from any religion and say, "All people from that religion are like this" we also cannot pick out one (or even a few) Jedi and say the same.

I think a lot of people are overly critical of the Jedi Order because there were many Jedi who were not perfect Jedi. Yet this is a bit of a ridiculous standard to hold anyone to. Every single Jedi, Master Yoda included, was often tested by their circumstances and sometimes they failed.

Even the very best do not always succeed.

Yet, the failings of the Jedi Order in the Prequels are not due to a flawed core ideology, they are due to the mistakes of good people with good intentions, under the intense pressure of war and the manipulations of a Sith Lord.

What it means to be a Jedi is an ideal that no one will ever fully embody. Because ideals, while perfect in conception, are interpreted and played out by imperfect people– because everyone is flawed, no one is perfect, it's a fact of existence. Jedi like Yoda and Qui-Gon are a few of the (many) Jedi who do a wonderful (if imperfect) job of embodying the Jedi Ideal. But then you have Jedi like Ki-Adi Mundi (at least in Legends) who is so emotionally distant he seems less compassionate and more cold.

I firmly believe it is unfair to judge the entire philosophy of the Jedi Order by its members who do a poor job of embodying the Jedi Ideal, or even on the mistakes better Jedi make.

The Jedi Order is not some cult that forces people into it– parents can decide whether or not to give up their child to the Jedi, and that child can choose to leave at any time.

Even in the Revenge of the Sith novelization, Anakin decides he's going to leave the Jedi Order when he finds out Padmé is pregnant. He could have left the Jedi Order at any time before that, he could have lived happily with his rich wife. But when Anakin makes this decision, he is not running from the Jedi, he is running toward his family.

If he could have remained a Jedi and had a family with Padmé, he absolutely would have.

Anakin truly believed in being a Jedi. He made it a part of who he was as a person, and even though he broke the Jedi code of conduct on multiple occasions, he still believed in it. It's why in the Revenge of the Sith novelization he feels so awful about the way he killed Dooku– he understood it was wrong, and not the Jedi way, and he doesn't feel good about it.

Nearing the end of the Clone Wars, Anakin may have lost faith in (at least some of) the decisions of the Jedi Council, but Anakin doesn't ever lose faith in the Jedi as a whole– until he's given no other choice, when Mace Windu is about to kill Palpatine.

(See my post –> Was Mace Windu About to Defeat Sidious? and my post –> Anakin's Breaking Point where I use quotes from the ROTS novelization and the movie to discuss Palpatine's terrifying manipulation of Anakin and the battle in the Chancellor's Office.)

The only reason he betrays the Jedi is because he believes it is the only way to save Padmé, and this is made abundantly clear in the Revenge of the Sith novelization. He doesn't hate the Jedi, but he cannot imagine living without Padmé.

Even when Anakin says, "From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!" in Revenge of the Sith, it's more because the Jedi are standing in his way. The Jedi would not make him a Jedi Master– and he didn't really care about the rank, it was more that he wanted to read the secret texts in the Jedi Archives that only Jedi Masters could read to find a way to save Padmé. And then, Palpatine will not teach him how to save Padmé until the Jedi are destroyed.

In conclusion to this three post series, the Jedi Order wronged Anakin in so many ways, and we can't overlook that. But it was less due to Jedi philosophy, and more due to Jedi politics and the interpretations of certain Jedi at the time.

Also, Anakin wasn't brainwashed by the Jedi– he regularly disobeyed the Council and carved out his own path. And yet, being a Jedi was still very meaningful to Anakin and we can't overlook that either.

I realize I'm probably leaving stuff out, but this post was getting too long. If you have any problems or concerns, feel free to send me an ask about it!

[nenekobasu]

I’ve been reading some of your analysis posts for a while, and one thing you keep emphasizing is how Isagi is a key in Blue Lock, while Kaiser is Blue and a Lock. And another is how Isagi is a gun in a team of swords

I agree a lot on what you’ve said about Kaiser (neo egoist, new hero), but I’d like to talk about Isagi.

Is it so bad that he is a key in Blue Lock and a gun in Bastard München?

For a while now, I’ve thought of Isagi being too much of a goody two-shoes. He listens to everything Ego says without question, and he always look as if he has some kind of mindblowing eureka moment when he does. I think it would be nice if he challenges Ego on some stuff and gain his own unique football philosophy, similar to how Kaiser challenges Noa to instead play like how he likes.

Maybe that’s the point of Isagi being a key and a gun.

Although I admit it’s too early for Isagi to deviate from Ego’s ideals, as he himself can’t seem to visualize past it yet, this build-up is just in time.

hi, thanks for the question. if i'm understanding the ask correctly, the sum of your argument seems to be "the point of isagi's nel arc development is that isagi demonstrates he can challenge egojin in the realm of thinking/ideals/etc, by creating something original to him" (if this is wrong i'm sorry and please disregard the rest of this answer)

starting off, i can't refute this in a satisfying way. the reason is because the argument seems motivated by a dissatisfaction with blue lock's pre-ubers match presentation of isagi and egojin. my belief about egojin is that he's the author-insert who acts as the fullest representation of blue lock's ideology, and as such occupies a position of thematic correctness within blue lock; isagi following egojin, then, is him fulfilling his purpose as the protagonist of blue lock, embracing his story's ideology and becoming its embodiment. this is a basic aspect of blue lock that i accept as 'correct', regardless of how i feel about it being so; from this standpoint, any instance of isagi deviating from his purpose will be unacceptable to me.

with that in mind, i think "isagi becoming a key and a gun" was where the nature of the story being told was transformed. before, in manshine (when isagi followed egojin and was 'correct'), isagi fulfilled his ideal form as a god-devil under great pressure, and bonded with yukki the sword— at that point, the story being told was that "isagi, under lock, becomes the heart of a sword." for the story to transform into one where "isagi, freed by a key, becomes a gun" was only possible when isagi betrayed who he was in the previous story.

since i accept the previous "lock and sword" story as what is 'correct' within blue lock, i feel the need to condemn this current story. but i understand that, for anyone dissatisfied with the previous story or with what blue lock advances as the 'correct' option, any change would be refreshing and/or a cause for hope. i can't argue with the frustrations of someone who (from my standpoint) rejects one of blue lock's core elements, as i, too, have only accepted this element not out of agreement but out of convenience.

overall i regret this response, as i realize i've basically just told you "yes it's bad because blue lock said it's bad which means it's bad." this exposes only my acceptance of egojin's correctness, and with it my acceptance of blue lock's message. it's important for me as a reader that blue lock remains contained within itself, so i can't reject the frustrations of anyone who dislikes it. that being said, i'll try to make another argument for why i condemn isagi's "gun and key" development.

to make something clear, isagi himself isn't the key— hiori is. and, isagi didn't organically become a gun on his own— hiori made him into one. instead of egojin feeding isagi ideas for how to become number 1, hiori was the one giving birth to isagi as their number 1 striker. isagi doesn't meaningfully challenge egojin, because all isagi did was replace egojin with hiori. 

so while the current isagi opposes egojin's teachings, he only developed to do so by latching onto a more convenient version of egojin who was capable of giving him immediate glory. the cause of isagi's opposition towards egojin was not a desire for rebellion, but forgetfulness. if anything, his "gun and key" development reveals how dependent he is on other people to give him direction and form his own ideas… as such, i'm incapable of seeing any silver lining to isagi's development

(as a final note, i understand the intent behind the isagi-egojin to kaiser-noa comparison, but while i do absolutely think creating his own ideal to challenge noa is core to kaiser's development i also think that this doesn't cut into noa's position as a 'correct' figure within blue lock, and that kaiser challenging noa leads to him 'following' noa in a true sense— for instance, kaiser's early test run of his ideal in ubers match leads to his ch.220 goal, which is eerily similar to noa's barcha goal. kaiser breaking from noa ultimately leads to him becoming more noa-like) (also i don't think of egojin as someone with an "ideal" in the same way as the master strikers but i haven't thought about it enough)

in any case i've done my best to communicate my beliefs about blue lock, but i understand if this answer fails to satisfy your objections. there were other approaches towards answering this that relied on an examination of the "key" and "gun" symbolism, but it would have looped around to being about the same central issue of whether the 'correctness' blue lock presents should be accepted by the reader. to take one final swing, though, i want to add that isagi is the chosen protagonist of blue lock, bound by blue lock's confines… from the beginning, true escape for him was a fated impossibility. i want isagi's current ideal of "freedom" to be thought of in this context of a deeper incontrovertible oppression, where isagi yoichi is only the protagonist because he exists in the prison called blue lock (manga). no amount of partnering with a key or shooting his enemies dead will change that isagi is trapped, but the only reason he doesn't realize this fact is because he's incapable of seeing what lies beyond his own, tragically limited perspective

[wordsandrobots]

I was writing something else broadly about fandom experience but got thrown off by Current Events, so here's some more thoughts on McGillis and fascism. Spoilers for Iron-Blooded Orphans (maybe I should just say not to read my posts until you've watched it?).

On the one hand, I stand by the position McGillis' internally-stated objectives and ideology do not fall neatly into what we usually mean when we talk about fascism or even really a proto-fascist philosophy like Nietzscheism. He doesn't believe a particular group of people is inherently superior or better suited to ruling. He seems to believe instead that everyone has potential for greatness and most simply lack awareness of this fact. The masses aren't sheep, in need of protection or illumination. They're unfairly restrained beasts, blind to their own power.

But it's slippery, isn't it? Because his effort to bring about the level playing field he imagines necessary to unchain himself and others is couched in appeals to an imagined past. The notion his faction holds the truth of Gjallarhorn, contra the reality of the present, that's *very* fascistic. And I wonder how much of this can be traced to expressing individualistic ideals within a hierarchical, aristocratic system.

Gjallarhorn is dedicated to enforcing rigid class and ethnic divisions. It's certainly the larger part of the fascist-coded elements in IBO, simply by virtue of being an oppressive colonial police. Even if we were to strictly define 'fascism' as 'colonialism turned inwards on the imperial core', we're provided plenty of instances of them trampling over the Earth blocs as well as the colonies.

From a writing perspective, this makes for an interesting comparison between McGillis and Char Aznable. In Char's Counterattack, it's clear the erstwhile Red Comet does not believe in the Neo Zeonic cause as such. He overtly resents 'playing the clown' for the sake of inspiring the troops he requires to enable his plans. Char's overall arc throughout the first Gundam run is of a man searching for a cause and more often than not failing to stick the landing (at least, that's my read on it). In the end, he acts purely out of despair and spite, dragging hundreds along for the ride.

Yet when it comes to McGillis, while there are similar disjuncts between what he says publicly and his private thoughts, he doesn't resent being the centre of attention. He revels in the performance and the chance to act out his fantasy of being the new Agnika Kaieru. It's affirming for him to have people follow him. Which raises the question of whether he could have realised his beliefs in a coherent manner. I mean, that's not a question, exactly. The answer is obviously no, given he is ultimately revealed as extremely vulnerable to the emotional contradictions of his position.

Still, one of the things about fascism is that its contradictions and hypocrisies are irrelevant compared to what it actually *does*. I find it easy to script an alternate version where McGillis wins and everything collapses into dictatorship, in the name of his nominal egalitarianism. Struggle is key to his ideology: the powerful will always come out on top. He'd simply have removed the long-term stabilising factor provided by an aristocratic system. Anything that followed would necessitate a turn towards authoritarianism. Essentially, as sympathetic as McGillis may be framed, he remains ruthless and obsessed with strength.

Ah. That's it, isn't it? The main crossover between McGillis' individualism and fascism: a regard for strength above all else. It's a dicey thing to bake into a character, because although strength may be framed as protective or useful, making it a virtue always carries immediate exclusionary power. And for McGillis we have it positioned as a flaw, as the source of his loneliness and his rejection of those who care for him. Let's not beat around the bush: he is wrong, textually. Both his own failures and Tekkadan refute the position he holds. The slipperiness I mentioned is a deliberate choice, his thoughts and words juxtaposed with his actions and the results, to evoke a man who does not see as clearly as he thinks he does.

There is a dishonesty to McGillis, in the sense he doesn't acknowledge anything going against what he wants to believe, until it's too late. And perhaps that is where he truly is possessed of fascistic thinking. He has to be correct, regardless of what he does, regardless of what others say, because to be otherwise would crack the foundations of his self. 'I am a strong person', 'I am a good person', 'I am the right kind of person'.

Not a class, nor a bloodline, but a strong individual, possessed of a drive to strive and fight - possessing, that is, the only qualities he was willing to make room for in his brave new world.