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

[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.

[mxtxfanatic]

Everytime I see someone in the tgcf fandom says that Xie Lian needed to be humbled and learned a lesson, I get so angry. A lesson for what exactly? Being a 17 year old who was optimistic and idealistic and correct in all of his ideas ? One who just happened to be a prince but wanted to help people with the power he had ? And 800 years of misfortunes is not a lesson, it's just more trauma and his character development in the present is unlearning some of the way he dealt with said trauma during those 800 years.

Also that idea is what Jun Wu has been trying to do to Xie Lian for 800 years, why are we,as a fandom, following the antagonist's lead on that one ?

“Being a 17 year old who was optimistic and idealistic and correct in all of his ideas?”

Yes, this is what people are mad about 😭😭😭 A teen was idealistic about the world and said that people are capable AND willing to do and be better when given the chance and resources and without outside manipulation, the narrative proved him right in every way during every arc, and fandom has hated him ever since.

[floralscented]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[communistkenobi]

went on a terf blocking spree and they were sharing this tweet around

and like obviously this is factually wrong - “homosexual rights” happens primarily through de-pathologising homosexuality, quite literally an effort to redefine sexuality and sexual activity, which was commonly followed by a legal redefinition of marriage in many states as not only being between a man and a woman, and parenthood as not being strictly done by a mother & father - that’s redefining gender categories! Gender doesn’t exist as a repressive force independent of political & legal institutions. Universal paternity leave is a redefinition of gendered reproductive labour through employment and labour policy, it is a structural economic benefit that incentivises fathers to participate in child rearing. This is a (limited, partial) redefinition of what it “means” to be a man, just as gay marriage is a redefinition of what it means to be a husband or wife, just as allowing gays to adopt is a redefinition of motherhood and fatherhood. 

And this denial of being in an “ideological cult” is also intentionally downplaying the massive homophobic outcry that gays were/are in fact trying to destroy the meaning of family and marriage - that gay marriage would let you marry your dog, that gay parents are all pedophiles, that even expanding the definition of the nuclear family to include cis gays would threaten to destroy all categories of familial and civic life. Denying that gay rights are not viewed as an “ideological cult” of their own is laughably homophobic.

Taking this argument to its natural conclusion - that cis gays just want to be “left alone,” they aren’t here to “redefine” anything unlike the transsexuals - means a comprehensive denial of the law as an institution that produces patriarchal and gendered violence, that societal conceptions of gender (and the oppression produced by those conceptions) are unaffected by legal redefinitions of family and marriage. An absurd claim! This argument denies patriarchy as a social force, assigning it instead to this mystical abstract force that exists “out there” in nature, unable to be punctured or altered by any social response. Like tbh if you believe that why even fight for gay marriage at all? Just accept your lot in life as broken men and women with a mental disorder that makes you incapable of raising a family.

But of course they don’t actually really believe this, they know what side their bread is buttered on. Cis gays got themselves removed from the ICD and DSM, got gay marriage legalised in a bunch of countries (the tweet’s exclusive use of past tense when talking about gay rights implies the fight for gay equality is finished, an obviously self-centred western & homophobic argument) and said fuck you got mine! The king granted us entrance into his castle unlike you freaks, all we ever wanted was a seat at his table. Liberation is not the goal, cis gays just want to be permitted equal access to the power of cisheterosexual society. This tweet is arguing that gender is not a relevant mechanism in the oppression of homosexuals, that their oppression is altogether something else, unrelated to ideas of what it means to be a woman or man, because they want access to the violence those categories produce. Destroying these categories makes this goal unattainable for them, and so now cis gays are continuing to pivot to reactionary opposition to trans rights. But don’t take my word for it - I’m just repeating what this guy’s saying!

[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.

[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!

[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.

[tomorrowusa]

Mike Godwin is an internet legend. He was the first known person to use the word meme in its internet context. He's also the originator of what's become known as "Godwin's Law".

In a recent interview, Mr. Godwin stated that comparisons of Donald Trump to Hitler or Nazis are fair and appropriate.

So to be clear — do you think comparing Trump’s rhetoric to Hitler or Nazi ideology is fair? I would go further than that. I think that it would be fair to say that Trump knows what he’s doing. I think he chose that rhetoric on purpose. But yeah, there are some real similarities. If you’ve read Hitler’s own writing — which I don’t recommend to anyone, by the way — you see a dehumanizing dimension throughout, but the speeches are an even more interesting case. What we have of Hitler’s speeches are mostly recorded, and they’re not always particularly coherent. What you see in efforts to compile his speeches are scholars trying to piece together what they sounded like. So, it’s a little bit like going to watch a standup comedian who’s hitting all of his great lines. You see again and again Hitler repeating himself. He’ll repeat the same lines or the same sentiment on different occasions. With Trump, whatever else you might say about him, he knows what kinds of lines generate the kinds of reactions that he wants. The purpose of the rallies is to have applause lines, because that creates good media, that creates video. And if he repeats his lines again and again, it increases the likelihood that a particular line will be repeated in media reporting. So that’s right out of the playbook. You could say the ‘vermin’ remark or the ‘poisoning the blood’ remark, maybe one of them would be a coincidence. But both of them pretty much makes it clear that there’s something thematic going on, and I can’t believe it’s accidental. The question is why do it on purpose. Well, my opinion is that Trump believes, for whatever reason, that there is some part of his base that really wants to hear this message said that way, and he’s catering to them. He finds it both rewarding personally for himself and he believes it’s necessary to motivate people to help him get elected again.

He adds this cautionary comment about the state of American democracy...

When I was growing up and being taught the American system of government, we would always be taught that the U.S. government has checks and balances in its design, so you can’t take it over with a sentiment of the moment. But I think what we’ve learned is that the institutions that protect us are fragile. History suggests that all democracies are fragile. So we have to be on the alert for political movements that want to undermine democratic institutions, because the purpose of democratic institutions is not to put the best people in power, it’s to maintain democracy even when the worst people are in power. That’s a big lift.

[beardedmrbean]

When Charlotte Tredgett won a place at King’s College London to study philosophy, the bright, enthusiastic teenager envisaged thoughtful exchanges, intense discussions – even heated debates – about the most pressing moral and ethical questions of the day.

Indeed, the university prospectus promises just that. The course will, it says, “equip students with the skills to develop, analyse and communicate arguments” and “hone their critical thinking” in a “focused environment with plenty of feedback and discussion”.

But the reality was very different.

“When classes started, it became abundantly clear that fellow students did not welcome views questioning the prevailing ideologies around gender, religion, capitalism or colonialism,” says the student, from Colchester.

An hour-long seminar on gender in philosophy provided the ultimate illustration of how “wokeness” is stifling debate on campus.

“It was the most silent seminar I’ve ever attended,” says Tredgett, 20. “We had read an academic paper and were supposed to talk about it, but barely a word was said.”

The teaching assistant running the class worked valiantly through a list of questions, waiting 30 awkward seconds for a response, before giving up and answering each himself.

“For an hour, it was the sound of his voice as he ploughed on,” says the undergraduate. “In that whole time, there were about two comments from the group of about 10 students, and those were very carefully worded – almost rehearsed.”

Self-censoring undergraduates were simply terrified to speak in a climate where saying the “wrong thing” can make you a social pariah.

“It wasn’t that everyone in the room was a ‘sex realist’ or gender critical and afraid to ‘out’ themselves,” says the philosophy student. “There will have been people who were gender positive and people who didn’t know either way, but everyone was scared of wording things wrongly, and the reaction of their peers if they did.”

Tredgett, who attended an independent school on a scholarship and gained four A*s in her A-levels, had already been on the receiving end of students’ moralising “wokeness”, after revealing to her flatmates that she was a Eurosceptic and would have voted for Brexit.

As she explained her views on the EU and British sovereignty, they accused her of not caring about human rights and began to laugh, filming her on their mobiles and sending the footage to their friends.

“There were groups of people whom I had never met who knew me as ‘the racist girl’,” said Tredgett. “If you disagree with prevailing ideological views, you are not just wrong, you are morally wrong and evil, and that justifies almost bullying tactics.”

Ostracising those who are perceived to be out of line has become the punishment of choice across campuses.

In an ongoing case, Leeds University student Connie Shaw was sacked by her student union from presenting on student radio because of her gender critical views. She was told she will only be reinstated if she makes a written apology and takes “mandatory training”. She has also been told by pals that they were warned off making friends with her by fellow students.

This cancel culture can have deadly consequences. Alexander Rogers was in his third year at Oxford University when he took his own life after being ostracised when a student expressed discomfort about a sexual encounter with him. At last month’s inquest into the suicide, the corner warned that “self-policing” was occurring without proper investigation or evidence, and posed a significant risk to student mental health and wellbeing.

Its “chilling effect” on free speech has prompted some American colleges, including faculties at Harvard and the newly opened University of Austin, to introduce “Chatham House Rule” – where comments made in class are non-attributable. It is hoped that lecturers and students will speak more freely in a culture where their words will not be dissected on campus or on social media.

In Britain, university bosses are beginning to admit the severity of the problem. Robert Van de Noort, the vice-chancellor of the University of Reading, warned MPs recently that “rigid ideas and self-censorship” were creating echo chambers on campus.

Research backs this up. A study by the Higher Education Policy Institute, which questioned students on free speech issues in 2016 and again in 2022, revealed they had become “significantly less supportive of free expression”. Some 38 per cent believed “universities are becoming less tolerant of a wide range of viewpoints” – rising to 51 per cent for male students – up from less than a quarter in 2016.

Meanwhile, a global poll of academics found that 80 per cent in the UK agreed that free speech was more limited than 10 years ago, with staff self-censoring out of fear of upsetting or being complained about by students or colleagues. One British psychology academic explained that “any diversion from the accepted line” on issues such as gender, colonialism, the Israel-Palestine conflict and neurodiversity was seen as “meaning you are a bad person rather than just someone who disagrees”.

Link here, it didn't want to embed

Against this backdrop, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, passed under the last government to offer protections on campus, has been paused by the Labour Government to allow it to “consider options”.

Heather McKee, a psychology student at the University of Glasgow, blames the compulsion to condemn those with different views on the “critical social justice umbrella” that has descended like a shroud over UK and US universities in the past decade. Trans activism, critical race theory (CRT) and the decolonisation agenda simplify complex interactions and divide the world into the “oppressed” and “oppressors”.

“Believing in women-only spaces or in tighter borders or in a meritocracy – these are views that are held by the vast majority of people in this country,” said McKee. “Yet because of imposed groupthink, students and academics are too afraid to voice them and are being punished when they do.”

In a recent online discussion about ethics, the mature student brought up the groundbreaking Cass review, which criticised gender services for children and young people and led to a UK ban on the prescribing of puberty blockers to those under 18.

“I got crickets [silence],” says McKee, 44. “Either no one knew what it was, or if they did, they didn’t want to talk about it. When I spoke to one of my lecturers about this, she simply talked about the university being an inclusive environment. I thought, ‘Yes, but not inclusive to my view that sex is binary and biology is important’.”

But some students are beginning to fight back. McKee, 44, is the convenor of the student branch of Academics For Academic Freedom (AFAF). It has more than 1,700 followers on social media and student membership numbers are in double figures. But it is a hard slog persuading young people to put their heads above the parapet.

For McKee, campaigning for free speech is not just about being able to voice her views in seminars without meeting tumbleweed, it is about protecting students’ interests.

She cites members who are studying clinical psychology who are being taught that CRT – which purports that Western structures, institutions and knowledge uphold white supremacy and are inherently racist – is “the truth” rather than a contested theory.

“They are white males and being taught that they are privileged, that they can’t imagine what it is like to be a black woman, for instance. They are training to be psychologists and are supposed to help people work through their problems, but they are being told they can never understand. What are they supposed to do with that?”

McKee and Tredgett are concerned that speaking out will count against them – at university and in their future careers – but both feel the fight is bigger than that.

“There is a shockingly militant echo chamber within the communities of people that are supposed to be pursuing truth,” warns Tredgett. “This is not hysteria, and it is not a small number of cases. It is real and is happening all over the country.”

[tokiro07]

Ichi the Witch ch.10 thoughts

[(N)Ice Boat]

(Topics: thematic analysis - Death for Death/talent, character analysis - Hisame, speculation - Kumugi/Magik/Minakata)

Dammit, I was wrong again, Ichi really did just make sashimi instead of turning Hisame into an outfit...I think @wickedsick predicted that, so good job, Wick

It was certainly well telegraphed, he was literally fileting her, and Desscaras/Kumugi were wearing the iconic sushi chef headband, I just was hoping for something a little more on-theme I guess

I'm not at all disappointed in this outcome, mind you, I'm just bitter about how I keep whiffing on what seem like easy pitches. I'll probably feel a lot better about it on reread, but right now I'm just a bit embarrassed

Enough lamenting though, let's focus on the chapter itself!

Good Enough to Eat

The sashimi boat really is the perfect solution to this trial, honestly. First and foremost, it's a solid reflection of Ichi's philosophy of Death for Death. As Ichi says in the flashback, the sashimi boat is an artistic and ritualistic expression of both respect and gratitude for the prey, the core ideology behind only killing when it is necessary for survival and not wanton destruction in the name of entertainment. The prey's life is not more valuable than the predator's, so Ichi wants to honor the life that he has taken for his own by treating it with dignity

Moreso than just the spirit behind Death for Death, it is also literally taking that philosophy to its logical conclusion by reflecting Hisame's own actions upon her. Hisame enjoyed putting her victims on display, making their frozen corpses into macabre architecture, so it's only fair that the same would be done to her. A punishment that fits the crime

However, it also is what allows Ichi to actually pass the trial because while it is a gruesome fate, it is not actually a punishment for Hisame. Like I said, it's a reflection of her own artistic sensibilities turned back on her; she is now the one being put on display as a grotesque art piece - of course she'd find that more beautiful than being trussed up in flowers or frills! She was telegraphing it the whole time!

It's also a fun play on Desscarass' attempt to cheat last week by saying true beauty is on the inside - by rending and exposing her flesh, Hisame can see her literal inner beauty in a way that is both novel and a perfect encapsulation of her sense of aesthetic

I do think that turning her into an outfit would have ultimately had the same effect, but focusing on Ichi's established specialties works much better as a bookend for this arc's themes

Playing to Your Strengths

While I initially wanted Kumugi to learn the lesson of individual capability directly, having her see it firsthand through Ichi's talents is a great way to set her arc on a slow burn rather than simply cooking it all the way through in one shot

Before, she was simply told of the idea, and now she's merely witnessing it in action, but she has yet to personally experience or internalize it, steps that will come later as she's forced to contend with her own shortcomings and insecurities

My guess is that she's meant to be more of the Usopp of the team, who even to this day is struggling to recognize just how far he's come in his personal journey. Like how Usopp had to learn to be brave in increasingly personally challenging scenarios, Kumugi is likely going to be put in scenarios that make her feel less and less suited to them, but through emulating Ichi, will slowly come to learn that her unique capabilities make her just as skilled as Ichi in her own way

But again, I'm getting ahead of myself. For now, what matters is that Desscaras' line about Ichi doing things that only he can do seems to have resonated with Kumugi, even if she doesn't fully understand why just yet

Speaking of things we don't fully understand yet, this chapter has left me with a couple of questions that I'm very excited to see addressed in the future

Gotta Catch 'Em All

First, as this is the first time we're seeing a non-combative trial, is it common for Magiks to be so peaceful when they become magic stones? Obviously Uroro was distraught, but should we expect most of them to be satisfied or even happy to be bested?

And for that matter, what does it actually mean to be turned into a magic stone? We know they can be returned to normal upon the death of their spell holder, but is it more of a seal or a cycle of death and rebirth?

Cus if it's the latter, then Magik psychology must be fascinating, as they're likely able to accept their deaths because they have such clarity of purpose in their lives. If it's the former, though, that raises a bunch more questions about their cognition

Are they conscious while in stone form? Is there any circumstance where they can be retrieved?

Uroro is obviously an exception where he can manifest of his own will, but when Ichi cast Inazuri and Inazuri appeared, was that simply an apparition to represent him, or was it literally Inazuri coming to summon the lightning? He didn't say or do anything, so it seems like it was just imagery, but is it possible that with more advanced mastery of a spell that a Witch can fully materialize a Magik as a familiar?

I'm starting to suspect that this might be the case, as Hisame's last words were "I wouldn't mind letting you take me on a date." Perhaps she meant it metaphorically to represent giving herself to Ichi as a stone, but with how bombastic and unique her personality was, I think it would be a huge shame if she's just gone from the cast forever

On the other hand, though, how many Magiks is Ichi going to acquire? He already has three, and one is already a major cast member; will the other two and all subsequent Magiks become a rotating ensemble cast, throwing in their two cents whenever the author deems it funny or interesting but forgetting about them the rest of the time because there's just too much to keep track of?

Or will they simply be inert, effectively dead to the narrative and only contributing as MacGuffins to solve increasingly specific and harrowing challenges with no semblance of personality or individuality ever again?

Both options sound bad when you put them like that, though they both serve a specific purpose to the narrative that would help it flow. I'm pretty sure that's why Shaman King abandoned the Pokemon-esque ghost of the week premise pretty early, since it wouldn't do to have Yoh juggling a bunch of side characters when one would perfectly suffice. Come to think of it, I think Kagamigami did the same thing...

Only time will tell, but I do hope there is a way for Ichi to connect with his Magiks on a more personal level, especially if it turns out that it's something Witches either weren't aware of or deliberately don't do to avoid forming personal attachments

Even if we don't get more insight into Ichi's relationships with Inazuri or Hisame, though, there is one relationship of his that I'm confident we're going to be seeing a lot more of

Teach a Man to Fish

I have no idea what role he's is going to play going forward or how long it's going to take to get there, but there is simply no way that Minakata isn't meant to be important

Minion to the Big Bad? The Big Bad himself? The Big Good?? I don't know! But mentors that protagonists fondly remember and were heavily inspired by as children always do one of two things: turn evil or die horribly. Sometimes both! Lookin' at you, Kite HxH

I don't want to speculate too much since we've basically learned nothing concrete about him, but being that he's a wanderer with a mysteriously hidden face, I'll bet right now that Ichi's going to meet an oddly large man later, walk away none the wiser, and then the man is going to pull out the deer skull mask and say something cryptic about how much Ichi has grown

Buuut just to make a particularly wild shot in the dark now with no basis whatsoever: I won't be surprised if it turns out that Minakata has something to do with Ichi becoming a Witch. Maybe Minakata did something to him, maybe Minakata is also a Manwitch. Either way, there's definitely going to be an explanation for Ichi winning that lottery and Minakata is currently the best (and only) lead we've got on that

And with that, we've completed the first full story arc. It's definitely proving to be as fun as I expected it to be, I'm just surprised it's taken this long to establish a long-term goal. I won't be surprised if we get another mission to establish a bit more of a daily life-style pattern, but I worry in Jump's current climate that waiting too long to raise the stakes will prove detrimental to Ichi's longevity. It was around this point when Shigaraki showed up in Hero Academy, Geto showed up in JJK, and God was established as the antagonist in Undead Unluck, so I'd say we'll at least get a glimpse of the antagonist in the next few chapters hopefully

Until next time, let's enjoy life!

[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

[sokkastyles]

Hi,

Hope you are doing well.

I have come across the reblogs of The Reckoning of Roku and three things hit me.

The fact that the Air Nomads believe that the world would be better if everyone was a pacifist like them feels a bit like Sozin's thought process. This one is a reach, but I feel there is a small similarity.

I didn't understand the shot at the Fire Lady thing, because we are not shown anything about the Air Nuns mentioned in this novel. Is it a shot at fans? Because if so, this is a stupid attempt.

The novel feels like a deifying of the Air Nomads. That they were these pacifist people, but come to think of it, till book 3, I doubt it was implied that the Air Nomads were pacifist, to my recollection at least. And I doubt Aang's word can be taken into account, because no twelve year old will have an understanding of his culture.

I would like your thoughts on this.

The main problem with the "the world would be better if everyone were pacifists like us" thing is that it isn't inherently wrong. The world WOULD be better if everyone worked to end violence. The problem is that the novel and the series as a whole have a very shallow view of what pacifism actually is. They seem to think it means not eating meat and having a hands off approach to violent conflicts, while what Roku calls for is actual activism and bringing peace through justice. Gyatso declaring that wars would not exist if everyone were like the Air Nomads, while simultaneously advocating for not getting involved, does reek of the same logic Sozin used when he said that the world would be better off if the Fire Nation were to spread its greatness. Neither view is actually doing anything to promote peace.

And of course that doesn't mean Gyatso is just like Sozin, and it certainly doesn't mean that what happened to the Air Nomads was justified (a view I have seen expressed by no one except Aang stans accusing Zutara shippers of saying so in entirely bad faith). But a central theme of atla is that the Fire Nation thought they were the good guys. Their entire ideology was about the belief that they were making the world a better place, and any ideology that assumes the world would be better off if these other people were more like us, while not actually addressing conflicts, is an inherently flawed ideology.

Which would be great if, as I have seen some Aang stans say, also in bad faith arguments to hate on zutara shippers for pointing out bad writing, any of this were actually intentional. But the series is not actually interested in making Gyatso or any of the Air Nomads actual human beings. We're supposed to believe Gyatso is right simply because the Air Nomads are the good guys. And that's why what he says is dangerous. Nobody is saying the Air Nomads are not the good guys here. But it is glaring that the show put these words in the mouth of a character we are supposed to idealize, when the original show explored the dangers of that idealization as one of its main themes. It's because Gyatso is a good guy and a victim of genocide that the writers making him say this is so offensive.

The fire lady mention is absolutely a dig at zutara shippers, who invented the term because of the original show's deficit in depicting the lives of women. It feels like the creators are trying to dodge any accountability for their own sexism, something they have a history of doing. And yeah, it's telling that we still know nothing about Air nuns except that, according to Gyatso, there are "good reasons" for gender segregation. It reeks of "our sacred traditions vs their backwards sexism" as well as the creators once again trying to make excuses for their own sexism.

Which doesn't make any sense from a cultural perspective, but again, the franchise is not interested in depicting the Air Nomads as real people beyond the Shangri-La stereotype they've been running with. They don't even do a good job of trying to be progressive, because that line about how Air Nomads can move temples if their understanding of their gender shifts actually raises more questions than it answers, and just gives a gender essentialist and heteronormative view on lgbtq issues.

[thrown-away-opinions]

Watching "Why Do You Always Kill Gods in JPRGs?" and I am in awe of the stupidity on display.

>45 minutes of rudimentary Japanese/eastern history in broad strokes > glosses over the fact that Japan has basic capitalistic free trade and business for its entire history >no, fucking seriously, Japan had industry, independently owned businesses, the general free exchange of goods and services... otherwise known as capitalism. >Japan underwent a post-war economic boom >Some people get very rich and powerful during this boom primarily due to controlling the banking system with backing from a corrupt government >"Their new religion was... CAPITALISM." (paraphrased) >youtube essayist proceeds to explain at length the ways that forcibly aligning culture, religion, and government with private corporate interests is a bad thing (which it is, but it's not capitalism) >... but still constantly invokes "Capitalism" being forced on Japan from the West ("The False God") as the true evil in this narrative >Points to various examples in games where the bad guy is literally just the government and politicians, corrupt megacorps, giant evil monsters, and/or overt oppressive authoritarianism and tries to frame them as symbolic representations of western culture and Capitalism (spoken of as an evil ideology that makes people evil) >At no point do any of these stories (FF7, Persona 5, Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, etc) present the idea that anyone except the already corrupt and evil are in favor of oppressing/destroying/enslaving all humanity and the planet in the name of endless economic growth and power for power's sake. >Several examples are literally evil entities that demand destruction for the sake of destruction and say as much directly >essayist's explanation for why none of this seems obvious and so far detached from the far more clear messages in their stories is because Japan speaks in deep contextual code so as not to offend anyone >aka, essayist gets to assert his beliefs and you can't tell him he's wrong because you just don't get the triple-secret encoded message hidden under all the deep cultural context clues that only a true Japanese audience (or foreign weeb, apparently) would understand >his western examples of Capitalist metaphor are the Outer Worlds and Bioshock Infinite... games where corporatism and an overt pseudo-religious authoritarian are the villains >this guy is a goddamned lawyer, apparently.

This is so fucking stupid. I should have checked out the moment I detected that hint of venom when he named capitalism as the culprit, but morbid curiosity got the better of me. For a bit there, when he was talking about the economic bubble and the lost decade, it seemed like maybe he wasn't going to be totally retarded, but he sure proved me wrong.

The message behind the JRPG genre is often that protecting the world is good, amassing power for the sake of power is bad, and that with the power of friendship and grinding side quests, a ragtag gang of spunky kids can save the world from malicious extraterrestrial entities that aim to mindlessly consume.

And also that the SMT series and many other pieces of Japanese media invokes western religious iconography, names, and symbols because it sounds cool and mysterious to Japanese audiences. That's literally the direct explanation given by nearly every single game and anime writer when asked about all the obtuse and confusing mythology and symbolism in their games.