#they're hypocrites and lack self awareness

[dordey]

,

[davidtennantgenderenvy]

Addressing The Tinhatters: A Statement in Solidarity With @dtmsrpfcringe And Others

I've been active in this fandom for a little over a year, and in my time here I've kept my slate pretty clean. I try not to involve myself in drama and discourse, and when I see something I don't agree with online, most of the time I keep it to myself. I've been aware of the blogs I refer to in this post basically from the onset, but I've stayed quiet, partially to not come across as disrespecting others' opinions and preferences and partially to protect my peace and my own life as a creator. But what started as mostly harmless, if a bit unhinged and delusional, behavior, has turned on some fronts into unimaginable cruelty the likes of which I never imagined this fandom to be capable of. As someone who it seems people in this fandom have come to respect, I think it would be unfair and selfish for me to stay neutral any longer.

Fanfiction has been a genuinely transformative force in my life. It has helped me discover so much about my own relationships to love and desire, and I would never want to tell anyone that it is wrong for any ship to be that source of inspiration for them, including RPF. Nor do I think, as I've said, that it's inherently wrong to have speculative thoughts about David and Michael's sexualities. As someone who has been lucky enough to interact with David several times now, and probably will again, I choose not to do so myself in a public forum out of respect, but curiosity doesn't have to be invasive, and David and Michael being in loving partnerships with women certainly doesn't mean they can't be attracted to other genders too. There's nothing wrong with liking the idea of a relationship between David Tennant and Michael Sheen, or even, really, with believing they might have feelings for each other. If that's all you're doing, this post isn't about you. What I absolutely cannot excuse is the proliferation of hypocritical, nonsensical, and nasty rumors about the women in their lives.

Nothing Georgia Tennant or Anna Lundberg seems to do is ever good enough. Every expression of positivity is curated and phony, anything that could be perceived as negative vile and mean. I see these women attacked on a daily basis as partners, as mothers, as actresses. Georgia is simultaneously presenting a false ideal of a perfect, happy family for her own gains, while somehow at the same time being too irresponsible and incompetent to be a proper parent. Anna, a still young and up and coming actress herself, is expected to perform the ideal of an affectionate partner on social media, is perceived as unsupportive of Michael when she doesn't, when in reality she may simply be trying to make a name for herself in the industry without people solely associating her with the man she loves. Both of these women share in David and Michael's advocacy for marginalized communities, sometimes in different, more or less obvious ways. David and Michael are always brave and sincere, while Anna and Georgia's actions are always self serving and performative, though no evidence is ever given to indicate that the things they post or charities they support are any sort of cover or deflection. Nor are there ever any reasons given for their perceived lack of onscreen talent, other than that they're "boring" or don't have as many jobs as their husbands- never mind that both of them are in an extremely competitive industry and get perfectly respectable amounts of work, especially for mothers of young children. Worst of all, I've seen them accused of things as awful as child abuse and rape, all for the crime of simply being married to the wrong men. It's all so horribly gendered too, David and Michael often referred to as the "men" while Georgia and Anna are reduced to negative stereotypes of nagging, shallow gold diggers. As a fandom populated with so many queer people, many of whom, myself included, have found freedom from gender roles with Michael and David's characters' help, I thought we knew better.

I've been lucky enough to meet both David and Georgia now, and have witnessed firsthand the easy, joyful affection they have for each other when no one of consequence is watching, the way they giddily hold hands on the street and make each other laugh while tenderly looking into each other's eyes even and especially after sixteen years together. Georgia when I met her was incredibly kind, down to earth, and approachable, and my partner, who's met her several times more than I have, gushes about her constantly- how funny, authentic, and intelligent she is, and of course, how much she and David love each other, how they look out for each other and adore each other's flaws and quirks. David of course still gushes about Georgia every chance he gets in speeches and interviews, her strength and brilliance as well as her beauty, and Georgia, while maybe not always as effusive, shows her love for David in plenty of ways, the beautiful candid photos she takes of him, for instance. There's such a soft, painterly tenderness and fondness in them, for the man, not just the dazzling star everyone else gets to see. Her David, gentle, devoted, goofy, aging, melancholy, imperfectly perfect David. Where would we be without Georgia giving us these little glimpses of him? I suspect the same people who deride Georgia's social media presence as try-hard, cringeworthy, artificial, would feel a bit differently if one day they stopped coming.

I can't speak as clearly on behalf of Anna and Michael, but the accounts I've gotten of her and Michael's relationship from eyewitnesses have presented it as no less loving than David and Georgia's, albeit in slightly different ways. Even then, why should I have to? She doesn't owe me anything. I doubt anyone who's made the posts accusing Anna and Georgia of being nasty baby trappers has ever had children. There's no such thing as a perfect mother, and even one child is a massive task. It's normal to not be a shining ray of affection all the time, and Georgia I know more than makes up for it with her fierce love and support for her children in all of their endeavors. Georgia is also a diagnosed neurodivergent woman, and so many of the remarks I see directed at her are clearly discriminatory and often directed at women with her diagnoses. Everyone coos over how charming David is when he shows signs of being AuDHD, but the second his wife does too, she's careless and cold. And don't even get me started on when photos of Michael and David looking anything less than beatifically happy get interpreted as them being miserable due to their wives treating them so poorly. THEY'RE HUMAN BEINGS!!! NEUTRAL FACIAL EXPRESSIONS EXIST!!! WOULD YOU BE A SPARKLING RAY OF SUNSHINE IF YOUR DISNEYLAND RIDE GOT STUCK!!!

I say all this now not even because I think I have any hope of stopping the people in question, but because one of the main fighters on the front of the opposition, @dtmsrpfcringe, has been both a wonderful online friend to me and dealt with even worse abuse than that which gets hurled at Anna and Georgia on the daily. When my blog was briefly overrun by TERFs in light of the Tennant/Badenoch/Sunak drama, Tori was the first person to stand up for me, and as she recieves more vitriol in one day than I've ever experienced in my entire life online, I think I've taken far too long to do the same for her. This woman has dealt with doxing threats, attacks on her character, and most horrific of all, wishes of death upon her and her baby. No one would blame her for stopping, but she has remained steadfast in her mission to call bs where she sees it, and she shouldn't have to do it alone. Tori, I think you are so brave, and I am proud to stand in solidarity with you against the misinformation, meanness, and misogyny that threaten to corrupt this fandom we call home.

Even after all we've been through over the past couple of months, I still believe the Good Omens fandom and David and Michael's individual fandoms to be places of kindness, empathy, and inclusivity. Which is why such cruel behavior (because there's no other word for it) is utterly disappointing and baffling to me. You should be utterly ashamed of yourselves. You're the exact kinds of people David and Michael speak out against on a weekly basis, and I guarantee that if you engage in the kinds of behavior I've highlighted here, they would be disgusted with you. Or maybe they'd simply pity you, because your lives are so empty that you've decided the only way to fill them is to sacrifice the reputations and peace of innocent women on the altar of a relationship that in all likelihood takes place solely in your own heads.

And if you read all this and find you still ship David and Michael, which even I do sometimes, well, there's always polyamory.

I'm sleepy! good night and kindly fuck off! - Lauren

[loki-us]

Welcome to my Mega Problematic Sylvie post

I wanted to make a list of everything problematic about Sylvie in s1 and s2 because she gets away with whatever she wants and it bugs me to no end that she never takes accountability for any of the pain she causes.

You have been warned. So let's get into it.

1. Sylvie’s way is the only way and she expects everyone else to just bend to her will without complaint

2. She is physically mentally and emotionally incapable of trusting anyone besides herself

3. She uses other people's emotions to manipulate them into getting what she wants

4. She refuses to even entertain the possibility that anything besides her own opinion is correct

5. She criticizes others' attempts to clean up the mess she caused while she herself does absolutely nothing about it

6. Always looking to ruin and run, taking the easy way out and avoiding any accountability

7. Puts her own need for revenge above the well-being of everyone else in the multiverse

8. Blames everyone else for the problems she herself caused

9. Insults everyone at the TVA for their lack of empathy despite it being the exact reason she didn't want to return in the first place. Every critique she delivers just illustrates how much of a hypocrite she is

10. Berates Mobius and all the people who are actually trying to fix her problem even though they never once blamed her for the mess they're in

11. Acts like she's doing everyone a favor just for being there and insulting everyone when in reality, Loki had to ask multiple times before finally getting her to return

12. Never willing to put in more effort than just destroying everything and walking away

13. Even when directly asked for her help, Sylvie straight up refuses. She couldn't care less about anything besides her McDonald's employee-of-the-month badge

14. Sylvie gaslights Loki into thinking they're the same, that she's not in the wrong because they're both only thinking of themselves. In reality, Sylvie is thinking only of going back to her own timeline, alone, while Loki is thinking only of making his friends happy, because that's what makes him happy too.

15. While being completely unsympathetic to Loki struggling with his greatest fear, Sylvie makes the decision that Loki's friend's are all better off where they are now. But is it really better for them, or just better for Sylvie?

16. And now, after 11 episodes and countless requests for Sylvie's help, she actually cares about the rest of the multiverse. And yet it's still solely because her own timeline is finally in danger

17. When Loki ends up sacrificing himself to solve the problem Sylvie created, her only response is a joyful shrug that she's now happy, alone, and responsibility-free.

Overall, I know Sylvie's only purpose as a character is to be a darker mirror of Loki and everything she does is understandably informed by her trauma. This is likely a result of having a limited-episode-series and having all male/not diverse writers creating female characters. Sylvie is used only as a comparison to Loki before he met Mobius, and unfortunately is never given any thoughtful character moments like Loki had showing how he was aware that his actions hurt others. In 1x1, Loki talks about how he doesn’t enjoy hurting people and only does it to maintain control. The only time we ever see Sylvie reconsider her actions is when she didn’t kill Timely, which I think is more because she saw herself in Timely as someone who didn’t want to be controlled by their ‘destiny,’ not because she developed any kindness or compassion toward him.

I understand the fact that Sylvie was never given someone like Mobius to allow her the opportunity to change like Loki did, but I don't think that should excuse her causing so much pain and being so self-centered. Sylvie never trusted or cared about anyone and that's also my biggest argument against Sylki; her loving or being driven by anyone besides herself is just so inconsistent with her entire character.

Anyway, my purpose here was not to be hateful or to search for any reason to criticize Sylvie, but instead to look critically at her character since I've seen a lot of people praise her as the strong, independent female Loki whose behavior can always be forgiven. Unfortunately, the way she was written is that Sylvie turned her own trauma into everybody else's problem and they all spent 2 seasons trying to clean up her mess. That's my take thank you and goodnight

[spite-and-waffles]

Someone explain to me why Jason feels more Bruce's son than any of the others. Especially considering Jason would have lived and thrived with any parent except Bruce.

Maybe because Bruce is only a father figure to Dick and Tim‚ who loved and preferred their own fathers. Damian's Dad is Dick (I will not be taking questions). Cass wanted Bruce to be her father so bad but he just wouldn't. Even the belated adoption was mere formality. But Jason? He probably did love Willis but he adored Bruce, and Bruce adored him back. I don't think he loved him more than Dick, who will always be his favourite because he was his first partner and child, and because of all the ways he isn't like Bruce. But Bruce and Jason were always father and son without any of the complexity between Bruce and the others.

And Jason is so like Bruce. Everyone says Tim is most like him because of the way their brains work, but it's Dick who actually has been moulded into Batman-lite. Damian is his mother's child; always craving connection and acceptance to anchor him within his inner tempest. He'd die in the kind of darkness Bruce enshrouds himself in. Cassandra has Bruce's drive and focus and inability to conceive of herself as person outside of the mission (although lbr they're all like that. Sigh) But her open compassion, unguarded empathy and playfulness characterizes her more than even Dick.

Jason, otoh, is a thing that will grab a sword by the blade and cut himself to the bone forcing it back. His light and darkness are one and the same. He's the one who can match Bruce's fear and fury and hubris that tries to bend the world into the shape of his choosing with his bare hands.

Idk why I hate Bruce and love Jason. They're both equally myopic and hypocritical and selfish‚ as unable to see past their own trauma, as lacking in self-awareness. Maybe because Jason's just a boy who needs someone on his side while Bruce has too many on his. Maybe because he was born and raised among the people he wants to protect, unlike Bruce, and has so much more excuse for being the way he is. Maybe because he never takes himself so seriously, and uses his sense of humour just like Dick and Steph do, just in an entertainingly assholish fashion.

But if any child could have been biologically Bruce's it would be Jason. Which probably lies at the heart of their eternal conflict. Neither of them will give, neither will blink first. Two men made to forever burn alive.

[ancientforgcd]

Kiana hates when people sacrifice themselves. She hates when they push themselves too hard, especially for her.

Because that's what happened with Himeko, isn't it?

Kiana was supposed to die. They sacrificed themselves for her, and she lived, and now she gets visibly upset when people try to do things that are similar.

What does she think about when she sees people work themselves till they faint? It's stupid. Not just because it's not healthy, but because it's sacrificial. She hates martyrs. She hates it when they're her friends.

Kiana has a weird complex, right? Sacrificing herself left and right, fainting, but not allowing anyone else to do the same? Hypocrite, right?

It's weird, is it not? This complete lack of awareness is concerning. It's almost as if she's oblivious to the fact that she does the same thing all of the time. To everyone else, yes, this situation with Bronya fainting after using four Thrones of Selene at once is a perfect parallel to Kiana using her Herrschers powers too much and coming close to dying.

But Kiana doesn't see her actions in the same light. She really isn't trying to sacrifice herself 90% of the time. The collateral damage (bleeding, pain, fainting) is usually not part of her prediction, and if it is, it's more than she expected.

Her thoughts and intentions are always about keeping everyone safe, and she's okay with coughing up a bit of blood to do that. Just a bit, maybe enough that it will look scary, but it won't hurt her in the long run thanks to the Gem of Serenity and that's okay.

If she faints? It wasn't planned, so it's not really sacrifice. Maybe a lil', but she's selfish enough already, it's the least she can do. Honestly.

When Kiana puts herself in danger, it's for selfish reasons. Self-declared selfishness, but that's how she sees it.

Kiana doesn't sacrifice herself. She does it because she chose to. She chose to. If it doesn't hurt too buad, she doesn't consider it as doing much at all. The level of pain she experiences in every situation is her way of determining how much she's accomplished (sacrificed).

Not only that, but there are circumstances she must be in to even consider it of consequence to other people. If it doesn't happen while someone dear to her is in danger, it doesn't really matter does it? She doesn't understand why someone would be asking about her well-being. She doesn't plan to let anything that happens affect her plans.

There's no reason for them to worry.

If she's not on a battlefield, all of the effort she puts in? (Training, being in pain, strengthening her friends, planning nad strategizing, learning how to control her cores and so much more.)

It doesn't count. She is familiar with optimizing her time, because as a Valkyrie, the Honkai attack indiscriminately. Being prepared and working hard to be strong is nothing when compared to the battle soon to come, therefore, it doesn't count. It's what is expected. It is the basic standard for what is required to survive.

Where everyone sees Kiana working nonstop for weeks, months and years, it's a normal weekend for her. those days outside battle don't count. She worked like that for countless years, so much stress is easy for her.

But....why doesn't she recognize that she pushes herself until she faints? There's a threshold that she passes where she faints, but she still keeps crossing it?

She doesn't recognize her fainting as sacrificial, because as long as the battle ends on a good note and she's still able to think and plan relatively soon after she wakes up, she hasn't sacrificed much other than time. She also has the Gem of Serenity, which lets her feel rejuvenated after a 'nap'.

You see, Kiana Kaslana is interesting. She doesn't know how to distinguish being selfish and selfless, because being selfless is in itself, an act of selfishness. When Kiana, from the perspective of her friends, ruins her healt hand runs from battle to battle without resting or thinking about her friends concern...it's pretty selfish of her.

Wen everyone else considers her selfless, she thinks of herself as doing the obvious amount of work and being selfish too. That much work is expected of her, so it ain't selfless. It's all for her own gain, because when everything is over, she'll be the one going away to slack off in a mansion. Haha!...She's seven steps ahead of everyone (and on the verge of collapse.)

How selfish.

Turns out her inability to realize the irony of her actions is because of the traumatizing 16+ years of mental conditioning where pushing herself over the edge is normal and expected, spurred on by her socially isolated past that led to to somewhat a lack of empathy and emotional awareness and her mentor sacrificing herself for Kiana, just so she can live another day to finally confront Void.

[mattscoquette]

i wanna say something that i feel like will make some people mad but! i've been thinking about the mean comments/chat the guys were getting on the most recent stream ab chris' haircut or whatever matt saw ab him and, while obviously no one deserves to see/hear those things ab themselves and fans should stop being so rude and disrespectful, i feel like they're the ones who've made it very clear that they're pretty judgemental people and find stuff like that perfectly fine to comment on.

again, i love the guys and wanna make it very clear that im not defending the mean comments they got, they were uncalled for, but so are most the comments the guys make ab strangers publicly in their videos. they've commented on what they see people wearing or doing and make comments ab it- often rude or just disrespectful. and i know it's as a joke, but the people on stream could've also thought it was a funny joke bc that's what they joke about in videos.

chris being told to get a haircut, i can completely see nick seeing a girl with messy hair or something on the street and in a car video being like 'that bitch needed to get a haircut', and obviously saying it to someone's face/where they can see it on stream is worse than in a car video where the subject will never know it was them. however, they still tell their audience it's okay to talk about strangers like that. they've let it be known they see nothing wrong with that and are often joking ab it so fans see that and think 'oh they're cool with comments like that, lets make them' and so they do. basically, they lack self-awareness to me in this aspect. they love to dish it but can't take it, and again no one should take it... because no one should be dishing it. they ended the stream with 'thank you to everyone who brought positivity and light to the stream' and implied they want more of that brought to them but they themselves often thrive on negativity towards others- nothing seriously negative but still not positive? it's just kinda hypocritical to see that they think they can talk like that about others but then think it's so out of pocket to have it done to them, when it shouldn't be happening at all. those fans learned from their own behavior and maybe took it a little too far for their liking idk..

wait u lowk spilled. i so get what u mean bc yes they are hypocritical themselves but at the same time they can’t take it.

[thebrookesnook]

looks at u while sliding a piece of paper that just says ‘Suonuma’ on it as i look at you with the biggest baby seal eyes 👀 is it romantic? platonic? some secret third thing that astounds and maybe confuses the local populace?

oh sweet Mari, you opened the gates and let the brainrot out.

This is a little long because i cannot shut up about these two or be brief about them.

SO 👏

First question: i see them very much as enemies-to-something because i personally dont mind either or, they just got smthing going on and everyone can tell (and by everyone i mean shishitoren and nirei).

My love for this pair started out as a crackship ever since i saw them banter for the first time.

(Chapter 8)

They're so fruity and for what. SUO WAS COMING IN SO STRONG AND KANUMA WAS NOT THAT. Now Kanuma, lovely boy he is, but at the time I went "who and where was the adorable and cute, he's being a brat if anything"—i see it now tho. (Also yes, im very much aware it was a taunt in the way someone would taunt someone being childish bUT STILL-)

And then their fight?? Absolutely humiliating for Kanuma but Suo's (lowkey) sadistic tendencies really shines a light and it's because of the former! (and other things but mostly kanuma's actions, so let's ignore that for now) In all seriousness, this fight was the first time we see Suo emotional since he was likely angry at the other for being immature, self-centered and hypocritical. All he's hearing from Kanuma was "me, me, me" so when he finally puts him in his place, his face was showing his sick satisfaction for the latter's humiliation mirroring the Kanuma's short-lived humilitation towards a downed Saruwatari (aka dude who got pummeled by Togame in their first meeting). Giving out due punishment in hopes of teaching him a lesson. (which is giving brat tamer vibes- 🤭)

The fight also sparked a change in Kanuma—who was also affected by Choji's change when he became the leader, likely influenced by his closeness to Choji (being close friends and all) and had let his ego get the better of him—and had done some reflecting, taking Suo's words to heart. Which is why we still see him in Shishitoren, because clearly they knew they needed to change and they were going to fix the problems they created/aggravated instead of running away.

(Chapter 116)

Suo being so surprised and curious to see Kanuma there and then redirecting the conversation back to Kanuma's lack of response was just the cherry on top for solidifying these two for me. They're in the middle of an all-out war and Suo's chatting him up like they're pals catching up on a regular Tuesday was ugHHHH OKAY SUO, I SEE WHERE YOUR PRIORITIES LIE.

(Chapter 116)

"I swear I'll never let you toy with me again!" Sir, that's hmm...you're still letting him get to your head cuz you were looking for him in Chapter 159. You're honestly lying to yourself rn.

Speaking of, it would be one thing if Kanuma's the only one being hyperaware of the other's presence (makes sense) it's a wHOLE OTHER THING WHEN EVEN SUO'S LOOKING FOR HIM TOO LIKE??? *gestures wildly*

(Chapter 159-161)

Whatever is going on between these two, it's mutual.

(Chapter 161)

Everyone is seeing this, everyone is acknowledging/amused/exasperated by it. Suo's probably happy that Kanuma had take his words to heart but the latter is still traumatized by him that it makes the whole thing hilarious.

I love them, i love their interactions. i wanted to be a fly buzzing thru them just to hear whatever the Suo said to Kanuma because he's a shit stirrer and he's proud of it.

Even if i do pair them with anyone else, they're still gonna have that weird tension between them that i will fondly hold close to my heart. They give me "i can fix him energy" and SUO DID, while also giving him nightmares 😃👍.

[stellaluna33]

The way Elon Musk heralded himself as the Savior of "Free Speech" when he purchased Twitter, only to immediately begin cracking down hard and banning anyone who said anything he didn't like is... Really something. It's both hilarious and disturbing, but as much fun as it is to point fingers at this specific guy, it really showcases something that I've actually been seeing a lot from people across all political/social spectrums, and it's troubling:

So many people everywhere loudly spout certain ideologies, but it has no impact on their own behavior. And they don't even NOTICE THAT THEY'RE DOING IT! People seem to have no self-awareness whatsoever! We're so busy accusing everyone else that we never even look at ourselves, and then respond like petulant toddlers if confronted! We turn right around and betray the very ideals we claim to value so highly, and we don't even SEE it! There is such a lack of self-reflection or any kind of accountability in us at this time, and it's... Not good. This is not good. Really take a hard look at yourself and the things that come out of your mouth (or keyboard), because we are all making despicable liars and hypocrites of ourselves.

And if your immediate reaction is that this doesn't apply to YOU personally... Well, maybe you should really honestly look at yourself first. I'll be doing the same.

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

Netflix overpaid-Maureen Callahan

The $100m 'Harry and Meghan' is panned… and finally the karmic wheels of justice turn against two untalented, ungrateful hypocrites. No one deserves it more - so let's savor it! 

By Maureen Callahan For DailyMail.Com10:00 EST 09 Dec 2022 , updated 11:20 EST 09 Dec 2022

Netflix overpaid.

As with nearly everything Harry and Meghan do, 'Volume I' of their Netflix docuseries is pompous, mean, self-aggrandizing, and yet more of their specialty: Over-promise and under-deliver.

The much-ballyhooed 'Harry & Meghan' has landed with a thud. The reviews have been scathing: The Hollywood Reporter rightly says the show 'takes a lot of time to reveal very little.' The Atlantic asks if Harry and Meghan 'really want to spend the next 40 years as small angry planets trapped in the gravitational pull of the Windsors?' And Variety says, 'The Sussexes surprise us yet again with just how narrow their vision of fame is, how pinched and unimaginative their presence on the world stage has become.’

Finally, the karmic wheels of justice are turning towards these two self-pitying, untalented, ungrateful hypocrites. No one deserves it more. Let's savor it, shall we?

There's nothing scandalous here — except, of course, the casual cruelty Harry and Meghan, World's Greatest Bleeding Heart Philanthropists and Humanitarians, mete out to their nearest and dearest.

It's stunning. It's heartless. And, as is their trademark, it's utterly lacking in self-awareness. As Harry marvels late in Episode 3: 'It's amazing what people will do when offered a large amount of money.'

You mean like selling out your family, who have loved and supported you, financially and otherwise, your entire life? Like publicly accusing them of racism? Like secretly filming yourselves behind palace walls, long before you claimed you had any idea you'd be Megxiting and monetizing, videotaping and photographing your most private, intimate moments — like Harry's marriage proposal, which Meghan seems to have secretly recorded on her phone without Harry's knowledge — and saving all that ostensibly sacred stuff for a $100 million Netflix deal?

Like that?

There's nothing scandalous here ¿ except, of course, the casual cruelty Harry and Meghan, World's Greatest Bleeding Heart Philanthropists and Humanitarians, mete out to their nearest and dearest.

Or like the moment when Harry says of Meghan's father — a man who raised Meghan largely on his own, who contributed to the cost of her private elementary school and college — 'She doesn't have a father' — ?

This is as cutting a remark as Harry's deeply implied accusation here that his brother, the future king, couldn't marry for love.

If there was any hope of reconciliation with William, Harry just torched it.

And what has Kate ever done to deserve such bile from her brother-in-law? These are the parents of his niece and nephews, his children's cousins — but as we know, Harry and Meghan play checkers, not chess, and they play with cold hands and even colder hearts. They don't think or strategize long term. They're all about the twisted, short-term dopamine hits they get from acting out their never-ending victimhood.

To watch this series is to witness a Hitchcockian folie à deux minus the wit, élan or sophistication. It's like a soft-focus Oprah interview padded out with historical B-roll meant to support H&M's claims of racism within the monarchy — claims that go nowhere and B-roll that bores.

Nearly three years after the Oprah sit-down and three hours into this Netflix series, we still have no smoking gun about which senior royal is racist or bullied Meghan or didn't care that she was suicidal.

Meghan contradicts herself a fair amount here, in one case backpedaling on her original story that she didn't really know much about Harry before they met.

Initially, she said they met on a blind date, now she says they met through Instagram.

You can watch the wheels turning in Harry's head as he tries to square this circle. He surely has practice, living as he has in this alternate reality for years now.

As for the tea spilled here, it's cold, weak and bitter. Let's listen as Meghan, sitting in an enormous room sheathed in pastel draperies and soft lighting — a halo effect, if you will, for our greatest living saint since Angelina Jolie — talk about having to dim her light, her beauty, her overpowering star wattage, so as not to outshine Kate or the Queen.

Reader, brace yourself: Meghan Markle couldn't wear bold colors in public.

The much-ballyhooed 'Harry & Meghan' has landed with a thud. The reviews have been scathing. (Above)  'Rotten Tomatoes' shows poor critic and audience reviews for the Netflix series

Well, not so much couldn't — wouldn't. Meghan is just that much of a humanitarian. Allow her to explain, in an interview clearly shot before the Queen's death (not that her advanced age or Prince Philip on his deathbed ever stopped these two mercenaries).

'To my understanding,' Meghan says, 'you can't ever wear the same color as Her Majesty if there's a group event. But then you also shouldn't be wearing the same color as one of the other more senior members of the family. So I was like' — and here Meghan tilts her head back and looks heavenward, as if grasping for some earthly solution to this conundrum so clearly beneath her — 'Well, what's a color that they'll probably never wear?'

Faint exasperation creeps into Meghan's voice as she re-enacts her epiphany. Cut to a still photo of Meghan dressed in dull brown walking alongside Kate, resplendent in a jewel-toned, gold-buttoned coat.

'Camel, beige, white,' Meghan gripes. 'So I wore a lot of muted tones, but also it was so I could just blend in.'

Strap yourselves in for this one: 'I'm not trying to stand out here,' Meghan says. 'There's no version of me joining this family and trying to not do everything I could to fit in.'

Says our own Woko Ono, sticking to her story that she didn't understand what a big deal the royal family was.

There's one moment here where we see that Harry maybe — just maybe — realizes what a sadistic person he's married to. As he sits on a sofa to Meghan's right, he watches as his loving wife recounts her first meeting with the Queen, and in so doing insults Britons, Americans, the monarchy, Harry and his family, and everything his grandmother, who served her country for seventy years in a role she neither asked for nor wanted, stood for.

'I mean, Americans will understand this,' Meghan says, because 'we have Medieval Times, dinner and a tournament. It was like that.'

Even those of us never invited to Balmoral to meet the queen can confidently say: No. It's nothing like that.

But Meghan needs to bring Harry down to her level in order to elevate herself. Hence the leaning into forced casualness, hosting William and Kate for dinner, their very first meeting, Meghan barefoot and in ripped jeans.

Strap yourselves in for this one: 'I'm not trying to stand out here,' Meghan says. 'There's no version of me joining this family and trying to not do everything I could to fit in.'

Reader, brace yourself: Meghan Markle couldn't wear bold colors in public. Well, not so much couldn't ¿ wouldn't. Meghan is just that much of a humanitarian. Allow her to explain, in an interview clearly shot before the Queen's death (not that her advanced age or Prince Philip on his deathbed ever stopped these two mercenaries).

Seriously: Do better.

Back to Meghan reenacting her introduction to the queen, performing a theatrically deep curtsy and wiggling her eyebrows mockingly as she laughs and says, in a sickly-sweet fake voice, 'Pleasure to meet you, your majesty.'

Harry looks nothing short of pained.

He should consider this a preview of the rest of his life until the woman he's left everything and everyone for will surely train her venom, her victimhood, and her penchant for publicly tearing down close family members squarely on him. 

There's no doubt it will happen or that Harry will deserve it. The Meghan Markle we see here — and she really believes she's showing us her best self — will discard anyone once they no longer make her look good, feed her narcissistic supply, or are of any practical use.

Consider her adult niece Ashleigh, the daughter of Meghan's estranged half-sister Samantha. Meghan rhapsodizes about seeking out and cultivating this relationship, how important her niece is to her, and in turn her niece describes Meghan as 'all the things' — an aunt, but also a sister figure and a mother figure, one who took Asleigh on vacations and talked to her about anything and everything.

Then Meghan got engaged to Harry and, well . . . their phone calls got less and less frequent.

Can you guess who got disinvited to H&M's wedding?

Yes, poor Ashleigh, who doesn't seem to buying Meghan's vague excuse here that nameless palace 'advisers' forced her hand. Ashleigh sits in this docuseries tearful, confused, humiliated and skeptical, yet still kind enough not to openly wonder why her beloved aunt invited celebrities she had never even met before — Oprah, the Clooneys, David Beckham — instead of her own flesh and blood.

Ashleigh (above) sits in this docuseries tearful, confused, humiliated and skeptical, yet still kind enough not to openly wonder why her beloved aunt invited celebrities she had never even met before ¿ Oprah, the Clooneys, David Beckham ¿ instead of her own flesh and blood.

Or maybe Ashleigh did. Maybe Meghan demanded final cut. Who really knows what goes on in H&M's house of mirrors?

We get a small look at Harry and Meghan's everyday life, such as it is. We see Harry and Meghan in the back of a chauffeured SUV, being driven through Manhattan and freaking out over a lone paparazzo on a scooter. One guy. Cue an over-the-top reaction: panic, fear, forced calm.

We see Meghan feed into Harry's post-Diana trauma as she leans in and says to him 'Safety first' — e.g., there will be no speeding away from the non-existent hordes of photographers — you know, the ones we saw in the trailer for this vanity project. Meghan's gone full Hollywood here, now a cliché with her 'make-up artists and friend,' her 'personal assistant and friend.'

We listen as Harry, painfully and obviously, explains what royal reporters do.

Care to hazard a guess?

'It's like, this family' — meaning the royal family — 'is ours to exploit,' Harry says of the royal rota. 'Their trauma is our story and our narrative to control.'

Hey, let's get one thing straight — if anyone's going to exploit anything around here, it's going to be Harry and Meghan.

See you back next week for Volume II!

[zoobus]

Alec Baldwin, huh.

(in reference to my tags on this post)

I don't agree with the sentiment, I'm just SAYING if you write media analysis like this, you're a moron:

For those of you who can't watch videos, it's the famous speech Alec Baldwin gives in the cinematic masterpiece Glengarry Glenn Ross. Baldwin's character -- whom you assume is the villain -- addresses a room full of dudes and tears them a new asshole As smarter people have pointed out, the genius of that speech is that half of the people who watch it think that the point of the scene is "Wow, what must it be like to have such an asshole boss?" and the other half think, "Fuck yes, let's go out and sell some goddamned real estate!"

Or, as the Last Psychiatrist blog put it: "If you were in that room, some of you would understand this as a work, but feed off the energy of the message anyway, 'this guy is awesome!'; while some of you would take it personally, this guy is a jerk, you have no right to talk to me like that, or -- the standard maneuver when narcissism is confronted with a greater power -- quietly seethe and fantasize about finding information that will out him as a hypocrite.

Here are some quick indicators you can disregard someone's media opinions, whether you've seen whatever they're describing or not

They tell YOU what you'll assume about a character

They tell YOU what the "correct" read of a character is

They think there's two primary reads of the story and they flatten down to "my interpretation is smart and says something good about myself, all other interpretations are superficial and evidence of a pathetic lack of self-awareness"

They talk about award-winning, complex media like a storybook for small children. This guy is actually the villain! This guy is actually the hero!

They're so so so certain that they know exactly how everyone else interpreted the movie

Take American Psycho - when I finally watched it, I *did* find takes I disagreed with, and I *did* find takes that I felt misunderstood certain characters. But very few, if any, disagreements were due to the other person's perception of characters as purely heroic or otherwise. I found takes that I didn't object to exactly, but came from viewpoints I felt too ignorant to fully grasp or comment on. I found gaps in my own understanding, gaps I don't think I'm capable of filling (I don't get music, sorry).

It wasn't 50% dudebros who wished they were/wanted to suck off Patrick Bateman and 50% wise women smartly explaining why the racist misogynist is in fact a bad person. The most annoying, shallowest takes I've found I'm most hostile to are those "you aren't patrick bateman, you don't even wash your face/teen girls with a skincare routine understand American psycho more than any dudebro could" memes. The take with actual effort that I bristled at the most was an essay that seemed oblivious to how severe homophobia was in the 80s.

I haven't watched Glen Glennie Ross, I'm just saying this guy's read of it lends me to believe he's not a reliable source.

[princeescaluswords]

CAN DO NO WRONG

I have a favorite character -- it's not hard to find out who -- and the most prominent complaint I've heard from a hostile fandom is that "everyone treats Scott as perfect!" and "the show acts as if Scott can do no wrong." And it's always been perplexing to me how people can say that. The show had this character frequently being wrong, being punished for being wrong, being humiliated for being wrong, and nearly being killed for being wrong. In the fifth season, my favorite character walked around for six episodes (out of twenty) with a non-healing chest wound the size of a softball because he got tricked by one of the season's villains. Now, supernatural healing was one of his major abilities, so it was a big deal, and the key for him overcoming it was making up for the mistakes he made. And they still argue that everyone treats him as if he "can do no wrong."

Now, part of it -- as I've explained in depth -- is racism. Certain members of the fandom wanted any of a number of white male characters to be the lead protagonist, and because they weren't, they looked for reasons to hate the Latino heroic protagonist. The accusation of him never being punished or being held accountable for his actions is a favorite, and somehow, no matter how many times Scott faced consequences or punishment in the show and how many times fans of the show point it out, it's never enough. Of course, this is because the only consequence this racist fandom would accept is him not being the lead protagonist.

But I feel there's another reason as well. Every week, I see someone defend the right to be a fan of villains. And they're right! It's wonderful to find a villain who speaks to you on a visceral level. it's thrilling to identify with the urge to toss away the restrictions we find ourselves burdened with every day. However, when you emotionally connect with such a character that strongly, there is the urge to see that character succeed.

In my particular show, the villains often do succeed to an extent. Peter Hale, the villain of the first and fourth seasons, was a manipulative serial killer who ambushed and murdered his own family and mutilated and violated children, yet he walked around for 38 episodes free and unmolested after his first murder spree, and he ended the series with his liberty and his millions in tact with a new family. And yet, his fans act as if he was the most persecuted person in the cast.

I can't help but think that there is a lack of awareness that the antagonist they are so fond of can't succeed completely: they're the villain after all! This isn't "useless" moralizing. Aristotle called phenomena such as this a universal in his Poetics, a central requirement of good storytelling. A villain can only triumph in a tale of nihilistic and/or dystopian horror, because no one, not even the most macho libertarian sociopath, truly wants to exist in the despotic world that successful villains would create. No one with any sense of dignity or self-preservation wants to imagine a world where brutality and manipulation are virtues and compassion and honesty are vices. No reader or character prefers savagery over civilization, or wants the strong to freely prey on the weak. Not even the villains themselves.

Those who create understand this; the triumph of the villain who remains a villain is inherently unsatisfying. Those who enjoy art understand this; they instinctively react to a story where the wrongdoer's victory is treated as a triumph with either horror at the creator's vision or disdain for the creator's immaturity. The only way for the villain's conquest to satisfy is for the villain to stop being the villain, and the easiest way for the audience to achieve that state is to undermine the hero.

That's why heroic protagonists are attacked as being full of flaws and flawless at the same time. Why characters who are set up in opposition to malefactors are labeled as either hypocritical White Knights or naive Don Quixotes. Why organizations portrayed as good in their fictions and targeted for destruction by the villains -- such as the Jedi from the Star Wars stories -- are suddenly dismissed as unrealistic or recontextualized as the "real" villains. When we look at the media -- the actual media -- are we really supposed to think that Scott McCall is a moron tyrant? That the Jedi are arrogant, brain-washing baby-nappers?

The essence of this universal is simply too powerful: the only way for them to truly and freely enjoy stanning the villain is to make every other character worse and by fandom alchemy render the label villain inconsequential. Unfortunately for them, the essentials of storytelling run counter to this, and so heroic protagonists who struggle but ultimately triumph must be criticized because they can do no wrong.

[itsjaywalkers]

trick or treattttt 🎃

DIL <33 giggling and kicking my feet <33 taking out my bowl filled with sweets and offering u the nicest most delicious ones <33

for uuuuu i have a little rant about james in the nothing happens series (aka the overprotective james series) (it's so weird using the actual name wtf) bc it's . YOUR au at this point <3

okay so we all know one of the main issues in this story is how james lacks self-awareness. he does shit without thinking and he doesn't stop to think about the implications, or the way his actions can be interpreted, and he never analyses why he's doing what he's doing. but it's not really because he's oblivious or in denial, he just . doesn't know how to function normally when reg is involved .

it's something i'm having a lot of fun exploring because james is so utterly obsessed with regulus that he forgets all about his morals or ideals without even realising. and it's fine at first, because they're kids, and it's mostly innocent. apart from having a couple of arguments with sirius over it and blurry boundaries, there's no harm done.

of course, there are a few signs of this whole dynamic being dangerous along the way, even when they're still young, but no one notices, because that's just james and regulus. it's how they've always been. james is a bit too protective, and reg does everything james asks him without hesitating, but they both mean well, so it's okay.

until!! it's not!!

i think this is the first moment in which . we get to see james doing something . kinda wrong . for regulus . while being a complete hypocrite about it:

The first time Regulus had complained about some twat poking fun at him during lunch breaks, Remus had had to physically restrain Sirius so he wouldn’t go kick some random kid’s arse.  That’s always been Sirius’ problem; he’s too impatient, too rash. Never thinks about the consequences until it’s too late. If he hadn’t reacted so dramatically and had simply waited for the right moment to strike, Remus wouldn’t have been able to stop him, and Regulus would still share this sort of shit with him.  It’s fine, though. That’s what James is there for. He had grinned and laughed at Sirius’ dramatics, had teased Regulus until he had huffed and pouted all adorably, and he had shared a complicit glance with Remus, the kind that normally means something along the lines of can you believe we gotta put up with these two on the daily? And that had been it.  Or that’s what James made sure they all thought.  The truth is that a few days later, and with Evan’s help—who hadn’t needed much convincing the moment James told him what had happened—he had cornered the little fucker that had dared to upset Regulus and made sure that he’d leave him alone from then on. It had been painfully easy; he was almost three years older, after all, and despite the fact that he’s still going through puberty, being the captain of his football team gives him certain physical advantages. It definitely helps when he’s trying to be intimidating. Regulus had been a little confused at first, as to why the bloke suddenly avoided him like the plague, but he had been so pleased about it that he hadn’t given it too much thought. And James had been happy to play along, act none the wiser and tell Regulus not to worry about it too much.

AND THEN we have the whole cheating thing . which is a recurring theme in the au .

james and regulus cheat on their partners quite often throughout the series (always for each other) which is WRONG obviously but the difference is . that james doesn't see it as cheating, while regulus is completely aware that it is.

and that's the problem with james. there's no excuse for all the shit he pulls, but it's still important to take into account that he doesn't realise that what he's doing is bad. he wouldn't do it otherwise. but since it's for regulus, or because of regulus, the way he approaches everything becomes . crooked . foggy . it stops being black or white and james begins to move in shades of grey instead.

his argument with emma during the third part of the series is so silly from an outsider perspective bc she's clearly in the right and james acts like a total asshole. not to mention that his excuses are . absolutely ridiculous . but to him she's the one who isn't making any sense, because kissing regulus, making out with him, doesn't count as cheating to him. it doesn't count, full stop. because it's regulus.

“Em,” he starts, soft and careful, as if he were speaking to a frightened animal. “I swear this isn’t a recurring thing. Hell, it isn’t a thing at all. You know I’d never cheat, that’s not the kind of person I am.” “Yeah, that’s what I thought too, but I guess we were both wrong,” she laughs, and it sounds painfully weak. Her eyes are brimming with tears, and James sort of wants to reach out, comfort her, but that would mean letting Regulus go, and that isn’t something he’s willing to do, no matter what. “It may have happened tonight for the first time, but it’s still fucking cheating.” James’ eyebrows shoot up until they’re almost at his hairline. “What?” he mutters. “This isn’t cheating. It’s not—it was a one time thing. I’ve kissed my friends before and you know that, Sirius is always bringing it up—” “That’s what you’re choosing as your excuse? Really?” Emma shakes her head. “This is different, James.”

he genuinely doesn't think this is cheating. he's being completely honest with emma here, which is . kinda sad when u stop to think about it

reg is the one who does tell him that it is cheating after he gets his first boyfriend and james becomes painfully jealous. bc he kisses regulus, and even tries to do more than that, and reg stops him because he feels guilty, and james doesn't get it bc !!! how can it be cheating !!! when it's them !!! they're each other's exceptions always !!! no matter what !!!

AND I'M GONNA STOP HERE BC THIS HAS ALREADY GOTTEN TOO LONG BUT . YEAH I COULD TALK ABOUT THIS AU FOR HOURS

[bunshr00m]

i love ddlc+ because it puts even more perspective as to why characters act the way they do in the original game. i especially loved the insight into natsuki and yuri. we just assumed that natsuki was just angry all the time for no reason, right? the fact her father abused her does also explain her abrasive language as thats probably how she's used to being spoken to, but ddlc+ made me realize how she is very rarely malicious deliberately, and the fact that she is genuinely bad with social cues. normally people would think of yuri when it comes to a lack of social awareness, but i'm telling you, they both have it, they just act in different ways.

i love how natsuki and yuri are two sides of the same coin. yuri is bad with social cues and typically responds in embarrassment when she misses them, meanwhile natsuki responds in anger. however, even though they seem so different, their behaviour is actually similar. they both hide true parts of themselves out of self esteem issues, prohibiting themselves from talking about their passions if they come across as "too intense" or "childish". though yuri's most common reaction to rejection is self-blame, at least on the surface, she does show anger occasionally because deep down, she feels like she should have a right to be herself just as much as natsuki does, she just typically defaults to a flight response rather than a fight one.

i think them being so similar is why they tend to bring out the worst in each other. a funny difference between the girls' routes in ddlc is that either natsuki or yuri will suggest writing poems about the same subject to the other, and the other will suspect them of doing it to show off, because they don't trust each other enough to think either of them had pure intentions. when really, they did, they just reached each other in a state where the other is not ready to trust (because the trauma from feeling like their personalities are wrong and should be changed makes trust hard!!) right person, wrong time, even.

i'm sprinkling in some of my own headcanons/theories here but i think natsuki probably has ptsd due to the way she's constantly on high alert to defend herself, she always assumes that she's being personally attacked, and it takes a lot to settle her down, probably because she *does* get attacked at home and it creates a sense of panic in her when she senses that happening in whats supposed to be her safe place. as for yuri, ddlc+ pretty much convinced me that she's on the autism or add spectrum, maybe both. she seems to have rejection sensitive dysphoria along with her missing many social cues and being easily overstimulated.

i used to dislike yuri quite a bit because i found her hypocritical and didn't understand why she was polite one second, then arguing intensely the next. i felt more sympathy for her when i realized that like all humans, she gets overwhelmed having to hold in how she feels and is hyprocritical in her arguments because her emotions run so high that she can't think straight when hurt, it becomes all about how she feels because selfishness is a mechanism to protect herself from pain. with how uncomfortable she gets being referred to as "the smartest" she probably feels like the club has an expectation of her which she is afraid to break, so she conforms until she can't take it and lashes out when provoked.

natsuki and yuri's arguments are literally just them riling each other up without realizing because they're both thinking "i'm literally just being myself what is your problem" when really they've been hurting each other on a personal level without even knowing how personal their insults are, because to them, t's just their opinions, and they are bad at expressing them carefully.

anyway i love these silly sweeties who don't know how to communicate

[loudmouthedllama]

I would just like to mention this here for a lack of having anywhere else to more directly share this: There's a couple of unpublished female OC writers who frequent the one popular confessions blog every so often (I will refrain from naming any names because the intention isn't to create a witch hunt or a callout, but simply to let you and any other readers of this blog know one of the more direct causes for why certain fandoms have gone to shit), and their only engagement with the blog is either to be catty in the replies with regards to the subjects of certain confessions, and/or virtue signal about their own conduct as if they're some kind of "better" person in the RPC while also attempting to garner pity for themselves for their own supposed struggles in the RPC. The catch is, both people have fairly extensive histories of being total hypocrites of the virtues they extol and the things they criticize others for. Both have been known to harass people and run them off the site. At least one has been known to sow discontent, mistrust, and conflict among fandoms while they try to cajole others into writing questionable material with them, then gaslighting them and guilt-tripping them about it later. They've been caught out on these behaviors before and caused a whole lot of drama, and yet they always just disappear and come back later seemingly to pull it all over again. And if you dare to even insinuate what they've done before (like I'm doing right now), and if they even suspect your identity, they'll stalk you, spread rumors and lies about you behind your back, and sometimes occasionally get someone to attack you, all the while continuing to act like they have any ground to stand on and preach to others about the RPC. This is the real truth they don't want you to hear in the RPC. I'm only speaking of two examples, but there are plenty of people just like them among the RPC, among different fandoms, and these are the people who will keep you silent. Who will silence others, foster discord, and burn any fandom down around the ground even if they burn themselves out of a fandom in the process. And they're like cockroaches, because no matter how much they get called out, no matter how much comes out against them, they'll always just "reset" their presence, come back later, sometimes even under the same names that people previously knew them by, and pretend like it never happened. And it always works, every single time, because even if you do bring up their past, they gaslight others into thinking that it either doesn't involve them or they've "changed" since then despite doing all the same damn things that have made them a problem in the first place. These are the people killing your RPC. And so are the people who flock to their defense and get up in arms for them, because maybe they're just as complicit as they are in their bullshit. What's most unfortunate is that they also fall under the banner of "unpublished female OC writers" that you often tout, and they'd probably try to co-op such defenses as a defense and self-justification for themselves as well.

Ya make ALL the justifications ya want to me. Actively ignoring other PEOPLE and ISOLATING them from the fandoms, is NOT acceptable. I don't give a flying fuck anymore what yas excuses are for DEHUMANIZING people for simply writing as a character they know for a fact they can write as. The sooner we realize that this shit is happening the sooner SHIT CAN AND WILL GET FIXED.

I do appreciate the rather in-length 'education' that I already am aware of (just hadn't touched it yet, sincerely thank you and this is not to you specifically). But it's fucking CRUEL to make people feel like they don't exist, all because they write as an unpublished female oc. I WAS ONE OF YAS OR ARE YA NOT READING MY SHIT SWEETUMS?? I ALREADY FUCKING KNOW YAS BULLSHIT. YA AIN'T FUCKING MY MIND ANYMORE.

[ancientforgcd]

Kiana hates when people sacrifice themselves. She hates when they push themselves too hard, especially for her.

Because that's what happened with Himeko, isn't it?

Kiana was supposed to die. They sacrificed themselves for her, and she lived, and now she gets visibly upset when people try to do things that are similar.

What does she think about when she sees people work themselves till they faint? It's stupid. Not just because it's not healthy, but because it's sacrificial. She hates martyrs. She hates it when they're her friends.

Kiana has a weird complex, right? Sacrificing herself left and right, fainting, but not allowing anyone else to do the same? Hypocrite, right?

It's weird, is it not? This complete lack of awareness is concerning. It's almost as if she's oblivious to the fact that she does the same thing all of the time. To everyone else, yes, this situation with Bronya fainting after using four Thrones of Selene at once is a perfect parallel to Kiana using her Herrschers powers too much and coming close to dying.

But Kiana doesn't see her actions in the same light. She really isn't trying to sacrifice herself 90% of the time. The collateral damage (bleeding, pain, fainting) is usually not part of her prediction, and if it is, it's more than she expected.

Her thoughts and intentions are always about keeping everyone safe, and she's okay with coughing up a bit of blood to do that. Just a bit, maybe enough that it will look scary, but it won't hurt her in the long run thanks to the Gem of Serenity and that's okay.

If she faints? It wasn't planned, so it's not really sacrifice. Maybe a lil', but she's selfish enough already, it's the least she can do. Honestly.

When Kiana puts herself in danger, it's for selfish reasons. Self-declared selfishness, but that's how she sees it.

Kiana doesn't sacrifice herself. She does it because she chose to. She chose to. If it doesn't hurt too buad, she doesn't consider it as doing much at all. The level of pain she experiences in every situation is her way of determining how much she's accomplished (sacrificed).

Not only that, but there are circumstances she must be in to even consider it of consequence to other people. If it doesn't happen while someone dear to her is in danger, it doesn't really matter does it? She doesn't understand why someone would be asking about her well-being. She doesn't plan to let anything that happens affect her plans.

There's no reason for them to worry.

If she's not on a battlefield, all of the effort she puts in? (Training, being in pain, strengthening her friends, planning nad strategizing, learning how to control her cores and so much more.)

It doesn't count. She is familiar with optimizing her time, because as a Valkyrie, the Honkai attack indiscriminately. Being prepared and working hard to be strong is nothing when compared to the battle soon to come, therefore, it doesn't count. It's what is expected. It is the basic standard for what is required to survive.

Where everyone sees Kiana working nonstop for weeks, months and years, it's a normal weekend for her. those days outside battle don't count. She worked like that for countless years, so much stress is easy for her.

But....why doesn't she recognize that she pushes herself until she faints? There's a threshold that she passes where she faints, but she still keeps crossing it?

She doesn't recognize her fainting as sacrificial, because as long as the battle ends on a good note and she's still able to think and plan relatively soon after she wakes up, she hasn't sacrificed much other than time. She also has the Gem of Serenity, which lets her feel rejuvenated after a 'nap'.

You see, Kiana Kaslana is interesting. She doesn't know how to distinguish being selfish and selfless, because being selfless is in itself, an act of selfishness. When Kiana, from the perspective of her friends, ruins her healt hand runs from battle to battle without resting or thinking about her friends concern...it's pretty selfish of her.

Wen everyone else considers her selfless, she thinks of herself as doing the obvious amount of work and being selfish too. That much work is expected of her, so it ain't selfless. It's all for her own gain, because when everything is over, she'll be the one going away to slack off in a mansion. Haha!...She's seven steps ahead of everyone (and on the verge of collapse.)

How selfish.

Turns out her inability to realize the irony of her actions is because of the traumatizing 16+ years of mental conditioning where pushing herself over the edge is normal and expected, spurred on by her socially isolated past that led to to somewhat a lack of empathy and emotional awareness and her mentor sacrificing herself for Kiana, just so she can live another day to finally confront Void.

[godlesssuggestions]

Christians talk about the "sanctity of marriage" when it comes to gay people getting married, but I know Christians who have had multiple divorces. These guys really aren't self-aware. smh

there are actually a lot of things christians are frequently hypocrites about. i've heard christians quote the bible to justify judgement about homosexuality, marriage/divorce, women's rights, sex work, etc., regarding political affairs when they actually have given no context to what they have quoted. what's worse is they use their OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS (despite the bill of rights of the very government they're trying to impend upon guaranteeing freedom of and from religion [in my country]) to justify banning these things for other people.

christians not only lack self-awareness, but they use verses from their holy book to justify taking things away from others. christians aren't just harmful to democracy. they are dangerous.