#this is a generous interpretation i suppose

[cipheramnesia]

I think it would be cool to recognize that "patriarchy" doesn't refer to the idea that men generally oppress and hold power over women. I think it would be cool to recognize that "patriarchy" is one of several inter-connected means of consolidation of power, and it works by controlling the conditions of what traits of masculinity are good and acceptable, as a means of power over people in society at large, regardless of sex, gender, etc.

That is how come the same trait welcomed as positive in one person of some particular sex/gender/etc is often interpreted as negative in a person of the same sex/etc. Obvious example, too general but simplified for ease of understanding; assertive behavior in a white person is rewarded in the USA in part as a positive masculine trait, while assertive behavior in a black person is punished and treated as a negative racialized trait.

Nothing in a social hegemony exists in a vacuum. In the USA, continuing the example, patriarchy is one of many ways the social structure is reinforced in the population overall. It offers illusory rewards to anyone who is willing to buy into the concept of distinct social stratification and real boundaries between social groups. The ultimate purpose of hegemony in places like the USA and UK, and others with similar systemic oppression is to maintain the system of power consolidated in the hands of a few. It's definitions are arbitrary and derived from any current social trends sufficient to convince the population that they can benefit by excluding the "wrong people" or by keeping an isolated group of "right people."

I think most of us in one form of disenfranchised group or another only get anywhere if we don't treat our groups as isolated and we let our experiences and goals grow together. I don't think stratification is completely avoidable in large social groups, but it's supposed to be a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. I don't know this stuff very well though.

[gay-furry-poseidon-lover]

"dont pick and choose" where is this enthusiasm for any other crimes that are blantly stated as happening in the musical?

Epic the Musical isnt meant to be perfectly accurate to the original poems. In Epic, we get "seven years shes kept you trapped out of your control, time can take a heavy toll." And then Calypsos songs from her perspective. They are emotional songs, thats like... what musicals are supposed to do, make you feel stuff. Lots of people dont interpret Epic Calypso as a rapist, because its not explicitly written to send that message.

Are we gonna talk about The Odyssey or are we gonna talk about Epic the musical. They are different. "people like Circe," In the Odyssey, Odysseus did not have a choice to sleep with her. He had to. Its not that people just suddenly dont care that she assaulted him, its that Epic is showing us a different version. And Epic's Calypso is shown differently as well.

"I spent my whole life here, was cast away when i was young, alone for a hundred years, i had no friends but the sky and sun," This is what we get about Epic's Calypso's back story. That is different from versions of the myth where Calypso just goes and lives on an island.

However you feel about her is fine, youre allowed to not like her, to hate her even. But this is a fictional character based on a fictional character in a poem from a very long time ago. These arent real people. Odysseus is not on the internet, hes not reading posts about people analizing Calypsos character in a musical and feeling victim blamed or retraumatized. And if you relate a lot to Odysseus and that makes you hate Calypso thats fine. Not everyone sees her in your same context though, and thats not an attack on you. If this is something that is so distressing to you, block people who post about her, hit not interested, stop engaging with it. Take care of yourself. But you don't get to just decide that nobody can like this character ever, and that if they do they're a bad person who thinks rape is okay.

Works of fiction aren't real. Obviously I think that killing a baby is horrible, whether the gods told you too or not. But I still love Ody. That doesnt mean I dont care if people kill babies. I enjoy Zeus's character and songs even though he forces Odysseus to choose between the life of his crew or his own, which is like definitely immensely traumatizing. Enjoying his part in the musical doesnt mean i think thats good?

A lot of characters from greek myth have raped people. But we have the understand that obviously that is bad and wrong, and we would never be fans or sympathize with abusers in real life. At least I do. I havent seen a bit of discourse about Zeus (one of the most famous aggressors) or about any other gods. People enjoy them freely, and thats generally fine.

Why is Calypso treated so differently. Like i don't think anyone is literally arguing that rape is good and its okay that Homer's Calypso did that, nor are they saying that to any victims in their life. And if they are, obviously thats bad. But people just enjoying this character isn't.

May I just point out that calypso is apologising (no matter how backwards it comes off ) only when Odysseus was finally freed by someone else from her.

And that until then she was still actively pushing Odysseus’ Boundaries??

Lighter mot or no she kept this man against his will for seven years. And she didn’t GROW UP on that island. She had a life before that— that led her to be trapped by the gods.

Like she IS a sympathetic and tragic character but let’s not act like she’s innocent.

“for seven years she kept you against your will”

THIS DAMN LINE. LISTEN. BLOODY LISTEN TO IT ALL. DONT PICK WHAT YOU CHOOSE.

There’s a REASON people don’t have an issue with Circe. Are happy to see her as a FRIEND to Odysseus. CALYPSO IS NOT THE SAME CASE.

[oogaboogasphincter]

your pedro pascal character placements - based on your astrological chart! 💟

i made this thread a while ago and i put a silly amount of effort into deciding which character should go with which placement, so i thought i’d post some of my reasoning here! *this is just my personal interpretation of astrology+pedro’s characters; one thing i love about astrology is that it’s all subjective! :)*

**i’m working on adding more characters+placements! i made this list a while ago so i have lots of new ones to add :)**

☀️ Sun signs are said to represent your general personality and the archetypes they symbolize are supposed to act as a goal you’re to achieve in your lifetime, or a way to follow your life’s purpose.

♈️Aries sun: Agent Whiskey

people who fall under this sign are bold, energetic, and passionate about virtually everything in their life.

♉️Taurus sun: Frankie Morales

infamous for being stubborn, people with this placement are rooted in themselves and can be drawn to sensual perspectives.

♊️Gemini sun: Javi Gutierrez

if you have this placement, your mind is a whirlwind; you might be called aloof, scatterbrained, or accused of being in your head a lot.

♋️Cancer sun: Javier Pena

this placement bestows a painful amount of empathy in oneself; therefore, one with this placement might be distanced or protective of themselves and those closest to them.

♌️Leo sun: Din Djarin

people who fall under this sign tend to be people-pleasers, which gives way to them being inclined to indulgence and pride, even if they may at first present or argue otherwise.

♍️Virgo sun: Marcus Pike

infamous for being meticulous, people with this placement tend to be tightly wound and potentially shy or nervous because of it.

♎️Libra sun: Ezra, Joel Miller

if you have this placement, you might fare very well in new situations because of your friendly demeanor. you could be indecisive, but that is often cured by your adaptability.

♏️Scorpio sun: Pero Tovar

this placement makes for confident, intense people who are enshrouded in a quiet, unsuspecting shell. they could give off "doberman" energy.

♐️Sagittarius sun: Max Phillips

so you know i'm an optimist! people with this placement are likely honest to a fault, yet indulge in escapism quite often. you might fall victim to seeing the world through rose-colored glasses.

♑️Capricorn sun: Dave York

people with this placement are one word: driven. this could lead them to being materialistic or standoffish.

♒️Aquarius sun: Maxwell Lord

people with this placement have either never heard the story about the cat being killed by its curiosity or chose to ignore it. they're likely to be intellectual and innovative.

♓️Pisces sun: Oberyn Martell

people who fall under this sign could be considered an amalgamation of all the signs that came before it. they have a knack for empathy and could live in their dreams a lot.

🌙 Moon signs are meant to illustrate your inner monologue, or your emotional reasoning. They heavily impact your personal relationships.

♈️Aries moon: Javier Pena

people with this placement are very direct, but run the risk of becoming argumentative or losing their patience quickly.

♉️Taurus moon: Javi Gutierrez

if you have this placement, you might have a hard time standing up for yourself. you have burdensome emotional depth, but you're conservative about expressing it.

♊️Gemini moon: Max Phillips

if you have this placement, you might feel restless in your own mind and turn to others to express it, making you have a magnetic way with words. you could become shallow when agitated.

♋️Cancer moon: Marcus Pike

people with this placement are empathetic to a fault, which makes them endearingly fragile. you could dwell on things often, unintentionally hurting yourself even more than what something's worth.

♌️Leo moon: Dave York

this placement is very prideful; you might enjoy having a position of control, stealing people's hearts, or being admired or revered. however, you might take things to heart too easily.

♍️Virgo moon: Frankie Morales, Joel Miller

people with this placement tend to be labeled as the "mom" friend; they're reliable, responsible, and like for things to play out simply.

♎️Libra moon: Maxwell Lord

i hate to break it to you if you have this placement (i have it too, so i'm calling myself out just as much as you): you're petty. you could be a natural flirt, yet run the risk of depending on the approval of others if you're not careful.

♏️Scorpio moon: Ezra

people with this placement enjoy starting old things anew. they're have a suspicious feeling ingrained in their minds that just won't go away, so they enjoy transparency in relationships.

♐️Sagittarius moon: Agent Whiskey

if you have this placement, you could enjoy competing with yourself a lot (or think of yourself as your own worst enemy). you could have a tendency to make reckless decisions with cheerful intentions.

♑️Capricorn moon: Din Djarin

although people with this placement can be very guarded, they have a juxtaposing need for validation from others often. therefore, they're calculating when it comes to who they devote their time and energy to.

♒️Aquarius moon: Oberyn Martell

if "not like the other girls" was a placement, it'd be this one. people with this placement tend to take on an observant role rather than an active one, so they are often self-serving, independent, and philosophical.

♓️Pisces moon: Pero Tovar

people with this placement are observant, but instead of being independent like the Aquarius moon placement, they can fall for people's tricks more easily. they have instinctual feelings about people, but their sympathetic tendencies win over, rendering them gullible.

⬆️ Rising signs, also called ascendant signs, are supposed to indicate how other people perceive you or how you present yourself to others. It’s not uncommon for someone to mistake your rising sign for your sun sign because rising signs are sort of like first impressions.

♈️Aries rising: Dave York

if you have this placement, people might think that you move through life at a fast pace, independently, and are quick to jump to action.

♉️Taurus rising: Marcus Pike

people perceive others with this placement as stoic and sensual, often with a calming presence. you might have a sort of comforting, "lived-in" quality to you.

♊️Gemini rising: Maxwell Lord

people with this placement are likely to be thought of as socially exploratory, expressive and analytical; like a firecracker or a party-starter.

♋️Cancer rising: Javi Gutierrez

if you have this placement, you might appear like a wallflower to others. but, your perceived sensitivity makes people feel safe to put their stake in your dependable character.

♌️Leo rising: Ezra

you know those people who command the attention of a room without even trying? they just might have this placement. even though it comes naturally to them, others might think these people to be ostentatious or dramatic.

♍️Virgo rising: Din Djarin

people with this placement are revered for having a reserved character yet are ready to help at a moment's notice. they're not valiantly selfless, though; they're equally receptive to their own needs.

♎️Libra rising: Frankie Morales

people who are sly like a fox — provocative and might be accused more than once of operating under a facade — are likely to have this placement.

♏️Scorpio rising: Javier Pena

if you have this placement, people might think of you as intimidating because of your perceived x-ray vision. but they can see through you, too, to your vulnerability that you try so hard to privatize.

♐️Sagittarius rising: Oberyn Martell

optimistic to an annoying degree, talkative, a go-getter; all phrases used to describe how people with this placement come off to others.

♑️Capricorn rising: Pero Tovar, Joel Miller

people with this placement are often thought of to be responsible and hard-working, contrasted with a deadpan or dry sense of humor that cuts through their tenseness.

♒️Aquarius rising: Max Phillips

if you have this placement, people are likely to perceive you as a unique, educated, flexible, and quirky individual that gatekeeps only the very best parts of themselves.

♓️Pisces rising: Agent Whiskey

people with this placement are received by others as chameleonic. you have a capacity to be emotionally receptive, theoretical, and understand the subjectivity of different perspectives.

[volivolition]

You hear a commotion outside, days after halloween had already passed...

You hear the door creak open...

VISUAL CALCULUS - It's not like the house is our permanent residence, anyways. We live in the void of a headspace. HAND/EYE COORDINATION - Yeah, this is just a convenient depiction that one of the Concepts made. Anyway, catch, Crowny!

[mythalism]

Wait.. so when anon said we traded a few thousand deaths for millions in southern Thedas, are they suggesting that lifting the veil would only cause a few thousand deaths ?

IIRC from what Solas says In trespasser and later shown in the DAV artbook (showing what would happen if rook fails to stop Solas and Solas successfully removes the veil), then taking down the veil was supposed to lead to widespread death across all thedas at minimum OR just straight up kill everyone except the ancient elves.

If it comes down to numbers then losing southern Thedas is still less than what they would've lost if Solas lifted the veil.

However, I still think we should've seen the veil getting removed. If not as the true ending then at least as a game over / fail state in the game. It's been years building up to this moment so at least show us what would happen!

the games have been dodgy and inconsistent about exactly the level of casualty the falling of the veil would cause. based on what solas says in trespasser, i always interpreted "the death of your world" or whatever to be more metaphorical as in the death of the world as we know it, a complete change in reality, a permanent change in peoples way of life, a dissolution of current beliefs and systems, etc. maybe that was me giving both solas and bioware too much credit LMAO. i never really thought of it as "literally everyone is going to die because demons".

but veilguard really did lean into this interpretation (snore.... boring!) with what we see in the prologue. rook also does confront solas in one conversation and estimates the deaths at "hundreds? thousands?" and im pretty sure solas affirms that it would be in the thousands, but that the deaths would be on his conscience. i think they went this route to justify why it was going to stay up in the end, but imo its bad, lazy, and completely contradicts everything we learn in trespasser. literally the point of trespasser is to show us the horrible catastrophe that the veils existence caused in the first place.

solas's decision to bring down the veil and kill "thousands" as collateral damage from demons is not just being weighed against the collateral damage cause by the blight in the south and the evanuris's interference across thedas, he is weighing it against the mortality of every single elf that has ever lived and ever will live, the life of every spirit corrupted into a demon both in the past and forever (something we know he considers to be a fate worse than death, according to his memory of his battle where he sacrificed spirits) and the life of every single mage lost to demonic position, both now and forever. he is also not weighing it in terms of literal deaths, but general suffering. the veil is also responsible for the enslavement and poverty of all elves, on top of their mortality. its responsible for the existence of the mage circles, every single abuse that occurs within them, and every single mage tranquilized. its actually ridiculously unequal. solas literally invented death. of course a few thousand more lives are meaningless to him? what is a few thousand against the literal millions already on his head? trespasser makes this clear as we walk through the vir'dirthara and witness the final memories of the elves that were crushed under falling buildings throughout the empire. veilguard..... hopes we forget that part.

its truly the most cranked to the max, fantasy version of the trolley problem. i think the question pre-veilguard was intended to be analogous to anders decision to blow up the chantry to incite the mage rebellion. its not necessarily should you pull the lever and direct the trolley, or even if the ends justify the means. i think it was intended to be about whether or not he himself had the right to make that decision for the rest of the world, especially considering he is Pride manifested. its less about the cost-benefit analysis of mass casualties to create major societal change and more about an exploration of the things that drive people to the point of such radical action. why did anders feel he had no choice but to blow up the chantry? why did solas feel he had no choice but put up the veil? why does he feel he has no choice to tear it back down? what has driven him to be able to make such impossibly awful moral decisions with such callous ease? and the answer to both is that they were pushed to the limit by the evils their societies were committing. were they right to respond with further, indiscriminate violence? no, of course not. but its a story. we can sympathize with the way they were pushed to the edge and lost themselves in the process.

it comes back to the dehumanization of leadership theme that is all over inquisition and has foundations in veilguard that are never actually realized. solas literally tells rook they never had what it takes to make the sacrifices that leadership requires. and its kind of presented as a villain monologue but HES RIGHT? rook barely makes any difficult decisions in comparison to the inquisitor or solas, even the sacrifice of a single city is a drop in the bucket compared to what solas has done, and rook does it without question and with little remorse. a decision had to be made, and they made it. just like he did.

inquisition was all about how leadership or participation within a corrupt institution makes monsters of us all. leliana struggles with the callous killer she's become at divine justinia's behest (actually a wonderful parallel for solas x mythal now that i think about it), bull has to struggle to unlearn the teachings of the qun by choosing his friends over his duty to his people, cassandra grapples with the horrible truth of the seekers and vows to reform them, thom rainier confronts his literal war crime and accepts responsibility for not just killing a family, but for ordering others to carry it out and bloodying their hands in the process. the INQUISITOR is forced to SIT IN JUDGEMENT and possibly SENTENCE PEOPLE TO DEATH OR TORTURE FOR THEIR CRIMES. what gives them the right?????? divine approval from andraste???? what about when you find out thats all a lie and continue to proliferate the rumor anyway because its politically helpful???? what about in hushed whispers? when the inquisitor destroys an entire world to return to their own without a second thought? its wrong, bad, it should never have existed. you erase it from existence without a single thought towards all the lives that will cease to exist and not one of your companions bats an eyelash. what gave you the right to erase that world? what if the people living in it really liked it? you wouldn't know, you didnt ask anyone other than leliana. i truly am starting to believe that veilguard was designed to deliver on this and then had to pivot for whatever reason (EA perhaps, according to those tweets). the natural conclusion to this story would have been the veil coming down, but not by solas's decision alone, or by him at all. even if you are right, you cannot change the world alone, or the process will break you. you cannot make decisions that weigh the lives of millions without losing your humanity in the process. we saw it happen to anders. ghost-varric even has a line about this in veilguard where he says something about solas seeing his attachments as a weakness, when really they are a strength. the lesson solas needed to learn was not that the veil should actually stay up and he should move on, but that only gods made decisions like the fate of the world, and as he always says, he is not a god. there could have been a better way, if he trusted those around him. the regret demon in the callback actually says this nearly verbatim, which is part of the reason i think this was the original intention. i genuinely think the plan was that the veil would come down but by rook's hand and that the good endings would have involved using your faction connections to figure out how to take the veil down safely and build a new thedas, without the veil but also without the elvhen empire of old bc that shit sucked. it would have taken the entire world coming together to figure out the best way forward, and would have freed solas from the burden of leadership that was actively polluting his spirit into pride, while teaching him the value of teamwork, as cheesy as that sounds. this also is the fufillment of his role as a trickster god - he needs to catalyze ragnarok. i genuinely think this was the original intention because it is so obvious in his writing its insane LMFAO. but him not being the one to usher in that change would be another way to release him from the mantle of trickster god that he didnt want in the first place. the bad ending could have been that without faction and community support, you aren't able to find a peaceful way to bring it down and rook, in a moment of desperation, ends up sowing the same violence and destruction that solas did, the perfect mirror. the lesson should have been that such foundational change and dissolving our current structures is terrifying, but we can build a better world - together, not alone.

its crazy to me to think that legend of korra book 4 pulled this off with opening the spirit portals and dragon age failed to LMFAOOOO.

[qsycomplainsalot]

re my own post:

I feel like the interpretation of "there's no such thing as an anti-war war movie" as "for a war movie to be an anti-war movie it needs to show all war as wrong and pointless" is a very... weird sentiment. I think it's an opinion very colored by the fact that by and large, most war movies seen by the people holding it are either American or British, and those (especially the former) largely perpetuate the hero/warrior myth of at least the individual bringing sense to the larger conflict. And then German movies, which are antiwar by rightfully portraying aggression as inherently wrong. But when you think about it more than a minute, "showing that war is always wrong and pointless" kind of specifically works for them ? I'm not disagreeing with the general sentiment, but like even without going into countries that have been colonized (not that I could because they barely have a film industry, largely thanks to the economic implications of having been colonized) what the fuck was France supposed to do in WW1 when the German empire invaded (a day before even declaring war) and occupied a large part of the north ? How is your anti-war message that war is pointless when this was almost wholey defensive in this specific front ? French movies generally have an anti-war sentiment compared to American WW2 films filled with heroism, and that's specifically because of the trauma of both World Wars, being invaded and cough not taking any lessons from it/giving freedom to our colonies cough. But that anti-war sentiment is more easily described as "it's a tragedy that we have to go to war". "War is always bad" is kind of the luxury of countries who fucking started them.

The war was fucking pointless, that doesn't mean our fight to protect our land was. Once Germany gave a blank check to Austria to do anything to bully Serbia into submission, then invaded our country and declared war, in that order, it wasn't "useless" to fight back. Our government has a lot to answer for in the way they treated our soldiers, but that does not fucking mean our soldiers died for nothing. They died protecting civilians from an ever war hungry expansionist neighbor who took yet another war after that to quit being a dick. It's not useless to defend yourself you knobhead.

Happy Armistice Day !

[signanothername]

With one of the recent asks you answered being nm growing to care after going through a lot of MTT, do you think before he actually DOES start caring, or is still in denial at least, he keeps some of the old one's rooms? Maybe one he was fond of, even if he won't admit it, that he...it's not regret he feels, but he's not happy with the death of them. Or maybe a Killer's cats given to Ccino, because NM doesn't think he could care for them, but who else could right now?

(The ask Anon is referring to)

See, I was generally talking about the trope much more than Nightmare himself as a character (and certainly was not talking about my interpretation of him in that ask)

That being said, when it comes to Nightmare as a character (talking about NM in general and not specifically my own interpretation of him here) I at least believe he doesn’t have the capacity to care to that extent

Not to the extent of actually mourning them or keeping memorials of them at least, they’re expendable to him, and if he actually started caring, I think he won’t care in the way people seem to think where he genuinely sees them as irreplaceable, but rather “hey, there’s a million of you, and no matter the differences, it’s still you regardless”

So when it comes to their rooms, they just get passed down to whoever Nightmare forcefully takes away with him to replace the one before, whatever love Nightmare might hold for the trio will be close to the edge of possession, I don’t think Nightmare would hold genuine pure love for the trio, not in a way that makes sense to other people anyway (and he certainly wouldn’t show it in a traditional typical way either)

Even if we talk about Nightmare after he genuinely started caring, his way of showing care wouldn’t be the typical “taking care of your needs” type, but rather, “I will be a lot less of an asshole moving forward, and provide you with what I can”

As for things like Killer’s cats, I think Killer’s smart enough to already have them within someone’s care and it’s definitely never gonna be Nightmare (even after Nightmare’s supposed change of heart)

[goldlightsaber]

unpopular take but i saw the hug and opening of the stitches as like. roman seeking out pain like he always does and then kendall supervising him in it. he knows roman finds a twisted relief in it and lets him have it. it felt to me like something that had happened before, like roman has historically wanted to seek out pain and older brother kendall is there to hold him through it. if he's going to do it, kendall at least wants to be there with him. like if you're going to do drugs, do it under this roof etc

[howtostartafight]

You really thought you did something? That uno reverse card is pointless (and dumb) when all of your points are untrue and don't even have a basis in canon. The Jedi (as written by Lucas) have never justified or even perpetuated a genocide and I have no idea where you are even getting your information when it is so blatantly untrue. (Anakin and Dooku were both no longer Jedi when they committed the atrocities that they did.) The Jedi don't even use violence as their first choice, they're diplomats first and foremost. They even offered Palpatine the option of surrendering before he killed Saesae, Agen, and Kit and Mace realized he was too dangerous to be kept alive.

The Jedi are not a cult by any definition, they don't brainwash anyone and they certainly don't force anyone to stay a Jedi. Dooku himself left the Order with no contest and even remained in contact with people there because they loved him and still thought of him as a friend even though he didn't want to be a Jedi anymore. And what "dark & unnatural families" are you even talking about???? Jedi come from all over. Dooku was a noble, Feemor was a farmer's son, Quinlan was royalty, Aayla was a slave, A'Sharad was a legendary Jedi's son. The Jedi came from all over and your attempt to generalize is sad. The Jedi don't need to "fix" anyone, they teach them the ways of the Jedi and if that doesn't fit with how the child wants to lead their life, they can join the Jedi Service Corps or, y'know, go home???? They don't even kidnap kids, the parents have every right to refuse. Hell, Quinlan's parents DID refuse and Tholme only taught him when he was younger because of how strong his psychometry was. Quin was never supposed to join the order, but his parents were killed by his aunt and then his aunt tortured him, and it wasn't safe for him to be on his home planet anymore. Jedi aren't hive-minded either, the Jedi Code is literally up for interpretation by members and they're aware they have differing interpretations

You also can't fucking remake the definition of genocide just because you feel like it??? A genocide is, by definition, "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group." The Jedi were most definitely a culture and their genocide was planned for over a thousand years, so definitely deliberate and systematic. The Jedi don't mold children to their box, because there's no single, perfect way to be a Jedi. They teach mindfulness and self-discipline, they value knowledge, balance, and teaching. They aren't victims of circumstance, their deaths were orchestrated and planned for and, again, a GENOCIDE. The Jedi were quite literally the most open minded people in the galaxy, they were inter-galactic diplomats and peacekeepers. There is no way they would have been able to do their job if they weren't open minded and considerate of other cultures.

Sure I'll give you that maybe the Sith weren't based on Nazis, but you can't say that Palpatine's (Nazi based) Empire is separate. Palpatine is a fucking Sith???? He is the culmination of over a thousand years of planning and manipulation. He IS what the Sith wanted. He and his Empire aren't separate from the Sith, the Sith RAN the Empire. He created it, he defined it, and he is exactly what the Sith dreamed of. Complete and utter power and control over the galaxy. The Jedi weren't even remotely similar to Nazis, they welcomed differences (including religions, so many Jedi practiced their homeworlds religion) and had the most diverse range of sentients in their ranks. They didn't even have to hide behind a halo, they knew they weren't perfect, because they were only human, and strived to simply be the best they could.

The Sith's core beliefs were not "self-empowerment and personal freedom"?????? Where did you even get that idea?? Self-empowerment literally means "making meaningful choices and positive change" and not a single change the Sith ever made was positive. Yes, the Sith were founded by a former Jedi, who wanted more knowledge and POWER through the dark side. They were driven by their hatred, anger, and greed for more than what they had. They spent a thousand years planning for a galactic takeover, they started a war for it, and began their takeover with a genocide. No sensible Sith was focused on survival, they literally killed each other to further their own power when the other showed weakness.

Sith concepts are the opposite of great??? They kill each other to further their power, which is part of the reason they fell (because of all the infighting). I have no idea where you got the idea that Jedi think people "need their saving" and "who you are is bad and wrong" because it's insane. The amount of differences welcomed and cherished by the Jedi compared to the Sith?? The Jedi openly allowed their members to practice their homeworlds religions and cultures (Bariss, Luminara, Shaak-Ti, and Ahsoka all do off the top of my head). Sure you may feel that way about the Sith, but that just signals to me that something about Star Wars was fundamentally misunderstood by you, because every time the Sith appear on screen, they do something AWFUL. (Genocide, murder, torture comes to mind).

Yea I know the Sith were former Jedi. Former Jedi who became fanatics and started millenia of suffering. They also left the Jedi themselves, the Jedi didn't "throw them away". They rejected their new practices because they were dangerous and built their empire on the backs of slaves and suffering.

Jedi were peace-loving warrior-monks. They spent their lives fighting for democracy and equality. If you had bothered to do your research, you'd know that both the Sith and the Jedi were based on "knighthood, chivalry, paladinism, samurai bushido, Shaolin Monastery, Feudalism, Hinduism, Qigong, Greek philosophy and mythology, Roman history and mythology, Sufism, Confucianism, Shintō, Buddhism and Taoism, and numerous cinematic precursors." Please point to where on that list Catholicism and Nazis fall. I beg of you to give me one good example of how the Jedi are inspired by either of those things. Just saying it is never going to make anyone believe you. And point me to where the Jedi were systemic liars, because I can point you to where the Sith were.

I am very far from media illiterate. Lucas wrote the Jedi as the good guys. Therefore, they are the good guys. It wasn't shades of gray where the Sith were right sometimes and the Jedi were right others. The Jedi were warrior-monks who kept the peace for centuries. I know exactly what I'm talking about. I have citations and proof. You do not. You have not given me a single example of your claims.

I didn't even call you either of those things, please get checked for cataracts. Don't even know where you got the idea that I was a weird church kid or I tell people they're "going to burn in hell" but honestly you clearly make illogical assumptions all the time so I'm not shocked.

order 66 was NOT a genocide. you can only genocide people & cultures, you can’t genocide a systemically deified super-religion that wants everyone in existence to either agree with them & exist their way or burn in hell for eternity. any decent ppl who went down with the purge forfeit their lives down the drain along with their family, home & very sense of self. they. had. it. fucking. coming.

from an indigenous person, fuck y’all for even comparing order 66 to genocide & talking all over survivors of real genocides to save face for your evangelical faith & the people you think are good guys. you are not about to disrespect the continent-sized OCEANS of blood that make up our ancestors & loved ones who were lost to real genocide. fuck off.

[themyscirah]

Complaining abt Suicide Squad yet again but the fact that they have Waller exposing the alien community to space racist attacks and talking abt how she got to her position through deceit and being a terrible person and stuff is just. Ahsfiwueh JUST SAY YOU DONT KNOW WALLER.

Anyways literally the 3rd mission of the Squad ever (and the first framed as smth Waller picked and not orders from above) was the Squad discrediting and stopping a rogue vigilante who was only arresting POC and funneling white people into white supremacy groups (of which he was the most prominent member) in SUICIDE SQUAD #4. and it's explicitly framed as this mission being personal for Waller that she's hiding from the government bc its illegal like. Guys. Please why are we having her incite (space bc comics) racist attacks now

Also the whole "Amanda got her position through deceit and being a terrible person" NO. she KEPT her position through being shitty and playing complicated political games!!! She wasn't always that way like there is a difference and it is IMPORTANT ppl PLEASEEEE. In Secret Origins #14 we learn Amanda's backstory and she used to be a normal, caring person! Like even after she entered into working in government and politics she wasn't automatically morally bankrupt like please people. She was originally given control of the Squad by Reagan (*sigh* 80s comics...) to distract and get rid of her because she was so successful at pushing progressive social policy in Congress. Acting like she's this static pillar of evil is such a waste of her character and so fucking uninteresting and disrespectful to her arc it drives me MAD.

Like I am NOT saying Waller is all sunshine and rainbows, she fucking SUCKS (said w love <3) but like there's a human being there. It's a progression, she has a character arc like please, DC, please!!! They've fucked up Waller so bad and made her so opaque and uninteresting she can't even be the protagonist of her own story for fucks sake!

Like I don't know how many times I have to scream it until DC hears me or remembers but WALLER IS THE MAIN CHARACTER OF SUICIDE SQUAD. ITS HER BOOK. yet right now she's a cutout to be used as the villain wherever the writers please. Even in her book we get none of her perspective really displayed, no exploration of her thoughts with any kind of understanding of the role she traditionally has played and was made to play in the story.

[nattikay]

it seems that there are sometimes people who take it as a personal attack if I correct Na'vi language stuff on their post, and as such I would like to make it super duper extra clear that that is never my intention.

When I reblog a post to correct Na'vi grammar or phonetics, I am NOT doing it as an attack or insult or criticism or “ha ha you’re so stupid” or any other such nonsense. I’m just an autistic girl with a fixation on the language who genuinely enjoys teaching/explaining it.

[seilon]

please don’t by k.will did more for the gays back in 2012 than any boy group can possibly do with fan service and crop tops in 2024

[aestariiwilderness]

Actually, misogyny is a feature, not a bug, of sinful human nature; Christianity was and has been the cure! I'm sorry you think otherwise, but it's pretty much guaranteed for someone to draw erroneous conclusions like this if you cherry-pick pieces of any text and ignore others, put them out of context, and then interpret them with no understanding of their original language, meaning, or cultural setting. For one thing, you're looking at this through a modern perspective -- a modern perspective which is, by the way, based on truly radical values that Christianity actually made the norm (equal rights, etc.). P.S. : (Women in Biblical times were just all stupid, I guess, for flocking en masse to a faith that oppressed them somehow even more than the oppressive cultures they were raised in? :D)

Just off the top of my head: 1. The husband is supposed to die for the wife, give himself (his desires, wants, life) for her, and love her (immediate context to some of those screenshots you sent). There's no room for abuse, neglect, or misogyny in a Christian marriage or a Christian's life, and a husband who does not provide for his family in every respect is considered to have denied the faith and become "worse than an unbeliever". In the case of an unbelieving husband (and, I believe, in the case of any spouse who has broken the covenant of marriage in any way, including abuse, adultery, neglect, etc.) the covenant is already broken, and the "brother or sister" is "under no bondage" in such cases. God loathes divorce -- it's unnatural and typically harmful to everyone involved -- but still in no way requires anyone, man or woman, to be trapped in an abusive home or to be prevented from remarrying. 2. "Submission" (interesting term in the original, you should look it up! :D) is only ever in the context of husbands and wives, not men and women in general. Role in a given setting (i.e., marriage and family) is not based on inherent value. A lieutenant is not inherently worth less as a person than a general is. It's just that their roles are different, and in times of crisis (which a family often has :D) there needs to be a clear chain of command, or there is confusion and the crisis worsens. In return for this command role, the husband takes all responsibility for everything that befalls his family, regardless of whether he took his wife's advice for a given decision or not. He is to blame for everything that happens in the household. Further sources below! 3. A woman is not permitted to exercise SPIRITUAL authority over a man -- i.e., be a pastor (teacher, in this context). This means nothing in terms of barring women from being close to God or even clearly surpassing men in spiritual and other areas. You may want to look into Deborah and Barak in the Old Testament and Anna the prophetess in the New Testament for examples of women in spiritual or divinely revelatory positions. Further sources below! 4. Legit God is saying that Eve isn't at fault for sin entering the world? The ultimate responsibility is always given to Adam, even though Eve ate first, and sin is described as thus descending through Adam. Eve was lied to -- but Adam knew the vibes were rancid and ate anyway.

5. "Helper fit" is probably better translated "helper equal to/comparable to him" -- i.e., another human. Notably, it was only after the fall wherein it became necessary, due to sinful human nature preventing harmony and agreement, to have a "casting vote" in a marriage. (Again -- all of this is in the context of a marriage, not among men and women in general.)

https://www.gotquestions.org/woman-helper-suitable.html https://www.gotquestions.org/desire-husband-rule.html 6. As for the rest -- God did not say rape was okay. Far from it -- rape actually brought a death penalty to the rapist in the Old Testament, which isn't something you get often even in modern times! What you're reading in those screenshots is actually a groundbreaking, unique (at the time) approach to crimes against women, marriage, and women's rights. It's just that we don't immediately have the cultural context for it, so you're missing some salient details -- as well as having some translation issues. See if these help you! I included other objections you might have as well. Some should also include references to the first five counters I made above, including verse references so you can check them out against the source yourself. Hope these help! Further Sources! :D https://www.gotquestions.org/misogyny-Bible.html https://www.gotquestions.org/men-women-equal.html https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-rape.html https://www.gotquestions.org/gender-equality-inequality.html https://www.gotquestions.org/sexual-assault.html https://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-violence-against-women.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/spousal-rape.html https://www.gotquestions.org/submit-to-one-another.html https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-submissive.html https://www.gotquestions.org/wives-submit.html https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-sexism.html https://www.gotquestions.org/weaker-vessel.html https://www.gotquestions.org/because-of-the-angels.html https://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html https://www.gotquestions.org/God-Bible-sexist.html https://www.gotquestions.org/woman-helper-suitable.html https://www.gotquestions.org/desire-husband-rule.html https://www.gotquestions.org/womens-rights.html https://www.gotquestions.org/pain-in-childbirth.html https://www.gotquestions.org/women-silent-church.html Also: I'm confused as to why you would attack the foundational justification and basis for equal rights, the concept of right and wrong, etc. (the foundational justification and basis being the Bible, Judaism, and the Christian faith)? (Historically, this is true -- one only need look at the thousands of years of history where women were treated as second-class citizens at absolute best and then compare their meteoric rise in considered status with the advent of Christianity. I believe you can actually prove causation, not just correlation :D -- but regardless, that's not my point here.) "Equal rights and right/wrong aren't just Biblical concepts!" you might argue. I agree, society has had this pervasive idea of "right" and "wrong" (as well as a multitude of other abstract concepts such as justice, freedom, autonomy, love, evil, mercy, and more) from the beginning of recorded history. Which...doesn't make sense, from any naturalistic philosophy. Where in nature can you find "right" and "wrong"? Where in nature can you find "good" and "evil"? Where in nature can you find "fair" and "unfair"? Where in nature can you find "justice"? Where in nature can you find "gender equality" or "equal rights", or even "rights" at all? They don't exist in nature. There's no basis for them and certainly no justification for them in nature. A naturalistic philosophy (i.e., theory of evolution) cannot account for their existence, and it certainly cannot justify them. According to any naturalistic philosophy -- including evolution -- there's no reason why women shouldn't ALWAYS be treated as second-class citizens -- broodmares, sex slaves, used and abused, etc. Evolution (and other naturalistic philosophies) can only provide "might makes right" and "the survival of the fittest/strongest". There is no room in those philosophies for any kind of inherent human right, let alone gender equality. Most world religions also fail to provide justification and basis, although to a lesser degree. From what I've seen, they either don't provide a justification for these abstract concepts and "rights" or simply already establish women (and other disadvantaged groups) as second-class citizens by nature. The Bible, on the other hand, provides both justification, basis, and explanation for them. Attributes of a perfect Creator and an objective moral standard, expressed and built in to His creation; value and rights inherent to every human everywhere at every age. You can find verse references, again, below in the links. https://www.gotquestions.org/sanctity-of-life.html https://www.gotquestions.org/moral-argument.html https://www.gotquestions.org/moral-truth.html

[noornight]

Is he trying to kiss him or bite him? Maybe it's both

[shepards-folly]

one last night together

[bayesiandragon]

Not sure I care enough to engage with the post, but to read SVSSS + extras and come away with the interpretation that SJ doesn't care about why YQY failed to save him, just that he did fail, and therefore would never forgive him or change his behavior towards him if he learned the truth, feels off-place to me. It seems to lean into the view that SJ doesn't actually care about YQY, just sees him as a useful tool, and thus couldn't be hurt by the supposed abandonment - with that interpretation it would then make sense to think he would neither care nor change his behavior (towards YQY) upon learning what actually happened.