#this isn't meant as a criticism of people who like those terms or find them valuable or validating

[thr0wnawayy]

Hello! Been really enjoying your MHA takes especially the aftermath, it had me thinking but what if Hawks and the HC were responsible were for wiping out Izuku's record in the Final War. We know there was people recording Izuku's battle with Tomura but yet people not knowing about Izuku and acting like he is some mysterious legend just didn't sit right with me. But if they knew, OFA was going to disappear and there would be no Symbol of Peace in the short term until Mirio arrived (bleh). Then it would make sense why Hawks and company would delete this stuff for any number of reasons. It would be this weird sort of propaganda where the collective is glorified. While still retaining the status quo until they can find a stronger Symbol because I refuse to take seriously Mirio being number 1 cause his quirk is overrated.

This would help explain why Izuku's role in the war is essentially erased and no one seems to have remembered him despite being the deciding factor, but his depression/guilt means he doesn't care to talk about. It would be overwhelming for Izuku because the propaganda would only assert that his role was meaningless despite it being the contrary. Of course, it doesn't help that nobody does anything to help lift Izuku from his mental problems.

What your saying is absolutely plausible, however there are a few things that conflict with your theory.

No one really knew about OFA in the first place. This is a massive fuck up on Hori's part, as "canonically" only 3 people really know about OFA (5, if you count sheild and Melissa)

The fact is, the general public isn't really aware of what OFA was. To their knowledge Izuku might have been one of AFO's science projects or something of the sort, which could have created problems in trying to reestablish "order".

Thus the Commission thought it best for OFA to just fade into the background and that meant nipping every bud related to it. Including Midoriya.

You see, All Might is covered. He's made a name for himself and even though there was panic after his retirement, he's still one of the only people capable of standing firm. That alone grants him a level of protection and support networks that Midoriya clearly lacks.

The second issue is that the idea of a symbol is so ingrained with All Might (or rather the idea of AM) that OFA is connected to that by proxy.

The Commission needs a hero that doesn't exist anymore, because in a post Liberation War Japan? They can't exist.

Not when people have been exposed to how rotten the current system is underneath and no 'new coat of paint' will ever be enough to change that, no matter how fanciful the lie.

Midoriya by his very nature (and failings) as a hero, cannot become 'the greatest' in this world, because what once passed for the greatest turned out to be a human trafficking piece of shit, who was killed by his victim's own hand.

Izuku's record wasn't so much wiped, as much as he just gave up. He went so went so far off course that he wound up in a worse position than when he started and dragged everyone with him in the process.

The reality is a culture built on "out of sight, out of mind" when it comes to crime. MHA's Japan does this, but far, far worse and that isn't sustainable. Not when you have massive critics like Japan does.

Japan is in a free fall, Toshinori is one of those people, hopefully I'll get around to writing that mini chapter fully.

Hawks doesn't have the brains to lead. As seen in the U.N Meeting, he's a horrible politician (being a child soldier will do that). He's used to taking orders and polishing the boots of whomever is giving them, not sitting down and discussing how they (the nations) can use their power to make the world a better place.

As for the Hero Boards, due to the lack of participation, they fluctuate violently every term due to the smaller voting pool. Mirio's rank is only semi-consistant, with him constantly switching to number one and number three every odd poll showcase.

The portion of the public that still look up to heroes see him as a model person, but not a model hero. As they look for a hero that will never come.

The truth is there cannot be another All Might in the same way there can never be another AFO (Pre Kamio ofc). They were titans of their time, only able to exist because of the circumstances unique to their times.

There's a saying that is often misquoted

"The survival of the fittest"

This is an incomplete version of the phrase, the correct version is: "The survival of the fittest to adapt"

That is what evolution is, an arms race.

There will never truly be another All Might, there may never be another League Of Villains. But it doesn't matter, because some way, somehow.

The pieces will slot into place and then the real fun can begin. So long as their are those who slip through the cracks. So long as the current society stands.

There will always be that child that everyone can see, but choose to ignore.

They can lie to themselves, have them put on a happy face, shunt them to fitting into the current "mold" and then go home and wash their hands of responsibility because "I did my part".

It won't make them any less guilty.

It won't make those children any less adaptable.

[doobledabbadoo]

Is the Mr. Men & Little Miss franchise sexist? - An informal essay by a fan

(tl;dr summary is listed at the end of this post)

A while ago, I was going through my strawpage (which you can find here) to uncover some submissions that were collecting dust over time. While most of them were about how I was doing, or silly headcanons that the Mr. Men and Little Miss characters had, I came across one that I think needed more than a silly and lighthearted response from your's truly:

"Do you think Mr Men and Little miss is Sexist?"

For those who don't know, the Mr. Men and Little Miss franchise is a British children's literature franchise that contains simple, shaped people that embody certain attributes, such as happiness, luckiness, or forgetfulness. The creator of the series is Roger Hargreaves, who created the first Mr. Men book, Mr. Tickle, in 1971. The book series is still being written today by Adam Hargreaves, Roger's son.

Meanwhile, sexism is defined by the prejudice, discrimination, or stereotyping towards a target sex, typically towards women. Because sexism is a more sensitive topic than many people realize, I will do what I can to approach this subject manner in a more sensitive and serious matter.

I will be writing this from my own perspective; as someone who's identity doesn't relate to being either male or female, and as an avid fan who is viewing the franchise from a critical lens for the sake of this essay. Keep in mind that I'm not an expert on sexism or how women should be portrayed in media, so you may take anything I say below with a grain of salt, and I highly encourage you to do your own research on the subject to form your own thoughts and opinions.

If you're looking for my answer, I honestly don't think that the Mr. Men and Little Miss series is sexist. For one, almost all of the relationships between the male characters and female characters are strictly platonic. Even in Little Miss Valentine's book, a character meant to embody a holiday all about love, includes friendship as one of its core themes. The only instance of romance I gathered from actually reading and looking into the books is between Miss Shy and Miss Quiet, and even then I'm pretty sure it's only implied, based on their interactions.

I've seen a lot of people criticize the series for some of its more negative stereotypes towards women, using more malicious characters, like Miss Naughty and Miss Trouble, or more incompetent characters, such as Miss Helpful, Miss Late, or Miss Scatterbrain. I would've agreed if it were the 1980's, where there were significantly less female characters than male characters. However, some people should consider that there's also many malicious male characters, like Mr. Mischief, Mr. Rude, and Mr. Mean, and many incompetent male characters, like Mr. Clumsy, Mr. Forgetful, and Mr. Wrong. Plus, within these past few years, we've had some more positive female characters, like Miss Brave, Miss Inventor, Miss Sparkle, Miss Hug, and Miss Fabulous, so it definitely balances out.

Although, there are a few decisions the franchise makes for its books and series that does make me raise an eyebrow. For example:

I saw another post on tumblr earlier that criticized how infantilizing "Little Miss" sounds, especially in comparison to "Mr. Men". I do agree that this isn't really the best way to label female characters in the series, as I think something such as the "Miss Madams" could've worked just as well. I don't know how much the Mr. Men and Little Miss franchise is willing to rebrand this name. They've renamed a couple of their characters in the past due to offensive terms (Miss Plump to Miss Greedy, and Mr. Uppity to Mr. Snooty), but I'm not sure if they're willing to remove the "Little" in all their female character's names any time soon. Maybe in another world, they could be branded as the "Little Misses and Little Misters" or the "Mr. Men and Miss Madams".

Miss Brainy, who's just simply tired of everyone asking her questions, has her book end with her nearly getting mauled by a lion. To be fair, neither Roger or Adams wrote this, but... What exactly did she do for a lion to appear on her walk before trying to eat her? She could've learned something like how not everyone was as well educated as her, and that she could learn to be more patient with them. At least Mr. Clever, a character known to be obnoxiously smart in his own book, learned to be humble when he couldn't answer subjective questions. The whole lion thing just felt entirely random.

Little Miss Late, at the end of her book, ends up having a more fulfilled life by cooking and staying at home with Mr. Lazy. On one hand, this does enforce some gendered stereotypes from the 1950's, where a woman is supposed to cook and stay inside for the man in the house, and if you know anything about the 50's, well... It wasn't a good decade for women, to put it simply. On the other hand, there are some women who actually don't mind cooking and cleaning for the men in their lives, and if that's what makes Miss Late happy, who am I to judge?

Just some of the treatment that the female characters get in the Mr. Men show. Because the producers of the show wanted to market it towards boys, they cut a bunch of the female characters that were in development, and they even removed a prominent female character in between seasons simply because the executives didn't like her. They've brought in more characters in season 2, more female characters than male, but they don't utilize any of them as they do the cast they had in season 1. I personally would've loved to see Miss Bossy have a shouting match with Mr. Stubborn or Mr. Rude, or even Miss Curious take Mr. Bump's role in the "How do they do it?" segments of season 2!

Even despite these gripes, I honestly don't think that the franchise itself is sexist. It had many different books, shows, music, and even a musical throughout the years, and they were all written, directed, and produced by several different people with different perspectives and biases.

If you're a woman, or fall under the transgender and nonbinary umbrella, and you've engaged in any Mr. Men media, I would also love to hear your thoughts on how the Mr. Men and Little Miss franchise treats its female characters. It's always great to listen to other people's voices who differ from yours, as it provides different perspectives into the conversation.

tl;dr: no, i do not think its a sexist series. i can see why some people would think so, but i personally dont think it is.

[squirrel-art]

Finished my little compilation of Sav and her mobility aids! ID in alt for each.

Disclaimer that I'm able-bodied & open to criticism about my portrayal! Also I realized belatedly her rollator is parked in a way that would, in fact, not keep it from rolling the fuck around, my bad.

Further details about my design philosophy/Sav's symptoms under the cut.

I played Savtas through Consular Story Chapter 1 in Full Good Girl Mode, saving all the Jedi and using the shielding ritual whenever prompted. The side effects of the rituals are vague and inconsequential in-game so as to make the job of the writers and programmers easier; characters comment worriedly about the fact that you "look tired" and not much else.

Fortunately, I have none of these restrictions. I don't know how to scientifically quantify "life-essence", but in my canon the energy required to create and maintain the shields comes right out of the body of the shielder, and behaves first and foremost like a faster-than-sustainable burning of calories. In the short-term, Sav became dangerously malnourished and fatigued; in the long-term she developed PoTS and what I've been glibly referring to as "Force fibro" in my brain, because the symptoms she experiences are the similar to that of those who suffer from fibromyalgia in real life: chronic pain, chronic fatigue, disordered sleep, and brain fog.

Some of those physical symptoms are ameliorated via use of a mobility aid, so she's tried out a couple different types.

Rollator

Sav's mobility aid of choice, purchased somewhere at the beginning of Ch 2. Sav is prone to dizziness and fatigue, and has less difficulty walking than she does standing for long periods; the rollator helps keep her balance and gives her somewhere to sit for short spells when she needs to.

The wheels do make this device better for navigating flatter and more even ground, but I imagine she can swap the wheels out for all-terrain varieties. I wonder if you could put blades on them like ice skates, to move around on places like Hoth? Well, the brakes wouldn't work, so probably not.

As mentioned in a previous post on my other sideblog, the design and colors are meant to evoke the pillars of the old Jedi Temple on Coruscant. This model is bespoke, created to Savvy's whimsical specifications. It wasn't even that expensive; you'd be surprised how many discounts people are willing to offer a Jedi!

Chair

A gift from the Jedi Council upon her defeat of Terrak Morrhage and the subsequent quelling of the Force plague. It's a more expensive model, and comes with a sturdy stand to rest it on when it's charging or not in use.

Design inspo drawn from both canon sources and the wonderful hermitmoss' hoverchair headcanons post!

I deliberated for a while as to whether Sav would have been given a wheelchair or a hoverchair. I settled on hoverchair mostly because Sav wanted a certain level of independence in her movement, but nobody was sure how long it would take her to regain enough upper body strength to reliably push herself around in a manual chair.

Sav in this image is at the beginning of her recovery, but she does continually make use of her chair after regaining some of her weight and muscle mass. Her rollator became her device of choice over the chair in part because the chair is kind of bulky and heavy, and can't be easily collapsed for transport. She probably has a lighter, more maneuverable transport chair stored on the ship to utilize in a pinch.

Looking at the design of the chair, I am already dissatisfied with it - the seat isn't raked to keep her from sliding out of it, and the control panel should realistically be attached to an extension and not directly under her hand. We'll fix that in the next pass, I think, but for now this drawing is representative of the overall design and colors.

Cane

She's got a few of these! Most have an offset or contour grip because she finds them the most comfortable, and most have adjustable bases.

Her favorite is probably the non-adjustable wooden one she got from a craftsman on Alderaan, the only one she owns made of fully organic materials.

[tellthemeerkatsitsfine]

As I've mentioned, I've spent a solid chunk of 2025 so far moving all my comedy stuff onto a new, massive external hard drive. This meant I could finally bring together a few things that I'd been keeping on back-up drives, and have all my Zaltzman and Oliver stuff together. An incomplete screenshot of the folder:

I am amazed that two sub-folders on there that I thought were only to archive some history - Bugle episodes that ft. John Oliver, and Daily Show episodes that ft. John Oliver - were, in fact, updated within the last couple of months. We had John Oliver's fantastic cameo on The Bugle at the very end of 2024, including the Q&A that I still can't think too hard about without losing my mind.

And then, last week, there was this:

I really try not to be too starry-eyed about the era of American late-night topical comedy I grew up with. There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of the Stewart's TDS/Colbert's Report era of fake news. They were brilliant, they shaped so much of my relationships with comedy and with politics, because I watched them every day at such a formative age. And they were so, so well done.

Though even that is a problem, isn't it? That entertainment personalities were affecting my relationship with politics? I was a teenager when I started watching Stewart and Colbert, I followed Canadian politics fairly closely because of course my dad started me on CBC radio when I was young, but most of what I knew about American news came from those entertainment shows. I was in my early 20s when I started making sure I got the actual news from actual news sources, and then used the entertainment programs to give me something to laugh about afterwards. But as a teenager, I got my news from Jon Stewart. Lots of people kept doing that, even as adults. And that's a problem. Jon Stewart and the other people involved in his Daily Show had a major hand in eroding that line between news and entertainment. And even though I enjoy that when it comes from people who's politics largely I agree with, like Jon Stewart - these days, Jon Stewart is the first to admit that that erosion had unintended consequences that may not have been worth it.

I also don't agree with every word of Jon Stewart's politics. The main controversy that comes to mind now is the way they used to focus on bipartisanship and centrist compromise, which also seemed a lot less dangerous back when I was a teenager. I enjoy political comedy, but I am aware of, and interested in, the ethical questions that surround it. Like the issue of comedy-washing, which has happened with American entertainment programs (Donald Trump's rise to power was definitely helped by the way many shows, including The Daily Show, had spent years making him seem like a funny joke), but probably its most famously direct example is Boris Johnson, going on those fun panel shows that made him seem palatable/fun enough to run for office. These days, a lot of political comedians are interrogating that issue, and discussing the ways they try to joke about terrible public figures without making them seem "fun". But there didn't seem to be a lot of consciousness about that in the Jon Stewart era.

I know all that. I know it's not perfect. But God damn, if seeing Jon Stewart and John Oliver together behind a TDS desk again does not absolutely blind me with nostalgia. Does this ever deliver blunt force trauma directly to the nostalgia:

I find it funny that, of course, John Oliver's last time on The Daily Show, and this next time, were both him coming on to discuss the monarchy. Someone knows how to commit to an assigned role.

I remember watching his final Daily Show episode the day after it first aired, and getting surprisingly emotional, as John Oliver had been my favourite correspondent on there for so long. I remember being so surprised, because The Daily Show had short-term correspondents who came and went within a year or so, but people like John Oliver didn't leave. John Oliver had been there when I was a teenager, on my screen nearly every day. As I was only 23 when he left, I had not yet seen many taken-for-granted constants from my teenage years suddenly changing. My default assumption was still that life would stay pretty much the way it was when I was growing up.

Even two years later, when Jon Stewart left, I was surprised and very disappointed, but it didn't feel shocking in the same way, because I'd put more time between myself and adolescence, and I'd figured out that I shouldn't expect the things I saw in the world to stay the same (though just because I'd figured this out, didn't mean I was happy about it).

And yet, here in 2025, there is Jon Stewart behind that desk, with the same old quick fancy clip work and the mock-incredulous looks to camera. Playing fiddle while the world burns, as he's the most highly skilled apocalyptic fiddle player we could ask for. And John Oliver is back behind him, doing his Zaltzman & Oliver-era joke about America rejoining the British Empire. What a weird week.

All this combined with his surprise Edinburgh appearance last year - John Oliver really does seem to be nearly as interested as I am in time travelling backwards through his career. Just do a 2025 Zaltzman & Oliver Edinburgh run and be done with it, guys. That's where this is going, right?

[tea-with-evan-and-me]

hey tweam, i know it's a bummer but it's time for a pinned announcement post due to the insane amount of hate messages i am receiving daily regarding natalie. if you're a normal, decent person, feel free to scroll past, disregard, and tumblr on…

RE: NATALIE AND EVAN

since some of you non-tweam members like to thrust your ugliest inner musings anonymously into my ask box and seem to think that's okay, let me make one thing clear: i don't tolerate hate. and i won't tolerate unfair criticism and negativity towards natalie, because up to this point, not one of you have brought forth a legitimate critique. no, natalie posting evan on instagram, going with him to events, just publicly existing as a couple.. is NOT ''using him for fame''. that's called being his girlfriend, and those are all normal things for couples to do. you wanting evan to either not date at all, or do so in utter secrecy to protect your jealous heart is NOT a legitimate reason to dislike natalie. if she does something problematic, then yes, you have every right to voice your feelings and i would absolutely allow that (civil) conversation - until then, i suggest that you print your message out on the thickest, roughest card stock you can find at your local office depot, wipe your ass with it, and then throw it in the trash where it belongs as i won't be entertaining you.

i remember all too well the slippery slope with frances, and the way people justified terrible behavior towards that woman by pointing to perceived ''wrongs'' that apparently meant it was okay to bully her, not just on here, but on her own social media. was there some fair, due criticism somewhere underneath all of that? absolutely, but it was never truly about that. some ''fans'' simply want evan to date villainous women so that they can ''legitimately'' hate on them without being called a hater - and if the woman isn't an actual villain, they will create a narrative that paints her as one. that's why they have all this smoke for fran, haley lu, now natalie.. but it's crickets for emma, who is well-known for being awful. even gftwd, who would've told you frances was satan incarnate, defended emvan. why? because deep down, they like evan with emma because she's an overtly bad person and they could hate her freely if emvan got back together. oh, they'd change their tunes quick.. but they aren't together, so they focus elsewhere. yet fran, whose worst offense was being an internet troll and edgelord, had multiple hate blogs, discord servers, instagram accounts, etc. all dedicated to tearing her down and actively encouraging other people to join in. and that's exactly what some of you unstable weirdos are preparing to do to natalie, which i can't stop you from doing - hell, rosa already posted the address to a place natalie was staying and endangered her safety and potentially evan's. once you cross a certain line, good luck going back. some of you never learn.

we're all here because we are fans of evan, not fans of the women he dates. you are not obligated to like natalie and talk about her, not with me or anyone else. in fact, i encourage discussion that deviates from the relationship chat and my hope is that as evan and natalie settle into a long-term relationship, a sense of normalcy can begin to form where people do not feel so tense about something that really should not be our concern. it can be background noise. if he's happy, she's not causing problems, and they appear to have a healthy union.. what's there to hate? we're here to support the man, not tear him down. this is a major reason for the disdain i have for the tarot blog(s) currently running - your sole purpose for being on this app and engaging in fandom should not be to incessantly, repeatedly, multiple times a day be putting out undeserved negative commentary about evan, his relationship, and the woman he is dating. how would YOU feel if, completely unprompted by any controversy, someone decided they were going to make it their job to obsessively post negative things about YOUR relationship? hell, at least be fair! if any of you just need an outlet, idk, maybe start shit talking the woman evan dated for nearly a decade who has shown herself to be a literal demon instead lmfao at least she is deserving of your ire. i understand that this is a gossip and discussion blog, and by default, it can turn intrusive in nature. but it does not have to be negative in nature.

again.. can you imagine if you were just minding your own business, living life, dating someone.. and a stranger who has no reason to speak out against you decides to take offense to another person calling you gorgeous, to the point they have to log onto tumblr and anonymously message a blog to announce that they think it's ridiculous someone has called you attractive.. oh, and by the way, your current boyfriend's ex? now, SHE'S gorgeous! not you though, you're mid. yeah, i'm pretty sure you would realize real quick just how fucking uncouth that message was.

anyway, if this miserable behavior happens to be your jam, your IP address will be blocked from sending me messages and any that i do receive will be promptly deleted unless it's juicy enough that i will derive pleasure from roasting your ignorant ass.

to all the truly funny, kind-hearted, intelligent folks who frequent this blog and brighten my day with your messages and discussions.. love ya.

[paragonrobits]

as expected i see posts referring to the MCU as 'the american imperialism movies' and its annoying but not as much as iit would be if they were painting the entire of superhero comics (a really big genre) as exclusively being a propaganda machine for american imperialism, which is a ridiculous idea even before you consider that its not an american exclusive genre but honestly the whole thought is

its a really reductive 'i dont like this genre' thing that's become a common joke; Marvel is listed routtinely in DNI lists, people go on and on about it being The Worst Thing Ever and its annoying but its also pretty indicative of a specific type of person who doesn't relaly seem interested in engaging with fiction at all outside of fitting things into their own particular framework. in this case, viewing everything purely as a lens of political theory

this isn't to say superhero stories don't do political theory; the original marvel Civil War comic was at least in part a criticism of the political activity of the day, it was just horribly executed (to the point that the MCU completely excising most of it made it a significantly better story). Al Ewing's work regularly lends itself into it, Claremont's X-Men run was FILLED with it (to the point that Magneto, as a character, CANNOT really be used as a metaphor of retaliation against bigotry as much as people try to reduce him to that, but a character with a very specifiic set of politics that cannot be removed from him and keeping his character intact), and some of the best stories work great because of it

however, the other side of that is that while superhero comics CAN be political, this doesn't meant they automatically are meant to be propaganda or support for one side or another. They might be meant to be so, but its not a default. So you might find it strange, but a movie about a character called CAPTAIN AMERICA is not necessarily imperialism apologia; not if the story does not actually lean into making imperialism seem like a moral obligation or the best thing for the world. Having a character wearing the american flag is, curiously, not exactly the same thing as just endorsing the country.

One example of this is something I tend to think of, with a very irritated sigh, 'liberal Varric discourse'. This is from the Dragon Age setting, a series that is more or less by design somewhat dark fantasy with lots of in-universe conflicts of agendas and political conflict; the biggest peril of the first game is antagonistic Loghain Mactir, who betrays your faction at the beginning because he considers it aligned to a country which oppressed his own, in a war he fought to force them out. Its obviously political, but that doesn't mean it really maps to real life political debate. This is where the term comes in; a lot of Bioware characters tend to be relatively reserved about their goals, and Varric (if not pushed to be anti-Mage in a Dragon Age 2 playthrough) supports the mage rebellion in theory but disapproves of the outright civil war and loss of life ignited by his friend Anders literally blowing up a religious building. The necessity of such or Anders pushed to the brink aside, this brings us to the point.

People joke, or honestly mean it, by calling Varric a centrist or a liberal. Here's the issue; he is a dwarf, as in the fantasy species of humanoids with big beards who live underground mining stuff, and he exists in a fantasy setting where the biggest issues can't really be mapped to real life political conflicts. Calling him a liberal or centrist makes no sense because those political viewpoints do not exist in the setting.

Essentially, by being serious about calling him a centrist (and not making some kind of joke, which at least is slightly more respectable to me even if I don't find it funny), you're honestly refusing to engage with the actual political framework in the setting. This in turn leads to a common thing in fandom where things are reiniterpreted to something more comfortable, or fit into a framework fitting the person's own views. This can lend itself to people playing 'which character is the Real Leftist', usually by trying to claim a villain is a leftist revolutionary unjustly vilified by the narrative even if none of those concepts really exist in the setting.

But its also important to note that stories like Dragon Age and the MCU, whatever their faults are (and others have documented them in more detail than I'm about to at the moment), are not really intended to BE political tracts touching upon modern issues. Comics can, for sure; Immortal Hulk reimagined the early concept of teenagers talking to each other about the Hulk's actions as a political movement fixating on Hulk as an icon to destroy the corrupt world through political action (and in Hulk's case, terrorizing his enemies into compliance), and Superman Smashes The Klan is a work inspired by an early radio where Superman, through that mediium, exposed the activites and secrets of the Ku Klux Klan, badly devastating their reputation from which they've never really recovered, at least to the extent they once had.

But its common to get into a point where all stories are simplified to a person's particular political binary, and this isn't really useful for engaging with fiction, because that's the same kind of mindset that gets people warping a story to instead be all about their preferred relationship between characters, and ignoring the actual tone. (See how many fans of Avatar the Last Airbender keep making their fanon into a grimdark fantasy setting rather than the spiritual Buddhist series it actually is; by refusing to engaging with the shows themes in favor of what they like, it winds up having no real relationship with the series and winds up outright poisoning common attitudes about the characters based purely on that fanon.)

Basically this is sort of like watching Lord of the Rings and constantly complaining "why don't they just get guns and shoot their enemies?!" Because guns don't exist in this setting, and if you keep insisting on them gettings guns and accusing the writers of making bad decisions, you're going to miss the intended experience and you're not really approaching it right, at least if, again, you're specifically going into it assuming guns exist and characters will use them even if nothing indicates either is the case.

So its pretty much the same thing in assuming settings divorced from real life and historical developmentts will have exactly the same political history as our own, or that you can honestly summarize ALL political possibilites as 'left wing/right wing' (which, when you get down to it, is oversimplification and on par with 'NONCOFORMISH IS, ITSELF, A FORM OF CONFORMITY') and i think that if you actually try to force things into those kind of familiar viewpoints, you're going to miss out on insights or experiences.

Oh riight my actual point; those stories are specifically adventures with emphasis on thrills and character moments and heroic attitude, or dark fantasy with in-universe political conflicts, so by trying to map real life political viewpoints to them on a 1-to-1 basis, you're going to run into SERIOUS issues pretty fast.

[utilitycaster]

@rowzeoli replied to your post “@rowzeoli replied to your post “Do you think part...”:

There's a lot to tackle on this so I'll do my best to cover it all! So I totally get where you're coming from and to be fair yes there are some things in old articles that I don't agree with any more in deeming people having done things "first" which is part of the issue of not having a collective historical memory around actual play as it moves so quickly. Most of the issue isn't that readership is down it's that AI and venture capitalism is destroying journalism

​

Hey, sorry for taking a bit to respond; it's been a hectic week and I wanted to give it some thought and time.

I'll start off with the good: I really do, again, appreciate you engaging here, and on the strength of that alone I am going to at least give Rascal's free articles a good solid chance for a while; I have been, admittedly, tarring it with the brush of a lot of frustrations (see below) and I know it's relatively new and still finding its place and should get a bit more of my patience. I also should note that while your article did hit on a lot of the patterns that have turned me - and no small amount of others - off of a lot of AP/TTRPG journalism it is by no means the worst example. The things you credited Burrow's End for are, admittedly, more obscure single-episode events within a huge body of work. Or in other words: there are bylines in the space that make me go "oh this is going to be bad" and yours is not one of them.

With that said: I'm sorry, but Polygon's bias is not a matter of time crunch or lack of funding. There is no way that a time crunch or lack of funding would consistently, over years (this was already word on the street at latest when EXU Calamity came out almost 2 years ago) result in a message of "D20 can do no wrong, and Critical Role rarely does right." If it were throwing out harsh criticism or glowing praise for a wide variety of shows, sure, that seems like it could come from not having a lot of time...but this goes beyond coincidence. It's a reputation that long precedes your entry into the field. As some others in the replies have noted, I might have written the most about it on Tumblr, but it's at this point not an uncommon observation. This also isn't an issue for other publications in a similar "nerd stuff" space - there's plenty of articles on, say, Dicebreaker or Comicbook.com that I don't care for, either because I disagree with the opinion or I think the analysis isn't really worthwhile, but those tend to at least have a mix of positive and critical articles about most shows. When I said you could treat Polygon articles like Madlibs, I meant it. And so I think it's great that you are no longer chasing "groundbreaking", for example, is not a solid ground for an article, but this also is showing me that even relatively new journalists are, very early on, starting with this exact formula. In some ways, that's more damning.

I do also want to add that I'm again, sympathetic to the lack of resources and to coming into a field with passionate and nitpicky fans who have been here for years. Not knowing about a single Critical Role one-shot from 2018 is something that I'd have been much more lenient about if it weren't hitting those repetitive notes of "D20 is great/this thing is groundbreaking/look at the production values." But the other article I posted, also from Polygon but not written by you, is, to be honest, pretty inexcusable. I get there's a lot of lost institutional memory...but either being unaware of, or ignoring the fact that there are a huge number of long-running actual play podcasts that play longform campaigns? That's pretty much on par, in terms of whether your audience trusts you, of the New York Times international news desk not being able to locate Russia on a map (though obviously with far less serious real-world ramifications). (The fact that this was written by a prominent actual play scholar meanwhile is like, I don't know, Neil DeGrasse Tyson not knowing how gravity works, but that's a separate topic).

And again, I get these are your colleagues. I have the luxury of being able to run my mouth without putting my livelihood at stake, and that's not true for people within the industry. I do not expect you to say anything ill about them, nor would I judge any specific individual for getting published in Polygon since I get that people are pitching to a number of sites so that they can get paid! But when I say "Polygon's AP/TTRPG coverage is at needs-a-change-of-leadership levels of bad" I am not alone in this, and it's something that has probably been true for easily 3+ years if not longer. Because it's one of the more prominent publications in the space (ironically, due to Justin McElroy of TAZ being a founder, and the fact that its videogame division is quite good and has had some viral videos, it had enviable name recognition among AP fans that it's only squandered since) it really is at a point where hitting that same formula in any AP journalism - claiming everything is groundbreaking, putting an emphasis on high production values, D20 good and CR bad - makes fans go "oh, more of this bullshit." I don't want to say you can't talk about these things - I definitely do not want to say that you cannot criticize Critical Role - but that specific well is has been poisoned for a long time. If someone hits these points it feels, whether or not it is true, that they're trying to be provocative by going against popular fan opinion, but are simultaneously just saying the same thing we've seen a million times before.

I believe wholeheartedly that from your perspective the competition is AI - and I don't want AI articles either. On the other hand, in terms of what I think fans who are in my position are turning to, it's not AI articles (I'm certainly not). If I want analysis, I'm probably, at this point, going to social media; I am not the only person who writes longform meta or analysis for fun, and I'll seek others who do out. I'm not personally a video essay person, but plenty are, and that's out there too. I'm not going there for reporting on news (I think the Dnd Shorts OGL debacle made it clear that actual journalists are very necessary) but yeah, if I want criticism or analysis? I'm going there instead, especially since there often is that missing institutional memory. If I do want journalism, at this point, some of the bigger shows are getting writeups in less niche publications, particularly Critical Role and D20, as is news of more major tabletop games. It's infrequent and it doesn't highlight indie works, but it tends to be, if nothing else, lacking in major errors or obvious bias. If I want to hear from cast members, at least four of the shows I watch or listen to have regular talkback shows, and Dropout regularly talks to AP/TTRPG figures on Adventuring Academy, and a lot of those shows take viewer questions. Which, again, probably not heartening to hear the competition is even tighter, but I guess my point is I hope it's possible, even with very limited resources, to move away from the above "novelty and production values above all" pattern because even that would do a lot of needed work to rebuild reader trust - and I'm going to be checking out Rascal in the hopes that it can.

[phantomyre]

FF7 Rebirth - Critics Review Summary and what to expect with Cid and Vincent

FYI: This screenshot is taken from a Spanish critic site, so I apologize for the weird translation. The embargo for FF7 Rebirth has lifted, and the metacritic is out: 93. I browsed through the reviews and have condensed a summary based on what the critics have provided. There aren't any spoilers, but for those who want to go in completely blind, you may want to avoid reading. This summary goes into what we can expect out of Vincent and Cid in a general sense. The purpose of this is to temper certain expectations. Note that some of this may not be a surprise, but for some it might be. As it is, some people are still just finding out Vincent and Cid are not playable. Proceed at your own risk.

Example taken from French GameBlog:

Example from ShackNews:

Based on the reviews I've see thus far, the general consensus is that even though Cid and Vincent join Cloud and Co to complete the entire party (and as we know are not playable), screentime for both characters are minimal. Case of Cid I'm very sorry Cid-fans, but it looks like Cid has been reduced to a chauffeur/pilot and barely does much with the main party. This had previously been a speculation based on interviews. However, based on what I've seen in the critic reviews, this has been confirmed to be the case.

In terms of Cid's personality, there was a lot of talk about Cid being 'too nice'. And based on the reviews, this also seems to hold true for the duration of Rebirth, albeit we don't know the reason. Cid is stated to be very upbeat in Rebirth, unlike the cranky foul-mouthed guy we know from OG. But I wouldn't despair on this just yet... Cid Speculation While it is unfortunate we don't see the usual Cid, consider the fact that we've heard nothing about Rocket Town, Shera, or if we'll even get Cid's story on how Shinra has treated him. It stands to reason that this view of Cid could be meant to shed light on why he becomes harsh and abusive to Shera (part 3). We may better side with Shera and why she is willing to take the abuse, knowing what he used to be and what he (presumably) becomes in part 3.

Case of Vincent There were a fair amount of positive comments on Vincent's reveal and his characterization, particularly his voice and moodiness which is a comparatively stark contrast to Cid's personality. So good news is, Vincent is as broody as ever. However, just like Cid, Vincent has little time to shine and keeps himself in the shadows, both visually and verbally. Vincent has some side quests that still give his personality time to show, but it would be prudent to not expect much screen time from Vincent in Rebirth. In spite of his lack of presence, however, consider that this still falls in line with how he is in OG. Vincent Speculation "Don't expect anything else from me except fighting beside you." If any of you recall, Vincent in OG made it very clear that he was going to do as little as possible when it came to getting close with the group. It isn't until after Aerith's death and defeating Hojo that Vincent finally comes out of his shell. Even then, by the time Meteor falls, he actively avoids getting close to the group (noted in On the Way to a Smile and Dirge of Cerberus). I think Rebirth is going to establish the vivid contrast between Cid and Vincent, and will then delve heavily into their characters in part 3. While it is upsetting we get so little screentime with Cid and Vincent on top of them being non-playable, consider where we are in the story. Critics have also confirmed that Cid and Vincent arrive fairly late into the game, so on top of story reasons, it makes practical reasons, as well. Given how ambitious Rebirth is, it only stands to reason that part 3 will have a ton more pressure to surpass Rebirth's expectations, and that includes delving deeper into Cid and Vincent via their personalities, gameplay, and backstory. Fans will rightly expect Square Enix to make up for the lack of Cid and Vincent's time in the spotlight. And I'm sure SE knows this.

Other Speculations Given the many hints about Dirge of Cerberus becoming more important to the story, and how strongly they are leaning into Vincent's Chaos, many fans are beginning to speculate that part 3 will draw a lot of elements from DoC, and rightfully so. We know we won't get any Deepground in Rebirth. So likely we will see them in part 3 to wrap up the whole story--- which if you know DoC's story, you know why Vincent will be very important to the ending. And then of course there's the issue with the secret ending aka Genesis, who we also know is connected to Vincent aka Weiss. On top of OG's latter end story and including compilation elements, I think we can safely assume we will get our Vincent/Cid appetites whet in part 3. Yes, it's unfortunate we have to wait another 3-4 years. But I'm thankful we do get some time with both Vincent and Cid in Rebirth, regardless.

[marciabrady]

Idk if it's a generation thing with zoomers being clueless about what the Disney fandom was like before they got into it but I've seen so many people deny that anyone was ever presenting faux feminist critiques of the princesses, esp Walt's girls. But I don't even understand why they deny it, it's become a huge phenomenon you still see today and it takes only 5 seconds to use Google and find thousands of articles, memes, videos, comments, etc calling the girls weak and sexist. I feel it stems from these fans just not caring about the particular princesses who tend to be hated on and don't notice the unfair hate because their focus has always been on the popular, safe princesses (ie Mulan or Moana or whoever). If any of that makes sense lol. Just wondering your thoughts!

There's a very apt characterization of what occurred and it definitely comes down to a few things. The first being that a lot of these people didn't really have a strength of sentiment, one way or the other, for the original girls and just kind of assumed and inherited a lot of the misogynistic undercurrents in those contemporary, popular social criticisms that were parading around as feminism. I think a lot of those people pretended to have that passionate, spirited outlook on why Walt's girls were reductive somehow, while never really having had that opinion themselves. Most of those people didn't really spend much time consuming or thinking about their films, but did so because they felt it aligned themselves with being progressive or having a good social image.

There are some people that genuinely did seem to have seen those movies at least once and continued to carry that outlook, but it never really seems to be rooted in anything we see in the films themselves. Those people tend to just view every woman that was prominent prior to the 1960s with the same reductive paint-stroke and feel they were all victims of being socialized in a different time (which is so stupid lol if it weren't for the women that lived in that era, we never would have gotten the social movements we have today, nor the progress we have in each of them; but many people have told me "all woman born before the 1950s are inherently sexist because they're victims of what the system was like" which...). Then, there are people who- again- have seen these movies, but tend to condemn Walt's girls and pin them as a symbol of everything that was anti-feminist of that time, as opposed to actually judging them for the contents of their character. I'll never forget a book I bought at a used store called "Where the Girls Are," because it talked about female representation in the media and harked back to one of my favorite film titles. I was shocked when I read the book and it talked about how Cinderella in such shallow, mean-spirited terms. It brought up so many questions...the author writes that Cinderella had to be attractive, but wasn't allowed to be vain or spend a good deal of her film primping in front of mirrors- and I uploaded a good deal of screencaps to the contrary, but then it ran through my mind...if the author had been aware of that side of Cinderella, she probably would've condemned that too and called her materialistic or looks-obsessed. So it isn't really about what Cinderella herself did or was, but ultimately the author must've just held her up as an unfair expectation of what she, as a woman, was meant to live up to and made Cinderella a figure of all of her childhood frustration. That tends to be the case with a lot of boomers that grew up with Cinderella, and even kids today that write sympathetic backstories for blatantly abusive characters, like Anastasia; they emphasizing with her, despite all of her privilege and the atrocities she's committed, because she would be conventionally unattractive in our world and they project onto her what she must feel and what her lived experience would be, while discounting Cinderella- because she's conventionally attractive in our world- as being shallow or having privilege. It really is a fascinating study of how people view the world, which can be surmised through their view of the characters and how they react to them.

Which, and I have to make this note, but I'll truly never understand how Cinderella, the story about a female orphan who suffered abuse her entire life and continues to build a community and resources for herself so that she can escape and transcend her circumstances, has been painted through history to be a story about women being meek and staying in their place and being complacent and perpetuating so many patriarchal ideals about marrying rich and feminine beauty??? Especially when that wasn't Cinderella's goal, but the goal of the stepsisters who are always putting themselves in competition with Cinderella and are actively wanting to marry money and take a much greater delight in material riches.

[seriousbrat]

Hi! I love reading your takes on characters, and I just wanted to share my thoughts on Lily's character. Sorry if this gets a bit long!

I really wish more people explored Lily’s character in the context of living at the intersection of two completely different worlds, where she never fully fit into either.

People often overlook this crucial aspect of her life, reducing her to a “Mary Sue” who faced no challenges, but her very existence was a constant struggle. Not only does this term disproportionately target female characters, but it also dismisses Lily’s strength and talent, implying she can’t possess these qualities without facing criticism—unlike her male counterparts. Somehow, people find it difficult to accept that she was simply a good person.

Exploring her experience as a Muggle-born, trying to navigate both worlds, is far more compelling than the oversimplified portrayal she usually gets. It’s what adds depth to her story: just as Petunia’s life emphasizes normalcy, so does Lily’s. I’ve always viewed Lily’s story as that of a normal girl from a normal family, thrown into an abnormal reality she constantly had to deal with—and in the end, it tragically cost her life.

I think the misconception about Muggle-born experiences comes from the common assumption that the wizarding world is extremely progressive, when in reality, it’s far from it. There's also the mistaken belief that Muggle-borns are automatically willing to leave behind their old lives—family, friends, and their familiar way of life—simply because they discover magic.

You can be fascinated by magic yet still feel unsettled by the society that comes with it. The wonder of magic doesn’t automatically mean embracing the quirks or problematic aspects of the wizarding world, which might feel alien or uncomfortable, especially for someone new to it. Cultural shock is still a cultural shock.

(I hc that Lily might share some views with her sister regarding wizards, like considering their clothing to be strange. Or like writing with a quill isn't very practical when you could simply use a regular pencil or pen)

Not only do you spend most of the year away from your family and have to give up your Muggle friends, but when you come back, you have to constantly lie because of the Statute of Secrecy.

It’s really difficult to leave the wizarding world if you want to because you can’t get back the time you need for a normal education. Participating in school activities is essential for obtaining recommendations to apply for university or college, which is necessary to secure a stable job and build a stable life.

Muggle-borns have a major hurdle when it comes to finding jobs, as employers tend to favor those who were born into the wizarding world. Additionally, the wizarding economy itself is quite strange.

Now imagine it’s the 1970s during the first wizarding war: a terrifying time for Muggle-borns, living under the constant threat of a literal human hunt targeting them and their families.

Some may think it’s odd that Lily was the only known Muggle-born to join the Order during the first wizarding war, but in reality, many likely chose to hide or flee the UK. That's why I love to view Mary Macdonald as Lily’s closest female friend, someone who opted for a different path and gave up on magic. This dynamic would realistically capture the harsh realities of their time:

How their once a fairy tale turned into a nightmare

Absolutely! In many ways, wizarding society is basically a dystopia; it's absolutely meant to be a microcosm of the injustice of real life. I'm mostly just going to leave this ask without much comment because I think it's great!

I'm also a Mary MacDonald fan although I have had a slightly different take on her than what I think is the norm. It just breaks my heart to think that Lily had close friends who survived the war but never reached out to Harry, personally, which is why I also support Marlene-as-Lily's-friend theory even though I know a lot of canon truthers like myself aren't fans of that.

VERY off topic but this made me remember a character I had in a HP roleplay site (I know lol) years ago who was a muggleborn who didn't want to be magical and generally rejected magic because she wanted to be a pro skateboarder/pop star. It was set in the 90s and for her sorting I had to answer a question that was something like "what do you most want to do with your magical powers" and her answer was "bring tupac back from the dead." Quite often I think about how good that character was and how I wish I could use her for something else.

[toxship-toxy]

A new term: "Toxship"

First, here's how you say it: "tox" is as in "toxic", "ship" is pronounced the usual way. It's a combination of "toxic" and "relationship", and thus it's said that way! Someone who supports or ships toxships might call themself a "toxshipper", if they so choose.

"But what is a toxship?"

It is exactly what it sounds like: A ship (character relationship) that could be read as "toxic". This may include...

abusive ships

ships with age gaps

interspecies ships

ships that contain graphic or heavy content

But that is not all that a toxship may be, and not all that it implies! Please, continue to read, lest you miss the point utterly...

"Isn't this covered by 'comship' already?"

It is not! I was actually inspired by "comship" to make an alternative term that better suits me. You can read about comship from some of its coiners here: 1, 2. Notice in particular these quotes from those carrds: "all ships are valid and reasonable to enjoy" and "don't like, don't look". These are crucial to comship, and are to welcome in stealth proshippers to the term. These ideals are not inherent to being toxship.

"So toxshippers can be ship haters?!"

That's correct!! A toxshipper is allowed to vent their frustrations with ships they dislike and be choosy in what they support. Think of it like a real middle-ground between proship and anti. Everyone always says ships are valid, but what about squicks and NOTPs? Have your cake and eat it, too!!

Some expansion on what toxshipping espouses:

A toxship need not necessarily be "romanticized", it can just be an abusive dynamic you enjoy exploring.

Shipping discourse is stupid, but complain if you must.

Toxship art should be tagged and flagged appropriately so it can be avoided by those who might complain, or else otherwise somehow made harder to find without intentionally seeking it out. A toxshipper who puts themself out in the open should prepare for whatever ire they may draw.

Toxship leans 18+, unlike comship. Exclude minors, even if the toxship in question is "worksafe".

Toxship does not hold the same ideals as proship, like comship does. It is not meant to be "unknown/stealth" for "ease of mind" of anyone, toxship knows exactly what it is and how upsetting it might be, and it is content with this. It is simply for those who spend their time exploring unhealthy dynamics in fiction, people who are mature enough to think about such things critically but still have some kind of fun picking it apart.

"Does toxship necessarily include incest, underage, zoophilia, etc.?"

I'd say no, because I dislike these themes and think people should try harder to make their darkfics disturbing before pulling out the big guns in gruesome detail, even if they are under the "abuse" umbrella. But I can't physically stop you if you do try and include them, can I?

"Is there a flag for toxship I can use?"

Not yet! I want to make one eventually, though. Hopefully one that's not just some stripes with an emoji slapped on.

"Is there an emoji combination for toxship that I can sneak into my bio?"

Not yet! I think it'd be fun to have symbols for it, but I haven't decided on any at this moment.

Now go forth... and write the toxfic of your dreams!

[arizonaconservativegal]

You said something about buses being better than trains a while ago because you can change the routes as the needs of the public change.

I agree they are better than trains, but in my city they never close a route. We've got a couple that just run empty around their circuit each day. Basically it looks really bad if a politician lets a bus route close during their term and if that happens they never get reelected.

Also our (Seattle) bus system has the same wonderful collection of needles and unwashed homeless assaulting people and etc...

I'm not trying to say that buses are a perfect solution but they are a much cheaper way to get potentially a much better product. Obviously the added benefits are going to depend a lot on the people running your city's public transit systems. And keeping the buses clean and safe would be kind of critical if you want anyone to actually ride them, so maybe some basic law enforcement would be helpful too? But Seattle doesn't seem keen on that idea lately lol.

Transit policy is a beast and it's not my personal area of expertise, despite having spent an unreasonable amount of time on transit tax issues. But from my time working in the system, I can tell you there are a lot of factors that government takes into consideration before making changes to things like transit routes, and most of it boils down to bureaucracy, not politics - federal grants come with a lot of strings attached and even just mentioning ADA will stop a local government in its tracks nine times out of ten.

I should probably clarify that when I said we could change the routes as needs change, I meant more along the lines of increasing frequency or adding service areas because yeah, government is always reluctant to kill routes. But I also see this as being a bit like the post office servicing rural areas - yes, we could save a lot of money and improve efficiency if we stopped spending so much time delivering mail to one or two people who live out in the middle of nowhere, but that isn't the point of the post office. The point is to make sure that everyone has access to the service. I see more flexibility in buses but that is still factor and one that I think is a valid consideration.

We could potentially solve the low usage service question pretty easily with something like vouchers for on demand rideshare service. Or even just find the two or three people who actually use the route and just ask them what times they actually need the bus and schedule service at just those times. Or swap out for a neighborhood circulator that would get people from the low usage stop to a connection on a more travelled route. The first two would almost certainly be a better product for those riders at a lower cost to the city. The third might be less of a benefit to the original riders if you're not careful but if you do it right, it could be much more helpful for them and might even increase ridership in that neighborhood if you plan it right.

Oh what I would give to live in a world where we could scrap the whole system and start over instead of having to navigate piecemeal fixes to the existing system... Even just not having to rely on federal dollars and accept their strings would give us so many more options.

[ghostjelliess]

Hey, so the reason the nerdy girl becomes beautiful when removing her glasses is actually because her prescription is so bad that her glasses warp her face, making her eyes appear much smaller and her face much narrower. I know this because I got contacts senior year of high school because they finally found a material that could support my stupid high prescription, and the number of people who gave me the teen rom-com double take was frankly insulting. I got a lot of comments like "oh wow, you're actually really pretty" and "why did you wear glasses?"

So anyway, even though tropes become cliches, they're usually based in something that society has outgrown. You can get contacts with really high prescriptions and the lenses of glasses can be molded in a way that makes them more lightweight and compact.

My mom took her glasses off for her wedding ceremony and she always talks about how those pictures were her favorite even though she couldn't see anything. Honestly, a shy girl hack, but now we have contacts and the nerdy girl removing her glasses just isn't that big of a deal, so the audience watching She's All That without the context of the 90s doesn't project their understanding onto the prop glasses, they just go "oh my god... she took of her glasses... whattttt?" because it seems ironic, or sarcastic, or shallow.

I've been thinking about that a lot lately, how different cultures (including generational differences) have different expectations of their audiences in terms of believability and acceptance of a performance. Like in Chinese Xianxia, the production and performance are much closer to the experience of watching a broadway stage production on dvd, you know there are wires, you know its makeup, you know the over-the-top pouting, whining, and gestures are made for a stage, and if you don't watch it with that understanding, then it seems non-aware or even cringy. But in the internet age, when a lot of global and generational culture is exchanged at ridiculous paces, we are so often exposed to media without that context, and I guess what I want is for more people to consume their entertainment without the assumption that it was meant for them or that they will inherently understand it. I don't know how many reviews I've read under dramas that are like "this was confusing" when the artistry of a scene was illustrating some traumatic violence that I was really grateful not to have played out in front of me, but to relate to and confront nonetheless. Some of that, I'm sure, is desensitization and plain old ignorance, but in the writer sphere of things, I find that a lot of readers and writers criticize what a trope has become with no real sympathy or understanding of where it came from.

I just finished a series published in the early 2010s where a main character was struggling with the equivalent of ADHD meds, and while the books were far from the pinnacle of literature (and the meds were somewhat exaggerated, but honestly, not by much), I saw many angry reviews saying the representation of mental health and meds was so unrealistic, and I just wanted to yell "but it was experimental. We didn't all have those words then about therapy and mental health. What do you mean?" Because it was really hard working with my now-fiance and his meds back in those early 2010s when we were in college. He did go through withdrawal, he did work really hard to get to a stable place (and still does), they did just prescribe things and hope for the best, and it did regularly mess him up and change his entire personality. Like, a lot. But then I realized the people with those criticisms of that book were all babies and I just laughed it off like "shut up, baby," and let them live in this better world where their friends don't get pressured into microdosed methamphetamines because someone on a board somewhere was sure that if they smiled they must be happy.

I was gonna dig out my anth degree and make a list of modern tropes that are considered cliche or bad, even when used true to their origin (like people saying the Breakfast Club cliques are unrealistic or cliche, or the Cinderella entrance is overdone in Cinderella remakes lol) and trace back where they came from and why they might have resonated with their original audience, but I've had one foot in the bronze age lately and even in frickin' Gilgamesh we get old tropes that probably weren't true used to quickly convey character and jump into the story: Zaddy G is sleeping with all the virgin women before they wed and Enki-don't is a wildman tamed by a Pretty Woman, har-har (and I'm sure even then there were people in the audience with heart eyes watching two bros fight each other into becoming better people thinking now kiss lol).

Anyway, tropes get old, I agree, sometimes they're used out of laziness and that makes them bad, I agree, and sometimes they're just bad, like morally, I agree. I just get annoyed when people want to complain about a topic without conversing or analyzing it in any way, honestly. It's because I get excited about talking about these things and then they're like "no, it's just weird, no talk, only whine—now let me see your glasses, you look really blind, oh my gosh you're so pretty without them!" and I'm left standing there scratching my head like, no, you can't try my glasses, I need them to see, let's talk about the elephant in the room now, which is our collective social dichotomy of expectations between quality and quantity.

[reel-fear]

You know, I understand why a lot of people enjoy it. But maybe. Mayhaps if you're playing a really old game. And you are trying to 100% it via achievements and find you're having a really bad time. Maybe consider that's not how the game was intended to be played and criticizing it from that angle is kinda really... Dumb?

Like to act as if all games can be evaluated based on how you feel playing them in one sitting as though that's the only way people can 'Complete' or 'Beat' a game when plenty of games just don't really have an end point cause that's not really what they're meant for... Like yeah you are probably having a bad time playing the game the way the developers never intended you to. If you're just doing it for the haha content or challenge of it that's fine but at some point the whining is pretty annoying esp when you act like it's a failing on the devs and the game instead of a failure for you to understand not every developer views completing their game as 'get all the achievements' and god forbid a game isn't actually about the idea of reaching some sort of end goal as opposed to the journey it takes you on or even just being played over and over again.

Not all games have a real 'End' not all games are intended to be beaten in a sitting and not all games designed their achievements to be items you collect to reach the final goal. To act like it's cruel for developers to dare thinking of players who Don't share your exact definition for what beating a game looks like is really silly.

Sorry for this little ramble, I just got like halfway into a video abt a guy's 100% Spore run and finally had enough of the spore slander [not to mention he couldn't decide if the game was Too Easy or Too Hard. Also just sucked at the game lmao, maybe do some research before doing that kind of thing? He didn't even do the kinda strategies I literally remember doing when I played the game years ago on like my first ever computer.]

Like yeah Spore was not meant to be a game where you grind in one sitting for all the achievements, if you try to play it like that and only view it from that lens it sucks but maybe. God Forbid. It was actually meant for long term players who enjoy the journey of making various creatures and the gameplay loop it provides and the achievements are just fun little things you can get along the way of doing that. Just. A thought. Esp bc Spore really doesn't have an ending, or at least one that's actually meant to be super final or anything like that. Acting like it's cruel of EA to make achievements that require at least 10 playthroughs to get bc that's how you Chose to play their game just makes no sense to me?? Yes it's a life simulator abt slowly building up your creature, yes the space stage is the most complex part it's literally the last stage and yes it was not meant to be completed in one sitting. It's a sandbox game. But not every sandbox game has to be Minecraft and give you a big final boss or ending. Sometimes, the journey is the point and giving it some big ending isn't worth distracting from that.

Idk it's just weird, you can't evaluate a game's worth based on Your Specific Playstyle you tried to caveman brute force onto it. Of course like in some cases it's complicated but specifically in this case I just think it's really silly to play the game absolutely not the way anyone was ever intended to play it nor anyone really chooses to play it unless they are interested in speedrunning it [in which case they would do the research into the glitches, tricks and tips that make those runs worth it and fun] And then try to act as though the game is slop cause You didn't do any research before hand [despite trying to do the sort of runs usually speedrunners do] but also still tried to brute force one of the hardest challenges of almost every game you can do.

Like I said if it was just for silly haha frustration content stuff I like that sort of thing but when it turned to like. Shouting about how the game and its devs suck it becomes clear it's meant to be genuine criticism and to put bluntly. That's stupid as hell-

[esotericfaery]

Intimate Spiritual Diaries, 16 - Celibacy Indicators in Astrology

From my natal chart, here's what I've found so far. I hope it's helpful for you to understand your romantic relationships or those of people you know, if any of you have the same, or similar aspects. Or, just enjoy a bit of a tea spill. I've mostly included only the conjunctions which are exact to the degree, so this isn't too long. This allows for more precision than when we only look at planets and angles. Subsequent diary entries will be on various subjects, covering all aspects, etc.

The names with numbers in brackets are asteroids and hypothetical points, and you can find yours by entering your birthdate, with those numbers separated each by a comma in the extended chart section of astro.com, plus entering the names of the fixed stars the same way. You can find your Arabic Lots at astro-seek.com, by mousing over the free horoscopes section, and choosing various Astrology calculations at the bottom of the menu.

~

1st House, Aries: Core identity and the physical body.

[h22] Priapus - 3° 14' 39" conjunct Arabic Lots, all at 3° 10': Anareta I (Taker of Life) Children, Male II Killing Planet (Anareta) I Luck Violence I Murder

Priapus is the release point of Lilith's pent-up energy. Lilith's rebellion from the patriarchy is taken personally there through the Arabic Lots involved. Men had the perception that I was repressing them in some way, because I wouldn't participate in some of the sexual acts they desired with me.

This energy had caused much discord when I was dating, through the areas of some of the above Arabic Lots. It's due to protective energies elsewhere in my chart (too many to list here; those are for a subsequent article), that I haven't experienced the violent ones (Anareta is a medieval Astrology term which indicates doom and destruction). I did experience some initial luck in harmonious romances, yet "Children, Male II" shows those same men I had attracted, eventually behave like children, and so the relationship ends.

Aries placements can be particularly difficult for women, because Aries and planetary ruler Mars both represent warlike, often abrasive energy. It's easy for men to misunderstand women who are confident leaders as overbearing.

So this is the first indication in my chart that backs up my Virgo placements in showing that I'm ideal for the celibate lifestyle. (Virgo is the sign representing virginity).

~

1st House, Aries: Core identity and the physical body.

[34] Circe - 5° 21' 10" conjunct Arabic Lots: Captivity II for Night Birth - 5° 34' Marriage, Time of - 5° 34'

Solitary existence of enchantment due to not wanting to be in the public eye. Magic misused in my former relationships when I ignored red flags. Now I own my moral boundaries. The search for alternative answers on my personal journey led me to celibacy. If there was a time in my life for marriage again, I would feel like a captive, so I won't marry again.

~

1st House, Aries: Core identity and the physical body.

[136199] Eris - 14° 55' 28" conjunct [1943] Anteros - 14° 45' 40"

Finding the liberation of the answer to loves longing through organizing oneself out of the sense of being forsaken, leading to soulful companionship, through intervention by higher powers, via the scales of justice, through winning battles. In my situation, this companionship is through relationships which are not romantic. I was liberated when I won the battle I was fighting with myself. I fought this battle because I thought that I was meant to have a romance. When I realized that I wasn't, that was just.

~

2nd House, Taurus: Material reality, resourcefulness, marketable talents, grounded security.

[330836] Orius - 25° 32' 1" conjunct FS Algol - 25° 53' conjunct Arabic Lots: Self-Undoing - 25°27’ Labor - 25°40’ Marriage of Women I - 25°40’

Critical °

At a critical degree for Taurus, this is an especially intense stellium. Algol (among other things which don't apply here) protects against witchcraft and Orius represents the possessive, dictatorial behaviours men have thrown at me and / or projected that I was throwing at them when I would defend myself against them. Emotional abuse is a form of toxic witchcraft. I allowed it to undo who I am, and it was laborious, many years ago when I was a married woman.

~

2nd House, Taurus: Material reality, values, resourcefulness, marketable talents, grounded security.

[6] Hebe - 26° 0' 5" conjunct Arabic Lots: Marriage (modern) - 26°32’ Partners - 26° 32’

I was involved in toxic co-dependency, enabling exes to emotionally abuse me, because I didn't value myself. Hebe also represents a service which is abused, and that is the role of a "subhuman" that people like me who experienced emotional abuse take on.

~

3rd House, Gemini - Thoughts & communications, early education, local community, short-term travel.

[211] Isolda - 22° 51' 23" conjunct Uranus - 22° 13' 56"

The shock of infidelity and the innovation of recovery.

~

4th House, Cancer: Nurturing, intense & changeable emotions deep in the psyche, generational curses and other patterns.

[120] Lachesis - 4° 4' 56" conjunct [3267] Glo - 4° 17' 57" conjunct Arabic lots, all at 04°49’: Passion; Emotion & Affection Disappointment II Endings

Lachesis is one of the Greek Fates. She rules over destined lifespan. The lifespans of my romances were destined to go through the meanings of the Arabic Lots above, in order. Asteroid Glo allows me to recover from what I once saw as loss, by holding a lighter vibration as a proudly celibate person. At a critical degree in Cancer, this aspect is one of the stronger.

~

4th House, Cancer: Nurturing, intense & changeable emotions deep in the psyche, generational curses and other patterns.

Fixed Star Sirius - 13° 48' conjunct [1224] Fantasia - 13° 23' 7" conjunct [875] Nymph - 13° 36' 20" conjunct [2365] Interkosmos - 13° 44' 39"

Attracting unwanted attention, leading to "dog bites" by those who seek power. Easily fooled and manipulated. Subjected to accusations, whether just or unjust. Fae, chameleon-like, daydreamy & whimsical. Independent, childlike & playful, with rose-coloured-glasses. Need to ground, and bridge two worlds, leading to honour, faithfulness & wealth. I honoured myself and became faithful to myself when I decided to be celibate and followed through. That makes me wealthy.

~

4th House, Cancer: Nurturing, intense & changeable emotions deep in the psyche, generational curses and other patterns.

Fixed Star Canopus - 14° 42' conjunct [1042] Amazone - 14° 51' 45"

Educational journeys within widely comprehensive knowledge, leading to conservatism and piety as regards martial beliefs and / or behaviours in about men, which can lead to fame or infamy. Leads to the ability to change evil into good.

~

5th House, Cancer: Nurturing, intense & changeable emotions deep in the psyche, dating and young-at-heart creativity.

[1866] Sisyphus - 20° 44' 46" conjunct [151] Abundantia - 20° 30' 48"

An abundance of situations where I tried to force something that doesn't work to feel right, and end up having to go back to the beginning and restart my search for a romantic partner.

~

5th House, Cancer: Nurturing, intense & changeable emotions deep in the psyche, dating and young-at-heart creativity.

[7066] Nessus - 23° 6' 13" conjunct [66] Maja - 23° 21' 30" sextile Moon - 23° 43' 40"

Easy harmony and nurturing, grounded growth in healing issues of sexual or emotional abuse and understanding the emotional mirroring involved. Includes in altercations about money and ending relationships. Respect of boundaries. Generous compassion.

~

5th House, Cancer: Nurturing, intense & changeable emotions deep in the psyche, dating and young-at-heart creativity.

[1930] Lucifer - 25° 10' 57" conjunct [1387] Kama - 25° 40' 27" conjunct [902] Probitas - 25° 42' 15" conjunct Fixed Star Procyon - 25° 30'

Trigger warning…

*

*

*

*

*

An honest, appropriate response to a prideful and egotistical man pushing unwanted lust at me, resulting in malevolent intentions and the desire for violence towards me.

There are several occasions in which I have sensed violence that particular men wanted to commit against me, without them having given me any overt indication of it. As I energy heal and protect, I was able to block this energy.

~

5th House, Cancer: Nurturing, intense & changeable emotions deep in the psyche, dating and young-at-heart creativity.

[61] Danae - 26° 3' 2" conjunct [87] Sylvia - 26° 54' 30" conjunct Arabic Lot: Eros - 26°03’

Judgementalism leading to fateful vindication. Safety and freedom in relation to situations involving eros, forced purity, virginity, and guilt.

~

5th House, Leo: Confident and dramatic flare, dating and young-at-heart creativity.

[10370] Hylonome - 0° 12' 36" conjunct [3561] Devine - 0° 59' 23" conjunct [627] Charis - 0° 32' 22"

A charismatic, cosmic, magical connection with another which feels like it has a higher purpose, and grief at the loss of a mate through adversity. From self destruction to strong sense of self with or without romance.

~

5th House, Leo: Confident and dramatic flare, dating and young-at-heart creativity.

[25290] Vibhuti - 2° 15' 21" conjunct Venus - 2° 21' 32"

Empowerment in what's valuable, in the areas of love relationships, in concentration on something outside the self.

This empowers my Venus, along with it's sextiles (aspect of harmony with very little effort) with Saturn (limitations & responsibilities), Mercury (communications), Vertex (fate), & Descendant (what type of person you want a long term relationship with).

This sense of my own empowerment and harmonic ease was in a pattern of men feeling intimidated by me, through nothing I was doing.

~

7th House, Libra: One-on-one relationships, conflicts.

[9] Metis - 6° 12' 56" conjunct [85] Io - 6° 25' 57" conjunct [19] Fortuna - 6° 47' 44" conjunct [672] Astarte - 6° 52' 42" conjunct Arabic Lot: Needs & Desires, Realization of - 06° 08’

Luck & fate of creative emotional evolution, and prudent, insightful cunning within protectiveness & fierce or sexual femininity, leading to realization of ones needs and desires.

~

7th House, Libra: One-on-one relationships, conflicts.

[96] Aegle - 7° 22' 41" conjunct [36] Atlante - 7° 46' 7"

Critical °

From abandonment to empowerment, good fortune & nobility of natural beauty, intellect, amiability & talent.

~

7th House, Libra: One-on-one relationships, conflicts.

[17942] White Rabbit - 13° 24' 9" conjunct Fixed Star Algorab - 13° 10' conjunct Arabic Lots, both at 13° 01’: Enmity II Enemies, Private

Being chased after, as regards feelings of enmity. Delay, restraint, & loss through handling matters wrong. The power to turn weariness into protection from malice.

~

7th House, Libra: One-on-one relationships, conflicts.

[30] Urania - 14° 55' 20" conjunct [88] Thisbe - 15° 20' 12" conjunct [275] Sapienta - 15° 44' 24"

Refined skills of discernment within Astrology and psychism, particularly in the area of tragic or forbidden romance. As I'm doing right now :).

~

7th House, Libra: One-on-one relationships, conflicts.

[157] Dejanira - 16° 27' 15" conjunct [2063] Bacchus - 16° 24' 4" conjunct Arabic Lots, all at - 16° 27’: Weddings Ritual Ceremonies Legality, Legalizing

Taking the victim complex pattern which had become overindulgent, into the "underworld" within, to resurrect proper self-leadership.

~

7th House, Libra: One-on-one relationships, conflicts.

[1388] Aphrodite - 16° 49' 16" conjunct Mean Black Moon Lilith - 17° 34' 34" conjunct [h13] True / Oscillating Black Moon Lilith - 17° 24' conjunct [433] Eros - 17° 39' 5" conjunct [17] Thetis - 18° 4' 29" conjunct [2101] Adonis - 19° 57' 40" conjunct Pluto - 20° 21' 46" conjunct [157] Sirene - 20° 30' 2" conjunct [3811] Karma - 22° 36' 55"

This is about magnetic men being attracted to my beauty & shadow feminine energy, then misunderstanding me as someone who is energetically projecting it at them through transformational Pluto.

They convince themselves that I feel Eros for them, and that we have karmic destiny together.

Then they fear that I'm an energetic siren sent to lead sailers (them) to their deaths.

I felt weak in those situations

Their hidden flaw was their desire to control me. There are also strong divinatory abilities for me here, to promote a metamorphosis.

~

8th House, Scorpio: Fear & fearlessness, endings, shadow work, crime, taxes, sex, mysticism.

[4386] Lust - 26° 20' 5" conjunct [432971] Loving - 26° 54' 4"

Represents a person who experiences lust in a loving way; desiring love-making, not fucking. This is one reason for why I've never done casual entanglements.

~

8th House, Scorpio: Fear & fearlessness, endings, shadow work, crime, taxes, sex, mysticism.

[71] Klytia - 28° 3' 36" conjunct [256] Walpurga - 28° 17' 56"

Strong devotion & divination. Protection against chaos, desperation & resentment.

~

9th House, Sagittarius: Continuing education on the journey for the meaning of life, teaching and publishing.

Galactic Center - 26° 34' 47" conjunct [38] Leda - 26° 59' 20" conjunct Arabic Lots: Genius - 26°57’ Imprisonment - 26°57’

Abundant, delightful connection with divine consciousness. Luck in trauma release within situations of feeling or being imprisoned, to make way for new path.

I'd felt stuck / imprisoned in some past romances, thinking that I owed my partner karma.

~

10th House, Capricorn: Discipline, lifetime achievements, structures of authority.

[4341] Poseidon - 3° 22' 31" conjunct Arabic Lots: Insincerity - 03°15’ Revelation - 03°15’

Psychic sensitivity revealing insincerity, within the areas of persuasion, ideology, clarity, receptivity, and enlightenment.

I grew to recognize red flags and also to listen to my gut, so that I would more easily understand when a man was being insincere about desiring an emotional connection with me. Knowing that men only wanted my body allowed me to waste a lot less time in my later years of when I was dating.

~

10th House, Capricorn: Discipline, lifetime achievements, structures of authority.

[4197] Morpheus - 13° 2' 4" conjunct [89] Julia - 13° 7' 35" conjunct [1221] Amor - 13° 23' 50"

Pure, idealistic, unconditional, faithful love that can turn self-sacrificing due to limiting belief systems. I was able to change the form of my actions through abstract exploration and divine intervention.

My belief system had been limited, when I believed that men were able to be trustworthy in a romance with me. I sacrificed my energy because I thought that I had to love unconditionally.

~

11th House, Capricorn: Discipline, ambition, innovation, eccentricity, social situations.

[88611] Teharonhiawako - 27° 45' 25" Conjunct Arabic Lots, both at 27° 14’: Sudden Luck Bequest

Legacy of sudden luck in removing the negative, prayers of cellular healing, innovative inspiration, mediation. Must be careful to not trust the untrustworthy, or be otherwise naive.

~

11th House, Aquarius: Public organizations, the masses, humanitarianism, international awareness, political situations & protests.

[52] Europa - 2° 35' 12" conjunct Arabic Lots: Security - 01° 58’ Treasure - 01° 58’ Divorce I - 02° 21’

Desires and magnetism of earthly triumphs and wealth, and ability to create and cultivate abundance through communing, passionate, attractive and commanding nature, in the perceived treasure (object) men have perceived me to be, after my divorce, leading to my emotional security.

~

11th House, Aquarius: Public organizations, the masses, humanitarianism, international awareness, political situations & protests.

[37117] Narcissus - 11° 44' 15" conjunct Arabic Lots: Condition of Males - 11°44’ Controversy - 11°44’ Discord; Controversy - 11°44’ Discord; Lawsuits - 11°44’ Lawsuits, Discord & Controversy - 11° 44’ Waste & Extravagance - 11° 44’ Love & Marriage II - 11° 47’ Marriage & Love II - 11° 47’ Praise & Acceptance - 11° 47’ Sentiment - 11° 47’

At a critical degree for Aquarius, this is my most important stellium in this house. It speaks to mens vanity of themselves, which led to their narcissistic-style abuse of me, though I neither pretend to know, nor desire to understand their psychosis'.

The two lots involved in lawsuits refer to Karmic Law.

~

11th House, Aquarius: Public organizations, the masses, humanitarianism, international awareness, political situations & protests.

[22] Calliope / Kalliope - 14° 51' 21" conjunct Arabic Lots, both at 14° 23’: Trickery & Deception of Men & Women Venus (Love)

The muse of epic poetry and eloquence helps me write this article on trickery and deception.

[titleknown]

...Reblogging because I think you open up some interesting points in a far clearer way than others I've seen, and I'd like to discuss from the reverse end in good faith.

Because like... fundamentally I find the idea that critique isn't meant to have some material effect fundamentally alien, to the point where my base assumption has always been that the understanding of the function of critique in the circles you speak of was...

...Well, this is antecdotal, but it seems like a viewpoint divorced from popular experience?

Like, to give an (intentionally extreme) example, the largest material impact critical theory probably had on the arts was Frederic Wertham using it in a way that set back comics as an artform in the US by decades.

Ditto for a large chunk of the moral panics or censorship decision we witnessed in the 80s/90s, there was always a child psychologist with Data and Theories on why this artform needed to be destroyed or censored.

Even if it's different disciplines evaluating social impact, I think it's easy to see where the wires got crossed.

Plus, criticism is a great instrument to legitimize or delegitimize an artform or work in the public sphere, and a lot of us are painfully aware that if your artform is culturally delegitimized, you don't get to exist in public space.

Like, for an object lesson in that, see how furries and fanfic writers were treated in public forums in the aughts wrt the massive cultural hate-complex around them vs now where folks in both subcultures have been building up that cultural legitimacy.

Or, for a closer to home example, how Steven Universe fanart fucking disappeared from my dash after the critique of its politics (and its fans) really went into overdrive post-Bismuth. No matter what way you evaluate the show, I feel like that's a pretty visible example of cultural de-legitmization banishing something from a public space.

Hell, on a personal level, a lot of people in fandom have painful experiences with their interests being marginalized due to that lack of cultural legitimacy. Anyone with a special interest can tell you that.

Point being, a lot of people have a lot of personal experience with critique being used as an active weapon and a passive means of denying/gaining cultural legitimacy, that the idea of critique as just this... low-stakes "think about it" sort of dealie you speak of is; again; alien.

And there's also the element of complicity, I think, that provokes that reaction. Like, in terms of a lot of the critique I see I feel like complicity and disgust with how people uplift these works and socially interact with them despite them being "tainted".

Like, to give an example, this is part of why I find Liz Ryerson's very antisocial view of games and art so loathsome. You can also see a lot of that in the left-leaning sneerposting towards "fandom" as a social practice, including someone who ran me off a server with it.

So, with that context in mind, the idea that it's not meant to condemn or shame those into those games comes off as more than a little two-faced, whether intentional or not?

Like, at least from my experience, it's very difficult to see someone say "I'm not saying you're a bad person for liking these games" when everything else around that discourse says "by allowing these cultural complexes to exist you legitimize the violence of your peers" and not think the former is less "sincere sentiment" and more "plausible deniability ass-covering".

Plus, I'd say the issue of colonialism is probably especially a hot button there; given that it's something a lot of us in the Global North who hear about it have few levers to do much about* and there's also that constant drumbeat that if it's solved in the just way our lives will have to get worse just like they are under capitalism but more "fair"**.

So, with an issue a lot of us are stuck being complicit in and are often told even by its advocates that to not be complicit would be to be impoverished and stagnant***, bringing it into a critical framework associated with condemnation over complicity is probably an easy way to take a raw nerve and bite down.

Couple that with people with scrupulosity issues who get exposed to this (myself included), who are probably more numerous than most people realize, and it's also easy to understand why people read that specific discourse as "Ok, you're trying to give me a secular form of Catholic guilt."

Like... does that help you grok better where folks are coming from when they get flustered over this? Do you have any thoughts on how to bridge perspectives like mine with perspectives like yours when they very clearly come from very dissonant experiences?

Like, I feel like there's a massive gap between the experiences of those in critical circles who think of this as a zero-stakes consciousness-raising exercise and those who've been; to put it bluntly; fucked by the Overton Window, and I feel like there needs to be some attempt to bridge it.

*At least wrt my US perspective, given both major parties unity on being unfathomably evil there and the fact that most non-electoral action on that issue here is a joke

**Note I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, but a lot of people in favor of anti-colonialism do, but I don't think any of us know enough about political economy to know for sure, which is what makes it frustrating to discuss.

***Again, not a sentiment I agree with, I cannot stress that enough, though the forcefulness with which its proponents speak does end up setting off my Issues

Wish I had been able to articulate this sooner but the current wave of discourse about Cozy Wholesome Farming Games really shows once again that a lot of people's metric for the line that divides "smart person doing good, thoughtful analysis" from "terminally online freak looking too deep into into shit to start pointless discourse" is when they look deep enough to find something to criticize in a Popular Thing.

Like. The takes "Stardew Valley is an anticapitalist tale about the importance of community because in it the members of this small rural community band together to kick out the Costco analogue" and "The fantasy of landwonership on which games like Stardew Valley are predicated on is kinda bourgeois and the fact that it's considered politically neutral enough to be a common subject matter for games explicitly labelling themselves as Cozy or Wholesome speaks to how entrenched it is in our our culture and art" attribute roughly equivalent weight and importance to the politics of a cutesy farming game, but one of them is very popular and widely liked and the other gets you anons like "Uhm it's literally just a hecking cute farming simularino!? Touch grass lol you should be at the club lol do you even enjoy stuff lol not everything is politics are you really trying to make my heckin' farmerino simulator problematic? Stop looking for politics in everything you're just looking for stuff to get mad at you are a tar pit" etc etc etc