#which contradicts a bit of my moral beliefs

[demonir]

What I’ve learned from going thru the postal game tag for a few minutes

- people REALLY love long hair postal dude (I think that’s postal 1 dude?)

- there is one person out there who’s slamming out some incredibly well made fanart of postal dude x pyro tf2 which would have never occurred to me

- the overlap between tf2 fans and postal fans is quite bigger than I initially thought

- at least 70% of people are hoping that by next game postal dude has gay intercourse

- there are genuine honest to god postal dude x reader stuff out there and no I am not shaming any of you for this, I am genuinely impressed that you’d want a relationship with him of all people (I can’t say a lot because I DO have postal dude in my “hear me out” list of characters)

- people ship postal dude and duke nukem????? Honestly hilarious to me, do not stop

- postal fandom has very talented artists!!!!!

- now this might just be virtue of the platform we are in but by god everyone’s fucking gay or trans in the tag and I love it, I find it hilarious and highly intriguing when such problematic sources like that get eaten up by the lgbt community. What is it that we find so enticing about it? If you’d like to tell me what it is that you yourself like about it please do!

- postal dude is like a tumblr sexyman for people that watched happy tree friends as a child and haven’t been the same since

- some people like to draw one specific postal dude with roach antennae and I’m honestly obsessed

[bimboficationblues]

I'm interested in your thesis that liberalism is related to desire for security. To me it seems completely counter-intuitive since conservativism is the primary political ideology that is characterised by desire for rules-based security, and liberalism with its eponymous focus on "freedom" is more of a counter-movement to that. We may have different definitions of liberalism (I'm in Europe) and I haven't read any of the authors you listed, so I dont quite understand where you're coming from. If you'd like to expand on that a bit - especially how you'd place conservativism in that analysis - I'd like to read it. :)

ty for the question it's a helpful one! hopefully I can actually spell out the broad strokes without just starting to write the book. (I'm not sure I can.) this is all preliminary tracings so I welcome comments, questions, criticisms.

let me cut it to the size of a paragraph: my view is that "security," construed broadly, is the implicit or explicit value underlying basically all of liberal political philosophy and statecraft; this claim is fundamentally linked with my reading of liberalism as a form of legalistic, technocratic aristocracy (literally: "rule of the best"), which wears the skin of democracy as long as its rule is not at risk.

okay, so, working definitions of terms.

What do you mean by liberalism? What about conservatism, isn't that a better example of what you've identified?

Liberalism is a bunch of different things falling under an umbrella term. I find the term "ideology" slippery, so I'm going to try and avoid it here.

When I use the term I am referring to a particular lineage within the history of political thought. That includes a lot of different political actors - philosophers and writers, workers and activists, domestic and international statesmen. Liberalism is not just a particular structure of belief or self-identification held by people or political parties. Rather, I see liberalism as the organizational principles of global capitalism, the mode of thought proper to capitalism's sustenance via the management of the modern state.

My view is that the two things you've highlighted are the broad, self-justifying narratives of these different modes of political thought. "Liberalism is about guarantees of equality, rights, and freedoms, and conservatism is about stability through the preservation of social tradition and culture." I will note that when spelled out in the abstract like this, these things are not actually in inherent contradiction with each other. When you break them down in practice or dig through the details of thought, you find a very different picture. Liberal political thought's values, on investigation, are only about freedom and equality and democracy insofar as those things secure property and the rule of capital. Instead, the substantive values of liberalism are revealed as security, private property, aristocracy (i.e. that "the best" should rule), expansionist empire, "the defense of civilization."

The distinction I would draw, if I wanted to distill the two down, is that conservatism demands obedience as an absolute condition of authority, that the possession of the authority is sufficient justification for obedience (the power wielded by earthly authorities, or perhaps capital itself, being a microcosm of the power wielded by a god). Liberalism demands obedience because it claims that existing in society entails a procedural buy-in; the justification for soliciting obedience is grounded in appeals to reason and practicality. (John Locke's notion of "tacit consent," JS Mill's claim that despotism is an acceptable form of governance for "barbarians," or John Rawls' claim that "outlaw states" can be disciplined by liberal democracies for their alleged cultural failings.)

What about security?

If we step back from the ways in which the concept is historically and morally loaded (and Neocleous makes a convincing case why we shouldn't), we can conceive of security as an affect of predictability. We might think about it as the ability to wake up each day and not be worried about how you're going to feed and reproduce yourself, or that you might be hurt or killed or get sick, or that whatever projects you're investing your time and attention and values in will be taken away from you. This sort of risk-calculation can be on an individual or collective level: thinking about the people you surround yourself with, or that live in a given place, or potentially the whole planet as one integrated system.

On one level you might say life is inherently insecure by virtue of our relatively equal vulnerability to harm or death. There's always the hypothetical possibility that you could get really sick or freak weather could ruin your surroundings or you could fall in a hole and die. However, if the place you live is surrounded by holes, that's a very different type of insecurity, and your risk-calculation and predictions are suddenly vastly different from random events; even more so if there is some kind of agent, will, or specific force that can be identified as the cause of the insecurity.

When I say security is the central liberal category, that's not to necessarily say that actually having "security" is bad. Experiencing emotional security might be good (though maybe not ideal if you are actually extremely insecure); likewise, feeling "insecure" does not necessarily imply the actual absence of security. What's relevant is how liberalism defines security and its absence.

~~~~

My position is that liberalism, and its antecedent political economy, has a fundamental worry - conscious or unconscious - that class society (or "civilization") is inherently insecure or unstable, and offers specific answers for resolving that tension.

What I mean by "inherently insecure" is that the struggle between classes consistently generates a mass of people that have little to nothing, and a minority of people that have everything. See J.S. Mill, bemoaning this as a problem in Considerations on Representative Government:

In all countries there is a majority of poor, a minority who, in contradistinction, may be called rich. Between these two classes, on many questions, there is complete opposition of apparent interest. We will suppose the majority sufficiently intelligent to be aware that it is not for their advantage to weaken the security of property, and that it would be weakened by any act of arbitrary spoliation. But is there not a considerable danger lest they should throw upon the possessors of what is called realised property, and upon the larger incomes, an unfair share, or even the whole, of the burden of taxation; and having done so, add to the amount without scruple, expending the proceeds in modes supposed to conduce to the profit and advantage of the labouring class?

See also Hegel, in Elements of the Philosophy of Right:

When a large mass of people sinks below the level of a certain standard of living - which automatically regulates itself at the level necessary for a member of the society in question - that feeling of right, integrity, and honour which comes from supporting oneself by one's own activity and work is lost. This leads to the creation of a rabble, which in turn makes it much easier for disproportionate wealth to be concentrated in a few hands. [...] Poverty in itself does not reduce people to a rabble; a rabble is created only by the disposition associated with poverty, by inward rebellion against the rich, against society, the government, etc. It also follows that those who are dependent on contingency become frivolous and lazy, like the lazzaroni of Naples, for example. This in turn gives rise to the evil that the rabble do not have sufficient honour to gain their livelihood through their own work, yet claim that they have a right to receive their livelihood. No one can assert a right against nature, but within the conditions of society hardship at once assumes the form of a wrong inflicted on this or that class. The important question of how poverty can be remedied is one which agitates and torments modern societies especially.

This is not a very tenable or secure long-term situation - it will lead to unpredictable confrontations between classes - unless the parties involved find some solution that makes it tenable.

In my view, liberalism offers a very adaptable solution: the modern state and legal system. Instead of the collection of scattered/inefficient/arbitrary systems that characterize pre-industrial power - heredity, honor, sumptuary codes, ritual, personal relationships, traditional obligations - we find (or rather, make) a geographically bounded, unified nation that operates on a set of general principles, a common language both literal and political.

Things like money, markets, a robust system of positive law and mechanisms to enforce it, and the potential for reform strike a balance between 1) formalized, impersonal, predictable outcomes that ensure the sanctity of property goes undisturbed and the "rule of the best" continues - contracts and elections follow the same basic principles, and evaluating harm can be boiled down to "amounts of money" or "years spent in prison" - and 2) allowing for enough adaptability to respond to new circumstances, new innovations, and new crises. For an example, see Adam Smith, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments:

Would you awaken the industry of the man who seems almost dead to ambition, it will often be to no purpose to describe to him the happiness of the rich and the great; to tell him that they are generally sheltered from the sun and the rain, that they are seldom hungry, that they are seldom cold, and that they are rarely exposed to weariness, or to want of any kind. The most eloquent exhortation of this kind will have little effect upon him. If you would hope to succeed, you must describe to him the conveniency and arrangement of the different apartments in their palaces; you must explain to him the propriety of their equipages, and point out to him the number, the order, and the different offices of all their attendants. If any thing is capable of making impression upon him, this will. Yet all these things tend only to keep off the sun and the rain, to save them from hunger and cold, from want and weariness.

In the same manner, if you would implant public virtue in the breast of him who seems heedless of the interest of his country, it will often be to no purpose to tell him, what superior advantages the subjects of a well-governed state enjoy; that they are better lodged, that they are better clothed, that they are better fed. These considerations will commonly make no great impression. You will be more likely to persuade, if you describe the great system of public police which procures these advantages, if you explain the connexions and dependencies of its several parts, their mutual subordination to one another, and their general subserviency to the happiness of the society; if you show how this system might be introduced into his own country, what it is that hinders it from taking place there at present, how those obstructions might be removed, and all the several wheels of the machine of government be made to move with more harmony and smoothness, without grating upon one another, or mutually retarding one another’s motions. It is scarce possible that a man should listen to a discourse of this kind, and not feel himself animated to some degree of public spirit. He will, at least for the moment, feel some desire to remove those obstructions, and to put into motion so beautiful and so orderly a machine.

In legal terms, liberalism entails a commitment to specific kinds of procedural guarantees (formal equality and formal liberty as guaranteed by law) that allow for different substantive content to fill in the gaps between those procedures. A philosophical way to look at it is that liberalism adopts agnosticism on what "the Good" is besides a floor-threshold of what is acceptable (rights), in order to allow for "the Good" to be worked out through time and practice.

This is something I regard as both the central strength and weakness of liberalism as a philosophy of governance: its procedural flexibility allows for the reuptake of hostile forces - anti-liberals are pushed to fight on liberal terrain or risk irrelevance - but also allows competing movements that are designed to undermine some aspect of the liberal project.

To be clear, the liberal answer is not the only possible one, it is just the one that most characterizes modernity. A different answer might be religion, or some form of arbitrary authority: your proper place is servile, but your reward will be eternal bliss in the hereafter, or the favor of your lord, or the emotional satisfaction of doing what you're meant to do. (This is what I would describe as "the traditional conservative answer.")

Another answer, that of the Hitlerites, synthesizes the liberal and the religious answer and ramps a few things up: all of existence is inherently insecure, and made even worse because we are besieged with enemies within and without. but we can secure a future for that nation, for your children, through expansion and purification. (This is the "reactionary" answer.)

A final answer says that there is no true solution that can make class society tenable: that we have reached a point in the history of class conflict where we, every day, reproduce and participate in a spiraling system that depreciates all the things it needs to function, that constantly absorbs more raw material into its maw, and while the ruling classes and the managers can shift crises around or find innovative ways of managing them, the crises themselves can never truly be resolved so long as the rule of capital is maintained. It can only end in revolutionary upheaval "or the common ruin of the contending classes."

To be clear, that's what I think the stakes are of the project: the capitalist security state is in the middle of a substantive upheaval in its priorities as climate change worsens and the hegemonic role of the USA begins to wane, manifesting in prominent battles over the family/reproductive labor and immigration. All of these are fundamentally about the modern state's sense of insecurity as a result of problems made by class struggle. The ruling classes are competing between the right-wing, who want to build extensive fortresses as a buffer against climate refugees while hyperexploiting a terrified, disciplined underclass of migrant, domestic, and third-world labor, and the "liberals," who want to figure out a techno-managerial fix like geoengineering the planet (and making decisions about who, and where, will receive the "benefits" of that "mitigation") while hyperexploiting a terrified, disciplined underclass of migrant, domestic, and third-world labor.

~~~~

to give a rough sense of those different authors, hopefully to clarify how they relate to the project:

Landa’s book The Apprentice’s Sorcerer examines the mechanics of fascist political thought and finds its direct antecedents in "economic liberalism," basically the strain of liberalism that felt its democratic/political twin had gone too far. Through the commitment to formal freedom and equality under the law, liberalism had given the masses the opportunity and language to articulate their interests, fight for those interests in government and civil society, and potentially win (in the process disrupting society and the balance of class power). In some places - particularly France, Haiti, and Russia - the masses went way, way too far for economic liberal comfort!

Fascism then enters the picture as an alternative way to direct the masses, neutralizing that insecurity produced by mass politics - to “save liberalism from itself.” While fascism would deploy the language of anti-capitalism and anti-liberalism (usually in the form of a structural anti-Semitism a la the Strasser brothers, as well as various workerisms or producerisms), in practice, it was and is all financed by the usual Junkers and industrialists as all nationalist projects, and commits to norms and goals that were and are entirely typical of liberal states. Oswald Spengler (the guy who thought Hitler didn't go far enough because he still made appeals to the public) is my favorite example: his "Prussian socialism" is literally just the doctrine that work in service of the nation's wealth makes life meaningful and that workers should be grateful to have it. In other words, what Spengler calls "socialism" is just English political economy with a Prussian nationalist twist.

Geoff Mann’s analysis of Keynes’ General Theory and Keynesianism more broadly treats Keynes as participating in an intellectual legacy (preceded by Hobbes, Robespierre, and Hegel) of immanent critique of liberalism, one that currently sets the terms for "left politics" as hesitancy and fear of a revolutionary scenario because of the insecurity it would bring. All liberalism wrestles with the fundamental insecurity of class society, but Keynes is the rare one that sees this insecurity as essentially irresolvable (though Mann admits that Keynes couldn't quite name it as such). Keynes further regards the fundamental task as saving civilization from itself while avoiding the revolutionary alternative. From In the Long Run We Are All Dead:

“If an immanent critique is one that accepts the basic principles of its object, Keynesianism is simultaneously an immanent critique of liberalism and of revolution. It is the liberalism of those who (however reluctantly) acknowledge the continued historical legitimacy of revolution but claim to render it unnecessary, to “revolutionize” without revolution. One certainly might say this is impossible, and perhaps, in the long run, that is true. But, as Keynes himself said—and his point was not metaphorical—“in the long run we are all dead.” In the endless “short run” moments of deferral between now and then, the problem of maintaining civilization itself is the most pressing task of all.”

Mark Neocleous writes extensively on the concept of security and its relationship with the state, building his work around a younger Marx's claim that "security is the supreme concept of bourgeois society." This has obvious connections to this project. However, a lot of his focus is specifically on the more overt forms of state power, specifically war and police powers - I want to take things a step further (through legal philosophy) and argue that this emphasis on security is embedded in the structure of law itself, and not merely military force or the police power.

[zhuoyichenpretty]

Ep 25 Commentary

“難受嗎？難受就對了[...]卓大人，你習慣就好。” Is it difficult to bear? Good [...] Zhuo Daren, you'd better get used to it. —Zhao Yuanzhou, Ep. 1

Oh my god what the fuck ep 25. Ohhh my god. I don't think I ever stopped going "holy shit oh fuck" for the entire forty minutes. My head is in my hands. Why is FoF experimenting with onscreen physical/emotional/mental whump at a frequency and intensity previously unknown to man? To my favorite character? 我前輩子得罪了誰？？(Who did I wrong in my previous life??)

Quote from ep 1 because I had just re-watched it earlier in the day and those words came back to me not with any particular use towards interpretation but just as a characterization of—all of this. It is indeed difficult to bear.

Spoilers incoming.

Also spoiler for how I feel about this episode in case the sound of me wailing in lament in the distance makes it unclear: It was probably one of the most effective episodes for me thus far, personally. It struck many, many chords and did not stop for breath at all.

Honestly I'm kind of at a loss for words because I really, truly, did not expect shit would get so much worse for ZYC so incredibly rapidly. The speed with which the situation deteriorated broke the fucking sound barrier (I'm exaggerating, I'm being dramatic, but jfc I wasn't prepared). I apologize in advance if any of my reactions become a little bit repetitive, there are only so many ways I can express continuous distress and shock and despair.

My stomach dropped during the watchman attack scene. I can't believe how effective it was for me, this moment coming at the heels of ep 24, how that episode was a whole meditation on the goodness of ZYC's heart, his gentle and sensitive nature, the reasons why everyone loves him, the way things are bad but they will not break us and we may lose heart individually but we will persevere together.

And then in one single moment, all of that is threatened and very nearly destroyed. I felt every one of ZYC's dry heaves.

This drama is not one I necessarily go to for subtlety of intention, so the fact that I really had no inkling how at-risk ZYC's irreproachability would be in the coming episode despite being very invested in his arc made it all the more shocking and well-done, personally. They set him up as high as they could so they could tear him down as thoroughly as possible in an instant, and I did not notice the set-up at all.

I also have to say, I really appreciate PSJ. How quickly she cut to the chase about what he'd seemingly done, how she'd said the things that aren't just hard to hear but also hard to say. Because that's exactly what ZYC will care the most about. It seems to me her righteousness helped keep his own intact. In such a moment of complete and utter vulnerability and devastation, her moral clarity is as terrible as it is necessary and true to ZYC's belief system, just when it is most susceptible to collapse. And I say this not to mean that I think he is culpable for the supposed attack, given how much discussion the show goes into about culpability or lack thereof when not in one's right mind, but just that I find PSJ's moral compass to most closely align with ZYC's beliefs as he has been carrying them out throughout the show, and she keeps him from contradiction in a moment when it may be on everyone else's mind to spare him from the double-edged blade of his own righteousness. (Also, I may be reading too far into WX's statement later on that PSJ protected ZYC with her decision, but it could be interpreted that WX agrees or understands that as well on some level.)

And the fucking fact that all this takes place in front of a shrine for the Righteous God of Virtue and Blessing. As I said, I'm speechless.

(Speechless, she says, as she continues to ramble.)

Ouughhhhhh the reversals. ZYZ draping the cloak on ZYC this time. Fuck. The dungeon. Oh god. The way ZYZ loses more and more of his facade of calm, even just from his somewhat tense but understated distress in ep 24 to this unblinking, almost unseeing stare at ZYC in shackles.

Also, I'm glad for the moment PSJ and WX have to themselves once ZYZ proves ZYC's innocence. The way we get to see them navigating a situation so dire together despite its potential to push them utterly apart. PSJ's near-silent delivery of "friend" fucking kills me. It's loaded with so much emotion that neither the voice nor the term can truly handle that weight. That's art to me.

And then oh god, the Tianxiang Pavilion scene. I don't even know what to say. How everything spirals completely out of control. How we literally watch ZYC's worst nightmares play out. WX's first shout, the way I don't feel like I've heard that particular shade of emotion in her voice up until now, even with everything they've been through. Honestly, each of their expressions as the mob began to jeer and before they were separated was so effective. Ying Lei's indignation, PSJ's alarm, ZYZ's agitation, WX's fury. And the palpable panic as the crowd surged around them and pulled them apart.

I've watched this whole scene three times now. Every actor is giving their all here, and it's so impressive because this isn't at all the usual context of their angst and heartbreak. This isn't a decisive battle over life and death. The range of tragedy stretches so far in this kind of fantastical drama and yet they are able to create such tension and emotion that the shock of that first egg thrown has all the impact of a fatal wound. And it's worse in some ways because it means so little to an outsider and everything to this family.

That rage and helplessness in WX as she wipes ZYC's face and asks who threw it, when she says if the crowd goes any further, they'll fight back—her delivery is so raw. When I heard her lines, I felt the fantasy genre completely slip away for a moment and it became absolutely personal. Like, this point is getting a little away from mere commentary so please forgive the brief aside but those are words I can hear in my own family's voices.

Then, watching the very last vestiges of ZYZ's composure fully crumble away in real-time. God, I wish I could say something more substantive about ZYZ's entire reaction because it's so so good but I'm feeling levels of angst I truly don't know how to convey, which is really saying something given how much of an essay I usually write despite claiming I'm speechless.

Just. The way this is the most desperate and near-breaking we have ever seen them, in a completely different manner than the grief that has come before.

Alright, and then, the juxtaposition of the mob and the cheering crowd around ZYC?—yeah, that's when I started sobbing. As I've said before, the effectiveness, the efficiency, of TJR's acting. The way we can read every emotion off of young ZYC's face: his awkward pride, his self-consciousness, his bashful happiness. Even though this is a memory only recently and fleetingly alluded to in the previous episode and this is a ZYC we have never actually met, we know him and all his mannerisms and expressions so well. He is so alive with his character and so familiar, and then we cut back and, god, how unrecognizable everything is now. That absolutely broke me.

Finally, ZYC and Li Lun's conversation. Again, so so good and again, not sure I can offer much substance in my commentary to do it enough justice. I've been writing this commentary for over three hours now, so if my coherence is petering out, I do apologize.

This is so much of what I wanted and didn't even know I wanted from them, simply because they've been kept apart by the plot for so long. To see some of this come to pass is so satisfying. For Li Lun to claw so desperately at ZYC and try to bring him down, what that means about how he views ZYC's role in ZYZ's life right now. That this is twofold, to ruin ZYC and to be understood, and how he can never get the latter if he is still holding onto the former, wanting to pull others into the abyss rather than seeking a way to perhaps be pulled out of it. Li Lun is so precise in his brutality towards ZYC, digging his fingers directly into the worst of ZYC's fears, and yet ZYC is so insanely clear-eyed and incorruptible and incisive with his words in a way Li Lun has never experienced or had to combat (ZYC, articulate king fr). And for all of Li Lun's bluster as he continually makes to take the physical and conversational upper hand, how quickly that becomes a pitiful immaturity when ZYC truly fights back (in defense of ZYZ). Yan An plays this part so well, when he's looking up at ZYC.

And seriously, talk about ZYC delivering just the most on point monologues to struggling characters ever (ZYZ, Bai Jiu, now Li Lun), and doing all that after the day he's had?? To be honest, I don't know what direction this conversation will push Li Lun. I can see it go either way because yeah ZYC just basically rubbed in his face how alone and pitiable he is and how he'll never get what he wants out of ZYC, but at the same time I've never seen Li Lun so close to understanding why he has ended up alone, nor look so desperate enough to not be that he might end up making a different choice for himself. And just as Li Lun is that mirror showing ZYC the darkness of the abyss, ZYC must be reflecting to Li Lun how bright the dawn could be. (Oh the inextricable nature of character foils.) Even though ZYC has denied Li Lun the understanding he wants, he has seen through Li Lun so thoroughly that that is an understanding in itself.

And then oh my god. The reverting to Bai Jiu's voice and body. One of the most top-tier narrative choices ever. Li Lun, deconstructed by ZYC completely, is really so unbearably young in his heartache.

Okay, I think that's all I have to offer. I'm so wrung out, and I apologize if the quality of the commentary declined in the second half, but I hope some of this was enjoyable to read!

[annah-kitathryne]

@dchuntress this is for you.

My Extreamly Biased Review Of Detective Comics [2016] #1090 - 1093

These are my notes taken as I was reading, and I sum up some of my thoughts at the very end. I said I would only review Scarlett, but I want to wait for the story arc to finish before I do so. So here's my unfiltered notes on these four issues

I don't provide a lot of context to my thoughts, so please either read the issues or remain out of the know.

1090

Morality plot that might be interesting interesting

Saving the life of an abuser, the girl is seventeen, so a child abuser who made a teenager pregnant.

Martha is able to help a new mother, who is seventeen, if that needs to be stated again. This mother is a child herself.

Martha having what appears to be contrasting morals to her husband. Cool.

Bruce needs therapy to deal with his childhood trauma (nothing new). He has the money to afford one and pay them off.

Bruce punches a child who is already apologizing and calling for an ambulance. He could have used his words first instead of assaulting a child.

He put on a tracker to the child who might have surrendered without the need to punch and frighten the child.

The kid Bruce beat up was murdered. I don't want to blame him, but Bruce, you have been a vigilante for at least two decades at this point. You should know better! Eh he has a habit of that.

Perfume = white musk. I know nothing of perfumes, but this reads very much like a play on the white privilege that comes from a system where children being murdered is considered the norm.

Acknowledging, he hit the child. You're doing better than you were in the 90s. Still an apology without change and action means nothing.

Scarlett Martha Scott is pretty, I love her hair color.

They [Bruce and Scarlett] appear to have some history that is nice for a character to have.

Disturbingly cool science that causes a person to decrease age reminds me of that rich guy who gets blood transfusions from his son. Also vampirism.

She has beliefs that contradict those in which Bruce's dad passes to Bruce. Cool point of contention.

"Youth is wasted on the young." She's connected to the murders. We love morally and financially corrupt female characters, though. However, that statement reads very much like what an old politician would say to his buddies behind closed doors.

Plot point reminds me a bit of Batman Beyond Lazarus pit youth plot.

Love that Bruce pointed out that he did not take the Oath because I have words about how he handles things.

Bruce really went: With this purely medical enhancement, I could reverse some aging and ergo help more people.

Thomas releasing Joe Chill. Irony.

1091

Batman is having a nightmare about the kids being Robin and shooting Joker, Batman slaps the kid and that slap kills the kid.

The children's deaths are definitely related to the Holy Grail.

Targeting disenfranchised children who the media and populace are not going to miss.

Bullock assuming Batman is human.

The artwork for the truck scene was beautiful.

I like the colors

Bruce is envious of Damian's ability to fight. [Sidenote: we need to have a discussion on the different abilities and ages all the different Robins experienced as Batman's sidekick. Dick would have been sidekick to a young Batman who was still early into being Batman vs. Damian who is dealing with an older Batman but one who has got the procedure down.]

Bruce having very real knee pain.

Not me forgetting Alfred is dead. Good he's dead.

Is the world truly safer with Batman in it? It's the chicken and egg question. The hero rising to the challenge of the villain vs. The villain is rising to challenge the hero.

Superman being positive.

More than one motive? Scarlett that is suspicious as all hell.

Do the wrong thing for the right reason. Scarlett wants to force the rich to recognize they have to preserve the planet in order to live longer on it, but that won't ever happen. It isn't in the nature of the rich.

Doctor Forster has been blunt. Pfff. Bruce is playing self-consious.

'Biologically younger than your age.' What does that even mean? And with the amount of stress and damage done to Bruce's body? How?

Take some pills and use these creams. Reminds me of those commercials.

I like that Scarlett is smart. We love smart morally corrupt women.

Damian really went: Father, it's 2 a.m., and you have been asleep for 11 hours.

Bruce handing Damian his blood? Bruce, stop being creepy. What is he supposed to do with that?

Bruce immediately tests it after a day. You know. Like an idiot.

Bruce, you care about if there are lives lost but not the medical bills they can't pay.

Yeah, that villain is Forster, Scarlett, or someone who works for them.

1092

Okay, 1. He is a child. How is Kai harming you. 2. [Jump up kick that whip around and spin, now jump back do it again. . .]

So not only is it repairing the damages of you know fighting crime and the natural process of aging but it also enhances the brain. I can't possibly imagine how that goes wrong.

Yep, they are stealing the children's blood. Black market organ harvesting is back in business. Rebranded and even more deadly.

[Full disclosure took a moment to stop and browse Ebay for Red Robin comics. Found some and bought them. The top part of my page of notes is covered in marked numbers.]

Another weird organization is not allowing the GCPD to investigate? Honestly, tracks for Gotham. And because the police are good guys to Batman comics, this group will be bad guys.

I was right they are stealing the blood of children. Bruce is now directly benefitting from the murder of children just like every other rich person.

Vampires!

Bruce 'my son, is hurting, and I will punch these guys to get an ID out of them.'

The I.D. card looking like the grail is 'how to get caught 101'. Should have had that I.D. card be something else.

Okay so she's possibly being threatened. Possibly.

I love her hair and clothes style. We don't see enough morally corrupt people wear pink.

Okay, they [Bruce and Scarlett] do look kinda cute together.

What do you mean there is nothing you can do about your mother?

Aww they beat up muggers together. That's cute. But now you both look suspicious.

Bruce what are you doing?

Omg Bruce!

Barbara calling the grail connection a coincidence? What have they done to you, babs? Have they downgraded your smarts.

Babs, you would be able to crack those encryptions given enough time.

Damian doesn't look enough like Talia. Child, where is your mother's genetics?

His attitude is kinda funny.

1093

Jason shows up and traumatizes another child.

Oh all of them are hunting down the seven missing children.

Babsgirl. . .ehhhh.

Batman sounding accusatory about a child who committed a crime.

Bruce is calling a guy who is head taller than him a 'small, small, man.'

'You don't know what I've done.' Damian and Jason: I've done worse.

Damian was a child, though.

All these Bats are in a room together, and no one is fighting or being snarky at each other? Damn.

Tim and Damian are nearly the same height.

Okay, so that was perspextive. But they should be closer in height than what is being shown.

Casually calling your girlfriend while running down a security guard? Bruce . . .

Never mind he was a merc.

Penguin back again.

The murderer is protected by a secret power? Probably the elites paying money to be medically de-aged.

Asema- quick Google search has the name connected to the Fan word Azema, which means vampire or the Ojibwe word asemaa, which means 'to make'. They are fitting because they are in a way making vampires.

Asema believes that people don't deserve more than one chance. Asema, these are children.

Children who must I mention are being spat back out into a world where they were put into circumstances where they committed crimes? You can't just throw someone, especially children, back into the same situation and expect complete change!

That criminal is a CHILD.

Asema obviously has a lot of trauma that has her targeting the individuals who cause the pain instead of the system that creates the situations that shape individuals. Killing children will NOT solve the problem. It only makes things worse.

Is another kid dead?

Yeah.

You also allowed them to collect your blood idiot.

Can Cass come in and beat this lady up and go all 'No one dies tonight' on her.

And they have your identity. Good going Bruce.

Final thoughts? [So far.]

I'll hold off on character judgment until the storyline finishes, but here are some of my basic thoughts I might expand later. Maybe.

Vampirism as an allegory for the rich and powerful ducking the life out of the people. Shown through the taking of blood from children who have already been victims of the prison industrial complex in order to keep the elite young.

Bruce is actually feeling the natural effects of aging and using his body as a weapon. I fear this is just a plot device that will not continue forward. [Correct me if I'm wrong.]

I actually like Scarlett. Whether she turns out to be the ultimate villain of this arc or villain by being complicit in the continued and growing divide between the elite and the people. I think she is an interesting character. I just hope they don't declaw her potential and present villainy. We see that too much with female characters.

Kinda wanna know if the LoA would have any interest in Grail tech, and how it would interact with Lazarus.

I love the artwork, but Damian looks like a Bruce clone and not a child. Where is your mother's genetics child.

This story gave me a lot of flashbacks to the Lazarus Pit story from Batman Beyond.

The interesting probably unintended undertones with Bruce failing to save several children can be read a lot like Bruce, ultimately being part of the problem. Bruce is still a privileged man who is benefiting from the systems put in place to only ever lift the rich up higher, and because of this, he ultimately ends up hurting those who will always be hurt by the system designed to always harm them. Batman's presence ultimately seems to both inspire those who want to help and hurt. It gives blanket permission to and, in consequence, new villains will always rise to the challenge.

[dilfsonic]

I love your service animal au, the art and the test posts surrounding it. There are things I can 100% relate to and things that find a bit different. (But considering that I have an actual dog and not a sentient highly intelligent alien lifeforms is different).

One I can relate to as a general service dog handler is how my dog's behaviour can be easily misconstrued, usually by the general public who simply don't know any better. I've had people call my dog naughty for doing the correct trained behaviour, been told that my dog loves me simply because he's preforming a trained behaviour (I'm sure he does love me but a behaviour he gets paid to do probably isn't the best indicator of said love) and whilst I usually I nod and smile however the mischaracterisation of my dog's behaviour by the general public always manages to irk me.

I definitely can relate to Maria to a degree it's really hard balance out your own needs ad a disabled person and your service animal's needs. Especially when there are conflicting needs.

Though there are some parts I do relate to with Maria, there's other parts I can't relate with at all. My relationship with my own service dog is different from that of normal animal ownership. He's not my baby (though I do call him one), not my crutch, nor is he just my companion. There are layers to our relationship, he's both my best friend and my colleague, my student (as hes self trained) and my companion. When you have a service dog, the relationship becomes a lot more complex than the dog being a family member, pet, companion etc, they're all that and more. However this is where ethics comes into play since my service animal is a dog and not a literal alien lifeform.

Continuing on I think I would really love to see the ways he's been trained to preform his role, did Maria train him herself, was he trained by someone else then given to Maria once his training is complete and how does this affect his relationship with Maria and his job? As well as the ethics side of it toom I would love to see this covered as this is a huge topic within the service dog community especially because many people often utilise aversion and coercion to get their dogs to work with them, is this a thing that shadow has essentially been groomed into doing by Gerald?

“I'm sure he does love me but a behaviour he gets paid to do probably isn't the best indicator of said love) and whilst I usually I nod and smile however the mischaracterisation of my dog's behaviour by the general public always manages to irk me.” Yes! This is a perfect way to describe how Maria feels, and how Shadow’s behaviors are heavily misunderstood.

Yes he does love her and care for her. But you’re not going to see it just by observing the way he acts as evidence. His many intimate behaviors with her are learned, trained behaviors and tasks with multiple layers and purposes that people don’t grasp if they don’t understand his job. He’s often considered “cute” by humans, which Maria cant blame them for, but she hates how they see him as an animal to cooed over and not his own person. And she can’t do anything to dissuade their views since she literally relies on him as a tool, contradicting her own beliefs in his personhood and autonomy. Very messy.

Shadow’s training was most definitely problematic at best at the hands of Gerald considering what he is. If it’s a debate concerning dogs, then it would be extremely problematic concerning people. Gerald is not perfect in this au, he certainly has conflicting beliefs about Mobians compared to his younger granddaughter, and should not be looked at for moral guidance.

If the ultimate lifeform needed to be a human being, Gerald would still intend Shadow’s use to be the same. But a Mobian is capable of abilities a human is not, smaller and has more potential, so that’s why he is what he is. The ethics of using an autonomous being as a service animal are unimportant to him, and so he was willing to use questionable tactics to train him as well. His granddaughter’s life was depending on Shadow’s effectiveness, as there were no backups.

Similar to how I answered the previous ask, Shadow and Maria aren’t quite able to validate or see each other’s feelings fully as they have their predestined relationship. Maria is his charge, and Shadow is hers to use however she needs for her health. Of course she tries to treat him like a person. Like a roommate, with his own room and belongings and bathroom and self care. The matter is Shadow not caring to have belongings, and he only takes care of himself because he needs to be in the best conditions always for Maria. She struggles to be on the same page as him, and he’s sometimes cold toward her attempts at being more like friends, particularly if her health isn’t doing well. When she’s doing okay is when he relaxes and is more open to fun and idle time.

Shadow has a distant respect for Gerald, but he certainly was groomed into the perfect tool by him, starting ever since he was a baby fresh from the capsule. He didn’t have any kind of childhood, just a long training period in which he measured his development not by birthdays, but by milestones of achievements and reactionary accuracy to Maria’s needs. He does in some ways view Gerald like “family” only because he would naturally mimic the kind of language Maria used for her grandfather. But primarily, he is his creator, his keeper, and the one he answers to. Shadow is rebellious towards societal expectations and views and strangers but not to Gerald.

[butterflydm]

Story missions and lore updates in DAV...

I think that the Dragon Age series might have my favorite lore that I've ever run across in a video game. It has so much depth and the history of it is just so palpable playing the games. From the very beginning, using the codex system as a way to give information that was very much biased in-game, never free-floating knowledge but always knowledge that was tied down to specific people in the specific cultures that they were writing in.

Even before we started getting some of the big historical revelations in this game, I've been blown away by getting to visit all these places that we've only gotten to hear about or meet the occasional companion from in the previous games. Actually seeing Treviso! Touring Minrathous! Spending time in Nevarra! And each of the environments feels so rich and like so much time and thought was spent on fleshing it out.

I've played some big side quests involving Mythal and Solas, and pushed forward with the next story mission, so there's some big-ish lore spoilers below.

We've gotten so much information that has exploded basically everyone's religion, but none of it actually contradicts the previous lore, because all of that was in-world beliefs that were written down by people in the game world. I love it!

The Tevinter Old Gods were really the dragons that the Evanuris had bound to themselves, and were able to whisper to the ancient Tevinter magisters because Solas didn't understand the nature of the bond between the dragons and their masters. So the Evanuris... were making an escape attempt. There were seven Tevinter magisters who breached the Golden City in an attempt to obey their old gods. The reason that the dragons told them to go there was because they were hoping it would free the Evanuris. But it failed. They released the Blight instead.

Theory: Andraste connected to a Spirit of Faith, and that's where she got all her ideas that she then went running with, and which eventually became the Chant of the Light that we have in the present day. Probably already been speculated before, I wouldn't be surprised! We know that spirits can give people these kinds of big revolutionary ideas (see: Anders).

It's really spirits all the way down, like turtles, it feels like. Spirits are so integral to everything. Spirits and the Titans (I might want to do my second Rook as a dwarf, because that would be a very different and interesting perspective than my elf Rook has, I think. Solas harmed the dwarven people in a very direct and clear way).

It sounds like humans also already existed. But then spirits used lyrium to forge bodies of their own, becoming the ancient elves, who then became truly mortal over the course of living in the world.

Also! Oh! Learning that Solas was originally a spirit really does give even more poignancy to his and Varric's disagreement over Cole, and whether Cole should become more 'human' or remain as a spirit. Solas regrets his choice. He doesn't want Cole to also regret it.

I did a quest for Harding and we learned that dwarves are essentially small pieces of the Titans -- what has survived of them. So when they say that they came from the Stone... they really did. It was neat. We went to a Kal-Sharok outpost and talked to Shaper Valta (who is now a very big statue). As soon as Harding mentioned Kal-Sharok, I was hoping it would mean Valta.

I did the next big quest and everyone is shook. Especially Darvin and Lucanis -- Lucanis feels like he failed and Darvin is feeling a bit of a loss of purpose, since he killed an Archdemon and didn't die.

Both Varric and Solas continue to be good advisors, I think -- Varric is good as a team adviser (morale and such) while Solas is a better war adviser. But I think both are useful for Rook. I really do love how their dynamic was brought forward and continued from DAI.

Next, we're trying to strengthen people's resolve and get our alliances strengthened as well. Kinda giving me a ME2 vibe with regards to that and I wonder if the endgame of this game will have a 'Suicide Mission' type of component, where different characters' survival depends on if you helped them keep their focus and how strong your alliance is with their faction.

Lucanis is making Rook work hard for that romance! One single flirt with Taash and Rook was being asked if they wanted sex! But I've flirted with Lucanis at basically every turn, and we have still not kissed. I feel like that "Let me in!" at the gates meme, lol. We might have to finish his personal quest before we can move forward with the romance.

I finished up the Solas side-quest and have learned the extent of his history and his regrets. Getting that nice long conversation with Morrigan was great, and I loved seeing all the memories. Solas did a lot of things that he now regrets, and yet he keeps trying over and over. His pride can't let him stop, I think, no matter how many mistakes he makes.

I talked with Mythal (the spirit-side) and was able to talk her into handing over her essence (I did restart the conversation once when I fucked it up; I admit that! But I really feel like my elven Rook should be able to convince her. It also sounds like having the essence might end up affecting how the endgame goes, and I want to see it, lol).

Next time around, I plan to tackle Lucanis's personal quest, and then move forward with Neve's story quest.

[niaranda]

TavTash Tag Game made by @crystal-overdrive and inspired by @bearhugsandshrugs

I got tagged by @avani-telvanni and @yhmwatfhu I hope you will find it interesting!

I will accompany the article with my drawings, the full image of which you can find on my blog. 1. Tell us a bit about your Tav!  Niaranda – chaotic neutral forest elf, rogue ranger. She is convinced not to use illithid abilities from the word. A self-willed adventurer. A girl with a very pragmatic mindset, likes to make cause-and-effect relationships and find logical explanations for something, is quite perceptive. In words, she is straightforward, honest and outspoken. Instead of lying outright (she hates lying), she will start to conceal and evade the answer. She likes to discuss various topics, often topics with deep meaning. This helps her to be filled with her new knowledge.

She lives for her own pleasure, an individualist. She is diligent, and easily does work with something small. She help those in need, if it does not bother her and does not contradict for plans. She is often motivated. There is always a choice, it is impossible to stay away as an observer. Niaranda is stubborn in her decisions and does not tolerate the indecision of others. She is not afraid to challenge. In rational thinking, fear is an interfering factors that prevent analysis. But she's not fearless. She still has that feeling, even though she's trying to control it.

2. What alignment is your Tav? How does that align or clash with Gortash? Do they agree with him morally? Niaranda is of the opinion that tyranny will always exist. The overthrow of one tyrant does not mean the arrival of another tyrant. There is no ideal world in which it would always be safe. But it is quite possible to stand on the strong side. In this case, Gortash turned out to be a strong point, and not the squad with whom she traveled.

Niaranda can tell Gortash that his plan is bullshit if she really thinks so, and she will believe it until he provides her with weighty arguments in opposition. It may happen that at some point she will resist the actions of the Chosen Bane's, and a conflict may arise against this background. However, Gortash is one of those who can control her.

3. What God does your Tav follow? Is Gortash's position as Bane's chosen an issue?  Niaranda does not believe in any god directly. Faith often puts in certain frames, but a girl does not like to put herself in any kind of framework until she finds them useful for herself. Nevertheless, she observed the clergy and the dogmas of various gods a lot. Everyone has some kind of foothold that she can rely on in case of something. But Lathander turned out to be the most interesting in his desire to forget the defeats of the past and focus on the victories of the future. This also includes meeting problems face to face and rebirth as a metaphor. A new path, a fire that gives strength.

She does not consider the path of the Bainite, it is enough for her to be near them. Niaranda will always have time to swear allegiance to any of the gods. Rather, it is a matter of principle to remain with faith in oneself, to seek support within oneself. Of course, the power that the gods can give is a weighty argument to believe, but it also has consequences.

Niaranda finds it very curious that in places Enver is symbolized with the sun (for example, posters "Gortash to the Archdukes!" or the oath of union at the inauguration mentioning the roaring sun, symbols of the sun on Steel Watchers, and so on), but at the same time he is Bane's Chosen One. Without a direct belief in Lathander, Niaranda jokingly compares herself to a small ray of sunlight in pitch darkness. Two opposites. Sometimes it seems to her that there is a small ray of sunshine in the Gortash itself.

4. What did your Tav think of Gortash when they first met? Did they take his offer of an alliance?  Throughout her journey, Niaranda had heard enough about Gortash and his atrocities. However, she did not expect him to offer her an alliance. She agreed rather forcibly, as his Steel Guards looked menacing and terrifying. At the same time, Niaranda admired how well Enver had built his power.

The clever insidious eyes, shaggy hairstyle and unflappable V-neck on the chest, which impressed the girl at the inauguration, were just the beginning of the girl looking at some things with a new look.

Later, she did not regret the alliance agreement, even when her companions wanted to thwart Gortash's plans, Niaranda convinced them not to do so. It seemed to her that she was playing a double game, not telling the squad anything about her decisions.

5. How did Gortash and your Tav get together? What do they see in each other? 

The Illithid Colony What Niaranda sees: "A suspicious dangerous guy playing with his allies, he's clearly up to something bad, we need to stop him." Meeting at the inauguration What Niaranda sees: BREASTS "He is polite and courteous, but at the same time he looks so insidious and confident. He is an Archduke, although he achieved this dishonestly, a strong and prudent, natural leader. Damn it, he's good! I'll go after him." What Gortash sees: "She is quite stubborn and reasonable, she can turn out to be a strong ally. How far is she willing to go? I'll check it out." They both see that they need each other to cover the needs of their plans as well as their inner needs. And they can give it to each other.

6. What does the future hold for your Tav and Gortash? Are they in a relationship, a one time thing, are they going to rule the sword coast together or kill each other in a tragic showdown?

Situation #1: Tragic defeat. Gortash dies from a psionic shot to the head, Niaranda continues his work, but soon the same fate awaits her (yes, I know that the screenshot shows the scene with the transformation into an illithid, but just imagine that these black areas near the eyes are the result of the identical death of Gortash.).

Situation #2: The power of the Archduke. Niaranda has difficulty persuading the Emperor to ensure Gortash's survival at the brain. Gortash and the Emperor (a forced unwanted alliance), along with Niaranda and her squad, defeat the brain. Gortash kills the Emperor and takes the stones for himself, and Niaranda betrays her squad, becoming the right hand in ruling with Enver. He does not subordinate her, he will always have time to do this if his leash of influence on the girl suddenly breaks. Soon he realizes that the larva is useless without abilities, and removes it, making sure that the girl is faithful to him and their common cause. (THIS should be the canonical ending of Gortash, I think)

Situation #3: Revenge. Gortash is dying at the brain. Niaranda blames Bane for not helping Gortash in any way at the right moment. Six months have passed since the victory over the brain. Gale comes to the camp meeting in the form of the god of ambition and offers his beloved to become the goddess of any free domain (at the time of the plot of bg3, he does not know anything about her affair with Gortash). Niaranda chooses the domain of revenge, retribution, justice and becomes not a god equal to Gale, or Mystra, or Bane, but a demigod (at the time of writing the story, I learned that in stories, unfortunately, there already exists such a demigod named Hoar). Niaranda travels through Faerun, undermining Bane's churches, thereby weakening his power, in order to later visit Bane's outer plane, free Gortash from eternal torment. The girl returns all his equipment to Gortash and together they defeat Bane. Lord Enver Gortash becomes the new god of tyranny and discord. The oath made by the two of them at the inauguration is finally being fulfilled.

(it all looks so epic in my head, but I tried to briefly describe it)

Thank you for your attention, it was interesting for me to describe it!

[diagoose]

✍️ for any of your ocs!

character name meaning and symbolism

tysm!! i very much appreciated you dropping an ask, sorry it's taken me so long to answer, i get nervous lol.

i hope it's okay with you that I roll down with the answers for my two guys, fair warning, it got long lololol so it will be under the cut!

⛈️ Leigh's name - she is my lady of many names and nicknames

a bit of background, Leigh is a character that was adapted/changed to fit our dnd campaign(I view them as separate characters at this point, but for the lore her original name was Larisa). had a tricky time settling on a new name for this iteration but I eventually landed on Leigh. 

Leigh(pronounced like Lay) was named by her grandfather who raised her and her sister during her early life. it is sorta our game world’s equivalent of an anglicized version of her birth name Leikiinae, which roughly translates from draconic as: surprise.

Leigh is the surprise additional bebe(identical twin) from a (unwanted)surprise pregnancy, a surprise of a surprise if you will. technically, you can't really label a twin as the “surprise” because there is no way of knowing which person actually was the split off, but leigh's family sure did! which i feel is telling of the dynamic that was there.

Leigh has the nickname Beetle from Saerdis. She got lil iridescent blue scales like a lil beetle(and she scurries like a bug lololol). Saerdis practically raised Leigh, and there’s a lot of fondness there between the two.

Birdie is a pet name given to her by Griffin her fiance. He started calling her that when they were kids, after breaking her nose in a training incident. her nose in recovery was clogged for the next while, and in his 11-year-old opinion, she kinda squawked like a bird. as the years went by the context morphed into a much more endearing nickname. When they are signing to each other, Griffin will also use an iteration of the sign for a bird in flight as her name.

you may have also seen my tag for leigh as oc leigh/enna. Enna is the alias Leigh went by at the start of the campaign, as she was a deserter from the military and on the run. as the party called her Enna the whole first bit they knew her, she still uses it, and doesn't really view it as less her given name. Enna also means bird with gives me feelings.

💜 Griffin's name:

Griffin, like Leigh, is a character that is an iteration of my old oc. While I do also view him as a separate character, I always felt off about changing the name.

Griffin's name was chosen for a lot of reasons and symbolism and ✨️themes✨️ regarding his original iteration, for the sake of brevity and also not getting the two characters conflated, I won't really go into the details here. 

BUT, wonderfully, there was a really interesting crossover of similar themes even if the contexts of the characters were different. The name Griffin has a bit of a meta irony in the narrative, its irl historical association is tied up with myths, knights and chivalry, and it's much darker use as a symbol of the European crusades back in the middle ages.

This meta symbolism also extends in the fictional world they exist in as they are a symbol of the Emperor. 

Griffin was a child soldier who was indoctrinated with imperial beliefs, and used as a weapon to keep the forces of power in power. he was raised in a dogmatic religion that made him deeply ashamed of being a tiefling, made to believe that his redemption and salvation lay within the constructs of that empire and its military. he also idolizes mythic figures and stories of folk heroes, viewing them and their sacrifices as the pinnacle of masculinity that he should emulate. 

He believed that if he could become a “hero” in a sense, he would be “saved”. the themes VIBE here for the name's associations.

but also, his own morality and sense of right and wrong frequently contradicted these ideals, he is always being pulled two, between the ideals that he idolizes and were also forced onto him, and his quiet but very strong inner sense of morality and heroism which is often overlooked and rarely rewarded. 

His strong inner sense of true morality, made more willing to question the status quo, and grew disillusioned to the empire much sooner than leigh did. HE was the reason she eventually was also able to break away from their indoctrination and admit that they were sold into something horrific.

So his name being Griffin is both symbolic of the projections he had of what he should be vs the actual heroism he displays that will never be rewarded. two sides of a griffin stamped coin if you will.

also griffins are associated a bit with hedonism, and god does this guy deserve to heal from his catholic guilt and indulge in life a bit.

if you read this whole thing, omg hi, thank you, i hope you enjoyed the oc lore.

[aeksion-aekse]

WHISPERS OF THE DRAGON & THE FAWN

Chapter 2: Unwanted Rumors & Trepidations

tag list 🏷️ @eiralune @noeverse @mini-kunoichi @rozendiors @flippydippydoo

word count: 1605 words

Brinaera’s POV

Many hours had passed since the meeting in the throne room within the confinements of the Red Keep, the whole thing replaying in my head like a shocking symphony as I lay strewn across my bed, my hand slightly clutching at the necklace adorned on my neck. I always knew that some sort of rumors would swirl across the Seven Kingdoms, but to hear Viserys address them head on in such a manner? He defended my very existence as if I were his own blood, which is more than I could ever say for the man whose very seed I spilled from…Borros Baratheon, the very thought of him a plague on my mind. I let out a sigh before sitting up on my bed, my many conflicting thoughts wandering and pondering, my brain a cacophony. My ears perk up as I hear a knock at the door of my private bedchambers, prompting me to get up from my bed to open it. As I open it, I’m greeted by the most unexpected company of Alicent, leaving me a bit bewildered but intrigued.

Third Person POV

“My- my Queen, I wasn’t expecting you at all, I apologize.” The young Baratheon bastard girl of course was rather surprised by Alicent approaching her private bedchambers, the expression on her face clear as a summer day in King’s Landing. The Queen closed the door behind the both of them and made her way to a little table in a corner of the room close to a balcony, pouring herself some wine in the goblet. She had rather…strong opinions on the Baratheon bastard girl, but whether she wanted to admit it or not, she did have a small soft spot for the girl. She let out an exhale before looking up at Brinaera, motioning to the other seat at the table. “Sit, darling. I wish to talk with you.”

The young girl smiled small, albeit a nervous smile, obliging Alicent’s request and sitting down in the seat, across the little table from the Queen. “This has to do with the rumors swirling around the Seven Kingdoms, doesn’t it, my Queen?” Alicent could only let out a small sigh before taking a sip of her wine, speaking in a rather slightly bitter tone. “That it does, sweet fawn, that it does. The world is an often cruel place to young girls and women, yet it is our duty to do what is asked of us, regardless of what fate has written for us. Does that make sense, darling?” 

Brinaera could feel her brain swirling with many conflicting thoughts and emotions, one contradicting the other. On one hand, she would do anything to remain in the good graces of the very family who had taken her off the filthy streets of Flea Bottom, but on the other hand she didn’t want to sacrifice her own beliefs and morals to appease the Seven Kingdoms, throwing away any shred of self respect she had. Brinaera let out a slow exhale before turning her attention to Alicent, her eyes scanning over the Queen before nodding her head hesitantly yet curtly, swallowing her self worth for a mere moment. “It does, my Queen. In a world controlled and written by men, women do what they must to get by and survive. Even when they aren’t wanted.” As Brinaera spoke, Alicent could feel a pang of familiarity in her words, as much as it pained her to admit, she could resonate deeply with them. Alicent slightly grimaced, her grip on the goblet in her hand tightening as she swirled the wine around, taking another sip as the taste of the sweet wine turned bitter when hitting her tongue. “You have faced…quite the hardship, my darling. You are quite strong, and I do not give praise out often. Do with my words what you will.” Brinaera couldn’t help but feel her lips purse into a thin lipped expression, knowing that Alicent seldom gave any type of praise, and when she did, it was hard to tell if it was genuine or not. But something told Brinaera that deep down….deep down, Alicent truly meant those words of praise. 

Brinaera ran a hand through her hair, a silent exhale escaping her as she turned to look out at the sun shining brightly through the late afternoon sky in King’s Landing. Alicent and Brinaera have always had a bit of a tumultuous relationship, since Brinaera was a bastard of Borros Baratheon and Alicent had a not-so-secret disdain for impure blooded people. Nonetheless, Brinaera was a welcomed part of the royal family, and that fact would never ever change. “I know you dislike me for being a bastard, my Queen…I know that part of you will never change, and I have grown to accept that. Just as you have accepted the fact that my existence will never leave.”

Alicent just stared at the young girl sitting across the small table from her, her eyes slightly narrowed in curiosity at her words. 'What in the Seven Hells could this little fawn have meant? Were her words a threat? Was she planning something? No, of course not, she was too benevolent, she was incapable of doing something.' “I suppose that we all have to come to terms with things that are less than desirable for us to initially accept.” Brinaera could only let out an indifferent hum in agreement, shifting her gaze as the sunlight reflected onto them both, the golden rays illuminating the hazel eyes of the young Baratheon girl as she stared at the matriarch of the royal family. Alicent never minced her words nor never made her feelings not known, but neither did Brinaera. “You are always so knowledgeable, my Queen. How true your words are…all of us must make sacrifices, no matter how minute or major, they are still sacrifices all the same.” 

A thick and tense yet solemn tone of silence befell the both of them as they looked at the view outside of Brinaera’s private bedchambers, staring at the sun’s golden rays of light shine down onto the waves of Blackwater Bay, thinking of how just exactly unfair and unjust life was for the both of them alike. Both of them to suffer the trials and tribulations that life dealt them from conception, both of doomed by the narrative and both of them to make unnecessary sacrifices….Before Brinaera’s brain could catch up and halt her, her mouth already started to move as she spoke. “Alicent…you are the only semblance of a mother figure I have ever had. Even if you dislike me for what I am, I still owe you for what you have given and taught me. If you had it your way, you would’ve put me back on the streets of Flea Bottom. You may despise my existence, but I more than tolerate yours.” 

For once, Alicent couldn’t think of what to say, she just remained silent as she continued to sip the wine from her goblet, mulling over the young Baratheon’s words in her mind. Her words were correct in the fact at first, she would've tossed the bastard girl back onto the filthy streets, no second thoughts. But now, she was such an integral part of the Targaryen family’s lives, it almost seemed….wrong to imagine a life without her in it, as if she actually belonged with them. No, never would Alicent admit to this sentiment, not out loud nor to herself in her own heart and mind, no matter how true it may be. “You have a bit of all my children in you, sweet fawn. The gentle and innocent nature of Helaena, the emotional vulnerability of Aegon and the intelligence of Aemond. Never had I imagined my life to turn out this way, I only did what was asked of me…my proof in the children I bore. I did what I had to.”

Brinaera could almost see the raw vulnerability pouring out of Alicent, and she knew the majority of it was due to the wine, but Brinaera continued to stare at the Queen, her gaze rather empathetic in a sense. “As horrible as it may sound, you birthed your grief, but with each child it just became easier to grow numb while doing so. An unfortunate effect of the situation you were put into. I wish I could be of more comfort, my Queen.”

Alicent could feel the familiar lump of sorrow start to form and rise in her throat as she thought of her life as every significant memory popped up into her inebriated mind. Alicent then quickly stood up from her seat and averted Brinaera’s gaze, swiftly and silently leaving the young girl’s private bedchambers whilst slamming the door behind her. Brinaera could only stand there as she watched the Queen leave in such a rush, her big doe like hazel eyes slightly wide in surprise as they remained fixated on the door, a hand still slightly outstretched when she went to grab ahold of Alicent, her body reacting far too late. She was just a whirlwind of different emotions and thoughts: Was it something I said? I hope I didn’t upset her in any way.. 'I thought we were having a bonding moment. What do I do now? Do I just leave her be?'

All Brinaera could do was just remain in the confinements of her bedchambers, wondering about all things that had been said and done, a slight breeze blowing through the room as she was left to ponder.

[archivalofsins]

Whelp back to the usual.

Foreword

First and foremost, I would like to take a moment to discuss the atmosphere. Things have grown rather heated over the first two weeks of Kazui’s second trial due to various things. We even wound up getting a bit heated over the current circumstances as well. I’d like to set aside a moment before discussing what I set out to, in order to say, even though this situation is less than ideal, tensions are high, and people may be looking for specific individuals to blame... At the end of the day the Milgram fandom is made up of many individuals from all over the world with different lived experiences all of which are deserving of respect.

I feel it’s important to continue to state people can vote the way they want. It’s understandable that many would not enjoy the way this trial began and how securing certain votes were executed. However, lashing out at other fans is only going to stifle the atmosphere and bring a seriousness to the environment that ultimately hinders people’s ability to enjoy the franchise.

Something that may come off as rich to say considering my behavior over the past few days. Since I got heated over the current turn of events and voiced some grievances that while not unfounded were unfair generalizations of people and could come off as alienating to some.

So, for that I apologize.

Overall, I would like the atmosphere to remain light and hospitable. So, everyone can enjoy themselves up until the end. My behavior yesterday was counterproductive to those wishes. I got upset and did not put my best foot forward. These circumstances, while upsetting, do not have to be a defining moment for Milgram or a reflection on any individual fanbase within it.

With all that out of the way-

Let’s talk about this line from Undercover,

“Shouldn’t you look beyond your EGO, before it all ends?”

Along with how Milgram plays with first impressions, preconceived notions, and misconceptions.

Over the course of trial two it’s become increasingly apparent to me what this line is referring to. After trial one many people became very devoted to their personal interpretations of the characters including the prevailing fan theories surrounding them. To the extent that many individuals are unwilling to look beyond their beliefs and consider other options.

Regardless of what new information presents itself that may contradict the assumptions that were made.

There are common interpretations of every character within Milgram. Many of these interpretations are based on the first impression they made. To a good deal of people, these impressions or interpretations can be lacking regardless of if the one saying it likes the prisoner being spoken about or not. At times these interpretations can even come off as flanderizing or a reduction of the character overall.

Yet, behaving in this way is quite a common thing for people to do in general. This is because it's easier for people to understand emotions and concepts that they are already familiar with. To put it another way, it’s keeping it simple. Something that Kazui very subtly makes jabs at the audience and himself for doing throughout Cat.

Similarly, to how Yuno chastises the audience in her voice drama and through Tear Drop.

“Where’d you get your half-baked sense of justice. So, nauseating...so creepy...will you please disappear? “Phew. Anyway!”.”

Even though behaving in such a way is human nature everybody responds to being treated this way differently.

Take, for example, the other prisoners,

Futa

“You and you, throwing around rules for fun, hoisting up morality and feeling good. Should I succumb, make your wish come true? Full of yourselves, are you?”

Regardless of if the result of other people’s opinions of that person have a good or negative impact on them. There are people who’d rather not have others try to relate to their circumstances or give advice to them.

Shidou

“No thank you, it’s none of your concern. Shall I fulfill your request and elect to live?”/ “So this is unpleasant, hurling slurs of “hostage game”; you do know that it’s up to me?”

Others may like to be told they’re right regardless of how they personally feel about their behavior, even reveling in the misconceptions around them and their character. Their only fear being that someday people will find out how they are/see them how they view themselves (imposter syndrome is a very common thing) and then they’ll be abandoned or hated.

Haruka

“I will definitely make you love me again.”/ “Am I still INNOCENT?”

Mu

“Because it’s not my fault, I am innocent as everybody desires.”/ “Hey, what if- If I am a bad girl? Don’t hate me.”/“Hold on. It’s not my fault. You knew it, right?”

Then some people may want to be told that they were wrong, that what they did wasn’t justified regardless of the circumstances, it hurt people and they’re a bad person for doing what they did. Then some may want the exact opposite to be told what they did was justified, that they were right, and it’s wrong for anyone to be judging them for something that had to be done.

Mahiru

“Kiss good-bye to this feeling cuz it’s too heavy? I can’t, no way no way no way.”/“What am I supposed to do now? If you won’t tell me, I can’t be me.”/“My emotions are out of control, that’s inconvenient? I don’t care! Tell me, oh tell me why, won’t you just accept me?”

Amane

““UNDER” Just need to believe there is no reason to break a promise.”/““UNDER” The magic is in believing there is no righteousness in broken promises.” / “I promise! A pinky promise is a pinky promise!”/“I promise! A good girl that keeps a promise is like, mwah!”/ “Will you laugh with me and forgive me?”/ “I take an oath! I can only become a better girl!”

Mikoto

“If I could end, If I could stop.”/ “You don’t have to keep it in and hide it away “I” will save “me”.”/ “Is this selfish? This isn’t too much is it?”/ “I will NEVER forgive you if this is happening to me even though I’m right.”/ “Ahhh, it’s the same anywhere I go. It’s like what’s wrong isn’t wrong.”/”Please, tell me it’s a mistake, that it’s a lie. That I’m right, I’ll forgive you if you tell me now.”

Kotoko

“I can’t forgive the evil hurting the weak. It’s unforgivable, I won’t allow it, I sweared.”/ “If it damaged someone’s dream to the points of stopping it, I’ll gouge you out with my fangs. I’ll teach you the pain you caused.” / “It’s ok to dislike, right?”/ “Laugh and I can get to like myself.”/ “I want to be drowning in the knowledge that I am right.”

“Why? Why stop me? Don’t stop! I need a good reason to give justice! Give me my next purpose.”

(Gonna add this here sweared is not a word the past tense of swear is swore or sworn. This is a common colloquialism that is spelt how it is said. So, it’s not entirely incorrect but it is not an English word.)

It truly depends on the individual.

Yet, based on the first impression people make about an individual, the misconceptions formed around their personage, and how far preconceived notions about them spread the thoughts of the person being subjected to these mass opinions on their own life can cease to matter. Before they can even speak about their circumstances, others that may not have even witnessed the situation, were not involved in it, and don't even know any of the parties involved have spread this idea of the individual.

Turning them into something less than a person, a talking point.

Regardless of impact, these sorts of things are hard to control after they’ve spread far enough. This is why both positive and negative stereotypes exist (i.e the model minority). Even if some of those things may have positive connotations on the surface. They are still ways of generalizing or boiling down an individual or large groups of individuals into just one easily digestible characteristic. Despite the validity of the descriptor being applied.

Yet, the truth is,

“Crime is not easy.”

In the same way that people are not easy. There’s no way to know another person inside and out. People will not always agree. However, if individuals continue to only seek an ideal, they’ll end up overlooking the genuinely great experience of getting to know another person. A person that is flawed, whom they won’t always agree with, that they may not even like, or could even come to hate.

On the other hand, they could come to like them, or even love that person, or hell just be meh about them.

Looking past one’s ego isn’t about ignoring one’s own wants or feelings on a matter but acknowledging those things exist within oneself then recognizing they exist within others as well. Committing oneself to seeing things the same old way or only one way not only closes off others to from the person doing it but closes the one holding this mindset off from others.

Something that I believe is a very alienating and lonesome experience. To me Milgram best illustrates this through Yuno’s character and her reaction to being voted Innocent. Along with her statements over the course of both her trial voice dramas.

Though that's just my incredibly personal and subjective opinion. Other than that, I hope everyone is having fun and enjoying themselves on and offline.

[tmisherewrites]

Chapter 6 Deep Dive: Day 1055 of the Insurgency

In this chapter, Crassus and his men travel to District 13 to find out what happened to his network. Crassus seeks to gain some standing with the youngest of his men before coming upon one of the slipperiest people in District 13.

Full spoilers below so if you'd like to read Chapter 6, I've linked it above. If you haven't read my fic They Will Come For You In the Night on Ao3, you can find Chapter 1 here.

Ur-Fascism

In this chapter, Crassus has a conversation with Moss, who is also born from a wealthy family, and attempts to recruit him to his side, to have a soldier who he can confidently say is loyal to Crassus.

He does this by essentially running through the fascist playbook and trying to appeal to Moss' sense of entitlement which is fostered when someone is raised in wealth.

For the conversation, I utilised Italian philosopher Umberto Eco's 14 properties of "ur-fascism" (or "eternal fascism") to craft Crassus' beliefs. I tried to focus on the beliefs that were shared by Coriolanus Snow's beliefs in TBOSAS in order to create a philosophical through line, connecting father and son.

If you look at the dialogue of that conversation, you can pick out quite a few of the 14 properties. The amazing @wadelock already figured most of them out if you want a cheat sheet in the comments, or try to figure them out yourself if you're ambitious.

Nihilism

This chapter introduces one of my favourite characters, Percy. I have a full name for him in mind but I kind of like the mystery of him just having a mononym like Adele, or Zendaya, or Madonna.

Percy is the personification of nihilism, the philosophical belief that there is no inherent meaning to life or existence. Fully embracing this philosophy can lead to despair for some, or if you're Percy, you just get a bit weird and don't really care about morality or consequence.

Personally, I'm more fond of the absurdist response to the meaninglessness of life but we'll get to the character who represents that philosophy when we discuss Chapter 14.

Quotes

We've got two quotes for this chapter.

The first is from the man himself, Umberto Eco. I wanted to include this quote specifically because like many things to do with fascists, it really doesn't make very much sense and there are more contradictions than consistencies but it is incredibly important to remember that fascists don't care about contradictions and inconsistencies.

If you've ever watched someone on the far-right argue one thing and then completely contradict themselves in the next sentence, I think it is crucial that we understand that to that person, the contradiction doesn't matter, or won't think of it deeply enough to acknowledge the contradiction, or embraces the contradiction in order to overwhelm and stupefy the person they're arguing with so that they feel like they've won the argument. It's a strategy as old as fascism itself. If you've ever seen someone do this in real life, I would love to know some examples you've spotted out in the wild.

The second quote is song lyrics. I quote two song lyrics throughout the fic as an homage to Suzanne Collins' extensive use of music and poetry in the series. The lyrics I chose are from the song Nazi Punks Fuck Off by American punk band the Dead Kennedys.

I chose this song because it's about how when fascists are let into spaces, they inevitably have a very destructive effect. So in the case of this chapter, it's almost as if the band are singing to Crassus and Moss, warding off the former and illuminating the folly of the ideology to the latter. As for the lyrics specifically, I think it is important to remember that if you're ever tempted by fascism or if you find yourself on the precipice of a fascist pipeline, that this ideology will not save you, fix your problems, or protect you. Fascism only has room for canon fodder, hence the choice to use "You'll be the first to go -- Unless you think"

Have you ever heard this song? There was a pretty good cover of it in the movie Green Room performed live by the actors which is pretty impressive in my opinion.

What did you think of Chapter 6? What would you have said to Crassus during that conversation?

[firinnish]

Very few people wake up in the morning and think, "Today I'd like to be as evil as possible! Mwahaha! I'll do some consent violations in the morning, a light bit of harassment in the afternoon, and in the evening I think I'll gaslight my girlfriend. Being evil is so fun!"

Some fraction of abusers may be deliberate abusers - people who explicitly think things like "if I can't get sex the moral way then I'll just rape someone" - but I don't think it's the majority of abuse that happens.

A very, very large amount of abuse comes from warped and unhealthy beliefs.

I'll give you an example. A man believes "it's a wife's sacred duty to provide her husband with sex". Maybe he got that belief from his parents, or his church, or some bad advice he got as a kid, or whatever. He might be the perfect gentleman when he's dating a woman, because when they're "just dating" he doesn't believe he's owed anything. But then suddenly, after marriage, he flips and becomes abusive. Maybe if his wife doesn't give him sex, he hits her. Maybe he justifies that to himself by thinking, "Well, it was wrong for me to hit her, but it was also wrong for her to deny me sex, so really we both made mistakes and we should both own up and move on." You see how unhealthy that is? You see how fucked up it is to treat "denying sex" as an equivalent wrong to assault? That's how you get men who are convinced they definitely aren't abusers, who are also committing horrifying acts of abuse. This wrong belief - "my wife owes me sex" - warps their behaviour in unacceptable ways, and often makes arguing with the abuser into a futile exercise. You just can't discuss anything sensibly with someone who thinks "sure I shouldn't have hit you, but you denied me sex so you wronged me first and you should apologise" is a sane argument to make.

For another example, a parent believes "hitting kids is important to maintain discipline or they'll grow up soft". The parent doesn't set out wanting to abuse their kid. They're not aiming to traumatise and scar the child. The effects of their actions are still abusive and traumatising, because hitting children is abusive and traumatising. Yet the parent is trying to help their child by ensuring they don't grow up "soft" - an outcome which, in their warped belief system, is unacceptable and harmful. There's no contradiction here; you can cause harm without intending to cause harm.

Girls can sometimes learn warped beliefs. An example is, "it's okay for me to hit other people because girls are weak and can't cause real damage, but it's never okay for boys to hit me because it's never okay to hit a girl". A genuinely abusive woman might think, "of course it's okay for me to punch my boyfriend and throw things at him, because he raised his voice to me first, and raising your voice to a woman is basically literally violence". It's much, much rarer for girls' warped beliefs to really hurt people, but it absolutely happens. And part of the reason that it's so much rarer is that we generally don't teach girls so many bad beliefs about what they're entitled to demand of others. When we teach kids "the bigger stronger person in a relationship is allowed to physically control and dominate the smaller person and that's okay because they're bigger", that's a warped belief that both boys & girls can pick up on - and generally it'll be priming male kids to become abusers & female kids to become abuse victims. Both outcomes are very bad.

What beliefs do we teach kids when we force them to hug and kiss family members without their consent? It's often something like, "Keeping the peace and maintaining expected levels of physical contact within social relationships is much more important than your bodily autonomy", or "it's normal and natural to be offended and hurt if someone doesn't want to hug/kiss you". Kids pick up on that and some of them learn, "it's okay for me to force my partner to have physical contact with me". Others learn, "if I ever refuse physical contact with someone who requests it, I'm hurting them and being rude by refusing". Some learn both and have dysfunctional relationships their whole lives.

What beliefs do you teach kids when you spank them? "Authority figures are allowed to use violence to get the behaviours they want." Men are much more likely to see themselves as the "authority figure" or the "head of household" later in life, so they're much more likely to take that warped belief and hurt people with it. Women still learn the belief, and some of them are perfectly lovely to their partners but viciously abusive to their children. See, that's the insidious thing about this kind of abusiveness. It can lay dormant for years and years until the person interacts with someone who their beliefs say it's "okay" to abuse - and then suddenly a seemingly "perfectly nice" person becomes evil.

What makes an abuser an abuser is how they protect those bad beliefs. You can be someone who thought "a wife owes sex to her husband" without becoming an abuser - if, when your wife lets you know that she's not comfortable with that and wouldn't have married you under that premise, you change your mind. You go, "Oh, yeah, now that I think about it, I've not really questioned it before, but that is kind of sexist. You're right. Neither of us owes the other sex. I'd rather only have sex when we're both enthusiastic about it."

Abusers get defensive, and the logic patterns start getting.... twisty. "It's just my traditional belief. My parents and my church taught me that wives owe sex to their husbands, so when you claim you don't owe me sex, it's like you're attacking my whole religion. Actually, I'm going to need you to apologise not only for cruelly denying me sex, but also for that attack on my religion. I'm feeling really hurt now and I'm going to need even more sex to make up for this. I mean, how could you be so hurtful as to accuse me of raping you? Don't you see how that could harm my reputation?"

Abusive parents do the same thing. They'll hit kids and then say, "Stop crying! If the neighbours hear you crying, what will they think? It'd be so embarrassing if the neighbours thought I was abusing you. How dare you damage my reputation like that? I don't need to apologise to you for spanking you, because I have a right to do that as your parent. In fact, you need to apologise to me for crying when I hit you! How dare you cry? It makes me feel like a bad parent when you cry, and that's very ungrateful of you! Don't you know everything I do for you?" and so on.

A good parent would stop, notice their kid is crying, notice that hitting their kid doesn't achieve anything, listen to their kid asking not to be hit, and change their mind about whether what they're currently doing is a good idea.

That is what you need to model for your kids.

Changing your mind - without defensiveness, without warping the situation, without escalation. Just listening & rethinking.

That's the skill you need to teach your boys so that they think, "Hang on a second. Shouting at my girlfriend for not having dinner on the table when I got home, when she works two jobs and I work one, doesn't actually seem fair. Maybe I should question the assumptions that led me to expect that from her...?"

And it's also the same skill you need to teach your girls so that they think, "Hang on, why am I bending over backwards to please this asshole who demands that I do literally all the chores? Maybe I should question the assumption that it's reasonable to ask that of me? Is that really a fair role for me?"

Teach all your kids true, correct beliefs - like "your consent matters because everyone's consent matters" and "nobody should touch anyone else's body without their consent except in a genuine safety emergency" and "it's okay for everyone to have different preferences" and "it's never okay, under any circumstances, to use violence to get your way" and "it's awesome and powerful to be able to change your mind if you realise a belief you have is hurting you or the people around you".

I see a lot of posts saying "teach boys about consent".

While that is true, a lot of parents will do that and fail to see how their own actions are the problem.

If you've spanked him, he's less likely to understand consent.

If you've forced him to sit on Santa's lap, he's less likely to understand consent.

If you've forced him to give hugs and kisses to family members, he's less likely to understand consent.

If you've grabbed him in order to force him to sit still, he's less likely to understand consent.

If you've labeled him as "too sensitive" for not wanting to be touched, he's less likely to understand consent.

If you've assumed he's okay with something because he technically allowed it even though he felt pressured, he's less likely to understand consent.

If you're only going to criticize his actions but not your own, it won't work.

[galacticnova3]

ok sweet!

why is the lor like that? and what’s halcandra’s deal why is it so sucks

First question has been answered here but tldr I felt like defying expectations, thought it would be fun, and also love walking the tightrope that is “my interpretations definitely aren’t canon but they don’t contradict canon either”. Also because I like her and I said so. As for an in-universe explanation? Same reason anyone else is a certain way, that’s just how she is. Stars of the random computer personality generator happened to align just right.

Second question is… Quite a bit more complicated. In the physical/environmental sense it’s the result of a failed attempt in the far ancient times to try and use magic to make what would be akin to a perpetual energy generator. That was back when the fundamentals of magic and its limitations weren’t as well understood; case in point, magic is not exempt from the laws of physics, so you can’t just lump a bunch of fire magic together and expect that heat to never dissipate. Damage control prevented the planet from being destroyed altogether, but it still rapidly declined from being a suitable birthplace for a civilization to an unforgiving hellscape; that was what really kickstarted the Ancients’ foray into interstellar travel, and in turn temporal and interdimensional travel. Those that stayed behind tended to lean more heavily into “survival of the fittest” and “only the strong survive” type thinking over time, as resources became scarcer and tensions rose. Those willing to take more became more powerful, while those who maintained their morality either suffered in doing so or eventually abandoned their ideals anyways.

That kinda leads into the social aspect of why it’s like that: when your society is partially built on a foundation of “sometimes greed and dishonesty are necessary”, the ones most willing to be greedy and dishonest have an advantage and end up in positions of power. It breeds corruption that can’t easily be fought by those not participating in it. It also leads to inequality, as the powerful take all they want and everyone else has to share what’s left behind. That in turn leads to unhappiness among those at the bottom, which leads to conflict, which usually leads to change based in anger and resentment, which ultimately perpetuates a cycle of powerful leaders who serve themselves and those they care about before anyone else. That’s without taking into consideration the rapid development of technology utilizing magic; not only did it lead to a schism between those who wished to advance at any cost and those who believed magic was far more sacred than mere machines, but it made it even easier to divide people. Take clockwork stars, for example— those who believed they built their own gods often in turn considered themselves to be greater than gods, and expected to be treated as such by everyone else. You thus had those who believed they were superior and those who didn’t want to feel inferior, which would have consequences down the line.

Of course, on a large scale, Halcandra isn’t really the worst; the average Halcandran is, well, average. They have families and communities, hobbies and careers, dreams and aspirations… Most of the common people don’t look out solely for themselves and their loved ones. Survival is a cooperative effort, especially under the circumstances they face wherein it often seems those who rule them couldn’t care less if they lived or died. Ultimately it’s those “on top”, so to speak, who embody what is wrong with Halcandra. I’m getting tired now but uhh. Basically *gestures to capitalist hellscape* its like that pretty much is what I’m getting at. Shitheads in power don’t necessarily reflect the beliefs and desires of everyone else. I just happen to focus on characters who have more experience with the Halcandran government than the Halcandran general populace, so it often seems a lot worse than it really is.

[plutonify]

I have extremely complicated opinions and thoughts on how the characters and plot of VLD were handled. My thoughts contradict themselves, they're inconsistent, so I’m writing this to put them down and sort them out. This also serves as the start of me introducing my theories/headcanons that were never fully confirmed and my AU which is more like a completely different show than an AU, but whatever.

The Lion Switch

I have a strong belief that the Lion switch was always intended to happen, I’ve noticed multiple seeds that were planted early on in the show that hinted towards the switch. But I also strongly believe that the show runners never intended for it to be permanent, and that’s where it started going wrong.

——————————————————————————

The “Before Hints”/Foreshadowing

The color coding of the Paladins outfits.

This one is pretty straightforward and obvious, yet there were some that I haven’t noticed other people point out. There’s the ones that everybody knows, Shiro wears mostly black, Keith wears a red jacket, Lance has blue hints in his shirt, shoes & pants, Pidge wears mostly green, and so does Hunk with yellow. But there are also hints of the paladin's colors changing for the Lion switch. Allura’s dress is almost entirely blue and she becomes the Blue Paladin, Keith’s outfit actually has more black than red on it(but this could also be a nice touch to show his connection to Shiro), I unfortunately couldn’t find any for Lance.

Shiro and Keith’s strong relationship(this one is a bit of a stretch).

Shiro and Keith are practically brothers before the start of the actual show. Shiro practically raised Keith. Because of this Keith took after a lot of Shiro’s traits. His morale of the mission coming first, his determination and dedication to a goal. These are just two of them, but you get the point. Simply put, Keith heavily takes after Shiro, it would only make sense that Keith would start to notice how Shiro leads and unintentionally take after that as well.

That scene where Allura is describing the lions and showing them to the Paladins.

As Allura is describing each Lion, said Lion is shown in front of their intended Paladin. Biggest example and the one that supports my theory is the Red Lion floating in between both Keith and Lance, Keith who is Red’s intended Paladin, and Lance who becomes the Red Paladin in the switch.

How the show depicts the Blue Lion in general and how it connects to Allura.

Compared to the other Lions, the Blue Lion is made the center of attention on multiple occasions in many ways. In the first episode Keith describes how he could sense the Blue Lion but didn’t know what it was, and then the Blue Lion was the very first Lion to be found, it also bonded with Lance extremely quickly compared to the others. It is also responsible for finding all of the paladins, not just their own. Keith also brings up the mysteriousness of the Blue Lion being on Earth, especially knowing how far Earth is from Altea and the other planets, and later learning that the Lions can only travel so far on their own. We also never learn of the Blue Lions traits or what they look for in a Paladin(in the show, we learn it in a book later on, and that’s after the lion switch). With Earth in mind, the cave that the Blue Lion was found in had hieroglyphics everywhere detailing the war and other mysterious events, none of the other lions hiding spots did this. Allura also stands out like the Blue Lion, but amongst the other Paladins. She’s royalty, has a strong connection with the lions despite not being a Paladin, and the only female(before the Pidge reveal and Romelle), she’s also an alien(alongside Coran)

Lance has a lot of parallels to Alfor in the show.

This one is brought up in the show itself, but I feel like it never actually fully explored just how deep the parallels went. There’s the one that the show handles, and it’s how heroic and noble Lance is. When Lance unlocks the Altean Broadsword, which was Alfors, Allura talks about how much of a savior and warrior Alfor was and how Lance is as well. Lance’s nobleness comes from his willingness to sacrifice himself to save people and his bravery to always join the battle, Alfor was noble in that he wasn’t just royalty but he was extremely brave and always saw the best in people. There are others that I’ve seen other people bring up, like Lance bringing the team together just like Alfor did. Alfor built the lions and Voltron, he created the alliance, bringing the og paladins together despite their differences. Lance was the sole connection between all of the paladins, he was friends with Pidge and Hunk, he looked up to Shiro like a hero, and held a grudge with Keith from when they were younger. He was also the first Paladin to be found, being the one Blue chose before she even saw him, the others wouldn’t have made it to the castle if it wasn’t for Lance. They both share similar characteristic traits, they just show differently.

-They are both reckless, Alfor completely succumbs to his excitement in the moment, and Lance, as already mentioned, has sacrificial tendencies.

-Their love for Allura, Alfors is that of a father, and Lance’s that of romantic and friendly intent.

The “After Hints”

Allura’s strong connection to quintessence and the White Lion/Her bond with Blue and being a Paladin.

To put it simply, Allura being the Blue Paladin and fully embracing being the reincarnation of the White Lion at the same time is messy and puts even more stuff on her character than there already is. (I should note that I don’t have a problem with “Mary Sues”, I feel like the phrase is a cheap way of reasoning why a person doesn’t like a female character or any character really. I also only believe that a character can be cluttered depending on what’s being put on them.) It’s important that Allura be a Paladin, and even specifically, the Blue Paladin, for some time so that she could connect with the Paladins, feel the toll of being in the battlefield, and getting to fully experience what a bond with the Lions is really like, it also helped to give her the ability to take a break from her princess status and get to act her age alongside the other Paladins. Why Blue? Well, that’s also simple. The Blue Lion is the middle ground. The Blue Lion is below Black and Red in authority, but is also above Green and Yellow in Authority as well. The Blue Lions element being water symbolizes its flexibility in many things, such as already mentioned authority, combat, social status, etc. Being Blue means that Allura can still be a commanding figure herself while being under command as well. But that’s an arc that can be done very quickly, and quickly is what the show did. Allura learned and experienced these things in a quick but meaningful amount of time. Beyond that point, her being the Blue Paladin is no longer necessary to the plot unlike the others. Her having to leave her place as a Paladin and her bond with the Blue Lion would also, once again, give her the opportunity to be like the other Paladins, as Shiro, Keith, and Lance suffered it with the switch.

Allura was hinted to have a particularly strong sense of quintessence sense the beginning of the show. In the first episode, when she locates the Lions, Coran states that she was “directly linked with the Lions life force, she is the key herself”. Later in the Balmera episode, she uses her own quintessence to communicate and heal the planet of Balmera. Her quintessence isn’t mentioned again until after the Lion switch, which it is shown multiple times. When Lance takes the blow for Allura in the Omega Lock, she once again uses her own quintessence to heal Lance. When they find Shiro alive in the astral plane later on, she moves his quintessence to one of his clone bodies, essentially bringing him back to life. And then even later, after she connects to the White Lion, she finds out that her very being can purify dark quintessence. It is also slightly hinted at throughout the show that a lot of the abilities that Allura unlocked in Blue were due to her extremely high amount of quintessence.

While there are some connections between Allura being the Blue Paladin and the White Lion, most of it happens completely separate. It doesn’t help that after Allura sacrifices herself, the Blue Lion projects herself to Lance instead of the White Lion, the only reason why I can think of that making sense would be the fact that both of them were Blue Paladins at some point.

When the current Paladins fought and talked to the previous Paladins.

I’ve already seen some people mention it, but I haven’t yet, so I’m going to. After they fought with Haggar, the Paladins got stuck in the Astral Plane where they fought the corrupted previous Paladins of their respective Lions. When they managed to get through to them, the previous Paladins spoke to the current ones and gave them advice. That’s all cute and all except for the fact that the speeches that Blaytz and Alfor give to Allura and Lance don’t make sense. What Blaytz tells Allura is perfectly suited for Lance, it isn’t even an argument on how much Lance needed to hear. This hints towards the idea that the Paladins were supposed to return to their original Lions and so Lance would be the current Blue Paladin and get to hear the speech from Blaytz. Alfor’s speech for Lance is very short and kind of insulting, in that it boils both Lance and Allura down to their relationship with each other being the only important thing about them. That’s especially a low blow considering how much of a weight it is that Lance is the Red Paladin, in both negative and positive ways(I talked about them a little in one of the above sections at the top). This gives me heavy vibes of this speech being written last minute with little care for how it actually sounded.

[mentalisttraceur]

You're wrong and I don't like that! But seriously though:

TL;DR heuristic: give every wrongness a presumption of more harmfulness than you can see.

I fully agree with OP as practical on-the-ground advice. This perspective will help you be effective. It also, I suspect, correlates strongly to better mental health.

But the problem I have is that you are severely under-valuing how reliably stochastically harmful being wrong can be, and how much preventative/corrective impact a general opposition to wrongness can have if correctly directed. Though full disclosure, I do err too much the other way, so take the severity/emphaticness of my words with a grain of salt.

You cannot isolate objective errors of facts and reasoning to the point that they stop having significant probability of real harmful consequences.

Sound logic and true beliefs are profoundly interlocking. When you have enough of those two things, you are so thoroughly, game-changingly empowered to make your life better, that the mere absence of that is a serious harm (both to the wrong person, which is already bad enough life damage to be worth fighting for if you care about them, but also to anyone they have sufficiently strong influence on, especially any children who are still taking authoritatively presented statements as True and Right and carving their first moral intuitions with emotional reactions to how others react to them and treat them).

Every confidently held error can only exist by either being isolated to the point of not affecting behavior and externally consequential thought, or by warping your system of beliefs and reasoning to accommodate it (I like to call the generalization of this idea "logic bending", a more neutral term since technically it goes both ways: introducing more true beliefs and sound conclusions, or other psychological rewards for valid reasoning, can bend a warped sense of logic into closer alignment with sound logic).

Meanwhile, the life-improving and empowering benefits of being systematically righter only really start to snowball when your system of beliefs and reasoning has grown very comprehensive, allowing you to start getting those efficiency gains where many seemingly disparate things start to fold into elegantly unifying principles which in turn enables you to cover more ground in more problem spaces with less thought, less special-cases habitualized into the wetware of your brain, and less bits of knowledge... Such systems would struggle to fit much error without losing too much of the unifyingly-simplifying-yet-still-reliably-correct shape they need to stay as effective.

Also, errors are subject to memetic and cognetic evolution. Some errors are best thought of as literal parasites, evolved to virally spread themselves and co-opt their host humans into spreading them (in symbiosis with other errors, because errors cannot avoid noticable contradiction with the real-world without cancelling out their effects in the most obvious cases - which crucially is not the same thing as the most ethically important cases).

Anyway, if your criteria is just "observably ok results", you're necessarily going to underestimate the harm potential, because you'll be limited to just the concrete harms within your ability to see or within the ability of people around you to explain in a way that's compelling to you. When you treat every error as what it is - a reproducing landmine which will blow up into real harm when given the right circumstances - your estimate of harm probability distribution over possibilities in the absence of full comprehensive observation and analysis is going to be more accurate.

P.S. I spent most of my conscious life being able to observe the not-ok results of various ways people were wrong in their heads, but it would take literally 15-20 years for me to gain the ability to translate that shape of wrongness, hurt/harm, and causal relationship between them into words that others reliably understood and which I could at least in principle defend against most dismissals/rationalizations/etc. (Moving countries as a kid probably added a couple years to that 15-20; having access to the internet, English, and the results of modern psychology probably shaved off a decade or four.) At the latest by my mid teens, I even had an intuitive grasp of "cognetic opening" as an abstraction of the commonality between a lot of little wrongs in the mind with material ethical consequences that basically everyone infuriatingly blindly thought harmless. I struggled to put it into words for at least a decade to get anyone else to see it, even though I thought with it fluently. And it is overwhelmingly the pattern in my life that when I react to some cognition as bad, I can't think of a concrete example that the person finds compelling, but inevitably they or someone else eventually has something go worse because of it.

Hmm. Right, ok, so, there's two grounds on which you can evaluate an "ideology".

One ground is like, its abstract correctness. Are its factual claims right? Are its ethical claims agreeable to you?

This is how you should evaluate your own belief system. Being correct is very useful, so it's in your interest to try to be correct.

The other way you can evaluate an ideology is like... does it produce generally ok policies? What are its effects?

This is a lower bar. An ideology which is factually and ethically correct (by your standards) will necessarily produce ok effects (by your standards) when you believe it. Uh actually this probably isn't strictly true but it's true enough.

Anyway, it's the second criterion that you should use to evaluate other people's belief systems, I contend, unless you know them really well and know them to be amenable to certain kinds of rational debate.

Why?

Because asking that everyone be actually correct is far too much. That will never happen. It's a pipe dream. You're going to have to get used to living in a world full of people you think are wrong about shit. On the other hand, asking that everyone (or most people, or everyone in power, or whatever) believe stuff that leads to not-too-heinous consequences is a more reasonable goal. It's something I can get behind.

"This ideology produces observably ok results, but it's Wrong" is not a complaint I find very sympathetic. Ok, it's Wrong. So don't believe it and move on.

I think this follows from my "leave other people be unless you really have to" moral intuition. A guy believing a wrong thing is not enough to make your frustration at him sympathetic to me. I mean in a serious context, not just in terms of shooting the shit and complaining online. It's not enough. The guy needs to actually be doing something problematic. Otherwise "he's wrong and I don't like that" doesn't compel me.