#which like. I'm not making a moral judgement one way or the other bc i am intrinsically disgusted by mass killing. as we all should be.

[thedreadvampy]

legitimately insane how to some people, "we should wipe out this ethnic group that we've violently constrained to a ghetto because they're just genetically more violent and dangerous" is a reasonable and justifiable statement but it's Nazi Rhetoric to say something like, "it's bad that Israeli civilians are being killed but acknowledging that as tragic includes acknowledging that the almost daily state-sanctioned murder of civilians by the Israeli government is also tragic and unacceptable"

btw guys speaking of Nazi shit - can we check in, alongside what's been done to Palestinians in the last 75 years, what's the Israeli government's take on the Azerbaijani government's newest round of ethnic cleansing of Armenians? oh are the Israeli government's actions maybe not determined by Jewish identity, but by a commitment to colonial supremacy which puts them on the same page as other violently genocidal states like Azerbaijan, the US, and the UK? god can you Even Imagine?

(framing speaking against Israeli war crimes as inherently antisemitic requires understanding the Israeli state as representing all Jewish people, when it doesn't even represent all Israelis.

framing Israeli war crimes as synonymous with Jewish identity is pretty fucked up if we're being honest. I don't think that controlling water and power and movement for a captive population and shooting children dead for throwing stones is an inherent value of Judaism, any more than I think the torture carried out at Guantanamo Bay is an inherent value of Christianity - in both cases they're atrocities carried out by a far right genocidal government using religious identity as a shield.

Calling statements like "Israel is committing genocide against the people it's displaced" inherently antisemitic is doing more to further the idea that all Jewish people are associated with Israel than saying "the Israeli government is doing war crimes," which is a statement of fact about a country that exists and does war crimes. Is criticism of Israel as a nation often used as cover for antisemitism? Absolutely. Does that mean the Israeli government isn't doing literal war crimes repeatedly, on record, while talking publicly about scrubbing an ethnic group off the map? Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh well in the last 48 hours they've definitely cut off water and power to almost 600,000 civilians and allegedly used white phosphorus against civilians so in an extremely factual and unambiguous way yeah man those are Literal War Crimes whoever does them.)

[bonefall]

the worst parent poll made me realize just how many ppl in the fandom are willing to jump straight into abuse apologia. bc on one hand you have ppl dumbing down crow's abuse to "him just being mean" and on the other end you have ppl saying that curlfeather didnt abuse frostpaw because she sacrificed herself and frost + her siblings love her so she couldnt possibly be an abuser. truly mindboggling stuff take these serious topics away from the fandom asap.

Part of me feels like it's because many in this fandom have a feeling that if a character's actions are abusive, it means you're "not allowed" to like them. Like there's an impulse where if you liked a character, it MUST mean they weren't THAT bad, because you'd personally never like "an abuser."

As if it reflects poorly on your own morality, as a person, that you connected with An Abuser. Understood them, even. Even if it was just a character.

If it's immoral to Like Abusive Characters, of course your reaction is going to end up being abuse apologia. To enjoy something isn't logical, it's emotional, so you will get defensive about it when questioned. When you do, it's not going to be based on logic because you didn't reason yourself into that position in the first place. It's an attack on you as a person.

I feel like that's often the root of abuse apologia in this fandom, and sometimes the world at large; "If I admit that this character/person IS abusive, it means I was doing something bad by liking them, so I have to prove to everyone else that they weren't or it means I'm bad too."

And to that I say... That's a BAD impulse! Grow up and admit you resonated with a character that did a bad thing! If that's an uncomfortable thought, sit with it!

Sometimes abusers are likeable! They usually DO think they're justified in their actions, or doing it for "a good reason," or were just too preoccupied to care. MOST of the time, people who commit abusive actions are also hurt or traumatized in some way. You might even empathize with them. None of this means their actions have to be excused or downplayed.

"Abusers" aren't a type of goddamn yokai, they're people just like you and me. You don't help victims of abuse by putting the people who hurt us in an "untouchable" category.

In fact, all it does is make you less likely to recognize your own controlling behavior. You're capable of abuse. People you love are capable of it, too. People who love YOU can still hurt you.

In spite of how often people regurgitate "It's Ok To Like A Character As Long As You're Critical Of Their Actions," every day it is proven to me further and further that no one who says it actually understands what that means.

All that said; I think it's no contest which one's a worse parent, imo.

They both mistreated their children, but Curlfeather did it through manipulation without verbal or physical abuse. She politically groomed her into a position of power so that she could use her as a pawn. It can be argued if this counts as child abuse-- but it's firmly still under the broad category childhood maltreatment, which is damaging.

(though anon I'm with you 100% at seeing RED when "but she sacrificed herself" is used as an excuse. Curlfeather's death does NOT CHANGE what she did to Frostpaw in life. I think it's a valid point to bring up when comparing her to another terrible parent for judgement purposes, such as in the context of this poll, but I really hate the implication that redemption deaths "make up" for maltreatment.)

Crowfeather, meanwhile, is textually responsible for putting Breezepaw through verbal AND physical abuse, as well as child neglect. His motivations include embarrassment from a hurt ego, revenge on his ex, and being sad because of a dead girlfriend. This abuse drives Breezepelt towards radicalization in the Dark Forest.

You could argue Curlfeather is a worse person for Reedwhisker's murder, but as a parent? It's not even a question to me. Crowfeather's one of the worst dads in WC.

[gibbearish]

wanted to throw my hat into the ring specifically in regards to james responding to the bigotry claims bc i havent seen anyone address the aspects i wanna talk abt in full yet, it kinda got long as fuck for a p short excerpt so putting it under a readmore

so here's the section (text from @storagebay29 's v helpful transcript):

"I never ever intended to hurt anybody. I never thought that that's what I was doing. Before I went- before I went to the hospital,¹ I read a lot of stuff from people who were really hurt, not just authors and stuff but people who watched my videos who were hurt by stuff in them. People think that I hate ace people and women and bisexual people and lesbians and that's not true. It's really- it's just- it’s not true. And I’m sorry that stuff made it into videos² that just shouldn’t have been there: misinformation and lies... But I promise you I did not write that stuff.³

I should have been a lot more exacting when Nick and I would be editing scripts but I promise you that those are not- I don't think those things.⁴ I specifically want to apologise to asexual people who feel⁵ that I just completed delegitimised you. Nick being ace, I- I know that it's kinda like you know, no two gay people are exactly the same, no two ace people are exactly the same, but I kind of, when it came to that I just kind of ran with Nick's judgement⁶ and his observations and stuff like that. And I’m not trying to throw Nick under the bus,⁷ which a bunch of people are saying that I was setting him up as doing, which is not true…"

so! let's break this down

¹ "Before I went- before I went to the hospital" - firstly i want to be clear of my position with the "did he actually attempt" question bc ive seen some people being absolutely vile already, which is that while i understand doubting his story considering his history of lying and manipulation and obviously skewed moral compass, i also feel like it is VERY much plausible enough that publically speculating abt whether it's true or not is shitty, especially telling HIM you think he's lying. best case scenario you're right, worst case scenario you're crossing a hell of a line, and he's obviously done enough stuff that the situation can be addressed pretty comprehensively without risking getting that coin flip wrong. i think we should proceed under the assumption that lying about that is one line he wouldn't cross, and if proof comes along that he was lying then obviously fuck him, but otherwise i think that aspect should be off limits. and having said all that, even under the assumption he is telling the truth, the way he brings it up in this apology is still manipulative, as many have already pointed out, and this is an excellent example. by bringing it up right before addressing his bigotry, he a) implies to the audience that these comments in particular are a notable part of what sent him there, and therefore plants the idea that if they continue to address it while knowing how badly it's already affecting him, they'd be deliberately trying to hurt him or push him to attempt again, and b) tries to distract the audience from the fact that he's addressing his bigotry and get them to go easy on him, since clearly he's already punished himself over it enough. but harming yourself does not actually make up for harm caused to others, and even if it did, unlearning the bigotry that caused the harm in the first place doesnt end at "feel really bad about it," that's actually step one. and as i'm sure you're already aware and i'll get into more in points 4 and 5, whether he's even at step one yet is doubtful!

² "And I’m sorry that stuff made it into videos" - others have covered his passive voice the whole way through so i won't dwell too long beyond pointing it out, it's mostly just highlighted here bc of how it ties into the next point

³ "But I promise you I did not write that stuff." - just, beautiful in so many ways. performance art, even. firstly, the fact that one of the closest places he comes to calling it plagiarism is in defense against a second allegation? just lmao. and secondly, this is about the most solid proof you could get that he indeed did not watch hbomberguy's video (or at least the whole thing) because hbomb very conclusively showed that if there are /any/ original thoughts of James' in his scripts, it is the bigotry, because he showed multiple examples of James /specifically/ rewording things he plagiarized to ADD IN the bigotry. so then tying back to point 2, his passive voice then becomes about ten times funnier here because he was just. blissfully unaware we all already knew exactly how it "made it into" the script and that his next statement would be a lie. just incredible

⁴ "I don't think those things." - notice the lack of specificity here, the most he can say is "people think i hate these groups" and "i don't think those things" and not "this is exactly what i said that was harmful, here's how it was harmful, here's the correct version of it, and here's how to avoid similar pitfalls in the future", yknow, like what people do when they actually accidentally say bigoted things bc they don't know any better? and again this point ties into the next one:

⁵ "I specifically want to apologise to asexual people who feel that I just completed delegitimised you." - ah yes, nothing says apology like "i'm sorry you felt like what i said was hurtful," where the message is less "i did something wrong and hurt you, i regret this and want to fix it," and more "you were too sensitive and got your feelings hurt by something i didn't intend to be hurtful, but i GUESS i'll be the bigger person and say sorry even though i didn't actually do anything wrong🙄". and see again 4, if he actually had looked into it and learned why it was wrong, he wouldn't be saying people "felt" delegitimised. he would be explaining why people reacted that way ie what it was a reaction to, why this reaction was correct, and providing actual information about asexual people. but he doesnt, because he didnt, because he doesnt care. which is all ESPECIALLY fucked because in saying it this way he's. delegitimising what they were saying. like some kind of fuckin aphobia ouroboros

⁶ "when it came to that I just kind of ran with Nick's judgement" + ⁷ "And I’m not trying to throw Nick under the bus" - here we are, the crown jewels. so obviously ppl are already talking abt the performative allyship of "but my best friend is minority and they said it was fine!!1!" which is fucked up on its own, but then the fact that he immediately jumps to "and also i'm not throwing nick under the bus" shows us that within the greater context, point 6 did indeed mean "the bigotry in the scripts that i am currently apologizing for and explaining the presence of in this section is there because i repeated the things nick told me were true, these ideas originate from him." aka blame nick, not me. but then he remembered that scapegoating nick is also something people are accusing him of so he had to backtrack over it, which if it was actually an innocent statement, it yknow. wouldn't need to be backtracked over? it's like he thinks just because he doesn't outright say "nick has bigoted ideas that i parroted so basically its his fault" that no one can pick up on the subtext? and frankly i don't know much about nick (or james beyond this whole thing tbf so obv take everything i say with the whole shaker of salt) so this very well could be the truth to a degree, but if nick does hold bigoted views too, that's TOO. not instead. for james to repeat them without question to the camera means he doesn't disagree. even if hbomb hadn't proven the bigotry did originate from him, it would still be meaningless, because if it came from nick then that would just mean james decided to stay close working friends with a shitbag and repeat all of his garbage to his fans uncritically!

so in summary, in just this one chunk he: reminds you to be extra niceys to him because hes delicate right now, immediately lies about where the bigotry came from, talks around what he actually said wrong or that he was in the drivers seat for it, then blames nick for it before hearing himself say it out loud reminds him people are picking up on that now too and has to walk it back.

to spoof the roblox oof video: when we look at the sum collective of all of his claims regarding his bigotry, and we put it in context with. the fucking everything about him. when james says the bigotry didn't come from him, this might just be me. but I don't believe him!

[msicamouse]

long post that is meant to make you like francesca even more

guys, i'm all for revisiting classics and reinterpreting them in a way one feels meaningful for their context, but it is much more fun if you know what you're building on.

so.

storytime (with some really brutal simplifications): early xiv century, dante lives and writes his works. a few years later (but there's some overlap) petrarch writes a collection which is quite the opposite of what dante had done: a really really limited number of ideas, topoi, even vocabulary recombined in all possible ways and brought to a stylistic perfection that dante had not completely acquired - which is normal when you're writing a 100k poem in which you're using all possible language and imagery, from the highest to the filthiest.

for around 4 centuries, almost everyone forgets about dante (and writes clones of petrarch's works - "copying" was not considered bad at the time, quite the opposite). then romanticism comes and people decide writing about farting demons (i'm not making this up) is actually cool and imagination >>> perfect technique.

i'd say that, in this respect, two centuries have gone by but that's still where we're at.

but both us and romantics don't think of life, values, religion the way a man of the middle age used to. so, we're all really hyped about not just farting demons, but also non-farting demons, proud men of state who still care more about the ideas they had in life than the hell they're in, tragedies, hatreds, and, yes, lovers brought to hell by their love. (did i mention we all like hell best? that definitely wasn't the author's intent. but well he's dead).

we can't say if dante himself saw some beauty in all of this, but it is sure that his moral judgement was firm against it. not in a cool priest-from-fleabag way. in a serious way. (a really important thing about studying the past is that you have to understand that in some ways people have stayed the same, and in others they have changed a lot).

he was sincerely against the sin francesca committed cheating on her husband (with her brother-in-law!) and francesca was sincerely regretting it. that's something that would be inconceivable to any modern writer. in dante's hell there are some sinners who don't regret their sins, but they're usually the worst of the worst.

also: before writing the divine comedy, dante wrote a lot of love poems. he and his friends were starting off with some tropes which mostly came from provence, in france. poems from provence usually stated that love had to be adulterous, or it wasn't real (which made sense in a moment in which marriages in upper classes were mostly arranged, if not forced), and it was conceived as complete devotion of the man towards the woman. what you can see reading dante's works in order is that he started off with those tropes, but then found them incompatible with cristianity, and shifted towards a form of completely spiritual, selfless love. the figurative devotion became quite literal; calling the loved one "an angel" was not exactly a metaphor anymore, etc.

he distanced himself completely to all of french love poetry. what was the utmost example of that? the most famous adulterous couple of the time? the otp? yeah, sir lancelot and guinevere.

and what couple were paolo and francesca reading about when they gave up and had their first kiss? exactly.

so, what dante is saying with the episode of paolo and francesca, is something along: you have no idea how close i came to ending up like the two of them. i'm so glad i found the right way in time, and at the same time i completely understand what they've been through. i'm glad that it wasn't me, i despise what they did, but i empathize with it.

so. about hozier.

one of the most amazing things for me about the song francesca is that it's (consciously?) none of that. bc all of that is extremely fascinating (at least to me) but it would be inconceivable today. who would really despise a woman who was forced to marry someone she didn't now just bc she cheated on him, and to despise her to the point of seriously thinking she really deserves to be tortured forever.

the point of hozier's song is the opposite: i'm not regretting any of this. (if we're imagining his hell to be metaphoric, i'd say it's the guilt, the mess made maybe). i would take no chance on salvation, and would do that again.

and isn't that the most romantic (as in "well-suited in the current of xix century romanticism") thing you can summon?

[hofftrans]

Getting real comfortable unfollowing and/or blocking blogs that only use political activism as a way to give themselves a feeling of like moral hierarchy. Like I think it's something we all struggle w to an extent, there's this long held concept of "I can only feel that I am good if I have someone bad to compare myself to" and in a terrifying world with so many terrible, terrible things going on in it I so understand the desire to be sure in the knowledge that you are a good person.

But part of kindness and community and compassion is being able to communicate patiently and empathetically with others, and so often I see posts or tags on this site that could be incredibly informative and create real change if they weren't written like somebody trying to get a mic drop moment instead of trying to get people to change and grow.

This is not to say minorities need to or should be polite to their oppressors, that's absolutely not the message of this post and I wanna clarify that to avoid a "love pancakes = hate waffles" situation.

The message of this post is about the amount of posts on here that bring up any issue in the world at all and phrase it as "not that any of you give a shit" or "and no one fucking cares" or "reblogging this is literally the least you can do" or "but I know you'll just ignore this so fuck you"

Like idk I just feel like we've accidentally recreated protestant values and catholic guilt over the idea of actual change, as well as the dangers involved in like "you should know to do the right thing because you're SCUM IF YOU DONT" instead of going "here's some education or a way to help" and then responding that way once someone refuses growth or change.

I'm going to try and practice what I preach here by explaining one of the reasons I think this is so dangerous without insisting you're a monster for not knowing: a large amount of the population suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder, and one of the major ways ocd can present itself is ocpd or as my mates and I have come to call it "ethical ocd." Ethical ocd (in vague terms bc I'm not a doctor) is the extreme anxiety/fear/obsession over being morally wrong or a bad person and sufferers often feel the need to prove absolutely that they are good and can often feel the need to self harm or partake in dangerous behaviour if they make any mistakes or have an intrusive thought of a violent or hurtful nature. I know this because I've suffered from this a lot throughout my life, and as a teenager I spent many years away from tumblr due to how the moral hierarchy culture here was just like pouring fuel directly onto an open bonfire. This is obviously an issue many people don't know about and I get that, I feel no judgement towards them for that. I'm just pleading with people to consider whether their activism on here is coming purely from a place of actually wanting to help people improve their behaviour and improve the world we live in or if it comes from a much deeper need to feel sure and right in yourself, which again is not something that is a moral failure or makes you a monster, just something I really hope people can get help with before it spirals into a more and more harmful behaviour

[alaynestone]

You don’t have to post this if you don’t want. I just wanted to say I was one of those curious, openminded fans willing to entertain the idea of samjohn (mostly bc deanjohn feels so congruent with canon + there’s so much interesting meta on it that managed to convert me + incestuous households usually affect all of it’s members) but just like you said I was immediately put off by the blatant character assassination that pervades everything from fics to edits to the propaganda in that incest poll lmao.

I guess that’s the major difference - deanjohn requires little to no stretching of imagination bc it already fits seamlessly into canon, whereas samjohn almost demands ooc shenanigans to work.

I also just found the way fans talk about it nauseating for some reason, though that’s likely more of a reflection of my own personal triggers. I love digesting incest narratives, but the fetishistic angle of that blog really makes my stomach turn. That’s not a moral judgement on anyone else’s enjoyment btw! Just another reason why this ship didn’t resonate with me.

thank you for sending me this. it's clear that a lot of people feel the same way.

when i first joined fandom, the few j/s fics were straightforward evil!john non-con. not my thing, but i understood why it was written that way. then came the inexplicably popular fandom creation of "sexkitten sam" which continues to pollute the entire sam/dean fandom and of course extends to other ships too. i'm not even gonna get started on why that's "problematic" because that's not the point, it's not remotely in character. even as an exaggeration sam is not the kind of person to attempt to find agency in outward submission or objectification. he's very vocally not compromising his identity to please his family and especially john. dean is more like that so when you have sam acting like a fetishized pinterest aesthetic moodboard version of dean and dean acting like an old man from wattpad i'm understandably left squinting at the screen. then it's genderswapping sam and using that as a personality eraser because women are automatically submissive and naive and trad?

who is being converted by all this when it has nothing to do with sam, john or even dean? where is dean in all this actually? a core aspect of their family is that dean is closest to both sam and john who rarely had much opportunity to bond without him. there was a distance between sam and john throughout sam's childhood and adolescence. most of his parental needs were being fulfilled by dean even if that was never enough. their situation with their father wasn't the average one where they were simply 2 kids fighting for his attention.

for the most part j/s appears to be about "envying" dean's position in the family. it's about diminishing or straight up erasing dean and more notably about feminizing sam. either directly or otherwise. people generally seem to have big issues with the fact that sam is a man and confidently so. most of the annoying tropes in wincest fandom have this at their core. and of course in order for sam to be "the woman" dean needs to genuinely and authentically be the most stereotypical of cishet men. it's very transparent because right from the start the show poked holes at dean's performance of masculinity. it was very much the point. dean's gender issues could fill a book yet any alternative interpretation of sam and gender seeks to cast dean as the oppressive bigot who would never get it? stopping here before i get off topic but to make myself clear: in theory i respect headcanons i don't understand, but not when they spitefully exist to deny dean's depth in every possible way.

to return to my point about dean's pseudo spouse and mother position being enviable, it misses the point of how harmful john's parenting was to both of them. it's no coincidence that they both view themselves as the unfavorite. dean believes he's taken for granted, only valued for what he can give, how well he can perform his roles, how successfully he could play at being an adult even before he hit double digits. dean can't just exist and be himself while sam is uncompromisingly himself. because of that he believes john doesn't like him, never liked him, rejected him, didn't have time for him, didn't trust him enough with the family secrets, even when those secrets directly concerned him. as of season 1 he still has contempt for dean for what he views as unquestioning obedience to john and letting himself be molded by john. dean had to fight for every scrap of approval and affection and sam refused to do the same if it meant sacrificing his own needs and identity. not everyone reacts to abuse the same way and both characters are very much shaped by their different reactions to their environment. and any j/s shipper argument that is built on the idea that sam was the one john loved more is not only gleefully mocking dean's parentification but ignoring that sam being comparatively sheltered and treated like a son is yet another reason why john would not cross such a line with him. dean "gets it", dean lost mary too, dean is his partner and his confidant, dean can handle adult responsibilities, dean is loving and supportive, dean isn't making him confront his parenting failures, dean can't say no to him. like you said, it doesn't at all stretch the imagination to make j/d fit into dean's backstory. "you are not a child" - "i never was".

as i have been saying, any remotely ic exploration of j/s would have to follow both j/d and s/d. i can't believe in a universe where j/s is the only incest that happens in the family. i think a theoretical plausible j/s fic would have to not only accept but embrace its adjacency to the 2 ships that are compliant with the canon. but whether sam knows for a fact about j/d or not, there's no way he isn't severely impacted by the proximity to that relationship in a number of ways and that's a very compelling dynamic in its own right.

tldr i agree with you anon. people can read and write whatever they want but there's a big difference between incest subtext that is believable and just saying things in a way that's meant to provoke.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

I hope this is not too personal a question. I gather that you are Catholic, but you don't seem to invoke (explicitly) Catholic or Christian doctrines when discussing ethics and politics on here. Is there a reason why this is? Furthermore, does your belief in an afterlife effect your ethical judgements at all?

I tend to agree with you on most stuff that you talk about, and I'm an atheist, so I just find this interesting.

i tend not to invoke christian or catholic teaching on here bc i think many or most of the ppl to read this blog would find it alienating and offputting, and bc idt most of the arguments i make on here hinge in any clearcut or direct way on the truth of christianity. there are other relationships i have and conversational situations where idt this is true (moreso irl than online), and in these i bring up christian beliefs more freely. its the same reason as not to bring up many of the (true) fringier political beliefs ppl on here throw around while arguing as a lawyer before a judge

theres another failure mode in bringing up christian stuff gratuitously in social contexts where ppl are likely to be predisposed against it, which is that you bend over backwards to keep demonstrating the compatibility of christianity and whatever it is they hold against it. this is an efficient way to sell out yr moral compass to the tides of nearby popular opinion for clout (much moreso than most of the ppl you are thus evangelising to, since they are not similarly motivated by a ppl-pleasing desire to demonstrate how their beliefs are counterintuitively consistent with their friends beliefs) and make yrself look like a "how do you do fellow kids" tool in the process

i think about the world to come a lot in making choices but it would be hard to suss out how exactly those choices would be different if i thought there were not one; i think over time such a view of the world has become more alien and difficult to mentally inhabit. ig one place the influence is especially strong is probably on my aversion to revenge-seeking, where the connection with a world to come and final judgement is made especially clear in the gospel

im glad you find my blog congenial :3

[kenobihater]

Sorry, maybe this is obvious and I'm just clueless but what separates a good portrayal of Cat Witchers vs not? I'm kinda confused

Even though ableism against mentally ill people is baked into the lore, I don't think it's too obvious bc of how pervasive ableism is in our culture, so don't worry, you aren't alone in your confusion! As a mentally ill man, I didn't even realize what struck me as wrong about the whole Cat School madness thing until I read some fics that featured it heavily, so you're far from the only person not to notice it. That said, just because the lore is ableist doesn't excuse people doubling down in ableist ways in their fanworks. We shouldn't give ourselves or other people a free pass simply because the source material has bad implications, instead we should take accountability and tread carefully whenever engaging with Cat Witcher lore. Now, this is going to be Long and written for the dual and often overlapping audiences of fanwork creators and consumers, so apologies that the rest will be under a cut!

I've already written up a couple posts about ableism in regards to the Cat School, primarily focusing on fandom, but I wouldn't recommend those bc I not only focused a bit narrowly on mostly psychosis, but I also mistakenly identified dissociation as a form of psychosis in one of the posts bc that's what I'd been told by an actual mental health professional. F's in chat for me I guess, thanks Susan! Anyways I'll summarize and expand upon the contents of those posts here. Also, I don't know if I ever say in that post that the lore itself is straight up ableist, and I'll explain why in a moment. Now, it isn't inherently ableist to depict someone with severe mental illness, just like it isn't inherently ableist to depict anyone with any severe disability, but the way in which it's excecuted is what makes it bad or not. Basically, the whole "Cats are CRAAAAAZY!!1!" is ableist in excecution because it puts a value judgement on said madness, implying that they are both more violent and morally bankrupt because of their madness, whether or not it's linked with the mutagens (I think there's some wiggle room here canonically as to whether or not the mental illness is from mutagens or whether it's due to or greatly exacerbated by picking candidates who are prone to mental illness, but while that's fascinating, this post is gonna be long enough so I'll perhaps cover that in another one). Portraying Cats as more violent or morally bankrupt simply because they are mentally ill is bad, end of story. If you want specific examples of this, literally just go to the wiki, this post doesn't need a plethora of citations to pad it out even more.

Now that I've established the lore itself as being ableist, let's discuss theoretical specifics of their illnesses, and what that means for how we portray them faithfully! The Cats aren't easily identifiable as having any one mental illness. They're said to be "psychopathic", an outdated, pejorative term for people with antisocial personality disorder. Gaetan reports symptoms that could be identified with intermittent explosive disorder. The wiki says Cat Witchers have volatile emotions, which could be bipolar coding. The fandom also enjoys writing Cats as having psychotic episodes and dissociative episodes, both of which I suffer from and which are incredibly annoying to see done wrong. These disorders and symptoms can all have overlap, but they can all be boiled down into the terms of "mental illness" or "madness" which I will use interchangeably throughout this post, though it's worth noting that the latter is a divisive term and one I'm using to both engage with the canon and fanon on its level and to reclaim.

So, how do you portray Cat Witchers as mad without being ableist and also remain true to canon? I've come up with three guidelines for judging whether or not something is ableist or not. If you follow these as well as maybe do a bit of research into ableism against mentally ill people, and also excercise some common sense and empathy, I think you'll be fine.

1.) Considering the world of the Witcher, I'm not expecting anyone to use our modern terminology for their characters mental illnesses, but I recommend at a minimum researching mental illnesses and picking one to at least loosely base your Cat Witcher's symptoms on. I'd do this because that way you can have a reference for believable behavior and symptoms for your character. If you're depicting a Cat Witcher as having antisocial personality disorder, they would NOT have explosive outbursts like they would if they had intermittent explosive disorder (unless it was co-morbid, of course). If your character is bipolar, they would NOT be hearing voices (again, unless you write them as being co-morbid with a schizospec disorder, though I'd advise against this because it could easily come off as conflating two different disorders). If you aren't writing characters and are instead just engaging in fan content, some good questions to ask yourself while reading would be "Do I recognize this mental illness?","How was this handled?", and "Is this falling into any harmful stereotypes?".

2.) A topic I think is important to consider when portraying or engaging with portrayals of Cat Witchers is this: how is the ableism they face treated by the narrative? I'm not so naive as to think that you will be able to believably write a mentally ill Cat in the world of the Witcher who doesn't face some kind of ableism, but I'm concerned with the impression it leaves the audience with, not its mere existence as a narrative element. Does it come off as gratuitous? Is it legitimized by the narrator, plot, or narrative? By legitimized, I mean excused. I have read Cat Witcher fics where actual eugenics against the mentally ill were justified by the narrative, and the way it was handled was abhorrent. I don't want to get into specifics bc I don't want anyone to get harassed, but it left me with a horrible taste in my mouth. Please, at the minimum, don't treat eugenics or "purges" or whatever you want to call them lightly, and if you do cover such a dark topic I beg that you ask yourself if you're making it clear narratively that eugenics is bad actually, or if you're instead feeding into actively harmful rhetoric that is dangerous for an already marginalized group to face.

3.) The last thing I can think of that I would advise against that I've seen in other fandoms but thankfully not this one (yet) is that True Love™ doesn't cure madness. It just... doesn't. Mental illness doesn't just go away because you're seeing someone. It doesn't go away at all unless it's acute, and that has zero bearing on whether or not the character is in love. Instead, I'd recommend writing the couple as having coping strategies for when the party in question is experiencing symptoms of their mental illness. Doing so is a great way to strengthen their relationship in your writing! If you're reading rather than writing fic, I recommend asking yourself about how mad characters are treated in the fics you read, whether or not they're magically "cured" bc of the love of another or any other means.

That's all I can think of at the moment, and I encourage you to do your own research about ableism against mentally ill folk as well if you want to improve your understanding! Also do keep in mind us mad folk aren't a monololith and I can't speak for all of us, but I hope my personal opinions on this have helped you out!!

[pompurumi]

What's your opinion on proshipping?

uuuuhhh idk really. So i'm gonna ramble for a second!

I'm aware of what proshipping actually means, something like ship and let other people ship, but things like tiktok and twt has kind of skewed my view on what proshippers are — which are weird noncon loving weirdos who like brothers kissing — but ik the rational side of my brain is telling me that what I just said is a fat generalisation. ofc some proshippers are like that, but ik most proshippers aren't and just dont care what other people do in fiction.

i do kiiiinnndddaaa believe that what you like in fiction does reflect your person in some way, since it does with me. for example, I consider myself to be very gentle and a hopeless romantic, and I project that onto the media I consume and create. but I have also written about some very harsh and dark topics in the past, just never in a way that glorifies or sexualises them.

I do believe that fiction does affect reality in certain scenarios... but I also know that some things are purely fantasy and it's fun to let go of morals and be gross and freaky (in a FICTIONAL SPACE!!!). but I don't think you're free from judgement from other people purely because what you do is fictional. If I found out that someone i followed on social media/or knew irl had a thing for noncon then I don't think I'd be able to look at them the same.

I wouldn't consider myself an anti (anymore) bcs they've grown a bit of a harsh name for themselves, but I certainly wouldn't consider myself a proshipper mostly because they have ALSO grown a harsh name for themselves and I've had very rough and weird experiences with them. I feel very strongly for fictional characters and their experiences, even if its a random oc that I see on my dash, and that in turn means that i cant really view fictional characters as little puppets in which we use to tell stories or project onto. idk whether it's because my imagination is vivid or something to do with autism, but it's hard for me to move on with my day after reading something abt my fav character being attracted to a child (even if it is technically canon... salad fingers...)

there have been times where I come across a darkfic, skim through it due to morbid fascination, and just regret it to the point that I feel myself physically restrain the need to type out my strong opinion furiously in the comments. but I know that no one forced me at gunpoint to read it and it was all my doing. I believe heavily in curating your own online experience, but have a hard time following that advice myself lololol.

and I think that's the problem with antis. they don't curate their online spaces enough and end up looking at the things that make them feel mad and weird. that was definitely my issue not too long ago and it just made my mental health terrible and life all dull and sad. but now that I've kinda realised that searching for the content that makes you upset and doomscrolling through it to the point it makes you seethe, and then venting about it isn't doing anyone good, I've instead channelled all that energy into finding people who share the same views as me and like what i like !!!! trust me, that is SOOO much more better.

but at the end of the day, I dont think I'll ever feel neutral about proshippers. If i see any terms like "proshipper" or "comshipper" or "anti-anti" I would feel that little ick in me, a hint of disgust... but I'll do my best to move on with my day !! people have the right to feel disgusted, grossed out, even sad about what proshippers do, they have the right to think of them as weird and strange because of proshippers liking what they like, and proshippers should expect that not everyone will feel how they feel. Especially since people who aren't in fandom spaces are sure to side eye you if they find out you post about twincest or dad x daughter relatiobships. but they do not have the right to go out of their way to bully and harass proshippers who are in their own little bubble with their own little audience, posting what they like. ofc you can vent about the things you don't like to people and on your socials, as long as you're not actively searching for it.

I have no idea if this sounds hypocritical or weird, I've read over it a few dozen times and I think I sound decently coherent. idk maybe someone wants to fill me in on some things, but I stand by my opinion.

[ruthlesslistener]

I still remember how one time someone asked you to respect other people's headcanons, and immediately you went on a rant. I don't think that anon meant to... convince you to like that ship or to change your headcanons. They were saying exactly as it is. So I can understand why some are starting to see you as an arrogant fighter when answering asks. Will you blow up on this simple ask? Will you make fun of some anon for "having no reading compression" because they didn't go full into crazy details? It feels like that unless some ask fully agrees with you, there's a chance of you coming off as a jerk in some way.

Tone: deeply frustrated, but calm

So this IS about the adult Ghost discourse. Well that's because I wasn't replying with the intent to rant, I was explaining my take on it (and was admittedly probably very bitter about it because the misunderstandings were deeply frustrating me)- which I already explained to you earlier was something I just do by default. Can't remember which exact post it was either, but I believe it was also condescending as hell because I do respect other's headcanons most of the time, but this came after I had already stated that I was without any context for adult ghost prior to the incident with the exception of pornography, which negtively tinted my views on it pretty hard. So I had to add that context in there, because it deeply skewed how I engaged with the concept, and also I'm pretty sure that I stated it was personal preference already and that I didn't want to engage with it, but people were still saying that. Remember that food metaphor I made earlier? That's where I think the misunderstanding is coming from- I clearly stated my opinions on it because to me, it's as simple as not liking pie, but because I forgot that other people don't have that same view of fanon, it came off like a moral judgement. In which case I have to state again: it's not that deep for me.

As for losing my temper, yeah I did during the heat of that ask bombardment. But I mean, you gotta understand that this was one event where I responded ineloquently, with zero context for what I was talking about, and got a whole slew of comments by people who jumped the gun to conclusions about what I thought that I didn't say at all. That's deeply frustrating! And I'm really fucking bad about regulating my emotions bc of the afformentioned autism, so that frustration carried over into my posts, probably doubly so because I just write plainly without tone tags. Then when more asks that missed the point of what I was saying rolled in, I got even MORE frustrated. Because it was clear that my point wasn't being made, and it made me more and more upset- hence the 'no reading comprehension' gripes, bc I thought I was speaking clearly but people were responding with things I didn't say. Like, even now, I'm not angry- I'm frustrated and upset because I thought I was getting better at this whole social thing, but clearly not. Also, for context, the people who replied 'no reading comprehension' are those who either picked up on what I was saying, or are those I went to for help because I didn't know where I was going wrong.

Though I have to ask, anon- why not block me? You clearly seem to have some sort of problem with me, or at least with reading me properly, and I genuinely don't want you to continue to get raised hackles because of my social ineptitude fucking things over. I'm not some kind of social bitch who uses status to push people around, and the thought that I might inadvertently be doing that has honestly made me want to delete my blog and start over (though I probably won't bc I hate change). I'm not a professional. This is something I do in my free time with the few friends I have because it's a special interest, and no more. There's really no obligation for you to tolerate me if you don't like me, or can't read my tone- just block me. It'll get me off your feed and prevent you from having to deal with me, because while I'll try to get better with my tone, I don't think I can change my brain chemistry to be any better at knowing what people want from me or how to respond in a way that doesn't seem inflamatory. Because I genuinely don't know what to do.

[bandofchimeras]

idk there is no point to not being open about this on here bc what have I to lose. so here's another disability and personality disorder post (Also Pluto in domicile at the anaretic degree natal chart things lol.)

it's increasingly pressured as social fabric continues to tear, but more difficult to break out of this cycle of being around people who are haters and generally emotionally immature, as in don't understand that teasing and judging and criticizing and being resentful and jealous and greedy actually have a measurable negative effect on people... because now I am one of them. So they are the only people who stick with me.

Even if it's judging and criticizing for judging and criticizing. the mental habit is long and deep, and only very occasionally do I get a taste of the Light, the joy of seeing other human beings as these lovable creatures with their own inherent and interesting emotional realities that with my body I want to support and give space to wholeheartedly. To be in that core of Love. because in order to do that I have to recognize myself as one, which is like.....how? how after so long of being conditioned into learned helplessness and devaluation of myself and my experience? how, when my family can't and won't ever view my self understanding as worthy, when almost everyone I've lived with or worked with ultimately sees me as a problem, or something to eliminate,or I make them sad and disappointed? those deep cycles need INTENSIVE treatment to break and let the Self come through. I'm realizing how powerless I am on my own to do it no matter how much progress I've made, bc other people have to be part of this.

and after so long of being accustomed to mutual resentment and judgement, I am in a deep trench of hopelessness and fatalistic thinking. like it seems impossible for me to ever actually practice being a good person, which would require feeling safe and supported enough to put energy into efforts at being part of things and helping others. I feel locked into a mindset that everything will fall apart, people will neglect or abandon me and there is frankly nothing to do about it because at root, I am weird and awkward insecure and disabled and burnt out and this will always be interpreted as a choice, a moral choice, and my life is not worthy of living unless I push past all my limits and break myself on the grinder of doing what normal people "should" be able to do, or consign to a life of pity and being seen as a cautionary tale.

I frankly do not believe it will ever work to ask for what I need, or find the level of support I know is necessary to develop myself. because people will expect it back. and I cannot give the level of support I need right now. I can do what I can.

but the basic emotion is "it will never be enough." It is not possible for me to be enough. It is not possible for me to say no I cannot do that, or to say yes I do want to do that but I will need a team, I will need encouragement when I lose it, my inner resources don't exist here yet, I need to be poured into and shown how, helped to access the Source within myself, and trust it.

I have yet to be recognized as a Person. Seen, by somebody, by myself, in the way that grants you dignity and self respect.

that's the root to me where personality disorder and disability cross.

I do not feel hope that I will ever be recognized as worthy of love and existence and support because of the ways people are so deeply judgmental towards anyone who can't do what is seen as normal. and everytime someone judges another person as a weirdo or freak or suggests excluding them, it rebreaks my heart. To me it suggests there are rules I am currently following that somehow make my life worthy to them and if I slip up, I'm on the outside too, part of that extant disposable life.

Are we all living like this?

It's wretched and unbearable.

But also sometimes I'm that way too, it's possible to just dislike people or places or genuinely find someone unbearable.

BUT I STILL THINK THEY DESERVE TO LIVE AND BE SUPPORTED. I HATE THAT SOCIAL STANDING IS LINKED TO SURVIVAL.

So yeah, so long as this way of being is on the planet I root for the freaks on the outside who steal and lie and siphon away what they can get, because they are lonely or because no one is there for them, there is no one to fall back on except the abundant and harsh earth itself.

I want people, and for everyone to have people, but some of us human beings don't, and we won't, or can't ...my love life and friendships are this history of trying to befriend or love people who are deeply hurt and cannot let others be there with and for them, because if I could do that it would mean someone could do it for me. But I have given up on myself, on seeing myself as a human with needs that could be met. I don't feel I have the fortitude to keep getting my hopes up, or the self protection to fight everyone for my needs all the time. I want a normal life, and safety and protection same as anybody. But soon enough even fewer of us will have that.

We are gonna have to depend on eachother, and that scares me because it's where I'm lacking. I'd rather die than admit to people IRL what I want and need from them that I know they can't give me. I guess learning to tolerats that feeling is the next step.

Some days I'm ready to die rather than go on like this, but I'm still praying for a way out, and some hope, and the courage to keep trying.

[b-blushes]

okay this is gonna be the last time i talk about it bc of the aforementioned shame but. when i think about this stuff and realise only when writing it out 'hey bud, that's a wild thing to say and believe about yourself. sucks that you're doing that!' which is yet another judgemental thing about thinking unfair judgemental things i'm reminded of conversations like recently someone (with similar health stuff) said to me that they don't know what they'd do if that (my health conditions to the degree that they are/being disabled in my early twenties) happened to them at my age and it's hard not to hear that as 'one of the most painful and shameful things has happened to us. our lives look so much different and mostly worse than we imagined them as kids, and we should do everything we can to not be like this' rather than how they probably intended it as 'i, as someone twice your age, struggle with the difficulties we have in common, and admire how you handle them at your own age'. And how confusing that conversation (mostly navigating and correctly interpreting the subtext of it, which can change to have completely opposite meanings each of the many many times you have it) is. Honestly as backwards as it sounds i often feel so ashamed to feel 'deserving' of the idea that someone could mean the first version about me. It feels like, idk, an indulgent thing to entertain, given all the good things i know i have, and gross to even consider that there are things that i could struggle with, feel hopeless about, it feels like I should only ever be allowed to take things like that ("i can't imagine what i'd do if that happened to me!") as a compliment! I don't really know how that makes sense! I think that's the shameful bit, to feel deserving of calling myself disabled! Does everyone feel like that? How can someone feel guilty about something that's broadly viewed as bad, except by us when we're reclaiming our existence as a neutral an existence as any other person, or unless we're doing really well for trying to not be hopeless, miserable, and ashamed about the dire life we've found ourselves in (or worse still brought upon ourselves somehow), like does that logic even work? I guess it's the fear of faking it and being somehow 'found out', and the fear that you can somehow be making it up and exaggerating at the same time as your every day reality being pitiful and worthy of shame?

It's hard to balance! I'm constantly finding it difficult! Sometimes I can go outside and do the things that I *am* able to do and other times it's hard to persuade myself i even 'deserve' to leave the house (or a million other things *within* my house, even out of sight of anyone except myself). The confusion about how ashamed i 'should' be is like hands around my throat. The shame is somehow both the most embarrassing thing I could feel (how could I dare to feel so bad about myself and feel that I shouldn't be seen when I have so much and am so fortunate?) and the most justified (how could anyone bare to see what i've become, what i am.). I'm always making a big deal out of nothing, or desperately trying to have the Real Something witnessed and validated, and it's both about the same thing. Even now, it feels like feeling this way is a sign of my own moral failing, and a sign that I'm bad. It is a feeling uniquely about myself, and I've got to believe that that's not true, but it is hard! I'm constantly telling myself it's not that deep, you're reading cruelty into a neutral thing and making up your own difficulties, but surely I'm not making it all up? Anyway. I'm sure all of these things are true sometimes. Sometimes I must be blowing things out of proportion and need to get a grip and some perspective. Other times I feel like it really does suck and i'm justified in feeling all types of bad for a little while, just until the waves die down again (as justified as anyone is about feeling anything! i don't know!). It's hard to think of a situation where ranking struggles and discarding anyone who doesn't have it The Worst benefits anyone. Me feeling so ashamed of all of this, and then about my confusion about all of this, probably doesn't do any good for anything. I guess I will just continue to try to hold all the seemingly contradictory things in my hands at once and try to be as kind as possible.

I am torn between 'yo that's too personal and messed up to share online' and 'the whole crux of this is me personally being ashamed to exist as I am at times, feeling ashamed of *that*, and hiding those things just reinforces them, so.' It's also probably not just me who feels this way (and feels strangled by it) so. handshake if you do too

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

Hi!!

Sorry if you don’t wanna talk more about this, but I read your post about Louis and fatherhood and, is in this sentence “But after a year of pandemic, Louis the moral and ethical obligations that come from being publicly and legally a child's father for years.” missing something?

I’m like at the same point that you are, but also, always questioning everything, and in my B story, this turn on Louis approach of parenthood would make sense after the pandemic (him maturing enough to start “acting like a dad with his son”), though, in this story, Louis would be a really shitty man, so I try not to give it too much weight for my own interest, lol. (Also, I don’t take anything too seriously, bc it’s not my life, and all I know is that I know nothing for real).

I definitely was missing a word (or several words) anon. I can't quite figure out what they were now. Probably 'Louis realised the moral and ethnical obligations..."

I think your second point is a really good one though - and one that it's always important to remember. A lot of the time two very different explanations can look the same from this distance. What we're seeing is totally compatible with Louis coming out of the pandemic and the restrictions that put on him and resolving to be more active in the life of his biological son. Just like it's compatible with him taking the same decision without being Freddie's biological father. I think it's good to hold convictions lightly and realise that we might be wrong - particularly in this case.

One small push back, I find the idea that Louis would be a shitty person if he was Freddie's biological father (or any other version of 'unless I'm right about Louis he's a shitty person' which pops up all over the place). It is very hard to be a parent to an infant or toddler in a meaningful way, if the other parent gave birth to the child and you're not in a relationship. One of the thing that has horrified me is suggestions that Louis would be a better father if he'd demanded overnight visits and more custody (even using the power imbalance to get it). The thought that a father might fight for more than they're comfortable giving has terrified single mothers of new babies that I've known. I've known situations broadly similar (except without paying any child support and in fact costing the mother money from her social welfare payments) and I don't think the fathers were shitty people. I think deciding that someone must be a shitty person, if they got someone pregnant, couldn't make the relationship work, was in their child's life, has negotiated all this while also having a series of awful family crises on another continent and also a pandemic, and sees their child sometimes (we don't know how much). I don't think it's useful to pass judgement on complicated situations without very much knowledge.

[pausegame]

Some slightly more thorough ramblings about small things in Veilguard under cut

Absolutely HOWLING at a few of the dialogue differences depending on race and faction choices.

Bellara is so cute when she talks about her and Davrin's gods, and bc I answered a few elf dialogues with Dalish knowledge she'll be like "Mine and Davrin's gods. Oh, and Rook's." It adds just a tiiiny bit of flavour but the way it's written is so her.

Davrin talking shit at Lucanis like "even though he kills people for money..... No offense Rook" HONEY I love you but also you have got to pass judgement on my baby too lmfaO I know you get each other a little hot and bothered but still 😂😂😂😂

I need to roll a Warden Rook for him so their morals are aligned, also the tragedy of being a Warden is lessened IMO if you have another Warden to share it with, as Evka and Antoine or Alistair and his lover. I'd managed to get "Thrill of the Chase" as my Rook's relationship with Davrin pretty early and they seemed close during the Weisshaupt quest which made the potential of parting very sad as she she would outlive him by nature of the Wardens/The Calling. It just sits right in my soul if they're on a the same clock fngmlhkg

Some of the other characters are wary of Lucanis as well but not my Rook so I'm gonna need to do that for romancing them too. Except Emmrich, he seems perfectly comfortable with both Lucanis and my Rook being paid killers and upon initial meeting he was honestly thrilled to ask Rook more about life as a Crow. Previously chatted about banter options with Crow Rook. He's so chill to talk to both of them and he's just like "You're an Antivan Crow, yes? You must live such a full life! Please, you must tell me more of you misadventures, once we're out of here, of course." The game likely has him say it for all factions, but it's nice that he's so open to hearing about contract killings, compared to other factions with more noble goals.

Idk where I heard someone say Rook doesn't participate in banter, I think it may have been someone from the council but Rook is well within them.

One starts with Emmrich asking Lucanis about the Crows, to which he points that Rook is also a Crow. Rook throws it back at him that they're not nearly as infamous as the Demon of Vyrantium, which makes Lucanis grumble. And then the subsequent one I got later starts with Emmrich going "So Lucanis, you're a Crow..." And without missing a beat Rook's just like "I'm a Crow too" and Lucanis asks her if Viago knew that, to which she grumbles in return.

Had Neve and Lucanis in a particular Lighthouse scene where she kinda gives him attitude about not trusting her, and then gives Rook attitude for having sided with Lucanis in a previous decision that's faction related and it just looks like she's dressing down the Crows and it's hilarious.

Also I think it was alleged in some reviews or just the obnoxious incel brigade who said everyone likes each other and they're too pleasant?? I've gotten to a point where cutscenes happen when they argue, Neve got mad at my Rook for a decision (rightfully so!) which impacts whether she can even heal, leveling up bonding with her takes significantly slower than everyone else as a result and it took a while to get her to open up to my Rook again, Davrin and Lucanis don't get along but they are civil with each other, respect each other to a degree and openly admit that they need to work together. Taash and Emmrich also do not get along, it's hilarious.

I probably should've done my first playthrough with subtitles off though, since the whole line of dialogue spoils some of it, and my eyeballs are trained to go low. I kinda wish they stuck them at the top of the screen like in Inquisition so the rest of the screen is in my peripheral.

I love the combat but miss stealth mode with my life!!! It was always great to break out of an encounter and come back with a vengeance with it. That said I do love that every fight could be the last. There's idk a more realistic sense that any fight could go sideways. Sometimes a small encounter maybe in a side quest will be super difficult bc of the location and the terrain which makes it super hard to navigate, while some boss fights are wide and open for easy movement and I know the enemy type so my team is built accordingly and it moves super fast. It's challenging and I've died several times on the standard Adventurer mode but it's really fun. I do love that I can oneshot/headshot enemies like in Tomb Raider. Those games taught me well. I did think prior that I should run a warrior playthrough, I probably still will but it's def lower priority since I'm not super proficient at the class that suits my playstyle the best lol

Antoine and Evka and Davrin are really great Wardens. Also some folks dissed how bright the game is??? Some of the dialogue is a lot more playful and light but everything with the Wardens, as has always been the case, is insanely dark. Maybe more so in this game than Origins, bc unlike Origins where the Wardens are the heroes, they start more like how the Order is in Inquisition and goes from there. They're still tragic and dark and complex, and I really wish I had managed to finish The Calling book before I played the game dhdkfbfjf I still have 2 short stories left to read in Tevinter Nights as well.

On that note, reading the short stories and brushing up on lore/being a longtime fan definitely pays off. I understood a reference about the Qunari thanks to some lore dhdjdjfnf

[tyrannuspitch]

I recently found your account and your meta stuff is pretty interesting and really well thought out!

So, forgive me if this a bit out of your preference, but I want to know what opinions (if any) you have on Donald Blake? Imo, he’s pretty essential to Thor’s character along with his love for earth/humanity itself but I might be alone on this…?

Also if you have talked about this before you can scold me, that’s my bad

oh thank you so much!!

i must admit i don't have many thoughts on donald blake - i'm primarily an mcu fan, and almost all of the comics knowledge i do have comes from 2007 or later, which is an era without much donald blake in it.

i'm going to be a bit of a centrist and say... i've generally found the few versions of donald blake i've encountered interesting, but i understand why he didn't make it into the mcu, and i would probably make the same decision myself. he complicates the plot enough that i think he's better suited to serialised formats likes comics or tv than to movies - and thor 2011 already feels crowded enough as it is.

also - what i find interesting about mcu thor is mostly quite edgy? i'm interested in monarchy, imperialism, abusive family dynamics, and subverting the idea of thor as a hero. i don't much like stories that ask "what does it mean to be a hero/god/etc" and expect us to come up with a positive answer - i'm much more inclined to say that there's no such thing as a "hero", and we should be extremely wary of anyone claiming there is. this is why the destruction of mjolnir is one of the only things i like about thor: ragnarok - because, even if it doesn't explore them all, it raises some very good questions, at least in an mcu context.

(who decides who's "worthy"? why should we defer to their judgement? why is thor's worthiness valuable for its exclusivity (and surely, therefore, superiority)? why are we assigning moral value to people and not to their actions? why should thor focus on his worthiness to destroy things, to act as a weapon? has thor actually been a force for good at all up until this point? etc etc.)

but now that i say all that, i can imagine a few ways a hypothetical mcu donald blake could work for me.

on one hand, if donald blake is a "real" person who pre-existed thor, is it not incredibly creepy and colonial of odin to put another person in his body? you're trying to teach thor to be humble and (allegedly) to respect the people of other realms by... horribly violating a random mortal and using him as a tool? okay!! (and the fact that thor might initially appear to be an aggressor/parasite/etc but actually has no more say in this situation than donald is potentially very interesting.)

on the other hand, if donald blake is (at least initially) "fake" and the result of odin basically brainwashing thor... that could be a really interesting parallel to loki not knowing he was adopted. it's the ultimate extreme of odin's manipulative parenting - his sons will be exactly who he wants them to be, and if he doesn't think it's working, he makes them into someone else. what does free will mean in a situation of such total control? how can you make any decisions for yourself when someone else can apparently decide *who you are*?

i guess this is less about donald blake as a person and more about the thor-donald-blake situation, but still. interesting...

i'd also be interested to hear your thoughts on donald blake - i imagine they'd be pretty different from mine, bc i think we're coming at this from quite different directions. but that's half the fun of it, isn't it. thor contains multitudes!! :}

[falinscloaca]

this is no place of honor. nothing good is buried here. like, look at those tags, jesus fucking christ icansayithewasalsojewish there they are, i'm at fucking PEAK 2:11 in the morning brain and i got hooked on the discourse rod like two hours ago at this point? i've been rewriting the same sentence over and over again trying to come up with a way to insult most of the people on this site while excluding all the people i'd feel legit fucking terrible making feel bad (which. includes forseeably anybody reading this unless the grace of god does- AAAAAAAUGHGHGHGGG JUST PUBLISH THE FUCKING THING

yooo this post literally begins "as a trans woman" and is about "discourse", uncool fetish shit, and like. idfk if theres even word for that other thing. People That Are Not Trans Women Keep Your Mouths Shut On This. Maybe Nobody Should Reply At All Actually? i've reached paranoid moralizing stink-beast levels that i don't even really know what to logically do with like i SHOULD post something and this is like my fifth time trying but also it feels deeply unwholesome to either reject or welcome outside input.

being a a trans woman, (which is. fucking relevant because YES THIS SHIT GETS TUMLBRFIED ALONG DEMOGRAPHIC LINESSSSS I'M REWRITING A FOLLOW UP THAT MORE DIRECLTY MADE CLEAR IT WAS ABOUT TRANSMISOGYNISTIC REACTIONS TO THINGS-RANGING-FROM-COMPLETELY-INNOCUOUS-TO-FRINGE-CASE-PERVERT-SHIT-I.-JFC-I-CANT-EXPLAIN-IT-MORE-AGAIN-I'LL-COLLAPSE) one who is NOT immune to internet horny in all its forms ranging from innocuous to.... Less [private information/"backstory" expunged tldr the internet can fuck you up especially if you grow to view it as a place of refuge] and is ALSO extremely adamant that Hey I Think That People Should Face Repercussions For Publicly Saucing Up On "Gross" (don't. make me spell out the exact points at which i think the enjoyment of a particular subject can be morally justifiable we'd be here all week and we'd kill ourselves before the talk was done) Shit but ALSO also the moral phucking filosopher in me can't shake off the feeling that Even Kink Shaming For Legit "Dangerous" Shit (in. interpersonal and cultural normalization ways not "shoot your boyfriend in the pancreas" ways) Still Fucking Counts As Sexual Harassment*** and. ghahghhhh.

at least if i didn't have a moral backbone i could hang out with those smug pretentious fictional bullshit loving DOUCHEBAGS but no i guess i'd chose "foolhardy and can-have-their-sense-of-Innate-Morality-swayed-into-fascistic-tendencies yet barring those incidencees are still fundamentally deep down good" to "i have pleasured myself with uranium-27 every evening for the past three years and its everyone elses problem, radiation is a puritanical myth" (or for that matter "foolhardy and easily swayed into fascistic tendencies and pretending to be good but its mostly people getting mad at trans women for calling themselves dogs or being furries". i do not intend to equivocate The Bad Thing Thats Transmisogynist with my own fucking sad little adoptive poop house filled with people failing to actually make any progress in extricating 'that stuugh' from the contexts where its fucking dangerous but like hey we're trying and i guess thats better than worshipping the the fucking stuff)

*** just bc i call it that doesn't mean arguments can't be made as to why its necessary or for the public good bla bla bla i'm not strictly arguing against it its just. even entertaining that it might be a lesser of two evils opens up so many fucking unsanswerable questions and my feelings-of-personal-shame-and-guilt engines just start kicking in bc this shit can't even be framed as "rationally" or "concisely" as a fucking trolley problem i'm moral relativisming my way into absolutism somehow i pray for hell to be real so that the duty of judgement can be left to hands other than my own for I Too am imperfect (albeit not in a way that gets off to children, LOL, get fucked i do still have the moral highground, like not over YOU necessarily but over those *other* dipshits that neither of *us* like)