#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

[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

[hickeygender]

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!!

[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.

[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 Last Flight 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!! :}

[shame-kink]

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)

[hmsmiracles]

Hey, so I have thoughts that are vaguely related to this! (under a read more bc this got away from me)

I'm probably not going to actually answer your questions at all, but again: I have thoughts.

I've read through other responses on this post about overt classism etc. but I enjoy meta-analysis, so...

First: I think that any one person's relationship with canon and fanon and fanfiction are inheritently unique: for instance, I've read a few fics where the Weasleys have a less flattering light on them. They're few and far between for me, but evidently you come across those fics more often. Tropes in a fandom as expansive as Harry Potter vary a lot, so this isn't a surprise; we just have different tastes, and that's okay! (I'm definitely not passing any sort of judgement here dw)

But also: fandom tends to, broadly, find whatever is missing in canon and add to it in fanfiction. Some examples: DC's Batman comics are notoriously gritty and dark, but you'll find a lot of fics that can be generally catagorized as "fluff." Star Trek aired at a time where there was no gay representation on television at all, and yet: Spirk. I can't think of any right now but I know a couple of shows marketed towards children make "angst" a popular tag.

I think what you're seeing in regards to Harry Potter, though, is a lack of moral-greyness. Or rather, Harry's ability to place every character in either "evil" or "good" catagories. (Dumbledore and Snape are good, he says in the epilogue. Hermione is good, even though she literally abucted and blackmailed a reporter, keeping Rita in a jar. Deatheaters like Crouch Jr. and Pettigrew are evil, even though we never learn why they joined up in the first place.) Harry, rather like the author, sees the world in a rather black-and-white fashion.

As a result of that, fandom likes to prove him wrong. The Weasleys may get hit with this backlash quite often, but there's definitely corners of the fandom that casts the Slytherin crew and Death Eaters in a rose-tinted light. Related, since the author came out as a bigot, lots of members of the fandom have shifted to the Marauders side of the fandom, and made a gay paradise over there. Good for them. Trans rights!

Additionally... there's not much in the way of character growth throughout the series? Draco Malfoy definitely has a character arc, but Harry and Ron are essentially the same throughout. Ron who sacrifices himself on the chessboard is the same Ron who fights in the battle of Hogwarts. If you picked up 12-year-old Ron and dropped him into the battle, he'd be scared, but he'd fight. So would Harry, if you did the same to him. Hermione I think gets a bit of an arc, learning to rely on her friends instead of her books, but she's literally the most ride-or-die character I've ever read: 12-year-old Hermione would wreak havoc if she was dropped into the battle. She'd just set people on fire.

Again, Draco has the most significant character arc: He goes from a bully to a repentant man - the same arc Dudley takes, by the way, though Dudley's is less noticed by fandom. So Good!Draco Malfoy is the logical progression of the arc.

This is because (and hear me out) the author is... not a good author?Like the concept was cool and we ran with it, but how different from canon sources are the chatacters you read about in fanfiction? What about the worldbuilding? Here's a hint: "wards" don't exsist in canon. The spell "tempus" neither. Whatever additions of Samhain or other religions weren't in the heavily christian-influenced book. Whatever you've read about the structure of the Ministry or Gringotts of even the Hogwarts staff -- that's fanon.

How much more developed is the world in which the Earthsea Cycle is set? (Why was Le Guin's work not considered the paragon of fantasy bildungsroman that Harry Potter was?)

(Honestly that bit is probably down to that PS was so obviously a children's book and kids were able to grow up with Harry, and that the marketing was better and etc. etc., and that as kids grew to be authors of fanfiction themselves the world in with Harry Potter is set became vague enough to play in - like a sandbox, this world could be whatever you want, and in whatever era you like.)

And I think some of what you mentioned probably comes down to "what would it take to get [x character] to [y action]?"

Eg. "What would it take for Harry to become a dark wizard?" Well, if he were betrayed by those he trusted, his family, the Weasleys, he might never trust anyone again, and with the right influences, become a dark wizard. And in that instance, it doesn't matter why the Weasleys are evil, just that they are, and that it forwards the plot.

I can't offer much insight into why the twins might be exempt from bashing, other than that they perhaps get enough of that from their mother: remember in OotP when Ron gets made prefect and Molly says "that's everyone in the family?" Ouch. The twins seem separate a bit, from the rest of the Weasleys, and that may be because they always have each other? I don't really know and I haven't really thought about it. I picked a ship before the series ended and I stuck with it.

There's a lot more on this that I've definitely under-qualified to write, but regardless, here's a response. Do with it what you will. Hope you get something out of my vaguely tipsy ramblings.

I just can't hold it anymore, I am so curious!!! Like why?

So I've been consuming Harry Potter fanworks and not posting anything about them but there are some very good ones. But due to how one author conducts herself, I am discouraged with even posting anything relating to the said franchise.

But I am just too curious for my own good.

Like I've got a lot of Whys for the fanworks of this franchise. I even saw it in TV tropes.

Why are there a lot of stories that make it seem like the Weasley Family are fool of gold digging people?

In relation to that, it seems like when the Weasleys are portrayed to be bad, and traitors to Harry, the Weasley twins are always exempted from that particular treatment, like why? Why make the entire family, sans the twins, be traitors?

I can understand why Dumbledore gets this treatment, he did raise Harry like a pig for slaughter, one of the many major flaws of his "For the Greater Good" edict but what I don't understand is why make the Weasley family be bootlickers to Dumbledore's rhetoric?

On the other side of the spectrum, there's the Draco Malfoy thing. Good Draco Malfoy, he was a nasty piece of work, there's another TV tropes entry with regards to that, making him be good just trapped in a family that worships a noseless wizard, but he was still raised with pureblood rhetoric, so why?

These are just the four that I can think of right now.,. Just why?

[thestalwartheart]

Loving all the Bond morality discussion this morning! 😍 I'm not a writer and I'm sure have not considered all this as much as writers do, but it reminded me that from the v first watch of Spectre, my immediate reaction to Madeleine telling him 'you're a good man James' at the safe house in London was to laugh and sputter 'no he's not!' at the TV. I think the (film) writers come perilously close there to trying to attach a value judgement to him and that's just not realistic to me. No-one is all good or all bad, and who's to define what good and bad are anyway? He works for MI6, and before that other big military govt organisations and has surely adopted the 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' mantra. His role model was (his) M - 'it was the possibility of losing you vs the certainty of losing all those other agents'. He left Ronson (against his instinct to try to save him) to pursue the greater good.

In his personal life those he loves have left/been taken from him (parents, Klaus, Felix) or 'betrayed' him, either in his eyes (Madeleine) or for a complicated reasons (Vesper). He doesn't have a lot of incentive or example for being 'good'. I don't wish to woobify him obvs and he's an adult making capacitated decisions - he could walk away and open an orphanage or something, but his previous attempts to leave have been punished (Vesper's death, Madeleine's 'betrayal') or branded as selfish ("where the hell have you been? Enjoying death"). In some ways it must seem to him that the right and 'good' thing to do is stay with MI6.

This is all part of why I love the 00Q dynamic, bc Q is v far from being 'good' himself. He facilitates death on a large scale for the greater good. He probably won't expect much more from James, and probably understands that no one will ultimately come before his loyalty to MI6/England/duty however much James may love them. He absolutely judges James for destroying expensive equipment, but he probably won't judge him for the morally grey decisions he makes in the field.

I love a soft Bond fic - they make my heart happy, but I think you can have both in the same man. That's the joy of Craig Bond for me - he's always had both sides to him and shown a certain humanity, even while being the state sponsored murderer he is, throughout.

Crikey, that's a lot of probably meaningless rambling, and a LOT of parentheses! (Sorry 😊)

First of all, no calling your very well thought out analysis "meaningless rambling"! And secondly, you absolutely don't have to be a fic writer to have an excellent/deep understanding of these characters.

You've said a lot of wonderful things here, but I wanted to zero in on the point about not making value judgements on these character. Especially in-universe. I did a double take at that "you're a good man, James" line, too, because James is essentially in the same business her father was (of killing at least). I guess she decided that if you kill for the right reasons, it makes you good. Which, to me at least, doesn't seem like something a woman who hates guns would say. But hey ho. He didn't kill Blofeld at the end of SPECTRE, and I'm sure that counted for something for her.

I got distracted 😂 Back to value judgements - those who work for MI6 would likely have no place expecting more from each other than to try and do the best job they can. The job is so complicated. They have to make impossible choices in a split second. Take Ronson. That was awful to watch because you know all Bond wants to do is save him, but if he lets Patrice go, he's dooming countless other agents to horrible, horrible deaths, much worse than bleeding out relatively quickly from a gunshot wound (as awful as that is). I don't think Q, who gives Bond the weapons with which he wreaks havoc and destruction, would have any qualms about the blood on Bond's hands, perhaps apart from some very real concern about whether Bond is okay or not.

I don't think I will ever write this fic, but I've always wanted to do one where Q has to kill someone with a drone, or perhaps has to cope with a civilian casualty. I'm aware that, like my characterisation of Bond, my Q also veers towards the softer side, but I'd like to see him grapple with that sharp knife of morality. I'm not sure I have the wherewithal or the skill to write something that nuanced and get it right.

Finally, I love soft!Bond fic, because he is fucking soft when he's in love. It's made so much sweeter because of all the trauma he's faced. No person is ever just one thing. We are all far more complex than we recognise ourselves to be, and I think that's true of Bond too. Softness can come with darkness and pain, and often because of it.

Thank you for the ask, bishy! ❤️

[tianshiisdead]

Re: your post about cultural appropriation, I have a few things I want to ask/get your take on? Firstly, "the people who are uncomfortable shouldn’t be ignored" I understand this and agree, and at the same time I can't help but think, doesn't that kinda basically mean "Don't do it or you're an asshole" in the end? Because there will always be people uncomfortable with it, especially in the age of the internet where even private gatherings can have pictures posted publicly, etc? Secondly, even if you're invited by Chinese people (in some cases FAMILY members) to wear it in a specific situation, if others know about it and take issue, you'll still be criticized as a disrespectful colonizer (if you're from or look like you're from NA/UK, but sometimes even when you're not), and you can't even say "This was shared with me/I was invited to" because that comes off as a "My Chinese friend" kinda argument. Also in conversations I've had w mainlanders, many seem to feel like they're not allowed to have a say about their own culture in these conversations in international circles, bc many diaspora are trying to make rules about it, and shut them down w 'you don't understand bc you're not affected by racism' (which is not at ALL true, even tho its different) and even tho they dont dismiss the pain of the diaspora experience, they feel very frustrated by diaspora trying to claim authority over their culture. (Which is made worse by many diaspora not even understanding or respecting China themselves) (sidenote this is an experience that seems to be shared by MANY mainland/diaspora relationships, not just China) And I just wonder if this is possibly another instance of a very common thing online these days, where people feel they have to turn their personal feelings about something into a strict idea of morality by which they expect everyone to follow, else they be labeled racist. But just because their feelings and experiences are important and valid does not mean they are universal. So they're probably not a good basis to be making moral judgements by. Idk if I'm making any sense at this point. It's a complicated topic I've had a lot of thoughts about that I kinda wanted to share and talk about so that I can develop my understanding of it, but it's hard. I just wish we could have more civil conversations about it. I understand it's sensitive but I don't think people being hostile about it is going to help anyone, and it's very disheartening. Because shutting down conversation and arguing and harassing and gatekeeping is only creating more division. It's the very opposite of cultivating understanding and unity. And I do think the latter is the only way meaningful progress can really be made.

Hi! This is a pretty complicated issue, I'll try to answer one by one but I might ramble a little.

First, to clarify, I originally made my post because I follow a few prominent diaspora hanfu fashion blogs/channels/tiktoks and some of them have drawn pretty clear lines on what they consider acceptable VS appropriation, yet they get constant non asian people in the comments insulting them and saying things like 'well I think it's totally okay to wear hanfu whenever stop gatekeeping', and that is never okay. To go into an asian person's space where they share parts of their culture and talk over them on what they can or can't do right in that space is incredibly rude, and it's frustrating to see so many people ignoring diaspora voices or wielding 'I heard this from a mainlander' to discredit what a diaspora says. We are no less 'asian' than mainlanders. I've seen too many situations where these creators repeatedly make their stance clear but still get people complaining in their comments and such - it's always preferable to block and move on if you disagree rather than harass someone who's made it clear they don't care to have this conversation (which they are not obligated to have). In general, it costs nothing to not harass marginalized people about what you're allowed or not allowed to do regarding their culture when they've made their stance and frustrations clear.

This got pretty long (sorry) so my answer is under the read more

Disclaimer: everything I say is my opinion formed from my experiences, which doesn't invalidate any other person's feelings on appropriation of their culture. It's a complicated issue and people are allowed to have strong feelings about it. Other people might be stricter or less strict and that's okay, no one can solve the issue with a single post and no one should make themselves the single spokesperson of an issue that affects so many people. This is just my take on it.

First question! In my opinion, it's a situation where 'people's discomfort should be listened to if they voice it' not 'never do anything ever for fear of being seen by someone who would be uncomfortable'. There are obviously plenty of situations where a non Chinese person might be invited to wear hanfu, or a non Chinese person might do research and end up concluding their hanfu/cosplay/whatever is respectful and okay. I'm not here to say you shouldn't just in case someone in the world would be offended, however, you still have to be aware you're a guest partaking in someone else's culture, so if you choose to post it on social media, you should be prepared for potential criticism, keep an open mind, and not become defensive when you get it. That is to say, harassing is never okay, and if there is harassing going on I don't condone that, however a lot of the times (in my experience) it's not harassing, just valid complaints brought up in a not incredibly gentle way, and that shouldn't be discounted as bullying. Messing up (unintentionally, after doing research) doesn't make someone an asshole, but if someone decides to post and face a lot of criticism and they choose to ignore it or lash out against the people criticizing them, that does. In my personal experience, I've for example seen a lot of MDZS cosplay that are generally met with very little pushback, and there's a writer I like who's 100% white and lives in China and writes short and distinctively Chinese fiction, and he has a moderately decent audience and gets pretty much no criticism even from diaspora because he's careful to be respectful. This isn't a failsafe and I'm sure no matter what someone out there will be uncomfortable, but there are plenty of situations where non-Chinese people interact with the culture and wear the culture and get little to no pushback. I don't like the implication that the diaspora community is needlessly volatile and hostile - because from my experience most of it really isn't. And, to be completely honest although the internet and videos have made things less private, very few people end up getting enough attention (especially unintentionally) that would result in a great deal of pushback unless they're being Distinctly Offensive. I've seen quite a few douyin with foreigners in hanfu and they're just like any other hanfu video and they rarely gain that level of traction because most people aren't looking to get upset over things that don't genuinely bother them. I do think it's a situation where you have to make your own judgments, but I stand by that if for whatever reason you interact with Chinese people who make their discomfort clear, their discomfort should be taken seriously and listened to.

Second question. Um, this sounds kind of specific? This might be the case sometimes idk, I've personally never seen this happen (not to say it hasn't just that I haven't seen it), but in that case if you're wearing it in a specific (respectful) situation and you were invited (especially by family) then it's not at all a "My Chinese friend" argument I think. "My Chinese friend" is a bad argument because it's vague and tokenizing and used to talk over other Chinese people, but if you were invited to wear it then that's way more direct, so I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to establish. However, like you mention later, Chinese people are not a monolith and many don't have great connections with their culture, or see no issue with racism, or have internalized self-hatred etc. that would cause them to enable non-Chinese people in doing offensive things. I really do think this is a case-by-case basis, I can't make any sweeping judgments. Sometimes it's the Chinese family/friend who invited who is in the wrong.

Third question kind of (the part about mainlanders having a say etc.) I do think that again it's a case-by-case basis! In the conversation between a diaspora and a mainlander, respect should be given to both sides (and diaspora who don't understand as much should listen to the mainlander about things the mainlander understands better) however, in my original post, I was more referring to non-Chinese people using what mainlanders say to shut down diaspora. Again, the issue is not that mainlanders shouldn't have a say, it's that their words are used by non-Chinese to discredit diaspora voicing their concerns. I honestly haven't seen that much mainlander-diaspora communication online for obvious reasons but that would be a completely different topic. I do think that it's important to remember even mainlanders aren't monoliths or infallible, and sometimes they can discredit diaspora opinions on topics diaspora have more experience on just because they don't have the same experience. Although people in China certainly face racism and oppression in the global framework of north VS south, and many parts of China have remnants of colonization and imperialism which mean white westerner travelers and expats get better treatment than even the locals or ABC, it's also true that they don't usually face the day to day constant racism diaspora face, which is often what informs discussions on why foreigners wearing hanfu might be considered offensive.

(This part will be about diaspora talking over mainlanders, intracommunity politics, self-hatred, etc. These are my own opinions as a Chinese diaspora and it's a sensitive issue, plus people who are not members of the community please Do Not Make Judgements or try and get involved. Again, this is an intracommunity issue, not an open invitation for non-Chinese people to criticize Chinese people on their Chineseness.) The same goes in the other direction, like you mentioned, a lot of diaspora can also talk over mainlanders or claim authority when they don't have it. There's also a lot of issues with diaspora who hate and look down on themselves and their culture through no fault of their own, it's taught by the society they grow up in, but then they never unlearn that hatred and disdain, and the remnants of that will inform how they treat the people and culture even if they try and advocate themselves as a spokesperson. Obviously, I'm not a huge fan and I think it can be super harmful. It's okay to grow up and realize the culture you rejected is something beautiful, it's okay to slowly rediscover it, but one should always keep in mind that they are rediscovering it, they lack a lot of knowledge because knowing about culture is not innate, and to be open to learn and not yell too loudly about things they don't understand. Culture is so vast, no one person can claim they understand fully and should be taken as the single spokesperson. This disdain and internalized racism show up in diaspora, but also in mainlanders to some extent, because we all live in a post-colonial world with a clear racial hierarchy. That is to say, although it's not useful or reasonable to categorize mainland Han Chinese as oppressed POC, especially when they are the privileged majority within mainland, they nonetheless also face white supremacy that is woven into the culture post-colonization and imperialism (white people. are not at all oppressed. in China. :/)

I also think that in the specific situation of cultural appropriation, personal feelings kind of do matter. It's not a strictly moral thing, messing up doesn't mean moral failure and neither does getting offended or whatever, and I also don't think the discussion around cultural appropriation through wearing hanfu will ever be 'universal' because everyone has such different experiences. In a perfect world without a recent history of colonization and imperialism and western dominance, this wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue. The point is that it's not universal, you can only try your best to be respectful but understand there are limits and that if you post for a lot of people to see a lot of people will have different thoughts, and to try and listen to those thoughts the best you can. None of this is a moral issue, just one facet of a larger societal one informed by history and power dynamics, and no one person is responsible for any of it, but it's important to be educated and sensitive.

But yeah! It's definitely a complicated issue, your ask made sense don't worry lol I'm sorry I couldn't give that many definitive answers and so much of it came down to 'depends on the situation' and 'it can vary from person to person'. Like with all these sorts of issues, it can be intensely personal to people because this sort of racism Is very personal. for lack of better words. it's not a concrete thing, the reason it's harmful at all is that it can hurt people, just because of the context of racism and such, and that means it will vary from person to person. Sorry idk if that made any sense but kjlfdhg I think harassment and dogpiling and rudeness is never okay, but a clear line should be drawn between harassment and a Great Deal of People voicing their criticism. I agree that there should be civil conversations about it, but tbh... I don't think any progress will be made regarding this Because it's such a complicated issue with so many diverse voices and experiences that should be accounted for and not asked to conform, it's not at all a solidly moral issue. There's no rulebook for it! All cultures are different too, I can only speak on my thoughts on hanfu and qipao and such, however, other garments from other cultures may have different purposes or ideas behind them and that's not something for me to comment on, I can only listen and respect. I think the only way progress can be made, is for society to progress regarding racism and such built into the system, and the post-colonial state of the world. Foreigners in hanfu and appropriation stuff, this is all just manifestations of the greater systemic issues, and it can only be solved through the solving of the greater systemic issues.

Thank you for the ask! i enjoy talking about these things :3

[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