#which-false but i digress

[baekuras]

just thought about how annoying the combo of

"if you work hard you can even buy your own house" to "lmao in THIS economy?" in combo with "oh yeah tech is the future and here are all the ways on why" to "the internet is eating itself+what jobs???" is

you'd think those false promises would stop but nope

[themyscirah]

Philippus? Wym philippus this is a wholeass other woman?????? She's white?????? Guys come on now

ALSO cursed white Euboea in this same sequence.... homeboy she's Asian please stop

Joe Phillips I'm sorry but this is some shitty ass guest pencilling how can you not know anything abt what these people look like thats literally your job... you also just needed to read the issue before this to know?

Editors should have caught this one these are major Amazon characters

[aroceu]

caping for and encouraging a cis person to not only partake but actively stoke the flames of discourse surrounding transphobia against other trans people regardless of whether you agree with them is neither the allyship or the anti-transphobia that you think it is. btw

[whitesuited]

𝙻𝙴𝚃 𝙼𝙴 𝙰𝚂𝚂𝙸𝙶𝙽 𝚈𝙾𝚄 𝙰 𝙻𝙾𝚅𝙴 𝙻𝙰𝙽𝙶𝚄𝙰𝙶𝙴.

an undoing influence

can someone tell you what to do? you have been carrying so much love within you for so long it is starting to turn into anger (why does it matter, all you see is red anyways) and you have been dragging this body through each day and every night you are split open on your bed and it is so so so lonely. if someone were to walk in while you were on your bed that way and they stitched you back in a new way, lining the seams with their love and kisses, you’d probably find this dreary world a little more bearable. you want someone to turn you over and over until you look in the mirror and see yourself looking back at yourself with a gentleness which has been lacking in you since forever.

tagged by : @redapt tagging : anyone who wants to take this and suffer too feel free to @ me

[sneezypeasy]

Why I Deliberately Avoided the "Colonizer" Argument in my Zutara Thesis - and Why I'll Continue to Avoid it Forever

This is a question that occasionally comes up under my Zutara video essay, because somehow in 2 hours worth of content I still didn't manage to address everything (lol.) But this argument specifically is one I made a point of avoiding entirely, and there are some slightly complicated reasons behind that. I figure I'll write them all out here.

From a surface-level perspective, Zuko's whole arc, his raison d'etre, is to be a de-colonizer. Zuko's redemption arc is kinda all about being a de-colonizer, and his redemption arc is probably like the most talked about plot point of ATLA, so from a basic media literacy standpoint, the whole argument is unsound in the first place, and on that basis alone I find it childish to even entertain as an argument worth engaging with, to be honest.

(At least one person in my comments pointed out that if any ship's "political implications" are problematic in some way, it really ought to be Maiko, as Mai herself is never shown or suggested to be a strong candidate for being a de-colonizing co-ruler alongside Zuko. If anything her attitudes towards lording over servants/underlings would make her… a less than suitable choice for this role, but I digress.)

But the reason I avoided rebutting this particular argument in my video goes deeper than that. From what I've observed of fandom discourse, I find that the colonizer argument is usually an attempt to smear the ship as "problematic" - i.e., this ship is an immoral dynamic, which would make it problematic to depict as canon (and by extension, if you ship it regardless, you're probably problematic yourself.)

And here is where I end up taking a stand that differentiates me from the more authoritarian sectors of fandom.

I'm not here to be the fandom morality police. When it comes to lit crit, I'm really just here to talk about good vs. bad writing. (And when I say "good", I mean structurally sound, thematically cohesive, etc; works that are well-written - I don't mean works that are morally virtuous. More on this in a minute.) So the whole colonizer angle isn't something I'm interested in discussing, for the same reason that I actually avoided discussing Katara "mothering" Aang or the "problematic" aspects of the Kataang ship (such as how he kissed her twice without her consent). My whole entire sections on "Kataang bad" or "Maiko bad" in my 2 hour video was specifically, "how are they written in a way that did a disservice to the story", and "how making them false leads would have created valuable meaning". I deliberately avoided making an argument that consisted purely of, "here's how Kataang/Maiko toxic and Zutara wholesome, hence Zutara superiority, the end".

Why am I not willing to be the fandom morality police? Two reasons:

I don't really have a refined take on these subjects anyway. Unless a piece of literature or art happens to touch on a particular issue that resonates with me personally, the moral value of art is something that doesn't usually spark my interest, so I rarely have much to say on it to begin with. On the whole "colonizer ship" subject specifically, other people who have more passion and knowledge than me on the topic can (and have) put their arguments into words far better than I ever could. I'm more than happy to defer to their take(s), because honestly, they can do these subjects justice in a way I can't. Passing the mic over to someone else is the most responsible thing I can do here, lol. But more importantly:

I reject the conflation of literary merit with moral virtue. It is my opinion that a good story well-told is not always, and does not have to be, a story free from moral vices/questionable themes. In my opinion, there are good problematic stories and bad "pure" stories and literally everything in between. To go one step further, I believe that there are ways that a romance can come off "icky", and then there are ways that it might actually be bad for the story, and meming/shitposting aside, the fact that these two things don't always neatly align is not only a truth I recognise about art but also one of those truths that makes art incredibly interesting to me! So on the one hand, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to conflate literary "goodness" with moral "goodness". On a more serious note, I not only find this type of conflation unfair/inaccurate, I also find it potentially dangerous - and this is why I am really critical of this mindset beyond just disagreeing with it factually. What I see is that people who espouse this rhetoric tend to encourage (or even personally engage in) wilful blindness one way or the other, because ultimately, viewing art through these lens ends up boxing all art into either "morally permissible" or "morally impermissible" categories, and shames anyone enjoying art in the "morally impermissible" box. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people responding to this by A) making excuses for art that they guiltily love despite its problematic elements and/or B) denying the value of any art that they are unable to defend as free from moral wickedness.

Now, I'm not saying that media shouldn't be critiqued on its moral virtue. I actually think morally critiquing art has its place, and assuming it's being done in good faith, it absolutely should be done, and probably even more often than it is now.

Because here's the truth: Sometimes, a story can be really good. Sometimes, you can have a genuinely amazing story with well developed characters and powerful themes that resonate deeply with anyone who reads it. Sometimes, a story can be all of these things - and still be problematic.*

(Or, sometimes a story can be all of those things, and still be written by a problematic author.)

That's why I say, when people conflate moral art with good art, they become blind to the possibility that the art they like being potentially immoral (or vice versa). If only "bad art" is immoral, how can the art that tells the story hitting all the right beats and with perfect rhythm and emotional depth, be ever problematic?

(And how can the art I love, be ever problematic?)

This is why I reject the idea that literary merit = moral virtue (or vice versa) - because I do care about holding art accountable. Even the art that is "good art". Actually, especially the art that is "good art". Especially the art that is well loved and respected and appreciated. The failure to distinguish literary critique from moral critique bothers me on a personal level because I think that conflating the two results in the detriment of both - the latter being the most concerning to me, actually.

So while I respect the inherent value of moral criticism, I'm really not a fan of any argument that presents moral criticism as equivalent to literary criticism, and I will call that out when I see it. And from what I've observed, a lot of the "but Zutara is a colonizer ship" tries to do exactly that, which is why I find it a dishonest and frankly harmful media analysis framework to begin with.

But even when it is done in good faith, moral criticism of art is also just something I personally am neither interested nor good at talking about, and I prefer to talk about the things that I am interested and good at talking about.

(And some people are genuinely good at tackling the moral side of things! I mean, I for one really enjoyed Lindsay Ellis's take on Rent contextualising it within the broader political landscape at the time to show how it's not the progressive queer story it might otherwise appear to be. Moral critique has value, and has its place, and there are definitely circumstances where it can lead to societal progress. Just because I'm not personally interested in addressing it doesn't mean nobody else can do it let alone that nobody else should do it, but also, just because it can and should be done, doesn't mean that it's the only "one true way" to approach lit crit by anyone ever. You know, sometimes... two things… can be true… at once?)

Anyway, if anyone reading this far has recognised that this is basically a variant of the proship vs. antiship debate, you're right, it is. And on that note, I'm just going to leave some links here. I've said about as much as I'm willing/able to say on this subject, but in case anyone is interested in delving deeper into the philosophy behind my convictions, including why I believe leftist authoritarian rhetoric is harmful, and why the whole "but it would be problematic in real life" is an anti-ship argument that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I highly recommend these posts/threads:

In general this blog is pretty solid; I agree with almost all of their takes - though they focus more specifically on fanfic/fanart than mainstream media, and I think quite a lot of their arguments are at least somewhat appropriate to extrapolate to mainstream media as well.

I also strongly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" which the author, a verified giga chad, actually made free to download as a pdf, here. His work focuses primarily on right-wing authoritarians, but a lot of his research and conclusions are, you guessed it, applicable to left-wing authoritarians also.

And if you're an anti yourself, welp, you won't find support from me here. This is not an anti-ship safe space, sorrynotsorry 👆

In conclusion, honestly any "but Zutara is problematic" argument is one I'm likely to consider unsound to begin with, let alone the "Zutara is a colonizer ship" argument - but even if it wasn't, it's not something I'm interested in discussing, even if I recognise there are contexts where these discussions have value. I resent the idea that just because I have refined opinions on one aspect of a discussion means I must have (and be willing to preach) refined opinions on all aspects of said discussion. (I don't mean to sound reproachful here - actually the vast majority of the comments I get on my video/tumblr are really sweet and respectful, but I do get a handful of silly comments here and there and I'm at the point where I do feel like this is something worth saying.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to defer to other analysts who have the passion and knowledge to give complicated topics the justice they deserve. All I request is that care is taken not to conflate literary criticism with moral criticism to the detriment of both - and I think it's important to acknowledge when that is indeed happening. And respectfully, don't expect me to give my own take on the matter when other people are already willing and able to put their thoughts into words so much better than me. Peace ✌

*P.S. This works for real life too, by the way. There are people out there who are genuinely not only charming and likeable, but also generous, charitable and warm to the vast majority of the people they know. They may also be amazing at their work, and if they have a job that involves saving lives like firefighting or surgery or w.e, they may even be the reason dozens of people are still alive today. They may honestly do a lot of things you'd have to concede are "good" deeds.

They may be all of these things, and still be someone's abuser. 🙃

Two things can be true at once. It's important never to forget that.

[caliblorn]

I promised to make this post months ago and completely forgot about it until the last few days (a classic!), so here I am now. Making it. And with silly art included. Yay!

As many of you know, Mannimarco and Vanus Galerion in Elder Scrolls Online are portrayed as 2E contemporaries who mirror each other journeys to leaders, out of the Psijic Order and into their own groups. ESO makes it clear that they're meant to be similar in age as well, and it does so both by de-aging Mannimarco's model for the "Half-Forming Understandings" quest, and by making it say by Vanus himself in Artaeum Lost.

BUT! If you have played Morrowind or Oblivion, you might already be familiar with Where were you when the Dragon Broke?, an account of different people's experiences during the Middle Dawn, the 1E Dragon Break. And oh! Look who it is.

(notice also he says God, not King) The Middle Dawn happened between 1E 1200 and 1E 2208. Time fuckeries as much as you want, but nonetheless, 1E ends in 2920, and we know FOR SURE that Vanus was born the first years of 2E and that he joined the Psijics as a 11 yo. So, even if we took into consideration ONLY the latest period of the Middle Dawn, Mannimarco would have been a... 700+ years old novice when he met Vanus. Very funny to think about, but an old mer having an intellectual rivalry with a teenager doesn't really scream "brilliant" to me.

I'd say the retconning of his age is also supported by Worm Saga, were he doesn't mention at all his period in the Maruhkati and makes it sound like he was either born or taken to Artaeum at a very young age.

Plus, both in Worm Saga and in the Vault's flashbacks and in every other source ever (WRITTEN FOR ESO. AHEM.) we see that his "discovery" of necromancy happened on Artaeum. Like, it's screamed into our ears a couple of times or more in the game itself.

The problem with all of this? The book that implies he lived through the Middle Dawn is still present in ESO.

Which is to me one little example of a bigger issue with ESO writers rewriting/retconning things without taking away/trying to somewhat link the original sources. But I digress, there are different ways to make this work but since some are too complicated to be discussed now, I'll just share with you what I usually go with;

Mannimarco is a great liar. Not only a liar, a politician. A sales man. A guru. He knows how to give himself prestige. What "Where were you when the dragon broke?" is to me is either fake accounts fabricated by the Cult themselves, or stolen accounts (probably from Artaeum's archives!) where his false experience was added and then sent around Tamriel.

If I had to make a TIMELINE for all the pieces cited, I would say the publication order would be "Where were you when the dragon broke" (used as propaganda by the Cult to make Mannimarco's figure important)-> "Artaeum Lost" (disproves what was fabricated about Mannimarco)-> "Worm Saga" (new attempt to give himself prestige with that "aldmer, scion of et'Ada").

[art-is-the-life]

just for one night, please?

paring: joel miller x reader

words: 2.6k

i wanted to write a little thing because honestly joel has my whole heart. i don't usually post on this blog, and especially not writing but you know. there are no physical descriptions of the reader but there are a few uses of the nickname "honey" throughout. also i wrote this with the "sharing one bed" trope. technically there are two beds, but joel and reader only use one, anyway i digress. no smut only fluff! the only editing was grammarly so please forgive me. anyway, enjoy!

--------------------------------------------------------

“Shit..” Joel half-whispered in front of you, raising his hand to rub across his jaw. 

Looking into the dimly lit room the two of you just broke into, you notice the source of Joel’s expletive.

“One—” you begin to say, but you’re suddenly interrupted.

“Bed!” Ellie shouts, bringing up the rest of your trio, and Joel glares at her. She cringes with a falsely guilty smile and pushes you and Joel past to head into the shabby hotel room.   

“This place ain’t good, honey,” Joel begins in a low tone while Ellie tosses off her pack and flops on the bed. A dust cloud poofs around her when she hits the moth-bitten sheets, and you smile sheepishly and Joel. The name makes your heart flutter, but you push it away with a mental shake. You can’t be doing that.

“At least it has a bed?” You offer the same sheepish smile with your shoulders up to your chin in a defensive manner. 

“C’mon, old man, lighten up!” Ellie calls from the bed, looking up at the two of you huddled nervously around the door. 

“It’s just one night, Joel,” you sigh and look around the highly dusty room, “You don’t even have to sleep in the bed; you can keep watch all night.”

Joel follows your eyeline around the room until he meets your face again. He takes a moment to glance over your face, and you try to smile more convincingly. Behind you, Ellie is starting to snore, which you take as a sign. Gesturing to her on the bed, you tilt your head towards Joel, and he rubs his hand again across his jaw. 

“Please, Joel? This is one of the only places where we have been covered from the elements since we left Bill and Frank’s.” You put on your best doe eyes. “Please?”

“Fine, just tonight,” Joel grumbles, and you smile bigger, “But I don’t want you on second watch.”

You shrug, “Works for me.” You pull Joel further into the room and shut the door behind you. It’s a little beat up from the force you used to get in, but it still latches, so you consider it a win. You walk over to the bed in the corner and glance at Ellie, who is now sleeping soundly on her side and snoring quietly.

You sigh and grab her pack from where she abandoned it on the floor. You sling yours off and prop them up against the small kitchen island with a slight frown. Unzipping yours and digging through it for a moment, you find a slightly crushed granola bar you snagged from Bill’s apocalypse bunker. Ironic. You hear Joel rustling behind you, so you pause for a moment to listen to his heavy boots tread around the probably rotting floor of this old hotel. 

When you stand up, you notice another door slightly ajar, and it looks like it has something interesting in it. Slipping your gun from your hip, you slowly walk towards the door and nudge it open with your foot. Looking around carefully, you can see no Infected in this room either. You breathe out heavily in relief, poking further into the room. It looks identical to the room you, Joel, and Ellie broke into. One bed with a tiny kitchen and a large water stain leading out of a closed door. You think for a moment you should go in, but then Joel calls your name. 

“Another room?” Joel asks when you turn to see him leaning against the doorway you just went through.

“Looks like it, probably one of those old package deals where you can buy both rooms and have your kids in one and you in the other,” you reply, gesturing around the room with your gun while being careful not to point it near Joel. 

“‘S got another bed and everything, huh, honey,” Joel says, keeping his voice low to not wake Ellie. 

“Yeah, seems like it.” You respond and trail off slowly, putting your gun back where it’s stored on your hip and pointing to the closed door with your elbow. “What do you think is in there? It’s got a stain, and I want to assume it’s water.”

“Maybe it’s best not to check,” Joel says, but you huff nervously.

“What if there is something in there?” You mumble with a nervous flit at the end of your sentence.

You watch Joel’s jaw tick momentarily as he considers the options. On the one hand, you don't want to go in there and have to suddenly flee because you woke up something, or you just leave it and everything is fine. Or, again, in the worst-case scenario, you’re all bitten in the middle of the night, Ellie is left all alone, and this whole mission would be for nothing. 

“Joel?” You ask nervously again, and he shrugs. He’s more nonchalant than you want him to be about this, but you suppose at least one adult needs to be calm right now.

“I guess we gotta look,” he responds with his jaw still clenched. Slowly pulling out one of his many guns, Joel strides purposefully past you towards the door. You follow him, once again slowly pulling your gun back out along with a flashlight, and routinely cross your wrists over one another. Just like Tess taught you to. The thought makes your heart ache, so you push the idea from your mind and focus on the task at hand. 

Joel reaches the door, you right behind him. He turns the handle slowly, pushing the door open, and you both point your flashlights into the room, frantically searching for something that doesn’t seem to be there. You sigh in relief, and Joel seems to do the same because you can see his shoulders deflate slightly.

“Nothing,” you say, “Nothing is good, right?”

“Nothin’ is good,” Joel says, “Must’ve just been a leak that happened before the water was all turned off.”

“Right, right..” you take the arm of Joel’s jacket and pull him from the dark bathroom. Turning off your flashlight and tucking it and your gun into your right hand, you glance at the other bed.

“Y’know, this place is pretty secluded, and we haven’t seen anyone in this hotel. Maybe you don’t have to keep watch, just for tonight?” You try to keep your tone even and casual and not too suggestive of you and Joel sleeping in the same bed.

Immediately, this seems like a terrible suggestion because Joel tenses back up again and shakes his head, “No, I gotta keep watch. It‘s not safe no matter what.”

You straighten back up in response and nod quickly, “Yeah, yeah, you’re right.. Sorry. I’ll just take this bed and leave you to keep watch.”

Joel notices your stiffness and quickly shifts his demeanor, “Honey, don’t be like that.”

“Nah, I understand; please, go; I gotta fluff these sheets out,” you reply with a half-shrug, using just one of your shoulders.  

You begin to pull back the sheets, but Joel grabs your hand. You look up at him with wide eyes, and he looks back at you with an unreadable expression. He sighs and runs his free hand through his hair. 

“I didn’t mean it like that, honey,” he says in a low and gruff voice. “I just… I can’t sleep in a bed. Not with you.”

Your heart skips a beat. You’re not sure what to say. You want to ask him why, but you’re afraid of the answer. Joel seems to sense your hesitation. 

He takes a deep breath and continues, “It’s not that I don’t want to, it’s just… I don’t trust myself.”

You tilt your head in confusion. “What do you mean?”

Joel looks away, his jaw clenching and dropping your hand. It’s still warm from his and it sends tingles up your arm. “I’m not a good man. I’ve done terrible things. I don’t deserve to be with someone like you.”

You reach out and touch his arm with the same hand he was just holding. “Joel, everyone has done things they regret. It doesn’t make you a bad person.” Joel just shakes his head in reply. 

“You don’t understand. I’m a monster.”

“No, you’re not,” you say firmly. “You’re a good man, Joel. You’re kind and caring, and you’ve protected Ellie and me from so much.”

Joel looks at you, his eyes filled with pain. “I don’t want to hurt you, honey.”

“You won’t,” you say softly. “I trust you.”

Joel nods slowly. He takes your hand again and squeezes it gently. “Thank you,” he whispers and you squeeze his hand back supportively.

You smile. “Come to bed, Joel. We’ll both keep watch.” 

Joel hesitates for a moment, his movements jittery, and then nods. He moves around to the other side of the bed, and you grab the corner of the sheets you are closest to. He holds his side and, in tandem, flips up the sheets and shakes them out vigorously to get the dust out. It works almost too effectively because your eyes start to water, and you inhale too much of the musty, dusty, almost moldy, sheet smell. Trying to suppress your coughs not to wake Ellie, you turn away from the bed while Joel finishes the job with his shirt over his nose.

You slip yourself underneath the sheets when he seems satisfied with a job well done. You move over to make room for him, and he lies beside you. You turn on your side to face him, and he does the same. You just lie there, looking at each other for a long time. You can feel the tension between you, but it’s not bad. It’s a tension that’s filled with unspoken words and desires. Eventually, Joel breaks the silence.

“Goodnight,” he says softly with your name, and you feel your heart clench.

“Goodnight, Joel,” you reply. You close your eyes, but you don’t sleep. You can’t. You’re too aware of Joel’s presence beside you: his warmth, scent, and breath on your skin. You know you’re playing with fire but can’t help yourself. You’re going to do something you regret if you’re not careful. Especially with Eillie in the next room, it’s too risky. As you and Joel lie side by side, the silence is filled with unspoken words and the soft sounds of the night outside the hotel. There aren’t many ambient sounds these days. The hum of electricity or cars rolling down the roads doesn’t happen like before. You feel Joel's hand brush against yours, which shakes you from your thoughts, whether intentionally or not, and your heart skips a beat.

"Are you okay?" Joel's voice is barely above a whisper, rough yet tender.

"Yeah," you reply, turning to face him in the dim light. "Just... a lot on my mind."

Joel nods, understanding. "I get it. It's hard to find peace these days."

You both fall silent again, the air thick with tension. After a few moments, you decide to take a risk. "Joel, about what you said earlier... You're not a monster. You've done what you had to do to survive."

Joel's eyes flicker with pain. "You don't know the half of it, honey."

"Then tell me," you urge gently. "Let me in, Joel. We don't have to carry these burdens alone."

He hesitates, but a look in his eyes tells you he's considering it. Just as he's about to speak, a sudden noise from the other room startles both of you. It's Ellie, mumbling in her sleep. You both relax when you realize she's just dreaming.

"She's been through so much," you say softly, your heart aching for the young girl. "But she's strong, just like you."

Joel's expression softens as he looks at you. "I don't know what I'd do without you and Ellie."

"You don't have to find out," you whisper, squeezing his hand. "We're in this together."

Joel sighs, a sound that's almost a release of the tension he's been holding. "Maybe... maybe you're right."

The moment is interrupted by a scratching outside the door. Both of you instantly go on high alert. Joel sits up, grabbing his gun, and you follow suit, flashlight in hand. The noise gets louder, and you realize someone, or something is outside.

"I'll check it out," Joel says in a low voice, and you nod, staying close behind him.

As Joel slowly opens the door, you shine your flashlight into the hallway. It's empty, but the sound continues. Following the noise, you both move stealthily down the corridor, alert for any signs of danger. You turn a corner and come face to face with a stray dog rooting through some old trash. The relief is palpable as you both lower your weapons. But the idea that a dog got in fills you with dread. What if there is an owner, and this is a human sniffing dog, and soon you’re about to be found.

"Just a dog," you whisper, laughing softly in relief but anxiety clawing at your chest.

Joel seems to be thinking the same thing you are, especially since you’re only on the first floor of the building. It would be possible for other people to find their way into this—people like raiders, who are just as dangerous as those who are infected. Joel stays alert momentarily, watching the dog root around by the other doors. Most of them are boarded up or entirely doorless. The two of you remain silent and still for several minutes; the only sound is your combined breathing, which is slow and steady. But you can feel your heart beating out of your chest, and you're shocked it isn't making an audible sound against your ribcage.

After a while, Joel finally chuckles, too, a rare sound that warms your heart. "Let's get back before Ellie wakes up, freaks out, and wonders where we are."

Back in the room, Joel tightly shuts the door again. You glance around momentarily and pull over one of the only non-broken chairs that used to make up a small dining set in the room. Joel shimmies the chair under the door and looks up to see if most hotels' old locking mechanism remains intact. Finding it hanging off its hinges, you suck in a breath of air. Joel seems satisfied with the chair, so you can trust his judgment. Heading back through the door that connects the room, Ellie is into the room you found; Joel drags over another chair to place under the main door in this room. Even though it was boarded up like most doors in this place, he still fits the chair under in added protection. 

“Good?” You ask quietly, feeling yourself slip slowly out of adrenaline. 

“Think so,” Joel replies gruffly, so you nod in agreement. 

You settle down again, and Joel slips in beside you. Despite locking the doors more securely, Joel still pulls out his handgun and rifle to sit on the molding bedside table. You figure you should do the same so the harsh metal doesn't dig into your skin the whole night. You stay silent while Joel rummages around in his pack for a while and smile when he comes up with a small lantern he took from Bill and Frank’s. A certain sort of calm replaces the earlier tension, and when you turn back to Joel, he’s already looking at you. 

“What?” you ask with a smile, and he responds by wrapping an arm around you and pulling you close.

"Just for tonight," he murmurs, his breath warm against your ear. You can feel your heart skip a beat but appreciate what he does nonetheless. It’s a step in the right direction and at least a little confirmation that you’re not alone in your feelings. So you nod, feeling a sense of safety and belonging in his embrace. 

"Just for tonight," you agree, but deep down, you both know that something has changed between you. As you drift off to sleep, you realize that the walls Joel has built around his heart are starting to crumble, and for the first time in a long time, you feel hope for the future.

--------------------------------------------------------

[kevin-the-bruyne]

i don't really follow gmm couples closely but i thought firstkhao was one of gmm's biggest, what do you mean they're not that popular in thailand 😭😭

asdfghjkjhgf okay??? soo all this started because I was at my LAST straw when I saw a fan complaining that gmm prejudiced against first and he needs more work on twt (he already works *SO* much) and after having to see a series of gmm crits that were basically [insert false causalities/ metaphysically impossible demands] I lost my mind a little. [but actually its because im already pretty cuckoo bananas but I digress]

Then @fromthedepthsandbeyond brought to my attention this estimate (are you the op?) of events and brand sponsorships from last year where it shows that FirstKhao as a CP are in fact extremely popular but not at all popular as solo artists. And unfortunately I think this is just reality - they work really well together but I was actually both their 'solo' fans before they paired up. More khaotung than First and they are unfortunately just a little too kooky for mainstream popularity. I genuinely think Joong is trying to help Khaotung with roping him into TikTok dances and constantly promoting him on his own channel and IG broadcast because boy do First and Khaotung do nothing mainstream on IG. its only happy birthdays, promo work, promo cp, promo each other and khaotung's blurry artsy fuckboi photos. What can I say, that's what I like, that's what the people who like them like. I hope they don't change (but I know they're trying to). I would say, that actually they are quite popular given how far they veer from traditional masculinity...like they're pretty queer? Gun's numbers are exactly the same as them. Like I don't think GMM can do anything about that. I genuinely don't think GMM can do anything about the next bit either (at least in regards to FK they are very much fucking up other things)

What I was a little surprised by perhaps was this report by another fan who went to their building this summer (2024) and FK just had a mural on the second floor basement. I know that at some point they had some type of pillar on the ground level. Now, the events numbers are outdated and I follow them on socmed fairly close - they might not be getting sponsorships but they're not jobless. even at the times they're quiet or disappear when they resurface it turns out that they were series prepping or in workshops.

I don't know what to say, they're very queer coded, they take challenging jobs and are involved in projects and with creators that are invested in making some unique art which is rare at gmmtv something that everyone here loves to incessantly yell about (for good reason at times).

I don't know how to say this so that it doesn't sound totally insane but to be more popular they have to act straighter???? They actually have to look like they want to fuck a woman, like at least that they think about it instead of just each other. Like they tried so hard to make First's character straight in blacklist -A VALIANT attempt one would say and he still ended up having more chemistry with Drake and the 4 seconds he spent with khaotung on screen 😭 JoongDunk and PondPhuwin are just not like that??? I follow Joong and Pond on IG too and they are in fact able to breathe without their respective pair present. They are so so so so in love when together, bring each other up quite a bit when they're solo but they're not living inside the other's pocket if that makes sense? Sorry I ranted so long??? and for what?? but I guess what I'm trying to say is that I want Firstkhao to be popular but I also don't want them to change at the cost of mainstream popularity (though I understand why they're trying) - they are so worryingly codependent and wonderfully weird 🤧🤧🤧🤧

[littledead-ridinghood]

sorry if this is a weird question to drop on you you were just the first person I thought of who might know but do you know if it's canon/canonically-based evidence that jason is physically stronger than other bats because I always see people say jason is the one with "brute strength" and I can't remember if that's based on anything besides people saying that as a nicer way to call him a brute(maybe it was on lobdells stuff? but I wiped most of those out of my memory)

You thought of me first? <333333 I'm blushing. And it's not weird at all! Even if it was, I love answering weird shit.

Anyway:

So part of Jason being considered "the muscle" of the bats comes from the fact that Jason's currently the biggest of the robins. (Adult!Damian is usually drawn as the tallest of the kids when all is said n' done (that's vague for "age")).

Well, how big then?

I always go with this chart which was released while UtRH was being released:

(I Love this! I wish DC still did little info things like this within their comics. Or maybe they do and I'm just blind. But Look! Canonical Information!)

So canonically speaking, at least when running around pre-crisis, Jason is 6 feet tall and 180 pounds. (Also note criminal mastermind and put a pin in it)

But you've probably heard 200 & 220 thrown around a lot. Those numbers are specifically pulled from two different DC character encyclopedia books which I don't trust at all because there notoriously filled with false information and are dubbed as not canon all the time.

Personally, I use the 6', 180-195 pound range which estimates for fluctuating weight, the passage of time, muscle mass, and minimum bulk & cutting (which I assume is part of most superheroes' training to stay in fighting form, but please recognize that vigilantes are more athlete than bodybuilder) because it's from a canon source (Canon is "king" and all that). No shame to people who use the other numbers or even headcanon something completely different, but again, vigilantes are predominantly running all over cities day after day, not stagnant weight lifters. Cardio vs weights body compositions are quite different even if both are healthy. (And it's not all "swimmer's body illusion" either (they have that body because they swim? No, they swim because they have that body.)

How much muscle mass a person can maximally obtain is up to your genetics. But that max only comes with constant maintainment. It's not feasible for Jason to be doing all that cardio and also have that much muscle mass and fat. Cardio burns "fat" (calories), weights build muscle. We constantly see the former and former-adjacent workouts more than the latter with him. Jason is running across rooftops, flipping off them before falling into a shoulder roll onto the next roof over chasing after bad guys every night. The number of calories he'd have to eat and time put into lifting weights (too many reps a week lead to damage, not growth) to maintain his max (max being what a lot of weights category athletes try to achieve which Jason just hasn't been shown to be (except in his jailbird phase where he could literally only lift weights, read, and avoid being killed to pass the time)) isn't possible.

Using comic art to "prove" how much he weighs doesn't work either. Firstly, because everyone wears weight differently. Two people can be the same height, weight, and sex and look completely different. This is due to different body types, composition, genetics, diet, (what kind of) exercise, and many other factors. Assuming someone thinner is automatically "super light" doesn't factor in different body compositions (fat, muscle, bone percentages). (yes, I know it's stupid to apply science to comics. There's my digression. let me live). Secondly, Jason (just like everything else about him) isn't drawn consistently at all. Sometimes he's pretty damn massive, but we also have Twink and Twunk Jason (DC can't even decide on hair color? Do you think they're gonna decide on his body?).

So, comic book art isn't super reliable as evidence unless we want to theorize if, how, and why he seems to fluctuate between weights all the time (<- Which I have a whole headcanon about if anyone's curious), especially in comparison to the others because, seriously, it's totally a Jason thing. Most characters are pretty consistent in body type. Anyway, someone could argue "See! he is 210!" but it's also not for a long enough period to stick around :/ Again, hard to consistently maintain that much weight as a 6-foot-tall, cardio-based athlete.

Also note: DC is horrible when it comes to weight-to-height lineups. A woman hero can be ~5'7'' and then we're told she's 110 lbs which Fact 1. is considered underweight for this kind of height-to-sex ratio, Fact 2. probably isn't factoring in the fact that muscle is heavier than fat, she just "looks thin", and 3. Usually, totally, absolutely is just blatant sexism.

Really, the numbers don't seriously mean anything of actual substance because their comics, are unreliable, and also usually just...scientifically wrong. But Jason's perception on page, as well as the information we've been told, is one reason he's considered "brute strength first and foremost."

Furthermore, Jason has been shown repeatedly to be on par with Bruce (even when Jason, most of the time, plays defense in their physical fights) but many people chalk this up to him and Bruce having similar physiques making it "easier". Again, counter-productive argument because Bruce and Jason have been drawn very similarly before in stories as well as completely different from each other in others. Also, this purposefully, blatantly ignores Jason's actual skills. No one chalks Dick Grayson or Cassandra Cain beating Bruce up to their body types. Moreover, when Bruce and Jason are drawn similarly in body, no one refers to Bruce as "Brute Strength" either. Bruce gets to be tactical, strategic, clever. (Also Also: In Pre-Crisis, Bruce, Dick, and Jason are deliberately drawn to look similar (height, mass, looks, etc.) to get that Brothers in Blood effect. Still, No one chalks the formers up to all strength. Just Jason)

And that brings us to your question, Anon: Is there canonical evidence for Jason being stronger than the other Bats?

Remember how I told you to put a pin in that "Occupation: Criminal Mastermind" note? Well, first off, Jason creating jobs for his community. Go off, king. Second off, and more importantly so, "Mastermind": a person who supplies the directing or creative intelligence for a project (Merriam-Webster).

When Jason was first re-introduced, what made Jason dangerous was that he was highly skilled and smart. He was playing with both Black Mask and Batman like a cat batting a toy mouse. He orchestrated an entire "slow-growing" takeover of Gotham's underworld (he was actually very quick about it). Jason controlled the situation and planned so well that he had the villains and heroes who were both after him fighting each other so he could slip away and do what he actually needed to do.

Throughout Jason's history, he's always had tools with him when he fights. To the point that Bruce says to Jaybin "You won't always have this" cutting his utility belt, insinuating he relies too much on it, which Jason returns the favor to on his return and fights B hand to hand <3 Love a cocky callback. Furthering this, he knows many, many different fighting styles and techniques both from life experience and from extensive training. Jason's a quick learner by nature and is incredibly adaptive. Guns; knives; swords; pens; sets bombs to specifically implode, not explode; makeshift gadgets; a baseball bat just laying around; a tire jack that one time; brains. I could go on. Jason doesn't just hit things. He uses what he has as a means to an end. He's canonically known as one of the best strategists in-universe and is incredibly creative with his surroundings. Jason isn't just great at extensive, long-term planning either. Bruce himself has remarked on the fact that Jason thinks incredibly quickly on his feet, he's really good at improvisation. Concisely, he has plans A-G and if all those fail, he can pull something out of nothing. Contrast this with Bruce who needs to have a plan for everything. Even if it doesn't look like he's following a plan, Bruce is. Opposed to Jason who can go with the flow and figure it out along the way.

Jason even said this in present-era in TFZ:

And that's the whole point, isn't it? Jason is strong. Incredibly so. He's big and tall and has gorgeous thighs. Not to mention, has a mean right hook. But just because Jason's strong doesn't mean he isn't a bat first and foremost who relies on his brain before anything else. He died 4'6 (on his death certificate, his height varies depending on what source you pull) and famously had to defend himself his entire life ever before being Robin. Being young and small and forced to survive shaped Jason into a quick thinker who could either get away or take enemies 10x his size down. Nowadays, he just has a longer reach.

In Event Levithan when Damian says: "Jason Todd is one of the Great Master fighters of all time" He doesn't say strongest because Damian doesn't mean strongest. Damian means adaptable, smart, capable, and well-rounded in skill.

While I don't doubt that Jason is most definitely one of the strongest Bats due to his size, what makes Jason dangerous is not his body, but the fact that he knows how to use it. It's not "Brute Strength" as many people like to say, it's Strategic Strength. He knows just because he's stronger than someone doesn't mean he'll always win. A la see panels above. Jason knows throwing his body around won't do anything of real, long-term substance. That it's just blindsided and stupid.

I'm sure if I looked I could pull panels where other bats and/or vigilantes refer to Jason as the muscle, brute (strength), all brawn (no brain), other such implications, etc, but whenever people do, it's always to undermine Jason's skill. Because it's not actually about his strength. Jason, with his taller, more built form, makes walking quiet seem easy. And it looks easy because he's good. Jason himself knows his skill set, it's everyone else that undermines him time and time and time again. (Again, Event Levithan, Bruce doesn't agree with Damian's statement even though Jason just outsmarted the six or so people who all just tried to take him down (for something Jason didn't even do, mind you))

But, again from Damian, Jason's not known as "the muscle," he's "the emotional one" also usually used to...degrade Ja--We can't have anything nice apparently is what I'm saying. But yes, when people refer to Jason as "Brute Strength" it's usually them trying to find a nicer way of saying Brute or "thinks with his fists" or "Jason hits first, asks questions later." It's in the same vein as when people say "Jason likes books" as short-hand for "see, he's smart at something" rather than acknowledging that Jason achieved a degree's worth of knowledge in comp-sci by age 13.

Anyway Smart and Strong Jason, my beloved. I wish DC & others loved you as much as Rosenburg and the teams of artists he's been working with do.

[sunset-bobby]

“i feel like season 3 had too many side plots and wasn’t focused on Colin and Penelope enough” blah blah blah

bruh it’s an ensemble show…in season 2 there were also plenty of side plots

all of the side plots in season 3 were somewhat important

Francesca, Benedict, and Violet’s romantic escapades are all perfectly good side plots considering the show is called Bridgerton and is about all of them whether it’s their “season” or not and say what u want abt Benedict being a whore but is that not gonna make it more of a build up when he does settle down?

Cressida’s side plot is literally supposed to forward the Whistledown storyline while also making us like empathize with her (to an extent) i think it’s trying to give us like a false sense of like oh maybe she’s changing oop no she’s not but Cressida has always played a role in Penelope’s story as her antagonist

Lady Danbury and her brother I mean this ties into Violet’s story and also Lady Danbury is a main character and u should all watch Queen Charlotte end of discussion speaking of the plot for her like war against Whistledown has literally been continuous since season 1

The Featherington side plots have also been consistent since season 1 and also they’re all so silly and also it Penelope’s family ofc they’re gonna have side plot

so what that leaves the Mondrichs…at this point just say u hate black people idk. I feel like they weren’t even that big in part 2 so the complaints are unnecessary like they’re big thing was the ball being their ball which concluded their season 3 arc of joining society, Will trying to keep one foot out of it, and the ball is them officially cementing themselves as members of the Ton and also the ball does further the plot of the Whistledown story as Cressida shows up with her version of the column

i think that yea we could have gotten more Collin and Penelope..part 1 we weren’t angry enough and part 2 we were angry for too long…there wasn’t enough physical connection to juxtapose the restraint on their emotional relationship like..i saw someone say angry sex on their wedding night woulda made the like stewing anger more angsty and i agree, but i digress

their story arc was still good and i was still invested and the side plots were important to the overall story and also leading into next season so idk complain to the wall 🤷🏽‍♀️

[incorrectmahabharatquotes]

Recently I saw this post by @god-has-adhd (I'm not reblogging it because I saw the people they tagged and realised very quickly that it's quite likely that us reblogging the post will be unwelcome, to put it mildly. I'm tagging the OP here anyway since it's a direct response to the post and it seemed only fair to engage in the conversation. I hope they don't mind.) OP urged everyone to watch the video regardless of the political leaning so in the spirit of giving everything a fair shot, we watched it. 'We' here refers to both me and Mod G. There are things we agree on with the guy speaking in the video and there are things we disagree with/think he didn't properly research. However, there is one thing that's most relevant to this blog and to me, personally so I'll be talking primarily about it. This is your long post warning, I'm afraid.

------------

"The Real Story of Eklavya"

The context for people who haven't watched the video is that the guy brings up two stories, one of Satyakama Jabali from the Upanishads and that of Eklavya from the Mahabharata. He brings up both these stories in the context of caste, he helpfully titles it and everything.

What I found interesting is that he frames himself talking about the story with the words "The real story of Eklavya". If you know even the basics of storytelling or filmmaking, you know that this is quite important. This implies that you, the viewer, do not know the real story and the one you know is either incomplete or false.

He begins, in a memorable instance, by asking ChatGPT for a summary to grasp the popular interpretation of the story of Eklavya and Drona. I have THOUGHTS about using a machine learning tool that is trained on data that is infamously biased and lacking when it comes to anything that isn't American, but that would be digressing from the point. ChatGPT provides him a summary that mentions that Eklavya was denied Drona's tutelage because he was of a lower caste. After this, the guy proceeds to recite the lines where Eklavya is mentioned in the Adi parva of the Sanskrit Mahabharat that we refer to as Vyasa's Mahabharat. He expresses surprise at how Eklavya is introduced as being the son of the "king" of the nishads (I think leader is a better word that should've been used but the Sanskrit text has a notorious habit of having just really questionable ways of referring to people, if you've read it you know.) Which is found HILARIOUS. Bro, what do you mean you're surprised? This is COMMON knowledge, I fear.

He mentions how being the son of the nishaad's leader/king effectively puts him on the same level as Arjun and that they're both princes. He says that this means Eklavya isn't shudra or dalit (there is a word that's curiously absent here that I'll mention in a bit.) Now, this one of those parts where the choice information he presents the viewer with is bizarre. Since I promised I'll give it a fair shot, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a fault of him not researching enough and not willful omission. Maybe he just doesn't know. The information he's given here is correct, mostly. What he DOESN'T explain is who the nishads, as a group are. I'll fill in the blanks for him.

The nishad are said to be a group of tribal people who reside in the hills. The text he reads out even has the word "tribal" in it but the guy sort of glosses over it? The nishads are sort of like an aggregate grouping of different tribal populations and not the name of a specific tribe. Kind of. But the mention is still significant. See, the Mahabharata, especially the Sanskrit text, has this Thing™ that it does where it's incredibly rare to find a mention of tribal populations who are said to be human, many of the other mentioned tribal groups are demi-humans or non-humans or just straight up rakshahsas.

Eklavya is said to be the adopted son of Hiranyadhanus, the aforementioned king/leader of the nishads. The Harivamsa Purana part of the Sanskrit text (which is a giant-ass genealogy section where it traces the family line from the start of existence to the birth of Krishna) mentions that biologically he's the son of Devashrava, Vasudev's brother, which makes him Krishna's cousin by blood. Eklavya was abandoned by Devashrava in the forest and Hiranyadhanus found him and raised him as his own.

This makes Eklavya a tribal boy, I would use the word adivasi but people might disagree so I'll just say he has a tribal heritage, not by blood but by his upbringing. The man in the video says that Eklavya isn't a shudra, or dalit or untouchable, which is technically true. There's a missing word here that's doing a lot of heavy lifting for him, though. He says that Eklavya is a Kshatriya, which is DEBATEABLE because in the epic we've seen time and time again that blood doesn't matter and it's the society that does. With this, hopefully not to y'all, new information we might understand how the guy's assertion that Arjuna and Eklavya are on equal footing is shaky at best.

He continues to explain that in the text the reasoning why Drona refuses Eklavya is because he'd already promised he'd make Arjun The Best Archer. Since, he's bound by obligation to the Kurus, he can't afford to let Eklavya outshine his kuru students. The man proceeds to assert that in the text there is no caste-based discrimination happening here. Ergo, he concludes, the story of Eklavya doesn't have a caste aspect to it. If you believe otherwise, you're uneducated and need to learn the Truth and not fall into Propoganda. (I'm trying to be charitable to the guy but his tone when he says the word "propoganda" is dripping with disdain and it's making it very hard for me to remain charitable.) He ends this section this way.

This guy says he's given you all the facts. He's cited his source and he's said the complete truth. He hasn't. In this man's viewpoint, the complete and true Mahabharat is the Sanskrit text. Which, as you know, ISN'T what the entirety of the Mahabharat is and claiming that it is is a narrow perspective to see it. (Which is FUNNY considering this guy has a whole section towards the end of the video about Nuance and it's ironic that he's unwilling to provide the same nuance about the epic to his trusting audience.) Maybe he just isn't insane enough like me to know that it isn't the entire Mahabharat. It's possible.

There is a viewpoint that declares that the Sanskrit Text is the primary source and everything else isn't "canon". There's a SPECIFIC word for it but I will not say it because it's like a boogeyman word on hindublr, at least, so I'll omit the word in this post. This man, from what I've seen, shares this viewpoint.

I disagree.

The Mahabharat, is first and foremost a collection of oral traditions of storytelling that were written down much later. This means that the entire corpus of work that is this mammoth of an epic consists of the thousands of written texts, poetry, plays, songs, folk tales, recently it also includes cinematic adaptations, bedtime stories that your elders might have told you, and lastly, popular culture for better or for worse. This is my viewpoint and I feel it provides for a much better lens to engage with the story. Otherwise, you're denying the story of the rich tradition and heritage it was forged in.

The guy in the video wonders why the story of Eklavya is more popular than Satyakama Jabali and there are a lot of reasons for it. First is that the epic is simply more popular and, in many ways, more fun than the upanishad stories. Second is that the story of Eklavya captured people's minds because it's a story that has strife and the ending is unsatisfactory. Tragedies inspire emotions and connection in a way that comedies do not. There are many more reasons but I'll stop listing them.

It's not a coincidence or happenstance that there are caste dynamics added in the popular interpretation of the story. There are even seeds of this in the Sanskrit text, if this guy is truly only looking at that alone, Eklavya being a tribal kid, the way his physical appearance is described in the text, the way he's stopped from sharing a space with the kuru princes etc. If a variety of people who have historically faced similar things especially when it comes to education and find themselves mirrored in Eklavya? That's not Propaganda, as the guy puts it. It's just how stories naturally evolve and grow. It's people reading between the lines. There's no conspiracy at play. Just people finding something to relate to when they cannot relate to any other character.

I can write essays on how caste and varna show up in the Mahabharat (and I might, if even ONE person asks me for it) but to sum it down, it's a task of examining exactly who and what KIND of people are absent from the story. The Invisible People, if you will. You can count on your fingers how many shudra, dalit and adivasi figures are in the Mahabharat.

Drona is a teacher who fails at being a teacher in this instance. (The Mahabharat in many ways is a story of people failing to do their Duty. There's a certain peacock feather wearing guy who does a whole song and dance about it. It can cover a whole book. It's quite popular. Maybe you've heard of it?) Even if you ignore the caste dynamics reading of it, you cannot deny that the man just sucked at being a teacher in that moment when he denied education to a student, whatever his reasoning may be. He brutally asks for the kid to maim himself and again, even the Sanskrit text describes this action of Drona as cruel. He creates a barrier for Eklavya to stop him from continuing to practice his archery.

It's not surprising that Drona is read as a stand in for an education system that sucks at being an education system that does its job. Again, it's not a conspiracy or propaganda. It's people trying to connect to a story through the prism of their life experiences.

It is not my place to tell people what to believe and what not to believe. It's not the guy in the video's either, despite what he says. People's interpretations are personal to them. What is my place is to remind people that it's wrong to deny people their interpretations. There are versions and interpretations of the story that I hate or dislike but I'm not standing here and telling you they're not the Truth. This is the nuance that Mahabharat requires that the guy lacks. This is also why I believe his sources and research is lacking in this department.

------------

Beyond Eklavya

There's a lot of other thoughts and things I want to share about the rest of the video. I'll try to summarise the highlights.

There's a part where he doesn't understand what systemic patriarchy means, exactly, even though he himself gave an EXCELLENT example of it towards the start of the video with Satyakama Jabali's mother's heritage not being considered when it comes to his gotra. It was frustrating because he SAID it. He said the perfect example himself. I almost thought he set it up as a complete circle moment but he hadn't.

I appreciate him bringing a Shaivite perspective because I'm honestly tired of so much Vaishnavism at all times. I love to see different schools of Hinduism actually being practiced and not just one dominating and subsuming the others.

Towards the start of the video, Mod G predicted that the man would go on a "Periyar sucks" rant and I was so delighted that G was so right.

The guy in the video neglects to look at any contemporary research and scholarship about the linguistics and the Aryan migration theory(which he calls the invasion theory, obviously) including the genetic studies.

There's a funny bit where whenever the guy mentions Ambedkar he has to assert that he thinks Ambedkar is anti-hindu. Even when he's praising him. It happened multiple times.

-------------

TL;DR The man in the video fails to provide his viewers with the full picture about the story of Eklavya even when he claims he is.

- Mod S

ALSO

The structure of his arguments are poor especially in the section where he talks about why the North-South divide came about. Does he not know about the field of linguistics and how root languages are established? Telugu as a language has a 'Dravidian' (he seems to hate that word, even though Dravida is not just the anglo word for the southern parts of India) root because of certain features it has. Notice how North Indian languages use Gender. And then, notice how Southern/central or even Adivasi languages use gender. One main reason why Dravidian languages have been speculated to have another root language different to Sankskrit is the counting systems. Its not wrong to say Telugu has sanskrit INFLUENCE, but again, look at WHICH people within the language group use that type of Telugu (spoiler alert, its the 'proper' upper castes). He dismisses that entirely and makes it a whole issue about how the North South divide happened.

Its very clear to me that he has no intention of representing any of the counter arguments to his premise in an honest manner and is instead single mindedly trying to create more propaganda.

-Mod G

[still-searching-for-something]

First off, I limit this discussion to being modern antizionism--pre-state antizionism could have more leeway, as Israel was an entirely theoretical discussion, and antizionism would not have involved destroying a state, but that's a different conversation altogether.

I hold that there are two, and only two instances where antizionism in the modern day is not antisemitic.

1. You're an anarchist who believes in no states, including Palestine, and including Israel. This comes with the caveat, though, that you have to be condemning all states equally--if you're theoretically in favor of all states being destroyed, but in practice only talk about Israel's destruction, you're antisemitic. And anyway, anarchism is childish, naive, extreme and dangerous--especially in the 'destroy all states immediately' kind of way, so you're a fool at minimum, even if you aren't antisemitic.

2. You're a religiously frum Jew who believes the state of Israel is premature and can only be inaugurated with the coming of Moshiach. This too comes with caveats, however, and I think a good way to demonstrate this is by comparing Satmar and JVP/Neturei Karta.

For those not familiar (I imagine 99% of Jews are familiar with these groups, but any goyim who see this may not be) Satmar is an extremely observant Haredi Orthodox Jewish group, for whom antizionism is an important part of their theology and practice. Jewish Voices for Peace are a hate group which is about as Jewish as a swastika, and Neturei Karta are a cult of self hating Haredi Jews who eagerly tokenize themselves.

Now, I disagree with Satmar in a variety of areas, including how they treat women, how they interpret the Torah and the role of Jews in modern society, and a whole lot more, including their antizionism. BUT, they are one of the few antizionists whom I would argue are not antisemitic, because —this is the key—they push back against any attempt by left wing antizionists to tokenize them or use their antizionist views as “proof” that to be a “good Jew” you need to disavow Zionism and Israel. Satmar also makes no claim to representing a majority Jewish view, and make no effort to dismantle, demonize, or discredit Israel—they just stay away from its government and refuse to interact with it or benefit from it. I guess you could argue this isn't even antizionism as much as it is non-zionism, but I digress.

This stands in stark contrast to JVP and NK, who both consistently support extremist views about Israel, post false accusations and propaganda against it, and portray themselves as the “Jews of conscience”, the REAL Jews and that anyone who disagrees with them is a (((Zionist))) colonizer and genocidal maniac. Satmar was horrified by October 7th. JVP and NK celebrated and then denied it. Satmar distances themselves from the antisemites who point to Satmar as an example of “good antizionist Jews”. Neturei Karta and JVP embrace that role.

Notice how, in my long list of non-antisemitic antizionists (which consisted of two instances), "white progressive goy who wants to see Israel destroyed" was not on it. Nor was Soviet antizionism. Nor is the Tumblrina who whines about Palestinian "genocide" and Israel being an apartheid state. Nor is the Islamist who jerks off the idea of a massive caliphate.

Wow, it's almost like outside of very limited circumstances, antizionism is a cheap cover for antisemitism! Crazy, right?

[puckpocketed]

ok the stick story is this

according to The Hockey Media, who as we know do not actually follow any teams closely so know NOTHING, ovechkin was finally hit by father time. he's finally slowing down. he's a shell of his old self. he has old man syndrome. blah blah blah

as a caps fan, i know that this is false, because our russian machine never break. he's a freak. who btw had like 13 goals disallowed or something crazy like that in the first half of last season but i digress

gee i wonder why ovechkin's goals went down? is it because his longtime center and future hall of famer nicklas backstrom retired in all but name? is it because our other top 6 center in evgeny kuznetsov had by far the worst season of his career (from point a game to not even half a point a game) and then went into the player's assistance program before being traded to the canes and then bolting for the KHL?

actually, as it turns out: no.

i mean probably those were factors, but there was another factor. a factor that many caps fans are very aware of but almost no one reported on for some reason (probably because they were too busy writing about how SiDneY CrOsBy was having SuCh an AmaZiNg season for a 36 year old despite ovechkin literally having just as a good a season the year prior at the *checks notes* age of 36. also this is a reminder that one of those two actually led their team to a playoff berth and it wasn't crosby)

ovechkin is, among other things, an elite shooter. like many elite shooters, he is EXTREMELY picky about his sticks. he has been using the same CCM model for the last 7 seasons...and prior to this season they discontinued it.

the first half of the season (roughly), ovi was constantly trying out new sticks from CCM, from Bauer, whoever. he tried quite a few different sticks. results: 8 goals in 43 games.

then, ovechkin found an independent supplier. apparently (i can't remember where this info came out, maybe 32 thoughts?), these guys have an "ovi pro curve" model based on his old stick with CCM and he bought it and tried it out. curve was identical, and it felt right to him. started using those. results: 23 goals in 36 games.

am i saying that he is going to continue on that pace this coming season? probably not. do i think that the rumors of his demise as a goal scorer are greatly exaggerated and almost surely mistaken? yes. am i optimistic that with some stability in our center depth and stability in stick choice, ovechkin will have a 40 goal season again and possibly break wayne gretzky's all time goals record? YES.

what this means for PLD our beloved failhorse wife: he's not getting some washed up old man former great on his wing. he's getting the greatest fucking goal scorer in the history of the sport. and i, for one, am excited to see what they can do together.

link i thought about this all morning during baking and while i was out!! thank you for the stick explanation and all the sources i LOVE citations i am eating them up like theyre cakes at teatime....! more under the cut but heres what i was thinking about when i read this:

thinking about how,, particular some players get about their equipment, how superstitious, it's crazy to me that a manufacturer can just do all that. if it were me and MYE special stick got discontinued id be suing for damages

i was super interested in what actually changed in the second half of the season because i saw ovechkin was back to scoring basically at-will again, so really thank you for explaining.. the bond between a hockey and their stick is so beaugtiful <3

cr-sby is my babygirl-in-law and i fear i will always be fond of him because of this, so i shall tread carefully here (pens friends look away) it DOES suck that they're not recognising your old man for his achievements while that old man gets hyped. is it like, weird anti-russian sentiment? or a more general anti-caps bias? every team fan space i dip into feels unfairly maligned one way or another - which, yeah! clenching my fist of rage.......

you spin such a tale and im VERY excited to see how next szn shakes out in light of all this and also . grabbing dubois by the scruff of his neck like i will stan either way but PLEASE dont embarrass me in front of my cool new friends kjlasdklasdkl....

thank you so much for stopping by and for the warmest welcome ever <3

[dxxtruction]

Something to just consider is that Armand is a collectivist. Culturally I think this makes sense, considering he would've been raised in his foundational years in that sort of culture that values collectivism over individualism. He's also had to live in several high control environments afterwards, which demanded servitude, where putting himself first would've led to trouble, up to and including death. In the Children of Darkness, for example, the very idea of seeking pleasure at all is against the commandments, and since he is forced to lead this group (under careful surveillance), he can not therefore show if he even wishes to seek pleasure, because this would disrupt the collective thought, and further, place a level of threat upon himself for disobeying the laws he's meant to be upholding. He's at threat that he can be killed for it, because that's how such laws are handled. So he necessarily can not hold an individualistic, self serving, opinion, and hope to live, and lived in that kind of envoirment for centuries. Even the TdV carries on the same sort of traditions to less strict, more secular, degrees. Seeking pleasure in TdV is rewarded, even exhaulted, but the great laws are still imposed to the level of threat which is death, and everyone is always surveilling each other on this matter. He's a collectivist, especially in situations which impose certain, or uncertain threat of violence, for going against the group, or person, as in such a situation being individualistic is perhaps the last thing you may get to ever do. Nothing personally driven, therefore, seems that worth it provided the risk.

Whether he remembers this earliest period of childhood, or not, those sorts of values (likely positive then as things like sharing, community building, reaching mutually beneficial decisions, aid, and consideration of others feelings). Ingrained into his personality, and he doesn't have the kind of amnesia where it appears his personality was fundamentally changed by it. Rather, that since it's more of a dissociative amnesia barrier protecting him from traumas, that his personality would rather be fragmented, as opposed to altered. (Meaning such values are still there, but are now also acting alongside various further alteration to what is means to be in collective. And that if such amnesiac parts ever do surface, it is only reacting as if it is re-experiencing, and in the same context to the trauma. Depending on how complex this part is it could take on further environmental inputs while in this state, developing or simply having, essentially, its own personality... but I digress).

He does things for the group, which can at times only be one person, more-so than he serves himself. Placing what serves situation and context more highly that individual personal traits and feelings. But, by thinking he has no self, he naturally falls to self justifying everything wrongful he personally does, as for the benefit of the group. It's a cognitive distortion which doesn't recognize it's own selfishness because it sees itself as being selfless regardless of actual outcome. Further, this makes it so he takes no responsibility for others actions he may have caused, or to how a situation came about because of himself, if he doesn't then apply having any self to that situation. He'll bend to opinion even if its false, and create or even take on an entire role of falsehood, if he believes it serves a mutual benefit.

He uses this as a kind of shield against the world he must fundamentally view as threatening, and imposing, with very limited spaces of safety. But doesn't impose himself in healthy ways, therefore becomes an enabler of certain toxic behaviors getting out of hand, and creating unsafe environments. Desiring such places being controlled, and predictable, environments, but not fostering what's needed for that, and certainly not in a healthy way. Rather lending to manipulating others, or using threats, or force, to make it so he's secure in this. Again, self justifying that it's for a collectivist benefit. If he does at all recognize his own selfishness it's due to how he's able to come out of his own cognitive distortions, and dissonance, and admit faults and failings. Seeing that hiding his own faults and failings from others is something selfish, and therefore that he does indeed have a self there. In doing so, developing an understanding that he acts as a self in all things, and therefore understanding the effects of his actions are actually his. (Or else falling right back into the distortions). He has to be selfish, in a way, to ever be truly selfless. If that's really his goal.

To want something for itself, as opposed to some other means. To want good, love, and safety, for itself as opposed to what it does. He has to develop a sense of his own idea of these things, in order to form a consistent and more secure identity, not founded or attached to a group or person. And further needs whatever self that is, to be embraced, by himself, and not insecure in how others would react to it. To not be afraid of this self expression and personal desire, thought, opinion, feeling, and so on. By developing his own person he'd be able to better embrace his own bad qualities, even change them. As he then feels he has such agency, and isn't just simply reacting and serving to the world around him. I think there's something in how he changes Daniel which says he is moving in sort of this direction, there's something in how it appears he's roaming around on his own right now that suggests he is on a journey of this sort. I'm not expecting greatness out of it, but I am thinking there will be progress for present day Armand in future seasons. I think he is capable of change, and is not fundamentally as he appears. (And this would align to his narrative arc in the books anyway.)

And just also like I don’t think he knows entirely where the boundaries of anything really are or should be. Between himself and others or like where right begins and wrong ends and so forth. Not a moment in his memorable life, mortal or immortal, hasn't been without the presence of vampires, and therefore conditioned more under vampiric understandings as opposed to human ones. And because he's disconsidering of self, and hasn’t exactly been modeled what these should be, he's not able to function sanely in his environment. He's not sane I think I can say. But I do think he’s someone who learns experientially, and can do that on his own, so where those must lie he’s not in total lack of awareness either.

[herald-divine-hell]

My Theory on Veilguards' Dragons

This sort of popped up with my friend, @this-is-something-idk-what, when they suggested a theory about the dragons/possible archdemons in Veilguard's Release Trailer. I'm just going to put it here, though I will worn. I feel like I read elements of this in the past, so shout out to any original theorist, but also I'm not exactly the greatest at remembering the direct lore of Dragon Age, and I'm also just dumb.

- So This-is-something-idk-what mentioned a potential theory where the archdemons were the Evanuris or the blighted gods, which I do admit is a very interesting term of phrase for Solas to use. While I'm not particularly against it, I have a few problems with it (which isn't exactly mean to attack this-is-something-idk-what). For one, the only god mentioned to be particularly associated with dragons is actual Mythal herself. I don't think this is a later revionisist take on the Elves part, when they began to directly associate different creatures to their gods potentially after Arlathan's fall, like Ghilan'nain's sacred animal being a halla. We know that Mythal was associated with dragons, even during the times of the ancient elves - the final scene with Solas and Mythal is notable with their depiction of a wolf howling on one side of the eluvian, and a dragon bowing it's head on the other. The only Evanuris, that I am aware of and what the wiki mentions, that is associated with dragons is Mythal. (Though, oddly enough, Elgar'nan, the head of the Evanuris, is notably without a sacred animal, being only noted to be symbolized with fire, light, and lightning, though I could imagine Mythal and him may have shared some elements of draconic influence.)

What I think may have lead to the establishment of the archdemons is primarily because of Mythal. According to the Veilfire Runes in the Deep Road:

"Hail Mythal, adjudicator and savior! She has struck down the pillars of the earth and rendered their demesne unto the People! Praise her name forever!"

We know that Mythal had a hand in slaying some of the Titans, and that the Evanuris halted expeditions after they acquired significant portions of Deep Roads, as the Veilfire Runes codex mentions:

For a moment, the scent of blood fills the air, and there is a vivid image of green vines growing and enveloping a sphere of fire. The vision grows dark. An aeon seems to pass. Then the runes crackle, as if filled with an angry energy. A new vision appears: elves collapsing caverns, sealing the Deep Roads with stone and magic. Terror, heart-pounding, ice-cold, as the last of the spells is cast.

That codex also makes mention that:

"What the Evanuris in their greed could unleash would end us all. Let this place be forgotten. Let no one wake its anger. The People must rise before their false gods destroy them all."

Who is making this claim is not entirely known. It is entirely possible it's a follower of Solas, but the codex doesn't give us much to go off, so I digress.

However, what I think it is interesting is that it is very likely Mythal herself, as the Elves retreated from the Deep Roads, established the dragons as a sort of safe guard against a potential attack from either the Titans, or whatever could be found that could threaten them as the codex talks about. Could it be the Blight? I'm not entirely sure. Some people have suggested that the Blight was made from the Elves, but I can also possible see that it has another originator, the Forgotten Ones - whom is curiously absent in discussion from Solas or from the recent DA material. As for the dragons...who else would place dragons, creatures of flight, who take to the heavens, within the binds of the earth? The presence of the potential archdemons all seem to point toward Mythal, though entirely why she did so is up in the air.

But that's not what I'm really trying to discuss. What I think Veilguard is utilizing the possible archdemons as seen in the Release Date trailer is something that was rarely touched upon, or kinda forgotten, in the fandom (but again, it's been nearly ten years since Trespasser, so it makes sense and we could had talked about it back then).

Solas mentions in Trespasser, at his bewilderment that Corypheus could actually succeed in unlocking his foci:

"I did not foresee a Tevinter magister having learned the secret of effective immortality."

How do we see Corypheus remain immortal? By corrupting an high dragon into his vessel. What is curious is that Solas says "the secret", and not a secret, as if the true way to remain effective immortal is to bind your life-source with another entity, powerful enough to retain it. Of course, Solas does say the Elves were immortal, all of them, but I assume that they could die or be in a state of inability. What we find with Flemeth and Mythal may hint that, which I'm like 90% was talked about in past theories. Why else would he refer to it as "effective" rather than simply "the secret of immortality". Because you don't have to technically worry about dying, even if your body is destroyed. You can simply possess another body.

Which leads me to also believe that to secure Mythal's complete dissolution, the Evanuris went beyond just attempting to kill Mythal. They went on an effective purge. It is my theory, not entirely backed I believe by any real source in the lore, that the vallaslin of ancient Elvhenan were not simply just be slave-markers, but points of restoration when an immortal died, as we have seen Corypheus have done in the Temple of Mythal. Though it could be argued that it is done through his usage of the Taint, similar to the jumping of souls of the archdemon, I am not entirely sure. After all, would Corypheus even need to learn that through the foci? Why would Solas mention it as an the secret of effective immortality? Given Flemeth-Mythal's tendency to jump into the bodies of her daughters when their older body begins to wan, I think it is less a utilization of the Taint and more an Elven invention in which Corypheus adopted, thanks to Solas' foci.

The Purge of the Mythalites seem to be implied in the Temple of Mythal in the Unreadable Elven Writing:

She shook the radiance of the stars, divided them into grains of light, then stored them in a shaft of gold. Andruil, blood and force, save us from the time this weapon is thrown. Your people pray to You. Spare us the moment we become Your sacrifice." There is a brief image of an elaborate golden spear, glowing with unbearable heat. Then it fades.

The full poem comes from both Andruil's Gift and the Unreadable Elven Writing:

She took the gathering storm, trapped its fury in golden limbs, and strung it with the screams of the south wind. Andruil, blood and force, your people pray to you. Grant that your eye may not fall upon us. Spare us the moment we become Your prey. She shook the radiance of the stars, divided them into grains of light, then stored them in a shaft of gold. Andruil, blood and force, save us from the time this weapon is thrown. Your people pray to You. Spare us the moment we become Your sacrifice.

I think it is clear, to keep Mythal from accessing a readily available form through her own practitioner-slaves, the Evanuris ordered and acted toward the slaughtering of Mythal's people, leaving her unable to access the world in a meaningful way until Flemeth (and possibly, if it is to believe, but by God I hope it is not true, Andraste).

Such, what we do find in Veilguard with the dragons/possible archdemons is the usage of the effective immortality Solas mentions in Trespasser. And it is very possible that the Evanuris are blighted, in someway, relating specifically to the Blight.

But again, this is a theory - put together in a short amount of time, at 11pm-12am, and I think my first in-depth Dragon Age theory, so please be gentle. 🥺🥺🥺

[thosearentcrimes]

Read Bring No Clothes by Charlie Porter. If I followed the rule "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything", that would have been the only sentence in the review. Well, really, it wouldn't have existed, implicature is still a form of speech. For a while it didn't exist, since I read this book some time back now, but not out of moral concern, but rather simply because I'm not allowed to use the computers at work for personal shit anymore, and that's where I wrote these. So I finally got around to buying a new e-book reader instead, expect more reviews shortly, written from home this time. But I digress.

Bring No Clothes is a truly awful book about the fashion of the Bloomsbury group. I struggle to think of any redeeming features. It is shorter than the hardback makes it seem, but this is simply false advertising, and not a virtue. It chooses to give each chapter heading its very own entire page to sit on, to blow the letters up to an absurd size with liberal line spacing in the style of a panicking high school student, to pepper the book with black and white photos of dresses remarkable for their color. The hardcover copy I read pretends to have 340 A5 pages, and I would be surprised if it got to 100 with reasonable formatting. In truth it is a nothing but a handful of hastily concatenated half-written filler articles and a couple of unpublishable magazine features stuck between two hard covers for no apparent reason, an unfilmed script for a "video essay" (read: summary) that would be too long to watch and too short to say anything.

It is really quite literally a series of magazine articles. Charlie Porter is a fashion journalist, and his work on the book speaks to his total inability to adjust his writing style to the medium, the astonishingly poor standards in fashion journalism, and the seeming absence of any editing whatsoever on the part of the publisher. Though possibly it was edited, and earlier drafts were even worse. Somehow. There is no coherent theme to the book, no throughline connecting the individual chapters. There are entire chapters that are obviously unnecessary and poorly conceived, which would presumably have been removed if not for the desperate need to pretend the book is so much longer than it really is. Lastly, for some reason image descriptions are done in-line rather than through captions. Is this common in fashion journalism? It sucks to read, in any case.

The writing is shit. It's so unbelievably bad. Borderline unreadable, the structural issues with the book as a whole are reproduced even at the level of individual sentences. Porter's chief flaw is that he is preposterously self-absorbed. He is either unable or unwilling to separate his own impressions and delusions from reality. He spends substantial sections of most chapters writing about the personal experience of researching and writing the book, and plenty of other insufferable personal trivia besides. To pull that trick off without boring the reader takes extraordinary talent, personal charisma, and varied and interesting life experiences, none of which Porter seems to have. Not an amazing range of vocabulary on display either, and somehow I doubt this was a deliberate effort to keep the reading difficulty down. The miserable structure, constant pointless personal asides, and general inability to express what few ideas Porter may or may not have render the book a truly tedious slog.

When reading a non-fiction book, I would like to be able to pick out something I learned about the topic, some basic point of interest. It is impossible in this book, which contains nothing but boring accounts of relationships between seemingly insufferable people. Porter's narration does bring his protagonists to life in places, with some help from direct quotes. Unfortunately, they are brought to life as some of the most annoying egotists you've ever met in your life, which admittedly seems quite plausible for British upper class twits (well, mostly twits). Still, I don't put too much stock in that characterization, as it could very easily be projection by the blatantly self-absorbed author.

I generally try to recommend books to sorts of people who I think would like them, whether or not I was a fan myself. I suspect I am a poor judge of appeal, ultimately, but I try nonetheless. I think nobody should read this book, ever, for any reason. It is not that the book is evil. Reading evil has merit. The book is just bad. There are people who would like it, probably. Those people, in particular, should not read the book, as I suspect it would inhibit their development. Everyone involved in the production and distribution of the book should feel shame proportional to their degree of responsibility for what they have inflicted on the world in general, and on me in particular.