#why are we having discourse about the same things over and over and over again

[goldfades]

Heyy girlie I’m literally in love with your Luka content and I think you write the crash out couple relationship beautifully! So do you think we can have something semi long or longer maybe, whatever you wanna do! About maybe how people were calling Luka overweight how they’d both react to it and then something about Luka first game against the mavs as a laker?

Thank you! I love you writing.💕

BIG BOY ───── LUKA DONCIC

free palestine carrd 🇵🇸 decolonize palestine site 🇵🇸 how you can help palestine

⟢ ┈ 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 | 1k

⟢ ┈ 𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐲 | -> Luka overweight how they’d both react to it

⟢ ┈ 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 | nothing but some self doubt, but it's very fluffy<3

You first heard it on the broadcast, but you didn’t think much of it.

Some offhand comment from an analyst, something about Luka’s “conditioning” and how he was “carrying extra weight.” It wasn’t the first time you’d heard it, and it probably wouldn’t be the last. You barely blinked, barely let it register—because, frankly, you didn’t care.

But then, it spread.

Clips from the broadcast turned into Twitter threads, which turned into entire segments on sports talk shows, where they dissected Luka’s physique like it was up for debate. They threw around words like soft and out of shape as if he wasn’t averaging near a triple-double every night, as if he wasn’t dropping thirty on people’s heads like it was nothing.

And Luka? Luka acted like it didn’t bother him.

Which is why you knew it did.

He played it off with the same easy confidence he always had, smirking through postgame interviews, saying things like, “I don’t care what they say, I know how I play.” And sure, he probably meant it. But there was something different. You saw it in the way he stared at his phone a little longer after games, in the way he lingered in front of the mirror, in how he skipped dessert one too many times for it to be a coincidence.

So, one night, while he was sprawled on the couch, scrolling through his phone, you climbed onto his lap and snatched it out of his hands.

Luka groaned, already knowing where this was going. “Babe—”

“You better not be looking at that dumbass discourse.”

“I’m not.”

You raised an eyebrow.

He sighed, tilting his head back against the couch, running a hand through his hair. “Okay. Maybe a little.”

You huffed, placing his phone on the coffee table before turning back to him. He was looking at you now, that guarded expression he got when he didn’t want to talk about something but knew you weren’t going to let it go.

“You know you’re not built like some twig, right?” you said, voice softer now. “And that’s a good thing. There’s more to love.” You smirked, running a hand over his chest, then down to his stomach, where you gave a light squeeze. “My big boy.”

Luka groaned again, but this time it was different—more exasperated, more affectionate. He grabbed your hand, lacing his fingers through yours, shaking his head with a small smile. “You’re ridiculous.”

“And you’re fine as hell.”

That got a laugh out of him, low and warm. He pulled you closer, arms wrapping around your waist, resting his forehead against yours.

“You don’t care at all?” he murmured.

You kissed him, slow and deliberate, letting it linger before pulling back just enough to look him in the eye.

“Not one bit.”

Luka hummed at your words, something thoughtful behind his eyes even as he smirked. His fingers pressed into your waist, kneading absentmindedly, as if he was committing every inch of you to memory.

"Not one bit, huh?"

You shook your head, resting your hands on his chest, feeling the steady rise and fall of his breathing beneath your palms. "Not one bit."

Luka sighed, dramatic now, tilting his head back against the couch. "So you're saying you don’t think I should be shredded? All abs, no stomach?"

You scoffed, rolling your eyes. "Absolutely not. If I wanted to date a protein-powdered gym bro, I would have." You squeezed his side again, grinning. "You're perfect, exactly how you are."

Luka groaned, but you could feel the way his body relaxed under your touch, the tension he'd been carrying for days starting to ease. "You sound too convincing."

"Because I am convincing," you said, pressing a kiss to his jaw. "And also because it's true."

His arms tightened around you, pulling you flush against him. "Mmm, maybe I should start listening to you instead of Twitter."

"Now that would be a genius idea." You flicked his ear playfully. "What, you think NBA Twitter is a better authority on your body than me? Your very devoted and very hands-on fiancée?"

Luka snorted. "Oh, so now you're an expert?"

You gave him a deadpan look. "I literally have my hands on you right now."

"Fair point," he muttered, grinning.

You leaned in, your voice quieter now. "It bothers you more than you're letting on, huh?"

Luka exhaled through his nose, his grip on you shifting slightly. "I mean… I try not to care. I know I’m playing well. I know I’m not—” He hesitated, shaking his head. "I know I'm not out of shape like they say. But I see it all the time. I hear it. It gets in my head sometimes."

Your expression softened, and you reached up to smooth a hand over his hair. "Luka, people are gonna talk no matter what. If you were shredded, they'd say you lost too much weight. If you were heavier, they'd call you lazy. It’s never about your game—it’s just noise. And you don’t owe anyone an explanation about how you look."

He was quiet for a moment, his blue eyes searching yours like he was trying to absorb everything you were saying.

"Besides," you added, shifting your weight slightly on his lap. "I like you exactly like this. You’re strong. You’re solid. You’re you."

Luka tilted his head. "So if I ever did get super ripped, you wouldn’t like me anymore?"

You rolled your eyes. "I'd love you no matter what. But if you ever get so shredded that I can't use you as a personal pillow anymore? We might have problems."

Luka laughed, deep and real, and you felt the last of his tension melt away. He kissed your shoulder, his nose brushing against your collarbone. "Guess I should keep a little something, then."

"Exactly," you said, looping your arms around his neck. "For my sake."

"For your sake," he echoed, amusement flickering in his eyes. Then, after a beat: "You really don’t care at all?"

You cupped his face in your hands, looking him straight in the eye. "Luka. I love you. All of you. Every inch." Your thumb traced over his cheekbone, your voice firm. "And I promise you, there is nothing wrong with you."

Luka swallowed, his jaw tightening slightly like he was holding something back. Then, slowly, he exhaled, nodding.

"Okay."

You arched a brow. "Okay?"

He smiled, small but genuine. "Okay."

Satisfied, you kissed him—slow, deep, lingering.

And that? That said more than words ever could.

[shifuaang]

'The scar discourse is still going' - actually ya'll chose to blow up a post I made FOUR years ago and make it an issue. There's something wrong with this fandom fr.

Let your anger out, but then let it go.

[cherrymoonvol6]

.

[transmutationisms]

forgive me if I'm being obtuse, but isn't every medical diagnosis an artifact of human taxonomic schemes? I know I'm not treading new ground here and that diseases/medical conditions aren't like, drawn from thin air in the way a lot of psychiatric conditions are i suppose it just confuses me a bit

no, & this is ancillary in some ways to what i'm actually criticising about psychiatry. it's true there are non-psychiatric medical diagnoses that work analogously to psychiatric ones: think ME/CFS, hEDS, fibromyalgia, most things that have 'idiopathic' in the name. these are names given to clusters of symptoms, like the way that psychiatric labels are just names for a certain set of behaviours. we don't know what causes these issues, though people have various theories and there is (a varying amount of) research ongoing that aims to find the etiologies.

however, that's not the case for all non-psychiatric diagnoses. think about a viral or bacterial infection, a torn ACL, or Down syndrome. these are diagnoses that do refer to specific infectious agents, anatomical problems, genetic variants, and so forth. that doesn't mean the diagnosis is always easy to make, or that it's always made correctly, but it does mean that when you are diagnosed with one of these problems, a specific cause is being identified (& sometimes they might even be right). it's not just a convenient shorthand name for a group of symptoms, even though of course, most things that are diagnosed are done so because they cause and are associated with symptoms. (most but not all lol.)

psychiatry is distinct as a discipline in that all of its diagnoses function the first way i described. they are not referring to disease entities or processes; there is no credible hypothesis for a biological etiology. why? fundamentally, because the psychiatric diagnoses generally exist to pathologise socially unwanted behaviour: the taxonomy is a reflection of a political agenda and the priorities of clinicians. it's not even really an adequate framework for grouping patients together, because you get placed in a category based only on, again, external manifestations (behaviours). who says any two people who hallucinate or cut themselves are doing it for the exact same reasons? well, no one, because again, even getting the same psych diagnosis doesn't indicate anything about an actual etiology or underlying biological process or anything. there is no referent; the psychiatric diagnosis is only defined heuristically and circularly.

many people are confused by this because, in both popular and professional discourse, psychiatric diagnoses are consistently spoken about as though they DO refer to an underlying discoverable disease or disease process. despite hundreds of years of looking for such things, psychiatrists are yet to find any, and if they did, the condition in question would be reassigned to the relevant medical specialty, because psychiatrists also cannot treat infectious agents, anatomical problems, harmful genetic variants, and so on. (when i worked as a bibliographer we used to have extremely funny arguments over whether materials pertaining to the psychiatric search for biological disease processes should be categorised under psychiatry, neuroscience, medicine general, philosophy of medicine, 'science and society,' or just 'controversies and disputes' with no real subject label.)

to be clear, when i say psychiatric diagnoses aren't referring to known or discoverable disease processes, that's not a moral indictment. it's not an inherently bad diagnostic process, provided the patient understands that is what the process actually is. sometimes we just don't know yet what we're dealing with; sometimes a heuristic diagnostic label is just a way of billing insurance for a treatment that we know helps some similar patients, even if we don't know why.

however, with psychiatric diagnoses, evidence for such efficacy is widely lacking and often even negative; this is fundamentally because psychiatric diagnoses are not formulated on the basis of patient needs but on the basis of employer and state needs to cultivate a productive workforce and by corollary enforce a notion of mental 'normality.' all medicine under capitalism has a biopolitical remit; psychiatry has only a biopolitical remit. it has never at any point succeeded in making diagnoses that refer to demonstrable disease processes, because that's definitionally not even under its purview. these diagnoses have never been satisfactorily shown to be related to any disease process—and why should we expect that? historically, that's not what they exist for; it's not the problem they were invented to solve. they are social technologies; they're not illnesses.

[myfandomrealitea]

okay, so- this is coming from someone who really hasn't engaged in fandom discourse, especially regarding shipping and such. I dearly hope this doesn't come across as bait or troll, I'm genuinely curious and want to learn. apologies for the possibly-dumb question, but I really just need to ask-

what is proshipping? and what are 'antis'?

you know how it is, when you ask around you always get a biased answer one way or another. "proshippers are pedos" "proshippers all condone incest" "proship Bad and if you interact You Are Bad" (i think these are 'anti' points of view? am i using that term right? that's the rhetoric ive mainly heard). but despite all of that, i don't know if ive ever actually gotten a straight answer as to just.. what it factually is. because it doesn't feel like the sort of thing that you can boil down to insults or accusations or whatnot. it's all just very confusing to me, especially because i come from a place that essentially just told me to avoid like the plague and never look back. sorry, this became a bit of a ramble, lol. thank you so much in advance, i hope i'm not being a bother or insulting with this ^^;

The modern term; 'proship' (s.a; 'proshipping' and 'profiction') is an evolution of an earlier fandom acronym known as: 'SALS.'

Ship And Let Ship

SALS was one of the earliest fandom adoptions and interpretations of the concept of not bullying others for what they shipped or their fandom interests, and not trying to control or dictate what was "allowed" to be shipped or enjoyed. The most notable origin of SALS was during the early years of accessible fandom via Star Trek, and the present homophobia and misogyny in a largely male-dominated community.

As woman became more involved in fandom spaces, the presence of 'other' ships and pairings began to increase. M/M, F/F that wasn't purely for sexual gratification, and M/O and F/O (where 'O' is Other) pairings were popular amongst women, much as they still are today.

Not only did the presence of women in a "male space" receive a not insignificantly negative reaction, so too did them filling the fandom space with their shipping content. Now; sexism and misogyny and homophobia were not entirely to blame. Again as is still very much present today, people simply Did Not Like Certain Ships or Characters. And as they still do today, they'd spread hate about them and to the people who did enjoy them.

Thus: the birth of SALS.

(In other words: I like what I like and it has fuck all to do with you. Shut up and move on.)

Back then, SALS was mostly contained to just that. Ships and characters. Since back in that era 'taboo topics' and 'sexual content' were still pretty covert, people weren't exactly arguing the merits of incest in public forums and at conventions.

However, as all things do, the internet evolved. Society evolved. Media evolved. And so too did 'SALS' evolve in keeping with the new culture and subjects present in fandom spaces.

Suddenly it wasn't just ships and characters to be advocated for. It was themes. Subjects. Kinks. Plots. The more things people found to enjoy, so too did the more things people found to hate.

'Proship' is actually grammatically pro-ship. As in; in support of shipping. This is why I always state that the modern conceptions of proshipping would more accurately be coined profiction. It is no longer just about ships, but fiction as a whole.

However; the core value and sole inherent point of being proship, SALS, profiction and so forth remains exactly the same:

[I/We] believe you have no right to harm others over the [ship/content] they create or consume and [I/we] do not have the right to dictate what is or is not allowed in fandom spaces.

That's it. Don't harass people for what they enjoy fictionally. Don't try to force them into not enjoying or being able to enjoy it.

Of course, the modern adaption varies wildly in terms of 'additional values' thanks to the evolution of the term and what it can encompass. However, there is certainly no obligation to:

Create or consume content you are uncomfortable with.

Create or consume content regarded as 'taboo' or 'triggering.' Such as incest.

Be involved with any aforementioned content beyond turning a blind eye if its not your thing.

Inherently, anyone who says they're 'neutral' on the matter but firmly believes in minding their own business is just a proshipper refusing to use the label if you're taking the term solely at its core value.

In terms of 'antis' they're just the antithesis of the above. Antis are people who generally believe that fiction is irrevocably tied in with who you are, what you believe/condone, and that real-life limitations and values should also apply to fiction.

Although, its is heavy debated and it wildly varies per individual to the degree this is taken.

(E.g: some 'antis' believe you should only write rape fic if you are a victim using it as catharsis or education. Other 'antis' believe there's absolutely no excuse or reason to write rape fic at all.)

Antis typically believe that enjoyment or being invested in content which is regarded as harmful or illegal in real life is morally unsound and reflects that you're a bad or morally unsound person.

Although I disagree, I can honestly say in some aspects I do understand this reasoning. I don't agree, but I do understand why people may come to that conclusion.

As with proshippers, antis vary from people who simply ignore and block content they don't agree with to radicals.

'Anti' is again a prefix. Although modern adoption of the term uses it as a singular signifier, it would grammatically be anti-[fandom], anti-[character], ect. As was commonly used in the past.

The rhetoric that all proshippers are pedophiles or support incest is common-spread and effective 'anti' propaganda. Similar to how so many people believe 'proship' inherently signifies that you must create and/or consume taboo or darker content.

It doesn't.

¹ Proship may also be accurately termed as simply: 'anti-harassment.' ² Its important to note the 'definition' of these terms may vary wildly depending on the individual. However, detailed above is the most historical use and evolution of the terms and their definitions.

[mochifiction]

I’m totally not back for some Late Night Transformers One discourse…who said that…I wanna address something I’ve seen in some of the feedback for the film that, I don’t know, irks me…? One of these things is the fact that “Orion is an asshole” or “immature and stupid” and therefore people don’t like him. I don’t know how to say this, but…he’s like that in a lot of continuities. Orion, in most variants, is a smartass. He has a mouth which gets him both a platform and also in trouble. He also has a habit of seeing short-term solutions to long-term issues. These are things that have existed for a long time, and I think those who have been calling him unlikeable or an ass haven’t seen his variants in the source material. People who also expected him to be a data clerk and throwing a fit about the fact that he’s not also need to realize that it’s a COMIC FRANCHISE. You won’t get the same story every time, and to expect a new continuity to fall back on the sole continuity YOU want is honestly insane. If we regurgitate the same narrative over and over again, the franchise loses originality. Audiences for other franchises have also voiced disdain when their favorite pieces of media get repetitive. This is also a reminder to people that Orion Pax and Optimus do not have the same exact personalities. That’s the whole point and why some people grieve Orion’s absence. To expect him to be the likable gentle giant we know as Optimus Prime right away is an impossible demand to be met. Not only that, but this isn’t even the film relying on one version of Orion, but a mosaic of them all.

I also saw people saying D-16 switched on Orion way too quickly. I’d also argue here that other continuities did similar behavioral changes. In Aligned, Megatronus literally turns his back on him and abandons him at the Council meeting. The behavior is shockingly abrupt, which hurts Orion because he didn’t understand what he could have possibly done wrong. I’d also argue that, in this film, you see multiple times where D-16 is irritated with Orion’s sense of almost immature and irresponsible justice. It’s subtle but then leads to a quick snap. The behavioral change is supposed to be jarring. You’re supposed to feel like it comes out of nowhere.

I am half asleep writing this so I can make another in-depth post when I’m more alive, but I just wanted to remind people they only had an hour and forty minutes to display how a civil war occurs. That’s very hard to do as someone who studies and writes about revolutions and anti-colonial resistance. With the time they had, it was a good job. I only pray people read the source material before giving CinemaSins-esque critiques as well. No Transformers film is perfect. This one definitely wasn’t trying to be.

[pathologicalrunaway]

i saw that one tumblr post about how aviary cheapens the point of sky as a story (the civilisation is lost and all we know are only shadows of what was before; but aviary brings everyone back and we coexist now, instead of being two generations that were never supposed to meet) reposted on reddit a while ago and i have a couple of thoughts on this matter.

because one hand, i do agree that there was a bittersweetness in walking through a dead world that was lost. that aviary feels alive and the world is supposed to be dead. but i think a crucial aspect of this whole discourse (lore-wise) could lie in the first character aviary can be associated with. and this character — and their little village — do not really contradict the point of the game, but contribute to it

hopeful steward. they are, first things first, a child. like we are, as players. and children are often associated with hope for a better future, and this game is no exception. it's up to the children to bring light back, it's us and our connections that make sky a happy place. it's us that bring hope in the fact thay maybe, maybe not everything is over yet. that there's still something to admire, something to love, something to believe in.

steward is the one waiting in front of the village doors, they are the one showing us how to bring back the village, so it would make sense to assume that the village is their idea and, to an extent, their responsibility.

they are in charge of this silly little community like elders once were, but the elders fell. they made bad decisions that led to the world's destruction. this is mostly speculation, at least now, and we should wait for two embers to give us the whole picture, but it looks like the reason why aviary exists is because the world was on the verge of collapse and hopeful steward (and a couple more people) wanted — if not to prevent this — at least to try to save someone.

a second chance for the dying world.

they were hoping for a better future despite the inevitable doom. they had hope in the fact that, even in those dark times, the world would bounce back.

and their name says a lot about them. they wake up to see their home destroyed, their friends gone, the bells broken. the only thing alive is the child with a candle in front of them. but they don't succumb to despair, they keep faith, showing the newcomer around, explaining what happened.

they have no reason to believe that the kid that has just fallen fron the sky can restore light. they have no proof they are even able to do such things, that they are strong enough. they just hope.

and their hope pays back, eventually, after oh-so many losses. the world — and, most importantly, its people, — are saved. maybe not in the way any of them wanted but hey, life's tricky like that.

hopeful steward and their village refraim the point of the story, not destroy it. we spent years wandering in an empty kingdom haunted by the ghosts of what once were its people, not knowing what happened, or who they used to be, or if there was a way they could be happy again. and now we know that dark times don't last forever. trees grow back when people leave cities, animals return to where progress preciously exiled them from, and humanity bounces back. life is a cycle, and nothing just stays gone forever. good times come, eventually. with hope and friendship and love.

but it doesn't mean things are exactly the way they used to be, no. the realms are still destroyed. people look very different now. aviary village grows, but it's slow and painful and we are constantly reminded of how nothing is the same anymore (nesting guide looking wistfully at the picture, compassionate cellist and duets guide's dream coming true far too late). many go to the stars because this is an option now, and there is no guarantee the village's inhabitants will stay there forever, just like there was no guarantee back then that they would live there happily ever after.

and eden stayed the same. at the end of the day, all the loss and pain and mistakes of people there were before us is still here. it's just now we're stopping mourning the past and focus on the present instead

[the-sleepy-conductor]

Hot take that will probably earn me a ticket to the guillotine:

I've seen a lot of discourse going around all over the place about Blankshipping and Blankshippers in general, and after thinking about this for almost a whole year, I just have to get this out.

Can we please just stop the hostility and threats to Blankshippers?

If you do not want Blankshippers to interact with your content, you can say so politely, without threatening people we don't know behind a screen. Set boundaries in an intro post for instance, but don't attack anyone while doing so.

Lately I have seen literal death threats towards Blankshippers, with a good number of them being insanely graphic. I don't care if it's in a "joking" manner, that is never ok. So many people comment about how the Submas community has been growing toxic and problematic and such, and these same people are out here posting death threats to people they don't even know simply for just existing in the Submas community. In what world is that not toxic itself?

Are you allowed to feel uncomfortable about Blankshipping and proshipping? Yes. Is it ok to insult, threaten, and ridicule those who participate in making such content? Absolutely not.

If Blankshipping makes you uncomfortable or if the content is upsetting or triggering to you, block the tag and move on. Please do not harass or berate the original poster, it solves absolutely nothing. The internet is for everyone to use and it will not revolve around others' preferences. It is up to you to curate your own experience.

For example, I have the Submas Angst tag blocked because sometimes having gut-wrenching angst suddenly pop up in my face while I'm scrolling can make an already bad mood worse. So I filter the tag so I get a warning on a post with that tag, so if I don't feel like seeing it, it's as easy as that. Do I harass the original poster for posting content that could potentially make me upset? No!

Speaking of tags, I feel like as long as content is tagged appropriately, there shouldn't be a problem. As long as the original poster makes an attempt to tag things accordingly, then that should be perfectly fine. And again, as for interaction, kindly state your boundaries, everyone is human just like you and sending threats directed at certain individuals for what they take interest in is downright wrong. This applies to Blankshipping, as long as content is tagged as Blankshipping, especially if it's NSFW, then there is no problem. As far as I know, I've only had to block one Blankshipper and that was because they kept creating several different accounts and following me one by one, all of which had NSFW Blankshipping as the profile picture, and I repeatedly told them to stop. That being said, not all Blankshippers are bad.

That being said, do I enjoy Blankshipping or consume such content? No. In fact it makes me very uncomfortable but I have no issues whatsoever when it comes to Blankshippers interacting with what little content I have made. However, I have made it very clear I do not want my content tagged as Blankshipping. They can like and reblog if they want, but as long as there's no Blankshipping tags, we're all cool here.

Please understand that nine times out of ten, Blankshippers are not going to shove Blankshipping content in your face like you think they will. They most likely have a whole separate account dedicated to that ship, and a different account for whatever else they want. There's no need to act like folks who "secretly" have a Blankshipping account have committed a war crime. What harm is being done?

Long story short, can we please stop harassing each other? Not just over Blankshipping, but in general? Especially when it comes to gatekeeping the twins, I don't know why there's been so many people doing that lately. But my overall point is, can everyone please just stop fighting? I'm not trying to be a pick-me or whatever you may want to call it, it's just exhausting and draining seeing so many threats aimed at so many different people. I know this essay is technically controversial within this community but I can't keep my silence anymore.

[dropoutconfessions]

Everyone’s allowed to feel how they feel about K. You do not HAVE to like K. K is an imagination people and does not matter compared to reality people.

The actual problems that I think all this discourse is stemming from is a problem in not just fandom here but in fandom as a whole. It’s a problem of trends: Why is our attention so frequently held by the masculine and white? Why, when we expand the world and look into the interiority of side characters, is our focus so targeted on white men? Why are women so overlooked, why are people of color so often ignored?

This is a wider issue. A trickling down of real world racism affecting our little play spaces. And the problem is that an issue which appears in larger trends, an issue that is a general pattern of behavior, is not easy to fix. We can’t fix this by harassing individual people. We can’t fix this by ignoring it. We definitely can’t fix it by pretending like its a problem here and only here rather than everywhere.

I wouldn’t be so bitter about K and dislike of K if I wasn’t overly sensitive to the idea of POC and femme characters getting the short end of the stick. I wouldn’t be so apprehensive about SamEvan, which is a frankly adorable and lovely ship, if I could trust people in general to act right about black women. I wouldn’t be so mad when people call Jammer and his friends rude while ignoring anything Evan did if I hadn’t seen it as the start of a malicious pattern.

If I hadn’t been in fandoms where every single woman got called a Hideous Bitch and every single person of color was Secretly Evil then I wouldn’t even be posting this. If I hadn’t seen people latch onto men with three lines and refuse to even consider thinking about women with entire arcs, I wouldn’t care about the lack of K posts. It would just be opinion. But it’s not just opinion when it happens over and over again to the same kinds of characters every time.

I don’t think it’s that bad in the mismag fandom. I don’t WANT it to get that bad here. But I don’t know how else to stop it, so I type up little confessions, and I hope someone reads them and thinks about this shit a little bit before they post.

I think people should calm down and stop insulting each other. I think people should take a break, if they need one, from fandom. I think people should leave each other alone and quit passive aggressively throwing ‘shade’ at opinions they don’t like because there is NOTHING wrong with individual opinion. There IS something wrong with the pattern its a part of but you can’t blame a person for a pattern you see in them or else you’ll end up snapping at a monster that isn’t even there yet.

Most of what I want is for people to think about how they think. Nobody has to stop liking Evan (ofc) but it is and should be concerning that even in this relatively progressive space, I keep seeing the same patterns creep their subtle and insidious way into the things I love.

I think we can all do better than this. I think we can do much better. I think we deserve better, all of us, than all of this.

-

[jeonscatalyst]

https://www.tumblr.com/jeonscatalyst/760242773222883328/this-all-of-this-and-every-single-bit-of-this?source=share

I do agree with this person's analysis of Jimin and Jungkook personalities, and I also agree that to some extent Jungkook's affection being rarer than Jimin's does make it more special to some fans, but where I disagree is that I don't think that's the main reason why fans seem to put more weight in what Jungkook does than what Jimin does.

Because while some fans will put this much thought on the differences in jikook's personalities, I don't think it's the majority that does. It's kinda of a problem we have actually. If people realised that Jimin and Jungkook are two different people with different ways of showing affection, then we wouldn't have to keep seeing the same stupid takes on their relationship over and over again. It's people expecting jikook to always do to the other the exact same thing the other did to them that causes so much annoying discourse.

But you know what a lot of shipper do love doing? Competing with one another. Competition is one of the main things in every k-pop fandom and sub-fandom, shippers are no exception. And when it comes to jikookers we all know the competition is with taekookers. We're always at each other's throats, let's be honest. And some spend just as much time taking about the rival ship as they do talking about their own ship.

Which leads me to what I believe is the real main reason why both sides (not just jikookers) view Jungkook's actions as more important. It's because he's the in-common person to both ships. He's like the main character in a love triangle. He's the one that ultimately decides who gets together in the end, not the two love interests, so their actions don't matter as much.

The point of contention with shippers has never really been whether or not Jimin or Taehyung like Jungkook, that's already assumed to be the case. With solos it's definitely an argument, but jikookers and taekookers focus more on each other than in solos. No, the real question has always been who does Jungkook like more: Jimin or Taehyung?

If Jimin declares his love for Jungkook jikookers will of course love that, but if Jungkook is the one who does it it'll matter more because it can be used against taekookers. Taekookers don't care if Jimin loves Jungkook or not, what he feels doesn't matter to them. Nothing Jimin says can prove anything to them. The confirmation has to come from Jungkook, that's the only way they'll care about it. And jikookers do care about one-upping taekookers. If we didn't we wouldn't spend so much time trying to prove to them that we're right.

There's been plenty of times when I've seen something that used to not matter suddenly become important the moment people realize it could be used in the shipping competition. It's a sort of 'I didn't care that much about that thing I have until I realized it could make the other side jealous'. Or 'I didn't want that thing until the other side got it and now I want it too'.

Things naturally hold more importance to people when those things have not only their own inherent value but also when they have the added bonus of pissing off someone you don't like. Jimin's love for Jungkook is important by itself but Jungkook's love for Jimin is seen as more important because it will also piss off taekookers.

I'm pretty sure that if the two biggest ships were jikook and vmin instead, then the most important thing suddenly would be Jimin's affection, regardless of how affectionate he is with everyone.

Again, I do agree some fans do consider jikook's differences and that that does influence how they value their actions, it's just that I think there's a bigger reason here.

I hope this didn't come across as me being a contrarian for the sake of it, I just wanted to add a separate perspective on the subject because I've had this opinion for a while and it seemed relevant to the topic. I also hope I was not to harsh on my opinions of other jikookers, but no fandom is without it's flaws and I think it's important to acknowledge them.

Anon, I owe you a cold beer right now because it seems like you read my mind.

This is exactly what I think too. It’s just mostly about the competition, the shipwars, the fights and the need to “win”. That’s really why people think Jungkook’s actions hold more meaning that Vmins. It’s like Jungkook is the prize that Vmin are desperately trying to win and every action or word of his is used as an affirmation or debunking. “Jungkook did this with Tae but didn’t do that with Jimin so Tae is his boyfriend”….just an endless cycle of bullshit.

Anyone who is mature and experienced enough understands that Jimin and Jungkook don’t have to express themselves exactly the same for things to be mutual. Jimin could say “I love you” to Jungkook and Jungkook wouldn’t say it back but would prefer to make a video of Jimin. So many people would say Jungkook didn’t reciprocate just because he didn’t do things exactly the way Jimin did when the truth is that he did, just in his own way.

When I see people coming up with useless takes or comparisons about their bond it pisses me off to no end because it’s the little things that Jungkook does. People would get pissed at Jungkook and say that he doesn’t show love to Jimin as much as Jimin does just because Jimin would constantly touch him, ask him to eat alot and is very vocal about his affection but Jungkook remembering that Jimin likes his food spicy and trying to make it just how Jimin likes it apparently means nothing because Jungkook wasn’t shouting on a roof top or Jungkook thinking of what to cook in Jeju and knowing that Jimin would love it doesn’t matter because he didn’t stand on a podium and announce it or Jungkook quietly getting water for Jimin and giving him to drink without him asking doesn’t mean a thing because he didn’t carry Jimin on his head. Sometimes I don’t even have the energy to argue because if only people understood Jungkook they would know that Jungkook doesn’t treat anyone the same way he does Jimin.

I personally can see how someone might naturally value Jungkook’s actions more because Jimin is a natural caring, nurturing and loving person to everyone so sometimes it is hard to tell if his actions mean more or it is just him being himself but with Jungkook, he tries as much as possible to be impartial but he just cannot help it when it comes to Jimin. He is pretty kind and caring towards everyone he loves too but not the same way Jimin does it plus Jungkook tends to go big when he expresses his affection for Jimin. So with Jimin we get little bits of love and affection more frequently than we get from Jungkook but once we get one from Jungkook, it is usually news worthy and kinda exclusive to Jimin so it hits harder.

I dunno. I might have gone off topic but like I said, I 100% agree with you.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Kim Messick at Salon:

During the 2024 presidential campaign and after, a recurrent theme among the commentariat was that liberal Americans shouldn’t be, well, mean to Donald Trump supporters. This admonition applied to words as well as sticks and stones; there were just certain things liberals shouldn’t say to, or about, Trump’s familiars. Foremost among these was any hint that proposing to elect a man with 34 felony convictions who had attempted a coup might signal a shortage of smarts, at least when it comes to politics. This, apparently, would be a very not-nice thing to do.  “[T]he liberal impulse has been to demonize anyone at all sympathetic to Donald Trump,” Nicholas Kristof intoned in The New York Times, imploring liberals not to “belittle” voters eager to send a sociopathic ignoramus back to the White House. Quoting the Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel, he then sighed that “scorn for people with less education [is] ‘the last acceptable prejudice’ in America.” In other words: Hey, all you smarty-pants liberals — you’re the real bigots here! Take that!

I have searched unsuccessfully for any other way to describe people able to gaze upon the human wreckage that is Donald Trump and conclude that he is fit for any office that doesn’t have bars. Well, I try — really, really try — to be nice to everybody. And I would never say that all Trump voters are stupid. Quite the contrary, actually; in many cases, I have no difficulty understanding why people would vote for this viper. If you are an oligarch who wants to turn the federal government into your valet (like, say, Elon Musk), then it makes perfect sense for you to support Trump, an oligarch wanna-be who will help you loot the treasury as long as you line his pockets and fawn over him. If, on the other hand, you are an oligarch who just wants the government to cut your taxes and let you poison the planet (like, say, the Koch Brothers), then, again, a vote for Trump is completely rational. Alternatively, you may not be an oligarch at all, just an average joe who loves Trump because he hates the same people you hate. In none of these cases would I say people are behaving stupidly. Despicably? Sure. But stupidly? Nah.  

But then we have voters like the ones in this Times piece from early December. Asked for one word to describe Trump, their choices include “common sense,” “compassion,” and “patriotism.” Keep in mind that they are talking about a man who suggested ingesting bleach could help cure COVID, put migrant children in cages, and tried to steal an election. Later, a truck driver says that Trump “believes in Christ,” while a lacrosse coach tells us that he “runs this country like a business,” though he does allow that it’s “tough for some people to see that.” Yeah, I confess to getting hung up on small details like the eight trillion dollars Trump added to the national debt. As for Trump the apostle of Christ, well, this brings to mind the words of the Duke of Wellington: “If you can believe that, you can believe anything.”

And this, in sum, is the problem. We’re not talking here about thinking that Mitt Romney’s views on marginal tax rates were incrementally better than Barack Obama’s, or, alternatively, that Ronald Reagan’s vigilance toward the Soviet Union was a better bet than Walter Mondale’s more dovish approach. These positions moved, more or less persuasively, within the space of rational discourse; perceptive, well-informed people could profitably debate them. But seeing Trump as a compassionate Christian, or as a brilliant businessman and avatar of common sense, signals an epistemic collapse so profound that it removes the opinion from the sphere of rationality and into that of pure, unfiltered credulity. There is simply no way for a person whose cognitive faculties are operating efficiently to hold these views. 

This is a strong statement, and I don’t want to be misunderstood. To be crazy when it comes to politics is not to be crazy in any global way. Most of the people in the Times piece are, I’m sure, perfectly competent in other areas of life — they hold down jobs, raise kids, socialize with friends, etc.. I’m sure, also, that they are perfectly nice people. But when it comes to politics they are willfully ignorant. There — I said it. I have searched unsuccessfully for any other way to describe people able to gaze upon the human wreckage that is Donald Trump and conclude that he is fit for any office that doesn’t have bars. It’s not a close call — it’s the only call. Trying to evade this fact makes it more, not less, difficult to understand what is happening in our politics. What we’re dealing with is nothing short of a crisis of political rationality — including the possibility, suddenly very urgent, that rationality may no longer be a concept of any relevance in politics. It is an explosion of irrationalism not seen in the West since the 1930s. Remember how that ended?

And it comes in many guises. A more subtle variant is to attribute the choices of working-class Trump voters to economic motives alone. Stranded in the blasted industrial heaths whose defunct smokestacks once sustained whole communities, they feel neglected, bitter, and vengeful — and Trump is their retribution. An excellent recent example of this approach is Jonathan Weisman’s “How Democrats Lost the Working Class,” which also appeared in the Times. His argument, put simply, is that Democrats in the late ’80s and early ’90s succumbed to the market triumphalism that attended the fall of the Soviet Union, dropping their advocacy of economic justice in favor of a corporate-friendly regime of globalization, low taxes, and deregulation. Now, a generation later, the results are in — shuttered factories, withered towns and cities, and a working-class so steeped in despair that suicide seems preferable to living.

Any blame for things that go south in America during Trump's term rest with the MAGA Cult.

[gotorux]

Fandom Discourse Analysis

Mentions of aging up, enjoying villian characters, and disliking popular characters.

Something I have noticed about anime becoming more popular and mainstream and also the rise in minors in certain spaces is a constant level of discourse over certain topics. I truly believe it’s a good thing anime has become more popular. However, as it brings in more viewers, I think it’s important too open up the conversation surrounding the necessity of distinguishing fiction from reality. There is a lot of posts I see while browsing tags and although I don’t post often I think something needs to be said about three very specific topics that, for me, mean a lot and seem to have a lot of discourse surrounding them. 

One of the things I see happening a lot lately within the community is the hatred against people for liking fictional characters who happen to be minors in their respective animes. The aging up dilemma. First off, let me start by saying that a fictional pixel on a screen does not = minor. It can not be a minor because it is a drawing that was made up whenever the author wrote it. And in a lot of these instances, these characters are crafted by the authors with traits that appeal broadly to audiences, transcending their canon ages. This is particularly evident in shonen anime, where characters are often depicted with maturity, wisdom, or exaggerated physical features that align more closely with adult aesthetics rather than with children. This stylistic choice by many authors is done purposely to cater to a wide demographic, enabling viewers to form connections with characters regardless of age. 

It's important to recognize that a great majority of the time it is NOT the age that attracts viewers to the character which differentiates them with people in real life who are attracted to minors. Having a crush on, or writing about a fictional character that, like I said previously more closely align with adult aesthetics, does not make someone a pedophile. I think when it comes to loli and shota, then yes maybe we can open up this conversation as those characters are made to look like children. But that’s another topic. Acknowledging the fictional nature of these characters and their resemblance to adult fictional characters should be taken into consideration and not be misconstrued as indicative of real-life inclinations towards minors. Not to mention many of these authors don’t want them to be minors which is why they write about them as adults. Again, these are NOT minors. They are drawings and their ages can be changed depending on who’s writing them. An author could come out tomorrow and say the character has always been an adult and that would make it canon. It is not the same as pedophilia. Most people like characters like Sukuna that doesn’t reflect their real life tastes. Which brings me to my next point. 

Liking a villainous character does not correspond to endorsing those actions in real life. Anime often portrays "evil" characters with a depth that makes them appealing through usually through some form of tragic backstory, a charismatic or confident personality, or having extremely complex motivations. I think this makes people often misunderstand that liking them is a reflection of one's real-world values. That is not the case. 

Some people even like these characters just for being attractive and due to the fact they are fictional, and again an authors way of getting people to appeal to said characters, it can not be misconstrued of saying that those actions would be okay in real life scenarios. These characters allow viewers to explore themes of conflict, redemption, and moral ambiguity that can be explored in safety because it’s fiction. I think one of the main reasons people find themselves drawn to them is that villian characters are often created with flaws and authors give them depth to explore said flaws. This is why anti-hero characters are also often seen as more relatable and engaging. Anti-heroes, like villains, aren't bound by the usual moral constraints and often make decisions that are more realistic than heroes would. They can express doubts, conflicts, and vulnerabilities that mirror real human experiences. This makes them intriguing and allows audiences to connect with them on a deeper level.

All that said I think the attraction to villainous or morally grey characters often stems from their complexity and the opportunity they provide for viewers to engage with difficult ideas and emotions in a safe, controlled setting. These characters challenge our perceptions of good and evil by navigating a blurred line between the two which is appealing for most people. 

The last thing I want to bring up which kind of ties in with liking villainous characters is that disliking certain characters beloved by others is not necessarily a negative stance. Anime characters are crafted with diverse backgrounds, personalities, and motives, which naturally produce varied reactions among viewers. Understanding a character's motives yet still disliking them is completely valid and should stop being treated as inherently wrong or a negative reflection of someone. 

People are allowed personal preference and I think that encourages a a better discussion within anime communities whereby differing opinions can coexist. It is through these discussions that fans can dig into character analysis and conversations revolving around characters. Recognizing that disagreement over characters is totally normal and that people can be cool with each other, or be friends and disagree is important in both real life and fiction. 

At the end of the day there is also the block button which I will admit I use when needed, if you disagree with someone’s take. Instead of sending them hate and being a horrible person on the internet. 

[feelthesturmanddrangintheair]

On Nosferatu and Dracula, Mina & Ellen

I loved Nosferatu but I hate the online discourse about it. It’s literally making me crazy. This is a pic of all of you bitches right now:

I have a huge problem with literal readings of this movie at all. It’s obviously not the point of the damned thing. But, Ellen/Thomas shippers, I'm coming for you now.

I’ve noticed people online, on tiktok, tumblr etc, shipping Ellen/Thomas the exact same way I’ve seen Mina/Jonathan since Dracula Daily. And the Mina thing already frustrated me, but the Ellen one makes me crazy.

(they’re not the same character)

But I guess I understand the instinct?

Modern vampire media is obsessed with the male vampire as the sexual/romance object. Twilight, Vampire Diaries, True Blood, Buffy. (Interview with a vampire doesn’t count (lol count) cause it’s all from Vamp perspective. Also it's profoundly gay). (However Anne Rice does get enormous kudos for basically dragging the vampire from hammer horror into boyfriend material, so it is relevant i guess?).

The modern approach is that the subtext has become text “Yes we do like dracula and we do want to fuck him thank you very much”.

It’s always been the subtext of Victorian vampire stories - which were riffing off the already dark, brooding male figures in literature before that (Rochester, Byronic heroes, also Byron) and combining them with Eastern folk tales. In the original Dracula Mina and her plucky group of fuckbois slay the vampire. He is defeated and good Christian morals are preserved.

However, Dracula is that bitch - he’s an object of fascination for everyone in the book, especially Mina. The title of the book is “Dracula” not “Jonathan Harker is a good husband actually”. 

In the late 19th century gothic literature, the vampire and the monster was The Other. They were feared but also hypnotic - a beguiling, seductive other. Some women gave in to such temptation (Lucy) and some stood stoic in the face of it (Mina). But the temptation was still there. That is why it is powerful to triumph over it.

The Text: Dracula is scary and we shall defeat him The Subtext: But also don’t you think Dracula is kinda sexy?

That is and remains the subtext in all good gothic horror novels of the 19th century: you don’t literally want to fuck death or a monster but also, maybe in your subconscious, you kinda want to fuck death. You might want to fuck the monster. Maybe you want to be bad.

So when movies began making vampire stories - Dracula, Nosferatu - this theme became stronger in the visual medium. The monster was sexual, and the tension of the film was always the push and pull of attraction and horror between it and the fair maiden.

Later in the 20th century, it became more explicit, like everything else. Sexy vampire movies and exploitation movies in the 70s give way to Francis Ford Coppola’s ridiculous, fantastic, opulent “Bram Stoker’s Dracula” in the 1990s. A film that labors with every breath to faithfully adapt the novel, then throws that labour away to turn Mina into Dracula’s reincarnated soul mate. I find this movie perplexing but fabulous. I have watched it probably 6 times in the past 3 years.

And then the 2000s teen vampire obsession. You have Buffy obviously, with her litany of vampire boyfriends (I’m a Spike fan - Angel is BORING). Hilariously for this discussion, Buffy is a slayer who dates vampires, so it’s less Mina/Dracula and more Van Helsing/Dracula. 

(huh there is a market for that)

But where Buffy took what Anne Rice did and turned it into a weekly fun drama for teens (and tweens who probably should not have been watching), Stephanie Meyer evolves the vampire again. Twilight exploded the Vampire Boyfriend into the mainstream. In the early 2010s you couldn’t escape YA vampire and monster boyfriend fiction. You even had the CW jumping on board with The Vampire Diaries ffs

So after Twilight, wanting to fuck a vampire or monster became somewhat mainstream.

In the 2020s, vampires being the main love interest has fully transcended the subtext from the original stories. The monster has become a protective puppy in our beds. Say it with me “We have defanged the vampire”. And like all big, crazy trends, eventually they run out of steam and become unfashionable. There is nothing particularly shocking left to milk from this archetype. Vampires became dull, untrendy, old news. They were supplanted by dystopias and fairy courts.

(I think ACOTAR is more honest about what readers actually want - most people aren’t monster fuckers. Most people’s interest in vampire erotica is rooted in a powerful, sexy, somewhat feminine man magicking you away from your hum-drum life. Twilight is the dishonest version of ACOTAR. ACOTAR says “Yeah we just wanna fuck Howl from Howls Moving Castle leave me alone”)

I digress.

Dracula Daily started in 2021. A simple idea: using substack, send the text of Dracula out, on the timeline that matches the epistolary novel’s dates. Tumblr being tumblr, we latch on and from 2022, the yearly run of Dracula Daily is an integral part of the tumblr experience. 

Like a book club with thousands of members, Tumblr has basically conducted a multi-year close reading and textual analysis of Dracula.

What has been most surprising is the volume of readers who have discovered the incredible character of Mina, and her sweet and strong relationship with Jonathan.

I think, in comparison to the often milquetoast relationship between these two on screen (I'll call it the cuckification of Jonathan) and the reduction often of Mina to a swooning maiden, Stoker’s original text is a revelation. 

In the book, Mina is a headstrong, intelligent and resourceful operator. Without her, the group would have failed and Dracula would have England in his thrall. The men around her respect her. She works tirelessly to save Jonathan in the first place, then England.

Jonathan and Mina make an excellent team - once reunited, her determination to extinguish the thing that killed Lucy, and his first-hand knowledge combines to help defeat him. A now oft-quoted section shows that when Mina has been bitten and is in Dracula’s thrall Jonathan writes:

“To one thing I have made up my mind: if we find out that Mina must be a vampire in the end, then she shall not go into that unknown and terrible land alone. I suppose it is thus that in old times one vampire meant many; just as their hideous bodies could only rest in sacred earth, so the holiest love was the recruiting sergeant for their ghastly ranks.”

Very sweet stuff. Very wife-guy. Isn’t Mina lucky?

So we now have so much fandom for Mina and Jonathan.

And it’s very sweet and interesting - it’s presented often as a radical, subversive take “I think Dracula sucks and is abusive. Mina and Jonathan belong together!”. It’s a classic “only on tumblr would this be considered a radical take”. But also “Only in the 21st century is this a radical take”.

It’s like Christine/Raoul shippers in the POTO fandom (I am one but however it’s because I truly do not think Christine is right for Erik. Read the masterwork “A Stroll on Sunday” that’s what I want for poor Erik). There’s nothing wrong with thinking the canonical breeding pair are well-suited; however the fixation on them and vilification of the interloping monster is perhaps missing the point of the entire text.

I’m so sorry Tumblr, thinking Mina should be with her Good Christian Husband Jonathan is not a life-altering take. Tumblr has subverted too close to the sun and started reinforcing Victorian values. We/Tumblr should be studied in a lab I stg. The brain gymnastics involved in this one is too insane.

And now we’re seeing this bleed into the Nosferatu discussion. I really liked and agreed with a lot of what Princess said in her video about Nosferatu & the Gothic Appetite:

But to bring this shipping focus to Nosferatu, is even more insane. Eggers' Nosferatu is far more focused on Ellen’s connection to Orlok than Dracula/Mina in the original Dracula text. I really liked what Eggers' said in this interview:

“In the novel, Stoker’s Dracula is seemingly moving to London, to England, for world domination. And, but this is all a demon-lover story. Ya know, Orlok is going to Wisborg for Ellen and no other reason. And that, that’s more interesting to me as a storyteller”

Nosferatu is different to Dracula in that it strips the vampire-hunting gang out of the text. It takes a lot of the unnecessary excess of the text and pairs it down to a fairy tale. One town, cut down the plot, remove excess characters, keep it simple. For me, I feel the result is way more focused than the original plot (and the Coppola movie).

Instead of Quincy, Seward and Arthur you just have Friederich. And Friederich is not a valiant hero like our noble trio. Instead of friendship and brother’s in arms saving the day, Friederich abandons Ellen and Thomas and succumbs to the monster. There is so much more darkness and despair in Ellen’s story because of this change. 

Those changes centralize the relationship between Ellen and Orlok in a way Dracula never did. It also does it in a less shit way then the Coppola film with its terrible reincarnation storyline.  

With Ellen and Orlok central, the Ellen/Thomas argument makes even less sense. Ellen cares about Thomas of course, she doesn’t want any harm to come to him.

But she also says to him “You could never please me as he could”. 

Thomas symbolises the status quo - a husband who leaves you to go to work, to ignore your strangeness and potentially also flatten it. Ellen says “It all ended when I first met my Thomas”. She grew up abnormal, supernatural and sexual - she alienated her father and family, and had a connection to a supernatural ancient demon during her teenage years. But the presence of Thomas removed that.

Some may see that as a saving grace - symbolising Thomas’ love as healing and protecting Ellen from the forces of darkness. That is a fairly simple, Christian reading - the healing love of matrimony and gender norms. However, you can also see this as a squashing of her powers and uniqueness. As Von Franz says:

“In heathen times you might have been a Great Priestess of Isis. Yet, in this strange and modern world your purpose is of greater worth.”

He does not view Ellen’s powers as an affliction but as matter-of-fact and part of who she is. He reframes those powers as something different - not a curse or possession. He compares her to the respected priestesses of an old world. 

Ellen chafes against the role of the good, noble wife. She does not want to be an angel in the house, and she does not want to be left at home while Thomas works. She clearly enjoys the honeymoon part of the marriage. The first scene we have between them Thomas gets ready to leave for work, leaving Ellen in bed crying: “The honeymoon was yet too short!”

It’s a Romeo and Juliet style scene - Thomas trying to leave the bedchamber as he must, and Ellen trying to convince him to stay and enjoy their married life. Thomas, like Romeo, does not realise the horrors that await him.

When he returns and tells her he must go away on a business trip, her reaction is less romantic and more frantic: she throws down the lilacs he bought her and eventually shrieks “Can’t you see that it doesn’t matter? If you leave nothing will matter!”

Throughout the movie Ellen fights Thomas leaving with everything she has. She has premonitions, she knows nothing good will come of his trip. She does not want to be a little wife and does not want to be left behind in domesticity. 

(this is in contrast to Anna and Friederich, who are blissfully happy in a traditional marriage. He talks of his sexual appetite, she produces babies for him. He runs a shipping business, she stays at home with their children. He is brash, masculine and doesn’t listen. She is sweetness and light, hosts their guests and never causes trouble. And they both die. Their goodness, their adherence to Christian values does not save them)

Ellen however plays the part of the hysterical woman. She does not remain quiet, she does not remain sweetness and light. She has fits, she is hypersexual, she speaks her mind and speaks about death.

If you watch Nosferatu and think Ellen would be happy as Thomas’ little wife at any point, I think you have missed the point. Thomas’ personality or qualities are besides the point - he is part of patriarchy, part of status-quo living, part of her subjugation and squashing her into a role she could never fit into. She says as much when he returns and they have their infamous fight by the fire:

“Well, where is it? Your money? Your promotion? Your house? Where is that which is so precious to you? Have you paid back kind Harding your debt? Have you repaid him with this plague that infects his wife?”

She is furious that she warned him not to leave her, that he did and the bad thing happened. That he seemingly sacrificed their love for a sack of gold. Women, in parts of culture and history, blocked from seeking work and income of their own, were therefore subjected to their spouses ambition and therefore neglect. If she was happy with having less materially, and more in her marriage, that was not a decision for her to make. Her husband made it, and the consequence was being left to her loneliness with an increasing brood of children to take care of.

Ellen does not want this. She spends the entire movie telling Thomas this. And at no point does he get it.

I think this is why it's so important that Orlok says:

“It is not me. It is your own nature… Love is inferior to you. I told you, you are not of Human kind… I am an appetite, nothing more”

Orlok is a symbol of all of Ellen that is not able to be seen, heard or appreciated in her world. She has an appetite of her own, love is inferior to power and control. In her marriage, unlike Anna’s, she is the one with the sexual appetite. She wants, she asks and calls. 

There is no future of Ellen and Thomas happily together. There is only death - either the way that played out in the film, or Orlok killing Thomas. But if Ellen and Thomas somehow defeated Orlok with both surviving, like Mina and Jonathan, I doubt they’d happily go on to have a child and name him Friederich. Ellen would leave, one way or another.

Ellen is a woman trapped in a society that does not want her, or at least wants to cut her down, contort her to the right size and shape. Reduce her expression, shut her up and leave her at home while the real men do the real work, including hunting vampires.

And this is why I find Stoker’s ending to Dracula so fucking frustrating. Mina is kept outside of the plans (for good reason - she has a channel to Dracula’s thoughts and worries he can see what she sees, but this is created by the author and so I get to critique it) and bears witness to the destruction of Dracula. While I don’t need a girlboss in every story, Mina is somewhat side-lined in this process and I don’t love it. She follows this by becoming the normal and good house wife to Jonathan and producing some progeny to name after their slain heroes.

(sidebar I think it would be more meaningful if Mina had a daughter and named her Lucy, the name of her dearest friend who was horrifically killed but don’t mind me)

Ellen is very different from Mina here. Her connection to Orlok is not the reason to keep her distance - it’s the reason she must get closer than anyone else. She takes control, speaking to Von Franz and getting what information she must to help her plan Orlok’s destruction.

Like many people, I see the final scene as both a sacred bond (a matrimony) and a heroic sacrifice. It can be both. Ellen can both know what she needs to do to save her love and the innocents around her (kill Orlok), she also knows she is the reason for their suffering (girl clean up your mess!) and knows that luckily, this is also what her dark heart has longed for.

It’s not often the thing you must do is also the thing you desperately, secretly want.

Ellen knows there’s no life after this. There’s no world where she becomes the happy mother and wife Mina Harker. There is only darkness and despair.

Eggers Nosferatu is a fairy tale that warns about the prospect for unusual, modern, sexual women. I read the ending of Dracula, of Jonathan saying “My wife is so happy now” and I think of Betty Draper shooting pigeons in the backyard. You’re telling me that educated, brilliant Mina Harker is happy being relegated to the home? There will always be something that rubs me the wrong way about Mina’s ending in Dracula, and the way the fandom has decided to blindly celebrate it. Ellen is an amazing antidote to that feeling.

Nosferatu is brilliant because it is honest about women and their status in this world. It allows room for Ellen and her own foibles. And it allows the darkness and the monstrous to coexist with the feminine. The ending is not a girlboss ending, it does not leave me feeling warm and fuzzy. It makes me uncomfortable - it is a gothic horror. The status quo is not maintained at the end of the movie - Orlok has disrupted their world, and it cannot be undone.

Ellen and Thomas are not a love story, and to pretend they are is to take the piss out of the entire thing.

[txttletale]

not the same anon but ive often seen transfems complain that transmascs will “refuse to let go of femininity” and “misgender ourselves” when we talk about how being treated as girls/women during our entire lives affects us materially and also psychologically. ive never understood that. where do you stand on that? Important clarifications: 1) i dont believe trans women, closeted or otherwise, pre or post transition, have male privilege. i dont believe the upbringing “discourse” is a zero-sum game (where if being raised female means tm experience misogyny, being raised male means tw have male privilege). 2) i dont believe in transandrophobia in any shape or form, I believe trans men suffer bc of misogyny and transphobia, and trans women bc of the same + transmisogyny. 3) im not trying to gotcha you or pick a fight i mean this entirely neutrally. im ready to accept that im wrong i simply want to understand why.

yea i mean, like -- obviously this is a subject that's really easy to bad-faith on either side but i think you're approaching in good faith so i'm going to answer in turn: i don't think any (serious) transfeminists begrudge that trans men have a lifetime experience of suffering directly from misogyny or that they discuss these things. i think there are obvious common experiences and solidarity to be found in these common experiences!

the times where i often see the argument that transmascs are 'misgendering themselves' is when they weaponize transmisogyny by self-infantilizing to paint an interaction they had or disagreement with a transfem as the transfem being 'predatory', 'threatening', etc -- transmisogynist trans men will very often do this, implicitly misgendering themselves by invoking the transmisogynistic spectre of the Big Scary Autogynophile sexually threatening the Poor Innocent Wombyn.

secondly, transmisogynistic transmascs will absolutely weaponize their own misogynistic trauma in disagreements with trans women -- it's not uncommon on this website for trans women trying to discuss transmisogyny to be met with paragraphs of transmisogynistic transmascs graphically describing their own experiences with sexual assault and violence, which again plays into the exact same stereotypes to the advantage of the transmasc in the situation.

similarly, transmisogynistic transmascs will also use language that groups them with cis women in an implicitly self-misgendering way for the sake of being transmisogynistic and excluding trans women. the most infamous version of this is the phrase 'women and AFABs' which gets tossed around quite often in so-called 'queer spaces', but there are also accusations of a universal 'male socialization' (used to paint trans women as aggressive, entitled, dangerous, etc, while trans men are harmless, demure, talked over by loud scary trans women, etc).

so tldr: i don't think any serious transfeminist begrudges trans men for talking about how misogyny has shaped their lives. when accusations of 'self-misgendering' come in is when (certain) trans men align themselves politically with transphobic cis women over trans women and use their own history with misogyny as a cudgel against trans women, or purposefully twist self-misgendering transmisogynistic narratives against trans women for their own personal advantage.

[graceofgondor]

since a couple of you (@nectarinesinthesun444 @perksofbeingpoet) asked, I figured it was worth posting

my dps ✨️hot takes✨️

disclaimer bc people get mad: these are just my opinions, if you disagree, that's okay!! people are allowed to coexist with different opinions. this is a post for friendly discussion only. please don't start discourse or block me just bc you disagree, I enjoy the fact that we all interpret this media in our own way. thank you.

alot of people flat out don't understand charlie as a character and mischaracterize him as a result. (hint: if you see him as just the funny one you need to watch the movie again)

I dislike movie knox just about as much as book knox. he's still entitled and selfish, and I don't think he deserved redemption. (I simply cannot see him in a fanon lens, I just don't like him)

I do however, wish he was written better. In that his character became all about chris, and less about his friends, which lost his character a bit, because occasionally I do see the potential.

while i like her more... i dislike chris. I obviously feel bad for what happened to her, but she is kind of a shitty friend if you think about it. she was constantly ditching ginny for boys (ergo: why i don't ship them) and quite literally cheated on her boyfriend, who was in fact, her friends brother.

relating to that, chet may be a meathead asshole just in general, but he did absolutely nothing wrong when it came to knox and that is a hill i will DIE on.

oh!! hey!! we shouldn't joke about the paddling scene!! literally ever!!!

the "except sex" line is taken way too far. it's not (canonically) gay. boys joke about sex. let's move on.

relating to that... i don't fault anyone for shipping anything legal—but some ships simply have no evidence in canon. (knarlie, chrisginny) and I'm absolutely terrified to say that... but it's true

in that same vein, many people mistake charlie's disapproval toward knox's methods with chris (especially the phone call scene) as jealousy—when in reality, it's just that—disapproval. this is a bit of an inconsistency issue, because this was much more evident in the book/original script—that charlie tended to push knox around a bit, especially about that, but regardless it's still disdain.

charlie isn't in love with everyone. he's just like that.

also— sexuality headcanons are also obviously fine. but if you say charlie is bi/gay/etc. ONLY (allow me to repeat—ONLY) because of his flamboyant tendencies, that is extremely stereotypical and rubs me so far the wrong way.

its okay to not like cameron for what he did. obviously he's not pure evil, but people are allowed to dislike a character for doing a bad thing. its not okay to be ignorant, but it is, in fact, okay to understand and still dislike a character.

already went over this kind of, but literally every poet (+the girls) gets mischaracterized and/or generalized on a large scale. like, why is half the fandom convinced pitts is braindead? and somehow, todd is incapacitated and has anxiety about everything?? I feel like the movie makes a point to say that these characters are nuanced and multifaceted, and yet they continue to be shoved into one box like two-dimensional high school archetypes.

[iiheartarc]

MY TAKE ON THE CAITVI DISCOURSE

total wordcount: 1591

I will say that I've briefly commented on their dynamic in the past, but it was worded really badly so I feel like I need to defend my writing skills a little bit as well with this, but that's just a sidenote. 💀

I think what a lot of people are missing when people do criticise CaitVi is that they aren't necessarily hating on the ship, it's what writing choices have done to it.

I'm not even going to even say I'm a CaitVi hater, I'm not (S1 CaitVi my beloved, you deserved better), but I do think the choices that writers made this season heavily effected how audiences portrayed the ship, even including myself.

Idk I hope this insight might give some people more perspective on why CaitVi became so hated in this season, people rlly need to start looking at both sides and not taking criticism as a personal attack. It really could've been avoided too if the writers had added more time or extended the series onto a third season, but that's another issue on its own.

1. Caitlyn hits Vi

I really don't get why people are so quick to defend Caitlyn on this one, especially considering the amount of hate Vi got when she hit Powder. Are both inexcusable? Yes. But I do think that the situation is a little different when it's a fifteen year old child who had just witnessed the death of her entire family and a twenty something year old woman who took out her anger and grief on the woman she loved because she blocked her shot.

I do think that people also do ignore the immense amount of trauma that Caitlyn suffered at the hand of Jinx, but unlike when Vi 'abandoned' Powder, (again, that's a whole other conversation, we know she was not abandoned), Vi was not that direct source of anguish to Caitlyn the way Powder was to Vi. (Pls lmk if you want me to expand further on this)

Again, not excusing Vi hitting Powder, I'm pointing out the differences.

It's then also incredibly tone deaf when Caitlyn hits her on two more occasions with the same gun, the third time being played off as a joke. It really doesn't come off well, especially when Vi had been a victim of police-brutality even before the abuse she faced at the hands of the enforcers in Stillwater.

And then, even after all this, it's never addressed. It's brushed over, like Vi's entire trauma in the show, the most we get is Caitlyn brushing her hand over Vi's abdomen in the cell scene. Again, can be taken as an apology, but I think that for some very specific things (like hitting your romantic partner), verbal apologies do need to be made in order to communicate healthily and somewhat build a healthier relationship.

I don't really want to talk about the abusive implications of this, because I don't think I'm someone who can talk about it with a full understanding because that's something I've fortunately never been through, but the blatant disregard and shunning of abuse survivors when they pull up the red flags raised because of this is disgusting. In real life, or if it had even been someone else in the show, if the ship had been a heterosexual relationship, people would call Caitlyn an abuser and would be outraged that Vi had been paired with her in the end. But I digress.

1. The cell sex scene

Initially I hadn't been too bothered about this when I had first watched the episode, but when you really think about it, it shouldn't have happened. Hell, they could've had sex in Caitlyn's office and half of the criticism wouldn't have happened, the ship wouldn't be so hated and the fandom wouldn't be half as divided as it is now (from what I've seen).

First and foremost, the cell.

All I can say is wtf. It was such a poor choice it's actually unfathomable to me now. I don't know why the writers thought that it'd be a good idea for Caitlyn and Vi to have their first time in a jail cell, not only the one Jinx had been locked in, but the one Vi had herself been locked in for what we can assume to be hours. The place of her abuse should not be somewhere where the writers could possibly think would be a suitable for a victim to have such an intimate moment with her partner.

Then there's the fact that Vi had looked to have had some sort of breakdown, we see she's sh and there are literal crates in the wall from where she punched it as well as her knuckles bleeding. As soon as she sees Caitlyn, there's a parallel to when they first met, to when Vi is quite literally caged. She's clearly not in the right state of mind, and so when the scene eventually happens it inevitably comes off as wrong because Vi is incredibly emotionally vulnerable in that moment.

"But Vi initiated it!" That still doesn't make it okay. I do think that this also came with an issue of timing, but then again, as I mentioned earlier, it literally could've been in the office as they argued and it would've been recieved so much better then the cell scene was. Vi wasn't breaking down, she wasn't locked in a reminder of the abuse she faced and her sister hadn't just ran off to do goodness knows what (in Vi's POV, us as the audience know exactly what she's about to do). They could've even have it fade to black and cut to the next scene tangled in bed doing whatever they would've been doing in the cell, Vi would assumably have had time to calm down, would be having sex in a warm and safe environment, and guess what? The audience would've been even happier.

Sure there would've been criticism, but Vi could literally save a thousand babies and adopt them all and still face hate, because a lot of the hate is being directed to Vi too because of the situation with Jinx. That, again, is a whole other situation.

3. "Dirt Under Your Nails"

Again, for the love of god, there can be so many takeaways from this sentence but do not be surprised that people didn't like it. I didn't, it made me cringe horribly.

And before people throw 'media literacy is dead', this whole post (practically essay), is analysing a piece of media that I love. To be literate, you can draw different interpretations and conclusions and that's exactly what I'm doing. It's like saying literacy is dead if two people were to disagree on what the meaning of Macbeth's quote 'I am in blood' meant.

I digress.

I think the main issue here is the class difference between Vi and Cait. Caitlyn is from the aristocracy, a direct heir to a position of power in Piltover, while Vi is lower class, effected indefinitely by growing up in poverty. Even though she grew up as Vander's kid, they were still 'scraping for scraps'. The wealth margin between the two is almost immeasurable, and with the difference in money comes a difference in experiences, as we - the audiences - know.

It especially comes off wrong considering the class tensions and political themes heavily focussed on within the first season. The conflict between Piltover and Zaun, the abuse of power and exploitation of Zaunites by both topside and the chembarons, the prevalence of police brutality on the streets of the Undercity. Again, Vi is someone who is directly effected by this, while Caitlyn came into this blissfully naïve. She did learn yes, and in s1 she was so determined to help, but when then this progress reverts into her calling zaunites 'animals' and using the grey as a weapon, it again makes Vi's words feel uncomfortable.

Again, I think this was a massive timing issue, I would've love to see Caitlyn succumb fully to a villain arc. It would've been so interesting to delve into.

I think Vi has always had the image of herself that she'll always be viewed as less by Piltover, that she herself views herself as less. She says it herself to Vander in s1 ep2 while they're on the bridge, "I grew up knowing I'm less than them." So when she then says as her final words in the show, "I'm the dirt under your nails" obviously, that's going to come across as tacky.

People are free to think of romantic connotations for this, I won't stop you, but when you think about how the show was so focussed on class tensions, police brutality, oppression and exploitation, it doesn't come off right. Idk, that's what got me so interested with the show in the first place, the way these themes were explored so deeply but subtly in a way that didn't feel forced, so Vi's words really rubbed me the wrong way.

Conclusion

So I hope everyone that read somewhat gets where I'm coming from, this was my attempt to try and explain what I think needed to be, badly. Again, you can like the ship, I'm not saying I don't, but it also needs to be acknowledged that there is so many things that could've been worked on properly, done properly or addressed properly, and ignoring criticism won't help these issues to be fixed in the future.

Feel free to ask any questions and thanks for reading this long ass rant :)