#you're deliberately reading this in bad faith

[bearballing]

i think you're taking this in bad faith actually, these are all very common things that transmisogynists do on here.

1) people do it deliberately to trans women to degender them, this is done even/especially when the woman they're being an ass to has pronouns very easy to find.

2) in this context it's brought up Only when trans women criticise the misogyny they receive, and then the transmisogynists bleat "why are you dividing the communityyyy" like the misogyny in the first place Doesn't

3) male terms are not gender neutral despite being common. I have seen so so many women get sick and tired of being called those words only to get a response like "well i call everyone dude, chill out"

4) how is it misused? people assume it's the same as asab when it's not, that doesn't mean it's misused

5) good for you that you've only seen it once, this shit is everywhere. the transandrophobia crowd are big proprietors of it.

6) there is actually. it's straight up a fact that trans women face more oppression for being trans than trans men do. who do you think are the targets of the bathroom bills for instance?

7) this is not me personally mocking gender nonconforming people, this is again a specific occurrence that a lot of tme people identifying that way think of themselves as more liberated or more queer than "binary trans women".

8) again this is not me believing this phrase. tma people, yes often including drag queens, are affected by transmisogyny. transmisogynists on here try to co-opt it by saying We All Are affected.

9) this is something that transmisogynist trans men deflect with because they take offence at criticism! men are sexist, women stand up against it, men feel threatened. I've only been accused of hating trans men because i don't believe in transandrophobia. i AM a trans man

10) it's not saying you can't.... it's something that transmisogynists do on here to again deflect criticism of shit like transandrophobia. trans woman says "misandry doesn't exist actually", transmisogynist says "why won't you let ME talk about ME?" when nobody is actually saying they can't. again, i am not being accused of this. i think you're not reading this thing the way it's intended

11) again this is actually a common insistence. plenty of tme trans people think misogyny affects them more due to their asab, whether or not society sees them as a woman

12) this is all simply things I have seen trans women deal with on this site time and time again. and if I'm sick of it god knows how they all feel about it

going to start using this for every dipshit post i see on here

[eradicatetehnormal]

Ever-Conflicting Feelings on Y2K Fashion

On one-had, I love it. Cargo pants, berets, skin-tight shirts, Juicy Coutre, London Tipton on the Suite Life...All super fun and nostalgic to me.

On the other hand, though, a lot of the aesthetic is just jeans and a crop top. It won't even have graphics a good amount of the time. It's kinda just like, that's really bland? When the girl next door wears it, she's not even trying, but when Paris Hilton wears it, she's a fashion icon? Like, are you really stylish or are you just thin?

I was going to type that if something doesn't look good on a variety of body types, then it isn't fashionable, but to be fair, some things just look better with different body types. I think mine and a lot of people's problem with Y2K is that it's almost entirely reliant on being thin.

[narcissistcookbook]

I'm not religious anymore, but my understanding continues to be that the New Testament is a fundamentally subversive and revolutionary text (as in, a text written from a pro-revolutionary perspective). The core lessons of the New Testament are about overthrowing the corrupt, disempowering the powerful, seizing your birthright - in this case a personal relationship with the divine - from those who gatekeep it and weild it in bad faith

I'm fascinated by people who treat the New Testament as anything but a revolutionary text. Either because they haven't read it, they haven't understood it, or because they've deliberately co-opted the language of it in order to divert attention from themselves - the corrupt, the powerful, the gatekeepers - towards more vulnerable people.

Anyway. Just in case you're one of the people who hasn't seen this Sinclair Lewis quote before

When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

[seventeendeer]

sorry to keep bitching about frustrating rain world fandom trends, but I think if you read downpour as a pure "being alive is good, actually" metaphor with a weird dissonant twist at the end (saint's campaign), that ... reveals a shockingly surface-level reading of the story that ignores every interesting question the game poses in favor of trying to force a comfortable, one-note moral that only actually works if you ignore a significant amount of canon.

like, I'm sorry, but there's no way to in good faith pry a straight answer out of this story. I know fandom tumblr is a hotspot for disillusioned former christians, and stories about how religion isn't all it's chalked up to be are comforting for many, but this simply is not that kind of story. if that's your takeaway from it - that the world the game presents is worth sticking with, that ascension isn't the right choice - that makes sense, it's a valid personal opinion to come away with. however, to argue that the void sea endings are objectively the "bad" endings, or that saint's campaign makes no sense thematically, is to overlook a massively important reason why rain world works so well as a game in the first place: it's intended to be a choice.

saint's ascension ability is in YOUR hands. the game is asking you, the player, what you got out of this, what you think is best. it is asking you to reflect on the themes it's been trying to communicate to you for the last several dozen hours

(can you cope with a life that brings you more pain than joy? if there was another way to exist, would you choose to change? what would you give up to attempt another existence? everything? what if you're being fooled and you're chasing a terrible fate? what if powerful people are preying on your misery and it's all a scam? what is left of you when stripped of all things that cause pain? is it your true self? in a world without pain, what is even left? what if it's everything that means the most to you? what if you're going home? what if you could love without the fear of pain, loss, sickness, death? is the grand more important than the small? is it better to stick with familiar pain, or to chase something frightening that may ultimately make you happy? who can you trust to guide you? who will take advantage of you on the way there? what would get in your way? your own ego? your guilt? bitterness? love for the world you know, an ability to see beauty in the midst of tragedy? is this weakness or strength? etc etc etc don't even get me started on the commentary on religious institutions, classism, structural and familial abuse, and how this is all woven together)

like, I'm sorry, rain world is not a saturday morning cartoon trying to teach you life lessons, it's a piece of interactive fiction using game mechanics as a vehicle for some extremely interesting philosophical discussions, which it politely asks you to actively engage with as you go along. I'm sorry if that's uncomfortable to people who don't relate to those topics, but declaring bad writing on a piece of fiction for not presenting you with a clear-cut moral stance at the end that already aligns with your personal lived experience is just ... a godawful way to interact with stories.

(deliberately handwaving or ignoring major and obvious pieces of symbolism for the sake of declaring it a Good Story That Agrees With You, Actually frankly isn't much better. stop making me read analysis posts where half the story has to be a drug trip for your point to make sense)

[germiyahu]

Your brain:

Similarly to the guy who set himself on fire (will not be saying his name), I don't want to give Jonathan Glazer any power. I mean we've all talked about it. But again, there's danger in his infamy.

The way he was shaking and stuttering, clearly afraid of something? Yet he was met with nothing but applause from a crowd of smug slacktivists wearing their fucking bloody hand pins. He was ushered into relevance by dozens of publications saying "That's not what he meant uwu don't believe the meaniehead Apartheid supporters!" He was afraid of nothing. This was not courage.

The antisemites desperately want to be silenced. That's part of the appeal. They want to be brave. They want to appear to speak truth to power in the face of an overwhelming system that seeks to crush them. They want to be radical revolutionaries. They want to be martyrs.

But that largely hasn't actually been the case. Mainstream society in America is certainly casually pro Israel, and that hasn't lessened despite their best efforts. But it largely tolerates the antizionist agitation. A lot of people are annoyed by them, even if they don't think they're Jew haters. But institutions aren't really trying to destroy their movement. Some, like universities, are embracing it.

When Jewish people are being victimized, at this point just for saying that they're being victimized (what a great feedback loop), this crowd is insanely envious. They want that for themselves. The cognitive dissonance of wanting to be a victim but knowing you won't suffer any actual real life consequences that are too unbearable is so emblematic of the young educated Leftoid coming from a conservative background. They want to appropriate Jewish fear and what they perceive as Jewish martyrdom.

Since the backlash to Glazer's speech is pretty decisive among the Jewish community, I fear it's only going to incentivize him and others who think like him to go on a victimhood tour. He's going to get invited to talk on shows and podcasts and shit. The antisemites will be incredibly eager to share the news that the global Jewish community really does support genocide after all. Here was this brave man saying "Not in my name!" and they turned on him. All he did was criticize the factual genocide occurring. If they can't handle that... surely they feel very attacked, and called out. Maybe he struck a nerve?

Perhaps the number of Good Jews must be much lower than we thought? Because look at Jonathan Glazer and others like him, standing up against all odds to deliver this inspiring message, and he was cast down, they tried to take his Jewishness away from him! And of course all this will excite them. Because it will create the permission they need to engage in their favorite form of quote unquote activism: harassing people and maximizing cruelty. And Glazer will probably be so butthurt about the backlash that he will conveniently not feel the need to condemn the people who engage in antisemitism to "defend his honor."

Oh and I won't forget that the Israeli teenagers who willingly went to jail were largely mocked and met with a resounding chorus of "Why are we rewarding the bare minimum?" by the way...

[charmedreincarnation]

hi i’m sorry for this small rant. i really hope you reply to it because i’m spiralling so bad. i have been listening to v powerful luckiest girl and get all your desires instantly forced subs and i had two really bad days and overall my life feels so shit and i feel like nobody gives a shit about me feel left out with my friends and am really regretting some past choices i have made as in subjects i chose to study. why do subs not work on me ever? i detach but subs just don’t work for me idk what should i do i want to enter the void and live my better/dream life but i keep failing and i’m so spiraling so hard rn. i am not even seeing small success i can’t even manifest my acne away or to grow a few inches how will i enter the void and magically change my life entirely. please help me out. how do i manifest or enter the void as soon as i can. i am being delululu living in 4d but yes ik if i am truly living in the end i shouldn’t have doubts but it’s been so many months when will i see results in my 3d. manifestion should be instant right. i’m sorry for my negativity i hope you have a great day

Hi love! I feel like any of this could be answered in another ask, but you seem really worried, so I'm going to answer it anyway!

First and foremost, you are allowed to have doubts. Just because you have doubts doesn't mean you're producing those thoughts. From a psychological perspective (which aligns with LOA), our thoughts are not entirely our own. This is a scientific truth, whether you believe in LOA or not. Scientists say that our thoughts are influenced by external factors such as our environment, upbringing, and the thoughts of others. Sound familiar? They also claim that we have the power to change our thoughts and create our own reality by consciously choosing the thoughts we entertain. So, just know that you're going to have doubts until the end, but as long as you categorize them as random thoughts and not your own beliefs, they don't matter! For example, if someone dressed as Chucky the doll jump-scared you and you started having "scary" thoughts about it, that doesn't mean you actually believe Chucky is real and coming to get you. You have psychological responses to certain things that have been ingrained and coded in you for a while now. What LOA does is help us intercept these false messages and reframe them as "useless" instead of messages we encode in our mind and assumption.

I've always been interested in psychology and neurology, and even though it doesn't directly relate to your question, it's important to mention that you do have a brain, and your brain is wired to act in certain ways. Once you're aware of why you're acting and believing certain things, it becomes way easier to understand that the 3D world is malleable. I really suggest reading books by authors like Joe Dispenza so you can understand yourself better. Also, watching YouTubers who explain anxiety and reading self-help books can provide helpful ways to manage your own anxiety.

The second thing is, if you don't believe in subliminals, I don't know why people do this, but if you don't have faith in something or assume it doesn't work for you, just use something you have a little faith in. For example, maybe you're more logical. You can read about brain waves and then listen to binaural beats for anxiety,manifesting, and faith. Have faith in it, because you'll understand and know that those waves genuinely change your brain's alignment. That's just one example, but subliminals are not the only type of audios out there. There are many other methods to explore.

Also, meditation is very helpful. Not just to reach the void, but do you know how many conscious thoughts we have in a day? On average, it is estimated that a person has around 60,000 to 80,000 thoughts per day. These thoughts can range from conscious, deliberate thoughts to automatic, repetitive thoughts. That doesn't even include the number of unconscious thoughts we have, which is probably 100k+. You constantly have these little things running around in your head, trying to keep you alive, keeping you repeating the same thought patterns, beliefs, and assumptions. You can't consciously control them most of the time, but your brain and mind are working overtime 24/7. It's not your fault, so that's why meditation can help you. Not just to reach the void, though you can tap into that using some form of meditation as well, but to clear your mind and then it’s there it will be better to affirm and believe you can do whatever you desire. If you're not truly embodying the desired state, which you're not because you sent this ask, do you think a few measly affirmations can counteract the hundreds of thousands of thoughts you've been having every day since birth, most of which you don't even know exist? Affirmations do work, but trust me, I've been where you're at and worse. This is not the state to solely rely on "miracle affirmations" because you won't believe them, and when something doesn't happen, you'll just want to give up and confirmation bias will make you subconsciously think, "Well, see? I knew it. It isn’t real" But in reality, your mind is just looking for proof to align with your negative beliefs.

I know you say you haven't manifested anything, but can you really think back to something you thought was a "coincidence" or something you didn't really ask for but it just appeared? We usually brush those off as just the world at play or a small world, but nope, that was you. Maybe you don't have clear skin or whatever your desire may be, but as you probably know, that's because you've put it on a pedestal compared to all the other "small" but great things you've manifested

I know you probably wanted me to tell you exactly what to do, but I genuinely don't know you the way you know yourself - your own self, mind, and behaviors. You know best, fr! I could have said anything I've said before, like imagination is the real reality, the 3D being malleable, if you can see and feel it you can manifest it, try SATs or lucid dreaming lalala. But I've learned that you know what you have to do. Sit and meditate to learn about yourself and your mind, and why you think what you think. What past experiences do you still hold onto, reliving them in your mind and creating assumptions that no longer serve you? They can still affect you, we are humans and emotions cling to us like bees to honey, and that's okay. But we need to start moving those experiences into the past and start creating with what we are now, which is the present. Any given moment is a time to say, 'Okay, this doesn't serve me anymore, and this does. I don't want this life anymore, I want this type of life,' and consciously start creating with those desires instead.

Acknowledge your doubts, they're just doubts, and they're really just an extension of life factors that have been slowly consuming your mind. You may have them, but as a god, do you have them? No. But as a human, you are influenced by them, and who cares? You know who you are and your power now, so if you disregard them, work around them. But I can't tell you what to do because I'm not you! I wholeheartedly believe that you will get through this because I have as well and the lows are just apart of your journey as the success as corny as it sounds. But when you do succeed I promise you’ll back to this movement and just be very happy you didn’t give up despite how hard it was 💝

[samasmith23]

Dear @hellyeahheroes/@filipfatalattractionrblog,

All that me and my friend @sjbattleangel ask is that you and the rest of your friends on this blog please acknowledge and apologize for creating such a toxic echo chamber with your blog, which encourages and enables hyperbolic and inflammatory mischaracterization and harassment if comic creators that you personally dislike. If you don’t like the works of people like Jason Aaron, Dan Slott, Brian Michael Bendis, Donny Cates, Jonathan Hickman, Scott Snyder, James Tynion IV, Joshua Williamson etc., that’s fine; but it is UNACCEPTABLE to constantly slander and demonize them as “perverts”, "misogynists", "homophobes", "eugenists" or “fascist apologists” when there’s ZERO evidence to substantiate such extreme claims. Just because these creators wrote comics that you personally disliked does NOT mean that they're even remotely comparable to legitimately bigoted scumbags like Ethan Van Sciver & Chuck Dixon like you treat them as based on the way you constantly talk about them!

And some members of your community, like KK4EverStuff, have gone even further by using your defamatory statements as an excuse to write literal death threats towards said-creators such as these:

These are NOT ad-hominem or hyperbolic Angry Video Game Nerd style criticisms like majingojira once tried to claim. This is violent an unhinged cyberbullying on KK4EverStuff's part. Plain and simple. Your blog encouraged and enabled his kind of toxic behavior, and you need to acknowledge that and do better going forward.

Then there is the X-Men series (particularly anything non-New X-Men: Academy X or post-Schism), Batgirls, any post-One Year Later Cass Cain-stared story or any post-One More Day Spider-Man story. It's fine if they don't appeal to you but deliberately choosing to hate them way before you even read them or gave them a proper chance? That isn't good or healthy criticism, that's just hate-reading for the sake of hate-reading. All it does is create an atmosphere of constant negativity and toxic gatekeeping which really hurt comic fans who just want to have fun. If anything after Avengers: Arena, X-Men: Schism, Robin: One Year Later or One More Day upset you that much then why you are reading them if you're automatically going to hate them? Just don't read them. It's that easy.

So please, acknowledge that you have done wrong with your past attacks against specific comic creators, toxic bad-faith comic criticism and apologize. That’s all we ask for.

Do better!

[homunculus-argument]

Did your parents ever mock you as a child?

When I was a kid, maybe 7 or 8, a pair of birds made a nest in a tree in our yard, and it was late in the season and unusually cold. I expressed a wish to help them somehow, and was met with a withering 'oh, you want your father and I to wire the tree up with electricity so we can put a TV and a little electric blanket in there don't you?' and when I said no, I want to put food out for them and maybe some spare toy stuffing for them to line the nest with I got laughed at. 'Sure, that's definitely what you meant, because you're always so sensible'.

There were many such incidents. I'm 38 and still afraid of sincerity or asking for anything a lot of the time. Did your parents pull this shit too?

Not in a deliberately sarcastic, mocking way, but they did tend to always somehow jump to the most negative, malicious, or idiotic interpretation of what I was saying, and act like I was backpedalling and taking my words back when I clarified that what I was trying to say was something sensible, and not the complete moronic thing they assumed I was saying. And then shrugging it off with a "well one can never know when it's you." Like assuming that I'm stupid or evil is just the most statistically likely option.

I could do a whole Dark Knight Bane Speech about tumblr-style bad faith interpretations. Going like

“Ah, you think malicious misinterpration of my words is your ally? You merely adopted the bad faith reading. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't have people properly understand a single fucking word that I was saying until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but confusing!”

[velvetvexations]

The dots... I've connected them and revealed your dastardly schemes. the letters TR and F are all contained in the word [tr]ans[f]em, which proves that everytime you talk abt TRFs, you akshully mean all transfems ever 🤔 checkmate atheists. 🤔🤔 /s

It's a funny thing because transfeminism and radical feminism are (supposed to be!) two different things, but transfems are called transfems because they're transfeminine, not necessarily transfeminist, so transradfem is awkwardly close to transfem because of this linguistic convergent evolution shit lmao. If I could be persuaded to not call TRFs "TRFs" it would be on that basis.

A non-kink confession: sometimes I mistype urls and, if pronounceable enough, they turn into an unwanted vocal stim. I have been beset by one for so long. If I say another tormentous fucking "vevlet" I will [insert cartoonishly over the top violent act here] for real this time

Vevlet is my Eastern European cousin.

oh yeah a friend of mine uses twitter a lot and apparently the birthday boy thing is kinda big over there. fuckin annoying.

aggravating

"but of the two times I've said that one was explicitly about a something a self-identified TME said, so it's really hard for me to agree that TRF=transfem unless you're predisposed to reading what I say in the worst way possible." I am actually genuinely upset at how deliberately and maliciously people are taking you out of context, this is literal bad faith readings!!! Oh my fucking God!!!!! How devoted do people have to be to this exclusionary rhetoric to keep saying that you're saying the exact OPPOSITE of what you're saying??? B.I.T.E. method jfc

People are like. "Velvet just uses the idea of TME TRFs to excuse hating trans women," and it's like.

No, I fucking viscerally hate guys like the one from yesterday who said he'd fight any "transandrophobia chud" and then blocked me when I said I was game, not to mention all the ones who've said something like "I know trans men have male privilege because I've socially ostracized trans women."

i fucking love ur aesthetic posts

Thank you!

This is out of pocket but like, ive been thinking abt those posts that are all "why are you transitioning to be a man? Do we really need More white men?" Hit me as crazy cause like Could you imagine if someone was like "Do we really need More White Women?" People would flip their shit Its crazy how the answer is "mind yer own fucking business when it comes to others gender journeys"

and White women are truly not any fucking better than White men lmao

I guess complaining about TME genderfuck trenders fagdykes didn't get the TRFs far enough so now all trans women are nonbinary? for fuck's sake. like what is up with the cope here?

it's like yeah what IF the moon were made of pudding

are you into VTM &, if so, do you have a clan you enjoy playing?

I loved Bloodlines but not having a consistent gaming group until this year I've never been able to fully get into it as a TTRPG fan. Which I align with varies because we're a system but I'd say that of those of who are connected to vampires, Aleph is a Brujah and Kuroko is Nosforatu. Agatha isn't a vampire but they are very Malkavian.

[bestworstcase]

Salem isn't really the "evil" fairy godmother in my opinion.

I think it'd be more accurate to say that she's the fairy godmother who just gives you EXACTLY what you asked for, but the consequences of that desire are always still there good, bad and everything in between.

You want revenge for your sister? Okay, Salem'll let you beat her to death, but she's still immortal and will come back eventually.

You want to destroy your former home? Okay she'll help you do that, but it's your problem if you end up pissing off someone else and they decide to kill you because of your decisions.

Basically, she'd do exactly as the contract asks of her so long as you're handling it in good faith, but it's your job to read the fine print.

i mean

just because salem doesn’t operate like the villainous archetype she presents as (i.e. malevolently making promises she has no intention of honoring, stabbing her people in the back for no reason once they’ve "outlived their usefulness," generally having no understanding of human motivations aside from fear, etc) doesn’t mean she doesn’t actively hurt people.

she keeps her word unless the other party breaks their end of the bargain first (this is true even of lionheart; she asks him a question, waits for his answer, doesn’t turn to violence until he attacks the seer and tries to make a break for it) – and she deliberately, consistently utilizes fear and pain as tools of control. these things can coexist.

and with regard to cinder specifically, salem is in no way just sitting on her hands and allowing cinder to experience the natural consequences of getting what she asks for; she doesn’t want to keep her promise to cinder and she’s been throwing everything at a wall since v4 to see what will stick to wean cinder off wanting the other maidens – and when that fails she brings the hammer down and that’s the impetuous for the power struggle in v8. salem only budges on this because cinder demonstrates with terrifying effectiveness that she IS willing to literally die on this hill, and afterward falls over herself to praise cinder for showing a smidge of restraint in choosing not to obsessively pursue winter.

the whole multivolume conflict between cinder and salem is predicated on salem trying to wriggle out of the deal, by means that include intimidation and violence.

and like yeah she doesn’t lift a finger to spare people the natural consequences of their choices unless your name is cinder fall. but that’s. pretty secondary to the part where she hurts people if they don’t do as she says – whether physically (hazel, lionheart) or emotionally (tyrian). she is cruel. it’s evil to treat people the way salem treats her own followers. that she is, broadly, right about the gods, and correct in her condemnation of the huntsmen system as a vehicle for enacting the divine plan, does not and should not negate her abusing her associates.

that’s one of the central conceits of the story, that someone can be right and also do horrifically evil things in service of a just cause. rwby is far more unflinching in its commitment to this idea than most stories but it’s not like this is a novel concept. let’s not defang the narrative by ignoring salem’s literal on-screen actions.

like. the reason i argue that 1. salem hasn’t ever gone to war like this before and has in fact mostly not dignified ozma’s shadow war with her participation, and 2. has not made a systematic effort to wipe out silver-eyes as opposed to taking out a single very high-profile target who went around calling herself ‘the grimm reaper’ fifty or so years ago, is because both of these ideas—that salem has been warring with oz all this time and that silver eyes are rare because salem hunts them down—are unsubstantiated beliefs asserted by characters who expressly do not have all the facts, and do not really hold up to close examination.

(ozpin was at the highest point ozma has ever achieved when salem utterly, completely thrashed him, and she’s wiped two kingdoms off the map in less than two years, and she made it look effortless. ozma hasn’t been successful in fending her off for thousands of years; she simply hasn’t been trying. likewise, silver-eyed warriors are culturally expected to devote their lives to fighting grimm until they die, of course the trait is rare, and there is zero indication so far that salem made any attempts on summer’s life—you know, the silver-eyed warrior who worked for ozpin?—prior to summer deliberately seeking her out. it makes far more sense to conclude that salem is indifferent to silver-eyes as a class and picks off specific individual silver-eyed warriors who threaten her interests. also they’re supposed to be VANISHINGLY RARE, i promise salem does not have a cellar full of dozens of silver-eyed victims floating in vats of grimm goo, where would she even find them all.)

arguing that she Doesn’t Do things we literally see her do on screen numerous times is just flatly countertextual. we can acknowledge that her evil actions are in fact evil. it’s fine

[taylor-titmouse]

do you happen to know any good resources on writing characters of colour specifically for erotica? i’m conscious of power dynamics in every day life but writing kinky stuff obviously plays even more heavily into that so i’m trying to find a good balance between still definitely smut but nothing that will end up replaying what’s already been done in bad taste

i mean.... first of all no, i don't have specific resources for writing people of color in erotica. i feel like the very existence of such a thing would be in itself Not Good. like what is that going to be, a list of stereotypes to avoid? i hesitate even to list examples as a joke.

i assume you're white, and i am also white. ultimately all you can do is research--read works By the people you're looking to represent, read what they've said about how they are portrayed, ask for advice if you're really concerned and think it would be taken in good faith (though i urge you to consider this the last resort after research. "what's the best way to write about fucking you" is not, like, a great thing to ask even if worded nicely)

but overall just like... have good sense and good taste. people are people and not That different from you if you're not deliberately writing about a Culture vs somebody who who fucks while non-white. as long as you aren't making it About them being non-white, you are probably fine.

[compassionatereminders]

thank you for not humoring transphobes. that ask made me think of that "hot take but cis people also have a gender identity" post. Like cis men identify as men, cis women identify as women, but they don't want to acknowledge it because when they say "identify as" they mean "think they are" and it would feel invalidating. I'm not nonbinary cuz of my body, I'm nonbinary and I made my body a more comfortable place to live, know what I mean? idk just have a really good day

You're welcome. I blocked them after reading their second ask, because that one was even more deliberately triggering, not just towards trans people but also towards me personally, and I'm not here to platform people obviously engaging in bad faith

[greenerteacups]

forever grateful to you for sharing your musings, as if the book writing weren't great enough and hard work enough, you truly spoil us and i love you.

I'm popping in here to ask if you would like to talk about how you see Dumbledore. Sometimes I feel his manipulative side is abused in fanfiction, depicting little more than a heartless chess master.

And well, I guess I'm curious to find out if Lionheart Albus has a heart and will we get to see it. Maybe the more generous glimpses you give us of Snape and his interactions with him will shed some light on his hidden depths? Or will his appearances remain fleeting and enigmatic, always far and above all the little people we do know and adore?

Sorry, I know you can't possibly be completely balanced in your portraying of the whole cast, or they would spread too thin. I am here for the plot, for the Dramione and the Blacks, but I deeply enjoy all the character building (I truly live for all of them, not only our loved ones, I even cherish Warrington with sincere hate and am waiting for his comeuppance ) so I thought I would ask if you wouldn't mind a few comments on our opaque headmaster.

Thank you, friend! You're really kind.

Dumbledore has a relatively minor role in Lionheart for a few reasons — chief among which is, as you point out, that we just don't have time for everybody to get the same level of characterization the mains do. I have plot justifications for that, but it'd be disingenuous to suggest otherwise: Dumbledore's minor because I'm less interested in him than I am in Snape and Narcissa, and Lionheart is much more about Draco's sphere of the world than Harry's. That being said, I think some people forget how small Dumbledore's role is in the original books. He pretty much exists to deliver exposition and tell Harry how to beat the final boss; dude doesn't even get a gesture at a backstory until he's already dead. In fact, it's kinda weird to me that everyone (including a lot of people in the series) treats Dumbledore like he's some kind of guardian for Harry, especially with respect to the decision to keep him at the Dursleys. I know it's set up in the prologue, but if I'm Dumbledore, and I'm catching strays for Vernon Dursley being a piece of shit, I'm gonna be like:

The TLDR on Dumbledore is he's blamed way too much for stuff he doesn't do instead of the stuff he does. People seem to blame him for everything bad that happens to Harry because he's a competent adult in the general vicinity of the kid. But with the possible exception of hiring Lockhart — a bad decision I attribute to Early Installment Weirdness and, just maybe, a certain scarcity of applicants for a position where the last dude Literally Fucking Died — there's not a whole lot of shit that happens to Harry in the first few books Dumbledore could've prevented. Plus, he does in fact have Other Shit to be Doing. Is he a really powerful wizard who probably could've saved Harry's ass in a lot of the fights he gets into? Yes. Does he also have a whole school to run, a secret guerrilla group to direct, a Ministry full of political enemies to placate, and — oh yeah — a snake-faced immortal evil sorcerer he's playing 4D chess with at all times? Yes!

The whole lamb-to-slaughter thing with Harry is admittedly quite dark, but I don't read it as machiavellian. For one, Dumbledore obviously comes to this conclusion after a lot of deliberation, and to his death, he refuses to tell Harry about it, because (one assumes) he never intends to kill Harry himself. He's willing to hinge the fate of the free world on his respect for Harry's autonomy and/or his faith that Harry will make the "right" choice. That's pretty humane, given the circumstances. And he holds off on telling Harry about the horcruxes because... he doesn't want to inform a literal child that he'll eventually have to kill himself for the war effort. Oh, GOD, what a SCHEMING MONSTER. Surely this is motivated by menace, and not the grieving reluctance of a seasoned veteran who wants to preserve whatever few years of happiness this kid can eke out of life.

The areas where Dumbledore is morally shady come out most in his interactions with other adults. His conversation with Severus in 1981, for instance, is the one time in the books where I was legitimately frightened of him, because it's a rare time he's completely without mercy or grace. "What will you give me in return, Severus?" is a character-defining line, because Snape has just told him that two twenty-somethings and their infant child are about to be murdered, and Dumbledore's hit back with the subtextual equivalent of: "Tough shit. Why is it my problem?" Which is COLD AS FUCK! And we can kind of infer that he's not in earnest here, that he's manipulating Severus by making him think Dumbledore won't protect the Potters (even though they're Order members, which this theory requires us to assume Severus doesn't know) so that he can get him to work as a spy — but we don't know that for certain, right? It's all inference. We hope that his implicit threat isn't genuine, but what would happen if Severus said no, and walked away? How much did Albus understand about Snape's feelings for Lily, and what kind of person does it take to bluff like that in front of a known Legilimens? That line is intimidating as fuck whether or not Albus means it.

It's bits like these, where he's talking to people that he actually dislikes, where we get hints of the real Machiavellian Albus Dumbledore, and it's absolutely fascinating. He's the veteran of two wars, going on three when he dies, and you can tell in how he conducts himself. That includes, by the way, his gentility with children and his respect for innocence. But he's not just Good Funny Grandfather Dude or Crafty Mastermind. He's a general. He's been waging wars from the back lines since his twenties. That does something to your brain, and it doesn't leave a lot of you left over for anything else.

[coraniaid]

I remember reading a good post on here a year or two -- which I'm afraid I've been unable to track down again -- which pointed out that the Buffy writers' retroactive creation of a central coordinating "Watcher's Council" in Season 3 makes the fact Kendra wasn't expecting to meet Buffy when she visited Sunnydale in Season 2 rather strange. Surely Giles would have been sending in reports about Buffy's vampire-slaying to the Council, and surely the Council would have passed these on to Kendra's Watcher when he became worried that something bad was about to happen in Sunnydale. The post suggested as an explanation the theory that, after Buffy died and Kendra was activated as a Slayer, the Council just assumed Giles was coping really badly with losing his Slayer and dismissed all of his follow-up reports about her out of hand as a sad delusional fantasy.

In the same spirit, I'd like to propose that the fact Faith clearly is expecting to meet Buffy when she arrives in Sunnydale in Season 3 suggests that, inverting the pattern above, Giles has been lying to the Council about Buffy all summer and pretending that she's still in town doing her duty as a Slayer (and that he isn't spending all his time flying around the country desperately trying to find her).

This gets a bit long, but bear with me.

Faith knows about Buffy and she's heard at least a few stories about her (she calls her "infamous" and asks: "so, B, did you really use a rocket launcher one time?"). Faith can only have heard about past Slayers from her Watcher, who must ultimately (indirectly) have heard any details about Buffy through Giles sending reports back to the Council.

But Faith isn't just aware of Buffy as some abstract former Slayer. She comes to Sunnydale looking for her ("you're ... uh, Buffy, right? [...] I figured this was my chance to meet [you]") and, I suspect, deliberately arranged her fight with a vampire at the Bronze to make this happen (in particular she only seems to start fighting back once she has an audience...). Why didn't she head to Jamacia in search of Kendra? Well, clearly her Watcher must have told her that Buffy Summers was alive and that it was Kendra's death, not Buffy's, that had led to her being called. (Clutching at straws, but if you go back and watch the episode, Faith does nod slightly when Cordelia talks about Kendra dying; maybe her Watcher told her a bit about Kendra too?)

But how could Faith's Watcher (or anybody else), knowing that Faith has just been called as a Slayer, be sure which of the two previously alive Slayers had just died? (The show later retcons that only Kendra's death would have called a new Slayer, and Buffy's wouldn't, but I don't believe the writers had decided this was the plan before the end of Season 5's The Gift. The Mayor doesn't seem to think this is how it works, for example, and there are some things the writers said at the time that seem to rule it out too. But even if that was always what would have happened, if two Slayers at a time is unprecedented, as the show suggests, how could the Council be sure?)

The simplest answer must be that somebody told them that Kendra died. "Somebody" being, of course, Giles. But when did he tell them? The earliest he could have done it was at the end of the Becoming two-parter (Kendra dies in part one, but Giles is a prisoner for most of the following episode and I doubt Angel was letting him mail postcards back to England).

But the end of Becoming is also the point where Buffy leaves town and goes into hiding for months. Any report that Giles sent the Council from this point should have mentioned this, surely? The Council have all sorts of resources that they could have used to find her. It didn't have to be just Giles himself haring off after every false lead. But apparently, it was.

So, I think Giles wrote to the Council after Kendra died to let Sam Zabuto know and (whether actively or through omission) just ... let them think Buffy was still in Sunnydale. And then when it was time to send his next report in, he just ... kept pretending Buffy was still in town. Once he failed to tell them she was gone, he could hardly admit that she'd actually vanished weeks ago, could he? The Council generally have a pretty hands-off management style, but I don't think they'd have kept paying him if they realized he didn't actually know where his Slayer was or what she was up to. They might have decided earlier than in canon that he wasn't up to the job and needed to be replaced. Or even that this technically made Buffy a "rogue Slayer" who was refusing to follow her Watcher's orders. I think it makes sense he wouldn't tell them.

Which is why, over the summer, Faith's Watcher was telling her stories about Buffy Summers, the Slayer with a rocket launcher, stories which made Faith think she was living and Slaying in Sunnydale. Even though, for most -- maybe all -- of the summer Faith spent with her first Watcher, Buffy wasn't in Sunnydale at all.

(The show's a little bit vague about how much time passes between the start of Dead Man's Party and Faith's arrival in Faith, Hope & Trick but I don't think it's credible that it was enough time for Giles to be reunited with Buffy, for him to tell the Council she was back (and them to believe him), for the Council to tell Faith's Watcher, for Faith's Watcher to tell her, for Kakistos to murder Faith's Watcher and for Faith to flee Boston and travel over 3000 miles to Sunnydale through whatever combination of hitchhiking, freighthopping and motor vehicle theft she's meant to have used to make it there (she can barely cover the costs of the cheapest motel in Sunnydale: I don't exactly think she could afford a cross-country flight). When Giles gets through to the Watcher's retreat in England, enough time has passed for them to have found out about and confirmed Faith's Watcher was dead, and that can't have been quick either: Faith wasn't exactly rushing to tell them.)

So, all in all, Faith is pretty lucky she arrived in Sunnydale when she did. A few days earlier, and she'd have missed Buffy entirely. Maybe eventually one of her attempts to stage a fight so she could look cool in front of another Slayer would lead her into meeting the Scoobies and Giles and figuring out what was going on, but maybe not. Maybe Kakistos would have caught up with her first.

And, even if it's not intended, I like the symmetry of Kendra not knowing Buffy would be in Sunnydale (because Giles truthfully told the Council she was and they didn't believe him), versus Faith going to Sunnydale specifically to meet Buffy not knowing she might not even be there (because this time the Council did believe Giles but this time he was lying to them).

[kaurwreck]

Hello, sorry that it’s kind of a messily stated question but after scrolling through your blog a few times (of very thoughtful and involved analyses, loved reading them), I think to me you’re the most accurate Asagiri interpreter and I am starting to enjoy delving deeper into literature and history myself to understand BSD(and other fiction in general), so I want to ask, how reliable do you think Asagiri is when it comes to various things he outright says and interviews with him? It feels like a lot of things he puts in the story are deliberate but the way he often talks about his work, his manner is, like he’s just including stuff based only on general famous authors’ vibes? I’ve been thinking on it for awhile but especially after the recent Chuo University lecture/interview, where he talked for example how Chuuya and Dazai’s view of each other is simply loathing without any “but” or how he thought chapter 39 might be taken as justifying abuse when I thought it was clearly intended as something deeper and more complex.

It makes me wonder whether I even should delve deeper in themes and references, if even such simple thing as relationship between 2 characters or a character’s complicated past is, it seems, more surface-level than I thought. Or there is more depth to the world and ideas but less to the characters and I am just expecting more from the part that has no need for that.

Maybe I am approaching it in bad faith or missing a big chunk of something, overall I am sometimes quite confused by the author when he speaks on his works, so would be nice to hear your thoughts. Thank you in advance if you’ll take time to answer.

I've found more than once when I've revisited an Asagiri interview that something he's said that I initially interpreted as flippant has, with greater context, adopted more layers.

Like, in the two examples you provided: (1) I do think there is sincere loathing between Chuuya and Dazai, but that doesn't preclude love, nor does love qualify it— if you consider Chuuya and Dazai's communication styles and approaches to matters, they conflict gratingly — but love and loathing also can't exist without the other, and Kafka Asagiri has said quite a lot about Chuuya and Dazai's relationship; (2) many people do interpret Ch. 39 as justifying abuse, acknowledging how he might be misinterpreted isn't the same as his intent, so I wouldn't conflate the two. (Especially considering Ch. 39 is named Portrait of a Father— I recommend skimming the source material to better understand the depth of Asagiri's sincerity in telling that story.)

Which is to say, I think Asagiri's interviews provide valuable insight into his thoughts and process and, for whatever it's worth, I didn't throw myself into the deep end of bsd analysis until I read his interviews and realized how much he intentionally layered in bsd.

But if you're going to lend any credence to anything he says, it's relevant to listen to what he has to say, and be mindful of any language barriers (if there are any) in interpretation.

[lemonflavoreddishsoap]

May I please for headcanons for la squadra with a gn s/o who usually watches their movies and shows in headphones and alone, but it turns out they just watch Barbie. Th reason is that they don't the boys to be embarrassed by them

This request made me laugh when I first read it- has anyone drawn La Squadra asking for tickets to the barbie movie yet? Cuz they should.

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

La Squadra with an S/O who secretly watches Barbie

Everytime he asks what you're watching on your laptop, you shut it and won't tell him...suspicious...

Formaggio

Debates peeking at what's on your laptop when you're not around. Of course, he never would, and he has faith that you're doing nothing wrong, but the curiosity bites at him every time it happens.

So, using Little Feet, he sets out to get to the bottom of this. You don't even notice your itty bitty partner climb up onto your shoulder until well after you've gotten comfy and started the movie again. You only take a quick look around to make sure no one's peeking at you before you slip on your headphones and start the video.

Suddenly, you feel something brush you, and then a tap on your shoulder. You frantically shut the computer and shove off your headphones before you're face to face with Formaggio. He's...smiling.

"Barbie and the Three Musketeers, huh? 'ts a good one," he chuckles, giving you a kiss on the head to ease your shocked expression and walking off. He knew it, you weren't up to anything weird, so he ain't gonna make a bit deal out of it.

Illuso

Your worries are well founded, but he won't be oblivious for long. From the second you're looking so secretive about your business, he's raising an eyebrow. But the moment you're deliberately avoiding being near any mirrors?

He just waltzes right up to you and goes "What're you looking at?" If you start shutting your device, he keeps it open. Skimming the title, and seeing the content, he bursts into laughter.

"'A Fashion Fairytale'?? You're hiding a kids movie from me?" He chuckles at the absurdity for a while longer before insisting he watches it with you.

When it comes to any Barbie things you watch after that, it's best to only let Illuso watch with you if you're willing to sit through an hour of snarky remarks and loud laughter.

Prosciutto

How would you manage to hide it from this man? You may be his s/o, but Prosciutto is still ruthless and intimidating, and when you're hiding things from him, he sees no reason to hold his suspicions to himself.

Dude, listen, if you were curled up, watching fucking Princess Charm School and this man is standing over you asking What You Are Doing, how can you imagine a world where you wouldn't tell him?

He gives you a look when you show what you're watching, and, as you'd expect, he doesn't give much of a shit about it, and it doesn't matter to him if you watch it. Just questions why you felt the need to treat it like a big deal.

As you explain that you didn't want to embarrass him, he puts a hand on your cheek and assures you that as long as you don't force him to watch with you your interests would have no effect on his image or pride. He really is rather touched that you wanted to take that precaution, but hiding things from your partner is not the way to go about it!

Pesci

You would have been more open about it, but you've seen what Prosciutto says to Pesci, so you worry that he would feel bad looking at something so...childish.

So you keep your interest to yourself. Pesci doesn't mind you keeping to yourself, but seeing you all cooped up watching something leaves him curious. He wants to know what you're doing but...ohhh would it be his place to be nosy?

Eventually he bites the bullet, carefully approaching you during your Secret Time, tapping you on the shoulder, and asking what you're up to. Oh, when he's asking so politely you can't even care about your worries. you shyly show him A Mermaid Tale playing on the screen and his reaction is...intrigue.

He lets you know he's never seen the movie and asks to watch it with you, and how could you ever say no? Even if it's not exactly his sort of thing, he just likes to spend time with you. After your impromptu movie date, you're sure to not feel shy about watching Barbie around him anymore.

Melone

Here's the thing about your partner. Melone, with how good he is at reading others, is really hard for others to read a lot. So as you sit there trying to focus on A Fairy Secret you keep looking over at the busy man on the other side of the room, clacking away on his own device - you aren't sure whether you should be cautious or not. He doesn't seem to be paying you much mind.

After a minute or so, you aren't checking for him anymore and have settled into the movie. You're just getting sucked in when purple strands of hair cover your vision. One side of your headphones is shifted off of your ear, and you are aware of someones head resting atop of yours.

"A Fairy Secret...not one of my favourites. We can watch better ones afterwards, though." Oh. Okay this is happening now. His puts his arms around your shoulders as you watch through the movie together.

Afterwards, as you search for the next movie to watch, you mention how surprising his reaction was to you. He rolls his eyes, "I think it would be obvious that it would take a lot for me to be grossed out or embarrassed by something you like. Nothing wrong with liking Barbie, I clearly have no issues with it."

okay I limited myself to 4 points each for this one but. the idea just crossed my mind of family movie nights with you, Melone, and Babyface. Probably as part of Babyface's "education"...do with that what you will

Ghiaccio

I do NOT blame you, dude. Like with Illuso, there's a very real fear of him making jabs at you liking something so childish. So you diligently hide your watch sessions from him. But he notices, and he is not happy.

He has no clue what you're up to, but he doesn't like how you're hiding from him, and he makes that known quickly. If you try to keep hiding from him, he'll just get more upset, so it's more worth it to just tell him.

Just gives you a weird look when you tell him what you're watching. If there were real life cartoon sound effects, you'd hear the "blink blink" one. "Why would I get mad over you liking some kids show? That's fucking stupid."

He's blunt, but it is a metaphorical splash of cold water to your face: yes, he thinks barbie is stupid, but you're special to him. He loves you, and trust is more important to him than getting mad over "some kids show".

Risotto

Has faith in you, so after you tell him not to worry about your business the first time, he leaves you alone for the next few instances. Leaves you to your own devices.

But after a few weeks, you haven't gotten any more comfortable doing your "personal business" around him. So he asks again, and again, you're standoffish in your response. Now he's suspicious. He still trusts you, but at this point further investigation is more than warranted.

He snoops onto your laptop while you aren't home, and is...confused to say the least. He confronts you about it afterwards, and upon hearing your explanation it all makes sense to him.

"You didn't want to embarrass me? That's a sweet thing for you to do, but you didn't need to hide this from me. I'm sorry for looking through your laptop, but there was no need for you to be so secretive."