#He's there to take care of him and be punished for the perceived wrongdoings of a man he never met. He's a squeaky toy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

matthew-gray-gublers-babygirl · 8 months

Text

You're My Best Friend - Aziraphale x Crowley

Pairing: Aziraphale and Crowley

Summary: Aziraphale has fallen ill and Crowley decides it’s his duty to take care of him.

Word count: Aprox. 900

A/N: You can perceive this as platonic or romantic… whatever you heart desires! Of course I added some small romantic implications.

Aziraphale searches for a handkerchief in his many pockets, acquiring one and quickly blowing his nose. “My goodness,” he says, carefully closing his book and placing it aside. “Perhaps the shop is a bit dusty,” he said to himself, assuming microparticles may be causing him his congestion. He was an Angel; an unearthly being. There was no logical reason he could have a human illness. “Best clean up a bit,” he added as he stood up from his upholstered chair to find a duster.

He began dusting away, cleaning any dirt and dust off the lone stacks of books and tiny trinkets; and occasionally using a tiny miracle to clean the top shelves. When nobody was looking, of course.

As Aziraphale finished dusting, he heard the shop doors open, alarmed by the chime of the bell. “Ah, welcome to my shop!” he hums, turning around to see a customer, but unexpectedly seeing Crowley. “Oh, Crowley… it’s you!” he says, an embarrassed smile and soft blush arising on his face at the sight of the demon.

“Hello, Angel,” Crowley says, walking towards Aziraphale as he notices an unfamiliar redness around his nose. “Angel…” he begins, leaning closer to investigate the area. “What’s happened to your nose?” he asks. Aziraphale sighs, taking out his handkerchief once again to assess the skin. “Nothing. I think The Almighty is punishing me for my wrongdoings.”

Crowley removes his glasses, flashing his snake-like eyes as he sat his shades on his head. “You should’ve told me if you were feeling ill. I would have come earlier,” he says. “I’m not feeling ‘ill’.” The angel says defensively. Crowley let his eyes roll. “Oh come on, Angel. Go sit down and I’ll make you tea or whatever you like,” he says in his regular annoyed tone, but he did care for the angels' well-being.

Aziraphale scoffed lightly. “I will do nothing of the sort,” he said, returning to his book afterwards. The demon groaned, continuing to make Aziraphale his tea. “Drink it.” He says in a rather demanding tone as he brought over the drink. “And watch out, it’s hot.” he reminded him. Even if he were a demon, he always became soft around Aziraphale..

The angel sighed, not wanting to accept the beverage initially, but he couldn’t resist the warm herbal liquid. “Thank you, Crowley,” he says, giving him a small smile as he slowly sipped on the tea. Crowley slouched on the chair across from him, looking over the books scattered along his desk. Boring, uninteresting books as always. But, he knew how much Aziraphale felt about his books.

Aziraphale pulled out his handkerchief again, sneezing into the fabric. Crowley sighed. “Come on, Angel. Get up,” he said, taking Aziraphale out of the chair. “Crowley, what on earth do you think youre doing?” the angel questions. “You are far too sick. I want you to rest in bed until you are better,” Crowley says, obviously not taking ‘no’ as an answer.

“Crowley. I can’t. I shouldn’t… I mustn’t! I have to watch the shop!” the angel protested, but the demon didn't change his mind. “I will close your little shop for you, okay?” Crowley said, some anger arising in his tone but he managed to calm himself down.

Aziraphale held the cup of tea in his hand, feeling the warmness of the china cup in his palms. “You… you’d do that for me?” the cherub asked timidly. Crowley sighed. He didn't like this feeling; vulnerability. “Yes, Angel. I’ll close up the bookshop for you. Sweep if you want. Organize your books. Just go upstairs for me and relax.”

Crowley, a Demon, actually cared about him. The angel gave him a gentle nod before showing himself upstairs to bed. Once Crowley saw that Aziraphale went upstairs, he turned around the ‘OPEN/CLOSE’ sign and locked the doors. Crowley went upstairs to Aziraphales' small kitchenette and began preparing a bowl of soup. He wasn't the best cook. Demons don't need to eat, but he knew Aziraphale enjoyed the pleasure of eating. He threw in a small miracle or two to make it to Aziraphales' expectation, even if he knew he would be grateful for anything.

Crowley carefully brought the soup to Aziraphales' bedroom, seeing him under the covers in a pair of fleece pyjamas. “I made you soup,” he said, placing the tray in front of him. He tried to keep his outer-shell hard and not show his soft side, but it was difficult to always be his cool and collected self. “Oh, Crowley. You shouldn't have,” Aziraphale said with a soft smile. “Thank you.”

Crowley fixed his sunglasses, although the shades couldn't hide his reddened cheeks. “You’re welcome,” The demon says as he clears his throat. “Now eat up. I can’t bare to see you like this,” he told him. “Let me know if you need anything else,” he adds before leaving the bedroom.

“Crowley,” The Demon stops in his tracks. “One more thing. Thank you, again. You’re my best friend.” Crowley smiles, his ears turning pink. “Anytime, Angel.” He replied before showing himself out of the bedroom for Aziraphale to relax. He laid down on one of the sofas in Aziraphales' apartment above the shop, humming a song to himself.

I've been with you such a long time

You're my sunshine and I want you to know

That my feelings are true

I really love you

Oh, you're my best friend

#good omens #good omens fanfiction #good omens fanfic #crowley #aziraphale #david tennant #michael sheen #good omens aziraphale #good omens crowley #crowley x arizaphale #aziraphale x crowley #aziracrow #aziraley #crowley and aziraphale #good omens show #hurt/comfort #fanfiction

8 notes · View notes

watermelonsloth · 8 months

Text

No, Sasuke Did A Lot Wrong

(Disclaimer: There's nothing wrong with liking Sasuke as a character or sympathizing with his backstory. I'm also not talking about all Sasuke fans, only the extreme "pro-sasuke/anti-konoha/anti-itachi" fans.)

I'm getting pretty sick of the defenses used by Sasuke fans to justify his behavior throughout shippuden. The defenses themselves are fine enough, Sasuke did have plenty of reasons for his anger and resulting actions, but his fans always seem to be trying to absolve him of blame. The worst of them even act as if you're some morally reprehensible monster if you dare say Sasuke made a lot of terrible decisions that hurt a lot of people. God help the poor soul who dares to like Itachi or Tobirama.

I'm not going to defend Konoha or their actions here and, from what I can tell, no one else is. The entire shinobi world is fucked up in a frustratingly realistic way, so it makes sense that anyone trying to do something to fix it would immediately earn audience sympathy and relatability. However, most of those characters are villains. Why? It's not because the Naruto series is pro-violence, authoritarianism, war, or complacency. It's because they're terrorists. They react to personal wrongdoing, sometimes perceived but often not, by creating violent plans that are undeniably extremist. Madara and Obito basically wanted to hard reset the world by placing everyone into an eternal genjutsu and Nagato wanted to nuke the planet every time a country asked for war until all conflict disappeared. Those are objectively bad plans that would put the world into an even worse state and I hope I don't have to explain why.

Sasuke's "revolution" was no better. As a quick reminder, these were Sasuke's plans to "fix" the shinobi world: first he wanted to destroy Konoha, then he wanted to become a tyrant over Konoha, and lastly he wanted to act as a threat so dangerous that the world was forced into cooperation to fight him off. Not one of these plans is good. All of them would catch many innocent lives in the crossfire and none of them would build a better world. The best argument to defend Sasuke's goals is "complacency to wrongdoing makes you just as guilty as the wrongdoer." Ignoring that that argument is flawed, especially in the context it would theoretically be used, that argument still wouldn't change the fact that his methods are violent and extremist.

What makes all of this worse is that Sasuke's goals are also extremely hypocritical. Tell me if this sounds familiar: to prevent future conflict, one Uchiha erases a group of people because select members of that group were a potential risk. That Uchiha, in this process, agrees to take on all responsibility for this action and all anger resulting from the fallout. Was I talking about Sasuke's initial goal to change Konoha? No, I was talking about the Uchiha Massacre. His goal to become a feared tyrant over Konoha to reform it into a more peaceful state according to his image bears a striking resemblance to Danzo Shimura, of all people. His final plan is the only one that can be considered uniquely his, but if you simplify it to its core(an individual taking the burden of all of the world's hatred onto their shoulders), then it mirrors the intention of Madara(and sort of Obito, but mostly Madara). Sasuke is repeating history by mimicking the solution that he's already experienced being in the crossfire of, the goals of a monster he scorned for his morals, and the plan he personally watched fall to pieces.

Of course, this is a post about Sasuke's actions, not the plans he never enacted. The most he could be punished for is conspiracy. So, let's talk about what he did. I'd say for all of part 1 and the start of shippuden, Sasuke's worst offense is being a bit of a snarky jackass. He wasn't cruel, he had a set of morals that he consistently held himself and others to, and he deeply cared for his friends and allies. His interactions with Itachi were upsetting, Orochimaru manipulating him was tragic, and his struggle to decide between his friends and revenge was interesting. The most morally skewed thing he did was his fight with Naruto, but even that was forgivable. The start of shippuden maintains him being mostly in the clear: he nearly kills team Yamato, he kills Orochimaru, he starts traveling with some morally questionable people(scaring the crap out of some civilians and stealing a sword in the process), and he fights and kills Itachi. Again, he's not exactly a stand up citizen, but he remains just and easily forgivable. The Five Kage Summit arc is where this changes.

After learning the truth about the Uchiha Massacre and Itachi's true role in it from Obito, the Five Kage Summit arc begins with Sasuke joining the Akatsuki(a.k.a technically a mercenary group, but better called a terrorist organization considering their, at this point known, goals). The arc is easily a shift in the story's direction(for better or worse), meaning a shift in the main characters, and easily an arc I'm going to discuss in more depth in the future. Sasuke's character shift is revealed to be downward when he and the rest of team Taka attack and "kill" Killer Bee. I don't care how much you like Sasuke or how much you agree with his anger, you cannot justify him attacking and attempting to murder someone who has done nothing but be a jinchuuriki. Soon after Sasuke's role in the attack is revealed, Karui, Omoi, and Samui leave to Konoha to tell the Hokage about the planned five kage summit and that Kumogakure is taking the responsibility of Sasuke's punishment out of Konoha's hands. This is the arc where Sasuke undeniably becomes a criminal and his crimes have victims. Say what you want about Konoha and complacency and injustice, but let's make some things clear.

Killer Bee had nothing to do with the Uchiha Massacre.

Kumogakure had nothing to do with the injustices Sasuke was fighting against.

The samurai of the Land of Iron had nothing to do with shinobi affairs.

Team Taka didn't deserve to be betrayed for being "too weak."

I didn't make this post to complain about Sasuke or make him out to be a bad character. Actually, I think he's one of the best written within the series and he's among my favorites. Sasuke is a morally complex character, a fantastic foil to Naruto, an impactful warning on what happens when someone is consumed by hatred and abandons their humanity in pursuit of their goals, and the end of his arc was really nice(until Boruto ruined it, but that's another rant for another day). I get so upset about people making Sasuke out to be an innocent or wholly justified character, not only because those same people often take an undeserved moral high ground and talk down to/shame people for having problematic favorites as if Sasuke isn't problematic, but because it doesn't give his character the credit it deserves. Sasuke is such a good character because he and his actions are imperfect. He's good because he is morally complex.

The Naruto series is about a boy who is ostracized by his home and targeted by a terrorist organization for something he has no control over. He responds to his circumstances by building connections, finding peace, and making an attempt to change both himself and the world around him rather than giving into his anger and lashing out. Naruto and many other characters struggle to maintain their humanity in a world that seeks to destroy it. Sasuke's story is not one of a tragic hero burning his perpetrators and the world that allowed them to the ground. His story is about a hurt and manipulated child abandoning more and more of his humanity under the assumption that it'll somehow help him do good in a bad world until he becomes the bad. His story ends with him confronting that humanity and coming to terms with it because there was still someone waiting for him with a hand held out.

#Anti Sasuke fandom #Anti Sasuke Uchiha fandom #I don't want to tag this anti-sasuke so...#Sasuke Uchiha #Naruto #Naruto Shippuden #I don't really care if you love or hate Sasuke #but don't condescend or harass people for having an opinion #Naruto is a shounen action series about hope stop trying to make it into a grimdark #I don't know how cohesive or readable this is since I didn't write it all in one go like my other posts #Rant #Analysis #Character analysis #sort of #kind of #my stooff

10 notes · View notes

no--envies · 3 years

Text

In my opinion, one of the reasons JC went crazy after WWX’s death and started venting his own anger and hatred on every demonic cultivator he met, regardless if they were guilty or innocent, is that he couldn’t stand the fact that he hadn’t managed to deal the killing blow to WWX. After all his effort in leading the siege and using the information he had on the Burial Mounds to plan the action and convince everyone else to follow him, he wasn’t even the one who actually killed WWX. WWX died because one of his cultivation techniques backfired and he was torn to pieces by his own ghost army.

I think JC couldn’t accept this. After everything he had done - and thinking he was justified in hating WWX for all the perceived wrongdoings he believed he was a victim of - WWX had managed to surpass him once again. Nobody was able to kill him, not even him.

We know JC’s reaction in the aftermath of the siege because JGY and XY directly comment on it in the extra focused on them:

Xue Yang, “What about his flute? Can you get me Chenqing?”

Jin GuangYao shrugged, “Not Chenqing. Jiang WanYin took it.”

Xue Yang, “Doesn’t he hate Wei WuXian the most? Why would he need Chenqing? Didn’t you also get that sword of Wei WuXian’s? Give him the sword in exchange for the flute. It’s long since Wei WuXian stopped using his sword, while Suibian sealed itself and nobody can pull it out. What’s the use of keeping a fucking piece of decoration?”

Jin GuangYao, “You really ask me to do the impossible, Young Master Xue. Do you think I haven’t tried? How could anything be that simple. That Jiang WanYin has already gone mad. He still thinks Wei WuXian hasn’t died. If Wei WuXian returned, he might not search for his sword, but he’d definitely come for Chenqing. And so, he would definitely not give up Chenqing. A few more words of mine, and he might blow up.”

Xue Yang sniggered, “A mad dog.”

(Chapter 118, ExR translation)

Whatever JC had tried to achieve by leading the siege, he wasn’t able to achieve it. If the only thing he had wanted was to punish WWX for his deeds, he would have been satisfied with his own role in WWX’s death. I don’t think killing WWX was the only thing he wanted, though. He was probably trying to prove something, to himself and everyone else. He wanted to prove that he could surpass WWX for once, and that WWX had been wrong all along in choosing to put himself at risk to help others instead of listening to him. He wanted WWX to admit it was all his fault.

After a while of silence, Jiang Cheng asked, “You’ll stay like this from now on? Got any plans?”

Wei WuXian, “Not at the moment. None of the group dares go down the mountain. People don’t dare do anything anything to me when I go down the mountain either. It’ll be fine as long as I don’t stir up trouble on my own.”

“On your own?” Jiang Cheng sneered, “Wei WuXian, do you believe that even if you don’t stir up trouble on your own, trouble won’t come and find you? It’s often impossible to save someone, but there are more than thousands of ways to harm someone.”

Wei WuXian replied as he ate, “A man with strength can defeat ten with skill. I don’t care if they have thousands of ways. I’ll kill whoever comes.”

Jiang Cheng spoke in a cool voice, “You never listen to any of my opinions. One day, you’ll come to understand that I’m the one who’s right.”

(Chapter 75, ExR translation)

JC had always tried to convince WWX to abandon his path. Since he couldn’t outshine WWX in any way, he wanted to at least prove he was right in the path he had chosen, that choosing to help others at the expense of oneself ultimately wasn’t worth it. But WWX wasn’t swayed in the least. He kept walking resolutely on his single-plank bridge in the dark, regardless of what anyone else thought.

WWX was aware of JC’s mentality: he knew JC wouldn’t willingly put his own reputation at risk to help him protect Wens if he could avoid it. This was one of the main things that divided them since they were teenagers: their values and outlooks were simply too different, it was only a matter of time before their choices made them take completely diverging paths. WWX was fine anyway, he could take care of himself - this mindset could be seen as too overconfident, but he wasn’t completely wrong. He knew he could protect the Wen remnants even without relying on anyone else, since he managed to do it for two years before everything crumbled at Qiongqi Path.

In the end, Jin Zixun ambushed WWX accusing him of something he hadn’t done, and everything spiraled down so quickly he couldn’t do anything to prevent it, until he lost control of his demonic cultivation and killed Jin Zixuan. The sects’ suspicion towards him turned into open hostility and everyone was immediately ready to consider him an actual threat to them all. After the bloodbath of Nightless City, WWX was labeled as the scourge of the cultivation world, an enemy that should be eliminated to guarantee everyone’s peace and safety.

At first glance, one could think JC was right and WWX was wrong. But if this was really what the novel is trying to tell us, why was JC unable to move on for thirteen years, while WWX was immediately ready to start a new life and leave everything in the past after he was brought back? Even when JC managed to capture WWX and confronted him, WWX didn’t have anything to say to him.

The cup was steaming. Before he had taken a single sip, Jiang Cheng suddenly hurled it at the floor. He lifted the corner of his lip slightly and spoke. “You—you don’t have anything to say to me?”

[...]

“I don’t know what to say to you,” Wei Wuxian replied sincerely.

“So you refuse to repent,” Jiang Cheng said in a low voice.

In their past conversations, they had frequently tried to sarcastically undermine each other. Wei Wuxian thus replied without thinking, “Similarly, you haven’t improved a single ounce either.”

Jiang Cheng’s answering smile was brimming with fury. “Fine. Then let’s see which of us truly hasn’t shown an ounce of improvement.”

(Chapter 24, Fanyiyi translation)

I think this exchange is very interesting: WWX and JC are no longer bickering or teasing each other as they so frequently did in the past. What had once been a complicated relationship with genuine affection beneath it all, now retained only the semblance of it. There’s no more warmth, no more anything worth trying to repair. While JC is still adamant about using WWX as a scapegoat to avoid reflecting on his own mistakes, WWX has long since moved on. He doesn’t even feel resentment towards JC, he just wants to live his new life freely.

JC is an interesting foil for WWX, their interactions show how fundamentally incompatible they are and both of their character arcs highlight one of the main themes of the novel: the importance of letting go of all the grudges and negative feelings and remembering the good things, since only then one can truly be free. This is something WWX knows perfectly well:

Wei WuXian propped his arm on Lil’ Apple’s head, spinning Chenqing in his hand, “My mom said you have to remember the things others do for you, not the things you do for others. Only when people don’t hold so much in their hearts would they finally feel free.”

This was one of the only things he remembered about his parents.

(Chapter 113, ExR translation)

#mdzs #mdzs meta #jiang cheng #wei wuxian

177 notes · View notes

dreamteamfanblog · 3 years

Text

Y'know, I don't actually have a well defined stance on the "Should We All Be Treating Dream Better In Prison" debate, partially because I haven't been watching the Smp regularly for a while and am most likely not up to date with everything and from what i've heard/seen I am kinda on the fence, so like, i'm not arguing for either the stance that Dream should be treated better in prison than he is or for the stance that nobody's obligated to be nice to him after the moral event horizon's he's crossed. Like. I am not making a stance on which is correct.

But I will say the debate in Dream's favour makes me a bit uneasy solely for the fact that it really seems like the long standing Dream Apologism (or at least tolerance) tendency back in full force. That's not me saying "We can't criticize the way the prison is set up rn", I myself don't know how I feel about the conditions in the prison. It's not the suggestion that conditions should be better in of itself that puts me on edge. It's the sheer unadulterated passion and fury and intolerance towards characters who aren't Dream next to this very lackluster mumbly noncommittal "hahh yeah that was really bad and not good :(" certain parts of the fandom extend when it comes to what Dream's done.

I see lots of people incredibly passionate about how Dream's mental health is bad now and he's not getting enough nutrition and he's being mistreated, and i'm not going to go on record and say I even disagree necessarily but I will ask where that energy is from these exact same people while Dream's continuing to regularly commit atrocities?

A lot of the "Dream Deserves Better Treatment In Prison" crowd will vaguely acknowledge that Dream is Bad and has done Bad things, but they never match the passion they extend in Dream's favour to criticize him with the same fierceness when it comes to things like his consistent and continued abusive behaviour towards poor Ranboo, the fact that he beat a child to death while locked in the prison together then laughed about it (then smugly taunted about how he could do it again and again and the people on the server were still his puppets), murdering Ghostbur/reviving Wilbur with no remorse or hesitance, etc.

I mean sure all but the most diehard out of touch Dream Apologists will very briefly acknowledge these things with a neutral-negative tone but it's literally so blatantly lackluster besides the same people's impassioned fury over how Dream's treated in prison.

And this isn't a new thing!

People are quick to downplay Dream's corruption in the early days of the Smp before the revolution, people are quick to minimize Dream's role in everything Schlatt did, people were a bit too hasty to insist back when the exile conflict first happened that he very possibly really was just upset with Tommy for griefing and probably wasn't even planning to hurt L'manburg or use Tubbo (which...we know is false now and honestly knew was false then too lets be real), hell, there was this whole cognitive dissonance mental gymnastics thing going on throughout season two where people tried to juggle both the fact that Dream's actively psychologically torturing a child all season and the idea that he's not really a tyrant per say and we don't necessarily need to shove him out of power cause has he really done that much to deser-

you get the idea

It's not apologism per say. When pushed people will acknowledge that Dream's a bad person or that specific things that are pretty impossible to ignore were really awful of him.....then cha cha slide right into "But is it REALLY okay to do/say/feel ____ regarding him???".

It's not apologism. But it is tolerance. And the expectation that his victims be tolerant as well.

During the early days of the Smp, Dream unfairly asserted an authority over people who did not want him to govern them. He dished out punishments, made up rules, dictated the lives of others, involved himself in conflicts that were not his business, etc, and when he was told to leave just a few of these people alone in just a tiny little area of land because his governing was unwanted? He asserted himself supreme authority, named his friend king, and then repeatedly killed and destroyed the land of like four people who literally just asked him to leave them alone and stop bossing them around for no reason. He was oppressive, he killed, he stole, he destroyed everything around him with no mercy because someone asked him to stop bothering them and not enter a plot of land that literally took up like a hill in a plains biome and nothing else at the time. There are one person houses on the server bigger than the original L'manburg land plot. Dream was a tyrant who took five canon lives in one day because he was so entitled he couldn't fucking handle the hit his overblown ego took over such a reasonable request. However many people, even people who will vaguely acknowledge that Dream wasn't a good leader back then, will actively ignore or even openly flippantly downplay his atrocious behaviour while also getting weirdly fixated on, like, the 'drug' van thing. Wilbur is a very corrupt person and he has been since before the Pogtopia arc, I will die on that hill, but within the context of the Independence War....L'manburg was entirely in the right? And didn't really do anything?? Like first off I really don't care how often they do the whole bit of calling them drugs, they're potions, the implications are not the same. Secondly, they literally just scammed Tubbo, and not even out of much all things considered, which are like, standard Dream Smp shenanigans, come on now, and like, when it was blown up and made into this big thing where now Tommy and Wilbur are going to jail.....everyone was kinda just like "wait what the fuck". Like. Eret and Tubbo both literally switched sides to side with Wilbur and Tommy midway through the arrests cause like...what the fuck. Like, as Wilbur himself pointed out, they didn't even do anything illegal, Sapnap just decided on the spot that it was and he's taking them into custody. Tubbo was literally the one person scammed and he was a L'manburg citizen from its very conception. The fact that people have always been so ready to minimize Dream's corrupt bs at the time while fixating on bUt ThE dRuG vAn is really weird. And while most people don't take it so far as to claim that independence was a bad thing to ask for full stop, they're also way too fuckin' keen on making L'manburg's side look a lot less innocent than it was and making Dream and his soldiers look a lot less corrupt, unreasonable, and power hungry than they clearly were at the time, instead implying that L'manburg somehow took things too far or had disingenuous origins despite not actually doing anything illegal or super immoral anyway, they were literally just asking Dream to back off from their absolutely tiny little patch of land and stop telling them what to do, and Dream was the one who declared war outright and then started murdering/stealing/pillaging/burning-and-exploding shit all over the place. A lot of people, even as they acknowledge he's Bad, expect an unreasonable amount of tolerance for Dream while being rather overly critical and judgmental of the other side of the conflict in question to an unfair degree. They aren't defending Dream per say, they're just fixating heavily on the other party's perceived wrongdoings while Dream is doing horrific atrocious things and just kinda gets vaguely handwaved at. Sometimes this dips directly into the "Dream was bad obviously, but was starting a revolution and war against him really necessary when it caused so much bloodshed :( ?" argument as well.

This carried on very neatly into the Manburg-Pogtopia arc, Dream's tyrannical oppressive destructive violent acts are acknowledged by a little "Dream's bad and all" and then is followed up by heavy criticism of the other side for doing something completely reasonable as the "Well, Schlatt was TECHNICALLY legally elected!" argument takes hold and it's implied that Pogtopia maybe shouldn't have staged a coup, I mean, that wasn't legal, y'know? Are they Just As Bad actually? Or if not just as bad at least also bad and therefore worthy of criticism? What right did Every Single Member Of L'manburg have to overthrow a democratically elected leader even if he did wrongly imprison them, exile his political opponents, tear down historical monuments, raise taxes unreasonably, and execute a child in front of a crowd? What about the Law? Aren't Pogtopia technically usurpers??? Isn't that Wrong™? I cannot stress enough how often i've seen people trying Really hard not to look like they're defending Dream while actively downplaying his actions and criticizing the rebellion on its legality as if Schlatt was not literally the only citizen of L'manburg left because he executed/exiled/chased-off literally every single other person in the nation wanted him gone because he was a tyrant and obviously his Legal Election doesn't counteract that despite people's attempts to argue that while Dream was bad (and schlatt too, though we'd be lucky to get any sort of description of what 'bad' entails here, much less one that does justice to how monstrous these people are) did we really have a right to force them out of office so harshly with violence?

Or going into the exile conflict, I like, instantly clocked that the plan was to isolate/hurt Tommy, drain L'manburg of whatever resources he wanted out of them, then destroy them. I think most people with two braincells to rub together at least picked up on some of his plan, and of course it's very obvious that what Tommy did was not exile worthy and that Dream would have picked up any excuse he could think of here. But of course you had a ton of people downplaying Dream's actions/intentions/motives. And somehow the weird hyper criticism of the victims got even more severe. Like. To the point where some parts of the community almost seemed to be engaged in a contest to see who could find the most ways to tone police Tommy, Quackity, and Fundy the most for being upset about tyrannical governmental abuse that put all of them in danger and functionally destroyed one of their lives. Like. They will literally downplay or brush right past Dream's shady horrendous bs so quick to jump right into their best point of how Tommy brought this upon himself or was too emotional or needs to learn how to control himself or is so Selfish because he dared be....baffled and angry by the random unfair disproportionate punishment when he didn't do anything wrong. This exact same bullshit extends to when Quackity and Fundy get upset and snap over the exile decision, people sweep right past how horrifically agonizingly atrocious Dream's actions were and then immediately start calling Quackity and Fundy hysterical at the absolute best but much more commonly manipulative or power hungry for the high crime of being deeply upset that a good friend of theirs was just unfairly exiled on the whims of a tyrant, to the point where there were people outright criticizing them for the fact alone that they dared be upset/question the decision instead of immediately politely accepting it and just letting the leaders responsible get on with their lives with no complaint!

And then the rest of the season was the same shit with people acknowledging Dream as bad but pearl clutching at any sign of action against him or people not being polite and tolerant of him. I think I damn near cracked when people watched Quackity call Dream a tyrant and insist he couldn't get away with treating people the way he does and immediately jumped into how dumb and reckless and mean spirited and power hungry and whatever Quackity is. Literally any time he spoke out against Dream for like any reason in any way! This also extended to anyone else whenever they weren't super palatably polite and tolerant of Dream and wound up immediately labeled all sorts of distasteful things because they actually tried to take action against him or even just had the 'audacity' to say some mean things to/about him or the people who help him commit atrocities! Dream gets away with just vaguely being Bad™ but his victims, whenever they aren't the picture of grace or respect or obedience for two seconds, become any number of very specific and very passionate insults and accusations.

They aren't Dream apologists, they don't condone or defend his actions, they acknowledge him as Bad, but they're so much more angry whenever people DO something about it!

Dream is bad™ but wasn't L'manburg escalating to independence like that so quickly in bad faith, especially after the Drugs™? Dream is bad™ but like he has a point that Schlatt was elected so did the people really have a right to stage an illegal coup there? Dream is bad™ but Tommy shouldn't have been so angry and reactionary when Dream tried to get him exiled for no reason, right? Dream is bad™ but can we really say it's right for Quackity to engage in mild skirmishes with him and insult him??

This weird tone policing in which anytime one of Dream's victims is harsh or mean with him they're suddenly *insert wide range of very harsh insults/accusations* is really weird. Dream is bad™ but if anyone does anything about it besides quietly/politely asking him to please stop that sir? They get harshly critiqued to hell for it wheras there's never any suggestion for what they should be doing besides Giving Him What He Wants Very Politely Until He Goes Away. Any insults or acts of rebellion or god forbid violence against Dream is so unacceptable and the people who do any of the listed things are just indescribably bad. Even when Dream hurts and oppresses everyone to this very day and shows no remourse about a single thing, I still see people out here doing this shit.

And, well, I see a lot of the "Dream Needs Better Prison Conditions" crowd be very critical of people who aren't Dream and literally every time they do anything that could be considered even remotely Mean To Dream and they get so much more heated about that then about the actual horrific things Dream has done.

So while I don't take a stance on the point itself at the moment, i'm at least very wary of the whole situation because there's this long standing precedent of fixating in on people not being palatable™ and respectable™ in how they handle interacting with the person responsible for brutal and consistent oppression against them, this long standing precedent when it comes to narrowing in on how Dream's effected by the people who's lives he's ruined acting out against him or not treating him well and absolutely refusing to extend empathy to the other party who, even when they do end up doing 'bad' things at any point, never do anything near as bad as what Dream's done and yet get significantly less sympathy or tolerance than he does. And while i'm neutral on the topic itself i'm deeply suspicious of this whole debate by nature of this precedent and how a lot of the Improve Prison Conditions For Dream crowd are openly much more empathetic towards him than any of the people he victimized and are more likely to brush by his honest to god unforgivable sins than literally anything at all from the objectively much more sympathetic/justified people he's hurt. It just all feels very familiar and i'm inclined to feel like a lot of the debate can read as worryingly disingenuous on that premise alone?

#dream smp #dream smp discourse

44 notes · View notes

immortalcoelacanth · 4 years

Text

Ascendance of a Bookworm Oneshot: Regret

Ascendance of a Bookworm has a criminally minuscule amount of fics written for it, and as I’ve fallen in love with the anime and manga I’ve decided to add my own contribution! Or several! Depends on how the muse goes. The light novel is taking a bit of work to get through so this oneshot, as well as any others I write, will be manga/anime focused.

Word count: 898

Summary: Regret - A feeling of sadness, repentance, or disappointment over something that has happened or been done. As he watched Main lay unconscious on the ground, with a worried Fran hovering over her, Ferdinand felt regret.

Only the sound of a quill occasionally scratching against either wood or parchment could be heard in the office belonging to the head priest. His attendants were busy completing the tasks that had been assigned to them. One cleaning up the mess that had gathered throughout the day while the other organized documents and other important things. Ferdinand was currently working on finishing up some calculations, jotting down the total on a wooden slab while noting the important bits of information on a sheet of parchment.

Unfortunately, despite his intense focus on his task, his mind soon started to wander and the typical, apathetic mask he wore began to crack. His lips twisted, turning into a frown as his brows lowered. The grip on his quill tightened as he instinctively recalled the events that had happened not too long ago.

The sight of Main, collapsed on the ground after having spent her time repenting.

His critical thinking and observations skills were something Ferdinand had worked hard to develop over the years. Taking note of the smallest of details and storing them away for later recollection was vital when navigating the political minefield that was the church. One wrong move, one misspoken word could lead to nothing but future suffering and more hassles that would have to be dealt with. In a place like this that was practically ready to explode due to the overinflated egos of the blue robed priests, such skills were mandatory for anyone.

So why, why in those moments had he forgotten about Main’s poor health?

It was a point of personal frustration for him, a sign of the lapse in his judgement and thinking skills. He was present during the negotiations, played a vital role in establishing what Main’s duties were, all with her sickly state in mind. He knew how the Devouring had affected her, stunting her growth in combination with the poor conditions she had grown up in. She was frail, fragile, and yet he had still punished her in such a way.

Main… was an intellectual, wise beyond her years and articulate, acting more like an adult than a child at times, a strange combination. She was also very headstrong and creative, but she lacked knowledge about proper etiquette. Smart, yet oh so foolish at the same time.

The oddest combination of a peasant mixed with the mannerisms and speech patterns of a noble.

Perhaps it was his personal frustrations that had clouded his judgement? For how mature and wise she acted, it was her naïve nature that constantly seemed to get her in trouble. The damage such a thing would do to her, never mind her family, he doubted she really considered the repercussions of her actions and how she portrayed herself to the other blue robed priests of the church.

Ferdinand was frustrated with her actions and lack of foresight, plain and simple, but that did not mean he disliked her or wished ill upon her. Their relationship was a complicated one, him mentoring her in the ways of the church and noble society while Main never failed to either surprise him or annoy him. It was a learning process for both of them. He valued her company and enjoyed it when she was not rambling about some topic that he could not understand.

The topic’s significance and the words she used to describe such a thing.

He let out a sigh, controlling and suppressing his emotions as his mask fell into place once more. No, it was not just the frustration that bothered him, it was the regret he felt due to his actions. Main had fallen ill because of what he had foolishly done.

His mistreatment of her, despite the reasoning he had used at the time, was wrong and he knew this. Now he had to take responsibility for his actions and make amends however, there was one problem with such a plan.

Nobles did not just apologize.

Gifts were given to express remorse and regret for the actions that had been committed and near poetic apologies were written down to communicate what the gift could not. Nobles only apologized to other nobles or those in a higher class. For a noble to apologize to someone lower in standing than them, to acknowledge a wrongdoing addressed to such a person…

He could already feel the headache forming at the thought of the chaos such an action would bring.

No, the risk was far too high if he were to say such a thing to Main in a place where anyone could hear. It would paint targets on their backs, mark him as being weak, and if the high priest found out the outcome could be catastrophic.

Main was ignorant of such things, which meant Ferdinand needed to be all the more cautious to protect himself and the strange young girl.

He had to be careful about how he went about apologizing, showcasing his intent in a way that Main would understand, even with her limited knowledge of such actions. A way that no one else would notice. Words were dangerous, but perhaps a gift might do.

A gift to provide her with the items she lacked, something that would only be perceived as a helpful gesture, and with Fran’s aid, such a plan would easily succeed with little outside intervention.

A gift to express his regret.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Oh Ferdinand, you painfully complicated being, but I suppose the same could be said for other nobles! Not that I really know at this point, but I’m sure I will soon!

I hope you all enjoyed reading! For those of you on AO3 this will also be crossposted there, so don’t be surprised if you see it!

- ImmortalCoelacanth

#my story #fanfiction #ascendance of a bookworm #honzuki no gekokujou #ferdinand #regret is experienced #introspective

22 notes · View notes

destinychose · 3 years

Photo

What is Giyu’s perception of redemption?

Giyu’s perception of redemption relies heavily upon the person in question, and as such, it tends to fluctuate on a case by case basis. Whether or not someone deserves redemption is entirely dependent upon the act committed; in Giyu’s eyes, there are certain things beyond redemption, such as the senseless murder of innocent people, torture, abuse etc. He believes that these atrocities essentially blacken the soul and they cannot be forgiven or atoned for once committed. Of course, there are grey areas in this which he acknowledges, but there are very few exceptions to his staunch views.

Prior to meeting Nezuko, Giyu held the firm belief that all Demons were evil and beyond saving. He saw nothing of value in their existence, having witnessed firsthand the torment and anguish they bring upon humanity. Nezuko, of course, became the exception to his beliefs, being the only Demon he’s ever come across to resist the temptation of devouring humans. In her, he sees hope and the potential end to the war that humanity has been fighting for countless generations. However, despite his fondness for her, he remains steadfast in his duties as a Demon Slayer and believes that all Demons that have ravaged humanity are beyond salvation or any hope for redemption. The atrocities they commit are beyond redemption, as is their existence.

*** TW for mentions / implications of suicidal tendencies from hereon out.

In regards to himself, Giyu’s perception of redemption becomes extremely murky. Giyu has an extremely poor view of himself and believes his survival to be both a punishment and a curse. As far as he’s concerned, his continued survival brands him as beyond redemption, as he has lived while many who he sees as much more deserving have died for him or around him. For many years, he believes it would have been better had he died instead, throwing himself from mission to mission with very little care for his wellbeing. The only thing that kept him going was the thought of avenging those who have died and knowing that there were still many Demons bringing misery to countless innocent people.

After meeting Tanjiro and being reminded of Sabito’s ( somewhat harsh ) words to him, Giyu slowly begins to forgive himself. While he’s by no means “cured” of his depression and the suicidal tendencies that came with it, he starts to see his survival in a different light — so long as he continues to live, he can carry the memories of those who died with him.

By the end of the series, he has all but come to terms with his survival and while he still grapples with survivors guilt, he resolves to live for those he has lost as opposed to wishing for his own death to atone for his perceived wrongdoings.

What is his idea of perfect happiness?

Perfect happiness isn’t something Giyu often dares to consider or dream of, but if he were to imagine his perfect idea of happiness, it would most definitely include a world in which his older sister and Sabito live. While he doesn’t see himself as worthy of such a thing, if he were ever given the chance to live a life with the two of them at his side once more, he would be beyond content.

How does he display affection?

Giyu is very, very discreet with his affection. He’s not one for grand acts or public displays of affection and tends to lean towards more subtle gestures such as: pressing a gentle hand to his partner/loved one’s back, purposefully brushing hands as they walk ( if his partner/loved one doesn’t hold his hand first ), making his partner/loved one their favourite meal/tea and either delivering it to them directly or leaving it somewhere they’ll soon find it, keeping a close eye on his partner/loved one’s mood and responding accordingly...

Typically, small yet meaningful gestures are Giyu’s go-to. He’s not big on words or making his feelings clear through elaborate plans. His care is quieter, softer, perhaps a little harder to notice than most, but it’s very much there.

What sense does he most rely on?

It’s a toss-up between sight and sound. While his sense of hearing is not as well-honed as someone like Zenitsu, he has incredible reflexes, Giyu is still able to respond to things he sees and hears at a much higher speed than the regular human due to his training.

What are his idiosyncrasies?

One of Giyu’s more prominent idiosyncrasies is perhaps most apparent when indulging in a meal. While his etiquette is on par with those of his peers, such as respectfully announcing his gratitude for the meal before eating, he has a subconscious habit of ensuring that his bowl is centred to his torso and wiping the rim if anything spills, setting his chopsticks carefully beside it. He eats very slowly and carefully, only ever taking small bites/sips, sitting with pristine posture ( he does not hunch over his food ), taking great care not to spill anything or make a mess. This habit has persisted since childhood, his older sister repeatedly drumming into him to take great care when eating a good meal, to show proper respect to the person who made it.

Smaller, less prominent idiosyncrasies include idly rubbing his thumb against the tsuba of his katana when irritated or uncomfortable, or subtly running his fingers against the sleeve of his haori when seeking comfort ( Tsutako’s burgundy half ) or courage ( Sabito’s patterned half ).

What past act is he most proud of?

Giyu believes he has done very little in his life to be proud of, but there is one thing in particular that he’s glad for: sparing Nezuko’s life. While it meant pushing Tanjiro towards a life of strife as a Demon Slayer ( something he hesitated to do at first, knowing all too well what it would mean for the boy ), he doesn’t regret offering his help to the Kamado siblings after witnessing Nezuko’s refusal to turn on her brother.

Will he buy Kyouka ( florabled ) boiled tofu?

Giyu would happily buy her boiled tofu and any other manner of food she’d like. While he doesn’t accept much money in the way of payment from the Demon Slayers Corps, he’ll quietly make note of whatever appears to be her favourite foods and buy any ingredients needed to make her favourite dishes. If they happen to be out in a town somewhere, he’ll treat her to meals, too!

Does he believe it’s okay to tell a lie and under what circumstances?

Giyu is brutally honest and doesn’t exactly think to spare someone’s feelings when telling the truth ( not out of spite or cruelty, but simply because he doesn’t consider the pain behind his words ), and as such he’s not the type to lie. Rather, he abhors it, and to that end, he doesn’t think it’s honourable to tell a lie, regardless of the circumstances.

Over time, as he begins to grow more in touch with his emotions thanks to the bonds he builds with others ( such as with Kyouka, Tanjiro, Toshiro etc ), he’s not opposed to softening the blow of what might be a painful truth, but never to the point of lying.

What are his sleeping & eating habits?

During the years following Sabito’s death, Giyu’s healthy sleeping habits drastically deteriorated, sometimes to the point of avoiding sleep altogether ( for fear of nightmares that often plague his unconscious mind ). In a way, denying himself the rest his body needed was a subconscious form of self-punishment for continuing to live where so many of his loved ones had died. Due to this continued avoidance of sleep, untreated PTSD and depression, Giyu eventually developed severe insomnia that persists into his adult years.

Even during his adult years, he has a very sporadic, inconsistent sleep schedule and it’s unfortunately common for Giyu to go several days without proper rest, particularly when going from one mission to the next. There have been times in the past where he’s reached the point of collapsing due to sheer exhaustion, although he tries to limit such an outcome where possible.

As for his eating habits, while he maintains a strict, balanced diet to better aid his body’s needs as a swordsman, there are days when time gets away from him ( or his depression hits hard ) and Giyu forgets to eat a proper meal. On good days, he ensures he has three decent meals ( never to excess and only when hungry ) and is mindful of the food he eats.

As times goes by and his mental health begins to stabilise, so do his sleeping and eating habits — while it takes some time for his insomnia to abate, towards his mid-30s he has all but rid himself of it, which ( alongside his better eating habits ) serves to drastically improve his health overall.

Is he organised or disorganised?

Typically, Giyu is fairly organised, but only as far as his duties are concerned. When it comes to his wellbeing or personal life ( such as his sleeping and eating habits and personal hygiene beyond the very bare minimum ), very little care is afforded to himself, as his attention is very much focused on ensuring he’s prepared for the next battle. To that end, he ensures that his katana and any other equipment he uses are in perfect shape to ensure he is properly prepared for whatever might come next.

In a broader sense, he has excellent time management skills and is never late for a meeting unless outside forces beyond his control cause issues, he is apt at making quick-fire decisions and does not allow his emotions to influence him ( he’s typically a stickler for rules and follows orders to the letter ), and while he does not enjoy taking on a leadership role ( due to his fear of being responsible for the lives — and, inevitably, deaths — of his subordinates ), he can quickly take command of a situation should he need.

What are Giyu’s pastimes? What does he do when he is not out on a mission?

When not out on missions, Giyu can typically be found at his estate, which resides somewhat separately from the other Pillars, in keeping with his decision to impose isolation upon himself. Sometimes, he’ll be training on his own, further honing his skills and perfecting each Breath of Water Form. Other times, he’ll sit by the water’s edge with a cup of tea, basking in a rare moment of tranquillity. It’s rare for him to venture out into the nearby town unless absolutely necessary, much less interact with his fellow Pillars.

Does he have any particular interests?

Giyu is particularly skilled at shōgi ( although he rarely plays it nowadays ) after learning from Urokodaki as a child. While he never beat the man at his own game, he learned a great deal and grew into a competent player. He wouldn’t exactly call it a hobby, but he does possess a certain fondness for the game, due to the positive emotions associated with it.

Due to Tsutako’s fondness of the wild birds that visited the gardens near their small home growing up, Giyu quite enjoys birdwatching. Due to living near a lake, it’s often he sees all manner of birdlife by his estate, something he knows Tsutako would have loved had she lived.

Beyond that, swordsmanship is a passion he has developed beyond its necessity as a Demon Slayer. From training with his katana to seeing to its upkeep, Giyu finds the familiarity of it all to be somewhat comforting.

How likely is Giyu to step up and take the role of a leader? Is he willing to take the challenge, or is he more apt to being a follower?

Giyu is neither suited to being a leader or a follower. While he’ll always follow orders to a T and is a stickler for rules, there are rare instances where his heart can overrule his head and he’ll break tradition ( as seen with his decision to spare Nezuko despite his duty as a slayer and her demonic status, and his resolution to aid Tanjiro despite the fact that it would be a violation of conduct ).

The thought of leading a group of people and bearing the responsibility of their lives should his orders result in tragedy is one of his greatest fears. He prefers to be alone, taking responsibility for his own life and actions, as he feels it would be of little consequence if he were to die in the line of duty as opposed to anyone else.

Is Giyu courageous, or would he consider himself to be more of a coward?

In terms of actions, Giyu might be viewed as courageous by outsiders, due to his calm and unruffled demeanour when facing demons. However, when it comes to personal feelings, Giyu views himself as a coward. He was too afraid to try and save his sister, allowing her to hide him away and die in his stead, and while he was in no fit state to go after him, he failed to help Sabito in his fight against the Hand Demon, resulting in the death of his best friend in their Final Selection. In both instances, he feels that his actions were cowardly and carries a lot of blame for their deaths, to the point of believing that it should have been him who died instead.

In some ways, he thinks himself “cursed”, as everyone he has ever loved ( aside from Urokodaki ) have died. For this reason ( in addition to viewing himself as unworthy of the company of his fellow Pillars ), Giyu keeps people at arm’s length, refusing to let them get close out of fear that he’ll lose another person he cares about and be unable to save them.

Does Giyu prefer the day, or is he more of a night-owl?

While by no means a personal preference, due to his line of work and consistent inability to sleep due to ongoing bouts of insomnia, Giyu has become something of a night owl. When not out on a mission, Giyu does very little besides training, finding it difficult to care about much else. It’s not uncommon to find him sitting alone in the dark, lost in thought, going over his failures.

What message would Giyu send to his past self, if any?

There are too many things he would want to say to his past self, so many warnings and instructions he would want to give, all of them reflective of his negative feelings towards himself.

Insist that Tsutako hides from the demons instead. Don’t let Sabito run off on his own. Make it to the Kamado household sooner.

While he’s aware that the past is unchangeable, that he has no choice but to live with the consequences of his actions ( or, in many cases, inaction ), it’s hard for Giyu to shake off his regrets, particularly in instances where innocent people have died where he could have done something to change it. He views himself as responsible for their deaths and carries the weight of that responsibility with him, more so in regards to Tsutako and Sabito: he wears the physical reminder of their loss on his back at all times in the form of his haori, so that he never forgets those he loved and failed to save.

Does Giyu care about appearances much? Does he spend a lot of time on his own appearance, or does he just go with the flow each day?

Giyu awards very little care to himself unless it becomes strictly necessary, especially so in regards to his appearance. At most, and only on remotely ‘good’ days, Giyu will run a brush through his hair before tying it up, but not much else beyond that. He utilises basic hygiene on a daily basis if only because it’s a habit he’s had drummed into him from an early age, however, it’s not uncommon for him to throw himself from one mission to the next without allowing himself proper rest/a chance to bathe in an unconscious form of self-punishment.

The only thing he does show care for is his haori, due to both halves having belonged to the most important people in his life. He washes it regularly, tends to fraying stitches and ensures it’s in the best condition it can be. While it depends very much on the severity of the situation at the time, one of the quickest way to earn Giyu’s ire is to dirty or damage his haori.

What sorts of things might remind Giyu of those close to him? Any scents, objects, sounds?

Perhaps most obviously for Giyu is the haori he wears at all times, each half once belonging to two of the most important people in his life: his older sister, Tsutako and best friend, Sabito. In many ways, the haori is a physical representation of their lost lives and his failure to do anything to protect them, but it’s also the greatest sole source of comfort he allows for himself. Everything else is rejected as a form of self-punishment, but the haori wrapped around his shoulders is his only indulgence, a reminder of when times were happier. A reminder of when they suddenly weren’t.

The scent of salmon daikon, a dish that his elder sister used to frequently make him while growing up, is another reminder of Tsutako for Giyu, although one with more positive connotations. It’s an untainted scent, one that reminds him of the hours he and his sister would spend hovering in front of the stove as she taught him how to cook his favourite meal, and all the disasters which came with it.

For reasons he can’t entirely fathom, the scent of peaches and cinnamon reminds him strongly ( wistfully ) of Sabito. While it was once comforting, it’s become a scent that haunts him, that has him turning in the middle of the street in search of his long-dead friend, convinced he noticed a flash of peach coloured hair. It’s a scent that leaves him feeling hollow and out of place, fingers grasping at the patterned half of his haori until the unbearable moment of dissociation ends.

#* muse. tomioka giyu ／ headcanon #long post /#suicidal thoughts tw /#suicidal tendencies tw /#depression tw /#ask to tag /

4 notes · View notes

destinychose-a1 · 4 years

Text

What is Giyuu’s perception of redemption?

Giyuu’s perception of redemption relies heavily upon the person in question, and as such, it tends to fluctuate on a case by case basis. Whether or not someone deserves redemption is entirely dependent upon the act committed; in Giyuu’s eyes, there are certain things beyond redemption, such as the senseless murder of innocent people, torture, abuse etc. He believes that these atrocities essentially blacken the soul and they cannot be forgiven or atoned for once committed. Of course, there are grey areas in this which he acknowledges, but there are very few exceptions to his staunch views.

Prior to meeting Nezuko, Giyuu held the firm belief that all Demons were evil and beyond saving. He saw nothing of value in their existence, having witnessed firsthand the torment and anguish they bring upon humanity. Nezuko, of course, became the exception to his beliefs, being the only Demon he’s ever come across to resist the temptation of devouring humans. In her, he sees hope and the potential end to the war that humanity has been fighting for countless generations. However, despite his fondness for her, he remains steadfast in his duties as a Demon Slayer and believes that all Demons that have ravaged humanity are beyond salvation or any hope for redemption. The atrocities they commit are beyond redemption, as is their existence.

*** TW for mentions / implications of suicidal tendencies from hereon out.

In regards to himself, Giyuu’s perception of redemption becomes extremely murky. Giyuu has an extremely poor view of himself and believes his survival to be both a punishment and a curse. As far as he’s concerned, his continued survival brands him as beyond redemption, as he has lived while many who he sees as much more deserving have died for him or around him. For many years, he believes it would have been better had he died instead, throwing himself from mission to mission with very little care for his wellbeing. The only thing that kept him going was the thought of avenging those who have died and knowing that there were still many Demons bringing misery to countless innocent people.

After meeting Tanjiro and being reminded of Sabito’s ( somewhat harsh ) words to him, Giyuu slowly begins to forgive himself. While he’s by no means “cured” of his depression and the suicidal tendencies that came with it, he starts to see his survival in a different light — so long as he continues to live, he can carry the memories of those who died with him.

What is his idea of perfect happiness?

Perfect happiness isn’t something Giyuu often dares to consider or dream of, but if he were to imagine his perfect idea of happiness, it would most definitely include a world in which his older sister and Sabito live. While he doesn’t see himself as worthy of such a thing, if he were ever given the chance to live a life with the two of them at his side once more, he would be beyond content.

How does he display affection?

Giyuu is very, very discreet with his affection. He’s not one for grand acts or public displays of affection and tends to lean towards more subtle gestures such as: pressing a gentle hand to his partner/loved one’s back, purposefully brushing hands as they walk ( if his partner/loved one doesn’t hold his hand first ), making his partner/loved one their favourite meal/tea and either delivering it to them directly or leaving it somewhere they’ll soon find it, keeping a close eye on his partner/loved one’s mood and responding accordingly...

Typically, small yet meaningful gestures are Giyuu’s go-to. He’s not big on words or making his feelings clear through elaborate plans. His care is quieter, softer, perhaps a little harder to notice than most, but it’s very much there.

What sense does he most rely on?

It’s a toss-up between sight and sound. While his sense of hearing is not as well-honed as someone like Zenitsu, he has incredible reflexes, Giyuu is still able to respond to things he sees and hears at a much higher speed than the regular human due to his training.

What are his idiosyncrasies?

One of Giyuu’s more prominent idiosyncrasies is perhaps most apparent when indulging in a meal. While his etiquette is on par with those of his peers, such as respectfully announcing his gratitude for the meal before eating, he has a subconscious habit of ensuring that his bowl is centred to his torso and wiping the rim if anything spills, setting his chopsticks carefully beside it. He eats very slowly and carefully, only ever taking small bites/sips, sitting with pristine posture ( he does not hunch over his food ), taking great care not to spill anything or make a mess. This habit has persisted since childhood, his older sister repeatedly drumming into him to take great care when eating a good meal, to show proper respect to the person who made it.

What past act is he most proud of?

Giyuu believes he has done very little in his life to be proud of, but there is one thing in particular that he’s glad for: sparing Nezuko’s life. While it meant pushing Tanjiro towards a life of strife as a Demon Slayer ( something he hesitated to do at first, knowing all too well what it would mean for the boy ), he doesn’t regret offering his help to the Kamado siblings after witnessing Nezuko’s refusal to turn on her brother.

Will he buy Kyouka ( @florabled ) boiled tofu?

Giyuu would happily buy her boiled tofu and any other manner of food she’d like. While he doesn’t accept much money in the way of payment from the Demon Slayers Corps, he’ll quietly make note of whatever appears to be her favourite foods and buy any ingredients needed to make her favourite dishes. If they happen to be out in a town somewhere, he’ll treat her to meals, too!

Does he believe it’s okay to tell a lie and under what circumstances?

Giyuu is brutally honest and doesn’t exactly think to spare someone’s feelings when telling the truth ( not out of spite or cruelty, but simply because he doesn’t consider the pain behind his words ), and as such he’s not the type to lie. Rather, he abhors it, and to that end, he doesn’t think it’s honourable to tell a lie, regardless of the circumstances.

What are his sleeping & eating habits?

During the years following Sabito’s death, Giyuu’s healthy sleeping habits drastically deteriorated, sometimes to the point of avoiding sleep altogether ( for fear of nightmares that often plague his unconscious mind ). In a way, denying himself the rest his body needed was a subconscious form of self-punishment for continuing to live where so many of his loved ones had died. Due to this continued avoidance of sleep, untreated PTSD and depression, Giyuu eventually developed severe insomnia that persists into his adult years.

Even during his adult years, he has a very sporadic, inconsistent sleep schedule and it’s unfortunately common for Giyuu to go several days without proper rest, particularly when going from one mission to the next. There have been times in the past where he’s reached the point of collapsing due to sheer exhaustion, although he tries to limit such an outcome where possible.

As for his eating habits, while he maintains a strict, balanced diet to better aid his body’s needs as a swordsman, there are days when time gets away from him ( or his depression hits hard ) and Giyuu forgets to eat a proper meal. On good days, he ensures he has three decent meals ( never to excess and only when hungry ) and is mindful of the food he eats.

Is he organised or disorganised?

Typically, Giyuu is fairly organised, but only as far as his duties are concerned. When it comes to his wellbeing or personal life ( such as his sleeping and eating habits and personal hygiene beyond the very bare minimum ), very little care is afforded to himself, as his attention is very much focused on ensuring he’s prepared for the next battle. To that end, he ensures that his katana and any other equipment he uses are in perfect shape to ensure he is properly prepared for whatever might come next.

In a broader sense, he has excellent time management skills and is never late for a meeting unless outside forces beyond his control cause issues, he is apt at making quickfire decisions and does not allow his emotions to influence him ( he’s typically a stickler for rules and follows orders to the letter ), and while he does not enjoy taking on a leadership role ( due to his fear of being responsible for the lives — and, inevitably, deaths — of his subordinates ), he can quickly take command of a situation should he need.

What are Giyuu’s pastimes? What does he do when he is not out on a mission?

When not out on missions, Giyuu can typically be found at his estate, which resides somewhat separately from the other Pillars, in keeping with his decision to impose isolation upon himself. Sometimes, he’ll be training on his own, further honing his skills and perfecting each Breath of Water Form. Other times, he’ll sit by the water’s edge with a cup of tea, basking in a rare moment of tranquillity. It’s rare for him to venture out into the nearby town unless absolutely necessary, much less interact with his fellow Pillars.

Does he have any particular interests?

Giyuu is particularly skilled at shōgi ( although he rarely plays it nowadays ) after learning from Urokodaki as a child. While he never beat the man at his own game, he learned a great deal and grew into a competent player. He wouldn’t exactly call it a hobby, but he does possess a certain fondness for the game, due to the positive emotions associated with it.

Due to Tsutako’s fondness of the wild birds that visited the gardens near their small home growing up, Giyuu quite enjoys birdwatching. Due to living near a lake, it’s often he sees all manner of birdlife by his estate, something he knows Tsutako would have loved had she lived.

Beyond that, swordsmanship is a passion he has developed beyond its necessity as a Demon Slayer. From training with his katana to seeing to its upkeep, Giyuu finds the familiarity of it all to be somewhat comforting.

#⤿ 𝐈𝐍. tomioka giyuu ／ headcanon.#long post /#suicidal tendencies tw /#suicidal thoughts tw /#depression tw /#ask to tag /

6 notes · View notes

shslstraws · 5 years

Note

Hi, you don't have to answer this question! But I'm very curious, mainly cause I want to hear your opinion on them. But, what's your thoughts on Ryoma Hoshi? ^^

Heyya! I’ve been meaning to get around to this actually, I love questions like this!

Ryoma Hoshi! I think he’s a great character! When I was about to start NDRV3, I saw Ryoma and went, “oh great, a small perverted character who is for comedy relief probably” like the typical ones you see in anime and stuff like that. Like Teddy from Persona 4, for example.

BUT BOY WAS I PROVEN WRONG RIGHT AWAY

And I’m glad they didn’t go that route and made Ryoma entirely different. Just goes to show; don’t judge a book by it’s cover. I would say the same thing for Gonta, bc he looked very intimidating, but he’s just a gentleman. Gentle giant,,

Before officially giving my thoughts on Ryoma, I spent a while researching and watching the free time events on him, so here’s my thoughts;

At first, meeting Ryoma was surprising in the prologue; 1. he had a deep voice. 2. Ultimate Tennis Pro who states that he’s no longer that ultimate but “his empty shell” And me, being like, “dam, that’s edgy” and the more and more “edgy” he got for me as the story continued on, with him trying to sacrifice himself so everyone doesn’t get killed in Chapter 1. The whole argument in the cafeteria with Rantaro, yanno. But at that point, I stopped seeing Ryoma as this “edgy character” but as a character who is,,,just sad. Especially when this is his reason, HE should be the one to be sacrificed.

Which no one should take lightly, and there is a reason this character THINKS he has no reason to live anymore. We go into chapter 2, and when Ryoma states he wants to see his motive video and Kaito gets angry bc he perceives Ryoma as someone who has no will to live. And interesting how Ryoma reacts to this as, “No will to live? Hmph. if that how you see me, then so be it”. Which is kind of a different tone to in the first chapter when he stated he had no reason to live.

But, how I see it, there’s a difference between Ryoma’s REASON to live and his WILL to live. You get more into Chapter 2, and Ryoma shows signs of actually not planning to throw his life away, and you get more attached and understanding to Ryoma. He even states, “I’m not stupid enough to throw my life away.” and when Gonta spots Shuichi and Ryoma, Ryoma escapes before saying to Shuichi, “sorry, but there’s still things I got to do.” There is a WILL to live from Ryoma, but it’s often shadowed by his reasons to live.

Now, we go into the backstory; Ryoma had a future bright ahead of him. With a promising career with the profession he loved, Tennis. And Ryoma even had a girlfriend when he was in America for “studying tennis” aboard. Ryoma says he never believed in love until her, so this relationship must have really meant A LOT to Ryoma. The mafia invited Ryoma to an underground tennis competition, where the rich bet on who will win, etc. He didn’t want to at first, but the mafia was just persistent, so he eventually accepted. The matches were fixed though and Ryoma won against the opponent he was SUPPOSE to lose to. Just to get the mafia ruin for their reputation. Ryoma states that he was VERY naive back then. Which makes sense for a young teen suddenly put in this frustrating position, where all Ryoma knows is to play tennis the way he knows how and loses. But he’s an ultimate, he’s not suppose to lose. But that doesn’t mean Ryoma did this intent bc he was salty or whatever. It was just very unfair and probably felt dirty to him, just no respect in tennis (if that makes sense), so of course he’d win on purpose just to resent the mafia. But due to lack judgement before making this decision, Ryoma would learn to regret this decision. As the mafia MASSACRED his family for revenge. Which is REALLY brutal.

You find this out in Ryoma’s free time events, after getting a third friendship fragment. The only one in Ryoma’s life, was his girlfriend. But for her safety, Ryoma told her to run away, but the mafia found and killed her. At the end of the fourth free time event, Ryoma says that he should have stayed with her then that way “she wouldn’t have been alone.” Ryoma blames himself for the deaths of the people he loved and who ever loved him. And rightfully too, but it doesn’t mean everything was his fault. He just carries the burden and wanted to get revenge; which is why he killed the entire mafia. (Which I still find weird how he can with tennis but he is an ultimate)

With more burden to carry with lives he took away, and Ryoma was on death row until he got put into the killing game. I can imagine all the hopes, dreams, or whatever leave once you’re told you’re set to die. And you wouldn’t even bother caring if there was “nothing to live for” which being Ryoma’s family and lover. No wonder Ryoma was willing to give his life away in the first chapter, Ryoma was told he would die before this and being put in a killing game?? He’s going to die either way, so he felt the need to sacrifice himself as something he can maybe repent or not be alone anymore. But whether Ryoma tried to push or suppress and even put on a mask, Ryoma still had a WILL to live. He still had the passion of tennis, but suppress those emotions as punishments for his wrongdoings. And that’s a lot to do to yourself. Ryoma denied this will to live, but maybe started to accept it. Especially after Kaede’s death and her hopes to escape with everyone.

And later on, he sees everyone (including Shuichi, who Ryoma knew was the most affected by Kaede’s death) try to go on and escape. Then it’s a given that Ryoma starts to try and find a REASON to keep his WILL to live. That’s why he’s so desperate for his motive video as well. To find someone cares for him, it’s not like he had family ALIVE for the motive to give Ryoma “the most important IN HIS LIFE”. Because the most important people to him in his entire life have died. Perhaps he was just trying to find maybe one survivor of his family in the motive video, or maybe big hopes to see his lover there. But when he saw no one, it just confirmed that everyone he cared for is dead.

Ryoma is a sad character when you go in depth, he’s a person who had everything and lost everything over one mistake. And blames himself, carries the burden, and is told he is going to die. There is a lot on this character’s shoulders, it’s a shame he went the way he did. But in the end, when he lost all hope, he still thought of others than himself. Kirumi had everything to live for, and Ryoma had nothing left. Nothing left that he saw anymore, but I believe he could have a reason to live. HONESTLY, IF THERE WAS NO KILLING GAME EVERYONE WOULD BE HAPPY, YEAH? But with Ryoma, these were friends that were starting to help him find importance in his life and I can definitely see everyone helping Ryoma get back into tennis. Something he loves. (Especially Kaito, I see Kaito really pushing trying to get Ryoma back into it if he can haha)

Ryoma is definitely an interesting character with a tragic backstory. But still had strength left in him, and wanting a reason to keep his small bit of will to live. Ryoma deserves a lot of love,,,

Oh!

Interesting take, Ryoma looks at Shuichi at a new light in Chapter 2. He goes on to even say this;

“It’s like your eyes have stopped focusing on the past…”

Perhaps Ryoma saw himself in Shuichi once Kaede died, someone who was close to Shuichi in Chapter 1. Shuichi lost someone he cared for, like Ryoma did. WOULDN’T SAY ROMANTICALLY BUT I KNOW THE GAME PUSHES FOR SAIMATSU. I do like Saimatsu, but I always like “whatever ppl ship him with here teehee” So for here, Ryoma just saw some resemblance, and probably figured Shuichi was going to lose hope like he did when losing someone. But Shuichi learns to move on for Kaede’s sake. (And the rest who died, in the upcoming chapter, he states that they should all live for the people who died, and amen. I’ll drink to that, Shuichi) Shuichi hasn’t fully stopped focusing on the past at this point of the game, Chapter 2, but Ryoma sees he’s trying. And probably gives him more thoughts on maybe,, he should let go of the past too.

#PHEW #THIS TOOK LONG #THANKS AGAIN FOR ASKING!#it was fun doing my own research and giving my take on a character #getting more in depth to one and my thoughts on them #ryoma is truly a good character #ryoma hoshi #danganronpa #danganronpa v3 #ndrv3 #ndrv3 killing harmony #strawsanswers #strawstalks

38 notes · View notes

soliloquiumanimae · 4 years

Text

“THE PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN AND THE POOR MAN (2 SAMUEL 12:1-6)

OVERVIEW: Nathan’s shrewd manner of confronting David with his own words and then by open rebuke is an effective strategy for taking the powerful of this world to task (GREGORY THE GREAT). David’s harsh verdict against Nathan’s figurative rich man is met with his immediate and pointed indictment, yet David’s prompt confession of guilt is met with assurance of the Lord’s forgiveness and the repeal of his self-condemning sentence (CHRYSOSTOM). David’s lust was a one-time sinful fall rather than a habit as suggested in the metaphor of the guest. Nathan used the sharp scalpel of David’s own words to remove the diseased tissue of his heart (AUGUSTINE).

12:1-6 Nathan’s Story and David’s Judgment

CHALLENGING THE POWERFUL. GREGORY THE GREAT: But at times, in taking to task the powerful of this world, they are first to be dealt with by drawing diverse comparisons in a case ostensibly concerning someone else. Then, when they give a right judgment on what apparently is another’s case, they are to be taken to task regarding their own guilt by a suitable procedure. Thus a mind puffed up with temporal power cannot possibly lift itself up against the reprover, for by its own judgment it has trodden on the neck of pride; and it cannot argue to defend itself, as it stands convicted by the sentence out of its own mouth.

Thus it was that Nathan the prophet, coming to chide the king, to all appearance asked his judgment in the case of a poor man against a rich man. The king first was to deliver judgment and then to hear that he was the culprit. Thus he was completely unable to deny the just sentence which he had personally delivered against himself. Therefore, the holy man, considering both the sinner and the king, aimed in that wonderful manner at convicting a bold culprit first by his own admission and then cut him by his rebuke. For a short while he concealed the person whom he was aiming at and then at once struck him when he had convicted him. His stroke would, perhaps, have had less force if he had chosen to castigate the sin directly the moment he began to speak. But by beginning with a similitude, he sharpened the rebuke which he was concealing. He came like a physician to a sick man, saw that his wound had to be incised, but was in doubt about the endurance of the patient. He, therefore, concealed the surgeon’s knife under his coat, but drawing it out suddenly, pierced the wound, that the sick man might feel the knife before he saw it, for if he had first seen it, he might have refused to feel it. PASTORAL CARE 3.2.1

THE GOOD OF A PROMPT CONFESSION. CHRYSOSTOM: Therefore, Nathan went to David and wove a dramatic act for judgment. And what did he say? “My king, I want your judgment. There was a certain rich man and a certain poor one. The “rich person possessed herds of cattle and many other flocks; and the poor one had one ewe that drank from his glass, ate from his table and slept in his embrace.” Here Nathan revealed the genuine bond between a husband and wife. “When a certain stranger arrived, the rich man desired to keep his own animals, and he took the poor man’s ewe and slaughtered her.” Here, do you see how Nathan wove the dramatic act, mysteriously concealing the weapon in the glands of David’s throat? Then what did the king say? Thinking that he had to pass judgment against someone else, he decided most severely. For such are human beings. When it concerns other people, they gladly and abruptly render decisions and publicize them. And what did David say? “As the Lord lives, the man who did this thing is worthy of death. And he shall restore the lamb fourfold.” Therefore, what did Nathan reply? He did not allow the wound to be relieved for many hours; rather, he quickly stripped it naked and sharply embedded the knife deeply into it, so as not to rob it of the painful sensation. “You are the man, my king.” What did the king say? “I have sinned against the Lord.” He did not say, “Who are you who censures me? Who sent you to speak with such boldness? With what daring did you prevail?” He did not say anything of the sort; rather, he perceived the sin. And what did he say? “I have sinned against the Lord.” Therefore, what did Nathan say to him? “And the Lord remitted “your sin.” You condemned yourself; I [God] remit your sentence. You confessed prudently; you annulled the sin. You appropriated a condemnatory decision against yourself; I repealed the sentence. Can you see that what is written in Scripture was fulfilled: “Be the first one to tell of your transgression so you may be justified”2 How toilsome is it to be the first one to declare the sin? HOMILIES ON REPENTANCE AND ALMSGIVING 2.2.9.3

THE FLEETING CHARACTER OF DAVID’S SIN. AUGUSTINE: And with what moderation and self-restraint those men used their wives appears chiefly in this, that when this same king, carried away by the heat of passion and by temporal prosperity, had taken unlawful possession of one woman, whose husband also he ordered to be put to death, he was accused of his crime by a prophet, who, when he had come to show him his sin, set before him the parable of the poor man who had but one ewe lamb, and whose neighbor, though he had many, yet when a guest came to him, refused to take of his own flock but set his poor neighbor’s one lamb before his guest to eat. And David’s anger kindled against the man, he commanded that he should be put to death and the lamb restored fourfold to the poor man; thus unwittingly condemning the sin he had wittingly committed. And when he had been shown this, and God’s punishment had been announced against him, he wiped out his sin in deep penitence. But yet in this parable it was the adultery only that was indicated by the poor man’s ewe lamb. About the killing of the woman’s husband—that is, about the murder of the poor man himself who had the one ewe lamb—nothing is said in the parable, so that the sentence of condemnation is pronounced against the adultery alone. And hence we may understand with what temperance he possessed a number of wives when he was forced to punish himself for transgressing in regard to one woman. But in his case the immoderate desire did not take up its abode with him but was only a passing guest. On this account the unlawful appetite is called even by the accusing prophet, a guest. For he did not say that he took the poor man’s ewe lamb to make a feast for his king, but for his guest. In the case of his son Solomon, however, this lust did not come and pass away like a guest but reigned as a king. And about him Scripture is not silent but accuses him of being a lover of strange women; for in the beginning of his reign he was inflamed with a desire for wisdom, but after he had attained it through spiritual love, he lost it through carnal lust.4 CHRISTIAN INSTRUCTION 3.21.5

DISEASED TISSUE IN DAVID’S HEART. AUGUSTINE: For I admit my wrongdoing, and my offense confronts me all the time.6 “I have not thrust my deed behind my back; I do not look askance at others while forgetting myself; I do not presume to extract a speck of straw from my brother’s eye while there is a timber in my own;7 my sin is in front of me, not behind my back. It was behind me until the prophet was sent to me and put to me the parable of the poor man’s sheep.” What the prophet Nathan said to David was this: There was a certain rich man who had a large flock of sheep. His neighbor was a poor man who had only one little ewe lamb; she rested in his arms and was fed from his own dish. Then a guest arrived at the rich man’s house. The rich man took nothing from his flock; what he wanted was the little ewe lamb that belonged to his neighbor, so he slaughtered that for his guest. What does he deserve? Angrily David pronounced sentence. Obviously the king was unaware of the trap into which he had fallen, and he decreed that the rich man deserved to die and must make fourfold restitution for the sheep. It was a very severe view, and entirely just. But his own sin was not yet before his eyes; what he had done was still behind his back. He did not yet admit his own iniquity and hence would not remit another’s. But the prophet had been sent to him for this purpose. He brought the sin out from behind David’s back and held it before his eyes, so that he might see that the severe sentence had been passed on himself. To cut away diseased tissue in David’s heart and heal the wound there, Nathan used David’s tongue as a knife.

EXPLANATIONS OF THE PSALMS 50.8

NATHAN CONFRONTS DAVID (2 SAMUEL 12:7-12)

OVERVIEW: Nathan’s foretelling of the evils to befall David on account of his adultery and murder illustrate one of the three classes of prophecy, namely that which refers to the earthly Jerusalem as distinguished from the heavenly Jerusalem and from both the heavenly and earthly Jerusalem (AUGUSTINE). That God sees and judges actions committed in secret is proven by the exposure of David’s grave sins, thereby warning sinners of impending punishment (SALVIAN). Although a virtuous man through whom Christ would descend, David was punished for his adultery, even though he was repentant and was declared forgiven (ISAAC OF NINEVEH).

12:10-12 Nathan Pronounces the Lord’s Judgment

CLASSES OF PROPHECY. AUGUSTINE: Thus, the prophets’ sayings are of three classes: one class refers to the earthly, a second to the heavenly Jerusalem, and a third to both simultaneously. It will be best to support this assertion with illustration. The prophet Nathan was sent to accuse King David of a grave sin and to foretell what evils were to befall him on this account. Now no one can fail to see that this prophecy refers to the earthly city. There are others like it, sometimes addressed to the people at large for their profit and well-being, and sometimes to an individual who merited a word from God to foreknow some event for the guidance of his temporal life. CITY OF GOD 17.3.1

GOD SEES AND JUDGES SECRET ACTIONS. SALVIAN THE PRESBYTER: But that you may clearly know that his censure and sacred considerations deal more with actions than with persons themselves, hear how God, the judge, who many times gave sentences favorable to his servant David, often gave decisions unfavorable to him. This happened in a transaction which did not involve many men, or perhaps, what would have aroused God more, in a transaction involving holy men. It happened in the instance of one man, a foreigner, where the action rather than the person demanded punishment.

When Uriah the Hittite, a member of a wicked race and of an unfriendly nation, had been killed, the divine Word was immediately passed to David, “You have killed Uriah, the Hittite, with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Therefore the sword shall never depart from your house. Thus said the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor. For you did it secretly: but I will do this thing in the sight of all Israel and in the sight of the sun.’

What do you say to this, you who believe that God does not judge our actions and who believe that he has no concern whatsoever for us? Do you “not see that the eyes of God were never absent even from that secret sin through which David fell once? Learn from this that you are always seen by Christ, understand and know that you will be punished, and perhaps very soon, you, who, perhaps in consolation for your sins, think that our acts are not seen by God. You see that the holy David was unable to hide his sin in the secrecy of his inmost rooms; neither was he able to claim exemption from immediate punishment through the privilege of great deeds. What did the Lord say to him? “I will take your wives before your eyes, and the sword shall never depart from your house.” THE GOVERNANCE OF GOD 2.4.2

TEMPORAL PUNISHMENT REMAINED. ISAAC OF NINEVEH: And David, who was a man after God’s own heart, who because of his virtues was found worthy to generate from his seed the promise of the Fathers, and to have Christ shine forth from himself for the salvation of all the world, was he not punished because of adultery with a woman, when he held her beauty with his eyes and was pierced in his soul by that arrow? “For it was because of this that God raised up a war against him from within his own household, and he who came forth from his loins pursued him. These things befell him even after he had repented with many tears, such that he moistened his couch with his weeping, and after God had said to him “through the prophet, “The Lord hath forgiven thy sin.”3 ASCETICAL HOMILIES 10.4

DAVID CONFESSES HIS SIN (2 SAMUEL 12:13-14)

OVERVIEW: That, as king, David frankly confessed his sin and humbly repented in sackcloth and ashes admonishes the private person to offer no less of an expression of remorse (CYRIL OF JERUSALEM). While Matthew presents Christ’s kingly descent through Solomon, Luke presents his priestly ascent through Nathan, because it was through Nathan the prophet that David obtained the annulment of his sin (AUGUSTINE). Those who are rightly accused of a great sin may take heart that they will be forgiven if they admit their guilt as David did (AMBROSE). While the reward of David’s great penitence for his misdeed was the avoidance of eternal punishment, he did not merit full pardon: the child died because of David’s sin (SALVIAN). That God responded differently to the similar confessions of David and Saul reveals the dissimilarity of their hearts. For the baptized who have deserted or violated the faith, forgiveness may be obtained through the heartfelt repentance exhibited in uttering a confession of sin, doing genuine penance and living good lives afterwards (AUGUSTINE). While we should be ashamed to sin, we should not be ashamed to repent, as this is the means of deliverance and healing (PACIAN OF BARCELONA). Confession alone is not sufficient for the penitent, but must be accompanied by correction and humility, as David exemplifies (PAULINUS OF MILAN).

12:13-14 Nathan Responds to David’s Admission of Guilt

AN EXAMPLE OF REPENTANCE. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM: If you like, however, I will give you further examples relating to our condition. Come then to the blessed David, and take him for your example of repentance. Great as he was, he suffered a fall. It was in the afternoon, after his siesta, that he took a turn on the housetop and saw by chance what stirred his human passion. He fulfilled the sinful deed, but his nobility, when it came to confessing the lapse, had not perished with the doing of the deed. Nathan the prophet came, swift to convict, but now as a healer for his wound, saying, “The Lord was angry, and you have sinned.” So spoke a simple subject to his reigning sovereign. But David, though king and robed in purple, did not take it amiss, for he had regard not to the rank of the speaker but to the majesty of him who sent him. He was not puffed up by the fact that guardsmen were drawn up all around him, for the angelic host of the Lord came to his mind and he was in “terror “as seeing him who is invisible. 1 So he answered and said to the “man that came to him, or rather, in his person, to the God whose messenger he was, “I have sinned against the Lord.” You see this royal humility and the making of confession. Surely no one had been convicting him, nor were there many who knew what he had done. Swiftly the deed was done and immediately the prophet appeared as accuser. Lo! The sinner confesses his wicked deed, and as it was full and frank confession, he had the swiftest healing. For the prophet Nathan first threatened him, but then said immediately, “And the Lord has put away your sin.” And see how quickly lovingkindness changes the face of God! Except that he first declares, “you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme” as though he said “you have many that are your foes because of your righteousness, from whom nevertheless, you were kept safe by your upright living. But as you have thrown away this best of armors, you have now, standing ready to strike, these foes that are risen up against you.”

So then the prophet comforted David as we have seen, but that blessed man, though he received most gladly the assurance, “The Lord has put away your sin,” did not, king as he was, draw back from penitence. Indeed he put on sackcloth in place of his purple robe, and the king sat in ashes on the bare earth instead of on his gilded throne. And in ashes he did not merely sit, but took them for eating, as he himself says, “I have eaten ashes as it were bread, and mingled my drink with weeping.”2 His lustful eye he wasted away with tears; as he says, “every night I wash my bed and water my couch with my tears.”3 And when his courtiers exhorted him to eat food, he would not, but prolonged his fast for seven whole days. CATECHETICAL LECTURES 2.11-12.4

THE ANNULMENT OF HIS SIN. AUGUSTINE: But just as Matthew, presenting Christ the king as if descending for the assumption of our sins, thus descends from David through Solomon, because Solomon was born of her with whom David had sinned, so Luke, presenting Christ the priest as if ascending after the destroying of sins, ascends through Nathan to David, because Nathan the prophet had been sent, and by his reproof the penitent “David obtained the annulling of his sin. ON EIGHTY-THREE VARIED QUESTIONS 61.5

ON ADMITTING ONE’S GUILT. AMBROSE: Are you ashamed, sir,6 to do as David did—David, the king and the prophet, the ancestor of Christ according to the flesh? He was told of the rich man who had a great number of flocks and yet, when a guest arrived, took the poor man’s one ewe lamb and killed it; and when he recognized that he was himself condemned by the story, he said, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Therefore do not take it ill, sir, if what was said to King David is said to you, “You are the man.” For if you listen with attention and say, “I have sinned against the Lord,” if you say, in the words of the royal prophet, “O come, let us worship and fall down, and weep before the Lord our Maker,”7 then it will be said to you also, “Because you repented, the Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die.” LETTER 51.7.8

ETERNAL PUNISHMENT AVERTED. SALVIAN THE PRESBYTER: You see what instant judgment so great a man suffered for one sin. Immediate condemnation followed the fault, a condemnation immediately punishing and without reservation, stopping the guilty one then and there and not deferring the case to a later date. Thus he did not say, “because you have done this, know that the judgment of God will come and “you will be tormented in the fire of hell.” Rather, he said, “You shall suffer immediate punishment and shall have the sword of divine severity at your throat.”

And what followed? The guilty man acknowledged his sin, was humbled, filled with remorse, confessed and wept. He repented and asked for pardon, gave up his royal jewels, laid aside his robes of gold cloth, put aside the purple, resigned his crown. He was changed in body and appearance. He cast aside all his kingship with its ornaments. He put on the externals of a fugitive penitent, so that his squalor was his defense. He was wasted by fasting, dried up by thirst, worn from weeping and imprisoned in his own loneliness. Yet this king, bearing such a great name, greater in his holiness than in temporal power, surpassing all by the prerogative of his antecedent merits, did not escape punishment though he sought pardon so earnestly.

The reward of this great penitence was such that he was not condemned to eternal punishment. Yet, he did not merit full pardon in this world. What did the prophet say to the penitent? “Because you have given occasion to the enemies of the “Lord to blaspheme, the son that is born to you shall die.” Besides the pain of the bitter loss of his son, God wished that there be added to the very loving father an understanding of this greatest punishment, namely, that the father who mourned should him self bring death to his beloved son, when the son, born of his father’s crime, was killed for the very crime that had begotten him. THE GOVERNANCE OF GOD 2.4.9

GOD INSPECTS HEARTS. AUGUSTINE: Similarity of words, dissimilarity of hearts. We may hear the similarity of the words with our ears, but we can only know the dissimilarity of hearts by the angel’s declaration. David sinned, and when he was rebuked by the prophet, he said, “I have sinned,” and was immediately told, “Your sin has been forgiven you.” Saul sinned, and when he was rebuked by the prophet, he said, “I have sinned,” and his sin was not forgiven, but the wrath of God remained upon him. What can this mean but similarity of words, dissimilarity of hearts? Human beings can hear words, God inspects hearts. SERMON 291.5.10

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THREE SYLLABLES. AUGUSTINE: Baptized people, though, who are deserters and violators of such a great sacrament, if they repent from the bottom of their hearts, if they repent where God can see, as he saw David’s heart, when on being rebuked by the prophet, and very sternly rebuked, he cried out after hearing God’s fearsome threats and said, “I have sinned,” and shortly afterward heard, “God has taken away your sin.” Such is the effectiveness of three syllables. “I have sinned” is just three syllables; and yet in these three syllables the flames of the heart’s sacrifice rose up to heaven. So those who have done genuine penance, and have been absolved from the constraints by which they were bound and cut off from the body of Christ, and have lived good lives after their penance, such as they ought to have lived before penance, and in due course have passed away after being reconciled, why, they too go to God, go to their rest, will not be deprived of the kingdom, will be set apart from the people of the devil. SERMON 393.1.11

NO SHAME IN REPENTANCE. PACIAN OF BARCELONA: May we by all means be filled with revulsion for sin but not for repentance. May we be ashamed to put ourselves at risk but not to be delivered. Who will snatch away the wooden plank from the shipwrecked so that he may not escape? Who will begrudge the curing of wounds? Does David not say, “Every single night I will bathe my bed, I will “bathe my bed, I will drench my couch in my tears.”12 And again, “I acknowledge my sin, and my iniquity I have not concealed”13 And further, “I said, ‘I will reveal against myself my sin to my God,’ and you forgave the wickedness of my “heart”14 Did not the prophet answer [David] as follows when, after the guilt of murder and adultery for the sake of Bathsheba, he was penitent? “The Lord has taken away from you your sin.” LETTER 1.5.3.15

CONFESSION AND CORRECTION. PAULINUS OF MILAN: Indeed, to the penitent himself confession alone does not suffice, unless correction of the deed follows, with the result that the penitent does not continue to do deeds which demand repentance. He should even humble his soul just as holy David, who, when he heard from the prophet: “Your sin is pardoned,” became more humble in the correction of his sin, so that “he did eat ashes like bread and mingled his drink with weeping.”16 THE LIFE OF ST. AMBROSE 9.39.17

THE CHILD DIES DESPITE DAVID’S FASTING (2 SAMUEL 12:15-19)

OVERVIEW: David’s repentance and fasting, offered not for his sin’s sake but for his child’s, does not atone for sin but encourages abstinence from all evil (CHRYSOSTOM). That David’s prayerful and humble repentance did not move the Lord to spare his child’s life shows that no crime deserves greater guilt than those that give others cause for blasphemy (SALVIAN). “12:15-17 David Pleads to God for the Child’s Life

ABSTAINING FROM ALL EVIL. CHRYSOSTOM: And I do not say this to overturn fasting (God forbid!) but to exhort you that with fasting you do that which is better than fasting, the abstaining from all evil. David also sinned. Let us see then how he too repented. Three days he sat on ashes. But this he did not for the sin’s sake but for the child’s, being as yet stupefied with that affliction. But he wiped away the sin by other means, by humbleness, contrition of heart, compunction of soul, by falling into this sin no more, by remembering it always, by bearing thankfully every thing that befalls him, by sparing those that grieve him, by forbearing to requite those who conspire against him; yes, even preventing those who desire to do this. HOMILIES ON 2 CORINTHIANS 4.6.1

CAUSING OTHERS TO BLASPHEME. SALVIAN THE PRESBYTER: How particularly difficult it is to atone for the evil deed of handing over the name of the Lord to the blasphemy of the heathen, we are instructed by the example of the most blessed David who, because of the intercession of his acts of justice, deserved to evade eternal punishment for his offenses through one confession only. Yet he, with penance as his protector, was unable to obtain full pardon for his sin. When Nathan the prophet had said to David, who was confessing his own sins to him, “The Lord has taken away your sin, you shall not die,” he added immediately, “nevertheless, because you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this word, the child that is born to you, shall die.”

And what happened next? Having laid aside his crown and put away his jewels, all splendor of royal dignity being removed, he was relieved of the purple. For all his sins he shut himself up alone, weeping, filthy in sackcloth, soaked in tears and soiled with ashes, and sought the life of his little child with the voice of many lamentations and beat upon the Most Holy God with great fervor or prayer. Thus asking and imploring, he believed he could in this manner obtain what he sought from God. Yet he was unable to obtain his request through what is the most forceful aid to those who ask.

From this it can be understood that there is no crime deserving of greater guilt than to give to the heathen a reason for blaspheming. For, whoever has erred gravely without giving cause for blasphemy to others brings damnation to himself only, but he who makes others blaspheme drags many to death with himself, he will, of necessity, be guilty of as many as he shall have drawn into guilt. Not only this, whatever sinner so sins that he does not cause others to blaspheme by his sin, his sin is injurious only to him who sins, but does not insult the holy name of God with the sacrilegious curse of those who blaspheme. But he who, by his sin, causes others to blaspheme, his sin is, of necessity, beyond the measure of human crime, because he has done unthinkable harm to God through the curses of many. THE GOVERNANCE OF GOD 4.18.2”

Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel

4 notes · View notes

ooc-but-stylish · 6 years

Text

The FFXV Dossier

or,

More Proof that the Writers at Square Have No Clue WTF They Are Doing

Ravus Dossier: “Eldest son of House Fleuret, Blood of the Oracle, and older brother to Lady Lunafreya. His mother was burned alive in the fires that consumed Tenebrae twelve years ago.”

It wasn’t bad enough that Sylva was run through by Glauca’s sword, she also was still alive after that and then legit died in a fire. Then Luna proceeds to mention her mother not a single time throughout the game, with the motherly presence replaced by Gentiana, the Most Ineffectual Attendant and Friend Ever. They didn’t have to do that to Sylva, but they did.

“Blaming the “cowardly” King Regis for her death,”

He was indeed a coward. No quotation marks needed. Carry on.

"Unfortunately, the Rulers of Yore deemed him unworthy of their power, and singed his left arm as punishment for his hubris."

Less “singed” and more “he got his own arm burnt off, was in incredible pain, and needed a Magitek prosthetic replacement and also his sister saw him burn-- to death, for all she knew-- and didn’t say a damn thing nor make any effort to help him”, but sure.

“The empire’s assault on Altissia was an unequivocal failure that resulted in massive casualties. As High Commander, Ravus is forced to take responsibilty for this disastrous outcome and is succinctly scheduled for execution.”

Good of the dossier to clue us in on missable but important character information that would explain later parts of the story or why anyone is anywhere.

“Yet Lunafreya convinces her brother that his initial impression of the prince was wrong, and he has a change of heart.”

First of all, Lunafreya has no sense of self and her existence is defined by her continued positive relationship with a prince and a king she hasn’t seen in twelve goddamn years.

Second, this game runs on morality centered on whatever character the narrative wants to fellate. Luna didn’t tell Ravus that she chose to let Regis’s hand go. That gave Ravus the impression that Regis abandoned all of the Nox Fleurets to their fate instead of just two of them (although IMO, that he still abandoned them doesn’t get less bad).

Third, rather than having writing that examines the flaws of characters perceived or presented as Good People, instead what the narrative does is it twists characters into pretzels to sell that Regis was 100% pure and free of even the perception of wrongdoing, defended by another “sacrosanct” character (Luna) who is never wrong ever and is the best judge of character just because the game says so and look at how nice and good she is.

Anyone who disagreed with Regis “didn’t understand what he was going through”, even though his actions involved the manipulation and death of someone he was supposed to protect and care for (Noctis) and the sacrifice of many other people on top of that (Insomnian citizens, Luna, Ignis, Nyx, etc.), with all the blame of the events falling onto Noctis, who was deliberately raised not to know about a majority of the things he needed to do in the game nor the true extent of his burden because Regis wanted to “treat him like a normal boy” to make himself feel better about the fact that his son would die young anyway.

So, I don’t blame Ravus for thinking Noctis was an ignorant shit.

The problem is that at no point is Ravus disabused of the notion that Noctis is that way on purpose nor allowed to act in light of that knowledge. All Luna does is shill for Noct and tells Ravus that he’s wrong and he should change his mind about the guy because he will rise to the occasion in the future. She defends Noctis in a way that more or less admits that Ravus is right about his assessment but that it’s somehow irrelevant. In reality, Ravus is under no obligation to wait for that undetermined future time (10 years later... Ravus would wait a total of 22 years for Noctis to prove himself?) or expect that future behavior/redemption will make up for present misdeeds-- from Ravus’s POV Noctis shows no behavior that lends to the idea he knows what he’s doing or that he’s not just blowing off the fact that Luna is dying for him.

I still maintain that if Noctis knew that Luna was dying as the price of the covenants, he and Ravus would have seen eye to eye. However, every time someone makes it known that “Luna is dying”, the context is twisted to make it seem like she died because of Noctis and that she possessed the Ring of the Lucii (known to drain life and cause ill health), not because the gods robbed her of her life as part of waking them up-- a reality which makes Noctis a few steps removed from being the cause of Luna’s death. But I digress.

At the point Ravus “redeems himself” of his negative opinion and shows it, he has no other choice: Luna is already falling apart and near-death so he has to be a LuNoct shipper all of a sudden, and later on Noctis is the last remaining option to save the world that Ravus wanted his sister to live in and give people the future he wanted her to enjoy. Then it turns out that wasn’t even Noctis he was talking to, so he got no closure.

The problem is also that Ravus’s issue with Noctis and Regis is one that the narrative shows he’s not allowed to have. An opinion that Regis is a coward and Noctis is ignorant is some kind of “hallmark of villainy” for this game, because how dare people disagree with the protagonists and have a negative opinion on them! So Ravus needed to be “redeemed” and “see the light” about how great Noctis and Regis are when

he shouldn’t have had to

being a stan for the protag is not the same as being a good character

it’s not even the requirement of being a hero, or even a good person

and wow, look at all the good it did him considering he still fucking died. His name is Ravus and they didn’t let him have a gray view of the protagonists. He died and his body was defiled.

Gentiana Dossier: "Gentiana prefers not to interfere with the everyday occurrences of the mortal world"

Including, of course, a twelve year old Luna being beaten by Caligo. And Luna being murdered by Ardyn the day after Gentiana appeared in Altissia. And Sylva being murdered by Glauca (or rather, BURNED ALIVE in the fire near Fenestala Manor). Those everyday occurrences. Ok.

Crepera/The Rogue Dossier: "One of the guardians of the Old Wall, consumed by the Starscourge and forced to submit to Ardyn’s will.”

Ardyn is such a Sue he can infect spirits now? Ok.

I mean, the Old Wall fell apart when Nyx summoned them to fight Diamond Weapon and Drautos, and calling upon them is a power granted by those who have the Ring of the Lucii, but Ardyn still brought some Kings of Lucis back to possess them with powers antithetical to the ones that could control and awaken them in the first place. This is after he summoned a Wall to cover the Citadel that’s identical to the one powered by the Crystal and the Ring of the Lucii when the Crystal already rejected him and he should have no right to its abilities as well as not having the Ring in his possession. Splendid.

"Having lost her father and older brother to the daemons"

Oh, so the Kings of Lucis could have more than one child! But Noctis doesn't have a sibling because......?

“At the time, however, the thought of a woman ruling the kingdom was preposterous to some. Thus the Rogue reigned from the shadows, helping Lucis to overcome a difficult era without once revealing her face to the masses.”

Okay, so the sole surviving daughter of the Lucian monarchy is ruling the place but the problem people have with it is her sex? Ok. I mean this is an isolationist country that's already hated by the people outside of it for its practices and general neglect of the neighboring lands but having a woman at the helm is the real problem. My god. But it is good to know that, in a world with massive genocidal water snakes, giants holding up meteors, clones, robots, malarial space herpes, frosty ice giantesses being maids to Discount Female Jesus Figures, all of which exist on a planet smaller than fucking Rhode Island, sexism still remains intact. So good to know.

Like it wasn't known that the previous King had a son and a daughter? So no shit if the father and son die that the daughter would be left, unless a) a total foreigner would rule the country, for the sake of "muh male dominance" which is shit, b) someone not descended from the Lucian line would rule the country, for the above reason, which is still shit c) the daughter disguised herself as a man and for maximum roleplay got herself a wife too, because people can’t accept a woman being in charge for some reason, but anyway it still makes no sense because the solution after all was that she still does her job, but she does it behind the scenes because she morphed from King of Lucis to Harry Potter whenever the Dursleys have a guest in their house.

Fuck, I mean, doesn’t the Rogue wield a big honkin’ shuriken? I thought this "ruling from the shadows" thing was more like her conducting assassinations by moonlight and winning the hearts of her subjects by daylight like a murderous Sailor Moon! The flavor text says she “spurned the public eye”, so you know what'd also be acceptable? Her not being in the spotlight because that’s just part of her personality, but I hear Square has no idea how giving women personalities is supposed to work. A "King of Lucis" that avoids paparazzi like the fucking plague would be A++ but nah, it’s because this fantasy world still needs sexism in it, and this King of Lucis who’s gotten her position by “birthright” and “natural causes” still gives a fuck about social mores. Utter horseshit.

#ffxv critical #ravus nox fleuret #crepera the rogue #gentiana #regis critical #regis negative #gentiana negative #lunafreya critical #long post

80 notes · View notes

imspardagus · 3 years

Text

All very fine

Marcellus: Something is rotten in the State of Denmark.

Hamlet, Act 1, scene 4

It cannot be claimed to have always been the case in this United Kingdom of ours that “in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law” (Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights). But it has been so in theory for some significant period of time.

Which is why the extended use of fixed penalty notices as a way of disposing of perceived breaches of the regulations made to restrict activities during the Coronavirus Pandemic should be a cause for concern.

Properly applied, in accordance with the law, the “fixed penalty notice” is an “offer” that can be made by an enforcement agent where that person reasonably believes that someone “… has committed an offence under [the] Regulations”. See, for example, Regulation 11(2) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020:

A fixed penalty notice is a notice offering the person to whom it is issued the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction for the offence by payment of a fixed penalty to an authority specified in the notice.

See that? “an offer” of “the opportunity to discharge any liability to conviction”.

The whole point of the fixed penalty system has, from its inception, which was in relation to motoring offences, been to avoid criminal charges, with their attendant expensive and time consuming procedures - and the resulting criminal record in the event that the person charged is found guilty.

And the whole point of an offer is that the decision whether to accept the fixed penalty notice as a method of disposing of the case should rest with the person to whom it is offered.

Sadly, as with almost every aspect of the handling of the pandemic by the most venal shower of rogues ever to have infested the halls of Government in the UK, these principles have been twisted and corrupted.

Take this, for example. According to the sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council –

“Where an offender has had previous penalty notice(s), the fact that an offender has previously been issued with a penalty notice does not increase the seriousness of the current offence and must not be regarded as an aggravating factor. It may, however, properly influence the court’s assessment of the offender’s suitability for a particular sentence, so long as it remains within the limits established by the seriousness of the current offence.“

Yet in the All Tiers regulations, Regulation 12 goes directly against that principle, requiring that –

“if the fixed penalty notice is not the first one issued to the person under a relevant enactment, the amount is—

(i)£400, if it is the second fixed penalty notice so issued;

(ii)£800, if it is the third fixed penalty notice so issued;

(iii)£1,600, if it is the fourth fixed penalty notice so issued;

(iv)£3,200, if it is the fifth fixed penalty notice so issued;

(v)£6,400, if it is the sixth or any subsequent fixed penalty notice so issued.”

And note, this is the case simply by virtue of the “issue” of a notice, regardless of whether the person to whom it is issued disputes the basis for the issue and opts to be charged and prosecuted (for the exercise of which option no procedure is laid down. There is in fact no mention in the regulations of a right to reject “the offer”.

The popular press and social media have been encouraged to refer to these fixed penalty notices as “fines” and thus to treat their imposition as proof of wrongdoing despite the fact that the charges have not come before a court of criminal jurisdiction or proved to the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Now, I don’t want to say that the use of fixed penalty notices as a speedy and expeditious way of sanctioning breaches of lockdown is per se unconstitutional. These are exceptional times and some measure of expediency can be justified provided fairness and the rule of law are honoured. The worry I have is that this pernicious government has shown itself more than willing to turn every trick to undermine the rule of law and what is going on here ought to be disturbing to those who care about these things.

The very fact that a Police Community Support Officer, not even a properly trained police officer, can, simply on the basis of what he or she has persuaded him- or herself to believe, impose a “fine” of £6.4k on an individual, who, under the regulations has no clear and express route of appeal, simply because on other occasions which may or may not be comparable, other such officers have issued fixed penalty notices against that person makes these notices and the handling of them a big deal.

One could legitimately argue that a penalty of this scale flies in the face of the whole foundation of the fixed penalty system. It is supposed to encourage the despatch of cases without minimal formality but this level of penalty – half the amount of the national minimum wage - is hardly an encouragement, except, of course, to the wealthy.

In short, the fixed penalty system has been co-opted and perverted to serve a major in-road into that principle in Article 6(1) of the ECHR. And in my view, this present government is not one I would trust to see the pandemic as the limit on this experiment. This, to them, is a beta exercise in diminishing the citizen’s right to the nuisance of a fair trial and a fair and proportionate system of punishment.

As Robert Graves had the Roman senator Gallus say to Sejanus:

“You're a lesson in history to me, Sejanus, proving that, above all, Mankind needs its sense of smell.”

The stench coming off this government needs to be recognised before it is too late.

#Coronavirus #fixed penalty notices #right to fair trial

0 notes

thecornerofthemoon · 7 years

Text

Here’s my theory for why students were sorted into their houses in Harry Potter - the student’s deepest motivations were what the Sorting Hat pinged.

I narrowed down the four motivations between the houses as these: Gryffindor is for justice, Ravenclaw for truth, Hufflepuff for love, and Slytherin for power.

Gryffindor: Justice

Gryffindor is commonly known as the ‘courage’ house. Basically any quote associated with it on HP blogs has the word ‘courage’ or ‘fear’ in it. But courage isn’t a goal or motivation, courage is a reaction to a circumstance. My theory is that Gryffindors are motivated to pursue justice despite difficulties. In a seedy crime serial TV show, the Gryffindor character would be the grizzled cop. Righteous and spiteful.

While fighting against injustice is usually good, it can also go too far. Whether it’s against perceived injustice that is taken out of context, or simply punishment for wrongdoings taken to extreme violence, it can become twisted into revenge or cruelty.

Harry, for example, is elated when Sirius Black is rescued from an unjust fate in PoA. He’s practically gleeful when Aunt Marge is blown up like a balloon. He’s beyond irate when questioned in the Wizenmagot for saving himself and Dudley from dementors in a farce of a trial. He’s also beyond pissed when he unfairly doesn’t get to go to Hogsmeade because his uncle wouldn’t sign his stupid form. But... Harry also gets so angry at Bellatrix Lestrange for killing Sirius that he successfully Crucios her with cruelty on his mind. He wants to hurt her - punish her - for what she’d done.

Hermione campaigns for house elves to be freed in her S.P.E.W. program for years after she learns about them being mistreated and oppressed. She also starts up the resistance group Dumbledore’s Army. But... she gets so angry at Marietta Edgecombe for snitching on the group - betraying them to a corrupted authority - that she permanently scars Marietta’s face with a nasty hex.

Ron is the most laid back in the Golden Trio, but even he gets Fred and George to help him break Harry out of Privet Drive in CoS with the Ford Anglia. He yells at Snape for calling Hermione a know-it-all after he’d done it to her a thousand times as a friend. But... He also gets so mad he doesn’t talk to to Harry after Harry gets picked in the Triwizard Tournament, because he thinks Harry went behind his back to get in.

Ravenclaw: Truth

Ravenclaw is known for being the scholarly house, all about books and learning. But I think the motivation underlying is for the student to find truth. Not all truth is in books, after all. In a seedy crime serial TV show, the Ravenclaw would be the nosy reporter. Uncovers the truth, but can be unfeeling or callous towards victims or people they deem stupid.

Luna Lovegood is the perfect example of this. Even though she is in Ravenclaw, she doesn’t ascribe to the by-the-book way of looking at things. She explores the world around her without preconceptions. She reads her Quibbler upside-down, which seems mad to other people until they know that the Quibbler’s articles are printed upside down. She believes in magical creatures like nargles that nobody can see, she loves thinking about complex riddles, she believes Harry when nobody else does... Luna searches for truth in the world around her, even if she doesn’t fit the stereotype of the put-together scholar. She’s the dreamy philosopher your mother warned you about. It makes sense that her father runs a newspaper the way he does, as he was also in Ravenclaw.

Hufflepuff: Love

Hufflepuff is known for hard work and loyalty. I think the underlying motivation here is love. If you love something, you work hard at it, whether it’s an art piece or a sport or a musical instrument. You want it to succeed. Loyalty is love, of a sort; steadfastness, absolute devotion, unquestioned support. In a seedy crime serial TV show, the Hufflepuff would be the consoling, sympathetic profiler. Caring, but sometimes too fragile for the realities of life.

Newt Scamander, for example, rolls up his sleeves and gets messy in the dirt to take care of his magical creatures. He travels all over the world to find them or transport them, gets into incredibly dangerous situations to help them, and spends all his time taking care of them. He wholeheartedly cares for and toils for them, to the point of sacrifice. He’s also unfailingly loyal to magical creatures in general - even though many of them are dangerous, he argues to anyone that will listen that humans are the problem. He writes a book to help people understand the creatures a little better, so as to stop hurting them. He equally loyal to his human friends, like when he gifts the silver shells to Jacob at the end of Fantastic Beasts. Everything he does, Newt does out of love for someone. Even if it hurts him, in the end.

Slytherin: Power

Slytherin is known as the ‘ambitious’ house that strives for ‘greatness.’ I take this to mean power is the main motivation. In a seedy crime serial TV show, the Slytherin would be the police chief, or possibly a lawyer, someone influential in the goings-on of the plot’s conclusion. Whether the character is positive or negative depends on the characterization and which side they’re on. Power is not inherently bad - it is only as bad as the people that wield it.

Individual agency, for example, is a good thing. I can easily imagine an abused child coming to Hogwarts such as Snape, wanting to assert their newfound agency. Someone wanting to protect the vulnerable with the authority they earn, someone wanting to use their platforms or successes to let silenced people be heard, someone just wanting to protect themselves from any more suffering; these are worthy ambitions.

On the other hand, power is easy to abuse once it’s been acquired. The climb to power can also be corrupt. Using people as stepping stones, throwing loyalties aside for a promotion, feeding lies about the opponent... you get the idea. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that.

So yes, Voldemort was a prime example of power abuse. And manipulation. And warmongering. And racism. Etc. So is Lucius Malfoy, on a lesser scale, with all his politicking in the Ministry and constant one-up-manship games against Arthur Weasley, not to mention his additional Death Eater status.

But Merlin was also in Slytherin, as in the King Arthur’s court Merlin. A great wizard, who made amazing discoveries and advancements in magic while advising the king at the time. He had influence, both in his own time and down the line. His name is known even now. Merlin wasn’t evil, but he was unquestionably powerful.

In the end, there are pros and cons for every house. Everyone wants at least a little bit of every four of these motivations; what determines the house is the leading motivation for you.

Hope this helps when you’re trying to find out your house and you hit a wall! It definitely does for me. Tag yourself I’m the grizzled cop :P

#harry potter #harry potter meta #meta #my things #my words #my writing #hogwarts houses #hogwarts houses meta #uhhh what else do i tag #gpoy #i way overthought this #that's what happens when you get a different sorting every time you take the sorting hat quiz #you overthink what the houses mean on a fundamental level i guess

194 notes · View notes

artiegayberg · 7 years

Text

Chevalier de Lorraine: exile

I’ve seen a post about this going around which i’m pretty sure was about the show Versailles rather than the Chevalier’s historical exile, and given that i made a super long response over there before realising that it wasn’t about history (sorry!) i figured i might as well move it into its own post and finish it off!

When?

The Chevalier was (as far as i’m aware) actually exiled twice - once properly in 1670 until 1672, and then in the 1680s (possibly 1680 or 1682?) he was sent into a kind of ‘soft exile’ - not a proper exile, but he was asked by the king not to appear too regularly in court (according to Sourches).

Why?

1670: I’ve read varying opinions on this! Jonathan Spangler (society of princes) claims that it was due to “what the king perceived to be overarching and dangerous ambition” - this probably refers to the nature of the Chevalier’s relationship with Monsieur, but could also be referencing the power brokerage system he and his older brother ran at court. Louis was upset with the number of favours Monsieur asked on behalf of the Chevalier, and the amount of power the Chevalier held over Monsieur. One popular (and very definitely inaccurate) view is that he was exiled for his role in the death of Henriette, who he was said to have poisoned. This can’t possibly be true as he was exiled from Jan 30th 1670 to Feb 1672, and Henriette died in June 1670 (according to the official autopsy due to colic, with the organs showing signs of gangrene) Furthermore, this is from none other than the notoriously unreliable and anti-Lorraine Saint Simon, so even if it was viable its reliability should be treated with caution. That said, the whole drama over the death of Madame certainly made he situation no better, and it looked for a time like the Chevalier would be left in exile permanently. Both Henriette and her brother King Charles of England had their reasons for wanting to be rid of the Chevalier - Henriette took to blaming a disproportionate level of wrongdoings and inconveniences on the Chevalier, though it is certainly fair that she might have resented his closeness to Monsieur whilst her own relationship with her husband (after the first few months of their marriage) was less than perfect. Charles sympathised with his sister, and as she was likely a key source of information on the relationships between herself, Monsieur and the Chevalier as well as involving him through his emotional ties with his sister, he took up many of her opinions. He blamed the Chevalier for Monsieur’s mistreatment of Henriette, and also had a low opinion of Monsieur. Finally, it can’t be ignored that the Chevalier himself should take a bit of the blame! Especially where King Louis XIV was concerned - he mocked his tendency to become more pious over Easter, drunkenly claimed that he could have Monsieur and Minette divorce if he so wished, due to the number of affairs Henriette had, and also claimed that Monsieur never visited his wife’s bed unless the Chevalier granted him permission to do so (this was actually confirmed at court by Monsieur).

1680s(?): This was for his involvement in the explicitly anti-female elite homosexual club, more specifically because the King’s bastard son Louis de Bourbon, Comte de Vermandois, was involved in this society. Apparently he was deflowered by the Chevalier himself (the full story makes me laugh but is too long and irrelevant for this post). Vermandois was not very careful about keeping this society a secret, which ultimately led to Louis XIV finding out about it and exiling several members including his own son (who was sent to Normandy as a soldier at the intervention of Madame). I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that the Comte de Marsan and one of the sons of the Comte d’Armagnac were only saved from exile at the intervention of Armagnac, but I could be wrong on this.

Where?

On the 30th January 1670, the Chevalier was taken to a prison in Pierre-Encise, close to Lyon. Following Monsieur’s retreat as far away from Paris as possible (to Villers-Cotterets), King Louis had the Chevalier moved to the Chateau D’If, widely-feared and one of the most notorious prisons in France. His cell was private, with a window and a fireplace, though the amount of comfort this could have offered to a man ripped from his comfortable life and trapped in a formidable offshore fortress with bare stone walls, in the middle of winter, is questionable. On the 24th of February, Monsieur returned to court, and the Chevalier was released to Rome for an unspecified length of time, where he arrived with his brother Charles (Marsan) after several weeks spent in Genoa. There had been plans to send him to fight the Barbary pirates and so fulfill his obligations to the Order of Malta, but the Chevalier’s older brother Louis (Armagnac) persuaded the king otherwise. Here the Chevalier would grow close to Marie Mancini. He intially planned on returning to France with her as the preparations for her escape from her husband were brought together, however to escape association with the plot and the risk of further punishment from Louis XIV he then changed his mind and remained in Italy for a while longer, travelling to Naples until he was permitted to return to court in February 1672.

#chevalier de lorraine #philippe d'orléans #louis xiv #comte d'armagnac #comte de marsan #marie mancini #his arrest and what he did in rome are kind of not relevant but also super cool #i refrained from adding them be proud #sorry this is a little shaky i only have one source for half this stuff #shut up alastair

29 notes · View notes

maxwellyjordan · 4 years

Text

Symposium: A resounding rejection of Trump’s authoritarian approach to the presidency

Jamila Benkato and Ben Berwick are counsels, and Justin Florence is legal director, at Protect Democracy. They filed an amicus brief on behalf of former Republican members of Congress, former executive branch members under Republican administrations, and legal experts in support of the respondent in Trump v. Vance.

There has been much focus in the immediate commentary on whether the decisions in Trump v. Vance and Trump v. Mazars are a “win” or “loss” for President Donald Trump. Experts are already gaming out when various documents might be turned over on remand, who might get to see them, and what the decisions mean about a possible criminal indictment sometime during Trump’s presidency. But the decisions should also be assessed in the context of Trump’s overarching approach to his office. And taking that view, Thursday’s rulings mark a full repudiation of Trump’s monarchic view of the presidency.

The fundamental principle underlying our Constitution is that elected representatives hold office to serve the public. This applies particularly to the president, as reflected in Article II’s take care clause and oath of office, which insist on the president’s duty to uphold the law in good faith. (Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau last week built out this point, drawing on recent historical scholarship).

This is not how Donald Trump views the presidency. A central throughline in Trump’s approach has been his view that the presidency is a tool to personally empower him and provide him with an unlimited ability to protect his interests and punish his perceived enemies. This approach is rooted in a vision of government common to autocracies: that the vast power of the state exists to serve the president’s own personal and political interests, rather than the interests of the country. Daniel Ziblatt, co-author of “How Democracies Die,” put it this way: “[T]his is something that authoritarians always do. They try to transform neutral institutions into their favor.”

So it is no surprise that Trump argued in Vance and Mazars that, because he holds the office of the presidency, he and his personal interests are absolutely immune from investigation by state and local law enforcement or by Congress.

The president’s arguments in these cases are part of a long list of matters in which Trump and his lawyers have sought to place the president above all accountability. In episode after episode, Trump has flipped on its head the Founders’ and the Constitution’s views about the role of our elected representatives. In Vance and Mazars, Trump attempted to use the presidency as a shield to protect his personal business interests. But the president has also claimed an “absolute right” to control the Department of Justice for his benefit — a right extending to shutting down investigations into the president and his associates that might bring to light wrongdoing by the president. Trump’s personal attorney has argued that Trump can shut down any DOJ investigation, and Trump has explicitly claimed the authority to use official powers to instruct DOJ officials to pursue more lenient sentencing recommendations for his political allies. If all else fails, Trump and his attorneys have asserted that he has “absolute right” to pardon himself for any lawbreaking.

Indeed, on the day that the Supreme Court released its two blockbuster decisions dealing with one aspect of Trump’s argument for an unchecked presidency, Geoffrey Berman, the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, testified about Attorney General William Barr’s efforts to force him out while he was investigating Trump-related matters. Also on the same day, a federal judge sought further appellate review of the Michael Flynn criminal case in which Trump appears to have intervened to let an ally off the hook.

One core feature of Trump’s what’s-in-it-for-me approach to the presidency has been his apparent hope that occupying the Oval Office provides him a get-out-of-jail-free card from serious investigation. We’ve seen that in his defense to impeachment, his manipulation of the Justice Department, his stone-walling of congressional oversight, and his talk of self-pardons (or similarly problematic self-protective pardons).

Trump and his lawyers have played their cards well, and until now they’ve avoided testing Trump’s autocratic approach to the presidency in the Supreme Court. In fact, they’ve consistently claimed that courts have no business determining the limits of presidential power or ruling on whether and how Congress can serve as a check on the president (another argument that was dealt a substantial blow today). But it’s long been clear that at some point the court would weigh in on the limits of Trump’s monarchical claim to being above the law.

We first saw a version of this argument teed up in a defamation lawsuit filed in New York state court by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on “The Apprentice.” Although the context was different from that of Vance, there too Trump made stunningly broad claims of presidential immunity — arguing that the president is completely immune from being sued in state court even when the lawsuit concerns pre-office conduct. He made the same arguments in another New York state case regarding alleged wrongdoing at the Trump Foundation. Our organization filed amicus briefs in both cases on behalf of three scholars who had been amici in Clinton v. Jones. As they explained (again), “No one in our nation is above the law, not even the President.” The court in Zervos agreed, holding that “though he is tasked with significant responsibilities, the President is still a person, and he is not above the law.”

President Trump didn’t heed the New York court’s warning. Trump has pressed similar arguments against congressional oversight (even in the impeachment context) and criminal investigation at every level — his lawyers have even gone so far as to suggest that Trump could not be held accountable for murder committed in broad daylight. As in Zervos, Trump’s view has been repeatedly rejected by federal courts — in New York and D.C., and at the district and appellate level. Now the Supreme Court has spoken and — as it had to — entirely rejected Trump’s extreme argument for a presidency immune from any checks.

As the court recognized in Vance, Trump’s argument for immunity was deeply ahistorical — presidents have been investigated and made to give evidence many times before (and here, we should remember, the New York grand jury subpoenaed a third party, not the president). We filed an amicus brief in Vance on behalf of 37 former Republican members of Congress, former officials in Republican administrations, and legal experts. As the brief argued,

… dating back to the early days of the Republic, courts have balanced the legitimate need to avoid interfering unduly with the president’s duties against the recognition that justice may require that the president be subject to some process. This functional approach to official immunity — repeatedly applied to sitting presidents — rests on the premise that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and that the mere holding of high office cannot excuse an individual from the testimonial duties common to all Americans.

It is critical that the Supreme Court agreed and concluded that Trump’s argument for absolute immunity is inconsistent with the basic framework of U.S. democracy. The Vance majority opinion is deeply rooted in history. Spending over six pages detailing United States v. Burr, an 1807 case involving a subpoena to President Thomas Jefferson, the majority made clear that the historical precedent weighed decidedly in one direction (and against the president). This led it to the Court’s ultimate conclusion:

Two hundred years ago, a great jurist of our Court established that no citizen, not even the President, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding. We reaffirm that principle today and hold that the President is neither absolutely immune from state criminal subpoenas seeking his private papers nor entitled to a heightened standard of need.

To be sure, Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t go so far as to chant “nobody is above the law,” but the concluding paragraphs in his majority opinion make this point loud and clear.

This victory is an important one for the rule of law. But it should fool no one into thinking that Trump will begin behaving as if he is subject to any check on his power. There’s much to worry about and still so much damage Trump can do, including the risk of using his office to interfere in a free and fair election. It’s critical that Congress, state and local officials, federal officials, civil society and, ultimately, the public continue to act as a strong check on his autocratic vision of the presidency. But for now, we can breathe a small sigh of relief: Thursday’s decisions make clear that Trump has not yet corrupted the Constitution or supplanted the basic principle that those in office are bound by the same laws as the rest of us.

The post Symposium: A resounding rejection of Trump’s authoritarian approach to the presidency appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/07/symposium-a-resounding-rejection-of-trumps-authoritarian-approach-to-the-presidency/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

#law #justice

0 notes