#person feel obligated. yknow? maybe you see the post maybe you don't | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

shiningclown69 · 2 years

Text

Also replying to @winxdclub about that post

Its v fun to read and reply but also IM SO SORRY that this has led to so much spam 💀😭 Hopefully you don't feel obligated to respond to everything. Ok, now i can respond

Yeah, I am begging for the writers to let Riven NOT be the cause of every single problem. Helia is totally prone to make mistakes on his own, pushing most of the blame to Riven is such a cop-out. Esp when the lesson should be that mistakes don't define Helia's worth as a person at all. If Riven does screw up, let him be apologetic!!! He has shown he has the capability to apologise!!!

Also yessss it would make more sense that the rumour be that Helia was a prodigy who screwed up and left RF. It adds to that layer of mystery Helia has and makes it more rewarding when the rest of the guys grow to trust him

Helia: Maybe Brandon should be leader since he's the ONLY one who hasn't tried to put Riven in a chokehold at least once.

Timmy: But I haven't?

Helia: You would if you could.

I'm sorry to make you hopeful for S6, it WILL be disappointing. But hey, new characters mean new reworks from Rus haha wink wink

Oooo the idea that Brandon's struggle is not rly seen bc of the subtlety of is interesting, tho I wonder abt the logistics of it working in a episodic setting. Istg all these sound v prime for a specialists fanfic or rewrite haha

Yeah Brandon is probably an outlier when it comes to reacting to fuck ups. Tho, I don't think there's much opportunities we see that if i rmb correctly. Only times I can think abt is S4 when mitzi kissed him and he just awkwardly walked away from the argument, some moments from S6 when he confronts Stella, and him apologising solemnly when he breaks up w stella in the comics. And maybe the funniest moment: Him washing dishes when he hasn't resolved things with Stella yet, and there is an unecessary amt of awkward tension. For DISHES.

Brandon bias <3 <3 How he ends up being sexy haha funny man with this kind of backstory + the most serious way of dealing with conflict is a mystery to me.

Hmm I did consider that Erendor prob wouldn't like Sky being friends with Brandon. The only justification I came up with is that (if this info i saw from the magazine canon) Brandon's parents are close to Erendor/Samara, as their advisor/handmaiden respectively. I don't think they respect their courtesans much, but that connection might have given Brandon some leeway to be friends with Sky.

My hc before I knew his family info was q similar to your idea I think? That Brandon was the son of Erendor's longtime bodyguard. The fact that his father could easily train him + similar age + accessible and "acceptable" to let near Sky would prob make Brandon a good candidate

ALSO YES we need to acknowledge more than Nabu was prob left alone with his servants and guards!!! I feel he defo snuck out alot, which is why he learnt invisibility spells and changed his name. Might also explain why he has a tendency to babble sometimes abt things he's interested in (getting trapped in a cage is NOT a good time to talk abt music my man), mans prob happy to be around ppl his age who are willing to hold a conversation with him.

Ok i should have elaborated more. Brandon IS a child soldier, but I was imagining the duration that he's been put under this job. 15 is a good range but I hc he might have started younger at around 10-12? Idk maybe this has smth to do with the S6 thing i mentioned Brandon keeps mentioning "since we were kids" as if it feels rly long ago

Also I didn't know where to put this but I looked back at the S2E14. Brandon going "I've been here before" when the gang are inside Yoshinoya's prison cell?? Brandon what??? Are you ok????? I don't like that implication!!

I think Sky should defend Brandon more. Yknow, as a treat, for both of them.

#jester talks about stuff #hi rus #im sorry followers #we are having a clown to clown conversation #and i am the clown who goes feral everytime i see brandon being mentioned

18 notes · View notes

jellybeanium124 · 2 months

Note

Same anon - I think I didn't explain myself well on what I meant to say or maybe what you wanted to tell me with that long explanation is that you were referring to the extreme Izzy's fans... God, I find these sides that have formed in the fandom to be absurd (which among other things "exclude" those who like both Ed and Izzy). Personally, those posts/takes full of exaggeration and hatred about Stede, Ed or Izzy make me uncomfortable. And I still don't understand why both sides keep making public post after post about characters they hate (and at least on Tumblr the ones I see when searching for the generic Our Flag Means Death in the search are mostly anti-Izzy). In my opinion they only serve to foment more conflicts within the fandom because then some feels obliged to defend one or another character based on what bad things are said about them and it is an endless wheel. If instead we started talking only about the characters we like, as it should be logical to do imo, ignoring the posts about the characters we can't stand, everything would be better for everyone… But I'm afraid it's not easy to change certain minds in this fandom :') Bye

man (gn) I WISH people focused on characters they liked instead of wallowing in the same 5 arguments for months on end. I also recently made a post about that lol. and there was recently a whole thing where someone wouldn't shut up about a character they hated for some reason (sorry I'm totally being a bitch towards this one person and vagueing about them hardcore. I mean idc if they do it back, only seems fair, yknow?)

also, my verbosity knows no bounds

1 note · View note

popsicle-parfait · 3 years

Text

❗WARNING❗: This is a rant post, you are not obligated to read this but just know that if you do I am not responsible for the feelings you get from it.

Okay, so can we just take a moment to talk about fanfics and their character/ oc development? Today I looked at a fanfic and I saw an oc character sheet, yknow the normal stuff you see when you start reading someone's story. Now this this what ticked me off, it said in the abilities section of the bio "Able to control air and oxygen and any water around him. " now if that wasn't bad enough in the weakness portion of the chapter it said "There's not really a weakness to their abilities". I don't know about you but your dear old pal here HATES overpowered characters with a ridiculous stat ratio. Now this is where the rant starts so excuse anything offensive I say because I'm mad as hell. EXCUSE ME? I'm sorry but if your damn character has the abilities of a whole god and their drawback is a HEADACHE then your oc is just bad. No I'm not kidding, I'm 100% certain on what I'm saying and listen to me when I tell you this, your oc has to have character development and having an op ability set just takes away the whole purpose of that and leaves no room for anything interesting to happen in your fanfic. Have you ever thought of why you lost motivation if your fanfic? Or maybe it hasn't gotten the spice you want in it? IT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE YOUR OC HAS A TRASHY PERSONALITY WITH THE LEG ROOM OF A DAMN OCTOPUS. I'm not gonna sit here and read your story when your oc is all like "Everything is so boring, everyone is so stupid for not seeing that attack coming. You guys are so annoying and I'm better than y'all. I'm just not gonna say anything or contribute to the plot because I know everything already 😩" FUCK OUTTA HERE WITH THAT🤡 I wanna cry so bad because I just can't believe these people really looked at their oc, approved it, then had the nerve to say "He's rude but is really kind" I'M SORRY? Kind???! W H E R E??? PLEASE I BEG OF Y'ALL BALANCE YOUR OCS OUT!!

Okay but seriously if you want some advice here's what's I actually recommend for this type of stuff:

Take a moment and stop what you're writing. I know you have a lot of ideas of what you want in your story but just stop worrying about the plot and think about the oc's your inserting there.

Study your character, think about anime references or other anime characters you want to base your oc off of and get inspiration from that

Next I would recommend to really think about what type of person you want your oc to be and think to yourself "what would I do (or how would I react, ) if I came across this type of person irl?" because to you this character might seem cool but if you look at it at a realistic standpoint they're probably a really horrible/ toxic person.

When you think about your oc's backstory I want you to think about your fandoms universe. What are the basic things that apply to this fandom? What is okay and reasonable enough to fit in this fandom? How would this tie into your fandoms lore? (this also really important because if your fandom is about a highschool anime and your oc is "the demon lord from hell" it wouldn't fit and it just disregards the structure of the anime.) I really want y'all the do some research on the fandom you're inserting your oc into, don't just go in blind.

Another thing would your oc's appearance, face claims are okay. I'm fine with that. But if you don't use face claims and your description of your oc is "black hair, yellow (left) and blue (right) eyes, scars everywhere, bandages everywhere" I'm going to assume your oc is an emo wannabe with an attention problem. Sorry not sorry, hehe~ 😜

Oh, another thing I want y'all to take into consideration is your oc's abilities. I really want you guys to know that it is okay if your oc is "normal". You don't have to give them the backstory of a broken king, you don't have to give them trauma and you don't have to make them "special". Your character is the mc for being themselves, they don't need all of that fancy stuff because even if they're bland they stand out against the original protagonist of the anime. You don't have to make them super edgy or super important because there's a thing called character development. The abilities your oc has (in my opinion at least) must start small. Then as the story continues and as the oc makes more important relationships between themselves and the people around them it gives them time to think about certain things in a new light and that pushes them to want to work hard. (1)

Let's say I have an oc named Oscar or something and they're an insert to the anime My Hero Academia. By me giving them the ability to see the future (please don't take any ideas from this istg) it also means they see the USJ attack and if they predict that very important plot point and inform the main characters about it that basically means that attack wouldn't happen the way it does in the anime. Now there are a lot of factors to be considered in this such as, lida doesn't run to get the pro heroes, All Might doesn't save class 1-A, and Izuku doesn't get the determination he gets to work more on OFA because he doesn't have to worry about All Might being pushed to his limit as severally as he does in canon. Please, I advise you to think about these things. (2)

Thank you for taking your time to read my whole post and let's hope I don't lose followers for this, these types of things need to be thought about and I feel like no one actually takes their time to and just throws whatever character they can come up with in a story. Um... Have a cool pic I guess...

#anime / manga #x male reader #male reader insert #male reader #mha #my hero acadamy #jujutsu kaisen #sk8 the infinity #obey me #haikyuu!!#haikyū!!#genshin impact #gender neutral reader #gn reader #nb reader #non binary reader

181 notes · View notes

ratcandy · 3 years

Text

Subcon Forest Analysis

Hi everyone I'm here to spill my aggressive overflowing thoughts on Subcon Forest and what it represents because it's been driving me insane since I finished the Sleepy Subcon time rift. Okay let's go. Obvious spoilers for AHIT ahead so proceed with caution.

This is also very, very long.

Disclaimer/warning: I will be discussing abusive/unhealthy relationships in this analysis. I mean. Vanessa. Come on. Also, there is a section on the nooses, and that delves, of course, into mentions of suicide. It will be sectioned off and easily skipped, but if you'd rather be safe and skip the entire post, that's completely understandable! Please stay safe. <3

Alright. Main point to be had here:

Subcon Forest is a giant extended metaphor for Snatcher's mind and character.

You all get to now listen to me spout nonsense about metaphors and symbolism because I'm a sucker for analysis and I'm given an opportunity to go ham. So perish.

The Ice

Let's start with the most obvious and most glaring thing in Subcon. The ice. It's everywhere. Not just outside Vanessa's manor, either; no, it's throughout the village, too. Shows up in the well and in random locations sprinkled about. When it comes to literal plot, we know that ice is just what lingers after Vanessa's wintery curse on Subcon. But going deeper and analyzing the meaning behind it?

Well, let's look at this from the perspective I've suggested. Subcon Forest being an extended metaphor for Snatcher's mind and character. A symbol for Vanessa then litters his mind, enough where it's certainly noticeable at first but blends in more easily once more of Subcon is unlocked to Hat Kid. This is clearly meant to be his lingering trauma, whether or not he wants to acknowledge it. Which he doesn't, as he never mentions it directly in his forest (that I can recall). Her influence plagues him, as to be expected with the traumatic experiences he went through with her. Breaking the ice is something Hat Kid must do in order to fulfill the wishes of the Fire Spirits (another subject I'll get into shortly), which, if self-indulgently playing with the found family idea, could mean that Hat Kid is helping him heal; if indirectly. Even if fulfilling the Fire Spirits' wish to die is... counterproductive, in that measure, which I'm now getting ahead of myself so hold on a sec!!

Vanessa. Ice. Everywhere. Traces of it all over his forest. That's the effects of an abusive relationship! Especially in a worst-case scenario where... yknow! One party in the relationship dies! So of course ice would be everywhere.

In and of itself, ice is a common symbol in literature and other forms of media. In this case, it's presented as an antagonistic force; emphasis is placed upon freezing and the harm that comes with it. The cold is unwelcoming, threatening, merciless. Snow can act as an insulating force, at least, but ice cannot. It can only make things colder.

A slight stretch: Seeing as this game deals a lot with time shenaniganry, I'm not sure if it'd be too out of left field to connect "freezing" with the theme of time. Yknow. Frozen in time. Both parties here, Snatcher and Vanessa, would be in this frozen state. One largely repressing it and never fully moving on, and the other doomed to her isolation ever since the event in question. They never moved past that moment after the Prince and florist's interaction.

The Fire Spirits (& the Portraits)

I'll put a slight warning here for suicidal ideation, if only because... it's the Fire Spirits we're talking about. It's not as grossly in-detail as the noose discussion will be, though, so make of that what you will.

To me, the Fire Spirits are a very interesting case. After all, they're fire. They're a direct contrast to the ice, thus being the only thing we're shown that could potentially melt it. The Fire Spirits, in my opinion, represent hope or a strength to continue. A strength to move on after troubles of the past.

...And that hope wants to die.

The Fire Spirits wish to burn out, to leave this mortal coil and abandon the forest to the cold. They make no effort to melt the ice, they simply dance, blissfully ignorant towards their surroundings. This being a metaphor for Snatcher's own hope for moving on is made all the more obvious by the fact he wants them gone. The first contract is to kill the Fire Spirits, to kill the hope. Perhaps he believes that sort of thing to be fruitless or naïve, so it only clutters his mind or has him foolishly optimistic at points. So, get rid of it. And the hope is happy to oblige.

(That, or their willingness to leave the forest to its own suffering and not aid in the ice's thaw angers him. Besides the whole "bark bark growl I can't get to parts of my forest because of them!!" which... also could represent a naïve hope clouding his judgement, not allowing him to see a bigger picture. But hope can't all be lost if one wants to move forward...)

A little side-tangent now on the portraits! And it's another slight stretch but the idea is in my head and I can't let it go. Portraits are another common symbol, usually being a physical representation of a memory or idea. For our purposes, let's say they're memories. I know in canon they appear to just hold souls captive or something but for now we're just Ignoring That(tm). The Fire Spirits have to burn the portraits to disappear. See where I'm going with this, maybe?

Instead of handling bad memories (or perhaps memories of the past in general) in any healthy manner, Snatcher chooses to forget/repress them, which just allows his hope to progressively die out.

I'm really hoping this is making sense because it makes a lot of sense to me but I might be insane rn

The Fact that this is a Forest

Forest symbolism breakdown! What's a forest usually mean in literature? "Traditionally, the forest has come to represent being lost, exploration and potential danger as well as mystery and 'other worldliness'." Okay. Yeah. Fair enough. That certainly works with the whole aesthetic we've got going on. Wood usually is life, growth and strength. But the trees of subcon are all dead. So what about that? It stands for death, big whoop, very spooky, we know Snatcher's dead and so are the children, yadda yadda wowie wowie. But. :) The trees in Subcon look a lot like trees that were scorched in a forest fire. Don't believe me?

(You could also argue they're just regular marsh/swamp trees bUT SSHHSUUHSH HANG ON HEAR ME OUT LOOK LOOK,)

What I believe to have happened was a controlled fire to rid the forest of the majority of its ice and snow. Likely done by Snatcher. It leaves behind a very desolate, depressing, barren scene... but. What else do dead/burnt trees symbolize? Rebirth. After all, controlled fires happen to make way for new trees to take the place of old ones. Some trees only drop seeds in fires/hot temperatures, so new ones take root and begin anew. Weird. It's almost like... I dunno. Snatcher was given some sorta second chance, given he's not just a corpse in Vanessa's cellar. So were the subconites. Another life given then by Snatcher. All connected I tell ya!!

Generally, aside from that, forests have many connotations. Mystery, isolation, claustrophobia; a place to dwell on regrets, or the past; to worry over one's future; to seek escape from or escape inside of... hmgmrnmm!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- T / W -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The Nooses

The t/w is given at the top and another cut-off point will follow the bottom of this, for those that would like to skip. This will delve into talk of suicide and abusive tactics used by abusers. Please don't read if it will upset you or make you feel unsafe!!!

Personally, I cannot stand the nooses, but that's just due to my own triggers. Were there a way to hide those from the game or replace the damned talking ones with anything else. I would take it. In a heartbeat. But I can still appreciate the potential analysis to be had with them. So now i'm gonna talk about it despite how uncomfortable it will make me to do so. yEa

So, what about 'em? There are three types of nooses seen in Subcon. At least that I remember but I didn't really go looking for them. Empty ones, ones containing empty subconites, and the talking ones.

Nooses in general obviously can hint towards suicidal thoughts or behaviors of the characters that interact with them. If saying Subcon is Snatcher's mind, it could suggest that he suffered from some sort of suicidal thoughts in life (or currently, if second death is possible... or if he never truly died... or maybe he's trying to figure that out...which has given me... a separate idea...uh oh). But. And hear me out. Different perspective.

A talking noose. I hate them with a fiery passion that is unmatched. But think of the packed symbolism of a noose that talks. And think more about what it says. "I wouldn't mind being strapped around a cute neck like yours." "Be careful now, I don't want to see you meet a miserable end anywhere, but with me." Oddly, a lot of what the noose says seems almost... endearing? One could argue it's a way of luring someone to put it around their necks, which in and of itself is a whole lot to unpack when it comes to suicidal thoughts beckoning one forward; painting itself as something romantic, almost. But. Here's a wild idea, now. What if the nooses, at least the talking ones, are another symbol for Vanessa?

They're tinted blue, after all. While Vanessa's scheme is more red, one could argue two things: One, ice. Blue. Ice. yeah. Or two, the fact that Snatcher's scheme is more purple. Blue and red... make... purple. So, for all we know, Snatcher's current state was a compound effort between suicidal thoughts and Vanessa's treatment of him. Perhaps he even found a way to put himself out of his misery before freezing/starving to death. (I know he has dialogue that argues against that, but... are we certain Snatcher would be the kind to admit suicide over freezing to death?... I don't think so.)

At any rate, a common threat by those in "control" of an abusive relationship is that of killing themselves should the other person not do as they desire. It's a cruel form of emotional manipulation to get their way, worse off if the other party is an empathetic individual. As a person who has been the empathetic individual in relationships like this... I would know. I've been here, unfortunately So, it's not completely out of the question to say Vanessa could've used some tactic like that, even before the whole... cellar ordeal. Did she? I dunno. I'm tossing ideas around. But if she did, the threats of such would sit around in the Prince's mind easily. Even if she has a reputation of not going through with it. It doesn't matter. That shit sticks with you forever, that scare, the potential of it ever being true, is horrifying and it ruins you. I'm projecting, Squirtle.

Still. A noose cannot hang itself. It has to have a victim.

...yea.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- T / W PASSED -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Misc. Ideas

- The spiders: Aside from the usual things spiders can be chalked up to symbolizing - toxicity, alluring danger, just... general pain - I like the potential wordplay that can happen here. Yknow. A black widow. Say the Prince and Vanessa were married when one died. What would that leave Vanessa? A widow. ...She's red and black, too. Yknow. Like a black widow. HA wordplay is fun isn't it?

- Snatcher's tree: Love this place, love sitting in here. But not the point! The inside of Snatcher's tree is such a harsh juxtaposition to the rest of Subcon that it kinda throws ya off guard. After all, the dark, purples and blues then contrasted with the bright warm colors of the inside. Even the music switches over. The thorns outside aren't present indoors. Ohh yeah this is gonna be on the nose as hell but the Tree(tm) is 100% representing Snatcher's appearance/put-on personality vs. his truer nature. Spooky outside with thorns, foreboding, unwelcoming. Then the more comfortable interior. VULnerable. Have I even mentioned that the tree is HOLLOW I mean COME ON. The sturdiness of that tree? Nonexistent. He's not a sturdy guy at all no matter how he fronts

- Intrusions are unwelcome: Snatcher does not like the fact that Hat Kid sticks around in his forest. His personal space. His mind. In fact he tries desperately to get rid of her after their fight, not wanting her presence in his forest at all. He has no problem providing more contracts later on with the Death Wish thing, and he finds great entertainment in messing around with Hat Kid, so it's not just a weird sudden hatred he has for her; it's the fact that. After she's finished being useful, he no longer wants her around, lest she find some things she shouldn't find. Now he's just uncomfortable with her in his personal boundaries. Could just be a denial that she's helped him heal (breaking ice, stealing from Vanessa, being something interesting for his kids to interact with) or just not really wanting a child to get wrapped up in. All that. Most likely the former. Considering the amount of joke-hints he drops regarding his background during his Death Wish dialogue. I see you funny man, making jokes out of your trauma as a coping mechanism. Punts him

Annnd I think that's all I got, for now! I'll make an update post if I get any more sporadic ideas. If you read this whole thing, thank you!! and also!! Wow that was a lot!! Hell world. Please feel free to elaborate on any of my points or debate with me on em!! I'm always open to other ideas, just be aware that if I disagree I am not shy when it comes to debate hehehe, tho I won't be aggressive to any extent I prommy!!

Alrighty. goes to sleep goodnight

#clamtalk #VERY long ramble #a hat in time #snatcher #ahit snatcher #subcon forest #vanessa ahit #ahit #analysis #the prince ahit #goes crazy. goes insane #ask to tag #i'm frazzled I can't add more tags I'll do so later

66 notes · View notes

enderspawn · 2 years

Note

i don't know how well worded this is, because ive been trying to think of how to phrase it correctly but i'd like to say first that i don't exactly agree with a lot of the way dream handles things despite me being a big fan of his, but i can understand it?

a lot of the time the people who initially bring things are either heavy antis who dug through the trenches to find dirt on him or fans of his who bring it up and are concerned about supporting someone who does whatever it is they bringing up. for the most part the people who so adamantly dislike him don't tend to listen when proven wrong nor do they often take his statements at face value. whats the point in convincing people you've grown if they don't bother listening?

also a lot of the qrt's end up full of death threats, doxxing, gore, and other stuff and i imagine the primary reason dream posts things on his private instead is because the people on there won't do those things. he's aware his tweets will get screenshotted and reposted, so i think he figures those who want to see it will.

again i dont fully agree with the way he goes about things, and i do wish he'd step back sometimes but also it's hard for me to fully blame a guy for lashing out with how often he's harraseed a dehumanized. i can't say i would react to it all that well either yknow?

i can understand that, as well as acknowledge I don’t know what it’s like to deal with that amount of attention or hate.

but also, if he did genuinely think “what’s the point in convincing others you’ve grown if they don’t bother listening?” then… why would he bother to try anyway? for the concerned fans, maybe, sure! but I also feel like it shows that he does still see a point in trying to convince others outside his pre-existing fan base, at least a little. i can’t say for sure.

with the hate he receives in qrts though, I guess my thought is why does he still publicly tweet on these issues then? while I don’t exactly check, if he gets those things when he’s publicly and poorly addressing an issue and is fine enough with it to continue that behavior, then why would it be an issue for a well-intentioned and prepared statement which paints him in a MUCH better light? the people who have issues with him interact with his account, that is where they would see it best— not a screenshot on a fan account.

i can understand that he’s human and could be lashing out and I can sympathize. but also, he is a public figure— part of fame is learning how to deal with that public and constant harassment because no one is universally beloved. for all he says people should just block and ignore hate on his boundaries or for all he says people should learn to put down their phone and log off, he’s terrible at following it himself.

he is still learning how to deal with it, I recognize in the grand scope he’s still a very new cc/public figure. but, he went into this with the clear intent to gain this fame and so far seems to be refusing any help in learning how to deal with it, like for example: a pr team/advisor. (honestly it seems like he doesn’t have a clear idea on what they actually do, but I don’t blame him for it bc that’s very much the general public thought on it LMAO, I’m biased bc I’ve studied it to know what it’s Actually About)

i just…. when you have a following, especially of his scale, you have an obligation to take responsibility for your audience. you have an obligation to act in a way to reduce harm. yes, he can’t control every single person, but he can change his own actions to try to prevent those single people from behaving poorly. as much as I agree it may be unfair, he has the obligation to be the bigger person here and not engage— not like he has, at least. like bitzel said, vague tweet if you must. screenshot it. whatever! do some kind of behavior to LIMIT that harm. this is ultimately something he signed up for and something I think he’s not really succeeding at

i guess, my point is that my sympathy for his plight does not exceed my expectations for how he should behave. i sympathize, but I don’t believe it excuses in any way his actions and that he’s solely in the wrong and needs to stop, re-evaluate, and move past.

#sorry I think this got like. argumentative at the end? not intended at you anon #esp w as you said not Liking his reactions #esp with how often his actions cause harm to OTHER people I just. idk #I’m trying to be good faith neutral here I hope it shows at least HDKSN #og post #answered #anon #mcyt #dream #discourse #long post

9 notes · View notes

prioritizingpurples · 6 years

Note

there's this green blogger I follow, limmuda, and they've just posted something about purples being allies to greens and I don't feel like we're obligated to being their allies, but the points they make sound convincing and i'm having trouble articulating why i disagree. if you have time/energy could you have a look at their post and share your thoughts? i understand if you can't, I just really look up to you as a purple role-model

You've hit on it in your ask, really--purples are not morally obligated to be the "allies" of greens to the same extent that greens are to purples. I had trouble articulating my disagreement, at first, too, and I think that's because we give similar practical advice: listen to people no matter their speaking style, genuinely follow through on what you hear, assume that people are experts on their own lives, said and don't overgeneralize about a whole caste based on knowing a couple. This is good advice when thinking about how to approach people from ANY caste as individuals (and I think that's an important thing to note--that doing this to other castes is good advice, but if you do it to purples you're an ally. the bar is low to be an ally, i promise!) But, while the advice is the same, the situations are not--greens are privileged over purples. like, if I were writing a guide on how poor people can be an ally to rich people, I would include stuff like "listen to people no matter their speaking style and don't assume they're all the same". but yknow what? i don't really care about how to be an ally to rich people! i do care to some degree how to be an ally to greens, but it's not my first priority, and it doesn't have to be. expecting purples to be allies to greens can conflict with expecting greens to be allies to purples--for example, if a purple squashes their own natural speaking style and emotional reactions in order to be an ally to greens. not only that, purples are already expected to be "allies" to greens. in day to day life, people see their style of speaking as "smart", many of us adopt it in order to be taken more seriously, and people assume their opinions are more valid and grounded than ours (even if the green is, say, an art green!), etc. while there may be places that are purple-dominated, and where green styles of speaking are seen as condescending or out-of-touch, these are mostly (a) online, where it probably will not affect your life, and (b) in purple areas that are almost entirely purple and which will almost certainly not have any greens unless the greens really want to be there--essentially, greens can avoid messages from purple culture, while purples cannot avoid messages from green culture. i think it's telling that their answer focused mostly on cultural misunderstandings and miscommunications, while mine focused more on treating purples fairly and calling out people who don't. now, if a purple WANTS to go out of their way to be extra understanding and kind to greens due to cultural differences, that's fine! it's a-ok for purples to identify as green allies! but it's also fine for purples to say "i have been pretending all day that you sound smart when the only thing i can think of is how much i feel condescended to and i'm going to vent about that on my personal blog". doing so is not violating caste solidarity or failing to be understanding of cultural differences--on the other hand, expecting nobody to feel that way is. it is /absolutely fine/ to say "yknow what, i don't want to be a green ally, i want to focus on what i can do for my fellow purples".which, like, not that greens don't have problems, or don't face casteism--they do. but generally not because of purples. i will still call out anti-green casteism when i see it, because casteism is wrong and we're all oppressed under blues, but these are fundamentally different situations and can't be treated interchangeably. and as a purple, i am going to prioritize purples. i have no problem if a green decides that they are going to prioritize other greens and problems that greens face, as long as they don't endorse anti-purple casteism--that's the basis of my separatism. as separate castes, we have different concerns and priorities, and since each caste knows themselves and their needs best, each caste should focus within themselves to fix their problems and meet their needs instead of relying on other castes. (for this reason, i'd be more comfortable declaring myself an ally to e.g. a green separatist cause, organization, or movement than just "an ally to greens".)also, when greens face casteism from purples, it is almost (almost! not 100%, but usually. do not bombard me with messages about edge cases) always in a low-stakes situation in which the purple has little or no power, social or material, over the green. when purples face casteism from greens, it is much more likely to be a higher-stakes situation in which the green has power over the purple. ("is stupid a worse insult when said to greens or purples?" vs "are purple artists real artists who deserve to be seen as such and compensated for their work?") we do not have the same moral obligation to not get in flame wars or be mildly rude to random strangers as we do to not demean and attempt to damage people's livelihoods--and purples do not have the same moral obligation to be a green ally as greens do to be a purple ally. greens have power, both individually and as a caste, that purples simply do not, and the more power you have the more careful you have to be to not hurt people with less power. (yes, yes, I know, starving artist vs purple billionaire, generalizations are bad. generalizations are also necessary, because we don't have time to talk about every single green and purple on the planet.) not all casteism is created equal. the average purple cannot effect the lives of blues except maybe by sending anon hate. the average blue can effect the lives of purples in so many ways, whether through land or law or money. not all power differentials are that severe! but even when they're subtler--maybe even especially when they're subtler--it's important to pay attention to them. (another thing that greens can do: when we upset you, avoid it--walk away, block us, whatever. because you have that luxury. anti-green casteism is generally not as widespread or as vicious "irl" as anti-purple casteism is, because greens have that privilege. take advantage of it.)....gosh, this got very long and rambly, whoops! thank you so much for the compliment by the way nonny, i really am honored by it. i'm not a role model, haha, i'm just a 4-year-old with internet access and too much time on her hands. but it means a lot to me! hearing stuff like that is why i keep running this blog. it's so incredible to know that i inspire other purples like this!

4 notes · View notes

enderspawn · 3 years

Note

It's alright if u don't wanna answer this cuz this argument gets people really riled up but do you think c!Techno is a tyrant or nah?

Cuz many c!techno apologists argue that he isn't just cuz he's an anarchist but I've also read a lot of essays that go against it and it'd be really interesting to see ur opinion on this

i think he, in some contexts, can most definitely be called tyrannical, yes. a tyrant? no.

to avoid spamming ppl w discourse we've all def heard before (and bc this ended up MASSIVE (like 2.3k ish), but fairly in depth bc i didnt wanna speak out of bad faith and wanted to be EXPLICTLY clear-- oops), the rest will be under readmore

so heres the thing i want to preface: i used to really LOVE c!techno. i joined beginning of s2, right when exile started, and he was arguably my favorite character. since then though i've fallen out with him a LOT, to the point i almost... actively despite him at times (though mainly in a toxic kind of way which i can acknowledge is flawed).

in short, his actions started to speak louder than his words and i lost investment in his personal character struggles because of the actions he took (doomsday was my breaking point. i get feeling angry and betrayed, as well as seeking revenge against lmanberg, but his actions went too far for me to CARE and it hurt so many more characters as well.)

so when i speak, i come from a place of disliking him but also somewhat understanding the position c!techno apologists come from: i used to be one of them myself.

NOW, do i think he's a tyrant? no. for reference in my analysis, i try to look up the definition of terms to make sure they are utilized properly. while "tyranny" and "tyrannical" can have multiple uses, tyrant itself is a more specific term. to combine the top two definitions, a tyrant is referring to "an extremely oppressive, unjust, or cruel absolute ruler (who governs without restrictions, especially one who seized power illegally.)"

techno's position as an anarchist, imo, DOES indeed make him unable to be a tyrant. tyrants are rulers with very clear power over others from a structural way. anarchists are about the lack of structure or power over others and instead viewing the people around you as equals in power.

in forming the syndicate, they very explicitly worked to not designate a leader and instead make it so that no one would have any power over the others systemically. techno may have taken a integral role, yes, but it doesn't make him suddenly "the leader", its a role that wouldve had to be filled by someone (even if it was democratic to decide who to invite, they'd need someone to hand over the invite itself yknow? like no matter WHAT there needed to be A ROLE)

one could argue that he IS a leader in the shadow hierarchy of the syndicate (which, yes, is a real and professional term used in management courses despite sounding like it comes from a 4kids yugioh dub) in that everyone CONSIDERS and looks to him a leader without him having any actual structural basis behind it, but to argue that allows him to be a tyrant is in bad faith i believe. especially because to the people he would be "ruling", he ISNT oppressive, unjust, or cruel. they are his friends and support network and critical for a lot of his personal development (since feelings of betrayal and trust issues are critical to his character and why he acts the way he does). I wish we were able to SEE this develop more, but oh well.

but like i said: tyrant is fairly specific in definition. TYRANNY, and thus TYRANNICAL are not as limited. I've discussed their definitions here. originally, i made that post because i was angry at a take i had seen that claimed that, like you said, because techno was an anarchist and not part of any government or leadership position, he couldn't be tyrannical. to which i heartily disagree.

for something to be tyrannical, they simply must have an overarching/oppressive power over someone or something. it would not be inaccurate if i were to say that something is "under the tyranny" of a concept, because what it means is that something is under the power of another thing/concept. you can frankly call anything tyranny if it is widespread/overarching and you don't like it. mask mandates? tyranny, its forcing me to act in "rigorous condition". hell, theres even such things as tyranny of the majority in which people agree too much on one thing and it gives them unfair power or tyranny of the minority where people with minority opinions have too much power (thats a very grossly oversimplified definition of both, but it covers the base idea well enough for my point)

the point im making above isnt meant to be taken as "anything can be worked to be defined as tyranny thus it is a meaningless claim", it is that tyranny (and again, thus tyrannical) are very open and nonrestrictive terms.

to make it easier to define, alongside the definitions provided i want to add an explicit clause that is (imo) implied in the original definition: tyranny is... well, bad. that is to say if someone has power over a group but literally everyone is fine with it and agrees to it, its not tyranny. thats just a group of people getting along and one happens to have power over another. a leader does NOT equal a tyrant (as discussed above), so leadership should not be equated with tyranny.

thus as an example: wilbur acting as president (before the election) may have been "unelected" with power over his citizens, but no one was upset with that power. thus, he is not a tyrant and not acting tyrannically (as well as the fact his power was, arguably, NOT rigourous or absolute but thats another topic for another time). SCHLATT however IS a tyrant, as his power was absolute (he did not consult his cabinet) and forced people to comply instead of them complying willingly, thus he was acting tyrannically.

now to finally get to the damn point of this essay: where does c!techno lie? honest answer? it depends slightly on your perspective, but it depends a LOT on the future of the syndicate.

techno is incredibly clear in his goals: no governments, no corruption. in fighting with pogtopia, he is actively working to topple a tyranny-- he isn't tyrannical for doing that.

when he strikes out on nov 16th, it is because he opposes them forming a new government. when they oppose him and disagree, he launches an attack against them. is this tyranny? maybe, but probably not. he IS trying to impose his own physical strength and power (as well as his resources) over the others to stop them from doing what HE doesn't want them to do.

however its more nuanced than that:

1. hes lashing out emotionally as well as politically. he feels betrayed by those he trusted and he believed that they would destroy the government then go (i'm ignoring any debates on if he did or did not know that they planned another government, though it is a source of debate). but typically idk about you but i dont call tyranny for someone fighting with another person.

2. he also may be acting with good intent again, in HIS EYES. if tubbo was part of manburg, whos to say he wont be just as bad? he, in his pov, is likely trying to stop another tyrant before they rise.

3. and finally, and tbh the most damning from any perspective: he gives up. he quickly leaves then RETIRES without intent to try and attack again until he is later provoked. tyranny is defined by it not just being power, but power being USED. if he doesn't use his power to try and impose any will, then he's not tyrannical.

Doomsday I am also not going to touch very in depth on for much of the same reasons. My answer is again a "maybe", depending on the weight you personally place on each issue:

1. he's lashing out as revenge for the butcher army and as revenge against tommy for "betraying" him (though this one we explicitly know he was ignoring the fact tommy did not want to go through with it, however he still did trust and respect tommy regardless so his feelings are understandable anyway)

2. he sees new lmanberg as corrupt and tyrannical (which is undeniable: house arrest for noncompliance, exile without counsel, execution without trial, etc), and thus obligated to destroy it

but also, theres the implicit understanding he's doing this to send a message: do not form a government, or else. its a display of force that also works to warn others unless they want a similar fate. phil even explicitly states that he is doing so to send that message, so one could assume techno is doing the same alongside his personal reasoning listed above.

what i just described is the use of a oppressive and harsh (physical) power in order to gain compliance from people (that compliance being 'not making a government'). does that sound familiar? exactly. it follows the definition(s) of tyranny given previously. technoblade is acting in a way that is, by very definition, tyrannical.

so the debate shifts: is he valid in doing so because he is trying to PREVENT corruption and tyranny. like i said, new lmanberg was undeniably corrupt at points. i held nothing against techno for trying to topple manburg, so does that apply to new lmanberg as well? short answer: i dont know. it depends on your specific opinion of what is acceptable. its like the paradox of tolerance: to have a truly tolerant society, you have to be intolerant of intolerance. to have a truly non-tyrannical society, do you need to have a tyranny enforcing it?

personally (and bc im a lmanberg loyalist /hj) i say it is. regardless of the corruption of new lmanberg, they are also giving a threat to EVERYONE. even those who are innocent, they are presented with the exact same threat and rule set: if you make a government, you will be destroyed.

(which, small divergence here, is part of why debating c!techno is so frustrating. so many times you end up hitting a "well it depends on your political views" situation and there ISNT a correct answer there. im here to analyze characters for fun, not debate political theory)

so: the syndicate then. this is where this debate really "took off" and i think its due to one very specific miscommunication about its goals and plans. the syndicate, upon formation, declares itself to stand against corruption and tyranny. when they are found, the syndicate would work to destroy it. so heres the golden question: what do THEY define as corruption and tyranny? if you were to go off c!techno's previous statements, seemingly "any government" is a valid answer. however, he also states he's fine with people just being in groups together hanging together.

what then DEFINES A GOVERNMENT for them? what lines do they have to sort out what does "deserve to be destroyed" and what does "deserve to exist freely"

this is a hypothetical i like to post when it comes to syndicate discourse:

i have a group of people. lets say 5 or so for example. they all live together and build together. any decisions made that would impact the entire group they make together and they must have a unanimous agreement in order to proceed, but otherwise they are free to be their own people and do their own thing. when you ask them, they tell you they are their own nation and they have a very clearly defined government: they are a direct democracy. does the syndicate have an obligation to attack?

there is absolutely no hierarchy present. there is no corruption present. but, they ARE indeed a government. is that then inherently negative? my answer is fuck no (see the whole "difference between a tyrant and a leader" thing above).

but THATS where the issue of this discourse LIES. in some people's eyes, the answer to that is YES. techno's made it clear "no government" is his personal view, but does that spread to the syndicate as a whole? do they act preemptively in case it DOES become corrupt? is it inherently corrupt because its a government, regardless of how it is ruled? the fact of the matter is because of how little we've seen the syndicate work as a SYNDICATE, we don't know that answer. so we're left to debate and speculate HOW they would act.

if the syndicate were to let that government exist, then they are not tyrannical. they are showing that they are working to stop tyranny and corruption, just like in pogtopia again.

if the syndicate were to destroy/attack that government, then they are tyrannical. simple as that. they are enforcing a rule of their own creation without any nuance or flexibility under the threat of absolute destruction.

miscommunication in debates comes, in my opinion, in the above. of course theres more points of nuance. for example:

would the syndicate allow a government like i had described with early lmanberg, where there is an established hierarchy but everyone in the country consents to said leadership? on one hand, there is no tyranny or corruption present which is what they are trying to work against. on the other hand, theres more a possibility of it occuring. perhaps they'd find a middle road between the two binary options of "leave or destroy" i am presenting, such as checking in occasionally to ensure no corruption occurs.

but if they were to destroy it without, for lack of a better word, "giving it a chance" they would be, in my opinion, tyrannical. they would be going aginst their words of opposing corruption and instead abusing their power to gain compliance.

your/others opinions may differ, again it depends on if you see it as worth it to possibly stop future tyranny or if a hierarchy is INHERENTLY a negative thing.

part of the reason so many blog gave up this debate, beyond not getting very clear answers for the syndicate, is because of the nuance present. there. is. no. right. answer. every single person will view it differently, because there is no universally agreed upon truth of right or wrong here. BUT, i hope this helps shed some light on the discussion and my thoughts on it

#dream smp #mcyt #techno #syndicate analysis #YEAH IM MAINTAGGING WHAT OF IT #also i-- idk if it should be crit tagged? i tried to be as fair and open as possible #lemme know what yall think #ANYWAY ANON IM SO FUCKING SORRY THIS THING ENDED UP 2.3K WORDS LONG #I JUST RLLY WNATED TO BE THOUROUGH AND AS FUCKING CENTRIST /HJ AS POSSIBLE FJDKSLFJ #its very nuanced and theres no right answer but you sure as hell know mine now #answered #anon #im at work rn im gonna get fucking fired for this FJDKSFJKL #/HJ HOPEFULLY IN THAT I AM AT WORK BUT I WONT GET FIRED #og post #(jeb bush voice) please clap

32 notes · View notes