#but he's also clearly “sympathetic” to those he perceives to be living lies

[yuri-is-online]

Been brainrotting lately and now I present to you what I think is an underused story beat for Yuu. What if “Yuu” isn’t even the prefect’s real name?

Considering that Yuu’s first experience in Twisted Wonderland is waking up in a coffin, wandering around an obviously foreign place, and being questioned by a suspicious man in a crow mask surrounded by people in black hooded robes… I just think most people would not give their real name in such a sketchy situation.

Fast forward to when Yuu is more comfortable with the cast and there is both comedy and angst potential here. On one hand, the reactions to the deception could be pretty funny. (Cue a “woe is me” from Crowley. Of course he can’t find a way home for you when he doesn’t have your real name!) On the other, this could be a great way of exploring the prefect having a crisis. Yuu already lost so much in being taken to Twisted Wonderland, and now in a way even the prefect’s name has been taken.

What do you think?

waking up in a coffin, wandering around an obviously foreign place, and being questioned by a suspicious man in a crow mask surrounded by people in black hooded robes…

Annon, annon, annon, when you put it like that it sounds like Yuu woke up in the middle of a cult ritual of some sort. Which I suppose if you were an edgy Night Raven student idia you might argue that the enrollment ceremony totally is as an excuse not to go

But to be more serious, I have seen a few memes about this concept and I like it a lot σ(￣、￣=) It's a fun character concept, it's not everyday you get a chance to re-invent yourself completely.

That being said, just based off of the few dialogue options Yuu has at the start, I think Yuu is implied to believe that they are dreaming:

Which honestly doesn't make this idea any less valid. If you're dreaming about waking up in the middle of some weird necromancer's rite, why not give him a fake name? It's not meant to be serious anyway. Just go with the flow and hope things don't get too weird (and get offended when your dream doesn't give you magic powers) until it's too late and you realize everyone thinks your name really is that bad joke you made.

If you want to get darker, maybe Yuu really did think they died. A black carriage pulling a coffin really only goes to a funeral, and death has been depicted as an unmanned coach with black horses. Maybe Yuu is only just coming to grips with the fact that they really are alive when they see Riddle overblot and he hurts them. Maybe they now are sitting next to two people who have started to think about them as a friend, a really close one. Maybe they think Yuu is really brave because they charged headlong into danger without a second thought, and won, twice now. Maybe Yuu cries themselves to sleep that night because in a way... you died so yuu could live.

As for reactions, Crowley and the other staff members I think would be the most dramatic, followed by Adeuce and Grim. Jack I can see accepting your reasons and not thinking too hard about it, maybe even respecting your survival instincts, while Epel... well he says he's mad but mostly he's just concerned. He knows what it feels like to have two dueling parts of yourself and trying to find the middle ground. Ortho would be excited, you have a secret identity just like a magical girl/super sentai/anime idol/superhero take your pick really. He certainly doesn't mind getting to know you all over again.

Sebek screams at you for being a threat to Wakasama but it's clear to everyone who actually knows him that he's really just worried about the amount of stress you put on yourself. He would hate for you to have the same issues with self loathing he does. And Malleus? Well he lied to you about who he was because he was worried you would be afraid, even though you didn't know he existed. It would be very petty for him to hold a grudge against you for doing the same.

In general I think this would be something the others would have an easier time understanding as opposed to Yuu's sense of alienation or loneliness at not having magic. Identity issues are common themes in fiction, so I could see them actually seeing it as a problem as opposed to an abstract problem like no government papers (since these kids with one obvious exception don't do taxes.) But it would make for a great way to explore the prefect having a crisis just as you say, in a way it's the perfect example for every problem they might have with being in Twisted Wonderland.

#<3 asks #twisted wonderland x reader #twst x reader #twst yuu #i think azul jamil and ruggie? would probably be the most accepting of yuu in this situation #jamil understands wanting to start a new life but wanting it done on his terms #ruggie understands poverty and not trusting the government #and azul #well he does try to collect secrets on people #it's how he tries to make friends #but he's also clearly “sympathetic” to those he perceives to be living lies #in a way it could be a mirror to how yuu sees him at the end of book 3 #“hard work is harder to master than magic seriously your amazing you don't need to steal from people” #vs #“i too value hard work and incremental progress” #“you don't need to lie about who you are to be worthy of respect and admiration” #and let's not talk about cay cay #because i sort of might have spoiled his 800 followers entry if i squint at something i wrote up there

[janiedean]

I came from a country where being gay is not illegal but still very badly seen so what Eric did to me came off as spoiled and privileged. Nigerian men risk their lives every time they try to live and he just comes on a holiday risk for nothing and get a high out of it like... I get he is a poc in uk so racism but he is still privileged in respect to Nigerian living there and it felt like when tourists do all they want and use foreign countries as a eat pray love playground for adrenaline and Deep Moments

thanks for having partially confirmed to me one thing i didn’t quite know how to articulate and again i don’t… right with the premise that ofc not being poc and/or lgbt myself so my opinion is worth what it’s worth i felt like not only it made eric come off as privileged and not quite realizing it - or if it was the target then it wasn’t well written nor did it come across well - the points that imvho are not well put in this entire narrative are the following

let’s say one target was ‘we want eric to reconnect with the nigerian part of his heritage and realize that being gay in the uk is a privileged position in comparison to being gay in nigeria’: there is a single moment where he feels unsafe on the car but then he goes into the bar and it was played as… like THRILLING WILL WE GET CAUGHT OR NOT but i didn’t perceive that he felt in danger or like he realized exactly what he was facing

the whole family reconnection part was like… his mom lied about her husband bc family peace and kind of forces him to not be out bc she fears for his safety so like now unless i remember wrong eric has been out/never felt like he didn’t have to be since the show started so it should have a) given him insight re how it feels to NOT being able to be out b) let his mom connect with him on having to lie abt your significant other part c) concluded with at least a hint he could come out to nigerian family and like… point b) was more or less explored, c) was hinted bc he talked to his grandma abt adam but a) felt ABSOLUTELY missing because he comes back and everything he seems to gather from it is I WANT TO GO TO BARS BECAUSE I CAN? and most of all……. going through a) should have made him more sympathetic to adam’s struggles and instead it seemed like he deduced ‘oh since in nigeria it’s illegal then it makes no sense he’s taking so much time’ like…? it’s… a pretty self centered take to get out of this entire experience and if it was a check your privilege storyline then good but… it didn’t feel like that was how they framed honestly and why talking abt adam to the grandma if he’s gonna dump him???? 

now the eat pray love thing you mentioned is… i mean i felt like it was along those lines but as stated couldn’t be sure re my take but again my issue is with how they went at it, bc you CAN do that narrative if you clearly frame it as ‘we like eric and he’s a swell guy but he’s not free from that kinda behavior in light of the fact that living in the uk gives him automatic privilege wrt being out so we’re going to explore how he deals with it and it might be badly but then he learns from it and checks his privilege’ like it’s smth that can happen and everyone in this show has been shitty wrt smth at some point which is good bc it means everyone is written realistically… i’m not sure the narrative said THAT but it didn’t look like even the writers knew bc it was all over the place?? and i mean… i get that this show has realistic teenagers which means they can behave like petty assholes but like it was rushed, badly explained, not overt re wtf they wanted to do with this storyline and it’s not clear if eric even cares at the end?? and thats ooc anyway bc the eric we saw until this point isn’t… that callous or dismissive? and it never seemed to me like they wanted to write him as positive char that progressively gets less sympayhetic so honestly this entire plotline looks stupid

like the thing is at the end of it: - has eric reconnected to his nigerian heritage/found a way to balance it with his uk background? doesn’t seem to me like he did - has eric concluded anything re telling the nigerian side of his family that he’s out? no - has eric gained some actual insight from his experience that’s not ‘I want to go to bars because I can and I have no patience for someone who needs to take it slower’? doesn’t seem to me like he did - has eric realized that adam not being ready to tell his own mom stuff was a sort of parallel situation to his own mother not being ready to tell her mom stuff and like... if eric’s own mom lied about her partner to her family for years and still wasn’t ready to do it then why is giving adam a bit more time to tell his own mom especially given his less than stellar background re accepting himself and coming out such a hardship? no and we just don’t know basically this entire plotline could have gone a bunch of different places that were interesting/could have caused strong conflict/interesting storytelling but it didn’t do any of these things and fell back on like... cheap drama for the sake of it and honestly idt it was very sensitive wrt anything included in it which honestly strikes me as odd bc if sex ed ever did one thing right was treating sensitive subjects well without dancing around it or making things sugarcoated and still letting the characters not be cardboards so I’m very very perplexed about it and I just hope they plan to reveal wtf they wanted it to be next year because honestly I don’t know what it wanted to be and if they didn’t make it clear it’s not good writing - which until now they had in spades, therefore....

like, there’s nothing... narratively wrong in ‘I want to show that character X who faces racism and homophobia in the UK would have privilege wrt being able to be out/live his sexuality without shame in the UK and not in the country his family comes from and he has no idea because he hasn’t entertained that thought and he might come off as unpleasant or incapable of immediately getting it while that happens’, but the thing is that in this specific narrative it’s not clear whether eric got it or if he didn’t bc teenagers are shallow and don’t get it (which..... I mean the teens in this show aren’t exactly shallow like that so that doesn’t really hold up) or if he’s having trouble processing it or if the trip shook his entire world (didn’t seem like it) so like... I should hope next season it’s addressed what they want this thing to be because honestly idk and I don’t particularly like the direction it took

this adding that anyway again the way they broke eric and adam off like that makes the whole S2 finale look sour and eric come off like an asshole also wrt rahim because I mean, one thing is ‘eric has been in love with adam/has liked adam best all along but adam wasn’t around and he liked rahim so he gave it a shot but rahim wasn’t it for him so when adam does the great love gesture for him in front of everyone he decides to leave rahim for him’ because like that sucked for rahim anyway but it also wouldn’t have been fair to him to not break it off if eric had stronger feelings for someone else (and that was clear from the get-go) and then when they get together eric puts effort in it and they go places, one thing is ‘all of that happens but then the moment they aren’t on the exact same page and/or eric realizes he doesn’t want to put the necessary effort into respecting the time adam needs to handle his things even when adam forgives him and says he’ll try to get on track with him’ and so the solution is nah let’s break up instead of putting some work into it when ngl adam has been doing 85% of that this season................. it makes him look like the moment there’s an obstacle to a relationship he’s in or his partner isn’t on the same wavelength he’d just rather break it off first instead of giving it a go and that’s not a really great look on him and as stated it makes the thing with rahim look really bad because again one thing is leaving someone you like for someone who feels like is the love of your life and another thing is leaving someone you like for someone who loves you that much but then you’ll leave them too because..... he needs time to talk to his mother and he’s not ready to be fully out when he comes from repressingyourfeelingsinternalizedhomobiphobia central? like........ dunno but it just feels sour and like nothing one would expect out of eric as he was written/developed until now so I’mma just wait to see what they do next season but it’s just not good writing all around

#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #sex education spoilers #sex education for ts #janie rants #i mean i have... issues also wrt jean's infidelity™ storyline #esp in light of the fact that it was anti terf season which i ABSOLUTELY appreciated a whole fucking lot #and wrt a lot of stuff happening for the sake of cheapass drama which could have been obtained differently #let's not talk about the aimee and steve thing issues #bc that also was a choice™ #idk the fact that NO ONE literally NO ONE except ola and lily got nice things #AND honestly ola deserved a lot worse narratively bc she did lily way dirty #was... a choice #long post for ts #idk idk idk #there was a lot of good stuff this season but the implications at the last couple eps......... eeeeh

[basicsofislam]

ISLAM 101: Muslim Beliefs: Existence and Oneness of God Almighty: TAWHID (GOD’S ONENESS)

All religions revealed to the Prophets have the same essence. Over time, however, the original message was misinterpreted, mixed with superstition, and degenerated into magical practices and meaningless rituals. The conception of God, the very core of religion, was debased by anthropomorphism, deifying angels, associating others with God, considering Prophets or godly people as incarnations of God (Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna, and Rama), and personifying His Attributes through separate deities.

The Prophet rejected such theological trends and restored the conception of God as the only Creator, Sustainer, and Master of all creation to its pristine purity. Thus, as John Davenport puts it:

Among many excellencies of which the Quran may justly boast are two eminently conspicuous: the one being the tone of awe and reverence which it always observes when speaking of, or referring to, the Deity, to Whom it never attributes human frailties and passions; the other the total absence throughout it of all impure, immoral and indecent ideas, expressions, narratives, etc., blemishes, which, it is much to be regretted, of too frequent occurrence in the Jewish scriptures.

Tawhid, Divine Unity and Oneness, is clearly observed throughout the universe. If we look at ourselves and our environment, we easily discern that everything depends upon this principle. For example, our bodily parts cooperate with each other. Each cell is so connected with the whole body that the One Who created it must be He Who created the body. Likewise, each element comprising the universe is interrelated and in harmony with each other element and the universe as a whole.

Given this, the only logical conclusion is that the same Creator Who created the particles created the universe, and that the motion of subatomic particles is the same as that observed in the solar system. Everything originates from “one” and returns to “one”: We originated the first creation, so We shall bring it back (to its former state) again (21:104). A tree, for instance, grows out of a seed or a stone and finally results in a seed or a stone. This strict obedience to the One Who established that order explains why the universe is so orderly and harmonious. As the Creator, One, All-Omnipotent and All-Knowing, operates it directly, how could it be otherwise? As the Qur’an reminds us:

Each god would have taken off what he created, and some of them would have risen up over others. Had there been gods in Earth and heaven other than God, they both would have been in disorder. (21:22)

Tawhid is the highest conception of deity that God revealed to us through His Prophets, among whom were Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. Over time, people deviated from the pure teachings after their Prophets died. Turning to polytheism or idolatry, they relied upon their own faulty reasoning, false perceptions, and biased interpretations to satisfy their lusts. Such a course is impossible with a tawhid-based system, for this requires that they obey only the One Supreme God’s commandments.

‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib is reported to have said:

The foremost in religion is God’s knowledge, the perfection of His knowledge is to testify to Him, the perfection of testifying to Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him as pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny all kinds of negative attributes about Him.

He is infinite and eternal, self-existent and self-sufficient. As stated in the Qur’an:

He is God, One, needy of nothing and Everlasting Refuge; He begets not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him. (112:1-4)

There is nothing like or compared unto Him. (42:11)

Vision perceives Him not, and He perceives all vision; and He (alone) is the All-Hearing and All-Seeing. (6:103)

In the words of ‘Ali:

He is Being but not through the phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not by physical nearness. He is different from everything but not by physical separation. He acts but without the accompaniment of movements and instruments. He is the One, only such that there is none with whom He keeps company or whom He misses in his absence.

God’s Attributes cannot be transferred or present in another, since they are infinite. One who cannot keep himself alive cannot give life to others. One who cannot protect his own power cannot govern the vast universe. The more one reflects, the clearer it becomes that all divine powers and attributes must exist in only in that one particular being.

Implications of Tawhid

Monotheists, those who believe in Tawhid, cannot be narrow-minded. Their belief in One God, Creator of the heavens and Earth, Master of the east and the west, and Sustainer of the universe, leads them to view everything as belonging to the same Lord, to Whom they belong as well. Thus they consider nothing as alien. Their sympathy, love, and service are not confined to any particular race, color, or group, and they come to understand the Prophetic saying: “O servants of God, be brethren!”

Monotheism produces the highest degree of self-respect and self-esteem in people. Monotheists know that only God has true power, can benefit or harm them, fulfill their needs, cause them to die, or wield authority and influence. This conviction makes them indifferent to and independent and fearless of all powers other than those of God. They never bow in homage to any of God’s creatures.

Monotheists, although humble and mild, never abase themselves by bowing before anyone or anything except God. They never aim at any advantage by their worship, even if that advange is Paradise. They seek only to please God and obtain His approval.

Monotheists, although naturally weak and powerless as human beings, become powerful enough through their Lord’s Power to resist the whole world. They are virtuous and altruistic, for their purpose is to gain God’s approval by working for His good pleasure. Boisterous pride of power and wealth can have no room in their hearts, for they know that whatever they possess is bestowed by God, and that God can take away as easily as He can give.

Monotheists know that the only way to success and salvation is to acquire a pure soul and righteous behavior. They have perfect faith in God, Who is above all need, related to none, absolutely just, and without partner in His exercise of Divine Power. Given this belief, they understand that they can succeed only through right living and just action, for no influence or underhanded activity can save them from ruin. However, some believe that someone has atoned for their sins; and others assert that they are God’s favorites and thus immune to punishment. Still others believe that their idols or saints will intercede with God on their behalf, and so make offerings to their deities in the belief that such bribes give them a license to do whatever they want. Such false beliefs keep them entangled in sin and evil, and their dependence on such deities cause them to neglect their need for spiritual purification and for living pure and good lives.

Monotheists do not become hopeless and disappointed. Their firm faith in God, Master of all treasures of Earth and the heavens, and Possessor of limitless grace and bounty and infinite power, imparts to their hearts extraordinary consolation, fills it with satisfaction, and keeps it filled with hope. In this world they might meet with rejection at all doors, nothing might serve their ends, and all means might desert them. But faith in and dependence on God, which never leave them, give them the strength to go on struggling. Such a profound confidence can come only from belief in the One God. Such a belief produces great determination, patient perseverance, and trust in God. When they decide to devote their resources to fulfilling the Divine Commands to secure God’s good pleasure and approval, they are sure that they have the Lord of the Universe’s support and backing.

Many polytheists and atheists, on the other hand, usually have small hearts and depend on limited powers. Thus their troubles and the resulting despair soon overwhelm them and, frequently, they commit suicide. Professor Joad’s testimony is explicit on this point:

For the first time in history there is coming to maturity a generation of men and women [in the West of the 1950s] who have no religion, and feel no need for one. They are content to ignore it. Also they are very unhappy, the suicide rate is abnormally high. (Phillip K. Hitti, History of the Arabs, 6th ed. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1956), 129.)

As opposed to this, a non-Muslim historian who is not sympathetic to Islam, writes the following about Tawhid:

In this uncompromising monotheism, with its simple, enthusiastic faith in the supreme rule of a transcendental being, lies the chief strength of Islam. Its adherents enjoy a consciousness of contentment and resignation unknown among followers of most creeds. Suicide is rare in Muslim lands. (The Present and Future of Religion, quoted by Sir Arnold Lunn, And Yet So New (London: Sheed and Ward, 1958), 228).

Monotheism inspires bravery, for it defeats the two factors that make people cowards: fear of death and love of safety, and the belief that someone other than God can somehow be bribed into postponing one’s death. Belief in the Islamic creedal statement that “there is no deity but God” purges the mind of these ideas. The first idea loses its influence when people realize that their lives, property, and everything else really belong to God, for this makes them willing to sacrifice whatever they have for God’s approval. The second idea is defeated when people realize that no weapon, person, or power can kill them, for only God has this power. No one can die before his or her appointed time, even if all of the world’s forces combined to do so. Nothing can bring death forward or push it backward even one instant. This firm belief in One God and dependence upon Him makes monotheists the bravest of people.

Monotheism creates an attitude of peace and contentment, purges the mind of subtle passions and jealousy, envy and greed, and prevents one from resorting to base and unfair means for achieving success. Monotheists understand that God holds their wealth; that He bestows honor, power, reputation, and authority as He wills and subjects them to His Will; and that their duty is only to endeavor and struggle fairly. They know that success and failure depend upon His Grace, for no power can block His Will to give or not to give. They also know that they must strive to deserve His Grace. But many of those who do not believe in God consider success and failure to be the result of their own efforts or by the help of earthly powers, and do not take God’s Grace and Will into consideration. Therefore they remain slaves to cupidity and envy, and use bribery, flattery, conspiracy, and other base and unfair means to achieve success.

Monotheism makes people obey and observe the Divine Law. Monotheists know that God is aware of everything, whether hidden or open, and is nearer to them than their jugular vein. If they sin in secret even under the cover of night, God knows it. He knows our unformed thoughts and intentions, even those of which we ourselves are unaware. We can hide things from people, but not from God. We can evade everyone, but not God’s grasp. The firmer our belief in this respect, the more observant we will be of His Commands. This is why the first and most important condition for being a Muslim is to have firm and sincere faith in God’s Oneness.

This is also the most important and fundamental principle of the Prophet’s teachings, as well as Islam’s bedrock and the mainspring of its power. All other beliefs, commands, and laws of Islam stand firm on this foundation. Lastly, we quote the remarks of Dr. Laura Veccia Vaglieri, a famous Italian Orientalist, concerning the universal spirit of Islamic monotheism:

The Prophet, with a voice which was inspired by a deep communion with his Maker, preached the purest monotheism to the worshippers of fetish and the followers of a corrupted Christianity and Judaism. He put himself in open conflict with those regressive tendencies of mankind which lead to the association of other beings with the Creator.

In order to lead men to a belief in one God, he did not delude them with happenings which deviate from the normal course of nature. Rather, he simply invited them, without asking them to leave the realm of reality, to consider the Universe and its laws. Being confident of the resultant belief in the one and indispensable God, he simply let men read in the book of life.

Thanks to Islam, paganism in its various forms was defeated. The concept of the Universe, the practices of religion, and the customs of social life were each liberated from all the monstrosities which had degraded them, and human minds were made free of prejudice. Man finally realized his dignity. (Vaglieri, Laura Veccia, Apologia dell Islamismo. Washington: American Fazl Mosque [1957]; trans.

Aldo Caselli, An Interpretation of Islam. Beirut: Laila Khalidy Memorial Foundation [1957?], 30-33.)

#allah #god #islam #muslim #quran #revert #convert #convert islam #revert islam #reverthelp #revert help #revert help team #help #islamhelp #converthelp #prayer #salah #muslimah #reminder #pray #dua #hijab #religion #mohammad #new muslim #new revert #new convert #how to convert to islam #convert to islam #welcome to islam

[oumakokichi]

Another character besides Komaeda that people (unfairly, in my opinion) compare with Ouma is Hiyoko in that they're both bratty, "sadistic" and child-like. Would you like to talk about their differences or similarities? Thank you!

Oh, this is a really fun question! I’ve seen people compareOuma and Saionji too for some time now, and while I think there are a handfulof surface-level similarities, there are plenty of differences as well.

In many ways, Ouma’s resemblances to Saionji are much likehis resemblance to Celes. While they seem to act or behave similarly, they’refar too different at their core to actually get along, in my opinion. Eventheir bonus mode interactions (there’s at least one in Ouma’s route, andanother in Saionji’s where the two of them interact along with Mikan), it seemsas though while they have similar interests and behaviors, they’re not reallysimilar enough to get along or befriend each other.

Saionji and Ouma are both two of the more childishcharacters in DR, it’s true. But it’s also true that there’s a world ofdifference as to why they act so childishly.

In Saionji’s case, a large part of it is because of herupbringing. Her strict background, as well as the abuse she went through, hasmade her into pretty much the definition of a playground bully, someone whothinks in terms of “as long as I’m picking on someone weaker than myself then I’mnot the one getting picked on.”

She’s undergone so much rigorous, severe training related toher talent, but as that was the only thing that interested her grandmother, she’sreceived almost no preparation or education about the real world. This isperfectly illustrated by her inability to tie her own obi, and why she flocks toKoizumi so readily when she sticks up for her once the rest of the cast beginspointing out that she stinks after not bathing.

Rather than just being childish, I would say Saionji is…well, “immature” might be a better word, though it means roughly the samething. While she does have certain childish interests, like gummy candies andplaying pranks, she’s also simply ill-equipped to deal with the world aroundher. There’s also something very genuinely immature and child-like about herinability to take what she dishes out.

While Ouma puts on crocodile tears frequently and likes toclaim he’s being “bullied” by the rest of the group, only to turn around andcheekily go “Oh, was I found out?” whenever anyone accuses him of faking it,Saionji’s tears are usually the real deal. In fact, she lies a lot more aboutfaking them than about the tears themselves, often becoming flustered and sulkyafter being made to cry by anyone else. Being teased or insulted even slightlyoften gets her extremely riled up, and she’s quick to cry from frustration.

In a way, the way that she acts actually reminds me more ofMiu than of Ouma. Both Saionji and Miu have a tendency to look for “easy prey”to pick on, throwing insults at the people they see as most likely to sit thereand take it (Mikan and Saihara, for example). And whenever anyone actuallypushes back or throws an insult their way instead, they’re quick to back down,only to try to repeat the same stunt a little while later when they think it’ssafe.

One of the most important differences to note is, in myopinion, the difference between Saionji’s rather black-or-white morality vs.Ouma’s grey morality. All of Saionji’s opinions about her classmates arecouched in completely black-or-white, good-or-evil terms. She either likes themquite a lot, or she can’t stand them, and she’s quick to maintain either ofthese opinions until something else comes along to convince her to change hermind.

She judges her classmates quite harshly for their flawswhile turning a blind eye to her own—which again, is fairly childish behaviorshowing how immature she really is in a lot of ways. She’s really, incrediblyfun as a character for all of these reasons, though. If anything, part of thefun is watching her go off on characters like Komaeda, saying things that noneof the other characters wanted to say because they felt it would be too bluntor rude.

Nothing illustrates the difference in morality between thembetter than their opinions on murder. Interestingly enough, both of them aresimilar in their dislike towards murderers. But again, it’s mostly only on thesurface.

Saionji has very childish, playground bully-like behaviors,such as stomping on ants and crabs and killing them (which reminds me quite alot of certain scenes in Umineko about breaking toys and killing butterflies,but that’s for another time). But she really can’t seem to stand actual, humankillers. This opinion of hers seems to stem less from an actual aversion todeath or from finding it sad or boring, but rather because she believes verystrongly in the “eye for an eye” adage. The day after Teruteru’s execution, forexample, she’s extremely outspoken about how he “got what he deserved,” and howhe was a “worthless, horrible human being for killing someone else.” In short,she seems to have zero sympathy for his actions whatsoever and wholeheartedlythinks he deserved to be killed after killing another person.

Ouma, meanwhile, has more complicated feelings on thematter. His dislike for murder means he feels very strongly about the subject,but it’s also true that he doesn’t necessarily hate people who kill. Throughout the course of ndrv3, hedemonstrates on multiple occasions that he can understand why people wouldbring themselves to kill someone else, but that he can’t agree with them foractually doing so. In short, Ouma is someone who can understand others withoutexcusing them.

Shortly before Kaede’s execution, we see him stronglyemphasize that it was still wrong of her to try and kill someone, even if itwas the ringleader (he’s the only character who seems to have this opinion, infact). But he also gives her a very forthright, honest send-off at the veryend, telling her that she wasn’t boring, which is one of the highestcompliments someone like him can offer. Again with Kirumi in Chapter 2, Oumademonstrates understanding for Kirumi’s motives even if he can’t agree withwhat she did personally. Just after her execution, he looks down and says thathe can understand wanting to live with all one’s might, demonstrating that hehad a high amount of respect for her even though he could never excuse herkilling another person and putting the entire group’s lives in danger.

Even with Maki, who he arguably butts heads with the mostover the course of the game, Ouma doesn’t hate her for having killed people. Hedislikes her, yes, and more than anything he resents the fact that she’s aconstant threat which the rest of the group refuses to acknowledge as such. Buthe doesn’t actually think that she or anyone else within the group “deserves”to die. The only reason killers have to be executed for their crimes is becausethe alternative is everyone else dying in the trial, period. If it weren’t forthe rules of the killing game itself, I highly doubt Ouma would demonstratenearly as much ruthlessness towards the culprits as he does in-game.

This ability to understand other people’s actions withoutexcusing them is itself quite mature. This is only fitting, as Ouma is always awalking contradiction. As I’ve stated in plenty of meta, he is childish, and enjoys playing pranks,teasing others, and just generally acting like a brat—usually without any realmean-spirited intentions, though it’s true that he does overstep his bounds onsome of his pranks even before he starts putting on his villain routine.  But his childishness is more like someone who’sa “child at heart,” rather than someone who’s actually immature and who hasn’tgrown up yet.

His mindset towards his classmates and towards the killinggame are extremely mature, complex, and multi-layered. As someone whounderstands the true nature of “lies,” and therefore the main themes of ndrv3itself, Ouma is capable of understanding multiple conflicting viewpoints at thesame time. Lies themselves are, as he says, “on the same level as truth.” Andunlike the truth, which is only ever singular, lies hold infinite potential.

It’s possible to believe in several conflicting lies all atonce, in order to not crush someone’s truth. The reason Ouma himself likeslies, as he states in the Chapter 4 trial, is because they can be used to  avoid hurting others, to comfort them in theface of a harsh reality. This is an extremely interesting and sympatheticmindset, because it’s not the kind of thing that someone who hasn’t been hurtbefore would understand. I found his entire speech about the “endlesspossibilities” of lies extremely reminiscent of Umineko, particularly as there’sa whole speech in Umineko about how “those who become witches” are the ones who“need magic in order to escape from the painful truth of reality.”

It’s clear then that even though Saionji and Ouma both actsimilarly on the surface, Saionji is far less mature and thinks in much moreblack-or-white, straightforwardly childish terms than Ouma does. Unlike Ouma,who’s a master at lying and seeing through others’ deceptions, Saionji is painfullytransparent when she tries to lie, and she dislikes being lied to or deceivedby others because she dislikes showing her own weaknesses and being taken advantageof. She seeks out people she perceives as weaker than herself because thebullying and abuse she experienced has led to her feeling like the only way shecan clearly demonstrate that she’s not still being bullied is if she bulliessomeone else instead.

While Ouma very much acts the part of a “playground bully”in his tendency to tease and pick on some of the other characters, his remarksusually never go past the point of teasing, and often when he teases someoneelse, it’s actually done in order to try and subtly guide them in another direction.For example, he often comments on Gonta’s naivete and how he should be morecareful or else he’ll “get killed.” His comments towards Gonta about how heneeded to stop crying and pitch in with the Chapter 4 investigation also, asSaihara himself notes, seemed harsh on the surface but actually succeeded ingetting Gonta to cheer up and feel more useful.

This kind of behavior is what Ouma specializes in: he likeshelping without seeming like he’s helping. It’s exactly what he did in theChapter 3 post-trial, where he told Himiko that she was simply lying to herselfand trying to avoid coming to terms with her own emotions despite havingpromised she’d stop in the trial.

People still, I think, misconstrue that scene as Ouma “bullying”Himiko or trying to make her cry just for the sake of being mean—but inreality, all he actually says is that he doesn’t think she should lie to herself.He doesn’t insult or berate her, but instead tries to push her to actuallyconfront her grief, and that’s why she finally breaks down crying over Tenko’sand Angie’s deaths. Everyone notes how much more peaceful Himiko seems once shefalls asleep after she’s done crying, so once again, we see that Ouma generallyonly does these things in order to try and help his classmates, rather thanactually bullying them or hurting their self-esteem.

If Ouma and Saionji were to ever interact for a longerperiod of time than just their bonus mode segments, I doubt they would hateeach other per se, but I do think they wouldn’t be able to see eye to eye.There’s a very unsympathetic, childish cruelty in Himiko’s black-or-whitementality towards others who she sees as “weak.” Meanwhile Ouma is far toocryptic and dishonest for Saionji to ever actually like him, especially when Isuspect he’d probably wind up taking her down a few pegs the same way he doesMiu, if she were to ever try making any comments towards him.

Ouma very much likes to actas though he’s the Saionji of the group—someone whose bark is bigger than hisbite, and who acts pretty childish and selfish and mean but ultimately isn’t athreat. But it’s just an act. Unlike Saionji, who truly is pretty harmlessother than her bullying behavior, Ouma is strategic, practical, andcalculating. The reason him punching Momota came as such a surprise, not only tothe other characters but to the fandom as well, is because no one saw itcoming. He downplayed his own strength and capabilities flawless until the verylast moment, because he acted as though he was all talk. No one expected him tobe physically strong, and in the same way no one expected him to be asintelligent as he was either.

I’ll stop for now because this has gotten really long, butthank you so much for sending this in. This was a really fun question to writeabout—I haven’t really written anything about Saionji before, I think, andsince she gets compared to Ouma so often it was really enjoyable to be able towrite about it in-depth! Thanks for stopping by, anon!

#ndrv3 #new danganronpa v3 #sdr2 #kokichi ouma #hiyoko saionji #ndrv3 spoilers // #my meta #okay to reblog #anonymous

[curdinway-blog]

Princess Mononoke

“What exactly are you here for?” Prince Ashitaka is asked at one point in Princess Mononoke.  He replies, “To see with eyes unclouded by hate.”  It is a noble pursuit, but easier said than done.  In both our world and the movie, there seems to exist a fundamental lack of understanding.  This failure to connect seeds conflict; in Princess Mononoke, it has bred war between nature and man.

Princess Mononoke is often considered a superior clone of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind. To call it such is to do both films a tremendous disservice.  While both contain similar elements of subject and plot, occasionally even identical elements, the films are dramatically different tonally and in what they are attempting to convey.  If Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is a fire-and-brimstone sermon told by an equally fiery preacher, Princess Mononoke is more like a carefully researched and concerned dissertation.  Part of the reason for this was that environmentalism was less a fringe topic by 1997 and more universally important than it was in 1984.  Miyazaki himself doubtlessly changed as well.  Age tends to temper passions and bring new, complicating perspectives.  For a modern era and beyond, Miyazaki helmed the project, intending it as his last and most definitive.  

A fundamental change between Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind and Princess Mononoke is the perceived supremacy of nature.  In Nausicaä, the war between man and nature is decidedly one-sided in earth’s favor.  All efforts by men to affect it are futile and self-destructive.  In Princess Mononoke, interestingly, the arrow of dominance has been flipped. This time, man is clearly the domineering force, and nature is in full-blown retreat.  This, I surmise, is much more accurate of the world as we know it. Human beings absolutely possess the ability to override the earth.  This was already true in 1997, even 1984 and beyond, let alone 2017.  We have razed prairies and replaced them with square plots for growing food, knocked down trees to build dens for ourselves, reduced biodiversity to swell the populations of species we find desirable.  If there is indeed a war raging between man and nature, then nature is royally getting its ass kicked.

Of course, the problem with war against nature is that victory is truly pyrrhic.  The domination of humans is only good for us so long as the earth’s infrastructure remains intact; damage it irrevocably and there is hell to pay.  In Princess Mononoke, the moment of nature’s apparent demise leads to a symbolic cloud of death, choking off everyone and everything it comes in contact with.  We are still reliant on this planet, and only this planet, for most of our basic requirements of life; air, water, food, and shelter.  Understanding our tremendous power to shape the world means understanding we have the freedom to end ourselves in the process.  

Another huge change between Princess Mononoke and Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind is in their respective considerations of the human element.  In Nausicaä, we are placed firmly on the side of nature. Nature is considered neutral, or even benevolent, until it is provoked; humans are the aggressors.  For the most part, human characters are portrayed as fearful, vain, selfish, and violent.  Their actions provoke global catastrophe in the first place; their continued action means nature strikes them down to preserve balance.  Princess Mononoke has a far different and more sympathetic opinion of man. Humanity is still presented as deeply flawed, with elements of selfishness and pride clearly at play. But we are also, Miyazaki surmises, locked in our own desperate struggle for survival; impossibly unique, sensitive, and altruistic creatures, we are also deeply vulnerable to the cold tidal whims of the universe.  If we have drastically changed the world, then that is because life is harsh. Skyscrapers in place of trees bring us a level of insulation and protection we would not enjoy otherwise; a level of personal comfort we now view as necessary.  In Princess Mononoke, Lady Eboshi at first would appear to be the clear-cut villain in the story; some sort of haughty madwoman bent on natural destruction. Ashikaga’s anger at her reflects our own.  But then, we are introduced to the kingdom of Irontown, and a far different portrait of Eboshi emerges.  She provides lepers, formerly discarded and unwanted souls, a place to call home and a valued purpose; basic human dignity.  Former prostitutes run the bellows for mineral smelting.  Irontown is a shelter for all of the rejects and disvalued of the kingdom; yet despite the relative level of comfort provided, life is still hard and tentative for all its subjects.  Irontown is seen as being under assault nearly the entire course of the movie.  The city is utterly remote, so nature must be suppressed to provide resources and prevent the wilderness from swallowing civilization.  It is remote because that is where valuable and untapped resources are, and Eboshi correctly calculates that the trade value of those resources will afford the encampment value and security from the underlying kingdom.  At the same time, locating the city on the outskirts of the kingdom serves to protect it from opportunistic seizure by the kingdom’s forces.  Lady Eboshi may be vain; there can be little doubt that she enjoys being seen as a leader and savior of her people.  But rarely, if ever, does she seem self-serving; and she is certainly not evil, as much as she is simply pragmatic.  The gray areas encompassed by Princess Mononoke are one of its greatest strengths, and an important topic of discussion in our actual lives.  How does one compare the value of a human life against the beauty of a thousand sunsets? Or the diversity of a rainforest against a chorus of hunger pains?  Currently, DDT, yes, that DDT, is used prevalently in certain regions of Africa. The effects of DDT on bird species and overall ecosystems is well-documented; and yet, thousands of people on the continent die each year from malaria.  In the same way, certain GMO’s such as BT corn have been decried for the toxins they produce and can impart other species to produce; but there are already too many people to feed.  What will happen as we continue to add millions more?  Shouldn’t GMO’s be at least part of that discussion?  When it comes to such difficult underlying issues, there are no easy answers.  Each of us must come to our own appropriations of what merits value.

The greatest difference between Princess Mononoke and its cousin lies in what they seek to address.  Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind seeks to bring our attentions to the issue of ecological destruction.  Princess Mononoke seeks to provide an appropriate solution.  The overall message of the film is tied neatly into the arc of its two main characters. Prince Ashitaga is a village leader who is deeply invested in human welfare; throughout the course of the movie, his experiences with nature cause him to care for and protect it with nearly equal regard.  San, aka Princess Mononoke, is a savage girl who was raised among wolves.  Her initial hatred of men softens when she meets Ashitaga, and hidden human elements and feelings emerge.  Her transformation is more reluctant and incomplete than that of Ashitaga; yet by the end of the movie, she has become an undeniably more tolerant and peaceful character.  The means of solving conflicts is in growing mutual respect, cooperation, and even appreciation.  Unfortunately, in our current society, conflicts over the environment have been marked by an obsession with winning, a phenomenon probably tied into an equally destructive obsession in politics.  Economic success has been planted firmly against natural protection; middle ground has ceased to exist.  Dialogue and legislations are increasingly being made for the wrong reasons; often times, to hurt the opposing side solely for the sake of perceived victory of the other, even when no actual benefit exists.  Understanding is a concept seen as weak or wishy-washy. In fact, it is in the best interest of every person on the planet.  Since when did budget health or environmentalism become singular goals? Aren’t both a mutual interest of everyone?  Nobody wants to breathe air chock-full of suffocating carbon dioxide, or turn half of the world into uninhabitable wasteland.  If someone smirks at you and says they would be fine with it, they are lying.  Or they are refusing to acknowledge what they know, at the back of their minds, is inherently true.

If there is a lesson to be learned from Princess Mononoke, it is that in conflicts, environmental or otherwise, compromise and balance are key.  Environment and human interests are not mutually exclusive goals; they can be accomplished concurrently.  All that is required is a little open-mindedness and human ingenuity.  In cases where concurrent benefit isn’t an option, mediation should be able to produce partial benefits for each side. We are conditioned to believe working together is frustrating or impossible; instead, it is a challenge we should cherish, an engaging and beneficial puzzle.  And it starts with mutual respect; an appreciation for utilities that are less tangible, and equally precious.

There is a moment in Princess Mononoke, following the cloud of death, where a villager gazes awestruck upon a field of blooming blue flowers.  “Huh…I didn’t know the Forest Spirit made the flowers grow,” he murmurs. How carefully will we tend to our own flowers?  Our children will want to see them too.

[themodernwolf]

The Dehumanization Politics of American Crises

Compare Trump’s response to Las Vegas with his press conference in Puerto Rico. The events in both places were horrific and cost American Citizens their lives. In response to Las Vegas, Trump solemnly called for unity and healing, quoted from the Bible, and expressed consolatory words to the families of the victims. In response to Puerto Rico, Trump accused Puerto Rico of going over-budget, tossed paper towels into a crowd, and minimized the loss of Puerto Rican lives. Both events were tragic,  But only the tragedy in Las Vegas was legitimized; in Puerto Rico, the loss of life was brushed aside as a mere annoyance to the financial sensibilities of the President. The President’s remarks illustrate what many Americans have known for centuries: in the sociopolitical schema that is the United States, some lives matter, and others do not. Thus, a mass-shooting in Las Vegas is considered lamentable while Puerto Rico is considered greedy; the answer lies in the dehumanizing politics of race and fears of a non-white America.

Mass-shootings carried out by a white man are confusing for mainstream America. We want something or someone simple to blame, like an organization we can believe hates us “for our freedom” or a clear-cut criminal, but when the shooter looks, acts, and speaks the way we expect one of “our” allies too, when the shooter is one of “us,” we need something new to define that person as separate. These separation tactics preserve the idea of a morally-upstanding white identity by placing blame on other forces and treating the tragedy as an isolated incident. Some of these tactics include blaming

mental illness, which is highly problematic, 1) because the assumption perpetuates negative stigmas about people with mental illnesses and 2) it also perpetuates the false idea that one must be “mentally ill” in order to kill other human beings.

loose regulations on purchasing and owning firearms. While this is certainly a major crisis facing the United States, these conversations place blame on a metal object instead of blaming the shooter or calling out the violent trends in white males.

the victim(s) for instigating the violent encounter. This tactic is liberally applied to cases of police brutality, where young black men are described in a bad light in order to take blame away from the white police officer(s) who killed him.

When none of these tactics are available, the story takes on the “dumbfounded awe” template, which plays up the unsuspecting nature of the perpetrator to illicit surprise and bewilderment in the audience. While these tactics preserve the perceived social integrity of white society as a whole by castigating the white killer, they also make excuses for his actions. In a sense, these excuses humanize white killers by painting them as complex human beings with complex motivations for their actions.These killers are considered human.

In stark contrast to the humanized white killer sits the dangerous nonwhite victim. When Syrian refugees, fleeing genocide in their home country, attempt to seek refuge in the United States, Trump implies that there may be ISIS members in their ranks and institutes a travel ban; When Mexican immigrants, in search of opportunity and a better life, come to the United States, Trump implies that they are rapists and murderers and threatens to build a wall to keep them out. Refugees and undocumented immigrants, two of the most vulnerable people groups in the United States, are considered (potential) terrorists. As the narrative goes, not every immigrant or refugee is attempting to harm Americans (“and some, I assume, are good people”), but the innocence of the few is outweighed by the fabricated image of the violent majority. When one member of an immigrant or refugee group does participate in illicit behavior, his or her actions become the defining evidence for the danger of all refugees, all immigrants, all Muslims, etc. In contrast, when one white man kills 59 people and injures over 500 other people, he is portrayed as the exception. In this way, the fabricated image of a violent immigrant or refugee defines them all, and therefore their struggles, their lives, and their motivations are erased. All they can be is one conjured possibility. Thus, the most vulnerable people are dehumanized.

This dehumanization tactic is used against citizens as well. As citizens of a U.S. territory (see “colony”), Puerto Ricans are also American Citizens, which should entitle them to the same governmental protection that other American citizens receive in times of crisis. They should be entitled to the same thoughts and prayers, silence and mourning, unity and healing platitudes, and financial and military aid as other American tragedies receive. Their dead should be honored in the same way other Americans are honored. Instead, Puerto Ricans are minimized and dehumanized 1) because of their marginalized status as colonized nonwhite Americans, and 2) because the female Mayor of San Juan, Carmen Cruz spoke out on behalf of lives being lost. She challenged the President—the bastion of whiteness, white values, and white power—and brought humanizing media coverage to the Puerto Rican media crisis. She pushed through the shade of White House platitudes about “good news stories” and humanized the tragic reality on the island. Trump’s response had to sweep Puerto Rico back under the rug. He reduced Cruz’ pleas to leftist propaganda and minimized the deaths of Puerto Rican Americans, all the while positing himself as the stingy, yet benevolent Daddy Warbucks who is frustrated by having to give more money to the cause, but willing to compromise. He situated himself back in power and continued the erasure of the Puerto Rican people.

White male murders are seen as anomalies, while the killings of black men like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner are seen as police “just doing their jobs”; Domestic nazis are given the benefit of the doubt, while the only way to keep us safe is to build a wall; white criminals on Wall Street knowingly took advantage of poor Americans, caused the subprime mortgage crisis, and initiated the stock market crash of 2008, while urban areas with higher populations of people of color are deemed “war zones;” dehumanization politics work by reducing people of color to one fabricated, incendiary motivation in order to inspire enough fear in wealthy, powerful white people to continue influencing elections in their favor. They also create distance between “us” and “them” that makes it easy to ignore others in favor of your “in-group.” And it’s no surprise that we’re seeing this occur now with Trump: by 2020, the majority of babies born in the U.S. will be babies of color. A political power shift is imminent. The best tactic to maintain power is to remove people of color from the political landscape, and the best way to do that is by practicing a policy of dehumanization politics.

Reducing an entire group of people keeps other people from sympathizing with them. This division is profitable for those in power, but only to an extent: dehumanization politics are a deal with the devil that ultimately divide and conquer us all. Excusing the actions of mass shooters and nazi sympathizers as both unattached to the ideal white identity and yet simultaneously sympathetic and understandable allows and encourages acts of terror to continue. These individuals should not be dehumanized; rather, they should be understood as complex human beings motivated by a multitude of sources and acting in a manner that is available to all of us. We all have a propensity for violence, and that violence manifests itself in a myriad of ways. Wealthy, white people are just as predisposed to violence as the refugee or the immigrant. The difference is, the wealthy white person has power to control the narrative about the other two; he can either support it and spread it, in which case he moves to erase the humanity of complex, emotional, and vulnerable human beings in order to bolster his sociopolitical defenses and comfort his personal insecurities, or he can reject it and view the immigrant and the refugee as people with complex motivations, people who experience hope, love, and fear, with human desires and needs. In this sense, the wealthy white man loses some social and political power, but in exchange, his neighbors become closer and clearer, his empathy and compassion is restored, and divisive politicians stop profiting off of distancing and fear-inducing dehumanization politics.

Trump’s polar-opposite responses to Las Vegas and Puerto Rico clearly indicate the prevailing social construct that some lives matter, and others do not. As a wealthy white man who expresses sympathy for neo-nazi organizations, Trump is considered by many to be the poster child for hateful rhetoric and policy against marginalized people, but you do not have to be a wealthy, white man in order to engage in dehumanization politics. All of us perpetuate them in them in varying capacities. But if we want to live in a society that truly values the complexity and beauty of human life, we must see other people as complex and beautiful human beings and demand that other people see them as complex and beautiful too. Otherwise, we lose ourselves to dehumanization politics, a fabricated game that artificially frightens us, isolates us from other people, and encourages pain and suffering, all to the benefit of those in power. Divided, we produce fodder for the same people that divide us. But connecting with each other empathizing with others’ thoughts and desires can heal those divisions and can begin to make our fractured society whole.

#Trump #PuertoRico #LasVegas #politics #justice #immigration #refugees