#choosing empathy instead of pettiness | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

gornackeaterofworlds · 3 months

Note

Know that I am gently batting you around for being amazing!

How about number 37 and 10 for any oc or oc’s of your choosing! ^W^

Know that I am consuming you whole in one big bite btw

10. If your character is an antagonist or something of the like, do they self-justify their actions? If so, how?

Marvel OCs:

Eva: She doesn't necessarily cross that territory once the lab holding her prisoner dissipated, but during training she did anything it took to make them happy, crossing any lines. When first brought into the program she'd refused, and so they found that if they hurt Evan, they could convince her to do what they wanted. So that's how she justifies any deed she feels guilty about throughout her life, that it's for Evan, to protect Evan, she gets to shuck the blame of the choice if it's for Evan.

Evan: He is a lot more intentionally morally grey than Eva. He was a terrified little boy before, but after learning about his dimension(9591), seeing Eva cause so much pain for his sake, spending years as a prisoner, he gets a very nihilistic streak. His mindset is that everything he does is just for his own survival, his own gain, and while it causes a little guilt, he rationalizes his actions with "it's worse for people in my/other dimension(s), so people here shouldn't complain." Refusing to allow empathy helps also.

TMNT OCs:

Anni: Huge antagonistic streak, but she swears nothing is her fault! It's all for a purpose, for the end goal! Illegal activities galore. Her defense? "The government sucks anyway." Emotional manipulation? "I simply had to, it's the only way to do/get [object]!" I don't think I made it very clear in my fic, and part of that was intentional, but she's a very manipulative, sly person. Though I'm taking a break, in one of the two posted chapters she manipulates Donnie into getting his phone number and getting to come over another day. Also outright coerces April into seeing the turtles, but that's worded more obviously. Barely thinks about the repercussions of these things until later, and it leads to deconstructing her child abuse.

Millie: It's all her traumatic past, promise!! Not a very big bad girl side, most of her "antagonistic" actions are more like lies by omission. Hiding things. Stealing. Doesn't like to burden others, especially her friends, with things that are so petty in comparison to their issues. Also slightly manipulative, but more of a "pulling very small specific strings to get the reaction she wants" way, like Anni's smaller manipulations. Rationalizes by playing dumb/ignoring it or just thinking that it's very small, inconsequential, but also doesn't want to haunt them.

37. What does your character want to change about themselves?

Marvel OCs:

Eva: Pre-main battle, slightly guiltily wishes she wasn't a mutant. Though for her, it's more about "if I wasn't special, I wouldn't have been brought to this dimension, and Evan wouldn't have gotten hurt because of me." Post-main battle, there's not a lot she'd change. Still holds onto that past sentiment, but in regards to the deceased 616 Eva instead of Evan. During this arc, she tries a lot of things and explores herself a lot, so there's a lot of self-love there.

Evan: Doesn't want to be a mutant, and this is very consistent throughout his life. He never goes back to 9591, but he's heard about it from other dimension-travelers and from Eva, who visited one time(and was veeery careful not to use her powers there). Terrified every day that the curse of that dimension will still affect him, so he's very hesitant to use his powers. Thankfully it doesn't affect his looks, so he can pretend, but because he's stuck by Eva's side, he's a little forced to use his powers on the team(though that ends after the main battle, since she's in the hospital, he kinda does whatever he wants and really likes being an average person)

TMNT OCs:

Anni: Her childhood her childhood her childhood. PLAGUED by "what if I was a normal civilian". Without getting into spoilers, she does eventually tone down the international criminal persona, even brokering a deal to go into witness protection while staying in New York(it helps that her main partner in crime(literally), her father, is dead)

Millie: Kinda...everything? In most iterations of Millie I've made, like for Rise, she doubles as a spidersona, and in those iterations she wishes she had been a normal human so she could've died with the rest of her dimension(she's a little stuck wandering the multiverse to find a dimension where the Krang lose..) In the iterations where she's typically not spiderman, like Bay, she'd probably change her looks or entire lifestyle to be prettier or more interesting. I'll admit she's a self insert bc I'm cringe shush. And that's what I'd change, so it applies to her as well.

#rottmnt #gornack text tag #gornack ask tag #marvel #marvel ocs #marvel oc #tmnt oc #tmnt ocs #rottmnt oc #gornack mouse tag #ask game #ask gornack

2 notes · View notes

blueboyluca · 2 years

Text

rant below about club stuff

very frustrated by the way people choose to communicate. I had brought up changing the name of my club last year and early this year as an idea. last week I decided to ask the committee if they would actually vote for it, and I made my arguments of why it should happen. everyone was receptive and said yes, so I said I would talk to the other club members and see if there was interest. i expected this to flop – the only reason I am going for it is because the committee agreed.

at the royal show, I talked to four different people who were keen on the idea and agreed with my reasons for why it should happen. they expressed it being a positive thing. so given i had the committee on board and a handful of others, i thought it would be useful to write up a draft document to begin wider circulation. so i sent that draft to the committee last night.

this morning i woke to an email from the secretary saying she would resign effective immediately if we decided to do this. i find this extremely frustrating.

she did not express being against it at the meeting

she chose to threaten the functioning of the club

the name change would not be effective immediately so i don’t understand the threat anyway

she has already told us multiple times that she wants to leave the club in future

so of course once this was out, i had committee members withdraw their support. whatever. we don’t have to change the name. i went into the meeting last week expecting people not to go for it so whatever – i can drop it. what bothers me is the way the secretary has chosen to communicate her feelings. i smoothed this over by sending her a message saying i had no intention of alienating her and i value her work for the club and this matter would not be pursued. but now i have this sour feeling over the way it was done.

i put on my empathy hat and think, ok this person is a very emotional person and the royal show is important to her and it was just on, and i guess history is important to her as well, and given the way she worded the email, i guess she took this as some kind of personal slight, and felt the only power she had was to threaten to resign. i can get all that on a level, but it doesn’t stop my own feelings about how this was just a really petty way to handle it.

she could have done lots of things instead. if she was uncomfortable with saying it at the meeting, she could have told me privately that she wasn’t keen on it. she could have asked me that it not be pursued until she leave the club in future. she could have done a lot of things and instead she chose to make it a conflict. i feel that i have a good relationship with her, so this came as a surprise to me. i already know that in person she is incredibly conflict averse and her courage to confront is only by text or email. but i still find it odd that she didn’t text me after the meeting about it. perhaps the draft document just tipped her over the edge as previously it was just talk.

anyway it leaves me feeling complete frustration with communication and also anger at the way people refuse to be imaginative or embrace opportunities for change. i can drop the name change, but i can’t help but see it as a symbol of being stuck in bullshit from the past instead of embracing the chance to improve things. it’s especially annoying given the knowledge that this woman wants to leave anyway.

i’m trying not to be sour about this all day but it’s going to take a lot of concerted effort from me.

#sigh

12 notes · View notes

selfhelpchampion · 6 months

Text

On the High Road: Cultivating Positive Connections in Parenting

Parenting and maintaining healthy relationships pose considerable challenges. When faced with conflicts, it's tempting to react impulsively in the heat of the moment, often regretting our actions later - this is what's known as taking the "low road." However, opting for the high road during tense situations demands self-control, patience, and a broader perspective, ultimately yielding more positive outcomes. Here are some guidelines for staying on the high road:

Take a Breath and Pause: In moments of heightened emotions, calm yourself with deep breaths before responding. Consider taking a short timeout to regain composure and gain a clearer perspective. Listen First, Speak Later: Avoid interrupting or reacting defensively. Make a genuine effort to fully understand the other person's viewpoint before expressing your own. Use "I" Statements: Focus on your thoughts and feelings when sharing your perspective. For instance, say "I feel concerned when I'm spoken to in a disrespectful tone" instead of placing blame. Ask Curious Questions: If you struggle to comprehend the other person's perspective, ask open-ended questions to gain insight rather than making assumptions. Find Common Ground: Identify shared goals, needs, or values to create a basis for understanding and defusing conflict. Take Ownership: If you've made a mistake, offer a sincere apology without justification or excuses. Taking responsibility is a gesture that garners respect. Be the Bigger Person: Refrain from engaging in petty or passive-aggressive behavior. Respond to negativity with kindness and model grace under pressure. Compromise: Seek solutions that meet the needs of both parties. Offering concessions builds bridges and fosters collaboration for better outcomes. Sleep on It: If all else fails, revisit the issue when emotions have cooled down. Time and rest often bring valuable perspective to challenging situations.

Embracing the high road demands patience, empathy, and the ability to rise above defensive reactions. Although it requires practice, the investment pays off in improved relationships, personal growth, and family harmony. Choosing understanding over the need to be understood lies at the heart of taking the high road.

#parenting #medium #selfhelpchampion #selfhelp #nevermiss

0 notes

w-ht-w · 1 year

Text

Judginess can outlive its usefulness in the modern digitized world

Social media gives onlookers the opportunity to scoff at a person’s every choice

in pre-modern times, judgment helped keep people safe. Judgments were alarm bells allowing humans to distinguish between toxic and harmless food, trustworthy and untrustworthy tribe members, and hardworking and lazy kinspeople, ... The role that automatic judgment plays...is social signaling, social norm reinforcing.

Judgment is also a signal that someone’s behavior is unusual or out of context to your particular in-group

But in today’s mobile, digitally facilitated world, judgment can take on new, toxic forms, ... When you silently cast judgment on someone from afar based on an Instagram story, you don’t get feedback from other people — or even the subject of your judgment — and you don’t learn how to make comments or critiques in a constructive way. (1)

Judgment is biased/personal, discernment is more ethical (serving the greater good):

Discernment, on the other hand, can help you identify unhealthy and toxic behaviors, ... it’s important to detect when someone’s attitudes and beliefs pose a threat to others’ rights and well-being. Unless someone’s behavior is actively harming themselves or others (in which case, you should name the behavior, tell the other person how you’re feeling, and set boundaries on how you’d like them to act moving forward), learning to curb petty moral righteousness is possible, but requires slowing down your thoughts and having some empathy. (1)

be mindful of + reframe your judge-y self-righteous impulses:

In order to reframe judgmental thoughts, you need to catch them in the act. “We have to pull back and go, ‘I’m being judgy, I don’t really want to do that,’” ... “If we come to notice we’re doing something that is unhealthy and pause and stop it, then we are far less likely to go down that path,” (1)

At the end of the day, our digital personas are part of our personal personas because it’s how we choose to share our lives, our interests, and what matters to us to the world. If anything, most people only represent a curated version of themselves on social media, so shouldn’t it be a representation of what they hope and aspire to be as a human?

I do think there’s an important distinction though to make between thinking less of someone because of their social media presence versus realizing you’re just personally not into what they’re sharing or portraying. “Good for them, but they’re not for me” should be the motto. (2)

Empathize/understand where you can, but don’t compromise on the important:

it can be easy to assume that someone who doesn’t share your beliefs is “evil or stupid,” ... Instead of reacting aggressively in an attempt to change their mind, [try] thinking of a good-faith reason why someone would think this way as a means to slow down the judgment process.

For example, when it comes to relatives with differing political opinions, [think] about how the loved one ended up believing what they believe: the media they consume, the people they surround themselves with.

“Curiosity is the antidote for judgment,”

Of course, you should never compromise on important moral and social issues, ... Relationships with people whose views are antithetical to your own will have to be renegotiated ... if you want to maintain contact. But you can control your initial assumptions of them based on their beliefs. “What function is expressing those judgments serving right now?” ... “Am I trying to build consensus about an issue or am I just trying to wave my flag ... (1)

You can’t force others to change, or single-handedly save them from themselves

There are very few things you can do to convince people your way of thinking and living is ideal. Save for the occasions where someone’s behavior is dangerous and harmful, ... [it’s best to] focus only on what you can control. ... our behaviors, our thoughts, and our actions.

“You can’t make somebody value the things that you value,” ... “All you can do is try to gently demonstrate that valuing the things that you value makes the world around you better and people will want to move there in some intellectual or moral sense.” (1)

1. https://www.vox.com/even-better/23188518/be-less-judgmental-tips

2. http://thecoolestlife.com/is-judging-someone-on-their-social-media-presence-shallow-or-accurate/

#social media

0 notes

livebloggingmydescentintomadness · 3 years

Note

Hi, you seem like a lovely person so I want to explain why that honey post upset me. Most vegans are trying to be more ethical. Meat eaters often use the issue of no ethical consumption under capitalism to attack vegans. Why is that okay? Meat eaters also eat veggies, chocolate, sugar and quinoa! People should have good living conditions, so should animals, why pretend it's either or? I can't fix the whole world but I can pick my small battles. That's what veganism is about.

(Honey ask 2) It feels like people feel entitled to tear vegan philosophies apart with petty gotcha moments instead of engaging in good faith to try to understand. Everyone has their annoying vegan story, but somehow I coexist with meat eaters without sharing my stories! Or telling people they should eat food they have clearly explained they don't want to eat. I am so tired of being told every single thing I do needs to be perfect or I'm some kind of fake who doesn't really care about the world.

i don't have a problem with people who are trying to eat ethically - i am too, to the best of my abilities - and who decide that means choosing not to eat meat or animal products.

what i do have a problem with is the attitude of some (not all, i know) vegans where they act as though veganism is "choosing kindness" or choosing to be ethical, and people who consume animal products are being cruel and/or unethical, and who enforce this binary without nuance.

let me give an example. when my health was better, i regularly went to a local farmers market, where i had a friend who raises chickens, and i bought eggs from her. in return, i gave her my compost scraps, which she often fed to the chickens - things like pineapple rinds, apple cores, carrot peels, etc. i knew my friend the farmer for a good decade, and i know that she treats her chickens well and they are happy, well-cared-for birds.

when i ate the eggs from those chickens, i was consuming cruelty-free food. those animals did not suffer in producing eggs.

at the time i was also purchasing my milk from a local farm, one that i actually visited! i got to see the cows lying around in a wide open green pasture, i got to pet a newborn calf. those animals didn't suffer to produce milk, and when i drank that milk, i was consuming cruelty-free food.

(of course, i fully realize that i was quite privileged to be able to buy those eggs and milk from local sources; in fact, i've since lost the health to be able to get to those locations, and i have to buy everything from the store right now. farmers markets and local producers are great, but the majority of people can't access them.)

on the other hand, when i'm purchasing produce and grains and other foods from the grocery store, i have absolutely no way of knowing who exactly produced that food, but i can say with some surety that at least some human beings suffered in producing it. the many laborers in the field, the laborers in the factory, the laborers loading and unloading trucks - all of them underpaid, overworked, and most likely without proper healthcare or even safety equipment. people get hurt, disabled, and killed while getting plant-based foods to your table.

you can't say that plant products are inherently "cruelty free" just because they aren't produced by an animal.

human suffering matters too, and while i love animals and have a deep empathy with them, it bothers me that cruelty to animals is the only cruelty taken into account by veganism.

however, my point here is not "i'm better than you for eating animal products", my point is that animal products can be ethical AND unethical, just like plant products can be ethical AND unethical.

all of us should evaluate our food sources to the best of our abilities and make the most ethical choice available to us, without making the assumption that animal = cruel and plant = righteous. local honey produced by a small farm that is trying to support their hives of crucially vital pollinators is a more ethical purchase than sugar purchased from a large corporation that pays poverty-stricken third world laborers pennies to do back-breaking labor with machetes in a hot field.

again, i have no problem with anyone who chooses to avoid animal products, but the suffering of those laborers matters more than the "exploitation" of bees, and it pisses me off to pretend otherwise.

#anonymous #ask

218 notes · View notes

stillness-in-green · 3 years

Text

Why Deku's ultimatum to Overhaul is bad and he should feel bad

This is a bit outside my normal character wheelhouse, but I really need to get a rant about it off my chest, so here goes:

The Deku and Overhaul scene in Chapter 316 is terrible. It is fucking terrible.

I took a whirl around Overhaul's tag up through when the leaks first started dropping, but didn't immediately see anyone talking about why it's so fucking terrible, only concerns about letting Overhaul see Eri (understandable, but baseless, I think), some empathy towards Overhaul's current state (totally warranted!), some snark about Deku being So Done with Overhaul (haha because who cares about Deku's stated goal of trying to understand villains, right?), and, worst of all, some cooing about how Deku was being so compassionate and noble by offering Overhaul that olive branch.

Deku was not being compassionate and noble there. Deku was being arrogant, small-minded, and so shockingly cruel that it leaves me speechless that anyone could think his stunted and hard-hearted "offer" reflects well on him.

Deku's entire motivation in this arc has been wrestling with the realization that he might have been able to avoid some of the desperate battles of his past if he'd understood more about the villains he fought. He thought of three very specific people--Stain, Muscular, and Overhaul--as he reflected, "Maybe it wouldn't have had to go that way if I'd understood them better." He then thought of Gentle Criminal and La Brava, people who he’d come to some understanding of, who he’d been able to soften the conclusion of his battle with by going along with Gentle's fiction downplaying what had happened between them. The whole line of thought was intended to contextualize his newfound desire to save Shigaraki.

It soon became apparent that Stain, Muscular and Overhaul were, in fact, encounters that he would be revisiting, as a chance to see how he'd grown since he faced them, and as a dry-run on reaching out to villains that would give him a chance to practice ways he might reach out to Shigaraki when the time comes.

Well, based on his performance so far, the idea that Deku might be able to reach Shigaraki is laughable.

Firstly, his tentative questions to Muscular were ill-timed, all wrong for the middle of a battle. Muscular laughed him off, and I don’t think there’s any version of that scenario in which he would have done otherwise. Muscular was a huge threat, gleefully violent, disinterested in conversation about his history. Obviously, right in the middle of a fight was no kind of time to try to figure out what made the man tick! But Deku didn’t get the luxury of choosing the circumstances of that encounter, so yes, that battle probably was unavoidable, certainly if Deku wanted to stop him from doing further damage. But the idea that because Deku couldn't reach him right then and there, it's impossible for Deku--or, indeed, for anyone--to reach him at all is fallacious. Not every person has to be able to like or understand every other person. If Deku couldn't reach Muscular, so what? That doesn't mean it's impossible that someone might. And that means an obligation to treat Muscular like a human being, to afford him human rights, to not stop trying to find a way to rehabilitate him, even as you safeguard other people against him.

Deku's battle with Muscular being unavoidable was not some great triumph, for all that the narrative used it as an opportunity to let him show off how far he’d come in mastering One For All. In the way that matters, the way that Deku himself is currently trying to better, he hasn't advanced at all. Imasuji Goto represented his first test in the lead-up to saving Shigaraki, and Deku failed it.

His next trial was Overhaul.* Here, again, was someone who Deku was explicitly trying to understand. So what was the one thing that was most key to understanding Overhaul's current motivation? What was the one thing that Overhaul was ranting about out loud, incessantly? And what did Deku conspicuously fail to ask about? Overhaul's relationship with Pops.

This was so easy. So obvious. And Deku didn’t even try. All he could think about in the moment he was faced with that broken man was the little girl that man hurt--all thoughts of trying to understand where the man himself was coming from went right out the window, flown away in an instant. Instead of asking about why Overhaul feels the way he does, he demanded that Overhaul feel the way Deku wanted. He was essentially holding the only person Overhaul cared about hostage for the remorse he wanted Overhaul to feel.

I'm not going to try to armchair diagnose Overhaul with mental conditions. I don't have the educational background, and I'm positive Horikoshi doesn't. But it seems pretty clear that asking Overhaul to feel guilt about Eri was asking for something that he might not be capable of feeling, at least not without years of therapy that he was plainly not getting in Tartarus. And if Overhaul is not capable of feeling that guilt, then what does denying Overhaul his meeting actually solve? Who does it help? It doesn’t help Eri. Doesn’t help the old man. It certainly doesn’t help Overhaul himself. The only person who gets any satisfaction out of demanding remorse from Overhaul is Deku. And even Deku didn’t look like he found it very satisfying!

Another failure. A meaninglessly cruel, petty failure. A failure that served only to hurt a man who was already a live wire of agony, to sentence an old man to a coma he might never wake from without Overhaul's expertise, and to deprive Eri of the only actual family she had left.

And look, Pops might very well not be the ideal guardian for Eri, and I'm not saying he should get to "keep" her just because of the blood connection, but it's not like he cheerfully handed her over to Overhaul and walked out the door! He turned to Overhaul because he trusted Overhaul, because he wanted someone to help Eri and thought that maybe Overhaul could. And when Overhaul's thoughts about Eri took a very dark turn, Pops first denied his request about using her to further his research and then, when Overhaul kept pushing it, chose Eri over the kid he personally took in from the streets by telling Overhaul that he needed to leave the Shie Hassaikai if he couldn't muster any more respect for human life than that.

But, you know, Eri is so cute with Aizawa and stuff. And Pops was a criminal. Probably. Maybe? I mean, he was yakuza, anyway, so he obviously must have been a criminal even if the police never actually arrested him. Apparently, this means it's okay to just leave him in a coma forever! Even though Overhaul absolutely has enough medical expertise that letting him talk to a neurologist about what he did to Pops might enable them to figure out how to wake Pops up even without Overhaul being able to use his quirk to undo the damage. Hell, Overhaul is also the person alive who has the best handle on how Eri's quirk works. He might even know what her accumulation condition is. Maybe a better thing to ransom his access to Pops with would be Overhaul telling Aizawa everything he knows about Eri's quirk so Aizawa can use the knowledge to help her get a better handle on it.

But no. Obviously undoing some small part of the concrete harm Overhaul did was less important than how Deku felt about that harm.

And there's more! Oh, is there ever. I called Deku arrogant before; let me circle back to that.

Deku said that if Chisaki would feel the way Deku wanted him to feel, then Deku would uphold the promise to let Overhaul see Pops. But where in hell did Deku get off making that claim? Deku is a student. He's not a pro. He has no authority, medical, legal, carceral or otherwise. He has no say in where Overhaul goes or who he's allowed to see.

What the fuck? What the actual fuck? What kind of strings did Deku think he could pull that he could just casually make that claim without so much as going into a huddle with Hawks and Endeavor about it first? How inflated has this kid's sense of importance gotten that he made Overhaul that promise without even stopping to think about whether it was something he was in any position to ensure? It was such a bullshit ultimatum, not only because of how needlessly obstructive it was, but because it was so formless.

"If only you would feel a wish to apologize to Eri…" Okay, so what if Overhaul goes back to prison and, three days later, calls out to say, "Okay, I thought about it and I really feel like I want to apologize, now can I see Pops already?" Who gets to make that judgment call? Deku? Is he going to drop his faux-vigilante act and come visit Overhaul in prison just so he can squint at the man really hard to see if he's lying? Is Deku going to delegate the call to someone else? All Might? Hawks? A prison warden? A psychologist? Who? Who gets to be the one to say, "Okay, I think his remorse is genuine."

Then, once that call has been made, how many people have to arrange for Overhaul to be escorted out of prison and to whatever hospital Pops is in? Will Deku get to oversee that visit? Does he think he can overturn a warden declaring, "The scum doesn't deserve a visit, and the old man probably doesn't either," or a doctor protesting, "I'm not letting that man anywhere near my patient!"

The hell of it is, I think Deku could do all of that. He's got a close personal connection to All Might, who was basically a demi-god to this society for decades; he has the ear of the current top three heroes. Everyone is apparently convinced that the power to save this society rests solely in Deku's hands; I'm sure he could ask for anything he wanted. But the fact that that is the case suggests that this society is not even slightly turning away from its dependence on heroes dictating its morality. A hero having the sole right to dictate, out of hand, based on his personal feelings, the fate of people designated "villains" while the rest of society turns away is exactly what Shigaraki is angry about.

The only thing worse than Deku perpetuating the worst problems of hero society in an arc that's supposed to be about him finding a better way is that he didn’t even stop to think about it. It never even occurred to him that that was what he was doing. He thought that what he was asking of Chisaki was just and fair, and thus, he didn’t need to ask for any second opinions or permissions; he didn’t need to think about what would actually be feasible, about what was best for the people involved. He'd made his judgment call about a villain, and that's all there was to it. The villain could fall in line or--nothing. There isn't actually another choice. Hero's way or nothing

I hate it. I hate it. I don't care about whether Overhaul "deserves" to suffer; heroes making the cold decision that they will make him suffer is antithetical to everything a carceral system intended to rehabilitate prisoners stands for. And yes, Japan does at least claim on paper that the goal of incarceration in state hands is rehabilitation.

Restorative justice is superior to retributive justice. It's better for society and it's better for individuals. It is kinder, it is more compassionate. Retributive justice poisons people. It perpetuates suffering for no reason but moral grandstanding. Individuals are allowed to forgive or not forgive anyone they want, but a society should conduct itself with an eye to the long-term welfare of all of its people. That means that even the worst kinds of criminals still have human rights. It means not inflicting pain that serves no purpose.

I've gotten off-track here. Yes, I think that if Overhaul could feel regret about Eri, that would obviously be a positive development for his character. It'd hurt like hell, but it would be a hurt that indicated he was becoming a better person, a person who wanted to do more good, less ill, with his life and efforts. But you can't mandate that someone become a better person. No ultimatum handed down from on high is going to change Overhaul's heart. Telling someone, "I'll help you, but only if you only feel the way I want you to feel. Otherwise, you can just stay there and suffer," is not reaching out to help people who are suffering in the dark, which is, again, what Deku claimed he wanted to do, what he begged for Nagant's help in doing, the way he insisted to the vestiges that OFA should be used.

Deku writing people off because they don't conform to his expectations, because they can't be "good" the way he wants them to be, nor even "bad" in ways he can understand, is him failing to live up to his own expressed ideals. "I wish you'd feel bad about hurting people," wasn't enough to reach Muscular or Overhaul, and it damn well shouldn't be enough to reach Shigaraki.

Cruelty does not beget kindness. You cannot treat people with only callousness and severity, then condemn them for not taking the opportunity to grow. You have to give them opportunities to better themselves. For Overhaul, giving him an opportunity would be letting him help the man he wronged and then moving forward from there. Telling him to feel regret about Eri or else? That's doing nothing but sweeping his pain back under the rug.

---

*I have more or less exhausted my outrage over Lady Nagant in chats with friends, so I'll spare the rant on how disjointed, contradictory and ludicrous her turn was; the gist is "very, on all counts."

---

P.S. Anyone who says that Overhaul "has nothing left to live for" is being a level of ableist that defies description. Prosthetics exist. Assistive devices exist. Speech-to-text software exists. Overhaul is intelligent, driven and highly educated. Even if he never got prosthetics at all, there would still be things he could contribute to the world if he were motivated to do so. The better thing to do, though, would be to get the man some damn prosthetics, hook him up with the neurologist consulting on Pops' case, and let the two of them get on with the matter of waking up the old man.

P.P.S. Overhaul spent six months in solitary confinement. The United Nations considers solitary confinement exceeding 15 days to be a form of torture. Solitary confinement creates severe mental health issues and exacerbates existing ones. It frequently leads to a deadening of empathy, something Overhaul has in little enough amounts as it is. It is absurd to ask a man who's just come out of these conditions to "feel sorry for what you did to Eri," especially if you're planning to turn around and send him right back to solitary. Tartarus is inhuman, and the only reason more of the escapees aren't total wrecks like Overhaul is because Horikoshi clearly didn't bother to do the reading on the wide array of problems that those characters should be experiencing physically, mentally and socially.

#bnha #bnha critical #deku critical #bnha overhaul #chisaki kai #bnha muscular #my writing?#stillness has salt #bnha spoilers #one last salty post before I go back to working on things for characters and plots I actually like in this series #taking my life into my hands and posting this in the tags #but seriously #please please let Horikoshi realize #that Deku saying he wants to use OFA to save villains and then doing nothing but using OFA to beat them down again #is not Deku WINNING #it is Deku LOSING #saving someone takes more than rescuing them from a bullet that wasn't going to hit them anyway #if you don't have follow-through then you're just condemning people to fall through the cracks

314 notes · View notes

amarriageoftrueminds · 3 years

Note

hi i usually love your metas but your analysis on sam is just not it. youre being really unfair to his character, twisting his actions (blaming him for tony shooting his arm off???) and assigning him the therapist role (mammy racist stereotype). i know youre protective over steve and bucky and im sure you didnt mean to come off this way, but blaming other characters (especially sam whos so important to steve and now important to bucky) is just not a good thing to do. at best it's reaching at worst it's racism

You're right, I didn't mean to come off that way!

But, ooof, the irony when my tags are:

it's exasperating how people take any criticism of sam's writing as criticism of sam · and then call it racism · the same way that people dismiss (valid) criticism of peggy as misogyny · sam's the kernel of a great character well-played by mackie · but it's a case of tell then show (the opposite) all over again · when you're left going 'huh... wait a minute... sam's supposed to be a great guy but that thing he did/said/thought wasn't great??' · honestly · fuck marvel and the low quality people they choose to hire · different assholes same shit coming out of them

I didn't assign Sam the therapist role; the writers assigned him the therapist role when they literally made him a therapist; they gave him the job of VA Counselor to veterans, and rescuer of POWs, then showed him having immediate empathy for Steve (a fellow veteran) and providing advice. Not me! The writers! I don’t control that!

I'm not expecting Sam to be all therapeutic for Natasha; because she's not a US veteran, or a POW with PTSD, in need of therapy (like Bucky is).

Veterans and POWs are supposed to be Sam's job; more than that, his vocation, he chose to show Steve his resume (including rescuing POWs!) and then come along on the POW-rescue mission.

...To do what, then? It’s not a stretch to see this as setting something up to be paid off later on, because that’s usually how storytelling works; you don’t put a gun in if no one’s going to be shot, you don’t put a counselor of veterans in if no veterans are going to be counseled.

But instead they show Sam being happy to give advice and solace to Steve... but then not having that same empathy for Bucky?

It doesn’t match.

The key to good characterisation is consistency; this is inconsistent.

I don't blame Sam for Bucky having his arm blown off by Tony (I very much do blame Tony).

I blame the writers for being so up RDJ's be-hind that they show Tony blasting Sam out of petty rage, never being criticised for it, and then five minutes later show Sam trusting that same guy and telling him where Steve and Bucky are.

The problem isn't Sam, it's the people writing Sam.

#hey nonny #toAyourQ #fatws meta #cw meta #mcu meta #anti sam's writing #antisambucky #anti s*mbucky #dat's me #mcu critical #<<overdue tag #🤞🏼 the dumb tagging system doesn't have this turn up in the main tag since it's clearly marked ANTI dumb site #another point: sam was shown as one of the people who didn't trust the accords #predicting (correctly) how they would be abused #so they're being inconsistent in showing him as wise in one scene (opposing tony)#but unwise in a later scene (trusting tony)#on the other hand I think they wrote themselves into a corner #because with natasha gone #there was no one else left whom steve would trust enough to tell where he was going #(and sam was the only other person who heard about the 5 WSs so it had to be him)#in other words; no one else tony could have asked #(it would've been less uneven if tony hadn't shot at sam earlier - they could've cut that out easily)

17 notes · View notes

magicwithineleteo · 3 years

Text

ok so below the cut is me addressing my feelings about the “drama” in the fandom. i would just like to mention that i am hesitant to post this out of fear of receiving backlash and being attacked/harassed by those who disagree. if you are as mature as you believe yourself to be, then please act as such and try to have a healthy discussion instead of just jumping on me for speaking up.

tw: pedophilia, bullying, swearing

i honestly don't have words for what’s happening in the fandom. i joined this fandom out of love for an amazing show, and was pleased to find a community of like-minded people who enjoy it just as much as i do. but i was not expecting this toxic element. i agree with the fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and they are free to ship whatever they want to. usually, i wouldn't give a fuck. but i do care when the ships are morally wrong. to reiterate, this is NOT a matter of opinion, this is a matter of MORALITY, which if someone wants to go ahead and say is subjective, at the end of the day, there are basic definitions of what is morally right and wrong. these ships are gababel and esteomi. (i am against cedfia too, however i’m not in the sofia the first fandom. only the eoa fandom so this is primarily about these ships.) i do not understand how one can comfortably ship these ships. at the beginning of the show, naomi is 15 and esteban is in his mid 50s. i don’t get how so many people don’t see the issue with that??? and at the beginning of the show, isabel is 10 and gabe is 18. again, a big issue. there is only one context in which esteban and naomi would morally work, if naomi was around pre-amulet. so by the time elena is freed, naomi is a similar age to esteban. but she’s not. regarding gababel, i don’t see how aging up isabel makes it any more acceptable. gabe has known isa since she was 10, i don’t think he’s just gonna immediately get feelings for her when she turns 18. that just sounds like a bunch of bs. other excuses for these ships are also a bunch of bs. dang, i didn’t know that not shipping gababel was because i’m not imaginative enough to think about the future of that ship. at least i'm imaginative enough to see that it's not even worth imagining because why would anyone even want to picture it?

treating people with kindness and living by the golden rule means a lot to me. that people should be nice to each other, no matter if their beliefs clash or not. so why is it that when a young minor calls out these morally wrong ships, they are targeted? once again, this is a young MINOR. A CHILD. and not to mention, they were targeted by a bunch of adults. this child has called out something that’s morally wrong and adults came for them. i feel like these adults were aware that they are a child, but only to a certain point. they used the fact that they are a child to prove the point that they don’t know what bullying is, or that you were once in their shoes, an opinionated teenager. didn't know having an opinion was exclusive to teenagers, but i digress. however, a lot of you failed to recall that this is an actual child. not to mention, a handicapped child who has expressed time and time again how negative criticism affects them. at the end of the day, this context shouldn't even matter, because no one should be treated like that anyway. this child was bullied. this child felt invalidated and hurt. i don’t care what you think the definition of bullying is. they were bullied. imagine you’re in their place. a young (at the time 14 year old) who is receiving replies from several adults telling them that they are wrong about pedophilia. you wouldn’t feel so nice either. their mental health went down because of this. you all failed to realize that this is a child, and that you need to be respectful to them. they are an equal member of the fandom, and they deserve several apologies.

going along with this whole dialogue of age, i would like to point out that your age has nothing to do with your level of maturity, understanding, or comprehensibility of matters. just because someone is younger than you doesn't mean that automatically you are more correct or have the upper hand or whatever it may be simply due to your age. sure you may have more life experience, but what about your level of decency? empathy? awareness? sense of morality? these matter just as much, if not more. you can be 15 and wise and be 80 and be less knowledgeable. your actions and character display these things, not your age.

also with the whole “woke/woke teenager” thing. it's funny how it was said that buzzwords are being thrown around yet here we are, throwing this word around too. anyways, being “woke” is about being aware, having an open mind, and being able to not only recognize when something/someone is wrong, but being able to shed light on it and call it out. if you think i’m “woke” for calling out your pedophilic fantasies (which yes it is pedophilic i don’t think i need to explain to adults how that is so; and no, just because you aGe tHEm uP in yOuR hEad doesn't make it okay) then i’m damn proud to call out your shit. and i'll be damned if one of my friends or i get scrutinized for standing up and doing the right thing. no one deserves to get attacked for this, especially not with superficial strawman arguments that go after the person themselves rather than their “argument”/point of view. you can do all the name calling you want to, that does nothing to enhance your argument. all it does is shine a bright light on your character. and thank you for that, so we can see what kind of people we have in this community. it’s not about being sensitive or “woke” or whatever useless argument you want to use to steer away from the fact that you are MORALLY WRONG. i would understand if this discussion was about something lighter but this is so much deeper. this is not about “not being able to imagine/not being creative enough to imagine” i mean seriously? is that the argument here? that would be laughable if it wasn't as sad. what a substanceless argument that shows there is no viable justification for these ships. and it is not just about these pedophilic ships; it's also about how people are getting treated, specifically how adults on a power trip are attacking younger members of the fandom (wrongfully) with their petty posse of people. i mean seriously? can none of you (just a one on one not one of us versus your gang) have a decent conversation without needing your other friends to attack along with you? just childish honestly. and i wouldn't even say that because children aren't low enough to act like that. they are aware enough of others' feelings and know how to solve problems without hurting each other.

the fact that this is being deemed as “policing” and “telling the fandom at large what to do” is just ridiculous. first of all, no one is forcing our stances down people’s throats. second of all, who said you suck? you said it, not me. third of all, think of it like this. we have laws, yes? sure, the laws are written and yet some people still choose to break them. the law is enforced but yet still people have the option to follow it or not (even though they should follow it, duh). now say someone is breaking the law. would law enforcement be wrong to call them out on it? would they be wrong for charging them? no, because your actions have consequences. someone can “believe” they were not breaking the law but if their “belief” is objectively illegal and morally wrong, then by all means they should be called out on it. just because *you* personally don't find you shipping a 10 year old with an 18 year old (a fifth grader and high school senior for context) doesn't mean it's not problematic. and it doesn't matter if you're aging them up, it's still weird like why? it’s like you’re trying to justify pedophilia? and then you have the nerve to collectively attack ONE younger person who called out your foolery? this analogy was not to make it seem like we are the police of the fandom and are high and mighty or whatever, but simply to try and get across the point that just because *you* think it's not wrong, does not absolve you of it actually just being wrong.

the way this matter has been addressed (and i wouldn't even say that because it is more like a one sided conversation/scolding where the opposite side of the discourse is either silenced because of fear or silenced after being attacked) has been absolutely petty, snarky, condescending, and catty; you really give yourself a sense of superiority over people because you are older and therefore more mature and more able to understand things on a deeper level? then understand this. handle this discussion in a more mature way. allow others who disagree with you to at least come to the table and share their feelings and see from their perspective. do not immediately pounce on them with your similarly-aged clique like this is some early 2000’s high school movie. it's funny because you are invalidating us by belittling us as just “high schoolers”, but if anything you guys are the ones acting like what you are projecting on us. literally bullying children. how depraved do you have to be to sit here and behave like this with actual children. it's funny because some of you actually have children and here you are, being a keyboard warrior for a pedophilic ship. is that the hill you are choosing to die on? at least try to open your eyes and see why we are addressing this. to your point, yes, you are adults. ADULTS. so act like it.

i would also like to mention that there is a big difference between notps and morally wrong ships. notps are ships that you do not ship because that’s just not what you like. an example of that for me is elenaomi. i don’t ship them like that, that’s one of my notps, and that’s okay. however when there are ships like esteomi and gababel, those are more than notps. those are morally wrong ships because they are pedophilic. i am not gonna call these my nOtPs; these are HELL NOTPS.

some of you are also big hypocrites. you say to scroll on, and to ignore it if you don’t like it. yet you feel the need to respond to things you don’t agree with. yes, it’s your blog, but if you’re not going to practice what you preach then, what’s the point? this reminds of the whole dialogue surrounding “if you don't like it here (your country), then leave.” this phrase is used to invalidate people who call out issues within their country, whether it be the societal structure as a whole, or the government etc. it's like you are only patriotic if you have 0 complaints and love everything about your country. you don't care if things are ruined; it's your country so you love it. in my eyes, true patriotism is when you are able to recognize and not be in denial about issues in your country; you are willing to not only acknowledge them as a problem, but are actively trying to address and fix it. similarly, i believe that you shouldn't have to just scroll on or leave the community because you are uncomfortable because of a genuine problem. why should we just be silent and accept what's going on? us scrolling on while recognizing the problem and not saying anything, letting it thrive, is being complicit. it's like being a bystander, and we are not going to do that. we want this community to be a great place for all of us to get along because of our shared interest of eoa. but that doesn't mean that these things should be excused or ignored. if you are having an issue with people calling this out, if the shoe fits, that's your problem, and moreover, you are part of the problem. i am not calling out specific names in this, so if you have an issue with it, then….hate to break it to you.

i understand that i’m usually a lot nicer on my page. however, i feel that i have been silent for too long. but i’m not a hypocrite and i know that i’m right. how people respond to this just reflects their character more than mine. i am a 13 year old child, and i am hesitant to discuss this because you guys did not hold back at a 14 now 15 year old. that is not okay, especially when this is supposed to be a loving community about a show that is aimed at children. that was all. please have some empathy, understanding, and especially respect.

#elena of avalor #eoa #gababel #esteomi #cedfia #please don't bully me or others for disagreeing with you <3

35 notes · View notes

hb-pickle · 4 years

Text

Frozen 2: Dangerous Secrets Review Essay

Why Sensitivity Readers Are Always Necessary

Before I start, I would like to make it very clear that this review only critiques the aspects of colonialism and representation in Frozen 2: Dangerous Secrets. I will not be discussing the romance, side characters or anything else like that. Also, I would like to make it very clear that none of this review is meant to personally attack or berate the author @marimancusi . I firmly believe that none of the cultural insensitivities in her book were intentional, but were simply the result of a non-indigenous, white author writing about experiences she could not personally relate to. My only goals for writing this review is to show the author how her book unintentionally perpetuated many harmful and outdated ideas about racism and colonialism, and to convince her and Disney to contact and hire sensitivity readers before they create content about vulnerable racial/ethnic groups.

I would also like to state that I am an African American woman and not indigienous, so I have personal experiences with racism and colonialism towards black people, but not towards indigenous communities. So if any indigenous people see problems or inaccuracies with my review, I would be happy to listen and put your voice first.

- - -

To summarize quickly (with full context), Frozen 2: Dangerous Secrets is about Iduna, a young indigenous Northuldra girl (oppressed racial/ethnic minority) who was suddenly and violently separated from her home and family when her people were betrayed and attacked by the Arendellians (colonizing class). As a result of the massacre battle between the two groups, Iduna is permanently separated from her home (caused by a magical and impenetrable mist) and forced to spend the rest of her days in the kingdom of Arendelle, where she lives in almost constant fear of being exposed as a Northuldran (for the townsfolk are violently bigoted against them). Naturally, this book contains many many depictions of racial hatred and bigotry along with exploring the mindset and fears of a young girl dealing with the brunt of colonialism. Unfortunately, it tends to fumble the seriousness of these situations (out of ignorance or out of a desire to keep the book lighthearted/to center the romance plotline), which results in an overall detrimental message to the audience. The missteps I specifically want to unpack are as follows.

- (1/5) Severs Iduna’s connection to her culture before the story even begins (making us feel less empathetic for the Northuldra’s plight)

I’m not 100% certain, but my understanding is that the purpose of making Iduna a double orphan was to make her more sympathetic and to give her a reason to save Agnarr’s life (to have compassion for a stranger, the same way her adoptive family did for her). In theory this is perfectly fine, quickly establishing that the audience should like Iduna is smart and so is rationalizing her most important, life changing decision. But in practice this only functions to distance Iduna from her culture and family and make the reader care less about the Northuldra. This is because it takes away Iduna’s chance to have a strong, palpable relationship with a specific Northuldra character, which would humanize their entire group (even if only in memory). The only Northuldra characters that Iduna mentions more than once is her mother and Yelena. Both of these characters are mentioned rarely, neither have a close relationship with Iduna (her mother dying 7 years before the events of the story), nor do either of them have any specific personality traits or lines of dialogue (Yelena has exactly one line and it is about knitting). The goal of a story about a child unjustly stolen from her home should be to explore why those acts of violence were so horrific. The very first step of exploring that is to humanize the victims. After all, why would a reader care about the injustices done to a group of people who barely exist? How are we, the readers, supposed to feel bad for Iduna and mourn her family like she does, if we barely know them?

We needed more of Iduna’s memories. We needed to learn about her friends, her family, her mother and Yelena. What were they really like? How did they love Iduna? What were their last words to her before she never saw them again? Didn’t Iduna care for them? Did she worry about their well being and miss their comforts? We need to hear about how she bonded with them, how they made her feel, how they made her laugh or cry. How they taught her to hunt, forage, and knit so that when we hear how the Arendellians speak of them, with such ignorance and contempt, we are as truly disgusted and offended as we should be.

- (2/5) Equates Iduna and Agnarr’s suffering, aggressively downplaying the brutality of colonialism (even to the point of prioritizing Agnarr’s needs)

First things first, I understand that Dangerous Secrets is a modern day romance novel for older children/teens so an equal power balance between Agnarr and Iduna is preferred (which I agree with). But, this balance extends past the romance and personalities and into attempting to portray Agnarr and Iduna’s suffering as equal. This is best exemplified in these lines of internal dialogue by Iduna:

I did not deserve to be locked away from everyone I loved. But Agnarr did not deserve to die alone on the forest floor because he’d had a fight with his father. Whatever happened that day to anger the spirits and cause all of this, it was not his fault. Nor was it mine. And while we might be on different sides of this fight, we had both lost so much. Our friends. Our family. Our place in the world. In an odd way we were more alike than different. (Page 67)

All of this is technically true, up until the very last line about them being “more alike than different”. Agnarr and Iduna’s lives are nothing alike. Iduna is a poor, indigenous girl who had everyone she ever knew or loved either killed or permanently taken away from her, stolen from her home and forced to spend the rest of her life living in a foreign kingdom rife with people who actively, consistently threaten her safety. While Agnarr, on the other hand, is a white male member of the royal family, heir to the throne, and extremely wealthy. The novel doesn’t shy away from this (at least on Agnarr’s part), and doesn’t hesitate to show us that Agnarr is royalty and will never experience what Iduna has to endure. But it behaves like Agnarr’s relatively petty, temporary, and incomparable ills are just as heartbreaking as Iduna’s and focuses significantly more time and energy building up empathy for him and his woes. This extends from small things like the book asserting that the few times Agnarr needed to stay in his castle, to avoid political assasination was comparable to Iduna’s family being trapped in the mist (against their will for 30+ years); to more concerning issues like claiming Agnarr’s separation from his parent’s is just as distressing as Iduna’s separation from her entire people. Now fleshing out Agnarr and his relation to parents is a good thing, since it can provide crucial character motivation and make him more of a well rounded character. But when Agnarr’s suffering is presented as more relevant and worthwhile discussing than Iduna’s it, by extension, implies that the frustrations of an affluent life and being separated from parents that did not value you in the first place (Runeard and Rita) is somehow more or just as pressing as facing the brunt of the most violent and terrifying forms of colonialism. Agnarr’s story may be tragic, but it is nowhere near as horrific as Iduna’s and the book should acknowledge and reflect that.

- (3/5) Has a rudimentary understanding of racism and how if affects the people who perpetuate it

Dangerous Secrets’ understanding of racism (and how to deal with it) is summed up very concisely in a conversation between Lord Peterssen and young Prince Agnarr. Agnarr asks his senior why the Arendellian towns people are so obsessed with blaming magic and the spirits (magic and spirits being an allegory for real world characteristics that are unique to one culture or people) for all their problems, and the following exchange insues:

“People will always need something to blame for their troubles”, he explained. “And magical spirits are an easy target-since they can’t exactly defend themselves… “So what do we do?” I asked. “We can’t very well fight against an imaginary force!” “No. But we can make the people feel safe. That’s our primary job.” (Page 132-133)

Though Lord Peterssen is supposed to be a flawed character, who puts undue pressure onto Iduna and Agnarr to uphold the status quo of Arendelle, this line is (intentional or not) how the book actually views racism and how it expects the characters (and reader by extension) to deal with/understand it. Bigotry is portrayed as something that is inevitable and something that should not be quelled or disproven, but accommodated for. Agnarr, as king next in line, should not worry about ending the unjust hatred in his kingdom, or killing the root of the problem (the rumors). Instead he should tell his people their suspicions are correct, and put actual resources and time into abetting their dangerous beliefs. Even later on, at the very end of the novel, Agnarr treats the prolific bigotry and magic hatred of his people as an unfortunate circumstance he has found himself in, and not something that he, as king, has the power or civic responsibility to change.

This could have been an excellent line of flawed logic, representing how privileged people tend to avoid/project the blame of racism, and prioritize order and peace over justice. Which would work especially well for Peterssen and Agnarr since they are both high class nobles with the power to actually make a difference, instead choosing to foist responsibility onto Iduna (in the case of Peterssen) who was only a child, relatively impoverished, and the one with the most to lose if she spoke out. Or, in the case of Agnarr, they do disagree with the fear mongering, but only for personal reasons (Agnarr because his father used it as an excuse for his lies); refusing still to actually work to improve his society. But the key detail is that this needs to be portrayed as wrong, which this book fails to do. Agnarr nor Peterssen are ever expected to disprove the townsfolk’s bigotry in any meaningful, long lasting sense, Peterssen is never confronted seriously for his cowardice and victim blaming, and Agnarr is never criticized for his anti-bigotry being based entirely on his own personal parental issues and not in the fact that he knows with 100% certainty that the Northuldra are innocent.

This flawed understanding of bigotry also applies to how the book depicts the Arendellian townsfolk, who are awarded no accountability whatsoever for their actions. The townspeople spend the entire book threatening to kill any Northuldra they find and Peterssen, Agnarr, and Iduna are constantly afraid that they would immediately destabilize the government if they found out their king was close to one. But somehow this does not translate into any contempt or distrust in our protagonist or the reader. In this novel, we meet only four openly bigoted individuals: the two orphan children playing “kill the Northuldra”, the purple/pink sheep guy (Askel), and the allergy woman (Mrs. Olsen). The orphans are dismissed wholesale because they are literal children who also lost both of their parents in the battle of the dam (so they were killed by Northuldra; somewhat justifying their anger). And the other two townsfolk are joke characters, whose claims are so unbelievable that they aren’t supposed to be seen as a serious threat. Not only that but Askel is rewarded for his bigotry when Iduna offers he sell his pink sheep’ wool (which he thought was an attack from the Northuldra) as beautiful pink shawls. These are the only specific characters that show any type of active bigotry in the entire kingdom besides Runeard, whomst is dead. Every other character is either an innocent and friendly bystander (the woman at the chocolate shop, the new orphans Iduna buys cookies for, the farmers Iduna sells windmills too, the people at Agnarr and Iduna’s wedding), has no opinion at all (Greda, Kai, Johan), or is portrayed as someone who is just innocently scared and doesn’t know any better (the rest of the townsfolk, especially those who fear the Northuldra are the sun mask attackers). Even the King of Vassar, the most violent and dangerous living character of the story, doesn’t even hold any prejudice against the Northuldra, and simply uses their imagery to scare Arendelle into accepting his military rule.

So according to this book, bigotry and racism come not from the individual, but from society and the system you live in, but also not really because the people in charge of that system (Peterssen, Agnarr, and eventually Iduna) are also virtually guiltless. This, of course, is not true at all. Racism is a moral failing which exists on all levels of society, from individuals who chose to be bigoted, to others who tolerate bigotry as long as it doesn’t inconveniance them. It's not just an inevitable fear of what you don’t understand, but an insidious choice to be ignorant, fearful, and unjust to the most vulnerable members of society. It is malicious and irrational, and the more you tolerate it, the more dangerous it becomes.

- (4/5) Presents Iduna’s assimilation to the dominant culture as a positive

As the romance plotline of Dangerous Secrets really starts to get underway, Iduna’s life seems perfect. Her romance with Agnarr blossoms, she has her own business, and is becoming accustomed to her new surroundings (in order to make the coming drama more exciting). This is her internal dialogue as she returns to town one day:

I couldn't imagine, at the time, living in a place like this. But now it felt like home. It would never replace the forest I grew up in… But it had been so long now, that life had begun to feel almost like a dream. A beautiful dream of an enchanted forest… There was a time I truly believed I would die if I could never enter the forest again. If the mist was never to part. But that time, I realized, was long gone. And I had so much more to live for now… And my dreams were less about returning to the past and more about striking out into the future- (Page 128-129)

Again, I understand that the point of Iduna being content with her life like this is to be the “calm before the storm” of the romance arc, but the fact that Iduna is almost forgetting her old life, and that it is presented as a good thing, is extremely distressing. At only 12 years old Iduna lost everything she ever had besides the literal clothes on her back; she would never forget that. Not only that, but the real world implication that a minority should cope with their societal trauma by spending the rest of their life working for said society that unapologetically wants to kill them (and get a boyfriend) is horribly off putting. It strikes a nerve with many people of color and indigenous readers because telling minorities to “get a job” or “get a life” (especially when said jobs ignore/are separate from their own cultures) is commonly used by privileged folk to blame them for their own dissatisfaction/unhappiness with the society they live in. The idea is that minorities should continue to suffer, but busy themselves, so they stop criticizing dominant culture and defending/uplifting their own. This is part of cultural erasure, and the book plays into it, by commending Iduna for “having more to live for” than cherishing/wanting to return to her original home, for prioritizing Arendelle over herself, and for forgetting her heritage/playing it off as nothing but a dream. Devaluing indigenous culture like this, especially through an indigenous character, is extremely disrespectful.

Not only that, but it’s completely antithetical to Iduna’s character, since she claims to be proud and unashamed of who she is, but happily assists the townsfolk who hate her, and rarely mentions her heritage besides when she’s caught in a lie or actively being persecuted. This is another failing brought on by the lack of understanding of how racism affects its victims. Being a minority plays into all the decisions you make and all the interactions you have; it’s not something that you can just turn off unless directly provoked. Iduna’s would be constantly fretting about who she talks to, and who she is with because if she gets too close to the wrong person, she could have put herself in serious danger.

Nowhere is this lack of realism more obvious than the scene directly after Iduna rejects Johan’s proposal. Iduna spends a long time thinking about whether marrying Johan or Agnarr would be better for her, and not even once does being a Northuldra play into her decision making. This should’ve been front and center because your husband can be your strongest ally or your greatest enemy. If Iduna was outed, what could she do to defend herself against or alongside her partner? If she was ever going to consider marrying for anything other than true love, her chances of survival should have been her first priority.

What I’m not saying is that there needs to be a complete overhaul of Iduna’s personality, or that she needs to be frightened and suspicious at all times. Iduna can project strength and caution. She can be kind to the townspeople, but reserved in order to keep a safe distance. She should cling to the few pieces of her culture she has left, despite what society tells her to do. Or, on the exact opposite side of the coin, Iduna’s personality could be kept relatively the same, but the book needs to acknowledge that this is a terrible thing. Iduna is being assimilated against her will to a society that doesn’t value her and that is a tragedy. In a futile attempt at survival, Iduna buries her culture away and lives her life as a perfect, contributing, model Arendellian citizen, but they terrorize her regardless.

- (5/5) Negatively depicts the indigenous Northuldra as murderous invaders

In Chapter 34 of Dangerous Secrets it is revealed, during a flashback, that Iduna lost her parents and her entire family group in an attack by a separate group of Northuldra invaders. This scene is completely unacceptable regardless whatever narrative/story purpose it was supposed to achieve for several reasons. Firstly, because this book is about colonialism, which we as a society already know the consequences of and how colonizers, in an attempt to rid themselves of blame, react to it. One of the very first things a colonizer/privileged class will do to make themselves feel less guilty for the atrocities they perpetuate is bring up acts of violence/wrongdoing on behalf of the oppressed. The sole purpose of this is always to make the victims look less sympathetic and less deserving of justice, equality, or attention because “they’re not so innocent, they did wrong things too, so maybe we shouldn't feel that bad for them/maybe they got what they deserved”. And of course this mindset is absolutely horrific and unforgivable when you’re talking about a group of white colonizers actively trying to destroy and indiscriminately slaughter a large group of indigenous people, including their children.

The second reason is because the author is a non-indigenous white person, and therefore benefits directly from the downplaying of indiginous pain. I’m sure this wasn’t intentionally malicious on her part, but that’s what she wrote; these are the consequences.

((Also the fact that one of the Northuldra groups are murderous invaders means that Iduna was actively lying the entire book about the Northuldra being peaceful.))

- - -

In conclusion, any book that incorporates the culture and experiences of a group the author is not a part of, should absolutely hire a sensitivity reader to ensure accuracy and respect. As a Frozen superfan myself, I actually enjoyed this book a lot and I was delighted to see the lore, worldbuilding and romance. I loved Agnarr, Lord Peterssen, and Princess Runa and certain pieces of dialogue and imagery were beautiful. This novel just desperately needed someone to check it. All this book needed was a bit more of a critical gaze on some of the character decisions and motivations (I truly believe Agnarr and Peterssen would have been even more intriguing and likeable characters if they were actually called out, and given time to reflect on their hypocrisies) and it would’ve been much stronger and more palatable to diverse audiences. Some elements did need to be cut out completely, but a sensitivity reader would’ve easily been able to point this out and offer alternatives that preserved the spirit of the novel, without including any offensive and distasteful implications.

#dangerous secrets #Frozen 2: Dangerous secrets #agduna #iduna frozen #agnarr frozen #iduna #agnarr #frozen #frozen 2 #dangerous secrets review #frozen reviews #frozen review #frozen analysis #frozen 2 analysis #Frozen 2: Dangerous Secrets Review

72 notes · View notes

fluffymcu · 4 years

Text

Being roommates with Bucky, Steve, and Sam Headcanons

Being roommates with 3 guys was… interesting. There was always something going on. Never a dull moment.

The boys loved you very much. You cooked for them, helped them with their laundry, and kept them amused with your antics.

You’re always trying to do crazy things like cartwheels and handstands, front flips and such, which amuses Sam and Bucky, but It only makes Steve nervous though.

You are always the one breaking up the boys’ petty arguments and they often pressure you to pick a side.

Sometimes, when they’re arguing, you silently go to them and sit around them, pretending to fall asleep. After that, they have no choice but to keep it down. It’s hard for you to keep your composure when you can hear them continue their argument in whispers.

“shh! you’re gonna wake her up!’’

“well then, don’t test my pacience!”

They may be grumbling and mumbling things for the next few minutes, but the argument dies down much quicker this way.

Getting into fights over the remote are almost daily occurences. Either that or who’s turn it is to pick the movie for movie night.

Steve being the one you go to most often for emotional support. He always has the most empathy with you, even in play fights. He always knows what to say and cuddles you when you’re feeling sad.

Teasing Bucky and Sam, saying that Steve is your favorite. Bucky gets jealous the most and Sam just rolls his eyes and takes it as a joke.

Sam is the one you do your most mischevious antics with. You and him are always pulling pranks on Steve and Bucky and he’s your go-to guy for when you need a confidence boost. He really helped you with your insecurities and self esteem and hyped you up when you don’t feel all that.

Bucky is the one who you get into most playfights and bickering with. He loves to spend his time annoying you and getting you riled up. But he’s the best at cuddles, so you’re constantly tackling him on the couch and wrapping you both in blankets and watching tv. His body radiates heat but his arm is the perfect balance to cool you off.

Ordering take-out twice a week because the boys would feel bad having you cook every day.

Going on evening jogs with them, losing all the races, even against Sam.

Always stealing their shirts and hoodies, especially Steve and Bucky’s because they’re very big. It annoys Steve and Sam, but you do it anyways.

“y/n if you don’t stop stealing my shirts, I’m gonna start wearing your clothes to see how you like it.”

“oh, please do. please, please do.” You would love to see that.

The boys comforting you when you come back home after a bad date. They order junk food and ice cream.

Bucky being the most overprotective of them all, Steve being the “dad” of the apartment, keeping everything in check, and Sam being your partner in crime.

Having only two bathrooms in the apartment is sooo frustrating.

“Bucky! come on, get out already! you’ve been in there an hour.”

“I’m washing my hair!”

“Yeah, i have a lot of hair to wash too, yet i don’t take as long as you!”

“Feel free to get in with me if you want.”

“ugh. You’re insufferable.”

Pillow fights. They always choose “boys vs girls” knowing very well that it’s not a fair fight at all and it usually ends up in an unfair tickle fight.

You can never stay mad at them though. They always make up for anything by cleaning the kitchen or buying you food.

Steve being the first one to wake up in the mornings, making everyone coffee.

The boys literally taking care of EVERYTHING when you’re on your period. Lots of junk food, they run to do your errands for you, they take care of dinner, all you have to do is sit back and rest. And for that you’re so grateful.

Sometimes Bucky or Sam will come to your room at night to sleep on your bed because their mattresses are uncomfortable and they don’t wanna share a bed in Steve’s room. Steve however, loves hard beds so he has no problem sleeping.

Helping Bucky with nightmares. He trusts Steve to help but he finds your maternal comfort more appealing if that makes sense.

Being completely comfortable around them. Safe.

Helping Steve cut his hair instead of going to a barber shop.

It’s tradition to grab lunch at Mario’s every year on July 27th, to celebrate the anniversary of moving in together.

Overall, it’s incredibly fun to be roommates with those 3. They’ve helped you with a lot and you’ve helped them. Now, you can’t imagine your life without them and vise versa.

i feel like this is trash but whatever lol

#ticklish!reader #tickle fight #Bucky Barnes #sam wilson #Steve Rogers #bucky barnes x reader #bucky x reader #steve x reader #sam x reader #roommate!au #Avengers #marvel #marvel mcu #peter parker #peter x reader #steve rogers x reader

207 notes · View notes

porterdavis · 4 years

Text

A beautifully written statement by Robert Redford:

“I have a lot of vivid memories of growing up in Los Angeles in the 1940s, but one in particular keeps coming back to me today, in these troubled times. I remember sitting with my parents -- actually, my parents were sitting; I was lying on the floor, the way kids do -- and listening to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt talking to us over the radio. He was talking to the nation, of course, not just to us, but it sure felt that way. He was personal and informal, like he was right there in our living room.

I was too young to follow much of what he was saying -- something about World War II. But what I did understand was that this was a man who cared about our well-being. I felt calmed by his voice. It was a voice of authority and, at the same time, empathy. Americans were facing a common enemy -- fascism -- and FDR gave us the sense that we were all in it together. Even kids like me had a role to play: participating in paper drives, collecting scrap metal, doing whatever we could do. That's what it was like to have a president with a strong moral compass. It guided him, gave him direction, and helped him point the nation toward a better future.

Maybe this strikes you as simple nostalgia. I've got a touch of that, sure (who doesn't right now?). But I'm too focused on the future to sit around pining for the old days. For me, the power of FDR's example is what it says about the kind of leadership America needs -- and can have again, if we choose it.

But one thing is clear: Instead of a moral compass in the Oval Office, there's a moral vacuum. Instead of a president who says we're all in it together, we have a president who's in it for himself. Instead of words that uplift and unite, we hear words that inflame and divide. When someone retweets (and then deletes) a video of a supporter shouting "white power" or calls journalists "enemies of the state," when he turns a lifesaving mask against contagion into a weapon in a culture war, when he orders the police and the military to tear gas peaceful protestors so he can wave a Bible at the cameras, he sacrifices -- again and again -- any claim to moral authority.

Another four years of this would degrade our country beyond repair. The toll it's taking is almost biblical: fires and floods, a literal plague upon the land, an eruption of hatred that's being summoned and harnessed, by a leader with no conscience or shame. Four more years would accelerate our slide toward autocracy. It would be taken as free license to punish more so-called "traitors" and wage more petty vendettas -- with the full weight of the Justice Department behind them. Four more years would mean open season on our environmental laws. The assault has been ongoing -- it started with abandoning the historic agreement that the world made in Paris to combat climate change, and continued, just last month, with using the pandemic as cover to let industries pollute as they see fit. Four more years would bring untold damage to our planet -- our home.

America is still a world power. But in the past four years, it has lost its place as a world leader. A second term would embolden enemies and further weaken our standing with our friends.

When and how did the United States of America become the Divided States of America? Polarization, of course, has deep roots and many sources. President Donald Trump didn't create all of our divisions as Americans. But he has found every fault line in America and wrenched them wide open.

Without a moral compass in the Oval Office, our country is dangerously adrift. But this November, we can choose another direction. This November, unity and empathy are on the ballot. Experience and intelligence are on the ballot. Joe Biden is on the ballot, and I'm confident he will bring these qualities back to White House.

I don't make a practice of publicly announcing my vote. But this election year is different. And I believe Biden was made for this moment. Biden leads with his heart. I don't mean that in a soft and sentimental way. I'm talking about a fierce compassion -- the kind that fuels him, that drives him to fight against racial and economic injustice, that won't let him rest while people are struggling.

As FDR showed, empathy and ethics are not signs of weakness. They're signs of strength. I think Americans are coming back to that view. Despite Trump -- despite his daily efforts to divide us -- I see much of the country beginning to reunite again, the way it did when I was a kid. You can see it in the peaceful protests of the past several weeks -- Americans of all races and classes coming together to fight against racism. You can see it the ways that communities are pulling together in the face of this pandemic, even if the White House has left them to fend for themselves.

These acts of compassion and kindness make our country stronger. This November, we have a chance to make it stronger still -- by choosing a president who is consistent with our values, and whose moral compass points toward justice."

- Robert Redford, July 8, 2020

152 notes · View notes

magaprima · 3 years

Text

Okay, maybe it’s my knowledge of history, maybe it’s the fact I did studies years ago into human trafficking where similar instances happened, maybe it’s knowing people in my family’s countries have had to do similar things throughout history, maybe it’s the fact I remember my lit tutor saying ‘how a person reacts to a fictional character’s plight is revealing of how they would behave in reality’, but I am getting so fed up of people condemning Lilith for what happened to Adam, or worse, mocking and belittling it like ‘omg she straight up murdered her kid lmao wtf’ which was actually a real comment I just fucking deleted off a GIF set I made. See, this is why I’m seeing these idiots, because they feel the need to comment on a GIF they’re NOT EVEN REBLOGGING. But whatever, I digress. My point of this post is:

LILITH DID NOT MURDER ADAM. SHE DID NOT KILL HIM IN PETTY REVENGE. SHE DID A HEARTBREAKING THING THAT MADE HER WANT TO DIE WHEN IT WAS DONE IN ORDER TO SAVE HIM FROM THE HORRENDOUS CRUELTY AND ABUSE SHE HAD SUFFERED FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. And this is without the added consideration that the trauma of such a painful, unnatural birth and post-natal exhaustion and other hormone/chemical issues would have effected decision making and problem processing.

Okay, so listen; mothers killing their children to spare them from horrors is not an invented concept. It is horrendously true and has happened throughout history. Primarily, to stop their children being taken into slavery, being raped by invaders, saved from sex rings or taken for whatever miscellaneous yet horrendous situation they’re in, which has included abusive fathers. I am speaking as someone who is Irish, where Cromwell swept the land throwing children into slavery (my great-great-so-on Uncle was a child who was taken, but he survived, and we have relatives out in the Caribbean due to this, which is also how a great-great.great-grandparent met his wife. But again, I digress) and knows there were instances where those, unable to hide their children, killed them rather than submit them to the absolute horrors Cromwell’s men were inflicting (they raped a lot of women, murdered the men, raped and/or stole the children. Whole villages were decimated) and as someone with Mexican grandparents and knows how ancestors were treated so violently and cruelly by invaders that killing children to spare them was by no means an uncommon reaction (and an entirely understandable one).

The most famous incident of this happening, possibly because she was already a slave and therefore considered ‘property’ rather than an unnamed native person being dragged from their home, and it was recent enough for official news reports, was Margaret Garner. She was a runaway slave, and, when surrounded by slavers to take her back, she cut the throat of her 2 year old daughter, and planned to kill her other three children and then herself, but the slavers got to her first. They then told her she was property and not a mother at all, and they weren’t her children, but the slaver’s property and therefore she’d damaged property. The horror of that story is undeniable and Margaret’s actions undeniably understandable and cry for sympathy and empathy....and YET, there are still people who condemn her today. Really. So it shouldn’t surprise me there are people condemning a woman in a fictional story too.

More recently, there have been cases/stories coming forward of human trafficking victims, getting pregnant through no fault of their own, and, knowing the child would be trafficked too, have smothered them in their sleep before they could be taken.

Lilith is an abuse victim. Severely abused. She is treated as a slave, Lucifer even says ‘you belong to me and only me’ considering her to be his property, ‘Lilith knows her place; to serve’, ‘there is no escape to Tibet or anywhere else’. Lilith, really, in part 1 and half of part 2 has fucking Stockholm Syndrome; she has no reason to be loyal to Lucifer, we see how afraid she is of him, yet she sticks by him and is grateful for the scraps of approval he gives her. She has suffered so much abuse for thousands of years and lived through it that she had been entirely mentally conditioned by it. It took a huge amount of inner strength, and developing relationships with others (namely Sabrina and Adam 2.0, but also the likes of Theo Putnam, Mrs Meeks) for her to break free of that mindset.

But Lucifer is her abuser. There are countless instances of where we see her absolute terror; look how she begs for mercy after Sabrina’s failed Dark Baptism, how she flinches and covers her face when he comes near her, think of the terror in her eyes when he says ‘and you know what I’m like when I’m bored’, think of her sickening fear in part 3 when she realises the Dark Lord is free, how full of panic and fear she is trying to find out where he’s hiding, of how she desperately tries to hide at fucking Mary’s to get away from him, how she’s dragged out by her hair, think of the fear she has on her face when she chooses to face him and watch the horror on her face as she realises what he’ll do to Adam, and look at the fear and broken spirit of her when she realises she can’t stop him.

Lucifer has abused Lilith for millennia and convinced her that it was love that he was ‘lifting her up’ and ‘making her worthy’, classic abuser language. He even used her own freaking familiar against her. She was treated as property, treated however he chose in that particular moment, and by her own claim she’s done ‘unspeakable things’ to help him, believing she loved him. THOUSANDS of years of abuse and she’s only recently broken free of that, before she’s forced back into his arms, metaphorically-speaking. She is now, however, aware it’s abuse, and she knows what she’s suffered, and how cruel he is, and how he made her into something else, how he used that abuse and cruelty to mould her into what he wanted (think how differently she behaves when she’s his ‘loyal servant’ to how she behaves when she’s free from him and independent. We see a very different Lilith). She knows what Adam will suffer, because she’s suffered it herself. When Lucifer says he’ll suckle on a hell hound and ‘toughen him up and all that’, the expression on Lilith’s face is heartbreaking; she knows exactly what he means by toughen him up. It’s the same as ‘make you worthy’. And the thought of her son going through everything she went through, and then constantly having to fight for his life, fighting against Caliban or Caliban’s children, suffering everything Lilith has, but never having known anything else, never having anyone who loves him truly, no one who could help him escape...it fills Lilith with fear.

And, she’s seen the Dark Lord get his way over and over again. She’s seen how even Sabrina accepts him as her Father now. She knows the Aunts offered to protect her, but even Hilda is only suggesting they leave, like they can’t actually physically fight him, only do their best to keep Lilith safe. And Lilith knows he’ll find her eventually; her experiences and her severe abuse mean she sees it as inevitable, because she’s ‘learned’ it’s inevitable. Lilith cannot see a possible way to keep baby Adam safe. She knows the only way she can protect him from the Dark Lord is to kill him, and destroy the body (or devour the body, however you wish to interpret the bloody scene) so he can’t resurrect him after he’s killed her. Because, yes, Lilith intends to die. Like Margaret Garner, her plan was to die WITH her child, but she was stopped. Lucifer knew that was her intent, that that was what she wanted (she does openly beg him to kill her) and that is exactly why he makes her immortal, so she can never be with her son, but by cursing her with humanity-- to age and rot etc-- he’s making sure she will only get weaker and not have the power to get back her son by any means.

Lilith continues to try to join her son throughout the next episode, to the point of getting a hold of the only blade that can kill an immortal, and it’s only when Marie gives her her son’s spirit, placing it in something solid, meaning-- with magic-- Lilith does have a chance to bring her son back, that instead of wanting to die, she decides to destroy Lucifer instead, as she has nothing to lose. Either, she destroys Lucifer and takes all her power back and gets her son back, or she fails and she dies. She essentially becomes a woman with nothing to lose, and they’re the most dangerous people, because there’s nothing to make them hesitate. As Lucifer learned in a very hard way.

#this was essentially a frustrated rant #but it's also #random thoughts #observations #and #headcanons #it's all the things #i don't normally do tw but this is quite in depth so #tw suicide #tw abuse #tw rape

26 notes · View notes