#i agree with both points of view and think it's up to the individual whether they consider themselves part of the broader community

[daremna]

NOTE: Do not take any of this personally, I am not a professional astrologer. I'm also mostly refering to the underdeveloped/immature versions of these placements. If the shoe fits, slay Cinderella, if not, congrats this isn't about you. PS I do not support misogyny!! Most mean girl archetypes are rooted in patriarchal views and villanising femininity, I'm just using these characters for fun and to base some of my observations on.

Aries placements Including 1h and mars. Known as the 'baby' of the zodiac, ruling the head, aries placents can often have an inflated sense of self, petty and childish tendencies. Because they are ruled by mars, they tend to be very easy to anger, argumentative and driven.

1h/aries mercury are straight to the point and will tell you what they really think without sparing your emotions. Will press your buttons just to rile you up and get a reaction out of you.

1h lilith + chiron placements can have have an unstable/toxic relationship with women and be extremely competitive with them. Can receive a lot of unwarranted negativity and jealousy from other women which in turn will make the native see other women as untrustworthy. (I have lilith in the 1h and I've noticed I tend to rub a lot of women the wrong way. My entire school experience was getting bullied and targeted by MULTIPLE women. I've also had to work through a LOT of internalised misogyny).

1h lilith + pluto will have an intense and heavy energy around them whether they like it or not. Command attention in every room. People will fear or respect you, most likely both. They crave power and don't care if they step on anyone along the way. Will get what they want, or else...

Leo placements including 5 house and sun. The stereotypical 'qeen b' sign. Can often struggle with extreme self esteem & self worth issues. When not worked on, they will project their feelings onto other people to regain a sense of power and control.

Narcissistic to overcompensate for what they think they lack in. Similar to Regina George, they will keep people around that they look down on to always feel on top and like theyre the star/ main character at all times. "She's the queen bee - the star, those other two are just her little workers."

They are ruled by the sun, so they feel like the centre of everyone's universe is their rightful place, they can't help it🤷. (Yes, I'm a leo, and what about it?)

Leo risings can have the typical 'mean girl' look. Attitude, confidence, great outfits and big/poofy hair. "That's why her hair is so big, it's full of secrets." Big Shelby Cummings energy.

When paired with aquarius placements, they can have an even more inflated ego. Theyre the two signs with the biggest god complex.

Virgo placements including 6h. The 'know-it-all' of the zodiac. Can come off as pedantic. Trying to outsmart anyone. Big emphasis on virgo mars and mercury.

When paired with leo placements, they can be self-righteous and very judgemental. "I'm just better than everyone" energy.

Scorpio placements can be as fierce as aries placements, as they are both ruled by mars in traditional astrology, but they will mostly keep it bottled up/hidden to maintain their mysteriousness.

Sun-pluto aspects can make an assertive and driven individual.

Scorpio/1h mercury: "So you agree, you think you're really pretty" energy. Calculating and manipulative. Will play mind games with you. Watching your every move. "Gretchen Wieners knows everybody's business, she knows everything about everyone." Like a cat playing with it's mouse.

Can come off as cold and rude at first regardless of their character (especially scorpio rising). But that's just their rbf. Unless you actually give them a reason to dislike you, then all hell freezes over.

Scorpio mars will become vindictive and spiteful. They hold onto grudges like no other. When vengefuly, they play the long game. WILL remember that time you made fun of their outfit when bumping into you 20 years later. Selective memory🙄.

Gemini placements including 3h and mercury. Stereotypically fake and two-faced. A social chameleon. Extremely charming and persuasive. Can have a tendency to lie and gossip like no other, they love the mental stimulation it gives them. They are ruled by mercury, the planet of communication after all.

Mars/Mercury in gemini or in the 3h love to argue for fun. Will start a verbal altercation just for the hell of it, if they're feeling particularly bored. Gemini-mercury placements will come up with the most creative insults lmao. "You put the "suck" in "liposuction" You put the "ooo" in "jiu-jitsu" You put the "ism" in "This is all just a defense mechanism". Truly a poet, they have a way with words.

Not easy to anger. Like they'll fight you but they don't actually care unless you really got to them. The type to make fun of you if you're really angry and riled up.

If paired with scorpio placements, girl........ They can really be scary is all I'm gonna say (and i hate to stroke people's ego's so this should say a lot).

Libra placements including 7h and venus. Ruled by venus the planet of love, and represented by the scales but don't let that fool you. When underdeveloped they can be highly superficial, shallow and fake. Love to gossip.

Libra rising look innocent and sweet, borderline angelic untill you past it and the mirage slips away~ Remember, biblically accurate angels are scary as hell. Can have the typical 'mean girl' aesthetic, very pink and feminine.

Libra mercury/ venus can be a sweet talker, very charming and persuasive.

Heavy moon aspects especially harsh moon-pluto and moon-mars. The 'mommy issues' placements (I'm sorry. Me too tho). Can become manipulative, fake, cold and detached. Can see women as the enemy and fail to make connections with them due to the maternal trauma they experienced. Have a hard time trusting other women.

Capricorn/10h placements can be dedicated and power hungry. Their workaholic tendencies, if mixed with more vindictive placements or character traits can make the person very ruthless. Goal oriented, focused on the bigger picture. Gets shit done, it's not their fault you were in their way. Big Blair Waldorf vibes! “Destiny is for losers. It’s just a stupid excuse to wait for things to happen instead of making them happen.”

“If you really want something, you don’t stop for anyone or anything until you get it.”

Yh you get my point.

Sagittarius placements are known to be brutally honest. Born without a filter, trust them to tell you the truth. Can come off as rude but usually without malicious intent. "What? I'm just being honest." Truth hurts sometimes.

Mercury-mars and mercury-pluto aspects (heavy on the mercury-mars) know exactly what to say to hurt someone. They can say some awful things in the heat of the moment and regret them afterwards. Their comments can really stick with you, they'll go right for the jugular with no hesitation.

*Remember, these are just for fun, based on my own research and observations. I'm not a professional, I don't know shit. There's no such thing as an evil sign, all placements have a dark side. It all depends on you and how you deal with your issues. I have like, a lot of these placements so I'm not targeting anyone*

~Jules💖

© 2023 Daremna All Rights Reserved

Edit: To the one's reposting this on tiktok with no credit, it's pathetic babes, stop. If you're that interested in astrology try coming up with your own takes🥰💋

#finally putting my obsession with 2000s chick flicks to good use #astrology #astrology notes #astrology observations #astro notes #astro #mean girls #regina george #aries #leo #libra #virgo #scorpio #gemini #Sagittarius #cancer #capricorn #1h pluto #1h lilith #black moon lilith #mercury-mars #mercury-pluto #pluto #libra rising #leo rising #blair waldorf #shelly cummings #mean girls astrology #gemini mercury #aries mercury

[imfromthemiddlekingdom]

When I engage with the Silmarilion fandom it’s always very educational and enlightening no matter what side they’re on regarding Finwe and his sons. But whenever I interact with the HoTD fandom it’s always “you’re condoning XYZ and therefore you’re a horrible person!!!” Or doing mental gymnastics to try to justify whichever atrocities their side committed.

Thematically both stories are quite similar. We can find parallels with Rhaenyra and Feanor but even at his worst (Pulling a sword on Fingolfin, First kinslaying, burning of the ships etc.) Feanor had never put a bounty on a toddler (Rhaenyra stating that Maelor should be bought to her dead or alive causing him to be ripped apart. Like hello??!??? How is that ever a justifiable thing to do???). I can find parallels between Feanor and Rhaenyra, sure. But if I’m honest the parallels stop with them being the only child of a kings first wife who’s father then went on to face four more kids with another women. Finwe is ten times the father Viserys was. And literally none of the kids (Feanor included) would ever take their anger out on their siblings child like we see the so called Maegor come again do.

But I digress, I was talking of the fandom. I may get heated talking about whether Feanor was right in his anger at Indis or whether Fingolfin should’ve absolutely demanded more reparations from the sons of Feanor when he crossed the ice. But I’ve never seen anyone in the Silm fandom saying that someone should die because they had an opinion.

But I’ve seen many instances of HoTD fans threatening rape and death on people who think Alicent is not the monster they portray her as, or that Rhaenyra isn’t as ‘girl boss queen slay!!!’ As people say she is. Maybe it’s because HoTD is a TV show and many of the fans haven’t read the books and therefore don’t understand nuance since the TV show focuses so much on Rhaenyra’s manifest destiny arc that team green gets painted as the ‘ultimate’ villain for our girl boss queen Rhaenyra to ascend to the throne since it’s her ‘birth right’.

Not to mention how the whole made up show canon prophecy to justify colonialism means that team black stans are really showing their true colors on what they think is right. Because guess what? The Silm also has what could be said to be as a colonizing story line with the Noldor coming to Beleriand and settling but most fans agree that the cutting up of Beleriand was very much a colonizing behavior no matter what they think of Thingol.

Point is, most HoTD fans can’t hold and intellectually simulating debate over their characters without feeling like said debater is personally attacking them since their entire personality is so deeply entwined with their fav that a critique on them would automatically equate to a critique on themselves. Therefore making it entirely impossible to have a decent conversation on the thematically very important foils that Rhaenyra and Alicent pose to each other (since they still think a good story must have a black and white view of the protagonist and the antagonist lmao).

Media illiteracy in these fandoms truly is a cancer that spreads to even the most level headed and literate individuals. Pick up a book! Understand themes and how foils are supposed to be written without internalizing criticism of your fav as a criticism of yourself! I don’t get mad when people criticize Feanor, nor do I get mad when people say I’m wrong when it comes to my own interpretation of the statue of Finwe and Miriel. It’s called having a discussion and you can only do that when you’re not on the front lines dying for a fictional character who wouldn’t spit on you if you were on fire in front of them!!!

#media literacy #hotd #the silmarillion #feanor #pro alicent hightower #alicent hightower #anti team black stans #anti team black #pro team green #please I’m begging for people in this god forsaken fandom to stop defending a fictional character with your life #cw rape #anti rhaenyra targaryen #anti Rhaenyra Targaryen fans #rhaenyra targaryen #as you can see I despair at the lack of reading comprehension skills and media literacy skills most team black stans have #literally head empty only girl boss slay queen omg she’s such a boss bitch!!!! #if you can’t recognize the flaws in your fav character maybe don’t debate their actions online? #like #a character having irredeemable flaws is like half the reason you like them

[lesbiskammerat]

Hi! I saw a post about you talking about the understanding of gender as socially constructed from a communist point of view. I would be interested to see yours and also if you have some reading recommendations 😊

Oh god I have to actually articulate something clear myself? And thus open myself up to legitimate and informed criticism? I'll do my best.

One of the main point of disagreement I have with other people who agree that gender is a social construct is whether it's "transhistorical," as in whether this construct (and that of patriarchy) is essentially the same across different periods of history. Some radical feminists and those deriving their ideas from them will often say that it is (although others are not social constructionists at all), but you find it in other tendencies as well. I don't think it's really the case. You can look at various past societies and see that they are made up of men and women (or at least that they use words for themselves that we translate to "men and women,") with the men having a position of power over the women. They're very comparable, but ultimately the actual details of how those systems of gender operate are very different from the modern one found in global capitalism, in a way that I think disqualifies them from being essentially the same. An obvious example would be all the memes you might have seen about how ancient Greek men would have sex with each other, as well as their conventions on the roles of penetrating vs being penetrated. These are things that don't fit into our modern conceptions of gender at all (and also one of the reasons some historians will say "today we would consider him gay" rather than "he was gay," for instance.) This also ties into the concept that the historical origin of patriarchy doesn't serve as its current foundation. A while ago I wrote something about that here.

Another point of disagreement is whether gender is something personal, an identity you can play around with and do whatever you want with, or a social role that isn't defined by you alone. The former is an attractive position both in that it's just more fun, but also because in defending trans people from attacks by conservatives, the argument that has become popular in liberal and some leftist discourse is that trans people are the gender they say they are. That argument is in my opinion putting the cart before the horse somewhat. A trans woman is not a woman simply because she says she is, but rather because she occupies the social position of womanhood. Identity is a product of that, not the cause, in my opinion. It follows that gender is not really something we can just play around with for fun, at least depending on how you define "gender." In an individual context we can identify however we want, using both conventional and unconventional terms. There's nothing wrong with this, and it would be absurd to say that this personal identification is illusory or meaningless, as some do. But in the context of analysing gender on a larger social scale, which we need to as communists and feminists, gender is just not a personal thing. We can't opt in or out or do whatever we feel like, it's a coercive system of categorisation.

However, it's important to note that this doesn't mean that the categories of "man" and "woman" are simply all that there is. It's here that Joe Biden's "at least three" answer to the question of how many genders there are is ironically kind of true. Because I think of you study how different people are treated by patriarchy, it eventually becomes clear that there's some kind of third category. What the best way of conceptualising this third thing is, I'm not really sure. Is it "outside" the two official genders? Is it "below" woman on some kind of hierarchy? Is there just one big spectrum? I don't think there's really a good way to visualise this, partially due to the nature of social constructs like this. It's not something one guy wrote down at one point, it's something all of us are continuously creating together, an amorphous blob of collective beliefs and practices, although obviously some have greater power than others. I have a soft spot for Monique Wittig's insight into this. She argues that lesbians are not women, because by rejecting men altogether they fail to perform the most important part of the role of "woman" that patriarchy has constructed. I think there's more to it than she gets into, but if lesbians are not women they are something else, and that something else is what I'm talking about. This "other" is also something that's a great motivator for performing your assigned role as best you can. Like I said it's difficult to visualise exactly how these roles relate to each other, but there's clearly some kind of hierarchy, and you're more or less constantly threatened with being "demoted" by failing to perform your role properly and thus falling into the "other." The desperation to stay afloat is what subconsciously motivates a lot of transphobia, both directed at the self and at others.

One last point I'll get into because this post is very long now is the notion of "authenticity" when it comes to gender. Here I think Judith Butler is very insightful. Like Wittig I don't think they get into it fully, and in Butler's case I think a lot of their other theory is not quite right or at least often misused, but nonetheless they are correct on this one point. That point being that gender is an imitation with no original. Everybody is pretending. In that sense it's correct to say that trans people are just pretending, but only because so are cis people. In the same way, there isn't really a difference between "authentic" trans people, and people who are supposedly just pretending for attention or even out of some "sexual perversion." One of the things that made me think of the original post was seeing someone I follow (if you see this, hi, nothing against you) talking about the concept of only transitioning "to fuck lesbians," and it struck me as funny that really, you could just as well say that my reason for becoming a lesbian, that is, adopting that identity explicitly, was because I wanted to fuck lesbians.

Anyway, reading recommendations, right.

For Monique Wittig's argument, The Straight Mind and Other Essays is where you wanna look. For Judith Butler, I believe they wrote about that in Imitation and Gender Insubordination. Other than that, maybe Julia Serano's Whipping Girl and Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch?

These aren't things you should just absorb and move on, no work is like that, so I recommend reading with others and critically discussing it together.

[haveyouseenthishorrormovie]

I don't entirely disagree, but I think that what you say about it being impossible to be apolitical would extend to the original poll itself. Ignoring the political climate doesn't make it apolitical. I do agree in that case not posting them at all would be political in a different way. If I might suggest? Perhaps you could simply add a small statement. "Free Palestine" at the bottom of the post, to make it clear. Or add a tag to clarify it is Israeli made, on occupied Palestinian land. Or add a watermelon emoji if you want it to be as innocuous as possible and hopefully not invite people to bring up the politics of it. My kneejerk reaction was discomfort due to the lack of any acknowledgement of a conflict that is impossible to escape. Any mention of Israel is inherently going to bring politics into it, so for people's reassurance and comfort knowing you're not purposefully ignoring said conflict for the sake of your polls (which I think people could uncharitably interpret that as), maybe adding something small to acknowledge it without making it a big show would be a good gesture. Thank you for responding thoughtfully to my prior ask.

Another long reply.

hello there.

unfortunately after reading the other ask I found myself slightly disappointed by the fact that you didn't fully read mod sus' response. Even if you did, one of the main points was "we do not wish to bring genocide into this" this is not a blog about politics. we do not wish to force our opinions, or anything upon anyone else. who I stand for should not affect other's opinions when it's on a blog that is about horror movies and if you have seen them or not. as mod sus suggested, you could simply block the tag "israel" if you do not wish to see movies that have been made by them, this is why the tagging system is in place. bringing politics onto this blog will increase attention from both sides of the matter, whether it be positive or negative, will ultimately block the audience's view of what this blog is actually for, having fun and joy around what the world could only know as, horror movies.

thank you for reading, have a wonderful day.

mod chris

mod L would like to add: the reason we don't add "free Palestine" to posts about movies by Israeli filmmakers is the same reason we don't add "free Ukraine" to posts about Russian films, or "free Tibet" to posts about Chinese films. Individual creatives do not bear responsibility for the actions of their government, and we will not imply otherwise by applying a standard to their films that we do not apply elsewhere.

Mod Sus: This is to not say we ignore or support the on-going conflicts or wars between the countries or groups of people. We merely want to keep this blog free from reminders of these events going on. We hope that can be seen as reasonable to not add the suggested messages or additions into our polls.

We're here just to talk about movies. If you do wish to talk about the problematic or heavy topics related to these movies, whatever they are, you are free to do so in the reblogs. It is part of good media and art critisism to acknowledge its darker aspects too, but you can enjoy (or not enjoy) the art while acknowledging them.

#not a poll #ask

[destinyc1020]

Destiny I need your opinion 😭

I stopped being a timothee fan after he made that tasteless joke a few months ago (I was slowly losing interest in him anyways but that was the icing on the cake), and I don’t really care to see anything with him in it. Also, I’ve been VERY vocal about Palestine and the genocide going on is Gaza/Rafah, so I’m very much pro-Palestine. However, between my love for zendaya/florence (& lowkey infatuation with Austin) and all the flodaya press interviews/outfits, I’ve been interested in maybe giving dune 2 a chance. I’ve been seeing thousands of people for months on twitter saying they’re boycotting dune 2 given its appropriating nature and timothee’s lowkey zionistic antics, and I do agree those are valid points. But I’m starting to get an itch to get a dune 2 ticket 😭 internally I feel heavily conflicted and also kind of fraudulent because I’ve been a heavy boycott advocate but now I’m starting to reflect and questioning whether boycotting the movie is even the correct route. I know it’ll ultimately be up to me, but I’d love to hear your thoughts cause I’m fighting a battle with myself on this.

Hey Anon! 👋🏾

I almost feel like your ask is a "Confession Sunday" ask hahaha. 😅

There are a lot of conflicting emotions in this post of yours lol. 🤭

Anyway, I'll be honest, I'm very HESTITANT in even breaching this topic again because I really don't like discussing political issues on my blog. It can be very contentious, divisive, and get people very heated. Not only that, but I feel like no matter what side of the fence you sit on, I always end up getting attacked in my inbox by someone who passionately feels differently from me.

I can't speak on certain issues because I just don't feel comfortable enough with knowing both sides to weigh in on them. So, my disclaimer is that I'm not coming at your question with an "educated" or "well-rounded" political historical viewpoint. I'm just an average person. 🤷🏾‍♀️ I don't like conflict, and I don't like drama. I try to stay out of it as much as possible.

With that said...... TL;DL Version: Anon, you have my permission to watch this movie lol, or not. Basically, do whatever you want lol 😅

The LONG Version: Below 👇

My Honest Opinion?

Like I've said before, people are FREE to do whatever they want with regards to this "Dune: Part 2" movie (and ANY movie for that matter). What bothers one person might not bother another. Ykwim? I just feel like no matter what decision a person makes, they shouldn't be judged for it either way. It's THEIR choice.

Spare yourself the inner turmoil Anon lol. It's JUST a movie. It's not like it's a Governmental declaration, or a formal political statement. As much as Timothee was insensitive and messed up with that SNL skit.... I'm sorry, but he is NOT the only cast member in this film. Nor is he the only individual that worked on it (cast, crew, director, stunt people, etc) And if you have a genuine interest in, or are a fan of some of the OTHER cast members in the film (i.e. Zendaya, Florence, Austin, Rebecca, Christopher Walken, etc.) then why should the rest of the cast be punished just because of the stupid/silly insensitive actions of their ONE cast member?? 🥴

Is that really fair to the rest of the cast, crew, and others who worked tirelessly HARD on this movie? 🤔 I don't care for what Jonathan Majors did to his gf, but that doesn't mean that I'm personally never going to watch the movie "Creed 3" again. That movie was hard work, and Michael B. Jordan's directorial debut. It was a GOOD film. Why should Michael be punished just cuz his co-star is an a**hole?? 🥴

Another thing.... This movie is going to make BANK regardless of if you or others decide to see it or NOT. 👀

I think if the FILM itself were preaching anti-Palestine rhetoric, or it was a formal declaration of political views on the Gaza/Palestine and Israel conflict, then I think I would feel very differently about this film.

Another thing I wonder: Has Timmy himself come out and said that he is against Gaza/Palestine?? 🤔 (Serious question) Has he provided his stance on the conflict? His "Hamas" skit (which wasn't the entire joke btw) was insensitive, yes, but do we REALLY know his real stance on this issue? Or, did he just underestimate how insensitive that skit was (that he didn't even write btw)?

I also look at how the cast has treated him. The cast KNOWS him personally. If they really had an issue with him, we would know it. You can only hide your disgust for a person for so long....no matter if you're an "actor" or not. It will come out in small ways eventually (i.e. body language, little glances, facial expressions, etc). The fact that the cast seems not only fine with Timmy, but genuinely HAPPY with him is pretty telling to ME.

Like I said, they know him way better than we do. 🤷🏾‍♀️

Lastly, The film is being praised as one of the best films of all time (kind of a stretch if you ask me, but hey, WB loves this type of marketing lol).... It actually seems like it's going to be GOOD film. Are you going to skip it just because of one person? That's just a question for inner reflection. I could see if the movie SUCKED or is getting horrid reviews lol, but it actually seems like the film is being enjoyed tremendously by most people. Many are saying it's even better than Part 1. 👀

With all of that said.....

If it really bothers your conscience that you support Gaza but might want to see this movie that stars Timothee in the lead role, then just do whatever YOU feel is best for YOU Anon. 😊 Imo, nobody should judge you either way, and people online (who don't even know you personally btw) shouldn't have a say on YOUR life. But if it bothers you that deeply, then simply don't watch! It's just as simple as that lol. 😊 Nobody is forcing you to watch, just like nobody should be forcing you to NOT watch.

I'll be curious to see what decision you make Anon lol. You should come back here and tell us. Either way, you won't get any judgement on it from me. If it means anything, you have my "permission" Anon (not that you needed it lol) to go and watch this movie lol. 🤭 Like I said before, it's JUST a movie, it's JUST a piece of art. 🤷🏾‍♀️

[lovely-oh-so-lovelyyui]

I feel like we, in the DL fandom, do not talk about how the Church organization people who send in the brides, are fucking trash as well to make a deal with Karlheinz, send in young girls who have faith in them to a bunch of sadistic 100+ year brats who torment them for sport, all for the “greater good” of humanity (ofc young women have to be sacrificed 🙄). Like, THEY should be risking themselves (they’re vampire hunters, like Seiji) for the sake of humanity, not these clueless, young girls.

Yes! I totally agree with you as much as I like portraying Yui’s childhood as something idyllic and much happier than her current state. It's undeniable the church is at partial fault for the atrocities and tragedies committed by the boys.

Now as controversial as it sounds the boys are not wrong to feed or hunt humans for blood, it makes sense for their father to set up a feeding system so there would be less disarray. 

I mean it makes sense, according to the Diabolik lovers wiki page all of the demon clans can feed on blood however vampires are the only ones who gain nutrients from it. 

This makes them natural predators of humans, as a race you can't expect them to starve so being sent to humans only seem as natural as humans slaughtering livestock. They are royal too, obviously, their blood supply would be of fine quality, so “pure blood” I'm assuming is healthy girls who don't eat junk food, haven’t smoked or drank or even touched drugs which is why a church is such a perfect cover. Also, I think the whole virgin thing doesn't play a part, it's probably an old wives’ vampire tale but knowing someone's dick hasn't been in your lunch probably makes it much more appetising.

Now, this under no circumstances means I'm defending the boys, I am looking at it from your average vampire’s viewpoint discarding human morality of well putting “an innocent lamb” for slaughter mentality.

But it's very apparent because both vampires and humans are intelligent creatures with free will. The silver line between a food source and an inferior race is very blurred. I will extend the difference on this another day but I'll focus on the actual church feeding system from what I've gathered; I just wanted to portray it from a different point of view for all those who rightly disagree with the sacrificial bride system.

Now don’t get me wrong if used correctly I think the sacrificial bride system is pretty great if you tweak some areas if you have a voluntary group of individuals who get paid to let the boys feed from them with full knowledge and consent of what’s going on as well as full insurance on their safety it is far more practical then no feeding system at all. What makes this feeding system even better is that it’s backed by both the vampire nobility and human hunters. Both are sides that have been at war for who knows how long and have had tremendous impacts on both sides, whether they be socio-political, or financial and physical.

See how on paper this looks like the perfect theoretical solution, but the show hints to us that there’s a lot more corruption involved.

I didn’t plan for this to become headcanons but here we go I guess:

I'm assuming Yui is not the only church girl who is kept unaware of the vampire's existence but one of the only girls who hold any relation to a vampire hunter probably plot armour.

Vampires and humans dislike each other. This is not new, they've probably been at war for centuries and whilst humans are extremely adaptable but the only reason they could reach a truce with the vampires is probably that they became a nuisance to the vampires and this would be the lesser of two evils for the church.

The funding comes from the vampires, each hunter gets as much money as the girls they send, and the girls that are sent must be of the highest quality.

Docile, sweet, easy on the eyes and most importantly with good-tasting blood.

However the war is over, and there are truces and pacts. The original hunters are replaced and hand their titles down to their eldest son and the training to prepare continues, but traditions and principles become lax, and discipline is lost.

 Nepotism and corruption don’t take long to consume the system, the men bid the girls in between themselves selecting which church sends the most girls for funding.

Many smaller factions soon join under the powerful ones, you would think the church that doesn't sell as many girls would be happier no?

No.

The funding is taken away and the church is forced to give up and sell its girls to the bigger factions.

The girls are monitored closely, indoctrinates with weak morals, and made as vulnerable and trusting as possible, the not as pretty girls are given into the red light streets for spare change, and some are promoted to nuns only to take care of the new batch of girls or giving birth to them.

And the rest is history, the cycle continues. the vampires long predicted this as human nature repeats itself often.

#diabolik lovers headcanon #diabolik lovers #diahell #yui komori #headcanon #dl headcanons #diabolil lovers lore #church lore #yui lore #reiji sakamaki #ayato sakamaki #shu sakamaki

[somewhatsentientspellbook]

Personal Take Incoming (Critical Role)

Consider this a diary entry explaining some of my thoughts on a few Critical Role characters. Avoid reading this post if you don't want my takes on Keyleth, Fjord, Ashton, Orym, Imogen, Percy, and Caleb.

So, I've noticed a common trend with my favourite characters across a variety of fandoms. I personally am an individual who gravitates towards characters with integrity, and rules for themselves that they follow. Characters that have lines in the sand that they can draw and then defend. It doesn't necessarily have to be rules put in place by society, it can be ones they made up for themselves. These characters oftentimes end up becoming the moral centre of their party, which adds another fascinating angle as they try to navigate maintaining their morals with a wider group filled with diverse opinions.

I suppose that is why Keyleth was my favourite Vox Machina character from pretty much the get-go! Her integrity was what endeared me to her throughout the entire campaign. She had opinions of what she thought was right and wrong, and she tried her hardest to enforce that view. Were there times when she learned she was wrong, yes. But she kept what she learned in mind and adjusted her internal monologue to see fit. Keyleth's integrity and unwillingness to engage in the overly amoral actions of Vox Machina created a lot of interesting dynamics.

In campaign two, Fjord quickly became my favourite for very similar reasons. He was the one to ask Beau to apologise to Toya and insist that the party help the Schuster kids so that they wouldn't be put in an orphanage. He also maintained a certain level of honesty with the rest of the party about his history and his mysterious dreams. In this case, Fjord wasn't necessarily 'good' (as he was comfortable with doing some pretty shitty stuff), but he still had expectations of himself and rules that he would not break.

I guess that is why Asthon and Orym are currently my favourite members of Bells Hells too. They both have convictions that they will not stray from and a certain level of integrity that the party honestly needs. Now, whether or not they are right is another discussion entirely, but the point is that they have the courage to stick to their guns even when the group is leaning in another direction.

People have been complaining that the takes on Imogen Temult are unfair, and some of those takes are unfair! But I won't shy away from the fact that Imogen is my least favourite member of Bells Hells (I still think they're all fantastic - including Imogen herself). She is my least favourite for exactly the reasons above. Imogen supposedly has internal rules, but we've seen her be more than happy to break them when they don't suit her at a given moment. She's said that she hates to pry into people's minds and that she avoids it wherever possible - but we see her willingly dive into the minds of people like Dorian without their consent. Imogen has stated that Laudna is the most important person in the world to her and that she loves her more than anything - but Imogen cannot look Laudna in the eyes and tell her that she won't side with Laudna's murderer. That doesn't make the character any less interesting, but it definitely makes it harder for me personally to like her.

I've seen a handful people across socials imply that if you like Percy or Caleb, but not Imogen - it's because she's a woman. This is where I wholeheartedly disagree. While the overly negative opinions of Imogen are harsh and unwarranted, Imogen is the first character whose allegiances I am genuinely uncertain about. Percy and Caleb have said and done truly awful things; I think we can all agree on that. And while they have considered leaving the group, it was under very different circumstances. For the longest time, Percy had nothing waiting for him outside Vox Machina, so the only time I feared he would leave the group was when he died (since Tal confirmed he would've been happy to stay dead). Caleb too, had very little beyond the Mighty Nein and he considered leaving them on multiple occasions. But never once did he consider leaving them to join their enemy. Now, had the M9 faced the Cerberus Assembly earlier in the campaign, that might have been different - but I never feared that Caleb would switch sides in the campaign we did get.

The thing is, Imogen does have something waiting for her: Lilliana and Predathos. I'm not sure about her allegiance, and that's where Imogen, Percy, and Caleb are different. While what Imogen has said/done has been tame compared to what Percy and Caleb have said/done - I know that the line Imogen is toeing is one neither of the others had dared to cross. Percy would never have considered joining forces with the Briarwoods, Thordak, or the Whispered One. Caleb would never have dared to join sides with Avantika, Obann, or Trent. But Imogen might.

That is fascinating. And dangerous. The future isn't set in stone, and all I can do now is bite my tongue and wait for episode 50.

#this has been in my drafts for so long #i didn't know how to word it in a way that would make it clear that this is all my personal opinion #these characters are all so fascinating #personal takes #cr meta #critical role #critical role spoilers #keyleth of the air ashari #fjord cr #orym of the air ashari #ashton greymoore #imogen temult #percy de rolo #caleb widogast #btw no one is obligated to agree/disagree - this has just been on my mind for weeks #but this is the first time ever that a character has a reason to change sides

[novafire-is-thinking]

^ little inconveniences—like this title not fitting :/

Before I begin: This post is not written for the purpose of passing moral judgement. It’s meant to be an analysis of Optimus’ ethical reasoning.

Beyond Six Lasers

Individuals know what is best for them! Who but I know what I need? Who but you may decide what is best for you?

I would like to go to Six Lasers, thought Orion Pax.

But if anyone walked up to Six Lasers and demanded to get in whenever the desire struck, the park would be overwhelmed. Structure was necessary. And individuals would never impose Structure on themselves. Would they?

Surely not. Sentient beings banded together and made decisions for the collective good. Not all of those decisions would benefit every individual. (CoP)

The paragraph before this part of Exodus is, I believe, the most controversial moment in any of the Aligned novels. Orion gets upset about being unable to go to an amusement park, and fans have had a field day with it.

However, there are two things I’ve never seen discussed:

How Orion’s questioning is just a small glimpse of the age-old, bigger picture conflict between “Ethical Egoism” and “Utilitarianism” in ethical philosophy

How Orion responds to this conflict

Ethical Philosophy 101 - Ethical Egoism vs. Utilitarianism:

Ethical Egoism operates on the premise that because only individuals know what’s best for themselves, they have a moral responsibility to act on their own interests first and foremost, in order to achieve the greatest amount of good outcomes for the greatest number of individuals.

Utilitarianism operates on the premise that even though individuals may know what’s best for themselves, they have a moral responsibility to act on the interests of the greater good first and foremost, in order to achieve the greatest amount of good outcomes for the greatest number of individuals.

In both cases, the rightness or wrongness of an action falls on the consequences or results, and both have the same goal: to maximize pleasure.

In reality, this is far from being black-and-white, with people sitting on any and all points across the spectrum between these two philosophies.

Even so, there’s no question that Optimus sits closer to the Utilitarian side of the spectrum, as I will cover later.

He was tangled up, uncertain what he should be thinking or feeling.

What I need, thought Orion Pax, is a conversation that doesn’t happen inside my own head. (CoP)

It’s implied that Optimus analyzed both sides on his own, and that after he considered the dilemma long enough, he gave up trying to figure out for himself which view was correct. He doubted his ability to come to a conclusion on his own and sought out the counsel of another in order to help him find clarity.

At that point, Optimus did not operate on any sort of personal, “gut instinct” way of determining what was morally or ethically correct. Instead, he relied heavily on a mix of internal intellectual analysis and the input of others.

How Inconvenient…

Wreck-Gar no doubt would have Makeshift rendered to his basic elements, thought Optimus Prime, so of course they could not do that. At times it was mightily inconvenient to believe in a code of ethics and individual rights. (Exiles)

Optimus, Jazz, and Prowl managed to catch Makeshift after finding out he’d been masquerading as Hound and acting as a double agent for the Decepticons.

They were unable to agree on what to do with the shapeshifter. Prowl and Jazz wanted to wash their hands of Makeshift. They thought that, tactically and legally, it would be best to turn him over to Wreck-Gar and Junkion jurisdiction. After all, Makeshift murdered one of the Junkions earlier in the story.

However, knowing Wreck-Gar was eager to execute the shapeshifter using methods bordering on torture, Optimus refused to even consider handing Makeshift over because of his adherence to his code of ethics.

Whether this code of ethics was the Autobot Code, his own, or both is never specified, but it’s highly likely that the Autobot Code was heavily inspired by Optimus’ own morals.

And even though it would have been far more convenient for him and the entire Autobot cause if he’d handed Makeshift over, Optimus refused to compromise.

Fairness > Effectiveness

Optimus Prime left the room, bringing Jazz and Prowl out with him to wait for Wreck-Gar, who was standing by to remove Makeshift and the entire stasis field apparatus to the closest thing Junkion had to a jail. It was, in an irony all the Autobots could appreciate, the abandoned fuel reservoir of an ancient spacegoing vessel, five times as large as the Ark’s reservoir and with only one opening. Junkions bundled Makeshift into it and welded it shut.

“Where should we put this junk?” Wreck-Gar asked. “Space is the place, you ask me! Break him down!”

“No, we’re not going to do that,” Optimus Prime said. “Keep it here and turn off the stasis field as soon as you’ve got it sealed up.”

“Prime, you can’t be serious,” Prowl said.

“It’s the fair thing to do,” Optimus Prime said. (Exiles)

Optimus has always cared about fairness over effectiveness, even in war when things are often the exact opposite of fair.

In an earlier scene, Makeshift revealed that, as a shapeshifter, he’d die if he stayed in one form too long. The stasis field the Autobots had locked him in would eventually kill him if they didn’t turn it off.

Junkion didn’t have a “jail” that could hold Makeshift indefinitely, so Optimus opted to have him and the stasis field apparatus placed in something that would hold him temporarily. Optimus knew Makeshift would eventually find a way out of his “jail,” yet he still ordered that the stasis field be turned off.

Knowing the danger Makeshift posed to the Junkions and the Autobots, Optimus still chose to let him go.

Where Prowl saw letting Makeshift die at the hands of the Junkions as the safest, most effective option for the majority of those involved (Autobots and Junkions), Optimus saw how that would go against all he believed in.

Ethical Philosophy 101 - Act vs. Rule Utilitarianism:

Act Utilitarianism evaluates things on a case-by-case basis, with an emphasis on the specific consequences and utility of individual actions.

Rule Utilitarianism evaluates things in terms of general moral rules, with an emphasis on the broader consequences and utility of a general rule.

As with Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism, Act and Rule Utilitarianism exist on a spectrum, with both having advantages and disadvantages.

Generally, Optimus leans toward Rule Utilitarianism, as evidenced by his adherence to the general rule of the Autobot Code and his unwillingness to go with what Prowl sees as the safer, more effective option in this particular case with Makeshift.

Inconvenient, but Imperative

How much easier it would be, Optimus Prime thought again, if his ethics were a little more like Megatron’s. . .or even Wreck-Gar’s. Then he could just dispose of transgressing bots without a second thought. The simplicity!

But that was not the Autobot way, and that would never be the way of the one the Matrix of Leadership chose to be Prime.

Not as long as he was Prime. (Exiles)

Optimus believed that the Autobot way (Rule) would lead to the greatest amount of benefit for the greatest number of individuals. (Utilitarianism)

Over the course of the war, he remained fully aware that his rule-based Utilitarian code of ethics was inconvenient, and there were even times when he compromised.

But overall, it was extremely important to Optimus that he do his best to stick to his code of ethics, even when facing immense pressure.

✧ ✧ ✧

series master post

#transformers prime #maccadam #tfp #tfp optimus prime #tfp orion pax #tfp character analysis #tfp meta #aligned continuity #tf aligned novels #tf exodus #tf exiles #the one and only op ❤️💙 #who is TFP Optimus? series #long post #nova’s nerding out again

[9w1ft]

That anon about the keyhole arch reminded me of a point you often make that seems to be very difficult for some people to grasp (I’m not talking about anon, it just reminded me of the concept.)

When we think Taylor (and Karlie) are giving hints, it very often isn’t an EXACT copy of the original thing she’s referencing. Whether it’s clothes, or a flower, or a location, or even an eye, it’s usually just something that’s reminiscent without being undeniable. So the keyhole arch not actually being the one at Pfeiffer Big Sur beach doesn’t mean it’s not supposed to remind us of that. Heck, the Vogue photoshoot wasn’t even done in Big Sur (it was Malibu.) Similarly, a shirt that isn’t exactly the same but is the same color, or a similar style, an archway or a checker board pattern, or the colors of a certain flag, etc etc etc, in our world view it’s just a fun hint, it’s not supposed to be some sort of irrefutable proof, and I think you’re either confident in your beliefs, and understand that, or you’re a doubter who’s looking for reassurance, but always sees holes in the evidence. Not that we all aren’t both of these from time to time, it’s not black and white.

And we don’t always all agree that something means something, and we sometimes think someone is reaching too far with what they see as a hint, but we still have this understanding that this is what’s happening and we’re going to see it and we’re going to enjoy it, even if they didn’t mean to do it or we are being delusional occasionally. It doesn��t really matter if one individual thing is meaningful, it’s the whole grand game that we’re playing for years now that is fun and can feel very meaningful.

I appreciate how you are always able to do this and enjoy things.

↑ yeah this part right here this is it

you worded this all very masterfully, thank you!

one thing i wanted to add is that i think a lot of the ‘reach’ and ‘proof’ conversation comes more naturally when you are not there yet with kaylor and/or you engage a lot or are active a lot on places where the people around you are actively out there to disprove kaylor and you end up in a position of defending or wanting to defend yourself

once you sort of realize, or have fallen completely into the orbit of kaylor and aren’t thrown off orbit by things anymore, and you let go of a want to prove kaylor to people who willfully don’t want to see it, and you no longer are holding out for vindication, then it just becomes more fun and easy and casual to think about and engage with the language of symbolism and optics that have proven themselves over a period of years.

this is why i often say that our blogs don’t exist for the purpose of proving kaylor to others. a lot of the more skeptical newcomers come here with an attitude of wanting to be told and expecting it.

but if you really really believe in kaylor all the way, when you really get there, you kind of become protective of the best parts, or, more open to letting go of correcting all the wildly incorrect things other parts of the fandom literally make up, and accusations of reaching for a lot of stuff don’t hurt anymore because it shouldn’t be smoking gun stuff or like me personally i like that a lot of stuff that i say about the eye theory sounds bonkers because, well, sometimes tempering one’s credibility from time to time is a good thing!

[ysphcpb]

Your thoughts on this? https://www.tumblr.com/waitmyturtles/711772662946463744/turtles-catches-up-with-old-gmmtv-sotus-edition

I'm not sure what was your expectation with this ask, but shortly put, I don't agree with most of the ideas and analysis in this review. Going into details might turn this into my own SOTUS review, so I'll only elaborate some main points in the 'readmore' section.

I think it makes sense that op interpretes the characters and the series so differently from how I do, because preferences and interpretation are supposed to be personal and subjective.

I would like to talk about this part, however.

"did GMMTV cast [Krist] because, maybe, he was having trouble getting other projects that would have required, say, acting? And GMMTV was like, well, this guy’s under contract, let’s throw him a bone with this experimental show we’re doing, and see how it goes?"

I don't know if this was meant to be a joke or not? but it is not true nonetheless. SOTUS casting, workshop and early filming took place before the series was picked up by gmmtv. Krist & Singto, freelancers at the time, went through 2 casting rounds of 400 people before they were finally cast as main leads. More details can be found in this post by P'Lit (director of SOTUS), where he shared his journey starting from being offered the job to the end of season 1, as well as his thoughts on some of the actors, including Krist.

+++

So to elaborate, here are some of my thoughts:

1) While I agree that there weren't many options at the time SOTUS came out, and the series does need a more polished script to be more appropriate for today's ideologies, I do not think limited choice was the only reason it achieved that big of a success. As can be easily checked in the comment section of SOTUS/SOTUS S/Our Skyy Arthit-Kongpob, alongside old fans coming back for rewatch there are still new viewers in this era discovering the series and loving it. This means that this type of series with these types of characters and dynamics can also adhere to many people's preferences, both in 2016 and till this day.

2) As I've said, it is a matter of subjective interpretation. Where they see Krist's bad acting, lack of eye-contact/reactivity and chemistry with his partner, I see Arthit's shyness, insecurity, fear of change and attention, and his effort to physically and vocally express affection out of his love for Kong. In my opinion, Krist did a great job with this character (as both a headhazer and Arthit's normal self), and the fact that Kongpob wholeheartedly loves him for who he is and respects his boundaries is one of the things I really like about this series.

In my view, SOTUS also does not just centre around a love story, but rather focuses on 2 equally big themes: the hazing system (for the first part), and the relationship of Kongpob & Arthit (the later part). I think the slow-burn direction fits well with these two themes, in that their relationship has more chance to progress after the hazing period has ended for freshmen, and hazers won't need to keep up their serious and unapproachable image.

3) I agree that there was a change in power dynamics, but not in the way discussed in this analysis.

"the issue that I bring up about power dynamics. Krust as Arthit was going to do something in this show that was rare at that moment: Arthit was going to move from a socially majority position to a minority position by falling in love with Kongpob. (...) in the Asian collectivist perspective -- you, as a uke, respond empathically, and maybe even try to meet your seme where your seme is at."

I personally don't like the implication that being shyer, less assertive to overtly show affection, and taking more time to navigate feelings, can make someone become the "minority position" in a relationship, regardless of sexual/romantic orientation, how collectivistic the culture is, how much the individual is affected by their culture, (and yes, regardless of whether the character was deemed as the "wife" in the novel/series or not). From how I see it, at the start, Arthit really was the one with more power, being a 2-year-older seniour and a headhazer that could literally give orders to Kongpob (and other freshmen). But as their relationship grows, there is actually more balance in how they mediate differences, take care of each other (more clearly shown in SOTUS S), and that they still regularly use honorifics with each other (even though Arthit is older and not socially required to).

That said, I think Arthit never stopped behaving and seeing himself as the older seniour, just as how Kongpob never stopped behaving and seeing himself as the younger juniour, which makes sense in a culture with age hierarchy like Thailand and is not necessarily a bad thing. Arthit is always the one who experiences things first (being a freshman, hazing, internship, graduating, having a job) and can give Kongpob advice when he asks for it. Arthit, as the older person, also feels more responsible and worries more about the outcome of their relationship and how it might affect Kongpob's future, which actually led to many conflicts in the series. This is consistent in the sequels as well.

4) I don't think the "I don't like men, I only like P'Arthit" line is problematic in the particular context of SOTUS. The line makes sense to me, expecially when accompanied by what comes next: "It's not the same. (...) If it's not P'Arthit, I won't like." Throughout the whole series, Kongpob was indeed never shown being interested in anyone (men or women), except for Arthit, whose kindness and cuteness impressed him. And from how I understand Kongpob as a character, I don't think he'd feel the need to say anything but the truth, especially to one of his close friends. In my view, while Kongpob is canonically not gay, he could easily be a representation for demiromantic or demisexual people.

Note: I have not watched most of the other series op mentioned in the post and can't comment on their reference to these shows. I also don't actively search for bls to watch, so I'm not that much of an expert in this category of series.

#asks #sotus the series #//sorry for the delay in replying

[just-late-roman-republic-things]

Just finished Brutus: The Noble Conspirator by Kathryn Tempest! Overall, I liked it. I don't agree with her portrayal of the first triumvirate or the Vettius affair, but everything about Brutus per se appears sound, and she does a good job of piecing together a biography out of limited and conflicting sources.

I think Tempest's greatest strength is explaining the different views people have taken of Brutus over time. Even in his lifetime, the assassination of Caesar was incredibly divisive, and people called Brutus everything from a "liberator fighting for our freedom," to "father-killer" and "the man who dragged us into civil war." As I read, I found myself mentally sorting his actions into "good" and "bad" columns like a balance sheet - a futile impulse, because you can't just math out ethics, but it's hard not to evaluate and judge.

Tempest doesn't ultimately take a stand on whether the assassination was justified, or whether we should thank or condemn Brutus for it. I'm glad she didn't; I like being given the chance to make up my own mind. I think my own stance is similar to Cassius': that the assassination was justified, but should have killed Antony and Lepidus as well.

But perhaps I'm speaking with hindsight bias, as Tempest rightly calls out. It's easy to judge Brutus, Caesar, and all their contemporaries with the assumption that they should have been able to see what we see now. If anything stands out from Tempest's account of the years 44-42, it's how bloody uncertain and mutable everything was. History could have gone in any direction; there was nothing inevitable about the end of the republic, the death of the liberators and the rise of Octavian. I have become distrustful of the word "inevitable," because the more closely I look at historical turning points, the more individual idiosyncrasies and accidents play a role.

I also appreciate Tempest's exploration of the "legend" of Brutus and Cassius. I found myself feeling sorry for Cassius, as one of the few survivors of Crassus' Parthian disaster, and whose disagreements with Brutus were always overruled but usually proved right. And it seems that historians and authors have loved to place the uglier side of the conspirators' actions on Cassius so they can make Brutus look nobler in comparison.

Brutus and Cassius both plotted, stabbed Caesar, ravaged and exploited Rome's eastern provinces, and raised armies in anticipation of civil war. To portray one as heroic and the other as a scoundrel, like Plutarch does, seems a bit silly. Why, is it because Brutus has a famous republican ancestor? Is it because he wrote philosophy books on the side? Is it because he shrank from killing Antony and Gaius Antonius - even though Brutus' harshness toward non-Romans shocked even his contemporaries?

For both Brutus and Caesar, the man has been overshadowed by the myth, and by our own fears, ideals, and other political baggage. We engage with them not as individuals, but as an allegory for our own age. Caesar is not Caesar, but a symbol of tyranny and oppression by the powerful, when we celebrate the Ides of March. Brutus is not Brutus, the aristocrat, the philosopher, the profiteering banker. He's a symbol of either freedom or betrayal, depending on who you ask. But Tempest's book explores both the man and the meaning we lay upon him, and for that, I can definitely recommend it.

#brutus: the noble conspirator #kathryn tempest #marcus junius brutus #historiography #jlrrt reads #book review #book rec

[valen-3o]

My thoughts on the whole Palestinen genocide.

Because i feel like I haven't talked about it enough

C.W. war, genocides, religious beliefs

I think it needs to be said. Its sickening when people (social media influencers e.c.t.) decided to use war as a profit to them creating content. For example, Palestine's genocide. Tiktok is a platform where people would do anything for views. Around mid October, Palestine was getting the attention it needed with everything going on. And now in February, the comparison to December is crazy. I'd say I'd get 1 video every 2 weeks talking about Palestine and what is happening. But it is nice to see some platforms (tumblr as an example) to never take a minute to stop talking abt Palestine. Because you shouldn't, and it goes for other wars and genocides. What's happening to Palestines social media status is what happened to Ukraine.

The ukraine war is still going on, but its rarely recognised anymore. People using wars and genocides like that as a trend is honestly sickening, its obvious thats what happened on tiktok with Palestine. And whether your talking abt one war to another. Never compare it. Obviously, some may be going through worse then others. But that doesn't mean the situation still isn't classified as good, as im sure no one wants to go through anything like war and genocides. If a video is about another war complete different to another, don't start comparing - both are just as bad.

I've seen some Ukraine posts going up, but yet all the comments are filled abt Palestine. Yes, Palestine should be free. But that specific post was talking abt a situation different to Palestine, and a whole different country. I agree that Palestine should be free no matter what. Yet, that doesn't make it okay to make other wars all about it.

I belive what Israel is doing is wrong and there is absolutely no justification to what they're are doing is right. Images show similarities to Nazi Germany compared to Israel. I do think some people would be pressured into thinking and believing what they are doing is right - due to religious reasoning.

It's important to recognize that not all Jewish people support Israel's actions towards Palestine, just as not all individuals of any group share the same views. The relationship between Jewish identity and support for Israel can be complex and varies widely among individuals. While some Jewish people may feel a strong connection to Israel and support its actions, others may critique or oppose certain policies or actions of the Israeli government. Yet that is not an excuse.

My final point, rishi sunak is an absolute cunt for his actions. Trying to stop protest and speaking abt Palestine is stupid. It just goes to show how he doesn't have control of the UK and needs to get a grip. It's sucks that he decides to support israel of all things.

In the end, what Israel is doing is bad. End of. Palestine deserves to be free no matter what. That's why do all you can to stop - protest, boycott, never stop talking about Palestine.

This is my opinion, what I say you do not have to agree with me. I might've said a few things not how i ment it as it doesnt come across well in text. However, if you support Israel and zionism, get off my blog.

#free palestine 🇵🇸 #from the river to the sea palestine will be free #free gaza 🇵🇸 #free palestine #genocide #my opinion

[sisterdivinium]

What do you think Suzanne’s view of Lilith is like? Do they have a good relationship? It’s like… I’m just wondering if Suzanne is low-key glad Lilith didn’t get the halo even though she’s next-in-line because she sees shades of her younger, brash and impatient self in her. Like, of course she would not want a repeat of that disaster and become the next Mother Superion to die because the halo-bearer is high on halo-induced power.

Hello!

As with the previous question I received, dear anon, yours demands that we tread slowly, for the show provides no direct answer to your query and we must dig it out of whatever information we do possess. We will, therefore, proceed in parts, building our interpretation as we go, attempting to base it on as much of the source material and on as little fancy as we can.

(beware, this is an image-heavy post!)

a) On Suzanne's view of Lilith as an individual

If there is one constant in Suzanne's character, it is her utter devotion to the women of the OCS; hiding it beneath layers of sternness or expressing it openly, that never changes within her. Whatever her own obscure objections to Ava when she first arrives at the Cat's Cradle, this unwilling halo bearer who rejects "the gift" Mother Superion had been denied, the nun's aversion to the newcomer is also tied to Ava's seeming contempt and disinterest for the girls she so loves and for their mission.

As it so happens, Lilith is among this select group of women under Mother Superion's wing. This alone would be enough to place her somewhere in Suzanne's good graces, but we also see Lilith "team up" with her in antagonising Ava at her first arrival. They complement one another, encircling, trapping Ava between them, as a hunter and a trusted hound cornering prey.

This cooperation, as despicable and unfair as it might be to us, betrays a convergence of values — to what degree, exactly, we cannot tell, but they are quite clearly on the same side, seeking a common goal.

Now, Lilith has probably never received a more maternal type of affection from our then emotionally stunted "Cruella de Jesus", but some level of approbation is highly likely. Association alone would have garnered her as much, but there is also the question of devotion to the cause that they both share and which we know is of the greatest importance to Suzanne.

Whether Mother Superion (or even Lilith herself) can at this point tell what the real motivation behind such devotion is has not the greater relevance of the fact that it is there — if Lilith truly believes in divine calling or if she's only trying to be loved by mummy dearest doesn't affect the end result that is her dedication. Even Suzanne's own reasons when she was halo bearer aren't necessarily clear to us; we know only that these are women with a drive and that this unites them for now.

Dedication, then, brings us to our second point:

b) On Suzanne's view on Lilith as halo bearer to be

Lilith is competent, skilled, prepared. Nobody denies that.

Yet it isn't a secret that she has a few character flaws one wouldn't usually expect from a nun, warrior or otherwise, and as much as she might have tried to hide these traits from her superiors, we know there is at least one less than ideal demonstration of them that Suzanne witnesses — and halts herself.

Simon has spoken of how father Vincent and Mother Superion oversaw the operations of the OCS, so we could assume that Lilith as next in line was something they both agreed on...

However, two other details might raise questions about how organically she gained such a position. First, Beatrice's recalling "the politics" of denying Lilith the halo as Vincent intended to do and, second, Duretti's involvement and insistence that all be done to ensure Lilith succeeded Shannon at once.

This could indicate exterior pressure for Vincent and Suzanne to nominate Lilith as next in line.

Which isn't to say Lilith didn't have the chops — it might just not have been the appropriate time, especially considering how easily she might give in to certain provocations tied to vanity. Arrogance, when belched out too frequently, is a marker of self-esteem issues rather than confidence — among other examples, Lilith's clear distress at being called "heartless" by Mary shows us just how dependent on other people's opinions she is, how vulnerable, even immature in a way.

The pride young Suzanne displayed and the one shown by Lilith appear to be of two very different origins: the former was cocky because she seemed to already know what she was worth (and so the halo's rejection later on stings even harder), whereas the latter is still searching. Lilith trains harder than anyone else because she is more lost than anyone else; to her, perhaps the halo might just buy her a mother as well as an identity.

Maybe these different natures of "pride" are also what allowed Lilith to be chosen despite any reservations Mother Superion might have had based on her attitude (if in fact she and Vincent had a say in it). Moreover, Lilith does appear to be more of a team player than young Suzanne ever was: feeling annoyed at how Ava leaves her behind during the "test", stepping in front of the tarask, heeding Beatrice's counsel at the catacombs instead of insisting...

That's a far cry from how young Suzanne temporarily incapacitated one of her own sisters before marching gloriously into her own downfall.

Would Lilith have acted differently had she been carrying the halo? We can't tell, it would all be conjecture. From what we've seen, for the most part, this Lilith we know would, as Beatrice would say, trust her team.

For that reason, leaving aside any wild speculation on what would have happened had Lilith been the warrior nun to free Adriel (if that would have even happened at all), I think Mother Superion had as good a relationship with her as either personality could allow for.

Then again, we know that Lilith's path deviates entirely from all that had been planned out for her and thus we arrive at:

c) Season two

It's unnecessary to recall how the two characters in question didn't really interact with one another in the course of these eight episodes, so this section will be short because from here on out we're on our own trying to decipher the nature of Suzanne's current perspective on Lilith.

One thing we learn for sure is that she ends the season rather contented and proud of Ava as the warrior nun — it's with her that she has found common ground now, it's with her that she shares common values.

Lilith, on the other hand, had started out without checking in with the nuns and ends up going out on her own, lonely way. Where once she exulted in following directives (at least when Duretti not so subtly gives her the green light to rip the halo from Ava's back...), now anything of the sort is odious to her.

Nobody would dream of considering Lilith for halo bearer in the odd chance something happened to Ava, regardless of whatever feelings might linger; she has betrayed the Order.

Given her recent conduct, Lilith might have lost her status and even, perhaps, the respect Suzanne had for her. Then again, at least for the time being, none of this is a priority for her; all of those things that had previously served to point her out as the next logical halo bearer, those things that chained her to an existence she probably had little say in, have been left behind. She might not know precisely who she is or what she wants yet, but the burden of carrying her family's legacy (and damned be her own desires) is gone.

There has been a rupture between them, yes — and it is not necessarily caused by the brashness once exhibited by both.

Instead, I think maybe Lilith's shirking of that vital principle that Suzanne values most of all, that sisterhood that justifies her devotion and defines her very core, would upset Mother Superion and make her glad that Lilith did not get the halo in the end more than anything else. That drive which united them is shattered now that Lilith treads a solitary path her own altered biology seems to claim for itself, whilst Suzanne is more than ever attuned to the importance of her community/communion of women.

That, I'd say, would justify any "satisfaction" with how things turned out — for how truly satisfied can you be when one of your own turns her back on you?

#warrior nun #mother superion #sister lilith #chats with anon #correspondence #i hope waiting an entire week for this was worth it anon i am sorry if not hjfdhjfd #i've spoken enough so i shall now be silent :x #analysis and similar #exercises in observation

[musical-chick-13]

so what is this fic actually about?

oh god. okay I'm going to put this under a cut because of the topics involved.

Content warning for: discussions of consent (which includes mentioning non-con themes), discussions of intense kink practices, and references to cult-related trauma as per DW canon.

I will continue tagging all posts about this fic, as well as posting the fic itself, with "The Fic That's A Lot," as well as "c2g" which is an abbreviation of its title.

MINORS DO NOT INTERACT WITH THIS IN ANY WAY, I MEAN IT

I am going to be frank, this fic is about CNC. If you don't know what that is...well, it's highly probable this is not the story for you. But I will provide an explanation anyway if anyone's curious.

CNC stands for, in this context, "Consensual Non-Consent," which probably seems like an oxymoron. It refers to people roleplaying a fictional scenario where one of the parties involved pretends (key word pretends) to object to, protest, or otherwise not want to participate in a sexual encounter--this is what the "non-consent" part of the name refers to. Meanwhile, the other party pretends (again, key word pretends) to coerce the protesting party into some kind of sexual activity. The parties are, in a sex/kink situation, acting out a pre-agreed scene--which is what the "consensual" part of the name refers to, that pre-agreement--of non-consent.

It is important to note that this is not the same thing as actual assault: Boundaries are intensively discussed beforehand, and everyone involved decides together on a separate safeword and/or physical movement that anyone can use to end the roleplay scene immediately. Someone may be using words like "Stop" or "No" within the scene itself because they are playing the role of someone who does not consent to what is currently happening (akin to acting in a play or a movie, where an actor has to pretend to like or dislike or approve or disapprove or want or not want various things, regardless of whether any of that matches up with who they actually are as a person--in a CNC scenario, the people are playing characters, albeit in a much, much more intense way). But if something happens in this roleplay scene that someone does genuinely object to, there is a separate mechanism (sometimes several mechanisms) serving as a way out, fulfilling the function that something like "stop" or "get away from me" would fulfill in a non-CNC encounter.

ALL OF THIS TO SAY. The premise of this particular story examines how both of these characters (this is an 11/R fic, and I am trying very hard to make sure this post doesn't end up in the show or character tags) would get to the point where they realize this is something they want to do. And then, from there, once they've separately and individually realized that: What do they discover about themselves and their relationship in the process? How do they talk about it once it becomes clear that this is something they both want? How do they feel about wanting it? How does this interact with the woman in question having a background of, essentially, being brainwashed by a cult and having her childhood stolen? And how does this situation relate to how these characters view the concepts of control and romantic love? (Honestly, even more than the CNC itself, which is something that gets frequently maligned as romanticizing/normalizing abuse when people write about it, the most controversial part of this is that I put her in the sub role and not the dom role, lmao. Which I have a whole essay in my brain on why that is based on various lines/scenes/behavior in canon, but I don't think that's important right now and also this answer is already too goddamn long.) And then, in addition to all those aforementioned things, what are some of the other facets of their relationship outside of this?

Like I have mentioned at-length. This is. A lot. There's a reason the average person does not engage with CNC. And there is a lot of communication and set up that has to happen for this to work. (I had to do. SO much research for this.) But I want to confirm that nothing actually non-consensual happens in this story. He doesn't ever come anywhere remotely near hurting her (he doesn't even actually fantasize about anything, he just realizes he Has Some Particular Ideas and then feels really bad about them). And although I'm not going to spoil specifics, they both have a very positive experience with it.

I will say, though this is dual pov, more of it is from his perspective, and he is acting out the role of the aggressor. So that's another thing people need to be mindful of if they have an interest in reading this once it's up.

#The Fic That's A Lot #c2g #I am...not sure how to tag this #tw: cult mention #tw: cnc #tw: assault mention #tw: abuse mention #minors dni #minors do not interact #nsft #I *think* that's it? if there's something else I need to trigger tag for PLEASE let me know #I am going to be turning off anonymous asks after I post this answer #I don't anticipate the people who have been following this saga in detail sending a torch-and-pitchforks mob at me but random other #people might find this post through my blog & I don't trust random other people. like I said: when people write about this #there are LOTS of accusations thrown around about 'romanticizing/normalizing assault or abuse' regardless of how it's written #and I just do NOT have the energy for that lmao #(I mean people throw around those accusations about people who do this irl too #but no irl people ARE doing anything here because this is a story) #(and honestly I really just don't think I have the right to tell people what they can or can't do in their sex lives) #and also. someone's niche fic on ao3 doesn't '''owe''' potential readers the most Nuanced Discussion Of A Topic Ever #at the end of the day these are completely fictional characters and--by virtue of being. not real--nothing anyone does in writing #can ever hurt them. just tag all your stuff correctly and make sure you know internally what your own irl values are #and remember that sometimes people are just...going to have an interest in exploring shit that you're going to find weird. #but it doesn't involve you so you've got to practice going 'huh that's weird don't like that' and move on #(<-including myself in this I also need to practice this)

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

how do you and aife get the characterization and dialogues quite right? There is distinctive voice from every character you guys had introduced to story

how do you find the character’s inner voice and write their lines so distinctive

i just feel whenever i am trying to write a story, every character has my voice

Hi eva, first, thank you!! That's a very nice thing to hear about our writing! Co-writing with @aifsaath is great because we have writing styles that are different but complementary, and we work hard to work the parts that we each draft individually into a coherent whole, but we have different processes, so I'll answer for myself first.

My own writing is influenced a lot by writers like Robin Hobb, who writes from both reflective first person past tense and close third person past tense points of view, and Tim O'Brien, who I think taught me the most about using sentence length and structure to control tempo and evoke emotion. I wrote my own novel in first person past tense from the point of view of a character extremely unlike me, and I think that really gave me good practice digging into my characters' psyches and figuring out what makes them tick. I strive to give my characters, whether they're original characters or borrowed characters, a rich inner voice, so it's very gratifying that you've noted that.

Aife and I both agree that having a strong sense of empathy for our characters is essential to creating a unique voice for each. In a way, you have to step into each character's shoes when writing from their POVs. And so you have to ask yourself, how would this character use language when they are speaking, and how can I create an inner voice with this character through my use of language. Word choice, sentence length, syntax, register, all of these things contribute to the character's voice.

So, for instance, our Aegon has a slightly stronger interiority than our Baela, because his personality is more introspective. He's either in his head, or trying to avoid being in his head. When I'm in Aegon's POV, my sentences narrating his thoughts tend to be longer and more complex to reflect that, and you'll see him sometimes willfully push certain thoughts from his mind. In his dialogue, he's more likely to be sarcastic or wry, to ramble when he's nervous, and to clams up when he's uncomfortable (which is shown by using short, terse sentences). By comparison, our Baela is a more straightforward thinker. When she's being introspective, she tends to draw conclusions from her own prior experiences, drawing from memories, rather than navel gaze or turn self critical. She's more direct, and she owns her feelings more than Aegon does, so both her inner voice and her dialogue tends to be very matter of fact. You might notice quirks like how Baela tends to interrupt her thought process to speak out loud, or how she sometimes realizes after the fact that she might have said something she shouldn't have. You might see more declaratives from Baela, and less hesitation, and she's less likely than Aegon to create distance through formal language.

I think ultimately a lot of this becomes easier with practice. If you start off very deliberate, it becomes more natural the more you write, and the better you get to know your characters the more easily you are able to step into their shoes and write with their voices.

#writing asks #evabluepark888 #characterization #our fathers clad in red #aegon ii targaryen

[littlesparklight]

Okay, so - Archaic-wise on view of the Underworld, on the one hand you have the Homeric "everyone is in the Underworld/Asphodel, no differentiation, no different destination, it's dreary and kinda empty but not actively depressing and certainly not painful" sort of thing.

Elysium/the Blessed Isles clearly exist in some way, but who even is there? The Odyssey mentions Rhadamanthys, and yet even Achilles and Herakles(/or just the echo/shade of Herakles depending on what you go with) are in the "general" Underworld to all appearances, not in this nicer place.

On the other you have the Hesiodic "the demigods/heroes of the heroic age end up, having died or not, removed to Elysium/the Blessed Isles" idea, where there's a clear separation going on here; some people, certainly more than in the Homeric partition, ends up in this blessed/paradisical afterlife.

Going with this and building on the idea that maybe something changed at some point... can you imagine how weird it must've been for the first demigods (and potentially lovers of gods? whether or not they're demigods, just having been shown some sort of divine "favour" at some point) to being moved to Elysium/the Blessed Isles? No change in anything else, probably no explanation, just now you somehow get to be staying here in this much nicer place where you feel and seem to be basically alive again.

Would the change be post-Trojan war? Earlier, ignoring the Odyssey's Underworld set-up?

If it's early enough there are only a few who first end up there instead of a sudden deluge of them, that would've been extra strange, I think!

Some ruminations on potential instigating circumstances/individuals under the cut!

Iasion - Demeter demanding some sort of compensation, if not for herself then her lover, for his death, out of Zeus.

Dardanos - as the earliest of "most loved of mortal sons" of Zeus (Herakles and Perseus would be later, and so would the Dioscuri). Zeus might want something better/more for him, but I doubt Poseidon would be pleased Zeus trying to show such favour in the afterlife, and Hades would probably want some sort of balance, so all demigods sparked from this one desire of giving this loved son something more after he dies.

Perseus - another easy potential option.

Controversial, but; Poseidon raising a stink about Hallirhthous and wanting something as compensation, and both Zeus and Hades only agree/cooperate when it's applied more generally.

These are all more or less early; if it's post-Trojan war, I'd imagine there was no one in particular who sparked the change, merely as a part of Zeus' plan to end the Heroic age and the gods withdrawing a little, yet giving the heroes of the age their "reward", too.

#greek mythology #greek myth thoughts