#is simply factually incorrect | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

kindnessoverperfection · 9 months

Text

Please, if you can, take a moment to read and share this because I feel like I'm screaming underwater.

NPD (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) stigma is rampant right now, and seems to be getting progressively worse. Everyone is using it as a buzzword in the worst ways possible, spreading misinformation and hatred against a real disorder.

I could go on a long time about how this happened, why it's factually incorrect (and what the disorder actually IS), why it's harmful, and the changes I'd like to see. But to keep this concise, I'll simply link to a few posts under the cut for further reading.

The point of this post is a plea. Please help stop the spread of stigma. Even in mental health communities, even around others with personality disorders, in neurodivergent "safe" spaces, other communities I thought people would be supportive in (e.g. trans support groups, progressive spaces in general), it keeps coming up. So I'm willing to bet that a lot of people on this site need to see this.

Because it's so hard to exist in this world.

My disorder already makes me feel as if I'm worthless and unlovable, like there's something inherently wrong and damaged about me. And it's so much harder to fight that and heal when my daily life consists of:

Laughing and spending time with my friends, doing my utmost best to connect and stay present and focused on them, trying to let my guards down and be real and believe I'm lovable- when suddenly they throw out the word "narcissist" to describe horrible people or someone they hate, or the conversation turns to how evil "people with narcissistic personality disorder" are. (Seriously, you don't know which of your friends might have NPD and feels like shit when you say those things & now knows that you'd hate them if you knew.)

Trying to look up "mental health positivity for people with npd", "mental health positivity cluster bs", only to find a) none of that, and b) more of the same old vile shit that makes me feel terrible about myself.

Having a hard time (which is constant at this point) and trying to look up resources for myself, only to again, find the same stigma. And no resources.

Not having any clue how to help myself, because even the mental health field is spitting so much vitriol at people with DISORDERS (who they're supposed to be helping!) that there's no solid research or therapy programs for people like me.

Losing close friends when they find out, despite us having had a good relationship before, and them KNOWING me and knowing that I'm not like the trending image of pwNPD. Because now they only see me through the lens of stigma and misinformation.

Hearing the same stigma come up literally wherever I go. Clubs. Meetings. Any online space. At the bus stop. At the mall. At a restaurant. At work. Buzzword of the year that everyone loooves loudly throwing around with their friends or over the phone. Feels awesome for me, makes my day so much better/s

I could go on for a long time, but I'm scared no one will read/rb this if it gets too much longer.

So please. Stop using the word "narcissist" as a synonym for "abusive".

Stop bringing up people you hate who you believe to have NPD because of a stigmatizing article full of misinformation whenever someone with actual NPD opens their mouth. (Imagine if people did that with any other disorder! "Hey, I'm autistic." "Oh... my old roommate screamed at me whenever I made noise around him, and didn't understand my needs, which seems like sensory overload and difficulty with social cues. He was definitely autistic. But as long as you're self-aware and always restraining your innate desire to be an abusive asshole, you're okay I guess, maybe." ...See how offensive and ignorant that is?)

Stop preventing healthcare for people with a disorder just because it's trendy to use us as a scapegoat.

If you got this far, thank you for reading, and please share this if you can. Further reading is under the cut.

NPD Criteria, re-written by someone who actually has NPD

Stigma in the DSM

Common perception of the DSM criteria vs how someone may actually experience them (Keep in mind that this is the way I personally experience these symptoms, and that presentation can vary a lot between individuals)

"Idk, the stigma is right though, because I've known a lot of people with NPD who are jerks, so I'm going to continue to support the blockage of treatment for this condition."

(All of these were written by me, because I didn't want to link to other folks' posts without permission, but if you want to add your own links in reblogs or replies please feel free <3)

#actuallynpd #signal boost #actuallyautistic #mental health awareness #narcissistic personality disorder #people also need to realize that mental health professionals aren't immune from bias #(it really shouldn't come as a shock that the mental health field has a longstanding pattern of misunderstanding and mistreating ppl who ar #mentally ill or otherwise ND)#the first therapist i brought up NPD to like. literally pulled out the DSM bc she could barely remember the criteria. then said that there'#no way I have it because I have low self-esteem lmaoooooo #anyway throwback to being at work and chatting with a co-worker. and the conversation turning to mental health. and him saying that #he tries to stay informed and be aware and supportive of mental health conditions & that he doesn't want to be ignorant or spread harmful #misinformation. and then i mentioned that i do a lot of research into mental health stuff and i listed a bunch of things. which included #several personality disorders. one of which was NPD.#and after listening to my whole ass list he zeroed in on the NPD and immediately started talking about how narcissists are abusive and #he knew someone who had NPD and how the person who had it had an addiction and died from the addiction in a horrible way and he #was glad he did #fun times #or when i decided to be vulnerable and talk abt my self-criticism/self-hatred bc i knew my friends also struggled w that and i wanted to #support them by sharing my own coping methods. and they both(separately!) started picking and prodding at my npd through the lens of stigma #bc i'd recently opened up to them abt having it. they recognized self-hatred as a symptom and still jumped on me for it. despite me #trying to share hurt vulnerable parts of myself to help them and connect with them.#again..... fun times

7K notes · View notes

animasphinx · 2 years

Note

Ur claim on why poly people are ‘oppressed’ because they can’t get married…go to Utah or the Middle East and live out ur rainbow polygamy life style there

you might be shocked to learn this but utah and "the middle east" are only 2 locations on an entire planet

also polygamy and polyamory aren't the same

also also, "poly people" as in "Polynesian people" and polyamory aren't the same either

good job making yourself look stupid AND racist ❤️

#im not even gonna get into how your ask is simply Factually Incorrect and Also Racist

0 notes

serialunaliver · 2 months

Text

every time I see something factually incorrect on my dash but have to hold myself back from starting shit over it because it's simply not an important enough topic to start shit with someone over I feel like i'll explode. i've always got to remind myself "if I respond to that post with a wall of text i'll look insane". I mean neurodivergent

215 notes · View notes

silentcrowsilentravens · 2 years

Note

Good day Raven! Could you please write Resident Evil's villainess's reacting to their SO calling them cute?

Just because they're murderers and stuff doesn't mean that I don't do this constantly.

Mother Miranda, Donna Beneviento, Daniela Dimitrescu, Cassandra Dimitrescu, Bela Dimitrescu, Alex Wesker, and Alcina Dimitrescu reacting to their s/o calling them cute.

(Gender neutral).

Warnings: brief reference to sex.

Masterlists here!

Mother Miranda

You are not only the only person to consider Mother Miranda cute of all things, but also the only person comfortable enough with her to say it to her face.

When the words first leave your lips, you make her pause what she's doing.

It takes her a moment to fully process what you said. Then, she slowly turns her head to look at you and hits you with a >:^ face.

You're lucky that you're cute and Miranda loves you. Otherwise, a comment like that would make her kill you where you stand <3

She seems genuinely offended that you would regard her in such a way. Have you forgotten who she is? The things she’s done? What’s she capable of? How could you—

(Alright, maybe there’s a very, very small part of Miranda that’s... amused? Clearly, she’s too soft with you).

(Not that she’s going to do anything about it).

“I am most certainly not ‘cute’,” she tells you flatly before returning to her work.

Donna Beneviento

Uh oh! Seems that you've rendered Donna unable to form a coherent sentence!

Or thought, for that matter.

The remark instantly flusters her. Her brain is just going agdadjshkjakall.

She bows her head down slightly.

Although she has her veil on, she brings her hands up to cover her cheeks, which you’ve managed to make flush red.

I hope that you plan on paying Angie the same compliment because she’ll be upset and offended if you don’t.

And she’ll probably bite your ankle. Or whatever gets closest to her mouth first. She isn’t picky.

Daniela Dimitrescu

Daniela is super fucking cute and she knows it. A cute lil' 6'3" murderous fly woman <3

And she loves hearing you call her cute. It’s one of her favorite compliments to receive.

You say the word and Dani just...

Gives you a big ol’ (often bloody) grin. Starts full on cheesing.

You get to hear a giggle from her as well.

She tells you that you are too, and then she gives you a quick kiss.

Cassandra Dimitrescu

Cassandra immediately bristles and gives you an offended look.

Cute? Cute??? Never before has a mortal dared to say that to her.

...You know, when she thinks about it, you’ve dared to do a whole lot around her that most other mortals don’t.

That’s the thing that drew Cass to you in the first place.

"And?" she eventually says.

Upon reflection, surprisingly, she doesn't mind being called cute. By you and you alone, that is.

...As long as you also call her fearsome or hot right after.

"And also so very terrifying."

Oh! If you're going to go around saying it, it better be in private. She will be genuinely upset if others are around. Especially her sisters. She would never hear the end of it.

Bela Dimitrescu

Bela is quiet for a moment.

“No <3.”

“No?” you echo.

In her eyes, you are mistaken. Wrong. Factually incorrect!

You see, that is a word Bela sometimes uses to describe you, but it simply is not applicable to her.

Don’t even try to argue with her. After all the time that Bela has spent around her sisters, she’s gotten very good at winning arguments. You will lose.

Alex Wesker

At first, Alex doesn't even realize that you're talking to her.

She does hear you, though, and wonders what the hell has you using that loving tone you reserve just for her.

When Alex turns to you and finds your gaze on her, she is not very amused.

Cute is not a descriptor she’s going to let you use for her.

Alex will let you get away with it just this once. But do that again and she'll take you to the bedroom to punish you. Then you'll see just how "cute" she is.

...Well, I guess that might be an incentive for you to keep saying it...

Alcina Dimitrescu

Many words have been used to describe Lady Alcina Dimitrescu and cute is not one of them.

When you call her that, it fully takes her aback.

You can't help it, though. This woman can be so ridiculously soft with you, and when she gives you a blatantly pouty look? Right after you push back her request to cuddle a few minutes so that you can finish what you're doing? It's cute.

Alcina straightens up and by the expression on her face, you'd think that you just said the most insulting thing possible.

She lets out a scoff.

The scoff is then followed by her going on an impressively long rant about the reasons why you’re wrong.

2K notes · View notes

2ctheocean · 1 year

Text

So I just finished re-reading the hunger games trilogy and I feel the need to respond to the claim that "Katniss never wanted kids so she shouldn't have had them". That is factually incorrect. I'm all for female protags never having children, but to label Katniss that way is fundementally misunderstanding her trauma and the healing that has occured in her having children.

Children are not the only way to thrive. Obviously. You can be just as happy childless (if not more so) as someone with a house full of kids. But Katniss, despite her gruff, traumatized exterior, has always had a nurtuering side (as seen by any given interaction she has with anyone younger than 12). That's partially the Eldest Daughter Effect, sure. But there's no reason to suspect she wouldn't want kids in a world where it was safe to have them. We shouldn't make having kids the default option, but we can suspect she would want them based on how much she values family and her personality. If the world was safe.

But the world is not safe.

So, Katniss never allowed herself to want children.

She doesn't even think about allowing herself to want children. Instead, in Catching Fire, she instead imagines a world where Peeta's child could live and grow up safe. She does not picture herself as the mother, because A) She's planning to give her life for his in the arena and B)She knows the second she starts picturing that image, she will yearn for it. And then the capital will rip it away from her.

This is supported in the epilogue, where she describes her overwhelming fear that she will have her daughter ripped away from her when she feels her growing inside her.

For obvious reasons, she closed off the consideration for being a parent while she was very young. She spent so much or her childhood, even before the hunger games, being traumatized by the world. Not just by the yearly reaping and by watching the games, but by extreme hunger. Having children is almost a selfish decision in her eyes, because of the hellish life she's led. She doesn't want to put her children through that. So she takes the choice off the table and decides its not an option. She won't even risk having a husband for fear of having them, why she's never even considered having a boyfriend or a lover.

In short, Katniss recognizes that the world is not safe. That, even if she is the best mother in the world, she cannot protect her children from the capital, from the games or from the world, so having them is something she simply won't consider, because the facts of her world make it the obvious choice. A lot of people who want kids in this reality, where we can largely protect our children, would make the same choice in her world. Gale even voices this mindset, but the idea that things can be any different is so ridicoulous and impossible to Katniss that she cannot allow herself even that. She's too traumaitized to even consider a better world, too hyperixated on the survivial of herself and those she loves that are already here.

But in the epilogue, she's healing. She can focus on other things now. She can enjoy things again. She's not scrambling to survive day to day. She doesn't need to hunt, she does it because she likes it. Slowly, she allows herself to feel safe.

She has bad days, and even describes being afraid of loosing what she has, highlighting that healing is not linear. But she's healed enough to the point that she feels safe enough to want things. Possibilities that she's never considered, never allowed herself to consider, are avaliable. She can finally allow herself to want children.

Because the world is finally safe enough for them to grow up in, and Katniss finally feels safe in that world. She acknowledges that it won't feel like that every day, that it doesn't, because healing is not linear and she'll always have good days and bad. But her healing has reached a point where she finally feels safe enough to want more than survival for herself and the people she already has. She wants to thrive.

#hunger games #katniss everdeen #katniss and peeta #We don't talk about Suzanne Collin's understanding of trauma #Trauma #Healing #Basically all of the named characters are traumatized #But Katniss and the other victors have PTSD #OP has a social work degree and uses it in weird ways #also tagging this as #a ballad of songbirds and snakes

412 notes · View notes

utilitycaster · 9 days

Text

@rowzeoli replied to your post “Do you think part of the D20 journalistic bias...”:

I rarely go on tumblr so sorry if you see me spamming your posts tonight, but I really enjoy your perspective and thoughts! I think I'm the journalist you're referencing in regards to the Fantasy High Junior Year article and unfortunately 1) journalists only get access to interview subjects at very specific junctions (usually press day before the series goes out or halfway through) 2) most publications are honestly Going Through It and cutting freelance rates and just not paying to cover AP

So I'll be totally honest - I post on Tumblr because I assume it is far more unlikely to be seen and so I can vent freely (hence the fairly harsh tone of the criticism in the original post), but I guess this is a chance to clarify. I don't expect anything to change, nor do I expect you to respond; indeed, I wouldn't blame you if you block me after this. But if readership is down (and who knows? maybe it's not and I'm the outlier), this may be illuminating.

The issue with your specific article - which I brought up relatively tangential to the larger point of "at this point I think Polygon's AP/TTRPG coverage is a waste of time to read" isn't really that it's only an early look at the series; and because Fantasy High Junior Year is at this time ongoing, it's honestly entirely valid that there hasn't been a follow-up. It's, well, the "surface-level and factually wrong" issue.

Dimension 20 was by no means the pioneer of remote recording as you claim in your article; that had long been the default of smaller recorded AP shows well before pandemic lockdown for the simple reason that if you're not a media company the overhead is very low - no need to have a dedicated space or even cameras beyond decent laptops. Burrow's End's puppetry? Critical Role's Call of Cthulhu: Shadow of the Crystal Palace did shadow puppets in 2019. They had diagetic audio on the main campaign as early as 2016. I don't even like Kollok, but that's had complex set design since 2019. Meanwhile premise of the article is yet another rehash of Polygon's "Dimension 20 is CHANGING THE GAME" constant drumbeat, while your actual pull quotes from Brennan Lee Mulligan are him musing that this is simply an entry in an ancient tradition of storytelling and isn't, in fact, terribly novel. The interview fails utterly to back up your point and indeed contradicts it; I get that the timeline was probably tight but this is outright incorrect in multiple places and your argument isn't just unsupported; it's outright dismissed by the very person you claim is proving it. If the premise came before the interview, it needed to be reworked afterwards, and if it came after the interview…I'm not sure what to say, really.

This isn't your article, and I'm putting it here to illustrate that this has been a pattern for Polygon's AP coverage specifically. This article about Worlds Beyond Number is perhaps my favorite example of "this is not serious journalism:" Rusty Quill Gaming, The Adventure Zone, Friends at the Table, and NADDPod are all theater of the mind long-running podcasts (RQG's campaign lasted a whopping 7 years of real time) and that's just off the top of my head; the idea of a long-running edited audio podcast being novel is laughable. RQG and TAZ both started at level 1; I'm not personally familiar with Friends at the Table. I don't actually think starting at level 1 vs. 2 is terribly important in storytelling in the first place other than that a few D&D classes pick their subclass at L2 and that choice can be narratively relevant, which it was in TAZ; however, some classes pick a subclass at L3 so you can still achieve this with a level 2 start (as Critical Role's second campaign does). Both Emily Axford of NADDPod and Griffin McElroy of TAZ have long been composing their own music and RQG is heavily sound designed. These are not obscure pulls, either; these are some of the more well-known names in the space.

At this point, Polygon AP/TTRPG articles - by multiple different writers - simply feel like madlibs: "(actual play show) is groundbreaking in its (thing that other shows have been doing for 5+ years); I especially liked (visual effect) and (incorrect understanding of TTRPG mechanics)."

The people I allude to in the post you responded to as having egregiously uncharitable and sanctimonious takes on Daggerheart (within, again, hours of its publication) are a frequent Polygon contributor and a Rascal editor and they further my mistrust of those publications: There is this constant insistence that everything they like be "groundbreaking" and "innovating" and they will claim this even when it's demonstrably not the case, as the above examples note. As Mulligan says in your article "it’s important to keep new artists with new experiences and backgrounds flowing in," and yet by focusing intensely on high production values (difficult for smaller indie upstarts to have) and by incorrectly claiming that a well-established media company within the space like D20 invented a number of things it flat out did not, this journalism is actively, if unintentionally, working against that goal. As I put it elsewhere, Polygon's bizarre pedestaling of Dimension 20 and simultaneous putdowns of Critical Role (which turn into wild contortions when D20 mainstays like Mulligan or Aabria Iyengar collaborate with CR; for that matter others besides me have observed that Polygon acts like Spenser Starke is two different people, the genius who created Alice is Missing and the knuckle-dragging moron who put out Candela Obscura and Daggerheart) coupled with the obsession with production values over story has the whiff of claiming they're the champion of the little guy for sticking it to the 700 lb gorilla in the space and then focusing on 500 lb gorillas while making it impossible for smaller monkeys to compete because most brand new shows without the name recognition of someone like Mulligan involved can't exactly hire Rick Perry to do their models or Taylor Moore to do sound design.

I suppose a good way to put this, since I've run into this in many spaces, not just AP/TTRPG or even journalism, is that bias on its own in a subjective medium isn't inherently bad; but if something is so nakedly biased against something I love, I will, naturally, turn to it with a far more critical eye, and if its arguments are not ironclad I'm going to start noticing every structural issue in every argument and every tiny mistake. Sure, as a fan of Critical Role, and as someone who feels that Kollok was nigh-unwatchable and that Burrow's End was promising in parts but deeply flawed, I disagreed with Polygon's nonstop mud-slinging towards the former and glowing, verging on fawning reviews of the latter two. But that's not entirely damning on its own; I do get that not everyone will like Critical Role and that some people will love Kollok or Burrow's End for valid reasons. What's damning is the journalism itself is riddled with factual errors and the analysis is so weak that to call the arguments a flimsy house of cards would be generous. The opposite is also true; if Polygon's lead editor were out here repeatedly misspelling the name of one of the main characters in Worlds Beyond Number (note: this has since been corrected) but the articles had compelling arguments, even ones I disagreed with, I'd be far more forgiving, but as is? It's offering me absolutely nothing: it's poorly researched, it's poorly structured, it's poorly written, it's poorly copy-edited, and it shits on things I like seemingly just for clicks. I'm done giving clicks.

I am deeply sympathetic to the pressures facing digital journalism and media and the arts in general; as someone who is fortunate enough not to personally face those pressures and has the income to be a patron, I would love to help in my small way (and I do, at least, financially support a number of the AP shows I love). But the quality of some of this journalism is truly so bad that I can't bring myself to support the institutions putting it out; it's "dead dove do not eat" until such time as someone whose analysis and opinions I do trust cites them (or, perhaps, until there is a sea change of lead editorship). I know that this won't help the crunch, and may make it worse, but I just can't because the quality is so poor. I don't have a good solution to how to write about something that takes a lot of time to watch and process and about which the articles pay very little in return, but the current strategy of bouncing between uninformed provocateur and utter sycophant depending on the show and creators; of drooling over such surface features as shiny production and falsely claiming everything is "groundbreaking" while getting the most basic facts wrong has driven me away.

#rowzeoli #i'm leaving this rebloggable but other people...try to be respectful i will turn off reblogs if need be.#long post

70 notes · View notes

edenfenixblogs · 2 months

Note

Hi, I have a question and you seem like a really balanced person, so here goes: I want to join a drag king collective, and I’m so excited about it, but the king leading it has some Interesting views. It’s the kind of thing where it’s constant “fuck Zionists” and what feels like extremely performative activism (Palestinian flag in bio but no actual fundraising/peace efforts, posting misinformation/irresponsible rhetoric etc.) I’m scared that if I join it I’ll be treated different, and even more scared that my friends will think the antisemitism justified (they aren’t great at understanding what antisemitism looks like these days). Idk what to do about the fear of someone being antisemitic because I don’t want it to stop me from doing what I want, but I also know it’ll devastate me if it does happen. If you can offer any insight I’ll be very grateful.

Hi friend!

I'm really glad you reached out to me. Not because I pretend to know all the answers, but because I love that we can all rely on each other during this time.

Unfortunately, whether you sign up for this is ultimately a matter of your own personal priorities and how you are prone to handle confrontation.

Personally, if it was me, I would join. I'm not afraid of defending myself (but I very much used to be, so no shame if you're not there yet). If I wanted to explore my gender identity through performance (if indeed that is what you are doing. I've never been personally drawn to perform drag, so I cannot pretend to know exactly why one might start. But I don't think I'm out of line to assume that it involves some kind of exploration or critique of gender both personally and societally) I certainly wouldn't let antisemites be the reasons I didn't go for it.

If the Anti-Zionist jerk starts coming at you, you can simply say "OK, great. Real quick question: What's a Zionist?" And watch him squirm to say anything real or substantive other than "a Jew." He might say, "They're basically Nazis!" or "They're people who want Palestinians to suffer!" or some other confidently incorrect hyperbolic statement. If he does so, you can say, "Oh! Well, then that's definitely not what I am," and move on.

If he says something slightly more substantive, like, "They're people who think Jews should get to take land from Arabs/Palestinians in order to have a Jewish ethnostate!" You can use the same response as above. But you can also say, "Oh, weird. That's definitely not what I thought it was. Which Zionist Jews have said this, exactly? Cuz I heard it was something completely different." Remember, their goal isn't actually to educate you or help anyone or even to provide limited but factual information. The goal is to shame you into aligning with their self-righteous point of view. That is not an effective tactic when you respond with QUESTIONS instead of outright CORRECTIONS. Making people explain themselves is a great way to defang a bad faith accusation like that.

Finally, they might say, "It's someone who supports Israel." In this case, either of the above methods will work. Or you could question even further. Here's an example of a chat:

You: Supports Israel how?

Jerkface: They want Biden to use our tax dollars to fund a genocide!

You: Oh, well then I'm definitely not a Zionist.

Jerkface: No, you don't understand! It's people who think that Jews can only be safe in a settler colonial apartheid ethnostate that justified its existence by crying about the Holocaust.

You: Well then I'm still not a Zionist. I don't know why you're assuming these things about me. But people should generally cry about the Holocaust. It was really bad thing that people did to Jews. Do you not think the Holocaust is a big deal?

Jerkface: Of course I think it was a big deal. That's why we all have to condemn THIS genocide. The Jews are the Nazis now.

You: I don't know. I don't think that' show Nazism works. But I definitely don't like genocide. If liking genocide makes a Zionist, then I'm definitely not whatever you're accusing me of.

Jerkface: No! I'm just saying that Zionists don't want a ceasefire. They're trying to kill all the Palestinians.

You: I don't know what to tell you then. Because that's still not me. Of course I want Hamas and Israel to both stop bombing each other.

Jerkface: No, Palestine is JUSTIFIED in bombing Israelis because of the oppression.

You: I think its weird that you're conflating Palestinians with Hamas. Are you saying that Palestinian civilians are bombing Israel as as a protest tactic? I thought for sure that Hamas, a terrorist organization, was the group responsible for Anti-Israeli violence. Personally, I've always though that most Palestinians just want to live in peace and don't support terrorism and violence. I don't know why it would harm Palestinians to suggest that both Israel and Hamas should end this conflict diplomatically rather than with violence.

Jerkface: Right! That's why we need to tell Biden to call for a ceaseefire!

You: OK, but I still don't know if you're saying Israel should just stop firing or that Israel and Hamas should stop bombing. I definitely want everyone to stop bombing each other. But I'm not really sure why Hamas would care about what Biden says.

etc...

I call this the "Rabbi method," because when you go to a rabbi, they never really give you an answer to your question. They answer with other questions designed to get them to see their own answer.

Either Hamas is a terrorist group unfairly targeting Israeli civilians and launching bombs into civilian territories--something that is clearly bad and which makes average Palestinian civilians innocent victims (this is the truth btw) that require both Hamas and Israel too lay down their arms. OR Palestinians and Hamas are interchangeable terms and the ongoing oppression of Palestinians have driven them to violent, offensive, armed resistance--which you may or may not agree with as a revolutionary tactic (To be clear, this is NOT TRUE OF PALESTINIANS. PALESTINIANS ARE NOT TERRORISTS AND DO NOT DESERVE TO BE BOMBED). Palestine IS NOT HAMAS. Hamas is bombing Israeli civilians.

Israel is retaliating with extreme force and prejudice against a terrorist organization in a way that is devastating the lives and futures of Palestinian Civilians, who very much deserve for all sides to lay down their weapons and address their mutual grievances diplomatically and responsibly. What is occurring right now is a messy, ugly, brutal war that is killing and traumatizing all civilians in the Levant. And a one-sided ceasefire leaves the side that ceases firing dead. A ceasefire means that EVERYONE must cease firing.

Unless Jerkface has a plan for how to ensure the safety of Palestinian civilians from Hamas that also includes Israeli safety from Hamas, asking for Israelis to simply lay down all their weapons without any guarantee of safety is asking for a nation of mostly Jews to die without putting up a fight. And wanting Arab Israelis and also Jews not to die is not what Zionism means. It's not even what pro-Israel means. That's just called not being violently antisemitic, actually.

Israelis aren't mindless Zionist Nazi Monsters who get off on killing Palestinian babies. Palestinians aren't Noble Savages who have never done anything wrong as individual people and who are inherently morally superior to every single Israeli because they were born Palestinian. Both Israelis and Palestinians are complex, global micro-minorities who have both perpetrated tremendous harm to one another over the course of several decades, and neither group is going anywhere. Neither group deserves for its people to die. Neither group is only "worth helping" if western onlookers categorize them as "innocent" and "good." If someone's activism isn't geared toward respecting the inherent dignity of Palestinians and Israelis regardless of either group's history, then that person is not engaging in activism. If someone is asking you to support that cause because their chosen cause involves perfect cinnamon rolls being targeted by pure evil enemies, then they are not asking you to join them in activism. They are not even asking you to join them in a political reality. What they are asking is for you to join their toxic fandom.

And reducing this conflict down to simplistic fandom rhetoric is not going to help anyone and is frankly offensive to all Jews, Israelis, and Palestinians--all of whom deserve to be seen for the traumatized, suffering, imperfect people they are.

People don't earn support by being good. They inherently deserve support, because they are people.

All that said, maybe it's not emotionally useful for you to engage in this group. Maybe this type of conflict is too much for you. That's OK, too.

And while I would never let antisemitism take away an opportunity for me to fulfill a dream, I will say that my experience of Antisemitism during this time is 100000000% responsible for making me realize that the dreams I had before this experience need to evolve. I no longer wish to be in the town where I live. I wish to be home with my family closeby, because when the chips are down, that's who matters. The idea of moving back to my home state was unthinkable to me before October. Now? I cannot get out of here fast enough. There's nothing I want that is exclusive to my current location anymore. The community I thought I'd built for myself is gone. And while antisemitism didn't take them from me, it sure as fuck showed me that I never had it in thee first place.

If you're going to join this collective, be sure its worth the fight. And if it's not worth the fight, then look for a place that is. Exploring your gender identity freely should not come at the cost of living your ethnic and religious identities openly. Ever.

Don't trade one closet for another. You deserve more than that. We all do.

hope that helps @kit-chaos-doodle

#ask me stuff #kit-chaos-doodle #jumblr #advice #antisemitism #leftist antisemitism

75 notes · View notes

animentality · 6 months

Text

It's tough because I hate the Astarion haters on Reddit, who are just misogynistic and homophobic and dismissive of the character because they hate how gay he acts and also how many women love him.

but I also hate BookTok Astarion fangirls who feel the need to assert how superior Astarion is on every fucking Gale, Wyll, Halsin, Shadowheart, Minthara, Lae'zel, Karlach or pretty much any BG3 video at all. Like we get it. He's white.

And then I'm ambivalent on the Tumblr Astarion fans because there are the people who simply like him and make fun art and fun meta analysis about him, and then there are the people in my inbox currently telling me that Astarion's Ascended ending is morally correct and it's not a bad ending for the character, and if I disagree, then I hate women.

You're correct that I hate women, but it has nothing to do with Astarion.

Also, I once again point out, that your own husbando literally tells you outright in both endings that being Ascended ruins/ruined who he used to be and also your love for one another.

Your man literally says that your love would have been corrupted by becoming his spawn, and you still cling to the idea that your character is living happily ever after.

He's not making you a vampire queen, he's making you a vampire pet. And it's fine to like that ending. I don't care if you LIKE bad, unhappy endings. That is your prerogative. But you are simply incorrect if you say that it's the "happy" ending for the character, when it clearly is not.

No one ever said you had to use your skull for anything other than cold cut storage, I just don't see why it's even necessary to argue your point to me.

Stay in your Astarion echo chamber, and block me. I don't have time or energy to block all of you.

Anyway.

It sucks because I really like Astarion, he's my favorite love interest.

I really enjoy his storyline and his growth as a person and how sweet he is. He's also very funny. All the companions have great voice acting behind them, but Neil really knocked it out of the park, and I honestly think the character would be far less popular if they'd picked any other actor.

But the fandom around him is just...awful.

It's a mixed bag of normal, unnormal in a fun way, and unnormal in a "you need to fucking step off in this Walmart bitch" way.

It's why I'd rather interact with Dark Urge and Gortash fans.

Much smaller subset of the fandom, so I don't have to deal with the generic crazies, and we're all such freaks that we don't feel the need to go around acting like Gortash is a good person.

I also only ever see people saying these two are fucking disgusting and horrible and I'd murder them in real life and honestly, true and based.

No happy endings for those two, and that's fine for me. In fact, it's great.

See, Astarion girlies, this is called...knowing your ship doesn't deserve a happy ending after all they have done, and knowing it wouldn't be a happy ending if they got together, but being able to acknowledge that and not get bent out of shape trying to justify it.

Stop tying your irl morality to your tastes in fiction.

I never said that liking the ascended ending made you a bad person in real life.

I just said that pretending it's good and happy and great and not continuing the cycle of abuse, is factually incorrect.

And it is.

Every single bad ending for all the love interests is literally continuing the cycle of abuse. Why would Astarion's be any different?

But maybe I'm being bold in assuming you even know the other love interests exist or have stories. Maybe you don't even know the general story of baldur's gate 3, because it is, as you say, the vampire dating sim, and it's definitely not about anything other than banging the sexy vampire.

Media literacy weeps.

Anyway.

Not ruining my enjoyment of the game.

Just my general tolerance for the fandom that is not Durge and Gortash obsessed.

#baldurs gate 3 #bg3 #astarion #dark urge #enver gortash

115 notes · View notes

homunculus-argument · 11 months

Text

I remember reading some story as a kid about a child who was simply so damn ugly that he was raised in a barrel. After being kept there for like 20 years his family let him out and sent him out for errands, since despite of having grown up in a barrel and literally not knowing anything about anything, he was still a grown-ass man and needs to have a job. I think there were several different tasks he was sent out to do and screwed up every single one of them due to having no idea how anything works, but as the last one he was sent to sell meat to a priest.

Naturally he didn't know what a priest looks like, so he was told that a priest is clad completely in black save for the collar, with white at the front. Confident that this time around he 100% understood the instructions, he sets out, encounters a black dog with a white spot on the chest, and mistakes the dog for for a priest. The dog accepts the meat but refuses to pay for it, so he takes the dog to court, causing mass confusion and a public ruckus, and for some reason a young woman of some high status found this so fucking funny that she married him.

I have no idea what the hell the moral of this story was supposed to be, other than that it doesn't matter how ill-equipped, undereducated and low-functioning you are, you can still get laid if you're passably good-looking and can make a woman laugh.

Anyway, these days men like this are simply set loose on reddit, to comment things like "but that doesn't make any sense, this poster claimed that these two completely different and unrelated things are the same thing, when they only share a passing surface similarity. This is factually incorrect and doesn't make any sense", while 5 different people desperately try to explain them what a joke is.

336 notes · View notes

luna-rainbow · 9 months

Text

Hello, hello, long rant incoming

When I reposted this on AO3, I had intentionally minimised tagging and summary because I wanted to archive it rather than attract readers. I didn’t even tag it Steve/Bucky because there just wasn’t enough mention of Bucky in it. Importantly, P*ggy was not tagged.

The user calls themselves “Rebuttal” and their only work is another essay rebutting someone else’s post on Civil War, which they had to post separately because I guess the OP blocked them. So we have a serial offender with too much time on their hands going around to directly suck the joy out of other people’s fandom experience.

They begin with this:

Although I don't particularly care for Steve's ending, this essay does not offer support for a different one.

*Inhales* Honey, can you please Google analytical essay and narrative essay before you unload your drivel on other people? This "essay" is a fic - while there's some character analysis, the emotive language should be sufficient clue that the focus is the story. It’s like reading The Fifth Elephant then writing to Sir Pratchett to argue his “essay on Discworld” is factually incorrect because it offers no support for the idea that the Earth is flat.

Steve is self-sufficient. He is not shown as requiring Bucky as foundational to his being. (…) We do know Steve was willing and expecting to go it alone after Sarah's death and that he is fully confident in his own abilities; he can "do this all day." Bucky's offer at the apartment earns a small smile, not a great overcoming.

I enjoyed how you, at multiple points in your essay, pick at certain turns of (evocative) phrasing while ignoring actual canon mentions. Explain why you deliberately omitted my mention of the canon phrase "Even when I had nothing, I had Bucky". Sure, Sarah was Steve's touchstone, but Steve's words clearly indicated that upon Sarah's death, that touchstone role shifted to Bucky.

Steve's "I can do this all day" is said a total of 4 times during all the movies. Each time he says it to a bully (one time he specifically says it to protect Bucky), and never in relation to his emotional turmoil. Also just, factually, he never references "I can do this all day" when Sarah dies can you be real for a sec.

It's mighty rich of you to say a grieving person who had JUST BURIED HIS SOLE LIVING RELATIVE that a) "he is willing to do it alone" - I can guarantee no one who has lost their sole beloved family member feels "willing" in that situation; and b) downplaying the smile that took all of Steve's energy to muster. All I can conclude is you know nothing of grief. (And since you love the word "disservice" so much - your interpretation of the scene is a fucking disservice to CEvans' acting.)

Steve's choice to go to war has nothing to do with Bucky. Steve has tried five times to enlist and stated his reasons, which have nothing to do with Bucky and everything to do with not liking bullies.

Because, you know, saying “I want to join the 107th cos I’m gay for my best friend” is going to go down real well in the 1940s military *snerks*

Can you get your head out of your ass for one minute and consider that people make decisions based on multiple factors? By acknowledging that Bucky is an important factor in Steve wanting to join the war DOES NOT MINIMISE STEVE'S MORAL COMMITMENT TO FIGHT BULLIES.

Steve is also not aghast at hearing Bucky's assignment. - Back this up.

Bucky does not believe in pre-serum Steve as much as pre-serum Steve believes in himself. - Right. *In Bucky’s tired voice* Because simply ~*♫~believing in yourself~*♫~ is going to stop you getting killed. This is a fucking war, not a back alley. Do you know the death rate for US soldiers in WW2? 1 in 40. For perspective, the death rate from coronavirus is currently sitting at 1 in 70.

Whether Bucky went to war or not, Steve wanted to go. - Again, back your ass-umptions up.

Steve was told Bucky was dead. He was going to try to rescue the rest of the 107th. Again, to suggest that Steve's courageous act is about Bucky is a disservice to Steve.

So not only do you remember fuck all about the movie where it doesn’t involve your fave, you apparently remember fuck all about the scenes where YOUR FAVE APPEARS.

P*ggy: “What do you plan to do, walk to Austria?” Steve: “If that’s what it takes.” P*ggy: “You heard the Colonel. Your friend is most likely dead.” Steve: “You don’t know that.”

NOW LOOK THOSE WORDS IN THE EYES AND TELL ME HIS RESCUE MISSION IS NOT ABOUT BUCKY.

Also, Steve wanting to rescue his best friend is a "disservice" to his character? Condolences to your friends and your character, I guess.

It is strange to ignore Steve's interactions with people other Bucky. Okay here we go, we’re finally getting to why this steaming trash heap landed in my inbox. It's Peggy who - I knew it. I fucking knew it. Of course it came from someone who likes Miss I-need-to-make-everything-about-me - appreciated pre-serum Steve at the flagpole - Oh you mean the appreciation she showed by not uttering a single word to him?

Peggy and Erskine supported pre-serum Steve's drive to do his part when Bucky did not. It seems truer to say that they more likely "kept Steve afloat" during his basic training, of which Bucky had no part.

Hold on. *walks off to cackle* *walks back, wheezing*. P*ggy kept Steve afloat? Miss-never-said-a-single-word-to-Steve-P*ggy, “supported” Steve during his basic training??

Again, I urge you to actually watch CATFA, where *checks notes* your fave has her biggest movie role. AFTER STEVE FINISHES BASIC TRAINING, the two of them sit in a car and exchange the infamous lines:

P*ggy: “You have no idea how to talk to a woman, do you?” Steve: “I think this is the longest conversation I’ve had with one.”

They have, by their own admission, not had a conversation before this, so which bull’s ass did you pull the “P*ggy kept Steve afloat during his basic training” shit out of?

There is nothing in the scenes to suggest he finds it a great miracle. The whole assumption of Steve's reaction seems to be a Bucky-centric projection rather than Steve-centric.

No, honey, I think you are just blinded by your Bucky hate. You looked at a scene where 2 characters (including your fave) claimed that Bucky is no longer alive, and Steve himself said, "I thought you were dead" - and Bucky was, against all odds and expectations of at least 3 different characters, found alive...and said, NAH NAH NAH NAH there's nothing here! There's nothing~here~to~suggest~it's a miracle.

Honestly I think you're the one living in a different plane of projection.

When Steve awakens in the future, his line to Fury is "I had a date." With Peggy, not Bucky.

Pfft he said “I had a date”, not "I had a date with P*ggy". So your interpretation is just as invalid.

And just, realistically, do you really think Steve is deluded enough to expect he’d wake up in time for a dance? And...do you really think Steve is desperate enough that he'd go for a woman who blasted him with live rounds for locking lips with another woman? When in your own words you said he hates bullies?

We do not know what Steve thought as he died, so saying he is content with death is not supported.

How about this -- "we do not know what Steve thought as he died, so saying he is not content with death is not supported". It’s my conjecture against yours and you’ve come onto my turf to be a presumptuous prick.

He has Peggy and Natasha. To ignore these two relationships seems to do a disservice to both characters.

Ah yes, the great relationship with P*ggy, who in 5 minutes of her screen time is characterised by: 1) mocking Steve as “dramatic” when he asks for guidance, and 2) her florid delirium in which he had to pull the emotional labour to placate her, and 3) her being grateful that she's led a great life without Steve.

If oldwoman!P*ggy was such an important relationship to Steve, he wouldn't have lamented to Natasha that "it's not easy finding someone with shared experience".

If there is any lesson Steve should learn in the modern day, it is that Steve sacrifices and Bucky leaves. Once involuntarily with the Snap, but twice voluntarily.

WHO THE FUCK HURT YOU AND MESSED UP YOUR BRAIN. I don't know how you can look at those scenes and pretend that the sole victim is Steve.

(Actually I can, because it's a common refrain from certain shit!stans who can't deal with the idea of Bucky being morally good)

Bucky sacrificed his own freedom and lived time in order to protect other people from getting hurt. And Bucky being involuntarily "Snapped" only counts as "Steve's sacrifice"?? The one who actually dies/gets Snapped isn't making a sacrifice? My gods the logic in this one is strong. (Also by referring to Bucky's death as Steve's sacrifice you have inadvertently acknowledged just how important Bucky is to him but I guess that flew over your head like the rest of this story)

It also ignores that Steve lived five years without all of those people. He had accepted the loss and changed into someone they would never truly know or understand.

Mate…

Do you hear yourself…

YOU LITERALLY WROTE THE COUNTERARGUMENT TO YOUR ENTIRE ESSAY.

Steve lived TWELVE YEARS WITHOUT YOUNG P*GGY. He had ACCEPTED THE LOSS (although, in my mind, it's really no big loss) and BOTH OF THEM HAD CHANGED INTO COMPLETELY UNRECOGNISABLE PEOPLE, not to mention they never truly knew or understood each other to begin with. So if your logic is that Steve has changed too much in 5 years to be around his old friends, why the fuck would he want to be around a woman he last saw 12 years ago and who he knew got an entire happy married life with another man. Eww.

I mean if NTR is your kink that's fine but no need to flaunt that on my turf.

The fun thing about fandom is that canon is open to different interpretations. You could read the tavern scene to say P*ggy is inviting Steve to be her right partner, just as I could point out that Steve’s pointed silence is a resounding rejection of that invitation.

But there is incorrect fandom etiquette, and that’s when you stomp into an innocuous narrative musing and start a ship war.

And I beg of you to learn another word from "disservice".

(The whole pile of horse shit for anyone needing to have their blood boiled)

#anti peggy carter #anti steggy #steve rogers #bucky barnes #yeah i'm censoring her name bcos the shitstans really got me this time #honestly i tolerated her before this because narratively she could've been interesting #BUT YOU SHITSTANS ARE REALLY HELPING ME HATE HER GOOD WORK PAT YOURSELVES ON THE BACK #anyway the whole essay was a disservice to the fandom #better yet a real disgrace to humanity #with the way this person was hellbent on minimising even the idea of friendship

118 notes · View notes

actual-changeling · 2 months

Note

Hello! I don’t disagree with anything from your post about how Aziraphale emotionally manipulated Crowley during the final fifteen. I just have a few questions on your opinion on the whole situation regarding Aziraphale.

I do agree that he may have said some of the sentences at the end of the intentionally to try and get Crowley to come back with him, and undermines Crowley with some of it as well, But I think that some of what he says at the beginning of what you were looking at come from a place of what he truly does want for both of them. The ‘I need you’ and ‘we can be together’ I have always felt are completely genuine, and coming from a place of want/fear. Do you think that these were said to try and manipulate Crowley at an unconscious level, or from a place of want and/or fear? To repeat, I don’t want to come off mean at all, I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said previously, and I do agree that the words that I mentioned were a part of the emotional manipulation. I’m sorry if you mentioned the answer to this before! Have a good rest of your day!

You're all good, don't worry!

Do you think that these were said to try and manipulate Crowley at an unconscious level, or from a place of want and/or fear?

The fun part is that we don't have to choose one or the other because it can be—and in my opinion is—both.

Aziraphale very much does need Crowley, he has been using him as his crutch in dangerous situations since the very beginning. Everything that he tells him during their argument is something he truly believes in one way or another, but he isn't blindly following his thoughts and opinions. He knows that many parts of his moral ideology are hurtful towards Crowley or factually incorrect, but he clings to them regardless because it's the most comfortable position for him to be in.

This puts him in a position where he can choose what he wants to say and how he wants to say it. Since he wants to manipulate Crowley into returning to heaven with him, he voices emotions and thoughts he'd otherwise keep quiet.

I need you—he does need him, but the fact that he is choosing to say it in this specific moment in that specific tone is a clear attempt at manipulation. Aziraphale KNOWS Crowley is a nervous wreck when it comes to his safety, so that is where he tries to get hm. Make him scared enough for Aziraphale's well-being and he will tear himself to pieces to save him; it has worked in the past, and he expects it to work now.

When it doesn't, he resorts to "I don't think you understand what I'm offering you" and then to silent treatment & emotional rejection.

If you are incredibly familiar with another person, you know their weak points and buttons and how to exploit & press them. For example, let's say you're having an argument with a friend or partner and you know you made a mistake and are in the wrong.

However, you feel ashamed and embarrassed, you get defensive and know that if you were to openly express how bad you are feeling right now, they would try to appease you instead because that's one of their weaknesses; whenever someone else is upset, they prioritize them over themselves.

So what do you do?

Telling them that you feel bad would be the truth and you do want their comfort, but would it be fair?´Would it show respect for who they are and the relationship you have with them? Or are you going to actively emotionally manipulate them because you can and are uncomfortable?

Aziraphale voicing all of those sentiments is disrespecting Crowley and their relationship because he is 100% aware of the impact. It is not nice, it's not fair, it's mean and unkind, it borders on cruel.

Sometimes you have to swallow your emotions and discomfort and be emotionally mature. Sometimes you are simply in the wrong and "compromising" means growing the fuck up and taking responsibility for you mistakes. You can always deal with your shit later once everything has calmed down instead of putting your comfort above your friend's well-being.

I hope this answered your question, feel free to ask for clarification if needed; have a good day!

#alex answers asks #alex talks good omens #good omens #crowley #aziraphale #good omens season 2 #go2 #aziracrow #crowley x aziraphale #ineffable husbands #ineffable wives #ineffable spouses #ineffable divorce #the final fifteen #good omens meta #alex's meta minisodes

35 notes · View notes

flowercrowncrip · 2 months

Note

not going to ask for your personal experience, because i respect your privacy & dont want any fetishists to be gross to or about you... but do you have any resources on what it's like to be incontinent/need incontinence products written by someone who actually uses them? im writing a character who uses them & i dont want to make any incorrect assumptions or accidentally include anything disrespectful.

i also understand if you simply ignore this ask, i know youve dealt with a lot of disgusting disrespectful people & i dont want to draw them to your blog just by mentioning incontinence. have a wonderful day (& enjoy your comfy chair when it arrives!)

I’m afraid I don’t have any resources to hand. I would recommend looking up different types of incontinence and considering the severity of a person’s incontinence. Having small leaks when you laugh or sneeze will be different experience from having your whole bladder empty completely. And bowel incontinence is different again.

I think sensitivity is important in how incontinence is written about. For me factual inaccuracy is much more forgivable than using incontinence as a shorthand for dependence, or to imply a person has a poor quality of life or is dirty/ unclean. It’s worth remembering that incontinence is part of everyday life for so many people and people often use the products that work for them and barely think twice about it.

My own experiences are below:

I experience what’s usually called “functional incontinence” which is where a person’s bladder is okay, but their disability prevents them from accessing a toilet on time. In my case that’s because of severe mobility impairment and a lack of (well maintained) changing places toilets, but it can also be because someone has cognitive issues which prevent them from being able to get to the toilet on time. When I’m at home I don’t need to use pads because I have quick access to all the equipment I need. But when I leave the house for any length of time I need to wear a pad (technically a nappy I guess but I prefer to call them pads) because when there’s no changing places toilet with working hoist and changing table my bladder will give in eventually. I also experience bowel incontinence if my gastrointestinal disorder is playing up and there’s no toilet I can use on time.

It’s more of an issue for me in the summer when I have to drink more water – even the best most absorbent pads can only hold so much. Using incontinence products means I can stay out more than a couple of hours but don’t mean I can stay out indefinitely unless there’s somewhere private with an adult changing table and hoist. Some people who need pads changing but not hoists might have to resort to lying on the bathroom floor which is pretty unpleasant.

Sitting in used pads for long periods of time isn’t advisable and can lead to moisture lesions, infections, make pressure sores more likely and other issues as well as being not nice. But lack of changing tables for adults mean that it’s a common experience for a lot of disabled people

#I’ve done what I can to limit the reach of this one #I don’t care what you do in your own time #hopefully I won’t get any weird messages from this

25 notes · View notes

liesmyth · 1 year

Text

Dissecting John and Wake’s conversation

Or, at least, a specific section of it. Way before NtN came out, Wake’s specific phrasing when she accuses John struck me as odd. I’ve been obsessing over these lines since 2021.

Given the context, she’s most likely talking about Earth here, not his post-resurrection actions. She is charging him with the genocide of humanity on the day he destroyed Earth. But her language is very specific, and at odds with how Wake usually talks. It sounds rehearsed; it sounds very dogmatic, like another line that has been passed down the generations, just as BoE names are.

According to the HtN glossary, BoE members pick their names from the names of previous Edenites. It goes back all the way to Earth, but they don’t seem to have the context for these references. Wake’s list of accusations against John has the tone of another litany, as if this specific wording has been passed down. John has “heard this ALL before,” which IMO supports this interpretation. He has heard these exact accusations before, down to the wording. They’re ritualised.

Wake recites her charges without any hint of doubt; she’s definitely convinced she IS telling the truth. What I find interesting is the contrast between her very precisely worded charges, and the fact that she follows them up with factually incorrect information. This:

Ok, here’s the thing. John didn’t kill ten billion people with “A” BOMB. Note the singular here. It’s peculiar, because she was SO specific just before, and because this is Wake—she knows her shit about weapons; she would know that it’s way, way more likely to kill billions of people with repeated strikes instead of one (1) huge bomb. And “bomb” it’s not a word that people tend to use in the singular whee they mean multiple bombs. I really think that, given the context, she TRULY means to say that BoE lore has it that John Gaius wiped out all of humanity in one blow. She believes it. This isn’t a historical account; this is a flood myth.

I may be overthinking this, but it’s fun to do it, so. What this conversation says (TO ME, until Alecto proves me wrong etc.) is

BoE believe they know how the destruction of humanity came about.

Their account was probably passed down the generation, and it’s become part of their mythology. It’s entirely not factually correct.

This could be due to simply the fact that it’s been millennia and many records went lost, leaving legends. OR it could be because of other reasons (propaganda?). Also: if we take the apparent (but not confirmed) implication that the non-House planets were settled by descendants of the FTL fleet, there’s the fact that the ships were in orbit while Earth was actually being destroyed—they may have been aware of a bomb exploding as they took off, causing a loss of communication with Earth, but it’s a massive fucking leap from “Melbourne went dark” to “kiwi necro guy killed off all of humanity”. They were already at the edge of the solar system when John “grabbed one” of the ships, but I doubt he was in any way recognisable, you know? It’s more likely he looked like an angry nebula. The FTL fleet would Not know exactly what happened.

(Anyway I’m writing out this because I’m about to start a NtN reread and I remember finishing up my Harrow reread in August and being yet again struck by all the details in this conversation—hence tagging it as #nona reread. Very excited to go obsessing over NtN now.)

#tlt thoughts #nona reread #commander wake #ejg #tlt #htn #blood of eden

190 notes · View notes