#just to clarify this isn't to shit on anyone's opinion or interpretation!

[proosh]

"Averse to all forms of cowardice?" I'm actually convinced you have no idea who you're talking about. One of France's defining character traits is that he's a coward. You sound like a fake fan.

Anon, and anyone else who's reading this, look. I'm really sorry for the tone the rest of this reply is about to take. You see, I'm someone who's very much about curating one's personal internet experience, and an advocate for mutual respect and sensibility in regards to fandom matters. I'm all about encouraging differing interpretations and analyses of characters, even if I don't necessarily agree or understand it's all a matter of perspective and if I'm not a fan of something? I ignore it, simple. I likewise expect the same sort of understanding from other participants in fandom: If I am posting things that is not to someone's taste, they can simply ignore me or block me to curate their personal online experience. You know, like civil people within a public forum.

However, you've decided to come to my inbox, on this wretched day after I have just been subjected to two and a half hours of the worst Napoleonic cinema experience the human mind can possibly conjure, to tell me that I am a "fake fan" over a silly little shitpost? Are you on crack? Is it crack you're smoking? Because, my good bitch, you will find it is you who is the fake fan.

For example, we've got literal direct canonical evidence of France being, like, incredibly and unfathomably enthusiastic about the idea of getting to go to war with the English again, specifically saying that being at peace feels like he's been "crammed into a fake version" of himself. I'm sorry, it really doesn't get more explicit than that. Look, it's not a headcanon I believe in, but that's okay. You do you! I'm happy for whatever interpretation you have! I will not be the one sending pissy little anons about it, I promise! You're welcome to block me if this is something that is incompatible with your fandom experience! Go for it! Please!

But, sure, maybe direct canon depiction isn't enough to defend the thought process as to my personal interpretation. I'll put this under the cut since I'm invariably getting long-winded, but let's have a quick fun lightning-round overview of French history and culture in regards to their collective bloodthirst and warmongering that doesn't really lend itself to an interpretation of 'cowardice' as a concept that's strongly represented within the French national identity (at least in my opinion);

The French have, for about a thousand-odd years, been heavily associated with an unusually bellicose, honour-bound, chivalric, warmongering ideal, to the point their ongoing national anthem is quite literally about murdering people and watering the fields with blood!

Historian Niall Ferguson argues that France is the most belligerent military power in history!

Literally over a million men were fed into the meat grinder of World War One! Literally an entire generation! Approaching 5% of the entire population!

One of the last bayonet charges in history was performed by the French! In 1995!

Their ongoing nuclear doctrine is one of the pants-shitteningly insane ones on the planet, and scared the piss out of the Soviets - Which is to say, they will happily drop a nuclear weapon on an enemy city as a warning shot! And they'll do it, too, because they keep refusing to sign nuclear arms treaties!

Their population is entirely and consistently prepared and ready to implode their own country and governance at the first sign of any infringement upon perceived civil and social liberties!

If you've read this far, anon, congratulations! I hope you can better understand the reason why I interpret France the way I do! If you disagree with me, you're welcome to come off anon and meet me at the Champs-Élysées at dawn so we can duel to the death over our incompatible opinions like true respectable gentlepeople of honour and class. Or you can just block me and not bother me again.

It's totally up to you, buddy!

#sorry to everyone for this i've decided to take the french nuclear doctrine to heart and just go apeshit #anon! please go away! fuck off! block me! #watch waterloo (1970) instead of napoleon (2023) btw #just to clarify this isn't to shit on anyone's opinion or interpretation! #genuinely. do what you want. idc. #what am i. a cop? go. be free. stop sending pissy anons over fake anime country boys. #from the askbox

[nostalgia-tblr]

The main reason I tend to discount "Word of God" in TV/film and the like is that in those mediums there isn't just one god. They're collaborative by their very nature. "But writer said this" is one thing if it's the author of a book clarifying an ambiguity (but even then The Author Is Dead and if you wanted to make it clear then you should have done so at the time) but in TV? "Writer said this, but Other Writer said that, and Actor said this thing but Other Actor whose character reacted to the news in a later scene thought this instead, and Director said this prior to release, but possibly just as a misdirect, and Producer just makes shit up in interviews for LOLs." So which of them is at the head of this vast pantheon and how do they enforce their authority over the others?

This isn't to say I don't occasionally like to know the intention of someone who wrote a key scene or whatever, but at the end of the day I have a source text and I shall interpret through my own filters and I don't always need or want to add anyone else's on top of my own.

Accepting the authority and Correctness of an external source almost always comes down to "do I agree with/like/see value in this opinion?" and this is fine but then we get into arguments and deploy "But Actor Said This" like it's some automatic win that everyone must agree with but it just isn't. We as may well say "Mrs Crisps from down the road agrees with me on this, she told me so when we met up for our most recent monthly seance." Well, that's lovely for Mrs Crisps and perhaps for you as well, but neither of us is Mrs Crisps and anyway have you heard her opinions on hamsters? Fuck Mrs Crisps!

(Also: sometimes god is just plain wrong.)

#well that's another tumblr post that got away from me but the director of this episode said its fine and i should just post it as-is #because she reckons my character is struggling with feelings of inadequacy and spite and i disagree but she outranks me.

[voidsumbrella]

i think the thing is. there is a precedent on the internet for people using the term pro-kink, which has a loose definition at best, to mean that everything that gets you off is completely above critique, no nuance needed or wanted, if you're uncomfortable wittnessing every single fetish anyone has in any context you're basically the same as conservative lawmakers. so it's understandable to see decontexualised discussions of the subject with no clarification and go "hm."

but like. the real problem here isn't so much the kink part as it is the lack of nuance part, and that can veer in any direction- even statements that seemingly broker no argument like "pedophila is bad" can contain the footnote that "pedophila" also includes shit like "informing a child about gay people" and "trans women existing in public". since social media is an open forum where the original poster has very little control over who sees their content, it's not really reasonable to expect everyone to make that nuance blunt in every single statement they make; you aren't going to use language playing to the lowest common denominator if you're talking with your friends, you're going to talk with the assumption that they know what you mean, because they do. esp since this is the piss on the poor website and there's a good chance your words will get taken in the worst possible faith anyway.

what this means is that if you see a post that raises a red flag for you, the appropriate response is to check their account to receive that additional nuance*, use your brain cells to interpret what you find there so you maybe understand what you're looking at BEFORE you baselessly accuse a trans woman of being a pedo for not including a fifteen page manifesto clarifying every single stance she's ever had on her post discussing nuances in sexuality. especially if you're only seeing the post because you're backreading the blog to get dirt on her because she- *checks notes* -posted a video game opinion you didn't like.

*or just block everyone involved and move on with your life. ive certainly done it before. the important part is that you keep scrolling.

there is a major precedent for running trans women off the internet for by accusing them of sex crimes entirely based on a deliberate misinterpretation of their words/actions that is 100% rooted in transmisogyny. don't fucking do that. i shouldn't have to elaborate why. c'mon now.

#real life mango #vagueposting about Discourse sorry lol

[the-cat-at-the-theatre-door]

I don't know that I agree your opinions mean "jack shit", but I've been interested/enjoying them so far

I do appreciate that!

I think I should clarify that what I mean is that, at the end of the day, everything I say in regards to this show *is* just an opinion and, more specifically, it's my personal opinion. Despite joking, despite sounding "firm" or saying something snarky like "I will not be entertaining arguments at this time", I do not at all (ever) expect or encourage people to agree with what I say. I don't put the content in the tag; I keep a lot of things to myself and mind my business; I mull things over and come to an understanding that I don't need to say anything in regards to the conversation. I am aware that social media is not private - anyone can see what I have to say at any time. I am fully aware that my observation comes from being a fan of CATS for a *very* long time and that, in itself, forms a bias. I am not an actual expert in anything - I am not one to take the word of above a grain of salt. This is just my CATS sideblog. I just talk about cat people.

A lot of my "concern" or "dislike" or general critique (which is never to be taken personally) is completely superficial and preference based (because at the end of the day, who does this affect? Not me - not you guys - certainly not a multi million dollar show or ALW or RUG or any of them. I can assure you they don't care a *lick*). However, it does come from a place of careful observation of what the *company* is doing - what are the *creatives* doing, and then asking why. What's the *motive* behind this? Does this affect the performers (Troika non-equity/budget cuts)? Did/does it affect others in the creative team (Gillian Lynne; cheaper print costumes that rip easier and put more strain on the costume department)? Does it have the possibility of affecting casual audiences who *aren't* familiar with the show (If I am a random person off the street who goes to see CATS on a whim, is the structure of the show working? Are changes helping or hindering the already hard to understand narrative/loose show? Can I tell any kind of difference in character individuality or is it going to be an overwhelming blur and hard to enjoy? If I have a bad seat - can I see faces at all?)? Does the choice carry negative connotation with it (Rap Tugger)?

I never want to make people feel pressured or "wrong" in how they feel about something, how they interpret something, especially if they happen to like it. Because you aren't "wrong" if you like any of the changes, you aren't wrong if you like the 2019 movie, you aren't wrong if you prefer the updated choreography over the old stuff, you aren't wrong in your casting preference. Then on the other end of the spectrum, you aren't wrong if you *dislike* changes, you aren't wrong if a makeup or costume design just isn't working for you, or if an interpretation/production isn't good, or you don't love the way a performer does something (as long as you are not *telling them directly* or are commenting on Youtube videos/social medias of those performers) - you aren't wrong about any of it. As long as you are respectfully engaging with things, that's not a good word to be using in these scenarios. None of this is meant to be taken or defended personally. You are enjoying and engaging with the show in the way you wish to enjoy the show, which is what it's about.

Anyway, that was too long of an answer. Disclaimer is just when I say anything that is an opinion, while I always appreciate support or engagement, I am also one voice in a sea of conversation happening. If I am engaging critically with something I like, I am also appreciating what it *does* give me and understanding that my opinion is not universal.

#not cats #jellicles ask because jellicles dare #fortressofdoors #I often tell my students that an opinion is like an a**hole - most everyone has one #*shrug* #like i have the capability of being salty but i understand that my salt seasons my food #just be aware that what you say can be seen - it can always be seen #be aware that you are not directly insulting performers or cast members or being purposefully rude #be aware that people exist on these ends - and when i am critiquing anything i am never critiquing the *people* #be aware that general critique is *not* an attack on you or anyone else

[icanseethefuture333]

your tarot reading for olivia and taylor was honestly disappointing to read, it's very obvious that you are biased negatively towards olivia... i mean, she was 17 when it happened after years of idolising her favourite singer... you're not a reliable reader, you let your bias show so strongly. really disappointing and low

If y'all don't get out my damn inbox with this shit. IDGAF! I've been nice and I clarified the first time, but now I am pissed off. If you wanna be bold and slander my character, then come off anon and do it. I have been doing readings since I was 17. That's 5 years of practice!!! The anon asked a question and I did the reading, plain and simple. If you have such a problem with it then take it up with them. It is so convenient for people to attack tarot readers when they are literally bending over backwards everyday to entertain your ungrateful asses with little to no pay. From PACs to personal free readings to celebrity readings, etc, but you think that these two people, out of multiple other celebrities that I have asks for, that I still need to do - You think I have time to be "biased"??? The fucking audacity. I'm gonna say this one time and one time only. I am not a fan of Taylor or Olivia. I don't care what they do and I don't follow them. Check my tags. Check my blog. Neither of them, are going to be present here. Even if I am not their supporter, does not mean I would slander their character. In the reading I did not take sides. If anyone had something stolen from their art and received justice, I am obviously going to say "good for them", regardless of who it is. I didn't even listen to either of the songs till recently! My opinion or your opinion doesn't matter. Taylor won the court case and got credited on "Deja Vu". This isn't just a fued, it's legality. Some people think they sound similar, others do not, but at the end of the day there are people who work in that industry that can tell what sample, beat, or melody that needs to be given credit for. You can also be mad at the judge for being in favor of Taylor, idk maybe they were a swiftie 🤷🏽‍♀️.

Also anon, you're literally a liar and got your facts wrong. "Deja Vu" came out April 2021 and Olivia was 18 years old, not 17. Her birthday is in February, so that made the release 2 months after her 18th birthday. When you are in business and you sign a contract, also writing music, that is your responsibility to make sure things are credited. I even said that it was sad what Olivia and Taylor went through in the reading, so unless you lack reading comprehension, that is not my issue. Even though I felt bad, I am also going to criticize her on lack of ability to give credit because she's an adult! She is not a child. (Also I am two years older than her... so what was the goal of you bringing up her age anyways? 💀)

What comes out in the cards, is what fucking comes out. Period. Even if I am asked about celebrities I don't care for, that I have no interest in, or strongly dislike, I answer the question with grace but I also will not sugarcoat things for anybody. Every reading I do is purely for entertainment and if you are not being entertained, then you don't have to like it. It doesn't resonate with you and that is fine. My job is to interpret the messages that come through. It's literally nothing set in stone, but if you're gonna be this butt hurt at people - when these people don't even know your existence, then I got news for you, your life is gonna be really hard for you out in the real world. Get out your feelings and stop disrespecting people in defense of your celebrities who wouldn't even bat an eyelash at any this, GROW UP! Fans and their parasocial relationships with celebrities is so toxic its ridiculous. I am not a perfect person but don't treat me like shit and accuse me of being biased or say I am "unreliable", when there are awful tarot readers out there who don't show what cards they use, don't even shuffle on camera, invasively dive into people's traumas, sexualize minors, and more, but you're pressed about a reading of a court case that happened this year. Whatever, anon, go find peace and stop disturbing mine.

#ask #anon #fanmail #taylor swift #olivia rodrigo #you tried it anon you really did but better luck next time

[bluewinnerangel]

So when Louis said if you google conspiracy blahx3 he was right bc if you look for something you're going to find it and that's the problem I have w Harry StylesTM. He's everything to everyone and it makes stanning hard bc to the hets he's the PUSSY king to larries he's Louis'boy so sometimes I wonder if I'm truly right by being a larrie bc he pleases everyone (this isnt me hating him, I only hate his branding) even to narries & zarries he's sth to them. I need your perspective on this bc please

WELL THIS IS A BIT NEGATIVE

At first I didn't wanna post this because discourse and your ask is hella negative and I'm just looking at this with the pool of energy just getting draaaaiiinned thanks for that but I do have a lot to say about this. Just a preface I'm not gonna try to convince you of anything, just as you asked, my perspective.

Welp first of all where's this part really where he's giving the hets/zarries/narries what they want? Let's bring in fking xarries and haylors in here too while we're at it, Holivia of course too, check, got any more ships for me? Get the whole fleet in here we're going to battle. I think giving the same value to all the ships as larry is letting anyone and everyone who is projecting their shit onto him and interpreting his behavior however they see fit spoonfeed you their deceivingly-matter-of-fact-stated-opinions to the point where the fandom woods get so thick you can't even see what Harry is and isn't actually doing. That it's so absolutely stained with people's interpretations those become fact and you start thinking those things are his intentions, like he's intentionally staying vague enough to be inclusive of every and all sides of the fandom including each and every one of those ships (plus that larry's one of them) while all he did was just stand there, like always. What is he doing really? The only thing Harry is "doing" to please everyone is being silent. Is not doing anything. And what can he do really because he's closeted and can't just come out and say "me and harrylouis are together and my girlfriend isn't real" so he says nothing not with words at least. Which he has always done from the beginning I might add.

Ok ok ok I just rambled and rambled on so rest below the cut, just warning it's long and subjective:

Harry Styles The Brand is trying to get holivia to be talked about by the public but that's about it really and that's not that deep? It's been this way forever he's not the only one. So what have we got here? He's doing some PR and he's silent about his personal life that's really all there is. Like Louis is doing just the same. Like many many many public figures are doing just the same. He's just... lying less? Like Louis, for instance, since that's the people we talk about here, has always been the one to just straight up lie in our faces and somehow that's just less frustrating than being kept in the dark entirely? Like it should be more yet somehow it's less of a smoke and mirrors thing because it's telling you "look here instead of there" instead of... not telling you where to look with words (as blatantly). yaknow? But that's about it. And that somehow translates to "he's pleasing everyone", which he's not, it's just the fans jumping on him and projecting whatever they want onto that silence. So much so that this fandom has created all these sides to it that have drawn different conclusions by reading into that crisp thin air of nothingness. That there's just a lot of fans (perhaps not even consiously) who have projected their utter shite onto him somehow feel like he owes it to them that he somehow comes forward to clarify that they're right and other fandom rabbitholes are wrong. While he wasn't the one setting that shit up in the first place. The only weirdo space he's set up himself is larry. Literally. Not that at this 2021 point in time I wanna make the claim he wants larry to be a thing just because he was into it somewhere a decade ago because I don't, although I do definitely think he wants the concept of larry/larries to be a thing still alskdjasl.

Basically any and all sides of his fandom (or at least the vocal parts, and the craycrays always scream the loudest hi) are going batshit insane because they're filling this silence with interpretations and projections of said silence, myself and those who I deem to be the most sensible in this whole space included. I've had a Twin Peaks screenshot in my memefolder for ages and it finally found its purpose:

But the thing is he's not silent. Not at all. He's just not voicing his opinions in a way people recognize. In a way people know how to listen. But he totally is voicing his opinions. He has picked a side and has always been on that side. He's screaming constantly. He's just subtle, vague about some aspects, so god damn loud about others it somehow uno reverse carded on itself and has been coined bait. Quiet and loud at the same time, but in a way people wanting to project their views onto him can and will without actually listening to the things throwing their views out of the window indefinitely. I don't think that's his responsibility to clear that air in a way people can hear him. To me it's very very very clear he's been consistently from the very beginning been just sitting there whenever people projected absolute trash onto him and what he's been doing in return is subtly yet as loud as he can constantly send out signals what his true opinions are, one of them being that he's very much into them phallic shaped objects and more specifically that very much attached to some laddy lad from doncaster, and I know it's hard to listen to things someone doesn't say, but there's definitely a pattern there of not idenitifying with a lotta things projected onto him, and there's also loads of things to listen to he does say, what's in his music where it's poured out of him, on tour although we haven't seen that in a long time (which I think is another part of the problem), in the tiny lil or even obvious big statements he doesn't say with words but shows in every other way he can think of.

I've looked long and hard at what the other ships are getting from him, if he's feeding them like us larries are just getting fattened up like crazy, and I don't see it. These people on those fandoms are really feeding each other and very very little is coming from him himself if anything at all, and of course the same goes for aspects of the larrie side of things, but the difference is there's just no pattern or context or whatever to them.

Anyway I just don't think that there's a trick or a wholassplan coming from the force behind Harry StylesTM to ration him in a way every little crazy corner of his fans get their share.

And about the existence of all those lil fandom corners, I do get it in a sense, because there's just loads and loads and loads of people being able to recognize he's been longterm commited to ~someone~ but basically don't want that to be Louis/a man, and so that creates this room to project any person into that blank space. And they do. And there we have it, a fleet. All them ships. Except for Holivia but that's just obnoxious PR stunt 101 and then to come back to liking-louis-but-being-frustrated-by-harry's-branding comparing harry's branding to louis' really what's the difference there as Louis is still walking around with E at the same time (and then dipping again at the same time really they're.. what do you want me to say they're together all their shits coordinated and will always be because they're going through all this crap together because they're together blablablalbaalskdjflwaika). Like oh boy yeah there's a whole lotta difference right now, but in terms of likeability and stanning them I don't see much there other than O is new and E is not. But the concept isn't new, he's been through this kinda shit for a decade now, it just, wasn't the case for a bit and now it is. Which really fucking sucks but??? It's not making him less likeable than Louis in my book. If we're gonna compare. (which comparing them is a wholeass other thing imma ramble about)

Plus stan culture is toxic, I can tell you came from twitter or some worse hellhole, where people are telling you (indirectly) how to feel and you're basically cancelled if you voice you don't feel that way, and I mean what the hell are we all even on? With stan culture in general it's about entertainers, who are there to entertain you, and if they don't do that for you, like if you are annoyed by the shit they do, if you have to convince yourself to be having a good time being a fan, then why are you in that space in that way? And then taking that idea to this space: you don't have to be a larrie? Sorry if people made you feel that way. You can be open to them being together but not focus on it, you can just not give a shit about who your fav is in a relationship with which should be and is normal everywhere untill you drop too deep in a stanning hellhole, you can fully believe they are together and still just be a fan of only one and not even really like the other.

I was talking about this yesterday in a dm and now I'm bringing it to the dash lol like, take for instance David and Victoria Beckham right (they're just a placeholder for any het couple where both are famous here), no one (or at most a handful of fans of theirs) would be equal fans of both, and no one would expect them to be. Because they're different people bringing you different content (do they even bring content this was a bad example), have different lives, friends, appealing factors, dress differently, act differently (and yet are together and have this other part of them where they do have a shared life, pool of friends, share the same morals and values [I mean I'm just assuming what a bad example I know very little about these people alkdjalkj], and shit they do do [haha do do] together, but not the point here). But because Harry & Louis are of the same sex and their careers started on the same track we're forever having this frankly very weird environment where not only they're constantly being compared in every single aspect of them even to the point where we're comparing their fashion choices and even careers and seeing them not being identical twins as some sign that theyre not together alksdjaslkdjaslkj like god now project that onto the beckhams and see how utterly strange that is but it's also this weird stanning urge to love both or neither, take it or leave it, that results in people getting really damn bitter when they just can't manage to do so which again should be just normal? To like whoever you like regardless of who they're in a relationship with? Can you imagine i m a g i n e a bunch of football fans (I'm still on that beckham analogy) having endless discourse about why and how they're not enjoying Victoria's new clothing line and feel bad for not putting a shoutout to her new sunglasses in their instagram story like??? This. Fandom. Is. Something. Else. Can you imagine them having to write a whole apology breaking-my-silence letter on why they're not going to be following Victoria's fashion archive anymore? Or Victoria fans profoundly troubled they're just not into football even though they tried and tried and tried. And yet the people in this fandom don't dare to voice that they're much more into Louis' stuff over Harry's or the other way around, or go in way too deep trying to like the one with the content that suits them the least and somehow end up on the other end of the spectrum and become rad rad, bathing themselves in this trashing of one of them to show their love for the other or some shit. And for what? Don't like their public image? Doesn't spark joy for you? But the other one does? Just focus on that. You can enjoy Victoria's content (again does she even??) knowing David exists without paying any attention to him or their relationship. I know this fandom is divided into really unique weird compartments and it's hard to find that fine line where your dash is just what you want without that content you don't care for (and with that I mean both the vile shit and the content of the other artist), but, just do your thing man. There's no reason to feel guilty or anything.

Anyway for me I do like their content equally, and I do "stan" I guess both of them in a way I cannot entirely seperate them from each other, and I do "stan their relationship" as weird as that might be because the shit they bring me shows me that they are one idiotic clump of braincell, a team, that wants to be viewed as such, that wants to be inseperable, wants themselves and their work to be associated with the other('s), that even though their branding and public images have not been moving in One Direction (god the layers on that aksdjsalkjd) since going solo, to me loving one of their content just simply comes with all that. That even though I love and appreciate them just as individuals, I can't ignore that Louis just is yelling harry/larry among it all time and time again, and then I become intrigued to know what's out there for him to love so much which then leads me to Harry (actually like a lotta new fans it was finding Harry first for me but ok). And in turn appreciating Harry's behavior reeks with his love for Louis which just throws me over the net into Louis' territory once again where I find Louis' love for Harry even more which just boink me, the table tennis ball, back into Harry's side of the table and they just keep slapping me with that bat infinitely and so I'm just stuck here.

And I think a lotta larries have that. And I think that's why this fandom is the way it is. Even though we love them individually we're just stuck in an infinite loop of associating them with eachother and just keep piling on piles and piles of disgosting love being thrown at us from both sides to the point where we can't just love one. we can't see them as seperate. it's just one clump of please let me live.

Maybe that's not what you wanted to hear but that's my 28 cents.

Also happy 28 I guess.

CUTE GIF NECESSARY BECAUSE I WENT OFFFFF

#DISCOURSE #discourse #god the discourse #but like i think i did say some good shit in there its just .. a long read #anyway thank you for coming to my ted talk feel free to ignore

[thegetoufather]

Just caught up with all that strange drama and as someone whose suffered with severe addiction and dependence since I was 14. rue Bennett rlly isn't the hill anyone should die on. And alot of people who suffer with addiction would agree. I don't agree with the post but rue's character is explicitly dramatisized and glamorized. Just to let you know in case you didn't know. Even Sam and the actors have spoken on it.

anon i sincerely cant tell if “the post you dont agree with” is mine, honeys, or both, but it sounds like you had a problem with mine and im going to respond as such.

tw: discourse, drug addiction

the point of my post was to call out the fact that a problem like drug addiction is a weird thing to make a headcannon about. given the fact that honey treated other topics like nazis/school shootings/etc as “ok to explore under the umbrella of dark content”, i dont think i was incorrect in assuming the fact that this was another topic she was talking about carelessly. i was not aware of her own issues with drugs until she commented on my post, but i still stand by what i say that wanting to see who kins rue is offputting because that means nothing other than calling them an addict.

if jokes like that or the other statements in her post are how she choses to cope with her experience, fine. its just reckless and irresponsible to joke about that without sufficient triggers or warnings (tw drugs in your post but not the content not being under a readmore is not effective tool in censoring if you didnt put the tw content in the tags), not to mention mocking recreational drugs that arent as addictive for the sake of wanting to create something edgy.

about your euphoria point, in my opinion, nothing about rue’s life is glamorized or dramaticized. that is the real struggle many addicts face through in their day to day lives. i dont know what your experiences with addiction are, and nor have i experienced it, but i have worked with many addicts in their journey to recovery and the hard realities that rue goes through — the desperation, the lashing out, not giving a shit about anything else other than a fix.

its harrowing, heartbreaking, and addiction already goes through so much stigma that the last thing it needs is to be trivialized by is a headcanon set because “weed is too pussy of a drug.” those words tell me that honey’s headcanons had more potential to glamorize drug use than euphoria ever could. glittery makeup and camera angles do not glamorize her drug use, if you look at the show for what it is, its about rues suffering and those around her who have suffered. its trying to make true addiction seen to people — and its uncomfortable.

coincidentally, zendaya shares my same opinion.

so yeah. i dont really have any regrets about what i said because given the information i knew at the time, i was standing up for the fact that addiction is not some fun joke nor should be boiled down to a characters personality trait, which is essentially what “kin rue benett implies,” considering as far as we have seen in euphoria, we haven’t gotten any glimpses of the girl she is outside of the disease she is struggling to control.

i do hope this clarifies any other message you could have interpreted with what i said. it should be very clear now.

#discourse tw

[elizabethrobertajones]

Your recent (and fabulous) meta masterposts reminded me I wanted to ask you for advice in linking other people's meta to your own meta, specifically: is there any sort of etiquette when linking meta that isn't yours, particularly if you've never really talked to the original writer before, and the meta you are writing can be viewed as wanky/not a popular topic of discussion in fandom? Is tagging them optional or an unspoken rule? I would like to avoid stepping on anyone's toes ifpossible Thnx!

Heya :D 

I’ve had it hammered into me to always cite sources, and I think that is true in fandom with meta. I do see it as a body of academic work, if very loosely and conversationally. Like… rogue academia being accessed by everyone. End result is still an enormous collection of written work. And in that case you should show fair and square what you’re talking about if you’re staring a new post and not replying. I think linking is always important unless you’re at the most grumbly dotposting vagueblog part of complaining about wank. (I complain about wank this way a lot as a way to vent and show I know about something going around fandom and here’s my 1 line opinion but I don’t wanna get involved :P)

I think it’s very contextual about tagging people in meta though… If they seem open to discussion and their original post was low-wank for the subject (e.g. not screeching about something, or showing obvious angry feelings you’ll never overcome such as character or writer hate that the root causes are too deep to rationalise with in 1 post about what is just a tangential topic to the wank) then I would tag. I’d link to say this is informing my own post and I’m not arguing or tearing things down. I think a lot of the problem in fandom is people assume if you post a reply, it’s, well… a riposte or something. 

I got caught out by it recently replying in the bubble under a post I saw on my dash in the SPN meta tag - the reply I got was assuming I was attacking and defending, while I’d read their tone as quite mild and not hate-filled, so I offered an insight on the thing in the spirit of cross-fandom unity, and was surprised to realise they thought I was defending, which drastically altered my tone into seeming to suggest all sorts of things I hadn’t meant or considered… I forget that no matter how many smilies you cram in to try and look friendly, if people are on the defence from certain things, there is no way to project your chill personality into their life >.> 

(I am now aware I’m vagueblogging but I plagued that poor person’s replies way too much trying probably unsuccessfully to clear up that confusion that I am super chill and read critical meta all the time as a hobby without taking personal offence, and at this point I’m too embarrassed to go back or tag them here :P)

Another thing is if you link their meta, try not to make your meta look like a point by point tear down, but just something informing your thoughts - if you break down every reason you think they’re wrong, it’s going to look rude if you tag them or don’t tag them, no matter how chill you try to be. I try to do this sort of thing by explaining my point of view on a thing by going back to the start and offering my own explanation for the situation or analysis based on things I think, and it’s okay to leave out parts of their stuff you don’t agree with if you can’t weave it into your positive explanation.

I also try really really hard to address all things positively - start as many meta posts as I can with “I love” or “this interests me” or “I would enjoy conversation on this” or other phrases to try and convey you’re making something constructive and for your own enjoyment, or reply to asks with positive affirmations about what they say even if you have some other contrary thoughts. Introduce contrary meta only after putting a positive buffer in rather than introducing like “I have some shit to say” :P Talk up whatever you can that you agree with and makes positive ground, and try to see the other side first before explaining your own… The old Here’s Argument A, I think Argument B, here’s my conclusion which concedes all interpretations are valid but I do still like B better and it fits into my world view more neatly. That sort of thing. I mean I’m not consistently good at this because when I’m tired or grumpy structure goes out the window (sentence, paragraph and essay :P), but when I try and put my thinking cap on, full positivity about everything is my watch word.

Anyway if you try to make your own post as gentle as possible towards the wank, it means tagging someone in it can more clearly be seen as a courtesy towards crediting their idea and offering another opinion which you can clarify you know this is what they think and you’re not demanding they change their mind, but here’s my post about it, thanks for the step up with your post :P 

But yeah, I am a bundle of social anxiety so I tend to tag probably less than I should. That meta post I nearly sweated myself dry worrying if I should tag the OP of the other bi dean masterpost (I did in the end) because I’ve never talked to them, and it did look like stepping on their toes, even though it was something I’ve meant to do for ages, and was fundamentally different to theirs by having a lot of meta back and forth and collections of wide-ranging essays rather than a join the dots through canon like theirs, which is a much easier post to show people for the specific answer to “why do you think Dean is bi” rather than collecting up what I’m interested in fandom… *and that one wasn’t even at all wanky* :P

ANYWAY I think it is rude to link or mention someone’s meta and then do a tear down. I think it’s rude to tag someone when you’re mostly just complaining about their post or only writing to disagree with their concept, and I think it’s pointless to tag anyone who looks like they’re just snap back or block you. I *don’t* think that you shouldn’t ever tag someone you disagree with, as long as you can be constructive and kind. I’ve seen untagged posts with meta disagreements that could have been perfectly civil and not rude IF they’d tagged, because the actual content of both posts seemed to be a fairly constructive discussion, if only they’d been courteous to why they were writing their counter. Of course discovering you’ve been vagueblogged at is never fun and it turns you into the strawman or object of ridicule. I think tagging someone and knowing there’s a full chance they’ll read  what you say even if they will disagree SHOULD be a good incentive to write politely and civilly but then on the wide internet that is not a very common courtesy >.>

(I think it’s excellent that you asked btw… We need more discussions on fandom courtesy.)

(And of course I’m 100% open to people replying or tagging me in discussing whether I’m right or some of this is rude in practice or whatever. :P)

#Asks #fandom problems

[silenced-desires]

Hello! Can I ask something? This isn't meant to be offensive or anything, just something out of curiosity! It's one of my big pet peeves when people describe or draw Freed 'cuter' or 'softer' as in less masculine than he is in the series or less mature looking and more boy-ish than he looks in the manga and I was asking myself if this happens accidentally or on purpose? I know you can only speak for yourself right now but I was wondering about this since your new drawing is an example for this?

Not really any offence taken, but I am going to give a serious answer to this.Forgive my crappy English…. And my flawed sentences.. I’m Dutch (and tired)And please realise… this is my opinion on this matter.You don’t have to agree. (Also read all the way through, to fully understand what I’m trying to say here.)  Masculine.. or feminine.. these are words that are conceived by a society who’s goal it seems to be to label people neatly, and everybody who falls outside of a certain label, or is moving more towards another label, is “wrong”, and “weird” and “scary”, etc.If we have to use labels I think everybody can be neither and everybody can be both.To me, Freed is just Freed. I don’t really see him as masculine or feminine..I just see him as a really versatile character, that has a lot of different sides to him that I like to explore as an artist.I think Freed is epicly strong, and I’ve drawn him as such multiple times.I’ve also drawn him with much sharper features and a big smirk before, because that is also a part of him that I see.But that doesn’t mean that he can’t be cute and soft sometimes.. So just because this drawing that you were talking about, was “softer”, “cuter”, that doesn’t mean that this drawing 100% defines him, it was simply an interpretation.And Please realise… I am a fanartist, I’m not getting paid for any of this (so far…..;_;)The reasons why I draw are: to give shape to my own ideas, imagination and emotions, and to hopefully make other people happy in the process.Sometimes I’ll draw something that I don’t really like, but I know other people like. And sometimes I draw something just to indulge myself :3 (I think I can be allowed, since nobody is paying me Not to..)And sometimes I simply try new things, for the fun of it, and I’ll see how it works out.Drawing to me isn’t just a way to make my followers, or Fairy tail fans, or Freed fans happy…. That’s not my job.. Drawing is a way of expressing myself, and sometimes I do that by drawing goofy stuff, and sometimes it’s angst, and sometimes it’s cutesie stuff.In my opinion, as long as you don’t draw toxic stuff, (like abuse.. just for the fun of it.. or non-consentual relationship stuff.., etc.,) artists should be free to draw characters however they like. Just don’t purposefully damage people with your work!And since I don’t see “softer, cuter” features as something evil/toxic/damaging, I don’t see why I shouldn’t draw him the way that I do.And it’s not just Freed.., I drew Laxus with a pink bow, just for the fun of it. Because I see that as innocent fun, and random silliness. At the end of the day.. I draw Freed how I like.. and be glad of that!Let me explain~!:If we start to get a bunch of restrictions, on how he looks, what he’s like, what he wears, how he acts, etc. we will NEVER get past the Very restrictive Canon.. and Fanartists/writers might as well just stop…Cuz the Canon isn’t giving us much. So we all just fill in the blanks in different ways, and our followers can choose whoever’s interpretation they like the best! Meaning: If someone likes my art: like, follow, reblog etc.. If you don’t:…. scroll past it…. block me?… honestly…. just…. leave….?Or if you’re passionate enough.. become a fanartist/writer yourself, and Show the fandom YOUR interpretation of certain characters/events/stories, etc. (the more the merrier?)

Example to put this into perspective:Picasso drew people reallllllly weird… are we also going to discuss this with him?..(we can’t.. he’s dead..) that his paintings arn’t masculine or feminine enough, or don’t abide by “set rules”?… or do we accept that he had a different interpretation on how to draw people.. horses.. whatever??*(am I comparing “myself drawing fanart” to Pablo Picasso….. plz no!! @_@) I don’t like Picasso his later art.. so I don’t look at it..  If someone doesn’t like my interpretation of something, don’t look at it..One thing he did really well though:he had his own interpretations; the older he got.. the more he stopped following the masses.. cuz if everybody drew things exactly the way they are…. wouldn’t that be really boring??TO summarize: The way that I draw Freed, or anyone/anything really…. is simply an interpretation. :)Holy shit.. I am apparently not a woman of few words…. Sorry for the long story.. But I hope this clarifies my opinion on this matter And I hope this answers your question: It’s on purpose :)

#Anonymous