#objectively untrue statement

[acepalindrome]

Much like Welcome to Nightvale, I feel like a lot of people have forgotten just how big and influential Yuri on Ice was. It fully broke into the mainstream. It was everywhere. Evgenia Medvedeva, the top female figure skater in 2016 and 2017, had YOI plushies thrown to her on the ice and wore a Victuuri tshirt to an interview. Japanese pair skaters Miu Suzaki and Ryuichi Kihara skated to the YOI theme at the fucking Pyeongchang 2018 Olympics. The Olympics. Canadian ice dancer Joseph Johnson did the ‘J.J. Style’ hand symbol in the kiss and cry. Johnny Weir made me cry by talking about how he wished the homophobic world of figure skating he experienced could have been more like the kinder world of Yuri on Ice.

There were cameos and references to it everywhere. Everyone was talking about it. People who had never watched anime were watching it. It was so big it crashed Crunchyroll and Tumblr. Twice. And all that for what was at its core, a queer love story that helped pave the way for more queer stories to come.

#yuri on ice #yoi #i got a little fired up at the implication that voltron was somehow #more iconic than yoi #objectively untrue statement #anyway yoi healed my queer heart and helped me find the courage to come out to my family

[loving-n0t-heyting]

"scientific research has definitively proven torture absolutely never works for extracting information thus rendering any moral questions around torture-interrogation moot" no. false. cope, skill issue, and ceding too much ground to the enemy

the obvious tell when ppl wield this factoid is that the studies alluded to are never actually cited. there is ofc a good reason for this: ethical standards in human experimentation rule out the sorts of rigorous controlled studies these authoritative pronouncements always bring to mind, meaning such scholarly work as does exist has to rely on considerably less persuasive arguments-by-inference, like pointing to the neurological damage induced by most torture techniques

and anyway we all know the claims are untrue to begin with. suppose there is some information on your encrypted laptop whose privacy you value at all but only finitely, and that someone takes a baseball bat to yr stomach while yr tied up in an effort to extract the password from you with the promise they will cease once the information is obtained. wdyd? exactly

the key to such effective torture is checkability, as (relatively) non-idiotic torture apologists themselves generally admit. anscombe writes satirically:

The Report might be thought, at first inspection, to rule [interrogation by torture] out on the ground that confessions obtained by torture are unreliable, and are therefore not to be introduced. That is true; but torture could often be used to obtain ascertainably reliable information. [...] The correct position, which the Report itself puts forward, is that such evidence should be used where independently confirmable; for example, the model statute reaffirms the ability of the prosecution to produce physical evidence, or any other fact, about a crime, even though information leading to that evidence be discovered by inducements, threats, or oppressive treatment, presumably including torture.

if you need real life examples, this war criminal-adulating mealy-mouthed sycophant has gathered a handful. you might here object (as well as to previous apriori argument) that these examples are somewhat limited in scope and relevance, which might be fair were the pronouncements on tortures ineffectiveness not always so sweeping and categorical. to a universal statement one counterexample suffices as refutation.

the fact that these smug claims of total inefficacy for torture as an information-gathering technique are so readily falsified is indicative of the underlying problem: as an argument against the use of torture it is either disingenuous or made from the same false starting position of the torturer, that the question of whether to torture is a matter of "weighing" the cost to the victim against the cost to "society" as mediated by how well the torture "works." in reality, torture is ruled out simply bc it is torture, just as murdering a teenage boy to harvest his organs is ruled out simply bc it is murder. give that up and youve given up everything

[nanomooselet]

Little but Fierce

Now, I might be mistaken, but judging by the number of bare pectoral muscles strewn over my dash at any given moment, I'm gonna say Wolfwood is pretty popular? And that's understandable (he's a loser <3) but it's a genuinely terrible shame that Meryl gets overlooked. Especially in Stampede. Orange have done some really amazingly cool things with Meryl.

And it makes me a little nervous to say so, but I think they only could have done them by detaching her from Milly, at least for a time. Milly's still going to show up and I'm confident from this precedent they'll treat her well, so I'm at peace with her absence for now.

Nightow is unexpectedly good in many ways. He treats sex workers as human, which is a low bar that many nevertheless fail to clear, and my only serious disappointment in Maximum was in how the girls vanished for long periods. I recall an interview where he said something to the effect of being reluctant to put them in harm's way, and while I'm disinclined to take anything Nightow says entirely at face value (I don't think he's a liar, but I do think he has a sense of humour that inclines him to kindly trolling, which I respect), that would line up, I think.

I think Orange are taking the opportunity to remedy this disappointment.

It's exciting. It's the kind of writing for female characters in genre media I've always craved. I will not be silenced on how extremely gay I am for Meryl Stryfe.

Unfortunately that means for this first entry, I'll have to talk about Knives. (Whom I also love, but not in a gay way. More an affectionate revulsion. He's fascinatingly horrible, this man.)

So. I've noticed a distressing tendency for Knives's... really almost anything that ever comes out of his mouth (seriously) to be taken as the honest, objective truth. After all, they didn't call him a villain.

And what an honest face he has!

As Knives has it:

Vash is pretty, but he's useless without his brother. He's a powerless, weak, pathetically naïve, blubberingly sentimental little baby who doesn't care about the Plants, too busy enabling humanity's abuse via performing his cringing, grasping abasement before them to notice how his brethren suffer. Knives himself is the more powerful (and much less human-like) of the twins; the strongest and most righteous activist for necessary change now that, sadly despite all good faith attempts at communication, non-violent solutions have failed. He truly has only the best and most altruistic intentions: the freedom of his people, and the happiness of his brother.

Here's the problem. This has always been the problem. Every one of the statements in the paragraph above is false. Except the one about Vash being pretty.

Once more with feeling: They are completely untrue. They are supported by literally nothing. All we have is his word that they're true and there's so much existing evidence to disprove his claims that even the thought of compiling it exhausts me.

However, I did say that Zazie is a truth-teller in this story, didn't I? So let's examine some of Zazie's conclusions.

Now, I've seen reference to the surviving human communities on No Man's Land as "colonisers", and that their treatment of the Plants even before the Fall is analogous to slavery. (My strong suspicion is that Knives is purposefully invoking those comparisons, in fact.) Those are both extremely loaded analogies, culturally and emotionally, and I just want to gently, respectfully caution those who make them against overlooking the more nuanced and purposeful analogies being made. Or maybe should I say, the actual individuals to whom they apply.

Zazie is very careful to say this: Knives told them humans can't be trusted to learn from consuming their home planet. Knives was the one who said humans will have Zazie's planet next, and that only Knives will "use" the Plants correctly - so Zazie should ally with Knives.

Here's what Knives meant by "using the Plants correctly":

I, uh, think Zazie may have made the wrong call on this one! And that Zazie thinks the same.

This is what makes the interaction with Wolfwood so funny and sad - the all-knowing, ostensibly unkillable Zazie is freaking the hell out, staggering under the weight of realising just how apocalyptically badly they have fucked up. Wolfwood, who also directly instigated this disaster but under duress, is grimly amused - he did everything he did fulfilling the contract to protect the kids, even as his conviction failed, even though he would rather have died, even after Livio... and thus he personally rendered all his own efforts and sacrifices moot.

And he's just like, "Heh, yeah. That tracks." This poor boy.

Afterwards, Zazie is confused and even a little saddened that Vash was demonised in the wake of July's destruction. Never let it be said the bug fails to learn from experience: Vash is the one everyone blames? Ah, so he was in fact spectacularly heroic and clever and it's entirely Knives's fault it turned out so badly.

Also, crashing on this specific planet wasn't exactly humanity's choice. Guess whose choice it was.

Go on, guess. Better yet, guess why.

Yeah. It was also Knives who said to Zazie that both he and Vash crashed the ships... trying to stop us. From doing exactly what Knives tried to do the very instant he got the chance.

The thing is, Knives does everything he can to look like he's right by positioning himself as the most authoritative source, but he isn't ever backed up by like... facts. Or evidence. Or reality. Or anything. Ever. He crowned himself king of the Plants. He speaks and acts for them by divine right, apparently. He didn't take a vote or anything - in his mind it's self-evident only he understands the world, and Vash, and the correct way to use the Plants. Because remember that it's not using Plants he gives a damn about, even using them to death in the Last Run, as long it's him doing it. It's being dependent upon humans; he views providing for our basic survival needs as wasteful and inherently, exclusively parasitic, even if we're helping the Plants to survive in turn. Because it's humans that he's frightened of, and he wants the yucky things gone.

The thing is, when he's not being purposefully manipulative (though Vash is the only one he manipulates in person, probably because Vash is the only one he pays enough attention to for his tactics to be effective) he's being a dense fucking idiot. At very few points do his delusions intersect with reality.

The thing is, Knives is a known, proven, and entirely unrepentant liar. It's the logical extension of the way he gaslights Vash. He is in no way a trustworthy source of information.

All that he says is part of a heroic narrative about being the specialest boy evar that he came up with to avoid taking any blame or responsibility for the consequences of his actions. Knives considers himself perfect, but he's made plenty of mistakes, which I do think he would consider mistakes - among them Rem's death, alienating Vash, cutting off his arm and rendering him disabled, and what I suspect to be the large number of Plants killed in the Fall, along with the ones consumed by the Last Run in the desperation that followed.

So he tells himself... little stories. Inside his head. It's how he reconciles it. It's how he copes.

Basically, if you want to find any truth in anything Knives ever says, look closely at what he says, and believe the opposite.

Now, onto my girl and how completely fantastic she is.

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V

Part VI

Part VII

Part VIII

Part IX

#trigun stampede #trigun meta #tristampparty #millions knives #meryl stryfe #i was about to say “liar pants on fire” and then i remembered #...literally tho #meta: little but fierce #terrible terrible plant man

[emmitaaa4]

I want to preface this little rant by saying that I am all for ship and let ship—at the end of the day none of this has any significance, and we should all get to enjoy our silly little ships to our heart’s content. Me personally I just want Elain to do whatever the hell she wants and be happy in the end. That being said, rn I just felt like getting something off my chest.

From what I have seen and understood, most of The Other Side believes that Azriel feels entitled to Elain. That he sees her as a sexual object, or at the very most as a rebound he doesn’t truly care for, nor respect; he does not think of her beyond what he can get from her sexually. They say his attitude towards her is toxic in its ‘possessiveness’; he doesn’t consider her an equal, for he sees her as a perpetual damsel in distress he must save; his attraction to her / feelings for her are a symptom of some twisted trauma response.

We know that they believe that. We’ve heard it. Over and over and over. Since 2021. Hell, everybody’s momma probably knows it, too, with the way that rhetoric is spread. But Elriels have made it plenty clear that we have a very different interpretation of the text and do NOT agree with those assessments of Azriel (nor half the things the poor man is diagnosed with, bless his fictional soul), considering what we do know of Azriel’s character and his relationship with Elain, based on the books--and yes, the bonus (see this, this, and this post). Otherwise—i.e. if we believed him an incel x fuckboy hybrid (probs the first of his kind!) who is only interested in getting her in is bed—we would obviously not be shipping them together: most of us (99% I’d say lol) care about Elain more than we do Az, or care about them both just as much.

So it is getting pretty tiring to see us shippers—the actual humans behind the screen—labelled as having a toxic/immature view of what love is, of being “too young/naive” to see the supposed red flags, of mistaking lust for love because we have not experienced a healthy relationship (?), of actually promoting toxic relationships & advocating for toxic masculinity (which someone told me on tiktok just now)(stay away from tiktok, folks). Those generalizations are wild to me, not only because they are wildly untrue and condescending, but because Elriels are a colorful bunch, you know—when you’re speaking of the fandom Villain™, you’re speaking of people of every demographic, speaking of daughters mothers grandmothers, depressed uni students (pardon the self-insert), etc... I need to get thicker skin, but those statements can get pretty hurtful in the long run. And I’m tired of feeling the need to justify myself as if we’re wrong for shipping two people who MUTUALLY want one another and lets be serious, no its not “just lust”.

I know I know, I am probably being dramatic. But it’s just weird to see a ship being so demonized and its shippers along with it, all because louder portions of the fandom disagree with our opinions and insist on toxifying ours. Just to be clear, I know that many have had unpleasant experiences/interactions with Elriels, just like many Elriels have had the same with Gwynriels and/or Eluciens. I condone none of the disgusting behaviour I’ve seen from some shippers, and in fact I abhor it. As everyone should.

To end this on a good note.

Elriels, I say we run with it. Az wants Elain for himself. He is jealous and his mind is plagued by thoughts of her. Her presence is too much to bear, for he can’t stand to be in the same room as her and pretend like he feels nothing. He is ready to beg on his knees for a chance to worship her, and it took Nesta one look to see it.

AZ IS OBSESSED AND I SAY WE EMBRACE IT.

#pro azriel #elain archeron #ship and let ship folks #that said embrace the obsession my elriel girlies #azriel #elriel #rant post #azriel bonus chapter #pro elriel #azriel shadowsinger #acotar

[badaziraphaletakes]

Somebody pointed out that it's rude to call out other fan's headcanons and call them untrue or worse. However, I feel like there is a subtle difference in, this is how I perceive the canon story and its characters, and this is my own take on something within the story. Am I being an idiot? I've never been a member of a fandom before, Aziraphale is very dear to me and I feel hurt when he's misunderstood and mischaracterised. I'm not saying I or people I particularly like have a direct view into Neil's brain, but we do have the right to defend how we see him, right? Cos if I see one more take on how Az should suffer in S3 cos he didn't suffer enough, he's never felt the kind of loss that Crowley felt when he walked into the bookshop... or when Crowley was heartlessly told 'I forgive you'... etc etc, I'm going to honest to God cry.

In general, yes I agree that critiquing other people's interpretations of the characters is rude. One of the most beautiful things about this show is that the characters are so relatable that they can be seen in hundreds of different ways, and that is valid.

HOWEVER.

There's interpretation, and then there's completely flat-out ignoring both the show itself and the cold hard statements that the showrunner and the actor who plays the character have both made, because you didn't like the way season two ended. Michael Sheen never said "Aziraphale loved Crowley as an angel." He said, "Aziraphale loves Crowley." He said this dozens of times, in dozens of ways. Neil Gaiman said that it's a love story, and that they love each other. There's not a lot of room for interpretation there. And that's not even including the dozens of looks and touches and statements that Aziraphale has made all through season two. In no objective reality do the show or the storytellers tell us that Aziraphale only loved Crowley as an angel.

I feel like it's a subset of Perfect Victim Syndrome to make statements like this about Aziraphale. We see PVS all the time in real life when the victim of a crime (especially when committed by someone in authority) is analyzed and scrutinized by the public to decide whether they did something to "deserve" it. I feel like people are giving Aziraphale some of this same treatment when they say things like "He needs to suffer in season three" or "He needs to open his eyes" or "He didn't love Crowley enough to stay with him." Because Aziraphale said strange, inexplicable things that hurt Crowley's feelings in the Final Fifteen, suddenly that justifies not sympathizing with him on what has got to be the worst day of his existence.

It's easy to blame the victim when bad things happen, because it helps us maintain our illusion that the world is just and everything bad happens for a reason, and furthermore bad things won't happen to US, because we're Not Like That. It's harmful in real life, and it's hurtful when it's done to a fictional character who is an important coping mechanism for many of us.

(Oh, and if your brother ever kisses you like that, you should call somebody.)

#good omens #goodomens #aziraphale #good omens 2 #badaziraphaletakes #cw: victim blaming

[cubeapples]

tell me i did NOT just see a post calling jily "more complex than tomarry," 💀 like wow... what a wild comparison and objectively untrue statement.

#anti jily #harry potter #tomarry #harrymort #tomarrymort

[spacelazarwolf]

I saw a few posts saying that objectively transfems/trans women suffer more violence than transmascs/transmen and that it's harmful to say tmen suffer differently but equally in terms of oppression. It made me kind of uncomfy as a tboy but idk if I'm just being reactive or whatever, do u have any thoughts on this?

oh i have lots of thoughts on this bc the statement “trans women/femmes face more violence than trans men/mascs” is factually untrue.

trans men/mascs face the same or higher levels of violence in almost every category with the exception of hate violence which is only one percent lower. the difference is the media plasters violence against trans women/femmes everywhere as a warning to closeted trans people to stay closeted whereas they erase trans men/mascs entirely and report violence against us as violence against women because they want us to know that even in death we’re still women in their eyes. the treatment of both trans women/femmes and trans men/mascs in media is incredibly intentional and harmful for both groups.

a lot of the people making these statements 1. aren’t trans women/femmes, or 2. aren’t taking into account actual lived experiences of trans people in the real world, only social media politics. arguing about “who has it worse” is such a goddamn petty and entitled thing to do because why the fuck should we spend our time bickering about who gets murdered 1% more than the other when we should be tackling the societal issues that contribute to all of us facing violence and death in the fucking first place.

#ask avishai #trans #trans man #trans community #queer #transmasc #trans masc

[utilitycaster]

Is it just me or are some of the more intense Imaudna folk…kind of mirroring Imogen’s over-defensiveness of Liliana? Or at least uncritically accepting Imogen’s assessment of her, without acknowledging her “bias”? (as we are now apparently calling the characters’ family - so K-pop of us)

I’m not saying she’s a terrible mother - she’s literary moving heaven and earth for Imogen [and herself] - but she’s helping bring about what could be an apocalyptic event, on the off-chance that it could relieve them of their powers.

And I get why people wanna ignore that in favor of Imogen reuniting with her Mom and building a relationship with her. But it’s frustrating when you remember that some of the people her Mom has fucked over include Kiki and the Ashari (not just Orym) and that she’s working with a guy that allowed Trent’s abuse of Caleb, who Beau has spent years working to take down, and we still don’t know what’s happened to those two.

Again - shades of gray, and we all love villains and complicated, messy women. But it’s quite the slice of cognitive dissonance to see fandom *really* pile on Fearne’s parents for abandoning her (especially when it was only six years as far as they knew), but even after she’s party to nearly murdering Kiki, we shouldn’t be assuming the worst of Liliana?

(Just read this back and…I don’t think some these Imaudna fans are actually Marisha fans)

I don't think it's mirroring Imogen, per se. Or rather, I think this is all part of the larger trend I've touched upon for some time: there are a segment of shippers with absolutely no empathy for or generosity towards anything that interferes with the ship. Ideally, they'd like to also support Imogen and Laudna as individuals; but even then the ship comes before the characters. As you said, they're not really Marisha - or Laudna - or for that matter Imogen or Laura fans. They're fans of them playing characters who are in a relationship together.

When Imogen was upset with Laudna for breaking the gnarlrock, there was a pretty prevalent attitude of "but it wasn't LAUDNA's fault, so why is Imogen upset, that's unfair" even though the rock is still broken and it happened when it was in Laudna's possession and, frankly, had Imogen not given the rock to Laudna, she'd still have it. In retrospect this has gotten even more wild, because since then, they've leaned very far into the negative effects Imogen experiences as a result of her powers as an argument as to why she's allowed to do whatever she wants, but at the time if you pointed out Imogen found relief from the rock and is justified in having an emotional response, you were met with screams of HOW DARE YOU BE MEAN TO LAUDNA. This hypocrisy is of course tied into the lack of empathy, because said lack of empathy rests on granting infinite grace to those who support or even merely recognize the ship, no matter their other actions (eg: Otohan), and dismissing the feelings of anyone else.

When Laudna died, it was a pretty common attitude among Imogen and Laudna shippers (I would say Laudna fans, but quite honestly almost every post grieving her was just as much about the ship as the character) that Orym would have been happy to have remained dead because he was a widower. This is a horrifying mentality to have - people's partners do die young, and most people choose to continue living - and was also notably untrue based on Liam's statements both in and out of game. You'll notice that "Orym doesn't want to die and felt like this was a massive failure" on 4SD never took off, but "Orym can't be objective" on 4SD has been blown to ludicrous proportions that show a stunning lack of understanding of like...basic human emotions and their role in decision-making. Because there's no consistency except The Ship.

When the party went to Whitestone, and Percy was in fact played as someone with very complicated and layered feelings about death and dying, and who was not going to change his developed principles for a stranger, he was lambasted. The fact that Delilah Briarwood is just as responsible for his trauma - repeatedly so, she was the architect of both his family's murder and the reason why Vecna achieved godhood, she's literally why his brother-in-law is dead, the Briarwoods have been responsible for two of Vex's deaths - was completely ignored. The fact that Vex and Pike were not spiting him in the end, but rather developed a mutually acceptable plan that permitted Laudna's resurrection with a contingency plan to kill her if Delilah returned led to some pretty harsh criticism of them as well.

FCG was pretty popular among the shippers for quite some time because he wanted everyone to get along and wanted Imogen and Laudna to make up after the gnarlrock fight (note: this is also true of Ashton and Orym, both of whom as discussed have since fallen from grace because they continued to exist as characters with their own thoughts and motivation) and had a lot in common with Imogen. However, a series of things occurred that led to their fall from grace among the shippers. The first was that FCG's coin is why Orym was resurrected instead of Laudna. The second is that Shared Dream was not, in fact, intended only to let Laudna go into Imogen's dreams, but rather allowed anyone in the party to go. The third is that FCG started to find a purpose beyond "help others no matter what," particularly after realizing they had a soul and were in fact a person, and specifically began exploring religion. Religion is unpopular with Imodna shippers particularly after 3x49 and Imogen's consideration of the Vanguard, but there's also definitely a mix of obvious ex-fundamentalists who never unpacked their feelings and instead just want all their fiction to validate their new beliefs. The fourth is that FCG/FRIDA "stole" the first canon relationship spot (which also confirmed that FCG was, in fact, shippable rather than some kind of robot eunuch with nothing better to do than push Imogen and Laudna together). And so you get some really fucked statements. Like, when I say I've seen "I hope someone makes that robot eat their stupid coin" that's not exaggeration; it's pretty much verbatim. That's not a post that a person who makes any attempt to understand experiences other than their own can make in earnest, but it does make sense from the perspective of someone who has decided Imogen and Laudna's relationship is the heart of the show and is angered that five other main PCs exist and have their own interests.

Ashton occupies a truly fascinating space, in that they're oddly popular, in part because their scenes with Laudna are genuinely unmissably fantastic scenes for Laudna. It's one of the only places where Laudna takes off the mask (though she's started to with Orym too). He also overlaps with a lot of what makes Imogen popular, except it's canon where Imogen's is subtext, or it's obviously more severe (Imogen's mom left? Ashton's an orphan. Imogen's had a few headaches? Ashton has chronic pain). So they hated when he pointed out he'd been abandoned by his friends in a way Laudna hadn't (also because Ashton and Laudna's conversation in 3x49 was just far more honest than Imogen and Laudna's, and because Laudna sought them out), but they like him when he's supportive of Laudna. They're constantly on the thinnest of ice because of this and because they're a genuinely compelling character, but because of that, might get in the way of what said shippers want, namely, a hundred episodes of Imogen and Laudna sipping tea at Zhudanna's and having a lovely time.

Following Imogen considering joining the Vanguard, Orym fell out of vogue despite his previous interactions with Imogen, because he very justifiably pointed out, as I've said, that the Ruby Vanguard killed his husband and his father-in-law (whom he saw as a father figure himself), and used a toxin that ensured they couldn't be brought back. I've talked about this a ton and so I'm not going to rehash every aspect, but the fact remains that while I like Imogen's choice to do this - conflict is fun! It makes sense for her character! - it's an incredibly insensitive thing to say. (It blows Ashton's statement about loneliness out of the water, for sure; incidentally, Ashton pointing out the more general hey girl they murder everyone who disagrees did NOT sit well with the hey let's harass everyone who disagrees crowd.) And when you mix it in with the god stuff discussed regarding FCG, Orym has become the periannath non grata of choice to the point of a similar response to the gnarlrock fight - if you sympathize with him, they see it as an attack not just on Imogen but on Laudna, for...not talking about Laudna as well. This has only gotten worse with Orym firmly committing to destroying the Vanguard, to the point that there are, generously speaking, misunderstandings or misrememberings of the text, and less generously speaking, outright lies. A notable one is that Laudna begins to tap into Delilah before Orym nods (Marisha's mention of the purplish hue is at 2:52:02 in episode 3x63; Orym's nod is at 3:01:42, a solid 9+ minutes later); he supports her decision, but he is not responsible for it.

Then there's the guests. Deanna was obviously made to ask Imogen about Laudna. She's here to ask them if they're married. She's here to encourage Imogen to follow her heart. She's definitely not here to have her own active and interesting love life and personal feelings about the gods (that conflict with Imogen's) and history and perspective. Oh she's...she's calling out Imogen's nonstop use of psychic powers? She's having a three-way with Chetney and Fearne? FRIDA is hooking up with FCG and admitted their anger about the gods was mostly due to projecting their personal anger about feeling powerless and having been awoken without their consent? Uhhhhhh Deni$e was obviously made to to ask Laudna about Imogen. She's definitely not here to be a connection to Dariax and have her own active and interesting love life and personal feelings about the gods. Wait, no, maybe Bor'Dor will ask about it? Uhhhhhh *flips coin but not in an FCG way* Laudna will *rolls dice* mentor Prism and this will...make this ship happen? Oh, won't these people with their own distinct personalities and motivations who keep having conversations with Orym and Ashton and each other stop doing that and just presume that a specific one of the four other people in Bells Hells they've never met and probably don't remember the names of is married to Laudna? Won't someone stop playing their character as a fully fleshed out person whose life is entirely unaffected by Laudna and Imogen's respective love lives? Oh and then Bor'Dor did ask about the relationship, and it was because it was a weakness and he was trying to infiltrate.

Quite literally? It goes as far as the gods! Why didn't they save Laudna? To which I'd say sure, let's explore what happens if they did! Let's follow this thread! Do they just save Laudna and maybe her family and no one else? Why Laudna? Does she get saved at the expense of some other dark-haired girl in Whitestone? Or perhaps they save everyone. Perhaps the De Rolos remain in power, and Campaign 1 doesn't fucking happen I guess, and Laudna grows up, and she lives out the rest of her life in Whitestone, and she's a woman in her 50s now - maybe even married, perhaps with children - and has never been to Marquet and wouldn't know or care about some random 20-something with purple hair. Like, what are you driving at here? Maybe the gods let Laudna die because that was the only way to bring her to Imogen. Ever think of that? (alternately: how do you know they didn't? What if Laudna's undead state has to do with Vecna? You didn't specify if it was the Primes or the Betrayers, or how she gets saved; she's still living after a hanging, which some might consider a miraculous gift. What if it was the Dawnfather acting through the Sun Tree? Can you describe what you want the gods to have done and where that puts us in 843 PD or do you just say shit hoping no one will ever poke at it?) When do the gods intervene? Do they make sure nothing bad ever happens to anyone? Are mortals just dolls the gods move around with no free will?

So anyway. I don't think these feelings about Liliana are based on mirroring Imogen's thought process. I do not think there is a level of consideration that Imogen and Laudna have motivations (motivations mean they can be something other than perfect flawless victims who found each other). It is simply "Imogen wants this, Laudna will validate anything she does, and so it's correct." The party line for anything else "fuck your trauma, fuck your dead family and dead loves, fuck your own hopes and dreams and goals: you exist only to fawn over two random-ass women. It doesn't matter if they are strangers to you. It doesn't matter if you've only met one of them. It doesn't matter how they act towards you. It doesn't matter if you're one of them, if you step out of line. This is your sole purpose, and if you fail, you're not a person to me." There's absolutely no thought put into the implications of anything they say beyond "it supports the ship, or, if not, it perpetuates the blameless, perfect and thus boring frozen state of the characters."

#answered #Anonymous #cr tag #long post

[bookofmirth]

I was thinking about when Lucien tells Feyre that she was a better friend to him than she was to her, and how we as readers have reacted to that line over the years, and had a few thoughts.

The main thing is that characters can and will do/say things that they believe to be true, that we know are not actually true. The characters may also know that they are untrue, but don't want to admit. We lie to ourselves all the time, and characters do too. It may not even be the case that sjm wants *us* to believe that Lucien is speaking the truth. The important thing is that, in that moment, Lucien believes that he is speaking the truth.

We should not confuse what the characters are saying with what the author is saying. An author is NOT their characters. A character can and will say/do things that an author does not agree with, and may not even like. A character saying/doing something is NOT an endorsement of saying/doing that thing by the author. (This can be easier to understand when you read poetry - though there has been an increase in confessional poetry in the past few decades which is largely autobiographical, the narrator of a poem is NOT necessarily the same as the author of a poem.)

This isn't to say that Feyre is being an unreliable narrator; we have Lucien's literal words that he spoke to her, there was no reflection on those words by Feyre that tells us what she thinks of them, and she would have no reason to lie. As a fandom, I wish we could stop getting so hung up on the idea of unreliable narrators and differing character perspectives as a means to argue that one character is "more right" than another, or that we get "the truth" when we view from a specific character's eyes. That's... not how it works. There is no such thing as an objective way of viewing pretty much anything. Everything relies on perspective. We all hear/read things and those things get filtered through the giant pasta strainer of our upbringing, our beliefs, our values, our professions, our hobbies, etc. SJM has never been an author to use unreliable narration, but she does use differing perspectives. If she didn't, then every single character would seem like the same person. It's 10000% normal for us to understand characters and events differently when we hear about them from another character.

So back to my main point, I think that we can read this as Lucien genuinely believing this statement to be true - that he truly thinks that Feyre was a better friend to him if we consider his context.

Lucien has no real home with stability. He was banished from Autumn, he is estranged from his brothers, he cannot be there to protect his mother, his role in Spring has some importance but is reliant on the goodwill of someone who is, frankly, increasingly unstable. Lucien likely feels very indebted to Tamlin, and now that Feyre is Tamlin's bride/ex-fiancée, to her. There is also the role that she played UtM in trying to help Lucien. In other words, thanks to Beron being an asshole, Lucien relies on other people's goodwill for his basic survival. (This is why, later on, he would rather stay with the BoE. He isn't beholden to them in the same way that he would be to Rhys, yet another person taking pity on Lucien's dépaysement.)

In retrospect, Lucien feels guilt for not having done more when Feyre was suffering in acomaf. It's easier for him to see how she was suffering because he was suffering in an adjacent manner. In the beginning of acomaf, Feyre was making excuses for Tamlin, trying to be patient, to wait out his anger and grief at what happened UtM. Lucien was doing the exact same thing, but it took him longer to recognize how toxic it was because Lucien, unlike Feyre, didn't have the advantage of someone literally swooping in to take him away and give him perspective. He got there, though, when Tamlin starts working with Hybern and especially after he sees Feyre back in Spring, which leads me to my next point.

Lucien is clearly wary of Feyre's lies while she is in the Night Court. He suspects that she is pretending to be in love with Tamlin, pretending to be loyal to the Spring Court. This reinforces his understanding of just how toxic Spring has become, the fact that Feyre saw it, understood, and acted before he did. So tying these issues together - Lucien's exile, his reliance on other people for stability, his dawning understanding that Feyre recognized the situation for what it was before he did, that he has ended up in this situation where his mate is now at risk - and Lucien feels a whole lot of "if only I had..." And he now sees Feyre as someone who saw the situation for what it was before he did, and acted accordingly. But we as the reader know why that was harder for Lucien.

So going back to my point about Lucien believing this is all true, we know that it's not, and that's a normal part of being a reader. Lucien makes that statement after telling Feyre about Ianthe and Calanmai; we know that not long after, right after she tells Lucien that she wishes she could have stopped his assault, she nearly - knowingly - allows it to happen again. Lucien's words and Feyre's actions don't align, and there is nothing in the narrative that tells us that her actions are okay.

(A related rant, but characters don't need to be punished for us to understand if their actions are morally okay or not. We are smart people, we can tell that for ourselves. It may be annoying to us if they aren't punished, but that's another idea that has pervaded book spaces - that if problematic action isn't punished or portrayed negatively, then the author must think it's okay. No, maybe the author trusts us to know what's right and what's not, and doesn't feel the need to beat us over the head with it because books do not have to be moral, didactic tools.)

SJM could have written it so that Feyre didn't hesitate to help Lucien. She could have written it so that Feyre didn't intentionally try to put Lucien in the path of Tamlin's anger. She could have written Feyre to be a saint, but she didn't, and just because another character views Feyre's actions favorably doesn't mean that we have to, because we have the benefit of knowing that sometimes, people lie to themselves and/or say things they don't truly mean or believe. And furthermore, just because one character views Feyre's actions favorably, doesn't mean that SJM does. Remember - the characters =/= the author. SJM doesn't actually believe or agree with everything the characters say and do. She doesn't have to agree with anything they say or do.

Thanks for coming to my tedtalk.

#lucien vanserra #acowar #acotar #my meta #feyre archeron #feyre #lucien #leslie rereads acotar #literally couldn't think of a better way to describe lucien's home feelings right now #than depaysement so..... #it's one of those words that's hard to translate #but it fits his situation #and puts the emphasis on his feelings #rather than his circumstances #i am nothing if not pretentious #honestly this all feels like a lot of explanation #for this one line #when really it should be pretty simple #but given the way that people talk about perspective and the role of the author #things needed clarification #because they aren't discussed accurately at this moment on the internet

[vampirejuno]

So I have a philosophical conundrum for y'all.

Imo, in order to be considered a lie, a statement has to be untrue And the speaker has to know it's untrue. Objective untruths aren't necessarily lies as long as you fully believe you're telling the truth. So:

1. Statement is true + speaker believes it's true -> not a lie

2. Statement is false + speaker believes it's true -> not a lie

3. Statement is false + speaker believes it's false -> lie

But. What if:

4. Statement is true + speaker believes it's false?

[nikethestatue]

I noticed Nesta has been making broad claims that seem untrue or at least debatable (like taking full credit for killing KoH and not even thinking of Elain.) Sometimes I think SJM is just doing this to show Nesta’s POV and not have everything be totally reliable. But sometimes I wonder if SJM doesn’t agree with Nesta’s thinking. The point of my question: In HOFAS, Nesta says she alone controls the DT. That seems like a huge assumption. Feyre might be able to as she originally was going to look for them if she weren’t pregnant, but elain definitely should theoretically be able to, since she was Made the same as Nesta. Who knows if the other starborn descendants we know can wield them.

So I’m wondering if you think this statement from Nesta is how SJM sees it, or is going to be proven false. Part of me thinks SJM wouldn’t “embarrass” her fav Nesta that way by having her claim a power with her whole chest and use as leverage over Rhys, only to not be the only special one who can wield it after all. But then part of me thinks this statement is way too bold to be true. (I feel the same about KoH, I think it’s been mentioned too many times to not be leading up to Elain getting partial credit, but I’m not sure if SJM wants to “undermine” Nesta’s claim like that.) What do you think?

I think SJM is probably preparing a surprise of some kind. The troves might work differently with Elain, she might have a different kind of magic—which I think she does.

Beyond the Seer abilities no one knows what Elain is capable of. Theories abound, especially in regards to Power of Life. What is that going to look like?

I guess the question now is what do we do with the troves? We have a few of them —the Harp, the Crown. Unless someone wants to use them for something, even if nesta is the only one to wield them properly unless they need them, what will they use them for?

I’ve contended that Elain will use the Harp. I think that’s ‘her’ trove object. I think the crown is Feyre’s. I think the mask is Nesta’s.

But we’ll see. I do think there will be something unexpected with Elain’s powers.

[anwiel13]

Vilnius prosecutor's office closes investigation

Forensic medical report in Shelby Lynn case suggests cause of accident without external influence

As lawyers of Till Lindemann (see our press release of 08.06.2023) we inform about the latest developments:

1.

The public prosecutor's office in Vilnius (Lithuania) has discontinued the investigation initiated by Shelby Lynn's complaint, thus confirming the previous decision of the local police. Shelby Lynn had claimed that she had been drugged on the occasion of the Rammstein concert in Vilnius on May 22, 2023. The next day, she had noticed numerous hematomas on her body, which indicated an alleged physical abuse. Shelby Lynn had made these photos public, along with a video, via Twitter.

The prosecutor's office in Vilnius justified its decision to discontinue the case by stating that after questioning a witness and analyzing data and documents, no objective factual evidence had been found to support Shelby Lynn's statements.

2.

In order to further clarify Ms. Lynn's allegations, we initiated our own investigations on behalf of our client. The Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University Hospital in Cologne was commissioned to evaluate the photographs and video clip published by Ms. Lynn to determine the possible causes of the injuries shown there. In particular, it was to be assessed whether the injuries could be attributed to physical abuse. According to the expert opinion prepared by the director of the institute, Prof. Dr. Markus Rothschild, the recordings suggest that the most probable cause is an accident without external influence. Specifically, the expert opinion states.

"Overall, the morphology and localization of the documented injuries speak rather for an accidental occurrence, without which an external influence can be completely ruled out from the outset on the basis of the findings alone. However, from a forensic medical point of view, the findings are not typical for an external impact.

In addition to what has been presented under 4.1, there are in particular no indications of sexual violence as the cause of the injuries documented in the witness. It is true that here, too, sexual assault or rape cannot be ruled out on the basis of the injury findings alone. Conversely, however, there were also no indications of sexualized violence."

3.

In the meantime, the lawyer Prof. Dr. Björn Gercke, who was commissioned by our client with his criminal defense, was able to inspect the file of the preliminary proceedings conducted at the Berlin Public Prosecutor's Office. The inspection confirmed previous press releases, according to which the preliminary proceedings are not based on criminal charges filed by alleged victims. Complainants are uninvolved third parties who have based their complaints exclusively on media reports and accusations in the social social networks. Furthermore, the inspection of the files revealed that there is no objective evidence to date that would suggest that our client committed the crime.

4.

As already announced in the press release of June 8, 2023, we are taking action on behalf of our client against inadmissible reporting and untrue statements of fact in the media and on social networks.

Among other things, we have applied to the Hamburg Regional Court for an injunction against the reporting in SPIEGEL No. 24 of June 10, 2023. We complain about the violation of our client's privacy, the publication and dissemination of untrue factual allegations and inadmissible suspicious reporting. A decision is expected in the next few days.

The YouTuber Kayla Shyx (civil name: Kaya Loska) was warned in connection with her YouTube video from 06.06.2023. In response to this, she issued a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause to our client on two points. Insofar as the requested cease-and-desist declaration was not submitted, we are applying for the issuance of an interim injunction on behalf of our client.

In Switzerland, among others, Ringier AG was warned because of the reporting on www.blick.ch from 18.06.2023 (title: "Recruited Alena M. also in Bern women for Lindemann?"). Following the warning, the publisher issued a comprehensive cease-and-desist declaration to our client. The article can no longer be accessed via the website.

From Rammsteinsherz

https://www.presseportal.de/pm/62754/5543913?fbclid=PAAaZ0Hm7PH6QzZ6KXVyxc5Kruxfp8SoD16nLfDkQuZR6Qz2JRFFftPq1tSrw

#till lindemann #I hope for proper punishment for all of them

[kitkatopinions]

Sometimes, it feels like RT could literally have the team stab a random bystander to death while having a song playing in the background named "Murder Is So Fun," then have Ruby say one episode later that they've never killed anyone and are against murder, and the stans would be like "Yep, that is an objectively true statement and they've never done anything to contradict it."

I mean we've seen this in the insistence that Team RWBY managed to avoid any deaths in the Fall of Atlas, which is just completely untrue. We (and Team RWBY) saw tons and tons of soldiers die, we (and Team RWBY) have no idea whether or not Pietro, Maria, or Qrow are alive, and we (and Team RWBY) know that people died when Cinder attacked them on the bridge, including civilians and PENNY! And yet Yang, Weiss, and Blake are just like "we saved everyone" and that goes completely unacknowledged as being an objectively wrong untrue statement that makes them look like they're delusional. And fans of the show (specifically anti-rwders) are going "they saved everyone" and getting angry when anyone says otherwise.

Once again, what we're shown in the story ends up not mattering at all, because the characters can just announce 'this is what you're supposed to think.' It's unnatural, it makes the show frustrating and hard to track, it makes the writers impossible to trust, it completely breaks immersion, it makes the characters themselves feel like worse and harder to get behind, and what very little emotional depth the writers do bother to give anything gets completely undercut. Ruby suffers an obviously growing mental breakdown over the death of a friend, but her friends just say 'we saved everyone' and no one acknowledges how wildly untrue that statement is, and it makes the losses in V8 that the character of Ruby is trying to grapple with feel weak and unimportant because the writers are treating it as unimportant. Ruby suffers an obviously growing mental breakdown while trying to grapple with the losses of V8 including the death of a friend, and rants that she doesn't want to be the leader and doesn't want to be treated like she's perfect and feel like her friends don't care about her pain, then runs off and attempts to commit suicide while proclaiming that she doesn't want to be herself, and then next episode the characters are like ":) :) :) Ruby didn't really do that! :) :) She's just growing up! :) We just need to be supportive of this choice! :)" and the episode after that they're like "Ruby is our leader! :) :) :) She's never been confused or lost or felt weakness! :) :) She's never doubted herself or who she is! :) That's why we unquestioningly follow her as our perfect heroic leader! :) :)" And fans?? Eat it up??? And get angry when we're like "wow team wbyj learning nothing and completely ignoring Ruby's needs and disregarding her pain."

Because we're told 'this is what you're supposed to think,' so the rest of the stuff is supposed to be... Just filler, I guess. For a show with nine seasons, very little of it seems like it's actual supposed to matter to the viewer. Most of RWBY is either stuff that's given like no emotional weight or is dismissed later on while the writers try to convince us it essentially never happened.

#rwde #trigger warning; suicide mention #tw; suicide #tw; suicide mention

[newkiqx]

Nearly every single modern computer utilizes cobalt, a mineral whose supply chain is so heavily dominated by slave labor that it's practically impossible to ethically source. Ignoring AI, it is even ethical to do digital art at all? The production of a drawing tablet is not a victimless crime.

I feel you when you want to reduce this to something as simple as a comparison. But bear with me (or alternatively, I put a tl;dr/conclusion at the end).

Much of capitalism is unethical - yes. I agree with this point completely. It's impossible to completely avoid unethical consumption in the world we live in. But it's good to be thoughtful of it and I think businesses and governments responsible for bad practice should be held accountable. Sadly I can't change the world on my own in any meaningful way, but i'll do my part where I can & vote people into power that care about this too.

Taking your comparison for a second, I feel like the art project of that OP was asking a much more direct "I bought cobalt I didn't need and then turned into a children's toy, could this be art?". And my reply was basically yeah sure it could be art, but was it worth it? My point is that I'm not sure on that last part, and leaning towards a 'no'. They specifically sourced it unethically and made that the center piece, which is distinct from the utilitarian nature of consumer electronics we need to get through our lives. Unethical sourcing of art can be a goal or statement (like here cw dead pets) but will then of course still be a part of it. I don't think ethics were considered for the post we're discussing though and it instead only discussed the very unproductive 'is it art' discourse. This, of course, matters about as much as my "dick" being objectively "long" or not.

Maybe getting a little sidetracked, but I also want to mention that cobalt is an extremely useful metal, whereas AI.. well.. i've mentioned the very human cost of mturk and the wholesale theft of the entire internet. There's also:

the power required

the jobs in art it threatens and therefore the skilled labor we stand to lose if we're not careful

the inevitable price hike and betrayal of the public as soon as alternatives are out competed (this will happen)

the risks of biases (racism, ableism, sexism) in an opaque weighted system like AI & the fact we cannot deal with this except for slapping some extra prompts in front

AI poisoning our actual collective knowledge with untrue shit. Recent cases in point being the hilarious fake mouse dick science being published and the ai generated inaccurate servals on google, but there's a lot more going on

the risks of companies and people in power using AI to more efficiently screw everybody over and hide behind 'machine told me so' accountability loopholes

the risks of AI being used in all sorts of malinformed use cases

But what are the gains? What do we stand to win? Call me cynical, but we already had an infinite amount of pictures at our fingertips, as well as all the mediocre writing you could ever want (but actually much better because someone loved writing it). I feel like all these general AI's are good for is filling the pockets of some very rich robber barons and grifters, as well as diluting everything that's beautiful and true in the world.

Quick sidenote - Some specialist AI have genuinely already improved the world, like with medical screenings, but even then it's hard to really call it a win because reverse engineering the reasoning of an AI is so fucking hard. And again, they're a slippery slope with insurance companies wanting a piece of that pie badly, just so they can apply their 'justified' penalties to people not even sick yet.

tl/dr; So in conclusion, no, I don't think your comparison holds up. I agree that it sucks that so much of necessary consumption is unethical in ways we can't easily fix as consumers. But one thing bad does not equate other thing good. If anything, it should inspire you to do better where you can make a difference and hold the ones responsible for the exploitation in this world accountable.

Don't let it eat you up though. I'm not even saying you can't use it for inspiration ever. But any art based on these generated pictures cannot be divorced from the ugly side we'd rather not see: the underpaid army of technically not slaves and the wholesale theft of everything.

also sorry but i couldn't not include this (source: matt bors)

#long post #txt #ask #fuck ai art #ai #ethics #negativity

[blueywrites]

If you’re making edits to your TKYM series, you may want to edit the section where you insinuate Chrissy “needs” a padded/push up bra. If you had written that a plus sized character was wearing spanx and that it slimmed their stomach, but as a thin reader “you’re not wearing one because you don’t need it” I don’t think that would not read well. Not saying this bc I’m a Chrissy fan, I don’t really care for her and didn’t like her in your series(which I believe is the point). It’s just unnecessary

Hi, nonny! I’ve been away, and I was made aware of some anon asks on other blogs about me and TKYM, and I think maybe those were from you? I know you sent this to me after I reblogged this post and mentioned wanting to make changes to my story when I returned from my trip, so if you thought I was ignoring you, I promise I wasn't! I think you sent this ask on Thursday or Friday last week, and I was packing and driving lol.

Regardless, I wanted to take the opportunity here to address your concern. Please, if you are this anon and/or if you have any follow-up questions, come to my inbox and we can discuss! I would like to have an open conversation with you about this, because while I do understand why this line could have been taken as veiled criticism or judgmental of people with smaller breasts, I promise you that was absolutely not my intention. I also saw (maybe not you, but other people) saying that the line was in there just to dog on Chrissy because I don't like her, and that is equally untrue.

Screenshots of TKYM and explanation below the cut!

For reference, here's the part in Ch. 4 of TKYM that refers to the use of a padded bra, which Chrissy purchases with Reader when they're out shopping together:

First, I totally agree with you that in isolation, the line reasonably appears to be saying that Chrissy's small breasts are undesirable, and that could make readers with small breasts feel bad about themselves. However, I think the nuance changes when you view the line in the context of the larger work. Later in that same chapter, Chrissy's breasts in that padded bra are described with flattering language:

And, in the previous chapter, Reader also looks at Chrissy's smaller breasts and feels insecure because she sees them as preferable to her own:

The narration isn't observing that Chrissy's breasts are inferior because they are small; the mention that she chooses a padded bra and Reader doesn't need one is intended as an objective observation. Reader doesn't need the assistance of a padded bra for cleavage because her breasts are large and have natural cleavage, but she also admires Chrissy's small breasts and prefers them in that moment when she compares the two.

So, okay, maybe the intention wasn't to be critical. You also asked the question, why include those lines about the padded bra in the first place? The descriptions of their different choices in lingerie are there to show that each woman has chosen a set that fits her preferences - Chrissy wears something bright pink, padded, and strappy because that is her style. She wants her breasts to be lifted because she prefers maximum cleavage, just like she prefers keeping herself shaved bare beneath her revealing underwear. It's there as indirect characterization to show her personality, just like Reader's sheer, delicate lace shows her personality. She has chosen a bra that is unlined and boned with underwire to provide the right amount of support that she prefers for her breast type.

Then, here's the final question: is the word 'needed' really needed in this sentence? Well, after thinking on it a bit, a better way to express that a padded bra wouldn't work right on Reader could be to say, "That style of bra doesn't suit you; you have enough going on as it is." I think once the word "need" is taken out, the intention behind the statement becomes more clear. When I make my adjustments to TKYM for inclusivity, which I have yet to do, I will also make this adjustment to reword this part too.

I know that some took your ask on that other blog as an opportunity to attack my character, so this is not directed at you, but I would like to add this:

I am human and I make mistakes, but I am not condescending or rude. I don't think I'm better than anyone. I'm just a neurodivergent writer trying to balance my online life with the rest of my life, and sometimes that means I have to take more energy to respond to things. If I reblog something before I answer your ask, it really is not because I'm ignoring you - it's just because I am waiting for when I have enough brain power to reply, just like I do with text messages and emails and phone calls.

Thanks for reading! 💙

#blueyblabs #tkym

[cubeapples]

the reason i think tomarrymort is a predator-prey relationship is because in reality, if you look at it completely objectively, harry is just an obstacle voldemort has to beat down. he is not an equal enemy. it's really not that deep. put down your pitchforks, let me explain.

obviously, they are enemies in the way that they stand for opposing ideologies. so it is an enemies to lovers dynamic, but it isn't THE enemies to lovers dynamic. they just don't have enough history to be portrayed as arch enemies in my opinion. that title goes to dumbledore.

you have voldemort, who is a terrifying warlord who has brought britain to its knees. he has stricken fear all over the world. people are afraid to say his name. and then you have harry, who is powerful in his own way, he is a decent wizard and is considered voldemort's enemy by a prophecy.

voldemort, in his paranoia and fear, decided to kill this toddler who is considered his enemy and ends up without a body. as you can already tell, there is a maaajor power imbalance here, it's laughable that voldemort lost to a baby. because of this, he has to spend 13 years as a wraith without a body. that is probably one of the most traumatizing things he has probably went through. obviously, when he recovers, he becomes even more irrational. he makes another horcrux, he considers harry as a real threat because he thinks harry's power did that.

we, as the readers know that the last statement is untrue. canonically, it was lily's love that protected harry. not some magical power harry possessed when he was a toddler, but because lily loved him so much that voldemort's soul was split apart again and he was left in agony.

then, harry grows up. he is a bright student. he is good at DADA, he sucks at history, he is powerful enough to cast patronuses. but overall, he is mediocre. we don't see him having a thirst to learn, we don't see him actively seeking out ways to destroy voldemort, we don't see him taking his occlumency lessons seriously. (rightfully, because snape was being an ass) but overall, he doesn't go out of his way to do anything significant. he's just trying to survive. but that doesn't mean he is not brave. when he's put on the spot, he faces voldemort and hardly runs.

but overall, he is not in control of the grand scheme of things. dumbledore is the one orchestrating voldemort's downfall behind the scenes. harry is just a particulary shiny pawn needed to win the chess game, but the queen is still dumbledore. sure, harry is scene forming the da in book 5 and sure, he goes on the hunt in the seventh book, but that is only because voldemort is actively pursuing him. do you see it now?

yes, you could say harry would have graduated and fought against voldemort but... so would everyone else. there is an entire order dedicated to fighting against voldemort, harry isn't special.

harry is only significant to voldemort because of the prophecy, without it, he will always be a no one to voldemort. you can't disagree with this, because if you do, you should be prepared to ship neville with voldemort because he could have been the chosen one, but the prophecy wasn't about him. he fought alongside harry, too. he slit nagini's throat, and yet voldemort barely pays attention to him.

you can say harry isn't prey-material because he fights back. but that is because he's been put on the spot. he has no where to escape at all. harry never instigates any of their fights, they are not on equal footing. they can therefore, never truly be equals opposing each other, simply because harry does not have the expertise to hold his own against voldemort. the prophecy labels them equals, but is this ever truly portrayed? no! voldemort literally has a piece of his soul inside harry, it's like he partially owns harry already. they were never equals to begin with. if jkr truly wanted to portray them as equal enemies, she should have given harry more credit. he is never anywhere near as powerful as tom riddle. she shouldn't have had dumbledore providing all the info, she shouldn't have had harry be a martyr-like figure who has to sacrifice himself to save the world, she shouldn't have made harry win based on pure luck.

the only reason harry won was because of voldemort's irrationality and harry's plot armour.

#is this not obvious? 😭😭😭 #voldemort #lord voldemort #tomarry #harrymort #tomarrymort #tom riddle #harry potter