#okay its not on a cross so its technically not crucified BUT | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

theoneforgameofthrones · 5 years

Text

Daenerys Targareyan: The Path Towards Madness.

Okay let's begin.

Intro: I read book 1. And then, I binge watched seasons 1-6 after season 6 finale. By that time, I knew all the major theories like L+R=J, dark!dany, targ!tyrion etc.

So, I was paying extra attention and these are some of the obvious moments where I felt they showed Dany's mad side show. Some points, you may find valid. Some points you may find silly and over-reaching. In any case, this is what *I* felt.

Feel free to have discussions. Appreciate positive critisism. However, just yelling/abusing will not be tolerated.

1. Lack of Empathy

Her obvious lack of empathy when her brother was killed.

I did not expect her to save him. I did not expect her to mourn him. I did not even expect her to cry for him. I did, however, expect a reaction, any sort of reaction, when someone close (despite him being an abusive asshole) dies that suddenly and that violently.

2. Her facial expression during Drogo's speech.

"I will kill the men in iron suits and tear down their stone houses! I will rape their women, take their children as slaves and bring their broken gods back to Vaes Dothrak!"

3. During her Breaker of Chains phase, she conviniently seemed to forget that she used to practice not only slavery, but also pillaging while she was with her khalesar.

Master Illeryoi owned slaves. Her brother owned slaves. She was gifted slaves to teach her how to please the Khal.

Her husband was a war-lord and her khalesar constantly raided and pillaged villages. They killed men. They raped women. Remaining alive women were taken as sex slaves and later sold. That was their way of life. She saved Mirri Maz Duur and several other women from the fate of gang rape and murder but they were still dragged along side the khalasar as slaves. In books, the reason MMD was not sold was so that she can assist Dany during childbirth.

4. The burning of Mirri Maz Duur (MMD)

This is going to make sense to a lot of people. But confuse the fuck out of many. But let's see.

In colonized countries, we have a term called "Savior's Complex". It is where a colonizer raids a country, steal its riches, impose extreme taxing, destory most of its heritage and then expect praise for bringing something (could be education, technology, architecture).

Dany takes the complex another step above. She not only expects gratitude from an enslaved MMD while dragging her along with her khalesar with sole purpose of assistance with childbirth, she also expects her to save the life of her husband. The war-lord whose khalesar raided her home, pillaged her village, killed her countrymen, raped/killed her countrywomen, dragged remaining alive women along with the khalesar to be sold later. Despite all this, Dany expects gratitude from MMD for her life. This flawed logic however is thrown back in her face.

"So, tell me again exactly what it was that you saved?"

"Your life."

"Why don't you take a look at your Khal? Then you will see exactly what life is worth, when all the rest has gone."

This is an old age tale of revenge. Khal raided her village. She took revenge on them for destroying her temple. Dany burned her for it.

What completely bamboozled me in this fandom was how much people hated MMD for what she did while completely making Dany the victim in this scenario while forgetting that MMD was the orginal victim who was not only an enslaved prisoner of war, but also gang-raped victim of her khalesar's doing.

5. Ser Barriston's words.

Ser Barriston in Mereen, tells her to treat injustice with mercy. She replies that she will treat injustice with justice.

Another quote by Ser Barriston: "He gave people the people the justice he thought they deserved."

Justice and what people in power percieve as justice is often very different.

6. Daenerys' justice for the crucified slave children

She did that by choosing 163 random Great Masters and crucifying them to avenge the 163 slave children. This seems like justice. But is it, really? They never recieved trial. They were never proven guilty. Like Hizdahr Loraq said, some of the masters were not in favor of crucifying children and tried very hard to stop it. Who knows how many other good masters she crucified?

This is a direct parallel to Ser Barriston's words about Mad King Aerys: "He gave people the people the justice he thought they deserved."

7. She stopped slavery only when it benefitted her.

Some of you, while reading point 6, may have thought, "They were SLAVERS! So what?!".

Well, while choosing 163 masters, Dany decided that all Masters are her enemies. She decided that all of them deserved punishment. She decided that they were guilty just for engaging in slavery while conviniently forgetting that if that were the case, she should be the one in the first cross.

8. She burnt Great Masters without even investigating who were behind the Sons of Harpy's attack.

After Ser Barriston's death, we again get to see more of her twisted sense of justice. By her own words, "Who is innocent? Maybe all of you are, maybe none of you are. Maybe, I should let the dragons decide."

It is not supposed to be called justice if you punish (and a cruel punishment, at that) without even caring whether they are innocent or not.

9. "You are a conquerer. Not a ruler."

Time and time again Dany proves this to be true. She conquered Yunkai and left immeidetely. The slavers took back the city in no time. She closed off the fighting pits and refused to open them despite being told that participants will be free men who enter willingly. This is where ruling comes in. Any place she conquered and freed, she failed to put something else to keep up the economy. She collapsed the economy so bad that slaves were selling themselves again.

10. Wrongful imprisonment.

Dany finds that Drogon has harmed children. The correct response is to either train or punish the dragons. She, however, imprisons the two dragons who werent at fault while Drogon ran free. Does that mean she is not responsible for whatever terror or death Drogon caused to wherever he flew off to? What exactly does imprisoning Rhaegar and Viseryion get her?

What kind of justice is it where the accused is free while the innocent get prisoned for association. Again, feeds into the twisted justice train.

11. Twisted Justice. Hipocrisy. Again.

While many men were fed to dragons, Hizdahr Loraq was imporisoned. He begged for mercy in terror.She also decides that she will show her respect for Meereen by marrying a member of one of its great families. For a woman who was forced into marriage and "sold like a broodmare", she sure didn't feel any moral dilemma in making a terrifed man betroth her. His death though, proved that he was not at all involved with Sons of Harpy and he was imprisoned for nothing.

12. Burning POW's

Burning Tarly's (father and son) was a direct paralell to her father burning Ned's father and brother alive. You cannot hide behind "It was a war. She gave them a choice." No matter what defenses one can attempt to give her, killing (forget burning) POW is a war crime. So is forcing prisoners against their own side of war.

13. Defending cruelty in path of justice

She killed Tarly's and defended that decision, by saying that was necessary.

When Hizdahr asks her how many men will have died to achieve her goal, she says "They would have died for a greater cause." She is talking about destroying cities and sure, that must be for a greater purpose.

When Tyrion reminds her that about what her father planned to do when she said she wnated to burn Mereen to the ground.. her response was "This is different,". How, exactly?

"The easiest way to defend cruelty is to say that it is part of the destiny."

14. The insinct to burn down cities.

By s8e01, she has wanted to burn down cities thrice. Meereen - once. King's Landing - twice. Both times, she had to be talked out of it by her advisors. The fact that her first instinct when her plans were failing was to burn down cities. Direct parallel to Aerys wanting to destroy king's landing because he thought there were traitors everywhere. The fact is that a person can surrond themselves with good counsel. But it is not necessary that the counsel is always heeded. Which is what happened to Aerys. He was going incresingly mad for months and his counsel members hid the fact from the outside world because they thought they could control the madness. We all know what happened in the end.

Since s7, Dany has been becoming increasingly paranoid about Tyrion's loyalty and increasingly more frustrated with every loss. How long before she decides not to listen to them anymore?

15. The entire collonialist/white savior imagary presented in Essos.

It is amazing how most of the fandom either ignores it or is just unaware of it.

Though this point doesnt parallel anything to the show, i just found it extremely cringy. I am sure members of most colonized countries would. I cant even beging to describe how cringy that mysha scene was.

16. The typical white priviledge mentality.

She wants to inherit her ancestor's throne and power. But she doesnt want to repent for her ansestor's sins and betrayal.

17. Wrong sense of entitlement

She truly believes that she is entitled to the North's fealty. She asks Jon Snow not to judge her based on her ancestors and in the same breath asks him to hold up the vows of his ancestors.

But, whatever vow the Starks made to the Targareans was broken the moment Aerys decided to burn the Starks. The fealty was made on promise of protection. Technically, any member of the houses that Aerys burnt, is no longer accountable to the vow.

Still, she expects everyone to uphold their fealty but refusing to accpet that her father broke that fealty when he decided to burn the vassels (whom he promised to protect) alive.

18. Savior Complex

Some parts of Dany reminds me of how missionaries work.

"Will your God punish me for not praying to him if I did not know about him?"

"No."

"Then why did you tell me about him?"

I believe one thing about Daenerys Targareyan. That she truly wants to help people. That she truly wants to save people. But her problem is, she wants to be the one to save people. She doesnt seem to understand that some people dont require saving.

She talks about freeing the world of tyrants and in the same breath refuses to give North the independence that they demand in solidarity. How is that not the definition of tyranny?

This is Westeros. I am not expecting a democracy and free elections. If she wants to be a conquerer, then she can be one. If she wants to bring to bring together the 7k, she can. What she cannot do is talk about destiny, talk about a wheel, talk about breaking the wheel, and and then do the exact same thing her ansestors did years go by spinning the wheel so that she is on top.

19. She was smiling when she saw that her dragons terrified people of Winterfell.

20. "They eat whatever they want"

Is that really the correct way to respond to people are already scared/cowering over the arrival of dragons? To people who have never seen such beasts before? Did she forget that few seasons ago "whatever they want" that Drogon ate were children?

21. Jaime's trial

She made Jaime stand trial and was heavily leaning towards punish him despite the fact that she knew what her father had planned and what Jaime Lannister had done. She openly spoke in favor of the Mad King in front of Northern Lords. When Tyrion intervened, she publically breated him and questioned his loyalty. Further adds to the Mad King's paranoia and unwillingness to listen to counsel.

22. Jaime Lannister

Not only has he tried to kill her, he has also questioned her intentions twice. The only living person who knows about Mad King more than anyone is perhaps Jaime Lannister. When he questions Tyrion, "Is she really different? Are you sure?" in a sceptical tone. If he doesnt trust her or thinks she had the Targ madness, then I am willing to bet that she probably does.

23. Her decling human connections

the show seems adament in making her seem alone. Like a stranger in her own home land. In an episode full of emotional reconnections, tenderness, friendships and relationships, she is shown all alone. In later episodes, she is incresingly shown alientated: Theon coming to fight for the starks despite being her bannerman, death of the Jorah, Tyrion's withdrawal.

24. jorah was her mercy.

She had shown jorah mercy despite his betrayal. She cared for him and most importantly, completely trusted and listened to him. When she felt no remorse about berating Tyrion and strongarming Sansa, jorah urges her to forgive tyrion and to try and make amends with LAdy of Winterfell. And, she listened to him. He is the only advisor she fully trusts and listens to without having to worry about wavering loyalties. And jorah's death is going to be the acorn in Ice Age that started the avalanche.

<<2 episodes left. will add more after next one airs.>>

This is not to say that she was an evil character. She was a good person with good intentions and bad execution with a twisted sense of justice and destiny. But, the journey to hell is paved with good intensions. Dany was a character who had the potential to be great. But she was always headed to doom. She is a good person whose downfall will be due to pride, ambition and obsession with destiny. She will chose her fate with a sound mind but a flawed personality. Her story will not be heroic, but tragic. Not because of what she was, but because of how she could have been.

2K notes · View notes

the-cookie-of-doom · 5 years

Text

“B-b-b-but interacting with Scoot McSchmuck made Derek improve and grow as a person! Derek is a better person because of Scoot McSchmuck, really!!!!”

https://princeescaluswords.tumblr.com/post/185677939080/its-funny-that-its-explicitly-canon-that

RUSSIANSPACEGECKOSEXPARTY: It’s funny that it’s explicitly canon that interacting with Scott McCall was what ultimately made Derek improve and grow as a person. But fanon interpretation has it be Manic Pixie Dream Boy!Stiles who helps the emotionally constipated but Good Alpha grow. Ignoring that Stiles just doesn’t have that kind of relationship with Derek, no he didn’t spend summer Sculder and Mullying with him, no he wasn’t a shoulder to cry on for him. Scott worked with Derek and had his trust eventually

PRINCEESCALUSWORDS:

Shhhhh. You’re getting in the way of the fantasy!

I began to comprehend a lot more of the impetus behind Sterek when I realized that Stiles as a character is much more relatable as a power fantasy than Scott will ever be for a lot of the fandom and the source of much of their dissatisfaction with the plot. Stiles is a power fantasy – the idea that you can be liked, loved even, without having to practice or develop empathy or maturity. From season one to season five, the hallmarks of Stiles’ behavior is always a sense of entitlement to other people’s affections and, more sinisterly, their obedience.

Stiles loves people – that’s undeniable – but with him that devotion always crosses into possession. With his father, with Scott, with Lydia, and with Malia; from the first episode (”Have you been listening to my phone calls?” “Not the boring ones!”) to the last episode (“Okay, not too close. Watch the, uh… Watch the hands. Okay. Okay, all right, let’s just break that up.”), Stiles represents the fantasy that love means never having to check your worst impulses. Stiles can lie to, manipulate, emotionally lash out at, and physically assault the people he loves and they just keep on coming back for more!

This is why in many Sterek writings, Stiles is nearly unidentifiable except for the name. Gone is the Stiles who was willing to let the Argents kill Derek and Peter so long as Scott (and his father, and Lydia) was safe in Formality. Gone is the Stiles who urged Allison to shoot Derek in the head in Venomous. Gone is the Stiles who didn’t give two shits that Derek was dead in Frayed. Gone is the Stiles who noted that Derek was losing his powers in Orphaned and did nothing about it.

Of course, the question is why wouldn’t the production make Derek one of Stiles’ loved ones? The answer, of course, is that Derek wouldn’t tolerate Stiles’ possession of him. It wasn’t banter when Derek bounced Stiles’ head off the steering wheel – Stiles crossed his boundaries and Derek wasn’t having it. “You know what you did!”

That doesn’t mean there wasn’t a friendship between them. There was. But it wasn’t going to be the relationship that encouraged Derek to change and grow, because Stiles’ behavior was exactly comprised of his worst impulse, which Derek had grown to expect. It was Scott’s faith in other people’s ability to change, his acting on that belief without being a pushover, that showed Derek he too could learn to trust people. It’s why Derek – much to many fan’s chagrin – came back for Scott.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“a sense of entitlement to other people’s affections and, more sinisterly, their obedience… represents the power fantasy that you can be liked, loved even, without having to practice or develop empathy or maturity and that love and devotion that love means possession… can lie to, manipulate, emotionally lash out at, and physically assault the people he loves and demand they keep on coming back for more” That’s literally canon Scott McCall in a nutshell, PEW!

But then again, apparently antis despise canon Scott McCall so fucking much that they feel the need to transplant Scott’s canon characterization, hypocrisy, opportunism, and black-and-white mentality onto other characters now, because take a look at this brand new delusion right here https://princeescaluswords.tumblr.com/post/185653894015/stans-harp-on-black-and-white-mentality-yet

RUSSIANSPACEGECKOSEXPARTY: Stans harp on “black and white mentality” yet… that has never been Scott. Not really? He has an amazing capacity to forgive. But if you wanna get technical, Stiles himself fills the “black and white mentality” more but we know that “the world is gray” folks just want Stiles to freely get away with murder and such. But had Scott ever killed someone like Stiles suggested, he’d be crucified

PEW: Thank you for bringing up with this is very illustrative point! “Black-and-white thinking” or “splitting” is defined as when you see everything in terms of labels. According to Andi Chrisman’s article “Splitting is the inability to see the dichotomy of both positive and negative aspects of our thoughts, usually associated with how we think about people. Everything is either all good or all bad – there is no middle ground. All of my thoughts are polarized. My life is either absolutely terrible or completely amazing, but nowhere in between… “

We do not see this in Scott’s emotions or Scott’s behavior. Scott is noted for his optimism, his ability to see the good in people, and his dedication to saving people’s lives. Yet, every season, he recognizes the gray areas that he exists in. Yes, he recognizes that being bitten by a werewolf lets him play first line and helped him win a relationship with Allison, but he also recognizes the dangers of its bloodlust and its susceptibility to domination by the alpha. Yes, he recognizes that asshole Jackson is killing people, but he sees the situation that created this behavior and that Jackson isn’t a willing participant. He’s able to see the potential for good in his enemies (like Derek in Formality, Chris Argent in Fireflies, Ethan in The Girl Who Knew Too Much, Deucalion in Lunar Ellipse, Kincaid in Echo House, Sean in Muted, Peter! in Parasomnia, etc.) He’s able to foresee his own plans failing and be able to bend or even break the rules in the service of a greater cause (in Chaos Rising, in Master Plan, in Lunatic, in Illuminated, in Orphaned).

None of these exhibit black-and-white thinking. Holding people to a standard is not black-and-white thinking, especially when he’s willing to give people second chances if they mess up.

Then why do people think he does? Because a white villain told them so! The only mention of black-and-white thinking as a character flaw for Scott is mentioned in Fireflies by that paragon of not-trying-to-manipulate-anyone-by-my-words, Peter Hale, when he’s busy trying to convince Derek to let Boyd and Cora murder people or to kill them himself. Peter said it, and it became neo-Biblical truth to a large part of the fandom! Which leads back to my point that I repeatedly strike – the actions and opinions of white characters are always going to be given more weight and validity than characters of color (until the community does something about it). The fandom knows that Peter will say or do anything to get what he wants. The production had scene after scene of Peter manipulating people that way; look at that scene in Alpha Pact, where Peter becomes the Iago-est Iago to ever manipulate Derek.

What they really mean when the fandom complains about Scott being a ‘black and white thinker’ is that he resisted resorting to killing as an expedient solution. He never rejected the possible necessity of killing (as seen in Code Breaker, Master Plan, Lunar Ellipse, Orphaned, Monstrous, and Apotheosis, etc.) but he refused to employ it for the sake of efficiency, and he refused to consider it for people who had been changed against their will (the chimeras, Boyd and Cora, Jackson). Yet this refusal isn’t greeted as evidence of compassion and principle, but stubbornness and stupidity. Why? I’m loathe to think that people want to see blood, but I feel it’s more likely that the characters pushing him to do so – Peter, Derek, Stiles, Deucalion, and Theo – have something in common.

****************************** “Splitting is the inability to see the dichotomy of both positive and negative aspects of our thoughts, usually associated with how we think about people. Everything is either all good or all bad – there is no middle ground. All of my thoughts are polarized. My life is either absolutely terrible or completely amazing, but nowhere in between… “ Again, this description fits canon Scott McCall just perfectly. Escalus is definitely right about one thing though: holding people to a specific standard you set for them and demanding they obey it while refusing to hold yourself to that same standard is not black-and-white thinking. It’s entitlement and dictatorship.

Also, I think it’s hilarious that so-called canon purist PEW would claim that Scott refuses to employ killing for the sake of efficiency and refuses to consider it for people who had been changed against their will when actual canon literally showed us that Scott’s more than willing to kill as long as he doesn’t lose his precious “True Alpha” status and only if it benefits him and only him; I also think it’s funny that PEW would try to use Josh and Tracy as evidence of Scott’s nonexistent principles and compassion despite the fact that Scott actively plotted and conspired with the likes of Deucalion (aka Boyd and Erica’s murderer) behind everyone’s back just to murder a bunch of scared, traumatized, mutilated chimera kids he had referred to as “innocent victims” in the previous episodes.

But of course delusionals would try to justify Scott’s own canonical shitty actions, hypocrisy, opportunism, and black-and-white mentality by screeching that Peter Hale is a villain therefore Peter having a vulgarly low opinion of Scott and actively mocking Scott for his lack of intelligence and black-and-white thinking throughout the whole show doesn’t really count [remember when they said that Scott’s totes an academically gifted student with perfect grades pre-bite and that Gerard’s just a lying liar who lies even though Gerard had Scott’s school records at hand?], or by blabbering that it was all someone else’s (usually Derek, Stiles and Peter’s ‘cause delusionals’ pathological jealousy and butthurt is transparent like that) fault for pushing/wanting poor little dumb as a box of Scotts Scoot to kill as an expedient solution, or some other self-fabricated blame shifting~victim blaming bullshit with no basis in canon like that, lol!

If canon erasure were an Olympicc sport, princeescaluswords & Scott McCall defense squad colleagues would win the gold medal. That’s for sure

Cookie: PEW definitely missed the ball with this one, yikes. “But fanon interpretation has it be Manic Pixie Dream Boy!Stiles who helps the emotionally constipated but Good Alpha grow.” I don’t like pulling this card, but hm, referring to the neurodivergent character as a “Manic Pixie Dream Boy” sure does leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Anyway.

PEW: From season one to season five, the hallmarks of Stiles’ behavior is always a sense of entitlement to other people’s affections and, more sinisterly, their obedience.

Hey PEW, you misspelled Scott McCall. When has Stiles EVER been entitled to someone’s affections? Was it when he hallucinated his girlfriend making out with another guy as his worst fear? Was it when he stalked her? Was it when he harassed her with pictures of them together after they had broken up, and then refused to accept that it was wrong when she was forced to leave class crying?

OHHHH, I”M SORRY. That wasn’t Stiles at all, my mistake. Yeah, no, Stiles has never been entitled to anyone’s affections, even when rightfully he should have been. (Scott practically abandoning him everytime he gets a new girlfriend, anyway?) If anything, he is afraid to accept it, and only does when he is in extremely emotional or distressing situations. (After his nightmare, when Melissa finds him sleepwalking, after they get the Nogitsune out of him, when he goes to the hospital because he has no idea what’s wrong with him.)

And obedience? Stiles has never been entitled to anyone’s obedience. You know who has, though? Scott! How about season 2, Derek is trying to build a pack for himself since Scott rejected him. (Y’know, that time Derek moved on and Scott couldn’t handle it, and neither could the stans, because everything has to be about him?) Scott tried to keep Boyd from accepting the bite. He didn’t know Boyd, sure as hell didn’t care about him; he was only trying to keep Derek from building a pack, and once he found out Boyd had already accepted the bite, bam, back to not caring. But okay, that was early in the show. He was still a stupid teenager. How about season 4, when he kidnapped a teenage boy, tied him up, and left him in the bathtub? How about when he shunned Stiles over Donovan instead of trying to talk to him and get his side of the story? How about when he forced Derek to bite Gerard, violating his agency for the sake of an Argent for the second time in his life? How about all those times he lied to Kira where her Kitsune was becoming stronger and uncontrollable, trying to make her listen to him without explaining to her what was happening, because her unconditional loyalty was more important than her wellbeing? What’s a better way to prove your love and loyalty than blind trust, after all. Oh, and perhaps the best one of all, now that I think about it: how about what he did to Isaac? You know, where he repeatedly throws Isaac into the wall for daring to want to be with Allison, who Scott has absolutely no claim over. But how dare his beta want to go after what Scott sees as his property.

Stiles doesn’t care about obedience. He wants people to do what he says, yes. When he comes up with a plan, when he’s trying to keep his friends safe, he wants them to do what they’re told so they don’t all get killed. But when things don’t go according to plan, when people exercise their free will, Stiles works around it. He doesn’t get irrationally angry for it. Because all Stiles cares about is keeping all of them together. First and foremost, he doesn’t want to lose his friends, his says as much in the first episode of season 5. And that is a hell of a lot different than believing he is entitled to anyone’s obedience.

PEW: Stiles loves people – that’s undeniable – but with him that devotion always crosses into possession. […] Stiles can lie to, manipulate, emotionally lash out at, and physically assault the people he loves and they just keep on coming back for more!

You’ve misspelled Scott again. Since I pretty much just covered this already: Allison, stalked, lied to, consistently tried to keep Isaac from being with her even after they broke up, refused to accept them breaking up when SHE was the one who did it, ignored her when she told him not to wait because she DIDN’T WANT HIM TO PUT THOSE EXPECTATIONS ON HER, I could honestly go on. Everything he did with Allison was disgusting. Kira: lied to, manipulated, endangered her and others because of his lack of ability to tell the truth. Stiles: lies to, manipulates, casts him aside when it’s convenient for him, but doesn’t hesitate to call when he needs him to fix one of Scott’s messes.

PEW is confusing Stiles’ well-founded issues with abandonement (His mother died, his father is a workaholic, and Scott drops him at the first sign of a short skirt) with posession. Stiles doesn’t want to possess people. He clings to them. He doesn’t want to be ALONE. But he does not try to possess people; that implies a level of control he does not have or want.

Oh, and Stiles listening to his dad’s phone calls? I’m sorry, 1, how is that possessive? His father is the sheriff of the town, listening in on his calls is the equivalent of listening to a police scanner, and Stiles is a stupid teenager. 2, even if he is posessive of his dad, literally so what? That is his DAD, I promise he’s not suffering from the situation, considering Stiles doesn’t try to control his schedule, keep him from dating, or ruin interpersonal relationships. (You know, that thing that ACTUALLY possessive people do.) Instead all we see is Stiles just trying to take care of his dad, because Stiles doesn’t want to lose him too.

PEW Gone is the Stiles who was willing to let the Argents kill Derek and Peter so long as Scott (and his father, and Lydia) was safe in Formality. Gone is the Stiles who urged Allison to shoot Derek in the head in Venomous. Gone is the Stiles who didn’t give two shits that Derek was dead in Frayed. Gone is the Stiles who noted that Derek was losing his powers in Orphaned and did nothing about it.

And where is the Scott that was willing to violate Derek’s agency so that he could be with Allison? Where is the Scott that replaced a cancer patient’s medicine with placebos, knowing that it would kill him wither way? Where is the Scott that lied to the police and told them Derek was the one who killed the janitor, instead of keeping his mouth shut? Where is the Scott that told Derek his family might have deserved to die horribly by burning to death? Where is the Scott that noticed Kira was losing control fo her powers, and neglected to tell her? (And instead talked to Theo about it, y’know, the random kid that just showed up out of nowhere.)

I completely forgot this part in my amazement of PEWS ability to project Scott’s bad behavior onto Stiles. “Ignoring that Stiles just doesn’t have that kind of relationship with Derek, […], no he wasn’t a shoulder to cry on for him.” And Scott was? Don’t answer that, it’s a rhetorical question. Of course Scott wasn’t. He had the emotional range of a teaspoon, and no empathy to speak of.

Meanwhile it was Stiles saving Derek’s life when he got shot, it was Stiles staying to comfort Derek when he was forced to kill Boyd (the only one, mind. And then Scott went to team up with Deucalion because he never cared about Boyd in the first place, so why would his death mean anything?), it was Stiles who Derek dreamed about when he needed guidance, do you see the recurring pattern here? Scott was not there for Derek during emotional moments. Stiles was. Scott was the Action Hero, and Stiles was the empathetic sidekick trying to comfort people whenever he could.

(God this is exhaustively long and I’m only halfway through, PEW needs to learn to be more concise.)

PEW: We do not see this in Scott’s emotions.

Lol we would have if Poesy could actually act.

PEW: He’s able to foresee his own plans failing and be able to bend or even break the rules in the service of a greater cause .

First off, Scott is blind as a bat and can’t foresee shit, which is why he always has to call Stiles when one of his ‘plans’ doesn’t work out. Second of all: so Scott is allowed to break the rules in service of a “greater [usually his own] cause” but Stiles isn’t?

PEW: None of these exhibit black-and-white thinking.

I can tell you exactly where the black-and-white thinking with Scott is right here: When Scott does it, good! When anyone else does it, baaaad.

PEW: I’m loathe to think that people want to see blood, but I feel it’s more likely that the characters pushing him to do so – Peter, Derek, Stiles, Deucalion, and Theo – have something in common.

Yup, the thing they have in common is that they’re all compelling characters portrayed by great actors!

Hoenstly, I would give more credence to PEWs hardon for imaginary racism in the fandom if he put as much effort into the other characters. Where is the outrage over Boyd being criminally underused and then killed off for Derek’s mainpain? What about for Kira being horribly sterotyped as a Japanese ninja when fighting, but a horrible Klutz everywhere else like she came right of a harem anime? Or Mason being LITERALLY turned into a monster, because there is nothing at all problematic about that.

Of ocurse, I’m SURE PEW would just say that they don’t matter because they’re just SIDE CHARACTERS, not the main. To which I say: either their is racism or their isn’t, the size of the role doesn’t matter.

As we all know, PEW doesn’t actually care about racism, or sexism, or any other -ism or -phobia that may or may not be present in fandom. (I personally have yet to see any of these on a fandom-wide scale) All he cares about is that his personal fave isn’t liked enough. And I have to say, his ranting and raving sure doesn’t make anyone like him more.

#cookie speaks #fandom discourse #ia ctually had no problem with Scott before the anti's #I thought he was just a p generic character #but now??#submission #edit: forgot to add the read more #sorry guys #fixed it

13 notes · View notes

thesporkidentity · 5 years

Text

EDIT: oh god please don’t reblog i don’t want to wade into the broader easter discourse

okay so i’ve seen a post go across my dash like “lol the church rejected the date of a solar eclipse because it conflicted with their date for easter and they wanted to keep appropriating pagan festivals” at least 5 times now and i can’t take it anymore. not to spoil everyone’s fun but this is actually one of those instances where the church was not just sticking its fingers in its ears and yelling lalalala. the church didn’t place easter where it is on the calendar for the purpose of appropriating pagan spring holidays, that’s just happenstance. it’s placed where it is because every account we have agrees that it happened during the jewish holiday of passover (it should be noted that judaism is not paganism). they are very specific about that. and since we and they would have known that a solar eclipse is impossible during passover (due to its location in the lunar calendar) of course they disregarded this.

it throws out the one fact we are certain of in favor of a theory that is completely unsupported by anything besides “well yeah technically there was an eclipse that day which is more important than any historical date-keeping and contemporary documents.” this theory is about as respectable as the guy on the history channel going “aliens.”

consider which is more likely:

jesus was crucified during passover (as explicitly agreed upon by all accounts) and the darkness was a “miracle” (or for those more scientifically inclined, due to cloud cover or a sandstorm or volcanic dust)

jesus was crucified during passover (as explicitly agreed upon by all accounts) and the darkness was just a dramatic addition to some of the retellings (not all accounts actually mention the three hours of darkness)

jesus was crucified during that november eclipse and everyone just collectively forgot when passover happened/when their friend was dragged away and gruesomely murdered

like, the catholic church has a tendency to bury its head in the sand, and i’m for calling it out when it does, but this is actually one of the occasions where that’s not what happened and you probably shouldn’t trust click-bait blurbs on matters of global religion. (plus the sleuthing and cross-referencing historians have done to determine the actual date is both fascinating and impressive so like. check that out. it’s solid stuff.)

#hey it's me: debbie downer #but seriously though religions are something you should do research on before shooting off your mouth #it's really easy to trip and swallow your foot #not just because religion is a sensitive topic #but because it's often so intimiately entwined with history that your reflect denial of all things religious #means that you are also denying things that are factual and historical #and so instead of just being a bit of a heel you also cast yourself as incredibly ignorant #easter

5 notes · View notes

titleknown · 6 years

Note

Would you happen to have any ideas for what kinds of arms Carki would try to sell Vince and co.? The more comically-90s, the better. (I've been thinking of drawing a tiny fraction of her wares, but keep coming up mostly blank)

Well, I came up with a few, IDK if they’re enough, but…

Gunbladegun: A gunthat shoots bullets with swordlike projectiles, which have asecondary firing mechanism designed to fire in flight meant to causethem to vibrate and drive them further into their target. Nobody hasany idea whether this actually works.

Auto-69: A gun whosebullets have a secondary heat-seeking gyrojet attachment that directsall shots to home in straight on the groin! Killing ‘emRobocop-style!

Nudeoray: Lookingmore like the Austin Powers school of aesthetic design rather thanthe Todd McFarlane one, this gun basically strips an opponent of alltheir clothes/covering. Which is actually pretty useful. Just don’tpoint it at a naked opponent. Because it considers their skin“clothing” in that case. And ammo for the thing is expensive.

Babymaker: Not whatyou think! Well, okay, it is made out of flesh and extremely phallic.But it isn’t like that, it just shoots babies! Murderous flesh-eatingmonster babies that make the baby from Its Alive look like a normalbaby but still! Just don’t ask how you refill the ammo!

Brainsaw: It’s achainsaw, where the blades are actually made of psychic energy!Complete with the capacity of using PSI attacks! Fueled by the brainsof your enemies, which you can extract with a handy attachment thatmakes it technically not a war crime!

Johnny 5 One ManWarcrimes-Conviction: For those tricky situations where “ethics”aren’t really important, works as a white-phosphorous flamethrowerand a thrower of disease-filled sludge, has a torturerifficsledgehammer-taser-hybrid bayonette, shoots mustard and chlorine gasgrenades, and a main gun specifically designed for shooting a mini-nuke! Don’t worry, it’s only a dirty bomb!

Jesus Killer:Through the miracles of nanotechnology, this gun shoots entirecrosses that automatically crucify all those in their path! If youpay for the deluxe version, when they reach the end of theirflightpath the crosses begin loudly playing Marylyn Manson!

The Killfucker OneBillion: It has a grappling hook that pulls your opponent in, whereit procedes to rip out their soul to fire in a massive spiritualblast; melt down the soft tissues into basically napalm, and afterthat coat the bones with metal to fire them out of the railgunbarrel! When you need one specific human-size-or-less motherfuckerdead, and you want to make every motherfucker in the room dead withthem!

These items are free to use as you see fit under a CC-BY-Vanilla license so long as I; Thomas F. Johnson, am credited as their creator! God help you all you poor sons of bitches!

#miscelaneous trivia #open items #grimdark #i had way too much fun with this #general-radix

6 notes · View notes

travelswithjm · 4 years

Text

Monte Maria Batangas

Travel Blog by JM

About Monte Maria

Monte Maria is a Pilgrimage center dedicated to Mary, Mother of All Asia. The development was conceived as a destination to attract devotees and pilgrims. It can be considered as a tourism and or retirement village.

Preparation to Monte Maria

As the sun shine, we set our goals for the travel and do our morning routine. First, we cooked meals for the travel and buy some snacks. We also checked our Gasoline if its full, check water of the car and Breaks if its ok.

Travelling

We started travelling at 10 o'clock in the Morning (a bit late but it’s okay) We set the maps to Monte Maria and we followed it. As we travel more, the heat started to rise. Even if you are inside the car with full blast Air Con, you will feel like you're near the sun.

12 o'clock came and we stop for a bit and eat our lunch at this small Halo Halo shop that we found. We ate Bistek and it was delicious, after that my Mom bought us some Halo halo. After eating, we continue our journey to Monte Maria, where we saw along the way these huge Crude Oil tanks and these factories nearby, little did we know we are technically near Batangas Port.

As we travel past this factories and Oil storage facility I noticed these 3 Cross (the one where Jesus Christ is crucified) for every 1 kilometer we went, there will be 3 cross. My mom told me it’s part of the Holy week, since Holy week is coming near. As we continue travelling, we were amazed on how tall and big the statue is. The statue stood 96 meters. After an hour of traveling, we arrive at Monte Maria around 1 o'clock in the afternoon.

Happenings

We are now in Monte Maria; I was amazed in the surrounding. I expected it to be more "green" like full of trees and plants since it is what I saw from their videos in the website of Monte Maria. The place looks rough for me, a bit dry and hot. But that stop us, as we parked our car, not only we can see the statue itself, but we also see these wide blue open sea where you can see the Verde Island and the Island of Mindoro. Technically we are in the southernmost part of Batangas City. As we step down from our car we took our first Photo of the Sea and the statue. We continue to endure the heat of the Sun because arrived there in there in the afternoon where the sun is directly above us.

We are now walking and continue to walk in the stairs nearby to go to the top. We continue taking a picture while we took some break since my mom not that fond of walking on stairs. Picture after pictures, breaks after breaks, we arrive at the top of the stairs where the statue is standing. As we went inside the building, we saw a small church where you can pray and thanks God that you arrived safely after long hour trip.

As I saw the statue I wanted to go to the top but unfortunately, works are still on going and drew back my expectations to go up the statue.

We are done praying and taking break below the statue, we decided to go back to the car. As we go back, my father saw these rough terrains and said it was a 'shortcut' to the parking lot, so we followed him. Halfway through the rough trail, we stumbled upon a small church. A replica church.

It was donated by a family from Pampanga who has a great love and devotion to the Image of Infant Jesus. My mom went inside and prayed again while me and my father took some photos around the church. After that, we also went inside and prayed.

As we decided to finally went back to the car, my mom saw a Souvenir shop and bought some souvenir and snacks. After that, we went back to our car where we eat again before we finally left the area.

Going home

We took off Monte Maria at 3 o'clock and felt tired from all walking but it was worth it. As we continue travelling home we decided to go to the nearby SM Batangas, it felt the same as any other SM. It’s a mall, huge mall full of stores but I noticed it doesn't have that much people unlike any SM Mall that I've been or is it just so big that the place has bigger space for everyone? I don't know but malls are malls. We didn't stay that much at the Mall we then decided to go home after 30 minutes.

Before we Travel, we set our maps again and instead travelling the road where we used travel we decided to use the Star Tollway road to SLEX Calamba exit. It’s an Express way and nothing more to expect since it is just a direct road but beside that, as the sun sets, these orange rays of light hits the surrounding and the side Mount Makiling. It is beautiful and amazing. After travelling on the express way, we entered Calamba and Los Baños where we experience irritating Traffic. And that's all for today. What an amazing day trip!

LINK:

0 notes

emman-dartist · 7 years

Text

The Sign of the Cross

Yesterday at mass, the priest tried to relate the custom of making the sign of the cross to the feast of the Blessed Holy Trinity to his homily. He then started to a story when he went to the Sacred Heart Parish in Cubao and saw as the jeepney passed the Church made the sign of the cross. He felt curious and asked himself if does the jeepney driver is aware of what he is doing?

Not so eloquent in his sermon; the making of the sign of the cross is a Roman Catholic custom as he also confessed in last of his sermon as if he is saying implicitly that it is not a custom from the place where he came that’s why he is baffled when he first came in the Philippines. As if the making of the sign of the Cross is only active here in he Philippines! However, the homily became problematical when the priest tried to separate the idea of the cross being both a “sign” and a “symbol.” He asked the congregation first if we think that the sign of the cross then is really a cross, and so those who believe shall raise their hand. So as a summary of his sermon is relative; or to say it could have two meaning which falls being a sign and a symbol. For him, it is not a cross if not accompanied by this thought: he insisted that it should also be accompanied by saying “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” therefore, without it from thought and mean that it is not a cross but a symbol. I actually have no problem about accompanying it with the name of God since it is the basic that whenever we do the sign of the cross, in our mind and heart we say “In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” And these two is inseparable (CCC 2157). My head is starting to ache but I have to keep my patience up and there was a part of history said by Tertullian that echoes in my mind yesterday which says:

“In all our travels, in our coming in and going out, in putting on our clothes and our shoes, at table, in going to rest, whatever we are doing we mark our forehead with the sign of the cross.”

Technically, the making of the sign of the cross has been a custom even back then from the 3rd century in time of Tertullian and even could be more earlier, since all of Christianity understood that the cross is the power of God (c.f. 1 Corinthian 1:18) In addition, Saint Ephrem the Syrian writes in 4th century:

“With the sign of the living cross, seal all thy doings, my son. Go not forth from the door of thy house till thou hast signed the cross. Whether in eating or in drinking, whether in sleeping or in waking, whether in thy house or on the road, or again in the season of leisure, neglect not this sign; for there is no guardian like it. It shall be unto thee as a wall, in the forefront of all thy doings. And teach this to thy children, that heedfully they be conformed to it.”

So okay fine, the jeepney driver and all of us is just in being of custom of doing the sign of the Cross, but as part of correction, it is not only ‘us’ Roman Catholics and Anglicans as he says are using the sign of the cross, because even the Orthodox and Lutheran Churches and other churches not to mention here are doing so following the Traditions of the Fathers.

But what irritates me is the Cross being just a symbol or a sign and not being both because it is both in reality. When we recite our faith every Sunday we recite the Nicene Creed and as CCC 188 explains us the word Creed or Credo also came from the Greek word symbolon, it went further stating the creed being as “symbol of faith.” As the creed summarize the Christian faith, so the cross summarize the Salvation History, it is as the same as what the understanding of what the symbolon “a token of recognition,” and “broken part being placed together to bear the identity of the bearer.” The cross, again summarize the Salvation History, being the fulfillment of all the broken covenants, the unity of the scattered image of God in the earth gathered as one his Church which is his body, the Catholic Church: and to add the Catholic Encyclopedia even says “by the gesture of tracing two lines intersecting at right angles they indicate symbolically the figure of Christ’s cross.” Thus, saying the Cross is just a “symbol” as a derogatory term is an insult to the Salvation History and God’s plan, because it is the icon of God’s plan, people and with the Christ crucified.

The Cross is also a “Sign”, and cannot be separated from the concept of “Symbol” the word “Sign” came from Latin word signum which means “mark”. In this concept of the Cross gives us a picture or an item of God’s persons working with Christ, being God the Father as Creator, the Son as Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as Sustainer.” The father, who is also the creator of the new generation, Christ being its first-born and Redeemer, and which the Holy Spirits sustains and sanctified. All of these starts from the cross, which before has an image of death but now life, destroyer of life, but now a redeemer, and a picture of crimes but now of strength and holiness.

The jeepney might not be aware of these theological implications, but it is a “a priori” act of a confession to Christ, in the unity of the Father and the Holy Spirit that saves us through our Lord Jesus Christ. As a Christian I believe what making us move with this simple act is not due to knowledge nor by reasons but by faith. Faith is what moves mountains, not wisdom nor knowledge, and faith is what cause obedience, not reasons or intellect. The Father called us, and the Holy Spirit moves us to get and open our hearts to Christ and as we do the sign of the cross, we confess in the Church where the Eucharist rest, that Jesus Christ is Lord.

0 notes