#repeatedly explicitly and SPECIFICALLY

[chamerionwrites]

Like it's not especially mysterious or hard to fathom why (aside from run-of-the-mill puritanism) folks have Really Big Feelings about kink as a concept. We live in a (sexist racist homophobic transphobic etc) society. Quite a lot of people have had their sexual boundaries poked at and/or transgressed by someone (and "someone" is sometimes not even some specific individual but "society at large") claiming that [Sex Act XYZ] is normal/reasonable/no big deal, and therefore (explicitly or implicitly) obligatory. And when you have repeatedly received the message that your body does not fully belong to you, that your yes and no are valid only insofar as they align with others' reasonable expectations - well then it becomes EXTREMELY important to police the borders of what can be considered a reasonable expectation. Spoken or unspoken, the fear that people are giving voice to when they get pearl-clutchy about kink is often "You're saying all of this is normal - and therefore that I have to accommodate it if and when someone asks me for it."

That's not an unsympathetic fear! We live in a society that is not great with the concept of consent! If you're hearing "don't kinkshame" as "your no is invalid" (or if you've encountered someone who framed it that way, because those people do exist), then of course you're going to be anxious and angry about it!

Unfortunately you are also doing that very human thing of getting so deep in your feelings that you're arguing at cross-purposes. Because the ethic of safe sane & consensual kink is not "everything is normal" - it's that normal is a completely irrelevant metric. You want to get tied up? Cool, make sure everyone involved knows how to do restraints safely. You want to have sex without penetration, ever? Also cool. You like playing around with X sensation but not Y sensation? Cool. You get pantsfeelings (or for that matter completely nonsexual satisfaction feelings) out of shining someone's shoes? Cool. You enjoyed XYZ yesterday but you're not feeling it today? Cool. You get to choose. Your body belongs to you.

#normal ≠ moral #habanero salsa tag #sexuality tag #rip my notes I guess #my posts

[not-terezi-pyrope]

Often when I post an AI-neutral or AI-positive take on an anti-AI post I get blocked, so I wanted to make my own post to share my thoughts on "Nightshade", the new adversarial data poisoning attack that the Glaze people have come out with.

I've read the paper and here are my takeaways:

Firstly, this is not necessarily or primarily a tool for artists to "coat" their images like Glaze; in fact, Nightshade works best when applied to sort of carefully selected "archetypal" images, ideally ones that were already generated using generative AI using a prompt for the generic concept to be attacked (which is what the authors did in their paper). Also, the image has to be explicitly paired with a specific text caption optimized to have the most impact, which would make it pretty annoying for individual artists to deploy.

While the intent of Nightshade is to have maximum impact with minimal data poisoning, in order to attack a large model there would have to be many thousands of samples in the training data. Obviously if you have a webpage that you created specifically to host a massive gallery poisoned images, that can be fairly easily blacklisted, so you'd have to have a lot of patience and resources in order to hide these enough so they proliferate into the training datasets of major models.

The main use case for this as suggested by the authors is to protect specific copyrights. The example they use is that of Disney specifically releasing a lot of poisoned images of Mickey Mouse to prevent people generating art of him. As a large company like Disney would be more likely to have the resources to seed Nightshade images at scale, this sounds like the most plausible large scale use case for me, even if web artists could crowdsource some sort of similar generic campaign.

Either way, the optimal use case of "large organization repeatedly using generative AI models to create images, then running through another resource heavy AI model to corrupt them, then hiding them on the open web, to protect specific concepts and copyrights" doesn't sound like the big win for freedom of expression that people are going to pretend it is. This is the case for a lot of discussion around AI and I wish people would stop flagwaving for corporate copyright protections, but whatever.

The panic about AI resource use in terms of power/water is mostly bunk (AI training is done once per large model, and in terms of industrial production processes, using a single airliner flight's worth of carbon output for an industrial model that can then be used indefinitely to do useful work seems like a small fry in comparison to all the other nonsense that humanity wastes power on). However, given that deploying this at scale would be a huge compute sink, it's ironic to see anti-AI activists for that is a talking point hyping this up so much.

In terms of actual attack effectiveness; like Glaze, this once again relies on analysis of the feature space of current public models such as Stable Diffusion. This means that effectiveness is reduced on other models with differing architectures and training sets. However, also like Glaze, it looks like the overall "world feature space" that generative models fit to is generalisable enough that this attack will work across models.

That means that if this does get deployed at scale, it could definitely fuck with a lot of current systems. That said, once again, it'd likely have a bigger effect on indie and open source generation projects than the massive corporate monoliths who are probably working to secure proprietary data sets, like I believe Adobe Firefly did. I don't like how these attacks concentrate the power up.

The generalisation of the attack doesn't mean that this can't be defended against, but it does mean that you'd likely need to invest in bespoke measures; e.g. specifically training a detector on a large dataset of Nightshade poison in order to filter them out, spending more time and labour curating your input dataset, or designing radically different architectures that don't produce a comparably similar virtual feature space. I.e. the effect of this being used at scale wouldn't eliminate "AI art", but it could potentially cause a headache for people all around and limit accessibility for hobbyists (although presumably curated datasets would trickle down eventually).

All in all a bit of a dick move that will make things harder for people in general, but I suppose that's the point, and what people who want to deploy this at scale are aiming for. I suppose with public data scraping that sort of thing is fair game I guess.

Additionally, since making my first reply I've had a look at their website:

Used responsibly, Nightshade can help deter model trainers who disregard copyrights, opt-out lists, and do-not-scrape/robots.txt directives. It does not rely on the kindness of model trainers, but instead associates a small incremental price on each piece of data scraped and trained without authorization. Nightshade's goal is not to break models, but to increase the cost of training on unlicensed data, such that licensing images from their creators becomes a viable alternative.

Once again we see that the intended impact of Nightshade is not to eliminate generative AI but to make it infeasible for models to be created and trained by without a corporate money-bag to pay licensing fees for guaranteed clean data. I generally feel that this focuses power upwards and is overall a bad move. If anything, this sort of model, where only large corporations can create and control AI tools, will do nothing to help counter the economic displacement without worker protection that is the real issue with AI systems deployment, but will exacerbate the problem of the benefits of those systems being more constrained to said large corporations.

Kinda sucks how that gets pushed through by lying to small artists about the importance of copyright law for their own small-scale works (ignoring the fact that processing derived metadata from web images is pretty damn clearly a fair use application).

#not-terezi-speaks #ai #nightshade

[neechees]

Like you can't be all for Landback in Turtle Island and then somehow think zionism & the state of Isntreal is a "landback movement" where some of the tenants are that 1. Landback doesn't mean creating an ethnostate (which Isra*l has been trying to do & this was the goal of the State from the beginning) 2. Landback does not mean or require or encourage Kicking everybody else out (which Isntreal is trying to do with the Palestinians and has been doing since 1948 and its government has been saying they explicitly want to do) 3. Landback does not encourage or require "Reverse colonizing" or committing genocide against the settler or any immigrant population (which Isntreal has repeatedly done, is doing, and wants to continue to do, so even if you think that Israelis are "Indigenous" and that the Palestinians or "Arabs" weren't, this is still going directly what Landback is explicitly against) 4. Reintroducing Native plants & wildlife to the area to undo effects of colonization in the ecosystem (& Isntreal has been planting invasive plants to the Levant, colonization has killed off Native species such as the Palestinian crocodile, and made it illegal for Palestinians to forage culturally important plants like Za'atar, the uprooting of Olive trees, or collect RAINWATER under the premise of "ecological preservation" in the same way that National Parks were created specifically to disenfranchise Native Americans under the guise of "ecological preservation", not to mention the terrorizing of Palestinians with bombs & has been polluting the area)

You have to be a special type of stupid & brainwashed if you think the latter is "Landback" when the State is literally doing everything that the Landback movement has specifically said its against

[liesmyth]

TLT thought of the day is that more posts about John Gaius should engage with the fact that he's explicitly an indigenous man. Especially content about pre-Resurrection John and his backstory, intentions, politics, ambitions etc. He's a product of an environment that Tamsyn goes out of her way to describe.

This is noteworthy, because TM doesn't give much thought about race when it comes to the rest of her characters. It's not a key aspect of the present day side of her worldbuilding; see the sparing physical descriptions, her 'take it or leave it' Word of God on the matter. It's not something that she makes a priority to communicate to the reader, and clearly not a big deal for any House or BoE characters that we've seen.

This is what makes John's backstory VERY noteworthy by comparison. Or, rather, the care Tamsyn put into it.

Compare that one GtN character description post — “Judith is Pasifika and Isaac is Chinese and Magnus is Samoan and Abigail is white, but this mostly in my head and you can picture them as monitor lizards if you want” — compare that to the way she really goes out of her way in NtN to make sure that the readers know that John is Māori, and it's something that absolutely shaped his 30-something years on earth.

Like, it's spelled out multiple times, it's not something for the keen-eyed repeat reader to puzzle out. He's explicitly referred to as Māori; Tamsyn specifically namedropped Dilworth; she sketched an underprivileged background for both him and G. lot of John's obsessive attitude about his world-saving project — no compromises and acting now and nobody left behind — it echoes the concern that small island nations have repeatedly expressed towards the climate crisis, and predictably bigger rich countries don't give a shit about.

IDK where I'm getting at! But I think it's a fundamental part of his character that we sometimes overlook. We all live in a society etc, and the society John created is very very different from the one he grew up in — but it's the latter that shaped him.

#tlt thoughts #ejg #tlt

[carlyraejepsans]

to summarize an unduly rambly post: our control over kris has been steadily growing more and more distressing for them throughout the story. the snowgrave route, possibly the most gut wrenching, violating imposition of our will on theirs AND Noelle's (*homer voice* so far!), explicitly, thematically, and visually represents possession and coercion through romantic imagery, specifically rings and weddings. it's nauseating. it forces both of them into an implied relationship that neither of them is comfortable in by leveraging noelle's desperate wish to reconnect with her childhood friend. it has exactly the horrible connotations you don't want it to have.

ralsei being presented as both a direct callback to asriel—both the undertale asriel we know, and y'know... kris' brother in deltarune—while also setting him and kris up in a clearly romantic context that kris does not seem to either share or be comfortable with, is not a coincidence. it's not an accident. "isn't that a little incestuous" that's the point! kris' agency being stripped away is one of deltarune's main thematic cores: the game is repeatedly setting up a pattern where that theme is reinforced by putting kris in upsetting, unwanted romantic relationships for OUR entertainment. nothing fits the bill better than pairing them with the nostalgia bait companion that literally looks like their brother.

#incest mention #I'm sorry your only experience with incest as a literary topic has been the skeleton brothers lightsaber-fighting with neon colored dicks #but it's almost like delicate & upsetting topics can be used to have thematically relevant and also upsetting narrative functions #yes! on YOUR computer! it's more likely than you think #not all media is meant to be escapism not all media is made to make you feel good #certainly not one that calls the player's actions and presence into question like DR #deltarune #kris #noelle #ralsei #yeah I'm tagging this one it's just straight up good analysis #entry log #metanalysis

[ripplestitchskein]

Today I wanna rant talk about this

Versus

This

A lot, and I mean A LOT of people use these two moments as a way to compare Stolas and Blitzø with Fizz and Asmodeus. Specifically, Asmodeus with Stolas. And I get it, both Tiny Clown Imp with Giant Bird Aristocracy. Both dealing in different ways with the social hierarchy of hell. People keep using it as a “well Stolas HID while Asmodeus declared” and yes, that’s true but I don’t actually think we’re meant to be comparing Stolas and Asmodeus, at least not about this specific thing.

Blitzo doesn’t need someone to declare their love for him, he needs to declare his love for someone else.

People put the “Stolas is ashamed of Blitzo because of his station” on Stolas a lot and it is shown multiple times that it is not a factor for Stolas. He even like…sings about how it’s not an issue? Explicitly. The different stations was an issue for Asmodeus for awhile based on thier convos and the hiding. And it was for Fizz, though for different reasons I’ll get into in another post cause this is already going to be long as fuck. But this social hierarchy, famous person conflict is 100% Blitzo.

Blitzø is the only person who should be interpreting Stolas hiding his face as being because of the social disparity because that is a hangup of his. We, the audience, should know better because we’ve been shown the truth, or the reality of the situation in the scope of the show, MULTIPLE times. Blitzø is the one who harps on the class disparity, he’s the one who has the perception that Stolas is only looking for a fetishcentric fuck with the common rabble. The audience is supposed to see Blitzø’s reaction and know he is wrong, that this interpretation is because of one of his character flaws of feeling not good enough, and being compared to people, not because of the reality, because we have proof otherwise. Including the canon song where Stolas fucking says it outright.

There is a lot of talk about the “solution to Stolitz” being Stolas loudly and publicly declaring their relationship ala Asmodeus. But…Stolas already did his big public declaration at the BEGINNING way BEFORE Asmodeus. Stolas did it in The Circus flashback. He reinforced it at the Harvest Moon festival. He reinforced it at Ozzie’s.

His initial public declaration was following up a Imp leaving his bedroom in front of the Ars Goetia yelling “Sorry I fucked your husband” after a big aristocratic party by coming out well fucked and loudly screaming he was getting a FUCKing DIVORCE and ripping a banner in front of some of the most socially influential people in Hell. He then publicly thirsts over Blitzø at the Harvest Moon festival, multiple times and by name AND species. He takes Blitzo’s hand, and goes on a public romantic date with him, even reminding the doorman of who he was and who he was with and THEN when all eyes are still on them after the song at Ozzie’s, despite everything said, reaches out to him across the table and then gets up and leaves with him even taking his car home when he has the ability to just portal. No one who converses with him about Blitzø is left with any ambiguity that they are involved, not Stella, not Striker, not Octavia, he loudly declares he is into the imp to anyone who will listen, often in front of Blitzø, which he cringes away from and insists is just a transactional fucking.

The contrast to be drawn between Asmodeus making a public declaration shouldn’t be on Stolas but BLITZØ. He’s the one who needs to declare it, Stolas already has, repeatedly and out loud, and in public already.

Blitzø is the one who can’t say it out loud. He’s the one who shies away from conversations about it and dismisses it when anyone brings it up. He uses the excuses of social class and it being only for sex to justify his own inability to own it. There’s a reason all his exes are massively famous people who got famous after he destroyed the relationship. With Verosika it’s pretty clear she was super into him and he dipped. It’s not clear if it was because she was getting famous, that might be revealed, but the hints we have (her tattoo, his stealing her credit cards and disappearing) is that the end of that relationship was all Blitzø. When people find out he was in a relationship with her he is uncomfortable with the fact that she is famous, he goes out of his way to separate himself from her fame. Because people react exactly as he expected them to, incredulous someone famous could be into nobody Blitzø.

Somewhat ditto with Fizz, at least at first. Fizz was shown to be already pretty well known by the end of their friendship. Because of Blitzø’s self worth issues he doesn’t believe someone like Fizz could reciprocate his feelings, he sees him surrounded by people and doesn’t feel worthy to be one of them so he turns away and accidentally burns down a circus doing so. While a confession from Fizz first, if he felt the same way, might have prevented the catastrophe we have no way of knowing if Blitzø would have done the same thing to Fizz he did to Verosika and let his self worth issues eventually destroy their relationship too, especially after he signs on with Mammon. A big theme of their comments to each other before their reconciliation are about the disparity in fame, Fizz is also an imp so it’s not social class, but that Fizz is a beloved, famous figure and Blitzø failed at becoming one.

The Circus illustrates this so well, Blitzø is the failure who keeps trying his hardest and Fizz is the one who steps in and just kind of naturally does it. Blitzø’s dad makes no secret of the fact that Fizz is the more desired one. We also see Stolas appreciating Blitzø for who he is. Laughing against the crowd, just like during the sitcom taping, he doesn’t care about the public’s reaction to Blitzø, it doesn’t lessen Blitzø in his eyes at all.

We have also seen Blitzø be told very publicly a person loved him already as well and it STILL wasn’t what he needed. Verosika has it literally tattooed in a prominent place on her body, out there for everyone to see.

He doesn’t want a public declaration, he fears making one of his own and being compared to the one he declared for. “That guy is with THEM?!” It happens when Verosika steals his parking space and everyone realizes they dated, and it happens when the crazy fan goes after Fizz. People dismiss Blitzø in favor of the famous person he is with.

Hearing that, again, would invite the scrutiny that would just further validate that he’s not good enough, that he’s lesser and lower. That’s been his experience so far. Stolas declaring it would just put the spotlight on him once more, and I think it would actually make things worse for him mentally and emotionally. His reaction to Ozzie outing Stolas as his date to the crowd shows us this. I believe it’s why he split up with Verosika, the more famous she got the more eyes on him that could find him lacking. He’d be in the spotlight and his act wouldn’t be able to measure up to hers.

Just like at the circus with Fizz when they were kids, or during the sitcom, when eyes are on Blitzø he fails. Stolas gave him a bit more confidence each time. Not by loudly yelling “Hey, I like him!”to sway the audience, but just by quietly and genuinely laughing at his jokes and appreciating Blitzø for who he is. Stolas I think realizes this consciously, he sings it in Look My Way that the realm doesn’t appreciate what Blitzø is and because of this Blitzø built up walls around himself to protect from that lack of appreciation. Stolas tries to hype Blitzø up, he does so in the Harvest Moon Festival early on in their relationship but it makes Blitzø uncomfortable because the public declarations bring eyes to him. He has like….relationship stage fright in a sense. Imo the last thing Blitzø needs is another loud declaration.

Stolas though, he does NEED it. He has had one romantic partner publicly declare they don’t love him to all who will listen for like well over a decade, and now he needs a partner who will make it really really clear they do and I think preferably out loud where others can hear.

Stolas’s conflict and flaw is his family and his desire for reciprocal love. The shame of being an adulterer, of destroying the idealized family he strived for and the image he projected for so many years. And especially, the loneliness of his “romances” being one sided. With the exception of Octavia all of Stolas’s surrounding family and “friends” don’t give a fuck about him and he knows it. Why would Blitzø be any different? He also needs someone to choose him outside of a business or familial relationship. Stella was an arranged marriage to produce a heir. Blitzø was a sexual transaction for the grimoire. Octavia is his daughter. His relationship with his father shows that he isn’t special to him either. Paimon doesn’t even know his name. Stolas has no one declaring for him.

There’s a reason most of Stolas’s issues are told though “images”. The family portraits, the Sinstagram posts of Blitzø appearing annoyed or disinterested while Stolas does not see the picture Blitzø took, because that is his primary issue, he destroyed the image of himself he was trying to project for a chance at a reciprocal relationship. That image maintenance has nothing to do with Blitzø’s imp status, but more the public lack of perceived reciprocity in his romantic dealings.

He knows he looks like a fool, putting himself out there and not getting a confirmation back. This is why every problem Stolas had with his marriage seemed to come down not to attraction or status but mutual feeling. He doesn’t feel bad for cheating because Stella made it clear she didn’t care about him for him. Stella tells everyone loudly and publicly, even before Stolas cheated, how she feels about him. So as soon as Stolas can he jumps at the chance to say “HEY EVERYONE SOMEONE DOES LIKE ME! HE HAD SEX WITH ME AND EVERYTHING”and yelling out “THE ONLY MAN WHO CAN FUCK ME”. Flirting with Blitzø in front a crowd of people. He desperately wants to be publicly desired, to know he’s loved and for others to know he’s loved too.

I don’t think it matters to Stolas at all that who he cheated with was below him in terms of social hierarchy, or that people know about it, and he hasn’t ever indicated visually or with words that Blitzø being an imp was the root of those issues for him. Stella brings it up because she’s obsessed with status and EVERYONE KNOWS that her husband fucked an imp and is now divorcing her. Asmodeus brings it up because the entire Lust song at Ozzie’s is to distract the audience from his very real love affair with Fizz and maintain the public fiction that what he and Fizz have is just physical.

The whole social hierarchy issue is a deflection, and a misdirection.

This is further emphasized by the fact that Fizz and Asmodeus fucking isn’t even really an issue? People seemed to know they were fucking, like them being walked in on at breakfast and loudly declaring “ we are just banging, we are not in love”. The social hierarchy conflict as an external factor kind of falls apart on that alone but let’s move on. It’s not 100% clear if people outside of the household knew about Fizz and Asmodeus so we can maybe assume the public at large did not. But higher level demons being in a relationship with lower level ones doesn’t appear to be an issue? Like most of the powerful demons we see are actually in relationships with someone from a lower class. Even Mammon surrounds himself with imps and relies on one for his business.

Blitzø sure as fuck brings it up as a justification for why he’s not good enough. But Stolas doesn’t.

He’s even been shown visually and deliberately as forgetting that it’s even a factor, starting with his bowing to Blitzø as a baby owl and then again as an adult. So the comparison of these two moments as being about shame regarding social status for Stolas doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t think it’s about social status at all really. I think that’s the excuse Blitzø uses to push people away and that’s just as much about social status as it is their fame. I’m not saying it’s not a larger theme of the show, but I think in this instance and for Stolitz it’s a distraction from the larger issues Blitzø has.

Stolas doesn’t need to publicly declare their relationship for an audience to solve their relationship issues because he already did, and I think we’ll see that the reason it’s such a huge plot point for Asmodeus and Fizz (beyond it being tied to their specific roles in Hell as the King of Lust and a public figure) is that it needled to be removed as an obstacle in BLITZØ’S mind.

Blitzø was the one present to witness the public declaration between Asmodeus and Fizz at the competition, not Stolas. If the comparison was between Stolas’s behavior and Asmodeus’s he would BE there, we, the audience, would have him there to connect that conflict in our mind as being rooted in Stolas. But he isn’t, because that conflict is 100% Blitzø. He won’t be able to use the imp versus demon thing as an excuse anymore as there is a very public example of someone even higher than Stolas loving an imp that he personally knows. Not only that but we see no indication in the episodes after Ozzie’s that there was ANY fallout for Stolas or Blitzø having their relationship outted so publicly. We see a big press todo about Stolas going to the hospital but not a single scene of like press asking Blitzø or Stolas about their relationship or the scene at Ozzie’s. Because no one but Blitzø actually cares? Scenes in media show us what’s important and if it was actually important to the larger world of Helluva Boss we’d have scenes to show that. There is no press coverage after the Not Divorced party, none after the Harvest Festival and none after Stolas officially makes moves to divorce Stella. He has assassins follow him around but not press. We DO get those press scenes when Fizzarolli and Asmodeus come out as being in love, because they are big public figures, but the only people who even mention Stolas and Blitzø are contained to Ozzie’s alone, and really it’s just Wally, Fizz and Asmodeus. The rest of the club is just interested in the spectacle.

The point of the hiding Stolas’s face behind the menu was not to tell audience he was ashamed of Blitzø, or that his being with Blitzø is a problem for him socially, but to reinforce Blitzø’s excuses to himself that it is, and highlight Blitzø’s self worth issues. This is further confirmed when Stolas reaches out to him across the table even though they are still in public and then later when he verbally expresses to Blitzø that he’d like to spend time with him without sex, tells him he enjoyed spending time with him outside of the arrangement, makes himself physically uncomfortable in the van just to spend more time with him. All of which Blitzø refuses to believe and dismisses. All of their interactions are shown as Stolas being the one to put himself out there, sometimes to a desperate cringe inducing degree, and Blitzø shutting it down and only expressing that his external protestations are not his true feelings by his avoidant looks, stumbling over his words and excuses, and his “protesting too much”. We as the audience see he’s full of shit through the reactions of others, Millie and Moxxie and Fizz specifically calling Stolas his boyfriend or being skeptical of the bullshit Blitzø spews to diminish the relationship.

For Stolas the song at Ozzie’s was a reminder that he had done something that fucked up his family and frankly his life as he knew it, tarnishing his image as a husband and father, and that fuck up has nothing to do with Blitzø being an imp, everyone knew that already for the most part from the very first time they had sex, but because Blitzø was the catalyst for the risk he took. He used to have the image of his family and his Princely appearance to hide behind and now we’ve shone a spotlight on who he really is, a lonely, soon to be divorcee, on a date with a demon who has acted completely dismissive of him, even outright ignoring him and ghosting at times.

A good way to highlight this issue with image is when Stolas nervously giggles and tries to over the top declare “we are having a perfectly normal date!” to the waitress by playing it off as being okay and trying desperately to get Blitzø to participate. He’s being publicly humiliated again and he tries to play it off and cover it up.

We see it again in his text messages from after Ozzie’s, he is so desperately trying to show Blitzø that it didn’t bother him, but that if it bothered Blitzø he’d like to talk about it. He tries to front it as “I don’t mind jokes about myself, it was pretty funny hahaha” but we as the audience see it for the pathetic attempt at faking it is. Laughing it off and pretending it doesn’t bother him is what Stolas does but he still made an attempt, he still tried. Stolas is from what we see extremely comfortable expressing his feelings, loudly and at length. It when he gets rejected for them that he pretends it’s not how he feels. And once again, he reaches out to Blitzø, gets shut down after putting himself out there and then acts as if everything is fine.

During the song at Ozzie’s , when the spotlight comes to Stolas, Asmodeus starts reminding him he “destroyed” his life, his family, and his image for a dude who does not outwardly appear to return his feelings, who is in fact just fucking him, and not even because he is interested in Stolas, but because he is using Stolas for the book. Every time Stolas tries for more he gets slapped back. He threw everything away for more of what he already had, a loveless business arrangement. He’s not shamed by the fact that Blitzø is an imp but that he ripped apart his picture perfect life for a guy who was acting distracted and ignoring him, who at times is completely turned away from him, and who is sitting across from him visibly uncomfortable at being called out as being on a date with him, and who he cannot get to agree to anything more despite his desperately trying.

Stolas’s part of the Ozzie’s episode opens with Gabriela yelling “Why won’t you LOVE ME ALEJANDRO” and then the man puts a streak in his hair to call back to it and people are still thinking it’s about status for him?

He just watched Blitzø stand up for Moxxie and Millie but when the focus turns to Stolas Blitzø cringes and makes himself small.

Lets break down what actually happens on screen because it is ALL in the visual choices made by the artists and what the song is actually about, lust being more acceptable than love because love is embarrassing and Blitzø hates to be embarrassed:

Moxxie starts singing, and after he sings “I loooove you” the shot jumps to Blitzø who CRINGES and shrinks a bit behind his menu. Publicly declaring your love for someone in public like that? Fucking Yikes. Bro.

Blitzø stands up and defends Moxxie and Millie but not necessarily to support their love, but their sexual relationship. This says a lot about which one Blitzø thinks of as being publicly acceptable.

Fizz turns his attention to Blitzø and the entire call out is about his bad love life, not his social status, and not even necessarily his level of fame but his failures as a romantic partner and the state of his relationships. It’s interesting that the song turns to this lack of love since just a few verses previously they act as though a romantic relationship is anthema to what they are all about. As soon as Fizz starts talking about his LOVE life Blitzø looks nervously at Stolas out of the corner of his eye.

Stolas is shocked as the song starts in on Blitzø but he doesn’t leave or shrink away immediately, he makes this absolutely hysterical face when Verosika is singing.

Blitzø does NOT like that Verosika is singing about their relationship. He crosses his arms and gets very sour pussed.

Then when Verosika starts getting more predatory, and going in on Blitzø physically, Stolas STANDS UP and looks as though he’s going to intervene.

The Wally Whackford yells “Are you sleeping with an Imp?” And Stolas remains standing, in the spotlight for several seconds. He doesn’t even start to move away to get out of it until Asmodeus comes up into his space and the scrutiny is all on him. He still doesn’t hide his face nor does it look necessarily shamed, it looks surprised and scared with where this is going and to have the attention on him but he does not look shamed. In fact, he doesn’t react to the imp comment at all, he is just as shocked and surprised as before Wally yelled as he is after. He keeps making this same shocked and scared face the whole time. We continue to see the crowd throughout all this and the scene is from a wide shot. It’s from the main POV, which is largely Blitzø’s.

The POV then switches to ONLY Stolas’s, we are seeing THROUGH his eyes and what HE sees is his family turning away from him and then they shove Blitzø in a chair, make him the center of Stolas’s vision and he’s left with Blitzø’s embarrassed, cringing face. The crowd, the club, everything else is painted out. From Stolas’s POV he doesn’t see or register the public, he sees and registers his family and Blitzø. They are center of his vision and the club and its patrons aren’t even present in the shot. If the issue was the social status we would have no need to remind the audience of Stella and Octavia by projecting their images and then having a sequence where they turn, walk away and burst into flames. Wally’s comment would be enough to establish it. The crowd would be visible because they would be what matters to Stolas. But it isn’t, we have to dive into Stolas’s POV, get a visual reminder of his family and see how Blitzo looks from Stolas’s POV.

We pull back to the outside POV and Stolas sits and stares for an entire beat after the POV shift (a technique used to tell the audience THIS was how Stolas saw the situation, now we’re back to the main POV), Blitzø is still shrinking away from him and THEN after Asmodeus says “you sold your life for a thrust” is when he hides his face. Yes, I did slow down the animation to actually see the sequence shot for shot and yes, it is a sign I have lost my mind.

But it’s important! This technique is really common in literature and media, you introduce one character’s conflict or flaw and then, to show that it contrasts with another character’s situation you jump into their POV, this is to remind the audience that there is a difference between them, that they are seeing this situation from two different places. The shots are wide for the social status implication that speaks to Blitzø’s issues with public declarations and his own self worth and we jump into Stolas’s just to remind the audience HEY, THIS IS ISNT WHAT STOLAS IS THINKING IN CASE YOU FORGOT ABOUT THE MAIN REASON THEY ARE NOT ON THE SAME PAGE, and then we just jump back to wide shots and bringing Blitzø back as the character whose flaw is being depicted.

The rest of the shots are from main POV and show Blitzo reacting to that. A deliberate contrast is set between what Stolas perceived and what Blitzø did. They present this direct visual contrast using a POV switch to show it. From Stolas’s POV he is being shamed not by the public, who didn’t factor into his POV at all, but by the loss or strain of his familial relationships and by Blitzø presenting himself completely differently when the focus is on HIS relationship with Stolas versus how he reacted to Moxxie/Millie and even Verosika.

From Stolas’s perspective and the audiences Blitzø was relatively okay up until Verosika pushed him, then we see Stolas’s reaction to that. That’s when Blitzø’s entire demeanor changes. He wilts, he shrinks, he makes himself small. Before that he winced a little but mostly he seemed annoyed. Until it gets turned on his date with Stolas. And we see this confirmed through Stolas’s POV, that we are seeing Blitzø how Stolas is seeing him looking sheepish and unhappy right in the center of the shot.

You sold your life for a thrust” is so important in this sequence, Blitzo just basically confirmed from his contrasting reactions and body language throughout the song that what they have is just sex, and we know from Stolas asking Asmodeus about the crystal and following up on it that he is really focusing on the transactional aspect of it and the situation he put an unwilling (at least in his mind) Blitzø in. This is just another bad arrangement like his marriage.

We don’t have onscreen confirmation, so this is more speculation but I imagine Stolas is probably comparing himself to Paimon a bit. His father purchased an unwilling imp to play with him as a child, the imp pretended to be into him to use him for the family treasure and now he’s essentially purchasing the same imp and that same imp appears to once again just be tolerating him for material gain.

Anyway, enough thoughts that depress the fuck out of me.

When we switch back to Blitzø after M&M finish their song we see the public again through their clapping and see his reaction. Now the issue at large is firmly back to the inferiority complex. Blitzø started shrinking and cringing away as soon as the famousness of his date was revealed, as soon as the crowd does exactly what he fears, comparing him to his partner and finding him lacking. Then we have Stolas reaching out, with no regard for the crowd who is back around them in the shots until the hand close up, and Blitzø shuts him down. Again. Once more we have Stolas visibly reaching out and trying to give Blitzø what Blitzø is outwardly projecting he wants (just like Stolas does with the dirty talk), and Blitzø being the one to say something annoyed or dismiss it. There is literally nothing Stolas can do to resolve this, because it’s an internal issue for Blitzø. Stolas externally declaring to every realm in hell won’t fix Blitzø needing to believe it and declare it for himself.

The conversation at Stolas’s house after reinforces everything, that Stolas is trying to do what Blitzø is projecting he wants. Blitzø appears to have an issue with their relationship being just about sex, the same person who goes out of his way to force all his non-familial relationships to be just about sex (even Moxxie and Millie, and when he turns a heartfelt reconciliation sexual with Fizz by asking to make out) and Stolas offers him multiple options for more of a romantic or comforting evening, because it’s what he wants as well, and Blitzø ignores that entirely, just outright refuses to acknowledge it. In the hospital we see Stolas tried AGAIN after Ozzie’s via text to work it out, and talk it out, but when Blitzø shuts it down again and when his initial approach didn’t work, Stolas tries just brushing it off and putting up that happy EVERYTHING IS OKAY image again.

So all this billion words and unhinged analysis to say that Stolas is not Asmodeus, he isn’t the one who needs to make the declaration, that won’t actually solve Blitzø’s problem and he already has put himself out there multiple times. Stolas is Fizz, obsessed with putting on a show.

Blitzø’s issues are internal and multiple people have tried to show him in external ways they love him and he either relates it back to sex, dismisses it entirely or physically removes himself from their lives. This is understandable considering when he does put himself out there he gets rejected, (circus audience, Barbie, his various gigs before I.M.P, Loona sometimes) or people act incredulous that someone could be with him. So the only way for him to complete this character journey is to internally reconcile and externally express.

Stolas is much more external about his issues, he tries putting on a happy face, laughing things off, trying to have a perfect day at LooLoo Land with a disinterested daughter, flirting outrageously with a disinterested partner, he wants the external situation to reflect what he feels inside but those around him don’t give that to him. He tries to have a perfect marriage, he gets a partner who throws obnoxious parties for what appears to be the chance to ridicule him publicly. He tries to have a perfect day at LooLoo Land to recapture happier times and accidentally alienates his daughter. He talks about how much he wants to bone Blitzø because that’s how Blitzø approached him and what he seems to be into in his relationships and is the only way he allows Stolas into his life at all, and in return he gets annoyed looks and insults.

“Or Is it Me?” In Look My Way makes me tear up every goddamn time because Stolas believes there is some internal problem within himself, that he cannot give Blitzø what he needs because he’s BEEN TRYING to be what Blitzø seems to want and gets nothing back no matter what approach he takes. No one will externally acknowledge him. Stolas doesn’t have an internal problem accepting his feelings and who they are for, regardless of status or consequences, he clearly says this in Look My Way and shows it before that with his over the top behavior, he needs someone from outside himself to acknowledge and reciprocate it.

So yeah, I disagree with the idea that Blitzø is the one who needs a public declaration. He might need a private one to take away his excuses but I don’t think he needs Stolas to do what Asmodeus did. What Blitzø seems to need is to be brave enough to declare his feelings for once and not shy away from the attention that comes with that. To accept himself as he is, like Stolas accepts him, and that realize he is just as worthy of love as the other people in his life. Stolas needs a declaration to validate his internal feelings, ease some of his loneliness with confirmed reciprocity and to have outwardly what he wants inwardly.

Thanks for reading if you did. I am sorry for being the way I am.

#stolas x blitz #stolitz #stolas #blitzo #helluva boss meta #long post #long reads #i’m sorry

[bowtiepastabitch]

Heaven's Not Homophobic in Good Omens, and Why That's Important

I need to preface this with, I am not trying to start a fight or argument and won't tolerate any homophobic or bad faith arguments in response to this. Cool? Cool.

This is in large part inspired by this ask from Neil's blog, which sparked some discourse that I don't want to get involved in but that brought up some analytic questions for me.

He goes on to reblog a question asking about Uriel's taunt specifically, clarifying that "boyfriend in the dark glasses" can just as easily be read/translated from angelic as girlfriend or bosom buddy. The idea is that an angel and a demon "fraternizing" is seriously looked down upon, not that heaven is homophobic. And that's super important.

We see homophobia in both the book and show, of course. Aziraphale is very queer-coded, intentionally and explicitly so, and we see the reaction of other humans to that several times. Sergeant Shadwell, for example, and the kid in the book that calls him the f-slur when he's doing magic at Warlock's birthday party. These are, however, individual human reactions to his coding as a gay man.

I am, personally, not a fan of heaven redemption theories for the show; no hate for people who want that it's just not something I'm interested in. I don't believe that heaven is good with bad leadership, or that God Herself remains as a paragon of virtue. To me, that's not in line with the themes and messages of the show. It's important, however, that heaven doesn't reflect human vices. Heaven can be nasty and selfish and apathetic in its own right without ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or racism. This matters for two reasons.

Firstly, we don't need the -isms and -phobias to be evil or at least ethically impure. In a world where we spend so much time fighting against prejudice and bigotry, our impulse is to see that reflected in characters whose motivations we distrust or who we're intended to dislike. While it's true that that's often the big bad evil in our daily lives, it can really cheapen the malice in fictional evil from a storytelling standpoint. A villain motivated by racism or as an allegory for homophobia can be incredibly compelling, but not every bad guy can be the physical representation of an -ism. Art reflects the reality in which it's crafted, but the complexity of human nature and the evil it's capable of can't be simplified to a dni list.

Secondly, and I think more importantly, is that for Good Omens specifically, this places the responsibility for homophobia on humanity. If you're in this fandom, there's like a 98% chance you've been hurt by religion in some way. For a lot of us, that includes religious homophobia and hate, so it makes sense to want to project that onto the 'religious' structure of Good Omens. It's a story that is, in many ways, about religious trauma and abuse. However, if heaven itself held homophobic values, it would canonize in-universe the idea that heaven and religion itself are responsible for all humanity's -isms and -phobias and absolve humans of any responsibility. Much like Crowley emphasizes repeatedly that the wicked cruelty he takes responsibility for is entirely human-made, we have to accept that heaven can't take the blame for this. To make heaven, the religious authority, homophobic would simply justify religious bigotry from humans. By taking the blame for religious extremism and hatred away from heaven and the religious structure, Good Omens makes it clear that the nastiness of humanity is uniquely and specially human and forces the individual to take responsibility rather than the system. Hell isn't responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, which by the way was religiously motivated if you didn't know, and heaven isn't responsible for Ronald Reagan.

This idea is perhaps more strongly and explicitly expressed in the Good Omens novel, in the scene where Aziraphale briefly possesses a televangelist on live TV. It's comedic, yes, but also serves to demonstrate that human concepts of the apocalypse and religious fervor are deeply incorrect (in gomens universe canon) and condemn exploitation of faith practices. Pratchett and Gaiman weave a great deal of complexity into the way religion and religious values are portrayed in the book, especially in the emphasis on heaven and hell being essentially the same. They're interested in the concept of what it means to be uniquely and unabashedly human, the good and the bad, and part of that is forcing each individual person to bear the brunt of responsibility for their own actions rather than passing it off onto a greater religious authority.

Additionally, from a fan perspective, there's something refreshing about a very queer story where homophobia isn't the primary (or even a side) conflict. The primary narrative of Good Omens isn't that these two man-shaped-beings are gay, it's that they're an angel and a demon. The tension in their romantic arc arises entirely from the larger conflict of heaven and hell, and things like gender and sexuality don't really matter at all. Yes, homophobia and transphobia are very real, present issues in our everyday lives, but they don't have to be central to every story we tell. There's something really soothing about Crowley and Aziraphale being so queer-coded and so clearly enamored with each other without constantly being bombarded with homophobia and hate. It's incredible to see a disabled angel whose use of a mobility aid makes no difference in their role and to see angels and demons using they/them pronouns without being questioned or misgendered. It's all accepted and normalized, and that's the kind of representation that we as queer people deserve.

#anywho that got real long #good omens #neil gaiman #terry pratchett #media analysis #good omens analysis #queer coding #queer representation #ineffable husbands #gomens #aziraphale x crowley #anywho happy valentines day #love my fandom #not beta read or majorly edited because I'm a busy guy with homework so lmk if there's any errors that need correcting (politely!)

[gatheringbones]

["The entwined nature of neuronormativity and heteronormativity means that the compulsory performance of neurotypicality is never a gender-neutral performance, but instead is strongly tied to the performance of binary heteronormative gender roles. Normative performance of whichever gender one was assigned at birth is central to what it means to be "normal" in the eyes of the present dominant culture. Thus, when the enforcers of normativity demand that a child "act normal," it's ultimately a demand to either act like a "normal boy" or like a "normal girl," whether or not the demand is explicitly phrased that way.

Since normative performance is always gendered, deviations from neuronormative embodiment are also inevitably deviations from heteronormative embodiment. Whether a given deviation gets interpreted by the enforcers of normativity as a violation of neuronormativity or as a violation of heteronormativity often depends entirely on context and circumstances. In a context in which a child is known to be autistic (or neurodivergent in some other specific and culturally pathologized way), the child's non-normative usage of their hands is likely to be pathologized as a "symptom" of their neurodivergence. But in a different context, those who are policing the child's embodiment are unaware of the child's neurodivergence, the same non-normative hand movements might be flagged as gender violations: children whom adults have labeled as girls might be reprimanded for drumming on the table with their hands or running their fingers vigorously and repeatedly through their hair, on the grounds that such actions are "unladylike"; children whom adults have labeled as boys might be attacked or ridiculed for flapping their hands, on the grounds that such gestures are "gay."

Thus, there are some autistic people who were forced in childhood to suppress their natural hand movements because those hand movements were flagged as "symptoms of autism" and targeted for elimination by autistiphobic adults, and other autistic people who weren't recognized as autistic in childhood but were still forced to suppress their hand movements because those hand movements were violations of heteronormativity that got them targeted for homophobic and transphobic abuse by adults and/or peers. And of course, there are many who were targeted on both neuronormative and heteronormative grounds at different times— e.g., autistics who in their youth were abused by adults for moving their hands autistically, and by homophobic peers who read those same hand movements as queer. The professional ABA perpetrator and the homophobic schoolyard bully are ultimately in the same line of work, enforcing the same compulsory normativity from different angles.

Since distinctively autistic movements of the hands violate the rules of both neuronormative performance and heteronormative performance, to refuse to suppress such movements functions as a simultaneous queering of both neuronormativity and heteronormativity. When an autistic person chooses to allow themselves to follow some or all of the impulses toward non-normative hand movement that spontaneously arise in them, rather than suppressing those impulses in the interest of normative performance, that's a form of neuroqueering."]

nick walker, from neuroqueer heresies: notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities, 2021

#nick walker #trans literature #gender stuff #brainspace #cw abuse

[autisminabox]

I’m going to be discussing spoilers from the new update, specifically entailing Eddie. Spoilers are below the cut, so, like. Spoiler alert

One thing that stuck out to me right before Eddie “goes to Toyland” (which is what’s implied to happen) is the anger he felt. To me it felt incredibly out of place. Out of place for what’s supposed to be a children’s show, and out of place for Eddie.

We’ve seen Eddie in situations substantially worse for his staying focused on the job than people not having any mail. We’ve seen people jump at him, get pressured into literally lifting other people (and possibly a fucking house), and was too nervous to speak up for himself. We’ve seen him take a lot of shit from both Howdy and Barnaby in the audios, and he more or less took it on the chin. Julie overwhelmed him with her business game, and instead of getting frustrated, he just kind of… curled up.

So this strikes me as particularly odd. There are two explanations I can think of to explain why it happened. The first is a theory I’ve seen floated around about the puppets slowly deviating from the in-universe writers’ design. We see this contrast between how everyone acts in the books and ads and how they act in the bug audios; Barnaby had a twinge of meanness, Julie had a personality beyond being ADHD incarnate, Frank expressed kindness. It’s not out of the question. The second theory is based off of a few observations from earlier on: Eddie is notably from out of town, and is loosely implied to have moved in last out of the main cast. It wouldn’t be absurd to say that this leads him to being “not with the program”, even if him being the newest addition is only in-universe for the show (as opposed to him being literally constructed and written last)

The second thing that was prominent to me was Home’s response to Eddie entering Toyland. This is quite plainly conspicuous and intentional, but I wanted to bring attention to it because of the interesting implications of it. First off, Home is pretty much confirmed to be sentient now. I’ll be damned if there’s any coherent counterargument that doesn’t boil down to going “nuh-uh”. Second, Home is at minimum recognizing that something is happening to Eddie. It’s not clear whether Home is aware of what specifically is happening to Eddie, or whether or not Home had a hand in setting off the incident, but the fact that home recognized that something was happening to Eddie nearly instantly solidifies how intelligent and aware Home actually is. This isn’t inherently surprising, since we’ve already gotten word-of-God confirmation that Home has repeatedly beaten Frank at chess, however, this is the most pointed and direct example that we’ve seen in the actual project.

Third, the fact that Eddie specifically had The Horrors™️ enacted upon him first specifically (at least, as far as we’re explicitly aware of; It’s unclear whether Wally counts as having experienced The Horrors™️ or if he is the arbitrator of them. More on that later) lends to some very interesting suggestions. Five possible explanations I can think of work as follows: One, he knew too much about either the nature of whatever specifically is weird about Home (town), whether that be Home (house), Wally, another character, the monsters of the night, something else about the night, or he knew too much about his nature as a fictional character. There is some speculative support for this; first, the aforementioned outsider angle that he’s been played with, and second, his parallels to the scrapped character Sunny. Sunny was the most recent to move in within the beta continuity, he was the love interest for Frank, he was smart and likely knew too much, and he disappeared first. Two, his outburst earlier in the day proved to be too out of character and thus a risk and liability to whoever was in control of what happened to him. Aside from my above breakdown of that scene, and from the fact that there’s very prominent examples of Playfellow and Marlo (or perhaps Wally, if for whatever reason Evil Wally ends up being true) blatantly straightwashing characters and possibly suppressing free will of the characters, assuming that’s what we’re meant to take away from the bug audios. Three, Eddie realized the actual absurdity of the Pea On A Plate and “woke up”, lucid dream style. I don’t really like this interpretation, since the fact that it’s in several promotional materials and companion merchandise suggests that it was an absurdist humor bit in-universe, which isn’t farfetched considering how children’s shows tend to be. Four, there’s another reason that’s yet to be revealed as to why Eddie got selected first. To be a total Devil’s advocate, we’re still relatively early in what’s looking to be a very slow-paced story. We’re not gonna have all the details, and red herrings are going to pop up, intentionally or otherwise. Five, Eddie was selected randomly or with no actual reason.

There’s also a few possibilities for who sent Eddie to Toyland, which is interesting to me. First, it could be Home. It wouldn’t be surprising considering its mysterious and noted uncanny nature, and its prominence during that scene. Second, it could be Wally. While I personally don’t find it to be the most reasonable, since something of this magnitude being perpetrated by a character we have a face to would likely involve that character, there’s enough evidence of Wally acting aware and generally odd where it isn’t completely absurd. Additionally, it’s entirely plausible that Wally’s conspicuous absence during the entire arc is indicative of some sort of guilt. Third, the show writers, someone at Playfellow, or another party along those lines somehow caused it, either by technological or supernatural means we don’t know about or by some accidental bout of supernatural fuckery, such as rewriting something and it having bizarre effects on the characters. It’s out there, but not out of the question considering the weird shit they’ve done. On top of that, it’s not impossible that another entity or force somehow caused this that either hasn’t been revealed or explained yet.

As to what Toyland actually entails, I’ve concocted a few theories. One, he literally got up and mentally teleported to a land of giant toys. Two, it’s full Star Trek mode and there’s Horrors™️ so mentally stimulating that the only way it could be perceived by either us or Eddie that that’s all it can be perceived as. Three, Going To Toyland is some sort of initiation, rite of passage, or method of psychologically controlling the cast that everyone else either doesn’t realize is happening or has their memories of it forcibly suppressed. This could be supported by the aforementioned “Eddie is an Outsider” and it’s possibly his first Homewarming since moving to the area. After all, a housewarming is a celebration that welcomes and initiates someone to the neighborhood; would it be that odd that Homewarming is a twisted version of that?

Anyways. Those are my observations and a bunch of interpretations. Part of why I love this project so much is how mysterious and unclear the exact details are, creating excellent suspense and a drive to theorize, and leading up to a truly gobsmacking reveal or conclusion. This update certainly delivered. Whatever the answer is for any of the branching paths I described, it’ll almost definitely reveal how truly fucked up the perpetrator is (or, alternatively, how utterly fucked up the situation is in general, if there ends up not being an instigator) for, y’know, doing that. Clown and Co., you’ve certainly outdone yourselves, and the wait was worth it; this speculative theorycrafting this update has provided is absolutely incredible.

#welcome home #welcome home arg #wally darling #welcome home home #eddie dear #welcome home wally darling #welcome home wally #welcome home eddie #welcome home eddie dear #welcome home spoilers #welcome home speculation #welcome home update #welcome home theory

[thatweirdguyinthebushes]

breaking bad and it’s themes of toxic masculinity is one of those things that ill never get over. upon first glance jesse is very traditionally masculine, more so than walter, but as the show goes on it becomes clear that walt strives much more for the toxic and self-destructive standards of masculinity, where he must not only be the sole breadwinner for his family but must be acknowledged and praised for being such, where he must be the most intelligent most respected most deferred to of all the other men in his life. his son must respect him the most, his wife must acknowledge and be grateful for the money he brings no matter how he treats her or how he gets that money, his family must be grateful that it was him who provided for them, not strangers on the internet or charity or any of their friends, him. he needs to be acknowledged and respected, needs constantly to have his ego stroked. its one of the reasons he attaches himself so quickly to jesse, because jesse is in desperate need of both parental acknowledgement and a sense of academic achievement. walt takes on a kind of fatherly role, yes, but he's also jesses former teacher, and so his praise comes with a kind of undercurrent of that academic acknowledgement. and also, his relative ignorance at least at first of the technicalities of cooking meth makes it easy for walt to compare himself to jesse and therefore boost his ego. he does genuinely like jesse, but the amount of respect the kid has for him (extending even to the way he addresses him, "mr white", as if theyre still teacher and student) makes him feel superior, which is what he wants. and, as the story later reveals, jesse also has more traits that are stereotypically regarded as soft, feminine, non-masculine. he's highly emotional, much more so than the rest of the cast, and he cries more than every other male character combined. he's very gentle, and enjoys taking care of people, which is evident in the way he treats his romantic partners but also in the way he treats walt, specifically in the episode fly. he likes kids, gets along well with them, and goes above and beyond what every other character does in order to protect them. his emotional nature, especially when children and them being in danger come in to play, is one of the things he is most criticized for by other characters in the show. he's called impulsive and irrational and stupid and rabid, and he's repeatedly punished by the world for how much he cares about things. it seems, for a while, that the world of breaking bad is not only reprimanding him, but reprimanding these traits in and of themselves, saying "Look at what happened to the guy who really cared. Look at all the other male characters. They were all put together and angry and prideful and they cared about no one more than themselves, and they're on top of the world while Jesse is crying in a corner somewhere, because he wasn't a enough of a man." but then, as the story winds further into a close, you see everything play out more clearly. because the characters who are more explicitly masculine than jesse, who keep their emotions together and feed their own egos constantly and comply to the standards of toxic masculinity, all end up dead. gus has to brag in the face of the man who killed his partner, needs the revenge and the gloating and the satisfaction of having ground another man into the dust. mike has to get in the last word against the stupid son of a bitch that fucked it all up. hank has to arrest walt on his own, has to keep his job and his dignity. walt has only ruined his life this much because of his ego, and specifically dies at the hand of his own invention, designed for vengeance against all who wronged him. he offers the gun to jesse and jesse does not take it. he lays it down and instructs walt to do it himself if he wants it that bad. and then he drives away, and he is not stoic or cool or anything like his many foils, he is loud and emotional and he screams and cries and smiles. and at the end of the day, despite the world punishing his open emotion and his love and his gentleness, he is alive, and every other character who disregarded and talked down to him is not.

#breaking bad #analysis #jesse pinkman #walter white #hank schrader #gustavo fring #mike ehrmantraut #brba #better call saul

[quicktimeeventfull]

recently i've noticed there's been an uptick in people interpreting the aesthetics of death note as christian, and i feel this is at least in part due to the declining popularity of gothic lolita fashion, which is an extremely significant influence on death note's art.

the presence of a religious motif does not represent an invocation of religion. for many people there just isn't any connection between a cross and religion; the invocation is more of decadence, a specific view of the west, and the grotesque. this is especially true in a country such japan where christianity is a minority religion (composing less than 1.5% of the population) but it's also true elsewhere, and it was especially true in the early 2000s, where gothic lolita and fashion styles influenced by it (including visual kei and japanese punk fashion) were extremely prevalent.

from the lolita fashion wiki, we get this description of gothic lolita fashion: "Common motifs in Gothic Lolita often include crosses or religious themes, bats, skulls, coffins, chandeliers, deep red roses, and castles." and then if you look at pictures of gothic lolita outfits or products, you can see that religious motifs repeatedly occur to add interest:

this is really obviously not intended to invoke christianity. it's aesthetic. it invokes the grotesque. in the first photo particularly, you can see that the cross is placed alongside other death motifs -- gravestones and bones. or you can look at this image, in which a lolita is shown surrounded by extremely explicitly religious items (crucifixes and a bible, in addition to the other aesthetic crosses.) again, it's fairly obvious that the intention here is not to be devout but rather to give this sense of the grotesque.

the most obvious example of a character who wears actual gothic lolita fashion is misa amane, but looking at the 'religious' aesthetics more broadly you can see they fall pretty clearly in line with this sense of decadence and the grotesque. again, christian imagery is connected directly to death motifs.

so yes, they're absolutely christian items, but the actual effect of them is not religious. there is no attempt to invoke christian themes but rather to use christian items to give a sense of the morbid. vitally, this isn't even something ohba and obata made up for death note -- it's a common fashion style that they're drawing upon. the whole thing is several layers of distance away from any religious implications.

it's honestly really hard to understate how common these aethetics were in the early 2ks -- you could walk into claire's and find crosses all over the place. they're secular. people wore them because they looked cool. it just does not make sense to look at these images and automatically assume they're trying to say anything about christianity.

i don't think it's untrue to say that there are some religious themes in death note -- this is kind of a complicated question that i won't get into here -- but the assumption that they must specifically be christian religious themes just because death note is using christian motifs is taking the visual language of death note entirely out of context.

#death note #hopefully. not kicking a hornets nest. but i will turn off reblogs if people are weird

[fynnlink]

Katara suffering from having to be an emotional crutch for A/ang (especially when he enters the Avatar State) is something that's consistently shown throughout the series.

While this is generally nothing new / not a new take, I specifically noticed it in this scene in Book 2's "the desert" and feel it's incredibly telling regarding Katara's emotional/mental state and stance about A/ang not being in control of his Avatar State

Katara's expression especially in the first picture just absolutely wrecked me on my latest rewatch. That is utter defeat on her face. She recognises that A/ang will lose control again and that she will be the one who has to "pull him back". This comes after she has repeatedly shown her discomfort/fear concerning his outbursts and even explicitly told him as such in episode 1 of book 2. She is also the only one who stays close to A/ang in this scene, both Sokka and Toph run away.

There's no greater point to this, the intensity of the emotion on Katara's face just caught me off guard since I hadn't watched this episode in some time. And while I see the general point/argument brought up often I don't think I've seen anyone bring up this scene and I feel it's very indicative of the way emotional labour is "shared" between Ka/taang going forward in the series and their relationship.

#katara deserved better #katara defense squad #atla critical #anti kataang #pro katara #anti aang #kinda

[fastidious-and-a-mess]

guys can we PLEASE stop shipping riz w people. honestly at this point i kind of don’t even care if you yourself are also acespec/arospec/aspec.

yes, aspec people can be in relationships, etc etc, but riz specifically has expressed over and over and over again that that is something he personally has absolutely zero interest in.

he’s not just canonically aroace, he also canonically does not want a relationship.

“aroace people can be happy in romantic/sexual/queerplatonic relationships” is a true statement. “people who do not want to be in any kind of monogamous committed relationship can be happy in a monogamous committed relationship” is quite a bit harder to argue.

i’m just so sick of it. i’m glad we all understand that there’s nuance to aspec identities, and everyone’s expressions of and experiences with their own aspec identities are going to be different and personal.

like, it’s not even just about the asexual/aromantic aspect anymore. it’s also just refusing to let him not want to be in a relationship. why are so many people so resistant to the idea that he does not want to be in a relationship. like genuinely, why can you not accept that there are people who just don’t want that. who would just be unhappy in a relationship. why can’t you wrap your head around the idea that wanting a relationship is not a thing that everyone secretly wants. like, No, he hasn’t just not “met the right person” yet. because there is no right person. because he’s simply not interested.

this post is kind of rambly and not as effectively phrased as it could be i think but idc.

TL;DR: riz being aroace is not the only reason to not ship him. he also, explicitly and repeatedly, has stated he does not want to be in a relationship. “aspec people can be in relationships” is completely irrelevant because regardless riz simply does not want a relationship. please just respect thag.

edit: plz don’t like this is u wont rb. i won’t guilt you into rbing, it’s ur blog i’m not ur dad do what u want etc etc. it’s just irritating for me personally to see ppl interacting w this but not willing to actually put it on their blogs.

#sorry to keep this ‘’’’’’’ discoure ‘’’’’’’ alive #im just sooooo tired #i just don’t understand how so many people can see this character have such a significant part of characterization be about how #he does not want to be in a Relationship at all and how that affects him and his relationships with the people in his life #and then go ‘what if he was in a Relationship with his best friend’ #like come on!! #i don’t care how you define the Relationship. i don’t care about your own personal identity. #i don’t care about whatever reasons you come up with the justify why it’s actually totally fine #the bottom line is riz does not want that for himself and you’re deciding that that’s not worth respecting #sorry fabriz enjoyers but i wish you guys would just stfu #dimension 20 #fantasy high #riz gukgak #edit continued: ik it’s all just online fandom stuff. but it’s also representative of a larger issue #of people just being incapable of comprehending that some people don’t want relationships. or even past that; that some people actively want #to Not be in relationships. it’s people coming into contact with a person (character) like that and believing that that just can’t be true #that that person Must secretly actually want a relationship. even if they don’t know it. they just haven’t met the right person yet. etc etc #if you can’t give up outting riz in any kind of relationship then you cannot accept that some people really truly do not want relationships #that’s FINE. PLEASE just respect that

[cantsayidont]

Despite its protestations of progressive values, STAR TREK media has always explicitly presented (and, with only fleeting exceptions, consistently celebrated) the Federation as an expansionist imperial power, engaged in a large-scale project of colonialism.

The usual apologia/rationalization for this, both from the franchise itself and from its fans, is that the Federation is also a post-scarcity socialist utopia. However, that is expressly not the case in TOS, despite the attempts of the later series to insist otherwise.

Indeed, the plots of some of the most famous and acclaimed episodes of TOS are specifically about resource extraction and ensuring the Federation's access to crucial resources, including lithium (in "Mudd's Women"), pergium (in "The Devil in the Dark"), and dilithium (in "Mirror, Mirror," et al). We are told repeatedly that the Enterprise has a mandate to use force to secure these resources if gentler methods fail. Moreover, while the Federation has a strategic interest in these resources, it's clear at various points in TOS that their extraction and exploitation are, to a significant extent if not exclusively, overseen by private interests for profit. For instance, in "Mudd's Women," Harry Mudd remarks:

Well, girls, lithium miners. Don't you understand? Lonely, isolated, overworked, rich lithium miners! Girls, do you still want husbands, hmm? Evie, you won't be satisfied with a mere ship's captain. I'll get you a man who can buy you a whole planet. Maggie, you're going to be a countess. Ruth, I'll make you a duchess. And I, I'll be running this starship. Captain James Kirk, the next orders you're taking will be given by Harcourt Fenton Mudd!

In "The Devil in the Dark," Kirk ultimately takes a regulatory position — he will not permit the pergium miners to kill the Horta or continue to destroy her eggs — but at no point does he suggest that stopping the pergium production that threatens the Horta is a viable or even acceptable alternative. The accord he proposes is contingent on the Horta's agreement that she and her children will support the mining efforts on her planet, since Kirk emphasizes that "a dozen planets" are depending on the miners to supply needed pergium. (What would have happened to her if she hadn't agreed is not stated, but the episode strongly suggests that she would have been severely punished for noncompliance with Kirk's mediated solution: forcibly relocated to some kind of Horta reservation away from the main mining operations, perhaps.) When the Horta does agree to this proposal, Kirk assures Vanderberg, "you people are going to be embarrassingly rich," which once again suggests that while the miners may have contractual agreements to delivery pergium to Federation worlds, they are still a private, for-profit business, not a Federation department or nationalized entity.

Profit is also Ron Tracey's motivation for breaking the Prime Directive in "The Omega Glory": He believes that he's discovered a "fountain of youth" that he can own, monopolize, and exploit, and that the value of that resource will be enough to buy his way out of legal trouble for his regulatory violations.

We mostly don't see the Enterprise crew handle money except on away missions in other cultures or times, but there are a number of indications that the Federation in this era has not abandoned money: For instance, Harry Mudd's list of past offenses includes purchasing a space vessel "with counterfeit currency," while in "The Apple," Kirk rhetorically asks if Spock knows how much Starfleet has invested in him, which Spock begins to answer, "One hundred twenty-two thousand two hundred …" before Kirk cuts him off. More tellingly, in "I, Mudd," we have the following exchange:

KIRK: All right, Harry, explain. How did you get here? We left you in custody after that affair on the Rigel mining planet. MUDD: Yes, well, I organized a technical information service bringing modern industrial techniques to backward planets, making available certain valuable patents to struggling young civilizations throughout the galaxy. KIRK: Did you pay royalties to the owners of those patents? MUDD: Well, actually, Kirk, as a defender of the free enterprise system, I found myself in a rather ambiguous conflict as a matter of principle. SPOCK: He did not pay royalties. MUDD: Knowledge, sir, should be free to all. KIRK: Who caught you? MUDD: That, sir, is an outrageous assumption. KIRK: Yes. Who caught you? MUDD: I sold the Denebians all the rights to a Vulcan fuel synthesizer. KIRK: And the Denebians contacted the Vulcans.

Whether Deneb is a member of the Federation at this time is unclear, but Vulcan certainly is, and so we may assume that Vulcan and presumably the Federation itself are also part of "the free enterprise system."

The first indication that the Federation does not use money is in STAR TREK IV, and it's not obvious there if Kirk's remark that "They're still using money" is talking about money more broadly or just physical currency, which the Federation may have phased out even if it still uses credit or electronic transfers of monetary value. (Certainly, McCoy's attempt in STAR TREK III to charter a starship indicates that he had some means of paying for passage, since the captain of the ship specifically demands more money upon learning of the intended destination.)

If we accept at face value the assertion of TNG and DS9 that the Federation has genuinely abandoned the use of money, rather than simply going cashless, the most reasonable Watsonian explanation is that this has been a relatively recent development during the 70–80 years between the TOS cast movies and TNG, most likely related to the development of replication technology (which the Federation did not yet have in Kirk's time).

Of course, from a Doylist standpoint, we could chalk up some of this incidental dialogue to the franchise's evolving construction of its own setting, in the same manner as anomalous references to Vulcans as "Vulcanians." Roddenberry and his apologists might also insist that he always meant to depict a socialist utopia, but was prevented by the nattering nabobs of negativity (i.e., the network's BS&P); I'm very skeptical of such claims, but the writers were acutely aware that depicting what Earth is like in Kirk's time would be opening a can of worms, which is why we didn't actually see 23rd century Earth (even briefly) until the movies.

However, the focus on resource extraction and its ramifications is such a load-bearing story element in TOS that the revisionist assertion that the Federation was already a post-scarcity socialist utopia in Kirk's time (as both DISCOVERY and STRANGE NEW WORLDS have attempted to claim) would require really substantial retcons of the original show, perhaps to the extent of insisting that some of those events never took place at all, or happened radically differently than what's in the TOS episodes most STAR TREK fans have seen. For me, anyway, that crosses a line from willing suspension of disbelief to "don't trust your lying eyes," and suggests a frustrating and somewhat disturbing determination to insist that TOS is something much purer and nobler than it is rather than grapple with its actual conceptual flaws and ideological shortcomings.

#teevee #star trek #star trek tos #james t kirk #harcourt fenton mudd #spock #gene roddenberry #i love tos -- truly -- but it doesn't claim to depict a utopia #and its hypocrisies and moral failings are substantial #i am very disgruntled by strange new worlds and discovery #because they clearly WANT to redo tos #but rather than rebooting it to align with their current vision #they've opted for this revisionist death-by-a-thousand-retcons approach

[thefandomlesbian]

Inspired by the post by @oddlittlestories about Wilson touching House's sensitive points--specifically, the mention of the strongyloides patient and the afterlife. This is something I've been stewing on for awhile.

I don't think House's issue with the afterlife and the strongyloides patient was solely stemming from his own personal obsession or ongoing issues with suicidality related to his disability.

4x03, 97 Seconds, is only four episodes after 3x22 Resignation, in which House discovers Wilson has been taking antidepressants and it's implied Wilson has been struggling with his depression and simultaneously refuses to tell House anything about it, no matter how House pries. House makes his own inferences, that this is either a new thing or a change in prescription because of worsening depression, but Wilson deflects when he tries to ask. It's one of Wilson's sensitive points. We learn (and House explicitly observes later) that Wilson shuts down particularly painful topics, mostly relating to loss, and this is one that he shuts down hard and fast by accusing House of not caring about him.

House, true to character when it comes to all things Wilson, assumes the worst. We don't know what Wilson is actually going through, that's left to be guessed at by the audience, but we do know that House has been effectively shut out while continuing to be concerned.

And then, only a few episodes later, we get two different patients: a man who experienced cardiac arrest and replicates it in front of House for the thrill, and a physically disabled man who discusses being free of his mortal body. We see House and Wilson have exchanges about both of these patients. First, about the knife in the outlet patient:

House repeatedly tries to draw Wilson back to the topic of suicidality, why? how? what was the plan? and Wilson repeatedly avoids the topic until he gives up and leaves the scene sooner than have the conversation. My read: The implication is that Wilson at some point in the past (whether or not this is recent past or long past, we don't know) dealt intimately with suicidal ideation that makes him uncomfortable, either personally or with a family member (maybe his brother). House takes this as confirmation.

So then, this scene is followed up later in the episode, where Wilson and House together are with the disabled strongyloides patient, who is telling them he does not want cancer treatment. The patient says death will be a relief--in front of Wilson, House looks at him before he addresses the patient. It triggers a knee-jerk reaction, anger.

House recognizes he oversteps and leaves the patient, but the argument continues between him and Wilson in the hallway. It goes much deeper than trying to talk a terminally ill man into living a few months longer, because the argument isn't really about him; he's just a narrative vessel for this conversation between these two characters.

The most popular read for this exchange is that House is arguing for himself, that he thinks misery isn't a good enough reason to take his life and he is telling himself that death isn't a worthy escape (which is definitely a valid read of the scene). But given the recent context of Wilson's depression, his utter refusal to share anything with House and therefore the audience, his complete discomfort with the suggestion of suicidal ideation and all the big questions like why and how and what for... I don't think House's actions after this scene are for House.

We have this argument where Wilson is arguing in defense of a man who is passively suicidal. "You don't know death isn't better, you can't know, death could be better. There could be a solace after all of this, you don't know." If this conversation is framed in context of Wilson being depressed and having potentially been suicidal, he's not defending the patient--he's defending himself, for having had those thoughts. And House is arguing with him, against those thoughts. Wilson's conclusion is you can't go to the afterlife and see how much it sucks.

Of course House's conclusion is to go to the afterlife and see how much it sucks.

This is the song playing while House contemplates what he needs to do.

Starting over anew without a partner, not knowing how to make sense of things, becoming a new terrified person in lieu of someone who is supposed to be there--that's where his mind is. He goes to look at the electrical outlet patient, just staring in silence. What could be so good that it needs to be revisited? He must be wrong. (Note that at no point does House ever share with Wilson that the electrical outlet patient's claim that death was the best 97 seconds of his life--he asks Wilson why but never follows up with the answer.)

So House pages Amber and tries to try to kill himself, as convoluted as it sounds, so he can know the afterlife isn't good. So he can have proof. So he'll have evidence. He'll know it sucks, even worse than Detroit, they can't have this argument again.

House says it explicitly. "You insisted that I needed to see for myself." He had to know.

House wants to talk about what he experienced. He deliberately seeks out someone who will understand, asks for that person specifically, he wants to share. But with Wilson, he digs in his heels. Entrenched. We see that Wilson is generally the person House shares personal things with, such as the suspected identity of his biological father, he goes directly to Wilson after Dominika leaves in S8, he seeks him out throughout the Stacy arc in S2, pesters him while the fellows are fleeing in S3 even after the Tritter arc, his soft place to land during and after rehab in S6--Wilson is House's number one confidant.

Not on this subject. He refuses to say anything, except, "I love you." He doesn't respond to Wilson's criticism that he's already had near-death experiences before; he doesn't bite at any of the bait. Not talking about it. The person he wants to share with isn't there, so he doesn't share, not even with Wilson. The only thing we get as the audience is his dialogue to the corpse at the end of the episode.

This is also not something he shares with Wilson. Too much of a sensitive spot, too tender.

But all leading to my conclusion that... House didn't put the knife in the electrical socket for himself. As Wilson points out, House has had multiple near-death experiences. He doesn't need to almost die to find out what happens. He's already seen it. He already knows.

The character who has most recently displayed new depressive tendencies in this context isn't House. Wilson is the one refusing to discuss his mental health, ostensibly taking new psych drugs or minimally increasing the dosages, becoming uncomfortable with conversations about the difficult questions of suicide, and verbally defending a man's desire to die to end the mortal coil.

House didn't put the knife in the electrical socket to fight release for himself. He's been in chronic pain for a decade at this point, it hasn't changed, he has treated patients with self-destructive tendencies in the interim with no impact to his own mental health. This event didn't strike at a vulnerable time for House; it struck at a time when House knows Wilson is struggling, specifically when he has already tried to offer help and Wilson accused him of not caring. He had to do something.

House put the knife in the outlet to fight for Wilson. To have evidence, to talk him down. "See? I proved it. There's nothing. Now you know for sure. Now you have to stay with me."

That would be too saccharine. But he says, "I love you," and that's what he means.

#house md #hilson #house x wilson #meta #spencer speaks #this is obviously entirely my opinion and my own interpretation of the text #tw suicidal ideation

[mayasaura]

now that soul permeability is established, do you think cassy and/or g1deon will have a major effect on varun?

varun has already shown small signs of quote unquote 'infection' from cassy, because i remember that varun-through-judith laughed at palamedes lamenting sounding like he was a sixth house committee member which. y'know. is a cassy thing to do. and varun was reported to have gone dormant for a century after it ate her

do you think we'll learn more about cassy through varun, and that her motivations have bled into its own, affecting how it will approach alecto and the idea of vengeance and love?

(on a smaller level, do you think we'll learn about pyrrha's pre-res memories this way? if her knowing g-'s name is a result of memory blending, then how does he know his name?)

Did Varun eat Cassiopeia? We have a few slightly differing accounts of her death that mostly boil down to: Which would you rather be torn apart by; ten thousand feral ghosts, or one feral ghost ten thousand times the size?

But yeah, that laughter was fucking weird wasn't it?

If that's Varun laying low inside Judith and getting startled into laughter, then. Damnit, I hadn't even considered that. It would be just like this series to have two ghosts playing dead in one scene; one the audience explicitly knows about, and one we don't.

Anyway, let's assume Pyrrha's account of Cassiopeia's death is the most accurate.

At the volume a soul like Varun's must have, I wouldn't think we'd find out too much about one specific soul it incorporated. Unless....

I noticed something very interesting while I was searching for the above quote. "Dormant" is repeatedly used in Harrow the Ninth to describe only one thing: a lyctor's body when its soul is elsewhere. We've seen that a Resurrection Beast can also throw its soul elsewhere—into poor Judith—so .... if there's an equivalency there, where did Varun go for those hundred years after killing Cassiopeia? And what was it doing?

A planet's ghost is burning through Judith pretty quickly, but how long would it take it to burn through a lyctor? Maybe a century?

#the locked tomb #the unwanted guest #nona the ninth #tug spoilers #ntn spoilers #cassiopeia the first #varun the eater #tlt meta