#tagging anti just in case

[theheirofthesharingan]

I see my Twitter filled with the posts related to 'Uchiha family' and see something is amiss. Sarada and Sakura don't make the 'Uchiha family.' Not to me, at least. The only Uchiha family I care about and comes to my mind is with Sauske, Itachi, Mikoto, and Fugaku. With all their imperfections, they're the Uchiha family that matters and counts. Everything else is artificial.

#sasuke #itachi #uchiha brothers #uchiha family #fugaku #mikoto uchiha #tagging anti just in case #anti sakura #anti boruto #anti sarada #anti ss

[tedkaczynskiofficial]

I love Zutara as much as the next girlie, but I think people romanticizing Zuko catching Azula's lightning in the Final Agni Kai are doing Zuko's character a massive disservice. He would have done that for anyone. Not just anyone in the Gaang, anyone.

He did it for the division he ended up getting burned over. He did it for his subordinate that was going to fall to his death after the ship was struck by lightning. He did it for Lee, when he was kidnapped by Gao. He did it for Iroh, when he confronted his dad and tried to break him out of prison. He did it for the whole Gaang at the Western Air Temple. He did it for Sokka, Suki, and Hakoda at the Boiling Rock.

His whole character revolves around saving everyone else first. Hell, he tried to save Zhao of all people! There's no way that would have gone well for Zuko if Zhao had actually taken his hand. He always does what he thinks is right first before considering his own safety.

Zuko always saves other people. Even if, especially if, he can't save himself.

#look i love zutara #but zuko has no conception of personal safety #there are better zutara moments in atla!!!! #like i will absolutely still read fanfic that romanticizes that scene #but it still would have happened if literally anyone else had been standing there #zutara #zutara criticism #i'm going to tag this as #anti zutara #just in case someone doesn't want to see a critique of the ship #i'm not really critiquing the ship #but out of an abundance of caution #uh actual antis if you see this: behave yourselves lol #zuko #avatar the last airbender #atla

[ecoterrorist-katara]

the anti-Zutara criticism that “Zutara shippers are teenage girls who only like the ship because they self-insert as Katara” is actually so funny because how does that delegitimize the ship? So…girls who relate to Katara like Zuko, and they think Katara would like Zuko, and that’s bad because…girls are wrong? Girls are shallow? Girls don’t know what’s good for them? Anyway if I were a grown ass man who created a fictional teenage girl that lots of real teenage girls relate to, and these girls believe she would like character B instead of character A, I hope I’d have the humility to say to myself “hmm I wonder why people who relate to this character’s feelings and motivations think she would react this way” instead of jumping straight to “these girls are doomed to like toxic relationships”

(And I know Zutara shippers like the ship for many different reasons, and self-insert is not the most popular by a long shot, I’m just saying that the criticism of self-insert stems from dismissal of what teenage girls like, and that feels kinda misogynistic to me)

#Zutara #pro Zutara #anti bryke #katara #Anti kataang #not really anti kataang but tagging it just in case #I should tag this “pro teenage girls” #My meta

[sneezypeasy]

Why I Deliberately Avoided the "Colonizer" Argument in my Zutara Thesis - and Why I'll Continue to Avoid it Forever

This is a question that occasionally comes up under my Zutara video essay, because somehow in 2 hours worth of content I still didn't manage to address everything (lol.) But this argument specifically is one I made a point of avoiding entirely, and there are some slightly complicated reasons behind that. I figure I'll write them all out here.

From a surface-level perspective, Zuko's whole arc, his raison d'etre, is to be a de-colonizer. Zuko's redemption arc is kinda all about being a de-colonizer, and his redemption arc is probably like the most talked about plot point of ATLA, so from a basic media literacy standpoint, the whole argument is unsound in the first place, and on that basis alone I find it childish to even entertain as an argument worth engaging with, to be honest.

(At least one person in my comments pointed out that if any ship's "political implications" are problematic in some way, it really ought to be Maiko, as Mai herself is never shown or suggested to be a strong candidate for being a de-colonizing co-ruler alongside Zuko. If anything her attitudes towards lording over servants/underlings would make her… a less than suitable choice for this role, but I digress.)

But the reason I avoided rebutting this particular argument in my video goes deeper than that. From what I've observed of fandom discourse, I find that the colonizer argument is usually an attempt to smear the ship as "problematic" - i.e., this ship is an immoral dynamic, which would make it problematic to depict as canon (and by extension, if you ship it regardless, you're probably problematic yourself.)

And here is where I end up taking a stand that differentiates me from the more authoritarian sectors of fandom.

I'm not here to be the fandom morality police. When it comes to lit crit, I'm really just here to talk about good vs. bad writing. (And when I say "good", I mean structurally sound, thematically cohesive, etc; works that are well-written - I don't mean works that are morally virtuous. More on this in a minute.) So the whole colonizer angle isn't something I'm interested in discussing, for the same reason that I actually avoided discussing Katara "mothering" Aang or the "problematic" aspects of the Kataang ship (such as how he kissed her twice without her consent). My whole entire sections on "Kataang bad" or "Maiko bad" in my 2 hour video was specifically, "how are they written in a way that did a disservice to the story", and "how making them false leads would have created valuable meaning". I deliberately avoided making an argument that consisted purely of, "here's how Kataang/Maiko toxic and Zutara wholesome, hence Zutara superiority, the end".

Why am I not willing to be the fandom morality police? Two reasons:

I don't really have a refined take on these subjects anyway. Unless a piece of literature or art happens to touch on a particular issue that resonates with me personally, the moral value of art is something that doesn't usually spark my interest, so I rarely have much to say on it to begin with. On the whole "colonizer ship" subject specifically, other people who have more passion and knowledge than me on the topic can (and have) put their arguments into words far better than I ever could. I'm more than happy to defer to their take(s), because honestly, they can do these subjects justice in a way I can't. Passing the mic over to someone else is the most responsible thing I can do here, lol. But more importantly:

I reject the conflation of literary merit with moral virtue. It is my opinion that a good story well-told is not always, and does not have to be, a story free from moral vices/questionable themes. In my opinion, there are good problematic stories and bad "pure" stories and literally everything in between. To go one step further, I believe that there are ways that a romance can come off "icky", and then there are ways that it might actually be bad for the story, and meming/shitposting aside, the fact that these two things don't always neatly align is not only a truth I recognise about art but also one of those truths that makes art incredibly interesting to me! So on the one hand, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to conflate literary "goodness" with moral "goodness". On a more serious note, I not only find this type of conflation unfair/inaccurate, I also find it potentially dangerous - and this is why I am really critical of this mindset beyond just disagreeing with it factually. What I see is that people who espouse this rhetoric tend to encourage (or even personally engage in) wilful blindness one way or the other, because ultimately, viewing art through these lens ends up boxing all art into either "morally permissible" or "morally impermissible" categories, and shames anyone enjoying art in the "morally impermissible" box. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people responding to this by A) making excuses for art that they guiltily love despite its problematic elements and/or B) denying the value of any art that they are unable to defend as free from moral wickedness.

Now, I'm not saying that media shouldn't be critiqued on its moral virtue. I actually think morally critiquing art has its place, and assuming it's being done in good faith, it absolutely should be done, and probably even more often than it is now.

Because here's the truth: Sometimes, a story can be really good. Sometimes, you can have a genuinely amazing story with well developed characters and powerful themes that resonate deeply with anyone who reads it. Sometimes, a story can be all of these things - and still be problematic.*

(Or, sometimes a story can be all of those things, and still be written by a problematic author.)

That's why I say, when people conflate moral art with good art, they become blind to the possibility that the art they like being potentially immoral (or vice versa). If only "bad art" is immoral, how can the art that tells the story hitting all the right beats and with perfect rhythm and emotional depth, be ever problematic?

(And how can the art I love, be ever problematic?)

This is why I reject the idea that literary merit = moral virtue (or vice versa) - because I do care about holding art accountable. Even the art that is "good art". Actually, especially the art that is "good art". Especially the art that is well loved and respected and appreciated. The failure to distinguish literary critique from moral critique bothers me on a personal level because I think that conflating the two results in the detriment of both - the latter being the most concerning to me, actually.

So while I respect the inherent value of moral criticism, I'm really not a fan of any argument that presents moral criticism as equivalent to literary criticism, and I will call that out when I see it. And from what I've observed, a lot of the "but Zutara is a colonizer ship" tries to do exactly that, which is why I find it a dishonest and frankly harmful media analysis framework to begin with.

But even when it is done in good faith, moral criticism of art is also just something I personally am neither interested nor good at talking about, and I prefer to talk about the things that I am interested and good at talking about.

(And some people are genuinely good at tackling the moral side of things! I mean, I for one really enjoyed Lindsay Ellis's take on Rent contextualising it within the broader political landscape at the time to show how it's not the progressive queer story it might otherwise appear to be. Moral critique has value, and has its place, and there are definitely circumstances where it can lead to societal progress. Just because I'm not personally interested in addressing it doesn't mean nobody else can do it let alone that nobody else should do it, but also, just because it can and should be done, doesn't mean that it's the only "one true way" to approach lit crit by anyone ever. You know, sometimes... two things… can be true… at once?)

Anyway, if anyone reading this far has recognised that this is basically a variant of the proship vs. antiship debate, you're right, it is. And on that note, I'm just going to leave some links here. I've said about as much as I'm willing/able to say on this subject, but in case anyone is interested in delving deeper into the philosophy behind my convictions, including why I believe leftist authoritarian rhetoric is harmful, and why the whole "but it would be problematic in real life" is an anti-ship argument that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I highly recommend these posts/threads:

In general this blog is pretty solid; I agree with almost all of their takes - though they focus more specifically on fanfic/fanart than mainstream media, and I think quite a lot of their arguments are at least somewhat appropriate to extrapolate to mainstream media as well.

I also strongly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" which the author, a verified giga chad, actually made free to download as a pdf, here. His work focuses primarily on right-wing authoritarians, but a lot of his research and conclusions are, you guessed it, applicable to left-wing authoritarians also.

And if you're an anti yourself, welp, you won't find support from me here. This is not an anti-ship safe space, sorrynotsorry 👆

In conclusion, honestly any "but Zutara is problematic" argument is one I'm likely to consider unsound to begin with, let alone the "Zutara is a colonizer ship" argument - but even if it wasn't, it's not something I'm interested in discussing, even if I recognise there are contexts where these discussions have value. I resent the idea that just because I have refined opinions on one aspect of a discussion means I must have (and be willing to preach) refined opinions on all aspects of said discussion. (I don't mean to sound reproachful here - actually the vast majority of the comments I get on my video/tumblr are really sweet and respectful, but I do get a handful of silly comments here and there and I'm at the point where I do feel like this is something worth saying.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to defer to other analysts who have the passion and knowledge to give complicated topics the justice they deserve. All I request is that care is taken not to conflate literary criticism with moral criticism to the detriment of both - and I think it's important to acknowledge when that is indeed happening. And respectfully, don't expect me to give my own take on the matter when other people are already willing and able to put their thoughts into words so much better than me. Peace ✌

*P.S. This works for real life too, by the way. There are people out there who are genuinely not only charming and likeable, but also generous, charitable and warm to the vast majority of the people they know. They may also be amazing at their work, and if they have a job that involves saving lives like firefighting or surgery or w.e, they may even be the reason dozens of people are still alive today. They may honestly do a lot of things you'd have to concede are "good" deeds.

They may be all of these things, and still be someone's abuser. 🙃

Two things can be true at once. It's important never to forget that.

#zutara discourse #the colonizer argument #anti anti zutara #text post #long post #anti maiko #anti mai #tagging just in case #anti purity culture #this is not an anti-ship safe space

[opalsiren]

man the atla finale is still sooooo bittersweet to me. zuko taking a bolt of lightning for katara, she takes down azula and heals him through tears. sokka and suki and toph taking down the airship fleet. aang defeating firelord ozai through conveniently-placed rock chiropractory and a hastily thrown together final twist. sokka and katara being reunited with their dad. ty lee joining the kyoshi warriors. mai and zuko getting back together, for some reason. zuko becomes firelord. toph is also there, but the question of her relationship with her parents continuing remains unanswered. zuko going to confront his father about his mother's whereabouts. iroh opening a tea shop in the city he besieged for a year instead of advising his beloved nephew in his new role as firelord. the final scene is a twelve-year-old tongue kissing a fourteen-year-old, for some reason. truly the epic highs and lows of the atla finale cannot be overstated

#tagging as #anti kataang #just in case #.txt #atla #avatar the last airbender #anti maiko #zutara

[sapphic-agent]

Let's Talk About How Book 3 Ruined Aang

If you've seen any of my prior ATLA posts, you know that I don't hate Aang. In fact, I quite liked him in Books 1 and 2. He was flawed, as all characters should be, but the show didn't shy away from those flaws or justify them. He was called out for burning Katara and rushing his firebending, Sokka and Katara were rightfully upset when he hid Hakoda's letter, he willingly owns up to the fact that his actions helped drive Toph away, and his entire arc after losing Appa and finding hope again in The Serpent's Path was beautifully done.

(Hell, even in The Great Divide Katara says what Aang did was wrong and he agrees. It's played for comedy, but the show still makes the effort to point out that what he did wasn't the right thing to do. You're just meant to understand that he was fed up and acted off of that)

Those flaws and mistakes were addressed and improved upon and helped Aang to grow as a character.

But for some reason, that aspect of Aang's character was completely flipped in Book 3.

The best examples of this are in both TDBS and EIP. Both the show and the fandom are too quick to brush off that Aang kissed Katara twice without her consent, one of which after she explicitly said she was confused about her feelings.

(And yes, she is angry in response and Aang calls himself an idiot. But after this, it isn't really addressed. They go on like nothing happened for the rest of the episode. Aang's lamentation comes from screwing things up with her romantically, not that he violated boundaries)

The show never really addressed why what he did was wrong. Not only because he wasn't given consent, but also because both times he isn't thinking about what Katara wants. In both instances, Aang is only thinking about himself and his feelings. This is something that persists through a lot of the third book. And by Sozin's Comet it ultimately ruins any character development he had built up in the second book.

One thing I feel was completely disregarded was the concept of having to let go of Katara in order to master the Avatar State.

For me, the implication wasn't that he had to give up love or happiness necessarily. He was emotionally attached to and reliant on Katara, to the point where she was needed to stop him from hurting everyone around him and himself. This is obviously detrimental to his functionality as the Avatar. And the point of him "letting her go" wasn't that he had to stop caring about her, it was that his emotional dependency on her was stopping him from being the Avatar he needed to be and that was what needed to be fixed. I don't even think it's about the Avatar State itself, it's about being able to keep your emotions and duty as the Avatar separate.

(If you look at Roku, he loved and had a wife. It wasn't his love for her that messed everything up, it was his attachment to Sozin. He wasn't able to let Sozin go and not only did he lose his life for it, the world suffered for it. It's the unhealthy attachments that seem to be detrimental, not love itself)

And Aang realizes that in the catacombs, which is how he's able to easily enter the Avatar State and seemingly control it. He let Katara go.

So then why does it seem like his attachment to Katara is not only stronger, but worse in mannerism? He liked Katara in Books 1 and 2- obviously- but he was never overly jealous of Jet or Haru. He only makes one harmless comment in Book 2 when Sokka suggests Katara kiss Jet.

But suddenly he's insanely jealous of Zuko (to the point of getting frustrated with Katara over it), off the basis of the actions of actors in a clearly misrepresentative play. Katara showed a lot more interest in Jet and Aang was completely fine with it.

(Speaking of EIP, Aang's reaction to being played by a woman was interesting. He wore a flower crown in The Cave of Two Lovers. He wove Katara a flower necklace. He wore Kyoshi's clothes and makeup and made a funny girl voice. He willingly responded to Twinkle Toes and had no issue being called that. And for some reason he's genuinely upset about being played by a woman? Aang in Books 1 and 2 would have laughed and enjoyed the show like Toph did. His aversion to feminity felt vastly out of character)

I guess my point is, why did that change? Why was Aang letting go of Katara suddenly irrelevant to the Avatar State? It felt like him letting go was supposed to be a major part of his development. Why did that stop?

Myself and many others have talked about The Southern Raiders. The jist of my thought process about it is his assumption that he knew what was best for Katara. And the episode doesn't really call out why he was wrong. Maybe sparing Yon Rha was better for Katara, maybe it wasn't (the only one who's allowed to make that choice is her). Pushing forgiveness? That was wrong. But the episode has Zuko say that Aang was right when the course of action Katara took wasn't what Aang suggested.

Katara's lesson here was that killing him wouldn't bring back her mother or mend the pain she was going through and that Yon Rha wasn't worth the effort. That's what she realizes. Not that she needed to embrace forgiveness. How could she ever forgive that? The episode saying Aang was right wasn't true. Yes she forgives Zuko, but that wasn't what Aang was talking about. He was specifically talking about Yon Rha.

And that was wrong. Aang can choose the path of forgiveness, that's fine. That's his choice. But dismissing Katara's trauma in favor of his morals and upbringing wasn't okay.

I know it sounds like this is just bashing Kataang. But it's not simply because I don't like Kataang, in my opinion it brings down Aang's character too, not just Katara's. But let's steer away from Kataang and Katara for a minute.

The one thing that solidifies Aang's character being ruined in Book 3 for me is the fact that he- at the end of the story- does the same thing he did in the beginning.

He runs away when things get hard.

Aang couldn't make the choice between his duty and his morals. So he ran. Maybe it wasn't intentional, but subconsciously he wanted an out. And this is really disappointing when one of the things he was firm about in Book 2 was not running anymore. His character went backwards here and that's not even getting into the real issue in Sozin's Comet.

There's been contention about the Lion Turtle intervention. For many- including myself- it's very deus ex machina to save Aang from having to make a hard decision. And that in turn doesn't reflect kindly on his character.

Everyone- Sokka, Zuko, Roku, Kyoshi, Kuruk, and Yangchen (who was another Airbender and was raised with the same beliefs he was and would understand which was the whole point of him talking to her)- told him he had to kill Ozai. They all told him it was the only way. And he refused to listen to any of them, rotating through his past lives until he was given the answer he wanted.

And before anyone says that I'm bashing Aang for following his culture, I'm not. Ending the war peacefully, in my opinion, wasn't the problem. In a way, I think it allowed the world to heal properly. However, that doesn't make up for the fact that Aang refused to make a choice and face the consequences of that choice. Instead, he's given an out at the very last second.

Even if he couldn't kill Ozai and someone else had to deliver the final blow, that would have been better than the Lion Turtle showing up and giving him a power no one's ever had before. It would have been a good compromise, he doesn't have to have blood directly on his hands but what needs to be done needs to still get done. It would also show that being the Avatar isn't a burden he has to bear alone. That when things get hard, he can't run away but he can rely on the people closest to him to help him through hard decisions.

All these issues aren't necessarily a problem with Aang. Aang prior to Book 3 didn't have most of these problems. This is a problem with the way he was handled

#aang critical #anti aang #tagging just in case #i don't want aang stans accusing me of cross tagging #it's really not anti aang tho #long post #anti bryke #this is their fault #look how they massacred my boy #anti kataang #katara deserved better #she's not the focus here #but i thought I'd add that there #character analysis #atla critical #anti book 3 #which is kind of an exaggeration #because a lot of book 3 is great #it's just most of the latter half

[tiredapocalypse]

maybe psychology and psychiatry should start listening to mentally ill people. just an idea

#am so done #mar rambles #anti psychology #anti psychiatry #anti psych #tagging just in case #psychology student #psychology major #psych student #psych major

[junewongapologia]

It is no secret that I hate the Fanny/Henry pairing, bc like...

How can you read that book, and how Henry acts, and the distress it causes Fanny while we're in her head the whole way through...

And want her to be wrong? And want her to be the one to have to admit she was wrong?

No! Terrible, awful ending. Henry Crawford is not a good person. He's not, like, evil. But he's selfish and self-centred and thinks he deserves Fanny because he's rich and charming and made the bare minimum effort to seem like a better person. I fully buy into the idea that he likes her because he likes a challenge, and that if finally faced with what she like every day (shy and retiring and quiet and uncomfortable around loads of ppl) he'd start to resent her sharpish.

This is a book about selfishness and selfish people, and even in this cast, he's near the top of the most selfish, the most careless with the feelings of others. At the centre is Fanny, who is maligned and mistreated, but despite all is selfless and good, though she struggles with jealousy and negative thoughts and feelings.

It's a book about how she - poor and dependent and not especially well educated or taken care of by her relatives - knows her own mind and deserves to be treated as a rational, intelligent person.

It is literally crucial to her arc and the arc of the story that she's right about Crawford!

#fanny price #mansfield park #henry crawford #ive started to just think of it as kind of misogynistic #to be like ugh why won't she just marry Henry #like she's being irrational #you are literally sir thomas bertram (derogatory) sorry #anti henry crawford #i don't actually think it is but I'm going to tag just in case #anti fanny/henry

[semi-sketchy]

I know this is beating a dead horse at this point, but I just started thinking about this the other day and...

How many people that were previously enemies has Sonic ACTUALLY befriended?

Like my knowledge of some old games and the handhelds ain't great, but...

There was Knuckles, who I think is the only one in the classic era.

He never really befriended Gamma in SA1, just left him to Amy.

Also he didn't befriend Chaos, just beat the anger out of him.

The next one was Shadow in SA2, although they're still kinda rivals?

I don't think Rouge counts in SA2 since she wasn't really an enemy of Sonic specifically, even in Heroes it's really Sonic and Shadow that start the fight.

Gemerl is a robot who was reprogrammed to be friendly, I wouldn't count that as "befriending someone".

Him and Jet are rivals in every Riders game, this never changes.

Blaze in Rush is someone that fought him and they became friends, so it's clear cut, she counts.

Silver in '06 does as well.

Do we count Shade from Chronicles? I think she had a boss fight. I know very little about that game but it's not canon, right?

Merlina is kinda a grey area? Like they were friends, he stopped her evil plans and was still nice to her. I don't know if in context that meets the criteria.

On top of that I don't think the Knights of the Round Table count. Sonic is there to take the swords and they work together at the end. I don't think there's any hard feelings, but don't know if this counts as "friends".

Sage could be the next example, but she's still loyal to Eggman. I don't think what they briefly shared was friendship as much as Sage wanting to save Eggman.

I haven't played Superstars but Trip doesn't even have a bossfight, does she? I don't think she counts.

Not looking at the method, just purely if they became friends down the line. Out of all of those, there's 4 total (if you count Shadow, which I do) with 1 it's complicated and 1 non-canon. That's very few when you consider how large the game cast is.

An overwhelming majority of his friends weren't ever hostile with him to begin with, like the Chaotix, Amy, Tails, Cream, Emerl, Big, ect. There's plenty of other cast members that are still have him on their shit list, like Eggman, Infinite (if he's alive), Fang, Metal, Eggman Nega, the Deadly Six...

Now I'm starting to wonder where this idea of it being a frequent even came from.

#i still don't read the comic anymore but it's kinda hard to not see anything about it in the sonic fandom #anyways yeah that's my ramblings on the subject #a weird aspect to latch onto when it's only happened a few times #and the last definitive one was 18 years ago #and again not looking too hard at the context of those situations in this post i already know the comic misrepresents them #because aside from blaze sonic never instigated those friendships #he's a go with the flow kinda guy so he'll match your energy #you come at him aggressive and he'll be aggressive back #but also if you're friendly he'll be friendly kinda thing #anti idw sonic #idw sonic #fans don't look #hopefully that covers the tag blocking list #and people properly filter because i don't want to leave the idw tag out #in case anyone is just trying to steer clear of anything idw

[demeterdefence]

time for more thoughts nobody asked for (quick content warning this does discuss apollo & sexual assault)

there's been a growing shift in lo from putting reasonable emotional response to things to "lol comedy" and it's ... not good. in all honesty the entire comic seems to have become a parody of itself - lazy sketches, exaggerated appendages, absolute godawful flanderization in character design - but one of the more egregious aspects is the downplaying of genuine anger and righteous frustration into some kind of 1-2 comedy punch.

under the cut for length and content

i won't say that rachel has ever handled nuance or emotional response particularly well, but in the earlier chapters, there was at least a semblance of effort. when depicting or discussing persephone's rape by apollo, rachel writes eros as being rightfully horrified by what happened to persephone, and while it's not great that the emotional catharsis is more on eros reacting to the rape instead of persephone herself, i'll admit that i really did like how eros responded and validated persephone. as someone who has also experienced sexual assault, the sense of grief, fear, and confusion surrounding the event often gaslights victims into being confused or mixed up over the reality of what happened. eros demonstrates nothing but support and love for persephone, evidenced first by noting how upset she is when she says she had sex with apollo, and then by realizing she can't even find the words to describe what happened. he's actually nothing but nurturing in the sequence.

eros recognizes a major component of the assault is not just the assault itself - persephone is blaming herself both for what happened to her, and for "losing" her virginity, which has been a key aspect of her identity for a long time. eros immediately puts himself on persephone's side, reassures her, and comforts her, and it's not done with comedy or hilarity. he is the god of love - he understands sex and desire, and he is absolutely correct that what apollo did was rape. the conversation is treated more or less pretty respectfully, and without any comedic punchline or distraction. it's two friends, one desperately needing comfort, another providing it.

something to note is that from this point on, eros is furious with apollo, and it shows. he is correct that apollo is the bad guy here, and he does not let up in that reaction. the next time we see apollo and eros in the same scene, it's when apollo has cornered persephone in the room where he raped her, backed her up against the wall, and manhandled her. this scene in particular has ... a lot of bad elements to it, but without getting into that hornet's nest, we see eros come upon the scene in time to see what's happening.

and he's not happy.

particular to note that all the gods get wrath eyes at some point or another - apollo's are golden, whereas eros' are blood red, and the standoff emphasizes this. eros immediately breaks into the room and puts himself in front of persephone, staring apollo down until he leaves.

the next time apollo and eros interact, it's right after pesephone has been charged with treason and is hiding in the underworld. now, i do have some problems with this interaction because, considering the last time eros saw the guy it was when he was threatening the girl he raped in the room he raped her in, and eros' reaction is ... fairly muted. but there's still clear disdain in there, and eros does not necessarily hide it.

the last time we see eros and apollo interact before the trial is when apollo gets hit with the arrow of hate and comes after psyche. eros takes it less than well.

ignoring the fight which turns into psyche and eros sidelining everything, the entire interaction ends with eros getting hit with an arrow from apollo after trying to stop him from killing daphne.

it's a good time to point out that by chapter 227 (MONTHS after their last interaction) both eros and psyche are confirmed to know what apollo did, that he's still terrorizing persephone, and that he tried to kill daphne and severely injured eros. psyche has been given the role of goddess in part to keep an eye on apollo. that's confirmed in the story. that's confirmed by rachel. that's confirmed by eros and psyche themselves. apollo nearly killed psyche when he attacked eros. there is a significant lack of love between the three of them. so how does eros react the next time he and apollo are together?

like at this point in the story apollo:

raped eros' friend and terrorized her, once in front of eros who had to physically stop apollo from continuing

gaslit artemis in front of him, emphasizing his abusive behaviour and reinforcing to eros that apollo would manipulate anyone to get what he wanted

tried to kill his wife in front of him

shot him with an arrow that made eros violently ill

tried to kill a nymph in front of him

plotted to kill eros' grandfather / king of the gods

threatened to kill an innocent woman if eros and psyche tried to stop him

locked eros and psyche in a magical jail

by all accounts eros should be seething to fight apollo. he should be rabid. he should be frothing at the mouth to punch the guy out. instead we get this

this is the sort of thing you say to the dude who annoys you or steals your girlfriend, not a RAPIST who tried to kill the KING and wants to establish a coup d'etat. it's just ... painted as comedic when it's anything but? even how eros is drawn is supposed to be caricature, it's exaggerated and meant to suggest humour rather than the actual serious issue that it is. take zeus and daphne and psyche out of the equation, eros still knows apollo is a rapist. he still knows apollo is obsessed with his rape victim. he has demonstrated MASSIVE rage towards apollo in the past, but now it's like the whole thing is a "haha gotcha!" rather than the very obvious implication that apollo is planning more sexual assault. even if he's worried for psyche in this scene, eros still has the power to attack apollo - he's done it twice before! he has the ability to defend himself, so why the hell is he bantering with the guy?

and this has become a reoccurring problem in lore olympus - the way it takes serious trauma and turns it into some kind of comedy now. hera standing up to kronos and deciding to find hebe? hestia has to make a quip about her smoking. demeter coming to terms that her relationship with metis might not have been perfect? gotta get a dig in about demeter's helicopter parenting. morpheus wracked with guilt for the sleep dive with hades? persephone has to take center stage. it's just acting like no one is allowed to be actually angry or grieving except persephone and hades. we haven't even gotten to see zeus deal with being impaled by his father during the battle in the underworld, and sacrificing himself for persephone??? it's the cheap and lazy sitcom formula - ending everything on a cheap laugh, rather than letting people sit with the emotions and frustrations of a situation. back when eros first finds out persephone was raped, the chapter ended on a soft, optimistic sequence; persephone finding comfort in her friendship, and feeling safe. you didn't need a joke, because there wasn't any - it acknowledged the pain persephone was in, but also let the reader know that hope and comfort could be achieved. you don't need to end on a joke or a pithy comment every time - sometimes it's just important to let the emotions be felt. watering down the anger does nothing but water down the severity of why the anger is there in the first place.

it's another demonstration of how rachel could not give a fuck about anything other than persephone and hades. the art, the narrative choices - the care and love for detail is gone. it's just as little effort as possible, and it shows in the most insulting ways.

#anti lo #anti lore olympus #lo critical #lore olympus critical #i never know how to tag these skghsfg #abuse ment / #i have been simmering on this a lot it's been in the back of my head for a while #and obviously the art and other whammos sidetracked me #but it's just another case of so called feminist rachel prioritizing cheap laughs and benefitting the abuser

[uncanny-tranny]

It actually does bother me that eating is treated like spending money - that you have an allotted allowance in the form of calories that you are supposed to budget.

"How are you spending your calories?" I'm spending them on experiences. I'm spending them on time with my community, my people, those who matter to me. I'm spending them on satiating a human need. I'm spending them on the feeling of being alive and not just living.

If there is one experience that I don't want to "pay" for, it's the basic human right of comfort, security, community, and care.

#anti diet culture #fatphobia #fatphobia tw #disordered eating tw #ed tw #(just in case) #ask to tag #if i had to choose between miserable counting and recounting and reallocating calories and... eating then i'm choosing the latter #there are absolutely health conditions which warrent the *need* to count and stay in a range #but that is entirely different than the societal pressure to be within the idea of a 'right' calorie/nutrient count #if you have a health condition which is affected by food/drink then do what you must to balance your wellness and health and happiness #there is absolutely nothing wrong with that #again that is very different than society coming in and telling you what it thinks you 'should' do about yourself #i know this sounds corny but like #does it not drive you insane to obsess over numbers if you don't have to? #does it drive you insane that you're often treated like you can't or shouldn't be permitted to just live? to ENJOY living?

[musclesandhammering]

Ok but the parallel of Gamora being a scared little girl on a planet that was crumbling and was being invaded by a cosmic fascist who killed half the people and kidnapped her from her family, raising her as his own and grooming her to be his weapon in his further fascist conquests

And Loki… being a scared little boy on a planet that was crumbling and was being invaded by a cosmic imperialist who killed half the people and kidnapped him from his family, raising him as his own and grooming him to be his weapon in his further imperial conquests.

Also: “Everything I hate about myself, you taught me.”

#I’m not saying it’s exactly the same thing but it sure as hell rhymes #I just wish loki was able to fully conceptualise his parental situation the way that gamora seemed to be able to #loki yeah he intellectually knows he was kidnapped from his home by the very man who was destroying it #and he knows he was meant to be a pawn his whole life #but the fact that he was younger than gamora when he was taken and didn’t have any memories of his actual family #combined with the fact that his family allegedly left him to die anyway #makes him sort of cling to Odin as a fatherly figure more than he would otherwise #just as a way to distance himself from his actual parents who he sees as even worse #does that make sense? #anyway #loki meta #loki #gamora meta #Gamora #lokimora #gamoraloki #not rly but tagging just in case #mcu #anti odin #something something something the majority of Loki’s ‘villainous’ character traits really did come from Odin

[leportraitducadavre]

Edo-Tensei implies the sacrifice of a living human being for their body to become the vessel of the soul they're trying to bring back. What this author means is that Sasuke and Sakura are willing to perform inhumane acts to "see each other again".

The jutsu was created by Tobirama, someone Sasuke despises.

This is the same jutsu Orochimaru, whom Sakura admitted to hating as he "took Sasuke away from Konoha", used; why would she willingly use a jutsu from his book?

The caster has complete control of the person they summon, the person that was "revived" has no real volition of their own. Obito, who used to love Rin, never even entertained the idea of summoning her (and thus, controlling her), what a disgusting thing to do to someone you "love".

This is the same man who canonically has the chance to see his wife whenever he pleases, yet he doesn't, why on earth would he revive her? Why wouldn't he revive Itachi, Mikoto, or Fugaku for that matter?

Sakura has little to no knowledge of füinjutsu, let alone enough chakra to perform something like this.

Sasuke having a "moment" with Itachi doesn't translate to him actually liking the technique.

"Sasuke and Sakura are only thinking of a possibility" is just as awful as performing it; they're willing to do such a monstrous thing to others to fulfill their selfish wishes. The fact that they didn't do it isn't because they aren't prone to do so, but because they didn't have to, as both are still alive.

Edo-tensei is not romantic, at all. It's one of the worst techniques ever invented as it was devised to seek control over powerful (deceased) shinobi to use their souls/techniques as tools of military power. The person revived has no control over their actions, so they see themselves committing acts they might not agree with because the person who summoned them wanted their strength. Its origin was about complete control of a human being (humiliation likely plays a part, as having no control over your body yet having your mind intact is the ultimate form of torture), the possession of the power of others, and the ultimate tool as those revived receive no real damage as they respawn.

Edit to add: This line was, in fact, in Sasuke Retsuden (in the manga adaptation Sasuke never actually confirmed this, as it was Sakura who replied for him -lol-). Jun Esaka just butchered the entirety of Sasuke's characterization, this woman was paid to write a SasuSaku story and couldn't even bother to understand and respect the characters' original personality, having to modify everything about them and using their trauma as a "romantic device" to show "how much Sasuke and Sakura love each other". I have no respect for her as an author, at least, not as an author inside the Narutoverse.

#anti sasusaku #anti sasuke retsuden #anti ss #anti sss #anti sakura uchiha #anti jun esaka #not sure it was in actual retsuden tho #adding the tag just in case #anti sasusaku fandom #anti sasusaku stans

[lunarbroadcast]

vox headcanons with a s/o that's going through their period

(aka me rn cause i need comfort aisgdhvf-)

not proof read, probably lots of grammar mistakes, not planning on editing this-

He already has to deal with velvette so he probably knows something about periods

He would let you use his screen as a heating pad. Will purposefully make his screen get warm and lay his head on your lower abdomen to help with cramps if you ask him to.

He doesn't like seeing you in pain so he will do his best to make you as comfortable as possible.

You want a snack? he'll get it for you. You need more pads? already placed an order of multiple types just for you (and for velvette just in case). You want to cuddle? he will gladly cuddle you

He traces soft shapes with his claws on your body just to take your mind off of cramps.

will check up on you through your phone if he's working. Constant calls or him making sure you're doing well while you sleep.

remember, if your cramps feel unnaturally painful please go see a doctor, stay hydrated and take breaks! you're literally bleeding out so take care of yourself :D

#period cramps #proselfship #proship safe #antis dni #selfproship #proship please interact #proship #selfship proship #self ship #proship selfship #vox headcanons #vox #hazbin hotel vox #hazbin vox #vox hazbin hotel #vox hazbin #hazbin hotel #vox x reader #cw periods #<- tagged this just in case :>

[huntingpeople-savingsam]

So I know I’ve made a bunch of points already but this one just occurred to me. At the end of season 1 (mentioned by Nancy is season 2) after the teens fight the Demogorgan, Nancy says she waits for Jonathan, and when he doesn’t give any indication she should be, Steve is there and they reconcile and get back together.

Now something about that I didn’t notice back when I first saw season 2 and am really putting together now— Jonathan is annoyed that Nancy didn’t wait for him when he needed time with his family after Will was saved. And it’s understandable that the Byers needed time after all that they went through in season 1, but Jonathan is annoyed with Nancy when she tells him she waited for him, “Yeah, like a month.” Meanwhile….. Nancy lost and is still mourning Barb! And Jonathan doesn’t acknowledge that at all when he complains about Nancy not waiting longer before getting back together with Steve.

But Steve was there for Nancy as much as he could be after they reconciled with Barb’s death. He obviously messed up by being unwilling to break the NDA they signed to tell the Hollands what happened to Barb and from Nancy’s perspective and place in mourning feels unsupported by him because of this but let’s rewind a little.

What we are left to infer between seasons 1 and 2 is:

Nancy AND Steve are having regular dinners with the Hollands

Although Steve is somewhat reluctant, he still goes and is a polite and pleasant dinner guest

Nancy and Steve seemed to have an overall good relationship until the anniversary of Barb’s death was creeping up

They were planning couples costumes, going to dinner with the Hollands, Steve spends Christmas at the Wheelers house, they drive to school together, Nancy has been helping Steve with his admissions essay, they’ve been talking about their future, etc.

And when I was thinking about all that they’d done together after season 1, I considered how it might’ve gone if Jon was in Steve’s place.

Would he have gone to regular dinners with the Hollands? Would he have wanted to expose the Lab and everything with the Upside Down if Will hadn’t gotten pulled back in?

Just how annoyed he was when he said she only waited a month for him— while he was reconciling with his lost brother…. And Nancy and the Hollands were still mourning Barb who had died?

I’m not faulting Jonathan for needing time with his family after everything that happened, of course he did.

And I’m not saying Steve was #1 Boyfriend of the year just because he went to dinner at the Hollands' with Nancy

But I am saying that Jon gave next to no thought about how badly Nancy was doing after they fought the Demogorgan in season 1. And while she was mourning and needed someone by her side to face the Hollands and lie to them while mourning with them, Steve was there while Jon wasn’t and I think Jon probably wouldn’t have been if Nance had waited longer for him.

It’s a theme you see throughout this show, a little bit before but especially after Nancy finally blows up and gives Steve the “thump on his head” that he later thanks her for— Steve is there, Jon isn’t.

#I guess this is #anti jancy #stancy #I'm not anti this character at all but just in case this is interpreted as hate even though I totally understand why he needed time after s #anti jonathan byers #but again I'm really not anti jon just want to do my due diligence in tagging #also I worked on these gifs to make sure there was no flashing but just in case #tw flashing #flashing gif #tw flashing lights #my gifs

[scuderia-hamilton]

some Carlos fans seriously need to get a grip on reality cause being racist towards Lewis and making nasty, disrespectful comments about Charles’ dad because your driver’s contract expired and the team chose not to renew it is just pathetic and disgusting on a different level.

#formula 1 #ferrari #lewis hamilton #charles leclerc #tagging it #anti carlos sainz #just in case #i could go on a rant about why a lot of people hate him but i choose peace #be grateful #i get that y’all are sad and upset but this is how this sport works #and it’s not like he got dropped mid-season or something #there’s a line and some of you are crossing it