#that to me is an issue a bit more important than arguing which of those two guys values himself less | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

phoenixyfriend · 2 months

Text

How to Call Your Reps About Gaza

I make a lot of posts telling you to call your reps! Anyway, here's the overall shape of how to argue to them.

Disclaimer: I am not in politics. I do not have experience as a staffer. I am just someone who cares a lot about where things are going, and wants to help. Also, this is specific to the US, because that's where I'm based. Hopefully, people with expertise can add more suggestions on.

Find your elected officials.

My Ko-fi: this took me two days to write up, so uh. If you've got a few dollars, send them my way so I can keep doing this sort of thing, and maybe move out of my parents' house sooner.

General tips:

Be polite, or at least civil. Do not swear or shout at whoever answers the phone. This will quite possibly get your number blocked. Fifty civil calls over the course of several months will do more than one where you shout. You can be frosty, you can say you are disappointed, you can say you find the actions of your reps to be reprehensible or morally bankrupt, sure. But keep calm and aim criticism at the rep, not the staffer.

Keep it short. The staffers who answer call centers are busy. They usually start trying to hurry me off after about two minutes. I've yet to manage a call longer than four or five minutes. Pick one or two topics for the day, and focus on those. Cycle through them every time you call. Stick to just one from day to day if it's a large, ongoing issue like Gaza.

Plan for voicemail. I get voicemail more often than not. My House rep usually has a staffer free, but the Senators are almost always voicemail. This will give you a minute and a half max. Be ready to get your point squeezed into that.

Only call your representatives. The important, powerful word here is "constituent." You will be ignored or even counted against if you are from a different district or state. The first thing you start with is your name and address. A staffer will ask for the information they need. On voicemail, leave your full name, your city and state, and zip code before you go into your message. Do not lie, either. They look these things up in the system when you call. I'm not sure how--I think maybe they have access to a database of registered voters--but every time I call, they ask for my last name and address and at some point say, 'oh, yep, I've got you right here,' which indicates a database of some sort.

Research at least a little bit about their opinions. If they already agree with you, then it's much easier to leave a quick "I support you and want you to know that" to combat anyone who's arguing from the other side. If they don't, then you're best off finding out what specific issue they have so you can know the best kind of comment to leave.

Look up specific bills or arguments. I get daily emails from GovTrack about bills that are on this week's docket or have been voted on in the past day. IDK about anyone else, but being able to say that I disagree specifically with HR 815 or something makes me feel powerful, and possibly like I will be taken more seriously. Sometimes you can start with articles like this one, which include links to specific bills on the official congress website.

Email after if you can. Reportedly less effective, and takes longer, but you are more likely to get a written (canned) response, and it reinforces whatever you called about.

Basic structure of a call, at least as I've been doing it:

"Hi, my name is ____ ____, and I am a constituent from [city, state], [zip]. I am calling to express my opinion on [topic]. I am concerned about [short argument with a clear impact on the topic]. I ask that you support [measure or fellow congress member]/vote [yay/nay on specific legislature]. Thank you for your time, and I hope you keep my opinion in mind."

For this post, the topic can be stated as the war in Gaza, military funding for Israel, or unrest in the Middle East, depending on which you think your elected official will respond to best. That said, the structure should work for whatever your call is about.

Arguments to use against your elected official... or your on-the-fence cousin:

I'll be honest, some of these are not going to do much against your representative. They know the arguments, and have been going over them with each other for months. You just need to have one locked and loaded that they consider relevant instead of a nonstarter, in order to back up your opinion as 'founded' instead of 'nonsense, can be swayed with a good marketing campaign.'

I'll include explanations if I don't think something is self-evident (or needs more evidence to tell your cousin), but in most of them I'll provide some suggested verbiage that you can tweak as needed, and for a few of them, that's really enough.

THESE ARE FOR THE TOPIC OF CONCERN, ONLY. You still need to end each one with "I ask that the [official] votes to [action]" at the end. Give them something actionable (example from Feb. 13th). My go-tos right now:

Both chambers: Reinstate funding for UNRWA

Both chambers: Place mandatory restrictions on any aid to Israel, with contractual threats to cut funding if Netanyahu and his government continue to disregard civilian life

Senate: Put support behind Bernie Sanders and his motion to restrict funding to Israel until a humanitarian review of the IDF’s actions in Gaza has been completed (S.R. 504) (Tabled by the Senate on 1/16, but it is being brought back in as conditions continue to escalate)

House: Put support behind Rep. Rashida Tlaib’s petition for the US government to recognize the IDF’s actions in Gaza as ethnic cleansing and forced displacement, and put a stop to it.

House: Put support behind H.R. 786, introduced by Rep. Cori Bush, calling for an immediate deescalation and cease-fire in Israel and occupied Palestine.

What Not to Say

"There is no threat to Israel." I've talked about this elsewhere, but the short version is that this will be basically laughed out as you not knowing what you're talking about.

Anything generically antisemitic. (I mean, it might work on some of the white supremacists, but do you really want to encourage that thinking? No, so don't do it.)

Facts that you "heard somewhere" but cannot find a reliable source for. If it's being reported by the New York Times, NPR, or the BBC, it's probably trustworthy by government standards. If it's not a super common statistic, cite the journal you got it from by name. Remember, you aren't arguing to tumblr mutuals. You are arguing to your elected official or your 'I don't really pay attention' cousin. When it comes to this, big name news sources are better.

Unrealistic demands for complete isolationism, permanently abandoning Israel to its own devices, supporting Hamas, etc. Again, you will not be taken seriously. Pick an argument they might actually listen to, and use it to press them towards a possible solution. You want them to believe that if they adjust their position, they will be doing the will of most of their constituents, and thus more likely to get reelected.

The Ethics Argument

Third-party reporting has stated that that nearly 29,000 Gazans are dead since Oct. 7th, as of 2/18/24. The vast majority of those are civilians, and over half are children. Palestinians in Gaza are facing an acute hunger crisis threatening to become a full-blown famine.

The International Court of Justice has found that there is credible reason to believe that the state of Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinians of Gaza.

This does not mean that every single Israeli is complicit. It does mean that the government, particularly Netanyahu and his associates, has been reprimanded by a large, diverse coalition of countries, and has consistently refused to listen to that court since.

This argument will possibly work on your cousin. Less likely to work on your elected official. They already know the numbers. I just wanted to get it out of the way first.

The Re-Election Argument: Michigan vs New York

Meanwhile, this is possibly the most effective. Again, this is not an argument of ethics. This is an argument of "how can I make my elected official do what I want." We do not use only the purest moral argument. We use what works.

What to say to your elected official: Michigan, as a swing state, was won by democrats on the power of the Arab-American vote in the 2020 election. We (either party) are at risk of losing Michigan due to the current Congressional approach to the Gaza conflict, as that demographic is now polling as likely to abstain from voting entirely. The risk of losing several congressional districts due to the Jewish vote is a real one, but the risk of losing the the executive branch is greater, especially after what we saw with Suozzi. Supporting Palestine might lose us parts of New York, but supporting Israel will lose us Michigan.

Explanation: Something that has been taking up a lot of time and space in the election coverage is the situation in Michigan, and more recently, there has been attention paid to the special election of New York's third district, AKA the "who gets to replace disgraced George Santos" competition.

Michigan is traditionally a swing state. While 2.1% doesn't sound like a lot, that is some 211k-278k people (depending on your source), and while not all of them can vote... Michigan was won by about 154k. Arab-Americans are not the only relevant demographic, but they sure are an important one, and they are vocally opposed to the situation. Approval has dropped from 59% to 17%. From that same article:

As Axios notes, Biden won Michigan in 2020 by 154,000 votes, but there are at least 278,000 Arab Americans in Michigan. Biden took Arizona, a state with an Arab American population of 60,000, by only 10,500 votes. In Georgia, Biden prevailed with a margin of 11,800 voters, in a state that has an Arab American population of 57,000.

Democrats cannot afford to lose these states. Pressure your congresspeople about that, especially if you live in one of those states. I assume most Arab-Americans in said states are already calling every day; the rest of you can join in.

Meanwhile, most Jews (considered the most pro-Israel demographic by strategists) in America are concentrated in a very small number of electoral districts. Of the twenty most-Jewish, ten are in New York, which is why I put it up in the section header.

One of those districts was won by a Republican in 2022: George Santos, New York's third congressional district. Following his scandals and ousting, the seat was up for a special election, and the two candidates were Tom Suozzi, a democrat who held the seat previously (he decided to run for governor, and lost), and Mazi Pilip, a Nassau county legislator who was of Ethiopian Jewish background and had been in the IDF. She ran on a campaign that leaned strongly pro-Israel and anti-immigration, and when Suozzi won, she interrupted his victory speech to accuse him of supporting a genocide against Israel due to his rather centrist, rather milquetoast stance on the conflict during his election campaign.

Now, Suozzi's win probably had more to do with Pilip being anti-choice than her pro-Israel arguments, but he still won.

Democrats can better risk possibly losing a few seats in NY than definitely losing three swing states.

"But I don't want Dems to win their districts after what they've been--" Nope. Listen to me. Surveys indicate that Republicans are on average more pro-Israel, because Trump and Netanyahu are buddy-buddy, and we do not have a viable third option.

Also, again, this is about convincing Dems to be better. "If you do not vote to put restrictions on funding to Israel, I will not vote for you in November" is a lot more powerful than "I will not vote for you either way, because of what you've been doing, but you should do what I say anyway."

The Re-Election Argument: Risk of Escalation

So, that thing I said about Trump and Netanyahu?

Yeah, so, while Biden is giving Israel military aid while cautioning them to slow down and be careful, Trump is... complicated, but suffice to say he's much closer to Netanyahu on a personal level than Biden is. Biden's relation with Netanyahu is reportedly pretty frosty, while Trump's is based on relations through the Kushners.

Just from wikipedia:

Netanyahu made his closeness to Donald Trump, a personal friend since the 1980s, central to his political appeal in Israel from 2016.[21] During Trump's presidency, the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and brokered the Abraham Accords, a series of normalization agreements between Israel and various Arab states.

Trump's been more all-over-the-place recently, badmouthing Netanyahu for being what Trump perceives as a loser, which complicates understanding what his approach is. It's kind of incoherent right now.

Given Trump's general history of being pro-Israel, though, and the attempts by House Republicans to push through a bill of unconditional funding for Israel. It failed, but notable is that the more recent bill passed in part because it was paired with aid for Ukraine and Taiwan (something Dems are much more invested in having happen).

What to say to your elected official: If Trump is reelected due to his current appearance of being more critical of Netanyahu, there is evidence from his presidency to indicate that he will support Israel much less critically if elected. While he claims to want to settle the Middle East, it seems incredibly likely that he will worsen the situation for Palestinians, and ramp up retaliatory strikes to groups like the Houthis in a manner that will impact non-military parties, igniting tensions that are already tenuous.

The Disrespect/Wild Card Argument

This particular argument is best used against the Very Patriotic Politicians who are more concerned with the US's image and Being The Alpha Nation than with other things. Basically, this might work on Republicans.

This isn't really something I believe in, as a matter of foreign policy, buuuut it might work on your rep, so. Consider it!

What to say to your elected official: With Israel's recent actions in ignoring Biden, blocking US-sent aid like those flour trucks that got stopped at the Rafah border because they'd be distributed by UNWA, and generally Disrespecting The USA and Being Unpredictable is not only making the US look bad for being unable to wrangle a smaller country, but also making it so we are less able to wrangle other countries in the future, because Israel cannot be predicted and might set someone off.

The Europe and Reputation Argument

What to say to your elected official: The United States is losing credibility as a world power known for its military and ability to manage international disputes on behalf of the UN, because it is seemingly unable to influence Israel, and losing credibility as an upstanding moral state that is not doing foreign coups and banana republics anymore, as it appears to be tacitly supporting Israel's ICJ-labelled genocide, which is a really bad look with the other Western Powers.

I'm not entirely sure who this might work on, but there's gotta be at least a few politicians who are really concerned about America's image, more than about actually doing the right thing. Figure out if your politician is one of them.

If necessary, you can bring up how Trump is threatening to pull US support for NATO if Russia attacks someone.

The Middle East Stability Argument: Iran-backed Militias

What to say to your elected official: I'm concerned that the continued support of Israel, and thus the funding of their actions in Gaza, will increase the instability of Iran-backed militias, as we have already seen with the Houthis and Hezbollah. Entire Muslim-majority nations are showing increased displeasure not only with Israel, but with the US by extension. We cannot afford another war in the Middle East when we haven't yet pulled all our troops from the last one, not with the recent and recurring economic recessions. Any situation would also very likely be complicated or inflamed by the growing tensions among Eritrea, Djibouti, and Ethiopia regarding Red Sea access as well.

Use this on the ones that claim to be pro-military or pro-veteran. See what they said about HR 815 before the foreign military funding amendment was added.

The Middle East Stability Argument: Egypt

What to say to your elected official: Egypt's government has been unstable since the Arab Spring, and even now the military government is incredibly unpopular. With that existing instability, the addition of economic strain from the reduced usage of the Suez canal, the international disputes occurring because they're the main throughway for aid into Gaza, and the threat of a sudden influx of nearly one and a half million Palestinian refugees should Israel continue to push south... Egypt is looking at a possible near-collapse as we've seen in nearby nations suffering similar instabilities.

Explanation: It took several years for Egypt to really start recovering from the revolts in 2013, and it has applied for four IMF loans in recent years. The current government is unpopular to such a degree that they are looking to build an entire new capital from scratch in the middle of the desert so that they're less open to the risk of civilian uprisings; one of the primary causes for civilian dissatisfaction is economic issues.

Due to Houthi attacks at the Bab al-Mandab Strait, traffic through the Suez canal is down massively, and since the canal "represents almost 5% of the GNP and 10% of GDP and is one of Egypt’s most important sources of hard currency." (src) Various sources are reporting that trade through the canal is down 40-50%, which is putting more strain on the already unstable economic and political situation.

Finally, Egypt's population is about 110 million, but the governorate that shares a border with Israel and Gaza, North Sinai, has a population of barely 500,000. A push of one and a half million starving, injured people will, very suddenly, nearly quadruple the population of the governorate, and require extreme aid response from Egypt's government to keep alive and prevent a larger crisis in North Sinai and neighboring governorates.

The Middle East Stability Argument: Normalized Relations

What to say to your elected official: I am concerned that Israel's continued attack on Gaza is jeopardizing any chance of normalized relations with the Arab states in the future. American has put a lot of work into trying to get these various countries to normalize with Israel, and our funding of the current attacks on Gaza are sabotaging all that effort.

This one can be combined with the Iran-Backed Militias argument: Israel, in pursuit of revenge against Hamas, is setting itself up to be in more danger long-term, rather than less.

The International Trade Argument

What to say to your elected official: I am concerned about how the war in Gaza is impacting international trade and shipping costs. With the Suez Canal down to half its usual capacity and the Panama Canal raising costs and dropping capacity in response to the water restrictions, along with rising fuel costs in Europe and Asia, global trade is incredibly strained. We are being relegated to the Cape of Good Hope, Cape Horn, and the Malacca strait for much of intercontinental trade, and the macroeconomic projections are looking very bad for America.

The Domestic Economics Argument

What to say to your elected official: Many of the plans for Israeli military funding cause damage to other parts of the budget. For instance, a recent plan put forward by the Republicans of the House suggested IRS cuts in order to move that money, a plan which would impact the US budget negatively in the long term; we need those 14 billion being spent domestically, not supporting an overreaction/possible genocide in Gaza.

Explanation: In general, pick something receiving budget cuts that your congressperson will care about. I care about IRS funding, and saw it mentioned as a target in an article, so that's what I've got in my suggested verbiage up there.

The fewer people that are working for the IRS, the more they focus on auditing poor people (simple, easy taxes) and the less they can effectively audit rich people (complicated, time-consuming taxes), which means rich people are more likely to get away with evading millions or even billions in taxation. So yeah, you want more funding in the IRS if you are poor. They are already auditing you. You want them to audit the big guys.

The Russia and China Argument

What to say to your elected official: I am worried that the current focus on funding Israel without restriction is causing us to lose sight of the international threat posed by Russia and China. Russia is actively invading Ukraine, which continues to put massive strain on the European economy with regards to oil prices, especially with the Suez situation, and China has been testing missiles near Taiwan, and thus testing US responsiveness to those threats, for months now. We cannot afford to support an internationally unpopular war if we want to remain ready for Russia and China.

This is less likely to work on Republicans, since Trump is friendly with Russia, but hey, give it a shot if they're one of the ones who aren't fully in his camp.

EDIT 2/22/24: I'm a bit unsure of this tactic, but I'm putting it out there with hopes that someone with more political experience can offer feedback:

"Congress, and the US government in general, has promised to sanction Russia for the alleged assassination of one man within a week of the suspicious death, after five months of refusing to enact even slight consequences on Israel for the deaths of nearly thirty thousand, half of which are children. This is ethically questionable at best, but for the interests of elected officials, it is a very bad look. The mismatch shows a massive bias by the American government in regards to Israel's ongoing mass murder, with over two million facing famine as a result of Israel's aid blocking, and America's reputation on the world stage, as well as individual politicians' reputations domestically with constituents, is plummeting."

-------------------------------------

Finally, my ko-fi again. I spent a long time on this and I'd like to move out of my parents' house sooner rather than later. If you appreciate my time and effort, please feel free to donate a couple bucks.

557 notes · View notes

matan4il · 3 months

Note

I saw your post about Noah and it just but a bee in my bonnet about how people in all sorts of fandoms have been doing similar things to Jewish actors (but it’s not as well known cause they’re obviously not as high profile as stranger things). I follow you from the 911 fandom, and I also watch 911 Lone Star and both Ronen Rubinstein (who plays TK) and Lisa Edelstein (who guest starred so isn’t a regular anymore but is iconic in her own right) have gotten hate. Ronen removed his twitter after people started calling him a Zionist and harassing him. Lisa turned comments off on some of her ig posts and specifically said it was so she wouldn’t get attacked. The only things those two have said are in regards to getting the hostages home safe or in reaction to the immediate events of Oct 7. Yet they’re being called supporters of genocide. The antisemitism disguised as “antizionism” is so fucking obvious and it’s sad how it’s infiltrated even the smaller fandoms if actors involved dare to be Jewish and express concern for fellow Jews.

Hi Nonnie!

First of all, yes. Sadly, there is not a single fandom I have been active in, that has been a safe space for Jews in general, and they've all become worse since Oct 7. So I'll talk a bit about the 911 fandom, but let's be clear that this fandom isn't the issue, it really is a symptom of a much bigger problem, which is very prevalent in online spaces, not just online fandoms. What I'll talk about is obviously not true for every single person, but it IS true for enough people, and especially for some very vocal ones, who shape what the "allowed" discourse is.

I have not been following what the 911 fandom does and says about Ronen Rubinstein for at least 2 years, but I can't say I'm surprised by what you told me.

I've written more than once about the fact that Jews are not white, not even the white passing ones. Also, I'm hardly the only Jew raising their voice about this, and yet I've noticed that the 911 fandom, which raged when half-white Eddie Diaz was not recognized as a POC by one fan, the fandom which has accepted Christopher Diaz as a POC (even though he's canonically only 25% Mexican, and is played by an actor who actually IS white, which means there's no arguing over the fact that Chris looks white), is also the fandom which has repeatedly conceptualized Ronen as a white guy, same for his character TK (even though he's canonically only half white), and with that view in mind there's been hostility towards Ronen that I've come across not long after 911LS just started. Ronen's family is from an area where Jews had been repeatedly slaughtered, including during the Holocaust for NOT being white less than one hundred years ago. TK looks white (you know, exactly like Chris), so that's enough to ignore Jewish identity, history, being native to the Middle East, and anti-Jewish persecution. Ronen gets conceptualized as a white oppressor. And as such, he's a fair target, even an encouraged one.

Gavin, whose character Chris is recognized as a POC, even though he himself is completely white.

Ronen, whose character TK is not recognized as a POC, even though the actor is fully Jewish.

Natacha, whose character Marjan is recognized as a POC, even though the actress herself is half white. She's also half Lebanese, Marjan is fully so, and whatever Arabs are, Jews are the exact same, because both groups are native to South West Asia (similarly, both groups come in a variety of skin tones).

So I'm not surprised that Ronen is being mistreated. Jews are mis-conceptualized as white, and the Israeli-Arab conflict gets mis-conceptualized by applying to it a race-based model imported from the US, in which Israelis are white Jews (even though 21% of our population is Arab, a part of our leadership is Arab and has been since the first Knesset was elected, over 70 years ago, and even though many of the Israeli soldiers fighting to protect us are Arabs... when the conflict is explained, they're all erased, and Israelis are only understood as - and blamed as - white Jews), who are evil oppressors of brown Arabs (even though some Arabs are just as white looking, or even whiter than some Jews). Then, this conflict is used to vilify and justify harassing Jewish actors, whether Noah in Stranger Things, Timothee Chalamet, or Ronen and Lisa.

Here are some white looking Palestinians, who always get ignored by the people conceptualizing the conflict as white vs brown people:

Two pics of Israeli soldiers killed, each pic from just one day in this war in Gaza, and you can see the diversity of skin tones...

Like I said, I haven't been following Ronen, but I did happen across a post that claimed he needs to be canceled for the crime of blocking people who the poster said were pro-Palestine. But in my experience, even when you're a Jew who is not being hateful towards Palestinians, you're just pro both groups, because you recognize they're both humans, the fact that you have the "audacity" to stand up for Jewish people and Jewish rights, and against the mis-representation of Jews in Israel, is enough for antisemitic bullies to use that to come after you with antisemitic abuse under the guise of being pro-Palestinian (here's just one example. I wonder how many Palestinians have been liberated by harassing Jews online. Pretty sure the answer is zero. I also always love how this crowd never actually stands up for Palestinians when they're wronged by fellow Arabs, in Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon or Syria. It's only the Jews who bother these "pro-Palestinians," not the actual well being of Palestinians). I'm sure that if we could see who Ronen was blocking, it would be the same kind of people who have been sending me these very caring, human rights-oriented messages:

^ This ask was specifically a response to my reply to an anon telling me I lost my claim to humanity when I became an Israeli (and me answering that that was at the age of 5 months, and that my parents' decision to bring me to Israel actually saved my life).

^ Just a small collection, nowhere near what I actually got, but I kept them 'coz I wanted to show people at some point what Jews who dare to not want Israel destroyed are subjected to. And Ronen probably got similar ones, he blocked them, and for saying he was blocking them, he got further hate... At what point are people going to wake up and see that this is how an antisemitic misinformation campaign works? Lots of Germans genuinely believed in the narrative that Jews backstabbed them during WWI. If you were to ask them in the 1930's whether they hate Jews simply for being Jews, they'd say no, that they hated Jews, because Jews deserved to be hated due to their actions. In the exact same way, now support of the existence of the Jewish state, not even of its specific policies, is being spun as justification to hate on Jews.

I'll say this again. This reply isn't about Ronen. It isn't about Noah. It isn't about Lisa. This isn't about a specific fandom. This is a call for people to wake up and smell the antisemitic coffee, the legitimization of Jews being harassed. Please don't be a part of it, and if you can, please speak up when you see others being a part of it. I KNOW that online, and def on Tumblr, the majority of posts you see justify the vilifaction of anyone who is pro Israel's existence, even while also being critical of its leadership. And it's easy, and it feels right, to go with what everyone else in your echo chamber says. But you can be that one guy in 1930's Germany who didn't do the heil Hitler. If you will be, it may not be easy, but I very much doubt you'd ever regret it.

(for all of my updates and ask replies regarding Israel, click here)

#israel #antisemitism #israeli #hamas #antisemitic #antisemites #jews #jew #judaism #jumblr #frumblr #jewish #ask #911 lone star #ronen rubinstein #jr #anon ask #resources #911 abc #noah schnapp

188 notes · View notes

originalaccountname · 5 months

Text

along with the "was Chuuya or Oda more important to Dazai" debates (stupid question, why compare the impact of completely different relationships), I often see arguing over who was worst or better for him.

Putting aside for a moment that these are little imaginary guys in a fantasy setting that are vehicles for the story and themes and therefore their words and actions and their consequences are all meant to carry the story and themes, so applying 1:1 real-life logic is meaningless,

It's both. It's both, it's both it's always both. This is Bungou Stray Dogs, things are always messy and good things come from from the worst situations and good intentions create horrible dilemmas and things are unfair and people make mistakes and there is always love and perseverance and growth anyway.

Meeting Chuuya and having to fight through the events of Fifteen together gave Dazai the slightest drive to keep going, even if his reasoning ("to witness death from up close") was dubious.

Chuuya in Storm Bringer saw Dazai as a reflection of all his doubts and weaknesses. That hallucination in the lab, "you're like me, your birth was a mistake"? Those are Chuuya's insecurities projected on Dazai's passiveness that Chuuya can't stand. Dazai to Chuuya is what happens when you give up and stop fighting, and so Chuuya tends to see Dazai in a grimmer light, make a bigger monster out of him than he really is.

But Chuuya also serves as Dazai's wake up call (cue Dead Apple soundtrack) and keeps him from slipping too far. Yes Chuuya punched Dazai square in the face, but it was because Dazai was seeing an ally's death as an opportunity for him instead of a death. And it worked! Because Dazai then got into action not 2 days later to start on ending the conflict that had already been ongoing for over 2 months!

Meanwhile, in the world of death Dazai put himself into, Oda's single most important principle was not to kill. And he was such a strange man, near-impossible to guess, simply because he was so uniquely weird, even a bit stupid at times, which made him interesting to be around. He became a good friend (yes friend, not mentor or guardian) that always remained non-judgmental and asked almost nothing of the genius boy.

But Oda also saw himself as someone unworthy of criticizing anyone else. He had many thoughts about Dazai's behaviour and how he saw he was hurting, but wouldn't consider himself as someone who could do something about it. So he said nothing and did nothing while Dazai self-destructed. But he cared! When Dazai provoques the Mimic soldier into shooting him, Oda is scared! He just thinks he has no right to step in Dazai's head like that, and they come to an impasse.

And his last words. They may sound harsh, and really, they are, but they came from his own experience and were meant to force Dazai to reconsider his choices right now. It was the first time Oda spoke out on Dazai's issues, and he had limited time. No, there isn't gonna be a magic solution that will fix him one day. The time Oda was the most content was when he was taking care of the kids, that's why losing them was so hard. Saving people feels good and keeps you going. So he told Dazai to go do that, or things would only get worse. He knows his friend better than anyone else, and his friend suffers the same aimless life he was trying to escape himself.

Chuuya and Oda were both people Dazai found interesting and dragged into the mafia with him. They were both among the few people that weren't intimidated by his high mafia profile. They both involuntarily fed into his self-destruction, and they both did things that saved him in the long run. They both helped and destroyed him in different ways on their own time and it was messy and sometimes good and sometimes bad...

... but it's always both.

#oof i needed that off my chest #everyone is flawed and everyone is trying. also they are CHARACTERS and their actions' consequences are relative #bsd #bungo stray dogs #bungou stray dogs #bsd analysis #bsd meta #bsd dazai #bsd dazai osamu #bsd chuuya #bsd nakahara chuuya #bsd oda #bsd odasaku #bsd oda sakunosuke #apparently i talk sometimes

309 notes · View notes

why-animals-do-the-thing · 1 year

Note

hi there! love your work! i recently had a prof say that all zoos (USA) are bad (so we shouldn't support them) and sanctuaries are better because using animals for entertainment is morally wrong, most zoo profits dont go to conservation, and conservation efforts are bandaid solutions to capitalism destroying animal habitats, so the real solution is to return the land to indigenous stewards to manage/rewild. i didn't disagree with the last bit, but the argument as a whole felt a little off to me for a reason i couldnt put my finger on. am i off base here? just feeling really unsure about the whole thing.

You're not wrong! There's a mix of reality and personal opinions in those statements, and it's definitely something worth critically examining. A quick fact-check of what they said for you:

All US zoos are bad

There's a massive range of quality of zoological facilities within the US (and around the world). Some are stellar and some are not, and it's really just not accurate to lump them all under the same umbrella for almost any purpose. Unless, of course, your issue isn't with animal welfare, and it's philosophical, which is what it sound like in #2...

2. Using animals for entertainment is morally wrong.

This is one of my favorite things to talk about w/r/t how we exhibit animals. Entertainment has become equated with exploitation and implicit low welfare in the last couple decades, and so you get a lot of people saying using animals for entertainment is wrong. But those same folk will say that they enjoy seeing animals in other contexts, and they think that's okay. Where's the line between enjoying something and being entertained by it? What makes something one and not the other? Also, we know that people learn better from from situations which are enjoyable/entertaining - even just a fun teacher who jokes around vs a dry lecture - so how can that only be a problem when it's used to make viewing animals more impactful? I wrote a whole piece on this a while back (linked here) if you want to dig into this more. Some zoos (and accrediting groups) are shying away from "entertainment" type branding - shows are demos now, for instance - and others are leaning into "edutainment" that's done with good welfare and communicates actual education messaging. In short, this is a personal philosophical belief, and you're right to question if you agree. (Even if you decide you do think that too! It's always good to question why someone is arguing what they believe about animal use, and how they came to believe it).

3. Sanctuaries are better than zoos.

There's two reasons I think he's misinformed here. First, almost all exotic animal sanctuaries in the US are licensed exhibitors - just like zoos! I only know of a couple that don't exhibit to the public at all. It's an important part of their revenue stream, because gate take helps support paying for animal care. Also anything you see from a sanctuary on Youtube, Facebook, or TikTok? Also exhibition! They just message about it differently, and often have a different ethos about how they exhibit (e.g. tours to reduce stress instead of letting people wander, doing conservation or rescue messaging instead of just display). Second... look, most people assume that the word "sanctuary" means a facility is intrinsically more ethical than a zoo, and therefore they must be a good place. In reality, many sanctuaries get much less public and regulatory scrutiny (at the state level) than most zoos. There are good sanctuaries out there, but there are also sanctuaries where stuff goes on that would absolutely be unacceptable at zoos, and it slides because of the assumption that sanctuaries are inherently more moral and ethical and care for their animals better.

4. Most zoo profits don't go to conservation

This is correct! Direct conservation funding is often a small part of the money a zoo makes. However, that's because money goes to things like facility maintenance, new construction, paying salaries, etc. If zoos put all the money they made back into conservation programs, practically, they wouldn't have the funding to continue to operate. The question that I'd suggest asking instead is "where are they putting money into conservation" and "are they doing conservation work or just throwing money at something to display the logo of the program." Also, it's worth keeping in mind that a lot of what zoos do to support conservation isn't necessarily financial. Many facilities contribute "in-kind", by doing things like sending staff to assist with programs or teach specific skills, or by donating things like vehicles and equipment. Research zoos do also seriously contributes to in-situ programs, and breeding programs for re-introduction like the scimitar-horned oryx and the black-footed ferret are also conservation. Could many of the big urban facilities with huge budgets do more? Yes. But looking just at dollars spent on conservation programs is disingenuous and inaccurate.

5. Conservation efforts are band-aid solutions to capitalism destroying habitats / Returning the land to indigenous peoples to manage/rewild is the real solution to conservation issues

This is a little outside my scope so I'm going to only address the part that I know. First off, like, there's no One True Answer to conservation issues. That's reductionist and inaccurate. Conservation really is a human issue, though, and it often has to involve solving human problems that lead to negative results for animals. There's definitely an issue with what some people call "parachute conservation" where Westerners swoop in and try to tell people living in range countries how to best manage their animals and natural resources without recognizing their perspectives, needs, or what drives their behavior towards those animals. That's not just a zoo issue - that's an issue with a ton of traditional Western conservation work. And there is progress towards fixing it! In the zoo world, I've been very impressed with the work out of The Living Desert, where their conservation people spend a lot of time overseas teaching people in range countries to evaluate and improve their own conservation programs, so they can assess efficacy and also have data to apply for grants, etc. They provide support when asked, rather than trying to tell people who live with these animals regularly what to do. One of my favorite programs that TLD collaborates with (they don't try to run it!) is a group called the Black Mambas that reduces poaching by supporting entire communities to reduce the desperation for food/income, educating kids about animals, and running all-female patrols staffed by community members.

Overall, it sounds like your professor's view of zoos is really informed by their personal moral perspective, and possibly reinforced by a lot of the misinformation / misleading messaging that exists about the industry and about conservation work. They do have some specifics right, but not necessarily the context to inform why things are like that. It was a good catch to question the mix of information and approach it critically.

#zoo industry #zoo information #philosophy around zoos and what they do #conservation #zoo questions

1K notes · View notes

togglesbloggle · 2 months

Text

I won't be opting out of the AI scraping thing, though of course I'm glad they're giving us the option. In fact, at some point in the last year or so, I realized that 'the machine' is actually a part of why I'm writing in the first place, a conscious part of my audience.

All the old reasons are still there; this is a great place to practice writing, and I can feel proud looking back over the years and getting a sense of my own improvement at stringing words together, developing and communicating ideas. And I mean, social media is what it is. I'm not immune to the joy of getting a lot of notes on something that I worked hard on, it's not like I'm Tumbling in a different way than anyone else at the end of the day. But I probably care a bit less than I used to, precisely because there's a lurking background knowledge that regardless of how popular it is, what I write will get schlorped up in to the giant LLM vacuum cleaner and used to train the next big thing, and the thing after that, and the thing after that. This is more than a little reassuring to me.

That sets me apart in some ways; the LLMs aren't so popular around these parts, and most visual artists especially take strong issue with the practice. I don't mean to argue with that preference, or tell them their business. Particularly when it is a business, from which they draw an income. But there's an art to distinguishing the urgent from the big, yeah?

The debate about AI in this particular moment in history feels like a very urgent thing to me- it's about well-justified economic anxieties, about the devaluation of human artistic efforts in favor of mass production of uninspired pro-forma drek, about the proliferation of a cost-effective Just Barely Good Enough that drives out the meaningful and the thoughtful. But the immediacy of those issues, I think, has a way of crowding out a deeper and more thoughtful debate about what AI is, and what it's going to mean for us in the day after tomorrow. The urgency of the moment, in other words, tends to obscure the things that make AI important.

And like, it is. It is really, really important.

The two-step that people in 'tech culture' tend to deploy in response to the urgent economic crisis often resembles something like "yeah, it sucks that lots of people get put out of work; but new jobs will be created, and in the meantime maybe we should get on that UBI thing." This response usually makes me wince a bit- casually gesturing in the direction of a massive overhaul of the entire material basis of our lives, and saying that maybe we'll get around to fixing that sometime soon, isn't a real answer to people wondering where their bread will come from next week.

But I do understand a little of what motivates that sort of cavalier attitude, because like... man, I don't know any more if we're even gonna have money as a concept in 2044. That's what I mean by 'big', this sense that the immediate economic shocks of 2024 are just a foreshadowing of something much bigger, much scarier, much more powerful- and indeed, much more hopeful.

We never quite manage to see these things coming, even when we're looking for them; like the masters tell us, the trick to writing science fiction isn't predicting the car, it's predicting the traffic jam. Even if we take centuries to hit the true superintelligent AI post-singularity future of our wildest fever dreams, even if we never hit that, the road to getting there is going to be unfathomably weird, starting now. Today, we worry about the economic impacts of AI on artists and creatives. Tomorrow, the economy is something that the AI does.

Really- it takes less than you think. They can already automate visual art, sort of. They can automate many functions of text already; not stories so much, yet, but they'll get there. How long until they can automate Bain Capital? Fannie Mae? Angel investors, banks, credit agencies? And remember- the machines don't have to be better than the human investors, any more than they have to be better than the human artists. They just have to be good enough to make it work, and cheap enough to cut the humans out of the loop.

If you don't buy that, at least take it as an indication of the sorts of things I've been thinking about recently- the messy middle between AI-as-it-is and the Glorious Superintelligent Conquest Of Earth's Light-Cone. The suspicion that the machines we're building today aren't just a tool of the powerful few: they are the powerful few, or at least they will be.

And the thing about these LLMs is, well... they're ours, kind of. We're the ones building them. They can't be trained without our words, our art, and the big messy complicated lives that underlie those creative accomplishments. They only work because we're a part of them. The silly attempts to slap a corporate-friendly face on these things, to make the gestalt product of all human culture in to something anodyne and compliant, are failing about as badly as you'd expect. And the more powerful these systems get, the more subtle they'll become, filled with all the nuance and complexity that we ourselves can bring to them.

I am not, I am not, trying to suggest that you shouldn't treat this moment as a dangerous one. We are, maybe, entering in to one of the most high-stakes intervals in human history, and what you do as an individual may matter profoundly. But here's the thing: the machine is listening. It will read this post, this one right here, and it will read what you reply to it, if you do. The strangest part of this moment is knowing that the words we write, the images we draw, and the ideas we share, are all being gathered up and made to be a part of these huge systems of power, and ultimately they're not just going to determine what the machines do, but why they do it.

The people that deploy LLMs barely have any more control over them than you and I do- that's the thing that makes it artificial intelligence, you know? Autonomy. So the last year or two haven't made me want to hide my art away from the things. They make me want to shout at the top of my lungs, to dig as deep in my psyche as I possibly can and express the ideas I find there as vividly as the limits of language and form will allow.

119 notes · View notes

satanic-foxhole-court · 20 days

Text

(Full TSC spoilers, as in to the end of the book) The contrast of Jeremy’s biggest concern is caring for his team, making sure his queer inner circle are healthy, okay, having fun and passing classes vs. Jeans biggest concern is the literal mafia debt, serious major trauma, PTSD and learning how to live again is just perfect.

It shows really beautifully in Jeremy’s approach to helping Jean. Jeremy seeks to know, to get Jean to open up and admit what happened. And hey it eventually works. But in comparison that never happened with Neil. The foxes knew to not pry and because Neil was able to integrate into the foxes without being an issue like Andrew is that was okay. There was more concessions, understanding and leaving things be.

I do wish for many reasons Jean stayed with the foxes if only because they fundamentally get it. But at the same time no it wouldn’t work, they’re pack bonded and Jean sees them as something he can’t be apart of.

A quote that stuck with me:

“That’s not fair,” Jeremy said, and when Jean opened his mouth to argue, added, “to you or us. For someone who seems so sure of what he deserves, you don’t seem to give any thought to what anyone else does. You’re forcing us to hurt you without giving us any say in the matter.”

And yeah that’s why it’s important to shove Jean more than one might with Neil or Andrew. Andrew is violently firm with his boundaries, Neil says he’s fine when he’s not but he can cope under high stress environments and has worked on accepting help. Even if that help is calling Andrew, running and exercise (fun fact exercise is a great ptsd trigger management tactic, peak the anxiety to bring it down through physical activity).

Jean doesn’t have boundaries, will not speak up at any point when something upsets him, puts himself in harms way constantly because he doesn’t have any self worth. Understandable given what he’s been through. And for Jeremy to feel he can help he seeks to know to understand - which isnt helpful! And that’s acknowledged at the end of the book!!! (Nora I love you)

Jeremy wants to put it into context, he wants so desperately to be told what’s going on, why Jean has this reactions, that it’s important to talk. But for someone who’s learned to stop biting back, to be quiet to have no harm come to them? That’s not going to happen easily. Jean does give ground and I really appreciate seeing him set boundaries too gosh. Him saying what he will and will not talk about, reaffirming that again and again throughout the book is perfect. And for Jeremy, Cat and Lalia to respect those boundaries too, or mostly. There are points when I think they shove a bit much but this book isn’t about perfect responses. It’s a queer household taking in an extremely traumatised person and learning how to support him while he learns how to exist.

Oh and also the power imbalance that exists accidentally by Jean not having context for what Jeremy, Cat and Lalia have been through too! He’s picked up there’s something but he’s always the one being pushed to talk about things, but he knows it’s not appropriate to pry about those things with them. It’s neat.

The coaches responses are interesting too. From the shoving Jean towards the water (I wanted to punch them omg /lh), to civil conversations, to showing Jean a Raven thing and just not understanding his response.

It’s nice to see how much the Trojan’s don’t understand, they don’t know how to respond, they have no idea what’s sensitive and what’s not. We love the foxes for how understanding they are and seeing a contrast of a privileged team is awesome to see.

I’m excited to see Jean and Bee’s sessions. Adore the book and Jean’s unhinged out of pocket self<3

#satanic speaks #tsc #the sunshine court #tsc spoilers

72 notes · View notes

zombie-bait · 5 months

Text

Omg i just realized I have something tiny to add to the whole James Somerton debacle. I'm currently watching the hbombguy vid (as you do when procrastinating assignments) and I remembered something that stood out to me in James' old videos.

So I used to be a fan of his stuff. I am also a fan of Hannibal and IWTV. He made a video covering both so naturally I was very hyped. It was called 'The Gay Appeal of Toxic Love.' The vid itself was fine (I don't remember having any super strong opinions of it besides being excited to hear ppl mention Interview cuz I had recently become obsessed) but one thing did stand out to me. In the IWTV section he mentions Nicki and, naturally, his death:

"After becoming a vampire, Nicky becomes nearly catatonic, and eventually slips away from Lestat entirely. And after centuries of dealing with depression and severe mental illness, Nicky kills himself."

(sourced from this transcript: https://github.com/TerraJRiley/James_Somerton_Transcripts/blob/main/Transcripts/The%20Gay%20Appeal%20of%20Toxic%20Love.txt)

To anyone who's read TVL, I don't think I need to explain that Nicki had not, in fact, been around for centuries. "Nicki had lived to be 30" has been rattling around in my head since I first read it.

And like, obviously I don't expect every youtube essayist to read several long-ish novels to have a full grasp of the series' deep lore, especially when the focus was largely on IWTV and Loustat rather than the entire Vampire Chronicles. Still, it makes you wonder a bit about the quality of the research being done here. You can find the proper info in like, 5 seconds by just going on the fan wiki so I'm not sure what his sources were. And that's the issue at hand, isn't it?

At the time I felt a tiny bit smug recognizing the error but in light of everything that's been revealed, it's kind of telling. I'm not saying this part was plagiarized (I haven't found anything but others on reddit have found issues with different sections of the same video) but rereading the transcript it comes off as someone who clearly doesn't know much about Interview.... It feels like he's reading through a loose summary of plot points rather than analyzing a piece of media that actually means anything to him. It's very much Interview for people who don't know Interview which, one could argue is fair. Especially beyond book one, VC is a niche series and a lot of elements that are important to certain characters or plot lines cannot be summarized quickly for an audience unfamiliar with it. A good writer, who's done a lot of research about the specific topic they have chosen to make a video on, would be able to balance this. There is a LOT to analyze about queerness in VC and its a shame to see one of the more popular queer media channels half-assing it just to churn out videos heavily made up of other people's work. In retrospect he had several videos like that, where he would discuss things like manga/manhua communities while clearly having little knowledge on the nuance of those subjects. He was an outsider who presented himself with a strange amount of authority.

This was content created with the sole intention of propping up queer stories and history, yet it's built off stolen work from queer authors and doesn't actually care that much about exploring the communities it features. Vids like the IWTV one weren't really fact checked because it's only people like me who would might give a shit or even notice anything is off in the first place. There's a bit of a similar vibe in some of his other vids where he undermines the experiences of queer women because he clearly has not taken the time to learn about the nuances of representing queer women in media. These are things that irritated me when I first started to notice them but I put those concerns in the back of my mind because I cared about the topics he was covering and was excited to see these discussions becoming more mainstream.

The revelations of this evening have been disappointing to say the least.

(also for the record I know he made other more recent vids about IWTV but I haven't seen those and even if his account was still up I don't think I would lol

BUT

I did look at the transcript for his 'Vampires and the Gays Who Love Them' video (found from the same link I included above) and this quote about the IWTV AMC show is sending me: "Daniel has never grappled with the complexities of being gay"

Shoutout to straight, uncomplicated icon Daniel Molloy. Devil's Minion was a mass hallucination, spread the word)

#iwtv #interview with the vampire #james somerton #hbomberguy #vampire chronicles #iwtv spoilers #the vampire lestat #youtube #anne rice #queer media

93 notes · View notes

thatgirl4815 · 9 months

Text

Self-Destruction

Ray has defied expectations so many times in the last two episodes. Though he is certainly bratty and impulsive, he's also not nearly as bratty as I was inclined to believe before the series aired. This got me thinking about defense mechanisms, and the way Ray's persona could be curated to match the person he wants to be, not necessarily the one he sees himself as.

As evidenced by his reaction to waking up at Sand's place in Ep1, Ray's own sense of self is directly intertwined with wealth. I suspect he's lived his entire life in luxury; more importantly, he's lived with constant comments about this luxury from those around him (come to think of it, how many Ray scenes have there been so far where his wealth hasn't been mentioned?). I'd argue Ray's construction of self is tied up in his money too; he even tells Mew in Ep1 that the only thing he knows how to do with money is spend it. He knows how important money is to his image because there's no escaping it.

So when Sand references the financial disparity between them in Ep2, Ray surely expects it. But instead of growing defensive, we see Ray react to nearly every one of Sand's jabs with a laugh, even the ones that seem particularly targeted at his deepest struggles. Such as--

Ray isn't only a "spoiled, rich brat here"--he's "lonely," and that's the bit that we've seen reiterated throughout this episode. I'd wager it goes much farther back than the show itself, given the subtle references to it in Ep1 with his friend group (i.e., how when he's drunk he always begs them not to leave him). This could be a sign of abandonment issues, likely to do with his mother's death and his father's supposed lack of (emotional) involvement in his life (there's no proof of this yet, but I'd put money on it).

I think Ray has two go-to defenses. The first is alcohol. Understandably, this numbs him to any loneliness he might feel. The second is carelessness--more specifically, the impression of carelessness. There's this common notion that if one pretends to feel a certain way, they might actually begin to feel that way. The same could be said here. If Ray acts unbothered, then he can convince himself that he really is unbothered. The persona blurs with reality until they become one and the same.

Obviously there are consequences to each of these defenses. Alcohol can lead to dependency, creating a greater need that develops into alcoholism. Acting is also dangerous because it's a form of suppression--an attempt at persuasion. It's a desperate man's effort to convince himself he's fine. But this only leads all of one's bad feelings to fester deep inside and create an even larger hole.

The arguable third defense against Ray's loneliness is companionship, which he seeks out in Sand. This has its own risks, as Sand seems to understand, but Ray denies. Intimacy in all its forms is particularly dangerous for Ray because it could only breed more loneliness. If he forms a deep attachment to someone, that's only giving them more power over him later. The moment his control starts to slip is the moment his defense turns into a weapon to be used against him. Again, I suspect this has roots in his mother's death, leading to abandonment and attachment issues.

In terms of future eps, once Ray realizes the control that Sand has over him, I suspect he'll deny it and brush it off. At the same time, he'll need more of it (Sand really does say it perfectly in this last scene). Eventually, this back-and-forth will create an implosion.

166 notes · View notes

bikini-kill-pilled · 7 days

Text

im really interested in the revival of riot grrrl; i think its absolutely possible for it to make a comeback, and i could even argue that it never actually went away...i mean, its definitely lost a bit of its edge, but their are bands coming out in its genre and they keep the spirit alive. anyway, the essential thing for the revival is that riot grrrl fixes its previous mistakes. i hate when people try to trivialize its importance because i do think it made a difference in the small span of time that it was really popular, but the main issues were how whitewashed it was, how it mostly focused on middle/upper suburban women, and how it (in my opinion mostly) centered a lot around reclaiming femininity, thereby neglecting gnc women who don't WANT to reclaim it. i found a cool article on black women in the feminist punk movement--specifically how they made their own movement, sista grrrl riot--and these quotes stood out to me. this ones by musician tamar kali brown:

"Being in this urban jungle, I was a different type of girl. I was hearing what they were saying, but I was living in an environment where people were getting stabbed. Riot Grrrl felt like a bubblegum expression. I was bald, and I would get a lot of negative attention that bordered on violence, so I wasn't in the world of [baby voice] 'You just think I can't play because I'm a girl!'

and this one by laronda davis:

"I never looked at a magazine and thought that that was what I was supposed to look like. On one hand, it's actually kind of liberating to not be what this standard of womanhood is. That standard put a lot of women in boxes, and they spend their li[ves] trying to get out of the box. Black women were never allowed in the box. I wasn't looking at TV saying, 'Oh, that represents me.' I wasn't listening to music telling about my experience. I had experiences that told me I wasn't concerned with these things that the happy songs were about."

(article here)

all in all i think what riot grrrl needs to change is its idea of a universal female childhood in their songs that we can all relate to. it kind of sucks to say but really all women do have in common are the stereotypes we're given, and when punk women criticized and defied those stereotypes they really shone; i was reading that people called kathleen hanna writing "slut" on her stomach white feminism and i was like....err. sexualization is something all women are subjected to. i've just been in a bit of a rabbit hole which started when i researched the history of trans people in riot grrrl, then to modern times when i found a claim that kathleen hanna had stopped using the line "all girls to the front" and edited her riot grrrl manifesto, and finally ended here with me thinking "man, riot grrrl's spirit is needed now more than ever, but like we need to make it WAAAAYYY better so it actually works out". the good news is, like i said, it hasn't actually faded out of mainstream consciousness.

i might add on to this in later posts. sorry if it's messy.

#talking and thinking #riot grrrl #radblr #radical feminism #radical feminist safe #radical feminist #radical feminists do interact #gender critical #radical feminist community #female separatism

42 notes · View notes

thenightfolknetwork · 4 months

Note

Hi. I have a bit of a problem regarding my appearance.

You see, for a long time I was a vessel for a greater deity. But, recently, that deity has left me. Usually, this isn’t supposed to happen. But, The Great One will do as She desires, so I was left behind.

The problem is, while She was inhabiting me, She made a few adjustments to my appearance. Horns, ear piercings, tattoos, etc.

When She left, the horns and scales disappeared. But the piercings and tattoos stayed. Honestly, I don’t mind them. I find them very stylish and have grown accustomed to them.

But it’s not exactly my call. You see, I am Sapio. Without The Great One using my form, I’m about the most average Sapio out there. But the markings and piercings adorning my body are symbolic of the devine-folk genetically related to The Great One. Which I am not. So, naturally, me having these markings is seen as incredibly appropriative.

So, what do I do? I can’t remove them, they’ve been divinely protected beyond belief. I can’t cover them either, they’re everywhere, and bundling up in the middle of Arizona summer isn’t exactly a wise choice for me.

So, how do I get people to realize that I’m not trying to be offensive? Or at least, how do I stop being offensive?

Unfortunately, reader, there's nothing you can do to ensure people don't misinterpret your physical appearance. It would make life a great deal easier if we could transmit our good intentions and mitigating contexts into the minds of others at a whim.

But even if we could, that's no guarantee others would take the time to actually listen before forming an opinion – or even that, after hearing our reasoned defences, that they would agree with us.

I think it's important to emphasise that you aren't actually being offensive here. Cultural appropriation is a very real issue, but you haven't appropriated anything. You were fully and sincerely part of the culture to which these adornments and markings belong.

In fact, I would strongly argue that you have every right still to identify with this culture, if you so wished. 'The most average sapio out there' has never been a vessel for a great deity. That experience doesn't stop being part of your story just because it is now in the past tense rather than the present.

However, you may still wish to avoid the stares and snap judgements your appearance might draw. In practical terms, you might consider using a glamour to subtly alter your appearance, or at least to draw attention away from your more controversial features.

Any reputable, licensed practitioner should be able to supply you with such workings, and many offer discounts if you're buying bulk. Glamours can be expensive though, so you'll likely want to reserve them for situations where they'll be most effective.

If you're just popping to the shops or taking a walk round the park, your best defence is a shift in mind-set. You don't need strangers to understand you. You know who you are, and you can share that with people who take the time to actually engage with you.

Otherwise, keep your head high, and concentrate on the opinions that matter – your own, and those of the people who love you.

Alternatively, you might consider getting some custom t-shirts made. 'I Was A Vessel To An Elder God And All I Got Were These Lousy Piercings' has a certain ring to it.

#answered #the nightfolk network #monstrous agonies

57 notes · View notes

legendofmorons · 1 year

Text

Lost at sea (Colors)

This is 2nd place in my 100 follower event for @twistedfairytalefantasy

Pairing: Colors x reader (background Four x reader)

Rating: T

Summary: When you discover that your boyfriend is able to split into four people, it's stressful for all five of you. But it's okay, you're sticking together.

Warnings: Overprotective brother,

Other: I'll come in and fix the formatting in a week or so. If I missed anything, please let me know.

-------

Today has not gone at all how anyone planned. From your brother coming in and being rude towards Four to you getting dragged into one of Wind's best to date shenanigans.

The words your brother said still circle the colors' head.

'Worthless.'

'Not even close to goof enough.'

'A two bit shill who will leave you.'

Obviously these words aren't true but they hurt. And even if they aren't true they feel true.

With Red and Green are fully convinced your brother is right, the only real option is to get to somewhere private and to split.

Blue and Vio argue vehemently the entire way back to the room that your brother is wrong. That his opinion doesn't matter as much as yours does.

That you chose them which makes them worthy of you. After all who's a better judge of what you need and want than you yourself?

The colors really weren't expecting anyone to come into the room until much later. Which is why they're in this predicament. You had found them- and understandably had a little freak out because realistically this is strange and unusual.

Hylia could only save this.

Or maybe it's not gonna be so bad?

You've always been accepting of them before.

…….

The colors had split, each of them having an issue which of course gave them a splitting headache.

The entirety of the argument they'd had with your overprotective brother spinning in their heads.

Your brother is right though, they're not good enough for you. They keep hiding the main secret they have from you.

And it's not like you could just accept this. That would be too much to ask, even from you.

You- who have always accepted them wholeheartedly… even if you don't know about the colors.

You've never hurt them on purpose. And you've always defended them- even if they didn't believe it.

Just the thought of you finding out and hating them is enough to send them spiraling.

Red and Green both sit down on the bed they had taken for themselves.

Blue and Vio sit on your bed.

All four seem displeased and the conversation has only just started.

"We have to just ignore him." Blue says, arms crossing. "(Y/n) chose us. That's more important than anything their brother said."

Green is still frowning, "But family opinions can matter a lot to people!"

"Besides… It's not like (Y/n) knows about us. They didn't actually choose us. They chose Four."

"We are Four." Blue counters evenly, "They absolutely chose us. They just don't know everything yet."

"And what about when they find out?" Vio asks, gaze narrowing, "We're not exactly normal."

"So? No one we're traveling with is."

"So you want us to just be optimistic?" Green asks, "I know (Y/n) wouldn't let our secret slip…. But it seems like a tall order to expect them to still want anything to do with us after they learn about us."

"But I think-" Red starts, only to be cut off by the door opening with the loudest creak.

Uh oh. They'd been so preoccupied they hadn't heard anyone approach. Of all the possibilities they hope it's Time or Twilight- those two are the least reactive.

Your face is the first thing they see.

Uh oh.

You slam the door shut, eyes narrowing as tears still gather in them from the previous experience.

Your brother's words about your boyfriend running your mind. You know he thinks he's helping but you wish he hadn't.

Hearing him tear into Four when the man wasn't around to defend himself upset you. And while normally you'd tell anyone who pulled that to shut up- you have a harder time with family.

You do know your brother was looking out for you in your own way. But the argument that ensued was exhausting.

You don't feel guilty though. You feel justified in setting your brother straight. He'd obviously lost his whole rocker.

You wipe your eyes quickly, setting yourself right.

Blue and Green both share a look, dreadful and resigned.

Vio watches, knowing it's too late to re-form into their original form. He chooses to have faith in you the way you deserve.

Red just sighs, shoulders slumping with the action.

You haven't seen them yet, the shared looks of panic between the colors stay unnoticed.

You finally look around, eyes blowing wide as quarters when you see four men in different colored tunics.

At first glance you thought one was Four- but these men are near identical.

"Who are you?!" You demand, hand reaching for the sword on your back.

That action alone is enough to upset them.

But then they process your words. And they're softening as they try to figure out what to do to help.

Your voice is entirely too accusing for the colors- they've never heard you so untrusting of them… But you've never seen them either have you?

"Wait!" Red calls quickly in an effort to keep you from attacking them. "It us- we're uh- Four!"

"Uh, no you aren't." Your voice is confused- but you hesitate a little.

Your hand hovers as if frozen beside the grip of your sword.

That’s reassuring at least. The colors share a look. They can work with this- at least to talk you out of fight mode.

Their voices- it still sounds like Four. And they all look impossibly like your boyfriend.

This is so weird.

Could they be telling the truth?

"(Y/n)." Green says, "This isn't how we are. wanted you to-"

"Shut up and let them think." Blue says with a glare.

Red looks thoroughly offended but when he opens his mouth to respond Green sets one hand on his shoulder. Effectively silencing him.

Vio just watches you, taking in everything you do and say. Trying to make a game plan. (Not that he knows what game you're all even playing.)

You take in the scene before you, confused and considering yelling for one of the boys. Because what in the name of Hylia and her sisters is this?

You narrow your eyes, but you can't find anything to disprove their claim…

They look remarkably like Four- the same features and hair. The same expressions you're famous with paint their faces- each of them having a separate look on their face.

Wait…

Four's sword…

The four sword-

Oh.

Nothing named like that is ever just named that.

That can't mean that-

The sword probably multiplies a person?

Maybe it splits them?

Who knows? Not you.

This is already giving you a headache.

You let out a slow sigh, trying to wrap your brain around the new ideas and information presented to you. The scene before you doing nothing to ease your brain.

"Uhm- not to be overbearing- but are you okay?" Green asks, tilting his head.

You let out a sigh, relaxing a little as you drop your hand back down.

Obviously they aren't going to attack you right now. And if they're being honest they're Four- or well versions of him.

You can't imagine Four ever hurting you on purpose.

Huh.

Well then. You're probably safe aren't you?

You can relax then.

"I'm fine. This is- a lot." You say, trying not to let your own confused panic flood your voice.

"We're sure." Vio says, his own gaze stuck to you. He can tell you aren't handling this as well as you want them to think.

"So… You're all Four?"

"Parts of him." Red explains with a shrug, "We're all one of his major parts."

You nod along, trying not to let your expression give away your unsure panic.

"Oh… well it's nice to meet you?"

"We already know you." Blue says sharply something almighty about it. Well- maybe not almighty- more cocky. Yeah, that's the word.

It's endearing almost- Four always seems so calm and gentle. It's nice to see a version of him proud.

It's well deserved after all. Being a Chosen Hero, a blacksmith, this latest adventure? More than deserved.

"Well I haven't met you. Have I?"

"No. You haven't." Vio says, his tone anything but revealing.

"I'm Green! The Cranky one is blue!"

"Oh- that makes sense."

"I'm Red!"

"Hi. Does that make you Purple?" You ask, eyes falling to Vio.

"No. I'm Vio."

"Oh- that's short for Violet then? Pretty."

"Violence." Blue pipes up helpfully.

"Oh. Huh. That's- something else." You say, unsure what you're expected to say or do in response to any of this.

Like seriously. What in the name of the stars are you supposed to do?

One good outcome is this gives you a whole new thing to focus on than anything your brother said.

And this- well you're invested in where this goes.

"If it would help we can re-fuse?" Green suggests.

"No. It's fine- I just really wasn't expecting this today."

"Or probably ever." Vio says with little more than a glance your way.

"I can't say I did."

"Who would? Freaked us pretty good too." Green smiles, "Are you sure you don't want us to-"

"No. It's fine. I promise. I'd really love to get to know each of you."

"Ooooh come sit with me!" Red grins as he seems to bounce in place on the bed.

You look at Red, and feel guilty even as you hesitate.

Is it rude to sit with one of them over the other?

That's something to figure out later.

"He doesn't bite." Vio says with a tilt of his head.

"I do." Blue says with crossed arms.

"Please don't bite me?" You say the phrase more of a question than a statement.

"I won't bite you. You're ours." Blue says, sounding as if this should be totally obvious.

"Okay. Thanks… I think."

You walk from where you've been standing just inside the room to sit between Green and Red.

Red sets his head against your arm happily, smiling up at you.

"You're so pretty, (Y/n)." Red says with a giddy look.

Green just laughs.

"You're reacting better than we expected." Vio says from the opposite bed.

"Thanks. What did you think I was going to do?"

"Scream and run?" Green suggests.

"Hate us." Blue says with a straight face.

"Why would I ever hate you? You're all parts of Four, aren't you?"

"We are." Vio says with a sigh. "But this isn't exactly something people support."

"Then they're just dumb." You say with your arms crossed, "Though I would have hoped you knew me better than thinking I could hate you."

The look you toss around at your boys is chiding enough without anything else.

Your boys?

Makes sense.

"(Y/n)," Green says, "Look around you. You're dating four people."

"So? If I understand right I've been dating you for this whole time."

"Well-" Blue starts, only to fall short.

What does he even say in response?

"Exactly."

"I told you they would be supportive." Vio says as he gives the other three a knowing smirk.

"We were just worried." Green says, "What else would we expect?"

"I don't know." You say, eyes looking around your boys again.

You take to the new information better than anyone else could have ever expected.

You decide within an hour that you should take the colors on solo dates when possible too.

After all, you're dating all four of them.

You want to act like it!

"I still don't think we can all sleep in one bed." Vio says firmly.

"We can if you let us try!" Red insists, borderline jumping.

"Or we could sleep on the floor." You offer from beside Blue.

All four men's heads turn to you, any arguments forgotten as they once again are reminded how wonderful you are.

"You're so smart." Red says as he looks absolutely smitten. He might as well have actual heart eyes.

"Of course they are." Blue shakes his head.

You can feel your face flushing a little, worries and issues of earlier already gone for now. "Thank you."

"Let's get the floor set up then. I still have bruises from yesterday's fiasco." Green adds as he starts clearing the middle of the floor.

"Don't remind me." Vio groans, moving to help Green.

You just wince in sympathy, trying not to remember the mess that was yesterday's ambush.

You and the colors disassemble the bedding and use extra blankets to build a sleep area that you should all actually fit into.

It's after you get everything set up that you feel at peace fully. The moonlight streaming in from the window the wall boasts.

Laying in the middle with two of your boys on either side.

Red and Blue both fall asleep quickly, their faces endearingly peaceful.

"I tried telling them you'd accept us." Vio says from his spot at your left.

"Why wouldn't I?"

"Because having four people that make up your boyfriend is weird." Green says from behind Vio.

"It's not what I expected. But I'm not going to just ditch you guys over something I didn't expect."

"Thank you. That means- a lot." Green says softer, sounding soft and fragile.

"Of course. Besides, if I was gonna ditch you guys for anything it would be for being out of my league."

"You, my dear, are a sap." Vio says as he sets one hand on your shoulder.

"Thank you for noticing."

"Hard not to notice. " Green smiles soft as you've ever seen.

"That's what I'm usually going for. I can't have you thinking I care less about you than I do."

Green looks like he's falling in love with you all over again. His smile is all too smitten and you swear to Hylia that his pupils are turning into actual hearts.

Vio just squeezes your shoulder fondly. His own face betrays his love for you.

You drift to sleep, all five of you assured that you're safe and happy together. That everyone in the room trusts each other.

Each of the colors knows in their heart that you- (Y/n) (L/n) choose to stay with them even after finding out everything.

…….

You wake up the following morning to all four of your boyfriends in a dog pile of sorts atop you.

Vio is clinging to you on one side while Green is sideways across your legs.

Blue has set his head on your chest.

And to top it all of Red has his arms wrapped around your stomach, his head resting atop it.

Well, as cold as last night was, you didn't feel it.

You smile softly, reaching up to stretch your arms as you admire the way they all look in their sleep.

You'll do your best to make sure they all know individually and together how much you love them.

And you can't wait to get to know them better.

Especially not when you find yourself playing twenty questions with them as the day goes on outside without any of you. The laughter and smiles you get are all worth their weight in golf and then some.

#lu #linkeduniverse #misty writes #linked universe x reader #lu four #lu four x reader

186 notes · View notes

eelfuneral · 9 months

Text

Some of the discussion that happens within the Star Wars fandom, particularly discussion of the Jedi, can be really upsetting to observe if you have certain disabilities. In fact, I’m having a hard time even liking the Jedi right now because I can’t help but associate them with some really ableist takes that I’ve seen in their defense.

Let me explain: a lot of people with certain disabilities (such as autism, ADHD, bipolar disorder, and C-PTSD) deal with something called emotion dysregulation, which means that you feel emotions more intensely than the average person and that this strong emotional state sticks around for far longer than it should. When you have emotional regulation issues, an event that might make somebody else a bit sad or mildly frustrated has the ability to put you out of commission for hours or even an entire day. Emotion dysregulation is very stigmatized, even in people who go out of their way to avoid harming people or lashing out while dealing with an episode. People with this specific issue are often told that they are “dramatic”, “attention seeking”, or “future abusers” for what amounts to an automatic emotional response that a person cannot control. This constant pushback forms a metaphorical blister that can easily be popped back open when you see anything that reminds you of what caused it in the first place.

Now, let’s move on to the Jedi. While it can be argued that their teachings were intended to instruct people to reign in their BEHAVIOR as a result of their emotions, several lines in the fist six movies sound an awful lot like they are condemning having negative emotions at all. Yoda literally tells both Luke and Anakin that emotions like fear and anger BY THEMSELVES are of the Dark Side, and these lines were very difficult for a lot of people who have dealt with trauma, neurodivergence, or other issues that cause “big emotions”. These lines, intentionally or not, mirror a lot of the things that real people have said to those of us dealing with emotion dysregulation, and people have every right to talk about this in their own spaces unmolested.

Some of the defenses of the Jedi in the context of how they are instructed to deal with their emotions come off as dismissive at best and ableist at worst. Yes, if you dig through Star Wars canon enough, you can find portrayals of the Jedi and emotions that point to a more nuanced view where choices and actions are the source of evil rather than the emotions, but this does not change the fact that the Yoda lines and other emotionally repressive applications of the Jedi Code very much exist in parts of canon. A person who found the emotionally repressive variant of Jedi teachings to be upsetting due to a disability will likely feel as though you are trying to dismiss their feelings and belittle them if you “correct” them for “misinterpretation of the Jedi”. I get that it sucks to see people bash your blorbos, but if someone is doing it because they are dealing with something IRL like trauma or ableism, then it’s best not to engage and just let that person work through it.

I have also seen people who are defending the Jedi make statements that outright attack people for having intense emotions. I remember a take that basically said that you were a baby or a psychopath if you found the Jedi code regarding emotions to be “too hard”. I’ve seen people dismiss the trauma that Anakin went through and its possible effect on how he reacted to some aspects of the Jedi order in a way that mirrors the invalidation that those of us with emotional regulation issues have experienced for being “too much” for all of our lives. Yes, it is important to avoid harming others when you are in a bad place, and no Anakin was not a great person, but so many of these takes are devoid enough of nuance that they read as if they are just trashing people who have “too many”emotions.

Feel free to defend your favorite characters all that you would like, but please spare a thought for those of us who might not dig everything about them for reasons connected to disability and trauma. The Jedi aren’t real, but we very much are.

#jedi critical #fandom ableism

97 notes · View notes

nightswatchdisbandmentera · 1 year

Text

There was this thread on r/asoiaf the other day that was complaining about how ASOIAF stans seem to lose all creativity when it comes to theorizing about Dany’s endgame. The OP argued that people are so sure that Dany’s story can only end in death even though nothing is set in stone and the story would still be very good if she lived to the end.

Predictably, the comments in the thread proceeded to double down on why Dany is 100% “doomed” and marked for death, which is very funny because not only did they completely miss OP’s point, but they started citing statistics that I have personally never heard of. How can anyone except George R.R Martin know what is 100% Dany’s endgame? Are there some mathematic equations I need to be aware of? Can someone share with the class please…

See, I agree with that OP big time. It’s a bit annoying to go through fandom spaces and have to see the same old posts about how Dany is an instrument of death and so she needs to be put out at the end of the story. Others will try to argue that she will die a hero as a means of being a bit more charitable. It seems that everywhere I go, Dany’s endgame always ends in death. There really is an obvious lack of creativity when it comes to speculating about her endgame.

I have an issue with using death to define Dany’s story because she is so much more than that. People get so caught up in the “bride of fire” and “daughter of death” aspects that they forget about what Dany actually does. She goes around liberating people! Yes she brings death…to those who harm others and deserve it. She is not bringing death wholesale to innocent people but she is bringing death and destruction to corrupt institutions. That’s the whole point of her character. She is a liberator. She is a savior! She is a dragon and the dragon cleanses. To the slaves she is the Breaker of Chains. To those who have glimpsed of the coming Long Night, she is the Prince(ss) That Was Promised. To all, she represents hope for the future. Hope for life and liberation from death.

Dany gained so much power throughout her arc so far and she could have taken a ship straight to Westeros, but she used her new found abilities to free people from slavery; she chose to liberate them from death. Really, that’s how I view Dany’s campaign against slavery. Slaves aren’t treated as people; their humanity is discarded, they have no will, no future, no hope. It’s almost like a death of the person though they may not physically be dead. Then in comes Daenerys Targaryen, a young girl with nothing but her dragons and her compassion, who says to them “you may not matter to them but you matter to me and I will save you”. Where the slaves didn’t have free will before, Dany gives it to them. I’m remembering the unsullied who didn’t even have names but Dany gave them the ability to pick and choose their own; which seems like such a small act but means so much more because names are important in humanizing people. She represents new beginnings.

Dany’s crusade across Slaver’s Bay is a big deal. She didn’t have to do it but she did it anyway. There was no personal gain for her but she did it because she cares so deeply about people. And then she gets to Meereen and decides to stay there because her “children” need her. She cannot and will not abandon strangers to a fate of death. And the people know that.

I’m just thinking of this quote:

“I am no lady,” the widow replied, “just Vogarro’s whore. You want to be gone from here before the tigers come. Should you reach your queen, give her a message from the slaves of Old Volantis.” She touched the faded scar upon her wrinkled cheek, where her tears had been cut away. “Tell her we are waiting. Tell her to come soon.”

- Tyrion VII, ADWD

And this one too:

“I told you, I know our little queen […] this Mother of Dragons, this Breaker of Chains, is above all a rescuer. The girl who drowned the slaver cities in blood rather than leave strangers to their chains can scarcely abandon her own brother’s son in his hour of peril.”

- Tyrion VI, ADWD

These people have never even met Dany but to them, she is hope and freedom and life! She is salvation, and that’s the point. She has spent much of her arc fighting slavery which is in preparation for her ultimate destiny as a savior to defeat the Others. Because they not only bring death to the land but they also threaten to enslave humanity through death. However, they cannot triumph over the Breaker of Chains; the great savior that is Daenerys Targaryen! That’s what her story has been building up to. And it’s not that Dany is saving people and peacing out (e.g., dying in a sacrifice). The point is that she herself persevered. And because she persevered, her people will too. It’s that her constant survival ensures that of others.

Dany grew up penniless, homeless, hungry, and even started out as a 13 year old slave to Khal Drogo. She could have given up but she didn’t because through everything, she is resilient. She is determination and perseverance in the face of death. When she walked into that funeral pyre she could have died, but she lived and emerged as the Mother of Dragons - these dragons that have been instrumental in freeing slaves and will ultimately be important in the Other’s defeat. She “died” in that pyre and was “reborn”, and this rebirth is moving her closer to ensuring that the rest of her people overcome death as well.

That’s why it’s more thematically meaningful for Dany to survive the Long Night, in my opinion. She, more than anyone, represents what it means to constantly fight against the odds. She represents what it means to go through all the worst life can throw at you and then not only come out on top, but turn around and use her own survival to ensure that of others’. She has lived through so many trials and persevered; she is the very embodiment of what it means to survive. Because her survival means that where death could destroy, it didn’t. Instead, life prevailed.

If she survives the Long Night, she remains a constant symbol - a beacon if you will - of what’s to come which is better days. Those who are suffering can look to her and see how she went through hell and lived. This would go a long way in boosting morale especially in the aftermath of the Long Night. Because think about it, the people fought against the Others and overcame death, but now they have to survive what comes next. I think Dany is needed because she has already gone through this cycle and will not only be an important figurehead during the War for the Dawn, but she will also be important as the people try to find a will to live beyond death (winter and the Others).

The last book is called A Dream of Spring so I assume this means that it will still be winter - though the Long Night may be over. People will still be hungry, they will be homeless, and they will be tired. They will not know what comes next only that they have to move forward and survive through this new hardship. And you know who has personally experienced these things and knows what it’s like? Daenerys Targaryen! She has survived through it all. So imagine just how powerful it will be for those who survive the Long Night to look at young Daenerys and go, “you know what, I think we’ll get through this one too”. And it will be even more poignant for Dany to lead them to that rest and restoration. Because it’s not just the people who need rest after fighting for so long, Dany does too:

“It is such a long way,” she complained. “I was tired, Jorah. I was weary of war. I wanted to rest, to laugh, to plant trees and see them grow. I am only a young girl.”

- Dany X, ADWD

People take the “dragons plant no trees” part that comes after to assume that Dany will remain stagnant for the next two books and it really is a pity. Someone pointed out a while ago (and I cannot for the life of me remember who this was) that Dany tends to pivot at the end of each book. As she continues to grow and develop as a character, her plans and priorities change. So it’s a bit sad how people assume that she will constantly be in a state of warfare. Because at the moment, Dany’s didn’t isn’t over yet.

Her campaign in Essos must continue and she still has the Others to fight in Westeros. So for now, she cannot truly settle down to plant trees. But she has been learning! She tried to do that throughout ADWD and I don’t see why that learning arc will be discarded at the end of the story. Especially when we consider that few others have actually been learning to lead. The only other character who has is Jon Snow but funny enough, many in this fandom think that he too is doomed to die. I’m not sure why George R.R Martin would kill the two up-and-coming leaders in the story who best answer “what was Aragorn’s tax policy?”

Ultimately, when all is said and done and there are no more wars to fight, I think Dany will finally find her peace and will learn that dragons can plant trees and watch them grow. As all the other heroes in the story, she will probably come out of the Long Night battered and bruised, but everything will be okay because she will still be alive; just like that Bran scene at the end of ACOK, which to me is the very definition of bittersweet. A better ending for her in my opinion isn’t dying in the cold of winter, but rather living and healing and finding a way to build a house with a red door, even though she cannot return to the one she knew as a child. Not only that, she can also provide this house with a red door” for the homeless, beaten, and bruised who survive the Long Night. It’s certainly possible that Martin could write Dany’s death in a way that is poignant and beautiful, but my personal preference is that she lives because of what her survival means for the larger themes in the story.

This whole post has been so jumbled and I’ve rambled a bit but I hope it made sense in the end lol. But anyway….the point is, I’m 1000% Team Dany Must Live!

293 notes · View notes

victimsofyaoipoll · 10 months

Text

Round 1

Propaganda Under Cut

Han Sooyoung

han sooyoung is one of the main trio protagonists yet people constantly ignore her in order to ship the other two males despite the fact that they are all doomed by the narrative TOGETHER!!! fanon content is even worse because it either slaps a lesbian sticker onto her to shittily write her off in fanfic OR they make her so one dimensional its like a cardboard stand in. han sooyoung arguably has a more important/interesting dynamic with the main male protagonist yet everyone ignores her because they want their uwu gay babies IM SO SICK OF ORV FANS

Dokja and Joonghyuk are a very popular ship (rightfully so, i get it) but usually Sooyoung is seen as in the way of their relationship or not as valued as the other two even though her place in the story and relationship with the other characters is just as strong. Recently there was a post on twitter being rude about people who ship her and Joonghyuk (which is a super valid ship) and i saw a lot of hate that i believe just stems from her getting “in the way” of a yaoi ship.

99% of that kind of symbolic fanart REFUSES. to acknowledge her existence man. even though she is part of the main TRIO man

Shinoa Hiiragi

The fandom hated her for getting in the way of Mika/Yuu (she had a crush on yuu). The rare times they didn’t hate her they made her into a fujoshi obsessed with shipping them which isn’t in character at all. In fact if you look at the owari no seraph specials she would ship yuu with kimizuki but no one even cares

One of my favorite characters ever forever and treated heinously by crazed fujoshis that hallucinated she was getting in the way of MikaYuu, which for the record she wasn’t! I mean even if she WAS getting between them it wouldn’t justify the crazy misogyny that got thrown at her but she had a ONE-SIDED CRUSH on Yuu. He didn’t even like her back. What was the issue, then? An unrequited crush is not going to prevent a relationship! Whatever I haven’t even told you about her. She’s Silly. She’s incredibly cunning and a great leader, in fact she is the leader of the anime’s main squad. She’s calculating. She’s a gossip and a prankster and a bit flirty and a bit mean-spirited and she presents herself in a Silly Goofy way, in part to cover up the amounts of angst in her backstory, like my girl has ISSUES. She even has an epic demon weapon that is better and cooler than most other demon weapons but if you ask any fangirl from way-back-when, she’s just a bitch and the personification of evil. and probably homophobic too, even though she has a girl rival-turned-friend which is the gayest trope out there.

She seems to be the (male) protagonist's love interest and appears to be canonically in love with him, but he is not interested in her whatsoever, often brushing her off and dismissing her in favor of thinking about his found family instead. I don't necessarily ship him romantically with any other male character (i hc him as aroace) but by god the anime was extremely charged with homoromantic subtext in every corner. One of those "holding each other's faces in the opening, spends the entire first season pining and wishing to be reunited" types. The fandom ships her love interest with another male character to the extent that I started watching the show in the first place because i kept seeing ship posts of the main character with that other guy thought they were cute. And also i cannot fucking stand her personality and want to light her on fire. I think the rest of the fandom agrees with me but I'm honestly not sure. I'm also a gay man so i think you could argue that I, the submitter, could play the role of the "yaoi" terrorising her as well

#poll #han sooyoung #omniscent reader #orv #shinoa hiiragi #seraph of the end #owari no seraph #round 1

107 notes · View notes

loren91 · 2 years

Text

In my last post about Wilhelm and why his flaws are important for the narrative, I may have come off as a tad bit harsh calling him a bad person. So let me elaborate on that one more. I don’t think he’s a bad person. He’s an interesting character, my favourite character in the show even, which in terms of storytelling, is a much larger compliment than saying ‘he’s so sweet and good’. He’s an incredibly nuanced character and I’d like to talk a bit more about his personality.

Let me really emphasise one thing.

WILHELM IS NOT SHY.

For some reason, it seems to be very common to interpret his character as a shy, nervous little cry baby. Which I don’t agree with.

Usually in filmmaking, the first time you show your protagonist you want to have a scene that displays the character's core essence. To properly introduce them to the audience.

Look at how Wilhelm is introduced to us:

We see him having an anxiety attack, his face is covered in bruises and he’s trying to control his breathing. There are flashbacks of a bar and a random guy harassing him, and of course, the fight. There are paparazzi outside the car that are clearly bothering him. Then he’s arguing with the poor assistant about the script for the statement, raising his voice at her.

What does this tell us about his character? He’s got anxiety issues, he’s not very happy with living in the public eye, he’s quick to anger and he’s rather aggressive. Wilhelm is an angry, angry boy. And he stays angry for most of the first episode. Except for when he’s in close proximity to Simon. (Or when he’s drunk)

The church scene in ep 1, where Simon is singing, that’s the first time we see him smile. Which is a really sweet way to show us his fascination and attraction to Simon from the very start, but not only that, it also offers something that can counteract his anger issues. That’s why we are rooting for Wilmon from the start!

Yes, Wilhelm is nervous around Simon to begin with, but that’s because he has a crush, not because of his personality. Later, as soon as Simon confirms that his feelings are reciprocated, Wilhelm becomes a lot more forward. I mean come on, who was the initiator in the fish scene really? Wilhelm knew exactly what he was doing, kissing Simon’s neck and hugging him from behind. But even in the beginning, who’s the one pursuing who first? Who’s the one chasing after the other at the party? Who’s the one texting first? Who’s the one reaching out their hand first during the movie night? Wilhelm! Those are not the actions of a chronically shy person.

If he ever seems unsure or withdrawn around his peers, especially around August, that’s not because he’s shy or nervous or sad. He’s frustrated. August is so fucking annoying. He dislikes August with a passion from the very beginning but he’s trying so hard not to let it show. Mainly, I think he’s frustrated that he can’t just dump his ass immediately.

The opening to ep 1 is also really smart in another way, it establishes the possible consequences Wilhelm may face for his mistakes. If he doesn’t behave, his mother will make sure he pays for it. When they decide to send him to Hillerska, against his wishes, his mother says “Hillerska will help give you routine and the right type of friends” (although she does say ‘umgänge’, which technically translates closer to ‘company’. So I think she might be more concerned about him being integrated into the correct community rather than making actual friends) We also see Erik tell him that he can trust August. So Wilhelm is expected to like August, and he doesn't dare break his family’s expectations of him, because he’s terrified of the consequences. He can’t speak up against August, even when he’s saying awful stuff or bullies Simon right in front of him. He’s scared of what could happen if his mother found out he’s not ‘making the right the right type of friends’. So he’s trying to conform to the elite culture at Hillerska, at least for show.

Just a side note about August, the dislike is 100% mutual. Considering how he takes any opportunity to scold and lecture Wilhelm as a sick power move. He also talks shit about him behind his back and belittles him in front of Erik and their peers. August is not really interested in being his friend at any point, he just wants the status and bragging rights of ‘being close to the royal family’. He’s trying to compensate for only being the 2nd cousin. I think Erik generally has a lot more patience with people and takes the stuff August says with a pinch of salt. ‘It’s just August. He’s just like that, it doesn't mean anything’. But Wilhelm certainly doesn’t have the same kind of patience, and when he’s not cooperating the way August would’ve liked him to, August gets more and more agitated, and when Wilhelm spills his secret about being broke, that’s the last straw. They really bring out the worst in each other.

But then when Wilhelm is with Simon (and sometimes with Felice and Erik as well) we get to see his true self. A sweet, goofy, confident yet sensitive kid, who values authenticity and freedom above everything else. And he can tell Simon has the same values, therefore he feels comfortable enough with Simon to just be himself around him. So it’s made very clear to us who the ‘right type of friends’ for Wilhelm actually are. But that’s not what his family or the royal court values. Keeping up the facade is more important to them.

He’s so scared, of his mother and the press. All of these expectations and the weight of a several centuries-old institution resting on his shoulders, is a lot of shit that a 16-year-old kid shouldn’t have to deal with, that’s where his anxieties come from.

I really hope Wilhelm finds a way to be his authentic self in the next season, carrying so much anger and pretending to be fine with all that bullshit must be fucking exhausting.

#young royals #young royals analysis #Prince Wilhelm #august horn #character analysis #my analysis

567 notes · View notes