#this is not DISCOURSE do not diminish this by calling it DISCOURSE

[flanpucci]

Hello and welcome to my TED talk today I have decided to write a wall of text about why portraying Dio and Pucci’s relationship as manipulation is actually taking a lot out of Pucci’s agency and character, and diminishing him. Disclaimer that this is not shipping discourse, this is media analysis. I don’t want to talk about whether it is moral or not that they get along, I don’t care, I only want to comment on the media.

So someone sent me a DM telling me that Dio was manipulating an emotionally distraught and vulnerable Pucci into following his plan, and that he exploited him to do all sorts of crimes (framing Jolyne, killing people, stealing discs) by presenting himself as a trustworthy, God-like figure, and called the Heaven plan ‘Heaven’ to get Pucci to follow it by exploiting his religious beliefs.

First of all Dio met Pucci before he was distraught about his sister's situation. After the situation occurred, it is Pucci who seeked him for answers as to why he was alive and not his sibling/s, like he seeked answers from God a few years before by becoming a priest student. Dio left a door open, nothing more. Of course Dio was seeking to be admired, he was also seeking companionship as he has always done ever since he was young, and someone to carry his plan. Pucci was looking for answers, for self-growth, for someone to push him towards the top, towards what he believes is the destiny that was designed for him (the reason he’s alive and not his twin).

Is it forbidden to look for something in someone? Does it make it not genuine? No, we all look for something in a friendship. And this seemed like a fair deal for both. One needs a trusted friend, an ally, but not a blind follower, and as we’ll see later, he needs someone to help him transcend his human? vampire? condition again. The other one needs a reason to live, a quest to fulfill, and hope that he could one day obtain the ‘happiness’ and ‘peace of mind’ that Dio wants so much too. He’s also someone who strives for greatness, who wants to ‘step outside human boundaries’.

Not forgetting that Pucci is someone fueled by a profound curiosity and rationality, it is only natural that he’d side with someone who has the abilities and ambition Dio has. Framing Jolyne, killing people, stealing discs, it is all out of Pucci's agency, long after the death of Dio. He's actually the one who suggested he could store and use Survivor, and he’s the one who asked for it! Dio thought Survivor was useless, that it was only a weakness, and Pucci convinced him with the idea that it could be prove itself useful.

Pucci is shown to have ‘lost’ faith in Christianity very early on, maybe not really having true religious belief at all (as in, the actually believing there’s a God sense.) He got into priesthood for philosophical reasons (seeking answers to an existential question). He seems to be a very pragmatic christian with interests in science that contradicts some of the scripture’s theories.

I don't think calling the plan ‘Heaven’ was a bait based on Pucci's religious beliefs. Over Heaven isn't canon, but it shows Dio having a very Christian mother. He's an intelligent man, born in a very christian time and place, and thought ‘Heaven’ was the name of the kingdom promised to the legitimate ruler of the world, himself. If anything the first time they meet he makes it very clear they're not striving for anything Bible related but for realizing their full potential and finding happiness.

Dio saw very early on that Pucci was not a very faithful catholic, judging by the book he's reading when they meet in the ossuary, and then Pucci commiting crimes even before seeing Dio again (hiring someone to beat up his brother, leaving his brother as dead). He then commits blasphemy by calling him King of Kings and comparing his love to the one he has for God. Pucci does not think of Dio as the christian God, he loves him as he loves God, but he's not blind and misled. He refers to him with proximity terms all throughout the manga (even when he's young), never used honorifics like the henchmen do, calls him 'kimi' (casual/informal ‘you’), 'my close friend'.

Even Dio uses ‘kimi’ instead of the ‘omae’ that shows inferiority that he uses with Vanilla for example. In the way they talk to/about each other, they're protrayed as equals, which once again is very unusual for Dio. All throughout their scenes Dio is shown slightly seductive at first, then not as overtly seducing as he usually is, he’s talking about the plan, and strategy (even though he still maintains physical contact, I mean, it’s still Dio), and then seems to relax progressively by doing activities and chit-chatting, to the point of Dio becoming paranoid that his weakness is known. Yes, Dio was pretty nice and not as big an asshole as usual because he needed someone for the plan, but what did he need? A "friend that he can trust from the bottom of his heart" (信頼できる友), so he tried to make one by not being an asshole, and guess what? He did! And he got scared that he managed to do so, because it's freaking Dio lol. Dio’s life has only been him trying to show dominance, and facing rejection. Heck he was rejected and degraded even when he won that chess game against an adult in the first minutes of the show. But everyone wants friends for a reason! Be it not to be alone, to be loved, to have someone to talk to about certain topics... And we all make efforts and try to be nice to make friends. That's not manipulation that's called not being a dysfunctional piece of shit like Dio usually was shown to be before he met Pucci. Why was he different with Pucci? I'm bringing up the parallel with the Jonathan and Dio scene which really shows that Dio hasn't changed and is acting the way he always has, testing people, he just has never been met with trust and acceptance, only with rejection, unlike what Pucci has done from their first meeting and after :

Scene plays out very similarly at first, except that this time Dio hasn’t done anything wrong, but he was expecting to be betrayed and wasn’t, which led him to get paranoid and set up Pucci so that he’d attack him, which he didn’t. And what did Dio do? Apologize and give him a part of what's literally the most important thing he has, 'his' body.

The fact that Pucci kept his 'sentimentality' towards his friend (I quote), his obsessive affection for Dio, and hope in his plan for such a long time is easily understandable, he had everything to win from Dio's plan (which is very different from nothing to lose, he has quite a lot to lose!). He could be cleansed from his sin, or at least put everyone on his level, be granted the reward of unconditional love, he could grow to a close to godly status or be a messiah carrying god's will (be special, push the boundaries of being human), and maybe, just maybe revive his loved ones too. He could rewrite his destiny at best, and at worst, obtain peace of mind. If anything helping Dio might even have been an excuse for Pucci to lie to himself about his real intentions with this plan (unconsciously : finally accomplishing his destiny of being special over his sibling and basically everyone else, consciously : giving everyone the chance to prepare for tragedy + opening everyone's eyes to the fact that what he did, cause his sister's death, was not really his fault since it was written by fate all along.)

Now if you really have a high esteem of Dio's intelligence you can argue that he did it all on purpose, he gave out his weakness on purpose to mellow Pucci, he called the plan Heaven to cater to Pucci's faith, he talked him into doing crimes, pretended to feel equal/inferior so that Pucci would give him his trust... But 1) Dio's not that good at it, has too big trust issues himself and has other means for submitting people to his will (as seen with Kakyoin, Polnareff...), 2) it's literally written this has to be built on trust which in my opinion completely disqualifies a manipulation aspect to it. Of course there are many other sources that further the idea that they were really friends, I'm thinking about how their relationship is described in interviews or the Jojo Mag, but I wanted this post to focus on canon interpretation.

Thank you for reading my essay, I’m always happy to chat and comment on the dynamics between characters in the material. I am not willing to talk about morality or shipping discourse here so please refrain from sending me such comments.

#jjba #jojos bizarre adventure #pucci #enrico pucci #dio #dio brando #stone ocean #analysis

[sjmgirlie]

I’m sorry. I try not to be rude about people’s ships because well you have fun with what you like and I’m totally okay with that. But the discourse about the Blood Rite and Hybern camp is hilarious.

Of course Cassian was freaking out knowing his mate was in the BR. A completely normal reaction when you have strong feelings/a bond with someone. Did Azriel? No. Was he still furious at the mention that the women he is training are in harms way? Of course??? Contrary to popular believe, Azriel actually exhibits way more protectiveness over the females in his life than any other character in ACOTAR:

Mor - Eris calls her a slut and he literally almost chokes him to death. Always protective of her in Court of Nightmares and around Eris.

Feyre - be careful how you speak about my High Lady. Helps her with flying and other moments.

Nesta - He brought her back from the mask and comforted her in CC3. Was never mean to her in any of the books even when the rest of IC was.

Elain - Hybern, when everyone (including her sisters and mate) thought she was crazy. There’s more.

His mother - Nesta makes a comment about how Az probably has a bad mom and he gets mad.

These are off the top of my head.

I feel like people forget that Az… does not like Illyrians. He literally said in ACOFAS:

“A pointless week of bloodshed” pg 25

“The Illyrians are pieces of shit” pg 67

If it truly came down to it, I’m sure that Azriel would at least argue to break their rules. Just like Cassian did. But Cassian still cares about the Illyrians. Azriel really doesn’t.

The involvement of Nesta and Gwyn is the Blood Rite is not as significant as Emerie’s!!!!!! Emerie is an Illyrian woman. She is the ONLY Illyrian woman to ever win the Rite. THAT is the biggest plot point of the event. Yes, Gwyn and Nesta participating builds on their healing journeys and the Valkyrie, but Emerie winning the Rite initiates what SJM laid out in ACOFAS. Where Cassian and Emerie first met. The layout for a change in Illyrians and the Illyrian women actually training as warriors.

If anyone is going to “fix” the Illyrians, it will be Emerie. Not Gwyn or Nesta. Emerie, the ILLYRIAN women. And Cassian would be who helps potentially. Because he actually cares about the Illyrians regardless of his history. He is the General. Of course he cares.

Now in terms of the rescue of Elain in Hybern, as many have already said, this was a massive risk. Cassian said "We'll get her back", but moved to comfort Nesta. Not only did Az actually notice Elain wasn’t there, but he also specifically said “I'M getting her back” twice (with rage if I might add) even after Nesta specifically said “then you will die”. Az, Feyre and Elain could have died in this rescue attempt too.

What was the point of this kidnapping if not to show he saves her? Tamlin redemption for giving Feyre the wind to fly? Jurian helping Feyre enter the camp? For Feyre to fly? Like maybe but the biggest point was Azriel going to save Elain. Tbh we kind of needed Feyre there to narrate lol. “You came for me” which Feyre says is what she saw in her dream of what the cauldron even lured Elain in by. That Grayson had come for her. He didn’t, it was Azriel.

Do I think if there weren’t the rules for the Rite that Cassian and Azriel would have went to save them? Of course they would have. But they weren’t meant to rescue them.

This was the big moment in all of the healing journeys for the Valkryie. For Emerie, becoming the first Illyrian women to win it. For Gwyn, leaving the library and becoming a true warrior. For Nesta, holding the line and protecting the people she loves like she hasn’t been able to before. THAT is the purpose of the Blood Rite. Not determining if there’s some couples involved. We already know the couple involved. It’s Nessian.

We seriously need to stop diminishing massive moments in the female characters journeys to ships.

#acotar series #eriel #pro eriel

[tlouconfidential]

This is, honestly, kind of a miserable fandom to be in. I've never seen more self-righteousness. Between guilt tripping, "kill yourself if you bought the game", diminishing actual porn addiction and shitting on people who just like to read smut, and people getting aggro about character interpretations they don't like? Every goddamn discourse post I see comes with a healthy side of moral superiority and it makes this shit kinda miserable. You can say you have a right to express your opinion, and you have a right to point out percieved injustice, which you do! But is anyone honestly happy like this? Is this fun anymore? At what point are you just picking fights and shaming people for what's meant to be a fun hobby? What harm is actually being done by reading and writing smut? It reeks of moral puritainism and I honestly block it on sight.

All this to say, can we collectively chill out? Because I'm not having fun anymore and I'm going to call my mom to pick me up if you guys don't learn to play nice.

.

#tlou #the last of us #tlou2 #the last of us confession #tlou hbo

[system-of-a-feather]

Ignoring the discourse, I just wanted to ramble on parts language and our feelings to it as someone who mainly uses it - but honestly "parts" is our preferred term by a long way save for alter when we are talking about things in a more clinical sense.

Personally for us, headmate, sysmate, and similar "roommate" kind of terms actually feel diminishing to the dynamic we have with one another. Headmate and similar terms draw parallels to roommates housemates, aka someone you share a space with - and I totally understand the draw to those terms for those that like to emphasize the individuality of the parts, but personally to call our relationship to one another something similar to people who just share a body / brain / mind / system etc really feels a bit... downplaying the importance we have to one another and the unique dynamic that comes from being parts of a whole.

XIV, Ray, Lucille, Aderis, all the parts in our system feel far more intimate, personal, and tighter bonds than anything like a housemate or a roommate or "someone I am sharing X with" could possibly reach. By nature we all compliment each other and were literally created to support, bolster, accentuate, and cover for one another.

/Separate people in different bodies are not so genuinely and thoroughly made to exist in synergy with one another the same way alters and parts are. Separate people in different bodies, no matter how close and how far back they go, are never going to be as deeply tied with one another the same way parts are / can be - and if they DO - 9/10 times it is likely super codependent and unhealthy where as with alters that tends to be an ideal.

Of course this depends on how you define "separate people" and all so its not a "well I am RIGHT" cause its how we perceive things and the main point in our perception is that to draw parallels to existences of two 'separate people' sharing a space together honestly just... extremely downplays how intrinsically made for one another we are. My relationship with my parts goes deeper than any two people who share a space could ever go because we were literally MADE for one another. It's impossible to compliment me and support me more than the parts in my system because they ARE LITERALLY my other halves.

So headmate and sysmate just.... always feel really downplaying to what we are.

Alters we are okay and chill with, but it honestly feels both sensationalized and very.... artificial for a lack of better words. Using the word "alter" tends to draw my mind to the more fictional media depictions OR solely to minimizing parts to the clinical expression to which it feels a bit dehumanizing - so unless its for convenient shared language or for clinical / just factual references - we tend to prefer parts.

Parts on the other hand really acknowledges just how intrinsically connected and made for one another we are. We really don't think it diminishes our individuality at all (though that might just be because we are decently far in our healing journey that we can simultaneously hold the idea of 'we are parts of a whole' and 'we are valid as individuals with our experiences and can exist and acknowledge ourselves and one another like individuals' very easily together at the same time) or imply anything about us being broken or shattered or anything.

If anything, parts language reminds me that there IS others out there that are there to fill in the gaps in life that I can't do. It reminds me that I am not in this alone and that I'm not SUPPOSED to be in this alone. I am a whole person, but I am not the whole picture and I don't have to try to be the whole picture because one puzzle piece while beautiful on its own - often works many times better when connected with the others.

I dunno, parts language is just a really really positive and healing thing for us. We love it and while we understand it not being for everyone, it means A LOT to us and really nothing negative.

My parts are made FOR me just as I am made FOR my parts. We are literally MADE for one another because we are PARTS of a whole that are MEANT to work with one another and I think that is really beautiful honestly.

#alter: riku #syscourse #syscourse tw #<- even though I dont mean this to be syscourse #I hesitated on posting it cause I dont wanna add more to the discourse cause its dumb shit #but I think it is better to put my thoughts out on it than ya know #not #anyways #parts language #actuallydid #dissociative identity disorder

[dailyanarchistposts]

Four months into the assault on Gaza, the Israeli military has forced over a million refugees to the edge of the Egyptian border and is now bombing them while threatening to mount a ground assault against them. In the following text, Jonathan Pollak, a longtime participant in Anarchists Against the Wall and other anti-colonial solidarity efforts, explains why we should not look to international institutions or protest movements within Israeli society to put a stop to the genocide in Gaza and calls on ordinary people to take action.

A shorter version of this text was rejected by the liberal Israeli platform Haaretz—an indication of the diminishing space for dissent in Palestine and within Israeli society.

Human Rights Discourse Has Failed to Stop the Genocide in Gaza

We are now more than 120 days into the unprecedented Israeli assault on Gaza. Its horrific repercussions and our inability to bring it to an end should compel us to reevaluate our perspective on power, our understanding of it, and, most significantly, what we have to do to fight it.

Amid the spilled blood, the endless days of death and destruction, excruciating dearth, starvation, thirst, and despair, the ceaseless nights of fire and brimstone and white phosphors raining indiscriminately from the sky, we must grapple with the bare ugly facts of reality and reshape our strategies.

The officially reported fatalities—in addition to the many Palestinians who remain buried under the rubble and aren’t yet included in the official count—already amount to the annihilation of nearly 1.5% of all human life in the Gaza Strip. As Israel escalates its attacks on Rafah, it seems that there is no end in sight. Soon, the lives of one in every fifty people in Gaza will have been extinguished.

The Israeli military is inflicting an unprecedented toll of suffering and death on the 2.3 million people of Gaza, surpassing anything ever witnessed in Palestine—or elsewhere during the 21st century. Yet these staggering figures have not penetrated the thick layers of dissociation and disconnect that characterize Israeli society as well as Israel’s Western allies. If anything, the reduction of this tragedy to statistics seems to hinder rather than enhance our understanding. It presents a whole that obscures the specifics: the figures conceal the personhood of the countless individuals who have died painful, particular deaths.

At the same time, the unfathomable scale of the massacre in Gaza makes it impossible to comprehend through the stories of individual victims. Journalists, street cleaners, poets, homemakers, construction workers, mothers, doctors, and children, a multitude too vast to be narrated. We are left with faceless anonymous figures. Among them are more than 12,000 children. Probably a lot more.

Please pause and say this aloud, word by word: over twelve thousand children. Killed. Is there a way for us to take this in and move beyond the realm of statistics to grasp the horrific reality?

The cold blunt numbers also veil hundreds of obliterated families, many of them completely erased—sometimes three, even four generations, wiped off the face of the earth.

Overshadowed by these figures are more than 67,000 people who have been injured, thousands of whom will remain paralyzed for the rest of their lives. The medical system in Gaza has been almost completely destroyed; life-saving amputations are being carried out without anesthetics. The extent to which infrastructure in Gaza has been destroyed surpasses the Dresden bombings at the end of the Second World War. Nearly two million people—roughly 85% of the population of the Gaza Strip—have been displaced, their lives shattered by Israeli bombings as they shelter in the dangerously overcrowded south of the Strip, which the Israeli government falsely pronounced “safe,” yet continues to pummel with hundreds of 2000-pound bombs. The hunger in Gaza, which was created by Israeli state policy even before the war, is so severe that it amounts to famine. In their despair, people have resorted to eating fodder, but now even that is running out.

About a month ago, an acquaintance of mine who fled to Rafah from Gaza City after his home there was bombed told me that he and his family had already been forced to move from one temporary refuge to another six different times in their attempts to escape from the bombs. In despair, he said, “There is no food, no water, nowhere to sleep. We are constantly thirsty, hungry, and wet. I’ve already had to dig my children out from under the rubble twice—once in Gaza and once here in Rafah.”

These rivers of blood must breach the walls of our apathy. If only time could stop long enough for all of us to process our grief. But it will not. It continues passing as more bombs fall on Gaza.

Decades of injustice have paved the way for this. Some 75 years have passed since the Nakba—75 years of Israel’s settler-colonialism—yet its defenders continue to deny the facts. Even after the the International Court of Justice (ICJ) asserted that there is indeed cause to fear that genocide is being committed in Gaza, the US and many of Israel’s other Western allies have effectively remained silent.

Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, called the court’s mere willingness to discuss the case “a disgrace that will not be erased for generations.” Indeed, the ruling is a disgrace. Despite everything being laid bare in plain sight, the court did not order Israel to cease fire. This is a disgrace to the court itself and to the very idea that international law is supposed to protect the lives and rights of those being crushed by the military force of nations.

It will undoubtedly be said that the law, by nature, is meticulous and that it considers the forest not as a whole but as individual trees. To that, we must answer that reality, facts, common sense must be above the law, not beneath it. Israel dedicates considerable resources to a legalism of the battlefield, intended to give cover to its murderous acts. This approach involves carving reality into thin slices of independently legally-approved observations and actions. A military target was present in high-rise X, justifying the deaths of over two dozen uninvolved civilians; apartment tower Y was the home of a Hamas-employed firefighter, legitimizing, according to the principle of proportionality, the decision to wipe out three neighboring families. But this practice cannot turn genocidal water into legitimate wine. This is legal gaslighting that shreds reality to pieces in order to conceal a pattern of indiscriminate mass murder.

If the slaughter of 1.5% of the population in four months is not genocide; if Israel’s acts are not deemed grievous enough for the court to order it to immediately stop the killing, not even in light of open incitement to exterminate Palestinians by prominent Israeli politicians and members of the press, not to mention Israel’s president and Prime Minister; when lack of punishment for such incitements and such acts is accepted rather than branded as genocide in the simplest of terms—then the words we use to describe reality have lost all meaning and we are in dire need of new language beyond the confines of legalese.

Leaving the butcher’s knife in the butcher’s hand—leaving Israel unhindered, unimpeded—means letting the slaughter in Gaza continue. This is the absolute ongoing failure of international law and the institutions entrusted with keeping it.

This failure passes on the responsibility of forcing an end to the ongoing catastrophe, so that it falls on the shoulders of civil society. This ought to compel us to move beyond the empty liberal paradigms of human rights, which have replaced liberation as the dominant discourse in leftist politics.

#Gaza #genocide #human rights #Israel #Palestine #rights #anarchism #resistance #prison abolition #acab #jail #prisoners #autonomy #revolution #community building #practical anarchism #anarchist society #practical #practical anarchy #anarchy #daily posts #communism #anti capitalist #anti capitalism #late stage capitalism #organization #grassroots #grass roots #anarchists #libraries

[hatari-translations]

Matthías on Vikan með Gísla Marteini, 15.12.23

Another translation request I missed: Matthías was on Vikan með Gísla Marteini before Christmas, the other guests being Jón Jósep Snæbjörnsson or Jónsi, who competed in Eurovision on Iceland's behalf both in 2004 and 2012, and actress, screenwriter and director Tinna Hrafnsdóttir. The discussion touched on Palestine and Eurovision boycotts (at this point Matthías would have already been involved in Bashar Murad's Söngvakeppnin entry, but keeping it under wraps), Matthías's shift from the toughest guy around to a soft family man, his current job as a dramaturge for the National Theater, Christmas traditions, and Danish.

I fully translated more of this show than I really should have; it took ages and I should've tried to summarize more of the non-Matthías bits, but there was a lot of Matthías scattered throughout. Oh well. Hope you all enjoy hearing more from him, at least!

During the introductions, Gísli Marteinn says two of the three people on the couch have their names attached to bands they're no longer part of; he'd wanted to say "Jónsi í Svörtum fötum" (referring to Jónsi's old band Í svörtum fötum) and "Matti í Hatara" (Matti from Hatari). Matthías says "Skellur," which we could translate as, "That's rough." Gísli Marteinn affirms that neither would be correct. Jónsi says "What are we even doing these days? Are we doing anything these days?"

Gísli Marteinn mentions that last time Matthías was on the show, he was going to say he's no longer part of Hatari, but then they forgot to talk about it. Matthías goes "Oh yeah, right. That was supposed to be the big news." But Gísli Marteinn says they're all here because of the interesting stuff they're currently working on.

The show moves on to other things for a while, but we pick back up with them later, after a segment where Gísli Marteinn goes through the news of the week and makes jokes about them.

After a bit of banter with Jónsi about how Gísli Marteinn's dad jokes would have gotten him canceled many times over at Jónsi's dinner table (Gísli Marteinn says more dinner tables than his would) and a bit more talk about how they're all doing such exciting things, Gísli Marteinn moves on:

GÍSLI MARTEINN: There's one issue we didn't mention there despite being prominent in the news, and that's that we're watching the horrible actions of the Israeli army in Gaza, and it makes it hard to quite get into the Christmas spirit. And into that comes this discourse about Eurovision, which is unusual but understandable. I mean, we have two Eurovision-goers here--

JÓNSI: Uh oh.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: I mean, in both of your cases there was talk of whether we should boycott. And Matti, you went to Israel. You had a message to Israelis. When you watch this discourse, what do you think?

MATTHÍAS: Well, I think it would be very courageous and good of RÚV to send a clear message. I mean, let's imagine that after the invasion Russia had competed in Eurovision, but Ukraine hadn't. It's a bit like that, from my point of view. Israel is competing but Palestine isn't. I think either there should be a rule that while there's active warfare going on you shouldn't be in this contest that's supposed to be about peace. Or you could pull out more flags, Palestinian flags, and include Palestine. I think that would be a neat thing to call for. But the boycott movement is very important, of course, even though we didn't quite follow it when it was our turn.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Right, they wanted you to boycott.

MATTHÍAS: Yeah. But boycott is a silent action. A bunch of people boycotted the contest when we were competing; people just didn't hear about it because they weren't recorded anywhere. We went a bit of a different route, but that's not to diminish this important movement.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: No. It's a complex matter. Everyone who insists this is simple perhaps doesn't see every side of it.

MATTHÍAS: No, it is complicated. But it's also very simple. I mean, what's happening now in Gaza is just -- I think people don't realize because they're so used to hearing news about this in their ears, the region of Palestine, but this right now is just -- I'm not going to completely kill the Christmas spirit in the show, but this is so much worse than ever before, ever in the history of Palestine. And that's going on right now.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Yeah, absolutely. And I didn't mean to say that that's particularly nuanced - of course that's simple, in itself.

MATTHÍAS: Yeah. But then you get everything else, which is complicated, of course.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Jónsi, even when you went, even though it wasn't the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I remember a call for you to boycott.

JÓNSI: Yeah, there was.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Namely, you went to Baku in Azerbaijan.

JÓNSI: Yes, it was 2012, and I think that was… It's been a while, and I'm sorry, there are probably a lot of people who know a lot more about this than I do because I perhaps tend to just try to forget these kinds of things and do something else. Please excuse me, I'm sorry. How often have I apologized now?

GÍSLI MARTEINN: A lot!

MATTHÍAS: Like he said, there's no wrong thing to say on this show.

JÓNSI: Right, thank God. Wiener dog.

[laughter]

JÓNSI: No, sorry. There was discourse about how there are human rights abuses going on down there, and we became aware, the group that went, me and Greta Salóme and more, that there were people who were asking us to show solidarity in action. And it was very hard, just sort of being between a rock and a hard place. I hadn't been imagining that this was something I would be tackling - aside from the fact I was probably just a privileged dude, being pampered out there. But by finals night, we really felt like we were in a bind. It was weird to be about to compete for our country and make everyone proud, on the one hand, while knowing that there were people who, from the literal safety of their armchairs in Iceland, wanted us to do something different. And it was always a bit unclear exactly what should be done -- you get so many possibilities, and you don't really know how to react because you think it's not going to matter at all what you do, and you're always going to make someone mad. Just like how you can no longer do a good deed and tell anyone about it, because then it's time to tell you off for trumpeting it. You feel like there's no right chess move to make, these days. But nonetheless, I don't want to minimize that there are horrible things happening in Gaza, and it's weird to feel that political angle coming into the music world. But I'm not an expert on it, I admit.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Of course, and you weren't brought here to opine as an expert. But it's necessary to discuss it. And -- Tinna, we were talking before the show about how it's hard, or you feel guilty for being in a good mood, or a Christmas mood.

TINNA: Yeah, it's a different Christmas season than often before, almost like you don't dare to be happy because there's so much going on.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: But you, artists and entertainers, putting on shows and making music and creating TV shows that are meant to delight us -- give us some good message about how we can do both at the same time.

MATTHÍAS: You're commissioning a message from us?

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Yes. You were brought here to be…

MATTHÍAS: You can do both.

JÓNSI: Can't we just make it a message, like kop28 [I'm not sure what he's referencing], we're trying to show you some message that doesn't really mean anything by itself? I do realize that if I breathe here in Iceland, that doesn't really change much in Gaza. But I think we should keep talking about it, but I'm also an advocate for focusing on the good things. We should work from the good that exists in the world, and try to say, isn't the influence of good better down there than not? Maybe it doesn't affect anything, I don't know. But…

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Be joyful, but don't forget about Gaza. Is that the message?

JÓNSI: A good T-shirt.

MATTHÍAS: Yes. If you want the core message, it's that.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: To be joyful but don't forget about Gaza.

MATTHÍAS: Yes, you've got it.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Now we move to other things. Thank you for giving a bit of where your minds are at with all of this. I know it was a heavy beginning, but sometimes that's necessary.

JÓNSI: Yeah, it's necessary. That's quite true.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Should I talk about the clothes of the men on the couch next? You're both wearing Icelandic wadmal.

MATTHÍAS: You bet!

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Is this the latest fashion trend?

MATTHÍAS: I got married in this, this summer, so I just decided to use it.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: It looks great!

TINNA: They specifically asked me to sit in the middle so that they wouldn't be side by side in tweed.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: That would be tacky.

JÓNSI: My friend Gunni at [clothing store] Kormákur og Skjöldur is very happy with us both, no doubt. But he doesn't realize how ridiculously warm it is under this, and we had a heavy discussion earlier, and they had to make up my ears twice so they wouldn't get red, and it's all just firing up now.

They move on to talking with Tinna about her new TV series Heima er best, which they compare to sort of an Icelandic Succession, which was just nominated for the Nordic scriptwriting awards, and then about when Jónsi and Tinna co-starred in Grease and then in Ávaxtakarfan ("The Fruit Basket", an Icelandic children's musical about bullying featuring anthropomorphic fruit). To stay sane after writing up all this I won't translate this whole section since Matthías doesn't have much to say in it, although he does express surprise that they had theatrical productions during the summer (Grease was an indie production that just kind of rented the City Theater over the summer).

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Speaking of your former lives and such… Matti, when you went to Eurovision and were Matti the Hater [Hatari], I would have said you were just about the coolest, toughest guy in the country. Then fifteen minutes later you're on your knees at Sky Lagoon proposing to your wife and had become so soft and tender and beautiful and in love, and now you've got a kid and another on the way.

MATTHÍAS: Exactly.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Was Matti from Hatari all fake, or did you just change that much?

MATTHÍAS: Mmm, I've always been soft. The other stuff is a bit of a costume. But of course it softens you when you're in love, and softens you more when you love your child. So maybe that's the Christmas message you were looking for.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: I knew you had one in there!

MATTHÍAS: No, definitely. I was on my way home from work earlier and my sister-in-law who was babysitting called me and said, "Sóley has pooped everywhere!", and I found it to be good news, because I like hearing news of my daughter but also, "everywhere" means some of it went in the potty, so I was kind of just, "Score!" to hear that message. It changes a bit… You've got new and exciting stuff to deal with. It's wonderful. And I'm looking forward to having two. It'll be… Two girls!

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Oh?

MATTHÍAS: Yeah, it's a girl.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: I can recommend having two girls!

TINNA: I'm lucky to have two - twins. Two for one in my case.

MATTHÍAS: So you were quick.

TINNA: Just finish it all in one.

JÓNSI: In one evening, or?

TINNA: One evening! All in one, one evening.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: How old are your twins?

TINNA: They're eleven. And when I told them I was going to sit on a couch with the Hatari guy, they were like, "Wow, Mom!"

GÍSLI MARTEINN: If you've got twins, is the hardest part over, or is it only over when they're about thirty?

JÓNSI: Good question.

TINNA: I'm actually very lucky. They're very good friends and mesh together well, so it's gone pretty well for us. But then you never know what the teenage years will be like.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Right. We're making our way there.

TINNA: We're making our way there.

JÓNSI: But doesn't that make you alone against them, and then there's two of them?

TINNA: There are some plots going on that I don't quite know about, but I try to keep up the radar.

JÓNSI: A lie detector.

TINNA: Yes, and a lie detector and everything. They're watching me right now; they're probably going "Oh my God, Mom, don't talk about us!"

MATTHÍAS: And do you use these plots to write your scripts?

TINNA: Oh, yes, definitely.

JÓNSI: I also… How old are they?

TINNA: Eleven.

JÓNSI: What are their names again?

TINNA: Starkaður Máni and Jökull Þór.

JÓNSI: I'm going to look into camera two: Starkaður Máni and Jökull Þór, if you aren't good until Christmas, Matti from Hatari and Immi the Pineapple [Jónsi's character in Ávaxtakarfan, the tyrannical villain] are coming to your house.

[laughter]

MATTHÍAS: Correct.

They go to commercials. When we return to the show, Jónsi has brought out a guitar and is enthusiastically leading the audience in singing Christmas songs.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Jónsi formerly of Í svörtum fötum decided to keep everyone pumped while we went to commercials -- while capitalism took its share, since you didn't manage to bring it to its knees, dear Matti.

MATTHÍAS: The boys are working on it.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: The boys are working on bringing capitalism to its knees.

They talk about Jónsi and his wild success as a pop star in the early 2000s and how now he works for a financial corporation. He describes how fame and being surrounded by people who worship you almost regardless of what you do just kind of isn't healthy and he had just become kind of a dickhead, and he withdrew from it all to get away from it.

MATTHÍAS: But Gísli, you're one of those exceptions. You've been famous for a long time but you're not a dickhead. [He says a few more words that I can't make out over the laughter.]

GÍSLI MARTEINN: That's the best compliment I've ever gotten! Thanks, Matti, I'm grateful you say that. But back to you, you said earlier you were on your way home from work. Where do you work?

MATTHÍAS: The National Theater!

GÍSLI MARTEINN: I mean, you aren't Matti from Hatari anymore.

MATTHÍAS: No, I'm Matti from the National Theater!

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Matti from the National Theater! Who doesn't know Matti from the National Theater?

MATTHÍAS: Hopefully more people know now!

GÍSLI MARTEINN: We know you had become a playwright. You wrote award-winning plays. And theater is just your muse right now?

MATTHÍAS: It seems to be that way. The urge to write is still strong in me, and I'll probably keep doing that.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Don't you have the title of dramaturge, which nobody knows what that is, except Tinna?

MATTHÍAS: The chosen few know.

JÓNSI: Can we know what it is?

MATTHÍAS: Those of us who know what it is recognize each other.

JÓNSI: And no one says anything.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: A secret society!

MATTHÍAS: No, it's translated as 'listrænn ráðunautur' ["Artistic advisor"] for the National Theater, and of course it's the best job in the world. You get to read plays, watch them, your job is to have opinions on theater, talk about theater. You're part of a book club called the project choice committee of the National Theater, and you're in contact with all the directors, and reading scripts that Icelandic playwrights entrust to the National Theater, which is a big responsibility for me because I've been on the other side there.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Is this your dream job?

MATTHÍAS: It's -- of everything that exists that is a job, this is the best one.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Very good!

MATTHÍAS: Because the other stuff that I'd want to do even more doesn't exist as a job. It's just freelance. But this is perfect.

They turn to Tinna to talk about her project directing a drama series about Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, former president of Iceland. Matthías mentions he's excited about it and that they compared it to The Crown during the break and that really piqued his interest.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: And speaking of our heritage, you're doing the Edda [Snorra-Edda, the most comprehensive source about the old Norse religion, written in the 1200s] at the National Theater, right?

MATTHÍAS: Yes, I'm working on that as a dramaturge, and it's very exciting.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: It's your Christmas show, right?

MATTHÍAS: The National Theater's Christmas show.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: The Edda in its entirety?

MATTHÍAS: Yes, it's very comprehensive. But it's full of unexpected little twists for those of us who know these stories -- the myths, Thor, Loki, Óðinn and all that. Or for those who don't know and want to get to know their heritage, you're also welcome. But everyone who liked Njála [Brennu-Njáls saga, one of the Sagas of Icelanders written between ~1200-1350 CE] at the City Theater, if you saw that, this is the same director, Þorleifur [Örn Arnarsson]. That was one of the coolest shows I've ever seen, so this should be something.

They move on to a Berglind Festival (comedian) bit about rebranding Christmas. When we return to the studio, she has joined the couch, everyone is wearing sunglasses, and they're each doing some kind of little dance to the Christmas song remix still playing in the background. Matthías says, "You have to warn us if we're going to dance on the show." Gísli Marteinn says, "I didn't see you, did you look like dorks?" Matthías: "I don't know."

GÍSLI MARTEINN: So if we keep to the traditional Christmas, Christmas is next weekend. Do you have any bizarre Christmas traditions, or are you very standard about it?

MATTHÍAS: Speaking of rebranding, my dad… At the Ban Thai restaurant downtown, there's a course called [kung hansa?] [I looked up their menu to try to find out what the correct spelling is but unfortunately the online menu had no name similar to that], a shrimp course, and we find it Christmasy. We often have it as a starter on Christmas.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: On Christmas Eve? [Christmas Eve is the height of the Christmas celebration in Iceland.]

MATTHÍAS: Yes.

BERGLIND: So do you put an almond in the rice? [She's referring to the Icelandic Christmas tradition of making rice pudding and putting a single almond in it, often as a starter; whoever gets the almond in their bowl should try to discreetly remove it and then keep it hidden until the end of the course. If they do it successfully without being spotted, they will receive a special 'almond gift'.]

MATTHÍAS: Uh, no.

BERGLIND: Okay, lame.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: So do you just go to Tómas at Ban Thai and buy it, or do you cook it at home?

MATTHÍAS: We buy it at Ban Thai.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Wow, well done! How did that start?

MATTHÍAS: We were just at Ban Thai celebrating some milestone, as we do, and then someone said it was kind of a Christmasy taste.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Very good. Tinna, that's a hard act to follow.

TINNA: I will try my best. We have very firm traditions and always go to my mom on Christmas Eve and eat Danish duck, speaking of Danish Christmas earlier. It's an old family tradition, and we have the Christmas pudding and an almond gift and so on.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Is Danish duck getting imported?

TINNA: My mom has some secret ways of procuring Danish duck, I'm not going to get into that. In previous years we would sometimes sing afterwards, "Og nu har vi jul igen, og nu har vi jul igen, og julen varer helt til påske." [Danish: "And now we have Christmas again, and now we have Christmas again, and Christmas lasts all the way until Easter."] Do you know it?

GÍSLI MARTEINN: No!

TINNA: It's some Danish song. I love the lyrics - og julen varer helt til påske.

JÓNSI: I said that at the start of the show.

TINNA: Wouldn't that be great, just having Christmas all the way until Easter?

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Christmas until Easter, definitely!

MATTHÍAS: Now you, and earlier there were some people in the audience talking about flødeskum [whipped cream], and you [Gísli] earlier with leverpostej [Danish liver pâté] -- do people generally just speak Danish--

JÓNSI: Danish is taking us over.

MATTHÍAS: --at least at Christmas?

GÍSLI MARTEINN: Don't we? I mean, it's all Danish traditions we have here.

MATTHÍAS: It sounds great, at least.

GÍSLI MARTEINN: It sounds great. Jónsi, the pressure is on.

JÓNSI: Så man sidder i sin festlige måde [Danish: "So you sit in your festive manner…"]… No, definitely not.

He talks about his workplace's tradition where they eat as much as they can and simply decide not to gain any weight by sending a message to the cosmos; Matthías doesn't comment further from here.

#matthías tryggvi haraldsson #interview #translation #vikan með gísla marteini

[queerfandomtrifecta]

I’m late to the Hazbin Hotel stuff, but I’ve binged it a few times recently and just have to say that I’ve never seen an abusive relationship that looked so much like mine portrayed so correctly (as in both accurately and in being completely condemned by the narrative) as Angel and Valentino.

I’ve seen a little of the discourse on this and I’m gonna add my thoughts under the cut.

Gonna start by saying 1. I was lucky enough to get out of my eight-year long abuse/DV situation in 2019 and I’m safe and okay now 2. I know everyone’s experience is different and I’m specifically talking about my experience of being in a long-term abusive situation and don’t mean to diminish anyone who’s experience with SA/DV was different than mine and 3. this is all high praise for what the show did, because it may not sound like it at first because it is legitimately hard for me to watch, especially the first time through.

I’ve realized I’m probably rambling out of order at this point and I apologize to anyone who’s chosen to read these words I just had to shout into the tumblr void but oh well.

Yes, I read the trigger warning at the beginning of e4. I braced myself because that one is typically fine with a heads up for me, but I still wasn’t prepared. I barely made it through that first watch because it didn’t warn about the DV tied to the SA. I’d already barely made it through the scene in e2 where Angel Dust is listening to voicemails from Valentino because jfc it’s so painfully accurate. I heard some of that stuff verbatim from my abuser. Word for word exactly the same.

The other part that’s accurate is how self-destructive Angel is as a coping mechanism and his reasons why. “If I end up broken, maybe I won’t be his favorite toy anymore. And maybe he’ll let me go.” It’s. So. Accurate. To my experience at least, which is one that looked a lot like their whole relationship.

“Loser Baby” is absolutely fine with me. Because again, it’s so accurate. Having someone sit with you and say “hey, I clearly see that you’re not being treated right no matter how hard you try and fake things, and that you’re at rock bottom and not doing good things with the ways you’re dealing with that, and I’m here for you anyway” is what pushed me to finally leave. My now-best friend who at the time was my co-worker who’d just been hired a few months prior is the one who said it to me. He saved my life in more ways than one and I’m forever grateful for it. I’ve read a few things saying the song was calling Angel a loser in a victim blaming way, and that’s not how I took it at all. Admitting how much things suck, saying that aloud, including the ways I’d changed for the worse was crucial for me in the process of leaving and trying to heal afterwards.

“Poison” wasn’t even the part that was difficult to watch for me, even though those scenes are (mostly) what earned e4 the trigger warning at the opening. But the lyrics hit me hard. “My story’s gonna end with me dead from your poison.” I lived this for years. I can’t overstate how much this was the reality of my experience. I thought that was how things would end up for me. I didn’t think I’d have a way out from this person who was both hurting me and making me the absolute worst version of myself possible. I was so sure I’ve of those two things would eventually be the end of my story. I’m very very lucky it wasn’t and I’m grateful for the resources I had that let me leave when I could.

This was a whole lot of rambling to really just say I’ve never felt so seen and respected by the representation of abuse in a piece of media. Maybe it’s because I’m coming off feeling weird about things in OFMD2 and withholding saying any on that because reasons. But I can definitely weigh in accurately in the abuse plot line in Hazbin and it’s all praise from me. Would I have avoided watching it if I’d have known how big of a plot line that would be? Yes, probably. I would’ve at least read spoilers ahead of time to try and gauge it. I nearly stopped it a few times because I wasn’t expecting it to be so painfully close to my own experience and shown so blatantly instead of being implied off-screen.

But am I glad I watched it? Absolutely. Mostly because the narrative so clearly frames everything as capital-b Bad. And I’m grateful they showed what they did how they did, and even more grateful and that the narrative (which is specifically working with a major, prominent, surface-level text theme of redemption/redeem-ability) frames Valentino as an irredeemable villain for his role as the abuser, while also giving Angel Dust three-dimensions in his own flaws that he’s responsible for. It’s done flawlessly imo. And I’m glad I watched it, even though it was hard.

#hazbin hotel #hazbin analysis #hazbin angel dust #angel dust #hazbin valentino #valentino #cw abuse

[tempfolder]

Revisiting “Dune”

Following the release of “Dune 2” in theaters, and the echoes of the surrounding discourse, I started to wonder whether I missed something in my original readings of the Dune novel. The messianic aspects of the novel’s ending were described differently from what I remembered. I decided it’s time for a re-read with a focus on that theme. I came away with a better understanding of the novel, but a diminished view on the story of Dune.

A Questionable Ending

My previous understanding was that Paul managed through his use of prescience to avoid the galactic jihad in his name that he was so worried about throughout the book. The whole point of marrying the daughter of the Emperor was to allow transition of power without a full blown war. That was the elegant gambit, the narrow path he managed to take through the future possibilities of his visions. I was surprised when at the very end of the film, Paul, disappointed with the response of the Great Houses to his ascendancy, sends out his troops to conquer space, initiating the holy war.

I thought that mostly this was “Dune Messiah” leaking into the main story. To be clear, I don’t care for any of the Dune sequels. I never read them, nor do I intend to - the original novel was obviously written to be a complete work. I treat the extrapolations added to the Dune universe in the sequels as only marginally relevant to the reading of the original text. But was this plot point present in the “Dune” novel itself?

On re-reading, the book seems to match the interpretation of the film. This thread is central to the narrative yet it is resolved somewhat ambiguously, so I’m not surprised I missed it earlier. Before the climactic battle with Feyd Rautha, Paul muses:

And Paul saw how futile were any efforts of his to change any smallest bit of this. He had thought to oppose the jihad within himself, but the jihad would be. His legions would rage out from Arrakis even without him. They needed only the legend he already had become. He had shown them the way, given them mastery even over the Guild which must have the spice to exist. A sense of failure pervaded him [...] This is the climax, Paul thought. From here, the future will open, the clouds part onto a kind of glory. And if I die here, they’ll say I sacrificed myself that my spirit might lead them. And if I live, they’ll say nothing can oppose Muad’Dib.

Yet just after the battle, he says to Chani:

That woman over there will be my wife and you but a concubine because this is a political thing and we must weld peace out of this moment, enlist the Great Houses of the Landsraad.

I guess that last excerpt was a hope and the first was a prophecy.

However, this seems to leave us with a lesser book, a weaker story. What was the point if all the efforts were indeed futile? What do we learn if all the powers of Muad’dib don’t help him resolve his dilemma? 

A True Messiah

Dune has Paul coded throughout as more than just a Hero. All the narrative hallmarks are there. Paul is a young prince of an ethically noble family avenging his father through the use of his unique genetics. He is physically and mentally top-of-the-line. He has Special Powers: The Voice, Mentat capabilities, Prescience. He intuitively wears his stillsuit perfectly; he calls up the biggest maker with his thumper; he can process the poison of the Water of Life; et cetera, et cetera. The novel goes out of its way to mark Paul as truly special. He is not an impostor who survives by tricking the local superstitious populace into crowning him - he is an honest-to-god miracle prophet. If Arrakis had water, the novel would find a way for Paul to walk on it. Lisan al-Gaib!

Why have him aware, almost from the get-go, of his “terrible purpose” and still have him eventually fail? Why set up a Messiah but end up with failure?

Perhaps the intent was to contrast the Hero-led Fremen with the eco-aware Fremen? Their long-term terraforming project abandoned in favor of universal conquest? Liet’s father explicitly mentions this (“No more terrible disaster could befall your people than for them to fall into the hands of a Hero”). If that was the point, why have Paul promise to have flowing water on Arrakis with his ascendancy? That would mean the Fremen rightly chose the faster path to achieve the same terraforming result.

Perhaps the intent was to show the damage that can be done by messianic figures? Yet Paul is not a messianic figure, he is an actual messiah. There is rich critique to be made of the madness of the crowds in the face of a false prophet; much less so in the face of a true one.

Perhaps the idea was to show that even the most justified revenge path leads even the most noble to universal murder? Yet Paul is not Hamlet, he is not mad with revenge, nor does it cause him to make tragic mistakes. Revenge is just one of several motivators. Paul seems more aligned with Fremen liberation and the prevention of the jihad than with kanly (with Gurney serving as contrast in that aspect).

Had the ending suggested that the jihad was averted, with Paul successfully threading the political and military needle to ascend to the throne, it would have made a simpler, but better novel. Its payoff would have matched its set-up. It would have made Paul’s powers meaningful and his sacrifices worth it - his dead firstborn, his brush with death in the Water of Life, his Chani who remains forever a concubine. After all, if War isn’t averted, why bother with the political marriage? 

The Appeal

I want to make a digression and ask: why do we like Dune? 

After all, most of the characters aren’t particularly likable (*cough* Paul *cough*). The high-level arc isn’t particularly exciting, both in the optimistic reading (white savior leads oriental warriors to avenge father) and in the pessimistic one (white savior leads oriental warriors to break colonial yoke and unleash jihad). And there’s all that awful poetry.

So why so loved? I think, in large part, due to the apparent complexity of “Dune” (the novel). The complexity is there to provide the reader with a satisfying feeling of touching a rich world. It is a hill to climb, a challenge to overcome, gradually figuring out what’s going on, rewarded with understanding through effort.

The apparent complexity is present on multiple levels, beginning with the very liberal seasoning of the text with neologisms, with words and terms on loan from other languages. It’s there in the heavy dosage of intrigue, of feints within feints within feints. It’s there in the annotated dialogues where every half said or unsaid word conveys deep meaning to all-insightful participants. It’s in the half-familiar half-alien symbolism and mysticism of the Bene Gesserit and the Fremen.

Just as the text itself is intentionally complex, the world it describes is intentionally simplified. The universe of Dune is rich but small. Yes, it spans tens of thousands of years and thousands of planets, but it feels like the Holy Roman Empire. The mere suggestion that desert people can become conquerors of the galaxy just because they’re used to fighting for moisture is an indicator of how simple this universe is. Of course the Empire is feudal and archaic. Of course the skies of Arrakis are empty. Of course the shields force them to use knives. Of course there are no computers. The in-universe reasons aren’t important; there would simply be no novel otherwise. It also looks much cooler this way.

Which is also my larger point: a lot of Dune’s complexity is only apparent. It’s complexity for spectacle’s sake much more than it is necessary. Using the Hebrew “Kwisatz Haderach” is a lot cooler for the English reader than the literal “shortening of the way” that it stands for. A complex intrigue where you give Leto Arrakis just to betray him and give it back to the Harkonnens sounds cool, but always puzzles when you think about it too much. The best example of something that is visually striking but doesn’t weigh much upon scrutiny is the Gom Jabbar test.

A Bigger Gom Jabbar

Really, impressive scene. The box, the needle, the pain, the Voice. Iconic. Is it a profound test though? Big dilemma you gave Paul here, Reverend Mother, either suffer pain or die. Is this insightful? It wasn’t even a “hidden” test where the subject was supposed to reject the false binary option given to him by the Reverend Mother. No. Pain or Die. You decided not to die? Human after all!

If you squint a little, you can see a similarity between the showy complexity of the essentially hollow Gom Jabbar, and Paul’s meandering resistance against the tide of the jihad. Something that is superficially both complex and cool, but on deeper inspection doesn’t bear much weight as a story. If Paul’s dilemma was to either perish in the desert or to manifest as the messiah and suffer the moral pain of a billion deaths in the universal jihad – well, not a big dilemma is it? On closer reading of the novel it turns out there wasn’t even a “hidden” option that rejects this false binary.

Was there? The open question I ask myself is - was there something that Paul could have done to avoid the jihad? Was there a choice? Some pivotal point where it’s clear that Paul made a mistake? If there was, it sure is hidden well. If there wasn't, then Dune is a lesser story. It’s a lot of cool prose, but it’s a lesser story than I thought.

#Dune #Gom Jabbar #Arrakis #muaddib #lisan al gaib

[yuri-for-businesswomen]

i feel like the premise of cheerleading is dystopian bc it's literally abt cheering men on. Like why cant women just do incredibly impressive gymnastics/sports without the skimpy outfits etc. thats what the og post was saying too like talent and skill devoted to men giving each other concussions IS sad. a sport where the trademark of its athletes is being physically attractive in revealing clothes and immaculate makeup instead of literally anything else IS dystopian

the og post did not talk about skill and talent at all? she said no cheerleader has selfesteem and all they do is look pretty.

they are called cheerleaders because they are leading the cheer, they are meant to entice the audience, who are also cheering. in my opinion they could do so in mixed teams with no makeup and less revealing clothes.

but you are the ones reducing it to „looking pretty“ lmao. cheerleaders are athletes, gymnasts, dancers, with choreographies who do pyramids. other sports also have extremely revealing outfits for women. have you ever seen gymnasts? or what they have to wear in volleyball? when i watched the soccer world cup, i was surprised to see almost all the women wearing makeup - and its not even required.

my issue was not with criticism of cheerleading but with what you are also doing here: no nuance, no open mind, you already have made up your mind that cheerleaders are only there for men and to look pretty. that is not discourse that is just hating on a group of women and diminishing their accomplishments.

i dont like the makeup, but the outfits are not any more revealing than those of regular gymnasts. this is a general issue in sports and not just cheerleading.

this is russian gymnast elena kokareva in 2006 at 15 years old:

#ask

[sorryiwasasleep]

Because i hate myself (actually cause I saw a bumper sticker today that made me scream in pure rage) (and also cause like… because i need to be armed to the teeth with knowledge and facts because conservative right-wing family members love to parrot bullshit propaganda when not just being outright bigots🙄) I decided to take a read through the entire Wikipedia page concerning Trump’s 2024 run (and then I looked at his actual campaign website cause I hate myself more and wanted to see some of his actual rhetoric that was mentioned but not quoted) and it’s just like…

He fucking wants to appoint himself as god-king (wants to expand power of the executive (diminishing the separation of powers), turn govt civil employees status to ‘at will’ for firing, and to impose congressional term limits while also abolishing his own) and “root out” the “vermin” in this country (literal rhetoric he has used) and with this Court it probably won’t just go unchecked, but like I’m afraid it could be affirmatively endorsed using principles of originalism and ‘history and tradition’ (whose fucking version of history???? Huh???? Because it certainly wasn’t fucking mine when you overturned Roe in Dobbs) but in the fast and loose way that they like to, where sometimes they want to be textualist and sometimes they don’t.

Assuming he tries, I do think expansion of the executive might not get support from some of the conservative justices under principles of federalism which is— wrong math, right answer. But they 100% would justify his white Christian supremacist alloamatocisheteronormative patriarchal policies under originalism and ‘history and tradition’. As if letting the past guide the future isn’t a fucking BATSHIT thing to do. We learn the past to do BETTER in the future, not to fucking EMULATE it and use their standards to STAGNANT the lives of real people. EVEN THE FUCKING DRAFTERS OF THE GODDAMN CONSTITUTION KNEW THAT IN FUCKING 1787 SO WHY THE FUCK ARE WE STILL DOING THIS SHIT! But I digress from my originalism rant because this is a Presidential Campaign rant.

Like Trump literally said he wants to (and WILL BE) a dictator.

“He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’. I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”

“Baker today in the New York Times said that I want to be a dictator. I didn’t say that. I said I want to be a dictator for one day.”

*insert regina george* so you agree? You want to be a dictator? Pretty sure being one for “one day” is called establishing the dictatorship and suuure Jan im sure that it’ll stay limited in scope to the borders and drilling (as if that would fucking make it okay???) 🙄

And then the option on the ‘opposing’ side is Joe Biden, who, chief among his many faults, is aiding and supporting a genocide. The fact that he has no competition in primaries (literally only one other person is even trying) and will end up being the Democratic candidate has me so incensed and the fact that Joseph Biden is fucking painted as the ‘radical left’ by opposition is both objectively hilarious and just horrifying and dangerously (and probably intentionally) misleading so as to continue the shift of whatever “middle” exists to actually be further and further right wing.

There is not really a larger point here and I’m super not looking for discourse but if anyone is gonna try anyway— don’t bother me without a source.

Anyway I’m just fucking tired and fuck the electoral college and the fact that one of these two ancient men winning seems inevitable

#us govt #In case it’s not clear #I’m a leftist #us politics #usa #America #american politics #2024 elections #2024 presidential election #Donald trump #Joe Biden #potus #Supreme Court #FUCK ORIGINALISM #ALL MY HOMIES HATE ORIGINALISM #originalism #seriously i am not looking to debate you #you will not change my mind unless you have facts grounded in reality with a reasonable basis #trump #Biden #Fuck the electoral college #all my homies hate the electoral college #abolish the electoral college #let THE PEOPLE fucking decide #politics #leftist #political rant #rant about politics #rant #rant post

[noa-ciharu]

Whenever I see aro/ace discourses and whether they belong in LGBTQ+ spaces, my initial thought is always the same:

Who are you to decide?

What none tells you about being on aromantic and/or asexual spectrum is how isolating it is. You feel lonely. And it's constant. Lonliness because of identity isn't always overwhelming, but it's present somewhere deep down. You feel lonely not because of lack of sexual/romantic attraction but because of society and amatonormativity.

When I was in elementary school, all my friends had crushes. I never understood that because even if I liked someone, it was always in platonic way. They insisted I couldn't possibly not like anyone and I felt forced to fake a crush. In middle school people started dating each other and I comforted myself with "I'm too young for that, time will come". By the high school I already knew something was "wrong" with me, I wasn't like the others. People began having sex not because they were expected to do that but because they actually wanted to. That was such shock to me, I thought media was exaggerating with passion and attraction but apparently all those things happen irl too. Hence I realized I was "the weird one". I forced myself to have same experiences but it felt more like obligation to me than something I trully wanted. I felt dirty after being touched, it repulsed me. I felt like something is broken within me for not enjoying sex. I could never fall in love. People called me coldhearted, they thought something was wrong with me. Few therapist tried to "fix" me, even set me up on dates. I internalized all of that and began seeing myself as "not normal".

Now that I'm older and know there's nothing wrong with me or being aroace, I still can't shake years and years of "I'm not normal" I experienced. It still haunts me. I hear someone talking about their sexual experiences and part of me still feels "not normal" when seeing how "normal" people live. I feel lonely. Parents insist I must find a partner one day. They don't believe i don't experience romantic attraction towards other people. Outside of aspec communities online, I don't experience any support. When I step outside, I still feel like something is wrong with me. Intentionally or not, society still makes me feel like an outsider. It's because of amatonormativity that roots too deep.

There's nothing wrong with people being romantic or sexual, far from that - but vast majority of cishet folks out there expect me to act same as them. Mere thought of someone looking at me as sexual being makes me cringe. I never felt romantic attraction towards anyone. I don't want to be in a relationship - I'm different from the "rest". It's lonely. Felling of isolation became association to me as part of identity. I don't even form closer platonic bonds because inevitable question of my romantic/sex life would inevitably come. For the longest time I felt like I needed to censor that part of myself. I assimilate with surroundings and hope noone finds out my "little secret".

If we as society educated kids more about LGBTQ+ stuff, then maybe this chronic feeling of isolation in aspec communities would diminish in few generations. However what I can say is that from very early age I experienced romantic/sexual attraction very different from what is considered "standard" - and that is why I relate to LGBT experiences innumerous times more than I will to "standard' heterosexual heteroromantic ones.

So stranger on the internet, who are you to swept all my complicated feelings and experiences regarding sexuality under rug because they can't fit in your narrow definition of how romantic and sexual attraction should be.

#a mini rant #lgbt+ #aromantic #asexual #asexuality #aegosexual #aroace #society as a whole is very amatonormative and i wish people outside aro/ace spectrum understood that too #all our lives would be easier #amatonormativity

[t4tails]

idk to be clear I agree with you and I hate the idea of like. being someone who sends anything close to "anon hate" but like. I also get if you don't want to answer this since one anon often opens the floodgates to more. But like- I agree with you but I also think, as another transmasc, there is a unique position you're put in as between both states that,,, makes me understand why people want a new word??? I don't think calling it transphobia is wrong, but like I do wish there was sometimes a shorthand for some of the specific ways I've been isolated from femininity but also not "a real man" that have to do with being transmasc. I am going to be thinking over your post for a long while bc I think it is really smart and makes me think abt the way trans men are impacted by misogyny and transphobia, but like. it is a unique way of being affected by both I think?? It feels sometimes like lumping that into a blanket category of transphobia diminishes the nuances of transmasc identity. then again, the kind of ppl who use transandrophobia tend to be lame fucking transmisogynists so like I will gladly be on the side of just calling it transphobia if it means not playing directly into transmisogyny and, half the time, just full out misogyny since their attitude towards women as a whole reveals itself pretty quickly.

i guess my problem is just WHY do we need a new word? transmisogyny is something tangible that has specific situations in regards to it. transandrophobia does not have those. notice that all the examples i gave wrt trans mens experiences with transphobia and misogyny are not unique. we dont really have any specific scenarios. the closest they ever get to being interconnected experiences is being misgendered which leads into misogyny. a new word would just divide us from our allies in these situations - other trans people experience the misgendering. women in general (both trans and cis) experience the policing of bodies, not being taken seriously, etc. id be more open to a new word if you could name a specific instance of trans men as a group experiencing something unique (that isnt just all of these instances put together lol. obviously different experiences added together creates a unique group, thats why the idea of trans men exists in the first place, but continuing with my transmisogyny false parallel, trans fems can typically point out times they have been subject to specifically misogyny, not being taken seriously due to presenting as a woman etc, transphobia, not being accepted by others like parents etc, AND transmisogyny, see discourse around "traps" etc. obvs ima trans man so if any trans women want to chime in here explaining what i mean thatd be great)

#og post #ask #anon #i do kind of feel like i just dropped a discourse bomb on my blog so thanks for being polite LOL

[beautifulpersonpeach]

why do you think jikook are always alleged to having no backbones? army seem to always think the other 5 members can stand on their own and defend themselves but somehow with jikook there are rhetorics going around that they're puppets of hybe/bang pd or they're company favourites. jikook as individuals are so sure of what they want and who they are though although of course when you work in a company, there will always be trade-offs but that doesn't mean you lose your autonomy. they just really seem like the people who are adamant in living in their own terms. they're just always portrayed as the victims and it's not only solos who spread these - even "OT7" say these things.

***

It's a real shame how people victimize both Jimin and Jungkook. Seven and Golden is because JK is a 'blank slate empty vessel' who has no real spine to refuse carrying out the evil overlord's orders, and Jimin is either a helpless doormat who cannot advocate for himself or the long-suffering principled artist who has chosen not to debase himself for THH playlisting on Spotify even though it's something he rightfully deserves. For both members their careers are happening to them and their own responsibility for their actions is diminished. That's the insidious thing about all the -isms and -ions people like to throw about during fandom 'discourse'. It's that the real life examples of a person infantilizing their grown male faves, victimizing them, otherwise writing up conspiracy theories and peddling fan fiction... these examples never register for the people who most need to see it because they're already sucked in. It doesn't matter how much discourse they participate in, they're already over-invested and are themselves engaging in the -isms and -ions. Regardless of whatever they call themselves, whether or not they even think they're in the fandom, once they're sucked in everything they perceive is twisted and twisted in predictably the same ways. That's what I've observed.

Like I said, a real shame.

#quick asks #jimin #jungkook #jikook

[rf-times]

Hi, the following is a comment from a discourse about how the negative traits of women in media are frequently sanitized or how their flaws are blamed on the sexism of male writers(or blaming it on other male characters) instead of giving them accountability for their actions, by the female viewers/fans. (Sorry it's a bit long and you don't have to answer if you don't want to:))

"Women are not intrinsically good, there’s a novel called Madame Bovary (that is considered one of the best feminist novels of all times) written by Gustave Flaubert (yes, a man), whose lead character is a woman who’s deeply frustrated with her life (spoiler):

She hates her husband, the church, her child, her gender (and what it implies in society) and seeks to have various affairs. She resents her life so much so, that she ends up committing suicide.

Truth be told, the author did not write her to be liked, but to be an example of what happens to young girls who don’t align with society, and yet, Madame Bovary surpassed the initial role it had: she became a memoir of women’s frustrations, of women’s lengths to cruelty (it’s -for what I can remember-, described how Madame Bovary takes pleasure in mistreating her husband, who she hates for his lack of ambition and pride) and how a woman tries to fight an oppressive system.

Madame Bovary, flawed and full of resentfulness that eats her from the inside out, fights against the patriarchal system in an impactful way that make her a unique protagonist.

The idea that women need to be always kind perpetuates the belief that, because of our well-spirited nature, we need protection -either physical or mental, and as consequence, our harmful actions shall receive no punishment.

We aren’t fighting against the patriarchal belief, but we are twisting it to our benefit.

Furthermore, excusing a women's bad behavior or diminishing the negative impact that it has on others is to be condescending of a woman’s capacity to cruelty, which is (behold!) a patriarchal belief.

If readers do not allow female characters to face the consequences of their own actions, choosing instead to blame another (male) character or the (male) author, then they are denying the female characters their agency. If we don’t hold her accountable for such actions, then we strip female characters of actual decision-making: therefore, it’s not about women making their own choices (they aren’t given free will) but forcing them to follow the path we want for them. It’s still controlling the female characters to “protect” them.

In that sense, if women can’t be responsible for their decisions, then women can’t be put in positions of power, since those spaces demand whoever occupies them to be responsible for their actions."

What do you think? I would really like to know your opinion if it's not too much trouble. Thanks.

Hi I think this is interesting but there are many things here that are way too generalised and really annoy me lol.

For one thing, something being "considered feminist" is not indicative of its actual feminist quality nor of if it can be criticised. The whole "and it's written by a man btw" and later on the "female characters' behaviour can't be blamed on male authors" is sus too, it is impossible to remove the context of male authorship from their female characters' characterisations.

Most female characters and real life women are maligned and blamed for anything they do (and for much they don't do by virtue of 'tempting' men into evil!) Who is arguing for women's intrinsic goodness? I'm always a bit sus of these books that feel they must argue that women are not being held accountable.

I recently read a book with a really over the top, dramatic version of Ancient Rome where all the women were scheming, evil monsters responsible for every bad thing that ever happened to Rome. In the afterword, the male author said that many of his portrayals were unfair and against many historical accounts that had vindicated these women but that he found them far more compelling to write as being that evil.

On the other hand, female characters who act on violent or extreme impulses, whether for noble reasons or not, are often the most compelling characters and really speak to women. They often transcend misogynistic texts they come from to strike a chord. One of my all time favourite female characters is Hedda Gabler, written by a man in the 19th century (and called neurotic by Freud) yet something about her boredom, her desire to create meaning within a broken system where she can get no satisfaction, it really speaks to me. Flawed, damaged, dangerous female characters are a favourite of mine, those who actively seek to shape their destiny, regardless of how they do it.

#literary analysis #lit crit #feminism

[berniesrevolution]

CATALYST JOURNAL

There has been a shift in American discourse around Israel and Palestine triggered by recent events, against a background of questioning of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. Since the strategic arguments for the alliance with Israel have diminished in importance, the supposed “shared values” that sustain it are called into question by Israel’s discriminatory treatment of the Palestinians.

The limits of permissible debate on Israel are changing. In terms of the media, what has occurred over the last couple of months must be seen in two contexts. The first is a swing away from an idyllic depiction of Israel and toward a more realistic depiction of the Palestinians. Such swings have occurred repeatedly in the past, at moments when it was impossible to completely ignore the brutal nature of Israel’s actions. The old media saying is that “when it bleeds, it leads,” and at times the blood shed by Israel was so copious that it could not be ignored. This happened during the invasion of Lebanon and the siege of Beirut in 1982. It happened again during Israel’s fierce repression of the first intifada, starting in 1987. And it happened after Israel’s assaults on Gaza in 2008–9, 2012, and 2014. What happened in Beirut in 1982 couldn’t be hidden because of seventeen thousand Palestinian and Lebanese people being murdered and entire buildings being brought down by Israeli bombs. Some things in the public consciousness changed as a result, but eventually the media coverage went on as before. A leading NBC News broadcaster, John Chancellor, said during the siege of Beirut, “This is not the Israel we knew.” Each time, there was a swing away from an almost entirely false depiction of Israel, and the media was obliged to describe accurately the atrocities taking place before its reporters’ eyes and the lenses of their cameras. But soon afterward, news reporting returned to the status quo, in part because of the Israel lobby’s extremely effective backlash against the media that had told the truth. The late historian Amy Kaplan was the first to fully explain this dynamic in her brilliant book Our American Israel.

The events of May 2021 are different, however. The reason this coverage has had such impact is linked to the second context, which is that this media shift takes place against a background of questioning fundamental issues about Zionism, Israel, and the Palestinians: the settler-colonial nature of the state, inequality, racial discrimination, and injustice. Because this escalation, and media coverage of it, started in Sheikh Jarrah — because it started with Jerusalem, and then went on to escalate over Gaza — those aspects of the situation came out in unprecedented ways. In other words, there was finally attention to the fundamentally discriminatory nature of Israeli law and of the Israeli system of control over the Palestinians, inside Israel and in the occupied territories, and to the profound injustices that result. The fact that Palestinians cannot legally recover property on one side of a line, and Jewish organizations can claim property on the other, as was shown in Sheikh Jarrah, is a fundamental injustice that can’t be unlearned once you’ve learned it. The fact that a synagogue is sacrosanct but tear gas can be fired into the holiest Muslim site in Palestine, the al-Aqsa Mosque, during Ramadan, during prayers — things are now understood that cannot be forgotten.

May does appear different, and it has to do with those aspects. Israel’s kill rate in Gaza in 2014 was far higher than in 2021: they murdered over 2,200 people, of whom the overwhelming majority were civilians: women, children, old people, the disabled. This time, at least 250 people were killed, with the same high proportion of women, children, and the elderly. So the difference was not based on the barbarity of what Israel did in Gaza, or the attack on the al-Aqsa Mosque, or the ongoing theft of Palestinian property in and of themselves, but on the fact that these things are beginning to be understood in terms of basic inequality and the fundamental settler-colonial nature of Zionism, and of the Israeli state, and of its flaws. That makes this distinct.

The scathing reports by B’Tselem and Human Rights Watch, which made it more acceptable to consider Israel to be practicing a form of apartheid, provide the background. The average consumers of the news were not fully aware of these reports, if they knew of them at all, but during coverage of the carnage of May, the reports clearly showed fundamental discrimination: Jews in one place, Arabs in another place.

There are two other important background aspects to this conjunction. One is the rise of Bernie Sanders, and the second is Benjamin Netanyahu’s alienation of the Democratic Party. Within the Bernie Sanders coalition, people half or a third of the age of Sanders are playing a key role. But it’s not just their youth — the United States has been shaken by upheavals over racial discrimination, and over indigenous rights, to a lesser extent, from Standing Rock on, that, in juxtaposition with Palestine, cause people to make connections between these similar forms of injustice.

The Netanyahu factor has had an impact on at least two important constituencies. The first is the Democratic Party. Netanyahu made a strategic decision to link Israel’s future to the Republican Party and its base — the evangelicals, the white supremacists, the uber-hawks. He decided that those were Israel’s core supporters in the United States and acted on that belief. That offended Democrats, and they’ll never forgive him, because he’s done enormous harm: for example, he almost torpedoed Barack Obama’s Iran deal.

The second constituency is the American Jewish community, which is liberal overall. The leadership of the institutions that claim to represent it is quite conservative, but the community as a whole, including its intellectual elite, is liberal, or sees itself as liberal. The overwhelming majority are Reform, Conservative, or unaffiliated, and about 10 percent are Orthodox. Most of the community, even some of the Modern Orthodox, are offended by Netanyahu’s alliance with the fundamentalist religious establishment in Israel and the political parties that represent it. Why? Because they are systematically treated as second-class citizens in Israel; their marriages, their conversions, their very Judaism, are not recognized in Israel by the Orthodox rabbinate. And Netanyahu is politically wedded to the Orthodox parties that take their marching orders from the rabbis. He’s at odds with an overwhelming majority of the American Jewish community in terms of his actions, his policies, and his attitudes. On the surface, it hasn’t affected the community’s bigger institutions, but the fact that groups like J Street, Jewish Voice for Peace, and IfNotNow are growing is evidence that students, as well as much of the upper-middle class, intellectual elite, and professionals, are affected.

There are more strategic issues to consider. In order to determine whether the media occasionally using words like “apartheid,” “segregation,” and “inequality” to describe Israel indicates deeper forces at work or an elite split over the strategic significance of Israel as part of a gradual adjustment to a new reality where Israel is not as important to the United States, the media itself is not the place to look. The media has already shifted back to its customary position. There are already fewer critical media analyses of Israel being published than there were for a few weeks in May.

This has to do with more fundamental things than the media. First, Israel’s strategic value was the basis of the American-Israeli relationship only at certain points. The Cold War and George W. Bush’s “War on Terror” in the wake of 9/11 were the two high points of Israel’s diplomatic relevance. In other words, Israel was a useful and successful proxy against Soviet-aligned forces from the 1962 Yemen “civil war” (which was actually that plus a regional proxy war, like Lebanon 1975–90, and like the wars in Libya, Yemen, and Syria today) onward. The 1967 and 1973 wars were the best example of its strategic value. That continued until the end of the Cold War, even though by then the Soviet Union was no longer the regional factor it had been from the 1950s through the 1970s.

After 9/11, Ariel Sharon resurrected a strategic importance for Israel during the “War on Terror” through a shrewd but utterly specious argument, one that Netanyahu mastered. He was, in effect, saying: “The United States was attacked by terrorists; we are being attacked by terrorists. Terrorism is terrorism; it’s all the same. Hamas is the same as al-Qaeda. We are allies, and this is strategic — indeed, it is existential for both of us, and you will learn from us. We will give you technology and methods; our experts are your experts, and our expertise is your expertise.” This was a ludicrous strategic basis for an alliance — more fragile, in fact, than the Cold War alliance — but in the fevered atmosphere of Washington after 9/11, it worked brilliantly.

Besides those considerations during the Cold War and the “War on Terror,” Israel has little strategic value to the United States. Israel did not help the United States in the Gulf, as was perfectly apparent during the 1990–91 Gulf War, when the Iraqi regime fired missiles at Israel and the United States had to send Patriot missiles to defend it. Israel was a liability for the United States then. That was also demonstrated during the Obama administration, when Israel undermined American policy in the Gulf, and it’s true today. Indeed, Israel has embarrassed the United States globally with its aggressiveness and its treatment of the Palestinians.

(Continue Reading)

#politics #the leftist cooks #isreal #Palestine #israeli occupation #apartheid #neocolonialism #free palestine #progressive #progressive movement #democratic party #bernie sanders

[ziglikesrain]

alrightyyy i think it might be time to step up and give my two cents on the hatred the marauders fandom receives. i’ve (1) received a death threat??? on tumblr?? for being a marauders fan?? which actually made me giggle a little bit bc you’re telling me to kill myself for liking gay wizards from the 70s? cmon now. that’s a bit silly. a silly goose move, if you will.

and, (2) i watched a group of kids in the queer lit class i TA for bully a student because they liked the marauders. (not bc they thought it was cringy, but bc of its association with jk rowling). OKAY Y’ALL. NO. you can hate on me, an adult, i can take it, but a fifteen year old? they’re fifteen! they don’t owe you anything! being a teenager is for fawning over books and other stupid things. LET THEM LIVE!!

so i supposed now was a good time to give my thoughts, because even though i know it’s not going to, i think this discourse is genuinely childish and needs to end.

when it comes down to it, what matters here is queer joy. if you look past the fact that the marauders fandom is made up almost exclusively of headcannons, and jk rowling pretty much hates our guts, what actually matters is that people are happy. i’m being so real when i say that the VAST MAJORITY of marauders fans are queer — we needed a safe, inclusive space away from the golden trio era and all the problems that THEY have — and so what that gives you is angry queer people yelling at other queer people for being ??homophobic??

jk rowling is a horrible, awful, transphobic person. no one disagrees here. people are being hurt by her actions, and queer joy is being diminished. but then you have marauders fans, who are enjoying works that are created (only) by fans, and making this amazing space for fellow queer people. the passion that people have for these characters is the epitome of queer joy, and i just can’t wrap my head around why other queer people would want to spread more hatred and sadness by telling them they can’t enjoy something they love.

we need to wake up and realize that we’ve been sucked into this vicious cycle that jkr has perpetuated. by being angry at people who have virtually no connection to her, you give her what she wants, which is to spread hate within the LGBTQ community. i simply see no need to be spiteful towards people because of what they love. it’s the antithesis of everything queer culture stands for.

there is so much hatred in the world, especially right now, and i feel like it applies to everything and everyone when i say that there is no need, under any circumstances, to be actively hateful towards people who are just living their lives. want to send hate mail to jk rowling herself? be my fucking guest. but stop harassing people you don’t know over the internet over a problem they didn’t cause and are doing nothing to spread.

takeaways because i know that was long and tedious to read:

- jk rowling does not profit from marauders fanfiction or fanart

- marauders fans hate her just as much as you do

- if you go online to spread hate towards people, you are doing the exact. same. thing. that she is.

- a vast majority of marauders fans are queer, you’re barking up the wrong tree by calling us homophobic or transphobic

- just don’t harass people on the internet. or in person. why do you need me to tell you that????????

- if u are a queer person attacking queer people because of jk rowling, you’re giving her what she wants

- spread queer joy! it’s that simple my loves

#marauders era #harry potter #wolfstar #sirius black #remus lupin #remus x sirius #marauders #james potter #ao3 #marauders fanfiction #harry potter….discourse??? #my opinion #did you ask for it? #why no you did not #did you need it? #actually yeah maybe you did #marauders fandom #marauders fans #harry potter fandom #she who must not be named #is a BITCH #and does not deserve the amount of effort you’re putting in to hate on random strangers #hot take #?? #🤨 #crazy that being anti-hatred is a hot take these days #lgbtq #queer joy #fanfiction #queer issues