#this post isn't directed towards anyone specifically but also it kinda is because there's a DM from someone- | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

funnywormz · 8 months

Note

Did we ever get that rimmer gender analysis you promised us 🥺🥺🥺 if we did I missed it and I'm so sad and crying

I'M SO SORRY IT TOOK ME LIKE A WEEK TO ANSWER THIS ANON.......i can't quite remember, i think i may have done a small post abt it but it wasn't as detailed as i wanted??? sorry my memory for most stuff is pretty awful rip........

since i'm thinking abt it again now i will put a little rimmer gender ramble under the cut!! it's kinda repeating stuff that i've said in other posts but it's how i feel abt him and his identity, i hope you like it!!!! apologies if it doesn't make sense my brain has been full of sludge lately

OK SO. i think that masculinity has always been a very important part of rimmer's life, but a very toxic form of it. it's clear that his parents prioritised his brothers over him partly because they embodied more traditionally masculine traits, like confidence and physical strength. growing up, rimmer got the message from his parents that to be masculine was to be admired and loved. his parents abused him, and his brothers bullied him, and i think that although rimmer resents them for it he also sees it as being his fault?

i think it's because of this pressure he felt to be gender conforming growing up, that he feels he needs to force himself into some kind of macho man role. he fails at it miserably, and it's obviously not his true self, but he tries to keep it up because at his root, rimmer really does just want to be loved. growing up his parents showed him that their love was conditional, and he assumes everyone else is that way too, so he tries to shape himself into someone he thinks is lovable. unfortunately it only leads to unhappiness for everyone involved bc he's obviously putting up a front but he resents anyone who tries to pry it away.

rimmer's attempts at masculinity are clearly ridiculous, to the point where the show makes fun of him for it too. he's a coward, he's very petty and picky, the show takes every opportunity it can to have him crossdress, and it's sort of a running joke that lister's dick is bigger than his. to anyone around him, it's pretty clear that rimmer is often trying to pretend that he's someone he's not, and the show makes it a comedic thing a lot of the time.

rimmer doesn't know it's obvious, though. he's certainly not good at reading or understanding other people (i also heavily hc him as autistic but that's a post for another day), and i think a lot of the time he assumes he's successfully fooling everyone when he isn't. rimmer also has a longstanding habit of lying and then doubling down when he gets caught in the lie, even if it involves him doing something he finds unpleasant. i think his gender is one of those cases. his attempts at masculinity are "lies", but when that's pointed out to him he refuses to admit it even when it's clear he's putting up a front. admitting that he's not masculine would be, in his mind, admitting that he isn't worth his parents' (or anyone else's) love, and he can't stand that thought.

it's pretty telling, though, that whenever rimmer's inhibitions are removed or part of his hidden inner self is revealed, it's often feminine. when rimmer was infected with the holovirus, it seems like practically the first thing he did was put a dress on. wearing gingham dresses is NOT a universal holovirus thing. dr langstrom definitely wasn't wearing one. that's a RIMMER thing.

when the crew meet the "low" versions of themselves in demons and angels, while all of the other characters get relatively generic "evil" versions of themselves, low rimmer is basically wearing sexy lingerie with a dominatrix look and openly flirts with lister. considering that the lows are all meant to express the parts of the characters that they hate or view as the worst parts of themselves, i think it's a very direct (albeit unintentional?) way of showing rimmer's internalised homophobia and transphobia towards himself.

it's ALSO telling that rimmer specifically accuses ace of doing both gay and feminine things, like "wearing women's underwear" and "whipping the house boy". after all, ace IS rimmer. rimmer resents ace for being a better version of himself, and the most cutting insults he can think of for HIMSELF are insinuating that ace is gnc. stinks of projection to me. i think kryten agreed too, in dimension jump he almost seems to point out that rimmer is projecting before he's interrupted.

for most of the series, rimmer is, to me, someone who is miserable abt being potentially queer and is attempting to suppress it. however, the promised land changes this.

in the promised land, rimmer initially resents his status as a hologram, but by the end of the movie he wears it as a badge of pride. likewise, his hero-sona the "mighty light" is kinda campy, he's wearing sparkly tight fitting clothes with expertly styled hair and all. you could definitely read the promised land's rimmer arc as a metaphor for him accepting himself for being queer, but i would argue there's a self acceptance there that goes deeper. perhaps he's finally accepted that he can be admired AND be more feminine. it's not a big step forward but it's SOMETHING.

rimmer's identity as a hologram is also something tpl reckons with. rimmer fully grapples with realising that his "true" self is dead, that he isn't "real". i think that gender could be a part of it. the movie doesn't touch on it at ALL, to be clear, but as rimmer learns to be confident in who he is now and embrace his status as a hologram, i can't help but feel that his connection to strict gender roles must have also lessened. after all, gender and sex are very human concepts, and he isn't human anymore. being a hologram, he could change his body and voice any time he wanted (or at least any time holly felt like being nice lol). him being a man seems sorta irrelevant in that context. he's out in the middle of space with the last human being left alive. i don't think that a strong sense of gender identity could even really be possible for him when he's so isolated from the world that invented those things, and when he has the ability to play around with it so easily.

this last part is definitely projection, but i just feel like being a hologram has gotta eventually lead to a more nonbinary identity. so much of what we consider sex and gender to be is tied up in our perceptions and interactions and what we feel is expected of us. rimmer doesn't have that anymore. human society is gone, he isn't even human himself........ his parents are dead, too. why should he keep on playing this charade with himself that he doesn't even believe in?

i'm not necessarily sure that canon rimmer would have the self reflection abilities to realise any of this stuff, but in my mind he becomes more comfortable with being nonbinary and queer after tpl. it feels like a natural progression from accepting his status as a hologram to accepting the other parts of himself he used to hate, y’know?

ANYWAYS, i think that's all i can really say on the topic at the moment. this post isn't really an analysis, more of a word vomit about my personal headcanons and things i've noticed. still, i hope you enjoyed reading it and knowing my thoughts about the Rimmer Gender Situation lol. if anyone wants to add anything feel free, but please be nice

#arnold rimmer #arnold judas rimmer #arnold j rimmer #red dwarf

41 notes · View notes

tempoaryblogformightyjensblog · 3 years

Text

After a Longass time, I'm gonna make a response post to a post from @itsclydebitches. Not sure if I'll acknowledge All

Of it, but still..

1.Thats, the opposite of what the First episode shows, the first episode shows that the Military presence in Mantle dosent really do anything to actually help them with the Grimm. With it even being joked about as usual for the Military by Nora. The next episode also states that wasn't even the reason James had for it. It was to handle the 'eventual' Panick.

2.This and the recurring point of this later on is something I kinda want to address, because it's sort of what I was trying to say in My ask but I should go into more detail.

The point is basically that If James was shady for what he did, then So is Ruby for being willing to work with him for that long...I kinda want to mix this with a different Criticism I heard. That Ruby not trusting Ironwood was horrible and ungrateful because of all the good stuff James had done and how sympathetic and well meaning he was. The issue is that they are both 2 halves of the picture that ignore the other half, wich was what the heroes actual response was.

Him being sympathetic, clearly just trying to help and all the Good stuff he was doing is why they are willing to work with him and help with things. But Ruby didn't like his shadier actions either, wich is why she didn't trust him completely. And also? ""Nora dosent agree...But Ruby, the leader, does. She pushed Ironwood to finish Amity somwhow", that....isnt What happens, we see After Nora yells at James, ruby walks up to him and tells him more calmly that his actions, his management of Mantle and such were only helping Salem and it's what was making it easy for Salem to frame him. And earlier on we saw her with the other protags suggest working with Robyn. That's not 'Reaping the benefits of his actions even if they don't like them', that's not liking some of his actions but still trying to Understand him, and hope to reason or talk him down. Basically...Well it's a display that the other charachterization for Ruby, that she was a judgmental child who considered anyone who went beyond her standard of perfection to be Evil, isn't true. She tries to help and Understand James because she knows despite his flaws he is trying to do good, she tries to reach out to him and get him to see his actions were flawed.

Hell, the Jobs they were actually given were jobs where they could actually help soften the consequences of James actions, like Ren and Nora guarding the wall. the Robyn thing was a direct display that they weren't just doing anything James asked or were perfectly fine with his morally ambiguous actions. When ordered to attack a Huntress who was just trying to help, they instead went against his orders and even tried to actually fix things in a better way.

3.This is a few different issues, I'll start by saying that, that wasn't Ozpins problem in the Previous Volume, Some fans and some of the Heroes in there Angrier times think that, But the big thing was basically that Ozpin wasn't trusting anyone With that Info, that's what separates it from Rubies situation with James, Ruby wasn't trusting James because he actually did have many traits that made him look untrustworthy. And...well Finishing Amity and the plan is not pointless even with Salems immorality. Ruby dosent 'Know' That her being immortal means that the whole plan is pointless for 2 reasons, 1 is that she never had the mindset that it made it all pointless, she was actually distinctly against that when the others thought that under the Apathies influence, and makes her stance clear later, that Salem being Unkillable doesn't mean she's unstoppable. And 2, she dosent 'Know' that because....Its not true. Even if they can't directly kill her like James is planning...Were explicitly, directly told in Salems first actual appearance in the show that Humanity United was a threat and that was why she was going to ensure she divided them. Not to mention that...It isn't even all about the plan? It's made clear that global communications being down was a really bad thing and fixing that alone would help.

4.Im just gonna address one point here...It was not 'The Majority of Mantle' Being taken, were told that they were not even close to being done evacuating.

5.Basically what I said at 2, But to also state, James wasn't an Unambiguous Bad guy in Volume 7, He was in the Wrong In Volume 7, but he wasn't meant to be a Villain yet. The point of James charachter is basically he's someone who meant well but was highly flawed and made bad decisions, and instead of growing from his mistakes, he doubled down on them and let his flaws consume him. I'll get to it more later, but, that doesn't mean he was always evil or meant to be, Also...Jaunes license was given to him by James but, he was not part of the Military being fused with Huntsman, especially by this point. And with Winters words in her and James fight, I have my own issues with that fight or Winters Arc, but I don't think that point holds up either because we weren't meant to see Winter as unambiguously a good guy in Volume 7. Her words in there fight was after she had changed, that dosent mean we're supposed to believe she was a hero while working under James. It just means her POV changed after leaving him, now she wasn't following her programming of being blindly obedient anymore. Penny called out Winter for her being willing to follow through with euthanizing the Winter Maiden, Marrow calls her out in Volume 8 asking the Weiss question.

6.Well, to answer the questions there, were told in episode 5 what the recources were. Clover says how they were taking 'Construction resources', were told this again by Penny in the Car ride, wich makes total sense. They are changing Amity so that it could serve as a shuttle, so needing Construction stuff makes sense. While we may not be told how much power James had explicitly, they do give us a decent idea, that he had way more then he should. It's said in the Council meeting that they set in Checks and balances to keep him from overstepping with his seats, and that he basically just Ignored them to pull the actions he did in Volume 7. And Watts gives us both one Major decision that shows James flaws and gives a Clue as to part of the reasons Mantle was crappy as it was, saying how James updated most of the code in Atlas after the fall of Beacon, but 'As Usual' None was updated in Mantle. Aside from showing a...Truly Spectacularly callous move on James part, it also gives a big clue as to part of the reason Mantle is as crappy as it is, That Atlas and James basically treat Mantle like an afterthought and neglects changing things there to make things better, resulting in the City's state that we see. And, I imagine that being surveillanced and patrolled almost constantly wouldn't be ideal, and it's established by Winters line in that first episode that not cooperating with Personal was a punishable offense. I think you also....Picked a really bad example with Rhodes, if anything, Rhodes is probably a perfect demonstration of why being complacent or loyal to a system is bad for Huntsmen. I think if he would have loved to help Cinder more, it's just that he was loyal to the System and wasn't doing anything to upset the status quo despite knowing it was wrong. If issues like that existed, then it makes James specialist program, wich is specifically supposed to be Huntsmen trained to be loyal to the system, an even worse idea. Also I sort of feel like the bits at the end are sort of a false equivalency. I explained Ozpin amd Rhodes but also...Well for one, while we don't see portals line up in those specific areas, the plan was to have Jaune explain what was going on with everyone. And Qrow, Marrow and Robyn were still taking in the other Ace ops,they knew the plan so they would likely just head over to the nearest portal after, and...Maria and Pietro weren't there. And in James case, it wasn't just him 'saving who he could', it's that he could have tried to do more but didn't because he didn't want to risk it, and as Volume 8 showed, they really did have lots of time to evacuate people and could have found a way to Launch Amity. And...Well in his case there's the little fact that, as his Convo with Oscar makes explicit, James plan involved leaving the rest of Mankind To the dust and at Salems mercy.

There are problems with RWBY, but I don't think it's shoddily written, partially because I don't really find it 'particularly' flawed and think the good far outweighs the bad. And you know what? To some degree, I agree. I do think there's a weird bias towards authority in the FNDM, but maybe alot of fans are too dismissive of criticism, I do think to some degree we should acknowledge the RWDE and such aren't all right wingers and there's now a Vocal part of it that are on the left or members of minority groups. I don't agree with a ton of the things they say, and think most of it dosent hold up, but instead of just dismissing, perhaps it's better to look at things in detail and give proper arguments agaisnt them. So I won't treat you like an idiot, I'm going to give a full rundown on why I don't feel like it holds up under analytical scrutiny.

For one, while it doesn't have those specific issues like in the real world, I don't agree with this Criticism because I feel it is the one that sort of ignores the worldbuilding and what's been shown or said about the Military and the world itself and not the show, It sort of feels like people just bring up the basic concepts that would seem reasonable and ignore how the show executes certain things. For one, the military was a leftover from a time when they were meant to fight against other humans, It was something an Authoritarian state held over after its defeat and reformation, James and the Military helped Jac as he turned the SDC into the horrific corporate empire it is, Covordin shows that Nationalism is indeed a bit thing and that there were high ranking officers who were fully comfortable with the possiblity of just waging war on the other Kingdoms again. And then there's the specialist program, I've seen people sort of distill it to its very basics to make it seem more reasonable, describing it as just stuff like Huntsmen having rules and such, when the show displays it being way more screwed up then that. It literally involves indoctrinating people as students, were shown Elm reprimand the protagonists saying how they don't need to think about Orders just follow them. As both Volumes show, the culture of the program is deeply screwed up and unhealthy for them, were shown how they taught stuff like repressing your emotions and how deeply unhealthy it is for them.

And...Furthermore? If we're judging by how things are In Universe with the show the world built...James way of doing things is, completely absurd. I already dislike Cynical 'This is the REAL world 'Types IRL. But....In the world James is in, his strategy is just....

He lives in a world where negativity causes monster attacks and the villains whole Shtick is manipulating narratives to cause disarray and ensuring people stay divided. James strategy involved closing off Atlas from the rest of Remnant after they were framed for causing the Fall of Beacon, never bothering to clear there name when sleet and Camilla say he could easily do so, he dismisses both his image across the Globe and in Atlas, and dismisses what the people of Mantle want and the stuff his actions currently cause, all as Neccesary sacrifices when that's all completely insane and Relies on basically ignoring absolutely everything about the situation they are in and how there enemy works, wich again, Ruby points out, that he was actively playing into Salems hands and making it easier for her.

I think it's a decent display of the Tunnel Vision James has, he's prepared for the negativity of the END result of his plan and made preparations for it, but he...Basically ignores the consequences his actions are having right now and how that will affect his ends.

Overall...I think the issue is that James is not meant to be the Bad guy through Volume 7, and I feel like its not that the show 'contradicts' it's pure black and white take on things, it's just that it wasn't there to begin with. Whenever a Major flaw Ironwood had from the start is brought up, it's claimed that it means he was supposed to be 'Always evil'(admitedly some fans as well), when it dosent, it just means his flaws and darker aspects were always there and he didn't jump off the slippery slope instantly like some claim.

Were meant to sympathize with James, understand him, ECT. We're meant to want to see him get better, to be escatic when he does almost get better.

Overall, I don't agree with the idea that James was a reasonable charachter who was bastardized, the show set him up as flawed pretty well already, he's sympathetic because he's designed to be sympathetic. He's not potrayed as a Villain through 7 because he wasn't meant to be til the end.

Also...Well, even if you still felt that him 'Just' abandoning Mantle was still just morally gray...That isn't dropped in V8, it's bascially dropped not 2 episodes later. Where not only does he shoot Oscar but Oscar pointed out not only was he abandoning Mantle, but abandoning the rest of Mankind. Wich James just responds calling it an 'excellant philosophical point'.

#rwby #rwby volume 8 #rwby volume 7 #Anti-RWDE #I can finally sleep now...#itsclydebitchsz

9 notes · View notes

mochuelovelli · 4 years

Text

GAAAAHHH OKAY

Let's talk about the Timephoon Episodes

This is such an old topic of discourse but after reading many fanfics, videos, and some posts on the subject I have found little divergent takes on the whole subject.

While commentators are of the mind that, for the most part, the punishment and execution of said punishment for Louie's actions were partially if not fully justified but how she went about it was wrong.

Some fanfic writers and some subsects of the fandom but they are much more critical and often in a more black and white interpretation. Which is valid for vent art. However, I find both these portrayals to be lacking in some nuance.

Specifically when it it comes to who's to blame for the next 3 episodes, and to me, its more than just Della (and Louie but there really isn't much discourse here).

Let's start with Timephoon:

This pretty much solidifies their relationship throughout the episode[Also sorry for no captions]. Multiple times Della is shown to have a very laissez faire style of parenting as she primarily wants her kids to enjoy being kids and having fun. This is probably in part to her personality in general - which is probably what Beakley assumes here - however it is also her want to be loved by her children and even more critically, she doesn't ever want them to suffer like she did. Above all else, she wants them to be happy and feel confident in themselves. We see this in all the previous episode with her and her kids - From Dewey and reassuring him that he doesn't need to prove himself to her [notably in this episode she only shows concern when Dewey himself is in danger, she doesn't give a shit when he almost kills her] to Huey and helping him to have the most fun he possibly can, to even Webby and making sure that she also feels confident in herself regardless in how she goes about things.

Bringing up all these adventures does raise some pretty damning hypocrisy. Della encourage Dewey's reckless behavior in his episode. The lesson at the end wasn't, okay maybe we shouldn't be going on dangerous adventures, it was its okay to be afraid and you don't need to prove to me that you're great I already know you are. Huey's message was similar, albeit more low stakes. Webby's lesson wasn't even that she shouldn't be trying to take such risks to find adventure in the future, it was just a lesson in not being disappointed when things don't work the way you want.

So why wasn't Louie's adventure treated the same? Well... let's look at some more examples of Beakley V Della this episode before we answer that -

This is right before the kids find Bubba, Beakley's reaction is what most people would consider to be parental as she is concerned for the safety of the kids running out in a hurricane. Again we see Della acting casual.

Once Bubba is inside and Huey geeks out about him, Beakley actually smiles bc she knows that something like this means a lot to Huey [keep this in mind for l8r]. She only gets serious after Della says it's neat without much after thought so she gives the lesson of the episode - "Small problems become big problems later if not prevented early."

Next we have Della's faux attempt at being strict with her kids. Letting the irresponsible thing happen as long as they are "safe". While also harkening back to her previous episodes where she also is shown to have this attitude that "the kids can do anything as long as they are safe with ME or Scrooge or another SAFE adult", it is also good to note SCROOGE'S expression here to her patting herself on the back for her parenting. Now he could just be confused as to why Della is taking this "lesson" as a win, but he could be noticing that she really doesn't know what she is doing but unlike Beakley doesn't make any attempts to correct this.

Another scene that people often forget when reviewing this episode, just like with all her other kids she at first takes LOUIE'S side and decides they should just roll with the punches like always. Which honestly is sort if valid because that's kinda Scrooge's whole MO; though he also had others to there to keep him afloat but we all know someone like Scrooge, Della, and the kids hardly see that. I also want to hammer home that, just like with the other boys, she doesn't shy away from displaying that she loves them ALL. A few seconds later, it's subtle but she is shown smiling and patting Louie on the head because like the other kids she just wants him to feel supported. If I was to be critical, I would say this is possibly because she likes the IDEA of her boys more than them but I mean - this is pretty much everyone's attitude towards kids. It might be amplified bc of her trauma but it's not unusual. But even still I would argue that she mainly does love the boys for who they are as she is excited to get to know them.

After Della figures that they are looking for a "master thief", Scrooge and Beakley immediately know it's one of the kids. Shocking her since she later states she is of the belief that her kids are too "good" to do something like this. I also want to bring attention, again, to Beakley smiling (ik im putting a lot of stock into expressions but animation tends to do stuff like this for a reason). She is smiling at whom she expects is Dewey for messing with time and space. Bc even if she planned to scold him, she knows it's just their normal. Scrooge seems to also be of the same mind. Later Beakley gives a really good line about "Even good kids can do dumb things. We got to make sure those dumb things don't turn into bad things like destroying all of existence!".

Mrs. B exists stage right

All jokes aside, this must have been a nightmare for all of them but especially Della. She had just finally admitted that she was out of her depth and made another mistake in parenting. But now it seems like she lost her chance to rectify that. Because for all she knows, Mrs. B will never come back. This is import-ALLRIGHTWEGETIT

Della is then shown explicitly worried about her family. Emotions, insecurities and fear obviously getting the best of her. We don't know exactly what she is thinking but we know she is terrified of the possibility of losing one of her kids. When she asks about Louie, she probably thinks he must have disappeared without her knowing. That she might have already failed more than she could know, because she wasn't there to protect him. She doesn't know - she is "Della Duck" and she doesn't know how to fix this. She didn't expect everything to go so horribly wrong, but that's her theme isn't it?

She is both relieved and understandably PISSED when finding that Louie was responsible for almost destroying the fabric of reality (let me say this again, nearly destroying the fabric of reality). She goes scold both herself and her son about the danger he put them in. Later we see Della, the last one leave and seeing almost everyone she loves vanish. We don't know how long each of the characters who left were in the past but we can assume it was long enough to have to change clothes. Yeah this was probably more of a visual gag but like, the other past characters didn't change their outfits when they came to the present so - (also Launchpad was specific about knowing how the world ends so he had to be there enough for him to understand it). Side note someones gotta write fanfic of these characters time misadventures. I wonder if Dewey and Webby ran into Agent 22.

[Last picture of the infamous scene, side note did anyone notice Launchpad NODDING his head when Della mentioned his time schemes could've cost them their future? He's the only one who knows what happened so maybe Louie's misadventure has more impact than we think-]

Anyways, yeah we know what was said here. But I think it's important to see the reaction the other adults (sorry LP, and Gryo i GUESS) have here BC this is basically why I made this post. What Della decided to do was unquestionably the wrong decision, at least her way of going about it and I will not absolve her of her many MANY mistakes. However, let's remember she wasn't alone in any of this. She was with other parental figures who KNOW more about her kids than she does.

After Louie leaves, why did they think it was good to encourage this course of action? Why did they think giving full parental control to a PTSD, trauma survivor who barely got back less than a month ago was a good idea? Sure it's one thing to not want to overstep your boundaries but are you telling me they wouldn't want to guide her in the right direction at least? We KNOW both Beakley AND Scrooge have their grievences towards Della's parenting strategy or lack there of. Beakley so far doing the most to try and put her in the right direction (which speaks volumes to the problems Scrooge has).

So why wouldn't they explain that, hey, maybe taking away the one thing your kid thinks he is good at ISNT a great idea? Why didn't either say anything about their two day vacation? Something that came up presumingly on a whim and might of prevented (although i doubt it) Louie from trying to steal w/ time? He might have considered pushing back time schemes at least 3 days later. While Mrs. Beakley might be less aware of Louie's insecurities and ambitions, Scrooge definitely isn't. He should have talked to her, and hey we don't see what happens before they leave so maybe MAYBE they did. But again, I doubt it. Seeing as how they all agreed with her at the end, I don't see them trying to meddle with her.

But they should've. They are both experienced guardians and they have nothing to say to her? Plus Donald (goddamn it i almost finished a post w/o him) have THEM responsibility to take care of the kids NOT Della. So they are obligated to help her. Really, the other option other than just well negligence would be not thinking this punishment was a big deal. I wish this aspect was also scrutinized just as much as Della and Louies role in this arc.

Beakley and Scrooge (more so Scrooge) are just as much to blame in what happens as Della if not MORE since they know of her situation in only a way that an experience adult can. There is no excuse for their negligence.

#god this was so long #i just need to rant #i hope im not alone on this feel free to comment or ask me about this crap i dont mind #ducktales #ducktales 2017 #della duck #mrs beakley #scrooge mcduck #dt17 #ducktales timephoon #discourse #i guess #this is misleading this was basically just Timephoon bc u ran out of space so part 2 maybe?

32 notes · View notes

tuesdayscanons · 4 years

Text

《 How I Run My Blog 》

Speed

《 If you take anything from this post, it's this—I either respond in ten seconds or ten years. There's a whole lotta factors: time, energy, interest, etc. Lately, I've been moving slower because my muse is all over the place and I've been burnt out by college, but the semester is about to end and I'm hoping my workload won't be as overwhelming from now on. 》

Replies

《 The length of my replies tend to vary, but I try to write multi-para responses (which can slow me down when I get carried away/overwhelmed. I'm also interested in fun little one line responses, which I'd most likely respond to quicker bc they're more casual. 》

Starters

《 I tend to post starter calls for the muses/AUs I'm the most interested in atm, though things can be delayed if my muse flops for any reason. Starters *might* be easier to write, though I have starters I owe which suggest otherwise. It also depends on what ideas I have—sometimes I have a gazillion ideas for interactions between muses and other times I get stuck bc I have no clue how to create a situation for two muses to have an excuse to interact. 》

Inbox

《 My inbox is open to anyone and to (almost) anything. You can send me random nonsense on anon for all I care, as long as it isn't overly vulgar or hostile. Don't get me wrong, you can still push my muses around (tbh I encourage it), but there's a point to where it stops being fun.

RP memes also don't expire on this blog. You can send me something from a post I reblogged over a year ago (though please specify if it's an emoji meme—there are emoji asks in purgatory bc I can't remember what meme it's from and have no clue how to respond).

The asks I'm most interested in tend to revolve around personal relationships or deep dives into my muses? Y'all can probably tell from what I usually reblog. OOC memes are also good when my muse is low, though I'd feel bad if I posted OOC too often. Y'all came for my muses, not to hear me ramble.

My speed tends to vary, though I usually find it easier to respond to ask memes than ic stuff. 》

Selectivity

《 I say that I'm semi-selective on my promos, though I'm generally open to writing with people. Most of it comes down to anxiety—I still try to reach out to people, but it makes my day when people reach out to me? Tbh, I'm constantly worried about bothering people and having people care enough to approach me is a huge deal. Sometimes I can be all over the place, but ideally, I'd like to open myself up to new partners. Depending on a handful of partners can be a huge issue down the line, especially knowing how I can be sometimes. 》

Wishlist

《 What I'm most interested in tends to shift, but I have a wishlist tag (creatively labeled "wishlist") if y'all want to check it out. Generally, I'm interested in exploring interpersonal relationships. Romance, rivalry, friendship, family, what have you. I tend to lean towards fluff or...Sour Patch Kids threads? I'm sure there's a better word out there to describe it, but basically angst/melodrama which leads to fluff. Sometimes I can do full on angst, though I don't do so as often because they're kinda a bummer. 》

Honest Notes

《 This goes for everything I've previously mentioned, but I have a tendency to hyperfixate. It could be a certain muse, a specific aspect/character dynamic, sometimes even specific mutuals as odd as that might seem. I don't intend to brush people off or play favorites, it's just that my attention and memory are both atrocious. 》

Random Side Notes

《 Related to the hyperfixation thing, there are times where I post a lot of art/headcanons to my oc blogs instead of actually writing ic stuff. I started out as an oc rper and I find it easier to write ocs (hence why Maddie has pretty much taken over this blog). Sometimes I'm able to write canon characters like I would ocs, though I don't think I could ever be more invested in a canon character than my ocs. They're my babies, y'know? I've also probably mentioned before that I don't watch a whole lot of shows because I spend most of my free time thinking about my ocs. That could have something to do with it...

Also—if y'all want to direct message me, I prefer Discord over Tumblr IMs. I'll still respond to Tumblr IMs, but Discord is better if y'all are looking to have regular/on-going OOC contact with me. Idk, it just feels more organized and personal? I check my Discord pretty much daily, so I'll probably respond quickly (if I don't forget to write back, that is...but I still don't think I'd leave you hanging for too long). 》

#OOC tag #long post #《 my post history probably makes it obvious what/who i tend to hyperfixate on 》#《 i know openly admitting it makes me sound obsessive but I want to be transparent with y'all 》#《 so y'all don't take it personally when i give one or two mutuals a lot of my attention 》#《 there are so many of y'all who i want to write with more 》#《 but my hyperfixation can get bad sometimes 》#《 rn I've been on more of an oc fix 》#《 and since I've been in a huge a.utism advocacy mood; I've been posting more a.utism related stuff to my other oc blog 》#《 the Eggleston/Featherton fam has also been given more development bc they used to fall to the wayside 》

1 note · View note

politics-and-philosophy · 5 years

Text

Ok, so I know that I'm supposed to be weirded out by the fact that this person clearly created a random brand-new tumblr just to message me anonymously, but honestly, I'm honored.

Look, this tumblr is straight-up blank, aside from the header photo. Is that a homemade handgun btw? It looks like it. Honestly though, I just feel kinda honored. Because this person is either scared enough of me to want anonymity (I can't see why) or scared enough of the reprisal they would face on their main blog (this one makes more sense).

So, again, let's go point-by-point.

I don't think the government should have control over who owns a gun in the same way I don't think the government should have control over who lives and dies. I think that gun ownership should be restricted constitutionally, by removing and replacing the second amendment. In this new amendment, I want only three types of individuals to be allowed to own guns:

1. Those in remote areas who require guns for survival.

2. Collectors of historic guns who can only load and fire them on shooting ranges.

3. Active duty military personnel deployed in foreign soil, and domestic soil only during a foreign invasion.

This list notably excludes cops, active duty military on domestic soil, security details, sport hunters, and everyone else. I have said all this before though.

This would not give a monopoly on power to the government, in fact, it would significantly stymie the power the government already has over people by removing the threat of firearms.

Personally, I think this would stop almost all gun violence, not just mass shootings. The majority of gun killings are committed with guns which were once legally owned (the US is a net exporter of illegal firearms, mostly to Mexico, due to our lax gun laws). Furthermore, while 4 in 5 gun homicides are committed with a gun not owned by the perpetrator, that's not the end of the story. 30% of those guns are stolen, but of those 30%, over 4 in 10 are not reported stolen until after a crime is committed, and 44% of gun owners whose guns were stolen did not respond to attempts to be contacted by police. Of the other 70%, reported lost, in 62% of instances, the legal owner of the gun was unaware of where or when the gun was lost. That is a staggering number of people who are reckless with firearm safety.

A large part of this is due to shoestring purchases, where someone who passes a legal background check will go and buy a gun for someone who wouldn't, or to then go and sell it at an upcharge on the black market, only to claim it lost or stolen when it shows up at a crime scene. The legal gun market directly supports and enables both gun crime and the illegal gun market. Making it more difficult to legally get a gun will make it exponentially more difficult to illegally acquire a gun. More on this later.

Mass shootings are a small percentage of total deaths, but these deaths are unique in how horrible, violent, and early in a person's life they come. They are always the direct result of hate, and are a uniquely American problem within the developed world. Unlike robbery murders or even homicides motivated by passion, mass shootings don't target a specific individual. They seek to kill a group of people indiscriminately. Essentially, they're a violent hate crime, almost always motivated by a right-wing view of society and a belief that violence solves problems.

It's also laughable that the ownership of a gun somehow puts you on even footing with the government. Do you know how much firepower the government has? Even military grade weapons are useless against an actual military.

Ok, here's Oxford's definition of a civil right:

Please go read this. Civil rights are rights of society and politics. They are things such as voting rights, marriage rights, freedom from religious infringement in your life, right to exist in society and politics. Gun ownership is no more a civil right than is the right to smoke crack.

America has a gun violence epidemic, compared to the rest of the world, and even compared among the states.

Here's a fun graph comparing gun violence and gun ownership among first world countries.

Here's a graph comparing gun violence and gun regulation within the United States:

Ok, finally, on to fascism. So, let's start from the top and work our way to different outcomes. We have our first decision at "Is the current gun violence rate and mass shooting epidemic within the US worth fixing?" Personally, I think yes. If you think no, I invite you to tell that to anyone who lost a family member in a mass shooting and see if you don't get punched.

Having resolved yes, we move onto what to do. There are three real solutions.

1. Increase of law enforcement

2. Increase of surveillance

3. Regulation of firearms

Notably, mental health reforms is left off this list. I've addressed that several times in other posts. In summary, mass shooters don't seek mental services and the majority of perpetrators aren't mentally ill, they're disillusioned with society.

Now, as a liberal and specifically a social liberal, I hate fascism and think that among the political ideologies out there fascism and authoritarianism are a special kind of evil. In general, I see it as better to have a large government which serves the people instead of a small government which oppresses the people. A lot of conservatives, especially anarco-capitalists, think that a small government is necessarily less oppressive, but that is not true. Governments can be large, but if they are beholden to a citizenship, they'll obey said citizens. Small governments who are isolated from the populace easily turn towards oppression.

But I digress. Let's start with the first choice, and see where it takes us. For this exercise, we'll be assuming that when the government is given control over a certain aspect of our lives, they'll want to increase that control. So, we increase the law enforcement in all major metropolitan areas, meaning armed guards at malls, churches, movie theaters, schools, etc. And even though mass shootings still occur when armed guards are present (Parkland) or when police arrive on scene within the minute (El Paso), it's okay because we get to keep our guns, everybody has a gun so everyone is safe. This is basically a police state. The scary thing is conservatives have actually proposed this. Sean Hannity said on live TV that we need to place armed guards at every public area. And if you don't trust the government, how the hell could you trust the armed guards they have stationed outside the grocery store.

Next solution is increased surveillance. If access to guns is to remain unrestricted, then we need to be able to find the killers before they kill. What do all of the mass shooters have in common? An internet history rife with extremism and alt-right views. So, screen everyone. And go ahead and start censoring people who have those views too, just to be safe. But once we have a suspected shooter, how can we know when they're about to commit murder? You can't arrest someone for fitting a profile. So, you start tracking them, looking through their purchases, making sure they aren't trying to get someone to buy them a firearm, following them, watching them. Even if all they did is post on the internet with no intent, now the government knows their every move. And suddenly, the small minor infractions that everyone commits daily start to add up. So, one agent decides to hell with it, let's just bust him early for something, anything we can make stick. This isn't a hypothetical, either. There are countless stories of cops falsifying evidence just to make the arrest because they believe an innocent person is guilty.

Finally, firearm regulation. Now here you might think that if you lose your firearm, you lose your safety. Ignoring for a moment that I specifically advocated for law enforcement to not have firearms, if you genuinely think you are safer with a gun than without it, you are wrong. The mindset that, without your gun, there's nothing to stop the government from trampling your rights ignores the fact that even with your gun, there's nothing really stopping the government from trampling your rights, because the government has a lot more guns than you and they're a lot bigger. Now, perhaps you think that having an armed populace means a resistance or insurgency is possible. Ignoring that the government could squash any insurgency within the US, who even says the insurgents are on your side politically? What's stopping them from rising up right now? The same thing that's stopping the government from killing any dissidents: the fact that we live in a society and without it the government would collapse. Often times people speak as though the government is some separate entity when in reality in America every single person who us eligible to vote or pays taxes is a member of the government. We are the power base of the government, and to distinguish between the citizens of the US and the government if the US is a real gray area, because the government can't exist without the economic base that is our society. You called us sheep but we aren't sheep, we're the golden goose and you never ever kill the golden goose. The government won't come to put us all in camps because they'd wake up broke the next day. And even if they did, your gun wouldn't stop them, it just means they'd kill you.

When you arm everyone, you arm EVERYONE. Not just the lawful responsible owner, but the mass shooter, the murderer, the rapist, the insurgents on both the right and the left, the domestic terrorists, the gang bangers, the government sympathizers, the government itself, everyone. And while obviously it's not every gun owner, it could be any gun owner. And any realistic way to distinguish the difference between a responsible individual looking to own a gun and a mass shooter arming up is with a level of invasiveness that should make you incredibly uncomfortable. This is what I mean when I talk about surveillance.

Let's come to a conclusion here, because this post has gotten quite long.

The idea that you could amass enough firepower to resist the government is not reasonable. What protects you from the government is not weaponry but anonymity. Currently, our system has both, but having both allows criminals and murderers to readily access firearms and kill people. So, since the weaponry isn't protecting us anyway, might as well get rid of it and save some lives.

EDIT: The blog that sent these messages no longer exists, and I don't have access to them anymore, so I'm glad I screenshoted when I did. Kinda confirms my suspicion that they just wanted to anonymously harass me. Oh well, nothing as predictable as a coward.

0 notes