because both sides would feel justified in using it to refer to themselves

anonymous asked:

Isn't there a really dodgy bit in Why Does He Do That? I read somewhere that it says a man who says he's being abused is the abuser in a relationship, which... no, male victims of domestic abuse exist too...

Yes.  I was actually going to post about this.

It’s not just a “dodgy bit”.  There are multiple points at which he says things that I didn’t care for.

The “male abuse victims are probably lying” thing is is the biggest flaw in the book, but the book is still absolutely vital, and people should still read and recommend it.  Full stop.  Because a thing is flawed does not mean it has no value and should not be circulated to those people that it could help.  If the book were less shockingly accurate and unflinching in its portrayal of abusive men, if it were less good in the ways that it is good, perhaps I would feel more hesitation.

I’ve read basically the whole thing so far (I’m about 20-30 pages from the end in the PDF), and here’s the deal.

He doesn’t say unilaterally that men lie about being abused.  He says that abusive men lie about being abused by women.  It’s a fine distinction, and not really much better, but I want to be clear that that is what he is saying.  Not that men lie about all abuse, but that they lie about being abused by women.  Abusive men, especially, will tell this lie to get the upper hand.

Based on what he has seen after dealing with a couple thousand men who abuse women, I do not doubt that this is true.

But he seems to think the number of abused men is smaller than the number of abusive men who are lying about being abused.  Even if that is true, abused men are not acceptable collateral damage.  It’s not okay to act like the issue isn’t important just because liars exist.

He uses SOME qualifying language. I’m not going to go digging for it, but it’s along the line of “Male victims of domestic violence are really rare compared to the number of female victims.”  After that he kind of treats it like they either don’t exist, or the fact that they do is irrelevant in the face of the much more widespread problem of men who abuse women.  I won’t lie, that’s not good.

To be frank, he does not seem all that aware of social justice issues the way that all us gigantic queers on Tumblr are.  His awareness of LGBT issues is peripheral.  When he says “men” and “women”, he definitely means “cis men” and “cis women”.  And the book definitely reads like a book written by a cis dude to me.  But honestly, this is a book that only a cis dude could have written, because only a cis dude could have worked with other (cis) men the way he has, and it is precisely that experience that makes it so valuable.

The fact that he’s biased doesn’t mean he is talking out his ass the rest of the time.  He’s not.  At the time of publication (2002) he had worked with over two thousand abusive men whose targets were women.  He pioneered recovery programs for these men.  He was the first to really get down and work with them on a daily basis, both in group and personal therapy settings.  And that experience shows.

No.  He really really doesn’t understand abused men.

But he understands abusive men.  Specifically, he understands men who abuse women.

On the one hand, it’s given him an unprecedented level of insight into abusers’ mindsets, and that is so valuable.  

On the other, the graphic and awful examples he has seen of men who are lying to get themselves out of trouble or justify their behavior have definitely colored his views of male victims.  These men – men, I emphasize, referred to him by the legal system, meaning they were entirely confirmed abusers – WERE almost always lying about it.  I think he mentions two exceptions?  And yeah, that sounds like shit abusers fucking do.  I believe him.

Within his setting, within his sample, I believe he is 100% correct in his assessment – abusers are likely to be lying about having suffered partner violence.

That setting absolutely is not the rest of the world, and I think he loses sight of that, if he ever had sight of it to begin with.  That’s a terrible flaw.

Another flaw is that it gives very little face-time to same-sex relationship abuse.  It goes into it a little, and does it a little ham-handedly but not too badly, but mostly it gets ignored.

Rather than raise these issues at all and then doing it badly, I wish he had said “The issue of abuse in LGBT relationships, as well as the issue of women abusing men, is sadly beyond the scope of my experience, and therefore this book is not about those issues.”

There is nothing wrong with focusing on one aspect of the issue of intimate partner violence.  That he did so is not a bad thing.  The bad thing that he did is to treat the rest of it like a non-issue, when it isn’t, and that he said some things that encourage the reader to be generally suspicious of men who say that women have abused them.  Those are bad things.

Would I recommend it to a man who is being/was abused by a woman?  No no no.  Absolutely not.  Those dynamics are completely different, and the abuse is likely to look very different, and I feel like very little of it will be accessible to someone in that situation.  I think it would do more harm than good.

Would I recommend it to someone in a non-cishet relationship?  Maybe, but probably not, unless I had a little insight into the relationship and felt like it would be a good match.

Would I still recommend it to women, or to people who want a general understanding of the dynamics between abusive cis men and abused women?  YES.  YES A THOUSAND TIMES.

The book is not “good” in a morally/ideologically pure, okay?  It is flawed.  But for what it is, which is a book about men who abuse women, it is very good.   He is on the side of abused women, all the fucking way.  And that is still an astonishingly rare thing to find. 

It validates the experiences of women abused by men by showing different types of abusive behavior and different types of abuser.  He says at multiple points “If you’re wondering whether it’s abuse, then it probably is.”  And that is still such a radical, necessary, healthy and badly-needed thing to say.

I’m not going to defend the way he treats the issue of abused men, or abuse in LGBT relationships,  He barely deals with these issues at all, and when he does, it’s halfhearted at best and actively regressive at worst.  In that regard, it’s shitty.  If that is what you are needing, this book won’t give it to you.

I am going to defend it as an excellent starting place for women abused by men, or in toxic almost-abusive relationships with them.

I would prefer it not be flawed, and if it has to be flawed, I would prefer it come with a disclaimer, but I would rather it circulate flawed and without a disclaimer of any kind that fail to reach someone who really, really needs it.

We could be waiting a long time for a better, more inclusive book to come out.  There’s not time to wait.  This book is needed now.  TODAY.

That said, I am always glad to reblog helpful resources for abused men, or for people in non-cishet relationships, if you know of any.  I would love to know about comparable GOOD books for LGBT people, if you know any, or would love to know about GOOD books written for male victims of domestic violence.

alpha & omega
part ii part iii

summary - this is basically the aftermath of “accepting anxiety part 2″, and it’s also based off of this prompt

pairing - prinxiety if you squint 

word count - 1,499

warnings - a bit of angst, spoilers for today’s video if you haven’t seen it 

tags - angst-to-fluffish

a/n - so this turned out to be a lot longer than a drabble, which is why it’s going as it’s own fic 

tagging - @ace-anxiety-sanders , @pointless-blog-name , @lampisimportant , @pippa-frost , @jinxed-unicorn , @starrykid , @pattykrabbies

It’s late when Anxiety trudges into the common room, bleary-eyed and craving a black cup of coffee. As he passes the couch, he notices the static of their television crackling faintly in the background, and he picks up the remote to switch it off—who would’ve even been up late enough to leave it on—when he notices the lump of blanket on the couch.

“I was watching that,” a voice pipes up from underneath it, tone far too entitled to be anyone other than Prince.

Anxiety pauses with his thumb over the power button, turning to face the other side with a baffled stare. “It wasn’t even…on a channel,” he mumbles, tossing the remote onto the couch. “What’re you doing?”

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Let me just say i'm actively waiting for the day you decide to go off on the writing of BB lol. I love reading your analysis and I feel like you have about ten pages of material about how badly the writers fucked up his character. and then how they proceeded to fuck up other characters by having them defend him, prop him up, or forgive him even tho it made no sense. Like an avalanche of horrible decisions.

I’ve thought long and hard about whether I wanted to answer this ask to begin with, but I’ve realized I have so many strong feelings in regards to the writing of Bellamy and the characters around him that typing them down might actually be helpful to me. So here we go. I really hope it’s clear that my problem isn’t with the character or that I’m demonizing him or saying he is evil or anything like that, but instead it’s with how the writing for his character and certain storylines were handled. I’ll try to be as coherent and clear as possible, but this is gonna be long.

Anyone at least a bit familiar with me knows I used to love Bellamy. I found his journey and growth in season 1 compelling, and in season 2 he became my favorite male character in the show. A great character development, a legitimately interesting character. All that came to a screeching halt in season 3. With that, I wish I was saying his character became stagnant. Instead, it’s worse. They took all that growth and development and threw it out of the window. But not only that. The writers didn’t even own up to the horrible choices they made: instead, they tried to salvage the situation by backpedaling on everything and by using every possible cheap or awful device to make Bellamy likable again. Which means: to save one character, they sacrificed other characters and cohesive writing. Which is why it’s not Season 3 that made me give up on ever liking Bellamy again, it was season 4, the finale in particular. My issue isn’t with the character, it’s with the writing. I’m gonna try to make myself more clear.

I’m gonna have to go back to season 3 for this. What I want to say is that I don’t think there is anything really wrong with the idea behind Bellamy’s season 3 storyline. Someone who learned to be a hero but suddenly has a fall from grace. There is potential for great storytelling there. But you have to be careful. If you have decided that you are going to put a beloved character in a tricky situation, you have to be meticulous about everything. The base to justify this turn has to be solid, the character’s reasons must be clear and understandable (understanding is different from agreeing with), there has to be a final intent, whether that being character growth or destruction. All this by staying true to the character(s) and maintaining consistency in the storytelling. With Bellamy, the 100 did none of that.

First, they rewrote the narrative and made Bellamy dependent on Clarke to make good decisions, so that his choice to back up Pike would feel more justified because she wasn’t there to be a positive influence.

Then, they introduced Gina only to fridge her after 2 episodes. She wasn’t designed as a character on her own, she merely was the emotional excuse for Bellamy’s turn. And if the foundations for this storyline were rocky already, the unfolding of it was simply horrible and its effects rippled through season 3 AND 4 as well, and make for some of the worst writing I’ve ever seen in my life. We’re supposed to be invested in this storyline. We’re supposed to root for this character, to understand him and justify him and eventually believe in his redemption. And funnily enough, I understand Bellamy as a character up to a point. I can put myself in his shoes and see why he decided to side with Pike. But the writing is so downright awful and keeps being so ugly that it has ruined the character for me forever, even now that he has undeniably come back onto the right path again in season 4. Why? Because of how we got here, at what expense.

You know how this storyline could have worked? If the writers had truly committed to it. Gone all in and portrayed Bellamy’s actions as nothing other than what they were: wrong. You got your fallen hero who fully realizes the consequences of his action and you follow him in his path towards redemption, real redemption. Instead what happened? The writers tried to have it both ways. They wanted the edgy storyline but they were afraid of going too far with one of their fan-favorite characters. So we watched Bellamy commit one horrible act after another (and I’m not referring just to the massacre, that’s actually the thing I have the least problems with), support both actively and passively a xenophobic dictator, cause chaos and death… but instead of committing to the storyline they had laid out, the writers tried to remove Bellamy as much as possible from it. The massacre isn’t shown, we only see the bodies of the people that were killed, because they aren’t what’s important, Bellamy’s shock and pain is what we should focus on, and it would be hard to bring the audience to root for him if we saw him participating in a cold-blooded massacre. He does horrible things but we should focus on the fact that he is sad about it rather than on what he did. He is repeatedly justified in his actions. They use the concept of moral ambiguity (maybe there are no good guys) as a tool to excuse whatever awful thing they want to excuse and by doing so stripping it of the relevance it used to have. That’s not good writing, that’s the opposite of it.

And then another thing, possibly the worst in my opinion: Bellamy faces no consequences whatsoever.

There is no weight to this storyline and his so-called redemption because there are no repercussions. Not even in the form of meaningful dialogue with other characters, because the other characters aren’t allowed that. Conflict isn’t allowed in Bellamy’s storyline because the characters are reduced to expository devices who are there to tell us we Must forgive Bellamy. His redemption doesn’t work because it comes at the expense of other characters and cohesive storytelling.

Let me make a parenthesis to try to make myself more clear and let me compare this type of redemption storyline (not the characters themselves, mind you) to another one from another show, the one of Faith, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Bear with me as I try to summarize her story as much as possible, please.

Faith is another slayer like Buffy who first appears in season 3 after the death of slayer Kendra. She comes from a very damaged background and from the moment she is introduced her abandonment and trust issues (with slight hints at abuse as well) are extremely evident. She masks her weaknesses and insecurities with a tough exterior, exaggerated confidence, and aggressiveness but the core of her character is that this is someone who is extremely lonely and desperate for love. To borrow from her official description (and to keep things short) she is intended to be a reflection of Buffy, and what Buffy could have become were it not for her support system of friends and family. Initially an ally to Buffy, she commits a fatal mistake and accidentally kills a human thinking he was a vampire. It’s the beginning of her downward spiral. Her complete lack of trust combined with a fear-driven refusal to accept responsibilities for what she did drive her away from the good guys, and when she comes in contact with the villain of the season, Mayor Wilkins, she slips into a villainous role herself. With him, she develops a father-daughter relationship of genuine affection and he basically becomes her person, but this also pushes her further in the dark and away from Buffy. Eventually she and Buffy have a confrontation that ends with Buffy almost killing Faith and leaving her comatose, and then proceeding to kill Mayor Wilkins. 

Faith wakes up from the coma after eight months, forgotten by everyone. Wanted by the police, alone and thirsty for revenge, she faces Buffy again and during their fight she uses a magical device that ends up switching their bodies, and thanks to the shock of it, she defeats Buffy. Initially, Faith’s plan is to have fun in Buffy’s body, enjoy the newfound freedom and then disappear forever, but by staying in Buffy’s body she comes in contact with that support system of love and friendship that she had never had. She becomes more and more reluctant about her original plan and she starts seeing herself the way Buffy and the others see her, ending up being even more harsh and unforgiving with herself than Buffy ever was. After choosing not to leave and intervening to say a group of people from a vampire attack, she and Buffy come face to face again, in a fight where we see Faith being more aggressive than ever, hitting Buffy (and therefore her own body in reality) brutally and expressing physically and verbally all her self-hatred, and after that the two girls switch bodies again and Faith escapes.

Disgusted by what she has become, she finds Angel (the vampire Buffy was in love with) and tries to push him to kill her but he realizes what she is trying to do and refuses. Instead he offers her support and tries to help her on the path towards redemption. With the police coming for her, Angel is ready to help her escape again and take the blame for her, but instead Faith, finally taking responsibility for her own actions, turns herself in, imprisoned but at peace, knowing she finally did the right thing.

She breaks out of prison three years later after finding out that Angel is in grave danger. She does help him, risking her life several times in the process, and after that she leaves and joins Buffy who’s the one who needs help this time. There is still a lot of friction between the two but they eventually reach a true understanding of each other and reconcile for good, and the series ends with Faith at Buffy’s side, allies again.

I apologize for the length of that summary but I needed to be as explicative as possible to try and make clear why I think that one redemption’s storyline works while the other is a complete disaster. When you strip both storylines to the bone, the similarities are pretty evident.

  1. They make a mistake (Bellamy with the massacre, Faith with the accidental killing)
  2. They put their trust in the wrong person (Pike, Mayor Wilkins)
  3. They realize what they are doing is wrong
  4. Through soul-searching and external support, they decide to change for the better

Pretty similar in the structure, right? Now, is the way both shows go about it the same too? Not at all. 

Let’s take Faith for a moment. The only character that always tries to help her and refuses to abandon her is Angel. This comes from the fact that he is a character who is searching for redemption too, yearning to make up for all the evil things he did in his past, and also, just like Faith, he is a character who found himself thinking about suicide because unable to bear the guilt for all he did and was helped by someone, Buffy in his case. Seeing Faith like that, he is the one who can understand her better than anyone and is determined to help her, despite Faith’s walls and everyone telling him she is a hopeless cause and doesn’t deserve any help. But even though Angel is unwavering in his decision to help Faith, his approach (and therefore the show’s) is the opposite of what happens in The 100. Or simply put, he never excuses Faith’s actions. (x)

ANGEL: “I won’t lie to you, and tell you it’ll be easy, because it won’t be. Just because you decided to change, doesn’t mean the world’s ready for you to. The truth is, no matter how much you suffer… no matter how many good deeds you do to try to make up for the past… you may never balance out the cosmic scale. The only thing I can promise you is that you’ll probably be haunted. Maybe for the rest of your life.”

And this is the character who defends her the most! But he doesn’t excuse the bad things Faith did or caused. This doesn’t mean that she Must Suffer Eternally and can never be happy and has to fall on her knees and be grateful to anyone who treats her decently. Or that she suddenly has to turn into a “puppy”. And indeed, that’s not what happens at all. Her personality remains intact in the narrative, she keeps clashing verbally with characters she had been at odds with in the past, it’s not all hugs and rainbows. But at the same time, we have seen her genuine desire to change and make amends, therefore the writing stays true to the character but leaves room for growth and development that feel real and earned and only make the character better.

Now, let’s look at some of the things several characters in The 100 say to Bellamy instead.



KANE (x)

JAHA (x)

The difference is obvious. Every single person Bellamy interacts with (with one exception that I’m gonna touch on very soon) either don’t comment on what Bellamy has done (or has been strategically removed from the narrative/episode when they could have been there to stop him, make him change his mind or simply to tell him what he was doing/planning to do was wrong, e.g. Raven being absent in 304) OR they’re extremely understanding and keep repeating that Bellamy is good and he doesn’t have to blame himself and he has to forgive himself. Kane’s words are the most blatant evidence of what the writers are doing. “Turn the page and don’t look back.” Yeah, he’s talking to Bellamy, but most of all, that’s a message for the audience. We’re supposed to turn the page and forget what Bellamy did.

What Bellamy has with other characters in regards to this storyline isn’t even real interactions. Like I said, there is no emotional conflict because everyone justifies what he has done despite the terrible consequences it had. And to do this, of course, the nature of the other characters is damaged. Take Clarke. Stubborn, confident, ready to challenge anyone. From season 3 on, she switches between being Bellamy’s punching bag, his emotional crutch, or being obscured and worsened to prop up his character. In season 3 he lashes out at her, sneers at her, belittles her. And she doesn’t react at all, but instead stays there to offer her support when he’s done being angry and needs a shoulder to cry on. In season 4 we even have a role-reversal of sorts, wherein Clarke makes a wrong choice (stealing the bunker) and Bellamy is shown to be the moral compass of the situation, and the season 4 finale is all about Bellamy, with Clarke being relegated to plot tool and deprived of any emotional resolution.

Moving on, I did speak about an exception to this string of ridiculously understanding people, and that exception is Octavia. She is the one who was impacted the most by Bellamy’s choices and in the most personal way, as they led to Lincoln’s death. There is nothing positive about this exception, though, because yet again, it’s twisted and she is twisted in favor of Bellamy’s character and “redemption” arc. And before I say anything else, I’ve stopped caring about Octavia or even liking her long ago.

Octavia is the only one who feels angry at Bellamy, but the show isn’t interested in exploring her feelings. Or to be more precise, the show is interested in her pain and anger because of the effects they have on Bellamy. Just take as an example that horrifying scene that never should have existed of Octavia beating up Bellamy in the cave. The scene (and the script as well) is entirely from his POV. The center of the scene isn’t Octavia’s grief, it’s Bellamy’s pain. His voluntary martyrdom as he gives himself up to his sister’s rage, bleeding in slow motion and not reacting. It’s a nasty, horrible scene that also has the effect of making Octavia invisible, crushing her character under all this violence and horror that we are forced to focus on, much like the other people in the cave. She has lost the man she loved but instead of focusing on her grief, she is shown in this extremely violent light that makes it impossible to sympathize with her in that moment, while instead it makes the audience feel bad for Bellamy. Same thing in 313, when merely days after Lincoln’s death, Bellamy complains because Octavia hasn’t forgiven him yet. She is shown cold and harsh, while the suffering that is shown and explored is Bellamy’s.

Season 4 is even worse when it comes to this, with the writing caging Octavia in this nonsensical storyline centered on her downward spiral supposedly started with her killing Pike. We’re supposed to question the morality of that choice and it’s even used as one of the pieces of evidence of Octavia’s growing darkness by Kane, the same person who told Bellamy to forget his past actions.

Nothing about all this is realistic or narratively coherent, these are choices made to heighten the scope of Bellamy’s redemption because now Bellamy not only is subjected to her anger but is also worried about her soul. And eventually, of course, their relationship is restored. With the exception of maybe one scene in 311, we can’t really talk about any actual confrontation between these two when it comes to Bellamy’s redemption storyline, between Bellamy and any character really.

To make another comparison to Faith, in her story Buffy is the one she has personally hurt the most. And when Buffy finds Faith with Angel after Faith has decided to change, the confrontation among the three is beyond intense. The center of the scene is Faith, her desire to redeem herself, but that doesn’t mean that Buffy and her anger towards Faith are demonized. It’s quite the opposite, they’re more than understandable.

Or when Buffy is talking directly to Faith. (x)

FAITH: “There is nothing I can do for you, B. I can’t ever make it right.“ 
BUFFY:  "So you’re just going to take off again. Leave us to clean up yet another one of your messes.“ 
FAITH:  "It would make things easier for you." 
BUFFY:  "Till you got bored with the whole guilt thing - decided to come back to shake things up?" 
FAITH:  "That’s not gonna happen." 
BUFFY:  "You’re right. It’s not." 
FAITH:  "Angel said there was no way you were gonna give me a chance." 
BUFFY:  "I gave you every chance!  I tried so hard to help you, and you spat on me. My life was just something for you to play with.”

Buffy has the right to be furious with Faith, and Faith is honest in wanting to change (after this conversation she is going to turn herself in). The two things aren’t mutually exclusive. To redeem Faith, the show doesn’t suddenly turn her as into an angel to justify in everything and Buffy in a dark heartless person.

But anyway, this post is already way longer than I thought it would be. At the end of the day, the real difference between the two arcs is one. The point of Faith’s storyline is that she learns to accept her responsibilities and become a better person. The point of Bellamy’s storyline is that he learns to forgive himself.

And when the core of the redemption of a character like Bellamy is based on him letting go of guilt to go party and get drunk, I really struggle with calling it “redemption.”

Extreme Tourism

A continuation of the Swapped Luggage AU?

“And how is your current date going, Law?”

Swatting at the latest mosquito to try making a meal out of him, Trafalgar D. Water Law, stumbles through the rainforest, wondering why he’d even bothered booking a fortnight off work for this madness.

Keep reading

Always happy to bleed for the Winchesters

There are many things to talk about in 12x14, so of course I’m choosing to start from the things that were not in the episode, namely Cas and Crowley, as you do. I’m kidding, this is actually about the Alpha vampire and the British Men of Letters. And Cas and Crowley. And everyone else.

Something that got my attention about 12x14 was the season 7 feels. Actually, all of season 12 hasn’t been scarce in its season 7 callbacks and references, especially in regards to Cas, but The Raid in particular had some interesting bits. @charlie-minion in this post has pointed out the parallel between Dean’s softened attitude towards Mary at the end of the episode with Dean’s attitude towards Cas in 7x01 when his body starts to drastically fail under the pressure of the Leviathan. Several people have also pointed out the parallel between Dean’s conversation with Jo in 7x04 (Hunters are never kids. I never was) and Dean’s line I never was when Mary tells him he’s not a child. And of course there was the Alpha vampire, whom we’d last seen in 7x22.

Now: why bringing back the Alpha vampire? Well, other than plot reasons (someone they’d need to use the Colt to kill) and extradiegetic reasons (the dangling thread of the Alpha vampire’s promise to “see you”), I think there are other subtextual/structural reasons. Partly related to the character’s role ins season 6 (the parallels between Samuel, Crowley, Cas, Mary, the British Men of Letters…) and partly, I suspect, related to the Alpha vampire’s role in the final portion of season 7.

My question is: can we see the British Men of Letters as a Leviathan parallel, and the process of taking the BMoL down as a parallel to the spell to send the Leviathan back to Purgatory?

The British Men of Letters don’t really seem to have much in common with the Leviathan in terms of goals and motivations, but if we look closely there are some things they kind of have in common. The professionalism in their organization, for instance; the Leviathan were different from regular monsters because they organized as a corporation, the BMoL are different than hunters because of their organization as some kind of corporation, too. There are some kind of territorial issues regarding the United States; the Leviathan’s plans were to subdue the human population of the United States (the demons could have Canada) and once the US were done, they could extend to other countries, the BMoL’s current plans are to eliminate monsters from the territory of the United States, and I guess that their intention is to do the same with other countries with “monster problems”.

There are also things that ping my radar like the fact that the tablets arc started in regards of the Leviathan, and Metatron was introduced, although only mentioned, in 7x21, and now the BMoL seem to have assumed the “meta” role of Metatron in the narrative, their reports and communications thus working as an equivalent of the tablets.

Speaking of the tablets - the Alpha vampire’s role in 7x22 is exactly connected to the instructions on the Leviathan tablet. 7x21 Reading Is Fundamental, 7x22 There Will Be Blood and 7x23 Survival Of The Fittest all feature the research for the way to get rid of the Leviathan; in 7x21, Kevin translates the Leviathan tablet:

Cut off the head, and the body will founder. Waste not thy time nor your breath upon the Leviathan herd. Point thy blade at the heart of their master, for from him springs all their messages. Leviathan cannot be slain but by a bone of a righteous mortal, as light and good as the Leviathan are hungry and dark, washed in the three blood of the fallen: a fallen angel, the ruler of the fallen humanity, and a father of fallen beasts.

One of the most interesting characteristics of the Leviathan is that the Leviathan - despite being referred to as a “they” as plural - is an actually one monster composed of different parts. That’s why hitting Dick Roman sent all the rest to Purgatory along with him - technically, Dick wasn’t one Leviathan among others, but he was the head, the most important part of the Leviathan as a whole.

I am wondering if season 12 is going to frame the “old men” in charge of the British Men of Letters as some kind of narrative equivalent of Dick Roman, minus the dick jokes (Mr Ketch seems to cover the homoerotic part efficiently…).

I am also wondering whether the “seduction” Ketch is operating (relatively successfully on Mary, not on Dean) could be paralleled to the effect of the Leviathan’s corn syrup, in a way - making the hunters docile and useful to the BMoL’s ends, via manipulation instead of chemicals.

Basically, a whole “reverse Leviathan” situation, with an organization of humans trying to eliminate monsters instead of an organization of monsters trying to make humans into food, and so on - so, why not a “reverse Leviathan tablet” situation, where the creatures involved in the spell to take the Leviathan down are victims of the BMoL instead of contributing to defeat the Leviathan?

So let’s get back to the Leviathan tablet, the Alpha vampire, and the rest.

The spell inscribed on the tablet requires the bone of a righteous human coated in the blood of a fallen angel, the king of hell, and an alpha monster. The events of collecting the bloods does not really follow that order (Cas is the first - in an episode that emphasized how the angels see Cas’ relationship with Dean as something that has corrupted him… anyway. um. let’s not digress - then the Alpha vampire also gives them his blood, then it’s Crowley’s turn) but the tablet itself gives us this specific order: bone of righteous human plus blood of fallen angel, king of hell, alpha monster.

Now, let’s put the bone of sister Mary Constant aside for a moment and focus on the creatures that give their blood for the spell: Castiel, Crowley, and the Alpha Vampire.

Basically: the last time we saw the Alpha vampire he was part of a “trio” along with Crowley and Cas. What if again he’s part of a “trio” in the narrative along with Crowley and Cas? More specifically, people who’ll get in trouble because of the British Men of Letters? And maybe, that Sam/Mary/some combination of characters will have to consider killing because of the British Men of Letters?

Let’s make a “you’re living my life in reverse” mental experiment and reverse the order on the Leviathan tablet. Alpha vampire, Crowley and Castiel.

The Alpha vampire comes first. In 12x14, he shows up, to fight against the British Men of Letters. Sam, though, sides with the BMoL, and kills him.

It’s not a difficult choice for Sam. The Alpha vampire is a monster, he’s killed many people, turned many people into monsters, and now he kills people who were in the BMoL base to do their job and didn’t have blood on their own hands. Sam allies with Mick, and the Alpha vampire dies.

What if the next big choices Sam (and Mary, and Dean, and everyone) has to make regard Crowley and Cas?

I mean, it’s pretty obvious that the whole “let’s get rid of all the monsters!!” attitude at some point will have to clash with the fact that some monsters are not evil and in fact some are family. But I expect, in particular, a progression that goes from the Alpha vampire to Crowley and Cas.

I mean, many people have been talking about this kind of issue in relation to Cas, but there also Crowley to put in the picture. Because, while Cas is seen as family by both Sam and Dean (and seemingly Mary, although of course she could rationalize eliminating Cas for the greater good) but Crowley does not possess the same status for the Winchesters. So, I can see Dean and Sam defending Cas from Mary and the rest, but can you see Dean and Sam defending Crowley?

Mary has made it clear what her perception of Crowley is - touch me and I’ll kill you - and Sam, while seemingly more chill around Crowley, does not like him any more. I can see a conflict among the Winchesters arising where Crowley is concerned. Dean, as much as he acts like he doesn’t care, does care for Crowley. It’s super complicated, it’s layered in layers of guilt and shame, but Dean has shared something with Crowley and Crowley does have a place in Dean’s virtual family table. (Maybe neither of them really realize it, definitely not Crowley, so I can see a storyline where things get clear for everyone involved.)

Sam has never tried to hide his feelings of aversion for Crowley. He’s worked with him when needed, but he’s never shared moments with Crowley except the one in the church, that was totally one-sided from Crowley’s side. Sam has acted chill towards Crowley lately because of the various circumstances they’ve been in, but Sam has never really stopped hating Crowley, hasn’t he? He’s never forgotten Crowley for the various things he blames him for (some of which definitely understandable…), including trying to steal Dean from him.

If Sam were in the circumstance of having to kill Crowley, I am sure that he would do it without really hesitating - I don’t think his feelings for Crowley have really changed since the time he used Rowena’s demon-killing instrument to try and kill him, especially if killing Crowley were presented to him as something rationally justified. Dean and Cas, on the other hand - I doubt either of them would willingly kill Crowley.

So I expect the story to go towards a place where Crowley and Cas find themselves in some sort of similar situation to the Alpha vampire - of course, in the case of the Alpha vampire the situation was completely different, because he was indeed a monster and choosing to kill him instead of letting him kill Mick was an easy decision. But if Crowley and Cas gets targeted by the British Men of Letters, if it’s decided that the Colt will have to be used against them, who will make which decision?

A reversal of “always happy to bleed for the Winchesters”, maybe? With the Winchesters sacrificing something/themselves (not necessarily lethally) for Crowley and/or Cas?

Thoughts about Spn 12x22 & 12x23


I admit after I watched the finale I was too upset to write anything. I needed to talk to some folks (thank you @k-vichan and @rosie-berber for comforting me) and let everything I saw sink in. But here it is: my two final reviews for season 12 (buckle up, this is going to be long)

12x22: Who We Are

Overall I liked this episode better than 12x23. Berens managed to finish a lot of this season’s story arcs, mainly the BMoL-arc and Mary and the relationship to her sons. It had a round and surprisingly happy ending, so of course 12x23 was full of tragedy to compensate this. But while 12x22 felt like finishing a story, 12x23 felt like the start of a new story (season 13). I think Berens is one of the few writers who can handle both motw-episodes and mytharc-episodes. These days he is one of the senior writers so he writes more mytharc-episodes. I’m still not a huge fan of 12x07, but with this episode he once proved again that he usually writes better. Just like in 11x06 he had to cram a lot of plot in one episode. The escape from the bunker, saving Mary and fighting the BMoL was enough plot to fill at least 2-3 episodes with it. But unlike other writers *cough*Bucklemming*cough* he managed it rather well.

Keep reading

Recently, someone messaged me to ask about a curse of mine they had performed. They wanted to know how long it would take to manifest and the effects it would have (unless the curse specifically dictates, then it varies and depends upon both target and witch, for future reference). I’m a very big advocate for privacy, so I’ll leave out the individual’s name. However, the part of their message that caught my eye the most was of the description they gave of how they felt after casting it. It’s a cocktail of feelings I have a very big fondness for. 

When one casts a curse, they should feel strong and that it was justified. There shouldn’t be a doubt in their mind that it was appropriate action. I’m not just saying that for ethics. Curses are very powerful things and very helpful. They give power to the weak and a weapon to the defenseless. However, they have very peculiar behaviors. Some are like wild animals, let loose in one direction while the witch stands behind and makes themself invisible to the beast. Some are a little more intelligent, willing to comply and understand, but will turn on their handler if the opportunity presents itself. So many people say to shield yourself before a curse because that curse can easily turn and harm the careless practitioner. Things like hesitation, guilt, those are like putting blood in the water. Sure, sometimes you can get away with it, but the risk isn’t worth it. Pride and strength are shields in and of themselves. 

I said to them, after talking about the timeframe and effects, that I hope they remember that feeling and that they do not have to cast many curses. It’s not that I don’t support cursing, I very much do, but that curses are generally used in retaliation of something. It is a power that comes from harm and weakness. If I asked people, “Why did you do this?” I’d probably hear, “I was hurt and I had no other way to defend myself.” or “Someone hurt me.” That’s why I do it. That’s why I started cursing and started writing them and posting them for others to see and use. That’s why I write them for friends and those that come to me for a curse. It should feel good to curse. It should feel like you’ve finally gained the strength to fight back and defend and banish and take control of your life. But to want those things is to have known the lack of them, which is sad to think about. 

anonymous asked:

(1/2) My MC leads an armed revolt against the tyrannical rulers (which are his own family) but the revolt fails, my MC is captured and put in prison. He is not tortured per se, but he is in a solitary confinement for a month and is put in hand shackles. After that, one of his relatives visits him, assures him that his life will be not in danger and orders to remove the shackles. After this "small kindness" and the solitary my MC breaks and gives all the names of rebels to the interrogators.

(2/2) I wanted to write it respectfully and truthfully and still show the “lowest point” of my MC - I thought to write it as some kind of coping strategy, like, my MC convinces himself that the rebellion was a mistake, did more worse than good and destroyed lives, the rulers are not so bad and he was mistaken in opposing them - and thats why he breaks. Do you think it is realistic? And which are the short-term (and long-term, is any) effects of being shackled? Thank you!

Alright well- if you want to be realistic and respectful you need to start by treating solitary confinement for a month and being shackled for a month as torture.

Because it is.

There are massive long term effects of the tortures your describing which would affect your character. And part of what I want to do is help authors realise that and show that.

Because at the moment we tend to write about certain tortures as if they have no effect on people. Which- well it does a disservice to the victims but it also teaches generations of writers not to think twice about putting their characters through these things. We’re taught to assume they have no effect.

I think it’ll probably be helpful for you if I go over the physical and psychological effects of solitary and shackling for this time period but the main thing you’re worried about seems to be the character’s reaction. So I’ll go over that first.

I’ve stressed repeatedly that torture does not and can not change hearts and minds. But the impression I have here is that that isn’t what you’re going for.

The ‘enemy’ are the character’s family that makes everything much more emotionally complicated. It would be natural for your character to have doubts about how ‘bad’ their family are, especially if they had a good childhood.

And if the rebellion has so far landed the MC in prison and done the same for other rebels who were relying on the MC. Well then I think it’s also natural for the character to doubt whether rebelling was ‘right’.

So to me this scenario sounds reasonable because it’s not showing the character changing their beliefs because of torture.

Instead it sounds like the character had a lot of doubts to begin with and the failure and capture have made them reconsider their beliefs. It seems likely to me that if the character wasn’t tortured and was well treated in prison they’d arrive at a similar conclusion: that the rebellion was wrong, their family isn’t ‘so bad’ and they made a mistake.

My main suggestion is that you make that as clear as possible in your writing. Show the MC having doubts before they’re captured. It can be small things like thinking ‘oh but x family member isn’t really that bad’ or ‘I don’t think my family could have really ordered or known about x atrocity’.

It could also include looking over areas the MC has occupied/’saved’ and thinking that the people are worse off. This would be a reasonable and natural consequence of the kind of war you’re describing, transport routes are disrupted, farming is disrupted, normal people are trying to support armies. The upshot is less food in local rural areas. The MC could justify this by telling themselves that this is temporary and when he gets rid of his family these people will be better off. But that sort of scenario can be used to show his doubts exist before torture.

Which means that his willingness to ‘talk’ would be there without torture.

I think you should consider drastically reducing the time your MC is tortured. A week is long enough for symptoms of solitary confinement to start. If the MC isn’t shackled and is left for ‘only’ a week then I think that plays in more strongly to the MC’s idea that his family are merciful/not so bad.

If you’re wedded to keeping a month’s solitary and the shackles then you’re going to have to deal with the fact that this will make the character both less willing and less able to give their family information about the rebels.

One of the symptoms of solitary is severe mood swings and increased aggression. He could have convinced himself the rebellion was a mistake but still be in no mood to cooperate with his relatives.

But the real kicker is that all forms of torture have a pronounced negative effect on memory. Your character is basically not going to remember all the rebels’ names after being tortured for a month. The ones he’s known longest he’ll probably remember but the ones he didn’t have a lot of contact with or didn’t like as much or didn’t know for as many years- He’ll probably have forgotten even if he really wants to tell his relatives.

Even when he remembers names he may have forgotten physical descriptions and he’s extremely unlikely to accurately remember addresses.

He is likely to misremember names and descriptions. For instance if one of the key rebels is called ‘John Smith’ the MC might give his name as ‘Jack Smith’. He might describe ‘Jack Smith’ as a tall man with a huge beard when in fact that description matches another rebel.

Your MC would not be aware he’s doing this.

As a side note I really dislike the term ‘break’ it’s a specific reference to a form of execution by torture that was used in Europe (the wheel). I suggest you don’t use it in your writing.

Right so now let’s talk a little about the effects of solitary confinement and restraint tortures.

Solitary confinement has pronounced negative effects on people. The effects are physical as well as psychological, something I try to stress because physical symptoms are usually overlooked in fiction.

The physical symptoms include head aches, eye problems, joint pain, lack of energy, feelings of weakness and insomnia. Head aches seem to be particularly common.

Psychological symptoms are wide ranging and serious. They include depression, anxiety, self harm, aggression, mood swings, memory problems, difficulty concentrating and learning, hallucinations and sometimes psychotic episodes. Hallucinations and psychotic episodes appear to be a little less common. Depression and suicidal urges are very common.

You can find out more information from this great, free, online source.

If your character is in solitary confinement for a week he can be expected to make a full recovery, however if he’s confined for longer then the psychological symptoms will persist. Probably for years. How long exactly they last and how well he copes depends on his support network, his access to treatment and his individual symptom profile.

I advise picking symptoms that fit the character and the story since there’s no way to predict which victims develop which symptoms.

Shackling someone in the long term is a form of restraint torture. I suppose the easiest way to describe it is a less dangerous form of stress position. It restraint in such a way that the victim is kept uncomfortable and a constant state of pain but they have enough mobility to relieve some of the pressure on their muscles. As a result the break down of muscles is less severe and they aren’t at risk of kidney failure.

The upshot is that someone can be realistically kept this way for months without dying. They’re incredibly popular in China right now and seem to be one of the tortures of choice (which indicates a change in National Style since Rejali published research).

The character should be able to move his limbs to the extent that the same muscles aren’t constantly stretched.

Generally speaking these tortures can cause circulation problems and nerve problems that can affect long term mobility.

With a metal shackle particularly circulation problems are less likely because the cuff itself doesn’t tighten. But the weight of the cuffs and chain and the way they dig into flesh means cuts, scarring and nerve damage are slightly more likely.

All forms of restraint torture that keep the hands tied for prolonged periods would cause muscle wastage in the arms, which affect the character’s ability to use their arms on release.

In this case from your description I think the character would (after a month) have permanently lost a lot of fine mobility in his hands. Anything that requires manual dexterity is likely to be much more difficult. But given time he should recover the strength in his arms.

He could still throw a mean punch but he might not be able to throw a pot on a wheel.

I think in terms of the way your character acts you have a reasonable and well thought through scenario but you need to add in the kind of symptoms and long term effects a character tortured in this way would experience in order for it to be realistic.

I hope that helps. :)


The Man in the High Castle

I loved it.

The series is incredibly beautiful and done with an amazing attention to detail. The way it shows the alternative 60s in US that are both familiar and alien. The slow measured shots and muted colouring that make only one colour stand out - red. Like on the occupiers flags - the background to swastikas and the Imperial Rising Sun. And blood.

The slowly unfurling plot shows the truths about living under totalitarian rule. Many believe they would fight to do end and someone do but most people just keep their head down and try to survive. Live their lives. In art (literature/movies) it’s almost always shown from the perspective of a dissident. It sells to have a hero be someone fighting against the system. But that’s not the lives of most people.

People under those regimes mostly live pretty ordinary and boring lives - they do shopping, send kids to school and watch sports - while ignoring the bad things that happen. Sure you know but as long as it doesn’t affect you or your family you can stop thinking about it and convince yourself it isn’t really that bad. This becomes your new normal and you get used to it. If you keep your head down and don’t draw attention to yourself you can have a pretty good life. You just need to stop thinking about what happens to those people who said something. They deserve it anyway.

So people in the Nazi part say Seig Heil to SS officer next door and sell the remnants of their culture to please the new rulers. They ignore disappearing neighbours. Agree with whatever brand of racism government spouts as long as they are not one of the persecuted. And even then most just try to keep their heads down and hope they’ll be missed until there is no there choice. Until it’s them or their loved ones and they have to choose.

Polish history of last 200 years is one occupation after another so I have plenty of references there. During the prison torture all I could think of were scenes from Stalinist prisons (although other regimes do plenty of that too) and Nazis considered us subhuman and planned to kill us all (after they were done with the non-humans like Jews and Roma they were to finish of enslaved Slavic populations - they just run out of time here).


Keep reading


In the wake of recent events, I feel like I should use this account to make a serious and important videogame related post. We often think of videogames as fun and violent and fantasy, but they have a lot of philosophy and psychology fit in that we tend to gloss over, in this case, Undertale and Borderlands. It may seem silly or disrespectful to compare these videogames to the horrors of war and terrorism like the Paris attacks, but they bring up a point that no one likes to admit. Those terrorists were heroes to some people. Those terrorists thought they were doing something good when they slaughtered innocent people. They believed that is what their religion and state and people wanted. They believed that they were enacting revenge and committing a strike against the enemies and dying in the name of their God.
In every war, there are no good guys and bad guys. There’s only multiple perspectives.

In Undertale, Chara is supposed to be the metaphor of that feeling behind every traditional RPG character, killing enemies, level up, increase stats, get the best equipment, get more and more powerful, grinding on enemies….. Basically a power hungry psychopath that kills everyone they can get away with to increase their stats. You can complete the game without gaining a single level, without killing a single enemy, but games have so ingrained the kill or be killed theme in us, that if Toby hadn’t rubbed the “you don’t need to kill anyone” and “spare monsters” in the players face I bet a lot of people playing would get a really bad neutral ending or maybe even accidentally trigger the genocide route when they tried to grind for the “boss fight”.

The heros in many old videogames are horrible from the monsters perspective, how many sentient beings did you cut down to save your “princess” or beat the “Mr bad guy”? Asgore even has a sweater with “Mr Dad Guy” on it to drive home this point. How many Koopas, Zoras, goblins, spirits, Giants,monsters, animals, or enemy soldiers did you kill to get to the end? How many lives did you end and families did you ruin all so you could “save the humans”? How many times did you really have to kill, and how many times were you doing it because it was the easiest way and you had justified it? How many times did you refer to them as a slur or other name to try to dehumanize them, to make them seem like some soulless mindless enemy that existed only to kill you? Did you really think they go out and fight because they believe they are the evil one? Did you really think that they believe they are doing something wrong, that they don’t think they are the hero in this story? As Chara asks you, do you believe you are above consequences just because you are the “player”?

This happens in every war. After the winner takes power, the loser is treated like the bad guy. we forget how much good they may have done for their people, believing they were the good ones. Just like Handsome Jack says, everyone thinks they are the hero of their own story. Everyone convinces themselves that what they are doing is what has to be done, that their hand has been forced, it’s kill or be killed. It’s being afraid for your life so you ended someone else’s without knowing what the truth was. When you start trying to compare how bad people are based on the number of deaths compared to the population at the time, you’d find a lot of “good sides” killed the most people.
We remember George Washington as a noble honest leader, a Great War hero that lead guerrilla attacks against the British empire trying to control them and prevent their independence.
We remember those who committed guerrilla attacks for the same reason as terrorists and cowards now.

Take for example the Vietnam war, Ho Chi Minh originally loved USA, based the North Vietnamese constitution on it, and desired independence from the French colonialism and the empire, and wanted the USA to help, but because we are allied with France, we declined to help and basically let the communist countries sponsor and support them and input a communist government, and with the French and South fighting them and no support from other Countries, of course they joined the communist countries that offered to help. The Viet Cong were called the National Liberation Front and used guerrilla warfare to resist and fight the other “non-communist” side of the war, and had mostly native Vietnamese in the army. They were like the USA colonies fighting the British. People say Ho-Chi-Minh wanted to be a god and is treated like one. Meanwhile George Washington is on our money, in your government buildings, the state of Washington, our capital is “Washington D.C.”, we have multiple legends about him, we have a preserved historical center at Mount Vernon where he lived…..

The USA got involved and killed so many people, wasted so much money, destroyed so much forest and ruined so many lives, to help maintain foreign control over a country that wanted independence. We withdrew eventually and the communist takeover happened anyway. Nothing was gained. So much was lost. We were just as much the bad guys to them, if not worse, as the British were to the colonists. A lot of our historical heroes did horrible things, and a lot of our historical villains did some pretty good things.
Hitler gave the family dog Cyanide too so it would not have to starve with its masters corpses when the family committed suicide before the enemy army could reach them. He loved his family. He was very charismatic and able to get a lot of support and a lot of people at the time supported him. He loved to paint. He created the projects and government plans that resulted in Volkswagen. He no doubt believed every single horrible thing he said and did to Jewish people and other minorities, and genetically and biologically while morally horrible and unethical in today’s culture, his views on Darwinism and genetics and creating a race of humans that suffered less and could do more and be healthy…. It was all correct in concept, not correct in how it was done or in the moral/ethical complications it caused.

Every religion in the world has been used by someone who was delusional and believed they were doing the right thing when they did something horrible in the name of that religion. Remember the Protestant-Catholic-Luther-Baptist conflicts that still occur today over insignificant differences in essentially the same religion? Same thing with the Shiite and Sunni conflicts. Same thing with the Orthodox Jews and Palestinian Jews. Lots of religious texts mention both how horrible people that kill innocents are, and lots of religious texts have parts about how certain people are bad and should be struck down, and how a god killed a bunch of people, and commanded people to kill other people, and lots of religious texts preach compassion and tolerance, and then go and say someones a sinner or infidel or apostate for silly things like who they fall in love with and what fabrics are in their clothes and what animals they eat like “ the creators of the universe drew the line at the deli counter” (Bo Burnham).

There will always be extremists as long as a religion exists to be twisted into a way to justify their actions and make them believe they are the hero. Any dogma and big work of text can be corrupted and used to support indescribable hate and destruction by people that truly believe they are the hero. In Undertale you hold the life of a single child over the freedom of an entire race and civilization. You don’t make the logical choices, yet you believe you are the hero, when the Barrier would not be broken had it not been for Flowey’s “evil” plan taking place, allowing you to convince Asriel to use the power obtained by Flowey’s plan to break the barrier without needing to sacrifice your human soul. Still you cannot truly save Asriel from his fate. You only get a good of that ending because of what you did allowing the evil side to do what you couldn’t.

Every Time these wars and terrorist attacks happen, don’t let yourself be fooled. They aren’t evil. They don’t believe they are doing wrong. We are not good. We don’t exclusively do good stuff. When we promise to retaliate and bomb them or invade, and civilian casualties happen, and soldiers slaughtering people, and friendly fire hitting hospitals and towns to try to kill “the bad guys” and because “we need to strike so our troops in there can do their job”, we are being just as bad. We kill far more innocents than 129 people. War is not a case of good versus evil. It’s a case of two forces failing to understand the other and resorting to violence that everyone will suffer from. We call them brainwashed, then call doing the same to our children “religious education”. We call them slurs and pretend there is no man behind that scarf and flak jacket. We pretend it’s not someones son we just shot dead. We act like they are demons in the shape of men that just come out of thin air in the Middle East and are filled with the hatred for us and the believe they are doing something evil to innocent people, then we pretend they are the same as the refugees that escape from them, and pretend like those men, women and children we don’t know are guilty and not innocent, think we should send them all back to the bombing range they came from and pretend like the thousands that died don’t matter because they weren’t “from some place where that’s unusual”. Then we mourn and ask how these men could come and slaughter innocent people in Paris they did not know.

Because to them, we are not innocent. We vote for politicians that start pointless lengthy wars that kill so many, we are the ones who cheer for the men and women in the military that have shot these terrorists. Because that terrorist sees the cruel uncaring people that voted and cheered for the people that blew a bloody hole through his fathers head as he watched. Because he sees the people he has been taught to hate and because he has been taught lines from his religions book interpreted and cherry picked to support his act of martyrdom.

Within hours of the attack, calls went out for a merciless response no matter the cost, a call to kill more people, a call to spend more money to destroy and play judge than to resort to diplomacy.

If I see a terrorist, and I have the means, I will stop them. I will shoot them instead of taking the risk of trying to talk them down before they can shoot and kill me. I will probably torture someone who kills my loved ones, and I will feel pleasure from this revenge. Because I am human. I am flawed. Illogical. Unethical. Immoral. Because I am scared and selfish. Because I am fallible to the belief I must kill or be killed, because it’s so much easier to call them a slur and shoot them like a rabid animal or like they don’t have people that love them. Like those eyes that have gone blank did not once belong to the innocent gaze of a baby, like the brain that is now destroyed from trauma and shockwaves from the hot lead did not have imagination and feelings as true and real as my own.

If you took the time to read this, thank you. Don’t believe the excuses. It’s not kill or be killed. It’s not don’t kill and don’t be killed. Only you can make your own choices, because you are yourself in a story, but you aren’t a hero, you aren’t a villain, and this isn’t your story. Every time you meet a hero or villain, think of it from their perspective and their view. Don’t blindly hate and pretend like you or any other being have the power to pass judgment over a strangers entire life. We are all heroes, we are all monsters, we are all background characters, romantic interests, comic relief, mentors…

It just depends on who tells the story.

On Doxxing and Neo-Nazis

I get that someone would logically be uncomfortable with the idea of “doxxing”; I get that. It feels dangerous. What if some internet person goes and stabs somebody? What if the person doing the doxxing is lying? What if you have the wrong person? Those are legitimate concerns for the most part!

But the goal of doxxing is not to result in death or physical violence; in point of fact, it’s usually intended to avoid the future risk of that by inhibiting violent behavior now, before a neo/nazi interprets lack of opposition as social permission. (Which is an entirely separate can of worms I won’t talk about now.)

While I absolutely wouldn’t claim it’s a faultless practice, consider these points:

  • A lot of these people use their own full, real names on this stuff– obviously, they don’t mind having this stuff attached to their image. It would be one thing if they were “hacked”, but almost always, these people have their information right out there in the open on their own social media accounts. At most, the average “doxxer” references the free portion of public whitepages.
  • Stooping to their level” would necessarily involve using slurs or claiming with seriousness that all whites or all Christians should die horrible torture-deaths regardless of age or background. (Complaining in a general way about not wanting to be around white supremacist beliefs or about the way most of white-dominated society turn their backs on violence against minorities is not the same.) It would involve organizing around that belief, petitioning the government to make it happen, and going out as a group to physically intimidate and threaten people purely on the basis of religion and race. If you notify someone’s employer that they’ve been running around on public media saying they think all <whoever> should die or that they hope the government is looking for extermination volunteers, and they lose their job, it’s not your fault they got fired. It’s their fault. You didn’t give them this person’s secret diary. You didn’t lie about anything they said. When you go on social media using your own name, you are effectively standing in a public space. I can’t go to the park and scream that I think someone should burn down the church on 8th street and expect to keep my job; I don’t see why it should be any different for these guys.
  • You really, truly, genuinely cannot change a neo/nazi’s mind. It’s not like people don’t try! People have been trying since the dawn of time. We don’t want these people to feel this way. We don’t want them to hate us. We would love to believe that these people are just a little misguided. But we don’t live in a society that forces them to behave this way for their own safety, or that forces people to choose between themselves and others. They are voluntarily going out of their way to not only have these beliefs, but to scream them from the rooftops, hound the government to pass laws in line with them, and seek out people to harass with them. Debate requires that both sides approach the subject in good faith, with intention to do what is correct, not with the intention to “win.” Nazis don’t want to be correct. Nazis want to win. I guarantee that even if I engaged someone like this in polite conversation, I would immediately be met with violent language, death threats and slurs, especially because I have a visibly Jewish name. I have tried to do it before, many times, in fact. It ends the same way every time, no matter how nice I am, and I do mean nice. Trying to offer a neo/nazi sympathy, to commiserate with their feelings, to offer alternatives, to share stories about why their ‘viewpoint’ is harmful– it does nothing but tell them they’re right and that their position is sympathetic and acceptable. At best, someone might indicate that I should die so violence like that doesn’t happen anymore (lol), or that it’s my own fault for not converting. At worst, well… you can imagine.
  • Their beliefs are frequently circular, based on highly selective and subjective interpretation of translated Hebrew, or both. Example: White supremacists won’t hire black people because blacks are lazy and worthless. How do they “know” that? Well, look how many black people are unemployed! (Do you see what’s wrong with that picture?)

In their eyes, POC and Jews are not “really” human, and all of them, from babies to elders, should be completely erased from existence as soon as possible, no matter who they are personally. A selection of religiously-based beliefs neo-nazi groups use to justify this include, but are not limited to:

  1. Jews are actually the half-demon offspring of Eve and a demon. This is also used to explain why women are stupid and untrustworthy.
  2. POC are actually included among the “beasts of the field” and are therefore soulless and were created to serve (white) man.
  3. POC are the descendants of Ham, who was “marked” and had his bloodline cursed to eternal servitude as punishment for not looking away from his naked, drunken dad, therefore shaming him in the eyes of God. This belief is touted as an ancient and therefore factual one, but the first recorded mention of it doesn’t show up until shortly before the Civil War era. It was hastily invented and used by American Southerners to morally justify slavery, based on a poor translation of the Hewbrew name Ham as being related to the word for “black.” (The scripture itself existed, of course, but not the interpretation that it referred to black people.)

Of course it’d be preferable if we didn’t feel we had to do this; of course it would be preferable not to. But at the same time, voluntary neo-nazis etc. have never said and will never say “Oh, so there’s no consequence for me advocating for genocide at all? Well, thanks for being nice to me. I guess I don’t want all blacks and Jews to die now. Your personal kindness and anecdotes about the trauma you/your loved one faced have made me change my mind.”

I don’t think they should go to jail for saying these things unless they call for direct action against people, which is a crime (and which they are often smart enough to avoid.) But I do think they should absolutely be shamed and admonished, and the only way to do that so that they don’t feel invincible and victorious is to make it personal.

Yelling at killthefuckingjews1844 on twitter or whatever isn’t going to mean jack shit to him; if anything, he’ll probably sit back in his chair, feeling smug and powerful, safe from real confrontation and feeling he’s gotten the better of his “enemies.”

But I bet he won’t feel that way if you call his mom.

I bet he won’t feel that way if you let his employer know that he told you he wanted your family to die.

I bet he won’t feel that way if you even just tell him you know his personal info.

You know why? Because it bitchslaps them straight out of their power fantasy. It makes them afraid.

And you know what? Empathy is based on shared experience. And maybe next time they want to terrorize somebody, they’ll remember how it felt to be a target and reconsider, even if they do it for the wrong reasons.

anonymous asked:

Hi! I like Hardy & Miller as friends, but can u give reasons why you ship them? I just wanna see your take on there relationship. :D

Hardy and Miller are constructed as classic complementary opposites, the type you see in buddy cop movies and romcoms where two characters start out hating each other but ultimately overcome their differences and realise that they need to be more like each other (see here for full breakdown). 

Whether you ship them as an otp or a brotp, it’s undeniable that they are explicitly, absolutely made for each other. It’s a testament to Chibnall’s writing how perfectly they balance each other out and how seamlessly they come to function as detective partners. They heal each other. They promote positive change in one another. We as an audience view them as two halves of the same whole and their relationship forms the very heart of the show.

Why do I prefer to view them as romantic rather than platonic? It comes down to parallels. Hardy investigated the murder of a girl the same age as his daughter. Miller had to investigate the murder of a boy the same age as her son. Hardy was horribly betrayed by his intimate partner; so was Miller. Hardy was cast out from society and made a pariah because of his failings in the Sandbrook case; the same thing happened to Miller with the Broadchurch case. Hardy lost touch with his daughter. Miller lost touch with her son. They are the only people on this earth who can fully understand each other and what they went through. Their relationship is so intense and so raw and so real. It is founded on absolute trust and honesty. Some people claim it’s unhealthy for them to argue and bicker so much – but think of the world this takes place in.

The tagline of Broadchurch is ‘A town wrapped in secrets.’ The idea that you can’t trust anyone, not even the people you love, is pervasive. This is especially pertinent for Hardy and Miller given the betrayals they suffer. And yet - “There are no secrets between him and me,” says Miller. “I trust her.” says Hardy, who so often professed “You can’t trust anyone.” The faith they place in each other is blinding. They may not always see eye to eye, but they trust each other unconditionally. Why? Because they’re honest with one another, plain and simple. And sometimes honesty means Hardy telling Miller he finds her annoying, or Miller telling Hardy he’s acting like a fuckwit. What’s also remarkable about this is that these are two people who are at their absolute worst. They’ve lost everything. They’ve hit rock bottom. All their deepest flaws and insecurities are exposed. They’re hurt and hostile and irritable and unpleasant to be around and they lash out at one another. They are, quite simply, broken, in almost every way.

But they love and support one another anyway. They forgive their outbursts. They get better because of each other and they get better for each other. They were both broken fucking messes who tried and failed to fix themselves, but somehow they managed to fix each other.

The fact that both of them were horribly betrayed by their intimate partners is a massive part of why I think they’re suited romantically, and Chibnall really plays this up. Tess is deliberately compared and contrasted against Ellie. They are cast to look similar - same age, same build, same brown hair. Both worked as Hardy’s DS. Ellie basically fills the space Tess used to occupy in Hardy’s life, both at work and in his home. But personality-wise, Ellie and Tess are exhibited as opposites, and Tess’ infidelity vs Ellie’s unshakeable trust, loyalty and emotional support makes it obvious who is better for Hardy.

Similarly, Alec and Joe are compared and contrasted – quite significantly. For a full breakdown, see here. But just have a look at what the camera is telling us:

Ellie says she loved her husband; we see Joe; aaaand, pull focus to show Hardy. I wonder who she loves now?

Now we see Hardy being framed in Miller’s family photos, literally taking up the space her husband used to occupy.

We even get a shot of Hardy and Miller sharing a bed like husband and wife, with Hardy taking up the side Joe used to sleep in:

Again, it’s obvious who would be better for Ellie out of Joe and Hardy.

Remember also that both Hardy and Miller are suffering for what their partners did to them. They were two loving spouses cruelly betrayed, and they continue to suffer for that betrayal. Ellie says she feels guilty, while Joe sees himself as innocent. He justifies and explains away his actions. The situation is the same, to a less severe degree, with Tess and Hardy. Hardy “took the blame.” He thinks he deserves penance, and scourges himself for failing Pippa and Lisa and for failing as a husband, while Tess is quite happy to let him suffer and sees no need to atone or tell the truth. Both Hardy and Miller need to forgive themselves. Both need to find the courage to say “I am not the guilty one.” They are overcoming the same difficulties, and cannot enter a new relationship or attain the intimacy they so desperately crave until they do so.

Now, about them being two halves of a whole. In S02E07, Claire Ripley and Hardy share this exchange:

“You go about your life thinking you’re complete and then you meet someone and you realise you’re only really half of something… when you meet that person… you know it’s true. You’re only really whole when you’re with each other. Never ends well, does it?

“What doesn’t?”

“Love. It makes you strong, then it pulls you down. However it happens, one half always loses the other.”

The next scene then shows Hardy waking up and looking directly at Miller, who is gently smiling at him, indicating that this idea applies to them. Want more proof? The entire damn show is shot to make them look like two halves. The camera tells us visually that they are not whole unless they are with each other. S2 begins and ends with Hardy alone and looking in a mirror; in the interim, Miller is his mirror image, always by his side, always filling the empty half of the shot, and often dressed by the costume department to match his clothes (the grey pantsuit; the blue sweater; the black coat, etc.). The costumes tell us they are mirror images of each other - different, but the same. The camera gives them equal weight and focus, identifying them as equals and two halves of the same whole. If they’re not matching then they’re complementary opposites with a blue/orange contrast, blue for Hardy, orange for Miller.

Continuing on with this idea, Chris Chibnall has openly stated that he was inspired by the writings of Thomas Hardy, which is why he references his works so often and why Alec and Tess are named after Alec and Tess from Tess of the d’Urbervilles (see more here), among other things. It’s my opinion that Chibnall is aiming to reproduce Thomas Hardy’s depiction of love. Hardy was realistic on that point. He was interested in second loves and second chances. His lovers are widows, widowers, and divorcees, sexually mature lovers who are keenly aware of how cruel love can be. Instances of true love are rare amidst an abundance of failed or unhappy marriages, and they take years to form properly, often growing out of friendship amidst deep sorrow, loss and tribulation.

This picture of reality is reflected in Broadchurch. Most of the characters who either were or are married are divorced or unhappy. Beth and Mark married hastily as teenagers after Beth became pregnant to satisfy societal pressures; their relationship is struggling, and Mark was unfaithful. Hardy is divorced, and this, among other traumas, caused him to develop heart arrhythmia. Miller divorced (or at least separated from) her husband when she discovered he was Danny’s killer. Lucy’s husband abandoned her. Jack Marshall separated from his teenage bride. Susan Wright is a widow whose husband used to abuse their daughters. Sharon Bishop’s partner is gone. Becca’s partner left her. Ricky and Cate had an unhappy marriage, and separated after their daughter was murdered. Claire and Lee share a deeply dysfunctional, unhealthy, and abusive relationship. In this paradise of gloom, Maggie and Jocelyn emerge as a literal bright spot – characters who conveniently parallel Ellie and Hardy, respectively. Jocelyn also advises Hardy that she missed the person she was meant to be with, the implication for Hardy being that, like Jocelyn, he needs to act and tell his true love before he misses his chance.

BUT – back to the two halves. When Thomas Hardy talks about couples that are meant for each other, he uses this “two halves” idea, which I think is why Chibnall uses it. Significantly, when Alec d’Urberville meets Tess Durbeyfield – two characters who are WRONG for each other, and who give their names to our Alec and Tess -  this is Hardy’s commentary:

In the present case, as in millions, it was not the two halves of a perfect whole that confronted each other at the perfect moment; a missing counterpart wandered independently about the earth waiting in crass obtuseness till the late time came. Out of which maladroit delay sprang anxieties, disappointments, shocks, catastrophes, and passing-strange destinies.

All this tragedy happened because the heroine met the wrong person first. Hmmm.

Thomas Hardy also says of his couple Jude and Sue:

That complete mutual understanding, in which every glance and movement was as effectual as speech for conveying intelligence between them, made them almost the two parts of a single whole.

“I have been struck with these two facts; the extraordinary sympathy, or similarity, between the pair. He is her cousin, which perhaps accounts for some of it. They seem to be one person split in two!”

Somewhat off-topic now, but still applicable to Hardy and Miller, when Gabriel and Bathsheba get together in Far From the Madding Crowd, Hardy celebrates their union with the following passage:

Theirs was that substantial affection which arises (if any arises at all) when the two who are thrown together begin first by knowing the rougher sides of each other’s character, and not the best till further on, the romance growing up in the interstices of a mass of hard prosaic reality. 

Sound familiar?

I believe Chris Chibnall is writing Hardy and Miller as a Thomas Hardy couple, the kind that get together only after enduring disastrous first marriages, the kind that get together after being close friends for a long time, the kind that are so suited to one another that they form two halves of a whole.

At this stage, for Hardy and Miller to get together would symbolise the triumph of real, healthy love that is based on absolute trust, love, friendship, honesty and consent. It would lead to the detectives overcoming the traumas their first partners put them through. It would lead to them achieving their greatest desire – to have a family and a loving spouse. To have a home. To love, and be loved, and be happy. It would see two broken halves coming together to make a single, perfect whole. That is why I ship them. 

On the overly liberal usage of the term “weeaboo”...

One mark of a weeaboo: using Japanese terms without fully understanding what the word means, indicates, and the situational background associated with such words.

Yes, there are people who indiscriminately fetishize the Japanese language and unironically throw in random words in romaji in their English sentences when the word has an accurate English equivalent, which is both dumb and annoying. Many people fail to also realize or acknowledge that Japanese do the same thing with English, though. (Neither are amusing.) “Bitch” in Japanese doesn’t even mean the same thing that it does in English. They call all nail polish “manicures”. Sail boats with single masts “yachts” (yotto). Big apartments, even if said room is tiny and single-room “mansions”. Wasei-eigo is horrifying–or of any other language. The Japanese pretty much, in general, have little respect for foreign languages and won’t even spend 5 seconds to google something before publishing their work in Engrish, from what I’ve witnessed. That doesn’t justify weebs fetishizing the Japanese language, of course. But people like to pretend that it’s only a one-sided thing.

However, this thing that people seem to think is cool: namely putting down everyone who uses the terms “otaku”, or even “fujoshi” to describe oneself and labeling them all as weeaboos, even if the people who call themselves by those terms thoroughly understand the stigma associated to them… it’s ridiculous.
If the mark of a trait of a weeaboo includes using Japanese terms without actually knowing what they mean, it’s kinda hypocritical.
Because essentially, you are mocking someone for using terms without understanding the terms fully, when you yourself don’t understand what the term means, and are just going by the twisted definition of the word.
Honestly, of the many times I have witnessed people throw the term “weeaboo” around overly-liberally, most of the time they don’t seem to even understand the correct meaning of the word “otaku”. They aren’t much better than actual weeaboos themselves.
It’s as embarassing as the people who think they know what “moe” means when they don’t (i.e. thinking that it only refers to the cutesy ecchi anime girls and things limited to moe culture).

The term “otaku” doesn’t refer exclusively to its negative stereotype. Otaku also doesn’t just refer to obsessive fans of anime/manga. It can be used for gamers, idol fans, audiophiles, etc. Yes, the word has a lot of negative stigma attached to it, but the negative stigma is not necessarily inclusive to the meaning.

(Stigma such as:
- People who claim to have committed crimes because of anime/manga, which is utter bullshit. If someone commits a crime out of an inability to differentiate between fiction and reality, they’re an idiot and the fault is entirely theirs. The Japanese have very outdated ways of thinking, and the older generations especially always jump to blaming the material said crimes were “based on”.
- “Sweaty, fat, gross, perverted lolicon/siscon” stereotype <–though yes, they are abundant, judging people just because they fit the visual stereotype is dumb.
- Peoples’ definition of this word vary–some insist that otaku refers to people who are so obsessed with something it becomes detrimental to their social skills, while there are also many uses of the word in Japan where only obsession is the requirement. Passion is not a crime, if it’s not hurting anybody in real life.)

Referring to yourself as “weeaboo trash” is also rather annoying. You don’t need to “beat them to the punch”. It’s just often an inaccurate description that twists the meaning of the word that makes more people think that it’s okay to call all of us that. Please understand that there are many of us who dislike being unjustfully called a weeaboo.
People who refer to themselves as “otaku” are not necessarily (though possibly) calling themselves that for the sake of being “cool” or “edgy” or w/e. Mocking them based on that assumption is also obnoxious and doesn’t make you any better. It’s self-pejorative. If they understand the meaning fully, let them call themselves that–and if you don’t know if they understand, don’t assume they don’t.

Understand that it’s insulting to some people to be called a weeaboo since the term also suggests that said weeb glorifies what they think is Japanese culture without actually knowing anything about Japanese culture. By extension of calling someone a weeaboo, you are also calling them ignorant.
There are lots of problematic things in Japan and in their culture that I, for example, acknowledge, criticize, and wish would change. From blackfacing to vast heteronormativity to honne/tatemae to misogyny to rape culture/huge amounts of rape porn… to still not apologizing for all the rape in WW2, to their government
not teaching their citizens about their country’s war crimes, etc, etc.
By calling someone a weeaboo, sometimes the person being called that will feel that you are assuming they are white (what the w stands for, pretty sure).
By calling someone a weeaboo, you are suggesting they want to be Japanese. I don’t want to become Japanese, I just want to have regular access to my favourite stores and merchandise. I have no desire to naturalize into a country where same-sex marriage is illegal and people still do blackface.
If they actually spent a lot of time doing research on such matters and know what they’re talking about, they don’t deserve that bullshit from you. If they understand most of everything and still think that the terms “otaku” or “fujoshi” or “kifujin” or etc. suit them, get off your fucking high horse and let them call themselves that.

It’s as dumb as condemning all feminists just because you’re not going by the proper definition of feminism (the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes). Just because a group twists the meaning of the word into something strictly condemnable, does not give you the right to insult people who use the word with full understanding of its actual meaning.

Throwing around your loose (and often wrong) definition of weeaboo is not appreciated.

The double standards and hypocrisy of the Ot4 fandom. And responding to DevonneKordei’s post.

There is nothing more disgusting than a fandom that practices double standards. And Today is a perfect example of ot4 stans who have not only brought shame to the girls of the group but also have brought shame to the actual fandom it’s self and have given 5h stans a bad name. The sad part is that these haters? These people who are supposedly against racism yet still make racist comments towards camila are the same people who say that Normani shouldn’t be attacked for racism! It’s absolutely insane. These ot4 stans are the same fans that say Normani in the group shouldn’t be a victim to racism (and I fully concur with that. I don’t condone what happened to Normani at all and those who participated in this should be ashamed of themselves. 

Yet show the same exact behavior towards camila and say the sickest and most disgusting things towards her. And @davonnekordei I think this is something that you should take note of since you’re talking about Camila fans being racist and disgusting? Well these are some of the people from the Ot4 stan side. You know the girls made up of Lauren, Ally, NORMANI and Dinah? Well I’m here to say that thats bull shit. That is pure bull shit that. To say that Camila never got racist tweets or that she can’t be a victim of racism is nonsense and pure stupidity. And frankly the ot4 crowd of the 5h fandom should be ashamed of themselves for their double standards and duplicity. 

You guys really think that the ot4 stans are people who practice fair speech and kindness? Lets see some of the “anti racist” behavior that certain people have in this fandom.  So according to these stans Camila can’t be a victim of racism right? Supposedly she can’t be  victim of racism and the worst she has gotten is tweets about being a snake right? So then what do you call these per say? 

Do these not count as racism and hateful comments towards Camila? Having being references as a wet back and talking about deportation? Last i checked these were racist tweets and anyone can be a victim of racism. Again note that one of them even considers themselves a H4rmony stan. But no, Camila can’t be a victim of raccsim right? That’s just insane. But what about slut shaming? Some people went as far as to day that camila can’t be slut shamed or that she isn’t slut shamed. So I guess then tweets like these don’t exist? 

Of course though the worst Camila has gotten was being called a Rat and an a Snake right? Not that being called a Rat or a Snake is condoned. I don’t condone it towards anyone but I think we can all agree that Being slut shamed is pretty bad and is up there with being vicious. Same with attacking Camila’s own family member like this person did. 

But again Camila’s harassment isn’t as bad because she’s supposedly not a victim of racism and slut shaming or anything like that beyond mere name calling. Because there’s no such thing as double standards. I mean it’s not like Camila is a victim of things like racism, prejudice and immigration jokes right? Oh wait. She is. 

It’s funny that Ot4 stans and camila haters like to say that C stans are racist and trump supporters yet it seems like these people use Trump as their means of a slanderous tweet in their tweets. Not to mention they also use deportation jokes. So how does the rules work again Ot4 stans and C haters? Camila isn’t a victim of racism only when you guys find it convenient? So I guess these tweets don’t exist right? Oh wait there’s one more. 

This is a nice comment about her being an illegal immigrant. But hey, because it’s Camila she can’t be a victim right? How about death threats? one might see those as pretty vicious. And just as bad as racist comments towards that individual. Do death threats toward Camila exist? Apparently the ot4 crowd doesn’t think so. 

So I guess that means they’ve been sleeping at the controls when they’ve been navigating twitter. Well allow me to wake them up with truth. here’s one saying that Camila should be in a body bag. 

And then we have suicide tweets Towards Camila. But I thought Camila can’t be a victim of mean tweets online right? Isn’t this he ot4 motto? Woe is the four other girls but Camila can’t be a victim so say whatever you want to her? Apparently this person feels that way since she thinks Camila should be killed and raped by her father. 

Well I’ll give Runtheworld this. She gets straight to the point. Even though she’s a deplorable and disgusting human being. Does this count as online harassment though? Just because it’s not Normani it’s not online harassment? How does this work again guys? You ot4 stans aren’t very clear when it comes to the rules of your double standards and logic here.  Also telling her to shoot herself? 

Apparently certain Ot4 stans thinks it’s ok to tell Camila to shoot hereself. I’m curious how you guys are supposedly the most “realest” members of the fandom yet you’re talling someone you don’t like to shoot themselves? How is that fair guys? 

I’m sure the LAND stans will come up with some idiotic way to justify and victimize the people in these tweets. Even though they told Camila to commit suicide and shoot themselves. But no double standards don’t exist according to the LAND stans when it comes to Camila. They Treat everyone equally. 

Well they treat everyone equally unless you’re Camila Cabello then we can tell you to hop the border because she can’t be a victim of racism at all right? Oh and one of the more infamous and famous tweets of the CamilaIsOverParty over on twitter. 

And THIS is the problem with the Ot4 fandom. Maybe not ALL of them but quite a few of them to make this fanom truly problematic. And this here, this right here is a good example of the Fandom’s hypocrisy and sheer duplicit and disgusting behavior. They except Camila to do and say nice things for them, but in tern then tell her that she’s an illegal immigrant and tell her that they would have SHOT camila, this is what you call Double Standards. And it’s the most disgusting double standards that you can find in this fandom. 

How can you expect anyone to respect you guys and see your point of view when you’re telling Camila to kill herself, she deserves to be deported or that you’d shoot her twice with a hand gun? 

This is why I find this fandom disgusting at times and it will be the groups ultimate undoing in the end. Mark my word. 

Camila will be ok. She’s strong, she’s taken a lot of garbage from C haters and ot4 stans so this will make her a stronger person. But if there is one thing to take away from this fandom is that responsibility goes both ways. You expect US to be responsible with your words and your statements? Well what about you? Where is your responsibility when you tell camila things like this? 

You want to talk about responsibility for actions and what not? Well guess what? Responsibility is a two way street. You’re side is just as responsible for a lot of the drama that goes on in this fandom as well. I think these comments should be addressed as well and not swept under the rug. 

anonymous asked:

Hi, can you explain the reasons why you don't like the episode animan? :)

From a writing standpoint i found it lazy. I know thats sorta harsh, but if the way that they are going to genuinely kickstart DjWifi is a off screen lazy “we actually have a lot in common apparently starting just now” that can only be fully experienced in the comics you have to purchase outside of it that sucks. DjWifi has the potential to be a really genuine nice romance, and just because they are side characters does not mean it has to be done poorly. You could have much more effectively primed both Nino’s crush on Marinette (i suppose they did but i only interpreted that as friendly, however that may just be my shortcoming) and set up Nino’s new arc with Alya. I think their chemistry or rather how they kept butting heads in horrificator was a fantastic set up towards something more, it made their interactions engaging and interesting while revealing things about their characters. The one shot frame of Nino with the awkward ass finger guns and her being like “oh jesus” was perfect, i liked that a lot. And i would be totally okay with it should they use animan as the base for “Okay lets get these nerds together now that we both know whats up” and then they end up ACTUALLY learning they have good chemistry through them working together. It could be super simple five second shots with one line of dialogue that sets up everything that they are doing and be used to progress the MAIN plot, but put the two of them together without the other two. Yes they are still discussing the main characters but it establishes the assumption that if they are not on screen they might be together, where as before it was unlikely for them to be hanging out without a direct reason like an akuma attack or they were in the group. Also it would only take a second for them to be hanging out plotting how to get their buddies together or discussing main plot to provide exposition, but then one of them suggest something to do that DIDNT involve the main two, one line like “I dunno Al, these two are exhausting me. Can we just eat something PLEASE? I’ll be dead before these two figure this out.” And alya could be super committed to seeingit through but he just whiiiiiines until she is like “Ugh, okay fine lets go eat but then we’re coming RIGHT BACK HERE” and he’s like “yeah!!” and grabs her and runs off. This could be used as an explanation as to why they weren’t somewhere when main plot was progressing and provide a funny relationship progressing moment where Alya sees that stuff happened with Nino and is like “NiNOO!!” They established in horrficator that the two of them can both be stubborn and assertive and aren’t afraid to go head to head, this sort of stubborness could be perfect for relationship progression and understanding while thoroughly revealing character aspects in the process. Like, Alya is mad at Nino and being kind of childish and stubborn about it. In reality for the writers it is to justify why Adrien and Marinette are alone to go detransform, which is its main purpose. BUT in doing that we can also have Nino hanging around preventing them from running off before he sighs and takes it seriously, saying “I should probably go talk to her, I don’t want her to be really mad at me but she wasn’t totally right either!!” then have adrien have a character progression by advising his friend to approach it calmly and see both sides, to which Nino agrees and progresses his OWN character and then leaves to allow the main plot to progress. While whatever is happening is happening you as the viewer can ASSUME the things happening off screen between these two other characters without it ever having to be shown. You could reference it later by having Adrien ask if they made up, or literally just not talk about it and show it by Alya and Nino being seen together in the background talking normally, all animosity gone and the problem resolved. These are examples of relationship progression OFF SCREEN that would be true to character and not get in the way of the main story line at all. A million things can be done with background shots and one line of dialogue. THEN when the two characters are clearly closer and feelings have developed you can assume 80% of everything because we have cause to.

I’m just saying all that to show that if that is how DjWifi starts it sucks. His crush on Mari was adorable but it seemed weird, like we didn’t know enough about Nino for it to feel super genuine. I’ve rewatched it and am more okay with it, it just bothers me that the most progression his character had gotten since bubbler was done literally exclusively for the shot of adrien saying “I love you marinette”. It wasnt for Nino or for us to even understand more about Marinette through Nino, it was just sort of a lazy thing that the writers said “Haha this is gonna kill them they’ll love having heard this and it’ll be awesome.” and it was okay, but it just like totally minimized any importance Nino had because he was utterly irrelevant really, it was just so they could have that. And while background characters and side characters SHOULD progress main character storylines, they dont have to have NO storyline to themselves just so they can do that. I gave those examples to show how without losing any time or main character focus you can satisfyingly develop a background relationship without making your side characters two dimensional. The writers have done well with making every character have their personalities and quirks, but thats why i dislike Animan, i felt like to Nino specifically it made him a flat character that existed to fuel Adrien’s half of the plot in that episode. Alya progressed nicely, i liked her reactions and lines i thought that was great for her, but my main issue is really that if that is how they springboard DjWifi it’s lazy and could have been handled better with relatively little additional scenes or lines. I thought establishing Nino as a awkward loser who cant talk to girls was awesome and i loved it, but everything after that was like, bleeh. Because he said “all of a sudden” that he couldnt talk to her literally at all, he was totally fine winking at her in rogercop and recording her and getting her giggles and smiles, he obviously loved it when he got them and he was attentive to her, but he wasnt like “Oh fUCK SHE SMILED AT ME” and hiding and collapsing. It makes sense that actually asking her out would be way way harder for him but having him literally incapable of even talking was sorta like, “Well wait whats true then?” You can’t have an exception to character traits when you only have one example of it prior, that just makes it seem inconsistent and thus ‘out of character’. if this was an extreme circumstance in which he would act differently we would need at least one more example of his NORMAL behavior to know that. or else it seems OOC. I think it was a nice way to reinforce marinettes character flaw of hurting other people or not thinking of other people when she is blinded by love. She always puts others first and cares about people and is compassionate, UNLESS its for Adrien. We’ve seen this a dozen times, and her totally not caring about Nino being there at all was a good way to do that while also redeeming her by having her notice this and actively listen to him because she was being unfair. Alya stayed true to form by being like “dude what tHE FUCK” and Adrien was normal, Marinette was Marinette it just seemed like Nino really got the short stick in that episode and it was disappointing. I’m sure people will argue that since he’s my favorite i am being unduely harsh on the episode, but i’m just looking at it from a writing standpoint. With the same scenes and same time frame it could have been done better for both Nino and DjWifi. I’m not a professional but i take writing seriously and thats just my thoughts.

An Opinion on ‘Chivalry’:

I’m the OP who posted the ‘guide to feminism post’ (it’s relevant), and I was scrolling through some of the comments a few days later and this one caught my eye:

“This is why chivalry is dead” – it was part of a slightly longer reblog.

Yes. Yes, chivalry is dead. Do you know what chivalry is (I’m referring to the word as it’s used between genders, not the Knights Code by the way)? You know it as pretty much ‘buy her flowers, hold the car door open, and splurge on her’, essentially the things the men are expected to do in a relationship that women ‘need not’ reciprocate.

This used to be the remuneration women received from society back when they were ostracized for their gender. Women were weak creatures and to justify seeing them as weak, men thought to at least treat them with ‘proper care’. Why did they pay for dinners? Because women didn’t work, and most didn’t have ways to make money of their own. Why did they hold doors open for them? Because they were too delicate to hold them open for themselves. Why did they buy them gifts? Because they wanted to keep them happy and satisfied. It was a kind gesture in that sort of society, where a women’s inherent weakness was an established fact. Chivalry was a good thing.

However, the sexism was not a good thing. We rightly got rid of that, and in all fairness to men, most of the chivalry should have gone with it. But for some reason, some women want equality, and still expect men to be chivalrous. You can’t have both!

Imagine if you were a girl, and were taught from childhood that you had to find a man and provide for him and buy him flowers when he’s upset and chocolate when he’s sad. And you had to take care of him and take him out for dates (paying for all of them) because otherwise he would find some other girl. You also had to walk him home and give him your umbrella when it rained, and be the caretaker of the relationship. Why? Because clearly he was born with a penis and therefore deserves to be provided for. How ridiculous does this sound?

My opinion here is that you cannot have equality and chivalry at the same time. Because what do you want remuneration for? We’re striving for equality, and aside from those backward party-poopers who still want men to buy them jewelry and chocolate and love them forever for no particular reason other than how attractive they are (and if you are: you are halting the motion of an entire movement! Re-evaluate your life girl!), women should be ok with losing their compensation for ‘being weak’.

(As a side note, this also applies to women who still expect to be able to stay at home while their husbands work. What are you even doing at home? Taking care of kids? OK, if you’ve got three kids then please, stay at home because you’re going to have your hands full, but if you’ve only got one kid that’s going to go to school for most of the day anyway, that’s nowhere near the amount of effort needed in a career. I feel like these kinds of ‘housewives’ that hang out with their friends all day while their husbands work are deserving of their derogatory reputation. In this generation, every woman should at least know how to be self-sustaining. That shouldn’t be too much to ask!)

And then there are those who will say ‘but a little chivalry now and then is really nice’. Well sure, it is. If it’s my birthday, then yes, I like it when my boyfriend splurges on me. But it’s not really called ‘chivalry’ because I like treating him on his special days too. Our system is that whoever decides on the dinner date pays for it (because we come from a culture where requesting separate bills is considered discourteous), and I think that’s pretty fair. So we could either redefine the term or abandon it completely, and it wouldn’t make too much difference, right? Because in the way it’s used now, “I like chivalrous men” means “I like men who will do things for me simply because I am female and therefore inherently deserve it”, and I don’t think that’s fair. 

(There was also another comment that said I wasn’t a feminist but an ‘egalitarian’. OK well that’s a very pretty word but the truth is that it’s called ‘feminism’ until we reach complete equality. I mean, if it were the other way around, it would be called ‘masculism’ or something.  Egalitarianism ignores any existing disadvantage faced by one side, and that doesn’t apply in terms of gender, where we consistently see a dominant side. The reason feminists are different from egalitarians is that genders are still not completely equal (although here in Canada, at least, we’re getting there and that’s a happy thought to have).)