this got long and ranty

There isn’t always room for everyone.

Arden Cho trying to justify why she’s having to leave the show.

I’m sorry, but they could include Kira much more if they stopped focusing on Stiles as much as they do. I know he’s a main character. I know he’s been here since season 1, but he’s gotten so much focus that I feel like there’s nothing I need to learn about him, so they could cut down his screentime so they could use it to show other characters and their arcs that we don’t get to see as often, such as Kira Yukimura.

Kira is the most interesting supernatural character on this show. We know next to nothing about the kitsune mythology because they only show it in times where it’s useful to the plot and then forget about it, or they only bring it in when it pertains to Stiles, which is a shame because I’d like to know just how powerful Kira can be.

The fact that they’ve said that season 6 will focus on Stydia, but they act as if they have nowhere to go with Kira’s storyline is appalling. They never wrapped up her storyline from season 5; they just sent her away with the Skinwalkers. That is an arc that is worth its own season. Don’t just use the Skinwalkers mythology to craft a poor excuse for writing one of your main characters off of the show.

Also, please tell me why Peter Hale is coming back, yet they apparently don’t have enough room for people’s stories. Peter was an interesting villain back in seasons 1 and 2, possibly a bit of 3, but since then’s just become boring and a stereotypical power hungry man. Ian Bohen has publically disrespected Arden, yet he is allowed to come back to the show while she’s forced to leave. What could the show possibly need to tell me about Peter Hale that would keep me from scrolling through twitter or tumblr during his scenes? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. What could the show tell me about Kira’s journey that would me interested? So much. Show me what she’s doing while with the Skinwalkers. Show me how she’s coming to terms with her powers. Show me how she gets back to save the pack. There is so much these writers could do with her that they’re not going to.

I don’t care about a ship. I don’t care about that one little tidbit of information we may learn about a character who I’ve grown sick of. I don’t care about that one villain whose character arc has been wrapped up and has become so stereotypical, it’s not even fun to watch anymore. I care about good storytelling. I care that they’re writing off one of the best characters and letting a really good actress go because they can’t think of a way to write a good arc. The writers have not given us a proper end to her story.

I feel like what they’re doing is sacrificing what could potentially be a beautiful story arc about a young lady learning that she is a mythological creature whose powers she doesn’t know how to control who inevitably learns control and becomes one of the most powerful characters on the show. The saddest part is that I feel as if they’re going to sacrifice it all for a ship.

“Aromantic” and “Asexual” are not the same thing. Aromantic has to do with romantic attraction. Asexual has to do with sexual attraction. 

They are not the same. 

One is not an “extension” of the other. Aromantic is not a place within the asexual spectrum, and asexual is not a place within the aromantic spectrum.

They are two different identities.

Stop saying “the aroace spectrum.” Don’t tag something as #asexual if it only talks about aromanticism, and don’t tag something as #aromantic if it only talks about asexuality.

Acknowledge that these are two very different identities. Don’t just fucking smush them together in one little category and call it quits. That is extremely erasing and I’m getting tired of seeing this happen in pretty much every damn post I see. 

anonymous asked:

Don't you hate how people completely miss the point of why Susan couldn't return to Narnia? She chose not to believe anymore, and let materialism take over her life. It could happen to anyone. If Lewis had chosen to reverse the roles of Edmund and Susan, Edmund being the one who chose to lose belief because he focused too much on something material, like wealth or fame, he too wouldn't be allowed back. People make a big deal out of it because Susan is a female, but it could happen to anyone.

(cont’d) That was the point that Lewis was trying to make, especially in terms of the Christian faith. I doubt anyone would have complained if Peter had chosen not to believe because he cared too much about insignificant things, but because Susan is a female, people cry “sexism!” It frustrates me how people refuse to see beyond gender and look at a person for their actions and who they are.

Ahhh, The Problem of Susan. It will forever remain a major talking point of the Narnia series (I believe the other one would be Edmund and his entire character arc).

I agree entirely with your point, that Susan was refused entry back into Narnia and Aslan’s Country, at least at the conclusion of The Last Battle, because of her loss of faith. You make a fair point about the fact that if it had been Peter, there wouldn’t be as much of a fuss as there had been. The problem I think lies in the way C.S. Lewis chose to portray Susan at this point.

I believe his point here is that if you lose faith, you are no longer permitted entry into Heaven. Where I believe he goes wrong, however, is that he didn’t merely portray Susan as a woman who lost faith, but as a superficial, silly woman, concerned only with nylons and lipstick. I believe he could have made his point clearer if he hadn’t muddied the waters so to speak. You want people to understand that Susan didn’t get into Heaven because she lost faith? Then make that the point. Don’t make it sound as if she didn’t get in because she was silly and superficial. At the end of the day, Susan and Peter were told they were not going back to Narnia. It is therefore not wrong for her to invest in her life on Earth. So she wants to look nice and she might have been a bit materialistic – is that a sin? Isn’t the bigger problem the fact that she no longer has faith? If that’s the case, focus on that.

To be honest, I think he painted Susan in a wholly negative light in The Last Battle. She is described as being superficial, yet we ourselves only gain a superficial look at the woman she has become. Remember that she herself does not make an appearance; all we have to gauge the woman she has become is based on what the other characters say about her, the entirety of which takes up about the space of a page. She does not get to speak or defend herself, and none of the characters offer any sort of positive side to her, not even her own brothers and sister.

My main question, however, is why couldn’t he have left her as she was, but no longer a believer? Susan is often portrayed as being logical and pragmatic – keep that aspect of her characterisation, her logic has forced her to no longer believe in God but, like Lewis himself I believe, she is capable of finding her way back to Him after the end of the story. You don’t need to paint her as a simpering, materialistic woman who talks down to her family in order to make her a non-believer. She can be interested in things like fashion and still have faith, just like she can be a humble person who doesn’t. You don’t need to paint her as two negative things in order to drive home the point that she doesn’t get into Heaven.

To go back to your point about Peter, I think the main reason why, if Peter and Susan had been swapped, not as much of a fuss would be made of it is because C.S. Lewis probably wouldn’t have portrayed Peter in such a negative way. What could he say about Peter that would equal the way he described Susan? He sleeps around? Is only interested in going to the gym and buffing up? Likes to spend money on fancy brands and drives around in a fancy car?

I think it’s far easier to portray a woman in a superficial, negative light than it is a man (a by-product of sexism that continues today), and I think when people accuse C.S. Lewis of misogyny, this is why: because he bought into this negative portrayal of women and perpetuated it, to the extent that to this day people still buy into it. The fact that The Problem of Susan is still a talking point is evidence of that. The other major problem is that he took away something that women have fought long and hard to gain: her voice. As I said earlier, she is not given the opportunity to speak or defend herself, she does not even make an appearance. How should we interpret this? Is it really any wonder why some people accuse him of sexism, when a woman is spoken for and about, rather than being given the opportunity to speak for herself?

You make an excellent point about the fact that it could happen to anyone and that you should look at their actions and who they are. The problem is that C.S. Lewis didn’t do that: he dragged Susan’s gender into it and made it feel like part of the problem. At the end of the day, C.S. Lewis sought to write a Christian allegory, not a social commentary, and I think he made a mistake by blurring the lines and attaching something like materialism to a woman who, at this point in time, has been ‘locked out of Heaven’ because that makes it easier to miss the point I think he was ultimately trying to make: that loss of faith, not materialism and superficiality, was what kept Susan out of Aslan’s Country.

(Can I make a final point here that I don’t really think C.S. Lewis was misogynistic; he has a few progressive elements in the story regarding gender and it is important to remember that both Lewis, and therefore Narnia, are products of their time. That does not, however, mean that there aren’t a few worrying aspects regarding gender in the series.)

anonymous asked:

To be honest, Justice, at lest da2 justice, always kinda scared me. Since when ever he did take over he seem wildly out of control and yelling at everything. He dose almost kill a girl in Anders personal quest. Idk if you ever talked about that, it was horrifying to me to see someone so utterly out on control like that.... Though I couldn't help but sympathies with Anders a bit, if it was scary to watch, I couldn't imagine how it must feel.

I don’t think I’ve talked specifically about that, but I think the situation with Justice is not quite how Anders perceives it. It’s complicated and didn’t go the way he thought, to be sure, but I think he’s wrong about what it is now.

Justice is, at his core, a protector. His existence is devoted to preventing and righting injustices for those that cannot. And every time he comes out in game is some time during which Anders is angry, frightened, at risk, upset etc. It’s not a loss of control, as Anders perceives it, but Justice coming to protect his friend, not realizing how scary it is for Anders to be shoved back like that. Justice is the big scary dog who’s protective of the tiny kitten, except he doesn’t realize that coming out so violently might not be the most comforting thing.

So if he’s just protecting Anders, why does he do out of control things, like killing Ella unless you stop him? This is where it gets complicated. Anders and Justice are not fully merged, as evidenced by the fact that they can switch control and that they can disagree on things (e.g. Hawke, drinking, etc.), but they’re not fully separate either. How I understand it is that their thoughts are shared, without Anders necessarily knowing where any one comes from. Sometimes it’s a thought they obviously share, like ‘oppression is bad’. Other times, though, Anders has to try to figure out where it came from. And sometimes it’s easier to tell because he can clearly determine 'yeah, I wouldn’t have thought that before Justice’, but other times it’s more complicated. He can never truly know for sure who’s thought is who’s, or if they truly share one or not.

So if they share thoughts to a certain extent, it’s basically guaranteed that they share emotions in that way as well. So when Anders is upset somehow and Justice comes out, he’s also feeling Anders’ very strong, extremely negative emotions, which can lead to him lashing out at the wrong people, or in the wrong ways. Justice does not fully know how to handle emotions yet (I think he could learn) as he’s never really experienced them before, so it’s even worse, but this kind of thing is very human. People fuck up when they’re emotional, though not necessarily in such an extreme way.

Think of young children throwing temper tantrums. They do that because they don’t know how to express themselves in another way, and they need to learn. Though Justice is not a child by any means, nor should he be considered one, it’s a similar struggle. He has a hell of a lot more power behind his outbursts, obviously, but it’s not something that’s quite as out of control as it seems. During that quest you mentioned, the only way to stop him is to appeal to the rationality within both him and Anders, calming the emotions present and bringing them back to logical thinking.

Justice may seem to be completely out of control, but he’s honestly just blinded by emotions, like regular people can be (think of Fenris wanting to kill his sister, and doing so unless you directly interfere). He’s not actually as far from his Awakening self as you might think. If you bring him along during the Feynriel quest when you enter the Fade, he’s basically what we remember. I think he only came because Anders was nervous about it, but that’s a discussion for another day. Regardless, he’s not in an upset state, so he’s the same. In fact, he’s literally the only companion who will not betray you unless you make a deal with a demon, and then you kind of have it coming.

Okay this is really long. Point is, Justice comes out to protect Anders when he’s upset, not realizing how scary this is for our favourite apostate. Whatever emotion Anders was feeling when he was booted from the driver’s seat, as it were, is then felt by Justice. Justice thus expresses this emotion in a rather extreme way because he doesn’t know how to deal with such things yet. He’s simply expressing himself the only way he knows how, and it’s really a very human error, as oppsoed to a 'demonic’ one.

Warning: This is long and blunt. Hopefully we can all move past this eventually. I just needed to get this all out, tbh, cause shit is getting too much.  

Fuck these people that are saying these horrible, ignorant things about Magnus Bane. Fuck these people who are using words like ‘predator’, like “toxic”, like “abuse”, like “manipulator”, like “rape” to - what? What are you trying to achieve? Do you not get how fucked up this is? These words, these words with serious meanings and serious connotations, do not exist for you to use to boost your argument of preference. They don’t exist for you to use so you can self-righteously laud something over other fans just because you don’t like something. Fuck you for being so goddamn inconsiderate, so goddamn willfully ignorant, so goddamn harmful. 

I’m not angry because you don’t like Magnus Bane. I’m not angry because you don’t like Show!Malec. Everyone has their opinions - excited to the point of passing out ones, heavily critical ones, merely meh ones. That’s fine. That’s not what this is about.   

I’m angry because you - these people saying these things - do not get it and you have such a lack of empathy that you can’t see past your own ego. You do not get how harmful, how biphobic and homophobic you are being by perpetuating this kind of thinking about queer characters and queer relationships. Biphobia and homophobia is so much more than whether you’d attend a gay wedding or not - it’s a mindset, a dangerous one that you either accept or unlearn, and one that you are using to severely vilify a bisexual male character. Think about this - how many villains do you know that have substantial queer coding in their characterization, for example, Loki? Why do think that is? Why are all “hero” characters straight by default and all the “villains” peripherally queer? Think about it, please.  

I’m only speaking for myself here - but I have waited a considerable amount of time for a character like Magnus Bane. A positive character that I can relate to that has flaws like pettiness and jealously, sure, but is also compassionate, sexual, emotional, wise, powerful, glamourous… I could on, I really could. I’m currently seventeen, eighteen later in the year. The fact I get a character like Magnus Bane so early in my life? Fucking amazing. It helps me hold on the fact I fucking love being bi, even through all biphobic bullshit I get from both sides. That even if I’m still working it out, if I still feel insecure/unsure about it, that maybe one day I’ll be as confident and comfortable with my identity as Magnus Bane is. 

The fact that people feel the need to turn Magnus into another queer “villain” (for reasons beyond my understanding)? Leaves a bad fucking taste in my mouth. I’m sorry you can’t see past Clare’s so-called “perfection”. I’m sorry that perception of her blinds you the actual problems that exist in her books. I’m sorry you can’t seem wrap your head around a bisexual character that isn’t manipulative, that is both romantic and sexual, that has only ever been interested in understanding and ensuring that another queer character can find himself and his happiness, whether that includes him or not. 

So, either understand what you’re doing is harmful and fix your goddamn mindset or shut the fuck up, cause neither Magnus Bane as a character and his fans as real human beings deserve this kind of damaging bullshit.