something I’ve been thinking abt is how many people think Makoto is immune to despair. I don’t think he is. I think becoming the ultimate Hope was BECAUSE he felt despair. He wouldn’t have fully reached that point without Junko. Makoto becoming such a beacon was his last attempt to avoid completely falling and it wasn’t because he didn’t feel despair, it was because he was too damn stubborn to allow everything to go to waste and he refused to sacrifice his beliefs for someone else’s. His inner monologue tells me he DID experience the same new low the other suvivors did in the final trial, but at the point where he had the choice to give up and die, he looked at the others and he looked at Junko and he couldn’t allow it to happen, not out of self preservation, but because the idea that Junko would have control over their lives made him FURIOUS. and that utter refusal to die kicked in, wether luck or otherwise, and he made the concious effort for one last push while something in him was breaking. He had to be broken in order for the Ultimate Hope to come through so aggressively, bc it could only exist in the face of the Ultimate Despair. He snapped the same way she did, but in the other direction. In what could have been his final moments he chose to embody everything Junko wasn’t, and every single optimistic and luck fueled ideal in him suddenly charged forward and pushed him. It was a combination of the final straw and a choice. Makoto isn’t immune to feeling despair, he’s just too stubborn to fall into it of his own volition. I think that’s why I like that scene in DR3 so much. People were SO SHOCKED Makoto actually fell for the tape, that he actually became despair for a moment. I saw people getting mad or disappointed, saying it was pathetic and Makoto seemed to fall from some sort of pedestal for them. Honestly part of me wonders if that sort of mentality, which clearly people had in universe, affected Makoto a bit. Like he started to see himself as less of a person, subconsciously. Prompting him to take more risks, less self preservation, act way more bold. It seems he has to be reminded a lot not to put himself in danger by his friends, to not do something too reckless. All over the place I would see in regards to that scene either this frivolous ‘oh this was just angst drama with no meaning behind it’ or ‘he can do better than that. he’s so weak’ or ‘come on, there’s no way he’d fall into despair, he’s the Ultimate Hope!’ This kind of mentality, which was kind of ironic considering Ryota was there the entire time saying the same thing and treating Makoto the same way. Like Makoto was superhuman. Like Makoto didn’t feel despair the same way ‘normal people’ did. In a way that was also how Munakata saw Makoto. Makoto stopped being a PERSON to the world when he became Ultimate Hope, he became a concept, a belief system, much the same way Junko ascended beyond herself. But the difference is that treating Makoto that way is the opposite of the reason Makoto became such a representative for hope. He wasn’t doing something no one else could. He was doing something everyone had the chance to, he just… was a little more optimistic, a little more stubborn, a little more ‘gung-ho’ about things. He just took the lead where no one else did, where no one else knew they even COULD in the face of Junko’s unstoppable force. She had overcome the biggest threats and obstacles in the world, what could one person do? And the answer Makoto found was, anything. Everything. It doesn’t all rest on Makoto, he’s just the one that was inspired to try to do what seemed like the impossible. But as evidenced by the change in his friends after that trial, it’s clearly not something only Makoto is capable of. The others pulled out of despair thanks to Makoto, but it was their choice to do so.
“But… this world is so huge, and we’re so small. What can we do…? No, we can probably do anything. Yeah! We can do anything!”
50 notes
·
View notes
Someone shared a post about the pear of anguish, saying it was used to torture slaves, and I thought its design was interesting but something felt slightly off, so I looked it up.
The first thing you see when you look this thing up is that its usage is disputed.
Apparently the mechanism doesn't seem to work the way it's said to work? It's said that people would slowly enlarge the opening in order to spread an orifice wider and wider, and that it could even break jaws.
The thing is, this device does not seem to open in this way. It seems to spring open. The screw mechanism is for closing it.
I relayed this information, thinking this was someone who would actually care about fact checking. "It might not actually have worked in this way. Its usage is disputed."
For some fucking dadblamed reason, they took this as me... questioning the existence of racism? And denying the suffering of black people?
I do a little more digging, and it's basically the same thing over and over. One guy insists that it's totally a torture device, because why else would it be in torture chamber museums?
I don't know, buddy, maybe because people like to make up stories and scare others.
That's one running theory for the existence of this thing: people wanted a good story. They wanted to be able to sell that story in order to make money. So they made elaborate devices and charged people to see them, or displayed them in order to scare their guests.
This part of the speculation, by the way, is from medieval times. There are no modern accounts of this item's usage.
We have so many accounts of slavery. We have so many ways to spread information. We're still able to converse with some of the children of the people who are still alive. We can still see the documents they left during that time.
Why would they leave this out? If it were actually in use, why would they relay the whippings, the confinement, the rape, the starvation, the harsh working conditions, the lynchings, the forced assimilation, and just... not mention this part?
Their friend piled on. I told him my statement was based on the way the device functions, and not "white people wouldn't do that." I told them that I didn't expect better from him, because I didn't know him, but I did expect better from them.
Apparently this was me making assumptions.
Gonna be honest, I didn't read the entirety of their responses, because this sort of thing is maddeningly upsetting to me. I thought I was safe to say something because, when I accidentally sent them a video by Alexis Nelson, they called it funny and informative. I know that doesn't seem like much, but... honestly, Alexis isn't going to be up everyone's alley, and sometimes that's due to bigotry. So I thought they would actually care, and not be mad about being checked. I've been in that situation plenty of times, and I normally don't say anything if I don't think I'm going to get through. I only say something if I have hope for that person.
I thought I might actually have a potential friend, and said person responded to "Hey this information might not be accurate" with... honestly, I can barely even parse the way they worded things? Something about slavery happening whether it was disputed or not.
I just wanted to fact check an unsourced facebook post.
13 notes
·
View notes
got the tldr of the vid that I'm Not Watching All That & somewhat amusing how the straw breaking the camel's back for people over James Somerton is his blatant and unashamed plagiarism (as it should be genuinely i don't think you can nor should recover from this) like he hasn't regurgitated for years vile, unempathetic, ahistorical and Purely Just Wrong information about gay history including about the fight for legal same-sex marriage in the US and the AIDS crisis. like an alarming amount of people truly heard his ass say "all the good fun funky artistic and radical gays died of aids and all those who were left were unfun stuck-up prudes and conservatives also the fight for legal same-sex marriage was an assimilationist ploy by the latter who just wanted big gay weddings" as if the gay men who survived the epidemic didn't literally lose lovers and friends and entire communities and long-term partners who they shared a life with and who were denied any crumb of this previous life at their death because there was no legal recognition for same-sex cohabitation and unions and their homophobic family could tear everything from the surviving partner thanks to this lack of recognition and let it slide.
some people out there were truly so eager to shit on the boring assimilationist prude gays who survived aids by being stuck-up prudes and who just wanted "big gay weddings" they made up in their minds to get mad at that they turned their brains off and let it slide. they could've used their smoothed-out brains for ONE minute & found out that surviving took 1) plain boring luck and 2) radical, loud, proud gay activists campaigning for safe/safer sex and the information campaigns they led, as well as the protests and demonstrations they undertook to make the government fucking care for once. and that legally-recognized unions [be they civil or religious] were a matter of survival for the partner left behind. some people out there truly let a business major with a turtleneck (possibly the definition of boring) passing himself off as cool and radical and an intellectual tell them homophobic bullshit. and did not blink. like OF COURSE this guy's gonna be a plagiarist. he needs to get his information from SOMEWHERE. because when he tries to formulate his own stuff it's complete fabrications or the frankensteining of multiple sources that he manages to misunderstand/misrepresent threefold over. trying to fit a knit sock over the foot with the inside out and wonder why that itches.
i know many people in his audience are likely very young and also likely american and as such did most of their growing up in a world where their country (1 out of 195. give or take.) had legalized gay marriage but i cannot even begin to describe 1) how Young legalized gay wedding is, even in ""the west"" and 2) how many. other countries there are. my country legalized same-sex marriage before the US did. i am not even 25 and i still remember the hordes of catholics marching down the streets chanting homophobic slogans, implying the only reason two mommies or two daddies would want to raise a child together is for nefarious, vile purposes. i still remember families having to drag their asses into court to argue that, yes, a woman who raised a child for its whole life with another woman she's in a long-term committed cohabitated relationship with should have the right to be considered a direct guardian even if she's not biologically related to the child, and spending thousands of bucks having to argue their case in court. this might be shocking to some, but there are countries where homosexuality is punishable by death. in others, not by death, but by imprisonment. in others, not by imprisonment, but by ""medical intervention"". in others, not by ""medical intervention" but by fines. and in some others still, you can be gay (yay!) but you still cannot get married or civil-unioned, and the very same shit that was discussed in the 80s is still discussed now. the right to stay a guardian of your partner's child if your partner dies or is ill, so the kid does not go into foster care. the right to inherit your partner's property according to married rights instead of having through long annoying time- and money-consuming legal processes. the right to arrange your partner's funeral or have a say in their medical choices if they're incapacitated instead of their (potentially homophobic) families.
like We Are Not There Yet. we are not in a world where any homosexual can truly, fully, wholeheartedly assimilate, whether you consider it a good thing or not. fun gay artists and boring uninteresting gay office workers die the same death that we all do. the one you don't wake from. and guess what. all types of homosexuals, regardless of which ones you pick and choose to be mad at, are affected by homophobic legislation. not just the ones you think should be spared because they're oh so fun. and oh so radical.
donate to the rainbow railroad org if you can. they help LGBT+ people escape state-sponsored violence. a singular nail on one of their members' hand does more activism and real-life good than any mfer making video essays could do in his entire life.
34 notes
·
View notes
Saw some talk about creating character ask blogs on my dash earlier today! And as many of you know, I have a plethora of characters to pull from...
But, I also have a full schedule so making ask blogs is a little out of my spoon range at present.
That said, would anyone be interested in me doing little brain rot posts with my ocs instead? Of course, my writing blog (@not-krys) is full of WIP Wednesdays involving them but this will be even more off the cuff, like if there's a thing happening in their game and I just need to comment on it? Or something going on in RL that makes me think about my OCs and their boos, and I just need to share it with you guys?
In my writing files, I actually do have a doc where I keep random thought blerbs where I put things that come to mind about my girlies. Sometimes it's just a sentence or two, sometimes it goes into meta, sometimes it just screaming about something cute going on, things like that.
Would anyone be interested in something like that? I can't promise they'll be a regular thing, but I do love sharing about my OCs and brain-rotting is the most available method of me doing so.
Asks are also available if anyone has questions or just wants to shoot ideas at me if that's more your thing!
Thanks for coming to my little thought session, lovelies~
5 notes
·
View notes