#even While she is being condemned unfairly

[theerurishipper]

Back when s4 aired and people begun to feel uncomfortable with how lb treat cn unfairly, many defend her saying "she's not aware she put distance between her and cn because she's too stressed from all the burden" and even now, many still think like that. That she wasn't aware of the distance, that she didn't know she hurt cn all because she doesn't have time to think about it and cn never tell her that he's hurt. But Strike Back proof that it wasn't true.

Ladybug: Why don't you just give up on me? I lost ALL the Miraculous, I'm the worst Guardian EVER! I wanted to control everything, I didn't listen to you, I lied to you, I kept you at a distance! Every time you offered me a helping hand, I never took it! I really made a mess of EVERYTHING. (continues crying)'’

The fact that she just rambled about it without being prompted shown how AWARE she is about what she did to him and it's worse than her did that out of ignorance. She knows she hurt him but she decided to ignore it or in denial about it and she never apologize or explain anything to him and yet people seems to have a fanon that lb apologize to cn, despite it never actually happen and still defend her action as "A 14 y.o who's stressed because of the sudden big responsibility being handed to her and everyone should give her a break"

I hate s5, but if there's something that I like it's that Derision basically said "You can't use your trauma as a justification to hurt people" and yet people want to use lb trauma and stress as justification for every wrong doing she did in s4 lmao while condemning cn for the same reason lmao.

Tbf, I think it was less that she knew what she was doing and more that she realized what she did and how she had hurt him at that point (now how she could have possibly come to that conclusion is a real mystery).

But yeah, that wasn't an apology, just an admission of guilt. And she didn't fix anything in Season 5 either. Chat Noir just ended up accepting his new role and that's how the whole conflict ended. I wish the writers had actually dealt with it instead of continuing their anti-Ladynoir agenda, but they chose the most asinine path to take the story in.

And yeah, people will salt on Adrien for "not communicating his feelings to Ladybug," or some BS like that, acting like that's as bad as what Ladybug did while excusing her for everything she did by saying "she was stressed and traumatized." Like yeah, of course she is. But that's not an excuse lol. Like, I get it. I was defensive of her throughout Season 4 when people were salting on her cause I thought she would fix her mistakes and I didn't want to be harsh. But the fix never came, and I got tired of defending her character when the writers seemed so determined to completely ruin it in their effort to prop her up so much. If they don't care, I don't have to care either.

Thank you for your ask!

#MLB #Adrien Agreste #Marinette Dupain Cheng #Meta #ML Salt #ML Writing Salt #ML Writers Salt #Marinette Salt #Ladybug Salt #Asks #Ladynoir conflict #My meta

[la-pheacienne]

Okay nobody asked for this but I have some thoughts about Anna Karenina. I read that book in highschool and it was a pain in the ass but still a rewarding experience. I remember liking it, but at the end feeling like "okay, an adulterous unstable woman, at the time when it was written I suppose it was really ground-breaking, it doesn't seem that relevant anymore, who would condemn Anna today for wanting to leave her miserable cucumber of a husband for a hot blond horse rider with BDE, relatable, no one would stone her alive for that today, that was then".

Wrong. So Wrong.

It was obvious to me that Anna was unfairly punished by society for being human and the author intended to present it that way. Apparently, it is not so obvious to a big part of the readers. The discourse I saw online is extremely disturbing:

"I felt like she chose her lover over her son? To me she just seemed extremely selfish. She has a loving and rich husband".

"yes, she did ultimately choose her lover over her son. It's terrible that she lived in a culture that forced her to make that choice, but that's the choice she made. Her own happiness was more important to her than her child's. That's not a choice most parents would make".

"She is not even a good mother she hated her daughter when her daughter Anya was sick only thing that was important to her was that Vronsky didn't came home at the time so she started using opium".

"I don’t like her. She made a poor decision that left a child without a mother and a husband without a wife. Any woman who puts their own selfish desires over their family is not to be liked".

"I can not abide women who let themselves be pushed around so much by society and the moralists of the day; I keep wanting to give them a good shaking and say "Stand up for yourself, girl!"

"One of the reason that Anna is so hard to like is that she only defines herself in relation to other people. Wife to a husband. Mother to a son. Lover to Vronsky. Who was Anna? What did she like? What were her passions (besides men)"?

"Vronsky said that while Anna seemed only to have him to care for, he had many friends and many interests and responsibilities. Adults usually do. Anna was an eternal child, wanting gratification, indulgence, entertainment". 

The first observation is of course, how completely off the mark these takes are considering the particular female experience in 19th century Russia. Especially the comments about her not acting like an adult or her being boy-crazy are laughable, as if a woman in that time period could just "stand up for herself" or even define her life and choose her course of action indepentently of men in any fundamental way. As if she would have ever comitted suicide if she could do any of those things. If she could still keep the boyfriend and her son, if she could decide to have a divorce whenever she wanted to, if she could be allowed to simply exist on her own, she wouldn't have committed suicide. A person who commits suicide is a person who doesn't have a way out. She didn't. And it is pretty obviously stated in the text.

The second remark is that in this story we have a (female) character that is so appallingly victimized and crushed, entirely at the mercy of other men, circumstances or even pure chance, while at the same time keeping her personality, desires, and agency intact. This is why this story is so great and this is why these people do not get it. Tolstoy, consciously or not (probably consciously) really outdid himself precisely because he told the story of a victimized woman who was also kind of a bitch, to put it bluntly. She was both. You can't talk about Anna just by focusing on gender inequality. Being a victim of patriarchy is not all Anna was. Anna was selfish yes, she was irrational and obsessive and ruthless and she wanted it all and she wanted it now. It wasn't enough for her just to have an extramarital relationship, tolerated by social norms, allowing her to keep her son and her lover. No, that was not enough, she wanted to live with her lover freely, she wanted to make the rules and she didn't understand why she just couldn't. She felt terribly guilty for abandoning her son, yet she didn't give a single fuck about the kid she had after, the one kid she could actually take care of. Horrendous. Her husband offers divorce, she doesn't want it. He later refuses the divorce, now she wants it. She is not ready to travel and wants to wait, and when her lover tells her they have to wait one day because he wants to see his mother, she suddently wants to leave now. She is strongly advised not to go to the opera because that would bring herself and everyone around her misery, she goes to the opera. She does exactly the opposite of what she was supposed to do at any given circumstance. What she wanted was bigger than what life could give her, and she killed herself.

Now that may be Tolstoy just showcasing what happens to lusty restless adulterous women. Tolstoy, after all, had the misogynistic factory settings of his time. He was also a genius. I don't believe there is anything about this thrilling, vibrant, catastrophic portrait of a woman that came by chance. The inequality, the unfairness of it all is so palpable everywhere in the book, her absolute lack of freedom constrasting with the freedom of her husband lover and brother. All of these men can do whatever they want, they can fuck, cheat, dominate, determine their life and other's without any criticism or consequences whatsoever, and she can't even leave the house without it being a major scandal. She doesn't control anything in her life, she is completely ostracized. She is considered an actual criminal, a pariah, for having human desires.

And yet, despite all that, she has the audacity to want for herself. In her ultimate victimhood, seemingly at the loss of all agency she still does not let others define her inner world one bit. She absolutely defines her life, she makes autonomous decisions, she even defines her own demise by suicide. She chose this, she could have chosen differently, but she didn't want to. The social setting was horrible for women, but if she was slightly more reasonable she could have had a better outcome. She didn't want that. Crazy right?

And that's why modern readers cannot get this book. We are used to media that convey a "message", ready to consume on a plate with a pink ribbon. We are used to passively watching women reacting to horrors imposed on them, and feeling sorry for them. We are used to a Handmaid's tale type of social discourse. We are used to dystopias. We are used to good guy - bad guy dichotomies. We empathize with female characters getting killed, tortured, physically and sexually abused, because they are the victims. But a woman who dares to leave her kid and go away with her lover? Abhorrent. Inconceivable. It is so extremely difficult to empathize with a female character that is just palpably human, it is confusing, she is not victimized enough to deserve empathy from the modern audience. A victim is a symbol, it is an abstraction. Give a victim a mind of her own and human desires, and she is suddenly a whore.

Tolstoy in all his moralizing puritanical 19th century glory, gave us an actually "complex" (as much as I have come to hate the word) female character, and by "complex female character" I mean a fictional woman that maintains her spiritual autonomy while seemingly being entirely determined by other people or circumstances. I cannot say the same for the vast majority of "strong female character" models of contemporary media.

#anna karenina #aspa rambles #the parallels of this to asoiaf/fire and blood crack discourse about certain female characters are interesting #leo tolstoy #tw suicide #patriarchy #misogyny #russian literature

[thelesbianpoirot]

could you plz talk about your thoughts on poor things. I havent found the courage to watch it yet and id love to hear your takes on it

I like Yorgos Lanthimos films, he deals in absurd fucked up little worlds, I've seen Lobster, Dogtooth, and The killing of... and enjoyed them. They usually tackle something fucked up in society. How these characters live is deranged, we are also doing these deranged things, but we've normalized it so much that the absurdity on us is lost. Lobster - Our fixation on romantic partnership to the point people who choose not to participate in this societal arrangement as treat unfairly and left out of many areas of society. So where is an absurd situation is where this society forces you to be partnered or you are not human anymore. Killing of a sacred deer (TO ME) was about how we're at the mercy of powerful men with vices (and perversions) that can ruin our life without consequences, the drunk surgeon ruins a family by killing someone, the male doctor has a very scary fetish, assaulting unconscious women etc, when you realize the fallibility of men in charge of our lives, horrifying, so here is an absurd situation where someone has ultimate power and characters have no control. It is horrifying to be powerless to human men. I have been a woman who had to be sedated for a procedure, with a male doctor, my greatest fear was being taken advantage of, it would make me throw up to know my doctor had a fetish for having is wife pretend to be dead/unconscious while they had sex. That is what I took from that film. That is what made it powerful for me. POOR THINGS I thought when people were criticizing it they may not have gotten the satire, (I thought) it was supposed to be about how people only love women, the concept of women, if we are eternally girls, never mature, and always giving them carte blanche to exploit us and have a smile on the entire time. The prostitute who loves sex with random strangers for money, always sexual, always flirting, she just can't control herself. The stripper who loves being an exhibitionist, she's just a freak and has to share it. The woman who loves pain, it turns her on to be hurt by men. We've seen her on TV and in porn. I expected this to be an exploration of how men love this fake woman, and want to control her, because if she loves sex, they should be in control of who she has sex with or it is no longer fun for them. I thought this was going to be another "LOOK AT THE ABSURDITY" of such a woman. She doesn't exist. And if she did, she'll have to be brain dead, literally a shell of a mature adult woman who has killed herself because she cannot cope with this world. An analogy for how the sex industry takes advantage of drug using and mentally ill women. HOWEVER, director man wants to have his cake and eat it too, satirizing the exploitation of women, while exploiting a woman doesn't not make good satire. You're just doing the thing you're condemning. Satirizing sexualization of mentally unwell women, while actively eroticizing fucking someone with the mental IQ of a child is not good. Men already have a fetish of taking advantage of women with developmental issues, would loved if fuckin children was legal, and here you have talented actress Emma Watson making a fucked-stupid face right out of hentai. And she's being alluded for doing what porn actresses do every day, the voice and facial expression that makes me want to throw up. The film more goes on it stops being about (what I viewed, me personally) as a critique of the sex industry, and became about controlling a woman's sexuality, with no character there to present a feminist path that isn't BEING USED BY ANY MAN VS BEING CONTROLLED BY ONE MAN.

HERE IS A SHORT VIDEO of how I don't like satire of objectification/sexualization that uses objectification/sexualization to say it's message. But also I don't even think poor things are anti-sexualization, it is mainly about autonomy, the autonomy of women to sexually exploited. The exploitation isn't criticized, marriage is, a child like woman with unquenchable sexual lust belongs to the world, not one man it says. It was gross to watch and I felt icky. Not the kind of grossness that Killing of a sacred deer felt like, which was necessary to feel uneasy because feeling powerlessness is not comfortable. However, it is up to you to watch the movie and make up your mind, I am just annoyed that when it came to tackling women's issues acclaimed directors always fumble the ball.

#thelesbianpoirot

[azulas-lightning-bolt]

so a couple people saw my post about the genocide in Palestine and how despite mandatory education on the genocide of the Holocaust the same systematic erasure of a culture is being actively funded by the ‘land of the free’ and many other places who claim to care about human life.

I’m not an adult. I’m not even in high school yet. How is it that I can sit at my phone and have a greater sense of injustice for these people, these innocent children and young adults and desperate people who are just like us, than the men who have lived six times my age? How is it possible that I have more empathy for the people being brutally tortured and murdered and exterminated like pests while not able to conceive what that suffering looks like than the people who have initiated it?

How is it that a man can burn himself alive screaming ‘Free Palestine’ and people still cannot find it in themselves to see Palestinians as human beings? It is not a war on Hamas Israel is ‘fighting’ anymore—it never was. And (correct me if I’m wrong) is Hamas not a group of the product of Isreal’s oppression, extermination, and expulsion of the people of Palestine for the last over 70 years? Does their land being stolen not remind you of the tears shed by Native Americans when Andrew Jackson was indifferent to their plight? Does the rounding up and bombing not remind you of innocent Jews herded into gas chambers and promised a shower (they said they would get food) and met only with death?

A week after I learned about the genocide of Palestinians, I looked at the list of deaths. It was too long for me to scroll through in an hour, and I was crying so hard I couldn’t continue. I promised myself I would think of one girl every day— Dima Khamis Sedqi Al-Madhoun. I never looked at her number. She deserves more than that. She was my age, a child, when she was murdered like an animal. What if she had liked to draw? Do you think she had a passion for writing? Maybe she was sewing a friend of hers a gift for their upcoming birthday, but she never got the chance to finish. She never will.

There was a girl named Ida who died in the Holocaust. I never looked at her number. She deserves more than that. She was my age, a child, when she was murdered like an animal. Her little brother survived. She never got to come home to him. Do you think she liked to draw? Do you think she had a passion for writing? Maybe she was sewing her brother a gift for his upcoming birthday, but she never got the chance to finish. She never will.

Are these girls really so different? They’re not very different from me. What sets me apart from them, so that I am still alive but they were not granted such a simple right? How is that fair?

I’ll still be posting stuff about my interests. But my heart and my mind are on Palestine and will be until the genocide stops and they are fully aided with recovery and every rotten hearted asshole who condemned them is burning in hell and even after that, because my heart and my mind are on every human being who is just like me in the heart that beats under their skin with passion and love and life and every human being who has been unfairly stripped of it.

Free Palestine. How much longer will the world turn their eyes away?

#palestine #free gaza 🇵🇸 #free palestine #from the river to the sea palestine will be free #stop the Palestinian genocide

[lives4lovesworld]

How Dany's inability to recall Hazzea name and her reaction to Viserys’s death are shamelessly twisted for a narrative of her as a heartless monster, another "seed" to her descend into madness by others, and how it's incredibly hypocritical of them:

Firstly, it should be empathized that most characters/rulers do NOT even bother to care about any common born casualties in the first place, let alone learn their names and remember them over a large period of time as Daenerys (and Arya) do. So, even IF her name will one day truly fade from Daenerys's memory, i) it still makes her a morally better person and ruler than everbody else ii) it (/memory loss) will never be an indication of a descend into madness.

Such a " critique" is especially hypocritical coming from Sansa and Baratheon stans to do so, given that Sansa Stark herself couldn't even show remorse or sorrow for her sister's friend and innocent child, let alone learn his name. In fact she tried to spin a narrative where his brutal, unnecessary murder was justified and simultaneously gashlighted her devasted sister. Only one time, after her rose colored glasses were ripped off did she even mentioned Mycah's fate to the Tyrells, referring to him only as "butcher's boy" yet again. Otherwise he remains utterly absent in her head space. And given that both Stannis Baratheon and Robert Baratheon’s small council argue for killing innocent children if it’s profitable for them (x, x, x, x ,x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x, x). Common born casualties in wars are simply of no concern for most characters on a personal level.

While Daenerys is condemn for her lack of visible devastation at witnessing her abusive brother being killed after threatening her, Sansa's first action concerning Jory's murder, a leal man of her father, she had known her entire life, can be emphasizing Joffrey's lack of blame for this innocent man's brutal, unnecessary murder. With her second action being feeling proud that a more handsome man is filling out Jory's place, as well as witnessing Clegane killing a youth in tournament, and yet feel nothing nor cry and forget about his name as soon as she heard it without being used as "proof" for her mental decline.

A person not in need of twisting the narrative to unfairly condemn one to prop up another, would see that Daenerys and Sansa's respective reasoning behind their lack of tears in these two incidents are even similar: Both girls were emotionally utterly spent after their recent traumatic events (x, x). Yet, if extreme depravity, a miscarriage and the constant danger of hostile strangers and wild predators in the open, after the ordeal in the fighting pit are not sufficient as explanation for Daenerys's currently emotionally spent state and lack of tears for a girl Drogon killed than neither is Lady's death and Bran's fall for Sansa's utterly lack of reaction when witnessing a man dieing for the first time.

And, unlike Dany, Sansa was enjoying a tournament held in honor for her betrothed as a daughter of the King's Hand surrounded by her family's household in the pompous capital city. Unlike Sansa, Dany never actually witnessed with her own eyes the death.

It's maddening how there has been spun a narrative in which Daenerys is somehow responsible for Hazzea's death (some saying the same for Quentyn Martell's death) or doesn't care about her fate by sansa stans to villainize her. When that's just deliberately twisting the actual text and considering that their own fav is currently poisoning Robert Arryn, an innocent child and HER COUSIN (her last relative for what she knows) for her political ambitions. For which the most demeaning excuses are being conjuncted (such as Sansa simply being too stupid and "naive" to understand the danger of overdosing a child, despite Maester Colemon explain it), yet Daenerys gets vilified for lack of tears due to shock of seeing her abusive brother get murdered after he had threatened her unborn child.

sansa stans should truly be the last ones to prester anyone with their respective character's "lack of empathy" and bad memory nor proclaim a character is a "unreliable POV", especially when sansa has been be singled out BY THE AUTHOR to actually be one. (x, x) Same goes for Baratheon stans when it comes to other character's dismissal of innocent lifes and a mental decline linked to telling oneself everything is justified for the "Great Good".  

#asoiaf #asoiaf meta #daenerys targaryen #stannis baratheon #sansa #arya stark mentioned #✨vent time✨ #anti sansa stans #anti stansas #anti stannis baratheon #anti stannis baratheon stans

[thejojolands]

Hey, I need to step in and say this, but Warriors Fans you have got to be more critical of what y'all say and reblog. WC has a big, glaring misogyny problem that needs to be discussed. I'm beyond pleased that we are talking about it at this point honestly, we need to have these conversations and condemn some of the messages these books are sending to kids. However, a lot of y'all aren't critiquing misogyny, y'all are spreading radfem talking points and I doubt it's on purpose. This isn't an attack, I am simply asking y'all to be mindful.

I often see posts that want to address misogyny, typically by juxtaposing characters to show how women tend to be antagonized or men may be unfairly praised. What happens though, is instead of simply condemning hypocrisy by showing that those actions are all good, bad, or grey, what people instead do is say that "all women are inherently good/all men are inherently bad." Obviously, replacing human terms with cat ones. That isn't combating misogyny, that is perpetuating radfem rhetoric.

I'll give an example of what I mean using a hypothetical. Molly and Male Cat are both bad, they do the same bad things to other cats and are in very similar circumstances. (IE, they are both ableists.) Molly gets hated an appropriate amount for being bad, but Male Cat tends to not get enough flack.

A post critiquing misogyny would say something along the lines of "Molly and Male Cat are both very similar and need to be treated the same. They both do awful things and need to be equally criticized."

A post that would be spreading radfem rhetoric would be something like "Male Cat did something bad, you excuse a tom for doing this but not Molly. Molly should be excused, she's a woman she didn't do anything that bad. Especially when you compare it to the constant suffering men like Male Cat put women through!"

The first is asking for women to be treated equally. The second is stating that men are inherently cruel while women are inherently kind. It doesn't help that while the idea of sex/gender determining morality is rotten to the core, it is also in fact misogynistic. The idea that men are inherently stronger, crueler, and more prone to violence while women are gentle, kind, and victims is rooted in misogyny. It is just while your male misogynist may frame it as good that men are "inherently violent" and bad that women are "inherently weak", radfems instead frame it as good that women are "inherently good-natured" and bad men are "inherently cruel."

So please, for the love of god read a bit deeper before you post. I know it may feel like you are fighting against misogyny but you are not, you are only changing the brand. I know a lot of people want to do their part and share what people are exposing or talking about, maybe even throw their two cents in. However, you aren't being helpful if the expose on misogyny or uplifting of women is seasoned with harmful ideas like that. I love y'all, but be mindful.

#feel free to rb #warriors #warrior cats #wc #radfem tw #rainflower

[rainuponme]

My wrestle

Reading 1 Tim 2 over two weeks ago during my quiet time with God left me in tears because of the harshness in tone and the implied blame upon women. It took me close to two weeks of struggle before I arrived at a resolution of sorts, and I wanted to put it here for the sake of posterity. Hopefully when I look back on it again, I will realise that I have, over the years, gained a deeper insight and revelation as God journeys with me through my womanhood.

What helped to sort of resolve my struggle with 1 Tim 2 was reading how Jesus treated the adulteress in John 7. The entire situation then was a classic example of a woman being unfairly blamed. For an adultery to happen, it required the presence of another man, and to be caught in adultery also suggests that a man was caught in the act of adultery with her. Yet the scribes and pharisees only brought the woman to Jesus, almost absolving all blame of the man while unfairly implicating her to be the main bearer of all blame and the sin of adultery, when the man also had an equal part to play. The fact that they brought her before everyone in the temple was absolutely humiliating for the woman, almost implying that her sinfulness was greater than those who were present, almost justifying the humiliation because she deserved the condemnation for the very sin she had committed. But Jesus turned the tables on them and returned the woman her dignity. He challenged their condemnation by having them examine themselves and their sinfulness - “who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” In that statement, he brought into equality the states of the woman and those in the crowd, in that he challenged their belief/assumption of their own “holiness” above the woman and showed them that they were all sinful, just like the adulteress. Sure, by all means punish the woman, but only if you are absolutely sure that you are free of all sin. By that very statement, He turned the humiliation meant for the woman against the crowd, especially the pharisees and scribes. 

Jesus did not join in vilifying the woman, and instead, after all have turned away because no one could cast the first stone due to their own awareness of the sinfulness of their own hearts, said that He did not condemn her either. Of all the people who could condemn her, Jesus was the only one who could, but He did not, and in that act of mercy and compassion coupled with the way He overturned the humiliation upon her, restored her dignity. 

One of the reasons I was so hurt by 1 Tim 2 was because of my own hurt at home where I am always blamed for the mistakes of others, especially my brother’s. Even if I am not at fault, I will be blamed by my mother, for whatever reason she can concoct to place that blame on me. And all this while, I always held on to the belief that because God is different and does not behave like my mother or the world, I can always fall back into Him and be comforted that He is on my side. But 1 Tim 2 was phrased so harshly that I couldn’t help but take it personally. How could God allow Paul to say something like this and then have it be in the bible? It hurt me very much because I thought God was different. 

Why is the woman always told to submit and be silent, blamed for the downfall of men? Why aren’t men spoken to as harshly in the bible? Are we lesser beings? Where is the equality in this? Okay, if women are to shut up and not be given authority over men, then shouldn’t men step up to be worthy of the authority accorded to them? If not, there are plenty of women who are absolutely capable and even more capable than the men for leadership positions! So just because we are women we are told to step down? When Paul said that the woman was the one being deceived to eat the fruit not the man, it felt like he was blaming the woman for being gullible and stupid to be tricked into eating it. Then what, Adam has no blame?!

I was infuriated and hurt. The world blames women enough already, and now the bible too?! But as I was trying to process 1 Tim 2, I was challenged of my idea and belief of equality. I was made to face my secular understanding of it and the need to have it reshaped. Men and women are created for different roles, and the original design and natural order was for the man to lead and the woman to follow. But the world we are living in now is so fallen that I don’t know if I can ever really fully understand or see God’s original design for men and women to be completely good, but if there is any equality to hold on to, I am seeing more and more that it’s not about the roles we are given but the true treasures that we are given that reveals that God values both men and women equally. For both men and women, God did not withhold Himself and gave Himself for us, His sacrifice on the cross was for both, and both are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ - we will all receive the inheritance set aside for us. The HS is given to both men and women in full, His love in full - all of Him is given to us in full. 

I am reminded of the parable of the talents, where it isn’t even about how much each person was given, but how each one faithfully sows with what has been given to them. Perhaps all this while, equality in God is really not about the gifts or roles we are given, but rather about His giving of Himself to us, man or woman, unreservedly.

I also tried to reconcile my understanding of 1 Tim 2. I realised that the reason the devil targeted Eve was because it wanted to overturn the natural order that God had created - it was a targeted deception. It wasn’t that Eve was more gullible than Adam that was why she was chosen. She was chosen because in order to overturn the order, she has to be the one who was deceived to eat the fruit, to “take the lead” in making that happen, and have Adam follow. And perhaps Paul recognised this, which was why he had to emphasise that it was the woman who was deceived. This would mean that the devil will continue to target women with its deception because its goal is to always stand against and create chaos to the natural order that God has originally designed and have deemed to be good. Perhaps this was why Paul wanted women to be silent and to not have authority over men, so as to uphold the good of the original order. I am still not the most pleased with what Paul said, but I am reminded to hold on to the heart of God—His heart demonstrated through Christ, through the way Christ regarded the adulteress—even when there are things that I do not currently understand. After all, on this side of eternity, all I know is in part, but I will eventually know in full when I see Him face to face one day. 

[fangsandfeels]

Yo, I didn't expect the game to mention my boy Hoar in any capacity

Imagine my surprise when it did:

Naturally, that tiny cameo means it's legit for me to shamelessly spam headcanons on Jerra's possible connection to Hoar.

Of course, I had to choose the most cringe edgelord/most edgy cringelord among the Forgotten Realms pantheon that is Hoar, the Doombringer, and the Poet of Justice. I’m not even joking here: Hoar is an angry petty bitch who sits in his edgy domain with booming thunders and heads on pikes while being salty about not getting a god of war portfolio in Unther. Like, this is meme is not a meme in Hoar's case, this how he probably talks:

Needless to say, Hoar's followers are just as cringe, brooding in their temples, remembering their grievances and planning their revenge. On top of that, he is the former exarch of Bane and the buddy of Beshaba (the goddess of misfortune and bad luck who ruins people's lives for the most insignificant of reasons).

So, Jerra is certainly not his faithful follower or loyal paladin. If she was, let's just say Astarion would not have gotten away with pulling a knife on her that easily. Also, him trying to bite her at night? Hoar would be pissed off at Jerra telling Astarion off and then letting him sink his fangs into her anyway. As a good devout, Jerra would be expected to bite the vampire's neck in return because Hoar's direct dogma is all about following Equally Matched Aggression standards to an extreme.

But in a world where everyone is influenced by deities and follows some (because the alternative is the Wall of the Faithless and you do NOT want to be condemned to the Wall) Jerra praying and leaving offerings to the Poet of Justice still makes sense, both in the context of her actions and even her acceptance of Astarion.

+ His tenets are actually pretty based. Violence begets violence, but kindness is repaid with kindness. Treat people like you want to be treated, don't commit evil acts for the sake of evil because this path leads to ruin and self-destruction. Meaningful gestures and actions matter more than words.

+ There are several different churches of Hoar scattered across Faerun, each squabbling over who understands Hoar best. So, there is a lot of in-fighting going on, which gives plausibility to the idea of more watered-down followers just minding their own business and keeping away from more intense brothers and sisters in Hoar.

+ Hoar is not that worried about looking righteous or valorous. It’s the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law, that must be upheld. So, it’s not about you looking good when you deliver the vengeance the person deserves. It’s about sending a message. Accordingly, poetic justice is encouraged. Yes, killing the duergar who enslaved a Deep Gnome and made him serve them drinks is good. But lacing the drinks he serves with deadly poison, so the slavers die vomiting their own blood and guts after smugly grabbing mugs from their captive's hands and laughing in his face? Wonderful. Priceless. Deserved.

+ Probably most important: Hoar doesn't mind the undead. At least, he doesn't seem to abhor them like Tyr or other gods of goodness, and his clergy has a rather interesting approach to the undead and necromancy. The dead deserve to be heard and avenged just like the living. Doombringers (the elite battle priests of Hoar) can raise the corpses of victims who died with the wish for vengeance on their lips as revenants - nothing is better than beating a murderer or a serial killer to death with the crowd of raging revenants who lost their lives because of them. Also, if a Doombringer is killed unfairly, they, too, rise as a revenant as a final "fuck you" to their murderer. But Hoar's tolerance for the undead doesn't stop there. The lore even mentions a vampire follower of Hoar (on the bad guys' side, but still). So, even if Jerra merely follows the diluted image of Hoar shaped by her mentor, she is used to speaking with the dead and didn't bat an eye at He Who Was when she first met him. Accordingly, it was relatively easier for her to think outside the box with Astarion and judge him through the prism of his deeds instead of his nature. Her philosophy is less about "there are inherently evil creatures that are KOS and inherently good creatures that deserve multiple second chances" and more about "there are many evil things in the world, lots of them are less obvious than the others"

In general, I don't think that Jerra draws her paladin powers from Hoar. Even though she ends up with several huge grudges against the Absolute, Raphael (when she promised to rip out his mocking tongue, it wasn't an empty threat), and the Emperor (oh she does NOT like the Emperor), she is still way too forgiving and patient to be a full-blown Hoarite. She pays her respects, certainly: her mentor followed the Poet of Justice, which was why they even met - all the time while the Flaming Fist and City Watch, the seemingly dedicated followers of Tyr and Helm, looked the other way. But her Oath was to herself, first and foremost.

However, if Hoar was more chill, I would have headcanonned that Jerra draws powers from his domain, which confused him greatly when it happened for the first time, but then he decided to allow it in a "Listen, if this mortal is so dedicated to her idea of vengeance, she raged her way into my domain, this is going to be good" way.

#baldur's gate 3 #bg3 #bg3 oc ramblings #i probably got lot of this shit wrong #still need a dnd adult #Youtube #hoar dnd #paladin dnd #oath of vengeance #bg3 oc: jerra

[iturbide]

I think theres been a misunderstanding ,I dont disagree with that as edelgards goal,im saying conquest is her ultimate goal specifically because she wants to enact her own changes across all fodlan.

She does not want to stop at adrestia , she wants it done across the whole continent and she believes it must be her making those reforms. Even if Dimitri and Claude want similar changes (and we actually see Dimitri making reforms) she still believes it needs to be *her* at the head. And that means conquering the Kingdom and Alliance to return the "superior" Adrestian Empire back to its former glory with *her* holding the reigns.

that's why she will not stop even if Rhea is dead , even if the central church is gone, and even if she already made her reforms in Adrestia and has control over the southern church . its the " raze it all to the ground and rebuild it from the ashes" mentality.

Oh and Im glad you mentioned the branches of the church because she... doesn't actually care about them.

On claudes route she tells claude that as long as his people don't follow the central church she does not care who they follow , so they're free to follow the eastern church over her own southern church.

The branches appear to be largely Independent from the central church. Thats why the western church is able to get away with xenophobia and their multiple attempts to kill Rhea. That's also why edelgard is able to revive the Southern church and control it herself with no interference from Rhea.

Edelgards reforms are in regards to the nobility and system of inheriting titles, not necessarily the faith itself. Thats why she focuses solely on the central church while largely ignoring the other churches. as you said, it's because she believes the "monstrous beast" that leads the central church is the reason for everything she condemns (fodlan being divided , the system of nobility and inheritance, the obsession with crests, etc.)

Tldr: im not disagreeing with you. My point was that all conquerors make similar justifications for their wars. even if they believe their cause is righteous, the end result is the same.

I still feel like you're unfairly boiling down Edelgard to a 2-dimensional figure, though. As I said, I can't comment on Three Hopes, and I don't personally consider it canon, so I am not speaking in regards to anything from that game -- but in Three Houses, it's not just rote imperialism that drives her.

It's true that she believes that she needs to be at the head of change -- but this, in Three Houses, stems from the fact that by her own admission, she believes that Claude and Dimitri are on Rhea's side. She says as much after her class escapes from Garreg Mach after the attack on the Holy Tomb:

The Church of Seiros has great influence and power. Their control over the lords of the Kingdom and the Alliance is nearly absolute.

Again, she is wrong about this. This is not an accurate assessment of the situation -- in truth, several noble heirs from the Kingdom have every reason to hate either the Crest System or the Church itself (including Ashe and Sylvain), while there are prominent nobles in the Alliance who basically pay lip service to the Church because they feel it's expected of their station, including Lorenz:

The truth is, I am not a particularly devoted believer either. But it would be unbecoming for a noble like me to neglect his prayers, wouldn't it?

But Edelgard lives in a situation where trust is dangerous. She doesn't remember her time in Faerghus as a child, and therefore doesn't remember Dimitri; all she has to go off of are the close historic ties between the Kingdom and the Church (a belief undoubtedly strengthened by Dimitri taking Rhea in after the fall of the monastery in Crimson Flower). And Claude is widely regarded as an untrustworthy schemer, not just by Edelgard but by Garreg Mach at large, so there's nothing he could say to win her over.

So no, Edelgard does feel like she has to be the one heading change -- because she can't open up enough to trust anyone else to do it. Again, this does not make her a bad character. This is part of what makes her as a character interesting and compelling. Again, I don't think it's fair to boil Edelgard's character down to Lady Walhart, which is what it feels like you're doing in these messages. She's not: she set out to do this because she saw a legitimate problem, and unfortunately her solution involves brute forcing a solution.

#answered #anonymous #fire emblem: three houses #edelcourse #again: thank you norbah for all of the edelgard discussion #you are my resident edelgard expert #and i feel that my understanding of her is deeper because of it #i don't condone the imperialism #but i also feel it's unfair to say her acts are just a power grab #when she makes legitimate criticisms #and tries to enact a solution in her lifetime

[xtruss]

Former President National Union of Students (NUS), Shaima Dallali. "I Am An Anti-Zionist 🐖 🐷 🐖 🐗, And A Proud Pro-Palestinian.”

Former NUS President Settles With Union Over Antisemitism Claims

Shaima Dallali, ousted as NUS president in 2022, said to have accepted ‘substantial’ settlement before tribunal

— Richard Adams, Education Editor | May 07, 2024 | Guardian USA

A former president of the National Union of Students is said to have accepted a “substantial” settlement to end her legal action against the union following her dismissal over allegations of antisemitism.

Shaima Dallali was ousted as NUS UK president in November 2022 after an investigation claimed she had made “significant breaches” of the union’s antisemitism policies. But shortly before Dallali’s legal challenge was to be heard by an employment tribunal, the NUS and Dallali’s lawyers said a settlement had been agreed.

A joint statement read: “We are pleased to confirm that a settlement has been reached between Shaima Dallali and the National Union of Students, bringing an end to the proceedings before the employment tribunal.”

Dallali’s dismissal came after an investigation into antisemitism within the organisation, headed by a barrister, Rebecca Tuck, amid concerns over a social media post written 10 years earlier by Dallali that referenced a seventh-century battle between Muslims and Jews.

The NUS said it now accepted that “pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist beliefs may be protected beliefs, as may pro-Zionist beliefs. As a private individual Ms Dallali is, and as president of NUS she was, entitled to hold protected beliefs.”

The NUS statement added: “Throughout this matter, Ms Dallali has suffered truly horrific abuse, which has included death threats, threats of sexual assault and flagrant Islamophobia. This is wholly unacceptable, and NUS categorically condemn it.

“Ms Dallali now has the right to move on with her life and her career free from harassment or abuse.”

While both sides said the terms of the settlement were confidential, people familiar with the case said it was likely that the union had paid Dallali’s legal costs and a further sum as part of the settlement.

The settlement follows a ruling earlier this year that David Miller, a former professor at the University of Bristol, had been unfairly dismissed over his anti-Zionist views, which qualify as philosophical beliefs protected under the Equality Act.

Tayab Ali, the director of the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians, said: “We now have clear legal recognition that criticism of Israel and of Zionism amounts to a protected belief and cannot be suppressed. This must be considered by universities before they decide to take any disciplinary or other action against their students.”

Dallali said: “I am an anti-Zionist and a proud pro-Palestinian. Following today’s settlement, I look forward to being able to focus on continuing to dedicate myself to the Palestinian cause and to serving my community.

“I am immensely grateful to those who have supported me during this difficult chapter in my life and I am pleased that all parties can now move on. Now more than ever, it is important that all communities come together for peace and justice.”

The NUS UK’s latest accounts revealed that the union spent more than £800,000 on the antisemitism investigation since 2022.

After Dallali’s election as president in March 2022, the NUS received complaints about her 2012 tweet that read: “Khaybar Khaybar O Jews … Muhammad’s army will return Gaza,” referencing a historical battle. Dallali later apologised for the tweet.

The joint statement issued on Tuesday said: “As has been noted repeatedly in the media, NUS was very concerned by a tweet that was written by Ms Dallali when she was a teenager, before she was even a student, in 2012.

“Ms Dallali has accepted that while it was not her intention, the tweet was antisemitic. Both parties accept that Ms Dallali has repeatedly apologised for that tweet.”

#National Union of Students (NUS) #Shaima Dallali #Employment Tribunal #I Am An Anti-Zionist 🐖 🐷 🐖 🐗 And A Proud Pro-Palestinian.” #Human Rights

[ssaalexblake]

the reactions to 13′s Terrible mental health are kind of. Wild. In some places. She is in the middle of a breakdown in s12, she is refusing to talk, which is her right, but it’s also not good for her either at all and is actively contributing to her still deteriorating mental situation, simply because the isolation she’s Actively angry at the whole season is something she has enforced and caused by her own bad coping mechanisms. 

Her in general anger at her own isolation and being misunderstood by the fam is actively used by her at times to be angry at the fam when She’s the one enforcing it, which is Definitely a line crossed.  It is okay to not be okay, but even when you’re not okay you don’t get to do stuff like that (lbr, they’ll never get an apology for baring any of the storm of her moods in s12). 

She’s also not got the spoons to really deal with anybody else’s problems (she can do Epic Hero Saves, but that’s her form of escape, that’s not mentally taxing to her, but she doesn’t have it in her to offer much in any way of mental support),  she’s too wrapped up in her own problems that she lacks constructive ways to process and deal with, let alone anybody else’s. Again, fair, not to be condemned. 

She just. Doesn’t Know how to deal with her problems. And not all of her reactions and actions in s12 were okay, at all. Most of it was unhealthy, which is one thing and a lot of what she gets condemned for is Not fair or okay, but on the flip side, her behavior was, actually, sometimes unacceptable and to say she’s completely innocent and some weird uwu thing is just as poor of a take as the complete condemnation. 

I’m just in general frustrated, she needed help dealing with her trauma, saying that is not bad? She was clearly making her own situation even Worse by her own actions, simply because she lacked the skills to process it. That’s not a thing to condemn her for, but also, ‘she should just work it out herself’ as a take imo has an edge of genuine cruelty to it because like... She’s not going to because as established, she lacked the tools to do so. It is basically the ‘sit and watch somebody suffer’ route. She deserves support. Wanting somebody to give her tools to heal or just in general survive is not controlling or out of line, it’s compassion. 

She is traumatized, unable to heal herself, unwilling to let the fam in but Also taking it out on people around her. Trauma and mental illness is not a free pass to treat people as poorly as you wish. Ever. She may have a good reason for acting as she does, and i could write out a long essay on her reactions and how they make sense for the character, but that’s not an excuse, merely a reason, she should not have treated people around her badly, full stop (like, even the lousy people. She tore Strips out of Kane even Before she knew exactly what she’d done, it was not a logical condemnation of character, she wanted somebody to treat that way and she found one, it was just coincidence she’d zeroed in on a Genuinely shitty person). 

tldr? totally condemning her for her behaviour in s12 is unfair, but not holding her accountable for her own poor behaviour due to trauma is also not right, she Did behave poorly. Wanting her to have help healing is not shitty, it’s basically what the fam were trying to do and i’m very tired of them being condemned for how Well they handled all of this despite their enforced ignorance. Nobody could have Forced her to get help, but the sentiment that people would wish she’d have some is compassionate, not cruel or an attempt at controlling her against her wishes. She was suffering and a big part of that was through her own poor coping mechanisms, wanting that fixed so she’d Not suffer or make the people around her suffer either is merely a compassionate wish, not an effort to Force her be a better person or something?????

Sometimes it just sucks to watch people suffer, and you watch, even when it’s on a tv show, and wish they’d get help so they wouldn’t continue to. See; ‘Can You Hear Me?’. 

#dw shit #it's controversial monday today!!!!!! #last week it was tuesday #but honestly i'm really done with the no shades of grey approach to 13 in s12 #she behaved Badly sometimes #even While she is being condemned unfairly #some of the comments that she needs to fix her own behaviour are very much true #and when your bad coping stretches to taking it out on others you actually Do have an obligation to fix it and she went there but #middle ground and all #i didn't like watching her suffer and would like her to have the tools to Not do that

[exilethegame]

Why didn't Marcelle just stick the MC in the dungeon and leave them to rot? It makes more sense on most levels than just throwing them out. If she condemned them to indefinite imprisonment, she not only knows where they are in case she ever needs them again, as indeed ended up happening, but she also doesn't run the risk of having a very powerful Mythosi managing to regain their power and aiming it at Plaithus. Furthermore, it affords Esmerelda and Emeline the opportunity to discreetly visit the Commander, which might have helped keep the family intact. In light of all this, why did Marcelle opt for Exile rather than confinement?

Two reasons, mainly.

1.) The public wanted MC dead. Marcelle was the one who had to intervene and suggest a different idea-- and imprisonment would not have appeased the public at all. They wanted MC gone-- not tucked away in a cozy little cell to, in their minds, be pampered and looked after even after all the murders they committed.

2.) Marcelle though exile was significantly more kind to MC than imprisonment. At least then MC has the chance to start over and maybe create a new life from scratch while not being watched over by the very soldiers who now hate them.

To address the main points you presented: Marcelle genuinely did not think she'd need MC ever again. Ever. There was no "what if?" in her mind at all, and she didn't want to keep MC imprisoned just because of paranoia as she founded that to be be unfairly and needlessly cruel.

As for the "preventing MC from coming back for revenge," I will simply say that it was physically impossible for MC to become even half as dangerous as they were back when they were Commander while in their exile without coming back to Plaithus and directly asking the Kingdom to have their powers back. The surgery that occurred prevents MC from becoming a real threat to Plaithus-- so there was never any real concern there.

And, for the last one-- Marcelle didn't want MC's punishment to be about Emeline or Esmerelda-- she wanted it to be about MC and what she thought would be best for them.

I think the problem is people assume Marcelle doesn't care for MC at all and views them solely as an object... but it's a lot more complicated than that.

#answered #marcelle #the commander

[fedonciadale]

Oh God, finally I found someone who doesn't hink that ageing up starks in the show was bad 🎇✨🤩✨🎇 But, for real, I saw too many blogs saying that sansa is more sympathetic in books cause she younger/we can forgive Robb more cause he's kiddo/we can justify Jon cause he's learning/Arya isn't bullish cause that's how kids act. It's like this two-six years difference changed them into full blown matured adults (especially with Sansa/Arya, they're still kids, goddamit).

Hi there!

I agree, I picture Robb and Jon being 18, Sansa 16, Arya 14, Bran 12 and Rickon 8.

That way they act their age. Lol.

And honestly, why won't you forgive an 18 year old for marrying the woman he fell for?

Legal responsibility does not make 18 year olds actually mature (some are, but not all). Some men at 18 still have ridiculous flimsy moustaches and some kids are not even fully grown.

The thing is this fandom is so unforgiving in certain regards and in others they are lenient - even with the adults.

Ned stupidly trying to do the honourable thing and trying to save Cersei's children is condemned while Tywin bringing terror to the Riverlands is just pragmatic.

Cat lashing out unfairly in her grief at Jon is used as evidence that she habitually abused him while Robert striking Cersei is explained because he was provoked (even though it's canon that it was not a single occurrence).

So, in a way I can understand that people fall back on the 'but they're kids' arguments in defence of some characters. It shouldn't be necessary to be honest. GRRM gives us enough insight into the characters so that we can relate if we want to.

Ary@ and Sansa fighting could easily happen when they are young adults. I mean siblings stop fighting at around 25 or something. That's when you actually have enough distance to your own childhood to act more mature.

So, yes I have plenty to complain about in the show, ageing the characters up will never be one of them.

Thanks!

#anon ask #sansa stark #grrm critical #age of the Stark children #Ary@ #Jon

[no--envies]

I've seen people suggest LXC is as guilty as everyone else for WWX's downfall and the murder of the Wen remnants, either because he knew they were just a bunch of weak and old people and didn't care, or because he was too naive and he should have gone to the Burial Mounds to investigate for himself.

With this post I aim to analyse the events leading to WWX's downfall from the point of view of characters who acted in good faith without having all the necessary information. I'm bringing LXC as an example because he's one of the less culpable in the whole matter, but similar considerations could be made about several other characters.

First of all, as far as we know LXC didn't personally take part in the first siege of the Burial Mounds, since the novel states that the Lan Sect was led by LQR.

Back then, during the first siege of Burial Mound, Jin GuangShan led the LanlingJin Sect, while Jiang Cheng led the YunmengJiang Sect; Lan QiRen led the GusuLan Sect, while Nie MingJue led the QingheNie Sect. The former two were the main forces, the latter two could’ve gone without.

(Chapter 68)

The other three main sects were led by their respective leaders, so why was the Lan Sect the only one that was led by someone else? My own interpretation is that LXC wanted to stay with his brother while he was recovering from his injuries and he didn't want to be an active participant in the siege that would kill his brother's beloved, despite personally disapproving of WWX's actions. One could argue that letting LQR lead the Lan Sect in the siege still meant giving his tacit approval, which is not wrong, but what should be considered is that the cultivation world didn't plan a siege against WWX because he had taken a bunch of prisoners of war and sheltered them in the Burial Mounds, but because he had killed hundreds of cultivators at Qiongqi Path and a lot more at Nightless City.

Before WN lost control and killed thirty people at Koi Tower - the time he and WQ had gone to turn themselves in - the situation wasn't so dire for WWX yet. The Wen siblings' sentence was still being discussed by the sects. WN mentions that LWJ spoke up for him and his sister back then (chapter 89), which suggests the Lan Sect as a whole hadn't taken an antagonistic stance against WWX yet. LWJ probably tried to bring what he had seen of the Wen remnants and their peaceful settlement as proof that they hadn't done anything to deserve being sentenced to death.

Unfortunately, after that WN lost control of himself and attacked the cultivators who were present at the discussion, which gave even the Lan and Nie Sects a reason to hold a grudge against WWX, since some of the victims were from their Sects as well.

“The Ghost General really is fierce… Said he was there to give himself in, but then he suddenly flipped out. He slaughtered again, this time in Koi Tower.”

[...]

“Wei Ying, though, he shouldn’t have made him if he can’t control it. Created a mad dog and he didn’t leash it. Sooner or later, he’s gonna be faced with a qi deviation. With the way things have been, I doubt the day is that far away.”

[...]

“How unfortunate for the LanlingJin Sect.”

“Things were even worse for the GusuLan Sect! Over half of the thirty-or-so people were from their sect. They were clearly only there to help calm things down.”

(Chapter 77)

A few of the QingheNie Sect’s disciples died in the hands of Wen Ning as well. Nie MingJue spoke coldly, “What arrogance.”

(Chapter 78)

The text explicitly states that the cultivators from the Lan Sect who were present at Koi Tower were only there to "help calm things down", which means they weren't trying to accuse WWX and the Wen remnants. At the time, the Lan Sect's general stance about WWX appeared to be mostly neutral (the same could be said of the Nie Sect). LWJ's own attitude toward the Burial Mounds settlement could be considered mostly neutral as well, at least until WN and WQ (and then WWX) really needed his help.

An argument I’ve seen brought up often is that, if everyone had known the Wen remnants were just farming and living as ordinary peasants, a lot more people would have chosen to help them. However, the main issue wasn't how they were living in the Burial Mounds (which nobody knew except JC, LWJ and maybe LXC), but their role in the war. Not only were they all cultivators from the Wen Clan, despite being very weak, but WQ was favored by WRH, which made her involvement in her sect's crimes even more likely despite her good reputation. Nobody had heard of her killing anyone, but how could they be sure? Besides, the Lan Sect didn't owe any debt of gratitude to the Wen siblings. The Wen Sect had burned the Cloud Recesses and killed LXC and LWJ's father. NMJ held a personal grudge against the Wen Sect because WRH had killed his father, plus his own black-and-white morality made him judge WQ for not opposing WRH in any way. LXC and NMJ had no reason to go out of their way to help WWX and the Wen remnants, but before the bloodbath of Nightless City they didn't do anything to harm them, either.

We also have to take into consideration the world MDZS is set in; that is, a fantasy version of ancient China where revenge is absolutely justified and is considered an act of justice. Even wiping out entire Sects in revenge isn't necessarily condemned, since JGY did that for the alleged murder of his son and nobody criticized him for it until they learned of all the crimes he had commited and realized those people had most likely been framed by him. Xue Yang was obviously despised by everyone for what he did to the Chang Clan because his revenge was considered exceedingly disproportionate to Chang Cian's offense. Xiao Xingchen illustrates society's point of view on the matter very well when he says cutting Chang Cian's finger or even his entire arm would have been entirely reasonable.

So, as long as it was deemed proportionate to the offense, revenge was justified. Putting all the Wen survivors who had taken part in the war into a labor camp was considered a justified punishment in universe. The sects refused to admit the guards had actually abused the prisoners, suggesting that was going too far, but taking revenge against them by putting them in labor camps was totally accepted. Even WWX - who the novel portrays as morally correct most of the time - doesn’t condemn it. He himself used very cruel and ruthless methods to take revenge against his enemies during the Sunshot Campaign, so it would be kind of hypocritical if he opposed their punishment post-war. He does point out that people consider every Wen cultivator guilty by association just for being part of the Wen Clan, without really caring about the actual crimes they have committed, but he only rescues the cultivators from WN's branch, who he knows didn't take part in the atrocities committed by the Wen Sect.

Murdering the Wen remnants settled in the Burial Mounds was wrong even in universe because they were innocent. They hadn't killed anyone during the war and the Wen siblings' help was absolutely essential for WWX and JC when they were on the run. Without them the Jiang Sect wouldn't even exist anymore. This was a huge deal considering the importance of debts in universe and could have swayed public opinion in their favor. NMJ criticized WQ for not doing anything to actively oppose WRH during the war, but the thing is that she had. She had sheltered the Jiang Sect's heir and head disciple, the same people who contributed to the Sunshot Campaign as one of the main forces.

The problem is that no one knew about this except WWX and JC themselves. JC, who had the authority and credibility to defend what WWX had done in the prison camp, didn't show much conviction the one time he tried to speak up for him, so the other sects probably assumed he was just trying to excuse his right-hand man's inexcusable actions and that WWX had become too corrupted by his demonic cultivation and was too unpredictable and dangerous. When JC went to investigate what WWX was actually doing in the Burial Mounds, he came back saying WWX had defected from the Jiang Sect and was an enemy to the cultivation world (chapter 73), apparently confirming WWX had finally lost it because of all the resentful energies he used and was a potential threat to them all.

However, a really important thing to consider is that the cultivation world waited two years to besiege WWX. They didn't immediately charge to attack him or believe all the rumors about WWX. The sects definitely behaved like sheep, but they weren't that stupid. They knew most of the things that were said were probably exaggerated rumors, so they were just observing the situation and waiting to see what he would do. LXC, NMJ and the other cultivators who weren't in bad faith (those who weren't driven by their greed, ambition, resentment or jealousy) were all part of this general category. They had no reason to doubt JC's words, who was a fellow sect leader and WWX's close friend, and many of them had seen for themselves how threatening WWX had acted during the banquet at Koi Tower, when he said nobody could stop him if he wanted to kill someone, so they had no reason to believe WWX's reputation was being unfairly tarnished.

During the two years WWX spent in the Burial Mounds and nobody really knew what he was up to, a lot of rumors were spread about him. Some people thought he was trying to build an army of fierce corpses with their consciousness awakened like WN; others suggested he wanted to found his own sect of demonic cultivators and even took disciples, like the banners in Yiling seemed to indicate. They considered WWX a potential threat, but not enough to actually take action against him. The fact that LWJ waited months before going to check the situation in the Burial Mounds is very telling. He knew the cultivation world was at a standstill with WWX, so despite being worried for WWX he knew there wasn't any immediate danger for him. He might have been too busy with his own sect matters and going wherever the chaos was, but we've seen how LWJ behaves when he thinks WWX is in grave and immediate danger. The way he acted during the night of the bloodbath of Nightless City shows it very well: LWJ did his best to help as many people as he could, but WWX was his priority.

Of course, having only partial information doesn't excuse the sects for everything. They definitely had their faults regardless of how much they knew. They should have given WWX a chance to explain himself about the ambush at Qiongqi Path and the incident at Koi Tower instead of deciding to besiege him. They didn't even care if he was actually guilty or not of cursing Jin Zixun, or that he was the one who had been ambushed on the way to his nephew's full-month celebration. All that mattered to them was that he had lost control and killed hundreds of cultivators, including the Jin heir. They took this as proof of how dangerous and uncontrollable he was, which wasn't completely unfounded. He was dangerous when he wanted to be and he did lose control. Taking this information without all the context we as an audience are aware of - that he was only trying to repay a debt and didn't want to harm anyone, that Jin Zixun provoked him so much it was almost inevitable for him to lose control - doesn't look good at all.

Again, the sects did behave like sheep. The novel portrays WWX as the hero and his decision to rescue the Wen remnants as morally correct. Most of the cultivators who contributed to WWX's downfall were a bunch of hypocrites who couldn't see past their own self-righteousness. But characters like NMJ and LQR are portrayed as generally righteous people, so the fact that they took part in the siege proves not everyone was in bad faith. Nobody really knew why WWX had rescued the Wen remnants and his reasons for wanting to protect them, or why he had invented demonic cultivation in the first place. They just knew he did very questionable things like digging up graves during the war, that he acted arrogantly all the time and even started killing their own people. We as an audience know why he did all these things, but they didn't.

Also, after the bloodbath of Nightless City it was objectively hard to defend WWX's actions. He wasn't clear-headed at all that night and when he activated the Tiger Seal he was already in a half-unconscious state. His overall situation was too much for anyone to be able to stand it, but this doesn't mean what he did was right. The fact that he destroyed the Tiger Seal after returning to the Burial Mounds suggests not even he was proud of all the people he killed that night. WWX isn't infallible and makes mistakes because he's human like anyone else, despite being an overall heroic and selfless person. Even LWJ, who was the only one that still trusted WWX's heart and morals, couldn't really justify what he did at Nightless City. He only told LXC that no matter right or wrong, he was willing to face all the consequences with WWX anyway (chapter 99), because he understood his true nature and knew his outlook and values were the same as his own. But most people didn't know him as well as LWJ did. From the sects’ point of view, the bloodbath of Nightless City was the ultimate proof that WWX was the scourge of the cultivation world.

I'm not trying to say LXC is perfect or that he couldn't have done more, but we should take his own point of view into consideration when we judge his actions (or non-actions). LWJ didn't do much more than him during WWX's first life and what he did ultimately wasn't enough to save WWX (I don’t think it’s his fault, he was in an objectively difficult position), but the fandom doesn’t criticize him as much as they do with LXC, because after WWX came back LWJ's support for him was flawless. But LXC wasn't in love with WWX. He hadn't observed him since he was a teenager like LWJ had done because of his huge crush on him. We shouldn't underestimate the importance of debts in universe and how information in general can affect people's perceptions. Even LWJ stayed mostly still during WWX’s first life because he didn't have all the information and didn't know why WWX had left the bright broad road to start cultivating with resentful energies.

WWX is the protagonist, the hero of the story and the character whose point of view most of the novel is narrated from, so it's easy for the audience to empathize with him and understand his perspective. It's really interesting that even WWX has a good opinion of LXC and NMJ (and mostly respects LQR) despite their role in his downfall. It's not just because of his forgiving nature, since we see him criticize the hypocrisy of the sects a lot of times, but because he recognizes they were in good faith and they had their reasons for behaving like they did, despite the mistakes they might have made.

#mdzs #mdzs meta #wei wuxian #lan xichen #nie mingjue #lan wangji

[amethystpath-writes]

Designed to Ensnarl

(NOT A PROMPT)

******

“You are a trap,” the demon sneered, “designed to ensnarl the innocent in a trick of the eye and banish them unfairly.”

The angel, in all his heavenly glory, extended a leg as he sat upon a beach rock with a sigh. “I suppose you might think that.”

“I said it, did I not?” One might have sworn the demon was lit with the fires of hell at this very moment given the orange glow of her horns.

“Attraction is different for everyone, so you must think I am trying to lure you.”

Of course, the angel was trying to attract the demon. It was an angel’s duty to ‘vanquish all evil,’ now, wasn’t it? And by all means, Tauni was evil.

Lust, the Council claimed, for the pure and unscathed- for this very angel on a rock. She was thus condemned, stripped of her halo and her luxurious, beautiful wings, and instead given horns and two very nasty scars on her back. If she got into the devil man’s good favour, she’d be rewarded with new wings, ones perhaps even cooler in design than the pesky human-bird’s.

“I believe I remember you,” the angel said, stretching his back and shoulders, while his white wings remained still, as he basked in the hot sun. The Greeks would have called him Apollo, for bathing in his own light, appearing so naturally, yet golden beneath it.

“If not, I might go into grief.”

Tauni could see the riddle playing out in his mind. Clearly, he was lost, navigating his own memories, trying to find where this demon at his feet may have appeared in his life beyond this exact moment.

Something seemed to click as the sun-bathed angel propped himself up on both elbows and said, “You have changed since first I met you.” His head tilted. He blinked. Something about his response was broken, yet the demon continued in her anger.

“So, you do remember.” Tauni gave a snort, one that could have split Earth if she allowed it. And she would have if it weren’t for the red man’s rules. “I regret nothing except trusting my own kind.” The demon grumbled, “What used to be my own kind.”

Apollo bent one leg, laying it against the rock beneath him while the other remained bent, knee up high. His arms were cast behind him, reaching up like a ballerina, but unlike such a careful dancer, Apollo’s arms were placed without thought.

A lazy lounge, on an empty beach, by a specimen designed to deceive.

“You feel betrayed because you are a traitor. How quaint,” the angel laughed, head falling back as he did so. “It is not angels which are labelled so frequently as ‘incubus and succubus.’”

That laugh, Tauni thought, but she couldn’t finish. She wanted to be angry, and so she would pretend the laugh was mocking, not unamused or- or ironic-sounding.

Jaw clenched, the demon crossed her arms. She would be punished for attacking an angel which wasn’t currently being sought after by the Council. Even demons weren’t anarchists, as much as they wished to be sometimes. “You should have fallen too.”

“Is that right?” Apollo licked his teeth, tongue playing with his canines- a taunt if the demon he was speaking to knew anything. “You fell,” Apollo joked, “for me. Do you not think you should have fallen for your lust?” He laughed again at some unseen joke before lifting his head once again to face Tauni. “See, the funny thing is this: You cannot see past your own sins.”

“And what is that supposed to mean?”

Why did Tauni come here? Why did she find it necessary to confront a former lover when there was nothing she could do about the outcome? She couldn’t touch the angel, not unless she wanted yet another quality stripped from her very self. First her halo and wings, now it would be her horns. Tauni shuddered at the thought of her brain being pulled so cruelly. It wouldn’t kill her; the devil never killed his subjects.

“You see me on this rock.”

“Clear as day.”

“And what am I doing?” Apollo asked, body and wings adorned with beads of water from a short wave paying visit to him. “Besides looking gorgeous, that is.”

Tauni squinted. Was that pride she detected? Apollo sounded rather sure of himself- maybe it was because the demon before him had already blamed her fall on his looks.

“Nothing,” she answered after pause. “Are you trying to tell me you are fallen accused of sloth?”

“Would it be so hard to believe?”

Considering the ring of white light above your head, and those wings you keep against that rock, yes. It is hard to believe.

As the demon said nothing, Apollo told her, “You were late.”

“Late?” Tauni questioned, voice laced with malice, and perhaps a bit of impatience.

But Apollo didn’t say what she was late to. Rather, he corrected her. “You said I am doing nothing,” the angel said, “but I am laying.”

Same difference, is it not? Apollo seemed to know her question, for he cast his gaze away to the continuous sea, pondering.

“You never asked why I am laying here, Tauni.”

The demon’s heart fluttered at the sound of her name. Of course, Tauni knew her own name, but it always sounded so much nicer coming from Apollo’s mouth.

Apollo, she had the decency to think now. That is not his name.

How was it…that simply hearing her own name from an angel she used to love…used to. Who was she kidding? Tauni still loved the angel, didn’t she? She did, or else she wouldn’t be confronting him now.

How was it that hearing her name from the angel she loved made her so…so full of melancholy and nostalgia, want and need, heartbreak and fulfilment?

“Am I supposed to ask now?”

“If you want to,” Apollo answered.

Not ‘Apollo.’

“Why are you laying here?”

Love. I used to call him ‘love.’

The angel nodded, seeming to prepare himself, before sitting up in full- heels finding grooves in the rock so that he could pull himself forward as he straightened his back. He was sat up now, lips pulled into a tight line, eyes and cheeks becoming puffy- viewable even from where Tauni stood.

At first, the demon saw nothing wrong. Her love was as he always was- beautiful, of course. Sculpted. Magnificent. But then...she swallowed as her throat tightened. “You fell.”

Her voice was a whisper, one which the angel couldn’t hear over the crash of another wave- one which thankfully didn’t wash away the wings left behind, flat against the rock he sat upon now. Detached. Useless.

“Why…why did you not say so from the start?”

“You thought I was still an angel,” Apollo said. “I thought it was what I needed- to pretend I was still holy. But I am not, and there is something else I require.”

Say you need me, Tauni thought, so that I can tell you just the same.

“I need you, my paradise.” A pause. “These wings mean nothing if we are forever apart.” The fallen angel painstakingly rose from his rock, placing his feet down in the wet sand as he walked towards his demon lover. Not a demon for much longer. “Take the second plunge with me,” he said. “Without horns, you are human. And as long as I am not found, the devil can never touch me, even with my scars.”

“You want to run from Heaven and Hell?”

“I want to run from them with you.”

But- “We would be running forever.”

“Then it is forever we can be together. Tauni, we can live without disgrace. Flee from the Council and help me flee as well. We can mount my wings like a trophy and put your horns in a display case. We will look rich in the human world and have what we want handed to us.”

She thought about it for some time, considering the consequences of being found, versus the joy of living freely.

Yes, they would run. They would be hunted by the Council, but…it would be worth it. For the two to be together, with any amount of time without consequence, it would be worth it.

“Have the world handed to us, huh? You never did deny being accused of sloth.”

“So, is that a yes?” ‘Apollo’ asked.

“No,” Tauni answered. “It’s a hell yes.”

#NOT A PROMPT #1410 words #angel x demon #demon x angel #angels and demons #demons and angels #fallen angel #fall from heaven #yeah- what else? #fantasy #fantasy writing #fantasy drabble #fantasy snippet #fantasy story #short story #creative writing #religious writing #(I guess? Mostly tagging that one just in case it upsets anyone.) #Designed to Ensnarl #seven deadly sins #Apollo #a little bit of #greek mythology #in there for ya. Don't worry- the Ares series is still being worked on :) #As well as Dance with the Devil #psh- that's all I can think of for the time being. Love you all <3 <3

[theusurpersdog]

Hi! I've just discovered and been reading through your metas on Dany, and while I agree with and disagree with many things in them, my big issue (as I find it usually is with antis) is the death of the 163 Great Masters. I honestly can't see this as even a morally dubious decision tbh. She didn't ask for 163 random citizens, she specifically asked for 163 leaders. 163 Great Masters. 163 SLAVERS. A lot of people seem to put high regard in Hizdahr's speech about his dad being against it 1

but even if that were true it changes nothing. If any one of them wasn't directly responsible for this particular atrocity they were for a hundred others. There were no innocent victims here. This was justice in it's entirety and I genuinely can't understand seeing it as anything else. 2

There’s a lot to unpack here. (Forgive me if some of my details are a little foggy, I haven’t revisited Dany’s chapters since I wrote those pieces.)

First, I don’t put any stock in Hizdahr’s speech. That’s a detail Benioff & Weiss added to take the nuance out of GRRM’s point; to them, that was a clear, flashing “Dany is wrong!” sign that was supposed to make the audience side with Hizdahr and think Dany had crossed a line. You can agree or disagree with that conclusion, but I think that was undeniably their intention in writing the scene. GRRM doesn’t write like that; he’d rather present the audience with something morally grey, and let them do the work and decide for themselves (ie GRRM is a good writer and D&D are not).

My problem with how Dany crucifies the 163 Masters is that it just fundamentally makes no sense. For many different reasons.

She lets the Great Masters pick the 163. That means that they probably picked the 163 with the least money/social standing. That means the men who died were a completely random set of men. The punishment has no connection to the crime. Most of the Masters are spared with no punishment, and the 163 who are punished were not punished because of their connection to the crucifixions. Of course all Slavers share moral culpability in the crime of slavery, but Daenerys was specifically not punishing them for that. Most Slavers were given what is essentially a pardon. Remember, if Dany was crucifying Slavers, she’d have to put herself on a cross. The 163 who were crucified were only crucified because of the 163 slaves who were crucified. 

If Dany had thought to herself I’m punishing these men for slavery, then I’d have to admit her punishment has some percentage of logic to it. But she thinks in her head specifically that she’s punishing these Slavers for the dead kids. So why doesn’t she ask who is responsible for the dead kids? 

The answer is simple: she got so mad that she didn’t stop to think. So Dany’s “punishment” for the Slavers turns into an empty symbolic gesture. 163 dead masters for 163 dead kids.

I’m not in any way trying to morally condemn Dany for this action. I don’t think anyone reading asoiaf could predict how they would react in that situation; and I’m not losing sleep over dead Slavers.

BUT, I am judging Dany for this in a political sense. And from a political angle, it’s a disaster. Dany opens herself up to a lot of critiques by doing this.

Because Dany acted on an emotional level, picking random Masters and a random number (163), while letting the rest of the Masters face no punishment, the only justification she can use for this is that it was the morally right thing to do (which I mean arguably it was). 

But then Dany gladly pardons all slaves of the crimes they committed during the sacking. This means that child murderers and rapists are allowed to go free (which we see in ADwD). Very quickly, Dany loses her moral superiority. This creates room for the Slavers to argue that Dany is treating them unfairly, which ends up being a very useful tool in creating the Harpy movement.

More broadly, this is an optics disaster. To bring in a real-world example, leading up to and during the Spanish Civil War, anarchists killed a shit-ton of Catholic Priests. It was a pretty similar situation to Dany vs the Slavers, cause the Catholic church was terrible and in bed with the Fascists who were trying to do a coup. But the anarchists weren’t giving the Catholic Priests trials or anything, they were just gunning them down. This gave people the feeling that the killing was indiscriminate and unjustified. The optics of this situation gave France, England, and the US cover to not join the war. It’s arguable that those countries never would have helped fight Franco’s regime anyway, but the optics disaster gave them a ready-made excuse.

Dany never tries to do anything like Coalition building in Meereen, and killing the Slavers is a tale that makes it very easy for her enemies to unite against her. (Part of her problem is also that she’s not really super revolutionary and just wants to ride the social justice wave to power so she’s immediately willing to make concessions as long as it helps her, and she never even tries to mobilize the masses into some kind of direct action. But that’s a whole other post)