#for the sake of us having this discussion in good faith. i personally believe in 1 secular state + right of return to palestinians

[koheletgirl]

ok so i don't personally believe in the 2 states solution (for a myriad of reasons i won't get into now), but why does it seem like everyone who supports it these days is labeled as a zionist? i know why i might think that, but i doubt it's for the same reasons so i'm genuinely asking here

#it's just that the two states solution is still seen as a leftist delusion in israel #which i think is laughable like i know why i hate it #but idt tumblr.com hates it for the same reasons? #again like maybe im reading this wrong but. to me it seems like a not insignificant amount of ppl here oppose any solution in which -> #<- jews would remain here? #or like i have seen ppl suggest that palestine should become a nation state in which jews can choose if they want to become citizens or go #and from a historical justice pov i completely understand that but u understand why that would be impossible to achieve realistically right #so actually what im saying is. are u really opposed to the 2 states solution for real reasons (valid) #or are you opposed to any solution that doesn't fit perfectly with your ideals and thus preventing any actual progress from happening #for the sake of us having this discussion in good faith. i personally believe in 1 secular state + right of return to palestinians #+ reparations + full equality under the law #which also doesn't sound very realistic in the current climate but yk #politics cw #did i make any sense at all with this

[txttletale]

not the same anon but ive often seen transfems complain that transmascs will “refuse to let go of femininity” and “misgender ourselves” when we talk about how being treated as girls/women during our entire lives affects us materially and also psychologically. ive never understood that. where do you stand on that? Important clarifications: 1) i dont believe trans women, closeted or otherwise, pre or post transition, have male privilege. i dont believe the upbringing “discourse” is a zero-sum game (where if being raised female means tm experience misogyny, being raised male means tw have male privilege). 2) i dont believe in transandrophobia in any shape or form, I believe trans men suffer bc of misogyny and transphobia, and trans women bc of the same + transmisogyny. 3) im not trying to gotcha you or pick a fight i mean this entirely neutrally. im ready to accept that im wrong i simply want to understand why.

yea i mean, like -- obviously this is a subject that's really easy to bad-faith on either side but i think you're approaching in good faith so i'm going to answer in turn: i don't think any (serious) transfeminists begrudge that trans men have a lifetime experience of suffering directly from misogyny or that they discuss these things. i think there are obvious common experiences and solidarity to be found in these common experiences!

the times where i often see the argument that transmascs are 'misgendering themselves' is when they weaponize transmisogyny by self-infantilizing to paint an interaction they had or disagreement with a transfem as the transfem being 'predatory', 'threatening', etc -- transmisogynist trans men will very often do this, implicitly misgendering themselves by invoking the transmisogynistic spectre of the Big Scary Autogynophile sexually threatening the Poor Innocent Wombyn.

secondly, transmisogynistic transmascs will absolutely weaponize their own misogynistic trauma in disagreements with trans women -- it's not uncommon on this website for trans women trying to discuss transmisogyny to be met with paragraphs of transmisogynistic transmascs graphically describing their own experiences with sexual assault and violence, which again plays into the exact same stereotypes to the advantage of the transmasc in the situation.

similarly, transmisogynistic transmascs will also use language that groups them with cis women in an implicitly self-misgendering way for the sake of being transmisogynistic and excluding trans women. the most infamous version of this is the phrase 'women and AFABs' which gets tossed around quite often in so-called 'queer spaces', but there are also accusations of a universal 'male socialization' (used to paint trans women as aggressive, entitled, dangerous, etc, while trans men are harmless, demure, talked over by loud scary trans women, etc).

so tldr: i don't think any serious transfeminist begrudges trans men for talking about how misogyny has shaped their lives. when accusations of 'self-misgendering' come in is when (certain) trans men align themselves politically with transphobic cis women over trans women and use their own history with misogyny as a cudgel against trans women, or purposefully twist self-misgendering transmisogynistic narratives against trans women for their own personal advantage.

#ask

[tirfpikachu]

lmao you got kicked from the server for being transphobic. have a terrible night.

by saying i'm making a blog and a book about the new tirfism movement, trans-inclusive radical feminism…?

i reblog material for my book and also just for the sake of knowledge without only reblogging the things i 100% agree with, so if you glance at my blog you may assume the worst. though a quick read on my pinned post could've told you otherwise. i try to engage, bring up compromises, trying to finally end the radfem-trans war. bc both trans people and radfeminism ain't going nowhere. and radfeminism has a loooong powerful history for afab rights and women's rights and it goes directly against capitalistic girlboss pop feminism in a very empowering way, which we 1000% need right now

and actually, more and more transmasc and transfem people are becoming tirfs too! because 1. transmasc ppl are afab and were actually always included in radfeminism, though rampant misgendering kept them away til now; but now more and more radfems are willing to use more respectful language like afab/amab instead of female/male in discussions and making sure not to misgender anyone unnecessarily or be generally rude

and 2. transfem people are noticing afabmisogyny in leftist spaces and want to finally acknowledge their amab privilege, however complex it may be; they may be disprivileged on the axis of transmisogyny, but they are ALSO privileged on the basis of not being afab, of not having gone through a traumatic afab upbringing, and not having issues like period tax, abortion rights, pregnancy, afab genital mutilation, lack of research into afab health, and of course amab penis-on-vagina violence. the grand majority of transfemmes haven't had bottom surgery according to stats i've found, and thus do not know the experience of having a completely afab-typical body. and they have the power to experience intense genital pleasure from penetrating someone, unlike afab folks (even those with bottom surgery, i'd argue) which puts anyone able to be penetrated at risk if the person with a dick wants pleasure badly enough, especially people with vaginas whom the majority of dick-having people are attracted to, and often have the ability to impregnate as well. that is a power imbalance, you simply cannot argue otherwise imo

transmisogyny is real. but so is afabmisogyny. that's the root of why "transandrophobia" is becoming a popular term in transmasc spaces, though shamed heavily. afab rights matter. radfeminism has fought for specifically afab rights for years and years, and i believe it can be made trans-friendly. trans people are jumping on the wagon too. transfem folks can also care about afab rights, and want to be good allies to cis women & transmascs!

instead of giving up and leaving radical feminism to people who view trans folks in bad faith and painting it all as inherently evil, why not rejoin it and learn about it and carve out a space for trans voices? what if people had abandoned other social justice movements bc a harmful subcategory formed? that's giving into harmful rhetoric, giving into bigots. i ain't a coward. i'm detrans, i have lived as trans since i was 12 up until last year, i came out and faced transphobia, i legally changed my name, i have annoying af hrt stubble, i have beloved trans friends who i'd fight for anyday of the week. radfems and gender critical folks aren't an inevitable enemy. there's dipshits, sure, lots of them. but it's not cursed grounds. you can pour fertilizer on it and regrow a healthier, more trans-friendly movement

#lay text #asks #trans #transmasc #transfem #transandrophobia #research tag

[blacklister214]

4x06: Patrick and Eliza: Game, Set, Match

It's funny because when I got on this ship Season 2, I legitimately didn't believe it had a prayer. The title is Miss Scarlet and the Duke, for heaven's sake. Now though...any ending that isn't Eliza and Patrick is crap. As for the title...the Duke was always in small letters. He's in the background, BEHIND her. He is an important part of her backstory. That doesn't make him her future.

SPOILERS BELOW!

Let's just go over some of the stuff from the episode.

More Partner Power in the cold open. The sound like an old married couple. They prepare to fight the criminal together.

Patrick staring at Eliza center stage taking applause from the men with so much damn pride.

Eliza demonstrating a willingness to share credit with him and the men. She is absorbing Patrick's lessons like a sponge, both there and with Potts later.

He takes her to the race track and she agree with almost no cajoling needed. This is so much cooler than dinner with William, because dinner is a traditional female outing. Patrick is sharing his hobbies, and not giving a damn about societal convention.

Eliza says the thing that has always made Nash such a favorite of mine: He has faith in her when no one does. Not her father, not Ivy, not William.

She is able to stop Patrick from murdering his brother's killer with the simple words, "You are my friend." Eight years of waiting and planning for this moment, and the knowledge he is important to Eliza is enough to stay his hand.

He apologizes to her. She interfered with his plan when he asked her not to. Prevented his revenge and escape to the continent. He is facing jail time. He just saved her life. AND HE APPOLOGIZES TO HER! Try to imagine William doing that. I dare you.

He tries to make HER FEEL BETTER. Once again he is IN JAIL facing serious prison time as a PRIVATE DETECTIVE who has put men in there. Yet, he puts on a brave face and assumes an optimistic air. He uses his old joke about his good looks and her brains. All to sooth her as much as he can, while he can.

Her thinking him a good person is desperately important to him.

He'll "always keep trying." Patrick never quits, his commitment is absolute. That is what Eliza needs, because life with her will never be easy.

She takes his hand. Eliza isn't much of a comforter, and as she looks at him there is grief she can't or won't speak. So instead she take his hand to tell him without words how much she cares.

I'm sorry, but William on his best day, will never top this. Some people might say that the writers have clearly written Patrick off with this storyline. I say however the writers have perfectly tee-ed up the end of the love triangle.

William will return next season to a changed Eliza, one that has learned, thanks to her growth with Patrick, how to function as a PI perfectly well without him. Detective Fitzroy won't need him anymore either, having finally stopped caring about his father and earning the respect of his fellow officers. The icing on the cake though I think will be Patrick's trial.

I suspect Eliza is going to perjure herself to get Patrick released, possibly even blackmail some people. She going to 1) risk her license and 2) offend William. William as a police office takes the law very seriously. Eliza, when push comes to shove, is going to save her partner by any means necessary. Patrick, I further predict will also discourage her from involving herself and risking her future as a detective. More over I think he will try to get William to stop her, hopefully resulting in a frank discussion during which William will release the extent of Patrick's feelings for Eliza.

William will finally realise the truth, that though they may love each other, they don't belong together. To Glasgow or back to America will go William. Patrick will be released and from there onto more Patrick/Eliza investigations.

#patrick nash #miss scarlet and the duke #eliza scarlet #predictions #season 5 #william wellington

[swan-orpheus]

What is Luthen Rael?

I can’t stop thinking about this episode, but seriously, who did Luthen lose??? Who and what is Luthen Rael? Saw remarked in Ep 8 that he never says what he is and what he ultimately stands for. Why is he a coward? Did he watch someone die, powerless to stop it?? 

Does he have survivor’s guilt?

“I share my dreams with ghosts.”

Who are these folks and are they people that he lost fifteen years ago? It would make sense given his other statements such as the one about the equation. 

“I wake up every day to an equation that I wrote fifteen years ago from which there’s only one conclusion, I’m damned for what I do.”

He speaks like a man who has lost and/or broken his Faith and is doomed to some sort of hell as a result. 

This is a man who wears or wore a kyber crystal around his neck, hidden underneath his clothes. I did not think before that Luthen was a former Jedi or force sensitive, but what if he is? if not it is sure looking like someone close to him was. Was he a temple guardian like Chirrut or something else similar? I also found it interesting how he chastised himself for being angry and violent like it went against his own personal code of conduct, apart from the sacrifices he’s had to make. He speaks of losing balance when he says: 

“I’ve given up all chance of inner peace.” 

and 

“My anger, my ego, my unwillingness to yield, my eagerness to fight, they’ve set me on a path from which there is no escape.”

He’s talking about falling to the Dark Side whether he’s force sensitive or not. Anyone can compromise themselves to the point of losing themselves which is really what the Dark Side is a metaphor for. The Force exists in and around everyone. Just the language that he is using is so particular, that it’s difficult to ignore. 

He urges others to fight, but he never gets involved himself. Is attacking against his belief system? The Evil attack, the Good defend is sort of a mainstay of many stories. He feels guilty because he propels other people to what some view as acts of terrorism, even if it is for the sake of saving all that is good. 

Will he retrench and get involved anyway, at Spellhaus or whatever is about to go down on Ferrix? We see him in his ship in the previews fighting so clearly he is not going to live in the shadows forever and whenever he emerges, I think it will be for the memory of whoever those ghosts are, those that he lost when the Empire came into power.

I believe that Luthen lives to S2 and that we are going to get some mentions of The Force though in a way consistent with Rogue One, subtle and in keeping with the narrative. 

I’ve always felt that “May the Force be with you.” was a bit of a Rebellion slogan. You see it in the original trilogy and throughout Rogue One, before battles especially. In a galaxy where the Jedi were destroyed and believing in the Force is heresy, where you can be arrested for being even mildly force-sensitive or for knowing someone who is, where an acknowledgement that all beings are connected which is antithetical to the Empire and the to the Dark is dangerous, saying that to someone, mentioning it, is an act of rebellion. 

Vel says to Mon Mothma, “We’re fighting against the dark.”

Perhaps Luthen Rael is the one thing you are not allowed to mention, something that never gets mentioned. 

“He is something that we shall never discuss.” 

Vel likely doesn’t know much about his background, but this line surely is there for a reason, for the audience to note. It could just be about his position as an axis for rebellious activity or it could have a double meaning. The question of his origin is highlighted again and again in this show. He says that his ego has no mirror. He is not strictly alone. He has Kleya and other human connections, such as they are. Or is he alone because there is no one like him?  Because he lost his family, the only ones who really understood him? 

I think that Luthen believed in what the Jedi stood for, was closely connected to them, or was one himself, and I am certain that if any of this comes to pass, this team of writers will do it justice and make it work in a way that is not going to steal anything from the narrative or the tone of the show or compromise their vision of what Andor is. Then again, I’ve always thought that the Force was a lot more fluid and varied and sophisticated than just, you can float rocks or not. It’s about every sentient being. It is life itself. (Also. I’ve always wanted to see regular people who are connected to the Force. You don’t choose it, it chooses you. You could be a Jedi or you could help your neighbors with their garden or warn the village of danger. But I digress.)

I certainly neither need these things to happen nor find them desirable or undesirable. I observe patterns and draw conclusions. But okay, ngl, that would be extremely compelling and building towards it for an entire season, layer upon layer, is totally their style. Certainly the nature of his sacrifice is very Jedi-like. He gives hope and light to others in dark times, but keeps none for himself. 

“So what do I sacrifice? Everything!” 

...just as the Jedi were sacrificed on the altar of the Empire.

The Force has been there hiding in the folds of this show the entire time. it doesn’t need to be name dropped to be real. And I LOVE that. 

I trust these writers. They waste nothing. Each line, every scene, every self-reference has a place, mirrors something else. Impeccably. 

#star wars #andor #andor spoilers #andor meta #force sensitive #luthen rael #luthen did not just wake up 15 years ago and decide to be a rebel #there is a singular event that occurred back then #the jedi fell and the Empire rose #and a lot of people died all at once #jedi #or jedi adjacent #cause Tony did say it was getting more star warsy #in an interview #but he also said the tone would remain from season 1 #which i highly appreciate #please do not compromise your vision folks #<333

[raisedbythetv89]

Using a beloved anti-hero/fictional serial killer - Dexter to illustrate a point about buffy - STAY WITH ME lol HEAR ME OUT OK

Imagine if during Dexter we got a season where something happened to him where the guilt of killing somehow became enough to stop him needing to kill (he still had the impulse but could control it and not act in it) and he became tasked with being the protector and guardian of a 15 year old girl of a person he killed as penance. A way to right a wrong and work towards his redemption for all the innocent lives he took along the way for the sake of his survival and not getting caught. (Not penance for the actual evil ppl he killed just to clarify)

And INSTEAD when she’s 16 he starts to develop a romantic relationship with her, openly discussing that it’s wrong but not doing anything of substance to stop it from happening and their relationship eventually causes him to start killing again and he doesn’t do anything to stop the girl from believing it’s her fault. Eventually Dexter abandons her when he realizes she holds no true redemption for himself and maybe he is just causing her more harm than good but does continue to lead her on by making her believe if one day he does enough good they can finally be together - you know like this young girl is his reward for being a good enough boy.

This is the framework for Buffy and Angel’s relationship without the vampires and the 231 year age gap.

If you enjoy Bangel I will never judge or shame you for it we all get to like what we like freely because at the end of the day it’s fictional and liking things in fiction never hurt anyone.

BUT if you’re a bangel who likes to act morally superior and judge spuffy’s and cry “seeing red” every chance you get (which truly just like WHY we all will never forget, that moment was so traumatizing for everyone involved including the actors. Spuffys just look at everything AFTER that episode that was Spike’s fantastic redemption arc and Buffy’s forgiveness, as well as everything that came before (the context that spike and buffy had a very blurred boundaries, sexual and physical relationship without a safe word and with established treatment of each other that lied WELL outside the norms of healthy relationships with regular humans without superpowers and super strength) Rather than the traumatizing standalone attempted SA scene from buffy that was the ONLY ONE that was actually filmed in a graphic and horrifying way vs alllll the other ones that blow right past actual SA or severely violating memories/minds/bodily autonomy - angel, willow, faith, ethan, giles/the council and xander’s violations of buffy, spike, riley, anya, giles and tara to name just the examples I can think of off the top of my head - angel, willow, faith, giles and ethan all with souls when they did it! vs soulless spike.

Maybe reconsider not throwing stones from your glass house when my ship’s framework without the vampires is: two enemies who have killed a lot of the other’s side and who were tasked with killing each other but instead fall in love despite their best efforts not to (not without hurting each other in the process of course, it literally would not be ENEMIES to lovers if they didn’t do awful things to each other along the way we are fully aware of both spike and buffy’s problematic behaviors) but both being SIGNIFICANTLY better people for it by the end of both the tv show and the comics because they both take accountability, apologize and seek to right their wrongs when they do cause that harm to each other and treat each other as equals.

Basically bangels and spuffys will NEVER agree or see things eye to eye because of the vastly different nature of these two frameworks of relationship dynamics so stick to your respective sides of the fandoms and we can all just have a chill, fun, sexy, sad, peaceful time lol ok? OK thanks 💜

#spuffy #spike btvs #spike and buffy #buffy and spike

[calamitydaze]

Why did he crop the Snapchat logs before where the "ur gorgeous" comment would have been

Why did he use transcripts that could be edited and not upload the logs where it could be separately looked over (like, for example, Kwite did with his text messages)

Why did he not provide evidence that Jamie's statement was actually from Jamie herself

Why would Sam hang on to an edited video for three years and release it only to retract it again less than a month later

Why did he edit his screenshot of burner 22 in his final tweet to omit the far more likely possibility of Sam lying in his video

Why did he get fucking Keem "if you remember 9/11 I don't want you" Star of all people on board to announce shit

He just made everything even more sus. Ppl will really believe anything if a white man says it confidently and adds some snappy editing lmao

these are almost certainly not good-faith questions coming from a place of healthy skepticism and care for victims, but for the sake of discussion i’ll pretend they are and indulge you:

1. i went back and looked at when he showed the logs and it looks to me like they’re being shown in reverse, with the oldest at the bottom and the most recent at the top. in that case both ���gorgeous as fuck” and “fine as hell” would be visible— in between “got that 500 snap score” and “congrats :)”— but they’re not. the logs are kinda hard to make sense of so tell me if i’m misinterpreting them. but in any case, it doesn’t really matter because as stated in the video, if they happened it was after she was 18 and he had no context towards her being a fan, and compliments aren’t evidence of grooming anyway. and if he’s lying about them not being there, amanda’s had a year to download her own data and prove it

2. assuming you’re talking about the instagram dms here since he did show the logs of the snaps, but i mean…… idfk?? again, it doesn’t really matter since dry ass instagram dms are also not evidence of grooming 😭 but fwiw, i read through the transcript and it matches up with what i remember from reading the actual screenshots that amanda herself showed (and as demonstrated in the video, screenshots don’t automatically mean something is trustworthy anyway)

3. genuinely, what do you propose he could show as “proof” that the statement came from jamie without further exposing her to unwanted attention? i understand being skeptical of its validity and i raised an eyebrow too, but it matches up perfectly with both what we know she wants based on her twitter bios and separate statement from her that was given to keemstar and nicholas deorio by dream, and dream’s offered to prove the authenticity to any creator who reaches out. and, even if jamie herself doesn’t want to speak on it, it would be very easy for anyone else actually involved to dispute it but yet no one has. occam’s razor

4. frankly i have no idea why any of these people did what they did! does it really matter?

5. i think you sent this before the burner reactivated, but they’ve now said that they’re certain sam lied to them, so 🤷‍♀️ moot point

6. regardless the kind of person keemstar is, he’s got a wide reach and dream clearly wanted as many as people as possible to see his video, including audiences who don’t follow or subscribe to him specifically. makes sense to me

#bella answers #anon #discourse #also a bit disingenuous to act like people are only believing him because a white guy said it confidently! #i can and have been critical of him throughout this whole thing #if i believe him now it's because it makes the most sense to do so #anyway. IM DONE! IM FREE! time to put this baby to bed

[roobylavender]

oomf has been reading the caped crusade: batman and the rise of nerd culture and sent me some excerpts that i think really highlight why the consistent, progressive development of female characters within the batman mythos, particularly bruce's love interests, has been so stagnant and all too often regressive in the worst way possible. the following quotes are from frank miller and grant morrison respectively

putting aside that the argument for batman having homoerotic undertones is conveyed by dunking on women rather than actually discussing any of his notable relationships with men, these opinions on bruce's relationships with the various women in his life are so self-explanatory as to how not only these writers but plenty of others over the course of batman's history are loath to even perceiving the women close to bruce as anything other than props and toys meant purely for fan service. it's incredible that we have a history of comics where bruce is consistently the person wearing his heart on his sleeve and falling for women left and right (to the point that this was a focal point of the very first batman issue ever with catwoman!), yet the impression is somehow that the women in his life are mindless and scantily clad bimbos whose only narrative purpose is to run after him. there's not a single breath spared for even considering these women have been presented with hopes and dreams of their own at the outset bc what supersedes that in terms of priority is expression of a male power fantasy marked by obsession and isolation and undercurrent misogyny. writers like miller and morrison wax rhetoric about how batman is a fascist and they don't think he should be idealized, but they do absolutely nothing to even try to challenge that notion in good faith and on top of it use it as an excuse to peddle the ridiculous editorial and narrative treatment of women in batman's stories where their personal agency and exploration are worthless in the face of the masculinity and pride that mass appeals to audiences obsessed with patriarchal grandeur over anything meaningful

and what makes it all worse is a reader base absolutely loath to fielding any of these concerns bc it's more important to them to argue which love interest is most worthy of bruce dependent on her moral character. so many women in batman's history were created with independence and unique goals in mind but the fact that they may happen to love bruce is used to deride them repeatedly until they exist for nothing more than the sake of being a prop to him eternally. no batman love interest has consistently developed to the extent she can carry her own story completely divorced of a dependence on bruce. every single one is inevitably hindered by what she has to mean to bruce and it's bc that's exactly how writers believe they're capable of existing forever

#personal essays #these quotes made me see red i cannot describe my level of loathing for these people #there's a brief mention in here of selina wrt the tim burton movie and all they say is obv she's hot #then proceed to mention her ike and tina background #talia gets two one note mentions and nothing else #the state of how writers And readers at large view the women is truly abysmal like they do not care #and readers who pretend to act like they care don't help when the only capacity within which they can talk about batman women #is wrt ship developments. nobody likes it when you say that but it's true

[onaperduamedee]

On first seasons and adaptability

Seeing Wheel of Time fans sort of humbly recognizing the first season wasn't great but it's okay since [insert perfectly reasonable, but still subjective points] is wild to me, because no, it was a really good first season in comparison to many of my favourite shows.

It's not rare for TV shows to stumble in their first season, but still find their footing later on. I genuinely don't think The Wheel of Time swayed at all. Many choices feel pointedly intent in their understanding of later arcs from the books. That should be a source of relief for book fans.

I had never heard about the books before and the show got me to embark on a reading journey that's thrice the length of Proust's Recherche. If this isn't a win for book fans, I do not understand what they wanted an adaptation for.

The last time I had been this excited for a weekly release was Ted Lasso. The Wheel of Time is well-made, enjoyable, often thrilling, with lots of heart and ambition, and most importantly very intentional, and all that from the start. I watch too much TV and these really aren't a given in a first season.

This is making me very curious about what people consider a great first season? What are the criteria, beyond viewing numbers, for a good or bad first season? I personally believe it is about introducing to a world, establishing themes and yes, ensnaring watchers the way a skillful storyteller grabs your attention.

Regardless of how the shows evolved afterwards, some of my most memorable first seasons are Elementary, The Good Place, the OA, GoT (begrudgingly), Pitch, for instance. Note that my favourite shows aren't in there.

In fact having a great first season is a rarity, most of us have to wait for the second or third season for the lore to kick in (Person of Interest) or the tone to feel self-assured (Star Trek Discovery). Which isn't necessarily a defect! This is what working with a long format like TV entails.

To expand on the Wheel of Time first season particularly, the argument I have seen the most is the faithfulness of the adaptation.

I am putting aside the fact that I don't think an adaptation has to be a faithful translation to be a good one (Jackson's Lord of the Rings, still one of my favourite movies) for the sake of the discussion.

To me, as standard Fantasy show goes, it's a great show so far. As an adaptation, it is so clever, both incorporating tiny blink and you'll miss it fanservice-ish elements (Aes Sedai taking back trays to in their rooms) and bigger commentary on the main themes (the Stepin arc and what it means for Lan, Nyn, Moi and Rand). The latter is often decried as being unnecessary invention, but this is where the question of adaptability comes into play.

Regarding what would be better referred to as the unadaptability of TEotW, I hadn't read the book before watching the show. Some of my favourite scenes are in fact in the books and never made it to the screen (Nynaeve and Moiraine's discussion about Aes Sedai, White Bridge). Some depictions didn't match what impressed me so much in the books (the Blight, small angry black-eyed Moiraine).

Yet, as I read some, I knew it would not work on-screen.

It's a different medium!

When I was 19, I started planning what was essentially a five acts tragedy about the events that led to the burning of the ships at Alqualondë (in alexandrins, please) from the Silmarillion. Spoilers: I never finished it, barely started it.

TV shows are as different from novels than ballet is from comics. It's not only about codes and norms, as creating in a particular medium often comes down to simple abject feasibility: you can with great difficulty have 3000 soldiers on stage for Le Cid.

But here's the thing, it's often from these very practical limitations that creation is born. Take the Ways: in the books, they captured my imagination the way some of Tolkien's best descriptions did, but there was no way to depict it without tons of CGI. It was bound to look silly. The show's answer is ancient, alien and vast, with visual echoes to our world, as it should be.

It's brilliant, it's stunning and it is an even greater hommage to Robert Jordan's mythology about Ogier and the age of the Ways.

(And I am not even broaching how great a job the show does editing the book, which is fascinating to me as I am making my way through the books. )

#The wheel of time #Wot book spoilers #wot on prime #Some Twitter reflections transcribed here for preservation #I cannot find anything on Twitter it's annoying #Remblai #Ramblings #Wot meta #There now it is properly archived #This isn't a condemnation of anyone who hasn't been happy with the adaptation choices btw #Just thoughts about first seasons and adaptations #Idek what prompted all these tweets apart from the fact that I am distraught I could not buy the blu-rays since they sadly do not exist

[high-dragon-bait]

So despite saying that my other blog is NOT the place for my Dragon Age discussions this anon is DETERMINED to only send their messages there. I don’t want to clutter that blog with that content, so I screenshotted it and will answer it here. I will not answer any other asks that presume in this bad-faith way, but there are some points here I want to address

How many of them to this day are still saying that the DA2 LIs are "playersexual" istead of bi? Why doesn't that bother you? Why does pibhobia only matters when it affects M/F ships?

Where did I say that that doesn’t bother me? Where did I EVER claim that biphobia only matters when it affects M/F ships? I only brought it up in the context of M/F ships because M/F ships were what I was talking about. I did not address other ships and biphobia because it simply is not what I was talking about and I explicitly stated that in my response.

I did not bring up the problem of “playersexual” simply because I did not think to. I am not capable of imagining every single possible talking point someone could bring up to counter my argument. Though good god I tried. Playersexual bothers me, I believe if a character is available to both genders then they are bi and should be acknowledged as such. Just because I do not address something directly does not mean I am ignoring it. It means I am a person only capable of addressing so much in a single post.

If you think it's biphobic to prefer fenris with m!hawke you should also feel the same way about the people that preder him with female hawke. 

I did not say that. I said that harassing female fans and pretending that Fenris has no attraction to a female Hawke is biphobic. I literally say, in the post, that if you simply prefer M/M ships there is no problem with that. The problem only appears when you begin to attack others fans for preferring him with a female Hawke.

F!FenHawke fans who attack M!FenHawke fans for shipping Fenris with a man are both biphobic and homophobic. I never claimed otherwise. These issues are nuanced and often intertwined. But one existing does not cancel out the other

Anon, if you see this, I appreciate your apology. I am sorry that you were harassed in the way you were, that is disgusting and the fans who did that were homophobic. You did not deserve that. But I do not know why you have chosen to take out these grievances on me. You are making unjust assumptions about a stranger, and that is equally as unfair. I would ask you take a step back from the Dragon Age fandom or curate your experience to be better for your sake. I have done both, but do continue to speak out about these issues as I believe they are important and effect more than just fandom.

I am bisexual myself. That does not mean I am incapable of biphobia, but I know myself. I am passionate about this issue, you or anyone else choosing to interpret my argument in bad faith is not my problem. 

Edit because I just got another angry ask that I’m like 80% sure is from the same person: THIS IS NOT ABOUT SHIPPING

That’s what people always grab onto, but ultimately, this is not about shipping. I used a ship as an example, but I also used many other examples that were not that ship or were not even related to shipping. This is not about shipping. This is about misogyny in fandom spaces, and that often manifests in shipping. That’s it. But ultimately, this is not about shipping

#Dragon Age #discourse #i'm howling at the moon

[cyanide-latte]

The more I think about it, the more I feel like discussions of willingness (or lack thereof) to analyze the media you engage with, of separating art from the artist, of doing independent research, of engaging in bad faith vs in good faith, and of open-mindedness and compassion can reach a middle ground.

Maybe it's too optimistic of me but I feel like it would help if more people went into things with the mindset of not needing to analyze everything to the point they enjoy nothing and are constantly upset, but also that you should be willing to analyze even the things you enjoy. Doesn't mean you must immediately always do so, but I think more people should be willing and open to doing so.

And obviously that's not going to be easy for everyone, especially if you're either extremely attached to the media you really love, or you feel like you must analyze everything for your own safety and awareness, or both of those things simultaneously or at different points in time. Believe me, I get it; there have been plenty of times where I've actively not wanted to dissect something that brings me joy and excitement. There have also been plenty of times where I've needed to be vigilant without fail for the sake of safety and well-being, both my own and for the people I care about.

But I do believe this sort of balance can be reached if more people make the effort, you know? It feels like yet another point in time where I see people who are trying to be aware and spread awareness and do good ultimately harassing others because they have been made to feel like they need to assume bad faith. And on the internet it's hard to feel like you're going to be able to engage in good faith that someone will listen to you when you want to spread awareness of something. But perpetuating a mentality that not everyone will listen can hurt the ultimate goal of trying to be helpful and inform others who may be otherwise unaware.

I don't know; I think I'm starting to ramble a little and obviously speaking in extremes/using broad generalizations can be misconstrued because this discussion is WAY more nuanced than just what I've said here. Mostly I'm just getting these thoughts out because it's something that's been on my mind for a while now due to different things I've been seeing crop up lately, and I feel like I'm seeing yet more of the "I don't want to analyze what makes me happy because it makes me happy and being aware of any bad little thing will ruin my happiness so leave me alone" versus "if you aren't constantly aware of every little thing wrong in every piece of media you like and either acknowledging those things constantly or else not posting about the things themselves AT ALL then you're a close-minded person." It's such a tired thing. It lacks any real willingness on both sides to sit down and talk and listen to the other and hear what they have to say. The world doesn't change like that, it just stays static, and I think more progress could be made if people were willing to meet in the middle.

#anyway ignore my rambling #before anyone assumes anything this has to do with an argument that is taking place in a closed group on both FB and Twitter #the sentiment holds true no matter the circumstances let's be clear about that #but this isn't about anyone here on tumblr #i just feel like i can more freely vent my thoughts here without 30+ other people jumping down my throat #mild vent #just coffee thoughts #Cyanide speaks

[decepti-thots]

Hello! Your latest posts about Rodimus were great! But I have a question that has been bothering me for quite a while and I really want to read your opinion because I think that your understanding of these characters is really good and you are as unbiased as one can be (and it helps that you don’t latch on to James Roberts’ or artists’ twits!). Do you think Ratchet is being disrespectful and abusive during his belief debates with Drift? It’s silly, but lately I saw people who share this opinion.

Ahhh, this old... argument. By which I mean ship war. Is that really cropping up again?

This discussion obviously involves a discussion of at least the abstract invocation of abuse in discussions of shipping, so just to be safe, I will cut it.

Well in case the above didn't give it away: no, I do not think Ratchet is being 'abusive' during their pre-relationship spats. I will in fact plant my flag in the sand here: I think any reading of their interactions which attempts to invoke the very real, very serious concept of domestic abuse is offensive in its insistence on exploiting serious topics for the sake of what is very much silly ship war nonsense. It's a part of the tendency of some parts of fandom to not be able to simply say 'this ship does not appeal to me' or 'I feel this ship was badly executed and so did not enjoy it', because that would make their dislike of a pairing too subjective and they need it to be objectively bad and wrong, so a bad-faith reading is used to make the matter a morally weighted one. A relationship didn't just lack chemistry or come across as insincere or seem too sudden for characters who previously butted heads; no, it's abusive. Relatedly, you are bad for shipping it, and you should come ship this thing I just so happen to prefer. To call this tactic in poor taste would be underselling it, I think.

Disrespectful, well, that's very different. I think Ratchet is absolutely disrespectful towards Drift at the start. That is a major foundational point in how the comic sets up their history; Ratchet acts like he is angry at Drift because he dislikes Drift's kooky religious views, but in reality he is angry at Drift because he sees what Drift went on to do after Ratchet saved his life as. Well. Unworthy of respect. The annual makes this pretty clear; their arguments aren't just about Drift believing in crystal healing or whatever, the discussion they are having underneath is about Ratchet feeling responsible for the atrocities Drift committed as Deadlock.

Which I think is where the milder version of this comes in- the idea that Ratchet is disrespectful of Drift's religious views and that Drift shouldn't give the time of day to someone who treats his deeply held views so flippantly, so the relationship sucks because ew, Ratchet is a Bad Boyfriend. Which... I can see how you might come to this conclusion, the indications that a) this is not what they are really fighting about and b) that Drift is in fact playing up part of it on purpose and it's not wholly sincere, are not unambiguous, nor are they super obvious. I disagree, personally. But it's up for interpretation, and you can absolutely read the comic as saying that yeah, Drift is super religious and Ratchet thinks he's dumb for it, that's all just real and there.

In which case, well, that's an absolutely fine reason to not like the ship, obviously! Some folks are not into the 'we started off antagonistically and slowly came to begrudgingly respect each other and whoops now we caught feeeeeelings' dynamic- because watching people not like each other is not fun to them even if it is temporary, or it reminds them of shitty exes they've had, or like. Whatever reason. That's fine. But it's not some sort of 'gotcha' that 'proves' people are wrong to enjoy that stuff. So someone doesn't like relationships that start out, pre-romance, where people are mean to each other over disagreements. Cool! Lots of folks don't, and I think folks that don't are likely to bounce off dratchet. But that's an assessment of personal taste rather than quality or, in the most hyperbolic versions of The Diskhorse, morality.

In short: nah, that's overwhelmingly folks who just don't like a ship and think if they moralise hard enough they can like. guilt people out of shipping it. tbqh. i mean less the 'disrespectful' part, but certainly folks out here insisting ratchet is an abuser are being disingenuous.

[ouijaban]

TKB meta 2.0

Reflecting on my previous TKB meta, I feel like I phrased a lot of it poorly (both in terms of syntax and in terms of communicating what I intended to say), but I still think this is an element of TKB's character that often gets overlooked and I'd like to talk about it some more.

Like the post about Maat that I reblogged points out, TKB's central philosophy, which he explains to Atemu and co in Vol 32, is basically moral relativity. On a basic level, he's critiquing Atemu and the monarchy or claiming the moral high ground over him when they themselves are responsible for the creation of the Sennen Items and – of course – the Kul Elna massacre which made that possible.

In this scene, TKB is explaining why Diabound – his Ka – is a "God-type" rather than a "demon-type" to the priests, who are all shocked that someone who they perceive to be evil would be able to produce the Ka-type associate with 'goodness,' and by the Scale's failure to judge Bakura as evil. Prior to this particular panel, his thoughts have revealed to the reader a few things, namely – 1) the Sennen Items aren't holy items of good as they've been described by Akhenaden, 2) there's a shadow power lurking within them, and 3) TKB wants to obtain that power and use it for himself, to achieve his stated goal of getting revenge.

In the original manga, what TKB says here is 悪って何だ？てめえの正義に忠実ならそいつは善ってことになるんじゃねえのか… which basically corresponds to the official translation. In the simplest of possible terms, it essentially means, "If someone is loyal to your justice, then does that make them good?" The official translation expands upon this a little bit and emphasises the sarcastic undertone to what he's saying – obviously, TKB isn't legitimately asking if being faithful (another potential translation of the word 忠実, alongside devoted) to what the monarchy considers to be just makes him metaphysically good. Remember, this is relating back to him explaining why he has a God-type Ka and not a Demon-type, so the "good" he's talking about is very specifically the good vs. evil the priests were discussing previously. He elaborates on this at length later on.

Like I said in my first analysis, what Bakura is saying here is that objective justice among men doesn't exist. As many others have pointed out, he's arguing that the monarchy has no ground to stand on to call him evil when they themselves have carried out egregious crimes against his village for the sake of the Items. And yes, he's totally correct about that.

But, hold on, Bakura – if there is no objective morality, then how can the Sennen Items make that calculation? Personally, I would argue, as I did earlier, that it's the strength of the convictions rather than the convictions themselves that are important here. If the Sennen Items are the product of both immense good and immense evil, and that's a dichotomy that metaphysically exists, then they must be operating relatively – that is, they determine "goodness" or "evilness" based on what the holder themselves believes, which makes sense given what we've seen earlier in the series. This would mean that the stronger the user's conviction is, the stronger their Ka becomes. In a way, then, the Items are themselves microcosms of the system Bakura is critiquing.

Here lies the issue for me, though – Bakura's main aim is revenge, and not revolution. He's not a liberator (he actively causes civilians harm solely to lure Atemu out), nor is he seeking to effect any positive change, since after he exacts his revenge his plan is to become Pharaoh himself and, with the aid of the Items, rule the world. I still hold that even though Bakura thinks the monarchy is wrong, he doesn't think he's right, either, even though he mocks the priests with that claim – it's just that he knows what he wants and he knows who he has to kill to get it. "No honour among thieves" is a phrase that comes to mind when I think about it; because he believes there is no real determinable divide between "good" and "evil," he'll do whatever it takes to achieve his goal – a goal that serves him and only him.

I think that makes him a fascinating character, and speaks to the complicated moral inquests this arc makes. But I don't think that Bakura's moral relativity makes him "right." Justified, yes, but right...not so much.

#yami bakura #thief king bakura #yu gi oh #yugioh #ygo #meta #text #mine

[rise-my-angel]

All of sudden joel hate coming up in YouTube how he had it coming

So dose that mean every characters in zombie movies tv show had it coming

I'm sick and tired of people pretending abby didn't didn't pull knife wouldn't hesitate to kill joel didn't he also murder immune people ??? Whole firefly killed immune people

But sociopath psycho joel had it coming because he killed innocent people

" I'm tired of people using joel voice actor to valid it argument joel had it coming he litreally compared joel to David the cannibalistic man and other rapists and murders in tlou "

Hot Take: If what you got out of the first game was Joel had it coming, then you have a very cynical and unemotional approach to morally grey characters.

Joel Miller is a prime example of a morally grey charecter, a good man who does the right thing when it matters most, but does a lot of harm along the journey to get there. We as the players do not need to agree with everything he does, we do not need to defend or support it. But the point of the story was an emotional study of him as a charecter, and why in the end, you understand why he does what he does in the Hospital.

I also think people tend to look at the Fireflies with a bit of an uncritical lens. They see oppressive governing power in Fedra, and a group of rebels and previous media tells us to root for them. But they are just as morally grey. And looking at the good they do versus the harm, the Fireflies loose massively against Joel beacause the good they have done does not outweigh the bad. The fireflies are terrorists to the point multiple people in universe call them as such, and they are not shown to be reliable or to be trusted.

I think it's fine if someone decides they don't like Joel personally, but the reason why people got so mad at the second game wasn't just that Joel didn't have it coming. It was that no one should have that coming for them. We were mad beceause it was cruelty for the sake of cruelty. When the cruelty of the first game always had a narrative or charecter driven purpose. Wheras here, they have to spend an entire third of the game AFTER the fact to justify why they did it, and most of us found that conclusion to be entierly unsatsifying.

Painting Joel as a violent, bad man who deserved what happened to him, is to approach the heart of the first story with a very unsympathetic and vengeful viewpoint. Joel wasn't getting revenge for Sarah in the Hospital, he was doing the right thing. Abby on the other hand, only did it for revenge because her world was a worse place after Joel was dead.

It's just not a good follow up to the first game beacuse you need us to believe a character assasination of Joel to be true, just to get us on board with the basic plot. Which we don't.

They can't lie about a character I already know, and an organization i already watched do more harm then good.

Joel hate is very much a product of the second game and did not grow organically within the community as a stance. Most anti Joel content soley relies on you buying into the story of the sequel to make it work. Because no evidence from the first game supports their narrative of Joel being a bad enough person to deserve such an end.

Also, I do not care what people like Troy or Neil have to say. I've seen enough of their discussions to know that they are trying to push the narrative that justifies the second games existence. They aren't saying it in good faith, they're saying it to convince people that Joel was a bad man all along, only as long as you listen to them make strawman arguments of their own game.

Anyways, long way of saying, I'll never feel bad for the Fireflies.

Fuck 'em.

#tlou #the last of us #anti tlou2 #anti the last of us 2

[v0ltpr1m3]

Today I bring you all a treat! Me and @yapixx have technically been working on this theory for years so when I tell you we have decent faith in this theory, we really do.

The theory we pose to you today is that The Man in the Wall and Dominus Thrax are one in the same, and that the "Paradox" in "Duviri Paradox" is specifically a Predestination Paradox (or causal loop).

This was developed over the span of several long nights spent analyzing the Duviri trailers frame-by-frame, typed up all nice and pretty for you here by the wonderful and fantastic Yapixx. I promise it isn't too long, enjoy!

The Duviri Paradox has been a point of confusion in Warframe lore since its debut trailer in Tennocon of 2019 ; Oftentimes left out of discussions entirely as a future mission that may reveal some more mysteries when it comes out. However, we suspect that in the first twenty minutes of the quest revealed during the latest Tennocon, DE already left enough information to piece together a lot of hanging threads in Warframe. Who The Man in the Wall is, how the Tenno's void powers were born, and what the Paradox in Duviri is.

Before we explain our theory, a mini-theory that’s important to our thesis working requires you to believe that Dominus Thrax is the Man in the Wall. Starting anecdotally, Thrax’s mannerisms are those of an immature child playing with toys. An immature child who gets entertainment and glee from the suffering of others. See how MITW (Man in the Wall) acts in all of their canonical appearances. Childish, menacing, who enjoys seeing us hurt ; Eg. After The Sacrifice when their only response to the Operator’s guilt over the murder of Isaah was “Good.” Also the fact that Dominus Thrax has full power over Duviri. “My world, my rules.” That wouldn’t make sense if he wasn’t The Man in the Wall because Mr. Wall, who came out of the Duviri portal in The New War, has that kind of power.

To really help the theory that Dominus Thrax could be in general another character comes from an interview by pcgamer. “Duviri is ruled over by Dominus Thrax, a king whose very mood shapes the world each day and the person keeping the Drifter there, who Ford hints may be more familiar than they seem.” Although it isn’t entirely damning, Dominus Thrax is allegedly an already known character, and The Man in the Wall fits as the best candidate.

Now to the fun bits.

We believe that the Duviri Paradox is actually a Predestination Paradox, or a causal loop. Lifted from Wikipedia for the sake of definition, "A causal loop is a theoretical proposition in which, by means of either retrocausality or time travel, an event is among the causes of another event, which is in turn among the causes of the first-mentioned event. Such causally looped events then exist in spacetime, but their origin cannot be determined." To put simply, it's when an event from the future causes itself to happen.

I believe that this is exactly what happens in The Duviri Paradox, further helped by our Drifter exhibiting the power to time travel in the void using a portal to the derelict starter frames. At the start of the demo, we first see the Drifter get stabbed with the Paracesis from New War, followed immediately by the Lotus' hand hitting the ground like a comet. They then use the Lotus' power to create color and change Duviri. Hijinx then ensues, but most importantly, the Drifter has the Lotus' hand. Dominus Thrax's final words in this demo are "Maybe I should just go there [the Origin System] myself." During New War, we get to see the deal that our Operator made with The Indifference (Man in the Wall). Confusingly at the time, the Indifference uses the Lotus' hand to shake ours. Then plays a scene that ends with our Operator still on the left, now shaking hands with our Drifter instead. Which didn't make sense. Until you apply the knowledge that the Drifter had the Lotus' hand in Duviri. And then it could be seen that instead of the Man in the Wall granting their own powers to us, he was using the hand that the Drifter had to grant the Lotus' powers to us. Thus beginning the loop where the deal gets struck due to an event in The New War, and the deal being struck is what led to The New War in the first place.

#Warframe #The Duviri Paradox #The Man in the Wall #Dominus Thrax #thank you all for your attention! even a skim is greatly appreciated :)

[joan-of-feminism]

My understanding of intersex v.s trans

Hi. I’m finally posting for the first time on this blog after a couple months of thinking about these topics. I encourage discussion as long as it’s in good faith. Please share your own thoughts or critiques if you want.

My understanding of intersex is that it’s a sexual developmental disorder that you are born with. It can give you ambiguous genitalia, mixed sex hormones, and mixed secondary sex characteristics. This doesn’t mean that sex is a spectrum. If it were, we would find any combination of hormones, genitals and the like within humans, but there are only a few intersex disorders that have been recorded, each with a specific set of genitalia, hormones and characteristics.

Trans is a combination of dysphoria of your birth sex and being uncomfortable with your sex’s assigned gender roles. Trans people are born one sex or the other and due to sex dysphoria and gender roles they want to be the other sex/gender.

Both trans and intersex people struggle with their self identity and can experience sex dysphoria and confusion about which gender they are. The difference is that for intersex people, dysphoria is due to their sexual developmental disorder and for trans people, it is due to the disgust of their birth sex and desire to be rid of the constrictive gender roles assigned to their sex.

Intersex is not necessarily a third sex. It’s a combination of the two sexes, male and female. It is also a sexual developmental disorder. This does not mean that they are wrong or broken. They deserve respect just as much as anyone else, but they do have a legitimate medical condition. Any person with a medical condition or disorder should be treated with dignity and not be made to feel stigmatized due to their condition.

To deal with these phenomena, both kinds of people might use hormones or surgery to feel more comfortable with themselves. However, I personally believe that intersex people have a more legitimate reason to do hormones and surgery since it is often the only way to correct some health and aesthetic issues that come with their condition. BUT they should never be forced to take hormones or undergo surgery for the sake of fitting one sex or the other (unless they want to). The reason I believe that trans people have a less legitimate reason to do hormones and surgery is that there are other ways to ease sex dysphoria and your hatred of your assigned gender roles (I.e. sex dysphoria therapy, learning to realize that you don’t have to fit your assigned sex gender roles and can wear and do whatever you want as your birth sex).

Transness also ironically perpetuates gender roles. Their ideology says that if you like stereotypical masculine things and fashion, then you must actually be a man/male and if you like stereotypical feminine things and fashion, then you must actually be a woman/female. Gender and its roles are assigned to sex by society, they are not biologically innate to your sex. You can be any sex and be as masc or as femme as you want.

In conclusion, my understanding is that intersex is a biological phenomenon. It’s a sexual developmental disorder. Trans is a social and mental phenomenon. A mix of sex dysphoria and a dislike of your sex’s assigned gender roles and expectations.

Edit: So this post is getting a lot of interaction (at least for me anyway) and I want to clear things up. This post was just me trying to figure stuff out and put my thoughts down on paper so to speak. I understand that there might be some things that I’m not fully informed about which is why I encouraged discussion on this post.

#radblr #radfem #radfems please touch #radfems do touch #radfems can interact #gender critical #trans ideology #intersex #gender roles