#however my intention was not the essay-like conclusion. my bad

[purble-gaymer]

THOSE LAST COUPLE CHAPTERS HIT HARD

I just got caught up on your fic and I always oh so love the interactions between the three knight bros. I also adored how you wrote the interactions between Meta Knight and Dedede. I'm a huge fan of redededemption arc and it's why in my hcs I count (an altered version of) the anime as a precursor to the games. I really think that anime Dedede gets a little more hate than he should. He's selfish and a jerk but he's been like that in the games too. I don't like it when people characterize anime Dedede as truly evil and undeserving of redemption because he's meant to be seen more as downright childlike to a fault, even having fits and not being able to read. He's more negligent of real danger even when he's the one causing it than he is downright cruel, and that was proven in the episode where he really thought Kirby died (which was actually a pretty fucked up thing to pull imo). My point is that I think that's exactly how Meta Knight sees him in the anime. Bothersome, spoiled, and a conductor for events that become far more serious than he ever thinks they are. Truly, Dedede has no idea what he's up against with Nightmare, and Meta Knight doesn't hold him responsible for that. He's just there to make sure nothing goes too wrong and shrugs off the childlike berating Dedede gives him afterwards. But for all of that Dedede never stays mad at Meta Knight, and likewise Meta Knight looks out for Dedede in a way by also making sure his exploits don't go out of hand and harm him (since he knows Dedede is playing with fire when it comes to the monsters). Even for the flawed parts of anime Dedede's characterization he's just an immature king who isn't actually that much of a feal threat, just like in the games -- and Meta Knight is his loyal knight who puts up with his antics. Sorry for the drabble but again my point is I just felt like you nailed their interactions PERFECTLY. I can absolutely see in your writing the potential for how their friendship would grow overtime. All the characters really are just silly fellas, reading them gives off those same vibes from the anime. Anyway, I just wanted to compliment you over that .o.

uwhjg. thank you !!😭 dedede has always been a fun character to write whether it’s a serious scene or a silly one, and i wanted to set them on the same course they take in the games. of course, it’ll still be a long time before everyone sets aside their differences enough to become friends, but it’s a start. matching the characterization of the show while doing everything i wanted to was a challenge, but it’s good to hear it paid off! dedede is misled and inexperienced, but he’s still dedede. there are inklings of the character we know today, it’ll just take time for him to grow from his original characterization. like, it takes until triple deluxe for kirby and dedede to really work together. now that nightmare’s gone, it’ll probably follow a similar course.

i’ve had one or two people mention leading up to 93 that not a lot of writers look at mk & ddd’s relationship in too much depth, and i agree. i didn’t get into is as much as i would’ve liked to, but i tried to include it whenever i could because they’re so interesting. you see them hanging out like friends but you also see them constantly denying the other’s wishes and fighting about it later. not to mention the whole ‘let’s blow up the halberd’ debacle. we’ll talk about that another day. but to my original point, dedede gets shelved a lot in favor of developing other characters and it’s a shame. he’d be just as important after nme’s destruction. he’s still got kirby to deal with, after all. it’s not like he and meta knight never interact, either. i’ve inserted a lot of scenes but there are plenty of times mk just shows up in the throne room to ask about something. even things like mk helping dedede with his plan to get kirby into the grand prix in 35/36 are suggested by the fact dedede and escargoon are in the storage room with him when he talks to kirby. these scenes are really only baseless in episodes where the knights don’t appear at all (i’m pretty sure they aren’t actually in 93).

i’d like to say dedede starts to realize just how serious things are after 89 because of the whole…incident with mk, but because that didn’t really happen, it’s not reflected in the show. maybe it’s more in the back of his mind, sort of a ‘no, that can’t be right!’ thought that he can’t quite dismiss. by the time the destroya come along, he just goes along with things because he wants to stop the attack. he certainly understands the danger once they’re at there fortress, so he has to have realized at some point. i think meta knight also starts to gain a level of respect for him after my made-up 89 epilogue, if only because he brought him back to sword and blade to make sure he was safe after. they wouldn’t have fought so openly in 93 if it were the beginning of the show—dedede might’ve been a little upset, but what’s it matter? meta knight is just another soldier under his lead. they’ve been through a lot by the end, and they’re going to go through more.

i wish the show gave them more interactions. i think that’s part of the problem. all you really see of them is mk asking questions from time to time, and it doesn’t establish anything beyond their usual fronts. it feels uninteresting and surface-level. but there’s so much more there that can be brought out simply by removing them from the situation and letting them talk on their own.

shit i just thought of something so i’m gonna talk a little more—the opening of 60 is sort of a fun example. their interaction is very short, but shows a lot. dedede and escargoon come into the courtyard with their destroyed car, and dedede shouts for meta knight to get down there and help. sure, it can be read as a nothing command, but it’s also a declaration of ‘this is serious, we need /your/ help because i know you know what you’re doing.’ he doesn’t call for the waddle dees to line up at the gate and prepare to battle, he calls for meta knight’s help specifically. (i’m pretty sure sirica asks about star warriors before blasting them, but i’m not sure she ever says mk’s name. they probably don’t know she’s actively looking for him at this point.)

i wanted to express everyone as having room to change, because that’s part of what the series is about. it’s about love and it’s about change, and even if the anime isn’t so bubbly bright and happy as the games, the anime is about that, too. they all have their own lives and they all have places they’re going, even if we don’t get to see what happens after they get home to dreamland. these aren’t static characters, as simple as they seem. they have history, they’re layered, and yes, they are very, very silly. letting that potential go ignored would be a crime, wouldn’t it?

#asks #borbology #yeah so this got long and rambly which was my intention #however my intention was not the essay-like conclusion. my bad #that just happens whenever i write for too long #long post #uhhh #wwtmk

[haleigh-sloth]

I usually don’t share my specific thoughts about bnha but I need to get this thought out there so sorry if this is weird but….

Personally I think the thing most people forget about Shigaraki is that before anything, before afo before killing people Shigaraki was “taught” (abused into thinking) that every time he did something his father viewed as ‘heroic’ he was/would be punished for it cause it would be hurting the ones around him (it would affect his family). Of course this is the worst thing to be taught when you are 5 years old .

But this continued until his family was dead and then he met afo. Afo basically convinced this 5 year old child who was not in a position to tell him (afo) he was wrong and still had the idea of good thing = bad things going to happen, that heroism is bad and that as long as you are mad at the person you’re killing it’s fine (obviously not true but when you are 5 I don’t really think you would actually understand that it was wrong)

And then this way of thinking continued basically for like 15 years..

In simpler terms, afo seemed to convince him that, good thing/good deed = bad things going to happen/ no real benefit and, bad thing/bad deed = bad thing going to happen however you got treated badly therefore it’s ok if you do bad things too

the thing everyone’s needs to understand in my opinion is that people who talk about why villains think this/ that or people who just like the villains of the show, are not justifying that fact that they killed people but merely just explaining their thoughts/opinion of the matter and trying to get you to understand that when you are abused or/and manipulated it changes the way you think (not everyone can dramatically change their life the second they are not next to their abuser anymore)

((And in the end this show is. not. real! The villains did not kill a bunch of real innocent people, some people don’t seem to get that anymore and act as if that’s what happens…))

Sorry if there’s any mistakes in this, I kinda have trouble putting my thoughts into words that others understand heh. . . .

In response to this...

I mean, yes, I agree with everything here.

The reason I didn't dive into all of this is because, and I mean this in....some type of way...actually idk. There's no nice way to say this really.

Anybody who is just stuck on "They did bad things, they're evil because of this and they should die" is not worth arguing/debating/discussing things with for me personally.

I'm serious--I do not have the patience to explain the obvious to people who just don't care about these aspects of the villains. It's too tiring, and ultimately pointless because--they don't care.

If the conclusion someone has come to is "They killed people and they're bad and a sad backstory isn't an excuse and that's that", then I mean, I have nothing to say to counter.

Imo, everything you pointed out is very obvious, so anybody ignoring its importance is doing it intentionally and probably has no intention of changing their minds.

People write essays on tumblr about redeeming characters who do horrible things, why it's done in fiction, how it's done, how to tell when a character is set up for a redemption arc early on, but it doesn't matter. If someone doesn't want to accept a redemption arc in a character, there is nothing to be done.

I really do not mean to sound pretentious or anything....but honestly I don't have the energy or patience to explain old arguments that have been beaten into the ground and things that are just painfully obvious and shouldn't even have to be said (namely that none of these people are real and nobody has killed anybody--like I'm not gonna write an argumentative meta on that).

So yes I agree with everything you've said here, but I tend to intentionally leave these points out because if someone is still held up on the points you've made, I really don't have the patience to discuss with them.

#iiii am really sorry i hope this isn't rude #i'm serious though like #i would rather dive into the characters' thoughts and feelings and analyze their actions and reactions to the other characters near them #not try to convince people why these fictional people should be saved/redeemed #especially when their main argument is 'villain bad' #i just can't #bnha asks #shigaraki tomura #shimura tenko #but good points made in the ask itself #yes

[cborumsvad-gd]

READING RESPONSE: The passage on spacing and punctuation was nothing new to me really, I write frequently via text and when I write. So, the punctuation is nothing new to me. However, there are few places where usage of punctuation is paramount other than educational essays and the like. Though it made me think of one thing I do because of texting frequently: That I use ellipsis way too often. Personally, I think it’s a good way to signify a breath or pause in what you’re saying, mostly because its something unnatural and uncommon to see in a regular sentence. When you use an ellipsis that way, It makes the intended pause in what you’re texting much more apparent. But I’m unsure as to weather that’s the correct way 

COMMENTARY: After much research, trial and error, I finally settled on a rebranding for the Washington Commanders. In my opinion, or maybe I should say: “In my eyes”, I think that the name “Washington Commanders” isn’t necessarily bad, but it doesn’t carry the same intention as the other NFL team brands. I came to the conclusion that changing to some type of apex predator would be more fitting. So I researched the state animal and found that Washington’s animal is the Brown Bat. Since Washington D.C. is the capital of the country and home of the White House I wanted to cement it as a patriotic Football Team with the logo. The Brown Bat isn’t the most patriotic animal, but a lot of hawks and even the iconic bald eagle were taken by other teams. So I found an uncommon species of eagle called a Harrier. It has a very interesting face that could potentially be shaped into a “W” like the original logo. But with some adjustments, the brown bat can work too. I’ll be doing a lot of experimenting this weekend. 

[deactivated-20220808]

“System” is a Medical Term

…And Other Things the “Empowered Multiples” Movement Hid From Us

Introduction

Hello again, guys, Remy here, kind of. More or less.

This is something I’ve been meaning to talk about for a while, because it’s something absolutely no one in the online system/plural/etc community is talking about. Either because they want to ignore it because it makes them look bad, or because they legitimately just never knew that this had happened at all, likely because it was before their time as systems online. But I’m here to talk about it, because this is something that can explain so many things about why the system/plural communities online are the way they are today; damaged and filled with infighting and constant confusion.

Who Were The “Empowered Multiples”, and Why Does No One Talk About Them?

The “Empowered Multiples”.

That’s an identity label that should fill everyone but the most anti-DID, anti-psych, anti-recovery ableists with the most dread.

If you want a long, detailed and heavily sourced history of what the “empowered multiples” did to the online multiple/DID communities specifically, you can read this post here.

To make a very long story short, the “empowered multiples” was a movement started by Astrea’s Web and Dark Personalities that advocated for the abolition of DID/MPD as diagnostic labels and wanted them removed from the DSM, and displayed blatant superiority over those who still accepted or identified with DID/MPD for themselves, and that’s only a very small idea of what they did. They encouraged people to write them essays on why DID/MPD was a bad label, which they would both post on their websites, encouraged people to boycott the diagnosis, told people to refuse to identify with it it even if they were already diagnosed with it, tried to convince people that it was “natural” to have DID/MPD, including inherently pathological DID/MPD symptoms like time loss, as well as encouraged the idea that anyone was plural if they saw themselves that way and rejected the idea of DID/MPD.

They also deliberately muddied the definition of terms like “system”—which was originally a medical/clinical term coined with DID in mind only, originally referring to a “parts as a system” as it were—and “multiplicity”—also only associated with DID/MPD up until the “empowered multiples” movement, as MPD (when that was still the primary term used) was often referred to as things such as “multiplicity”, “being multiple”, the “multiple gift”, and more. See below:

(Sources for these images are linked in the post above)

They changed the definitions of these words to better suit their narrative, to co-opt language that was not for them in order to both boycott DID as a diagnosis, and to still use language that they were comfortable with at the same time, so they didn’t have to change that much about the language used to describe their experiences.

In the process, and this was very likely 100% intentional, they changed the way a lot of people see the word “system”, now referring to any instance of multiple consciousnesses in one body, rather than a specific experience of “parts as a system”, which inevitably lead to the constant confusion and conflation of experiences, as well as the erasure of DID as a system experience, as this has directly lead to some people knowing about systems as a concept, but not about DID, or having very skewed perceptions of DID, things I have witnessed firsthand in the online communities.

Now, I generally use past-tense when talking about the “empowered multiples”, but it should be important to note that on some level, they do still exist within the plural communities, they’re just not nearly as prominent as they used to be, however, that’s purely in identifying with the term itself. The rhetoric of the “empowered multiples” is still quite rampant in a lot of ways, such as in the anti-psych sentiments of many parts of the plural communities, as well as even the “nondisordered plural supremacy” sentiments that many of them spread, with the implication that people with DIDOSDD1 are lesser for being so, or less “plural”/systems as it were, which all goes to display many of the ways that the “empowered multiples” still have an effect on the communities, whether they’re as prominent as they used to be or not.

How Did This Damage the Online Communities?

This damaged the online communities by constantly having dissociative trauma-based system experiences conflated with non-dissociative, non-trauma based experiences, and while there may seem to be a lot of similar experiences between the two on the surface, at the core, they have extremely different needs. In DID, integration/fusion, (not even final fusion/full integration), is often times necessary for survival and healing, and helps to give a more complete sense of self and personal history, whereas in plural communities, it’s often seen as an extremely negative thing on par with death. This alone shows that the communities are very different and have extremely different needs, meaning that the two cannot be conflated or treated the same at all, and yet this behavior of treating DID the exact same as a non-DID experience persists, simply because they are both called “systems”, when plurals, going by the original definition of the word “system” given above, are nothing like systems.

To clarify, I’m not saying endogenic plurals are not real, I’m saying that by the original definition(s) of the word “system”, and taking the history of the word “system” into account and who the word was coined for, endogenic plurals are not systems, because they don’t consider themselves parts, and because they are not parts neurologically. They’re plurals. In fact, “plural” as a term was actually coined as a non-DID alternative to “multiplicity” in the first place, which already makes it a great substitute for the word “system”. The reason that DID systems are systems, even if they don’t consider themselves “parts” is because no matter what, DID alters are, neurologically and structurally, parts of a shattered consciousness that broke apart to survive repetitive childhood trauma. This is something that has been proven time and time again, and even if certain systems are uncomfortable with this notion, that doesn’t change what the science says about DID neurologically and structurally.

But endogenic plurals are nothing like this, because they don’t have any substantial scientific evidence for their existence, let alone for what their headmates are neurologically, (no offense or judgement meant by this). So, going by this historical definition, endogenics are not systems, they’re simply plural. (Hah)

Is this a bad thing? No.

I also don’t think it’s inherently anyone’s fault for not knowing this, considering this is something that was pretty much deliberately covered up and forgotten about by most of the plural community, considering, well, if this were part of a community I were in, I’d also be pretty humiliated and offended by these people’s behavior, and would just want to move on. However, this is an extremely important part of the history of the plural community, and I haven’t seen people talking about it very much, if at all, and that needs to change if we ever want to start to fix the community going forewords.

How Can We Fix It?

The best we can do to even start fixing the community is to stop conflating endogenic plural experiences with the experiences of DIDOSDD1 systems.

Full stop.

The two experiences are far too different and have far too different needs to comfortably conflate the two under the same umbrella, using the same language, because someone with DID is never going to have the same experience as an endogenic plural simply because DID is severely dissociative and traumagenic, and endogenic plurality (or any non-DID plurality) is, by definition, not. DIDOSDD1 does not belong under the “plural umbrella”, because going by the historical use of the word “plural”, we aren’t plural. We’re systems, or multiple.

Using the same language implies that the two experiences are the same, when they are not. If you want to look more into the differences between DID and endogenic plurality, I suggest looking under the #endos vs. DID tag I have on my blog, which goes a bit more in-depth in this subject.

Is Separating the Experiences Necessary for Community Healing?

Separating the experiences via encouraging the use of separate language? Yes.

Separating the communities entirely? Well, that doesn’t have to be the case. It’s not like I could control people in the first place, so saying ‘yes’ would be useless.

Shared spaces aren’t inherently bad when they’re not using the same language to describe two extremely different experiences, implying they’re both the exact same just with a different origin, when that is very, very obviously not the case, verifiably so.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the “Empowered Multiples” movement did a massive amount of damage, more than I can put in one short post, which is why I linked the post I got my information from, which has dozens upon dozens of sources and links to archives of these sources, as well as screenshots and image descriptions for them, so you can read the original post and make your own conclusions based on the information at hand, (however OP explicitly asks for no syscourse on their post, so please respect their boundaries).

The “Empowered Multiples” movement did a lot in the way of conflating and confusing two extremely different experiences, taking language from the earlier DIDOSDD communities and it wasn’t even that long ago, either. The movement was only really brought to its knees when “The Haunted Self” came out in /2014/, presenting the Theory of Structural Dissociation, and just two years before that, 2012 was when the discourse surrounding the “Empowered Multiples” was at its peak. The damage that this movement did is still very, very prevalent in the community in the anti-psych fearmongering rhetoric a lot of plurals (and even DIDOSDD systems) spout, in that “fusion is murder” or the implication that all alters have to be extremely separate all the time or sentiments of “getting diagnosed will make you lose ALL your rights” in the form of long, severely misinformed and frankly bullshit twitter threads, and we can’t forget the outright ableism of being considered “disordered” that many plurals peddle—all of these things are remnants of the damage that Astrea’s Web, Dark Personalities and the “Empowered Multiples” movement have left us with.

These are the parts of plural history that people don’t want to talk about, which only makes these things more important to talk about now more than ever, if we ever want to change it and if we are ever going to make progress within the communities to stop the infighting.

If you want to make a change, we need to open a dialogue on this damage so that we can heal it.

Sincerely,

Remy

(P.S., I do not support the use of this piece being used to attack endogenics/plurals for any reason, that is not the reason I made this piece, I made this piece to start a dialogue within the system community about making actual, genuine change and to start a conversation about how we can try to fix a massive amount of what’s wrong with the online DIDOSDD1/Multiple and Plural communities, not to attack Plurals and to invalidate them, because it is very much my belief that it will do nothing to help the infighting between the communities.)

#txt #syscourse #actually endogenic #actuallytraumagenic #actuallydid #actuallyplural #actuallymultiple #empowered multiples #pluralmeta #sysmeta #didmeta #plural deep dive #pluralitycritique

[caelestis-composition]

killshot anon! YEAH i totally agree w/ your view on kaeya. it's so weird to me that people will blame him for his role in a situation he was forced into as a child through no choice of his own. that itself had to be traumatic, not to mention everything that happened later. i hate when people say he's untrustworthy - like yeah, he's lied, so has everyone? it's clear he does it mostly to protect himself. not to mention that (& sadism) can be symptoms of trauma. kaeya deserves nothing but happiness

take a seat folks it’s time for a “brynn should’ve been an english major” lesson! today we’re gonna learn some literary theory; specifically, we’re gonna apply psychoanalytical trauma theory to kaeya’s backstory and current character. killshot anon i bet you never thought this would result in a whole ass essay.

disclaimer one! you are allowed to dislike kaeya! i am not saying you need to like him or his character, you’re entitled to your opinion and i’m not here to change your mind.

disclaimer two! i am in no way an expert and this is all for fun! this is just my silly little analysis of one of my favorite characters as someone who’s studied literary theory and rhetoric and can also apply personal experience. seriously analysis is like a hobby to me and this is just an excuse for me to ramble about kaeya.

disclaimer three! this contains lots of spoilers! basically for everything we know in-game, general knowledge as well as stuff from his voicelines and character story. don’t read this if you don’t want spoilers.

since this is going to be filled with spoilers and is about to get really long, everything will be under a cut. for those who wanna read my dumb super informal essay: enjoy!

final note: yeah this is over 2000 words long can you tell i like analysis

⭒

let’s start by getting a quick rundown of trauma theory out of the way. to begin, what is “trauma?” in this case, trauma is going to refer to an experience that greatly affects and changes one’s life; attitudes, memories, behaviors, mental state, etc. while not all changes may be bad, per se, the overall effect of trauma is generally a negative one, which is why it’s so significant. literary trauma theory, then, explores these changes and the impact of trauma in literature. it analyzes the psychological and social effects of trauma, explaining what those effects are and why they happen. in the context of a specific character, trauma theory breaks down said character’s behaviors, feelings, and general mentality in relation to their past experiences; trauma theory hopes to explain to others the reasons for why a character may act or feel the way they do, all based upon the character’s experiences, particularly traumatic ones. our character today is the lovely kaeya alberich, with the “literature” being genshin impact. i’ll be referencing kaeya’s wiki page to ensure i get all details correct for his character story and voicelines.

it would be good to review kaeya’s backstory before delving into the actual analysis. though we don’t know much about his life before living in mondstadt, we’re told he was sent as an agent of khaenri’ah. and by “sent,” i mean his biological father abandoned him in a completely unfamiliar land to serve khaenri’ah’s interests and fullfil his mission—what this entirely entails hasn’t been revealed. mondstadt, however, welcomed kaeya “with open arms when they found him.” crepus ragnvindr took him in as his adopted son, with diluc as his adopted brother. kaeya and diluc were “almost like twins,” so close they “[knew] each other’s thoughts and intentions without a word.” he’d began a new life in mondstadt, one surrounded by friends and family that loved him; one that was completely shattered by crepus’s death. kaeya arrived at the scene of the disaster, and was led to believe diluc was the one who killed their father to “set his father free” from the effects of his delusion. there’d always been one big question in kaeya’s life: if it came down to it, who would he support? the nation that abandoned him, but he still felt loyal to, or the nation and family that took him in and really loved him? overrun with guilt, kaeya confessed his purpose to diluc, sparking a fight between the two brothers. in this fight, kaeya receives his cryo vision. though both brothers stepped away alive, they’ve never been able to make peace with one another. now, kaeya is the eccentric and charming cavalry captain of the knights of favonius; a man who gets his way by using any means necessary, regardless of whether or not it seems right.

kaeya’s not evil; he’s morally ambiguous, and that stems from what appears to be a general distrust of others. his life is one shrouded in secrecy. from the moment he stepped foot into mondstadt, he was surrounded by secrets. even now, he doesn’t talk about a lot of things, namely his past, vision, and feelings. though he’s always willing to get information out of others, kaeya never reveals anything about himself. he repeatedly tells the player they can confide in him, but whenever you try and pry into his life, he deflects your questions with some sort of witty comment or flirty remark. anything he does reveal is vague, or spoken in some sort of “code.” for example, his “interesting things” voiceline. he tells us about the owl of dragonspine, how it “seems to look right through you, while letting go of none of its own secrets,” and then tacks on a “quite fascinating, don’t you think?” it seems like an awfully accurate parallel to himself; kaeya does all he can to get information from others, but never gives anything about himself. now, this whole thing—his relationship with diluc falling apart and his need for secrecy—could have probably been avoided if he had just come clean about his mission years ago. so why didn’t he? to start, kaeya was a literal child. not only are children unable to properly tell the difference between right and wrong, but they’ll also typically follow their parents’ orders blindly. kaeya had just been abandoned, and he wouldn’t want to risk being cast out by mondstadt as well if he came clean right away. you see, there’s this thing about trauma, something that trauma theory states. traumatized people feel a sort of shame or guilt regarding their traumatic experience; they’ll keep quiet because they don’t want to cause problems or bother others with their issues. of course kaeya wouldn’t tell the truth about his past, he doesn’t want to destroy the genuinely loving relationships he’d built in mondstadt. his fight with diluc only proves what he was afraid of: if he’s honest, he’ll be abandoned again. and if kaeya’s used to all the lies, why should he bother changing?

another thing, if he’s not going to tell the truth, then why would he have initially gone along with his father’s plans? again, he was a child. he really had no choice, and was forced into a very wrong and cruel situation. there’s a good explanation for this, too, which is also stated in trauma theory; traumatized people will still do their best to please their abusers. especially if said abuser is a parent, that will drive traumatized people to work even harder to please them. although his father hurt him by ruthlessly abandoning him, kaeya still sought to make him and his homeland proud. he was willing to be used as a tool for their gain; that is, until he found people who actually cared about him. he was an impressionable child, of course he’s going to obey orders. but as he gets older, he feels torn. does he serve those who abandoned him, or those that took him in? his father—and arguably, khaenri’ah as a whole—hurt him, sure, but he still feels some loyalty and connection to his former home. instead of revealing anything, he lets the situation play out. that way, he can’t be blamed when things fall apart.

the thing about claiming he’s untrustworthy is that hardly anyone in-game believes that. he’s adored by the older folks in mondstadt, and foes and allies alike find him easy to talk to. despite seeming lazy and uninterested in work, kaeya takes his job very seriously. in fact, his story states that crepus’s death was the “first and only time kaeya failed in his duty.” the “only time” is especially important, because it signifies kaeya still fulfills his duties successfully. he’s had a total of one slip-up, and hasn’t failed since. no, kaeya is not untrustworthy. rather, kaeya finds everyone else untrustworthy. it’s not unlikely that this is a direct consequence of being abandoned as a child. although it’s been established that kaeya and diluc were very close as children, when crepus dies, kaeya assumes diluc is the one that killed him. in order to jump to such an extreme conclusion against someone he was so close to, there had to be some underlying sense of distrust. furthermore, kaeya expresses feeling as though he doesn’t belong anywhere. he was abandoned by khaenri’ah, and then worried he wouldn’t be accepted by mondstadt. he is, but there’s still that worry. if you place him in your teapot as a companion, he tells you that your home feels like someplace he belongs, following it up with a “heh, who’d have thought…” kaeya still feels as though he doesn’t belong in mondstadt; despite the fact that he’s a high-ranking knight of favonius and rather popular, he still feels like an outsider. he doesn’t trust that anyone actually wants him around, and he finds joy in testing peoples’ trustworthiness. it’s noted in his story and through his voicelines that the beloved cavalry captain has a rather sadistic nature. he likes putting people into difficult situations, to see what decisions they will make. he does this to both opponents and allies, testing to see who’s going to back out and who’ll keep fighting; in the sake of allies, who can he trust? or who will turn tail and abandon their teammates at the slightest hint of danger? i mentioned it previously, but kaeya doesn’t care what measures he has to take so long as his job gets done and he gets the answers he wants. it’s a sort of self-preserving mindset, putting himself above the safety of others. kaeya’s trying to protect himself, which makes sense with all he’s been through. he doesn’t want to be hurt, and instead finds pleasure in threatening harm upon others. it’s twisted, sure, but it’s because he can only trust himself in a world that he believes is out to get him. he’s got as many enemies—if not more—as he does allies; of course kaeya focuses on protecting himself first, whether physically or through keeping his secrets, well, secret.

his most obvious traumatic effect is definitely his alcoholism. but he uses it as a distraction, not just to wallow in self-pity. this is seen again in his story, particularly in story 3. it’s found that when his favorite drink, death after noon, is out of season, mondstadt’s crime rate is decreased drastically. at face value, this just means kaeya spends more time working when death after noon is low in supply. but kaeya doesn’t skip work to go to taverns; it’s already been established he takes his job very seriously, so this means he actually patrols and tracks down threats while off work when he can’t indulge in his favorite alcoholic drink. he doesn’t get drunk simply because he’s depressed. if he did, there wouldn’t be a drop in incidents when death after noon is out of season. no, kaeya uses both the alcohol and fighting to distract himself. after all, it’s a little hard to think about feeling sad when you’re either drunk out of your mind or fighting for your life.

despite being so secretive, kaeya gives us glimpses of his true emotions from time to time. as previously mentioned, his flirty attitude is nothing more than a mask to hide how he really feels; and kaeya is terribly, terribly lonely. that may be why he seems so extroverted. constantly being around people should, logically, drive away that feeling, but it doesn’t work like that. when he talks with the player, he frequently expresses disappointment when you have to leave. each time, though, he dampens the weight of his words with playful or flirty language. he’s lonely, but doesn’t want you to know that, like he’s afraid of asking you to stay. he takes the seriousness of his feelings, and basically bends it into some sort of lighthearted joke. kaeya hides his true feelings—negative feelings, to be exact—so that he doesn’t bother anyone. which is, again, something that happens with traumatized people. he displays that hesitance to reveal his true feelings, because there’s a shame or guilt that comes with his past. he doesn’t want to bother others or hold them back, so he puts on a smile and amps up the charisma. one other very important thing—but very small detail—i would like to note is his feelings toward family. his fell apart not even once, but twice, and kaeya still holds familial relationships in high regard. we know he doesn’t exactly care how he goes about getting his work done. he doesn’t pay attention to what’s “right” or “wrong,” so long as he gets what he needs. but one of his informants, vile, notes that the cavalry captain has one exception: he won’t work with those who threaten others’ families. in fact, kaeya claims those who do should be hunted down and destroyed. even though his own families have caused him so much pain—and he ended up estranged from both—he still understands the importance of having people who love you in your life. because he didn’t get that.

kaeya’s not evil. ultimately, as a knight of favonius, his goal is to protect others, because no one was there to protect him. and because no one was there to protect him, because he’s been hurt time and time again by people who were supposed to love him, kaeya has taken to protecting himself. he hides any and all negative feelings with a charismatic, friendly façade, because he thinks it’ll drive away his persistent loneliness. any “bad” actions of his were hardly his fault; he was forced into a life of secrecy and lies, and then abandoned by the first people who truly loved him. kaeya’s a multi-faceted, tragic character, one that toes the line between good and evil, and that’s what makes him so interesting.

#brynn yells #brynn answers #killshot anon #brynn's writing #genshin #genshin impact #kaeya #kaeya alberich #genshin kaeya

[txbbo]

I've been debating making this because this is definitely not what my blog is known for and I was worried that people wouldn't want to see it, but with the amount of shit im seeing on twitter it's compelled me to make this because I'm so frustrated.

I feel like I could make 100 posts about 'Cancel Culture' and it wouldn't be enough, so I'm just going to focus on what caused me to write this tonight - the Tommy situation. *Warning for a VERY long post below*

To be clear, Tommy has been in 'hot water' on twitter for the past couple weeks, roughly starting with the KSI collaboration where he made a joke about dream stans.

Last week, when the SBI 'exposing account' got made and twitter hyped it up, someone made a Tommy account and made a thread of things he needed to be '''educated''' on: https://twitter.com/idktommyinnit/status/1379158964148002821?s=20

I'll let you read it for yourself (and come to your own conclusion) but to me.... half of this stuff does not require a twitter thread? Breaking it down accusation by accusation:

1) 'The Mexican accent' - the clips show he is clearly only doing it when copying big Q (who famously exaggerates his own accent) and there is zero malicious intent (Big Q is also IN the 3 clips mentioned in the thread, and obviously didn't tell Tommy it was offensive). There's debates in the comments from people who think it is offensive and people who don't, so I'm not trying to pick a side. To avoid accidentally offending anyone, maybe it is best for him to stop, but the way twitter acts as if he was purposefully doing this to offend people is just not true.

2- 'Making a slave joke' - Even saying that feels wrong, because it suggests Tommy is doing something awful. Instead, they are referring to the 'bit' that Tommy, Techno, Tubbo and Ant were involved in, when Tommy and Techno took Tubbo and Ant as their slave. People are taking this vod and using it to accuse Tommy of being insensitive to Black people, but I think people are just assuming the worst. Slavery existed long before the transatlantic slave trade and still exists today. This is a role-play server - Tommy 'forced' Ant to work for him and used the word slave, which to me is exactly what was happening? People 'murder' others on the SMP, people 'kidnap' on the SMP, people are 'terrorists' on the SMP, and all happen without issue. To add, Ant is a WHITE man. Tommy taking a WHITE man as a slave is not something uber problematic.

3- 'His reply to Techno's 'murder is bad' tweet'. - I get people saying that Techno's initial tweet was insensitive, but saying Tommy's agreement to this from almost over a year ago is something notable and worth addressing is just super nitpicky and is clearly only in there to pad out the thread. It also makes me wonder what other CC's interacted with it and if THEY should be cancelled too (according to twitter).

4 - 'The saying slurs' tweet / jokes about 'whats the worst word you know' - This one I can kinda see how people might not like it. However, it's clearly a 'poke' at his friends, making them seem like bad people. To me, its in the same vein as 'Tubbo is a Tory' or when Tubbo shoots back that 'Tommy is a Nigel Farage fan'. They're obviously not, but its making fun of your friends by saying they are, and mockingly making them out out to be bad people.

5- 'Covid jokes' - People are taking jokes he made about him 'having covid' and saying he shouldn't joke about this, even going as far to linking it to asian hate crimes. I don't even know how to explain that that this is just? not a 'cancellable offence'? I'm sorry but if I hear anyone in my family coughing I make a little joke that 'they better not have covid' and I know other people do. I have someone in my family who is extremely vulnerable to Covid and if they caught it, would quite literally die, but I can understand that jokes like these are harmless. The whole internet had a running joke that we were in a 'panoramic' or 'Panera' or 'insert any word that sounds like pandemic.

This thread got a lot of attention and anything he tweeted afterwards was spammed with the link and there were so many people upset that he hadn't addressed it. I saw so many people say how 'upset' and 'disappointed' they were in him.

Going on to today, this happened: https://twitter.com/khasiid/status/1380611890104139776?s=20

I get it, it looks bad. But for context (which the tweet doesn't give), the reply was only up for less than a minute. It was obvious to me, even BEFORE Tommy addressed it in his stream (clip here: https://twitter.com/cowrpse/status/1380640046202593283?s=20 ) that it was a mistake. In the clip, he clearly acknowledges his mistake and seems embarrassed. To me, this situation should just be laid to rest because a mistake does not need this much attention, but twitter disagrees.

In case it wasn't obvious by now, the tide is turning against Tommy and people are less willing to ignore genuine mistakes and assume the worst.

Today, during his birthday stream people were clearly already waiting for him to mess up. Around half way through, he started saying 'finna' out of context and Tubbo joined in. This led to tons of tweets telling him he was misusing AAVE, and while there were plenty of people willing to be patient and educate, there were also people seeing this as an example of him being a 'bad person' and someone who should be 'without a platform'. I think people forget that not everyone has the same internet upbringing as they do. In general, I think its noted that the misuse of AAVE is something that has just recently been brought to attention. I learned about it through tiktok and stan twitter, and I don't think it's unimaginable that a British 17 year old boy (who is not active on either) has never heard of 'African American Vernacular English'.

Just for a fuller picture, today has also brought about another 'criticism' that I just had to address.

1) 'Tommy made a KKK joke' - Like the 'slavery' point, saying this is extremely misleading. It makes people think the worst. Here's the clip: https://twitter.com/ghostburz/status/1380673589612011522?s=20

Here, Tommy and Tubbo are both joking about Tubbo's 'bit' of naming his alt streams 'aaaaaaaaaa', 'bbbbbbb', 'cccccc', etc and how it would've been bad if it was 'kkkkkkkk' (for obvious reasons). That is literally it. It is a less than 20 second clip. Acknowledging that people woulda thought about the 'KKK' is not him 'not understanding Black issues', its a throwaway joke about the obvious.

Lastly, someone on twitter has made a tommyinnit (address asap) doc - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tZEZtBzikS-EYYkssfFtwVOoFqOwCK0zhStLe6H1wCc/edit

I've basically already covered everything in this document, but I wanted to mention how extremely 'guilt trippy' the whole thing is. I struggled to come up with the perfect word for the situation, and I am open to hearing other peoples opinion, but as I have mentioned none of these things Tommy has been accused of were done with malicious intent, and some I believe don't even need addressed at all.

'slavery is a source of astronomical trauma for black people, and isn’t something to be taken lightly if you’re to look into the horrors of the slave trade."

and "Oftentimes they are the last words we hear before we die and it really is not Tommy’s place to joke about words that affect us so negatively."

Are extremely emotional words for a 17-year-old boy to hear on his birthday, for stuff that I believe has been taken out of context and blown out of proportion.

I really feel bad for him, because such a large proportion of twitter (which ofc is the loudest side of the fanbase) is angry at him and is demanding (as the document says) ''either a stream or twitter thread/twitlonger to addressing this' and 'a long and serious apology instead of a short statement pre-stream'.

We all know how twitter works, and unless his apology is perfect (which to me means apologising for stuff that he should't have to, as explained in the thread), twitter will continue with this weird hyper focus on everything he does, and it's not going to end well.

Twitter's mentality of 'putting everything this person has done that could ever be considered problematic' into one neat little thread is so unhelpful and counter intuitive. I got overwhelmed reading some of the stuff people were saying about him, I can't imagine how he feels.

I feel like I have more to say but at risk of writing an essay longer than my actual work I have to do, I'm going to end here.

#this was incredibly cathartic to write #turns out im not just a c! Tommy apologist LMAO #tommyinnit #dream smp #tommyinnit neg #tommyinnit critical #tommyinnit crit #Tommy crit #Tommy neg #twitter neg #cancel culture #mcyt crit #mcytwt crit

[ruby-whistler]

There are three types of misinterpretation of c!Dream in my opinion; and by that I mean anyone's take ever, whether it's a c!Dream anti or a c!Dream apologist or a c!Dream enthusiast. That's right, I'm making an essay about how in my mind everyone is wrong. This is how I lead debates please don't unfollow me-

1. misunderstanding or overdramatizing evidence

c!Dream apologists; g-guys. I'm not saying he isn't traumatized, but look. I really used to believe he was just everyone's victim and hurt and mentally unstable, and I'm not saying he isn't at all, but I changed my mind because I feel like the evidence doesn't,, point that way at all. Your emotions are valid, but your takes are very removed from what the rest of the fandom thinks because you take little hints and try to make them into some big angsty point within canon.

The evidence we have proves he is more ruthless than anything; even the content creator says that. He doesn't say why he does progressively more ruthless things, and he does say it's for his ideals and out of good intentions, but he doesn't say anything about him being hurt into doing it.

I'm not saying he isn't hurt. But making analysis of an entire character based on something that is barely supported by canon isn't the way I roll and I feel like it's one of the reason why people assume all c!Dream apologist are going to woobify the character,, because some of them really do that.

I don't mind portraying him as hurt by what's happened in canon, because that is a completely safe conclusion, but jumping to the victim side of the scale seems a little bit like painting a completely different picture than what actual canon says. (Note: talking about pre-Pandora c!Dream here.)

There is tragedy in someone being driven by the environment, circumstances and themselves deeper and deeper into corruption, but it feels like by only considering that the entire character is limited to one side of the argument.

I like to also see the side of him that will hurt people because he thinks he has to, because he wants to succeed above all, the side that will ruthlessly murder and manipulate and be calculative and clever and even self-destructive about it because he believes that'll get him towards his ultimately selfless goal.

That's my morally complex bastard.

A lot of people seem to be mistaking or ignoring that for the sake of saying he is just... hurt and that that is an explanation of his actions, and even though they don't use it as an excuse, it feels a little cheap.

And here we come to the core of the problem: an emotional vs. rational explanation for the character's actions.

Because the thing is, with enough evidence, you will see that nearly (we'll get to that in a bit) everything he does can be explained rationally. Everything is connected, everything is the most logical and efficient and merciless route straight from point A to point B, because c!Dream is fascinatingly smart when you look deeper into it.

He knows what he's doing. He knows his actions are awful, and he doesn't care - not because he would be some evil person, but because his mindsets cause him to justify such things, and mindsets are more complicated than feelings.

There is a lot to explore in that direction of the character, but that is material for another essay.

In short, people seem to enjoy removing all of his agency in favor of explaining his actions emotionally rather than from a rational standpoint which results in inaccurate analysis.

Do I think it is completely understandable he attacked L'Manberg?

Absolutely.

Do I think c!Wilbur painted him as a villain to benefit his own power?

Yes.

Do I think he utilized the villain persona as an intimidation tactic and often went overkill with no regard for anything but accomplishing his goals and that he slowly became more and more willing to do bad things of his own accord because he became determined and distrusting of the world to the point of committing horrible actions?

100%.

Analysing that part of the character is the most interesting part, when you consider it - and an important one as well.

2. ignoring evidence

c!Dream antis; please. Stop saying he doesn't care or explaining his actions with obsession or assigning him personality traits or motives that he literally doesn't have in order to demonize him I beg of you.

It's so many basic and easily debunkable assumptions that can be explained with what we actually know of his motives. People will ignore both canon and the authors' words to paint him as some monster with no nuance, which he is not.

We only know so much about him, but people will ignore and deny even the little bit we have for the sake of making him the literal personification of evil and erasing the fact that he is a complex and human character. Just accept he can be accurately analysed beyond hate and let people do it if you don't want to do so yourself.

3. assuming the evidence we have is everything you need to determine a final approach and that nothing outside of the presented evidence exists when certain details prove otherwise

c!Dream enthusiasts; this was the only and biggest problem I've had since being introduced to much more rational interpretations of the character - which is emotions, and one of the biggest reasons why c!Dream gets dehumanized in the first place; the fact that we have little to no showcase or explanation of them in canon.

You see, c!Dream is a reserved character. He likes withholding his plans, withholding his feelings and information from the world.

However, since all we can really get out of watching his actions alone is the rational side (and that is deliberate by both the writer and the character, narratively and personality-wise) people slowly begin to assume there is no emotional side to his actions at all.

Which I find,, untrue. Between the people who erase the rational side of the character and those who erase the emotional side, there is little middle ground, but I don't really find either of them right either.

Because neither would be an accurate representation; just because he doesn't actively showcase his feelings doesn't mean he doesn't have them, and the few inconsistencies that are too small a detail for us to put everything together show that he does have an inner emotional world beyond what we see.

The character does work beyond what we know, and expecting that everything can be explained purely by rationality because that's all we see of him seems a little bit jumping the gun.

It leads to a less person-like view of a character who in reality simply doesn't like showing people the way he feels, and I don't really find that fair to him. It is best to accept there are things we can't say for sure, or to say an emotional interpretation can also be valid at times.

It is both important not to deny him agency and not to deny him the ability to be genuinely hurt by others or changed by his environment.

Both of these can coexist, especially in

the correct interpretation

Ok this is a joke.

I have literally no idea. I'm just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks - he confuses me beyond belief. The only person who knows about both the emotional and rational side of the character enough to have their interpretation unquestioned is cc!Dream - but when we do try to find answers, it is important for us as well that we do not ignore any aspects or possible aspects of the character, because that is the only way to get useful results out of our analysis.

Sorry this was crit of basically every take about the character I have ever seen but I needed to get my thoughts out.

#dream smp #c!dream #ask to tag as crit #long post #idk i'm big on the c!dream pos #but woobification & dehumanization & demonization are #all equally a problem in the fandom #with the character

[wenellyb]

I have a general comment to make about the whole Sebastian thing, not on the Instagram picture, because it is not my place to comment, but a general comment about dealing with racism in the fandom, and some of the behavior I have seen on Tumblr.

I have a story to share first and it's not really related to fandoms, or shipping Sambucky or even Sebastian Stan directly but it's about how White people see racism, so I hope some people will read this and think about it.

I just want to say one thing... if you want to comment this, please read until the end before you do.

And please bear in mind that I'm not talking for anybody else but only my own experience and my opinion.

I see a lot of people get defensive when racism is called out in the fandom,whether it is them or a celebrity they love, and a lot of them try to deny it, or try to find excuses.

I understand why they do it, but it's really not the right way. The correct way is to sit down, listen, think about it and THEN only then can you deny or accept the accusations.

Here’s the story:

I was once with my group of friends and I don't know what prompted the question but they asked me if I thought all White people were racist. And you can guess it, I'm the only Black woman in my group of friends. We're all French and 5 of my friends have Asian orgins (Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos) and 3 of my Friends are White. Just planting the decor, lol.

I don't know why they asked, but we're always having debates like these on different topics so i just answered...

I told them that yes, that I thought all White people are racists, and that racism is not just hating all Black people, or all non-White people, but also includes a multitude of other aspects that enables racism to prosper.

It can be some unconscious feeling that you or White people in general are a tiny/ a lot better than Black people, it can be making or laughing at racists jokes, it can be denying racism even exists anymore: " But it's 2021, those kind of things don't exist anymore" this is also harmful, because then when your friends come talking to you complain about an encounter that was racist.... you will minimize it because "racism doesn't exist anymore so it can't be racist" so even though your intentions may not be bad... You are protecting the racists, intentionally or not etc...

There are so many more aspects to racism than just being a far right extemist who hates all foreigners. Racists don't only look like that.

I won't expand on this, but there are many more aspects, I mean I could expand, but it's not the point of my posts, the point of my post is that they asked me and I made a mini essay to explain that the way I see it, there are "levels" of racism (for lack of a better word), and that in that aspect, all White people were racist. People think that you need to be a far right white supremacist, to be racist, you really don’t.

And I told my White female friend, let's call her Alice, that she was the only White person I knew who wasn't racist (implying that my other two friends were racist).

To be honest, I don't think that all White people are racist, my uncle is White and he's the furthest from racist you'll ever find, but I said it anyway because otherwise some people would never question themselves. If I say this people will either get defensive and deny it, or reflect on it and try to assess if they have some internalized stuff they didn't explore and didn't know. But if I say that not all White people are racists, my friends would have directly thought they were off the hook.

What I do believe is that a lot of people are racist and just don’t realize it because they only think about the "extreme" cases of racism.

So I said to my friends that I thought all white poeple were racist and two things happened, and I wasn't expecting any of it:

- My White male friend, let's call him Pierre, listened carefully, and said that in what I had described, he admitted that he was indeed racist, he acknowledged that he did have some prejudice if he was being honest, and also that he had made some racists jokes so that even though he never considered himself racist, hearing what I was saying he said that on some levels, he was indeed racist.

Bear in mind that this is the friend whose favorite character in Black Panther was Martin Freeman, and had already argued in other conversations that positive discrimination made it difficult for White straight Men to find a job (When by the way he has never struggled to find a job a day in his life so go figure, besides there is no postive discrimination policies in France or anything, so I don't even know why he said that).

So knowing my friend, I knew he had some kind of prejudice, obviously, I just didn't think he would really think about what I was saying and admit it.

This was kind of a big deal, and I would never have thought that he would have admitted it, I thought he was the one I would have to argue with, but nope, he listened.

- Then my friend Alice, the one I had told was the only White Person I knew who wasn't racist, got mad and got defensive, even though she was the only one I hadn't called racist to her face. I said specifically she was the one White person I knew who wasn't racist because from previous discussions she was the most open when it came to discuss issues on racism.

However, she's the one who wouldn't really listen and said that I should not generalize about all White poeple, all that kind of stuff, so eventually I had to apologize to her and told her "It's not because all White People I know are racist that all White people are". I had to rephrase this way.

A few months later, I received a message from my friend Pierre, he's Alice's boyfriend by the way. He texted me that they were having Sunday lunch with her family, and someone asked Alice about a Black woman she knew, and Alice answered " She's pretty for a Black girl"...

So many things to unpack, the violence of those words thrown around so casually, those words being said by someone who doesn't consider herself racist, and also, the fact that I would have never known this if her own boyfriend hadn't texted me this.

"She is pretty for a Black girl" is one of the most disgusting and White Supremacist thing she could have said: All Black people/women are ugly by default but that girl is a little bit over that standard?" I don't know any context where that sentence isn't awful.

And also, I'm her friend, am I supposed to be relieved that maybe I'm in the basket of the "pretty ones" or should I consider myself as a member of the other crowd?

There's no way around it, what she said was so f*cked up.

This is why your " I can't be racist I have a Black friend" doesn't mean anything by the way. It doesn't mean anything. She's one of my closest friends.. we had a group trip together for my birthday. So she's not a casual friend, she was in my close group of friends.

The only silver lining is that by doing this, she exactly proved my point.

So according to you, who's the "ally"?

A White guy who recognizes he has prejudice and works on his racism and will call it out when he sees it, even if it's coming from his own girlfriend?

Or a White woman who considers herself an "ally" and doesn't think she is racist, but in the safety of her home doesn't hesitate to say racist stuff when she is surrounded by her White relatives?

It's no use being an "ally" if you're going to be defensive and deny everything or forget you're an ally the minute it is your favorite celebrity being called out.

Getting defensive whenever people start talking about racism is suspicious. If you feel called out, think about it, work on yourself and find out if what you’re being called out for is legitimate or not. And you know what maybe it isn’t? Maybe you Tumblr user X are not racist or you don't have prejudice, but you will never know if you don’t ask yourself and shut down the discussion from the beginning.

Just after the picture was posted a lot of people had already chosen their camp.

Even if you first reaction is defensiveness and wanting to deny it all, the first step should always be to sit back and think about it, and it's not only about racism, you listen first, think about it, and THEN and only then do you deny it or confirm it. Nobody is perfect, but the people who choose to stay obtuse in certain situations are really not helping and are by far the worst.

Stop finding excuses for Sebastian, of course don't go on his Instagram, don't harrass him, don't insult him... But also stop finding him excuses before you have taken the step to listen to the people who have something to say about it. Listen first, you’ll find the excuses later.

Also, most probably the people who are calling him out here on Tumblr are not the ones going on his Instagram to harass him (well at least I hope not) so why can't we have the conversation here?

We can have the conversations here on Tumblr, and discuss it... But the discussions will go nowhere if everybody just gets defensive.

Same thing when we call out racism in the fandom... Your first reaction shouldn't be to get defensive but to listen, I’m taking the example of the MCU but if we say there was racism in the Stucky fandom, don’t try to make it seem like there’s a Sambucky VS Stucky “ship war”, listen to why people are saying this, and then you can draw you own conclusions.

Here, for the Sebastian story, let's listen to what Buddhist people have to say, first. Maybe they will say the post was problematic maybe not... And we'll learn something.

My first thought is also to get defensive when I read a post and feel called out, but that's not the correct way, you may have some prejudice and not even realize it, or realize it and be in denial...

This might be contreversial but it is my opinion that most people are not hardcore racists. But their unwillingness to acknowledge their racist tendencies, working on it... or even staying silent when blatant racism is on display is what enables racism to live long and prosper.

On Twitter or other Social Media people will be openly racist without a problem, but Tumblr prides itself in being open and tolerant, but when it comes to really calling out racism, then it’s crickets-

If you don't want to do anything about racism... It's ok, I really mean it... It is ok.

If it doesn't disturb you when the non-White characters are treated differently in your fandoms it is ok, I'm serious... If you want to enjoy your Tumblr life without thinking about racism it is more than fine, you really have no obligation... It’s ok to stay away from some conversations. 

But please... please, please don't stand in the way of people who are trying to do something about it. 

And most importantly don't say you want to fight racism or that you are an "ally" but when you are called out or someone else is called out, you try to minimize everythin with "Not everything had to be about race"

Yes, not everything has to do with racism but you'll never know if you don't sit down and think about it first. Maybe Seb’s post wasn’t offensive, I don’t know. But how will we know if it was or not if we don’t listen to the people who are affected by that post?

This isn't even really about Seb himself but about the way some people in the fandom behave... How people just go to extremes without even trying to discuss first.

I love Seb as an actor, but I don’t know him and I’ll probably never meet him, I won’t spend the next days trying to defend him or accuse him, he and I live different lives that will never intersect, and it's fine like that, but I will listen to people who have been affected by his post and have something to say about it.

Seb will be fine, his career will be fine, he probably even has someone handling his social media... But the people on Tumblr who have to accept racism in silence and have had to do it for years will not be fine, if the coversations keep getting shut down before they even start. 

Everyone skipped the listening part and jumped to the defending or condemning part. And also a lot of things from the past re-surfaced (take a knee post, some instagram likes I guees) which makes it even more difficult if people skip the listening part.

To me, there are 2 groups of people, people who have prejudice and want to do something about it and people who have prejudice but don't want to do anýthing about it...

I don't know in which group Seb is and I don't know him so I won't be spending days trying to figure it out... 

But from what I've seen, at least in the MCU and Star Wars fandoms, I know in which group a lot of people in Tumblr users are and if some of them want to switch groups, it’s never too late.

#fandom racism #sebasian stan #long post #I didn’t insist on harrassement and all but of course never harrass anybody on the Internet celebrity or not. #I tried to put too many things in there.. I hope #it's still understandable #MCU fandom #tfatws #I know this is long #And I know that I have repeated some stuff... But some stuff needed to be repeated #Sometime we need to sit down and think about why people do the things that they do... #bucky barnes

[i-love-side-characters]

hot take for the aoas fandom but i don’t ship curaday. not bc i just don’t like the ship but bc i don’t like how faraday was curie’s previous mentor. idk... it just seems manipulative and predatory to me that they ended up together with the power dynamic so unbalanced.

hmm i definitely see where you're coming with that. and don't worry its fine that you don't ship them!!! that's perfectly acceptable!!!

i have to say a few things first on the predatory aspect, if that's alright. also disclaimer this is quite rambly, i'm sorry i'm just very tired.

additional notes:

important points/things i want to stress in bold

quotes are italicized

thunderhead + the toll quote used!!! not really spoilers, but careful if you haven't read books 2 and 3!!!

if you're not a coward here's my askbox

now in my opinion, there are a few things that might make it seem as though curaday is a very predatory relationship. one, the mentor/apprentice problem. two, the age gap. three, the essence of their romantic relationship. because you didn't state why you felt it was predatory, i'll adress those issues.

1) the nature of their relationship during the mentor years

the "original" curaday as such wasn't really a romantic relationship. there was no hint of the relationship between the two while faraday was mentoring curie. at the time when their relationship was only mentor/apprentice and indeed adult/minor, there were no requited feelings from faraday.

"....then tore [the journal entry] out the next day, when i broke down and confessed my love with eyeball-rolling melodrama. [...] [scythe faraday], on the other hand, was a gentleman [...] and let me down as easily as he could." ― scythe curie, (page 347, scythe)

just to be thorough, here are several definitions of "let down." all links in sources.

convey bad or disappointing news in a considerate way, so as to spare the person's self-respect. ― idioms free dictionary

to try to give someone bad news in a way that does not upset them too much. ― macmillan dictionary

an unrelated expression is let someone down easy. this phrase refers to breaking up with someone in a relationship in such a way that they are not devastated of overly sad. ― writing explained

so it's clearly implied that faraday said no to her. after curie confesses her feelings, she describes what happen after that.

"i lived in [scythe faraday's] house, and remained his apprentice, for two more awkward months." ― scythe curie (page 347, scythe)

note that there is no mention of there ever being a romantic relationship between the two scythes during the remainder of the mentorship. this shows that no adult/minor predatory behaviour had occurred between the two scythes.

just to add on, some thoughts from my friend ref. ( @jam-is-my-food )

"if their romance took place when or anytime around when curie was his apprentice, yes. absolutely that would be a tilted power dynamic and uncomfortable and Not Good."

this, as well as the quotes, removes the "predatory" aspect of your concern. but that's just my opinion!!! you can still believe that is an unhealthy and wrong relationship. but personally i don't think the mentor/apprentice concern is a factor, since the romantic aspect took place much later.

2) the age gap during the years of their romantic relationship

there is a 5 year age gap between the two scythes. according to the wiki, at the start of scythe, curie is 219 years old, and faraday is 224. during scythe curie's explanation of her crush on faraday, she pinpoints their exact ages.

"i was seventeen and full of righteous indignation at a world that was still heaving in the throes of transformation." ― scythe curie (page 345, scythe)

"i was seventeen, remember. childish in so many ways. i thought myself in love." ― scythe curie (page 346, scythe)

"but at twenty-two, [scythe faraday] was just as inexperienced in such matters as i was." ― scythe curie, (page 346, scythe)

the five year age gap during the mentorship would have made it an adult/minor relationship, but as they grew older that simply isn't the case.

"then, nearly fifty years later, when we both had turned our first corner and were seeing the world through youthful eyes once more―but this time with the wisdom of age on our side―we became lovers." ― scythe curie (page 347, scythe)

they became romantically involved until fifty years had passed. which would put curie at around 67, and faraday at around 72. curie even outright says that they had "the wisdom of age on [their] side." this shows that curie believed that both parties were mature in their starting of a romantic connection.

here is some more input from ref. ( @/jam-is-my-food )

"and, adding on to [the earlier statement], if faraday was the one who had liked marie when she was his apprentice. even if a lot of years had passed, that would i think still make it inherently predatory and yikes.

but the thing is, that's not what happened. all that happened when she apprenticed for him was that marie had a crush on michael.

and he turned her down. because she was a kid. and that's the end of it."

this, i would say, addresses the general complaint of the age gap between the two. most often people believe that because faraday apprenticed curie that he was a lot older but that's not true. the gap is only 5 years. now that absolutely does not make their relationship "not predatory", but it does show that both parties were mature in their decisions.

3) after their romantic relationship + friendship

now this part is less technical than the others. this is mostly my opinions. but just to start off, i want to look at their relationship after the 7 deaths and 70 years.

your feeling of their relationship is that it is "manipulative and predatory". now i've never been in an unhealthy relationship before, but i don't believe this is one (please correct me if i'm wrong! i am not speaking from experience here and could easily make a mistake!).

out of everything, their treatment of one another after the romantic relationship stands out to me the most. personally if their romantic had been unhealthy in that sense, i don't believe they would have stayed friends as they did.

i had written an essay a while about curie and faraday together. if you could read it that would be great! however i'm linking my friend nisha's ( @genyyasafin ) reblog of it, as she adds in a small bit at the end about how faraday humanizes curie. [ here ] is the link.

as i was saying, i don't think this is a predatory and manipulative relationship simply from the way they act afterwards. they are described as old friends constantly, and that friendship seems natural, to me at least. now you could be saying that this is a manipulative relationship and neither of them notice, but i don't think that's true.

“seven deaths, and seventy years later, many things had changed. we remained old friends after that, but nothing more.” ― scythe curie (page 348, scythe)

"i have observed the rise and fall of the romantic relationship between [scythe curie and scythe faraday], as well as the many years of devoted friendship that has followed." ― the thunderhead (page 383, thunderhead)

these two show that even the thunderhead, which is an incredibly knowledgeable force, does not seem to be troubled by their relationship.

not to mention this quote:

"other scythes―the ones i'm friendly with―will call me marie." ― scythe curie (page 235, scythe)

and through that quote it is shown that both curie and faraday are comfortable around each other. this isn't every instance in the books, but the ones i found quickly.

"marie―scythe curie that is―...." ― scythe faraday (page 371, scythe)

"and you, marie." ― scythe faraday (page 383, thunderhead)

"where are you my dear marie?" ― (page 102, the toll)

i didn't add in any quotes where its the reverse and she calls him michael, because he never mentioned his policy for first-name-basis, but this shows how comfortable curie is around faraday. not to mention it is implied that curie and faraday talk often, as curie knows about an event that only faraday, citra, and rowan know about.

"didn't you already attend a family wedding?"

citra wondered how scythe curie knew that, but wasn't about to let herself be derailed. ― scythe curie - dialogue, citra terranova - narraration (page 231, scythe)

the comfort in which they speak to and reference one another suggests to me, at least, that there is not a manipulative intent or feeling in the relationship.

4) conclusion i suppose

if you read all the way here, then i applaud you for your dedication and i thank you very much. that seriously means so much to me.

to anon: this essay was a whole 1,429 words. i am so sorry. however i do disagree with your opinion but i hope i've voiced mine in a somewhat coherent manner. thank you so much for reading all this way!!!

5) sources:

scythe curie wiki

scythe faraday wiki

arc of a scythe - book one: scythe

arc of a scythe - book two: thunderhead

arc of a scythe - book three: the toll

let down - idioms by the free dictionary

let down - macmillan dictionary

let down - writing explained

#not main content #arc of a scythe #aoas #mine #scythe curie #hs curie #scythe faraday #hs faraday #curaday #otp: is it true you died seven deaths for her? #otp: and her for me #long post #im very sorry anon this is quite long #i just found your opinion very interesting #i hope i didnt come off as rude that wasn't my intent #also i know its a mess im sorry #its not coherent at all

[asleepinawell]

Been having a lot of Thoughts about the nier series recently and the larger themes of both games and wanted to jot them down and toss them into the void of the internet.

Massive spoilers for nier automata follow, including for ending e. Do not read this if you ever intend to play nier automata. There are spoilers for nier replicant as well, though not for ending e.

One of the biggest themes both nier games tackle is the tragedy of an uncaring universe. Bad things happen to good people, people who think they're good and doing the right thing find out they were actually committing atrocities, the very idea that there's 'good' and 'bad' people is dissected and rejected. At the end of the day, the universe doesn't give a shit about any of us and none of it matters. Enjoy your existential despair!

In nier replicant, the main character starts off as an optimistic young boy who wants to save, not only his sister, but the entire world. After the time skip, nier is a young man whose optimism has (partially) been tarnished and whose goal has narrowed down to just saving his sister. As you move through each route you understand more and more how tragic the world is and how, despite your best intentions, you are only adding to the tragedy of the world. The original 4 endings of nier replicant are all tragic in some way. Ending D has a glimmer of hope in it in the form of nier being able to save kainé at the cost of his own existence, but it's a bittersweet ending and the world is ultimately doomed anyway.

Which brings us to nier automata. Even more so than replicant, automata hammers home the meaningless of everything, the uncaring universe, tragedy both avoidable and unavoidable. The main characters are locked in an endless loop of violence and despair. The worst that could happen, does, again and again. It thrives off the type of tragedy porn I usually hate.

Except....

Except it doesn't. If endings a and b are the opening statement, endings c and d are the facts and body of the essay, but then there's ending e, the concluding paragraph which takes everything we've been told and gives you the chance to draw your own conclusion from it.

Route e starts after you've gotten both ending c and d and is no longer about the characters in the game at all. Route e is about you, the player, and what you believe. It says "we've given you a story of complete despair, we've shown you the universe is unfair and doesn't give a fuck about you, we've shown you things that end in tragedy. despite all of this, do you still believe it's worth fighting for the hope of something better?"

And then it asks you to prove it.

Route e is the ending every fan has asked for when they've said "I'll fight the creators to give my favs a happy ending." Today is your lucky day!

Route e is the ending credits of the game, except that the ending credits have turned into a bullet hell mini game. In fighting the actual credits themselves, you are fighting the game devs. You are saying fuck you I don't believe that everything is pointless. Fighting for better is always worth it. The meaning that we imbue in life is important to us and that matters.

The bullet hell of the end credits starts out fairly simple and gets harder and harder as you go, lasting something like 15 minutes total, which is a brutally long time to be playing something that requires split second timing and 100% of your focus. It's meant to feel insurmountable, just like the challenges the characters in the game faced (the larger plot challenges, not the combat). You will likely die a lot and check points are few and far between.

But there's more to it than that. The first time you die, a prompt comes up:

And then when you die again:

Except now, there’s a message on the screen. A message that appears to be from another player, somewhere in the world.

And again:

(this one really fucked me up, but that’s for a different post).

And then finally:

(thank you user MR-YE-1996)

When you accept the rescue offer, you go back to the bullet hell again, but now you have a wall of other players around your weak little avatar, shielding you from harm. The music, which has been a single vocal track up until now, gains an entire chorus of voices to represent the army of actual players who’ve shown up to save you (and there’s a lot I could say about the use of the (exquisitely good) music in the nier games, and especially about the difference in lyrical themes between ashes of dreams and weight of the world). Every time a bullet hits one of the players surrounding you, there’s a message saying that user’s data has been lost. Users from all over the world are sacrificing themselves to help you. It’s a very nice, heart-warming moment that you still don’t understand the full impact of quite yet.

After you beat the credits, you’re rewarded by a final cutscene. The android protagonists have been reconstructed and will receive a second chance at life. The narration at this point talks about how life exists within the spiral of life and death we are all trapped in. One of the two pods talking points out that even though the androids are being given a second chance at life, there’s a possibility that things will go just as poorly once again. And the other pod agrees, but adds: “However, the possibility of a different future also exists.”

And then the scene ends with this quote: “A future is not given to you. It is something you must take for yourself.”

And this is really the final conclusion of the game. There is no inherent meaning in the universe, so the meaning we give our lives is the most meaningful thing. (And the ‘you’ here isn’t necessarily an individual either. It can be, or it can be humanity as a whole, or even one group). And you, the player, thought that it was worth fighting to give these characters a second chance, and other players out there in the world thought it was worth helping you to do so.

It’s such a wonderfully beautiful piece of meta interpretation posing as a game ending, and also a departure from the final conclusion of previous Yoko Taro games. It feels like a much more mature and nuanced interpretation of the world than the ending of replicant was (I won’t comment on the new ending e of replicant just yet since it didn’t come out that long ago). (Also, for the record, I love nier replicant and the characters in it with my entire heart. This post is not bashing it).

But the game has one more surprise in store for you. After the cutscene ends, you’re given one last choice. The game asks if you have any interest in helping other players the way you were helped. And if you say yes, you’re told that the only way you can do this is to sacrifice all your save data.

I think that sacrifice hits differently for different people. Some people genuinely won’t mind that at all. As someone who probably still has save data from games I played 20 years ago, it felt like a gut punch. To me, save data represents all the time and emotion and energy I’ve put into a game. Games are so deeply important to me in so many ways and have been since my childhood when they were one of the few ways I could escape from a lot of terrible shit going on in my life. (There’s a reason my blog title is what it is). I could talk a lot more about that point, but I’ll leave it by saying that when I saw what the game was asking of me it felt like someone had knocked my legs out from under me.

For more practical players, it also is locking you out of chapter select, the best way to go back and get all the things you missed and grab the achievements/trophies you still need.

The game will point out that you’ll get nothing in return for this (not a lie, there’s no secret reward), that you will likely never know if or who you helped, that you won’t be thanked, that the person you help could be someone you intensely dislike, etc. And with all of this comes the realization that all those people who came to help you in the credits had already done this. Those people whose data was sacrificed to help you get to the final cutscene had already sacrificed their save data to help you.

We’ve now gone from a world where everything is meaningless, to a world where other real actual human beings out there have sacrificed something that represented hours of their time and a varying amount of emotional investment without any hope of reward to help a stranger see a message of hope.

When I was younger, I was more drawn to dark, hopeless stories. Stories about how dark and meaningless the world was. The world was a terrible place then too. 9/11 happened when I was in highschool (an incident that influenced yoko taro’s creation of nier replicant and had a huge impact on me at the time), the pointless wars that happened after and the recession and a million other things seemed to infuse everything with hopelessness. In that world, stories about everything being meaningless and hopeless felt correct. They felt validating. Yes, everything really does suck that much!

That sort of story lost its appeal for me later on. Pointless and horrible things continued to happen, and still continue to happen. The world events of the last few years have been an unnerving reliving of those earlier years, except even worse. The cycles of tragedy are still there with no end in sight. I’m exhausted from all of it. It really does feel hopeless a lot.

But stories that stop at that point no longer appeal to me. Stories like nier automata--stories that say yes, things are terrible, but there’s always hope, you can create your own meaning, it is always worth it to fight for better even if you fail, your life is worthwhile simply for existing--those stories are the ones I think we all need more than anything.

#nier automata #nier automata spoilers #nier spoilers #nier #nier replicant #niermp #mp #sitting around having existential thoughts on a sunday afternoon #as one does #nier meta

[fandom-thingies]

@purpleflamed says: “I’d love to hear your thoughts, with the updated lore...is a Tommy about to pull a Pandora? While I wouldn’t say his motives are curiosity, there is a constant tension having the prison RIGHT there.”

(This was in response to this post I made a while ago about the prison arc and its parallels to greek mythology)

That’s a good question, honestly. I’m definitely Living In Fear (tm), but as far as whether I think it’ll actually happen...

Tommy losing his last life to Dream is probably (hopefully) the end of his tragedies. It’s a painful relapse into his trauma after he’d finally escaped it, but if the analyses are correct and it being a relapse metaphor is intentional, it’ll probably just end up being a quick last big bad thing before Tommy’s healing arc finally starts in earnest. Honestly, I’m expecting he’ll start dropping off from the main plot a bit in order to let his character recover properly before any more big stuff happens with him.

I could be wrong, of course, but that’s my current projection.

However, Tommy is not the only character currently in a position to pull a Pandora, and in fact there are several characters it would make much more sense for.

In order of how much I’m manifesting, my guesses are:

1. Technoblade

2. Badboyhalo

3. Philza

The reason why I’m guessing these characters specifically is because they’re all currently in a position where, A: Sam would likely be willing to hold them in prison, and, B: they’re clearly set up for some kind of big narrative punishment for their actions.

I’d say Techno is the most likely because c!Techno has faced almost no narrative consequences as of yet for the various things he’s done, as well as having motive to free Dream. (The favor)

Here’s how that sequence goes in my head: Tommy rocks up to the prison to kill Dream, and manages to get to his cell due to Sam being distracted by the simultaneous break-in from Techno. Dream is successfully broken out, and Tommy chases him, but Techno ends up trapped somehow, and someone (probably Quackity, let’s be honest) convinces Sam to keep him locked up.

I’d also consider Bad a likely possibility, as his current arc has been Skeppy whump after Skeppy whump, and now that their relationship has finally deteriorated visibly, as well as Bad being in the midst of a moral crisis due to killing Foolish, he’s in the perfect position to do one more really bad thing before starting his redemption arc.

Here’s how I’d write that: Bad, at the end of his rope, alone, hunted, and uncertain, decides to free Dream in order to simultaneously get back the one friend he knows won’t give a fuck about him doing murders, as well as to get one of the most powerful people on the server to owe him a massive favor. So he and Tommy break in at the same time, chaos reigns, and Dream escapes while Sam manages to lock up Bad. Thus isolated from the egg, it’s influence over him slowly fades and he realizes more and more how far he’s fallen, finally culminating in the eggheads breaking him out only for him to turn around and betray them almost immediately.

And as for Philza? Honestly, I just think it’d be awesome if, in an attempt to get his son back, he ended up fucking everything up real bad. I just think that would be an extremely pog amount of angst and would also give Phil more opportunities to develop his character.

In conclusion: haha bet you didn’t expect a fuckin essay lmao

#it was being weird about the @ for some reason #dream smp #dsmp #reblog #self reblog #tommyinnit #pandora’s vault #dreamwastaken #dream smp meta #technoblade #badboyhalo #philza #this was going to be a reblog but I accidentally made it its own post whoop #edit: HAHAHHAHAHHA I WAS SO OFF THE MARK LMAO

[sssrha]

WangXian wouldn’t have been very functional pre-Wei Wuxian’s resurrection

So I was talking to @litescheme on Twitter and I decided to pour my heart out about how I hated the general fandom consensus that Wei Wuxian going to Gusu when Lan Wangji asked him to would have solved all of his problems, primarily because the idea of just straight up going to Gusu is incredibly flawed. Lo and behold, they agreed wholeheartedly. We had a great discussion and now I’m here to relay the discussion onto Tumblr in essay form uwu.

(By the way, this is based mostly on CQL with a good bit of novel added in, as well as a few hints of the donghua.)

Part One: “Come back to Gusu!” is a great romantic notion but a terrible plan of action.

First of all, one must ask the question: what on Earth was Lan Wangji’s game plan with the whole “Come back to Gusu!” thing? I think we can all agree that most of the Lan Sect hated Wei Wuxian - by the end, at least. Lan Xichen certainly had less than charitable feelings toward him. With such a hostile environment, the only way I can see Wei Wuxian surviving within the Sect is while being forced into a Madam Lan-type situation. I find that prospect more reminiscent of a horror movie than a heartwarming fic about healing.

Luckily for us, we can safely say that canon Lan Wangji would not have done that! Due to certain childhood trauma, Lan Wangji definitely would not have forced Wei Wuxian to do anything, go anywhere, or stay anywhere that he didn’t want to. That isn’t even touching on how much Lan Wangji genuinely wanted Wei Wuxian to be happy, and forcing Wei Wuxian to do anything had generally been proven to not make him happy. Good on him!

The next point: why would Wei Wuxian have gone to Gusu in the first place? Even while ignoring WangXian’s rampant misunderstandings, Wei Wuxian always actively had a reason to not go to Gusu. During the Sunshot Campaign, he was a major player and commanded a huge amount of power that probably aided the Sects greatly. During his stay in the Burial Mounds, he had a community of war prisoners to protect. How could he go to Gusu?

I’ve seen fics where Lan Wangji ensured the safety of the Wen Remnants, and while I absolutely adore the trope, I really don’t see that happening with canon Lan Wangji. First, I don’t think he’d grown as a person enough to fully rebel against his Sect until Wei Wuxian was in immediate danger, and second, I straight up don’t think that he had the sway to. Pulling that kind of stunt implies a good deal of political power within the Sect...and also implies that Lan Wangji would have had enough power to escape a punishment which he clearly never thought he deserved. However, I could be wrong on this point! Politics has never been my forte. 

Also, I don’t think anyone can bank on the Lan Sect accepting the Wen Remnants. After all, the Lan Sect participated in the First Siege of the Burial Mounds and thus, presumably, also the slaughter of the Wen Remnants.

Upon further reflection, I figured that the only time Wei Wuxian might have actually gone to Gusu was that brief period of time after the Sunshot Campaign and before he met Wen Qing. However, for him to agree, I figured that three things had to happen:

Wei Wuxian had to understand that Lan Wangji wanted to help him, not hurt him.

Wei Wuxian had to come to the (false!) conclusion that Jiang Cheng no longer needed his help or support at Lotus Pier.

Wei Wuxian had to accept that he was worth saving in the first place.

(The concept came pre-set with some delicious Yunmeng Bros angst because Jiang Cheng would almost certainly take Wei Wuxian (permanently) going to Gusu the same way he took Wei Wuxian taking the Wen Remnants to the Burial Mounds: a betrayal, a promise broken. Emotionally, of course. There definitely wouldn’t have been political pressure closing in from all sides the way there was in canon.)

I was going to expand on that concept, but then I hit a bit of a hurdle: I genuinely did not, and still do not, see any reason for Wei Wuxian to actually go to Gusu. At that point, Wei Wuxian was doing everything he felt he needed to: he protected Jiang Cheng because Madam Yu told him to (and because he genuinely cared for him, but Madam Yu’s command was his driving force) and he only left Jiang Cheng when Wen Qing - someone he perceived himself owing a greater debt to due to the golden core removal - came along. When looking at it from that regard, I don’t think Wei Wuxian would ever see a reason to go to Gusu.

So, even after clearing up the miscommunication, Lan Wangji would have to present a good reason for Wei Wuxian to listen to him. 

I don’t think Lan Wangji going up to Wei Wuxian and saying, “Please come back to Gusu, I want to protect you,” would have worked. Considering how prideful Wei Wuxian was back then - with a good bit of it justified when you consider the fact that he killed a large amount of people in a single night during the Pledge Conference (though the exact number is never actually confirmed as far as I remember) - I don’t see Wei Wuxian taking the implication that he needs protection very well. No matter how many good intentions Lan Wangji had, he would have ended up offending Wei Wuxian at that point.

Another route Lan Wangji could have taken: “Please come back to Gusu, I want to play Cleansing for you.” Again, I don’t think this would have worked. (At least, that was definitely his stance in CQL and Wei Wuxian still didn’t do anything.) In Chapter 78, Wei Wuxian mentioned that the Sound of Lucidity had no effect on him. The Sound of Lucidity is, presumably, one of the Song(s) of Clarity, of which Cleansing is the most powerful. Lan Wangji used the Sound of Lucidity at the Pledge Conference after the battle had started. I don’t exactly know why he didn’t use Cleansing when it was more powerful... Either way, after he played the Sound of Lucidity, Wei Wuxian said, “You should’ve known since long ago—Sound of Lucidity is useless to me!” Thus, Lan Wangji asking him to go to Gusu so he could play Cleansing probably wouldn’t have seemed like an especially compelling reason to Wei Wuxian.

After some thought, I figured that post-resurrection, Wei Wuxian agreed to stay with Lan Wangji in the Cloud Recesses after the mystery was solved because:

He was not as prideful as pre-death Wei Wuxian.

He saw no reason to go back to Lotus Pier since Jiang Cheng made it very clear that he was unhappy with him.

He managed to process and confess his feeling to Lan Wangji, who did the same.

Pre-death Wei Wuxian has none of this. Basically, Wei Wuxian at that point had no reason to go to Gusu for anything other than a short visit.

Now, I don’t know if any of you have noticed, but this entire time I’ve been ignoring not only the reality that Wei Wuxian and Lan Wangji’s relationship pre-death was...very bad, but also something else very important: the Stygian Tiger Seal. 

The Stygian Tiger Seal was, of course, stupidly powerful, and Wei Wuxian only kept it because it would take too much time and energy to destroy, and it was meant to deter anyone from attacking him since he already knew that so many people were against him. One of his main fears was someone else - someone with impure motives - getting their hands on it, so of course he was paranoid wondering who would try to steal it from him. Lan Wangji asking him to go to a place where Wei Wuxian would be surrounded by people who hated his form of cultivation? Yeah, that didn’t sound that great. 

(Also, can we please take a moment to appreciate this excerpt from the novel: “The Stygian Tiger Seal’s powers were considerably greater than what he had imagined. He originally wanted to use it to assist him, but its powers were almost exceeding him, its creator” (Chapter 30). Almost. He said the Seal was not as powerful as him! The Stygian Tiger Seal was, indeed, strong, but he was more so! I see a lot of fanfics paint the Stygian Tiger Seal as what made him so terrifying and...it was certainly a part of it, but he did most of it on his own! Ah, we love terrifying main characters~)

Now, I’ve acknowledged the existence of WangXian’s miscommunication, but I’ve never actually addressed it. So, here it is: I do not think Lan Wangji confessing to Wei Wuxian (even before his stint in the Burial Mounds after the Bloodbath at Nevernight) would have gone well. In Chapter 2, there is this excerpt: “Wei WuXian’s eyebrows twitched. Not only a lunatic, a homosexual lunatic as well.” This requires a bit of interpretation because it’s not exactly clear what Wei Wuxian’s eyebrow twitch means, but I’ve always interpreted it as annoyance - or even disgust - at the addition of “homosexual” to Mo Xuanyu’s profile. I’m not saying that Wei Wuxian was necessarily homophobic before the entire events of the novel, but I sincerely don’t think Wei Wuxian would have appreciated Lan Wangji - or any other man, for that matter - confessing to him. If even (immediate) post-resurrection Wei Wuxian had that attitude, I can imagine what would have gone through pre-death Wei Wuxian’s head. 

So, Sunshot Campaign, post-Sunshot Campaign, and Yiling Patriarch Wei Wuxian would all definitely not go back to Gusu, nor would they appreciate a confession from Lan Wangji. That leaves the question: what about pre-Sunshot Campaign Wei Wuxian?

Part Two: Why I really don’t think WangXian would have worked out pre-Sunshot Campaign.

From here on out, “Wei Ying, come back to Gusu!” is no longer relevant because, well, Lan Wangji never said it before the meeting in the supervisory office. (And I think I’ve made my point regarding that as well as I could.)

Starting with Cloud Recesses-era Wei Wuxian...I think that, out of all the different versions of Wei Wuxian, he would have been the one of the two most-likely to get together with Lan Wangji (pre-resurrection, of course). Even then, I don’t see that high a likelihood of that actually happening. Why? Repression! Fuck both Wei Wuxian and Lan Wangji were so deeply repressed at that point! Lan Wangji was obviously more aware of his feelings, and Wei Wuxian...I don’t know, I haven’t read the novel far enough to actually have this be a legitimate interpretation, but looking at CQL, I don’t really think Wei Wuxian was in love with Lan Wangji at that point (but I don’t have much evidence to back that up other than my a-spec radar...).

And even if they did somehow manage to overcome their repression - and actually both had feelings for each other in the first place - they were still teenagers! Fifteen at the beginning, I’m pretty sure, and fifteen-year-olds are decidedly bad at maintaining any sort of relationship. That doesn’t even touch on the fact that WangXian was probably legitimately incompatible at that point. Lan Wangji still lived and breathed the rules and Wei Wuxian didn’t give a fuck about them. To maintain any sort of long-term relationship, they’d have to simultaneously undergo a whole novel of character development...which is doable! But! I don’t exactly see it as plausible.

Then, of course, Wei Wuxian got kicked out of the Cloud Recesses and WangXian didn’t see each other until two years later, at the Discussion Conference in Qishan. I don’t really see long-distance relationships working out very well in ancient China, so I can’t imagine them properly maintaining their relationship throughout that. And, of course, Lan Wangji’s rage after Wei Wuxian pulls his forehead ribbon was also due to his repression. Considering how short the Discussion Conference seemed to be, I don’t think there was much room for a relationship to develop. 

At the Indoctrination Camp, Lan Wangji had a whole swarm of things to worry about other than his (frankly painful) pining for Wei Wuxian so, again, I don’t see a romantic relationship developing at that point in time. 

A time-frame that I think can be uniquely isolated as a very possible place to develop their relationship would be while they were trapped in the cave with the Tortoise of Slaughter. Mostly before they killed the beast, though, since afterward, Wei Wuxian had too much of a fever for any romantic shenaniganry. My reasoning is that the cave was the first time since Wei Wuxian’s punishment in the Cloud Recesses that the two of them were forced to spend a long stretch of time together, and thus could potentially open up to each other. I remember in the anime that Lan Wangji sheds a few tears as he mentions that the Cloud Recesses had burned, that his brother was missing, and that his father was...dead? Severely injured? One of those two. He was back in business-mode pretty soon afterward, but if Lan Wangji could have been persuaded to open up a bit more by an persistent and concerned Wei Wuxian, I can see a slow confession being teased out of him - there was certainly enough time!

Then again, them getting together would only happen if Wei Wuxian were both comfortable with the idea of gay men and willing to accept that he was, in fact, attracted to Lan Wangji, and if Lan Wangji were willing to let go of the rules enough to be comfortable with Wei Wuxian’s naturally rebellious nature.

After that, WangXian doesn’t meet again until the supervisory office, and I’ve already talked about all of that.

In conclusion, “Come back to Gusu!” was sweet but misguided and WangXian wouldn’t have effectively happened pre-resurrection.

Now, what does that mean for you? ...Nothing. Absolutely fucking nothing. This doesn’t mean I’m forsaking all fics where WangXian gets together pre-resurrection (in fact, I absolutely love them!) and I’m definitely not trying to say that my interpretation is the only right one. I’m not trying to police what everyone thinks and decree that all fics where Wei Wuxian is open about liking men are wrong or any crap like that. Those fics are great and I love them! These are my (and @litescheme’s) thoughts on the matter that I (we) wanted to spill out into the greater world! You can agree, you can disagree, you can ignore me (us) entirely! But if you read through this meta, then I’m assuming that you found the concept interesting. That is all I was going for!

(Well, that and trying to thoroughly debunk the notion that Yiling Patriarch Wei Wuxian getting shoved into seclusion in the Jingshi by an apologetic Lan Wangji would be in any way “healing” or even “good” for Wei Wuxian, because honestly? Fuck that.)

Ahh, thanks for reading!

#is this a hot take? #you bet ya #do i care? #not anymore #litescheme i hope this lived up to your expectations ;-; #wei wuxian #lan wangji #wangxian #mdzs #mdzs meta #wwx #lwj #wei ying #lan zhan #feel free to ignore if you disagree!!! #i'm not gonna force you to read it

[creampievampire]

Could you go into the difference between the subtext and queerbaiting in it, I'm still kind of -well it's obviously gay but nothing was really ever said or shown that says that expect for people talking about it- Like are the characters and their relationship just queer-coded (positivly ofc lol) but the baitiness comes from them sort of confirming it off the show?

of course! im assuming by ‘it’ you mean merlin, but rather than explaining the reasons why i think bbc merlin is a matter of subtext (or queer coding) and not queerbaiting, i think it would be easier and more productive to explain the difference between the two in general. they are very similar - which is why i think a lot of people are unable to tell the difference between them - but they have important differences

just a warning, this is going to be a LONG post lmao ive bolded exactly what each term means below, after which i go into more detail on the whole issue. this is something im passionate about so,,, ♥

queerbaiting specifically refers to a marketing technique in which creators hint at but dont actually depict a queer character or relationship. They do this in order to attract a queer audience with the suggestion of a character or relationship they can relate to, while also avoiding alienating their queerphobic audiences

queer coding is the subtextual coding of a character as queer through the use of things like metaphor, allegory, hinting, recognisable traits/stereotypes/experiences, etc. This is done to build believable characters and create more complex plot lines, and it is also regularly used by people who want to tell queer stories but are unable to do so explicitly. it CAN be used negatively to enforce damaging stereotypes, but that is just a small part of its usage

both of these things utilise subtext in order to work. subtext is not only a crucial part of the creation of any piece of media, but is impossible to avoid.

an example of the most basic types of subtext is when a character tells someone that everything is going to be okay, but you can tell they dont believe it. or when youre watching a story unfold and you suddenly connect the dots and realise whats going to happen before its explicitly stated - you used subtext and the hidden meanings and hints to figure it out!

the people involved w a piece of media create their story with a specific purpose or meaning in mind, and they construct the subtext of the story to reflect that purpose/meaning. HOWEVER, the viewers dont always see things the same!

your experiences and personality shape the way you view and interpret every piece of media you consume. if you hate cops youll see the insidious undertones in cop shows - if you grew up with an abusive parent youll see the biting implications in a characters dialogue that others find innocent - if youre queer you will search for and fine queer characters everywhere, regardless of the creators intentions

now, both queerbaiting and queer coding use subtext to function, right? so how do you know which is being used and whether or not its a bad thing? its all about intention

to give a specific explanation of the difference im going to use two examples that are (arguably) very similar in the way their queer characters became canon

example 1: adventure time featured the characters marceline and princess bubblegum, who have been forever depicted as a couple in fan content. their interactions in the show were read into and latched onto bc we saw ourselves in them and we saw it as positive queer rep. but their relationship was never explicitly discussed during the course of the show and was only confirmed at the end of the final episode.

that makes 10 seasons in which their relationship existed only in subtext, and when it did finally exist in canon it was only for a few minutes, if that.

example 2: supernatural featured the characters dean and castiel (lol) who have been depicted as a queer couple pretty much since the first episode cas appeared in. i personally hung on their every interaction, analysed every glance between them, bc i interpreted deans character as a parallel to my own childhood trauma.

cas joined the show in season 4, so that makes 11 seasons in which him being gay existed only in subtext, and when it was confirmed he was immediately cut out of the show. the exact nature of dean and castiels relationship still remains in subtext.

so why is it that adventure time is widely considered perfectly fine but supernatural is dunked on as being the poster boy for queerbaiting?

its bc adventure time involved queer creators and was an earnest representation of queer characters, but they were boxed in by their publisher, Cartoon Network and thus the only way for the relationship to exist in the show was through subtext.

supernatural, however, consistently neglected their queer character and employed transparent tropes and stereotypes - bringing him in just sparingly enough to keep queer audiences interested while never being gay enough to alienate their macho manly man queerphobe audiences. they would have dean and cas stare into each other eyes for a full 30 seconds and then almost immediately follow it up with an episode about dean banging a disposable female character.

so imho adventure time falls under queer subtext, and supernatural falls under queerbaiting

when it comes to a show like bbc merlin i see a lot of debate about whether or not its queer coding or queerbaiting, and my intention is not to convince you of either. merlin was very much a product of its time, and i have argued the same about seasons 4-6 of supernatural as well, before the queerbaiting escalated and became exhausting to me

the purpose of this post is to start giving you the information you need to analyse any piece of media and come to your OWN opinion as to whether or not its queerbaiting or whatever else

people will ALWAYS have differing opinions about this shit yall. i have debated so many times w so many people about where the line is and whats okay and what should be ‘cancelled’ and if consuming something deemed problematic makes you a bad person or not

and my conclusion?

if youre capable of acknowledging the flaws and issues w a piece of media without trying to defend it as a shining beacon of purity simply bc you like it, then you do you. enjoy whatever you want to enjoy - if i think its reprehensible i simply will never interact with you lol

at some point everyone has to stop regurgitating these generic woke speak cancel culture speeches and buzzwords and formulate their own opinions

my advice to anyone reading this is to learn how to do close reading (ill provide a link to a wonderful short guide on it in a reblog bc tumblr hates links) and start really considering where you draw the lines with all types of content. decide for yourself whether merlin or supernatural or adventure time crosses the line into content you cant stomach, but respect other people whose interpretations differ from yours

i know a HUGE amount of people think supernaturals confession scene was homophobic and toxic - a slap in the face - but when i watched it i saw myself reflected in dean. a repressed bisexual whose emotions had been stunted by lifelong trauma, who wasnt ready to face his feelings for cas but quickly realising that his chronic avoidance and fear was about to tear them apart possibly forever. to me it was tragic and beautiful, and i loved it

i also think merlin is a tragic and beautiful love story, and to me its a pivotal piece of queer media that changed the way i viewed love and made me believe that it was a possibility for me bc i related so deeply to arthur

i hope that you can draw a satisfying answer from this, anon, and i apologise for this post being a full essay lol but i believe it needed to be said  - i dont think there is a right or wrong answer here

#long post #bbc merlin #merlin #supernatural #adventure time #subtext #queerbaiting #queer coding #frog talks #anon #ask

[seras-elessar]

Brooklyn 99 and Copaganda: My Two Cents

I’ve been reading many of the posts about cop-propaganda and how Brooklyn 99 as a diverse comedy police procedural hits all the hallmarks of whitewashing the police, but I’ve been reticent to engage because a) the posts are getting oh so long already and b) my thoughts haven’t been fully formed until about now. Just disclosing my credentials I’m going to come at this from a bachelors of film- and media-studies with a minor in moral and ethics philosophy, as well as my many years as an educator. 

I will also disclose that I really enjoy Brooklyn 99, and anyone can continue to do so while being aware of the issues. Being aware of problems with the media you consume is not a weakness, it’s a strength.

I’m going to go, point by point on why I think Brooklyn 99 Ended up the way it did and what we need to be aware of as we move forward. I will however put a tl:dr up here as well as a more in depth conclution at the end.

TL:DR: Brooklyn 99′s copaganda is an unfortunate combination of socially aware creators using the show as a platform to raise awareness and being part of two genres (comedy and crime) with problems inherent in the way stories in those genres are told. It’s not deliberately trying to whitewash the police, they do so by trying to do the right thing as creators with a large platform.

The Case of the Creators and Cast

The first part is looking at the people who are showrunners, producers, writers and the cast. The originators Dan Goor and Michael Shur have many series to their names, and all follow similar patterns; starting with a comedy premise and then developing as the seasons continue, often using their platform to raise points about social and moral issues. Andy Samberg is also a big part, being the main lead and credited as producer.

The cast is racially diverse and the show brings attention to that, both for comedy and to highlight social and political issues. They also appear to have a working relationship with the writers and directors, so the cast are allowed a lot of input into how their characters are portrayed and how they develop.

It’s clear to me going through the series, looking up creators and cast in interviews and their social media presence that most of them are socially and politically aware and wanted to use their platform to highlight and raise awareness about injustices the see in American society today. This is something many creators have been asked to do for many years and it’s admirable that they want to actually at least bring these issues up in the time they have. However this brings us to the second part which may be the biggest contributors to why Brooklyn 99 is seen as not just copaganda, but even insidious.

The Problem of the Premise (or Faulty Framing)

This is the long part.

Much, so much, of the problems of Brooklyn 99 and it’s place in cop-centered media is the premise. And I don’t mean that it is cop-centered. No I mean it becomes a problem that it’s a comedy. I will take the cop-part first and circle back to the comedy to better show why.

Police procedurals as a form of media follows certain patterns and tropes, many of which are inherent to the genre. The structure of each episode being “awareness of crime - investigation - reveal and capture of guilty party”. This structure is very easy to work into three acts with a classical dramatic curve, following the conflict introduction, advance the conflict, and climax.

graph from kurser.se illustrating their course in scriptwriting

A police procedural follows the cops, detectives or investigators as they solve a crime and punish the guilty. For our purposes that is not in and of itself a problem, however it shapes our point of view of the events that transpire and how we react in the climax. The cops are the main characters, the heroes of the narrative, and we’re made to empathise with their struggles (to punish the guilty).

They also use many tropes. The Box episode is one such trope, where the entire episode is one long interrogation and it reoccurs in almost all crime and punishment TV-shows. Homicide: Life on the Streets had a very intense Box episode, and holds the same problems that the similar episode in Brooklyn 99 has (no lawyer, racing against the legally allotted time arrested, manipulation tactics et cetera). Police use of force, antagonistic internal affairs investigations, powerplays among the higher-ups and many other tropes make their way into Brooklyn 99.

One thing not brought up a lot is the episode where Peralta and Santiago track a criminal breaking into an upscale hotel. During capture of the suspect Peralta causes some collateral damage as he throws himself at the suspect. The jump hits a bystander and breaks his leg, and from the reactions and the dialogue it’s shown to be a very serious injury.

The ensemble of detectives are portrayed as socially conscious and (mostly) competent. Even the butt of the joke character displays this (Hitchcock: “He was arrested for being black. Get woke, Scully!”)

This is where playing it for comedy can be an issue. Comedy is a release of tension, a cushion to the impact of the narrative. It’s not for nothing that the funny person in otherwise serious media has been dubbed as the comic relief. This makes the unhealthy tropes inherent to the crime and police TV-show come off as less of a problem and more cute, quirky and fun. That I think is one of the main reasons why Brooklyn 99 in particular feel insidious when they tackle social issues because

1) whitewashing police in a cop show is expected. The story comes from a person we can root for catching a bad-guy.

2) simplifying issues in a comedy is expected. Comedy is difficult on it’s own, jokes are hard to write well, so when that is the focus much of the rest needs to be smoothed out.

3) when these come together, portraying cops as good and simplifying issues for the comedy, it downplays their importance and impact.

4) this becomes troublesome when tackling real-life issues of injustice and problems with society today. First we’re sympathetic to our main characters, being shown as good cops, second we have issues brought up in a serious manner, and some issues being very serious, but then they’re played for comedy.

The premise is flawed when they lean toward social issues and the framing of the show and the characters enhances that.

This is where I also want to note again that I don’t think this was intentional. The show wasn’t crafted to be propaganda. The cop-show as an entity, a type of media, is propagandistic because of how stories of crime and punishment is told.

Series and Syndication

This will be a short bit, but I want to bring it up. When Brooklyn 99 was created it was syndicated to run at Fox. The channels, not just their news network, has unhealthy connections to not only the police, but the military, conservative think tanks and political initiatives. To be green-lit they likely had to pass screeners with an extreme pro-cop filter. But it was green-lit, so how did that happen?

Media, art in general, is always a compromise, and I think the positive portrayal of the cops and the police as a whole (some bad apples, sure) was part of the compromise to get syndicated. Police is a touchy subject in American television. I already cited Homicide above and they whitewash planting a weapon on a suspect one of the main characters murders. They spend the season building up how bad the suspect is, but how they can’t find evidence directly connecting him to the crimes. They get enough to go in, and they shoot this unarmed Black man. Then they put a gun they brought in his hand to plead self defense. The audience is told this was a necessary evil, the only way to get him “off the streets”.

This is a worse example than much of the abuses portrayed in Brooklyn 99, but again, Brooklyn 99 plays the abuses off with comedy. Homicide did not, they framed it as morally right.

Media and Literacy

Media literacy is a problem. When I worked as an educator very few if any age group was able to read media and see connections to real life biases and politics. The way we consume media impacts the way we feel and react to things in real life.

I’ve explained framing countless times, and how media tells us who’s right and wrong and who we as viewers should sympathise with. This is illustrated really well in this video-essay by Renegade Cut concerning the framing in Rick & Morty.

https://youtu.be/X-8ICfWsUVw 

Consuming Brooklyn 99 without thinking about how the framing of the actions of the characters and the events of the stories impacts our reading and thereby out feelings towards cops in general is why some people have expressed that they “grown to understand and like” the police after watching it. This is again an unfortunate combination of creators and genres.

We do need media literacy as a part of our education, and it grows more and more important the more accessible media becomes.

Conclusion (or The Monkey’s Paw)

I think the problem of Brooklyn 99 stems from the cross between comedy, crime fiction and creators who want to do more than tell jokey-jokes and actually use their platform to lift issues they care about. This awareness isn’t bad, in and of itself, I actually think it’s something all creators should try. They had a platform and they wanted to do the right thing. 

This is in my opinion the cruel joke of this discussion. The creators know they should raise awareness when they can and they try to do so, but in doing so they’ve created a propaganda tool for the police geared toward the most vulnerable demographics, racial and sexual minorities. That’s why I find this conclusion to be a Monkeys Paw, we got a high performing show, with a diverse racial and sexual cast, that displays knowledge and understanding about topics of injustice, from a politically aware creative team... and it’s smoothing out the injustices committed by the people they portray.

#Brooklyn 99 #b99 #essay #long post

[unsafepin]

Optical Illusions: A Study of Aesthetics in Activism in Two Accounts

There’s been a particular thing bothering me about social media for a while. I should probably get a cool editing app, write it in a few bullet points and post it on Instagram. You know what I’m talking about, right? The goddamn infographics. If I have to sit through another slideshow explaining to me another military conflict, another societal issue, another existential unfairness on a baby pink background in a cheery font, I might combust. But the cognitive dissonance of aesthetics in activism has been a problem for a while, hasn’t it? So today, I want to examine the effect of focusing on aesthetics over content, or, on the flipside, not considering the optics of your activism enough, and what it does to the consumer of your content by picking apart two local activist-adjacent media projects, Tetraedras and Giljožinios.

Firstly, I want to make my own bias abundantly clear. I am personally acquainted with the teams of both projects, so obviously there will be innate personal bias involved. I highly encourage anyone reading to check both projects out themselves (@t3traedras and @giljozinios on Instagram, as well as Giljožinios’ YouTube channel) and make their own conclusions on the matter. I believe that while my familiarity breeds deeper knowledge of my subjects, it also makes me more vulnerable to assumptions about individuals involved. My insights come from the perspective of an observer, not an expert. Welcome to the circus.

The use of the word “optics” in a metaphorical political sense sprung up in the 1970s to describe the way major political decisions would not necessarily affect an average citizen, but how it would appear to them, e.g. 'U.S. President Barack Obama temporized for weeks, worrying about the optics of waging war in another Arab state after the Iraq fiasco' (Toronto Star, 19th March 2011). However, it’s become increasingly relevant in our age of social media, an age of perceptions over substance, of shortening attention spans and increased barrage of information one has to stomach daily. Social media is the great equalizer - a random person off the street can theoretically hold as much influence as a politician - thus it is becoming increasingly crucial for the average Joe posting on the countless apps owned by Facebook to be as familiar with PR terms as a firm with a six figure salary. Or at least that would be nice, seeing that more and more average Joes are becoming actively involved in politics and education, seeking to influence their newfound audience.

So, let’s see how successful average people with no media or politics degrees are at balancing their image. Both Tetraedras and Giljožinios lean into their 2010’s social media project optics: millennial pink themes, bold names, young teams. But that’s where the similarities end. Tetraedras’ brand is safety. The shades of color on the profile are calming, the illustrations are youthful and playful, their more serious posts are interspersed with more relaxing content (poetry, photoshoots, etc.). Giljožinios is confrontational. The colors electric, posts loud and to the point, they’re what it says on the box - a leftist project - and unapologetic about it. This might help to explain why audiences react as differently as they do to these two, on the surface, similar accounts. Because while you might’ve stumbled on Tetraedras organically while browsing, them having almost two thousand followers, Giljožinios crashed into the educational/political social media scene by being featured on the goddamn national news, that’s how controversial the project is. And obviously I am oversimplifying the issue, Tetraedras slowly built up to posting more opinionated content, while Giljožinios came in guns blazing accusing USA of imperialism, but you’ll have to let me explain. Tetraedras, in its essence, is a welcoming environment. They explain complicated problems in short bullet points with accompanying comforting visuals, their mascot is a inoffensive geometrical figure and their face is a beautiful girl, make-up matching the theme of the post. Giljožinios is named after a revolutionary device, their profile picture is a monarch being beheaded, their host quite infamously sat in front of Che Guevara memorabilia in their first and (as of writing) only video. It’s a lightning rod for angry comments by baby boomers, no matter what comes out of their mouth. In fact, I would argue that, if presented accordingly, the idea that the US is conducting a kind of modern imperialism is just a simple fact and personally can’t wait until Tetraedras posts that with a quirky illustration of Joe Biden to introduce the concept to the wider public.

This leads me to my next point, because despite what’s been previously suggested, I’m not here to solely sing Giljožinios’ praise. There is a cognitive dissonance in both of these flavors of social media activism, but while I can understand Tetraedras’ on a PR level, I’m kind of personally insulted by Giljožinios’. While purely personally I find aspects of Giljožinios’ radicalism distasteful, I appreciate the honesty in the youthful maximalism, of coming in strong and not backing down, but from the guys that made a communist Christmas tree once I almost expected something more stirring than “military industrial complex bad”. This leads me to ask: who is your content for? Your average breadtube-savvy twenty-something already heard this a thousand times, because they consume similar english-speaking content and I doubt any minds of the vatniks that came by to fume in the comment section are being changed. I’m obviously harking on a newborn project here, the team of which has already been bitten by authorities censoring their content, but so far there has been a lot of optical bark, but no substantial bite, especially considering the team seems to be in a safer place now. And the inverse is true for Tetraedras, while I can understand wanting to be visually interesting yet inoffensive, their visuals are sometimes laughably, morbidly light for the topics they discuss Sexily posing in Britney Spears-inspired outfits while discussing the horrors of her conservatorship springs to mind (funny how Britney’s conservatorship leads her to have next to none bodily autonomy, including her public costume choices). And, once again, your target audience is teenagers. They understand English, they’ve seen the news, they don’t need you to translate infographics filled with statistics and information that’s locally completely irrelevant. There needs to be some kind of middle ground between aesthetic cohesion and common sense, because this all signals to the viewer that the content is meant to be mindlessly consumed first and to educate second.

Which leads me to ponder what kind of consumption accounts like these encourage, which will surely lead me to an early grave as I drink away the existential dread of how social media rots all of our brains. Because yes, actually, producing funky visuals to convey an idea way too complicated for an Instagram post is fun. I myself got distracted multiple times during writing to make the first slide for my own post. Meta, I know. This is obviously more of a problem for Tetraedras, who seem to fervently resist injecting their content with a few more paragraphs and a tad more nuance, but even with Giljožinios choosing a more appropriate long-form format to educate, I still pray everyday they don’t get lost in the revolutionary reputation their group built up and forget to make a point, not just talking points.

Because what all this all inevitably leads to is misinforming the public. Again, this seems to be less of a problem for Giljožinios, as the amount of critical eyeballs they have on them leads to them being corrected on every incorrect numerical figure and grammatical mistake, I just hope all this harassment, once again, doesn’t get them all caught up in the optics of a revolution against all the Facebook boomers and forgetting to do their due diligence to the truth. As far as I know, the only factual mistake is miscalculating how much Lituania invests in NATO and there’s still a historical debate in their comment section about the existence of a CIA prison in Lithuania, if anyone’s concerned. Tetraedras, however, is safe. And safe content goes down just like a sugar-coated pill, you don’t even feel the need to fact-check it. And fact-checking is what it sorely requires, or else you’re left with implying that boxing causes men to become rapists and citing statistics of every country except the one in which, you know, me, the team and the absolute majority of their followers live in.

So what’s my goddamn point? Burn your phone and go live in the woods, always. But in the context of this essay, if you are a content creator that aims to educate, inform, incite, whatever, you need to put aesthetics on the backburner. And, more importantly, we as consumers need to stop tolerating content that puts being either pretty or inflammatory first instead of whatever message it’s trying to send, because the supply follows where the demand goes. Read books, watch long-form content made by experts, not teenagers on the internet chasing followers out of not even malicious intent, but almost a knee-jerk reaction. Because while the story of those two accounts cuts especially deep, expectations for local-, even friend-made content being much higher than that for some corporate accounts shooting their shot at activism, the problem is entrenched deep, thousands of accounts exhibiting the same problems racking up millions upon millions of followers. Having said that, my attention span is barely long enough to read the essays I write myself, so maybe do burn your phone and go live in the woods.

Also, pink is actually my brand so both of these accounts are being contacted by my lawyers and the rest of you don’t try any shit.

#unsafe pin

[quixotic-dragon]

Kokichi Oma’s Crocodile Tears   (MAJOR DRV3 SPOILERS)

Ah, good ol’ Kokichi Oma. The Ultimate Little Shit- and a controversial little shit at that! I’ve recently played v3, and Kokichi is the one character who always seems to be on my mind (aside from my fav, Keebo, of course) because he’s such a mystery. We never get to know what’s going on in his head, at least not openly, and many players are led to assume that he is a malicious troublemaker, or even an outright sadist. 

I’m going to take a moment to analyze Kokichi specifically during that infamous scene at the end of Chapter 4 because that is all that’s been on my mind as of late. 

Underneath the Keep reading, there WILL be major spoilers for the entirety of v3. There will also be a very long essay, but I will do my best to break it up so it is easier to read. Read at your own risk.

So without further ado, here is my analysis of and my thoughts on Kokichi, his actions, and his character circa Chapter 4:

INITIAL REACTION:

Before I go into how I feel about Kokichi now, I’m going to have a discussion about my thoughts on him while this scene was playing out. (I know my exact feelings because I was liveposting in a discord server as I played, haha)

At this point in the game, the player does not yet know that Kokichi is not the true mastermind, nor do they understand what Kokichi means by “winning” the game. 

I had personally been spoiled of who the v3 mastermind was (thanks a lot danganronpa wiki), so I recognized that Kokichi wasn’t the mastermind, however I did not recognize that he was trying to win the killing game via unconventional methods. So from my point of view, Kokichi had just intentionally murdered Gonta (and Miu) just to increase his chances of winning and had the nerve to shed fake tears over it. I was furious! (behold, my fury!)

Kokichi sobs over Gonta’s death, and I interpreted this as entirely fake tears. One of my friends suggested, “i feel like there was a difference between like his / crocodile tears and this.” 

I was enraged at this suggestion and stood beside my initial reaction because I felt that there were no signs that Kokichi never cared for Gonta as anything more than an asset, so I could not trust Kokichi to have any real remorse for his death with such a manipulative relationship having existed. (Massive disclaimer that this is my interpretation of their relationship; if you have a different interpretation, that is totally fine and valid!)

At this point, I considered why Kokichi might be crying so intensely even if it was an act, and came to the conclusion that if there was any sort of truth in those tears that Kokichi would be upset for a different reason than Gonta. He would be upset because he was truly alone. Not a single living person wanted to spare him the time of day besides Gonta. And now that Gonta is dead, nobody wants Kokichi. Even though I was fully convinced he was a sadistic, evil bastard at this point, I still figured that he must’ve felt some sort of sudden and crippling loneliness realizing that the only person who cared about him in the slightest was dead.

This interpretation of Kokichi I had really didn’t change much until after I had finished the entire game and stopped to think about Kokichi a bit more; his heartfelt final words to Kaito felt like lies to convince him to play along (blackmailing Maki certainly didn’t help with that much either), and his whole trick felt less like him trying to help and more like him just trying to cause chaos for the hell of it in my mind.

So, in conclusion, my initial reaction to the Kokichi scene? I thought Kokichi was a heartless bastard whose only remorse could be crippling loneliness. Although my initial analysis while I was still playing was quite interesting, I have some different opinions on it now that I’ve taken a step back and viewed the game as a whole.

KOKICHI ONLY WANTS YOU TO THINK HE’S EVIL:

Surprise! Kokichi isn’t a sadistic fuck! Crazy right? 

Well, not really if you’ve watched/read any Kokichi analysis ever. However, Kokichi’s act seems to be a common thing that many casual players of v3 fall for. I certainly fell for it when I played, as you saw above!

It isn’t until far later in the game that it is revealed that Kokichi is the “supreme leader” of a pacifist prankster club (DICE), and it isn’t revealed until the end of Chapter 5 that Kokichi actually had good intentions in setting up his mastermind persona (although, as seen above, those good intentions are still very easily interpreted in a bad light).

So why does he bother to so obviously cry wolf at Gonta’s death just to double back on his persona ten-fold as soon as he’s called out on it? Because he’s just trying to sell his mastermind persona, not only to the other characters and the mastermind, but to the player themself. This is intended by both Kokichi and the writers themselves, made obvious by the fact that we get no real evidence of Kokichi being a benevolent person until long after this scene. (There are many moments in earlier chapters where Kokichi is trying to be helpful to the group or to a specific character, however every time he attempts this, it is painted in a negative light because he is either going against the protagonist’s will or achieving things in a more underhanded manner via lies or provocation). 

When I saw Kokichi crying for Gonta, my first thoughts were, “I am going to THROTTLE this fucking BASTARD.” Because even if those tears were real, Kokichi was still the one fully responsible for Gonta’s death, so I felt that he had no right to shed tears over it. If it weren’t for Kokichi’s crying during this scene, I would have been very suspicious of how suddenly his evil villain act amped up. If he hadn’t shed tears that were so obviously fake, I would not have been nearly as enraged with him, and therefore not nearly as willing to just accept the fact: “Well. Guess he’s evil now.”

Whereas I would’ve chalked the scene without crying to bad writing, the viewers of the killing game, and by extent the mastermind, would garner suspicion towards his actions. Although Kokichi was not aware that Keebo had direct contact with the outside world, he was very aware that the killing game had to have been broadcasted to somewhere. He had to ensure that he was as convincing as possible; that meant no “bad writing” mistakes could be left anywhere.

I stand by what I said before in that Kokichi’s crying in this scene is just a bunch of crocodile tears. However, with new context and information surrounding the situation, they probably weren’t devoid of emotion. Kokichi only allowed himself to cry here in order to properly double back on his new mastermind persona, however, unlike what I believed before, he most likely did feel remorse at the deaths of Gonta and Miu. He just broke his last standing moral code: don’t murder people. And he broke it by indirectly causing the deaths of two people he may have considered to be his friends. That’s heavy stuff! 

Kokichi is faking these reactions to the trial because he has to if he wants to deceive everybody. But... the best acting comes from the heart.

LONELINESS AND GUILT:

As I covered in my initial reaction to Kokichi’s breakdown, I felt as though he couldn’t possibly have any remorse for his actions, so he must have been devastated knowing that he would now be truly alone. This view was heavily influenced by Shuichi’s words after the trial... because they were true. 

After Kokichi criticizes the group for coming to Kaito’s aid, Shuichi turns around and tells Kokichi that he is the pathetic one because he will always be alone. There are no lies to these words. Now that Gonta is dead, and now that Kokichi has gone so far into his persona, not a single person wants to even be near him.

Now that I’ve established that Kokichi’s actions post-trial were most definitely an act and not representative of his true feelings, we can discuss what his true feelings may have been. I come back to the idea of Kokichi fearing being alone because, hey! My past ignorant self was actually onto something!

The acknowledgement that Kokichi feels remorse for his actions just makes this situation even sadder for him; not only did he just indirectly murder two people and has to put up with the guilt of that, but now, nobody cares about him either. Not that anybody in the cast cared for him all that much in the first place (aside from Gonta), but Shuichi’s words to him here seal his fate as the permanent outcast and assigned villain of the group. He had already been struggling with loneliness throughout the beginning chapters of the game, and now Shuichi - the only person he finds truly trustworthy (according to his little whiteboard, at least) - is confirming to him that nobody wants him. Ouch.

I am personally led to believe that a large part of the reason that Kokichi ends up sacrificing himself in Chapter 5 has a lot to do with the broken feelings he would’ve had under the combined guilt of his actions and the crushing reality of loneliness.

Would Kokichi have offered to sacrifice himself anyways given the circumstances? Probably, yeah. However, the way he was so accepting of his death reminded me a lot of Kaede in Chapter 1; she couldn’t allow herself to take the First Blood Perk because she felt that she had to atone for her sins, or she could never live with herself. Kokichi seems, in the moment, to be more than willing to die, perhaps for the same reasons. Not only would be feel like he has to make up for the deaths he caused, but he would also feel like he had nothing left to live for, at least not within the academy anyway.

Or maybe he was just tired from the poison, not from life. But who’s to say? We can’t see inside of his head.

FINAL THOUGHTS / CONCLUSION:

OK, so some final thoughts before wrapping this up: Holy shit, Kokichi is an asshole.

Even knowing the emotional turmoil Kokichi must have been going through, it was still infuriating to see him treat Gonta so poorly in Trial 4. Perhaps it was just a part of his act as well? Regardless, it really just did not sit with me well. Under no circumstance should Kokichi be continulessly yelling at Gonta while he’s crying from the insults, for real. But hey, at least if it was just another act from Kokichi, then he can rest easy knowing he certainly had me fooled.

...

So, in my opinion, Kokichi’s infamous breakdown was entirely fabricated. He had to fake both his tears and his sadism in order to fully convince the world that he was a force of pure malice in order to get away with what he had planned. However, despite his apparent change in personality, he never really was sadistic, and may have even cared for the people around him till the very end.

That’s all I guess  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

#danganronpa v3 #danganronpa #drv3 kokichi #kokichi ouma #kokichi #v3 spoilers #danganronpa spoilers #danganronpa v3 spoilers