#to clarify my use of the anti tag | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mossmelancholic · 2 years

Text

i feel my main issue with the finale is that it’s a bad ending that exists for the wrong reasons.

one of the aspects of c!tommy’s lore that appealed to me was how fundamentally bleak his existence always turns out to be. he’s inherently a tragic character: the consequences for his actions are always overblown in comparison to both the intent and the impact of them. because of his loud personality and even louder voice, he’s the centre of attention in any room he walks into, which makes him a quick and easy scapegoat if you’re looking for someone to blame. he’s stubborn and he’s surviving, but he’s never at peace with his circumstances because something is always missing - his discs, his friends, his family.

i know that suffering for the sake of suffering is not a story beat that many are fond of. i know that many watchers just wanted tommy to heal because he deserved something hopeful. but to see a character whose circumstances are always stagnating, stuck in this tiring cycle where they always find themselves ending up right back where they started… that really appealed to me on a personal level, and so keeping that in mind, i always thought there was a chance his ending was not going to be a happy one.

but to me, this does not feel like his ending. it’s not an ending that exists for c!tommy. it’s not the natural conclusion to his story. this was an ending made to excuse c!dream’s entire villain arc instead. c!tommy’s characterisation as a victim did not matter here, because characterising c!dream as a victim instead was the intended goal. the abuse c!dream inflicted on c!tommy is less important than desperately clutching at straws to make a character, that we as an audience have no reason to view as sympathetic, ‘worthy’ of our sympathy. the narrative is desperate to give room for c!dream to have a second chance, something that comes at the cost of enabling victim blaming against a canonical child abuse survivor.

when c!tommy, in the haze of memory loss, befriends his abuser, i don’t think it was intended to be tragic. it could and should have been, because c!tommy having no recollection of anything is a good set-up that would leave him vulnerable, open to c!dream’s manipulation once again because he doesn’t know who to avoid and who not to trust. but it isn’t trying to be unsettling when we see c!tommy unknowingly befriending his abuser; it’s meant to be a sign of hope that now everything has been reset, maybe there could be peace again. it doesn’t work, because the viewers remember everything even if the characters don’t. instead the amnesia plot line feels like a flimsy method of making a blank slate and a fresh new start where c!dream can avoid the consequences of his actions completely. this is a unintentional bad ending for c!tommy, because he’s placed in a position where he will grow to trust someone who has the full capacity to hurt him, but it’s an intentional good ending for c!dream and it seems that’s where the cc’s priorities lie.

#dsmp neg #dsmp crit #<- i think these are the tags for blacklists?#it’s been so long since i’ve used tumblr :sob:#back in my day it was anti character not character critical #/#anyways i feel it’s important to note that I Do No Go Here anymore #the last serious lore stream i caught was c!wilbur having a maladaptive daydream about violently murdering dream #i’m only picking up second hand information #but i’m trying my best to articulate my grievances with what little knowledge i have #edit: i feel like i should also clarify that this is probably the only post i’ll ever make about this damn thing #i’m trying to put my dreamsmp phase behind me #my love for c!tommy is eternal though <3 he’s my little scrunkly guy fr

64 notes · View notes

bsaka7 · 1 year

Text

i am mellowing my anti-english major opinion (some of my beloved friends were English majors ok) bc i just learned about the literary usage of the term "magical realism" and how it's related to post-colonial latin america and latin american indigenous knowledge and practice... something i vaguely was aware of as a connection bc like... Borges and Gabriel Garcia Marquez, but really didn't know at all about its categorical use and IMPORTANCE and had no idea how "watered down" the term is popular culture. anyway ppl who know about english and witness my constant book talk/hating/grumping... feel free to weigh in/correct me etc on things like this now and in the future....

#I was previously annoyed with how some north American indigenous authors had been lumped in with my like. Lay understanding #Of magical realism #Which is how the convo started. And I def am learning a lot about the connotations of the term #Needless to say I have removed the tag from my fic that used it and replaced it with 'everyday fantasy'#Idk like it seems like bc of said popular understanding there is a broader meaning #But I know this now and will know it forever #Also like....interesting debate about the contours of the term in relationship to geography and colonial power I think #Definitely well within my interests so very happy to learn #I should clarify I'm like not totally anti English as a discipline lol #But certain kinds of literary analysis r um. Not. My thing.#And have dunked on them heavily in history classes lol.#But I like understand the importance of multidisciplinary connections... Like in this case lol #Anyway we're not getting into my philosophies here I'm just saying I learned something #Also like. I think my misunderstanding of the term was explicitly due to the tag being used in fic lol #I should say also that like my reading world is probably still fairly western centric and American centric which affects this #Though I have been trying to read more translations from across the world #I try to do a balance #Anyway thoughts etc

11 notes · View notes

booskwan · 2 months

Text

tagged by @seonghwacore ty for tagging🫶🫶

honestly i could have had two bingos but i don’t really collect and ive only ever watched one survival show😭

my home & lock screens<3

#shoutout to the other people who have cute widgets on the home screen but only ever use the big menu thing #also to clarify i had an anti phase when i was in my early teens bc i knew how toxic the fandom was and it made me hate it it had nothing to #do with the music or anything lol #theo.txt #tag games #also i’ve done a dance cover but i never posted it lol i literally stayed up till like 4am recording and editing it for the bouncy challenge #and it lives in my hard drive never to see the light of day

0 notes

genderkoolaid · 6 months

Note

I think your fight against anti-transmasculinity/anti-transandrophobia and how queer spaces paint masculinity as inherently evil, your posts have actually opened my eyes to alot of what transmascs go thorugh. But as a transfem I was hurt to see that you support spacelazarwolf, someone who has used TERFy arguments that for example include claiming that trans women react to male socialization the same was as cis men react to it, and are therefore "male-brained" or dangerous to be around: https://www.tumblr.com/lesbianchemicalplant/729005502701486080/trans-men-on-here-are-like-trans-women-are-sexist?source=share (I do not agree with the author's view that transandrophobia does not exist)

As a transfem, a group is constantly demonized by the cis world and a lot of feminist spaces as sexual predatory, dangerous men to be around, transmisogynistic arguments that are "backed up" by the fact that we are socialized as male, seeing another trans person use the same argument in order to demean transfems hurts me a lot, makes me more scared of interacting with trans spaces outside of my friend group.

I don't mean this as a call out or nor do I mean to sparkle an internet argument and I hope my worries aren't downplayed, but I think it is necessary to address certain things and we transfems and transmascs should have eachother's interests in mind.

I absolutely understand why you are worried about that post, but that screenshot was taken to specifically cut out the rest of the post & remove all context from what he was saying.

Here is the link to the actual post. Conveniently, the person who took that screenshot cut out the literal next sentence, which is "we all, regardless of agab, grow up exposed to sexism and misogyny, and we’re all affected by it in one way or another."

The reason he is specific about transfems is because he is responding to some tags which say that all "afabs" (referring to trans men talking about their experiences with misogyny) are biologically "smug" and "insufferable" & how he has seen transfemmes use bioessentialism towards other trans people in ways which are blatantly misogynistic, and hiding behind the defense that they themselves are women. The final paragraph of the post is this:

"i’ve said it before and i’ll say it again: trans people who were assigned male at birth are not somehow inherently more capable of sexism than people who were assigned female at birth. everyone is capable of sexism. but they are also not exempt from perpetuating sexism and misogyny just because they are trans, and they have just as much of a responsibility to unlearn it as the rest of us do. do not use being trans as a shield from consequences when you say things that uphold oppressive systems."

The post you linked isn't just reading between the lines, they specifically cut off all context and put words in his mouth about "dangerous male socialization" that he actively clarifies he disagrees with in the post itself. He never says anything about transfems reacting the same way cis men do, or being socialized male or having male brains or being dangerous to be around. He is very clear that this is a universal problem to all people, and all trans people, and everyone needs to be active in unlearning misogyny because it is taught to everyone.

I don't blame you at all for being concerned about this, but the linked OP is actively warping the truth to justify the argument that belief in transandrophobia existing is inherenty anti-transfem.

#m.#ask box

253 notes · View notes

queerxqueen · 7 months

Note

"I just want to clarify that I’m well informed on the situation that is going on but Byler has only one chance of happening. Meanwhile Palestinians are dying anyway. They have been for years and will continue to die. Since when do y’all care about them and their lives? You started talking about it only when it became trendy.

Fake activists, move on and continue eating expensive food in your comfy house and not giving a fuck about people far away from you dying. That shit happens everyday and if you get involved your psyche will be hurt. Let the politicians deal with this instead of bullying a random actor that didn’t do anything harmful"

browsing through the noah schnapp tag to see what he did now and seeing these words was a literal slap in the face how can someone post this and think theyre a good person???

(When I first read this, I thought you were saying that shit in my inbox and was ready to throw hands, so I was very relieved to see you were just sharing the bullshit from someone else's blog.)

I just searched in the tag and saw this exact post. How fucking horrifying. Instant block. I doubt anyone could reason with this person.

"Palestinians are dying anyway. They have been for years and will continue to die." Can't believe anyone typed this genuinely and without pause. Just say you don't care about Palestinian lives and stop there, you'll get your point across better.

"Since when do y’all care about them and their lives? You started talking about it only when it became trendy." Many people are only just now beginning to really educate themselves on the history of Israel and Palestine. I'm among them - I used to be one of the folks who thought it was too complicated and nuanced to take a stance on. Then I read Palestine: A Socialist Introduction, started reading from news sources and independent journalists outside of mainstream western media, started listening to Palestinian and anti-zionist Jewish voices, and realized how false that was. I take responsibility for not educating myself sooner. But it's actually weird to frame people educating themselves and having empathy for people dying as jumping on a trend.

"Let the politicians deal with this..." Ah, yes, let's leave it to the politicians, who notoriously have our best interests in mind and would never do anything to cause harm. (/sarcasm) "... instead of bullying a random actor that didn’t do anything harmful." If you think sharing violent zionist rhetoric such as "you stand with Israel or you stand with terrorism" or trivializing the deaths of eleven thousand Palestinians with stupid stickers calling zionism sexy, in front of your audience of millions as a celebrity, is "not harmful" then we clearly are not going to agree on anything.

#noah schnapp #answered #anon #free palestine #israel palestine #current events #death mention #islamophobia tw

250 notes · View notes

gothhabiba · 1 year

Note

hi i just saw some of ur posts on anti-psychiatry and then kept reading more on ur blog about what it is. for the most part i agree with what you've said about how capitalism uses psychiatry to designate people who are bad/abnormal and how it aligns itself w/ misogyny, racism, and so on. with that said i think i have some similar concerns/questions as another asker about what this means for those who do/would suffer even in a non-capitalist society, even if we didn't ascribe a specific label to X symptoms. if we are opposed to psychiatry, what are the options for people today who are suffering and want help? are you opposed to psychopharmaceuticals and therapy? i dont mean to ask this in a confrontational/accusatory way, i'm just new to this and genuinely curious

There are a few different parts to your question & so there are a few different angles to approach it from—

are you opposed to psychopharmaceuticals and therapy?

If this means "are anti-psych writers and activists opposed to individuals seeking treatment that they personally find helpful," then, no—a couple posts in my psychiatry tag do clarify this.

If it means "are there anti-psych critiques of psychopharmaceuticals and therapy," then, yes. Keep in mind that I'm not a neurobiologist or otherwise an expert on medications marketed as treatments for mental illnesses, but:

The evidence for the effectiveness of SSRIs in particular is sort of non-existent—even many psychiatrists who promote the biomedical model of mental illness doubt their efficacy, and refer to the "chemical imbalance" theory that enforces their usage as "an outmoded way of thinking" or "a kind of urban legend—never a theory seriously propounded by well-informed psychiatrists." But promoting SSRIs (and corresponding "serotonin deficiency" theory of depression, despite the fact that no solid evidence links depression to low serotonin) is very profitable for pharmaceutical companies. Despite the fact that direct-to-consumer advertisements are nominally regulated in the U.S., the FDA doesn't challenge these claims.

Other psychotropic drugs, such as "antipsychotics" or "antianxiety" medication, shouldn't really be called e.g. "antipsychotics" as if they specifically targeted the biological source of psychosis. No biological cause of any specific psychiatric diagnosis has been found (p. 851, section 5.1). In fact, rather than "act[ing] against neurochemical substrates of disorders or symptoms," these medications "produc[e] altered, drug induced states"—but despite the fact that they "produce global alterations in brain functioning," they are marketed as if they had "specific efficacy in reducing psychotic symptoms." Reactions to these medications that don't have to do with psychosis or anxiety (blunted affect, akathisia) are dismissed as "side effects," as though they don't arise from the same global alteration in brain function that produces the "desirable" antianxiety/antipsychotic effect. This doesn't mean "psychiatric medication turns you into a zombie so you shouldn't take it"—it means that these medications should be marketed honestly, as things that alter brain function as a whole, rather than marketed as if they target specific symptoms in a way that they cannot do, in accordance with a biomedical model of mental illness the accuracy of which has never been substantiated.

Psychiatrised people also point out that meds are used as a tool for furthering and maintaining psychiatrists' control: meds that patients are hesitant about or do not want are pushed on them, while patients who desire medication are "drug-seeking" or trying to take on the role of clinician or something and will routinely be denied care. Psychiatrised people who refuse medications are "noncompliant" and prone to psychiatric incarceration, re-incarceration, or continued/lengthened incarceration.

As for therapy: there are critiques of certain therapies (e.g. CBT, DBT) as unhelpful, status-quo-enforcing, forcing compliance, retraumatising &c. There are also critiques of therapy as representing a capitalist outsourcing of emotional closeness and emotional work away from community systems that people largely don't have in place; therapy as existing within a psychiatric system that constrains how therapists, however well-intentioned, are able to behave (e.g. mandatory reporting laws); psychotherapy forced on psychiatrised people as a matter of state control; therapists as being in a dangerous amount of power over psychiatrised people and being hailed as neutral despite the fact that their emotions and politics can and do get in the way of them being helpful. The wealth divide in terms of access to therapy is also commonly talked about; insurance (in the U.S.) or the NHS (in England) may only pay for pre-formulated group workbook types of therapy such as DBT, while more long-form, free-form, relationship-focused talk therapy may only be accessible to those who can pay 100-something an hour for it.

None of these critiques make it unethical or something for someone to get treatment that they find helpful. It's also worth noting that some of these critiques may be coming from "anti-psych" people who criticise the sources of psychiatric power, and some of them may come from people who think of themselves as advocating for reform of some of the most egregious effects of psychiatric power.

if we are opposed to psychiatry, what are the options for people today who are suffering and want help?

This looks like a few different things at a few different levels. At its most narrow and individual, it involves opting out of and resisting calls for psychiatrisation and involuntary institutionalisation of individuals—not calling the cops on people who are acting strange in public, breaking mandatory reporting laws and guidelines where we think them likely to cause harm. It involves sharing information—information about antipsychiatry critiques of psychiatric institutions, advice about how to manage therapists' and psychiatrists' egos, advice about which psychiatrists to avoid—so that people do not blame themselves if they find their encounters with psychiatry unhelpful or traumatising.

At the most broad, it's the same question as the question of how to build dual power and resist the power of capitalism writ large—building communal structures that present meaningful alternatives to psychiatry as an institution. I think there's much to be learned here from prison abolitionists and from popular movements that seek to protect people from deportation. You might also look into R. D. Laing's Kingsley Hall experiment.

what does this mean for those who would suffer even in a non-capitalist society, even if we didn't ascribe a specific label to X symptoms?

It means that people need access to honest, reliable information about what psychotropic medications do, and the right to chuse whether or not to take these medications without the threat of a psychiatrist pulling a lever that immediately restricts or removes their autonomy. It means that people need to be connected to each other in communities with planned, free resources that ensure that everyone, including severely disabled people whom no one particularly likes as individuals, has access to basic resources. It means that people need to be free to make their own choices regarding their minds and their health, even if other people may view those decisions as disastrous. There is simply no defensible way to revoke people's basic autonomy on the basis of "mental illness" (here I'm not talking about e.g. prison abolitionist rehabilitative justice types of things, which must restrict autonomy to be effective).

Also, I've mostly left the idea of who this would actually be untouched, since my central argument ("psychiatry as it currently exists is part of the biomedical arm of capitalism and the state, and the epistemologies it produces and employs and the power it exerts are thus in the service of capitalism and the state") doesn't really rest on delineating who would and wouldn't suffer from whatever mental differences they have regardless of what society they're in. But it's worth mentioning that the category of "people who are going to suffer (to whatever degree) no matter what" may be narrower than some would think—psychosis, for instance, is sometimes experienced very differently by people in societies that don't stigmatise it. I see people objecting to (their interpretations of) antipsych arguments with things along the lines of "well maybe depression and anxiety are caused by capitalism, but I'm schizophrenic so this doesn't apply to me"—as though hallucinations are perforce more physically "real," more "biological," more "extra-cultural" in nature than something like depression. But the point is that positing a specific neurobiological etiology for any psychiatric diagnosis is unsubstantiated, and that capitalist society affects how every "mental illness" is read and experienced (though no one is arguing that e.g. hallucinations wouldn't always exist in some form).

#psychiatry #long post /#mental illness #antipsych #antipsychiatry #Anonymous #questions #psychotropic drugs #ssris

723 notes · View notes

httpsobi · 1 year

Text

BURNIN' UP... “an anti-hero oc/reader-ish x kaldur"

WARNINGS/TAGS + sfw, female reader (no body types, height, skin color described but is described to have dark eyes), ________ is where the name of your choice can be inserted, smoking, light implication of suicidal thoughts.

A/N + the lack of kaldur x reader work is criminal and i decided to be a law abiding citizen cause have you seen that man. also an apology for the lack of work because the brain juices are not flowing and my writing right now makes me want to scream.

if you’re interested, here’s the original post that started this !!

"Why do you smoke?"

She glances at him, burning cigarette hanging on her lips as she struggles with the metal lighter in her hands.

Her response is barely legible, muffled by her multitasking on keeping the cig off the floor and getting the rusty thing in her hands to work.

"Because."

Kaldur watches as the lighter finally offers enough of a spark to start a flame, and she brings it up to the end of her cigarette.

"Because?"

She takes in a deep puff, facing away to watch the smoke disappear into the air before she turns to grin at Kaldur, leaning to bump her head against his shoulder playfully.

"Just cus'."

As she leans away to take another puff, staring off into the horizon, where the sea meets the setting sunset, Kaldur's staring at her.

"I hear smoking is harmful to humans."

She hums in response.

"So why do you smoke despite knowing that?" He asks curiously.

________ takes another puff, holding the smoking cig off her lips between her index and middle finger as she turns to Kaldur.

"Hm..." She sighs deeply, lips settling into a small smile as she thinks, before she's back to staring off in the distance.

"Don't know. All the oldies I know did when they got stressed- so maybe that's why."

She glances at him. "Is that the answer you wanted?"

"You understand the possibility of disease or death, yet continue to smoke." Kaldur sighs, looking at the sea for a brief moment before his eyes are back on her.

"Do you not fear the possibility of dying that may come from it?"

She blinks at him, dark eyes flitting over his face before her smile returns and her head's tilted at him once again.

"That's just a bonus." She chuckles, nudging his shoulder with hers before she's shuffling her way off the floor. "You worry too much."

Kaldur sighs as he mirrors her, standing up to watch her take another puff.

"I worry because you are a friend."

Before she can respond, the cave door opens, Robin's laughter and Wally's whines drawing closer has her quickly chucking the cigarette to the floor and smashing it into the floor with her boot quickly before she's grabbing it off the floor.

Kaldur raises his eyebrow at her.

"I thought you don't mind people knowing you smoke." He asks in a whisper.

"I don't." She clarifies in a whisper of her own. "But I don't need any of the idiots on this team tryna' look cool and copy me."

Green eyes widen at her face for a moment, before a playful smile settles on Kaldur's face.

"So, you do like us."

She glances at his slightly smug expression before she lets out a laugh, tilting her head at him with a grin.

"I like you guys enough to not become the reason one of you dies of lung cancer or somethin' stupid."

An gloved hand reaches up to pat his cheek as she takes a step closer to him, and Kaldur's face heats up under her watchful eyes.

"Especially you, shark boy- can't have a pretty face like you die too young." She teases.

With one final pat leaving an flustered Kaldur and nearing Robin and Kid Flash, she's walking away with a smile.

all work n' writing is work of @httpsobi. i ask you please do not copy, rewrite, translate or post on other platforms without my consent.

#antihero oc #antihero reader #young justice x reader #antihero reader x young justice #dc #young justice imagines #young justice headcanons #kaldur x reader #aqualad x reader #httpsobi's work #dc x reader #dc imagines #dc imagine

283 notes · View notes

xoxoskai · 6 months

Text

THE WHITE MASK THEORY;

PART TWO

Before I go into detail about Ava and her relationships with the Heathens, I want to clarify a few things.

I wasn't aware that Rina had confirmed that we haven't met WM yet. A lot of you pointed it out in the previous post and that's how I found out. However, I think it's even more anti-climactic if it's someone we haven't met so far to be WM because there will be no excitement involved in the grand reveal. A five-book buildup for it to be someone completely new is not dramatic or shocking at all. It'll be like the no-name nanny being the villain in God of Ruin. Most people, me included, were dumbfounded at the reveal and of course, Maya's ridiculous fall from grace.

How are you going to look at normal sibling jealousy and kidnap the sister because you thought it would do justice to the other one? You're telling me the Bratva with Kyle-fricking-Hunter, Rai-mother-Sokolov, Adrian-Daddy-Volkov as the Obschak and Kirill-dilf-Morozov as the Pakhan couldn't track down the silly nanny who kidnapped a mafia princess for shits and giggles? That they haven't been able to for the past decade? Make it make sense.

It would have made a lot more sense for it to be the Irish mafia back for more revenge.

Now, Eli King.

I swear, his character is all kinds of perfectly mysterious, makes him such an enigma.

Eli being awol most of the time can perhaps make him WM. Infact, him telling Killian "It's nothing personal, family business" before they waterboarded him could imply a lot more.

(Plus, Eli was the one carrying Niko out when he stabbed himself to save Jeremy and thus, missed Creigh getting shot.)

However, this also shows that Eli prioritizes his family over a game of tag with mafia heirs and the Heathens trying to off Creighton for being with Annika is not something he would let slide. Maybe he is closer to them than he lets on but Eli participating in the initiation feels like a far cry. Especially because Creigh has specifically mentioned that Eli is more of a strategist type, not known to use his fists to absolutely destroy someone.

Eli having his own inside contacts feels like a given. And I do believe it's a huge give-and-take type of scenario. Eli, heir to the King Empire, I'm sure realizes the importance of having connections. Especially connections with the mafia. I'm guessing his point of contact would be Killian in that scenario.

Interestingly, someone I accidentally left out in my observations is Kayden.

For everyone who doesn't know who Kayden is, he made his first appearance in God of Ruin and is confirmed to be Gareth Carson's love interest.

In my defense, we haven't seen a lot of him at all. But is he a viable candidate? Absolutely. Would I be disappointed to see him as WM? Absolutely not.

What, however, will disappoint me is that Gareth Carson being the green mask and Kayden being the WM, DO NOT GET A BOOK. AND THAT IS TOO CRUEL. AN MLM, PROFESSOR X STUDENT WHERE THEY ARE BOTH PARTAKING IN THE INITIATION FOR WHATEVER GOD-FORSAKEN REASON AND IT BEING THE PEAK OF FORBIDDEN ROMANCE IS,

You guessed it,

Not getting a book.

This is the exact same reason why I ruled out Remi Astor as well. If WM is simply meant to be a side character, why would they be such an enigma? Why is there not a book?

Kayden also checks a lot of the WM boxes of

Being leaner than the rest, hello he's a professor. He's not going to be fighting for his life every day in the mafia (or he might, we don't know his origins)

Cherry would not be able to seduce him. Kayden plays for the same team so, yes, it makes sense.

In the epilogue of God of Wrath, we see Jeremy proposing an initiation where they chase a pre-decided target only. We know why Nikolai, Killian and Jeremy would appreciate it, Gareth was not having it, but WM was. (It feels like repetition but Gods, the hatecrime it is to not have their book).

But the prospect of the Heathens allowing a professor at their university into the mix seems a little far-fetched. Not to mention, I think it was clearly stated that Kayden had arrived at Brighton recently and there was no mention anywhere of WM being a recent member.

Now, Ava Nash.

Remember I said, "Eli realizes the importance of having connections with the mafia"? That it's a give and take? If Ava Nash is really WM,

Do we really believe Eli wouldn't know?

Do we really believe he would not be keeping tabs on her?

Now, the million-dollar question is - what do the Heathens gain from forming an alliance, as discreet as it is, with Eli King?

The most I can think of is, Brighton is basically RES' turf. The Heathens are far from their powerful parents and between the mafia and the powerful families of London, The Kings, The Nashs, The Knights and The Astors hold a lot more power and influence. At some point, I'm sure they would call in a favor when the times comes for it, to wipe out the Irish mafia's main base or whatever it is these people want to do.

Would Eli really not keep tabs on Ava after two of her closest friends start dating two leaders of the Heathens?

Between all the Heathens and Ava, I think she has the most complicated and interesting relationship with Jeremy.

"Say the word and I'll bring him to you?" Bestie hasn't exchanged a single word with that man as far as we know.

"When she's not around?" What context and scenario would lead Jeremy to meet Ava when Cecily isn't around? ("Break Ava"? Bro we know you're a mafia prince but the little princeling of the King household would uproot your family if you tried. )

Jeremy, as the leader, obviously knows who the WM is.

The scene is God of Wrath where Cecily is following Ava outside before encountering Jeremy is single-handedly carrying my theory.

-> Ava, drunk, still seemed to know her way around the forest behind the Heathens mansion despite only exploring it once with Cecily and Annika (God of Pain, Chapter 5)

-> Jeremy, when spotted at the beginning, is wearing a jacket that he's discarded by the time he finally encounters Cecily. Unless my man wants to flex his Russian roots and channel his inner Queen of Arendelle, it does not make sense for him to lose his jacket when stepping out of the house.

-> Cecily is tracking Ava using an app on her phone when she suddenly changes directions back towards the house at an alarming speed that indicates she was on the back of a motorbike.

This brings me to my theory that-

It is not surprising that Jeremy was out of the house as soon as Cecily was. Which means, he'd have gone ahead and intercepted Ava first to send her back. His jacket is missing cuz, she was wearing a short skirt and was going back on a motorbike, so she needed coverage.

Yes, shocker that Jeremy is being civil to her, but I need to remind you this is much earlier than him falling for Cecily + the entire AnniCreigh shitshow. So, if Ava is really WM, to some extent, he was probably civil with her.

Either Ava went back with a bodyguard or someone else with connections to the mafia (*cough* Heir of the King Empire *cough*) was informed and came to pick her up.

The Heathens would gladly form an alliance with Eli just for inside intel about their girls all the time and vice versa if Ava really is WM.

Interestingly, according to the timeline, this is also the part where in God of Pain, Creighton tells Eli that if he's so bored, he should go to Ava and gets "If I go to her, I'll kill her" in response.

Is this because he found her wandering by herself through the forest at midnight?

Is this because she refuses to disassociate with the Heathens?

Theories, theories, everywhere.

Now, if Ava is really WM, why would Jeremy make her cry?

Because Ava made Annika cry, It's that simple.

When I tell you it's only Landon King and Killian Carson who don't care about their siblings, I mean it. Jeremy and Annika are obviously close enough to want to die for one another and if someone comes up to your sibling and calls them a murderer after they shoot someone to protect you, yeah, I'd have a vendetta against that person too, part of my cult or not.

Jeremy obviously hated Cecily at some point for it too. At how easily they all abandoned Annika and while I understand that she was new to their group as compared to Creighton who they've known their whole lives, Ava might have taken it too far by calling Annika a murderer, something Jeremy obviously heard of.

In Ava's defense, they probably felt guilty for ever including Annika in their group and causing the chain reaction of Creighton falling for her because it led to him being in a coma.

Naturally, Jeremy doesn't care about that. Ava name-calling Anni became personal to him because 1, she's his baby sister and 2, Annika was in that predicament cuz she shot Creigh for him.

At the same time, I was really mad at Cecily for not defending her childhood best friend because whatever happened to sisters before misters? Sometimes the girls only seem like friends to me for the sake of the plot considering how little they know of each other.

In God of Malice, when Killian swaps in for Nikolai and is about to go against Creighton, who is giving Glyndon a run-down about the Heathens?

Go ahead and take a guess.

How, and I can't say this enough, does she know so much in excruciating detail about the Heathens when she's never interacted with them, and they are from a completely different university? Everyone always asks her how she knows so much, and she deflects with -You have to be living under a rock to not know- when the actual situation is that no one but Ava knows so much.

You seriously can't believe the Heathens are observant to the point of knowing every little, tiny detail about their girlfriends, quirks only a childhood friend would know?

And no, Eli King, close ally or not, would not divulge all this freely. You know who would? Someone who wants to see their girlfriends get laid and happy.

I think the most fascinating thing about Ava being the WM is that I can't, frankly, think of a single reason why she would be a part of the Heathens except that she thrives on chaos (hello daughter of Cole Nash).

But it is entirely plausible that if the Heathens send initiation invites to the Elites who never attend it, chances of Ava swiping the QR code thru someone's phone is very likely.

What does Ava bring to the Heathens?

Honestly? No idea. If it was in exchange for being close to their respective s/o, it'd make sense, but WM is already part of the initiation way before God of Malice.

Did they have a particular initiation to recruit a fifth member for their close circle? Probably. Were they looking for someone who'd be willing to betray the Elites? Maybe. If Landon and Ava have a completely different type of understanding between them, do we really believe Landon to be above using Ava to spy for the Heathens? If no, why the Heathens would still allow her among them remains a mystery. Did they not know who she was related to? Did she pass the initiation with flying colors and show potential to be a part of the inner circle?

(Eli is family man first, which is why I can't see him being a Heathen)

What I do know is that Ava feels lonely among her own circle. With all her friends now spending more time with their boyfriends, she feels alone (God bless Remi, he's going to be such a good brother-in-law after being an already awesome friend to her).

I also believe that if Ava would tell anyone she was part of the Heathens, it'd be Remi. They are a lot closer than they portray.

You know who else was shit at keeping secrets, was out-going, definitely the social butterfly of the group but had a truckload of demons in their closet? Ronan Astor.

This is why, I refuse to underestimate Ava. "Disappears like a ghost" is a very interesting choice of words.

Besides, if she's really WM, she's so unserious.

Also, possible foreshadowing?

Anyways, considering Ava is also pretty close to Brandon, we'll be seeing a lot of her in God of Fury which will finally reveal who WM is. She has no interactions so far with Nikolai or Gareth for me to deduce anything between them so 6th December, we'll find out!

For now, and perhaps always (I'll reject canon I don't care) my suspect is Ava, who's yours?

63 notes · View notes

sapphic-agent · 2 months

Text

"Stop using Yangchen for your shitty argument."

So, I was browsing the anti Aang tag around a week ago I think and I came upon a post that displayed frustration for people who condemn Aang not wanting to kill Ozai. I'm not 100% sure that this was targeted at my post specifically, but as I did use Yangchen, I do want to clarify how I interpret her words as well as the other past lives' advice and Aang's reaction.

(Here's my first post if you haven't read it: https://www.tumblr.com/sapphic-agent/745211292168732672/lets-talk-about-how-book-3-ruined-aang?source=share)

This person's main argument centered around how the previous Avatars never actually told Aang to kill Ozai. That their words were for him to interpret. And I actually agree. One of my central arguments was that this was a choice Aang had to make.

The thing is though, Aang himself absolutely interpreted their messages as him having to kill Ozai. That's why he gets so frustrated ("I knew I shouldn't have asked Kyoshi") and keeps cycling through them until he gets the answer he wants. Let's go through exactly what they all said to him.

Roku: If I had been more decisive and acted sooner, I could have stopped Sozin and stopped the war before it started. I offer you this wisdom, Aang, you must be decisive.

Roku tells Aang to be decisive. Which means he's urging Aang to make a decision. And this is perfectly in-line with what I said previously. He has to be able to make a choice between his morals/beliefs and his responsibility as the Avatar, as Roku failed to choose between his attachment to Sozin and his responsibility as the Avatar. That's what Roku's saying and that's exactly how Aang understands it.

Kyoshi: Personally, I don't really see the difference, but I assure you, I would have done whatever it took to stop Chin. I offer you this wisdom, Aang, only justice will bring peace.

Kyoshi's advice actually makes it less about Aang and more about Ozai. He needs to face justice so that the world can know peace. She, like Roku, does not say kill Ozai, she says bring him to justice. Aang's later actions are actually very much in-line with that. He does bring Ozai to justice through his own means. But again, that's not how Aang interpreted her advice. He takes it to mean do what she did, which is why he's salty about it after she disappears.

Kuruk: If I had been more attentive and more active, I could've saved her. Aang, you must actively shape your own destiny and the destiny of the world.

Again, Kuruk's words imply murder even less than Kyoshi's. He tells Aang to be active, to embrace his responsibility to the world and its fate as the Avatar. This is something Aang has struggled with since the beginning of the show so it makes sense that Kuruk would say this. But again, Aang takes it as something he doesn't want to hear. He either thinks that Kuruk is implying that he has to kill Ozai or that he thinks Kuruk is saying to be more active as the Avatar (if it's the latter, that makes Aang look worse because it's advice he's still unhappy with).

(I'd also like to add that Aang isn't looking for alternatives from his past lives. Or at least, he isn't just looking for alternatives. He's looking for one of them to validate him not wanting to kill Ozai and offer advice based on that. Which is why he says, "Maybe an Air Nomad Avatar will understand where I'm coming from." So them not giving him alternatives is not why he's upset)

Yangchen: Many great and wise Air Nomads have detached themselves and achieved spiritual enlightenment, but the Avatar can never do it. Because your sole duty is to the world. Here is my wisdom for you. Selfless duty calls you to sacrifice your own spiritual needs, and do whatever it takes to protect the world.

Out of everyone, Yangchen is probably the closest one to telling Aang he has to kill Ozai. She directly tells him that he has to sacrifice his spiritual needs, which heavily implies that she means go against what the monks taught him and end Ozai for the sake of the world. And that's absolutely how Aang understands it. He even says out loud, "I guess I don't have a choice, Momo. I have to kill the Fire Lord."

So yes, I 100% agree that their advice was up to Aang's interpretation. But what this person- and Aang stans in general- seemed to miss is that Aang himself interpreted their advice as him having to kill Ozai.

Now, does he have to follow their advice? Absolutely not. In Yangchen's words from the Kyoshi novels, "You could spend a thousand years talking to us and you still wouldn't know how best to guide the world." Their advice is just that, advice. Their words aren't law and shouldn't be regarded as such (especially not Roku's, he's consistently given terrible advice/direction).

Hell, in my original post I said I didn't think he had to kill Ozai. Just that he should have had to make the choice between his beliefs and responsibility and face the consequences of that choice. The only reason I brought up the past Avatars at all is because I was pointing out that he refused to accept answers (not just from them, but also from the Gaang) he didn't want to hear. And when he finally did accept it, he was immediately spared from having to make the choice by the Lion Turtle

#aang critical #anti aang #tagging just in case #it's even less anti aang than the first one #avatar yangchen #avatar kuruk #avatar kyoshi #avatar roku

29 notes · View notes

mx-werebat · 1 month

Text

Intro

// pt: intro //

Portrait art creds, frame creds

Pronouns Page ►

Boundaries ►

Things I'd like filter tagged ►

Hello hello! Welcome to my blog. My name is Laura, nonbinary romance-oscillating aromantic autosexual femme lesbian (a lot, isn't it?), and my pronouns are it/bat/vamp/doll/fang. I am also nonhuman and would prefer to referred to as a bat or a vampire.

Huge disclaimer, I identify as fictionkin and if you're not comfortable with that, then it's best you not interact.

// pt: Huge disclaimer, I identify as fictionkin and if you're not comfortable with that, then it's best you not interact. //

This is my main blog! However I'm more active on my nonhuman blog linked here.

// pt: this is my main blog! However I'm more active on my nonhuman blog linked here. (The word "here" on the non-plain text version contains a link). //

Interested in more of that? My fictionkin blog is also available to take a looksies at. Here you'll get to see artwork redraws as well as some thoughts and journal notes.

// pt: interested in more of that? My fictionkin blog is also available to take a looksies at. Here you'll get to see artwork redraws as well as some thoughts and journal notes. (The second sentence on the non-plain text version is another link). //

Lastly, I have a blog for bat plushies, The Bat Menagerie!

I am autistic with ADHD, I also suspect BPD but am working towards a diagnosis and do accept the fact that I may be wrong. Please use tone tags with me! I struggle with tone.

My special interests are bats, Draculaura from Monster High, and stuffed toys! Usually here I post about those.

New thing; please ask to be mutuals! I can't tell if you follow me because you want to be mutuals or just want to see my posts.

// pt: New thing; please ask to be mutuals! I can't tell if you follow me because you want to be mutuals or just want to see my posts. //

My DNI is as goes; bigots, fatphobes, anti-kin, anti-recovery, kink blogs, those who are verbal about hating Draculaura, radqueers, and assholes in general.

I block liberally and do not owe anyone an explanation as to why they've got block. Going out of your way to contact me after being blocked is only guaranteed to piss me off.

I say kink blogs DNI because I am hypersexual and it can get triggered quite easily.

I would also prefer you not follow me if you're an omegaverse blog or yandere blog.

Hate asks and interactions will get you blocked on sight fyi!

Tag masterlist:

#doll rambles 🎀 - personal posts

#vamp's mutuals 🦇 - reblogs from mutuals' posts, asks from mutuals, etc.

#bat's askbox - asks that have been answered

#fang's lament - vent posts

#rb - reblogs

#laura's bat tag - any posts relating to bats

Before you interact, credits for things used, as well as less important blinkies/userboxes and extra things are under the cut!

BYI (before you interact):

I have anger issues and have a hard time controlling my emotions. I try to interact as nice as possible but sometimes I will slip up. If I do I will apologize! I never mean to be intentionally hostile unless you're being an asshole.

I am prone to being self-centered or even downright egotistical sometimes. This includes with my fictotypes, mainly Ula. If you're not comfortable when that, it's best you either not interact or block me.

I feel uncomfortable being followed by those are who are objectum AND are in a romantic/sexual relationship with bat objects. Besides that I am neutral on objectum.

Please reach out to me if you want a post to have filter tags! Whether via DMs or the ask box (I can respond privately, but please clarify if you want a private, public, or no response at all!). Sometimes I'll forget to filter tag posts, or am unsure what to tag them with, at all, and it would be appreciated that way I don't accidentally upset, trigger, or make anyone uncomfortable.

This is not a vent account but I tend to "vent" a lot. I don't necessarily consider it venting more so posting about things so I can profess my thoughts.

I am prone to getting irritated and confused easily. Please be patient with me.

I am strictly pro recovery. I have quite a few mental illnesses, some of which will be talked about here, but keep in mind that I never intend to romanticize or glamorize them.

I don't always answer asks, reblogs or replies in a timely manner. I am anxious a lot and don't always know what to say. This is nothing against anyone.

I tend to ask for asks from mutuals quite a lot. I usually don't reach out due to anxiety and the fear of being burdensome. I appreciate asks from my mutuals whenever and try my best to answer.

Credits:

// pt: credits //

Wonderful pfp art by @bugsb1te, as well as the blinkie! 🦇

Dividers used on this blog are by @/arachnid-wife, @/7171955, @/moonlightdividingthelands, and @/anitalenia

Replycons that are (hopefully going to be) used in responses to asks are by @4ng3lz-r3qu3tz, myself (hope you don't mind the mention) , and the Montgomery template by @/jessource

Userboxes are either by myself or @/sweetpeauserboxes.

Banner art is from DarkoDark

Important userboxes and blinkies!

// pt: important userboxes and blinkies! //

#txt #intro #updated intro #gif warning #flashing gif #fast gif #< these are due to the blinkie!

24 notes · View notes

antiendovents · 1 month

Note

back to my post about "traumascum" in its nature being similar to "acoustic" for autistic. ik this came from "truscum", its origins don't matter imo, fakers are just THAT unoriginal and took not one but TWO terms from transmedicalism. my best bet is that it's because "transmed is bad, if we take the terms as they are and change the first part those damned anti endos will look bad too!!". at least in the first part of their thought process they're correct, as for the rest they just look like clowns and only a gullible fool would fall for that logic and also think those terms mean people described by them are as horrible as transmeds

i feel like i should've made it clearer, that despite the origin of this term i don't associate it with that in the slightest and can only compare to non-slur offensive community-specific words

also i'm so sorry, should've specified that ☠️ is a system signoff, and 👁️ is my personal. clarifying that since there are several of us that like ur blogs and have something to say :]

- 👁️»☠️

fair enough, we don't have much to add onto this other than we think it's fine for traumagenics to reclaim the terms traumascum and stuff ! Also thanks for clarifying! We'll edit the tags!

#anti endo #did #did system #endos dni #plural #actually did #alters #system #endos fuck off #did osdd #👁️ anon #☠️ anon

20 notes · View notes

ohgaylor · 1 year

Text

IT MUST BE EXHAUSTING (AN ANALYSIS)

Hi. Taylor’s the problem. And she knows it. (affectionate)

All right friends. It’s time to dive into an analysis again. I’ve been reflecting on a lot of Midnights and Taylor’s ever-present self-deprecation this era and in my regular fashion, I had to make an extremely long-winded analysis post about a certain motif of hers that I’ve noticed has only grown more apparent this time around. and essentially that is her self-awareness toward her ever-ambiguous signaling in regard to her identity, and where she is positioned in the complicated and delicate journey of coming out, as well as the plethora of emotions that surround that for both herself and her fans and those of us who pick up on the queer coded subtext of her music and art.

to kick off this analysis, may I remind you of this beauty of a quote from Taylor’s 2018 reputation tour pride speech that prefaced Delicate?

I want to send my love and respect to everybody who in their journey and in their life hasn't yet felt comfortable enough to come out ... and may you do that on your own time and may we end up with a world where everyone can live and love equally and no one has to be afraid to say how they feel. When it comes to feelings and when it comes to love and searching for someone to spend your whole life with, it’s all just really really delicate.

That is quite possibly my favorite thing she’s ever said. and what inspired this tag.

Now I need to clarify up front — I am never insinuating a need or even desire for Taylor to come out. Because that’s not our place to say. If you’ve been around my blog long enough, I would hope that nuance would be apparent. I simply point out regular motifs and patterns within her art and how it correlates with queer-coded themes of closets, of almost coming out, of outright queer coding, of rainbows, of keeping a love secret and safe, and on and on and on. The signs are there if you know what to look for (re: “I gave so many signs”) and that’s what I explore on my blog. The point is, I will never demand she come out. But I will stand with her in this complex journey she appears to be on. It’s entirely her journey and however she wishes to navigate that is hers to decide.

but that doesn’t detract from the reality that for those of us who see this beautiful queer subtext of her art and music and visuals and work and self, the ambiguity and constant back-and-forth when it comes to her identity (and the idea of coming out) can in fact be a lot to try and process and understand and ultimately to reconcile as we root for her. Trying to understand where she stands is much like chasing a moving target. (not that she owes any explanation to us, because again, she doesn’t.) her art and creativity are her place of expression and catharsis. however, watching her navigate these complexities and trying to root for her in this sometimes messy space is also, dare I say, exhausting.

hence, the title and general theme of this analysis.

so let’s begin.

First, we have this verse in Anti-Hero which is the perfect setup to illustrate this specific motif,

I should not be left to my own devices They come with prices and vices I end up in crises Tale as old as time

This is essentially the thesis of Taylor’s message, the feeling that her own judgement and actions might be the very cause for certain crises she finds herself in, however enticing those vices and choices may be. In choosing to straddle a glass-closeted lifestyle as an artist at her status and level of fame, all the while heavily queer-coding to her (receptive) audiences, only to be seen by most others as the hallmark of straight women as per her highly publicized bearding, juggling this all can be overwhelming. But it’s also a space that she has essentially curated and perpetuated herself.

An anti-hero is a central character in a narrative who conspicuously lacks heroic, moral qualities:

Although antiheroes may sometimes perform actions that are morally correct, it is not always for the right reasons, often acting primarily out of self-interest or in ways that defy conventional ethical codes.

Identifying herself as the anti-hero in this sense comes as a candid confession, as though she is admitting that maybe she is driven by self-interest. (which again, she is entitled to as we all are in our own lives.) (re: the jokes weren’t funny, I took the money, my friends at home don’t know what to say) Alternatively, and perhaps additionally, acting out of self-interest in this context may mean concealment of parts of her identity for the sake of self-preservation. The nuances behind why she hasn’t chosen to come out are at play here and I doubt any of us can fully comprehend what that is exactly.

I never had the courage of my convictions, as long as danger is near

Pouring out my heart to a stranger but I didn’t pour the whiskey

Combat, I'm ready for combat. I say I don't want that, but what if I do? 'Cause cruelty wins in the movies. I've got a hundred thrown-out speeches I almost said to you … Dark side, I search for your dark side. But what if I'm alright, right, right, right here?

You can easily grasp the intense oscillation as she goes back and forth between these decisions while juggling a myriad of reasons and factors, all of which are incredibly weighted. She knows it’s exhausting for us because it’s that much more exhausting for herself.

So, she elects to pursue a route all too familiar to closeted individuals in the public eye, one of bearding and concealing their identity.

I had some tricks up my sleeve … Perched in the dark, telling all the rich folks anything they wanna hear, like it could be love, I could be the way forward, only if they pay for it … the skeletons in both our closets plotted hard to fuck this up

I took the money. My friends from home don't know what to say.

The cost at which this lifestyle comes is worthy of an analysis all on its own. But Taylor seems to be indicating that she has found safety and security in her self-made cages and closets of sorts.

I prefer hiding in plain sight

‘Cause shade never made anybody less gay

If the shoe fits, walk in it 'til your high heels break

My town was a wasteland, full of cages, full of fences*, pageant queens and big pretenders. But for some, it was paradise.

In the darkest little paradise

(also, note the *fences. I’ll come back to that later.)

She brings focus to the fact that her town was full of cages and fences, which initially may carry a negative connotation. But here’s where she turns it around and says that for some, it was place of paradise, that the self-made cages brought security and freedom. That the idea of “forever” is in fact the sweetest con. That the good life she was hustling for through the tricks she had up her sleeve is within grasp. That this could be the way forward. Tell me that doesn’t scream a queer-coded experience?

But knowing Taylor and the complicated nature of this deeply personal topic, there is also a level of remorse regarding the said-cages and choices that had put her in crisis.

I cut off my nose just to spite my face, then hate my reflection for years and years

I’ve got a hundred thrown out speeches I almost said to you

I’d pay if you’d just know me

Now, despite the way she has managed to remain glass-closeted, a large subset of her fans and the general public completely miss what she is signaling in regard to her queerness. (re: “I gave so many signs / you didn’t even see the signs”) but it appears she is feeling some remorse for the devices she’s used and the way she’s navigated things because she knows that she’ll be the one paying for it.

So again, Taylor fully acknowledges she’s the problem. She endlessly dances around the topic, sometimes to an extreme (re: “bent the truth too far tonight,” Bettygate and specifying a male perspective despite widespread interpretation of the alternative; similar thing with Lavendergate, etc etc) She writes from “male perspectives” so as to have a way to write female pronouns. She uses pseudonyms for similar motives. She equates herself with gay pride and places herself adjacent to the community repeatedly, and dances in Gaylor Park and rainbow kaleidoscopes. She dresses in rainbow attire and gives speeches emphasizing the delicacy of coming out and on and on, all while also remaining straight-passing. It’s complicated and messy and indeed exhausting.

sending signals to be double-crossed

I’ll stare directly at the sun but never in the mirror. It must be exhausting always rooting for the anti-hero

no doubt these devices and choices have come at a cost. first, the personal cost of remaining closeted (or in the very least, glass closeted) by her own making. The nature by which she has driven her career, of “taking the money” and pursuing a career (and by extension, following heteronormative cultural standards of remaining closeted), all point to the self-made cages she twists in.

recall the Delicate pride speech…

I want to send my love and respect to everybody who in their journey and in their life hasn't yet felt comfortable enough to come out ... and may you do that on your own time

That is a major theme for her. The idea that through a closeted state, certain freedoms can coexist.

We know Taylor has made a point to emphasize the comfort she has found in keeping elements of her life to herself post her apocalyptic summer. And the way she has largely receded her personal life from the public eye is telling. In an effort to protect the “real stuff”, she is withholding from others and has found safety in that.

Privacy sign on the door and on my page and on the whole world, romance is not dead if you keep it just yours.

She knows it’s not always a world that some would choose to be a part of. She describes it as a wasteland, likely desolate, harkening back to cowboy like me. A place where hustling for the good life, perching in the dark as con artists (or pageant queens and big pretenders) and telling all the rich folks anything they want to hear like “it could be love” is all too familiar.

It’s a painful dichotomy she fully explores in The Archer, recognizing that maybe it’s her lot in life to straddle these lines of staying where she is, perched in the dark, while wanting to step into the daylight and let it go.

and that’s where the second cost comes in — in how those of us who see her for what she is signaling herself to be, are ultimately left to ourselves to make sense of it.

It’s the same kind of essence of this fantastic analysis regarding coney island and her apology of not making us certain subsets of her fans and communities her centerfold.

Being left to her own devices, she has ultimately crafted a duplicitous persona, of which she has spoken about specifically when discussing mirrorball…

Everybody else feels like they have to be on for certain people. You have to be different versions of yourself for different people. Different versions at work, different versions around friends, different versions of yourself around different friends. Different version of yourself around family. Everybody has to be duplicitous, or feels that they have to in some ways, be duplicitous. And that’s part of the human experience, but it’s also exhausting. You kind of learn that every one of us has the ability to become a shape-shifter. But what does that do to us?

Is it self-preservation? Or self-made self-destruction? (re: “they told me all of my cages were mental” “what a shame she’s fucked in the head” “lost in the labyrinth of my mind”)

Among the various anxieties that plague her in regard to this subject, Taylor makes one fear very clear. And that is for some inevitable day where we will leave her after we’ve had enough of “her scheming”.

'Cause they see right through me, they see right through me, they see right through. Can you see right through me?

I wake up screaming from dreaming One day I'll watch as you're leaving 'Cause you got tired of my scheming For the last time

These desperate prayers of a cursed man spilling out to you for free, but darling, darling, please, you wouldn't take my word for it if you knew who was talking if you knew where I was walking

Will you forgive my soul when you're too wise to trust me and too old to care?

She will get as close as she can to the topic, (“Gay pride… everything that makes me me!” to name just one) only to pull back or leave it ambiguous and devoid of clarity…

I'll stare directly at the sun but never in the mirror

And I cut off my nose just to spite my face Then I hate my reflection for years and years

…only to feel guilt for skirting around the topic…

You said I was freeloading … I bent the truth too far tonight, I was dancing around, dancing around it … Your picket fence is sharp as knives, I was dancing around, dancing around it

This to me is the a significant price that comes from her being left to her own devices. Yes, there is freedom that comes from closeting/bearding. But glass closeting brings a more painful mess of emotions for both the closet-er and those seeing it for what it is. This is what she addresses in Anti-Hero with painful clarity.

And sometimes this can come at a painful cost. Take YNTCD for example. In this video, she positions herself within the queer community, dancing in Gaylor Park, and boldly declares herself an advocate for LGBTQIA rights.

But as we know, the video was met by many as out-of-touch (re: “freeloading”), performative and whatever else critics were spewing.

motion capture put me in a bad light. I replay my footsteps on each stepping stone, trying to find the one where I went wrong. writing letters addressed to the fire

Now for a detour.

I want to talk about the purple / blue / lavender glitter for a minute. Here, in the Directors on Directors interview, Taylor describes the glitter as being a metaphor for herself...

It’s supposed to be a metaphor for like, I bleed glitter, I’m not normal, there’s something wrong with me, I’m not a person, I don’t belong, I don’t fit in anywhere.

Recall how I said chasing a moving target?

Let’s talk about the significance of this scene and a handful of others in terms of the lavender glitter.

[For some queer context regarding glitter]

I’d first like to point out Hayley Kiyoko’s purple glitter jacket above, from the YNTCD video. This is Hayley Kiyoko we’re talking about. The proclaimed Lesbian Jesus. And in this moment, while she is wearing the purple glitter jacket, she is aiming an arrow at a target, signifying The Archer. This moment is key.

And then you have the Miss Americana documentary, wherein Taylor explicitly equates herself with gay pride, while talking about the Me! music video.

It’s a line of dialogue that screams at me with such intensity. Irrefutable. As a film editor, I know that every line in a film is deliberately placed and thought out and meticulously addressed. And therefore we can trust that Taylor intended for this line to make it into the film. I can tell that surrounding dialogue is seemingly trimmed and crafted in a delicate way. And part of that is the very direct statement that “Gay pride…everything that makes me, me!”

And it’s within this music video that we again witness a massive “ME!” literally jumping out at us on screen, in none other than purple glitter.

A handful of others could sense that the conclusion of Miss Americana felt as thought it was headed in a different direction than the one it ultimately took. And that for whatever reason, Taylor’s political advocacy took center stage while a deeper analysis regarding her LGBTQIA advocacy did not.

Cut back to the Anti-Hero music video where we get The Archer aiming right for Taylor, and striking her, causing her to bleed, yet again, purple glitter.

Pierced through the heart but never killed… did you hear my covert narcissism I disguise as altruism, like some kind of congressman

My covert (secret) narcissism (ME!) I disguise as altruism like some kind of congressman (the political turn and advocacy present in Miss Americana)

In other words, covering up who she is (“gay pride… everything that makes me me!”) under the guise of a film almost exclusively focused on her journey of discovering her political (“Vote for me for everything” pin) activist voice. And what scene depicts this with near precision???

this one.

motion capture put me in a bad light. I replay my footsteps on each stepping stone, trying to find the one where I went wrong. writing letters addressed to the fire

'cause cruelty wins in the movies, I've got a hundred thrown-out speeches I almost said to you

The subsequent look on her face of absentminded agony says it all. She knows the confusion that comes from rooting for her as (especially if she is seen as an ally who maybe crosses one too many lines if presumably as straight.)

The inner-turmoil on display for us in The Archer has transformed into a tone all too exhausted in its own right within Anti-Hero. She knows we’re tired. She’s tired too. In a self-deprecating jab, she admits that she is the problem and she knows that everybody ultimately agrees with her on this. Shielded within a pop anthem, her vulnerability is on display. And so, in Dear Reader, with equal parts desperation as well as wit, she concludes…

You should find another guiding light, guiding light. But I shine so bright.

And so it is ultimately within this utterly messy, exhausting, complicated, ever-changing and nuanced journey that Taylor reaches out to those of us who do in fact see through her and who ultimately simply see her, that she asks us in all sincerity…

Who could stay? Who could stay? Who could stay? You could stay.

And I, for one, will stay.

[enjoy my other analyses here]

318 notes · View notes

kitkatopinions · 9 months

Text

Quick note, I don't know the person who made these tweets or what the "THIS is what they do" is referencing, I'm only using this as a jumping off point to talk about what seems to be a pretty regular repeated opinion among people who hate rwby criticism and rwde posters.

First things first, it needs to be clarified that the "don't call it a rewrite or a fix-it fic, only call it a fan AU" is in my opinion very ridiculous and also fundamentally misunderstands the differences between AUs, rewrites, and fix-it fics.

Fix-it fic: These fics are made in an attempt to fix something the writer did not like in the original project. They write things in a way they think is better than the original, or they write a thing that they didn't do in the original but the fic writer thinks is better than what was in the official content. There are pretty high expectations on fix-it fics for good reason, as the writer obviously is setting out to fix things. So for instance if somebody makes a rwby fix-it fic, I kind of expect them to do things like improve queer rep in rwby or improve world building in rwby and so on.

Rewrite: The writer is fundamentally changing things from the original, but a rewrite is not automatically a fix-it fic because people aren't always trying to fix anything. A fix-it is always a rewrite, but a rewrite isn't always a fix-it. Because in a rewrite, the writer could just be doing things that they think are interesting concepts, for fun, and not out of a desire to improve the official content. There are still expectations on rewrites to follow at least some element of story with format and all that, but there's less pressure to *be better than the original* because that's not automatically a part of writing a rewrite.

AU: A term for 'alternate universe,' this just means that the fic is not going to follow canon, there might be alterations as big as all the characters going to a regular high school in our world in modern times, to an AU where Pyrrha lives instead of Jaune. All fix-its and rewrites are technically 'alternate universes,' but AUs are even more relaxed and for fun than rewrites. So they're even less bound by any sort of expectations. There doesn't have to be any sort of formatting or anything for just an AU. If someone writes a romance based AU where Yang gets partnered up with Pyrrha and the two of them start a relationship, there doesn't need to be any fall of beacon, quest for the Relics, Salem doesn't even need to ever come up...

Not properly tagging a fix-it fic as a fix-it fic because some RWBY fans get angry whenever someone they don't know dares to think they can improve on the story of a bunch of other people they don't know... Doesn't actually do anything helpful. The fact that people have this 'you have to show only the upmost respect to the RWBY writers!' Why? Especially when Miles Luna specifically has a history of misogyny, biphobia, and said the n word as a twenty six year old. Why should I or anyone else be required to 'respect' a man who slutshamed the character of Tifa Lockhart by derogatorily calling her a prostitute because of what she was wearing and then lied about it when he got called out? It's a ridiculous expectation that really reads as massive insecurity on the side of anti-rwde posters.

So before even getting into the pieces of advice in the messages here, I just want to say that most of them do not matter in a rewrite or an AU. "This is my AU where Roman lived after the Fall of Beacon" is not immoral or wrong in any way. "This is my RWBY rewrite where I explore the ships I like rather than only the canon ships" like bro, who the hell does that hurt? So on and so forth. AUs and rewrites are just fans exploring fun ideas they like, it doesn't mean they actually wish the thing they're writing actually happened. For instance, I have plans for a fix-it RWBY fic where I try to mostly stick to the choices made in the original content and just do it in a better way (because I don't feel obligated to consider Miles "video games for your girlfriend" Luna better than me and stay in my demure place where I couldn't possibly improve upon a hot mess of a thrown together show.) But I also wrote a long fun non-published AU fic with my sister where we did this whole redeeming Torchwick, Mercury, Emerald, and Neo thing. AUs and rewrites should not be held to strict rules everyone needs to follow about who they are and aren't allowed to like or redeem. That's just killing creativity in fandom spaces.

But, now to get into these rules in practice of writing an actual fix-it fic (which again should actually be called a fix-it fic,) because a lot of these suggestions are actually good ideas... But A. Not all of them are, and B. I would bet good money that even the ones that are phrased well are used to baselessly attack people who aren't even doing the thing, and C. The actual original content of RWBY itself goes against these rules, but the same people that would pick apart a fanfic actively get angry when people dare criticize rwby.

So let's get into it.

Try to focus on the female protagonists

This is great advice for fix-it fics, and something that often puts me off of fix-it fics I've seen when they don't do this. 'Fix-it fics' that make men the protagonists or spend a lot more time focused on the men in RWBY than the women in rwby, it carries the implication that the person writing the fix-it fics thinks the there should be less focus on the women in rwby. However, this will also result in some anti-rwde posters who will see fix-it fics that do put a lot of focus on the female protagonists and have them be the protagonists and expand on their character and role but then also do things like have a chapter focused on fleshing out the character of Oscar and the anti-rwde poster will flip their lid about it. Also, this

Do not have a straight white male shame them for their actions

I'm assuming this part is focused on characters like Ironwood (arguably not white considering he was based in appearance of his Asian voice actor,) Ozpin (because despite the fact that most of the Oz reincarnations aren't white, Ozpin was,) Qrow (granted, very white, but is also one of the most coded as queer main characters,) and probably Adam. However, this ignores a couple of things, which is that if people are keeping to canon characters, Qrow, Ozpin, and Ironwood have all at times been mentors in canon - and also Ooblek and Port. It is generally a good idea to be careful when you DO write the main RWBY characters to mess up and get scolded especially if they're being scolded by white men, but the idea that you can't make the canonical mentors ever tell the RWBY girls they might be wrong is a strange one. Also it's worth noting that if you try to make RWBY more diverse by making some of these 'straight white males' into queer men or people of color, people are probably just gonna be more angry at you and still forbid you from ever having them say anything against the main girls. Also it's worth noting that RWBY canonically specifically had a scene where the white old man Peter Port who sexualized Yang got to tell off Weiss for being spoiled and entitled. So like... Maybe that should be criticized.

Do not make a cis white male have more of a role than them.

This is basically the exact same thing as the first point, which we'll see again. This list of suggestions has a couple different repeats.

No straightwashing

Another actually good suggestion, for the exact same reason as point one. Yang and Blake should stay queer, it's a very good idea to keep Jaune's sisters in mind (and maybe increase their role,) and May Marigold should of course stay a trans woman (and maybe get her role increased too!) However, it's worth noting that a lot of people consider it 'straightwashing' to have the bisexual Blake or the 'has expressed attraction towards men in like episode three' Yang ever be in relationships with men, and that's not straightwashing. It's biphobia to call a wlm bi ship straightwashing.

And NO fanservice

Now, look, "fanservice" to me has certain connotations of objectifying women, so I one hundred percent get this suggestion and think people should be very careful to make very sure they're not drifting into objectifying in their fix-it fics. However, I know how this fandom can get in regards to even young women so much as writing the now currently nineteen year olds to make out, so just to clarify. Even if it might feel like it sometimes, not everything romantic or sexual regarding the rwby main protagonists is inherently objectifying. Again btw, I want to clarify I'm not defending any specific current fix-it fic, just reflecting.

Don't make evil men "morally gray"

And we've come to the 'this is definitely about Ironwood and Adam and possibly Ozpin" thing. Here's the thing: There are problems with how the RWBY writers handled all three of these characters, and it's not immoral for anyone to make a 'fix-it fic' where they explore any of these characters as not evil especially considering that RWBY is meant to be a hopeful story, so making less characters plain straight evil is a perfectly reasonable thing. It's also worth noting that the actual show of RWBY made Hazel get redeemed as if he wasn't evil and treated him as at least partially in the right, while not having him truly apologize for the heinous actions he's done.

Also keep bumbleby canon

For fix it fics, this is a good recommendation because you can fix any problems you have with bumbleby. But also it's fine to not think bumbleby specifically should've been canon (though it's something I think could've actually been done well,) and going with something else. So long as you do include good other queer representation in your fix-it, not going with bumbleby shouldn't be viewed as an automatically horrible thing. You can make a fix-it fic where you put Yang with Weiss and Blake with Ilia or something. It's very silly to act like Blake and Yang being together should be a necessity. Again, there should one hundred percent be other queer main characters in your fix-it fic if you decide not to go with bumbleby.

Don't have Jaune or Adam date anyone in Team RWBY

...This is also something I think is a generally good idea tbh, and I don't have much else to say about it. In fact, adding a romance element to Adam and Blake's relationship actively hurt the show imo. Having Jaune date a member of Team RWBY can be done, but generally speaking I do feel like people should just avoid that, especially if the character is Weiss. But again I should point out that in the actual show of RWBY, they've made Weiss openly attracted to Jaune in season 9 while they had aged Jaune up a good twenty years, so... Yeah.

Ruby is to be idealistic, and it shouldn't be a character flaw

This is an interesting one, because I mostly believe in this. Ruby's being idealistic is something about her character I actually enjoy, and I also think that in a good show her beliefs would be challenged, and she would come out of it stronger, still with her hopefulness and her ideals but also willing to be smarter and more careful. And in a good show, there would be good characters who might have a different outlook that isn't villainized. So while I don't think that Ruby's idealism should be treated like a flaw, I do think her beliefs should be challenged and not treated as the only good and moral thing (and something tells me the people that complain about fix-it fics might consider that the same thing as 'treating it like a flaw.')

Yang is not a party girl, not an alcoholic, and not a slacker

So, the alcoholic thing is so specific that it makes me think this was specifically directed at one fix-it fic. But as for the other two. On the note of 'Yang is not a slacker' I would argue that in the early episodes, she wasn't actually shown to care about her studies much, but that the early episodes kind of rush through 'team RWBY finding their footing,' so in rewrites giving Yang an early character flaw of being a slacker... What's the issue with that? I'm genuinely confused with that one. Is it not in her early character of being an energized, fun loving girl? I don't get it. Now for the party girl thing... I'm also confused about that, because - and correct me if I'm wrong - didn't Monty Oum make 'party girl' like part of Yang's early characterization? When he was concepting her? And there was a whole thing in volume 2 where Yang and Weiss are planning a party and she's like bringing in loudspeakers and wants a fog machine, should we not think that means that she likes to party? Her whole first appearance in the Yellow trailer was specifically set in a club to get across the vibes they wanted for Yang. Yang goes to a club in volume 7 and is specifically talking about dancing at the club and the loud music at the club. Also my sister found this for me from the back of a V1 DVD.

They literally call Yang a party girl themselves! Do people just think there's something immoral about clubs and party girls and therefore don't want Yang to be one? Because that doesn't sound good, it sounds judgmental.

Jaune is a side character

This is advice that is very much not in line with canon. Jaune is at the very least a deuteragonist in canon and is often very much so treated as a main character, sometimes out stripping some of the main girls in terms of lines or screentime in a volume. I do think that fix-it fics ought to either reduce his role or increase the roles of the main characters, again to give more focus to the title characters in Team RWBY. However, it's just ridiculous to me to complain about Jaune's prominence in RWBY fix-it fics because I'm just like... Look at the main show! Complain about how much importance is put on Jaune in the show!

Adam Taurus is irredeemably evil So is Torchwick

I am certain that this is about one specific fix-it fic that some anti-rwdes make it part of their core rwby beliefs to hate, because most people only actually put Torchwick in the same category as characters like Adam and Ironwood in the 'you're not allowed to like and/or redeem them' category when they're talking about one specific fix-it fic. XD But just because other people do not like these two doesn't mean it's ILLEGAL to like and/or redeem them! In my opinion, there is no such thing as a person who is completely irredeemable! And in a hopeful show, wanting to redeem villains - especially villains who have been horrifically branded in racist acts - is not a bad thing??? This is your reminder that these are not real people who actually did bad things in real life, they're fictional characters, they're tools to be used to tell stories. This is basically just the "don't make evil men 'morally gray'" thing again but like, extra specific. Yes, Adam and Torchwick in the canon of RWBY are horrible evil people. But they're fictional people, you shouldn't villainize people for wanting them to be better and writing them to be better in a fix-it fic of a show that's meant to be fundamentally about hope. There's nothing hopeful about 'some people are irredeemable,' but 'even bad people can change and get better' is a really hopeful sentiment.

Once again, none of these expectations should exist for just 'rewrites and AUs' and are only applicable to actual fix-it fics, and some of them are just so pointless. It's literally just enforced fandom rules, and fandom rules kill creativity imo, there shouldn't be characters that people are forbidden from redeeming or just shouldn't ever make morally gray, or ships that are absolutely required that must be done. Even in fix-it fics! One person shouldn't expect everyone else in the fandom to fit with what they or what the writers want. Yes, there are things that I think should generally be done in fix-it fics like focusing on the main girls and keeping to the general outline of what happens in the canon series, but some people act like fix-it fics should really just unquestioningly copy paste the original work and call it good, and that's ridiculous.

Two more things to note:

Sometimes when people are trying to make a fix-it project, it can snowball into more of a rewrite. If they decide to start inserting characters just because they like it, or branch off into random tangents just because they find it interesting, or so on. So even in fix-it fics I think there should be allowances made and people need to understand that not every single thing in even a fix-it fic is something that the writers sincerely think should've happened in the actual canon of RWBY. I can't tell you the amount of times my sister and I have sat down to make a fanfic (we never publish btw) that was supposed to be 'a fix it for volume six onwards' or 'a fix it of volume seven' or something and wound up completely spiraling into a separate thing, and then we wind up being like 'okay but we really should write an actual fix-it sometime.' If you're publishing while you write, or posting your fix-it online as you go, you can't just be like 'guess this sorta became more of a rewrite than a fix it lol' if your fic is already titled as a fix-it. So I'm just saying, it's worth it to expand a little understanding that sometimes people making fan projects for their own enjoyment aren't always going to be hypervigilant to not let a little bit of personal bias and personal enjoyment leak into their choices.

Next thing to note: We should be holding RWBY to a much higher standard than any fan project. RWBY is a product that people are trying to sell us that's making an actual company money, it's the actual product itself, with a team of writers and their job is quite literally to make the story of RWBY good. Fics and fan projects are things people do as a hobby, that they're not getting paid for and therefore aren't selling to anyone. It's wild to me that some people will let RWBY the actual show get away with anything and actively try to stop people from criticizing it and then go around reading fanfictions nobody made them read so they can insult the people that make them over every little perceived injustice. If you're going to get angry at a fanfiction writer for including a little too much Uncle Qrow in their fix-it fic, please ask yourself why Jaune is such a prominent character in RWBY the actual show and why it doesn't bother you then. If you're going to get angry that a fix-it fic writer has Ozpin criticize the main girl protagonists, please go back and rewatch Jaune as a forty-something year old scream in Ruby's face that she's responsible for all bad things while she's crying, and get just as angry at the show writers as you would get at a fan if they did the same thing in their fic.

Anyway, this post was super duper long, but.... I'm done with it now.

#rwde #On fix-its and rewrites and AUs #like guys seriously please leave fanfic writers alone #they're just trying to have some fun most of the time #I paused my baffy watching to write this post #for like several hours

69 notes · View notes