#because i am not pro monarchy | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

strawberryamanita · 1 month

Text

Y'all I'm sorry but this is making me freak the fuck out

I know this is gonna probably cause people to call me a terrible person, but I'm just gonna risk it anyhow because this is getting really scary.

If you are a USAmerican,

Please vote for Biden this year.

I am 1000% aware that the genocide in Gaza is being perpetuated by Biden's administration. It's not good at all. I don't like the guy either, and like every President the US has ever had, he will burn in Hell, guaranteed.

But if we don't vote, then Trump is gonna win. This sounds rhetorical, but I ask genuinely: do you think Trump is gonna stop the genocide?

Has Trump ever shown that he cares about a single human being besides himself? The level of misanthropy that idiot is on is remarkable. I personally cannot see him slowing the flow of genocide in any direction; if anything, he might redouble the effort.

I think it was Warren who is tryna warn people that if Trump gets elected again, he'll never leave. I think back to a time during his first term where he said there might one day be a "forever President", and that makes me sick to my fucking stomach. That's not a presidency, that's a monarchy or a dictatorship. That would be the de-facto end of having a say in who's in control until he finally fucking dies -- and not even then, because then the mantle will be passed down to one of his children.

I know the US shouldn't exist in the first place. I am 100% aware of that. They say that empires fall after 250 years, and the US is gonna be 248 years old in July. But unfortunately, it exists right now, and it's full of people who will not survive another four years of Trump.

Again -- I will say it as many times as I need to -- I don't like Biden. I don't like him. He's done some beneficial things, but using his executive powers to speed up a genocide tips the scale completely over back towards hating him.

But Biden will step down when his term is done. I know the bar is in the fucking Mariana Trench, but for the love of God I do not wanna be under Trump for even a minute more. I hate Biden, but I hate Trump more, and that is fueling me, personally, to show up to vote.

At the end of the day, the problem is systemic. Every single authority over the US, since even before Washington, has only cared about hurting people of color and churning up the earth to make money. Our taxes could help improve the lives of US civilians, but instead they are funneled into the trillion-dollar War Machine aimed in every direction, including the US itself. The US commonwealth doesn't matter to the US government. We are human livestock who generate revenue; no matter how many changes of hands our money makes for hopes of a better cause inside the US, every last penny will find its way back into the War Machine or under the dirty ass of a billionaire who should be tarred and feathered in oil and their own paper money.

With all that said. There are US citizens who are enthusiastically pro-Biden right now, and siding with them might just keep us from living in Trump Hell all over again. The bigots have gotten too proud around here, and it makes my blood run cold. My mother doesn't show enthusiasm for ANYTHING the way she shows it for her freedom to hate people loudly and proudly. It makes her come ALIVE. And I know I'm not the only one who's been subjected to this kind of horror show for the last 9 years. Every state of mind curated by the US is a cult, and there is no escape outside of moving away.

Please. Vote. For Biden.

#please vote #vote blue #vote biden #vote democrat #blue no matter who #vote blue no matter who #biden 2024 #biden harris 2024

32 notes · View notes

jackoshadows · 1 year

Note

Hi, so I watched GoT+ am on asoiaf 1 rn and I have a Q about Dany; why is her character so divisive? I read meta by pro Dany fans and its "Dany's compassionate, self critical, a good ruler, a political reformer, frees slaves she'll be a hero at the end" and the antis "shes entitled, vengeful, profiter of slavery, a coloniser and GRRM wont validate a foreign invasion with nuclear weapons; hes anti war!!" Like, wHAt? Surely her character cant be THAT ambigious?! These are popular opposites??

Alright, I'll try to explain this from my perspective as a Jon Snow fan. However, this will be spoilery if you have read only one book. I would suggest reading all the books before joining in on discussions about the character.

It's a combination of things.

One is most definitely sexism. I don't throw that word around lightly having been constantly attacked as a ‘sexist dudebro who hates women’ for simply critiquing a female character.

Sexism in fandom is when female characters are held to different standards compared to their male counterparts. When female characters are critiqued or disliked for doing the same thing that male characters are often praised for doing. Daenerys is subjected to a lot of this which is especially evident in the books because she has a parallel arc of leadership with Jon Snow over at the Wall - the two characters at the ends of the world.

An example is right there in your ask. GRRM is anti-war and hence why would he validate Dany's invasion - She is therefore in the wrong. Okay. In which case why not extend that argument to every other main character in the series? GRRM is anti-war and therefore Robb Stark was wrong to wage war for Northern independence. GRRM is anti-war and therefore Jon Snow is wrong to help Stannis in his battle against the Boltons. GRRM is anti-war and therefore Tyrion is wrong to use wildfire and defeat Stannis at the battle of the blackwater. GRRM is anti-war and therefore Jon Snow is the villain of the battle at Castle Black.

I think the main thesis of GRRM’s argument in regard to his protagonists has been that there is no good or bad and instead they are all morally gray? Yeah war is bad and most of our protagonists engage in war and they are therefore morally grey characters. I mean, Jon Snow is over there taking child hostages that he has promised to behead - does that make him a baddie? Ned Stark took Theon as a child hostage. Is he a baddie? Our main characters all belong to noble houses in a feudal monarchy - a system of governance that GRRM relentlessly critiques in the books. Are they all baddies?

This double standard is particularly glaring when Dany's battles in Essos is about helping the little guy - the slaves who are under the worst kind of oppression. The WOT5K (War of the 5 Kings) on the other hand was about personal power, ravaged the land and lead to much devastation and suffering. However, for some strange reason when fandom discusses the books and the author being anti-war they focus particularly on Daenerys - that strange reason is sexism.

If you have watched GOT, I am sure you would have noticed those obvious double standards yourself.

Tyrion standing there making sad faces makes it look like Daenerys is doing something wrong when she executes the Tarlys - two treasonous traitors. However every other House does the same! Jon Snow executed the mutineers at the wall - even a child. After the battle of bastards, he mentions the Karstarks and Umbers having been killed in battle or else they would have been executed. Sansa wants to punish even their children!! But for some strange reason [(i.e) sexism] a female leader executing traitors is evil. That she does so without crying (Something the show runner David Benioff points out in an BTS interview) means she is evil. Jon not crying when killing people = badass, Dany not crying when killing people = evil.

Daenerys in battle with Jaime Lannister to get the Iron Throne = evil. Starks fighting against the Boltons to get Winterfell = Yay! Awesome. Thousands die in both battles - in one battle they die, burned by dragonfire. In the other one they are hacked to death and die with their guts hanging out. In both cases, people die.

The show quickly moves past Jaime Lannister, the Tarlys and their men massacring everyone of Olenna's men and piling their bodies high and sacking and looting the place. However, the show takes time to linger on Tyrion's sad face with the sad music and the men dying when Daenerys is attacking those same men on the battlefield.

I am not even getting into season 8 because it was so, so bad and full of puke inducing sexism that will need 10 pages to outline. I think you have got the gist of why sexism is such a large factor in how Dany's character is otherized and analyzed by fandom at large and made worse by Benioff and Weiss' rampant misogyny shining through in the show's writing.

I mentioned this in another post and I will say again - removing show Tyrion from show Daenerys' narrative would reduce the sexism in her story arc ten fold. He was D&D's mouthpiece in the series after season 5 - there to tell us that Dany was evil for doing all the things the male characters did.

And yes, Nuclear weapons are bad. Nuclear weapons can also be a deterrent and prevent war. Nuclear weapons can also be useful in a fantasy, magical world dealing with an existential apocalyptic threat. This is why I find one to one comparisons like these to be ridiculous. The Starks also have some fiercesome beasts that the author has indicated will be used in battle. Are we calling them evil?

The rest. Colonizer? They should look up what that means and whether it applies to Dany's story in Essos. Profiting off slavery? If one reads the books one knows this is blatantly untrue. Entitled and vengeful? No more than any of the other main characters who belong to noble houses in Westeros.

Daenerys has her flaws, not saying that she doesn't. That's what makes her a three-dimensional and relatable character. It's easy to criticize the character because she does self-reflect and introspect, is sometimes crippled by self-doubt and wants to do things differently and try different options - something that makes her human and real and very well written. Leadership is not easy and she’s 15 in the last book.

The other aspect is a flaw in the writing with respect to the setting of Daenerys' story in the series. She's the only main POV character in Essos until Arya and Tyrion get there in ADwD. And there is a lot of orientalism in GRRM's writing for Essos - meant to represent the East while Westeros represents the West.

There's much to say about how he writes the Dothraki as savage barbarians. While he gives POV characters for the Ironborn with Theon and Asha and characters like Mance, Tormund and Ygritte for the Freefolk, where's the equivalent of all that for the Dothraki? Oh but look, they are eating honeyed locusts! How exotic! There's lots of cartoonishly evil slavers who kill puppies! GRRM keeps otherizing their customs and culture as being savage and cruel and different - highlighted by the fact that we don't have a single Essosi POV giving us their side of things.

I do find GRRM's orientalism distasteful and off putting, especially as Essos is just a prop, a stepping stone for the characters before they move onto Westeros where the real story is happening. That is however a critique of the writing, not of the character. People tend to conflate the two. A middle aged white man writing in the nineties about a fantasy eastern world does not make Daenerys a 'white savior' or a 'colonizer' and it's clear from various interviews the author has given that this was not his intention either.

Daenerys is also the only Targaryen POV in the books. Think about that. The Starks have 6 POVs in the first book. The Lannisters get 3 by AFfC. The Greyjoys have 4, the Martells have 2. The only major house worse off than the Targaryens are the Baratheons with no POV characters.

We see Jon Snow through Arya and Bran’s POV. We see Arya through Jon’s. We get none of this for Dany. The Starks have a home and a loving family. Dany meanwhile is starting off the story at her lowest point - an abusive brother and forcefully married off to a Dothraki. While the Starks then end up losing that security, family members die, one of them is a hostage and the other is on the run - they still have memories of each other. Danerys meanwhile, slowly and painfully works her way to the top.

Reminds me of a post I responded to the other day, where the OP said that Arya and Jon cannot be underdogs because they are winners (Whatever that means). That’s the attitude that a lot of fandom has towards Daenerys - now that she is queen and has power, she has it easy compared to the likes of Sansa and the rest of the Starks. Ignoring that when the books started Daenerys was in a way worse position than any of the Starks.

This is a fandom that thinks that Sansa Stark deserves to be Queen in the North because she’s beautiful, has good manners and is a Stark. And this is the same fandom who think that Daenerys, who worked her way to the top - with no family to help, no happy childhood, no teachers, no security of food and shelter, who were beggars and on the run at one point - the Daenerys who is currently spending an entire book ruling a city state, making trade deals, dealing with an insurgency and famine, engaging in marriage diplomacy to sue for peace for the slaves she freed, that Daenerys is entitled. Do you agree?

I am a Jon Snow fan and even I can see how utterly ridiculous the fan discourse around Daenerys is. When the show was on, I was only posting about Jon and there was so much anti Dany stuff on the Jon Snow tags I had to wade into discussion about the character. And the more I defended her, the more I ended up re-reading her chapters, the more I ended up loving the character. There’s so much hypocrisy and sexist double standards where the character is concerned.

And I have not even touched upon the obnoxiousness that is ‘Jonsa’ - group of morons who think Sansa is the main character in a book series called A Song of Sansa and Sansa and Jon is secretly in love with Sansa who is going to be Queen with executioner/personal spymaster Arya Stark and her consort Jon Snow who will sexually manipulate and murder Daenerys for his great love Sansa.

Sansa fans make up the vast majority of asoiaf fans on Tumblr and the majority of them dislike Daenerys and Arya or see Dany as Sansa’s antagonist - even though these two characters have no connection in the books and I doubt they would ever interact. If you look at most of the anti Dany posts on here, they will be made by someone with a Sansa pfp. There are posts about how Jon will kill Dany or how Arya will kill Dany, and if you look at their blogs they will be big Sansa fans.

These are the same people who write essays on how Arya is not a real girl or is ‘male-coded’ or who write essays on how Daenerys only uses ‘threats and force’ whereas Sansa is apparently a political genius who uses ‘Soft Power’ - a foreign policy concept - because she talked down 13 year old idiot Joffrey that one time. When in the actual books, it’s Daenerys who has used Soft Power in her marriage diplomacy with Hizdahr and Sansa has never engaged in any kind of politics with actual adults.

Notice that these kinds of ‘metas’ are popularized by fandom bnfs using blogs like asoiafuniversity. There’s this very popular idea that’s propagated in fandom that Sansa is kind and compassionate when in the actual books there are more instances of kindness and compassion from Arya and from Daenerys. This is once again an example of how sexism and misogyny in this fandom has worked to give the wrong impressions of these characters. Arya and Daenerys are seen as more violent compared to Sansa even though Daenerys’ entire arc for two books has been about helping an oppressed population. The mind boggles!

It’s the same when it comes to love and romance. Arya and Daenerys are not considered worthy of love, romance and marriage because they are the wrong kind of girls. And let’s not bring age into this considering Sansa is 11 at the start of the books and she is the fandom bicycle shipped with every Tom, Dick and Harry.

I am not even getting into the slut-shaming and victim blaming that Daenerys gets in the fandom. There was actual discourse in this fandom on how Dany was not a good rape victim like Sansa because she brought up her rape in conversation! Daenerys is somehow seen as less than because she can’t possibly have children - that apparently makes her less of a woman and a bad partner for Jon Snow unlike Sansa Stark who will surely have ten babies!

The worst part is that’s it women who engage in this kind of discourse and the same women who turn around and gaslight the fandom into thinking that Sansa is unfairly targeted because of sexism.

There’s also the usual dislike from the fans of other characters.

There are Jon Snow fans who see him as the prophesied hero and main protagonist, who don’t like Daenerys coming over and taking away main character status. I personally think there is no one main character. IMO, Jon, Dany, Arya, Bran and Tyrion are all tier one main characters, who will work together against the Army of the Dead. [Note: This works the other way as well. I have seen Dany fans who dislike Jon Snow as well and think he is unimportant in the grand scheme of things]

There are Stannis Baratheon stans over on the Asoiaf subreddit who will excuse everything Stannis does - including burning people alive for his God - and then nitpick every single policy decision of Dany’s in order to argue she is evil or a bad ruler.

There are house Stark fans who hate House Targaryen and see them as in opposition to each other. There are fans who believe in Northern exceptionalism i.e the North is special and Dany is a threat to that specialness because she wants the 7K etc. etc.

This turned out to be a long post. On the whole, the answer to your question on why Daenerys is such a polarizing character is mainly because of sexism. There are other factors like the setting and isolation of her story, the lack of other POVs etc. The main reason though is sexism and ship wars.

#asks #ask

237 notes · View notes

frevandrest · 7 months

Note

Is there a timeline for Saint-Just’s divorce opinions? I remember him early on writing that it was immoral and then he said a marriage could be separated if the couple didn’t have children in 7? years.

There are only two "phases" that we know of (against then in favour); or, rather, only one source/point when he voiced he was against divorce. This is in his 1791 book "L'esprit de la révolution". In it, SJ says that divorce ruins the social contact, but doesn't elaborate much. I mean, there is an entire chapter about it, but it's a few paragraphs long (half of which are ramblings about Rome and God/religion). I honestly must admit that I don't understand why he argues against. He says that it's against nature. That book aged badly like a week (?) after it was published, because it praised the Constitutional monarchy and then soon after Louis decided to take a trip to Varennes.

So soon after, in "De la Nature", we have SJ arguing pro divorce, and he remained very in favour of it for the rest of his life. Now, we don't know when "De la Nature" was written, but it had to be after "L'esprit" but before September 1792 (when divorce was legalized), because he talks about how divorce should be allowed (implying that it's not yet legal at the time of writing). He said some really based things in "De la Nature" about the rights of women (of which divorce is important aspect) but I need to go through that book to be able to talk about details. As I understand, he talks about how the existence of divorce would ensure independence (I guess as in, autonomy). (I think this independence when it comes to women is a theme he mentions more than once in his writings, though in different contexts). Then in "Les Fragments d'institutions républicaines" (written sometimes in late 1793-early 1794), he talks positively about divorce once again. Although here it is more in practical terms (since it was already legal), so he was writing about the regulations surrounding divorce and the rights of children after divorce.

"he said a marriage could be separated if the couple didn’t have children in 7? years."

Yes, but he does not give this as a condition under which a divorce can happen - he advocated for free divorce without a reason. This note says that a couple that has no children after 7 years is divorced by law and must separate. Like a mandatory divorce in this situation? Which may sound strange, given that he wrote a few paragraphs earlier that "man and a woman who love each other are married" so... what if those childless people love each other, Antoine? (Spoiler: he never explains). So this is really wtf and contradictory and some historians tried to explain it as SJ seeing having children as marriage's only purpose (so if no children = divorce), and idk, maybe? But I don't really see it. SJ generally writes so much about the right of women to decide on their spouse, AND he openly says that a man and a woman who love each other are married and they don't have to tell anyone (they can keep it a secret), unless she gets pregnant, when they must declare it. So he definitely argued for the existence of marriage without children. Which makes this comment about mandatory divorce after 7 years very confusing.

But! Let's not forget that this was 18c century and boy did they love to include things that were happening around them as if those are universal laws (to the point where you can glean people's personal biographies through srs political writing). In this case, we know that Thèrése Gellé left her husband on the 7th anniversary of their marriage (25 July 1793), and they did not have children.

No idea if SJ had any link to Thèrése at the time, but this was a marriage that affected him a lot in 1786 and SJ Never Forgets. And we know he knew of Thèrése's escape to Paris after she left her husband so he definitely knew of this incident (since he was believed to had kidnapped her and/or responsible that she left). So I am positive that this note in the Institutions was inspired by the event, for whatever reason.

#ask #anonymous #frev #saint-just

36 notes · View notes

dolphin1812 · 10 months

Text

Although Marius’ speech is embarrassing (both because of the Napoleon content and because of how quickly he’s taken down), it’s also fascinating in that it reveals so much about his character through his politics.

“I am a newcomer among you, but I will confess that you amaze me. Where do we stand? Who are we? Who are you? Who am I?”

Marius starts with “we!” He’s including himself in this organization, even if he’s confused about their ideas and his position within this group. His own beliefs may be against those of Les Amis, but this is a major change from his earlier isolation. He’s not only surrounded by people, but viewing himself as part of them, and not just in an abstract sense (he started to think of France as his community after reading about his father, but Les Amis is a more concrete group).

“I hear you say Buonaparte, accenting the u like the Royalists. I warn you that my grandfather does better still; he says Buonaparté’. I thought you were young men.”

I’ll talk more about the focus on “great men” as a way of determining one’s politics in the next line, but I think this is also suggestive of Marius’ lack of exposure to other ideologies. Not having met many republicans outside of Les Amis, he sees Bonapartism as the most legitimate alternative to monarchism, and he associates criticisms of Bonaparte with royalism because that’s the main context in which he heard them. Gillenormand’s “ultra” politics also factor into this, as Marius lambasts them for saying “Buonaparte.” He implies that, if they’re already royalists who despise Napoleon to the point that they pronounce his name like that, they may as well accent the final “e” as well, thus assuming that the most extreme stance possible is the goal. In reality (as stated in the last chapter), Enjolras is the only Ami who says “Buonaparte;” the rest say “Bonaparte,” and Jean Prouvaire sometimes says “Napoleon.” None of them are pro-Napoleon, but they dislike or disagree with him to different extents, and they respect their differences instead of trying to reach the most intense position possible.

Moreover, Marius’ objection to their hatred of Napoleon on the grounds that they’re “young men” implies that he too believes in a form of “progress,” only his form of progress has Napoleon as the ideal instead of the Republic. It’s one thing for an old man “stuck in the past” like his grandfather to disavow Napoleon in favor of the monarchy, but he can’t see why men his age would hold a similar distaste for the man because he thinks Napoleon is the “next step” in governance.

“Whom do you admire, if you do not admire the Emperor? And what more do you want? If you will have none of that great man, what great men would you like?”

Marius is very prone to idolizing people. His Bonapartism came from idolizing his father, and he now idolizes Napoleon as well. That Les Amis don’t have one figure that all their politics revolve around, then, is bizarre to him. Of course, they have figures that they admire; they just don’t all agree on them, and their meetings don’t center around a single historical character. Enjolras, for instance, admires Rousseau, but Courfeyrac does not.

The “great man” discussion goes back to the Waterloo digression. It’s quite possible that Hugo wouldn’t object to Marius’ specific praises of Napoleon here, actually (even if personally I find his conquests awful and think it’s impossible for anyone’s bulletins to be “Iliads”). The Waterloo digression was full of compliments for Napoleon’s intelligence and skill, especially as a military strategist. The issue was that even if Napoleon was a “great man,” the age of “great men” was over; it was time for the people to rule themselves (”The disappearance of the great man was necessary for the advent of the great age, and He who cannot be answered undertook the task” - LM 2.1.13). In a way, the “to be free” scene more dramatically and succinctly reiterates the theme of that digression. Les Amis could challenge Marius on the specifics of Napoleon’s “greatness,” but they’re not actually relevant. What does matter is that being ruled by an Emperor is bad in itself.

Most of this discussion (or rather, brief responses to long rambles about how cool Napoleon was) takes place between Marius and Enjolras, which makes sense, given that Enjolras is the most intense politically and thus seems more provocative to Marius. Still, it’s interesting that Combeferre is the one who rebukes Marius. In the last chapter, he attempted to defend the Charter before Courfeyrac burned it, suggesting that he might play “devil’s advocate” and defend unpopular positions to sharpen his friends’ ideas or that, as he believes in gradual progress as well, he’s a little more open to compromise. His comment reminds us that, even if Combeferre seems “moderate” in relation to his friends at times, he’s still very much a republican, and he’s not going to accept tyranny for the sake of keeping the peace. Again, this is a callback to his introduction, which stressed that he abhors violence - even revolutionary violence - but prefers it to “stagnation.” Going back to Bonaparte, then, would be another form of “stagnation” that Combeferre, even with his hope in gradual progress without interference, has to reject. (And given that there was another Napoleon in power when Hugo was writing, it feels especially significant that Bonapartism is seen as so unacceptable that even Combeferre has to intervene).

#les mis letters #lm 3.4.5 #marius pontmercy #combeferre #enjolras #to be free remains such a satisfying line #although I'm starting to think I've spent a disproportionate amount of time thinking about Napoleon #because of this book #when I really hate Napoleon

40 notes · View notes

skyloftian-nutcase · 8 months

Note

What are your views on the Hyrule Royal Family? I’ve seen fans say that the system does more harm to Hyrule and wish for it to be dismantled. They go as far to say that Ganondorf & the Yiga are justified with their actions. Another reason is that real life monarchies have historically caused many atrocities, therefore the Hyrule royal family cannot be a force for good.

Personally, I don’t really care because it’s fictional and cannot harm you. I am not pro monarchist by any means but it’s fictional??? Hyrule doesn’t have to rule through conquest. While the Hyrule royals have committed bad acts, it probably isn’t as high nor common as the British Monarchy, who has colonizes a vast majority of the world. Another thing. Replacing a government won’t change the fact that Hyrule is still cursed. Shits going to go down no matter who’s running things. I’ve seen too many fans with this mindset getting rid of the monarchy will automatically fix everything.

Do you think the Hyrule Monarchy is the true problem and should it be abolished?

Ganondorf and the Yiga are not at all justified in their actions. Ganondorf burned Hyrule (and wrecked the Twilight Realm) and abandoned his own people when he got the Triforce of Power. The Yiga are trying to bring about destruction of the country, including their own kin via the Sheikah. Nothing justifies that.

Was their anger or their desires just/fair? Perhaps. The Yiga are holding on to a resentment from millennia ago, which does them no good, but the original reason for the anger, when it actually happened, is understandable. Ganondorf wanting to live somewhere better than the harshness of the desert, wanting a better life for himself, is a totally fair motivation. Deciding to take it to the nth degree by not only moving somewhere better but claiming that land and wanting to rule it, and doing so at the expense of everyone in it and the people he came from, however, is not.

Anyway, on to the actual main question lol, I don't mind the royal family. I enjoy the idea of people who are born into a certain duty and taking it seriously, people who wish to protect those under their care, and I love exploring all the emotional/political implications that come with it. Did the royal family make mistakes? Heck yes. All you have to do is look at the Yiga, at how Rhoam was so desperately trying to push Zelda, at what the Seikah of Ocarina of Time did in their shady past, at the ruins of Arbiter's Grounds in Twilight Princess, at the actions that got Zelda put into an eternal slumber in The Adventure of Link. Clearly they're not perfect. But they're people. No matter what system of government ruled Hyrule, it would be run by people, which means there could just as easily be despots in any other form. Some systems of government lend to a more fair system due to checks and balances, but that doesn't change the fact that power corrupts and bad people can get in place and do terrible things.

So yeah. I enjoy seeing the monarchy. It's fun to explore. I don't think it's the problem, in terms of the whole Ganon thing, that's a curse from a demon king, from a god of chaos and evil. A freaking monarchy ain't gonna change that LOL. If anything, it makes it easier to combat it - at least one Triforce wielder is in a position of power to protect Hyrule and has the education to recognize there being an issue and whatnot. Ganondorf's uprising from the Gerudo isn't necessarily the royal family continuing the curse by creating a villain - Demise just found someone to utilize. If not Ganondorf, it would be someone else.

That's my two cents, at least, at 4 in the morning, so hopefully it made sense.

#you ask skye answers #lovely anon

18 notes · View notes

nostalgia-tblr · 4 months

Text

have we considered that maybe frigga's the xenophobic bloodthirsty parent? odin doesn't seem very pro-war or even anti-frost-giants so far in this one, yet both his kids are leaning towards violence as the best policy here.

am also not convinced odin was actually going to retire and was maybe planning to not king thor up anyway (to humble him by publically shaming him?) but maybe i will finally work out how the asgardian monarchy actually works on this rewatch. was this going to be a henry the young king scenario or what?

frigga's got to stand at the coronation, she has no throne of her own. (possibly because she's a bloodthirty xenophobe, but probably not it's probably just nobody thinks she deserves a chair of her own.)

#i nearly put “a chair of one's own” there. u kno like virginia woolf.#it's got layers. like how welsh odin = woden.#anyway i shall get back to watching this amazing work of art.

7 notes · View notes

kats-fic-recs · 1 year

Text

Best Bnha fics I read in 2022

per my last email

In America, Izuku is assigned a pen pal from Japan. Bakugou-san threatens him daily and curses all too often, but he answers Izuku’s questions and shows interest in his dreams. Oceans away in Musutafu, Katsuki enrolls in the mandatory English language course. His pen pal is a pain in his ass and asks way too many fucking questions.

They're supposed to be learning a new language. Instead, they discover why crushing on someone across the globe is not the best idea.

sunshine

“I see,” Ashido claps her hands together, “aww, you ran into a danger zone with no hesitation to save your childhood friend from the clutches of a villain! That’s so sweet!”

If only it was that simple . “I guess,” Izuku shrugs, “it’s complicated.”

“Tell me,” Ashido says, “sometimes talking to a neutral party about your problems is helpful! I can give you advice for whatever your situation is with this Kacchan .”

----------

or, izuku meets mina ashido when they're in middle school. and with a little push from a new friend, he gets kacchan back, too.

my heart's already been sold

“'At aw you ding?”

“That’s not Japanese,” Kacchan says, pushing his hands in further. “You sound like a fish.”

Bakugou keeps squishing Izuku's cheeks and walking away with zero explanation. Izuku is so, so gone for him.

The Distance Between Suns

What happens when a war tears you apart and then brings you back together?

Bakugo Katsuki and Midoriya Izuku spent years wondering if they would ever see each other again. Izuku, a prisoner in the walls of Court learning to navigate the trials of political warfare, and Katsuki, a forgotten child soldier whose enemies are not what they seem.

Years on opposite sides of the world changed them into what they needed to be to survive, but if there was one thing they never let themselves forget, it was the other. When the collapse of the ruling monarchy brings them colliding back together, will they be able to survive in the rapidly changing world around them and do what they need to save it?

Will they be able to survive each other?

Forget-Me-Not

"Do you remember what he we do every morning?” Hizashi placed his hand on top of his husband’s.

“I’m Aizawa Shouta. I’m a pro hero and teacher. I’m married and have two children. Hitoshi is in my class, training to become a hero, and we rescued Eri from Overhaul. She is still learning to control her quirk. I am working on a case about the League of Villains.”

Today wasn’t a good day, then.

“That’s really good, Shouta. But that was almost 30 years ago.”

Or, taking care of a husband with a slowly worsening memory loss, you’d have good days and bad days. For Hizashi, anniversaries were one of the hardest.

(may the bridges i have burned) light my way back home

Since Bakugou Katsuki discovered the secret of One for All, he and Midoriya Izuku have been slowly repairing the friendship they once had. They still haven’t talked about it—but Izuku’s certain that it’s only a matter of time before they manage to lay the past to rest.

But when the League of Villains attack the Sports Festival and Bakugou takes a devastating blow meant for Izuku, the whole nation is suddenly paying attention to a relationship the two people involved barely understand. Izuku needs more than ever to figure out who he and Kacchan are to each other—preferably before the internet does.

or,

“Fuck you,” Bakugou said. “I don’t need a whole face to kick your ass.”

the chaser and the chase

“This is a love story, Midoriya,”

“No, it's not. It’s crime/mystery,”

Or the one wherein Izuku writes the best selling book of the year and confesses to Katsuki at the same time.

you left a sour aftertaste

Izuku and Katsuki aren't together anymore. To take up his time, Izuku joins his school's band club, becomes the lead singer, makes some impulsive decisions, and accidentally gets a little famous. All because he's downright heartbroken, and Katsuki isn't (or at least, he doesn't look it).

Maybe some people were just meant to find their way back to each other. It might take a few stumbles, though.

don't be a stranger

“Not even a thank you for your friendly neighborhood Spiderman?” Izuku called out teasingly. “Where are you going?”

“Why the fuck do you wanna know, creep?”

“You sure you can make it back home safe?”

Katsuki glanced back angrily and flipped him the bird. “Eat shit, bugboy.”

Bugboy. That was new.

In which Izuku is Spiderman, Katsuki is nosy, and juggling high school and vigilante work has never been so difficult when your best friend is convinced that something’s up.

Or, five times Katsuki almost finds out that Izuku is Spiderman. One time he actually does.

Editor Denki & the No Good Mary Sue

Bakugou has a VERY original character that he's been writing about for a while. Just a hot-tempered prohero who's absolutely unstoppable, extremely cool, and a badass quirk that bears a striking resemblance to his own.

Unfortunately, according to poor Kaminari Denki, the guy's romance seems pretty half-baked. Which is crazy, because Bakugou didn't write a romance! He just included his stupid childhood friend in a few- okay, a lot- of the scenes, and Denki somehow got the wrong idea. Of course, Bakugou refuses to take an insult lying down, and sets about figuring out how to make Deku a compelling character for a beautiful romance- and accidentally learns some things about himself in the process.

with excerpts from Bakugou Katsuki's self-insert fan novel in all their glory.

Bare Your Soul In Ink

Writing isn't something you need a quirk for either. For all of human history, people have been telling stories. Weaving words together to form new things is built into our DNA on a level so much deeper than quirks are.

Writing could even help me escape from my life. I could hide behind a pen name, and then no one would have to know that the book in their hands was written by someone quirkless.

Yet here I am, writing about… the fact that I am quirkless.

When Izuku suddenly finds himself famous for writing a book about his life as a quirkless person, it leads to a reunion he never would have expected.

Me Myself and My Wingman

Katsuki’s wings were as magnificent as his quirk, and when they worked in tandem, it was nothing short of breath-taking. Katsuki cut through the air like a lash of fire, his blasts propelling him as his wings fanned out with the same ferocity of an avenging angel.

Izuku is in love with him, and doesn’t plan on doing anything about it.

(Unfortunately, his wings are quite determined to woo Katsuki by themselves.)

A Love Song from the Deep

His pod has always feared the Dragons, the alien clan that dwelled among volcanic vents of the deep, and with good reason. No one has seen one in generations, but Izuku heard stories of blind, listless things that drifted along the sea floor like ghosts.

Wherein Izuku is a curious merman, and his new friend is very fascinating.

How to Train Your Useless Dragon

Bakugou Katsuki needs to kill a dragon to take its teeth and become a warrior of his tribe.

But, what? Why the fuck doesn't this dragon have teeth?

Written from the promp "What if Izuku was the dragon?"

Shamelessly How to Train Your Dragon inspired.

if you talk enough sense then you'll lose your mind

There's very few people that a daemon will seek touch from outside of their holder or other daemons. Best friends, even if Izuku wanted to believe that he'd ever sincerely been that for Kacchan, are rarely one of the exceptions.

By when Izuku's life has come crashing down —by when he's left with the option of staying still until he turns to dust or walk walk walk on the shards until he bleeds—, he already knows his relationship with Kacchan has always been an anomaly.

It's only later that he discovers that what's really extraordinary is Adara.

Bright Stars

There had been rumors of a Human who wasn’t performing well in fighting rings, constantly ignoring their lesser opponents and trying to go after the very loud, very violent crowd instead.

Not only did Hizashi allow himself to be caught by the alien trafficking ring he and Shouta were trying to bring down, he's also stuck in a cell with a Deathworlder.

It goes better than expected.

54 notes · View notes

illcamp · 5 months

Text

As someone who got slightly noticed by the Zelda community for drawing Zelda x Ghibli fanart I have to say I don't think Zelda would fit Ghibli's standards.

I love tloz and I love ghibli movies probably with the same intensity and because of that I keep thinking that Ghibli is too serious and arsty for Zelda lol like, besides the aesthetics, there's nothing in tloz franchise that resemblance a Ghibli movie, Miyazaki and Takahata (may rest in peace) are well known for portray their views in politics and society through their films, Miyazaki loves to talk about anti capitalistic, anti war and pro environmental consciousness topics in his stories, while Takahata liked to explore the every day life of common people, the humanity in his characters and usually portrays deep, strong female characters going through a coming of age/growth journey (also had anti war messages with Grave of the Fireflies and fictional stories with The tale of princess Kaguya, both with a strong focusing in their main characters and their personal journey, with a very sad ending I must say)

On the other hand, despite Zelda's lore being a little confusing lol I like the overall construction of its universe but at the end the overall lesson of its stories is kinda bland, there's nothing wrong with a good old fashioned tale about the chosen one, good vs evil and the brave knight saving the princess, but it's like… pretty much all? I don't think Zelda's development team ever wanted to focus in go deeper than that, like questioning the role in the monarchy like with the clan Yiga there were just a bunch of losers being annoying in your traveling, they told you they rebelled against the Sheikahs and the royal family but why? Did they have a valid motive? There was nuance there that made you think "well… I get their point, I don't think their actions have justification but I understand where they come from"? Idk give me complexity!!! I want to reflex, I want to see not only a villain and a hero but complex people that make choices and make mistakes and you see the complexity of their decisions. The only moment similar to that in the history of Zelda that I can think of is in Wind Waker where Ganondorf told us why he want Hyrule, it was for his people, it was the wind that he coveted, THAT WAS DEPTH, THAT WAS AN ACTUAL CHARACTER WITH ACTUAL MOTIVATIONS, what he did was wrong, but you get to actually empathize with his feelings of just wanting a dignified life for his people, I can't think of any other moment like that in Zelda…

Sadly, I see how Nintendo is really focused on get the money (that's why they carefully chose to make a live action instead of an animated movie) so even if there was a slightly interest in Ghibli to make a Zelda movie Nintendo would have to let the creative direction entirely to Ghibli so Miyazaki would do the thing he knows how to do which is got slightly inspired by a story of other author and then just do whatever he wants with that, and of course Nintendo would never agree to do that.

Basically what I am trying to say is that a Ghibli x Zelda movie was a dream that it born dead

#beefing with the zelda team #spreading negativity #throwing shit at my favorite videogame franchise #i love ghibli #i love zelda #controversial opinion but takahata was better than miyazaki lol #zelda ghibli

13 notes · View notes

marta-bee · 1 month

Text

I've been ruminating (some would say obsessing) on that word I keep seeing used to describe the situation in Gaza. Genocide. Long post is long, so let's put this under a cut.

I know there's debate on some quarters on whether it's accurate; I'm not sure it is, but also think that question misses the point, because whatever else Gaza is, it's a humanitarian fuck-show. And it's caused, beside the obvious, by Israeli willingness to risk human life rather than tolerate a risk to their own security (which they're much better equipped to protect themselves from than the people of Gaza are), coupled with Israeli refusal to make lasting peace with their neighbor enabled by American military and cultural support. So yes, this one feels personal to me both as an American and someone with mixed Jewish-Christian heritage. People who claim to represent me are enabling said humanitarian fuck-show, which is nothing if not uncomfortable.

That said, every time I see that word it gets stuck in my craw a bit. Not because it's untrue but because mass human suffering caused by violence against an ethnic minority is hardly limited to Gaza, or to the present moment. So I'm questioning whether the Gaza situation is uniquely terrible. Not that it needs to be; I don't post about it much here because Tumblr is my refuge from the offline world, but I am doing quite a lot in RL to support Gaza, and to press my congressmen to take a stronger stance against Israel. I don't want to give the impression I'm not bothered or lukewarm just because I'm not vocal about it here.

But the fact that this suffering and violence isn't unique makes me really uncomfortable with that word because, let's face it, the language is intended to outrage people. I've been thinking about a phrase Fred Clarke (the blogger "Slacktivist" at Patheos, a moderate Baptist who often criticized Christian evangelicalism and fundamentalism) used to parody fundamentalist stances on abortion. "Satanic baby-killers" - it was how the fundamentalists supposedly described abortionists and pro-life folks; not sure if they really used it or if Clarke invented it to make his point. The point being, even if you believed this was accurate of what abortionists were doing, the real reason to use it was to make abortionists and fellow citizens who happened to be pro-life seem so other, so --well-- Satanic, that it was morally impossible not to support them. It was meant to radicalize their own side and dehumanize the other.

I'm not so worried about dehumanizing Israelis and Jews more generally. I mean, yes, that's a concern, but it's possible to criticize Israel without being anti-Semitic, and this word at least doesn't play into all those old tropes, at least not in a way I can see. I'm more worried about how it shapes the way we think about our fellow Americans. Because America isn't as overwhelmingly outraged by the Gaza crisis as Tumblr and other left-leaning social media would make you believe. A recent Pew Research poll (results published 3/21/24) found that 31% said their sympathies lie entirely or mostly with Israel, and another 26% said they were equally sympathetic toward both groups. There are reasons for this, not particularly valid ones today but historically I understand why so many Americans (particularly older ones and more conservative ones) are primed to support, but for the most part those reasons are outdated, something they need to be encouraged to reconsider and move on from. Accusing them of supporting a genocide only puts them on the defense.

(The short version, based on my personal conversations with family and neighbors: they think of Israel as a democracy in a sea of dictatorships and monarchies, no longer true; Israel is our ally so it's unpatriotic to criticize them, would take more space to deconstruct but if we can't criticize our friends when they do shit like this who can; and they see Israel as a necessary safeguard where Jews can go to escape discrimination, which is vaguely racist and surely a much less humane and effective approach than addressing the anti-Semitism where said Jews actually live. As I said, not valid reasons, but reasons nonetheless I'm trying to help them grow out of through our conversations. Which means they need to feel safe enough to consider they might actually be wrong.)

The bigger concern for me, though, is what this does to the people using that language. That's why I brought up that "Satanic baby-killers" phrase. Because it ratchets up the sense that your neighbors are moral monsters. It dehumanizes them, so you don't see people who are wrong because they haven't educated themselves or even because they have some valid reason to support Israel I'm not seeing (I'm human, I'm fallible, and I always want to hear new ideas I haven't considered because I want to grow). Instead, they see someone despicable, someone who's wholly other from people like them. It dehumanizes them. And, speaking as someone who grew up in the American South in the '80s and '90s, so yes, I did live through that Satanic baby-killer mind set if not the actual language: that shit will mess you up. I'd rather my current friends not have to go through that.

On the other hand: Gaza is still a humanitarian fuck-show. And evil still needs to be opposed. I know that, and I do that. Possibly I should just get over my hang-up over that word and focus on the things that matter more in terms of RL consequences. Still, it bothers me, and -- being me -- I needed to take the time to unpack why.

#gaza #politics #marta blathers

4 notes · View notes