Genuinely think some folks need to remove how we, the audience, see characters and relationships from an outside perspective from how those characters actually interact. Like y'all ask for nuance and I'm telling you that just because Nancy has gone through trauma and absolutely deserves to be as messy and complicated and hurt as she wants, doesn't mean Robin wouldn't think twice about dating her?

It's not about whose fault it is or centering a male character, it's about how Robin, the character, would interpret and internalize the facts she knows. She has no idea what exactly Nancy has been through, like we have. She encouraged Steve and Nancy in S4 to get back together, she comforted him when Nancy went straight back to Jonathan. Robin's place as Steve's best friend, someone she trusts implicitly, the person she wants to combine with, puts Steve as an important aspect of her life!

It's not that she hates Nancy! It's that even though they broke up a year and a half ago, there's some unresolved or redeveloping feelings there for Steve. It's not that I think Steve could/would/should be hurt or angry about his best friend dating his ex. It's that, in my opinion, Robin, from what we see of her, doesn't seem inclined to date a friend's ex. It's about Robin, and her personality, and that means her friendship and love of Steve.

choose violence 🔪❤️

1, 2, 16, 22

thanks for the ask! <3 oki, NBC Hannibal... let's go, fhsdgfsd-

the character everyone gets wrong

I wouldn't say eeeveryone, but... a lot of people get Will Graham wrong. like, he's an extremely complex character with many different aspects that aren't explored too deeply in the show at times (despite the show mostly being from his perspective); but there are enough leads to go off of to at least get the right idea when going deeper yourself. my main issue is that he's either taken at face value all the time, reduced to his season 1 encephalitis-riddled persona, or completely twinkified and innocent. all of which are plain wrong and annoying to see, I'm not gonna lie. you do you and all that, but it does get annoying after the third or so post from different people in a row, and seeing that slowly but surely becoming a popular fanon idea (especially among new fans). but I just scroll past or even block people because it doesn't actually matter and I can control what I see and react to. (also, it's not like I am an expert on Will either or understand him 100% and am right all the time. but seeing him completely misinterpreted and almost turned into a new character, a shell of his self and a caricature of who he is, that's what gets me.)

2. a compelling argument for why your fave would never top or bottom

Will Graham again, what a surprise. oki, so, personally, I do believe he's a vers/switch. but he especially strikes me as a power bottom a lot of times. he's generally dominant, but he likes to receive. he can be a brat and wants to be dominated sometimes, too, depending on the partner. but most of the time, he's dominant, in need of control, but wants to be worshipped/treated (in the way that he receives). gosh, uh... compelling argument. um. vibes, I guess. my brainworms said so. Will himself told me that. idk hdfdkjshfjksh

16. you can't understand why so many people like this thing (characterization, trope, headcanon, etc)

"uwu innocent babygirl that has never done anything wrong and it's all the big bad Hannibal that manipulated and destroyed him" characterization of Will Graham. it's sometimes a funny meme, which I'll laugh at, too, buuut if it's taken seriously and people actually think that, um... nope. and I've seen that going around a lot. not to shame anyone, just an observation of the Twitter- and TikTokfication of Hannibal, yet again. I've pretty much only seen new fans, who come from those two platforms in particular, do that and be serious about it.

22. your favorite part of canon that everyone else ignores

honestly? the different relationships and dynamics in the show that aren't Hannigram. like, yes, people also focus quite a bit on Will and Hannibal's respective dynamics with Alana and Bedelia, but usually through the Hannigram-lens. same with Abigail. and it makes sense, duh, Alana, Bedelia and Abigail are extremely intertwined with Hannigram. so are most other characters and their dynamics. because that's the main focus of the show, basically. but I still think that other relationships and dynamics are vastly underrated and even overlooked. examples include Jack Crawford with literally anyone but Will or Hannibal. especially with Miriam Lass. or his literal wife, Bella. or Francis and Reba. Abel Gideon and Chilton. and so on. there are many interesting dynamics to explore. I understand the focus on Hannigram and Hannigram-adjacent ones, like, I'm guilty of that, too. so is the show itself. but, you know. that's just the thing that came to mind first.

Hey raven, this isn't really a twst ask but I was wondering your thoughts on this misconception in famdom as well as fans in general.

The misconception is Optimism/being kind is naive and childlike. And automatically makes said character who's like that a baby to the fandom.

Which has always been strange to me, optimism and being a kind person doesn't equate to ignorance of the "real world" it's just that you aren't cynical all the time. In fact it's just viewing the world in a different way that's more hopeful, but I guess people find it to be a thing for children.

And by extension being kind is usually seen as a baby like quality as well.

And as an easy example: Kalim is a prime candidate for this, because his optimism and kindness are usually conflated with him being scatter brained at times. Or that he is somehow oblivious to all the harshness around him because he isn't out right depressed all day.

But sorry for my long ramble, what do you think about this weird trope in fandoms?

I think the belief of “optimism/kindness = naive and childlike” really depends on various factors. To use TWST as an example, Kalim looks and sounds like a kid while also boasting optimism and kindness, whereas Rook looks and sounds much older, so people don’t treat those same traits (optimism and kindness) in Rook as him being naive or childlike. Azul and Jade are also “kind”, but their kindness is a mask to deceive others—because that’s the kind of characters they are. Singular traits are just accessory, they don’t entirely define someone. Design, voice, and other character traits play a big role in how a character is perceived; it’s not based solely on a handful of character traits.

Part of the perception also comes down to how Kalim compares to the rest of the people around him. NRC is full of students that are prideful and act on the “every man for himself” mentality. Someone like Kalim sticks out like a sore thumb, so both his peers and TWST fans are going to look at him differently anyway.

The truth of the matter is that Kalim specifically is also scatter-brained and oblivious, so conflating those with his kindness and optimism isn’t necessarily a ‘bad’ take on his canon personality--it just so happens that Kalim is the quintessential “sunshine child”, and he plays into all of those traits well. The “babying” of Kalim is also partly attributed to him being a sheltered rich kid that relies on Jamil to take care of him. This, combined with the aforementioned sunshine personality, is the perfect storm for a character you’d want to protect and take care of. It’s not just Kalim being kind and optimistic that makes people think treat him like a baby, it’s his circumstances and what we see of him that makes people think that (though if I’m being entirely honest, every single character gets babied sooner or later in every fandom because some fans just like to demonstrate their affection for their favorite characters in that way).

For Kalim, I don’t think it’s an issue of misinterpreting kindness and positivity for being naive and childlike, because all four traits are true of him. That’s part of his growth in chapters 4 and 5. As for the trope in general media outside of TWST, I’d say it’s not something truly associated with kindness and optimism alone, but rather how media chooses to present its characters overall (taking design, voice, other personality traits, the rest of the cast, etc. into account).

Mm, and as for the real world... While I can’t speak for all scenarios, the real world definitely isn’t nice or forgiving. When we grow up, we see the world for what it is, and it can be scary to face it. We often lost sight of the optimism and cheer we once had in childhood because that’s how we adapt to and cope with our troubles and responsibilities in adulthood. We don’t necessarily become pessimistic though, we just gain a sense of what’s realistic and what isn’t, maybe more sarcastic or cynical. If one can maintain their positivity into adulthood, then it can be a great protective factor. I’d think that most adults would look on with envy (because they, too, want to return to that blissful and wide-eyed childhood optimism) rather than chastise others for it (unless your hopefulness is just absurdly unrealistic). I totally disagree with “kindness being baby-like” though. I think everyone should be kind to others, regardless of age.

If you dont understand what the problem with what Jk Rowling is saying and you want to listen: here you go.

Disclaimer- I'm one person. My experiences and thoughts are not universal

Let's start with the first tweet in the thread.

Jk says " 'people who menstrate.' I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpmund? Woomud?" In reference to the phrasing of this article title 'Opinion: Creating a more equal post COVID 19 world for people who menstruate'

It's important to understand Why the article phrased it this way to begin with, which is to include trans men and non binary people who menstruate in a conversation about access to sanitary products.

In her tweet JK is very clearly saying that she believes there are no non woman persons who menstruate. And if no non woman menstruate, then that means to her, trans men and assigned female at birth non binary people are women.

Let's move on to the next tweet.

In this tweet JK asserts that transgender people are 'erasing the concept of sex' and that that 'removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives'

I can only guess that what she has misinterpreted as 'eraseing' are things like 'sex is social construct' and 'there are more than two sexes' so let's explain what those Actually mean.

Sex is social construct in the same way a Wednesday is a social construct. Saying that something is a construct means only that the concept was created by humans. Now you might be saying " wait a minute how did humans make up the idea of sexes!?" Which is a good question. It's true that different variations in what we know as 'sex characteristics' are physically observable and not just in humans. But it also true that there aren't, neither in humans or animals, only two variations.

Much of western life is shaped by this perceived binary.

And there are certainly aspects where life is shaped in negative ways by the perceived binary. You see just because there aren't strictly two sexes and two genders doesn't mean that those two sexes/genders have no bearing on our lives as part of our societies. This is, in my opinion, the core foundation of being transgender. That there are numerous and diverse ways people interact with this structure of two.

So if anything, what we're doing is expanding people's ability to meaningfully discuss their lives. Are we changing the way things are spoken to be more inclusive of a broader experience? Absolutely. Are we saying you can't still identity with labels that are meaningful to you? No. Just because I as a trans man have a greater ability to discuss my experiences does not mean you have no ability discuss your experiences as a cis woman. It's not pie.

Now this where I became most upset upon reading the thread. In this tweet JK says ' I'd march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans' as if we aren't being discriminated against. As if she isn't discriminating against us by trying to remove us from conversations about our own bodies.

She also says ' my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it is hateful to say so'. To which I must say: of course your life has been shaped by being female, and no this is not hateful to say. There are most certainly unique ways being female shapes your life. And no one is trying to say there isn't. The hate comes into play when you assert there is only one way to be female and decide you have the power to decide who does and doesn't fit that bill. It comes into play when you erase trans women from discussions about the experiences of women. It comes into play when you misgender and ignore the voices of trans men asking not to be defined as women.

I hope this sheds some light on why this is hateful and transphobic to those who are actually seeking to understand.

1) hey, i was wondering how you personally make sense of the passages in the bible that are often used to justify homophobia. i'm trying to read them now + having a hard time both w/ conservative interpretations (that i don't agree w/) but also more progressive readings because some of them, to me, make just as little sense, not so much in their conclusion that queer ppl aren't to be condemned but more in that i don't see the text supporting this without sometimes extensive cherry picking. is

2) that something you ever struggle w/, and if so, how do you reconcile those passages w/ your faith and trust in god? have you found an interpretation that works for you? when i read those parts (and many others that include violence etc) or i think of the history of the church as an institution, all i can think is "how can i support this, how can this be my faith, i don't want to listen to this". have you found a way to own those things and make them yours, especially as a queer person, in

3) a way that still makes you feel confident and comfortable to say you're a christian? (genuine question!)

Hi anon,

It sounds like you’re well on your way in a deconstruction journey. For many people that starts with questioning Biblical interpretations of things that affect them very personally like passages about sexuality.

I understand your fears about cherry-picking. I was so terrified when I started my deconstruction journey because all the conservative people seemed to have these really deep theological arguments for why everything had to be the way it is, but people who were more left-leaning and had more liberal interpretations of the texts always seemed so much more relaxed about it. It seemed as though the conservatives were really serious about Biblical interpretation, and left-leaning people didn’t take the Bible seriously. And yet as a queer, trans person I couldn’t ignore the reality that I just could not believe God would condemn me for being me.

But this is all based on the idea that taking the Bible seriously means taking it literally. If you’re anything like me the faith tradition you’re coming from probably tells you that taking the Bible literally is how you take it seriously. But that’s blatantly untrue.

And so is the whole idea of Biblical Literalism. For starters there are lots of contradictions in the Bible itself. One book will tell you there were x amount of people there, another book will tell you there was y amount of people there. Genesis 1 gives one account of the timeline of creation, and Genesis 2 gives another.

There’s also no getting around what are often referred to as the ‘Texts of Terror’ – passages like the ones you’ve described that portray God as seemingly violent and tyrannical. Whole nations are wiped out on his command. Salves are taken, people are raped, people are slaughtered, and countless other horrors – seemingly all in God’s name.

Either we believe that God is love, and also everything in the Bible is literally true, in which case the embodiment of love itself involves punishing people with violence and wiping out entire nations and torturing your own children forever.

Or we believe that God isn’t very loving and is a violent tyrant.

…Or we can accept that the Bible is not a historical textbook. It’s full of poetry and imagery and literary devices that were common at the time and in the culture those texts were written. It’s a bunch of texts written by countless different people, all trying to make sense of life and its messiness and who and what God is and what that means for them. And understanding that doesn’t mean that you don’t take it seriously. It just means you aren’t expecting things from it that it was never meant to deliver.

Maybe the people who wrote those homophobic passages were just… homophobic. Or maybe those passages have been grossly mistranslated or misinterpreted over time. I’m not a scholar. I’m just a queer person who knows that God loves all of me, and God delights in my queerness.

If you’re interested in reading further about the subject, I’d highly recommend the book ‘Inspired’ by Rachel Held Evans. There are lots of other books about Biblical interpretation and deconstruction of Evangelicalism or conservative Christianity, but that’s one of the few that I’ve actually got around to reading, and I found it really helpful.

I would also recommend the book ‘Religious Refugees’ by ***. I haven’t finished it yet, but it’s a pretty solid guide for someone going through the deconstruction journey and coming to terms with a loss of faith in some way or another. You might also find the #Exvangelical hashtag on twitter quite useful if you use twitter much. There’s a whole community of people out there just like you and I who have done or are doing a lot of questioning and leaving behind conservative and fundamentalist faith traditions.

In all honesty, I’m not sure ifI can say I’m a Christian anymore. I guess that depends how you define it. My 14-year-old feverent Evangelical self would be absolutely horrified to see what I believe and how I’m behaving now and probably would say I’m not a Christian at all.

I wrote a blog post about it a while ago. You might find it helpful, idk.

https://dreamsandimaginations.wordpress.com/2020/10/25/on-the-other-side-of-deconstruction/?fbclid=IwAR3nKUaOm6r8bkXphtCAelwcFhdEclx0mYUVI0vik7C-LGjh3hjeRsYQs6Q

I got some asks that really offended me. I'm a straight forward person and I never simply swallow criticisms unless I'm sure I did something wrong or ignore them if I just see it as useless. This all has to do with the last post I made where I answered an ask concerning why Taehyung is reserved and I did answer it based on my opinion but I guess it got on a lot of people's nerves. One even saying that with the rate I'm going, I'll become a jikooker or Taekooker. It was that sentence alone that spurned my reaction and all this is because i happen to focus on quite sensitive issues.

And I guess this criticism came purely because I mentioned that Taehyung isn't satisfied with being in Bts. However, people just want to pick what they want and focus on it.

Yes, I did say Taehyung isn't satisfied with where he is because he's limited. He would want to dwelve into other things apart from being in Bts but because of how packed his schedule is, he can't do this.

However, a lot of people misinterpreted my words as him being unhappy in Bts. He isn't unhappy. He has achieved so much with Bts, gained international stardom but he must want to do much more for himself. There are a lot of kpop idols who sing and at the same time act. I'm sure Taehyung wants to do that as well.

Out of all the members in Bts, the one whose character changed the most over the years is Taehyung because he had to change a lot of himself. He had to put on an identity that will appeal most to fans. Back then, even in front of the camera, he showed that wild side of him but had to stop it because it wasn't favorable for him. Fans didn't like it especially the female ones. He isn't the only one. A lot of musicians are like that especially if you are a popular one. That is called marketing image. However, with shows like BTS run, bon voyage we are able to see glimpses of their real selves, seeing them being bare faced and affectionate with one another but still, it's not the complete truth because those scenes you see still go through days and hours of editing before they are deemed okay to be displayed for public viewing.

As for going solo, that is just my own opinion. I didn't say it was for certain that he wants to be on his own, just that it's a possibility for him to want that since his career options are quite limited. Yes, he does want to produce music and stay with his members but I feel he wants more. No need to put words into my mouth. It's just like you all feel what i said was Taehyung doesn't want to be in Bts anymore because they don't let him act and do other stuff he would like to do. No! No!No!

What I mean is, Taehyung wants to be in Bts as a singer but he wants to also act and do other things that doesn't just involve being with his members all the time. He wants to widen his horizons. He might only consider going solo if he's too costrained. There are several idols that have sued their record companies due to victimization and limitation in career. An example is Hangeng a former member of super junior who sued his company after terminating his contract because they refused to let him pursue an acting career. Kris Wu of Exo left the group because it was too challenging for him. His song writing potential was limited including the crazy schedules he had to endure. However, after leaving the group, he pursued a solo career and now, he's one of the biggest and most successful actor and musician in China. There are so many of them. The reason why none of the Bts members will ever do something like this is because of how well loved and popular they are.

One thing i want to point out is that the fans aren't the reason. It is the companies they work for. If only they are more flexible and allow their idols a bit more freedom to pursue other career options, no one would think of disbanding but money is a big priority and being a singer in Bts brings in a lot of bucks. Other things are just a distraction.

In 2018, i'm quite certain Jimin was one of those who wanted to disband. He said so himself during a vlive that he had been so tired of everything. That he didn't even know why he was even doing what he was doing anymore until one day, he watched a video of one of their performances on stage, he could feel the love of armies just watching them and he regained his passion again. If you watch their speech in Mama where they exposed about their almost disbandment in 2018, Taehyung was the most distraught of them all. So much so, he even needed to be comforted. His usually composed self immediately crumbled as soon as Jin mentioned the disbandment. He cried so much even when they went back stage. This just shows just how difficult things must have been back then for him. It must have been too much for him.

Just like Jimin, Taehyung feels so much love for both his members and armies that it is enough to keep him around. I think their love for us and in each other is the only thing that still keeps BTS standing till today. Take that love away and Bts would be no more.

Anyway, all these isn't as important as when I was accused of becoming like a jikooker or Taekooker. In that case, I'll just simply delete this blog if just airing my opinions is been seen as becoming unreasonable. I have a life apart from this. I just don't sit down and begin to write whatever nonsense comes into my mind born out of fantasies or desires. I write after checking my priorities straight. Hardly any vmin shipper does this and it's because of statements like this. Criticisms like this, that makes a lot of vmin shippers chicken out of talking about vmin. Even making videos of them is a problem.

First, I don't remember telling people that Vmin are dating because I do not believe, neither can I imagine that happening. However, i'm of the opinion that they have strong feelings for each other. Both platonically and romantically. They might have had something in the past but such a thing will never work. Not in the real world. They understand nothing real may come out of it. They just hope that things will get better and can only show their affections by being supportive and caring towards each other. Just comparing me to a jikooker or Taekooker makes my entire body itch and I feel like I've been doing all these for nothing if at the end of the day, I'm been looked at as being delulu/ unreasonable.

Anyway, that is that. It's not like I can please everyone. I mainly wrote this post to clarify some things. Have a good day and keep loving Vmin and Bts.