Saw Oppenheimer

holy fuck

Kinda interesting to think Mary secretly thought she didn't have any stepmoms at all. People always act like Anne's the problem, if she'd "known her place" pure Mary would've liked her. They try to make her out to be a person of totally rigid, unshakable morality, someone so above average human weakness we should see her as an example of unparalleled goodness we could never equal. And all that makes the burnings ok. Because a virtuous woman did it it's fine. But in social terms it sounds like she'd "go with the flow" like everyone else, say whatever to keep the peace, something Elizabeth is critcized for doing. And really interesting about declaring Edward illegitimate and Jane's marriage void. People always paint their relationship in this cutesy gloss, that Jane was devoted to her and reached out to her, that Mary felt it back, this is how she responded to a "real" stepmom, but now I'm wondering if she even liked Jane at all.

I mean, considering most of these accounts use quotes from Jane Dormer as their literal only source on Mary I's personality and reign...probably?

Mary was as much of a dissembler as Elizabeth for sure, I would say her dissembling just manifested differently. She also eventually came to be (mid 1536-1547, that is) nearly as much of a pragmatist as Elizabeth had to become during her sister's reign, just during her father's: leaving rooms Chapuys entered and refusing to speak with him, never voicing any opinion contrary to HVIII's policies, apologizing profusely and abjectly when servants and diplomats visited her household without express royal permission, etc. She became more resolute and less pragmatic during Edward VI's reign, imo, but there were reasons for this which make logical sense...the reign of children were always weaker and less stable, Edward Seymour's protectorship, by the terms of Henry VIII's will, was technically illegitimate (he hadn't been granted that position by him), arguably John Dudley's was as well, although it was much stronger, etc.

The evidence cited to argue Mary's affection for the Seymours in general and Jane is particular is...shaky, at best. For one, her propagandists certainly didn't seem to think denigrating Edward Seymour was anything that would be ill-received by her, since that was included in their tracts a lot. For another, it's generally like 1) Mary sent her a gift of cucumbers! (...ok? she sent her subsequent stepmothers lots of gifts as well), 2) Mary was her chief mourner in her funeral services, a position that was obviously assigned by HVIII and a position that, had she still remained Princess, would never have even been suggested (royals in the succession could not be chief mourners because that included funeral services in which their death might be thought of, which was treason), so likely stung on some level...

And this letter, which to me, says it all:

“Promises to continue in obedience according to her promises, both spoken and written, made to the King. I beseech our Lord to preserve your Grace in health with my very natural mother the Queen, and to send you shortly issue; which I shall as gladly and willingly serve with my hands under their feet as ever did poor subject their most gracious sovereign.”

'My very natural mother the Queen' is in the same sentence as a promise to 'willingly serve' Jane's issue 'with [her] hands under their feet'. Given the events of Edward VI's reign, that was obviously a promise she made because she knew it was what they expected her to say, rather than one she actually kept. There's also the context that there's no announcement of Jane being with child at the time of this letter, so it's a promise made for a future that's quite uncertain at this point, not necessarily seen as likely.

Unfortunately, there remains about only one succint, sentiment-absent conjecture about Mary's probable feelings regarding her second stepmother, particularly in the spring/summer of 1536:

"Was Mary perhaps also deflated that Jane had not tried to prevent her ordeal? Jane and her supporters had promised a turnaround, but nothing had eventuated; instead she had had to concede more than she anticipated. In this matter, Chapuys had been her sole supporter." Inside the Tudor Court, Lauren Mackay

and suddenly i find myself on an unquenchable quest for knowledge (guy who’s been spending hours reading k-idol info pages)

I can now say I've drawn blood during a makeout sesh how much does this up my cannibalism cred

the marketing has worked: I am slightly excited about hotd

Will we ever get anything quite like Code Geass again?

I don't think it's possible.

Code Geass is Japanese nationalist propaganda disguised as a global political drama, disguised as a military mecha show, disguised as yaoibait, disguised as a teen melodrama, disguised as a high school romcom, disguised as a Pizza Hut commercial...

...except those layers aren't layers at all, but are instead comingled in a giant snake ball of insanity.

The lead writer, Ichirō Ōkouchi, only ever worked as an episode writer for other shows prior to Code Geass, and never took the helm of an anime series ever again. And it shows. [EDIT: Several people have pointed out his other lead writing credits to me. So I misread Wikipedia—sue me. I maintain that this guy is a better episode writer than he is a lead writer.]

The minute-to-minute pacing is impeccable from a mechanical standpoint, with tension and stakes rising to ever-higher peaks, balanced out by the slow simmers of the b-plot and c-plot. It keeps the viewer on the edge of their seat at all times. Meanwhile, the large-scale plot is the most off-the-wall middle school nonsense I've ever seen, continually surprising the viewer by pulling twists too dumb to have ever have been on their radar—and therefore more effective in terms of raw shock value.

"Greenlight it!" was the mantra of this anime's production. It must have been. It has, in no particular order, all of the following:

Character designs from CLAMP, the foremost yaoi/BL group in Japan at the time—for characters who are only queer insofar as they can bait the audience, and only straight insofar as they can be more misogynist to the female cast.

Speaking of the female cast, hoo boy the fanservice. We've all seen anime girls breast boobily, with many cases more egregious than Code Geass, but there's something special about it happening immediately after—or sometimes in the middle of!—scenes of military conflict and ethnic cleansing.

Pizza Hut product placement everywhere, in every conceivable situation. High-speed chases, light slice-of-life scenes, intimate character moments, all of it. Gotta have Pizza Hut.

The anime-only Pizza Hut mascot, Cheese-kun. He wears a fedora.

The most hilarious approximations of European names—which I would love to see more often, frankly. Names like, I dunno, "Count Schnitzelgrübe zi Blanquezzio."

A depiction of China that is wholly removed from any modern reality, with red-and-gold pagodas, ornamental robes, scheming eunuchs, and a brainwashed child empress. There's a character named General Tsao, like the chicken.

Inappropriate free-form jazz in the soundtrack, intruding at the most unexpected times.

A secret cabal not unlike the Illuminati, run by an immortal shota with magic powers, holding influence all across the world, at the highest levels of government. They matter for approximately three episodes.

An unexpected insert scene of a schoolgirl using the corner of a table to masturbate. She's doing it to thoughts of her crush, the princess Euphemia—because she believes Euphemia to be as racist as she herself is, and that gets her off. This interrupts an unrelated scene of our protagonist faction planning their next move, which then resumes as if uninterrupted.

Said schoolgirl, in a fit of hysteria, threatens to detonate a worse-than-nuclear bomb in the middle of her school. She then goes on to develop an even more destructive version of that bomb, and become a war criminal, in a chain of cause-and-effect stemming from the moment she finds out that Euphemia wasn't actually that racist.

A character called "the Earl of Pudding."

A premise that asks us to believe that the name Lelouch is normal enough that he didn't need to change it when he went into hiding as an ordinary civilian. "No, that's not Prince Strimbleford von Vanquish! That's our classmate, Strimbleford Smith."

The collective unconscious, a la Carl Jung, within which the protagonist fights his villainous father for control over the fate of humankind. After this is over, the anime just keeps going for about ten more episodes.

An episode in which a mech tosses a giant pizza.

A gay yandere sleeper agent who can manipulate the perception of time.

Chess being played very badly, even to the untrained eye. Lelouch frequently checkmates his opponent by moving his king. This goes hand-in-hand with the anime's crock of bad chess symbolism.

A fictional drug that can most succinctly be described as "nostalgia heroin."

Roller-skating mecha in knightly armor, and some of the most sickass mecha fight choreography that I've seen.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. This anime is what the average Westerner in 2006 thought anime was, and it was made in a confluence of factors that cannot be replicated. I've never had so much fun watching something that I found so... insulting. Repugnant. Ridiculous. Baffling. I love it sincerely.

Catch me cosplaying Lloyd Asplund at a con sometime, or maybe even the big gay loser himself, Lelouch vi Britannia.

please do not reblog .

cw for discussion of body image, medicalized terms for fatness, etc

i will be un-pinning this post within 24 hours; i just want to make sure the anon sees it lol

to the anon who sent the ask about the actress saying a thing in interviews:

i think this may come across as me being mean, but please know that that’s not my intention! i’m not mad at you for sending the ask or anything lol

the reasons im answering your ask like this and not just directly responding:

honestly learning that initially made me feel really icky? about the fact that i had posted headcanons about the character that are tangentially relevant to a thing the actress had said is a reality in her personal life. but then i remembered oh! the actress and the character she plays are two very separate entities! and the great thing is that i can rest assured that this actress will never see the headcanons i made! so yeah, the fact isn’t really relevant to anything i’ve created, and i don’t want to put that fact on my blog because:

i fundamentally do not believe that overweight is a thing that exists :) your body is the size it is!

*jump scares you with lore art for my poppy playtime au*

I've been a fan of Poppy Playtime for awhile now, and it's kinda been my most recent hyperfixation.

In this au, the player is a former employee of playtime Co. named Patrick Desmond. He worked in the Game Station, caring for the children as they arrived. About a year into his employment, Patrick met a teacher from the Playcare named Lilith. The pair started working more closely after Patrick was promoted to a position in her school, started dating, and got married two years after meeting. (A healthy hetero couple???Nani??)

Some time later, a boy named Daniel Harvey came into the factory. He was orphaned at five years old, and was taken in by Playtime Co. He was meant to become a test subject; they intended to use him to create DogDay, but he was one of the lucky few to escape when Patrick and Lilith adopted him at 7.

Lilith sadly wound up losing her job at Playtime Co., when Miss Delight was created. She was heartbroken at leaving her students, but made the most of it by focusing on her adopted son, and her new life as a mother.

Patrick stayed at Playtime Co. for another four years. As time passed, he became more suspicious. Why did kids keep disappearing? Why was no one answering any questions? Everything came to a head when a child he was watching dropped her Mommy Longlegs toy, and Patrick was mortified to see blood spilling from between the plastic.

Following that incident, Patrick began scrutinizing Playtime Co. more closely. In a risky move, he snuck into his manager's office to investigate. He wound up finding papers describing the requirements for experiment test subjects. With that, he realized that all the rumors he'd heard over the years were true, that this childcare program was nothing more than a way for the company to gather subjects for their sick experiments.

Patrick made up his mind; he put in his two weeks notice. His boss wasn't happy, but Patrick was determined to muscle through the last weeks and leave this pit of a factory.

Now, as is canon, he called in sick on August 8th, 1995. The Hour of Joy. Daniel brought a cold home from school, and Patrick caught it. The next day, despite still being ill, Patrick tried to go to work. When he saw a flood of cop cars outside the factory, Patrick figured they'd been exposed for their crimes, turned tail and went straight home.

The police asked questions, of course, but since Lilith hadn't been there for years and Patrick had missed work that day, they had little reason to ask much of them. They still cooperated insofar as they could.

Ten years went by, and though Patrick had gotten a new job at a grocery store, Playtime Co. was always on his mind. The couple agreed that Danny was the only good that came from the situation, but Patrick could never shake the guilt. He had no idea what happened in the factory, or why he never saw any former employees around. Still, the guilt of leaving when there was clearly something going on lingered.

So when he received a vintage Poppy Playtime advertisement and a messily written plea to return, Patrick hardly thought twice.

Daniel, 17 now, had grown up with a loving but guilt ridden Patrick as his dad. He didn't know what exactly went down in the factory, but had memories of Playcare and the way he and the other kids were treated. He knew his dad felt guilty about leaving the factory, so when Patrick ran off without warning Danny knew exactly where he went.

Danny would be damned if he let his Dad go trudge through the painful memories of the past alone, so he went in after Patrick, facing what could have been his fate in his quest to find his father.

Lilith has her own demons regarding that factory, so she always held her husband back from returning. Her worst nightmare came to fruition when both her husband and son charged headlong right into the belly of the beast. Not willing to stand by while her family went down the drain, Lilith put aside her fear of Playtime Co. and went in after them.

So we have a man riddled with survivors guilt, a boy facing what his fate was meant to be, and a woman who knows more than she lets on...

Mayyybe a fic upcoming?? I'm still working on my Mario one, I promise. I've just hit a creative roadblock, so I'm gonna try to redirect to a different project and revisit it later to see if the flow returns. Sorry to keep you waiting!🙏

Let the games begin.

worker uprisings are not an upside.

I see this rhetoric here all the time, and it drives me up the wall. So you're all getting a good rant here: a worker uprising is not good.

The worker uprisings that bought the NLRB paid for it in blood and lives, and another uprising means that we will have to find the price to buy it again. And there will be families, people, and lives blighted in the meantime. Worker uprisings are not upsides for anyone and they are not fucking consolation prizes. They happen when things go bad, horribly bad, and they generally only result in positive change insofar as they create so much chaos, bloodshed, and disruption that the overall situation has to change. In the mean time, people are still left dead, destitute, and maimed. If we can avert a worker uprising by using nonviolent means of pressure to force accountability, we should do that, because it results in vastly more stable outcomes for everyone. If this pissant, damn-fool shortsighted Supreme Court decision goes through and violence is the only remaining option to enforce change that anyone sees, that is a bad thing.That is not a flood gift. People will die fixing that bullshit. People did die fixing that bullshit!

You know how we got the NLRB the first time, back in 1935?

It took almost fifty years of labor unrest in the United States before we got the NLRB. Let's start with the Great Railroad Strike of 1877 (which was majorly disruptive but happened before labor unionizing was widespread). That's a great template for your fucking worker's uprising: there's no union leadership to coordinate fury and direct it properly, so when workers lose their shit after the third goddamn time wages get cut (not "fail to keep the pace of inflation," actually "you get less money now"), they all kind of do things on impulse without thinking much about long term strategy. The fury just erupts. In the case of the Great Railroad Strike, angry workers burned factories and facilities, seized rail facilities, paralyzed commerce networks, and existing power structures panicked and called out militias, National Guard units, and federal troops to forcibly suppress the workers. About a hundred people died.

Let me pop a cut down while I talk about what happened next. Spoiler: there's a lot of violence under the hood coming up, and like all violence, it absolutely sloshes around and hits people who aren't necessarily directly involved in conflicts.

You have continuing incidences of violence over strikes throughout the next several decades as nonviolent strikes are met with violence from pro-employer forces and workers resist with violence back. I can't even list all the violent incidents here that ended in deaths, because they were frequent. The 1892 Coeur d'Alune labor strike broke out into an actual shooting war and resulted in a number of deaths, not to mention months of detainment for six hundred protesting miners; the same year, you have another shooting war kicked off between hundreds of massed paid private Pinkerton security and striking workers in Pittsburgh through the Homestead Strike. Imagine how that's going to go down today.

And the thing about violence like this, and tolerance for violence, is that eventually you just get used to using it to get your way. You actually also do see quite a bit of violence conducted by striking labor workers, sometimes without recent provocation from management. For example, the national International Association of Bridge Structural Iron Workers embarked on a campaign of bombings from 1906-1911 that eventually culminated in a bombing of the office of the LA Times that killed 20 people. Do you want to live in a world where the only way to resolve conflicts like this is to risk someone bombing your office because your boss mouthed off at his cause? Even if he's right, do you want to risk losing your life, your arms, your friend, your sibs, to someone who thinks that the only option available to him to address systematic inequality is violence?

And you think about who really suffers when violence erupts, too. Look at the East St Louis massacre in 1917, when management tries undercutting the local white-run unions by hiring black folks who are systematically excluded by the unions. (If you think labor solidarity is free from the same intersectional forces that hit every other attempt to organize in solidarity for humans, you really need to go back and revisit your history books. We can do better and we should, but when we set up our systems and hope for the future, we have to be clear-eyed about the failures of the past.) Anyway, when labor tensions between white union workers and management's preferred use of cheaper, poorer, less "uppity" black people erupted, the white union workers attacked not management, but the black parts of town. They cut the hoses to the fucking fire department, burned huge swathes of East St Louis belonging to black homeowners, and shot black folks fleeing in the streets.

Money might not trickle down, but violence sure fucking does. The wealthy insulate themselves from violence by employing intermediaries to do all the dirty work for them, or even to venture into any areas that might be dangerous. When we resort to violence as the only way to solve our problems, inevitably the people and communities who pay the highest blood prices are the ones who have the least to provide. You think any of those robber barons are going to wind up on the ground bleeding out? They have their Pinkerton troops for that shit. The worst they lose is money; the rest of us have to stake our bodies and our homes.

No one should look forward to a worker uprising. If the Supreme Court is stupid and short-sighted enough to reduce avenues of worker redress to extra-legal means, the worker uprisings will come back around again, sure enough, and we'll all write our demands in blood once again. But the whole fucking POINT of the NLRB is that the federal government objects to having to sort these things out when they dissolve into open violence, so it sets rules about what the stupid short-sighted greediguts fat cats up top can do to reduce violence erupting again.

Anyway. Best thing I can think of right now is to get a Congressional supermajority in with the eye of imposing limits and curbs on the Court. Because look, I'll march if I need to, but I ain't going to pretend the thought puts a smile in my mouth and a spring in my step. Fuck.

The Serpent Files 🐍

chapters: 5/5 rating: M/E wordcount: 13.9k au: human, the magnus archives

summary: Aziraphale works as the head archivist at Eden Institute. Crowley has been supplying them with potentially cursed artifacts over the years -- until he himself gets entangled in a case that turns him from associate to client...

[ art credit and support credit and 1000 hugs to: @chernozemm my beloved ]

start reading:

“Ouroboros. Yes. The introductory statement is meant to be concise, though, akin to a title. You can describe the necklace in detail in your statement, Crowley. Also, I need you to state your name. It occurs to me I don't actually know it. I mean. I'm not saying I want to know your full name, or anything. Just, all these years– erm. You'd have to state it anyway. For formality's sake. We have a system.”

“Sure. So. Name's Crowley.”

“I… know that part. [sighs] Full names, please, throughout.”

“Ah. Anthony J Crowley.”

“I said full names, please. What's the J stand for?”

“Erm. Uh. Just a J, really. Thought it added a certain gravitas, y’know, flair. Je ne sais quoi. Makes people treat you serious, a J like that.”

“Uh. Alright. Well. Anthony J. Crowley, then. I suppose. Seriously? [clears throat] So. Please start from the beginning.”

“Mmmmhhhh wellll. I’ve been coming to Eden for, what, now, six years maybe?”

“I believe so. Yes.”

“Anyway, not like I go here often. We’ve met a handful of times, you and me, maybe nine, ten? I mean, it was ten times. I know. Uh. Not like I counted or anything. Just, coming here, it stays with you a bit, doesn’t it? All that occult shit. Which is why I come here, of course. I’m – what should I call it? A… supplier. Of sorts. I work with – this is confidential, right?”

“Yes. Internal use only. We don’t give out those files. Your words are safe with me. Erm. Us.”

“Good. Right. I work with the Doomsday Group. Can’t really talk about it much, but you’ve heard of them. Shady stuff, crime, theft, trade, religious artifacts, apocalyptic jazz, all that. Supernatural stuff, too, sometimes. Or claimed supernatural. You know I don’t believe in all that. Well. Didn’t. I didn’t believe in it. Now… uh, anyway. Sometimes we get those weird artifacts, right, apparently cursed, so I bring them to you, to, to check, or verify, or call bullshit. Or to lock them away, or whatever you do with them when you buy them off our lot. That’s how we met. Best part of this shit job, really, if I’m being honest. I didn’t ask to be– hm. Wish I could just– ngh. Confidential, right? Wish I could just be done with them. Run off. Can’t, though. But erm. Forget I said that, alright? Please.”

[pause] “You're rambling a bit, de- Crowley. Or should I, should I call you Anthony now?”

“Hell no. I mean – Crowley's fine. You've called me Crowley for years, haven't you? What, now you don't like it?”

“No, no, I do in fact quite – well, for propriety’s sake, the official documentation, I thought – nevermind. So, Crowley, while the background information on your…job is reasonable, might I politely remind you why you’re here? Please talk less about our personal relationship, or at least only insofar as it pertains to the case, and more about what happened to you since… since you put on that necklace.”

“Right. Righty-oh. S’ just, never been in this room before. The tape recorder, all that. I’ve only ever been here as a sort of… co-worker? Nah. You’re not my co-worker, you’re better than that. As a tradesman. So to be here as a client , it feels… surreal.”

“That is understandable. I trust you will muddle through, though.”

“Hey – remember the first thing I said when I came here? Today, I mean.”

[continue reading]

So much wrong in such a small space

...

To address all of this, I pretty much have to write a whole essay. Because I have time to do that lol.

First, any reasonable person will allow that saying Crowley is being selfish or dumb is wrong. Please don’t conflate that bad take with the other stuff you’re arguing about.

YOU CAN BELIEVE AZIRAPHALE DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG AND BELIEVE CROWLEY DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG.

Second, how about we not try to say which takes are going to “age very badly when x y or z happens”? The nicest words I can think of for that are condescending and presumptuous.

Third. Drunk with power?!?! He’s spent well over six thousand years terrified for the being he loves most and terrified for himself as well. He’s helpless. He's vulnerable and frightened and powerless. f he had any power he and Crowley would have had their South Downs cottage millennia ago.

Fourth. They escaped because they wanted to bang each other. (Or, like, idk, make out. Something.) And they knew there was a very good chance they’d be left alone (for the time being - more on that in a minute) as long as they didn’t thwart heaven and hell’s agenda. They could escape BECAUSE THEY WERE POWERFUL. They have vastly more privilege than Crowley and Aziraphale. The odds of someone coming after them to punish them are far smaller than for the Ineffable Husbands.

Having said all of the above, however, Neil has confirmed (insofar as he ever confirms anything lol) that destroying Alpha Centauri is part of Metatrash's universe-demolishing agenda. So most likely, Ineffable Bureaucracy just wanted to spend as much time together as they could before being turned into burning goo. They (and Crowley) aren't *wrong* for wanting to choose that, but it's far from a desirable outcome. Aziraphale, equally, is not wrong for wanting to try for something better.

Fifth, and this goes for all of us - if your post starts with “not to be mean, though”, think about why you feel the need to put that. It’s a big clue that what you're saying might be mean.

Finally - there is nothing to "explain away". Aziraphale and Crowley both made incredibly painful choices in a universe where there is no good outcomes. Anyone forced to choose between options even a fraction as horrific as what they are having to choose between, deserves nothing but compassion from us.

I feel like The King in Yellow (both the book and the implied entity) is done a disservice by how so much Lovecraft-inspired media uses it as a random spooky eldritch god when the original stories from the book are fairly consistent in portraying the King in Yellow as this sort of reverse muse that perverts artistic ambitions and destroys your ability to perceive reality accurately. It's a much more specific aesthetic that is also more interesting. This even happens with "highbrow" Lovecraftian media like True Detective

I agree!

my issue with the concept of "mythos" is that it completely ruins the charm of any given eldritch horror (king in yellow isn't eldritch but you know how it goes) it includes

when you write in "the mythos" you're kind of implicitly insisting that it all has to exist at the same time, which means you end up with (often unconscious) comparisons and powerlevels being drawn up for things that should, for their dramatic utility, be understood only insofar as they're the worst thing in the entire world

Annual reminder that Jesus was not Palestinian and that Palestine as legally defined region did not exist at that time, nor did the Palestinian nation. This is empirically documented fact. Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew in Roman Judea. If “Palestine” was used in some Greek texts to describe the region it was because of the Philistines (who aren’t Arab in origin) having lived here once. I’m now hearing people saying Christianity is Palestinian in origin. This is also sheer idiocy. Even if we allow for the fact that Jesus isn’t the progenitor of Christianity (again he died a Jew, his followers were all Jewish and they defined themselves as a sect of Judaism, not a new religion) and attribute the foundation to Paul and people of his generation, which I would say is true. Paul was born a Jew in Roman Judea and died 70 years before the region was renamed Palestine. Jesus and the founding of Christianity has everything to do with the Jews and zero to do with Palestine and Palestinians. And it goes without saying they have nothing to do with Arabs and Islam, except insofar as Islam tells it story with Jesus (and for that matter Judaism) being part of its origin story, which did not happen until the 600s. I will also point out that those western activists (historically clueless) who are making this claim are actually doing a great disservice to the Palestinian people. Why? Because they are inventing ancient Palestinian history that is easily refutable by fact, as I have just done. Given how easy it is to undermine such claims, when people who don’t know much about the region (but joined the river to the sea crowd because that’s what the cool kids do) learn the truth they will become skeptical about other claims made by Palestinians, some of which are true, some of which deserve acknowledgment. But the American left doesn’t care. They don’t actually care about the Palestinians. They are driven by Jew-hatred, and Zionism is the most convenient demon in their social justice arsenal. They will never help free Palestine. But what they will continue to do is endanger diaspora Jewry, which is their goal, or at least a means to their end. Such was also the case with the Arab regimes who opposed a Jewish state from the very beginning. They weren’t advocating for Palestinians, they were advocating for non Jewish state anywhere min the region. The left has constructed a binary opposition that undergirds their theology that pits the evil oppressive (((Zionists))) against the eternally oppressed Palestinians. Their construct is false, an eschatological theology and nothing else, with both “Zionists” and “Palestinians” being little more than constructs they have thrown together to advance their revolutionary (and profoundly anti-Western) agenda. But if they want to claim Palestinians as the progenitors of Christianity then, well, let me point out, that “Christianity” persecuted the Jews severely at least until the early modern era and in some parts of Europe far beyond that time, culminating in The Holocaust. So sure, you want to claim Jesus for Palestine, then you also acquire all the baggage that comes with him.

-- Jarrod Tanny

It’s all just another form of supersession.

Something I've been chewing on that I do wonder if you have any thoughts on. What is the intended characterization/symbolism of Yang's semblance. Jaune is a healer/support. Ren learned to control his emotions and then grew empathetic. Qrow has his bad luck which is probably a defense mechanism with consequences from the bandits that raised him and Raven. Taiyang's description of Yang's semblance is the closest to an analysis the audience has gotten and that is - "basically a Temper Tantrum". Very interestingly the narrative has so far let that description stand uncontested. And I believe you were the one that did the analysis that Yang's problem was overly depending upon her semblance as a finisher. Also fun to consider how one of the ways that Yang has her parallel with Cinder is with the fire association... which for Yang is just actually her preferred ammunition and the go to imagery for her songs that I can recall off the top of my head except for temper metaphors.

that was me yeah

a core theme of yang’s character is that she’s made of contradictions and cannot be easily defined or fit into a single box. this is true of every character in rwby—there’s always more than meets the eye, complexity beneath the surface—but yang as a character is subject to other characters’ struggle to parse who she is. tai sees a temper tantrum, ruby sees invulnerability, blake has been on an emotional journey spanning six volumes of just learning to see and love yang’s whole, complete self. yang is raven’s daughter, after all—but she’s also summer’s daughter so much that the resemblance screams itself out of the screen.

so. her semblance.

in the story, it’s been described three different times by three different characters:

ruby: “every hit makes her stronger, and she uses that to fight back. that’s what makes her special”

tai: “basically a temper tantrum, great in a bind, but it won’t always save you”

blake: “his semblance is like yours, he absorbs energy through his sword, stores it up and sends it back when he’s ready” (+ yang feeling it’s “cheap” that he “gets to dish out damage without feeling it”)

<- three bears.

in goldilocks terms, yang’s semblance is “too strong” (ruby sees her as invulnerable), “too weak” (tai sees the power it grants her as essentially hollow, false) and “just right” (yang is neither invulnerable nor fragile and her semblance is just a part of her). i also think that what yang says of adam’s semblance is more revealing of her own self-perception than necessarily being meant as an objective critique of adam—it’s not “cheap” to parry/riposte and in fact yang’s growth as a combatant post-beacon looks like learning to fight more defensively and evasively, less reliant on soaking up damage/power for explosive finishers.

insofar as there’s a meaningful difference between adam needing to block hits vs yang not it’s that yang’s semblance gives her a bit of a cushion—she can still riposte even if she misses the parry—and in all honesty i think probably comes down to their kit. yang is a hand-to-hand fighter. she’s blocking hits with her forearms and, gauntlets or not, she’s going to feel that. the specific damage-absorption mechanics of their semblances cater to their fighting styles.

but, yang feels that it’s “cheap” for adam to absorb energy through his sword rather than his own body, because yang takes a certain pride in being able to get back up after being knocked down. her idea that she must take damage before she can deal it back twice as hard is probably not a real, immutable characteristic of her semblance but something that developed in response to how yang herself copes with trauma—it’s a way of, i think, regaining a sense of control and security by telling herself that it’s okay if bad things happen because it will just make her stronger in the end.

the narrative challenges this way of thinking post-beacon—losing her arm and being left behind did not make yang stronger, receiving support from trusted adults like oobleck and port and reuniting with her friends/family is what made her stronger. learning to accept help and treat herself with more compassion is making her stronger. exploring who she is apart from ruby is making her stronger. this is the direction she’s growing in emotionally—that being hurt doesn’t make her strong, healing makes her strong—and her use of her semblance is shifting in tandem with that (still pops it as a finisher quite often but it is pretty rare since v6 that yang uses it to gain the upper hand in fights she’s at risk of losing, bc these days she’s more focused on evasion/outmaneuvering opponents to create openings for her semblance to end the fight)

and then it’s connected to yang’s anger (and fear, as when she gets between neo and ruby) because both the feelings and the semblance are in essence a self-protective response—yang gets angry when she or someone she cares about is hurt and uses that anger to protect herself and/or the person she loves. her semblance is about taking painful things that happen to her and transmuting that into the power to defend herself. same thing.

i don’t actually think that her semblance is hooked into her anger in the, like, mechanical sense (we’ve definitely seen her pop the semblance in context where she’s having a GREAT time, for one)—the correlation arises from yang’s anger being motivated by protectiveness and a desire to not be hurt, which is also what manifests in her semblance.

i would argue that “basically a temper tantrum” is meant to be read in context with ruby’s “that’s what makes her special” and then both those extremes are brought to a resolution by blake’s neutral description of what burn is, mechanically; in that sense i don’t think that tai’s analysis has been left uncontested except insofar as yang didn’t argue with him—but conversely, tai more or less tells her to think of her semblance as a risky weapon of last resort and yang went “k” and started using her semblance more, so i think it’s less that yang takes his advice at face value than it is yang recognizing that tai raises a generally good point [being creative and flexible is valuable] and thinking okay, i can probably get more out of my semblance if i try new things.

her position is that burn is normal (“how is me using my semblance different from someone else using theirs?”), and the way she takes this advice on board reflects that—if someone else relied on their semblance for just one specific tactic and nothing else, what advice would they be getting from their instructors? push yourself further, test the limits of what you think you can do, get out of your comfort zone. that’s what winter tells weiss when she’s struggling! that’s how RNJR are taught in v5! tai views burn as fundamentally different from other semblances, and his advice really comes down to “don’t rely on it, you don’t need it.” but yang disregards that part of what he tells her entirely. she quietly sorts through what tai tells her and only keeps what she thinks will actually help her improve—which is, in itself, of a piece with her semblance. she takes the ‘hit’—the harsh and rather unfair criticism—and then filters/converts it into something more constructive.

(there is also some interesting subtext here with the protective/self-protective drive behind both yang’s anger and her semblance and tai’s perception that the semblance is a “temper tantrum”—which aside from framing burn itself as abnormal also casts yang’s anger as irrational, childish, out-of-control. given the dynamic of yang’s childhood situation, the parentification and leaving yang and ruby alone at home for extended periods of time and over-identification of yang with raven plus favoritism toward ruby… and factoring in tai referring to yang’s anxiety and post-traumatic depression as “moping” well. across the board he seems either unwilling or unable to seriously/genuinely engage with yang’s feelings so how much of his perception that yang has “temper tantrums” follows from outbursts she had when overwhelmed as a child or young teen that tai didn’t take seriously or chose to ignore rather than deal with the root cause of neglect/trauma?)

Sorry if that's already been asked but what do you think about the "King's word is the law" in hotd/dance discourse? I'm not sure where that even came from and for me there is 0 evidence that suggests it's true

Hi anon, excellent question! Sorry it took me so long to reply, this got a bit long! This is actually something that comes up a lot when I teach feudalism to my high school students. I've found that most people in general do not know the difference between feudalism and absolutism, and conceive of all kingship as a form of tyranny. And compared to most modern systems of government, of course feudalism and absolutism are both oppressive and restrictive, so the difference can feel a bit like splitting hairs. Neither system gives the the common people any real voice, but the difference is that feudalism is a system with a relatively weak monarchy that has to, both directly and indirectly, answer to both the church and to his vassals. But Westeros, even under the Targaryens, even with the dragons, is not, strictly peaking, an absolute monarchy but rather a feudal monarchy.

Broadly speaking, in a feudal system "the king's word is law" is only true insofar as the king can enforce that law, and to enforce his laws he needs the support of his vassals, the landholders who supply him with his armies and revenues. The feudal relationship between the king and his vassals looks roughly like this (this is the actual diagram we use in my world history curriculum):

Notice how the relationships are all reciprocal? The king might technically own all the land in the realm, but he has no standing army of his own. Knights pledge their service to the lords, rather than the king (he will have some knights in his personal service too, but not nearly enough to make war). It is in the king's best interest to keep his vassals happy. He needs them! They help him keep other unruly vassals in check, help defend against foreign invasion, and help him wage his own wars of expansion. They also provide the crown with revenue in the form of taxes, and their farmlands are what provide food for the people of the realm. In Westeros in particular, the royal family does not hold much land of its own (the land held by the royal family is called the royal demesne and the Targaryen royal demesne is very small compared to that of irl kings), so it's particularly dependent on the support of the vassalage. This makes it a relatively weak feudal monarchy, all things considered.

(also, notice the bishop up there with the lords? Usually, he would usually be appointed by the king with the approval of the pope, but the question of whether or not church officials were subjects of the king and subject to the king's laws was a huge point of contention hat caused many power struggles in medieval monarchies, and there was a whole separate court system, the ecclesiastical court, to deal with the crimes of court officials)

Anyway, a feudal king who just does whatever he wants without regard for his vassals will quickly find himself being named a tyrant, and the accusation of tyranny is a serious one in a feudal system, because vassals will rebel rather than serve a tyrant. Rebellions were not usually done with the goal of overthrowing the king completely, they were done in order to pressure the king into listening to their demands. We saw this happen with King John, whose barons were unhappy for a number of reasons including what they saw as avaricious economic policies, costly wars with France, increased royal interference in local administration of justice, and conflicts between the king and the church. Eventually, John's barons pressured him into signing the Magna Carta, a document that specifically limited the power of the king and stated outright that the king was not above the law and that the king could not impose new laws without the consent of the lords. John later repudiated this document, which led to further rebellions, and his son and heir Henry III had to reaffirm it after his death (and a series of rebellions still plagued Henry III). Eventually, this leads to a formalization of the idea that the king must not act without the consent of his lords and the creation of parliament.

Now, we never see a Westerosi Magna Carta or the creation of a set parliament, there is the small council and the occasional great council, and lords can and do object to the king's laws, force concessions, and remove kings. Notably, Robert's rebellion in the main series is an example of vassals losing faith in their king and eventually removing him. Aegon V cannot push his reforms through because he lacks the support of the lords, and in his desperation tries to bring back the dragons. But if we look back, even dragonriding Targaryens could not simply impose their will without the cooperation of the realm's lords. Aenys was considered weak and his rule was beset by rebellions, eventually coming to a head when he arranged an incestuous marriage for his heir, this after the Faith was already displeased with his brother's polygamous marriage. This led to Aenys being known as known as King Abomination and the Faith Militant uprising forced him to flee to Dragonstone. Maegor, who followed him, is ousted (and killed) as a tyrant for going further than that, suppressing the faith and committing kinslaying against his nephew. What makes Jaehaerys' rule notable and successful is that he's very good at appeasing the lords and when he is going to do something controversial, like the Doctrine of Exceptionalism or changing the succession, he campaigns and politicks for their support (I maintain that he knew Viserys being picked at the council was a forgone conclusion, but he did not want to unilaterally go against Andal custom without consulting his lords, it's a CYA move). This is something Viserys completely fails to do, not only failing to drum up support for his unconventional choice of heir, but actively alienating potential supporters.

It's worth keeping in mind that "law" means something different in this context than what many of us are used to today. Medieval law, and Westerosi law, was a hodgepodge of custom, statute, and precedent. Westeros, like England, operates on "common law." Successions are disputed all the time because competing claims exist. If Viserys named Mushroom heir, is his word law? What if he names Helaena? Jace? And in a normal situation, if it wasn't the succession of the throne in question the rival claimants would present their petitions, citing evidence and precedent, and the master of law, magistrate, or the king would make a ruling. The will of the lords is especially required to enforce an unconventional royal succession because succession takes place after the king is dead, and so if the succession is disputed, the claimants and the lords of the realm have to settle the dispute, nonviolently if possible, or else civil war will follow.

And you can get the lords behind an unconventional succession, but you have to have a good reason. "She's my favorite child from my favorite wife" is not actually good enough. For instance, when Robb chooses to legitimize Jon and disinherit Sansa in order to keep Winterfell out of Lannister hands, this is widely accepted among his vassals and allies because the reasoning is sound. Jon may be a bastard, but it would be worse for everyone to have Winterfell pass to a Lannister, even if it's shitty for Sansa. By the same logic, initially, Rhaenyra is accepted as heir because the lords do not want Daemon on the throne (the man she is now married to!). But after Aegon is born most assumed he would naturally become his father's heir. And remember, there's no reason for Alicent to marry Viserys if he cannot even ensure he inheritance of his own firstborn son. And Viserys never builds a case for Rhaenyra while he is alive, never tries to present Aegon as unworthy, he never has the lords come reaffirm their oaths, never writes a decree to formalize Westerosi succession. He doesn't take action because he knows he would not achieve anything near consensus (despite certain houses choosing Rhaenyra when it comes to war, it's doubtful they would have made the same choice if it had been a great council), so instead of dealing with the problem, he passes it on to his children.

I think it's fair to view the challenge to Rhaenyra's succession as an objection to what some see as tyranny on the part of the king. Viserys and Rhaenyra set themselves above the law in multiple ways-- not just jumping ahead of a son in the line of succession, but the way she has destabilized her own rule by placing bastards in her line of succession. What they are doing defies all precedent, and in a world where law is built in large part from precedent, this is not something the lords of the realm are obligated to accept.

I firmly believe Stannis is the Westerosi equivalent of the dad who hates cats, doesn't want to get a cat, makes a big deal about not liking the cat, and ends up being the cat's absolute favorite (except instead of a cat it's a huge fuckoff direwolf with boundary issues)

x

The door to the workroom opened and Ghost bounded inside, snuffling at Stannis's hands. Lady Stark, following behind, narrowed her eyes at him as she closed the door.

"You fed him something recently, didn't you?" she said. Ghost, finding nothing, gave a disapproving huff and flopped down by the fireplace.

He had, but that was besides the point. "What are the Knights of the Vale doing here?"

"Just don't give him chicken, we had a terrible problem with the henhouses when they were puppies," she said absently, and circled round to sit at her chair on the far side of the work table. "I brought them here for you."

Stannis, still standing, paused. "For me?"

"Yes, for you. I can't bend the knee, Your Grace. Not yet. But I'm not entirely useless."

"Of all the adjectives I've thought to describe you with, 'useless' has never been one of them."

She smiled at that and looked down at the papers strewn across the table. "Littlefinger — Lord Baelish," she corrected, "had plans for the North. Marrying my Aunt Lysa and becoming Lord Protector of the Vale wasn't enough for him; he wanted more."

"How much more?" Stannis asked as he took his seat again. He was already well able to guess the answer.

"Everything," she answered, a distant look in her eye that Stannis did not like. "He wanted to marry me off to the Boltons. I think the plan was for you you to come sweeping down from the Wall and either take Winterfell or kill out enough of the Bolton forces to weaken them. At which point Littlefinger could come riding to my rescue with the Knights of the Vale. He'd have a ward at the Vale who looked to him for approval, and a new Lady of Winterfell who'd be grateful to him for saving her from monsters twice over." She nodded at his moue of distaste. "Yes, well, he always did consider me one of his cyvasse pieces, to be moved around the board as needed."

Stannis had avoided Baelish at King's Landing, insofar as he could while both of them served on Robert's Small Council. But he well remembered how Baelish spoke of women, how effortlessly he used them and used them up. What damage had he inflicted on a young, friendless girl while he'd had her in his custody? No wonder Lady Stark had fled from him at the first chance of escape.

If that's what had truly happened. The story from the Riverlands was that Baelish had been killed by his own men, and there was no reason to doubt it — such a treacherous man would have succumbed to treachery sooner or later. But Lady Stark had proven herself capable of surprising things, these past months.

It didn't bear thinking of too closely. He cleared his throat. "The Vale, the North — if Baelish wanted the Iron Throne, he'd have needed more than two kingdoms at his command."

"The Riverlands probably would have been next," said Lady Stark with a frown. She pawed through the papers and pulled out a book. "I've been going through the maester accounts, such as they are, from the time my father left Winterfell until now," she said, flipping through it. "There are gaps, obviously, but Maester Wolkan's been keeping remarkably faithful records. Including copies of every raven scroll." She passed the book over to him, tapping at a particular passage. "This was sent to Roose Bolton from the Twins, only a few days before we began the siege."

"'The Blackfish traitor has stolen Riverrun from us. In the name of fellowship among the new Lord Paramounts and the victors over House Stark, we ask for your aid in catching this damned fish and roasting him on a spit.'" Stannis set the book back on the table with the peculiar urge to wipe his hands clean. "Walder Frey was always a craven. Wanting everyone else to fight his battles for him."

"He didn't even have the courage to murder my brother himself," said Lady Stark, taking back the book and closing it with a snap. "Though I've been told it was his son who murdered my mother. A great warrior family, clearly. Plus he doesn't know it's 'Lords Paramount' and not 'Lord Paramounts.'"

Stannis had seen flares of temper from Lady Stark before (on any number of occasions), but the icy rage in her voice gave him pause. Not for the first time, he considered how very merciful she had been with him, in the end. A man responsible for his own brother's murder, when she herself had lost her brother to the very basest of treachery — what might she have done to him, if he'd been anyone other than the rightful king?

Even as he wondered, he knew that his titles had not been what had stayed her hand in judgement. The Starks had never been particularly pragmatic, mostly to disastrous ends, and for all her intelligence Sansa seemed to have inherited a fair helping of the Tully pig-headedness on top of the Stark romanticism. King Stannis would have had no better luck against her judgement than Lord Stannis or Ser Stannis or even Goodman Stannis; it had been for some other reason she had spared him. He wondered when the bill would come due, and if it would ever be in his capacity to pay it.

Lady Stark had continued on. "I haven't found any record of a message sent back to the Twins, but I doubt the Boltons sent one. Lord Bolton were never much for rousing himself for anyone else's interests, even before he betrayed my family. I sent a raven to House Mallister of Seaguard; he sided with Robb during the war, and the Mallisters have always been loyal to House Tully." This time she handed over a scroll, flattened out but still curling slightly at each end.

It was only a bit longer than Walder Frey's, and about as useful. Blackfish holds fast; they have supplies within to last two years or more, and the siege set by the Freys will not last half a season. Brynden has not called the banners of the Riverlands, for Lord Tully is still hostage to the Freys. But if Lady Stark should call, Mallister will answer.

"'If Lady Stark should call,'" he repeated wryly.

"Lord Mallister bounced my mother on his knee when she was a babe, Your Grace," she said, equally wry. "All the oaths of fealty in the world can't replace the bonds of family and friendship between the northern Houses, even those not in the North itself."

"So I am beginning to understand," he said, handing the scroll back. "So the Twins are undefended at present."

"Most likely — Lord Frey is still there, but the bulk of his army will be at Riverrun." She leaned forward. "I've spoken with Lord Royce; he swears to me that Lord Arryn will bend the knee if you lead the Knights of the Vale and your own army and take the Twins. From there, you'll be able to break the Frey's siege at Riverrun — you'll have both the Vale and the Riverlands in a matter of months."

It was a fine strategy, but Stannis couldn't help but feel vaguely offended by it. "Do you mean to tell me that because you refuse to bend the knee, or promise any of your own army to my cause, you've delivered the Knights of the Vale and a promise of House Arryn's fealty as a...consolation prize?"

Lady Stark shrugged. "I suppose so," she admitted. "But a prize, nonetheless. I've only known Lord Royce since I was a guest at the Eyrie, but he seems an honorable man."

"He's an able commander, which is more to the point," Stannis contradicted absently, frowning down at the desk as he mulled it over. Two thousand men was no very great sum — but the Knights of the Vale were one of the best cavalry forces in the kingdoms, for all that they rarely strayed outside their mountains. With the Knights, Stannis's army could divide and take each half of the Twins in a pincer. It would be over nearly before it began.

"Of course, how foolish of me to consider such petty things as honor," grumbled Lady Stark.

Stannis ignored that. "Which leaves the Iron Islands to deal with. Has Lord Greyjoy sent any word?" Even the honorific stuck in his craw. Balon Greyjoy, the only other "king" to survive the war. Stannis had regretted the man's existence ever since the Greyjoy Rebellion.

Lady Stark shook her head. "Nothing. We've beaten back the last of the Ironborn holdouts, but I doubt they'll begrudge us that. My father always said the iron price never spent well. And they rightly blame the Boltons for whatever might have happened to Theon."

Which was still a mystery, so far as Stannis could tell. Theon Greyjoy had not been found among the dead at Winterfell, nor at the Dreadfort. If he'd escaped, there'd been no sightings reported. "No doubt you'll wish to execute him yourself, if he's found, but it would be better—"

"Execute Theon?" she said, her brow furrowing. "I — no. I don't wish that."

He leaned back in his seat. "You surprise me, my lady. I wouldn't have thought you squeamish after all this time." Perhaps that was his answer: she'd spared himself and Lady Brienne not out of principle but cowardice. In a way, it might be a relief: or at least it would be easier to understand.

She looked away. "Father did always say that whoever passes the sentence should swing the sword."

"That's not an answer. Your kindness does you credit, my lady, but if you show too much your people won't fear you. Which means they won't follow you, when the time comes." He'd said the same thing to her brother, more than a year ago when they'd argued over the fate of the wildlings and the drawbacks of mercy. The Lord Commander hadn't heeded the advice; was it a Stark family failing?

It must be, for Lady Stark sighed in frustration and said, "I don't want to be feared, Your Grace. And though you've failed to notice, I'm in no need of anyone following me anywhere. I'm staying—" She broke off and shook her head. "This always happens," she muttered, an odd smile tugging at her mouth.

He frowned. "What always happens?"

"This," she said, gesturing vaguely at the distance between them. "We can't go five minutes without arguing about something."

"That's not true." She sighed again and he reconsidered. "Perhaps if you didn't contradict everything I said."

"Perhaps if you had sisters, growing up," she countered. "My mother always said Arya and I were more trouble than all five of the boys put together." Her expression darkened and Stannis followed her thoughts — Theon had been one of those five boys. Raised alongside the rest of them, within these very walls.

"I thought you would want him dead," he admitted. "More than anyone else in the North."

She got to her feet and went over to the window, resting her arms on the sill as she looked out onto the courtyard. Stannis rose and joined her: down below were a dozen carts piled high with hay. All around them men and women were busy unloading the bales and stacking them up in a corner, where more workers took them away in a brisk line deeper into the Keep. Each cart was in the courtyard only a few minutes; when it was empty, the driver mounted up again and drove slowly out through the great gates, replaced by another cart yet more heavily laden. Supplies from the Northern Houses, to lay in for the oncoming winter.

"I don't want Theon dead," said Lady Stark after a long while observing in silence. He glanced over to her, but she was still looking down at the carts. "I don't want anyone dead, Stannis — there's been so much death. And more coming, if what Jon told you about the White Walkers is true."

She'd never called him by his name before; indeed she didn't seem aware she'd done it. "I believed him," he replied. "I still do. Your brother didn't seem the sort to make up stories."

"He always was honest to a fault," she said, turning to look at him at last. Her blue eyes were bright — tears, unshed. "I wish he'd come with you."

So did he, he realized. Not for his skill in battle or his perception or bravery: but only so his sister would not look so devastated at his loss. "He took an oath to the Night's Watch," he said, cursing at himself for his clumsy words even as he did so.

"I know that," she huffed. "Five minutes without arguing, is that really so difficult?"

"Evidently," he conceded, and she laughed. A watery sound, and she pressed the heels of her hand to her eyes quickly as she turned back toward the table, but laughter nonetheless.