I hate how whenever there's someone on the internet who's found their niche of something they're good at, you open the comments and so many are asking them to start a business around it. you make good looking food? when are you opening a restaurant/making a cookbook? you're a talented seamstress/crocheter/knitter? when are you making patterns/opening a shop/etc. those are very different skill sets and levels of effort! can't people have skills and hobbies in peace instead of trying to monetize them it's so exhausting

This was entirely tangential to this post from @utilitycaster which is why this is its own post, but the tags made me think about what feels most compelling about Liliana to me, and it's really because there's such an interesting approach to redemption in terms of the sunk cost fallacy to be had there.

There have been plenty of comparisons between Liliana and Essek, but I don't think they're really situations that can be compared. Essek had done one horrible thing (that was of relevence to the story; it is implied that he's taken other actions that he feels were wrong, but we don't know what those entail nor do the Nein care enough to ask, so per narrative convention, they do not matter for analysis) and was only still involved in it to the extent that he couldn't take it back, so to survive he had to continue covering his tracks. But he was also incentivized to otherwise act in alignment with the group that was not those on behalf of whom he had made terrible choices, because he was still living in the Dynasty, and as such wasn't actively perpetuating those actions beyond the cover up.

Liliana on the other hand is acting with the Vanguard and has been furthering if not personally committing atrocities on their behalf for a number of years, continuing to the present. Like Essek, she believes her involvement in the cause to be a difficult choice that was made for noble reasons, and now can't see a way out. But she is also relieved to be told to stay, though at the point that they discuss her leaving, she is alone and outside the immediate range of contact or oversight from the Vanguard. It seems reasonable that she could disappear with a decent headstart, and perhaps become untraceable quickly enough to be safe from anyone following. With this context, returning to the Vanguard with the intention of feeding information to the opposition feels like the riskier choice, but crucially it is the devil she knows.

I actually liken this more to Cassandra de Rolo than Essek. Cassandra was manipulated against her brother by the Briarwoods, but this was also spurred by having watched Percy seemingly leave her for dead. There are legitimate reasons why the Briarwoods, as the people who rescued her and then kept her alive for many years, are the easier option in which to place her trust. She knows what she's getting from that vantage point and how to handle it. She doesn't inherently have faith that someone she only knew as a young and helpless child, who ran from the hardships she's faced, would have the strength or willingness to do what she has found necessary for survival.

I think that Liliana's actions are more willful, not least because she was not a child nor in mortal peril when she joined the Vanguard, but she sees herself as having made difficult choices when only faced with difficult options, and I do think they have been difficult. She didn't want to leave her family; she doesn't want to hurt the young Ruidusborn under her care; she is probably genuinely sorry that innocent people were considered a necessary sacrifice for what she sees as the greater good. It is psychologically taxing to feel as though one is always picking between bad options, which is a significant contributing factor for why people buy into a sunk cost for so long. And over time, those hard decisions become easier, because you know what to expect from the outcome. Though Liliana is well aware that she might be killed for a misstep among the Vanguard, she already knows how to act to maintain their favor, but how she might be received on Exandria by those fighting the Vanguard, even with the Hells vouching for her, is anyone's guess.

This is a very real reason why people remain in cults and struggle to push back against this kind of conditioning: because the decision to leave feels more immediately perilous than the decision to stay. (On a certain level making these kinds of choices and actions habitual is a fundamental basis behind a lot of military conditioning.) And if you are acting in the interests of your own survival, but that survival comes at the cost of that of countless others who have not, in fact, made any threat or harm against you to begin with, then is the nature of your survival morally defensible?

This analysis isn't a question of whether Liliana will commit to her role as double agent and turn fully against the Vanguard, or even which one of these is a "better" story; this is about what the story might say if she doesn't. Yes, she might commit to a different path than the one she's on and make an effort to redeem herself, but it is also a perfectly coherent and interesting story if she doesn't.

Another (unpopular) Russia sexuality headcanon

- Not gay

- Prefers to be around women than men because he just finds them more appealing. Not exactly for sexual reasons tho, and more often than not he seeks women out for platonic companionship. Women’s touches are just much more comfortable for him, women’s softer aesthetics more up his alley. Women >>>>>>>

- HOWEVER, much of his meaningful relationships have been with men. Can’t be helped since he is mostly surrounded by male nations, from Asia to Europe. Not that he’s had any kind of relationship (either sexual or romantic or both) with absolutely ALL of them, because he has deep trust issues/also hedgehog’s dilemma plus a myriad of other stuffs and is therefore pretty picky. It can’t just be Anyone or else he’ll want to die. He has a lot of troubles letting people in and romantic/sexual relationships inherently require you to be vulnerable. However he does look like someone who gets it on with everyone supposedly close, because he is physically touchy with almost everyone and can be very overbearing and possessive.

- The overbearing and possessive attitudes are from deep paranoia and distrust of anything ‘outside’, of anything he has no control over. But he also has fascination with all those things, and just like all isolationists, always want to be included (these are two things that exist in him simultaneously, always fighting each other).

- Ultimately tho what he wants most is familial relationships and affection. He wants someone (or more than one person) who will always be there for him. He is not exactly desiring for romance nor sex in the sense that it’s just not his utmost priority. While he has pretty healthy libido he’s okay taking care of it himself and for the most part he really does. I hc him as honestly one of the least sexual people in the big USSR house because I want to explore different alternatives than Vanya just exerting sexual power over his colonies, it’s boring, he can still bully his colonies without resorting to assault yanno. One-on-one connection matters less for him than familial-communal, that kind of thing.

- But also, no one among his colonies is OBVIOUSLY quite in his league enough to pursue serious partnership with. I rather think he’ll be quite conscious of this fact in a way? One reason he becomes interested in America, China, and some European countries is because they’re powerful/aligning more with his own league (or that’s what he hoped/s) and Ivan is attracted to power (as are all nations, and esp more powerful nations). I hc that his colonies got on with each other in the big USSR house and not with him, sans rare and very specific occasions, even tho everyone for ex Alfred thought it’s just one big Russia’s harem.

- Yes, usually the women he has had any semblance of relationship with are human, simply because there is no female nations around him (tho I do ship him with some nyos), and living around where he himself lives. Many of them are when he was much younger tho; dude tumbled a lot with young maidens in the hay. He was rather popular.

- His type in relationships: someone who provides comfortable, stable and safe space for him and isn’t the type who likes to argue or fights a lot with him. Someone he can at least trust (but no one so far has his whole trust). Someone who does boring stuff with him, like lazying around in the bed and tending to the garden. Someone who understands and accepts him, and is gentle to him. Basically, his desires out of any semblance of relationship are really boring and domestic.

- The women he likes are the ‘soft but assertive’ type tho. He likes women who can ‘take the wheel’ mentally because man is so tired he wishes to sleep for 637353 years. Has a thing for mentally more mature women who can mommy him.

- The men he likes are those who can respect him, and are chill. Those who can see him an equal, or would defer to him in some respects and not trigger his sensibilities too much. Ivan knows that he can be abusive to partners who are too weak against him, or to anyone ever, for sure. He actually rather respects those who can speak up against him, just that please don’t get loud and annoying about it lol

- Kinda is the type who wishes nice perfect people will fall from the sky and hug him to sleep be always there for him kind of thing. Doesn’t get that.

Expanding on some of the relationships he’s had and what type it is:

- With Golden Horde, it was purely platonic because he’d been a child and he… grew up really slow and was a particular late bloomer.

(No, no r*pe, since I also have an established Golden Horde OC and he developed into this person who is some kind of people hater and didn’t perceive any kind of sexuality up until he met this person who wasn’t Ivan, not even with one being used as a tool to assert power. Besides, Vanya was so weak hearted he would cry just from being trolled just a little bit. Basically Golden Horde had 3782739493832772638282 ways to traumatize little Vanya without using r*pe)

- With France, it was easily sexual because France himself also desired Ivan sexually. Their relationship developed fast because of this. These days Ivan still likes him, but it’s not sexually.

- Germany/Prussia: Ivan has never done anything with Ludwig, but likes him (platonically) a lot. Sometimes gets in on with Gilbert in modern era, but their coupling is pretty few and far in between. Gil likes him, tho he doesn’t want to admit.

- England: hate-admiration relationship and neither actually tries to get on with the other.

- Netherlands: Ned would fuck anyone so probably yes. All in the past tho.

- America: Ivan was not impressed with him when they first met, but tolerated him better than many others. Gradually getting more interested in him up until CW, where it developed into some kind of tense crush (not strictly sexual, BUT imbued by sexuality) but I’m on fence on whether they had gone around to actually do it. Maybe once, though. The 90s onward tanked his respect and affection to America and in modern time it’s like. Zero point five. Ivan has goosebumps thinking of the time he could ever like America like EW. America isn’t actually his type of partner BY FAR, so the fact that he could actually like America is betrayal to his own principles and sense of self and it’s super disorientating. When he was flirting with America, there was just too many chaotic moments and rollercoaster of emotions that while at the time was exhilarating now he truly realizes aren’t for him. There’s also one thing tho: Alfred was the only one who could handle his abuses while staying mostly intact, so you could say that this made Ivan soar.

- China: Yao isn’t a woman, but his aesthetics are really up Ivan’s alley (that balance on soft and hard, soft outside but firm inside). Definitely sexual though Ivan also seeks Yao quite a lot just for platonic companionship. If Ivan’s relationship with America is getting worse the more time passes, with China it’s just getting better.

- Mongolia: surprisingly chill if they don’t come to each other for serious things, occasionally sexual, Mongolia is daddy tho not quite with Ivan in that respect (nyo!Mongolia, however…)

- Central Asia: with Kazakhstan it’s mostly friendly (caveat: has to be some healthy distance between them for best possible friendliness, but ‘healthy distance’ is difficult for them for obvious reasons), sometimes they fight and break bones, ever-present low-riding tension Kazakhstan tries to keep at minimum for his own sake (there’re only so many sleepless nights he can handle), and generally complicated feelings. Uzbekistan hates Ivan even though is good at masking it.

- Turkey: obvious distrust between each other, fucked sometimes (less often than otherwise assumed) in the past. There’s certain side of you you can show to people you distrust, and that’s quite the howling mawing clawing animal side.

- Belarus: his sweet sister, idk which one is older and in the end doesn’t matter to me? Both of them are honestly unhinged tho, so I guess it’s not that Ivan is afraid of Natasha per se, it’s that he can see their, his, fucked-upness in her and he doesn’t really know how to deal with that, since he doesn’t need to see it if he’s living it himself but he HAS to see it if it’s reflected in another. It’s not that he’s afraid of her, perhaps it’s that he’s afraid of himself. But perhaps no one understands him more than she does.

RECENTLY EDITED DUE TO A MISTYPE IN OUR IDEALS SECTION LMFAOOO. WE DO N O T, IN FACT, SUPPORT CRINGE CULTURE.

ᜊ.. Hi there! feel free to call me zootz! you might recognize that name, that's because this is a sideblog of @zootzbootz

Onto proper introductions now, I go by many names! like zootz as said previously. however, you can also call me drew, louis, ruyu, or lordy. I am a highly feminine transgender rosneoman with a shitton on xenos tacked on! my pronouns are rot/cae/rat/bro/he/cloud/slush/narc/star and nor/mal. orientation wise, I'm an orchidbisexual mainbi cupioromantic omniaesthetic queerplatonic vincian! I reclaim "fag" btw :3 ... oh, both myself and the body are of adult age!

I'm part of a system, though general I'm going to be the main one running this blog!

ᜊ; I made this blog because I find coining terms to be incredibly fun, and wanted a special place for my terms! so, what can you expect from me? primarily, gender and orientation coinings or things that align with such. I can also make name, pronoun, and title packs either for fun or per request. I might also coin other terms. such as things relating to plurality or alterhumanity!

quick side note: I enjoy some media lot of people consider to be "problematic" I consume my interests critically.

ʚ ideals! ɞ

instead of having a traditional dni, I've decided instead to opt for an "ideals" list. letting you all know what we believe in so you can choose to opt in or out based upon that.

we support the following

1. xenogenders and neopronouns

2. "contradictory" labels (mspec lesbians/gays, lesboys, turigirls, etc)

3. genderfucky, pnc, and gnc folk

4. all forms of systems and plurality

5. alterhumanity, otherheartedness, copinglinks, otherkin, constells, endels, transspecies in a non transid way, and new-age kinnies

6. movements like acab, blm, defund the police, stand with ukraine, free palistine, etc.

7. all those with mental health disorders. even/especially the demonized ones

8. objectum and posic identities

9. pro-kink (our blog will be sfw but we DO support y'all!)

10. religious/spiritual folk (who are pro-queer)

--------

we don't support the following

1. pro-contact (harmful) paraphilias

2. alt-right stuff

3. radfems

4. radqueers

5. xenoids (due to the fact they are inherently anti xenogender)

6. capitalism

7. shielding bigotry with religion. (not exclusive to chritianity)

8. transid (transage, transabled, transrace/rcta)

9. narc abuse truthers

10. anything else that would oppose our ideals

ʚ want to send a request? make sure to follow my rules! ɞ

1. you cannot be against any of our ideals listed above!

2. do not request me to coin anything hateful or harmful.

3. send your request no more than one time.

4. be okay with the fact that there's a chance your request may not get made.

ʚ things I will and won't coin/post ɞ

WILL

- genders inspired by just about anything (minus a few fandoms)

- name/pronoun/title packs

- terms exclusive to conditions that we HAVE

- reclaim/remake/recoin terms made by exclusionists. (they will be given new names to avoid confusion and association)

WON'T

- poc exclusive genders/terms (our body is either white or whitepassing so I'm not comfy with that ! it's not my place!)

- terms exclusive to conditions we DON'T have

- hateful/harmful terms

- terms based off of dsmp, killing stalking, or any other fanbases I end up declining (they're just not my thing and I need to feel some connection to what I'm coining. it has nothing to do with the "problematic nature" of the media. I'm literally a south park fan LMAO)

ᜊ! who can use my terms?

everyone! even if you don't fit my ideals. if one of my terms registers with you, feel free to use it. you simply can't request new ones, and I'd prefer it if you didn't interact with the blog itself, or me at all.

the only exception to the "everyone can use my terms! " thing is if it's exclusive to a certain group.

❥ about reposting our terms.

if you repost our terms on Pinterest, it MUST have a link back to the original coining post, and you must align with our ideals.

if you post our terms on any lgbt/queer/mogai, etc wikis you must assign proper credit to me ofc.

moreover I'd appreciate asking before reposting my terms anywhere, but it's not required as long as you follow my other conditions.

Book of Vile Darkness is an interesting 3.X expansion There is uhh... A way to do evil alignments in a really cool manner. Obsidian’s works absolutely nails this consistently, in my experience... You get multiple evil party members in Neverwinter Nights 2, for example, and both embody this kind of pragmatism in approach that can make an evil outlook shine. Few mortals are cackling villains; they become evil because a ruthless and harsh approach can be very effective or is something you feel you may need. You have a character in one of those games, an evil warlock who kind of oddly reminds me of Walter White, who would knows about the ultimate villain of the game and who has become an absolute monster to try to match it. Or, in Knights of the Old Republic 2 (Lets be real, Jedi/Sith/Grey is ABSOLUTELY a good/evil alignment system) you even get this mentor who sort of philosophises on the draw and power of the dark side and it’s efficacy. A more proscriptive kind of alignment I like is from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. There, demons - and specifically Vampires, which are a type of demon in that show - are evil. This changes for demons over time, and we meet specific types of demons that are not inherently good nor evil, but it’s consistent that vampires are ALWAYS evil. And that is played with deeply... A vampire represents a person’s worst traits manifest. This is usually a heartless being embodying the evil of a person, but that’s not all it can be. One character utilizes her position as a popular girl at school to have a lot of societal power; as a vampire she is more sad than dangerous since, as a supernatural creature, she now lacks that status and yet is unable to move past her limitations. Another becomes a heroic ally of the main characters, but one that still cannot feel mutual respect or interact with others in a manner where he does not benefit. And, of course, there’s Angel; a vampire cursed with his human soul who has a full human mind cast inside a tortured body and who must struggle against the evil that is merely suppressed while his souls is “in charge” And that all being said... Book of Vile Darkness does not really facilitate as much stuff like this as a goal. Book of Vile Darkness treats those that have chosen evil in a manner like Warhammer treats those that have chosen Chaos - It presents creatures who’s flesh and bodies are warped by evil, and who take in evil as an end goal in and of itself. Evil is a substance, a cult, and an alignment that some people have chosen to champion. And that’s... Always been hard for me to wrap my mind around. Yet... There is an appeal there. One that, as I have come to appreciate alignment a lot, I do like quite a bit. I feel it would all be hard to use, but perhaps you can portray the stuff in it as more cosmic, and to an extent tragic. An elf who has been warped until they have altered to an innately evil and loathsome form, now unable to have the grace they once did. The elite of an orc army, who act not as their own individuals but as the subtly tragic pawns of Orcus - who molded them as his perfect soldiers unable to so much as question this authority. The Cancer Mage, who’s body and mind have been warped beyond recognition. That kind of thing - It is for when you want to embody that idea of an evil alignment as a kind of force of nature that some creatures can become an avatar of. But, a lot of it is uhh... Blunt, edgy, and kind of silly. I feel like, if you used it all, it would be kind of ridiculous as a setting. Still, you can find a poetry in that, I think... Innate evil given physical form, after all, is something which can represent the demons we face as humans. Fighting that is sort of symbolic, if you understand me, for combating other demons. So even the more ridiculous stuff in that book, I think, could be evocative or cool if given the right approach. Others are just really metal, and are good if you want an adventure that evokes a death metal album.

I think the musical does a better job at critiquing both lights method and the current system, just inherently since both L and light die and the musical goes out of its way in my opinion to (with how the misa torture scene is treated for example) show how corrupt L’s side is too. That being said I think u and the other op from that post are right in that original DN anime and manga is very copaganda heavy and I think in the anime especially L is more unambiguously “sympathetic” what with all the scenes trying to show him as kinda cute or funny, and you have the task force being spotlighted too

Ooh, that's interesting! I only sort of remember the vague vibes of the musical myself now, but I do recall thinking that it did stuff like portrayed the female characters a little more importantly and maybe humanly than in the manga sometimes. I'd probably have to watch it again myself. And yeah, I agree about the anime sort of woobifying L a bit more, and making Light a bit more cartoonishly villainous too (though sort of inconsistently so for them both).

I think the task force might also somewhat come off more as the heroes because they are sort of the more "average joe" type characters mixed in with the ambitious genuises that are battling the hardest for the notebook, and therefore supposedly the ones who would generally line up with the audience as more real-world equivalents most times. The story definitely doesn't do much to examine the police as something other than a force for the overall good and protection of everyone, nor dive much into the complicated reasons that criminals and crime might exist in the first place, either. And I'm sure that's partially because it would be really hard to cover all those topics in the manga properly, partially because of Ohba's personal views and alignments, and partially because it's a story in a popularly serialized magazine that is mostly just meant to entertain rather than to truly rock the boat.

Aligning Mission Statement with Consumer Values

Consumers are conducting brand research at an unprecedented level, and this trend shows no indications of abating. 

Throughout the pandemic, we discovered that individuals began to seek out brands that shared their beliefs in an effort to spend their money with companies that shared their concerns. Consumers are conducting due diligence on you on a variety of topics, including the environment, sustainability, black-owned businesses, whale conservation, and ethical fashion. 

Brands that ignore this stance risk losing customers to competitors who do.

Neither silence nor an antiquated purpose statement is a feasible option in this case. Forward-thinking brands who are aware of consumer trends have already made modifications and followed through on their commitments. 

If a customer visits your website and your mission statement reads like it was written in 1998, those funds will not make their way into your war chest. Consumers that are savvy today view brands as extensions of themselves. They’ve worked diligently to ascertain where their money is spent, and it’s critical to them. 

To them, it’s tremendously off-putting if your goal statement has aged like milk. They want products and services from a business that understands and addresses their social and environmental concerns.

That needs a new mission statement that is backed up by action. To truly go above and above, have your work independently certified by a third-party agency to establish confidence. Consumers are inherently distrustful of companies, and anything that can be done to alleviate that tension is a win. In any case, re-examining your goal statement is not a wishful thinking exercise. 

It remains true to your brand’s identity. However, demonstrating your interest goes a long way. In the eyes of the consumer, putting actions behind your words is the frosting on the cake.

Utilize market research to guide your efforts here, as making an educated guess is silly – and potentially detrimental. With a firm grasp of global trends, Patagonia’s mission statement could almost write itself based on the topic clusters alone. The social media conversations surrounding your brand will reveal which trends are most popular among your target demographic. In your mission statement, make a point of highlighting them. 

Demonstrate to the consumer that you’ve taken notice of and embraced their beliefs, and you’ll boost both your brand story and customer experience.

FRESH MANNA

CHANGE OF NAME

1 Chronicles 4:9-10

We know the prayer of Jabez very well, one of the most popular prayers in the bible. Imagine having a name that constantly reminds one of an unfortunate start in life.

We would like someone, especially our parents to bless us but what does one do when a mother places a “curse” on one?

We quote and pray this scripture, but can we see beyond the prayer?

What is so important about Jabez that the Lord interrupted the genealogies to take two verses to speak of him?

Jabez’s problem started when he was named. Spiritually, our names have a direct link to our destinies and names can be a blessing or a curse to us.

God is extremely interested in names, He was always particular about the names of His children because He knows that we become what we are called and answers to.

This mother named her child based on her experiences, she named him Jabez, because she bore him with sorrow, why? To remind herself of a sad season, a bad pregnancy, or an unhappy marriage, we’ll never know but thank God Jabez had the foresight to cry to God for a change of name.

Who knows maybe after years of bullying, misfortune and ridicule, through prayer Jabez managed to overcome the limitations inherent in his name.

What is in your name?

Is it a blessing or a reminder of an unfortunate incident? Have you wondered what your names are doing for or against you?

I took stock of our names and was thankful our parents named us all prophetically. As bad as life gets, we don’t want our names speaking against us daily each time it’s called out.

Something is always labouring against us, our actual given names or those given us by others, those not-so-nice names like Ichabod as Phinehas’ wife called her child as she was dying from labour in 1 Samuel 4:18-22: "The glory has departed”, this was the fate of a newborn child, because the glory of God had departed from Israel.

Naomi, meaning beautiful in Ruth 1:20 because of circumstances chose to change her name to Mara which means bitter. Naomi attempted to change her name to bitterness, to reflect her hard circumstances. Neither history nor her daughter-in-law Ruth indulged her, and before long, God changed her story.

You too can change your name if the one you have does not suit you, the Lord did that with people because of the destiny He had planned for them and when God changes a person’s name and gives him a new name, it’s usually to establish a new identity such as:

Abram to Abraham in Genesis 17:5.

Sarai to Sarah in Genesis 17:15.

Jacob to Israel in Genesis 32:28.

Solomon to Jedidiah in 2 Samuel 12:25.

Saul to Paul in Acts 13:9.

Jesus changed Simon’s name, meaning “God has heard,” to “Peter,” meaning "rock" when He first called him a disciple in John 1:42.

Finally, there is a name change for all believers: God says in Revelation 2:17, "To the one who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone that no one knows except the one who receives it.

When we reach heaven, God will change our names. It will represent our own changed identity as we transition from sinful to holy. In the meantime, be sure to only answer to the names God calls you and not one that works against your destiny. I am blessed because my name says so and God’s word confirms it.

PRAYER: Thank you Lord for allowing me to align my name to my destiny in Christ through his name in Jesus’ name. Amen.

Shalom

Women of light international prayer ministries.

callout for @genderfluidlucifer

google docs

tw for transmisogyny + TERFs + emotional manipulation

Transmisogyny

Lucifer is a huge transmisogynist who will complain 24/7 about how TERFs hurt the ace community, but the moment @randomclustermissile , a trans girl (who is not an exclusionist at all) tries to point out transmisogyny in inclusionist circles (in the most vague and general way possible, without pointing fingers nor calling anyone names) Lucifer will immediatly jump to block her and so they did with me (another inclusionist) and i have to suppose to everyone else who agreed with that post, even arriving to vagueing about us in private group chats to suggest that we were “sympathizing with exclusionists”. all because we dared point out transmisogyny in inclusionist circles. lucifer is TME but apparently they think they’re the authority on TERFs and their talking points but actual trans women are not, according to them, since this is the stuff that they would go and spew to other people. (screenshots from @enbyoctoling​)

here’s more examples of Lucifer (again, a transmasc person) going deep in detail about how according to them, TERFs/SWERFs hate aro/ace people and are an active threat to us

1. link

[Image ID: Three screenshots of a post by Genderfluidlucifer. The first screenshot is of a paragraph that reads, "Hey. So I can actually answer this. Anon your commentary about how you thought terfs would approve of sex repulsed aces is sort of it. Except...not. Basically terfs hate ace people for not wanting sex in the approved by terfs way. Terfs are actually extremely interested in [forcing] amatonormativity onto everyone. Because for as sex negative as terfs are...they don't want to actually acknowledge or change the fact that amatonormativity is at the root cause of rape culture and misogyny."

The second screenshot is a zoomed in section of the post that reads, "So yeah no I have NO idea where exclus allies are getting this idea from that terfs would even remotely care about the sexual rights of ace people. Terfs generally hate any sexualities in the LGBTQ+ acronym that aren't LGB because they can't force a gender binary onto those sexualities. At least, not as easily. That's why it's actually a massive sign of someone who doesn't call themselves a terf being a crypto terf if they use the term LGB in a positive manner. Along with the term SGA, as it is deliberately exclusive of nonbinary and not inherently SGA centric queer-aligned sexualities. /END ID]

link to the full post, these are just excerpts but the whole thing is just a very long rant about how TERFs hate ace people and so on (i think it’s worth noticing that although the actual post is kinda long, trans women are never once brought op in a conversation about TERFs issues and the only time transmisogyny is mentioned is not relevant to the conversation)

2. link

[Image ID: A screenshot of a reblog by genderfluidlucifer. The original poster is nothorses. It reads, "Because apparently I have to say it: Testosterone is not a 'violent' hormone. It doesn't make you 'more aggressive' or a worse person, it doesn't make you 'dangerous,' or 'toxic.' Transmascs do not need to be 'warned of the dangers of T.' We do not need to spend our transitions terrified that we're going to become a danger to those around us - that HRT is going to turn us into a monster.

Everyone experiences mood swings during hormonal shifts (pregnancy, menstruation, menopause, estrogen HRT, etc.) and while you might have grumpy moments or feel anger/frustration that you need to learn to handle differently, that doesn't make you a bad person.

Testosterone can change the way you access/process emotions somewhat, but if you're already thoughtful about how you handle your feelings and treat others, you're going to be fine. It's normal to lash out on occasion, by accident, then apologize and work to do better. It doesn't make you a bad person. Everyone on HRT is prone to this, and everyone experiencing hormonal changes is prone to this.

Getting HRT should be positive and affirming; you should not have to spend your entire transition terrified of becoming a monster."

The post then has a reblog by captainlordauditor that reads, "The big danger of T is that needle ouchy." /END ID]

here’s them reblogging from known transmisogynist user @nothorses (once again, the irony that a post about how testosterone is seen as the "aggressive hormone" does not mention transfem at all which are literally the main victims of this rethoric in the first place)

3. link (1), link (2)

[Image ID: Two screenshots of posts by genderfluidlucifer. The first screenshot reads, "Queer exclus: We're not repackaging terf rhetoric! Saying that is transmisogynistic! Also queer exclus: Remove the plus from LGBT!" and has tags that say, "I will pay these people to grow some god damn self awareness. Imagine being this dense. Queer discourse." The post has 15 notes.

The second screenshot reads, "Honestly it is so stupid and frustrating to see ace exclus continue to deny that the ace discourse was started by terfs. Proof was given countless times. And a big name terf like galesofnovember even admitted to starting it. Those of you who demand proof but ignore all of this never wanted proof to begin with." and is tagged with, "ace discourse. The post has 38 notes. /END ID]

heres another two post of theirs conflating TERFs with ace exclusionism

4. link

[Image ID: A screenshot of a reblogged post by furbearingbrick. The original poster is boxlizard, Lucifer's old account. The original post reads, "By the way for people still in denial about it, here's galesofnovember, a terf, admitting that she intended to start the ace exclus movement. She's taking credit for it. Normally if the victims of this behavior weren't ace/aro or other queer identities y'all be ready to rightfully lynch her. But since it's us, y'all just still wanna stamp your feet and go, 'Nuh uh!' instead of acknowledging facts." The part that says, "admitting that she intended to start the ace exclus movement" is a link to a galesofnovember post.

There is then a reblogged addition from furbearing brick that reads, "archived versions of the receipts" and has two links to the webarchive. The tags read, "Bringing this back since it's apparently still relevant. Terfism mention. Aphobia mention. Queerphobia mention. Blocklist." and has 1,455 notes. /END ID]

this is their post that ive already talked about but basically they found a 52 notes post made by a TERF in 2012 and this one person said "i dont know why i dont get to be the princess of the anti-ace-brigade" and apparently they are convinced that this means TERFs started the ace exclusionism movement and that this is one of their goals. which is insane when TERFs in real life only care about making life miserable for transfem people first and foremost.

5.link

[Image ID: A screenshot of a reblog by genderfluidlucifer. The original poster is yu-gay-fudo. It reads, “Just in case you happen to be unaware, some of the “radfem lite” they post to warm you up to their rhetoric, just off the top of my head:

- Ace/aro exclusionism

- Bi exclusionism or claims that bi people are “less queer” bc of “straight passive privilege”

- Saying you have to be dysphoric to identify as transInvalidating nonbinary people

- Calling queer a slur regardless of context, saying people can’t identify as queer, and saying that it can’t be reclaimed

- “Mogai hell”, “kweer”, or otherwise mocking less common labels and claiming they are “just cishets who want to feel special”

- Excluding sex workers from feminist discussions or claiming that sex work is inherently evil

- Basically anyone who thinks they can determine what other people identify as”. The tags read, "queerphobia tw. twerfs tw. no id." and has 70,727 notes. It was reblogged on March 22nd, 2021 /END ID]

another example of conflating radfems to things that, while wrong, have little to nothing to do with them because being a radfem, again, is something very specific that has all to do with transfem oppression.

Emotional manipulation

Lucifer has done nothing but block, break boundaries, spread lies and vague about people, some of which were even mutuals with them knowing they would see the posts. when confronted about it Lucifer's only answer was "just say you hate me and block me" but they actually ended up blocking everyone first, making it impossible for anyone to set some boundaries with them or even just to calmly confront them about anything.

[proof: Io(popncourse) and Lucifer had a disagreement in a shared discord server, which prompted Lucifer to vague Io in a vent post. Io confronted them, as being vagued is one of buns triggers, to which Lucifer initially agreed to delete the vent post, but then proceeded to victimize themself and immediatly blocked Io. later on, Jude(malewifedeckard) was confronted by Lucifer, then after Jude told them “I’m worried that you’ll vague me just like you did with Io” they proceeded to block Jude and vagued about him too. when Io made a post (which was not a callout, it was just bun setting buns boundaries) explaining what Lucifer did, Lucifer immediatly jumped to victimize themself, acting like they were being called out and straight-up lying, even going so far as to say that no one tried to hear them out, which is a blatant lie if you consider the aforementioned Io and Jude’s attempts at doing so, with Lucifer immediatly blocking and cutting ties with the both of them. ] 

(screenshots taken by @popncourse and @malewifedeckard)

as seen in the proof above Lucifer’s behaviour is not ok because they don’t accept any kind of confrontation and immediatly jump to blocking, and after blocking, they'd immediatly go and vague about the people who confronted them pacificly, spreading more lies and painting themself as the victim and even arriving to say “no one hears me out at all” which is simply not something you can say when you block people who are trying to hear you out in the first place.

this is by no means an invitation to go and harass them, send them hate or anything like that. i absolutely don’t want anything even remotely hateful or negative to be sent their way after this post. 

this post was only made because:

1. as an ace person who fully supports the inclusion of aspec identities in the lgbt+ community i don’t want to support an enviroment that costantly downplays transmisogynistic oppression in order to be taken seriously. there are hundreds of ways to make aspec activism without acting like we(as in TME aspecs)are the victims of a system that seeks for the annihilation of transfemenine people in real life everyday. i especially don’t want to support TME individuals who act transfem-friendly but then block any transfem who tries to speak on transmisogyny without a second thought.

2. Lucifer’s behaviour has hurt two friends of mine and i don’t want to associate with someone who actively breaks people’s boundaries without taking accountability when messing up.

3. i cannot associate with someone who spreads lies about me accusing me of sympathizing with exclusionists all while having me blocked so that i can’t see it nor defend me. they complain about people not hearing them out but they’re the very first person who does not try to hear people out, and instead jumps to spread baseless rumors. this is not someone i can nor want to associate with. 

(image descriptions provided by @malewifedeckard)

oh dear

I have noticed a number of posts circulating which imply that ANY character being mean to Loki EVER and for ANY reason = abuse.

I will admit that I initially felt mostly irritation at what appeared, on the surface, to constitute such a complete and utter lack of critical thinking. What I’ve realized, though, is that people who make such posts definitely believe what they are saying. And like everything people do and say, there’s a deeper reason for it. The fact is, traumatized characters attract traumatized fans. And not all of those fans are in a good place, emotionally. And those people are perfectly valid, even if the conclusions they draw are not.

When it comes to fiction, good characters are complex. That means they are conflicted and flawed. They make mistakes. They lash out when they are afraid or hurting. They sometimes hurt other characters. Loki fits that bill very well. It’s one of the reasons he is so popular. Not just with traumatized people, but with people in general. He’s relatable.

The problem comes when fans relate to fictional characters, but really aren’t conscious of why, because they aren’t all that conscious of themselves. They haven’t done a whole lot of self-reflection. Maybe because they aren’t ready, because their trauma is too fresh. Or maybe they are still living in crisis and don’t have the freedom to self-reflect. Those possibilities are all valid.

But very often, when a person goes through trauma and doesn’t have the luxury (and yes, it is a luxury) of working through it, their reasoning skills can become flawed as a result. Trauma, especially childhood trauma, tends to have a negative effect on our ability to socialize and form intimate relationships, because it damages our ability to interpret the intentions of others. We call this hostile attribution bias.

The problem with hostile attribution bias, is that it makes it difficult to tell when people genuinely mean you harm. If a person’s words, actions, or facial expressions are ambiguous in any way, they will be interpreted as being hostile in nature. This keeps one on the offensive, constantly, always anticipating the next blow. Very often, no such blow is coming. But it doesn’t matter. Fear is real, and the experience of it is real.

It stands to reason that someone who struggles to interpret the intentions of real-life people would also experience the same difficulty with fictional characters. For instance, fans who identify with Loki because they perceive him as being a victim will have a hard time seeing him as anything else. Thus, anyone who harms Loki in any way is just further proof that the universe is against him and always will be.

This is referred to as an external locus of control. It means that a person sees life as something that is happening TO them, and that they are powerless to affect the outcome. It’s also important to note that people with this mentality struggle deeply to heal from their trauma. They are stuck in a sort of Groundhog Day scenario, living the same thing out over and over again. Because of their flawed perception, everything that happens to them feels like an extension of that initial trauma.

So, it would make perfect sense that a person with a history of trauma, who suffers from attribution bias, and who has an external locus of control, would be extremely uncomfortable watching anything bad happen to Loki. In fact, it would probably be traumatic for them.

And while their feelings and their experience of those feelings are 100% real, their perception of reality is not entirely accurate. In other words, what they think is happening is not necessarily what is happening.

Loki’s initial trauma, believe it or not, was just being abandoned as an infant. Even though he can’t remember it, that experience alone can result in lifelong emotional struggles. In real life, we refer to this as an attachment disorder. A person with an attachment disorder usually develops major issues with abandonment. They also suffer from (wait for it) attribution bias. And that bias absolutely affects their perception.

Loki’s next trauma was being raised in a dysfunctional family. Not only were they dysfunctional, but they weren’t a very good fit for Loki. Loki was a quiet, contemplative person. He was a thinker, an intellectual. He would rather read or do magic. So, not a good fit for Asgardian society. The combination of Loki’s initial trauma, with his inherent temperament, and his dysfunctional family is what led to the inevitable breakdown that is regarded as Loki’s “villain” arc. I’d like to point out that, in reality, such a person would have probably suffered a breakdown much sooner than that. Typically, prior to reaching adulthood.

Loki’s next trauma was encountering Thanos. Now, we have no idea exactly what happened between Loki and Thanos. We know only that it wasn’t good and that it resulted in Loki being absolutely terrified of him. Other than that, details are fuzzy. I think it’s fair to assume that whatever mistreatment Loki endured probably qualified as torture. Whether it was physical or psychological, we cannot know for sure.

While Loki’s Thanos-related trauma was NOT an extension of his family-related trauma, his decision to entangle himself with Thanos was a product of that trauma. By which I mean that his willingness to align himself with someone like Thanos came from a place of desperation, and a desire to prove himself to someone who he perceived as being qualified to validate him.

So, fast forward to the LOKI show. Our version of Loki never returned to Asgard in chains, was never told that it was his birthright to die, nor endured any gaslighting from Ragnarok-Thor. He never got his neck broken by Thanos. He never went through any of that. He arrived at the TVA, fresh off his failed attempt to take over planet Earth. He was all fired up and defensive, as anyone in his situation would probably be.

Now, here’s where we need to put our critical thinking caps on. Because, I hate to tell you this, folks...but unlike most of the Loki content we’ve gotten prior, this content is actually well written. It’s VERY well written. And while it might be tempting to respond to it with pure emotion, it is imperative that we don’t abandon all logic and reason. This show is not an extension of the gauntlet of trauma we’ve watched Loki endure since he first appeared on screen. The creative minds involved in this venture ALL care deeply about Loki’s character and want to see him succeed (whatever that means for him).

Enter Mobius. He’s a cog in a very big machine. He likes to think of himself as being more than that. He establishes a rapport with his boss in the hopes of distinguishing himself from his peers. His interest in his work is personal. He likes what he does.

From Mobius’ point of view, Loki is an asset. He has information that could help solve the bigger puzzle. But Mobius exists in a world that affords him access to multiple realities. He has probably met dozens of Lokis. And he has probably seen hundreds of people casually pruned or executed or reset. It’s just part of the world he happens to be in. And he doesn’t question it, because he has been brainwashed.

So, does Mobius attempt to manipulate Loki? Absolutely. Just another day at the office. And it works, because he knows Loki better than Loki knows himself, has studied him and other Lokis. And it’s hard not to be mad at Mobius for causing Loki pain. Especially when that is followed up by Loki eagerly taking Mobius up on his offer to help track down the other Loki variant.

I think some people might find Loki’s enthusiasm disconcerting. And there are certainly aspects of it that can be considered such. Loki, at his core, just wants to be told that he is doing a good job, that his contributions matter. That part of him is definitely a product of trauma. But is Loki motivated entirely by his trauma? Not really. Despite his manipulations, Mobius offers Loki the closest thing to warmth and compassion that he has seen for a while. Some of that is genuine and some of that is not. And faced with the reality that everything he knows is gone, Loki does what most people in his situation would do, he tries to be productive. He gets busy. He distracts himself. Because at the moment, little else is under his control.

Despite all of that, you simply cannot have compassion for Loki and none for Mobius. Because Mobius is a victim too. He was abducted from his own reality. He is living a lie. He is part of something that, upon deeper reflection, he realizes he doesn’t agree with. He is so very much like the Loki we first met in 2011. He is such a well-written and multi-faceted character, I thoroughly enjoy his on screen time with Loki.

But I understand that there are people who are not in a place, emotionally, where they can overlook such plot devices. And I sincerely hope that those eventually people find healing. In the meantime, let’s try to remember that this is a work of fiction. And unlike real-life trauma, when it becomes upsetting, we can turn it off and walk away.

Hi!

I love your content, your love for TimSteph, and I was actually going to ask what you love so much about them. I, for extra credit for English, decided to write an analysis of Stephanie (and why I love her so much), but I just got into comics, and cannot really put my feelings for her in words ... which is odd, considering how much I love her and writing. Also, I was going to do a section on why TimSteph is narrative genius, and I needed help elaborating on that too.

Could you help me out, please? Thanks!

(I feel the need to mention that I have read quite a lot of comics with Stephanie in them, though not all. I'm not much of a comic book fan, but I'm really interested in the Batfamily!)

I'll be very happy to write out bullet points that you could talk about, and feel free to go through my ask and I'll babble/TimSteph meta tags for anything that you think may be worth discussing in your own words - there's like four or so years of stuff there to spark your brain.

HOWEVER!!!! Keep in mind though that much of what I have written is half based on textual evidence and half me just writing what I like/wish would crop up in canon.

For example, yes I like to draw comparisons between Tim being cold and Steph being warm, moon and sun and so on, but there's genuinely nothing in text to hint as this being an actual character trait or symbolism. If anything Tim's stated to be warm several times, more than Steph.

So, and I am sorry to be so blunt, but if I take your request in bad faith for a moment, don't use either directly or indirectly what I've written for your work. Especially without actually going and reading the arcs I talk about. A lot of the time it doesn't hold up under genuine textual scrutiny, and we want to be good academics here! There's Death of the Author and then there's me making crap up because I want to include it in a fanfic. Not the same thing! My blog is called IncoherentBabblings for a reason after all!

I will therefore say this: If you want to write about Steph as a character, I would use the below video as a point of reference. Using the below, you can then go into why she resonates with you the way she does, or why her relationship with Tim is so interesting to you.

If I were you: focus on her dynamic character development: cynical to idealistic. And use three points in her publication history to do this: her introduction in Detective Comics, War Games, and Batgirl. I am sorry to recommend War Games as something to read but it is important to her character. Use the Stephanie Brown Wiki to help!

That lends itself to a biography of her character, a look at her motivations and values, her role within the batfam, and so on. You can also use this to make comparisons with her peers, specifically Tim moving in the exact opposite direction development wise; Babs and Cass in their approaches to Batgirl; and the other Robins through her similar character progression as Dick, which in turn allows her to be a good mentor to Damian, and finally how her character arc runs perpendicular to Jason's. Does that make sense?

Anyway, let's get going! If I were to write an academic piece on Stephanie, these are the main points I would work through. In other words, this is what I would do. You probably will not need nor want to go into this level of depth, and you will want to make it much more personal about why she resonates with you, which may be different to why I love her. So don't worry about touching base with all of them. This is like... 10,000 word essay level stuff. And don't get overwhelmed. I've taken your request far too seriously is all.

Again, I can't write it for you! You gotta do the reading and writing I'm afraid.

...But I still wrote 1,500 words anyway. Gosh darnnit.

Steph’s Character Development

Always keep three points in her character history in mind – her aged 14/15 in her introductory arc in Detective Comics, her aged 16 in War Games, and her aged 18/19 in her Batgirl run.

How does she change? How does she grow as a character? What events caused these changes? Compare that angry 14-year-old trying to choke her father, to the 19-year-old crying happily on the roof. A lot happened between those two points! Outline the main plot beats.

Steph's Role as a Batfam Character:

Protagonist or Antagonist: Supporting Protagonist

Static or Dynamic: Dynamic (think of her character development - angry to alturistic; she softens in her life outlook and in the way she treats others as the years go by)

Minor or Major: Minor and we all mourn that fact :(

Foil or Symbolic: A foil to Tim Drake (and to a lesser extent the other Robins, specifically Jason Todd)

Importance of the character/Position in Society: Fourth Robin, third Batgirl, own superhero. Tim's girlfriend, Cassandra's best friend, one of many of Bruce's 'children'. Initially introduced just as a one-off character for a small arc in Detective Comics, brought back with the intention of being a supporting character to Tim Drake, and eventual love interest. Eventually gained enough popularity on her own terms to support her own solo comic, but has since returned to a supporting role. The character she supports, at the end of the day, is Bruce Wayne.

Motivation

What influences their decisions?: Stephanie's dynamic characterisation comes in here. Compare her motivations during her introductory arc, versus why she does what she does in War Games, versus why she dresses up at Batgirl - Stopping her father, getting Batman's approval, need for redemption.

What do they value?: Values emotional openness, vulnerability, second/third/fourth chances.

Goals/Hopes/Dreams: No long term goals/hopes/dreams in the domestic sense... Continue to be vigilante. Be respected by her peers. Continue to improve self worth through deeds. Graduate college?

What are their views: Views the justice system and police as corrupt, but still trusts in the inherent goodness of people. Focus is usually on the individual, rather than societal or structural.

Actions

Behaviour, Attitudes, Impact on Story and other Characters, Internal Struggle (Wants versus Needs): This is why I think you are best to look at three points in her story - Intro Arc, War Games, Batgirl. Focus on her Wants versus Needs - Steph's take a very long time to align, but they finally do in Batgirl.

Character development is usually driven by the conflict between what a character wants. The plot forces them normally to confront the fact that what they want is not gonna work out, and what they needed instead takes priority.

Everything usually goes tits up for Steph when she is in the driver's seat of the narrative because what she wants from a situation is rarely what she actually needs to happen. See every time she seeks Bruce's approval. She wants it. She absolutely does not need it. And only as Batgirl do we get that acknowledgement, which coincides with her being at the healthiest point in her life emotionally. Look at what she wants as Spoiler during her introductory arc, as Robin/Spoiler during War Games, and then as Batgirl. Why is she so unhappy in the former two? Why have her wants finally aligned with her needs with her time as Batgirl?

Character Traits

Personality: Cynical but perky. Sardonic but sincere. Think about how she changes over the time. This can be attributed to her different writers, but - for example - is there a universe reason for why Batgirl Stephanie is so much more socially awkward than Spoiler Stephanie?

Strengths & Weaknesses: Link these two together because Steph is a very good example where her strengths as a character can simultaneously be a weakness. Her determination can lead to her making ill conceived decisions. Her empathy can lead to her putting her trust in the wrong people. Her forgiving nature can lead to her being taken advantage of. Her temper, whilst landing her in hot water, can also just as often get her out of it.

Relationships

How do they interact with others: Focus on which characters pop up in all three arcs – Steph and her parents; Steph and Bruce; Steph and Tim. I am chucking Cass out the window here, sorry Cass, but if you’re focusing on these three arcs, Cass doesn’t really fit in.

How others view them: Conditional love/affection from her father and Bruce. Unconditional love/affection from Tim and her mother (though both are not without serious pitfalls).

How they view others: Stephanie has explicitly never loved her father. She has also never explicitly hated him either. What does that say about her? Look at her changing closeness with her mother. What changed between them, and again, what does that say about Stephanie? Crystal got sober, supported Stephanie through her pregnancy, Arthur was removed from their lives, Stephanie makes a conscious effort to be closer to her after returning ‘from the dead’, though continues to lie consistently to her. Stephanie admires Bruce, whilst also right from the get go insisting she does not answer to him. She never quite lets go of wanting that approval.

How does society view them: Her outsider role within the Batfam. She never quite belongs, and at points her closest relationships are actively discouraged from seeing her. Which Tim specifically never entertains. This outsider nature bites literally everyone in the butt during War Games. Her outsider status is still in place by the time Batgirl concludes, due to its largely self-contained nature as a book, but this is less being an outsider more having earned to right to operate independently. Trust has been given and earned.

Dialogue

What does she say and how: A teenage girl in New Jersey from a working class background has a very distinct voice. She does not mince words, nor does she hide what she is feeling. If she is happy, she will say so. If she is annoyed, she will say so. What she won’t do is ask for help when she needs it, due to her background formulating a need for her ‘to do things on her own’.

Think of famous/important Steph quotes from the three arcs I keep talking about – the excuse me if I don’t jump when you bark, the I really was part of the legend, the only variable you can control is yourself. These show how Steph views others and herself.

When I was writing I Would Have Loved You, I literally made a spreadsheet where I have picked out what I think are pertinent quotes from every New 52 issue featuring Tim or Steph along with a synopsis that explained what they were up to/what the main theme of the issue was. Not saying you should do the same because I’m just that goddamn anal when it comes to this sort of stuff, but the point is – look for quotes by/about Steph which highlight the above things we’ve talked about. You have thirty years to go through!

Author Intention

What purpose does this character serve?: A character that young female readers could get attached to – the every girl/girl next door archetype or a character that young boys could have a crush on – the kind of girl who’s into the same sort of stuff as you, I think Chuck Dixon once said of her, from her initial appearance. Fodder for Bruce and Tim’s man pain in War Games. Batgirl it’s a combination of filling the void for a female lead solo character in the batbooks, but also tonally taking on a much lighter and self-contained book that new readers could jump into very easily, directly compared to the more lore heavy Batman, Detective Comics, and Red Robin books.

What is the author trying to communicate: Steph’s character shows that determination can only get a person so far, a support system and doing things for the right reasons (again remember that want versus need argument) is the only way a person will genuinely succeed.

What is her main theme?: Balancing cynicism and idealism – doing acts for the right reasons, and discovering what these reasons actually are.

...

Is this even usable for anyone but myself? Possibly not!

Still... Go write! And good luck!

i sometimes want to write a long meta on cersei and jaime’s (and to a different degree tyrion’s) weird complicated relationship with gender and gender roles thru the lens of their family’s legendary founder being a trickster-archetype and all the gender fluidity and nonconformity we see in a lot of mythological tricksters (vs tywin’s approach to roles and norms and masculinity) but i cannot. articulate. any of it. to a sufficient degree. (so into your askbox it goes i suppose, o person who is more skilled with the words...?)

The bawdiest of the stories has Lann stealing in night after night to have his way with the Casterly maidens whilst they sleep. In nine months time, these maids all give birth to golden-haired children whilst still insisting they had never had carnal knowledge of a man.

I think to some extent gender nonconformity and gender questioning and the anxiety that those who did not conform to gender roles often provoked in various cultures is an inherent part of most trickster mythos from all around the world.

While most trickster gods/spirits/figures in folklore do seem to be depicted as male, they are generally men who do not embody the traditional traits of masculinity, prizing cunning and persuasion over aggression and warfare, winning the day through their guile rather than with physical strength.

These trickster characters are often depicted disguising themselves as various people, including dressing as women or transforming themselves into women in the flesh, in order to reach their goals. They are also seen as being proponents of gossip and manipulation, tools traditionally seen as feminine means of power. The old adage being along the lines of ‘men fight with their fists, women with their tongues, etc’.

What makes all of this supremely interesting when it comes to the Lannisters is that the Lannisters openly boast about having won their home and riches through cunning and deceit, rather than through conquest, unlike most of the other great houses. Their current wealth and power is so immense that the tale of Lann is not looked down upon as cowardly or lowbrow but rather seen as a shining example of Lannister intelligence and superiority.

But then we have Tywin, who, if anything, seems to actively distance himself from this imagery. He is not comfortable with being associated with the more gender neutral, subversive aspects of Lann’s mythology. Tywin wants to present himself as the ultimate Westerosi patriarch, and that means a heavy focus on martial strength, great posturing and heavy handed shows of power and prestige, etc.

Tywin does have cunning and he is not above using it but it’s not what he wants to be known for. He helps orchestrate the Red Wedding but works very hard to make sure it all falls back on the Freys, though it’s no secret the Lannisters were involved. He doesn’t want to be caught with dirty hands, unlike Lann, who was quite proud of his. Tywin prizes obedience and conformity, not thinking outside the box or defying authority. So it is highly ironic that in many ways, Tywin is just the sort of person Lann might target for his tricks.

And it is highly ironic that the most competent Lannister and the one who comes the closest to keeping the family from teetering off the edge of the cliff is Tyrion, who is constantly degraded as less of a man and less of a Lannister for having to rely in his intelligence and cunning as opposed to physical strength.

And then meanwhile, Tywin’s ‘perfect heir’ Jaime, who he sees as his rightful successor and the perfect embodiment of Lannister superiority, is in an ever shifting rotation of gender roles with his own twin sister. Jaime when we are introduced to him is largely passive in personal relationships, unwilling to rock the boat or risk the disapproval or anger of his loved ones.

When he does lash out, it’s impulsive and spontaneous, not carefully calculated and deployed as a perfect threat. In many ways, Jaime’s behavior is seen to align more with the stereotypes and roles we put women into, while Cersei constantly strives to embody masculine power and control.

This is not a perfect reversal; Jaime is not stripped of agency or power as a highborn man in Westerosi society, nor does Cersei totally dominate the relationship to the point where he is a submissive party simply obeying her demands. Cersei is not always in control of their dynamic and is certainly limited by how and when she is allowed to deploy her power.

But it is definitely deliberate that if Cersei had been born a son, she might be in many ways the son Tywin has always wanted, whereas the sons he actually has are, by the time of FeastDance, continually disappointing him.

New Essay Up

New essay up on the website!

props and credit to @shadowfae , whos panel on problematic sources at Othercon 2021 motivated and inspired me to write about morality differences.

Alignments - A Memory Dump Essay

Essay has also been transcribed under this readmore if thats easier to read for anyone.

Morality, in The Before, was different, in the sense that there were Allignments.

I am A Silver Dragon, from a slightly AU-ed Dungeons and Dragons world. Alignments there dictated whether you were good or evil, lawful or chaotic. You may have seen the grid around, the nine squares with things like ‘neutral good’ and ‘lawful evil’ on them. This is that.

When I say ‘good’ and ‘evil’ I mean a different concept than the behavior choices that fall into ‘doing harm’ and ‘helping people’. There were words differing between the two in dragonic, though I do not remember them now, for what I am talking about.

In this world, ‘good’, ‘evil’, ‘lawful’ and ‘chaotic’ - the dragonic forms of these words, were not behavior descriptors, nor intention descriptions. They were factions, and many species simply could not choose their born faction or change it very much if they could. These factions were generally due to god interference in the creation of that species, and it meant certain magics worked or did not work against/for them or they had traits that were often seen as harmful. The correct translation for ‘good’ and ‘evil’ is more accurately ‘darkness’ and ‘light’, though lawful and chaotic are close enough to ‘things that follow order’, and ‘things that reject order’.

These alignments said very little about the behavior they exhibited or the morals they had. The dragonic word for ‘evil’ as in how people here use it to mean ‘does harm to others’ could be retranslated as ‘being an asshole’. A person aligned lawful good could regularly commit tax fraud and beat their wife, and a person who was chaotic evil could be a pacifist who gardens and is passionate about healthcare reform.

For some of the littlefolk (the Polite translated dragonic word for humans and elves and the like), this was more flexible, and generally littlefolk would not consider those who did large amounts of harm to their in-group to be good aligned, nor people who had never done harm any worse than neutral, despite this not being the case magically speaking. It could make things rather confusing when talking to the layman, as much of the littlefolk could simply choose whatever faction they liked and often could jump ship whenever they liked too.

There were other various littlefolk somewhat limited in their alignment choice however- a Drow could not be ‘good’, and Aasimir could not be ‘evil’, for example. Usually this was split down the good and evil, rather than lawful and chaotic, as the ‘good’ and ‘evil’ deities held the most active sway.

Think of it like nationality, I suppose. Its the closest equivalent. Some people can't ever gain citizenship in a country other than their country of birth even if they want to, others can do so with a bit of work.

Dragons, however, didn’t have this sort of choice. All true dragons were born a specific alignment to do with their species, and inherent instincts to follow the tenants generally professed by that faction. This is one of the major traits that separated a True -also known as Greater- Dragon from other dragonic creatures, such as fairy dragons, wyverns, and rust dragons, actually. Other dragonic creatures had some wiggle room.

Chromatic dragons were all evil aligned, Gem dragons were all neutral aligned, and Metallic dragons were all good aligned. Planar dragons, while true dragons, were another matter and their alignments were to nothing on the scale as their origin points and commitments were beyond the gods of that my former plane’s influence. Lung dragons were a type of Planar dragon in my canon, instead of their own category.

The individual species of those groupings each had a assigned further spot. A Gold Dragon was ALWAYS Lawful Good, whether they are an abhorrent entity or not, and a White Dragon was always Chaotic Evil.

The individual species were as follows(* for ones that are AU to dnd 5e canon but are true to mine):

Chaotic Evil - Red, Black, Yellow, White

Neutral Evil - Brown, Purple*, Gray

Lawful Evil - Blue, Green

Chaotic Neutral - Topaz, Crystal

True Neutral - Amber, Amethyst, Obsidian*, Prismatic

Lawful Neutral - Emerald, Sapphire

Chaotic Good - Copper, Mercury*, Brass

Neutral Good - Silver*, Iron*

Lawful Good - Gold, Bronze, Platinum*, Steel

So I was and am a Silver Dragon. Bahumat created metallic dragons with the intention of combating His sister Tiamat, who created chromatic dragons in turn. The deities of Law and Chaos- neither touched my kind deeply. We could use all magic aligned with the light or neutral powers, and none of the dark. There was little magic that was specifically aligned with order and chaos, but all of that was accessible, provided the spell was not of the shadow. Things that repelled creatures of the light could keep me out.

The more ‘good’ creatures that existed in the world in relation to ‘evil’ ones brought more and less power to Bahumat and Tiamat in their eternal fight. So long as one ‘good’ or ‘evil’ creature existed, neither god could die and they were driven to wipe each other out. The same could be said of the law and chaos deities.

Of my life, the beginning is murky. Once I was grown enough to roam, I first Adventured with a elven rider companion and then lived upon a mountain lair until my death. Towards the middle and latter end, the towns at its base paid me rites and respect for my guardianship. These rites did technically elevate me to a minor god* capable of working greater magic. I also had a village much closer to and in my lair, one where I took those who asked my asylum who perhaps needed greater safety or guidance.

I would defend my territory and would help those who asked. It was a good life, and I hold little to no exotrauma from it.

*not to be confused with Greater gods, which are what effect Alignment or embody big concepts, minor gods are just those who are Believed in by enough people- and thus given power from that collective Belief

The divide between what was and what is is deeper and more shallow that one would expect, all at once.

I’ve started tentatively identifying as a walk-in relatively recently, my selfhood simply showed up one day and the original, whos interests, opinions, demeanor, and identity was different than mine disappeared shortly thereafter. The system has many theories on how exactly this happened, the origins thus such, and how much of the original’s ego was made into me, and also exactly when. The transition was rather seamless and there was much brain weirdness to muddle it all and convince me that I have always been here. None of us know the answer, and it generally doesn’t matter in practice.

The experiences of the original that I inherited gave a large amount of distance to this life. For reference, I Awakened as a Silver Dragon ~2014 perhaps 2015 -time is muddy- or so- having finally put together all the noema and shifts and assorted feelings that were not my cat theriotype into what they were. I had been in the body for a good handful of years previous to that, however. It gives me a distance from that life. My memories and retained selfhood from that life are dull- a botched reincarnation. I remember just enough- I experience just enough bleedover that it upholds a pillar of my identity and I still identify as the being of that life, but not so much I am exactly as-is.

I want to do a little disclaimer- The statement that this definitively IS a past life and I AM a walk in and these ARE memories of a past life is a theory, not fact. I do not and cannot know if my theory is right, and I have a healthy dose of skepticism in regards to this. My experiences could be sourced to many things, however I experience my draconity in a fashion that is similar to how others describe their past life experiences. It fits accounts better than the accounts of people who are not past-life otherkin. It feels right to describe these experiences as such, and so I do. Perhaps one day my understanding of this may change, but for now it is as such.

Returning to the topic at hand; its a point of frustration to me almost to the point of dysphoria, how good and evil, and moral and immoral are used in society here and how. Good and evil denote both the ingroup-outgroup AND the moral standard, equating sinful with strange with harmful behavior. Evil no longer means ‘entity supporting or created by Tiamat’- who is night and shadow. Good no longer means ‘entity supporting or created by Bahumat’- who is day and light.

The congruence of good with helping and evil with harming is far more intense here, Bahumat and Tiamat as I know them hold no power here- as they shouldn’t. Their place was in my old reality and that is as far as those entities reach. The assignment of moral values to enjoyment of a thing or thoughts, rather than actions is wholly new, and honestly quite unpleasant.

Evil here, becomes ‘entity that enjoys harming’ and often ‘anyone I don’t like’

Good here them also becomes ‘entity that enjoys helping’ and often ‘anyone I do like’

There will be people who insist to ignore people that do that last part and claim that it doesn’t matter- that the social realities of how others assign you do not matter, but I disagree.

Being queer, kinky, mentally ill, neurodivergent, disabled, and a strong leftist among other things means people will think me evil for existing quite a bit. Stigmatized minorities are othered, our traits become evil no matter how kind we may be.

Society calls us evil, has designated us evil- alright, how is this a bad thing?

Disassociating Evil from moral allows one to reclaim Evil. Ok, we are Evil now, but oh, no less kind. No less caring. Take the words slung at you and make armor out of them.

And also no matter how kind you may be, by this metric if you enjoy causing pain and destruction, you are evil.

This… is a thoughtcrime thing. No matter how you conduct yourself in life, if you enjoy pain you are evil to society at large. So as above, unlink Evil from Moral, and it is reclaimable.

How people assign you is a material reality you can choose to make hold no power over you. You can make it your own scales.

It is for the reason of words changing meanings, of the fact that my god I was born to does not reach here and thus frees me from obligations, that I no longer identify as Neutral Good. It simply does not mean the same thing anymore and I can now choose my alignment besides. Bahumat was no terrible god to serve or anything, but I would have appreciated the choice if it was not hardwired into my dragon brain at the time to be devoted to such a being.

I take joy in harm and at the same time take joy in helping, I think the absence of care of society is not something I can do, nor do I think rigid obedience is right.

Thus I would consider myself in the alignments of this world today as True Neutral.

Not to mention I have chosen the service of a True Neutral god in Cernunnos, so by my former world’s standards I am True Neutral now as well.

It feels right, to identify as such now. Society considers me evil enough I am too sin-stained to be good, but I have too much love of creation and helping to be wholly evil.

I believe that rules are necessary or we get Situations that cause harm to others, but at the same time am too Anarchist-leaning to not chafe under absolute order.

Still, the... Dissatisfaction with how people use alignments here persists.

Zuko

You asked for it....

Zuko, also known as the traitorous prince of the Fire-Nation In Avatar the Last Airbender, is a well-developed example of a character with a redemption arc, but he is also much more than that. Simply, Zuko’s trials and tribulations are an incredible way to show the audience his development. This short narrative will present why Zuko is such a good and everlasting character.

Zuko as a child was raised by his mother, Ursa, and his father Ozai. What is interesting about these two being his parents is the clear difference in perspective as well as moral values. If one examines the flashbacks that Zuko has throughout the series, one can notice that Ursa is the one to usually praise Zuko for kind and loving behavior, and chastises Azula for the behavior she displays. On the other hand, Ozai constantly praises Azula for the same behavior that her mother criticizes and scolds Zuko for the behavior that Ursa praises. In development, children are learning from their parents what is acceptable behavior, so it would be natural for the child to latch on to the parent that praises them more because it is a positive experience. Zuko’s positive reinforcement as a child from his mother for doing actions that are generally perceived as good lead to Zuko’s inevitable conflict with his father. There is no way that Zuko would have not had a conflict with Ozai because Zuko did and always will believe his mother’s morals as truths because he was positively reinforced when he showed those same values. This also goes for Azula since she received most of her positive reinforcement from her father, it is natural for that to develop into resentment towards her mother. This leads to a secondary point of why Azula and Zuko were so competitive as children, since each one was receiving scorn from one parent or the other they felt like they had to fight and pry for the attention of both. Azula’s form of getting her mother’s attention was lashing out, and Zuko’s was trying to live up to his father’s expectation. Therefore, from Zuko’s childhood flashbacks alone we can determine why Zuko would have an inherent inner moral conflict, since he was raised by his mother who taught him the opposite values of his father, but at the same time longing for the affection of his father. This is why Zuko is so morally complex.

Moving on to Zuko from the time his mother left to the time that Zuko was banished we see a clear change in motivation for Zuko. Since Zuko’s mother is no longer in the picture, Zuko is left only with the one parent who constantly scorned him as a child. Therefore, Zuko’s only current motivation is to try and gain his father’s approval. Since there is no one there to reassure him that he is just as good as Azula, just in a different way, Zuko now places all his bets on trying to get his father to praise him, because he felt like the one major force of support in his life abandoned him, so obviously something must be wrong with him. This is rational thinking to a child experiencing abandonment issues, especially since he was never told why his mother left.

Now that Zuko’s main goal is to get approval from his father, he is doomed to fail. This is because, as discussed previously, Zuko was raised on a different moral path then what his father had wanted, and therefore can NEVER be fully aligned with his father. This large difference in perspective will lead to conflict between the two inevitably because Ozai has a need for control over those around him. This is frequently displayed in the series since he actively seeks to be seen as higher than everyone, even his own children and father. This is also shown when Ozai burns and banishes Zuko because most reasonable adults would not feel threatened at the words of a thirteen year old, but Ozai did because he has a delusion that anyone who disagrees with him is against him. This is also shown to be a trait that Azula inherits because when she is left to control the Fire Nation herself she ends up banishing everyone who says even the smallest remark against her wishes, even when it is about her own well-being due to the delusion that her mother made people betray her. This is because Azula feels that neither her father nor her mother loved her, whereas Zuko knows that his mother loved him.

When Zuko has his morality sickness in Ba Sing Se after releasing Appa we come to understand just how deep rooted the conflicting narrative must be for him in his own head. On one end he most likely has his mother and uncle’s teachings praising him for rescuing Appa and helping the world towards peace, but on the other he has the part of his father and his sister who he knew viewed this type of act as a sign of weakness. This would not be so much of an issue if Zuko did not actively wish for the approval of his father, and his father’s love. 

Zuko’s change in perspective that leads him to join the avatar is a crucial one. When Zuko starts out in season one he was sent on a mission that Ozai had believed he would never achieve, but Zuko was naive and took the bait because he would do anything to be seen as good in his father’s eyes at the time. Then we move to in season 2 where Zuko begins to learn of just how vastly different things are without him having the constant intrusive Ozai in his life and controlling him since Iroh is showing him the nature of people’s lives outside the reach of his father. When Zuko departs from his uncle and travels through the Earth Kingdom alone, he begins to learn that his father did not only hurt him, but other people. Innocent people. This is important to note because to Zuko, he is not innocent, and when his father burned him and banished him he fully believed that the action was deserved, and that his father’s cruelty was his fault. We can tell this because even though Zuko has his uncle to tell him that he doesn’t need his father’s approval, Zuko refuses to believe it, and chases the Avatar like a bloodhound. He, in season one especially, took Ozai’s perception of him and viewed it as the truth. This is why Iroh’s quote,  "IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO LOOK INWARD AND START ASKING YOURSELF THE BIG QUESTION: WHO ARE YOU AND WHAT DO YOU WANT?"  Is so drastically important to Zuko’s development, because at his stages between season one and two, Zuko’s only concept of himself is who he longs to be in his father’s eyes. 

Zuko is such a great and in depth character because his growth and his conflicts are wound into him from his childhood like DNA. This is also why a huge part of Zuko’s story line revolves around destiny, because Zuko was DESTINED to go against his father from the pure fact that his morality and his perception clashed so severely with that of his father. Zuko is such a brilliant character because from the smallest of lines or the simplest of flashbacks we learn so much of why Zuko was bound to have a moral conflict and why he became the person he is when he reaches season 3 and joins Aang. In order to be who he truly was, Zuko had to abandon his title as the prince, and his title as Zuko so he could begin to learn who he really is with no labels, and no expectations attached. Zuko is the man he is in season 3 because of  his mother and Iroh’s teachings, and his journey as someone who had no expectations held to them (this is talking about him being ‘Lee’ for a majority of his time in the Earth Kingdom). When Zuko declares his name in the small town he was in in “Zuko Alone” this is when he finally starts to separate his father’s vision of himself, and who he truly is.

@king-of-the-dots