not a mutual, just stumbled on your blog because you rb'd one of my posts, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on Belle!

(also is it okay to reblog your post asking people to send you characters to give opinions on?)

Sure, no problem!

For the most part, I did like Belle. She was pretty much based on one of my favorite Disney princesses, after all. She was a strong, smart and clever woman. It was cool how she seemed to make friends with everyone she met, too. (Grumpy, Anna, Ariel, Mulan, Merida etc.). And the friendship she developed with Killian was particularly wonderful, considering their rocky start. It spoke volumes about Belle’s ability to forgive people.

Of course, you could say she sometimes took this ability to forgive a little too far. For instance, with her on-and-off-again husband. If you still ship those two, more power to you. But for me, the fact that Belle kept going back to him again and again was nothing short of terrifying. I’m not saying it was wrong of Belle to not want to give up on Rumpelstiltskin/Gold. Because, yes, you should always try to give someone another chance. But the problem with this is that Gold didn’t WANT to be saved. Every time he was given a chance to change, even to the point where he got the Dark One’s power siphoned out of him, complete with a bleached out heart, he still chose to take that power back. He never once chose his love for her over his love of power and control. Which tells me that Belle was never his first priority. So having Belle ultimately return to being his happy little housewife was heartbreaking, and it really felt like the whole Stockholm Syndrome story that some people claim the fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast is.

I apologize for going into an anti Rumbelle tangent, but it’s hard not to discuss that when talking about Belle. Because whenever Belle was with Gold, her storyline seemed to revolve exclusively around him. It’s not hard to notice that Belle only ever interacted with the other heroes whenever she and Gold were split up. That, to me, suggests that she only had a chance to truly shine when she wasn’t with Gold. The only time Belle actually had a chance to BE Belle was when she was free from Gold’s influence. (So I probably won’t ever forgive the writing team for fridging her to benefit Gold’s season 7 storyline. Belle deserved so much better.)

Send me a character

incase anyone missed it: pamela anderson went to pfw without makeup!!!

"I'm not trying to be the prettiest girl in the room. I feel like its just freedom. Its like a relief."

i love seeing this. such a win !

Zionists want you to conflate Judaism and Zionism. Zionists want you to believe that Judaism cannot exist without Zionism and that all Jews are Zionists. Zionism would have Jews believe that a Jewish state is the only way that they can be safe from antisemitism and will point to any instance of antisemitism as proof that Zionism is the solution- so Zionism wants gentiles to be antisemitic in their support of Palestine. They want you to conflate all Jews with Zionism and the state of Israel, and they want you to treat all Jews regardless of political affiliation as the face of Israel. Antizionist Jews exist, and incidences of antisemitism ostensibly acting against Zionism will not help dismantle the forces propping Zionism up.

Don't do their work for them.

I love people with npd so much. I’m sorry that world is so ableist. I’m sorry that you can’t be anywhere without hearing the word ‘narcissism’ or ‘npd’ used in a negative light. I’m sorry that there isn’t anywhere near enough support.

I’m so sorry that you can’t win. It must be so suffocating and aggravating, living in a world where it feels like everybody hates you. You deserve better.

cardan is so real for this hadfghjhgfd go away taryn!!

"You never told me where you got it - where you got all my favourite dresses." Rhys arched a dark brow. "You never figured it out?" I shook my head. For a moment, he said nothing, his head dipping to study the dress. "My mother made them." (...) I gazed a reverant hand down my sleeve. "I- I had no idea." His eyes were star bright. "Long ago when I was still a boy, she made them - all your gowns. A trousseau for my future bride." His throat bobbed. "Every piece... Every piece I have ever given you to wear, she made them. For you"

Sometimes you just read something and can't help but think about the implications.

"aww how sweet his mom made all her favourite gowns how wholesome" nonono EVERY. PIECE. Ma'am please he's still a baby boy you're making a lot of assumptions about his future preferences.

shout out to people with f/os that are hated by the fandom for being morally reprehensible

the f/o that is a rapist

the f/o that abuses animals

the f/o that is canonically a pedophile

the f/o that is a stalker

the f/o that is a bully

the f/o that is an abuser

the f/o that hurts others no reason other than they enjoy it

the f/o that has no desire to get better

the f/o that is an unsympathetic villain

the f/o that treats everyone around them like garbage because they feel like they're the only person with coherent thought in the general vicinity

the f/o that killed off one of the characters you're supposed to root for and supposed to like

the f/o that you can see part of yourself in, maybe even when most people think that'd be a red flag

... and shout out to you, selfshipper, for loving them despite it all! or because of it all. ^_^

I think DC should go back to having random characters having beef with each other for no real reason that was honestly so hilarious

I also volunteer that they have Tim Drake have an inexplicable one-sided beef with Jon Kent and I don't have a reason for this except that it'd be funny to me specifically

like let's get some bi4bi hostility up in here yk?

Why I Deliberately Avoided the "Colonizer" Argument in my Zutara Thesis - and Why I'll Continue to Avoid it Forever

This is a question that occasionally comes up under my Zutara video essay, because somehow in 2 hours worth of content I still didn't manage to address everything (lol.) But this argument specifically is one I made a point of avoiding entirely, and there are some slightly complicated reasons behind that. I figure I'll write them all out here.

From a surface-level perspective, Zuko's whole arc, his raison d'etre, is to be a de-colonizer. Zuko's redemption arc is kinda all about being a de-colonizer, and his redemption arc is probably like the most talked about plot point of ATLA, so from a basic media literacy standpoint, the whole argument is unsound in the first place, and on that basis alone I find it childish to even entertain as an argument worth engaging with, to be honest.

(At least one person in my comments pointed out that if any ship's "political implications" are problematic in some way, it really ought to be Maiko, as Mai herself is never shown or suggested to be a strong candidate for being a de-colonizing co-ruler alongside Zuko. If anything her attitudes towards lording over servants/underlings would make her… a less than suitable choice for this role, but I digress.)

But the reason I avoided rebutting this particular argument in my video goes deeper than that. From what I've observed of fandom discourse, I find that the colonizer argument is usually an attempt to smear the ship as "problematic" - i.e., this ship is an immoral dynamic, which would make it problematic to depict as canon (and by extension, if you ship it regardless, you're probably problematic yourself.)

And here is where I end up taking a stand that differentiates me from the more authoritarian sectors of fandom.

I'm not here to be the fandom morality police. When it comes to lit crit, I'm really just here to talk about good vs. bad writing. (And when I say "good", I mean structurally sound, thematically cohesive, etc; works that are well-written - I don't mean works that are morally virtuous. More on this in a minute.) So the whole colonizer angle isn't something I'm interested in discussing, for the same reason that I actually avoided discussing Katara "mothering" Aang or the "problematic" aspects of the Kataang ship (such as how he kissed her twice without her consent). My whole entire sections on "Kataang bad" or "Maiko bad" in my 2 hour video was specifically, "how are they written in a way that did a disservice to the story", and "how making them false leads would have created valuable meaning". I deliberately avoided making an argument that consisted purely of, "here's how Kataang/Maiko toxic and Zutara wholesome, hence Zutara superiority, the end".

Why am I not willing to be the fandom morality police? Two reasons:

I don't really have a refined take on these subjects anyway. Unless a piece of literature or art happens to touch on a particular issue that resonates with me personally, the moral value of art is something that doesn't usually spark my interest, so I rarely have much to say on it to begin with. On the whole "colonizer ship" subject specifically, other people who have more passion and knowledge than me on the topic can (and have) put their arguments into words far better than I ever could. I'm more than happy to defer to their take(s), because honestly, they can do these subjects justice in a way I can't. Passing the mic over to someone else is the most responsible thing I can do here, lol. But more importantly:

I reject the conflation of literary merit with moral virtue. It is my opinion that a good story well-told is not always, and does not have to be, a story free from moral vices/questionable themes. In my opinion, there are good problematic stories and bad "pure" stories and literally everything in between. To go one step further, I believe that there are ways that a romance can come off "icky", and then there are ways that it might actually be bad for the story, and meming/shitposting aside, the fact that these two things don't always neatly align is not only a truth I recognise about art but also one of those truths that makes art incredibly interesting to me! So on the one hand, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to conflate literary "goodness" with moral "goodness". On a more serious note, I not only find this type of conflation unfair/inaccurate, I also find it potentially dangerous - and this is why I am really critical of this mindset beyond just disagreeing with it factually. What I see is that people who espouse this rhetoric tend to encourage (or even personally engage in) wilful blindness one way or the other, because ultimately, viewing art through these lens ends up boxing all art into either "morally permissible" or "morally impermissible" categories, and shames anyone enjoying art in the "morally impermissible" box. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people responding to this by A) making excuses for art that they guiltily love despite its problematic elements and/or B) denying the value of any art that they are unable to defend as free from moral wickedness.

Now, I'm not saying that media shouldn't be critiqued on its moral virtue. I actually think morally critiquing art has its place, and assuming it's being done in good faith, it absolutely should be done, and probably even more often than it is now.

Because here's the truth: Sometimes, a story can be really good. Sometimes, you can have a genuinely amazing story with well developed characters and powerful themes that resonate deeply with anyone who reads it. Sometimes, a story can be all of these things - and still be problematic.*

(Or, sometimes a story can be all of those things, and still be written by a problematic author.)

That's why I say, when people conflate moral art with good art, they become blind to the possibility that the art they like being potentially immoral (or vice versa). If only "bad art" is immoral, how can the art that tells the story hitting all the right beats and with perfect rhythm and emotional depth, be ever problematic?

(And how can the art I love, be ever problematic?)

This is why I reject the idea that literary merit = moral virtue (or vice versa) - because I do care about holding art accountable. Even the art that is "good art". Actually, especially the art that is "good art". Especially the art that is well loved and respected and appreciated. The failure to distinguish literary critique from moral critique bothers me on a personal level because I think that conflating the two results in the detriment of both - the latter being the most concerning to me, actually.

So while I respect the inherent value of moral criticism, I'm really not a fan of any argument that presents moral criticism as equivalent to literary criticism, and I will call that out when I see it. And from what I've observed, a lot of the "but Zutara is a colonizer ship" tries to do exactly that, which is why I find it a dishonest and frankly harmful media analysis framework to begin with.

But even when it is done in good faith, moral criticism of art is also just something I personally am neither interested nor good at talking about, and I prefer to talk about the things that I am interested and good at talking about.

(And some people are genuinely good at tackling the moral side of things! I mean, I for one really enjoyed Lindsay Ellis's take on Rent contextualising it within the broader political landscape at the time to show how it's not the progressive queer story it might otherwise appear to be. Moral critique has value, and has its place, and there are definitely circumstances where it can lead to societal progress. Just because I'm not personally interested in addressing it doesn't mean nobody else can do it let alone that nobody else should do it, but also, just because it can and should be done, doesn't mean that it's the only "one true way" to approach lit crit by anyone ever. You know, sometimes... two things… can be true… at once?)

Anyway, if anyone reading this far has recognised that this is basically a variant of the proship vs. antiship debate, you're right, it is. And on that note, I'm just going to leave some links here. I've said about as much as I'm willing/able to say on this subject, but in case anyone is interested in delving deeper into the philosophy behind my convictions, including why I believe leftist authoritarian rhetoric is harmful, and why the whole "but it would be problematic in real life" is an anti-ship argument that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I highly recommend these posts/threads:

In general this blog is pretty solid; I agree with almost all of their takes - though they focus more specifically on fanfic/fanart than mainstream media, and I think quite a lot of their arguments are at least somewhat appropriate to extrapolate to mainstream media as well.

I also strongly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" which the author, a verified giga chad, actually made free to download as a pdf, here. His work focuses primarily on right-wing authoritarians, but a lot of his research and conclusions are, you guessed it, applicable to left-wing authoritarians also.

And if you're an anti yourself, welp, you won't find support from me here. This is not an anti-ship safe space, sorrynotsorry 👆

In conclusion, honestly any "but Zutara is problematic" argument is one I'm likely to consider unsound to begin with, let alone the "Zutara is a colonizer ship" argument - but even if it wasn't, it's not something I'm interested in discussing, even if I recognise there are contexts where these discussions have value. I resent the idea that just because I have refined opinions on one aspect of a discussion means I must have (and be willing to preach) refined opinions on all aspects of said discussion. (I don't mean to sound reproachful here - actually the vast majority of the comments I get on my video/tumblr are really sweet and respectful, but I do get a handful of silly comments here and there and I'm at the point where I do feel like this is something worth saying.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to defer to other analysts who have the passion and knowledge to give complicated topics the justice they deserve. All I request is that care is taken not to conflate literary criticism with moral criticism to the detriment of both - and I think it's important to acknowledge when that is indeed happening. And respectfully, don't expect me to give my own take on the matter when other people are already willing and able to put their thoughts into words so much better than me. Peace ✌

*P.S. This works for real life too, by the way. There are people out there who are genuinely not only charming and likeable, but also generous, charitable and warm to the vast majority of the people they know. They may also be amazing at their work, and if they have a job that involves saving lives like firefighting or surgery or w.e, they may even be the reason dozens of people are still alive today. They may honestly do a lot of things you'd have to concede are "good" deeds.

They may be all of these things, and still be someone's abuser. 🙃

Two things can be true at once. It's important never to forget that.

One thing (and trust me, theres more) i hate about antis is their hypocrisy towards different crimes

"You can't ship that! It's illegal!!" Yeah and the guy who murders people is also illegal, but youre fine with shipping him with people.

"You can't like that character! They canonically sexually assaulted someone!" But you love that one character who physically assaults people?

I don't get why antis thing sexual crimes are the worst of the worst and if you even tolerate a character who did that, you deserve to get death threats. And the fact that they hate abusive ships so badly, but love characters who are murderers? That's just double standards, and I'm tired of it.

If one immoral crime is okay in fiction, then they all should be. No crime is above or below other crimes. They're all horrible actions that can traumatize someone for life, but since its fictional and not real, all of them should be okay to engage in, IN FICTION. Because it isn't real.

"But sexual, abuse, and pedophilic crimes can trigger someone! That's why we cant have them!" You ever thought that maybe murder and assault could trigger someone? There's a lot of people who are triggered by gore, and yet I don't see any antis sending death threats to those who make it. And guess what? Tagging exists. You can filter out tags so that you don't have to see any of that. That's why tagging posts is so important, so that people who have triggers related to that content won't be able to see it. Problem solved, and everyone gets to do what they want.

But antis just don't want to do that? They'd rather shame people for liking immoral things, or not even just immoral, things THEY classify as more immoral than other immoral things.

It seriously makes no sense, and I can't grasp how antis think like this.

being an anti must be so stressful like, imagine shipping two characters and then the creator reveals they’re actually related?

Like what do you do??? stop shipping them??? fr?????

What if it turns out that the other character is actually toxic, you gonna just drop all the fanfics and stuff like that?? really?? on god?????

I’m gonna say smth abt pro shipping

I almost never seek out any kind of dark ships, I like fluff, wholesome stuff (usually, I have my angsty days)

but I still consider myself a proshipper

why?

because I think OTHER ppl should be allowed to read and write what they wanna

just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean that no one else can!

I don’t like tomatoes, but I don’t wanna stop other ppl from enjoying tomatoes

obviously I don’t condone any of this behavior irl, but I think people should be allowed to enjoy whatever they want to in fiction

i genuinely, really like aang, but keeping his writing in book 3 and his writing in the comics in mind, i don’t think it’s all that implausible for him to get the sort-of-antagonist role in fics depicting katara-ships other than KA.

reiterating, i like aang: he’s adorable, he’s funny, and he’s nice. but i believe there’s something to be said about how his ‘niceness’ is written and seen as being The Reason he ‘deserves’ a love interest. his thinking is self-centred, and though that’s a believable flaw for a kid who’s, like, twelve, we’re shown that it’s a consistent character trait which is never treated as an issue… even though it is. (and if he’s mature enough to start dating the girl he’s going to marry and have children with, he should also be mature enough to be criticised for his less-than-savoury parts of his personality, no?)

it’s not OOC to write him as being possessive of katara even when they’re not dating, because he canonically is. it’s not OOC to write him as not respecting and/or noticing katara’s boundaries, because he canonically blows past them. the ideas that he might not mature much later on, that he might be wilfully and forcefully oblivious to any discomfort in the KA relationship, that he might continue shoving katara(‘s culture) aside—none of that is necessarily OOC, because aang does not go through significant character development in book 3 + the comics.

in The Promise, there’s that weird moment wherein aang is briefly anti-miscegenation and doesn’t change his mind until katara reminds him supporting that would affect him (him!!! his relationship with katara alone!!) personally. in TLOK, there’s the suggestion that aang never actively pushed for bumi & kya to learn about air nomad culture and there’s the heavy implication that aang never told the air acolytes about bumi & kya’s existence. additionally, tenzin doesn’t even have a hint of water tribe heritage anywhere in his house to honour katara’s side: he’s all air nomad (though?? nuclear family dynamic), in spite of being mixed.

don’t get me wrong, i vastly prefer fic and hc’s in which aang is a katara supporter first and foremost, and that’s also how i prefer to move through a fandom space barring meta and analyses. but i also don’t think making him jealous and petty when she dates someone else is a misinterpretation of the text we’ve been given; canon!aang shows the signs to become that way, and it’s not wrong to read his future self that way nor is it incorrect fandom-ing to highlight these traits

i just want to make it so clear that youtube is the place where i found my both favorite and least favorite example of how shipcourse has breached containment

like bro you are on youtube, you're lucky if someone even wants to read your description bc it was in the description of a gacha react video.

I walk out with a microphone and speak “Stripping away a female character’s traits and personality for a male character is wrong and is not a cool thing to do,” everyone cheers.

“Especially if the male character treated the female character like shit and wished death on her multiple times,” everyone cheers again.

“If the only way you can make your ship work is by completely desecrating one or both of the character’s personalities, maybe it’s not that good of a ship” everyone cheers and claps.

I say “Dramione” and get booed and thrown rotten tomatoes at.

Antis are actually so strange to me

Like their morals are so fragile they have to recite to themself that they're morally pure and superior and uwu uwu all that shit

Like I'll read someone's carrd and it'll be all "proshitters DNI" and right below it, it says "I enjoy problematic media BUT I AM CRITICAL OF MY INTERESTS I DO NOT CONDONE IT IRL I AM CRITICAL OF MY INTERESTS..."

Like are you really?

The more I hear antis say they're "critical of their interests," the more I begin to doubt they actually are critical of their interests...

It's like those "sigma alpha males" I see everywhere saying "I enjoy cooking" and then go "I MEAN GRILLING BECAUSE GRILLING IS WHAT THE MEN DO 🦅🦅🛻🥾🔥♂️♂️🏋️‍♂️"

...like you OK, bud?..