#this sucks anon i'm sorry | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ftmtftm · 6 months

Note

Genuine question. But how are radical feminists; women's rigths activist who are exactly trying to detect, address and attack the roots of the patriarcy and it's problems (the literal definition of radical, "By the root") to make the world a better place for women and girls, comparable to religious evangelicals, incels and actual Neonazis?

Dunno, correct me if I'm wrong, but last time I checked those 3 last groups and unlike actual radical feminists, not only they don't support but openly and actively despise and try to eliminate progresive ideals like homosexual rigths, reproductive rigths, end workfield innequality, among many others.

Context: This anon is in response to this post. I do want to apologize to anon up front, because I assumed they sent this ask in bad faith based on several other bad faith asks that have been sent to me in the past. They however, did ask this in earnest. I genuinely hope this is a valuable resource to you and anyone else this post crosses paths with.

Okay so there's a lot of things I want to get into here and it's gonna get long so I'm going to break it into chunks. We're gonna look at what political extremism is, what a rhetorical fallacy is, what Feminism is (broadly speaking) and then do a deep dive into the actual nitty gritty people and politics of Radical Feminism in opposition to other types of Feminism.

TL;DR - Radical Feminism is an extremist, female supremacist, hate movement. It has more in common with Political Right / authoritarian extremist movements than it does with any Politically Left / liberation based radical movements.

So let's start with examining political extremism. What is Political Extremism? In turn, what is Political Radicalism?

Political Extremism is a very broad category of belief and action that gets thrown around a lot. Most people just use it to mean "strong politics that exist outside the status quo" however, I'm more interested in the way Astrid Bötticher defines Extremism vs Radicalism. In her definitions (here) she essentially describes that "Political Extremism" tends to get applied to Right Wing leaning politics and "Political Radicalism" tends to get applied to Left Wing leaning politics. She states that there is a fuzzy line between the two (think about the application of the phrase "Go so far left you go right") but that finding ways to define and distinguish the two is still important to political discussion.

Bötticher describes that Radical Politics tend to have a focus on:

anti-violence/selective use of violence

building a positive future

democracy/emancipation

pro-human rights, specifically in the context of providing them to the under privileged

disrupting status quo without a total destruction of society/diversity

standing in opposition to Systemic Institutions and The Establishment

coexistent withdraw with society when existing in small numbers

universal morality - a moral system that applies to all

egalitarianism/sovereignty of the common people

ideas inspired and informed by philosophical movements, starting with the 18th century Enlightenment onward

In contrast she describes that Extremist Politics tend to have a focus on:

violence as a legitimate form of action

looking towards an idealistic past

anti-democracy/authoritarianism/intolerance for other ideologies

anti-human rights (specifically in the context of people outside their own ideology - my own addition)

reinforce status quo while closing society off from conversation and diversity

standing in opposition to Systemic Institutions and The Establishment and also anyone who disagrees with the Extremist dogma

provocation and disruption, even when existing in small numbers in society

particularistic (exclusive) morality - a moral system that only applies to the Extremist group

totalitarianism/authoritarian control

ideas inspired by fanatical, usually (but not always) religious ideas that claim to hold a monopoly on truth on the basis of their own vision (that last part is especially important)

As you can probably gather, under these definitions generally speaking one would define most progressive movements as Politically Radical and most regressive movements as Politically Extremist. The Feminist Movement is, by and large, a Politically Radical Movement. Our conversation doesn't end here though. We have a lot more ground to cover. This is just the framework.

So, now that we've established the characteristics of a Politically Extremist movement, let's delve into the rhetoric they use to assert those aspects of themselves.

What is a rhetorical fallacy?

Rhetorical Devices are an important part of not just politics, but every day life. We use them constantly - I'm using them now, you use them, everyone uses them. When I speak to you, the reader, and appeal to you directly I am invoking Pathos (Emotional Appeal) by creating an air of casualness - as though we are engaging in a conversation. When I give definitions, statistics, cite sources, I am invoking Logos (Logical Appeal) by showing there is traceable, factual, credibility to the things I am saying. When I say that I have been studying Political/Feminist/Philosophical Theory both academically and in my own free time for the last decade of my life I am invoking Ethos (Ethical Appeal) by asserting that I have put an immense amount of time and dedication into this topic to showcase my own credibility.

The important thing about Rhetorical Devices here is how they are applied - especially in political discussions. When applied incorrectly or maliciously Rhetorical Devices begin to fall into Fallacies.

Fallacies are errors, or tricks, of reasoning. The provided link is from a college writing textbook and I highly recommend reading it over if you're able (genuine shout out to LibreTexts for their efforts in making textbooks free and accessible to the public). It gives a good enough explanation of fallacies as a whole that I won't be going too in depth myself, so as not to distract from my main points.

The specific type of fallacies that I'd like to get into are Linguistic Fallacies (equivocation, amphiboly, combination of words, division of words, accent, and form of expression) because they are a type of fallacy that Political Extremists (and really? also most people in politics with weak argumentative skills) like to employ a lot to make their points seem stronger or to manipulate their image. Though it is not listed as a part of the six Linguistic Fallacies, I consider Etymological Fallacy to be a kind of Linguistic Fallacy, as it relies on the explicit dissection of language.

Political Extremists and other oppressive regimes often obscure their nature through carefully chosen linguistic descriptors that rely on fallacious intent. Early Nazis called themselves National Socialists when they were, in fact, not Socialists. The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is not a Democratic Republic for the People - it is a Dictatorship - and the Chinese Communist Party of the People's Republic of China is not Communist and China is not a Republic.

To obscure yourself behind intentionally chosen progressive sounding language to gain yourself more followers who simply say "Hey, Democracy and Socialism are good! Those guys must not be that bad!" or "Hey, I agree with women's rights and liberation! I think the world should be a better place for women and girls! Those Radical Feminists must be onto something!" is to rely on an intentional political obfuscation tactic that uses the Fallacy of Equivocation.

What is Feminism? What are the different schools of Feminist Theory?

A distinct and important part of Feminist Philosophy is quite genuinely - debating how to define Feminism and it's goals. Though they all follow similar themes, there are a lot of variant ways of defining this. Some definitions of Feminism include:

"The belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes." - Britannica / Merriam-Webster

"[The goal of feminism is] all genders having equal rights and opportunities." - International Women's Development Agency

"[Feminism is] the movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression." - bell hooks

Generally speaking though, Feminism places itself as a movement for the advocacy of Women as a Class of people, operating under the context of combating / eliminating gender and/or sex based oppression - depending on the Feminist school of thought you are looking at.

Allison Jaggar, feminist scholar, defined four types of Feminism in her 1983 book Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Those types are: Liberal Feminism, Marxist Feminism, Socialist Feminism, and Radical Feminism. These tend to be the schools of thought you see brought up most often today.

I, personally, however, think that it is worth recognizing that there are in fact more schools of Feminist thought than just those four. In particular Intersectional Feminism, which was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in her 1989 paper Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex, and Postcolonial Feminism which began to get its footing in 1984 with the publishing Audre Lorde's essay The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House (taken from a 1979 speech) and Chandra Talpade Mohanty's 1984 essay Under Western Eyes.

Postcolonial and Intersectional Feminism exist in direct critique of the Whiteness that was (and still is now) pervasive in Feminist Literature through the 60's-80's and into the beginning of the Third Wave of Feminism, which I will get into shortly.

Who is Radical Feminism by and for as a political movement? Who are the people creating the theory, past and present? Who are the people running the movement via theory, political organizations, and who are the faces of the movement? Who do they truly center?

Let's start with some basic Feminist history for a moment. The Feminist movement is broken into several waves. Presently, we are in what scholars are beginning to define as the Fourth Wave of Feminism, so let's briefly look at all four.

I want to state right off the bat that Feminism and feminist history as a whole is very US American and British centric. The First Wave of Feminism is defined by the Suffrage Movement and (White) Women gaining the right to vote in the USA in 1920. The Second Wave of Feminism is defined by the sexual liberation movement, the beginnings of Queer Theory, and the foundation of Radical Feminism as an organized political movement in the late 60's ('67~'68) on the coasts of the US and in England. The Third Wave of Feminism in the 90's is looser and exists as a dialogue between movements like the Riot Grrls, long standing Radical Feminists, and Feminists of Color (particularly Black Feminists) critiquing the Feminism of the previous few decades. The present Fourth Wave is currently being defined socially by social media usage and the MeToo movement and academically by its continuing recognition of Intersectional Feminist work.

I do think it is deeply important to note the racial dynamics at play here and address the fact that the Feminist Movement has also always been extremely White in many ways. This is not to discredit the work of Feminists of Color, but to say that their work, labor, activism, and theory often goes unrecognized by White Feminists. As previously mentioned, the First Wave of Feminism is largely defined by the Suffragette Movement and women's right to vote - however, Black Women and other Women of Color were not allowed to be fully included in this movement by White Suffragettes. Black Women did not receive suffrage until 1965 with the Voting Rights Act. This was just 2-3 years before the beginning of the Second Wave. I have written about this to a larger extent here so I won't be diving too deep in this ask, since we're already getting very long here.

So let's dive deeper into the Second Wave and Radical Feminist history. I would personally argue that the publishing of the SCUM Manifesto and Valerie Solanas' attempt on Andy Warhol's life is what kick started the Radical Feminist movement. I have talked about this to a larger extent here in relation to Political Lesbianism and really - I just don't want to retype an essay I've already written.

TL;DR - While the SCUM Manifesto may or may not have been satirical (Solanas went back and forth on this publicly) it was the first published work to describe ideas integral to Radical Feminist literature. It was born out of the same New York spaces as the rest of the Radical Feminist Movement and spread thanks to the New York gay newspaper, The Village Voice, and the publicity from Solanas' attempt at Warhol. Male Dominance Theory, the inherent violence of males, the idea that women are safer with other women than with men, the idea that lesbianism or celibacy are the only safe sexual avenues for women, etc. etc. were all published first in SCUM in 1968.

Ti-Grace Atkinson could, and should, be credited with the foundation of organized Radical Feminist politics in written works with her 1969 piece "Radical Feminism". She was an active defender of the SCUM Manifesto and Solanas - going so far as to get in trouble with NOW (The National Organization for Women) during her time as the organization's president for defending Solanas and attempting to involve Flo Kennedy in Solanas' legal defense (pay-walled article, unfortunately). While Solanas wanted no involvement with Atkinson, Kennedy, or NOW it's clear her ideas and actions deeply impacted them and other Radical Feminists. The events with Solanas inspired Atkinson to leave NOW and form the October 17th Movement, which then became the Radical Feminist group The Feminists.

If we look at other foundational Radical Feminists from the late 60's and 70's - Shulamith Firestone, Kathie Sarachild, Carol Hanisch, Roxanne Dunbar, Naomi Weisstein - they all also share one trait in common with Solanas and Atkinson beyond their politics. Whiteness. The only Woman of Color present so far in this history is Flo Kennedy, and Flo Kennedy was open about "Not feeling Black" and not really having community with other Black people. Her work definitionally was more Intersectional than Radical Feminist, however she dedicated most of her efforts to time in Radical Feminist spaces. Unfortunately as the linked book review begins to describe, like a lot of Feminist history, Flo's actual person-hood has been stripped from her work. She is often either used as a Token Black Radical Feminist or as a Token Black Intersectional Feminist in Radical Feminist Spaces, depending on where you look and who you ask.

I don't have the time nor space to do an entire history lesson on Radical Feminism, but suffice to say the works of the women I have previously mentioned very much inspired the works of more commonly cited, more modern Radical Feminist authors like Andrea Dworkin, Sheila Jeffreys, Julie Bindel, Catherine MacKinnon. Again, all White Women. You look to modern Radical Feminist and Women's Liberation activism and you see the same reflected in your average Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist as well as in the women in pop culture who are being celebrated by anti-trans Radfem spaces, like JKR and Kellie-Jay Keen / Posie Parker. Both of whom, by the way are actively buddy-buddy with conservatives and Neo-Nazi's. Shaun, the video essayist, has broken this down better than I can here (JKR) (Posie Parker).

Why talk about all of this? What is the relevance of political extremism and rhetorical fallacies in this conversation?

We began this essay (because, let's be real, that's what this is) discussing Political Extremism vs Political Radicalism so let's come back around to that and my claim that Radical Feminism is Politically Extremist, not Politically Radical now. Radical Feminists, like in this ask, have been in my ask box recently arguing that the "Radical" in "Radical Feminism" means "to the root" - like a mathematical root. That it means "Getting to the root of Patriarchy". However, I genuinely have not been able to find any such claim in any of my research. The "Radical" in "Radical Feminism" has always been used in the political sense of being "politically radical" in all of the reading and historical research I've done. Show me a legitimate source of this claim and I'll take it into consideration though.

I would like to breakdown Bötticher's list of traits of Extremism/Radicalism in relation to Radical Feminism now though, since we have established we are explicitly talking about Political Radicalism several times over.

1. violence as a legitimate form of action

Radical Feminism is founded on the idea that society needs to be completely dismantled in order to procure the safety of women. Be this by genocide, as SCUM suggests, or by a women led revolution as women like Firestone suggested there have always been roots of violence in Radical Feminism. Violence is a complicated topic in of its own right, which I've talked about my own feelings on here. I personally believe that the Radfem idealism towards violence and wanting to "flip" the violence of the Patriarchy back onto men - regardless of it is satirical or not - and the idea that violence begets violence falls under this category of Extremism, rather than under the category of Radicalism.

2. looking towards an idealistic past

I am of the opinion that the way Radical Feminism of the 60's and 70's idealized the Suffragettes and their work is a form of this. It is happening again now with the way modern Radical Feminists idealize the politics of Radfems of the 60's and 70's. There's this idealized version of Feminist history in Radfem spaces that completely ignores or denies the presence of Feminist authors that disagree with or criticize Radical Feminist thought. This happens generally via unwarranted assimilation (You see this happen a lot with theorists like Angela Davis, Audre Lorde, Judith Butler, and even Leslie Feinberg) or complete dismissal (you see this happen a lot with theorists like bell hooks, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Roxane Gay). You know the thing those authors have in common? They are all either Black or non-binary.

3. anti-democracy/pro-authoritarianism/intolerance for other ideologies

Current Radfem culture really hinges on dismissing anything Radfems disagree with as "Liberal Feminism" - referencing Jaggar's previously mentioned work. This is something I've noticed a lot in my own conversations with particularly young Radfems who are new to Feminism. There seems to be this idea that you can only be a pop culture-y, soft, liberal feminist OR a to the teeth, political radical feminist - with no thought for what might exist outside of that binary. Even Jaggar herself talks about Socialist and Marxist Feminism, which are in fact distinct Feminist movements in their own rights, and as previously mentioned Intersectional Feminism and Postcolonial Feminism, among many other types of Feminism also exist. To treat Feminism as though it was a binary dichotomy with a right answer is to fall under this category of Political Extremism.

4. anti-human rights (specifically in the context of people outside their own ideology - my own addition)

I've gone almost this entire post without going too in-depth on the subject of anti-trans rhetoric in Radical Feminism because that is, at least presently, something many, many other people have covered in the past. However, Radical Feminism as an ideology is in explicit opposition to the human rights of transgender individuals. This is not the post for that analysis, so I won't be getting into it to much deeper here. You can see my extended watching section at the bottom of this post if you're truly interested in this topic.

5. reinforce status quo while closing society off from conversation and diversity

Many Radfem spaces and a lot of Radfem literature tend to universalize the "woman" or "female" experience without consideration for the nuances and complexities of those experiences. Given the White American roots of Radical Feminism, I see this as an extension of the phenomenon of White Homogenization - which is the phenomenon related to the history of xenophobia towards groups like Irish and Italian immigrants and their subsequent assimilation into American White Identity once it was deemed convenient for White Supremacists. This is, in part why I would classify Radical Feminism as Female Supremacy. It's got all the makings of White Supremacist rhetoric thanks to the race of its founders, just twisted slightly to fit the means of White women rather than White people as a whole.

Radical Feminism constructs this status quo idea of universal womanhood and regularly shuts down conversations that question the authority of that experience, particularly in relation to Race, Ethnicity, Transgender Identity, and Intersex Identity.

6. standing in opposition to Systemic Institutions and The Establishment and also anyone who disagrees with the Extremist dogma

I feel like this one is self explanatory following the last few points about the universalism of womanhood and the way Radfem culture simplifies Feminist theory. Yes, Radical Feminism stands opposed to the Patriarchy and also it stands opposed to any other Feminist thought that might disagree with it to the point of ostracization, misindentification, and outright dismissal. The way many Radfems resort to pejoratives (as I've been experiencing in my ask box with an influx of asks calling me a tranny pooner among many other expletives I won't be posting) and dehumanizing language like calling trans people "TRAs" as a play off of "MRAs" is a good show of this.

7. provocation and disruption, even when existing in small numbers in society 8. particularistic (exclusive) morality - a moral system that only applies to the Extremist group 9. totalitarianism/authoritarian control

Grouping these three together mostly for the sake of brevity, as I've been working on this post for about 4 days and admittedly, I am getting exhausted exposing myself to rhetoric that fundamentally believes my own existence is incorrect and a bunch of other anons telling me to kill myself.

However, I do briefly want to take time here to address the fact that the way Radfems universalize womanhood ends up perpetuating this idea that women are inherently safer than men. That women, or females, are incapable of abuse because that's what men do. This separatism, this isolationism, is in of itself a breeding ground for abusive people to take advantage of others. These last three points are all three points that I think highlight the cult-like nature of Political Extremism. "Violence is good and justified when women do it to men because men are violent to women" type thinking. It preys on unresolved trauma - which I've briefly spoken about here. I could absolutely go into point 8 farther, and I have a lot more feelings about it that I'm getting into here - but I'm tired. I'll make another post another day and update this one when I do.

10. ideas inspired by fanatical, usually (but not always) religious ideas that claim to hold a monopoly on truth on the basis of their own vision (that last part is especially important)

This is one of the most important points in this list I think. A lot of Radical Feminism positions itself in a way that places itself and it's followers as arbiters of truth. If you disagree with Radical Feminism, you're a misogynist, you're a self hating female, you're wrong, you're ignorant, you hate women and support the Patriarchy. It's classic "Us vs Them" rhetoric.

I brought up rhetorical fallacies earlier as a primer to the fact that Radical Feminist rhetoric is full of rhetorical fallacies. Most specifically notably in this ask is the etymological fallacy of saying the "Radical" in "Radical Feminism" means "to the Root". "Woman = Adult Human Female" is also an etymological fallacy. Acting as though there are only two types of Feminism (Liberal vs Radical) is an argument based on fallacy. The list goes on, as most of the requirements for Bötticher's definition of Political Extremism rely on fallacy on the part of the Extremists because Extremism requires a skewed perception of reality based on the manipulation of facts.

That is all why I classify Radical Feminism as a Politically Extremist Female Supremacist Hate Group - especially modern Radical Feminism. That is why I classify it in the same extremist camp as Evangelicals, White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, and Incels. They all rely on similar rhetorical tactics to further their goals:

"You are only safe with your own kind. You will only find strength with your own kind. Outsiders are the enemy and you cannot find sympathy or empathy for them, lest you become brainwashed."

What are the alternatives? How do we move forward from Radical Feminism?

One of the most important solutions I can offer, in my opinion, is the encouragement to go and do your own research into Feminism and Feminist history. A Radfem view is one of many, many possible Feminist approaches as I've discussed at length here. I personally think "good feminism" is well-rounded Feminism that takes an Intersectional approach to Institutions of Oppression. Essentially, Feminism that recognizes that the Patriarchy is only one aspect of the oppressive forces of the world and that it works in tandem with other systems to cause direct harm to the oppressed.

First and foremost - I keep a reading list on my blog. I need to go through and do some serious updating to it but what it currently has is still a good jumping off point. The list isn't just reading materials, but also includes talks and interviews and audio books, if those things are more accessible to you personally.

My personal favorite feminist thinkers are bell hooks, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Leslie Feinberg. Audre Lorde, Judith Butler, and Kate Bornstein are also excellent reads when it comes to theory. I'm also including some extended watching recommendations at the end of this ask because I know for many people watching a video or listening to a talk can be more accessible than academic text. I do however, recommend popping into my reading list and looking at the talks and interviews that I have listed there as well.

If you made it all the way down here? Holy shit - congratulations and thank you for reading all of this, regardless of if we agree on this topic or not. This was a pain in the ass to put together honestly and I'm real fucking tired. I'm gonna go spend a week getting high and listening to live music with my best friend now.

Just remember: Do what you want forever :)

Extended Watching (Interviews + Talks):

In Life: Interview with Kate Bornstein, Leslie Feinberg (captions recommended)

Leslie Feinberg in Buffalo, June 2, 2006

Leslie Feinberg Celebrating Stone Butch Blues at Charis Books 1993 (captions recommended)

Berkley professor explains gender theory | Judith Butler

Feminist icon Judith Butler on JK Rowling, trans rights, feminism, and intersectionality

Extended Watching (Video Essays):

JK Rowling's New Friends - Shaun (previously linked)

Keelie-Jay & the Neo-Nazis - Shaun (previously linked)

Social Constructs (or, 'What is A Woman Really?') - Philosophy Tube

Identity: A Trans Coming Out Story - Philosophy Tube

Transhumanism: "The World's Most Dangerous Idea" - Philosophy Tube

Autogynephilia - ContraPoints

Gender Critical - ContraPoints

#sorry anon i didnt get into the dog whistles like i said i would but i'm much to tired and the scope of this ask got much too big #asks #anon #radblr #terfblr #radical feminism #radical feminist #feminism #intersectional feminism #intersectional feminist #feminist #feminist literature #feminist theory #intersectional feminist theory #(wow unrelated note but desktop text editor sucks now-#I haven't edited a post on desktop in a hot second and haven't set up my extensions well enough yet)

125 notes · View notes

sciderman · 6 months

Note

Sci I was watching a movie the other night with some dude I was chatting with, it was great and we were having a lot of fun until a drag scene come on. I can't remember what the movie was but I remember him saying, “He's a drag queen? Didn't realise this was a horror movie.” and I decked the fuck out of him. There was not a second date. And I'm really just surprised mfs are still so judgemental, what is this, the 1970s? Jfc.

you punched him? that's hot.

#sci speaks #i wish someone would punch me on a date.#but also that sucks anon i'm sorry my guy #very unsexy of him.

74 notes · View notes

project-sekai-facts · 7 months

Text

oh. apparently there's a note on the bottom of the poster that roughly translates to "this is a class list for the advertisement and not an official in-game setting". I don't know whether the class list is actually false or this is just a mandatory STC statement, but these posters are up in six cities across Japan so why the fuck would they make posters that aren't even legit info? The posters say the same across all 6 cities as well I should point that out. Twitter is just as confused as I am considering that actual minor characters like Ayumi and Miyake are listed on here, so it's not like it's an entirely random pool of names outside the MCs.

this is only the first round of posters with the theme of "advancement". the second round will roll out in about a week.

#if i accidentally spread misinfo you can anon hate me #yo sega what the fuck #gays i'm so sorry #hopefully this just refers to all the random names they had to put on the poster to fill out space #everyone on twt is so confused rn i have no idea what's going on either bc google translate sucks #mod talks #project sekai

136 notes · View notes

neopronoun-user-culture-is · 30 days

Note

neopronouns culture is mentioning them (& that you use them) around your literal best friend, the person you are closest to, and they say “well I just don’t think they are a fully legitimate identity”. :’)

Neopronoun user culture

#i'm so sorry that happened anon! that really sucks #i hope your friend can become more open minded about neos #neopronoun #neopronouns #neopronoun user #neopronoun user culture

30 notes · View notes

violent138 · 1 month

Note

"#hey I have a serious headcanon that multiple of Gotham's elite were worried about or invested in Bruce's future#not even for court of owl reasons#but because he had the power and wealth to the alter the city the same way his parents did#falcone even tried killing him a bunch"

PLEASE talk more about this i'm begging. I want to hear all about this!!! Go into as much detail as you want but i'd absolutely read a 5k essay on this if you feel up to it

Though this isn't quite a 5K essay, you may come to regret asking lol. But I'm delighted to answer the question (thanks for asking):

Firstly, I guess to set up some Gotham lore, Gotham's a city of seemingly endless opportunity and is subject to constant power grabs. I think Black Mask once listed all the different factions that squabble over Gotham (street gangs, crime families et cetera). One of these groups is the Court of Owls (the society that secretly controls Gotham), made up of Gotham's oldest and wealthiest families.

And Batman comics make a point of repeatedly drawing attention to its key families, Kanes, Waynes, Elliots, Cobblepots (and the Arkhams too should you like to include them). There's an undue influence and importance they wield over the city.

But despite all the different forces that are competing to reshape Gotham in their image, it's the spectre of the Waynes that looms over it all.

This actually makes a lot of sense, since as some of the founders of the city, they were literally involved in creating the city's skyline and appearance. And then past that, there are so many instances and references to how Thomas and Martha (Kane or Arkham) were set on changing the city entirely (possibly a deviation from their more traditional ancestors).

This is the beginning of the loss of control for many others over the city (such as Gotham's wealthy and elite). Even smaller decisions, like Thomas' choice to save Carmine Falcone's life have major repercussions for the city.

The Waynes had a ton of power, buildings and institutions around Gotham hold their name. They were untouched by their potential criminal ties as they reconstructed the city, but it was clear that they were earning the hatred of a lot of powerful players. This includes the Court of Owls (historians still argue)/others, and if you're a fan of the TellTale game, it's clear that Bruce's family may have actually destroyed and usurped power from some of these other powerful families.

Regardless, Thomas and Martha's shocking deaths created a massive power vacuum that everyone would have jumped to take advantage of. And aside from gaining control over the city, all the old-money families would have wanted control over Bruce Wayne.

Because of the deaths of his parents, Bruce becomes a wildcard; he's the sole inheritor of Wayne Enterprises, all the money, power, and prestige his parents wielded. And in a way, it's almost like all the Waynes have some divine right/eldtrichy power over Gotham, by virtue of their fascinating blood line (or just their money).

So everyone would have been trying to control him/adopt him/use his access in the wake of trauma and exploit his age. When it didn't work, they likely all just settled into a stalemate of waiting for him to make moves so they could decide how much of a threat/ally he was.

In a comic I read (I'm sure there are other examples too, can't recall as I answer this), Carmine Falcone tries to kill Bruce Wayne via hired assassin, well after it's been established that nobody's even seen Bruce for a while. Carmine hears that Bruce could be at a party and sends an assassin with both a potent neurotoxin and a sword to ensure the job is done. So long after the deaths of his parents, these concerns of Gotham's warring factions continue.

And once Bruce starts acting on his vision for the city, one that aligns so well with Martha and Thomas' plans for Gotham, he likely cements himself as a threat yet again, and one that hasn't been schooled by his old-money parents in the games and underlying politics of Gotham.

So to continue on the line of thought that the tags came from: Regardless of what choices Bruce eventually makes -> I doubt that the Gotham elite wanted him making them without their influence

As a side note, because I'm kind of obsessed with the lineages that rule Gotham, if you look at Oswald Cobblepot, even as a crime lord descended from the Cobblepots, he's not just a street-level crook, but he also shapes the city.

#I hope this 500 word (or more) thing was what you wanted anon #sorry if this sucks I typed it up between classes as one stream of barely consciousness word vomit #I'm actually quite curious to hear what you make of this #or anyone else for that matter #sorry if I got stuff wrong lol #bruce wayne #batman #gotham #gotham city #dc comics #anon asks #asks answered #the waynes #thomas wayne #martha wayne #gotham's founding families

25 notes · View notes

fantasticalleigh · 9 months

Text

🖤🖤🖤🖤Another one for The Education of a Lady 🖤🖤🖤🖤

used this Pin as a reference

#fantasticalleigh's art #fantasticalleighs art #dramione #dramione art #dramione fanart #dark dramione #draco malfoy #hermione granger #artists on tumblr #illustrators on tumblr #shoutout to that one shithead who once left a review on this fic saying my art is terrible and that i shouldn't bother sharing it #guess what bitch: the point is to keep doing it in order to get better that's how it works #i was proud of my work at the time just like i'm proud of this one now #i sincerely hope you don't go talking to other artists that way bc not everyone is going to be able to take a comment like that well #so fuck you and sorry for my followers who see this in the tags and go wtf?#but that's actually one of the comments that have really bothered me and i do actually think about it a lot #so whoever that anon was: i've gotten better (not that i need to prove it to anyone)#and i hope you go suck a wet fart out of your own asshole before you comment some shit like that ever again

125 notes · View notes

grandorderconfessions · 3 months

Text

#In all seriousness I'm sorry anon :< that always sucks....#koyanskaya #sfw #fate grand order

28 notes · View notes

good-omens-heritage-posts · 9 months

Note

Heritage implies age, these aren’t heritage posts they’re just posts you like

you aren't wrong, i've just decided that maybe that's okay tbh

#not a heritage post #ask #anon #i am fully aware of this. three reasons some of the posts on here are pretty new:#a) season 2 just came out and tumblr's search function sucks. most of the posts i'm seeing after literal *hours* of searching today are new #b) some of those^ posts have got like 20k notes in 24 hours. they may not be old but they're already iconic (ive seen them reposted already #c) it's my blog so im ok with some of the posts just being posts i like :)))#if u want to see older posts then filter the blog for “GO1” or “book omens” and you will get all the ones i've found so far!!#but yeah. idk if there are widely accepted universal criteria for what makes something a heritage post. until someone shows me the rulebook #i am making them up as i go :)))#anyway SORRY im rambling just thought id put that out there until tumblr makes it easier to search for stuff there will probably be at leas #some new posts on here and if u just wanna see the older posts then search for the respective tag on the blog :)))

65 notes · View notes

violentlydefending · 1 year

Note

Does swap kim's Brain Bits have appearances like harry's, or are they just fractures in the halo?

Does kim know he has a halo? Does he see it?

Does it make him sad? Does he wonder what broke it?

player two start

#if i were actually any good at design i'd love to try and figure out appearances for kim's skills but for now here's the halo crack origin #ANYWAY ty for the prompt anon!! normally i don't make Serious(TM) fanart bc i'm insecure about my art and keep myself in the Clown Zone #but this gave me Thoughts that i simply had to act on #sorry i suck at bgs and injuries and um. everything tho #contra art #disco elysium #kim kitsuragi #disco elysium fanart #de fanart #swap au #de swap au #messages #anonymous #will rb to my artblog soon probably remind me lol #blood tw

253 notes · View notes

banghyunnie · 5 months

Note

Upon requesting, you receive a request:

(Disclaimer that this is merely a suggestion, if it crosses any boundaries or simply doesn’t vibe with you you can just delete it, you can also change whatever you want, please don’t feel pressured to do something you’re not comfortable with)

So, you know how Hyunjin always teases Minho but then apologizes immediately upon being caught, even after just one look from him?

Now imagine Hyunjin as your wannabe-bratty sub, who usually is so good for you, but every once in a while he just has to be the pabo that he is. Maybe he’s making inappropriate remarks while out with friends, maybe he mocks you after giving him a command, maybe he’s just making silly faces or noises towards you. He thinks it’s funny at first, but then you throw him that special look and he immediately apologizes, shuts up and does as you ask. But maybe, an apology doesn’t cut it. Maybe, an apology just isn’t good enough to repair the damage he’s done. And maybe, just maybe, he’s secretly doing all of this to pull a punishment out of you. And how could you deny your good little pet the dramatic payback he craves and deserves?

So, yeah, I guess what I’m trying to say is please write about sub!Hyunjin who receives a punishment after being bad and whines so prettily

~🤍

Ooooo, this is something I haven't really thought of!

I imagine one day Hyunnie is really pushing it. You go out with him and the boys for dinner and he's been very touchy with you-more than normal. It starts with him sliding a hand under the table, resting on your knee just as he likes. You don't pay any mind to it until you realize it's slowly climbing up, fingertips grazing your thighs as they pass. You bite your cheek and shake your head a bit, not wanting to draw attention to yourself. As if he didn't even notice, his hand goes up further and further before it rests against the damp heat under your skirt.

"Hyun" you whisper a warning. He looks to you and for a moment, his hand begins to move away. You turn your focus back to your meal, calming down a bit before you feel his thumb beginning to rub circles on your clit. You yelp in surprise, body jolting a bit. Your cheeks go red when one of the boys ask if you're okay.

"Yeah baby, are you alright?" Hyunjin unknowingly asks. You glare at him before nodding.

"M'fine" you assure. The boys nod and go back to their previous activities. Hyunjins eyes meet yours and he snickers to himself before going back to his own meal.

-------------------------------------------------------

"What the hell was that, hm?" You have him pinned to the wall almost immediately as you enter your shared apartment.

"What was what?" He teases, watching your eyes narrow, "okay, I'm sorry" he squeaks, but you shake your head.

"You know, I've forgiven you enough. I'm starting to think you're expecting something more from all of this teasing. Is that what it is?" You cock an eyebrow. The boy in your grip whines and nods shamefully. The fact that he was much taller than you, but caved at a single glance from you stirred something within you.

With your grip still strong, you turn and push him back onto the couch, kneeling between his legs. Seeing his nod of approval, your shimmy his pants down just enough to where they rest around his perfect thighs.

"You should've gotten this ages ago. You wanna behave like a little brat? You're gonna get edged like one" you spit onto his cock, seeing that it's now rock hard against his toned stomach, wrapping one hand around the base before giving it a nice squeeze, earning a drawled out whine from him.

"No no, please" He practically breathes, breathless, "I'll be good, I promise. I wanna cum. Please baby. Please let me cum. I'll do anything you want" the pleads continue to fall from his lips, but you ignore him, giving a small chuckle as you begin to flick your wrist agonizingly slow. You can't help but coo as you watch him tear up above you, thrusting up desperately. Maybe your pretty boy will think twice before mocking you.

#I'm ass at writing dom povs #i hope this was okay I'm sorry if it sucks #asks:hyunjin #skz smut #stray kids smut #hyunjin smut #sub!hyunjin #🤍 anon

50 notes · View notes

vamptisms · 1 year

Text

Transparent Ai Hoshino icons | Oshi no ko

requested by anon!

#oshi no ko #oshi no ko icons #ai hoshino #ai hoshino icons #anon I'm sorry if these suck it's my first time doing transparent icons 💔

68 notes · View notes

chaoslynx · 13 days

Note

omg you’re learning Italian? I’m Italian! Ciao!! Sono sicura che sei bravissimə! (ə is like the gender neutral suffix lmao even if it’s not universally recognised)

Ciao! Sì, parlo italiano, ma solo un po'. Imparando italiano per tre mesi ora! Anche xlx mix migliore amicx è italianx. Lxi usa -x invece -ə. Grazie mille per usi -ə per me! Anche -o è va bene per me. Mi dispiace se non dico questo molto bene ancora.

#answers #anon #also to the other anon ask in the inbox: i'm planning to write a drabble for you #it's just taking me some time :( sorry! still getting back into writing #also again yeah i'm terribly sorry if my grammar or general speech sucks in italian right now #it's literally only been three months since i started lol #and i've been monolingual my whole life sadly </3 #i hope this is at least kinda-sorta understandable #feel free to reach out over DMs or in my discord server or whatever if you want to talk more! i only know a couple italian speakers rn

10 notes · View notes

sciderman · 4 months

Note

Drifters White Christmas erasure (and I’m a Christmas music hater)

no no, you're right. unfortunately i can't listen to it in any other context other than it's inclusion in home alone (1990) because i'm under oath that the only song i can listen to with full consent in the month of december is wham!'s last christmas.

youtube

#sci speaks #my spotify is locked on wham!'s last christmas for an entire month.#i can be subjected to other songs in the shopping malls if it's in my periphera but i cannot consent to listening to any other songs.#WHY is drifters white christmas never playing in the malls.#it's always michael buble and i HATE michael buble.#sorry michael buble.#also that horrible sia song. i hate sia too. sorry sia.#actually i'm not sorry sia. you suck sia.#christmas music haters are the most valid people ever. me too anon. i hate christmas music so much.#i went to a christmas party the other day and the singing started and i wanted to die so much.#the worst part of it was they started singing wham!'s last christmas and i was like finally. some good music.#and the backing track CUT OFF and they sang mariah carey instead and it felt like i was being personally victimised.

26 notes · View notes

atopvisenyashill · 5 days

Note

Dany's reaction at Viserys's death and later on her guilt over it is perfectly understandable and is one of more tragic parts of her story. As someone who believes in her show ending, I despise that particular scene is taken as her foreshadowing for madness. She was an abuse victim and anyway she reacted was valid. And I don't even think she will ever truly go mad because I believe targaryen madness is extreme obsession with any particular thing (be it dragons or power or prophecy or supremacy or incest) so that all targaryens (even 'normal' ones like aemon, rhaegar, jaehaerys) have this tendency and it can go on to become full on lunacy if not curbed.

Yeah, like what Viserys represents is Dany's ability to completely recast her own memories, a way of showing memory is very fallible (i've mentioned that a lot with Ned, Bran, Theon, Sansa, and Dany is a big example of that as well) wherein she really recasts herself as having so much more agency while she's Drogo's wife than she actually had (something we see echoed in a lot of the wives of very domineering husbands see also: alysanne and jaehaerys, or the annoying way barth talks about alyssa velaryon). I think dany (and the audience) really put the blame for this on her when in reality like......genuinely what was she supposed to do here. Viserys violates a very deeply held social and religious custom of the Dothraki by baring steel in Vaes Dothrak, and Dany is one (1) person with not a lot of influence, no martial training, and no dragons. Beyond that, he has physically assaulted her while she's pregnant once already and now he's holding a deadly weapon to her face. Like. What was she supposed to do to stop this even if she wanted. What on earth could she have done, really. "Please kill him in a slightly more humane way" Drogo is not fucking listening to that and like, it's not to say that the way Viserys dies isn't violent as fuck but like...the alternative is like, dragging him out of Vaes Dothrak to cut off his head, which may technically hurt less but is probably much more traumatic on the whole, or just straight beating/strangling him to death which is also like, incredibly violent and will take much longer anyway. So it's sort of like, well even if she wanted to save him she has no ability to do so!

And beyond that, imo, it's the same as Cersei killing Robert or Arya killing the boy in the stables. Do I worry about the way becoming an out and out murderer will affect them psychologically? Yes, because regardless of why you're killing someone, taking another person's life has a massive affect on your mental and emotional state for a reason. But do I blame either one for this action? No not even a little. Arya is panicked, she knows it's likely if she's caught at best she's a hostage, but who even knows what's going to happen if she gets caught because she's not totally sure what's happening right now. She panics, she kills the boy mostly accidentally, she runs off. That's clear cut self defense right there. And as for Cersei, again, what the fuck is she supposed to do. Her husband is beating and raping her and she has no recourse for this because it's not a crime for a husband in general to beat and rape his wife, and it's certainly not a crime for the King to do it. Her father will not help her because he does not care. If she lets Jaime kill Robert, they are completely fucked. Yeah, hell yeah she kills him, she doesn't have another option if she wants his abuse of her to stop.

It's the same here. Yeah, I think Viserys being murdered in Dany's name has a massive and terrible affect on her psychologically because it's another nail in the coffin of "safety and strength = violence and cruelty" conflation in her mind, and this is her last tie to home, it's her last tie to her family, to her house, to her mother, to Westeros, and that "last dragon" sequence that follows I think is her psychologically accepting that like, To Be The Last Dragon, To Be Any Dragon means you must accept violence and cruelty as your first and main tool to protect yourself (and violence and cruelty can certainly be useful tools but they should not be your only ones. but how could she ever know this when every mentor she's ever had has shown her that the only effective tools are to be cruel before someone else can be cruel to you). But Viserys' death is not her fault, it's not anything she could have stopped, and it doesn't inherently doom her because she is purposefully detaching her emotions from this moments and dissociating over the fact that her last known living relative was just brutally murdered by her husband in her name in front of her, and then her husband promises her what she has always wanted which is a home and a protector and an advocate.

The person responsible for Viserys' death is first and foremost Viserys himself for being a complete idiot and secondly Drogo's fault. Dany cannot stop it, she has nothing to do with it, and she shouldn't be blamed for feeling some sort of relief that a man who regularly physically, sexually, and psychologically abuses her is dead. Who gives a shit man, she literally murders her slave several chapter later.

And as for the Targaryen madness, it's like......idk why it's just so hard to grasp for so many people (this isn't a dig at you, specifically anon, obviously) that mental illnesses often run in a family, incest often makes this worse because you're not introducing anything new to the gene pool, and trauma of any sort can set off severe mental illness issues in just about anyone. As I said before, I think Dany's problem (very similar to Rhaenyra which is why I again find it mind boggling that people will be like "nyra is a tyrant but dany is a hero" when these women have the exact same issue) is that she has consistently conflated cruelty with strength in her mind. She has very little control of her temper, and often rationalizes her actions and the actions of the people around her as being necessary despite there being a lot of other, better options available. She doesn't think long term as much as she should. She has access to a "weapon" of sorts that can do an extreme amount of damage in a very small amount of time, with the added problem that she has an emotional and magical link to that weapon. The dragons only seem partially sentient and that "part" that is sentient is like a manifestation of their dragon rider's id.

That's just so much cooking in her mind, psychologically, and she's kind of born already screwed because her family has a history of mental illness. And tbc I don't think this means that like, mentally ill people should be shut out and barred from society because um, that means MY ass would not be allowed out but it does mean that in a world where certain people are granted certain massive privileges like access to an army or fantasy nuclear launch codes, and there's no check to that power, and there's no safety net, and everyone is using you and your dysfunction for their own gain, the worst parts of your psyche can be enabled until there's a snowball effect of violence. this isn't even like, something just this series; look at the large amounts of disabled and mentally unstable monarchs we've had in history, ask any millennial on lexapro with divorced parents how they feel about their mom's drinking or their dad's bipolar disorder, and you'll get the idea that without support, in a society that enables our worst behavior, someone with a family history of illness can find themselves in a really fucked up situation and that's just like, the tragedy of being alive.

Dany, Theon, Cersei, Ned, Tyrion, Aerys, Aegon II III and IV, on and on, they are of course responsible for the harm they cause, and they are all really screwed from the start and that's tragic, but it's not inevitable that they fail or lose their minds so much as it's an indictment of the way we treat each other as a species.

#THIS WAS A RANT SORRY ALSDJFSD #dark daenerys #daenerys as orestes #viserys the beggar king #gender politics in asoiaf #brothers and sisters #marriages in asoiaf #anti daenerys targaryen #again NOT ANTI BUT SINCE I'M BEING CRITICAL. I'M THROWIN GIT ON THERE.#we all know during this reread i have come to be very loving towards her an dhave had that epiphany that most of my ire #is in fact towards the show version of her who just objectvely sucks as a character and also the annoying fans.#i am the dany understander actually.#asks #anons

14 notes · View notes

randomnameless · 3 months

Note

Localization discourse has started to rear its head again because of some Funimation localizer defending a line from Dragon Maid but it really got me thinking, I feel like so many people are so quick on demonizing anyone who doesn't like localization changes as pro-GG when it's much more simpler. People don't hate localization changes because of the message itself but rather because it's not what the character is saying 9/10 and it comes off as calculated and cynical. I feel like it's kind of a direct consequence of transformative fandom, with the whole "I'm going to write the story the way I want it to be and fill up the spaces" but instead of a fanfic it's with the original source material.

Pro GG?

What is GG? AI?

I remember this argument of the "it's not what the character is saying" and people being pissed because they couldn't get the "right" script - and tbh, after reading some arguments here and there, localisation always comes with necessary changes/adaptation to the text, let it be grammatically or to convey ideas from a language to another, so if you want a 100% faithful script then... better start to learn the language lol

With Funimation though...

The Shinchan earlier post was telling enough of my opinion about drastic changes that aren't used to transcribe a meaning or convey an idea to a foreign audience, it's just... erasing the source material and swapping your own ideas on them.

Like, uhhh

Funimation acquired the Shin-chan US license in 2005. Funimation's dub takes many liberties with the source material and was heavily Americanized. Many sexual references, dark humor, and references to then-current popular American culture were added, including many jokes about subjects such as Jews, terrorism, and Viagra. Characters were given significantly different personalities and new, previously non-existent backstories. For instance, Shin is refused an allowance, on he basis that he could use it to buy drugs (crystal meth), his schoolmate Kazama ('Georgie Herbert Walker Prescott III' in this dub) was an absurdly hawkish ultra-conservative Republican, the unseen father of Nene (known in the dub as "Penny") was suggested to be physically abusive towards both his wife and daughter, Principal Enchou was rewritten as a half Romani, half Peruvian man with a complicated, checkered backstory that includes a stint as an accident-prone magician, The kids' teacher: Yoshinaga-sensei (known in the dub as "Miss Polly"), was rewritten as a kinky and often domineering nymphomaniac,

The earlier Vitello and Phuuz dub also edited some jokes and/or what was considered indecent exposure like shin's buttocks and tried to "occidentalise" a few references, but it wasn't like straight up changing what a character is or their personality!

No doubts funimation was "authorised" by whoever had the rights of the franchise to lolcalise and edit it as they did but it just comes out as a "why did they rewrite that stuff like they did", to make more money, to make another "mature cartoon" like Family Guy expy, idk.

And to be honest... I don't really care, because I grew up with the Vitello Dub and read some manga chapters of Shin-chan, so I know what the manga/anime (sure, the dog wasn't named lucky but shiro!) is supposed to say and/or be about.

I don't agree when you say those "lololcalisations" are a consequence of the transformative fandom in general, transformative works have existed since... forever lol (some dude wrote in the early middle ages (grégoire de Tours?) how Franks are descendans of Achilles or something to explain how kickass his king and his people are like, at this point, he's writing a self-insert OC story, right?)

But in modern times, there used to be a clear (?) divide between what was transformative work and what was canon - 50 Shades of Grey sort of started as a Twilight fanfic, but it became its own thing and no calls it a Twilight adaptation or "Twilight" anymore.

The Aeneid? Despite what devoted fans wants the world to believe, is "just" a fanfiction, aka someone writing about the characters he """loves""" no matter how OOC they are. It's a Fodlan fanfic and treated as such. Or should lol.

Still, if in a fanfic, Flayn can apologise for being born as a lizard because having lizard blood means she's automatically evil and oppresses humanity due to the fact she exists, it's only a fanfic. It's not something I like, OOC as fuck, but okay, moving on. Rhea eating ketchup is my own hc, also OOC since we don't see her eating any in the games, same thing - but fanfics are OOC by essence because they're a transformative work !

As I said, okay, moving on.

But when what is supposed to be as close as "canon", albeit translated, dips in the same "OOC" territory?

Sure, Eng!Raphael will say "I" instead of "ore" to refer to himself - and yet, imo, if professional localisers (at least the people picked by the company to bring games to an international audience!) have some sort of leeway with canon, their work is inherently transformative - since they're localising -they are still bound by some rules, unlike a fanfic author, because the aim of their work is not the same.

When you write a fanfic, you write it for yourself, to tell the story you want.

Of course it depends, like the funi shin chan dub showed, but usually, I think, when you are a professional localising something (a manga, anime, book, tv series, myth, story, anything!) you are supposed to only bring "necessary" changes to the source material to bring this source material to the "targeted audience".

And it's kind of hard to determine at what point is a "change" necessary or not - back in the 2000, "Jonouchi" had to be changed in "Joey" because, supposedly, non japanese children wouldn't be able to understand/connect/watch/idk a show with a foreign name (even here in France, we got "Petit Coeur" aka Small/Little Heart for... Piccolo in the early 90s!) - but now in the 2020s Midorima isn't dubbed "Mike".

(even if 2013 saw a localised Fates edit "Suzukaze" to "Kaze" for reasons as foggy as Fodlan's 10k years of lore)

And we of course have the notion of "targeted audience" - here in France, in the 90s, basically any "animated cartoon" was supposed to be targeted for children, like 3 to 10 years old. Which is the reason why we got lunar dubs for Hokuto no Ken and City Hunter (no "brothels", but instead, "vegetarian restaurants"!).

Yugioh was dubbed for a younger audience than, I guess, what was the targeted audience for the manga (even the original anime, regardless of the dub or not, feels like it was made for younger "children" than the ones who would read the manga!).

And this is where I wanted to come with the modern "transform the source material!" lolcalisations - are they "heavily" edited because they target a specific audience?

Like... the funimation Shinchan dub was obviously not aimed at children the manga, or even the original anime, hell even the Vitello dub, were targeting.

It's almost as if we're not talking about "bringing this definite thing to random people", but "finding/tweaking random things to definite people".

Take Fodlan's lolcalisation, especially Treehouse/Pat's.

NoA was the only regional branch to have, on the official website, something like "the Church controls Fodlan".

Through the 4 (already 4!) years of coverage, some people are still finding dub exclusive lines that portray the CoS as "BaD" or in a more negative light than the original text. Pat completely missed (or was it on purpose?) Rhea's character, so Leigh had to dub Rhage, when Supreme Leader was scrubbed off her most, uh, dubious personality traits (tfw no information campaign anymore :( or calling Rhea a Nabatean as an insult :()

Why? Why those changes? Is it because Pat/Treehouse didn't want to bring the game to the US, but wanted to bring this game to the "Dany revolution yas slay kween" crowd + the "organised religion especially catholicism BaD" crowd? Or because they thought bringing "a game" to this crowd would bring more money than to bring "Fire Emblem Three Houses" to the general US crowd? So they "reworked" FE16 to have messages that would attract this certain crowd ?

(and apparently it worked, iirc the US sales made up for 50% of FE16's sales, so it was very popular (and profitable!!))

The Pat/Treehouse changes weren't "necessary" to understand the source material, or try to find similar references (a trip to a hot spring in Shinchan was replaced with a trip to Paris, because children who might not be familiar with japan might not know what is a hot spring, or what a "trip to the hot spring" is supposed to be), so why were they made?

Is it like the Funimation dub? To reach specific people, even if the meaning and essence of the original material is lost?

In a nutshell, I don't think localisation companies (Treehouse or Funi) work in a vaccum, if they can lolcalise so much, it obviously means they got the authorisation of whoever has the rights to the original source material (maybe even the creator themselves!) to "edit" the content...

But that's what I came to regret the time where localisation, even if they had westernised names and more westernised refs, wasn't that "free", as in, Funi and Pat/Treehouse write their fanfic of Shinchan/FE16 ? Sure, why not, I mean, everyone can write a fanfic. Can I get a peak at the original source - edited as necessary because i'm not reading in the original language and I might not catch all references - please? No, because the only thing available is either something I cannot understand, or a fanfiction that takes liberties, as fanfic do, with canon.

Take Shinchan.

OG : Shin is a preschooler who has a dog named Shiro - meaning white - because his dog is white.

Vitello dub : Shin is a preschooler who has a dog named Lucky.

Funi dub : Shin wants an allowance but his parents are afraid he will buy meth and he has a dog named Lucky.

Remove the "old school" Vitello dub, and either Shin is a preschooler who named his dog "white" because the dog is white, or Shin is... a young child who receives money but lives in an area where he could buy drugs.

I can't understand the OG material, and I know the Funi one is a fanfiction, so what should I do? Treat this fanfic as canon, or, learn the language/try to understand the material by myself using dubious tools like translating apps? Or am I cursed to forever miss on Shinchan, even in the 2000s, aka an era where people can translate and localise movies from one language to another, but apparently for this one manga/anime, it's not possible unless it's lolcalised? Snowhite was turned into "Blanche-Neige" but the story is mostly the same than the one told in the US, but for Shinchan, I can only get the "Family Guy" version that isn't told in Japan?

I remember there was a controversy about localisation (when the thing that sparked that controversy wasn't even localisation related!) where some people, annoyed with the "liberties" they have with their dub version, became intense and rude and want to see localisers as "mere" translators...

And it escalated to have some localisers basically saying a game they localised is "their take" on a story - which is true, because each translation/localisation works with the bias of the translator/localiser, even if they try to be as neutral as possible, they can't completely remove themselves from their work -

Still, in FE16, Pat'n'Treehouse removed the "Supreme Leader uses propaganda" mention. Why? Is it their bias talking, they don't want her to "look bad"? But the script, the game wants the player to know she uses "information campaigns". Pat's "take" is she doesn't use it, but as a player, can't I be offered the choice to make my own take after seeing the script that mentions it, or not? Is Pat the one who directed the script, and wrote it as the "main thread" that links everything in the game (regardless of Fodlan's consistency lol), or was it Kusakihara/someone else?

If pat arbitrarly "removes" this part of the script, but I see it because I play in Japanese/Chinese/Korean/heck maybe other languages whose dub wasn't overseen by Pat, can it be said I played the same game as the players who played with the Pat dub/script?

Pat's CF!Felix calls Dimitri a monster, OG CF!Felix calls him a man -> thankfully we can count on fans to find stuff like this out but, again, why this bias against Dimitri in CF - that comes here from the lolcalisation, and not from the original text?

Why is it there? What if someone wants to play, and hopefully, understand, not Pat's "take" on their relationship in CF, but the writers/developer's? Is that someone fucked, or kindly asked to learn japanese (aka to do Pat'n'Treehouse's job?).

I don't really have The Perfect Solution (tm) anon to the general localisation discourse, at one point I was on the "just translate" fence, but when you understand a pun or a reference, and how it connects to something else, the game/book/anime/movie you're watching takes another level and it's much more enjoyable!

And yet, growing up with 4Kids and seeing shit like Treehouse butchering stuff, or hearing about Funimation Shinchan is... disheartening.

The only thing I can say is I'll always be rooting for dual audio, let it be for preferences but also to get at least what is easily understandable to everyone (I mean intonations, shocks, laughs, etc etc) and a glimpse at what the game/moving/anime is supposed to be enjoyed, especially with story heavy scripts like the FE series - while reading subs, because even the script is translated/localised, at least with the audio, it's easier to spot "lolcalisations".

And let's not forget the most important lol

The Fandom itself!

Let it be for FE, Tales or anything else, what I find fascinating (on Tumblr but even on redshit and SF once upon a time!) is how fans will be able to compare scripts, people familiar/fluent/who know a language will be able to spot the changes, and inform anyone who wants to be informed in the community that, say, Xander and Marx are pretty different characters, just like Jp!Effie and "I love to eat"!Effie.

Of course sometimes there will be misinformation (remember the Dimitri is rude because he uses the omae pronoun?), but I still find fascinating how, faced with ridiculous lolcalisations, fandom itself - aka part of the people who were supposed to be the targets of said lolcalisation - tries to "correct" and remove the unecessary edits. There are still people who dgaf about what was lolcalised from what wasn't, but even if it's just a consequence of the lolcalisation growing more and more unrestrained/unchained to the source material - it makes fandom engagment all the more precious and fascinating.

Like, you have real people basically combing the script and/or providing a translation - for free! - to help other fans, when some lolcalisers are paid to... edit and "lolcalise" the script some fans want to see.

And so, we're back to square 1 : who is the targeted audience of Funi's Shinchan or FE Treehouse?

The players/watchers?

FE Fates was, I suppose, ultimately lolcalised for a """western"" audience", aka an US one because no one gives a fuck about the rest of the world - and yet, assuming a majority of fans are from the US, said lolcalisation was mocked/ridiculed and ultimateld decried by part of that audience from who the game was lolcalised.

Some people (I've seen a redshit post about it today!) claim the lolcalised changed aren't made for the audience, but, much like a fanfiction, those changed weren't made to be more palatable to an audience, but were made for themselves - aka to push some agenda (see redshit's theory about funi pushing a "woke" agenda in their dubs and subs when it doesn't exist in the og scripts).

And to be fair, with FE16's US exclusive "Church BaD and controls the world!!!" + "Dimtri is not a man but a monster!", idk what Treehouse was trying to do, push their "organised religions BaD" agenda and "Supreme Leader is right so let's make her opponents BaD to highlight how right she is" bias? - but I can't help but wonder if it was indeed the case, and given how Pat sucked as a voice director, if the localised!version wasn't just some sort of trolley Treehouse used to convey their ideas, regardless of what the game wanted to say.

I mean, it's still fascinating, to this day, nearly 5 years after the release of the game, that we still find "Treehouse exclusive" lines, or how FEH who's still running, also has "Treehouse exclusive" lines for Fodlan characters that absolutely don't match the non global, aka, jp lines, let them be written or spoken - putting on the tinfoil hat, I wonder if Treehouse or whoever oversees the localisation isn't deadly afraid that if they don't pay extreme attention and/or rewrite anything related to Fodlan, global!players will realise that they were fed "Pat's Fire Emblem Treehouse", instead of FE16, thus takes extra care to comb and/or rewritte every line/dialogue that could make a global player think twice and note that this thing they're reading/hearing of in FEH (or even Engage!! See Dimitri's lolcalised line about people of different races living together!) is completely different from "Pat's Fire Emblem Treehouse".

Tl;Dr because I ranted and disgressed and idk where am I anymore with this post lol :

I think there's a difference between fandom's transformative works - done for fun, as a hobby! - and some lolcaliser's transformative works - they're paid for that and aren't supposed to bring a fanfiction to the audience, at least not as localisers ; so I wouldn't blame "fandom" for the fuckery that happened (Funi's shinchan is more than 17 years old!) and is sadly still happening.

On the contrary, given how fandom (at least some part of it) actively refuses to accept the lolcalised "fanfiction" - to the point of doing translation work! - I think fandom is the reason why this discourse is happening.

#anon #replies #sorry i ranted lol #and lost myself in localisation discussion lol #anyways that redshit thread had a meme about lolcalisation and using AI to push back against it #and I haven't changed my mind lol #AI sucks instead of letting Pat head Treehouse bring back human translators and people in general with a work ethic #who will localise what needs to be localised for an audience #but keep themselves and their messages/agenda out of their work #as much as possible of course #i wonder if at times all those lolcalised changes couldn't be sued for plagiarism #imagine if the french Snow White dub had her diss cream cheese to promote real cheese during the length of the movie #people would be pissed just like creators themselves #otoh if those ultra lolcalised changes passed the approval stage from the creator themselves...#then I'm just wondering what kind of idea they have of a 'western audience' or whoever the lolcaliser #said they were lolcalising for #Are we supposed to believe in 2015 IS really believed americans were too dumb to pronounce suzukaze so his name should be shortened to kaze #I say americans here because NoA exists when NoE doesn't and no one gives a fuck about us we're just eating scraps #idk #lolcalisation issues #real life issues #when you were saying calculated and cynical anon did you mean whedonspeak like the Supreme Replies #aka giving a witty one liner to sound cool?#I'm afraid I completely lost the message of your ask and replied with something compeltely unrelated :(

11 notes · View notes