Fandom Hypocrisy - Tumblr Posts

If Lord Astarion decides to make himself a harem, lol. Like an ancient Sultan. Tav will be the chief wife. Rather his lovers will control his smooth brains. He would ride a big elephant, among peacocks. And why should Lord Astarion's personality be dictated by Cazador and his worldview, necessarily? Because Tav has that answer out of 5. Tav's opinion. Although there's literally no way to prove that to anyone in the fandom. Either right and everything is good\er\ (Spawn) - or wrong and everything is only bad (Lord) B&W Astarion will be a terrible-terrible father, according to Neil's headcanon, but no one cares or is "heartbroken" - who does "Dadstarion". (because it's a good thing) But if Lord Astarion loves Tav and just rules Baldur's Gate from the shadows with a faithful wife and ally, that's impossible. (because it's bad). He must be terrible. (sooner or later, it's gonna be bad) u delulu and don't get it, your headcanon - ok.

Love is not dictated by equality. Inequality does not mean disrespect. "Degrade yourself by being with him" - thank you, Astarion knows he's not a fairy tale prince, and binds his love to him like an ancient barbarian. It's a phrase that everyone understands differently. But I don't think Astarion would share his bed, castle and life with someone he despises. Otherwise all women were not loved\ not respected by their husbands throughout the ages - they were not equal and could not leave. But men could go and fight in hell for them - Oh, what Lord Astarion literally does for Karlach - goes to hell with her and fixes the engine while he could drink wine by the fireplace in his castle (he refuses to do that in non-romantic relationships, for example, "swapping silk for rags")

Selective hypocrisy

Some 'fans' and foes are losing their minds over Jimin participating in a song as a feature artist that has multiple performers, one of whom has - according to the conversations - done horrible things and has a bad reputation. However, many of these same people were not as concerned about Jungkook, who performed in Qatar that has huge human rights violations and controversies. Qatar has been doing this for much longer and harming many more groups of people. The information is easy to research. These same people and others have no problem supporting a KPop industry that exploits underage people with excessive work and sexual behavior. The very industry they support has had its own sexual abuse scandals and unfortunate suicide incidents. With this said, many of these people are expressing very strong problems about supporting Jimin for this song.

I'm not in any way defending the rapper, if the information is confirmed to be true, and I am not saying it wouldn't be wise for Jimin to be aware of who he is working with, but he likely recorded a song in an isolated studio and didn't even meet the performers he was singing with. He would not work a lot of people in this industry if he based his choices on only working with saintly people who never did wrong things or only behaved in ways that were perfect.

I just don't understand the hypocrisy and the emotional tantrums people are having without thinking through information, much less looking at their own lives to see if they would have trouble being held to the same standards they hold BTS, but apparently Jimin in particular, to.

If you are not who I am referring to with the descriptions above, feel free to disregard these thoughts. No need to be offended if you are not anyone referenced here.

*I am a fan of Jimin, Jungkook, and BTS (KPop) in case it is misunderstood by the comments used to support my point.

Blood Purity and the ASOIAF Fandom

I find it very ironic how Targaryen antis scream about "blood purity" then turn around and support and play into blood purity themselves. Specifically I'm talking about Stark stans and stansas/jonsas.

The Starks canonically prefer to marry with Northern houses, in other words: other First Men. This tradition gives them a rather small gene pool, meaning that incest is pretty much a necessity for them to carry it on. Uncle-niece, aunt-nephew, and cousin weddings were all allowable, and cousin weddings were rather commonplace.

What all that means is that the Starks practice blood purity. Yes, it's different from how the Targaryens did it, but the only differences are that the Valyrians allowed brother-sister marriages and there are only two other Valyrian houses to marry. The Celtigars barely even count, due to how little Valyrian blood is left in them. Both the Starks and Targaryens did marry outside their preferred gene pools. However, that fact doesn't negate that they both practice blood purity.

Stark stans who condemn the Targaryens for marrying to preserve their Valyrian blood are hypocrites. The Starks prefer to marry other First Men and allow certain forms of close incest, if they had as few options as the Targaryens did, they would probably change their views on brother-sister marriages.

Stansas tend to follow the same patterns as Stark stans. They ignore Stark incest and talk about "super special Stark genes" in an almost cult-like fashion. Stansas will go on and on about how the Starks are very special and their (specifically Sansa's) blood is the key to saving the world. Now, there is magic blood in ASOIAF, and the Starks are the one of the families with this. However, the sheer hypocrisy of Stansas and Stark stans to embrace and cheer on this fact for the Starks while simultaneously despising the Targaryens for the same fact is interesting.

Jonsas, who are all stansas just to be clear, are probably the most hypocritical in this group. Jonsa shippers will espouse both anti-incest and anti-blood purity arguments, especially in regards to the Targaryens. However, at the same time, they will write posts about how the incest between Jon and Sansa wouldn't be wrong and how Stark blood is superior. Just like the Stark stans and stansas, they are unironically supporting Stark blood purity. All three of these groups will also write about how the Targaryen bloodline needs to be wiped out.

So basically: Stark stans, stansas, and jonsas all not only support Stark blood purity, but also the eradication of Valyrian blood in Westeros. The hypocrisy is riveting.

No, but all this "Arya is naturally violent' is doubly hilarious coming from the same folks who think that Sansa is going to speak politely and thank everyone and sing songs and become leader of the North!

The North is a violent and brutal place. We are introduced to it with Ned making his 7 year old son watch a beheading and Jon Snow warning Bran to not look away from a man getting his head cut off...

“And don’t look away. Father will know if you do.”

Bran kept his pony well in hand, and did not look away. - Bran, AGoT

Ned then wants his 3 year old toddler to play with a direwolf because winter is coming...

“Is he afraid?” Ned asked.

“A little,” she admitted. “He is only three.”

Ned frowned. “He must learn to face his fears. He will not be three forever. And winter is coming.”

“Yes,” Catelyn agreed. The words gave her a chill, as they always did. - Catelyn, AGoT

Jon Snow gifted his nine year old, much loved, little sister a sword as a going away present! This is a world where ten year olds have been Lord commander of the wall.

The Mountain clan chiefs pay Jon Snow a visit and are only reassured when he promises to behead his child hostages if the Freefolk step out of line. Ned Stark took Theon Greyjoy as a child hostage. Jorah Mormont fled Westeros in fear of Ned Stark's punishment for being a slaver.

The Mountain clans with Stannis are not bothered that he is making human sacrifices to the Lord of Light - they just think that he is making human sacrifices to the wrong God and that the sacrifices should have been made to the Old Gods instead.

This is Big Bucket Wull:

Winter is almost upon us, boy. And winter is death. I would sooner my men die fighting for the Ned’s little girl than alone and hungry in the snow, weeping tears that freeze upon their cheeks. No one sings songs of men who die like that. As for me, I am old. This will be my last winter. Let me bathe in Bolton blood before I die. I want to feel it spatter across my face when my axe bites deep into a Bolton skull. I want to lick it off my lips and die with the taste of it on my tongue.

“Aye!” shouted Morgan Liddle. “Blood and battle!”

We are seeing the comeback of direwolves, wargs, skinchangers and greenseers. Bran is warging Hodor and probably eating Jojen paste, Jon is going to spend time in a wolf, Arya is going to be leading Nymeria and her wolf pack, wild child Rickon grew up with Osha on cannibal island and shaggydog is eating unicorns. They are all bad-ass wargs and have bad-ass Wolf Dreams. Jon, Arya and Bran are all central, important characters in the series and they have all engaged in morally grey acts.

Ghost, Nymeria, Shaggydog and Summer will come back in a big way and play important roles - as stated by GRRM again and again in interviews. The Stark-Direwolf bond is very important.

"I heard the same thing from my cousin, and she's not the sort to lie," an old woman said. "She says there's this great pack, hundreds of them, mankillers. The one that leads them is a she-wolf, a bitch from the seventh hell." - Arya, ACoK

GRRM mentioning hanging Chekov's wolfpack on the wall to use it in the future.

Plus,

Speaking of which: Martin leaves a little note for the producers when writing about Ramsay’s flesh-eating hounds, whom we see hunting down a girl for sport.

[N.B. A note for future reference. A season or two down the line Ramsay’s pack of wolfhounds are going to be sent against the Stark direwolves, so we should build up the dogs as much as possible in this and subsequent episodes.] - Script notes

And this is what happens if Northern houses refuses to fight for their leige lords:

And when Lord Umber, who was called the Greatjon by his men and stood as tall as Hodor and twice as wide, threatened to take his forces home if he was placed behind the Hornwoods or the Cerwyns in the order of march, Robb told him he was welcome to do so.

“And when we are done with the Lannisters,” he promised, scratching Grey Wind behind the ear, “we will march back north, root you out of your keep, and hang you for an oathbreaker.” - Bran, AGoT

And this is how Robb Stark got the support of the GreatJon

Yet Robb only said a quiet word, and in a snarl and the blink of an eye Lord Umber was on his back, his sword spinning on the floor three feet away and his hand dripping blood where Grey Wind had bitten off two fingers.

“My lord father taught me that it was death to bare steel against your liege lord,” Robb said, “but doubtless you only meant to cut my meat.” Bran’s bowels went to water as the Greatjon struggled to rise, sucking at the red stumps of fingers… but then, astonishingly, the huge man laughed. “Your meat,” he roared, “is bloody tough. “

And somehow after that the Greatjon became Robb’s right hand, his staunchest champion, loudly telling all and sundry that the boy lord was a Stark after all, and they’d damn well better bend their knees if they didn’t fancy having them chewed off. - Bran, AGoT

He got the GreatJon's support because Greywind chewed off his fingers and not by speaking politely, with good manners and saying thank you.

This is how Lyanna Mormont addressed King Stannis:

Bear Island knows no king but the King in the North, whose name is STARK. - Jon, ADWD

No being polite or charming. Just the brutal truth.

This is Wylla Manderly:

“A thousand years before the Conquest, a promise was made, and oaths were sworn in the Wolf’s Den before the old gods and the new. When we were sore beset and friendless, hounded from our homes and in peril of our lives, the wolves took us in and nourished us and protected us against our enemies. The city is built upon the land they gave us. In return, we swore that we should always be their men. Stark men!” - Davos, ADWD

Alys Karstark, who got on a horse in the harshest winter, made it all the way to the wall to ask that the son of Ned Stark help her. Marrying a Thenn from beyond the wall to save her house. Jon compares her bravery to Arya Stark and calls her 'Winter's Lady'.

Alysanne Mormont attacking the IronBorn, killing people and winning back the North:

Alysane Mormont, whose men name her the She-Bear, hid fighters inside a gaggle of fishing sloops and took the ironmen unawares where they lay off the strand. Greyjoy’s longships are burned or taken, her crews slain or surrendered. The captains, knights, notable warriors, and others of high birth we shall ransom or make other use of, the rest I mean to hang …

“Aye.” Alysane stared at Asha for a moment. “I have a son. He’s only two. My daughter’s nine.”

“You started young.”

“Too young. But better that than wait too late.” A stab at me, Asha thought, but let it be. “You are wed.”

“No. My children were fathered by a bear.” Alysane smiled. Her teeth were crooked, but there was something ingratiating about that smile. “Mormont women are skinchangers. We turn into bears and find mates in the woods. Everyone knows.” Asha smiled back.

“Mormont women are all fighters too.” The other woman’s smile faded. “What we are is what you made us. On Bear Island every child learns to fear krakens rising from the sea.” The Old Way. - ADwD

Lyanna Stark, daughter of the North, standing up for her father's men, participating in tourneys and wielding a sword being compared all the time to Arya Stark

Frey Pies.

Lot of battle and violence that is going to happen in TWoW as Stark supporting Northern factions goes to war with the Boltons. No one is going to be asking the Boltons nicely to give way. War and violence is necessary and is happening. Lots of people are going to die. Lots have already died. Brutal sacrifices are necessary. From the TWoW sample chapter things are not going too well for house Umber.

That's not even counting the brutal Old Kings of Winter - Theon 'Hungry Wolf' Stark, Brandon 'Ice Eyes' Stark

In the aftermath of his victory King Theon raised his own fleet and crossed the narrow sea to the shores of Andalos, with Argos's corpse lashed to the prow of his flagship. There he took a bloody vengeance, burning scores of villages, capturing three tower houses and a fortified sept putting thousands to the sword in the process. The heads of the slain the Hungry Wolf claimed as prizes, carrying them back to Westeros and planting them on spikes along his own coasts as a warning to other would be conquerors.

"When the Warg King's last redoubt fell, his sons were put to the sword, along with his beasts and greenseers, whilst his daughters were taken as prizes by their conquerors."

A World of Ice and Fire, The North, The Kings of Winter

The Boltons were scared of the Old Kings of Winter, Bran's visions shows human sacrifices as part of a pact with the Old Gods/Children of the forest, Brandon Ice Eyes hung the entrails of slavers from heart trees and Stark vassals feared these kings.

And we get closer and closer to the brutal Long Night, described as such by Old Nan:

“Oh, my sweet summer child," Old Nan said quietly, "what do you know of fear? Fear is for the winter, my little lord, when the snows fall a hundred feet deep and the ice wind comes howling out of the north. Fear is for the long night, when the sun hides its face for years at a time, and little children are born and live and die all in darkness while the direwolves grow gaunt and hungry, and the white walkers move through the woods” - Bran, AGoT

It's why 'Winter is coming' is the house motto for house Stark. It's what everything is heading towards. Brutal cold and harsh sacrifices and violence - lots of violence.

To then decry this violence and the hard core fantasy aspects of these books to espouse some kind of ridiculous notion that polite charm and songs and decorum is what is going to win the day and all the characters who engage in violence = bad, especially female characters who kill or wield hard power = bad, shows such a fundamental lack of understanding of ASoIaF as a book series.

And again, it's funny that it's the same folks who believe in Stark/Northern exceptionalism and keep shilling for Northern independence who keep decrying violence despite the feudalistic/medieval violence inherent in the North and talking about asoiaf as some kind of pacifist manifesto where one of the most pro-status quo character in the series is going to bring about hope and change and peace by maintaining decorum, talking politely and being charming. Because after everything, everything we have read about the North, that's what's going to work and that's what GRRM is apparently heading towards ....

If George was going to make Daenerys evil in the books or cause her to die after intensely suffering and losing everything what would be the point of making her the child of three (third Daenerys) or setting the precedent of suffering, abused and murdered TARGARYEN WOMEN? What would be the point of showing her grow up exiled, starving and homeless on the run with no one but a rotating cabal of odd adults who want to use her and a brother who treats her like an object? What would be the point of showing her develop real, genuine diplomatic skills and make hard choices for the good of her people when it would be easier to just have her use the dragons? What would be the point of Dany being the ONLY Targaryen, and having her never once benefit from her surname or ancestry? What would be the point of having her suffer and starve in the trenches with her people? What would be the point of “no one ever looked for a girl”? More importantly why do you want a teenage bridal slave to be “put in her place”? Why do you want an orphan who grew up in poverty to suffer and fall so someone who grew up in a fucking castle could take everything from her?

what scott did to derek in the season 2 finale wasn’t a violation, it was poetic justice and derek’s well deserved comeuppance for being an inhuman, incompetent flop as a an alpha, werewolf and person. derek knew he deserved it, that’s why he accepted it and never held it against scott. not to mention that by inconveniencing derek for a few seconds, scott single-handedly defeated gerard and the kanima and saved derek’s and everyone’s life at the warehouse. plus, he made derek a better person

Look. I know you like Scott. But I need you to understand that what you’re saying is not only factually incorrect, but the implications of it are really hurtful.

Scott suffered a lot because he was bitten without being given a choice. Peter attacked him and turned him into something he never wanted to be. That is horrible for him, and I feel for him. What frustrates me so much is that he had his autonomy taken away from him, he suffered a huge injustice, and instead of protecting other people’s rights to choose, he decided to take away their choice the same way it was done to him. He shamed and insulted Erica and Boyd for their decisions to take the bite, completely negating their abilities to make their own choices. Derek didn’t attack them. He told them the risks, he explained what the bite was and what he expected back from them if he gave it to them. They asked for the bite. That was their choice, not Scott’s.

First off, Derek did not deserve what happened to him. A rape survivor who lost his entire family in a brutal fire that his rapist set and had his big sister murdered by his own uncle, did not deserve to have his body used without his consent to give what he considered a gift to the father of the woman who assaulted him, and it in no way made him a ‘better person.’ No. You need to be more careful about the things you say, because sexual assault survivors shouldn’t have to read horrible things like what you just typed out and sent to me. I should not have to read it.

Second, Scott’s motivation behind what he did was not justice. It was pride, a disregard for Derek’s bodily autonomy, and maybe even an actual urge to help with the Gerard situation. You could even add revenge to the list, since Gerard threatened Scott’s mom. And I have to point out, if Scott is really the amazing person that you’re claiming he is, then ‘poetic justice’ should never be something he is aiming for. Good people don’t do the thing that is the most ‘poetic.’ If Scott were as empathetic and kind as people claim he is or the show tries to tell us he is, he never would have done that to Derek, no matter how much he disliked him. There was no reason why he couldn’t have told Derek what he had planned and gotten Derek’s permission to do what he did. Scott kept the secret from him because he felt like he had the right to make decisions about Derek’s body without Derek’s consent. He did it because he wanted to be the one with the secrets for once. He outright admits that he kept the secret “Because you may be an Alpha, but you’re not mine.” He wanted to prove that Derek couldn’t control him, by hurting Derek and forcing him to give what Derek considered the greatest gift a werewolf could bestow, to the father of the woman who murdered Derek’s family. That is cowardly, childish, and apathetic, and it directly contradicts the idea that Scott is in any way True Alpha material.

Third, nothing he did was single-handed, because Derek isn’t an inanimate object or a tool. He’s a person, and without him, Scott’s plan wouldn’t have happened. Without Deaton, Scott’s plan wouldn’t have happened. Scott did not act alone.

Fourth, Derek didn’t accept what Scott did, and he did hold it against him. He felt so unsafe with Scott that he didn’t even tell him about the Alphas over the summer, didn’t ask for his help to find his Betas, because he didn’t think Scott could be trusted. Scott had already sold him out once and Derek had every right to believe Scott would do it again. (Which he then did at the end of S3A when he went to join Deucalion and left Derek unconscious in an elevator, in a hospital about to be swarmed with cops.)

Fifth, everything you are angry with Derek for, Scott did as well. So if you’re saying that Derek is ‘inhuman’ and a failure of an Alpha/werewolf/person, then you must be saying the same thing about Scott. Yes, Derek threw his Betas around and injured Isaac. Scott also threw Isaac into a wall twice (without even the pretense of training him) and dug his claws into Liam’s (I think it was him) neck without his permission. Yes, Derek chained his Betas up on the full moon. Scott abducted Liam and duct-taped him to his bathtub without explaining anything he’d done to him, and I’m pretty sure (though I don’t remember it well) that he was involved in Liam getting chained to a tree at one point. Yes, Derek kept secrets from his pack under the pretense of ‘protecting’ them. Scott also kept the truth about how Allison’s mom was bitten from her, letting her believe for months that Derek brutally attacked her mother for no reason, and lied to Kira about her losing control of her kitsune (though I also don’t remember a lot of that plotline). He also lied to Stiles about whether Lydia liked him, after making out with Lydia (who currently had a boyfriend) in the coach’s office, which is just a dick move, whether it was the full moon or not. Derek told Erica to seduce either Scott or Stiles? Scott told Allison to go on a date with Matt and KISS HIM. Derek scared Isaac away by shouting at him? Scott shouted at Allison for doing something she’d already told him she was going to do, and for telling her parents something she’d already warned him she was going to tell them, and told her to stay away from him. Derek shoved Scott against a wall? Scott shoved Stiles against a wall on his first moon! Oh, Scott was scared/frustrated/having trouble with control? Well, Derek’s sister had just died and Scott was about to expose the entire supernatural secret to a lacrosse field full of people.

Sixth, Scott didn’t defeat Gerard or the Kanima, and he definitely didn’t save the warehouse full of people. Gerard wasn’t dead after getting the bite from Derek. He had enough energy left to tell the Kanima to kill everyone in the room, and escape while no one was looking. The Kanima wasn’t defeated by Scott, it had Allison by the fucking throat and it only backed off when Stiles hit it with his goddamn Jeep and Lydia came out to face Jackson. Scott had nothing to do with that. Lydia is technically the one who saved everyone in the warehouse, and Stiles was her ride. Scott’s contribution was negligible. It was a time waster. He could have accomplished the exact same thing by just standing there and talking to Gerard until Stiles showed up with Lydia.

Seventh, Scott’s behavior was indeed a violation. And I don’t just mean the bite he forced Derek to give Gerard. He didn’t just get revenge on the guy who’d been rude to him and arguing with him for the last few months. He lied to Derek, over and over (while also avoiding ever technically lying, in much the same way Deaton often does, to avoid being caught out by his heartbeat). He learned Derek’s plans and where Derek was hiding, insinuated that he wanted to be part of Derek’s pack (knowing how important pack was to Derek), and outright yelled at Derek for supposedly keeping something from him (Which he wasn’t. Derek canonically wasn’t holding back any secrets from Scott at the time, unless you count the fact that Peter was alive, which Derek had every right to assume Deaton had already told him) all while he was the one working for Gerard. (That is literally gaslighting. Like, literally.) He exposed Derek and his pack to Gerard, feeding him information on the same kids that he insisted were ‘his responsibility’ that probably helped Gerard get ahold of Erica and Boyd to torture them. It was a violation of Derek’s consent. A violation of Derek’s trust, of Erica and Boyd and Isaac’s trust. And a violation of Stiles’ trust as well, since Stiles had no clue what Scott was doing.

You came to my ask box after seeing the various posts that I’ve made, with documented moments from the show and well reasoned arguments and frustrations with Scott McCall’s character. Are you seriously telling me you didn’t think I’d have a comeback?

"You need to curate your tastes if your tired of being disappointed with shows"

Fine *does so*

"Ugh, you're so close minded and immature, why don't you take risks, broaden your horizons, and cultivate your tastes?"

Okay, why don't you do that too?

"Well I prefer the broad and nitty gritty things these ways, which are broad and risky by default so I don't need to do that."

Kinda funny when snobs consider your work or what you enjoy a bad because its only enjoyed by a smaller audience which then they pride themselves on they liking something thats enjoyed by the masses "it speaks to the human condition"

Then if you like something thats resonates by a larger audience, they flip it to "enjoyed by the unwashed masses" which then these prigs boast like something thats niche its because "we enlightened few understand something deeper and higher."

When it was the reverse logic 5 minutes ago

Cliche, niche, broad, what makes money, and tampering around with concepts in dissent and distaste is "bad" unless "the right people" like it and get what *they* want

These people resort to nothing buttery and labeling to stuff they dislike and we gotta take their word for it 

While the likes of us gotta justify what we like and want by bending over backwards, jump through hoops, and do jumping jacks and somersaults

And they might dismiss it anyway as “subjective feelings” and “unsubstantial” which once again, they don’t elaborate and we just gotta take their word, and we’re supposed to abide to their nebulous measures of what is “objectively well written”

Reminds me how Jesus describes the Pharisees in Matthew 23: 4

“They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”

This is why I'm so skeptical of people who talk about being "objective" when it comes to these things, because their logic is fluid and conforms to whatever make their way right and everyone else's wrong. Even when they end up contradicting themselves.

Like Andrew Ketterley from The Magician’s Nephew, they’re a bunch of peddling magicians who think because they themselves are "objective" by default because they "know objective things" they don't need to follow the rules like everyone else because everything they do is “perfectly rooted in objective reality”, they alone are “objective” and everyone else is “subjective” and therefor “subject(ed)” to their “objective” will

When “Objective” mean things that apply to *everybody*

Its like Gnosticism,

They (G)now, with a “G” and you don’t, so its different when its them