So glad that Mark has seen this series now.

Monster 74: http://markdoesstuff.fetchapp.com/get/93ba7104

Warmth and well-wishes

4) I don't know that anyone has posited their interpretation as being anything like "the one true way" as of yet. First of all, SU is an ongoing show and attempts to give TRUE INTERPRETATIONS aren't exactly feasible in the first place. However, folks can certainly have reactions to things, and re-interpret works as they move through them, and as the work grows. That people are interpreting Rose as a villain and her actions as thoroughly irresponsible doesn't mean that that's the only way they will ever be viewed for all of time. Even when people make statements that basically say "this portrayal of X is not a good thing" you don't need to interpret that as though it were some sort of "thou shalt not disagree" commandment. Rather, I invite you to see media interpretations, reactions, and responses as intentional acts that attempt to shape the discourse in a particular societal direction. Individual statements from the discourses can be nuanced, but it's kinda on you and me to read those criticisms with some graciousness that we could be influenced by our own standpoints, and that this is a reality we have to reckon with.

5) I hope I've given you some things to think about so far. I likely won't be able to respond in this long a response again for the time being, but I highly suggest that you maybe take a step back and try to listen without taking critiques as personal affronts. Especially because, really, people aren't coming for Euro-Americans, cis-folks, southerners, or men. People take issue with white supremacy (whiteness being the shoddy construct that is used to hold it together), hetero/cisnormativity, the lingering effects of the American slave trade, and patriarchy. There are plenty of folks you can find online to check out, and I'd be happy to share what I think are some good starting points with you, if you wanted to check them out and try to learn.

I also want to make sure that I didn't misstep in my approach in this post. If anyone sees anything I missed, or feels that I misspoke, I am happy to receive feedback or keep this discussion going. Thank you for your time.

Now I think we'll both agree that she didn't choose number 1. I think a lot of folks are likely to say she went with the second option, but the problem with that interpretation is that it's really muddied by this revelation. It's impossible to know what PD/Rose was really thinking about, since she's so shrouded in secrecy that any new bit of information needs to be used to help form a more detailed picture; and those details can produce sometimes lead to some uncomfortable brushstrokes. However, those new details do need to be accounted for if we're going to try to understand things better and make better choices moving forward. See, now I feel like I'm less talking about Rose and more talking about real life, which brings me to

3) Now, personally, I think I might be able to chance a guess at why you felt the need to include your credentials as a left-leaning person before you posted. It's possible you thought that you would need to do that or else you would have some sort of characterization directed at you which you would not like. I am making this interpretation because you started the post indicating that this was a headspace you were in when entering this discussion.

Now, listen, it can be deeply uncomfortable to realize that you "are the monster" to use your terminology. However, I think that as a fellow "monster" I can try to help you. I learned not too long ago that at least one part of my family tree consisted of southern landowners who likely owned slaves. This was shocking, and a part of me counts myself lucky that my connection to that side of the family is no longer here so that I don't have to have that awful (and maybe a bit ineffective) conversation at the holidays. However, I think that because I have this distant relation, and I want to be better (and I assume you do too), that it is my job to try to notice how that past has influenced me, to listen when folks are suggesting I may be biased, and to adopt a critical eye to culture and media, especially when folks who are rather done-in by the current (not new) system are making those critiques. What I'm trying to get at here is a suggestion that you try to take a step back and think about how you are maybe confusing people's interpretations of systemic oppressors with their interpretations of you on a personal level. While it can be important to mark where you're coming from in a discussion, I don't think it should be done defensively, as to do so can be read as an instance of buying into the caricature of progressive spaces as being overly confrontational.

Okay, I'll try to step in here.

CW: Historical (and present day) oppression,

So, hello Arksulli. Like you, I am also a white, cis-gendered* male from the southern USA. I grew up in Georgia and now I go to graduate school in Illinois for communication with a focus on activism. I don't really know anything about my family's genetics, I've used plenty of indoor and outdoor bathrooms in many different places, and I love being barefoot.

Most people I think would understand your comments that the map is not the territory, and that people are more complex than their identity markers. I don't think that's what's under dispute. So I'm going to give you some of my thoughts as they relate to this episode of Steven Universe and how to try to be a better (I hope) ally in general. Of course, I'm not the person who you should be getting all of your advice from, but I feel that since we do have some identity markers in common, I might be able to give you some thoughts about your comment.

I'll do this as a list, mostly to organize my own thoughts.

1) Equating PD to a child soldier is a bit of a muddled interpretation. While you could arguably use Jungle Planet as a launching point for that, everything else we've been told about PD from other characters suggests something a little bit more troubling. It is possible that she is a child, but she's more likely a young Belgian colonizer than she is a Hitler Youth. We see in Jungle Moon that the colonization efforts were already well underway and that initially Yellow did not think she was ready for her own planet. This paints the picture less of some "fight ye for home and country" children's crusade than it does a story of how a colonizer was being eased into the family business. She wasn't pressured into it in the way that members of the Hitler Youth were; pressured in some way, perhaps, but not the same way.

2) Regardless of whether PD did what she thought was right during the war itself, that doesn't negate the rest of her existence as Rose, during which she bubbled Bismuth, kept numerous secrets from the other CGs, didn't do anything about the human zoo she'd opened, pretty much lived a lie those millennia. All of these actions compound onto this revelation, and give them a very different color. This doesn't seem like a person who was ignorant of the harm and had second thoughts, it reads more like Heart of Darkness. Consider, for instance, the action of bubbling Bismuth. Now, from what timeline I've gathered, it sounds like that incident happened before the corruption attack occurred, meaning that PD was apparently already masquerading as Rose before her shattering. Now, during this conversation, Bismuth has come up with a new plan that, regardless of whether you think it was right or not, could have potentially helped out a rebellion against oppressive colonizers. When Bismuth goes to present the weapon to Rose, she is unknowingly presenting it to the person who is her oppressor. This puts Rose in a position: does she - 1) Try to think as the leader of a rebellion, pass this onto her troops and let them decide if they want to be gem shatterers? 2) Try to think as an idealist, passing on the weapon because she disagrees with shattering? or 3) Act as a Diamond who maybe just maybe doesn't want her sisters to die, and so sabotages the effort.

Oh hey, it's been a while.

CuQ jbex vf n uhtr fgenva ba zl gvzr, naq fb V'z abg noyr gb cbfg irel zhpu, ohg nsgre gurfr rcvfbqrf V sryg V arrqrq gb pbzr urer, nf vg'f bar bs gur bayl cynprf V'ir sbhaq crbcyr jub ner jvyyvat gb ratntr jvgu FH pevgvpnyyl. V cerggl zhpu nterr jvgu nepgvp_uner'f gnxr ba nyy bs guvf. Gur qlanzvpf ng cynl ertneqvat Ovfzhgu naq Crney ner qrrcyl hapbzsbegnoyr abj va n jnl gung jnf nyjnlf cerfrag ohg abj whfg fbegn znxrf zr tb "jung gur uryy jrer gurl guvaxvat?"

Va nqqvgvba gb nyy bs gur fghss gung nepgvp oebhtug hc, V nyfb whfg jnag gb abgr gung CQ'f qrpvfvba unf erfhygrq va gur ragver ebfr dhnegm phg orvat xrcg va ohooyrf njnvgvat cbffvoyr funggrevat ng gur juvzf bs Lryybj, Oyhr, be Juvgr (zbfgyl Lryybj), yvxr gunaxf CQ, pbhyqa'g cbffvoyl unir whfg qvfthvfrq lbhefrys nf n qvabfnhe be fbzrguvat, be znqr vg ybbx yvxr na nppvqrag fbzrubj.

V ernyvmr gung gubfr gjb bcgvbaf nera'g rknpgyl fhcre jryy gubhtug bhg, ohg vg frrzf gb zr gung guvf jubyr erirny vfa'g orvat irel jryy-rkrphgrq. Nqqvgvbanyyl, vg ernyyl xvaqn erpbagrkghnyvmrf Ebfr'f qrpvfvba gb unir Fgrira, nf vg xvaqn ernqf yvxr fur'f whfg yrnivat gur snyybhg bs ure qrpvfvbaf, bapr ntnva, sbe bguref gb pyrna hc. Nyfb ernyyl znxrf zr fnq sbe Crney... whfg... htu. Abg pbby, fubj. V'yy jnvg gb frr jung unccraf arkg, ohg nsgre frrvat gur "arkg gvzr ba..." V'z cerggl zhpu rknpgyl ba obneq jvgu Fnccuver'f raentrq naq vaperqhybhf ernpgvba.

Asha's an interesting character, and there's a good bit to say about her, but for now it's cool that so many of the new POV characters in AFFC are women.

Tris..... no, just no.

Minor correction: Orkwood of Orkmont, Jon Myre, Lucas Codd, the Red Oarsman, Kemmett Pyke, Rodrik Freeborn, and Torwold Browntooth are supporters of Euron, not the Damphair

Woot woot! Time for gur orfg obbx va gur frevrf!

Looking forward to it!

Looks like Stardew Valley

Fun trivia: the Occurian dialogue tends to be in unrhymed iambic tetrameter (most of the time, but it's not perfect), while Venat, the heretic, speaks in iambic pentameter.