"The Western liberal media is ignoring the Iranian uprising because explaining it would force an admission it is desperate to avoid: the Iranian people are rebelling against Islam itself, and that fact shatters the moral framework through which these institutions understand the world. Ideally, to cover an uprising is not just to show crowds and slogans. It requires answering a basic question: why are people risking death? In Iran, the answer is simple and unavoidable. The people are rising up because the Islamic Republic of Iran has spent decades suffocating every aspect of life—speech, work, family, art, women, and economic survival—under a clerical system that treats liberty as a crime. There is no way to tell that story without confronting the nature of the regime. Western media refuses to do so because it has fundamentally misunderstood Islam. Or worse, it has chosen not to understand it. Islam, in Western progressive discourse, has been racialized. It is treated not as a belief system or a political ideology, but as a stand-in for race or ethnicity. Criticizing Islam is framed as an attack on “brown people,” Arabs, or “the Middle East,” as if Islam were a skin color rather than a doctrine. This confusion is rooted in historical illiteracy. Western liberal media routinely collapses entire civilizations into a single stereotype: “all Middle Easterners are Arabs,” “all Arabs are Muslim,” and “all Muslims are a monolithic, oppressed identity group by white European colonizers.” Iranians disappear entirely in this framework. Their language, history, and culture—Persian, not Arab; ancient, not colonial; distinct, not interchangeable—are erased. By treating Islam as a racial identity rather than an ideology, Western media strips millions of people of their ability to reject it. Iranian protesters become unintelligible. Their rebellion cannot be processed without breaking the rule that Islam must not be criticized. So instead of listening to Iranians, the media speaks over them—or ignores them entirely. There is another reason the Iranian uprising is so threatening to Western media is economic issues. As you know, Iran is not only a religious dictatorship. It is a centrally controlled, state-dominated economy where markets are strangled, private enterprise is criminalized or co-opted, and economic survival depends on proximity to political power. Decades of price controls, subsidies, nationalization, and bureaucratic micromanagement have obliterated the middle class and entrenched corruption as the only functional system. The result is not equality or justice. It is poverty, stagnation, and dependence on government’s dark void of empty promises. Covering Iran honestly would require acknowledging that these policies are harmful. They have been tried. They have failed. Catastrophically. This is deeply inconvenient for Western media institutions that routinely promote expansive state control, centralized economic planning, and technocratic governance as morally enlightened alternatives to liberal capitalism. Iran demonstrates where such systems lead when insulated from accountability and enforced by ideology. It shows that when the state controls livelihoods, non-conformity becomes existentially dangerous. That lesson cannot be acknowledged without undermining the moral authority of those who advocate similar ideas in softer language. Western liberal media prefers not to hear this. Acknowledging it would require abandoning the lazy moral categories that dominate modern discourse: oppressor and oppressed, colonizer and colonized, white and non-white. Iranian protesters do not fit. They show that authoritarianism is not a Western invention imposed from outside, but something many societies are actively trying to escape. That is what terrifies Western liberal media. And that is why the Iranian people are being ignored. So the silence continues."
Secretary of State of Missouri candidate Valentina Gomez:
"These faggots should get their own faggot category, because before, if a man hit a woman, it used to land him in jail." "There's no such thing as a chick with a dick." 🤔
..lol antifans don't understand why we call them fixers?
1. When seeing Astarion posts early on, the comment "i can fix him" was very prominent from majority of people. This implies they think his "bad boy" behaviour is bad, even as a joke, this is a very common trope in romance that is kind of toxic. He's an evil alligned character and this way they acknowledge that.
2. Most antifans obsess over "curing" his vampirism. The undead state of a vampire in dnd lore is neither disease or curse, it is perceived as such by vampire hunters. Ingame lore tends to have an intentional bias because it is written by vampire hunters. Not vampires themselves. Astarion's character revolves a lot around what he is, and who he is. Being a vampire is part of his being and has been so for 200 years. Removing the vampirism means "fixing" what you think he should be. Ascension doesn't remove vamprisim, it just makes him stronger with less weaknesses. He wants this himself, while he never mentions wanting a cure for vampirism, just the removal of the downsides of vampirism.
3. Antis have a fixation on AA fans, talk constantly in condescending manners and have an obsession with morality over a videogame. When adressing us, its like watching an incredibly annoying religious person trying to convert you so you don't go to hell in their eyes. That's literally "i can fix you" embodied.
4. Purity talks. This idea if making Astarion into a better, gooder, person. From the get go, you want to change him. You don't like him as he is and imply he is flawed. While most AA fans do not talk about him this way: we have this common ground usually that we like his flaws. We like Astarion as a character because he is an evil character. We don't want him to be a morally good character.
If you cannot see how talking about someone like this makes you a fixer, then idk, man. Look up the definition?
Some keywords: toxic positivity, ableism.
Dnd allignments don't really work in the "set ending" perspective some people have over rpg games these days. Horizon, the witcher, god of war 2018, and many others supposed rpgs don't actually use rpg properly. You are not role-playing most of the time or given much direction to different paths. You aren't given as wide of choice.
Even in the witcher, it has a preset canon ending and despite having diverse and nuanced choices with some alt endings, Geralts personality doesn't really change, overall. I wouldn't say he is an inherently good person nor can you turn him into one. Even if you only pick morally good choices, the lesser of evils are still evil.
A true rpg commits to "your story your choice"
When people make their dnd characters, they don't necessarily opt for the zero to hero power fantasy. Or moral beacons, which I've read plenty of horror stories about. (Its why paladin players is the most hated class to some people due bad experiences in table top)
Let me paint a scenario why trying to "fix" someone is very toxic and very annoying in a different setting.
Say, i have a vampire character in this dnd setting. Im playing with people in actual ttrpg, not videogame. We're rolling dice, we roleplay, etc. My character is chaotic, neutral, with maybe some evil tendencies, but he's not literally trying to end the world. He's just some guy surviving. He's a vampire and hides this. Low and behold he gets outed.
Now the paladin, or very typical main character filler person, who wants everyone to uphold a moral standards, assumes my character wants to be better and tries to pressure him into agreeing with him. Because he is moral and therefore knows better.
Being suggested to "cure my afflication" by another player unprompted, on the bias that I must want to "become better" or "be a better person" when my character at no point implied he wanted to stop being a vampire..?
Its kind of ableist really? And really fucking annoying? Is this person supposed to be my friend? They see my existence as an issue..
When dealing with ableism, its like you can never complain about your disabilities. Because ableists think you must want a cure. The moment you complain about it, you must want to be fixed and therefore shouldn't complain if you don't want your disability questioned. An ableist will start ranting about cures and fixes and never empathize, only pity.
I don't pity Astarion. I empathize with him. The way I've always empathized with evil characters as an outcast myself.
And hey, I think being evil in a fictional world is fun. The, debauched, hedonistic, kind of evil.
Not puppy kicking, putting your spouse in the hospital kinda shit. Or torture p0rn cuz wtf is that??
Sometimes you just want to make your nemesis explode in a pile of gore and take all the power right under his nose.
And it doesn't have to be a moral lesson on "think of the childrennn" purity culture nonsense or whatever the fuck other videogames narratively focus on.
Sometimes it's just art. Sometimes its an actual roleplaying game and you can be a morally grey character with an evil spouse who'd burn the entire world if it meant pleasing you.
We do not fix him.
We enable him, like we enable ourselves to play a character that is not pure good. Because fantasy is about fantasy, not real life.
Thank you very much!
Yes, and also, “I can fix him” sounds as if we are talking about a broken object rather than a person. This trope is truly toxic. Even in the shoes of a player, when they try to push this trope on you, that is, to make you the hero of such a story, “suggesting” it so insistently that they even create a kind of “obstacle” to happily following an alternative path, it also gives off a certain dose of toxicity.
In addition to what you said, antifans are obsessed with something that isn't even in the game. There is no “cure” for vampirism, there is Dalyria’s diary with her experiments (obviously unsuccessful), which is not developed further than the diary, and one line in the epilogue about “going on a journey in search of a cure.” Journeys in search of something - please, but what “cure” are they planning to find? Vampirism is not a disease, you are absolutely right. Vampires are undead creatures, the result of magical transformation. I perceive vampires as another species of humanoid intelligent beings that are higher up in the evolutionary food chain, feeding on intelligent humanoid races and reproducing through magical transformation. If the animals that humans feed on (and animals in the world of Faerûn are intelligent) could write books about humans, their lore would also be biased and humans would be portrayed as monsters, since they feed on animals, exploit them in their economy, etc. But since in the past, vampires were representatives of one of the intelligent races and did not change their appearance (only slightly—fangs, pale skin), humans may perceive this as a disease or a curse. I was curious how a vampire could be “cured” in DnD—only by ceasing to be a vampire. Divine intervention—some deity could theoretically reverse the transformation. And a body-changing ritual—moving the soul from one body to another; having received a new body, the character would, of course, cease to be a vampire. At first, I myself wondered why Larian didn't make their “good path” truly good, rather than making it look like a dooming sentence, but it seems that would have been simply illogical. And, given the corrupt magistrate's past, the “good ending” really does look like retribution and sounds like a fate sentence. “Astarion's fate is sealed. He will be a vampire spawn for the rest of his days.”
Yes, Astarion never spoke of wanting to be “cured” of vampirism. He wanted to get rid of its drawbacks—not to suffer from hunger and to be able to see the sun. And he also wanted to become more powerful.
“I could get rid of the worm in my head and still walk in the sun. I'd finally be free of the hunger.”
“This may be a beginning, not an end. I can see myself now. Lord, King, Master. We'll be glorious both, you and I.”
“If I become all-powerful, then we become all-powerful. Nothing would make me happier.”
Exactly what the Ascension ritual provides. “The Rite of Profane Ascension will release you. Walk in the sun. Suffer not from hunger. Grow your power beyond anything you imagined.”
He does not wish to “fix himself” or “change,” he wishes to become “a more magnificent bastard than I already am.”
“All I'm saying is: let's be clever about it. If an opportunity arises for me to become a more magnificent bastard than I already am, why turn it down?”
Astarion wants to live a full life, but who said he wanted to give up immortality?
“And I want to live a full life! Not some half existence, hiding in the shadows for the rest of eternity.”
Full life - “All the strengths of his vampiric form amplified, and alongside them, he enjoy the luxuries of the living. The arousals and appetites of man return to him, and he will have no need of a parasite to protect him from the sun.”
At the same time, Astarion never once mentioned that he wanted to live a standard human life, that he wanted to “get rid of the curse,” or anything along those lines.
Article: “Baldur's Gate 3 Devs Share How Neil Newbon Influenced Astarion's Ending”
Quote: "Astarion’s challenge wasn't directly related to him being a vampire. It was that he was a spawn, and that he wasn't free," says Lidstone. "He is technically free now. [...] He's okay with being a vampire."
Astarion's problems are that he is a “spawn” and “not free.” Killing Kazador solves one problem. The Ascension ritual solves everything. And without the ritual, after Kazador's death, Astarion is technically free. Technically. But can his dependence on Tav-fixer in the romance be called true freedom? When he agrees that he must please? (“I will endeavour to please”). Only in the unromantic epilogue on the UA path is there a line: “I spent too long defined by what other people did to me. The choices other people made for me — but that's over now.” Now it's over. In this case, Astarion continues to seek a way to achieve his dream — to walk under the sun:
"That being said, I haven't completely given up on returning to the sun. If the opportunity presented itself - well, I wouldn't say no...»
"I've been exploring the world, looking for anything that will let me walk in the sun again”.
And “He's okay with being a vampire.” But it doesn't say that “he's okay with being a spawn.”
“Unmaking what you made me” – Kazador made him a spawn and a slave. Complete freedom is freedom from Kazador and freedom from the suffering associated with being a spawn:
“I'll be free - truly, completely free. Isn't that what you want?”
Truly, completely free – Ascension.
“In a loved one, even flaws are appealing, while in an unloved one, even virtues are irritating” – a quote from Omar Khayyam. A loving person cannot help but notice the suffering or sadness of their loved one; a loving person cannot help but want to give their loved one the best; a loving person cannot want to change their loved one. Love cannot exist without mutual acceptance. And this is true romance, in my opinion, the roleplay that should exist for a player in an RPG, where there is romance. “Making better, fixing” is violence. And it can be understood why antifans wanted so much to harm Astarion, to ruin and destroy the AA romance, to make it so that his fans would have no choice but to quit the game and leave only the fixer's arc available.
You gave very good examples with Horizon, The Witcher, and God of War—these are not classic RPGs with roleplaying, they are action RPGs with a pre-written main character, who has their own story and can really have a canonical ending. I love The Witcher and Geralt, but Geralt is Geralt. He has a canon that can be learned and read about in books about him. When I sat down to play The Witcher, I didn't intend to fully roleplay. The Witcher is a non-linear game with branches and choices, and you can make choices in many plot points however you want, but Geralt is Geralt, and his personality doesn't change. At the same time, The Witcher's romance offered a lot of freedom of action — there was no imposition of canon (although there is canon in the books). And if I didn't like Yennefer, who is Geralt's canonical lover, and liked Triss more, the game gave me the opportunity to behave like a “bad boy” with Yennefer, doing everything contrary to what she wanted, and get a funny scene, when an enraged Yennefer teleports Geralt straight into a lake, and later ask the genie to cancel Geralt's previous wish and break up with her, and play out a beautiful romance with Triss, and stay with her at the end of the game, regardless of the existing book canon. But in BG3, you can create your own character right in the editor, and I expected the same from this game as I did from BG1 and BG2, namely a real roleplaying game with your own story and your own choices. The setting itself suggested this, and there was no indication that they would attempt to impose a “canonical ending,” which is the embodiment of toxic positivity, and that “your Tav” must suffer and grimace if you made the “wrong” choice. Or, “your Tav” will be happy, but it will no longer be “your” character, it will be a ready-made, pre-written character, who will say things you would never want to say, who will behave in ways you would never want to behave, a character who (unlike Geralt) I find completely unpleasant.
Thank you for the example from DnD, it's very illustrative.
Yes, being a evil in a fiction world is fun. And what is the “moral lesson” in BG3? Don't kill 7,000 spawns? And where is the “moral condemnation” or consequences for the paladin, who will do this for the safety of the city, but will not allow Astarion to feel alive again? What about the children? Why doesn't anyone take away Gur's parental rights, when they abuse their children, if they are alive, keep them hungry, and dull their minds with sedatives? “Herbs we once used to dull our foes' minds,” “restraints built to hold the undead,” “there has been a lot of pain,” “our children learned discipline and control” (from Gur's letter). I have no idea where the “child protection services” in Baldur's Gate are looking… Oh yes, this is fantasy, not real life. And who will think about the goblin children? Oh yes, this is fantasy, goblins are an “evil race,” and paladins are allowed to do that. It seems that moralists somehow fail to notice that the world of Faerûn is an unsafe place and far from “good” (I mean, if we consider it from the perspective of real “good” and not the hypocritical purity culture). Here, you have to survive. And roleplaying a character, who cares about those they love, sympathizes with them, and wants to help them first and foremost, is roleplaying a living person, who lives in this world. There are no social networks in Faerûn.
