#‘who is morally responsible for [bad thing]?

[quandlesannees]

This is a classic terf -exclusionary rad-fem as well as a DARVO response, and I'll break down why (but I do admire your exclamatory language and usage of the thesaurus! ):

a) Didn't say you called me a man. I am a cisgender woman (therefore to you the most Woman TM a woman can be), have a degree in gender studies, something you conveniently left out, which means that, even though you don't like it, I've read my stuff and an accredited university gave my "pretentious asshat"-self a degree that makes me a literal expert in the field you claim to operate from by the technical definition of the word. Just as it is a classic Zionist response to claim that people who do not support Zionism are anti-semitic, so is it the rad-fem's immediate response to claim that anyone who disagrees with their opinion is a misogynist. Again, you're making real feminists look bad. Also, imagine being a misogynist in a doctorate level Gender Studies discipline hahahahaha. It's like having a creationist in evolutionary science or a flat-earther in geology. That would be hard AF.

Incidentally, I'm curious: what precisely is self-important in my post about Gaiman? Where did I mention myself at all except to say I explained to a friend? Is it because I used words that are very big for Elmo and you got defensive? As a Master's student, you should be fine.

If you had actually read your Andrea Dworkin, as you claim you have on your blog, then you'd know she actually was a trans ally, both in practice and theory :

I can also refer you to some of her theory if you'd like. I'm sure you're a fan because she was a Zionist though, hence the highlighted emphasis.

b) My father's family is Palestinian and my mom is Italian-Jewish, so you've struck out once more with these weird accusations (Classic DARVO). Where did I say any of these things you're accusing? You're floundering, babe. Israel stole land from Palestine the same way that Europeans stole land from Native Americans (a cause I'm sure you're supportive of, as intersectional rad-fems were), and England stole it from Ireland. But ok, to analyze your words, let's do it. In your posts, you refer to Palestinians as Hamas (as a unit) and claim that Zionists have a right to Israel, by definition, this makes you a Zionist.

The classic definition of Zionism as proposed by Gorny 1987, Shapira 1992, and Slater 2020 (among many) is the claim that Jews had a historical right to the land which outweighed the rights of the Arabs to their native land. As a result, Zionist jews have a moral responsibility to enact settler colonialism at the expense of the Palestinians, and other Arabs as we now see with Lebanon. Israeli historian Yosef Gorny argues that the establishment of a Jewish demographic majority is a foundational aspect of Zionism and depends uniquely on expelling Arabs (Gorny 1987): "[T}he desire for a Jewish majority was the key issue in the implementation of Zionism, implying a basic change in the international standing of the Jewish people and marking a turning-point in their history. The significance of this demand, and of the untiring endeavour to realize it in various ways, lay in the annulling of the majority standing of the Arabs of Palestine. The roots of the Jewish-Arab confrontation, therefore, are embedded in the incessant process of disturbance of the status quo ante as regards national status in Palestine." The Zionist cause is defined by a reduction of Palestinian identity as a means to define itself, both socially and biologically. One cannot be a Zionist and like Palestinians. It is oil and water. That's like saying someone loves fascism but supports women and minorities.... According to Israeli historian Simha Flapan, the view expressed by the proclamation "there was no such thing as Palestinians" is a cornerstone of modern Zionist policy and has affected many Israeli laws (Flapan 1979).

You've written in a former blog post (that is your 'solution' to the conflict, supposedly) that Palestinians need to create a "secular government". Israel is not considered a secular state by the technical definition, so I'm assuming in your two-state solution towards the act of settler colonialism, Israel should give up faith in government? Is that acceptable to you? ("Israel is consequently an ethno-national state that is not a secular state". (Guy Ben-Porat, Bryan S. Turner. The Contradictions of Israeli Citizenship: Land, Religion, and State. Routledge, 2011. p. 12) and "Israel cannot be considered a secular state" in Sebastián Cote Pabón, Secularism and Democracy in Israel: Military Service as Case Study. Middle East Policy, Vol. XXVI, N°3. 2019. p. 1.) You also say: "I would expect no objection from Israel (or little objection) since this is what they want and it is Palestine that has rejected statehood." Ah yes? Is that why Israel’s Knesset voted to reject Palestinian statehood on July 18th, 2024? (https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/18/middleeast/israel-us-biden-knesset-vote-palestinian-state-intl/index.html)

You're so far up Israel's genocidal arse, that you're practically a settler colonialist of Netanyahu's intestinal tract.

However, since you care so much about National Socialism and Zionism, feel free to take this quiz to figure out which hate-fueled political party said which genocidal quote about which hated ethnic minority (it's much harder to discern than you'd think): https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSd1c-_56yYGTJNit_GjUB-th5C8M4SKapOibN8vsmicakWNCA/viewform

c) If you had a Master's in science then I'm sure you would know how to write and argue a lot better than you have (due to having to write and argue the thesis), as well as learn to not be as reactionary and attack-oriented as you are. For example, I'm sure you'd have a much better mastery of hyphen usage. Also you tend to start sentences with "Do you hate XYC enough to [insert bad faith argument here]??????" This is not an argument. It's you being inflamed and attacking with an explosion of anger, not because you care, but because you enjoy getting angry for anger's sake in the name of claiming moral superiority. Perhaps you should have taken more rhetoric courses. This once more proves you are a performative feminist of which I've warned in my original post.

If this is the future of science, then I am worried. Do they teach you in your Master's classes how to to argue with someone by saying they should have been aborted? I am a professor at a university and I'd be ashamed if you were my student and this was how you were acting out in the world. Given that you're a rad-fem and they're historically active on the topic, I'm getting the vibe that you're quite sensitive, caring, and thoughtful to the history of abortion. You're clearly so kind and understanding to rape victims in the flesh, of which we have evidence here right now. Do you tell other rape victims they should get aborted too? You act so strongly from a well-informed place of kindness.

Also, what is Judith Butler's ilk? Gender-affirmative theorists, maybe....?

d) Girl.... you're literally making this a bad faith conversation because you have not a leg to stand on. You just admitted that you just cherry-picked to get something you could be mad at because I said your post was vaguely disingenuous. Big yikes.

Since you're a TERF, I believe you rose to the occasion for the sole purpose of protecting fellow TERF JK Rowling and not because you care about rape victims (clearly), women's rights, or the horror that Gaiman has inflicted on vulnerable people. Hence why you're so upset.

JK Rowling is different but also bad because of the following:

JK Rowling has enabled rapists to continue their abuse by hiring them (Gary Oldman is only one example). Where was her outrage when Oldman hit his former wife in the face with a phone? Or when Johnny Depp abused Amber Heard? This is especially sad because Rowling herself is a victim of domestic abuse. She cares about women when it's convenient and she can use them as a tool for her agenda. In a different way, this is similar to Gaiman, who only cared about women's rights to lure vulnerable women to him. They are performative but reveal their real colors when pressed.

She also praised your favorite REAL anti-semite, Elon Musk, and, with him, has harassed and led a campaign against respected athlete Imane Khelif, because she (an Arab) was better than her white European opponent and didn't look like a delicate, fragile white woman. Therefore, she led a campaign of harassment that made Khelif's life hell during a time of great success in her career.

She has also enacted indirect violence by donating to terf agencies (https://www.outfrontmagazine.com/jk-rowling-donates-to-anti-trans-organization/; https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/proud-jk-rowling-donates-70k-32149025), which actively harm trans people by denying them healthcare, legal protections, and the sheer dignity of life. This is an active form of hatred because she is funding these efforts with money that is used to hurt people. If we can follow the train, she is hurting people, albeit more indirectly.

Did JK rape someone? Not that we know of! Does she actively use her money and influence to enact realized and active legal, medical, and social harm against a group that she decided she hates and must eliminate? A group that has one of the lowest life expectancies because of suicide and homicide, as well as poverty risk factors? A group in which the suicide rate was 6.8 times higher for transgender women than cisgender women? Absolutely yes!

Am I pretentious? Maybe. Am I an asshat? Potentially. Am I an anti-semite? That would be hard considering my mom is Jewish and I went to the synagogue earlier (maybe I should ask my rabbi). Am I (and my lovely mother) anti-Zionist? Abso-fucking-lutely. I'll wear my anti-Zionism with pride.

Stop using women as tools to further your Zionist and TERF agendas.

Tl;dr for everyone except this silly goose:

Looking back, it's insane how spoiled we were by J. K. Rowling's unmasking.

The signs WERE all there from the beginning, from interviews to her personal life to the work itself. So when the mask finally came off for good, our eyes were shot open to all the red flags.

And a lot of folks keep expecting that same revelation every single time another beloved artist turns out to be a bastard. But here's the thing; Rowling is an outlier. Most predators are nowhere near as unsubtle. And everyone telling you all these "solutions" to make sure you don't get hurt again are in willful denial of this

"Don't trust charming people", "don't trust people who declare themselves allies of this or that cause", "charisma is a red flag". All of that may be true, but lemme tell ya - it won't save you.

Because here's the uncomfortable truth: there were zero signs. I followed Gaiman for years, both with his work and here on tumblr. Never noticed a single red flag - and looking back, I can't think of a single sign. And the same can be said for all of you.

It is possible to commit no errors and still lose.

[absolutelynotsanebaby]

I looove thinking about where Cole’s traits of anxiety and being so hard on himself came from. Obviously sometimes it genetic but there’s things in his life that could be factors. Namely one is he’s always seemed to carry some strong internal sense of justice. In the flashback scene in motm with Lilly he describes the reason why he got into a fight with another kid being because the other kid was a bully. A trait like that can and does lead to people fixating on their ability to do what they think is right, which he consistently shows he does fixate on. Another thing to note is that he grew up with a combination of a very clearly heroic mother who imprinted her morals and expectations onto him(to be clear, not a bad thing) and then a father who expected too much with too harsh of an attitude. That being expecting Cole to be able to master a dance technique not even grown men could, and when we see him train the ninja in Cole’s true potential episode he’s very harsh with his reprimands and directions. Even the doorbell scene, where he slams the door shut and keeps it shut until Cole does what he believes is the correct way to announce his presence.

It’s also worth noting having a chronically ill and then terminally ill mother throughout childhood is a source of consistent stress, especially on a child’s brain and with the effects it can cause later. Then of course being left alone with his grief as a young teenager because his father became absent in his own grief has it’s own set of effects regarding trust, self esteem, and coping skills with anxiety.

Speaking of coping skills, I find Cole’s specific methods so interesting. He seems to go through this pattern of an initial conflict appearing (his father, ghost-hood and fading, struggling to live up to his mother in MOTM), trying overly hard to not let it affect him / deal with it alone, and then crashing and giving up when he can’t (which he seems to conceptualize as an inherent failure on his part, rather than a failure of support). This ‘giving up’ can also come with a running away or distancing from his loved ones which I think is one part shame and one part being overwhelmed (<- I really think he projects his own ideas of how he should deal with things alone and some kind of Responsibility Complex onto other people and how he thinks they see him) (<- which leads to occasional resentment).

[searchingforserendipity25]

exorcising my list of unwritten conclave concepts from a few weeks ago i haven't written much since, in case the list is all there ends up coming out of it or anyone wants to welcome any of them into a good home:

cardinal lawrence and sister agnes won each other’s respect and trust during ratzinger’s papacy (liberals who leak church scandals to the justice system and the press stick together). everyone lowkey thinks they are having an affair. they are not, but they do keep sneaking into corners to gossip during the conclave. leaning fully into the reading of sister agnes as the late pope’s intelligence expert. incredibly jaded vatican spy. aldo is not jealous. benitez finds lawrence with the yellow canary eating from his hand and going back to his side after short flights, and has a number of franciscan emotions about it. the whole thing would ideally be about their friendship, different views and thoughts on power, what it looks like, what it ought to look like. responsibility, and doubt. also: how horrible it is the only non smokers in an european workplace.

(does this change anything materially? possibly the adeyemi and trembley situation is revealed much sooner with lawrence and sister agnes working together earlier and sharing intel, which in its turn makes him seem more competent and aggressive in taking down competitors, ergo more votes, ergo more influence? maybe bellini supports him more overtly earlier idk.) 

cardinal lawrence is dead. as a matter of fact, cardinal lawrence has been dead for a few days after the pope dies; unlike the pope, he keeps coming back to do his job. the curia covers up his death, because the dean of the college of cardinals is a ghost who apparently hated his job enough that is it his very literal purgatory is both hard to explain, and bad for the press. the fate of his unliving soul is very much at risk when steering the conclave, which is, uh, fun. cardinal tedesco's vape smoke now strongly smells of sulfur to him, which is probably not satanic in origin but then again might be. people keep voting on him and their belief in him corresponds directly to how much he can interact with the world, which is a very straightforward way to test one’s moral limits and otherwise a great torment. the one silver lining is that he can walk through walls and scoop out corrupt dealing easily, and no one can really tell he is dead. well, barely anyone. cardinal benítez and his ability to walk easily between the liminal spaces and certainties of the world is an outlier, and should not be counted.

dean lawrence keeps getting kidnapped, poisoned, blackmailed and otherwise threatened. this is an unfortunate if occasional part of being the vatican’s manager of two increasingly liberal and unorthodox papacies. it is considerably less fine and unfortunately far too normal for innocent xiv, who has a non-zero number of experiences with friends being kidnapped, poisoned, blackmailed and otherwise threatened. 

bellini/lawrence full on established relationship nonsense. as in, they have been together for thirty years and counting. conclave rewrite?? 

innocent xiv’s phone messages get leaked. innocent xiv’s phone messages consist of selfies with turtles sent to various friends and family, a good deal of memes in the santa marta groupchat, and daily jokes, complaints and affectionate messages to dean lawrence. the media has thoughts. aldo bellini, newly in charge of the papal media strategy, also has thoughts. and prayers.

a glimpse at all the people that Did vote for benítez from the start, and how much his work is or is not known outside the hermetic sphere of the vatican. he's kind of famous in religious activist circle probably! he has fans! he has a wide network of people he regularly approaches for information, resources, mutual aid and donations to his clinics and dioceses! he keeps dropping insane facts about horrifying personal experiences with unnerving serenity!

vincent benítez soft doms cardinal lawrence into taking a rest during the conclave. this incidents turns into a habit and gains new dimensions, as per the forthcoming changes in job status

pope john has an ongoing crisis of faith and also a gigantic imposter's syndrome. unrelatedly, pope john would really really really rather vincent benítez did not die in kabul and/or cause a diplomatic disaster. how convenient, then, that he is now a benevolent religious dictator who can arrange (read: wholesale invent) a number of postings and duties only benítez can accomplish. if anyone ask, this is a long-delayed move on part o the church to develop a deeper connection to on-the-ground aid organization. this can’t possibly last forever, though, can it? 

friar lawrence has shed all politics and chosen an abbey who keeps a vow of silence. friar lawrence is genuinely having a lovely time of things in his little abbey post canon. for like, uh, two months? friar lawrence keeps accidentally gaining more and more influence. manager-guy who cannot not manage. six months in he’s in charge of shelters and social associations. one year on, and he’d be archbishop again, if he were not aggressively trying to clamber down the church hierarchical rung. his friend, innocent xiv, who went from being a non-entity to one of the most famous men in the world, is sympathetic but also thinks this is very very funny. epistolary fic?? email epistolary? there is a little cat in a friar's habit and this is the most important part.

possibly related: cardinal lawrence comes back from his enforced sabbatical in a peaceful retreat freckled, healthier and smiling. people have thoughts on this, and emotions also. 

turtle pov of benitez/lawrence. literally: turtle pov. is the turtle an angel?? unclear if the turtle is an angel.

cardinal tedesco must die au.

[bes-ton]

SBG found family stuff

Bc I am seeing a lot of ship stuff and not found family for ALL of them… I could just be not looking in the right place or something.

so here is both cannon and head cannon stuff, the HC stuff isn’t marked sorry

I have not read passed chapter 91 please no spoilers in the comments, and there will be spoilers for those who haven’t read that far

Ashlyn

Takes on too much responsibility

has a hard time getting attached but once she is, they are her family even if she doesn’t want the to be

Afraid of losing her family, will not stand for self sacrificial stuff (unless it’s herself)

if anyone in her family unit gets hurt she blames herself

feels bad about being mean /rude to protect family

Logan

He was in (even if he didn’t actually do anything) a mafia family, as such family is very important to him

Trusting until someone hurts his family

will look out for the family in small ways (hc: reminders to eat/drink) (he started the three hour timer to get some rest)

when something only affects him he doesn’t want to bother his family

originally had a hard time understanding his place in his family

Aiden

Family is important to him even if they don’t make him happy. (His parents)

will do anything to keep his family happy/safe

even though he is an adrenaline lover, he understands that those he loves might not be

willing to kill for family. (Chap. 73 he was ready to harm/kill Alex for anyone in the group)

More likely to trust his family more than his own mind

Taylor

Willing to bend / twist her morals (not break them) to keep her family safe

will face her fears in order to help her family

loves having physical reminders of being family (the bracelets)

big on physical contact to show that she cares

fixes things (mechanic) to help with the guilt of not being able to fix her family

Ben

Loves being the biggest bc he can shield/ carry/ hug/ fight for his family easily

hates being the biggest because it makes him intimidating and less likely to be asked for help

willing to help strangers even though his family might be wary

while he has a good sense of self, family is a core aspect of himself

he sometimes feels isolated from others because of being selectively mute(idk if that’s the right term) even though he has many ways of communicating

Tyler

This boy has trauma around family

willing to neglect himself for his family

has a very hard time opening up even to family

is used to being the emotional crutch and not being that for his found family is weird to him

will (has) lose his sense of self if it means the family will be able to function

sorry for typos I wrote this on my phone instead of a computer

[mayapapaya33]

Well, I haven't read the origins comic yet, so I'll take your word for that. Some of the comic stuff is a bit wibbly on canon so I'm not sure if I do take it as campaign canon really, but I'll just go with it for the purposes of this conversation. (The fact that she never once mentions being run out of town by Yeza in the campaign makes that a little weird but sure ok. It also feels a little retconny to brush over her major fear that her family would reject her even if they DID know it was her under the curse, which was what was implied to be a big reason she stayed away in the campaign, in favor of it being because they DID chase her away based purely on what she looked like before she could say anything. It feels...strange. I'm not sure how I feel about it, I'll have to think about it. It just feels like after the fact justification of her staying away from them to me, but oh well. LET WOMEN BE FLAWED 2025! lol I am eventually going to get my hands on all of the origins comics, I just haven't done so yet.)

My point wasn't really a moral argument about Veth and Lilliana having done equally bad things in the world, obviously that's not true. I could have said It better, but I guess I just thought that was obvious and I was tired? lol, silly me. So to make it clearer: Veth is a hero who helped save the world, and Liliana fell in with a cult and did terrible things under the woefully misguided belief she was doing the right thing. I'm more saying I could see Veth turning out like Liliana if things went differently and their initial act of abandonment is fundamentally similar. Also, it's not just the hag thing btw, that was just the most obvious and memorable example I could reference and know everyone would know what I was talking about without writing a 5 page essay and hunting down obscure time stamps lol.

Another example was her stance in that discussion about justice and vengeance from ep 98 (26:26) with Caduceus. Cad basically said: Hey, going after criminals in the Empire sounds great if you can be smart about it, but if you're just doing it to make yourself feel better, I don't really see the point of that, so maybe don't because you'll probably restart the war if you aren't extremely careful. And Veth's response was very understandable from her characters pov, but makes me think that, yeah, in the right circumstances, she'll do what she wants, when she wants, and damn the consequences and it won't be about justice, it'll be about making herself feel good and she'll find the internal justification she needs to. "You can stand by -You can just watch bad people get away with it?" If the price of stopping one bad person is reigniting a WAR, um yeah, I can Veth. He's basically saying, don't cause more problems than you are going to fix by your actions, and interrogate your motivations and she wasn't having it. I think he might have gotten through to her in the end but I'm not sure because they "dissolved" using mouth sounds and hand waving into the next scene of Jester finding Marion.

There are many things that make me think this about her. Anger and desperation can cause people to make poor decisions. (I think you might have misconstrued the one bit where I was debating whether letting your family think you were dead and staying gone or just saying goodbye and abandoning them was actually worse or not, I personally vote dead being worse but I'm genuinely not sure, like I said. So, in that one aspect I think Veth's worse, but not for everything lol. The misguided hope left behind from what Liliana did might be worse.)

My point was that they both abandoned their families in order to solve a problem. Yes, Liliana left "voluntarily" right from the start in the sense that she wasn't kidnapped by goblins and transformed against her will, her "against her will change" was foisted upon her by a God Eater trapped in moon jail instead. She was essentially kidnapped by her own powers, she couldn't control them and needed to figure out what they were and how to deal with them. So yes, it was a choice for her to leave as you so aptly pointed out, just not quite as voluntary a choice as people keep presenting it as. I suppose it's more accurate for me to say it was Liliana's choice to leave, and Veth's choice to STAY gone (yes, even with the addition of the comic lore).

Don't you remember early campaign Imogen constantly having to be careful and worried about her telepathy? How it hurt her to be in large crowds? How her town DID treat her like garbage, like a pariah, "like an outright monster" even. It's not like Liliana left for fun. She was scared she was going to hurt someone if she didn't learn how to control herself, and worried that Imogen would develop those powers too. (That was her initial reasoning, and then things devolved of course). You said it yourself; The Grim Verity was taking too long, and she wanted to go home so she fell in with Ludinus and co because he promised answers and a solution.

Veth's initial separation from her family OBVIOUSLY wasn't her fault, and apparently in the comics she tried to go home and was run off for looking like a goblin. Well, that truly sucks for Comic Book Veth and she has my sympathy. There are still a variety of things she could have done, including once she befriended Caleb enough where she trusted him, have him go to Yeza in person and explain the curse and everything while she hid at the outskirts of town. She could have told Caleb a bunch of things only Veth would know to help convince Yeza, Etc.

At a certain point, Veth's Choice to stay away from her family was just as voluntary as Liliana's. She could have tried (or tried again if comics are canon) at any time, and she didn't. The problem wasn't solved so they "couldn't" go home and then events spiraled. Again, they aren't the same, I just think their situations parallel each other interestingly. Becoming "not a goblin" was not the only way for Veth to reunite with her family. It's perfectly understandable that she thought that it was considering all of her trauma and her shame and her fear, but that doesn't make it true. It was still an active choice that she made to not try to reunite with her family until she looked "normal" again, even once her circumstances had changed and she could have had help. She didn't try because she didn't want her family seeing her like that and because she was scared of what they would think. (Again, very understandable, but still a choice). What if Caleb couldn't find a way to change her back into a halfling? Would she never have gone home, continuing to look for a solution?

Liliana "couldn't" go home until she understood and could control her powers, a reasonable yet tragic decision, which then spiraled into it being that she "couldn't" go home until she helped "save" the world from the tyranny of the Gods, etc. Somewhat less reasonable I think you'll agree. How long does Veth's decision to not try (or not try again) to reunite with her family until she's no longer a goblin remain reasonable? One year? Five years? Ten years? It was a combination of luck and hard work that got her a new body as relatively fast as she did. Caleb and Essek meeting and becoming magic bffs might never have happened without Caleb's "I'm never going back to jail" moment in the Bright Queen's throne room for example lol.

More than all of that though, I'm not a huge fan of Veth's parenting while she IS present in Luc's life but seeing as Liliana hasn't really been present in Imogen's life for more than like a month, that's about where any parallels or comparisons stop lmfao. A lot of Veth's bad parenting once she's back in Luc's life is also due to the fact that Sam Riegel is a comedian first and an actor second so if he sees an opportunity to be funny, he'll pounce. Which unfortunately for poor Veth, does mean that if you look at her with a sober eye she comes across as a dreadful parent. Hilarious of course, but I did end up feeling bad for Yeza whenever I saw him futilely trying to be responsible whenever the M9 came trampling through their lives being bad influences. Honestly, she wonders why teenage Luc is like that! I learned it from watching you mom!

If the Good Moms of Critical Role ever learn about the shit Liliana's pulled it's on sight 😤

[urfavisananimegirl]

walter white from breaking bad

Walter Hartwell White (Breaking Bad) is an Anime Girl!

[slyandthefamilybook]

fellas is it freeing Palestine to send graphic images to American Jews

[autumnrory]

i rmr when all the initial meta around endgame was coming out people were talking about steve being depressed and whatnot and it's like well yeah but he's BEEN depressed, like he woke up alone in this century and he kept going, now i can understand it being worse this time after finding a family and getting bucky back and losing them all except of course that's not why endgame steve was on about so like......the people writing meta were trying to connect these things that of course weren't really there on screen because that simply wasn't our steve

but i think it really could've been SO interesting to see this is the thing that finally makes steve stay down like he's lost so much and he just CAN'T keep fighting like i get some people think that's what they were going for but considering the ending......it's really not. and so i'm just thinking about a version after iw, maybe he gets some of the thor treatment except not turning his depression into a dumb fatphobic joke lol and maybe nat and others are trying to get through to him and it just doesn't work and then we get some flashbacks (which you could have done for all the original avengers actually which would be particularly important for bruce and nat and clint who did not have their own trilogies) including his mom telling him "you always stand up" and THAT being the thing to finally get him moving like it would've been such a perfect way to finally show sarah rogers some respect and ACTUALLY show steve really struggling instead of whatever they tried to do with him in that movie

[noodle-shenaniganery]

can we stop trying to bully people into advocacy, please?

can we stop making people feel personally responsible for issues they only just heard of and may not even understand?

can we stop yelling and berating people who aren’t putting all of their (probably limited) energy into researching something that has almost nothing to do with them and which may stress them out?

can we stop pressuring people who are already struggling to survive to limit their options on how they can live, what they can eat?

please?

please

can we stop

[brick-van-dyke]

My dad, jokingly: "I'm badman"

Me: "haha sure" (not thinking he's anything like batman)

My dad: *left/ separated from my mum when I was a teen, started a GTA gang that helps bullied kids, ended up emotionally adopting like 8 kids and helped them through bullying, suicide, abuse, etc.*

Me: *was hurt by an abuser and had to deal with said abuser being forgiven by family around me*

Me: *gets into Batman lore*

Me: ...

"Wait a second..."

[dizzybevvie]

"not pro-ana just using the tags" "pro-ana only for myself" Ok but you see how you're still hurting people right. you see how you're perpetuating this mindset for other people by posting about it right.

[talonpaw]

for the record: i very much enjoy reading critical and meta analysis of warriors, especially analyses that cover more serious topics like the series’s depiction of abusive relationships, ableism, misogyny, elements of insensitivity to and appropriation from indigenous cultures, etc.. i just get EXHAUSTED watching people engaging in bad faith discourse and harassing other fans, even though i am fortunate enough to have never experienced that sort of harassment myself

[starbuck]

HATE when i’m taking a class that i KNOW would be a piece of cake for people who are fans of objective definitions with no exceptions and unexamined moral outrage…

[acewizardinspace]

The truth is, sometimes there is no watsonian answer.

Lets say for a moment a character is established to hate the color green. Then in one scene we see them wearing a green scarf. This is never mentioned or explained. It can be fun to come up with watsonian (in universe) explanations for this behavior. Maybe he got it from this other character who loves green, or maybe he changed his mind. But when those explanations actually directly contradict what happens on screen, then there is a problem. Lets say it is impossible for him to have met this other character and gotten a gift, or he mentions his hatred for green again two episodes later meaning it is impossible for him to have changed his mind.

Now your fun watsonian headcanon instead of adding meaning actively detracts meaning. Now it makes the story worse not better. Now the story stops making any amount of sense because you insist on calling attention to something the creators never wanted you to. This can be fun for AUs and headcanons, please keep with it! But it is a shit basis for shit literary analysis.

The truth is, sometimes his scarf is green because that is what the costumer designers had on hand. The truth is, sometimes there is no watsonian answer.

[magnoliamyrrh]

"the difference between a conspiracy and fact is time" isnt always true because some things are just genuinely loony and wrong but. boy oh boy is it true in too many cases

[thorntopieces]

"they're basically the same person" except the different names growing up in different countries knowing different people having entirely different childhoods and circumstances and hobbies and personalities and appearances and fashion and-

sigh