#*.sus

[coolreader18]

discourse.jpg

[theautumnaldemon]

does anyone else have a favorite tv character where whenever they’re on screen you just

[fromcainwithlove]

author’s notes today: hey guys so just a warning there isn’t 100% explicit verbal consent even though they’re both really into it so remember this is FICTION, also they don’t use a condom :((( but in real life safe sex is important!!! please be safe out there everyone

a/n back in the day: kept thinking about ____ stabbing knives through both of _____’s hands to pin him in place while they fucked so here you go lol =P

[p1nkc4lyps0]

I have opinions about the recent gangle hate

[doitforpink]

[nakakabaliw]

Dungeon Meshi Convention Episode

[jbcchan]

772054660221747200?source

[fandomsandfeminism]

Sometimes I think about how and why some people had such a *bad* reaction to the end of Steven Universe, specifically in regards to the Diamonds living.

Even though they no longer are causing harm to others and are able to actually undo some of their previous harm by living, some folks reacted as though this ending was somehow morally suspect. Morally bankrupt, even.

And I think it might be because so many of us were raised on a very specific kind of kids media trope:

They all fall to their deaths.

Disney loves chucking their bad guys off cliffs. And it makes sense- in a moral framework where villains *must* be punished (regardless of whether their death will actually prevent further harm or not), but killing of any kind is morally bad for the hero, the narrative must find a way to kill the villain without the protagonists doing a murder.

It's a moral assumption that a person can *deserve* to die, that it is cosmically just for them to die, that them dying is evidence that the story itself is morally good and correct. Scar *deserves* to die, but it would be bad for Simba to kill him. So....cliff. (edit: yes, cliff then hyenas. But cliff first. Lol.)

Steven Universe, whatever else it's faults, took a step back and said "but if killing people is bad, then people dying is bad", and instead of dropping White Diamond off a cliff, asked "what would actual *restorative*, not punitive, justice look like? What would actual reparations mean here? If the goal is to heal, not just to punish, how do we handle those who have done harm?" And then did that.

Which I think is interesting, and that there was pushback against it is interesting.

It also reminds me of the folks who get very weird about Aang not killing Ozai at the end of Avatar. And like, Ozai still gets chucked in prison, so it doesn't even push back on our cultural ideas of punitive justice *that much.* and still, I've seen people get real mad that the child monk who is the last survivor of a genocide that wiped out his entire pacifist culture didn't do a murder.

[ratective]

credit

[officialspec]

my friends……........the crystal germs

[cardentist]

people on twitter freaking the hell out because rebecca sugar drew a comic of pearl and greg having a messy situationship in the aftermath of rose dying wasn't on my 2024 bingo card if I'm being honest

even Less so because the thing they're apparently mad about is that the nonbinary alien rock was supposed to be a lesbian (as if there's anything wrong with a nonbinary alien rock being bisexual, Or that lesbian can't have a situationship with a man without still being a lesbian on the other side.)

anyways, may take on it is: you don't have to consider any of rebecca sugar's sketches "canon," because it's not actually in the source material. rebecca may have a strong influence on how the fandom sees the characters but it does Not actually change the show. so getting worked up about it in the first place is ridiculous.

That Said, it kinda works with whatever they had going on in the show if I'm being honest

[su-n-s-e-t]

[twistedhoneycomb]

I made a pumpkin pumpkin!!!

[artbyblastweave]

I'm not the first to mention this, but one bit that I thought was really clever in Steven Universe is the ways in which the show subtly justifies the cartoonism of the principle cast always wearing the same outfit for ease-of-animation purposes. The gems are a gimme in that they're all hardlight-projections, and even before that's solidified as a plot point they're otherworldly and superheroic enough that you don't really think to question it. But Steven canonically just owns hundreds and hundreds of those star shirts, which are leftover merchandise from his father's fizzled-out career as a rock star. Into which you can read a whole bunch of other stuff if you really want to, right? And I do want to. It's reflective of Greg's misplaced optimism that he got hundreds of those made in the first place, and it's a benign but visible example of how Steven's life is shaped by the knock-on effects of decisions his parents made before he was even alive. He's got his mother's superpowers and he's wearing his father's shirts.