#In Case I Don't Make It (joking)

[irregularjohnnywiggins]

You ever have those moments where an idea just... won't leave your head?

[egophiliac]

Have you heard of the "Crowley is Malleus' dad" theory going around? Where Prince Levan (or whatever his name is) didn't actually die and just went out to get some milk and is now known as Dire Crowley, the silly man? The implications of that theory is absolutely hilarious when you think about it

hold on, we can figure this out, we just need LISTS

PROS THAT CROWLEY IS SECRETLY REVAAN/LEVAN/LAVERNE/WHATEVER:

unspecified fae of some kind, with similar coloring to Mal

the animal masks are apparently a Briar Valley thing

has some kind of big blackmailable secret that was alluded to in episode 4, and then as far as I know never brought up again

(unless this was just Azul bullshitting, which is extremely possible)

based on Diablo, which...maybe means something?

has canonically worn Dad Shorts

CONS:

(gestures to Crowley's entire personality)

NO LISTEN Revaan was the guy they sent off on diplomatic missions and to take care of delicate political situations, and...look, I love this dweeb, but would you trust Crowley to be in charge of negotiating your war treaties

despite my brain insisting on reading his name as "Raven", Revaan's title does imply that he was also a dragon (or super into longan berries, I'm not ruling that out)

currently unclear why Lilia "my closest friend Revaan...he is no longer with us...I used to make fun of him for being kind of a priss about eating jerky..." Vanrouge has somehow not noticed or said anything

Malleus' Aloof Anime ~Aristocrat~ vibe had to come from somewhere, and by all accounts it was NOT his mom's side of the family

???:

turns into a bird in the opening, I don't know if that means anything but it's kinda cool, I guess

all that aside, if Malleus and Yuu are any indication, then the Draconias have...questionable taste in their social choices. so anything is possible!

[alexandraisyes]

The cutest reminder ever that the way family works in TSAMS canon is that two parties have to be in mutual agreement that they are family. If one party doesn't agree then they aren't family. Parties can revoke familial ties whenever they want and that means they are no longer family.

"Code Relation" theory is stupid because you're then implying that Eclipse is Sun and Moon's child. Which he isn't. Or that Killcode is somehow Moon's child and his brother at the same time that he's Eclipse, Lunar and Bloodmoon's "father" at the same time that they're Sun and Moon's grand children. Like, we're seeing the issue here, right?

Don't make things more complicated than it has to be. Just accept the fact that family is literally determined by a verbal agreement between two animatronics and nothing else because none of them were born from wombs. That means respecting canon when characters in canon decide that they aren't comfortable being family (like Eclipse) or just straight-up disown everyone (like Bloodmoon). It's okay to have headcanons, but don't try to push them onto canon.

[makiswirl]

can i just say. and this is probably a niche hill to die on. that i am so gobsmacked every time someone vaguely hints at the idea that jotaro doesn't care meaningfully for the other crusaders, usually particularly kakyoin and joseph, when those two actually tend to be the ones he reacts to being hurt the hardest

like he cares for his loved ones!!!! that literally plays into his character motives in every single part he shows up in!!! stop lying to me!!!!!!!

[brethilach]

I'm kinda scared to post this but it feels really bad being an actual schizophrenic person and looking at how people treat Thorin and talk about his "goldsickness" as if it's a moral failing. It hurts especially when people say or imply that his (psychosis-induced) actions wouldn't or shouldn't be forgiven by any of his family, friends, or his people and he wouldn't be accepted as King even if/when they discovered he only acted the way he did because he was just... y'know. mentally ill. Temporarily, at that! Because it was caused by a factor that can be permanently removed (the Arkenstone, I mean. It's painfully clear that the Arkenstone was the cause of it in the movies' canon)

"Oh, maybe his SICKNESS was caused by a magic jewel that is clearly cursed somehow, but it was still HIS fault that he was INSANE (never mind that he was actively delusional and hallucinating). He still loved and trusted Bilbo in the throes of his MADNESS, so it MUST have been a true reflection of his SELFISH DESIRE and GREED." This is how some of you sound.

It's even worse when people do the same thing to Frodo (even though both the book and movies depict him having delusions and hallucinations/visions akin to hallucinations, on top of all the other horrific things happening to him). "haha Frodo almost dies a dozen times and everyone else does all the heavy lifting just for him to STILL fail at the end. Sam was the TRUE hero of the story because Frodo was a useless whiny sad-sack and would have accomplished NOTHING without him" fuck you fuck you fuck you

I don't know where else to go with this. It just makes me question how some of you would treat me if you met me or knew what I experience on a day to day basis. It feels bad

[daily-odile]

Odile patting Molly Epithet Erased on the head, you know why

have two bc i care them

[anghraine]

I know this isn't only an autistic thing or always an autistic thing, but over the least few years, I've realized that a lot of my difficulties with humor are not actually with humor itself. If anything, there are specific kinds of humor that really work for me and I end up laughing so much harder and longer than everyone else that it's uncomfortable or embarrassing.

But a lot of popular humor fundamentally relies on saying things that aren't true. Sometimes this is drastic exaggeration, sometimes it's OTT parody that is far more about Being Funny than about the actual thing being parodied, and often it's flatly false and that's what is supposed to be funny about it. And yes, that's a humorless and ungracious way to describe that kind of humor—I don't mean to say that this is objectively bad or something.

I even understand the jokes intellectually. But in the vast majority of cases, there is something deeply unfunny to me about jokes reliant on something that is either obviously untrue or which I firmly disagree with.

I've seen quite a few posts recently about how, in online fandom, mocking your faves or being amused at other people mocking your faves is an important part of fandom culture. But for me, jokes about my faves based on things they actually said or did, or qualities they clearly possess, can be very funny, while jokes that are based on misrepresentations—even obvious, it's-all-in-good-fun-and-we-all-know-the-truth misrepresentations—are tedious at best.

For an easy example: Anakin and Luke Skywalker are two of my main Star Wars faves. Jokes about sand or Anakin mass-murdering children in his good phase or Luke being far less concerned than Han over the revelation of who his twin is or "it's not faaaaair" can still be really funny to me when told right. Jokes about Anakin obviously mind-tricking Padmé or Luke being obviously an eternally optimistic loser twink are intensely annoying to me regardless of context or delivery, not because they're comparably objectionable or anything but because they're not true.

Functionally this does cut out a lot of humor—especially online humor—but it's not that I literally don't understand it. I get it. I just don't get it.

[politemagic]

sleep token's first ever video interview was ii's drumeo offering. if they are ever to do another might i suggest....

but it's just 100% amelia flirting with vessel and he's just enjoying some fried chicken making occasional small noises of acknowledgement

[zhoudadudugongjin]

good luck with that meng dage

[galacticlamps]

I don't want to get too caught up on semantics but I have to say I really feel like it's an unfair reading of the situation to call what Charles does in the Staircase Scene a "rejection."

I've already talked about how I think that scene's strength lies in the act of telling itself and Edwin's confession as the conclusion of his self-discovery arc. And I understand how the fact that that arc involved things like sexuality & attraction left it open to being viewed under a sort of romance-plot-specific lens, but evaluating the whole thing on that criteria still feels like a misrepresentation.

I don't think Edwin is saying "Love me" in that scene. Maybe he would've been asking for that, if this had all happened under different circumstances - and sure, generally, he'd presumably like that to happen - but it'd still be a kind of insane request for him to make right as he's being literally rescued from hell. (Especially since, even though the audience & Charles can both see the rescue as so in-character we might take it for granted, Edwin clearly didn't, if his consistently surprised confused & appalled reactions to Charles being there are anything to go by). I think he's feeling very loved already at that point, and I have a hard time believing desperation to simply have that reiterated is what drove him to speak up at such an inopportune moment.

I think what he's really saying there is "Hear me" - and as a listener and a confidant, Charles does anything but reject him. Maybe it's splitting hairs a bit, but if the distinction between "please don't turn me down" and "please understand the person in front of you" matters anywhere, it's in relation to Charles' response because he is so accepting of the confession as a confession. Not only does he take what Edwin tells him well, despite it being the sort of thing that might rock the foundation of the most important relationship in his existence, he also accepts the fact that Edwin is in such a vulnerable and worked up state that he has to do it right now despite it endangering them both. Charles would, truthfully, be totally justified in mostly ignoring it or passing over it quickly and inconclusively, insisting that this wasn't the time or place - but instead everything he says and does in that scene is geared toward giving Edwin's announcement the attention & understanding he needs so badly - and that includes responding with honesty about his own feelings, even if they might not otherwise be exactly what you'd want to hear after declaring your love for someone. Charles takes his time (perhaps foolishly, but certainly necessarily) and gives Edwin a response that is warm and familiar, while also being kind, affectionate, open, serious, and above all correspondingly worthy of the weight of the thing Edwin has just entrusted him with. That seems an awful lot to pass over simply because he doesn't also happen to be in love with him too.

Edwin's confession is so not a come-on that whether or not Charles reciprocates the romantic element is, at best, secondary to his overall reaction, and using that piece of it to call the whole thing a rejection feels like a very inaccurate shorthand to get in the habit of using as a summary of his role in the scene.

[tagarilaghost]

hey uhm @wowitsmetaylor you know about that one post you made and that one specific tag...?

Yeah well now he does have that :D

It truly sucks being an artist and having free will-

[trappedinafantasy37]

Childhood dreams come true! No need to dress up as a displacer beast anymore. She can just be one!

[asurrogateblog]

[jigsaw voice] hello pink floyd fan. you have ten minutes to draft a post speculating about what happened to syd in a way that neither exaggerates nor dismisses the role of mental health and/or drug abuse in his departure from the band while simultaneously acknowledging his personal agency without reverting to either unfair blame or ableist infantilization. if you fail to write something sufficiently nuanced that does not ultimately contribute to his unsolicited martyrdom this brick I've tied on a string to the ceiling fan above your head will swing around and probably kill you eventually idk give it a few rounds

[billiuspendragon]

It really bothers me when a character (often one who is commonly interpreted as autistic) is infantilised by their fandom. I've seen it a lot with Peter Parker (Tom Holland's version) and I've recently been seeing it a bit with Mob from Mob Psycho as well.

To be clear, I don't necessarily mind when people make the characters ACT childishly in fics or whatever - as someone who owns over 67 stuffed animals and eats off a plastic tiger plate I can't really complain about that - I think it's more to do with the way the other characters are shown treating them. I might be childish in some respects but that doesn't mean I want to be baby-talked or for people to act as if I don't understand them, and when I see fictional characters being treated like that it really gives me the horrors because I just know that if I were in the character's position I would be dying inside.

I think it also bothers me because it feels really out of character, and the relationships feel like they've been twisted because like. No. That character wouldn't treat them like that.

Half the time it's just jokes or incorrect quotes so I know I shouldn't get too mad but god it makes me cringe.

[sketchy-mf]

How dare he randomely change his hairstyle out of nowhere? I'm the only one allowed to do that

(Writing it here too just in case, I'M JOKING)

Yes I'm a few days late, I forgot to post these 💀

📸 Mikke on ig (ofc)

[laugtherhyena]

The sad thing about the minecraft movie is that even if they listen to the outcry and change the designs i doubt that will actually make it good because a good art direction isn't enough save a movie if the story and writing is ass