#Liking a character who does bad things does not mean you condone their actions

[thousandyearphantombunker]

My baby girls with hero complexes 😍🥰❤️

This is a safe place for Belos and James lovers!

We've both been called genocide apologists because we like fictional characters no matter how many times I explain that I think James committing genocide was ooc or how Belos just doesn't work as a villain for me because the 'realistic horrors of homophobia/racism'- weren't portrayed well at all! But uhh apparently that makes us genocide apologists

considering having a sane conversation surrounding these men is impossible us fans might as well just start saying our faves have done nothing wrong to piss people off

Like yes kings slay! Shoot Sleet and brand people's wrists! These men have done nothing wrong in their lives ever!

[david-talks-sw]

Debunking more myths in the GFFA: the Jedi and the clones.

I wrote a post debunking the various myths about how "the Jedi condone slavery", a while ago. Something I had omitted (because it's such a big topic) was the following two statements that concern the clone troopers' relations with the Jedi:

"The clones were genetically bred to have accelerated growth, so they're technically child soldiers."

"The clones were slaves of the Jedi."

Both the above statements are inaccurate, let's explore why. 

"The clones were child soldiers"

Let's get the easy one out of the way first, because it's a logic that cuts both ways. If age is our only determination of the maturity of a Star Wars character, then Grogu is not a baby. He is aged 50, and is thus a middle-aged man.

Who cruelly eats the babies of a woman...

... and knowingly tortures animals for his own sadistic pleasure.

Of course, I'm kidding. Grogu's none of the above things.

The narrative frames him as a cute baby who does innocent baby stuff. Him eating the eggs is played off as comedic, as is him lifting with the frog. To this day, some fans still call him "Baby Yoda".

Conversely, despite the clones being 10/14-years-old, their actions, behaviors, way of thinking, sense of humor, morals etc, are all those of an adult.

Like, Ahsoka is technically older than Rex in this scene.

The scene doesn't portray them as peers, though. This isn't written as "a teen and a tween talking". No, Rex looks, acts and behaves like a grown-up and is thus framed as such by the narrative.

You can make the argument "they're child soldiers", but (unless you're doing so in bad faith) you'd also have to argue that "Grogu's an adult".

"The clones were the Jedi's slaves"

Nope. For all intents and purposes, they're in the same boat as the Jedi, who George Lucas stated multiple times had been drafted to fight in the war.

Again: both the Jedi (monk/diplomats untrained for fighting on a battlefield) and clones (literally bred en masse only to fight) are being forced to fight by Palpatine and the Senate.

Though, on paper, the clones were commissioned by Jedi Master Sifo-Dyas, it was actually done by the Sith (who either manipulated or assassinated Sifo-Dyas then stole his identity, depending on the continuity you choose to adhere to). The rest of the Jedi had no idea these clones were being created.

So while the clones are slaves... they're not owned by the Jedi.

They're the army of the Republic, they belong to the Senate. This isn't exactly a scoop, they refer to the clones as something to purchase...

... and manufacture.

As far as the Senate’s concerned, clones are property, like droids. 

Like there's a whole subplot in The Bad Batch about this very point: after the war, the clones are decommissioned and left out to dry because they literally have no rights, they served their purpose.

The only trooper to ever canonically blame the Jedi for the clones' enslavement is Slick, who the narrative frames as having been bribed and manipulated by Asajj Ventress into betraying his comrades.

Also, the only canonical Jedi shown to ever be mean, dismissive or mistreating the clones in any way, is Pong Krell.

And it's eventually revealed he’s in fact a full-on traitor, hence why the story frames him as an antagonistic dick from the moment he's introduced. He doesn’t represent the Jedi in any way.

We know this because the other Jedi we’ve been shown are always prioritizing their clones’ lives over theirs, if given the chance.

Finally, if we wanna get even more specific... as Commander-in-Chief of the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR), the clones belong to Palpatine. 

Palpatine who is a Sith Lord. 

Palpatine who arranged for the creation of the clones and had them all injected with a chip that would activate upon hearing a code-word...

... and forced them to murder their Jedi without hesitation or remorse.

When you bear all that  ⬆️  in mind and when you read this quote by George Lucas...

"The Jedi won't lead droids. Their whole basis is connecting with the life force. They'd just say, 'That's not the way we operate. We don't function with non-life-forms.” So if there is to be a Republic army, it would have to be an army of humans."    - The Star Wars Archives: 1999-2005, 2020  

... narratively-speaking, everything falls into place.

Sidious knows that:

If he orchestrates a war designed to thin the Jedi's numbers, corrupt their values and plunge the galaxy into chaos...

If he wants to draft the Jedi - peace-keeping diplomats who’d never willingly join the fray - to fight in his war...

... then the only way they won't resist the draft and abstain from fighting is if they think joining the conflict will save lives.

So he creates a set of cruel, sadistic villains for them to face, opponents who will target innocent civilians at every turn...

... and instead of lifeless droids, he prepares for the Jedi an army of men... living, mortal people who, despite being well-trained, will be completely out of their league when facing the likes of Dooku...

... Ventress...

... Grievous...

... Savage Opress...

... or the defoliator, a tank that annihilates organic matter.

Thus, in order to save as many clone and civilian lives, the Jedi join the fray despite knowing that doing so will corrupt their values. 

And as the war rages on, a bond of respect is formed between the two groups.

Clearly, the Jedi don't like the fact that the Republic is using the clones to fight a war, but for that matter, they don't like being in a war, in fact they advocated against it.

However, it's happening regardless of their issues with the idea or personal philosophies. Said The Clone Wars writer Henry Gilroy:

"I’d rather not get into the Jedi’s philosophical issues about an army of living beings created to fight, but the Jedi are in a tough spot themselves, being peacekeepers turned warriors trying to save the Republic."

And bear in mind, the Jedi are basically space psychics, the clones are living beings that they can individually feel in the Force... 

... so the Jedi feel every death but need to move on, regardless, only being able to mourn the troopers at the end of every battle.

We see this in the Legends continuity too, by the way.

(that is, when the writers actually try to engage with the narrative)

Also, if you ask the clones, they’re grateful the Jedi have their backs.

When Depa Billaba voices her concerns about how the war is impacting the Jedi's principles, troopers Grey and Styles are quick to make it clear how grateful they all are for the Jedi's involvement:

So the clones aren't the Jedi's slaves. If anything, they're both slaves of the Republic (considering how low the Jedi's status actually is in the hierarchy).

Only I'd argue the clones have it much, much worse. 

The Senate sees the Jedi as "ugh, the holier-than-thou space-monk lapdogs who work for us"... but a Jedi has the option to give up that responsibility. They can leave the Order, no fuss or stigma. 

A clone trooper cannot leave the GAR! If they do, they’re marked for treason and execution. Again, they’re not perceived as “people”.

And it doesn’t help that the Kaminoans, the clones’ very creators, see the troopers as products/units/merchandise. A notion that the Jedi are quick to correct whenever they get the chance.

How The Clone Wars writers describe the clones' relationship with the Jedi.

George Lucas hasn’t spoken much about this subject aside from the quote from further up. But to be fair... the Prequels aren’t about the clones’ dynamic with the Jedi, so it makes sense that he wouldn’t talk on that subject so much.

He did mention that part of The Clone Wars’ perks is that he could:

“Do stories about some of the individual clones and get to know them.”

But that’s as far as it gets. 

So for this part, I'm just gonna let Dave Filoni, showrunner of The Clone Wars and the upcoming series Ahsoka, and TCW writer Henry Gilroy - both of whom worked closely with Lucas - take the wheel. They make themselves pretty clear on how the clone/Jedi dynamic is meant to be viewed. 

Here’s Henry Gilroy:

"In my mind, the Jedi see the clones as individuals, living beings that have the same right to life as any other being, but understand that they have a job to do."

"The clones see the Jedi as their commanding officers on one hand, but also, at least subconsciously, they look to them for clues to social/moral behavior."    

"Some clones may find themselves getting philosophical leadership from the Jedi that helps them answer some of the deeper questions of life."    

"We thought this was a great opportunity to show how the Jedi interact with clones. Specifically, Yoda in a teaching role of the clones, who were socially new, who kind of grew up— who were created to fight, and he really broadened their horizons and helped them realize there was a great big universe out there that was bigger than just fighting and killing."    

And here’s Dave Filoni’s comments:

"I truly believe that the Jedi try to humanize their clones and make them more individual, as Henry says."    

"I think we saw that in Revenge of the Sith, when the Clones were colorful and named under the Jedi Generals, and then in the final shots of the film with Palpatine and Vader near the new Death Star, the ships are grey, the color and life is sucked out. The Stormtroopers are only numbers and identified by black and white armor or uniforms in A New Hope." 

"The soldiers have become disposable to the Emperor."    

"That is something the Jedi would never do."    

"Yoda teaching the clones much like he taught Luke. ‘Cause that was kind of natural for [the Jedi], a natural instinct to take to these clones like they’re students."    

None of the above quotes from two different writers of The Clone Wars, who had many interactions with George Lucas, frame the Jedi and the clones’ relationship in a negative way. 

How much more proof do we need that "the clones were slaves of the Jedi” isn’t the intended narrative?

My point being that while the clones' ordeal is indeed horrible, the Jedi have nothing to do with it. The narrative of The Clone Wars always frames it as the fault of the Sith, the Senate and the Kaminoans.

If you go by the intended narrative, the Jedi were the clones' teachers and brothers-in-arms. The clones and the Jedi were not just comrades.

They were friends.

[iris-draws]

Verosika in her apology tour fit🔥🔥

Okay WOW that episode was amazing and also a lot so I'm gonna ramble for a bit.

Verosika absolutely slayed and ate (surprising nobody) and I love how sweet she was with everyone and especially stolas. Her talk with blitz was great and I'm glad she got the closure she needed. She truly is a kind soul for throwing a party for all the people who have been hurt by this horrible guy, and everyone there is understanding and comforting, it was so cute to see. Also the fact she was able to forgive blitz was incredible in itself. If I saw how many people he had hurt this badly and also been hurt and embarassed by this guy, I don't think I'd ever be able to forgive him with just him feeling sorry for himself and a half-baked apology.

This episode really showed us what a terrible person blitz really is. And honestly? I don't really sympathize with him anymore. Yes, he has trauma. But he refuses to work or just get better and can't even apologize. Getting a bit personal here but I had a toxic ex who was very similar to blitz, so maybe I'm biased and that makes me hate the character more. Nevertheless, blitz was absolutely terrible this episode and yes you can feel bad for him but I better not see anyone condoning his actions.

There is a party EVERY YEAR specifically for this guy and everyone he's hurt. There were SO MANY PEOPLE there?? He's screwed over and fucked a lot of those people, and he can't even bother to remember them or apologize?? His excuse is "Well it's hell so everyone is shitty" which is a terrible excuse. Just because it's hell doesn't mean you have to be a shitty person. Bro really needs to go to the hazbin hotel and take Charlie's lessons cause he needs to learn "it starts with sorry."

Now for stolas. Omg my baby ATE this episode. I loved seeing him be passive aggressive and sing his heart out (btw, that song is one of the best in the series, MY GOD. it doesn't even sound like stolas it's so different from the rest of the songs but it's SO GOOD. THE VISUALS, THE VOCALS, THE LYRICS AHDJDANKQ SO GOOD OMG) I do think stolas has some issues as well. He needs to understand he DID look down at blitz. He doesn't really understand that he truly is privileged. He treats blitz and his butler imps completely differently. If they're going to be in a relationship they both need to change. Stolas needs to learn his worth (which i think he will start to realize he's better than blitz deserves until he changes with that succubus dude) and blitz needs to get his shit together. But stolas does need to look back on his actions and the things he's said to blitz to give him the impression that he was nothing more than an "impish little plaything" to stolas.

I could ramble for hours about this episode but I'll stop for now lol if you made it this far you get a cookie🍪

[brothermoth]

Some of y'all are grown ass fucking adults who didn't pay attention in English class and make it OUR problem now. No, somebody is not a bad person for liking a villain character. Human morality is not black and white like that, and all you are doing is stripping writers of our chance to make you think for once in your goddamn life. Antagonists play a role more than antagonizing. They're meant to tell you something about yourself, about the world, about relationships.

Just because I think a character is interesting will never ever mean I condone or agree with the things they do. It's fiction, in real life I would despise them, but because they're not real I can toy with them in Google docs like a little puppet. This is not the 1600s anymore where you're terrified to make one wrong move lest you be sent straight to hell do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars.

If you're going to be an avid consumer of media, at least learn how to analyze it. Don't be reactionary xitter users, please?

--this is about red dead redemption I'm sorry--

BUT Micah is a bad person. We all agree. We shan't defend the things he does or believes because despite being unfortunately average opinions of the time, his actions do little but hurt the people around him.

YET he's just some guy, at the end of the day. He's a reflection of Arthur, of who he could potentially have been if his father hadn't been hanged and had kept him around. Arthur has the same potential to be Micah as Micah has to be Arthur. Hell, his brother left and started a family, he could've done so as well. The game is about choice. It's about actively choosing to do the right thing, even if the right thing is a bit questionable sometimes. You cannot in good faith aim your staunch moral opinions toward this game. You miss so much nuance and important conversation that the writers wanted you to have. Arthur isn't some golden retriever good boy, he's done terrible things and acknowledges that. He beat a man with a terminal illness to death over like thirty bucks, and he thought nothing of it until he got sick himself. Arthur had his chances to leave too, but he dug his heels in the same as Micah did, he refused to take that opportunity and resigned himself to being a violent arm of the gang.

Kill the puritan worms in your brains guys. Please. Use the thinking meat, that's what it's there for.

[blackcat419]

Pros and Antis in HotD and aSoIaF Fandom: the breakdown around grey storytelling

I think I know why TB people struggle so much for understanding why TG is liked by people and it’s because fandom discourse has been so rotted away by “pro shippers” and “anti shippers” discourse that we’ve entered into a puritanical view of consuming media.

They see the media you consume as a direct reflection of the type of person you are and thus the characters you like must be similar to who you are as a person.

To a certain extent I get it, looking at a broad portfolio of media consumption can reveal a bit about a person. For example, I consume a lot of horror media. You can discern that I like being scared and the adrenaline that comes from it. But that’s only in a safe controlled situation where I can turn off the tv or monitor when it gets too much. I don’t like haunted houses, being alone at night, or even the dark.

Media is a safe place to explore different sides of humanity in a controlled setting where the only thing at risk is our own enjoyment. People can find that they like things in media that they wouldn’t like in real life. But this distinction is lost on a lot of fandom puritans. To them, media consumption is a political act. You reaffirm that you are a “good person” by watching the “good shows” and rooting for the “good guys”. To look upon a morally complex character or even the villain with interest and sympathy is thus to condone and support every action that character will be written to take.

But this idea of assuming moral righteousness from the characters you support in media because even harder to understand and justify when applied to stories like HotD and aSoIaF where every character possesses both good and evil. So how does a puritan fan reaffirm their belief that they are morally good in a series such as these? The fan will assign the idea oh moral correctness and superiority to the characters they like. Any bad, morally questionable, or straight up evil act the character commits will be justified as righteous no matter how the story frames those actions to the audience. The same is applied to characters these fans do not like. Every bad, morally questionable, or evil action is amplified to become the main character trait while any good, just, or morally righteous act is off written as either an evil act in disguise or any good to come out of the act should be attributed to another character. Any harm committed again the character is then down played as not that bad or actually deserved.

In HotD and aSoIaF, this fandom Puritanism mainly affects female characters.

In aSoIaF, we have characters such as Dany and Arya being framed as the morally righteous and just while characters such as Catelyn and Sansa are painted as villains. Weirdly this does not apply to actual villainous female characters likes Cersei. This could be because the books and show are very clear that her actions are evil and cruel, puritan fans do not feel insecure liking her as they feel secure that the story and thus other fans know she is a bad person and won’t assume liking her means viewing her as a good person. Characters such as Margery Tyrell and Arianne Martell are viewed with more complexity than other female characters but I bet once they come into conflict with beloved female characters, they will be viewed as villainous.

In HotD we see the same thing happening. Puritan fans see Rhaenyra as the perfect hero with any negative action being just or not her fault while Alicent is painted as more evil than the step mother from Cinderella who, despite all evidence to the contrary, wanted to be queen and this deserves everything that she gets.

This is why so many people have to explain to puritan fans that liking characters like Sansa, Catelyn, Alicent, Aegon, or Aemond does not make one bastardphobic, a rape apologist, or anti feminist. I also think it explains why these fans can’t except that their favorite characters have done wrong and hurt people. They can’t accept criticism or critique of their favorite character because to them it’s not another person’s reading of a fictional character, it’s someone judging them on their morals.

Puritanical fans interlock their identity and sense of self with the characters they like and struggle to separate criticism of those characters as criticism of themselves as a person.

[emilystheories]

ACOTAR if the books were written from Tamlin's perspective

Exploring the nuance that the fandom often overlooks.

The ACOTAR series is told in first-person perspective. Although this allows us insight into the inner workings of certain character's minds, it also means that these accounts can be biased, or lacking nuance. To this day, Tamlin's perspective has not been shared, and I want to attempt to do that.

Please note that although the books were predominately told from Feyre's viewpoint, it doesn't mean that her thoughts and feelings are invalid. I am also not condoning Tamlin's actions (explaining ≠ excusing). These are fictional books; breaking them down and considering different angles is of great merit - even if you don't personally agree.

The story of Tamlin; how it all started.

Tamlin grew up in an extremely violent and abusive household - the extent of which largely remains unknown to the readers. We do know that his parents did not love each other, and that his father and two older brothers were canonically worse than Lucien's (and we know how bad they are).

Tamlin's father was even friends with the King of Hybern and Amarantha; two of the most insidious individuals in Prythian. In fact, Tamlin's father would regularly drag him along to visit them. It was during these visits that Amarantha grew to desire Tamlin, presumably when he was still rather young.

Amarantha then continued to sexually harass Tamlin for centuries. As readers, we do not know exactly what Amarantha did to Tamlin during that time; he is yet to open up about it.

An unlikely ruler.

Tamlin never wanted to rule the Spring Court. He stated that if he did, his brothers would have killed him "before he could reach adolescence." As a result, his only choice was to join the brutality of the army.

Instead, what Tamlin actually wanted was to become a travelling musician, spending his days playing the fiddle.

However, when Tamlin's entire family was (justifiably) murdered by Rhys and his father, he was forced into the role of High Lord of the Spring Court. Unlike Rhys, Tamlin had no friends or Inner Circle to help him, or to offer him support.

Although Tamlin rightfully shares the blame in what happened to Rhys's family, we still never received his version of events. Many have theorised that Tamlin was tortured by his brothers and father for the information about Rhys's family (as at this point, Tamlin and Rhys were best friends); I believe this to be likely.

Whatever the circumstances, one thing was now clear - Tamlin was entirely alone.

A reign ravaged by Amarantha.

Despite the circumstances, Tamlin does his best to rule the Spring Court. Although he is still largely inexperienced, he is vigilant about not following in the footsteps of his abusive father and brothers.

However, his efforts are halted when Amarantha, the woman who has relentlessly sexually and romantically pursued him for years, curses his entire court, and turns his heart to stone. Tamlin is forced to watch all of his companions and court advisors either die, or suffer tremendously, as a result of the curse.

Despite this, Tamlin does what he can for his people - even those outside of his court; offering shelter and employment to countless refugees.

In fact, when one of Tamlin's civilians was killed by Amarantha, he carried the faerie in his arms and into the gardens. He then buried the faerie with his own hands; "a High Lord, digging a grave for a stranger."

Meeting Feyre; the beginning of the end.

By chance or fate, Tamlin met Feyre Archeron. She was the first person he had ever loved in 500 years - the only one to make him feel "less alone."

Tamlin brought Feyre's family out of poverty and healed her father's leg. He rebuilt the art gallery for her. He was the first person to recognise the sacrifices she had made for her family. Most of all, Tamlin fell in love with Feyre in her human form - exactly as she was, with no mating bond to biologically pull her to him.

Prior to the events of Under the Mountain, Tamlin tells Feyre that he is "not her jailor." He tells her that she doesn't need a "keeper," as he kneels before her, and dedicates a song on his fiddle to her.

So, what changed?

Under the Mountain.

Amarantha happened.

Tamlin was forced to witness the woman he loved be brutalised and tortured. Knowing Amarantha was in love with him, Tamlin is powerless to help Feyre; to make his feelings known, means instant death for her. It is why Tamlin gets on his knees and begs Rhys to keep Feyre's identity a secret.

However, Feyre is ultimately killed. She was only brought into this situation because of Tamlin; he is riddled with guilt and despair.

Yet, by some miracle, Feyre is resurrected. Tamlin now has the chance to protect Feyre, to save her, in all the ways he was unable to before.

However, he goes overboard. He becomes possessive and controlling. Despite promising Feyre that he was not her "jailor," he locks her in the manor. He shuts Feyre out. The trauma only festers - for both of them.

Tamlin's behaviour was abusive. Feyre had every right to leave, and she was far better off for it.

Readers react (but, is it fair?)

It is for the above reason that Tamlin is one of the most hated ACOTAR characters. That hatred is justified.

But, where is that same hatred for all other SJM characters who behaved just as badly as Tamlin? Or, those who behaved even worse?

Rhys is still the character who:

Drugged Feyre and made her dance provocatively Under the Mountain (until she threw up). Rhys later admits he did this in part to make Tamlin jealous.

Twisted Feyre's broken arm to enforce consent.

Kept a 24/7 shield around her (the same sort of action Tamlin is criticised for...).

Refused to tell Feyre that her pregnancy would likely be fatal (despite their 'no secrets' promise); stripping her of the autonomy to make decisions over her own body.

Then, threatened to kill Nesta when she revealed this information.

And I hear you - "Rhys was just trying to protect Feyre!" Yet, wasn't that Tamlin's motive too?

This double standard exists for most other SJM characters:

[TOG Spoilers] Rowan, one of the most powerful fae warriors to ever exist, punches Aelin, a 19 year old who is newly discovering her fae abilities, so hard in the face that she hits a wall and bleeds. He then tells her that she should have "died long ago". Tamlin never directly laid his hands on Feyre. Yet, Rowan does, and his behaviour is always excused (and even romanticised). What's more, is that his relationship with Aelin is one of the most highly regarded.

[TOG Spoilers] We then have Manon who committed literal mass genocide for centuries (and delighted in it), even killing her own sister in the process.

There's Azriel who has a twisted affinity for torturing people.

Nesta who was verbally and emotionally abusive towards Feyre throughout their childhood.

Don't get me wrong, I love all of these characters. They are nuanced, morally grey individuals; this complexity is what makes SJM books so great.

Yet, why does this same nuance rarely exist for Tamlin?

Considering the events from Tamlin's perspective.

Readers criticise Tamlin for collaborating with Hybern to 'get Feyre back.' However, from Tamlin's perspective, Rhys was the person who willingly served Amarantha for the past 50 years. Tamlin also believed Rhys's facade that he was the insidious dictator of the infamously cruel Night Court. What's more, Tamlin is also aware of Rhys's mind control powers. So, when he receives a vague letter from Feyre (who as far as he knows, couldn't read and write), of course he is suspicious.

Tamlin truly believes that Rhys has kidnapped Feyre, and that she is in danger. In order to rescue her, Tamlin pretends to work with Hybern. He jeopardises the safety of his civilians, puts his entire court at risk - all to save the woman he loves.

If Rhys sacrificed the Night Court to save Feyre, we would deem it an act of true love. So, why do we condemn Tamlin?

What's more, both readers and characters blame Tamlin for the King of Hybern's actions; that Elain and Nesta went into the Cauldron because of him.

However, as soon as Tamlin realised Hybern's true plans, he blew his cover in an attempt to stop the King. He was the ONLY character who lunged for Hybern in an attempt to save Elain (whilst everyone else stood there in shock).

Shortly after, Tamlin realises that Feyre left him willingly. That she is with Rhys, and they are mates. Then, Lucien, Tamlin's only friend, leaves for the Night Court too.

To top it all off, in an act of revenge, Feyre orchestrates for the downfall of the Spring Court - an action that risks the lives of countless innocent civilians. As a result, Tamlin now has no one. No court.

Tamlin has nothing left.

Tamlin's choice.

If we are all being honest with ourselves, most people in Tamlin's position would feel immense resentment. Many would resort to revenge, just as Feyre did. However, Tamlin never takes this path - he never gives in to the hatred and bitterness that could so easily consume him. He chooses otherwise.

Not only did he turn the tide in the war, saving Feyre and Elain's life;

Not only did he resurrect Rhys - the man who took so much from him;

But above all else, he wished for Feyre to "be happy."

Yet, despite all of this, although most other characters got their happily ever after, Tamlin now roams around the decimated Spring Court. He stays in his beast form, as if he doesn't even feel worthy of being fae - of his humanity. Tamlin is depressed, and very alone. He has always been alone.

To me, his character can be summarised by this quote;

"I sat with my anger long enough, until he told me his real name was grief."

Tamlin's redemption.

Some believe that Tamlin deserves no redemption. That instead, he is better off dead. However, I think that sends a rather grim message to the myriad of people who suffer in the same way that Tamlin does.

To those who externalise their pain, rather than internalise it. To those who were never shown love as a child, and therefore struggle to display it as an adult. To those who were hurt by the people they trusted most, so they hurt others in return. To those who still hold onto guilt over their past. To those who try to be a better person, but still feel like a failure deep down.

That doesn't mean that Tamlin's past actions should be excused, or even forgiven, But, just like every other character, it does mean he should have the chance to heal.

In her most recent interview, SJM says it herself; that no character is doomed to be an "asshole" forever, and that any day you could choose to wake up and be a better person - to live a better life.

A fairytale ending.

Ultimately, ACOTAR was inspired by Beauty and the Beast, and Tamlin is the perfect personification of the Beast. Not just for his shapeshifting form, as we came to believe in the first book. But rather, just as the Beast in the fairytale was a man haunted by his past mistakes, so too is Tamlin.

Yet, as the tale goes, the Beast's once hardened exterior begins to melt away, and he is able to look towards the world with kindness. To love again. To love himself. When this happened, the enchanted rose came back to life.

I believe this foreshadows what will occur with Tamlin in future books. As he begins to heal, to find his place in the world, he will blossom.

And, so too will the Spring Court gardens around him - vibrant again, once more.

[sapphire-weapon]

Seriously, what's the deal with the rising purity culture in fandom spaces??? Like, it's not a RE exclusive problem, it's EVERYWHERE, practically in ever fandom I'm in lately. Even when the franchise is explicitly a dark one, people still make such a big deal out of dark fiction. I am not even that old (22), and yet I know dark fiction was always a big part of fandom culture??? People write and draw fucked up things. Fucking mlp dark fics were my bread and butter in my teen years. It's gotten so bad, you can't even create stuff with all the tags and warnings in place. Like, Jesus Christ, if the person tags their shit appropriately, why are you even throwing a fit about it? And if they don't tag their work, just let them know without acting like a high-school bully. I'm just tired, man. Creating used to be about having fun, not trying to make sure your content is appropriate enough to avoid getting dogpiled. I feel especially bad for young creators just starting out in fandom spaces :(

people don't fucking understand how twisted and hypocritical their mindset is about it.

"reading or writing rape or incest fic means you condone it"

okay well you're saying that in RE fandom. RE, a series about characters who are either law enforcement or military or both.

so if reading dark fic means you condone the content in the fic

does that mean that playing RE means you condone the actions of law enforcement?

RE glorifies military service and law enforcement. so, by playing and enjoying it, you are contributing to the glorification of military service and law enforcement, and you must be doing that because you agree with the actions these institutions take. that's what you're saying?

that must be what you're saying, right?

no? then why is dark fic different? oh, it only applies to topics that you personally don't like? oh, okay.

you know, this is how fucking stupid those people sound.

[tobi-draws]

Quick rant about Jax from The Amazing Digital Circus

I genuinely do not understand fans who loved Jax in episode one, but hate him now that episode 2 is out.

"Oh, but he was so mean to Gangle."

Yeah. He's a mean character. He was mean in the first episode too. You don't have to like him, but I just don't understand the switch up.

"But why is he so mean to Gangle specifically?"

Because she's an easy target. The other members of the circus self advocate a lot more than she does. Even though he bullies them too, it's with a lot more of an equal standing. Personally Jax and Ragatha give off sibling vibes for this reason in my opinion. Gangle however, does not self advocate, so she's a lot easier for Jax to subdue and control.

That moves me to my next point. Jax likes control. He likes having control over a situation, and he likes having control of others. And to be fair, I think anyone would be desperate for control if they were stuck in a rainbow digital purgatory, with everything being controlled by the whims of an Ai with no understanding of actual human emotions.

I'm not condoning Jax's behavior, but to be honest, it makes sense from a psychological standpoint. And also, to be honest, if I was stuck in tadc, I'd either abstract, or I'd turn into either Kinger or Jax. Seriously. I'd either abstract, or I'd decened into a level of madness that wasn't me excepting the hopelessness of the situation, and end up wacky like Kinger, or I'd become an absolute asshole as a desperate attempt for control. It's wrong, but also, I'm not gonna judge too much. I've never been stuck in digital purgatory.

And that leads me to yet another point. It's not just a control thing. I'm not gonna try to get people to rationalize Jax's actions, so people will like him. He's still a sadist. He enjoys other people's suffering... to an extent. I don't think he wants anything truly bad to happen to the other humans, partially because he'd lose his entertainment, and partially because I do feel like he cares about them to some extent. My reason for believing the second one, is due to that split second where Jax looks genuinely sad about the funeral. Though, if I remember correctly, he didn't go to the funeral. So how much he cares is iffy, but I do think he does care.

But that's just a theory. A game theory. B)

So basically all this was a long winded way of saying, I really love Jax as a character. He's an asshole in a way that amuses me, and he has enough layers to keep me invested in his character, even when he does fucked up shit. I want to know why he's like this. I want to know if it's just because of the circus, or if he'd be fucked up even without it. I'm very excited to see where this goes.

I just wish people didn't see a character that's an obviously bad person, start liking that character, and then get upset when the character does bad things. Jax is a dick. He's gonna do bad things. You don't have to like him, but you shouldn't be surprised when he does fucked up stuff. It's Jax.

[sehtoast]

How are you able to like Homelander and not condone his actions at the same time, without feeling crappy? This sounds accusing but I’m asking bc I’m struggling with it. I know ppl who do the same with characters, but I’ve had an unwelcome fixation on him come out of nowhere and I feel sick and guilty bc I feel like everyone will think I’m some kind of freak or something. I’m very much anti-sa and other gross stuff esp as a victim but I still feel like I’m being hypocritical or something. I’m sorry for the weird message but I feel like I’m losing my mind

The short answer is that he’s fictional.  Think of… I dunno, an antagonist in media of a different form (let’s go with anime).  I was a naruto kid growing up, so let’s use Orochimaru for an example.  My guy was on some fuck shit through the entire show. Snatching bodies, murkin’ Hokages, wild experiments, all that shit with Sasuke, and so on.  People still liked him regardless because he was a cool character despite the bad things he’s done.  Some people may have even found him relatable in certain ways.  I feel like it’s the same concept here.

You don’t have to feel bad about enjoying fictional characters, no matter how awful they may be.  At the end of the day, they’re fictional and their actions have harmed nobody in real life.  Their actions may mirror that which does harm real people, but they themselves have not dealt real harm to real people.  Enjoying them does not mean you condone their actions.

I’m also extremely anti-SA, and am a victim of it myself, but I still find a lot of love and appreciation for Homelander’s character– but this isn’t hypocritical.  My love for him doesn’t come from the fact he has perpetrated that act, nor should it come from that.  I love him as a character with the bottom line that he is… extremely complex.  

I’ve said it for years now, but I think Homelander is a compelling tale of the dangers of commodifying the human soul.  He is an example of how awful someone can turn out if you deprive them of humanity with the goal of creating a product.  People are not products, we are not a means to an end, and we certainly should never be treated that way. He was, and this is how he turned out.  He’s a take on the cyclical nature of trauma in a lot of really interesting ways as well.

I find him relatable from a standpoint of my own traumas and being transgender.  Episode four of s4 revealed that I have a jarring amount of trauma that mirrors his own to some capacity.  I’ve always suspected these things, and I’ve had headcanons since the first season, and having them confirmed reminded me just how much I’ve latched onto this character because of it.  Homelander experienced some degree of sexual abuse in the labs– and I wager there may have been worse than simply being called ‘squirt.’ Homelander was subjected to physical torture and locked in a room where his mind slowly fractured, all while being conditioned to never seek escape otherwise he’d be too devastated from disappointing the scientists or losing their ‘love.’ 

I have experienced SA, I was locked in my room with nothing as punishment (my 'bad room'), had very little privacy and next to no access to boundaries as a kid, I was put through physical pain very often by a sibling (my furnace), I was reared and conditioned to have a fear of disappointing others so severe it made my blood pressure drop into the danger zone a couple times as a kid– and still has similar effects as an adult.  I’d literally pass out, have panic/anxiety attacks, vomit, etc.  I also know what it’s like, as a trans man, to have been raised and reared for a life that was designed for me, but was not me.  I was lucky enough to find my way to the person I needed to be; Homelander has not and likely will not ever be able to do so.  In all of the aforementioned, I have a lot of empathy and compassion for him that combines with my fascination with his complexity.  There were a lot of things in my life that should have pushed me down the road to be an awful person, much like the things in his life did. But I had a handful of people to guide me toward better things.  He didn’t.

But I see myself in there nonetheless. Homelander was the first time I ever saw so much of my own trauma on display in a single character.  I’d love to hug the man and tell him he’s enough, show him the humanity he was and continues to be denied, and so on.  When I realized that means that I would, in turn, do that for myself if I only viewed myself through a lens that wasn’t my own, my life changed.  This character changed my life.  I know I thirst-post about him a lot, but my love for Homie runs a lot deeper than just finding him attractive, you feel?

A fictional character doesn’t have to be one of moral high ground or superiority for it to be okay for you to enjoy them.  You can enjoy characters who commit horrible acts. This does not make you someone who condones horrible acts.  I was initially pretty embarrassed to admit I like Homelander as much as I do, but I slowly realized that it does not make me a bad person and it should never be used as a gauge to find out how ‘moral’ someone is or not.  People like Hannibal Lecter, people like Thomas Hewitt, Joffrey, Albert Wesker, Cletus Kasady– any number of fictional characters who have an ugly record or have done horrific things.  We do not assume someone is evil because they like Hannibal, nor should we do the same for people who like Homelander.

At the end of the day, do what makes you happy. If exploring Homie is something you would have fun with, do it! Engage in media, learn tales of caution and tragedy– stories make us human.  You are not inhuman for enjoying Homelander and his tale.  In fact, I would argue you are very human because of it.

[myths-tournaments]

Awful Characters Round 1 Part 2 (8/8)

Propaganda under the cut!

HISOKA MOROW

He's genuinely (unfortunately) a really cool character and good villain imo, and his character design SLAPS!! He's very entertaining onscreen and even though he's REALLY weird and creepy and I don't condone anything he does I can't help but love his character. I also love his voice and his REALLY GOOD character song. In a character tournament I saw some people saying in the tags that people who like him are "not to be trusted" and kinda saying people who like him are bad. That made me feel kinda not great tbh. I must keep reminding myself that HE IS NOT REAL and it is OKAY TO LIKE HIM!!!! I can like the guy while also understanding that he sucks and his actions are bad!

Why I like this character: He’s a fantastic villain, his character design rocks, his theme song is excellent, he’s funny, he’s unhinged, he has hips for days, and he has a glowing boner. Why he deserves to be in this tournament: He’s, uh, like, kind of an actual pedophile. Like, he’s specifically aroused by powerful opponents, but one of the sources of that is the protagonist who’s like 12. So. Yeah. …Also he regularly kills people, I guess. Have you seen twitter users calling their fans bad people: No but I’ve seen tumblr users do it, if that counts.

He's popular in the fandom but also you WILL get called problematic by tiktok teens for liking him. Like yeah,, I get it,, but liking his character doesn't mean I condone his… less than savory behaviors. This clown is still hot and charismatic and very skilled with nen how can I Not enjoy when he's on screen?

ELIAS BOUCHARD

He manipulates the main character consistently, makes a character cry by telling him how much he looks like his dad, forces the knowledge of her father's dearh into a different characters head and ends the world through aformentioned manipulation of the main character

(this is about jonah!elias to be clear, og!elias is a different character) i love him so much he's so much fun but i'm not very open about it because he's the main villain and some people are very weird about it,,,, i have seen people say he's a personification of capitalism and if you like him you support capitalism or you didn't get the point of tma (which is just wrong, tma is vaguely a metaphor for capitalism yes but also for a lot of other things and elias isn't even a capitalist he runs a non-profit?) so many people call him homophobic or racist (because he's technically from the 1800s) and say if you like him you're a bad person but there are literally no canon basis for that at all (plus. he's literally a fictional character) i have actually seen a parody of the miku binder thing with elias to say that people who like him are just like people who woobify jefferson. which. what. you'd think people would latch on to the brutal pipe murder or the eye gouging that lead to body possession for his quest to be immortal or the constant manipulation to call him a terrible person but no apparently?? (or the. y'know. literally ending the world)

[winns-stuff]

Two things:

1 a. I don't think kidding someone's feet automatically equals foot fetish. If you have someone a kiss on the shoulder doors that mean you have a shoulder fetish?

1 b. Even if he does, that didn't automatically make him evil or a creep. Kinks and fetishes are not moral indicators and acting like they do is juvenile. It might not be for you, or even make you uncomfortable, and that's okay. Live and let live.

2. I don't think it's fair to call Persephone a homewrecker when:

a. Minthe and Hades were not exclusive. Minthe was sleeping with Thanatos - Hades' adoptive son - and Hades was sleeping with Hera anyway.

b. Minthe was emotionally, verbally, and physically abusive to Hades. I feel like everyone forgets that she literally hit him. He shouldn't have been in that relationship anyways.

Okay first off, I’m sorry if I made it seem like I was kinkshaming at all. I was honestly just joking about that comparison and one of the main reasons why I said that it reminded me of Dan Schneider and that I was repulsed was because of the “creepy” aspect of it being placed in there, it was around the end that the person said that the kink seemed like it was only given to creepy guys. I don’t care about kinks genuinely and trust me I do mind my business when it comes to those things, again my apologies if I did come off immature.

But you’re right, his kink doesn’t make him a creep but the fact that he literally is creepy, manipulative, and an overall messed up person makes him a little bit more warranted for those kinds of comments since that’s literally how he represents himself in the comic. Hades is a slave owning, hypocritical, child neglecting, abusive, and overall tyrant to everyone who’s not kissing his ass and it’s not me exaggerating it’s literally just how he is that’s him as a person overall.

And I do think it is fair to call Persephone a homewrecker based on the very fact that they were seeing each other and breaking a lot of boundaries after Hades and Minthe officially made it official. Mind you, it was Hades who wanted to close the open relationship so yeah now seeing other people and touching them beyond the appropriate interaction between an employee and boss especially is now inappropriate and not something that you can just wave the “we’re not in a closed relationship” card at. Also, by definition Persephone was one of the sole reasons that Minthe and Hades broke up since Minthe started noticing just how overly affectionate they became with each other while working so yes, she is a homewrecker. She broke a home and please don’t comment by saying “there was never a home in the first place” because there was, you can’t just give homewrecking and emotional cheating a pass because you don’t like the character they still had history.

Also, trust me when I say no one forgets that Minthe hits him. Every single time I post about Minthe I make sure to acknowledge the fact that I don’t condone her actions and actually a lot of critics do as well since there’s a lot of people like you (not saying this in a bad way by the way) that do believe that many people are Minthe stans every time you discuss her without stating that fact. But even though yes, it was a fairly toxic relationship on both sides and they should’ve broke up much sooner like I said before there was still a relationship there that they were both in. It’s still emotional cheating and homewrecking on Hades and Persephone’s part, also Persephone doesn’t even know how Minthe treated Hades she just never cared about her feelings to begin with and pursued her boyfriend basically.

Also last thing but do you know what slap everyone does tend to forget a lot? Hecate when she slapped the ever loving shit out of Hades, now I’m not saying since that happened just forget about Minthe’s behavior at all but I am saying that we should all react to that slap the same. We all agree that it’s never okay to put your hands on someone so why should we condone it when it’s not Minthe?

[theerurishipper]

I have been thinking about your no kill rule post and how Batman is criticized for it. I wonder if it is because he is deeply passionate about the no kill rule, but not under every writer.

In Batman: The Hill he says to Gordon over him feeling bad about killing a black 14 year old: "Don't be sorry. That boy was armed and dangerous. He died trying to commit murder."

Batman: The Hill only came out in 2000, only 5 years before Batman: Under the Hood which isn't a huge number of years when it comes to comics. In Batman: Under the Hood he screams in horror at the death of Captain Nazi and slices his son's throat to protect the Joker.

Jason is not a Bat at this time so it becomes why is the GCPD killing black teenagers okay but Red Hood killing white supervillains not okay. Captain Nazi was trying to kill them at the time. The Joker is a mass murderer. What makes the killing of these people less defensible to Batman?

The Doylist answer is arguably different writers but the Watsonian is him holding his kids to incredibly high standards compared to Gordon and the GCPD. He's not even upset with Gordon but he will beat Jason over this stuff (RHATO 25 (I think)). (and yes Batman was nearby when the kid was shot in Batman: The Hill)

My interpretation of Batman comes down to this: Batman won't kill. He will never condone killing. I've never read the comic you mentioned (and from what you've mentioned I don't think I ever will), but I cannot see Batman telling someone that it was fine that they killed, especially a child. It goes against everything he stands for. Batman is about rehabilitation and second chances and especially about helping the downtrodden. For him to comfort Gordon over killing a child, someone who probably is not a hardened criminal, is grossly against everything he stands for.

I don't think Batman has separate standards when it comes to his kids and Gordon. If he truly thought that it wasn't a big deal if the GCPD killed people, Batman wouldn't exist. One of the reasons he decided to become Batman was because the police force was corrupt. So, for him to excuse Gordon's actions is OOC. Maybe he takes it a little more personally when a kid of his does something like that, but his rule is very consistent across the board, and he will not comfort someone who killed by saying it's fine that they did it, especially if it was a child.

In my most generous interpretation, I don't think Batman would beat Gordon up about it, especially because Gordon is already regretful of what he did, and Batman believes in second chances. The thing with Jason is different because Jason wasn't regretful, he was actively trying to kill the Joker, and Bruce had to stop him. But for Bruce to say that the kid had it coming? That's wildly OOC. It goes against everything he stands for. This is the man who brought the Joker back to life because he was so strongly principled. There is no way he would stand there and say that shit about the death of a 14-year-old.

The Watsonian explanation for this is pretty much non-existent imho. Sometimes, the only explanation is the writers and that's it. I mean, Batman is no stranger to having writers who have wildly different interpretations of him side-by-side. Look at Frank Miller who, during the time when Batman was actually kind of lighthearted, decided to shit out the edgelord fantasy that was the Dark Knight Returns. I personally blame Frank Miller for everything that is wrong with Batman's characterization today. There is no way to reconcile that with the characterization of Batman that existed at the time, even if it wasn't exactly in the main continuity.

For characters like Batman who have existed for years and have had a variety of different writers, some of whom have shitty opinions about Batman and in general (Frank Miller), sometimes there are going to be stories that are so wildly OOC that you can't reconcile with the character. This seems like one of them.

Thank you for your ask!

[thenamessparkplug]

The Bad, The Worse, and The Downright Idiotic

A Wiatt Nicholson Analysis

YOU GUYS HAVE NO IDEA HOW LONG I HAVE WAITED TO VERBALLY KILL THIS DUDE. I HAVE BEEN STRANGLING HIM WITH MY MIND SINCE THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING. AND THIS IS WHY.

DISCLAIMERS!! : One, I have absolutely nothing against any of the writers on this show! You all are doing a fantastic job for how small this series is and I do genuinely adore the work you guys do < 3. Second, I want to make it clear that I do not condone anything Sara has done on her own terms. And she has done bad things on her own terms. She has done horrible things and I do not think that should be brushed under the rug. I do, however, believe her to be redeemable. 

(side note I did get a lil sidetracked when talking about sara, whom I also have strong feelings towards and'll prolly get her own rant in the future)

What has Wiatt done?

Now Wiatt seems to have his heart in the right place, however good intentions hardly amount to much when your actions directly cause death, suffering, and irreversible damage.  

He can’t tell that so much of what’s going on is because Litho knows he’s going to lead people directly into his own plans. This especially became evident in the last episode. Did he not remember the risks of anything relating to Litho?? Why on earth would he think it was safe for Pen, Lisa, or even Hayden whom narrowly survived? 

I know by this point to take everything character’s say with a grain of salt (and I know this isn’t directly Wiatt’s fault either), but I really wanna get into what Hayden said while yelling at Wiatt. He states that since he arrived at dreamworld, someone has gone missing every week. Wiatt has worked here for at least a year. Even considering taking a month off for the collapse fiasco, that is 47 weeks. 47 people. THAT IS INSANE. Even cutting that number in half for hyperbole’s sake that’s still 23 missing people since Wiatt started. Jesus christ man. 

What else has he done? He broke Starlight after recklessly jumping into a hole, got wtdw!rainbott seemingly mindwiped, recorded entirely private and frankly unrelated moments and UPLOADED them, been responsible for the deaths of his coworkers (to name a few anyways), and what does he have to show for it? A police station that thinks he’s insane. He couldn’t possibly have been more tactless trying to convince them to begin an investigation. 

It seems he thinks that because the people he’s against are bad, that automatically makes him good - in the right - but he is so blinded by his sense of a binary wrong and right he fails to see the horrible things he himself has caused. 

Against the Antagonist

I wanna talk about Sara for a second. From what we’ve learned thus far, and I know we haven’t gotten all that many Sara scenes, almost all of what Sara does seems to be attempting to clean up a mess she made many years ago, in comparison to Wiatt who does absolutely nothing but stir the pot.

Sara is stuck here; she is bound to Litho and cannot escape no matter how hard she wants to. She had friends. She’s doing what Litho wants because she has to. We saw what happened when she tried to defy him. Wiatt is only here because of one connection, but could literally leave whenever he wants no harm no foul.

Now the Norman thing I am curious about, because so far, I can’t figure out why 1. she killed him in the first place and certainly 2. why she kept the footage of it. She never seemed to hate Norman, if anything she would be against him for clearly being infatuated with Andrew, and I can’t really blame her for that? I mean nothing is enough to justify murder, but it wouldn’t be in cold blood. I’m also assuming this is before Dreamworld Entertainment due to the fact that Norman seemingly had no involvement. Another odd thing not only was he rebuilt to look exactly like he did when he was alive, but he retained all of his memories as well, and was given a higher power among the staff of Watchful Eye Toys, with memory control himself.

Whatever happened during his death must have been important.

But back to Wiatt. All of Sara actions, albeit terrible, were calculated and she did what she believed was necessary. Wiatt has no concept that his actions have consequences, so all he does is messy things up, making everything far worse than it needed to be.

Why should I care? (Comparison to Eric)

At the very beginning when Eric is first introduced, we are given no reason to care at all about him. I mean, we know he was friends with Lewis but that’s not enough to really grow any attachment to him. We start learning little facts about him, but when it really clicks is during the secret tapes.

Seeing Eric outside of the main plot, his real personality, his hopes, his dreams, his struggles starting from a young age up until how he is today. We’re given the chance to build connections with him and see him as a real person, a character with depth. Knowing his motivations and what built him makes it so easy to grow extremely attached, making any horrific things hit much harder.

Now moving back to Wiatt, we really don’t get to see the real him. We see him once interacting with Lewis, but even that was simply for plot relevance. We really know nothing about him. Even his transition, which would be so easy to capitalize on seeing as the viewership of Dreamworld is highly LGBTQ+, and many people would relate. But we get more about Mike’s transition than Wiatt, and he’s only ever had one real scene as himself.

That’s not even dipping into who Wiatt is as a person. What are his passions? Who are his loved ones outside of just Lewis? What was school like for him? What got him into the mechanic business? Who took care of him after his parents died? I understand this can be hard to smoothly integrate into a story but look how well it worked with Eric’s tapes.

Now this is getting much more into the writing side of the show, but I think something that's kind of lacking is character building filler. As much as having a concise plot is nice, without scenes or even full episodes dedicated to fleshing out our cast, it makes it really difficult to connect.

There’s so so much of his character to explore that we just never get into, and it kinda makes it hard to root for him when there’s nothing backing his character. Just like, a few more tapes of Wiatt would be plenty, something outside of Lewis. I would love to see his relationships with other characters (you cannot build a sense of character off one single relationship), how he views himself, just anything.

Its incredibly difficult to analyze a character when they seemingly have no depth.

In Conclusion

I am not a fan of Wiatt as it currently is (understatement of the year), but good god am I persuadable. I just want Dreamworld to give me a reason to root for him. Something to sympathize with, relate to. Have him improve. Allow him to realize his mistakes, and become a better person for that.

I don’t think he’s a lost cause.

But give me a reason to believe that.

[alfredsolos]

I don't like how some writers bash or exaggerate the other batkids' behaviour and personalities in order to whumpify their favorite batfam member.

If Dick Grayson is the main character in the fic, then every other batfam member are suddenly incapable of doing the most simplest tasks and ask Dick to help them. He solves every single problem of his family because he is the 'eldest'. And he always puts a smile on his face and let's them treat him like shit.

Yes, it is true that Dick has more responsibility compared to his siblings. Not because he is the eldest; but because he has to keep an entire city safe all by himself, mentor teen sidekicks, lead the Titans, go on missions with the JL and so on. And he does this not because he has to, but because he wants to.

Also he may be more emotionally open than rest of his siblings, but thats just it. Compared to his siblings. Nightwing says puns and jokes yeah, but he is not at all can be classified as emotionally vulnurable. Dick led and mentored so many teams, and you can't do that while being light hearted and smiley all the time.

Dick is serious and firm when needed to. He doesn't baby any of his siblings (especially Damian), or act like an angel all the time. He has anger management issues and does not take bullshit from anyone. Not even his family.

He lives in Bludhaven to get away from the craziness that is Gotham. He loves his family, but he simply does not have the patience to deal with them all the time.

When the fic is about Jason, most of the plot is about him being dead and how Bruce betrayed him by replacing him. That Dick threw him in Arkham and everyone treats him like a monster.

Well firstly, Jason is not all about his death. He doesn't really bring it up unless he wants to make a point to Bruce.

Jason doesn't hate Tim because he replaced him. Jason hates Bruce, for taking in another Robin when the first one actively get murdered because of it. He beat Tim up to prove to him and Bruce that taking in a child, and making him his partner is seriously wrong. Jason hates the idea of kids becoming soldiers for a war they didn't start.

Another point is that after Jason came back from the dead, he wasn't an anti-hero. He was a full on villain that tried to kill most of the Batfamily. And no I'm not talking about him beating Tim up in the Titans tower (It was to send a message to Bruce) or cutting his throat (which he didn't. It was a small scratch):

I'm talking about Battle for the Cowl, when he beat Tim up badly because he refused to be his Robin. Jason thought Tim was dead at the end of their fight (Tim slowed down his heartbeat). And this is his reaction:

And yet again in Battle for the Cowl, he shot Damian. Which resulted him getting more than 70 stitches:

Also this was his reaction when a nuclear powered supervillain blew up Bludhaven:

He poisoned 82 inmates while 'Dick sent poor Jason into prison :('

Now does this mean Jason is a bad character? Fuck no! Infact he is one of my favorite characters. Jason is such an interesting character and sometimes you can't help but condone his mistakes no matter how bad they are. Even I do this.

So what I mean is that, we should stop babying him and see him as the flawed character he is. Every single character has their own flaws and that's what makes them special.

Jason was a hero, then a villain, then an anti-hero, then again a hero.

Also he doesn't get pit episodes. The only time he got one was right after getting out of the pit. Lazarus pit did not made him violent and it's not the blame for Jason's past actions. Jason was awake and aware of the things he did. And he feels guilty. But he learned to forgive. Both himself and Bruce.

Our next member is Tim Drake. Fanon Tim Drake is a coffee addict, he is thin and small, is quiet and doesn't believe he is apart of the family. Dick stole Robin from him and gave it to 'evil and cruel' Damian who bullies him every time they interact. Jason always calls him replacement and threatens to kill him most of the time. Dick is a monster that tried to lock him up in Arkham.

God I cringed writing this. Anyways firstly Tim is, in fact, not a coffee addict. I'd say he is more of a tea person and only drinks coffee to stay awake.

Tim is not short and all skin and bones. He eats properly and is very muscled. Especially around his back and biceps. He is also not short either.

Tim is quiet, yes. But not in a shy way. He is cold and calculative and sometimes a little apathatic. He isn't scared to do what's necessary and is always ready to sacrifice himself for the sake of the mission. He also definitely sees himself apart of the family.

Another really misunderstood point is that Dick took Robin from him, when it was actually Alfred who gave Damian the Robin suit.

Yes, Damian tried to kill him multiple times and it was very traumatising for Tim. But they do get along most of the time. In fact Tim may be the second closest to Damian among the family. Because no matter what happens he loves his little brother. As it was shown when he hallucinated and hugged Damian after he died.

Jason and him may be at odds from time to time, but Jason gets along with him more than most of his siblings.

And Dick most certainly did not try to put him in Arkham. Bruce was dead and Dick saw Tim. How devastated he was, so he offered him to get therapy. Like a good brother would do.

Last but not least is Damian. I think most of the time Damian centric fics manage to represent him properly. But let's start with the ones that are the most cliche-d and wrongly written.

Damian talks the Queen's British and is spoiled. Dick Grayson is his actual father and Bruce always insults him. He trains all day and goes to patrol at night. He hates his mother, always gets his ass handed to him in a fight. Tim Drake treats him horribly and everyone calls him Demon or Demon Brat. Jason is the best brother in the world and him and Dick always protect him from Bruce's wrath. Alfred annoyes him and Damian doesn't really care about him. All of his personality is summed up with: "Yes, Father."

In actuality, Damian is most of the time sassy or straight up mocking. He uses slangs and isn't scared of disrespecting Ra's or Talia and Bruce (in fact he may be enjoying it a little).

Dick Grayson is in fact not his father figure. That title belongs to Alfred, who was always there whenever he needed him.

Damian plays video games and his favorite one is cheese vikings.

He also loves his mother and forgives her even through all does horrible things she does to him. He is most likely conditioned to feel that way. Because it's not normal to treat someone normally after they murder you. He is also an exceptionally good fighter.

Tim Drake is possibly his second closest sibling. They banter and fight sometimes, yes. But they still very much care for each other. When Tim was thought to be dead, Damian was shown to be holding his bo staff and mourning.

Him and Jason were never close. Jason tried to kill him and so did Damian. They don't know each other well and Damian does not want to; since at the time he was Robin, Jason was a villain that actively tried to hurt him and Dick.

I don't think anyone ever called him a Demon Brat. Or if they did it was probably like one time, since I couldn't find any panels that refer to him that way.

Damian is the most rebellious and hot headed Robin. He doesn't shy from saying what wants or stepping up to Bruce. In fact those two are the ones who fight the most in the family. Even more than Tim and Damian.

And Bruce doesn't always insult or bench him. He just straight up ignores him or his needs and always puts him in second.

There are obviously way more than these, but I'll stop for today. No hate to the creators, this is just my own opinion.

[anti-katsuki-lounge]

Y'know... I wish people would understand that fiction is just that- fiction- and you're allowed to engage with it and enjoy it as you see fit (with certain boundaries, of course.) You're allowed to enjoy evil characters, taboo topics, disgustingly rotten premises as you see fit in fiction because it is just that- fiction. It's a safe way to experiment with something because it doesn't actually involve you. Enjoying disturbing media does not mean that you condone those actions IRL. At. All.

That's why tags and trigger warnings exist. That's why tags like "tw:toxic relationship" or "tw:abuse" or more explicit tags exist.

The difference between fans who enjoy and peruse such media and toxic bkg stans (specifically the toxic ones or just the naive ones, shh) is that the former are aware of the situation and their involvement, but the latter are either very naive and/or delusional tbh.

Stans like the latter firmly believe that bkg is genuinely means the people around him no harm and cares deep down inside. They are completely convinced by what is told to them instead of what is shown. It's people like these that genuinely believe bkdk is canon, that hori will make it happen and will align the fucking stars with their bare hands and hold your unborn children hostage in an attempt to convince you that it's a healthy relationship. It's not. It's not. It's really not.

bkg is a bully. He is crass, he is rude, he's downright cruel and insanely selfish. He's borderline narcissistic (I don't like to throw around that word and diminish it, but it's the truth.) He hurt Izuku with the intention of hurting Izuku. He found pleasure in it. He found pleasure in it, god. Hurting Izuku made him happy. Hurting Izuku made him feel confident, superior. Would you do that to your loved ones lmao?

I've met bkdks who go "yeah that's fucked up but I kinda like it" and?? That's so cool?? If you saw him irl you'd bury him, you understand that it's toxic but you enjoy the spice and that's okay! It's great that you understand that boundary!

And then I've met bkdks like dekachhan lmfaoo 😭

I swear they're a hivemind, this one person argued with me for four hours even though I told them I didn't want to engage any further within the first twenty minutes. When I blocked them on one acc they literally contacted me with another. And a third. A third. Who DOES that 💀

Who has the patience for that shit? And all to tell me bkdk is healthy?

When I compared the fuck to endeavour they defended him too because Rei apparently tripped?? What the fuck is going on?? I'm genuinely so confused

I say this sincerely- if you like toxic characters and are down bad for them, that is entirely, entirely your prerogative! Read that smut, write those fics, peruse all those tags. Discuss those things with other people who feel the same way you do as long as they're not too young and they consent to it- genuinely, if you wanna fuck endy bkg, fantasize all you want. Do it in fiction. You wanna write dreadfully toxic fics? Do it! Your prerogative!

Just stay in your fucking lane, your goddamn tags and don't harass people. You're h*rny, that's fine, stop making it everyone else's problem, sheesh.

All of this. Like I’ve said before, if you like a character for whatever reason, that’s completely valid. There are toxic and evil characters I like. The issue is when you try to force your beliefs onto other people or are so disillusioned by your headcanons that you can’t tell the difference between canon and fiction.

[sapphic-agent]

What a lot of Finn Hudson fans/defenders/apologists don't understand is that it isn't just about the outing.

Don't misunderstand, him outing Santana was fucking terrible. It was a shitty thing to do and there's no excusing it.

But for me, 3x07 will always be worse than 3x06.

I've said this before, but everyone in Glee is awful and everyone does shitty things. But what matters here is framing and execution.

Take Rachel sending Sunshine to the crack house, for example. You are NOT supposed to be on Rachel's side. Her actions are called out by everyone- even Schue and Finn who usually let her get away with her shit- and this is the focal point of her changing her behavior the rest of the season.

The show, even in its satirical phase, made the effort to stress that Rachel did a bad thing and it shouldn't be brushed over or justified.

Hell even compare it to the f*ggy scene in season 1. The show makes it clear that not only is Finn using the slur not justified, it makes the effort to address the fact that he has prejudices he wasn't aware of. He tolerated Kurt being gay, he didn't accept it. His arc that season was acknowledging that and making the effort to fix it.

Now, compare that to IKAG.

The show goes out of its way to excuse Finn outing Santana. We all saw why he did it in 3x06, he did it out of retaliation. He deliberately did it to be cruel to her because she was mean to him, the consequences of doing so never even crossed his mind because he didn't care enough.

But for some reason, 3x07 tries its damn hardest to convince us that he did it because he cares about her. That he was so afraid of her dying that he absolutely had to force her out of the closet and strongarm her into "accepting" herself. Mind you, in this episode he proceeded to blackmail her even further out of the closet under the guise of doing her a favor.

Finn was downright vile in IKAG, yet the show is bending over backwards to make him seem heroic. No one called him out and everyone was on his side (except Brittany, but they couldn't even have her say anything against him). Not only is this deplorable, it's also contradictory with what he saw in the previous episode. Almost like the writers realized that they had made Finn come off more spiteful than they meant to and scrambled to do damage control the next episode.

Listen, nothing could have made what he did better. But if they wanted to salvage any of Finn's character, they should have had him, at the very least, admit what he did was shitty and show even an ounce of regret. That would have made him a character that had the potential to be better.

(Hell, that's even what they did with Santana. She, if anyone recalls, always got called out. Season 2 was all about her behavior not being condoned or rewarded. Her name-calling in season 3 is also framed as antagonistic, even Mercedes and Brittany tell her to chill. So defending Finn by saying "well Santana's a bully🤓" amounts to nothing because Santana's actions aren't being framed positively like his constantly are)

In conclusion, fuck Finn Hudson all my homies hate Finn Hudson