#WE ARE NORMAL AND HAVE NORMAL DISCUSSIONS LIKE ACTUALLY

[anthropwashere]

THIS but fucking. MBTI. When I was still in the Air Force my... hell, I don't remember his position name. I'm so happy to realize I've brain dumped so much military minutiae after only three years out. Anyway. My supervisor's supervisor. This Master Sergeant (MSgt) was OBSESSED with MBTI. It was literally the first conversation I had with him when he took the position and was doing the rounds to meet all of us. We were working for a 3-letter agency AND working outside our unit in an almost wholly civilian org on top of that, so thankfully we didn't work in the same office, but good christ he took potshots at ANYBODY he ASSUMED was one flavor of alphabet soup or another that he didn't "agree with."

He did, for whatever it's worth, correctly guess my flavor of alphabet soup (I have never ever been able to remember or care what my MBTI is, it's fucking alphabet soup, leave me alone) after a 5-minute conversation. He also, however, failed to notice my far more aggressive and obvious extremely mentally and physically unwell signs thanks to my miserable recent divorce and far more miserable unfolding chronic illnesses that were going to end up with me getting a whole-ass 100% disability rank/pay with Veteran's Affairs and insisted on visiting my shit-ass cubicle EVERY. FUCKING. DAY. to CHAT. USUALLY DISCUSSING FUCKING THE MBTI OF VARIOUS OTHER DUDES IN OUR CHAIN OF COMMAND (COC). THAT I BARELY KNEW THE NAMES OF. NEVER MIND WHAT THEY LOOKED LIKE OR WHO THEY WERE AS LIKE. ACTUAL DUDES. BECAUSE. I MUST STRESS AGAIN. WE WORKED IN A MOSTLY CIVILIAN ORG. SO 90% OF THE MIL FOLK IN OUR COC DIDN'T WORK ANYWHERE NEAR ME. TO THE POINT WHERE I LITERALLY DIDN'T HAVE THE DOOR CODES TO ACCESS WHERE THEY WORKED. AND THE OTHER 10% DID LIKE. ACTUAL INTEL SHIT IN OTHER OFFICES I HAD RARELY ANY REASON TO EVER ENTER. AND THE ONES I DID HAVE REASON TO ENTER WITH MILITARY FOLK IN THEM WERE USUALLY FUCKING INSUFFERABLE. AND I AVOIDED THEM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SO. I DID NOT. FUCKING KNOW. WHO HE WAS. EVER!!! TALKING!!! ABOUT!!!!!

Hngh. This is why I try not to think of those awful fucking 5 years of my life. I get caps-lock-y about it. Sorry.

Anyway, this motherfucker like. Trauma bonded? To me? Because of his also miserable recent divorce? And he wanted to fuck me SO HARD while also endlessly ranting to me about MBTI horseshit 60% of every conversation we had (the other 40% and his otherwise normal behavior did actually meet me compatibly on the Normal Human Scale and we got on well, and also he was my supervisor's supervisor so like, I had to be somewhat respectful of his stupid MSgt rank). It was an exhausting fucking. What. 8 months? A full year? MBTI this. MBTI that. Etc. Etc. Etc. ETC.!!!!!!

Anyway the SECOND I said "asexual" he entirely quit talking to me entirely, so I guess that's something.

Secondary anyway birthstone-obsessed people are wild to me. Us March folks got royally fucked over by boring-ass AQUAMARINE and you expect me to take that stuff seriously? Lol

Thirdly anyway I haven't dealt with any hardcore astrology people since high school, but she was my friend's mom and she and her husband were honestly the best role models in my life at that age? To the point my shit-fucking-terrible mom resented her otherwise a-okay positivity in my life for like? A decade?? Hell, she probably still does. It's wild how many times I had to remind my Chronic Gaslighting Bitch of a mom, "I haven't talked to Betty since I was 18, WHAT are you talking about."

Fourthly anyway shout-out to Civilian Megan (whose spelling variation I can never remember on account of having one of those Normal White American Girl names with 50 spelling variations, even with her full name on a paper name plate) who sat across from me and went out of her way to save me from Awkward Lengthy conversations with MSgt MBTI and SSgt Marvel Movies Nerd every goddamn day, she was a real one and I should probably shoot her a 'hi how are you' message on Steam today

“Bat swinging at wasp nest” post but I cannot be nice about astrology people. No you did not find the one good or cute or quirky way to believe the quality of someone’s character is biologically pre-determined. Just because you found a way to not base it on race or ethnicity or gender does not make judging someone’s character on an innate and uncontrolled attribute suddenly teehee fine.

I’m even more baffled by the people going “it’s just fun!” “It’s just a hobby!!” Sure if it was something harmless. It’s not. We are quite literally talking about how you intend to judge, treat, view, respect, and interact with someone entirely differently based on an inherent trait. How are you not aghast? How are you not embarrassed? Why are you so insistent on needing to operate on a hierarchy of pre-determined character judgement?

[mistresscitrusslice]

The Season 2 Opening. We Must Discuss.

First of all, small beans. Instead of static, lifeless statues, this time we get moving humans. Mel features significantly more than I expected, so she'll probably be a much more major character than I expected for a non-champion character and I'm so happy for her. I believe the use of moving people instead of statues signifies that immense change will be happening. What we thought was literally set in stone in Season 1 will be turned on its head in Season 2.

Okay, on to the really concerning matters.

Yuhuh. Jinx moves too fast for me to get a good screenshot, but she gestures like this around her face a lot. I think we all already know about the Caitlyn-Jinx parallels, but my sister suggests it could be a red herring for the actual resemblances she has to Silco.

Sis gets credit for the following observation, but Caitlyn's daydream sequences about shooting Jinx are controlled and clearly separated from reality unlike Jinx's.

However, sis has not seen ep 2 yet, where Caitlyn does have that moment in the arcade where she shoots her vision of Jinx among the wooden dummies. Not only does this more closely resemble Jinx's hallucinations, it also parallels Jinx shooting the harmless crow in s1 e5. By the time the strike squad are about to leave, she can clearly tell that what she thought might be Jinx was really just a harmless wooden standee. Startling, but harmless. She shoots it anyway.

Caitlyn is totally gonna spiral more, and maybe she'll start losing her grip on reality too, but for now, she has more in common with Silco than she does with Jinx. Did anyone else get reminded of Silco's coat when Ambessa put the supervillain cape on Caitlyn? The collars don't look similar but they still eerily resemble each other, you get me?

Ok back to intro stuff

Vi wipes off her name from her face. That's two tattoos that are rendered impermanent in this opening theme. In the Fenty x Arcane video, they mention that Mel's golden freckles are tattoos. Later in the intro song, we also see her golden freckles gone. Change, impermanence. That seems to be a theme here.

Vi is literally erasing her name from her face. In any normal circumstance, I'd say that means she wants a change of identity, a desire to start over. However, I know that Vi's League lore involves amnesia. Does she really drink herself into that bad of a stupor? Jkjk. I assumed that her amnesia was replaced by the Stillwater imprisonment to explain how she got topside and with the enforcers, but perhaps I was wrong. Maybe they do still intend to go the amnesia or partial amnesia route with her.

The teasers implied that Vi shares the genetic trait that has Jinx predisposed to hallucinations. It's possible that this eventually contributes to her loss of memory, but I wouldn't call it quite yet. However, if this happens during her emo era when I'm assuming she has no support system, she'll be very vulnerable, unlike if it were to happen while she was still partnered with Caitlyn, in which case they could easily fill in most blanks in her memory.

I have no idea what to make of this. It's clear as day what they're paralleling, but why? Why the flashlight scene? My best guess is that they're trying to draw on déjà vu, implying a repetition of history, but why this particular moment? They could've easily chosen anything else in Jayce's s1 arc. He has many more memorable moments than this. Let's see, I'm literally making this up as I go.

This meeting was a pivotal moment for Jayce. Both his meeting with Viktor and his meeting with Mel changed his fate. The Viktor one is pretty self-explanatory, but without meeting Mel, they would've both just gotten exiled or locked up again. With Mel, they had someone in power who could vouch for them.

That begs the question, is Jayce meeting someone new? Or is this a reintroduction to someone he's already known before, a new meeting after a long time apart or after a significant change, maybe a change in them both. I believe it must be someone who was involved in the original hallway scene.

Jayce is either looking at Mel again or at Viktor. Given the amount of Viktor/Mel parallels in Season 1, I believe Jayce is looking at Viktor after he's undergone his likely final evolution. That'll obviously be another pivotal moment for him... but will it be a good one like it was with Mel? Viktor has power now. He's performing miracles. He's, like, two steps away from parting the Pilt River like it's the Red Sea. He seems to hold a grudge against Jayce, though, for *checks notes* saving his life? Jk I know he feels like he's losing autonomy and like Jayce didn't respect his wishes with the Hexcore and Jayce obviously couldn't let Viktor die when he'd fought so hard to stay alive before.

Anyway, I feel like this could easily be both a good omen and a bad omen for Jayce. More than anything, I feel like it'll be an epiphany. He is quite literally seeing the light. The light at the end of the dark tunnel? The light of the heavens at the end of his life? The light of a revelation sent by a god he once knew as a man?

Seeing Mel screaming bloody murder during the opening, this was the first place my mind went to. The pose doesn't match up exactly, and Jinx/Powder's screams are definitely wilder, but I feel like there's definitely something here. Is there anyone else who screams like this, thrusting their head forward and keeping their arms back?

We also see the shadow hands from this earlier shot:

I'm thinking of the Black Rose (is that their name?) kidnapping her in thin air, incorporeal hands reaching at her and snatching my joy the love of my life Mel away. It could also represent people grasping at the power Mel wields, both as the wealthiest Council member and as a Noxian princess, one of the closest people to Ambessa, the one wielding the most power right now.

Mel is really out of her depth right now. Her power and influence is up for grabs if she dares to blink and let her guard down. I'm also surprised that we don't see her fight back at all when there's danger around. I thought she might have more battle experience as she was raised by Ambessa. For those people wondering about her magical powers, I think she would've used them by now if she had them. Council attack aside, which could've been Viktor's magic, she wasn't able to do anything about the memorial attack or her own kidnapping. I think they're trying to show us that Mel is not as untouchable as she presents herself. Under the right circumstances, she's just as vulnerable as any civilian.

The sliver of light? My sister pointed out that it looks just like the crack of light between two double doors. Almost closed... or barely open? It appears in pretty much everyone's shot in the opening, but it's right down the center of Mel's face here. Is she torn between two sides? Is this about an impossible choice she has to make?

The spotlight is also on her. That's two sources of light. It looks like a red sun. All eyes on her as the surviving voice of the Council?

And her expression... shock, fear, horror. The heavy breathing, the look on her face... I feel eerily like I've seen it on someone else before. I can't place who, but I'm getting déjà vu from this. Does anyone else recognize this expression and these mannerisms?

[identitty-dickruption]

ooooh can you elaborate on how the concept of objectivity and truth are rooted in colonialism and imperial structures

I sure can!

okay so first thing to say is that everything I'm about to say has been said better and fancier by Linda Tuhiwai-Smith in her book Decolonising Methodologies. second thing to say is that I am from the school of interpretivism in political science (similar to constructivism in sociology), and we are constantly ridiculed for hating science. third thing to say is that I do not actually hate science

now for the big caveat: I respect science. it can have a lot to offer the world. as a disabled person, I fully understand that I would be dead without science and that science allows me to get cool surgeries etc etc

alright. now for my answer. it comes to you in three parts, because there is a lot of explaining I have to do before I can really get to the root of the matter

'objectivity' is meaningless

the first thing you have to understand is that nothing is free from human interpretation. we understand the world through the language we have for various phenomena that we might view internally or externally from ourselves. the classic example of this is colour, right? colour is 'real', in the sense that there are different light wavelengths that interact with our eyes in certain ways. but it's also 'not real', in that every person on the planet has a different definition of what counts under each colour category. my blue is not your blue. this gets more complex when you consider that some languages have a higher or lower number of colour words than others

if things are that complex when it comes to something like colour, you can bet it gets a lot worse when you're talking about topics that are even more complicated and politically contentious. this is where science comes in

what counts as 'knowledge'?

what is 'scientific'?

what does it mean for something to be 'true'?

there are no objective answers to any of these questions. and I don't think that's a bad thing. the issue here is the insistence that, with enough time and energy, objectivity can be achieved and everything will eventually be able to be Known

enforcing objectivity is oppressive

the illusion of objectivity is a tool to cover up underlying ideologies at the root of scientific institutions. here's the logic we're all taught

if something is objective, that means it is inarguably true

if something is true, that means it is apolitical

if something is apolitical, acting upon that information is neutral and harmless

in these discussions, people often bring up certain parts of scientific study as if they are things of the past. "people used to think race science was the objective truth!" bitch, they still do. "science was once used to justify eugenics" bitch, it still is. when 'objectivity' is treated as the opposite of 'political', powerful institutions are able to justify their pre-existing political commitments through the lens of 'science'. that does not mean that there are no possible truths at the heart of what they are studying. BUT all truth is seen through the lens of human interpretation, and all human interpretation is through the lens of culturally and politically contingent factors

"scientists may have isolated the gay gene" is not a politically neutral statement. it is a statement that expresses the following beliefs:

being gay is deviant from normal human development

the distinction between 'gay' and 'not gay' is 100% natural, as opposed to a specific way some humans have chosen to organise categories of sexual attraction

once a scientific cause is found for homosexuality, it would be possible (and possibly good!) to then eradicate homosexuality in part or in full

genetics is an interesting one, because the entire establishment of it as a field of study is rooted in eugenics. I refer back to race science. I refer back to the on-going fixation with breaking down race into genetically identifiable categories. anyone who has ever done a 23&me genetic test for racial identification purposes has, to some degree, bought into the concept of race science and the concept of race as an objective truth. when we believe that race is a scientific phenomenon rather than a cultural/social one, we also believe the lies of white supremacy

I also urge you to ponder: isn't it such a wonderful coincidence that the centre of all objectively true knowledge production just coincidentally happened to be Europe? weren't the European peoples so so blessed when the lord handed them down the concept of the scientific method? <- not saying the scientific method is bullshit, but I do encourage you to think about what ideologies these narratives reinforce

objective science was a tool of colonialism, and continues to act as such

the various ways we imagine different First Nations people around the world is often in relation to their position in knowledge production. think about the noble savage, who is untouched by the horrors of 'humanity', and yet has access to some secret mystical knowledges. think also about the role of the white missionary, who beneficently brings knowledge and truth to the unaware colonised peoples

'The Academy', as a colonial institution, acted (and continues to act) as the white missionary. they bring colonised peoples the gift of Truth, as if those peoples had never encountered knowledge or knowledge production before. when a Proper Scientist discovers that a particular group of First Nations people had their own scientific methods, it is always reported back to the white world in a surprised + condescending tone. look! it turns out that Australian First Nations art isn't meaningless and it actually tends to be a tool of passing down knowledge in these communities! isn't that so beautiful for them! even as First Nations knowledges are starting to be introduced in university settings, they are introduced from the viewpoint of white knowledge

because we hold up objective science as the One True Goal Of All Knowledge, we are unable to put multiple sciences side-by-side, and see them as equal bases for knowledge production. instead, we continue to try and find white reasons for First Nations truths. because we pretend that it is possible to see Truth without first seeing our own interpretations of truth, we enforce and reinforce colonial knowledges. these issues cannot be encountered properly if we refuse to see science itself as contestable

okay I'm done now

yeah that's kind of the best way I could think of to explain it all. I am so sorry that it ended up so long, and that I meandered in so many different directions. I hope it all makes sense :)

[jubmato]

i cannot stop drawing ctommy girl HELP

based on

[arggghhhsstuff]

First of: readers are able to differentiate fiction from reality. And what they enjoy in fiction doesn't have much to do with their life. It's not because someone is a slasher movie fan that they kill people, it's not because someone read hardcore smut that they get any action. So when say that fanfiction makes rape 'more normal' in the eyes of rapists I don't follow. They know it's illegal, they just don't care.

If we want to stop rape there are many things to do. Educate people. Teach kids about their bodies and consent so they know when something is wrong. Make sure the justice system does its fucking job and doesn't let rapists walk away without concerns. I can assure you fanfiction is the least of our problems now.

And even if it was fanfiction's fault. What do you want to do? Control what people post on the internet? Put a cop behind every computer, spending their whole day reading porn to figure out if it's non-con or not? That won't work. Because it's stupid, yes, but more importantly because nothing good comes out when the government tries to police the arts. What people like, think and create. And you might not like it and you might find it disgusting and wrong but it's still art. It's people writing what they want. Free will, freedom of speech and all that jazz. And if our government officers have that power, the power to get rid of everything they don't like on the stance that it's "morally wrong", what's next? I'll let you take a fat fucking guess on who the government doesn't like in America today.

The only media you can reasonably talk about controlling when it comes to sex is porn videos, because they include actual real-life people and sometimes these people are getting hurt. That's when it gets concerning and dangerous. When people get hurt. Which is not happening with words on a screen.

But forget all that, let's say that fanfiction depicting non-con or unhealthy relationship dynamics or pedophilia or I don't know what else is influencing people to do the same in real life. What can we do about it? Genuinely. What can we do about it. This has been a discussion in the arts communities for centuries and here's my answer: the artist is not responsible for that the public takes from their art. An art piece is never neutral, it's always saying something, yes. But the interpretation is still up to the guy seeing it. If a guy reads a hermione x snape fanfiction and decides to fuck a kid, well sorry to break it to you but that has nothing to do with the author, and everything to do with that guy wanting to fuck a kid.

i love being a pro-shipper. it's fun. people will be disgusted by something they think is morally wrong and i'll be like "it's all in your head though"

[skitskatdacat63]

Fernando Alonso & His Relationship With Cards

I'm sure we're all familar with the cards on the back of Fernando's Vegas GP helmet by now, but did you know his relationship with cards goes a lot deeper?

I. Magic Tricks

You've probably seen or heard someone at least mention Fernando's propensity for card tricks. As far as I can tell he was doing them(publically) as far back as 2003 all the way to as recently as 2018. Even once performing a card trick, with a condom and a teddy bear(!??!?!??!!), in front of Valentino Rossi who said "How was that possible?"(x)

But how did this start? According to James Allen, "Fernando admits to having been heavily influenced by his grandfather, a mercurial figure, who taught him magic and card tricks, still one of his passions away from the race track."(x) And I'm not sure the validity of this one, because I couldn't find an actual source, but apparently he once said: "My parents are responsible for the two things I like doing most - driving and magic tricks. They bought me my first go-kart and a magician's kit."

In several interviews he described it as his hobby off track, and that he loved learning new tricks and surprising others in the garage with them! So clearly cards are pretty important to him both as a hobby but also to who he is as a person since they've been with him just as long as racing has.

II. Card Symbolism in His Helmets

This is the reason I originally made this post, but I thought I should also explain the origins of his card fascination first. As I said, we probably all remember the cards on the back of his helmet in Vegas, but did you know that wasn't the first time he had cards on the back of his helmet?

From 2008-2013, he used to have a pair of cards on the back of his helmets. The symbolisms of the cards themselves as well as the evolution of their design is really fascinating to me! Even more so with the recent development of the card choice in 2023.

Fernando said he wanted to reference his two titles in some way on the back of his helmet and after his friend sent him several ideas, he decided on having two cards(an ace of clubs and an ace of hearts, sometimes pictured with 05 and 06 on them as well), saying: "I picked the cloverleaf [the ace of clubs - Ed] to give me luck, but the only pity is that it doesn't have four leaves!"(X)

2008.

Here's the very first appearance of the cards! They're displayed flat, with the 05 and 06 clearly visible

2009.

Very similar to 2008, but with a slightly different design, and they're maybe a bit more straight with less shadow?

2010.

This is the first major change! I was sad they didn't have the years on them anymore, but then I realized they're sparkly to match with his signature lightning bolts on the top of the helmet!!

2011.

Honestly I'm still somewhat unsure if this is the actual 2011 helmet? It's pretty difficult to find clear photos of the back of helmets from older seasons. It's easiest to find them on replica sites or auction sites so I'm not 100%? But anyways, I like that this has the championship years on the underside of the cards

2012.

This is when I started getting weirdly emotional about the helmets. Do you see how they've progressed from being a centerpoint to being curled up and sad at the bottom of the helmet? Not listing the year anymore??

2013.

Same thoughts as 2012. And after this season, they cease to exist (just like his ferrari chair in the garage, WOAH CALLBACK), until cards make a reeappearance in his Vegas helmet, albeit in a different form

2013 Monaco(Honorable Mention):

For some reason 2013 helmets were easier to find proper pictures of, so I happened to witness this absolute beauty. The creativity of this helmet genuinely blows me away??? Wanting to keep the card motif, but making sure to incorporate it into the rest of the puzzle piece design?? Mwah! There was another special 2013 helmet but they didn't change the cards at all so I really applaud this one

2023 Las Vegas(The Return of The King):

The magnificent return! But look! The cards are different cards! Instead of being two aces, it's now an ace of hearts, a four of hearts(his driver number of course!) and, the, now iconic, representation of himself as a Joker. I literally could not believe my eyes when this helmet was released and I saw the Joker card, what a fucking silly old man....I really wonder if he felt nostalgic having cards on his helmet again or if he didn't think about it all and was just like, "ah cards because Vegas!!!"

III. Why Does This Matter?

*The rest of the post was factual, this is moreso my personal thoughts on the symbolism of the cards/designs

This post spawned from me recently watching the 2010 Bahrain gp and noticing "hey wait a minute...are those CARDS ON THE BACK OF HIS HELMET!?" It's a really tiny detail that's unfortunately covered up by the HANS device pretty much whenever he's wearing the helmet, so it's really difficult to spot! But I became fascinated with the fact that he had cards on his helmet before that recent helmet, and now here we are!

There's something to me about how the design of the cards evolves over the course of six seasons from the cards being front and center to being smaller, more folded up and closer to the bottom of the helmet. As I said, the 2012-2013 ones genuinely made me depressed because it feels, symbolically, like his hopes for getting another Ace are becoming more and more unlikely and falling away until they eventually fall falt and fade away entirely after 2013 and disappear for basically a decade.

But when they return? They're not the same cards! Instead of representing Fernando's championships, they now represent him as a person, displaying his driver number and his persona of being a Joker!! Though I do think it's interesting he happened to keep the Ace of Hearts, even though he talked more about the Ace of Clubs before. I'm not sure it's actually this deep in reality, but I like to think that it's him not letting his championships(and the lack thereof) define him, but rather letting who he is as a person shine and be the centerpoint instead! But on a sadder note, as @suzuki-ecstar said to me, maybe the Aces aren't there anymore because he's lost all hope for a chance at a third Ace entirely :(

[iguessitsjustme]

Something I find fascinating about Wandee Goodday is that no one has kissed yet (I know Ye and Cher have kissed but...) Like not a full on make out session despite having an established couple in the show that they could be using to show us kisses. But we get no kiss sex scenes from Yak and Dee and soft, somewhat chaste scenes from Ye and Cher. We all know both couples are fucking. But the lack of kisses where normally the show would have one couple more active in that department tells me how important kissing is to this story.

Dee has stated that it's silly but he doesn't want to kiss unless he loves that person and is serious with them. But the entire show is respecting the no kiss rule which tells me that it's not silly. The entire show is respecting Dee's boundary here. And yes, Yak and Dee have come so close to kissing so many times, but they haven't. Dee has always pushed him away and Yak has always respected it when he does.

It makes me wonder what's going to happen once the main couple does eventually lock lips. Will that open the floodgates? Will the audience get to see both couples kissing then? Or will it continue to withhold that specific moment of intimacy. There's something the show is saying about the expected parts of intimacy being taken for granted and also deserving of privacy and that's up to the people in the relationship.

Kissing can be an act of love and desire, but what the show is saying is that it is not a requirement for those things. I can be completely talking out of my ass here, but something about this is really sitting with me. Not only do we get Plakao as ace representation, someone who wants a partner to cherish and be cherished without sexual expectations, but we also get the show reinforcing the ideas that love comes in all forms with so many different acts and different people are comfortable with different things. And all of that is okay. And all of those boundaries are worthy of being respected. Regardless of societies expectations for what it means to be in a relationship and be physical, whatever is right for you is right and isn't that just beautiful?

[horsemeatluvr23]

etho doodle!!!!! this one is late because i was having an identity crisis and thinking about moving to lebanon. anyways the necklace is bdubs missing tooth from secret life <3

[nightcrawlerzincorporated]

To expand on this as a professional Dennis woobifier myself: I think the goal of myself as well as the other Dennis fans I’ve talked to is to acknowledge and discuss the reasons WHY "bad people" do the things they do. Discussing Dennis’ traumas and how they explain why he treats people the way he does isn’t meant to be a justification or excuse for the awful ways Dennis treats people, more to highlight the fact that he’s a human being with feelings that fuel the way he behaves. I think a lot of people find comfort in the idea that rapists/abusers/"bad people" are a completely unique type of human completely different from the rest of us "normal people", when in reality they’re just as human as everyone else and they behave the ways they do for human reasons, as uncomfortable as that can be to think about. So I think talking about Dennis’ humanity and pain and struggles and seeing and acknowledging the ways in which we ourselves relate to Dennis helps to contextualize and acknowledge the reasons people are abusive in the first place and the actual ways we can curb these behaviors in ourselves and others beyond just saying "well Bad People are just Bad and nothing like us Good People". As prev said I think that is very much the point Glenn is trying to make with the character.

Dennis acts like he’s better than everyone because he hates himself. He wants to have complete control over every other person is his life because he’s terrified of being hurt the way he was as a kid. That is the whole reason they call it the cycle of abuse, which is why I think you’ll find a lot of the biggest Dennis woobifiers are themselves victims of some form of abuse. It’s not about forgiving his actions or ignoring the wrong he’s done, it’s about putting him in his full context as a complete person and the knowledge and understanding we can gain from doing that. That’s why, along with what prev said about the majority of fans seeing Dennis only as an abuser and nothing beyond that in the first place, most analysis doesn't bother disclaiming that this is all being said in the context of Dennis being an abusive person because that’s kind of baked into the premise of analyzing him at all.

And I totally get why that can be jarring if you’re not reading those posts in that context and why it can come across as justifying Dennis’ worst traits or ignoring all his bad behavior in favor of focusing on what a sad pathetic little man he is, but the truth is that abusive people are sad and pathetic and hurt and miserable, they just choose to take those feelings out on other people. But again, the fact that Dennis takes those feelings out on other people is the obvious thing that everyone already knows about him just by watching any random episode of the show, so it's not really interesting to talk about in the same way talking about his trauma or his insecurities or the fact that he does have feelings (including positive feelings) is. That's what makes him such an interesting and realistic character is all the woobie stuff underlying his actions. Again that's the whole point of him being written that way in the first place.

And don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are Dennis fans out there who do use those things to actually excuse and justify his actions, which imo would be taking the woobification too far, but it's not common even among the small circle of Dennis obsessed tumblrinas who call him our princess angel baby, at least not that I've seen. Even without any disclaimers, I've never gotten the impression that anyone is trying to say anything Dennis does is justified or moral, even when we say things like "he did think he was being helpful when he did x", there's the implied "even though he wasn't."

And back to prevs point about Charlie, I think the main difference is that there are a decent subsection of people who woobify him as an excuse for his actions rather than an explanation. Like prev said, saying he's more moral than the rest of the gang, or that he's not as manipulative or toxic as the others, is kind of missing the whole point of his character. Just like with Dennis (and like with every other member of The Gang), the point is that they're awful people who all have reasons why they do the things they do, and who all have good traits mixed in with the bad, because that's how real people work. Talking about Charlie's good traits is a fine thing to do, and talking about the way he justifies his actions to himself and others is great, calling him your precious special boy and putting animal ears on him is beautiful, but if you're taking it to the point of "Charlie is morally superior (and therefore Charlie fans are morally superior)" you've gone too far. And I'm not deep in the Charlie fandom the way I am with the Dennis one so idk how common that actually is, but just like prev said I have seen posts arguing that he actually is a Good Person who is only brought down by the gang, which I've never come across with Dennis. The Gang are all friends for a reason. There's a reason they're the only ones who can stand each other, and it's because they've all done horrible things and so they're all willing to forgive each other and keep being friends, even when they shouldn't.

Opinions on Charlie woobification? Also, do you think the fandom woobifies Dennis (too much)?

A few people have sent me asks about my thoughts on Dennis being woobified in the fandom and I’ve failed to answer them (sorry). Not for lack of interest on the subject, it’s just hard to answer. I think, though, answering this Charlie question in the same ask might make it easier to explain my thoughts on this.

When we talk about the fandom we’re generally talking about the people here, a couple hundred people on Twitter, maybe some Instagram stans(?) and tend to ignore the million (1,000,000)+ people on the subReddit and the huge chunk of people on Facebook and casual Twitter who are constantly, continually pushing a narrative that these characters have no depth, and thus their characterisation is what we see on the surface and nothing more. I think the one time it’s probably important not to ignore those people as fans of the show is when it comes to woobification.

Because at a surface level, the people who are consuming this show as a comedy and making posts that exhibit their takes/opinions on these characters to the majority of people portray the characters very simply: Charlie is an idiot and the best member of the Gang, in every sense of the word, and Dennis is a mere representation of toxic masculinity to a psychopathic degree. And those opinions are the loud majority.

So any discussion in our minority section of the fandom that woobifies Charlie or Dennis operates within and on top of the general narrative of the public perception (“face value”) of the characters. Woobification of Charlie, then, almost always further infantilises the majority of his traits to contribute to the idea that he’s not a bad guy and doesn’t deserve the position he’s in in life, while woobification of Dennis mostly works to counteract the idea that he’s a cold-blooded psychopath.

In a way, I think you have to woobify Dennis to a degree in order to properly understand his character (and Glenn makes that clear). Do some people take it too far? When it gets into the realm of genuinely somehow believing he’s not a bad person, absolutely, but in over a decade of Sunnyblr posts, I think I’ve seen that conclusion once, maybe twice. I really don’t think any post that’s diving into how Dennis' actions reflect his insecurities and trauma is ever speaking ignorant of the rest of his character, and that normally seems clear to the majority of people because rarely, if ever, does a dive into Dennis woobification cause fans to understand the character worse than they understood him at face value.

Whereas, with Charlie, you constantly do see this. Posts and threads and fights between fans arguing up and down that Charlie is better than the rest of them: he’s the smartest, actually, he means to do good, he shouldn’t be lumped in with the rest of them as sexual predators... People in this fandom genuinely argue that you are a *better person* if you’re a Charlie stan, that Charlie ships are softer, more moral, than toxic Dennis ships. The result of Charlie woobification seems to often make people less media literate about the character (and the show as a whole if we’re being real) than they would be if they just watched at face value.

They’re all morally despicable characters.

TL;DR: Due to the face value perceptions of the characters, woobification is an almost necessary tool for better exploring and understanding Dennis under his surface, while it really only exacerbates an annoying surface-level understanding of Charlie

[trans-leek-cookie]

ur comment on that post abt dunmeshi mischaracterization is so real. the white ppl have got to go i have seen the most egregious takes on certain characters particularly the ones who are clearly not white and its like hmmm i wonder why these white ppl r so quick to demonize the characters that arent white 🤔

TRULY. It's so scary out here. Can anyone hear me

[invisiblegarters]

This is not something I would normally reply to because the one time when I was stressed into sleeping about 2 hours a night over the state of my stupid country and thus had less impulse control than usual aside, getting into these kinds of discussions isn't really my thing.

But the thing is, what made me stick my hand in the hornet's nest and shake it around a bit wasn't just stress and lack of sleep. It was because for an entire year I've been watching the same "crit" go by and boggling more and more, until finally I was just in the exact right headspace to be unable not to say something.

I like crit. But I like good crit. Even if I don't agree with it, often good crit can make me look at something I enjoy in a different way, or help me bolster my own arguments for or against. Good crit gets my brain fired up, helps me better analyze what I am watching and why it does or doesn't work for me, and overall makes the experience more enjoyable.

But what I have been seeing this year is not what I would call good crit. What it has been is a bunch of people who were dissatisfied with a show that they assumed was doing a bunch of things that it never was and instead of shrugging and going "not for me," they created a bunch of BS reasons why they were right all along, actually, only capitalism thwarted the true vision and forced "typical BL" on us instead.

And even that I could deal with - people will believe what they want and often all the rest of us can do is roll our eyes and move on - except that these people both misrepresent information to bolster their arguments and have a big enough following that that misinformation becomes accepted as truth.

Well, it isn't. I might not be an intelligent or articulate meta person. I may not be able to write in a way that engages people and makes them think that I have smart things to say and should be listened to. But what I am capable of is thinking critically enough not to just believe what someone asserts as truth without looking into it myself. I am also capable of realizing that one of these misrepresentations (and one that sticks in my personal craw the most) - that things were actively being changed in the above Show That Shall Not Be Named - couldn't possibly be accurate. Moved? Sure. Cut out? Absolutely. But actively changed to make a different story from the one originally intended, as some people would have us believe? Not a chance. No way they had enough money or time for that, and even five minutes of seriously thinking about it should have been enough for everyone to get that.

And it's not the only time they've taken something the showrunners have said and deliberately misconstrued it to fit their own narrative.

The show was always going to be exactly what it was. We were never promised the show in their heads. And frankly, I don't think I would have liked that show.

But for whatever reason, they can't accept that they were wrong, and now they're so mad that they're letting this color every other show they watch (that doesn't involve the cps that they like, which are exempt somehow from the same criticism they keep pulling out for the cps they don't. Weird, that). Not only are they doing that, they're heavily implying (and often outright stating) that the only reason for people not to agree is that they're mad their faves are being criticized. They are so convinced of their own superior thinking that they've deluded themselves into believing that this is the only reason that someone might disagree. And okay, that kind of thing gets my back up, even though I wish it wouldn't. Oh, to be more chill (I'm working on it).

Complaining about the structure of a show is one thing. So is feeling like the writing is lazy. But claiming that the reason for this is because official cps are killing creativity is absolutely ridiculous, and in my opinion should be called out as such. Romances wind up with the main couple together. It's a staple of the genre. It wouldn't matter if it starred official cps or not, at the end of the show the leads wind up together. That's just how romance works. No one has to like it, but trying to claim that it is anything but a "fault" (so to speak) of the genre itself is absolutely silly (like please, I beg you, watch more stuff. Watch enough of any genre and you're going to have this kind of thing). So is continuously deciding that a show should explore your pet themes and then getting mad when it doesn't do that, often with every indication that it never intended to do so in the first place. That's not what I call criticism, or at least not the kind that has any merit. That's just throwing an extended tantrum.

Don't you think this all comes down to the fact that people watch fiction, romance or anything else, for different reasons and so, they also engage with it in different ways? Criticism is just a way to engage with something. Just like giffing, fanart or writing any kind of meta, positive or negative. People will engage with media in their own way. If they didn't like the genre as a whole, they wouldn't watch it at all, much less take the time to write a post about it.

I think you’re underestimating how many people on the internet get joy out of ruining other people’s fun. If they say they’re doing it out of love for the genre, I’m certainly not going to argue with them—even if that relationship does seem a bit abusive to me. People can interact with media in any way they wish to do so. It only becomes my problem when these blatant lies and delusions start popping up in the main tag, presented in a pseudo-intellectual format that makes them seem like facts instead of opinions. Since these people have chosen to expose the whole fandom to misinformation by putting it in the main tag, I’m going to start saying something about it because I think people deserve to see a counter-argument written in good faith by someone actually enjoying the show, the genre, and the production company making it.

This ridiculous argument about how CPs are ruining the genre has persisted for over a year now and I’m tired of just sitting back and letting misinformation go unchecked. There are plenty of meta writers on here that present their criticisms in such a way that even if I disagree, it’s not offensive. There’s just a certain segment of this fandom that not only criticizes the show, but comes up with conspiracy theories to support their dislike instead of simply saying that it’s not to their taste—and then continues to do so every week for 12 weeks. It’s absolutely exhausting having to spend time blocking people being rude in the tag instead of just enjoying what I came there to enjoy.

And I also think these people should take some time to examine their own biases and ask themselves why it’s only Thai shows they’re criticizing? Why it’s only romances? Why it’s only certain actors or certain production companies? Because it is.

[babacontainsmultitudes]

[just venting a bit into the void you understand you understand 😌] Lately I've been feeling very caught between "I have a lot of thoughts on Sparrow and Normal and all that with the ending and teen talk and feel like I need to get them out and voice them for my own piece of mind and resolution" and "I am lacking the strength and energy to actually sit down and write it all out and kind of really just want to fully move on to other things (AUs, fics, anything else)" but my brain can't seem to commit to either and that's quite frustrating cause it's just left me very restless. *Sigh*. Idk! Just needed to complain about that a bit ig, it's silly but this is what has been ailing me as of late.

[too-many-paper-cranes]

oh hey the video is public now so i can post on tumblr about this without sounding insane! anyway everyone should go watch me and a few other speedrunners hunt fire for sport (randomizer edition)

[mafukasa]

also this is just a thought I had recently after seeing certain takes from certain people, but I really wish yall would actually remember that child neglect IS abuse even if it’s unintentional when talking abt tsukasa’s childhood yknow.

and also acknowledge it as something genuinely traumatizing lmao. cause as a victim of unintentional abuse some of the shit I had to read with my own eyes while being in this fandom is making me fucking sick just saying.

[matoitech]

it’s obviously important for ppl to criticize misogyny particularly transmisogyny in trans male communities since thats a trans community issue but if ur also tme and the only thing u ever exclusively talk about trans men for is talking abt us as bigoted misogynists (usually there’s a ‘binary’ slapped in front of it) i genuinely think you need to put the phone down go outside and remember that whatever insane misogynist guys online are saying is not a necessarily a reflection of like things adult men outside of a weird fringe group of freak transmisogynist dudes on tumblr who think the boys should get our own word JUST like the GIRLS or its NOT FAIR!! or whatever (and one coined by a fucking terf at that..) are saying, or justification for behaving weirdly about an entire diverse community of trans people.

again i do not say this to like dissuade ppl from discussing legitimate problems but like a couple points- 'binary' trans men r capable of talking about it ourselves, and we do, and we’re not the ones whose posts get shared about it. and second: if you’re only bringing us up to talk abt how shitty particularly TRANS men are you might have a problem you need to deal with? this is not a shocking statement. like at some point someone has to point it out to you and sit there and take the shit and patiently explain to you it’s that the problem comes when its literally the ONLY thing you bring us up for and act like we're not capable of talking abt this ourselves, and that its a problem how comfortable ppl r for letting ppl speak over/for us if the only similarity they share w trans men is.. an agab and not being cis (yikes!). or if theyre transmasc and male aligned in some capacity but dont have any interest in engaging with or considering themselves a part of like trans men, THEYRE the ones who need to talk abt it, bcuz the (usually 'binary') Trans Men wont (not saying those ppl cant or shouldnt but they may be treated differently for doing so)

first ppl liked using transmeds existing to throw up justification for treating us like a bigoted monolith you (uniquely) Just Dont Feel Safe Around and its normal to make assumptions abt us being transphobic especially if we don't identify by labels deemed 'safe' and Inherently More Radical, and now its pretending we all collectively cant recognize our privilege thru our intense blinding hatred of women and its up to you to save us from ourselves and beat some common sense into the inherently bigoted stupid about gender patriarchy dicksucker boys. like i dont know im tired of it when trans men being accused of only existing bcuz we want to be patriarchy bootlickers i guess is always what radfems have thrown at us, so its not like this negative perception of trans men filtered thru a supposedly progressive lense is new. a lot of adult trans men dont talk abt like particular hot shit thats discussed a lot on here rn (the 'trans misandry' shit for example) bcuz its was not a problem in the spaces we're in and we knew it was stupid as fuck right away and barely worth talking about to say 'yeah you know that thing we all know is stupid and bullshit? its stupid and bullshit'. bcuz we're not fifteen years old or weird misogynists. we have brains, don't hate women, and we dont all know and hang around the same people.

anyway dont take this post as a stand in for serious discussion and calling out misogyny (again especially transmisogyny) w other men, those posts do need to exist, i am not trying to say this stuff shouldnt be talked about. what i'm specifically pointing out is a frustrating pattern in the perception of and discussion of trans men that ppl probably dont realize theyre participating in. i do think it is very important to talk abt community issues and criticisms but if its literally the one thing you bring up trans men for i think being aware of that behavior has no NEGATIVES here. also do have to bring up i specified other tme ppl early on bcuz this isnt smth ive experienced or seen from transfems and their position as like the affected party of transmisogyny is automatically like .. if they have issues w trans men it is pretty inherently coming from a different place than like, a cis womans, or a tme nonbinary person, or a transmasc person with issues with trans men, or a cis mans, etc. tme ppl who are on a very different ground here, whose behavior is straight up different anyway

[freakwiththeknifecollection]

Years of reading and writing disapproving parent fic have come back to haunt me, as I'M now the one committing faux pas in front of my partner's uptight parents 🫠✌️