#and devalued to absolute shit

[oddthesungod]

fuckin…. im a bit grouchy today, but reading “omg someone who draws, draw this extremely complicated and time consuming idea I had for free teehee just throwing this idea out there” makes me want to chew concrete, this isnt cute, you arent coy. just the flippancy of it rubs me the wrong way, “teehee im not asking for artists to draw for me for free, im just throwing this idea out there teehee”

Drives me up the walls, you want your ideas drawn, animated, whatever? Fucking pay an artist

[woundedearth]

people are so quick to laugh at other people for taking extremely loaded and upsetting representation in media ~too seriously~, but also conflate the words of some of the most powerless marginalized people with censorship by the FUCKING US GOVERNMENT. it’s so disingenuous it’s so silencing it’s so fucking shitty

it also very much feels like the cultural moment we’re in right now, where bringing up issues rooted in deep irl power structures is automatically written off as oversensitive and reactionary. it’s just media, until it’s an example from real life—then it’s just not that serious, or it’s childish to draw those connections, or it’s censorship to bring it up in the first place. allusions to irl violence are chump change but irl violence is always an isolated incident. and no one cares that this attitude magically seems to exclusively benefit the extremely conservative worldview that holds power

like lmfao no i don’t think it’s your right or anyone’s right to cover your eyes to obviously shitty offensive media writing laden with cultural baggage…. so that you can ~just enjoy it~! does this say nothing about you when you jump to silence the critiques of folks who noticed the harmful shit that went over your head? hot take… media is actually made and consumed by human beings who live in a society

[applesandbannas747]

Students will take my classroom economy and build a mafia, successfully control at least half of the class’s fake money with predatory loans and interest rates, then expect ME to deal with it when someone steals from them

Like little homies I am so sorry to tell you this because I am so sorry it’s true but I am the government in this situation. The Man, if you will. You make a mafia, you deal with running it

Anyway, they decided to threaten thieves with breaking their knee caps and I’m helping them build a spreadsheet to keep track of their finances

They have not, however, relocated the jankass box made out of roughly hacked apart pieces of cardboard glued together that’s always sitting in the middle of the class library and bursting with their dirty fake money nor seem to have any intention to make ‘the mafia’ more secure

[boysnberriespie]

The fact that I’ve seen multiple people imply that it’s abnormal for a prof to help their student publish creative writing work… huh??? Like that should be a really standard thing that’s happening, especially in MFAs, and Especially if that professor has experience in the publishing field and knows a work has a decent shot of being published 😭

Like, just because it’s normal for professors to put limited time into the publishing aspect in pursuit of teaching craft and creative skills instead, does NOT mean that we should settle for the bare fucking minimum in what is essentially career training

[charredpages]

[Alt text] ten screenshots of text posts by the user themme_fatale on Instagram. The text reads:

(1/10)

Do you remember the exact moment that anti-masking stopped being a far-right talking point

And became advice you were willing to follow?

(2/10)

I try to make the ways I communicate about COVID as compassionate and non-judgemental as possible because I understand that we have all been failed in this and my primary anger is always upwards.

BUT

I also need you to understand - if you are not taking precautions, you are aligning yourself with eugenicists.

The person who actively says “fuck disabled people they deserve to 💀” and never masks, and the person who never masks because “It’s annoying and besides-no one else is” are BOTH devaluing people’s lives.

(3/10)

And that might feel confronting for some of you, and I know the knee-jerk reaction is probably going to be to deflect by accusing me of “shaming people” or whatever.

I’m not shaming anyone though - it’s just uncomfortable to sit with because if you’re the kind of person who follows me chances are you don’t actually want to be engaging in eugenics.

And re-engaging with the idea that COVID is not only still around, but still actively dangerous is asking a lot of you when the alternative is the comfort of denial.

Especially when so many of the tools to keep ourselves and each other safe have been taken away from us. But the thing is none of that is actually a reason not to act.

(4/10)

There are people IN YOUR COMMUNITY relying on you to take precautions so that they don’t d1e.

(5/10)

With love, and compassion for the fact that this shit is hard - ignorance is running out as an excuse. It’s time to do better, and help your mates do better too.

People in your community shouldn’t have to constantly remind you not to put their lives in danger. Surely you can see that’s a pretty fucked up dynamic, right?

(6/10)

We shouldn’t have to push so hard on “it’s good for you to protect yourself too!” Like it still absolutely is, but saving the lives of people in your community should actually be enough to motivate you to act.

It’s genuinely fucked up to be ok with a whole proportion of the population being either being locked in their homes indefinitely or at risk of 💀 on the daily.

(7/10)

It should be considered more socially awkward to engage in eugenics by k1lling and isolating disabled people in your own community than it is to put on a mask

The fact that it’s not should embarrass all of us until we change it.

(8/10)

It should be considered more selfish to put people’s lives at risk than to ask to be kept safe

Your choices can change or reinforce that culture.

(9/10)

Government inaction puts a weapon in your hand

Pretending it’s not there puts us all in danger

(10/10)

Why do you require a mandate to care about other people?

[possessed-pack]

Anti-endos commenting on my post about loving systemmates with "oh of course youre endo safe makes sense"--when will these people stop perpetuating the ableist idea that people with disorders have to live in misery 24/7? When will these people stop acting like a system is the absolute worst thing you can be and only results in eternal suffering? How do their headmates feel knowing these opinions? How do they use their unwillingness to treat any aspect of their disorder as positive to the point where it's a weapon they use to call anyone who has any positive experience about it a faker? How do they not see that this is the same sentiments that ableists use against all disabled people to devalue them or say we should be put out of our misery? How is this healing? How does this help?

Like yeah, you expect a hate group to act with hate but I genuinely worry for some of these people because it just seems like they're not even led to believe they have the ability to heal in any capacity. The way anti-endos are structured leads anyone who sides with them to go down this path of "systems are never fun or happy and life is suffering and pain and will be forever". It really isn't. There can be suffering, there can be pain, but joy and safety are just as real and just as achieveable. We're a DID system, shit sucks sometimes but we're healing--everyone can heal. Everyone can find silver linings. You need to know that you're not doomed. It can take time, but loving your system, the people in it, or the fact that it might have helped you to survive the worst days of your life, is NOT a sign that you are fake. Healing is not a sign of faking.

[saintsenara]

How do you think Sirius felt about Lupin not reaching out to Harry before POA? Would he be angry or would he understand that Lupin’s condition (plus extreme poverty) would have made that difficult (along with his guilt and self loathing ofc)?

controversially... i don't think he gave a shit.

before i have the timeline up in arms, let me say that i'm an enormous fan of harry and sirius' canon relationship. the muddy paw-print good luck card - and the fact that sirius is the only person harry ever seems even vaguely child-like with, and the fact that harry knows that sirius is dead because he'd never disappear from his sight otherwise - lives rent-free in my head, and i understand completely why so many fans hate seeing the depth of their relationship devalued in service of a characterisation of sirius which is stupid, prissy, flaky, and fickle. because i'm one of them.

however... i must also be frank that there are some things which have emerged in reaction to this fanon devaluation of sirius' commitment to harry which i think are a little overblown. [and which have moved beyond "good godfather sirius black" to "flawless godfather sirius black".]

the reaction sirius is often written as having - within the canon timeline [alternate universes are alternate universes] - to harry's pre-hogwarts experience is one of them.

sirius is often taken as someone who's ready to murder the dursleys and whisk harry away from them at the slightest provocation. within such a characterisation, lupin's failure to check in on harry during his childhood - and, therefore, his failure to do anything about the neglect and abuse harry was experiencing - could be presumed to have sirius ready to tear his old friend limb-from-limb.

in prisoner of azkaban, sirius invites harry to live with him - not because he wants to rescue him, but because he's harry's legal guardian according to james and lily's wishes, and he wants to fulfil those wishes - but by order of the phoenix he takes the same view of harry living with the dursleys as everyone else does: that it isn't nice by any means, but that it is necessary.

that is, once sirius knows about the blood protection - which we can presume happens fairly shortly after prisoner of azkaban, since we know he and dumbledore write to each other - he's completely on board with harry staying where he is.

and this connects to something else i think the fandom has a tendency to overstate: the extent to which sirius intervenes in harry's favour against the rest of the order.

because - yes - sirius is absolutely right to say - on harry's first night in grimmauld place - that he should be updated on what the order have been doing while he's been in little whinging.

this is correct from an operational standpoint - and the primary flaw in molly weasley's argument is, as lupin points out, that excluding the children in the house only stops them learning accurate information about the order's mission, rather than information full stop.

and it also shows sirius' understanding of and respect for who harry is as a person. he's the only adult character in the book who explicitly recognises that harry objects to being infantilised, is frustrated with the information blackout to which he's subjected, and feels that his own contribution and usefulness to the anti-voldemort cause is being overlooked for no good reason.

but... even as we acknowledge this, we also have to acknowledge that - while he recognises that harry's feelings are valid - sirius never suggests that the order's treatment of harry is inappropriate, unnecessary, or unreasonable.

throughout order of the phoenix sirius takes exactly the same view as everyone else:

that harry should be subjected to an information blackout that he should remain in little whinging until told otherwise that he shouldn't be told he's being surveilled that he shouldn't be told about the prophecy and its contents that he shouldn't be made privy to the detail of the order's plans that he shouldn't be informed that he might be possessed and - above all - that dumbledore's decisions when it comes to harry are the right ones and dumbledore's interpretation of events which involve harry is correct

clearly, there's some tension in sirius and dumbledore's relationship in order of the phoenix. but this relates to sirius' view of his own experience - in particular, his struggles with seeing any non-active contribution to the order as valuable. when it comes to harry, he defers - like all the other adults in the order - to dumbledore.

and this is obviously going to affect how sirius understands harry's experience while he was in azkaban.

dumbledore explains to harry - at the end of order of the phoenix - that he was placed with the dursleys for his own protection. not only does the blood protection keep him safe from voldemort - indeed, it is the only thing [as both dumbledore and voldemort acknowledge] that does - but his separation from the wizarding world keeps him safe from voldemort's supporters. and while - yes - dumbledore is withholding certain, horcrux-related bits of the truth from harry here, the broader truth remains... harry is placed with the dursleys because it's the only way to keep him alive, and - regardless of whether the reader thinks this justifies what happens to him - canon is clear that sirius, whose only motivation is to keep harry safe, would.

which means that lupin wouldn't need to offer any explanation for not attempting to seek harry out beyond "dumbledore said not to".

i also think, as a post-script, that the fact that harry doesn't seem to be particularly bothered by his distant relationship with lupin - while sirius is alive, that is - is another reason why sirius wouldn't care about it.

sirius' priority - which i say not as a wolfstar-versus-prongsfoot thing but as a "these are the group dynamics in the canon text" thing - is james. lupin and pettigrew are both clearly his secondary friends while james is alive.

and so, while i reject the idea that he sees harry as indistinguishable from james - this is nonsense the films invented - sirius does nonetheless see harry as someone who takes the same role in society as james did [notice, for example, that he always imagines harry as a leader and the other child characters as followers]. this is the thing he perceives as the same across his relationship with harry and his relationship with james: that he is the only person seen as a peer or co-leader, rather than a follower. he can't envision harry feeling let down by lupin, because in this context lupin would have to have had power over harry to let him down.

if harry was angry at lupin himself - especially if harry framed this as being betrayed or shown insufficient loyalty - i think there's grounds to claim that sirius would share this anger. but i don't think he'd ever be inclined to manufacture it for himself.

[jack-kellys]

so we all know life is a circle. thus fandom is a circle. we see things come back around like the de/twinkification of racetrack higgins. or cowboy versus artist jack kelly. or "mom" friend david jacobs and the perpetual need to make the newsies some kind of heteronormative family. and yet again we've found our way back to the anti katherine pulitzer arc of her "getting in the way" of jack and davey's popular subtextual/fanon relationship. (yes im late nevermind that.)

now, not being a katherine fan is different than being anti-katherine. not being a katherine fan means you might have criticisms like "i'm not sure how she serves the newsies narrative better than, say, sarah jacobs, as sarah is more aligned with the newsies contextually/societally and katherine is very distant and rich lol", or even "i'm not a big fan of how katherine seems to be tired of jack's shit for most of the play and then 'suddenly' finds romantic interest in him within one song".

but being anti-singular-young-woman-character because of a ship between the main two boys is. a tired take is it not? again with the circle, we've had this discourse already and its been cut out. since 2012 and 2017 we been talking about this girl and her value, but not in the context we should be.

(because the context we should be talking about it in is a newsies 1992 versus newsies broadway context, not an anti-katherine context, but i digress.)

katherine's value. what is there to mine from? she is an extremely young woman reporter, 17-18 years old, whose article makes the front page of the new york sun. since she writes under a pseudonym, i'm presuming she writes with skill well above her age to be published at all (yes, even writing vaudeville reviews). in past productions she either finds the newsies at jacobi's because she saw the walk-out (TWWK) from inside The World (UK), or jack kelly simply interests her enough for her to seek him out again (Broadway/Tour/Live). she is unsure about herself as a writer despite her skill which is made clear in her song. she is rich. she did not need to have a career and was encouraged not to. pulitzer is her father and she does not get along with him. she matches jack word for word, often with davey at her side. she mills comfortably about the newsies through the second act and has a friendship of some kind with specs specifically. she also literally says "that's a face [jack's] that could save us all from sinking in the ocean/like someone said 'power tends to corrupt'" essentially prophesying the act 2 betrayal. which is crazy.

you can draw your own conclusions from the above, but all of it is essentially canon? right? so maybe you don't have to be a fan of all of it, but you're really going to tell me absolutely none of this is compelling. that none of this is something you can interpret for yourself as complex. that albert is more complex.

this is not me saying you have to include katherine in everything, because that isn't what this post is about. this is about individuals choosing to dislike or devalue katherine by only viewing her in relation to her as a romantic interest, instead of a complex character in a period piece with a full arc. yes a full arc. it's the musical that's rushed not katherine.

@we-are-inevitable speaks on this extremely well in the comments of this post as well, more in connection to katherine as being a compelling romantic interest in the context of newsies speaking in the defense of love interests/often women characters. in this post i speak on how i would navigate jack/katherine as a director, and in this post i speak on how to direct something to believe in to make it, well, believable, aside from its awful writing for both kath and jack. because again, fandom is a circle, and i literally talked about how to "fix" jatherine in august 2024. at length

[mysticaltora8276]

As far as I’m aware, Canon timeline doesn’t really have critical material at the Jedi. In fact in high Republic from what I’ve been able to gather from the clips I’ve seen him from what I’ve heard among people who keep track of it. They seem to be very kind to the Jedi, and in fact, one of the books, they address several controversies that people have and thoroughly debunk them. Individual Jedi can fail, but the order is a hole is seen as a consistent lease on the side of good and a peacekeeping force and a religious sect that that is respected throughout the galaxy by those who know them. And the people that tend to be against them are framed as the bad guys. I mean in Star Wars clone wars they constantly hammer the point that Jedi are keeper the peace, not soldiers.

As for the last Jedi and speaking as a fan of it, they kind of make it clear that the so-called “criticism“ the Jedi is less about the order in general, but more about their arrogance. Not to mention the fact that for spoiler warning… most of the criticism that comes from Luke’s mouth is less to do with the Jedi teaching and more of his personal failings. In fact, they make it clear that the Jedi are not responsible for their fall. Yes, they do mention their arrogance and not seeing Sidious, but they don’t try to victim blame them. And the Jedi actually continue as an order with Rey, carrying to teaching forward and learning from the mistakes of her predecessor. In fact, a big theme of the movie is learning for once failure and rising from it.

And in fact, a lot of the Jedi misinformation in Canon is not only explicitly shown to be wrong, but we see the negative impacts from it. And also and yes, I am going to make a jab at Traviss world, but then saying that “normal people will be left alone by the empire.“ I say to people who believe in that watch the bad batch, Kenobi and Andor and then tell me how the Empire supposedly eaves “normal people alone.” And in fact in the recent episodes of the bad batch, we actually see child kidnapping in this treatment because they have the abilities that the Jedi had. It stands as a A stark contrast of how to tractor say that the Jedi treat people and then you get the Empire and you then you realize if you have any self-awareness quote wait the Jedi didn’t do that. Huh, looks like the Jedi weren’t as cruel as I thought after all, and had been misled by misinformation and propaganda.“

So yeah, Canon is certainly much kinder to the Jedi then legends is. Again, I blame misunderstanding at the Jedi order as a concept, author is trying to be “edgy“, or in the case of Karen Traviss malicious ignorance/misinformation. I mean, I swear it’s like the legends writers just took one look at George Lucas‘s concept and went “let’s misinterpret the message so radically and ignore the fact of what the man has said both to people that’s been recorded and interviews and shown in his movies proper.”

You know, it's really wild to me that a lot of Star Wars fans take their views of the jedi directly from the big bad Chancellor/Emperor Evil McBadguy. Just, uncritically regurgitating the bad guy talking points, like they're drinking kool-aid at the local cult, thinking that they're enlightened.

[soosth]

AANG ＆ OZAI PARALLELS: DEBUNKED

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because apparently the true villain is the sole survivor of a genocide of his entire nation, and not the imperialist colonizer.

Where do I even begin?? Because I’m genuinely holding in laughter writing this, it’s absolutely insane how certain people can make such egregious parallels that aren’t even found in the first place. 

AH, so a little backstory on how this fucking shit stained idea even came to existence, well our dear z^tara fans pissed their pants over Zuko and Katara not tying the knot, so, as a way of retribution for their supposed “honour” They take any chance to jump on the Aang hate train and make him into some irredeemable abusive demon, aaand they got that perfect opportunity because the LoK decided to take a lick out of the great “Main Characters Must Be Bad Parents In The Sequels” Trope. Which personally, does absolutely nothing to the protagonists resolution aside from cheap family drama but I digress. 

Now, I’m not behind the idea of the writers trying to make Aang a “flawed” Parent, I think it really makes no sense by how they went about it, (I might touch on this in another post) 

((And it’s so very clear that they’re trying to give it a soft “retcon” And even taking extra steps saying that Kya and Bumi just “remember wrong” Which I’ll actually take, because season two of LOK was hell on earth anyway so you might as well give it some saving grace.)) 

--------------------------------------------------------------

There’s three main parallels that they got from Ozai and Aang: (god help me)

Favouring a child

isolating the rest

leaving pressure On the golden child

I’m going to debunk all three of them while trying not to fall into complete lunacy over how ridiculous they are. 

Favouring a child + Leaving pressure: 

OK, so people are clearly blind with context clues and media comprehension, got it. No surprise whatsoever. I can’t be disappointed if I didn’t even have any expectations to begin with. 

Let’s compare the treatment on how Ozai treats Azula, and how Aang treats Tenzin. (Holy Shit)

Beginning with Ozai, well.. It doesn’t take much of a rocket scientist to understand that Ozai essentially could not give two fucks about Azula, as she in essence, serves the role of an attack dog, as long as it does its job, it’s worthy. 

Ozai favoured Azula because she was molded to match his ferocity and hunger for power, she was a prodigy bender, and was cunning and calculated, all traits that Ozai found endearing and someone worthy to be crowned the next “fire lord.” His “favouring” Of her didn’t come out of genuine love or care, she is his tool who serves a purpose. In short, she showed more competency and more ruthlessness and callousness in comparison to Zuko. Which earned her, her place as the “Golden Child.”  

-------

None of this is even remotely similar to how Aang treated Tenzin and his kids, aside from the fact he supposedly “favoured” Tenzin more, but that is such a baseline statement and has absolutely no relation with Ozai's reasons.

You have to understand that an entire FUCKING NATION IS DEAD. History, Culture, Tradition, is at the BRINK of being wiped out, Tenzin is quite literally the only Airbender that will be left after Aangs passing. Why do people devalue this concept so much? 

“B-BUT THE AIR ACOLYTES1!!” Still have limited knowledge, airbending is so heavily tied to its spiritual roots, you LOSE your ability to AIRBEND, if you aren't inclined to your spiritual side. Which is a core part of the air nomad culture. Tenzin is... Literally the only god forsaken part left of that, so yeah. It’s a pretty big fucking deal. Aang values his culture and teachings to such a high degree, he is literally the survivor of a genocide. His favouring of Tenzin was done out of necessity and love, not out of a need for power and a new attack dog to send orders around. 

Tenzin will literally be the future “Director” Or guide for the next avatar to learn airbending, people still forget this, and it’s hilarious. He needs to know all the moves, all the teachings because he will be the next avatar's personal guide. 

Aang constantly reassures him, and apologizes for the pressure that may be put upon him but he always reaffirms that he’ll be there to guide him and they’ll “learn together”

---------

So yeah not the same thing at all. Fuck you for being so inept at understanding the different reasons and perspectives of those situations, just for some petty ship discourse, genuinely disgusting.

Isolating the children:

OK this part, I have to say that the writers definitely messed up with aangs characterization, but I think the execution came out way differently than the intention, so I will try to look more into the intention of each decision.

Ozai isolated Zuko, mistreated him, belittled him, PHYSICALLY ABUSED HIM, but yeah totally on par with Aang actually. 

I don’t wanna touch on this part much mainly because his treatment was literally explained all throughout the show, and granted, while I understand most of these people haven’t touched the show aside from reading fanfic 300000 Where Aang is revealed to us as satan himself, but perhaps, even a small peak at Ozai's parenting would reveal the laughable contrast between the two.

Zuko was a slow learner, and much more of a softie, and a “mama's boy” To Ozai’s heavy dislike, he was thus treated as such, he was belittled, turned down, and literally burnt alive for showing ��weakness” He is meant to serve as a direct contrast to Azula, ”The everything he isn't.” 

Kya and Bumi on the other hand, don’t show any actual signs of trauma aside from some petty jabs they threw at Tenzin, 

Bumis talk with Aang at the statue was *very very* Clearly, meant to highlight his own inferiority complex that he internalized growing up. His need for proving himself to be capable of doing just as much if not more than a “bender” Probably happened because his two parents were both prodigy benders and him being a first born son who was a non-bender must’ve hit pretty hard for him, and I’m so sure that katara and Aang reassured how special he is but that kind of thing doesn’t really go away.

------

------

Kya: [while healing Bumi] I told you those rocks were slippery. You're lucky you didn't kill yourself.

Bumi: You done with the lecture, mom?

Kya: Oh, grow up. You haven't changed one bit since we were kids. You're still trying to prove you can do everything a bender can. Well, you can't. Deal with it.

----------------------

 That talk with Aangs statue was very much meant to unveil an internal struggle rather than a conflict he had with his father. Kya even doubles down on this, telling him “of course he’d be proud of you” Basically spoon feeding to us, the viewers, that this is much more of internal than an external conflict that he has to overcome along the show. 

“Why Didn’t he share his culture with them 1!!1!” 

He most definitely did, or tried to, but it’s clear they didn’t show much interest so he didn’t pester, this is shown many times throughout the show. 

“You know I could never keep all those gurus straight… There were like a million of them!

remember that long boring story about the guy who never ate?”

This is literally Kya’s remark to Tenzin just after he tried teaching the airbender students this story, basically telling us that Aang DID try to tell them about his stories and culture, but much to their disinterest, didn’t try any further. 

And Bumi, literally could not pay attention to the story to save his life, and instead decided to fool around in his literal 60’s!! I mean Imagine what he was like when he was a kid!! 

I could imagine their dynamic was very similar to Jinora with Meelo and Ikki, Tenzin being the only one with actual interest and care, whilst Bumi and Kya goofing off and not putting much focus onto it. WHICH IS FINE BTW!! 

It only goes to reiterate that Tenzin was the only one who was actually giving interest and attention to the air nomad culture, and it was of Kya and Bumi’s own personal choice to not partake in it. To each their own I see. 

“BUT WHAT ABOUT THE VACATIONS” 

This.. I agree, weird for the writers to decide this, but given how they low-key are retconning it in interviews, my best guess is that each of those trips were side-quests during their journey to teach an important lesson that might’ve just drowned out because Tenzin may not have remembered it as well. 

Also keep in mind that Tenzin was put into a lot of pressure, Aang probably saw this, and as a way to still keep it enjoyable, he took him to trips that would help ease the mind for a little kid whilst also learning something valuable. That seems pretty on brand for Aang actually

And given that Kya and Bumi are literally in their fucking 60’s it wouldn’t surprised me if they didn’t have the greatest memory. Hell, they didn’t even fault Aang as a parent until Tenzin started boasting about “trips” That Kya and Bumi gave petty jabs but weren’t actually showing genuine hurt, just annoyance.

Kya even comments how Aang was too busy “Trying to save the world, and doing his duty that he didn't have much time for them” 

Phrasing as if it wasn't anything "important" But it's clear that this was Kya's own personal irritation towards Tenzin rather than an actual evaluation on Aang's duties.

A continuation comic best explains it in a deeper way:

----------

Literally showing that “neglecting” His kids wasn't up to him, and was out of a sense of necessity, trying to cram as much knowledge onto Tenzin, the only one who was basically putting his lessons into practices. Kya and Bumi were left feeling neglected. But that wasn’t out of his decision; he still loved them dearly.

-------

This. Literally highlighting how much pressure was forced upon Aang, so yes, as any person would, he struggled with making time for everybody. Holy shit who knew?? 

GASP!! IS THAT… A REALISTIC BUT UNDERSTANDABLE FLAW!!?? HOW DARE YOU! ITS OZAI #2 

The fact that the smiley energetic person forgets to SMILE, is a big deal, man was put through hells amount of stress but he never cracked.

So tell me, how is a genocidal freak, who treats his golden child like a tool and abuses the other both physically and emotionally for showing “weakness’ 

Even remotely comparable to

 the sole survivor of a genocide, trying to withhold his teachings and culture onto literally his only child that showed actual effort in doing so, while also maintaining the balance of an entire fucking world and being literally the biggest “advisor” And “Mentor” For society, OH! And also building and managing a literal city, but along the way struggling to make time for his children. 

Guess what, they’re not. And if you think they are. You are an idiot, with bias and headcanons.

So the conclusion is, Aang is a flawed parent, but he isn't a "bad" Parent - confirmed by the literal writers.

Comparing him to Ozai a literal dictator, is absolutely sickening, just for your petty shipping discourse when this show's been over for a decade is insane. Indulge in what you enjoy, but stop projecting delusions like they're canon.

:D

[alexas-fandom-and-random-blog]

More thoughts about Striker and Bitzo parallels and oppression:

For starters I saw the "Bombproof Vet after trial" scribble later cause others pointed in out

and holy shit it legit got me in the feels! So sweet!🥺 I'm so happy they show he loves his horse! I would go absolutely feral if they tried to give him the complete Stella treatment and make him irredeemable in every way. That would be so cartoonishly evil! Not to mention boring.😒

Anyways I get prompted to rant a bit cause I had to roll my eyes in some fandom takes I saw going "See! See! He sides with royals! He's a fake bitch and everything he said about Stolas was hypocritical"

Which some are in good fun🤭 but I'd like take it as serious character study for a moment and say ...honey no. Not like that.

Striker can totally be hypocritical about his stance with class issues without devalueing his beef against royals.

He's an opportunist in core while taking pleasure by being nasty to his enemies and no shit his priorities would be in self-preservation.

He's not villainous just for shits and giggles though. It has to do about survival too. Being frustrated with unfair treatment doesn't make you a fighter for justice and a class hero and I have no clue why the fandom wanted to make that comparison so badly!

I like Striker's character that way I hope it remains as such and gets explored further 🙏 Makes him such an interesting foil to the narrative and to Blitzo.

And honestly speaking of, it's true that Blitzo's speech was better suited there for him at the moment to put his foot down while his life was in danger and stick to his stance and even his half cooked morals about lower class demons.

Which they are worthy of respect to have developed at this point, considering how selfish he himself has been in the past and how little access he's had to education, opportunities and society as a whole limiting his view of how everything really functions.

Still it's not like he started his company with noble intentions to save impkind. He wanted to rise above his limitations sure and was also frustrated by his status as in imp but growing into a spokesperson for them at the moment also happened to align with his own self preservation. He wasn't rallying anyone for an uprising or anything even if it is a naturally progressed spark in that direction and acceptance of that role might come later.

In the end the difference of between Striker's and Blitzo's approach is that Blitzo came to care about other people and be willing to be sacrificed for them while Striker is trying to uplift himself fist and foremost by any means necessary.

And that is good writing for character development! Even if the writing in general often fumbles and messes these core points by making some out of place jokes in between emotional moments making you question if the care Blitzo claims to have for his found family is legit.

But that's like a personal issue I have with the joke structure being hit and miss imo. Humor is subjective and the lot.🤷

That's all.

[th3-0bjectivist]

Dear listener, this will be my final musical entry for 24’ and for several months, and we’re gonna end it with Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, one of the elite few great classical composers of all time. I feel like these days, classical music has been somewhat devalued and relegated to running in the background of ultra-absorbent paper towel commercials. This is a damn shame, because classical music changed music on planet Earth forever, and composers like Mozart once represented bleeding-edge innovation in the realm of music. For his time, Mozart wrote music in every available and accessible genre and excelled at each of them as well. Much like classical music in a broad sense, WAM attempted to create works that were universal in application. Much like me, the man genuinely enjoyed pleasing every segment of his wide-ranging audience with his personal versatility. Is it any wonder that you’re familiar with WAM’s name and works even though you weren’t even living during his era? So, how do men like this become immortalized? Join me below for an answer from some guy on the internet. Just above is The Requiem in D minor, K. 626, a piece Mozart didn’t even finish before he died. It is haunting, beautiful and really exemplifies WAM’s range. Thank you, all my dear listeners on Tumblr, for celebrating another year of music with me. I’ll be doing more of the same next year as well, but without further ado… the WAM you’ve been waiting for.

Dying young at 35 but filling his entire short life with his own firebrand of musical creativity, WAM started his career at an extremely fresh-faced 5 years old when he wrote his first keyboard composition. He wrote his first SYMPHONY when he was an 8-year-old… and I don’t know if anyone is aware of this but, that kind of natural compositional talent doesn’t exactly grow on trees these days, or even hundreds of years in the past. Like many other classical artists, WAM was brought up in the Church, specifically in the Catholic faith. He is well known for composing ‘divinely inspired works’, specifically designed for Mass between Epistle and Gospel. Performing for imperial courts as a mere child and then going on to create 600 + total musical works in his lifetime, WAM wasn’t just some musician from Austria; he was a Bonafide genius. He could speak over a dozen languages, was awarded the Order of the Golden Spur by Pope Clement XIV and was perhaps one of the most notable and famous Freemasons of all-time. WAM even went as far as producing openly masonic works like The Magic Flute and Thomas, King of Egypt. Unlike other classical artists (Brahms, Beethoven, Vivaldi), WAM was a family man who cherished his children but left very little to them because of his excessive drinking, extravagant general spending, and personal generosity. His lack of money-management aside, WAM stands tall as one of the most, if not the MOST famous Austrian musician of all time. Fun fact: WAM loved fart and poop jokes. I’m NOT kidding. He went as far as writing scatological music for his recreational and drunk buddies and quipped about his bowel movements to close friends and family members in numerous letters. Why would I mention this, you may ask? Because, for his time, this man was a walking immortal on Earth. Mozart’s shit-based humor humanizes him to me, and I love how this yester century genius thought absolutely anything coming out of the human ass was hilarious. Having been subject to numerous infections and bumps on his skin before his untimely death, WAM died young and under entirely mysterious circumstances which have never been properly identified or explained. Just below, you’ll find The Best of Mozart. Smash play, enjoy, Happy New Year. It was a pleasure, as always, to provide Tumblr with music and information in 24’.

A prodigy, more versatile than his contemporaries, and more influential than the vast, vast majority of any common musician…Mozart is a legend and an inspiration. Is it any wonder that his surname is well-known even to this day… even though he had no grandchildren? Image source: https://www.redbubble.com/i/kids-t-shirt/Wolfgang-Amadeus-Mozart-digital-painting-in-high-resolution-by-hypnotzd/142756337.VXRIW

[vergess]

hello do you happen to have an explanation/definition of what pinkwashing is? don't trust googlie with a term so new and it does not line up with my understanding of the terms it's made up of (-washing = covering or changing the original or true depiction, pink- = I only know this term in politics from pink-collar and I am 99% certain it does not mean the same thing here)

Oh, yeah, you're absolutely correct about it not being a pink-collar thing.

For my followers, pink-collar refers to paid work outside the home that is traditionally held by women. The "pink" refers to women, femininity, etc. Just girly things, if you will.

In pink-washing, however, the pink refers to pink triangles, a prominent symbol of queer survival after pink triangles were used to mark sexual deviants (that is, gay men and trans women).

Pink-washing is the use of "we have queer rights, unlike those barbaric savages" to justify state violence.

Right now, the term is mostly coming up in discussions of Israel. In that specific context, it refers to the fact that Israel is far and away the most progressive and well-protected place for queer people of all sorts in the middle east. Which the Israeli government often likes to point to as proof that their brutal ethnic cleansing is a "necessary force" to protect queer lives from Islamist extremism.

It's a sort of, "look, I know what I'm doing is bad, but what they're doing is way worse: look at how badly they treat their queers. Obviously I must be violent to help civilize the animals, for the sake of their queers," often while actively killing queer civilians for being for the wrong race.

Unfortunately, pink-washing is itself strong evidence that a state devalues her queer citizens, thinking of them not as vulnerable people to be protected (as the state will insist is the case), but rather as tokens to be trotted out as proof of the state's "goodness." And should any queer person defy the role of "good little token," they are inevitably and severely punished. As they say (they being in this case an Israeli sociologist whose name escapes me entirely), "A trans woman in uniform will be given medical care, but a trans woman who refuses military service will go to a men's prison."

Pink-washing is also extremely, EXTREMELY common in the U.S. though this doesn't get as much air time lately as Israeli pink-washing. But, the U.S. very regularly uses pink-washing around gay (not so much trans) rights to justify both imperial and domestic violence. Even at the per-state level, it is extremely common for people in "progressive" states to say absurd shit like, "well we treat our gays with respect, unlike Alabama!" to thought-stop themselves from noticing how miserable their lives are as a direct consequence of state action (or even state inaction to stop violence, as is often the case with capitalism and policing problems).

There's also a significant problem in Canada with their pretty solid record on queer rights being used as a counter-argument to their mistreatment of indigenous peoples. This too is pink-washing.

Pink-washing also devalues to lives and specifically the queerness of the people being targeted for violence. You know. By killing them and stuff. But also by denying that they deserve the very right to life and safety that is supposedly the mission statement.

If the entire point of pink-washed violence really was queer liberation, they would suck at that because they keep killing all the queer people they don't fucking like.

[skaruresonic]

Spinning telling me about Netflixavania's impact on how CV is viewed by the mainstream reminds me of the fact that video games, for all of their advancements, still carry something of a stigma.

Particularly old games. Call me a crotchety old lady, but there's no respect for them. Not their history, their context, their legacy, or their preservation.

In addition to the revisionist narrative that "Sonic was always inconsistent" people invented in order to elevate spinoff media over the games, I'm reminded of how Silent Hill fans are now pushing this erroneous narrative that James shows little emotion because of "technical constraints," therefore erasing Team Silent's deliberate creative decisions. (Sato stated otherwise in a 2001 interview, fyi)

People will invent narratives to ingratiate their love of viddy games to the mainstream because in some capacity, games are still considered #cringe. It doesn't matter if it's an ongoing series (Sonic), a dead series (Castlevania) or a seminal work in its genre (Silent Hill), folks will still make absolute steaming horse shit up to devalue previously-lauded works. Suddenly Sonic is no longer good and has never been good. Suddenly Silent Hill 2 isn't a masterpiece or a giant of the survival horror genre; no, it's old, and therefore outdated, and the devs were only doing the best they could with what little they had, uwu poor lambs.

I literally had to stop watching a Silent Hill analyst because she too fell prey to the "technical limitations" cruft, suddenly making up flaws she'd never pointed out before for absolute bullshit reasons because she had decided to agree with the mainstream opinion that SH2 is now "obsolete" as a work of art.

I hate the ahistoricity, the revisionism. And it's so fucking xenophobic patronizing to the game devs, sending the message that despite their best efforts, they only made silly viddy games, while others are now taking the same material and elevating it to the status of Art(tm).

[indiestsnake]

Is it an unpopular opinion to say mouthwashing would’ve been a better, more nuanced story if Jimmy wasn’t an absolutely inhumane monster before the story even started?

Idk. I’m gonna talk about it. Mouthwashing is a video game btw, and its plot contains some messed up stuff. Warning for mention of severe SA, suicide, and probably some gore here and there. Also spoilers! Go play or watch it, it’s such a good fucking game holy shit.

Btw I fucking love this game as is and don’t think it’s bad. Not hating, just speaking out my tiny grievance with the plot. Again, I love this game!!!! And I don’t need it to change to be good. Now, with that out of the way.

So. I’m not saying I don’t hate Jimmy. Fuck that guy, he’s a horrible person. End of sentence. The meme of never saying his name in fandom is so goddamn funny.

But if he wasn’t, I think the story would’ve been more interesting.

Mouthwashing is a psychological horror game. It it about human beings with human flaws having human reactions to human (if complicated) situations. Is Swansea a bad person for killing Diasuke? Complicated, because he believed (arguably knew for certain) that Jimmy’s delusions of grandeur and “fixing” everything would only make him suffer. Anya swallows all the pills, the pills she knows are the only thing between Curly and endless agonizing pain. But… it’s more complicated. Because Jimmy emotionally abused, SA’d, and bullied her into thinking she was better off dead. Everyone is extremely human, even Curly. He’s just a dude who got lucky with his talents, but wants something different from what he got.

Except Jimmy.

Jimmy is horrible to the point of parody. Especially in the fandom. And I get why. He non-consensually got Anya pregnant (I don’t like using the word okay shush) on a spaceship. When he knew they wouldn’t see another human face for over a half a year. Maybe more. That amount of horrific selfishness for five minutes of pleasure is not only completely inhumane, but downright idiotic in all faucets. He is not just a horrible person, he is a complete fucking moron. I genuinely struggle to believe anyone would be dumb enough and evil enough to do that, and maybe that’s a me thing. Feel free to say if that makes sense to you, but to me, it messes with suspension of disbelief.

And it also devalues so much of his later actions and guilt. Jimmy cuts off Curly’s fucking leg and feeds it to him because he is that mad with guilt and a want to fix things. That kind of nuanced insanity, extremely human insanity is such an interesting concept. But he’s not just a regular human. He is a complete fucking idiot and monster. It feels like just another act of idiocy. What about this in particular made him go crazy? Why not his rampant lashing out at his friends? Why not his assault of Anya? If he was just a below-average moral person, a struggling but ultimately good-hearted friend, Anya’s semi-awful boyfriend, his guilt would make so much more sense and feel so much more meaningful. But I struggle to believe such a horrible person would feel such deep guilt.

And there’s the fandom shenanigans I’ve seen claiming evidence for Jimmy emotionally abusing both Anya and Curly. I haven’t seen everything the game has firsthand, so i won’t comment on the realness of that. I choose to believe it as overhating (because remember, this is fiction. Jimmy is not real. You don’t need more reasons to dislike him.) because Curly treats Jimmy like a friend and calls him a friend. At least before the crash.

TLDR, I struggle to believe someone as awful as Jimmy would go mad with guilt to the point of doing what he did. That being, condemning Curly to live twenty-something years of endless agony and misery off a piece of his own leg and then putting a gun in his mouth. I think the story would be more nuanced and interesting if he was more of a normal, slightly-below average dude.

That being said, I love the story as is and it’s amazing. And the SA representation is good and makes Anya’s character arguably better. And hating on good ol Jennifer is kinda funny. So yeah. Cool game. I should really draw smthn for this fandom soon…

[myfandomrealitea]

You're allowed to feel sad, disappointed or lose some interest in a character because its no longer played by a specific actor or character.

(Obviously not talking about blatant racism here. Derail this and I'll scream.)

But I mean like. I see people shitting all over anyone who is losing interest in The Witcher because Henry Cavill is no longer Geralt, but at the same time actors will all have very unique ways of portraying the same character, and its perfectly fine to not feel the same way about how a different actor portrays or visualises the same character.

If you prefer the story and portrayal of Steve Rogers' Captain America over Sam Wilson's Captain America, that's fine! They're two completely different stories under the same mantle. You can absolutely respect the story and message of Sam Wilson's Captain America while still preferring the one Steve Rogers' Captain America told.

If you're in love with the way Henry Cavill depicts Geralt, you're not a bad person who holding onto that and choosing not to devalue Liam Hemsworth's interpretation by forcing yourself to consume media you no longer have a vested interest in.

Spider-Man is another prime example. While the core values and details of the Spider-Men stay the same, the specific stories and characters of each Spider-Man are supposed to be different. They're supposed to fit the narrative being told and the larger framework of the universe they are set in.

So many people hated on Tom Holland's Spider-Man because he wasn't the 'OG gutter rat broke bitch' but like. For one, we do actually see those aspects in the story still (Peter taking dumped items off the sidewalk, his small room, stressing about money and replacing things, ect) and for another, he's meant to be different because Spider-Man with The Avengers is different to Spider-Man alone.

Its meant to be a different depiction of the same character.

Its fine not to like one or to prefer the other but it doesn't make it bad media or a bad thing either way.