#and i didnt know it wasnt intended as mean at all! i interpreted it as just them insulting me because they disagreed with my opinion

[blueblurbbaskets]

"I don't like tone tags I don't think they're actually an accessibility tool and they're not useful anyway" okay that's fair because it is basically a form of slang you have to be familiar with for it to actually help you but also. are you gonna do anything else to indicate tone or are you just gonna act surprised/confused/annoyed when people misunderstand you

[circuscrypt1d]

i said this on twitter but ill say it here too just because

i hate how silco was written

just bear with me

if silco and vander were friends with felicia, close friends at that, he was probably around when the girls were born. at LEAST, when vi was born. i mean felicia told them both at the same time, vander helped pick a name right in front of him, he agreed to help make zaun a better place for those girls.

and maybe he and vander had a fall out due to clashing interests in how to go about piltover (though i find this unlikely), but their real fight only happened after felicia died in the war at the bridge, as vander stated in his letter to silco. a letter which also implies that they could have gone back to being close (as they do in the powder timeline).

this all makes sense to believe that silco knew the girls, and helped raise them. however young they were, he was around. and despite his fight with vander, the powder timeline also tells us that he wasnt SO resentful that he would abandon them forever.

so why? WHY in hell did silco consider killing both vi and powder when he kidnapped vander?

he was okay with killing vi with his shimmer monster and all his other goons, and only wanted her as a weapon later. he considered killing powder with a knife when he found her near vander's body. he called her "little girl", as if he didnt know her. both her and vi knew about silco's abd vander's ex friendship. at least later on in life, they did. if they didnt they definitely would be more surprised by finding their stuff together and the letter.

still, s1 silco acts like he doesnt know the girls. considers killing them, or using them. as if jinx only grew on him later on and wasnt someone he already knew.

i feel as if the writers wanted to make a "big bad guy" out of him in s1, and didnt have the full scope of his moral compass and background in mind when doing it. he is inarguably made to be the villain, and they did it all to try and make him the worst possible, so that when he "turned out to actually love jinx and do things for her good" it would be more of a surprise to the audience.

except s2 breaks all of that. and its not to say i dont like his backstory, or him as a character. he was definitely one of my favorites since i first watched years ago, and i was so sad when he died. but if they intended on bringing him so close to vander, and at such a point in time too (because he could have been friends with vander BEFORE felicia, and then they had their fall out), why write him so detached in the first place?

not to mention, the reason why he and vander fought is left to interpretation for the most part. we have implications: that it was after the war; that they had conflicts of interest; that both of them were very shocked by felicia's death. and we also have others: that had he read the letter vander left him, they might have become friends again; that he wasnt SUCH a terrible person as to not forgive his closest friend.

but it is very confusing what the intentions were with his character and backstory, and it makes me sad because it could have been so much better.

[thecluelessdoctor]

hi

so recently

i was watching a bunch of videos on blogthegreatrouge

and remembered my once love for PJs Daycare. but now i know its disgusting like.. so bad. so is she. i just. ugh.

so, im going to remake it. i mean remake that shit i will do my best to make it better. starting with removing all the fankids characters and ships because.. sanscest is w e i r d.

anyway, for the people who some how dont know what im talking about is heres a summery. if i spelled that wrong shut up no i didnt

Tw: SA, suicidal thoughts I suppose, gr00ming basically

pjs daycare was a AU for undertale made by blogthegreatrouge. the au, was as it says, a daycare. basically all the sans aus were children, from like 3-6 i think, and the characters were... sanscest ship characters or sans fusions. one of the caretakers, and our- basic mc, is Paperjam, or PJ, the fusion between ink sans and error sans. i say fusion because i think that what they were originally intended to be before the fandom... yoinked them. aslo i refuse to ship sans aus together because thats WEIRD AS ALL SHIT. anyway. those are the basics, shipkids/fusion sanses are the caretakers and the sanses are children. interesting concept ig (i will make it better trust)

ok now that we have the basics down, lets get to the story. this was a ask blog so there wasnt much story, but from what i do remember, there were 2 major plot lines. the first plot line was uhm. borderline gr00ming. basically fresh sans, the satire sans au, has a crush on PJ. this fresh is i think about 3 yrs old. so ok, hes a kid, kids are weird. he claims he wants to marry pj. again, child, children say that stuff alot. and you think pj would be yk, normal and be like " no no, we cant do that" nicely and shit. WELL HE DOESNT. THIS BITCH SAYS "we cant get married righ now, but when your all grown up we can ^^" IM SORRY HUH. SIR. WHAT. not only that, later, there is a ask of how would pj react to adult fresh. in which its super weird with really gross sexual tension. not only that, lets follow in this aus rule, aus made by the same creator/s are gonna be related. ok. error, fresh and geno/aftertale are brothers. kinda weird but lets keep going here. pj in rouges interpretation is a ship child. A SHIP CHILD. MEANING FRESHIE HERE IS IS UNCLE?? ITS SO WEIRD?? also there is a mini plot line where ink and error like each other and its a big deal even tho, again, CHILDREN. also same person but i digress.

our next plotline is... where shit hits the fan. so, error, gets deathly sick and needs to go to the hospital. didnt know monsters had hospitals but ok. geno, error's older brother who is at most, 5, gets really depressed. and ik depression can come at any age, however, GENO here tries to commit farewell. this. doesn't. make. sense. a child isnt old enough to even comprehend death that well, let alone have the feeling to die AND ACT ON IT. not only that, right after stopping geno from leaving this mortal plane (isnt he immortal though?) they completely forget about it and have this weird romance between palette and goth (swap sans and dream sans) (geno and reaper) and its super weird, and gross (not as gross as nerd and jock but still) and palette is weirdly obsessive over goth and shit so its all just a huge pile of SHIT

oh yeah there is also this weird plot line with like this trio of mini villains, one being rouges self insert i think so. yeah.

anyway, that was pj's daycare. i will be reworking and remaking the entirety of this au. so uh.

yeah.

it will be posted. anyway bye

[laithraihan]

I'm the anon who sent you the long message that apparently came off "pompous & infantilizing" and more to your followers.

I find it interesting that that message sparked such a flood of defenders, when I did not send it in bad faith at all. From your answer it seems I'm lacking context so sorry if I took some of your statements the wrong way, but nonetheless I just found the parental love addition strange and reacted to that, that was all there was to it. I clearly stated (three times) I'm not taking any issue with your headcanons.

By saying they are far removed from canon I did not mean to say they are "too unrealistic" or something is wrong with that, I literally said the opposite. I meant just that, that factually, this will not be a common interpretation for someone who is familiar with the source material but not your blog. This is not a statement that I made with any judgemental value and I thought I made that very clear but apparently not.

So I'm sorry for the additional ask.

Have a nice day.

Thank you for the response.

I was fully aware you said there was no issue with what I drew, but the way you wrote everything else sort of negated that statement. At least that's how me and many other people saw it.

If someone finds what I drew strange or confusing then they could always just... block me or ask me about it (and btw I expected people to be confused, otherwise I wouldnt have labeled it "non-coupling" as soon I posted it lol)

Someone did ask me about it, and you seem to have already seen that response, yet you still felt the need to send another message basically implying that an explanation wasn't enough (turns out it actually wasnt enough because people said I was lying and in denial) and that my explanation was weird too? Which is whatever I already ended up clarifying that, English is not my first language and I type things with the help of a translator (I wish people could actually keep this in mind. I only type in English because it'll reach a wider audience and it's the language most of my followers know. Often I have to google words people tell me online, or I ask my friends fluent in English to explain things for me)

You can say "that's not what I intended" but that's how it came across... you wrote a lot of nice words while also saying it was understandable that people were ganging up on me over a drawing, it seemed patronizing.

That's why me and others took offense to it, but I think it's difficult to tell tone through text so I don't want to keep nitpicking this any further. If you say you had no ill intent then I believe you.

The following will just be me adding more context and not necessarily aimed at you: Again I understand the lack of context of my account can make people confused about my art, Ive made that clear many times.

The art I made where I said "if your parents didnt love you then it's obvious" was a direct response to people who were mocking me specifically for tagging the art as "non-coupling" because they didnt believe me. They got the context and decided I was trying to hide a fetish because a kiss on the cheek was "obviously shippy". They proceeded to compare this to drawing NSFW of Mob and Reigen by labelling it "non-ship" as if it was comparable to tucking a child into bed, that's what upset me. I did absolutely nothing to these people, I dont know them, if they said this privately I wouldnt care but it was public, and they also targeted another friend of mine for no reason.

All Im gonna say is that my drawing shouldnt have caused this much controversy in the first place. I labeled it "non-coupling" as soon as I posted it, which should've been enough honestly. It's not like I posted porn or anything like that, I got the idea from something Ive experienced in my family as a teenager and I could easily google stock images of the exact same scenario to use as reference, like I really didnt think it was that bad.

Anyways I think I've explained myself many times already. Im not gonna be hostile and say to people "roh t9awed dont ever send me anything else related to this" but just.. check if Ive already answered your question so that it doesnt end up being repetitive. If you have a question about this that I havent answered yet, then feel free to ask.

[funkyfreshray]

Naive? No. Compassionate? Yes.

The quiet little voices tell me things, but I don't pay them much mind. I start to wonder if they mean anything. I've heard of people being considered "off" because there are voices they hear trying to tell them what they need to do. I mean, mine doesn't tell me what to do, so I'm on! Besides, they are little voices and quiet. I realized we all have them in some way or another. Sometimes, what we feel is right is interpreted as wrong by others, but in your mind and heart, it is right.

I have an interaction with someone and someone else takes note of it and Im told I trusted too much or didnt see their intentions in asking me for assistance. The words that gets said to me, the reaction to what I respond to isn't in my favor according to others. I'm pretty much feeling as if I'm a lesser person and maybe I am the one who causes harm on myself by being too available. Maybe something I did is causing this reaction to my acts of kindness or trust. I am very careful with what I do or say because I don't want to disrespect or anger even frustrate anyone. I guess I can say I suffer from something most people describe as naive or Im described as such but I am the way I am because i want to trust and help give others a reason to be respectful towards others aswell. I really don't know if it's bad to be that way but I want to believe everyone has good in them and if someone does act or react to me negatively, i do feel I'm the problem but the little voices I spoke of earlier, do try to tell me something else. I always say I didn't mean to do or say something with bad intentions because it is true. I know that may not convince others to do the same. I do things for others without any expectations. I do good because I just want to make a difference. I realize my intentions aren't what's being considered but the problem with that is our intentions can only be seen or known by us individually. No one else knows. There's a saying, "actions speak louder that words". I believe intentions speak louder than actions and in turn, actions speak louder than words. The problem being no one sees ones true intentions. They can only assume and most of the time the assumption is a negative one. I don't like to disappoint. There's enough of that going around and I am truly trying to help make a difference at least with those around me.

Friends and family have told me that being naive is not a good thing because i tend to believe lies. I do convince myself that when bad things happen because of what someone does or says, its because they happen when good intentions go wrong. That is how I see it but my thing is if I treat most people with a lack of trust, then they may get treated in a way they don't deserve to be treated. Maybe it was a mistake or wasnt meant to end that way. I don't want to believe people are intentionally cruel. If they did something on purpose to hurt or take advantage of me, they will at least see from people like me that there is good in this world and they can change for the better and not display the worst in them towards others. It may be because of something they may have gone through, have been put through, or pretty much experienced that didnt sit well with them. I can tell you that has happened quite a lot to me but I never let that change me or affect me. My being "naive" If you will, is what helps me keep my sanity because I do believe people are good or have that potential to be. I feel good about me when I do something good for someone else. Oddly, that is when the quiet little voices take their toll. I believe most people confused compassion, understanding, sympathy, and confidence in others as being naive. The comparison is not at all the same.

Now, I do see one bad thing about being me. I do believe mostly all of what I'm told because i dont want to believe someone will lie to me for self gain since I have everyone's best interest when I tell them something or intend to do something to provide some type of assistance. I want to believe everyone has good intentions but in reality, that's not the case it seems. I trust too much and I get myself in trouble for it. It has nothing to do with experience. I feel good when I do something good for someone else knowing I'm helping them through something but I'm led to realize I'm taken advantage of somehow but still, I do feel good that I was able to provide for someone else regardless of their intentions or lying trying to get something. Believing we will all get what we deserve is what motivates me when it comes to others doing harm to someone else. Whether it's with their actions, intentions, or whatever else. Its not the lack of experience or knowledge in me as to why i do what i do or think the way i think. All I can do at that point is feel good I did for somebody but there is only so much I can do to make sure im not being misled. Even that doesn't hold me back from doing what I feel is right for others. I can put myself at risk for the sake of someone else. Being the way I am probably plays a part when it comes to the disappointment but it's the good in me that gives me comfort in doing so.

The definition of NAIVE is showing a lack of wisdom, experience, or judgement. So when someone wants to call me naive, it's an insult to me because rather than jumping out with describing me or someone like me as naive, i define it as a way of trying to insult us. No one ever asks why am I the way I am before assuming being naive or maybe they don't know what the word means and gave it their own definition. So why am I the way I am you want to ask? I won't speak for everyone else who is labeled as naive but as for me, I am compassionate, trusting, sympathetic, empathetic, and understanding. Its not a lack of experience for me. It's experiencing too many people hurting and suffering because others won't give them a chance and they can't get any help no matter how hard they are having it. Yet, I see people that don't need help, taking advantage of opportunities. As for judging, I don't judge. If someone does bad to others or voices and expresses mal intent, then yes they will be judged because knowing they want to do wrong or harm intentionally, does affect me. As for my wisdom, being able to see the smile and satisfaction from others because I didn't give up on them, is what helps provide me wisdom. I don't lack anything when it comes to being considered "naive". I have a lot of heart though and we all need more people to show compassion and understanding and help lead us to a better place. Bad experiences can cause many people to take advantage because other methods may not have worked. What's wrong with giving those opportunities. It may be wrong to others to want to do so so, but at least it's an opportunity.

The expectation of, "maybe someday I will receive the same treatment I give to others.", never crosses my mind. I dont go on living expecting something from a certain individual i helped. If they want to provide something to me, I will no doubt accept, but never expect. People sometimes would ask me, "what do you want out of this?" Or, "am I going to owe you one?" No is my answer to that. I just want to help and be available. It shows others there are good people in the world. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I will never treat someone the way I don't want to be treated. Can I be considered a yes man? I can be because I don't want to say no. Not because I feel I have to say yes. I just don't want to disappoint or reject anyone. We all need to feel some kind of hope. Is it insane to think that way? Probably but there are many that appreciate it and would. I can't let the bad paint the picture for me. It's not fair to everyone else.

I know I'm only one man compared to the world and some people may say I'm talking as if I'm going to impact so many but everything starts somewhere. Bad behavior started somewhere and it grew from there into selfishness, hatred, prejudice, greed, etc and that has grown and developed into what has turned many of us into today. I don't understand why good can't outgrow the bad. It's not like we all want to be treated with disrespect or hate. I can guarantee we all want respect and be surrounded by goodness. I believe there are many like me but might be holding back because of an experience they were faced with. That's where doubt will set in and make you think twice about wanting to help the next person or even do good by someone else. Then the question becomes, "I need to take care of me before I care for someone else." Not necessarily though...

Being naive is not intentionally trying to be a certain way. Anyone who considers themselves naive is most likely because they are called naive so we just believe it. If that's the word that describes people like us, I guess then so be it. It isnt a bad thing but for some reason it gets interpreted as unfortunate. The intention of being this way is with good intentions. I don't come out and say, "IM NAIVE!!!!" or plan it or say, "I want to be naive when I grow up." A way of being will always be translated as a negative behavior or problemsome for many but in reality, it's trying to do right by others and providing trust to others because of the compassion i want to believe most of us carry. It's not an excuse to be this way. It's a reason. Unfortunately, there are many who will take advantage of that type of behavior and they will or may get away with it, but I can only assume the risks taken without thinking about the risks we put ourselves in doesn't matter to the advantage takers because as long as they get what they are looking for, thats what matters to them. It turns them into SELFISH LIARS. Then that's who they are and spread that to others and so on. They need attention too as well as compassion and it's not sad for me to say. We all need and deserve it. We don't know what the next person has been theough in their life to want to act that way. It doesn't mean to give up on them. If that's the case, we all will eventually just give up on each other and give people more reason to describe others as naive when they just want to help somehow and not for personal gain. The negative will grow and the positive will weaken

It's hard to see the hurt one does to someone else because the feeling of getting what they were looking for is better than worrying about what was done to someone else. That worrying about someone else is what's called having compassion. I can only speak for myself but I am full of that. If you ever heard the phrase, "pay it forward." Maybe that can help some of you understand more the mind set we have or most of us do as compassionate individuals. I prefer compassionate and understanding over naive. Doing good things for others may come back you. The only difference is we do not wait for someone to "pay it forward" to us or for someone to do good for us or by us. We just do it without expectation, hoping the goodness spreads. Does it seem far fetched? Im sure it does but it doesnt hurt to want to believe I, at least, can make a difference. That is what alot of people don't agree with when it comes to being naive, I understand. I'm not naive. I'm just a compassionate, understanding, sympathetic person who believes doing good for others, whether family or not, will eventually help us change for the good.

I was speaking about intentions earlier and here is an example of you knowing your intentions of doing something and someone you're doing it for not knowing. Let's say you run into a helpless person on the street. You can say to yourself, "I want to help him or her because he or she needs to eat. Maybe even help them find a job." Or help guide them to a shelter with the location of it. Or you can help them because you feel sorry for them. You may say to yourself that those individuals don't care about anything but getting money for whatever they want like drugs, booze, or hopefully food. You're probably doing so because that's what most people are experiencing after they offer money. All I can say is keep the thought positive. No need to feel pity or do anything out of pity or not helping because youre scared of their true intentions. I'm sure some think you're doing it to actually help them because they want the opportunity. But we may want to think as long as they get it, they will do whatever with it and nothing good so maybe you won't even want to help at all. Having the right intentions, if you help, will help the cause and the purpose. Whether they notice it and do right by it is really up to them to decide to do good or not. It's up to them not you. You can only be responsible for providing them something that they can use for their benefit and needs and not for their addiction. The risk is always going to be there.

Speaking of risk, there are many risks with being "compassionate" or naive as many call it. In turn, it can and will relate with people who are considered or labeled as naive. People can sit there and make me feel guilty or bad because I may feel like I need to look out for me before I do anyone else. The guilt trip hits so hard that others get what they want from me and I lose what I need because of their selfish intentions. So my question is, is it bad to be naive or based on my definition, compassionate? Or is it bad being the person or people taking advantage of us being this way. Now that's an interesting circumstance. It almost feels as if the norm is to take advantage of others to get what you want, even what you need. It is a lot worst to be selfish, ignorant, inconsiderate, misleading, than naive, or as I define it, compassionate.

[trollocs-ooc]

TA rant . Warning discussion of heavy topics. As is usually the case with her. This probably seems Super random to everyone else but me, but ive been thinking about these things practically since shes been introduced and i wanted to rant. So

i hope my bashing of TA never comes off as like. Weird. If you know what i mean. I never want to dehumanize her too much by constantly being mean about her but also being nice about her feels weird and ppl would probably see it as such. Bcz well. shes a stalker and future child rapist.

Its just that i think dehumanizing evil people is never productive because like. They're still people. Theyre just evil. This applies to every bad character i have not just TA. Because when you disconnect from the fact people can be evil, it makes it infinitely harder to see when the ones you do see as people are being evil. You get what im saying? (a somewhat ontopic example, one of my school friends, we werent really close or anything, thank god- but one of my now ex-friends turned out to be a rapist. It can really, really be anybody.)

Like. If you disconnect her from all the evil you know she does, TA is kind of really fucking sad. She hates herself and is desperate for any kind of affection in her life even if its objectively toxic for her. She's insecure about everything about her and wallows permanently in her own misery because no one actually loves or even likes her for who she is, which in turn makes her take care of herself less, which makes her even less attractive to others and etc etc. One of the reasons she was so heartbroken over 2/11 getting together is that she fully saw it as cheating (whether or not it was cheating is up to reader interpretation, and who you trust when theyre saying it. lets not forget eileil wasnt a ray of sunshine either). And if you already were insecure about yourself and your unsteady relationship? I imagine being cheated on and left completely would absolutely kill you.

i put a lot of aspects of myself into TA (as with most ocs), and i do think she's relatable, though if i said that with no context I'd probably get stared at rlly weird. TO CLARIFY EVERYTHING BUT THE OBJECTIVELY HORRID STUFF I THINK IS WHATS RELATABLE TO PPL. NOT RELATING TO THE STALKING OR RAPE

Another thing about her is that TA is a girl (not really but she doesn't know that). And 2/11 are boys. And the main characters. do you get where I'm going with this

Like its easy to just woobify male main characters I think and anyone that they hate to the audience becomes a bitch or whatnot. I've always thought I'd get hate or get called misogynist or something because i made eileils terrible ex that they both hate be a girl (i didnt but i anticipated it). However if you remember, both of them were terrible, its just that eileil changed. But some shades of gray were definitely intended here with the both of them, i just don't think anyone really cared to think about or listen to TAs side that much.

thats not to say we should stop bullying TA or something, shes not real, and she fucking sucks, as stated. This topic has just been on my mind forever and i felt i needed to rant about it...i hope you understood what i was trying to say here, i dont really know if i expressed my thoughts all that well.

[tendebill]

Ill bite

For the ask game 2, 18, 21, 25 and 26.

ty for the ask ^^ if anyone wants, here's the link to the ask game!

2. Is it easier to draw someone facing left or right (or forward even): i dont mind either way, but i default to drawing peple facing my left, 3/4 and all that. idk if its easier tho, its just what i do instinctually xd

18. An estimate of how much art supplies you've broken: i have several brushes that have been brutalized, a few times ive broken very thin fineliners (expensive ones too) and felt bad about it for years, plus i have a tendency to break pastels/pencils/crayons sometimes, cuz i press too hard or hold them too tight lol. also i once broke a marker tip. actually probably more than once.

21. Art styles nothing like your own but you like anyways: i love simple cartoony styles, especially ones with cool, exaggerated shapes, but i also love semi-realistic, detailed styles, thus my art ends up in this weird in-between state where i commit to neither :')

25. Something your art has been compared to that you were NOT inspired by: anime. so many people (especially art teachers) say its anime. and like. at one point as a kid i did try to draw in an "anime" style but this was pretty recent. i remember one instance four years ago and once literally last month. luckly it wasnt said in a "kids these days" way or "dont draw like that" way, it was just like, an acknowledgement. maybe theyre right tho lmao.

26. What's a piece that got a wildly different interpretation from what you intended:

okay this is a bit long, but in my 3rd year of art high school i had the principal as my design teacher for a year (the horror). she's this older lady and tho she acted nice for the most part, she could be rly mean (to this day idk if she said certain things on purpose to make us feel bad, or if she legit didnt know how degrading it sounded). she would often read into every little thing about a piece when it really wasnt that deep. or she would read into it and miss the point and come up with some other, out-there interpretation. she also liked to mention plagarism (asking us if we came up with everything ourselves and whatnot) and she would come up with some wild metaphors and symbols that were not really there. for example once she said that a window i drew made her think of imprisonment, because it looked like the bars of a cell, i guess. so this one time for an assigment i made a piece with four characters representing different emotions (happy, sad, angry and apathetic) and they all had colors assigned (yellow, blue, red and gray). it was only their heads visible and they had no real distinguishing features, just the planes of their face and a mouth to indicate a facial expression. i thought it was pretty straightforward, thought she would say it wasnt rly complex enough as a concept. like you know, emotions are a very simple idea and the colors were pretty basic, "blue for sad" is not exactly innovative. so anyway, she said it really made her think and might be interpreted as racist. didnt even pick up on the "emotions as colors" side of it all, despite it being the only real meaning i intended. she was fun, but only in retrospect.

tysm again for the questions :>

[zapsoda]

are you okay? i dont know how you found my post but you seem to have gotten really really upset over a lot of things i didnt say and i was really careful about my wording so its kind of annoying.

i didnt say its "a fact that nonbinary people are seen as more preferable to nonbinary trans people" why are you swearing at me. i said this (which you can see if you read my post)

and to reiterate, just in case my wording wasnt clear enough: i said a lot of (NOT ALL) "accepting" (parents who seem or behave accepting but are not) would rather their children be nonbinary AND/OR nontransitioning. and i said this because it is true. some parents would rather their children not identify as the opposite binary sex, instead identifying as some identity they respect less [because THEY are exorsexist, and THEY see any other form of trans identity as less trans. "THEY" is referring to the transphobic parents here. have i made myself clear.]

perhaps i didnt make myself clear enough: they do this because they are exorsexist and transphobic, and not because they actually do prefer nonbinary over binary trans people. i did not think i would have to make this distinction because i was just talking to myself about my own experiences, and i did not expect anyone to write two essays in my notes cussing me out and lying about everything i said.

i actually made it very clear that i know my experiences are not universal. in the first sentence i said "a lot of "accepting" parents" i didnt say "all." I didnt say anything that would indicate that.

you misquoted my mother whilst calling her a "fucking bigot," and in your other reblog, "shitty." i understand this is based on my own anecdote that does not paint her in the best of lights, but can we not do this? insulting random family members i bring up to demean me and the point i was making? that is rude.

nowhere did i say that cis people treat nonbinary people with more respect than binary trans people in any capacity. i assume you came to the conclusion that this is what i meant in your initial reaction of anger at my boldness of speaking, but if you read my post you would see that i did not, nor did i intend to say that in any way shape or form. if ANYTHING that i said could POSSIBLY be misinterpreted to read in this way, then sure, i will clarify myself.

i dont hate nonbinary people and when i wrote my post i wanted to be very careful that i did not give the false impression that i felt they held any privilege over binary trans people, so i was careful with how i worded it, but i guess it didnt matter anyways, because you would read it and interpret it in that way regardless.

i did not say that. i did not do that. why are you accusing me of this?

maybe i should clarify the meaning of and/or. at least in my case, i am using it because both conjunctions are accurate to the point i was trying to make. so lets try to write this phrase with "and" and *or" individually.

blah blah blah etc etc their children be "nonbinary AND nontransitioning" i say this because my mother's exorsexist belief was that if i identified as nonbinary, i would not feel the need to transition. i did NOT use the words "nonbinary" and "nontransitioning" interchangeably, because they are not interchangable. "nontransitioning" is an adjective which i used to modify the word "nonbinary," giving the sentence a new meaning.

now, "nonbinary OR nontransitioning" this should be obvious. i am saying that they would rather i either identify as nonbinary (based on THEIR misconception of it) or identify as binary trans and not transition.

i hope it is clear now that i did not equate the two. neither did i imply that nonbinary people are "not trans." i have no idea where you would have gotten this, because if it is based on your previous misconception that i equated nonbinaryism with lack of transition, then YOU should probably reflect on why YOU equate transition status with transness.

telling your followers to block me and mark me as transphobic based on easily refuted lies about what i said is rude, but i suppose it worked since there are 6 invisible likes in my notes.

i didnt "pretend nonbinary people are more preferred" i think... this is an incomplete sentence. preferred by whom?

your second post is even more disturbing to read.

once again, never did i even suggest that nonbinary people hold privilege over binary trans people. and once again, if there is ANYTHING i said that could possibly be misinterpreted as such, then i will happily correct my wording so that it is not misinterpreted again.

1. dont call my mother shitty. 2. i was not taking her word at face value and this is actually fucking insulting of you to say. i know for a fucking fact it would not have made a difference whether i identified as nonbinary or not because, as i have previously said, she did not know what she was talking about. what she actually took issue with me transitioning. 3. i did NOT say this was a universal truth, i have already clarified this. 4. i never said that parents of nonbinary children are automatically supportive! you made this part up completely!

i did not say this.

it becomes clear that you are only taking out your frustrations at other peoples transphobia on me, and i sympathize, because i know how much that sucks to go through. but taking it out on a random trans person you dont know and spreading misinformation about them is fucking disgusting and you really should not do this agaun. please log off and find catharsis another way.

this is an insane claim to make given everything else you have said thus far. why are YOU suddenly claiming that nonbinary people are "more" oppressd than binary trans people. YOU are the only person who has made any statements regarding whether binary or nonbinary trans people hold more oppression over one another. cut that shit out. transphobia affects all of us in different ways, and i implore you to take your self righteous anger and direct it towards transphobes and not OTHER TRANS PEOPLE who you do not know.

you have completely misunderstood and misinterpreted every word i have said, so before asking me to listen to some amorphous mass of people, try opening your eyes and looking at what i actually said.

or rather, maybe you shouldnt. i doubt that you will read any of this but your clear anger at a post i hoped would be innocuous gives me the impression that perhaps you were already agitated for whatever reason. maybe take a break from this website for a while. it is not conducive to a good mental state. i hope no other unfortunate trans person is the victim of your wrath in the future. peace

ok but blatantly and inarguably a lot of "accepting" parents would rather their children be ~nonbinary~ and/or ~nontransitioning~ than binary transgender, and this doesnt devalue exorsexism (not only because it is another form of exorsexism) but because it is a fact

[standingappablog]

My interpretation of Toni and Shelbys relationship.

I am re-watching the wilds and I wanna talk about a few things I missed in my first viewing. 

Toni

Starting off in episode one, which I think a lot of us picked up on the gay vibe from both of them, was Tonis front with shelby at the beginning of the show. All talk, and takes no shit. But you can spot her flustered moment easily when Shelby puts her hands on her shoulders and when she begins to sing (while she pees yes lol) But you can just SEE IT on her face. This quickly subsides though as not long after Toni lets a tree branch fly back in her face.

The writers also try confuse you and make you think the reason why Toni  dislikes Shelby so much (at least untill episode 6 before the homophobia) is becuase of her possibly stealing her best friend away. Which of course played a part in it too.

The scenes of her looking at Martha and shelby was a common 0occurrence. You notice though, in most scenes how Martha is sort of out focus and in the backround while shelby takes up most of the shot. Indicating that shelby is the person Tonis gaze is fixed on.

I think the reason why Toni so strongly disliked Shelby in the beginning  is becuase she found herself attracted to her, which she obviously didnt like. With shelby having this happy go lucky optimistic front, and all the jesus talk really clashed with her pretty pesimistic personality. Not to mention how Toni thinks Shelby is extreamly privileged,which in a lot of aspects of her life she is. Considerably more after you find out Tonis backstory. So with that knowledge of her backround you could see why she would assume her life is better than hers. I mean she is a rich white girl from texas, so her assumption wasnt unreasonable. To Toni the idea of liking someone like Shelby is unexpected for her, so she does as much as possible to push her away. Explaining why she was pretty rude to her for the first half of the series. 

Along with Shelbys little “westburo baptist” moment Toni got pretty angry (rightly so) and this probably solidified the irationality of thease feelings she had for Shelby. Giving her even more of a reason to dislike her.

 Despite this Toni finds it in herself to try cheer her up when the two run into each other in the woods after Shelbys biggest insecurity is revealed by leahs theories. Tonis feelings for Shelby are on view a little bit here. Beforehand she barely could interact with her without expressing her dislike for Shelby.

 Though the mood shifts again after Shelby brings up the subject of her views on being gay.

Right up until shelby kisses her, Toni outwardly berates Shelby on how medieval her veiws are, and what a priveleged life she leads. She tells her on this island they are free, and Shelby takes this opportunity to show who she really is.

The kiss the two share as we all saw was in no way one sided, Toni does kiss her back. Obvioiusly this shocks Toni, as well as shelby herself. WIth shelby running off as she tries to escape what she just did with a girl who she thought hated her.

You immideatly see Toni run after her. Her feelings for this girl who Toni thought hated who she was where reciprocated. In this moment her whole attitude towards Shelby changes as she begins to understand why she is the way she is.

Shelby

Shelbys sexuality was pretty obvious to many of the LGBT viewers, we have all been there, obviously not the religious cult part, but putting up a front, hiding who we are. So it was easy to tell that she was gay from the beggining. Its also pretty common in the media to portray a closeted LGBT person like this. The question was how the writers where going to go about revealing the fact that she is gay.

You notice Shelbys attempts to be friendly towards Toni pretty early on with inviting her out to the first exhibition. Of course we all know it ends with her getting a branch to the face. But when questioned about the cut on her temple, she doesnt reveal that Toni was the one who caused it. 

Though as we all know as Shelby begins to become friends with Martha, Toni becomes increasingly more hostile towards her. Probably shattering the hopes of being friends. So we see less of Shelbys perspective of the relestionship between the two from her, and more from Toni. The two become pretty bitter with each other after the shelter building contest, the tension rising pretty quickly, although it seems that Toni is always the one who initiates the fights they have. Even after Toni destroys the hut and storms off, Shelby goes to find her and still tries to have a friendly conversation, possibly she went to comfort her, but of course we know from watching Toni interact with those around her she only initates in deep conversation with those she trusts, and the weird feelings she has for Shelby probably didnt help. 

Fast forward to episode six and Shelby has her little moment when the others are joking around with the shellfish. Of course this one isnt as subtle as previous scenes but it shows Shelbys internalized homophobia.The gestures Toni demonstrated made her uncomfortable becuase she knew thats who she was, the idea of being gay freaked her out, so she did the only thing to stop it. To lash out and reveal how she truely felt about herself. She proably never intended on revealing this, becuase really she doesnt hate the fact that Toni is gay. She hated the fact that she is gay herself. This probably shattered any hope of frienship with Toni after this incedent. (She also mentioned to martha afterwards that she knew it would happen, this revealation pushed everyone away from her considerably for the rest of the season)

When everyone begins to get sick, we see Shelby desperatly trying to prove to everyone and Toni that, she doesnt hate her. Ofcourse we knew by now that the two felt something for each other. In a way this was Shelbys feelings acting out. Her romantic feelings yes, but mostly guilt.Ignoring the others offers to let them give her the pill, instead she desperatly overcomes Tonis pride. Making her take the pill  forcably, so that she would stay alive.

Just before the two share their first kiss, shelby finally opens up about how miserable she finds her life. Toni as we know with a troubled backround claims that she cant “out sad” her. The only thing that Toni has that Shelby doesnt is freedom. Toni seeing the solution around them points out she is more free than ever and that moment you see the contemplation in her face, you can almost see whats going on in her mind just before she leans in and impulsively kisses Toni.

She then runs, obviously horrified with herself. The immeanse internalised homohpbia making her feel ashamed for following her heart.

I honestly loved watching this couple come together, their chemistry and writing was great and super intriuging to watch. I am glad a rewatched it again, there was a few things I missed out on in the first veiwing becuase i was too busy chanting “kiss! kiss! kiss!” everytime they appeared on screen together. This is completley my interpretation of their releationship and how the scenes are done, I honestly could be completley wrong and they are as they are shown to be on the surface. I just really enjoy delving deep into the motives and feelings of characters I enjoy watching. :)

*Edit* My apologies if this is written bad! At the time when I wrote this I was extremely tired. I hadn't slept the night before and I was just back from a full day of school.

[shoezuki]

as far as i'm aware all techno did was like. slightly manipulate tommy by not fully revealing all his plans. and maybeee using him a little bit. that's it that's literally....all i can think of. how are people interpreting that so drastically differently

Yea AT MOST i can imagine those circumstances being like..... even Possibly being misinterpreting as Horrible

Like. Techno Did omit the truth of his intentions and goals from tommy. I cant find much fault in that though because Simply Put he Didnt Trust tommy at first. And 'using him' at most was like..... as a means to check out lmanberg and get some Intel? Or he INTENDED to use him to get to lmanberg. But honestly. I dont feel techno got much out of that shsoegiedgd

Like. Its not Nice ofc. But also what was he Supposed to do? He finds tommy, a person he once trusted whom betrayed him and didnt tell techno what he was Really doing, in his house having been exiled and presumably fucked up. Was he supposed to be like 'oh hey uh anyways welcome im going to blow up lmanberg soon heres all my secrets'

At MOST. techno was shitty to him. But theres no tangible Real reason to call him abusive or manipulative or any a that shit. And what ppl Never seem to remember is like.... techno CAME CLEAN to tommy. Admitted what he wanted, his plans and goals, exposed his own secrets such as the vault, and didnt rven Pressure tommy into Joining Him. He gave the option of sitting by, or helping techno take out lmanberg.

Also almost forgot. But ONE OTHER THING i Always have seen used as a Point as to why Techno Was Manipulative or whatever is.... that techno would say tommy cant trust tubbo or lmanberg and he shouldnt go back to him.

Like. I dont get that because frankly techno was just Right. Techno doesnt Know absolutely everything pertaining to the details of tommy's exile n such. From his perspective its that tubbo exiled tommy, dream was the only person tommy had contact with which Presumably Wasnt Good Contact, and that he'd ran away from his 'exile'. Like. Itd make SENSE that techno would see all that and say 'hey tubbo DID exile you in the first place'. Mans was sharing his Own Opinion of tommy's situation and the ppl of lmanberg.

Maybe was biased in waying tubbo wasnt Good to go back to and shouldnt be trusted or whatever. But he wasnt WRONG in saying that tubbo Was the one who exiled tommy. Literally like............ he wasnt being Bad there in any way.

The fact we Still argue bout the raccooninnit arc and if techno was Manipulative is so fucking wild. Literally the man himself hates this particular conversation and slander of his character like he Has Said So Way Long Ago In Technocord. I think ppl jus wanna See him as evil and whatever, whether its inflating mannerisms and Traits that techno Himself has as a person like how he pokes fun of tommy out of canon, or jus..... twisting his actions in such ways.

[writerofshit]

I know the usual interpretation in fahc is that Ryan shares his woes with the other gents, but I just really love the idea of Jeremy overhearing him on a voice call with Meg (either gaming together or while she's preparing for a hit) moaning about how the new guy in his crew is cute and funny and hotter than the arizona desert and she's just like "pics or it didn't happen. Also ask him out, if he says no you can fake your death and come work with me"

Oh my GOD yes, I am absolutely here for this idea.

I love love love their friendship so goddamn much, especially in the FAHC universe. Because she's not in the crew, never really even worked with them all that much, just happens to be good friends with them. She's roped Ryan into so many various shenanigans over the years, including: making him go on 6 am runs with her, having him help her plan Gav's birthday party one year, assisting her with a hit during NYFW (which is when the 'Ryan as an undercover model' thing began) and what they refer to as 'The Strip Club Incident'.

Meanwhile, she's become the one Ryan trusts most with anything personal. He's not going to break in the middle of a heist to ask anybody else whether they think he and Jeremy would make a cute couple. He also isn't going to ask if they think he's capable of settling down, or complain about how running affects his knees.

Meg has told him a thousand times that he can absolutely be part of a disgustingly domestic couple, he's made for it, really. She's set him up more times than he can count, never once with any success. Every other week she calls him up with "So I have a friend..."

"How many goddamn friends do you have Meg? And how many do I have to embarrass myself in front of before you stop?"

And then Jeremy joins the crew, and Ryan falls head over heels for him. Just falls so fucking hard it's unbelievable. He mentions it offhand to Meg one night, which he immediately regrets. He tries to play it off like "New guy in the crew, kinda cute, its whatever." But she zeroes in on it.

"The fact that you even admitted he's cute means you actually like him."

"No.... Come on, if that were true I wouldn't have said anything at all!" Which is bullshit, because he knows her well enough that had he avoided any opinion, she would have jumped to the obvious conclusion. He thought the tiny admission would make her assume he wasnt really interested. An attempt at reverse psychology that failed horribly, of course.

They argue back and forth for a bit before he hangs up on her, threatening to make her run alone if she ever brings it up again. Except shes Meg, he literally cant say no to her, and she cant let anything go.

She pesters him on and off for about a month before something happens. He's on the phone with her while she's on a drive to a hit somewhere, lamenting his ever growing crush on Jeremy. "He's hot and he's funny, Meg, this isn't fair."

"Oh my god, so are you, you self deprecating asshole." She says, with this exasperated sigh like they've had this conversation a million times. They have, but she doesnt have to point it out like that. "You're an absolute catch, Ryan, Jeremy would be lucky to have you."

"You and I have different views of me."

"Yeah, I'm right and you're an idiot. And hey, if it all goes to shit I could use a partner. You'd be driving right now and I'd be sleeping."

"Thanks so much. At least I have a fallback career as your chauffeur."

It's a fairly standard conversation, except for the fact that Ryan's in the garage and has her on speakerphone while he fiddles with his bike. It is admittedly, extremely cliche to accidentally discuss someone while the subject of your discussion is listening at the door. Cliche, but also par for the course of Ryan's luck.

"Are you guys talking about me?" Comes a voice from behind Ryan.

Ryan freezes, and Meg laughs through the phone. "Oh shit, Ry, is that who I think it is?"

"Are you- do you like me, Ryan?" Jeremy fully ignores the listening ears on the phone.

"I- Meg, I'm gonna need you to turn around and come help-"

"Sorry Ryan, I'm going through a tunnel!" She says, completely clearly. "But text me and let me know how it goes!"

"Liar, don't you fuckin-" and then she hangs up, and Ryan is left alone with Jeremy. Jeremy who is staring at him, looking mostly confused, and slightly entertained.

"Ryan?"

"Um. I can explain? How- how much did you hear?"

"Meg thinks I'd be lucky to have you and you have a fucked up perception of yourself."

"Oh. I- I have no explanation, actually." He supposes working with Meg wouldnt be too bad. He's not keen on getting stuck with every driving job that comes along though.

"She's right."

"That I'd make a good chauffeur?" Because jokes. Jokes are the way to get out of this.

"I would be lucky to have you. Just... Never thought you'd be interested in me." Jeremy says, and Ryan's brain short circuits.

He says something that he intends to be 'are you serious' but comes out sounding a lot more like his brain just keysmashed. But Jeremy only smiles at him, and Ryan falls a little more.

A week or so later when hes recapping the whole thing over text to Meg, Jeremy sleeping peacefully beside him, he leaves put the part about flubbing his confession. She still calls him out on it though.

'Bet you didnt even say you liked him, just bleh-ed at him until he got it.'

He regrets being friends with her sometimes.

[zapsoda]

honestly didnt even consider that the line between private/personal communication cause it seems so obvious to me in my mind eheheh. like. its about intended audience. a published work or speech is meant to be understood by large swathes of people.

a fisherman talking to his friend is just talking to his friend. it doesnt matter how he speaks or even if he gets his message across, unless the friend particularly wants to learn, in which case they are capable of, and have the opportunity to, ask further questions. even in a small group of people, they can get to know him as a person, and understand any quirks or nuances in the way he communicates. a crowd of strangers will not have that opportunity.

with a "larger audience," like a crowd of strangers or readers from across the world, that direct ability to clarify oneself after the fact becomes much more difficult (if not impossible), which is why getting it right the first time suddenly becomes important.

some posts can be intended to reach a large audience, in which case, (assuming the message itself is of high importance - not rlly talking about simplistic jokes or shitposts) paying attention to clear wording is important.

on the other hand, a lot of people post for themselves, they use (for example) tumblr as a diary, or to communicate only with friends, and thus might not worry about how others will interpret their words.

this, of course, has nothing to do with whether or not a text is classified as literature. literature is just textual art. i may have made a mistake in my word choice previously to give the opposite impression ahaha. like kafkas diaries. they werent meant for anyone else to see afaik, so his meaning in many places can be widely disputed, but they are still influential pieces of literature regardless. it doesnt matter that kafka wasnt clear with his meaning because, even though it has been read by others, it wasnt meant for them, it was meant for himself.

to be honest i dont understand the significance of what is or isnt a "term," just generally speaking ahah. it just seems like a word to me and if people understand what is meant by it the exact nuances are inconsequential. i get the point of the example, of course, i just found that interesting.

regarding the specific quote (im paraphrasing because tumblr wont let me copy text 💔💔💔💔💔💔💔) "you could go all in and say, fuck the rules, as long as its understandable, it is proper english" and like, yeah sure, i guess, but the way i see it, rules and consistency are inherently what make a text understandable. which is basically sort of like what you said in the last paragraph kind of. a little bit.

to elaborate, even if it seems like someone is disregarding all "rules" of english (idk. dril for example) by nature of their words having a meaning that can be understood, i think that inherently they must be following some set of rules. thats what language is to me i feel like. a set of guidelines for communication, which can and will be bent or evolved when needed, but maintain a core structure so that it can be widely understood. like whst you said! :Dhope that makes sense lol.

this is why i think some rules take priority over others. in most cases, capitalization can be removed without altering the meaning of a text negatively, sometimes even improving it (example: SANS SERIF FONTS, IN WHICH CAPITAL "i" AND LOWERCASE "L" ARE ENTIRELY INDISTINGUISHABLE) (of course, there are exceptions to this, there is a reason why people began to capitalize words ^_^)

its the same way with spelling, many spelling mistakes can maintain the intended meaning of the text, and even add meaning as opposed to taking it away, while some spelling mistakes are severe enough to make the text completely illegible.

the rules i value most, personally, are word choice and order because they can drastically change the meaning of a text, in a way i notice frequently online or in fiction. a classic example is the perceived difference between a "cabin in the woods" and a "cottage in the forest," or even with a more juvenile example, the difference between a "butt dial" and a "booty call."

these are really basic examples, i cant think of a more complex or applicable one off the top of my head. just imagine all those strongly worded tumblr posts that are trying to make a good point or spread a good message, but are so hateful and vitriolic in their words, that they even alienate those who agree with them. that would be an example of a situation where correcting wording would serve the purpose of the text and clarify its meaning from "gahh i hate this thing and all of you" to "we, collectively, should try to improve this thing." if that. makes sense. aha

i think what im most passionate about is like writing/rhetoric/argument. and linguistics, of course, are an intrinsic part of that :33. if not doing it myself, then analyzing it. my fave thing in the world i loved ap lang (the words ap lang might mean nothing to you idk if collegeboard chills with the french lol) (advanced placement language and composition - a college credit course about utilizing analyzing rhetoric in writing, for reference)

to clarify my opinion on "proper" english, idfc how people write in their personal lives/to friends or family/etc, but in professional/published works- or anything that is meant to be understood by a wider audience i think the clarity provided by adhering to certain grammatical rules and structure is veeerrry important eheheh. for the sake of ease of communication!

i try to be pretty careful about my word choice and order allll the time for that reason, even if i drop a lot of proper spelling/capitalization/punctuation for casual dialogue.

nonetheless, i think when people act intentionally obtuse just to shame people for speaking casually/colloquially/with slang/whatever thats stupid and evil etc. hate when people do that. i might not understand a lot of it, but it has the right to exist yk! it is just as worthy of respect ^_^

anyways i think this topic is very interesting as well its something i enjoy talking about :33

once again i dare ask, where does the professional/private begins and stops? thats a big debate we had in termonology class (terminology , the science of terms aka specialised & professional words). some terminologists argue that terms are only employed in the field by top-notch experts to top-notch experts and nothing else qualifies as a term. other terminologists argue that funk that: "spoonful" is a term because it belongs to the professional sector of cooking, disregarding how common/unspecialised it may be (they dont actually disregard it but yknow). also some guy who goes fishing as a hobby every week and starts talking about the components of his rod to his friends: not an expert (meaning doesn't work as a fisherman)! but using specialised words! should they count as terms or common words? should that be considered professional discussion cuz the terms or private discussion cuz he's talking to a friend? anyways it's just to say that the gap between professional and private discussions may not be so clear

on a same note, what is a wider audience? we're on the internet literally everyone could read that post, making it, by its nature, designed for a wide audience. should every tumblr post thus should have proper english? likewise, works that were only notes and scribbles, like Les Pensées by Pascal that were published post-mortem... it was not meant for a wider audience in that state and is not always using proper French. due to this, are thus Les Pensées not a piece of literature anymore? (kinda teasing w this paragraph hehe but you see the issue i'm poking)

like you said the most important task of a language is not to be proper. it is to be spoken but also to be effective. to enable communication. we could also go all in and dare say, funk the rules as long as a message or piece or literature is understandable, it is proper english!! arguably, every broken rule of proper english creates a new variation of english that could be its own proper variation english (like UK english, US english, NZ english, etc, coexist together as proper englishes)

also youre soso true about the shaming stuff. dawg that pisses me OFF. that's why fuck the Académie Française i wish i could dismember that bullshit of an institution. they are the ones "making the rules" of French but NONE OF THOSE FUCKERS ARE LINGUISTS AND ALSO ARE ALL 109 YEARS OLD HOW CAN THEY im cool im cool [insert the hades calming down gif]. anyways. language belongs to the people so whatever they do with it it's fine as long as they have fun and are themselves <3

on a final note i'm heavily arguing against you here but i think you're overall right nonetheless :p rigor may not always be needed in a language but languages need a strong basis and grammatical rules to exist and actually make the communication efficient!! i perfectly see your points and they are very legit

[melforbes]

ask meme. what if. patching up. no I still haven’t seen source material

the way i completely forgot about this ask until i wrote like two paragraphs in this and was like oh shit lmao

the source material is getting an hbo series bb you're in luck also ignore anna whatever as tess yes i respect her as an actress yes she is talented in a bunch of things i have not seen but ms annie wersching is the only tess in my heart and also if i have to endure tess being reduced to a powerbitch stereotype i will start foaming at the mouth. but also i have no feelings about this whatsoever <3

WHAT IF: i will pick an important choice or event in my current project and write three sentences (or more?) about if it’d gone done differently

hmmmmmmMMMMMMMMMMMMMm

this is hard because i kind of had a stupid amount of confidence in the decisions i had them make in this and because i have ~a lot of experience~ in flying by the seat of my pants with writing lmaooooo a lot of the time with this ive had some degree of foresight when it comes to certain plot decisions. the only reason i have this in the first place is that with other things ive had kind of sort of plot revelations and then been like "well if i'd set that up three chapters ago it would have a huge impact i think but instead i guess it's just going in this one for a smaller impact" so i think i learned my lesson haha. also because this pairing nowadays has a small and sparse tag i really intentionally put in stuff to make it interesting (maybe the wrong word) to reread. like not Interesting interesting but i wanted there to be certain details that are more relevant on a reread than on an initial read because whenever i read stuff in small tags i tend to read it Multiple Times lmaoooooo and it's like if anyone like me is out there I Will Feed You. I Will Give You Food. you see i have this problem in which im like i dont want to act like i put thought into this because That's Embarrassing and i also dont want to seem like i take this too seriously because That's Embarrassing and also i dont want to act uppity or pompous or something But At The Same Time i do put a lot of thought into certain things and i feel like mentioning that and i dont really want to judge myself for that. it's complicated but also super uncomplicated. where was i going with this

OH right. so most of the plot decisions were made super concretely. like pre breakup arc in the nightmares chapters (which came out so much worse than i intended alkdjksjad;glksjg) when tess and joel talk about ellie Knowing (also legit it is such a trip to me that you dont know the context of that. a trip in a good way) she says we every time and he only ever says i even when she points out that this would affect both of them, and at one point i think he says that tess doesnt understand baseless violence which is 100% untrue, and then there's a bunch of window imagery i put in starting there because im a freak. so like For Once In My Life a lot of this was as planned as it could be. on occasion there's been Plot Revelations that get wedged in (the radio interlude chapter, which was a bit of an inelegant seam between prewritten things that didnt mesh well) but for the most part ive got tits out into every decision. like tess and ellie disagreeing about joel's choice was very planned though i imagine that kind of conversation could be executed many different ways i had my one way and stuck to it. so either way

where was i going with this. did i have a point.

OKAY. let's see. i think one of the big ~emotional beats~ so to speak was the ambush chapter and i think that's the favorite because that's usually where people comment if i remember correctly and initially i wasnt going to go with that tone At All haha. years ago i wrote everyday domestic scenes of mulder and scully from x files and had it all on this blog and it was plotless but largely in the same overarching universe (i say as if it was legit ever That Deep) and after writing this as a oneshot and being like you know? Kind of feel like doing that again. i figured i would just follow the same largely plotless path of legit just domesticity and leave it at that. and i think the first like five chapters are tonally different from the rest because i'd never really intended for it to have plot or really any depth whatsoever. in the end like. How do i say this in a way that wont be interpreted as uppity or something asldkjgalsdgjk like. when i did those mulder scully scenes i was very much a beginner and i think i didnt realize just how inherent that beginner-ness was to the concept itself. which isnt a bad thing! like people had fun with those so far as i remember. bizarrely enough i think people might still read those which. cringe. but you kno!!! but with a few years of distance from that kind of concept i think it was hard for me to Not try something else. especially with this universe in which it's just dense with storytelling opportunity. and also i felt as if the first few chapters were just like super super lighthearted and i wanted some angst factor. which is why in the end the angst factor plot itself is flimsy as fuck. like i did not care WHY they got attacked i just wanted that sweet sweet hurt/comfort cup of tea u feel. and after that i didnt really go for the plot too much But i did edge toward it a lot more. like i mean ultimately this is a romance like it was not intended to be plot heavy ever But it's more plot heavy than it couldve been. had i actually written it as i'd intended from the start i think it wouldve gotten old really fast. like nothing but lighthearted domesticity doesnt make sense in this context. for the first few chapters it doesnt necessarily kill the whole thing imo because like. that's the first few chapters. but after then if there was never any ~deeper thoughts~ i think it wouldve gotten reductive super fast.

hmmm what else. Because i am deciding to talk too much on the internet now.

oh in theory the whole breakup arc couldve been omitted and now in retrospect im like it's hilarious that like the next chapter after they got married i immediately peppered in hints that they would break up lkajsdglaksjgdlkj like wow. That lasted a long time. but like i mean i think with them it fits that they would do something like get married before they even said that they loved each other. like i can see them doing a massive workaround instead of doing a small and simple but vulnerable thing. makes sense 2 me. and like they definitely couldve stuck together in the end but 1 theres interesting storytelling in how maybe joel was too stubborn or maybe they grew apart in certain ways or blah blah blah and 2 I JUST LOVE A GOOD BREAKUP AND THEN RETURNING TO EACH OTHER ARC OKAAAAAAAAAY. legit. favorite trope. if i ever experienced that in real life i would claw my eyes out but in fiction it makes me FERALLLL. and also like i mean i lov these two for their dumb quirks but also like it would be a lil wrong to say there wouldnt be consequences for like. Not communicating haha. also again like the world this game is put in is so full of storytelling opportunities and im like Must Take Them All. like joel is stubborn as hell and shuts down when he's overwhelmed and there is growth in the first game (and in the second too but thats not really shown as much and is more left for the player to fill in the gaps i think) but also i think it would be super easy to regress in that sense and i had fun with putting him in those situations. and it's also super fun to have an additional person for the joel and ellie plots to bounce off of. like joel and ellie are two very stubborn people and having an extra person there to be like You Blithering Idiots has been a good time. im getting sidetracked. like it was fun to answer the question of how these two in a marriage neither of them can fully substantiate would communicate in hard times and the answer i personally found was that they both would end up breaking things. which was fun to write!!!!!!!!! but in theory couldve been prevented. maybe i just cant imagine this a different way haha. like Joel And Tess Learn Healthy Communication Skills Over Time. am i mean for saying that doesnt sound probable aldskjgalskdjgslkgj

OH LMAO THE MARRIAGE PART. that was also a big decision i guess. i wouldnt make it go differently alksdjglasdjg like. i definitely couldve written the context around that many different ways bc again this whole is full of opportunity But a frankly premature wedding just feels right to me. especially with like going from being stuck on survival to being safe for the first time in decades. and then having that sense of safety get boring and wondering why there was that super fast wedding in the first place. cant really imagine it going differently

there is later unposted stuff that could def have gone many different ways and that i tried to make go different ways but that would not be right to talk about akldsjaslkgdjsg so.

this got too long sorry <3

[terriblygrimm]

ohmygod finally someone who shares my views. my sister and I loved fatws for what they did w sam’s character but aside from that the writing was very bad. we really could not understand wtf was bucky’s purpose to the main plot and what new side of bucky did we see. when the action wasnt happening he kept whining about steve and being rude to sam and then marvel thrust sambucky onto us and basically told us to move onto this Brand New Duo. sam and bucky were not on equal footing here and their personal struggles did not hold equal weight at all (i will give credits to anthony and seb here for making their friendship look believable) mcu keeps sidelining bucky and i thought they would do him some justice in this show but they didnt. after reading the articles and interviews post the show it was evident the writers did not understand bucky’s character at all. his whole character development was moving on from steve and now becoming sam’s sidekick? (also im really hoping and praying these writers dont go through with sarahbucky in the future because…no..absolutely not). and i do hope that what you said about a future steve bucky reunion comes true because so far mcu has been very hellbent on erasing their friendship and its just pathetic that they try to undermine their friendship so much, while weirdly enough also emphasizing that yes it has deep emotional value.

yeah like, i’m gonna try to make this as succinct and short (lol) as i possibly can without going off on tangents but tf.atws should’ve been SAM’S show. sam alone. he should’ve been the only title character, and they could’ve properly focused on his arc and the sociopolitical weight of it. that is MORE than enough content to fill up 6 hours. i absolutely love cap!sam and i think he’s gonna be a great captain america. i’m very much looking forward to his future.

but virtually everything else about this show from conception to film was a miss.

the flag smashers? (really marvel? your military propaganda perked its ugly ass head with this one. within the first five minutes of the show they were condemning ppl who believed in a world without borders lmfao. i legit almost stopped watching right then i’m not kidding) and the storyline itself wasn’t even coherent. they had WAY too many characters and arcs to focus on and it just.. didn’t work. didn’t do any one of them justice. not even their title characters - especially their title characers. the whole thing felt very hollow and emotionally remiss. the barely existent dialogue was clunky and awkward, and i’m sorry but.. to me, sam and bucky do not organically get along lol. the chemistry between the actors is undeniable which is why so many ppl ate it up, (and do i think they could eventually get along? yes) but the buddybuddy thing was pretty forced imo. very sudden and based on very little. 

their stories were at odds, with not one common goal between them all the way to the end. they fought for screen time and it caused both of their stories to suffer and not carry the weight they should have. they both had VERY heavy content to work with (a black captain america / a trauma/abuse/pow survivor) but somehow marvel - in true marvel fashion - did not commit to either and tried to tread lightly on both. 

bucky and sam only had the thin thread of steve woven between them & even that was done poorly because the writers themselves admittedly weren’t told what happened to steve, therefore they couldn’t write a definitive arc about it. and instead of actually committing to the deep bond between he and bucky, they took the no homo route and had bucky express anger over who holds property of the shield, rather than admitting it was steve himself that he emotionally and physically missed. but again, they couldn’t really do that, could they? they didn’t know if steve was alive or if bucky knew of his whereabouts. 

i’ll admit i did enjoy the peripheral concept of bucky helping steve pass along the shield, like he was its watcher, making sure steve’s legacy fell in good hands, and was there to basically coach sam along the way. in THAT regard alone, it did feel like he and steve were still a team post-endgame. that, on top of saying that he and steve discussed the future of the shield together was a sweet touch. loved that, but it was executed poorly like everything else.

& his winter soldier arc... lordy, was that handled horribly. bucky is a charming, gentle, burdened, lover-not-a-fighter (since the 40s) victim and they turned him macho, carrying the burden of his abusers and guilted into making amends? and that his problems were his fault because he couldn’t trust people? say what now? bucky is a pissed off, good-hearted war vet with a LOT of baggage- he’s not just some dude. the effort to butch up and patch up bucky in a quick fix was apparent, from the short hair, to the list of names, to the “man up” approach everybody came at him with, to the really out of place heterosexual flirting. i mean honest to god who the has time to flirt? apparently bucky! none of the other characters even passed a sideways glance to another during the entire series aside from the one character who audiences have been vocal about being queer for 10 years. hmmm.... (and then the writers actually CAME OUT & MADE A POINT TO SAY that they did not intend for his bisexuality lmfao i mean please dear god put us out of this misery. that writer/director need to stop talking because nobody cares about their personal opinions or headcanons. media is for the viewer to interpret so please shut up.)

overall the actors did what they could w that script, that much was obvious- and they certainly tried to stay as true to their visions/versions of the characters as they could but it just didn’t end up matching up.

but yeah, on a lighter note, i sincerely don’t think they’ll continue bucky in sam’s sphere. i think that was a one off. i don’t think they actually wanted to sell them as a “new partnership” but they just didn’t know how to write the dynamic properly. i think tf.atws was just a sad, sad attempt to place them somewhere post-endgame so they can continue on in bigger marvel films. sam’s got his cap4 and his new team (torres, sharon, walker), and i think i read he’s gonna make an appearance in black panther? which will be sooooo awesome!! 

and bucky? his ending was very open, what with him miraculously “feeling better” yet not quite the white wolf, and not permanent in any place. and on top of that, he was instructed to stay away from wakanda so he can’t make future appearances there, so methinks he and steve will cross paths again as nomad and white wolf for sure (once it’s revealed what steve’s been doing, etc). maybe in space?

the power that holds anon.... i get so excited even thinking about it.

[quarktrinity]

Thank you for your Rich post. I think you added a lot to the fandom. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the Fandom Discourse comes from the source itself. As much as I love BMC, I felt it bit off more than it could chew. Jake's own traumas would take an entire musical itself to truly address; same thing for Rich, Brooke, Christine, etc. Musicals only last for 2 hours or less. [1/4 tictac anon]

“They can only truly address so many things, and it certainly cannot resolve everything it brings up, esp if it's heavy things in a musical such as BMC. Imo, we really shouldn't pretend otherwise. But your Rich post brought up some interesting points. You're right; ultimately, Rich DID decide to light himself on fire inside his friend's house with TONS of classmates inside. And he DID choose to bully Jeremy and likely others. [2/4 tictac anon] However, we see that Jeremy could not see Michael or his messages and was constantly bombarded with distractions. Plus, at the end of the musical, Jeremy's movements were starting to get controlled by the SQUIP! Therefore, it doesn't seem quite black & white. Freewill being compromised due to technology is an uncomfortable subject, but I believe it's something the musical DOES address. [3/4 tictac anon] 

After all, the creators did confirm that the theory of the ending being planned by the SQUIP all along was an intentionally valid theory. Not canon but a possibility. "A shared negative opinion is the fastest social bond. You want someone to like you... hate who they hate." -- when the SQUIP looked like a common bad guy and gave Jeremy more friends in the end. What are your thoughts on that? [4/4 tictac anon]”

----------

this is all very thought out! im impressed, tictac anon!

i understand the feeling that bmc bit off more than it could chew for character complexity, as it would introduce concepts and not have time to follow through on them. however, i think that this is actually a good thing in a way (while it is fair to criticize), because bmc isnt really about those kids, its about jeremy and his navigation through this social world. 

when his peers are introduced, they appear very one dimensional, simple, cartoony almost, but in sync up, jeremys view of them gets turned upside down as the squip reveals to him that theres more to them than meets the eye. throughout the rest of the musical we see, through his perspective, that all of these kids have a lot of baggage, and its never quite dealt with within the story, but thats not why the story revealed the baggage. their baggage isnt dealt with because its not their story, its jeremys. instead, were shown the complexity of these characters solely for the sake of jeremys understanding of them, not for any character arc they might have. this is actually used when jeremy takes advantage of jennas insecurities in “the pitiful children” to get her to take a squip. he tries the same with christine, but fails. the supporting characters are given depth not to develop them, but to show jeremy and the audience that no one is quite as simple as theyd like you to believe.

on the subject of free will, i think it is an interesting topic the musical discusses (i even consider it psychological horror in a way), but i genuinely dont think that rich was always forced against his will to bully kids. he mightve been a few times, but its definitely not a constant. the reason i think this is that from jeremys experiences, the squip mainly gives him advice, and uses brute force to prove a point to him (see: when the squip forces jeremy to say “my dad drinks too” to show that lying is often the best way to make a friend). brute force is used to establish a cause and effect for jeremy, so he can initiate the process on his own in the future. people might wonder why jeremy snapped at michael at the party, but its really quite obvious: jeremys been conditioned by the squip to engage with that behavior. even when its shut off, the lessons the squip taught him remain. i believe the same process occurred with richs bullying. his squip, at first, mightve forced rich to bully someone, only to show rich that it would result in people liking him, so hed do it on his own later. the squips seem to only resort to brute force when being threatened by their hosts, so i doubt hes just a puppet in strings all the time.

and, as a person whos written 4 musicals (humble-brag intended), i can say with confidence that people can come up with interpretations or theories about your work that you definitely didnt intend, but wont reject because, as any playwright knows, all of what you know about the story is whats in the script. there are no secrets here, no hidden lore, everything in the script is what the story is. so when joe tracz was approached with the “the squip intended the ending the whole time” theory, he probably thought “oh shit! thatd be so cool! cant confirm nor deny that, regardless of my intentions, because technically it would work within the script!” in fact, with any particular production, the director might actually know more about the story of their specific production more than the writers, and the actors will definitely know more about their characters than the writers do. thats something i find really beautiful about theatre as a story-telling medium.

so that theory probably wasnt intended, but that doesnt mean its not true! the events behind the script are always up to anyones interpretation, whether thats the writers themselves, the directors, the actors, or even the audience!

thanks for sending me these asks, they were really fun to answer!

[im-basically-logan]

me pointing out stuff

hullo! im not going thru the whole video but imma just,,, title says it all.

under the cut. i just ramble a lot

oh my god the pixel animation. thats so neat!! also the sound design is just *chefs kiss*

can we talk abt that 8-bit sides intro remix??? thats some good shit!

hey uhh i dont think the team intended it as a reference but “ineffable” bein thrown about? my good omens brain be like 👀

ok ik the situation is Bad but i like thomas’ suit and vest

ALSO does anyone know what the sprites in the rhythm game were based off of?? (the chibi dancing ones, not the ace attorney ones)

tbh when music started playing i was like “We got a musical bit already” lmao

also it’s so weird that patton didnt encouraging negotiating??? with his friends??

like the thing is you gotta communicate??? with people??? thats how healthy relationships work

also silently suffering is not good!! as hypocritical from me as that is

he should’ve at least told them about it. and this has been explained to no end but if they’re really his friends they know he has a huge repertoire and still-interest in acting

ngl i found patton’s explanations of his side really confusing. which was probably the intent considering how logan interpreted it (contradicting)

JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR

logan’s lowdown,,,, good shit

i love how he reacted to the convo while his lil box was up

also ik roman got issues but he gotta lower his asshole-ishness which is PROBABLY  coping mechanism but dont be mean to janus and logan maybe :(

also hot take but the trolley problem is fucking dumb

like in theory it’s a good thought experiment but thats just a STUPID way to measure morality

the baby-making catholics joke lmaoooo

patton had said on a previous episode that he sees logan as a hero, right? well i guess that falls away when he’s the one in the wrong, hm

not to say patton is bad for being defensive, thats just human nature really

he concedes at some point which is good!

also im SO glad janus pointed out that patton wasnt meaning to mislead thomas

patton and roman need to learn that morals can be grey

character growth character growth lets GOOOOO

MOVING ON when logan came back

“Not that any of you care, but I am unharmed, and I don’t want to talk about it.” WHAT HAPPENED??? WHAT DID DECEIT DO HGKJFKLJFKDL

also mood

effective altruism is the perfect compromise to this whole thing tbh

janus being genuine is so,,, interesting? idk. character development!

also he was SO FUCKING HURT by roman making fun of his name?? he was SO vulnerable. what the FUCK

but also janus lashing out was also an OH SHIT moment.

like both sides of that was a big ol YIKES!

also have i mentioned?? leslie odom jr?? was ACTUALLY THERE

D A M N

patton needs a hug tbh

they all need hugs tbh

also,,,, where was virgil?