#anti themattress

[intotheventures]

Wait a second, intotheventures, themattress called you "mentally ill" because you don't like the same game as he does?

Jeez, at this point anon actually kind of misses the haters of decades ago. Previously, haters would just say you're wrong, or call you an idiot, or say you have bad taste, etc.

But people like mattress or eric aren't satisfied with claiming you're wrong, they have to claim you have mental problems on top of it.

At least the haters of previous decades were AWARE that not everyone thought like they do; they just thought "everyone else is wrong and we're right".

But mattress and eric don't even have that kind of awareness; they think everyone naturally has the same mindset they do but are just suffering from some sort of brain disorder.

They don't think "everyone else is wrong", they think "everyone is self-righteous, everyone else has protagonist syndrome, everyone else is a misogynist, everyone else is mentally ill or delusional or emotionally imbalanced etc. etc. etc."

They're not above ableism when it suits them.

Everything you said is correct, I would also add that they're the ones with issues if they're so easily triggered by people not liking a video game (let's ignore for a second that I'm not every instance of "KH2 hating anon" as explained in an old post). But even if their opponents did have mental problems, it doesn't make the two morons more credible, nor does it invalidate any criticisms towards them or their sacred cow.

They can call me autistic (and other variations) all they want, my problem is more so that they pretend to have the moral high ground while doing so.

[raxistaicho]

Only Edelcrits are miserable in CF

So, does anyone remember this quote from me?

Now we’re delving straight into, I believe, Crushed Nugget’s Everyone is Miserable in CF set of posts, which is something I’d reeeeeaaaaaally like to dig into sometime, because it’s just a lot of petty and trivial ways to try to demonstrate everybody as being unhappy or less-fulfilled characters in CF.

These can range from the ever-popular “Lysithea doesn’t want to destroy the Empire in CF”, to “Yuri feels overworked in CF”, to “Raphael is irresponsible and happy in CF”, to “Ingrid is sadge in CF”. Yeah, being happy is bad if in CF and being unhappy is also bad if in CF.

It’s basically just her plucking at literally anything she can find to say that CF is bad in that exact moment without any regard for consistent standards. Ignatz’s is especially amazing given you know if the paintings he drew were reversed she’d instead say VW Ignatz is good for wanting to immortalize the horror of war so we never forget what war takes from us while CF Ignatz is bad for trying to cover up the pain with pretty pictures of something.

I said I didn't really wanna address it myself because it'd take a lot of time... but luckily @themattress has me covered! I can't directly reblog their post because Crushed Nugget has me blocked, but I link to it here:

Give it a look because holy shit it looks like they put a lot of work in this masterclass debunk.

[otnesse]

This is more of a reply to @ultraericthered and @themattress since I can't directly reblog their replies.

To be fair, JJM HAS shown a couple of instances in the early run (specifically Johto) of not going along with Giovanni's wishes and going against him (case in point: Mewtwo Returns. By the ending, Meowth played a key role in Mewtwo being saved from Giovanni, not to mention it's heavily implied JJM willingly kept Mewtwo's existence a secret from the by-that-point amnesiac Giovanni [due to Mewtwo basically erasing the memory of their encounter]), so them turning against Team Rocket DOES have some plausibility behind it. And Darth Vader at least in-universe took literally HALF his life to redeem himself and return to the Light Side upon dying and Big Boss from Metal Gear took five DECADES to see the error of his ways and make amends, so I wouldn't necessarily say Team Rocket CAN'T do something like that.

Heck, Takeshi Shudo actually PLANNED to have JJM basically turn against Team Rocket and redeem themselves, viewing them as redeemable anti-villains, which was also part of the reason he wasn't happy with how they were handled in Advanced Generation by turning them into blatantly incompetent goofballs.

Either way, I definitely agree ultimately with alfredopizzaluver151's post, less regarding JJM's overall conclusion and more that they never actually took down Team Rocket the organization, period. Even if they must keep JJM's obsession with Pikachu and not redeem them, at least have it be that they decide to pursue Pikachu on their OWN terms and NOT be on Team Rocket's side. Just doesn't sit right that they'd keep the organization intact during Ash's final episode (and it's also left ambiguous as to what exactly happened to Giovanni since the fact that he let them have their Pokemon back suggested he was either considering firing them or otherwise was going to be leaving).

I think the saddest thing about Ash leaving the anime is that Team Rocket didn't have a satisfying conclusion. Jesse, James, and Meowth still think their boss cares about them and that what they're doing is okay.

It would've been nice seeing their rose-colored glasses shatter and they help Ash in a grand finale take down the Rocket organization.

[enixamyram]

The worst part of the montage, IMO, was Graham's death shown during the "loss" segment, with voiceover narration by his murderer who has never been exposed for that crime. What. the. Hell.

Graham. We never forgave and we never forgot.

The writers however, yeah they’re a different story. It’s hard to tell if they forgave, forgot, both or just didn’t even care.

Lots of Anti Regina under the cut XP

Seriously though, this is so true. And It leads to my constant belief that Regina never redeemed herself. She just switched sides. Which is NOT the same thing. (And even then, a lot of them times I question if she even switched O_o).

The show had multiple chances to show her redeeming herself, but again, that is more than just saying sorry (not that she even said the words “I’m Sorry” most of the time, if ever) and doing good in the future. A redemption is about looking back on the past and making up for it, and the first step to making up for Graham’s death would have been to come clean about it: which she never did. Not even to the end.

This is pure fantasy but wouldn’t it be such a sweet moment if Emma learned the truth at Regina’s coronation somehow (maybe read it in Henry’s book or something) and was the one to step forward and rip that damn crown off her head.

[rubbady-pubbady]

@themattress replied to your post “Did…they actually make Regina queen again? Did everyone get to vote on...”

Oh no, they said there WAS a vote and Regina won by a landslide. Because of course she did. Regina is literally one of the biggest Black Hole Sues I have ever witnessed.

Are you...are you serious?!

But of course she did!

She is actually the definition of a Black Hole Sue...it’s shocking!

And let me guess? Wish Henry suddenly got over her murder of his grandparents because he saw how super duper awesome she is and now loves her too?

And for anyone who wants to see just how much of a Black Hole Sue she is, here is the term! You’ll be amazed! 

[tirsu]

@themattress, thank you!

And this may sound awful, but thank god he’s really dead. Didn’t like him.

[writesailingdreams]

@themattress replied to your post: Seriously, between Amity's anti-bullying here despite her past treatment of Willow *and* the reveal that she and Willow used to be friends in the previous episode, there is clearly something much more complex about their relationship than we know at the moment. Mysterious!

Agree. It’s seems like Amity may have experienced events different than Willow. Also, since Amity seems to be a very private and aloof person (with perfectionist tendencies) she doesn’t come across as helpful, caring or friendly but it might not mean she means badly.

Another thought, but I wonder if there’s competition in her family. Particularly around...mm...being the most skilled. If you’re not going to be the best, why bother?or waste the time? So, could her dismissiveness toward Willow be related to a sentiment that unless you’re going to exceed, best cut the bud of ambition before it blooms?

Additionally, maybe in Amity’s family the more competent you are at magic, the more good faith is bestowed on you. In her journal, Amity mentions how she can’t understand why no one else sees what Edric and Emira are like, and maybe she’s trying to be as good as a witch as she can to gain...status, leverage. Does she think if she’s more skilled, she’ll be believed more?

[saxgoddess25]

themattress replied to your post: What happens if Hook isn’t her true love? *coughs*

You missed 5x20. That was already confirmed.

Didn’t miss a thing.

[frasier-crane-style]

themattress replied to your post: “It’s the most perfect Spider-Man movie ever!”...

@huellbabineauxdefensesquad: Honestly, I may be wrong, but I can’t help but feel that a lot of the anti-MCU Spidey sentiment is coming from fans disgruntled about the genuine screw-ups of the 616 comics, especially in regards to Peter and MJ (OMD and onward), and since the people behind the comics refuse to fix this shit, fans want to look toward other mediums to do so and get upset at them when they don’t even when they are honestly under no obligation to.

Umm, they’re under an obligation to be a faithful adaptation if they’re calling their movie ‘Spider-Man’ and especially if they’re calling their love interest ‘MJ’. If they call her Felicia Hardy, I’m going to judge her as a take on Felicia Hardy, if they call her Gwen Stacy, I’m going to judge her as a take on Gwen Stacy. They wanted to have a ‘shocking twist’ consisting of a character who’s nothing like Mary Jane suddenly being ‘Mary Jane,’ so I’m going to judge them by the comparison they made. 

Also, Man of Steel and Batman V. Superman got shit for being unfaithful adaptations of Superman and Batman despite the comics doing okay by them at the time. I think Superman was still in Nu52 mode when MoS came out, which was a mixed bag, but people criticized Snyder’s take even though Clark and Lois were an item in the movie. You can’t chalk everything up to bitter shippers. 

[ultraericthered]

Got this a while back.

from zonikal:

thanks for using an austitic joke in response to my completely valid point.im a current victim of child abuse and since lusamine reminds me so much of my own abusive grandmother i would think shes a fucking child abuser but guess that makes me a hater huh. fuck you,

Uh...Ok, Sorry you’ve endured child abuse (though “current victim of child abuse” means you’re still a child, so that might explain some stuff about your reasoning and argument skills) and your grandmother is no doubt a horrible old waste of breath. But you accused @themattress of “excusing child abuse” when he did no such thing - he was only saying that there was a given explanation for why Lusamine got to be as awful as she was in S/M, and being a child abuser, while an unpardonable sin from any objective, logical and moral standpoint, doesn’t automatically put her in the “irredeemable” category or even the “difficult to redeem” category because that’s simply not how the games themselves portray her. The games’ writing gave her facets and features that mitigated her villainy past what could be called pure evil, and both the narrative and other characters in-universe treat her as a person who could be made to see the error of her ways and learn how to be better going on in life. This is what thematress was trying to say, but because Lusamine just so happens to have been an abusive mother for a large part of her kid’s lives, people like you want to drown out the truth and view her as a one-dimensional, vile, heartless, irredeemably evil caricature of her canon character who is defined solely by how she abuses others.

You also said “because of some “toxin”! you’re basically saying that child abuse under alcohol or drugs means that its not child abuse!”, which is completely not at all what thematress was saying, nor what the games have been saying - it’s the exact opposite. Lusamine is at fault for all of the ugly, destructive, problematic behaviors, emotions, mentality, and vices that come from her. The toxin stimulated her mind, enhanced all of her worst qualities, removed all inhibitions and shut off her conscience, driving her into committing unforgivable acts, this is true, but her villainy still came from a place deep inside of her and it was her poor decision-making, mishandling of things while in a state of stress and grief, and self-absorbed inconsideration of others that led her to in-taking the toxin as an anti-depressant drug and f**king herself in the mind. Her actions are not excused - you’re the only one making the claim that they are being so. On top of that, you ended your post telling someone to “die.” Now that’s just textbook online immaturity.

You don’t “think she’s a child abuser” since she IS a freaking child abuser in canon. But you need to either learn to understand when someone is taking an objective look at information that is backed by canon, including the fact that the villain who triggers you isn’t as beyond redemption as you might feel she is, or learn to make better arguments for your position without resorting to insults and death wishes. Otherwise you have no credibility. In short:

[meanderingandrambling]

Pictured: A screenshot of @themattress responding to my earlier post. Their comment reads as follows: “The left absolutely feeds off and encourages violence.  Even now, the ‘punch a Nazi’ craze is raging among them.“

Yeah, and it’s a damn good craze. Let’s make sure it never goes out of fashion.

We are acting in self defense. Nazism is inherently violent. There is no peaceful way to advocate genocide. Look I have a lot of problems with the left, as a Jewish leftist I have seen a ton of antisemitism on our side of the aisle, but there is a world of difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for believing in genocide. While the left condones violence against Nazis (which once again, is a virtue) it does not feed off violence. It does not encourage people to attack and kill others for what they are.

Now to be pedantically clear, I’m not saying you or anyone else is obligated to go punch Nazis. For instance if I tried to punch anyone I’d probably get laughed at and if I tried to punch a Nazi I’d probably get beaten at best. But I am saying that this pearl-clutching about those poor Nazis is morally reprehensible and creating an environment in which Nazism can thrive. Hell just take a look at how many are taking comfort in this “many sides” rhetoric.

And on a personal note @themattress a great many people like to imagine what they would have done in the rise to Shoah. A great many people imagine they would have protected their Jewish and Romani countrymen. A great many people imagine they would have fought against the moderates. Well you and anyone else who denies the very real danger of this Nazi scum no longer get to do so. We know exactly what you would have been doing during the Third Reich: nothing.

I’m gonna take a lot of my response from an earlier conversation I had on facebook that I’m currently formulating into it’s own post so if you follow me you’ll be seeing a lot of this more than once:

My father's extended family was in Europe during the '30s and '40s. We aren't entirely sure what happened to all of them, the letters just stopped coming. What few records are available show my family dying in Auschwitz. All in all we lost seventy-four people. Well lost isn't right. All in all Nazis murdered seventy-four members of my family. I would like you to consider for a moment what that means. I have a gap in my family tree, whole branches burned away, and these burns run not only through my family, but through my culture. Do you understand what that means? To lose such a part of who and what you are? Perhaps not. But I'll tell you in the past months and years I have wondered what it was like during the Third Reich. It's not the first time. I don't remember when I learned about Shoah because I don't remember a time when I was unaware of what happened. I don't remember when I started to look at shower heads and imaging Zyklon B coming out of the pipes. I don't remember when I started having nightmares about the camps. And I'm not alone I don't know a single Jew that didn't grow up playing the "which-of-our-goyishe-neighbors-would-hide-us" game. Now way back in 2016 the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum wrote "The Holocaust did not begin with killing; it began with words." What is happening today did not happen in a vacuum. It is not unexpected. What is happening today is part of a long history, an old ideology. A man ran a car into a bunch of counter-protesters because he was told, in no uncertain terms, that they are less than human. We as a people generally acknowledge that free-speech does not protect incitement. Well that's what this is. That is what all Nazism is. A call to arms. You cannot advocate for genocide in a peaceful manner. This is not just someone with whom I disagree, this is someone who actively supports genocide. My genocide. Please make the distinction. This has never been about freedom of speech. This has always been about fear, anger, and entitlement. This has always been about a desperate attempt to maintain a system where some are granted power due to their whiteness, maleness, heterosexuality, and cissexuality. This has always been an attempt to destroy anything and anyone that threatens that power. What is happening today is happening only because we as a society allowed it. What is happening today is the result of the right, yes, but also as a result of milquetoast moderates who refuse to condemn genocide. I want you to look at what is happening today, to look at the injured and the dead, and I want you to think about the ways you have allowed this happen. With your silence, with your acceptance, and yes, with your protection.

I’m also seeing a great many posts saying that Nazi-punching only encourages them to fight back. Darlings, they’ve been killing for a very long time and you ought to be embarrassed if you honestly think a punch to the face is what set them off.

More to the point I honestly don’t care about what lingers in a Nazi’s heart-of-hearts. What they think and feel if none of my business. Only what they do. Now obviously the two are connected but I’d like to point out that when we act as if this particular ideology is acceptable it only spreads. People see it and think it’s not so bad, it’s just an opinion, it’s a legitimate philosophy. It is only when we say, in no uncertain terms, that this is unacceptable that we can push back against Nazism.

I’m reminded of that Stokely Carmichael quote “If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem. Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power. Racism gets its power from capitalism. Thus, if you're anti-racist, whether you know it or not, you must be anti-capitalist. The power for racism, the power for sexism, comes from capitalism, not an attitude.”   

Now in this instance I’d like to focus on the first part. It’s not an issue when a punch of Nazis just want to murder me, but when they feel so empowered as to openly express their Nazi beliefs, when they feel so empowered as to go marching through the streets unmasked, when they feel so empowered as to run people down, well that is everyone’s problem. So rather on focusing on how you can have a “reasonable discussion” about whether or not I deserve to live you need to focus on creating an environment that is inhospitable to Nazism.

I would also like to remind you of the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Now I know, generally when people bring him up it's in an attempt to deny radical action. After all, his legacy has been robbed of its teeth, its claws, its power. So let me try to remind you all of what he stood for. In a letter from Birmingham Jail Dr. King wrote: "I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;' who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a 'more convenient season.'" Look at that. Is that who you are? Is that who you will choose to be? A person "who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice?" You have a choice before you, something denied many of us, you can choose to actively fight for justice or you can hide behind that negative peace. As for me, would you like to know what I see when I look at the news coming out of Charlottesville? I see that reoccurring nightmare come to life. I'm not speaking figuratively by the way. Every since I was old enough to remember my dreams I remember dreams about this. I remember dreams about the mobs marching through the streets calling for my death. Most of the time those dreams ended with them dragging me away to the camps. It is only through concentrated opposition that we can make sure this ends differently. By the way I harbor no illusions that I shall convince you. I imagine it is very comforting to imagine that there isn't any danger, to imagine that there is no need, no obligation, to action. I imagine it makes your days that much more comfortable. This response is more for those watching this conversation. This is also for me. So I can say I tried to make it a little more difficult to brush aside violence. So I can try to move the Overton Window that much more to the left.

[intotheventures]

If mattress and eric were outright bullying apologists, anon would have MORE respect for them, because at least then they'd have "consistent principles." Instead they change the rules of morality depending on their likes and dislikes. For example, they held Willow 50% responsible for Amity's bullying because Willow was too self-deprecating in her response. But they also argued that Adora, just as self-deprecating, was NOT 50% responsible for Catra's bullying, because they like Adora better.

I would too, getting off their moral high ground would make them a lot more tolerable. They should also just admit they have certain preferences and kinks. Those examples just highlight how inconsistent their values are!

[rubbady-pubbady]

@themattress replied to your post “@themattress replied to your post “Did…they actually make Regina queen...”

YEP on Wish Henry - he and real Henry literally walk her down the aisle, arm in arm. (vomits)

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!

I thought I was making a joke!

[intotheventures]

TheMattress and ultraeircthered/Agent Pierce were both notorious DP anime haters for years and praised BW for returning the anime to its roots (although not really), and both hated XY because they cannot handle competent Ash. Both used to cause arguements on TVtropes, Toonzone, bulbagarden/serebii, etc. for years. They have bias views for what a positive female role model is.

Not surprised they've caused arguments on other sites, and your last sentence is completely true as well. What was themattress' account name?

[intotheventures]

Another problem with themattress and ultraericthered: like many Millenials and Zoomers, those two have grown up in a modern world where if you're mistreated, you have options and allies. So they don't appreciate that in previous eras, you HAD no options: if you were an outcast and people were kicking you around, you got no support, you had to just take it, etc. So that's why themattress and ultraericthered can't understand (for example) why 1970s Candy Candy comes down so hard on Eliza Leagan.

Nuance (one of their favorite buzzwords) and context are so important!!! Unless it's inconvenient for them, then they can throw it out the window! These two are just too sheltered and coddled and have no sense of reality.

[intotheventures]

Which Chloe was the previous anon talking about? Are they talking about Chloe Bourgeois, the female bully from Miraculous Ladybug? That seems "out of character" for mattress and eric, usually THEY'RE the ones who like female bullies. Why would they call people delusional for liking Chloe...oh, wait, it must be for the same reason they hate Maki Harukawa. Because Chloe has a crush on Adrien, a boy, they can't put Chloe in a lesbian ship, so for once they want a female bully to face consequences.

They're so transparent it's pathetic. You just know if she didn't like Adrien, they would be gushing over her, even if everything else was the same, but canon doesn't validate their fantasy, which is the only reason they criticize basically anything. Their views are ultimately based on personal feelings.