#any kinda shipping discourse

[leyhunter]

I fought for like 20 years or something close to it fiercely against One Piece and now I am part of the hivemind

[whereispearlescentmoon]

Hello!

I’ve been on tumblr for a while now and have just recently started posting - specifically Pearl fanart - but I have no idea how main tagging works. does it have something to do with the first tag? Can there be more than one?

Just, any basic thing people should know about main tagging.

I would really love to know in order to make sure I don’t accidentally cross any boundaries Pearl has put down.

Main tagging just means tagging something with “Pearlescentmoon”. It’s considered the “main” tag because it’s all encompassing. Pearl herself is on tumblr and checks that tag regularly, which is why she has asked that any shipping content of her not be tagged with “Pearlescentmoon”. She’s also asked that people are careful about specifying when stuff is about her character rather than her.

The big tags to keep in mind when making ship are “hermitshipping”, “empiresshipping” and “trafficshipping”. Hermitshipping for Hermitcraft, Empires for Empires SMP and trafficshipping for the Life series. Another one is “TrafficYuri” which is specifically for any combo of Gem, Lizzie, Cleo, and/or Pearl. If someone blocks all of those tags, they generally stop seeing most of the ship stuff. And If someone looks for these tags they will find all of their shipping goodies!

Generally speaking the main ship people have for Pearl is Gem. The ship tag for this is “GemPearl”. The platonic tag for when you are just drawing the two of them as friends is “Shiny Duo”. Sometimes people will tag a post as both when it is more ambiguous whether it’s shippy or not. Sometimes people tag explicitly romantic stuff as Shiny Duo, which Pearl has said is kind of up to the fandom to police on our own, which is totally fair.

The only ship I personally post, and one that I feel is fine to go in the main “Pearlescentmoon” tag, is Pearl and her irl partner, Karnasas. The ship name for them is either PearlKarn, Pearlnasas, or Karl, I choose Karl cause it’s funnier.

Generally speaking these are the other tags for the most popular ships vs friendships vs sibling headcanon (from what I have been told so I might be wrong or missing somethings):

Pearl and Cleo: Ship-Pearleo, Friendship-Moonrot (I’ve seen this used for shipping too)

Pearl and Tango: Ship-PearlTek, Friendship-Ruby Duo, Sibling- Firemail Siblings(I’ve only ever seen this used once but it was on the big Pearl family headcanon bracket)

Pearl and Etho: Ship-Pearltho, they didn’t have a platonic duo name I could find

Pearl, Etho, and Tango: Ship-Poly PET, Friendship- PET Postal/The Deepfrost Court

Pearl and Scar: Ship-PearlScar or ScarPearl, Friendship-Sunflower Duo, Siblings- Snowblings

Pearl and Scott: Ship-MajorMoon, Friendship- Galaxy Duo

Pearl and Grian: Ship-GriPearl, Friendship and Siblings-Skyblings

Pearl and Mumbo: Ship-MumPearl/celestial nonsense. They don’t have a platonic duo name I can find.

Pearl and Sausage: Ship-MythicalMoon, Friendship-Arena Duo, Family-Arena Cousins/Siblings

Pearl and Lizzie: Ship and Friendship- Shadowmoon

[katyobsesses]

Sorry, but saying Tommy is the reason Buddie ain’t together is straight up taking Buck’s agency away from him. HE is the reason they aren’t together. Because Tommy is the one he likes and wanna be with rn

I meant in terms of the story, not in terms of the universe.

Yeah in the universe Buck has chosen Tommy to be with rn, he likes him and wants to be with him and I'm enjoying their dynamic (my problems with Lou's acting and some of his dialogue aside), but i do believe that storytelling wise Tommy is very much a stepping stone to Buddie. He's a midgame relationship for Buck to explore his sexuality, and find peace with that side of himself that he's never thought to explore before. and I like Tommy as that stepping stone, he's an interesting character.

Tommy as a character (not a a person in the 9-1-1 universe) is just there as a barrier and a stepping stone towards Buck's endgame, and that's okay, it's good. The show needs a reason for Buck to not go straight to Eddie after realising his sexuality, and I'm enjoying Tommy as that reason. but his character very much is a plot device.

It would be boring if Buck had just realised he was bi and launched straight into a relationship with Eddie, and that's not even discussing the Eddie side of things. (i.e. his catholic guilt being the reason he isn't going to buck... or even realising/accepting his sexuality)

I watch shows from a very analytical view point, I have a media studies degree and it's hard to switch off and honestly i don't want to. I like how i watch the shows i'm interested in. I like trying to figure out where the puzzle pieces will land, what the show runners are planning and the roles the characters have in the stories and arcs to push them to their conclusion.

Tommy and Buck are fictional characters they're plot devices they aren't real humans. so I can't take their agency away from them when discussing their stories, because they don't have agency, because they are puppets and dolls being played by the showrunners and writers.

[glitchfang]

i think a fundamental aro or otherwise queer childhood memory was being a svtfoe fan when season 1 was airing and going "wow star and marco's relationship is so refreshing, i love having a m/f lead that seem to be totally platonic and their friendship is what matters, and shipping isn't really a big part of the show, they're just kinda vibing" and then season 2 aired and explicitly shipped them and had a scene in the season finale that was basically like "well duh OBVIOUSLY they were gonna be romantically involved, they're a guy and a girl living in the same house, what else did you expect???" and now your m/f leads have to be VERY convincing for me to like them or else i won't give a shit on principle

[who-the-fuck-knows-blog]

So glad people are seeing that Izzy is supportive of who Ed wants to be, as proven by his statement to Ed in 2.07 about following what makes him happy, what feels good, and that Izzy’s brushing off Ed’s “feels like a storm’s coming” is because:

1. Izzy is wasted coming to confront Ed, that doesn’t tend to lead people to be super non-abrasive especially if they have previous severe trauma with the other person, caused by the other person. He’s not super receptive to Ed’s advice. Ed rarely listens to his. Do we know if Izzy would have still rejected Ed’s advice about the storm if Ed had provided something other than a feeling? (actually, additionally, 2.06 is about Izzy learning to trust his feelings and that they’d lead him somewhere safe. The last time we see him with Ed the next episode — the next day — is him saying ‘trust your feelings’ as opposed to the beginning of the episode when Izzy —allbeit drunk— was brushing them off.)

2. because his previous job was to provide pushback and alternatives for Edward. sure, he should also believe him (although i’m sure an amount of trust has been broken in that relationship and ed just got out of a time period where his judgement -to Izzy- was severely compromised) but if a first mate believes anything and everything you say without any pushback, you have negative outcomes. Plus, even though Ed was right that things are gonna get fucked up, he was actually moping at that moment. Ed wasn’t giving Izzy any concrete evidence anything was happening, just “feeling” like a storm is coming, unlike the cloud shapes in 1.04, its not based in a reality that Izzy is perceiving. (Also see above in Izzy’s lesson from 2.06 being that sometimes things feel right or wrong and that leads to him being supportive ultimately of whatever Ed chooses for himself.)

it got a little long so more below the cut

Also that Stede doesn’t love Ed for who he is right now, distinct from Izzy who does love Ed for who he is right now. (I’m not sincerely making the argument that Stede doesn’t love Ed for who he is, this is just exactly how Edward feels currently) Izzy still loves Ed so clearly that he’s encouraging Ed to do whatever makes him happy instead of trying to make Ed do something he doesn’t want (piracy) unlike Stede who is telling Ed who he should be, who he is, and that is someone Stede wants to be with. Izzy is also trying to comfort Stede and tells him openly that he thinks Stede and Ed balance eachother out, and all he wants is for Ed to be happy, and he didn’t realize Stede was healthy for Ed before but now he does and he’s supportive. When he knew something or someone was better for Ed, he went out of his way to both keep it safe, and bless the union, even if it didn’t entirely make sense to him, he’s learning things don’t always make sense to everyone and that doesn’t invalidate them.

And Ed is a complicated man (to others) who is simple (to himself). Mostly because he struggles to communicate with the people around him about how he’s feeling and why he’s feeling that way. He’s never told Izzy why he shot him, how is Izzy supposed to know? Ed’s behavior looks contradictory to everyone on the outside and it’s only because we are granted access to Ed’s internal world that we know why he does things. To someone not being told, that would be confusing. (As far as the average viewer goes, people who dig into Ed and his character and study him would likely know his motivations without being so directly told) To us, he’s not complicated because he’s not being contradictory. Also, Izzy has a very small amount of emotional intelligence (he’s working on it), but he is trying to reassure Stede, and what’s better proof that Edward is complicated than his relationship with Izzy?

Currently as it stands, Izzy is the one pushing for Ed to be who he wants to be, whatever that is (—not to separate Ed and Stede, but because he wants what makes Ed feel the best and who Ed feels he should be—) and Stede is the one telling Ed who he is and who he isn’t. (“you’re not a fisherman!”) Because he thinks he knows who Ed is better than Ed does and it’s paralleling Izzy’s statement from 1.10/his general sentiment.

Even if Ed is meant to be a pirate, he has to come to that conclusion on his own away from people telling him who he should be and who he is. In this case. Izzy is providing healthier advice to Ed because he’s not worried about keeping him close the way Stede is.

In conclusion I would like people to not tell me who I should or should not be shipping. If I want to ship edizzy or steddyhands I can. And I wouldn’t even be doing it because it’s not healthy. Edizzy could end up being healthy with the trajectory they’re on— Ed’s taking responsibility, Izzy’s not trying to dictate Ed’s identity— and they do care about eachother. If anything, these past episodes have proven to me that Izzy will love Ed no matter who he decides to be. That’s the vibe I got. I still think Stede cares about Ed and with help from Izzy who went through a similar thing with Ed, he can work on the issues arising. He has to also learn to let something go.

Steddyhands is not at all unrealistic or unhealthy (if we are applying all these lenses to it and obv it would be tumultuous and rocky but I find those relationships more compelling personally) inherently because of Izzy’s presence.

Edizzy is a perfectly acceptable ship whether or nor you prefer them in their toxic marriage or their ex-ex-divorcee status learning who eachother are outside of the narrow scope of piracy and realizing those are still people the other can love. It can be both!

Edizzy was, after all, intended to be read as a form of love story, so it’s not going against the narrative to ship it.

edit: also will add it’s obviously fine to not ship edizzy for any reason at all

dni if you’re here for an argument

[emily-mooon]

Ok so it looks like ship charts have been going around and not too long ago, I made my own cause I noticed the other one didn’t have a lot of the characters and I wanted one that did. I finally finished adding my own lines tonight (I also added Comeau, Jason Kim, Sandra and Monique cause I forgot to add them when I originally made this) so here’s my easy to digest opinions on the different ships!

Don’t feel offended if your OTP isn’t a top pairing for me and it’s in something like ‘it’s ok’. I respect that you like it, its just not my thing. if it’s a ship you hate in one of the top spots, well be respectful please and thank you :]

Also if I forgot a ship, I’m sorry it didn’t cross my head while making this. Just tell me which one and I’ll respond with what line I would have put.

(Blanks and the different layers under the cut cause my god its a mess)

Also bonus logoless version if you want it :D

Ok bye! Have fun making your own with my blanks if you want to, just link to this post or credit me if you do please and thank you ;]

[j-esbian]

ok here is my hot voltron take in 2024*

it’s all right. it’s not a masterpiece but that’s ok. it holds up and i still think it’s fun

i feel like it suffered from a lot of factors while it was coming out. the rushed production (76 episodes in just 2 years), fandom expectations exploding and exceeding what the show had ever planned to do, the creators running their mouths and people putting more faith in word of god than what made it into the actual show, etc.

it’s not the pinnacle of television. i think a lot of people had high hopes when it came out; i remember a lot of folks talking about how the people who made it had worked on the last airbender, so they were expecting a similar caliber. i think a better analogy would be that this is a mech anime for western audiences where mech animes aren’t really a thing. but it struggled to deliver on that

i do think the biggest thing it suffered from was the production schedule. i still don’t understand why it was divided up the way it was, into a bunch of small, unevenly distributed seasons. there’s a lot of things that could have been executed better, but didn’t get developed in the way they should have. and the final product (for a lot of the character stuff specifically) feels like a line of tropes strung together rather than a coherent narrative, and the plot had very little thought put into it long-term (there’s almost entire seasons that give no screen time to haggar/honerva and like. maybe we could have spent a bit more time showing her pulling the strings and manipulating zarkon/sendak/etc. rather than Only focusing on them, in the seasons where they’re the villains). this is generally something i associate with things that lasted past their expiration date (like supernatural lol). i would have to look more closely into the development of the later seasons, because it really gives the impression they just had to run with their first thoughts and didn’t have time to flesh things out properly, especially in contrast to the seasons with lotor because they were almost cooking with that

for example, they almost sold me that allura had developed feelings for lance, but then in order to make it clear, they started making her all blushy and awkward around him because That’s A Trope People Understand That Means A Girl Likes A Boy, when that was really never who she was. they reached for it as shorthand to signal to the audience but didn’t really think too deeply about Who they were applying it to. the whole thing with shiro’s partner (and ambiguous autoimmune disease that exists only for one scene) would have been nothing if the creators hadn’t hyped it up so much beforehand, and if a little more time had been given and a little more care had gone into the scenes where that mattered, and if there had been literally any indication of it in the previous 6 seasons. they could have thought about how audiences would interpret pidge’s gender fuckery and done something to address that to avoid accusations of queerbaiting. it just added drama to season 1, they made a bathroom joke in season 2, and then forgot it was ever a plot point. whenever keith is on screen he’s the main character. he has the most developed arc out of any of the paladins (finding his family, becoming a leader, learning to not be such a loner) but again, whole swathes of episodes go by without him. and in his absence no one else really takes the spotlight. it just focuses on plot. hunk doesn’t really get anything to do until season 7, and it’s a very good scene where he’s jealous of lance and pidge for having their families back but it also feels like the first time he’s taken seriously in 60+ episodes. et cetera.

*big caveat that i just finished season 7, and season 8 was where i lost interest and never finished. i know The Big Thing that happened in season 8 and i can see where they were coming from. i’m sure they were thinking about doing a Big Damn Sacrifice and making some statement about the loss of the Old World to give birth to the New. i just don’t think they were mindful of 1) who they were sacrificing or 2) the fact that they were telling this story in the real world, where there’s countless other stories about black women being denied happiness in order to further someone else’s story. i don’t think this show Uniquely Hates Women because it has the same level of sexism that’s present pretty much across the board in modern sci-fi. they didn’t need to shoehorn in the romance but they clearly tried to be more mindful than the original (instead of Zero female paladins, there were two for most of the show.) they definitely had huge blind spots and i’m not excusing that but i do think that doesn’t cancel out everything else. it seems to be due to obliviousness rather than active malice. but again, i have yet to watch the final episodes

[plantsandpies]

Personal opinion: if a fandom has to argue over ships and the main ship is one of lowers options, you didn’t write their relationship well. If they are the main couple but one of them is paired with someone or multiple someones, you didn’t write the main pair well enough.

For a good example: tbhk does have other ships, of course, but the main ships are the intended ones. Yeah some people ship yashiro and Kou, but that’s a rarer ship than yashiro and hanako and Kou and mitsuba, which are the main ones you’ll find.

For a bad example: mha has a like a million ships. But the top one isn’t deku and uraraka. It’s deku with a bunch of different guys. That isn’t the fandom taking over with their gayness. It’s deku and uraraka’s relationship not being developed well. It’s uraraka not being a well done character that the fandom will love. It’s bakugo and deku’s relationship as friends getting more attention than uraraka and deku’s romantic relationship.

When it comes to ships, for me, I’m fine with any ship as long as they are both well done characters with a real, well developed relationship. The reason a fandom becomes so ship filled is because the writers didn’t make the romance right. (And maybe because (at least for anime) male writers aren’t focused on their female characters or literally made them to be girlfriends (that last thing is a particular writer btw) if it’s Disney it’s because they’re soulless and don’t care).

If it doesn’t have any romance, then it’s just the fans. But ships all depend on character chemistry. You need the romance to be obvious. Definitely don’t add a rival if you’re worried though cause that could do the opposite of what you want. Do you remember Edward vs Jacob? Jacob was never going to be an option, but the war happened because they weren’t written well.

[vampstel]

Hi V! You don’t have to answer this if it makes you uncomfy but could you maybe elaborate on the pr0ship part of your pinned post? /genq /nm I’m just super curious what your stance is on the topic and what you’re uncomfy with :0

Hi anon! This is a perfectly fine question to ask since you’re being reasonable and polite lol. But basically, I’m extremely uncomfortable with lots of problematic media. I can’t stomach most dead dove content and I generally block people over it if it happens to pop up on my timeline.

For example, lots of the “dark romance” books people over on TikTok and Instagram enjoy are things that leave me disgusted and even physically sick. But I won’t exactly voice that disgust in public nor would I like… harass or shame anyone over it unless they were a genuine threat to real people (and even then, I still won’t harass them since that would put me at risk. I’d probably just bring awareness and be like “hey, maybe stay away from this person” and leave it there).

I just like to mind my own business and curate my own experience, you know? Since engaging in shit that makes me sick will only make me feel worse. There are tags and a block button for a reason, use them and make your experience online better! /gen

And this isn’t even taking into consideration that “problematic” as a scale differs from person to person. I can stomach portrayals of dark topics if they’re not romanticized but some may not be the same and that’s fine.

I just added that portion to my pinned to make people aware of my stance. So if you happen to be on any side and you make me uncomfortable, you’ll know the reason why I blocked you. Whenever I block people, there’s no harsh feelings about it (unless, again, you’re actually a shit person). I just block freely to make a safe space for me and yeah :]

This is a very nuanced topic that deserves lots of care and energy. Care that I do have, but energy I don’t have enough of. It’s draining and I honestly have better things to do

[bridgyrose]

🔥

Shipping

I might be kicking a a hornets nest or two...

Shipping is meant to be fun and a lot of people put a lot more merit into shipping than it needs to be.

That said, shipping isnt the be all end all of fandom. If you're only in a fandom because of shipping, you may want to rethink why you enjoy the media.

As well, if your interest in a show drops because a ship you like or want to be canon isnt canon or going the way you want, you may need to re-evaluate why you're watching a show.

Shipping wars are terrible and I really wish people could just enjoy shipping as a fun thing and quit making it a job or some sort of moral failing. Its fine for people to not like the same ship as you, what's not fine is going out of your way to make people miserable because of it.

Proship/anti-ship discourse is fucking insane and has no place within shipping communities despite what everyone thinks.

And finally, if you find yourself looking for shipping discourse to insert yourself into, step away from it and re-evaluate what you're doing. Shipping is supposed to be fun, not stressful or hurtful.

[lord-squiggletits]

It kinda sucks how Optimus Prime is a character who people (in real life) expect to be so Indubitably Good All The Time that they immediately shut down and refuse to acknowledge him whenever he does bad things or fucks up. Like I don't think I've seen any other character in this fandom get the same instantly negative reaction/never talk about him ever treatment that IDW Optimus gets.

Like, it's either him being a cop or the annexation of Earth. But instead of actually engaging with the story and going "so how does being a cop affect the way he treats and is treated by others" or "what led Optimus to annex Earth and how is this a reflection of his ultimately heroic ideal to treat organics as equal to Cybertronians despite the historical racism of his species"

people just instantly shut down and go "oh he's an asshole, he's stupid, he's not my Optimus, he's a bastard, he's edgy" etc etc and refuse to even like fuckin talk about him

It's so incredibly childish lmao especially when the IDW1 continuity in particular is already rife with characters who are also assholes that do stupid/regrettable things but people have no problems talking about/analyzing their stories.

My kingdom for a fandom that's willing to talk about IDW Optimus without immediately shutting down and just going "he's bad he's a bastard he sucks"

[mintypsii]

WOW the replies of this post are insane are you guys Okay

i can't believe one piece invented gay people

[thecheshirerat]

On TAZ-

Wow that sounds like I’m about to summarize some sort of discourse but I promise I’m not. I guess I’ll say that I really like this show and I will keep listening even if my worst fears come to pass, so keep that in mind!

For reference, I started listening near the end of Amnesty.

I’ve noticed, with the past few arcs- really since Ethersea- the narratives have just… not been fulfilling their promises, so to speak. They’ve been placing a lot of guns that don’t go off. What I mean by that is, the characters are great. Excellent, really. Lady Godwin? HELL YES. Emerich Dreadway? Fuck yeah! And so on! And the settings and premises have been epic- the goofiness and also horrifying nature of Engrave, the mad and thrilling world of Steeplechase- these things are COOL AS FUCK.

and then the actual narratives keep flopping?

And honestly, I notice it most in the endings, because you can really tell when an ending doesn’t land. You feel the sense of disappointment. But with vs. Dracula, for example, I could kinda see leading up to it that the ending couldn’t really BE anything special, because they lowkey didn’t set themselves up for it.

They spent the campaign fucking around in Engrave, finding clues and solving problems and not really experiencing any particularly meaningful character arcs or growth or, idk, forming relationships? So there wasn’t much to pay off, I’m not gonna lie!

Of course it doesn’t feel quite as dissatisfying when you’re in the thick of it, because they’re funny and the stuff is cool and- oh hey! Lady Godwin’s been turned into a werehorse against her will?? that’s got some real potential for a LOT of allegories and exploration of some fun character development! And then it’s kinda played as a joke. And then they do that again and again.

And they actually said that that was a move they made intentionally, in the TTAZZ. I’m not quoting them perfectly here, this is from memory, but I do remember them mentioning that they wanted lighthearted comedy without the burden of real life story stuff. And I get that, honestly, but… it’s not the choice I would’ve made. I do think you can keep a lighthearted tone while also, idk, forming relationships and wholesomely engaging with some amount of emotion. And sometimes going way too deep is funny as a tone shift!

But I digress. One thing that’s also popped out to me is the almost complete lack of any kind of romantic storyline or even references. This becomes obvious if you’re in a fandom because everyone is always dying to ship SOMEONE, and you can tell when people are really getting desperate. I don’t blame them for not wanting to roleplay romance with their family, and I do think stories lacking romance are COOL and SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED!

However if you can’t find ANYBODY to ship together… that may mean you just don’t have character bonds. The growing popularity of the PC polycule is interesting to me; I wonder if it’s partially because

a) none of the pcs have significant relationships outside of their party and

b) even within the party, there doesn’t seem to be much chemistry between any given pair of characters…? I hope I’m making my point well here- the PCs all seem equally close and have more or less the same relationship to all of their compatriots with little distinction, meaning, essentially, no shipping fodder that doesn’t involve just all of ‘em.

Either way, it makes me wonder if I can blame the “Graduation has too many NPCs!” critique. They really stopped giving the parties tag-along main NPCs after graduation, with the exception of maybe.. Urchin? Kodira? Shlabethany? Poppy? and even they get relatively little “screen” time. Steeplechase has great NPCs, I love them to death, but none of the PCs seem to ever have one on one conversations with NPCs or each other that do not explicitly focus on the plot. And I think that’s part of why the characters feel so underdeveloped despite having spent a lot of time with them- because in this character-driven genre, we get very little insight into their feelings or motivations or even their rudimentary backstories.

I started watching Fantasy High recently and it made me realize a couple things about TAZ.

1) Recently, TAZ has sooo few core NPCs, and it’s weird that the characters aren’t doing more one-on-one purely character based scenes. And that makes it really tough to develop them.

2) TAZ is- and I should have realized this before- one of many good dnd podcasts. They’re probably looking for a niche they can master.

And it sounds like they’re trying to get back to that old “Here there be Gerblins!” energy. They’ve referenced it so many times in recent TTAZZes- they wanted to be job-focused, allowing story stuff to happen organically, so they tried a more open world vibe with Ethersea. They wanted to be less afraid to kill stuff, so they tried playing criminals (and were still afraid to kill stuff). They wanted to be silly and light on character, as they tackled with taz vs dracula. Now they’re trying to bring in the silly cartoon vibe with Abnimals. I think they’re trying to make that family-friendly, funny and goofy show their niche. Something other actual plays can’t be better at them at.

And honestly it kinda makes me sad, that they keep trying to go back to Balance while ignoring everything they learned during it. Because I loved Dust. Because I loved Amnesty. Because I loved Ethersea. I loved these past arcs! But they keep doing their brilliant characters dirty for some reason!!! And i don’t know why!!!!

You know that meme about people who ask questions in movies and then the person responds “Have you ever been to a movie before? You watch them and the information is revealed.” There have been so many times in TAZ recently where information has Not been revealed and if they keep doing it the audience will stop bothering to suspend their disbelief, because the trust just isn’t there.

What is Montrose’s deal? What on earth was Carmine Denton’s whole thing? Tell me more about Zoox’s feelings, about Devo’s past, about Amber’s future. Show me how Lady Godwin feels about the body horror that is her life- like, seriously! WHY DID WE HAVE TO COMPLETELY DISMISS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS GENERATIONAL TRAUMA IN MUTT’S LIFE FOR A JOKE??

Do you remember in Steeplechase where the boys were getting medical attention or something- i don’t remember, but they were all in one room and only talking about The Plot. And Poppy literally banged on the door (speaking for both Justin and me, tbh) and was like “does anyone want to share any feeeeelings??” and they were like NOPE! and they moved on!!

like. cmon. you can’t just put a character like montrose out there and then leave them severely underdeveloped to the point that what would be interesting in proper context, with audience insight, becomes confusing and chaotic.

I just wish they would take their stories as seriously as we do.

It feels to me like they don’t believe in themselves, and it makes me sad. Maybe they didn’t get the response they wanted from Ethersea and so they’ve been trying to pivot, hoping to recapture whatever it was that earned them a loyal audience.

Again, I love them. They’re so funny and I’ll keep listening until the day they stop making this show, and when it happens I’ll cry.

But i KNOW they have more in them. Remember the “we’ll grow gills” monologue from Justin in the Prologues? Remember Travis’s SOLID acting with Devo? Or his awesome choice to give Lyndon/Beef a clearly delineated work/irl identity? His excellent narration and prose? Remember when Montrose described being lonely?! Remember all those moments where Shit Got Real and you cared??? The nanofather said some dope shit! dracula and victor and sweater dracula had such a wild dynamic! Clint’s acting in Dust 2- I can’t remember the characters name right now- was ASTOUNDING, I genuinely didn’t know he had that in him and it blew me away!

I’m not referencing Balance on purpose, both because the fandom is way to hung up on it and because I want to prove that you don’t even have to look at Balance, or even Post-Balance arcs, to see this kind of good cool stuff!

GAAAAAAAGHHHH!!! I want them to have fun. But also. We’re starving out here.

[thalfbloodloser]

i wish we had alloaro representation in media. a charming character who fucks - both literally AND aesthetically. one that makes other characters go "wow! they're so cool and good in bed, but ultimately un-datable, because as soon as they sense any romantic intention on you, they flee" (kinda like lucifer morningstar from "lucifer". he's aroallo in my heart)

a character who's funny and has a horrifyingly 80's sense of fashion (they have a curly combed-out mullet and mismatched earrings. you'll find them at pride wearing a corn costume because it "matches the aroallo flag" and they're "being subtle") or one who's the embodiment of a 60's greaser (their motorcycle helmet is themed after the aro flag and the back of their leather jacket says "LOVELESS / LOVE LOSES") or one who's a girly fanfiction writer that has more ships than a star wars movie (their fics are muntifandom-ly famous and most their stuff is covered in yaoi/yuri patches and stickers. everyone thinks they're a hopeless romantic because of it, but that's exactly why they're so big on the fiction ≠ reality discourse) or...

anyone else, really. just ultimately a HUMAN who's casually aromantic. one who doesn't make it a parade but isn't subtle about it, either. will they hold other character's hands? maybe. kiss their cheek? perhaps. hang out with them, on picnics and walks along the river? can't see why not! but platonically. or maybe have them be genuinely romance-repulsed & not so eager to participate in anything socially perceived as romantic. that would also be amazing.

let them express themselves sexually! let them fuck. give them a..."fuckbuddy", if you must. or a best friend who's sexually involved with them - classic romcom material, i know - but without it being "complicated"; because there's no romance involved to complicate it.

give them funny scenes. another character tries to kiss their lips or ask them on a date? they laugh nervously, the scene cuts and we get a hilarious shot of them escaping through the bathroom window. or audibly saying "ew" and then regretting it. another character is struggling to write a romcom/romance book without it being corny? we get a scene where our character casually describes the most romantical (and, to them, unappealing) plot ever - because, much like aces acing the smut department, they're far from misunderstanding what is or isn't heartstopping for alloromantics - only to have the other character stare at them like "?????????? HELLO????". give us a scene of them being confused as to why their hookup is yelling at them for acting "so casual" and responding with a quotable shitty line ("just because we had sex last night i can't call you "bro"? / "what? expected me to marry you or something? get off my bed, it's 9AM" / "would you rather have me mad? sad? what's happening here. give me a hint")

but give them complicated scenes too. scenes portraying the loneliness that comes with being aromantic but not asexual, the lack of community. them talking about how hard it is to maintain sexual relationships just sexual. the painful "breakups" because one of their friends declared their undying love for them but they cannot possibly match that energy, even if they wanted to. have them weep because somehow that keeps happening. the unfairness in being accused of heartlessness and selfishness by other queers. the shame on being told they're fetishistic and the reason why queer men/women/people are seen as sex-crazed or impure.

...anyways, i'm rambling- do y'all have any aroallo ocs? or ideas for alloaro characters? maybe aroallo headcanons? i'd love to know what you think! :)

(don't tag as #ace / #asexual / #asexuality)

[avelera]

I have seen some discourse going around about how Mel never manipulated jayce. Do you agree? And what are your views considering mel?

I say this because I think that she did kind of manipulate jayce in the beginning but genuinely ended up falling for him in the end. I mean she had to genuinely care and love him if she ended up subconsciously saving him with magic.

I think that a lot of people from what I have seen were pissed at season 2 ep8 when jayce got into the argument with Mel but I thought it was quite understandable that he reacted the way he did especially after what he went through. That being said I still felt bad for mel because she literally lost everything and was ready to open up to him.

Sorry for the ramble

I think a lot of the Mel/Jayce discourse is being done in bad faith right now, mostly by people who are anti-Jayce/Viktor rather than pro Mel/Jayce for whatever reason. I would point out, that canonically Mel and Jayce are not together at the end of the show and they also canonically (in my opinion) break up. So it's fine if you just really like the ship or wish things had gone differently, but it should be acknowledged that any Mel/Jayce fic outside the brief time they're together in the show is as much an AU as any Jayvik fic where they got together earlier.

As for the manipulation, I mean yeah, it canonically happened. There shouldn't be a debate. Jayce calls her out on in it 2.08 and Mel doesn't deny it, she just gives her reasons for why she manipulated him. Ostensibly it was to help him and Hextech too but she absolutely used sex as a tool of persuasion with deliberate intent to use it for those ends, she absolutely flirted with Jayce to ingratiate herself to him, she absolutely called him an investment (though there is a slight plothole on how he knows that, it was never said in his hearing), and even if she poses it to herself as helping him she also used those persuasive power to nudge him towards Hextech weapons which he categorically did not want to make, so her own ends superseded his benefit or preference in canonical instances.

For those who deny manipulation took place, go back and watch the opera house scene in S1. She plays him like a fiddle. Indeed, the expert violinist on stage (playing an actual Stradivarius irl, btw) is symbolically depicted as Mel's counterpart, showing how expertly she is manipulating the situation, and Jayce.

Now, I think you can chart how much Mel was with Jayce for her own ends vs. affection for him by her support for Hextech weaponry. When she's pushing for it, she's using him for her own House's goals. When she drops Hextech weapons as an issue and instead supports Jayce's vision for it (in S2) that's when she's acting out of affection for him. It's tragic that her affection for him grows while his declines so sharply as a result of his ordeal and finally realizing the early manipulations (kinda like that trope where someone dates another person for a bet, then falls for them, and then the other person learns about the bet and breaks up with them, only this one without a happy reunion after).

Their relationship is tragic. It's a tragedy. And it ends tragically with them apart and us left wondering if they could have made it together under other circumstances. "What could have been?" is an overarching theme in Arcane, and it is our own choices, our own ambition and greed that get in the way of getting what we need instead of what we want. Every single character is built around these principles, with the happy endings being those who get what they need instead of what they want, and the tragic ones (like Mel) getting what they want (power, to be an official Medarda as she says in her first scene) and not what she needs, which is anyone around her to share it with. You can feel the loss but you have to also acknowledge how she ended up there and why she narratively can't earn Jayce's love after what she did at the start of the relationship.

[sneezypeasy]

Why I Deliberately Avoided the "Colonizer" Argument in my Zutara Thesis - and Why I'll Continue to Avoid it Forever

This is a question that occasionally comes up under my Zutara video essay, because somehow in 2 hours worth of content I still didn't manage to address everything (lol.) But this argument specifically is one I made a point of avoiding entirely, and there are some slightly complicated reasons behind that. I figure I'll write them all out here.

From a surface-level perspective, Zuko's whole arc, his raison d'etre, is to be a de-colonizer. Zuko's redemption arc is kinda all about being a de-colonizer, and his redemption arc is probably like the most talked about plot point of ATLA, so from a basic media literacy standpoint, the whole argument is unsound in the first place, and on that basis alone I find it childish to even entertain as an argument worth engaging with, to be honest.

(At least one person in my comments pointed out that if any ship's "political implications" are problematic in some way, it really ought to be Maiko, as Mai herself is never shown or suggested to be a strong candidate for being a de-colonizing co-ruler alongside Zuko. If anything her attitudes towards lording over servants/underlings would make her… a less than suitable choice for this role, but I digress.)

But the reason I avoided rebutting this particular argument in my video goes deeper than that. From what I've observed of fandom discourse, I find that the colonizer argument is usually an attempt to smear the ship as "problematic" - i.e., this ship is an immoral dynamic, which would make it problematic to depict as canon (and by extension, if you ship it regardless, you're probably problematic yourself.)

And here is where I end up taking a stand that differentiates me from the more authoritarian sectors of fandom.

I'm not here to be the fandom morality police. When it comes to lit crit, I'm really just here to talk about good vs. bad writing. (And when I say "good", I mean structurally sound, thematically cohesive, etc; works that are well-written - I don't mean works that are morally virtuous. More on this in a minute.) So the whole colonizer angle isn't something I'm interested in discussing, for the same reason that I actually avoided discussing Katara "mothering" Aang or the "problematic" aspects of the Kataang ship (such as how he kissed her twice without her consent). My whole entire sections on "Kataang bad" or "Maiko bad" in my 2 hour video was specifically, "how are they written in a way that did a disservice to the story", and "how making them false leads would have created valuable meaning". I deliberately avoided making an argument that consisted purely of, "here's how Kataang/Maiko toxic and Zutara wholesome, hence Zutara superiority, the end".

Why am I not willing to be the fandom morality police? Two reasons:

I don't really have a refined take on these subjects anyway. Unless a piece of literature or art happens to touch on a particular issue that resonates with me personally, the moral value of art is something that doesn't usually spark my interest, so I rarely have much to say on it to begin with. On the whole "colonizer ship" subject specifically, other people who have more passion and knowledge than me on the topic can (and have) put their arguments into words far better than I ever could. I'm more than happy to defer to their take(s), because honestly, they can do these subjects justice in a way I can't. Passing the mic over to someone else is the most responsible thing I can do here, lol. But more importantly:

I reject the conflation of literary merit with moral virtue. It is my opinion that a good story well-told is not always, and does not have to be, a story free from moral vices/questionable themes. In my opinion, there are good problematic stories and bad "pure" stories and literally everything in between. To go one step further, I believe that there are ways that a romance can come off "icky", and then there are ways that it might actually be bad for the story, and meming/shitposting aside, the fact that these two things don't always neatly align is not only a truth I recognise about art but also one of those truths that makes art incredibly interesting to me! So on the one hand, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to conflate literary "goodness" with moral "goodness". On a more serious note, I not only find this type of conflation unfair/inaccurate, I also find it potentially dangerous - and this is why I am really critical of this mindset beyond just disagreeing with it factually. What I see is that people who espouse this rhetoric tend to encourage (or even personally engage in) wilful blindness one way or the other, because ultimately, viewing art through these lens ends up boxing all art into either "morally permissible" or "morally impermissible" categories, and shames anyone enjoying art in the "morally impermissible" box. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people responding to this by A) making excuses for art that they guiltily love despite its problematic elements and/or B) denying the value of any art that they are unable to defend as free from moral wickedness.

Now, I'm not saying that media shouldn't be critiqued on its moral virtue. I actually think morally critiquing art has its place, and assuming it's being done in good faith, it absolutely should be done, and probably even more often than it is now.

Because here's the truth: Sometimes, a story can be really good. Sometimes, you can have a genuinely amazing story with well developed characters and powerful themes that resonate deeply with anyone who reads it. Sometimes, a story can be all of these things - and still be problematic.*

(Or, sometimes a story can be all of those things, and still be written by a problematic author.)

That's why I say, when people conflate moral art with good art, they become blind to the possibility that the art they like being potentially immoral (or vice versa). If only "bad art" is immoral, how can the art that tells the story hitting all the right beats and with perfect rhythm and emotional depth, be ever problematic?

(And how can the art I love, be ever problematic?)

This is why I reject the idea that literary merit = moral virtue (or vice versa) - because I do care about holding art accountable. Even the art that is "good art". Actually, especially the art that is "good art". Especially the art that is well loved and respected and appreciated. The failure to distinguish literary critique from moral critique bothers me on a personal level because I think that conflating the two results in the detriment of both - the latter being the most concerning to me, actually.

So while I respect the inherent value of moral criticism, I'm really not a fan of any argument that presents moral criticism as equivalent to literary criticism, and I will call that out when I see it. And from what I've observed, a lot of the "but Zutara is a colonizer ship" tries to do exactly that, which is why I find it a dishonest and frankly harmful media analysis framework to begin with.

But even when it is done in good faith, moral criticism of art is also just something I personally am neither interested nor good at talking about, and I prefer to talk about the things that I am interested and good at talking about.

(And some people are genuinely good at tackling the moral side of things! I mean, I for one really enjoyed Lindsay Ellis's take on Rent contextualising it within the broader political landscape at the time to show how it's not the progressive queer story it might otherwise appear to be. Moral critique has value, and has its place, and there are definitely circumstances where it can lead to societal progress. Just because I'm not personally interested in addressing it doesn't mean nobody else can do it let alone that nobody else should do it, but also, just because it can and should be done, doesn't mean that it's the only "one true way" to approach lit crit by anyone ever. You know, sometimes... two things… can be true… at once?)

Anyway, if anyone reading this far has recognised that this is basically a variant of the proship vs. antiship debate, you're right, it is. And on that note, I'm just going to leave some links here. I've said about as much as I'm willing/able to say on this subject, but in case anyone is interested in delving deeper into the philosophy behind my convictions, including why I believe leftist authoritarian rhetoric is harmful, and why the whole "but it would be problematic in real life" is an anti-ship argument that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I highly recommend these posts/threads:

In general this blog is pretty solid; I agree with almost all of their takes - though they focus more specifically on fanfic/fanart than mainstream media, and I think quite a lot of their arguments are at least somewhat appropriate to extrapolate to mainstream media as well.

I also strongly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" which the author, a verified giga chad, actually made free to download as a pdf, here. His work focuses primarily on right-wing authoritarians, but a lot of his research and conclusions are, you guessed it, applicable to left-wing authoritarians also.

And if you're an anti yourself, welp, you won't find support from me here. This is not an anti-ship safe space, sorrynotsorry 👆

In conclusion, honestly any "but Zutara is problematic" argument is one I'm likely to consider unsound to begin with, let alone the "Zutara is a colonizer ship" argument - but even if it wasn't, it's not something I'm interested in discussing, even if I recognise there are contexts where these discussions have value. I resent the idea that just because I have refined opinions on one aspect of a discussion means I must have (and be willing to preach) refined opinions on all aspects of said discussion. (I don't mean to sound reproachful here - actually the vast majority of the comments I get on my video/tumblr are really sweet and respectful, but I do get a handful of silly comments here and there and I'm at the point where I do feel like this is something worth saying.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to defer to other analysts who have the passion and knowledge to give complicated topics the justice they deserve. All I request is that care is taken not to conflate literary criticism with moral criticism to the detriment of both - and I think it's important to acknowledge when that is indeed happening. And respectfully, don't expect me to give my own take on the matter when other people are already willing and able to put their thoughts into words so much better than me. Peace ✌

*P.S. This works for real life too, by the way. There are people out there who are genuinely not only charming and likeable, but also generous, charitable and warm to the vast majority of the people they know. They may also be amazing at their work, and if they have a job that involves saving lives like firefighting or surgery or w.e, they may even be the reason dozens of people are still alive today. They may honestly do a lot of things you'd have to concede are "good" deeds.

They may be all of these things, and still be someone's abuser. 🙃

Two things can be true at once. It's important never to forget that.