#as opposed to what the person said which was literally 'that isn't a problem the problem is we dont treat housing as a human right'

[local-magpie]

i think all leftists need a non-leftist progressive friend to talk politics with, if only to realize just how bad mainstream leftist messaging and rhetoric is

[homocidalpotat]

Please do not send me asks for donations

Here's why:

I have NO money to give you

I'm not a popular enough blog that I will give you any reach

I am a minor, and most of my followers are too

It makes me feel extremely guilty

Seeing pictures of injuries or hospitals etc are triggering for me (which are in most intro posts for this sort of thing)

They are always worded in a way that makes me feel like I am a murderer if I don't donate

It makes me feel uncomfortable

I said I don't want them, and my boundaries should be respected

I can't tell what is a bot and what isn't (although I know a large portion of them are NOT bots)

I get a lot of spam from this. It is disappointing to see 10 new asks in my inbox just to be the same ask for donations over and over

Please, just respect the fact that I have said this.

If you want this in your pinned post, please don't credit me. You can copy the words or take a screenshot with my username cropped out. You can reblog this but please don't go on about how awful you find it. I get it, but also if you spiral two much you might end up accidentally saying something bad. This post has led to a lot of hate anons and harassment, so I would rather not have too much attention. Thanks...

Edits, boundaries and facts below (probably for the best if you read them too- especially if you are considering sending me hate)

Edit: To all the people reblogging this, I'm sorry you have had to deal with this too. And yes, you can put this in your pinned post! Stay safe <3

Edit 2: I am pro Palestine and want to do everything I can to help but I'm not financially or mentally well enough to do much. I'm not in support of these people dying. Also, this post isn't just about Palestine. It's about ALL asks for donations. I'm not doing favouritism or racism. I just can't deal with it. Don't harass me for expressing boundaries.

Edit 3: Yes, this post might seem controversial. But I did literally make this for my own personal experience and didn't expect it to get more than 12 notes or so. You can agree with this post, pin this post, reblog this post, I don't care really. But don't add opposing views because quite frankly, it's none of your business. It's not my problem and I didn't mean for this post to get so many notes. Edit 2 mostly covered what I'm trying to say here, but don't use the number of notes as an excuse to fight me. I just want a peaceful Tumblr experience. Also, if you are reblogging this, don't trauma dump. I keep notifications on for this post so that I can block people harassing me before shit escalates, so I can see every reblog. You can screenshot and repost if you want to talk about your problems, but honestly its no better seeing people saying "I'm bankrupt and I just got kicked out by my family. I also have a history of abuse and those images are so triggering that I want to die". That doesn't help me. Make your own post to say that. Please

[shadowed-dancer]

Villains and Their Fates - A Tragedy Would Have Been Fine By Me

I've seen a lot of people who try to write off frustration with the league's fates by saying "you just wanted them to survive" or "you're just upset your favourite character died". And while that may be true for a few people, I know that it's at least not true for myself (which must mean there are others who feel the same way). So today I'm here to share my thoughts. Despite liking the villains and wanting them to be redeemed, I was also willing to accept a well written ending if they died. I just wanted to ramble a bit about the three main villains (mostly Toga) and how I felt a tragic ending could have been improved.

The only villain I felt should have lived is Dabi, but that's more because of the awkwardness his unconfirmed death caused for Shoto (read this beautifully written analysis for more). If Dabi had to die, he should have died on the battle field OR in the hospital surrounded by family where he gets a few last words in. Leaving his fate unconfirmed leads to the ruined Shoto arc, but is also just weird for a character who has existed for so long. You're telling me that even Overhaul gets a confirmed ending but DABI doesn't?

I've also talked a bit about how Endeavor's survival ruins the subplot, and in 426 he continues by making Touya's final appearance about him (rather than the two brothers) but that's something I've talked about too much. If Endeavor has to be alive and hogging screen time, the least Hori could do is imply Touya will survive rather than die, so at least Enji isn't literally stealing time from his other family members to have some interaction with Touya.

If Touya has to end up in that machine, an ideal ending would have been the doctor saying "it will be a gruelling and near-impossible uphill climb to recovery" and then Shoto can smile and say "he's done it before". Boom. Simple as that. Leave it open, but at least on a positive note so we can assume that the family will have plenty of time to reconcile, as opposed to an unknown (but limited) amount of time that Enji vows to use to talk to him (yeah I know it's supposed to be a sweet gesture but even Touya calls bullshit on it). Let Shoto and Touya eat their soba, damn it!

For Shigaraki, my grievances extend to the writing of the entire final battle between him and Deku. As such, I don't have much to say aside from that because it really is just a product of poor writing. Neither were really allowed to talk before the big moment (hell, the vestiges were narrating Deku's emotions half the time like "he must be upset, this quirk meant so much to him". Why not let him tell us???) and the back-and-forth of Shigaraki being destroyed and then not only to be destroyed again was too much. It felt sloppy and hard to follow, and once you figured it out it just felt dumb. It's as if each chapter needed some massive reveal, but the story had done it so much at this point that it just felt tired and like it was happening "because Hori said so", and that should never be what drives a story.

Speaking of "because Hori said so"...

Oh Toga. Out of all the villains, I actually liked her confrontation the most. (Lies. If Dabi vs Shoto was the end of Dabi's fight, THAT would have been the best. But the Endeavor fight ruins it). Despite having limited screen time, Toga and Uraraka had a surprisingly well-built dynamic. Their few interactions were actually meaningful and created a strong foundation for a fight, and at the very least they had more of a personal connection than Deku and Shigaraki ever did. I think that Toga giving her blood to someone she loves (as opposed to drinking/taking their blood like she had said the whole series) is a beautifully tragic end to her character, but still something that could have fit.

To me, the problem comes with how she died. Let me replay the scene for you: Toga stabs Uraraka in the stomach and Uraraka bleeds too much because she keeps moving around. Toga then realizes she doesn't want Uraraka to die. To save her life, Toga has to do a blood transfusion with herself as a donor and she dies because she has to give ALL her blood.

Now... sure. Ok. Fine. Yeah. Maybe by real-world logic this makes sense. I guess. Whatever. But within the world of MHA, this setup is laughable.

Here's a list of things characters survived (or at least, they survived LONG ENOUGH to get to a hospital rather than dying on the battlefield): Deku shattering his bones with 1 million percent, whatever happened to Best Jeanist when AFO attacked him, Nighteye getting a massive spike through the torso, All Might with "his entrails strewn across the ground", Bakugo becoming Swiss cheese, Grand Torino being punched so hard a crater forms beneath him, Touya being a literal flaming skeleton, Bakugo's heart exploding, Edgeshot becoming a worm. Mirko getting a limb ripped off and then running full speed at Shigaraki. That's just off the top of my head, I know there's probably more.

But you want to tell me that Uraraka getting stabbed and then moving was a fatal wound that required ALL TOGA'S BLOOD? ALL OF IT? The reason Toga's death bothers me is that the setup cheapens the actual moment of sacrifice. It feels preventable, so when she tells us that Uraraka is going to die without her blood, all I could do is roll my eyes because I'm not allowed to use critical thinking skills, I have to just accept what Hori says and take it at face value.

If the author wants you to live as Edgeworm despite saying you were gonna die, you can. But if the author needs a stab wound to be fatal and require ALL of someone's blood? Well tough luck bud, that's just how it goes. Mirko can run and move all she wants after having a limb ripped off, but moving a bit after one stab wound is fatal. Why? Because I say so.

If Uraraka's wound was actually serious then this ending would have been a beautiful tragedy. But as it stands now, the ridiculousness of her wound makes it all feel preventable.

Oh, there's also the fact that Toga switching blood types when she transforms was never established, but I've rambled enough.

That's it. Thanks for reading!

[lady-raziel]

ALSO although i'm sure people are so fucking sick of hearing my thoughts by this point, I'd like to shut down the idea that because this essentially happened over the weekend that should excuse the lack of response (since watcher doesn't work weekends or so i've heard). look, i'm a person who totally supports a work-life balance and leaving work at the office. nobody deserves to be on call 24/7. that's not healthy and it doesn't make anyone more effective at their job.

however. there is a difference between logging out from a normal workday and logging out after you've just dropped a huge announcement that you've been hyping up, and doing so on a Friday afternoon before a tour. if a brand crisis occurs outside of work hours on a perfectly normal day, there's a little more leeway in not jumping on it right away as opposed to a time when you absolutely should be monitoring digital response, if only to pick out your favorite memes and posts to share on your socials (in the alternate universe where this subscription service move went really well and everyone loved it). not knowing what's going on at a time when you shouldn't be expected to know what's going on is pretty different than doing nothing when you absolutely should be watching for company news outside of normal hours.

all that being said, even in the first case where something bad happens that you need to take action on outside of work hours, waiting until Monday morning to do anything while the problem gets worse, particularly in a case like this with so much on the line, would get pretty much every comms or PR person I know severely reprimanded or fired. yes, you have a set work schedule each week. but in the end your job is to protect the brand, and you don't get to decide when threats come at you. your job is to formulate a response as soon as you know there's a problem. if you don't do that? you don't have a job anymore.

i say this with the full knowledge that watcher likely doesn't have a full "director of communications" role that entails reputation management on staff. They have a social media manager, yes, but full on corporate communications and all this other stuff really isn't (and shouldn't be!) that person's job description. (as a person who's worked as a social media manager i have a lot of thoughts about how other roles get smushed into that one and how that's not good for anyone, but that's another post.)

is it possible that watcher has contracted an outside firm to do PR/communications? sure. but in that case, a professional firm would ABSOLUTELY be on call over the weekend to help a client. that would literally be part of the fee paid to them. if they are paying a firm, and that firm hasn't helped them formulate a response and gotten it out by now, then they need to fire that group immediately. and also factor this into the conversation about money management if they've been paying a firm (none of which are cheap!) and getting such a horrible return on investment.

long story short, if your office building caught fire over the weekend, would you wait until Monday morning to do something? even if you don't own a fire extinguisher? even if you don't have a local fire department you can call? even if you were the one who set the building on fire? no-- because by then you might not even have an office anymore. emergencies aren't 9-to-5 problems.

[trainsinanime]

Is there a specific scientific term for what I'll call "harm construction", meaning "thinking of ways that something harms someone in order to condemn it"? There must be, right? I see it all the time and it's not new. Let me give some examples in random order.

One of the first cases where I really remember it was at least a decade ago, an online article by a British newspaper, about how an online store had put a pole dancing pole in their toys section. A bit of an embarrassing mistake but nothing more.

However, that article provided several quotes from a British couple who said they were very worried, because their kid could have seen that. It seems pretty clear that their kid did not, in fact, actually see it, but the newspaper treated their concern as if it was a genuine thing to worry about. It was utterly ridiculous.

A more recent example is a call-out ask I received a few months ago and, of course, immediately deleted, but it's still been living rent-free in my head since then, because it was so horribly bad. I'll not repeat the exact wording, but they were annoyed that their victim blog (which I don't follow and haven't for years, if ever, and they don't follow me) was annoying and sometimes said mean things. They very ineptly tried to explain that this might have been part of the reasons why someone else, completely unrelated, sent out hate messages to yet another person. That was the harm that was so big that it supposedly justified a targeted harassment campaign. (If you're the person who wrote that call-out ask, please rethink your life. You were only increasing the hate in the world, not making anything better. I suspect the sender wasn't anyone who actually follows me, but just in case).

The biggest and most prominent example of harm construction right now is of course all about trans people, bathrooms and school sports. Conservatives and TERFs alike need a reason to oppose the existence of trans people beyond "I personally find them weird", because saying that out loud gets them correctly branded as bigots. How do you turn "let's be really mean to a marginalised group" into a progressive cause? By saying that the existence of this group causes harm. The problem with that is that trans people existing does not actually cause any harm, it's literally fine.

So in an effort to construct harm after all, they have searched far and wide for something that trans people could even theoretically damage, and the only things they managed to come up with are "there might be someone with unexpected genitals behind that bathroom stall door" and "the sanctity of gender-segregated sports". If it weren't for their cultural and political power then it would almost be funny how little potential harm they managed to find and how much they have to amplify it. They're just another couple in the newspaper worried that their kid might potentially see a website.

If you look for it, harm construction is everywhere, because we all sort of agree on a surface level that dividing people into "normal, acceptable" and "weird, must be punished" isn't nice, but the instinct to punish people for being "weird" is still alive and well and many people refuse to question it.

At a completely different end, anytime someone uses the word "normalisation" about a fanfic on Ao3, that's another example. We all know making blorbos do weird things doesn't actually hurt anybody (assuming proper tagging and so on), but we still want to punish people who do it wrong. So we construct harm, by arguing that seeing something on Ao3 might "normalise" the thing and make it more likely that someone will do it in real life.

These examples are very different, at very different ends of almost all scales of power and cultural influence and meaning, but the core idea is always the same. So, yeah. There must be a better term for this.

[flower-boi16]

The Problems With Charlie As The Main Protagonist

I've spoken about my thoughts on Charlie as a character before a few times on this blog, but I think it's finally time to discuss why Charlie isn't exactly the best protagonist. On the surface, there doesn't seem to be much wrong with her, she's likable and endearing enough and she's easy to root for. But...once you look deeper, the problems begin to rear their ugly head.

1. Charlie Never Grows

The first major issue with Charlie as a character is how she never really grows over the course of the first season. The show never really gives her much of an arc...? Like, by the end of the season, what does Charlie really learn by the end? The only thing I can think of is that she was right about sinners being redeemed and...that's it.

And it doesn't really make Charlie that particularly compelling as a character, she's entirely stagnant. She does have a conflict with her father, which, while executed fine, isn't enough to make her a developed character. She only gets small tinges of development and that isn't really enough for me.

Charlie doesn't learn anything or grow as a character, which makes her pretty underdeveloped as a character. The show never really gives her any real character flaws to grow from and become a better person, she's always portrayed as in the right anyway and never challenged once. Speaking of that...

2. Charlie is Always Right

This more or less ties back into the "Charlie never grows" point I've said before and I've talked about this several times before, but it's still an issue with Charlie's character; she is ALWAYS in the right. Charlie's "everyone can be redeemed" mentality is never once challenged by the narrative, and anybody who does oppose Charlie in any way is considered as wrong by the narrative.

The reason why this is a problem is because Hazbin Hotel heavily preaches about being against black-and-white moralities, as seen with Heaven and especially Adam. Heaven is meant to be seen as bad because of its black-and-white mindset of "Sinners can't be redeemed and never will". This is put on full display with Adam, and his song Hell is Forever, to the point it literally includes lyrics like "the rules are black and white there's no use in trying to fight it".

You Didn't Know further pushes this with this line "the rules are shades of gray when you don't do as you say and you make the wretched suffer just to kill them again".

So the show wants to push a message of "black and white morals are bad", but...it's rendered moot by the fact that Charlie is purely portrayed as in the right. Charlie is completely correct, everybody can be redeemed, everyone even the most evil people who did the worst possible things can still be good, and anyone who opposes her is wrong cuz she's completely in the right...gee, for a show so heavily against black-and-white moralities...doesn't this all seem very black and white in it of itself?

Charlie's "everyone can be redeemed" mentality is just as black and white as Adam's "nobody can be redeemed", they are both extremes leaning in opposite directions, that are also both wrong in their own ways, yet the show portrays Charlie's extreme as the right one and Adam's as the wrong one.

I've already talked about this before but Adam is a pure straw character; he only exists so Charlie can prove him wrong, he cant have any real character depth beyond being a generic asshole or have a real point because the show is so dead-set on making Charlie purely in the right no matter what; the narrative never challenges her and anyone who opposes her is portrayed as automatically in the wrong.

This is not the only time this happens btw. In episode 5, Lucifer is also portrayed as automatically wrong for opposing his daughter’s goals. He himself says that “Our people are AWFUL. They got gifted free will and look what they did with it!”, and the show…never counters this, despite what Lucifer is saying…being true. The people in Hell ARE awful and it's their own fault, many of them ARE deserving of death because…well, their shitty people.

Charlie is never challenged once throughout the show and its a problem because not only does it fly in the face of the show being so anti black and white, it also wastes an opportunity for the show to develop Charlie as a character; with her learning that some people can't be redeemed because they either are incapable or uninterested in changing.

That would fit more with the show’s anti-black-and-white themes and also have Charlie go through real growth as a character as she learns that not everything is all sunshine and rainbows. But sadly, we can't really have that.

So Charlie's ideals are never challenged by the narrative and thus it not only flies in the face of the show's themes it also wastes an opportunity for Charlie to grow as a character. Now it's best to get into the next issue with her...

3. Charlie is Barely Focused On

Another big issue with Charlie as the show's main protagonist is that the show doesn't really focus on her that much, especially the first half. Now, shows don't need to focus on the main protagonist at all times, obviously giving some screen time to other characters is definitely something shows should do.

But the problem is that Charlie gets very LITTLE focus in the series despite being the main protagonist, and this contributes to the problem of her being underdeveloped. The first half of the show is especially bad at this; episode 1 Is the only episode in the first half that focuses on Charlie, but even then it's overtaken by the B-plot involving the other characters trying to film a commercial.

Episodes 2&3 are entirely dedicated to what characters like Alastor or Angel Dust are doing and episode 4 is completely focused on Angel and his arc. It contributes to the issue of the show not being able to develop Charlie that much as a character because she's constantly being overshadowed by other characters. The second half is better in this regard for focusing more on Charlie but still, for the first half of the show, it feels like Charlie is overshadowed by other characters which is embarrassing because, well, she's the main character, yet she feels like she's barely gotten any actual spotlight.

4. Conclusion

I want to love Charlie as a character. I really do. I mean, she's a part of one of my favorite character archetypes. I always LOVE over joyful optimistic characters because I just find them a joy to watch on screen, but sadly, Charlie doesn't have much depth beyond that archetype. She isn't that developed making her fail to be much of a compelling protagonist, her ideology is never challenged by the narrative wasting an opportunity for her to grow and contradicting the show's themes, and she's heavily overshadowed by other characters despite being the main protagonist.

So ya, that's why Charlie isn't that great of a protagonist...bye.

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

you know, i like hordak as a character. he's interesting, he's likeable, he's a good example of an abuse victim who isn't overly infantilized and coddled by the narrative. his relationship with entrapta was cute, his relationship with horde prime was tragic and i like that he at least gets a proper confrontation with his abuser, where he is able to declare his own independence and get some closure from his trauma.

however, there are two main problems i have with his character (some of which i've already talked about but i want to go into more detail):

1. hordak was not an effective villain. heck, he was barely a villain at all.

you cannot tell me that hordak was the main villain of the first four seasons when the majority of his screentime was spent with him either lurking in his sanctum or canoodling with entrapta.. in his sanctum.

at first i thought that hordak was going to be this looming presence that had control over everything and puppeted everyone's every move, and was this evil masterpiece who orchestrated everything behind the scenes but.. nah. turns out he's just an incompetent manchild who needs a literal teenager with no battle experience to plan everything out for him. how did he conquer half of etheria before that? who knows? not important.

hordak also has no meaningful relationship with adora, the hero. there were actually a lot of parallels that could be drawn from hordak and adora both being raised by abusers who valued perfection over everything else. granted, in that aspect, hordak is more like catra but there isn't even that many parallels with him and catra. there are, in fact, more parallels with catra and shadow weaver or catra and horde prime.

and okay, not every hero and villain needs a deep intertwined relationship or complex narrative parallels. but at least give us something? a proper interaction?? the show even acknowledges the fact that hordak and adora have absolutely no connection with each other, when adora asks him why he kidnapped her and he basically replies with "lol who are you again". and then he just randomly remembers her at the end of the finale and it’s supposed to be this touching, emotional scene except you feel nothing because these characters literally never interacted, what are we looking at?

adora is supposed to be fighting the horde, but it seemed like she was just fighting catra most of the time. as the hero who opposes etheria's oppressors, shouldn't adora mainly be targeting hordak, the person who started it all? and shouldn't hordak, as the leader of the horde, be more concerned about the rebellion having an actual god on their side? i guess it doesn't really matter if said god can be easily defeated by a inexperienced catgirl

it just feels like hordak didn't have to be a villain at all. we only know he does horrifying things, because the narrative says that he does. oh, and he tortures catra once and sends her to crimson waste, so i guess that qualifies as being a villain.

the point of a villain is to drive the central conflict of the story. to oppose the hero and to pose an actual threat to the status quo. any character who doesn't do this is merely an antagonist. in hordak's case, i don't even know if he counts as an antagonist. he's like that one edgy antihero with a dark past where he murdered countless people but it doesn't really matter in present time. it’s just there to add flavor and to enhance his tragic past, because war is obviously a fictional fantasy trope and totally not something that has happened in real life. /s

2. like many other characters in this show, hordak's character almost completely revolves around his love interest.

yes, entrapta taking care of hordak and boosting his self-esteem is endearing. yes, hordak breaking his defenses and being vulnerable around entrapta is very sweet. but apart from entrapta, the only characters who have any kind of effect on hordak is horde prime and catra. and.. i guess, imp? but again, imp is mostly just a stand-in for the cute animal sidekick.

i know that hordak was supposed to be a recluse but it's impossible to believe that this kind of person was able to start an army and feed them with false propaganda. again, if you read my post about cults and their methods of indoctrination, you would know that cult leaders are often very charismatic and friendly people. and i know the horde isn't exactly a cult but we are supposed to believe that at least some of the cadets raised there genuinely believed that they were on the side of good, when their leader was a mysterious shut-in who basically didn't do anything substantial and their mentor/superior officer was just actively radiating Evil Vibes™.

i just wish they did more with hordak’s character and actually made him interact with some of the other characters. he doesn’t even interact with shadow weaver that much, and she was his second-in-command. even if it’s not direct interactions, it would have been interesting to see the characters mention hordak more, especially the ex-horde soldiers. apart from the general “oh no he’s evil and wants to kill everyone”, that is.

like we see people talking about shadow weaver. we see adora open up about her relationship with shadow weaver and ponder about whether there’s some good left in the woman who raised her. we see glimmer talking about how powerful shadow weaver is and how she could help the rebellion. we see catra complaining about how shadow weaver treated her in comparison to adora. we see angella talk about how shadow weaver shouldn’t be trusted.

when you think about it, shadow weaver was much more of a looming menacing presence in spop, despite not even being a villain, let alone the main villain.

even when she was on the good side and helping the princesses, there was always a ceaseless feeling of unease and fear, because we’ve seen what she’s capable of. we weren’t just told that “shadow weaver is sooo abusive, she’s bad!” we see how she treats adora and catra, we see how she manipulates situations and people for her own benefit, we see how she slowly starts to get into glimmer’s head. the show actually does a good job with shadow weaver, and i have to give credit where credit is due. shadow weaver was genuinely a well-written character.

hordak is just.. there, most of the time. he acts evil enough to be considered as one of the villains but he’s not actually a villain if you consider it for more than five seconds. he doesn’t really do anything for the bulk of the narrative, he has one kinda cool scene where he stands up to his abuser and then he just peaces out with entrapta.

i don’t really understand the point of taking a main villain of the show and turning him into this. sure, the OG hordak was more of a comedic villain and wasn’t super complex, but from what i know, he still played an important role in a narrative and his humorous moments made up for the lack of a tragic backstory.

[randomfoggytiger]

My thoughts on the Chris Carter discourse.

I think I sit on the fence regarding the gendered violence issue in The X-Files. Yet, I also recognize CC's shortcomings-- pouring his energy into being a provocateur rather than a coherent show writer.

**Note**: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is mine.

The show's violence against women isn't skewered in a sexist, one-way direction to me: gendered violence is perpetrated against both sexes equally; and the male cast and crew even joked about Mulder constantly getting beat up or tortured during CC's mytharc episodes. Not only that, but children and men as well as women are kidnapped or abducted and raped (or mind raped) and tortured and killed in equal measure.

The problem begins and ends, I believe, with Chris's ego. He views his show as a SHOW, not a beloved series cherished by fans. To him, Mulder and Scully and their children are literal paper dolls he created and played (plays) with like the Sims-- lighting them on fire, putting them through insane or ridiculous scenarios, and always resetting them back to normal at the end.

The "problem" is, the fans do not see Mulder and Scully as Sims models (pardon the references, got into the game lately) but as living, breathing characters with blood, sweat, and tears poured into their portrayals. Gillian took the role seriously and wanted it to make sense; and fans felt her passion and dedication, and honored the years she put in at her own inconvenience (over and over.)

David doesn't mind following CC's creative vision-- he views art differently than GA, and that's just fine, too. The difference is (I believe): Chris Carter honors David's viewpoint because it aligns with his own; but sloughs off, ignores, or discredits Gillian's because it opposes his.

Chris Carter has an ego (he does, it is what it is); and that rubs audiences the wrong way when they contrast his actions towards DD (letting him read scripts earlier than Gillian, likely knowing David'll give a "wow, interesting" rather than outright critical remark) and GA (who sacrificed a lot to come back and was pretty much ignored every step of the way, even now.) David shrugs off what Chris writes for his character-- which is fine, that's his prerogative-- while Gillian does not-- which is also fine, that's her prerogative. Chris, however, does not treat them equally.

I say this not to hate on Chris. I dislike him, but I respect the characters, show, and world of The X-Files. All things being fair, it was his brainchild.

However: every person that will ever exist has their own perspective, feelings, and emotions regarding what they do or don't love. Fans and Gillian wanted The X-Files to make sense, to honor its characters, to craft an unforgettable journey between two unforgettable characters. Chris Carter did not-- which, again, is fine. But where he continues to fail is by throwing jabs at perspectives other than his own.

Because when you create a timeline that makes no logical sense (powered by plot twists that also make no logical sense) and expect your lead actress and fans who have spent time and energy and money on your franchise not to give you criticism or express their disappointment (and even anger)-- and, further, imply they "don't get it" or aren't "real fans" because of said criticisms-- then...

That's where you (Chris Carter) have a problem.

[ilikekidsshows]

I just noticed that some (most?) senti defender mostly think people who hate the senti BS hate the plot because Adrien isn't ...human? Because I saw them comparing Adrien with Nobody, Grimwalker (I think, from Owl House?) and I saw them even quoting Mew Two about the circumstances of one birth doesn't matter and it just so wild for me because they seems to be missing the most important point about a sentimonster which is the fucking remote control!

ADrien being a magical being is the least of the problem here, the one hit kill isn't even close to being as being problematic as the fact that SENTIMONSTER IS A BEING WITH REMOTE CONTROL AND ANYONE WHO HAVE IT CAN FREELY CONTROL THEM AS THEY WISH! Them renamed it to Sentihuman doesn't even erase the fact that they still aren't human and still a magical being with a fucking remote control!!

"But it's good for angst for bodily autonomy!" I saw some people said it. And here I thought angst supposed to have a happy ending to balance it, but what kind of happy ending that a sentimonster can have, who's life is so ephemeral? Who's agency can be overwritten by anyone anytime? Unless Adrien can be like a Pinokio then sure... But at this point I don't think Adrien as sentimonster even matter in Marinette's eyes, until she feels the need to control him for whatever bulshit excuses and justification that she can muster that is. Ephemeral exist as a case of point after all.

---

The argument that people against the “Sentipeople” concept just don’t like nonhuman characters has been around since the start. It’s a purposeful way of misreading the very first argument for why it was a bad idea: “it would dehumanize Adrien.” The people in support of such a storyline decided that “dehumanize” means literally making him not human, and that was inherently bad, when, all along, “dehumanize” means “deprive of human qualities, personality and dignity” (Merriam-Webster). It’s not the act of making a fictional character not human, it’s the act of depicting a human being as someone undeserving of similar dignity and consideration as what are considered as normal people. Dehumanization can be, for example, ignoring the struggles and traumas of real people, in favor of focusing on a more favored group of people. Miraculous, by turning Adrien into a Sentimonster, turns the focus from his reactions to how he’s being victimized by his parents to why his parents decided to have a Sentimonster kid. And we find out they were unable to have a child, so tragic :’(

This approach to “Sentipeople” was foreseen, by several people, but the fandom supportive of the idea ignored all these explanations and just focused on the word “dehumanize”, because it was the easiest to misinterpret to serve their narrative, which was that the people opposed to the concept are the ones not treating Adrien as human, because they’re the ones saying turning an abuse victim into a literal monster makes him less sympathetic! The writers never said that so there’s no way that could be a real thing that could happen! The idea of “SentiAdrien has very ableist, abuse-enabling connotations” being a statement of fact is inconceivable.

Never mind how the canon has made it blatantly clear that the “Sentipeople” concept will never, ever be tackled from the perspective of our most prominent example of one. The arc with Adrien’s supervillain dad finally gets wrapped up and he doesn’t just sit it out, he’s left oblivious of anything that happened. It’s obvious Adrien being a Sentimonster isn’t actually relevant to Adrien. It was there because the writers desperately wanted more attention and to give Emilie a “sympathetic” reason to use Miraculous with the superpower of creating beings lesser to humans that exist to serve a single purpose and then die, the human equivalent of tissue paper. The most fucked up superpower ever to create the most nightmarish scenario to be born into, and it’s used to excuse why Adrien’s obviously abusive upbringing wasn’t actually his parents’ fault; Adrien was just born different and had to be kept away from normal people for his own good because he’s just so susceptible as a Sentimonster.

The fandom is once again doing the heavy lifting for this show’s writers by creating these imaginary versions of the show where a Sentipeople story totally gets told from Adrien’s perspective and respects Adrien’s agency and humanity, when the canon gives us the opposite. Similarly, the canon is still calling them “Sentimonsters” with the fandom insisting terms like “Sentipeople” and “Sentihumans” be used instead, or else it’s the fans disrespecting Adrien’s humanity.

The fandom just loves to blame critical fans for the show’s failings. The show treats Adrien like the Pearls in Steven Universe, but, if we point it out, we’re the ones stripping away Adrien’s humanity and reducing him into an object to be owned. The show writers did it first, we’re just pointing it out.

Other people are scared Marinette will go through Adrien's phone in the future of the show (again). I'm scared Adrien will give Marinette his Amok as a token of his love, giving her half of his literal being, possibly without knowing he's doing so, and Marinette will have to accept or she'll hurt his feelings by refusing to accept the symbol of his feelings for her, and the fandom will cheer over how romantic it is.

[diamondkat]

Charlie doesn't have your morals

I have seen a lot of arguments about Charlie particularly her relationship with Alastor which has led me to conclude that people are replacing canon with headcanon to make their arguments. Arguments about Charlie bringing an end to soul contracts or one day seeing Alastor for what he really is and turning on him. These arguments all seem to ignore Charlie's morality and replace it with their own

Charlie is the sweet cinnamon roll who wants to save her people. She is a Disney princess in hell who wants the best for her people. With all this, it is easy to understand why some viewers would believe that as a good person, she would not just have a high sense of morals, she would have the same sense of morals that they do. The thing is for all that Charlie is the "good girl" of the show, she grew up in hell. Her "morals" are not the same as ours.

Let's start with the fact that she doesn't even truly understand what it takes to be a good person, at least to heaven's standard. One of her exercises for redemption involved a drama about saying no to drugs and avoiding premarital sex. I don't have to tell you that none of those things determine whether you are a good person. I doubt she even follows it herself considering she and Vaggie are a couple that shares a bed.

Charlie might be naive about the challenges that sinners face and how evil they might be but she isn't naive about how hell is run and who are people are. She is the Princess of Hell. Some people listen to the song, "Happy Day in Hell", and come to the conclusion that she wants them to change because she is against sin. However, the song is about how she will be able to change them to suit Heaven's taste so they won't have to face genocide anymore. She thinks of the Pride ring as "appealing" and of her people as "an acquired taste". She might not personally like what they do but she accepts that as who they are. She can see the good them, but she also accepts them as they are.

Regarding Charlie bringing an end to soul contracts because it is "slavery" which is something she as a good person should oppose. She obviously doesn't view it that way. She has Husk and Niffty working at her hotel even though she knows they are there because Alastor who owns them summoned them to work there. She is just happy to have them there to help, regardless of how it happened. She knows that contracts are a thing. She sees no reason to care as long as they are being treated well enough.

When it comes to Alastor. She knows Alastor is a sadistic, violent monster but he is the sadistic, violent monster who is choosing to help her. Alastor's reputation was not a secret when he came to the hotel. He literally said that he was there to watch people suffer. He tried to get her to make a deal at their first meeting. She has watched him eat people in front of her. After he finally gets her to make a deal with him, she is back to telling him all about her problems with Vaggie and why she felt betrayed by discovering that Vaggie was an exorcist. As far as she is concerned, Alastor might have finally gotten a deal out of her but that is to be expected from the type of sinner that he is. It would be like asking a cannibal not to eat other sinners. Considering what his actual reputation as a dealmaker is, she might even feel that he let her off easy. Alastor is the token evil teammate, and it is going to take more than him being evil for Charlie to lose her faith in him.

In conclusion, Charlie Morningstar is a sweet, wonderful, kind-hearted woman who deserves to succeed in her dreams. However, she was raised in hell. Her morals are not the same as yours.

[happyhealthycats]

There are people who don't give additional info?

maybe I'm too aware but to others your pet isn't the center of the universe. They meet thousands center of the universes a day so they need more specifics to make things easier.

I'll preface by saying I worked with a very...particular type of vet. One who saw quite a few clients who were very particular about their pet's care. Clients who may or may not have been asked to leave other veterinary practices in our area due to "issues with staff". (We had folks stalk us digitally and on one scary occasion, physically - us, the front desk workers who just answer phones and make appointments! - some pet parents are wild). A portion of folks who went to our office typically had blinders to other peoples pets. Not only was their Bella the most amazing Bella. She was the ONLY Bella. Which for them was true! That Bella is the most important Bella! For them! Doesn't help that those same owners tended to be the ones who would only bring their dog in for their rabies vaccine so they could keep getting their dog groomed. The system we used would display phone numbers for incoming calls on the phone itself, so for the most part we could snag the number and if it was attached to a file it was no big deal, so by the time I finished my intro I already had the family's account up and ready - so a lot of clients got used to that. But sometimes folks would call from numbers that weren't attached to their account so the info wouldn't come up (or they downright refused to leave a number with us). Then I'd have to ask, and it was like pulling teeth.

-"I'm sorry it seems this number isn't saved to an account in our system. What was your pet's name?" -"It's BELLA, you've seen her before!" -"Oh! Well how do you spell the last name? Or perhaps another number that may be attached to the account? I could look it up by your spouse's name if they usually make appointments?" -"The name is B-E-L-L-A it's not difficult." I don't know why, other animal names don't tend to bring this level of heat. I personally just think that it's such a common dog name that all types of folks have a dog named Bella, so you're more likely to come in contact with a Bella owner who's Like That, as opposed to someone who calls their cat BOGO Sale or Pastrami On Rye or something.

All that being said - nothing against the name! It's incredibly common and I'm sure the folks are tired of not having an easily found name, especially during a medical emergency. But that's why I stress not about shaming folks about the names they choose, but more about the folks who push to insist that everyone ELSE is the problem that you literally can't pick the dog version of Jane Doe out of a lineup of 4000+ other dog Jane Does.

[bestworstcase]

Wait, I'm confused. You've said before that Oz's task is inherently violent, and this was something Salem tried to communicate to Oz. After all, the closest Oz has gotten to completing it was via the great war, the bloodiest war in history.

Why would Oz's curse punish him for doing something required of him? Salem says to unite they world they must "Spread our word, and destroy those who will deny it." This is Lights own belief system, demonstrated repeatedly. And the reflection of Oz's host says "What are we doing?" And afterwards he says, "This isn't what He asked of me."

Oz at the very least seems to think that Light DOESN'T want violent subjugation so that they follow the Gods, but it's pretty clear Light does want that. And if his curse follows the punishment system as you said, he would've been punished far earlier.

And yes, it punishes him for questioning Light. But again "This isn't what he asked of me." Implies he doesn't think Light wants violence or that his task requires it (something he later learns does).

Either his curse doesn't have that punishment system, or it follows what Oz firmly and genuinely believes Light wants.

Sorry if anything sounds rude but I don't think it really lines up? It doesn't really make sense to me. Plus Oz coming back to his task again and again can easily be explained as, well, his task is really the only reason he's still around, his mere existence is a reminder. Sure he came back for Salem, but the only reason Light cursed him was so he could fulfill Lights task.

I do agree with everything else though, like his curse basically being anti-Ascension.

his task is innately and inescapably genocidal, yes. because you cannot unite the whole world under one creed, one religion, without genocide—and that is what the god of light commanded ozma to do; ancient humans weren’t destroyed because they fought among themselves, they were slaughtered to punish a rebellion. the redemptive project is to reunite the world in obedience to the brothers… which necessitates that anyone who refuses to bow down be killed or violently forced to convert.

the problem with what ozma and salem are doing, in the lost fable, as far as it concerns the divine mandate, is that they’re expressly pursuing in this genocidal project for the wrong religion, because ozma told salem that he wanted to “unite everybody” without telling her why, and her answer was “let’s make a paradise better than what the old gods achieved” which is the literal opposite of what the god of light told ozma to do.

what salem says—“we have to spread our word and destroy those who would deny it”—is correct in the essentials of what is necessary to achieve ozma’s stated ambition to bring humanity together under one banner. but ozma’s task is not to unite the whole world under a single creed, it’s to unite the whole world under ONE SPECIFIC creed that is diametrically opposed to everything the ozlem kingdom, founded upon salem’s revolutionary dream of a paradise free from the brothers, stood for. 

the curse is not a baby monitor light is using to eavesdrop on ozma’s thoughts. the enforcement mechanism is more or less magically-reinforced anxiety: ozma has a copy of himself in his head reflecting his own worries and self-doubt and feelings of obligation back at him constantly so he can never, ever do anything without his reflection nervously reminding him about the day of judgment he’s supposed to be preparing for. he is his own echo chamber.

gestures at ozpin’s treatment of oscar in v4. the hectoring, the guilt-tripping, the cajoling—that’s what ozma is doing to himself inside his head all the time. any time he does something he believes he isn’t supposed to, his other-self is there to tear him down. 

ozma—because he is a good person who does not want to commit genocide—really really really doesn’t want to believe that his god asked him to commit genocide. i think the closest he ever got to facing that reality was during his marriage to salem (because she was clear-eyed about what they were doing)… but he flinched away from it in the end. “are we sure this is right?” diluted into “this isn’t what he asked of me”—ozma wasn’t ready to face the moral question of “is what my god asked me to do wrong?” so he backpedaled hard and spent thousands of years telling himself “all the evil things we did were because salem led me astray with her Lies and Blasphemy”

the curse in and of itself doesn’t have an enforcement mechanism to prevent ozma’s sense of morality from influencing how he interprets his task. (light clearly sees himself as a benevolent adjudicator because he doesn’t consider humanity to be worth anything; thus it is not, in his mind, immoral for him to annihilate them, and i don’t think it would even occur to him that ozma’s own moral scruples might be an insurmountable obstacle.) but by nature of what it DOES to ozma and his hosts, it prevents him from changing—or at least makes it very, very, very difficult by taking all of his anxiety and religious fear and self-doubt and all of that and doubling it.

what it does react punitively to is ozma fighting the curse—as in, actively resisting the merge, actively trying to break himself free from the magic forcing him to subsume his host. if ozma fumbles around not making any progress for centuries because he’s trying to figure out the best way to fulfill his task, so what? the god of light doesn’t even need to be patient, he can just hang out for a couple hours in a realm where for every second a thousand years pass on remnant, and ozma’s recursive-reflection anxiety and religious faith will compel him to keep trying for however long it takes. but if ozma starts pulling against the curse, trying to break free… well THAT’S just not allowed.

the god of light promised to learn from his mistakes, after salem’s failed rebellion, and he did… he learned that leaving a human alone with their thoughts after putting them into a miserable inescapable situation will lead to them having rebellious thoughts, so he ensured that ozma would never be alone and let ozma’s psychology do the rest, plus an emergency failsafe that would come to life only if ozma ever tried to wriggle out of what he agreed to do. (not that ozma truly consented to this, but the god of light obviously doesn’t care about that. lmao)

like. the part where the curse is designed in such a way that ozma is forcibly changed (by merger with another person who doesn’t know, let alone love, salem) into a different person with a backup copy to force him to live under constant self-surveillance so he never dares change his mind or walk away from the burden forced onto his shoulders is what makes it anti-ascension—because every time he reincarnates his true self and purpose is driven down and he coerces himself into picking up the burden he Never Wanted again. you can’t have a corrupted ascension without that coercive cycle.

[rey-jake-therapist]

Hey. I simply wanna share my thoughts on this with someone. Not a Tolkien fan myself, I have always ignored everything Lord of the Rings related, tried to watch the movies and failed, everything seemed boring, even though I love dark fantasy, folklore, adventures and stuff. The only thing making me interested right now is the ROP portrayal of Sauron (am I a bad person? yes), so the controversy with the show also caught my attention and here's my useless take:

People of the fandom has been there for so long they literally turned “lore” into something sacred and holy. Sure, a lot of things there are inspired by Christianity (as a Christian, I quickly recognised it all after checking out the main worldbuilding points) but it's not the Bible! These books are fiction and it's nothing wrong with interpreting some events differently. Had to watch Galadriel scenes from the movies btw, and her “greatly desiring” the ring and then opposing Sauron in her dark form... makes much more sense if they previously had a personal story going on. So I see no problem here. But fans! If Tolkien himself returned from the dead and said Galadriel 1) isn't Mother Mary figure, more like Mary Magdalene 2) had loved Sauron in a twisted way and that's why she wasn't chilling with other elves in the elvish Eden those guys would never believed him and kept bitching. Ofc, they are free to do so, I just pains me.

Same happened to my favourite show, which made me evaluate a lot of things and change my life for the best, and most of “fans” hate it because it's against the idea they had it their heads for years. What's funny is that my show doesn't have any book source material, it's just a — unconventional a bit — biopic about a rock band frontman, produced and controlled in EVERY ASPECT by his best friend and soulmate. Who new him better than any of the fans. The show is brilliant and nothing like that has been done in our country before, yet 70% of what it gets is childish criticism.

So yeah, seeing ROP mistreated in a similar way makes me sad. I can't even tell my friends about the cons of this show, as most of them have already written on their blogs how awful and unworthy of anyone's time it is. Ugh, thank you for listening.

I hear you ! The most infuriating is that most of these people didn't even bother to watch the show. They just heard some YouTuber or TikToker trash the show and repeat what they hear.

I've also noticed that much of the criticism is made by haters who claim to be Tolkien fans, but who are really just fans of P Jackson's movies, and are certain that HE gave a faithful interpretation of the books while it's just... Not true ! Sauron was never described as a giant eyeball in the books, for a start, it was just the easiest way that P Jackson found to represent the fact that Sauron could see everything everywhere.

By doing so unfortunately he ripped off Sauron of everything that made him a fascinating character, and now those morons use the movie's depiction of Sauron to decide that Sauron always was a one dimensional character and completely ignore the fact that in season 1, he was in a repentance phase, hence not entirely manipulative and dishonest towards Galadriel.

And the same happens with Galadriel. The only person I know in real life watched it, but hated it saying she "can't forgive them for what they did to Galadriel", because she refuses to admit the idea that she can have been a warrior, with tendencies to be reckless and a tad immature. She wanted Cate Blanchett's Third Age Galadriel and won't have it any other way. Why ? Again because of PJ's movies. She didn't read the books ! When I told her that PJ invented the scene from the Hobbit where Galadriel faces Sauron in Dol Guldur, she was surprised but didn't care because at least it was Cate Blanchett looking beautiful and ethereal.

What is the show you mention in your ask ?

[fantasyinvader]

Is Shez evil?

The thought occurred to me last night, but I think it's worth discussing. Do we play as an evil character in Hopes? Now, the Hopes!Devs did say that the war wasn't a matter of good vs evil and that it's all a matter of perspective. However, they also said that Hopes wasn't meant to replace Houses, and therefore we can apply the morality of Houses to it.

Shez is implied to be from Shambhala, making them an Agarthan. We all know that the Fodlan games use Buddhist symbolism, and Agartha is where the Asura's were banished by the Bodhisattva when they became drunk on their own power and from there they wage war against the Bodhisattva and the benevolent devas. Tellingly, Shez's unique final class is Asura, cementing this idea.

When I was looking up stuff concerning the Asuras and their world, I found this.

Nichiren defines the characteristic of (The world of the Asuras) as “perverse,” or more literally, “fawning and crooked.” Out of extreme pride or a sense of superiority, people in this condition tend to conceal their real motives and flatter others to win praise. While outwardly courteous, however, they inwardly look down on others. Such a person’s self-image is distorted and unbalanced, colored by extreme pride or a sense of superiority; the self is perceived as extremely large and important, and others as small and unimportant. Those who remain in this state ultimately do harm to themselves through their own conceit.

There was something about this that really hit with Shez. Shez's motivation is to get revenge on Byleth for wiping out their former mercenary unit. It seems like a normal motivation, but Shez also has quotes where they talk about how what happened to them is just the nature of the profession. These quotes make Shez come across as hypocritical. But the nature of the Asura realm would suggest that Shez is just putting on a metaphorical mask, saying things that sound nice while keeping their true motives hidden. It's still on Shez on whether or not they go after Byleth, and Arval not letting go of this motivation, attacking Byleth that leads to Arval's own downfall.

But at the same time, Shez doesn't lose their power like what happens to Byleth at the end of Flower. They don't stop being an Asura. They will still support Edelgard even though her path is supposed to be immoral according to Houses. Shez can confirm that Edelgard is oppressing the commoners under her rule, but unlike Byleth won't lead the BE in opposing her. Their influence on Claude ultimately leads to Claude going down a similar path, meaning it's because of Shez that Claude kills Rhea as he gives into his own hatred. Even with Dimitri, Shez had no problem when Dimitri and company's motives for the war changed to revenge, and Dimitri then continues the war after the defeat of Edelgard and Thales in order to punish the Empire. Then there's Shez's whole “I'm just a merc” gig, he's saying he's nothing more than someone paid to kill others regardless of morality.

With this in mind, we can make a judgement call. Shez, despite appearances, isn't a moral person. Shez might believe that this war is morally ambiguous, who is right or wrong a matter of perspective, but they're someone who kills for money as well as using the war for revenge which could put them into immoral territory, as they're willing to facilitate the suffering of others for their own goals, a big no-no in Buddhism. They don't care if they're the aggressor or playing defence. They're not amoral, ignorant of and not influenced by morality, like Byleth starts off as and from that they end up poisoning Fodlan. Because Shez shows up as the lords flee Kostas, they don't meet Byleth at Remire. They don't lead the lords to a better Fodlan, they just help them fight a war that's not even over at the end of the route.

Shez might appear to be nice, but we should have known better after Edelgard. As to whether they're evil, evil is defined as being “profoundly immoral.” Shez killing Byleth and by extension Sothis, living up to being an Asura, would push them into being evil, and their POV goes against the morality of Houses. That, and the Asura realm is called one of the four evil paths.

[side-vermin93]

Well.

Long rant below this line if you're just scrolling by.

I normally don't do this sort of thing, I don't post my unfiltered dogshit opinions on any kind of social media, I don't toll the bells when I don't get my way and cry 'Foul Play' unless I truly believe that something is going wrong.

No doubt, everyone has seen the... colourful reaction to TADC's release date being set in May of 2024 (This May) and the Murder Drones tag on Tumblr is exploding for good reason.

Now, before I say my piece, I would like to immediately debunk a common train of thought often used by detractors to devalue the points that others have made when it comes to this controversy:

"Glitch is saying that they are taking their time to make the episodes and the finale as best as it can be." And that we as a fandom are "Overreacting."

To begin with, I personally hope that yes, Glitch is doing everything in their power to make MD as good as it can physically be, I hope that they are giving the finale to the season the sendoff it deserves.

But would it KILL THEM to tell us something? Post teasers, memes, references to Murder Drones or even something as simple as "Hey! You liked TADC, how about you check out Murder Drones while you wait?"

Instead, Glitch has spent months of complete and total radio silence, completely forgot the existence of the anniversary of Murder Drones' pilot, and as they did this, they continued to post teasers of TADC, including a personally vexing post that basically amounted to engagement farming, literally "If this gets 100k likes, we will open the door"

Stuff like this DOES NOT help assuage the fears of fans who believe that Glitch has begun to ignore MD simply because it isn't as popular or as profitable as TADC has become, it smacks of blatant favouritism and foul play when the fans of Murder Drones get nothing, meanwhile TADC is getting WEEKLY teasers, which is only serving to inflame the controversy between TADC and MD fans.

The thing that infuriates me the most is that Murder Drones is in its final stretch for (HOPEFULLY) its first season finale, and yet we have recieved nothing aside from the initial trailers and the release date of "sometime in early 2024" and we are now coming up on the end of the second month of the year, meanwhile TADC gets a concrete release date in MAY, which does NOT excuse the constant teasers and content for TADC that was produced before this point.

As for the overreaction? I think its personally an acceptable response considering the current controversy, but the biggest problem is what Glitch has said today.

"We're also working hard on Murder Drones & will be releasing final episodes soon!"

This, reader, is a very vague statement made by Glitch in their announcement today, and... well, notice how they said "Final Episodes"

Now, this could be Twitter and its word limit screwing them over, but Glitch (and most corporations) is very deliberate with their wording, and this could be no different, do they mean the finale of season one? Or is Murder Drones as a SHOW coming to an end after episode 8? We don't know because Glitch is being vague about this.

Now, because we don't know, we are (reasonably considering how companies often tend to focus on what is most profitable as opposed to any concept of "loyalty") reacting in a negative way towards this wording and believing that MD might very well come to an end before Liam is able to fully finish his story or for us to enjoy the show he has been working on for a long time now.

If it is the end of Murder Drones, then of course people are going to blame TADC for "Killing Murder Drones." Corporations have no loyalties and no qualms about being underhanded, only an appetite for more funding and appeasing their investors, and the most juicy of cash-cows practically fell into their lap.

Now, perhaps we are WRONG, maybe Glitch really did screw up because Twitter loves its word limits, then in which case, shouldn't Glitch try and clarify that in another post as soon as possible? Say that MD isn't going anywhere and that they meant the season finale?

Ultimately, we are in a very turbulent time and tensions are the highest they have ever been, and the next two months will either cool down into something to laugh about later, or there will a shitstorm. No inbetweens.

If it is a false alarm, then I will be there laughing with y'all about how I was doomposting like an idiot, but if it isn't? then I will continue working on my projects in the fandom until I believe I am satisfied, and I will be there when the shitstorm drops.

God, I hope it's the former.

Also sorry if the tags for this are crap, but I don't have the energy left over to fix them.

[transmascpetewentz]

Was talking abt this with my family and decided this needed to be a post on the webbed site:

A fundamental way that antisemitism operates that makes it so difficult to remove from leftist spaces is by taking the broad scope of problems in the world and finding a couple that can be vaguely tied or related to Judaism in some way, then taking "this is tangentially related to Jews" to mean "Jews are 100% responsible for this." It's particularly this sentiment that I see echoed in most of the antisemitic posts that I see on the dash.

It's one of the reasons, imo, why the west is so focused on Israel as opposed to the situation in the Congo, Sudan, or Ukraine. All four of these situations suck and are very clearly, to any person observing, bad. However, only one of these awful situations where war crimes are being committed is one that I hear about every day, that I am told if I so much as block some tags relating to it that I am a bad person. And that's the one where people can blame The Jews for it.

Despite Russia currently committing what I would call a genocide against Ukrainians, many westerners who preach anti-colonialism are completely silent or worse. I thought that silence meant you are directly complicit? Odd, huh? Does this principle of being against historical imperial powers committing genocide against colonized people not apply when the colonized nation has more than three times the relative Jewish population compared to the colonizer?

Yep. And many of the most prominent antisemitic antizionists are completely pro-Russia because Russia claims to be against quote-unquote "western degeneracy," which is literal Nazi shit. As a Russian who regularly speaks out against slavophobia/russophobia/anti-Russian people sentiment on the left and the right, I am horrified by westerners' complete disregard for human life and basic moral principles to defend my country's genocide.

And this idea of blaming all tangentially-related problems on Jews isn't just showcased in how much people focus on Israel, but also in who gentiles tend to call "zionists" and the attributes that they prescribe onto anyone who is labeled a zionist. Zionism is a political movement with historical basis in Judaism, but the actual definition of zionism is irrelevant to the critique I am about to make. My issue is with how some gentiles define, or don't define, zionism.

I have said this before, but when some leftist gentiles are asked to name a few qualities that all zionists share, they might give a list that's something like this: they are pro-Israel, they support Israel's genocide of Palestinians, they are completely anti-Palestine, and they do not have nuanced takes on I/P. Of course, this is a batshit insane and very ahistorical take on zionism, but I would have less of an issue if these gentiles would stick to that definition and only call people zionists if they shared all of those qualities.

Instead, these same gentiles who claim that all zionists share these opinions will claim that any Jew, convert-in-progress, or ally that doesn't hate Jews is a zionist. This circles back to my first point about how antisemitism takes anything where Jews are involved and turns it into "Jews are The masterminds behind this." And that's exactly what this is. The label of zionist being applied to a non-zionist turns their views from nuanced and neutral to racist and genocidal in the eyes of antisemites.

The idea that all Jews one doesn't like must be behind some child-murdering conspiracy is an antisemitic one, no matter how real the child murder happening in Palestine is. Random Jews, even Israeli Jews, are not responsible for the actions of their government (which is being backed mostly by gentiles overseas, btw). Stop fucking taking any instance of a bad thing being tied to Jews or Judaism and blowing it up into calling Jews the masterminds behind it. There is no global conspiracy, no matter how much you wish there was for your daily dose of emotional support antisemitism.

Reading Comprehension Questions:

What do you think that OP means when they say "The Jews" with both the "t" and "j" capitalized? Is he using that language seriously, or is he trying to get another message across?

Is this a post about Israel and Palestine, or is this a post specifically addressing antisemitism within the pro-Palestine movement on the left? Additionally, does OP give any meaningful indication of his views on I/P within the post?

Why does OP talk for two paragraphs about the situation in Russia and Ukraine? How is OP more qualified than the average Tumblr user to have an opinion on Russia?

Why is OP, despite not being Jewish, making a post about this subject? How might OP be more qualified than the average gentile to make a post about antisemitism?

Does OP blame Palestinians for antisemitism on the left in this post? Does OP single out any specific ethnic or racial group as opposed to just gentiles?

Have I sat with and mentally answered to myself the above questions before I clicked on OP's page to send him an anon telling him to kill himself?