#but I don't think that is the source of why it is so bad as a game

[radioactive-earthshine]

Hello new Superman fans! Welcome to the fandom. We're SO glad you decided to show up, even if maybe your stay here is brief. Stay as long, or a little as you want to.

My name's Orla, I've been in the comics fandom for over twenty years, and I have been a comic reader for over thirty.

I'm here as your friendly guide to all things Superman from the comics perspective!

First off, I want to convey that the fantastic movie you just saw is referred to as an "elseworlds" story.

This means it is a story that takes place in a totally different universe from the comics, and it has no relevancy to the main comics at all!

Elseworlds are a lot of fun as they give creators an opportunity to explore comic characters, new teams, and even comic events, in a world that doesn't have decades or lore attached! Think of it as official fanfiction.

As a result, character origins, motivations, appearances, ages, team combinations, moral alignments, and even personalities might be drastically different from the comics, the source material.

Please do not think this movie is a full spectrum representation of the depth of comics.

But Superman has always been woke, that part is 100% accurate.

While you're puttering through tags here on Tumblr you might have come across a few things that I'd like to address with the truth.

Because in the Superman fandom, we care about the truth, that was one of the most poignant themes of the movie - getting the truth out there.

Unfortunately, the fandom is full of a lot lies and misunderstandings, or partial truths. So without wasting any more time let me deconstruct a few things.

Long post below.

1.) Kon El/Conner Kent

Fandom: "This is a Clex baby that Clark abandoned for his parents to raise and owes Lex child support, and his name is sometimes spelled Connor or Konner or Kon El Kent." The above is partial truth, but the only statement that is true is that he shares 50% of Clark's DNA and 50% of Lex's, making him on technicality a child of them both, but the comics use the word clone. This is not the first origin of Kon, in fact for the first 10 years of his comic lifespan he was a human cloned from a man named Paul Westfield, and his genes was altered to just look like Superman and he had meta abilities in the form of TTK. He was not a clone of Clark to start. Geoff Johns in 2003 retconned this origin to make him instead a Clex clone, and then launched off a hurtful eugenics narrative where Kon was written to believe there was a risk of him being evil because one of his genetic donors was evil (which didn't make sense because Paul was evil himself). Just coming from watching the film, I want you to remember what Pa told Clark - it's not up for parents to decide who their children are, that's up for the person to decide. Genetics do not dictate morality. And this is why this retcon put a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. This is not to say you cannot enjoy it and find it compelling, and it can be compelling, but please understand what this retcon is - a retcon. Clark never abandoned Kon ever in the comics. He never was "weird about having his DNA stolen". He never held him being a clone against him. He never purged him when he found out he was half Lex (Batman was the one that made a fuss about it but people don't want to talk about that, I'll explain more below). There is no child support. That's not even how child support works. Neither Clark or Lex raised him and Kon doesn't formally see either as a father. Lex isn't even on his radar as "family". Clark is family however and he is sort of caught in this nebulous space between an older brother and a parental figure but in all honesty, it's a nonnuclear role. Kon's name is Kon El or Conner Kent. He is like an immigrant who has a birth/family name, and a given name. His given name is Conner Kent, his birth/family name (even though he did not have it when he was born) is Kon El. They do not combine, yes a lot of people do this, they are wrong. Please spell them correctly. Kon meaning "abomination" was a thing in main comics only briefly, and it is now no longer canon.

Originally, it had no meaning when Clark gave it to Kon. Clark did not knowingly name him abomination. This is false. Kon is not dating Tim Drake, that is not canon, and he really doesn't care who Tim is dating right now. Sorry.

2.) Lex Luthor is a good dad to Kon.

No, he isn't. I cannot even begin to explain how little care he has for that boy. He does not care for him in the slightest and only ever thought of him as a tool and a weapon to serve him.

3.) Clark is a BAD DAD to Kon.

No, he isn't. I cannot even begin to explain how much care he has for that boy. He trusted him so much, he trusted him with the people he loved most and feared for the most: his parents. He is not without faults, and a lot of them have more Doylest than Watsonians explanations for why he failed Kon in various things, but in general he loves Kon tremendously.

4.) Batman anything

Look. The Batman and BatFAM fandom is a huge monolith and a lot of the fans (not all) can be very weird, aggressive and outright vile to other characters without knowing that they are being unwelcoming to the greater fandom. That being said... Metas are allowed in Gotham, Batman has ZERO power to stop them from entering, and many (like many of his own rogues) live there. Alan Scott, the first Green Lantern, lives there. Dinah Lance, the Black Canary lived there. Ragman lived there. Duke Thomas, one of Batman's bat-brood lives there. Metas are allowed in Gotham. For some reason, many in the Batfam fandom, have decided that this trope is hilarious and fail to see the parallels of this and fascism, oligarchy, xenophobia, and in current events, ICE operations... Anyway this is not a thing that is canon, it was only canon in an elseworld's comic starring Barbara Gordon. Batman might not want other people in his city from time to time, and he claims to want to work alone, but he can eat shit and live, and he does. The comics call him out on this all the time. The Batfam are very frequently glazed in fandom at the expense of other characters by people in some pretty uncomfortable and sometimes vile ways. Example: the Green Lanterns are often painted as stupid or weak to prop up a Bat-character as better than them. Or a Super character is depicted as stupid an incapable of solving a mystery when Clark is an investigative journalist and has solved many mysteries on his own before. Or, in Young Justice circles, Bart Allen (a speedster character from The Flash) is an infantile child who needs his eyes covered in front of people kissing when he is the most punk of any of his team. My point here is, if you are NEW to the fandom and you see a lot of bat posts that use other characters to prop said bat-characters or their ships, have some extreme suspicion about how far removed this is from anything in reality and embrace it as CRACK FANFIC. Because that's what it is. If you ARE interested in the Batfam they are a compelling group of characters with a lot of depth and nuance, it is just a shame that much of the fandom space, fanon, has flanderized many of them down to basic tropes and their depth has been lost in many areas. If you like this, that's fine! It's your life, but please remember that there is more out there.........

5.) The comics are so confusing and contradict each other all the time and have rebooted so many times, every other year, there is no canon and no point in reading them.

This is a partial truth but there is nuance. The comics due to their nature have many writers taking on a character and when you have so many hands on one person, personality sometimes shifts and material is lost/forgotten/written over. But I promise you - you read enough comics you start to understand that barring something really unhinged, personality is consistent. There IS a canon. The comics do not reboot every other year, there have only been 3 major ones and once you know the DATES of these it's really simple. Comics really can be simple and many characters just start at #1 for reading. There are hundreds of fans that will gladly point you in any direction and will enthusiastically share their reading lists with you if you ask for help. We're desperate for comic readers and connections and love new fans. We are twirling our hair and kicking our feet when you ask for a reading list. Reading them is like reading a book, it's reading, it makes you think, it is good for you.

And finally

6.) Lois Lane doesn't do anything in the comics other than be a damsel.

Please. The movie you just watched provided you with one of the most breath taking takes of Lois I have seen. Lois Lane is a superhero in the comics where her curiosity, bravery, and passion for ending fascism is paramount to her character. She loves journalism and has a deep love and respect for the field and she is very, very good at it.

This is all for now I have for you. If you are curious about anything else regarding comics or source material, please reach out to me and I will love to help explain some things.

Note: this is not me saying fanworks with the above themes or tropes are bad or shouldn't exist, those are fanfiction where there are no rules, BUT, a lot of these themes have been confused for facts where new fans genuinely believe the above are real things that happened in the comics and are accurate depictions of characters and themes. I am here to sort out what is fanfic, and what is fact. Because we live in a world where respect for the truth, any truth big or small, is dwindling and that is a tool of fascism.

[bucketofdeltav]

So juice is actually a really good way to get colours into honey, I didn't think of that, thank you @moltengoldveins. Bees don't have piercing/cutting mouth parts, so they'd need to get at the fruit in an environment where it had already been dropped or squished, and their proboscis is adapted to sucking liquid up from a flower, not pulp from a fruit. We also still have the problem of limited fruiting seasons and needing to put hives out and pull them in on a very precise schedule, which is hella labour intensive.

The other consideration is whether making the juice into 'honey' (again not legally honey in most jurisdictions) would change the colour (yes) and whether that would make it more pink or less pink (who knows). I no longer have access to beehives to find out whether feeding them consistently on guava juice would make pink honey. I suspect it would not be the glorious technicolour @emily-escott shows due to the addition of the brown from the other sources mentioned previously.

Plants fundamentally do not do the energy-intensive chemical synthesis required to make colours without a good reason. Tree sap is generally not going to be coloured because there's no reason for it to be. Fruits are coloured to make you look at them and go 'yum' and spread the seeds around. Flowers are coloured to make pollinators go 'yum' and come grab that nectar (which is also produced only to attract pollinators, incidentally). Leaves are coloured because plants gotta photosynthesise. Sap is not coloured.

Real earth honey is different colours and flavours depending where you got it and when you got it, and it can be like, noticeably different.

Here's some of my collection held up to the light so you can see them better.

The one on the right is a Spanish oak honeydew honey that tastes like very dark bitter molasses and does come from bees collecting honeydew, which is excreted by aphids that drink tree sap. Bees don't tend to go for sap on their own; not a high enough sugar concentration. Aphids are drinking it mostly for the protein and excreting the excess sugar and water.

(The one on the left is Portuguese orange blossom honey and is very delicately orange flavoured. The one in the middle is wildflower honey from the Yucatan peninsula and is nothing special but the colour's lovely. I also have Turkish pine honeydew and a very bad example of New Zealand mānuka but they're less interesting.)

Anyway, pink space honey, still expensive as fuck, so the next questions are, how did very expensive pink honey end up in the Temple, why was Qui-Gon definitely involved, and how pissed is he going to be when he finds out Quinlan used it all?

Ok but what if space bees were pink and they did pink honey, what then

[huntersthompsonbignaturals]

VB characters comforting you after a breakdown at night + comforting them

had a terrible night and wanted to write fluff. hopefully this will reach someone who needs it lol, i know i do. these will be short sorry. the setup is you had something shitty happen to you late at night (sleep paralysis? existential crisis? saw something creepy, such as pete white? take your pick) so that's why they're all cuddling you lol

PETE WHITE

Comforting you:

Oh god he's so bad at it.

He's terrible at being serious, so he'd probably try to lighten the mood somehow. Unfortunately that just ends up being awkward. Hell, maybe you even stop crying out of pure confusion.

He tries his best, though. He'll ask you what you need and he's happy to offer some affection if that's what you desire.

He may not be the best at comfort but he doesn't ever minimize your problems. Even if he doesn't really get what you're going through, he'll always be there for you no matter what.

He awkwardly reassures you but it kinda just ends up making you confused rather than content, which is better than a depression spiral I guess

Lets you pet his hair, which is great, unless of course his hair is the source of your misery, in which case the whole situation just becomes even more awkward

How would his hair be the source of your misery? Idk figure it out

Comforting him:

He tends to hide his emotions pretty well but on occasion he'll spiral, usually late at night. His shameful past comes back to haunt him- particularly how he took advantage of Billy.

If it's not that then he's probably thinking about how he's a "freak" and undeserving of love.

He tries to brush you off when you approach him. He won't request anything from you, you have to offer it to him. And even then he's hesitant.

Eventually you get fed up and just wrap him in a hug.

He relaxes instantly, and slowly puts his arms around you in return. The moment he does so, a wave of relief rushes through his entire body.

He doesn't really like to talk about what's bothering him in the moment, but he'll usually reveal it later when he's more comfortable. He veils it with humor, but you can usually tell when something is really bothering him.

Once you're deeper into your relationship he's more open with you and less ashamed of seeking your attention.

BILLY QUIZBOY

Comforting you:

The polar opposite of his boyfriend. Billy just exudes comfort and he'll make you feel loved no matter what.

The instant he hears you're feeling down, he's by your side immediately

Somehow he always knows the exact things to say to ease your mood.

He's been through a lot so he understands. He's very patient and totally gets if you don't want to talk about it right away, or if there isn't really a specific thing that happened that triggered your breakdown.

Just holding him is a stress reliever. He's so small and soft, and he gives killer back rubs (at least according to that one episode in season 6).

He'll even let you pick him up and carry him around if you so desire.

Comforting him:

Billy seems well-adjusted enough but beneath the surface there's a lot of turmoil. He's always hated himself, and though he doesn't as much as he used to, he still does.

Try as he might, he just can't seem to see himself as lovable. Not by you, not by Pete, not by anybody. Despite the facts, he sees himself as a freak and thinks the only reason you spend time with him is out of pity.

Talking it out helps, definitely, but if you really want to get through to him, you show him in the form of physical touch.

Wrap him up tight in your arms and he settles in instantly. He just adores the sensation of your arms around him and your fingers running through his hair.

He's one to fall asleep in your arms.

HUNTER GATHERS

Comforting you

Well if I made this super romantic it would be out of character, wouldn't it?

She'd probably tell you to get the hell over it and fall back asleep.

She wouldn't mind if you wanted to cuddle her, though. In fact she secretly hopes that you do.

She's a little spoon I just know it. Source: trust me

She's a bit bony but otherwise excellent to cuddle with

She could probably give you an...interesting pep talk. She doesn't do comfort but she can do confusing and intense speeches where she screams in your face.

I mean she'll LET you cuddle her...it's not like she likes it or anything...or feels like she missed out on being loved in her earlier years...or wants you to keep holding her forever...that would be ridiculous! ...wouldn't it?

Even though she tries her best to be stoic and cold, you can feel her love and intend to return it tenfold.

Comforting her

She doesn't accept comfort easily. Not at the beginning of your relationship anyway.

She usually just grumbles and pushes you away from her. Don't try to force it, she'll be ready when she's ready.

The OSI drilled into her head that she doesn't need love, love is just a frivolous waste of time, and seeking it makes you weak. There's a lot of trauma that she's never processed due to that hostile environment, and a lot of it she doesn't even recognize as traumatic.

You call her cute at one point and she just stares at you. She hasn't ever been called that before, at least since she can remember. She's a lot of things in her eyes, but she is definitely not cute. **she's wrong about that, she's fucking adorable**

Kiss her!!! Cuddle her!!! Give her all the love she missed out on!!!!!!!

She lovessss when you stroke her hair, she'll cling to you while you run your fingers through her soft locks

She is one hell of a cuddler once you break down her walls

She likes forehead kisses, especially if you stroke her hair

AUGUSTUS ST CLOUD

Comforting you

Another one who is most definitely not super romantic. But he also won't turn down a cuddle.

Once you really get to know him, you'll find that he's just very soft. Literally and figuratively. He values rest and leisure deeply and is usually relaxing on an obscenely expensive piece of furniture. And he's sensitive as well. Please don't offend him or he'll most definitely cry. It's almost funny given how much he tries to be menacing.

When he attempts to comfort you, he kinda does the absolute least. At first he barely even touches you. It's like half due to him just being an asshole and half him not believing you actually want him near you. Man's a recluse, he doesn't often have relationships, and the few he's had turned out to just be for his money. As you can imagine that's been a blow to his ego, no matter how much gloating he does to keep it hidden.

You end up just telling him to stop being so afraid of touching you, that if he's so repulsed by you he should just say so. He sits there in awkward silence for a while before slowly putting his arms around you.

Trust me, he'll get more comfortable over time...a lot of time. But he is really nice to cuddle.

Comforting him

St Cloud is the type of guy to vehemently deny that he needs love, while desperately needing love. It's pathetic in a cute way

But his ego won't permit him to just accept your love. So you have to convince him to let himself be comforted

I mean he doesn't even want to admit that he had a breakdown in the first place, his head is THAT far up his ass

But once he's in your arms he doesn't protest at all, he knows better than to deny himself your love.

The number one way to make him utterly melt in your arms is to stroke his back while he lays his head on your chest. Running your fingers along his stomach is pretty nice too, but he's incredibly sensitive. One brush of your fingertips in a particularly weak spot will send him into a fit of laughter.

PHANTOM LIMB

Comforting you

Love him or hate him, Hamilton knows exactly the right words to say in any situation. He'll have you relaxed and swooning over him in no time.

Does he actually care about your well being? Who's to say, maybe he just wants to shut you up. But I prefer to imagine Phantom Limb as having a bit of sweetness still left in him so don't ruin this for me please. (it's MY headcanons and i get to write ooc if i want to)

He'll rub your back and talk about how he just hates to see his beloved in so much turmoil

And his voice is incredibly relaxing

He's like your personal weighted blanket. He'll keep you warm and comfortable all night.

Forehead kisses <3333

Comforting him

Ok so in my mind, Phantom Limb is pathetic as fuck. He's a snobby, lonely idiot who's too arrogant to admit he's anything but cool and unbothered.

Growing up disabled was hard on him, especially with the pressure from his family, and instead of processing that trauma, he of course did the very normal thing of becoming a supervillain. So yeah, lots of unprocessed trauma in this dude.

So he's not going to directly tell you he wants reassurance, but he's certainly not going to turn it down.

[paradoxcase]

that's correct. i don't want to talk about this

So you openly admit you're just here to harass me, then. Got it.

#pro fiction#anti harassment#proship#anti censorship

If this post was intended to call out antis, as you claim, why did you tag it #proship? Are you under the impression that there are a lot of antis in proship spaces? What antis do you think are going to read your post and have a change of heart? If you wanted them to see this, you should have tagged it #antiship or whatever the fuck tag they follow.

Most of your tealdeer here is completely irrelevant, because like I've said repeatedly at this point, there's only one specific part of your post that I'm actually disagreeing with.

we have already gone over how the term "ruin" means "degrade, devalue."

I don't know where you got this frankly insane definition of "ruin" from. This is what "ruin" actually means (source: Wiktionary):

Here, we're obviously talking about sense 4, "To make something less enjoyable or likeable." It's completely reasonable to say that something you really did not like about a movie made it less enjoyable or likeable. It doesn't mean you're saying that it has no value, or that other people can't enjoy it, it just means that it made it so that you can't enjoy it.

The rest of your post pretty much falls apart after this point, so there's no reason to address it.

saying that shit is ruined simply because you (general you) hate seeing sex on screen is a symptom of a sex-negative society

Here's the other thing I responded to. Are you seriously going to claim that this actually meant "saying that you didn't enjoy a sex scene might be a symptom of sex-negative society, or it might equally be that you're sex repulsed"? You didn't say that. Stop claiming that you didn't only give one possible reason for why that might be the case.

not what i said. i said other asexuals in my notes disagree with you.

And what was your purpose in doing that? What relevance do they have to this discussion? Do you have any reason for why you said this other than to say "some asexuals agreed with me, therefore your experiences are invalid"?

you (paradoxcase) engaged with me (wincist) in bad faith

Good to know that asking people to maybe occasionally take a break from calling me an evil prude because of my identity is "bad faith". I guess telling someone that they're tokenizing themselves is "good faith", though?

you refuse to believe people when they tell you that you misinterpreted what they said

If you actually thought it was fine for people to sex-repulsed, you could have said so at any point in this conversation. Instead you continue to dig in your heels and double down on what you originally said.

Hey, I can't respond to you on the actual post because the OP decided to block me instead of having some kind of reasonable discussion about their claims that sex-negativity is the only possible reason anyone could have for not liking a piece of sexual content.

I've seen the weird "porn addiction" people, too, and if OP had actually mentioned those people at any point in their post, I would have agreed with that (and I do also agree with pretty much everything else they said other than "stop insisting that sex scenes or erotic material ruin movies and shows just because you, personally, get icked out watching it.") But they didn't mention that at all, and their post seems to be about something completely different. I don't think I generally see the porn addiction people talking about regular mainstream media that just has a sex scene in it.

Context

Didn't mean to ignore you or anything, I just fell asleep between my last reply and when you sent your ask.

The thing is, this isn't a claim the OP is making. The whole post, start to finish, is about the mentality that porn is opposite to art, and sex is opposite to intellectual value. That's the context, the post in which this paragraph exists. You're imposing a whole separate meaning onto that paragraph.

And I even tried to broaden that context further to explain the social attitude it is responding to. No, OP didn't specifically respond to the "porn addiction" people. OP responded to a mentality that comes from the same root, which I brought up in response to you saying that you don't see it happening. I wasn't saying "this is what OP is talking about," I was saying "the thing OP is talking about exists and here are examples of more attitudes I see because of that." Because if you didn't see the conversations it's directly responding to, I thought you might recognize the cultural shift if I gave you more examples of it.

Fascism has a whole concept of sex being degrading to art and to the consumers of said art. This is on the rise, and if you don't see it I'm happy for you because it's exhausting. But that doesn't mean it isn't real.

And in my opinion, bringing up asexual and sex-repulsed people into a conversation about puritanism in media and fascist "degenerate art" attitudes -- which, this is what that conversation is, this is the whole entire point of it -- is unfair both to the conversation, and to asexuals. Acephobes love to act like ace people are trying to shut down their expressions of sexuality, and that's a common ace-exclus talking point I was seeing all the time when acephobia was louder on here.

[brw]

Against my better judgement I'm going to answer this despite the fact that a) this is kind of bizarre to post under a stranger's post with such an aggressive tone, and b) I sense no matter what I say will change your mind, but some things you said are so blatantly incorrect it'll bother me if I don't, so whatever;

Wanda is not treated any more misogynistically by Vision than any other contemporary woman of her era. Frankly, I think she and Vision come off a lot better than the likes of Hank Pym and Janet van Dyne, or Reed Richards and Sue Storm, or Steve Rogers and Sharon Carter, or Clint and Natasha, or any other example. I can appreciate this might be a personal preference though, so I won't press on this as everything reads differently to certain people, and I can appreciate if you've never read 60s or 70s comics before and don't engage with them on their own level, they can read poorly. However;

"Vision has nothing to do with the twins" is something I find bizarre as a reason to say that Vision is a bad partner, when Vision was an active parent before Vision Quest? Like, when Vision and Wanda were actively married, Vision was very present. And after the fact, well, Vision was dead for the vast majority of all the Young Avengers arcs when Billy and Tommy got the most focus. Not only that, but Billy and Tommy became very close friends with a teenage robot version of Vision. Like, why do you think the twins would actually want a parental dynamic with Vision in the first place? By the time Vision comes back, Billy and Tommy are adults, and they, I imagine, aren't big on calling someone who looks like their dead friend dad every day.

And to be blunt, if by this logic Vision is an absent parent and a bad partner, so is Wanda. Wanda has nothing to do with Tommy. Wanda has never interacted with Tommy outside of Billy, and if it was not for Billy, she would likely never see Tommy at all, because she is not present in his life whatsoever. The sword that says that Vision is not active in the twins' life also means Wanda is the same with Tommy.

"Vision pushed for children with Wanda" is also just blatantly a lie. Like it just is not true. Vision suggets children, Wanda is excited by the idea but does not think it would be possible for them to have biological children, while Vision thinks it would be due to Wanda's probability manipulation powers, but is open to adoption as a possibility too. Wanda then says she literally does want children, but she did not know how to broach the subject with Vision.

Vision and the Scarlet Witch V2 #3

And then later when destorying the mysterious village, Wanda channels some of the powers to become pregnant with Vision's help. There is no coercion, there is no pushing, Vision just at most thinks it is possible for Wanda to use her powers to create children, but Wanda is written as enthusiastic about the idea, and at the time when Wanda is wielding the magic, isn't saying anything about having children and is solely focused on helping Wanda. I don't understand where this "pushing" idea came from, when it's very clear in the text that it is a mutual desire of theirs?????

"Spent the 2000s and 2010s verbally abusing Wanda" Well this is factually incorrect because Vision was dead from 2004 to 2013, so almost 10 years of the time you cite isn't even Vision. I'm trying to guess at what you're referencing, and the best I can really come up with is AvX #0 by Bendis?

And, I'm sorry, but if Brian "House of M" Bendis, Brian "Avengers Dissassembled" Bendis, Brian "Has vocally talked about how happy he is that he ruined Wanda for a long time" Bendis is what you're sourcing, then I think you are being incredibly disinegnous with your analysis and reasoning. This moment is very clearly to narratively set up the fact that Wanda has to redeem herself in mutantkind's eyes for House of M, a background theme and character arc for Wanda of this entire event. It's a stupid moment to set up Brian's stupid arc, and I think if you claim to like Wanda, you have got to do better than source Brian Michael Bendis comics to make your point.

Look, you're allowed to not like a relationship. You are allowed to not like a character. You are allowed to hate a character, to hate a relationship, even! But if these are your reasons, then they are bad reasons rooted in false information and willful misinterpretation of the text. And if you want to do that, that is your prerogative, but don't come on my post to do it.

And finally, to cap it off, if anyone is verbally abusive to Wanda, if anyone doesn't care about the twins, it's Simon fucking Williams, who purposefully kept Wanda's spouse from being able to comfort Wanda during the very traumatic death of her children because he wanted to fuck her, who showed absolutely zero care that his fucking nephews were dead.

You know. I can understand thinking there are relationships Wanda has had that are happier and healthier than her and Vision. Like I can appreciate that, especially when it's Jericho. But sometimes I see people say things like "Wanda and Simon are MADE for each other he is her true love" and I'm like well I just don't think that's true. Or fucking, Wanda and Clint being the best Wanda ship and I'm like I'm sorry but you are objectively wrong on that one. Don't lie to me like this.

[psychomusic]

so. I've been reading some posts on the jedi order tag AND i won't talk about my opinion on "are jedi good or bad discourse" BUT i wanna point out some lore to everyone who's complaining about the jedi taking kids into their order: (in the EU) it wasn't always like this.

if you take swtor era (more than 3000 years before the prequels) there were many jedi who joined at an older age. like, for example there was a guy who broke his engagement to become one. most jedi remember their families because they were old enough when they decided to go.

THEN in darth bane's book trilogy (circa 1000 yesrs before the prequels) there is a passage where two sith lords are talking about taking bane, already an adult, to study at korriban. one doubted him because he was too old, ans the other told him he sounded like a jedi, and that ONE DAY jedi will have to accept only kids into their ranks if they really want to find "pure" people that can learn their lessons quicker.

one day!! so it wasn't always like that!! the ongoing wars with the sith, who corrupted and killed many of them, had pressured them into taking always younger people into their ranks.

also, consider a thing that this video explains super well: training to become a jedi is not like exercising, because there is a transformative lesson at the end of the training that changes everything. you can't just do as much as you can, but not finish.

the transformative lesson, as the video explains, is that through the force, everything is the same - from rocks and ships to life and death. at the end of the training you have to understand this fundamental truth.

yoda says "you have to unlearn what you have learned". during times where they were constantly killed off or corrupted by the dark side (and if you haven't learned this lesson you are more susceptible to this corrupting), younger people were taken in to actually finish their training (a training that was ultimately about being a good person AND that you could leave at any point if you weren't sold on that, too)

(remember that for the sith failure = death. like. that was the alternative for force sensitive kids. it's not like sith had any moral problem with taking kids away without consent. sith don't have moral problems: they believe that them being stronger in the force means they can do whatever they want as long as their strong enough to go and do it. there are MANY passages in many different star wars stories, even in different mediums, that say this out loud)

AND (this is more of a critical thought than just stating the lore) the fact that they started doing it out of necessity doesn't mean it's 100% good BUT you know. the whole set up of the prequels is that we're starting off the story in a period of crisis and decadence all around. most of the systems of the times were about to fall. OF COURSE they had problems. if they didn't, we wouldn't have the story to begin with.

that doesn't automatically mean jedi = bad and sith are better, tho. you wouldn't take the last, chaotic and decadent period to jugde something, would you? it's like deciding that the athenian democracy sucked because people at the times of Demosthenes failed at recognizing the new schemes in which the world was evolving into, and still believed that their city would be important as it had been in the previous century. They just didn't fucking expect the Macedons would conquer half the world known and more, and have the subsequent political power. Still, their experiences in the 5th century with democracy were very good, even better than ours on many fronts, if you contextualize a little. the jedi had flaws, and most importantly, they didn't fucking know the future and everything that ever happened, ever, so they made mistakes. that doesn't automatically make the system ill, or bad, or not-working. systems can have setbacks when the world changes. (just like athenian democracy had one when they lost the empire that was funding the democracy. they even had a tyranny for a while and then fixed the problems. that doesn't diminish retrospectively their democracy)

[chirpsythismorning]

Nick himself said that his knowledge is confined to the leaks prior to s4, the s4 scripts from his verified source (likely within a source) and basic knowledge most fans paying attention have been able to formulate about s5 based on what has been released officially/unofficially, trends from Netflix and common sense.

He is saying based on all that, he doesn’t think byler is happening. 

And if we think back to what the Duffers themselves shared in the 4x09 script, it literally implies Mike’s monologue worked, and that it was entirely genuine. This tells me that the script the Duffers released for Emmy consideration, is not that far off from what Nick saw for himself. 

I think it’s likely Nick got something that the average below the line worker might manage to get their hands on if they tried hard enough. A copy they know they have to water-down to prevent these very situations from happening.

Unfortunately for the Duffers, it just so happens that they didn’t scrub their watered down copy hard enough.

Unfortunately for Nick, he admitted that it’s possible and even likely that the production will release things that aren’t exactly accurate with the sole purpose to lead fans sleuthing astray, without realizing it may have ironically already happened to him. 

[chryseis-lxve]

AAAA YOU'RE TOO KIND!! 🤭 but really, you're 100% right about everything, too. i feel like if i had to call any placement difficult to love then it'd be ashlesha nakshatra in moon or asc. it's not that these natives are un lovable or ugly in any sense, physical or otherwise, it's just that internalized pain is their constant state of survival. they expect pain, disappointment, withdrawal from others at all points so it's difficult to reach out to their hearts and just say, 'i see the pain inside you, but i still love you'

you say one bad thing to them when you're mad and this nakshatra's natives will internalize that for life, no matter how many times you apologise later because they're just used to seeing themselves in that negative light and so, as soon as a person even slightly slips up and mistakenly says smth that validates the view of the ashlesha person about themselves, these natives internally go,

'ah, you were mad and the truth escaped you so ill ignore every love you've given me because it's impossible for me to believe that i can be loved and ill proceed to accept the ugly you saw in me because that's the only thing about myself that i am comfortable with.'

i do hope you don't find anything i said too jarring or heavy, but tbh trying to understand the mentality of this nakshatra, this is closest to the core i managed to touch.

anyway, this is why these natives are told to follow lord shiva who neither consumes poison, nor spews it out but carefully holds it in his throat. the lesson of ashlesha is not to destroy the self, nor the surroundings and the people in it in pursuit of love and self acceptance.

and ofc, the rakshasa gana thing, too. this nakshatra's pursuit, or purushartha, is dharama but it possesses rakshasa gana. that in itself is the source of 99% of their life problems. they have a desire to attain purity or to touch soft things without bleeding all over them, but their internalized hurt and the people they encounter, especially in their formative years, make it impossible for them to not grow thorns. to ask an ashlesha person to not bite is to ask a tiger to remove its claws and teeth or a snake to remove its poison. both become hunted without their defence mechanisms.

what ashlesha has to learn is: you're not a tiger, you're not a snake, you're not a predator: you're a person. your poison is not for you to hurt people with, it's for you to protect yourself from poachers.

(also, loved discussing this with you!! tysm for your time and this fruitful, indulging discussion!! 🤭 i think you're an absolute genius!! 💝)

i’ve been wondering about tropical leo placements being dramatic and creative and such, and wondering what cancer nakshatra is reflects the main one they are talking about.

like it could be pushya bc most pushya natives ive met are quite melodramatic. maybe early early stages of magha because the magha portion feels very regal to me. ashlesha is the only one i’m confused about because women like lana del ray does not seem like your typical tropical leo moon or jennifer lawrence being a tropical leo sun. ashlesha are also closed off as they are the coiled serpent so maybe they are the ones who are more likely to be performative ??

idk idk

[longagoitwastuesday]

Every day I am haunted by the fact JJK could be amazing but it will be just idk Bleach or something

[seventh-district]

7am, eating cold leftover teriyaki stir-fry for breakfast and crying over blorbos

[floral-atom-collective]

ok..

[moonmoonthecrabking]

hey do you think the christian god exists in hatchetfield

out of spite yeah

[gasogene]

i'm just confused about people acting like BBC sherlock was a blight to sherlock adaptations or media in general...it was sly and it was witty and yes it's ridiculous, but it was unapologetic about that. it was fun.

[uncanny-tranny]

Hi, I love your blog! 😁❤

There are so many terms and identities out there now, which is awesome, but I'm ashamed to say I don't know enough about all of them. Is there a good resource for accurate information and definitions of gender and sexual identities that you would suggest?

I just want to be able to understand my friends when they want to explain to me how they identify, and maybe to be able to help understand myself a bit better too. And I know some of it is more fluid and personal than a standard definition, I'm just hoping to get a general understanding of all this, for my friends and for me.

I tend not to specifically look for amalgamations or dictionaries of queer terms, mostly because there comes a point where whomever is making it will be speaking to an identity they don't have much knowledge or expertise about, and many don't consult other communities. I've come across too many queer dictionary "sources" that almost act as though its word is law that I stopped going to those types of sources first. I'm not saying you could never go to a source that compiles queer identities into a list, like a dictionary, but often, you won't get a deeper knowledge about queerness beyond whatever that source says, which is why I don't have recommendations for you.

What I've found is that, when I have a question about a specific queer identity, I'll go directly to the community I've got questions about. I know that's not exactly what you were asking, but I've personally found that this has enriched my own understanding in ways that an often clinical definition just didn't.

I think the biggest thing to internalize first is that there's nothing wrong with not knowing it all. Even other queer people won't understand each other at first - because that is what it means to be people. The effort to understand one another must always be a collaborative effort first and foremost, which is why I so strongly emphasize learning from communities, from people, and from those who actually live as themselves.