#but it says its invalid)

[mofsblog]

"This is some gay shit" Good. Silly. Fair enough. Doesn't inherently invalidate other interpretations of the relationship. Honestly yeah, it is kind of gay regardless of their canonical relationship status

"There's literally no platonic explanation for th-" WRONG!! KILLING YOU WITH AMATANORMATIVITY KILLING LOBSTERS 🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞🦞

[leathfaic]

One of the things that pisses me off about MWIII and the lead up to it so bad is that whole "Oh I wasn't in the tank" thing around Graves.

Because it takes away from my success as a player and its just dumb.

But more importantly because Activision for some reason decided to play it like "Look at Soap being so dumb thinking he killed Graves, isn't he a ridiculous little man?" while Graves is given the "strong survivor" treatment by them.

Soap took out a tank.

Without dedicated gear.

He survived multiple assault teams while at it too. Not just survived, he took them out as well.

And then blew up a tank with nothing but some C4 to a point where no one in it could have survived.

Like he did that and you're telling me Graves wouldn't be fucking afraid of running into that guy again? If being in a tank can't save you from his wrath you're telling me he ever felt safe around him?

Nah. No way. We deserved to see him flinch the moment Soap enters the picture. To keep to the other side of the room. Trying his best to work with anyone but him.

Soap is unhinged and highly dangerous, or he would have waited for his chance to piss off instead of fighting that thing but he gets treated like instead of letting loose of his anger over the betrayal he was just a big dumb dumb and everyone else was in on the joke.

Like fuck man. That also means the player is seen in the same way, like you thought you just won a cool boss battle? Oh you stupid little player, that was for nothing and we're gonna take that feeling of success back. Games don't need to be gratifying, do they?

Actually that probably could be MW3s whole title.

[bixels]

I'm not getting into The Giving Tree discourse...

[uatia]

I'd like to share my collection of Lance Stroll pictures because he's my favorite and reminds me of myself a little too much sometimes...

If I get any lance hate on this post I will block you because no one deserves the kind of hate y'all seem to give him.

More like this

[avensartt]

If there are a million people who hate the "Lazarus Pit Madness" trope for explaining and excusing Jason's post-resurrection actions and ignoring the trauma he went trough that actually caused him to become that, I'm one of them. If there is only one person that hates it it's me. If there is no one who hates it I'm dead.

[aubris-fox]

everytime i see someone label common general autism experiences as "autistic women/men things lol" i want to bash my head in. i get so uncomfortable and pissed.

[yarrowleef-babbles]

been hearing rumors that the "i'm always straight" lines may have been cut from the GN and IF that is true, I expect everyone will be super mad about that--and ngl i'd mourn the loss of it too because it has become iconic to me

But. i can't believe i'm playing devils advocate for this, BUT it is not entirely unreasonable for an adaptation of this work to decide it does not want to reference Ronan's sexuality yet......coming to terms with his sexuality is (one) part of his arc in the 2nd book. Adam Parrish being ~the 2nd secret he doesn't want to admit to himself~ , Ronan's catholic guilt homoerotic nightmares and the like, all characterize his sexuality as something he might vaguely be aware of but seriously struggles to openly admit. I don't think he even uses the word gay or any other word to describe himself in the whole series? (unless I'm forgetting something?)

So, idk, it's not unreasonable to want the (hypothetical) audience to also not be aware of it until Ronan is forced to directly grapple with his identity next book.

i think this is one of those things that has become very dear to the fandom over time, but if i look at it objectively without my feelings, i just.....i do understand why someone could conceivably decide that this off-handed bitchy "he's gay btw" joke is not of dire importance for the sanctity of the story 😭 in the 'pros don't outweigh the cons' sort of way....

[dungeon-master-mike]

saying karen isn't as emotionally open to mike as you guys claim (because the show literally displays her avoidance of situations and how thats linked to her struggling marriage) isn't saying she's lonnie 2.0 or this abusive monster btw.

[fox-guardian]

what is your opinion on people censoring jimmy’s name? i don’t like it personally because it erases blame. in real life the main goal is for people to know the names of r@pists so they can be aware and the victims always want people to know who hurt them so someone can take the blame for actions. i feel that when people censor jimmy’s name, it erases any blame for his actions. “i hate japist so much for what he did to anya!” okay but what’s his name? who hurt anya? who is to blame for his actions? by censoring his name, it takes the blame off of jimmy.

I get that perspective, but idk if it erases blame in this context? We all know who it's supposed to refer to (especially since all the nicknames start with j, so you can't confuse it with another character). It hits different for a Character in a Story like this vs an actual person who Could do harm to real people. I think that's a fair enough take to have tho, I can see why that'd bother you.

Regardless, that's not to say I don't Also find it a little annoying for my own reasons. Especially when people do it in serious conversations or pick especially tasteless names to call him. Like using a play on actual predators names. Who Have hurt real people. Like it's such a funny joke.

My biggest beef with it is that it often feels. Performative? I guess? Like "HEY LOOK HOW MUCH I HATE JIMMY I won't even say his NAME" yknow? It Feels sometimes like some (not all) people who do this don't want to engage with him as a character, which is not good because we Should be engaging with him. Talking about him and what he did, how it's not dissimilar to things in real life. The greatest horror of mouthwashing is that Jimmys do exist and if we refuse to look at even a fictional version of that type of guy, it'll be easier to miss it when people like him do harm irl.

Again, I don't think everyone who does the nicknames/censoring thing are like this or whatever, but sometimes it does just. Rub me the wrong way. Gets old.

[wildwolf-fandoms]

In HTF fandom, you can know who to trust and not trust just by listening/reading what they think of some of the characters

"I love Fliqpy and Flippy but the raccoon who implied to be poor and is mentally ill is the spawn of evil for stealing, killing his brother, and `making illogical choices`. Aka when he is being a piece of shit Kleptomanic like the show intended"

"Don't get me wrong I love Handy but I don't understand why he is complaining when Russell has it worse."

"I don't understand why Petunia is always overreacting. Can't she just calm down for once?"

"I don't get why these characters trust Mole/Lumpy/Flippy/Lammy when they are DANGEROUS and SHOULD BE LOCKED UP."

Thanks for proving that disabled people can't trust you 👍

[asgardian--angels]

things I wish I could relive for the first time again:

that magical window where you finish a new piece of media, having watched/read it all by yourself with no fandom contact whatsoever, and you are just so happy about it, and full of interesting theories and takeaways, and just in love with it as a gorgeous piece of art.

because I swear to god as soon as you join the fandom for anything, you're bombarded with how you're supposed to view characters and their arcs, how you're supposed to morally and ethically judge the plot and the ways it apparently failed to present the right message, and if you don't you'll either be shunned for not sharing the popular headcanons or you'll be harassed for not criticizing the source material enough.

like how is it that the fans of a piece of media are also the ones being the most negative about it? If I like a show or a movie or a book, well, I liked it. That's kind of the point. I'm actually not here to tear it apart and talk about how it didn't live up to standards other people had! I enjoyed it for what it was, and forcing myself to find negative things to say about it doesn't actually bring me more enjoyment of it or reap any benefit to me. Fandom's a double-edged sword; you want to join a community to share your love for a piece of art, and the price you pay for a modicum of joy is a mountain of negativity. that's one main reason that I never engage with fandom until I'm completely done with a show, because if I was plugged into all of that commentary and discourse during the process, I'd be completely colored by how I'm expected to interpret everything this piece of art is presenting to me without being able to even form my own opinions.

[rainandsugarcane2000]

ngl idk how ive never gotten hospitalized for anything

[multifandomangel]

fine. i’ll say it.

the only reason people hate jordan and seaver but love emily is because the characters jordan and seaver “replaced” eventually came back; emily technically replaced elle, but everyone eventually got over it when they realized she wasn’t coming back.

[chanticle]

other people have said it better but i’m leafing through lore for reasons and thinking about how the overall cynicism (and see: racism) that the da storylines have for religion paired with the still-insistence that they’ll never invalidate andrastianism or whatever the quote is really does reek of that special brand of like . . . online white atheism

it’s the kind of “i hate all religion they’re all bad!” but still operating with an evangelical sort of tactic to your atheism, still marking christian principles as being superior but just separating them in your head, using that to be - specifically when i was coming out of christianity in the early-mid 2000s - disgustingly islamophobic. and it’s all drenched in colonialism on top of that, of course, but anyway. it’s been said better and more eloquently by other people, but this is yet another reason why you should not take the text’s interpretation of the evanuris - solas’s version of them either - at face value bc ultimately i believe it comes from this kind of place and that is bad

[gomzdrawfr]

The beast has been tamed

[everythingsinred]

Hi, I'm sorry, I know it's been a long time but I found an old post of yours where you say that the mangaka of Gakuen Alice said that Natsume and Mikan relationship is not safe or comfortable, did they really say that? I had no idea. What else has the author said about their relationship? I'm curious (⁠ㆁ⁠ω⁠ㆁ⁠)

hi <3

There's really no worries about ever sending me an ask, especially if it's GA related. I'll pretty much always answer <3

And that would be from the Memorial Book, where, according to some fan translations I've seen here and otherwise online (because there is no official English translation), Higuchi Tachibana said something along the lines of Natsume not getting too comfortable or sure of himself or thinking he "won." Essentially she's implying Ruka and Hotaru still have a shot with Mikan because she might change her mind about Natsume so he shouldn't get cocky or some other bullcrap like that.

I feel like it's understandable that I despise that line of thinking so I more or less ignore the Memorial Book and everything about the ending in general (excluding the Little Red Riding Hood comic and the HotaRuka crumbs). I've talked at length about why that type of commentary bothers me here. I just generally don't really care much about what the mangaka says anymore. I love her story and I love her art but her personal opinions, even about her own characters, do not matter to me at all.

I'm not sure what else she said in the Memorial Book or otherwise. She mentioned Natsume would have a slightly longer life because of Mikan's alice stone but that he'd still die young, and after that Mikan would probably be with Ruka (if the picture she drew of them together is supposed to be taken as canon). She mentioned somewhere (I don't recall where) that Natsume wasn't planned to be the "victor" but he just emerged in the lead at some point and she went along with it, which I always took to be a bit ridiculous because SHE WROTE THIS STORY. The characters lead you places but if she really preferred Ruka as the one Mikan ended up with then she should have written that from the beginning and IMHO, it was always Natsume from the start so no I don't buy that.

I realllyyyyyy don't like being negative about GA so I usually don't think about the canon ending, Memorial Book, or Higuchi Tachibana much. I love this manga with my whole heart and always will, but I really don't like it when creators rag on something fans love just to be edgy or contrary or whatnot. It makes me feel like they don't respect me for liking something THEY made, and if they don't respect me then I don't really wanna respect them. I feel similarly about actors shitting on past projects I like, but this one takes the cake in making me feel Not Great because of how much I love GA and NatsuMikan. It's just a huge slap in the face and always was, since the first time I read that comment of hers.

Since then, neither the canon ending nor the Memorial Book have existed to me.

Death of the author applies to lots of works but to me it has always applied to GA and always will!