#he isn't even misguided he's straight up an asshole

[jesterlaughingstock]

It is increasingly obvious to me that Dz Amine's first and only ooc moment is when he helps out the old man who gifts him the phone in return. It is a kind, selfless and compassionate gesture and he does not have the capacity for any of these virtues

[l-in-the-light]

About his "trigger warnings"

I mentioned here on tumblr that I used to have a number one favourite book writer. I guess not anymore. After all the SA allegations and other stories that got leaked by people around him (his collegues, co-workers etc.), I realized he's an abusive asshole and I owe you all to say that openly here. And some of the assaults date back decades now, which means he didn't just wake up one day and changed into an asshole, he most likely was always one.

I read the foreword to his book Trigger Warning again. I feel like I took a peek beyond his fake persona there. He writes about trigger warnings like it's some exotic curious little trend that kids on the internet came up with, finds it a bit peculiar like a daddy trying to understand their kid's hobbies, then proceeds to use them like a funny teasers for his short stories ("can you find the big tentacle hidden among the pages somewhere?"), only to finish it all up with a punch straight to your face: real life doesn't have trigger warnings, so always watch out for yourself. On the surface level? This all sounds like a slightly misguided, maybe even witty intro. Nothing is said with malice, right? And yet, the message underneath it all was always to discredit trigger warnings as a concept. That's why that delivery line is at the very end of that intro. You're supposed to be lulled into agreeing how silly it all is. I dunno if he did it on purpose or did it without thinking much about it, by habit, but that intention is there and it's disguised with concern and attempts to sound kind. A peek beyond the nice guy mask. No wonder I could never finish that anthology of short stories. The cognitive dissonance caused by the foreword sticked with me like a bad aftertaste. My intuition told me this was all wrong, I just couldn't find the words to express it.

And you know why it works so well as a disguise and why we tend to believe he didn't do it on purpose? Because hey, he just said the facts, the truth! Reality indeed doesn't have any trigger warnings, what's wrong with saying that! Yes, that statement is true. Using real statements in carefully woven context to sell a lie, is an example of an excellent manipulation. So allow me to untangle it or, in other words, to reveal the magic trick behind it.

Why do trigger warnings exist? Isn't Gaiman right, aren't they counterproductive, you might think, because by avoiding triggers you will never get better at dealing with them? Indeed, here's the catch, because the answer isn't a simple yes or no here. Yes, often to recover from trauma, you need to expose yourself to it in some way - like for example, through exposure therapy (or even just classic psychotherapy). But also No, because there's no rule that says you will officially recover only after you're fine reading fiction about sexual assault (for example)! Some triggers will dimnish, some will not, and the best you can do for the latter is to avoid them altogether. Triggers are extremely personal, but you can learn to manage them, in ways that respect your own boundaries, but never by giving up your right to selfcare. You see the difference?

Back to therapy bit for a moment. To recover, often you need to go through with it. But here's the thing - you do it in *controlled environment*, accompanied by a specialist that is there to help and calm you down afterwards. And you only start to do that once you feel *ready* to face it. Now compare it to a situation of reading a book (yes, a book, which usually never has any trigger warnings, because that's such a silly fanfiction thing). You come upon your trigger without any warning, preparation or support around you, you're left with the aftermath of possible panic attack or other symptoms completely on your own. It might take you weeks to recover from it, because perhaps you weren't yet in any therapy that could help you manage your triggers more effectively. But then you tell yourself it's fine, minimizing your own emotional reactions, because *it was just a book*. But, you realize, even years later you still remember it and you might finally accept the harsh truth that you're still not fine with it.

Now imagine same situation, but the book did have trigger warnings listed. For example, about sexual abuse. You would see that and leave the bookstore without the book, because you would know you're not *ready* for that. And it's fine not to be ready, be it yet or ever. This is about consent and selfcare, both are essential to process through trauma and recover. The books without trigger warnings rob selfcare, consent and a choice from us. They teach us we should always ignore our triggers and push through. It's sadly a reality that is widely accepted so Gaiman is right, nothing in reality will flash you a warning. But he's also wrong: it doesn't mean we can't make the life a tiny bit easier for those of us who are traumatized, instead of leaving them with all of that on their very own. This part, he doesn't want you to even consider. He doesn't want you to imagine the positive side of living in a world in which real books warn you about triggers, because then it would prove that it *can* become a reality in which real things (like books) warn you of triggers. They can't shield you from everything, but that's also not the point: it's just to make some things feel more safe, for everybody.

(As a side note, being triggered is not the same as stepping outside your comfort zone - those are two different matters! Though yes, stepping outside your comfort zone in an extreme way CAN become traumatic as the result as well).

I guess Neil Gaiman just thinks some people are too sensitive and should just get over themselves. You don't need those warnings, they won't protect you anyway. Have you tried not getting traumatized? How dare you think your selfcare is more important than reading my questionable fantasies? You're missing out if you skip my book (that has no proper trigger warnings) and you have only yourself to blame! I provide you a safe environment to explore your traumatic triggers, you should be grateful! And how is your book providing a safe environment exactly, author? Did you even try to put a safety net there for your reader? Do you even care? Of course you don't. But you will pretend like you do: by providing a very ingenuine effort that is mostly meant to be a pat on your own back for cleverly dismissing the very concept of trigger warnings, while pretending to play along with it and exposing their lack of power in the process. Disguised as a coincidence, lack of understanding or unskillful attempt written by a slightly ignorant daddy-like figure. What an irony that you do it by nearly surgically focusing on the blind spots of the concept, proving at the same time you do know the mechanism behind it pretty well. You knew what you were doing and how you were doing it.

Or at least, this is how I see it: I might be wrong on the details, but I'm sure I caught the gist of the manipulative behaviour there. An abuser always wants you to step out of your comfort zone, get surprised by a trigger, and to make sure you're outside your safety net. Because then you're an easier target, more likely to agree to harmful things (be it real actions or just harmful beliefs delivered to you by the author of a book, like in case of *trigger warnings being pointless*). They want to groom you into thinking that you're just being silly and see things that aren't there.

Trigger Warning's foreword is exactly that and I feel disgusted, now that I finally recognize my own feelings about it. I probably didn't find words for it before, because I wanted to believe Gaiman had good intentions behind it, they just didn't work out very well. Except that was never the case and that's why it never felt right. That good intention was never there, but it sure *looked* like it was. Also it took me way too long to realize people do things like that on purpose. You know what, Gaiman? Thanks to gaslighting efforts like yours it took me also way too many years to accept that selfcare IS OKAY.

So many people now think nothing was ever genuine about Neil Gaiman because his nice guy mask slipped. A mask he used to hide his autism behind and appear neurotypical/feel accepted thanks to it. Whenever a really advanced mask like that slips, the cognitive dissonance becomes a huge gap between a mask and actual self in perception of other people. Still, your autism is not an excuse for things you do and say, and definitely doesn't excuse assault as simple miscommunication - and yes, he did try to justify lack of consent this way. "I'm autistic, I read the body language wrong and wasn't even aware of it". Hey, you could have, like, asked. There's no shame in getting confirmation in words :P but it's just a poor excuse anyway, the truth is he didn't care if it was wanted or not, as long as he got adoration and powertripping thrill out of that, and that's the best case scenario here.

I believe the allegations. I won't be able to read Gaiman's books anymore, I honestly can't see them the same way I used to anymore. I loved Coraline and The Graveyard Book, and Smoke and Mirrors. I feel disgusted knowing that he openly claimed to be a feminist while at the same time assaulted so many people and used emotional manipulation so they won't #metoo him. He even went as far as to claim "always believe the victims", but once the allegations flew his way, what did he do? Blamed the victims, even called them mentally ill! I also feel now like his books are also just full of deception, meant to hide harmful beliefs under quirky words and imaginative tales. And I might never be able to stop feeling this way and I don't owe him a second chance anyway.

Good Omens stays in my heart though, because sir Terry Pratchett put a lot of work into it and it shows. I feel like I would show him disrespect if I discarded it. Let's say it becomes a Gaiman Who Might Have Been But Never Was, for me.

[mx-mix-lurker]

Hello, is me again. Back at it again at the dead Nightmares agenda. Man. I just really want them to break. Especially DS! Nightmare. Seriously. I've been wanting to ask but like, why does he still try pranking Dream and the Justice Reigns? Like, it's probably less than what people think. Once a month kind of thing.

But i just wanna know why he does that. Like I know DS! Mare disapproves of Von Licht's action on how he deals with criminals—like straight up killing them for their crimes and arresting some of them and shit(horrible simplification on my part). So it's probably like, a form of his protests. And maybe to keep tabs on Von Licht too? DS! Mare is a kind guy, not outwardly, probably prickly or too friendly of a person with an agenda type.

(Which is why I consider DS! Mare to be more psychopathic rather than sociopathic. But he can also gain sociopathic traits in his century long ran from Von Licht. Von Licht seems to be the unrelenting type, and his employees and subordinates seems to be overzealous at times when they're mentioned—although it's more often when talking about DS! Ink. Probably because most of them are former people that have been rescued and recruited into Justice Reigns. They have this rose-tinted glasses most likely, extreme justice too for the struggles they went through. Like, they be projecting their trauma and shit.)

Anyways, I digress. DS! Mare is just a really weird guy for me. Too sentimental when he seems to be a logical kind of guy. When his books (death note, fanfiction edition) were found out by Von Licht—wait, is this canon or that one comic I read? Not sure but I know DS! Mare hides his books under his new base beds. Probably came back to fetch them.

(Although its really weird on why the fuck did DS! Mare returned for those book when its been mentioned that the reason he can't even return to his original au is because Von Licht has their base, JR HQ there. So, not only plentiful of positivity magic which can.. hurt DS! Mare(?) but also very hard to return to.)

I wonder if DS! Mare is clinging to the past. But thats so obvious? And oddly optimistic of the guy. Or maybe he's always been an optimist, he just has brainrot or dark humor?

Von Licht also seems so odd in my eyes. But he's more understandable, and he's just a misguided kinda guy with a too extreme view of justice, that it makes him look to naive, idealistic and an asshole. He wants the world to be a better place, and thus, he tries to make a better place and he's succeeded in most parts—horrible with what they're doing with the criminals and other such. But other than that, kinda hard to hate the guy. Just pitiful.

But DS! Mare is just weird for me because he's a conflict of interest, a juxtaposition of desires. He does what he want in a careless manner but he also calculates his actions—I refuse to believe that guy who's been pranking Justice Reigns for so long and has been managing to escape the jail cell plenty of times in the years that has gone by—that he definitely knows patrol time and shit. (When Cross first appeared to confront Ink, and stumbled up DS! Mare instead.)

He's a guarded guy with a friendly smile. He laughs a lot but he probably doesn't tell a singular significant thing about him. He's expressive and theatrical dramatic, and yet other than the expected chaos and dumbassery that would happen—do you know what's happening in his mind? Because other than causing the max amount of shenanigans from happening, DS! Mare's targets are often Justice Reigns and its members—from like fleeing and shit. In fact, Von Licht is his number one target.

It makes you wonder, other than the reaction DS! Mare is trying to get from his victims, why does he do it? For fun? But he'll get possibly caught. He can just escape? But why would he tempt fate that often when he knows what Von Licht wants to do? Isn't he scared? Doesn't he have nightmares about it often? Why is he pushing through his fears with such a smile?

I don't know. I don't know. He's such an interesting guy. But he's not very popular compared to Von Licht. Often, he gets devolved as the meme squad leader, the one who doesn't take anything seriously the numero uno memer. Even DS! Cross and DS! Error are more mentioned than him. Not that I'm complaining. But they always seem more fleshed out in fanfics than DS! Cross and DS! Error. And sometimes, they focus too much on the angst and the unrequited love DS! Mare have for Von Licht.

Which is why, I want that reckless, persevering gremlin shit head to one day give up. Just, hide away from the world. And then I want the world to go through a normal day. And then for it suddenly catch up. How is Dreamswap when their number one shit stirrer just.. disappears? Like Gaster-type disappears? (Although for some odd reason, I feel like DS! Blue will be the only guy who notice and will be the number one shit stirrer in DS! Mare's place. Or maybe he'll just let it be since DS! Error is more.. accessible now? Easier to go around DS! Cross even with his power. DS! Cross is more emotional after all. And a crashed out DS! Error is easy to kidnapped. Hm. Maybe. DS! Blue does find it hard to understand DS! Mare.)

For me, I figured it go horrible. If DS! Mare helps out DS! Core enough to bring people and stuff into that version of Omega Timeline that DS! Core actually gave DS! Mare a place to stay in peace.. and how he helped DS! Error and DS! Cross.. I wonder if there are more hidden actions of DS! Mare? If so, what will happen when that never happened in their minds? How will it go? Will Von Licht be restless for a reason he doesn't know why?

I don't know. But DS! Mare is very interesting in my eyes.

Thank for reading my DS! Nightmare rant that it turned out to be. Very not on purpose.

(Guess who's my fave character in DS.)

[sincetheducksleft]

S3E6 "University": Sympathetic characters and intergenerational trauma

Tracee burning her son with a cigarette because her mother held her hand on the stove is like the entire fucking thesis of this show, even more so because it specifically undercuts Tracee as one of the most straightforwardly sympathetic characters we've seen.

(800 words; spoilers for all of season 3)

I'm currently rewatching The Sopranos with my mom, and one of the first things she mentioned (not as a complaint, just as an observation) is that there really are no purely sympathetic characters on the show. By the end of the first episode we've seen our main character commit acts of extreme violence -- but it would be misguided to say we're supposed to root against him, because the mafia-aligned characters who oppose him are usually just as bad, if not worse.

Rather, I think The Sopranos is supposed to make us question what makes a character sympathetic or villainous, and how this relies on narrative, perspective, and arc (or the lack thereof).

Tracee enters this episode as something close to a purely sympathetic character -- a single mother, presumably a former teen mom, baking bread to thank Tony for helping her son. It's a specifically feminine/domestic act, both motherly and naive, that also positions Danny (the son) as a priority in her life. She almost represents the mother figure that was so missing from Tony's life, except that we're also supposed to see her as a naive child, making her tragic instead.

Speaking of tragic, we find out quickly that she's in a relationship with Ralph, which stops your fucking heart if you've been paying attention and know he's straight up violently insane. (Not to say that the escalation of his behavior in this episode isn't supposed to surprise us -- just that it's an escalation of existing behavior, not an introduction of a new trait to his character).

But right as we find out Tracee is pregnant, presumably setting us up for the tragedy of her death (which, yes, is exactly what ends up happening), we also find out that Tracee has a history of abusing her son to the point that a social worker got involved. And we also find out, in the exact same breath, that the social worker and Tracee herself believe she burned her son with cigarettes because her mother held her hand on the stove when she was little.

It's such a perfect parallel to the overall theme of intergenerational trauma and the cycle of abuse and dysfunction, and also to Tony specifically as a product of his own father, and it completely undercuts the simplistic, arguably stereotypical depiction of a helplessly naive little girl we've seen in Tracee.

Although she's generally being used as a highly feminine, mother-adjacent victim in the context of Tony's story, there's another story out there (Danny's story) where she's the abusive parent who fucks him up for life, and another where she's an abused child whose mother fucks her up for life. She's both a source of pain and someone forced to absorb pain, and it's like a perfect microcosm of how the human condition is portrayed on The Sopranos.

Every character has the potential to be a main character, every character has depth and complexity that is revealing of the human condition. Everyone has the potential to be sympathetic or villainous, and how we see them in this story relies heavily on how they're used in a narrative sense, but if there's a truth at the heart of that narrative it's that everyone is both.

Even Ralph has his moment of sympathy in this episode, reminding us (again) that he had to drop out of school in 11th grade. Unlike Tony, Ralph actually was forced into this life.

And it's just so fucking typical that Tracee, who's apparently just starting to gain some insight into why she abuses her son and starting to do better, would have her story abruptly ended as a minor plot point in the story of some other asshole's unresolved issues and childhood trauma.

Tracee's story may be profound and revealing, but that doesn't mean it will be told in full. That life will treat her like more than a side character, that the people around us care about our own narrative satisfaction. That's not how The Sopranos works because it's not how life works.

It's not a profoundly meaningful tragedy that leaves us reeling at the end of this episode. Rather, it's the fact that Tracee's story ends abruptly, in the middle, without resolution or satisfaction, that leaves us empty and cold. Wondering what the fuck just happened to Tracee, and what the fuck is going to happen to us in our own lives, and whether we'll get a chance to put meaning to it before the big nothing.

Everyone we meet has enough depth and complexity and narrative power to be a main character, to have their story told in full with an arc and a meaning and a true profundity of purpose, and most of them never are.

[irreverent-dobermans]

Alright, I'm gonna chime in here also because this Anon seems really bitey about an honest answer, and I have feelings... And it might be because we can't adequately discern emotional context as filtered through text, as filtered through the internet, as filtered through our own emotional lens. But anyway, some things about this.

First: I really don't think Jaz was trying to be a dick about this. I think he was trying to be straight forward, and matter-of-fact, which I think many of us in the community (service dog, sport dog, working dog, queer, and otherwise) develop in order to best communicate with those around us. [Sidebar] In my personal experience, those that are out there that might be misguided or just a little spoiled can sometimes be redirected or corrected if you are a little point blank about your stance. Whatever that is, be it about cropped ears, a working dog, your sexuality or pronouns or what is or isn't up for discussion. There are times you get a better response, or a more respectful response, if you are clear on where you stand.

I would love to tell you "scary dog privilege" exists. I would. And in a small way, it very well might. If people are scared of dogs, or of a certain breed, they might avoid you. But guess what? The majority? You're not gonna be that, err, fortunate? with. There are dozens, hundreds, thousands of assholes that are going to mess with you regardless of whether you have a service dog or not, regardless of what your service dog *is*, in terms of breed or size, etc etc. Scary dog privilege is not nearly as common as the inverse, which might just be 'entitled public' privilege.

People feel entitled, to your personage or your time or your dog's attention. I might get some flack for this but I liken this to the issues pregnant women have with their bellies. Do I understand why complete strangers feel they have the right to touch a pregnant woman's stomach? No. No I do fucking not. Do I see it? Way too goddamn often. Same with a Service Dog. You can have 'Do Not Pet' till the cows come home. If that person's got no boundaries, they're gonna try it. So that means many of us need to develop the ability and the willingness to advocate for our dog. "No, you can't touch him, he's working. No, you can't call him. No, don't approach us." We have to be PROACTIVE about this. You have to keep one eye on your dog, and one eye on the public. If there's someone that's constantly lingering in your space, or repeatedly returning, they might be considering an approach. You'll need to invest more attention, make sure they don't approach. Put yourself between your dog and them, put your dog in a down or a sit in a corner so they can't be reached, etc. To be honest, it can be an outright pain in the ass. It can be stressful, it can be dangerous. These are things to think about.

In addition to being a competitor and an SD handler I am a trainer. I have physically been training my working SD, and another of our working breed dogs, in public. I have had people approach the dogs in a sit, tucked out of the way, and push their hands into a dog's face in an attempt to get the dog to bite. Why? Then they can sue. It's apparently one of those new bullshit schemes floating around. So rarely do I want people to approach my dogs. The dogs in question? A Doberman. A Malinois. No SDP here, friends.

You get people that follow you around the store going on and on about how scared they are of the breed. But they're following you. They want a chance to pull something. You as the handler have to keep an eye on them to make sure they don't, they can't. Sometimes this means you abandon the shopping trip, sometimes this means that even with a Service Dog you need a Service Human. It sucks.

I would agree that a Doberman would not be what I would pick or suggest for psychiatric or any stress disorder. They're a highly calibrated, high strung working breed; devoted and finely tuned to you. With these health concerns, it easily can result in you both spiraling, and it's not a good scene. Picking something solid, level, no-nonsense would be better.

For the record I wasn't asking you about your opinion on a dobe because I'm hell set on dobes I was asking because I didn't know much about them other than "working dog" so please don't be making comments implying my potentially "putting dogs in stupid situations" because that's not the fucking case here clearly that's why I asked someone I thought more knowledgeable than me. My genuine reason is that there are people who are wary of dogs, especially breeds that "look mean" and that's why I like the notion of a non-standard service breed is because I know people with those service breeds and they are constantly dealing with harassment in the form of "OH LOOK! FLUFFY PUPPY!" by kids and grown ass adults I guess maybe my naive hope is that would be curbed somewhat.

And this is the reason I don't really love answering these types of questions, because people tend to get very defensive the second someone tells them they think it's a bad idea.

The implication that I have not dealt with harassment, access challenges, and targetted breed discrimination as a result of my breed choice is laughable. Creed had kids run up and grab him by the nub and around the neck. I was literally laid out on a bench in the middle of a fainting episode with him tied to me and a woman came up and grabbed him and kissed all over his face. I had people swat at and kick him. I had to fix a fear of shopping carts because people kept ramming him on purpose. I had people run away screaming and jump over tables and counters as we walked into the room. I can't tell you how many times I had to tell people to stop reaching for him and calling him. I can't tell you how many times people got angry and invasive just seeing me with him. I can't tell you how many people told me to my face that they'd shoot him or that they were calling Animal Control to have him taken from me.

If you don't want to hear it, don't ask. I told you my opinion. Clearly it's not what you wanted to hear.

I don't think a doberman is a good choice for a psychiatric service dog for someone with any panic, anxiety, or stress related disorder. I think you should pick a different breed. And I think you should work with a trainer skilled in the needs you have, in person, to help you find the right dog for you. That was my answer from the start. That remains my answer.

[dear-wormwoods]

which are a few moments from the show that you think have changed the worldview of the 4 sp boys

This is a good question! I think there have been a few episodes for each of them that I would consider perspective-shifting, if not causing a complete change in worldview, even if it's only temporary. When I was going through these examples, I expected Kyle to have the highest tally because to me he's just more open to major shake ups, but surprisingly Cartman has had a lot of moments too! Maybe this isn't quite what you were asking for, but here are my thoughts: For Stan, I would say Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boat Ride was the first, because he goes into it not accepting and comes out of it maybe still a little misguided, but overall accepting of people/animals who are gay. Another would be Raisins, although it's a temporary shift in worldview he definitely embraces it, and I think it lays the groundwork for how Stan deals with major emotional setbacks going forward (that is, not well). Then, of course, there's You're Getting Old and Ass Burgers, which literally change the way Stan sees the world and how he copes with his negative emotions. The next major event that changes Stan is the move in Tegridy Farms and the episodes following it, in which his nihilism and cynicism increase while his relationships with Randy and also Kyle deteriorate. I find it interesting that two of Stan's major shake-ups involve a move (to an apartment in YGO and then to the farm)... he clearly associates his house with stability and has a hard time with major changes like that. The whole Tegridy issue and the fact that the town has slowly been wearing away at Stan's patience has caused him to really stop caring and become more selfish, culminating in Nobody Got Cereal? when he straight up fucks everyone over in the future because he's lost faith in the town and is done trying to help. On top of that, Stan's view of his friendships has been shifting slowly over the seasons, culminating in him being truly done with both Kyle and Cartman by the end of the Vaccination Special.

Kenny's moments more often than not have to do with his powers/his destiny. The first one I think is in Bigger Longer & Uncut, because not only does he become a sort of surrogate therapist for Satan, he also adopts his tendency to self-sacrifice (in a literal sense, not like Kyle's less life-threatening martyrdom) for the greater good. Best Friends Forever is another one, because it's in this episode that he realizes he's basically a pawn in the eyes of the higher powers/cosmic forces and embraces his destiny as the chosen one. In the Mysterion Rises trilogy, Kenny uses his alter ego to further embrace his power and the despair and pain he feels surrounding it, ultimately accepting the fact that he can't permanently make his friends understand what he's going through. I think this causes a worldview shift because he finally understands how alone he is. One that doesn't really involve his power is The Poor Kid, which I would include on here because, realistically, getting put into the foster system is a traumatic experience for kids and Kenny again uses Mysterion to cope with trauma for himself and for his sister. I don't think his perspective necessarily changes because of this episode, but I'm sure his sense of security does (what little of that he had to begin with).

For Cartman, I think Cartman's Mom is Still a Dirty Slut would count, because he had to reframe what he thought he knew about his mom, but the big one of the early seasons for him is Scott Tenorman Must Die. This is the episode that transforms Cartman from an irritating, bigoted asshole into a sadistic, villainous, irritating and bigoted asshole. This is when Cartman realizes that he has to create his own "justice" and also comes to the realization that he a) enjoys public humiliation and b) excels at elaborate schemes and revenge plots. Cartman simply wouldn't be who he is today without the Scott Tenorman incident. Another one for him would be Tsst, because it causes a literal war inside of him in which 'evil Cartman' ultimately wins and, I think, shuts down his potential for empathy and selflessness for good. It could also be argued that every time Cartman time travels it shifts his perspective, because doing so is a big deal and it's so far an ability that's unique to him, but he doesn't seem to take it that seriously so I'm not going to get into it. Le Petit Tourette is a big shake up for Cartman because it shows him that sometimes his schemes severely backfire and there are major consequences. Though Kyle inadvertently saves him from those consequences, I think he did learn something from it at least in terms of being more careful. He learned he's not invincible. Then, in 200/201 his worldview is completely shaken upon learning that Scott Tenorman is his half brother and he's responsible for killing his own father (and that he's half ginger)... that's obviously going to have lasting effects. Maybe Cartman's behavior hasn't changed since then, but I think his perception of himself and definitely that of his family has. The next major one is 1%, which is one of my favorite episodes because it shows Cartman's attempt to change his own worldview in the most dramatic, Cartmany way possible. Through killing his favorite toys, the crutches he's leaned on over and over again, he effectively takes away his own childhood and I think we do see a more "grown up" Cartman going forward (though I wouldn't say he's more mature). A more recent perspective shift would be Cartman's entire relationship with Heidi, but I think that was generally more life-altering for Heidi than it was for him. I definitely think he was changed, in some way, by her showing him her privates at the end of The Damned, but his newfound "maturity" that spawns from that moment really quickly deteriorates over the next several episodes and then even more throughout Season 21, though.

And finally, Kyle. I think the earliest one for him was Ike's Wee Wee, because he starts the episode out not considering Ike his "real" brother since he's adopted, but by the end of it, his perspective changes and he embraces Ike as a full-fledged brother. Another major one from the early seasons is Tooth Fairy's Tats, because obviously he has an entire existential crisis over finding out the tooth fairy/Peter Pan/etc aren't real. I think this episode damaged Kyle's faith in adults as truth-tellers as well as making him question his own existence, and the former has had a lasting impact on him while the latter was more of a temporary shift in worldview. Another more temporary one is Cartmanland, because it causes Kyle to question his belief and trust in God. His faith is restored in the end, but it's an example of the sort of crisis Kyle faces within himself time and time again. Similarly, The Passion of the Jew causes another religious crisis in Kyle and while it is, again, only temporary, his faith is shaken and that's such an important part of his character. Then in It's a Jersey Thing, Kyle has another identity crisis when he learns he was conceived in Jersey. It's obviously never come up again, but I think the fact that he needed to reevaluate his "heritage" still stands. A major one in more recent seasons is Ginger Cow, which I truly think traumatized Kyle and shook up his worldview that doing the right thing will yield good results. As I've said before, this episode has had a really lasting effect on him - it made him less willing to take a stand, less willing to voice his feelings or opinions, and less able to fight back when someone makes fun of him or silences him. Going forward from this episode, we see a more subdued and resigned Kyle. This comes to a head much later on in Super Hard PCness because when he finally does try to take a stand again, against Terrance and Phillip (because he's been traumatized by fart-related public humiliation, another way Ginger Cow stays with him), it all goes horribly wrong. Another major moment for Kyle is The End of Serialization as We Know It (and the lead up to that episode), because that plot line completely shakes up the way he sees his dad as a person and their relationship with each other, and yet again he loses trust in adults.

Lastly, I think the Pandemic and Vaccination Specials shook things up for all four boys, especially Stan. It obviously ended in the divorce for them, and it'll be interesting to see if this has lasting effects or if it's just temporary.

[ramblings-of-a-mad-cat]

It annoys me that people blame Jacob for everything that happens because it's blaming the victim. We have to remember that Jacob and Duncan first started searching for the vaults when they were like 13 or 14. It probably seemed like something fun to do on the weekends. Yeah, it was a dumb decision to look for vaults that supposedly don't exist, but again: they were 13 or 14. Young teenagers make dumb decisions. It's part of growing up. Initially, R isn't even involved so there aren't really any stakes. It's just harmless fun until a LITERAL CULT STARTS MANIPULATING THEM BY THREATENING TO MURDER THEIR FAMILIES. Reminder, these kids are like 14-15 now, so of course they comply because they're scared, and there's no instruction guide on to avoid being manipulated by an evil cult. Then, Duncan dies (the jury's still out whether it truly was an accident, or whether R tampered with the potion to make it explode. I think the latter is true) and R, the cult who killed his best friend, forces Jacob to take the blame. The psychological weight of that is insane. Now Jacob is home and isolated with the weight of having to take the blame for his best friend's death. Additionally, the press has written him out to be a lunatic and ruins his family's reputation. There is only one major news paper in this country, and it has written Jacob out to be insane. The entirety of the UK now thinks this kid is insane.

Jacob's, at oldest, 17 years old when all of this happens. He decides (very stupidly) that the best course of action is to find the final vault, probably to take down R and avenge his best friend. Jacob allies with Rakepick, who reveals that she works with R, the evil cult who ruined Jacob's life, and leaves Jacob to die in a portrait for 5-10 years. 5-10 years. All by himself with the guilt he's built up this far for not being able to quit. After being rescued, Jacob finds out that his younger sibling, the only one he cares about (jury's still out if he knows that Duncan came back or not), was being manipulated by the same woman who betrayed him and locked him in a portrait. Sibling instincts take over, and Jacob's off to make Rakepick and R pay. Then, he finds out R's sent a literal assassin to kill his sibling, so he shifts focus to protect his sibling, probably because he knows he wasn't able to save Duncan. And, as the icing on the cake, jacob finds out the assassin was a decoy to the real plot: killing Rowan Khanna. Rowan dies, and of course Jacob blames himself. He had one job: protect MC, and now MC's best friend is murdered by R. Just like how Jacob's best friend was murdered by R. Parallels anyone?

I'm not saying Jacob's a saint who's never made a wrong decision. He's fucked up... a lot. Stealing from Torvus, not speaking up for Duncan after his death, continuing after the vaults after being expelled, and joining R were very very very bad decisions. Not to mention, just being an asshole in general to a lot of people. But, at the end of the day, Jacob's life has been pretty much ruined by the decision to search for the vaults he made at 13 or 14. He's spent half his life being manipulated by R. Jacob and Duncan never asked to be manipulated by R. In fact, Duncan explicitly states that they didn't want anything to do with R. Yet, a lot of people think that it's all Jacob's fault. It's not. It's the evil cult's fault. What I'm trying to say is that Jacob isn't the bad guy. R is.

Ah Jacob. It all comes back to you, doesn’t it?

First and foremost, as someone who has waved the “Jacob is evil” theory flag before, I want to set the record straight. I don’t think he’s to blame for being a child that was manipulated by R. Assuming he’s entirely straight-forward and there are no plot twists to come regarding his character, I don’t think he’s a bad guy. I suspect the story may choose to use him as a villainous force down the line, but that’s more of a narrative suspicion than my looking at Jacob and thinking, “You’re shady.” That being said, I do think Post-Portrait Jacob is...if not an imposter (Which would leave the real Jacob blameless) then a pretty lousy big brother. I know he’s fighting R, so he can’t always be around. And I know he just as his sibling’s best interests at heart. But it’s misguided and foolish at this point to think that MC doesn’t have skin in the game as well. Or that MC being kept out of the action is even an option at this point. It’s not. MC is going to keep getting involved, whether or not Jacob likes it. They’ve made that very clear. Even if they were willing to step out of the conflict, R doesn’t care. They’re not going to just accept that. They clearly want MC involved, and are going to keep coming after them. So Jacob needs to hurry up and start telling MC the full story, because thus far he’s been frustrating. 

But I do not blame him for anything that happened prior to the start of HPHM. Sure, he was indeed pretty shady. He made some questionable choices, like you said. And he ended up working for R. But he was also a child. A teenager, manipulated by an evil organization, and used as a weapon. I hope people aren’t holding that against him? It’s quite literally the same thing that happened to the Curse-Breaking apprentices during Year 5. If my theories are correct, it’s currently happening again, right now. This is what the Cabal does. They’re twisted and elusive tricksters. Considering how hell-bent they were on specifically killing one of MC’s friends...I think it’s very likely that Duncan was murdered. Sometimes I forget that it’s not officially canon that this happened. But I wouldn’t be surprised if losing a close friend or loved one was a kind of rite of passage for potential new members of R. A test of sorts, or otherwise a phase of the grooming. I think the Cabal is playing MC, and I think they played Jacob. Seriously, if we condemn Jacob we also have to condemn MC. Because literally everything that he did, MC is also doing.  They mirror each other so much that it’s ridiculous. Do people actually judge Jacob for continuing to investigate the vaults after his expulsion? Because...MC would have done the same. They probably will end up doing the same thing if an expulsion arc actually happens. 

I believe that at least one of the major players in this game are going to turn out to be lying, and playing a longer game. It could be Jacob. It could also be Rakepick. Alanza is a possibility, but she just screams “red herring” to me. As I hinted before, I also suspect Moody. More than anyone else, actually. Apparently he and Jacob are in contact with each other, which could mean anything, it doesn’t mean Jacob would know if Moody was shady. There’s also the note from R talking about meeting Jacob, but hell, that could be years old. Or it could have just been a fake. I mean, the whole Forbidden Forest scene was a trap to begin with. Nah, I don’t think Jacob is the villain. 

[undertalescreeching]

i am very confused about your Chara theory. So your theory is that Chara wanted to help the monsters, but the only way to do that, was to make the monsters angry enough at humans again to restart the war. And did they care about Asriel and Asgore? And you said Chara isn't controlling Frisk. But then who is the demon at the end who says are you really the one in the control. Did a demon possess Chara or take Chara's form?

I think you’re giving chara like…. a little too much credit, and you’re also calling this a ‘theory’ which like, lmao, have you seen my blog? I’m out of the theory realm and into the ‘what sounds cool’ place; that’s how i decided maybe gaster the man who speaks in hands would be cool as a) a dog b) a guy WITHOUT hands c) just a giant asshole?????? with nothing special about his hands but he makes a MEAN soup d) gay

So this is just what I think would make an interesting Chara. Chara is ultimately OUR INTERPRETATION OF OURSELVES THE PLAYER and also our combination of the game. Same as how Frisk’s story is always going to be different depending on who is playing them. That’s why my frisk is a violent little shit.

My Frisk interpretation (not theory) is that they went through, hurt people, figured it didn’t matter if they killed since they’d already fucked up so much, Realized in the hall with Sans due to Sans’ compassion, and killed Flowey despite it all. The next time, they did better. They couldn’t wait to do it over again. They slammed that fucking button.

That is my interpretation of Frisk. That’s the kinda Frisk that’s an interesting character to me. No one is gonna say ‘canon’ backs that up bc they’ll be like “ooohhhhh No Mercy route!!!” but like no i didn't’ do that, it’s not part of my interpretation, I was the sick person who watched from the sidelines byyyyeeeeeeeeee

Much like Frisk, what I’ve got going here is an interpretation of Chara.

And I think Chara is a… kid.

A pretty messed up kid. And definitely not a mastermind. Definitely not able to understand the scale and political and social ramifications of everything they do. And they didn’t MAKE the monsters want to start a war with the humans–they wanted to break the barrier and clear the surface for monsters themselves!

Obviously, as a child, Chara does not actually understand what wiping out all human life on earth would entail. They have literally no idea how physical many ‘a thousand’ is, much less ‘eight billion.’ They don’t have a fucking battle plan drawn up?? How are they going to take down nations’ militaries?? The concept of DEATH is probably something that’s not fully in their grasp, tbh, considering their entire plan was like “Oh, yeah, okay, I’m gonna die but I’ll still be here so it’s cool” like that is not what death means and so much could’ve gone wrong.

But if Chara delivered them a fresh, green, uninhabited earth without humans, then like? The monsters WOULDN’T have to fight, and they’re so much better than those shitty shitty humans, so it’s not like we’re losing anything. Killing’s a lot easier when you’re young and malleable, especially when you’re already exposed to trauma and can detach yourself from others–like, for example, as a species.

And like… why would they do any of that if they didn’t care, you know? Like. What would the point of killing themselves be. If they hated monsters or didn’t care about life, why go back to the surface to try and kill someone? They have a whole kingdom to murder down here! Like!

Even if it was terribly misguided, what would the point be if they didn’t care? They would just go on a murder spree in the underground.

Like people insist they do in the No Mercy route.

But let’s get one thing straight:

YOU are in control of the No Mercy route.

Not Chara. Not Frisk. The game is aware of the puppeteer. FULLY aware. And YOU are always and have always been ‘Chara’, the fallen child. This is why it is recommended you play with your own name. The demon simply mirrors yourself back to you.

It shows you what you have become.

You will only go to the next game and kill the inhabitants of those worlds, too.

And I’m betting that’s exactly what most people did. The ‘next world’ isn’t an alternate universe Undertale– it’s ALL VIDEOGAMES. The multiverse theory doesn’t have one set section of cast members with all our names on it. It’s got a universe where there is a Sans the skeleton standing by a hotdog stand, and a Sans the skeleton standing BEHIND a hotdog stand, and it has a Sora with his dog dad and hot-headed duck uncle who is killing Entropy as best he can ok. And for every Sora with a big key there is a pair of living cups striking a deal with the devil, and a cat dropping out of college to witness a murder in her hometown, and a guy in a helmet touching down on an alien planet and shooting everybody.

Multiverse needs no constants, and the ‘Anomaly’ was not an anomaly by jumping multiverse timelines, it was an Anomaly because it was REROUTING timelines–all timelines happened. ALL OF THEM HAPPENED. All of them in one single universe. That was the anomaly. The fact that time seemed to copy and paste itself forward, rather than simply progressing.

After all, when you reset, your play time doesn’t go down.

Like…

That’s what it means when “it’s always been you in control.”

We don’t have to do these things.

All these characters can do is plead with us to be kind.

Except Chara.

We NEVER hear Chara’s perspective in this game. It’s ALL about Chara. But we never hear their perspective. It’s always translated through another character, or we’re told about them in anecdotes and stories, but we never can ask Chara ourselves what was really going on. Because Chara is dead. Because Chara is a dead kid and never gets to speak for themselves. Because Chara is what we were, starting this game, willing to go out on a murder spree to attain our objective of freeing the main characters.

So what Chara is is a dead child, who wasn’t old enough to understand consequences or grasp the full scope of what they’re doing, and who convinced their adoptive sibling to join them in a march towards failure.

And that’s not Chara’s fault.

All it is is tragedy.

[anidaladefencelawyer]

Personally there are some good parts. Obi-Wan and Anakin's conversation was good as is the lore surrounding Palpatine controlling the banks after the collapse of the banking clan to fund his Empire.

I can see where they are going there, showing the slow boiling growing possessiveness in Anakin and Padme's relationship, which is understandable, you have to get the characters somewhere where they will be in ROTS. However, the thing with Padme, which you can argue is to her detriment(even through overfocusing on Red Flags and the degeneration of their relationship in ROTS I feel undermines the tragedy of it all), is that beating up a man isn't something she'd be extremely pissed about, and we have no reason why Anakin would be all commanding to her. Clovis Arc Padme would not have tried to go to Mustafar to reason with Anakin. She'd just hightail into hiding ASAP. We can debate all day whether Padme would have gotten through to Anakin there or was it more akin to a ultimatum with a final divorce threat(as EKJ seems to interpret), but Clovis Arc characterization Padme would have hightailed it out with her twins without even giving the ultimatium.

Also I can see Anakin do what he did to Clovis. Even if the headcanon that he witnessed rape as a slave and this made his psyche snap can't really be replicated in a show for kids like TCW, I think Ahsoka leaving Anakin would really damage his psyche enough that he would double down on his toxic traits-- especially with the implication that Ahsoka would done the most to prevented Anakin's fall. And it could maybe be headcanoned that part of this was Palpatine pushing their buttons--he assigned Padme to a mission where she had to work with someone who would fray Anakin's psyche further and likely may have influenced Anakin into adhering to straight up fascist macho rhetoric as he digs his claws into Anakin(through even then his ROTS characterization pre-Fall and even a bit after his fall dosen't mesh with this). However, none of this was explored here. It's literally "Anakin goes psycho".

There is also the fact that the show kinda gave too much narrative flack to Clovis for you know forcing himself on Padme and in "Senate Spy" engaging in straight up incel behavior(ie: password being P-A-D-M-E), and viewing himself entitled to Padme. Like I can see him maybe be written as misguided or getting a sympathetic send-off and I can also see this argument that this character was meant to be a dark mirror to Anakin, a hint what he would become on Mustafar when his posessiveness truly gets the better of him--culminating in him making a selfless sacrifice mirroring ROTJ. But the narrative is purely focused on Anakin, not Padme dealing with her husband's response, not Padme dealing with Teckla's death, or the fact that Clovis himself was also posessive(and not in the "fear loss and want to play god" manner Anakin is, in the manner that incels are), or even Clovis at least trying to make up for his behavior with Padme and learn selfless love before he dies. It feels there's nothing to root for, everyone acts as an asshole. And I am reminded that this is the episode that caused the pro-Jedi crowd to crawl out of the woodwork and where they base their characterizations of Anakin and Padme(this or certain readings of Blue Shadow Virus, Hostage Crisis and Shadow Warrior)

It gets worse when there is a literal biography of the skywalker family that runs with "Anakin goes psycho", implied "Anakin may have deliberately killed Clovis", and somehow literally tries to view the Clovis incident as worse than Anakin's straight-up genocide of the Sand People tribe that killed Shmi. I get he wasn't in his right mind when Shmi died, but you can easily make the same arguement that Anakin's psyche was being strained by the war and Palpatine's toxic manipulations, and saying that wiping out an entire tribe is somehow less morally abhorrent and more "dark" than beating a man Anakin at least has strong grounds to distrust.

And I have a good feeling it delegitimitized Anidala even further. Now Anidala was always somewhat polarizing, people who thought they were toxic at least admitted that they didn't like the Prequels. However, this set of episodes started the idea that Lucas deliberately made Anakin selfish for purely selfish reasons rather than "selfishness in the guise of selflessness reasons". And with that, were always inherently toxic rather than a couple that at worst was corrupted into something toxic by the war, lack of time to communicate with each other genuinely about their needs and no genuine support system.

Now part of this secrecy I will admit are their own choices->Anakin had multiple chances to confide in Obi-Wan or question Ahsoka with what they know with regards to a support system and he didn't, but you can't ignore the fact that sunk cost fallacy played a huge role here as to why they don't step away.

I should note that Filoni did not intentionally write Anidala as toxic(see here, this talks more about Palpatine's fascist grooming but they mention Anidala for 5 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbEpZrG-DFY) and Catherine Taber says that the intent wasn't to portray them as this super toxic couple that should have never gotten together, but a couple with a hard life, their own ups and downs but deep love behind it all(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNoqVTZ07LE&t).

We can debate all day how much they caved in to the PT haters and whetmher they went too far with the “first few minutes of ROTS/General Skywalker” persona, but that's not the intention. However, with how poorly this arc and how it leads into Anakin’s fall is handled, it likely gave rise to certain ideas that are a deep misreading of the story.

Feel free to elaborate on your answer in the comments! And, if you have a different opinion than listed, I’d love to hear it!

Please remember everyone is allowed to have their own opinion.

Personally, I absolutely hate that arc, I like to pretend it doesn’t exist, and I think Clovis can rot in hell:

I think movie Padmé would have been infuriated at Clovis because he touched her without her consent. And although I’m sure movie Padmé would have been afraid and angry after seeing Anakin furiously beat up Clovis, I’m sure she would’ve tried to talk it over with Anakin more. I’m also sure movie Padmé would understand why Anakin was so angry- after all, Anakin just saw his wife being sexually assaulted.