#i can have a critical opinion as a treat

[leonsliga]

Yesterday definitely wasn’t our day, but the hate Manu’s gotten on social media (not on tumblr, but we already know footyblr is the best) since is unbelievable. I’ve seen people calling for him to retire because the football’s left him, insisting that he’s overrated and “can’t save anything”. And I know this happens all the time in football—I understand us Bayern fans are all frustrated with our performance against Barça. But is one match all it takes to turn on a legend? Really?

And honestly, even if that is your opinion, that’s ok. I just don’t really get how some fans feel the need to comment on Manu’s posts how “finished” they think he is. What does that solve, anyway? He won’t retire just because some fans want him to, and if this is about getting the best out of him, this is probably the worst way to do it. It’s unnecessary at best and awfully cruel at worst. He’s as much a human being as any of us, but I think sometimes people forget that in the heat of the moment.

[lucem-stellarum]

So I actually wanted to go through and listen to the video, "Your Vampire Boyfriend Explains His Turning". It doesn't exactly match up to the way they tell it in "The Vampire Boys Have It Out". I'd recommend you go watch both videos back to back because it's fascinating, and frustrating. Redacted is contradicting himself on some things to push hard on the idea that both Porter and Vincent are in the wrong. I'm not saying that Vincent is perfect, but the way Erik is going about framing the circumstances of their fight and changing previously established canon so "they both have their reasons" isn't the greatest. Details and receipts under the cut because of length, and because it gets critical.

When Vincent's talking about the circumstances of his turning to Lovely, he says at 5:00 that "all he's had is the clan, and they already knew the story. Will had told them." That the only person he's ever explained it all too was Sam, because William told everyone else on his behalf. Which, first of all, makes it sound like the clan was a lot more supportive overall and a lot more informed than ANYONE implied in the later video. Even if William edited out a lot of the details there's some things you just can't get around. Like the fact that William, who is old blood and promised to never turn another progeny, and so needed a damned good reason to break that vow. The fact that neither of them had ever met before that day. Vincent's refusal to discuss the exact circumstances of his turning to the rest of the clan, the fact that William had to list Vincent a missing person rather than letting the department handle the human authorities around his turning. The fact that Vincent was uninformed/unempowered before this and had to be introduced to the entire magical world from the ground up. He couldn't have known anything about who William was as a powerful political force, the advantage that being turned by old blood gives him, Vincent literally couldn't have arranged his turning for his own selfishness because he didn't even know that was an option, let alone the bonuses of having William specifically as a maker.

There's so much evidence that Vincent's turning was impulsive, any combination of the above facts implies that it wasn't a choice on Vincent's part, let alone something that he would try to "earn". Plus, William bought WonderWorld because of the lawsuits after the very public accident to be their home base. People saw Vincent get on the coaster, that he was riding it just before it crashed, and that's the same day the clan gets a brand new prince that matches the description of a "body that was never found"? Even if William didn't blatantly spell it out for the more oblivious members of the clan, it's SO obvious what happened from knowledge available to them. An "impulsive" turning isn't ever going to be a happy story.

Speaking of "publicly available knowledge"... we can argue about how much of the full truth is available throughout the general clan population (however many people that may be), but if Porter is close enough to William to be offered his last name, and close enough to know secrets that Vincent isn't aware of, shouldn't he have known William and been part of the clan long enough to have been around for the original explanation for Vincent's abrupt turning? Let alone, potentially, being closer to William and getting more personal details, at least from William's side of the story? Getting a new progeny isn't a decision to be made lightly. Porter very heavily implied that he's known William for longer than Vincent has; since Vincent's turning was the first time that William and Vincent had met, then Porter's been part of the clan longer than Vincent has.

Next, we know that both Porter and Adam were foundlings, but considering how fundamentally eternal and unchanging vampires are, it seems odd that there'd be such a population turnover in the clan that Vincent was tormented by "the rest of the clan" (per Sam, when he said it wasn't his place to tell other people's private stories at ~18:00 in the later video). Vincent was turned Feb 13, 2000. Sam is turned by Alexis in 2008 (per the timeline). That's not long enough for immortal vampires to forget Vincent's story. Even if there are a LOT of new vampires in the clan over time, Vincent is the golden boy, the prince. It's natural he'd be the subject of gossip, and the circumstances of his turning would be pretty good fodder for the rumor mill even if he doesn’t talk about it himself and not everyone is as principled as Sam is. If some of the newbies (or Porter) were getting prissy about Vincent never having to take his turn guarding WonderWorld, just the fact that he died there doesn't seem like it would be uncommon knowledge among the clan.

With how rare vampires are supposed to be, even without specific numbers and censuses it doesn't make sense. The Solaires are supposed to be the largest and most influential vampire clan in Dahlia, sure, but population-wise that still can't be that many people. Either the clan grows slowly enough that word about what actually happened to Vincent can get out and corrected, (and the minority of new people who don't know better perpetuating baseless rumors face charges of slander against the prince) or the clan should be large enough to effectively patrol WonderWorld without Vincent needing to take regular shifts. (which... wasn't Vincent on patrol the night he first met Lovely?) 'Duke' Sam has to patrol sometimes, but does Alexis take shifts too? If the clan doesn't have a large enough population to support even the "royalty" from skipping that duty (except for Vincent), then they can't have that many members. By that logic, the clan is small enough that "everyone knows each other's faces" and so why is Porter bitching about the unfairness of Vincent having the "perks" of the Solaire blood and name when he ought to know damn well why Vincent of all people generally avoids that particular duty?

Again, Porter was almost certainly around to watch Vincent join the clan. Why doesn't he know about the circumstances of Vincent being invoked for a single time? Vincent tried to starve himself to death because he refused to feed on humans. William couldn't convince Vincent to feed of his own volition, so he invoked him. That is a seriously drastic measure to take for someone who "wanted to be turned". Alexis' many invocations seem to be common knowledge among the upper echelons of the clan that we see in videos; if Porter is close enough to have the Solaire name and be part of the "family" and is close enough to William to know "more than could fill the city of Dahlia", why is he so out of the loop around Vincent? Porter is jealous, not stupid nor blind.

Porter's comments about the rumors that popped up when William 'brought home the new baby?' More proof that he HAD to have been with the clan at that point. How else would he have heard all those rumors? Porter was jealous of Vincent's circumstance immediately after his induction to the clan and didn't hesitate to start "tearing Vincent down" from the moment they met for the crime of "not being grateful enough" to William. Porter's accusations that Vincent wanted to be turned by William to get the associated power and prestige of being turned by "old blood" is proven to be a lie (again, ignoring the fact that he was uninformed before being turned) because Vincent avoided events (like the Summit) for years longer than most makers would have allowed their progeny. If Vincent wanted that prestige, what possible reason would he have to avoid events where he could flaunt it, and potentially acquire more?

I'll admit, we DON'T have a definitive date for when Porter joins the clan, or anything at all about Porter and William's relationship. The timeline website hasn't been updated with Porter's information yet. Even still, William offered Porter the Solaire name; that's supposed to be some great honor not offered lightly. That level of trust takes a LONG time to build. Porter had to have been part of the clan to see Vincent in the depths of his depressive and suicidal ideation, to criticize Vincent in the specific ways and faults that he does. The way the argument video is set up, though, it sounds like Porter was both there to torment Vincent at every turn from the beginning but also not there to miss every blatant fact of the situation around Vincent joining the clan.

Porter's claim that "all [Vincent] ever did was moan about how terrible it was to be you. As if we all didn't register in your mind as people with our own far worse problems" (15:00) is just so hypocritical considering his apparently willful blindness to Vincent's own deep seated issues. After having it pointed out to him, and being punched by Lovely, he sees it clearly enough to apologize and sound like he means it, but then why didn't he see ANY of the points from my first paragraph in the first place? Porter saying that "he didn't know" about how traumatic Vincent's turning was in the later video, while his voice sounds genuine, is either blatantly false or things are being retconned in order to make the feud between the two of them more dramatic.

Some of Porter's accusations do hold weight. I'm not going to lie and pretend that Vincent is some perfect angel in all of this. Vincent is arrogant, self centered, and blind to his own privilege. He used to be a manipulative ass. He's favored, powerful, and lucky in certain ways that Porter isn't, but that's not his doing nor his fault. But Porter's comment about Vincent's "egregious actions" is so vague as to be meaningless to me; if it's not worth elaborating on here why is it part of this 20+ year grudge match y'all have going on? Vincent couldn't choose his maker, he didn't know a single thing about William when they met and he was turned. The fact that Vincent has the self control to only "need" to be invoked once shouldn't be a criticism. There's years that they're skimming over for the sake of limiting it down to a 20 minute conversation for watchability. But I hate retconning, I hate this sort of character self-contradiction and hypocrisy especially to push "both of them are in the wrong", I hate that Sam is just being played as a mouthpiece to force this "grey morality" (12:38, 13:24) and defend both sides, and I'm not going to lie I expected Redacted to do better than this. Trying to equate Vincent's jealousy that Porter was well-adjusted to being a vampire with Porter's complaints that Vincent was traumatized and suicidal because of the circumstances of his turning is not okay.

14:30 Porter says: I said you were arrogant, and favored. That from the moment you were turned you've never wanted for anything. You'd never been invoked into doing something horrific for your maker's amusement. You've never been beaten within an inch of your life for the slightest transgression. You've never gotten so much as a slap on the wrist no matter how egregious your actions. You never had to guard WonderWorld. You'd never had to do anything. And still all you ever did was [look down on us]... You were turned by old blood... and didn't even have the tact to show a little gratitude for it.

19:30 Vincent says: I did look down on you. I hated that you seemed to enjoy being a vampire so much. I hated that you seemed so at peace with who you were. And what we had to do to survive. You made everything look so easy. And that made me feel broken. Even more than I already felt.

You can't have it both ways, Porter. Either you want Vincent to be just as broken and mistreated as you imply you were, or you want him to be happy and grateful about his "perfect" life. You can't complain that he never recognized that other people had far greater problems when you're the one who ignored that he's practically screaming with every action, every fact, every unsaid word that he's literally being forced against his will to stay alive, both by turning and by invocation until it literally hit you in the face. You don't have the right to tell Vincent, as a (formerly) uninformed unempowered human, that he shouldn't have manipulated something he didn't even know existed into getting the power you envy so badly. Porter was jealous of Vincent because of his circumstance first, and that jealousy made Vincent's every legitimate fault unforgivable and threw in a lot more illegitimate criticisms just for good measure.

I'm not going to pretend like I have the right answers for this, how it "should have gone". Everyone is going to have their own preferences, and at the end of the day this is Redacted's story. He makes the final decision. But I do have the right to point out flaws and criticize where I think he could have done better. Maybe he wanted Porter to be a hypocritical, jealous, contradictory character. Maybe he legitimately did just forget that the rest of the clan already knew (or easily could have put together) the messy details when he wrote that Porter didn't know better. He could have written it any way he wanted to, but he chose this way.

[bredforloyalty]

THE PROMO FOR RHE NEXT EPISODE AUUUUUWA FYRHCYFYAYAYAYAoooOoh yeahh🎵 ohhhh Yeah mmMmm YEAH....

[hyperlexichypatia]

Okay, here's my criticism of this post I keep seeing -- and no, it's not what you think. I know, my longtime followers who know the kinds of things I post about a lot are probably thinking, "Oh, I know what their objection is going to be. It's going to be that 18-19 year olds are adults who can date older partners if they choose to." But no, that's not it this time! Yes, I do believe it's fine for young adults to date older adults if they choose to (and am accordingly rolling my eyes at all the "This should go up to 25!" comments in the notes), but. That's not my issue here. In fact, precisely because I believe that young adults dating older adults is morally neutral, I'm not at all concerned about the efficacy of the messaging against it. My concern is that underage minors being in sexual/romantic relationships with adults is actually harmful and dangerous, and therefore young people actually should be warned against it, and this is not an effective warning.

Fellow old people, do y'all remember being 14? At all? Would you have found this warning effective and compelling at that age?

I for sure would not! I did not! Quite the opposite!

Put yourself in the young person's position here. You have no rights. You're treated as someone with no agency. Your parents, teachers, government, and society as a whole treats you as some combination of "nuisance," "ticking time bomb," and "unthinking blob." Developmentally, you're at a phase of life when you should be transitioning to a more adult role, but everyone around you demonizes you for that desire. All your thoughts, feelings, and opinions are dismissed as the inconsequential ravings of Just A Dumb Kid Who Doesn't Know Any Better. You meet someone who treats you with basic human politeness, tells you that he likes you and that you're mature, actually treats you like you have two brain cells to rub together. Of course you're going to be drawn to him. And then when other adults warn you that obviously of course he doesn't really like you, that's impossible, of course you're not really mature, no one could possibly see you that way; actually you're naive and incapable of making your own decisions, and the way your parents/teachers/society treat you is completely justified. Are you going to heed those warnings?

Why are adults absolutely constitutionally incapable of giving good, necessary advice to teenagers without fucking insulting them in the process? Of course teenagers don't listen to it! Why would anyone??

"Oh, well, of course teenagers don't listen, because they're stubborn, and immature, and biologically determined to make bad decisions, which is all the more reason they need to be controlled," say adults, completely oblivious to the actual problem.

When I was a teenager, the big moral panic at the time was teen pregnancy, and we were all inundated with the least effective cautionary tales in the world: "If you get pregnant as a teen, you'll have to leave your parents' care and function as an adult!" Which left every girl who'd intentionally gotten pregnant for the explicit purpose of escaping her abusive parents saying "Yeah, that was the goal." And every girl who was looking for a way of escaping her abusive parents to think "What a great idea!" Today the big moral panic is older partners, but if the appeal of an older partner is that he treats you like someone capable of making your own decisions, why would you be persuaded by a counterargument of "Don't listen to him, of course you're not capable of making your own decisions!"?

Again. I'm saying this because I agree that adults dating minors is a bad thing and that minors should be warned against it. EFFECTIVELY.

That said, this is my advice to any 17-or-younger person being pursued by an 18+-year-old partner: Listen. You deserve so much better than the way society treats you. You deserve to be taken seriously. You deserve to make your own decisions in life. You have a mind of your own, and people should recognize that instead of treating your pesky "free will" as a personal affront or an inconvenient glitch. You can and should think for yourself. You deserve, and I hope you have, relationships with older people who validate those truths about you. However. You are still legally and materially powerless. I don't have to tell you that. You live it every day. Someone older than you -- and therefore, inherently, legally, more powerful than you -- should not be trying to extract things from you. Money, sex, unpaid labor, anything of value. Someone more powerful than you who truly values you, values your friendship, values you as a person, will be mindful of your status and not try to extract anything from you. Cross-age friendships are good. Older people can and should genuinely like and appreciate you, and you can and should genuinely like and appreciate them. But if they try to extract anything from you, run away.

[sturionic]

Donald Trump Is Not Joking About Annexing Canada: A Fucking Timeline

December 3, 2024: Trump's quip about Canada becoming 51st state was a joke, says minister who was there (CBC News 🇨🇦) <- This is when it could have feasibly been a joke

January 7, 2025: Donald Trump is quoted in a press conference directly stating his intentions to annex Canada (New York Times, timestamp 0:45 🇺🇸) <- This is where Americans should have stopped telling Canadians it's just a joke

REPORTER 1: Are you also considering military force to annex and acquire Canada? DONALD TRUMP: No. Economic force.

February 7, 2025: Trudeau says Trump threat to annex Canada 'is a real thing' (BBC 🇬🇧) <- This is where the Commonwealth starts to take it seriously

Trudeau suggested Trump has floated the idea of taking over Canada and making it the "51st state" because he wants to access the country's critical minerals. "Mr Trump has it in mind that the easiest way to do it is absorbing our country and it is a real thing," the prime minister said.

February 9, 2025: "Trump's national security adviser: 'I don't think there's any plans to invade Canada'" (NBC News 🇺🇸) <- CANADIANS NOTICE THAT THIS IS NOT A VERY STRONG DENIAL OF POSSIBLE MILITARY FORCE

February 10, 2025: Trump Confirms He’s Serious About Wanting Canada As 51st State (Forbes 🇺🇸)

Fox News host Bret Baier asked Trump whether Trudeau was right in telling business leaders the U.S. president’s threat to absorb Canada is a “real thing,” to which Trump agreed with Trudeau and responded, “Yes it is.”

February 12, 2025: ‘Trump effect’: How US tariffs, ’51st state’ threats are shaking up Canada (Al Jazeera 🇶🇦) <- This is where the rest of the fucking world outside America starts to take it seriously

February 18 2025: CBC releases podcast episode: "What if the U.S. invaded Canada?" (CBC's Front Burner 🇨🇦)

March 4, 2025: Canada Eyeing NATO Ally's Nukes To Deter Trump 'Threat': Candidate (Newsweek 🇺🇸), British nuclear weapons can protect Canada against Trump, says Trudeau party candidate (The Telegraph 🇬🇧)

“I would be working urgently with [European Nato allies] to build a closer security relationship… in a time when the United States can be a threat,” said [Canada's] ex-foreign minister and finance minister at the final Liberal leadership debate last week.

March 4, 2025: Prime Minister Trudeau: "What he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy, because that’ll make it easier to annex us” (CTV News 🇨🇦)

March 7, 2025: BC Premier David Eby: “We know the president in back rooms with Canadian officials has said he wants to redraw the border" (Global News 🇨🇦)

Eby: "If this president wants to annex Canada, he should save his breath to cool his soup, it is never going to happen.”

March 7, 2025: How Trump’s ‘51st State’ Canada Talk Came to Be Seen as Deadly Serious (New York Times 🇺🇸) <- This is where American news media starts to treat this as maybe possibly not a joke

March 9, 2025: U.S. Congress bill aims to prevent funding of invasion of Canada (CTV News 🇨🇦) <- This is where you should understand that military force is ON THE TABLE

March 11, 2025: Canadian opinion of U.S. falls sharply; 63% take Trump's threats 'very seriously' (National Post 🇨🇦)

March 13, 2025 (TODAY): Trump threatens to acquire Canada, Greenland while next to NATO chief (Global News 🇨🇦)

“To be honest with you, Canada only works as a state...This would be the most incredible country visually,” [Trump] said. “If you look at a map, they drew an artificial line right through it, between Canada and the U.S., just a straight artificial line. Somebody did it a long time ago, many many decades ago, and it makes no sense.” -Donald Trump

And hey, just for fun, let's contrast that with another quote:

First of all, I would like to emphasize that the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is our great common misfortune and tragedy...I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. -Vladimir Fucking Putin, the year before launching an attack on Ukraine, which everyone also said he was joking about and definitely wouldn't do (2021 essay, Kremlin official website 🇷🇺)

I know you're overwhelmed, Americans, but please stop saying this is a joke. Canadians are anticipating an invasion, possibly within the year. This is not a fucking drill.

[szkicel]

Ok i’m scheduling some art I’ve done in the past while I work on new things and I remembered that Queen Bee (from h/lluva b/ss) redesign I did a year ago when a lot of ppl were doing it and it’s probably time to post it before it gets too old…

man, I am NOT excited for all the harassment I’m gonna endure from the unhinged HB fans, but hopefully I’m too small of an artist to get noticed so maybe i’ll be fine

[ohnoitstbskyen]

Ok so I’ve had this question for a while and I feel like you’ll be able to give me a good answer. I understand that we’re absolutely not supposed to support anything JKR does monetarily and I never intend to do so. However is engaging with Harry Potter media *at all* also something I should not do or is it only things that give her money?

Like, would there be anything wrong with me playing Hogwarts Legacy if I pirated it? Is fanfiction and fan art ok to consume? Or is engaging with the IP at all going to be harmful in a way that I don’t see atm?

Thank you for your time!

I don't really think a cis person is the right person to ask about this, but I also know that trans people are sick to death of having to field these questions so I'll do my best to answer this, if everyone who reads my answer will promise me that you will NOT use anything I say in this post as an annoying argument against a trans person who has a different opinion on the matter. Remember whose opinions are actually important here.

And look, number one, you can do whatever the fuck you want. Nobody can stop you. If you, in yourself, in your soul, feel morally comfortable consuming Harry Potter by some convoluted method of Ethical Consumption™, then go and do that, and own it, and have the strength to be judged for your decisions.

Trans people might not trust you - hell, I'll probably not trust you either. They might get angry at you, and criticize you, or roll their eyes and call you a fucking loser. If you have the moral conviction that what you are doing is right, and that you are acting in accordance with your beliefs and you are not doing harm, then stand by that conviction and face the consequences. Have that strength of character.

But if you feel the need to go around posting and arguing that it's unfair, that you shouldn't be judged, that you should get to be a special exception and people are unreasonable when they get mad at you... then that is evidence, proof positive, that you are a fucking loser. That you are cowardly, and you don't actually believe that what you are doing is right, you just want the world to affirm your fragile ego while you enjoy your little treats.

To be clear, I am not accusing you of doing this (you seem to just earnestly be asking for guidance), but there's a hell of a lot of people who do do this, and you don't want to be one of them.

So that's number one. Do whatever the fuck you want, and face the consequences with a spine.

Number two is... just fucking drop it. That is my earnest advice to you. Just fucking drop Harry Potter. They are children's books from the early 2000s, they just are not that fucking good or important. The Hogwarts Legacy game is live service slop; the movies are passable at best and their quality comes from the actors being better than the source material. Just drop it. Harry Potter has nothing to offer that you can't get elsewhere from better media with better authors, or problematic authors who have good grace to at least be dead.

Don't waste your life thinking about complicated ways to circumvent the moral problem of JK Rowling's rancid transphobic hate-aura at the center of the franchise, don't waste your finite time on Earth trying to thread that stupid needle. Harry Potter isn't worth this. Rowling is old, and shriveling from hate and mold fumes, at the very least just wait for her to fucking die, and for her political project to fail, before you pick that world back up again.

I speak as someone who read the first book at age 11, hyperfixated on relating to Harry, and whose entire cultural life was consumed by the franchise for over a decade. It is not worth it. You don't need it, you don't need the stress of trying to navigate how or whether to engage with it ethically. You almost certainly have an enormous backlog of other books, games, movies and TV shows you've been meaning to get around to, so just go do that instead. I promise you it will be infinitely more rewarding, and infinitely less compromised by stress and guilt and cognitive dissonance.

And while you're at it, send some money to a trans charity and go scream invectives at a transphobic politician some time.

[renthony]

I wonder how fast I'd die of alcohol poisoning if I did a shot every time someone in my notes boiled one of my posts down to "but are you pro or anti ship."

How many times, tumblr? How many times must I say that "proship/antiship" is a completely asinine way to frame this discussion, and no matter how much my opinions may align with one side, I'm not using a fucking shipping discourse label to discuss my media studies and censorship research?

"Are you pro or anti ship?" Neither. I am not engaged in shipping discourse. I am much more concerned with the ways that censorship is used to specifically target marginalized people raising awareness and making art about their own experiences and worldviews. You cannot enact any form of censorship without it hitting marginalized people the hardest.

I do not care about your ship wars when I am discussing things such as the Hays Code and 2024 book bans, and I am incredibly exhausted by how often people derail my posts into shipping arguments. It's slightly more tolerable when teenagers do it, because they're still figuring out how shit works and lord knows I fell into my fair share of rancid discourse as a teenager, but I am appalled at how often it's dragged into my notes by grown-ass adults.

"Proship/antiship" is a reductive framework grounded in bad-faith internet discourse drenched in purity culture. It is not a useful framework to use when discussing dark fiction, censorship, free speech, or obscenity laws. "Proship" and "antiship" are loaded buzzwords that make people stop thinking critically and engaging in good faith, and I have no tolerance for it.

I'm not interested in declaring my side in tumblr ship wars when I'm focused on things like, "when is the next local school board meeting regarding book bans, and am I eligible to run for the citizen advisory council that helps decide the fate of specific books?" and, "with the overturn of Roe v. Wade, in what ways do we need to be concerned about, and what ways can we raise awareness about, the enforcement of the Comstock Act?" and, "as a trans person living in Florida, how do I navigate my existence being treated as an inherent pornographic threat to children that should be censored and legislated out of existence?"

I do not care! About! Fucking! SHIPPING!

[shanastoryteller]

okay now that i've had some coffee, let's chat

specifically, about how you act on the internet is a blueprint on how other people will treat you and how this intersects with the functionality of anon asks

if you've followed me for any significant amount of time, none of this will be anything i haven't said before, or i think be at all surprising to the rest of you, but i guess it bears repeating

so let's repeat: how you act on the internet is a guidebook on how other people will interact with you

like invites like. if you talk about a topic, you're going to get more commentary on that topic. this is because you're demonstrating that this topic is something you're comfortable talking about because you are talking about it

if you respond one way to something, people are going to reasonably assume you will respond the same way to them if they send you something similar. if someone asks for advice and you give it, people are going to think you're comfortable giving out advice and that asking for advice is an appropriate way to interact with you. if someone asks for information and resources and you provide them, people are going to think it's appropriate and acceptable to ask you for information and resources

i've seen this come up with other people before, where they do one thing and get frustrated and upset when that generates more of that thing. but people are just following your lead

now, anon asks

the function of anon asks is that the only way to reply to them is to respond to them publicly. you cannot privately reply to an anon

this means that every anon ask answered tells people how to interact with you. it is not and cannot be treated the same as a 1 on 1 conversation. it doesn't matter if that's not intention or what the anon wants. it's the reality of the situation

i don't answer non-anon asks publicly, with rare exceptions like it's funny or i think my answer to them would be interesting to others and non-upsetting for the askee for me to share (there are times i've given things like writing advice or commentary that i've thought might be interesting to the rest of you, but the askee had something in their original ask that i though they potentially wouldn't appreciate being immortalized on my blog)

if there's ever anything that someone doesn't want me to answer publicly no matter what, they can ensure this by just including it in their ask. even if i was inclined to be a hypocrite and ignore how people want to be interacted with (i am not) i am obviously not going to post it publicly if you ask me not to because then everyone would see me do that and think, rightfully, that i'm a huge jerk

when someone is rude or critical of me on anon, they're putting me in an unfair position. i can either not answer them or i have to turn their answer into a public performance, consumable by everyone. there is no other option

the vast majority of people use anon to say something kind or neutral where my public and private response would be basically identical and that's not what this is about. if i had an issue with anon asks in general, i wouldn't have them on

by sending criticism on anon, they're protecting themselves by not having any of their opinions or thoughts associated with them. nothing they say is connected to them and they're free of any consequences of their actions. in contrast, if i respond, my only option is to respond publicly. which means not only is my response attached to me and my name, but it has to be publicly consumable, i have to open myself up to the thoughts and commentary of everyone else if i'm going to reply

that means, before we get into anything the anon is saying, they're demonstrating both that they're a coward and they don't care about my comfort or my privacy - something they obviously highly prioritize for themselves

if that's the premise, why would i take kindly to anything they have to say after that, no matter what it is?

additionally, if i respond kindly and measured to these types of asks, that tells other people that it's an acceptable way to interact with me

it is not

if this ask had been sent off anon, my response would have been: "glad you enjoyed the story. feel free to toss any typos you notice into a comment (easiest way for me to keep track) and i'll correct them when i have a chance"

when it's just me talking to another person, i can choose to ignore or gloss over any awkwardness or mild rudeness because it's not going to come back to bite me. it's not a performance or a guidebook on how others will treat me. it's just you and me talking

but because it's anon, i have to keep in mind that i'm not just talking to them - i'm talking to everyone else too. so i have to establish that: i'm not interested in a beta, but am more than happy to correct typos; i don't care to hear about about how my typos personally upset you; and, in this case, that this is the type of message i don't want to receive on anon

because if i don't make it clear what i don't want, i'm going to receive more of it. that's simply a neutral fact of how people and the internet work

the more considerate you are of me, the more considerate of you i'm going to be in return

tldr: if you want a response meant just for you, you have to ask in a way that i can respond only to you. which isn't an anon ask. them's the breaks

[nerdvi]

In the wake of the whole james somerton fiasco and inspired by this post, I wanted to share a few of my um, soft signs, like, orange flags to detect when someone is bullshitting you.

First of all, I am on the spectrum which means 1) I tend to take what people say at face value and 2) I have a strong sense of justice which makes me prone to biases, all of which combined means I am at perpetual risk of swallowing the bullshit.

So, what to do about it? You turn on the critical thinking and pay attention.

As one of my favorite youtubers, Hannah Alonzo, likes to say: "consider the source, remember the motive". Who is talking to you?? What do you know about them?? What biases might they have?? How do they interact with your own biases?? Where are they talking from?? Is it anger?? happinness? boredom?? Also, why are they talking to you? Are they trying to sell you something?? Are they trying to convince you and why?? How do they go about the finantial motivation, if present? If you have, in this case, a white cis gay man talking to you as it he has it the worst of the worst in the world, there's probably some exaggeration and you should start to wonder. There's a good chance he's bullshitting you.

How they talk about women and POC No, no, stay with me. There's a rule I had back when I was dating men: Always beware of how they treat their mother. With the exception of extremes like mama's boys and cases of abuse, how a man treats the woman with whom they have that familial bond is a good indicator of how they are going to treat you. Do they berate her? speak ill of her? are aggressive or controlling? do they dismiss her opinions? Same with creators, and by god I tell you, specially cis male creators, queer or otherwise, always always beware of how they speak of women, how they treat women, how they treat POC. Somerton had a weird vendetta against straight women. It went mostly unnoticed. Then, he was dismissive towards lesbians and other queer women and it was once again overlooked. Then he went ahead and made sinophobic content about genres and cultures he knows NOTHING about. Again, it went unchecked. What I am telling you is IT'S NOT NORMAL. Contempt about women and non white-western cultures is not normal and if someone has them as them as an enemy or a scapegoat, they're probably bullshitting you. Take what they say and fact check it, see for yourself.

If at any point in a video or an essay you find yourself thinking "wait, really??" then it's time to fact check. Is it a bit suspicious?? is your logic telling you that's not quite how this works?? Then take to google, my friend, they might be bullshitting you. At worst, you dodge a fake fact, at best, you learn way too much about a topic you were already interested in.

Beware of the lack of nuance. I can not stress this enough. We all love monochrome, but life and societal issues are never black and white. It's just impossible, there's too many factors to consider. If you are being presented situations or anecdotes as absolute truths, you're probably being bullshitted. If it's too good to be true, it is. If it sounds waaay too convenient, it probably is. A good researcher, a serious investigator, will always have some nuance because they have done the work and checked the sources. If someone provides you 1) no nuance and 2) no sources, THEY'RE BULLSHITTING YOU.

These are the ones I can come up with just of the top of my head, I'm sure there's more and please, add them. Remember that naivité isn't a crime, I'm fairly naive and that's made me distrustful, and these are some of the techniques I've found that help me navigate through a world of information without losing myself.

[nagitosstolenhand]

i don't like the growing opinion that people are being 'too hard' on deku for his failing to save shigaraki.

i've seen quite a few people complaining that a lot of the bnha-critical crowd are being too mean to deku for getting tomura killed, arguing that it isn't really his fault, and that hes a 16 year old child soldier who's been failed by almost every adult in his life, why should we be putting all of this on his shoulders? hes just a kid after all?

and the truth is, they're right. deku IS a 16 year old boy whos had the fate of the world thrust on his shoulders. but the story itself just plainly refuses to acknowledge this.

the narrative doesn't acknowledge how fucked up having a school that trains literal children how to be combo cop-celebrities is. it only tentatively acknowledges the fact that a universe having combo cop-celebrities is fucked up, and even then the only people who ever point this out are antagonists, who are portrayed and treated in-universe as untrustworthy. the narrative doesn't care how fucked up dekus circumstances are. the narrative treats deku like hes a fucking messiah here to touch the hearts of the evil depressed villains with his magical empathetic heart of gold before they get blown up or just sent to fucking superhell for daring to challenge the status quote.

deku isn't a person. he's barely even a fucking character at this point. he's a plot device, and a mouth piece for the objectively shitty themes bnha is trying to spout. the themes that tell you that if you're mistreated by society and want to do something about it, you're a villain. that disrupting the status quote and refusing to repent to some random teenage boy spouting empty platitudes at you means you deserve to get sent to fucking superhell. the themes that portray people fighting for civil change as mass murdering supervillains. the themes that look the audience dead in the eye and can call deku the greatest hero to ever live.

deku, who barely spared a second thought to lady nagant telling him the truth about the hero commission. who spouts meaningless platitudes about heroism and morality at nagant, and aoyama, and toga and shigaraki, when even the thought that he should question the world around him comes up. who's constantly talked about as this truly kind, empathetic person, but hasn't spared an empathetic thought to literally anyone who is classified as a villain. who listened to every authority figure around him except the ones who asked him to question his worldview. who saw la bravas tears, shigarakis various breakdowns, himikos plead for understanding, chisakis catatonic state, lady nagants truth, and barley batted a fucking eye. deku, who killed tomura shigaraki.

people don't criticize deku for failing shigaraki because they just hate deku. people criticize deku because of what he represents. because hes a mouthpiece for the atrocious morals and themes of this ideologically rotten manga. because any character he had was chopped up to bits in favor of the incomplete husk we have now. people criticize deku because hes the main character of my hero academia. theres nothing more damning then that.

[uncle-fruity]

Damn, can a trans guy make a singular post about his lived experiences without some fucko coming out of the woodwork to put words in his mouth and call him a transmisogynist?

If you think transfeminism is ONLY about trans women, you don't know what you're talking about AND you're actively contributing to the EXTREMELY HARMFUL ERASURE of trans men and transmascs. Our voices fucking matter.

If you think every trans guy who talks about his oppression in the transandrophobia tag or who critiques "transfeminist" theories THAT ACTIVELY EXCLUDES HIM is implying that trans women and transfems are his oppressors & that the criticisms are exclusively directed at trans women, that is demonizing him, erasing the trans men who also have dogshit opinions, and assuming that he can't be trusted to have an opinion on these things.

If a trans guy makes a post about his oppression and never once mentions trans women or transfems and you accuse him of HATING trans women and transfems, I'm sorry but you are maliciously misrepresenting his argument to shut down conversarions about his experiences and to discredit him within the trans community. You are an active contributer to the bigotry he faces and you should feel ashamed and embarrassed.

It is SO transparent to me that these jerks are just trying to sew seeds of discord amongst trans people, and I'm telling you right now that I will NEVER fall for it.

There is NOTHING you can say to me that's going to get me to throw trans women and transfems as a whole under the bus. I KNOW these tactics. Younger or less experienced trans folks might believe that your horseshit opinions which you spout in the name of trans women are actually representative of trans women, but I know too many incredible and inclusive trans women and transfems to fall for it. And hopefully, with time and experience, the trans folks who think other trans people are their primary enemies will wake up to the fact that we are ALL in this together and that we're STRONGER when we stand up for each other and love each other. If the only people you're listening to are assholes, that's the only type of people you're gonna hear from. Y'all cannot throw other trans people under the bus or treat all trans people as a monolith; that is exactly the kind of divisive shit that causes a rift in transfeminist movements and keeps us fighting each other instead of organizing against our REAL oppressors. And if a trans person IS the one who's harassing you, you should block them and forget they exist. You don't owe them an explanation or a defense. They are nothing but an internet stranger who knows nothing about you, and you don't owe them the effort of saving them from their pit of hatred.

I think all y'all who come onto my posts and try to make a transmisogynistic version of me to argue with are miserable little bugs who need to bully people online to feel like you've got power, but you fucking don't have any power over me and I will NOT sit by and let you slander me without a fight.

You think I'm a transmisogynist? I don't give a SINGULAR HOMEGROWN FUCK about your opinion. I'm tight with all the trans women and transfems who actually literally know me, and YOU don't even know my FUCKING name. If you're so fucking upset about the things I say, you are more than welcome to block me. I will continue to listen to the trans women and transfems who know me, who care about me, and who sure as fuck are not afraid to call me out if I ever said anything *actually* transmisogynistic.

Which is how I know these clowns are acting in bad faith. You press them for proof. You say, "Show me where I'm being transmisogynistic. Break it down for me," and they can't. All they have to show for it is a weak argument that you're "implying" the transmisogyny and a bunch of assumptions about you that have nothing to actually do with you. If there was a real critique and they ACTUALLY wanted to support me or educate me on what I did wrong, I would take them a little more seriously. But they never do. They just make 1001 transandrophobic assumptions, show their lack of basic reading comprehension, and have a little tantrum because they made themselves mad about a person who doesn't exist.

I will never stop loving THE WHOLE AND ENTIRE TRANS COMMUNITY. I will never stop fighting for us. I will never stop trying to build community with other trans people, and your exclusionary bullshit doesn't mean shit to me. The world isn't and never will be boys vs girls. Not to me it won't.

I will never stop talking about transandrophobia. I will never shut up about the experiences trans men and transmascs have. I KNOW my theory. I KNOW myself. You are not going to guilt trip me or gaslight me into thinking I'm a bad person for speaking up on my own behalf.

You will have to kill me if you want to silence me, and don't even think I'll let you off easy by killing myself. Y'all are gonna have to work if you want to silence this loudmouth cockroach motherfucking queer.

KINDLY fuck off, rudeass.

[liberalk1tsch]

This has been an unpopular opinion but i actually think after the books Peeta wouldn’t like Gale not because of jealousy but because he treated Katniss really rough. What do you think?

can’t wait to get cancelled for this one LMAO. warning: if you’re someone who can’t accept criticism of gale, just dni.

i think peeta despises gale, and not because of anything remotely resembling jealousy. HOWEVER. i don’t think he would ever push his feelings toward gale on katniss.

peeta isn’t disrespectful toward her relationship with gale. even when it pains him. he’s made a couple snide comments about their weird dynamic, but he’s never badmouthed gale. ever. even when gale doesn’t pay him the same respect.

peeta’s smart enough to know it’s a sensitive topic. friend breakups suck, even if the reason they end is cos they were turning sour. he’d listen and probably agree with katniss if she brought it up herself and needed to vent, but i highly doubt he’d go out of his way to voice every grievance he’s had with gale unprompted.

internally though? if gale has no haters, peeta mellark is dead.

the last interaction we know of between him and gale is the conversation in tigris’ basement when gale tries to tell peeta that katniss will choose whoever she can’t survive without, which is a) incorrect and b) incredibly reductive of her feelings toward both of them, which is especially cruel coming from the person who’s supposed to be her best friend.

and i never see anyone talk ab that it’s lowkey a jab at peeta too considering gale has previously established a distinct lack of faith in peeta’s survival skills in cf (doesn’t want him to come along into the wilderness when katniss suggests they make a run for it, both bc of jealousy and bc he continually underestimates him (and then proceeds to call him a traitor in mj for doing whatever it takes to survive? bffr guy)).

alas, peeta doesn’t care how gale feels ab him. he never has. but katniss? i don’t need to read peeta’s pov to know this man was utterly baffled at what gale was yapping ab. like. by the end of mj, katniss herself narrates that there’s no sign of the kids they were when they became friends in the woods.

he just doesn’t know her anymore, at least not the person she’s become, and this is when it becomes clear to peeta that he’s been severely overestimating gale’s role in katniss’ life. he only knows what he has seen and what our lovely, unreliable katniss has told him, and she was actively trying not to pit them against each other.

but in the basement, this is the first time peeta hears things unfiltered from gale’s side, the first time he hears how off base he was to assume that there was so much more to their relationship than there is. bc wdym he thinks he has a chance w katniss when he’s not even bothering to factor her feelings into it?

and peeta thought he was the crazy one.

not to mention the fact that of everyone gale saved, he didn’t manage to save a single member of peeta’s family.

and yk what? credit where credit is due — it is thanks to gale that so many people made it out of 12 alive.

but personally, i have my doubts about how hard he tried to get the townies out. the seam and victors village are on opposite sides of town; he would’ve had to go through the town square to get prim and asterid to the meadow. past the bakery. past the justice building. past peeta’s and madge’s families.

knowing full well how important they are to katniss.

delly and her brother are the only townies i can recall from mj, the rest are seam, and he could have easily just plucked them up if they were outside when they ran through the square.

is it a fucked up idea that he might leave them behind in favour of saving seam kids? yes. but that doesn’t make it any less plausible. i wouldn’t be surprised if that same thought has crossed peeta’s mind, especially considering gale isn’t exactly subtle about his disdain for townies.

so yeah. i don’t reckon peeta likes gale at all. but he respects katniss and their history enough to keep that to himself.

i really need to figure out how to shorten these rants of mine lol

[cybrasigilism]

Touch (Player 124/Nam-gyu X F!Reader ONESHOT)

warning: smut | not proofread | lowercase intended | masturbation | JOI | hand fetish if you squint | reader has female genitalia | this is my interpretation of this character, please be respectful even if my opinions on the character differ from your own

character: nam-gyu (player 124)

A/N: had this one on my mind for a minute, i’m just looking for any excuse to write about him i fear. it’s funny to think about how reluctant i was to write for him and now he’s one of my favourites to write for, but anyways ENJOY KISS KISS MWAHHHH (AGAIN THIS IS WRITTEN IN POINT FORMAT BC I FEEL MORE CONFIDENT GETTING MY IDEAS OUT THIS WAY)

MDNI! 18+ content below the cut, readers discretion is advised

➤ it’s hard to believe how nervous you were the first time nam-gyu suggested this, for you to masturbate in front of him, but looking back you truly had no idea how much you would come to enjoy it.

➤ he would have you sit between his legs, back to his chest while you touched yourself. you could feel his breath hitch at every little sound that escaped your lips. shivers went up your spine whenever he rubbed his hands up and down your arms, telling you how hot you sounded right then

➤ his absolute favourite thing to do was to talk you through it, telling you exactly how he would please you if it was him fingering your cunt instead. he would even come as close as grabbing your wrist and guiding your hand himself, but most of the time he will simply sit back and instruct you on how to jack yourself off

➤ he really likes to egg you on through the process too, he’ll taunt and tease while you try so hard to make yourself cum

“bet you wish that was my hand between your legs, huh? you wish those were my fingers fucking your pathetic pussy, don’t you?”

“come on you can do better than that! you must not want to cum that badly if that’s all you’ve got”

“do i need to remind you how you like it, is that it?”

➤ he’ll give you a hint of praise, only to go right back to calling you his “dumb little slut”. he pulls you right in by saying how good you’re doing for him, how pretty you sound— but in the end he’ll go back to his way, not that you’re complaining.

“fuck this is all you’re good for isn’t it. being a dirty little whore for me, isn’t that right?”

“don’t hold back now, you and i both know you like being treated this way; how wet you get when i boss you around like this.”

➤ he’ll definitely touch you in other ways, mainly trying to distract you from bringing yourself to release. he’ll grope your tits, pull your hair back and kiss your neck, squeeze your thighs; anything to get you all the more hot and bothered

➤ to expand on the praise point, some things he’ll say include:

“such a good girl, doing exactly as i say”

“shit— you sound so pretty when you do that”

“yeah, do it like i showed you fuck”

ıllıllııllıllıllıllııllıllıllıllııllıllıllıllııllıllı

happy nam-gyu day!! (1/24) i just want to thank you guys again for all the support on my page, i’m truly blessed and forever grateful :)

as usual, any advice/constructive criticism on how i can improve my writing is appreciated and requested! have a fabulous night/day lovelies 🤭

tags: @gongyoosgf @strangelife122 @kouzih @gabbystinks

[preposterousjams]

My opinion on the Latino Jason Todd headcanon

While I do understand ppl's criticism of the latino Jason todd headcanon and how its kind of racist to make the kid with parents with drug problems as the latino one, to me its more of a reclamation BECAUSE of DC's racism.

Read any 80s/90s batman issue that covers gang violence and drugs, most if not ALL of the criminals are poc; black people and latinos visibly make up the majority in the poorer neighbourhoods in Gotham. Aside from the caricaturist way they r drawn/speak, its not THAT weird cause its a reflection of irl big cities where immigrants and marginalised ppl are often forced to live in such situations, (like most of my dominican family lives in the bronx... it aint racist to say dominicans tend to flock there), BUT...the weird part is when the second a sympathetic character comes from that area, he's white and has a name thats "too fancy for the streets".

Obviously, Jason was created to look like the old robin, so I can't say that the whole "diamond in the rough" situation was purposely a tad bit racist, but its still a lil weird (especially with bruce's comment).

If Jason were a part of the overwhelming demographic in his area, the good-kid-in-a-bad-area trope has less connotations. DC is currently trying to fix this trope is by making crime alley whiter, which isn't bad but they could've just yk... humanised the non-white residents.

I also feel like the messed up way Jason was treated post-death is what makes him so relatable to latino readers. His tragic story of dying while trying to save his only living relative is turned into a lesson for newer vigilantes. Jason's particular disdain for abusers on a few occasions was twisted (by both writers and characters) into him always being dumb, reckless, cocky, angry and disobedient, always violent, never having been able to get over his upbringing. None of those things were true (he was a normal level of reckless and cocky like every other robin, not more), but its an easier narrative to digest compared to how it was in reality; a kid who worked so hard and loved even harder, died to save a woman who couldn't care less about his existence. He was an emotional AND smart kid who wanted so bad to help others get better but was remembered as too emotional (in a bad way).

THIS is the reality for many latino diasporas in day to day life; Theres no question that Latino culture is passionate and emotive, but people from other cultures assume that it is followed by instead of logical. both can coexist. emotion does not mean u have no logic. Emotions can be irrational but they aren't inherently that way, and I wouldn't say that the moments where Jason lashed out as a teenager were irrational (in og runs, not rewrites post red hood), they were mostly done to protect someone (going crazy on abusers, disobeying batman to save sheila, that time he got into a fight at school to defend his friend).

A lot of euro-centric culture is OBSESSED with the idea that rationality is separate from feelings and emotions, but not crying at a funeral doesn't mean you're better than those who do. Emotions are the basis of human ethics and morals, they define the way we interact as a collective and ignoring them does not mean they are not there. Theres no winner to a contest of who can feel the less. And the way Jason's emotions are treated (pre-rh, hes definitely unhinged afterwards lol) is so in line with how white culture tends to punish those who aren't ashamed to feel.

I TOTES UNDERSTAND that some ppl who headcanon Jason as latino are doing it for the complete opposite of reasons, like "oh here some angry emotional guy with druggie parents, haha must be latino". Its weird. I dont like it. And its only brought up so he can swear in spanish in some rlly bad text post where his emotions are getting out. But to me there's so much potential for metanarrative and commentary on how latinos are treated in media that can be exemplified through the way his character is treated. Being latino would add SO MUCH DEPTH to his character and his dynamic with the others.

[localcoffeeshop]

a lot of people are hating on the lilo & stitch live action for surface level reasons, mostly because people are rightfully not watching it and just repeating what they've read online while missing the bigger picture.

it's easy to bitch about this objectively bad tasteless remake from hell for things like not having gantu and making jumba the villain, but it takes a real stitch head to juxtapose that knowledge with the far more nefarious context, which is that disney opened a hawaiian resort called Aulani 14 years ago, and stitch is featured on the merch and at the resort.

this simple fact is the entire reason why the live action project was doomed from the start and why the obvious overly-fuzzy capitalist slop overtones are ACTUALLY so much grosser than arguably anything in any previous disney live action. it's one thing to argue about narrative changes, but you have to understand why those narrative changes happened to actually get to the root of what's so evil about it. it's why even the opportunities where criticisms could be levied against tourism clearly aren't taken (lilo sneaks into a resort to take advantage of the hot tub and the employees remind her she's not supposed to be there - this is a comedic moment that seriously makes me question if the people involved in the story are that ignorant or if things were cut because of disney's overhead - something the original film notably didn't undergo)

furthermore, a lot of people are regurgitating internet opinions on nani ditching lilo which is obviously a terrible decision/change, but a lot of the arguments people are making about it seem to boil down to "nani doesn't care about lilo", which is a read that shows you kind of are just parroting others without context. the movie, to its credit, does not portray nani as a selfish person. she says to lilo "it's my kuleana (responsibility) to take care of you" while expressing reluctance about going. in my opinion, the problem is that a Native Hawaiian character's aspirations are adjusted to fit the idea of Western ideals, dreams, and success - go to university (neocolonial institution) far away from your home and get a great job! a fine thing to want to do, sure, but one that exists in the world where Native Hawaiians have had their land and livelihoods stolen, bastardized, and destroyed for the benefit of capitalists and Americans.

additionally, Nani's decision to give Lilo up was also in part because the social worker tells Nani that the state will pay Lilo's hospital bills (after the near-drowning scene) in full only if Nani surrenders the rights to guardianship to them (paraphrase). To me this is far more disgusting than nani choosing to go to university because the film does not treat this as a really fucked up threat emerging from a violent system of privatized healthcare but as some kind of benevolent offer that Nani should take.

the grandma who takes lilo in says "you can't leave yourself behind either" as a response to nani saying "'ohana means family". the film wants to make the caveat that you have to take care of yourself too (while ignoring that "taking care of yourself" can put the onus on you to choose to live better, rather than the system that is oppressing you and exhausting you).

Ayesha Khan writes:

"I kept asking “how can I care for myself when I cannot survive or thrive in a world by myself?” How can I care for myself when survival is a collective responsibility & we are fundamentally dependent on the care of so many beings? (...) Mainstream self-care has created NEW forms of oppression, extraction & exploitation. (...) Today, many people partake in self-care as a means to enable their personal success & wealth accumulation under capitalism" (source)

tl;dr it helps to know exactly why this movie sucks so much with some context. there are things happening here that are actually disgusting and evil and yet the actual conversation in the Discourse Machine Of The Week has not yet gone into these things. eventually, you might forget how mad you were that Jumba doesn't have a russian accent, but hopefully you can sustain some anger towards how disgusting it is that disney's slop adaption is full of capitalist signalling and unquestioned "real world Logic" that turns the story's world into an inescapable unimaginative nightmare, and one which will be undoubtedly used to drive tourism to disney's own Hawaiian resort - the original film was co-opted despite its critical eye, the remake is effortlessly abetting, guaranteed.