#i'm nesting

[lizbethborden]

The creature has been super hormonal lately and I know he's coming out of it bc he took the time to brutally slaughter a Dunkin straw this morning

[gnaga37]

ho creato un giaciglio di cuscini e copere sul divano che mi abbraccierà fino alle due <3

[sunderwight]

Scum Villain AU where Shen Yuan and Shen Jiu transmigrate by swapping lives (i.e. Shen Yuan wakes up in Shen Qingqiu's body on Qing Jing Peak, post-fever, while Shen Jiu wakes up in Shen Yuan's body in a hospital in modern China) but it doesn't quite work right.

The system glitches or something and they end up having to jointly time share their lives. Every time a certain moon phase or something (cyclical) comes around they abruptly switch back.

So they spend the entire time trying to undo everything the other one has been up to while everyone around them is just desperately attempting to figure out wtf is going on. Shen Yuan does the skinner quest and stops Luo Binghe's abuse, and Shen Jiu gets a job with a rival company and starts showing up Shen Yuan's brothers. Then they switch back and Shen Jiu is like "it's woodshed o'clock for the beast" and Shen Yuan resigns. Then they switch back again and Shen Yuan saves Liu Qingge's life and gets poisoned defending Luo Binghe, and Shen Jiu creates his own start-up and blackmails his eldest brother about the mistress he's just uncovered. Then they switch back and Shen Yuan gets his brother and his sister-in-law into couples counseling and Shen Jiu embarks on a quest to either cure himself without Liu Qingge's help or die trying.

Eventually they just start leaving bitchy messages for one another to find and doing things that won't cause lasting damage but are incredibly petty. Shen Yuan keeps trying to tell Shen Jiu to read PIDW but Shen Jiu takes one look at his merch-filled bachelor pad and immediately decides that his opinions aren't worth anything, so it takes him a while to actually do it (he is really mad about this when he finally opens the novel and it turns out to be extremely relevant information).

[zionmantis]

Hoooo boy. It's finally finished. This only took me eight months to paint. T.T

Disco Elysium is soooo good y'all; I feel like I'll never give it the credit it deserves.

I'm not even sure it's finished, but I'm just going to set this down now, though.

Clip studio paint and a ton of downloaded watercolor and acrylic brushes.

Let me know if you want me to pull out any closeups or anything

[ghoul-butch]

transfem fags and transmasc dykes aren't hurting you, you're just clinging to respectability politics when it's a convenient tool to push away people that make you uncomfortable. and yes, not even the binary trans folks who don't "make sense" to you are hurting you. instead of telling them to fix their identities, fix your reactionary disgust.

[zu-is-here]

During the post dark cream arc where Cross was pregnant with Aim, is it possible for Aim to mive and kick while in the soul…? And if so is it painful for Cross+

continuing @clownyclowns' comic's topic <3

[skydaemon]

so we (and by we, i mean the very specific overlap of jews and nerds among whom i make my home) talk a lot about how tolkien's dwarves, in both the books and movies, were likely influenced by certain jewish stereotypes. obsessed with gold/wealth, secretive (especially about their language and religion), refugees from their ancestral home, portrayed with big, sometimes hooked, noses and interesting facial hair, and most specifically: the favourite little meow meows of one particular god, causing them to be shunned and persecuted by other races and creeds. this is likely unintentional, coming from the subconscious of tolkien in the same way orcs were "based on mongols" (ew colonialism) and activating subconscious biases/stereotypes in the people who designed the dwarves for the movies. it's subtext, albeit subtext that influenced the next eighty years of fantasy.

but what i don't see much discussion of is the fact that in terry pratchett's discworld, it's intentional. terry pratchett's dwarves are, more or less, jews.

carrot is a human adopted by dwarves, based on human standards. but within dwarf culture, he IS a dwarf. specifically, he has undergone specific rituals and memorised certain passages, making him LEGALLY a dwarf. this is basically how conversion works in judaism. indeed, as in judaism, it's considered rude to even mention that carrot is six feet tall and obviously wasn't born into the culture he has adopted.

the dwarves also have internal rifts - there are a group of 'orthodox' dwarves who consider the dwarves in ankh-morpork (who have adopted other customs and don't follow traditional roles) not to be dwarves at all, and don't recognise carrot as a dwarf for the same reason. they believe that the way to be a dwarf is to live in an all-dwarf community and follow their traditional rules, while other dwarves believe they need to change with the times and integrate (at least somewhat) with larger society. jewish as fuck.

there's also the interaction of dwarves with gender. when cherie comes out as female (which isn't a recognised gender by dwarvish society) she is ostracised for taking on the feminine roles common to other discworld races. however, she could never THINK of cutting off her beard, because she is still a dwarf. i see parallels with women in judaism taking on roles traditionally considered 'masculine' (e.g., as rabbis, wearing tallit and kippot) and the acceptance of queer people into jewish communities. there's lots of great discussion about cherie as a trans character on tumblr, btw.

finally, something that particularly strikes me is the line from carrot in tfe, where he says that the biggest dwarf city on the disc is ankh-morpork. obviously all diaspora communities can relate, but it's really something to know that new york is the city with the most jews in the world (960k to jerusalem's 570k. btw, 3rd is LA!).

i just love that, again, consciously or unconsciously, pratchett incorporated more positive elements of jewish culture into his portrayal of the dwarves.

[littlefankingdom]

I saw another post criticizing Bruce for having children fighting at his side, and I must say: tell me you don't know shit about the batkids' stories without telling me. Bruce fucking tried to stop those kids from being vigilantes, but they keep doing it behind his back, so he decided the best thing to do was to give them the proper training, an armor and to have them stick at his side so he can watch over them. You know, like a parent telling their underage children that they can drink alcohol but only at home where they can watch over them.

Dick became Robin because he wanted revenge over his parents' murder. He would run out in the street of Gotham as a 8 years old, all alone, to go fight Zucco. Bruce helping him make Robin was the compromise to keep Dick safe, because the child would not listen. (And yes, it wasn't the case in the very first canon, but it was like the 40s. Do you know how many kids fought against the Nazis in Europe at that time???)

Barbara Gordon is not his daughter and he has no authority on her being a vigilante. He cannot even ground her.

Jason became Robin after helping Bruce take down Ma Gunn's school. It is implied by Bruce, while talking to Dick, that he offered Robin to Jason as a way to gain a child because he missed having Dick around. He didn't need a Robin, he just missed having a kid. Bruce used the Robin mantle with Jason like people use churu to appease stray kitten. AND JASON'S DEATH, let's talk about it. Jason ran away, which leads to him being killed, after eavesdropping on Bruce and Alfred talking about Jason's mental health. Jason is benched as Robin, but not because Bruce thinks he killed someone like fandom says, but because Bruce knows it is not helping or healthy for Jason. They are talking about getting him help for his traumas and how violence is not helping Jason. And, when he is older and has healed, they can try again if he wants to. That's why Jason or people saying that Jason died because he was a soldier, or blaming Bruce for Robin's existence is false. When Jason died, Bruce was against Jason being Robin for his own health! And Jason knows that, he heard the discussion, he wasn't bench like how so many of his siblings are, with little to no honest explanation. Jason died in the Robin's costume because of his own stubbornness, not because of Bruce. (And that's not blaming Jason for his death. He is not to blame, but neither is Bruce. It's just about the Robin's colors. Jason would not have been wearing them at the time if he listened to Bruce.)

Tim Drake imposed himself as Robin. Bruce was against it, Tim literally went "Don't care, didn't ask". And Tim was already following them around before. Bruce already have Jason blaming him for making Tim Robin when he had no control over that.

Stephanie Brown became a vigilante before Batman knew her. He has tried SO MANY TIMES to make her stop, and so many fans hate that he did it. Make a choice, is it bad that he didn’t stop her more or that he didn’t let her more be a vigilante? He even got his kids to try to make her stop. AND SHE IS "KILLED" TO TEACH HIM THAT MAKING KIDS VIGILANTES IS BAD WHEN HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE OF HER BECOMING ONE AND TRIED TO STOP HER! No shit the man blames himself for things that are not his fault, everyone does it.

Cassandra Cain was 17 when she becomes Batgirl, so I don't know if she counts. But when Bruce tries to make her stop for her own health, with the support of Barbara and Alfred, Cass is devastated and doesn't obey him. She puts on her costume and fights him physically.

Damian Wayne was trained as an assassin. In every version of him being introduced to Bruce, Bruce is against making him Robin and Damian keeps sneaking out. Damian wants to prove himself to his father so bad and refused to be kept away from the fight. In the comics, it's Dick, DICK, that makes him Robin when Bruce is gone, because Bruce was against letting Damian out at night.

Conclusion: Bruce is a tired father of a bunch of kids that cannot understand they should stay home at night and not be vigilantes.

[kirby-the-gorb]

[zoe-oneesama]

i felt like giving a contribution to the memes of people who thought there would be a Chloe redemption arc, enjoy

I do be making that face everytime.

[bulionis]

*Yurifies your Stobotnik*

[sunderwight]

SV No Abyss Fluff "Feral Binghe" AU where Shen Qingqiu manages to get around having to throw Luo Binghe into the Abyss, but unfortunately this means he has to get him away from Jue Di Gorge before anyone else catches them, while Luo Binghe is steadily losing more and more control over his behavior. In PIDW, this stage of Luo Binghe's seal breaking was handled by virtue of him being in the Abyss, and just killing every single thing that crossed his path until the feral trance broke and his mind cleared up again. It was barely noticeable as a thing that happened, because being in the Abyss meant he was pretty much on a 24/7 killing spree regardless of his frame of mind.

But without the Abyss to field Luo Binghe's bloodlust, Shen Qingqiu's got to keep him relatively calm and distracted while hauling his ass out of a demon-infested gorge also full of potentially hostile cultivators, get him back to Qing Jing Peak, and then keep him under control until he can calm down enough to regain his faculties.

A task that should have been impossible, frankly, except that for some "mysterious" reason, Luo Binghe will still listen (somewhat) to Shen Qingqiu even while he's out of his mind? At least he will come back if Shen Qingqiu calls him, and he doesn't seem inclined to wander very far away either, and he seems to recollect Without-a-Cure on some level and fusses over Shen Qingqiu's flare-ups. Though in this case, the 'fussing' involves a lot more cuddling than Shen Qingqiu is accustomed to.

However, Feral Demon Binghe doesn't seem to be very good at differentiating friend-from-foe in basically any other case. The good news is, in this AU Binghe has a demonic form that makes him pretty much unrecognizable to anyone who didn't already see his transformation (a group comprised solely of Shen Qingqiu, Mobei Jun, and Shang Qinghua), the bad news is that Shen Qingqiu has to stop him from killing his own future wives multiple times (he even attacks Liu Mingyan!) and all the Cang Qiong attendees think that Shen Qingqiu has been kidnapped by some kind of rampaging demon beast.

[inkskinned]

one of the things that i think we should pay attention to, socially, about the disney v. desantis thing is that it is really highlighting the importance of remembering nuance.

in a purely neutral sense, if you engage in something problematic, that does not mean you are necessarily agreeing with what makes it problematic. and i am worried that we have become... so afraid of any form of nuance.

disney isn't my friend, they're a corporate monopoly that bastardized copyright laws for their own benefit, ruin the environment, and abuse their workers (... and many other things). this isn't a hypothetical for me - i grew up in florida. i also worked for the actual Walt Disney World; like, in the parks. i am keenly aware of the ways they hurt people, because they hurt me. i fully believe that part of the reason florida is so conservative is because it's been an "open secret" for years now that disney lobbies the government to keep minimum wage down, and i know they worked hard to keep the parks unmasked and open during the worst parts of Covid. they purposefully keep their employees in poverty. they are in part responsible for the way the floridian government works.

desantis is still, by a margin that is frankly daunting, way worse. the alternative here isn't just "republicans win", it's actual fascism.

in a case like this, where the alternative is to allow actual fascism into united states legislation - where, if desantis wins, there are huge and legal ramifications - it's tempting to minimize the harm disney is also doing, because... well, it's not fascism. but disney isn't the good guy, either, which means republicans are having a field day asking activists oh, so you think their treatment of their employees is okay?

we have been trained there is a right answer. you're right! you're in the good group, and you're winning at having an opinion.

except i have the Internet Prophecy that in 2-3 months, even left-wing people will be ripping apart activists for having "taken disney's side". aren't i an anti-capitalist? aren't i pro-union? aren't i one of the good ones? removed from context and nuance (that in this particular situation i am forced to side with disney, until an other option reveals itself), my act of being like "i hope they have goofy rip his throat out onstage, shaking his lifeless body like a dog toy" - how quickly does that seem like i actually do support disney?

and what about you! at home, reading this. are you experiencing the Thought Crime of... actually liking some of the things disney has made? your memories of days at the parks, or of good movies, or of your favorite show growing up. maybe you are also evil, if you ever enjoyed anything, ever, at all.

to some degree, the binary idealization/vilification of individual motive and meaning already exists in the desantis case. i have seen people saying not to go to the disney pride events because they're cash grabs (they are). i've seen people saying you have to go because they're a way to protest. there isn't a lot of internet understanding of nuance. instead it's just "good show of support" or "evil bootlicking."

this binary understanding is how you can become radicalized. when we fear nuance and disorder, we're allowing ourselves the safety of assuming that the world must exist in binary - good or bad, problematic or "not" problematic. and unfortunately, bigots want you to see the world in this binary ideal. they want you to get mad at me because "disney is taking a risk for our community but you won't sing their praises" and they want me to get mad at you for not respecting the legit personal trauma that disney forced me through.

in a grander scheme outside of disney: what happens is a horrific splintering within activist groups. we bicker with each other about minimal-harm minimal-impact ideologies, like which depiction of bisexuality is the most-true. we gratuitously analyze the personal lives of activists for any sign they might be "problematic". we get spooked because someone was in a dog collar at pride. we wring our hands about setting an empty shopping mall on fire. we tell each other what words we may identify ourselves by. we get fuckin steven universe disk horse when in reality it is a waste of our collective time.

the bigots want you to spend all your time focusing on how pristine and pretty you and your interests are. they want us at each other's throats instead of hand in hand. they want to say see? nothing is ever fucking good enough for these people.

and they want their followers to think in binary as well - a binary that's much easier to follow. see, in our spaces, we attack each other over "proper" behavior. but in bigoted groups? they attack outwards. they have someone they hate, and it is us. they hate you, specifically, and you are why they have problems - not the other people in their group. and that's a part of how they fucking keep winning.

some of the things that are beloved to you have a backbone in something terrible. the music industry is a wasteland. the publishing industry is a bastion of white supremacy. video games run off of unpaid labor and abuse.

the point of activism was always to bring to light that abuse and try to stop it from happening, not to condemn those who engage in the content that comes from those industries. "there is no ethical consumption under late capitalism" also applies to media. your childhood (and maybe current!) love of the little mermaid isn't something you should now flinch from, worried you'll be a "disney adult". wanting the music industry to change for the better does not require that you reject all popular music until that change occurs. you can acknowledge the harm something might cause - and celebrate the love that it has brought into your life.

we must detach an acknowledgment of nuance from a sense of shame and disgust. we must. punishing individual people for their harmless passions is not doing good work. encouraging more thoughtful, empathetic consumption does not mean people should feel ashamed of their basic human capacities and desires. it should never have even been about the individual when the corporation is so obviously the actual evil. this sense that we must live in shame and dread of our personal nuances - it just makes people bitter and hopeless. do you have any idea how scared i am to post this? to just acknowledge the idea of nuance? that i might like something nuanced, and engage in it joyfully? and, at the same time, that i'm brutally aware of the harm that they're doing?

"so what do i do?" ... well, often there isn't a right answer. i mean in this case, i hope mickey chops off ron's head and then does a little giggle. but truth be told, often our opinions on nuanced subjects will differ. you might be able to engage in things that i can't because the nuance doesn't sit right with me. i might think taylor swift is a great performer and a lot of fun, and you might be like "raquel, the jet fuel emissions". we are both correct; neither of us have any actual sway in this. and i think it's important to remember that - the actual scope of individual responsibility. like, i also love going to the parks. Thunder Mountain is so fun. you (just a person) are not responsible for the harm that Disney (the billion dollar corporation) caused me. i don't know. i think it's possible to both enjoy your memories and interrogate the current state of their employment policies.

there is no right way to interrogate or engage with nuance - i just hope you embrace it readily.

[cto10121]

Book Fiyero: *immediately recognizes Elphaba and stations himself at the backdoor to prevent her from evading him, stalks her halfway across town to her aerie (even though at that point in time she was only a college friend he hadn’t seen in five years), insists on seeing her again, instinctively goes to comfort her when she first cries, gets sucked into increasingly deep and fraught conversations with her about collateral damage and freedom fighter terrorism, calls her the “most individual, the most separate, the most real” DURING AN ARGUMENT, says he adores Elphaba’s looks IN THAT SAME ARGUMENT, doesn’t understand Elphaba’s “being born with a talent or an inclination for goodness is the aberration” comment because (implied) he sincerely believes Elphaba isn’t evil, changes his mind about the plight of the Animals all by himself but doesn’t mention it to Elphaba because he is afraid she would distance himself from him, buys scarves for both his wife and Elphaba even though only Elphaba likes scarves, is so concerned for Elphaba and her dangerous Lurlinemas Eve mission that he stalks her instead of staying at his club or just leaving town altogether, and is so worried about her that he returns to the aerie just to see her*

Also Book Fiyero: Am I in love with Elphaba?

[ferronickel]

Looking Glasses Page 107

<- Prev First Next -> Website

Good thing that giant boxing ring was there to catch their fall!

Next page Monday January 20th

[high-voltage-rat]

Okay rvb gang real talk for a sec. I think y'all should put a little more thought into the way you draw and characterize Captain Butch Flowers. Specifically with regards to the widely accepted facecanon having native-coded features.

Facecanons in rvb generally fall under 2 categories: the ones based off of information about the person's race and background we receive in the canon, and ones that are purely headcanon, based on vibes. For example, we're told Simmons is Dutch-Irish, so it's common to draw him as a white redhead. Tucker being black is as close to directly stated as we ever get re: any of the reds and blues' races. But Sarge is often drawn as a white man despite no information being given about his race- it's usually chosen by the headcanoner based off the vibes we get from his behaviour.

So when it comes to Flowers, let's think for a second about how the fandom generally interprets his character. In canon, we see him on blue team making his soldiers a bit uncomfortable with his overly familiar behaviour, having a cheerful and upbeat demeanour. We also see him in PFL working with Wyoming to do recon, then getting hit with a tomahawk, throwing it back at the enemy, and then using his grenade launcher to bring down a crane and kill chain guy and girl. Later he's in charge of choosing soldiers to place in blood gulch, where we see he has no problem feeding soldiers through the fodder machine and covering up for Freelancer- including essentially killing Jimmy. What we see in fandom, though, is a guy who is cheerfully menacing, casually hyperviolent, bubbly facade, likes knives, 'probably has a torture basement', etc.

So I would like us to think for a moment about why, exactly, people took those vibes, that interpretation of his character, with the more violent aspects overinflated, and decided to draw him with native-coded features. I would like us all to take a second and consider the connotations behind the pile of art out there where a brown man with long dark hair in a braid is splattered in blood. To me, this particular choice just feels like another "native s*vage" trope, and I think it has really not been thought through.

Indigenous headcanons in rvb are admittedly pretty difficult. Rvb is a problematic media through and through, and there's always going to be something offensive in the way a character is portrayed. I myself hc the Grifs as kānaka maoli, due to them being from Hawai'i and Kaikaina's name- but between Grif's laziness and Kai's hypersexuality, it definitely falls into some other offensive stereotypes about indigenous people, and particularly native Hawaiians.

But to me, the distinguishing thing is that these are facets of their characters that have something deeper behind them- there are reasons for these traits that are explored both by canon and the fandom meta. Grif's laziness is a result of his personal struggle with having to care for his sister alone, as well as his general disdain for the army as an institution. Kai's sexuality is her way of seeking fun and connection in her life, likely in part due to feeling abandoned by their mother, and then by her brother. In the case of the Grifs, fandom treats them well by taking these established character traits, and not overinflating, but contextualizing them, and treating them as part of a larger whole. Grif is loyal to his friends, he's clever and observant when he's willing to show it. Kai is independent, business-savvy, and assertive. These other character aspects exist in the fandom portrayal, so their depictions don't feel like a glaring stereotype. In the right hands, with enough care and love, their negative traits can even be used to explore the impact of colonialism- how the stereotypes are based off the conditions and circumstances forced on us by its influence.

Flowers, on the other hand, has a fandom portrayal that feels like an artificial exaggeration of a single aspect of his canon character. There's very little depth behind it, no real contextualization- he hasn't been fleshed out by fandom, he's almost been reduced by it. Naturally, contextualization is going to be harder because he's a minor character and we don't hear much- if anything- about his background. But it is still an active choice by people who make fan content of him to emphasize certain traits, and it's thus far been the traits that fall into some very harmful tropes.

So my suggestion, as an indigenous person, is this. You don't have to change your facecanon, necessarily- but put some thought into it. Whether you're depicting him as an explicitly native person, or just with native-coded features, consider the connotations. Reconsider exaggerating his violent side so much: technically speaking, we've seen him kill 2 people somewhat indirectly, in the same mission that North killed like 5 in a similar manner and Tex literally murdered C.T. with a tomahawk. Do you emphasize their violence in the same way? Why did you choose to do so for Flowers? If you want him to be unsettling, his enthusiastic facilitation of PFL's activities in blood gulch and lack of qualms about using and discarding sim troopers is there to work with- something non-violent but no less sinister, something less aligned with common harmful stereotypes when applied to indigenous people, and much more founded in canon as a distinguishing part of his character.

Just stop to think "is this portrayal a reinforcement of the "native s*vage" trope?", and "is this really that founded in canon?". Think about whether someone with no experience in rvb fanon would look at your content and see more than a native guy in mystery blue guy's armour doing gratuitous violence for no reason.

Consider the less explored but canonical aspects of his character, flesh them out with headcanon. Sure, he killed chain guy and girl, but he also yanked a tomahawk out of his arm after falling from height and kept fighting- explore his resilience, what drives him. His strategic mind, using the environment against his enemies, carefully balancing the illusion surrounding blood gulch and constructing specific social dynamics. Hell, even delve into why he believes in Freelancer enough to do what he's done without issue. Flesh out your portrayal, dial back the singularity of the vibes you give him.

Indigenous people aren't exempt from being awful, or violent, or complicit in corrupt systems- but if you portray a native character that way without any depth or reason behind their choices, you often end up reinforcing a stereotype.

...and if gratuitous violence is what you want, if you like that creepy knife-obsessed murder guy, then yeah. Maybe consider changing your facecanon. Cause I'm a little tired of seeing characters who look like my people always soaked in blood and acting like they have innate uncontrolled urges to kill. Depictions like that about us were part of what formed the justification for our genocide, so please try not to perpetuate that.