#if we all had equal and exact understandings of the same things then we wouldn't be people

[wokeuplaughing]

sometimes I wish that total knowledge was innate I think one of the many unfair things about life is that we have to learn so much in such a short period just for us to die and the greatest value that came from us knowing anything at all is that we found value in it and shared it with others but I think it's also a deeply beautiful human experience to be gifted with knowledge and then gifting it to others idk everything in the world seems so well intended and purposeful even in its perceived unfairness

[ranna-alga]

I admittedly got into RDR2 five years late and I remember being confused seeing older comments of fans completely dogpiling on Mary Linton (née Gillis - a character who I interpreted much differently than these users did), but assumed maybe people would have grown up a bit since then and understand Mary better. Unfortunately, I still see so many people completely misunderstand and shit on Mary's character and I want to talk about it (this meta will be my opinion AND biased as a Mary defender, but idc)

I cannot stand it when people, particularly male fans, call Mary "manipulative" or someone who just "uses Arthur when it's convenient to her" because that just isn't true, and it really shows that a lot of the people who just trash on her have no idea what they are actually talking about.

Labelling her as someone who uses Arthur just for her own personal conveniences makes no sense when you consider the fact that so many other characters, including members of the Van der Linde gang, have also asked Arthur to do things for them, including requests that are much worse than anything Mary could have asked for (you know, like Strauss for example?). Not only that, but if Arthur rejects Mary's help, she doesn't get angry - if anything, she understands why he may be reluctant to help her. If Mary truly only wanted to use Arthur, she wouldn't have shown how grateful she was for his help and how much she truly did miss spending time with him by asking him out on a date to the theatre.

And to those who criticise her for not being able to leave her family sooner: do you... not remember the time period this story is set in? All of RDR2 (1899 - 1907) takes place before women got electoral equality with men (1928) and during the main story's time, women were very much under the control of their husbands - or their fathers if they were not married. A big reason as to why Arthur wasn't able to marry Mary in the first place when they were courting each other was because her father didn't approve of his outlaw lifestyle.

Even if she had more of her own autonomy, we must remember that Mary is part of an abusive family unit. She often tries to excuse her father's terrible actions even though she knows how awful of a man he has become over the years. She is isolated and is hopping from one temporary shelter to another (Valentine, Saint Denis, etc) - she is a widow, she cannot depend on her father obviously, she cannot depend on her mother since she died, nor could she depend on her brother Jamie since perhaps she thought that she was meant to be the source of dependency as the older sibling. Mary said it herself in her goodbye letter (if Arthur rejects to help her) that she truly had no one else to turn to. Arthur was literally the only other person she could ask help from and even then, it seemed like a last resort after not interacting with each other for many years before her first mission and her being apologetic for taking up his time.

Mary holds a lot of regret and remorse for how things ended and it is clear she still thinks about what could have been between her and Arthur. When she fully accepts that she doesn't want to continue living such a miserable life because of her family, she makes a big leap in suggesting she and Arthur run away together, a parallel to Arthur's proposal years before, showing that she has grown and no longer wants to accept a life she feels trapped in.

People who criticise Mary for not being able to leave her family + the life she has always known behind should also consider how Arthur is the exact same. He is as much of a victim of this unfair circumstance as Mary is, but we have seen how he couldn't leave the gang life behind. It was what he died for, after all. He failed to meet the promise he made to Mary that he would run away with her after getting some money and ensuring the gang members' safety - which technically isn't his fault since this was pre-Guarma, but Mary couldn't have known about that. To her, he kept making promises he couldn't keep/getting dragged into violent crime life and she couldn't bear to continue having false hope anymore.

It's a shame that Mary has been given such a bad rap by certain fans who have mischaracterised her. Her story is a sad one and so is her love story with Arthur. I will always love and defend Mary (+ the other main female characters of RDR2) and I truly wonder how different her and Arthur's lives would have been if they managed to run away and get married (TB ideally excluded) and how happy they would have been.

[mizuki-foreshadowing]

What Lies Beyond Guiding a Lost Child, Episode 5

This is where Mafuyu gets her panic attack and never takes the practice exam. She flashes back to Ena's words arguing that Mafuyu herself already understands that her mom doesn't actually want what's best for her. Mafuyu is taking the practice exam because it would make her mom happy, but is starting to realize that her mom is very careful about what she says will and will not make her happy, and they don't align with what will make Mafuyu happy, Mafuyu telling her what will, falling on deaf ears.

Mizuki helps walk Mafuyu through Mizuki's tried and true response to complicated emotions with no easy way out, to not worry about it and distract herself to not feel so bad.

Mafuyu doesn't want to take the exam but hurries herself to the exam area, saying 'I have to go...' (行かなきゃ). She says the exact same thing after Mizuki's text interrupts her spiral after the text her mom had sent about expecting good results today. Mizuki's text reassures Mafuyu that everyone is at PXL and will be there still if Mafuyu finds she has time. Immediately after Mafuyu repeats that same line, we cut to her arriving at PXL, the screen completely dark.

I was hoping that the line Mafuyu says mirrors the line we hear Kanade say at her own low point, translated as 'I have to compose...' (続けなくちゃ) but the conjugations are too different for me to be able to draw that connection, and I don't know enough about Japanese to be able to comment.

But, the same line being spoken both times does act to put it on equal footing, Mafuyu having to take the practice exam and Mafuyu having to take care of herself and see her friends.

Mizuki and Ena jump to opposite conclusions about what it means for Mafuyu to be at Phoenix Wonderland when she ought to be taking her practice exam. Despite being the problem-runner herself, Mizuki thinks Mafuyu didn't attend for a more Mafuyu-like reason; the exam being rescheduled, while Ena asks if Mafuyu's skipping to come here.

If it were Mizuki asking if Mafuyu were skipping instead, I feel like she'd feel too guilty for putting the idea in her head or something, but a part of me also thinks Mizuki sees herself as more cowardly than Mafuyu, that Mafuyu faces her pain despite how badly it hurts her, because she has to in order for Kanade to ever save her. Mizuki says about as much to her in Mafuyu: The Staff of Guidance; Part 2. It's Mizuki's ideal of Mafuyu that wouldn't skip the exam.

Ena getting it right is a little harder for me to place. While Ena is a jealous person, I'm not sure if she's still jealous of Mafuyu; the illusion of Mafuyu being perfectly capable and talented is fully dispelled this far into the story, all her talent for music and academics offset in Ena's mind by problems Ena seems to think Mafuyu should be able to see the solutions for. I think it may actually come from a place of Ena being relieved to see Mafuyu on equal footing to her rather than being able to pretend she can simply endure anything. Mafuyu being able to break might validate Ena for not being any lesser for herself breaking, like she had in Blank Canvas, relatively recent to this event.

Mafuyu can't articulate how she feels right now, and Mizuki jumps in to tell Mafuyu that there's no pressure on her to have to do so. Mafuyu needs a distraction, and Mizuki understands that need very well, herself.

[crookedkryptonitebeliever]

First I must make it clear that I came for Yves, stayed for Cyprus, and found Mont to be my true love. And Blanche as my confusing friend in the midst.

As a new fan that has been searching through this all, my knowledge isn't the best but I'm trying.

Yves is so interesting but also expansive that I'm having a bit of a hard time grasping it all. He's your personification of infallible unconditional love that people can display right? The mother of mothers.

Yet I can't find myself wanting to be open or close to him even with the knowledge that he won't judge me or that he'll take care of me like I dream of. Almost like I'm expecting him to be this way because I'm already viewing him in that parental role since I can't find mysel liking him romantically.

In contrast the thought of Cyprus doing the chores and cooking like in the Yandere coworker series, it gives me a warm giddy feeling like most yanderes would for me. Because I view him in a more romantic light.

I think that says a lot about how he's written and portrayed subconsciously by you. Since I read about him hating children and pets making me decide not to pursue him romantically it made me view all the other works of him differently.

But what I also found jarring due to that view is the first chapter of [the best and worst of both worlds] where he's so flirty and fun while the reader is this nervous failure in response.

From what I've seen Yves wants to mother and while you did say he would change himself for the reader, he wouldn't upheaval himself.

So what does he do when the reader is someone who wants to mother someone else, much like that one ask about Yves being a monster in law against Monty.

Now that was Yves just not being with reader and reader already with Monty. So if [tbawobw] (I'm sorry lol) had a far more put together reader that didn't stalk or fawn over Yves, how would he go about getting their attention?

Another thing I want to question is about Yves with a guarded reader. Now we know that he's 'okay' (debatable) with a reader that just chooses to keep him as a friend. And that if reader would hate who Yves is as a person, he would manipulate the environment to get their views to broaden before approaching.

But Yves with a reader who is very friendly, warm and caring to everyone but will not get close to them. Texts are dry, conversations never steer into Reader's personal life, such questions get obviously ignored or clearly told 'I'm not comfortable with that' and reader keeps even family apart mentally from their inner thoughts and feelings.

Now Yves has all the info, he's Yves but it means nothing if he can't get the reader to actually open up to him even when they do meet. They could be near homeless and still say 'I'll be fine, [insert clear conversation chang].'

Sure he can gift them all the money and gifts, they'll accept and use it. Only telling him that they used it wisely and appreciated his kindness before keeping the convo minimal. The kind of reader that has no shame in telling Yves that they feel uncomfortable with his amount/type of questions and/or visits.

So let's say he drives them into a corner, not too traumatizing but enough so that reader is forced in his vicinity when they breakdown from stress. He comforts them, reassures them, helps them and what happens?

The exact same thing. And if he does ask why they won't let him of all people close even when he is the first person that reader has broke down in front of, the response he gets is a 'I have never seen you become as unstable as I was in front of you. That dynamic felt unfair and uneven so I'd rather us return to our old one where we both were equals without faults.' and they just end it saying they understand if Yves doesn't want to be friends anymore.

What does he do then? He won't break down, he promised himself after all he's been through. So faking a breakdown won't work but just telling false information doesn't work either. Anymore traumatizing could be permanent too.

Yves could just use his drugs and subtle mind control thing that I'm still not really sure how it works, to nudge reader to accept his kindness. But we've seen it with Yandere Brother before, where some people are stubborn enough to require direct methods. Reader could have that same mental fortitude.

AND we all know this situation would be killing Yves, as he loves to coddle and mother reader. Would sending anyone ahead of himself before they meet even work? Only Yves would have the means necessary to make reader break down and someone else comforting them, someone who does break down in front of reader too making it 'equal' earning Reader's trust and closeness would only backfire.

Because now Reader would have someone to turn to for their emotional needs. Even if Yves killed that person off, Reader would just grow even colder to everyone outside of themself.

If he went the drugging then it goes back to reader continuously only giving in when having breakdowns/being drugged. Both which are harmful long term. And mainly that reader isn't truly turning to Yves out of their own violation but out of habit. It becomes emotionless, almost like a chore. They find no real comfort in Yves fixing their problem or caring for them or being with them. The true reader is even more guarded to him.

I feel like this dynamic would be very depressing for him, this situation in whole would be triggering Yves motherly instincts on full throttle while not letting him do as he wishes to help.

But yeah I only know so much so if there's another ask that goes on this road just link it for me please. If not, I would love to hear your take on how Yves would handle it.

Shifting to another point of Yves, lets rewind to how Yves actually feels not being readers partner. We know he won't date them if they can't handle not having sex or not being faithful.

He becomes the monster in law but there's 3 specific post that I really want to focus on. 1 - how Yves reacts to a respectful reader that ends the relationship 2nd date due to the sex. 2 - how he reacts to Monty being the husband. 3 - a post about how being just the friend is killing Yves in the inside. [the one comparing him to Pearl from SU]

So going for 1, in the post Yves is all 'okay' and smiles and just wants to be close with reader. And it's very clear that reader would have dated Yves if not for the sex. Yves vets all the possible partners for the future and only allows the one that fits his standards to stay.

But then it all comes crashing down when we get to 2.

This scenario doesn't touch on how the timing between Reader meeting Yves and Monty. It seems to imply that the whole sex thing wasn't a factor.

As previously stated, he feels that Monty is bad and absolutely nothing good but Yves pushes himself to get along somewhat with Monty to make reader happy. Monty is a yandere and honestly? A big variable at first since Monty's obsession with reader is pure chance.

So if reader is more put together then [tbawobw] leading to a more subby and controllable Monty making them much more compatible without Yves romantically in the mix. Reader could get attached and start dating Monty before Yves can gather enough info against Monty that ultimately doesn't matter because all Monty cares about is reader.

(and my computer is dying, I should speed this up)

Now in the 2 post, Yves has this breakdown about why reader didn't want to be with Yves in all his perfection and instead went with Monty who is his opposite. He says that they could have chosen someone better.

But what exactly does that mean for Yves?

Now on the surface it's just that Yves really wants reader to have the best possible and be well taken care of since Yves can't be their partner due to sex. But that isn't really how he feels. If reader chose a 'good husband' Yves could at least pretend like it doesn't bother him much.

But he just can't with Mont, not with the differences between them. Yves glaring hatred for not being readers husband, for having it taken from him in general is made so obvious and that. That right there is what's pushing him to breaking down in the form that he hates.

Post 3 confirms it all. But it doesn't bring up the topic of sex. Something that he already has so much trauma with. It's hard not to bring up some self loathing even though Yves (rightfully) wouldn't change his boundaries.

So in the worst case scenario, a guarded reader that I described above, rejects Yves respectfully due to the sexual incompatibility, proceeds to open up naturally to MONT and marry him keeping Yves always as a friend at best.

Just how deep in hell is his life? Would something like this expose new actions from Yves? I, uh, do have one more thing about Yves but I think I should just send it like this. It's long enough.

W anon

holy shit W anon u put the W in win bro

a WHOLE ASS THESIS omg thank u so much i love analyses holy crap like a whole well structured and well written essay on Yves's character and his complex feelings of being cucked

ultimately he wants you to be happy, but technically faking breakdowns can work if he does it convincingly enough. His breakdowns will never be about his TRUE past traumas. He thinks you're too delicate and innocent to handle that without accidentally traumatizing yourself too. HOWEVER, he may give you very ,very watered down concepts of what had happened to him- or downright fake events.

He would stage slips of sanities strategically and breakdowns too to coax you out of that shell. But not too much to raise suspicion out of you. Just enough to manipulate you into thinking he can be anything less than perfect. Remember, he's a terrific actor. Anything vulnerable about Yves is probably not real and is probably a highly calculated move

but yes, let's say you rolled a nat 20 on perception checks every time and you caught his bullshit, and he KNOWS that you will catch onto it, AND you fell in love with Monty because he's not fancy pants rich mcgee.... its spirituality and religion time. He will be literally doing black magic rituals just to keep himself in check, he knows that it probably won't help, but this is just for him to not fall into the abyss of despair and insanity, just to retain his sense of self in a reality that loves to erode it exponentially.

so basically, rule of thumb for Yves: if it's anything that he cannot solve without either destroying his boundaries or destroying your happiness, he's drawing those fucking sigils on his attic floor with his blood, lighting candles n shit (just like when you want to die while suffering from dementia, but he keeps you alive because he's selfish)

[kitthenameless]

Ok, I'm finally gonna do it, I'm gonna defend Aradin 😅 (kind of)

I'm not going to say he's good, I just feel like he gets a disproportionate amount of hate compared to other characters who do equally bad or worse things but get sympathy. Especially considering he and Rolan are surprisingly similar, in a way that really illustrates the difference good influences can have. (Well, Aradin is more fantasy racist. But even some of our companions have that problem, so we're just gonna put that aside for now.)

Neither one actually wants to help protect the grove, it's just that Rolan has people to convince him. But they both care about the ones they consider their people. And Rolan also doesn't care that Nightsong is a person and will side with Lorroakan to capture her if you don't properly help him and complete his growth arc. But again, he changes because the game lets you help him grow through various situations and because he has siblings who are there for him and good influences on him.

When we first meet Aradin, at the point where we have the option to punch him, all we've actually seen him do is run to a safe place for help while terrified. Maybe it was a mistake to lead goblins there, but he was, well, running for his life, and you'd probably do the same. (I've seen another player say they literally did this exact thing when they were down to one party member and going to die, thinking the tieflings at the gate would help.) He also made a mistake by going to the goblin camp so unprepared, but who among us hasn't had characters, or our whole party, die in combat because we underestimated a fight or weren't prepared? Halsin also went with them and didn't properly consider preparations either. You might also argue that he made a mistake by leaving crewmates behind, but he might've figured at that point they would ALL die if they stayed, and at least he could save a couple if they ran. All of Aradin's mistakes in Act 1 are pretty understandable things.

If you actually talk to Aradin (which you can do at the grove, a bridge in Act 1, and outside Sorcerous Sundries), he seems more downtrodden than anything. He's grieving the people he lost. He even accepts your offer of a prayer for his dead friends, if you're a cleric. He tells you you'll probably die but still willingly gives you all his info about the Nightsong if you want it, because he no longer cares about the money at that point. And I'm guessing he probably wouldn't have started doing jobs like this at all if he didn't need the money. His armor and weapons are not high quality. And though we don't know much about Aradin's situation (other than, presumably, his father is dead), we know Barth didn't grow up with much money.

As for the fantasy racism... Ok. I get it, if you want to punch him for that. But so many characters in this world are like that. Shadowheart is anti-gith, Minthara insults you if you're an elf, and Astarion can make comments about gnomes at least a couple times throughout the game. So it seems weird to hold that against Aradin and no one else.

And come on, be real for a moment. He is NOT worse than Gortash or Raphael or Ketheric or even Minthara---characters people love and/or sympathize with. But he gets so much more hate, and people who like him get so much more shit for it. I support you, Aradin lovers 🤝

Anyway, one really interesting thing about this game is how differently characters can turn out, depending on the influences in their life. Just look at most of the companions, with their good and bad paths. Aradin is not a good person as he is, but I think he could've had the potential to change just as much as other characters in this game. Unlike some, he doesn't seem set in stone on a specific path and unwilling to change, he's sort of just struggling to get by and making bad decisions because of it. It's fine that the writers didn't give him an arc, it's ok for some characters to stay assholes. It's just odd to me that other characters get sympathy and analyses and even just love for them being the terrible person they are, while Aradin mostly just gets excessive hate.

[hyacinthsdiamonds]

You were both born under the same stars. You don't particularly like to think about that fact often as it does come off far too sickeningly sentimental, yet it is true. Just sixteen days separate his date of birth from yours, you have never known the world without him in it.

There is an irony in those stars, one you cannot help but smirk at. You both share the same star sign; Libra. Libra, you learn, is the sign of balance. Represented by the scales, Libras are obsessed with symmetry and equilibrium. You and he have been things to each other through the years; enemies, rivals, competitors, dare we now say friends?, yet through it all he has always remained your one true equal. It takes everything in you not to laugh out loud when you both set the exact same time as you battle to secure pole position. Sixteen days may have separated your births but it seems that when you race each other, nothing can keep you apart. Not that you mind now, now that you are both are grown and have grown past the petty squabbles of adolescence, now that you understand that you'll never race anybody the way you are able to race him. You have come to love the way you can battle each other and cannot help but crave the high that comes as you race each other to the very limit and push your cars beyond what their creators thought possible.

You're not quite sure if you believe in fate but you do feel as though that the universe likes to point and laugh at you specifically. His name translates to "the greatest rival", which is who he always been to you, he has always been your greatest rival. It's foolish and unrealistic but you can't help but wonder if his mother somehow knew, as she held him for the first time, who he'd eventually become, as if she had any idea that sixteen days later and over 800 kilometers away that other born racer would come into the world and that her baby boy would be his - your - greatest rival. You decide eventually that the universe simply likes its' jokes.

Neither of you have ever done anything by half's. Even when you hated him, you knew he hated you just as much. You share the same convection, the same drive, it's little wonder that you clashed so often as children. Yet, even then, he was the one you wanted to battle, to beat. It somehow mattered more when it came down to the two of you. It still does. Back then you hated being compared to him, just as he hated being compared to you. Ironically now it is you two who are drawing the most comparisons between yourselves. It's only now, now that you've grown, that you both understand and appreciate just how similar you are to each other.

You don't remember meeting for the first time. Sometimes it feels like he just appeared next to you, lining up to take his place on the grid and then never left. You know they'll ask you one day, where did the story start, where did the legendary rivalry begin? You already know your answer. Once there was an incident on a race track called Val d'Argenton. It's an incident immortalized by both of your unique post race debriefs caught on film, it's a story you can't help but smile at when you think of it. Perhaps that was the first time you both saw how similar you were, that you understood that you could push but that he would push back and that you both would do that for however long as was necessary because you both wanted to win so badly. You were both infuriated by each other, he was especially frustrated by you. You wouldn't or couldn't even say goodbye to each other for years. You have to laugh as well when you think back to Austria 2019, your first F1 podium together. This time, it was you who was especially pissed at him. In a fit of anger, you unfollowed him on Instagram and then had to spend the next two hours looking across at him on his private jet as you both flew home. Deep down, perhaps you both are still the kids you used to be. You wonder how your child self or even how the Charles of 2019 would react to the relationship you now have with him, how you not only wave goodbye as you leave the track but how you chat and joke with each other and how you have post race debriefs with each other... You think that they'd probably look at you like you have two heads. Maybe that's a good thing, makes you value how much you've grown more.

Neither of you are old enough to remember the days of Senna and Prost but that's the expectation people have placed on you both for years. Since you were children they have all marked you for greatness. You, the predestined one, while he was the inevitable. You're not one to obsess over the mythos formula one likes to create but, as a Ferrari driver, you cannot help but lose yourself in the story somewhat. Two boys are born sixteen days apart. They meet on a race track as children. They race each other with everything they have. They meet again on a race track, this time they're grown and chasing the glory they could only dream of as children. They'll spend their whole lives racing each other, if they can. You don't seem to mind that perhaps it's a comfort, to have at least one constant in your life. You've never known the world without him in it, you hope you never do.

[drdemonprince]

Thanks so much for sharing the piece on memory foaming, and also for the replies since then, insisting that it can't be a positive thing. My first relationship fell apart directly because of this type of trauma pattern. My partner was deeply in the habit of using fawn responses to deal with their mother's abusive behaviour, and even though we had a lot of conversations about feeling safe to be emotionally open with each other, multiple things happened where I found out afterwards that they'd made a major decision to do the exact opposite of what they actually wanted, because they assumed it was what I would want, expected me to pressure them to do that thing, and expected a bad reaction when they eventually backed out of it.

It felt awful. It felt like they were assuming I would be cruel to them, without giving me a chance to show that I wouldn't behave the way their mother did. Being unable to look at another person without that lens of expected cruelty means you're projecting too much to actually see the other person for who they are. It felt like being repeatedly lied to, and not being able to trust that any of the affection and love was genuine, because so many things were inauthentic that the whole relationship just didn't have a secure foundation.

We decided to be just friends after the relationship ended, and it was amazing how they immediately went back to treating me as a person and as an equal, instead of all this dehumanising fear and dishonest fawning. I understand exactly how people end up stuck in trauma patterns like that, it's a very understandable response for a child in an unsafe situation, it makes sense that it happens. But the difference between a respectful loving relationship between equals, and a mess of fearful codependent tiptoeing - it just feels so utterly, profoundly different to experience those two things. It's sad to see someone asking repeatedly whether memory foaming could be a good thing in a relationship, because fawning/memory foaming is just so fundamentally opposite to "being considerate of how you affect other people's emotions" - like it's just not the same thing at all, it comes from a completely different understanding of how human beings relate to each other. If you've ever experienced a healthy alternative to that fawning/foaming pattern, I don't think it's possible to see it as a good thing.

♥️♥️♥️

Thank you for sharing this. I think the person asking that question is aiming to see the strengths in how they function and to question a lot of pernicious norms regarding hyper independence in relationships, and i am with them on that, but i dont think anything in the neighborhood of memory foaming is a workable solution.

and i see so much of my past self reflected in your story of your ex. it chills me honestly. i have past partners who could have said the exact same things about me.

[jooniely]

Reading mha fanfics and I gotta say some of yall don't really understand why all might refused midoriya at first and how aizawa would have done the same. I come across too many fics that bash all might for what he said and make aizawa someone who would have accepted midoriya. Let's get this straight:

We are told in the very first line of mha that people aren't created equal. This isn't a story about how you can still make it in a very dangerous field without having powers feel good type of story. It's about unfairness. It's about the reality that there will be things that are too dangerous for you if you don't process certain traits or skills. Going up against ppl with powerful quirks as someone without one is the number 1 way to die or become a victim that then needs saving.

This is what aizawa drills into midoriya's head the first time he meets him. So why would this man tell a quirkless midoriya that he can be a hero? He's realistic and blunt. He would tell him that he wouldn't get very far. He would have said the same thing all might said. All might even tells midoriya that there are other ways to be heroes and he isn't wrong!

After the sludge villain incident, all might changes his mind because he says a hero's soul in midoriya. Aizawa? He would be wary. He would also see that midoriya has a hero's heart but you know what happens in the incident? He helps bakugo and becomes someone who also needs to be saved. This is the exact thing aizawa warns midoriya about. He would acknowledge that izuku is a hero but reckless. He might even admit that izuku is someone who will continue getting intro trouble by throwing himself into fights to help people but recognize that it would get him killed. Would he then offer training to him? Idk. Realistically? Probably not but maybe he would have a word with inko about her sons recklessness.

I also see inko being made to look bad by not encouraging izuku's dream. What mother would encourage her child's dangerous dream?? Izuku is already a target for being quirkless, imagine he goes up against literal villains? The fact that she wanted to pull him from UA is realistic and understandable. This is her child who has had countless near death experiences, who's now a target!

All that to say is that horikoshi writes his adults as responsible (to a degree) yet fanon makes them irresponsible. None of these 3 in good conscience would have sent izuku to his guaranteed death. And I need yall to understand this cuz not all of you tag your inko or all might bashing in ur fics and too many of yall get aizawa wrong.

Also last thing I wanna mention is that I know there are fics where izuku becomes a quirkless hero. Those are fun! And I would understand his discontent against the adults in his life for not supporting him but fans need to understand it and adults izuku would def understand it given, like I said, his first words are: not everyone is created equal. So make your batman/fanon tim drake type midoriya izuku fics but keep canon characterizations in mind or please please tag properly 🙏

[coraniaid]

Other scattered thoughts on The Zeppo (that sadly don't give me an excuse to use R):

I get that it's part of the point of the episode, and it is a funny joke, but it still kind of annoys me that ... not just that we don't get to see the episode from Buffy's perspective, but that the background plot of this episode doesn't really make any sense in the wider continuity of Season 3. It just feels like it would have worked better in Season 2 or Season 4 to have this sort of unscheduled apocalypse (and indeed, Doomed in Season 4 does much the same thing). This season is meant to have an arc villain with a long-term plan that he's been working on for a century. We heard him say (in Lovers Walk, just a handful of episode ago), that this year was "too important" to let somebody like Spike cause random trouble in town. But he does nothing at all to stop a group of demons trying to literally open the Hellmouth? It kind of makes it hard to maintain suspension of disbelief or think of the Mayor as an actual serious threat. (Yeah, I know that this is just me being annoyed that the show isn't even trying to be the exact sort of show I wish it were. It won't be the last time that that bugs me.)

Weirdly enough, I like Cordelia and Xander's dynamic a lot more this episode than I think I did for the entire time they were an item. They do actually feel like they know each other and even think alike (both going for the Jimmy Olsen reference, for example), and however much she prides herself on being mean Cordelia is notably the only person this episode to actually talk to Xander like something approaching an equal (albeit an equal she doesn't like much). And am I imagining things, or are there hints this episode that Cordelia's family is already having money trouble? Why has she suddenly decided that owning a "shiny car" isn't actually important? Why do we not see or hear about Cordelia's car this episode?

"Two guys rassling ... but not in a gay way!" I mean, between this and Season 1's "he's a very attractive man! how come that never came up?" and Season 2's "I don't trust Oz with her [...] he's a senior, he's attractive" and "No worries, I can handle the Oz Full Monty" from earlier this season and Season 4's "I totally get it now. Can I have sex with Riley too?" and Season 5's "It's understandable. Spike is strong and mysterious and sort of compact but well-muscled" and so many more things the writers have had Xander say it really is something of a crime that the show never actually comitted to the idea that Xander is bisexual. Of course, to do that, the writers would have had to recognize that bi people exist, which is admittedly something of a stumbling block.

"I like the quiet" is one of those lines that (much like Giles's "she's a hero [...] she's not like us" in The Gift) seems to get weirdly misunderstood by large parts of the fandom.

With Jack casually raising his old buddies from the dead with their old personalities and memories intact and Oz accidentally eating a (mostly) human being while a werewolf and it being treated as a punchline rather than murder this episode isn't exactly great for tonal consistency with the rest of the show, huh? (I did warn you the instance above wouldn't be the last time the show's refusal to take itself seriously irritated me.)

Next up (assuming Tumblr's still around when I get to it): Bad Girls.

[variablejabberwocky]

so i've seen a lot of "bruce is a good dad", "no bruce is a bad dad!", "no THIS version is good for THESE reasons", "but THIS version is BAD for these other reasons" kind of stuff and ,honestly, what im getting from all this is that we've all collectively identified A Problem but haven't quite figured out the root cause yet.

well, i think i've gotten a little closer. to be fair tho i wouldn't have if there weren't so many amazing people spouting excellent meta theories and writing advice and whatnot here on the tumbles.

so here is my opinion on this that literally no one asked for but you're gonna get anyway:

the root problem is a narrative perspective incongruence

let me explain: so superheros are, at their core, a power fantasy (at least the dudes are, anyway) and what fantasy they are about differs between characters. in batman's case the fantasy is...complex, but basically boils down to staring at the uncaring void of the universe and making it blink first. its a fantasy of getting to grow up to become the thing that would have saved you. of being such a badass that you can drag the world even that tiny bit closer to being fair, even if you have to use force to get it there. its about making it so no one else has to go through what you had to. its about being someone who CARES in a way it felt like not enough people did when you needed it most.

and thats a powerful fantasy. very appealing to a LOT of people for a LOT of reasons. but its ultimately a fantasy told from an adult perspective. we don't see little 8-12 year old bruce dress up and go out fucking shit up in the night. we see, at the youngest, 19-20 year old bruce dressing up as a bat and starting his whole thing. and usually its more like 22-24 when he gets started. and that means he has an adult's idea of what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, what is fair an what is not baked into it. which is absolutely fine, its just also deeply incompatible with a child's perspective of the same things. because to an adult, a good adult, children are a thing to be protected, not endangered. and to a child an adult is a threat at worst and an obstacle at best.

which means the problem... is ROBIN

because robin is ALSO a power fantasy, but one for children. robin is about a little 8-12 year old kid dressing up to menace the kind of people who hurt them or those they care about. its a fantasy about getting justice NOW, of getting an adult that treats you like an equal ["partner, not sidekick" anyone?], an adult that understands and validates your feelings and wants and trauma and HELPS you in the exact ways you want them to help you at the time, even if its something other adults would be mad about.

which is also a powerful fantasy, but because its being told from the perspective of a child it has a VERY different set of requirements for the setting than something told from an adult perspective.

see, for a child (or children, or teens, or any other not-adult) to be able to be the hero or protagonist of a story it NECESSITATES that the adults in that setting are all some form of terrible. usually in one of the three following ways: dangerous, absent, or useless.

dangerous adults are ones who want to kill, maim, or otherwise assault the kid protags. they're usually the more dangerous bad guys of a story or even the 'final boss'

absent adults are usually the mechanism that allows for all this adventure and why a kid is the one all this responsibility falls on. this can mean anything from "all the adults magically disappeared one day and now its just us kids in the world", to "all the adults are off at war", to "none of the adults care to check in on us so we're left on our own to do what we want", to "all the (relevant) adults are dead" [insert "you're not my real dad" jokes here]

useless adults are, i think, what trips so many people up. because these are the adults that try to help, that try to take responsibility, that try to do the right thing. but because this is a story about kids they can't actually SUCCEED without making it all about the adults instead. and this is, unfortunately, where the vast majority of "good" adults in a child-perspective story have to be. and that't not even getting into how a 'good' adult from a kid's perspective is a very different thing from a 'good' adult from an adult's perspective.

because, no, a kid is not 'an equal' to an adult in all things. an equal person? yes. an equal in basic human rights? yeah they should be. an equal in power? in responsibility? no, by the very nature of kids being kids they are NOT ready for that. an infant is literally unable to care for themselves and will die without that care, a toddler is not ready to work or pay taxes, an older child/younger teen is not ready to be wholly responsible for themselves much less parent someone else. and that means there is gonna be a power imbalance. a 'good' adult is one who is capable of balancing the independence of a whole-ass separate person with the power-over and responsibility-for someone who isn't able to be as independent as they want yet.

a 'bad' adult is one who doesn't do that. either because they can't or because they intentionally won't. a 'bad' adult puts a kid in danger, is sexually inappropriate with them, or slacks off on their responsibility towards a child under their power. a 'bad' adult will give a child what they want even if it is dangerous or otherwise a bad idea in a way that child isn't prepared to understand yet. either because of negligence or manipulation.

so if we bring all this back to batman what we get is a story that is trying to be told from an adult's perspective AND a child's perspective at the same time. one where batman HAS to be good to be batman but he can't actually be good the way an adult would view it.

which is how you get robins having to be the co-dependant emotional support for a grown-ass adult. of having to parent the parent. of having to parent the other kids while they still are one. of being 'allowed' to fight murderers and rapists and pedophiles and traffickers while being a prime target for ALL of that because even the 'good' adults don't seem to know what appropriate boundaries and limits for kids are. and all that is in the "better" versions of batman. don't even get me started on the horrors lurking in the bad ones.

so as long as robin is under 16-18, batman is REQUIRED by the narrative perspective to be some kind of terrible adult, because an actual good one WOULDN'T LET SOMEONE YOUNGER THAN THAT DO SO MUCH DANGEROUS SHIT. hell even that age range is pushing it a bit.

and before someone jumps in with the inevitable "lol, what makes you think bruce could stop [insert robin here]": alfred somehow kept tiny bruce from running off to fuck shit up. you think he can't still do that with the younger kids? that him AND bruce at the height of his power couldn't do that combined? that a bruce who has made friends with fucking SUPERMAN and WONDER WOMAN couldn't get a literal demigoddess and overpowered godlike alien to help him wrangle his kids? that a good-parent bruce wouldn't sacrifice his pride/territoriality over gotham if it meant saving/protecting his kids? that the most paranoid man in the world with terrifying stalker/invasion of privacy tendencies wouldn't be capable of having multiple trackers on each of his kids (including ones they don't know about) that set off a bazillion alarms and failsafe protocols the MOMENT they went off schedule or pattern?

i will absolutely grant you that the grown-up versions of the robins are all terrifyingly hyper-competent even in comparison to bruce (or at least they SHOULD be) but thats their GROWN UP versions. while they're still kids, still ROBIN, they are VULNERABLE and, like any other kid, deserve to be protected and as safe as reasonably possible.

going out at night to kick people in the head in spandex and booty shorts ain't it

so your options are:

bruce is a good dad and all robins are at least 16 before they start actually going out to fuck shit up. and aren't running off on their own to 'fight crime' until at least 18. they might or might not be involved in the background stuff like research or 'guy in the chair' duties but they ain't physically in danger until around mid-late teens. OR,

bruce is a typical useless adult of child-narrative stories that has no idea how to care for a child and lets them do shit that is inappropriate as hell but the kids think that makes him a 'cool' adult at the time so the narrative labels him a 'good' dad and not the textbook definition of 'reckless endangerment of a minor'. [and leads to the grown up kids having Complaints about their upbringing that never get addressed]

and i think it's pretty obvious which one the multiple iterations of canon consistently go for

so yeah: doylist take is batman is a bad dad (who is usually at least trying) but he's literally written that way by poorly thought out narrative choices trying to have it both ways that have been going on so long its beyond baked into the narrative and has progressed to burnt-in.

and that sucks because by all rights he SHOULD be a good dad if you keep to his "platonic ideal of batman" characterization. like this man should have spent like a year doing almost nothing but teaching himself how to parent when he got the first one. this is the dude that goes out and finds experts until he himself is an expert. why on earth would he do that for his 'mission' and not his kids when the WHOLE POINT OF BATMAN IS TO HELP TRAUMATIZED KIDS LIKE THEM.

[curejiraiya]

So my current running theory is that Waccha PriMagi didn't hit anywhere near the sales figures they wanted, but they weren't exactly ready to launch into full PriPara 2 mode for the main pretty series, so they're stalling for time by using all the ideas they had for the second season that got cut because of the lack of sales in the arcade game and the upcoming script read.

Sales for this kind of show are down across the board, and I think they and basically every other company around the world are coming to this conclusion that focusing on bringing back titles that are nostalgic for people who are now in their early twenties and hold lots of buying power is a better financial investment than making new shows for kids. Which on one hand I don't exactly mind because I do like being catered to, but on the other hand Waccha PriMagi was an amazing show, and it not getting renewed for a second season feels like a true stiffle of innovation for the magical girl / idol genre.

I don't know all the facts, but it feels like we saw the same thing with Aikatsu, They cut its newest show because of lack of sales, pivoted to doing an anniversary movie for the first and most popular season, and then canceled it outright. The target audience of Aikatsu is too young to have seen the original series when it aired, so why did it end this way?

Another example of this is the Sailor Moon reboot pivoting from being a one-to-one rework of the manga as its own new standalone anime, to being heavily referential of the original '90s anime because that was higher selling and more popular. The target audience of magical girl anime shows wouldn't know about the 90s anime, so why do we keep seeing this happening?

I could bring up many many examples of this happening in Western media. To be honest I complain about this all the time, we are in an era where studios aren't allowed to make new work, they're required to work with existing IP because it brings in more money, and the anime that I watch are not in a different world, they're facing the exact same dilemma.

And sometimes it can be endearing, I like that we're getting another season of PriPara years later because I think it's a good show and with the right team good can be done with it. But I don't like how the Sailor Moon anime is changing to be against what it originally stood for. And the target audience of both of these shows wouldn't understand the significance of any of this because they didn't grow up with the original.

Sorry for how long this rant got, but basically I think there's a place in the world for both shows, there's time to pander and there's time to make shows for the target audience, and it feels frustrating that one type of show is being killed off for another for the sake of profits, and it's equally frustrating that this is an around the board issue. I want PriMagi season two, I think the show is genuinely good and the best work that studio has put out in years. It stomps on the entirety of PriChan. And in our current post COVID media landscape it feels like we'll never see a show like it again.

[lunarscaled]

❝ may i stay a while? i feel that we should talk. ❞

A FEAST FOR CROWS

-> Lyric has a student apartment of their own. Of course they do---it would be both naive and dangerous to stay in the same home as their patron, knowing what they know of his line of work, of the man behind the mask. He set it up himself because he wouldn't tolerate the way they muddled from place to place, motel to motel with scratches on their back from a deal gone bad or a creature too ravenous to be reasoned with. He had done a lot of small things like that since he caught them just ahead of him in that vault ( he replaced their toiletries with high-end, name brand things and their hair was in better condition than it ever was; he wouldn't let them eat microwave meals every night of the week like they were used to. they made coffee in a Keurig while they hopped around his kitchen on one foot tying their shoelaces, their uniform blazer one button out of alignment. he fixes a cufflink with one hand while they wobble in place trying not to fall over, voice easy and low, "You left your homework in the living room." ) Their gloved fingertips around the perimeter of an item he viewed through human eyes: just something rich and shiny that others wanted, something with rumors attached that he didn't know to be true. And Lyric, they had come for that exact purpose: "You'll be a fool with power to think you can have this." they wanted to say. Magic threads could hide many things, but that didn't erase their human traces. They hadn't eluded him more than a month before he caught up with them; they had to sleep at some point, after all.

-> He takes up more of their doorway than most do. If anyone else were around they might have wondered if someone had reported Lyric, the quietest student in the whole building, for something suspicious but no. It was only Mirage, dressed neatly in his pure wool fall jacket and loose scarf, buttons done all the way up to his neck in a shirt pressed and starched until not a wrinkle remained. Anxiety runs fingers down their back: what was he here for? Were their grades not enough? Had they made a mistake again? He insisted, over and over, they should not be reckless on missions and jobs, their primary responsibility was to be a student and a person first. He keeps trying to make space between them and what he leads over, and Lyric cannot understand---did he not recognize their own form of entrepreneurship in them? How many years had they been making transactions of a different kind; more blood, less cash, more things he didn't understand. There was no one else in the company that could do what they do, they could be an asset to him. They could do both things, school and the work, they could repay him for what he had already done for them by proving that magic need not only been thought of as fiction and street shows. Efficiency, Lyric thinks. They could make it efficient. Their student apartment is lived-in but not dirty. They have a set or two of dinner dishes soaking in the sink, and their chemistry books set out on the cheap school-provided desk with the bookshelf that sits on the back end of it filled with labeled journals and workbooks. Their jacket is thrown over the back of an only moderately comfortable sofa of equally inexpensive quality, and their shoes are kicked off just to the side of the door. Their backpack hangs on a coat hook a little further inside the wall. They keep succulents on their windowsill.

"...Yeah. Sure. What's up?"

[greenknighteitm]

Edited: to @holycrapitis i'm going into this with the Idea that Trump is guilty. I am interested in this evidence you say that exists of him not doing these crimes and the evidence of democrat crimes. I will be honest to you, I will fact check it, because of the rampant propaganda everywhere, rMost(I don't think any but I could be wrong. Im being lazy and not reading to make sure) of it directed at you isn't about the charges.

It seems like it's a confusing mess of policies... It seems a felon would need a waiver, not sure how one would get one. But it seems likely a waiver wouldn't work with how many felonies he has, tho I can't say I'm terribly informed on the exact charges to say that with certainty since this was just a quick google.

I would tend to agree with this person but as far as I know people used maruijana could be felons and I don't think those people should be disqualified depending on their other qualites.

Like I think this blank kind of statement does a lot of harm to minorites, which isn't that the kind of thing leftists, even democrats, are trying to avoid?

But it's possible that Trump is legally not allowed for different reasons, I wish it said what ones.

So onto the person I reblogged from.

The majority of people who voted probably aren't Communists, like the cold war propaganda is still very much in effect. And kamala definitely isn't, especially economically, and generally I don't think politicians Democrats are communist and are probably mostly still running on the ideas of the cold war. Theres definitely some outliers who are closer but definitely no elected.

And as the past shows, communists aren't necessarily going to be socially leftist (equality for all, in everything, raise people and lower people to become equal, etc . Because a lot of people who are rich become rich of the exploitation of others. We should give the value back to those who are exploited.) And I'm sure there's people on the social left who think kamala still isnt far enough, which might be.

Hmm there's got to be some words to define socially left other then being equal...

Anyways people know Trump was legally elected, but legal doesnt mean good. As far as I know, which to be fair isn't much, in the echo chambers who want trump to be president the idea was that trump was elected but was illegally changed. But I'm not in those circles so it's possible another narrative was that he would've if Democrats didnt make the votes turn their way, in legal ways.

AFAIK which honestly isn't much again since scrolling down theories on why we lost is psychlogically damaging no matter what side it is or even what it is I think

The theories I have heard say that Republicans gerry mandered the hell out of counties to get the results we got. But idk if that's an actual theory because then leftists are just being hypocrites(which I feel can be a good reaction if you feel like your in danger) about the electoral college since in the situation where its just Gerrymander at fault Trump would have still have the popular vote. So I think a more reasonable theory would be it had an effect, but not to the point where kamala won. The biggest effect was propaganda, in all of its forms. Even from people who don't know they are. If it's content showing a specific opinion, it's propaganda to someone. To educate you need good faith back to back conversation and research between people. At least in my opinion. With that definition intent definitely matters IMO since like an ad is explicit propaganda while a lot of content is implicit propaganda.

TBH I'm not liking this narrative that people who voted for Trump understand the consequences and believe the same things Trump does. Especially if they were like me and tuned out politics when he was elected like I did with biden, which I'm ashamed about. There's too many variables for me to believe that they all hold the same beliefs as trump.

Hold some of them? Believe lies about about both? Both? All the above? Yeah, sure. But I think it's crucial to not stereotype people who think different. It allows for dehumanization I feel which won't help us to grow this nation and have its citizens mature. Not to say the country is immature, in the traditional sense, where I think thats viewed as a bad thing, more that there's more progress to be made and when we think more globally, we realize there's so much more room to grow.

Want to say thanks to @holycrapitis for catching my attention and getting some of my thoughts together. I think when something like this happens, where the candidate you wanted to win doesn't, it activates the same emotions as grief does. So I've kinda been avoiding the topic. I'm sorry to those who were on the other side and got hurt even more by those who won while you were grieving four years ago no matter how much I disagree with you and how much I think these beliefs will hurt this country and my friends and family.

Its a shame I don't see this kind of empathy more. We should always start with this kindness. But it's what tribalism does. It dehumanizes the "them" and says its for the good of all, that it is justified, etc. Its never justified. It only hurts everyone.

[deviantartdramahub]

Re: Everything here since it's a continuation of the back-and-forth that seems to be going on. Clarity amped up.

Especially after recent developments, I'm wondering if you understand what "proof" and "evidence" means because we've been providing a lot in the form of citations, including two entries ago in the parentheses, which has been dismissed by the same people who cite sources, some which they just slip, which are full of claims which themselves have no sources but are treated as unquestionable or final, which describes you again when you say you have evidence of being different.

Even if the matter of your identity (which answers point four) were all just a conspiracy theory, that wouldn't hold weight in the end, as your timing, purported purpose, and approach (point five on your statement comes to mind here, which contradicts point six because we never implied that) are identical, with you both (as well as Noname234252, who was banned moments before you registered) treating all the same flawed sources as gospel, sources which themselves define correct conclusions as being made in the same manner as you say we are wrong for making them, and with you all being dedicated solely to attacking a single individual (with methods including outbursts based on small things one considers offensive, deceptive channels made for false rumors which anyone can see will block anyone reading this who says anything positive about Triagonal to show how shallow they really are with blocks on there functioning as shadowbans, and threats of contacting authorities in new profile comments, with many of the reports being falsely made such as the ones mentioned in said comments hence a lack of links, as if each of you hadn't done worse, which shows you're both fakers to such a large extent that I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even have a dad, as well as sending lawsuit threats, which common sense would say are fake if you consider it fake that Triagonal had anything to have won) with those flawed sources, all using the same citation techniques to do so, all while the fact looms that the Noname234252 name got banned for it, a path no two people would knowingly repeat under normal circumstances (note that when Triagonal had the same exact criticism laid against her of supposedly committing an obvious verbal injustice, even though she didn't have to, she apologized even despite a violent reaction to doing so, for the perception was so strong she might as well have committed the injustice, and in every normal universe, she was or would've been thereupon freed from guilt, as apologies do, not have those things dragged on for three more years and counting, even post-departure), and if three different minds were made based on each of your works, each of the three minds would be clones, and you've all implied solidarity, despite avoiding proper discussion of each others' claims, rendering the claim all of you are different to be moot.

The same rules must be applied to both you and I, a prerequisite of critical thinking which we display; no saying "my word is unquestionable (even when the cited footage or sources don't even support a claim) but your word is always questionable", or "my interpretation of what you say is authoritative, but your interpretation of what I say is invalid" (which also goes for you putting words in the mouth of Gelly, whose motives you claim to be the authority of despite her specifying them because you deem it a good weapon to do so), or "I can call you slurs but you may never misgender me" for that matter, since under no equal circumstances can one consider oneself valid until their arguments are consistent with how they define a good argument.

Stuff anyone in doubt should hear and anyone who has made up their mind should respond to.

[vodid]

ok i keep seeing awfully targeted vagueposts about me pertaining to my silly idw-exclusionary prowlsweep campaign — which i didn't expect to have gained so much traction and negative reactions — so, while yes, i understand lighthearted jokes may still hit home a little too closely, i'm not responsible for your feelings /neu. but i get it. we're protective of our blorbos and i have a hard time with the jokes too. especially about prowl and especially especially about idw prowl, believe it or not. i do get upset over them, which i suppose was why i ran my campaign like that. many of the polls (from what i could see, i probably missed a lot) were just "my blorbo is so sweet he deserves to win" but swervesweep was solidly "do not vote for prowl he is a shit man" you can't tell me there wasn't some sort of bias because of idw prowl. there's a difference between lifting up a contender and slandering another so horribly. voting because you hate, not because you love.

so yeah, just like some had gotten upset over my campaign (even if it was a joke), i got upset upon seeing all the negative tags (even if they were jokes). i admit to getting defensive and decided to run a funny campaign focused on g1 and tfa, because there was more love for them and i wanted to try to make something a little silly but positive out of it. like "hey, ignore idw for just a second because i promise there are husband-material prowls." i do admit i may have let my saltiness show through that campaign too much, so this is a bit hypocritical of me and i fully acknowledge that.

i got more to say tho shdfdsfs this got long and messy, sorry. i'll put it under a cut. i don't usually talk this in depth about my opinion of idw prowl (or just. any opinion.) ironically for this exact reason but,,

i so desperately want to like idw prowl. i really do. and in some way, i do like him (surprising, i know). but i can't look past the way the writers and the fandom treat him. that's what i truly hate. he gets insanely (and imo undeserved) bad rep and i was just sick and tired of seeing all the unreasonable hate for him from cherrypickers. so if idw prowl is going to severely /neg affect people's opinions of prowl as a whole, then i'd prefer he didn't exist. that's my harsh and albeit a bit childish truth but i'm not sorry for it.

i dislike his portrayal for a number of reasons in that it's just not him to me. i can certainly acknowledge a character doesn't have to be consistently the same every time, and that idw was meant to be an expansion of these characters and what they can be. but it doesn't mean i like the direction they took with him. what they did to him/had him do. it was like they took his core being, what made his character solidly his, threw it at the mirror to reverse it and wondered why it shattered.

if it weren't prowl, i wouldn't have as much of a problem with his character in idw. but unfortunately, he is. in concept, he is a very interesting character with a beautifully tragic story and maybe i would've liked his skrunkly ass /affectionate. but he's just not my rodrick.

also i can't get past the ableism of his portrayal 🫶 that's not a page in my book i'd like to add besties. and not a page i'm getting into in this post.

it goes so much deeper than "wahh big titty cop man is so mean" like cmoooon. i'm not a coward for asking people to look past his wrongdoings in idw they unequivocally hate him for when literally everybody else in idw has in some way done equally bad or worse things ...but are still unconditionally loved? nah. if they can stop their bias for one (1) second, maybe they could see more. thus, idw-exclusionary campaign. in an attempt to get people to stop seeing every prowl as bad. because like i said, idw taints the fuck out of non-idw prowls. how is that any fair? (and how are we prowl lovers supposed to feel seeing all that?)

these are entirely my opinions. i'm entitled to mine just as you are yours, and i am entitled to spin the campaign in any way i want. idw-exclusionary, pro-jazzprowl, boob-loving 💖, what have you. if you didn't like it, then you were more than welcome to start your own campaign alongside me! you didn't have to leave it to me. should i have maybe tried to convince people why idw prowl's wrongdoings don't make him deserving of such hatred? sure, that'd been nice. but i'm not well enough equipped for that. you can do that tho, i'd love to see it

i can't stop you from vagueposting and i won't tell you your opinions are invalid. but if you get to share your thoughts, i'd like to as well. we can both be critical of these topics in our own way and it'd be nice to come to an understanding instead of having to resort to blocking and vagueposting. (me? the coward? /j) you have every right to do that though, especially if its for your own comfort, and i really can't stop you. but it'd be real nice if we didn't outright attack the person and call them names. this problem is bigger than me. i just happened to speak on it.

all in all, it's not that serious of a situation — or rather, i wish it wasn't and i'm upset that i'm even writing this. i shouldn't have to write this, but you guys cannot for the life of yourselves understand the basic reason behind the campaign. or do you just refuse to? did you think to ask why?

we're both protective of prowl. idw or not. we were on the same team and it's not an awful thing to want to encourage people to consider other prowls before idw. i want them to see he can be good! i want them to see what i see in him. he's just a little blorbo man and it's funny in a bit of a sad way that i'm getting so heated over a fictional character and a silly poll.

sorry to poll ops. i didn't want it to spiral like that. i truly did have a lot of fun running my little campaign, even if it looked a bit (lightheartedly) aggressive. i just wanted my blorbo to win fandom favor for once 💔 jazz vs prowl would have been absolutely hilarious too. even as a non-j/p shipper, i hope you'll agree it'd have been funny to see us losing our minds over having to choose but that's besides the point!

in the end (it didn't even matter) we're all robot lovers. and it's sad we tend to have such a difficult time getting along. i'm here to make art and it's all supposed to be fun and games.

sorry to my many new followers too, this isn't the best first impression. i try to keep this stuff off my blog. i hope u like my art and thanks for sticking around — yes, even u swervesweepers (you absolute TRAITORS /lh /lh 💕)

take care of yourselves

[diamondcitydarlin]

I know we're about to get into the discourse and discussion for a new ep so lemme get this out while it's on my mind, but I keep turning over that convo they have in the flooded basement while getting Colin and like, the structure of it, I guess, bc as always there's a lot they're saying without saying it all outloud. Like, I notice Nandor only insults Guillermo for the first time in these two eps after they start their argument and Guillermo's asking him (rhetorically, because of course he doesn't know) if he's aware he's had to miss his mother's birthday for the past 3 years on account of him, and Nandor rallies back, "No?? why would I know that? I'd have to know it was your mother's birthday and also the things you do", openly implying he doesn't care about that as if to directly counter Guillermo's mention of other people he may care about more than Nandor that he's been neglecting with something equally cutting. 'Oh you don't care about me?? Well see how little I care about you!!' sort of thing. And then sort of out of nowhere (tho the wives were mentioned earlier, but still) Guillermo reminds him he's very very cool and normal and 100% okay with Nandor getting married to someone else, under the pretense of setting up to remind him that despite this he's still neglecting his family, but before he can get to that, of course, Nandor cuts in with how sarcastically glad HE is that Guillermo is COOL with it, see we BOTH don't care about each other, hah, take that.

Like I said, it's just interesting to me for how much is being said in these little petty insults and catty comments thrown back and forth under the guise of trying to prove how little of a shit they give about each other because they're both actually so vulnerable and in love with each other they're too afraid for the other person to know and see the full extent of that, particularly when one perceives that they're being slighted/ignored/insulted by the other

They're really doing the exact same thing in just kind of an endless feedback loop. I feel like Nandor does this because of the way the centuries have rendered him insecure about a lot of things, and I feel like Guillermo does it for partially similar reasons, but I feel like this is also kind of his instinctive reaction to feeling hurt by someone he assumes is as oblivious as Nandor, certain he wouldn't understand or wouldn't care if he just told him how he felt outright, so he gets passive aggressive. (but I also kinda feel like Nandor learned from Guillermo a bit where this is concerned, bc I don't think he started doing the backhanded/passive-aggressive comments with the sly look at the camera until more recently in the narrative but i could be wrong)

I feel like there was a time Nandor insulted Guillermo inadvertently, but the nature of their dynamic and how they've both grown is such now that when he does it, he does it on purpose and usually because he perceives Guillermo's already done it to him.

so yeah passive aggressive fighting while dancing around deep seated romantic feelings is something that can be so personal actually