#its definently interesting

[batfambrainrotbeloved]

c4?

(FYI I instantly forgot about the reblog and thought "Like the bomb"?? for a solid 30 seconds before it clicked)

ANYWAYS- I love this

[hellspawnmotel]

epsilons

[sysig]

How far did you get? (Patreon)

[prolibytherium]

Just in general I think trying to look to pre-late modern period history for validation of LGBT+ identities is an absolutely useless venture. Every single underlying human experience defined through the lens and framework of LGBT identity has always existed, but it's impossible to pin down Exactly who and what a figure might have been if they existed in this contemporary context and decided to self identify via these labels.

It's also a wildly reductive lens that flattens the complexity and variety of how sex and gender has been constructed across time in different cultures, how sexual norms have varied, etc. This is not a constructive approach to learn about history and you're never going to be able to fit historical figures neatly into little identity categories.

[milfygerard]

man remember when that nyt interview w gerard dropped in 2014 and gerard stated directly that they identify heavily with woman and didnt and never could relate to men and the main reaction was people freaking out at gerard using "straight" as shorthand for "attracted to women" while discussing how that attraction was impacted by their struggle with their gender identity

[imaybe5tupid]

Why bother? (Why bother?) It's gonna hurt me. (It's gonna hurt me.) It's gonna kill when- (Why bother!) -You desert me! (Gonna hurt me!)

Set after Nightmare. Laios is reminiscing and contemplating.

[trollhunters-eldritch-princess]

straight ships that are actually really sweet and meaningful and both characters have solid arcs outside of their ship mean everything to me.

[fresanita]

Angel Dust Turns Human - Pg2

Part 1

I'm so sorry about the quality, idk what size the canvas should be when it comes to comics, this is technically my 1st one☹️. I PRAY it doesn't look crappy on other people's end💔

Anyways, I had drawn these 2 pages (technically 4ish with how I spread them out) within 3-2 days bc I just rlly wanted the idea to get done already🤲 Sorry if the pacing wasn't that good when I introduced Alastor - again, I don't know how to convey that in 'comic form' (?) since this is my 1st, but I tried😔 (it probably needed more frames/pics but I was rlly lazy).

If you couldn't tell (☹️), Alastor & Angel Dust have some backstory (!!!) - Alastor didn't realize until he saw his human form, which looks very different from his Hell form. The majority of this is in Angel's pov, so this is kinda unreliable narrator, in a way. I need to mention, idk if anyone's written/drawn anything w a human in Hell, but my first thought was they'd definitely pass out from the heat usually portrayed - hence the heat exhaustion; Angel kinda passes out before he could fully react. Btw, I don't like how I drew Angel on pg6 so let's ignore it🙏

Also, Alastor pronounces his name as "Antoní", or An-tone-nee, with emphasis on the last sylabel, which is why it's spelled with an accented "i" - I just forgot to use that when I wrote the dialouge💔

My fav thing to draw was him holding Angel's face and carrying him, Parental Alastor fans RISE✊️!

[lesbincineroar]

well and truly if u as a jojo fan ever err on the side of oh hirohiko araki is progressive and hes for gay rights and womens rights and trans rights. look im immensely interested in stone ocean which could trick you into thinking i agree. but holy fucking shit this author has the most GARDEN VARIETY antiblackness and homophobia and misogyny written in every inch of his stories. every Actual lgbt character in jojo is dead or an especially cruel villain or both. cant shade a person of colour with dark skin when hes the one doing the colouring (not shueisha's digital colours) to save his life. & now he cant think of a single way to make readers sympathize with a woman aside from making her suffer deeply. my friend i cant tell you what to do but i can remind u this fifty something year old man is not going to fight for your rights‼️

[jewreallythinkthat]

I don't know who needs to hear this but:

The British Mandate of Palestine =/= the State of Palestine.

There has never been a Palestinian state. That's not trying to justify anything or whatever, it's just the fucking history. The area now known as Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories was once "Judea" the homeland of the Jewish People, a self governing region/country/area. It was then colonised by multiple empires, the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Arab Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire the British, Empire. None of these are a Palestinian states; these are all the result of imperialist colonising ideologies.

There could have been a self determined state in 1948 but instead there was a war because proto-Israel was attacked and defended herself.

If you need to rewrite history to justify your hate, maybe you're not as progressive as you want to think you are.

Edit: as I've said many times, I'm very pro 2-state solution. This post is not about that but I will not have this being used by other people to straw man me and lie about my beliefs

[moonlit-dreamers]

honestly im really enjoying the plot in mgafs but especially bc of eclipse and how he is as a character

hes become something more neutral. he isnt a villain nor a "good guy". hes just. a guy. he doesnt even want to be here but he doesnt have much of a choice. he tolerates ppls existence as much as he can without exploding. he does care about ppl but he hides it under a guise of "im doing this for myself and anyone who benefits from this is just a side effect" and honestly i love that so fucking much. like. he very much gives a shit about earth and at one point emphasized that she would not get hurt. tho when questioned about it he dodges the question. in fact, every time someone brings up earth and how defensive he is he avoids it. i feel like not even he himself wants to confront how he feels

then theres also puppet. their relationship is like the extrovert adopting the introvert type thing (its also like that with earth but puppet is more forceful and the more "ur never getting rid of me" type). he, again, doesnt admit that he cares. and honestly he probably didnt give a flying fuck about her in the beginning. the main reason he even went on the whole quest to help with the other puppet was bc he would also be effected, even if he was in another dimension (also bc he didnt want it to hurt earth but shhhh). but now he does seem to show some form of concern towards puppet at certain times. its also incredibly entertaining to watch puppet keep pushing at his limits. makes me think of that one video where a crow kept fucking with an eagle. just kept nipping and getting in its face then running away. thats what it feels like lmao

also like. almost every time he defended someone theres always been some kinda excuse he could make that gives him an out with saying that it was also for his benefit. probably the only time he defended someone and wouldnt get personal benefit out of it was when he confronted ruin and told him to keep earth out of it. tho, luckily for him, nobody was there to witness it and question it (unless moon was there bc i dont remember it exactly >.>).

which, yes, probably a lot of things that he does is for his own benefit. but he'd be completely fine with abandoning the ppl he was helping. in multiple situations he didnt have to help them. he wouldve been just fine and able to get out of the situation without them making out with him. and yet he did. and yet he purposely made room for them to follow.

idk man. just watching him develop as a character and going from someone who didnt give a flying fuck about anybody into actually giving a bit of a shit is fascinating. also even more entertaining to see just how desperately he tries to hide it

[simptasia]

LOST: Season One

[morninkim]

the son becomes his father or something

[sassydefendorflower]

I do find it very interesting how differently Scar's and Roy's violence against Edward is viewed within the fandom (and partially the narrative).

There's two specific instances I am thinking of (some of the other happenstances of violence play into different dynamics better discussed at another time).

The first one is the legendary first encounter between Scar and Edward. He only finds them because some military employee uttered the name "Fullmetal" while the State Alchemist killer was prowling East City and he hunts them down the same he would have hunted down Roy or Armstrong or Grand Basque.

And then he almost kills Ed - because of what Ed stands for, no matter the fact that he's a child. By his own admission later in the series, Scar is blinded by hatred and vengeance at this point. It doesn't matter that Edward is fifteen. It doesn't matter that Edward never set foot into Ishval, or that Resembool was bombed during the war.

What matters is that Edward is a symbol in Scar's way.

The second instance is something less often discussed, but something just as - if not more - interesting to me.

Because this is the scene where a - wrath-stricken - Roy Mustang threatens to burn Edward should he not release the object of Roy's fury.

And it's not a funny scene. In the story we've just seen just what exactly Roy is capable off. We've seen him burn eyes and ears and tongues, we've seen him enjoy it. And blinded by his personal need for vengeance we see him threaten an ally (maybe even a friend) with severe bodily harm, maybe even death.

Just as Scar almost ninety chapters (49 episodes) earlier, Roy is willing to kill a child because he is blinded by hatred.

And it's fascinating to me. Because of course Scar and Roy are parallels to each other - at least in this part of the story. Throughout the entire story, both men circle Wrath - the humunculus, the Fuhrer, and their own fatal flaw. It is no coincidence that Roy is shown in direct contrast with Bradley during Ishval, just as it is no coincident that it is Scar who finally strikes him down with the help of some godly intervention.

Both Scar and Roy have to overcome their wrath specifically as part of their story arc to fulfill their character development. Which is why Scar is the only one who doesn't outright condemn Roy for wanting to torture Envy - he understands the need, just as Hawkeye understands that Envy has to die either way. He just also understands what this kind of fury does to a person, has witnessed firsthand how it almost cost him what little community he had left after the genocide - and how giving up on this all-consuming vengeance (without forgiving the Amestrian Government or even Roy for what they did) is what allowed him to build a new community and a new future for his people.

Which makes the timing of this scene - and the fact that in both examples it is Edward who almost falls victim to their punishing hands - so intriguing.

Because we meet Scar first. We meet him as an antagonist at the beginning of the story, and the first real impression we get of his mission is colored by Ed's limited worldview and our affection as the reader for the protagonist of this story. As such, Scar's violence against someone who bears no fault for the horrors he suffered seems unjustified and leaves a stronger impression.

By the time Roy snaps (after a long road of character development that seems very heroic but is always tinged with the thinly veiled truth that Roy is ready to snap at any given point) Scar has been an ally for more than 14 episodes. Scar has already found redemption in the eyes of our heroes by meeting Winry and finding closure.

Roy on the other hand has accompanied us, the reader, the viewer, as a cunning hero with a dark past. The charming, suave manipulator with a heart of gold. By the time he threatens to murder a child, THE CHILD even, we view him as our friend. We trust him.

As such it is easier to forgive him for what he almost did.

And I think that's fascinating. Because if we look at it bare-boned, there is little difference in what happened: they both almost killed/harmed Edward but ultimately didn't (they were both stopped), they were both driven by hatred and vengeance, they were both enacting "justified" revenge on the wrong target, they are both allies for a large part of the story, they are both driven by the same motive (revenge/Ishval) - and yet, it often seems as if Roy's attempted murder is forgotten, while Scar's dictates how half the fandom interacts with him.

Part of that is due to the placement of these scenes - it is Scar's introduction, and Roy's third act culmination of his character arc - but it is still something I think about.

Because it is integral for Roy's character (and the reason why everyone tried to stop him from torturing Envy further) to understand that he was willing to kill Edward so late in the game - just as it is integral to understanding Scar's character that he quickly abandoned his senseless hatred of Edward (though I doubt they would ever be friends) and instead is part of the group that stops Roy from enacting his revenge.

They mirror each other, and if anything, Roy is the one who had a character deterioration arc before he pulled it back around in the last minute.

Scar is a classical anti-hero, someone with a narratively linear path towards healing throughout the story. But just because Scar starts as an antagonist, doesn't mean that Roy was meant to be a true hero.

Both their vices is Wrath, only Roy faces his way later in the game. Only Scar embraced moving forward first.

[nothorses]

I saw your tags on the post about trick or treaters not speaking and I am v interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the concept of “developmental delays”! I‘ve seen the idea that disability is a construct, but I’m not as familiar with the idea that development is also a construct. You have really great takes as an educator and someone who like, actually GETS how kids work, so I am interested in your thoughts!

I also know that posting on this subject might be poking the bear, so it is 1000% cool if you would rather not comment 💜 Tysm!

Oh I'm happy to talk about it! I love talking about this stuff, thank you for asking me to 💙

This isn't exactly new ground; there's been plenty of research into and writing on the subject, and deconstructing "development" as a static concept was, ironically, a huge part of my most recent development class.

The idea is that our understanding of "benchmarks" of development, which informs the larger concept of development as a whole, is heavily rooted in the assumption that Western culture is The Standard. We prioritize walking, talking, reading, and writing, which means we cultivate these skills in our children from a young age, which means they develop those skills more quickly than they do others.

To use one of my favorite examples from Rogoff, 2003, Orienting Concepts and Ways of Understanding the Cultural Nature of Human Development:

Although U.S. middle-class adults often do not trust children below about age 5 with knives, among the Efe of the Democratic Republic of Congo, infants routinely use machetes safely (Wilkie, personal communication, 1989). Likewise, Fore (New Guinea) infants handle knives and fire safely by the time they are able to walk (Sorenson, 1979). Aka parents of Central Africa teach 8- to 10-month-old infants how to throw small spears and use small pointed digging sticks and miniature axes with sharp metal blades: "Training for autonomy begins in infancy. Infants are allowed to crawl or walk to whatever they want in camp and allowed to use knives, machetes, digging sticks, and clay pots around camp. Only if an infant begins to crawl into a fire or hits another child do parents or others interfere with the infant’s activity. It was not unusual, for instance, to see an eight month old with a six-inch knife chopping the branch frame of its family’s house. By three or four years of age children can cook themselves a meal on the fire, and by ten years of age Aka children know enough subsistence skills to live in the forest alone if need be. (Hewlett, 1991, p. 34)" (pg. 5)

In the US we would view "letting an 8-month-old handle a knife" as a sign of severe neglect, but the emphasis here is placed on the fact that these children are taught to do these things safely. They don't learn out of necessity, or stumble into knives when nobody is watching; they learn with care, support, and safety in mind, just like children here learn. It makes me wonder if Aka parents would view our children's lack of basic survival skills with the same concern and disdain as USAmerican parents would view their children's inability to read.

Do we disallow our children from handling knives because it is objectively, fundamentally unsafe for a child of that age to do so- because even teaching them is developmentally impossible- or is that just a cultural assumption?

What other cultural assumptions do we have about child development?

Which ties in neatly with various social-based models of disability, particularly learning and, of course, developmental disabilities. If your culture doesn't value the things you are good at, and you happen to struggle with the things it does value, what kinds of assumptions is it likely to make about you? How will it pathologize you? What happens to that culture if it understands those values to be arbitrary, in order to accommodate your unique existence?

[commsroom]

there's an interesting statement being made about identity if you accept all of the wolf 359 characters are equally themselves as of the finale: eiffel is form without memory; hera is memory without form; lovelace is both, but without continuity of experience; minkowski is both with continuity - and she's still not the same person that goddard recruited. if we're never the same people we were, but we're always ourselves, then the only way the self can be defined is through its own assertion - and maybe it can be argued that "my name is-" (and later, being able to say "my name is hera" reintroducing herself to pryce) and "i am captain isabel lovelace. no matter how hard you try, you are not taking that away from me" and "without me, who are you?" / "renée minkowski, and that is more than enough to kick your ass" are all the set up for (and part of the answer to) "am i still doug eiffel?"