#its not really a problem that needed solving imo

[maxx-doodles]

I just think they're neat

[cloudbends]

new pokemon episode!!!

[centrally-unplanned]

So because I tend to be described as "center-left" by the forces of all that is evil and unpure assailed against me in their limitless and merciless cruelty, the way the far-right in the US misuses economic statistics tends to find no sympathy from me - in ways that I find difficult to even engage with. (Also, for balance's sake, true libertarians tend to be the ones who make this mistake the least, a solid W for them - they average the highest on this kind of economic literacy alongside the technocratic left). I am on the other hand more sympathetic to the reasons some on the left have for this mistake - but it is still unproductively misguided.

The idea from far-left is is essentially that the US economy is and must always be broken in all ways, because that is a premise that implies the platform of reform they endorse. This is a stance that, imo, most leftists will have because they want to help the poor. They will discuss child poverty and homelessness in the same breath as "living paycheck to paycheck" and the "immiserated middle class". They see these things as united, both causally but also practically - that the solution for the homeless and for the working class are the same, the bonds that will form a united front strong enough to cut the chains of capital in one fell swoop.

This is not only not true, but it is the opposite of true. A middle class that believes itself immiserated and struggling is one least likely to support the redistributive policies necessary to address chronic poverty because they are in fact very different problems. Those people are going to ask for tax cuts! They have jobs, they don't think they need welfare checks, but they do (correctly!) think lower taxes will help them. Cheaper grocery prices means cheaper wages for workers in the grocery industry, the current economy has been really good for the lower income working classes as the tight labor market has boosted their relative wages. Which middle class white collar people haaaaate, because it raises their prices. And since you want lower taxes but the money has to come from somewhere, you are more willing to cut things like welfare to pay for them.

When the problems are real they can align - like yes the housing market in the US is pretty busted, "everyone" will benefit from just making more houses. But even then, the "everyone" doesn't include all the incumbent upper-middle class housing owners, and it particularly doesn't help new home owners who have a mortgage to pay off that are banking on rising real estate prices. All these policies have real tradeoffs. Opportunities for solidarity do exist, don't get me wrong, but its not the default state. You think America won't raise taxes on the rich just to expand the mortgage tax deduction? In your heart you know we would.

Obviously none of this applies to you if you think the world is corrupted root to stem and only the blood of the capitalist class can water the soil of revolution and birth the flower of a new age, or whatever. But unless you want that you are gonna need accurate policy analysis to actually solve the problems within the system, and they will have tradeoffs. And a middle class that thinks itself too poor to help is not an asset in that.

[lazycranberrydoodles]

its prosecutor jiang wanyin!!!! oh fuck!!! / gifs + au rambling below the cut / follow for more mdzs x aa crossover stuff :3

all the gifs i made (poses traced off franziska):

hes so similar to franziska when you think about it. theyre both deeply insecure tsundere adoptive younger sibling of successful main characters. who carry whips. something something edgeworth choosing death and wwx actually dying also

his share code is HWFEFF if you wanna use him in a trial! you can't share backgrounds but heres the scenery from the donghua i used.

the easiest way to put custom stuff into objection.lol is to send it in discord and then use the link from opening it in your browser :)

a whole lot of AU stuff

the art im making is for if mdzs was an ace attorney game, playing from WWX's POV to solve various mysteries/cases over the course of the plot. so this scene would be from turnabout goddess, which would loosely cover the dafan mountain mystery.

cases include:

Turnabout Revenge (Mo Manor, quick introductory first case)

Turnabout Goddess (Dafan mountain, the good times flashback)

Turnabout Saber (the man-eating castle (omg hiii nhs))

The Blind Turnabout (Yi City arc)

Turnabout Deviation (the Koi Tower conference, Empathy on NMJ ala turnabout memories or beginnings. opening cutscene is his qi deviation)

The Blood-Soaked Turnabout (second Burial Mounds siege, flashbacks: Xuanwu, Sunshot, YLLZ, Nightless City massacre)

Turnabout Lotus Seeds (testimony about JGY, tree scene, golden core reveal, bathtub scene. opening cutscene could be JGS' death but that would make it canon rather than ambiguous)

Turnabout Confession (Guanyin temple)

the problem with splitting novel!mdzs into turnabouts is that flashbacks are a huge chunk of the book but they don't have mysteries/ cases to solve so they've gotta be lumped together with present day stuff. imo? many of the flashbacks would likely have to be abridged so they could be retold ala DL-6, SL-9, or the fourth grade incident, where characters talk about it over some pieces of art. this is really difficult when theres a metric ton of unspoken, complex, and signifcant history between every character lmao

there's not as much of a problem with the cql timeline but i have not finished it. so.

the opening cutscenes in ace attorney always show the murder and/or the murderer plotting. the first cutscene of the game would be MXY summoning WWX, muttering about getting revenge on his family (it would also be good for him to mention the yllz being dead because that's how the novel starts.) cut to WWX's POV as he wakes up covered in blood and the investigation segment begins.

for investigations of monsters (goddess, saber, etc) the cutscene would be a scene of some poor throwaway cultivator getting their shit wrecked.

it would be cool to make a breakdown for JGY but again I need to review that scene cause I don't know who I'd base him on. maybe Vasquez or Dahlia.

tell me your thoughts!! i'm working off of a mdzs summary/ skimming the novel because i don't remember it too well so if i get anything wrong please yell at me

Jin Ling's sprites & Nie Huaisang's sprites / masterpost

[coldgoldlazarus]

Not that we need a third Metroid II remake, but given how disparate the existing versions are from each other, I kinda have to wonder sometimes what another go that tries to combine the best of each might look like.

AM2R is probably the strongest overall package and embraces the series' lore in a great way, but does feel sometimes (to me at least) like it's still going a little too far in trying to force Metroid II into Super/Zero Mission's mold, most noticeably with the cool but jarring geothermal plant sequence.

Samus Returns spectacularly misses the mark with the tone and ending, but there are also a whole heap of other things I really like the handling of in the first 95% of it. (I have a whole list, in fact, buried somewhere in my drafts.)

And the original Metroid II, for all its early installment weirdness and hardware-induced shortcomings can make for an awkward experience, it also used some of those same limitations very elegantly to create a thematic sense of darkness that neither remake really matches. (Even if AM2R does wind up closer, IMO it still falls short in some ways, in trying to solve problems that the original had turned into features.)

Realistically speaking, all three are kinda very different beasts despite their shared core, and hard to reconcile easily. Even so, I do find myself thinking about whether it would still be possible to create a marriage of the best traits of each, and if so, what exactly that would look like.

[kradogsrats]

This might be spoilers for what happens later in your Lissa centric fic but do you ever see Sarai as a better leader than Harrow was in Canon?

Interesting question! I feel like when a lot of the fandom looks at Sarai, they see her anti-dark magic stance and challenge of Harrow's characterization of the magma titan as a "monster" as her most prominent character moments and interpret that as her primary character trait being compassion for all people and creatures, like a fully-matured version of "incapable of killing" Rayla.

Which like... fair! The series goes out of its way to associate them, two characters who will never meet, to the point of Rayla repeating Sarai's lines. Also "Does it think? Does it feel? Does it have a family? Is it the last of its kind?" is a real banger, hitting right at the one of the deepest core themes of the story, so it's not surprising that it's what stays in everyone's head. But the really important line for understanding her as queen in relation to Harrow as king is later in the scene: "You said you want to build a better world, to really change things, but that's going to take decades of hard work. There's no monster you can slay and solve all your problems." The novel has an additional sentence in there to reinforce the point: "There's a special kind of courage that you need for consistency and perseverance."

Both Harrow and Sarai are interested in systemic change. The novel describes them as having had "long, late-night discussions" during which they planned how they were going to solve the problems they identified. (All of this kind of says something about King Atticus, too.) However, she self-describes in narration as an "optimistic realist" to Harrow's "idealist." She believes that as king and queen, they can change the world—but it may take a lifetime, and will involve a lot of hard decisions.

Really, I think the key difference between them is life experience. Sarai married Damian and chose to have a child with him, fully knowing that he almost definitely wouldn't live to see that child grow up. Harrow, when they meet, has probably never had a serious relationship. Sarai comes from a military background (IMO), so she has both given and taken orders she might not fully agree with—something we see from her accompanying Harrow on the mission. She made her case to him, he made his decision, and she follows through on that decision without a single complaint, even though we know it's one she dislikes. Harrow, as he knows, was born a prince—for all his training, it's unlikely anyone gave him orders, and they probably took his opinion as having more weight. He's somewhat aware of his privilege compared to most of his subjects, and kind of overcompensates with his ideas of compassion and servitude.

Not to go all American politics on everyone, but it's kind of the same misunderstanding a lot of liberals have about the presidency—if we can just get the right person into that seat, they'll be able to tell everyone that [insert social policy] and it'll happen. The reality, as Sarai knows, is that big changes takes years of lobbying, boots-on-the-ground activism, and lots of little changes that still require fighting tooth and nail to get them done. She's absolutely right that it takes a special kind of courage to do that work and keep doing it without falling into despair and resentment. You also have to know how to pick your battles, something that Harrow is definitely not used to doing.

Ultimately I do think Sarai would probably be more successful than Harrow was as sole ruler, if that was a situation that somehow occurred, BUT it's important that she never denigrates Harrow's idealism or thinks of him as naive. I think she values it, and loves him for it—for things like "reject history as a narrative of strength, and instead have faith that it can be a narrative of love," which is 100% pure Harrow. Like Harrow believes she makes him better, I think she believes that he makes her better. Sarai's more effective but Harrow's more inspirational. So, idk... make of that what you will.

[kajaono]

BBC Sherlock taking John and Sherlock’s relationship for granted creates a rift in the narrative

I have already pointed out in previous post how disappointed I was that John and Sherlock relationship never developed, in a way it should and would have been justified by the narrative

In this point I want to look at how their relationship started and how this was already created the first problems. This review contains multiple spoilers for other Sherlock Holmes shows.

When John and Sherock meet for the fisrt time in ASIP they immediatley start working together.

No hesitation. They both went full in, from minute one onwards. This is a nice way of showing how well John and Sherlock work together, and that they think alike. But on the other hand it feels like Mofftiss took the relationship for granted and said: "These are John and Sherlock. Of course they work perfectly which each other. We do not have to talk about that."

But imo that was TOO fast. There is no conflict. They never have time to discuss where they stand in this relationship. And because Mofftiss pretend, that they work perfectly together, from minute one onwards - even though they just met - it is hard to further develop their relationship from here on. Because it is already perfect. You would need something really big to happen for them to redefine their roles in this relationship. We kind of had that in season 4, but we knew how messy that went. And there was never a TALK after that. Thats also a main problem in this show. John and Sherlock never really talk. It is John who often sits down and talks and Sherlock is not listening. Of course the relationship is developing, but the show never uses its whole potential.

So what would have been a better way of handling their first meeting? A first meeting that allows them to naturelly grow into the relationship... and further develop their relationship?

Elementary

Yeah I am gonna drag Elementary into this again. BBC Sherlock and Elementray share a really similar set up. They meet each other for the first time, and immeditaly move in and start solving cases together. But Elemenetary gives John and Sherlock time to grow into the relastionship.

This moment defines the Joanlock relationship imo. It shows that Joan is ready to confront Sherlock and call out his bullshit, that Sherlock listens and is effected by what Joan thinks and says, that Sherlock still has a lot of work to do. AND - most importantly - that a Johnlock relationship takes effort and is nothing that you can take for granted.

And this show was on air for 7 seasons, with 22 episodes each. Nevertheless the relationship was developing the whole time. In future seasons they are recalling their first meeting, honoring how much they have grown.

Resulting in:

gif by: @marlahey

This is something we never got in BBC Sherlock. We never saw them honoring the growth they made, recalling their first meeting, and having a satisifying conculsion, aka: "I love you" (in what way doesn't matter btw. The Joanlock moment wasn't romantic either).

Of course you could agrue now: "But Elementary did had the time for stuff like that, BBC Sherlock only had 4 seasons, with 3 episodes each."

So let us look at The Irregulars next:

This show starts as a usual crime detective show... with a supernatural twist. But slowly you learn that the core point of the show is the relationship between Sherlock Holmes and John Watson.

The show is set years after Holmes and Watsons first meeting. Actually when we first meet John his relationship with Sherlock is over already, broken and ruined. Later we - the viewer - get multiple flashback scene, showing us how they first met, how their relationship developed, and why they are not talking with each other anymore, resulting in this glorious moment:

But the show doesn't stop there, it even goes further and shows us how John and Sherlock slowly get closer to each other again. Sitting in the dark, discussing their relationship, the mistakes they made and most important: apologizing.

Still angry at Netflix for cancelling the show.

Of Course we also have other approaches. RDJ Sherlock.

Like BBC Sherlock it leans much more into Crime aspect of the story. But the story still centers around Holmes and Watsons relationship. When we first meet them they have been together long, probably for years. They are already settled in their relationship. They both know their roles in this relationship and they both feel comfortable with it. They behave like an old married couple. And when they fight, it is never serious. The first real problems erupt when Watson decides to marry. And thats the whole core problem of the first movie: Watson moving out of 221B to marry a woman and how Holmes deals with that. He develops from more or less boycotting the marriage to accepting it and gifting Mary and Watson a ring.

The second movie is him trying to accept that his love of his life best friend is married now and trying to solve cases on his own, without Watson. Eventually sacrificing his own life to safe Watson AND Mary. So even though the movies are crime movies, the Johnlock relationship is still the heart of the story.

If the movies wouldn't focus on the Johnlock relationship, the story would be a different one.

Many Johnlock moments in the movies are non-verbal, so excuse the extensive use of gifs here. But there is so much happening on a non-verbal level!

For example the wedding, which is a huge Johnlock moment. John being super nervous before his wedding and you see that Holmes is not happy either, but he still nods, letting Watson know that it is okay and that Watson is making the right decision.

But nevertheless he has to look away when Mary and Watson kiss. The message is clear here. He isn't happy, he is sad because he is loosing the most important person in his life.

Then we have moments like this, (see below) where - during a moment of danger - they cling to each other, making sure the other one is safe. Not being afraid of physical contact. This is something I was also missing in BBC sherlock btw. Physical they always made sure to stay away from each other. When they hugged it was like... a big thing. Which - set in modern times - felt a little bit off. Because in contrast to Miss Sherlock (see below) Holmes was never shown to be actively against physical contact. I wish the production team would have allowed more friendly touches. I mean... ACD Johnlock walks around arm-in-arm and John gets nervous everytime Holmes comes close, because "poeple might talk." Nah...

I think A game of shadows, peaked when Watson and Holmes danced. Because it shows that they have a deep connection. They came from a place where they acted like an old married couple, then being all nervous because of the Watson/Marry wedding, having to re-identify their relationship towards each other, to this finale dance, where - symbolically- they are a couple again. Everything came full circle. It is like: No matter what happens around Watson and Holmes, they will always find their way back to each other. They will always be the center of the story. It will always be them against the rest of the world, no matter what. No excuses.

But acually, the adaptation most close to BBC Sherlock is Miss Sherlock. I mean... it was basically a female japanese copy of BBC Sherlock.

But still... it improved a lot of things. When Sherlock and Wato (Watson) first meet they really can not stand each other. This Sherlock is also rude, but it is really clear that she is on the autism spectrum. She gets overhelmed by too much light and by loud noises. She is really against phyisal contact.

And the most beautiful thing about this adaptation: It knows that in the end Watson will always be Sherlocks weakness. It will not say: "Don't try to drown in the well. Good luck. I am off hugging my sister." (season 4 shade). In Miss Sherlock the finale conflict is: Watson being manipulated to work against Sherlock. Showing, that in the end, it all boils down to their relationship again. And this adaptation wrote a scene that is just.. chef kiss!

When Wato is around, Sherlock is all grumpy towards her. But during the finale Wato is kidnapped. And the show gives us a short look into one of Sherlocks most private moments. The moment she realizes that Wato is kidnapped. A moment where Sherlock is completly alone. And we see a honest and extremly vunerable moment. This one:

Sherlock screaming Watos name in agony. Knowing that she NEEDS Wato. And then she goes and risks everything to save Wato. EVERYTHING!

Her reputation and her life. She is even ready to be killed by Wato.

TL.DR:

So what am I trying to say? That BBC Johnlock has no relationship development? That there isn't any trust between them? Nope, course not.

We see John and Sherlock growing into the relationship, we see Sherlock getting softer because of John, we see John healing because of Sherlock and on the other hand we see Sherlock opening up, telling Watson whats really on his mind. Trying to be a better human, being more social. But imo that should have been the plot of idk... the first season, maybe the second one. Because thats just the beginning. A Johnlock relationship is so mch deeper, holds so much more story potential. Yeah, John and Sherlock belong to ecah other and are good for each other. We know that! Is Sherlock ready to confess his (plantonic) love for Watson by the end of the show? Is Watson so jealous of Sherlocks love interest that he opens a rift in the universe? Is Sherlock having a break down, screaming out Watsons name in agony? I don't want to see John being replaced by a balloon in season 4 (!) and it is played for a joke. Their relationship should be so so so much deeper at that point. For me BBC Sherlock felt like, they stop mid-relationship-development. It feels like Mofftiss said: "John and Sherlock work well with each other and are best friend. What else is there to say?" SO! MUCH! MORE!

They had all this potential, and went nowhere with it. And i don't necessarily mean romantically btw. Eveen Hilson drove into the sunset together eventually...

[noangeleither]

"fixing" the panic attack scene to be more platonic ™

im extremely active on twt and have been noticing a sydcarmy tweet go viral multiple times a week (like w thousands of interactions its crazy), and its really great to see how much people love and see it for this ship. recently carmys panic attack scene went viral again, and naturally, some ppl gave their piece about how we are all dumb for interpreting it as romantic. that sydney represents his love for his job or his duty to the restaurant (*sigh*).

this scene imo, is the most concrete proof of this ship. i can excuse (not really) interpreting every interaction between them thus far as platonic but this scene....i just refuse. this is gonna be a long post, not analyzing the scene per se because i can't possibly say anything that hasn't already been said but more "fixing" the scene to fit the narrative of antis, and i hope in doing so really shows there's no other way to interpret this scene as other than romantic. again its gonna be a long post bc im just ranting and i think i will lose my mind if i dont type this out.

lets go.

so first off i like to think of this scene as an equation/experiment. simply a problem that needs to be solved.

problem/reason of panic = ...we will discuss this...

solution # 1 = claire -> failed

solution # 2 = sydney -> worked.

Problem/Reason

s02e09 opens up with carmy and claire finally consummating their relationship, with an interesting song choice might i add and carmy dissociating, looking sad, or broken (???) after. because many have said carmy pulling memories of sydney from his psyche to calm down have to do with work i always remember that, it really doesnt make any sense?

carmy is clearly having a panic attack due to him not being "fixed" as soon as he made it official with claire. he felt pressure from his family both currently and in the past to date claire because she is amazing and perfect. add mikey also being a part of that crowd, and carmy so desperately trying to connect with him when he cannot, is why i think he looks so despondent after that scene. i truly think he thought he would be a changed person after everything with claire and when that didn't happen he flipped...

we know this is the reason bc his panic attack starts with their sex scene and the lyric "I dont know" from strange currencies by REM.

this isn't to say that he isn't nervous or stressed about the soft open but its clear that he's not having a panic attack about work nor have we ever seen him have a work-related panic attack (correct me if I'm wrong). in s1 he has one or two due to him greiving his brother.

platonic fix: To make it about work I would have added scenes like when Carmy started that stove fire in braciole, his meltdown in review, some scenes of his horrible time at EMP, and him grieving his brother. i think these would represent his fear of failure, falling back into old toxic habits pertaining his career, the fear of fostering a toxic work environment like the ny chef and also the idea of "failing" mikey

but theres a reason why none of this occurs bc its not about his job or the opening of the bear. this is explicitly about his personal and romantic love life.

Solution # 1 : Claire

carmy proceeds to try and calm down by thinking of claire through literal rose-coloured glasses...

the music is distorted, he's thinking of his abusive family, he remembers every one pushing him to date claire bc shes a #goodthing.

again...this is not about his job and wouldnt make sense to think of sydneys place in his work life as a soultion to his clear personal problem....

platonic fix: in the story of carmys love life claire and sydney act as narrative foils. they have been compared and contrasted for all of s2. my platonic fix for this would be making the NY chef this first "solution" of a work-related panic attack. he represents a horrible time in his life but also represents a time when carmy was at the height of his career. when carmy gets locked in the walk in and has his monologue, its alluded to that he will revert back to that mind set in order to not let everyone down.

NY chef abused him for so long, it makes sense that carmys psyche would readily go back to his insults and the time he himself was an isolated 'psycho' bc it yielded results.

nothing is black and white and i DO think sydney represents a healthier approach to the toxic mess that is the culinary world and does represent that for carmy. if the show was invested in that, sydney and the NY chef could be overtly contrasted like sydney and claire have been.

BUT again this isnt about his job and dedication as a chef...thus why he tries to think of claire to solve his personal problem, and it fails.

Solution # 2: Sydney

LMFAOOO.

carmy then in a crazy plot twist starts thinking of his platonic work bestie sydney adamu....the love song dedicated by the show to his relationship with his girlfriend is then made clear highlighting some pretty damning lyrics about desire and love.....all platonic btw. yes you are dumb if you think otherwise (*wink*)

I actually have two platonic fixes for this...

platonic fix # 1: if we only wanted to focus on sydney as a person who calms carmy down because shes his work bestie who represents his responsibilty to the bear and the postive change they are trying effect in the culinary world, i would add scenes where they are...you know actually cooking???

i think its pretty crazy how the memories carmys immediately jump to are ones that have little to do with their jobs. when they first meet (would also like to note that when carmy first laid eyes on Sydney, he forgot she was there for a job, so this is his raw reaction to seeing a pretty girl lol) and when she comes back after she quit and their break up fight.

i would add their scenes in carmys kitchen (even tho this is extremely damning bc they were flirting DOWN - they don't make this easy at all). this represents their collaboration skills and the way they WORK and bounce ideas off of each other seamlessly. specifically the scene about him wanting to give her a star, representing his duty to her and the restaurant.

*and no shade to carmy but if his responsibility to the bear/syd as a co-worker was bothering him this much and calmed him down wouldn't he have just immediately called the fridge guy.....anyways*

platonic fix # 2 (the best one): if i was chris storer and joanna calo and i REALLY wanted to sell it that carmy isnt in love with sydney then i would put every single member of the OG beef crew + Nat to calm him down not just Sydney.

im talking to them laughing at family, carmy giving tina his chefs knife, richie in his new suit, carmys one on one w Marcus/trying his donut, nat telling carmy shes pregnant (signifing rebirth/wanting to rid all the toxic abuse from his family), carmy trying sydney risotto, and her face when he said it was tremendous etc etc...you get the gist

and honestly?

even as i type this out im tearing up a little bit bc that would have been really beautiful. carmy is changing. he can and is getting rid of old toxic habits from his family and the mess that is the culinary industry. things are changing for the better....that would be beautiful....IF his panic attack was about any of these things lol.

and to even look at this scene without this need for symmetry and we entertain the idea of carmy thinking about his job as a solution for his personal problem...carmy has said himself (s02e01) that this isnt fun for him. i dont think that means he hates cooking i kinda disagree with the ppl who think he isnt passionate about it. i just think currently its something that doesnt bring him joy but i do think its something hes starting to or at least could have started to enjoy if he just committed to working with syd...

conclusion

theres a lot of....delusion? denial? straight up bias? yes all of that, going on.

idk what is happening bc this show is really great at being subtle. but i dont know whats more in your face, dumbed down, even a toddler could understand, than this scene. if you dont come out of this understanding that carmy is falling in love/currently in love with Sydney...and i hate using this term..but you just arent media literate.

bonus: bc it makes me laugh and connects the purpose and solutions.

i think we need a Snyder Sydcarmy Cut™ of bolognese and omelette.

the start of the episode is when sydney and carmy fight over claires inclusion in the menu, and also when sydney randomly asks him to define his relationship with Claire. the episode would continue until we get to the table scene.

i think its WILD how as soon as Sydney asks him to define their relationship, carmy starts calling claire his girlfriend. then the show proceeds to insert sydney in their romantic montage, shows her tattoo about heartbreak and someone getting in the way of your relationship...THEN proceeds to have carmy compare these two women in his mind and only calms down after seeing Sydney.

i could talk about this scene for AGES. wheres the straitjacket....

[ahamkara-apologist]

it's also wild because like. Mara Sov is outright manipulative. she outright says she has plans to kill you if you go astray. she has plans to kill everyone, actually. she gets information she has no business having just to do that even iirc. meanwhile Osiris is a stressed out gay old man who is trying to save everyone except himself.

Okay I WILL defend Mara here and say that while she is a manipulative bitch, yes, that's actually a good thing to have handy. The Young Wolf is fucking dangerous and so are many in the cast of Destiny, so having contingency plans to kill people as needed is kinda necessary (just look at Eris in the dark future). But Mara is out here playing games of 4D chess with the Witness and the likes of Savathun- she needs to play god like that because it's basically her job. The major issue with her is the fact that she doesn't know how to NOT play puppetmaster, and takes it into her personal life- what she did to Uldren was a prime example of that, and while I have many thoughts on why that is, the fact of the matter is that Mara is a person who does what she needs to do with the coldness and cruelty of a deity because that is the niche she's carved out for herself and what she needs to be to ensure the survival of humanity.

Osiris, on the other hand, is NOT playing 4D chess with the Witness- he's a soldier, a defender, a blade. And not only that, he acts the way he does because he's driven by anxiety, paranoia (well-placed paranoia too!), and the fact that for the longest time, he's been alone. He was outright exiled from the Last City! He was alone in the Infinite Forest with nobody other than Sagira and his own mind! That's a lot of centuries to be by yourself, and don't forget that those centuries were preluded by social isolation from his peers and betrayal beforehand. Osiris operated the way he did because his OCD had him constantly running on the assumption that the worst-case scenario was going to happen, and he had the experience from his time as Vanguard and his subsequent exile to show that not only did nobody believe him, they also didn't take it seriously (or took it too seriously) and wouldn't help him with it. Like, no fucking wonder he's always running around acting like he's the only person who's taking things seriously and throwing his all into solving the problem. His mind is hardwired to assume the worst and he has proof that people will not help him with it (though LF has him confronting that)

Like, I myself have OCD, and those repetitive thought spirals are no joke. Imagine that you're confronted with a problem, and your brain automatically jumps to the worst-case scenario for that problem. If you've gotten cognitive therapy for that, you know this isn't the case, but knowing doesn't change the fact that your mind is CONVINCED that the worst case scenario WILL happen, and it will get lodged to the forefront of your mind with all of its gory details while you try your best to ensure that it won't occur. Doesn't matter if you have to shift to doing something else- that fear, that worry, that will always be right in front of you. Meds and cognitive therapy have worked for me on that, but Osiris doesn't have those, and on top of it- he's got prophetic visions! I can't IMAGINE how awful that would be to deal with!!

That's also why his character development after Sagira's death is so big imo- as tragic as it was, Sagira dying for him forced him to really slow down and realize that rushing into things without thinking about his own safety harmed others, not just himself, and his subsequent reminder of his own mortality forced him to be reliant on others instead of refusing to let them help him. Part of why he was so impatient and brusque in Lightfall was because he had to rely on the Young Wolf and Nimbus to deal with an issue that he considered his own, and while it didn't go exactly as planned, I think that's also why he's softened up significantly since then. That, and him being unable to rush headlong into things and to just sit and enjoy his time with Saint (which he never allowed himself to do before because if he had the Light, what was his excuse for not fighting the Darkness) helped him tremendously. It forced him to face his flaws, learn that he could rely on others, and to slow down in life, and he's been doing much better as a result of it.

Osiris has only ever harmed others by completely disregarding the harm that he did to himself, and recent events in the story have forced him to reflect on that and change it. And maybe by being a bit of a blunt, extremely-honest ass that nettles sometimes. That's pretty much the extent of his flaws imo

[the-bramble--patch]

I’ve been seeing a few posts on minimalism going around, one being @bisquitt’s post on sustainability and minimalism—how the two terms shouldn’t be conflated, and how real sustainability is about anti-capitalism in the forms of reuse, repair, and community interdependence. Another is @allstrangeandwonderful’s post on how Minimalism is an aesthetic based around coping in the "corporate hellscape" we live in—contemporary designers gravitate towards neutral colors as a respite from the warlike corporate use of color to catch the attention of a consumer (See Mina Le's video on this concept also. She offers up a few possible reasons for this trend towards "greige" interiors, one being the inundation from advertising we experience in our everyday lives).

I wanted to talk about these concepts and tie in some other things I’ve been seeing around.

Imo, minimalism is anti-consumerist, but not anti-capitalist. The lifestyle and aesthetic is intended to address the systemic problem of living in a consumerist society on an individual level. Instead of ending the capitalist system that thrusts consumerism on us all, it suggests that minimalists create a safe space away from consumerism. It is not interested in changing the system, only the individual. What really drove this home for me was watching The Financial Diet on YouTube interview The Minimalists, the guys who kicked off the trend. She keeps trying to ask them about the underlying issues Minimalism acts as a band-aid for, and they keep dodging her questions.

The lifestyle choices bisquitt offers up as sustainable are typically lumped under the umbrella of Solarpunk: “fixing shit around your house. thrifting. patching clothes and handing them down. a community garden. potluck dinner parties. farmer’s markets. a barter system among friends and neighbors. kindness. love among community members.“ These things do not conform to the minimalist aesthetic tenets of order, function, and simplicity. They are often vibrant, mismatched, and chaotic, messy even (see my post on solarpunk aesthetics here). This is because solarpunk aims to solve the same issues minimalism does, but on a societal level. Solarpunk is working towards a utopian future of degrowth, where the forces that Minimalism is in opposition to will no longer exist. This allows for everyday people to reclaim vibrancy from corporations. That busyness is only desirable in a world where capitalism isn't such a burden. Solarpunk advocates for simplicity in all but design, instead of the other way around.

Another thing is the separation between meaning and function present in Minimalism. Minimalism is often associated with deriving pleasure from experiences, not things. The physical space is deprioritized (I know the movement is about changing the physical space, but the idea is that the physical space just makes your life more efficient) for a kind of zen outlook about mind over matter. Solarpunk is much more holistic in its recognition that inner peace comes from a play between the external and internal worlds—from connection and respect for people, things, and resources. Instead of removing meaning and beauty from a space to prioritize the mind, Solarpunk instills it, to elicit interaction with the world instead of a retreat from it. Thus, Solarpunk rolls meaning and function into one: a visibly mended shirt is both functional (the hole is gone), and meaningful (it says much more about the politics of the wearer than one mended invisibly). Another example is the bottle walls commonly used in Earthships: Making the bottles visible is beautiful, and it communicates that the builder is interested in using sustainable material.

In short, minimalism is individualist while Solarpunk is collectivist, and the aesthetics of each reflect that. Retreating from a broken society will not fix said society. Sustainability needs to be solved on a societal level, so minimalism as a solution to overconsumption just isn't gonna cut it.

[communistkenobi]

im an undergrad student who was thinking about specializing in studying fascist movements in North America for my masters and ive really enjoyed reading your book commentary - you connect things that I'm not always aware of in ways that are really comprehensive and appreciate

Do you know of any researchers who are moving things on the topic right now (most of the books ive read are around 20+ years old, unfortunately)?

(sorry if any of this is unclear/grammatically incorrect/weirdly worded - I'm super sick rn)

thank you! I'm really glad to hear that :)

For contemporary writing, I'm currently working through some of Alberto Toscano's work - he has a really interesting article from 2021 on fascism from a Black radical/Marxist perspective where he summarizes various historical analyses of fascism from Black (particularly US) thinkers and activists. One thing I especially appreciate is that he complicates Aime Cesaire's formulation of fascism (i.e., "european colonialism come home") as incomplete when applied to settler colonial contexts, especially the United States - one of Cesaire's articulations of fascism is that (to paraphrase) "one fine day, the prisons begin to fill up, the Gestapo gets busy" and so on, and Toscano, working through Angela Davis and George Jackson, responds with (again I'm paraphrasing) "the prisons are already full! The Gestapo is already here!" etc. Toscano also has a new book that just came out in 2023 called Late Fascism, which explicitly addresses the current moment. I only have a physical copy of that so I can't share a pdf unfortunately, and I still need to get around to reading it lol.

These are also a couple random articles I found insightful:

Carnut (2022). Marxist Critical Systematic Review on Neo-Fascism and International Capital: Diffuse Networks, Capitalist Decadence and Culture War - does what it says on the tin

Daggett (2018). Petro-masculinity: Fossil Fuels and Authoritarian Desire - talks about car culture as a site of modern reactionary political movements, links climate denialism with (proto-)fascist movements

Parmigiani (2021). Magic and politics: Conspirituality and COVID-19 - this one does not mention fascism explicitly, but imo the intersection between new age spirituality, anti-vaccine sentiment, and qanon/q-adjacent conspiracies are pretty important to understanding contemporary fascist social movements, so I'd still recommend reading this

Finally, this isn't an article but I found this recorded lecture about the history of Qanon pretty interesting. I don't think the author gives particularly insightful answers on how to solve the problem of far right conspiracies in the Q&A portion but I found it to be a helpful summary

Otherwise I've been focusing a lot on decolonial scholarship more so than fascist scholarship - this is again guided by Cesaire's argument that Europe/The West broadly is inherently fascist. These works aren't contemporary, but you can look at this post for some of the readings I linked on decolonial scholarship if you want to go that route. Those are serving me more for theoretical frameworks to guide contemporary analysis, not analysis of contemporary events directly

also idk if I need to put this disclaimer, but just in case this leaves my blog: this isn't a full throated defense of/apology for everything in these articles, I'm not claiming they're sufficient to understanding the present moment, these are just some of the things I've been reading recently and have found helpful in some way or another. a lot of contemporary work I have read (much of which isn't linked here because I don't think its very good/do not have it on hand) focuses on populism and authoritarianism as central analytical terminology, which i think does a lot of work to exceptionalize and mystify fascism as a historical and political process/project originating from European colonialism & Western imperialism, but these terms are endemic to the field so you have to contend with them no matter what

good luck with your studies!

[thejockout]

A Word On Dumbing Down

In some conversations with my bros @avissapiens and @master-villain the other day, I finally managed to put a specific idea into words that had been crystallising for a long time. Nothing earth-shattering or even transformative, because I'd been exploring this same understanding with different wording for quite a while now, but it felt significant to me and sparked me to make this post.

The realisation was simple: Dumbing Down is not something you can "Do" as a standalone action. It's perhaps more accurate to say Dumbing Down is itself the perspective shift and realisation that "Smart" is something you can choose to "Not Do."

Clunky wording, I know, but pretend it's smooth for me.

(And as a necessary fyi, this post assumes familiarity with Dumbing Down as a hypnotic concept, which is nowadays most often written and spoken about as a general simplification of thought and cognition versus turning you into some drooling doofus. Maybe the latter is your thing, maybe it isn't - either way, I'm talking here about the more "realistic"/AKA sustainable model where the word dumb is synonymous with "so laid back, you don't want to think or care if people perceive you as dumb because of it".)

Too many subjects (myself included) work at hypnotic personality and cognition changes with a straining effort, in an energetically desperate approach. This is understandable - we tend to push hard for things we really want - and anyone can fall victim to it. It's very similar contextually to the trap many anxiety sufferers fall into when they begin therapy. In an earnest attempt to recover, many sufferers approach recovery with the exact same mindset they do life; that of a "fixer", a "do-er", someone who problem-solves and overthinks themselves into knots and runs loops around the same well-worn mental tracks over and over again to the point of exhaustion.

Don't worry, I'm not here to give some big-brain solution to mental health issues. I suffer myself and am on my own journey of recovery, so I'm in no place to play armchair psychologist. But I will speak about this topic as it relates to hypnosis and dumbing down because the overlap of people who are into Dumbing Down/IQ Reduction/Simplification/Bimbofication/Himbofication hypnosis and who suffer with anxiety (and overthinking) is quite high, so chances are that many who struggle with Dumbing Down suggestions are making the same mistakes. Please see my peer-reviewed Paint Diagram below which provides unequivocal, non-anecdotal proof of this.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with this overlap. Kink is an outlet for many people to deal with emotional issues, and often a very helpful coping mechanism. Dumbing Down is no different conceptually. But I'm talking about this because, just like approaching anti-anxiety work with an anxious energy and effort is doomed to failure, the exact same is true for Dumbing Down. Approaching it with an Intellectualist mindset OR in other words, the anxious energy of a fix-er and do-er and try-er is antithetical to the very state you wish to experience.

Does that make sense?

Successful Dumbing Down (beyond the very enjoyable, shorter-term effects of deep trance which feel like intoxication) is effectively the act of stepping back from mental action/the habit of overthinking. To give another clumsy metaphor, if your default mind works like a toy train constantly running around its track, sometimes gaining speed and sometimes slowing down... Dumbing Down comes from realising "hey, I can actually plug this thing out." No, it's not as simple as turning off an appliance, and it takes time for everyone. Overthought (in all its forms, whether anxious or just from over-intellectualising your life) is effectively a habit, and habits take time to make or break.

Therefore, Perspective Shift #1 that you need to make: recognise that thinking patterns and their frequency are ultimately behavioural and habitual, and can therefore be rewired and lessened with time and specific action. It's not an immediate thing - but it is possible, and this is effectively what dumbing in hypnosis is about.

That perspective raises some questions, I know. But I don't want to write about the answers just yet. Reread and consider that last paragraph a few times to make sure you've really processed it. Think about the questions it leaves you with, and come up with a few answers of your own if you can. You can post your thoughts in the comments or reblogs of this post, as I will be taking the time to read through them, and I'll continue this topic in future as I think more on it myself.

Later.

[yourqueenb]

As a continuation of this ask that I responded to, all the things I mentioned are just parts of the overall issue I have with Blades…. which is that, in the grand scheme of things, I feel like MC is simply a plot device for the other characters rather than a fully developed character who has a fully developed and satisfying arc herself. It’s clear that Nia’s is the story the writers really wanted to tell considering how intertwined her characterization/development and the overall world building are. They basically even admitted as much.

So my question is why not just make her the MC if that’s really what you wanted on the not so down low? They still could’ve incorporated the skill mechanic. Why create a whole player character just to have us running to solve everyone else’s problems/support them while acting like everything that happens to us exists inside of a vacuum in the meantime? So far, all we’ve really been doing in this book is reporting where the group needs to go, telling them what to do, having heart to hearts with them when they need help moving to the next stage of their development, and then being spoonfed information through the lore tablets, which are apparently more for the players’ benefit than MC’s since they barely affect how we respond in game anyway. I’m fine with being the leader or the glue that holds everyone together, but to me it’s unsatisfying that that’s all we are as the main character.

We somehow become more competent due to the skill mechanic but no less clueless at the same time. We have all this terrible shit happen to us, but are only offered a few lines’ description of how that’s affected us. And then the rest of the attention goes to setting up the light vs. shadow conflict and our friends, who get to have personal and compelling conflicts of their own. I mean I feel like MC is more of an emotional support animal to them than an actual person with dreams, feelings, and a (minimal) background. Imo the only character who’s getting shafted almost as much as us is Imtura.

And all of this might make it sound like I hate Blades, but it’s quite the contrary actually. It’s still one of my favorite series and has a lot of fun moments and lovable characters. But I think at this point, its flaws have become too large for me to ignore. So that’s still affecting my enjoyment a bit and probably the reason why I’m so upset with how certain things are being handled. Of course I’m aware that Blades isn’t the only book that has some of these issues though. I think it’s just a little more disappointing because I expected more

[galactickohipot]

I'm done with Dawntrail's msq! Here are some of my thoughts! The new zones are really cool and varied! It's a pleasure to explore. There are little settlements and villages scattered all around the maps and I LOVE IT! It feels so lived in and credible. It's really nice seeing npcs go about their little lives there. The graphical update really helped in seeing this vision realized and it's so nice to see. I've come to notice more details in previous zones too! Overall the battle content is real nice this expac, mechanics are more engaging than in EW. As a casual sch main (rip smn), I'm happily peeling dps off the ground in expr dungeons. I also liked the vibes and the job quests in Tural; it reminds me of early AST questline, which was a pleasure to go through. As for the rest, unfortunately msq is absolute trash tier. Some people are comparing it to ARR, but that's honestly underselling 2.0 in a lot of ways. Spoilers ahead!

First, I must confess, I am an ARR enjoyer. I love its world building, its slow pace, how lived in and carefully crafted everything is, how rewarding it is to pay attention to lore details, how incredible it is at hinting at something bigger. My favorite expac is HW, and while I haven't found anything quite like it since, I still find the rest of the story at least entertaining. Now, with that said, I didn't set my expectation especially high with this new expansion. It was supposed to be the start of a new saga and so I imagined it would start slow, with what I assumed would be a lot of settup. I was sorely disappointed. Honestly, I don't even mind Wuk Lamat, but the fact she is so present in the adventure makes it hard to ignore how poorly written she ended up being. Her character flaws never have actual consequences, every problem is resolved within one or two cutscenes and none of her victories feel earned. Several times they could have meaningfully challenged her character, but they never went past surface level banalities like "friendship is magic". As a result, she feels like a broken record half of the time. A shame!

What gave me a good laugh was how Krile kept hitting us on the head with her whole "OMG Zoraal Ja is Evil!" everytime she sees this character. It would've been nice yknow... to let us wonder about who he really was, his family ties , and what his intensions truly were. but no, they told us everything from the get go.

The characters say what they mean and mean what they say. The heroes are never wrong, never mislead, always have the purest of intentions. Their beliefs are never challenged. There's no subtext, no wonder, no mystery. So why care at all? All of it is a big fat missed opportunity. DT's characters deserved better.

In recent expacs, I've been annoyed with their tendency to solve issues like unemployment or poverty in a few lines of dialogue. For example, in ARR and HW, you would deal with the symtoms of an issue, like refugees being preyed upon, or people in need being taken advantage of. When done well, you would be given a good overview of the situation, several angles and hopefully, a bit of nuance. In later expacs, you get 16yo Alphinaud telling you if you are poor you should find work lol. The npc's agency is often cast aside so your character can look good, so you can come up with every solutions, so you can be the hero. They don't feel like a people you're trying to help, they are plot devices to facilitate your power fantasy. Writers find ways around complex situations, to reassure the player that no no their way is the best, there was no other choices. It thoroughly reduces the impact of the story imo. I really believe some issues need to stay unsolvable in a story. Not everything can be resolved by killing gods, and that's fine. It's mature, it's humbling.

In Dawntrail however, this has been taken to the extreme! A lot of these problems end up feeling very one note, and the solutions, condescending. One scene and it's dealt with! Concepts, questions or consequences don't really have time to stay with the characters or the player. It feels like characters are written in little boxes, rarely interracting with a rich world and its history, and are conveniently pushed along by little plot devices. As a result, the over-arcing narrative isn't cohesive at all. The only part that worked on me was Cahciua's questline, because we are left somewhat wondering about her or Erenville's feelings for a little while. Otherwise, nothing lingers between questlines, and things really feel badly pieced together. Now, I was really looking forward to the world building in DT! I know past expacs also had cultures based on rl ones, but the focus of the story wasn't tourism then. By drawing attention to it, it becomes apparent that every zone is rushed, reducing the tribes there to one or two easily digestible trait for Wuk Lamat to understand. She'll either solve their problems with a grand monologue about peace and love or pretend she grew from the 2 hours tutorial on "trading for dummies". It's so frustrating! Either they don't trust in their own writing ability or they don't respect the player's intelligence.

Dawntrail is shiny, pretty and colorful, but the moment you scratch the surface, it crumbles down. The plot falls apart if you think about it for more than two seconds. The elements are all there but this feels like a first draft. It's just so inoffensive and bland!!! It is ironic that the dawn of a new saga, the golden legacy of FFXIV, completely forgot how ARR came to be. How painstakingly and carefully the new game was crafted when 1.0 crashed and burned. It's a game about heritage, and yet it didn't take time to properly consider its past strengths. idk man... Time to go back to the drawing boad!

[mamawasatesttube]

Do you have thoughts on how kon would be as a big brother to Chris and Jon? I've read Chris and Jon's comics and I'm writing a thing with them but I want to have their big brother be part of their character/internal problem solving even if he doesn't (as of yet) appear. But I've only read yj and superboy is unfinished/on my tbr so I'm going to the Expert

(If you have any thoughts opinions on Kara's familial relationships you can include those as well)

OOH OOH YES DO I EVER!!!!!

every time i think about kon as a big brother i immediately think of sb94 annual #2, which opens on kon taking a kid flying for his birthday and joking about him being superboy jr., kind of like his little brother. then we move to cadmus, where it turns out the prototypical experiment #1 (whereas kon was #13) has awoken and escaped his containment pod. he fights kon briefly, believing himself to be/wanting to be the "real" superboy, but is injured and collapses in kon's arms afterwards. it turns out he's not stable outside the pod and is dying; despite kon's best efforts to get the cadmus doctors to save him, he only lasts another few minutes. i'm personally never ever getting over kon's face when it happens (right after they both find out their dna donor was paul westfield):

SO!! with that being established backstory: i think kon would be soooo excited to be a big brother. he'd talk a big game and want the kids to think he's cool, and of course, he's a mega dork (he'd try to get them both into wendy, and if they didn't like it, he'd be offended). but imo, he's also gonna be so protective of them right off the bat, in large part because of poor clone #1. he's got a lot of feelings about people he's gotta protect, and little siblings are sooo high on that list.

one thing is that i don't think kon really thinks of clark as his dad. of course, it depends on the point in the timeline where you're really introducing chris and jon (because like kon was dead by the point of last son introducing chris, and fitting jon into new earth is always a fun puzzle), but (to be clear this is to an extent my hc also) by the time he's living with the kents, kon no longer wants superman to be his dad. i do think he does at first ("i wish i had parents" in sb94 #85 paired with how reactive he is about shooting down superman being his dad in sb94 #94), but when he moves in with the kents that dies down pretty fast. but he'd way rather the kids call him their big brother than, like, their uncle. that's so uncool (haha see, 'cuz uncle sounds kind of like uncool--aw, whatever)!!! it makes him sound so OLD!!!! he's not an uncle!!!

so overall i think it's like. he's a fun-loving and protective figure. they probably think he's So cool for a while, then get a little older and go oh wait. that's a dorklord. i do think jon throws one hell of a tantrum the day he finds out he's never gonna get ttk even if he grows into all the other kryptonian powers, though.

(i also hc that chris can get some weird funky powers other than ttk, not ttk itself, bc its like... kon is THE ttk guy, and thats a metagene designed to emulate kryptonian powers, so it feels a little weird to take something that specific and give it to another character who doesn't have any of the narrative reasons to need it. someone who knows more abt editorial please do correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure they only gave chris ttk because prior to infinite crisis, the nightwing in new krypton shown to be using ttk was supposed to be kon, and was changed last-minute into chris.)

so like, he'd be a figure they can count on, someone they regard as always in their corner if they yell for him. he'll take the heat if they get in trouble (he spoils them. lois however has a very uncanny ability to tell if kon's taking the blame for something they did). i think as they grow older they might be like ...why's kon our brother but he doesn't live with us? and doesn't call our parents mom and dad? because kon stays with the kents but just hangs out with them all the time, and he calls clark and lois "clark and lois", and understanding that their family isn't nuclear might be a learning curve for them.

as for kara, i'll try and keep it brief bc this is already long i'm so sorry sdkhj but i generally operate in the realm of postcrisis kara, aka linda lang. she's roughly the same age as kon and she's got a Lot of feelings re: new krypton and her own guilt and her duty to her family, as well as whether she as supergirl can really measure up to superman. i love her. i think she would Adore having baby cousins because they mean her family is growing, after all the people she's lost. that said i think it's very possible she's a little awkward with kids because she just doesn't have that much experience with them. but i think she'd teach them to draw, and she'd really earnestly try with both of them. she'd LOVE to teach them about krypton, too.

[terraliensvent]

r we saying its problematic to post sfw artwork of a character with a nsfw alt cause thats rlly stupid

i agree the toyhouse should not have been linked without that art being maturity locked but as long as the art sent in the server wasnt nsfw which it appears it wasnt i do not see the issue.

not allowing sfw art of characters who have anything nsfw on their th seems rlly strict for no reason when they could just don’t allow the nsfw stuff or not allow the th to be shared

i would like to see both sides here fully bcuz no offense vibez is petty and aggressive af even if some of their points r valid and this feels like it could have been solved by asking them to just maturity lock the art in the th

post related

i think the bigger issue with it is the sheer hypocrisy of it.

smile demons is a species that has a history of being unsafe for minors and not taking proper action when dangerous people are reported, there are strong connotations to nsfw themes like leather play and bdsm, but its perfectly fine to post them in terra server because its (wrongfully imo) a “16+” species, yet symps (which are arguably more sfw) arent allowed because you cant advertise 18+ species. i find it pretty irresponsible that youre allowed to advertise a species that minors really shouldnt be playing around in (again, because of the suggestive theming and nsfw connotations, the fucking thumbnail for most of the myos is a character in leather gear), especially considering the fact we have proof of minors owning and interacting with others that have these fetish oriented characters

theres also the hypocrisy of being allowed to post characters/species with nsfw connotations when terra staff is so insanely strict about the nipple rule that you cant even post reference images without getting a warning

its, again, incredibly irresponsible to have someone on your mod team who argues leather gear and BDSM imagery is sfw, and who blurs the line to the point where they will link to a toyhouse with blatantly suggestive art and art where the character is wearing a GIMP MASK, with none of it being mature locked.

if youre gonna have a “minor friendly” server with adults in there too, you NEED to be as strict as possible with these things, the line shouldnt be blurred when it comes to NSFW shit because its incredibly easy for predators in discord servers to use plausible deniability to push the boundaries of what is and isnt ok to have around kids. ask yourself, would you be okay with seeing your 13 year old child be shown characters with gimp masks?

i think its one thing if youre just posting a normal sfw pic of your fursona who also has MATURE LOCKED nsfw on their profile. but its another thing entirely when youre posting a character with direct connotations to BDSM, who is part of a species that has heavy ties to BDSM and kink and has had issues in the past with minors, and linking that profile where none of the images are mature locked (and again, in the screenshot where they link the TH profile, a minor directly replies to them). you can bring up the hypocrisy again here, because terra staff HAVE taken issue with people posting th links in advertisements that contain art going against their nipple rule or other rules in the terra server. i also think its an problem that, when the issue is brought to tycho, he deflects and tells vibez to directly talk to the person theyre making the report against. thats just irresponsible from a moderation standpoint as well, and the cherry on top is banning them over this. they made a reasonable point, this character shouldnt be posted in the server, but because they bothered the mods enough in other situations this constituted a ban.

i said it in the og post, you can feel however you wanna feel about vibez being a bit of a dick lately with starting fights in terra server, but they shouldnt have been banned for bringing up the fact that characters like this should not be posted in the server. it seems like blatant loopholing around “no posting nsfw” and “no posting 18+ species.” like, in a fucked up alternate universe where succubuns was 16+ instead of 21+, would you say that should be allowed to be posted in a server full of minors that might want to join upon seeing the art?