#joker discourse

[maniacwatchestheworld]

Hi! Just wanted to say that I don't think that you were in the wrong for the Audio Adventures "i sleep, real shit" meme. I kind of took it as to mean that you preferred Harvey's story over the Joker's... not that you hated the Joker.

Still, I thought that your response was very well thought out and articulated in your reblog and I wanted to congratulate you on that!

On the other hand, drama in the Batman: The Audio Adventures fandom means that it is growing haha... so maybe that's a good sign?

Yeah. As I had detailed in my second reblog, I don't actually hate the Joker at all. I'm mostly apathetic to ambivalent about him...? And if you actually look at my blog, the entire reason I made that meme was because I was entertained by how I fell asleep while listening to the season 1 finale of the Batman Audio Adventures. I thought that was amusing, it made me feel like the meme, and so I decided to actually make the meme for real! You can see that the post I made immediately before I posted that meme was me talking about how I fell asleep while listening to the season 1 finale. I sleep not out of malice towards the Joker and his fans, but rather because I'm just not as interested in what's going on with the Joker when compared to what's going on with Two-Face! There wasn't really any malice behind my actions, and I think it was a pretty tame meme regardless. I didn't think that anyone would actually get offended by it, as it's all in good fun and people are perfectly within their rights to disagree with my post. So needless to say, I was surprised to see someone reacting SO adversely to my post!

I'll be honest, I was very tempted to just ignore the response post. But I do always try to treat everyone I can with respect and courtesy, and it bothered me that they were accusing me of having attitudes that simply don't reflect who I am at all. To stay silent, I felt, would only make that person feel like they were correct in their snapshot judgement of me. That I'm just here to pick on Joker fans, when that simply isn't true! I have preferences and am biased towards those preferences. But generally speaking I'm not interested in openly bashing things that I dislike publicly here on the internet! This blog will never become a hate blog. I may express frustrations here and there, but I tend to ignore things that I dislike, and prefer to discuss things that I do like. When something bothers me, I prefer to think of ways to fix it, or find a way to engage with it that suits me better than to just spread anger and hatred towards it. And I don't want people to think that I would ever be the kind of person who wants to spread hate on my blog! I have better things to do with my time and energy on this blog. This is just a place for me to share thoughts and ideas I have for my own sake and enjoyment. And I just don't find engaging in hate or discourse to be very fun.

I've been here on the internet and Tumblr specifically for a very long time at this point. I'm a Tumblr ancient. And I've always found that people acting in the way that I saw tends to be the result of someone just having a bad day and lashing out because of it. I will never begrudge someone for having a bad day. And if the Joker community really is a chronically bullied group like that person was implying, they have nothing but my sympathy, and I would not want to exacerbate the problem! Again, I have no interest in bullying other people on this blog of mine, and if I do something wrong, I am always happy to try and change my thoughts and behavior to make things right. I want to learn and am always grateful to anyone who's willing to work with and teach me! It's always good to hear people's thoughts and opinions that differ from my own! And the fact that you think that I did a good job with my response is hopefully an indication that I'm on the right track. So thank you for the compliment. I'm just trying my best. >.<

And yeah... I've been very surprised with the amount of interaction the Batman fandom has been giving me in my short time here so far! I'm always craving interaction! But if this is a sign of things to come... On one hand, I am REALLY enjoying the Batman Audio Adventures and so am glad that this is a sign of them gaining more popularity! But at the same time, discourse is just... Exhausting and I'd rather not be forced into engaging with it if I don't have to. >.<

[britishalien12]

How often do you think young Ben used the tentacles to tap one of his siblings on the shoulder to make them turn the wrong way and get angry at one of the other siblings?

I can see little Number Six doing this at the dinner table to see who he could get to react and trigger a stern telling off from their father for interrupting their meal.

Or maybe during press photo opportunities following missions to see what kind of faces he could get them all to pull.

I can also see him just messing with things around the house just to prank his siblings.

[naarlar]

I don’t get akeshu / shuake at all.

Like I get it from a typical “fandom loves the enemies to lovers trope” perspective but in all honesty I don’t get the insane brainrot the persona 5 fandom has for this ship.

Like do I think Joker cares for Akechi? Yes.

Do I think he was genuinely conflicted/tempted by Maruki’s ultimatum? Yes.

Do I think they have a genuine relationship and see a lot of themselves in each other and actually somewhat understand each other? Yes.

That being said, I really don’t see how anyone can look past the fact that Akechi tried to kill Joker. And okie fine enemies to lovers, fandom’s favorite ship aside, I don’t see how Joker can actually want a full on relationship (like romantic) with this dude when Futaba, Sojiro, and Haru are like right there?

This may just be me but I reallllllllly wouldn’t be friends with someone who is friends (hell forget even in a romantic relationship) with someone who horribly hurt me.

And I don’t think Joker loves Akechi more than Futaba, Sojiro, or Haru. Especially Sojiro and Futaba. Those two are like his family, and Akechi is responsible for their suffering.

Like… it’s kind of one or the other. Joker can’t be friends/dating Akechi without horribly betraying Futaba, Sojiro, and Haru. That’s just how I see it (but I’m open to hearing other perspectives!)

[fuubee]

another drawing meme but violet has BEEF

[necrotic-nephilim]

this is not a ship post, but something that frustrates me a lot in fanon concerning Jason Todd that attempts to soften Jason's return to Gotham for the sake of found family domesticity or easy hurt/comfort or just sliding him into the Batfam sooner, is they all seem to fundamentally misunderstand Jason.

because there seem to be a lot of fandom popular concepts of Jason coming home much sooner and just not having his whole Under The Red Hood arc. which in theory is fine and i can see the want to simplify canon to make room for your lighthearted more fluff-leaning concepts. but in everyone without fail, the way they address the clown-shaped elephant in the room is by having some throwaway line that "oh Jason quietly kills the Joker and moves on".

when the Joker being dead or alive is not the *point*. if by some chance accident, the Joker had died prior to Jason's return, whether by ridiculous freak accident, getting whacked by a fellow villain, hell even someone actually doing so to avenge Jason, it *would not* satiate Jason's anger. because Jason's end goal in UtRH is not to simply kill the Joker: it is to make *Bruce* kill the Joker. Jason's anger is directed to the idea that to Jason, if Bruce truly loved Jason, he would've killed the Joker. that is love, for Jason. compromising your personal values for love and not letting someone go unavenged. when Jason was Robin, almost every angry or misguided thing he did was born of love. he wanted to kill/hurt Two-Face because he believed Dent killed his father. he was so angry at Felipe because an innocent woman was dead due to that man's actions. he wanted to save his mother in a situation he knew he shouldn't be in because he loved her. his anger, his violence, it is driven by love and feelings of righting wrongs. that is how he thinks wrongs *should* be righted. that is how you avenge and *love* someone.

because so long as Jason's return to Gotham doesn't end in Bruce killing the Joker (which, it never will bc Bruce is Bruce), Jason will never forgive Bruce. you cannot wave away the layers of hurt and complicated trauma by killing Joker offscreen. because Jason will still be angry that Bruce didn't avenge him. in his eyes, that means Bruce did not love him enough. he was not truly loved by Bruce the way he loved Bruce. bc Bruce was Jason's whole *world*. prior to being taken in, Dick and Tim, they had support systems. they had loved ones. they knew what stability and healthy family love looked like. Jason *didn't*. and that's not to say that Catherine Todd did not love him with her whole heart and thus he loved her, but it certainly wasn't a stable and safe support system for Jason to grow up in. Bruce was Jason's first real sense of a stable, healthy life. and so of course Jason poured everything into Bruce and loved Bruce so devoutly. Bruce was his world. like he says, if it had been Bruce, Jason would've stopped at nothing.

so his betrayal is rooted in that he was not avenged, not that Joker is alive. so long as the Joker does not die by Bruce's hands, it will never be enough for Jason. (in this era, at least.) notably, this is also why i don't think it would change a thing if Jason knew the whole "oh Bruce wanted to kill the Joker but Superman stopped him" tidbit that fanon has really latched onto as a way to pacify Jason's anger toward Bruce. Jason knowing that wouldn't change a thing, in my opinion. because Jason knows Bruce. and a tenant of Bruce's character is that he grapples with murder *every day*. the whole point is how *easy* it would be for him. he is a human weapon, trained by killers, trained to be deadly. he is the greatest strategist to exist. he knows he could kill someone and get away with it. *no* trace, no proof, nothing. and he knows he *wants* to. wants to kill the Joker, Joe Chill, anyone who's hurt him that viscerally.

but he *doesn't*. that's the point. Bruce wakes up every day with that question on his mind, and every day the answer is the same. Bruce's morality is not a decision he made in an alleyway when his parents died, it's a decision he continues to make every day and he *must* continue to make in order to remain who he is. Jason is quite familiar with the fact that Bruce grapples with this daily. i do not think it surprised nor fazed Jason to know that Bruce did *consider* killing the Joker. that he wanted to. maybe even planned to. but a consideration, a want, a plan, is just a thought. it's nothing substantial, and substance is everything to Jason. at the end of the day, Bruce didn't. he was talked down by *Clark* of all people with an excuse of diplomatic immunity, as if Jason and Bruce don't both know that Bruce could've *easily* found a way to make it look like an accident or some other loophole. because he's Batman. there's always a loophole. he always finds a way when he actually intends to. but he never actually intended to kill the Joker. so he didn't. and Jason would know that there was never an intent. it's an interesting piece of fodder to add to the nuance of Jason and Bruce, but honestly, i think it'd make Jason angrier to have that excuse thrown in his face. as if Bruce hasn't beaten Clark half a dozen times by now. it's a flimsy nonsense excuse that Jason would rip to shreds.

so while yes, i understand the wish for easy lighthearted fanfic that doesn't have to deal with the nuances of canon, i think that Jason's character will always be so deeply robbed and altered if you try to fix his thirst for vengeance with an off-page killing of Joker at Jason's hands. it was never the point. the point was that -in his own eyes- he wasn't loved enough for Bruce to make an acception. he realized that not even his *death* would come before Bruce's Mission. Jason truly believed that Bruce loved him and held him as the most important thing in the world, and now he has proof that Bruce didn't. because the Mission mattered more.

i'm not saying i have a solution to this conundrum if you're attempting to solve it for fanfic/fanon, nor am i even saying it's a bad thing it exists. i just think it becoming overwhelmingly common has led to misunderstandings surrounding Jason's motivations and feelings about this arc and it's an unsatisfying solution that only seeks to pacify Jason's rage and his trauma responses for the sake of found family-ification.

[mikakuna]

the way people care more about jason fighting tim than like any other rogue fighting tim during his robin run is...!

"they're brothers! jason is so horrible to attack his little brother."

aside from the obvious twinkification of tim, stop pushing the family narrative on two people who did not see each other as siblings at that moment.

[a-secret-bolton-vampire]

CW: Rape, incest, CSA

This is actually not a strictly A Song of Ice and Fire post here, but it overlaps in some ways so I figured I'd write this.

Anyone who has not read the web serials Worm or Ward and wishes to avoid spoilers, don't read this post:

Disclaimer out of the way, I've found striking parallels between fandom reaction for both A Song of Ice and Fire and Parahumans regarding how characters who survived sexual abuse view their abusers, in a dangerously disturbing way.

For this I'm going to specifically be using the examples of Aeron and Theon Greyjoy from A Song of Ice and Fire to compare and contrast to Victoria Dallon in Ward. All three were psychologically and sexually tormented by their abusers during the course of the series. Theon is a young adult by the time Ramsay gets his hands on him, but Aeron and Victoria were both children when they were molested by family members so they will be the main two characters to compare.

In the case of Euron and Aeron, there are a (sadly very vocal) minority who are ready to dismiss Euron's danger to others by specifically using Aeron's abuse against him. Sure, Euron is evil and horrifically abused him and Urrigon when they were children, and it is understandable that Aeron would be mortified of Euron. After all, he tries to warn people about Euron repeatedly, only for his attempts to stop him to all fail.

The response by this section of the fandom to claims of Euron being built up as a major threat are essentially that Aeron's trauma is in the way of his ability to perceive Euron objectively. Is Euron actually as dangerous as Aeron claims? You can say the same for Theon and Ramsay. After all, Theon is half-mad warning Stannis about Ramsay, and Stannis is bringing some Rational Realness to the forefront by saying "what do I have to fear him for?"

Since GRRM is never releasing another A Song of Ice and Fire book it's hard to say what he intends but he could definitely intend for this to be the case. That said, there is a story featuring a similar character that is completed. Ward!

Victoria Dallon's sister, Amy, is a cape with healing abilities, though as the series progresses we know that healing is just the tip of the iceberg; she can change the biological makeup of living things. Amy is adopted, and has never felt any love from anyone other than Victoria. Amy develops deep romantic love for her sister, however, and then begins a series of bad decisions that just serve to deepen her already deep mental breakdown.

Amy proceeds to; alter Victoria's brain chemistry to give her compulsive romantic thoughts about her, then following healing Victoria after a battle, she spends several days alone with her, during which she repeatedly rapes her, erases her memories of said rapes, until her mental health deteriorates even further and she is unable to use her power properly and turns Victoria into the Wretch: a mass of flesh and limbs and heads, rather than anything actually human.

Then Victoria spends 2 years in a mental institution, stuck in a body she hates, all the while fighting the compulsions Amy left in place. When she finally returns Victoria to normal at the end of Worm, it is actually against her will and not because she had a change of heart or got more confident.

Then we get to Ward, where Victoria is the main POV. As is very obvious, Victoria is struggling with extremely intense PTSD, mentioning Amy is enough to trigger a dissociative flashback, and she wants absolutely nothing to do with her anymore: and fucking rightfully so.

Victoria also warns people about Amy. She warns her therapist to try to reach out to Amy before she hurts someone else, she warns literally anyone who will listen about Amy and what she might end up doing. We may not know what it is that Ramsay and Euron end up doing, but we do know what Amy does.

She refuses all help and doubles down on bad decisions, enslaves people with her powers, later imprisons and torments and touches Victoria again against her will, and becomes the dictatorial monster in charge of an entire planet. Victoria's warnings prove to be extremely prophetic and extremely real.

Now lets get into some discourse shall we?

Despite Amy being a rapist who rapes her sister, enslaves others via mind control, and literally never once improving as a person or acknowledging that her actions even caused harm, there are still those who think Amy isn't at fault. Some might find this post, but I don't really care. Amy is at fault for things Amy did. Victoria is not at fault for hugging her sister like a normal human being when Amy is upset, Amy didn't do her a favour healing her because then she just raped her and then really couldn't fix her back to a human body, and Amy isn't absolved of these sins because she healed a lot of people.

Essentially, Victoria is sometimes blamed for being raped by her sister, the rapist, despite Amy canonically being a manipulative lying liar rapist.

Okay so that doesn't seem to related to what the fandom says with Euron and Ramsay, right? After all, we don't really blame Aeron for being molested and Theon for also being sexually tortured and abused by Ramsay, do we? There are factors as to why that is (mostly that Aeron and Theon are men and Victoria is a woman; if you don't buy this argument look at people who say Cersei deserved to be sexually assaulted by Robert or try to use "the times" as an excuse to overlook Daenerys also being raped by Drogo) but there is an overlap here.

Amy being able to get away with that she did only to go on and hurt so many other people is a meta-commentary on the way survivors of sexual abuse are disbelieved or blamed for what happened to them. Naturally, those real like abusers end up going to abuse other people too. Fuck, even in the fandom, Victoria is still fucking blamed for things that she had absolutely no choice in the matter.

Which leads back to Theon and Aeron. Yes, trauma impacts the way you remember traumatic events, and that means objectivity can get lost at times. It can for Victoria and Theon and Aeron. But that trauma, the dissociation, memory problems, all of these together, are there for a reason. And that's because someone came along, ruined another persons life for their own pleasure and satisfaction, and then got away with it.

Victoria warned the world about what Amy would do, and she was unfortunately correct. Theon and Aeron warned others about Ramsay and Euron. Survivors should be believed, and not be dismissed. After all, it isn't our fault that we got abused. People may hear things about Euron or Amy or Ramsay, but the people who truly know who they are---what they are capable of, what they are actually like---are the people they abused.

So yeah, it's kinda fucking lame when I hear someone go "Stannis gonna prove Theon wrong with facts and logic" as if he doesn't, I don't know, have insight into Ramsay's psychology in ways Stannis doesn't. Same with Euron. Same with Amy.

Also fucking read Ward it hurts as intensely as it kicks ass.

[becomingvecna]

"you miss the point if you idolize these characters" do I look like I give a fuck about your character analysis and psychological essay? babe I'm watching a movie as a source of entertainment. and if these characters look hot covered in blood and killing people, I am going to idolize the fuck out of them and I am going to fall in love with them. it's okay to just have fun and enjoy the characters and say yayyy more blood while watching a movie during a movie night after a stressful day without psychoanalyzing everything my dude. let your brain rest and just enjoy hot characters doing hot villain shit in films. you're not going to start killing people irl with an axe just because miss pearl did it and you think she's such a strong, badass female character, and you're not going to shoot someone irl in the head just because the joker did it and you think he has a point. or or you're not going to start eating people irl just because hannibal did it and you think he's hot as fuck. just... enjoy hot characters doing hot villain shit. idolize them. fall in love with them. the point of movies and tv shows is that you can escape reality for a while. it's a cruel, fucked up world here, and these little fictional worlds can be your getaway for a while. it's okay to embrace your dark fantasy and idolize villains.

for legal reason, this is about fictional characters.

[icantturnthisthingoff]

okay i don’t want to give that one person more attention than necessary because they aren’t very reasonable so im just gonna put in my final opinions on this topic on my own post.

no singular civilian person is at fault for the actions of their government or their military. that is the fault of the people at the top of that decision tree alongside those who knowingly and willingly choose to spread propaganda.

its also a bad faith argument to suggest that it is the fault of the russian people due to their silence and inaction when we know that those who have spoken out against the kremlin have been assassinated and imprisoned. we also know that there is little to no democracy in russia.

russians who oppose the invasion of ukraine are not silent, they have been silenced.

and those who have left russia because they did not wish to be drafted or involved in said invasion in any capacity have been pretty fucking vocal about it offline at least from my experience living in hotspot area for slavic immigration.

but even without all that : just being from a country does not make you inherently bad or good or anything really because thats not how it works?? yes environmental factors can greatly impact the way somebody thinks politically and morally etc but its not inherent. like if you look within peoples families a set of siblings may all be raised the same in the same area by the same people with the same rules, regulations and beliefs but you will find that very often sibling 1 has a wildly different worldview to sibling 2 or 3 and so on. thats the beauty of human complexity we make up our own minds ultimately.

anyways i’ve ranted enough

tl;dr - the person at a JO concert singing UM in russian has no real say in the actions of their country and is not a bad person just because they are from russia, they might be a lovely person they might be awful, but whatever they are its not just because they are born in russia and to say so would be xenophobic

[artist-issues]

My curiosity keeps knocking, so I've gotta pull the thread. Why would you erase Joker from existence if you could?

I'll break it down:

1. The Joker has no point.

There is not one consistent message in The Joker. It's not trying to "say" anything at all, because it commits to nothing. Instead, it almost says several things. It almost comments on the haves versus the have-nots. It almost comments on mental illness. It almost comments on society's treatment of those with mental illnesses. It almost comments on the government's spending. It almost comments on violence and comedy. But everything it tries to comment on feels like a sentence that gets cut off at the halfway point; after telling you the bad news and promising good news, it fails to deliver.

I'll tell you how it does this. Arthur Fleck is introduced as mentally ill. (As in, there was a developmental problem with his brain chemistry that causes him to miss social cues and laugh nervously.) This means that when he is mistreated by background characters for "being different," the audience should start to feel sorry for him and consider how a mentally ill person should be treated. But wait. He's not actually mentally ill because of a diagnosable problem with his brain chemistry—he claims he feels clearer and better when he's off his meds. Add that to the revelation that he wasn't born with a brain-chemistry issue. He was abused by his mom's ex. So, maybe he's not actually "crazy." Maybe, he's seeing the world as it really is? After all, it's been dark and terrible for him since he was a child. Or no, because what about that laughing tick, that's not normal, right? And he's hallucinating a life with a girl he's attracted to, and believes it enough to walk into her apartment like that's normal. So is he crazy, or just the only one responding correctly to a world as dark as he is?

The movie won't tell you. It starts a sentence, then cuts off before any thought or truth statement can be completed.

The movie also sets itself up as if those who have should be taking responsibility for society's "have-nots." Or it starts to. Mr. Wayne is introduced as directly responsible for the hardship Mrs. Fleck has fallen into. He is Arthur's father, and should be caring for him. But instead, he beats up and ignores the guy most entitled to, and in need of, his help. Just like the way he ignores the poor people in his city, right? But wait. No. Maybe none of that is true. Maybe Mr. Wayne is entirely innocent of abandoning Arthur and his mother—this was all the delusion of a selfish drug-addicted woman, and the rumors she's spreading ultimately lead to the assassination, not only of Mr. Wayne's good character, but of his actual life. And his wife's. So is the character who has power and influence and badmouths the poor a portrayed in a negative light, or a positive light? Is this character a selfish rich person who cares nothing for those less fortunate than himself, or is he just one more guy who could've been good if others' cruelty (Mrs. Fleck's lies) hadn't pushed him "past the breaking point?" Does that justify his cruelty, if it's true?

Both. Neither. Nothing at all. The movie won't tell you.

So you can pick whatever ending you want. But. No you can't. You can't even do that. Because guess what? It's all in Arthur Fleck, inmate of Arkham Asylum's, crazy head. Maybe none of it was real.

2. The Joker is therefore only successful as a piece of entertainment.

Everyone could've guessed that as soon as they saw it was a movie about the Joker. Nobody needed this movie in any sense. We already know more than one origin story for the Joker, as a character. We've already done-to-death every interpretation of his craziness. Everybody knows who he is and what he's like. So obviously, this was just going to be entertaining.

That's bad enough. Stories are supposed to remind you of goodness, beauty, and truth. Why? I'm not going to dissect it because everyone can read the pinned post on my blog. But because: the world's dark enough already, and it's easy to lose your sense of goodness, beauty, and truth. A story, even if it's a tragedy, even if it has no "happy ending," can still take you out of your present state of mind, sit you down in a fresh state of mind, and remind you of truth. Being "entertaining" is just one of the tools that the story uses to take you there. Or it's supposed to be.

When you take the point, the truth, the message, the "theme," out of a story, then it's just the Romans distracting the populace with coliseum spectacle so they forget that they're losing money and wasting their lives. Woohoo. "Fun. Entertainment."

You can disagree with me about that if you want. You can believe, like many I know, "it's fine to just turn off your brain and be entertained! Not everything has to mean something! I bet you're fun at parties!" Okay, cool, so you like being entertained, and The Joker entertained you.

The problem is, what were you being entertained by?

Because:

3. The Joker increases an appetite for evil in the audience.

I don't care. I said it. It's painfully obvious.

First of all, you came here to what? Watch the bad guy lose and the good guy win? No. This movie's got no Batman. You came to glut yourself on two hours of the bad guy with no pesky good guy to share his spotlight.

Is that too harsh? Maybe you just came in expecting the Joker to be about how a good man goes bad. Okay. Uplifting. But sure, maybe a cautionary tale could be useful.

But that's not what you get with the Joker. We already established: there's no lesson, no point, to this movie besides entertainment.

And I don't just mean "aw booo, there was way too much icky blood and scary suspenseful music. Oh no, a movie about a villain had villainy in it!!"

Nope.

I mean, tell me why Arthur Fleck only has moments of peace and transcendence after he murders someone? Why's the sunlight warming him up, like a benevolent gift from the heavens, in the shot after he smothers his mother with a pillow? Why are those somber strings playing out a ditty he can "be himself" and dance to after he shoots three young men? Why is he only experiencing clarity after he kills?

Why are the most "interesting" parts of Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal the parts where the character is killing, stealing, or thinking about killing?

Why is so much effort put into telling the story as if Arthur Fleck is sympathetic, no matter which way you look at it? He only kills mean people. Except his mother. Oh but she was kind of mean, too. Never mind that whatever caused her to ignore, lie, and abuse her son was also played off, in the movie, like a mental illness. The very thing we're meant to feel sorry for Arthur about.

The movie won't tell you who's right or wrong. But it makes you see everything through Arthur's eyes, with nobody to stop him or correct him or offer a differing point of view—and that alone is dangerous. Your mirror neurons are going to make you sympathize with that main character, regardless of how heinous his actions are, when the storytellers are so careful to offer you all these reasons why his actions were "justified."

The Joker was invented to have a Batman. Introduce a villain—even a sympathetic villain—but you have to also introduce the opposite of that villain. It can be one line of dialogue; it doesn't have to be a hero. But you have to say something about the evil when it is represented. Instead of inviting everyone to feel for the villain...then leaving them feeling vaguely satisfied when he commits atrocities. They can't help it. It's the first time he's looked at peace, or in control of anything. That's how the movie is made.

So you're entertained by looking for a statement that isn't there—or by watching one man brutally slay five people, one of whom is his mother, because you were just so excited to see some blood, to see a man snap. Panem et circuses. At its finest. And you paid for it. Smart. Cultured, of you.

I'd wipe that movie out of existence and force the writers and directors to stare at a wall while sad violin music plays in the background for exactly how many days it took them to make that movie, if I could.

[prettyboysdontlookatexplosions]

the excerpt of That Fucking Article this person is responding to is this:

here’s the beginning of the article on the first-year class that dames teaches:

in other words, it’s a core requirement taken by all columbia students, the vast majority of whom are not, in fact, literature majors. but please keep flexing about how smart you are while committing basic factual errors :)

[sequencer987]

As much as the Batman fandom likes to shit on Zack Snyder, Christopher Nolan is equally responsible for kickstarting the annoying “Uuuuhhh acshully Batman is just a rich guy who beats up poor people” takes because he made three entire movies about Batman beating up poor people because he was too embarrassed to actually make a Batman movie.

[autoantonyms]

Joker Out: We‘re going to play new songs on this tour to see if they’ll can make it on JO3!

Fandom: Nice!

Joker Out: Look we made those two songs you guys liked very much and we’re putting them on the album!

Fandom: So we only get 6 new songs?! You guys are so lazy and do not care about your fans!!! 🤡🤡

[max-nolastname]

aang having a code against killing makes sense because as the last airbender he carries the weight of his entire peoples and culture on his wee shoulders, and that includes respecting and valuing all life. it is core to his being, and him finding a roundabout way to solve the issue of killing ozai makes sense both as an airbender and for the story. we find out later in the kyoshi series that murder literally inhibits your ability to airbend, hence kyoshi and her mother's use of fans! and dont bring your utilitarian "oh we can save more lives by killing one person" into this, because sure that can work for another show but not this one!! it is literally the core thesis of the show! have some media literacy my god

[magical-xirl-4]

honestly considering Ikuto is going to be in Europe for the most part in Jewel Joker, I'm totally okay with there not being any romance between Amu and Ikuto in the manga. I think it's pretty obvious that Amuto is endgame and while they'll allude to it, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't give it a ton of focus because it'll be about Amu maturing while in middle school.

[lovvecherrymotion]

i've had more than one friend harassed over fanfic/shipping now and i'm so fucking done.

i know i don't have a lot of followers and i'd hope most people around here don't do it but if you think this is in any way acceptable, unfollow me. there are real people behind the screen and bullying them and sending them hate is not justifiable at all.

if you don't like something, unfollow/block/ignore. move along.