#lets start some discourse

[nellasbookplanet]

I do think that referring to Essek as irredeemable for regretting his actions only because he was caught and risked losing his friends is both kind of reductive to him as a character and a misunderstanding of the concept of redemption arcs in media.

A person generally isn't changed because you sit them down and hand them a bunch of political theory to read. They change because their circumstances and relationships do. It's like that guy who was deradicalized because he got a bunch of shrimp and started to care for them. It’s our relationships that change us, because they give us not a logical but an emotional reason to do so.

Caleb explicitly says "these people will change you" (or something along that line; I don’t remember the exact quote). Essek, before the m9, didn’t genuinely care about anyone. The people who would die if a war started because of his actions were irrelevant and abstract to him. Caleb, similarly, also started c2 not really caring about others. He had no interest in taking on Ikithon or the Assembly to save others from going through what he did, too preoccupied with his own trauma and his own goals to care. In that sense, he started the campaign in a similar place as Essek post ep. 97: regretful, but too busy wallowing in his own self-loathing to productively do anything to prevent future harm due to his previous actions.

Being with the m9, being reminded of the importance of other people and realizing that they’re capable of caring for them, is what changes Caleb and Essek both. Of course Essek starts out more concerned with losing the nein than with strangers killed in a war. They’re his starting step, the opening through which he realizes that the people hurt by his actions are real, that he cares, that he has the ability to, if not undo his harm, help stop furthering of it.

[benevolenterrancy]

after yesterday's picture i realised that almost every time i draw jgy he looks like he's about 5 seconds away from a breakdown so i figured i should give him a nap for once

[lexosaurus]

Okay but for real though jokes aside, I genuinely do not care about what people ship, and I don't think people should be being harassed over what they ship. Assuming everybody is tagging everything correctly, I'm in favor of just block/filter/mute and move on. What other people do is really none of my goddamn business. I actually have my own business where I spot while you lift weights but the catch is that I don't help you when things start to go south, I just encourage you to fight for your life cause that's where the real motivation is 😤🤙

[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.

[verdemint]

People complaining on twitter about enea and most of the riders not being able to speak english, i dont care you know what? I hope they all decide to never use that language ever again :)

[sweet-potato-42]

As expected after the forever situation people are bringing up stuff other ccs did in the past. Now we need to ask what can we forgive after someone gives an apology. how much do we think a person can change? Since really if we dont tolerate anything literally like every single cc on qsmp could be cancelled. So where do we draw the line.

Really its subjective and it often comes down to how much people personally like the cc which isnt ideal. Its sad to know its not fair and that the most popular and well liked ccs would be treated far less harshly than some less popular ccs. (like forever was popular but many disliked him still, it would have not been as harsh with cellbit for example)

Do we forgive aypierre if he apologises for what he said. Do we forgive tubbo for making some ignorant comments in the past despite him acknowledging he was wrong. Do we forgive when cellbit did blackface even if he apologised (i think) . Are we going to forgive some ccs like Vegetta who made questionable comments about trans and nonbinary people.

Also to what extent do we allow shit from the past to be forgiven. how far back. how old did the ccs have to be. Do we forgive if they were "stupid teenagers"? Do we forgive if they are from a more ignorant generation? Do we forgive if it was during a time with lots of bigotry?

Also do we need to have some thorough investigation of everything the ccs have said?? Do we leave it for when epople feel like looking into shit?? How far back can we look??

I personally believe to some extent forgiveness must be allowed. Ive seen people and myself change from shit opinions which are 90% of the time from ignorance. So what do we forgive...

[goat-boy]

Wow people make Käärijä a villain in the story that is actually so much bigger than our fandom or the history we’ve lived. It’s so unfair to him. I’m scared actually and hope he will be safe <3

I think he'll be mostly fine though admittedly I'm only tuned in here on tumblr. I have definitely seen some people being incredibly harsh on here as well though and I have heard that the reaction on Twitter has been way worse. (I heard people sent kä death threats, which if true is just like really??? over this?) It's just such a strange hill to die on to me.

I see it as reflective of the more recent phenomenon of people snapping at others online for what are ultimately little mistakes or just opinions that don't fit a specific mold. I've seen literally anyone being attacked just for not holding the most extreme version of a belief.

I don't think there's much cause for concern this time. Most of what I'm seeing here on tumblr is just people wanting a better apology or explanation anyway <3

[turtally-tubular]

honestly i dont get whats so hard to understand about the cpunk shit and why people are getting so fussy about it. its literally as simple as “if you arent physically disabled then its not for you”. and like. if you consider yourself physically disabled, then good for you, you can be part of cpunk. if not, go to neuropunk, madpunk, etc spaces.

how is that so hard to understand 😭😭

[transmasccofee]

im curious about ppls thoughts on this (also significant character development DOESNT mean “what character is better written”, it just means who do you think had the most significant change in character between their first appearance and their last.

(also pls if u want explain why u voted them in the tags u dont have to but i really like hearing ppls thoughts)

[fishfission-dc]

With comic book fans it’s always “current [character] is so out of character because in [specific comic run from 30 years ago] he acted like this.”

Fellas, the best part of comics is that the characters constantly evolve, and probably have been changed over and over again for longer than you’ve been alive. Each writer and artist reimagines the character in their own way, in a new way that will speak to different people in a different time. I shamelessly love New 52 Red Hood & Arsenal, and don’t really like Three Jokers Jason Todd or Young Justice Arsenal. And that’s okay. Maybe you hate New 52 Jason and love Rebirth Jason. And that’s okay!!

Even though it’s irritating, don’t hate on writers and artists for creating your character in a way that you don’t find “accurate.” In comics, after all this time, I don’t think there is an “accurate” way to portray a character. They’re vessels to tell a story, and are meant to change.

It’s okay if you don’t like a certain portrayal of your favorite comic character, because you probably already have media out there to consume that does portray them in a way that speaks to you, and the character will probably continue to grow and change forever. And that’s really cool.

[flashhwing]

I’m here to say that you may absolutely express negativity about veilguard to me as long as it’s not stupid. hate on it for real reasons, of which there are plenty, most of which I’m ignoring because of the hype but would be glad to discuss in a civilized manner. no forced positivity in this zone this is a safe space. unless your criticism is dumb as fuck then I will point and laugh

[minty-bunni]

I can't find the right words to explain it right now, but I honestly think that Astarion would calm down about his hunger for power if given time in a safe and supportive environment.

He specifically references never having to fear Cazador (or anyone if he ascends) again when it gets to the point where he decides on whether to stay a spawn or not and that sort of feeling and behavior isn't exactly uncommon among abuse victims? If given a chance to actually realize he is safe, that Cazador is gone, and that no one will be Cazador version 2.0, those thoughts would likely lessen. Maybe not totally go away, but he probably wouldn't actually consider sacrificing 7000 souls to ensure his safety.

He is upset, not in a good mental state, and still learning that people care for him and that he will never have to go through Cazador's torture ever again. He wants power over people like Cazador had power over him in order to make sure no one could (or would even try to) force him back into the hell he just escaped from.

And this is just one of the reasons I think he is good representation. He shows some of the ugly of recovering from an abusive situation that some victims experience.

[rainbowbeanstyles]

im not handling it well folks

[luminisvii]

with how the splat 3 fanbase is acting about splatfests, you'd think there's something real and tangible on the line and not like, superficial bragging rights and a few extra snails. idk why people are sitting here and getting angry at shiver as if she's a real person who has any actual will to do anything and not just pixels on a screen, especially when there are legitimate issues with how splatfests are designed and run in splat3, and that's the devs and nintendo's fault, not shiver. she's not real and she can't do anything to you. and i've seen way more complaining about the concept of "toxic shiver stans who always pick shiver and ruin it for everyone" than i have any actual evidence that these kind of people exist on a mass scale. it really feels like that kind of person is a guy that the fanbase made up to be mad at every time they lose. i agree that there are huge problems with splat 3 but the moment someone lays the blame on shiver they throw all credibility out the window. it's not shiver, there's no evil cult of shiver stans manipulating the splatfests, and don't get me started on how people are talking about the asian playerbase with these splatfests.

[britneyshakespeare]

I feel like certain people on Tumblr have really been fighting for backwards progress when it comes to how we talk about mental illness and abuse. I see posts at least several times a week on my dash that seem to have the purpose of implying people with insert-mental-illness and/or insert-symptom are not abusive when they do insert-action-that-makes-people-uncomfortable, often times meaning to promote a more positive image of people with particularly stigmatized conditions, like personality disorders, mood disorders, psychosis, addiction, or neurodivergence. And I really really hate it because these posts almost always have the ultimate purpose of telling people not just "This thing is not inherently abusive," but often it comes across as "You were not abused."

I just find that to be really unhelpful and unintentionally hurtful, and for what? I believe that destigmatizing various mental conditions is a worthy cause, but at the same time this type of rhetoric seems to be so protective of people in whichever stigmatized group they're trying to advocate for, that it comes back around to a sort of respectability politics. Anybody can be an abuser. And someone's means and methods of abusing can very much be influenced by a condition they have. Why wouldn't it be? Their conditions will affect every aspect of their life and their interpersonal relationships. Especially if these issues are going untreated or being insufficiently managed. I don't understand why anyone would want to make it appear as if abusers are mostly neurotypical and mentally well people, or that if they aren't, then their conditions have nothing to do with it and the overlap is merely incidental. What? It makes it so hard for anyone who is a victim to come to terms and identify the dynamics of what they've gone through.

Addicts and mentally ill people don't have to be unproblematic in order to be humanized and accepted. And nobody profits from writing hard and fast rules about how abuse apparently works, drawing clear lines between which behaviors can, and cannot, ever be abuse.