#like im sure some people would disagree and maybe even prove me wrong and id be ok with that this is just my observations

[haematoclan]

Raph's sense of responsibility

every time i see a headcanon that Raph was the one to rise his brothers instead of Splinter or that he was forced to grow up and be The Responsible and Careful One since he was a tot i just remember the moment where small Raph took the family heirloom teapot because they couldn't find a ball, yelled to Donnie of all people to "Go long" and chucked it at him with his full strength 😭

or the whole Turtle Tots short where he basically made/encouraged them all to play with dangerous, very real weapons and the moment Splinter was off their hair he did it again!

i don't think he's that anxious and burdened by responsibility... yet, at least. like, I'm pretty sure he had a lot of space to be a kid and have fun, despite their whole situation. i mainly think in the past he just assumed the role of the leader as default due to his oldest status and just liked to take charge while playing and not because he had a deep sense of responsibility since day he was born?

in the short he's not the one to step up against Splinter, and in the flashback he isn't the one to repair the teapot that he shattered, nor to damage control the situation, which kind of shows to me Raph had some growing up to do (which is understandable he's a kid after all!) and it also shows that he's not the only one to take charge, the responsibility is not solely on him! and I don't doubt Raph kept encouraging reckless behavior in himself and his brothers through the years!

like. this boy is an adrenaline junkie and loves roughhousing with his brothers! probably more than they all combined, his Cain Instincts are honestly off the charts!

(and i think it's worth adding he doesn't seem self-conscious about his size and spikes, nor his strength, while playing/attacking them).

seriously, even Mikey isn't free from Raph's roughhousing, he might be overprotective of the youngest but that doesn't mean it will safe Mikey from Raph's wrath!

i do however think that he was forced to grow up in the span of the show very fast. just not that much as a small kid (though just to be clear, that's still tragic, being forced to grow up at the age of 15/16 is still too early). i don't think it was because of Splinter's neglectful parenting. or well, at least not completely directly because of it. as absent as he was, Splinter was still trying to keep his sons away from mystic stuff and dangers of the world.

Mad Dogs started their hero business mostly thanks to a coincidence because Raph saw Mayhem in the first episode.

thanks to that they gained their super cool weapons and saved Mayhem, which probably made Raph feel good about himself (helping other tends to make you feel that way)! not to mention he got to beat up some villain, just like heroes he grew up with! he probably felt confident, powerful, full of adrenaline and happy, which i think instilled in him this idea of becoming a Hero.

and at first he didn't really understand what he was getting himself (and others) into, or even thinking about potential dangers being a Hero could put them all in.

I don't think Raph took the role as family's protector too seriously up until Bug Busters (a.k.a. Leo being thrown off the roof). i think him unlocking his power back then could be kind of symbolic of him "growing up", being forced to really see what could happen to his family because of his idea of becoming Heroes

and then he became more serious about this stuff. (and even then, he still had moments like for example, not showing to Splinter's important mission in Insane in the Mama Train)

(the rest of Mad Dogs kept treating the hero stuff as a side hobby at most though (and honestly why shouldn't they? they were 13-15)).

in conclusion... i get where the headcanon that Raph was responsible and anxious since the very early childhood comes from, Splinter doesn't give off an aura of responsibility or being a very present parent and it seems logical that Raph would pick up Splinter's slack, but I swear we should give Splinter and the rest of Mad Dogs a little more credit! i just (personally) find it more interesting to see Raph's ascend into being the Responsible Leader as a complicated and non-linear, slow journey, because that kind of shows better the growth and character development he had to go through in the show

[lord-rosenth0rne]

There are plenty of good conservatives. WHO who you donate money to DOES directly support shitty people who want certain groups pushed down (minorities, lgbtqia+, etc). The fucking audacity if you to get so heated and then say you don’t support chik fila. Im dead laugh. Do you not see how ridiculous you are??? Id hate to be your friend because you are literally being a bitter bitch actively harming any friend you might have you are minorities and lgbtq+. fuck off. (2/2)

(Sorry about this, guys. I just couldn't resist. I'll make this quick and politics will be off the blog asap. I'll get some funny stuff rolling when I'm done. Maybe some of Roomie's artwork as well.)

If you are so sure of yourself, come off of anon. There shouldn't be any reason for you not to if this is what you really believe. Unfortunately, resorting to name-calling disqualifies you in my book for meaningful debates but you really should be more proud about your stances instead of being anon.

And, I must stay it's bold of you to assume you'd even make the cut to be a friend of mine. So far, you've kinda shot yourself in the foot on that option. My friends and I don't talk to one another this way and we know where one another is coming from, even if it comes out wrong. We don't cancel each other and know when to agree to disagree. We barely even hold grudges. I'd rather not be your friend if that's the way you'd talk to yours in a disagreement. It's disgusting and abusive. My friends are well above all of that, thank you.

I'm not afraid to say my stance is the fact politics aren't black and white and no one should be treating it as such. A donation for a politician does not mean you support every little thing about them. Voting for a politician does not mean you support every little thing about them. It's naive to believe that. That's reality. You are choosing who you think is the best to run the country on their policies on various subjects. It's the same with Congress. What are their policies for protecting the country, what do they plan to do for the deficit, where do they stand on this, where do they stand on that? And you gather all of it up and figure out which is the best candidate for our country. It's very unwise to choose someone for a single policy alone and ignore the rest when it is a weighted decision. You are going to have to suck some things up when making a decision, especially when both politicians are the scum of the earth.

"Good Republicans (originally it was conservatives, the anon messaged to change it)"? According to what, exactly? Because they market themselves as LGBTQ+ friendly or minority friendly? What are their other policies like? Women's issues (including anatomy since some like to pretend a woman can't get pregnant during rape)? Abortion stance? Planned Parenting stance? Country issues? Security issues? Border issues? The deficit? The economy? Foreign affairs? Unemployment? Disaster response? What exactly ARE their stances on the LGBTQ+ and minorities and are they really allies or just trying to buy your vote only to not do anything once they get in? How do they feel about Trans people and transitioning? What do they think are basic human rights? Do they want troops overseas or to bring them home? How would they take care of our military and veterans? Police reform? What do they think of illegal immigrants? How would they help low-income families and neighborhoods? School funding? Medicaid? Social Security? Health insurance in general? How trustworthy are they? Are they sincere or is it empty promises to get where they want to be? What is their history like? Do you see why this isn't a black and white issue? There is no way you would ever have a candidate check all the boxes right. You could screw yourself over very easily if you do not pay attention. The same goes for Democrats. You thought they were off the hook? Nah, fam. Same damn thing. Rules for all, not for some.

If you're talking "Good Republicans" as in civilians, then you're kinda shooting yourself in the foot here as my original post pretty much defended the person in question. Scott IS a good person, as per his actions, but everyone wants to condemn him for doing what he thought was right.

Where do you draw the line? What is the most important out of all these issues and what issues would you allow to fall to the wayside, maybe hoping the candidate might not be so bad about it and have a change of mind? That's the issue you're facing every time you go up to the ballot box. At least, it is when you're well informed. When you're not, you're basically going the shallow route and picking a winner on what they've been most vocal about like a well-groomed dog at the annual dog show.

I don't support Chick-Fil-A for donating MILLIONS, not thousands, to anti-LGBTQ+ and discriminatory organizations, you know, places that SPECIALIZE IN THOSE ACTIVITIES. Same with the Salvation Army. Burger King knows what they did. Politicians don't specialize in that. They have much more going on than to be doing that. They have countries and states to run and nowadays, that's a career death sentence. I mean, you do support cancel culture. That's why you've messaged me, to confirm your stance on what happened to Scott, who also, mind you, sent donations to pro-LGBTQ+ charities, further proving my own point.

And yes, according to a lot of people as per your first message that I laughed at and deleted before realizing I wanted to respond, I'm supposed to be LGBTQ+ but there are a lot out there, including in the LGBTQ+, who don't believe ace/aro people belong there or exist in general. Oh, and I'm nonbinary. But that's okay. That doesn't mean I don't support them either way.