#like that's just personal taste stop making this a moral issue.

[gamora-borealis]

lol so I was looking at my twt to find a few peoples' @'s to follow on bluesky and actually came across the rumored phan twt plushie kissing discourse... i nearly started laughing that's WILD to me that there's really serious discourse about that!!!??? i know there's weird structural stress on phan twt from phil actually lurking sometimes but... still!

[cupcakeslushie]

I’ve been debating on saying something because I have a lot of thoughts about this, but I just want to say a quick (maybe not so quick) thought…

“Comfort Character” is not a declaration of ownership. Just because you relate to a character deeply, and see yourself in them, does not mean you get to go around policing the stories that get told regarding them, or the how they’re depicted in said stories.

I wanna be clear. Im not saying you can’t pose genuine questions and have perfectly reasonable discussions about the intricacies of hard topics. In fact, fiction can even help make those discussions easier to digest by lowering the stakes, because there are not any actual stakes when none of it is real.

Unfortunately, I’ve been seeing the entire opposite. People taking stories that may make them “uncomfy”, and declaring that they’ve now decided they are taking it personally, to near obsessive levels. You are not the only one allowed to play with these characters. It is a huge sandbox, and these toys are mass produced enough for everyone to have their own doll to do with whatever they’d like.

I get you might see yourself in a character, but that doesn’t give you the right to go around sending death threats just because someone wrote, or drew your current blorbo in an unfavorable light. Prioritizing some cluster of lines and colors over the mental health and safety of actual real human beings, is worse than whatever fictional, moral “atrocity” that you think you’re championing against. You only end up sounding just like the people calling for book banning in schools.

You are not the character. You are not being hurt. The character is not even being hurt, because they do not in fact, exist to actually experience any of the pain creators are putting them through. And most importantly, you have no claim on how other people entertain themselves with said character. Because that is what these characters are. Entertainment. They can be used in good or bad stories. If you don’t like how a creator is using them. Move on. Don’t send death threats or attacks.

Block and filter your tags.

I have triggers, but that is my issue to control and maintain. It is appreciated when steps are taken by creators to help me avoid the things that trigger me, but I don’t wish death and pain on anyone who doesn’t view the world through the same lens as myself, and might not have considered my own personal feelings on the matter. My feelings of unease or anxiety from coming into contact with my own triggers, might be valid, but initiating an attack on a creator, because I took a personal offense to their story, is not. I do not outright assume that something was created with me and my tastes in mind.

Also, this is not aimed at any one person. This is a rampant issue that I have seen first hand, going back all the way to more than a year ago. I’ve seen it happen in multiple fandoms, but as I spend most of my time in the Rise fandom, that’s where I see the worst of it. I’ve received attacks, I know other creators have received attacks, and if this keeps up, creators will just stop wanting to share anything at all.

I also need to emphasize, I’m not mad. This is not a lashing out. This is just a frustrating and hurtful trend to constantly witness, when creators are putting their own heart, time, and energy into creating intriguing and complex works of all kinds in order to broaden the beauty of this fandom, and they’re getting anonymous messages to kill themselves.

Please think about the real life person behind the art and stories you are consuming, instead of prioritizing the fictional comfort of made up characters inside the story, that will in actuality, never have any opinions on what’s being done to them. Because they do not exist.

[shorthaltsjester]

okay but i am very confused about the energy regarding the weavemind as. bells hells specific enemies? like sure they’re on ruidus and have been introduced in campaign 3 but none of bells hells have expressed a specific interest in taking them down, the weave mind has committed no specific crimes against bells hells that would equate it to being Justice™ for bh to fight them. even if you want to make the tenuous connection that like imogen and fearne are ruidusborn: both of them have focused much more on the consequences and revelations about their families that have come about from their ruidusborn existence than the authoritarian leaders of ruidus itself. so, uh, it is profoundly more interesting to have the party go after the person in charge of the army cult that contextualizes both of their existences and the trauma of the entirety of their party than a obscure group of villains that bh has no actual tangible relation to. like this was literally laid out in the conversation. bh get the cage and ludinus because that’s Their Fight that they’ve been fighting since imogen started dreaming and since orym’s family got killed. vox machina is taking the bridge because of the vax of it all. and mighty nein got the third less prevalent thing, because they’re experienced with psychic threats and manipulation (and also because of course the mighty nein are the ones dealing with the assignment less likely to be seen or heard about).

like the in-character reactions to the breakup of activities were only really considered anything close to negative by braius and dorian who while certainly now members of bells hells aren’t the ones upon which people are claiming to build their “this story is an injustice to the bells hells” sure it is. like ignoring the fact that being unable to get closure on every single issue and potential villain is a long-standing tradition in cr campaigns, i thought the thing everyone loved so much about bells hells is that they’re the npc party? and for better or worse c3 has been about being fast paced and it would be extraordinarily out of character for matt to say “oh these two high stakes and powerful groups have decided to fulfil their plans one at a time so that bells hells can sufficiently take them out.” like the only way that bells hells — the lowest level party — getting to take out One Of The Most Powerful Exandrian Mages is an injustice is if you’ve ignored the entire campaign and its context. like seeing the complaint that “it’s not bells hells story” yes, that has been made clear time and time again in the past 100 episodes. it’s completely fair to not like this, it’s extremely odd to see this as some sort of surprise wrecking ball that has come about in the decision to have more than one party of eight fuck ups trying to stop the unavoidably obvious world ending threat that exandria currently faces and not as something that has been made repeatedly clear by the themes and position of bells hells. like, throughout, unlike vm or mn, they have been handed their missions rather than choosing them (even if between 2 or 3 choices as was often the case with mn), they have explicitly discussed being the npcs or little guys, they have consistently gone to the bigger guys for help with things that previous parties either managed themselves or suffered without or had allies to help them (versus the like. Leaders that bh look to), even the dynamics of the parties express that bells hells are people stuck saving the world due to a bunch of personal moral codes rather than a specific decision to save the world because they’re the only ones who can, they’re expendable. that has made this campaign different throughout, it has made the characters less explored because they don’t have the time or means or desire to do so. and again it’s a matter of taste whether that’s something you enjoy, but it shouldn’t be a matter of “why would they do this” this far into the Bells Hells Aren’t Special They’re Just There campaign (which isn’t to say the characters aren’t special or whatever like they’re a bunch of weirdos but as a party they’re just a party)

[olderthannetfic]

Re: discourse about using outliers / the worst examples of a group to justify generalizations-- this is also a problem with the femslash wank asks

I'm one of those filthy f/f folks who actually does want to see more femslash relative to mascslash, but I'm not anti-fujo or a terf or telling ppl to change their own tastes. I'm proship / SALS and kinkmato and I think fujoshi are great; I appreciate their massive contribution to fandom culture including AO3's existence itself

But some ppl seem like they just hate f/f fandoms generally and want a reason to bitch about us? and I've felt super demoralized by it whenever I read your blog lately

Like the complaints about f/f being too wholesome and fluffy and that this is somehow bad?? tumblr is C O V E R E D with cutesey fluffy bubbly m/m art using That Artstyle we all know and nobody complains about it. But when sapphic art is like this suddenly its cause we're boring sexless puritans who dont know what pussy should look like? The huge amount of kinky weird depraved f/f thats out there gets totally erased and the wholesome stuff gets scapegoated as a symbol of regressiveness.

Or the constant lecturing to "JuSt CrEaTe It YoUrSeLf" as if nobody who says they want more f/f would actually be making it??? How do you KNOW they're not making it? Are you stalking the tumblr of every ao3 f/f author to make sure they never expressed the opinion you hate , and vice versa??

Yeah a few awful ppl have been super obnoxious, terfy, or puritanical bullies with how they talk about this topic. But when you constantly bring those people up to demonize talking about it at all it feels like you're creating a taboo around it because you want those annoying lesbian feminists to shut the fuck up. Cause how dare we, right? How dare we express desire for something in a way that reminds you patriarchy exists.

You won't even let us express that we're bitter or sad about feeling like a minority even amongst other queer women. You won't let us express simple jealousy without interpreting that jealousy in the most terfy antiship bad faith way possible!

I won't defend those who actually harass ppl or moralize over ships. I won't defend anti-fujos. But when you constantly lump me in with those people just because I looked at AO3 stats and went "Hmmm, it would be cool if this was more balanced :/" or whatever it feels like you just don't want me to say anything at all

--

Is this about me personally? Yes, I agree that topics that are repetitive start to feel like an attack.

But with regards to AO3 stats, this is my pet peeve, as you probably know if you read here often, and I'm unlikely to stop being angry about it.

AO3 is extremely unusual in the history of fandom for being a very big, very multifandom site that is not m/m-specific but where m/m outnumbers other things. There have been large-ish slash archives before. There have been and still are other large, multifandom archives, from FFN and Wattpad, which are in AO3's weight class, to medium size ones like MediaMiner. The spaces that aren't m/m-specific generally have f/m vastly outnumbering m/m. They also make it harder to get stats than AO3 does.

I don't have an issue with people looking at overall fandom stats and complaining that f/f has the short end of the stick when it comes to fanfic broadly. I do object to people pulling only AO3 stats and going "The one anomalous clubhouse that looks like this is the problem" and pointing at m/m.

It's the same problem you point out, just in another direction. After being told "Okay, but the amount of m/m..." constantly for years, people are fed up and never want to hear it again. Even if it's phrased nicely. Even if the person saying it is also hurting.

[like-tears-in-rain-storms]

Ok just had to share because I've been seeing these people all around and yet it had never happened directly to me.

So, great review of Nosferatu, and I get into A Situation with a person claiming that Orlok is a psychic pdfile rapist of child-Ellen and what's more, the covenant he tricked her into making with him symbolizes a marriage contract,thus Ellen is the analogue of a child bride and a denunciation of the buying and selling of women as brides through history and during that period in particular - also class analysis of how he's a parasite that sucks people dry, yadda yadda, we all know the class analysis. Now that's certainly....a take, and tbh I can see some elements of it sleekly fitting in with the way Eggers structures his themes, but to treat it so absolutely as THE explanation of such an intricate narrative....yeah. I had some issues with that.

And the whole affair ends with that person telling me verbatim, I kid you not, "you should examine why it is that you have a romantic reading on such an one-sided relationship between an undead rapist killer and his teenage victim".

And I'm like....what is this supposed to be? An own? Is it supposed to make me stop dead on my tracks and go "oh yeesh. Why am I romanticizing the goddamn gothic romance????? Am I some kind of monster? A ticking time bomb who'll listen tomorrow about a teen grooming victim of some degenerate and go "yeah but consider that she might have called on him on her dreams to liberate her and spread Covid around"???

To make a long story short, that passive-aggressive urge to self-psychologize with the hint that there's something wrong with myself did absolutely nothing to me,and I can explain it already as I did.

I had a romantic reading because I like gothic romance.

That's it, that's all the answer needed.

But I'm feeling rambly, so I'll elaborate. Because I like sounding the depths of the human mind and will and I like imagining it against powers that defy human measures. Because I like to imagine human nature as a universe, full of it's own destructive phenomena, natural disasters, secret cave systems and toxic geysers. Because in fiction I am free to do so, and can taste flavors that I would never seek out in the real world, like the vertigo of fulfilling the need for self-destruction, or the grandeur of being worth more than the entire world to someone, and what's more, I can acknowledge they exist, and can safely follow them to their logical limits from behind the safety of a book cover. Because on the page we can live out what can't be lived out in the real world even if we tried and because "some things belong on the page, others in life, and it's a blessed fool who can't tell the difference" and I don't know how others see themselves, but I am neither blessed nor a fool.

So needless to say, that wasn't the one it was probably intended as. Really interesting, though, to see such limited-minded puritanism take the stand on the event of Nosferatu coming out. Really interesting how, somehow, they are sounding more and more like crusaders of moral purity for the easily-deceived masses, only now dressed in some righteous "anti-abuse" garb, like abuse in the world will be affected if someone on the internet says that maybe the devouring embodiment of darkness that was rotting alive in the movie had some lasting and fatal effect on Ellen, and it didn't have to be love for it to be defining.

The real question is, why when your limit is the sky and you can make playgrounds out of your mind, do people feel the need to bring everything down to the unromantic, pedestrian and depressive reality that surrounds us whether we want it or not? As far as passive-aggressive urges for self-reflection go, I think that's a much more potentially productive one.

[brunosaderogatory]

Hello.

So... What do you think of Daniela and/or Lorenzo?

Hello, and oh buddy don't get me STARTED /ref

Honestly, I do not know where to begin with these two. I love them. I hate them. I want to keep them in a controlled environment so I could conduct a study of them with a little microscope and also squeeze them until their eyeballs pop out as if they were a pair of Panic Petes. In other words, I like them a lot as characters in a narrative and characters in a world. My opinion of them as people differs from minute to minute, but that is because they reflect the morally ambiguous, and sometimes outright cruel--but equally often loving--world in which they exist.

That being said:

At first, Lorenzo seems to be a very two-dimensional character. He's just a goofy dad who is more concerned with his avocations than he is with his son or wife, a painfully overdone trope in the world of children's cinema, but a few key details (and a bit of useful input from Enrico Casarosa) reveal something more.

For starters, Lorenzo is a lot like Luca. Rather, he is Luca---or who Luca could have very easily become. Lorenzo is meek and lets his wife take the reigns when the situation gets tough. Lorenzo is often off in his own little world, not paying much attention to anything but his own interests and inclinations. Lorenzo is kind-hearted and seems to want change, but is too burdened by his own anxieties or past failures to work up the courage again. And, I do say "again" because the search for his son was not the first time Lorenzo was on the surface.

His older brother (and possibly twin) Ugo was not the only one in their family to have explored the surface world before; Lorenzo was, most likely, right along beside him. Now, we don't know what exactly happened that resulted in Lorenzo's parents sending Ugo to the deep nor Lorenzo to stop trying to get a taste of the human way of life, but Ugo was sent. And Lorenzo did stop. However, it is unlikely that any tragic event took place. Rather, I believe the conclusion to Lorenzo's explorations happened out of conformity to the rules and traditions of his culture because Lorenzo never once spoke ill of humans.

Daniela calls them bloodthirsty lunatics. She insists that Luca has a death wish, and, very explicitly, she insinuates that he will die trying to hang with the humans. On the other hand, Lorenzo only gawks at his son's audacity and tenacity. Lorenzo even tries to reel in Daniela as she threatens Luca with a trip to the deep, but, of course, it is a fruitless attempt because he is meek. He does not have his son's tenacity nor his audacity---those traits were derived from Daniela alone. And this impotence serves as his most abhorrent attribute.

No, he's not doing anything wrong, but he's being a willful bystander. He's compliant with the evils, and, when it gets down to it, he backs them up! He makes no decision for himself, but when he does, he either chickens out of it at the last minute or doesn't know how to bounce back from a failure. Despite being fully aware of what the deep sea can do to a person--despite very likely disagreeing with his wife--he allows her to almost put their son, his son, in a situation that will inevitably, undeniably, deform (translucent skin, eroded teeth, discolored eyes, discolored fins) and disable (cardiovascular issues) him with time.

I'm glad he changed his side for the brighter half in the end, but I didn't see any actual change happen. He's still following his wife around from the looks of it, and that isn't what's needed for him to grow as a person and as a character. Although he's a three-dimensional character that appears to have only two, he's a static character that's been played off as a dynamic for far too long. He was a meek follower in the beginning, and he was a meek follower in the end. The only reason he came onto the good side of things is that the person he was following changed paths, and that isn't enough for me to truly like him (but it sure as hell does give me a lot to work with as a fanfic author, so thank you, Luca crew!).

Now, Daniela. When I think of Daniela, I think of a girl that (for lack of a better metaphor) was raised in a church who could have very well turned out queer, but due to the teachings she was fed---and possibly a very messy lesbian breakup---turned into a very, very hateful woman who, years down the line, rediscovered her bisexuality after the boy she was raising to be a goody-two-shoes, god-fearing, church-going fellow come out to her as vivaciously gay. That is to say, if it wasn't for Massimo, Daniela would be the most dynamic character in the movie. And if it weren't for Alberto, Daniela would be the most complex character in the movie. This is because, like her husband, Daniela tried out the surface life before, but unlike her husband, Daniela is a cruel, unjust force actively working to destroy her son's hopes and happiness at whatever cost necessary--even if it means her son's mental, social, and physical wellbeing. However, the force is derived of only love, fear, and care.

Just as it was in Lorenzo's case, but now far more severe, we lack explicit information about Daniela's past. All we have are the behaviors and beliefs displayed in the movie and information graciously given to us by Enrico Casarosa. These behaviors, beliefs, and Casarosa-given information are: having previously been to the human world; calling humans "bloodthirsty lunatics"; believing humans only go out on the waters for murder; understanding the motions made with a harpoon; attempting to send Luca to the Deep; waiting for Ugo to arrive rather than confronting Luca when she first notices his whereabouts; helicopter-parenting her son; being aware of Luca's interest in the surface/dissatisfaction with the sea; ensuring that Luca stays "safer than safe" while still letting him run off to Genova.

Given these, we can begin to piece together the picture: In her youth, Daniela adventured up to the surface and explored the human way of life, but something went wrong. She was caught in some dangerous situation that likely involved harpoons, or she bore witness to the same thing Luca did as he walked into Portorosso---the statues, the wanted posters, the carvings, the propaganda strewn about, adorning every angle of the town. Regardless, she became terribly fearful of humans and never returned to the surface again.

Unlike Lorenzo, Daniela is not simply abiding by the rules and traditions of their underwater society. Her evasion of humans is born of a completely justifiable fear. Humans hunted sea monsters. Humans put up wanted posters worth $4.5k in today's money for sea monsters captured, dead or alive, and fishermen armed with harpoons lined the waters for a children's race. I feel this is an often forgotten fact when the topic of Daniela's control over Luca comes up: Luca was in real, mortal danger going into Portorosso. Daniela might have been wrong to send Luca to the Deep, but from there, it becomes a discussion of which is worse: possible disability or possible death. Such a discourse grows even more complex when you call to mind that Daniela might not have even been aware of the physical and physiological changes the Deep has on a sea monster before Ugo's arrival.

Daniela's attempted actions are cruel, no doubt, but they are not at all unwarranted. She wants Luca, who she adores and deeply cares for, to be as safe as possible. If she has to be the bad guy to keep her son alive, then she will be the bad guy.

However, Daniela does not stay the bad guy. When she realizes Luca is safe in Portorosso (rather, when Portorosso becomes safe for Luca), she becomes open to the possibility of allowing him to continue living on the surface. She even, after a bit of convincing from Alberto and Libera, allows him to attend school in Genova for nine months out of the school year. At the end of the movie, she is assured of Luca's safety and the humans' ability to change for the better---to stop all the killing, hunting, and fear and begin a peaceful coexistence. This stability allows her to relinquish control over her son and support him in his dreams, even if it means she'll only see him in the summer months.

Daniela is an intensely dynamic and intensely complex character. She's a beautiful foil to her husband, and, quite frankly, I'm obsessed with her and desperately wish to see more of her growth and her past.

Also, Daniela and Lorenzo are peak malewife x girlboss material and I will not be hearing any slander toward their relationship. no idea how Lorenzo managed to bag her, but so glad he did. beautiful. love it. 10/10.

[hawkins-batman]

Hi! How are you?

Look, I'm writing this because I really want to educate myself. I read your posts, the one you pinned, the ones you write to, and most things because I honestly believe that Noah doesn't deserve any of the bad that is wished upon him. Idk, as a pseudo adult that I am and was here when the whole cancel culture was born (and I've seen it grow over the years) I feel like this obviously transcended. I actually think you're doing the right thing by defending Noah. I agree that if you see something bad or unfair happening and you do nothing you're responsible too. And even if we're wrong and Noah is what they say he is (which I really don't believe) no one deserves death threats and all the other nonsense he's had to read. People who say that forgot that they're not God to judge anyone and if they think they have the moral high ground to attack him like that someone needs to tell them how wrong they are to their face. I guess behind a screen we are all "brave enough to speak up" (however hypocritical I may seem saying this anonymously).

The thing is, I have friends that I don't discuss this with because I feel like I don't have all the information even though I fervently believe that Noah is the sweetest person and would never wish/support what Israel is doing to Palestine, and that's why I'm writing to you. And after this long introduction...

I read the image where he explains how the stickers thing was taken out of context (as I understand it) and I just went to watch the whole video again. I'm having a hard time finding an explanation because even though he notices very quickly what's happening and puts down the phone and stops recording/smiling, at first he does it. At first he laughs like everyone else and if it's his friends who put those kinds of stickers on their foreheads to make fun of it, it's even harder for me to feel like I can defend him. I feel very conflicted about it.

I hope you can answer me, thanks<3

I think focusing on the stickers or even his reaction to them is the wrong approach.

Getting caught up in the argument about what the stickers say was the first thing people did. When that failed, because he obviously didn’t have them himself, people go to his reaction and try to imply all kinds of crazy shit from that (that he was laughing at dead Palestinians, which is patently fucking ridiculous).

I focus on how people reacted to the video itself. Even if you think he reacted in poor taste (I don’t), the question is: does this video justify a smear campaign that has included death threats, rape threats, doxxing, homophobia (slurs, accusations he was spreading MPox on set), antisemitism (“Well, if only he wasn’t raised by Jews, he wouldn’t be like this”) and the harassment of his family to the point of forcing his mom to actively combat people in her own comments sections on her personal socials?

The answer is? Of course not.

Do not give people the concession of even talking about the stickers. That shifts the blame off of them and onto their victim. Put the behavior you’re seeing directed at Noah in the spot light and don’t let them run away from it.

If they cannot wholeheartedly denounce that behavior or, worse, think it’s justified, then there’s no need to talk about the stickers at all. They’ve got faaaar worse issues than stickers if this is the behavior they’ll justify.

And, on a related side note, Noah is famous in this fandom for being unbelievably sweet to his fans when they see him in public. Both word of mouth and videos/pictures of him meeting people out in the wild bear this out. It doesn’t surprise me that he was smiling at a waitress who recognized him and interacted with him, or even that he chuckles awkwardly along with his friends.

There was a guy a year or so back that recalled meeting Noah for the second time, and when he asked Noah if he remembered him, the guy could tell Noah didn’t, but in an effort to make him feel at ease and not awkward, Noah smiled, nodded along, and gave him a hug anyways.

That’s just how the guy is.

People are really brave for trying to make him out as some sort of villain for smiling in a video that’s being taken OF him, when I know it they had a camera trained on them 24/7, even the leftiest of lefties would be caught reacting in a manner that could be misconstrued as problematic.

And judging from the way they react when little old me calls them out on homophobia and antisemitism, I rather doubt they’d think receiving the treatment Noah has would be a fair reaction.

[fantasygerard2000]

Tastes and Preferences Are Not Standards

There's this issue with fans of any media complain about the lack of original works over actually watching them.

So, recently, D23 announced a ton of upcoming projects for the parks, games, shows, etc with their movies being the one that got the most attention. Majority of them are sequels and live action remakes and per usual, people are outrage over the big D for prioritizing on nostalgia baiting than making new ideas.

Here's the thing tho, alongside the sequels and live action remakes, they also announced Hoppers, an upcoming original film by Pixar directed by the guy that made We Bare Bears, Daniel Chong. Response to Hoppers, was near nonexistent. Like, very little anticipation as in "it exists".

Not only that, another original film before Hoppers is currently to be released next year, Elio. Just like with Hoppers, Elio only seen as this movie that was originally supposed to be released this year before swapping places with Inside Out 2.

Now, the obvious answer to this is rage culture. Being angry over the current thing is an easy content mill. Mufasa is being blasted because it had the audacity to not be faithful to an obscure prequel book series and Snow White for even much more dumb reasons, mostly centering on the lead actress because, if that didn't work on Halle, might as well try again on Rachel.

And when other people addressed that Pixar and Disney did made original films with Elemental and Wish being their current examples, the response these grifters is "We want GOOD original ideas." Now that just shows that they genuinely don't actually care about wanting to watch original ideas, regardless of quality, and simply only using them as a point to why hollywood is dead, blah blah blah.

Original ideas take time to get people invested into watching them. People prefer to engage with media they are more familiar with over the new ones, hence why they are always needlessly comparing things.

Elemental was mocked for being a Zootopia clone but with living elements and themes of racism, but while Zootopia is about general prejudice, Elemental is about personal prejudice. It doesn't use allegories like Zootopia, it's straightforward about the characters being immigrants. Just like any other Pixar film, there's more to the story than the general concept. But that didn't stop people saying that the characters being living elements didn't contribute to the story. Just like with Turning Red, the creator chose so because he want to, as if kids totally wanna watch a movie about immigrants. It's his story, based on his own life experiences told through a lens so kids can enjoy it.

I already talked about Wish to death, but it is a major factor considering that it's an original story that is deliberately made to be an homage to classical and renaissance era Disney films. The comparisons of to to previous films like Disney's more well known works like Snow White are dubious because they're oddly biased and surface level when there's another Disney film that's even more comparable, The Princess and the Frog.

Princess and the Frog is a lot like Wish, black lead, classical villain, hand drawn animation (though Wish's is stylized) and themes about working hard to achieve your dreams. While Wish has problems about how "half cooked" it is, Princess and the Frog has more problems than Wish; Tiana, their first black princess being a frog for majority of the movie, the sugarcoating of a 1920's setting, the demonization of an active closed religion that people use as an aesthetic coughAlastorHazbincough and a complicated story about technicalities to break the spell and a forced moral about love and family, and not in a good way.

Despite these issues being present and are still discussed today, the fact that it's hand drawn animated and has a cool looking villain wallpapers all over this issues. This is also extends in a lot of Disney's other older films. The mess of a cultural mix setting that is in Aladdin and Raya, the racism in Peter Pan, the usage of g*psy in Hunchback, Pocahontas existing and characters of color being played by white actors that the same thing literally happened with Raya (SEAsian characters, not SEAsian actors). Even though these problems have always been present, people dismiss them with "It was fair for the day". They value their personal nostalgia over the issues other have during them.

Coming back on the topic of comparing films, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish is often brought up to compare anything Disney and Pixar make. People had low expectations towards The Last Wish because it was a sequel to a spin off no one asked for and it succeeded their expectations. The reason why I brought up The Last Wish is because a minority of animation fandom use it as the standard for animated films. The comment saying "We want GOOD originals" is practically them moving up the goal post because to them, any original idea isn't good enough for their tastes. We can't have an original idea without someone bemoaning about how it's inferior to an already existing idea based on surface level comparisons.

Bringing back Wish because it's a good example, people wanted it be like the previous Disney films. However, being like them means loosing its own identity. Turning Star into a generic pretty boy for the girls to salivate over means losing what Star represents, the hope people have to keep on pursuing their ambitions.

An ironic thing is whenever they find a good idea they liked, they want more of it. Basically, wanting others to be just like it. What's the point of wanting an original when all you just want is the same old thing again?

[goodluckclove]

"literary junk food" reminder?

mm FUCK YOU'RE RIGHT.

Okay so like. I'm calmer now. I woke up, made a green tea, and had my daily Weekend Wife Look (That's when I look at my wife while they're still sleeping and think about how much I like my wife). But yes, I saw something on the internet that upset me yesterday and for some reason I've decided I need to talk about it.

Under the read more, though. I got. Rambly.

First off I should clarify a few things, as this is something I can see a certain type of person using as a way to dub me "anti-intellectual". I am not an anti-intellectual. I consider myself decently intelligent and above the norm in terms of the amount and variety of literature I've read. I won't call myself well-read because that's another label I do think is mostly bullshit. But I've read a lot of the "Smart Person" authors like Kafka and Vonnegut and Camus and Calvino. I tried reading James Joyce's Ulysses like three times and it sounds like something I'd love, but for some reason I can never get past the first 60 pages. I can enjoy shit like Naked Lunch and The Sound and the Fury fine but Joyce consistently exhausts me with his particular brand of Irish Incoherence.

What I mean to say is that I regularly enjoy the type of books - and culture as a whole, really - that on several occasions forced me into conversation with A Certain Type of Person. The kind of person who treats their tastes in art as a moral virtue. Who thinks the failings of society are at least partially due to the fact that not enough people have read and appreciated "The Classics". I actually was pushed towards dropping out of college by an interaction I had with a guy who was in the Master's program I was working towards. He saw I was reading J.D. Salinger's Franny and Zooey (I like it! I wish Salinger wrote more women) and took it as an opportunity to start raving about his opinions on Catcher in the Rye, a completely separate book I did not bring up at all.

People who do this make me unreasonably angry.

So the thing I saw was using "literary junk food" to talk about people who only read Young Adult fiction. I have so many issues with this that I don't know where to start. Because it plays into a bigger issue, I think. I see people on Youtube talk about the BookTok influencers who say they only read the dialogue in their books, or who complain about how a book has "so much text". They scoff at these people. Laugh at their inability to properly appreciate literature. These people are the problem.

And like. No? No. No, they're not. Some of them might be a reflection of a problem, sure. If a person of a certain age genuinely struggles with a dense book of a certain length, or if they only read books far below their age level, that could be an issue. But it's 100% not an issue with the reader. Much like how in the rising rates of younger people who struggle with fundamental reading skills, we shouldn't blame or make fun of the fucking kids, you weirdos. What? What are you doing? That's so weird. Stop it.

Most people aren't born with an innate love of reading. There are so many factors that can make developing that kind of passion incredibly difficult. Maybe they didn't grow up in a house with books and they weren't read to as kids. Maybe they're dyslexic or something and the fonts of most paperbacks are legitimately difficult to read. Maybe they were never exposed to the kinds of genres and authors they'd really enjoy. Maybe they saw some stupid fucking argument on the internet (Audiobooks aren't real reading! YA and comics aren't real reading! Mmm paperbacks are soo much better than e-readers I just want to shove them in my mouth yummy yummy I am so cool and smart) and decided they'd rather stay away from all of that entirely.

"Oh," the strawman I invent for this hypothetical exclaims, "but the internet exists! You can just look up more appropriate books to read! There's no excuse!"

Hey, Scarecrow I Reanimated Through the Dark Magic of my Rage? Do me a favor and try what you just suggested. I Googled "books for people moving past YA" and found a few lists on the subject, and the books were mainly:

modern novels I haven't read and might be fine

way-old classics that seem thrown in so people would think there was "variety"

some wack shit i'm very confused why people would suggest to those branching out from YA (Dune? The Martian? That's crazy, right? That's crazy to me.)

I was overwhelmed. I imagine if someone was only exposed to YA and saw a bunch of lists like these they'd could easily be discouraged. That is, if they weren't already discouraged by the dipshits online implying they're wronging themselves by enjoying the books they enjoy.

The thing that pisses me off is that Those People who say that aren't entirely incorrect. If someone only consumes one type of art, they are denying themselves a bunch of styles and stories and perspectives that might profoundly change the way they look at the world and at themselves. This applies to the person who only reads dystopian trilogies and romantasy epics, and it also applies to the person who only reads fucking Tolstoy or whatever. It applies to me, as a majority of the fiction I read up until like five years ago was written by men during like the 40s-90's (I don't know why but that ended up being my Era of Choice).

Variety in art is cool and good. If someone feels like they don't have the option to explore different stories, that belief is the issue. The person is not the one at fault, even if their reasoning for not branching out is incorrect. Yes, there are more adult-orientated writers who aren't old white straight men. There are adult-orientated writers that might be more engaging then the ones from the 19th and early 20th century. Not every adult-orientated book is Ripe With Ideas and Philosophical Concepts. There are fiction books written for adults in mind that make their prose as accessible as their dialogue. There are nonfiction books, even, that are written by intelligent authorities with a genuine love for their subject that makes their writing super enjoyable to read and not at all like a textbook.

But also it's not a bad thing if your main genre is young adult fiction. My main genre is probably post-modernism. The only difference between us is that post-modernism sounds esoteric enough that a lot of people won't question it, where as a ton of people feel super comfortable assuming a YA book is lesser. These are usually the same people who assume young adults are inherently unable to grasp complex ideas.

I don't read a ton of YA. At the same time, I will never go as far as to claim the entire genre has nothing to offer adults, because that's an absolutely insane take. That's nonsense. I've read fucking picture books as an adult that touched my heart (Has anyone read The Dot by Peter H. Reynolds? Oh god I teared up.). Cynthia Voigt's book Homecoming was an early step in me realizing my mom was abusive. I'm pretty sure Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events played a huge part in my want to become a writer.

"But you moved on," the Scarecrow breathes, voice weakening as the dark magic seeps out from the thin veil of hay and burlap, "adults are supposed to move on and read Grown-Up books."

Yeah man, maybe. There's a lot of shit that adults should be able to do, and people are so satisfied with those milestones of Adult Development that they sometimes forget that age is not the only factor in those things happening. If other reading options aren't presented in a way that seems welcoming and engaging, what are they supposed to do? Just walk to a library and grab the most boring looking book because that might be their only frame of reference for a "grown-up" book? Slog through it like they're in high school again? All to feel worthy in the eyes of someone who publicly condescends what might be the only type of literature they've enjoyed and connected to so far?

Why? Why would they want do that?

Anyways I'm getting hungry and the scarecrow I enchanted has lost its sentience, so I'll cut it short. There are a lot of intellectual pursuits - brilliant artists in a variety of mediums - that I am consistently bummed out that people feel like they can't get into. But I also understand, because a lot of people who like Adult Books or Abstract Art or Improvisational Jazz or Experimental Theater tend to not like the art itself as much as they really enjoy being perceived as a person who likes those kinds of things. And ultimately that's - fine.

That's a fine way to live, Scarecrow Corpse. You're allowed to base a majority of your identity out of truly understanding Infinite Jest or Koyaanisqatsi or Derek Jarman's Blue. But like don't expect that to change or improve the lack of culture you claim to hate so much.

[initiumseries]

If you had to pick between spuffy and cangel, which one do you find more interesting? And why?

I'm gonna preface this with, I don't think either of them are particularly interesting. That's a large part of why I don't like these ships lol. My dislike of these ships has less to do with personal taste, and more to do with the obliteration of their characters and the overarching story integrity to make them happen. An example of this is, when I saw TVD was moving toward delena, I hated the idea of breaking Elena and Stefan up, especially when it felt like they'd barely been together and I gad serious problems with how damon consistently and without repercussions, violated obvious boundaries of everyone around him but especially Stefan and Elena. That was a personal issue for me, but I was also curious to see how they'd handle the story. I'd said this to Zal at the time, but I was prepared to be on board a delena ship if it meant the show taking an interesting character/story turn. If we actually got to see that darker turn in Elena, the fallout of her choices, and how being with damon messed with her morality, perceptions, isolated her from her friends etc, I would've liked to see that story progression and character arc, even if it meant the (temporary) end of a ship I liked. When that didn't happen, and the story rapidly deteriorated, I resented the ship because it essentially ruined the show (among other issues) to keep it working.

So to the point of the ask, I don't think that either were particularly interesting, but I will say that Spuffy, for a time, had better execution. I had tired of Spike whining about Buffy, dreaming about Buffy, becoming a pathetic shadow of what made him interesting as a character for Buffy. It sucked. So to see the return of his vigor as a character in this dysfunctional, abusive and hypersexual relationship with Buffy was refreshing. It was also uncomfortable, which its meant to be. Buffy is the white knight. But she died, and was finally at peace and her friends traumatized her by bringing her back, then traumatized her again by abandoning her to dig herself out of her own grave. She was angry, depressed, isolated and she had no one to work her issues out with, and here was Spike, allowing her to revel in the worst parts of herself. Something she never allowed herself before she died. That was interesting. It was moreso, because it was so obvious this wasn't about actual affection. It was clear at the time, Spike didn't love Buffy, he was obsessed with her, and Buffy didn't even like Spike, he was a site for her to work out her pain. That was more interesting to me than anything else, because, again, Buffy's relationships up until then had been about mutual affection, partnership and love, and now she's slumming it and hiding it from all her friends because she's embarrassed. That's good story stuff. Where I jumped off and immediately lost interest is when both Buffy and Spike became OOC-ish just to bring them back together in some weird, pointless amicable companionship thing. Spike assaulted Buffy and then got a soul to punish her for her rejection. Forcing her to not only accept him, but defend him and protect him against her loved ones, then alienate her AGAIN, to bring them back together is cruel, and a betrayal of Buffy as the titular strong female character she was always meant to be. Buffy in any previous season would never have forgiven her attempted rapist, much less stopped GILES from killing him when he was a KNOWN liability and danger to her work. She killed Angel - the love of her life - to save the world, but defends Spike? Makes 0 narrative sense. Spike becomes a sad little bitch because of the soul no one wanted or asked him to get, then just sort of...returns to himself, and shows no remorse, no repentance for what he put Buffy through, and how that affected the group. And suddenly we're all supposed to believe this is...what, love? How? We've SEEN what Spike looks like when he's in love, and this isn't it. So, that's where it becomes uninteresting to me, because in order to make this ship work this way, they have to betray the characters, insult the viewers, and compromise the story. Those are bad narrative choices.

[gakriele-lvs-blog]

Vee is ond of those characters,) in parallel with Luz and Hunter) who I can't stop thinking about, and since I has been reading a lot of pots and comments talking about Vee and Luz being portrayed as mean and selfish person... I got me inspired to write this:

97% of the time Vee is quite literally just the sweetest child you could meet, serene, calm, kind and while shy most of the time she proves to be brave if she believes to have a shoot in the situation.

But for that other 3%, considering her origins and filling the gaps by visualizing what she must have endured just to survive up to this day; I'm quite certain if pushed hard enough she could snap, and with that I mean sudden outbursts that tend to bring to light all of those buried emotions from her time in captivity.

We are talking about 15 years (her whole life) worth of represed anger, fear, sorrow and hopeless

So it shouldn't be surprising she can be harsh at times, especially if emotions are running hot and just wants to be done with the conversations, it happens to everyone and we all tend to regret them shortly after.

Vee judging Luz's actions was something that happened in the heat of the moment as a result of Luz comparing her situation to Vee's. This lead to Vee feeling a mixture of anger and frustration and her first reaction was to prove her wrong, especially since from Vee's perspective Luz took her "perfect life" from granted and for some nonsensical reason decided to run away to live her "irrealistic dream" of being a witch. Meanwhile Vee spent her entire life either as a slave or as a fugitive with nobody or nothing to rely on until she ran away to literally another planet and took someone's else lives

Vee took Luz's place because Camila give her a taste of what being loved and cherish was like (just like how Eda loved Luz's mannerisms and personality) and from her perspective Luz left with the intention to return, so by the time Luz found out what Vee has been doing the latter's reaction was to leave, she recognized pretending to be Luz was wrong and was willing to leave without a fight

And at the end she said: “I resent you for running away. But I'm also thankful that you did. I dunno. It's... confusing.” this is where she came to realize how much of a moral dilemma their situation was, Vee did what she did out of necessity but doesn't know at all why Luz did it

This puts into perspective the complexity of the circumstance that lead to that moment. Luz never intended to abandon Camila in the first place, her intentions were to prove she didn't need to change and her dreams were not only possible but valid; while Vee's was to find a place where she could live as a normal person, a place to belong.

Definitely one of the most important bits we missed as a result of the shortening was a proper chat between Luz and Vee (and Camila) many of their issues were never addressed in the finale, Heck! They actually never spoke or said each other's name at any point!

And on top of that... They are children, you can't shame children from making a mistake and trying to fix them

[bookwormlover10]

look i love people talking about Terry, it's nice to have some more people in the fandom. But what REALLY rubs me wrong is how people are treating the Epilogue Clone Son Twist like it's Everything about Terry's character. You would Not introduce Harley Quinn as an anti-hero with her gf Poison Ivy. You would go into her PHD and history with the Joker first. I don't like how the "Batfam" fans just gloss over and "blorbo-fy" Terry into "poor widdle baby clone" and "sassy Future bat #7". His FAMILY and his attempts to keep his relationships stable despite being Batman ARE the things that make him stand out in the Batfamily. His past as a gang member and his acknowledgement of his mistakes with his repayment IS important to him - stop making him Damian but Better! or Jason but Better! He's Terry! he's a 90s child with all the cringe that goes with it!

Yea I agreed with you on somethings. Even though I personally don't really like the half clone twist, in the Grand scheme of things. The whole clone thing was only in one episode of justice league unlimited and they never brought it up again. It was never batman beyond itself. I don't read much comics but from I know the clone thing was Recon in comics. But that what people remembered and when people hear about they forget everything else that is interesting about his character! Which makes me not really liking the existence of epilogue. Even Thought I think the the episode fine on it own ending the cadmus ark

For the blorbo thing. It something that I noticed in a lot of fandoms. I just learned to ignore most of it.

For the Damian but better! Is something I don't really see. Because Damien was raised by literal assassins and Terry had a normal childhood. Don't really see how Terry could be Damien but better..... There origins or nothing alike.... There anger issues maybe. But that a common trait with bat boys. Like dick has it and Jason has it. So that not special. The only thing that I could think of that they have in common is there sperm donor and that their both future batman. Thought I personally think that there dynamic has potential

Jason but better is something I understand with giving how similar they are in a lot of things. Even fashioned tastes. But Terry was rocking the brown leather jackets and red bat symbols longer than Jason did... But seriously though with the simulator organs in some places. Terry was still a kid with a normal childhood was both his parents. He only started acting out is cause he couldn't handle his parents divorce and was a really bad kid. ( And from from what I know Terry is in the middle class) For what I know ( don't at me I haven't read a lot of comics) in his post crisis ( his second one) organs Jason only act up to survive. But overall was a good kid. ( For the most part. I think from my research...) I'm not going to continue this part before I butcher something. Their morals quiet different to. sent I got interested in Terry first I compared Jason to Terry. This that they would have an interesting dynamic.

For the sassy future batman is something I could see. Thought me personally I see Terry like a spider man like Batman.( Maybe because I'm bias and I like Spider-Man) Terry organs has things similar to a spider man story. ( But people have talk to death about that.) Terry also has that spider man humor. Thought he is seared when need to be. ( This is just me rambling at this point)

[slocumjoe]

If Sole wasn't around, who do you think each companion would hook up with? (If anyone)

Since all of them meet through Sole, we're just going to keep that funky guy around...maybe they go moon over Edward Deegan, like a civilized person of taste and class

Cait; i could see her ending up with anyone, but I can't see her ending up happy with most of them. Honestly, I think her best bet would be Piper, maybe Preston. Preston, she'd have to have a lot of character development for...shake off some of her more raider-y traits. As for Piper, that's more her speed, and I think Cait would do well, having Nat around, getting to be Auntie Cait. Piper is more of a troublemaker and spitfire, and I think Cait could easily get bored with Preston. Happy, yes, but Cait gets a little stir crazy, not getting into trouble.

Curie; I fucking love Mac x Curie, I'll admit...but I'm not sure she'd, in text, care much for him. I also really like Curie x Danse, both are very cute to me. I think I like Danse x Curie more, as they're both scientifically minded, care very much about history and preservation of it, and big scary man who loves his small and sweet wife who's actually the weird, unsettling one is top tier.

Danse; Again, I can see him with Curie...and again, Preston as well. I've said before that Danse is very adaptable, romantically, so really, you could make a case for any of the other companions?? Some would absolutely be harder than others, and Gage is an outright fuck no, period. Gage is a fuck no for literally everyone here, spoilers. But Danse...as long as you've got some morals, and will be nice to him, you've got a chance. Low bar? Yeah. Yeah it is.

Deacon; Deacon can't even be romanced by fucking Sole. Bitch needs a crowbar to open up. But...if you have a taste for romantic black comedies...X6 x Deacon is fucking hilarious. Is it possible? No. Not even an inch. But that's not the point. The point is I like it and it's funny. As for what Deacon could actually land? Uh...no one? He's a known liar, he's closed off as shit, and he's prone to identity theft. I think the only one that stands a chance is Nick, but would Nick put up with it enough to fall in love?? Idfk.

Gage; No one. Not even X6. I've seen people say Cait, and I have to ask, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? CAIT WAS A SLAVE. GAGE IS A SLAVER. I LOVE HIM TO BITS BUT HE VERY MUCH IS A SLAVER THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE

Hancock; I kinda like MacCock but Valencock is also pretty good...honestly, Hancock has never struck me as a...romance kinda guy? Like, I get why he's romancable, but...I always felt like he'd be better with a bunch of casual romantic relationships, rather than one super serious one. But, I can see Hancock getting with Nick, Mac, and for a very fun wildcard, that I love for being a shitshow, Danse. Yes. Yes I just supported DanseCock. Its FUNNY AND QUESTIONABLE. OF COURSE I LIKE IT.

MacCready; So, Curie and Hancock I've already said, but if I didn't think Piper was a lesbian, I'd say her. What? They both got kids, both like candy, both have similar values and methods of getting around...but they'd butt heads a lot. A very bickery couple. But MacCock is also cute, though I think they'd have a lot of Very Real Issues. Curie, less so, because Curie is better at communication and doesn't do things Mac is Very Not Okay With. Though, he'd have some shit to stop doing for both MacCurie and MacCock, ei, stealing and murder, etc.

Nick; VALONGFELLOW SQUAD LETS GOOOO. But honestly, no one. Maybe Codsworth. I say Hancock, but pretty unlikely. Nick is a Confirmed Bachelor, man. Thats just how the cookie crumbles. UNLESS YOU GET ANOTHER OLD MYSTERIOUS DEAD WIFE MAN LETS GOOOO

Piper; If not Cait, Ellie, maybe? I always struggle to look at Piper beyond my Very Famous Issues With Her. It's just, Piper is lesbain to me. There are Two Other Girls. Curie is an...okay option? I think Piper would seriously butt heads with Curie in a relationship, though I can't put my finger on why exactly...on the other hand, Piper has genuine chemistry with Cait. Honestly, I don't put much stocks into canon x canon ships, anymore, I prefer the found family thing. Piper really showed that for me, thinking about this, because I don't really go crazy for her with anyone? It doesn't help she's got one option.

Preston; I've said he had a hoe phase and boy howdy, could Preston pull any of these bitches if he put his mind to it. But who would he want to pull? Not Curie, too naive and optimistic. Not MacCready, used to be a Gunner and acts like it. Cait, he wouldn't like her that way, as we know her. Again, personal growth needed there. Gonna have to say Danse as a flat, completely possible possibility. For a non-companion, Sturges. Obvi.

X6-88; I liked Curie x X6 for a time until DeacX6 revealed itself to me in a fever. But neither of these are based in reality. So, much like Gage, no one. Maybe they can hang out as bachelors and make fun of people together, idk. Bromance.

[clearwillow]

To the Morality Police: I see you, I suspect I know who you are, and it wouldn't be (sadly) the first time I see attacking writers/artists over what YOU assume is right or wrong. (A certain doujinshi, along with the original fic comes to mind) Newsflash: enjoying something on FICTION does not mean we like/support it in RL. So how about you leave artists/writers the fuck alone,l et them enjoy what they want, and shove your purity mentality up your arse.

OH NOES, A BUNCH OF PIXELS AND WORDS ARE DOING IMMORAL THINGS! MOM, HELP! How about you put the same energy into raging AND ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING about REAL LIFE PEOPLE BEING VICTIMS OF GR00MING? (yeah, your morality high horse comes from both Dark/Arshes and the HY ship you keep clutching your pearls about. Like I said, I SEE YOU)

HOW DARE YOU JUDGE SOMEONE'S CHARACTER OVER WHAT THEY ENJOY IN //FICTION//?! Grow the fuck up and learn the difference and stop demanding in your pseudo polite way for writers to stop writing their "problematic" fandoms/ships.

Carra, I for one love your Joshua/Kai and cannot wait to see what happens next 😏

Not what I expected to see when I woke up today...

I'm only publishing this ask because of the little bit at the end, and I wanna make a few things clear.

I don't care what a person ships. If they're sitting next to me with a plate of green beans and offer, I'll tell them it's not my taste. It's not that big a deal until the person tries to force feed you the green beans.

If I have ever tried to demand someone to read or view anything I've made that wasn't in their sphere of interests, I am sorry. Sometimes I reblog my stuff because my timing sucks and some fandom tags tend to get flooded at times, so it might not get seen that way.

For every fandom that you feel is "perfect", there is gonna be someone who will find a fault and that's fine. We don't all have to all like the same things all the time.

For fandoms where it is...clearly got issues...that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it still. Ignore what you don't like about it. Change it with your creations. That's what I thought fandom communities were built on.

I didn't realize my character was being called into question this weekend; shows how out of it I've been 😅

I think, as a general statement, that fandom creators have final say in what they post...and they can pull it down just as fast. I can't imagine going up to someone and telling them that their hard work was wrong because it didn't suit my tastes. My late-aunt actually did this with a meal she spent hours on. People complained, and she threw every bit of food out the front door.

If all people are going to do is complain, what is to say that fandom creators won't throw out their work as well?

[billysjoel]

hello. i really enjoy your content, but i have to say i'm kinda disappointed on you still being a ts fan. this woman knows what disney does and yet she still gave them the rights, meaning she either doesn't care or actively supports the genocide. or maybe she decided to turn her morals off because money is more important. not to mention how she consistently associates herself with questionable people and how a person literally died in one of her shows on brazil and she gave zero fucks. this woman is not a good person and there are no excuses to being her fan anymore.

no, i fully understand what you're saying and where you're coming from. over the last like. idk year and a half? ive been pretty vocal about my disappointment, distaste, and disagreement with a multitude of the choices she's made lately. i 100% agree that her silence on the subject of palestinian genocide (as well as many other human rights/social causes) is at best a sign of apathy and at worst a sign of support. especially when miss americana was all about her wanting to be more outspoken and be an activist. that all feels so incredibly performative now -- and has for a while. a lot of things that she's said and done since midnights, which is when i became more active in the tumblr swiftie community, have left a bad taste in my mouth for her as a person.

like i said, i genuinely agree with what you're saying. the only thing i take issue with is that she didn't care that a fan died at her show. she donated money to the fan's family and took time to meet them. regardless of my many issues with her, i do think she can be an empathetic person and i don't think that she just straight up didn't care that someone died before her show. it's one of those things (of which there are many) where we'll never know her true thoughts bc she doesn't talk about things. which is frustrating in itself.

now that's not the point of your message, so feel free to write that off as a digression. i strongly disagree with her making yet another version of the eras tour movie and hosting it on disney+. I'm personally boycotting disney+ and have been for a while. I don't even intend on watching the new version and like the vast majority of everything I gif, that shit is pirated -- that's how I watched the original release of the movie. obviously my consumption/boycotting is just one person compared to blondie, who has influence over millions, who could make real change if she spoke out against genocide.

at this point, im not supporting her financially either apart from listening to her music. which i love. im sorry, but I do. if I didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation. i think her constant churning out different exclusive versions of the same albums are a transparent money grab and maybe an effort to set more records as far as sales or streams or however that all works. and I'm not just saying that bc I literally couldn't even afford to buy a digital copy of an album right now.

so yeah. I appreciate that you enjoy my content and thank you for saying so, but if you need to unfollow or block, i understand. I've definitely toned down/completely stopped sharing posts about her as a person bc I'd much rather focus on just the music. and maybe that makes me a bad person for continuing to listen to and enjoy her music. im not saying i necessarily feel good about it, but i think the fact of the matter is that a lot of the celebrities, actors, musicians, etc. we like or whose content we enjoy hold views we disagree with and have different values or priorities. nuance exists. right now, im someone who is vocal about the palestinian genocide and I try to share resources/posts about it when they come across my dash and im also someone who is a fan of Taylor's music.

Idk, I hope what I'm saying makes sense at least on some level. I've done my best to word things coherently, but brain fog fucks w me a lot. and like. it's probably whatever, but I do plan on changing my url after ttpd releases. That probably upsets you more and I can see how people might think im a hypocrite or something and yeah, I get it. Idk, I just want to enjoy someone's music without endorsing them as a person, but that's extra difficult when the person in question is the biggest singer in the industry. but you'll never see me making excuses for her on things like this or the m*tty situation or numerous other things she's said and done that gross me out. im not so far up her ass that I think she's perfect or that I feel the need to defend her at every turn. like I said, nuance. anyway, if you feel the need to respond, i welcome you to do so as long as we both remain respectful, which I think we've done. this is a difficult topic, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss it. I appreciate your point of view and I'm sorry that I've disappointed you!

[shreddheir]

This is going to be fairly long, and also much more serious than my usual jjba meta. apologies in advance if i seem stilted: i have some issues with verbalizing things in a formal matter

Terunosuke Miyamoto's fate and portrayal are another egregious example of the subconscious bias present in Araki's work.

When I mention how Terunosuke was one of two characters to be given a fate worse than death in part 4, that he was the only p4 character to be nameless until years after the manga was completed, or that his fate was arguably undeserved, i am not saying anything new.

But I feel like not many people consider or realize that Terunosuke is canonically the only dark-skinned character in all of diamond is unbreakable.

Not only that, he is somewhat implied to be a foreigner in the manga (i cannot find a scan with a translation, but the canned drink he destroys is notably labeled as fruit lassi and it has a small drawing of an indian elephant on it).

In a part set in Japan, the only dark-skinned character, a character who is also implied to not be Japanese:

-is one of the few villains deemed irredeemable.

-is portrayed as uniquely sadistic, manipulative, and predatory, even when his actions are less or equally malicious than the actions of other characters. He kidnapped people and took hostages, but so did rohan. He threatened Josuke's family, but so did akira, and josuke was perfectly content with letting akira go to jail regularly.

-in fact, his crimes, crimes which are not unique among the cast of DIU, are deemed by Josuke to be as horrific as angelo's crimes, which were in fact uniquely horrible among the cast of diu.

-is given no characterization or motivation outside of sadism, to the point where he had no name for a good couple of years.

-is never mentioned or shown in canon again, which happens to few other DIU characters. Not even in the added davidpro epilogue scenes, which show other characters that were previously MIA after their respective arcs (such as toyohiro).

In fact, Davidpro actually makes his portrayal WORSE, all because of one small detail.

When his cover is shown onscreen, there's a small sticker on it that says, verbatim, "Morioh Public Library." Josuke hasn’t been to the library at that point. I may be reading in too deep, but the implication is that this sticker is part of his “body” and can’t be removed.

Terunosuke is the only dark skinned character in diamond is unbreakable, and the last proper shot of him is an image of him being..basically branded. It’s hard for this to not leave a bad taste in one’s mouth.

I do not think araki or davidpro were being intentionally malicious or bigoted in their handling of Terunosuke. The meaning of subconscious bias is that it is subconscious, so i do not think the enigma boy arc or terunosuke in general were written in bad faith .

However, the racism, colorism, and xenophobia that saturate his role in the story (to be a disposable and irredeemable villain who is only meant to be another obstacle in the face of our golden-hearted hero ) and his fate (to be literally dehumanized and locked away, never to be seen again, presumably for the "safety and greater good of morioh") are very clear.

Anti-discourse disclaimer fine text:

i am not trying to cancel jjba, diu, araki, davidpro, or any related concepts and parties, and i am not trying to make claims about the personal beliefs or agendas of hirohiko araki or members of david productions in any way, shape, or form. i am just writing about subconscious bias and how it possibly shaped a story arc in diu. i am not trying to give moral judgement to araki, davidpro, or any fans of jjba in this post. i am not trying to stop the collective you from enjoying things, just trying to inform. also, racism, xenophobia and colorism are bad. I edited this post due to quoting something based on an unofficial and incorrect translation and making a hypocritical point in the concluding paragraph.