#literally the entire argument

[tackykachowch]

How it feels to not like timebomb after s2

[beepborpdoodledorp]

fnaf fans will look at security breach in the most black and white sense imaginable it’s almost incomprehensible ‘the Glamrocks are soulless AI and Gregory is a poor defenseless child’ ‘Gregory is an irredeemable monster who kills the poor Glamrocks without remorse’ have you considered it’s possible for both sides to be victims. that they can also be a little fucked up too. have you

[qiu-yan]

in order to say "wei wuxian is morally good," you must first define what it means to be morally good

though this is by no means exclusive to them, one logical fallacy i sometimes see wei wuxian stans make in their arguments is that they begin their analysis of wei wuxian as a character with the statement "wei wuxian is morally good."

so their argument becomes:

wei wuxian is morally good.

a morally good person would do XYZ.

therefore, wei wuxian would do XYZ.

alternatively, when they're objecting to someone else's argument about wei wuxian, their counterargument becomes:

this argument says that wei wuxian would do ABC.

a morally good person would not do ABC.

wei wuxian is morally good.

therefore, wei wuxian would not do ABC; the other person's argument is wrong.

while this is in fact a valid argument structure to use for other kinds of traits (ie. "brave," "doesn't think of the consequences," even something like "afraid of dogs"), this format of argument in fact cannot be used for a descriptor as vague as "morally good"--because, unlike the other traits, "morally good" is not precisely defined enough for the above argument structure to work.

"morally good" is not a character trait in the same way that "wants to defend the weak," "is angered by innocent people being harmed," and "does not fear consequences" are character traits, because what is considered "moral" can vary significantly from person to person. what a utilitarian considers to be moral, for example, diverges significantly from what a deontologist considers to be moral. if i were to say "wei wuxian is a morally good person," i have frankly said less about wei wuxian's personality and more about what i myself believe to be ethical.

thus, the reason why the above argument pretty much never works in the wild is that the depolyers in question rarely actually define what they mean by "morally good."

consider the case in which two different wei wuxian stans write on their blogs "wei wuxian is a good person." however, the first person follows a moral philosophy that centers courage in the face of certain failure, while the second person follows a moral philosophy that centers reason and pragmatism. thus, what the first person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who courageously chooses the correct path even when he is doomed to fail," while what the second person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is a reasonable and pragmatic person." these are no longer the same statement.

or consider the case in which the first stan follows a moral philosophy that centers agent-neutral harm reduction, while the second stan follows a moral philosophy that centers agent-relative reciprocity. in this case, what the first person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who helps others regardless of whether they've helped him before," while what the second person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who always repays kindnesses done unto him." again, these are no longer the same statement.

in general, if one wishes to argue that "blorbo is morally good," one must first specify what exactly they mean by "morally good," because not everyone follows the same definition of "morally good." many blorbo stans, however, don't actually do this. instead, they write their arguments as if their own definition of morality is already universal law; a reader can thus only reverse-engineer what the op believes to be morally good from their post. and this leads to no shortage of disagreements: two different blorbo enjoyers might find themselves in an argument over what they believe to be their blorbo's characterization, when in reality they are actually disagreeing over what it means to be ethical at all.

on the topic of disagreement, another fact that must be acknowledged is that wei wuxian himself is also a character with his own specific thoughts and feelings. wei wuxian is not an abstract paragon of righteousness whose definition of morality just so happens to perfectly match the reader's definition of morality; wei wuxian is a specific fictional character with his own specific thoughts as to what is right and what is wrong. and every reader has to accept that what wei wuxian considers to be right can in fact be gleaned from the text--and that what wei wuxian considers to be right will not always match what the reader considers to be right. wei wuxian might, in fact, disagree with you.

thus, if you want to make any sort of statement regarding wei wuxian's moral character (whether that be "he is morally good" or "he is morally bad") you in fact have to consider not just one, but four different questions:

what do you consider to be morally good? what moral framework and/or school of moral philosophy do you use to determine what is ethical?

how well do wei wuxian's actions adhere to what you personally consider to be morally good?

what does wei wuxian consider to be morally good? what moral framework and/or school of moral philosophy does he use to determine what is ethical?

how well do wei wuxian's actions adhere to what he himself considers to be morally good?

all of these are different questions! they cannot be conflated with each other.

to write a good analysis, you must accept that [what you consider to be morally good] will not always match [what wei wuxian considers to be morally good]. when such disagreements arise, rather than distort wei wuxian's character to match what you personally believe to be morally good, perhaps consider just allowing wei wuxian to disagree with you instead. even if he's doing something you honestly can't defend, maybe wei wuxian is still striving to live as best he can according to his own ideals, and it just so happens that his ideals do not match your ideals. you really should not distort wei wuxian's motives or beliefs just to make him more palatable to you, simply because you have wedded yourself to the idea that "wei wuxian must be morally good by my own standards."

closing thoughts: this isn't really exclusive to wei wuxian stans. i've seen all sorts of character stans in all sorts of fandoms make this same logical fallacy. i certainly think that some of the jiang cheng analyses i see from fellow jiang cheng stans are born less from an objective analysis of his character and moreso from the op's desire for his actions to align with their moral compass. but, out of all the characters in MDZS, it seems like people commit this logical fallacy when discussing wei wuxian specifically far more often than they do with any other character, save perhaps lan wangji.

[sexhaver]

extremely bold words from someone writing a double-digit amount of paragraphs based on provably wrong etymology

[berryfait]

🌸 Bro a girl in my ACTIVISM class today defended Nazis because "technically just identifing as a nazi isn't illegal unless you're saying you're gonna kill people", compared being nonbinary to identifying as both an apple and a nazi, and told a jewish girl the holocaust doesn't matter anymore because her parents escaped and shes alive.

[mercymaker]

brother in christ, if you're gonna apologize to a group of people maybe uh.. unblock them beforehand so they can read it like.. what is this

[brittie-frog]

I'm so down bad for Maddox and Ashlyn that my three favourite scenes are:

3. The Redlyn breakup - the chillest break up, Red supporting Ashlyn going after Maddox and the most insane storyline of Red realising he's bi because he kisses Seb

2. Just the entirety of Maddox during opening night - having an existential breakdown over your love life that you break the sound controls and then just give up on your stage manager duties and disappear (probably to help quinn)

1. The confession - a scene I want on repeat: the explanations of how afraid they are of how much they like the other then the "should we just stay friends?" Before having such a love induced make out their just completely ignore Carlos being there. (Also Maddison giving up and telling Maddox to stop coming back to her when she clearly likes Ashlyn... my baby just needed that push)

I love all my queer children but these two are the wlw so I love them just slightly more.

[nico-drawings]

You know, you start seeing a lot of reels and posts and shorts about a series and so you start to watch it. And you see how a lot of people like one character and it is really common to see this: men relating a lot to a male character that is badass and kicks ass and them looking up to him and wanting to be like him. And 90% of the time that character is a fucking piece of shit.

Well nothing could have preprared me for the gigantic asshole that is Daemon Targaryen. It is honestly impressive how many good things I have seen said about him AND HOW MUCH OF A HORRIBLE PERSON HE IS. OH MY GOD. I have heard so much stuff about how much Daemon is a great warrior and how much he loves his brother Viserys and how much he DOESN'T want the throne. And. No. For fuck's sake no. How can people look up to this absolute garbage of a man. I can make a LONG list of the awful things Daemon has done to people.

Season 1:

Episode 1:

- Sitting on Viserys' throne (not that bad, but it shows how much he respects his brother's title)

- Called his wife both ugly AND a bitch (sexist piece of shit)

- Made fun of the death of Otto's wife (Otto is a bastard that deserves it, but he's still an asshole to make fun of someone's mourning)

- Making Otto's knight trip after asking for Alicent's blessing just to humiliate the Hightowers even more (doing so by making the horse trip, fighting dirty is a dick move)

- Made a toast celebrating the death of Viserys' death, even calling him "Heir for a day" to mock him

Episode 2:

- Stole the egg of Viserys' dead son, basically spitting on his death again

Episode 3:

- Beat the shit out of a messanger because the little brat couldn't accept the fact that he was sucking so much at a war that his big brother had to send him reinforcements (yeah he won before they arrived, doesn't change the fact that it was quite literally a reaction at the level of a tantrum)

Episode 4:

- Called his wife a bitch AGAIN and joked about her being probably infertile due to being harsh and stuff like that

- Bringing his teen niece to a brothel, grooming her and having sex with her (hey, it does not matter if morality is different in Westeros and Rhaenera is technically an adult, THAT'S HIS NIECE THAT IS HALF HIS AGE. THERE'S A POWER INBALANCE HERE. AND NO, BECAUSE OTHER CHARACTERS DO IT, IT DOESN'T MAKE IT BETTER. VISERYS CAN GO DIE IN A DITCH AS WELL FOR HIS RELANTIONSHIP WITH ALICENT FOR ALL I CARE)

- Boosting about fucking his niece to her FATHER and then proposing a marriage with her, acting like she's a prize for his success in battle

Episode 5:

- Killing his wife (of course she wasn't manipulable so she had to die)

- Mocking the cousin of his wife about having her inheritance

- Almost started to make out with Rhaenyra in front of everyone at the banquet before her marriage

Episode 6:

Wow, actually nothing in this one. They even kept him from making the same choice Viserys made with Aemma.

Episode 7:

- Fucking his niece again, he just doesn't learn I see. Oh yeah and he marries her. I'm sure they won't be toxic.

Episode 8:

Wow nothing again. Unbelievable, I am surprised. Did his two wives help him become a decent person? It has been like more than 10 years between the start of episode 6 and the end of episode 8 so it could be.

Episode 9:

Nothing again, but he wasn't in it so.

Episode 10:

- HERE HE COMES BACK WITH THE STEELCHAIR! Calling Alicent a whore and telling Rhaenys what she should have done.

- Ignoring his wife screaming for him, what a great husband (god that birthing scene, why jesus christ)

- Basically commanding Rhaenyra's council of war like it's his, just like the conversation with Otto. This doesn't make him an asshole per se, but it is a great showing of not being able to read the room. If the entire conflict hinges upon the fact that her legitimacy is being discussed you shouldn't really talk like YOU are the boss instead of HER.

- Basically saying that Vyseris and Rhaenyra aren't good leaders in front of EVERYONE. This man is not smart. At ALL.

- Chocking Rhaenyra and saying Vyseris' reign was useless. He is pathetic beyond belief.

Season 2:

Episode1:

- Wow less than 5 minutes into season 2 and he's already kicking. Giving Rhaenis orders, undermining Rhaenyra's authority and basically telling Rhaenis that Luke's death is her fault.

- Treating both Mysaria and Erryk like shit.

- Not trying to be there for Rhaenyra for Luke's death not even for a second, not one word, nothing. I understand, Rhaenyra's pain doesn't help in a war, but the war in question hasn't been going on for not even a MONTH. And with the naval blockade and the loyalty of some of the clans they already struck back. You CAN hug your wife for 5 seconds due to the death of her son, you won't lose the war if you do.

- I know some people try to defend him by saying stuff like "Oh he just ordered to kill Aemond". Why would they kill the kid then. I'm not joking, why the kid ESPECIALLY? Do people really think a random rat killer would be smart enough to kill the prince because he, one day, would get on the throne? Why would he even care? Even the guard loyal to Daemon wouldn't care about that. Hell, Haelena would be more straightforward and reasonable for a random person, since she's an adult and she saw them. But no, the MALE child specifically to destroy the bloodline. Come on, Daemon ordered it, "a son for a son", he doesn't care if it's a child. And even if he didn't, and it's a huge if, it just shows how little in control he is. He is not able to do anything right.

Episode 2:

- Throws a tantrum, lashing out to Rhaenyra, insults Vyseris in front of her and basically tells her "You're only on the throne so that I wouldn't, you don't deserve it".

Episode 3:

- Taking an offense in being called "Prince" instead of "King". You are not the king boy, pipe down. The crown isn't yours. Ego piercing the clouds, seriously.

Episode 4:

- I'll give him the benefit of the doubt because he was tripping balls, but seriously? Killing young Rhaenyra? Yeah that's not a good look.

- He told a teen to kill his grandfather, and then said to his face that his family is shit.

- So you DO know that that Psycho of Aemond is basically you but 30 years younger.

Episode 5:

- "Daemon never wanted the crown!" His literal subconscious in the form of his mother (that he was fucking) told him he deserved it more than his brother. What else do you need?

- He scoofs anytime he is remembered that the crown isn't his.

- "The true heir of Viserys" he calls himself, he seems SO loyal to Rhaenyra (that's sarcasm)

Episode 6:

- The allucination with the Viserys conversation due to the "heir for a day" comment made me realize that he never apologized for it. Not once.

Episode 7:

Surprisingly nothing, I mean yeah he killed the Lord of the rivers with Alyn's help, but the man was to going to die anyway so. I don't know if it counts.

Episode 8:

Nothing again, not denying the treason proposal was fishy but at the end he bent the knee so all good.

Now that season 2 has ended and season 3 won't come out for a year or more, the list by episodes is over. I will use this to elaborate my thoughts.

Watching Daemon Targaryen in the series and seeing his reception by the fandom made me realize how the "media literacy is dead" is yes wrong but is also very justifiable as an opinion. Because the Daemon situation is really the last installment of this behaviour, especially from men: Walter White, the guy from American Psycho, hell even Ken from the Barbie movie. How much can these characters been latched onto, been seen as incredible and as a goal, while their entire purpose in the story is to have a giant glowing sign that reads "this is a bad person and this how they fit into our messed up society" or maybe they are part of a story and they are not there to be an omen, but they are very openly written to be bad people. Daemon falls into the second category. He has a very distinct role in the series and that's to be the ambigous guy with a giant ego, always understimating everyone around him, while constantly being punished for such way of thinking and arriving, at the end, at finding purpose in being under someone and serving them. Daemon is constantly dismissive towards other people: he thinks he's beneath everyone and everything. That he can do and say anything he likes. And he gets fucked every single time for it. He thought he could insult Vyseris' child, he got sent away. He thought he could steal his egg, he had soldiers and a dragon at his doorstep to take it back. He thought he could start a war at sea and win easily and he had to use Laenor's tactic to win or use Vyseris' troops, otherwise he would have lost horribly. He thought he could have his way with Rhaenyra, he was banished for it. He thought he could command his second wife, ignore her desires and choose for her, she made her own dragon burn her alive in order to make a choice for herself. He thought he could take revenge for Rhaenyra and hurt the greens, he not only gave an order so shallow that it could have been misinterpreted but Rhaenyra was disgusted by it and it ruined her reputation throught the seven kingdoms. He thought he could make the Blackwoods kill their rivals without a problem, if the young Tally hadn't grew balls the size of Caraxes the entirety of the River people wouldn't have followed him even if the dragon was about to burn them all alive.

THAT is who Daemon is: an incompetent, egomaniac that is constantly needed to be reminded that he ain't shit.

And yet so many people think he's the most badass character in the show. They think he's a loving brother, a great husband, a genius when it comes to war and a great warrior. All of those things, Daemon Targaryen is not.

And if you enjoy him as a character, well I only have one thing to say to you: that's fine. Because Daemon is written BEAUTIFULLY. He is coherent to a fault.

You can see that he loves Vyseris, but he's a psycho that has never respected him so he constantly hurts him because he's a piece of shit.

He doesn't respect Rhaenyra because to him she's always gonna be a child because Daemon is a groomer. She is also not fit to be queen because she's like Vyseris, someone that Daemon never thought to be a good king, and he wasn't entirely wrong. Because, mind you, if Vyseris had a backbone, Daemon would have lost his head. He got too many chances.

Daemon will always envy Rhaenyra because in a way he was always seeking Vyseris' attention, he always wanted to be praised by him, but he always wanted to be praised for being HIMSELF, hence why he never tried to act as Vyseris would have liked. He wanted Vyseris to like Daemon, not the Daemon that acted like Vyseris would have wanted.

Daemon could never be in a good relantionship because he can't respect anyone else outside of himself. His first wife was his equal. In no way that woman would have bent to his will. His second wife was more accomodating, but she had pride in herself and at the end choose for herself. And Rhaenyra? She's supposed to be BENEATH him, he could never accept that.

Daemon can never shut his mouth because to him, being himself is more important than reason. My brother is mad at me for maybe having fucked his daughter? Well I'll double down, I have every right to get her- oh he banished me. The entirery of the conflict revolves around my wife's claim being questioned? Well I want to fight this war in this way, so I'll give orders, go to Harrenal to build an army and win by myself- oh one of her council members has come here to ask me to betray her and lead the war because he doesn't believe she's good enough to lead.

You can almost always predict Daemon before he speaks or acts, that's how well he was written. And it is also very EASY to see how he was written. Seriously, his actions are up there, they have been documented episode by episode, if you still don't see it I don't know what to tell you. Anyone that has seen him throw a fit for not being called King is seriously still trying to say that he didn't want the crown? HIS FIRST SCENE IN THE ENTIRE SERIES WAS HIM ON THE IRON THRONE.

ONLY. And I repeat, ONLY in the last episode Daemon has let go. Only then. Because he finally realized, due to the visions: "Okay I need to get my shit together, this is bigger than me" and it took a vision of quite literally zombies killing a dragon and marching towards the world of the living to make Daemon Targaryen lower his head.

I repeat: this is not a post about Daemon being a shitty character and me saying that his fans are dumb. It is, however, a post about how men have, once again, latched onto a toxic and objectively bad male character in a show and ignored 90% of how he was written in order to have a cool character to kin. It is also about people not being able to. Understand writing because saying "Daemon never wanted the crown" is like saying "Aegon always wanted the crown" and I think we all know he never wanted it.

Also also, this post, about making a list of all the bad things a character has done, can be done about a lot of other characters, I am aware. But no other character in this show has been read as wrongly and has been lifted so high as Daemon has.

[fromtheseventhhell]

Sansa and Alicent stans acting like people dislike them because they're feminine, when ninety percent of all Westeros women dress and act feminine, in fact it's a cultural and societal requirement expected of Westeros noblewomen. If the fandom has no problem with the rest of the traditionally feminine characters but hates Alicent and Sansa, then femininity isn't the problem here.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, not everybody in this fandom is constantly sorting female characters into "masculine" and "feminine" categories. It's incredibly misogynistic to do so and ignores that they're fleshed-out, complex characters. The majority of Dany, Arya, Cersei, Brienne, Rhaenyra, etc stans don't consider them to be masculine, that's just something their antis came up with to portray them as "lesser" female characters. When this fandom talks about "femininity" they mean it in a patriarchal context and, shockingly, there are some of us who can enjoy their characters outside of misogynistic standards. No one dislikes Alicent or Sansa for being feminine, because that isn't their only character trait (and only their "fans" think it is). Now if you want to talk about the traditional standards they hold as a byproduct of adhering to traditional feminity, that's another thing. But saying that people dislike Alicent's misogyny towards Rhaenyra or Sansa's classism towards Arya because they're "feminine" is just hilarious.

[wonder-worker]

“Studies of Elizabeth Woodville […] have been hampered by the continuing fascination with her brother-in-law, Richard III. The Ricardian [and Yorkist] apologetic is now largely dependent upon the argument that the Woodville family posed such a threat to Richard of Gloucester, and the kingdom as a whole, that Gloucester had little option but to take the throne from his Woodville-dominated nephew. Although this argument has [irregularly] been contested, a reassessment of the queen's role in 1483 has not yet been attempted. Michael Bennett, in his 1987 account [...] still dismissed her as `an inveterate intriguer, capable in her vanity and fecklessness of some remarkable shifts and turns'. But more often she is scarcely mentioned in general histories of the period.”

-J.L. Laynesmith, “English Queenship 1445-1503” (thesis for the degree of DPhil in Medieval Studies, University of York, Centre for Medieval Studies, April 1999)

[ganondoodle]

(this went on to be a longer ramble, talking about shrines and the abilities in totk i had more thoughts about the overworld repetition but im putting this into a separate post)

something i havent seen anyone mention before is also that it is a problem that you can skip nearly any puzzle in the totk "temples", some of which just by climbing walls ... and that wasnt possible in botw bc the titans were made of the same material as the shrines and prevented you from climbing on them, which feels like they knew making them climable would reduce the amount of puzzle you had to do and make it even less impactful, surely there are some glitches or movement tech that can make it easier, but at least you had to think about it a little?

but i guess that went against their newly adopted "more freedom equals better" way of thinking .. but then ..

the thing that i find confusing is that the shrines interior in totk are once again, NOT climable, but similar sonau buildings in the overworld ARE climable, they even restrict how you can use the tech in shrines, so ... they arent actually against restrictions? but then dont restrict anything else? not even in the main dungeons?? its kinda inconsistent and conflicting (like everything else lmao)

and that kinda extends to the abilities too, both the ceiling jump and ultrahand make alot of puzzles obsolete bc theres always a way easier way to skip everything; i know they kidna based it around people doing crazy thigns in botw, but there it felt like you were actually kinda missusing the mechanic of stasis for example in a smart way, YOU came up with that and it felt rewarding creating your own solution to shrine puzzles bc there were multiple ways to do it in this engine (like isntead of aligning blocks to lead electritiy to one end to the other you put out your weapons and place them there instead, and it WORKS) it felt more non intended, even if they had thoguht about it, it still FELT like you just came up with that, and sometimes it really was the only way your mind worked with and everyone had their own way of thinking

while in totk, they kinda tried to encourage that way of thinking, but it doesnt feel like your own idea anymore really, and, while its not every single one, in alot of totk shrines .. or even overworld puzzles you were just .. literally given the puzzle pieces for you to put together, but the pieces were like .. in parts of 6 at most so putting together the picture was both obvious and also kinda boring, like you were treated like you are a 4 year old and they were giving you 4 piece puzzles over and over- and fine you CAN just glue the two fans together and stand on them to fly high enough to just glide over to the end instead of building the flying thing they gave you the pieces for BUT its still .. expected, like you dont feel like you are working on it your way but seeing what the devs obviously planned for and then knowingly circumventing it i dont think its good either that in combination with the ceiling jump you really can just skip almost anything, take out a fly thing and fly near the end to spam the jump until it works, instead of using the building blocks they gave you for the obvious solution you build some platform and just ceiling jump to it, theres a rocket here? fuse it to your shield and fly high enough to glide to the end, its both too easy and obvious for the intented way and then you can even entirely skip that too, and you dont even feel smart about it bc it doesnt feel like you came up with it on your own and instead feel like a child that is way too old for the toys its given and the adults giving them to you stare at you while they wait for you to solve the puzzle- and alot of the solutions were either build something with these three pieces or fight something with these pieces-

i still remember that one (or more?) botw shrines were it lead you to a button to press and once you stand on it the wall slides open and reveals some fun and unexpected challenge, over and over- there was a hallway you had to glide through but there were big moving spiky metal balls hanging from the ceiling, maybe one has a normal rope on it and you can shoot it down if you notice it but the others dont so what do you do, stasis them so you can avoid it in time, grab it with magnesis to make it swing harder and then hope for the best as you fly there or dont do anything of that and just jump in- the one were a spiked wall was chasing you and as you run more obstables are put in your way right before you get to it, you stand on a button and the wall opens greeting you with an immediate guardian laser to the face? it felt more creative and fun to me, tho granted i havent done all shrines in totk bc i grew too tired of the everything to play more

(at least thats how i felt like, like i was treated like i was stupid for alot of totk, not just in the shrines sometimes .. which were one of the more enjoyable things in it, but also in the story .. like you dont have to think at all to get everything before its said to your face over and over)

and that thing with the abilities and the tech also makes the world less like a world and more like a playground bc you can just skip to every point of interest, you dont have to walk or climb or fight your way anywhere really bc you can just go up and fly to whereever you want, the new weird ass towers only make it worse bc .. of course youd make use of them to get everywhere even quicker, its also kinda in the combat, they might give you the tools to be creative (with arguably very simple things .. like a wheel, a rocket a fan and flamethrower arent realyl that interesting to begin with) why would you build a laser firing tank maschine to fight some bokblins you can just .. clobber like you usually do way quicker and easier

i do like the abilities in botw more than in totk too, but its got multiple reasons, like the world felt built around it without putting it into your face all the time, and the shrines were more built around giving you fun challenges, or just .. a fun experience, with often more subtle puzzles and not always forcing you to make use of the shiekah stone runes, plus the totk abilities feel more like the same thing .. or less interesting? fuse and ultrahand really are one and the same thing but separated into two for .. some reason, the time reversal is like stasis but with less ways to apply and use it (and kinda clunky how everything freezes in place when you prime it), and both it and the ceiling jump are a skip button from one location to the next (even tho we already have the fast travel) so you dont even need to climb, like those weird towers in the underground i thoguht looked cool and interesting when i first saw them only to realize its just a way to get to the surface via ceiling jump and nothing more .. you could fast travel up with the same amount of loading time, and more often than not it wasnt even in an interesting spot or somewhere you couldnt get to otherwise; the autobuild too even lets you skip building!! the thing thats the supposedly focus! i know its annoying to build something for a long time with its clunky function but isnt it yet another skip button

... another random ramble, much more incoherent too, again i want to mention im not trying to hate on everything, jsut kinda communicate or ... spill out my thoughts and feelings; i do absolutely agree that ultrahand is a very impressive mechanic and i did have fun with all the abilities for a while ..... i still like botws more bc its more diverse and is more restricted (which i LIKE) while also having more ways to use them

[brittlebutch]

i kind of hate to say it because i feel like i'll get pushback for it,,, but i kind of feel like if you're going to be making informational posts about autism online you do need to be reading actual autism research and literature. at least some of the times. like you can't just make things up and then present them as fact.

[soullessjack]

conservative X-men fans will see a franchise about an oppressed group of people who fight for their civil rights and freedom in a world that sees them as freaks and monsters and imagine themselves being on the mutants’ side but then can’t even handle masculine cis women in sports or a man with painted nails or cisgender teens on puberty blockers for health issues.

conservative X-men fans will see that oppressed group of freaks and monsters constantly facing the threat of an apocalyptic future specifically caused by hate mongers in powerful positions who very blatantly will and do destroy the same humanity they claim to be protecting if it means destroying Those Freaks and think “wow cool robot.”

conservative X-men fans will agree with the villain who was based on Malcom X and specifically came to hold his beliefs through surviving the Holocaust and claim that he can’t even be considered a villain anymore because his ideology makes sense and is consistently proven right by the humans’ unwavering intolerance, but go into hysterics the minute a real life minority holds any sort of hatred or resentment toward their oppressor.

conservatives in general will always pretend that the media they consume doesn’t have any deeper meaning or purpose other than being entertainment slop because they almost always retreat into media for some type of “comfort” or escape from having to acknowledge reality and their own bigotry. they want the freedom to be bigots without any pushback or consequences so they surround themselves in an echo chamber of fictional characters and universes who can’t argue with them or tell them they’re wrong and bad.

conservatives have to constantly and deliberately turn their brains off to consume a specific piece of media because they know that they would be the villain in it if they gave it an ounce of deeper thought and that’s exactly why they push back so hard against anything that drags them out of their comfy echo chamber, anything that threatens their blissful ignorance.

they thrive on the idea that their media isn’t “that deep” or based in/affected by reality; that there’s no such thing as representation or allegories or coding in media (and alternatively, that representation doesn’t matter or is just propahanda). they thrive on willful ignorance and they want to convince everyone else to be just as ignorant and the death of media literacy is exactly how they’ll achieve it

[watermelinoe]

like sorry but it's so funny when some vegans act like we've never questioned why humans have priority over other species, but then use human parameters to define the value of non-human animals. so are humans and non-human animals the same or not? are humans part of nature or not? or is predation and forming relationships with other species only murder/exploitation when we do it? i'm not insisting i have all the answers to these questions but it's so funny being told "i have to make offensive claims bc otherwise you'd never think about it" by someone whose argument falls apart if you follow the logic for more than two minutes. your argument is ultimately still human exceptionalism lmao

[bloomingsalma]

i think one of the most disappointing things is to see that your childhood friends have grown up to represent the kind of people you're disappointed in

[vulpinesaint]

do i believe eddie brock is homosexual or even really into men. no. to be honest. however is he gay for that alien. one hundred fucking percent and it's canonical too