#maybe it’s the salt

[foe-of-fate]

Me: Why does my mouth taste weird?

The salt lamp I licked a few minutes ago: 👁️ 👁️

[royaltea000]

he could not control the class 😔

[g0ddyke]

Forcemasc except instead of pushing you to go to the gym, it's pushing you to do your physio. it's pushing you to take up space and take your wellbeing seriously - use your mobility aids, take your meds, stop letting other people push you too hard. stop pushing yourself too hard. Understand that you deserve to be here, deserve to be who you are, deserve to be respected. That your masculinity isn't defined by your physical strength or your athleticism or how you look or what other people think of you - it's just part of who and how you are, and now you have someone who sees that. That sees You, and won't let you back down from who you really are.

[jsheios]

So Hilda season 3. (This post has nothing to do with hilda season 3)

[lilybug-02]

Patience and responsibility....that's a promise....right?

Part 27 First || Previous || Next

--Full Series--

An exorcism? In my family-friendly Deltarune? It's more likely than you may think. The backgrounds here were very interesting! Much more complex than how I usually do them (especially that computer).

Player POV:

Feral energy.

[zoe-oneesama]

If its okay to ask what exactly is the issue with Chloe's writing in the show for you? The creators have stated multiple times "there will be no redemption, she's rotten to the core and she's gonna stay that way" and it seems like thats what you want from her. So where exactly do they fumble the bag for you?

Mostly the part where they wasted everyone's time.

They tried to play both sides - kept her as nasty and self centered as always and did nothing to change her, but also make multiple episodes where we're meant to feel sorry for her and the heroine is portrayed as In The Wrong for being too harsh on her. It was annoying.

Like, it was just...tonally confusing at the time. It's totally in character for her to "steal" a Miraculous and not give it back when the rightful owner demands it back, being a thief was never outside of Chloe's wheelhouse. So tell me why they had the heroes give her soft woobie eyes and make excuses for her on the grounds of "you just wanted Mommy to look at you" and frame it like that's correct??????

And then, AND THEN, after wasting everyone's goddamn time trying to pretend they were doing something deep with Chloe, they didn't just double down on her being a two-bit one dimensional mean girl and tried to pretend like they didn't devote multiple episodes to convincing the audience she was more than that, but they wrote her to be even more comically evil as if to drive the knife even deeper! You can't help but read into their motivations, it feels like they're doing it to target certain fans specifically. "Oh you liked Chloe and wanted her to be redeemed? What if we ANTI-REDEEMED HER?! And now she's somehow more evil than our abusive magical terrorist! BWAHAHAHA!" Like?????? The Fuck?????

There's a moment in Season 5's "Collusion" where Bustier brings up the gift Chloe got her at the end of "Zombizou", doing this speech about how she recognized that Chloe was just a fragile teenager looking for love and attention (the EXACT THING that Season 2 spent a multi-episode arc trying to convince their audience of) only for Chloe to snap back that Bustier is using her student's feelings to "blackmail" her in that moment and uses this as grounds to get the woman fired.

And I feel like that really encapsulates the frustration I have at specifically the staff behind Miraculous Ladybug when it comes to Chloe.

Here is Chloe mocking Bustier for reading into what happened in "Zombizou" and instead it feels like the viewer is being mocked. Everyone who thought they were going somewhere with Chloe, everyone who bought what they were selling, everyone who's time was fucking wasted, is being laughed at in this moment.

Look, I never bought into Chloe being redeemed, so my personal annoyance was this dilly-dallying through this random side quest that amounted to nothing, which is a constant in this damn show. But, and I know this might be hard for some to believe, I had deep deep sympathy and empathy for fans who really thought and really wanted for the Battle of the Queens Arc to amount to something. I am so, so angry for them, because every season finds a way to not only stab you all in the back but twist the knife.

So yeah, that's my "issue".

[buggachat]

honestly just in general it's very exhausting to try to analyze media that is literally meant to be analyzed, only for the replies to be filled with people arguing not against your analysis, but against the premise that the media can be analyzed at all.

i don't even know what to say about it without starting to really betray my frustration, so i'll just settle with— just don't engage with analysis posts? I'm serious. if you're typing a response to a media analysis post, reread what you've written and ask yourself "is this comment/response against the very concept of analyzing the media at all?" and if the answer is yes then delete it all and go sit in the shame corner. throw your curtains away if you want to so bad and stop telling me that I'm not allowed to hum and haw at the fact mine are blue

[ping-ski]

I love how, in the tags, sugar daddy eclipse is written as "sugar!clip", bc in my head it implies he's made of sugar. It makes me want to lick him.

...Not that I didn't want to lick him before

Eclipse wouldn't stop you from licking him, but fair warning - he WILL return the favor.

[neroushalvaus]

Okay I am going to use the Somerton situation to talk about something that is very important to me. Following the discussion I have seen former Somerton fans being disappointed in themselves and questioning how they can ever trust another video essayist again. I have also seen some people being smug because to them Somerton was obviously unreliable from the start. As a person who also saw the "red flags" in Somerton, I would like to skip the smugness and talk a bit about what the red flags were to me.

Someone else has probably posted something similar and Hbomberguy's & Todd in the Shadows's videos touched a few of these points, but they didn't focus on them or how to spot these things. I think it is a good thing: I think it would have reinforced the idea that Somerton's fans were to blame for being lied to, and these youtubers didn't want to pin any blame on the fans. Also, some of the things I'm going to talk about were not by any means proof of him being unreliable, they were common tropes I personally associate with people who are bullshitting on internet. Think of it as something like spotting terfs: If you consider following a tumblr user and find out they have at some point posted "males will always be a danger to females no matter what they say", it is very possible that they are not a terf. Maybe they were having a bad day and were just wording their post badly – But you should probably search "trans" from their blog before following them, just to be sure.

So, the tropes in James Somerton's content that I consider red flags:

Lack of sources. This one may seem obvious and Hbomb talked about this in his video, but the lack of sources in his videos was outrageous. Video essays are called essays for a reason, they are not supposed to be just a guy talking about whatever comes to his mind, they should be well researched essays. Obviously video essays should contain one's own thoughts and interpretations and those do not need citations. But James Somerton didn't come out of the womb knowing everything about LGBT history, Disney and film theory, if he actually knew something about all this stuff, he should have learnt it from somewhere. There should be sources he could point to. It is very common that even when a video essayist doesn't tell you where they got all their information, they open their video by saying stuff like "when I prepared for this video I read the book Also sprach Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche and this one thrilling blog post about lesbian cruising in 1960s Sweden". From what I've seen, James does not really do this. From watching his videos you could arrive to the conclusion that James Somerton does not read any books, he just knows everything. There are situations where people don't feel the need to add sources, like when the information is considered common knowledge or when the topic relates heavily to the essayist's actual academic field or profession. This is okay and very understandable, but can sometimes be dangerous, since if the video essayist markets himself as a marketing specialist, people are more likely to take his word for stuff that has to do with marketing, even without sources. It is understandable that in many situations an essayist may think "why should I cite a source? I know this thing!", but doing your research well is partly about checking if the information you are certain of is actually true. Also, as Hbomb pointed out, if you can cite a source, your audience can go learn more about the subject. It's not about anyone doubting you know your stuff, it's about learning. That's why well-respected video essayists usually cite their sources very clearly.

Lack of pictures and screenshots. This is about different kinds of sources again, many things on this list are kind of about sources. An example: When James Somerton made a video about JKR, he mentioned something about Rowling at one time saying that trans students in 30-50Feralhogs (or whatever the wizard school is called) could use magic to present as their gender. If this was any other video essayist, you'd expect a tweet to pop up, or something else confirming Rowling ever said this. Nothing pops up, obviously because Rowling didn't say this, but you can't see anything fishy in that because things rarely pop up in Somerton's videos. He doesn't show you court documents when speaking about a court case, he doesn't show you the comments apparently mad at him for implying the gay anime is gay when he is complaining about people being mad at him. There is a reason people show screenshots and tweets in video essays. When a good video essayist says JK Rowling has tweeted that all people who menstruate should be referred to as women, the video essayist shows the tweet so people know they are not making it up. If there were hoards of annoying bitc-- I mean, angry white women whining about gay sex in HuffPost articles or Somerton's youtube comments, he should have no trouble showing you those. Remember that you should not trust someone just because they show you pictures or screenshots. Pictures can be photoshopped, screenshots can be doctored. Many youtubers are aware that you listen to their videos while cleaning or while walking your dog and don't actually see the screen all the time, and some may take advantage of that by saying something like "and here she threatened to kill me" while showing a text message where someone said "die mad about it". A screenshot alone isn't much but you should demand to see the screenshot.

Passive voice. I am once again bitching about this. Somerton repeatedly says things like "it's been said that" or "it was common knowledge that" or "a legend says that" or "according to most interpretations". He doesn't say who says it, making it very hard to fact check and that seems to be his goal in some cases.

Relying heavily on anecdotes. Writing a dense, analytical video about film theory or history can be exhausting and you may want to pepper in little fun facts. However Somerton seemed to rely on these heavily; he can't just talk about how he has totally bought every lie told by The Pink Swastika, he also needs to tell a cute little anecdote about SS men forcing sexual favours out of men. He can't just tell a story about a court case, he needs to add in ridiculous stuff about the jury booing. This is what I mean by not all the things on this list being necessarily proof of someone being unreliable. Many people use anecdotes and little stories in their storytelling, it makes the videos flow better and it's hard to decide which anecdotes are valid and which are not. A source obviously makes an anecdote a bit more believable, but here are some things that instantly make me fact check an anecdote:

It's a bit too convenient, poetic or ironic. Sometimes real life is weirder than fiction but if an anecdote is "perfect" and has an amazing punchline and you could write twelve poems about it, there is a possibility it was invented by pop science books.

It assumes your political enemies are stupid. Dunking on conservatives, MRAs and transphobes is always fun and after you've seen a lot of this kind of content it's easy to believe anything about these people. You must resist the impulse to believe everything that may make your opponents look stupid.

The person telling the anecdote implies it is an example of a larger, systemic problem. You know what's worse than taking a random happenstance from human history or internet and basing an entire political theory on it? The said random happenstance being made up. You should in general be wary of people telling one story and explaining why it's an example of everything that's wrong in the world. We live in a huge world. You can always find a white woman who loves cute gays but hates the idea of Nick Heartstopper and Charlie Heartstopper getting nasty but that doesn't mean it's an indicator of a larger issue.

Simplifying complex issues. We all know that "only the boring gays survived the AIDS crisis, and that's why gays started to only care about marriage equality and military" is a horrible, insensitive thing to say, but you also have to think about it for like two seconds to realize that it can't be correct. It kind of reminds me of the "roe v wade caused the crime drop of 1990s" claim in Freakonomics. It sounds logical and simple, like a basic math calculation. Societal issues rarely are like that, though. You should never believe anyone who tells you about a huge societal shift and says it happened because of one thing and one thing only.

These were some of the things I noticed in Somerton's content that caused me to distrust him. I hope these were helpful to you and feel free to add your own "red flags" if you feel like it!

[ssaltlicker]

I feel like you can tell who reads and doesnt read poetry by how they took the “dirt under your nails” comment. To me, it immediately read as “we are inseparable” like saying “the salt and the sea” or something. You arent focusing on the pieces individually, but the whole that they form together. AKA, being so close to someone/something that you are forever intertwined.

Its just shocking how many people took it as some kind of dig or insult. Getting your hands dirty symbolizes hard work. Someone that “never gets their hands dirty” is someone that doesnt work hard. Caitlyn WAS the latter, the elite that puts the work on other people. The whole point is that she has changed through work, but also through her relationship with vi.

Also; the phrase is actually pretty common in some regions (usually some alteration of it, anyways). Its been a phrase of affection for a while. Just funny how you can tell a lot about someones background by how they interpret certain phrases

[tkmk]

can any mycologists help explain what's going on in this soy sauce bottle? i've done some lab work with fungi but i've never seen a mould tree before.

[graythursday]

‘gotham gazette’ newspaper promo for ‘the penguin’ hints at harvey dent addition to the universe— “is our legal system dented beyond repair?” + riddler crumbs :>

[marimbles]

if ive been at a restaurant cheerfully and enthusiastically waiting for the chicken parm to be served for like 5 hours, am I not allowed to be disappointed that it turned out to be salmon instead. sure salmon is really tasty to some people but what if I just don’t like salmon. why are they serving salmon in the chicken parm restaurant? “it’s such an interesting surprise that the chef brought out salmon! I can’t wait to see what’s for dess—” no. bring me my chicken parm .

anyway that’s how I feel in the miraculous ladybug fandom rn lol

[girldriveroscar]

CRACKS KNUCKLES heres some parasocial nonsense. pls dont take too serious im just being silly.

insp by @inchidentally the 814 essay GOAT… Hi.

Okyeah analyzing this video and recent posts.

So Like. oscar piastri being the normalTm guy whos still w his hs sweetheart, wears graphic tees and beat up af1s and still vacations w the guys he grew up w, who was actually kinda socialized (as well as any other well-off posh kid who’s parents could afford the luxury of fucking them off to boarding school i digress).. but like, he played pranks w the Lads and got congratulatory slaps on the back, his first crushes wer probs navigated in small talk during class and walking together in the halls? generally just a guy who balanced his social life and Career to Some relatively healthy degree so it’s not like Completely foreign to him how to talk to girls and make friends. and so he gets that building an intimate relationship w someone is mostly just hanging out, experiencing new food tgthr, new movies, walking around a new city, he just gives such a NORMAL GUY answer of a perfect date, and i think part of being socialized the way he was gave him the understanding that grandiose gestures of love kinda just come off as disingenuous. oscar jus reads as a guy whos never resorted to showboating bc his introduction to romance was just like anyone else, awkward shuffling and bonding on the weekends over pizza and homework. and even as a formula 1 RACE WINNER GUY W MONEY hiiiiii, he still has such a cute simple recipe for a perf date bc hes been through it. he knows how to court someone bc it worked and its been working!!!

then on the flip u have THE peacock tm, shirt unbuttoned so low might as well forgo it atp, lando norris whos perfect date idea is hi, (wtf.) YACHT. and sex (exhibitionist freak. sorry who said that…) like boyyyy oh my god shakes him by the shoulders u are so not normal. lando norris, who’s always ben a little comfier than his peers growing up. always out of place bc his dads pockets were Open and Ready to ensure he never had to worry about pinching pennies for some chips after class Yeah and he doesnt even know it bc thats NEVER been his life? yeaaa and add in a dash of Always being on the race track, never rly socializing w. girls or boys who weren’t in direct competition w him, turning 19 and immediately being sized up to his older hyper-masculine charming And sexy teammate. (getting carried away mb)

lando himself explaining that having to grow up so fast and be a good boy (His words.) prevented him from finding his footing in social settings and only now being able to experience these things at 23/24?!

i digress now also factor in his (alleged…) favorite movie is a silly romcom?! (also maybe just peacocking tho bc “girls love a guy w a soft side” and lando wld know bc he watched one movie about it…. like srsly u want me to believe the hangover and stepbrothers belong in the same category as Romcom u dont rmbr the name of okk weirdo)

so yea of course a boy who’s never passed notes to his crush in class, never asked anyone to a dance, never pulled pranks w his schoolmates, Understands intimacy thru cheesy romcoms an weekends emptying his dads wallet on flights to wtv racing event. LIKE OF COURSE he thinks romance is wtv he can mimic from A. how his dad showed him love (…$$..) and B. what the movies r saying ! (thats socially repressed twin.) AND THE GAG OF IT ALL!!!! is he puts on this front, so suave so playboy, “i have sex and let me announce about it publicly in case u doubted it” when the reality of it is like? dude u are thirst-liking instagram models while oscar is Getting it every night ur such a loser omfg.

just Like. Ugh the contrast of oscar whos so secure in himself in his dad shorts and ANKLE socks and lando who just grew out of his awkwardness in his early 20s and now Needs to slut himself out to make up for lost time.

(AND. the double gag is landos still so obviously not secure abt the fact he Doesnt Really Know what hes doing that every one can see it ouhmygodd lando x chernobyl levels of imposter syndrome u are so complicated and angsty U TEENAGE GIRL. holds a can of diet coke to his lips. there there girl. there there.)

[holyfreaks]

sorry but the "trying to get rid of us" part.... like we were here from literally day one. you came into OUR house and decided the show was about something that it's not. also, even if we weren't here from the beginning, we deserve to be here every bit as you do. why are you trying to gatekeep fandom, when it's always been for the freaks. especially on the incest family horror show

[zoe-oneesama]

So based off the latest SL chapter, if that’s actually possible then I don’t know how it hasn’t been done in canon or if there was a quote explaining why they didn’t do it.

Or I’m wondering if they hadn’t thought of the idea when introducing the Sentimonsters.

Now I wonder how writing and planning is kind of surprising when an idea is presented though not used in favor of keeping the status quo going.

I mean, to me, a Sentimonster is the same as an akuma, as far as what their limits can be. So literally from the moment Emilie was revealed, people have wondered why Gabe didn't just make a Doctor Akuma.

In Season 1, he at least had the benefit of no one knowing what his end goal is (besides him declaring he's after "World Domination" 🙄)