#not only was it generally rude and infantilizing but also for me personally it was misgendering

[dykesynthezoid]

Sometimes I’ll remember the history teacher I had in high school who used to call all the guys in class “sir” but called all the girls “sweetheart” and suddenly crave violence

[lit3rally-m1ke-whlr]

guys I accidentally deleted the essay I wrote in my drafts bc I’m an idiot (I’m crying) so I’m just gonna summarize in less words bc whatever I’m not typing several more paragraphs on this. Anyway I just had to say that I feel like there’s an ableism problem in the Stranger Things fandom. Either that or this fandom just doesn’t like when characters show obvious neurodivergent traits. We see this with El being either infantilized or deemed annoying by fans when she’s clearly developmentally impaired and autistic because she struggles with understanding social cues and just wants to be normal and fit in like everyone else. She was raised in a lab, obviously she’s going to be immature and not have a strong handle on her emotional responses to things, and you don’t have to like her but it kinda sucks that she’s being hated for these things when I can relate to her so much. We also see this with Mike, and I feel like the people calling him the worst character are forgetting he’s literally just a teenage boy dealing with trauma. Like it’s as if they were never a teenager before because trust me I was just like Mike at that age if not worse. I’ll admit I used to hate him too but maturing is realizing the reasons people dislike Mike can easily be explained by either internalized homophobia or neurodivergence. He’s a bad friend? It’s because he’s trying so hard to appear straight and struggles to balance his relationships in a healthy manner, and he often speaks before thinking about how what he’s saying comes across to others, which is something many autistics/ people with ADHD do, not because we mean to hurt others but we can often be blunt or brutally honest and come across as rude (or even just lash out when we feel attacked or hurt as a way to defend ourselves but it often comes out harsher than we want it to) in my experience. He’s a bad boyfriend? He’s actually not and even then it’s because he’s gay and not in love with El but just doesn’t want to lose her. Besides he doesn’t have a great model for what a loving relationship looks like because of his parents so he may not be able to differentiate between romantic and platonic love and stays in a relationship that he’s clearly not happy in because of societal pressure to appear straight and it would be suspicious (in his mind) if they broke up because a) El literally is the coolest girl on the planet, how could he not love her and b) he loses his cover and people might start to notice and question his lack of attraction to girls. But not only that, he clearly struggles with describing and expressing his emotions or recognizing those of others (aka alexythemia) which is common in autistic people. So if he didn’t notice El’s obvious discomfort at the skating rink that’s probably why, and it’s also why he couldn’t tell her he loved her (bc it was a lie but I digress).

But perhaps the best example and the reason I decided to make this rant post is Robin’s character in s4. I remember seeing so many people saying that once the writers decided to make her lesbian they realized they didn’t know what to do with her character, some even going as far as to say they made her ditzy and stripped her of her coolness, which basically proves my point about y’all (as in the fandom in general) not liking ND people because god forbid we unmask around you, it’s no wonder so many of us feel afraid to be our true selves in front of other people. It’s almost as if she was hiding behind a persona to seem more normal and not draw unwanted attention to herself because she’s a lesbian, and once she came out to Steve and was accepted she… didn’t have to do that anymore? She felt more comfortable and safe around him to show her true personality? I don’t know but there’s something off about the way people are acting like she’s suddenly dumb or just there for comedic effect in s4 when she’s literally been so useful like she’s the one who realized music could save victims from being possessed by vecna. She’s literally the same except now she’s out to someone and she gets nervous when it comes to girls she likes, big fucking deal. Not only is this mischaracterization ludicrous and flat out wrong but it’s quite upsetting to see as someone who can relate to Robin in season 4 and is also autistic. Yes, not everyone with autism is like that but some are and to say she’s no longer cool because of it just enforces the perception of autistics as weird and unlikeable just for simply being themselves and makes us feel like we can only be liked or taken seriously if we keep the mask on.

look at me I said I would keep it brief this time but I still ended up writing an entire wall of text on this anyway lol thanks for coming to my Ted talk ig

[minniiaa]

Sorry if this seems repetitive but I haven't been active on social media in yearsss

Is it true that there's a lot of lawlu hate on tiktok and Twitter? I'm so confused because there used to be so much love for the ship back in 2017/2018 from my perspective (Amino era).

The short answer: yes and no. Let me start by saying I'm not the best person to answer this since I purely consume on twitter. I made my personal twitter in 2007 like it's everyone I've ever known irl and has nothing to do with shipping or hobbies and I follow approx 0 accounts related to anime, manga, or lawlu. I just looked up lawlu a few times and browsed and suddenly it's my whole fucking timeline and there’s no going back and now I have a lawlu twitter (This makes me very happy).

So if anyone else has an opinion on this that is more in the community, please feel free to comment away. Otherwise, below are my observations.

First off, there IS a ton of love for the ship. Most of what I see is beautiful art (they got the nsfw ayo), memes, fanfics, and headcanons just like tumblr. There are tons of comments of people swooning over these posts, Lawlu IS one of the most popular OP ships after all.

There's just a vocal minority that are very against the concept of shipping and in that subset there are those who are very against Lawlu. There people out there that will literally list accounts to block that ship lawlu or write lawlu DNI in their bios. The same can be said for other ships, it's not just this one it’s any they deem a ‘pro ship’ (problematic ship) and Lawlu is generally considered one of these. Below as is an example:

The biggest issues I’ve seen with Lawlu are the following 1. luffy is aroace and cant be shipped period 2. law groomed luffy and the age gap is gross. IMO I think most of these people are just infantilizing Luffy as some goofy autistic kid that doesn't know what love and sex are when in reality he's very self-aware and happy does not equal stupid. Also he's 19 he’s not underage. He met Law twice when he was 17, one of which was saving his life as a doctor and Luffy was unconscious most of this time. Let's not forget Luffy's a war criminal kicking the asses of people 4x his age in a pirate world, age doesn't really work the same as irl.

BUTTT Not that any of this matters because you can ship whoever the fuck you what because guess what? It's ~fiction~. I could rant about how people can ship whatever the hell they want all day but I'll save my breath for now. (my opinion of course)

Also there are just mentally ill people who enjoy telling others to kys if you like something they like do. Lawlu shippers are just their chosen target demographic. Creators get foul messages in their inboxes, rude comments, just general hater behavior. Twitter is just a firey cesspool and all fandoms have 'fans' who do nothing but hate. We live in an age of negativity where being a hater is the cool thing to do.

HOWEVER, I see more people posting about why those people are wrong and stupid than the actual negative tweets but maybe that's because I actually support the ship and the algorithm sees that. Not sure how twitter works, nor do I want to know about that dumpster fire there's a reason I came over to tumblr.

As for tiktok, I don't really consume a lot of tiktok so I can't speak on it besides seeing cosplayers and cute animations/art. I'll leave that to the tiktok people to look into.

For argument's sake, I went through the lawlu tag and picked some lovely tweets to share with you so you can see the toxicity for yourself. Sadly only 10 images per post but I think you get the point. Thanks for the ask hope this was informative. :)

[total-feminism-takes]

As someone who really likes Harold and Ezekiel the day that this fandom stops infantilizing autistic coded boys and demonizing autistic coded girls is the day I will rest.

I will defend zeke with my life I believe he can be a good person (emphasis on CAN he is not a good person in the show and was not meant to be seen as a good person) but the infantilisation of him is atrocious sometimes, almost going so far as to use his autistic traits to deny the sexism (which even if he was parroting what his father said he still SAID it and BELIEVED it guys) not only that but he’s generally pretty rude throughout his few appearances (ignoring Bridgette’s boundaries during tddddi interrupting Chris on multiple occasions during world tour, and just generally being quite standoffish) I understand that most of these things come from his social ineptitude but that is an explanation not an excuse and people have to realize he is kind of a massive douche.

Meanwhile people will consistently call characters like Beth and Millie “annoying pick mes” while seemingly not realizing that most of their annoying traits are ones common in autistic people (correct me if I’m wrong about Millie I haven’t gotten the chance to see the reboot) as the both of them also show difficulty with understanding the intricacies of social interactions even Beth’s label as “the wannabe” could be her imitating people she sees as “cool” to try and boost her social standing, a very common form of masking in autistic people.

Tl;dr don’t go defending the shit out of Ezekiel and then turning around to call Beth annoying that’s icky. (Not too dissimilar from the real world though. Yippie /s)

(Apologies for sending in 2 big rants in one day but school has been so slow and I’ve had far too much free time on my hands)

-📺

- 🧡

[donnerpartyofone]

First Pants, THEN Your Shoes

I spent a lot of time on the autism and ADHD subs before and in the aftermath of my ADHD diagnosis, and it was often helpful in contextualizing a lot of my nagging and seemingly unexplainable problems. The people there are generally nice, I never really saw any of the toxic behavior that Reddit is famous for. There's just one incident that stuck in my craw, where someone was dealing with issues of emotional access that I thought were so misunderstood by everyone who responded, I wanted to help somehow but I didn't know what to say.

Basically this person admitted that they just have no relationship with their parents. For their whole life they never experienced an authentic, loving connection, and faking it all the time was both exhausting and guilt-inducing. This was a pretty brave thing to express, but I thought that it basically made sense in a forum for people who are famously thought of as cold, rude, and "low empathy". But what happened was that a ton of people responded with "I feel this because" of their horrific history of open abuse and neglect, which I thought was clearly not what OP was describing--and then one person absolutely flipped the fuck out on them, posting a vicious tirade about what a bad person they were. The aggressor faught with a couple of other people before loudly announcing that this post had caused them to leave that subreddit for good. That seemed so cruel and unnecessarily personal to me, I really felt bad for OP who came to the autism forum like we all do to say "I have feelings or behaviors that are abnormal and I feel bad/confused/conflicted about them." I also felt bad that their confession had been conflated with the problems of child abuse and domestic violence, which they clearly did not address. I thought I knew what they meant. I think that I also have different kinds of emotional experiences than most people, and that incident reminded me of why I don't usually admit it.

Do I have histories of abuse and neglect that could have affected my emotional development, or am I just "like this"? I don't know how to answer that. I think that the nature versus nurture debate is like, a fun game to play, but basically absurd. There is absolutely no way to control for pure effects of biology and neurology and genes, separate of pure effects of experience. The right answer is always "it's both", and then you proceed with whatever psychological management style seems most helpful. You try to understand what you have to work with, which rarely involves nailing down the absolute factually objective specifics of your origin story; you approximate about what feels important, and you try to move forward. Some people have histories so difficult that dealing with their inherent "nature" is moot, and some people have a nature that makes even minor experiences vastly more affecting than usual.

To be Freudian about it, my mother kind of didn't want anything to do with me. She was civil about it so it's hard to say I was abused, but I received a pretty consistent rejection signal until she died when I was a teenager. This seems to me to be related to her mother, who made a big performance of being the Perfect Mommy but who was in fact critical, controlling, and manipulative. This in turn seems related to the fact that her father, my great grandfather was a child rapist, which my grandmother refused to deal with, or only dealt with through her burlesque of extreme normality. Severe clinical depression exists on that side of the family, and I have it too. Nature or nurture?

My paternal grandfather was a fascinating, cosmically-minded person who obviously affected my father's powerful intellectual development, but who was emotionally absent. My paternal grandmother was an infantile narcissist with zero sympathy for others and semi-violent tendencies. Also there was obviously "something going on" with her; she cataloged everything in her house, literally on a computer and in physical binders, and devised wild methods of controlling everything around her including children and animals. When we visited her we had to shower outdoors like cattle.

In my family, we didn't say I love you. We didn't touch except for ritually mandated occasions. But we talked a lot. We shared interests, which many families do not do, do not even consider, even when they are warm and affectionate. From the moment I was born I was sad, angry, obsessive, freaked out. Intellectually overdeveloped and emotionally crippled. My mom checked out, and when her parents visited I was very confused and frightened by their soap operatic and purpose-driven performance of emotion. But no matter how messed up I was, my dad made infinite amounts of time for me. I cannot say that he was comforting the way people normally mean it, but he was present and listened. How many miles did we walk before I was a teenager? We talked about dreams, phobias, the subconscious, symbolism, theology, and art and literature. This is still the basis on which I relate to him. Sometimes as an adult I bare a wound brazenly to see if I can make him react to the bad things that have happened to me, but he doesn't. That's not in the rulebook. I don't even know if I WANT the rules to change, I just have to test them sometimes. I probably like them just the way they are.

Meanwhile my brother, who is close in age to me, has become the single most normal and successful person I know, professionally, socially, and in his private life. Nature or nurture?

I have had a much harder time gaining traction. It's hard to get ahead when you have to spend a lot of time just figuring out what the fuck is wrong with you. There are a lot of normal-seeming things I cannot figure out or literally cannot do. My emotional life is somewhat bizarre. I either retreat from society or develop intense, virtually monogamous 1-1 friendships with very poor boundaries. At my small wedding I suddenly realized that my guests didn't even know each other very well; people making toasts didn't seem to know what to say about our courtship. I obsess over people, but it tends to be very intellectual. I don't want anyone to touch me ever, like unless we're fucking, which is a source of much confusion and ridicule among others. I need to be alone A LOT. I can think about someone all the time but forget to tell them more than a few times a year, so I have to be consciously careful to let people know I remember their existence. I once tried to explain to someone that I don't really miss people in the way that others seem to, and I meant it to say "I love you even if it doesn't look normal," and I think I just insulted the person and I regretted speaking.

I think this stuff sounds evil to a lot of people. I tend to think, there's me and there's the mammals. The mammals are warm and enjoy each other's warmth. The mammals feel safe in groups. The mammals have a physical and mental metabolism that refreshes itself daily or hourly; mine is very slow and I need lots of rest and recovery time. I don't feel safe in groups. I like to be cool and dry and hidden in the dark under a rock. For the mammals, their warmth is what makes them feel the value of life. Many of them assume that my coolness means I don't value life. This is absurd. Just because I don't want to feel your body against mine, doesn't mean I don't care what happens to your body. Just because I need to be alone, doesn't mean I wouldn't feel terrible if you are lonely or hurt. I don't even have to like you, to care whether you suffer. If I have misunderstood how my behavior will affect you, it is because I am an alien from outer space; I still care tremendously about whether I make your life better or worse. But this is hard to communicate for some reason.

I watch Lifetime movies with great, almost ghoulish fascination. I'm captivated by their hyperbole of American values, of love and family. I'm spying on it from orbit. It constantly amazes me.

I had been talking to my dad for a while about my feeling that I'm autistic, but the ADHD diagnosis took me by surprised. When I learned more about it, it explained so much about my childhood, about behaviors I couldn't help and stuff I couldn't learn that made my parents, especially my mom so, so mad at me. I didn't know how the new information would strike my dad. My doctor had cautioned me not to feel bad about all the time and potential I lost not understanding my own care and upkeep. Would my dad feel bad about not understanding me? His response was so perfectly, absolutely emblematic of our entire relationship that I couldn't have written it better myself.

There would be no emotional outbursts, no drippy apologies. There was only consciousness, perception, existentialism, God, subjectivity versus cosmic reality. This is what we do. This is how we survive. This is how we say I Love You. I love you so much, dad. I'm proud of you and I'm so glad I am your daughter. Thank you for everything. Please don't touch me.

[konigceo]

one last message before you go: I totally agree with that anon saying that ‘mdni’ and ‘ageless blogs get blocked’ is bs. Back in my day we were told not to reveal anything about ourselves online for good reason, and telling people to put their ages in their bios not only is dangerous, it encourages minors to lie more.

The situation is super complicated ofc and it’s not black and white. I for example was exposed to sex stuff way too young and in a very terrible way with no other real option to compare it to; the experiences I had gave me a very warped and skewed idea of sex and my own kinks for a while, but you know what fixed that? GOING ONLINE AND READING SMUT. Seriously. The stuff I consumed was on wattpad and usually written by minors, FOR minors, and it made me realize the true nature of sex and what it can mean. It also opened my eyes to kink and made me realize that I’m not a horrible person for being kinky.

Just turning away everyone from your stuff like that isn’t gonna stop any minors. We all know it. I don’t see the point in trying (Personally I employ a don’t ask, don’t tell policy on my smut content, because I’d much rather people get their content from me because at least I know I’m not grooming them). I get that people below 13 are too young to really even be online but the fact of the matter is kids are gonna see smut whether you want them to or not. They will consume it.

Look, I guess what I’m trying to say is don’t feel guilty for doing what you do, girl. You’re not the only one, you’re just the first I’ve seen with the courage to come out and say it. Besides, as I see it, if you’re old enough to know you want to interact with sexual content, then you’re old enough to interact in general. If you’re old enough to know you wanna have sex and do kinky shit, you’re old enough to learn how to do it safely and properly as well! Minors don’t magically become more able to comprehend things the day they turn 18, we’re capable of making our own decisions, and being told otherwise is honestly infantilizing. Especially those at our age (15-17) we have the fucking capacity to handle sexual content. If I would be allowed to drive, allowed to get a job, allowed to work for slave wages, and allowed to sign waivers on my own, then why the hell is being allowed to consume smut such a big leap?

-A Hypersexual minor who sees what you’re doing, and wants to let you know you’re not alone and that grown ass adults telling you what you can and can’t consume is bullshit and so is those same adults doxxing and harassing you for daring to take initiative and do what you want

i agree with your words anon, and i just feel like it's so unprovoked that these people are harrassing not just me, but innocent blogs, as if most of them weren't exposed to nsfw content when they were young. i appreciate the thought of trying to shield and protect me from nsfw content, but this isn't an unhealthy thing, in my opinion. i write on tumblr because i like writing, because i like cod, and because i have hormones (shocker, i know). and in the end, i know how to handle myself when it comes to nsfw content. i don't write extreme content or kinks, and my writing is pretty tame compared to the rest of the cod fandom, so i really don't get the argument when it comes to "you're ruining your life and your mental health," since my mental health is getting ruined because of these rude ass people 💀 but yeah that was my ted talk ! have a great day/night anon.

[yorikuro]

A little rant post with fast sketch as a treat.

Sooo. I wrote down some characteristics of this man that I think would rather fit him. Let me note right away: this is not an approach to Peter as a historical figure. With the differences and contradictions in information about him that we are dealing with, it is impossible to say anything specific about him in 90% of cases. Rather, I am creating a character based on my vision, headcanons and some information that I know about him. I am not a historian and do not claim to be historic. Please do not be offended.

So, in terms of character, I imagine Peter as:

• rather naive

• not the most responsible, if he is not interested in the matter

• quite infantile

• rather smart and witty, but has not learned to use his mind properly

• nervous

• impressionable

• quite a simple man

• frivolous

• meticulous

• stubborn

• hot-tempered and generally with a changeable character

• childish

• talkative, but at the same time secretive (although he does not know how to lie convincingly)

• straightforward to the point of rudeness

• a dreamer

• well, and cowardly, let's be honest

There's more other qualities I'd gave him, but I don't remember them at this moment, so let's stop here.

What follows is my lengthy discussion of some of Peter's particular ways of thinking as I see and know them. The topic is vast, so I have only touched on some aspects, of which there are in fact many more. Again, this has very little to do with a real historical figure. Don't take it seriously.

The reason for such a set of personal qualities is most likely the peculiarities of his upbringing (in particular, the years of physical abuse he experienced) and the almost constant loneliness that he faced in Russia. However, in my opinion, he himself is partly to blame for the latter. He probably couldn't cope with the shock of such sudden and large-scale changes in his life (in particular becoming a russian heir all of a sudden) and preferred to remain who he, in his own opinion, always was and should be - a german, a Holstein Duke, a lutheran, etc. This was his psyche's way of protecting his own self, but this same method later played a cruel joke on him. He himself began to create a psychological barrier, a gap between himself and others. In fact, he locked himself in his own little world, the order in which he considered the only correct one. This was banal escapism, to which Peter, stubborn by nature, resorted for twenty years. He resisted any external pressure (for which I blame one specific period of his upbringing and am very angry about this) and was very reluctant to change his behavior pattern, which pushed people away from him even more. He did not want to understand them, and they did not understand him. He got close to those around him only if they supported his hobbies and indulged his inclinations, which often harmed him. And this also later led to his defeat in the political struggle with his wife.

Also, escapism could manifest itself in games with soldiers, passion for the army, and so on. The army was also like a separate small world with its own clear laws and hierarchy, in which Peter felt quite comfortable and safe. There's also place for a compensation for the lack of control over his life and the circumstances with which he lived until the death of his aunt.

It is also worth mentioning the complexes and insecurities that he certainly had. Their list includes his desire to match the image of a soldier (in this case, a Prussian one), which existed at that time. This image was closely associated with such external attributes as drinking, smoking a pipe, and various uniforms and other army things. But these are all external signs that Peter resorted to, since he himself - nervous, sickly, afraid of thunder, blood and the sounds of gunfire - could not match this image. This has a very direct relation to the influence of toxic masculinity on Peter (which is quite a big and complex topic on its own, so I won't go deep into this), as a very subtle person, as well as to another complex of his, connected with his sexual life. There is no clear answer to what the problem was, but most likely it was phimosis. One way or another, Peter's perception as a man suffered because of this, and he understood it perfectly well. That is why he tried to demonstrate and prove that he was a man in all other, external ways. He drank, smoked, showed cruelty that was not typical for him, while not being some kind of evil person. It can also be mentioned that he tried to prove his masculinity first of all to his wife, who, as it happened, took on the leading role in their relationship, but I will not go into this. One way or another, Peter clearly did not overcome these teenage complexes and lived with them until the end of his life (although he clearly wouldn't admit it), which, in fact, is very sad. Man just wasn't meant to be the ruler of an entire country and circumstances only made things worse.

And in the end we have a very lonely man who never managed to grow up and decided to replace reality he didn't like with a little world he only felt comfortable in. He tried to find his happiness, but circumstances and his own personal flaws did not allow him to do so. A very depressing outcome, but the history of the vast majority of royal families is depressing and full of existential drama, so nothing new.

In the end Peter, in my opinion, was neither a fool nor a misunderstood genius. He was just a weirdo. In those conditions and at that time in which he lived, there probably was simply no place for such a person. And that's sad.

I wanna squeeze this man in hug so hard you can't even imagine

[friedgyozas]

looking for: bts roleplay partners

─────── ⋆⋅ ❤︎ ⋅⋆ ───────

ᝰ.ᐟ

☁️ ༄ ‧₊˚ bloom’s rp search! ๑ [ never expires ! ]

｡ﾟ･ about me ᵕ̈

☆

⇢ bloom

⇢ 21

⇢ she/her

⇢ cst timezone

· · ─ ·𖥸· ─ · ·

only writing with people 18+!! please read the whole post before messaging. i write on discord!

fandom

bts ; i feel comfortable writing for all of the members except for taehyung. i write member x member, and there are many pairings i enjoy (all are listed on my carrd, but i'll go into some more detail later in this post). i also i haven't yet done a roleplay for this fandom, but i've been army since 2014 so i'm not too worried about getting something like their personalities or mannerisms wrong.

literacy

i write in third person, past tense, adv. lit/novella style. i can write anywhere from 700 to 1,200+ words, but i usually average from around 800 to 1,100 words. in general, i try to mirror length. i have a writing sample for a different pairing and fandom as an example! looking for writing partners that write in the same style, the longer the better.

availability

i'm a college student right now, and i'm about to start clinicals (where i'll be working with patients in a hospital). because of this, i'm able to get in weekly replies (ideally every weekend). i am NOT ghost friendly; just because i may not message back soon either ooc or for the rp, doesn't mean i lost interest. please only message if you're interested in writing. i don't check socials 24/7, but i make time for writing and chatting. if you lose interest in the rp, tell me please. i'm busy trying to get a big girl career :^) writing is my passion (and stress reliever) so i try to make as much time as i can.

roleplay (nsfw.)

i'm comfortable writing for both tops and bottoms, as well as subs and doms (ex: sub tops, dom bottoms, dom tops, sub bottoms). i prefer a 30:70 or 40:60 smut to plot ratio, and i really enjoy heavy, fleshed out plots. i don't do smut-only roleplays, so there needs to be adequate buildup. i don't mind if there's a lot of smut only if there's even more plot focus to make up for it. for omegaverse, i'm currently only writing for omegas. there are only a few things i'm not alright with, so please ask before incorporating anything "taboo" whether it's NSFW or not. also, for some members i don't mind writing as top or bottom. but for others i have fixed positions and will not change them.

roleplay (general.)

i really enjoy sci-fi, horror/thriller, dystopian, supernatural, and many other genres. i also love worldbuilding. i also don't mind keeping the roleplay as close to reality (their actual jobs, etc.) as possible and including fantastical elements. some genres/tropes i do NOT write: western, medieval, cyberpunk, royalty, and regular slice-of-life. i have no experience with those and/or i'm just not interested in them. if there's no fantastical, dystopian, "dark ", or otherwise unique element of some kind, i will lose interest in the roleplay – i don't do regular slice-of-life college AUs and nothing else. i can go on and on with plotting before actually getting into the roleplay, and if there's anything you disagree with please just let me know and we can go from there. it's not rude.

who i will not write with

anyone under 18. while i prefer writers to be 21+, as long as you're 18+ that's fine. if i get the sense that you're a koreaboo, i will promptly end our interaction. if you can't offer anything into plotting, that's also a no-go. i have people that message me wanting to write, and then i'm the only one trying to come up with ideas and a nice plot, and the only responses i get are one-liners like "yea i'm alright with anything" or "that's fine!" that add absolutely nothing of value. like ??? also people that fetishize, infantilize, or grossly sexualize the members. this is purely for fictional writing purposes, let's remember that these are actual human beings and grown men. <3

pairings

a list of pairings that i ship. more details about these like which ones are my favorite and which ones i'm in the mood to write for here. • namjin • namgi (sugamonster) • namseok • minjoon/minniemonnie • namkook • 2seok • jinkook • sope • yoonmin • jihope • jikook if a pairing you're interested in isn't listed here or on my carrd, just ask and i'll let you know if i'm down to write for it.

other

any info that i forgot to include or just isn't on this post can be found here! please like this and/or message me if you're interested in writing and we can move to discord. i don't check tumblr often, so messaging would be better. <3 sorry for any typos i don't feel like proofreading rn

─────── ⋆⋅ ❤︎ ⋅⋆ ───────

[tea-with-evan-and-me]

I'm new around here and I don't know what's going on with gftwd, could you put me in context?

hello! for all the people asking me, i will attempt to break it down for you from my perspective to give context to all the asks referring to this situation. in the future, this will be what i share because i am not typing this up again lol

gftwd/goneforteawithdad ran a tumblr page and discord server dedicated to exposing frances mairead in her relationship with evan peters (they dated 2020-2022, i do not know when gtfwd started her blog but i found it around november of 2022)

frances was an unknown person and many were interested in finding out who evan was dating. adding fuel to the interest was the fact that frances had some history of posting sketchy things online about her sugar babying and liked to tease tiny glimpses of evan on her social media, which many speculated was a ploy to gain more followers. she apparently did things like tarot card readings she advertised for purchase, talked about starting a patreon, etc. which some felt were exploiting evan's fans because she suddenly had a larger, engaged following thanks to them dating.

as time went on, it seemed to me that gftwd's interest in following frances' social media activity seemed to sort of devolve from focusing on her misbehavior in the context of her relationship with evan, to criticizing frances' every move in a very personal way. i stopped really reading her page in the new year because it appeared that frances and evan had broken up for good, and i felt like gfwd was just running a hate blog on this girl who i really was not overly interested in, and she started to say some slut-shamey things about frances' modeling photos.

however, the main point of interest here is that gftwd spent a lot of time arguing with people she received asks from that were critical of the things she would post. she would also just say really mean, rude little responses to people who, for instance.. asked a question she'd answered before, or if she felt the question was in some way critical of evan. during these arguments, she would post peoples IP addresses to her page, threaten legal action, mock them, and tag other accounts (either her friends on tumblr, or her on a secondary account) to come and say vile, profanity-laced insults at the asker. i was not on her discord server, but i guess things were also going on there that upset people because it is a topic brought up in asks sent to me about her. she booted people who she didn't like.

now... where i come in. i created this account early last month because i wanted a space to discuss evan-focused gossip with other fans where nothing was off-limits, and people felt like they could bring up topics that fansites would usually shoot down, because they idealize and infantilize the people they admire. within hours of opening my page, my ask box was starting to light up with people who were either current or former followers of gftwd, and they all wanted to talk about bad experiences they had with her and how they felt bullied, mocked or threatened by her and her tumblr friend secretkeeperlove. some have speculated secretkeeperlove and goneforteawithdad are the same person on different accounts. i don't know what to believe at this point.

after publishing these asks, gftwd made a post on her page that a new page (mine) was ''copying'' her, and i immediately started to receive anonymous messages threatening legal action, telling me that i was going to go to jail for "defamation", ominously telling me to delete my blog because i ''didn't know who i was messing with'' and generally just spamming my ask box with negative messages, and they all were obviously coming from gftwd. once she realized i was not phased by this, she eventually posted a half-hearted apology on her page and said she was going to focus on posting only evan-related content instead of frances. she archived all of her frances content to wipe the page of her past behavior. however, a few days later, she deleted her account. since that time she, and i presume at least a couple of her buddies, regularly pop into my ask box to send threatening messages or to defend her and call me a bully. i have tagged every post about her with #drama so that people who don't want to see it can blacklist the tag or if people want to actually see the conversations i have had with people on here about gftwd, they can. i have nothing to be hide, as i am not a bully and i do not condone hate. i do, however, believe in accountability and when you wrong a large number of people, you cannot turn the tables and call yourself a victim of bullying because you had to bear witness to the hurt you caused. as of today, gftwd is back on tumblr.

and now you're all caught up!

[rielzero]

Why I describe myself as a Person who is Mute

Just random post, because I’ve often come across people using the word ‘’non-verbal’’ to describe situations were fellow autistics cease communicating verbally, and confuse this with mutism.

This is the general meaning for non-verbal: 

It’s not the disability; ‘’Mutism’’ instead its  a word to describe means of communication. In this case as example, non-verbal communication would be sign language. (writing notes is also one.)

A long time ago a friend of mine got complaints from someone who claimed the word mute was a curse word, which is weird because its short for the disability, just as deaf is used to describe someone who is deaf... However I’ve experienced the word non-verbal in infantilizing language and when searching I often find very ableist articles and conversations linking it to Autism. Because of this I experience ‘’non-verbal’’ much more as a belittling bad-word than ‘’mute’’ ‘’hey mute!’’ is not offensive to me? Yeah I’m mute? Okay..? Bit rude tone-wise but it’s not a curse word.

People also tend to use '’non-verbal’’ to view Mutism as a choice.. ‘’Damn autistics refusing to speak!’’ When it’s really not about choice. You don’t choose to be deaf either, like- you don’t choose to lose your arm.

The mis-understanding with this is also.. I can’t speak, but I can make sounds and laugh. There’s fellow people out there who can still grunt and moan as well, or they can speak but sparingly so. That is verbal communication. I can use quick sound ‘’pitches’’ to describe my general mood to folks who refuse to look at me whether I'm shaking my head or not. They sound like growls?

‘‘Going non-verbal’‘ is used to describe autistic folks who freeze up or go into a very distressing situation, being over-stimulated. It’s a way of coping or shutting down, but its also, they lose their voice in the moment or for a while. It’s temporary from my understanding. If you are non-verbal for two years  then you were mute for 2 years. Because you lost the ability to speak, therefore, disability. If it’s 24 hours, I suppose you could say you were mute for 24 hours. But it doesn’t erase my experience, it doesn’t mean every ‘‘non-verbal’‘ person has the ability to just begin talking again.

Mutism doesn’t go away for everyone. Mutism comes in different forms and has different causes, mine is medical. Chronic pain. I trigger migraine if I laugh a little too hard. My throat hurts if I strain my vocal chords to make a noise. I lost my ability to speak three years ago, this was a gradual progress too, it didn’t just happen over night. When I bring this up people try to do the toxic positivity thing and demand I relearn to speak as if my doctor hasn’t already told me that is not a good idea. As if I haven’t tried. ‘’You can train your voice!’’ talking for 20 years in pain made me develop severe chronic pain. You’d be asking me to strain damaged chords more to the point of snapping for your comfort and convenience.

‘‘I can’t picture how you can comfortably live your life like that!’‘ Yeah ok except, that's not my problem? It’s my life, I don’t rely on someone else’s vision to live my life. Society has already put enough limits on me and I don’t just have one disability.

I’m autistic. And I repeat. My disability is because of chronic pain. Aka my doctor told me it’s not going away. I am disabled. I don’t need to justify my disability for anyone. You don’t go out and tell a person with hearing aids to stop being deaf, you don’t go out and tell someone with permanent nerve damage to try and stand on their legs when they can’t do so. 

While I don’t need hearing aids, I use a notebook or a text to speech app. The only thing that really disrupts my life comfort is people telling me I should stop being disabled as if that’s magically going to happen, lol.

You don’t hear from people like me often. There’s usually an overlap with deaf folks who are also mute, but I’ve yet to see a community that openly talks about how stigmatized mutism is, and how infantilized you are when you happen to also be autistic with this wonderful new ‘’non-verbal’’ term or how its being used. I’ve had experiences were people think I’m deaf because I write on my phone to communicate. They either corelate it to deafness or autism.. And in some case.. They assume its a lack of intelligence.... What a joy.

Yes, people go non-verbal sometimes. They can’t speak during that. It’s a dick move to try and get them to speak, that’s traumatizing. Yes, people are mute and may not be able to speak ever. And that’s okay, disability doesn’t mean someone’s broken or needs to be fixed. Disability doesn’t mean you’re incapable of everything. It means that something about you is different than the average ‘’abled’’ society, and makes you less able to live in society’s intended vision. It obstructs you from functioning to the ‘’norm’’ Disabilities are variable, come in a spectrum, and a lot of them are invisible.

Tldr: from experience, ‘’non-verbal’’ is often used in bad context to infantilize folks with autism, I have mutism, can’t speak words but I can be verbal through sounds, which is why I prefer saying I am mute.

Be nice when you meet someone who uses a notebook or a voice app, or sign language, really, that’s all. c: Invisible =/= non-existent

[blackstarising]

coming back to this post i made again to elaborate - especially as the ted lasso fandom is discussing sam/rebecca and fandom racism in general. there are takes that are important to make that i had failed to previously, but there's also a growing amount of takes that i have to, As A Black Person™, respectfully disagree with.

tl;dr for the essay below sam being infantilized and the sam/rebecca relationship are not the same issue and discussing the former one doesn't mean excusing the latter. and we've reached the glen of the Dark Forest where we sit down and talk about fandom racism.

i should have elaborated this in my last post about sam/rebecca, but i didn't. i'll say it now - i personally don't support sam and rebecca getting together for real. i believe what people are saying is entirely correct, even though sam is an adult legally, he and rebecca are, at the very least, two wildly different stages of life. for americans, he's at the equivalent of being a junior in college. there are things he hasn't gotten the chance to experience and there are areas he needs to grow in. when i was younger, i didn't understand the significance of these age gaps, i just thought it would be fine if it was legal, but as someone who is now a little older than sam in universe, i understand fully. we can't downplay this. whether or not you think sam works for rebecca or not, even despite the gender inversion of the Older Man Younger Woman trope, whether or not he is a legal adult, i don't think at this point in time, their relationship would work. i think it's an interesting narrative device, but i don't want to see it play out in reality.

that being said!

what's worrying me is that two discussions are being conflated here that shouldn't be. sam having agency and being a little more grown™ than he's perceived to be does not suddenly make his relationship with rebecca justified. i had decided to bring it up because sam was being brought into the spotlight again and i was starting to realizing that his infantilization was more common than i felt comfortable with.

sam's infantilization (and i will continue to call it that), is a microaggression. it's is in the range of microaggressions that i would categorize as 'fandom overcompensation'. we have a prominent character of color that exhibits traits that aren't stereotypical, and we don't want to appear racist or stereotypical, so we lean hard in the other direction. they're not aggressive, they're a Sweet Baby, they're not world weary, they're now a little naive. they're not cold and distant, they're so nice and sweet that there's no one that wouldn't want approach them, and yeah, on their face, these new traits are a departure and, on their face, they seem they look really good.

but at a certain point, it reaches an inflection point, and, like the aftertaste of a diet coke, that alleged sweetness veers into something a lot less sweet. it veers into a lack of agency for the character. it veers into an innocence that appears to indicate that the person can't even take care of themselves. it veers into a one-dimensional characterization that doesn't allow for any depth or negative emotion.

it's not kind anymore. it's not a nice departure from negative stereotypes. it's not compensating for anything.

it's patronizing.

it is important that we emphasize that characters of color are more than the toxic stereotypes we lay on them, yes, but we make a mistake in thinking that the solution is overcorrection. for one thing, people of color can usually tell. don't get it twisted, it's actually pretty obvious. for another, it just shifts from one dimension to another. people of color are still supposed to be Only One Character Trait while white people can contain multitudes. ted, who is pretty much as pollyanna as they come, can be at once innocent and naive and deep and troubled and funny and scared. jamie can be a prick and sexy and also lonely and also a victim of abuse. sam, however, even though he was bullied (by jamie, no less), is thousands of miles away from home, and has led a protest on his team, is usually just characterized as human sunshine with much less acknowledgement of any other traits beyond that.

and that's why i cringe when fandom calls sam a Sweet Baby Boy without any sense of irony. is that all we're taking away? after all this time? even for a comedy, sam has received a substantive of screen time over two whole seasons, and we've seen a range of emotions from him. so as a black person it's hurtful that it's boiled down to Sweet Baby Boy.

that's the problem. we need to subvert stereotypes, but more importantly, we need to understand that people of color are not props, or pieces of cardboard for their white counterparts. they are full and actualized and have agency in their own right and they can have other emotions than Angry and Mean or Sweet and Bubbly without any nuance between the two. i think the show actually does a relatively good job of giving sam depth (relatively, always room for improvement, mind you), especially holding it in tension with his youth, but the fandom, i worry, does not.

it's the same reason why finn from star wars started out as the next male protagonist in the sequel trilogy but by the third movie was just running around yelling for REY!! it's the same reason why when people make Phase 4 Is the Phase For Therapy gifsets for the mcu and show wanda maximoff, loki, and bucky barnes crying and being sad but purposefully exclude sam wilson who had an entire show to tell us how difficult his life is, because people find out if pee oh sees are also complex, they'll tell the church.

and the reason why i picked up on this very early on is because i am an organic, certified fresh, 100% homegrown, non-gmo, a little ashy, indigenous sub saharan African black person. the ghanaian tribes i'm descended from have told me so, my black ass parents have told me so, and the nurses at the hospital in [insert asian country here] that started freaking out about how curly my hair was as my mother was mid pushing me out told me so!

and this stuff has real life implications. listen: being patronized as a black person sucks. do you know how many times i was patted on the back for doing quite honestly, the bare minimum in school? do you know how many times i was told how 'well spoken' or 'eloquent' i was because i just happen to have a white accent or use three syllable words? do you know how many times i've been cooed over by white women who couldn't get over how sweet i was just because i wasn't confrontational or rude like they wrongly expected me to be?

that's why they're called microaggressions. it's not a cross on your lawn or having the n-word spat in your face, but it cuts you down little by little until you're completely drained.

so that's the nuance. that's the subversion. the overcompensation is not a good thing. and people of color (and i suspect, even white people) have picked up on, in general, the different ways fandom treats sam and dani and even nate. what all of these discussions are converging on is fandom racism, which is not the diet form of racism, but another place for racism to reveal itself. and yeah, it's uncomfortable. it can seem out of left field. you may want to defend yourself. you may want to explain it away. but let me tap the sign on the proverbial bus:

if you are a white person, or a person of color who is not part of that racial group, even, you do not get to decide what is not racist for someone. full stop. there are no exceptions. there is no exit clause for you. there is no 'but, actually-'. that right wasn't even yours to cede or waive.

(it's also important to note that people of color also have the right to disagree on whether something is racist, but that doesn't necessarily negate the racism - it just means there's more to discuss and they can still leave with different interpretations)

people don't just whip out accusations of racism like a blue eyes white dragon in a yu-gi-oh duel. it's not fun for us. it's not something we like to do to muzzle people we don't want to engage with. and we're not concerned with making someone feel bad or ashamed. we're exposing something painful that we have to live with and, even worse, process literally everything we experience through. we can't turn it off. we can't be 'less sensitive' or 'less nitpicky'. we are literally the primary resources, we are the proverbial wikipedia articles with 3,000 sources when it comes to racism. who else would know more than us?

what 2020 has shown us very clearly is that racism is systemic. it's not always a bunch of Evil White Men rubbing their hands together in a dark room wondering how they're going to use the 'n-word' today. it's systemic. it's the way you call that one neighborhood 'sketchy'. it's how you use 'ratchet' and 'ghetto' when describing something bad. it's how you implicitly the assume the intelligence of your friend of color. it's the way you turned up your nose and your friend's food and bullied them for it in middle school but go to restaurants run by white people who have 'uplifted' it with inauthentic ingredients. it's telling someone how Well Spoken and Eloquent they are even though you've both gone to the same schools and work at the same workplace. it's the way you look down at some people of color for having a different body type than you because they've been redlined to neighborhoods where certain foods and resources are inaccessible, and yet mock up the racial features that appeal to you either through makeup or plastic surgery.

it's how when a person of color behaves badly, they're irredeemable, but a white person performing the same act or something similar is 'having a bad day' or 'isn't normally like this' or 'has room to grow' and we can't 'wait for their redemption arc', and yes, i'm not going to cover it in detail in this post but yes this is very much about nate. other people have also brought up the nuances in his arc and compared them to other white characters so i won't do it here.

these behaviors and reactions aren't planned. they aren't orchestrated. they're quite literally unconscious because they've been lovingly baked into western society for centuries. you can't wake up and be rid of it. whether you intended it or not, it can still be racist.

and it's actually quite hurtful and unfair to imply that concerns about racism in the TL fandom are unfounded or lacking any depth or simply meant to be sensational because you simply don't agree with it. i wish it was different, but it doesn't work that way. i'm not raising this up to 'call out' or shame people, but i'm adding to this discussion because, through how we talk about sam, and even dani and nate, i'm yet again seeing a pattern that has shortchanged people of color and made them feel unwelcome in fandom for far too long.

coach beard said it best: we need to do better.

[night-unfurls-its-splendour]

Every Emma Woodhouse Ranked and Rated

With all my reviews of all the period-set adaptations now finished, I'm beginning my series in which I rate and rank each interpretation of all the principle characters, starting with our girl Emma!

Now I wanna be clear--I am not rating the actresses that played Emma. I am rating how the character was handled in general in each adaptation. The actresses are a factor, but they're not the sole factor, since the writer and director have as much, if not more, to do with how the character ends up in the finished product. So without futher ado, let's rank...

“Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her….

“The real evils indeed of Emma’s situation were the power of having rather too much of her own way, and a disposition to think a little too well of herself; these were the disadvantages that threatened alloy to her many enjoyments.”

NUMBER 5: 1972

Portrayed by: Doran Godwin

Age at time of filming: 28

Clocking in as the oldest actress to play Austen’s famously TWENTY-ONE year old heroine (at the ripe age of 28), Doran Godwin also snags the coveted position as inhabiting the worst portrayal of the character (in my personal estimation) to date.

Just about everything about this interpretation of Emma Woodhouse is bad, from her seemingly automated recital of her lines to her all-too-intense, wide-eyed, hypnotic stare. The 1972 portrayal of Emma highlights all the character’s worst qualities while also failing to convincingly communicate her good qualities, such as her caring nature. The script is equally to blame for the awfulness of this interpretation, adding unnecessarily cruel and condescending lines, including one where she negs Harriet for being sad after Elton’s marriage, and then forces Harriet to come with her to meet the new Mrs. Elton, when Emma in the book did her best to shield Harriet from exactly that kind of situation.

Godwin couldn’t pass for 21 if her life had depended on it, and the worst part is that the script actually states Emma’s age, so she seems like a bit of a crazy spinster, preying on the naïve Harriet. Whether it’s her intent to bathe in Harriet’s blood to keep herself young, or to bake her into a pie is up for debate.

Rating: 1/5 Half-finished portraits

NUMBER 4: 2020

Portrayed by: Anya Taylor Joy

Age at time of filming: 23

I thought long and hard about this. This movie is a modern period drama phenomenon. It’s gotten so many people into Jane Austen and satisfied long-time Austen fans by giving them an interpretation they never dared hope to see. It’s a gorgeous film.

But I don’t like this interpretation of Emma Woodhouse. Though Anya Taylor Joy is one of the youngest actresses to play Emma (only two years older than the character) she’s played with a careful stiffness that perhaps shows us a glimpse of the Lady Catherine she might turn into without swift intervention. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, and this isn’t a commentary on Anya Taylor Joy either—her appearance or her acting ability—but I just don’t like her as Emma. And she’s not the sole problem, she turns in a solid performance, she’s a good actress, but something about this characterization is just off-color to me. Anya Taylor Joy plays a great mean-girl; but I think that’s one of the reasons why they thought she’d be a good choice for this role, and it’s one of the prime reasons I don’t think she wasright for it. Emma is a deeply flawed character and, of course, the biggest turning point in her story comes as a result of a thoughtlessly mean remark to someone who has only ever shown her deference, hospitality and gratitude.

All that said, Emma is not, at her core, a cruel person. Emma has gone all her life thinking condescending things about Miss Bates but it’s only when Frank comes along and validates her less kind commentaries that she actually starts to voice them in search of validation from a peer.

The problem with this in the context of 2020’s Emma Woodhouse is that Frank hardly gets a look-in in this adaptation. Emma’s relationship with him is severely underdeveloped and the actors don’t have enough chemistry to pull it off in the limited time they’re given. The result is that Emma appears to cross a line just to cross it, and it pushes Emma’s character from thoughtless to out-and-out frigid.

Still better than Doran Godwin, since she's identifiably human.

Rating: 2 1/2 / 5 Half-finished portraits

NUMBER 3: 1996 (MIRAMAX)

Portrayed by: Gwyneth Paltrow

Age at time of filming: 24

Despite the fact that Gwyneth Paltrow was an appalling casing choice for Emma Woodhouse (I will be forever salty that they passed over Joely Richardson), and I know there are some who will think me, at best, crazy (sacrilegious, at worst) for ranking 1996’s interpretation of Emma higher than 2020, I actually feel that solidly in the middle is right where this version of the character belongs.

There’s so much wrong with this Emma: she swings from mature to bizarrely infantile at the drop of a hat, much of her script is genuinely tragic, Gwyneth can’t convincingly portray Emma's social naiveté, her accent is overwhelmingly nasal and impossible to listen to, just for starters.

And yet… I don’t hate her. I don’t like her particularly either, but even though much of the dialogue re-working butchered Austen’s prose, there are a lot of things McGrath seems to have gotten right about Emma’s character. Her relationship with Knightley feels comfortable and playful, and, while Emma of the book probably doesn’t really care for Harriet Smith in the spirit of true bosom friendship, I believe she does care about her and wishes to spare her (further) pain. She shows exasperation with Harriet while still being patient with her, which is very much in the spirit of the book. Her concern for Harriet at the ball feels real, and her contrition at Box Hill following Knightley’s rebuke, while not profound, at least feels like contrition and not self-pity.

Perhaps, given the soft-take that the Miramax version is, it shouldn’t be surprising that the biggest faults in characterization rest on awkward writing and the biggest triumphs highlight Emma’s better side. It’s not a very in-depth take on the character, but it at least, is an adequate one.

Rating: 3/5 Half-finished portraits

NUMBER 2: 1996/97 (ITV)

Portrayed by: Kate Beckinsale

Age at time of filming: 23

Those who’ve read my reviews of each adaptation of Emma might be surprised to see ITV’s portrayal of the title character sitting so high on my list. To be frank, it’s a distant second, and she may have stolen the number two spot only because she’s played by Kate Beckinsale and not Gwyneth Paltrow.

In truth, I see a lot of parallels between 1997’s Emma and 2020’s. Both actresses were 23 (or thereabouts) when they played the role, both have extremely childish moments, and both crumple down and burst into tears that don’t feel entirely genuine after Box Hill.

So why is 1997 on the good side of the number 3 spot and 2020 isn’t? I’m not precisely sure. I think it may be because Andrew Davies (and/or Diarmuid Lawrence) at least understood the scale of Emma Woodhouse’s wealth and status. This Emma feels sufficiently self-important, a bit haughty, sure—but she’s also believably naïve. You feel her isolation, you understand her caring relationship with her father, and she’s not as patently rude to Robert Martin compared to the 2020 version (she at least acknowledges his presence when he meets Emma and Harriet in the lane).

Grudging though this favorable placement may be, I can at least acknowledge that Emma herself is the least of my problems with this version, and even though Beckinsale’s acting is a bit sketchy at certain points, she also has some truly great moments, especially her interaction with Robert Martin at the end of the film. This portrayal is consistent, and Emma’s better qualities aren’t overpowered by her negative ones.

Rating: 4/5 Half-finished portraits

Number 1: 2009

Portrayed by: Romola Garai

Age at time of filming: 26

And in a shocking twist—I’m kidding this is neither shocking nor unexpected to anyone who knows me or has read my blog/reviews of the Emma adaptations. Am I totally biased? Probably. I don’t care, this is a completely subjective list. Here, finally—my first and true love as Emma Woodhouse—is Romola Garai. I suppose it’s also not surprising that the first actress I ever saw in the role would still be my favorite a decade on. I just love everything about this interpretation of the character. She rides the very difficult line of being bright, caring and intelligent, while also being completely naïve and lacking in social savvy (in her own age-group at least), coddled, and painfully sure of her own self-importance.

Even though Garai was 25 or 26 at the time (far too old for the character—almost as old as Doran Godwin) her energy and charisma are enough that she’s able to carry it off convincingly. Everything about this Emma screams youth, and when Emma’s child-like social ignorance is her most prominent characteristic, it feels authentic and natural. Equally authentic are her emotions—her love for her family, her dynamic with Knightley, he exasperation, patience, and concern with Harriet. Most of all though, this Emma seems to experience the most maturation in the last quarter of the story. Box Hill really feels like a turning point—not just a chastened young woman, but a true coming-of-age moment. Emma faces a reckoning here that begins a chain reaction culminating in her realization of her feelings for Knightley, and everything from the writing to Garai’s performance conveys the magnitude of this shift in Emma’s life.

This version of the character seems the most… complete to me. Somehow, between Romola Garai’s vibrancy, Sandy Welch’s screenplay and Jim O’Hanlon’s direction, this interpretation takes an extremely divisive character and helps the viewer understand just why everyone in Highbury loves Emma Woodhouse.

Rating: 5/5 Half-finished portraits

~~~~

If you liked this, check out my rankings of Mr. and Mrs. Weston

[naptimeclown]

I was just sitting in the backseat on a long car ride and got the thought of who I'd be in a horror/thriller movie and wrote way more than I intended so I'm putting it under a read more if anyone is interested have a peek. It's rambley and not written properly in any way so have fun with the giant wall of text.

If I was a character in a psychological thriller type horror movie I think I'd be one of the lesser liked of the 'survivor' group. They're female but a tomboy and probably has a nickname like Mac or J. or Sam. My character is written to be very annoying(read neurodivergent) or standoffish and rude. and a lot of the fandom doesn't like them and the small circle that does is basically overshadowed by any other character. My character gets sacrificed during a cult initiation so the rest of the characters can prove themselves and hopefully survive. My character’s death is either extremely boring or obscenely graphic, theres no in between. By that point they believe it's justified(and the fandom as well for aforementioned annoying/rudeness) because I was a 'sinner' or 'unclean' (heavily queer coded, specifically trans but it's never said just heavily implied during a flash back that happens while I'm dying that shows me in a bathroom cutting my hair short as well as other movie stereotypes of trans men) also there's going to be a ton of very distasteful memes about my death but it'll be hilarious because my character wasn't liked so I deserved it. I was also the only voice of reason so once I'm gone shit hits the fan. It doesn't have a good ending and instead wraps around to the same scenario that got them all into this mess but instead of the person who originally invited us to whatever place stuff was happening at it's the lead of the supposed survivor characters trying to lure in the next group. Because the movie had an all girl cast that 'lived' (remember my death was justifiable so I don't count) it's gonna be seen by the general (cis) public as a 'girl power' movie. Any queer ppl with critical thinking skills are gonna mention how fucked up it was how my character was handled but get screamed at cause 'its horror it's suppose to be fucked up!!!!Theres no perfect queer representation!!!' the creator of the show is gonna go on rants on Twitter about how the story got mangled and my character was suppose to be queer and the actual main character and I was suppose to escape, but it kept getting revised until it was the mess it ended up as but shrug can't do anything against these big cooperations. No one listens or cares. The small part of the fandom that did like my character are going to be queer and I'm mostly going to be misinterpreted as a lesbian despite the creator specifically stating otherwise. And the small collection of trans fans that like my character are basically never acknowledge within the fandom. Any fanfics written about my character are from ppl that didn't like me and are basically using my character to fulfill a savior complex in their escape au. Or I'm gonna be in a swap au where my character is working with the bad guys. (just my character, they’re the only one that’s swapped because lmao wouldnt it be so edgy if the one that got murdered was the bad guy???? and its totally not cause I was annoying or rude) I'm going to get miswritten as very pitiful and helpless and infantilized or demonized and be extremely brutish and a complete asshole. Any fan art of my character either makes them extremely thin/muscley (my character is canonically fat but ya know ~movie~ fat, this was another thing that was revised, my character was suppose to be actually fat) or they make me fat but slobbish and it just shows how they view fat people as disgusting. no one comments on this despite it being very obvious. Everyone who doesnt like how my character was handled blames the creator(whose a queer person themself) rather than the company that issued all the changes. The actor that played my character later comes out as trans and says working with the shows original writer helped them a lot to come to terms with their feelings of self. About 10-15 years after the movies originally released it suddenly gains a lot of attention online again. The creator was able to gain the rights back to the property and is making their own sequel with a different company fueled entirely on spite. This time a comedy horror where after a few years a new survivor brings my character back from the dead as they’re trying to find a way out of the cult. My character is played by the original actor, now after their transition. Theirs some goofy line about how hell was awesome and satan gave them hrt to explain the difference in appearance. The movie focuses on them getting revenge and finishing things once and for all. It’s incredibly campy and was the creators way of letting their story be what they wanted. The cis/het audience that loved the first movie is appalled and thinks they ruined the series. But it becomes a cult classic in queer spaces. Some people might revisit how they viewed the first one but in fandom space it becomes one of those ‘we never speak of this version’ kind of things.

I have a normal sense of self.

[mikuni14]

I am very sorry that you felt hurt by my words. This, of course, was not my intention. That's why I clearly stated that I may be wrong in my assessment of the character Taishin due to a different reading of him. I want to make it clear that my criticism of Taishin is a criticism of how he was WRITTEN as a character, it is not a criticism of a fictional person, and it absolutely is a criticism of any living person!

I intentionally and specifically avoid using medical, psychological terms in relation to characters from the media, unless they are described as such in this series. I don't have professional tools for diagnosing people, so I didn't call Taichi or Chu Sang Wu autistic, only using the word "neurodivergent", also with reservations, because I don't know if it fits this situation. I'm not a doctor.

I am aware that Chu Sang Wu has exaggerated features, but as a character he was written logically for me and what is important in relation to Takara's Treasure is the reaction of those around him to him. Sang Wu also behaves rude and even problematic and Jae Young's response is many times "are you shitting me??", "is this guy for real??" and quite ordinary anger. Sang Wu is often mean, acts like an asshole and also says unconsciously rude things to which his love interest, but also the girls from the series, react by either accepting and adapting to him or not accepting his behavior. Jae Young, for example, often adapts to his flow, but also yells at him, sets boundaries and tells him what he did wrong. This is what I also miss about TT, because everything Taishin does is romanticized and treated with an "aawwww" by his friends, Takara and the viewers. He is perfect and can't do anything wrong because he is so kawaii, awkward and a country bumpkin, which infantilizes and frankly harms him. I agree that Taishin, in his eagerness to get to know Takara, could have gone so far as to look into his bag, but Takara saw it and did not react, which gives permission for such behavior, but also unintentionally shows this young man as a child. Chu Sang Wu is also a student, he clearly has zero experience with people, he cannot "read" them, and he is also growing in SE, relying on the experience he often gains in difficult situations and advice from other people. He also makes stupid and bad mistakes and is awkward in relationships with other people, and he hurts them and he also often says something that makes everyone around him look at him in disbelief. AND IT'S FINE, it fits the story, it fits HIM. But is important to me: his character in love and non-love situations is the same.

"Suicide unfortunately is a very common topic in Japan to a point that it's general knowledge you grow up with. " more common than love and homosexuality? 🙂 Guys, is it really me who makes him look bad? 😉

Taishin reacted to his stalker exactly the same way I did, starting from him meeting a nice gentleman to being alarmed. He read it all correctly, like many other things in the series, just as he reads sadness and joy in Takara, who doesn't show any particular emotions. I feel at this point that in the series we have two Taishins, one outside of love situations, the other in love situations. And what bothers me is the inconsistency of these two characters. And yes, what bothers me also is infantilizing him, treating him like a child, forgiving him his behavior just because he is in this "love territory". Like ,Taishin asks Takara about same-sex relationships and asks if he can choose him, asks if he can call him if he's in trouble, and it's treated romantically, but at the same time the same show makes him sneak around, wait until Takara will leave to check his personal belongings to see what brands he likes, although, mind you, he could ask about that too! And this is treated romantically too! (And Takara sees this, and instead of approaching him and calmly telling him that he shouldn't do it and that if he wants to know something, he should ask him how he did it so far, he doesn't do anything about it.). Takara teaches him about stalkers, how to behave in social situations ("don't say weird things", don't worry Taishin, I wouldn't know what it means too lol!), but he doesn't teach him to respect other people's property. For me this is chaos.

Anyway, I assure you once again that my criticism is a criticism of the character creation and script, it is not a criticism of real-life people or... even Taishin who is a victim of that writing! 😄 Also I don't want to diagnose anyone, I don't know anything about it, so I have no idea whether Taishin is autistic or "just" awkward, airhead and clueless. I just see inconsistencies in how he is portrayed, which I tried to describe as best as I could. I'm sorry if any of my words hurt you.

Takara's Treasure - Ep 4

I admit that I watch Takara's Treasure with morbid fascination 😆 I don't vibe with this romance at all, I watch it like a scientist wondering what will happen and how the show will handle this relationship.

I read with interest the opinions about Taishin from people who explained his behavior and respectfully, but I disagree. (I would like to emphasize the word respectfully just in case 😘). First of all, I fully accept that I may be misreading this character because I may have a completely different background and character than those who understand him. That being said, I think the problem with Taishi lies largely in the script. First of all I think Taishi would be more believable in this story if he were YOUNGER. Second, the script is not consistent in showing his character, because sorry, but either you create a completely clueless person who is clueless about everything, or you make this character innocent, naive, or having difficulty "reading" people and themselves, and it applies to everything. Taishin correctly recognized the threat in the form of his stalker and correctly called for help, just as he correctly recognized the figure on the roof as someone who might want to commit suicide, rather than just standing and gazing at the clouds. Going out involves panic about what to wear, which is 100% just the behavior of an ordinary person. Somehow he got into college, and if I'm not mistaken, in Tokyo (?), so I assume he's a good student, which means he must have had some education. At the same time, the series portrays him as someone who is so clueless that someone else has to silence him so he doesn't sound "weird" (???), someone who has been still wondering about the concept of people being attracted to someone of the same sex, and is completely unable to connect the dots between how he panicked when someone invaded his space and him invading someone else's space by rummaging through their bag (edit: I forgot the most important thing, which is him interpretating of his feelings towards Takara, which the series shows as both comedic and romantic). For me it just doesn't add up.

We've already had characters in BLs who are clueless, uninterested in love, characters who are just figuring out what's happening to them, what this new feeling, new state, new reactions of their bodies are - including people in college. But these characters were consistent, their behavior was logical, and above all, it didn't make them stupid and problematic at times (I feel like if Taishin was not a sweet uke, but a macho guy, and Takara was a cute, petite girl, the reaction to him , his stalking behavior and "weirdness" would certainly be different). Ae from LBC analyzed his new feelings, consulted with his friend, Chu Sang Wu from Semantic Error had a whole meltdown because of his new, unknown feelings, Mork from My Ride was also confused about his feelings for a guy, in many other series the characters were surprised with their often new, anxiety-provoking, unknown feelings, they panicked, analyzed them, discussed them. But in each of these cases everything was logical. And series still can keep as much as possible that the characters are clueless and "do not fit into generally accepted norms" (that's why so many viewers identified with Ae - many called him our demi king ^^ and Chu Sang Wu as a neurodivergent character, or with Mork and him discovering his bisexuality as a grown man).

tl;dr imho Taishin should be clueless in all social situations, not just the select ones that fit the script. And he really should stop his stalking, strange actions and rummaging through people's things (and.. it's actually getting worse! and it's presented as funny, cute and romantic!). There are limits, and quite often legal limits to finding out something about your crush (in Chery Magic, Adachi/Achi had no idea that he was someone's object of affection and that that person knew almost everything about him, because his boundaries and right to privacy were never violated). Sorry to all Taishin fans but for me what Taishi does and what he says is not romantic or cute in any way 🤷‍♀️

[a34trgv2]

Top 10 Worst Cartoon Siblings

#10. Dora Winifred "D.W." Reed (Arthur): Starting off our list is the infamous spoiled little brat from Elwood City. D.W. is bossy, rude, annoying and rarely (if at all) gets in trouble. The infamous Arthur's Big Hit is a prime example of how D.W. gets off Scott free despite clearly being in the wrong. I remember not liking the character even as a kid watching Arthur. However she's low on the list because as an adult I've found at least 9 more candidates that give siblings everywhere a bad name.

#9. Sarah (Ed, Edd, n Eddy): Continuing with the trend of spoiled brats, Sarah is nobody's favorite character from Ed, Edd n Eddy for good reason. She's loud, bossy, rude, selfish and not once in the entire show does she get in trouble for her actions. Episodes like Sir Ed-a-Lot, Is There An Ed In The House, and Oath To An Ed showcase her at her nastiest and in nearly every episode she's in, she ends up pumbling poor Ed for one reason or another. As much as like the show as a whole, I can't help but agree that it would've been better had Sarah actually gotten her comeuppance more often in the show.

#8. Caillou (Caillou): You'd think Rosie would be in this spot, but the reality is she's a tame little 2 year old who at the very least acts her age. Caillou meanwhile has no such luxury as he acts more infantile than Rosie. He whines, cries, screams, shouts all the while his parents do nothing to discipline him. His worst offense comes when Rosie was just a little baby and for no real reason, Caillou pinches her face. You'd think his father would set this child's buttocks ablaze after that, but alas, he once again gets off Scott free.

#7. Jean Crandall (Teamo Supremo): Jean wouldn't normally be on a list like this as conceptually she's meant to be helpful to her little brother and his friends. Yet here she is because of her obnoxious catchphrase: "It's important for me to know this stuff if I want to be a *insert career here* someday." Oh give me a break! You couldn't just be a smart girl who likes to learn things? You couldn't just so happen to have an assignment from school that parallels the conflict of the episode? No, you had to learn it in order to be something someday. Hey, here's an idea: why not be something TODAY?! Needless to say, Jean's more of an annoyance than an ally.

#6. Dee Dee (Dexter's Laboratory Seasons 3 onward): Speaking of annoying older sisters, Dee Dee (much like everyone on Dexter's Lab) was flanderized to being more annoying to the audience than to Dexter. The fun, playful yet caring and sometimes helpful sister from the first 2 seasons is now an annoying chatter box who's also dumber than a sack of potatoes. Episodes like Beau Tie, Opposites Attract, Sis-tem Error, Faux Chapeau, They Got Chops and Jeepers Creepers, Where is Peepers all make me despise this character I once found really funny.

#5. Bernard Williams (Craig Of The Creek): Bernard would've ranked higher had it not been for the ending of Bring Your Own Beast. That said, that same episode is exactly why he's on the list at all. In addition to being generally rude, obnoxious, and a kiss up to his girlfriend, that episode revealed that he's been a jerk to Craig for no reason even when they were younger. So you mean to tell me that Bernard has hated Craig since Day 1? Thanks, I hate it -.-

#4. Grizz (We Bare Bears): Between the 3 bears in this lackluster show, Grizz is easily my least favorite. He's the loudest, dumbest, most obnoxious of the 3 and the only reason why Panda and Ice Bear put up with him is because they're brothers (adopted, but brothers nonetheless). The episode that shows Grizz at his worst is Primal, when he tries to have him and his brother survive in the woods and surprise surprise, they turn savage and try to eat him. Kinda wish they did in all honesty.

#3. Henry (Horrid Henry): Peter is just D.W. as a boy in terms of personality, so there's no point in putting him on the list. Henry though make it in the top 3 because he's just a thug in the making. He's loud, obnoxious, rude and selfish, and his relationship with his brother isn't much better. Because Peter gets away with everything, naturally Henry retaliates by lying and manipulating him. Rather than teach him how to behave properly, his parents only fuel Henry's thug like nature by punishing him and expecting him to figure it out for himself. Real classy -.-

#2. Bradley "Brad" Buttowski (Kick Buttowski): What's Brad's problem?! No, seriously, that's the question I ask myself repeatedly while I was watching Kick Buttowski? Brad is rude, obnoxious, selfish, stupid and ungratful, yet he couldn't be just some neighborhood bully that picks on Kick for like one episode. No, they had to be brothers and worse yet, he always calls him dillweed which is just a stupid and obnoxious insult that doesn't even work as an insult.

#1. Victor Guadalupe Morena Laguna Calaca Calavera (Victor and Valentino): if there's one character that perfectly embodies the worst of cartoon siblings, it's Victor from Victor and Valentino. Victor is everything I hate about bad cartoon siblings. He's selfish, he's lazy, he's rude, he's stubborn, he's stupid and he's so obnoxious it's cringe worthy. What makes him worst than the other characters is the fact that neither his Mom or Dad are present and his Grandma Chata can only due so much due to her being blind. So basically, he does whatever he wants to Valentino and gets off virtually Scott free. Thanks, I hate it -.-

Conclusion: These cartoon siblings give siblings everywhere a bad name. From their obnoxious behavior to their nasty attitudes, these brothers and sisters make me cringe by how bad they are. Dishonorable mentions go to Aaron Mitchell (not a bad sibling, just really bad acting), Vickey (in character but still really nasty) and Mimi Morton (more of a nuisance to her brothers than anything).

[himboarcher]

reasons i've seen folks say that grad critics hate grad:

they hate travis (in fairness, i’ve def seen some comments of people shitting on trav for the sake of shitting on trav, but it’s not super common and typically gets downvoted into oblivion on reddit.)

it's not balance / travis isn't griffin (???????)

they hate neurodivergent people (again, in fairness, i have seen a handful of comments that could come across this way! but most of the time when travis being ADHD or his NPD is brought up, it's by defenders saying that criticizing travis is ableist because he's neurodivergent or, in one particular comment, infantilizing him bc of it and literally comparing grad to putting a kid's artwork on the fridge. there were some comments early on that pointed to him being a narcissist as the reason for things people disliked about grad, but everyone seems to have realized that that's a shitty train of thought and left it behind.)

they're just toxic haters (again, there are a small handful of people like this because this is the internet, but the genuine criticism greatly outweighs their bullshit. i 100% think that the people, which is mostly just one dude who is also insufferable on reddit, who have been responding rudely to positive tweets under the episode announcements lately are out of line and need to stop. there's been an influx of that lately, presumably because people are frustrated that after over a year of grad going on, there's been no improvement to most of the major issues. that's still no excuse to be a dick to folks, though.)

vs some of the actual reasons i don't like grad:

the racism / racist tropes, and the way that they’ve straight up ignored this criticism and will likely never acknowledge it. pretty wild considering a core tenet of their brand is their willingness to acknowledge when they’ve messed up and do their best to course correct.

clumsy attempts at inclusion that are shallow and often end up being fairly offensive ("...ask me about my wheelchair," anyone?)

on a related note: i don't think that travis had bad intentions, but as an nonbinary person, it feels othering to me that travis only has enby characters give others their pronouns unprompted. i'm thinking specifically of kai here. having listened to their introduction, i don't think it's as bad or awkward as some people have said, but i can't remember travis ever having another NPC tell the PCs their pronouns, especially not a cis character. it's not a huge deal, but it's something that rubbed me the wrong way. admittedly, i don't think it would bother me so much if travis hadn't dropped the ball so much with performative inclusion in the past.

okay i'm putting the rest under a read more because even without getting into all of the problems i have with it, this got Long.

little to no player agency. player choices are ultimately meaningless and have little to no effect on the world. even when he seems to go along with a plan they come up with, it always ends with them having to go back to travis' pre-written script (see: subpoenaing the xorn, but not really because they had to go with travis' original plan of "send the xorn home through the rift".) the players repeatedly get told things about what they think or feel or what they've been doing to an unnecessary degree. fitzroy is the only one who really gets space to play and decide things for himself, and that's only because travis has decided he's the main character.

the NPCs are all too nice and willing to give the PCs anything they ask for and more, unless the PCs are trying to follow their own plan and then the NPCs are completely useless. but honestly, aside from gray, all of the NPCs are just.... nice. travis refuses to even let his antagonists be mean or cruel or even more than just slightly rude, because that'd be a bummer and we don't want that! the "twist" of gordy the lich king actually being polite and chill is not a twist at all because everyone is like that in this world. the NPCs are also wildly overpowered, but then suddenly absolutely useless when the PCs actually want their help.

too many cliffhangers that are dropped immediately at the beginning of the next episode. i feel bad for travis because so many of these cliffhangers actually set up good momentum and seemed like things were gonna get interesting, but almost every single time he just dropped them at the beginning of the next episode. like when althea showed up to interview the boys and the next episode started with travis being like "actually you went to sleep, she said she'll be back tomorrow!"

that time travis specifically said in his exposition dump that the thundermen left their horses behind because they thought the centaurs might be offended by them riding horses, only to later on rag on them for being surprised that the centaurs had horses they could ride.....

also the centaur arc in general, but i already listed racism above, so.

the way that the toxic positivity and parasocial tendencies in the mcelroy fandoms have made a large portion of the fandom take ANY criticism as a personal attack on travis and/or on themselves for enjoying something others consider bad, either morally or just quality-wise. it’s okay to admit that something you like has problematic elements or just isn’t as good as it once was. you can and should engage critically with the media you consume.

related to above: the way travis has handled genuine criticism, which is to throw public tantrums on his twitter or make weird passive aggressive tweets & ultimately ignore all the genuine criticism and advice he's been offered by claiming it's all subjective, even after he specifically asked for it and set up an email for folks to send in genuine, objective advice for him (after he threw a tantrum on twitter and replied to someone's criticism publicly, which resulted in his followers dogpiling on that person bc how dare they insult their internet best friend). while i was writing this last night, he actually announced that he’s taking a break from Twitter and acknowledged that he’s been using it as an echo chamber where he can easily get validation from folks, and honestly i’m happy for him that he’s recognized this problem and is stepping away for a while! i hope he’ll genuinely use this time to reflect on how he’s been behaving and find a more healthy way to use social media. i’m leaving this point in because i think his Twitter being such a positive echo chamber was encouraging him to do stuff like this, and him somewhat acknowledging his behavior doesn’t mean it can no longer be discussed.

rainer. extremely cool concept in theory and i was very into it until that awkward "does anyone want to ask about my wheelchair?" moment. also when travis had her use her mobility aid to RAM INTO A DOOR instead of just fucking knocking???? also all the times travis has tried to force a romantic relationship between her and fitzroy, despite fitzroy displaying no interest in her in that way. also, just to clarify: as an ace person, i don’t think this is aphobic! (and it’s kind of a stretch to call it that imo, especially since griffin never explicitly said that fitzroy's aromantic!) i just think it’s weird and awkward and a little uncomfortable for me personally, mostly because it reminds me of the times i’ve been in similar situations.

less of a problem than a lot of the other stuff and more just bad writing, but the forced emotional moments. in general, nothing in grad feels earned (why are the boys heading a war? when they have multiple actual heroes with combat experience on their side and a supposedly powerful secret organization? and the thundermen are like 21 years old max and have only had like ~10 fights in the entire campaign?) but there've been a couple times where travis has tried to force unearned emotional moments, presumably because he knows people enjoyed those with the last campaigns. but the difference is that in balance, the big emotional moments happened because they were earned. in grad, it's just travis throwing a baby pegasus at us for a few minutes and then the next time she shows up, it's supposed to be a tearful goodbye.

there are absolutely no stakes. remember when the thundermen got told that if they left, gray would kill 10 students? and then they left and came back and it turns out that what gray actually meant was, "i'll tie ten students who are mostly nameless NPCs to a tree and throw some dogs at them that you can easily stop in time, then throw a tantrum because how dare you but i'll leave before you can really do anything to hurt me lol" travis did have fitzroy's magic get taken away, but like. it didn't really do anything? also all he had to get it back was be coerced into using drugs by an authority figure and trip in the woods?

we're told that the school is weird and the hero system is corrupt, but the world of nua is still presented as more of a liberal utopia than anything? althea getting fired because of a corrupt villain is the only time we've somewhat seen corruption, but even then, she was still allowed to get (what seems to me, anyway, but admittedly i don't know for sure bc nothing about the HOG makes much sense) a fairly important job from the very people who stripped her of her hero license or whatever the fuck heroes need?

travis doesn't actually seem to understand how capitalism or bureaucracy works and just chalks up everything to "red tape." also more on the rest of the boys than him specifically, but the "let's destroy capitalism!" thing turning into just pushing some filing cabinets over................... okay.

and one last piece of extremely subjective criticism: it's just kind of.... boring. i think a lot of people, myself included, would be willing to overlook 90% of the problems with graduation if it didn't feel like such a slog to get through.

also people saying that we can't or shouldn't criticize graduation because it's "free" is absolutely absurd for several reasons. first, something being free does not make it above criticism. second, there ARE people who directly financially support the show with monthly donations. three, there's a difference between something being free and something being not for profit. podcasting is their full time job. they make their living off of money made from TAZ and MBMBAM (and probably their other shows to a lesser extent). this not a fun home game that they are graciously recording and sharing with us. it is a product they are producing that they make money off of, both from ads in the episodes and merch & books based off of these podcasts. they have marketed themselves as professionals, and both griffin and travis have been on panels where they are marketed as professional DMs and appear alongside other professional DMs (which makes it incredibly frustrating when people say that travis is just a newbie DM and we can't criticize him because of that. if he's a newbie, then he should not be taking part of panels as a professional DM where he speaks as an expert). TAZ is free in the same way that an episode of NCIS is free. i may not pay for it directly, but the creators are paid to create it and profit off of me consuming this product. so saying we should be grateful for any mcelnoise that the benevolent good boys share with us and that we're not allowed to criticize it "because it's free" is absolutely wild.