#pays you for your opinion

[atoriv-art]

older designs for my specialest guy

[sitabethel]

*Sitting in my rocking chair and waving my cane into the air* Back in my day we wrote fics about the villain having to babysit all the main characters because /hijinks/ made them kids! The characters had slumber parties for no reason! They competed to see who could drink a slurpee fastest without brain freeze! They didn't even have 7-Eleven's in canon, but we didn't care! Slurpee's mf'er! Slurpees!

Kids these days need to realize no one is paying them to write on ao3, so it's DOESN'T MATTER if your fic is perfect or your characters are perfect. Throw those little guys into situations, and to hell with the ingrates that don't approve of the FREE ENTERTAINMENT YOU'RE OFFERING.

[novelist-becca]

Once again, I hate hate hate it when certain people that saw TOH judge Luz based ONLY on how in episode 1 she brought fireworks to school and let loose live snakes and spiders.

And just boil her down to that.

[celestialspiritbabe]

my take on the current state of Nalu:

I'm fully convinced Natsu thinks he and Lucy are already together and therefore treats her way differently than the rest of his friends, while Lucy obviously has feelings for him but doesn't think anything will really come out of that because Natsu is dense as shit and has the romantic range of a rock

my point: they're both dumb, dense idiots and need to have a long, deep conversation about their feelings and realize they've been in love with each other for the longest fucking time (preferably with the help of someone like Mirajane or Levy who can knock some sense into both of them)

[puppppppppy]

i feel like im not making any sense but does anyone else feel like there are stories that let u run with them and ones that spell everything out for you

[sanctus-ingenium]

Hello so I heve a rather personal question as an artist. So when I draw and create art no matter how much I like it after it's done i'm not satisfied with it and I see every little detail that's off or every mistake. No one else see it. So my question is do you get that feeling too? How do you get rid of it? Or do you just embrace it and ignore the things that tip you off?

you cannot draw something in a way that removes its most essential and valuable feature: the fact that you drew it. that's why when you look at it, you have x-ray vision and you can see every brush stroke you fucked up and how the sketch was better but you could never capture it and how the foreshortening is wrong etc. because you drew it. it will never go away no matter how good you get because you can never outrun the fact that you made it. that's a good thing btw

[charmac]

i’m new to the fandom and i saw you talk about how the fandom kinda views rob but what about charlie and glenn? what is the general consensus there?

Charlie is definitely the "fan favourite" of the three of them, which is acknowledged by RCG as well (as in, they very much are aware Charlie is way more liked than the two of them are) and it's definitely true. Some combo of Charlie Kelly being the fan-favourite character, Charlie Day's generally cheery demeanor, his insanely broad talent in every aspect of creativity, his support of fan content and shipping (see: Pacific Rim and Macdennis), and every interview he's ever done exemplifying all of that, kinda leads him to being more overwhelmingly liked than Rob or Glenn (plus, all of his social media content is either promo or him being a wholesome husband/dad).

Glenn is more complex, because his moodiness and some of his insane and incessant personal opinions (on food and health, especially) put him in a weird spot with a lot of fans...a huge chunk see him as off-putting or too similar to Dennis that he's scary. BUT that's not really representative of a chunk of the fandom, because that moodiness and his hang ups are kinda seen as the weird girl™ patheticism we see in Dennis that ends up making Glenn...obsessively likeable? Lmao. (And how do I politely work in the fact that he's the most obviously queer one of the three of them...) So the general consensus of Glenn is kinda hard to summarise... he's like manic pixie dream girl for Tumblrinas and a weird out-of-touch white guy to other fans... BUT I will say it seems like the public opinion of Glenn has shifted quite a bit since the start of Four Walls (and the end of the Podcast) in his favour. Who knew handing out free alcohol and getting drunk with fans instead of yapping about how vegetables are slowly killing you could make you more likeable ? (lmao)

I think I have it right generally but anyone can feel free to add on to this or send another ask if they think I'm far off-base, cos again my perspective is definitely affected by my interactions with them.

[daemon-in-my-head]

I'll never be over Sally calling her own son a dreadful child or saying she should've ended him before he was even born. I don't give a single flying fuck about the crimes he's committed (at least in this context). Nobody should talk about their child like that. And you know this absolutely vile woman probably told him this and much worse shit straight to his face. She said all that shit to a small kid that was presumably still innocent at that point. Aka, she most likely told her child it would be better if he were dead. Aka, she told her kid to kill himself. A FUCKING CHILD. And thx to the Belladonna lying around in their kitchen, I'm still convinced she tried to kill Gortash once he came back.

'Sold him cuz they needed money' my ass. You made your own kid, the person you were supposed to protect, pay for your own fuck ups and debts and mistakes and send him straight to hell. LITERALLY. FOR SOMETHING HE HAD NO FAULT IN. AND THEN THIS THING HAD THE AUDACITY TO TRY ND KILL HIM.

The absolute hatred and disgust I have for this fictional woman. I despise Bhaals A+ parenting, but this woman is worse than the fucking lord of murder. Imagine being more loathsome than an evil deity whose whole bit is goddamm murder and death. I swear to fucking god-

[mhalachai]

some of you may have seen a notice today from a tumblr-popular youtube show, saying they're putting all their content behind a subscriber paywall. This post isn't about them per say, only bouncing off what that has brought up into the following:

When is a digital subscription something i'm willing to pay for? Rubric edition

Disclaimer - my first news job was in the early aughts at a digital stock news company, so I've been keeping an eye on this subject for over 25 years.

So you want to access an entertainment or news service that has content behind a subscriber paywall. What steps should you go through, to figure out if it's something that you should pay for?

This post will go off the caveat that artists/authors/reporters (I'm not calling them content creators, that term is garbage) should be properly compensated for the works they produce, and the current business model in our late-stage capitalist society means we all have to deal with the worst possible way of engaging with art - the subscription-model paywall. It's a terrible garbage system but there we are.

Step Zero: Do you care enough about the content to consider paying for it?

It might not be important enough to you to want to pay for, and that's okay. On the other hand, you may want to continue watching/reading/listening, either because of the content itself or because you want to support its creation.

(I'm separating the above as they are two different reasons - personally, i'm in favour of paying an annual subscriber fee to my small local news room to keep them in producing the content because I think it's important they exist.)

Step 1: Can you literally afford it?

Everything costs more and salaries aren't rising. If the answer to the question is no, can you split the cost with someone? Is it something that can be accessed through your local library (in terms of audiobooks or magazine/newspapers)? Otherwise, moving to:

Step 2: Is the cost of the subscription in line with what you're willing to pay for the content?

I still subscribe to the newspaper i used to work for - I can read all the news and get all the quotes I'm interested in, and I know i'm supporting local news. I'm willing to pay money for that.

On the other hand, back last year when Disney Plus announced it was raising its prices, I decided that I wasn't interested in paying that amount for what I was getting, so I cancelled that one. Do I miss it? Yes, somedays. Would I go back to them if the cost went down? Honestly I don't know.

Step 3: Did the company/channel do something to lose your trust?

Sometimes, all the above have been met with the affirmative, but something about how the company is doing things sets your teeth on edge. Maybe it's how their business model is evolving, or how they treat their customers (Netflix and their password sharing crackdown was that tipping point for me - i no longer wanted to support a company that sees its customer base like that). Maybe it's how they decided to move to subscriber-only. Maybe it's their take on geopolitical or social issues. Whatever it might be, you get to make that call for you.

Summation: Don't feel pressed by FOMO to pay for something when you're not comfortable doing so.

Whatever the situation is, you get to decide where you spend your money. The corollary of that is that you may not get to see the new stuff created by companies/channels that you like, but honestly? That trade-off might be better for you in the long run (and I'm saying this with too many years of regret behind me) nothing poisons the enjoyment of art more than feeling like you were forced to pay/pay more for it than you were OK with.

The tl;dr: Take a step back and see if you're really comfortable with paying for all your electronic subscription fees for news or entertainment. Don't feel pressured into paying for something you don't really want to see, or what to support. Consider where you want your money to go.

It's hard economic times - do what you need to, and spend your money where you want to.

(And check into what your local library has on offer - they may have streaming services or digital content you weren't aware of - might be enough to tide you over for a while).

[givehimthemedicine]

free miracle cure for some of the takes & winning poll options that've been on my dash lately. get well soon

[angelnumber27]

I dont think some people understand how truly awful and hellish withdrawals from some psych medications are.

[perilegs]

i'm trying to watch a trans guy critique some video game trans rep bc i'm interested in hearing more trans ppl talk about it. but he's very. i'm paraphrasing here but "why would anyone ever in a million years want their rpg character to have top surgery scars. isnt that a constant reminder to you and everyone around you about how you were born" and "you don't work on transitioning. you just need hormone treatment and possibly some--"

[transfemjoker]

aita for unleashing a brain-eating zombie amoeba on a new york sized city and corrupting the most powerful superheroes in the world and revealing myself as an immortal being that’s been feeding on dionesium in a cave system beneath the earth because the guy i’ve been obsessed with for 30+ years wouldn’t murder his whole family to be with me

[something-about-sunflowers]

Hot take: The people who are STILL insisting that Izzy is homophobic (despite the NUMEROUS instances of the cast/crew/David himself saying that nobody on the show is being targeted for their identity and ‘it’s not “I can’t believe he’s with a guy” but “I can’t believe he’s with THAT guy”‘ ad nauseam) towards Stede, Lucius, or Ed (I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone say anything about Fang or Pete, though I could be wrong, but I’m gonna touch on that in a bit too*)? They’re, unironically, being homophobic by stereotyping the characters and reducing them to just their sexuality.

If you recognize that Stede is a multifaceted character and you recognize the ways in which he is multifaceted - He’s a man born into wealth and raised on classist, colonialist ideals. Yes, he’s also traumatized by how he was treated by his father and peers but trauma doesn’t exempt people from blame when participating in, embracing, enforcing, and benefiting from classist and colonialist ideals - you will understand that Izzy is not being homophobic towards him just because he hates him.

If you only view Stede as a gay man and ignore everything else about his character then the only motivation for Izzy to hate him MUST be because he’s a gay man and therefore Izzy MUST be homophobic.

If you recognize that Lucius is a multifaceted character and you recognize the ways in which he is multifaceted - He’s a man who likely was born into some level of the middle class, given that he can read and write (It’s also possible that he was born into a working class family and he learned to read and write there, but it’s the unlikely option by default. None of the rest of the working class crew know how to read or write save Jim who was raised by a nun and would have been taught by her.), he also avoids doing work which is necessary for the function of the ship that they live on and depend on for their livelihoods and encourages the rest of the crew to do the same with his insubordination. He’s also in an unorthodox relationship that people who have not experienced the concept of consensual non-monogamy would not understand and might interpret as cheating - you will understand that Izzy is not being homophobic towards him just because he hates him.

If you only view Lucius as a gay man and ignore everything else about his character then the only motivation for Izzy to hate him MUST be because he’s a gay man and therefore Izzy MUST be homophobic.

If you recognize that Ed is a multifaceted character and you recognize the ways in which he is multifaceted - He’s a man of color, born into a working class family who worked hard to make a name for himself, to the point where he did not have to endanger himself or his crew to earn their livelihoods. He’s also some level of neurodivergent and understimulated by the environment he’s in (because he excels at his job) which leads him to make irrational and dangerous decisions and puts the lives of himself and his crew in danger. He’s also been making increasingly out of character decisions (corroborated by Fang and Ivan) by the influence of Stede - you will understand that Izzy is not being homophobic towards him just because he’s angry about his relationship with Stede.

If you only view Ed as a gay man and ignore everything else about his character then the only motivation for Izzy to be angry about his relationship with Stede (and only Stede, because he had no qualms about Ed and Calico Jack’s involvement with one another given that he sent Jack to get Ed out of the way of the English, but that’s another post I don’t have the spoons to make) MUST be because he’s a gay man and therefore Izzy MUST be homophobic.

If you IGNORE that Izzy is a multifaceted character and you IGNORE the ways in which he is multifaceted - He’s a gay (we’re not having this argument) working class man who earned his high ranking position on an extremely respectable pirate’s crew. He’s capable and is rightfully angry when he’s looked down on because of his class. He recognizes the importance of ship maintenance and is rightfully angry when those tasks are ignored. He doesn’t understand Lucius’ relationship dynamic and thinks he can use (what he thought was) him cheating on his partner (seriously, how is ‘I’m going to tell the man you were fucking that you were fucking another man’ threatening to out him?) as a motivation to make him do the necessary ship work. He is rightfully angry when his orders are ignored because he’s the highest authority on the ship next to the captains. He is in love with Ed and is jealous because Ed is in love with Stede - you can pretend that Izzy is homophobic because of how he behaves towards the other gay men on the ship.

If you ignore that Izzy has valid reasons for his actions (which does not mean that the actions are all entirely justified) then the only motivation for them MUST be because he’s homophobic.

(* The persistent neglect of Fang and Pete in these discussions is also rooted in homophobia. Fang and Pete are the only explicitly gay men on the ship who don’t, at any point, present ‘femininely’** and therefore don’t fall so easily into the bubble of the stereotypical gay man and so they get ignored in these discussions because they aren’t suitable to push the narrative that Izzy only interacts negatively towards ‘feminine’/’gnc’** gay men.)

(** The insistence that Stede, Lucius, and Ed are in any way, at any point, LEGITIMATELY presenting ‘femininely’ or are ‘gender non-conforming’ is ALSO rooted in homophobia - and I’d argue a touch of racism via Ed’s hair and beard as they relate to his indigenous roots. The assumption/association with those three being considered feminine comes from their identity as gay men. That is homophobia.

Stede wears men’s clothes. He wears RICH men’s clothes. Bright, colorful, patterned fabrics are worn by RICH men in the 1700s - if you want to argue that, say, king George presented femininely or was gnc because of the way he dressed be my guest but you won’t because he doesn’t and he isn’t. Lucius wears men’s clothes. His clothes are perfectly at place amongst the rest of the crew’s clothes. Ed wears men’s clothes. His leather is in direct relation to gay leather-men which is a hyper-masculine aesthetic in the same way drag is - typically - a hyper-feminine aesthetic. His appreciation for Stede’s clothes comes from the wealth and privilege that centers around the easy possession of those types and quantities of fabrics.

None of them behave in ways that are stereotypically feminine. Having and expressing emotions is not a uniquely or inherently feminine trait. Caring for and maintaining your appearance is not a uniquely or inherently feminine trait. Even if they were, Izzy also does those things. Izzy frequently expresses his emotions - yes, anger, a stereotypically ‘masculine’ emotion, but others as well. He also puts a great deal of care into his appearance, aside from the materials, the only difference between his and Stede’s outfits are the type of shoes and the presence of a jacket. If those traits are to be considered inherently feminine then it is disingenuous to not apply that label to Izzy as well.)

[everythingiguess]

I know some people don't like the pacing or the fact that Wandee and Yoryak take so long to confess and voice their feelings, but I actually love it so much.

I understand that this is a show and it follows a storyline, but I kind of see in the characters' confusion a reflection of how everything works in reality; we don't follow a storyline or an order where we meet, fall in love, get confused, understand our feelings and confess to each other.

These feelings are confusing and messy and some people can start where other people might end and vice versa, but I love the fact that Yak and Dee, despite everything, choose to be together anyway and are willing to wait for each other.

And that's because they love each other, regardless of whether they've voiced it or not.

[spitblaze]

I'm not a psychologist or a politician or anything approaching an expert about literally anything except a few specific video games but I feel like so many people wouldn't be agonizing over the moral implications of one (1) vote if we as the less-than-uppest-of-upper-crust had the ability to meaningfully affect change in ways other than 'spend money/do not spend money, vote for the red or blue tie'