i'm not saying 'chilchuck did nothing wrong,' but i'm becoming increasingly bothered by the framing that the marriage failed because it was 'only his fault,' when his wife did just up and leave, seemingly without saying anything to him or having a conversation about it?
and i know we don't see anything from Her perspective, so maybe she did try, but the fact that he had no idea anything was wrong, despite being fairly present with her and their daughters is i think pretty indicative that she was probably stewing with her frustrations in silence for a long time... like, i'm not pinning the blame on her, but leaving your spouse without saying anything is also not great? especially if it's some sort of 'test'?
like, i think they both Kind Of Messed Up and now there's a stalemate where they're upset, and chilchuck is afraid to make the next move because he doesn't want to upset her further, but the longer he waits, the more frustrated she gets... and so it continues
also, dunmeshi spends SO much time focusing on how we often unintentionally hurt our loved ones, but how there's almost always ways to move past it and grow, so it feels very strange to me when people insist that there's no reason for them to get back together. like if you don't want them to, that's fine! but insisting that there's no way to repair their relationship, or that it's only one person's fault, or that it's unhealthy or whatever... idk, but it doesn't sit right w me.
33 notes
·
View notes
Saw your tag saying FSM haters come fight you. Here I am! Frankly I'm not so much of a hater as I am just of the opinion "wow this guy sure Started All This Shit" but I'm absolutely willing to hear your view of the matter if you're willing to share! Love some Friendly Fandom Discourse (it's healthy tbh) come at me bro 👊 👊 👊
HI LOL.... my personal opinion is that the FSM gets a lot of hate for similar reasons to wu (which i also think are unjustified but that's a different post). like you said he gets a lot of the blame put on him for starting everything that's to come in the show, but i don't really feel like he intended to do any harm.
the FSM was born into a war. when he was still a very young child, he was forced to choose one side of himself, of his family, and destroy the other. and so he ran away. but this world he runs to is chaotic and dangerous. and so again, he is forced to fight for the right to live in peace along with the inhabitants of this world.
but even in this new world, he wasn't safe: the oni followed him, determined to bring him back to fight for them. and after them, the overlord. his whole life, especially when he was younger, he had been fighting, or running from forces that aimed to destroy him.
i believe the FSM was incredibly paranoid throughout his life, worrying that at any moment everything would be ripped away from him. this can be seen in how secretive he was, how much of his history is hidden away. the mech used to win the war against the overlord was sealed away where it could never be found. he granted elemental powers to select people to help keep him safe. even in his death, he hid away, in a place that even wu could not find.
this paranoia carries on through his sons. he taught them both to fight, to protect themselves, when they were also very young. one of the earliest moments we see of them is them fighting with swords! and though he loves them, they are not immune to his secrecy, or his fears. when they steal the scrolls and enter the serpentine territory, he never fully trusts them again. when garmadon gets bitten and starts to turn to evil, he's desperate to cure him. and i don't fully believe that the FSM intended to make garmadon feel broken or "wrong"... just that his fear has so consumed him at this point that he can't see the damage he's doing to his children.
it's also worth noting that despite garmadon's corruption, the FSM never truly hated him. he was left to protect the golden weapons alongside wu, he recieved the same protective enchanted gi, and was left the same clues to find him after his death. it's just that garmadon was unable to see this through the corruption (which is another post).
perhaps all he did was to protect his sons. that seems to be how wu sees it, at least. because wu repeats this same behaviour with the ninja, even if unintentionally. he brings these kids into a war because that happened to him, and his father before him. maybe he doesn't even realise it's wrong. he hides things from them not only because because he's ashamed of his past (again, another post lol), but because his father always hid things from him. it protects wu, but it also protects the ninja.
i don't believe the FSM was a flawless person. hes one of many grey characters in ninjago, and to boil down everything he did to "good" or "bad" is a disservice. maybe you see him as someone who only ever ran from problems instead of truly solving them, maybe you see him as a cruel and neglectful father. and maybe those are both true. but he's also someone who always tried to fight for peace, for himself and everyone in ninjago, and someone who truly loved his sons, despite the damage he did to them both.
so that's who i think the FSM was. an immortal, all powerful godlike being, yes, but also a scared child who just wanted to live peacefully, and would do anything to prevent another war. and maybe he is, in some way, indirectly responsible for every bad thing in the show, but i think this is more of an after-effect of the countless wars and conflict. he did the best he could, and considering all he went through, i think he did alright.
72 notes
·
View notes
this might sound a bit dumb and out of no where but hmmm. how do i say this... there are a lot of posts and a general consensus about quote unquote media literacy on tumblr and how we feel about it, as well as the things that go hand in hand with all that (discussion of mischaracterisation, symbolism, analysis, etc) and i think people (generally) need to be more open about their thoughts or findings and less i don't know... harsh isn't the word but like, just less assumptive that people are inherently out to be willfully ignorant when it comes to dissecting media thematically or discussing characterisation & the narrative, esp things where the outside factor of the consumer/creator changes things drastically if you do or do not know or experience something (and therefore would have no reason to be like, somehow maliciously interpreting something). i guess?
like i get it and i absolutely understand and also hate when people seem to go out of their way to say all the wrong things and stubbornly cling onto things that are WRONG, and confronting someone's opinion and it being SO wrong that you can comfortably think of a rebuttal is ultimately very satisfying and scratches a certain itch and can lead to a lot of thoughtful discussion despite being essentially a big "get a look at THIS guy". but i do think there is a vast difference between like, a) someone masquerading behind being knowing buzzwords and being able to say the right words in the right order, b) someone who isn't familiar with certain concepts and DOESN'T know the right words to say but is happily open to learning, and c) someone using the guise of talking about "media literacy" to be ignorant, bigoted or willfully misinterpreting something in a biased way who refuses to concede if confronted or goes out of their way to pick arguments. whilst the first two aren't malicious, both could turn out to be, just like the last category tends to be rejects of the first two who dug their heels in about it.
whilst there is a DIFFERENCE if someone was being say bigoted and prejudiced with hateful intent, not being "media literate" is not actually a moral failing as much as it is made out to be in moments of sweeping generalisation, and i think punishing people for not knowing how to hold thoughtful discussion is obviously cruel and dumb and unnecessarily othering. you don't want people to learn things out of a sense of shame or guilt. i know it's not the INTENT, and i don't like, interpret even 99% of discussion about this whole thing that way, but that doesn't change that discussing people very broadly who just Don't Know something is always going to leave the 1% of a LOT of harshness thrown against someone who doesn't deserve that. even if they're the stupidest twitterina known to man or something.
media literacy itself is not inherent and it is HARD, as much as people try to pretend it isn't. personally i am someone who has always and probably always WILL struggle to understand complex themes and often do need someone else to guide me towards thinking a certain way, thinking in these ways don't come naturally to me as much as i try my best to and i often think the "wrong" thing as my natural conclusion. and every Damn time that happens i see someone going "if you didn't realise this you're a fucking idiot" like woah man 😭 calm down. i dunno i feel like people just forget that this stuff is something you have to train like a muscle, esp things like vocabulary or a more complex academic way of speaking, and to some of us that is always going to be inherently inaccessible or it's going to take twice as long for us to grasp, for whatever reason. i just wish people were more fair is all.
7 notes
·
View notes
this is like, kind of petty but it annoys me a bit when people say okuni got hate for no reason bc im relatively certain people only really got annoyed with her AFTER it became pretty clear that theyd gone and put 3 male npcs (and at the time it looked like there might have been 4) in her event in a year that had only had 3 male units released. people had already been getting angry with the previous event and jacques it really wasnt anything to do with her personally so much as it was pushback over the incredibly one sided catering to only one demographic that played the game. like yeah, not all of the ways that was then expressed was appropriate but when talking about it after the fact its kind of annoying to act like her criticism happened in a complete vacuum with no external factors
18 notes
·
View notes