#that's a reason i can actually buy

[tranakin-skywalker]

I'm pretty sure I've admitted it on here before, but I actually do really love The Last Jedi. I think it's a really good movie! Well made, well acted, beautifully shot, the characters and their development is compelling. I enjoy it!

I do not, however, think it's a very good Star Wars movie.

[the-crooked-library]

"Louis and Armand were still in love in Dubai!!" "Louis and Armand never loved each other!!" - no. it's worse. they were on the precipice of something good, but Armand couldn't recognize that, so he ruined everything they had, right when Louis had actually come to love him. the love was there for a fleeting moment and it was ruined irreversibly, never to return, even after decades they'd spent together out of desperation and spite. it's worse and that's the point

[ithinkdogshouldvote]

Rouge-like tendencies, courtesy of grandpa

[stupidrant]

Since we’re on the topic of video games, im tired of these fucking remakes. Ive said it before but i’ll say it again each time. These companies dont wanna invest in an actually good remaster or port and would rather waste their time with these remakes bcuz “ooh look how shiny and better the graphics look!!1!1!1” often times it has an empty feeling because everything has to be ultra realism super 6000. Its gotten so bad that now regular gamers are starting to gaslight you into playing or enjoying them. So much has been lost artistically, (like the cool UI designs) that it’s now considered “juvenile” and that i need to “grow up” and “accept it” 😂

[temeyes]

a convo earlier between me and my brother about cod LOL

[starryoak]

Making memes out of my headcanons, part 3, swinging bats at hornets nests edition!

[dynamitekansai]

THE USOS REUNITE WWE SMACKDOWN (OCTOBER 25, 2024)

[batsplat]

It's a thing I already knew but all your beautiful analysis really made obvious (to me) how much of a grudge holder vale is. That man is never letting it go he's gonna hold his grudges into his grave

you know, I do think this is an interesting issue, because I'm not sure this is true of all his grudges. just sticking here with the grudges he accumulated in his capacity as a competitor, rather than just his general approach to life or whatever... how you judge this will kinda depend on how you feel about the 'reconciliation' he's experienced with some of his rivals - and whether you read the whole thing as sincere or not. now, personally I reckon he still dislikes biaggi, but also you are allowed to just dislike people so I'll give him a pass for that. some of the others, I'm a little more convinced by the whole reconciliation schtick

let's get valentino's take:

interesting that he mentions those three together, isn't it? and like, he's still not messaging biaggi or inviting him to his home - "even with max" kind of tells you all you need to know - but the other two? they said some proper nasty things to each other over the years!! I mean, the casey rivalry, there's some remarks from both sides where quite frankly I think I would struggle just a touch to get over it

I don't know, obviously this could all be pr stuff, but I kind of feel like... y'know, why bother? it's 2022, you're retired, who gives a fuck? sure it's a good look to be all magnanimous, sure it can be a bit of a way of twisting in the knife to the guys left in the cold, but also, who would care if you don't play nice? I think especially with jorge, you surely don't need to do all that, inviting him to your home and dancing with him... (which, again, some of the spats those two had...) and with the casey rivalry, if there's one guy who's still hung up about what happened between the pair of them, it's obviously casey (speaking of blokes who can hold a grudge). maybe this is giving valentino too much credit, but personally I buy it's more or less sincere. there's nothing to really indicate he's still particularly bothered by any of their past disagreements - he's basically going for the 'all's fair in love and motorcycle racing' approach. he knows he was an asshole, he accepts they were assholes too, whatever, that's how these things work. he's generally a fan of drama in rivalries, unsurprisingly, and he was happy enough to contribute his fair share - but he does see it as fundamentally being part of the game

to point out the obvious, check out who he's left out: sete and marc. that's where he can't let go of the grudges... because it's not about the offence itself as much as it is about the betrayal. this is the thing with valentino, right, it's about what kind of bond you had with him. if you weren't his friend in the first place and then piss him off as a rival then, y'know, whatever. obviously he's going to be vicious in trying to get back at you, but also he's really not going to waste his time feeling too aggrieved by it. I mean, think about how all the bullshit between him and casey dropped off sharply post-2012... from valentino's end anyway. think about how jorge and valentino pretty quickly got on again whenever they weren't fighting for supremacy within yamaha. they weren't friends in the first place, then they were enemies for competitive reasons for a while there, then it's over and valentino is basically happy enough to call it bygones

but... if it's a certain kind of bond you had with him and then you wrong him... that little mental list of all his past grievances, all your past transgressions, that's where it comes in. that's where he ices you out. denies you any emotional warmth. ensures that any interaction going forward is conducted entirely on his terms. where even any public 'reconciliation' won't truly be sincere.... or, certainly he's not going to forget what happened. if something else happens... it's like you've always got the potential of triggering this lingering resentment, in a way, where all that past stuff is still primed and ready to be called upon. he certainly doesn't just let it go

or, as he puts it in his autobiography:

Biaggi and I never talk to each other. I mean, we've never had a real conversation, anything that's lasted more than the requisite time to insult each other or put each other down, in the nastiest way possible. In any case, I don't hate him. It's true, we've never been friends, but hatred is something different, and that's too serious a word to describe our relationship. Far too serious. No, we have a reciprocal antipathy. No doubt this is a result of what we do for a living and the fact that we both want to win every single time. And perhaps it's also a function of the fact that we have very different personalities and very different ways of seeing things. Still, I don't think this means we hate each other, as some journalists have written. I think I could feel hatred for someone, but only for someone far worse than anything Biaggi has done. For example, if I were betrayed by a friend, then, yes, I could hate him. But Biaggi will never betray my friendship for the simple reason that we are not, and never have been, friends. Our relationship is very clear: we compete on the track - outside the track, each goes his own way. You could say we detest each other cordially.

... I mean. he said it, not me. and given this book was first published in '05... biaggi can't betray his friendship because they were never friends... I'm not saying he's thinking about sete, but it has to at least be a possibility, right? he's talking about one rivalry here and refusing to even mention the other... and the one he's refusing to mention is the one where he was friends with the other bloke. I don't know, maybe that's reading too much into it! and anyway, even if this passage wasn't really about sete, it's obviously still revealing. "detest each other cordially" is essentially what he was doing with casey and jorge (or from his point of view in any case, not entirely sure they'd agree with that). the grudge comes when he feels let down by you... and then, yes, he'll never let it go

of course, he's willing to set aside his grievances for a while if there's sufficient motivation for him to do so. in 2009, when he had so definitively won that rivalry with sete, why bother kicking up a fuss? in 2016, quite frankly it was just too much, and it was getting to the point where it was obviously hurting him too. on the one hand there was the media furore that had been going on non-stop since sepang, on the other hand it was also hurting his own approach to racing. there's reports from the time how visibly aggrieved he still was in the first few races of the season, and it took until they got back to europe for him to... y'know, have fun again. it's not sustainable to be walking around with a constant dark cloud over your head and broadcasting burning resentment towards your two main rivals. certainly not for someone like valentino - he needs to be having fun! the slight rapprochement needed to happen, in a way, because otherwise those years would have been even worse for everyone involved. but that doesn't actually translate to forgetting any of those grudges. this is about convenience more than anything else

goes to show, really... most of the time he doesn't take these things personally. I talked about it a bit in this post, how maybe it's also something that changed over time for him: the question of whether he was willing to develop these kinds of bonds in the first place with competitors... because he does possess a certain level of self-awareness in terms of what these kinds of rivalries are like and what they do to interpersonal relationships. ideally, you don't want to be hurt by a friend like that, right? better not to have that kind of emotional attachment with your competitors in the first place. how unfortunate it'd be if all those years after sete the circumstances aligned for him to see a competitor as something like a friend again... because, after all, those are the only people who could betray him. those are the only people where he thinks he could truly hate them

[thelostgirl21]

After having found out Radovid is now the King of Redania, Jaskier and him meet again while he's still travelling with Geralt and the rest of the Hansa.

But he's ruthless and cold - agreeing with Dijkstra that anyone suspected of having conspired with Nilfgaard should be summarily executed without trial.

When Jaskier confronts him about it in front of the others, Radovid refuses to listen to him, prompting an upset Jaskier to reveal to all that they'd slept together on the night of the coup at Thanedd, by asking Radovid if that night had even meant anything, or if he'd just been some kind of trophy to him!

"The 'almighty Prince Radovid'," Jaskier mocks him, pathetically needing to have other famous people like 'Jaskier the Bard' on all four - begging to be filled with his royal dick like a slut - to flatter his fragile ego and reassure him of his place within the Continent's food chain!

In return, Radovid casually mocks Jaskier for having ever fallen for his act!

He just wanted to get his trust and find the girl, he says, nothing more. Though getting the opportunity to fuck him was a nice bonus, he won't lie about that.

As for anything he did or said afterwards, he was only "playing it safe" until he knew, for sure, whether or not Jaskier could still be of some use to them.

As Radovid takes his leave, Jaskier stares after him, jaw clenched, visibly trying to be brave and keep it together - not wanting to give Radovid the satisfaction of seeing how much he's hurt him - they all assume.

They thus start muttering among themselves about how much of an asshole the king is, saying Jaskier deserves so much better, and starting to move forward to go offer him some support.

All of them except... Geralt, for some reason. The Witcher is surprisingly calm, if not looking deeply sad and concerned for his bard.

He stops them all from approaching him with a hand gesture, and - once he's sure everyone else is out of hearing range - says:

"You topped him that night, didn't you?"

Jaskier looks in Geralt's direction, eyes red and shining, lips trembling, and utters a pitiful "twice", quickly followed by an even quieter "fuck, Geralt".

The Witcher immediately dashes forward and catches him in his arms as Jaskier's legs finally give out and he breaks down - allowing himself a moment of weakness to weep in Geralt's arms.

His sobs are occasionally interrupted by some half coherent blabbering about how thoughtful, wonderful, and attentionate a lover Radovid is. Then something about how he'd been supposed to ask his brother for permission to leave his life at court behind, so he could come help Jaskier find and rescue his whole family. But now, King Vizimir is dead, and Radovid is... (Jaskier can't even finish his sentence).

And that's when the rest of the Hansa realize that Jaskier isn't upset about some royal bastard having pretended to love him only to betray and discard him.

The bard is upset because he's genuinely in love with the bloody King of Redania - of all people!

And that, had the man they'd just met been the real King Radovid, then he'd likely have known that Jaskier didn't bottom that night.

(Or that Jaskier is much smarter than he pretends to be, like Geralt had obviously been fully aware of.)

Meaning that the real Radovid is either already dead; or being held captive somewhere against his will.

Also meaning that their mission probably just got upgraded from:

- Finding and rescuing the Princess of Cintra (a.k.a. Geralt's daughter) from Nilfgaard;

to

- Finding and rescuing the Princess of Cintra (a.k.a. Geralt's daughter) from Nilfgaard AND finding out if the King of Redania (a.k.a. Jaskier's bottom lover) is still alive; if so, where he's being held, and rescuing him from... Redania?!

Again, why did they have to get attached to these people?

[sojourner-between-worlds]

My villain orgin story is going to be the fact that cell phones no longer have headphone jacks

[prettyboysdontlookatexplosions]

i think climate change discourse often uncovers ways that people have trouble thinking about things on a certain scale… for example it feels counterintuitive to say that on the one hand, the US is iirc the second biggest emitter as a country and the biggest per capita (since number one is china whose population is famously quite large), and on the other, if we waved a magic wand tomorrow and the US went fully net zero, that would not really have a huge impact on the situation as a whole. but it’s true, because there are just that many more people living Not In The US. or like, it is both true that taylor swift traveling is probably responsible for more emissions in a year than you or i would be in several lifetimes, and that banning private jet use entirely in every single country in the world would be a drop in the bucket at best because it’s a relatively small subset of a relatively small fraction of global emissions. a lot of ostensibly justice-focused climate rhetoric has a very moralistic viewpoint on what we might call disproportionate emitters - which is why many people read a sentence like “taylor swift’s private jet use is mathematically negligible in the grand scheme of things” and assume it’s some kind of ethical or moral defense of taylor swift (or the US, or 1%, or whatever) - but i am starting to feel like “what we really need to do is hold the rich accountable” is just as much performative magical thinking as whatever alleged greenwashed bandaid someone is bringing it up to criticize, because saying it feels radical or serious but betrays a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of the actual scale of the problem.

[antiadvil]

Literally lying in bed like wow I should have gotten Antwerp tickets. Girl what do you mean. You live in the American Midwest and if you don’t take 2.5mg of THC every night you start to feel like someone is scraping paint off the inside of your skull. Do not get on a fucking plane

[parasocialcelebritycrush]

two tickets to oppenheimer please!!!

[l-in-the-light]

Why does Law say he hates pirates doing good things in Wano?

Oh, yeah, that, it's been on my mind a lot as well. I partially rambled about it before, but this time I will try to answer it from multiple angles. Because when in doubt, there's one thing that will always come to rescue: analysis! I think the key to understanding that scene is putting it in the correct context.

This is how it all started. Law calls it a rebellion, which is something dangerous especially in the country as oppressed as Wano.

And then we have this scene, few chapters later. Luffy remembered what Law actually told him (he did pay attention!): this was rebellion, it will have consequences, and now Luffy takes it seriously and is worried about people in Okobore town. Law's answer is very interesting here, because it's kinda callback to the one you're asking about:

Those two frames are clearly connected to each other. This is my interpretation of why Law reacted so strongly:

Law knew this rebellion will have bad consequences, and while he mostly complains that it will bring troubles for their alliance and the future raid, he must have been aware already that the biggest backlash will fall on people of Okobore town for something Luffy did without thinking too much about it. And despite knowing that - he doesn't comment on it besides this little comment about "pirates doing nice things for people". He could have scolded Luffy here, tell him how his "good deed" will end and point out that it will be Luffy himself feeling sorry in the end, but... he didn't.

I think he wanted Luffy to see the consequences of his actions, to teach him a lesson (yes, he's trying to teach Luffy something about the world) while just watching over him. He could have just told him (and witness Luffy trying to beat everyone up to defend Okobore town), but that wouldn't make Luffy truly understand that as a pirate he can do whatever he wants and face no consequences: he can just escape from the country, meanwhile those poor folks at Okobore town are stuck living there all their lives and can't just run away. Sometimes doing the right thing isn't the most obvious thing you can do and you need to always think about consequences of your actions or you might do more harm than good.

That last panel is even more interesting because we have actually three different points of view there about what Luffy did: Law's "this doesn't seem right" reaction, Luffy's "We did something right!" and Kiku's "You did something wrong: stealing is wrong". This really shows how Wano arc is just so different from other arcs, kinda more mature in story (but still has stupid gimmicks, god bless Oda for that). Because what makes a good deed truly a good deed? When you're proud of yourself, thinking you helped but actually did it for your own sake (to repay a favour)? Or by abiding to higher morals: don't do right by having to do wrong first? Or making sure to keep in mind consequences of your actions as well, while not even caring to take the credit for the deed? That last one sounds to me like a definition of a hero and while that's Law's prefered answer here raises many interesting question marks. We know by now he idolizes Sora Warrior of the Sea after all.

Law's lesson here concludes. Luffy isn't even there with him, but Law stays firm in his belief, even if it means ignoring people in need at the moment. The lesson extends to the whole of Strawhats crew. Law instead tries to focus on the bigger picture, because one small rebellion is not gonna overturn the whole country so that people can finally live in a better place. Yeah, on the surface it looks contradictionary, Law seems not to care about innocents getting hurt, but he downplays it here because otherwise they will never liberate Wano, instead wasting their strength defending unfortunate folks everywhere and risking the raid getting exposed as the result. There's not always an easy choice to make when wanting to help people.

But that's not all there is to it. Do we still remember what Doflamingo did to Dressrosa? He pretended to be the good guy rescuing people oppressed by their own king, he pretended to liberate them, while it was all pre-arranged. It was also an example of a pirate "doing good thing", at least on the surface, and treated as a hero as the result. I bet it brings back bad aftertaste.

His expression in Wano is kinda similar to the one he makes here (the one in Wano is just not hidden from us, signaling Law is actually more keen on opening up instead of keeping it all bottled up). Let's remember Law didn't sail with Strawhats before Punk Hazard happened. All he knows by that point is what he learned most likely from newspapers. They cause chaos wherever they go. They rescue their friends (Enies Lobby, Sabaody, Arlong Park), even if it means going against Celestial Dragons or the whole World Government. He can't know about Alabasta, because that was officially declared as being Smoker's achievement (but if Doflamingo had his doubts about it then I bet Law had as well. Like teacher, like student). No one knows about Skypiea. Drum's Island was never reported. Why would Law expect pirates to rescue complete strangers and liberating whole nations like some kind of heroes? Why would actually anyone expect that and not be shocked and in disbelief? Even in One Piece universe, pirates aren't usually good people! But back to the Strawhats, everywhere they go they might end up helping, but the country is often left in ruin. Law probably thought Punk Hazard was some kind of exception, a whim, on Strawhats end. In Dressrosa he still expects Luffy to just scramble out of the country to save his own ass.

Law is so surprised that Luffy actually cares about Dressrosa. He even sold them the plan of going against Kaido to catch Luffy's interest, he told him kidnapping was just to cause chaos, it's all the compelling reasons aimed for someone who likes some disorder. And then Luffy drops him this bomb: he actually genuinely cares about what will happen to the country and that despite spending only half a day in it. Just few moments later Law will find out it was all because Luffy had a food debt to Rebecca. Coincidentally, food debt was also involved in Wano. If you put it all into context like that, it becomes clear why Law tries to teach Luffy a lesson about it. It's fine if he wants to repay the favour to people, but he needs to think of the consequences. There might be a better way of doing things to help folks. And even though Luffy has his problems accepting it, he eventually listens. He could leave Udon at one point but he doesn't, focusing on training instead, thinking this is the better option. Just before the raid the news about Okobore town getting burned to the ground reaches the Strawhats (which is also a direct consequence of Luffy's "rebellion"/good deed right from the beginning of the arc), but Luffy doesn't do anything about it. I would say it worked, Luffy did learn his lesson.

But wait a second, this is all working only basing it on assumption that Law actually cares about countries and innocents. He doesn't, right? He was the one to propose to leave the children behind in Punk Hazard, he's the one suggesting they should escape and leave Dressrosa to it's own fate. That's all true, but in Zou Law says something contradictory to that:

He's also the only one who reacts different than everyone else in the conclusion of Dressrosa:

His expression is almost the same as the one he had in flashback with Corazon. He's terrified, he thinks people of the D. are monstrous. Instead of looking at the people celebrating that the country is free again, he looks at all the rubble and destruction. But I don't think he thinks Luffy's a monster. He's probably a bit lost what to feel about all of this. Yes, the people were saved, but also yes, the country was completely destroyed as the result. There were probably better ways of handling the situation, but he won't criticize anyone outloud: he thinks he's also partially responsible for this result, after all (he's also a D. and he also fought Doflamingo alongside Luffy. He made his own choice that contributed to the overall conclusion).

But then which one is the truth? When Law says to forget the innocents getting hurt? Or when he scolds Luffy to care more about the country and the people in it? I would say: it's up to you to decide. Oda plants that line in his manga ever since Whitebeard did his speech at Marineford. What do you believe in?

I personally believe that Law cares for innocent people not getting hurt. I have my rational argument for that. It's the golden rule of One Piece: any character with their eyes hidden or obscured isn't completely honest (it's not 100% foolproof rule, but is very often true). When Law tells Luffy to forget Dressrosa, his eyes are shaded. In Zou, his eyes are clear like a cloudless sky when he expresses his worry about minks. That's the truth I choose, but I would choose it even if I didn't believe in that rule. Because I just want to believe Law when he says he cares, no matter if he started off with that belief or if it changed along the way while interacting with Strawhats.

Also there is a fun parallel with Law and Bonney going on, just look at it:

She's also reacting exactly like Law. "Who heard of a pirate helping people?!" doing disgusted face as well. Despite that, her personal view is "Don't help a soul (unless they really need it)!". There's also a contradiction here. Even around the Revolutionary Army Bonney is a bit torn, she's like "I trust you guys to take care of Daddy" but at the same time she's shocked or even uncomfortable when Sabo shows her kindness. Despite knowing that Kuma trusted revolutionaries she still couldn't react differently, expecting those strangers to act unkind. I think it's the result of her childhood. Besides few chosen people and her dad, everyone in the village avoided and feared her, also kids made fun of her, so Bonney is not really fond of strangers as the result. It's a sign of her trauma and both she and Law share it. He also heard ever since he was a child that he's a monster because of his disease and was avoided as the result, and it made him very avoidant and distrustful towards people in general. So is it that strange he also reacts the same way Bonney does? He just doesn't expect people to care all that much about strangers, because he also was a stranger once that no one (besides Cora-san) cared about. Neither of them might ever be open to strangers as the result or at least it will take them a huge effort to overcome their initial reactions and learn to trust people again.

Other possible reason factoring into his reaction is Law's possible low self-esteem. He never takes any credit for the good deeds he does. He might actually not like being a pirate all that much or think of himself highly because of it. Even though it's an anime-only extension, Law reacts very strongly when Sanji in Germa's suit says "I'm neither evil or righteous! I'm just a soba mask". It literally leaves him speechless. He probably never thought that it's even possible to think of things this way.

And we see in Wano that Law's moral code also isn't black and white. He was willing to risk the raid, the alliance even, just to save his own crew. That's always his priority and he would sacrifice anything as long as people dear to him are safe. Obviously he's smart so he must be aware of that contradiction in himself and I doubt he thinks of himself as hypocrite. But despite that, and despite everyone trying to stop Law from leaving and destroying everything they worked for, Shinobu is the one who curiously manages to stop him. She tells him this is their only chance to even try to win back their own country and that they prepared for it for 20 years. And that doesn't leave Law unaffected. He probably can relate to that, after all he had his plan against Doflamingo brewing for at least 10 years.

It's probably easier for him to care for other people when he can relate to them in some way. And as a result of this, he adjusts his plan to rescue his crewmates in such a way that doesn't actually destroy Akazaya Nine's efforts, proving yet again that he actually cares for people other than his crew. And we know he does, he did help the kids in Punk Hazard at the very end of the arc out of his own free will (they probably reminded him of kids in Flevance, also uncared for and sick, left to die), he did care about Dressrosa at the end of the day (it was the kingdom Cora-san wanted to save so of course it would matter to Law!), he cares for minks (they took care of his crew for quite a while, and also it's the homeland of his best friend Bepo), and he does care about Wano and the samurais, because he can also relate to their efforts and struggles.

But does it mean he overall believes himself to be a good person? It's likely that he doesn't. In the light novel he even calls himself pathetic and for things that are completely out of his control and aren't even his fault. When he says the line: "pirates doing good things disgust me" he's also making a statement about himself: he does good things, he's a pirate, he feels disgusted about himself. After all besides doing the things mentioned above, he also did steal hearts of 100 pirates at Rocky Port Incident (though we lack context of what exactly happened that lead to this outcome). And maybe that's why Luffy makes it such a big deal to repeat it all the time that he has faith in him, that Law is a good person. Because he might know that Law needs to hear it most of all.

I hope that sounds like a satisfying answer to you, anon! This is my best shot at this. Sorry it was late, but sometimes I just need to sit on it for a while so I can actually take the time needed to gather all the relevant scenes and my own thoughts all together.

[skrunksthatwunk]

thinking about when guts sent a bunch of his men directly into zodd's meat grinder without even knowing demons like him existed. and that moment after the fight where casca runs to griffith unconscious on the floor and tells guts it's all his fault. and the time gambino tells him he's bad luck and should have died instead. and about how he tells griffith he cares about his men, and how casca doesn't seem to see it. and the time guts is thinking about casca telling him it's all his fault (after he got griffith hurt) and then griffith comes to him and says (like it's nothing) do i need to give a reason every time i come to save you? or whatever. like he's worth it. like he's worth dying for, and like it can be a choice people make because they value you. like he's a good luck charm, like griffith needs him to reach his goals, his full potential. like griffith is not enough to make it without him. like griffith finds out when guts leaves. fuckin.g gnawing someone else's legs off because i still need mine to run into traffic

[ongreenergrasses]

re; ask game

how do you feel about the sexualization of certain characters within the fandom, including some of the tributes or most vulnerable people (e.g, finnick, or katniss and peeta?)

so i do fully believe that anybody who wants to have one deserves a rich and fulfilling sex life, whatever that looks like for them. i have absolutely no qualms about people portraying trauma survivors and/or those who are seen as more vulnerable as having sex lives in their fanworks. i think that’s actually really good and very important to do.

however. if you specifically are sexualizing the characters, i think you’re so, so heavily missing the point. the point is that these characters have had their bodies and their sexuality weaponized and turned against them, and that is included in the story to show the severe effects that trauma and exploitation of that nature can have. a lot of them were getting trafficked (or in the case of Katniss and Peeta, only barely avoided it but were forced into another exploitative situation) while they were still children. it is meant to be disturbing. it is not meant to make you think they’re hot.

I’ve already talked about how Johanna and Finnick do act very flirty and promiscuous, but it’s because a trauma response. i think people take those character traits at face value and don’t really look at why they act like that (and it is very, very clearly spelled out in books that are YA level, so if you’ve read them and still are not getting it, that’s a little on you) and that really contributes to this. obviously the movies didn’t help. but what it really boils down to is that people are not understanding the role of the characters in the story at all, and they’re instead demonstrating how easy it is to exploit them that way. and honestly it’s really too bad because i like to think people have better comprehension than that but you know what? i’ve also literally seen someone say they would buy Finnick and i’m like yep we’re done here i got no words left to say.

AMA