#these are just my 2 cents on all of this

[aimfor-theheart]

Why is it that dc such as r@pe, sa, and incest is totally okay to write about and romanticize but y’all draw the line at racism, fat phobia, and homophobia *talking about the writings creators make, not personal beliefs*? Whats the difference between these things? All of them are hurtful and affect people in real life, so why is everybody on here choosing and picking one and not the other? Do writers on here think that they are not comparable or that one is okay to romanticize and the other is going way too far?

Im just genuinely curious as I have seen this topic be brought up again and again, which has made me realize this and Id like to see it from someone else's pov.

hi! there is a lot to answer and unpack here and i have every intention of doing so underneath the cut. forgive me if this gets long, but you’ve asked me 4 very massive questions that i think warrant detail, nuance, and thought. there is a lot i’d like to say here.

that being said, mind the content warnings and protect yourself.

cw: mentions of rape, incest, racism, homophobia, fat phobia, discourse in general

firstly, i am going to choose to give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you are actually curious in hearing another side and you are not simply looking to stir a pot or pick a fight with beliefs you have no intention of changing or having an open discussion on. your accusatory tone in the first half indicates otherwise and kindly, i am not an idiot. but i want to earnestly talk to you about this and again, will think better of you than you perhaps have indicated you think of me.

secondly, you do not have to censor words like rape in my inbox. that sort of censorship has become wildly popular because of tik tok and other money-hungry social media that also desperately want to silence people. do you know why you have to censor words like that on tik tok? or words like genocide? suicide? racism? 1. so that they can make money and market and push their squeaky clean algorithms but 2. and perhaps worse, so they can silence victims. if social media platforms and capitalism and the systems of powers had it their way, you would never utter these words again—whether to call someone out for justice or to have an open discussion like this one. i encourage you greatly to think critically about this and how you choose to use censorship and why.

now, to your questions.

to preface, i am interpreting this ask as being anti-dark content in fiction as you state that ALL these subjects harm people in real life. or at least, you are being critical of all dark content in fiction and the way writers engage with them, effectively ‘picking and choosing’ which are deemed acceptable and which aren’t, when they are all hurtful. i apologize if that wasn’t your intention/what you believe, but regardless, i’ll endeavor to answer you.

i personally have drawn no lines about dark content nor spoken about any of these topics specifically really, which indicates to me you have a different narrative and/or are coming from more inflammatory arguments that are always circling fandom lately. in the post i most recently reblogged, i spoke mostly of violence. which, of course, all of those things can be. but i didn’t name one of those topics in particular.

regardless, i don’t believe in the censorship of any dark content in art, but rather advocate strongly for critical analysis on a case-by-case basis. in general, i encourage thinking critically about every aspect of the world around you.

i do not believe that rape, incest, and sa are okay to write about or create art about but racism, homophobia, and fat phobia are not. i believe all of those topics are ones that can, should, and will be explored in the safety of art. all to varying degrees of success, earnestness, impact, and intent. you’re right that these are real things, that can hurt people, and the fictional work about them can have impact on our society that is tangible but the actual art or fiction created is not real. and again, this is all to varying degrees on a case-by-case basis.

art and fiction also historically and massively do discuss these dark content topics and have actively swayed the public’s opinion on matters, whether for better or for worse. throwing away all dark content in art and fiction because it is ‘harmful’ is deeply, deeply dangerous and reductive. a lot of art that engages with dark content actually makes very succinct points about it—i think of vladimir nabokov’s lolita or octavia butler’s bloodchild or speak by laurie halse anderson.

this is where we must exorcise critical thinking. some pieces of work will handle dark content poorly—white saviors making art on racism. men making art about a woman’s experiences that (as you are so interested in) romanticize her pain. etc. etc. and some art will handle it’s dark content incredibly and be transformative, perhaps even revolutionary in how we talk, perceive, or acknowledge systems of oppression, violence, and dark content in this world. some dark content in fiction will have damaging beliefs and effects on society, some will not—we must also look at scope for this, at the writer perhaps, the historical moment, their audience etc.

(for example, there is a significant difference in a main stream male writer, writing of a woman’s experience with rape in a published book in a way that makes it sound romanticized, sold to thousands and thousands of general public vs. a woman using fanfic to explore rape, take control of it, or whatever in a fanfic for a small online community where there are warnings on it. indicating she is aware of its potential damage in a way her male counterpart is not…)

but i still believe in dark contents’ existence in art. of course there is differences between all of these topics you brought up, but i don’t think their differences matter in this answer. i believe in their right to be explored in art. i am talking broadly of media/art here, which i think is the more relevant conversation, but i think you are actually more interested in a much smaller scale of people. ie. fandom. ie. mostly marginalized people in small communities online writing and creating dark content.

people will choose and pick which ones they’d like to create art over and which ones they don’t, which ones they read and which ones they don’t. there’s no ‘hard line’ drawn anywhere. and i can’t control it and neither can you. perhaps you think violence is okay to be explored in fanfic, but racism isn’t. someone else will have different preferences. i do not believe in its censorship.

now, let’s move onto your interest in romanticization and what i think you are more pointing to, which is fandom. you are specifically referring to people in fandom who write about rape, incest, etc. and ‘romanticize’ it—ie. they write about it in a way that is a fantasy. it is perhaps supposed to be horny or sexy. so let’s talk about it.

i must remind you that these topics you’ve brought up (rape, incest, sa) being written are fiction and it is (most often) done by someone marginalized who has either experienced this or is in threat of experiencing this under a patriarchy. i assure you, they are aware of its harm. hence the copious warnings in fandom spaces.

if i can be candid, sometimes i think that people forget how systems of oppression work when discussing fandom and whether dark content being created should be allowed or not.

for example, i sometimes think people who are anti-dark content in fandom believe that a woman or afab person writing a fictional fanfic about rape or sexual violence then influences people to go out and rape people or that women actually like it. when the reality, in fandom spaces, is that rape and sexual violence happen frequently under the patriarchy and then these women in fandom write fictional fanfic in response to cope, explore, take control of, etc. etc.

to insinuate that women or afab people (which fandom mostly is) exploring dark content safely in fiction then causes their own oppression and harm or trauma is rather victim-blame-y to me. fandom exploring dark content does not cause these things to happen in our society….these actions (rape, incest, sa) happen in our society or systems of power and fandom reacts to them in their art by exploring it in dark content. do you understand what i’m trying to say?

it’s not a matter of what is ‘okay’ to romanticize and what isn’t. i do not think the romanticization that fandom does with dark content (ie. my kidnapper actually loves me! or this sexual act that i did not consent to…maybe feels good) is not actually romanticizing but coping because of the systems of power that i described above. and this can be coping with anything—shame of sexuality, shame of fantasies, trauma, fear, etc. etc.

as i said in my tags in that post i reblogged and as plato said, dark content in art is a safe place to explore what would otherwise be harmful and dangerous in real life. it is cathartic. potentially even, a purging.

and even if it isn’t all that—maybe it just is trashy fantasy. it is still playing pretend. it is still fiction and in fandom spaces, it is still most likely being created by a marginalized person. and again, even if it isn’t, we don’t get to censor it. we can be critical of it or wary or whatever, but to censor it, is a slippery, slippery slope. do deem some topics as “acceptable” and others as “unacceptable” is dangerous.

just like kids play pretend where they ‘fight’ or ‘kill’ or ‘kidnap’ or ‘shoot’ each other in games of cops and robbers or heroes and villains, they are safely exploring adventure, dark content, fantasy, tragedy, and higher emotions. adults can do the same in fiction and with adult topics like sex.

and at the end of the day, we don’t get to demand the credentials to do so either. we don’t get to censor them or control them and nor should we be allowed to. i cannot stress enough that i encourage you to be critical of censorship or the absolute disgust in dark content and at those (again—often marginalized people) who engage with it in fandom. i believe it is deeply puritanical, conservative, and dangerous.

you don’t have to like dark content or consume it at all and fandom makes it easy not to with all the warnings and tags, but you cannot control others or police them. nor should you want to.

and at the end of the day, i have some questions for you. you don’t have to respond to this, perhaps they’re just things to think about. what is the end goal here? what is the point in harassing, shaming, attacking, criticizing, or interrogating people in fandom spaces who create or support dark content? do you believe that if it is purged from fandom, it will be purged from our society? if you want it purged from society—shouldn’t you start there rather than in the inbox of marginalized writers in fandom? people in fandom did not create rape, incest, and sa nor do they in their exploration of fiction…they are merely reacting to a world that did create it.

i hope at no point i came off as rude to you, as was not my intention. i intended to stand up for myself and respectfully state my opinions and thoughts on this matter. i’m sorry it got long, but also i don’t believe in being brief on such complex matters. i am a writer who engages critically with the world around me and sometimes, things cannot be made into short, snappy answers. sometimes, we must unpack.

genuinely wishing you well.

[ikeasharksss]

hey im curious

feel free to rb & explain your answer in the tags!

[blakbonnet]

can I also just - so everytime I've come across a piece of Ed art where his skin is too light, I've sent an anon ask or DM to the artist - explaining very politely why they should redo the piece and the history of racism in this fandom. And every single time (except one asshole), artists have reacted well to this and understood my point, and some have even reposted the piece after correcting their mistake.

Idk that makes me happy, to have the freedom to say that and not have to deal with butthurt artists. Most people are kind, but you have to start from a place of trying to educate and idk not start a witchhunt, if you truly genuinely want them to do better.

[jadeluz-official]

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice is one of those movies where you could throw a theory out and nothing is wrong.

Which is why it sucks as a linear story plot.

And I love this franchise to death, loved the sequel too. But it does have its errors with plot holes about civil servants (especially BJ himself), a contract being broken by the Handbook despite both parties agreeing (+ that didn't involve Afterlife authority intervention to begin with), and Richard not being able to see Lydia was never?? Explained?? Delores wanting immortality despite already being dead, Lydia's mom still being alive, ugh, etcetera etcetera. The list goes on. This sequel leaves us with more questions than answers. And that's the point - we're supposed to assume how to fill in those gaps, which doesn't work well in this case without proper seeds to find it.

This movie ends us off with a "What the fuck was that ending?" because seriously, what the fuck was that ending? If not putting their foot in the door for a third movie setup, they want us to talk about it and theorize it from the ground up.

I personally think the dream started when BJ said "I love a good dream sequence" and Delores coming in, and Lydia backing out of the deal was his worst nightmare. As far as I'm concerned, they're happily married and sleep in the same bed together. That's my take on it. Nothing more. The Babyjuice at the end is just a fun gag and reference to Carrie (2013).

But at face value, this movie is nothing more than a love story between Lydia and Beetlejuice. Like that's it. It's just Beetlejuice trying his hardest to win over Lydia and he almost gets her. I'd argue that's the only plot point where the movie takes itself seriously, haha

The only thing that will disprove any of these theories or clear up some or plot holes is a BJ3, which I highly doubt is gonna happen. And this sequel ends off on a Beetlebabes-ish note either way, I'd take that as a win

[stirdrawsandreblaws]

barely in time for dunmeshi thursday - the shopify is finally live!!

there are posters (not pictured) and mugs and totes, and shirts from toddler sizes all the way up to 5x!! there are also other shirt colors than white, i just don't like them as much so i didn't bother screencapping; see for yourself in the listings

some of the designs are single-sided prints and others are double-sided to spread the art out more

there's also a bonus design inspired by episode 21 which you can preview under the cut >:3

there is only one color for this shirt. that's all you need for it.

THEY LET HIM MILK THE MINOTAUR!!!

[blindmagdalena]

I feel like I'm the only one who didn't like the milk scene and it made me extremely uncomfortable but like not becaues of it being lactation :( I feel like I have no one to talk to about it because eveyrone else really liked it and it makes me feel guilty because every time I try to in spaces people act like they're not allowed to nejoy anything and that I'm ruining their fun :/

hi sweetheart! you're definitely not the only one who didn't like it, but i know what it's like to feel like you have the minority opinion in a fandom. it's rough! and it's isolating. i've gotten several asks like this (both enthusiastic and negative) so i'm just going to use this opportunity to make my stance on the scene known.

i did enjoy the milk scene. i'm also someone who writes a canon rapist frequently committing acts of dub/noncon. i can see where people are seeing a boundary being overstepped, and even though i personally didn't read it that way, i'm not gonna argue with people who did.

that said, say i did view it that way... i think it would be kind of hypocritical of me to hold that specific act against her, especially given the context of the situation.

Homelander and Firecracker are both predators. they're also both traumatized to varying degrees. they're both very much not good people, and that's kind of the whole point. damaged people DON'T make good choices! they engage in dysfunctional relationships. they do bad shit.

i'm personally very interested in the fact that the scene took a distinctly nonsexual turn, and i'm curious how that will play out in their dynamic. Homelander is using (and abusing!) Firecracker just as much as she might be using him. he was stalking towards her with every intention of killing her before she hosed him! regardless of Homelander's past (of which Firecracker is wildly unaware), the power imbalance between them is immense.

let's not forget that Homelander uses and abuses... everyone. routinely. overstepping boundaries is kind of a defining aspect of his personality, and something most of us swoon over.

that said, you're still not wrong for being uncomfortable. lots of fans of Homelander—regardless of the nature of the source material—are wanting to see him engaged in a healthy and consensual relationship, and it's natural that those folks were let down when the scene didn't play out as they hoped it might.

at the end of the day this show is about hurt people hurting people, and what those relationships end up looking like. it's okay to be uncomfortable with elements of that.

[hauntedtrait]

i have some hot takes for yall today

mod updates shouldn’t be behind early access like… come on!

everyone should just be able to upload the cc they used on a sim or in a lot when they upload that sim or lot to be shared with the community. we know op didnt make the cc, we know credit goes to the cc creator, cc always has the creators name anyways. if i have to manually download all the cc for a sim or build i just won’t, like it’s not really doing anyone any favors. i’m not gonna list cc for every sim i upload, sorry, i’m chronically ill and i don’t have that kind of time or energy 🤷🏻 loosen up a bit man it’s just simblr

[polydamnory]

So I’ve seen quite a few posts since the most recent Caller (I’m not calling him John lol) video came out essentially talking about how it was pretty dumb of Sweetie to bring a date back to their place - and I totally get that perspective, but I’d also like to provide a different one. (NOTE: this is not meant to come off as combative or telling people they’re wrong/dumb to think this way, I am not calling anyone out, please don’t take it that way. I just wanted to respectfully put my perspective out there as well.)

Like I’ve seen a few other people point out, we don’t know how long it’s been in universe between this and the past two Caller videos. We don’t exactly know how things have “progressed” so to speak with Caller and Sweetie. But we DO know a couple of things: Sweetie hasn’t really proven to not be taking this situation seriously. Sure they may have occasionally acted a bit recklessly, but never careless. They know the situation they’re in is fucked, that’s why they tried to run off to a hotel, that’s why they listen to him for the most part when he tells them to do something. They don’t know what he’s willing to do yet. We also know that they are scared and frustrated (justifiably so) - frustrated enough that they even yell at him.

It seems we’re all aware of their reasons for not having told anyone (as I haven’t really seen anyone say something like that here) - who would believe them? Who would believe that they have a stalker that calls them constantly that somehow seems to be able to see every single thing they do, no matter where they go or how they hide? I think it’s safe to assume Caller isn’t human and it really seems that Sweetie is not only human but an uninformed unempowered human. They don’t seem to suspect that he’s a demon who can just teleport or a Stealth that can just phase in/turn invisible and sneak in, so they don’t have something like the Department to report this to who might be more inclined to believe them.

I personally don’t think it would make sense for Erik to have had these two have any sort of further progression in meeting or anything like that between now and “Pick Up The Phone,” and we know from how Caller talked in the most recent video that Sweetie has gotten to the point where they know for the most part how to talk him down. Clearly, nothing other than the calls has actually happened. I think that’s at least part of why Sweetie invited their date over. He hadn’t yet proven that he would resort to violence. Evidently, this wasn’t the smartest notion but I can see how they probably just wanted some sense of normalcy, of security. Maybe they even thought that as long as another person was there, they would be safe. That he wouldn’t try anything. We’ve only ever seen them be alone when he called before. And to the point where Caller says “you knew how this was going to end up” - we KNOW he’s galighting and victim blaming them with this, it’s even tagged in the content warnings. Which I think just further proves he hadn’t yet (at least to their knowledge) hurt anyone for “interfering.” Maybe it’s been so long of Caller just being creepy on the phone that they didn’t think it would ever go any further, and they just wanted to experience some semblance of joy with a person they liked that they got a bit complacent.

Again, I’m not saying this wasn’t reckless of them, or that this is even the case for why they behaved this way, but in the end, I still don’t think it was their fault for what happened and was in a way a fairly understandable course of action. These characters are meant to be written like they’re four dimensional people, and I think this video just helps exemplify how well Erik does that.

[wpmz]

a little ramble about the "ralsei is kris's old horn headband" theory (and why i don't think it's true):

i think the biggest issue i have with it/piece of evidence against it is the darkners are shown to have some memory of when they're objects. for example, chapter 1 darkners like seam and the spade king talk about being abandoned by the lightners, i.e. being left in the abandoned classroom, sweet cap'n cakes talk about what queen was like before the fountain showed up in their shop dialogue, in the spamton sweepstakes twitter qna it's implied that spamton knows noelle because she would always check her spam email despite this being well before the chapter 2 dark fountain could have been created, and there's probably others that i'm not thinking of off the top of my head.

so keeping all that in mind, if ralsei were the headband i feel like there would be some implication of him recognizing kris or at least having known lightners previously, but instead he talks about never having had friends before and waiting his whole life in castle town for the heroes in the prophecy to show up. this would only really make sense to me if he spent all his time as an object in the supply closet, or what feels more likely to me, that he is purely darkness, purely imagination, and not tied to an object at all.

i guess you could say that maybe ralsei forgot or lost his memories, or was told by someone else that he has to keep his identity a secret, but to me there just currently isn't enough evidence for why that would be the case, at least compared to what feels like the simpler explanation that being an object just might not apply to him, in the same way that turning to stone doesn't apply to him or being able to travel to other dark worlds does. ralsei is more different from the other darkners than he is similar in a lot of regards, and i think it would make sense for there to be a slightly deeper explanation for that than simply the fact that he's from the castle town fountain.

of course none of this explains why he's implied to look like asriel, which i think is the question most easily answered by the theory that ralsei is the headband. my best guess right now would be that it has something to do with connecting him to kris who is in turn connected with the player, but honestly i don't have much in terms of ideas on this one, at least until we possibly learn more about how ralsei or castle town even came to exist in the first place.

and of course, all of that said, this is all still just a theory and maybe i'm wrong! even while typing this up and thinking of possible counterarguments i've considered things i didn't think of before, and i do think it's a cute headcanon and it'd be fun if it did somehow end up being true, even if i don't think it's the most likely explanation at this point.

[demento-mori]

I think one of the ways isat takes advantage of the video game medium really well is how video games are kind of inherently like time loops. Failing and having to replay certain segments, or rewatch certain cutscenes again and again.

It especially hits for me since im kind of hyper-empathetic with video games. Im very invested not only in my own experience playing the game, but also in my character's experience. Eg, if I trigger an optional cutscene, but die and have to start again from before that point, I always go out of my way to see that cutscene again, because I want my character to have experienced it. Even if I die multiple times, I'll always go back and watch that same cutscene because I dont know which attempt will be successful, and I dont want to risk my character missing out on that experience.

So, in isat, in every single loop I always try to examine each and every item, and get each and every optional piece of dialogue each time. Because I dont know which loop will be the final one, and I dont want the party to have missed out on these experiences. But then to rub salt in the wound, the game makes it painfully clear how tedious this is and the effect its having on siffrin. How hes becoming increasingly emotionally checked out from these experiences. Trying to cling to these past experiences and achieve the "perfect" run comes with a heavy toll.

[gilbirda]

what are your thoughts on watcher’s new announcement?

So.

I've been watching the Boys since they started back in 2016 (i think around that era), and honestly I'm very conflicted about the decision. I've read so much stuff in favor and against the announcement and I don't know if my answer will satisfy you.

I have managed a community and I have the blessing and curse of being somewhat of a Name, experiencing the ordeal of being Known, and I can tell you that 1)you can never please everyone 2)people will always rush to crush you the second you do something they don't agree with 3)people will always twist everything you do with the worst faith in mind and 4)fandom forget very quickly that at the end of the day you are just human.

I think they made a calculated risk based on a purely economical viewpoint. I think they considered their loyal fanbase and how willing people have been so far with spending extra cash to support them — The live shows, the exclusive streams (like the Valentine's Too Many Spirits) and Patreon. How much of their fanbase was the "broke students" tumblr claim they are and how much was people with spending money willing to pay extra for them.

I also think that the decision seem stupid if you look at it from the perspective of "why the hell would I pay $6 to watch such little variety of content?" and that's a Correct Assumption, but Observe — they have been very slowly pulling everyone that made Buzzfeed famous and enrolling them in. Very recently they gathered the Worth It boys, the second show that kind of carried Buzzfeed back in the day (apart from the Try Guys). I think they can't talk about it right now, but the goal is to relaunch Buzzfeed but without ads and without making it the soulless content machine it became. I think their dream and goal has always been making what Buzzfeed could have been with better management, kind of like "If I was the Management in this company, things would have been better" dream fulfillment. That's why they made the direct jump to a streaming service instead of the logical steps of Patreon-exclusive content or even jumping to Nebula like other youtubers. It was never meant to stay one single channel, it was supposed to be bigger.

Is the projection of making a "better Buzzfeed" worth risking this step? Time will tell. I don't know. I personally never cared about anyone except Buzzfeed Unsolved. I still watch Unsolved on repeat. Is my comfort show. Maybe they are overestimating how much people care about other shows not hosted by them.

Although they did hint that "we want shows not hosted by us". This tells me that they are settling down, they want to ramp down a little bit, do the hook with Ghost Files aka Unsolved Supernatural Lite for the streaming service, and once people are hooked, launch more shows by the old-school Buzzfeed people. Won't be as big as a show hosted by Shane and Ryan, but it will still make people feel like they are getting their money's worth.

I would forgive all of this if only they didn't use the excuse of "if we want to do Netflix-level productions we need money". I'm sorry but that means nothing to me. We loved them when it was a powerpoint slide show with 2 idiots in a set. We didn't fall in love with the toys or the trips or the high tech. We didn't fall in love with the fancy animations at the beginning of Ghost Files episodes that they are so proud of. That was all their idea.

I've seen this trend of content creators ramping up their creations to an unsustainable point, completely crash and burn and then having to apologize about having to step back. Then making it the moral trap of an argument that they have been doing their best to bring quality content to their audience, and of course making it impossible to argue against. If you speak up and say "well we never asked you to break your back" then you are ungrateful audience. That's exactly what's going on in here with the Watcher announcement — "true fans" criticizing people who point out the fact that they created this money problem on their own. Is not the fanbase responsibility to cater to a company's bad money decisions. Is not our fault that they decide to scale up their operation to a point they "haven't been making a profit for 2 years". It's unfair that the fans are at each other's throats for daring stepping back and saying "I don't want to be part of this".

I don't think Watcher Entertainment is actively wanting to collapse their fandom like this. I don't think this was a calculated move. But I do think that they are a group of adults trying to make a career of something they enjoy doing. I think they made this move with the perspective that fandom is not end all and they can always rebuild it.

— And that they are planning on making a machine that can work without them, and that requires breaking something in the fans, it requires kicking themselves out of the pedestal fans have put them on. They know they won't be allowed to have a normal life until people stop looking at them waiting for them to say their phrase.

In conclusion I think they made a choice that made sense if they are planning on separating Watcher Entertainment from "The Ghoul Boys" fame, and it makes sense if they are aiming at something bigger than what they've been doing now. Money of course is the goal and the reason presented, but there's a lot that they are not saying and we will not know until it happens.

Until then, it does feel like they have just shot their careers in the foot.

Also I'm salty that I can't join the service because I'm outside the US.

[metabolizemotions]

The creative choices on the show are as subjective as each of the viewer's interpretations.

I think a lot of why I personally feel deeply uncomfortable n resistant is the asymmetry.

I get the need for variety. The same thing may be expressed differently for different characters. A healing journey will differ from person to person. Each step is also taken on a personalized timeline.

But I can't help but think of the asymmetry of how the show dealt with Mason vs Beckett n even Dixon. They condemned Mason immediately at his worst but dug deep to show the sides of Beckett n Dixon that were still human despite it all.

The trigger shot scene with Beckett felt like 0 to 100 in his reconciliation with Maya. It felt like a 12-step program of which he skipped many steps when it came to Maya. From the get-go, we saw a sexist, incompetent captain who was demeaning to his team n constantly put them under stress n in danger, on top of endangering civilians n even equipment. For months, we saw this middle-aged man in a position of power, take perverse joy in bullying a younger female subordinate to appease his ego. That was workplace harassment. He also took out his unresolved trauma on the people around him, in this case, people he had authority over. Alcoholism was not the sole reason for all his bad behavior. Even if it was, it should not be used to excuse it.

The team, esp Maya, was trapped in this hostile work environment sanctioned by the female chief. This was a more common n insidious manifestation of toxic masculinity, one that was amplified by his position of power, n sometimes even supported by women, when their goals aligned in the power struggle.

Yet the show gave so much more grace n compassion to the bullies than the bullied. The team treated Beckett n Ross with more kindness n respect than they earned, n less kindness n more apathy towards Maya than she deserved.

Then he was given a long, carefully constructed redemption arc, while Mason, a rushed condemnation arc.

It felt like 100 to 0 with Mason. We saw Mason briefly in earlier seasons, mainly thru the eyes of Maya. We missed a lot of the in b/w. We caught him again at his worst. We only saw the side that was full of hate ideology, but not his side that was also human. We knew about his addiction n homelessness. But we didn’t see how as a young abused person w/o positive role models n a support system, he was vulnerable to these hate groups, which he clung to, when offered him just a semblance of belonging or respect. He had not learned to let go of his resentment of their parents n Maya but taught to transfer this unresolved hate to fill a meaning void.

The scene itself b/w Maya n Mason was great. It was an urgent n imperative story to tell. Maya's actions were right n necessary. But in the bigger scheme of things, it felt like a quick tie-up of loose ends, of a once-beloved brother, who came n went abruptly. Despite it being a logical narrative choice to wrap up the nature/nurture discussions of Marina n discovery that Maya's deepest fears about herself manifested in her bro instead. It's heartbreaking n yet disheartening that it was again about queer hate when it came to another main queer character on the show.

It is just jarring to juxtapose Mason with Beckett in 703 then 707. Also juxtaposing his empathy towards Maya with the lack thereof from the others, despite everyone having just been thru 706 n having witnessed Maya's breakdown. So, in a way, I see the actions of these characters as being designed with the goal to emphasize Beckett's empathetic side, in support of his arc.

When looking at a scene with 2 scene partners, what it is really about? Who it is really for? Would the scene be the same if one is replaced?

There are many different takes on this. For me, it was really about Maya, but choosing Beckett as the scene partner made the scene more for him. If it were for Maya, other scene partners would be more meaningful n realistic. Esp those who earned their right for her to be vulnerable with. Maya, who bottled her feelings, let alone spill her deeper emotions, to someone whom she never had a proper conversation with, not to mention a fraught shared history. To add, alone in a small enclosed space, while administering a shot that made her even more vulnerable.

For the realism argument, this was not more realistic to me than having Carina, for a show which took a lot of liberties. It was a choice to design the circumstances to make Carina n the others unavailable n combine 2 scenes together. Carina's also Maya's life partner n best friend. A more realistic choice for Maya to share this devastating heartbreak n grieving process with. It was a big aspect of their marriage. We saw many discussions b/w them yet when it finally came to the conclusion, it was with the least likely person, an almost stranger.

I see the trigger shot as part of Marina's baby journey I wish we get to see them undergoing together. It reminded me of 5b in that Marina's story about their own baby journey - again with someone of a fraught shared history, of a different nature - was more about him n to lead to his own bio family story. Marina's story was messy n got nowhere. And here we r, seasons later, rushing thru it.

It's not that Maya/ Carina or Marina should not have scenes with others. It's that it's usually more about the others even if it's their storyline. Or they r the backdrop for others' drama. They either isolate Marina or suddenly include them or one of them in an in-depth discussion of their private matters with others, usually something we hear about for the first time. I just don't remember something like that happening with other characters. Is it too much to ask to see a married w|w couple, with little screentime, share a meaningful conversation or moment first, also or exclusively? We so rarely see such a rep on TV. The show is not about Marina, but shouldn't their own story reasonably prioritize them?

[herefortarlos]

I like what I like/want to see and you like what you like/want to see, and I will never attack you if those are differing opinions, especially when it comes to fiction.

[mysticalcoffeequeen]

I don’t know anything about Chappell Scone, everything I know about this person is against my will. But what I have gathered, is that she seems to have a lot of issues and complaints, with her fans having nothing else to say besides “yass queen” , “poor baby”attaching their egos to any valid criticism against her. I don't think this will end well for her & may very well fizzle out fast if she continues with this kind of attitude and behavior. You can choose not to be a celebrity. Trust.

[kipnchips]

what if miku was a fairy type trainer?

[average-hua-cheng-fan]

it's actually so important to me that in the memory loss extras xie lian finds out he doesn't have spiritual power anymore (because he's been having sex). it means

he feels comfortable relying on hua cheng

he's able to be 'selfish', and choose what he wants rather than what other people think is correct

he's free from the responsibility of being the most powerful martial god in heaven

he's getting thoroughly dicked down