#tldr im not fine

[mikaelsrose]

season 1 of theodora reminds me of atonement (2007) which makes it all the more gut wrenching soul crushing and heartbreaking

[starrypawu]

ok so i never rlly paid attention to the dates before and i was wondering how much time was in bewteen the showdown and wanted and-

oh ! so chosen was. alone. for 5 years. ! oh okay !

and we dont know how much of that time he was running from rocket corp either, he couldve been on the run for 5 years for all we know.

thats,,, yeah.

[bidokja]

the world is conspiring to turn me into kim dokja and it is not going to fucking win i swear to god

[todayisafridaynight]

sometimes i get nishiki i really do

[kurokmask]

thinking abt how ocarina of time era hyrule is essentially a segregated society

the civil war, which happens before the events of the game, and is the reason link grows up on kokiri forest at all, has no canonical explanation of why it happened, only that one it was done, the non-hylian races of hyrule kept to themselves. link had to get permission from the royal family to contact the zora and goron. we know for a fact ganondorf gave the hylian royal family gerudo territory when he swore fealty to them, though its likely hylians had been encroaching upon their land for some time before. like, why else would a civil war break out if not for hyrule exploiting/stealing/suppressing other racial groups?? we don't see a diverse military force until botw.

it seems to be a theme, that the races of hyrule only come together (under the crown, specifically) when a threat arises that endangers EVERYONE. to assume ganondorf started the civil war is, in my opinion, the easy, “don’t think about it” answer. and even if that was the case, it was most likely a Hylians vs. Everyone Else situation, meaning ganondorf took advantage of frustrations that had already been mounting for some time.

in twilight princess, which takes place a few hundred or so years after ocarina, things have gotten better (we see hylians living closer to other racial groups, more collaboration), but there's still a significant degree of separation, ie, hylian-only military (the resistance is hylian only, too). we also see a complete lack of gerudo, their desert a barren wasteland and the only surviving proof they existed being their writing, most of which is found in arbiter's grounds, a... PRISON... if the losing sides of the civil war were forced to swear fealty (the gerudo seem to be the only group that gave up land, as hylians can't access death mountain/zora's domain without permission), the punishment for trying to overthrow the hylian royal family...! banishment at best, mass execution at worse. probably both!

like. there's so much interesting shit that is brought up in ocarina. i'm not even touching on the sheikah/shadow temple and the implications of THAT. its so incredibly interesting and, shocker, when a world/government/people/whatever are deeply flawed instead of of blandly benevolent and Good Because We Say So, it actually is Good Worldbuilding. do i think zelda writers did this on purpose? i dont fucking know because they never bring it up again. hyrule is just portrayed, over and over and over again, as this pure, holy kingdom that has never done anything wrong in its entire existence, despite IN GAME! IN TEXT! evidence to the contrary. like, the games we play feel like hylian propaganda. AND ISNT THAT INTERESTING???? imagine if we could unpack that? totk could've been a perfect opportunity. (but they dropped, the ball, as always, who is shocked)

its no accident. that our heroes are blonde with blue eyes. that our main villain is a caricature of Evil Brown Man. fans do not like to talk about it, they do not want to admit it. but there are clear themes staring us right in the face and it blows my mind that no one seems to want to do anything with it. the idea of hyrule being a deeply flawed land whos history is defined by conflict (stemming from its own citizens oftentimes) is extremely interesting and makes it unique. i want my stories to be gray. i want my characters to be conflicted. my GOD.

[newcronomicon]

well my house could've just burnt down

[uniquezombiedestiny]

woohoo

@enderpearlgurl13

[imaginepostingonsideblogs]

guy experiencing the 'no knowledge of the passage of time' and 'forgetting about the existence of large swathes of the world when he is not Looking Directly At Them And Even Then Its Like A 50/50 Chance' disorder voice: bwugh

[nicky-jr]

shoutout gothcleats shippers o7

[maid-of-the-golden-deer]

in another wisd good discussion i saw some sentiment of "disagreement about politics isnt a good reason to stop talking to family" and like yeah if its about like. the particulars of a certain bill or if the differences in degrees (example: my dads more left than most ppl around us but less than me and thats not a reason to drop him) but like. "politics" can mean "they fully believe people like [you] dont deserve rights, or anyone doesnt deserve rights, and they refuse discussion on that" and even if they were Good to You in that case, i can still see that as a valid reason to cease the Majority of the relationship

this goes the other way, that if you Need that relationship with your parents and their views complicate thats also fine, but idk it seems like the predominant view is thats the Morally superior position to be in

[throwaway-yandere]

Wait, you're leaving?? What did I miss??

Haha it's just personal reasons pls dw about it ;-; idk if it's the proper term but I'm "flattered" that you're worried ( ⚈̥̥̥̥̥́⌢⚈̥̥̥̥̥̀)

[munch-mumbles]

HAVING A CUSTOMER BITCH ME OUT 2 HOURS INTO MY SHIFT FOR “HAVING AN ATTITUDE” AND TELLING ME I NEED A DIFFERENT JOB

[eisthenameofme]

i wonder if there's the potential for a solution to the doxxing fucking over marginalized people specifically thing and/or the some people only being able/knowing where to engage with community online thing if we we were able to like. weaponize the relative lack of actual anonymity in the opposite direction.

like for one thing, instead of doxxing just resulting in problems from others in person, using that information to actively support the person instead, and for another for the other potentially more targeted use of the internet to find people to engage with in person (although that one you'd have to be even more careful about in case it worked in the opposite direction. I'm just thinking it would be nice to have something more structured/widespread than happening to find out your internet friends are in your local area, that could potentially be used to circumvent people not meeting in third spaces/other issues people have initially finding local community in person.)

It would be nice if instead of exclusively finding offline solutions/telling people how to be more careful we could also use what's often part of the problem to our advantage when it does happen. Like, having a way to address it that isn't only preventative.

[no1ryomafan]

With more older anime I watch that’s specifically about androids the more I noticed all the influence mega man pulled from it despite it not being a anime nor the robot timeline ever getting a proper anime but I think what gets me more then “the basis of mega man is like astro boy, casshern and POSSIBLY kikaider all in a blender with mega man x making the second two inspos more apparent” is realizing how many villain characters inspired proto man.

You have the obvious one, char from Gundam, you have rock holmes from Astro boy who’s not a confirmed one but seems to track given classic takes a lot of Astro boy influence and then you have Saburo from Android kikaider, the most likely inspo for proto in EVERY category- and then you remember how while these characters are evil for a complex reason, proto man really shines to be different as he changed his ways. He’s still a rival to his “brother” in a sense but bass takes more of the role of the evil mega man, while proto just watches from afar and comes in to help when he thinks he’s needed.

I’m going to rotate this red robot fuck for awhile again FUCK

[blueskittlesart]

Hi! As someone who now kinda wants to check out Trigun because of the hype, do you recommend that I can start with Stampede? Or do I really need to watch the OG anime first to better understand/enjoy it? Thank you! 🙋🏻‍♀️

you can start with stampede! i'd say knowing the context of the original enhances the experience but isn't necessary to enjoy the show. I would consider stampede more viewer-friendly, especially for those of us who are used to modern storytelling conventions (the original suffers the consequences of general writing trends in anime at the time it was produced and of the fact that it was produced long before the manga was finished, so the story is somewhat disjointed and has a lot of filler which makes it REALLY hard to get into.) if you do end up liking stampede, however, I'd suggest trying out watching at least SOME of the original because it adds a lot of cool nuance and context to the story that stampede tells!

[the-pea-and-the-sun]

Nineteen year olds are barely legal, much less true adults. They are naive and vulnerable with so many new responsibilities in their lives. They are more willing to do things they’ll regret in the future because they think it will make them ~real~ grown-ups. The human brain doesn’t fully mature till someone is in their late twenties.

Hi, so first of all the human brain "fully maturing" when a person becomes 25 (or their "late 20s"? I've actually never heard that one before) is a myth. Establishing a specific age of consent is necessary for legal purposes, but there is no actual magic number where a person suddenly becomes a "true adult". 18 is the only magic number you will get, because that is the exact age a person becomes an adult legally in the US and many other countries. You can define a legal adult and have an age where someone is a legal adult, but all the other things that we associate with maturity and adulthood, where someone becomes culturally an adult, are things that happen gradually, not suddenly. There are clear points where someone obviously is an established adult because they have more of the things we associate with adulthood, like someone who's in their mid 30's, is married with children, etc. And clear points where someone obviously isn't an adult and isn't close to being one, like a middle schooler who's dependent on their parents, and there's a lot of people who are in the middle, like 19 year old college students. It's necessary to draw a clear line between these two points in a person's life, but the actual line does not exist. A 17 year old emancipated minor with a full-time job who can support themselves might be seen as "more adult" and "more mature" than someone who's finishing up their GED at 19. It's still necessary for us to consider the former legally a child for the purposes of being able to consent even though the emancipation process has granted them many legal rights that only an adult should have, and it's still necessary for the latter to be considered an adult with adult rights that can't be taken away.

Sure, 19 year olds are "barely legal" and may do things that make them be perceived as "more grown up" than they actually are. This is because being a young person comes with a lot of stigma, and that stigma is exacerbated, not lessened, by saying a person can't truly consent until their in their late 20s. 19 year olds do often have less maturity than adults who are older than them, and there are people out there who will try and take advantage of that immaturity. A 19 year old deciding to have a one-time hook up is not an inherently worse or more immature decision than them deciding to take out a giant student loan. The solution to this is not to prevent 19 year olds from being able to legally handle their own money without the assistance of a "true" adult, it's to make sure 19 year olds are going into the world informed, and not in such vulnerable situations where they would need to take out a giant loan so early in their lives.

I'm 21 years old. When I was 20, (which really, is hardly different from being 19, isn't it?) I had a great experience with someone who was 27. I'm pretty confident that when I'm 25, there will be no switch-flip in my head that makes me realize what I did was wrong. When I was 18, I was in what I did not realize at the time was a really toxic and awful relationship with someone my own age. There was no switch-flip in my head to make me realize this either, just a gradual accumulation of life experiences and re-evaluations of what I wanted for myself and not for others and what I could do about it. There ARE people who specifically target vulnerable people in order to have relationships with them, often because they're young or because they're disabled or because they have a low sense of self worth or an insecurity about their age. There are also people who fetishize youth and equate it with beauty and innocence and because of this are unwilling to date people who society deems too old to be attractive. Young people and old people are both vulnerable groups that people often abuse and take advantage of. Vulnerable groups are more likely to be in abusive relationships and are more likely to allow others to make decisions for them that don't reflect their own interests. The solution is not to prevent these people from making their own decisions. Making the less-vulnerable groups who, by your own admission, already have more power than the vulnerable groups be the ones who get to say who is a legal consenting adult and who is not will not protect these groups. And you need to realize that for the purpose of arguing who has a right to be called a consenting adult who can have sex with any other consenting adults approximations aren't going to cut it. Are you arguing that 19 year olds can consent to have sex with each other, but not with "true adults"? Aren't two underdeveloped minds worse than one? Should it be more okay for a 19 year old to have sex with a minor than a 25 year old, since they aren't "true adults" anyway? Do we just prosecute whoever the "truest adult" is? If you don't like where the line is drawn, where do you propose we draw it? There is no "barely legal" status for 19 year olds, and there is no "brain probably fully developed" status for people in their mid to late 20s. The only actual logical conclusion a person can come to with this argument is for the age where someone is considered to be a "true adult" with true adult rights to be 25 instead of 18, because you're essentially arguing that 19 year olds can't consent (to sex specifically, I assume. I never hear people making the "brain not fully developed" argument for bank or housing loans).

It's important for adults, all adults, including and especially vulnerable groups, to be able to decide for themselves when and if they want to have sex and who they will have sex with. Arguing that "less mature" brains can't consent to sex or other "adult only" things, like having a bank account or owning a home, is the same logic people use to take rights away from people who are mentally or physically disabled. It harms the vulnerable group under the guise of protecting them.