#what’s great about a character with no personality

[the-knight-of-the-stars]

Are we gonna talk about how that finale entirely erased any conversation about class divisions or are we too focused on ships?

Are we gonna talk about how Caitlyn for a good chunk of the season willingly enforces violence and opression against the lowest class, no doubt directly causing more deaths and suffering, and she is forgiven by the narrative without any meaningful reflecting?

Her great moment getting together with Vi is right after she JUST had a conversation with Jinx where we see she STILL doesn't recognize any class bias she clearly has, insted making it about HER.

Her and the other enforcers are treated like noble heroes in the final battle, all the blame put on Ambesa. Vi's happy ending is getting into a relationship with the exact type of person who perpetuated all the suffering she endured as a child.

Are we gonna talk about how Jayce never leaves his privilege pedestal, never actually reflects on how he was also enforcing violence to the people of the undercity and living on his bliss of progress at THEIR expense?

Jayce, who got help on every step of the way to get to where he is, who wasn't disabled, who never lived the kind of poverty or class obstacles Viktor did, who never recognized the harm he enabled and was complicit to, HE was the one to tell Viktor "People build their own destiny." and "There is beauty in imperfection" ?????

Not to mention the whole bit where he implies Viktor did all that because he wanted to "eradicate what he thought was weakness"??? Didn't we stablished Viktor wanted to HELP THE PEOPLE FROM THE UNDERCITY TO HAVE BETTER LIFE CONDITIONS?? don't try to gaslight me.

I know this is just a TV show, but I need to remind everyone that what perpetuates opressive, discriminatory and violent systems as long and as deeply as they do is indiference. Is turning your head and enabling others to stay ignorant.

Edit: You guys are misunderstanding me. And I admit it is probably my fault, I wrote this high with emotion I wasn't as eloquent.

Jayce's exact choice of words or his time living in the alternate world is nowhere near my point.

My point is, that the narrative is establishing that the privileged character, is the one that has to show (and is quite literally, textually, always the one to show) the underprivileged character that "he was looking at life the wrong way." Forgetting that Viktor's journey of feeling powerless was greatly influenced by the fact he was poor and from the undercity.

That's what I meant by it erasing the part of the plot about class systems. In the end, the story only requires Jayce to understand Viktor's struggle on a superficial level, but the text never recognizes that it as the product of a deeply rooted SYSTEMIC ISSUE. One Jayce and even Viktor on some level, benefited from and perpetuated.

Understanding Viktor still doesn't give him any moral ground, and nobody ever challenges him on that because the story isn't interested in that anymore.

And the same with Caitlyn. She knows what she did what's wrong, fine, she feels bad. Like I said, she still has a class bias, and no character challenges her on it again because the story derails to magic and fighting and whatnot.

The plot just forgets (or ignores) that layer of the story despite it being so prominent up until now.

And ignoring the class discussion does a disservice to every single character because they were initially built on it. You can see it in how they lose the essence they had on s1.

I know y'all love the characters and want to empathize with all their motivations, okay? But the fundamental issue is that characters also represent things, and more so in a story as political as this one. We also have the right to point out that the show told us they represented something and then abandoned that narrative.

What do I think they could have done differently? If I tell you scene by scene we could be here for an entire year. The gist of it is: I think they should have stuck to the character themes they already had established.

Vi as someone fiercely loyal to the undercity beyond her relationship with Powder/Jinx, and being "cursed" by the role of the older sister. Jayce as someone with good intentions but who is ultimately limited by his blind idealism. Mel as a cunning politician who thinks she is on the right path because she isn't violent like her mother, not realizing she is still perpetuating it. Caitlyn as someone kind and compassionate who realizes the institutions she believed in are fundamentally flawed, and because of the way they are built will never be on the side of kindness. Etc, etc.

None of that gets any meaningful resolution.

I am glad if you liked it, or got something from it, you are entitled to your opinion.

I wanted to say this because I was angry, and still am. Because there was so much incredible potential, and honestly, to me, it feels like the writers chickened out on actually saying something in the end.

That's all I have to say about that.

[tritoch]

the warrior of light as a game-breaking force of violence

there's a moment, relatively early in dawntrail, that establishes succinctly how out of place the warrior of light (as the savior of eorzea and main character of four successive final fantasy game plots) is in what is essentially the story of fresh new final fantasy protagonist wuk lamat. and it sets up quite nicely how the framework of fantasy video game conflict pulls the warrior of light forever towards violence as the expansion goes on.

spoilers through 7.0 follow

consider wuk lamat's kidnapping and rescue. bakool ja ja holds his blade to wuk lamat's throat, taunting you. his lackeys line up against your party in neat little ranks suspiciously reminiscent of a classic final fantasy encounter screen.

and it simply does not matter to the warrior of light. you stride right through their combat setup because you are beyond that by now. the warrior of light has absolutely no respect for the "we are about to do ATB combat" lineup. the camera even jumps the line for you in one continuous rotating shot, crossing the axis of action as though to emphasize through the disruption of visual convention how far outside the game's boundaries you are.

this is how far you are above the problems of dawntrail's first half. you cannot even be bound by the normal rules of cinematography and video game combat. everyone else here lined up for a good old-fashioned scrap and the warrior of light said haha nope actually. i'm going to stroll through here like a god of war astride this tiny battlefield. your henchmen cannot even raise a hand to me. i don't even have to engage in violence directly anymore. my mere presence is enough.

in fact, not only can bakool ja ja's henchmen not raise a hand to you, he's not even worthy of your direct intervention. he kidnaps wuk lamat and steals her keystones and frees valigarmanda and kidnaps hunmu rruk and none of it warrants the warrior of light so much as raising a finger. he's wuk lamat's recurring villain, that's not your problem. you're just here to take in the scenery.

zoraal ja spends his whole life aspiring to be thought of as his father's equal and a worthy successor to the dawnservant as the "resilient son." all it takes for gulool ja ja to acknowledge you as a warrior on his level is like a five minute sparring match. the acknowledgement from gulool ja ja that zoraal ja hungered for his whole life and would eventually go full cyborg supervillain to get via regicide is something the warrior of light receives casually in a throwaway line after their level 93 solo duty on the way to more important plot conversations.

it really seems for a second, in the first half of dawntrail, like you are strong enough and the problems simple enough for this to be a clean and easy adventure. bakool ja ja? power of friendship'd. mamook? successfully reintegrated, no worries about the crimes against humanity. rite of succession? handily won. nothing can stop you. even duty finder queue times have been conquered: you can do all your duties with trusts now.

all of which only makes it better when the second half has sphene ask you and wuk lamat directly: could your strength have been enough to save alexandria? could you have found a different way?

i know some people get very annoyed we don't intervene in the gulool ja ja fight. now personally i think if you see arthur and mordred squaring up it's rude to intervene, but beyond that, it simply wouldn't have mattered. by the time zoraal ja's forces arrived in tuliyollal, alexandria and tural were already on a collision course and doomed to conflict. your hands alone could never have averted this conflict. sphene was always bound to do what she did—and certainly a gulool ja ja without his reason would not be any more inclined to peace than wuk lamat and koana were.

there's a great little moment just before living memory where estinien, champion at reading the room, is like "okay so if thancred and i stay here that frees up you up, aibou, to do what you do best and save the world and have epic fights. woo!!!" and immediately afterwards you basically have to apologize to alisaie because part of the sort of unspoken premise of this whole trip in the first place was that you were, finally, not going to plunge into mortal peril to save the world. you were finally going to take it easy. you were finally done with that. and she has to sort of ruefully be like nah it's fine bro. i was trying to get you to take it easy and not do insane risky world-saving violence. but y'know these things (interdimensional invasions) happen.

by the time you reach the very last trial, all pretense that the warrior of light could have ever been beyond these problems has vanished. you were, very emphatically, not strong enough to hold onto all that was dear without sacrifice. gulool ja and otis and cahciua died. yyasulani was irreversibly changed, physically colonized and culturally decimated by another dimension. you systematically shut down each part of living memory, and all its friendly, charming, loving ghosts, with your own hands. with your own clicks.

not even the vaunted strength of the warrior of light is enough to overcome sphene's inexorable logic of conflict. and so, in the end, she plucks you out of the crowd and says, explicitly for reasons of your strength, that you are going to have to do a boss fight now. you are going to have to kill her and you are going to have to do it in a proper 8-on-1 trial, and she forces you to affirmatively state that you understand you're going to kill her.

did you think you were above it all? did you think you could get away from here with your weapon undrawn, with your hands clean? that for you and you alone the logic of conflict comes undone? wrong. wrong. wrong.

your strength cannot redeem you, says sphene. your friends cannot make these sacrifices for you. if you would play the hero then you must play the hero. no half-measures.

back to the duty finder with ye.

[sleepdeprivedandoverthinking]

Saying this as both an Outlast and Mouthwashing lover.

A lot of people in the Mouthwashing fandom would not be able to handle it in the Outlast fandom, especially when it comes to liking characters.

Especially on tik tok, it seems the Mouthwashing fandom is so strict with what it does and doesn't allow, like I hate Jimmy as much as the next guy, but it's not a crime for someone to draw him or include him in the cast. He's an IMPORTANT part of the plot. The tik tok fandom also seems to say Mouthwashing shouldn't have a fandom point blank period because it's "too deeply thought out" and fanfics, ocs, and such shouldn't exist because it "ruins the story".

Meanwhile Outlast is a horrific, well thought out game with several installments, and the fandom is (mostly) chill. Like it's abundantly clear these guys aren't good people or even conventionally attractive to most people, yet they're adored and people make silly jokes of them all the time and make tons of fanfics, aus, and ocs. Hell, 90% if the fandom's favorite or second favorite dude is a guy who cuts people's dicks off and then kills them.

This isn't meant to say you can't have boundaries or things you like/dislike, but much of the Mouthwashing fandom overpolicies the fandom, and some even say Mouthwashing shouldn't have a fandom period because it's "too serious and dark" while Outlast is serious and dark yet no one cares what you do in the fandom.

Both are horror games with great stories.

Both produce gorgeous fanart and deep theories, and it's clear love is put into several art pieces and theories.

Difference is, a majority of one fandom can't handle fandom ACTING like fandom.

-------------------------------------------------

Mini edit: Honestly this could be about fandom as a whole nowadays but given they're both horror games, albeit different types, with fan bases, that I love, I decided to compare them. Lets try to be civil please in discussion.

Edit 2: Okay, this got a lot more attention than I thought. TO AGAIN CLARIFY, its okay to have boundaries and personal reasons you may not like a character but like another. Same goes for certain aspects of fandom culture. But there's also the aspect of "block/scroll and move on". Frankly, my examples from Mouthwashing were things I have personally seen that you may not have, hence why some of you may be confused.

[eelclaw]

the protagonists of the broken code. who's rootspring

i am tbc's number 1 hater! negative thoughts below

shadowsight: other characters sometimes acknowledge that he was manipulated by ashfur, but the narrative puts all of the blame for the ashfur situation on him, neglecting that (a) he did exactly what he was supposed to do as a healer (obey and take messages from a starclan cat), and (b) the codebreaker hysteria was far more a product of clan culture than the actions of a single apprentice. he isn't treated like the victim that he is, and it is frustrating and not cathartic.

bristlefrost: what the hell does she even do. what does her spy arc accomplish or contribute (like mother, like daughter). she finds out that bramblestar isn't bramblestar far too early. she's so perfect and she has no flaws and she's so empty. i want her to be worse. how much more interesting would she be if she was sneaky and selfish? if she was loyal to the imposter because she truly believed in what he was saying? not to mention how she reciprocates rootspring's feelings with literally zero warning, and ceases to have what little character she'd had to begin with. i genuinely don't care that she dies, they did nothing to make her an engaging character. miss bristlefrost, i'm sorry they did you so bad.

rootspring: first rootpaw thinks he's weird because of his father. i hate this because i hate tree. later, rootpaw thinks he's weird because he can see ghosts. so they give him this "i just want to be normal" deal, and the clans suddenly pretend that ghosts are silly and not real. sure, rootspring and tree are the first clan cats with this specific power. and i get that the clans have very rigid beliefs, and they are afraid of anything that contradicts those beliefs, and that's interesting! but ghosts have been appearing to clan cats all the way back to tpb. fireheart tries to kill clawface at one point and he senses spottedleaf's spirit beside him, there to avenge her death. so rootspring's issue is stupid and he's nothingburger to me.

bramblestar: the arc really depends on me giving a shit about what happens to him. which i don't.

i think bramblestar is unintentionally a bad person and a great character. he proves himself by rejecting tigerstar, but he's still deeply insecure. he makes mistake after mistake (conspiring with tigerstar; hesitating to save firestar from the fox trap; forsaking his children after finding out they're not biologically his; using his power over squirrelflight as a warrior, deputy, and leader to control her), and for none of these mistakes is he held accountable (no thunderclan cat except leafpool learns that he plotted with tigerstar; he is allowed to remain deputy; his children think he was the best father ever; in every situation, squirrelflight seems to bear the consequences of his actions).

in other words, bramblestar gets chance after chance to redeem himself, and he keeps fucking it up. again, that's interesting! there is a story here about how difficult childhoods affect adults, and how powerful men are not held responsible for hurting people. except that's not how he's written. he's written as a completely good person, a brave and noble leader, and all of the clans respect him and they need to get him back.

there's a crazy amount of bramblestar worship in this arc. even rootspring, a brand new skyclan apprentice, thinks about how important bramblestar, the thunderclan leader, is, and how all the clans wouldn't be the same without him. i can't take it seriously.

graystripe: graystripe also got a crazy amount of worship. i couldn't stand reading every few paragraphs about how great he is.

side note: shadowsight, bristlefrost, and rootspring all want the same thing. they advocate against killing bramblestar's body. wouldn't it be more interesting if the protagonists had different perspectives and opinions? if they wanted different things? for example, it makes sense that shadowsight wouldn't want bramblestar dead. he feels like the only way to make up for his mistake is to recover bramblestar alive. but bristlefrost could be in favor of killing bramblestar, because the only way to make up for her mistake (supporting the imposter) is to get rid of him. putting our protagonists at odds would generate some interesting conflict.

conclusion: i also have problems with ashfur (why does ashfur try to stir up trouble with codebreaking which will certainly get him caught when he could just take over bramblestar's body and live quietly with squirrelflight), tigerheartstar, mothwing, starclan, the dark forest insta-death water, firestar possessing rootspring, the pacing (oh my god! they were debating whether to kill bramblestar for like three books! and for three more books they were running in circles in the dark forest!), etc. but i've already written a lot and i'm out of steam lol.

let me finish by saying these are kids books, and i'm not expecting them to be the cream of the crop, but there are a lot of writing choices which are incredibly misogynistic and/or completely baffling from a narrative standpoint. i still have a soft spot for this series though. dammit. okay bye

[that-thoughtful-waffle]

I absolutely agree with this, but my interpretation of live action is that it's inherently a derivative work.

While I agree that we shouldn't say that every animated movie should be live action, we also shouldn't say that the movies that are live action adaptations shouldn't exist simply because they were originally animated on cells.

Live action adaptations are just that: adaptations.

Cell animated films are incredibly valuable in their own right, but so are their live action adaptations.

Live action adaptations aren't about correcting or legitimizing the work itself. It's taking something that exists in its own right and creating a derivative work in a new format.

Was it overdone? Yeah, probably. But is their existence a negative thing? No, I don't think so.

The 2022 movie of Pinky and the Brain is a live-action/animated film. Balto (1995) is also a live-action/animated film. (Look on wikipedia. I get the feeling that live-action may be a looser term than is being construed)

However, The Jungle Book (2016) and Christopher Robin are both closer to what we think of as live action movies.

So here are Shere Khan and Tigger again:

Which one feels safer to be around?

They're both animated, too. CGI is in so many modern live action movies that I don't think it's fair to say that these ones are parading as live action and pretending to not be animated.

I also think calling them remakes is not great wording because it has the same feeling as remastering, and by making them live action, it does imply that the medium needed to be changed. I think the word reimagined is fine, though. If you don't like that, then I wonder if you realize that fan created derivative works are also reimaginings of the originals.

I also, I haven't seen anyone say that animation is a placeholder. It feels like its somewhat understood that It's a stylistic choice. Granted, the live action movies probably weren't possible to the extent they are now when the movies came out, but I still don't think that makes them placeholders.

The final thing I have to say is that the movies may have been made live action to renew old ip. From a corporate standpoint, it is probably a good way to retain control over the intellectual property of those movies and characters without just releasing a remastered version.

Anyway, thank you for discussing this with me.

Tldr: I agree that the original animated films are perfectly fine works in their own right, but I don't think that means that live action adaptations are an evil virus of satan. (maybe an evil virus of capitalism, though)

I also wanted to add that I realize you aren't the first person to call them a remake, I'm just saying that I feel the term has connotations that may misconstrue intentions.

Since we keep getting "live action" CGI remakes of already perfectly adequate animated movies, and because people need to understand that animation is a medium and not a genre, I have prepared this primer about the importance of Visual Language for Conveying Information.

Can you tell what the personalities of these two mice are?

Can you tell now?

Which of these two tigers feels safer to be around?

Which of these three dogs is the funniest one?

If you can answer these questions, then you already have experience with the idea of visual language and stylistic choices being used to impart narrative meaning. If you can understand why these choices were made to impart meaning, then you can understand why animation is a medium for telling stories that has its own inherent value, and is not merely a "placeholder" for the eventual implementation of photorealistic presentation (aka "Live Action" CGI). Animation does not need to be "corrected" or "legitimized" by remaking it into the most representational simulation of observable reality.

[astrofhobia]

Kat, Earth's voice actor.

So, recently Davis spoke out on a situation that came up in The Lunar and Earth Show fandom.

From what I understand, Kat, Earth's voice actor, is receiving a lot of hate, not only against her characters, but also against her for one of the most recent videos.

I never give my opinion so publicly but I think it would be good to show support for Kat.

It's stupid. All those people who come here to talk nonsense about Earth stepping out of her role of being the good and positive one are very stupid.

All or most of the cast have been through morally negative situations. Moon has abused his own brother for many years, and continues to do so. And it seems like the fandom is constantly covering its eyes to ignore this. But hey, Earth can't deny someone a hug because she becomes the mean girl and the worst character ever. Can you see how stupid this argument sounds?

Maybe, I understand that when the character was introduced it got negative reviews. Literally, they never worked with anyone other than Davis or Reed and introducing a new VA was to take you out of your zone. But, continuing to look at Kat in a bad way is the behavior of a child.

You can't expect an amazing story either, guys, specifically this group of people who are attacking Earth so much, you're not paying for a video service. You're not spending a single cent. As far as I know, Davis, Reed and Kat have spent money to maintain quality content day after day. The show has been updated every weekday for over two years.

Kat has done her best to adapt to the audience's tastes, not the other way around. She has done her best not to be an empty character. But the people who attack her don't even bother to see how their characters have evolved positively. Earth has such an empty story because the audience doesn't even pay attention to it.

You can't expect to have an amazing, original story if every time Kat holds the mic you look away. It's stupid.

Kat has been a great support for the story of like three different shows. I think these people who just want to hate something don't realize how boring the show would be without an intervention.

It's a disgusting thought to hate a fictional character just because she's a woman. And it's repulsive to hate a VA for being female. Are you stupid? Because that's the first thing I think if your main argument is "She's a woman, we don't need that"

I'm not a fan of any of the three VAs. I don't like them personally, but I'm going to defend them, especially Kat if they get any hate for this.

You can't put Bloodmoon, who tortured, manipulated, and murdered so many people, on a pedestal and throw trash and hate at Earth just for existing. It's stupid.

I understand if Kat has distanced herself from the fandom and doesn't want to have contact with the audience directly. Just because you are a public figure doesn't mean you have to swallow all the hate and keep smiling. Kat is not just a source of entertainment. She is a human being, who has emotions, thoughts and a limit.

If you have crossed her line, the only thing you can do is step back and leave her alone. No one would like to receive immense amounts of hate because their character is not to everyone's taste.

If you are part of this group of horrible people, I ask you to please leave. I don't want those people here.

[capncurly]

ok guys i don't like how someone threw it out there that curly was an enabler and now we've made that his entire personality, just like how we made rapist the only thing jimmy was about.

yes, curly's reaction to anya's words was not great, but let's dig a little deeper there. it's very much implied/obvious that him and curly's relationship wasn't good at all, given how curly reacts to jimmy's outburst. the implication that there was emotional abuse shouldn't be taken as absolute but you should also take it into consideration

and also, the psych evals. normally, a responsible fucking captain would've honestly done it, but the way that he lets jimmy slide and passes him in spite of work ethics and the possible violation he might be making by doing that gives some vague feeling of him feeling a need to cover up whatever jimmy's answers were or something adjacent to it implies SOMETHING. you dont just risk a work violation to make your 'friend' pass for nothing.

(this also kinda ties in to jimmy going "i can do it, i can fix things, i can fix this.")

also, the scenes in which you play from curly's point of view, where you walk through a sea of blood with disturbing warnings and alarms just to reach the sun -- the sun, leading to the blank white peace before reaching the cockpit IN WHICH jimmy resides, can be a metaphor for attachment. he was willing to push past unspeakable and disturbing horrors merely to reach jimmy. just so he could talk to jimmy. there has to be a deep relationship between the two of you to be willing to go through things. obviously the scene isn't literal, moreso a sort of analogy for the type of things curly would go to just for jimmy.

imagine that amount of devotion towards a person, who you soon found out to be a rapist. you'd need a whole lot of time before processing that actually, because personally, when i found out that someone whomst i trusted the most would betray me in such a manner, i couldn't move on for fucking years. imagine the person who you've done everything to save, just for them to willingly plunge themselves into the depths of hell.

whether for indulgence, or for control, jimmy did what he did. and curly had barely any time to pross that before jimmy (who was, presumably looking for the gun though had it hidden from him) was walking to the cockpit and crash the ship as an attempt to flee the responsibility of anya's pregnancy.

curly was overloaded with emotional feelings before he could even reach jimmy. he isn't completely blameless, but he isn't an utterly morally reprehensible being. yes, he should have done something--anything than to merely stand by and let things happen, but you can't blame him for not doing so.

he couldn't lock him in the cockpit, because jimmy wouldve done what he did. he couldnt lock him in utility, jimmy would've fucked up the crypopods. he couldn't lock him in medical, jimmy would've messed with their supply. sure, he could try locking him in his own quarters, but what if curly got into an accident even without the crash, and tulpar was left with neither pilots?

curly is a morally ambiguous character. he is neither a wholly good person nor is he a wholly awful person. he is a victim, but he is also an enabler. being a victim shouldnt cancel out being an enabler, but being an enabler shouldnt cancel out being a victim.

stop being fucking media illiterate you idiot and view him through a lens other than black and white IM BEGGING YOU!!!!!!!! sobs

[shapelytimber]

Wanted to paint some of my favorite characters, nothing more nothing less

[COMMISSIONS]

Way too much yapping like an embarrassing amount, the individual portraits and the template I used below vvv

I shouldn't be allowed to talk about my favorite characters- especially to people who (presumably) don't know them xjfkdk apart from the very popular ones ofc

ILLYA KURYAKIN (The man from U.N.C.L.E)

gay ass little Russian spy I love him he is so *dramatic* and a huge nerd and a Beatles fan and into fashion design- perfect pocket size blorbo ;w; also seeing a Russian character being given a positive leading role in an American tvshow from the 60s ?? Yes he lives in New York and works for UNCLE America.... But he is still a communist ?? Incredible ! Also I really like the fact he isn't given the cliché personality traits often given to Russian characters i e anger issues drinks a lot violent ect (looking at you shitty(imo) modern remake... What did you do to my little guy ;;). In a close contest with Spock for the "gayest man from tvshow" of the 60s..... And in my heart he is winning djdkd for me the gay subtext of muncle hits so much more because it's not a scifi show- it's closer to home, Napoleon and Illya were *like that* in the present day of the 60s, they were both human, and no alien fuckery made them go to the village more than once or play house in the suburbs or get attached ass up to get pegged on a regular basis... Truly a show that feels written by an old queen and a guy with the biggest fem dom fetish jkvjjkb (don't get me wrong tho I adore star trek tos and spirk too <3)

KUROO HAZAMA and PINOKO (Black Jack)

sometimes I rewatch some of the oavs from the 90s when I'm sad :) I had a huge phase a couple years back when I read nearly all the manga (should really finish it... Or reread the whole thing frankly), watched *all* the shows (bar young black jack, hated that shit) and idk I just love this venal bitch so much- him and his daughter and his conflicted feelings for his tboy ex that he still loves kfkfkf btw I'm dying for a modern take on this like please please please I'd love to see Kei Kisaragi's story rewritten a bit (trans character in the 70s sure was progressive but oh boy-), because him and black jack's relationship makes me so *weak*.... And maybe see him a bit more than in one story- anyway ! When it comes to his daughter Pinoko, it's very hit or miss- when the writers lean on the cute father adoptive daughter relationship it's great, when they lean more on the whole "she has a crush on him" (very much like a child in most case, and he *never* reciprocate thank god) and bring up the fact she is technically 18 a lot (she was an evil tumor trapped in her sister before he created a body for her- black jack shit dw), and she gets jealous of other women.... Well it's terrible and I'm uncomfy :(

EVA KANT (Diabolik)

Look.... You just can't show me danger diabolik 1968 and not expect me to become insane djdkdkdk she is so cool ;; !!! Her and her devious eel of a man (here as a panther, because even tho I haven't read the comic yet, I'm taking an educated guess that all the panther imagery is here to represent him, the lethal twunk always in the all black gimp suit... And if it's not then fuck my entire life ig fjfkkd), the cuntiest het couple you've ever seen, such freaks I love them ! Partners in crime that will blow up the tax offices of the whole country if you try to put a bounty on them <3 they are in the guilty faves category only because I'm this invested in these characters after 1 (one) movie fkfkf watched the first two remakes and was hmmm let's say underwhelmed, could have been worse but going after the 60s one ie peak cinema was hard... I went in fully invested in these heterosexuals and they still fucked up their romance and relationship ;; (don't spoil me the third one btw haven't seen it yet ! I know it's the yaoi one- which doesn't give me much hope for Eva tbh...) I'll soon start reading the comics tho ! Managed to find all twelve volumes of "Il grande Diabolik" in french for pretty cheap so I'm excited for that :D (might scan them and upload them online because omg I tried finding scans in *any* language and only found a dubious website that sold digital copies for 7€ a volume ??? What is this)

UTA (The Void / Тургор / Turgor / Tension)

Apathy girlyyyyy she just like me for real for real nfkfk what absolutely charmed me about her is yes her design, but more importantly her chamber's design (if you've never played the void, a sister's chamber is a space that represent her. You get a sense of who she is by exploring her chamber before finding her and talking to her soul it's great). The lonely island out at sea, her laying down on a suspended steel boat in a grotto, looking passively at the moon by a crack on the ceiling.... And the moon is looking back. Incredible ! I love this game so much

KIM KITSURAGI (Disco Elysium)

Do I really have to explain this one ? When I played the game with quiji I remember I kept saying "when Kim talks, we *listen*" djkdk we did get a good grade in Kim Kitsuragi and got him to dance in the church <3 this fucking centrist cop wormed it's way into my heart and many others because of course he did. The only Kim K in my eyes. Also funny anecdote : before I played Disco Elysium, I had one concept art masterclass where a kinda famous concept artist came to give advice, make us really stressed then give us a shitty grade.... And when I tell you this man looked so much like Kim ??? Same haircut, glasses, face with a scar *exactly* where Kim's portrait has a stark shadow on his cheek and he was dressed in an orange top- truly uncanny. Anyway, Kim is so fucking cool how does he do it

DARK VADOR (La guerre des étoiles)

*sight* not surprising if you know me... and to be clear when I say Vader I don't mean Anakin Skywalker, post barbecue only zouz here. I refuse to yap about this man djdkdk I already do that way to much in ao3 comment sections

And here is the template I used ! Don't know who made it tho sorry...

PS : all these where made in 2-3 hours each :D wanted to challenge myself by painting quickly, and I mostly (looking at the Eva Kant one that gave me trouble) succeeded !

[identityarchitect]

there are many things you can do with ocs! some ocs are simply not suited to complex plots: some worlds are better for short stories centred around a one-off character. some ocs are good for dating sims or esoteric psychological horror rpgmaker games or point and click adventure games or fucking. tetris remakes idfk

you can also make songs about your ocs! or interactive multimedia webseries (link rot is a great example)! or you can make analysis posts of media that doesnt exist and gush about the parallels between smeep and the other guy (those are two ocs of mine and i go crazyinsane about them)! or you can make up plots of musicals! you can make a conlang! you can make items of clothing inspired by your oc! you can make a fake wikipedia page!

and like ,,, what youre describing is, to my understanding, the job of a director. you arent the person doing the lighting or the makeup or costuming or even a ton of the writing, but you are the person in control of the artistic direction. and, not to say that directors just dont do anything because they definitely do and pitching your ideas is a doozy but "i sit around and think about my guys while other people make a show about them" is not an unreachable goal

the current look-at-able stuff ive made for my ocs are in-canon explanations of fundamental parts of the lore. i think its a fun way to impart information!

my point is that you should look at your options for making art because there is so much more than writing or drawing. take my hand. we will install rpgmaker together

making up oc lore: fuck yes a little guy just for me

writing down oc lore: what the fuck

[thephantomtheory]

"arcane s2 was rushed" "pacing all over the place" "so many loose ends" oh my god can we stop

i will admit that maybe each episode could have used a bit more breathing room to allow certain plotlines and characters to develop, but it's being nitpicky.

remember house of the dragon? everyone thought s2 was oh so boring, "they're taking too much time, too much character development" "there's not enough fight scenes" i mean shows genuinely can never win no matter what they do. if arcane added 3 more episodes i guarantee you people would still be whining about pacing.

the great thing about arcane is how it doesn't insult its audience. the writers expect us to have some form of media literacy to draw our own conclusions, and to trust the writers to tell us when there is something that we need to know. the writers allow us to fill in some gaps ourselves with the information they've handed to us. "what about the oppression of zaun, did they just forget to address that after the war?" did we watch the same ending? no, obviously not. we saw sevika walk into the council room at the end, clearly as a voice for zaun. it shows a step in the right direction. plus, there's no reason to believe that cait doesn't still hold a position of power. especially being in a relationship with vi, do we really think that piltover will not be held accountable for the damage done to zaun over the years? that they will not try to bring forth change? these are things that we are supposed to infer for ourselves, and the fact that people feel they need to be spoon-fed every detail is frightening.

it has been stated over and over again that although these characters will not be the center of their next projects, there WILL be more series within this world. loose ends are not tied up for a reason. let's allow the mystery to pique our intrigue, and guide us into watching the next shows to search for the answers. although arcane is over, i doubt it's the last we'll hear about piltover & zaun.

i really don't mean to come off angry or sow discord among the fanbase. these are just my personal thoughts and opinions that come from a growing frustration with some of the criticism i've seen about arcane s2. and hey, i can appreciate criticism, but in this case i don't quite think it's deserved. the labor of love in every aspect of this show is the most insane thing to witness and im so grateful to have seen it, and just enjoyed ride.

[hyperions-light]

Here are my personal reasons for being fine that Varric is dead for real:

> Tired of them dragging this old man around everywhere. Let him rest!

> Was always the best in DA2, his natural environment. If I want to hang out with my bestest buddy Varric, I will do it as Hawke in the blood magic ritual hellhole that is Kirkwall

> DAI did not do anything interesting with his character. It looked like from previews that we were supposed to get an arc for him that never materialized. He was just there bc he was a fan fave, not bc it actually served the narrative or his character development. EA/BW execs or whoever were probably going to insist this continue forever bc money.

> I liked his dynamic with Rook in DATV, which was very different from Hawke and Inquisitor

> It was his choice. It was HIS choice! He tells you! He knew what might happen, and he chose to try and talk Solas down anyway. He prioritized someone he cared about over his own safety, which is an extremely Varric thing to do. He died fighting for his personal convictions and principles. That’s a good fucking death!

> He literally haunts the entire narrative and is integral to the story’s discussions of death

> He’s still there, you know? Stories make you immortal. Telling stories, being part of them; and he is everywhere. He is immortal within the diegesis of the narrative and externally, because he is the weaver and the heart of them. As long as there is Dragon Age, there’s Varric.

Thanks, Varric, and thanks Mary Kirby. It was a great ride <3

[askshivanulegacy]

Yeah, seriously.

The thing that I've never understood is how no one on either side who talks about America seems capable of understanding what America IS.

The people who glorify it don't understand it. The people who whine and cry and hate on it don't understand it.

America is an idea. It's the idea of a place where you can live without persecution. It's the idea of America that we should be working toward. That's literally why we exist.

And like every other country ever on the planet, it has a bloody and violent past. And the past has great and inspiring stories on every side. And every figure on every side was a real human being with flaws and contradictions. They were good and they were bad, and they had complex reasons for doing things. History is all of it. History is fascinating. It's great stories! It's Remember the Alamo and all the great things the founding fathers did. And it's also that they fought for the wrong thing, and they owned slaves and never freed them.

You all love flawed characters and tragic stories and watching trainwrecks happen in your media. We all just watched terrible person, murderer, and war criminal Jinx in Arcane and people cheered for her. It was a great story! And also she was a selfish little bastard who murdered people for no reason and other characters rightfully wanted her dead. Well, that's what history is.

We all have the capacity to enjoy stories - and history as stories - and also to analyze the flaws and context and situations behind them. You can find the Alamo an inspiring moment in time because any life and death struggle can be. And you can also criticize it. Both can be true because people are capable of holding opposing concepts in their minds at the same time.

History isn't either/or, it's all of the above is true. And it's water under the bridge.

I think if more people understood that, they'd be able to celebrate historic moments without taking things personally when people decide they don't want to repeat that moment. And they'd also be able to recognize that you can't condemn for history either - it's over and now you take what you have and move it forward.

What I struggle with, as a public historian and a US American leftist, is how right wing US Americans can say they love history and call themselves “history buffs,” but get so righteously indignant when it is suggested that we can learn from history, and that it is normal and healthy to discuss the flaws and dark sides of various historical figures.

It’s like a wall which I, speaking as a public historian, wish I knew how to dismantle. Like when someone’s all REMEMBER THE ALAMO, I think the natural response is something along the lines of “certainly, but it’s important remember that one of the things the revolutionaries were fighting for was the freedom to continue their enslavement of other human beings.”

For me, that’s not a political statement. It’s a commitment to view historical events and figures for what they were in all their good and their bad and their complexity. But you say that to someone with right wing US American politics, and it’s like you spat on their mother and pooped on the flag.

I do make political posts here as an angry, frustrated progressive citizen of the USA who is also a historian. But right now, I’m posting as a historian, who happens to be a left wing US American. I don’t want to talk shit, I want to figure out how to fix it.

But then, knowing what I do of MAGA Americans, I don’t think there is a fixing it? Unambiguously valorizing the American past in order to maintain the illusion that this country was at some point Great is kind of their whole Thing.

Idk. Just some stray thoughts.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

can you do a blog about the main types of book genres there are if you haven't already? and how to know what you're writing?

Types of Book Genres

Mystery. Follows a crime (like a murder or a disappearance) from the moment it is committed to the moment it is solved. Mystery novels are often called “whodunnits” because they turn the reader into a detective trying to figure out the who, what, when, and how of a particular crime. Most mysteries feature a detective or private eye solving a case as the central character.

Thriller. According to the New York Public Library, thrillers gradually build anxiety and suspense. Examples of thrillers include “Gone Girl” by Gillian Flynn, “All Her Little Secrets” by Wanda M. Morris and “The Silent Patient” by Alex Michaelides. ⚜ Psychological Thriller

Horror. “Carrie” by Stephen King, “The Haunting of Hill House” by Shirley Jackson and Edgar Allen Poe’s work are all under the umbrella of horror. These works are intended to frighten audiences and elicit a feeling of dread, according to the CDE.

Historical Fiction. Historical fiction takes place in a historical setting, the CDE notes. Some examples of historical fiction include “The Prophets” by Robert Jones, Jr. and “The Four Winds” by Kristin Hannah.

Romance. Romance Writers of America (RWA) noted that romance refers to optimistic and emotionally satisfying stories that focus on a central love story. “The Love Hypothesis” by Ali Hazelwood and “Red, White and Royal Blue” by Casey McQuiston are both romance novels.

Western. Primarily set in the American Old West between the late 18th century and late 19th century and tell the stories of cowboys, settlers, and outlaws exploring the western frontier and taming the Wild West.

Bildungsroman. Translates to “novel of education” or “novel of formation,” chronicles a character’s journey from young innocence to worldly adulthood. This is a specific type of coming-of-age story in which the character gains knowledge and experience, even as innocence is lost.

Speculative Fiction. Refers to genres not based in reality, including work with magical, supernatural or otherwise imagined elements. Essentially, speculative fiction is the opposite of mimetic fiction. The category includes subgenres like fantasy, science-fiction, dystopian fiction and more, Witcover noted.

Science Fiction. This genre often involves science and technology of the future. Science fiction is frequently set in space or a different universe or world. It often uses some real theories of science.

Fantasy. According to the California Department of Education (CDE), fantasy "invites suspension of reality." The genre encompasses stories that wouldn't happen in real life, often set in another world or including magical elements.

Dystopian fiction. Imagines a future place in cataclysmic decline.

Action and Adventure. The tension of the protagonist’s journey in an adventure story creates a pulse-pounding, adrenaline-pumping storyline. Dramatic car chases, secret missions, and violent fight scenes often pop up in famous action stories. Great action writing draws in your audience, getting their adrenaline pumping as they turn the page.

Nonfiction (Memoir: Stories from an author’s life that offer a firsthand account of events are called memoirs. According to Reader's Digest, some highly-recommended memoirs include “I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings” by Maya Angelou and “Spare” by Prince Harry. ; Autobiography: a nonfiction (true) account of someone’s life. It is written by the subject of the autobiography; Biography: tell the story of a notable person’s life, written by someone other than the subject. Some examples are “Into the Wild” by Jon Krakauer, which tells the story of the adventurer Chris McCandless, and “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot.)

Food and Travel. Cookbooks, food history books, travel guides and travel memoirs all fall under this category that includes “The Omnivore's Dilemma” by Michael Pollan and “My Life in France” by Julia Child.

Humor. Strong humor writers have a way of spotting the patterns of life and bringing them to the surface at exactly the right moment.

Young Adult. YA books are intended for readers between 12 and 18 years old, according to Smithsonian Magazine. Some examples include “The Hunger Games” by Suzanne Collins and “The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas.

Children's Fiction. Many classic examples of children’s literature are picture books, including “Where the Wild Things Are” by Maurice Sendak or “Don’t Let the Pigeon Drive the Bus” by Mo Willems. Scholastic noted most picture books are intended for children up to seven years old.

Knowing your Genre. The world of literature abounds with different genres.

Although every literary genre has its own trends and defining characteristics, the divisions between these categories aren't always clear. Whether you’re picking another book off the shelf or plotting out your new novel, learning more about genre can help you decide what comes next.

If you want to become a writer, there are a number of reasons to learn about genres, according to Paul Witcover, associate dean of the online Master of Fine Arts (MFA) in Creative Writing program at Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU).

“I feel it’s important for writers to have an understanding of genre because it will impact how their books are marketed, as well as how they are perceived by publishers,” he said. “But I also think writers can be too concerned with genre.”

Although he encourages writers to learn about the subject, Witcover noted a tendency for overly rigid ideas about the distinctions between genres. “Concepts of genre are more fluid than writers may believe,” he said. It's important to keep that fluidity in mind.

Genre is determined by need and audience expectation. Its set functions are determined by its social need.

Broadly speaking, the fiction world is divided into 2 segments: literary fiction and genre fiction.

Literary fiction typically describes the kinds of books that are assigned in high school and college English classes, that are character driven and describe some aspect of the human condition. Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award winners tend to come from the literary fiction genre.

Genre fiction has a more mainstream, populist appeal. It traditionally comprises genres such as romance, mystery, thriller, horror, fantasy, and children’s books.

Some genre writers straddle a line between genre-focused commercial fiction and the traditions of literary fiction.

Traditionally, there are 4 broader categories of genre:

Fiction: Imagined or invented literature is called fiction, Writers & Artists noted. Examples of fiction titles include “1984” by George Orwell and “Little Fires Everywhere” by Celeste Ng.

Nonfiction: According to Writers & Artists, nonfiction refers to fact-based works. Some nonfiction titles include “The Body Keeps Score” by Bessel van der Kolk and “I Am Malala” by Malala Yousafzai, and “Essentials of Classic Italian Cooking” by Marcella Hazan.

Poetry: Britannica defines poetry as “literature that evokes a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience or a specific emotional response through language chosen and arranged for its meaning, sound and rhythm.” Poetry incorporates poetic elements and encompasses the work of writers like Maya Angelou, Robert Frost, Amanda Gorman and Richard Siken.

Drama: Dramatic literature refers to texts of plays that can be read for their literary value as well as performed, according to Britannica. Dramas include stage directions and specific formatting not found in prose or verse. Some of the most studied dramas are Shakespeare’s plays, like “Hamlet” and “Romeo and Juliet.” You might be familiar with other dramas, too, like “Death of a Salesman” and “The Crucible” by Arthur Miller or August Wilson’s Century Cycle of 10 dramas depicting the Black experience in the U.S. throughout the 20th century, including “The Piano Lesson” and “Fences.”

Although most writing falls into at least one of these 4 categories, the edges are a bit blurred, and there can be overlap.

Sources: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ⚜ More: Writing Notes & References

It seems the general advice is to learn about the different genres first, and try to see which elements your story has that align with them. Perhaps start with the broader categories first, then narrow it down to the major genres, until you identify which specific subgenre your story fits. And it's fine if they overlap, as this happens with most novels. Hope this helps!

[novelconcepts]

It really frees up so much mental real estate when you start thinking of sex as just: a thing people sometimes do. Some people are super into it! Some aren't! It's for fun! It's for intimacy! It's the deepest connection some people will ever feel and totally meaningless to others! It's hot! It's boring! It helps some people sleep! It exists as an exciting construct solely in fantasy for others! What it isn't is some complicated moral ground that needs to be fought against at every turn. It's just A Thing. Which means people who have a lot of it, or none of it, or whatever in between are all worth the same. Which means stories that have a lot of it, or none of it, or whatever in between are worth the same, too. Smut isn't less valuable than "clean" stories. People who have a high "body count" aren't less valuable than those who have never had sex at all. It's just A Thing. Making peace with sex as just A Thing that is natural to consentingly have or not have, want or not want, really is a great adjustment to your brainspace.

[intersex-ramona-flowers]

thank you. i kept saying this to people and they just argued with me that it wasn't, but a lot of goyim cannot wrap their heads around the deeply antisemitic roots of conspiracy theory & it's slang.

very long, dissection of these thoughts - i'm sorry if it seems irrelevant but it feels incredibly relevant given this vein of discussion.

honestly, this whole entire situation is just shitty, strange, and pointless to me. perhaps we be the arbiter of our own experiences and not other people's?

if a community comes up with language to describe itself, it's not a threat. i, as an intersex person, have not once seen people turn transandrophobia (or transmisandy, antitransmasculinity) into a binary. that's my only issue. the second you decide who is or isn't impacted, you've created a new binary. one in which i will never fit, because you cannot box my life into 0 or 1. otherwise, coming up with new terminology to further these discussions is highly valuable. this is important for the development of theory in general. for example, misogynoir doesn't mean non-black women don't face misogyny, but is rather a term to discuss the intersectionality between misogyny and anti-black racism. antitransmasculinity, transmisandry or transandrophobia is not to say that transphobia is exclusive, but rather that there is an intersection between punitive behavior towards "the wrong kind of masculinity" and transhood.

but it very rapidly became "you need to shut up, you're always telling US to shut up, so we're turning the tables on you!" and to be honest, where this all started was intersex people telling people to stop directly quoting excerpts from a fucking intersexist. we have no problem with transmisogyny as a word that embodies the intersection of misogyny and transphobia - but the woman who coined the term treated it as a binary from which intersex people were fetishized and exempt from. us telling people not to create gender binary 2.0 wasn't us telling anyone to "shut up" or not talk about it at all, but rather leave space for other voices.

so when/how/why did discussing your experience with the intersection of misogyny and transness become telling other people whether or not they were exempt from these experiences? well, that is how Julia Serano, who coined the term, treats this word. her belief is that the world desires more men, thus (perisex) trans masculine people get access to HRT and SRS easily. she believes that men are always rewarded for their masculinity, and very overtly states that trans women have it harder. she expresses that it is in fact not transphobic for "womyn spaces" to welcome trans men, but are transmisogynistic not to allow in trans women. (as if this isn't misgendering both in this instance.) she's incredibly dismissive, transphobic and colonialist towards nonbinary/2S/indian, indigenous and jewish genders, cherry picking to prove her point about victimization and erasing any "transmasculine" oriented identities (to oversimplify for sake of character count.) she glosses over intersex people, mentioning us, mentioning Dr. Money but not what he did TO US, and coming to conclusions that we've been vocally disagreeing with since 2007. she cherry picked stats to prove her point, which actually winds up harming it. all from whipping girl, the book that coined transmisogyny, a piece of literature that's treated like the trans bible, despite it's reductionism and transphobia.

and i'm not saying transmisogyny as a word shouldn't be used, i'm saying you are actively dragging our community down with your attempt to classify and codify a binary for which this framework is used. AGAIN, the entire reason people started throwing tantrums about "you all tell us to shut up and stop talking about our experiences" was because intersex people said "hey! you can use that word, it's a great descriptor to use in discussion about oppression through the lens of intersectionality! but it's deeply intersexist to turn it into a new binary. it's not cut and dry the way you want it to be, and you also can't just tell someone else what they have or have not experienced." something that we have been saying to the woman who coined it since she fucking coined it. because a shitload of intersex people don't fit the mental categorization of what TMA is and are still transmisogyny affected. shit, even cis black women have discussed how they're impacted by transmisogyny. because oppression isn't Man Bad Woman Good Woman Oppressed Man Oppressor. intersectionality makes oppression a very complicated multi-faceted system of abuse. (you'd think she'd get that from her book discussing the intersection of misogyny and transness.) but we intersex people are used as a battering ram for arguments or left out entirely, so the focus shifted onto targeting transmascs alone - the "opposite" of transfemmes, the enemy. we got lost in our justified criticism and it became criticism "for no reason."

it's such a baby's first understanding of gender praxis, to throw this initialization back at people who think this way. this a very rudimentary understanding that masculinity is rewarded, therefore anyone emulating masculinity is rewarded, and it is deeply lacking in intersectionality. the black man is not rewarded for his masculinity, nor is the indigenous man, nor is the gay, trans, intersex, jewish or asian man, so on and so forth. when you are seen as a deviation from the cisperi heterosexual white norm, you are punished for your attempts to (even successfully) emulate normalcy. in fact, this feels like such a base starting point for the framework of intersectionality that i regularly think these individuals are anti-black. if it doesn't affect them, they don't care to learn about it, or to listen to black transfems in their community, or to pay attention when a black person is speaking. have you never listened to malcom x or martin king speak of their blackness in relation to their masculinity? how they are punished for it, seen as aggressors, seen as threats? where is the reward there in that masculinity? what about black women, who are seen as masculine, aggressive, loud and dominating - all racist stereotypes? are you somehow completely unaware of the way masculinity is punished or assigned to dehumanize through racist trains of thought? because i'm assuming you just don't listen to black voices.

i think some of these people either are self proclaimed f3mc3ls who still use 4chn (a new worrying trend i've seen women and girls take to) which encourages this Us Vs Them thinking. or literal sockpuppets from 4chn doing astroturfing as Discourse Of The Month, as they have been doing for more than a decade. like, maybe i'm just old, but i remember the thousand iterations of this that came before this. aces, aros, lesbians, pansexuals, bisexuals, lesbians again, trans people, trans people again, over and over we recycle garbage and repaint it for a new round of discourse that at its best serves no purpose, and at its worst is alt-right psyop shit.

and i mean that literally. the CIA wrote a fucking handbook on how to disrupt leftist organizers. this shit is straight out of an alt-right gov. sanctioned playbook on disrupting leftist progression. Spread disturbing rumors that sound like inside dope. Haggle over precise wordings of communications. If possible, join or help organize a group [...] See that the procedures adopted are as inconvenient as possible [...] bringing up problems which are largely imaginary, and so on. [...] Act stupid. Be as irritable and as quarrelsome as possible, without getting yourself into trouble. 'this is whataboutism'. you guys remember whataboutism? shifting goalposts?

How about this manual on unconventional warfare? (psychological warfare on organizations you want to dismantle and disrupt)

Basically, psychological operations is concerned with persuading people, or groups of people, to take certain actions favorable to one’s interests. In an insurgent situation, psychological operations can be called upon to persuade the people of the area to actively and willingly co-operate with the local government, disrupt the efforts of the insurgent, and assist in separating the insurgent from other elements of the nation’s population.

how can we dissuade groups from acting against our interests?

The fundamental key to a successful persuasion effort is the extent to which the persuader genuinely understands the group being addressed.* Because successful persuasion depends on a thorough knowledge of environmental factors which influence the target, as well as a knowledge of what this target group thinks of itself and its environment,* it is difficult to specify detailed suggestions because of the diverse areas in which Special Forces may operate. There are general guidelines, however, which will aid Special Forces personnel in a persuasive effort.

if a group sees themselves as tolerant and inclusive, or as the sole victims under the oppressive system of abuse and power, how do we target them in a way that they understand?

There are a number of approaches to the problem of persuasion. The best one involves changing, if necessary, the predisposition of a target group to react in a particular way to things they sense in their environment—in other words, their attitudes. Having discovered the existing attitudes of the group an examination is made to define characteristics of the attitudes so that changes or modifications can be made.

if you can convince a group that their allies are victimizing them or that their allies are denying your victim hood, you can shift their focus from fighting you to fighting each other. if you can shift them into infighting, they stop organizing against you.

also, i think everyone should read this PDF so that they understand these psychological pitfalls and thus can avoid them.

it mentions many things i can't get into here because of post character limits - normalization of rhetoric and re-appropriating rhetoric, for another thing. like for example, 4chnneonazi shit becoming normal meme culture? "i believe in x supremacy" meme is a white supremacy meme. 4chn regularly pulls tactics from this manual to normalize their ways of thinking. radicalqueer meant someone who took action to change norms and laws - i worked as a member of a group called the radqueers. we organized for housing and feeding the homeless, as the homeless are disproportionately queer youth fleeing abusive environments. you know how people now contribute radqueer to pro-pedophilia? that's 4chn shit. adopt a term with meaning and shit on it so people can't organize with it.

i'm a fucking herm. i was called a baeddel as a kid, by an archaic ass schoolteacher who still thought we should beat the left handed. fucking "shemale" was an intersexist slur levied at me throughout my life - and it is also levied at trans women and is also transmisogynistic! but it would not be conductive to reality for me to claim that trans women aren't called this word because it's intersexist and they're not intersex so they don't experience intersexism. this shifting rhetorical focus shit of narrowing down terms until they're basically useless (or vice versa, broadening language until it loses meaning) is actively setting back our progress.

the sex binary is bullshit, this new "trans approved!" sex binary is bullshit, and leaving our siblings behind through these divisions is antithetical to queer radicalism (and not the co-opted 4chn definition of queer radicalist) you're actively shitting up the conversation. we should be talking about our experiences, not about who is or is not experiencing something we have experienced - just as we would expect them not to tell us what we have or have not experienced.

and someone calling you a sockpuppet or an astrotufer isn't bigotry. you're peddling alt-right division tactics. you come across as disingenuous because that's the whole point of these psychological tactics, to be disingenuous and bog down progress. and if you aren't someone infiltrating in order to shit up the conversation, you're a useful idiot who fell for this disruption bullshit.

i am an intersex, intergendered and jewish "othergendered" (as i call myself) trans person, and i stand with my transmasculine brothers and siblings, with my transfeminine sisters and siblings, with those who reject or abstract new genders of various kinds, and with my fellow intersex individuals who seek to dismantle the binary. i don't believe in cannibalizing each other to try to establish praxis. that's an active detriment to that work.

STOP INFANTILIZING TRANS MEN AND TRANSMASCS. ITS DISGUSTING AND EXTREMELY TRANSPHOBIC.

[idolomantises]

Have you watched Murder Drones, and if so what’s your opinion on it?

Also your art is great, keep it up.

Thank you!

And uh. Man. I may make an enemy out of another indie fandom because I don’t really like this show.

I actually loved the pilot and thought episodes 1-3 were incredible, if a bit too fast paced. But episode 4 was kind of a breaking point for me and I dropped off after that.

I don’t think it’s very funny. I think it relies too much on Bathos and it makes it hard to take its cast seriously. As a black comedy it mostly worked for episodes 1-3, but 4? No.

It does this thing I really despise in media where it has themes of genocide but like… heavily deprioritizes it and often portrays it like a comedy. It’s supposed to be funny when innocent characters are murdered because they’re just goofy side characters but when it’s a major character suddenly we have to care, and I don’t like that at all. The main character has a meltdown over finding out that murder drones are sent to kill her people at the end of the pilot, and then in episode 4 she’s murdering her classmates and crying because a boy she likes might think she’s weird. I actually find it pretty frustrating that the robots are portrayed as incredibly cowardly because they’re slowly dying off and scared to die and then they’re hanging out with V who casually murders random children and nobody reacts to it.

I actually do like the idea of a character who’s not reformed but is kind of forced to stick around but when I see her murder characters, traumatize children and then go “haha I just have mental problems” and everyone just… moves on, I just cannot bring myself to care. It causes such a massive dissonance and not in a fun way.

I think it’s very frustrating and unengaging when a story about people doing the right thing and trying to help others has no interest in helping those they’re trying to save.

I think the female cast is solid but I did kind of raise my eye a bit when the only major female character that was killed off was a victim of genocide while the other genocidal characters, two of which gleefully murdered her fucking parents, are just allowed to hang out with the rest of the cast. Uzi especially lost a lot of sympathy for me when she was more emotional about freaking out N than murdering her classmates. Like yeah, they weren’t the nicest to her but it’s weird to establish a character wants to end genocide and then… barely reacts when they also indulge in that genocide.

I don’t really like the characters at all. I don’t like Uzi, I found N irritating and boring (and gives me anime harem protagonist vibes), I thought V was a tryhard and I couldn’t really care for the rest of the cast. I liked Doll but lol, you know how that turned out.

It also has this problem of having an overloaded cast with very little breathing room. I really wish the show just had one, low stakes episode, so we can actually get to know these characters and collect their thoughts. It’s actually one of my concerns for TADC, because as much as I do like that show, I think “no filler” with constant story is going to make or break the show for me. It’s too fast paced and no, I don’t think it’s good that you have to rewatch an episode 4 times to understand what’s going on. I don’t watch indie shows to play where’s Waldo, information should be explained to the audience in a way that feels digestible and natural.

The animation is incredible and the stuff that came out from the finale was insane, but at times it just felt like jangling keys in my face. Like don’t pay attention to rushed story, underdeveloped characters and bizarre tonal whiplash, look at the cool fights. I dont think it does horror well either. In fact I kind of cringe a bit when characters a big wide grins and giggle evilly and it’s mean to be intimidating and it just. Doesn’t work. Feels a bit juvenile honestly.

And. This is a very personal thing. I don’t like the robot designs.