#where does it stop where is the line

[kiwichaeng]

Say it with me, any type of eugenics is bad eugenics

reddit is entering like an inverted renaissance of bad posting. this is one of the best/worst posts ive seen in a long time

[cowardlykrow]

yeah, and who do ya think knocked em out

[dykedvonte]

You ever just see a Mouthwashing take that makes you want to bang your head into a wall? I literally just saw someone claim Curly couldn't have been emotionally abused by Jimmy before the crash because he was in a higher position of power than Jimmy.

-Shrimp Anon

The mouthwashing fandom has shown me that people genuinely do believe that certain types of abuse are not as detrimental as other types especially when they deem those immune/resistant, ergo, believing one is objectively worse no matter how it affects the person nor the intersections of power, history and dynamics at play.

Get ready cause this is a yap session:

Cause like it's heavily implied that Curly and Jimmy's friendship was toxic and abusive, pointedly in the direction of how Jimmy uses Curly's belief/comfort in him. Curly wasn't forced to enable Jimmy but he was emotional and mentally on edge around him in almost every scene in some way. Mental and emotional abuse are not contingent on what positions you have at work. Yeah, he's Jimmy's boss but he was Jimmy's friend first and it's like getting into Psych discussion to talk about how social power tends to overshadow any perceived organizational power in the human mind. People are concerned about their jobs ofc but they tend to hang onto and put more value/investment into their personal relationships, hence why there tends to be laws and restrictions around mixing the two.

I always see the sentiments that "Curly is a grown ass man", "Curly is bigger than Jimmy", "Curly is Jimmy's boss", "He just needed a backbone" as criticisms of Curly and while I do agree that on the surface level all of these to be true and viable ways Curly could've taken more control of the situation, I often look at the parallels of Anya and Curly as victims of Jimmy pre/post crash.

The way Jimmy talks to Anya post crash is how he talked to Curly in the pre-crash segments. It's hard to pin-point mainly because we know he hates and wants nothing to do with Anya compared to his contrary but similarly handled obsessions with Curly. It's a weird sort of "honey-moon" effect of abuse Jimmy does in terms of emotional and mental victimization. He is always horrid to Anya, always talking down or questioning her abilities and thoughts in a situation, this of course includes the harassment and assault. However, he has a moment of attempted gentleness/conditioning when he question her about the mouthwash when she's contemplating drinking it at the table. The key difference is he has no personal investment in Jimmy outside wanting nothing to do with him, meaning there is no sort of romanticized version of him that he can condition her off of. He knows this, hence, why he always reverts to trying to make her to scared to oppose him.

This sort of give and take of "kindness" doesn't work on her because she knows he is just doing it to take more from her than whatever he could possibly give but it reflects even the "softer" scenes between him and Curly where he always rewords or rephrases Curly's sentiments and concerns to sound more shallow. He is feigning a deeper understanding by reworking Curly's emotions into something bad and needing to be hidden. Everything is laced with envy and resentment, an outburst just around the corner, I mean he even slams the table in the birthday party scene, a tactic in emotional manipulation to set the victim on edge and cloud their ability to respond. Even if Curly knows Jimmy won't get physical in that moment, the physical actions is intended to make him back down in the confrontation in case it does. This is something that is just not person specific. It ingrains itself into how you interact with the world and life and it shows in major and minor ways with Curly.

Post-crash, the abusive nature is more in tandem to the physical victimization Anya went through and the stripping of voice and autonomy we see take place. Like the parasite in HFIM, Jimmy speaks for Curly most of the time and puts words in his mouth, similarly to how he takes Anya's plans as his own. He very commonly, with the both of them mind you, supplements the worst aspects of himself into them; pettiness, selfishness, lack of understanding... And tries to cover himself with their best qualities; kindness, planning, initiative, etc...

These parallel are just to say that positional power has little to do with if a person can be abused and how it can even be flipped to further the abuse. There is no doubt that Curly could've picked up on Jimmy's envy of his position hence another reason he never confronted him as a Captain but as a friend as doing so would immediately put Jimmy in a space to be confrontational/combative.

I think the disdain some people have when they talk about the heavily implied if not implicitly stated emotional/mental abuse Curly experienced being Jimmy's friend is when treating it as an excuse to why he didn't do more. I can understand that completely because it is not an excuse to why he didn't do more but is a very real reason people in his position in these scenarios can experience whether in the context of a work or social environment. However, I also think the way people talk about it really does demonstrate a bigger problem when talking about abuse when somehow who is/was abused is either part of the issue or enabled it.

Harkening back to the sentiments about Curly's inaction regarding Jimmy, I think the exact phrases I used/have seen show how there is an inherent belief that it is easier to overpower the effects of emotional/mental abuse that go in tandem with the perception of Curly as someone who should be able to. There is not an age you suddenly stop being susceptible to abuse nor a set point or low where you realize how it has affected you. You don't suddenly know to stand up or put a face on to face your abuser nor admit that you inadvertently enabled them to subjugate someone else to the same treatment. Maybe it's my psych brain but their is this growing belief that direct action is somehow easy or always the best method with the game shows you instances where it is not always the case. In real life that rings true too. He should have done more, but it's not impossible to see why he struggled to find a way or didn't even if it makes us mad.

It's not easy to suddenly gain a "back-bone". You don't immediately want to resort to aggression, especially if it mirrors the type you were a victim to. You don't want to believe you allowed yourself to be treated this bad, let it get that bad or allowed something bad to happen to someone else. It is easy to be in denial, to retreat to your thoughts or make excuses to avoid the painful truth. It's frustrating but in a way we know is relatable. It why we both hate and love Curly for it. We know we'd be better, we think we'd be better, we like to think we wouldn't falter in the same ways but it's always easier to say that from the outside looking in. It's easy to see what he was doing wrong because we are seeing it, not him, but the game really does make you picture what you would do if this was your raw reality and it's why this debate about Curly seems so never ending/contradictory. We can all say what we'd do but bottom line is that's much different when you're in the moment with all the emotions and human feelings attached.

I personally think Mouthwashing tackles the themes of rape culture, enabling, toxic masculinity, types of abuse and patriarchy in ways that are meant to deconstruct the typical straightforward views we mostly have of these concepts and how little subtilities of them are just as, if not more, detrimental than the overt/obvious parts. The game deals with the idea of little details and bigger picture in a way to show that sometimes the bigger picture is not the issue but the little details that make it up. It's why I have a personal dislike of depictions of Jimmy as the typical horrible person who would of course do something like this because the game is about noticing the little warning signs, the foreshadowing and foresight.

It's why I dislike the typical discussion of "bro code" and "boys will be boys" for the game because the game makes a point to avoid the standard depictions of such. It is about the type of men who still enable despite not condoning, agreeing or even perpetuating harmful beliefs because they can't see the little details or the ways it seeps into their everyday. The severity is not obvious to them as it was not obvious to Curly, Swansea or even Daisuke the way it was to a woman like Anya. There are little details about Jimmy that should ring alarms but if you are too naive like Daisuke, too distant like Swansea or too conditioned like Curly, they are just off markers.

There is 100% more constructive/concise ways to say "Curly was a victim of Jimmy's abuse on an emotional and mental aspect that clouded his judgements and perceptions in the scenario" while also critiquing on the side of "Curly still had a responsibility to protect Anya as a crew mate and Captain that he failed to do due to biases and stigma's he failed to surpass" without the weird condemnation people give him about should've knowing better than to let himself be manipulated by a person he considered a close, if not family/best-friend and had his own reasons to trust initially. Also stop being weird about victims of abuse in general with this fandom, like sorry not everyone has a like social epiphany the moment someone's nasty to them. People are treating it like you immediately know when you are in a toxic relationship immediately or comprehend when a person is actively dangerous and either it's your fault for not knowing how to leave/cut them off or you deserve it. Like the hypocrisy of people believing how certain fans treat the story reflect their irl views but not their own is crazy.

End statement is: I honestly don't even know man, I've been writing this too long and just like no man on that ship was perfect or really helped Anya when it mattered and I feel like pitting them against each other in discussion on who did the least or most or how it was justified sucks cause in the end Anya always did the most and best thing for herself.

[codename-adler]

i’m afraid of diving into good omens tumblr discourse but i just–i have to say

Aziraphale’s face. it’s. that is the expression of someone who does not want to be kissed, but knows it’s inevitable. though even more subtle than that, it’s the face of someone who does not want the thing to happen not because they don’t want it, but because they do, they really do, and yet it is not the way they wish it would be. Aziraphale knows something here. and he isn’t telling Crowley, nor us. he’s got some kind of higher pressure weighing down on him, forcing him to act against his nature and heart, forcing him to act against Crowley. he backs Crowley into a corner with his talk of joining Metatron in Heaven, and knows it. and that is what he wants, because that’s where he needs Crowley to be–away from him; but he pushes too strong, pushes Crowley to risk it all and end up cornering Aziraphale right back. all Aziraphale wanted, all he needed to do, was protect Crowley by breaking his heart and abandoning him, but you can’t undo 6,000 years of companionship without a miracle. it’s a failure.

whatever the Metatron told or did to Aziraphale that was hidden from us, it terrified him enough to make up a wobbly plan that could keep Crowley safe, if he would just go along with it. Aziraphale may have been strong enough, may have loved Crowley that much, to put his heart on the line and sacrifice himself if it meant Crowley could live on, but he underestimated Crowley’s love for him. underestimated Crowley’s courage and capacity for honesty.

the angel lied and the demon spoke his truth and everything crashed and failed.

and it is painful failure and remorse that i see on Aziraphale’s face.

it’s Please don’t ruin my attempt at saving you and Can’t you see what I’m trying to do and I’m sorry I’m breaking your heart but I have to if I want to keep you and To choose you I have to choose Heaven but I know you’re not seeing it that way and Crowley look at me I’m lying just go along and

Oh no, you believed me entirely too much, what have I done?

with the kiss, Crowley seals his fate as undeniably tied to Aziraphale’s. and Metatron will know.

[fanfiction-obsession]

Questions that I need answers to:

So Perry’s supposed to be a mindless pet right? Zero thoughts, zero emotions?

But somehow, Phineas and Ferb know some of the things he likes. Music is the only one that comes to mind right now but I’m sure there are others, points where he let the facade slip enough that a bit of his personality got through. I need to know— was that intentional? Did he/OWCA plan how much personality he was allowed to have? Were there rules around this? Or is this platypus just so fond of music, he accidentally almost compromised himself and everything he loves over baby Phineas playing a xylophone?

[lemonycranberries]

there's a bunch of parallels to be made between wicked and mo dao zu shi, as many people have already pointed out (see: these reddit posts, these animatics). but i was thinking about how wangxian's roles in comparison to elphaba and glinda can be considered to reverse over time. i mostly see people comparing wwx to elphaba and lwj to glinda, and sure, there's a lot of comparisons to be made there, but try to consider another angle.

in the cloud recesses, when they're teenagers, lan wangji is a disciplined, hardworking, intelligent student with a lot of pressure put on him to honor his family and their reputation, beloved by his teachers but witout any friends around his age, except perhaps for his brother; much like elphaba. meanwhile, wei wuxian isn't exactly the most dedicated disciple, and breaks quite a few rules without caring about it, which doesn't exactly make his teachers love him, but at the same time, he's popular and loved by his colleagues (who mostly dislike lan wangji, either finding him a sort of teacher's pet or being afraid of him); in that sense, he's more like galinda (if we're looking through a queer galinda lens, we can also say both characters are very entrenched in comphet and very oblivious to their same-sex attraction, with galinda supposedly being a boy-crazy, girly girl and wei ying being very flirtatious towards women, and claiming to have been with many of them without even considering the most remote possibility that he could like men too).

but then, let's skip to both pairings in their adulthood. wei wuxian, that formerly popular, charming individual, is now the yiling patriarch, a previously very talented, advanced young man who's considered different from others in his society because of his methods, something that used to make people admire him and then became his downfall; he started to be hunted and blamed for all evil that ever happened, becoming the biggest public enemy in the cultivation world, and a legend of sorts, nearly a mythical figure, the represention of evil itself. at the same time, despite being warned by those who loved him, he didn't back down in doing what he thought was right (also defending a vulnerable and marginalized group that was being ostracized and blamed for doing evil things - the remaining wens - like the animals were), officially cutting all ties with the respected, traditional cultivation circles and running away to the burial mounds, very aware that this would make him be hated and turned into a villain. eventually, after losing people he loved, he started actually leaning into this evil version of him that was publicly known, comitting so called "evil" deeds while stricken by pain, and soon after, he died on hiw own, while the entire world celebrated his death and talked about how he deserved it because of how he'd done certain things, a lof of them not being true (note: both pieces of media begin this way, with the viewers/readers being introduced to the story with celebrations of the main character's death - and in both cases, said character wasn't actually - or permanently - dead). i don't even have to say how extremely similar to elphaba's story his story is in that sense (and you could still find more similarities, like both characters being morally gray or both characters being very attached to their siblings and going at extreme lenghts to protect them; i could go on). now let's look at lan wangji, who used to be that stubborn student disliked by many of his peers. in the current time, he has become hanguang-jun, a strong authority figure, respected by everyone in the cultivation world and widely considered an example of righteousness and Good. always very put together, always elegant, always where the chaos is; he's often resolving conflicts and is looked upon and admired as someone trustworthy and strongly virtuous. he was offered the chance to join wei wuxian in what he was doing at the burial mounds, years ago, but he declined, which led to him only being capable of helplessly watching from afar as the person who mattered the most to him grew to be more and more misunderstood by society at large, and consequentially, more and more hated - and persecuted. he was then forced to watch as the entire world celebrated the death of said person, never learning the truth about what had actually happened and who he actually was. does this remind you of anyone?

so basically, what i mean is that teen wei wuxian, a popular, likeable, enjoyer-of-life (or perhaps dancer-through-life) galinda, became a brilliant, but villanaized, ostracized and misunderstood wicked witch, like elphaba; while young lan wangji, a disciplined, introverted, hard-working elphaba, grew to be a respected and admired authority figure who was actually in deep suffering because of the way he lost the person he loved - not unlike our gal glinda, the good.

[backjustforberena]

"It is ill luck to look upon the face of death." RHAENYS TARGARYEN, 1x8 & 2x3

[kirby-the-gorb]

[sixlane]

bartylus kiss like they are fully trying to devour each other

🙂‍↕️ from my bartylus pinterest board:

[pynkhues]

I’m confused by what you mean when you say that Lestat was “cast out of the house” after the drop in 1.05, as this is not what the show tells us. Lestat left of his own will — he wasn’t thrown out. He beat Louis half to death and then ran away, as evidenced here — “Lestat had disappeared after that awful night. Vanished out of a profound sense of shame he would later confess to” (Louis, 1.06). Louis was in no fit state to throw anyone out of anywhere: as mentioned previously, Lestat had just beaten him half to death.

Apologies if I’m misinterpreting, but in instances like this you seem to paint Lestat as a somewhat of a victim — poor Lestat, banished from his house by his uncaring, domineering husband — when in actuality he was anything but a victim. He was the aggressor, the perpetrator of horrific intimate partner violence, and so to twist the narrative to imply that he was hard done to leaves a very sour taste in my mouth. 

Another instance of this is in your Byronic Hero post, where you suggest that Louis “decides when Lestat gets to live at Rue Royale”, in reference to him being “one of the monsters who’s controlling the household”. We’re talking about someone that has just spent months recovering from a brutal attack by their partner; Lestat chooses to not return because he is ashamed and he knows that Louis has not forgiven him. Louis is not forcing anything on him — and he certainly doesn’t have the power to keep Lestat from RR.

Can you understand why assertions like these are problematic? I understand you wanting to explore the push-pull power dynamic between L&L, but in doing so you seem to be missing the essential through-line in 1.06, which is that Louis and Claudia cannot leave while Lestat lives. Any power they may have once held is overshadowed by Lestat’s absolute control of the household, so to place Louis on level with Lestat as “one of the monsters controlling the household” is at best misguided, and at worst displays an unsettling disregard for victims of IPV. 

(x)

I mean, with all due respect, anon, you're responding to a series of tags I wrote last night that I specifically said I would later clarify and better articulate, so I'm not surprised you're confused and yes, you are misinterpreting me (again, I suspect, as I think you may have sent me asks like this before). I've been clear for months now that the drop is a singular act of violence on this show, and it's not one that I'd ever diminish or underwrite, and as a result, this feels like a pretty bad faith read of something I've both spoken about already and explicitly said I would be talking about again soon. Instead of paying me the respect I extend to all of you by giving me the time to reply in the way I've signalled I would, you've used my tags to make assumptions about what I will say and frankly made some pretty unkind accusations as to my character.

It takes me time and energy to write up replies, particularly replies on this sort of topic that require greater attunement, sensitivity and nuance than others. It's something I do for free, and at the sacrifice of other things in my life, and it's something I do with my name attached, unlike anons. And look, I enjoy doing it - I do - but if you follow me, you should know that my sister - a survivor of recent IPV and her two small children are currently staying with me, after I was a witness in her courtcase against her ex-husband in October - real people, not fictional characters - something I've also been open about, and so you telling me that I have an 'unsettling disregard for victims of IPV' feels like a particularly cruel thing to say to me right now.

I will answer the other anon's ask, as I said that I would, but I'll do it in my own time, and in the meantime, I'd ask that you perhaps don't put words in my mouth or mount arguments to things you yourself say you are confused about or feel you could be misinterpreting. I'll clarify, again, as I said that I would.

[jq37]

Descendants: The Rise of Red is kind of a bizarre movie to talk about critically because, imo, it almost doesn't make sense to talk about it in the usual terms of good vs bad or enjoyable vs not enjoyable when the way more obvious tension is finished vs unfinished.

Because, more than any other movie I've ever seen, it does *not* read as a full movie. And I don't mean in a "this movie has a cliffhanger" kind of way. The Empire Strikes Back and Across the Spiderverse fit that description. They end on big dramatic cliffhangers that point to a resolution in the third installment.

But Rise of Red just sets all this stuff up and then...ends without concluding anything. It doesn't feel like the first movie in a trilogy (or duology). It feels like the first act of a two-act musical. It very specifically reminds me of the end of the first act of Into the Woods where all the main characters sing the song Ever After about how they all fixed their problems with magic and nothing bad will ever happen to them again and then the narrator ominously says "To be continued" before the curtain drops. But in Into the Woods you know there's a second act and this movie wasn't sold as the first act of a bigger story. Like sure, it has the, "You didn't think this was the end" tag at the end like all the other movies, but those movies were complete, self-contained stories even though they had sequels. This was NOT a full story. It's half of one story.

Like, if we're supposed to take this as a full story, there are so many bizarre choices:

Why did they make sure to mention that Cinderella and Charming fell in love at the ball at the top if it wasn't meant to set up Back to the Future style, "Oh no, I accidentally got my mom banned from the ball so she's not gonna fall in love with Dad and I won't be born" shenanigans?

Why did Maddox very pointedly have that bit about "you could lose your mom completely" if that was never going to come into play? Red never did anything to endanger Bridget or endanger her own birth so it doesn't make sense as a warning in that way.

Why was there all this focus on this Carrie on prom night moment for Bridget if we LITERALLY NEVER SAW CASTLECOMING? Why dance around this moment and talk about it all cloak and dagger with no specificity if they weren't building up to some big reveal that it wasn't as straightforward as it seemed? And like, they leaned in HARD with making Bridget the nicest, sweetest, cotton candy princess as a teen so I need WAY more than, "She got pranked by known bullies she's been enduring with a smile very handily up to this point" to buy that she went from that to "murderous dictator". And even if she did become murderous, I find it insanely hard to believe that she'd include her best and only friend on the list of people she wants to suffer unless there was a betrayal. I find it INSANE that there wasn't a falling out scene at any point in this movie with how thickly they were laying on the admiration and camaraderie.

(Note: And adult Cinderella def has guilty vibes re: the Queen at orientation. Which I know I'm not imagining because it's literally spelled out in the Jr Novelization!)

Before the time travel element of the movie started, I thought they were going for something like they go to the past and realize that Bridget was bullied not by the VKs but by the spoiled royals, and Ella ends up joining in the bullying once she gets with Charming, betraying Bridget and justifying her whole "Love Ain't It" philosophy. Or Ella ditching her at the last minute to be with Charming meaning she has to deal with the monster prank alone and it was the being alone rather than the prank itself that hurt her (though that is NOT a good enough reason to go all off with their heads on your subjects). The fact that, as far as we know right now, it literally was just a relatively mild and reversible prank that caused all of this is just, such flat storytelling, you know?

But! All of this makes way more sense if this is meant to be the first act of a single contained story. And I don't wanna be all "Pepe Silvia, secret good 4th episode of Sherlock" about this but I did see this picture:

Which seems to indicate that this was written as a Part One. Which, if so, idk why they wouldn't advertise it that way but whatever. The point is, if that's the case then it means that we're potentially in bad pacing territory rather than straight up bad storytelling territory. Because this isn't a bad place to be halfway through your story:

The heroes, warned that time travel is dangerous, have gone back in time to change the heart of a brutal tyrant before she can stage a coup. They seemingly succeed in their mission and when they come home, everything is great! But then, the side effects of time travel start to catch up with them. Chloe realizes that, in breaking the vase, she prevented her mother from going to the ball and falling in love with her dad (who was conspicuously absent from the final scene btw) which means she's starting to be forgotten and erased from the timeline. And Red realizes that though this new version of her mom is as sweet and kind as the teen she once met, she's a complete stranger to her (fulfilling the Hatter's warning that she could lose her mom completely). So they have to go back in time once more to make sure the Ella and Charming fall in love again, perhaps at the cost of whatever bad thing that happened to Bridget happening again and bringing back the original version of her future self. But, now with more context of how her mom became that way, Red can now talk to her mother and persuade her to give people another chance.

Boom, that gives us time to go back and hit everything we haven't yet hit. We can pay off the time travel tropes that were set up but not explored. We can go to Castlecoming which feels so obviously set up to be the centerpiece of this story (like, come on, Back to the Future literally does the school dance thing. This is Time Travel Storytelling 101). We can actually get info about what the prank was and why it affected Bridget so completely.

(Note: This is a side thing but it really strikes me as so crazy that Bridget would so SUCH a big 180 here. Like, I know the Queen of Hearts is a silly, goofy, campy villain, but she straight up murders people and there's no way to get around that if we're taking her out of the surreal story she comes from and putting her in a (comparatively) grounded story. If I wasn't doing a betrayal plot, I would make the twist that the spell that turned Bridget into a "monster" didn't just have a physical effect, it had a mental effect and it magically twisted her personality to be the way it is now. So they broke the physical half of the curse, but neglected the other half and it's been festering the whole time, turning her as evil as she was sweet. Because like, a simple physical transformation isn't that big of a deal to have such heavy security--Bridget made cupcakes with a transformative effect and that was totally fine. I'm not saying that that's what's gonna be the case. I just think it would be an explanation that makes sense for why she changed so crazy much that makes more sense than a simple prank or even a betrayal. Her mom wasn't even evil! How did she go from zero to murder without even an evil mom to push her onto the path? But I'm super digressing right now.)

(Note #2: OK, one last thing. The trap on the book presumably would have hit the VK's and trapped them in Merlin's office regardless of what Chloe and Red did, right? That's like, net zero influence on the timeline. I genuinely can't tell if that's a straight up plot hole or set up to be like, "Oh no. Actually when she said that she was turned into a monster in front of everyone it was meant in a less literal way." Like she was just made to look bad and that was the real thing that pushed her over the edge. Like idk. It really feels like the only thing they really did that would change the timeline was get Ella banned from the dance and presumably out of the way where she couldn't hurt Bridget. OK NOW I'm done.)

Anyway, my point is that this is not how I would have structured my movie and I think this was a super weird way to go into the second era of Descendants movies, but they can still tell a complete story if that's their plan. I'm genuinely really curious to see if this pans out to be a fairly competently told story that just happens to be split over two movies or a complete fumbling of the narrative bag because it could really be either at this point and it's fascinating to me.

[ratatatastic]

finnish cats shenanigans are always my favourite but especially on sasha cup day with the cup involved the hijinks ramp up to 100 lmaooo

"wheres my- (realising sasha is in front of him and quickly stutters to change it to our so he doesnt get wacked over the head) wheres our names?"

(luosty proceeds to cackle in the bg like the shit stirrer he is realising lundys slip of the tongue and if he noticed sasha definitely noticed)

"wheres my name? wheres my name ☺️?" and it was at that moment lundy knew he fucked up

it never ceases to endlessly entertain me how much of a punk lundy can be and im so glad sasha is here to put him in his place because sheesh this kid sometimes XD

"and then luosty but i didnt want to give it to him but he took it" eh? is that so? who couldve guessed???

environmental storytelling, captain said haha okay mine now its mine let go ☺️💢

Sasha Cup Day | 7.31.24 (x)

[slyandthefamilybook]

I think we need to have a serious re-evaluation of what "leftist" means bc there ain't no fuckin way authcoms are on the same left as me lmao

[bleue-flora]

tbf its hard to tell whats lore in exile and what isnt cuase it was the ccs having fun like tommy making fun of dream eating ice cubes, and talking about fanta and dreams merch. also kinda related but isnt it funny that cdream canonically taught ctommy about climate change like did that converastion happen off screen in exile lmao

I mean I take as much of it as canon as possible, because I think the fourth wall breaking and the silliness at times is part of the lore. It’s impossible to entirely not accept the two. In addition, regard of cc reasons for things I like to look at why it might make sense for the cs. Like I said in a different response, I have a feeling Dream coming up and hanging out is for the audience. It’d be very boring to watch Tommy mope around and Dream is obviously going to make excellent thumbnails lol. But story wise, unless specifically retconned, in my mind it should still be considered lore in some sense. Sure maybe it doesn’t make sense for Dream to be selling merch, but them talking and bonding I think should still be canonical. The fourth wall breaking ya know is just kinda apart of the story.

Does Techno actually play golf on the dsmp? No. But that doesn’t mean that that conversation isn’t canon if that makes sense. Did they mean for the cat or dog to magically appear in the cell? I don’t think so, but it became apart of the lore. The Prime Church is a canonical place so can we really write off that stream? Getting primes or subs or members ended up becoming so canon they had to get a god to give them a bell in prison…

Anyways… see now you got me thinking about Dream in Exile just standing there with a cup of ice in his hand, munching away while watching Tommy lol XD… Look lets be honest climate change is super depressing, are we sure he didn’t build the tower because of that ;D lol

[someobscurereference]

Insane over the awakening trio again. We fought a war together, saved each other multiple times, and I know for a fact I can trust you with my life. We have never learned to socialize normally so we can't interact in a normal environment for five seconds without dunking on each other. I would follow you through time and space and abandon everything with you. You are the living reminder of every awful thing that have ever happened to me. Our traumas make us hurt each other at every turn. We're the only ones who know what lead to each other becoming Like That. Our jobs are barely in the same area and we don't even hang out that much outside of necessities. You are all I have left. I cannot fucking understand you. I am the only one in this entire world who has the ability to even try to.

x

[trekkele]

I do think its funny when someone says “oh the fans make everything about the batfam” as if thats a fanon thing and not something DC did. Like. As a Batman fan, DC keeps sticking bats where they dont belong in an effort to sell more. This is a real thing the fans did not do.