#you have to argue with these people about the false dichotomy

[luidilovins]

Trying to talk to an average Star wars fan about George Lucas's narritive on moral philosophy in the series is like explaining Nietzsche' esoteric moral relativism to someone who believes that stealing food from a Walmart is wrong because the Elmo from Sesame Street says so.

[whitehairedanimeboyfriend]

Conversations on here will basically be like

"Hey these new reproductive rights issues are affecting trans men too so let's make sure we include them in the conversation, instead of calling it women's health issues."

"Would you stop complaining? Trans women have it worse than trans men. TERFs want to kill us but only detransition you."

"If living as the gender you are not is so easy why would you transition in the first place? Obviously trans people transition because they can't live with existing as a gender they are not. Obviously "just going back" isn't an option because we often fail to behave the way we're expected to anyway. Forcing any trans person to detransition is a death sentence in and of itself."

"Why are you always speaking over transfems when we talk about transmisogynistic violence???"

[words-writ-in-starlight]

You could say that I have strong feelings about this ongoing debate

[pikahlua]

Control your heart, but not like how you think

I've tried so many ways to write this idea out before. Hopefully I get it right this time.

There's a widely-accepted fandom interpretation going around a lot lately that I think needs to be challenged. Perhaps I won't be able to express it in its complete version because I don't subscribe to it, but I'll try my best to approximate it and hopefully most of you will know what I'm generally talking about.

It seems like a lot of people believe "control your heart" is a plot line that refers to Izuku's inability to contain his love for Katsuki, that "control your heart" is advice from a well-intentioned but ultimately incorrect adult who wants Izuku to suppress his feelings for Katsuki, and that Izuku is hiding his feelings but will eventually let go and embrace his love for Katsuki in an explosion of anger. Or something. Admittedly this interpretation varies a lot depending on who's talking about it, and I cannot hope to encompass every interpretation of it with one paragraph. But it always boils down to some version of "control your heart is about Izuku repressing his feelings for Katsuki."

Let's discuss.

Table of Contents I. Why I want to challenge this aka false dichotomies II. What Banjou said III. Katsuki's rage IV. Tomura doesn't control his heart V. The AFO connection

I. Why I want to challenge this aka false dichotomies

I want to challenge this interpretation of "control your heart," but my main goal here is not to shoot down BKDKs. I want this to be understood more than anything: the goal here is to help BakuDekus.

You see, fandom and shipping arguments--they're very susceptible to false dichotomies. I believe this is the source of a LOT of certain shipping interpretations that seem to go so far in one direction they fall off the rails.

I'll give you an example. I vividly remember how an anti-BKDK once went for chapter 1 in which Izuku rescues Katsuki. They started with the argument "Izuku didn't save Katsuki because he loves him, he would have saved anyone else in that situation."

This is a false dichotomy. "Izuku loves Katsuki" and "Izuku would have saved anyone else in that situation" are NOT mutually exclusive. It's very possible for both statements to be true (and I would argue they both ARE true). However, in the heat of an argument, it's very easy to accept the framing of these statements as mutually exclusive without stopping to think. You can try to argue against the premise. You can try to argue "no, Izuku saved Katsuki BECAUSE he loves Katsuki, and he wouldn't have done the same for anyone else," but you have to ignore or distort so many canon elements to get there. That makes it very easy for your opponent to point and laugh about how your interpretations are so wrong that they have to bend the story to make them work.

But there's another option: reject the framing. If you accept the framing, you're allowing the other person to dictate the discussion.

What does this look like? Let the evidence lead you to the conclusion and not the other way around. And that's a difficult thing to do. I would never say I'm perfect at it either. But if you are convinced Izuku loves Katsuki, then whatever evidence lies in canon shouldn't scare you. In some way, it doesn't MATTER what happens in canon--in that you're invested in their dynamic together and you'll ship them regardless, because there's ALWAYS an interpretation that will support the ship. But you can read the ship into whatever the canon provides. If someone says "Izuku would save anyone, so the reason he saves Katsuki is not because he loves him," one potential response would be "Izuku would save anyone, and also he saves Katsuki because he loves him." Don't let others control how you interpret the story with their words.

To take this back to "control your heart," there may or may not have been a shipping argument that spawned this--I have no idea. But there doesn't have to be. The point is to challenge the framing of the assumption, because there may still be another shipping interpretation if the original assumption doesn't hold up.

"Control your heart is bad advice that causes Izuku to repress his love for Katsuki and he will end up exploding" is one way to frame this.

But consider this new framing: "Control your heart is about Izuku using his anger/love as a source of strength so long as he doesn't let it control him--just like Katsuki does."

II. What Banjou said

The "control your heart" line comes from Banjou in chapter 213.

But I think people really gloss over the part that comes before:

This isn't about repression. Banjou says, "It's okay to get mad. That rage can be the source." Control here is not about repression at all.

This is about whether or not the rage controls Izuku instead. This is about Izuku going berserk and losing his senses. I've discussed the phrasing in Japanese before:

The phrase in Japanese is "kokoro wo sei suru" (心を制する). The word in question, kokoro, does not have a direct translation into English. It is often translated as "heart," "mind," or "spirit." The meaning of sei suru is "to control," "to command," "to get the better of."

The notion that "control your heart" means "don't let your rage get the better of you" is supported by chapter 367.

Tomura reveals that the reason he wanted to leave Izuku the "presents" of his comrades beaten and Katsuki dead was to anger him--which would cause Izuku to fight poorly. Mirio talking Izuku down after this further supports that "control your heart" is meant to be a good thing, something Izuku should do.

We also see a precursor to this in All Might vs AFO in Kamino (you know, the first one). AFO was determined for years to find something to "steal a bit" of his heart away--and he came up with using Nana Shimura's grandson.

Tomura himself stokes All Might's anger by attacking his students at the USJ.

But each time All Might gets angry, he keeps control and saves the day.

All Might is able to be effective despite his anger--or perhaps even because of it. Izuku needs to be able to do the same.

III. Katsuki's rage

In a weird way, the poster child for using anger as a source of strength is Katsuki Bakugou.

I say "in a weird way" because Katsuki's anger is often used as a front for something else. He hides behind anger. But at the same time, since he seems to be angry constantly, he surprises everyone with how much control he has over himself...

...to the point where Tomura even misjudges Katsuki's veil of anger at the sports festival to be resentment towards society.

And we know a big part of the dynamic between Izuku and Katsuki is about emulation.

We've just had a grand battle between Katsuki and AFO in which Katsuki achieved his strength by emulating Izuku--his battle analysis, his tolerance and willingness to endure pain, his use of his own pain as a weapon, etc.

So what if "control your heart" is the corollary to what Katsuki just went through? What if Izuku's "control your heart" is about him learning to use anger to win in the way Katsuki always does?

IV. Tomura doesn't control his heart

If Izuku does need to "control his heart" to be like Katsuki, this provides an opportunity for a moment in Izuku vs Tomura where Izuku can acknowledge Katsuki's role in Izuku's growth. This will depend on Tomura acting as a foil.

I start with the assumption "control your heart" means “if I want to save the people I love, I can’t let anger in the moment control me. I have to use my anger, which comes from my love, to reach the bigger goal.” In this case, Izuku has to control his heart long enough to get what he wants (to save Tomura), and he may have to go even further by applying this ability to someone else who doesn’t control their heart (Tomura).

I do think Tomura can represent a person who is not in control of his heart--which is why he lashes out and destroys everything. He gives in to his instincts to destroy. He loves destruction. And he represses the child inside him who has to explode out when someone like Mirio says he doesn't have any friends. If there's any character who represses his true desires, it has to be Tomura Shigaraki. He denies the idea that he's human, that he's saveable, that there's a crying child inside him--things Izuku asserts because he has seen the truth of them. So Izuku learning to control his heart may be what allows him to save Tomura, and if so, he can give some credit for that to Katsuki (and to All Might as well).

V. The AFO connection

I think one of the major details people discuss surrounding "control your heart" is this notion that Izuku lied about what triggered Black Whip in chapter 217.

"Any clue what set it off? Maybe something's triggering it." "I dunno..."

There's this assumption by the fandom that Izuku is lying because he should know that Black Whip going berserk was triggered by Izuku's anger at Monoma insulting Katsuki. Honestly, I think this is a misreading of the above scene. I don't blame anyone for the misreading because the scene is written in a confusing manner, but I think this page is talking about something else.

Katsuki isn't asking "What caused Black Whip to go berserk?" (answer: Izuku's emotions). He's asking "What caused Black Whip to become accessible?" In other words, why is One For All evolving in this way now? Why didn't All Might have access to these quirks when he had One For All? Why didn't you, Izuku, have access to these quirks until now?

To which all Izuku can say is, "they [the vestiges] just told me the time was right."

If you think about it, it doesn't make sense that Izuku's emotions triggered the "unlocking" of Black Whip and Izuku's sudden access to all these new quirks. If all that was necessary was for Izuku to have a surge of emotion and the desire to "catch" something to unlock Black Whip, he should have unlocked it back at summer camp when Compress kidnapped Katsuki or when Katsuki was about to disappear through Kurogiri's portal.

So in the above page, we're really meant to hone in on Katsuki's suggestion: "Yeah, something to do with All For One..."

There's evidence to support All For One is connected to One For All's evolution. In chapter 209, right before Izuku's team's match in the joint training exercise (where Black Whip first appears), we "randomly" get a cut to All For One in prison:

There are plenty of hints scattered about that this all has something to do with AFO. Remember, Izuku has a dream where Yoichi spoke to him the night before the Joint Training Arc begins--and the dream included a bit of AFO's backstory. It's very possible this was the true "unlocking." I would argue the best hint we have about what's happening with OFA is AFO's line of "I hear my little brother's voice!"

...because it sounds like the AFO-OFA resonance from chapter 369.

Putting all these pieces together, I would like to share with you my current theory about "control your heart." You don't have to subscribe to this idea, but this is where I personally am at right now.

I think the fact Black Whip went out of control in the Joint Training Arc reveals this evolution is about the resonance between OFA and AFO (the QUIRKS, not the people) that we’re seeing in the story right now. Katsuki’s role in this is that he’s the trigger for Izuku’s anger, which didn’t unlock the quirk factors but allowed them to go berserk in the moment. The idea of "control your heart" most likely means “anger is good, but don’t let your anger control you, you should be the one in control.” And Shigaraki understands this because he tries to provoke Izuku’s anger to defeat him. Izuku has to keep his own anger from interfering with his heart’s desire to save Shigaraki, and Katsuki is horrified that he’s a trigger for Izuku in this way (which is why he freaks out when Izuku attacks Tomura in the Paranormal Liberation War, and why he tells Izuku "stop trying to win this on your own" after he gets stabbed saving Izuku). This informs Katsuki's desire to "no longer stand in Izuku's way," because Izuku can only be triggered when Katsuki isn't strong enough to keep himself from being exploited. Izuku was triggered by Katsuki's death, but he managed to CONTROL his anger, not suppress it. He's still angry, he's just channeling it to achieve his goal of saving Tomura. And it's likely this point could come up in Izuku's attempt to save Tomura as Tomura is someone not in great control of his heart. And in the same way Izuku was an example for Katsuki to emulate so that he could use his pain and analysis as a weapon to defeat AFO, Izuku can use Katsuki's example to emulate "controlling his heart" aka controlling his rage to be his power in battle.

For your consideration.

[defectivegembrain]

The thing worse than tiktoks and such simplifying autism and treating it like a trend, is the people using that as an excuse to dismiss every autistic person they see online. You bring up your autism in a conversation about something it genuinely affects and people will say it's just a made up excuse. You talk about it in relation to general ableism and people will very aggressively say they didn't mean people like you. All it takes is a brief comment or two and suddenly autistic people are "taking over" the conversation. People will drop the descriptor "autistic" into posts about some supposed genre of person they find annoying, cobbled together from instagram posts and that person on the street who was vaguely rude that time. And the word "autistic" in this is just treated like window dressing, like it doesn't mean anything. Anyone who objects is treated like they brought it up to begin with.

Oh sometimes they'll try to save face with "oh but I don't mean high support needs people", but truthfully they probably never thought about their existence or their presence online anyway. It's the same old false dichotomy of people they think are too autistic to have an opinion versus people they think aren't autistic enough for their opinion to matter. Except it used to be relatively niche communities of autistic people and "autism moms" and such arguing. Now every asshole with a semi-large following and a practiced disdain for fandom thinks we're no more than a rhetorical device.

[nomsfaultau]

What does being human mean? What would happen to a person if you took their humanity away?

man that’s deep. Hope you're ready for a philosophical info dump! Fault spoilers abound though not really of the plot variety. Tw dehumanization, obviously, plus suicidal ideation mention.

On a very technical level it’s Homo sapians. Like that’s literally just it. (though as a bio major I must add that the concept of ‘species’ is incredibly flawed and so some may consider other hominids humans idk man) As for Fault, Tommy’s DNA is still human. Just because [redacted] happened doesn’t change the fact he is in a human body. His kids would be human. When his body decays into soil, is it still human? Probably not, by the way I instinctively used it to describe the corpse. So then the humanity is stored in the ba- soul. The soul encompasses the summation of that persons consciousness, and so therein lies their personhood. (Now dichotomy between spirit and flesh is false (emotions and memories being created via brain goop) but this ask can only withstand so many digressions. Let’s just say the body influences the soul and move on.)

Which could make the collective Tubbo human, due to having human souls. By that logic you can say The Blade is human, too. Like you could argue that…but does it matter? Does saying they technically are or are not a human change the person before you in a tangible way. I don’t think Fault souls are divided into human/all others dichotomy because I don’t think Wilbur’s soul is different from Tommy’s on a mechanical level. In Philza’s musings, he prizes humans for their creativity, but reflects that they aren’t unique in that ability, only in the scale they’ve managed. So mostly, being human is being yet another type of sapient creature and is largely defined by biology.

There is a divide between a Real and Conceptual soul, but as we see with Phil one can become the other. What I find more useful is the concept of personhood, which encompasses the ideas of someone’s humanity (things like agency, some type of perceived intrinsic value, consciousness, compassion/connections, etc) without strictly tying to a biological yes/no answer. Real souls act pretty solidly as people regardless of humanity, but idk about Conceptuals. I’d prefer to think that Niki is a person, but is Greg? Are random abyssal hands? Weird eldritch plants? It’s messy.

When Tommy lost his Red in the Grey Period, it’s arguably the most traditionally human he ever is in the main body of Fault. At least, the Foundation began considering the possibility of re-classifying him due to lacking anomalous properties. And yet in Tommy’s reflection upon the event he declared:

[“That wasn’t humanity!]…[It was hatred, and terror, and sorrow all writhing beneath a numbness so thick I couldn’t even remember to breathe. I didn’t even want to, sometimes. I may have never been human, but I wasn’t even a person then.”]

In the removal of the support pillar that kept him alive in the hell hole that is the Foundation, Tommy didn’t feel like he had enough value to be a person at the very moment the Foundation had to begin debating if they should consider him one. Which really just proves the disconnect between being human and personhood, and that personhood is defined by the individual’s judgement of value for both themselves and others, and so isn’t a firm metric within the Fault universe. It's somewhat analogous to respect.

Which leads to the second question. Fault deals heavily in themes of dehumanization, even if the person in question isn’t human. But if you want to talk literally and strictly humanity: no, if you believe in the afterlife, which Fault takes no stance on except if you count Tubbo and the voices as a form of afterlife, which I do. Otherwise, yes, using a gun.

When you take away someone’s personhood, it’s a pivotal step in oppression. The moment when it’s permissible, or even right, to harm them. It is easier to abuse something instead of someone, and thus it’s integral to the Foundation that anomalies are not people. And you can destroy parts of someone’s soul and therefore their personhood, be it magically, mechanically, or manipulation. The Foundation does so frequently to anomalies (and humans but the Foundation’s fascism is another essay), in isolation and destroying the bonds between community friends family, in ripping out the memories that people use to compose an internal narrative of themselves and the world, in stripping anomalies of names and calling them numbers and titles and slurs and objects and its, in manipulating their emotions to demonize weaponize control them, in stripping away rights and dignities like privacy, healthcare, freedom, safety. Aside from the amnestics these all are very real ways people are dehumanized. Tommy’s humanity was taken when he was told he’s a monster so often that he believed he could never be anything else, believed he had no agency, believed he didn’t deserve relationships with others, believed his life held no inherent worth. Essentially, it’s trauma. Deep rooted, the kind that destroys how one perceives themselves. Or, how one views a scapegoat population.

There are of course fantastical methods of removing personhood in Fault, usually targeting the soul quadrants.

True Name: this one is nebulous, but encapsulates a person’s agency. What they choose to be, what they long for. It includes self and external perception. Practically, this is propaganda, coercion, persuasion, and labeling (such as monster, hero, weak, what have you). Magically, you can destroy one’s True Name and thus their agency. What was originally a person is left a husk devoid of motivation. They still have things like obligations, emotions, memories left, but don’t want anything, have no will. Kinda stand there and breathe if not under orders. Plus no one can use that person’s names/pronouns anymore, the name ripped out of the world.

Emotion: The most mundane, heavy in the manipulation side. On the magical front this will be getting into Niki territory. The erasure or over ride of emotions that a person really feels that can push them to act in ways they normally wouldn’t depending on their control. But this is also Tommy territory, over riding what a person feels with unfathomable blood lust, driving them to act like a monster. Red is a huge way the Foundation dehumanizes anomalies by forcing them to murder D-Class in the name of research. Against pacifists, it’s a very direct hit to the self-perception. Easier to think you’re a monster when you’ve acted like one. Plus, easier for watching humans to believe it having witnessed horrific acts. And as a bonus treat death row inmates like animals to slaughter for the sake of curiosity.

Bonds: There will be like a whole villain exploring this magically, and has big implications for the vessel/Conceptual power system. Essentially ruin the Power of Friendship and Found Family tm. Practically, it’s textbook manipulation and isolation. Conceptuals cannot break bonds, promises, bargains, obligations, what have you. So for them, that destruction would have horrific implications that probably rip their soul apart physically. For Philza, being bondless means not being a person at all. For Wilbur, growing up cut off from society, it meant becoming human racist. But people also already break their bonds all the time; renege on a contract, break up with a partner, disown kids, skip a day of work, what have you. Sometimes it’s not very harmful, but also losing his bond with Philza immediately made Tommy suicidal, so it really depends on the person and what bond it is. Alternatively, forging a bond. The Blade literally gained sentience through his situation with The Blood God. But Rosalind joining the Hive made her literal less human, so again, depends.

Memory: There’s corrupting memories through introducing eldritch trauma, which can be things like learning forbidden runes that could end the world if uttered, or might explode one’s head, which isn’t much in the way of dehumanization. Proper Void metafictional madness is mostly isolation, existentialism, and nihilism which is already rampant, particularly in the form of conspiracy rabbit holes.

Amnestics are also magic aligned albeit of sci fi flavor, though brain trauma, dementia, amnesia, dissociation etc are real world forms of memory loss. I’m not here to claim people with dementia doing have a soul? Like for the record? But that memory loss can be a massive struggle and make it difficult to function. The amnestics are intentional tools however. Self perception of personhood is reliant upon an internal narrative, which for Philza was ripped out and replace with agony, confusion, fear as his relationships, memories, and synapses were artificially destroyed. (Aha what’s that? The false dichotomy of the spirit and flesh rearing its head again?) His dehumanization was rather literal as losing grasp on his personhood through blows to his memories and relationships directly led to losing grasp on his physical form. In retrospect, Philza considered it the closest to dying he’d ever come in his immortal life. Him lashing out in a rather animistic fashion further justified the Foundation’s dehumanization of other anomalies as yet more fuel for the propaganda machine. (Though he was still fully cognizant for the first amnestics massacre, so no getting off the hook for that one.)

So what would happen to a person if you took their humanity away? Trauma. Which is the answer to a lot of questions about Fault. Trauma, ptsd, suicidal ideation, eldritch madness, or possibly mass murder. Of course you also have characters like The Blade who are dehumanized constantly but are confident enough in their own sense of self that they’re mostly fine, so really depends on the character on how dehumanization affects them.

[bloggedanon]

People are out here arguing that gatekeeping cpunk from people is actually perfectly fine because able-bodied ND people have mad- and neuropunk and that's "perfectly fine" with them and it's actually annoying as fuck imo, large explanation under the cut I forgot to add originally

• First of all, try to tell me that physically disabled people are mentally perfectly fine and have never had their mental health compromised as a result of their physical disability. Just try, I'll wait. Just like how I'm waiting to hear about "able-bodied" ND people not having any physical issues purely as a result of being ND.

• Secondly, that doesn't make gatekeeping with the mad- and neuropunk communities okay EITHER, even IF the first bullet SOMEHOW happens to be true. The separatist mind-body dichotomy is predicated in entirely false pretenses. The experiences between the physically and mentally disabled communities have SO much overlap. One "form" of disability is not inherently more or less disabling than another, that's down to the individual(s) and their conditions. A lot of either "form" can restrict people's abilities to perform a lot of the same tasks regardless of what the tasks may be or what "form" of disability is responsible for it. A lot of medical conditions (and systemic ableism) can produce a whole lot of symptoms that present like mental disorders.

• In the same vein, we DO have to acknowledge that some people have their disabilities affect them in ways that not everyone experiences. The experience of having a psychotic break isn't comparable to the experience of being wheelchair-bound. But neither is the experience of being a low support needs autistic that can function independently and being a high support needs autistic who can't bathe or dress independently and will need lifelong supervision, and this is just two examples of the same disorder! A person who's chronically bedbound isn't going to have a comparable experience to a Deaf-Blind individual, even if they both wind up with lifelong caretaking requirements. If we can acknowledge that experiences in the mentally disabled and physically disabled communities aren't going to be universal even WITHIN our own communities and we don't turn to separatists about it, what makes the physical and mentally disables communities as wholes any different?

• This one's the big one, and I see it a lot, you guys really need to learn what punk actually means. PUNK isn't about the "by X group and for X group" mindset at all. It's not about "X group of people vs X group of people." It's a community of people who are standing together against a SYSTEM. It's about highlighting society's wrongs and shouting about it, and trying to enact change in whatever way we can. Its praxis is just activism. You don't have to be black to stand with the Black community and fight for their rights, and fight systemic racism. You don't have to be a woman to be a feminist, and fight the patriarchy. You don't have to be queer to get down in the trenches with them and fight queerphobia (allies still get bottles 'n shit thrown at them regardless). You don't have to be disabled to stand against systemic ableism. You don't have to be the direct target of systemic oppression, or specific, targeted systemic microaggressions to fight it.

What punk is is getting down in the thick of oppression right alongside those who have to deal with it as a concrete force in their daily lives and being right next to them when shit hits the fan, fighting the same fight they are, and taking the blows as if you were one of them, because to those who want to perpetuate it, you might as well be. Anyone can be an ally, and allyship IS what punk is, just as much as being a member of a targeted group fighting for their rights. Systemic oppression doesn't care about the nuances when it lines us all up against the wall, and our infighting is doing its job for it. The second we start singling out groups of people for their identities is when we've already lost. Anyone standing up against these sytems is punk.

Anyone GATEKEEPING a punk movement isn't a punk, they're a fucking poser. A cop. A fed, even, because there are no cops at punk.

Can you have specific communities OF [x people with x identity and experiences], by and for that group by definition, to discuss their specific experiences unique to their situation(s)? Sure! Just don't do any fakeclaiming in the gatekeeping, mmk?

And don't you DARE call it fucking punk.

[feministmetalgreymon]

Debunking the Palworld plagiarism claims

One of the biggest sources of drama since the release of Palworld has been the repeated accusations of plagiarism made by Pokemon fans. Now I'm not going to argue that Palworlds designs are 100% original. That's not the point of my post. Rather my argument is an objection to the unspoken assumption made by Pokemon fans that Pokemon and it's creature designs are so unique that any resemblance between a Pokemon character and a Palworld character is proof that Palworld "stole" from Pokemon.

When people point out the fact that all art is derivative to some degree. Pokemon fans will object with the profoundly idiotic "Blue Pikachu argument."

The Blue Pikachu argument is the idiotic idea that anything that isn't 100% original is a 100% copy paste with no middle ground. It's a false dichotomy made by people with zero understanding of nuance and who just want to make a lazy gotcha.

The reality is, art is not a purely individualistic act. All artists either consciously or unconsciously iterate on preexisting art. In fact many past artists that are celebrated as great artists today would be considered plagiarists by modern standards. For example Shakespeare's plays take heavily from from other artists of that era.

More importantly modern copyright laws were not created in order to ensure every artist is 100% original. Nor does copyright protect ideas or concepts.

source

Despite this I have scene Pokemon fans vilify the PocketPair CEO because he said that he takes ideas from other sources. Which is completely legal and not remotely unethical.

Statements like this indicate to me a person that is very uninformed about art and video games in particular. Tons of games are "copied" from previous games. Minecraft was copied from Infiniminer. Fortnite was copied from Pubg. Pokemon like every other video game has taken ideas from other games. Shin Megami Tensei and Dragon Quest V both had monster collecting and taming before Pokemon even existed.

So now we have to ask ourselves how "original" are any Pokemon designs. And the truth is many Pokemon designs are literally just animals with elemental themed colors slapped on them

Poliwag is literally just a glass frog tadpole colored blue.

And Caterpie is a caterpillar colored a slightly different shade of green.

Now some of the animals Pokemon uses for inspiration are obscure enough that people might not realize when Pokemon is just taking animals and recoloring them.

But then you have Lycanroc which is based on a animal so commonly known you can't help but notice it's just a ordinary wolf with some spikes slapped on it inorder to make it rock type.

Lycanroc and Direhowl are just wolves with mild cartoon exaggeration. Sorry but Pokemon can't copyright wolves.

And this isn't the only example of a Pokemon and a Pal looking similar because Pokemon just recolored a real animal.

Next we have Shaymin and Jolthog

People that say Jolthog is a copy of Shaymin are basically just admitting they have never seen a real hedgehog before.

Then there are the people that say that pengullet and piplup look alike because they are both blue.

When that's just because they are both based on blue fairy penguins.

The reality is many Pokemon designs are just real life animals with tweaks to make them more cartoonish and magical looking.

Of course not every Pokemon design is a slightly tweaked animal. A lot of them are also "rip offs" of kaiju.

Of course some people are going to defend Pokemon "blatantly ripping off" character designs from other franchises by saying. "But they did it in their own way, it's not an exact copy". When that is the same thing being said by fans of Palworld. In other words"

"When I like it that's "inspiration". When I don't like it, that's "theft."

[ilikekidsshows]

Hello, I have a couple Adrien-related questions I'd love to get your thoughts on, if you don't mind? I'll send the other separately, but for now: 1. In your opinion, how does one differentiate between Adrien's trauma response and him more generally being kind, forgiving, etc.? Not to create a false dichotomy, but I figured you might have some interesting insight.

2. At the end of season 5 Adrien is saying things like "Marinette and I are forever" and "I'm angry at myself for falling short of [her] love". I initially interpreted this as a sign that the boy needs therapy, for his own wellbeing (and I mean that in the best way possible). Things like Plagg responding with "forever!?" told me this was intentional, that the writing team is aware and will address it one day. But now I have my doubts, that it's just supposed to be "romantic." Thoughts?

And I'm sorry, but one more thing to add to my second question: they go out of their way to show things beyond his control preventing him from telling Marinette about London (Marinette interrupting him, Chloe interrupting him, etc.). It seems like the narrative isn't really blaming him, then? For struggling to tell her? Unless I misinterpreted. But regardless this was another thing that, at least initially, led me to believe the writers were intentional in writing his trauma response.

—

I’ll preface this by stating that I’m not the originator of the “Adrien’s fawning is a response to abuse” reading, so this might not cover all there is to it, but here’s my take: it's about how Adrien responds specifically to himself being wronged and how it differs from the way he acts in other conflict situations.

I'll use a comparison to illustrate. Adrien doesn't react to Chloé's behavior the same way he does to Gabriel's and Ladybug's. This is the key difference between thinking “Adrien is just nice/forgiving” and “this reaction has been conditioned through abuse”. Adrien can talk back to Chloé, disagree with her vehemently and will hold his ground even when she doesn't want to budge. Adrien also doesn't make excuses for her because he can admit she's in the wrong. Even when Chloé pushes his boundaries, like trying to kiss him, Adrien can enforce said boundaries by pulling away or pushing her back.

Meanwhile, with Gabriel and Ladybug, Adrien doesn't feel safe in arguing back. He used to do so with Ladybug, but the more unreasonable she's become, the more he backs down. Furthermore, even when he doesn't think the way he’s being treated is right, he makes excuses for Gabriel and Ladybug. “My father is busy”, “you were perfect, as you always are” are things Adrien has to tell himself so that he doesn't have to say: “they don't care about how I feel”. Attempting to enforce his own boundaries with these people almost every time leads to those boundaries being crossed anyway, and that's when Adrien bothers to even try.

As for the second part, I’ve been wondering similar things, and the wisemen of the groupchat have come to the consensus that someone in the writing team knows what they're doing, but they have to go with what Astruc wants in terms of the big picture so that the working environment doesn't become unbearable. Astruc ghosted and blocked a friend he liked so much he based a character on them when they agreed with some criticism of the show. Imagine being employed under this man, and trying to tell him his main romance is toxic and both parties need therapy. Yeah.

There are so many throwaway lines in Miraculous that acknowledge how unhealthy and blatantly wrong the things depicted in it are, that the story at large ignores. It honestly feels like someone on staff is sneaking that stuff in to give the audience at least a minor cue that what they're seeing isn't fine even as Astruc insists it is and carries on like it is. So, basically, someone on the writing team is aware of it, but it still won't ever get addressed because Astruc is ignoring the issues.

As for the “things beyond Adrien's control stopping him” part, that's the metaphorical tower. The writers have called Adrien the “princess in the tower”, and the show gets in on this association with the princess/knight Adrinette imagery. Adrien isn't being blamed for the tower he’s trapped in because Marinette will save him. Can't save him from something that's his own fault, so, for once, Adrien doesn't get victim blamed.

[yourgamemasterthewhiterabbit]

Every time I see a post about msg I am reminded they want us fighting each other

This time in the ring they have found the issue to pit anti-racist crusaders against the disabled and disability advocates

The anti-racist crusaders are leftists who think they are fighting an injustice

The disabled are leftists who know they are arguing for their right to safely eat food

The disabled can't put the fight down because the way we are treated over dietary restrictions is materially affecting to our lives

The anti-racist crusaders REALLY FEEL that their pet cause of saying how no one can possibly react to glutamates and all glutamate sensitive people are just secretly racist, IS REALLY actually helping fight anti-Asian and specifically anti-Chinese sentiments. They are very convinced of it.

They are very convinced that vocally advocating that a whole group of people can't possibly have a food allergy is super helping the problem. To the point where this is the crowd that keeps fucking bringing it up.

Because the in-fighting to try to convince a subset of disabled people that they can't possibly know their own bodies -and are secretly unconsciously racist- is super the best hill for them to defend and fight on and not like 1000 other causes to help fight racism that doesn't make their target leftist disabled people instead of people with actual power on the political right.

Please just fucking reassess.

You are arguing to bulldoze over someone else's understanding of their own body in their own mind and everyone else's

We are arguing for our ability to safely access food and not be tricked or harassed into eating something we have told you makes us sick

Who's the bad guy here?

Is this how you want to spend your time and energy?

Are there maybe other causes that would maybe allow you to punch up at power instead?

***And to be clear, you -can- in fact address the racism inherent to "msg is bad for everyone and shouldn't be in food at all" WITHOUT throwing people with actual allergies under the bus by working to try to "disprove" them. You can do that. No one is standing in your way but you. YOU are the one who tried to make "the allergy is fake anyway" your fucking talking point.

This is a false dichotomy and you are playing into it face first, friend.

[bengiyo]

Dangerous Romance Ep 6 Stray Thoughts

Last week, this show continued to baffle me by converting completely to a tropes generation machine. Sailom now apparently lives with Kanghan’s family during the week, and Saifah’s foot issues are completely gone. Sailom, Kanghan, and Pimfah went to an open house at a university, where Kanghan continued to take Ls. Sailom decided to leave the only good shirt he and his brother have somewhere on that campus so he could wear the same tacky shirt as Kanghan. The show set up some sort of false dichotomy where Sailom has to choose himself and his future by studying with an older student, or sacrificing his future to tutor Kanghan. Also, there’s a new teacher, and Pimfah has a crush on Sailom.

Love that Pimfah is the only person able to state their romantic desires with clarity and conviction.

Kanghan, you can’t just toss Sailom away as your tutor when his financial and physical security is riding on tutoring you.

If these kids don’t stop openly shipping…

I’d love to go back to my old school as a teacher and revive my old team.

Now Sailom is expected to teach Kanghan the cheerleading routine as well? Will this boy’s list of responsibilities ever come to an end?

Kanghan, I really don’t think you should have taken Pimfah’s confession from her. That’s not cool, and your list of offenses grows.

I respect Pimfah. She took her shot and accepted Sailom’s answer. Still, we spend so much time on what other people want from Sailom. It’s tiresome.

Now, as much as I like big moments in the rain, why are they arguing in the rain about Pimfah? Why is Kanghan so mad that Sailom rejected Pimfah, and why would Sailom confess his feelings under these circumstances? He’s got way too much riding on this arrangement.

We let a BL boy get wet in the rain. Sailom could die.

Sailom is at school with a fever? That’s bad form. Thank you for acknowledging that he should have stayed home, School Nurse.

If debt collectors are coming through to torture him on the regular, why would Sailom ever leave his front door unlocked?

Sponge baths, my beloathed. I think feverish Sailom is the first time we’ve gotten much of what’s going on with him internally in over a month.

I’m glad at least one of Sailom’s friends went to check on him properly.

Why do we only get interior thoughts and memories from Sailom when it’s about his crush on Kanghan? He started off so compelling, and he’s just a romantic interest now.

I suppose it’s Kanghan’s turn to get sick in the rain?

Damn, they straight up snubbed Kanghan on water, too.

Here we go with the heavy-handed windmill analogy after they just snubbed Kanghan.

I’m just not feeling this jealousy bit from Kanghan. He told Sailom he has no feelings for him. Guy is his friend. This is stupid.

Oh, I don’t like this kiss. How we got here does not support any tension present in the restraint nor does it justify all these flashbacks.

How dare they try to bait me back next week with a pinky touch.

Well, that sucked for me. I really thought Sailom was going to be our protagonist but I was wrong. This show continues to not take him or his reality seriously. I don’t like that this show signaled that it would take poverty and class seriously just for it to be this. I hope the folks who enjoy the actor chemistry and visuals are at least having fun with the haphazard deployment of tropes. I cannot believe the same directors are also doing Love in Translation right now. This is belemptious.

[cloudyflowerdreams]

the first and hopefully last thing i'll personally say about the whole tme/tma thing:

on the one hand, it feels wrong to police anyone's identity. saying someone can't be transfem because they were AFAB feels against the radical, gender-is-whatever-you-want-it-to-be approach that I prefer to take on such things and have seen people arguing for in years past. in real life, biological sex and social gender are too complicated for any labels to be useful.

on the other hand, acting like people perceived as having been AFAB don't have privilege in the queer community is patently untrue. acting like trans women don't get a special kind of bigotry in which we are feared and assumed to be predators inherently even by other people in the queer community is patently untrue. and when I see people arguing against transfeminists talking about "male socialization" and "baeddelism" or saying that they've "peaked"... it makes me want to tear my fucking hair out. do you hear yourselves?

I think that the discourse is in an extremely false dichotomy right now, and I hope we as a community can move past it, but that isn't going to happen if people don't start listening to transfems about the oppression we face and stop using TERF talking points on us in between calling us TERFs ourselves.

fuck this hellsite

[mariana-oconnor]

A Case of Identity pt 1

If we could fly out of that window hand in hand, hover over this great city, gently remove the roofs, and peep in at the queer things which are going on

Sherlock Holmes Peter Pan crossover! Also this sentence starts with them being normal size and then halfway through suddenly they're able to 'gently remove ... roofs'? It's a sweet little scene, though.

We have in our police reports realism pushed to its extreme limits, and yet the result is, it must be confessed, neither fascinating nor artistic.

Weird to see here the dichotomy of Holmes the romantic and Watson the realist. So often depictions of Holmes have him being so factual and without whimsy, and yet the start of this story is the opposite. It's Holmes who has the 'flight of fancy' and finds the fascination in life, and Watson who is arguing that real life is common and without interest.

There is half a column of print, but I know without reading it that it is all perfectly familiar to me. There is, of course, the other woman, the drink, the push, the blow, the bruise, the sympathetic sister or landlady. The crudest of writers could invent nothing more crude.

Also Watson not showing any empathy here. 'Oh, domestic violence is so run-of-the-mill, it's so dull.' He's very jaded in this story. On one hand, I agree with him that there's no delight or artistry in domestic violence, on the other hand, he comes off as a bit callous here.

he had drifted into the habit of winding up every meal by taking out his false teeth and hurling them at his wife, which, you will allow, is not an action likely to occur to the imagination of the average story-teller.

...I can't remember this story. It may be one of the ones I have not read before. But this made me blink and do a double take. Seriously? His false teeth? That's so oddly specific. Also, taking a moment for ACD to pat himself on the back there. I see what you're doing, sir.

He held out his snuffbox of old gold, with a great amethyst in the centre of the lid. Its splendour was in such contrast to his homely ways and simple life that I could not help commenting upon it. "Ah," said he, "I forgot that I had not seen you for some weeks. It is a little souvenir from the King of Bohemia in return for my assistance in the case of the Irene Adler papers."

Oh hai, Irene!

Weird that Holmes is displaying all the bling he got from a man he doesn't respect and didn't want any reward from.

Oscillation upon the pavement always means an affaire de coeur.

Well, that certainly is a sentence.

When a woman has been seriously wronged by a man she no longer oscillates

I have never seen the word 'oscillate' used this much outside of a science textbook.

Sherlock Holmes welcomed her with the easy courtesy for which he was remarkable

This is fascinating from the perspective of someone who has seen so may adaptations. 'easy courtesy for which he was remarkable' this isn't just a one time chance of Holmes being courteous. Watson himself finds Holmes' manner remarkable and to specify that it comes easily. Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of different Holmes adaptations, even the ones where he's rude, but this sentence makes it so clear that Holmes is polite and that it at least appears to come naturally to him.

for it made me angry to see the easy way in which Mr Windibank—that is, my father—took it all

I had a 'why do you refer to your father as Mr Windibank?' moment, then read the next few sentences and went 'oh'. Stepfamilies are complicated. Honestly, this bit reads like it could be an excerpt from an AITA post. Which leads to me thinking of modern day Sherlock hanging about on Reddit and asking really random questions before telling people that clearly the meaning of the cat hair on the third cushion is that OP's life is in imminent danger and they must at once leave the house and block their best friend on all social media.

I believe that a single lady can get on very nicely upon an income of about 60 pounds.

And the illusion of modernity is shattered. I bloody well wish. Hey inflation calculator, what's that in real money?

£6,033.44

(I put this around 1892, but that was my estimate based on when the other stories have been set. I might be out by a few years)

Yeah... I know she's living at home, but that's Holmes' estimate for any single woman, not only those being supported by their parents.

so they have the use of the money just while I am staying with them. Of course, that is only just for the time. Mr Windibank draws my interest every quarter and pays it over to mother

Hello motive! Fancy seeing you here. I do not trust Mr Windibank at all, for all I may find his name amusing to say and read. This coupled with his insistence that nothing is wrong is very fishy. Mmhm. I am getting a distinct whiff of 'greedy, thieving stepfather' here with distinct notes of 'manipulative arsehole'.

Mr Windibank did not wish us to go. He never did wish us to go anywhere. He would get quite mad if I wanted so much as to join a Sunday-school treat. But this time I was set on going, and I would go; for what right had he to prevent?

Please add 'controlling' to the list above, forthwith. Guy's a massive dick. Good for you, Miss Mary Sutherland for calling him out on it.

And he said that I had nothing fit to wear, when I had my purple plush that I had never so much as taken out of the drawer.

Anyone else getting Cinderella vibes from this line? I'm surprised he didn't accidentally ruin the dress as well, or spill a bowl of rice into the cinders of the fire and make her pick them all up.

"I suppose," said Holmes, "that when Mr Windibank came back from France he was very annoyed at your having gone to the ball."

"Oh, well, he was very good about it. He laughed, I remember, and shrugged his shoulders, and said there was no use denying anything to a woman, for she would have her way."

I hate this guy. I really do. ACD was very good at writing men I loathe even when they haven't appeared in person.

Oh, and I remember this story now, btw. It's all coming back to me.

He wouldn't have any visitors if he could help it, and he used to say that a woman should be happy in her own family circle.

Abuse tactics really haven't ever changed, have they. The flags were as red in the 1890s as they are in the 2020s. Ugh. I hope this guy dies in a shipwreck too. Fingers crossed.

The fact that I keep reading the 'gasfitters' ball' as the 'gaslighters' ball' feels very fitting.

"What office?" "That's the worst of it, Mr Holmes, I don't know." "Where did he live, then?" "He slept on the premises." "And you don't know his address?" "No—except that it was Leadenhall Street."

In the immortal words of Gytha Ogg: Always get the young man's name and address. (And never trust a dog with orange eyebrows)

Mr Hosmer Angel came to the house again and proposed that we should marry before father came back. He was in dreadful earnest and made me swear, with my hands on the Testament, that whatever happened I would always be true to him.

Not suspicious at all. Absolutely normal behaviour. You should definitely swear on your holy book of choice to always be true to people 'whatever happens'. This is entirely rational and not worrying at all. Not a bit.

The flags, they are scarlet.

Mother was all in his favor from the first and was even fonder of him than I was. Then, when they talked of marrying within the week, I began to ask about father; but they both said never to mind about father, but just to tell him afterwards, and mother said she would make it all right with him.

Not remembering all the details, but knowing the general gist of this story, this part actually makes me feel a bit sick. Does the mother know what's going on? I don't remember. If so, I think Miss Mary Sutherland needs to take her £100 a year and go on a world tour. Honestly, she should do that anyway, just... nausea.

"Oh, no, sir! He was too good and kind to leave me so. Why, all the morning he was saying to me that, whatever happened, I was to be true; and that even if something quite unforeseen occurred to separate us, I was always to remember that I was pledged to him, and that he would claim his pledge sooner or later. It seemed strange talk for a wedding-morning, but what has happened since gives a meaning to it."

Mary, Mary, Mary... no. Just no. This is not good or kind. This is weird and suspicious and controlling. I'm sure your wedding dress is lovely, but I cannot see it because all the red flags are in the way.

Above all, try to let Mr Hosmer Angel vanish from your memory, as he has done from your life.

Holmes giving excellent advice here. The trash took itself out.

"You are very kind, Mr Holmes, but I cannot do that. I shall be true to Hosmer. He shall find me ready when he comes back."

Oh Mary. I'm so sorry. You really should take the advice.

This absolutely could be written as a reddit post, btw.

[hot-take-tournament]

regarding the potential sideblog for serious takes: I completely get what you mean. Thinking of things to submit, I came across many many takes of mine, things I feel very passionately about, that I just.... Couldn't really bear to submit to a silly tournament blog. A lot of things that I don't have the guts to say on my main, since the main reason it's "hot" in the first place is my friends' and mutuals' disagreement. The criteria I've been using for submitting is, "if I got 90% disagree votes, would that be heartbreaking? would that be depressing to know, that that many people disagree on this topic that I care so much about?" and if the answer is yes, then... that's too important to me. and i just keep it to myself.

honestly, if you did make a sideblog, I would be more than glad to submit these takes that i held back from. and I suspect that many others would feel encouraged to send things that they otherwise wouldn't, as well.

whatever your decision, I deeply respect this blog, which is rather funny, since i actually have the words "hot take" in my blacklist because I'm honestly so tired of seeing violent discourse about human rights.

basically, it's really refreshing to argue about stupid shit like "what's the best way to write a date" or "am I committing a food crime if I eat my food this way" or "what kind of music sucks". i like feeling mentally engaged and introducing nuance into false dichotomies, and this blog gives me an easy place to do that without having to read questions like "ok but does this minority ACTUALLY deserve rights or are they not [arbitrary measure of Virtue] enough"

that being said I did vote in favor of the serious takes blog. there's a high chance that I wouldn't be able to follow it for long before the Bad Takes drove me mad, and the notes sound like they would be godawful, but I think if you threaten to only keep the blog up for as long as people behave and keep the notes civil, it could work.

and, to anyone with serious opinions that needs a place to put them besides your blog, I often send mine to the blogs transenbyconfessions and aroaceconfessions. they post asks and submissions, anonymously or credited. the goal of those blogs is just to provide a platform for genderqueer, questioning, or relationship-queer folk to have a place to tell their stories without having to worry about horrible notes. just gets sent in and forgotten about. if you want a ping when it posts, you can also sign off as/mention a sideblog of yours. I've done that a few times too.

yeah, i think it's the best option, but it depends how the poll goes

i think in the meantime you can still submit those takes, and if choose the first option then they'll be posted, and if they don't, it doesn't matter either way - maybe it will help just to get it off your chest anyway

i do the read all the submissions, so even if it would make you feel better knowing that at least one person has read your take, then feel free to submit!

[doctor-ciel]

People on the internet saying insane things will have other people saying things that you would probably never think would’ve been said. And I’m specifically talking about that one girl on Twitter who said she didn’t read any books that don’t have smut in them and that anyone who did was a minor, then said she had a Brit lit degree. And in the notes of the tumblr post with these screenshots, everyone was saying things like “I could easily list 20 books without sex scenes in them” LIKE. We all could do that. This person’s brainrot has dragged down everyone who tried to argue with them so that they are making points that would otherwise have not even been worth saying at all. 20 books???? I mean sure. But that’s like when people say “there are at least a dozen people in Manhattan” as a joke. But this was said in seriousness. And you know that unless they were arguing with this specific person they’d never have thought this would be something worth saying.

Something something foot in the door method, it creates this false dichotomy where the person starting the argument lays the groundwork for two “outcomes” of it, either their weirdly specific claim, or Not That. And so then you’re arguing about whether any adults read books without sex scenes and whether any books meant for adults don’t have sex scenes, with someone who is never going to admit you’re right, instead of a discussion that actually makes sense and will go anywhere.

[maaarine]

‘Farsighted impulsivity’ and the new psychology of self-control (Adam Bulley, Psyche, Feb 03 2021)

"Yet, for all its intuitive appeal, this story rests on what I think is a false dichotomy between foresight and impulsivity.

The fact that people can use their foresight to prioritise the present reveals that many behaviours that seem like failures of willpower are not caused by a disinclination to plan ahead at all.

Rather, many supposedly ‘impulsive’ behaviours actually arise from our capacity for long-term thinking. This calls for a rewrite of the conventional story of self-control.

Consider how your decision-making can be influenced by the motivation to avoid future regrets about missing out.

The behavioural economist Ran Kivetz and his colleagues have shown this kind of ‘farsighted impulsivity’ in action: to avoid future regret at missing out, consumers will intentionally shirk their savings to splurge on an exciting vacation, gourmet dinner-for-two, or fancy box of Swiss chocolate truffles.

Just like Augustine, they’re consciously choosing to prioritise immediate pleasure. (…)

These and other peculiar quirks of decision-making arise due to foresight operating alongside another complex human ability, metacognition – your ability to reflect on your own thinking – which can lead to a funhouse of convoluted decision-making.

We humans don’t only have emotions or desires that drive us.

We reflect on our emotions, wish that they were different than they are now, realise that they are going to change in the future, regret them changing when they do (as we expected they would), and try to work around them in the pursuit of both our immediate and delayed goals.

According to the political theorist and philosopher Jon Elster, our farsighted awareness of how our emotions will change in the future isn’t just a matter for individual choices, it has also played a significant role in historical affairs.

For instance, Elster argues that, in the aftermath of the Second World War, the Belgians realised that, with the passage of time, their courts would treat crimes of collaboration with the Germans more leniently.

Waiting would allow cooler heads to prevail, leading to less extreme sentences, arguably focused more on justice than revenge.

But, foreseeing this change in sentiment, Belgian officials were keen to hold trials as soon as possible, to make sure that passionate feelings of vengeance could influence proceedings.

In this case, as in the examples of consumer decision-making, people used their foresight to anticipate their own emotional vicissitudes and put the priority back on the present – ensuring the fulfilment of immediate drives.

Wilfully prioritising the present is not only an emotional matter. An entirely dispassionate evaluation of the future can also encourage us to focus on present rewards and opportunities.

Imagine you’re faced with a choice between some immediate temptation and a larger but delayed payoff: would you rather have $50 now, or $80 that you must wait six months to receive?

If you live in a highly uncertain environment or one where people tend not to keep their promises, a farsighted view of this bargain might well lead you to the following conclusion: get what you can now. (…)

In turn, we should all try to be slower to judge one another’s choices as short-sighted or impulsive failures, given how much of the wider picture will often be hidden from view.

It makes little sense to label a decision as a failure unless you know more about both what a person aims to achieve, and the broader context in which they’re making their choices."