#and be able to discuss nuance in a way that i don't usually get outside of ace spaces

[trailmixtime]

attended some discussion about asexuality this week and it was just so nice :]

[doberbutts]

Tbh I think the comparison to white people might be some simple us vs them thinking (maybe not all the time, though). White people complaining about oppression = nonsense/overeaggeration (if you're myopic), therefore comparing transmascs to white people is a way to call what they say nonsense. Or, if you're under the impression oppression=good person points, then white = bad/wrong, therefore transmascs are bad/wrong. Idk. Lots of these folks have some black/white thinking.

I think the answer is much easier than that.

The majority of people I see using the race analogy to draw a parallel of white vs black racism and trans man vs woman oppression are white themselves. Not everyone, but I would say my casual scroll of Bad Take Havers usually reveals whiteness here.

It does not surprise me at all that the very same white people doing this do not have the nuanced racial understanding to be able to reflect how, for instance, both black communities and latine communities experience racism in different yet similar ways, and how there is both bad blood and also shared history and solidarity between both communities, with many people who exist somewhere in between (afrolatinos) and people who exist completely outside of this equation (other marginalized races of color) or on the fringes (other mixed people of color but with only one of the involved races in this venn diagram) that also may experience their own oppression.

And so, they don't even think to use the comparison of black and Latino understanding, instead choosing to reach for white vs black racial dynamics. They don't have the understanding necessary to get why that's neither a good comparison nor is it a fair one to use especially when this particular conversation was started by trans mascs of color and how prior conversations regarding trans men and mascs occupying a marginalized gender were started by both (cis *and* trans) women of color and trans men and mascs of color.

It also does not escape my attention that those insisting that not only do trans men and mascs have privilege (something I do not completely disagree with, although I think as always it is more nuanced than "have" vs "have not") but also that trans men and mascs are specifically an *oppressor class* are also largely white, and show an inability to understand that "privilege" does not always equally translate to "oppressor". This comes to a head when discussing trans men in powerful positions- teachers, doctors, politicians, business owners, religious leaders, even celebrities- and whether they are pushing harmful rhetoric or if they are holding the line and refusing to budge.

And, while not true in all cases and certainly no one is perfect, because people are people and thus imperfect at the best of times, the majority of all trans people in power hold the line and refuse to budge regarding harm to our community. We can all think of examples- usually celebrities- of otherwise, but those pushing for laws and change are generally hand-in-hand with each other keeping step and refusing to leave their fellow siblings behind.

This does not mean that we cannot *contribute to* or even *lean on* transmisogyny- remember, there were cis women on the Supreme Court gleefully voting away abortion rights even though it directly affects them. There is no identity that makes you immune to bigoted bias, and no identity that protects you from doing harm to others. That is on each of us to do better, to each out in fellowship and solidarity to our fellow humans, and to lift each other out of the pit.

Much like how a Latino friend of mine may experience privilege in that he does not experience the antiblackness I do, and much how I may have privilege that I speak English as my mother tongue and he doesn't in this largely English-language-dominated country, neither of us are inherently each other's oppressors unless we are acting on oppressive bias. Intentionally or otherwise.

Oppression is action, not existence.

But again, I am not surprised a group of largely white people do not understand nearly enough of this nuance as it applies to race to then be able to apply it to gender.

[tirfpikachu]

trans activists often forget that it isn't just trans-identified and nonbinary-identified people who can suffer from what they call cissexism or gncphobia. some people who aren't identifying as trans or nonbinary actually may face worse anti-gnc oppression than some people who claim the label, and get talked over by people who have no fucking clue what it's like. they just refuse to stay in their lane.

this is why any label that is nebulous enough for ppl to remain unchanged while identifying as such, and have no specific experience or behavior needed to belong to the group and be able to claim the label, will never be an accurate enough way to decide if someone has been more or less oppressed under the gncphobic/sexist (and of course heavily misogynistic) patriarchy. this is why often non-trans gnc people can be super frustrated by how they're treated by tras as some super privileged group shielded from horrific treatment by gender roles lovers, especially rightwing men. tras can be very out of touch, which doesn't go well with genuine lgbt/feminist activism spaces where we're genuinely trying to make positive change and actually talk through complex issues to find solutions to all the fucked up things the patriarchy has done to marginalized people. especially female/ofab people and people who are actually perceived as female in their day-to-day lives, or people who are visibly very gnc to a degree that pisses off patriarchs. trans/cis are often useless labels outside of denoting people who use different pronouns than their usual sex-assigned pronouns, or people who have dysphoria. otherwise, it gets incredibly vague and often includes people who for all intent and purposes live very gender conforming lives and truly are shielded from gncphobia, misogyny and transphobia/cissexism, as much as they hate to admit it.

the trans activist community claims to be against sexism and against rigid gender roles and all for embracing gnc people, yet gnc people who don't fit neatly in their usual cis/trans dichotomy get told they're either repressed and need the trans label, or they're bigots for saying they do face gncphobia and cissexism, at times more than some trans-identified folks. fighting patriarchal gender roles is more complex than simply identifying out of it. protecting gnc people, whether they identify as trans or not, is more complex than only protecting those who enjoy the label. protecting dysphoric people also means protecting those with reverse dysphoria and advocating for better healthcare in regards to transition, and more support in detransition-related surgeries, laser treatments etc from society. fighting against sexism also includes fighting sexism within your own spaces, and not assuming anyone gnc must hate being in their sex category and aren't female/male coded enough to still align with their sex. it also means discussing how not all trans people actually face cissexism, transphobia, sexism or misogyny irl and they need to learn to be good allies to those who do, whether they identify as trans or not. ofab/female people and transmisogyny-affected people also need to be good allies to one another, and not position one side as inherently less oppressed than the other in every aspect.

y'all also need to learn to respect ALL sexualities, including sexualities that involve the person's sex/"agab" without guilt-tripping or saying conversion therapy rhetoric. trans activists need to be more self-aware and grounded in reality. things are getting really ridiculous and it's why so many tras are peaking and flocking to radblr. it has its glaring issues, ones i am very critical of as are many radfems, but we at least have more tolerance for free speech and nuanced discussions and we absolutely refuse to ignore normalized homophobia against homosexuals (as in the og definition of the term) and blatant anti-female/ofab oppression in tq+ spaces. it can't stay this way forever!!

[mirroredmemoriez]

GABRIELA SAW X THINKS AND FEELS

Got bored so it's time to yap about Saw characters, today on the chopping block is Gabriela! Mainly Gabriela is compared with either Adam or Amanda, for similar and also different reasons. When it comes to the comparisons, with Adam it's usually down to the fact she and him both ''won'' their traps but were both still killed at the end (Also their wet pathetic demeanour said with all the love). Then with Amanda, it's how both were drug addicts... Amanda basically sees herself in Gabriela and seems to root for her to win.

She's likely most peoples favourite new character coming out of Saw X. Gabriela has the most content produced out of all of the other introduced characters for example. However, I think one thing I don't always agree with from my own perception is how she's painted to be almost an angel (Within the fandom)? Gabriela is by no means an evil person, it's very easy to be sympathetic to her situation and I don't think that's a bad thing. But also.... SHE IS IN HER TRAP FOR A REASON? Just the same as Valentina or Mateo and or even like Adam/Amanda.... But the reception she gets to me at least seems different. First, I'll get it out of the way that this is slightly due to the fact she's shipped with Amanda. I do believe shipping generally sometimes changes fandom's perceptions of characters or tries to put them more so into labels? With that said, I also am aware of power imbalances between the characters (Such as Mateo being the one who supplies Gabriela oxycodone even if he states in the movie he will no longer be doing so going forward).

It's hard for me to exactly pinpoint and or explain why I think this is when I look at peoples portrayals slash discussions of her character... If I had to narrow it down, I believe it's because I feel as though people don't put the same effort into analysing characters and exploring the nuance of them when it isn't a VERY VERY beloved/popular one. The argument to that is screen time, which does make sense? We get more of a feel for characters such as Amanda, John, Mark, Lawrence and yada yada, due to them being recurring characters. Then with Adam, even though he dies in the first movie? That first movie is solely focused on his and Lawrence's story mainly and not multiple characters, so the audience forms more of an attachment to him and his personality… However! I personally love looking at all characters so here I am. To me and likely everyone, Gabriela is a young and lost woman. She's basically going through what we as the audience would assume as the roughest patch of her life. She seems to be pretty early 20s and is obviously stated to be a drug addict, joining Cecilia's scam to feed her addiction with any money she gets paid with. Outside of this, we have no backstory to any previous occupations and or her education. Nor do we have any insight to friends and or family. This probably comes down to screen time and also the fact exploring any of this wasn't central to the story and the portrayal of her character… But generally, this paints Gabriela to be a quite isolated person outside of the scam. Personality wise, it goes without saying Gabriela would have a manipulative streak from all the scamming and needing to be able to source drugs. Interacting with John she uses very basic speech to interact and lie to him, but in reality she seems to have no issue speaking somewhat fluently in English. It makes perfect sense with the knowledge she is a part of The Pederson Project, Cecilia wouldn't have chosen someone who's terrible at lying or putting on a façade at the end of the day. This doesn't make her an evil person as I've said stated before. Even though Gabriela is choosing to source her money by being a simple pawn in a big scam- She still holds noticeable humanity to a degree, seeing as she encourages those around her in traps and has a more considerable reaction to their deaths than compared to someone like Cecilia. I think when it comes down to the cancer patients before John, Gabriela had the thought process of out of sight out of mind and would probably not dwell too much on the ethics of what she was doing.

I think one thing for her character I'd have wished to see, is more interactions with people outside of a drug transaction and scamming an old man.... Oh and obviously outside of being in a death trap too- It isn't exactly an issue, but I think people spend too much time comparing or labelling Gabriela's character as a version of Adam or Amanda, more so than her being a separate person? Don't get me wrong, she very much so is a good comparison to make between the previously stated characters. However, I think I more so see her as a domino effect and even a symbol than being very alike to Amanda or Adam. Gabriela is one of the reasons Amanda starts losing belief in John's philosophy and this alongside Adam is then basically a catalyst to Amanda rigging her traps. Even with Adam's killing? Amanda in some ways becomes what Cecilia was to Gabriela in that moment within Saw X. Cecilia and Gabriela were also a minor foil for John and Amanda too.

There are so many what ifs with her character and how that would impact the story moving forwards. What would've happened if Gabriela had just died in her trap? What would've happened if she survived her trap? Or if she had never been tested in the first place... She as a character is one of the biggest stepping stones (whistles at myself) in the franchise when it comes to the outcomes of others, as her death is a catalyst to Amanda's future erratic behaviour and killings.

But enough about Adam and Amanda- I can't likely explain this well either, but Gabriela gives off Laura Hunter vibes so much and both of these women I just feel so bad for at the end of the day? Them and their fashionable coats... The wettest eyes and demeanour. Anyways! These are all just my opinions, you don't have to agree with them of course but I like yapping and discussing things like this, so feel free to reblog or comment if you've got your own opinion on what I've brought up here. If you've read this far down- Thanks? HAHAHAHHAH

[thediktatortot]

RE: Your "fandom wasn't always like this" post Fandoms ending when their source did used to be a VERY BAD SIGN that the series had utterly belly flopped. It really didn't start being standard until.... at least after dashcon, but probably closer to the end of the second phase of the MCU. I think Avengers Endgame was the real final death knell of "extended fandom", but even before that, the MCU dragging us along by the hair on the back of our necks seemed to be what killed having a long-term fandom.

You aren't wrong with assuming that specific fandoms were some of the major downfalls of what we had going for us, but the answer is definitely more nuanced than that unfortuntely.

I've had a lot of time to sit and think about the subject of the post I made, and I genuinely think that the true answer to the downfall of Fandom as a whole, is social media.

I hate to sound like That Old Person at a ripe age of 31, but that is my honest answer.

I myself did not get a phone until I was 18 years old and was able to buy one for myself, a little sidekick that let me text my friends when I wanted to hang out, but that wasou f about it. I didn't even get a home computer in my house until I was about 13 years old because we were fairly poor and didn't really need it for anything other than emails and bills.

The first thing I discovered on the computer was Neopets and Gaiaonline, two 'gaming' websites (I'm not assuming your age, but I'm going to talk as if you don't know about anything I'm speaking of just in case other people read this who do not know about it.) that focused heavily on dressing up your avatars, mini flash games and forum role play. The hottest social media at the time was Myspace and it wasn't until I got into Highschool that I even ended up making one.

There were no real algorithms that fed you 'content' on a front page outside of the things the people you followed posted, no way to get fed news ads unless it was in the sidebar where ads were usually placed, and there was no instant updates to every person's lives both small or famous unless you went looking for those updates yourself on google.

Now we have social media that is both forcefully placed in front of you in the form of genuine 'content' in both long and short form on absolutely every platform you can imagine. This isn't even going with the discussion that talks about ads on the TV and how for decades, America has been putting more and more emphases on pharmacy ads on TV and extending commercials to the point where people would rather pay 10-40 a month on streaming services to access movies and TV that might not exist at the whim of the streaming services, than watch cable tv with ads lol

Anyway, when Fandom first began its slow descent into madness, it was about the time that the new style of social media began to get big (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Vine, Tiktok, etc) all places that were designed and created to make you want to See More.

I'm not one of those people who are like "We have no more focus because of social media arg!" but there is a grain of truth to the fact that, if you are fed bite sized pieces of bee information at a faster rate, it's harder to get yourself to slow down and actually delve into a topic further without incentive.

We have catchy news headlines that people read and never take the time to look into the matter further, we have facebook posts where people make crazy claims and no one verifies to check if it's true because that takes time and effort and understanding of how to perform basic search tasks and reading comprehension to ask the right questions, we have instagram breaking the concept of art and life experiences into bite sized, perfect square windows of moments to make your instagram feed look pretty enough to have thousands of followers, we have Twitter that has always been somewhat of a fast websites, but is easy to spread misinformation around on at light speed, Snapchat makes photos disappear, never allowing anything you do to be permanent unless someone manages to save it, Vine and TikTok made attention sinks were it's so easy to just get lost for hours of time into maybe not useless, but an exhaustive stream of information that encourages doing the same finger action for hours on end.

Marvel/MCU/Disney whatever we want to call it, including all the other major production companies, are just one symptom of a bigger problem. They've ridden the waves of instant gratification and people's inability to think outside the boxes for years, but unfortunately our primary source of entertainment in a world that wants to kill us all the time and keeps us inside the house more often, just happens to finally align with the companies and programs that are designed to squeeze more and more out of us until we die.

Unfortunately, Capitalism is killing Fandom as a whole, we are just seeing it more because our primary sources of communication and our major routes of entertainment for ourselves are finally working together to bleed us dry.

[rise-my-angel]

Honestly, this fandom exhausts me to hell and back. It's difficult to exist in as someone who needs my opinions affirmed by someone else for me to even consider seeing them as valid.

In general, though with some nuance to be found inside, I'm someone who likes the Starks, supports Northern independence, dislikes the Targs and dislikes incestuous ships. Now, since I'm so fucking insecure about my thoughts and opinions, I need to find someone who I generally agree with in order to be able to engage with a fandom in a way that doesn't make me want to behead myself.

So I look for supporters of Northern independence, whom are usually Sansa fans, but I don't make it for long before seeing that they have some wildly Stark/North-negative takes. I go on to look for people who actually like House Stark but end up finding out that a lot of them are pro-Targ restoration for some reason. So I leave and look for people who don't want a Targaryen to rule Westeros again, only to end up circling back around to the Sansa stans who not only actively look for reasons to dislike anything Northern and Stark that doesn't relate to Sansa, but also ship her with her own brother. So I look for people who don't hate any and every thing Northern only to find Dany/Arya stans (who are in a weird sort of alliance for whatever reason) who compare the North's want for independence to MAGA (That's an actual thing people believe in... for some reason.) and either ship Arya with her brother or Jon with his aunt. It's a neverending loop, and a personal hell for someone who has kind of insecurities that I do.

The loop this fandom throws my brain into is something along the lines of 'See, this opinion that I have is valid because this other person has it as well! But that other opinion is the spawn of satan, actually, and you're dumb for believing it.' and 'Well, actually that other opinion is objectively correct! This other opinion that you have, however, is objectively evil.' and it's not a nice loop to be stuck in.

It's not even as if I have takes that are contradictory. It's just that this fandom has been so insane for so long that it has become normal for them to be viewed as such by some people. And it's difficult to be a regular here, because even though I have written essay-length metas, I'm in constant need of outside affirmation for me to be able to have even a crumb of confidence in my own opinions. Which is something that says more about my damaged psyche than it does about the fandom alone, I know, but the very fact that the social structure of this fandom seems to encourage and enflame such insecurities says enough, if you ask me.

Conclusion: This fandom fucking sucks, and if I could press a button that would magically destroy all asoiaf fandom spaces, I would in a heartbeat. Good news though, I bought a giant fuckign plushie that'll hopefully help me deal with all these stupid assaults of anxiety that this fandom semi-regularly puts me through. Anyway, I am very sleepy as I'm writing this and, if it wasn't obvious enough, Not Doing Very Good mentally. So if it sounds rambley or doesn't make sense at all, that's probably the reason, I just wanted to put my grievances into words. I felt like I'd explode if I didn't.

Well, first of all, your views and opinions are always welcome and valid here! I am thrilled to get asks like this and discussions like this, because, like you, I am in the minority on these issues. I know I'm only one person but I am always happy to hear your thoughts!

Now, the thing I learned a while back is a lot of the stances on the North and Targaryeans in relation to Sansa, Arya, and Dany, is a LOT of it has to do with the never ending Jon shipping wars.

Now, Jonsa shippers typically aren't pro targ restoration, because they want the ending from the show of Sansa being Queen in the North. But, they also want Sansa to be in charge as regent, so they reduce Jon to King consort who is happy not to be a leader. But, because these people typically do not engage with the Starks as they are, they attribute a LOT of Sansa's more southern traits to her entire personality. So, the North needs her as their Queen becuase she will rule and tame and civilize them the way the North needs, instead of allowing her to embrace the fact that Sansa is still a Northerner and does value her home and traditions and wouldn't want things to be like they were in the South where she suffered. So, thats what a lot of that comes from in the Sansa side. They are typically more hardcore Jonsa shippers that see Sansa as the one who needs to be Queen to tame the North and Jon to being civilized becuase they wrongly think that Sansa's Northern traits aren't important. They normally arne't pro targ restoration, but not because they look at the Targaryeans the way say you and I do. They are against targ restoration, because they are simply anti jonerys and thus hate that idea because it means that ship gets in the way of theirs.

Arya's weird side tends to come from two places, but more often then not it comes from an anti jonsa place. They sometimes are Jonrya shippers, but they know that is unpopular and less accepted, so they shift typically to the next thing they can that isnt jonsa which is Jonerys. Sometimes its just Jonerys shippers straight up most of the time. These people typically are the ones who think that Arya will love Dany and Dany will love Arya, because of how important Arya is to Jon, they need Arya to be a #1 Dany supporter because they are shipping Jonerys and Jon would prioritize Arya over Dany if it came down to it, so they have to have Arya on Danys side to avoid that. They normally are just targ stans deep down, and thus will always support targ restoration because Arya and Jon to them are just tools to give Dany what she wants.

So, a lot of these people do not advocate for the North in any good faith, because it gets in the way of their shipping goals. A lot of Northern independance is staked on the efforts of Robb, and Jon going forward in the books. But, because they mostly view those characters, especially Jon, as just vehicles to accomplish things for their favourite female Queen character, what Robb and Jon stand for, which is inheirintly the North in it's purest form, cannot be a priority because then it would nessesitate Jon still being in charge.

They want either Sansa or Dany or Arya in charge and thus Jon and his goals have to be reduced, which means the importance of the North and their culture or independance needs to be diminished to justify why the most suited Northern character cannot be the one to lead them.

There are some outliars that are just very negative and bad faith for little justification, but a lot of the time when I've dug deeper, a LOT of these anti North people tend to be the very same people who are locked into the toxic Jon incest shipping wars, and their views of the North are corellated into what suits their ship the best and it is never with the Norths bests interest in mind.

I don't blame you for being exhausted with it, it is very exhausting to me, but what helps is being so vocal on my blog about how I feel about it all and the North, and maybe it will inspire at least some people to look at the topic in a different light.

[loudlychoppedbread]

Trope Analysis - Damsel in Distress (Psychonauts)

One of the most discussed tropes is the "Damsel in Distress." And this is a staple trope that some people have said are kind of anti-female. But the way that I've seen it used in a different fandom has led me to want to make this analysis of a character through this trope.

Lili Zanotto, deuteragonist of the first Psychonauts game, was not a "Damsel in Distress," in the first game, nor "Rhombus of Ruin," but was in the game: Psychonauts 2.

Let's first talk about the trope - Damsel in Distress, according to TVTropes is: "A female character is put into immediate danger in order to put the cast in motion."

Personally, I don't like that. I'd like to share a different interpretation of the trope. I want to focus more on the actual wording of the emotion so: "A character, usually female, who is in such a state of emotion that they can't do anything but be saved by another character."

Going to the poster child of this - Princess Peach. Both of these definitions fit her. So I think this is a good angle to analyze the trope.

Now let's talk about the moment in Psychonauts that Lili gets taken by Linda the Lungfish. This is the moment where people say "DoubleFine dunked themselves into this trope! They took a girl that was looking pretty strong on her own and made her useless!" Which... they're not wrong, but then they say: "Ugh, typical Damsel in Distress trope! So glad we're out of it! And Lili is so much better in PN2!"

Which... no. She's not.

Lili is yelling, thrashing, and laughing in the face of danger throughout that entire time. She's more so annoyed than distressed. She's taken out of commission, sure. She can't get through the adventure with Raz, even though Raz just said: "no one can stop them except for you and me," but that doesn't mean that she's lost all hope. She's even surprised Raz showed up. Even in a time where there was probably no hope, she was just fed up with the whole situation.

In Rhombus of Ruin, some people also think she was a "Damsel in Distress," which again: No. Sure, Lili is affected by the Psilirium and Raz does have to fix her music box for her to help get the Psilirium to stop affecting her. But after that? She burns through a wooden gate, is able to do enough pyrokinesis control to make a pile of bombs not explode exponentially and kill her and maybe the other guards in the plane that she was found in, and when dealing with a guard with a cattle prod, she makes due with what she has access to and even in hiding, she's more so just trying to see if this creature is gonna break through the door. More so analyzing the situation that she's in and making plans.

Then... we get PN2. In PN2 she feels guilty over something she said to her father so she's trying to be the best daughter she can be. And we once again see her excited for analysis! She brings "Truman" some plants that should help her figure out what's going on with her father as soon as they feed off of his psychic energy. But outside of that cutscene, there's not really anything we get from her that isn't... well, Distress. She's distressed that her father is not waking up. She's distressed that the plants keep dying. She's distressed that someone targets her to use her as a puppet. She's distressed that she said something bad to him and won't be able to see Truman again.

And the way she's saved is seeing her father moving about and following him (as well as Norma), then going to Raz (her boyfriend) to ask him questions about: How do we figure out what's going on?

Now, yes, she is a child who lost a parent, but here's the thing: When using this trope to analyze how a story uses its characters it's grown to be more nuanced than what it used to be. It's now grown to be interpreted as: "Girls who are kidnapped are useless in the story and are just prizes for the hero to win."

But that's not the case.

I believe that the trope, no matter how you see it, is handled well in the stories of the video games I analyzed for this essay post. I do also believe that broadening the understanding of tropes that have been interpreted as narrow and old. If language does evolve, and we only gain new tropes, I think that does a disservice to stories that come out as we only constantly compare the narrow interpretation as trope and we say "I love X trope," or "X trope is problematic."

[byghostface]

The way I engage with fandom is by posting art mostly and being happy that ppl like/enjoy my creations, and hoping ppl would stay around. And that should be it because I'm not cut out for talking, one person can only do this much.

I do jump to conclusions too fast for many things out of frustration/anger, and feel sorry for things I have said and the things I do wrong without realizing it. I made the post bc it makes sense to me and the topic has troubled me for a while.

The problem is DC's continuity is messy and the long history of stories for characters is carried out by different writers, and the canon is more flexible in comics. So the dc fandom I see sometimes is pretty much as intense and confusing on canon and fanon, thus creates a divide between people who leaning towards source material and people who mostly rely on fan(second hand) contents (Not inherently bad, but I feel like comic fandom is more intensely having disagreements on character's age and canon contents than other fandoms I had been in before).

I know the fact that multi-shipping, and crack-shipping are not intentionally harmful things, and ppl are free to do it with their own headcanons and adding nuances and so on. Like I personally multi ship batcat and brutalia, I'm not that interest in crack ships unless is bringing by people who loves both characters and have the passion to create it (all excluding pro shipping/pro shipper btw💀).

Being in dc fandom for too long and seeing some recurrent things/behaviors/made-up, misleading stuff from people who are not fans/regular people who had done some sort of research to begin with, and me not being able to put it into words about all the unbearable stuff going around is driving me crazy and started to talk nonsense in my head.

I try to avoid ship war but on Twitter is hard not to see some stuff/cross platforms reposts going on on the timeline. Tumblr ppl use block more so ppl don't like the stuff they see just block, for me I post art and only check flatline tag from time to time (I do block ppl now). Not help my case that I learned how to use Twitter to interact with ppl first more than Tumblr (I'm not a reblog-heavy person).

At first, I tried to only post art because that's just what I usually do with my Tumblr account when being in other fandoms. But I only do fanart still feels not enough to bring ppl in fandom to care for Nika or discuss her in long-term good faith, at least on Tumblr I don't see much before 2024 (I get ppl would change fandom and don't keep the commitment that long).

I admit I don't feel like the best at talking/chitchat, it's easier for me to plan my next drawing instead of wracking my brain choosing the right words to say in English. But then I have the useless feeling that I only do petty art and have no thoughts or emotions in my brain because I don't talk much. And sometimes feeling worse cuz all I draw and talk about is Nika (she consumes my brain and time and it's still worth it to me).

Bat family and Damian fandom exist and already have fans talking about them long before Nika had any fans or fandom for her. Twitter (my mutuals) has been slowly building it, and then here's me on Tumblr barely holding it together, or presenting my thoughts for her cohesively in text forms after 2022. Yet I still have the constant feeling that I'm not doing enough outside of drawing.

And if I don't, hardly have someone who would put up with a small fandom (three to ten ppl max) with the lack of official content (two years in between hiatus for her to come back), and bear the dunked-on from the already existing big fandom (plus ships war)constantly.

So this is me when I started to draw Flatline(Nika) since 2021 ↓

I'm happy now Nika has more fans than used to be. Maybe I won't be as anxious and worried that ppl would misread Nika or take fanon off the rail too much.

Just found out that one person who wants to talk about shipping Nika with Maps has drawn baby Damian in a cage💀

And you expect me to be chill on that information?

(Obviously I'm talking about Nika, cause I'm a Flatline fan. No scratch that, GET A JOB!! STAY AWAY FROM THEM!!!)

Even if you ship Nika with Maps my expectations of your fanon are lower than hell (because you only start talking about them solely for dry shipping, not considering the characters' current state and situations in canon aka you don't care)

Good fanon/projections: 🔺Think for the characters, expanding their interests from the given canon information (I'm talking about working around it because you care for the characters, and you would recognize if there is any awful writing from the racist writer and putting it to rest). 🔺Add your own interests to the characters bc you feel deeply related to them and love them. 🔺Building up their relationship with their family, friends and lovers with care. 🔺Making interesting AU for them to build more for the characters, centralize their relationship with other characters, and have fun stringing the canon information to the AU situation and adding more nuances.

Bad fanon/projections: 🔻Racist stereotypes repackaged as a joke or a gag. 🔻Putting them in weird situations for the sake of angst and intentionally/unintentionally putting a harmful light on other characters (when in canon they would not doing all that sh!t). 🔻Proshipping (incest, pedophile)

Not really apply to crossover fanon (the type that involves other characters from another fandom) on the canon part, cause it usually ignores canon in multiple degrees on the get-go, and the reason why I'm not that interested/invested in it

[13eyond13]

I'll try to keep it short because you're very kind but I'm becoming annoying... I actually like Soichiro. It's his morals I cannot stand. In fact, in line with his, I like Matsuda's and even Light's variations more, even with all the darkness they entail, because they're more critical. I adore L and find him relatable, but I'm not so sure if I'd like him as a person in real life, and yet I again like his morals more than Soichiro's. I still think Soichiro is generally a better person than any of the others. I still dislike his morals the most. When I say at the opposite end of Soichiro in the moral spectrum is where Near stands I'm not talking just about my personal liking, but as I interpret their views on morality. Maybe there's some detail of the manga I'm forgetting (I truly have to reread it), but Soichiro didn't seem very critical about... anything, while Near states something like "even if god came and told me this is good and this is bad and this is The Truth I'd still consider and come to my own conclusion". I like that. I care less about someone getting a moral with what I may consider a degree of grey if they do that. I myself have very strong morals that nonetheless have degrees of grey; strong doesn't mean pure. My grey and someone else's grey might be very different. But I've developed them, not accepted them blindly. Near of course, Mello, L, and even Light and Matsuda do this, but Soichiro generally doesn't. And I dislike that greatly. In fact, I think I'd find him kind in real life, and likeable, but I'd not really like him because I can't really bring myself to like someone like that even when they're kind and compassionate and good. I'm already talking more than I intended but I'll try to point out what bothers me of his attitude.

Soichiro is very very anti Kira, but he's working for a government with the death penalty and he doesn't seem to consider that even for a moment. For him, that the government does it is justifiable but monstrous if a person does it. He doesn't really have a justification, it's just like that because it's as it is. He's very against L's methods, buy L uses people who were going to die anyway at the very moment he uses them either way because of the death penalty, because of the government. From a government pov, if the government were to do what L does, it'd be something terrible. From an individual pov? Not so much. It's ugly, but it's beyond himself whether that people die or not, and his decisions are easily justifiable from an individual pov: they're going to die irrevocably, that very day at that very time, and he is using what he can to solve a very complicated case that is taking many lives, and he even might use the moral support of "I'm giving the prisoners the chance of choosing, with the potential reward of lifelong imprisonment instead of death". And again, while a government doing that is terrible, it's not as terrible for a person. L is a private detective, an individual. People can be fallible. Governments shouldn't. What L does might be justifiable, if ugly, for a person, but it would be unforgivable for the government to do. But the government lies on L and it's L who takes the slander of the rest of the Task Force. And that's what Soichiro doesn't see, and that's what bugs me. Soichiro sides with the government and the laws no matter what, no matter if they're terrible and are actually the cause if indirectly of the terrible things L is able to do (I'd have to reread to be completely comfortable affirming this, but Soichiro's attitude towards the government reminds me a bit of Mikami and Misa to some extent).

Soichiro hates Kira, and hates and criticises L's methods and his ruthlessness, but doesn't even consider for one moment the problem is not L. The problem is not the 24 yo boy/man, the problem is his government, that has the dead penalty and actually let's a private detective carry on with the investigation and do as he pleases (and I'm not even taking into consideration how L's upbringing and the lowkey if fun exploitation he was subrmited to have most probably influenced if not determined the way he acts in these cases, because while it's intriguing it'd feel like justifying L out of pity, and either way Soichiro doesn't know that; but I mention this because L's entire past at Wammy's, like the other children's, is another very terrible move from governments and adults in responsibility positions). The problem is Interpol, the governments in general, blatantly saying L is ruthless but not even setting rules when working with him. And I think it would actually have been very easy to stop L doing those things. Just change the rules of the game, tell him beforehand there are a few things he can't do. It's a game after all. Of course L would still exploit the moral and legal vacuums of the rules as he pleased, as one does when playing anything, but the government wouldn't have given him totally free way.

I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself very well. Years ago in a class I talked about the difference between personal vengeance and the death penalty. I feel this is similar. A person is fallible. A government should be able to stand over licit murder. L manipulating people to prove a point is ugly. A government doing that or letting someone free way to do whatever is terrible. L does whatever, and as an individual is not so horrible as it is that the governments internationally actually let him do whatever even knowing beforehand without setting rules. Soichiro sees this and it doesn't even cross his mind for a moment to criticise the government he's working with. Also, he considers his morals the best, which makes sense in a first person pov (why support x morals if you don't think they're the best? I'm not critisising this), but he's very... imposing about them, while as I say not being precisely the most critical thinker. That Soichiro is like this, morally (I'm not even talking about the policeman aspect though that's so often talked about in the fandom), makes a lot of sense to how Light ends up being Kira, and with how Matsuda thinks and acts. And I find that very intriguing, but I can't stand Soichiro's simplistic morals and his better-than-you attitude even though he's a generally good person. That's why I dislike his morals the most (of course you don't have to agree!). I don't stand by Near's morals either, but I like his "god could come and tell me and still I'd doubt" attitude. It's what makes gods mad in basically every mythology, but I love that kind of thought process. I'm very much like that too.

I'm so sorry this is so long. I tried to cut, but I got the impression it'd make it even less clear or more difficult to understand. Or maybe the lack of clarity lies precisely on how repetitive and long this is. I'd like to think English not being my first language has to do with this, but honestly the problem is most probably just me. I hope I made the point understandable enough, though. And thanks for your patience. I really liked that post of Near someone sent as an opinion and how you replied! Very interesting takes on both ends.

Hi again! You have some very thought-provoking points about it all, and don't worry, your English is excellent.

I loved Near's stance about these things as well, and that's something that really bothered me when growing up about some authority figures and institutions being really totalitarian and silencing of doubts or stances they deemed too negative or incorrect to voice aloud. I value having freedom of choice and the ability to think critically about everything immensely. Maybe it's because I went to a very strict and sheltering and weird little school as a child that tried very hard to indoctrinate me with a specific worldview, and always shamed and silenced anyone who disagreed or questioned them or felt like an outsider or wanted to have a different point of view. I remember relating the most to Matsuda on the task force when I first watched the show as a teen, because he was always speaking up with his devil's advocate questions or confusions. The way Soichiro and the others usually yell and scold and shame him for this bothered me a lot, because I wanted them to discuss things openly so I could see all the different sides of the arguments more clearly. Actually, I think this is a pretty culturally similar thing between Japan and Canada (where I am from). There's a strong emphasis on doing what's best for the entire group instead of just yourself, and being too controversial or outspoken or individualistic about certain things is often taboo and frowned upon as a big social faux pas. It's possibly quite a bit stronger pressure toward obedience and conformity and politeness in Japan in certain ways as well, but I don't know for sure as I haven't lived there myself.

I think Soichiro had a bit of nuance and flexibility with his morals and his stances in various instances throughout the plot, and to me he seemingly tries hard to see things from other angles during complicated moments in what must be one of the most difficult situations he could possibly face as both a police chief and a parent. But it's true he never seemed to doubt that upholding the laws already in place and the way his government punishes the convicted were the "correct" ways society should function. I think this series would be a really interesting one to discuss in a class that talks about stuff like justice and the death penalty and law and ethics and such for how many of these things it touches on in an entertaining and thought-provoking way!

[izupie]

1, 5, 13, 23, 33, 39 with Tokoyami x Tsuyu!! Don't have to do all of them, because frankly I'd be happy with any of them! One of my favorite authors writing stuff about one of my favorite (and disappointingly underrated) ships?? Yes please!!

Oh booyy, wow! No, I love the excuse to talk about some good bird frog content~

And aaa thank you! /// Admittedly, these two have very little canon content to use so this will be a Very Deep Dive into the headcanon void, hope you don’t mind~

you: You don’t have to do all of them

me: no I’m gonna

woah this needs a read more I wrote wayyy more than I intended //wheeze//

1. - How do they fall asleep? Wake up? Any daily rituals?

Tsuyu doesn’t like the cold when she sleeps, so she always slept under a thick duvet and even piled blankets on top of that too. Tokoyami has never been a very good sleeper and he suffers from insomnia from time to time. Even though they started with very different sleeping habits, both of them are so adaptable that they made it work when they moved it together: Tsuyu got rid of the extra blankets on top of the duvet, and instead got thicker pyjamas, while Tokoyami began to find that Tsuyu’s slow, regular, sleepy breathing lulled him to sleep. They still like their own space in bed, so they sleep on their own sides of it, but Tsuyu sometimes strokes Tokoyami’s feathers before she falls asleep and he holds her hand gently until he falls asleep too. They wake up most mornings still holding hands.

She says good night and good morning to Dark Shadow every day too.

Tokoyami actually brushes Tsuyu’s long hair while they’re getting ready for the day. It’s a very intimate act, and she wouldn’t trust anyone else to do it, but Tokoyami’s hands are gentle and patient and he would never hurt her. She makes him a coffee every morning, with lots of milk. (She would never ruin his image and tell everyone just how milky he has his coffee).

5. - Nicknames? Pet names? Any in-jokes?

Tsuyu tells everyone to call her Tsu, including Tokoyami. She never quite manages to get him to do it for a long while, but he slips up one day and does and it makes her day. He gets embarrassed about it but it makes her so happy that he bashfully calls her Tsu from then on.

She affectionately calls Tokoyami ‘Fumi’ (a shortening of his first name) or whispers a pet name of ‘Tori’ to him when they’re alone (the Japanese word for Bird).

She can keep such a straight face that an in-joke between them is that she’ll sometimes come out with something Dark Shadow has told her about Tokoyami with her best poker face, even if it’s something totally bizarre. ‘But Dark Shadow told me you can only eat spinach on a Tuesday, if you’re wearing something pink, and you’ve sang to it first.’

Dark Shadow always goes along with whatever Tsuyu says. ‘IT’S TRUE’ it’ll add no matter what outlandish thing she’s proclaimed it told her.

It’s like, the weirdest humour and their friends Do Not Get It, but they both think it’s hilarious. Tokoyami laughs so hard and blushes when it’s something embarrassing, even if it’s made up, and squishes her squishy cheeks. She grins like a champion every time. She’ll just come out with it totally randomly, so he never knows when or what the next crazy statement she’ll come out with is - delivered with a totally straight face before she cracks up at his reaction.

He still does his over-the-top darkness related descriptions for things, but Tsuyu also joins in. They both chuckle at that too.

13. - What do they do for fun? Do they have a favorite activity or do they like to switch things up?

The two of them go sightseeing often - they’re both actually very trendy, even though they don’t try, they just have really good fashion sense - so they look like a really cool couple when they’re out at tourist spots having ice cream and soaking in the atmosphere and the history.

Tsuyu also loves watching movies, wrapped in a duvet, in Tokoyami’s arms. They discuss the film in depth afterwards. Tokoyami cries at really emotional films, though Tsuyu is sworn to secrecy about it, and she’ll chuckle and wipe away his tears afterwards.

23. - How do they hug? Kiss? Tease? Flirt? Comfort?

Tokoyami hugs like he’s never going to let go, sometimes Dark Shadow joins into the hug too, while Tsuyu hugs like it’s a gentle precious thing and he can’t stand how much he loves her when she gives him a soft little squeeze. They’re not into PDA so they don’t hug while they’re out and about - it’s very much a private thing. Unless you knew them and their little nuances towards each other you probably wouldn’t know that they were a couple at all.

Kissing is hard with a beak and sometimes Tokoyami can feel bad that he can’t kiss his partner like everyone else - especially when they see other ‘normal’ couples. Tsuyu absolutely hates that he ever feels that way and can’t stress to him enough that she loves him just as he is, exactly how he is, and wouldn’t change him for anything in the whole world. She kisses the side of his beak, though he can’t really feel it, but prefers kissing the soft downy feathers just next to his beak. Which he loves.

Or she’ll kiss the human soft skin of his chest, which is much more sensitive due to the lack of feathers. He loves that even more.

Tsuyu likes to be held and feel the warmth of his body, since hers doesn’t regulate temperature very well because of her froggyness. 

He gets embarrassed at first that he nibbles at her shoulder or hand or just inside the curve of her neck with his beak when they’re being close - because it’s a birdy impulse he just can’t shake. (have you ever owned birds? that nibbly thing they do is so freaking cute I swear) 

Tokoyami is so bad at handling flirting, which is hilarious because he’s usually so collected and doesn’t say much, but Tsuyu flirts with him and he just melts, while she is cooler than cool and never looks phased. She usually just says what’s on her mind and it comes out like flirting. (Tsu: moonlight sets off your eyes you know, kero. Like stars in the night, shining out of your dark feathers. Tokoyami, voice cracking: thAnKS YOu toO)

In terms of comfort, Tsuyu is so grounded and sensible that she often internalises any worry or guilt and it ends up playing on her mind until she can’t contain it anymore and she’ll just break down into tears. Tokoyami gets particularly good at spotting when she’s holding something back or keeping bad emotions inside - just knowing when her look is more distracted than usual, or her smile is a fraction ‘off’ - and he gently asks her to share it with him. She’s so used to shouldering her burdens alone that it takes her a long time to be able to come to him for reassurance, though she’s always glad when she does because he’s also so level-headed and practical that she always feels much better afterwards.

Tokoyami is always, always harbouring secret fears of what he could do to her if he let his quirk get out of control. Tsuyu loves Dark Shadow, because it’s a part of him, but he can never forget the nightmare of what happened at the training camp. Tsuyu bought a night light for their room that comes on automatically at night, but never made a fuss about it, just bought it and installed it and neither of them have ever brought it up. For someone who’s essence is to be more powerful in the dark it makes him uneasy that he’s so unwilling to be immersed in it when he’s around her - so worried for her safety and the thought that he’d be unable to live with himself if he ever did anything to her. She trusts him beyond a shadow of a doubt (puns?) and knows he doesn’t need the night light, but if it makes him feel better she’ll go with it. 

33. - What kind of presents do they get each other? Do they only do it on special occasions?

Tsuyu is all about handmade presents. She’s actually quite crafty, so she’s usually sticking things together or whipping out the glitter glue. Presents from her are unique and all about the person she’s making it for - you didn’t know you needed a new pen pot? Here’s a glittery one. Or a peg basket with tissue paper flames around it for those times you need to put the washing out and don’t have anywhere to store your pegs. A feathery dream-catcher weighed down by a ton of beads? She’s gotcha covered. Her hands are large due to her quirk, but she can be super delicate with them. Their house ends up full of craft items, and Tokoyami treasures each one.

He gets her all sorts of ‘thought of you’ gifts while he’s out. But it’s usually stuff like a notebook with a frog on it, or a frog pen, or a pebble that kind of looked like a frog’s face. They end up with all sorts of frog themed bits and pieces around the house. It’s a real eclectic kind of mixture. Tsuyu smiles like he’s brought her the world every time he gets her one of these little froggy gifts.

39. - Who initiated the relationship? Who kissed who first?  When did they realize they were in love?

Tsuyu was the one who initiated the relationship. They’d been put together for a few group assignments throughout their time at school and really loved working as a team, so by their third year they just started hanging out together outside of class. Their personalities complimented each other so well. Tsuyu got teased by Mina one day for the amount of time she was spending with Tokoyami outside of school and she just totally without even missing a beat replies that it’s because she’s in love with him and her friends are just like Oh Wow, No Hesitation. When they suggest she should do something about it it’s the first time they ever see her truly bashful and a little unsure. 

Tokoyami remains blissfully unaware that he has Feelings for Tsuyu, despite Dark Shadow teasing him about it relentlessly. 

One evening she’s adding more feathers into her scrapbook than is really necessary and she just gets up from her desk, goes to his room, knocks on the door and just straight up tells him that she really likes him and would he like to go out with her? He is emotionally floored by this completely out of nowhere reveal and manages to choke out that he really likes her too and yes of course.

It was a realisation of ‘I really enjoy spending time with this person, I actively seek them out and I have this warm feeling when I’m around them, I’m obviously in love’ for Tsuyu while for Tokoyami it was her knocking on his door and him going ‘THAT’S what this feeling is’ while Dark Shadow internally is like Of Course You Dumbass.

Their first kiss is after a particularly tough team exam. They actually fail the exam and they’re both exhausted and Tokoyami is about to apologise and she just puts a hand to his beak and kisses his cheek. A really innocent first kiss, but full of emotion.

[theplantcollector]

Women are ruining the environment

9 Oct 2022

I am joking. Women are not ruining the environment. But, this week's topic is concerning different intersections of environmentalism. What is the intersection of feminism and the environment?

It is an interesting take to discuss the industry of beauty products, and how the industry creates problems for women that they need to buy products to solve. For example, Gua Shas are proven to do nothing for your facial structure. Oiling and facial massages do not do anything for your actual wrinkles and aging (For context, gua sha is a round tool used to push your skin around and smooth it, it is usually made of stone or jade). But, there is millions of dollars in pointless beauty tools being used. If collectively, all women chose to love themselves and not partake in pointless beauty standards, there would be NO billion dollar beauty industry.

The part that becomes more nuanced is women who partake in beauty as empowerment. In essences, women in other countries where showing/exposing your hair illegal: those women may want the luxury of hair products, dye, and salon care and be able to present themselves as women without those restrictions can. Poor women may want to partake in beauty that they cannot afford or do not have access to.

Does that make these women bad for wanting to partake in something that they don't have access to? Feminist rhetoric begs these questions and discusses them in a way that is much more academic and in depth than I.

But, my point here is that women/people are not inherently bad for partaking in parts of life. Because it makes for a very complex issue where we have to consider the fact that women in those positions without access to these privileges probably don't care if they environment suffers as a result of them getting an experience (no, this is not a bad thing).

Similarly, a person who does not have food/cannot afford food probably won't refuse a meal containing animal products for the environments' sake.

Because in terms of their existence and condition, it does not matter. Think of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs.

If you have not past physiological needs, who gives a shit about the environment? Who cares if there is trash, smog, or polluted waterways? When you aren't safe in your home country, it does not matter that the trash outside is there. I think this is something we should consider in all facets of life. Maybe, your friend can't be compassionate to you because they're having a tough time at home. Or, your neighbor does not have the money to buy food today and that's why they're being crass.

We need to be a bit more compassionate for our fellow humans.

#Slay #Mentalhealth #feminism #environment