#especially in arguments

[confused-wanderer]

Why does no one take advantage of the fact that the sides can literally dress one another? Gimme Remus and Roman arguing about something, Roman getting heated and swearing to chop off Remus’ limbs and keep them from regrowing when Remus suddenly smirks, and points behind them.

Roman just hears a “WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK” before he turns around and sees Virgil there, in a very.. revealing and jaw dropping outfit that makes his brain make dial up noises for the next ten minutes while Remus just laughs at him and Logan sighs in exasperation wondering if he should just make a bet with Patton to get them together at this point.

[dramatic-dolphin]

most cartoonishly evil pro-life talking point i've ever seen was "oh so you think minors should be allowed to get an abortion without parental consent?" wait. wait so you think a parent should be allowed to veto a minor's abortion? you think parents should be allowed to force a 12 year old to give birth? against their will? you think it should be allowed and legal to do that? you think it's a problem that parents are not allowed to force a literal child to give birth?

[chloesimaginationthings]

Shout out to Hudson from FNAF 3!!

[laufire]

sorry but the whole "jason fans are delulu if they think he's a feminist" thing is hilarious. no, he's not a feminist, in the sense that he's not primarily focused on politically fighting for women's liberation. sorry to break this to you, but neither are any of your favourite male superheroes. nor your favourite female superheroes, for that matter. dc sure isn't writing stories through genuine feminist lenses anymore, come the fuck on.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Good Morning, World.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[snowcoming]

wow. damn. i really cant believe i have to clarify this but godamn

the shit before spyral where bruce forced dick to go to spyral? that was not a spar

the fact that people believe it was a spar is insane to me. pretty sure you agree to fight each other when you have a spar. you want to spar, thats why you spar. thats a spar. a spar definitely doesn't happen right after your heart stopped and you were literally kidnapped by an evil justice league from another universe and 1. you're not in a condition to spar 2. you didn't want to spar in the first place.

and bruce didn't really convince dick to go. he forced him. 'convincing' doesn't involve physical hurt against the person. convincing someone means persuading them, and persuading means using reasoning and arguments. Reasoning does not in fact involve punching someone and throwing them across a room.

And arguably, yes, bruce did use words to tell dick why he had to go, but it was never 'can you go' it was always 'you will go'. and yeah, that's a him problem, and even if we don't touch that right now-

bruce used coercion. you can speak words all you want, but using force immediately made it coercion. that's as simple as that.

[kaiserouo]

(prev)

woah...

cooper do a grab

[bennetsbonnet]

Much has been made of Mr Darcy's "confession" to Elizabeth that he does not converse easily with strangers. It is repeatedly used to support neurodivergent interpretations of his character. And I suppose that when taken at face value, a character confessing that they do not easily converse with strangers and struggle to catch their tone or appear interested in conversation can absolutely scream AUTISM! (I say as an autistic person myself)

But this line is often taken in isolation. When considered in terms of the passage in which it appears in Chapter 31, it appears far less of a smoking gun than may initially be suspected. After some discussion about Elizabeth and Darcy's prior acquaintance in Hertfordshire, Colonel Fitzwilliam asks Elizabeth for information about Darcy's behaviour there. She readily supplies it:

'Pray let me hear what you have to accuse him of,' cried Colonel Fitzwilliam. 'I should like to know how he behaves among strangers.' 'You shall hear then—but prepare yourself for something very dreadful. The first time of my ever seeing him in Hertfordshire, you must know, was at a ball—and at this ball, what do you think he did? He danced only four dances, though gentlemen were scarce; and, to my certain knowledge, more than one young lady was sitting down in want of a partner. Mr Darcy, you cannot deny the fact.' 'I had not at that time the honour of knowing any lady in the assembly beyond my own party.'

What Darcy leaves out here is that it was he himself who chose not to be introduced to anybody. As we learn from the description of his behaviour at the Meryton assembly in Chapter 3:

Mr Darcy danced only once with Mrs Hurst and once with Miss Bingley, declined being introduced to any other lady, and spent the rest of the evening in walking about the room, speaking occasionally to one of his own party.

Anyway, Elizabeth correctly does not buy his excuses. Not only does she respond with a cutting sarcastic remark, but she tries to bring the discussion with an end by speaking to Colonel Fitzwilliam:

'True; and nobody can ever be introduced in a ball-room. Well, Colonel Fitzwilliam, what do I play next? My fingers wait your orders.'

But Darcy does not get the hint and continues conversing with Elizabeth rather than quitting while he's ahead. However, I don't believe him to be missing a social cue here. Rather, this is an exceedingly conceited man who cannot conceive that anyone would not want to speak to such a Superior Being as he and more-so, is determined to defend himself from a perceived slight against his impeccable character.

Then we come to the passage containing the oft-cited line which allegedly contains proof of his neurodivergency:

'Perhaps,' said Darcy, 'I should have judged better, had I sought an introduction; but I am ill-qualified to recommend myself to strangers.' 'Shall we ask your cousin the reason of this?' said Elizabeth, still addressing Colonel Fitzwilliam. 'Shall we ask him why a man of sense and education, and who has lived in the world, is ill-qualified to recommend himself to strangers?' 'I can answer your question,' said Fitzwilliam, 'without applying to him. It is because he will not give himself the trouble.'

Once again, Elizabeth does not buy his excuse for even a single second. She's fully aware of all the advantages a man such as he will have received in society (opportunities not open to women, might I add!) and draws attention to that fact. It's a brilliant, cutting line from her and she really set that one up for Colonel Fitzwilliam to deliver the knockout blow.

Not only do we have the testimony of Mr Darcy's cousin, that 'he will not give himself the trouble,' to appear cordial to strangers, but we have evidence from Wickham too. Although after this statement, Wickham quickly goes onto misrepresent Darcy's kindness to the poor, which contradicts Mrs Reynold's later testimony, I do believe Wickham to be telling the truth (for once!) here, when he tells Elizabeth in Chapter 16:

'Mr Darcy can please where he chooses. He does not want abilities. He can be a conversible companion if he thinks it worth his while.'

Which, again, demonstrates that Darcy is capable when he wants to be. That is the crucial point. Autistic people fundamentally lack the ability to understand social cues, they cannot turn it on and off as they please because they are snobs.

So, now we come to the infamous line about Darcy's supposed social struggles, and I hope that I've provided enough context to the line to make you see that it should not be taken at face value:

'I certainly have not the talent which some people possess,' said Darcy, 'of conversing easily with those I have never seen before. I cannot catch their tone of conversation, or appear interested in their concerns, as I often see done.' 'My fingers,' said Elizabeth, 'do not move over this instrument in the masterly manner which I see so many women’s do. They have not the same force or rapidity, and do not produce the same expression. But then I have always supposed it to be my own fault—because I will not take the trouble of practising. It is not that I do not believe my fingers as capable as any other woman’s of superior execution.'

Again, Elizabeth is not buying his excuses for even a single second and tells him if he feels like that, maybe he should put the effort in. She has seen him in numerous social settings and been thoroughly unimpressed with his behaviour which, when you consider his rudeness to her at the Meryton assembly, she has every right to be.

So, what do I make of the line?

Well, I think it's abundantly clear that Darcy absolutely can speak to people when he wants to. Perhaps, in his mind, he struggles to make that deeper connection and make friends easily. But making friends is not always easy, it's a process you must invest time and effort into. If you do not do that, it stands to reason that you will struggle. Plus, if you hold others to ridiculous standards (as Darcy does) without recognising and fixing the flaws within yourself, you're not going to have deep, lasting friendships.

While this quote may appear to be a moment of vulnerability where he does confess a fault of his, which is astounding given his pride, personally I do not think it was not a soul-searching exercise. It was to make Elizabeth stop grilling him. It was self-serving. Although, I don't think he's entirely lying. Darcy is veeeery careful with his words and though this statement is not considered and perhaps comes out rather abruptly, it doesn't necessarily follow that it isn't true. I can imagine that it is probably something he's felt for a while, yet it is a rather desperate attempt to defend himself from a woman who sees right through him.

I think perhaps Darcy does realise that he isn't as naturally gifted as other men he knows (such as Wickham, Colonel Fitzwilliam and Mr Bingley) when it comes to forming acquaintances. However, he looks outwards and turns that bitterness against the world rather than looking inwards, reflecting upon himself and improving his manners which would be the correct thing to do. Thankfully, he later does this, but it took him twenty eight years...

In addition, Darcy appeared to have been under the illusion that he could coast by on Pemberley's reputation... which has always worked... until he met Elizabeth. For perhaps the first time, he encounters a woman who is not awestruck by him and his reputation and delivers the rebuke that he always needed.

So, while personally I'm inclined to believe there is some truth to his statement, as Mr Darcy is many things but he isn't a liar, I think it is said in desperation. His feeling stems from him knowing what he should do, but he can't be bothered to enact it... rather than any inherent social deficiency stemming from being neurodivergent.

Although, even if he does struggle socially, it's still no excuse for the rudeness he displayed to Elizabeth! My main issue with neurodivergent readings of Darcy is when they are deployed to defend his behaviour, when they attribute his rudeness to any potential neurodivergency and when they excuse his laziness. That is an awful message! Autistic people who struggle with social cues often do not, nor should they, go around insulting others. They should and often do put plenty of effort into being considerate and polite. In fact, I think, if anything, a love of rules makes us more likely to have good manners, rather than the reverse.

Ultimately, I'm not sure this line makes Mr Darcy the sympathetic-poor-sweet-innocent-shy-boy-autistic-representation that people want him to be. In fact it makes him look even worse, if anything. On matters such as these, he is every inch the conceited proud man he was widely believed to be at the Meryton assembly. Luckily, Elizabeth is an incredibly smart woman, who doesn't fall for it and immediately calls him out on his behaviour in a way that he has never experienced before. As she should!

[glitter-stained]

Look, I personally really hate Jason being a crime lord and killing goons/small time crooks, it really feels, to me, like an insult to core traits of his character in his origin story (the class consciousness, his father's death, his mother's OD...)

But I have to say all the "whaaa these crooks had families they didn't deserve that" by people who condemn Jason and love Bruce, by people who support the non-killing bats as they work with the prison system again and again (yes there are exceptions this post isn't about them it's about the people who support the bats in working alongside the system), I find that argument really frustrating. Like, remind me again why Jason ended up in the streets? His mom died okay and his dad? Yeah.

Not exactly cool to arrest Willis and put him in some slab where he ultimately gets murdered isn't it? Not cool to take away his freedom and cut him off from the vulnerable people he was trying to support for the crime of trying to support them, right? He was just trying to feed his family... And so do all the goons that non-killing superheroes so often just end up beating up and leaving for the police to find, they had a family too!!

Anyway murder, the vaste, vaste majority of time, isn't the solution for systemic issues. But at least it can offer some damn catharsis for the reader, and is often coherent with the exaggerated agency and impact on the world stories tend to give their characters.

Stories that condemn murder as solutions to systemic issues and end up with the criminals being arrested by the police/thrown into jail bore me to death on a good day, and piss me off more often than not.

[seaglassmelody]

Reminiscing this morning about some of the top-tier Veilguard Critical takes that I’ve seen

“They didn’t show slavery enough” We’ve been over this one enough I think but like. Ok sorry you didn’t get your white savior narrative?

“Tevinter is racist why didn’t they use slurs!” Fun fact: There’s a lot of racist people that know not to be blatant about it via the use of slurs! Also why do you want to be called slurs?

“Veilguard isn’t an RPG because it didn’t allow me to roleplay!” Ok so 1) you don’t know what an RPG is. And 2) Veilguard, a game that is constructed in the same manner as all 4 Mass Effect Games, DA2 AND DAI, is not an RPG even though ALL of those other games are? What is the justification here?

>An extension of this one, the person who tried to tell me that Final Fantasy 7 wasn’t an RPG. Still turning that one around in my head.

And my personal favorite that was not widespread but lives in my head rent free: “RPGs aren’t supposed to have themes”. This take was so baffling it belongs in “graphic design is my passion” meme territory

[lyculuscaelus]

So lately I’ve been seeing a lot of posts asking people to stop trying to make Odysseus look nice in their works cuz he’s a “messed-up person in the mythology”. Your opinion is valid however I have but one thing to point out:

You want to know who started all this? Who started to “make Odysseus look nice” in the first place?

It’s Homer. It’s nobody else but Homer himself.

A non-Homeric Odysseus would try to murder people out of his own interests. He’d murder Palamedes without remorse (and we’d be cheering over this but it’s a murder after all), he’d attempt to murder Diomedes just to get the Palladium himself, he’d volunteer to kill Astyanax…meanwhile you wouldn’t find any mention of either Palamedes or Nauplius in Homer’s poems, neither did he mention anything abt the Palladium heist (and Diomedes necessity did not happen until Conon’s version), the death of Astyanax, the distribution of war prizes, etc. And all the details in the Odyssey seemed to deny the existence of Nauplius’s vengeance at all, so Odysseus would not take any of the blame.

A non-Homeric Odysseus would be depicted as “cruel, treacherous”, meanwhile in book 10 of the Iliad Odysseus was not mentioned to have killed anyone during the marauding, neither did he promise Dolan anything at all. The negative interpretations are denied by these details subtly put by Homer.

A non-Homeric Odysseus would be widely known as a “coward” for only shooting arrows from afar. But Homer gave him a spear and had him absolutely slaying in both the Iliad and the Odyssey. That part of Ajax’s speech was invalid already.

Most importantly—a non-Homeric Odysseus would be having kids everywhere else, and the loyalty to his own wife as seen in the Odyssey is no where to be found. Meanwhile his lineage was a single-son line made by Zeus in the Odyssey, and his love for Penelope was one of his main drives, especially seen in book 5 of the Odyssey. He loved his family as a loving parent—something you don’t get to see in most of the non-Homeric writings—for most of the time they followed a different tradition indeed, in which Odysseus wasn’t half as nice as in the Odyssey.

TL;DR: in case you haven’t noticed, the characterization of the Homeric Odysseus was quite different from a non-Homeric version of Odysseus. It’s not that Homer didn’t know of the existence of other versions—he knew them too well, which is why in his version of the story, you don’t get to see any mention of them.

[dunmeshistash]

Do you know where the “mithrun is the most grizzed masculine elf take” comes from. All I think about is the changeling thing but no one calls Marcille the most masculine elf for being ripped as an orc compared to Tade. Or that he trains a lot, which is also not an inherent masculine thing. To me Mithrun doesn’t really look different to any other (male) elf we see. Is it from the extra’s or something?

Yes that take comes from the changeling transformations of both Mithrun and Senshi. The joke is the Senshi is the "most femme dwarf" and Mithrun the "most masc elf" in contrast with how they look in their original forms

I do think the joke kinda got out of control in the game of telephone that fandom is, instead of a fun observation of how we might perceive Mithrun more feminine than he is and Senshi more masculine than he is due to our own biases based on their races it got taken way too seriously as "the only true and correct interpretation"

I don't think Mithrun is especially masculine or feminine when it comes to his personality, I understand some people have been peeved by others making him maybe too meek/girly compared to canon but I feel like the response of making him way more aggressive/manly than canon is just as inaccurate and it's kinda upsetting when I see "fandom vs (my interpretation of canon) canon" as if they're any more right for going to the extreme opposite

We don't really know if Mithrun is specially "masculine" for an elf either, the only elf that we know is especially "masc" is Otta, and we only know cause her bio says even elves mistake her for a man (I think for most of us she looks as androgynous as the others)

Here's a post discussing elf gender presentation more in depth if you're interested in the subject but all we know is that Mithrun works out a lot and is very muscular (which signals 'manlyness' for us but might not for elves) there isn't much that point out to him being especially manly or especially feminine compared to other male elves. He also has lost most of his desires and doesn't express his preferences much so I think it's safe to assume he doesn't really pick how he presents himself (clothing and such).

Other than that and being stoic (is that a super manly trait?) Mithrun is pretty average I think. He's also still super cute even as a tallman (as if looking manly would stop you from being cute)

But another trait of him that seem to make people read him as "super manly" it's that sometimes Mithrun is scary and aggressive, I'm not even going into why that's bad (correlating aggressiveness with manliness is uh…. not great….) not even to mention he only acts that way when he's triggered by wanting to take revenge on the demon, otherwise he seems to avoid hurting others.

Related to the "Mithrun is a super manly elf" take I've even seen people argue that drawing him looking too "cute" and small is incorrect (probably just because of his tallman self) but that's how Kui draws him herself.

I don't understand why correct others for drawing him the same way his creator does, he's designed to look this way, there's nothing to "fix" about his original design either (nothing wrong with drawing him in a way that appeals to you more tho, fanart is fanart just don't harass other people)

Anyway just to stress the point that he is very average let's compare him to Lycion and Pattadol

The average height for elves is 155 for males and 150 for females Mithrun is 155cm, Lycion is 170cm and Pattadol is 160cm, they're both taller and have a sturdier looking builds than Mithrun

Kui often draws Pattadol specially with a sturdier build than Mithrun actually

So no he's not the most buff biggest elf ever in any sense (although he IS a muscular elf), and I don't think the changeling transformations are too objective since they're magic. For example Pattadol as a human is pretty average even tho she's big compared to other elves (not to mention Senshi half-foot who has a huge beard that half-foots don't seem to be able to grow)

[margaretkart]

The post is simply everyone loves Ariadne ✨

[movielp-pany]

"Neil could NEVER be queer." is such a stupid argument, not just because everyone can look at a piece of media and make their own assumptions and the relationship between Neil and Todd that can easily be argued as gay but the fundamental of having A Midsummer Nights Dream as the play he performs is already in defiance of that statement.

You have the obvious fact about Neil playing Puck that is a fairy which is a way gay men have been referred to but it lies so much deeper than that. Neil tells his father and friends that he got the main part, Puck. This again isn't exactly true. It's easily arguable that Lysander and Demetrius are more main characters than Puck. If the movie wanted to squash the idea of Neil being queer, why didn't they choose any of those parts for him? They are very heterosexual roles. Their whole plot/arc is this big romance misunderstanding that Puck causes. If the movie didn't even want to entertain the thought about Neil being queer than they could have definitely choose for those roles.

Yeah, you could argue back that Puck was chosen as his role to parallel Puck and Oberon's relationship to Neil and his father and while this is partly true, it still doesn't fully hold up. The only way this is ever referenced in the movie is in the "Oh, room, fairy, here comes Oberon!" scene where Neil's father tells him to quit the play. (I already explored this in this post). That is the only way we are ever eluded to this being a parallel. In the short shots, we get of Neil performing the play, we don't get any scenes of Puck and Oberon together. We strictly get Puck being a fairy. The fairy part is essential here in addition to the relationship Puck and Oberon have. Again if they didn't want to idea of Neil being queer then they could've easily chosen for a different play. There are a lot more plays that were written before the 1950s that included a relationship that could parallel Neil and his father's relationship without there being anything that could insinuate a queer reading. Neil being Puck was deliberately chosen.

[1doesnotsimplyhavejust1fandam]

This has most definitely been said before, but we were robbed of the core four quarantining on-screen together at Buck’s place. ROBBED I say

[fiona-fififi]

Call me homophobic, but I don't actually think it's great representation to stick a complex, dynamic, newly-realized bisexual character permanently with a flat, boring, underdeveloped love interest just because that was the first guy who showed interest.