#is this comparing apples to oranges idk

[dyingtobehim]

dallon weekes writes songs about sex but i think its fine because i believe that he fucks. on the other hand awsten knight writes songs about sex but i dont like it because i think he's smooth like a ken doll

[exitwound]

Do you have a top 5 or 10 favourite books of all time?

no

[borderlandspolls]

Monthly poll GO‼️

[bambirex]

The way my dash was such a lovely positive place a few days after the new season came out and i was having so much fun hanging out here and now it's full of anti geraskier posts... Like... You don't have to suddenly hate on a ship you previously loved just because there's a new one... You can multiship... You can prefer one to the other and acknowledge they work for different reasons... Just... Why the sudden hostility in every second post i see

[dhurrbyang]

some of y'all will literally say that you hate the booktok videos that lumps books by tropes and then turn around and judge said books by those said tropes because *checks notes* you trust the recommendation style of the people who you criticize of having bad media literacy.

[fluffybunnybadass]

[tanadrin]

Sorry about the long ask, but what do you think about this claim: i often see marxists (and adjacent groups, blah blah) say that the united states (empire) is about to collapse or is gradually declining, something along those lines, and specifically with regard to its economy, military and ideology. For example, i was watching a video hosting Richard Wolff, and he claimed that the united states is being replaced by china as the global superpower; he compares the situation to the historical rise of the united states relative to the british empire that slowly took place in the 19th and 20th centuries. I think his comparison is slightly flawed (imo hes comparing apples to oranges here), but in the broad strokes he might be right? I also remember seeing a pretty respectable maoist on here claim the us military is failing. Idk, i would like to hear your take

This answer got real long, so I added a cut. The short version is "people who say things like this are living in a fantasy land, and you can safely ignore their opinions on anything else as a result."

The United States is not the USSR in 1990 or Somalia in 1994 or Rome in the fifth century, or anything similar. Failed states are absolutely a thing, and they're fascinating (and often quite depressing!) historical case studies, and the United States looks nothing like a failed state. It's not even about to collapse in the sense of "suffer a prolonged period of sharp economic decline that forces it to drastically reduce its presence in the wider world and curtails its power in influence." It's not even about to collapse in the sense of "experience significant regime change." The U.S. economy is, overall, doing quite well. There is no significant popular unrest. There is no elite appetite for revolution. There are not competing centers of power that would rather see the status quo burned to the ground than their rivals get power. You might want the U.S. to collapse, and you might not, but the idea it is about to is pure fantasy.

I think before we get to any other specific claims about the United States' position relative to other countries, it's important to note that claims of impending American collapse are, like claims of impending civilizational collapse or Paul Ehrlich's claim of worldwide hunger or breathless claims that the war in Ukraine is going to escalate into WW3 any day now, IMO affective claims about how the speaker feels about the world: there is a certain class of person who, whether out of nihilistic glee, hope of revolutionary change, or simply untrammeled anxiety sees the signs of collapse all around them, Doom-Is-Nigh streetcorner prophets who are emotionally invested in the idea of collapse, for whom the idea of collapse would often justify some pillar of their politics. If, after all, the US is a failed state about to be toppled by its own decadence, this would justify their inordinate degree of contempt for the US.

On another recent post someone phrased claims like this as often being more about "what would be necessary for someone's politics to be justified," and I think that's an important part of it! In fact I think "affective claims about the world being distorted into factual claims about the world bc they are what would be necessary to justify someone's politics" is a fully general phenomenon, regardless of political orientation. There are much milder forms of it than out-and-out doomerism, though of course the absurdity of doomerist claims to this degree make it really hard to take someone's claims about the state of the world seriously.

About the specific claims here:

Re: China: China has experienced terrific growth since the end of WW2, and that's great! A country of over a billion people should by any reasonable metric be one of the largest economies on Earth, and China is, it seems, taking its inevitable place internationally as an economic powerhouse. It's a big country with a ton of people, and it's terrific that it has been able to lift so many people out of the grinding poverty that prevailed throughout much of the country in the 20th century. But like a lot of middle-income countries it seems to be having a ton of trouble, for significant institutional reasons, transitioning from an industrialization-focused economy to one driven by consumer demand and consumer spending. AIUI (and I am so, so far from an expert; mostly I just read what folks like @argumate post from other sources), China has a lot of debt dragging down its economy, and weak consumer demand. China is still much poorer than the United States on a per capita basis, and though it has a large military, is much less capable of projecting its power beyond its borders. It has aspired to increase its economic and diplomatic influence through the Belt and Road initiative, but returns on this project have been decidedly mixed, and China's military and strategic focus remains decidedly confined to its neighborhood. It wants to absorb Taiwan and protect its interests in the South China Sea, and prop up North Korea and such, but it's not able to or interested in, like, fielding large carrier groups that routinely sail up and down the world's oceans or conduct invasions of distant countries like the U.S. is able to. N.B., I'm not saying those invasions are good, just that the U.S. can historically, if it wants, invade and occupy basically any small-to-medium sized country on the planet in a few weeks, and that's not the kind of capability China has, or--AFAICT--is interested in developing.

The British Empire comparison is also, I think, very misleading, and gets at something I find frustrating about a lot of modern Marxists: they want to fit everything into the model of 19th century capitalist imperialism, when the modern global system doesn't look too much like that anymore. Mostly countries like the United States, if they have economic interests in a country, don't invade and reduce the country to a status of colony to extract raw resources from. The Cold War supported a fair bit of regime change in the service of commercial interests, even in the aftermath of post-WW2 decolonization, but nowadays the tools used to develop and enforce the international order preferred by the Status Quo Coalition (which is led, but not commanded by the United States) are much more indirect. They don't involve directly administering colonies, which is significant because colonialism is, for the states that run it, expensive as hell. Sure, it's great for commercial interests--but it's often more a drain on state finances than anything else. I have come around to the view that colonialism was as much an expression of wealth as it was a means to acquire more. Britain was always a small-but-wealthy island country whose empire was much, much larger than its metropole. The vast majority of the population and wealth controlled by the United States is within the fifty states which comprise the core territory of the United States. This isn't Britain with a far-flung overseas empire which is expensive to administer and a minority of Britons on the island itself--this is a country whose wealth and industry is built on a population of 350 million or so which identifies as American first, which speaks English and votes for President and congress. Most of the United States' actual imperial possessions are tiny archipelagoes these days that are economically marginal, or else military bases overseas--these do not generate American wealth and power, they are expressions of it. For the United States to collapse like the British Empire did, it would have to lose control of California and Texas and the Midwest or something like that--which is a goofy-ass fantasy, because if the United States federal government disappeared tomorrow, I think the vast majority of the 350 million or so people living in the present borders of the United States would support re-establishing the United States federal government. Americans like and support the country they live in! This is very different from the subjects of the British Raj, or even the people of Australia and Canada, who had begun to develop their own identity (and thanks to distance from the metropole, completely divergent economic and political interests).

"The U.S. is an empire analogous Britain" is only true if you squint from very far away and don't care about the specifics of history, economics, or politics. But I think again the way to understand this claim is partly affective. If the U.S. really is the second incarnation of the British Empire, then you can cast a lot of disparate conflicts that otherwise don't fit the mold under the aegis of a broad anti-colonial struggle. It also facilitates a certain sort of base campism that some people love to indulge in--the NATO-is-always-evil-so-anything-NATO-doesn't-like-is-good angle, which has a lot of self-described leftists backing in to saying that Putin's Russia is somehow an antifascist or anticolonial force for good in the world.

"The U.S. military is failing" is pure cope. There's no country or active coalition of countries that's even remotely close to the U.S. military in capabilities. Though there is always going to be a stream of waste and corruption and medium-sized bureaucratic fuckups streaming out of the U.S. military, it remains without peer simply by virtue of one of the largest economies on the planet being willing to spend like 4% of its GDP on military stuff. The EU or China might in some counterfactual world be able to field a similar military if they spent a comparable amount, and had similar strategic aims, but they won't and they don't, so unless U.S. foreign policy drastically changes and military spending is slashed as a result, I don't see that changing at any time in the near future.

[theycallme-ook]

Ok I'll be able to explain this better in a fic than I can via essay but I don't see Cass and Terry's approaches to Batman as, like, analogous if that makes sense?

Like, when I've seen ppl have them interact it's always w Cass bringing her standards and philosophy about Batman to Terry via training or preaching or whatever (not that I'm arguing against that tbc. She would, and should, do exactly that). The symbol means so much to her and she holds others to that just as much as she holds herself to it. But as interesting as that is, I've never seen ppl acknowledge the inverse and I think that means you're missing out on another layer of interest.

The problem as I see it is thus: the symbol of the bat does not mean the same thing to both characters. And both of them being famously stubborn, I don't think they'll suddenly budge on their ideas just bc a stranger tells them to.

What do I mean by this? Well, for Cass the bat, even removed from Bruce, is redemption. It's forgiveness. It's salvation. It's the power to be good enough to save everyone, do anything, fix everything. She holds herself to an impossible standard and refuses grace. No one else dies. Not on her watch. No criminal is irredeemable bc that would mean she is irredeemable. She always sees herself as just as bad, in a way, as the villains she is willing to die to stop every night.

For Terry the bat also means redemption, but not in such a manic way. For him it's a chance to right his wrongs, make a difference and be a force for good in his community. He's not so worried about external validation. He doesn't psychologically need every killer to be redeemed. As the late great Dwayne McDuffy said, "Bruce's goal is to stop crime. Terry's goal is to help people." He and Cass have radically different approaches to the same mantle that aren't going to mesh 1-1 and I think it's unfair to both to hold them to the other's standard. Apples and oranges, yk?

And another major factor is that they come from radically different worlds as well. Cassandra comes from a setting already full of heroes, where there's a hope and lightness to the air. She sees Batman for the first time and feels hope. When they meet in no man's land he's entrenched in his mission and she's excited to join it. She sees him as someone who will never back down from the cause, never waver on his morals, holds himself to the standards she wants and will hold her to it as well. Terry's first experience with Batman is disappointment. He's born after the man already retired. The age of heroes is long over. Bruce is alone. He meets a man who's abandoned his mission and refuses to do anything about the murder of Terry's father. Terry is not saved by the bat, he's saved by a cynical old man who has to be convinced to hope again. They don't know the same Bruce Wayne. They don't know the same Batman. Cassandra's bat would never in a million years ask her to kill one man if it meant saving the world. Terry's bat already pressed a chunk of kryptonite into his hand and did

So idk I just don't think those experiences are neatly comparable

[glitter-stained]

Another day another ask mysteriously disappearing from my inbox when i'm about to hit post on the reply

Anyway the question was basically "what do you think of the "Jason isn't able to get over his death while bruce is capable of forgiving joe chill and sitting by him as he dies" take and doesn't it sound a little like the "everybody died he ain't special " take?"

Why yes. Yes it does sound like that. My thoughts on that idea, in no particular order:

- it's almost 2025 are we still placing moral judgement on characters based on the comparison between how they're enduring their trauma what happened to the universal singularity of human suffering what happened to not comparing apples and bananas weren't we taught not to do that in elementary school

-Is this about the Three Joker comics? It sounds like it is, anyway uh that comics is not mainline (and has pretty shitty writing imo), in mainline even in his least flattering runs (ie Battle for the Cowl) Jason hasn't gone postal because of his death in a while (in BTFC it was Bruce's death and the mention of the "unresolved dark horrors of his childhood" triggering a bad parody of some sort of psychotic break) so like i guess criticizing Jason for something he isn't doing is kinda strange

-if anything Bruce is the one "not over" Jason's death considering the flashback he had right at the beginning of Failsafe arc (though of course demanding he just gets over the trauma of holding his dead son's corpse is just as absurd as demanding Jason gets over the trauma of having died)

-honestly staying by Chill's side as he died was pretty cool and heroic on Bruce's part, totally agreed, that was badass of him to not let him die alone despite his trauma. That being said can we please stop tying morality to the concept of forgiveness? Implying there's a goodness of heart to forgiving/getting over your trauma is weird, it way too puch pressure on the victim, we should stop with the "good victim/bad victim" narrative, martyrdom culture is harmful. If forgiving Chill helped Bruce, cool for him, Jason is in no obligation to forgive Joker, and also Bruce forgiving Chill =/= staying by his side as he died, those are two separate things

-if we're comparing coping we have to compare resources, what does Jason's support system at that time compared to Bruce? Should we make a tally to see who has more friends especially close ones? We both know who will win but also that it's a completely stupid and pointless arrangement, how many apples and oranges must we compare before we conceptualize that it's not the same fruit?

-in terms of personal taste, I find placing moral judgement on characters is about the least interesting analysis angle I can imagine, like, congrats, you've established Angel McPerfect is a better person than Asshole McInteresting! Now multiply me by one and subtract zero.

-kinda hilarious to criticise Jason for not getting over his death and compare that to the coping of a man who dresses as a bat to cope with something that happened thirty years ago. Like if he's so over his trauma why is he wearing pointy ears

-also, obviously, the idea that characters should just "get over their trauma" is insanely dumb. Trauma is like a wound. It can scar, if treated properly, and then the scar will always be there. Imagine telling someone they should get cosmetic surgery because "we get it, you got stabbed, you don't have to shove it in my face every time I look at you." Or telling someone whose wound got infected "why can't you be more like this guy? Look, his stab wound is all healed nice and clean by now. It's like you're not even trying !"

Anyway I hope that answers your question and you have a good day anon, I agree with you that that take is weird, I truly don't understand the reasoning beside "i don't like jason". Idk maybe these people just need to...chill.

[rosalietodd013]

Idk, I respect what you’re saying, but I don’t entirely agree. Comparing fanfic writers and published writers is like comparing apples and oranges.

Also, that “you are not entitled to engagement” argument, while founded in a way, is unhelpful when you pair it with how writing on this app works and the current climate on writeblr.

Nobody’s being forced. A tag is a way for people to filter content. One or two stories that aren’t interesting won’t hurt anyone. All you can do is… scroll. Or block.

These conversations are valid, but they’re unhelpful because the root cause isn’t being discussed. Saying writers aren’t entitled isn’t helping. These writers don’t feel entitled (i’m speaking of the general vast majority), but if people ask to be on taglists and even those people don’t respond, it is discouraging and fosters an unhealthy environment within a fandom. In the grand scheme of things, the mistagging feels like a non-issue.

I do get what you mean and people should tag things correctly. But knowing why they don’t is also important. Fandom culture and community is effectively dying in many fandoms because of the imbalance between people who work hard to provide free entertainment and consumers who believe it is their right. And the only argument they have is “you aren’t entitled to feedback” when all some of these writers are asking is for an acknowledgment that they didn’t just post something to yell into a void.

Some people use likes like bookmarks and then unlike when they’re done reading a post. You may think it doesn’t matter but the person behind the blog can see. Especially if the like count is low.

This isn’t meant to guilt trip anyone. But we can all sort of… meet in the middle and be compassionate. I’ve seen too many writers heartbroken on this app because people send hate and death threats and expect free content and suck the fun out of a fandom for these writers until they leave (zero exaggeration).

We can have conversations about respect and proper tagging, but we also need to have conversations on how to prop up and support writers as well, so they’re not compelled to grasp at straws trying to get their work seen. Only then can we truly sit here and expect change. Might sound dramatic, but for a lot of people, these communities are very valuable. So yeah, talk about mistagging all you want. It’s completely valid.

But please acknowledge one of the major reasons for why it happens and (i don’t really follow you but this is for anyone reading) reblog and share work of your fav artists on here to support them. If you enjoyed something, say so! Just a small “hey this was nice” is enough. Or even a silent reblog. It helps keep a community going. If you value your fandom, you need to value the people that are a part of running said fandom—the artists.

Just offering a different perspective :)

POTENTIAL TL;DR. The very last paragraph is honestly a good summary.

I do see where you’re coming from and you make some valid points. Are there bigger issues on here? Absolutely. I support and comment on writers when I am genuinely moved by a piece. I am one of those people who runs through stories and posts on here by the hundreds a day and thousands per week. Would I like to like and reblog more? Yes. But I tailor my content and posts by my own tastes. Is it selfish and not great that I don’t interact more with writers? Sure, but that’s also my choice. I’m very highly aware of the big issues here, but I’m focusing on one part at a time. I’m voicing my opinion on an issue I see regularly.

I think it’s interesting that your say “comparing published writers and fanfiction writers is totally different”. What makes them different? The fact that one makes money and the other doesn’t? Not all published authors are experts in their field or majored in some form of English or literature or even went to college so that can’t be it either. So if you could explain that part I’d appreciate it.

I do stand by my “no one is entitled to engagement” statement. Just because you post something doesn’t mean I have to respond or give positive feedback. It’s a choice. Not everyone agrees with or likes what someone posts on here or any other platform. When you ask for feedback on something publicly you have to understand that you’re likely gonna get both positive AND negative responses. I personally would prefer if someone skips the comment if it’s not nice or helpful which is what I do for other writers as well. If I don’t like or am not moved by something I’m not gonna comment, post, like or reblog it. No one is entitled to a response. It sometimes does more harm than good.

By saying “a tag is a way to filter content” then say “one or two stories that aren’t interesting won’t hurt anyone” are highly contradicting to your point. You’re acknowledging that tags are ways for people to find stories and content they want to see. The reasons we search for tags and filters is so we only see the content we want to. By saying those one or two stories won’t interest us confirms that it doesn’t belong there and could spark frustration. So just because a writer wants more views on content that audience doesn’t want to see means I should just suffer the frustration? How is that fair? If someone wants to read what is posted and the tags are correct then the audience will find it the right way. It doesn’t have to be forced. It also opens the door for more criticism to that writer which could make their situation/mental status worse.

If I want to be one someone’s tag list and reach out to ask and compliment their story, isn’t that engagement? Doesn’t that say “I care about and am invested in this story and want to know when another chapter or installment comes out”? But that also means I have to do something every time something else comes out? I’ve already engaged so you know I’m interested. What else are you looking for?

Mistagging might be a “non-issue” to some people but it matters to me. That was the whole point of my original post. It matters to the people who comment and like and reblog that post. That post has gotten more attention than any story I’ve ever written. And yes you can check that. I didn’t do it for attention. I just wanted to express something I felt. Whether or not someone responded or interacted was NOT my intention. People interact because they were moved or thought about it at least once. Isn’t that the whole idea of doing that? Because they connected? Shouldn’t people who are moved or appreciate a work or message say it if they mean it but also not feel obligated to do so? The people who saw and didn’t agree either commented or kept scrolling and that should be ok.

As for the whole liking posts to save them and unliking them once you’re done, I’m guilty of that. I will admit that is a problem I am a part of and I wish it wasn’t the case. Unless I’m missing something, tumblr doesn’t have a way to save stories that I don’t finish immediately or want to revisit once or twice and never see again. I used to use my likes as just that. But I realized that it didn’t give me a way to sort the stories I wanted to go back to from the ones I genuinely liked. That I will say is an issue that tumblr can fix and is a larger issue. That’s something I will own. I’ve never been proud of it but I’m not sure how else to combat this. I’m not gonna keep something liked that I have zero interest in or has nothing to do with me. I’m just not.

Again, I understand that there are larger issues at play and to some this is considered something inconsequential. But to those of us who are affected regularly and care, this IS our issue. We shouldn’t be made to feel bad or care about more than we choose to. People should care about climate change, famine, animal cruelty, war, racism, nationalism, misogyny and a litany of other things but not everyone does. That should be a choice. I should be allowed to care about and express issues that I care about. Is it selfish to not acknowledge the entire picture? Yes but what I consider a major issue and what someone else does isn’t always gonna match.

You used logic and reasoning and terms that made sense but the main reason this response is so long is because even with all you were saying, you were minimizing and brushing off an issue that I care about. It probably wasn’t your intention but that’s what happened. It didn’t inspire sympathy from me at all which is why it took a minute for me to respond. I do hear what you’re saying though. That has to be enough right now.

[bueckersbunch]

https://x.com/mattrandazzo/status/1920492940108968193?s=46&t=d7JGslmjAfihyNfqBVvf5w

Kate’s dad on a podcast talking about her at the 12:45 mark. He has a lot of interesting things to say. He is excited for her to go to a team that actually wants her

Here is a recap of Kate’s dad on this podcast:

- if you would have told him last year that Kate would get drafted by the back to back WNBA champions, have a great rookie year, and then get selected in the expansion draft, he wouldn’t believe you

- “she is going to be successful in whatever she does and hopefully it’s a long career in the W but who knows” (this quote was a little weird to me cause it sounds like he doesn’t think Kate will last that long in the W😭)

- “Kate loves her teammates and they enjoy being together. She thinks they are going to be competitive”

- “I was really excited about the 3x3. She started off really well and then there were some things that just weren’t going well for her”

- “I got a call saying “dad I’m hurt” (this broke my heart😭)

- “it’s unrealistic to think your child is going to be the next Caitlin Clark but there is a chance your child could be the next Kate Martin”

- “Caitlin has a personality where until she trust you she can be abrasive and her and Kate worked on their relationship”

- he thought maybe they could make it to some big 10 championships but he never thought they would go to back to back national championships

- said that the attention Caitlin brings to the league also shines on other players

- thinks comparing Bluder and Jan is like comparing apples to oranges bc Bluder didn’t have to deal with NIL

- talked about NIL stuff

- thinks this is the end of an era for Iowa women’s basketball

- podcast host asked him if Kate would be a coach in the future and he said “idk Kate would like to have a family too. So in order for her to coach in college she would have to have a partner that would have to take over some of those responsibilities” (maybe he thinks Claire isn’t the one💀)

- “her passion is basketball but her passion is also kids”

- said Kate will never beat him at golf

[olibird]

KitKat rambles 5

Part1. Part2. Part3. Part4. Part5. Part6. Storms. Power. KitKats.

Karaoke: Mostly just sits out and watches happily signing to the song to the best of his ability. May sing now and then if it’s a song he knows and really enjoys.

Will have work books. Will be doing school work other shadows give to him when on breaks. He’s very motivated for a gold star from (idk who wants to teach the kid) for doing well with his work.

Will actually be exited for Pt and drill. Will show up early, the one day he didn’t it turned out he couldn’t sleep so he found the drills and did it at 3am.

Gave himself a bedtime, it’s 8:31. Will not be seen outside his room after this time, very strict about this. Will run to his room if he’s going to be late. Unless he can’t sleep then he’s out exploring.

Always is comparing people to random things. He loves to point it out to others, even if that person doesn’t know the person he’s referring to.

One’s said so far:

A calico cat, yelled its dad very excitedly. Also anything orange gets called Neo Random blue pencil, mostly blue items. Sometimes certain rocks, said it was Pixel would not elaborate.

Most dogs are pointed at and are Selena, also circles. Will not elaborate on this as well

A cat plushy that was all black (this), yelled 7-11!? Also whenever he sees a 7-11 station he will giggle to himself

Tea and ravens, also snakes, mostly boas or corn snakes specifically. These are Orion

Pineapple and Green apple candy's and broken cars are Dawn items. (Not sure if Dawn likes those flavors but KitKat will try to give him candy flavored like that)

Knives and forks and certain fluffy pillows are Switchblade. Again won’t elaborate on it

Graves is anything coffee related, and biscuits and gravy. If KitKat sees something stereotypically American he will say it’s Graves

Valkyrie is anything dinosaur related, also hearts (Specifically black ones or shiny ones) one time pointed at a anatomically correct heart drawing and said 'its Valk!'.

Reed, black licorice and gloves (fluffy black winter ones to be specific). Will say Asl is her as well.

Sentinel, rivers and small creaks. Black licorice and white chocolate. Cigarettes (Specifically the burn out bud) (I will add more as I get to know more people, if I forgot you I’m so sorry T^T)

[alix-the-raccoonman]

Hi hi ^^ I'm bored and one of my moots (I think we're moots? Maybe? Possibly?) made a post asking for monster recommendations and I am a monster fanatic so uhh why not make a list of all of the (ultra/zero sugar) monsters I've tried. Actually I might add some of the full sugar ones at the end w/ c@ls just because I still want to talk about them bc they're good but I don't drink them that often (like I've had one in the past 3 months)

Soooo without further ado ---

ALIX'S MONSTER MASTERPOST

(idk what these are called I'll figure it out later and fix this if I'm wrong)

Ratings are in: 🫀s

🫀 : ewww gross

🫀🫀🫀🫀🫀: OMFG IT'S SO GOOD I'M GONNA START TWEAKING

Ultra Monsters:

10 c@ls each for 16 oz can or 15 c@ls for 24 oz can (only white and fiesta mango are available)

Ultra Red: Fruit Punch flavor: 🫀🫀🫀

--- it's really good but it's getting discontinued this year so I've tried to not get too attached 😖

Ultra Sunrise: Orange flavor: 🫀

--- I tried it once. I don't like it but if you like orange flavored stuff you might like it 🤷

Ultra Paradise: Apple and Kiwi flavor; 🫀🫀🫀🫀

--- I'm actively drinking this one. It's like ghost's (other energy drink brand) green apple warhead drink but less sour so it's more manageable

Ultra Blue: A unique, unnamed flavor: 🫀🫀

--- I don't like it but it's decent? It's not the worst but I wouldn't willingly get it for myself

Ultra Violet: Grape flavor: 🫀🫀🫀

--- it's pretty mid I guess? I might just be biased because it's my dad's favorite so I don't drink it

Ultra Fiesta: Mango flavor: 🫀🫀🫀🫀

Ultra Watermelon: Watermelon flavor: 🫀🫀🫀🫀🫀🫀

--- WATERMELON MY BELOVED my love for ultra watermelon has broken the scale but unfortunately I think it might be discontinued 😖 I haven't seen it anywhere in months it's so sad

Ultra Gold: Pineapple flavor: 🫀🫀

--- only has 2 🫀s because I can't make 1.5 🫀s it's not horrible I'm just not a fan of it

Zero Ultra: The base flavor: 🫀🫀🫀🫀🫀

--- I personally think it tastes like if melted orange sherbet was carbonated - it's currently my go-to but it will never be able to top watermelon

Original Zero: black cherry, I think: 🫀🫀🫀🫀🫀

--- I call it "sugar free piss" because that's kinda what it tastes like but in a good way (guys I swear I don't have a piss k1nk it doesn't actually taste like piss it's just a funny little silly little jokey joke)

Ultra Strawberry Dreams: strawberry: 🫀🫀🫀

--- I'm not personally a fan but it's still pretty good - it kinda tastes like if strawberry milk was carbonated

Ultra Fantasy Ruby Red: grapefruit: 🫀🫀🫀🫀

--- not my favorite but it's really good! also the can has these cute little creatures on it

Juice:

Please note that it's been a good few months since I've had any of these but I've had all of these either multiple times or tried it once and hated it (I'm talking to you Khaotic I fucking hate you)

Mango Loco: mango duhh: 🫀🫀🫀🫀🫀

(16 oz: 230 c@ls)

(20 oz: 300 c@ls)

--- technically a 4.75 but yk - used to be my favorite monster but for some reason doesn't hit as much as it used to (could be the 3d?)

Pipeline Punch: passion fruit, orange, and guava:

🫀🫀🫀🫀

200 c@ls

--- first monster I ever tried - it's really good but I don't see it as often and don't really drink it anymore because I only drink the ultras now

Rio Punch: sweet papaya: 🫀🫀🫀🫀

140 c@ls

--- it's technically a 3.5 but it's really good. that's it.

Aussie Lemonade: lemonade duhh: 🫀🫀🫀🫀🫀

190 c@ls

--- technically a 4.5 (sorry for all these decimals but some are better than others but not mid) it reminds me of lemon-lime beer salt

Khaotic: Orange Citrus: 🫀

160 c@ls

--- if I could give it zero I would idk why I just hate it

Rehab:

Strawberry Lemonade: strawberry lemonade: 🫀🫀🫀

25 c@ls

--- it's really good but I don't really have anything to compare it to because it's the only rehab monster I've tried so far

Not yet tried:

• Ultra Rosa

• Ultra Peachy Keen

• Ultra Sunrise

• Lo-Carb

• Pacific Punch - 210 c@ls

• REHAB Tea + Lemonade

• REHAB Peach Tea

• REHAB Wild Berry Tea

• REHAB Green Tea

THERE'S NEW ANATOMY EMOJIS ⁉️

🧠🫀🫁

My zombie heart is very happy :p

[marciabrady]

Hullo Marcia! I was wondering, what- for you- are the most annoying misconceptions Disney fans have about Disney (or if you want to narrow it down, just Walt's original three)? I feel like fans for the last 20-30 years are just so intellectually far removed from the franchise and don't understand anything about it which is why we have stupid takes like "Mulan would hate those boring feminine princesses" or "Snow White is passive" or "Rapunzel is the healthiest most feminist Disney film" being passed around like basic facts.

Oooh that's a good prompt. I have so many more, I was actually thinking about making a post about this soon but:

Belle is the smartest princess because she likes to read lol you all knew this would be coming!! It's the most painful because it's overly simplistic, to the point of being glib, but she also probably makes the stupidest decisions out of any princess and doesn't showcase intelligence at all throughout the film, imo. The fact that she holds a eight page illustrated edition of Jack and the Beanstalk doesn't absolve her of her terrible choices, nor the fact that she probably is the most communicatively ineffective character I've ever seen lol

That the original three princesses are practically interchangeable when they could not be further apart in terms of visual decision, storytelling approach, or vocal performance- *especially* when the past two or three decades have given us nothing but Belle and Rapunzel variants.

Snow White being 14 and the Prince being 31...I don't think the people who repeat this actually believe it either, it's just false outrage at this point.

Cinderella waited for a Prince to save her or that Ariel went to the surface only for her man/gave up her voice and family for him (which like...this is already a reach but you have to actively not pay attention to the film to think this).

That Tiana's "girl boss" status is aspirational when that's actually the part of Tiana that's pre arc. Contributing to grind culture isn't a good thing and the movie acknowledges that there's only so much in Tiana's direct control. She grows after she discovers that there's more to aspire to, outside of something that's so restricted to the capitalistic structure. I think we all need to relisten to "Dig a Little Deeper" lol idk if she's a princess, but I feel this about Meg too. Her jaded side isn't #goals the way most people make it out to be, like it's one thing to be relatable but I don't think we should necessarily cheer her being damaged before she works to overcome it.

When they summarize or promote any Princess as "the first who's not looking for a man." At a 2017 D23 panel of four princesses, Annika, Auli'i, and Paige all said the same thing about their princesses by defining them on their relationships to men while only Jodi was smart enough to avoid this trap lol add to this: when they promote a Princess as "breaking the mold," which is the mold at this point.

When they market any princess as the only one to have x attribute or be the most y (it's normally strongest, bravest, fill in your patriarchal attribute here). It's passe at this point and comparing apples to oranges. Tiana isn't the only one that has a business acumen, Belle isn't the only one not looking for a man, etc.

[lonelyroommp3]

While we're all sharing love triangle hot takes my hot take is I don't really get why it was an option in the poll in the first place. Like the other options are all popular fanfic tropes, and based on ops tags I assume the intent was for the poll to be specifically about fic. But idk maybe I'm looking in the wrong places but I've never experienced love triangles being a particularly popular fanfic trope, I feel like they're way more popular in original fiction of all types. Feels a bit like comparing 9 apples and 1 orange

NO GENUINELY!! like fanfiction usually comes from an impulse of wanting to resolve the love triangle (whether through getting the central character to pick the author’s preferred side or, more rarely, through the polyamory option) so they rarely appear as the focal trope of a fic. very odd choice on the op’s part i can’t lie

[soundwave-starlight]

idk if u even actually care but the problem game dmc fans have w the netflix adaption is the creator spent a lot of time promising us it was going to be faithful. w lady he bragged that capcom even let him read her unreleased volume of the 3 manga and was using it. he was very loud about making it for existing fans

also dmc isnt spiderman? this is kind of an apples and oranges situation.

its fine that you like it its just not devil may cry and would actually be better if it wasnt dragging all that existing baggage. it also sucks bc dmc already has another adaption that disreguards the core of dmc and its called DmC. just sucks it happened twice.

and pls tag ur posts w netflix somewhere and not just devil may cry so my blacklist catches them. i think we agree theyre different things. we can just avoid each other 👍 have fun w ur thing

I was unaware of claims that it was going to be faithful, and if that's the case it sucks that it isn't. However I have also heard conflicting messages from other fans that it wasn't meant to be a one to one adaption, and watching the show it really doesn't seem like it was intended to be one to one.

Also, I did add the tag "netflix dmc".

those are the tags I had. That is no longer on me.

Also I think you are missing my point. I'm not comparing spiderman as a story to DMC. I'm comparing the reaction from fans to spiderman being adapted in new and interesting ways and the way DMC fans have reacted to the same thing. I am aware DMC isn't spiderman. The problem is that both pieces of media do the same thing and people are fine with one and not the other without a clear legitimate reason.

I will look into the claims that this was supposed to be a faithful adaption, because if thats true then there are grounds to be upset with not being delivered what you were informed of. I have also heard people claim it was never meant to be a 1 to 1 which is why I will look into it.

I still think the outrage from game fans, even if you were promised something you didn't get is a little overkill. You didn't get what you wanted, but what you got is still good and made with passion for the series