#& i know she won't have many people to serve for long because it got legalized here as soon as rec dispensaries open

[psychologicalwarclaire]

Asking some writers/artists I follow:

Is there anything in your fic/comic that you as the author know about, but won't end up in the actual story?

There is. a lot.

Spoilers for Spider's Web With Strings Attached (and a really long rant) below the cut

When she took Donnie's mask after Heinous Green bashed his head in, she kept it in her vault in case she needed to perform some sort of magic that required his DNA some day.

Big Mama never intended for Donnie to die.

That being said, she still recorded and sold copies of Donnie's death. It's her most sold recording ever.

Viper requested to fight Leo. Big Mama only agreed if she kept him alive and able to fight.

Like she got the orb that she captured all of New York in from Draxum, Big Mama got the spider brooches from Draxum many years ago. She only had two; she was lying about the other two for Raph and Mikey.

Before he knew where the twins were, Mikey kept having visions of them fighting people and getting hurt. He thought they were just nightmares.

Heinous Green was in the arena because Big Mama often partners with the Hidden City police. Criminals can work of time by serving the community. In this case, they serve the community by providing entertainment Roman Coliseum style.

Big Mama's family introduced arena fights to the humans.

There was going to be a fight where Tyrian fought a scorpion and writhed with agonizing poison for a chapter, but I forgot about it until it was too late to add it -_-

Raph and Mikey's arena names would have been Rouge and Terracotta.

Big Mama was panicking the majority of the fic. Because she kidnapped them very illegally, she had to manage their food, housing, medical care, and fight arrangements herself so none of the people who normally do that (legally) would get suspicious. Honestly, Big Mama didn't expect them to become SO well loved, and then worried about keeping audience interest by putting the twins in harder fights, but not killing off her greatest assets. She, like everyone else, thought that Leo would snap first. When Donnie snapped first and proved to be a very effective killer, some of the audience grew worried about what was happening behind the scenes and raised questions Big Mama couldn't answer. Panicking, she set up the death bracket, hoping that becoming the champion would turn public opinion of Tyrian positive again. She miscalculated, and Donnie died. She also didn't intend for Leo to get mixed up in the bracket. A LOT of people lost a LOT of money, and her stocks dropped. At that point, it became less about business and money making and much more about getting revenge via torture. By the time she offered Astros the 'out' that was one final fight, she was stressed out of her mind with upholding her reputation. Had Leo been in his right mind, he would have seen how much she was unraveling.

Todd turned his non profit lemonade into a fundraiser to find the twins back when they were first missing. There were a LOT of posters and Big Mama had a FIELD DAY trying to take them all down.

Mikey and Raph tried for DAYS to get the trackers back online, but it never worked.

After hearing that Donnie had died, Hypno, Warren, Meat Sweats, and Repo got together and made the Hamatos a gift basket.

April is failing most of her classes right now.

At some point during the recovery arc, Donnie snuck out to secretly turn every blinking red light in the Lair green. You know exactly why.

Raph was wrong when he said crime had been way down since the invasion. Casey Jr had been handling it without anyone knowing. The Purple Dragons hate him a lot now.

Draxum learned slang words from school, but April taught him what they meant

[myriadism]

Why the Docter and the Master from doctor who are enemies, a comically long list:

They just don't like eachother and the Master is evil ok things don't have to have a secret mythic reason all the time

They used to be best friends or lovers in their first regeneration but when the Master regenerated before the Docter did there was a falling out.

They got married and then divorced and that's why old man Dr Who the 1st decided to leave his planet all those years ago :'(

Or maybe they didn't decide to get divorced at all! and instead the Master or the Doctor left without saying anything making it impossible to legally serve divorce papers forcing the other to leave Gallifrey simply to tie up some legal loose ends :0

The Docter calls himself a doctor because he was able to complete a PhD in Gallifreyian college and the Master was only ever able to complete a Masters degree due to limitations in the Masters temperment, intelligence, or field of study. Thousands of years later and the Master is still resentful, awkward, and bitter about it.

The Doctor and the Master are actually siblings who were the type of kids that got forcibly separated because they were disruptive and misbehaving in class. Even if they did love eachother in the beginning after so many years and battles and disapproval now it's just an uncomfortable fact and/or family secret

One time the Docter and the Master had a really bad argument. No, I don't know what it was about, use your own imagination

One or the other or both or some other unnamed time traveler interfered with the personal history of their relationship. To the time traveling society of a people called "Time Lords" its possible there is no greater crime. Even if it's done on accident or with good intentions this would be like an assault upon a person's mind body and timeline.

All the things that happened on the TV show between the Master and the Docter is reason enough to hate eachother forever

The Time War was a thing that happened too! Give these alien survivors/refugees a break!

Gallifreyian society and culture is just so uptight and logical that the only expressions of deep abiding love, hate, and other feelings might be taboo or unrelatable and the Docter and Master are weird impolite cultural renegades with different manners

It was never shown on-screen but every time the Master does something awful its in response to a letter the Doctor wrote and put in the mail but time travel mail is so awful and unreliable sometimes the letters get delivered before the Master even does anything

The Doctor's TARDIS had been set aside for to be the Masters but then she gained sentience and absconded with Docter who in the middle of the night.

Maybe one day now that the planet of Gallifrey has been rescued from destruction and its people restored the Docter and Master can go to couples therapy to sort out their issues. Of course it probably won't happen because that would require the both of them separately agreeing to see a counselor and get therapy at all

There's been a shocking case of mistaken identity and the character we know as the Master in new Doctor Who is a different individual from the Gallifreyian who was the Master on the older Doctor who show. What, is it impossible that there could be two time traveling villians that decided to refer to themselves as "Master"?

What if there was a timey-wimy accident and the Master of new Doctor Who is literally younger and than the Doctor is and experiencing their relationship with the Doctor sort of in reverse. Like similar to how River Song was introduced to the show and had her story progress, the Master of new Doctor Who is destined to one day after several regenerations become the Master that was on the original aring series of Doctor Who.

[m0th-punk]

This is something that's been on my mind for a long time. Long ramble under the cut

TL;DR: Grazer-razor has some of the worst black and white mentality I've ever seen and I can tell he has never critically examined his biases a day in his life.

Because I'm a terrible little gremlin who can't leave well enough alone, I've been reading these posts

Ignoring the absolute stupidity of these statements (I'm pretty sure the lack of rainbow logos is because in many middle eastern countries, homosexuality is a crime and these companies just want to make money. But I'mnot going into the nuances and implications of rainbow capitalism today.), something stood out to me.

Does Grazer... genuinely think nobody has ever criticized the Muslim faith? That we all ignore the homophobia present within the religion just because they're a minority? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've seen even some of the most staunch leftists criticize things like their horrible treatment of homosexuality or the rampant sexism often sanctioned by radicals. Even other Muslims, especially women and lgbt+ Muslims, have been critical of these things.

It wouldn't shock me if Grazer believedthat anyone who supports Muslims believes they can do no wrong. After all, he thinks any criticism of Christianity is hatred, and dismisses any harmful things Christians do as not being "real" Christianity in a classic case of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Note how he didn't even respond to the first asks comments, just accused them of being me (because obviously any time someone sees his blog it's all my fault /s)

So it seems like in Grazer's mind, there are only two options when it comes to religion: Uncritically praise and defend everything a religion does no matter how heinous it is and justify it because it's done in a God's name, or condemn anyone who practices it as hateful terrorists. Because he doesn't see people doing the former for Christians, he automatically assumes that they're doing the latter, and vice versa for Muslims.

Also note how he gets mad when muslim faith is "respected" (again, homosexuality is criminalized in many of these areas) but then demands a secular children's show cater to his religion for the sake of his precious childhood.

(Also, can we just talk about the absolute fucking cruelty in this answer? There are people out there that had their childhoods ruined by abuse, illness, losing loved ones, homelessness, poverty, bullying, near-death experiences, having their countries torn apart by war, a shitty foster care system, teen pregnancies, and so many other things that can absolutely destroy a life.  Grazer's was ruined by…  *checks notes* a cartoon character supporting gay rights and a drag queen singing a cutesy children's song.  So yeah, if that's the worst part of his childhood he's pretty damn lucky, and the fact that he has the gall to still complain absolutely makes him selfish and ignorant. It's disrespectful, plain and simple, and if he were truly a good Christian he'd have some compassion.)

Okay, so Grazer has some weird "rules for me but not for thee" shit when it comes to religion. This isn't news. Where am I going with this?

Well, turns out he has this opinion about more than just religion. Know how I know this? His response to ESRB ratings and trigger warnings.

So it seems like Grazer sees the ESRB as some sort of moral compass, in a way. Something being rated E or E10 means it's pure and good and wholly unproblematic, while anything higher means it's evil and disgusting and he can't even look at it.

This is further confirmed by this post, where he flat-out states he sees the ESRB as deeming what things are and are not morally acceptable.

Now Grazer, I'm gonna explain this as best as I can, because it seems like you don't quite understand this. Read very carefully.

This is not the purpose of the ESRB rating system.

I repeat, this is NOT the purpose of the ESRB rating system.

The ESRB does not decide on what is and is not morally correct. It simply says "This game contains these topics, and as such is most suitable for people in this age group.". That's it. It's a guideline, not a rule.

Let's take cartoon violence, for instance. It's a very common warning the ESRB puts on games. Almost every game from Mario to Sonic to Crash Bandicoot and even Monster Tale has this warning. These games are all rated E for everyone. Does this mean those games are promoting violence to children, or claiming things like Bowser kidnapping Peach or Pinstripe trying to gun down Crash are perfectly okay and morally correct? Of course not. It's simply saying that these games contain mild, non-graphic violence, but most children should be able to handle seeing it.

On the other side of the coin, let's take a look at the warnings for nudity and sexual themes. Most games that contain these topics are rated T at the lowest and AO at the highest. This obviously isn't saying that nudity and sex are inherently bad or evil. All it's saying is that these topics are best handled by adults (And, regardless of morality, it is illegal to distribute sexual content to minors unless it's meant to be educational, like a health class textbook).

A few extra points:

. Games can be rated different things in different countries. Different countries have different regulations. Do you know why the blood in Danganronpa is pink? It's because in Japan, games with excessive amounts of blood and gore are given a Z rating (Japan's equivalent to an AO rating). They got around this by making the blood pink, securing the game its desired M rating. Meanwhile here in America, Mortal Kombat is allowed to show as many graphic, brutal deaths as it wants and still receive an M rating.

. ESRB ratings are not legally enforceable. I was so convinced as a 16 year old that the employees at gamestop would try to card me or something when I was picking up a copy of Bayonetta, and I was surprised when they simply rang me up in two seconds, no questions asked. It doesn't happen. For fuck's sake, one of the first games I ever played, at the tender age of four, was Soul Edge. A T rated game. The only instance ESRB ratings are legally enforced is in the case of AO ratings, as these games often contain incredibly graphic violenceor sexual content. If this outrage is coming from the idea that certain ratings will keep younger people from playing these games from a legal standpoint, don't worry. A nine year old is not gonna get arrested for playing Among Us. Just don't buy them GTA San Andreas or Leisure Suit Larry and everything will be fine.

. No two consumers are exactly alike. While one 13 year old may be perfectly fine with the jumpscares in Amnesia, another may be too scared to even go near the piano in Super Mario 64. That doesn't mean either of these games is rated incorrectly. The ESRB is there, once again, as a recommendation for the average consumer, and doesn't take individual experience into account. An individual experience is not their responsibility. It's also on parents (or you yourself!) To decide what the consumer can or can't handle.

"But Haley," I hear you say, "What if this piece of media DOES contain something morally bad?"

Well it's simple. You are allowed to like things AND still criticize the bad parts of it.

Hold on now, I'm not telling you that it's perfectly alright to enjoy things like Birth of a Nation or anything like that! Contrary to popular belief, there are some pieces of media that are truly too steeped in hatred and morally reprehensible things to be supported, even through a critical lense. The only merit things like that have is to serve as a warning: This is a terrible thing made for terrible reasons, and we should not allow it to happen again.

But outside of those rare circumstances, it's not so cut and dry.

Let's take a piece of media i actually enjoy, for instance, so you know I'm not a hypocrite: Persona 5.

Persona 5 is easily one of my favorite games in the Persona series. It does a lot of interesting stuff, the artstyle and soundtrack are (in my opinion) the best in the series, and overall it's very enjoyable for me.

But, like anything, it's not perfect. I'm incredibly uncomfortable with the hypocrisy the game has in regards to the sexualization of teenagers. While Kamoshida is rightfully condemned for his sexualization of teenage girls and Ann's persona awakening comes from rejecting this objectification, the game and story undermine it by not only putting Ann in a sexually revealing outfit, but also making light of Ryuji's sexual harassment by adult men (Allegedly Persona 5 Royal tries to fix this by making the men drag enthusiasts who think Ryuji would look good in drag and giving them more sympathetic personalities, but it's still really weird and hypocritical of the game to do this.). The teenage protagonist is also allowed the option to date adult women, including his teacher, and the game rarely if ever touches on the problems with this.

The game's homophobia also left a bad taste in my mouth. Aside from the aforementioned men who sexually harass Ryuji, the only other canon LGBT+ character is a bar owner who is either a drag queen or a trans woman (or both?). Sure, she's portrayed as being kind and protective of the protagonist, but there isn't much room to interact with her or learn more about her. On top of that, not only can the protagonist not romantically pursue his male friends (A feature that even the SECOND persona game had), he's not even allowed to give them gifts or platonically show affection towards them without the dialogue mocking him. The game that allows a teenage boy to date his teacher won't allow him to simply give his male friends a present.

And yet, despite those criticisms, I do still enjoy the game. I don't consider the game irredeemable garbage based on those poorly handled topics alone. And I also understand that for some people, those topics make them so uncomfortable that they don't want to play the game at all, and I completely respect that.

Criticizing the things you enjoy is not only normal, it's oftentimes healthy. Being able to step back and say "I like this thing, but I don't like the bad things it's done. This thing would be better if these issues were fixed." Sure, sometimes some people tend to complain a bit too much about the media they supposedly enjoy, but for the most part being able to acknowledge the bad with the good is a good skill to have.

Oh, wait, all of this means nothing because Grazer thinks that critically enjoying things is nothing more than an excuse to consume media he doesn't personally agree with. Okay then.

So if he can't even realize something as simple as "it's okay to criticize some parts of media that you otherwise enjoy", how can he be expected to look critically at a religion that he's been raised in and around all his life?

Soooo yeah, Grazer has some serious problems with black and white thinking that he refuses to acknowledge, further worsened by the fact that he's practically been brainwashed into believing that Christianity is the ultimate moral compass that everyone should follow. I understand that this tends to be an issue for neurodivergent people, but it's not an excuse for the actions he does that are related to these things (sending death threats to the ESRB, antagonizing others, etc.