#ANYWAYS for the most part theyre good to go

[bf-rally]

finished drawing the first batch of boyfriends, lets freakin gooooo

[rafyki]

Compilation of all the secret little smiles Jack has for Joke during ep 5

He hasn't forgiven him yet - yeah sure, that's why he keeps looking at him like that, of course

The "i can't believe he got so hurt while trying to help me and now he keeps apologizing to me" smile after treating his wounds

The "secretly listening to him and finding him so cute and nice" smile

The "oh my god he might be talking about me" smile

The "oh woah he's such a good person" smile

And finally the "yeah who am I kidding I had already forgiven him from the start" smile

Really, our boy Jack never stood a chance

[sieglinde-freud]

i love laslow and nyx’s supports and i love how they go from trauma dump central in the b support

to making fun of their angst in the a

like theyre soooo lame and it makes me emo and every time i watch this support i kick my feet and twirl my hair theyre SOOOOOOO SICKENING. WHO WROTE THIS. WHOOOOOOO

[ghost-bard]

feeling unwell about solavellan

[sharkneto]

Obsessed with my friend I went to see Wicked (Part 1) with who had never seen the musical nor The Wizard of Oz

[termagax]

re: "good girl" i think they say it once randomly as a joke and its just one of those things that gets him wayyy more than they expected it would. so now its their secret weapon and they use it very sparingly and every single time he gets super embarrassed about it but it works ill tell you what.

[gothteddiesdotcom]

I think that part of what like. kills me about the whole media literacy and critical thinking aspect of enjoying media these days is that people refuse to like. contextualize that

A. Bad media can still hold significant meaning to people

B. Media made for a demographic you aren’t apart of is not inherently bad media

C. Media made for and consumed by the opposite demographic is not inherently shallow or flawed nor is it above criticism for its media tropes either.

[doomdoomofdoom]

I'm legally not allowed to interact much with the Hunger Games fandom because I'm an american studies major in my 20s and would disrupt the fragile ecosystem of teenagers engaging with fictional depictions of fascist structures and just war theory.

The other reason is that I would have to immediately combust from Hypocrite Disease because I had self-insert Hunger Games OCs and engaged in shipping discourse, too. That's part of how we engage with depictions of fascist structures and just war theory as teenagers, and enabling that is part of what makes the franchise so special.

This reduces my natural habitat to 2-hour video essays about the cultural geography of Panem (x) and a few select posts, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for conservation.

[doctorwhoisadhd]

hmm thinking about the idea of love songs. i think the idea of what a love song is that we have in our culture is inherently a little bit flawed because we have the idea that any song written about romantic feelings is a love song and im thinking thats not exactly true because there is a difference between "romance" and "love". what i'm saying is not that love is a broader category and applies to things that are not romantic in nature. this is in fact true, but it's not what makes the important distinction here. the true distinction between "romance" and "love" is that romance is a societally defined type of interest in another person, whereas love is, essentially, a promise that you make when you build a relationship.

as such, what i call "love" here might be better defined as "care", as that implies more time and effort, but that's a different suitcase to unpack and largely unimportant to my point here, which is more about the societal conventions of what we call love songs. the point is, relationships can be built with other people, yes, but also animals, places, organizations, ideas, so on and so on, whereas romance requires another person, hence the difference between the ideas of "romance" and "love".

with that in mind, there are two types of songs we in western, english speaking, society call "love songs":

1) songs that are about a person's romantic interest in someone that is either definitively known to be unrequited (existing monogamous relationship, sexuality that doesn't align, etc) or simply not requited (aka romantic interest being unknown); and

2) songs about an existing relationship (keeping in mind my points about relationships not just being with people, but also places, things, etcetera) as is.

(some examples of the latter category: mountaintop by relient k, which defines the relationship in question as non-romantic; or i miss my mum by cavetown, which is - as the title implies - a song about the singer missing their mother.)

now, the thing that makes distinguishing these two difficult is the fact that songs about an existing relationship CAN be about wanting certain aspects of that relationship to change. in these cases, determining that a song is one or the other will hinge either on a) authorial intent or b) whether the song is more about what the singer wants (thereby implying #1) or the lack thereof in that relationship (which would imply #2).

to get back to the subject at hand: the term "love song", as we think of it, is an umbrella term that include both of these two categories, and i think that perhaps it is reductive to do so. with that in mind, i think perhaps it would be more appropriate for "love song" to mean only the latter, whereas the former is a category of its own. WHICH is not to say that the two can't overlap — just that if a song is about a person with whom the singer has no relationship, it cannot be considered a love song due to the fact that it is a song about infatuation, not love.

(another interesting wrinkle this provides is the fact that a song might start out in the first category and, as the writer develops a relationship with a person, might move into the second category as they write more.)

[skrunksthatwunk]

ive started a brainstorming doc for the kaiji koi-koi fic and a large large amount of it is just trying to figure out what works about kaiji and how i can innovate without diverging too much from the tone or themes etc. anyway ive been thinking about how the modifications fkmt makes to the games in kaiji function (i.e. minefield mahjong, restricted rps, one poker, etc), and how they each tie into key traits/feelings of playing to original versions. minefield mahjong centers and intensifies the feeling of waiting on a crucial tile while trying not to leave too much of a trail, one poker leans heavily into the bluffing via raising/calling elements of poker, and rrps sort of flips rps' main issue(?) on its head by removing its arbitrariness (while preserving at first the illusion of arbitrariness), and thus making it like.. something you can win via strategy and not just luck. ANYWAY i think ive figured out the key thread to pull for koi-koi and im very excited about that

[atenceladusiaawfytbwb]

Saw one of the mean girl group (four or five big writers) anyway, day absolute ruined, I though -I was sure- I had them all blocked.

(They write a lot of basic white(gringo) dark fanfic, so maybe I'm just taking it the bad way. But I genuinely think they mean bitches, doing exactly the popular girls proces, where something is omg so funny heheha so crazy😜 until is done by someone out of their group (or simply on a bad day), then suddenly is "Can't you take this seriously 😠? You are disrespecting me as a person/writer, blocked💅"

What am i saying? I don't dislike them, I fucking hate them.

[dandyshucks]

logging in solely over here for a little while methinks, bc goodness gracious i stepped into some shit on my main account 😭 i an going to let my avoidance win just this once bc I don't want to have more anxiety to deal with on top of the usual stuff fjdkdl, i can avoid that anxiety by not logging into my main account for a while... this may backfire on me if the anxiety festers instead of fades though LOL

[technikki]

canot stop looking at my icon he's sooo cute ithink this is one of my favorite official don arts. look at these fucking creatures

[ms-all-sunday]

Hi! Sorry if this is sudden or unwelcomed but i was wondering how would one go about ''fixing'' Sanji's character and your personal interpretation?

Now what i mean is that Sanji is an already great and complex character who has a lot of good moments and stuff, but the rampant misogyny really, really holds him back.

It just feels demeaning to an inmense degree, like that the only reason Kalifa - a member of the cp9 - won was because Sanji was holding back. Which feels like bullshit as she's a literal assassin and you could easily have rewritten it to make it so he lost due to her devil fruit instead. (or more emphasised).

I dont have a problem with an intrinsic vow but i just wish it wasn't this. I guess i just find it fustrating on how something so misogynistic is treated as a virtue. He could have had another vow instead like 'never kill' or 'don't fight someone when its clearly going to be a onesided beat down from you' or something to that effect. You know a vow that still causes problems when it comes up but doesn't devalue the agency or prowess of the other characters if that makes sense?

Idk, sorry if im being rambly. I finished reading the pre time skip stuff and its been bothering me whenever it comes up. I know it gets worse post-timeskip but i havent read that far yet so sorry if this seems premature in anyway. (I do know about Wano to a degree tho).

I haven't really seen any alternatives to sanji's behaviour - hell i seen someone argue it was necessary so he wouldn't be overpowered. And its kinda fustrating as a Sanji fan as it feels like in these moments his other qualities are kinda getting sidetracked in favour of his perviness. I dont mind he's pervy, but the way its utilised just feels kinda like a coppout more than anything and, well, misogynistic. (which im not saying remove all his misogyny, but tone it down and not make it seem virtuous if that makes sense?)

sorry for going on a rant. Its a topic ive been trying to look more into and i just want to hear more peoples opinions on.

so let me ask you a question anon, where do you think sanji first says something misogynistic? this isnt me trying to gotcha you or anything, i legitimately am curious.

i think how you "fix" sanji purely depends on how sexist you individually think he is. i think it ultimately comes down to, do you think when he treats women positively he's being sexist negatively? how much of that is a flaw to you, where do you draw the line? is your comfort level purely at where you can only stand sanji being negative towards men and treating women neutrally, or do you think you're comfortable with the opposite?

when i was a kid, i learned that characters are just a set of rules you make for yourself that when you add them to a situation and the application of those rules becomes a character. the character is both the solution and the equation, and i think the problem with sanji inherently lies not with his character at all, but how the narrative treats him for those actions, like you said.

i think it comes down to the fact while op does acknowledge and commentate on sexism a little, it doesnt have a strong enough commentary to support the characters like zoro, tashigi and sanji. who are amazing, wonderful characters, but are ultimately boggled down by the fact that oda doesn't do anything productive with them.

for example: both sanji and zoro (in their male feminist debate) are correct contextually, but op should be better at illustrating how zoro's "if theyre women they should be treated the same always" ideology can be wrong sometimes too, which would even out the commentary on them a lot more.

zoro and sanji should also progress as characters to ultimately seeing the contextual side of each others arguments and develop to the point where they know when its appropriate to apply each-others points

tashigi should've been sanjis rival, and helped the narrative illustrate how sanji's habit of treating women favourably can lean into sexism, which i feel like is the point of tashigi even being there but odas got the ingredients but is really bad at making a stew out of them.

i think ultimately the problem is that the narrative doesnt compensate for sanji, not that sanji doesnt compensate for the narrative. i think there's a conversation you can have internally with yourself on whether you want to write sanji as completely devoid of bigotry or whether you want to pick and choose and that's valid as well and i think would inherently apply to sanji even if op's commentary on sexism was well written, but. you're asking me how i'd "fix canon", and i think the fact that sanji doesn't get compensated for is indicative of a wider problem present in both tashigi and zoro's storylines as well (and the narrative also not compensating for them)

[light-wrath-paradise]

Every day I accidentally manufacture a half-OC that ends up with (dead) kids (that one is actually always canon's fault) and a dead or otherwise estranged spouse who also sucks total fucking shit and holy fuck why are you with him again??? Get the fuck out. Oh.

Oh no. Oh they're committing an act of blasphemy against the very heavens and the natural order of things in the name of their spouse now.

Wait where did you even get a gun you were supposed to be an elaborate shitpost.

[autosarcophagy-avaritia]

Well. I am alive. I guess. So theres that much.