#THAT COMPARED TO THIS ITS SO DIFFERENT

[puppyeared]

These two probably won’t interact but I can dream a little

[ reblogs > likes ]

[lorillee]

i do think its very funny how one piece is simultaneously more and less sexist than like 80% of shounen

[glazeliights]

frothing at the mouth rn. just thinking about her

[kraniumverse]

Before I begin I just wanna say I absolutely adore your art! Got into the ninjago fandom recently and it's just👌chef's kiss! BUT ANYWAYS!! One scene that is always itching my brain is the part where the ninja get stranded in the first realm and Jay just acts like he's transcended ALL realms into a state of calm. Literally any scene from that point, but mainly the part where Kai asks him what he's doing and monotoned he responds "it's my new video game console... I built it myself.." Then proceeds to die, get upset, and shake it off. Allowing for a very concerned Kai to look over at a completely over it Zane.

this was one of my favorite scenes in hunted. comedy gold

[darkwood-sleddog]

pride this year for me has been about using my new position of power within my community to force change and acceptance. even subtly. i wore my bi flag pin this week, i have never come out to any of my co workers, i didn’t feel the need to. But now that I’m elected and have solidified myself for years as a fixture in my community I’m forcing everybody that comes into my rural office to ask a service of me to interact with somebody wearing a pride pin. You want me to issue your marriage license? Your dog license? Notarize your documents? You’re getting a bisexual doing those services. Ordering new indexing cards for our birth, death, and marriage index i’ve made the switch to more gender neutral language and options because that’s something I can control and it’s wonderful.

I looked the gay man that came in scared of his neighbor in the eyes and there was a mutual understanding between us that we knew of each other and I assured him of his safety with me, he spoke in codes I was only familiar with from my days years ago in drag clubs in a less liberal area of the country. We understood each other.  Yesterday, the first day of June, we hired not only a woman to an opening in a widely male dominated planning board, but an openly lesbian woman. 

Vermont may be more welcoming to LBGTQ+ folks compared to many areas of the united states, but being open can still feel scary to many. Some of us still feel the need to speak in code in our widely left leaning, blue voting communities which is in part due to how past people in similar positions of power to me have acted towards them. But i can help change that, even if just a little. If you’re LGBTQ+ you are safe in my office and safe in my care. 

[2xlee]

Back in 2017, while I played BotW, a thought crossed my mind... What if the time Link had after his resurrection was only lent? And he had to give it back after he fulfilled his destiny...

[mockingmolly]

I really hope eadwulf just.. compliments people like that randomly throughout battles too. like outside of his v obvious crushing I refuse to believe he isn’t the kind of person who will stop mid-battle and turn to whoever’s nearest and go “nice! very good! you’re doing so well!” or follow up post-battle to compliment the techniques people used

[aratilightwood]

I’m slowly starting to see the TMS fandom turn into team Seojoon/team Jiwoo, and I’m hating it. I had a feeling this divide would happen, as soon as I learned that the storyline for season 2 would involve one of them leaving the other with only a note. It wasn’t hard to guess who this was going to be, and that many of us would’ve disliked him for it.

The first four episodes of the season have been biased, considering they’re narrated from Seojoon’s perspective. I knew that as soon as the series started, Jiwoo’s voice and feelings would’ve remained in the dark for some time. I mean, he didn’t have to be vocal, it could’ve been a short voiceover of his thoughts about Seojoon, instead. It annoys me that all we’re shown at the moment, is his coldness and nonchalant attitude - which he’s clearly prepared himself to do. Yes, “prepared.” Even Seojoon can see through his lies, especially when he first confronts Jiwoo about why he left. Why else does he visit the village frequently, attract customers to the restaurant and camp outside the house? He said it was because he couldn’t move on as quickly as Jiwoo has. But when you tie this together with his codependency and fear of abandonment, you understand that this is something that needs to be addressed outside the dynamics of their relationship, because it’s pretty alarming. Aside from all that, though, there’s also a part of him that wants to get closer in order to dig out the truth. This is a test of patience that no one, not Jiwoo, or even us as viewers can truly understand - because most people would’ve given up.

An outsider may glimpse at the series and observe this: (a) cold heartbreaker with no remorse for his actions and (b) an individual who’s obsessive over his ex, to the the point where he cannot move on from their relationship. Where as, the series is simply just about two soulmates, different in every way possible: a rigid chef and an enthusiastic actor - both who have greater depth and nuance in their characters than we give them credit for, as they go through life’s hardships together.

And, despite my annoyance towards Jiwoo’s lack of perspective, I know the showrunners are holding off revealing too much at the moment, to carry on the suspense of the mind-boggling question, “why did he leave, and especially in that manner?” I can’t imagine what justifies breaking up with your boyfriend on his birthday via note, and disappearing for a year. I can only guess that it’s something that even speaking about it, would be dangerous for those who know - hence Jiwoo’s silence.

Therefore, until this revelation, and to ease our minds, it’s important to note a few things: (1) despite his cold and nonchalant attitude in season 1, there was still kindness and affection underneath it all. (2) Taking in the few breadcrumbs in season 2 so far, let’s also not forget that he’s battling with his inner demons by (a) keeping Seojoon’s shirt, (b) lying with every reason he gives for breaking up with Seojoon, when he can’t even look at him during the confession, (c) lying about throwing away the ring, (d) showing heartbreak and awe in his expression before leaning in to desperately kiss Seojoon’s bruised lips and (d) not being able to stop himself from researching news about Seojoon’s scandals.

In short, all I’m trying to say is:

It’s possible to sympathise gravely with Seojoon’s year-long struggles and heartache, while simultaneously acknowledging Jiwoo’s year-long struggles and heartache. Just because we’ve been shown more of one than the other, doesn’t make the other any less important or any less worthy of our empathies.

[akimojo]

im forever a whore for the ffxiii sequels because theyre just so up my alley in terms of plot and atmosphere, but i gotta admit the first game has this charm about it that the sequels lack and i cant put my finger on what it is fhsjkfd

[extravalgant]

the wiz and pirate questionnaire you all have been waiting for... is here

i mainly centered the questions around expanding more on your ocs... this is kind of a love letter to the anon who asked how i developed my own ocs omg... this isnt the way i would quite go about developing my oc but i think its a good starting place for some people 😳

itd be kinda redundant to make a questionnaire that included spoilers 😭 no mentions of anything major in the arcs

also. pirate has like 2 more questions but its fine

wiz-related

- does your wizard have a primary school? secondary school?

- how does their chosen schools affect their personality?

- do you draw your wizards in in-game clothing or do you make your own designs?

- what arcs (1-4) does your wizard take place in? are they the scion?

- how do they generally get along with most npcs? do they have favorites, or a best friend?

- how do they feel about merle ambrose? the council of light?

- do they have a favorite professor? 

- do they have a favorite spell?

- what do they think about forbidden magics? should it be taught?

- does your wizard travel alone or with a group?

- what’s a non-wizard related thing that they know how to do?

- do they have any pet peeves, wizard-related or otherwise?

- what kind of wand do they have? what does it say about their fighting styles?

- what do they keep their deck in? anything notable about its design?

- are they more partial to getting physical or talking their way through things?

- do they trust other people right away or are they skeptical at first meeting?

- what’s something they wished magic could do?

- do they know how to fight in close quarters (melee)? or do they solely rely on their magic to do the work?

- are they a ‘if it looks ugly im not wearing it idc about stats’ wizard or ‘i dont care if its ugly itll boost my damage’ wizard?

- do they like being a wizard? what is one thing they would change?

- what is one song you associate with your wizard?

crossover-related

- what is your wizard's opinion on pirates?

- in the same regard, what is your pirate's opinion on wizards?

- have any of your pirates and wizards met each other?

- what is your pirate's stance on wizard magic?

- what is something that your wizards admire/loathe about pirates, if any?

- what is something that your pirates admire/loathe about wizards, if any? 

pirate-related

- what is your pirate's primary class?

- have they trained into any other classes? why?

- how does the death of their parents tie into their personality?

- what kind of relationship did your pirate have with their parents, if any?

- how trustworthy are they? 

- what is their weapon of choice? why?

- who is their first mate? their crew? why specifically?

- does your pirate have any previous history with the armada pre-getting thrown into jail?

- can they drive a ship?

- follow-up question: can they drive a ship well

- do you have any armada-related ocs? 

- what is their relationship to kane, if any? 

- does your armada oc have an occupation? a backstory?

- what does your pirate usually default to - violence or talking it out?

- what kinds of missions or adventures are your pirate usually on, if any?

- how would they describe the life of a pirate to an outsider?

- do they like being a pirate? why or why not? 

- what sort of clothing does your pirate like to dress in?

- what is one song you associate with your pirate?

- do they like the taste of yum? 

- would they ever trade the life of a pirate for something else?

- what is one thing your pirate wouldn’t give up no matter the stakes set?

[drink-tang-gang]

I Think....There Is Only One Daffy.

Daffy is addressed as having two personalities, one that lives up to his name, and the other called “Jones Daffy”. I get why this has gone undisputed, and I respect the consensus of scholars+ artists who uphold these titles, but I feel Daffy has been the same throughout his existence. I feel his portrayals have believably evolved as a response to external factors (chiefly… Bugs Bunny), just as humans do with age.

He’s always been drawn to the spotlight (You Ought to Be In Pictures) and has always been conniving (Porky Pig’s Feat). In both the 40s and the 00s he’s been selfish, prone to envy, and self-aware (“I’m so crazy I don’t know this is impossible” “I may be a louse… but I’m a live louse”). So it’s not that Daffy had a sudden change in personality per se, but that the artists allowed his bitterness to slowly overtake him around the same time Bugs Bunny became the flagship toon for WB. In this light, his portrayals become natural responses to his placement at WB and (MOST importantly) audience perception through the pens of the artists at termite terrace. They’ve already showcased his bitter and cynical tendencies by the time the Hunting Trilogy came along. All Jones+Maltese did was acknowledge it and one of its sources (Bugs).

Daffy’s never strayed from his core motivations (to express himself freely) or fears (seen as insignificant) throughout his existence. Because of that, I don’t see how he’d be classified as having two personalities. However, I WOULD STILL categorize these portrayals for clarity’s sake. Not as two different Daffy's (40s Daffy/ Post 40s Daffy, Clampett Daffy/Jones Daffy) but as one would talk of a person. Someone’s “old self” and “younger self”. Daffy has developed to a point where the distinction is needed, I just don’t agree he’s forever split into what I believe are two halves of himself.

I wish Daffy’s personality wasn’t split in this binary… I would love to see a portrayal where his cynicism is married to his spontaneous nature or bitterness with zaniness. Where the entire spectrum of Daffy is allowed to be explored, to show that it’s all him, not either-or. Would it fit within a 6 minute short?? Is it too complex to make humor out of?? Maybe not. Not if it wasn’t only humor-driven. But the focus of LT isn’t Character or Emotion, but only humor, so understandably, if I must, I gotta pick a lane and stick to it.

[taeminie]

where did u watch 2gether the movie?

HERE!!!!! ☺️

(you can login with a gmail account to watch it in 720p)

[terrible-leviathan]

The dsmp has done irreversible damage to how I experience any sort of media and fandoms

[birdie-ghost]

I feel like if our Gregory's met (mine being Evil AU Gregory who found Glitchtrap in a discarded USB with Help Wanted on it) Mike and Jeremy would have to separate them like you'd separate two cats fighting.

I agree compleatly I think they would fight like cats

[mashedcontroller]

I feel like comparing how 03 and BH tackle the concept of genocide and how they both handle their themes around the topic. I’m going to avoid commentary on how both shows handle race specifically because I’m frankly not qualified to talk about it, but I do have quite a bit to say about how writing and themes. Analysis under the read more.

One major difference between how 03 and BH handle the concept of genocide is their thematic reasoning for why it's is wrong. In BH genocide is wrong because varied perspectives are important to forming a healthy and strong community. Which is what links Ishval to BH's thematic core of how we as people are fundamentally interconnected and rely on each other. In 03 genocide is wrong because it is genocide, but people don't like to think about it so they'll go out of their way not to, which enables its continued progression. This ties Ishbal to 03's themes about how the world is unfair, how apathy enables cruelty, and how it's important to care about things and try to change them even if it seems hopeless.

Both versions of Ishval and the genocide against its people lean into the core themes of their respective series. But in BH genocide is a cause that leads to the effect of a weaker community, while in 03 it's the consequence of widespread apathy and the reason it's wrong is fairly self-evident.

Even though the wrongness of genocide is an important part of both stories, BH's discussion of genocide always rubbed me the wrong way. While what BH is saying about the importance of varied perspectives in a community is true, going to genocide as a primary example feels both dramatic and like a bad justification for why genocide is wrong. You can logic your way around BH's explanation by arguing a certain group of people don't offer anything of value to the community and can thus be expulsed. Disabled people and immigrants come to mind as two demographics where that argument is often made against. And while that statement may go against BH's larger themes, but the show doesn't challenge and strengthen its themes enough to outright reject that cognitive dissonance. In 03, making genocide the on-going consequence of ignorance and apathy means that there's no possibility to question the validity of genocide because you can't logic your way out of "it's wrong because it's wrong."

While I doubt Arakawa or the people making the BH adaption would endorse genocide, I don't like the unintended room for argument left by the story. It also carries the unspoken theme that you need to justify your existence. Was Father evil because he hurt and killed countless people or because he took from the All without giving anything back? From the way BH depicts the characters in the military, especially Olivier Armstrong, Roy Mustang, Maes Hughes, and Miles, I would argue that the second statement is BH's answer. In 03, is Dante evil because she killed and hurt countless people or because she she took from the All without giving anything back? It's closer to the former here. If anything, Dante represents the warped take on BH's ideals that I proposed, where she argued that the entirety of Ishbal, Lior, Xerxes, Drachma, the city beneath Central, and anywhere else slaughtered in her goal to create a Philosopher Stone was justified because her continued existence was healthier for the human race than theirs. You can't logic your way around someone like that because it would require quantifying the value of human lives, but what can be worth the price of a human life? It's a fallacy that the show disproves in the first minute of the first episode.

BH's condemnation of genocide can, ironically, be easily twisted in a way that justifies it, while that just can't be done with 03's take on it. Beside that, due to a difference in where both shows put genocide in their thematic hierarchy. 03 builds up and widely applies its themes about apathy and ignorance. For example, an important part of the Nina incident that isn’t in BH is that Ed had his suspicions on Tucker well before he transmuted his daughter but he chose not to pursue them until it was too late. The most telling scene is one where Ed is heading out to walk Alexandre, notices that Nina’s drawing was burnt, and then proceeds to walk the dog. In a later episode, we meet the Tringhams, who are willing to turn a blind eye to the their town suffer from water poisoning leading to widespread miscarriages and illness as a result of their research if it means they can get closer to their father. Even minor instances of characters turning a blind eye to important stuff goes punished, such as when Edward is afraid to ask Alphonse if he hates him for what happened and proceeds not to tell him for several years, which escalates into Al’s identity crisis. No one dies and that conflict gets resolved, but it still highlights the same themes highlighted by the topic of genocide. This progression also applies in Ed’s early relationship to Sloth, where he would repeatedly choose not to think about the possibility of having created a homunculus until said homunculus is screaming in his face. The involvement of genocide in 03′s themes are the climax because enabling genocide is the ultimate consequence to apathy. In BH, the involvement of genocide in its themes is not the climax, instead it’s part of the escalating stakes. The climax is when Father tries to consume God. The difference between that and the talk of genocide is that there’s a huge difference between killing everyone and killing a select group of people because killing everyone is an abstract ambition that wouldn’t make sense in real life because it can never truly benefit anyone, while genocide is a crime that does exist in real life because does come with benefactors. I wanted to clarify the difference because escalating the stakes from genocide to destroy the world detaches the point the work is trying to make from reality. While a work of fiction doesn’t have to match reality, pulling BH’s climax away from anything that could reasonably exist also abstracts its themes, which are carried from its discussion of genocide. As a result, some of BH’s commentary on genocide also becomes abstract because this very real thing that happens is put on a lower level of tension and relevance than an event that could only be fictional. 

This translates over to many of the details of the war in both shows too. Such as the detail about flame alchemy being tattooed onto Hawkeye’s back and Roy having to burn it off so that it could never be used again because seeing it being used in Ishval first hand was horrifying. It’s from the trope of a character where they alone wield a power that no person should be allowed to possess, but that trope is extremely fantasy, which clashes with heavy topic of genocide. Another moment like this is when Marco reverse-transmutes Envy in a moment of triumph, which is meant to signify his acceptance of his role in Ishval and him moving past it, but the usage of a magic fight scene to symbolize that disconnects the moment from being tangible because that development is signified through the use of a triumphant magic fight scene. The reason BH does this is because it’s a story about the oppressed and their oppressors putting aside their differences to take down the big bad. While these types of themes can be great, it doesn’t synergize with genocide. The way BH goes about this is putting a lot of weight into how its main characters from the military are good people while also putting very little emphasis on the continued suffering of the Ishvalans. Rather than going through the time to scrutinize Roy Mustang for actively participating in genocide, the show elects to make him out to be a good person in spite of that fact. This is done to make it easy to get behind and root for the protagonists. This is contrasted with the antagonists, who are shown to either not regret or actively enjoy their crimes. It results in genocide being brushed aside because it would clash with the likeability of the major characters. This is not what happens 03. Characters like Roy Mustang are heavily scrutinized and challenged for their decisions past and present. Their crimes are not brushed aside in favor of making them look good. Roy Mustang in 03 is not depicted as an overall good person and there’s a good reason for that. A particular comparison that’s always bugged me is how Roy’s primary character arc in BH has very little to do with his time in Ishval. He instead spends a lot of time dealing with the anger from Hughes’s death, which is something where both the audience directly sympathizes with him because they’ve seen Hughes and something that isn’t Roy’s fault. BH has a tendency to shift blame from the protagonists to the antagonists as the series progresses. Even unrelated to Ishval, Ed’s failed transmutation begins to look less and less bad as the show progresses, starting with the discovery that what he brought back wasn’t even his mother and ending with the knowledge he gained from it being essential for taking down Father. Meanwhile the start of the Ishval war goes from being a nameless soldier to being Envy, who enjoys causing death and brags about it. Winry’s parents died in the war, but then it was Scar’s doing, but then around when Scar stops becoming a villain and Kimblee joins the picture, we learn that Kimblee would have killed them anyways so it doesn’t really matter that Scar pulled the trigger instead. This weakens the backbone of BH’s take on genocide because by dividing the protagonists and antagonists that partook in committing genocide between whether or not they were cool with it, BH validates the concept of just following orders. In contrast, 03 doubles down on the consequences of these characters’ actions. Ed’s failed human transmutation, creates Sloth, who helps kill Hughes when he investigates her, works sacrifice thousands of people to create a philosopher’s stone, and attempts to kill Ed and Al herself. Even if the actions and the following guilt are sympathetic, 03 never looks away from the consequences. Roy Mustang is another character who does a massive list of things wrong and acts unforgivably but is still sympathetic. The anime doesn’t shy away from showing the consequences of characters actions, which reinforces their guilt and motivation. It also means that 03 doesn’t undermine the inclusion of genocide in its story in the same way BH does.

How the protagonist relates to the concept of genocide is also an important distinction to make when comparing both shows. In BH, Edward has nothing to do with it. Considering that genocide is not the climax and thus one of many escalations in stakes, apathy isn’t a thematic point in BH, and BH puts a lot of focus on its supporting cast, Edward’s lack of involvement in this plot point isn’t a narrative flaw. But it does mean that the theme of genocide has to filtered through secondary characters rather than the protagonist. This results in the Ishval war being distant from the main plot. It’s relevant to the backstories of most of the major characters, but Edward’s relative lack of involvement keeps it from overtaking the plot. This is also what allows for the plot to transition from the Ishval War to Father’s plans without dramatically cutting away Ed’s and Al’s personal motives from the plot. It’s a decision that’s thematically terrible but narratively sound. In 03, Edward’s lack of direct involvement in the genocide of Ishbal is commented on, but his hands are not clean. He was the catalyst for the genocide enacted upon in Lior and he chose to take part in, and thus be complacent in, the system responsible for the Ishbal massacre. Edward is also responsible for unlearning the propaganda about it, which occurs over the course of the show. In 03, Edward is related to the genocide of the Ishbal people not because he was there or was closely related to anyone there, but because there is no war that we aren’t all a part of. Because BH’s themes about genocide are more abstract and impersonal than 03′s, it can get away with distancing its protagonist from genocide in a way that 03 does not. 

Another reason why BH distances its protagonist from genocide while 03 does not is because the shows have very different takes on Edward’s morality. In BH, he is the moral center of the show. Edward doesn’t have to reassess or challenge his ideals, nor is he ever proven wrong. As a result, the faults in failing to acknowledge the interconnectedness and need for diversity and spread in the world can’t be explored through him in the same way it is in 03, where a huge point in Ed’s character is that he’s wrong about how the world works and need to mature his worldview and ideals. If Edward can be held in any way responsible for the genocides in Ishval or Leore, then it weakens the strength of the character because it means his ideals aren’t pure. That’s why his complacency about Ishval when he joins the military is never questioned. It’s also why the massacre in Leore is glossed over. While Edward doesn’t succeed at saving everyone, Nina’s death cannot be contributed even partially to a moral failure on Edward’s part in the same way it can in 03. The thematic relevance of Nina’s death in BH is to show how one person, no matter who they are, cannot be expected to save everyone. Contrast that to 03 where Edward’s failings as a person are one of the anime’s main methods of conveying its themes. BH Edward is more of a mouthpiece than a character who has to grow when it comes to the themes the show connects to genocide.

Part of that is because 03′s themes are also much more on-the-ground than BH’s. As in, many of BH’s themes exist on a macro level. While the importance of diversity in a society is true, it’s also not something the average viewer can interact with beyond agreeing or disagreeing. 03′s themes are more micro and personal, the idea that apathy can enable tragedy can be taken to fit both the personal lives of the audience and be treated as a wake up call to actually get involved in activism. As a result, Edward becoming a mouthpiece for BH’s themes is appropriate, but it would be inappropriate to do the same for 03′s themes. Relating that to how both shows handle genocide, Edward is BH can come across as disingenuous because the show has gone out of its way to distance him from the responsibility of it. This is relevant when the show covers topics that Edward has nothing to do with, because its conclusion still matches Edward’s. The problem is that Edward doesn’t know what he’s talking about, which undercuts the validity of the show’s conclusion to anyone paying attention. With Ishval specifically, Edward’s experience with it is a single conversation with Hawkeye and Scar trying to kill him. Compare that to 03 where Ed’s final conclusion about Ishbal is shaped by both his experiences with the military, his experiences with Ishbalan refugees, him seeing the effects of genocide both from the ruins of Ishbal and the graves in Lior, and more. Edward comes to the conclusion that “there is no war that is not in some way caused by all of us” because he has seen it repeatedly. Edward’s beliefs in 03 are shaped by the story while his beliefs in BH are reinforced by the story. The problem is that BH Ed lacks an understanding to the depth of the horrors of genocide.

03 is ultimately about horrible actions that can never be taken back and living with their consequences. Whether it’s human transmutation, genocide, murder, violence, the philosopher’s stone. It’s about how apathy and inaction enables these things. How people don’t like to think about them because they’re uncomfortable, but that doesn’t prevent them from still happening. How the world is neither simple nor fair. The genocide against the Ishbalan people is one of the main cores of 03′s story. BH is about its wide cast of fun characters and the unravelling of its intrigue plot. While the Ishval war is a component to that, it’s not what the story is primarily about. The problem is that genocide is too big of a deal for the story to shove aside like it does and it isn’t compatible with the image BH wants to set about its characters being fundamentally good people, which results in BH not treating the topic of genocide with the respect that it deserves.

[nealink]

how favored by life do you have to be to literally find your Soulmate at 6 years of age

and then spend the next 30+ years literally Full of love for each other

and u get paid to do silly, strange things together, and make each other laugh/smile