Reductress is just spreading terf rhetoric now
The "joke" is that nonbinary people are somehow escaping from violence by being trans that we can opt out of fearing violence and don't fear violence when walking at night....
Like just yuck as a transmasc nonbinary survivor whose actually aware of the stats of violence against nonbinary people this just disgusts me...
Also I'm betting they have talked to zero Black trans enbies or men or women of colour about how being seen as "scary" puts them in danger from racist white people & or they're just assuming all enbies are white idk it's disgusting... There's just so many layers to the bigotry and white fauxminism of this "joke"
They've previously made posts like this so idk if they've got terfs on staff who keep trying to slip this in to pipeline people or people who think certain trans people they dislike facing violence including sexual violence is funny and that those trans survivors are lying and shouldn't be beleived.
They're priming their audience to disbelieve and mock nonbinary trans survivors. They're literally pushing the "people transition to escape/opt out of patriarchal violence like a fun game" terf talking point which isn't reflected in the stats of violence against trans people who face higher rates of physical sexual and domestic violence than cis people
Just "it's a coin toss!"
As a survivor fuck you
Like the comments section is full of transphobia and people going "har har they think they're in danger they're delusional " or spouting transphobic BS and a trans man whose talking about how he fears violence walking at night being called 'female' and misgendered like well done you've curated a comment section full of transphobes and people who think trans people aren't who we say we are fucking yikes
None of the transphobic comments have been deleted reductress seems happy to leave up comments calling trans men "female" and saying that trans people are a danger to children
49 notes
·
View notes
serious question, are there ANY (wired) headsets made today anymore that have seperated plugs for audio and microphone??
usb ones always cause trouble and the only other ones i can find are those with combined audio+mic into one plug, which i dont have the ports on my PC for.............
i tried looking through adapters but the only ones i can find are those that combine seperate ones, id need the reverse (if thats even possible)
(visualization bc i feel like i am losing my sanity trying to explain what i mean, am i stupid? did i halluzinate the two jack/plug thing???? do only cheap garbage ones have this??? is that one of the gaming chair things??? like oh you want a GAMING headset- that means either combined or usb haHA???)
40 notes
·
View notes
Is it just me that thinks those model swaps of Javier just look weird??? Like his head is too small for Arthur’s body, and Arthur’s mannerisms are so different from Javiers that it just makes all the scenes look so unsettling.
Same thing goes for those edits of Javier with a full moustache. I think he looks stupid with the full moustache, let him keep his gap it’s cute.
18 notes
·
View notes
Something I really really appreciate about Nintendo putting Dedf1sh into Side Order is how glaringly colorful they are compared to the entire DLC. Everything is so white, light grey, or various pastels. Even 8 and Pearl match this colorless world, and we already know them as colorful characters.
And then Dedf1sh is bright and saturated. They have freaking GREEN SKIN and BRIGHT BLUE HAIR. They are so jarring compared to everything else around them. Even the color chip they give 8 is nothing I'm comparison. The only thing CLOSE to being as colorful is 8, and I'm assuming that's much later into the DLC.
They are so completely out of place, but in such a perfect way. Gives a strong sense of "I'm not supposed to be here, but here I am anyways." But at the same time, each and every look at get at them, they hold the exact same vibes as their album art. Like.
They are bright and colorful against a white background. There isn't much color besides them. And the color there is, it's only there to reflect what colors they have.
Going to the trailer, it's almost the exact same vibes. The turntables aren't there and the background is grey. But they're still the most colorful thing in this image. And it really just feels like a satisfying moment of concept art to 3D model, because they honestly look the same (with a few obvious tweaks such as the bandages)
96 notes
·
View notes
i’ve been thinking a lot about what is so unique and appealing about 80s robin jay’s moral standing that got completely lost in plot later on. and i think a huge part of it is that in a genre so focused on crime-fighting, his motivations and approach don’t focus on the category of crime at all. in fact, he doesn’t seem to believe in any moral dogma; and it’s not motivated by nihilism, but rather his open-heartedness and relational ethical outlook.
we first meet (post-crisis) jay when he is stealing. when confronted about his actions by bruce he’s confident that he didn’t do anything wrong – he’s not apologetic, he doesn’t seem to think that he has morally failed on any account. later on, when confronted by batman again, jay says that he’s no “crook.” at this point, the reader might assume that jay has no concept of wrong-doing, or that stealing is just not one of the deeds that he considers wrong-doing. yet, later on we see jay so intent on stopping ma gunn and her students, refusing to be implicit in their actions. there are, of course, lots of reasons for which we can assume he was against stealing in this specific instance (an authority figure being involved, the target, the motivations, the school itself being an abusive environment etc.), but what we gather is that jay has an extremely strong sense of justice and is committed to moral duty. that's all typical for characters in superhero comics, isn't it? however, what remains distinctive is that this moral duty is not dictated by any dogma – he trusts his moral instincts. this attitude – his distrust toward power structures, confidence in his moral compass, and situational approach, is something that is maintained throughout his robin run. it is also evident in how he evaluates other people – we never see him condemning his parents, for example, and that includes willis, who was a petty criminal. i think from there arises the potential for a rift between bruce and jay that could be, have jay lived, far more utilised in batman comics than it was within his short robin run.
after all, while bruce’s approach is often called a ‘philosophy of love and care,’ he doesn’t ascribe to the ethics of care [eoc] (as defined in modern scholarship btw) in the same way that jay does. ethics of care ‘deny that morality consists in obedience to a universal law’ and focus on the ideals of caring for other people and non-institutionalized justice. bruce, while obviously caring, is still bound by his belief in the legal system and deontological norms. he is benevolent, but he is also ultimately morally committed to the idea of a legal system and thus frames criminals as failing to meet these moral (legal-adjacent) standards (even when he recognizes it is a result of their circumstances). in other words, he might think that a criminal is a good person despite leading a life of crime. meanwhile, for jay there is no despite; jay doesn't think that engaging in crime says anything about a person's moral personality at all. morality, for him, is more of an emotional practice, grounded in empathy and the question of what he can do for people ‘here and now.’ he doesn’t ascribe to maxims nor utilitarian calculations. for jay, in morality, there’s no place for impartiality that bruce believes in; moral decisions are embedded within a net of interpersonal relationships and social structures that cannot be generalised like the law or even a “moral code” does it. it’s all about responsiveness.
to sum up, jay's moral compass is relative and passionate in a way that doesn't fit batman's philosophy. this is mostly because bruce wants to avoid the sort of arbitrariness that seems to guide eoc. also, both for vigilantism, and jay, eoc poses a challenge in the sense that it doesn't create a certain 'intellectualised' distance from both the victims and the perpetrators; there's no proximity in the judgment; it's emotional.
all of this is of course hardly relevant post-2004. there might be minimal space for accommodating some of it within the canon progression (for example, the fact that eoc typically emphasises the responsibility that comes with pre-existing familial relationships and allows for prioritizing them, as well as the flexibility regarding moral deliberations), but the utilitarian framework and the question of stopping the crime vs controlling the underworld is not something that can be easily reconciled with jay’s previous lack of interest in labeling crime.
319 notes
·
View notes