#and arent inherently flawed

[foxyatlas]

Currently reading The Raven Cycle series (on book 4) and Adam is so so against taking money from his friends that it makes me want to read a sugar daddy au with him. No sex needed, I just want to see Adam take some goddamn help and have to shut up about it.

[androdragynous]

yes it is important to have hobbies that involve creation and physical action when it is possible or whatever but downgrading anything else to "media consumption" is so deadening. is tv not performance, are animation and cinematography not visual art, is a script not writing? would you deny someone the enjoyment of a story because they can watch it in the comfort of their home? sit down and see the beauty in both the natural and the manmade and maybe you'll stop acting like enjoying tv is a crime

[lycanr0t]

the thing about aplatonicism is that just like aromanticism and asexualism, it doesn't inherently mean you don't want friendships, every individual apl person has different needs and wants in regards to friendship and each person will go about it differently.

I for example am aplatonic and don't specifically feel platonic attraction as in, i don't feel a drive to befriend people. I don't get "friend crushes" or ever get the desire to befriend specific people. I am personally, very open to the possibility of friendship if someone else approaches me and we vibe. I am not platonically attracted to them, but I also do get enjoyment from socializing with others in that way and can become attached to them, etc. Platonic attraction does not equal caring about someone/being good to them. Attraction is not moral in that way. it just is.

Just like how some ace people still enjoy sex, even without sexual attraction. Some aplatonic people still enjoy friendship, and some don't. And that's okay! There are so many types of relationships out there that people can form and explore what makes them happiest and it looks different for every person and that's such a wonderful thing.

[dyketubbo]

thinking about cranboo and how theyre a huge bitch

[sanjipussyindulgence]

what's your favorite thing about sanji? 💙🩵

okay as a funny answer i'd say its because hes so loser-coded. like hes a pathetic sopping wet purse dog of a man.

but as a genuine answer it's because of how layered he is. for as over the top and anime tropey his personality is... he's very realistically done? somehow he feels grounded and human to me in a way that some of the other straw hats arent.

even though his defining trait is kindness, he refuses to show ANY emotional vulnerability due to his trauma. instead he'll play a dramatized caricature of himself to distance any of the genuine emotion involved. he'll hide any kindness under a layer of either grouchiness when it comes to men, or infatuation when it comes to women.

sanji almost never lets his walls down, even when hes with the straw hats, so we dont get to see/understand him fully until he's at his worst emotionally (whole cake island).

its at times like that when we see who sanji truly is - a deeply insecure yet kind man with a severe guilt complex. the reason why sanji acts the way he does is because he HATES himself, even to the point where he doesn't want to be himself.

which is why he puts on the act of a tough guy womanizer because, in his mind, thats better than the soft-hearted little boy he still is at his core... but its that part of him that i love the most! i love whenever he gets to be honestly sweet!

obviously his pervert gag has its moments where it shoots sanji's characterization in the foot but i dont HATE his attitude towards women and i feel the people who want him to change entirely miss the point.

his strict binary for the genders stems from his early childhood where all the men in his life were monsters and only women were kind to him. even once he got picked up by zeff it was a tough love situation and sanji adopted that.

he views men as inherently worse than women, and its a character flaw that defines his personality. its important for a well written character to have a flaw like that. it fleshes him out.

i could go into a whole different conversation about his unintentional queer-coding... but this post is already long enough so i wont.

[dbzkaka]

I mean this in the absolute nicest way possible:

You cant forget instinct. Thats why theyre called instincts. Theyre INSTINCTUAL.

I feel like some people misinterpret gokus head injury as a child. He forgot he was a saiyan. He forgot his parents. But it didnt get rid of his natural "saiyan instincts."

Saiyans were ruthless because thats the path they ended up on. Take universe 6 saiyans. Theyre not planet brokers, but saviors.

Saiyans ARENT inherently evil. Goku didnt have issues as a baby because he was a saiyan... he was violent because he was on a new planet with nothing familiar. No parents. No brother. No home. Just a strange old man and things he didnt understand.

So he threw tantrums. Like any child would. And they seemed worse because he wasnt human.

You can lose instincts over time. But Goku didnt lose his saiyan abilities or instincts at all. Theyre still there. He lost his memories. It was his saiyan instincts that kept him alive when he was alone in the woods for all those years.

The saiyans believe theyre superior through years and years of fighting and brokering planets. If their original planet, sadala, hadnt blown up then maybe they would have ended up like the universe 6 saiyans, fighting to save rather than destroy.

But it did blow up. So they had to fight for another. And then king cold made everything THAT MUCH WORSE by basically enslaving the saiyans to work for him. And then later, frieza.

If saiyans were "evil" then vegeta would have no capacity for good at all. And Goku losing his memories wouldnt have mattered. But they arent. Not inherently anyway.

Dont get me wrong. Theyre ruthless and cunning and can be downright terrifying im sure. Thats all from their intense instinct for battle. Its what they do with that that makes them flawed and could have been different.

[puppiekit]

I really wish warrior cats fans would allow their favorite characters to like... have genuine flaws. Actual flaws that arent 'gets mad sometimes'. Half of the complaints I see about the characters nowadays can be boiled down to "my favorite character was wrong, or did something bad, and I didn't like that" like why are you mad that this character isn't a literal cardboard cutout who's entire personality consists of being the warriors equivalent to fanservice (never being wrong ever and mirroring the fandoms every moral opinion as if we are 5 years old). "It's out of character!!" Is that really the case or do you just not like it? Lol. A character being wrong or irrational is not inherently a character being ooc

[hulahoopsoupgroup]

sometimes i like to think about going back in time just to talk to my middle school self. i wish i could just tell her shes gonna be alright.

i wish i could go back to one of those dark, lonely nights and tell her "its okay that youre queer. you cant change that. its okay that youre not super feminine. its okay that you might be neurodivergent. dont hate yourself because the christians around you tell you to. youre not condemned to hell for existing. youre not inherently a terible person whose little flaws ruin your entire self. you are not some kind of 'sinner.' any god that would tell you to torture yourself for your miniscule shortcomings, some of which arent even morally wrong, is not a god to be worshipped. you deserve love."

[deafeninggardenerpanda]

Do you have any Mirror GSA headcanons? 👀

i was going to draw some more stuff with the actual mir gsa but im going through some weird artblock rn so heres some text instead 😍

unlike my gameverse mirror counterparts where they have their own world and own histories, animeverse mirror counterparts are manifestations of the regular counterparts most aggressive worst traits or critical flaws. (ironically thats more in-line with the real game lore than my game lore but anyways) rather than being its own dimension, ultimately the purpose of the dimensional mirror in this universe is to create adversaries to help the regular versions of those characters realize their own flaws and thus become a better version of themselves. they arent meant to be defeated through regular combat, theyre a good bit stronger than the regular counterparts for one reason or another and just respawn through the mirror indefinitely if you can manage to shatter them anyways. theyre supposed to be like a puzzle. once the regular counterparts have some sort of epiphany about their flaws and themselves, the mirror counterparts have served their purpose and so shatter permanently

thats not to say the mirror counterparts arent their own people though... they dont have their own histories or world they came from (which causes some conflict with arthur later down the line) but the mir gsa are still very close with each other relationship-wise and have their own feelings on things going on. once they start shattering one by one, it becomes a sort of existential and moral crisis for people on both sides. is it worth it becoming a better person if that means one of you automatically dies? something something is it possible to escape one's own fate and purpose; the whole gang attempts to answer that question by attempting to get the remaining mirror counterparts somewhere where they can just live their life. but how i have it written right now is that all of them just shatter in the end and the regular counterparts come out of it with a great, but grim, appreciation for them, despite how much the mirrors initially antagonized them. and then they seal away the dimensional mirror so no one else, mirror or regular, needs to suffer the same fate

my friend keeps telling me thats really sad though, that the mirror counterparts just Dont get a happy ending and inherently cant. which... YEAH.... it works out as advancement of the regular counterparts characters just fine but its pretty unsatisfying to be like yeah they all die, its sad and the reg counterparts are traumatized but better people I Guess and then the mirror is sealed away like a game of fucking jumanji to be eventually dug up and have new people go through the same experience again. ill most likely rewrite some aspects of it because of that but thats how it is for now *jazz hands*

[ardourie]

I'm curious lol, I'm not USAmerican and their politics is very confusing to me, and I thought you might know better than me so here I am :>

Does USAmerica– the "father of democracy" –has a biparty system?

Because I swear to god, hearing them rambling about how struggling they are at voting either a nazi or an even worse nazi based solely on how much they're going to suffer, makes me think these people doesn't know the history of their own country and what's the impact of choosing a nazi as their president in the first place to other countries

Also; do they have no rules regarding this? I thought USA is an old country, no? Surely they have regulations that prohibits nazi from trying to elect themselves as a president, no???

im rlly sorry to tell u there are literally no rules for anything here this entire country was built to keep rich white people happy that’s it the liberals ur seeing just want their bubble of happiness to not pop, sure theres a “two party system” but one google and ull see democrats either caving to what republicans want or working both sides in the interest of gaining more capital, the only times there has been effective resistance to how the voting system is inherently racist and flawed was when black and brown ppl were assassinating politicians lol, and ur right, these people don’t know america’s history bc they are only looking at the white lense of american history, to them as long as it doesn’t personally impact them, it isn’t important, thats why so many liberals don’t care about anti immigration done by democrats or police murder protected by “leftist” leaders, bc the ppl its happening to arent white

[prettyboykatsuki]

Do you have any tips on how to like. Manage insecurity lol

im told i have a pessimistic way of handling this specific thing so take this advice with a grain of salt but i break like all inner issues down into two parts. the practical application and theory

the practical application for managing insecurity is that theres only two states for that thing. can be changed and can’t be changed. if something can’t be changed than worrying is a waste of time. if it can then i can work to change it, then the question is, is it worth it? as in, does making this change serve me as a person or improve my quality of life and am i doing it for the right reason?

the second and more important imo is the theory of insecurity which is why told im kinda pessimistic shfjsnf

but my mindset is basically 1. there’s nothing self-righteous about your misery and 2. thinking you are by some measure uniquely awful is also a complex of thinking you are special.

insecurity is a really insidious things because it places importance on very arbitrary things. and its made so big by social media. you should care about the opinions of people who are important to you and who love you but strangers are just strangers. and people who don’t know you intimately cant make full enough judgements of what makes you good or bad

but ultimately i think of my own self hatred as kind of lame and thats why i dont sink to deep into it anymore. my insecurity is not accurate measure of who am i in the same way my accomplishments aren’t. im not a uniquely evil monster just like im not a heavenly saint

my bodies shaped like that because bodies look like that. my teeth are yellow because sometimes they stain. im annoying sometimes and sometimes im inconsiderate and i isolate often. these are qualities about me i dislike and can feel insecure about but they’re not some machiavellian, radical evil. just like my good traits arent some inherent divine goodness

insecurities are reflections of the world around us and the people we encounter. your insecurities don’t show up out of thin air. they’re brought and imposed upon you through a long life and its normal to have them and working through them is a life long process

but the reason ive gradually become less insecure is because having this intense fixation on my flaws was honestly a massive waste of my time lmao. my miserable and pitiful outbursts were eating away at my long and beautiful life. if i spent even half of the time i did as a young kid worrying about my appearance on literally anything else i might’ve been the next frank ocean. my suffering wasn’t righteous. it didn’t make me special or cool or interesting.

be cringe and weird. be ugly and outdated. be gross and sad. what do you want to see when you look back at your life? beautiful misery or ugly and unkempt joy? its not a fix but it helped me a lot to think that way even if its morbid or pessimistic.

when im insecure the little voice in my head goes “but does it matter?” because i taught to do that. it usually doesn’t matter because a lot if it’s arbitrary. thats my two cents

[okthatsgreat]

kind of a rant but this has annoyed me 4ever!!!! dr fandom in general has this massive push when it comes to trying to make characters as sympathetic and justified as possible which is absolutely hilarious considering one of danganronpa's biggest strengths is itself the flaws of the characters and the way they're portrayed in context of said flaws. i have no clue how you can look at a character like komaeda and fight to make him literally just a sopping wet cat in a cardboard box when you have literally have a five course meal in the exploration of his characters morality. idk abt the rest of u but personally i want my favs to be worse and evil and completely nonfunctional

YEPPPPPP you get it you really get it!!!! every single character has flaws, many of which are amplified to the extreme due to the killing game setting they are in. so many danganronpa fans want perfect blameless victims when that really does not apply to MOST of the cast. but them not being completely blameless is what makes the writing COMPELLING!! these are a bunch of scared asshole teenagers in a killing game! they are going to be frightened and selfish and mean and hostile with each other!!! removing the flaws from these characters just turns them into people they arent and makes them a LOT less interesting imo. there is so much to explore with so many of these characters already and a lot of it has to do with their inherent character flaws and the selfishness of their actions. like guys this is a killing game .. you are not going to be able to justify everybodys motivations. they are going to be cruel and they are going to think of themselves but thats what makes their writing so human

[callibones]

callieeeee. i saw ur response to a post i reblogged abt the robot dogs and it was really interesting. i happen to be working on a tad bit o homework for my intro to philosophy course. you have probably read it or at least heard of it already bc it feels super up ur alley as a thought experiment but. read daniel dennett's 'Where Am I' and literally thought of ur response the entire time. what are your thoughts on this if you have any

hooh. i hadnt read it or heard of it so i just gave it a read. that was phenomenal. very cleverly written. extremely funny and also horrifying. i love it dearly now.

it's right in line with i, robot as my favorite type of science fiction: thought experiments that rely on how we label things.

my opinion on the labels of things is, when i peel back all the stuff that gives me comfort, that there's just one thing: everything. some people call it god, i just think it's. like. The Everything. if you take our personal cognition outta the equation, there's nothing to distinguish between the parts of The Everything! some parts of The Everything (us) work in a very particular way where we come up with ways to distinguish between sections of The Everything. give things arbitrary designations based on arbitrary patterns that allow us to arbitrarily determine what's what. that includes the idea of the self!

all of this is a very fancy way to say that like. i don't think there's some inherent, universe-supported version of The Self that isn't tied to how we, as parts of The Everything, choose to label what we perceive. there's no objective answer to the question of who's dennett and who isn't. just like there's no objective answer about what exactly counts as a human, or what exactly counts as a robot! there's the answers that a bunch of scientists came up with that we use for all the science because it's what a lot of us agree on, but that doesn't mean that those designations are Absolute. Oops, It's All Social Constructs, Babey!

and this rocks, actually, and i love thinking about the world this way. because it means it's a given that. first of all. like. gender can be whatever we want. it's just how we choose to interpret our understanding of everything (including our feelings and other people and ourselves and our thoughts and stuff). i can be a robotgirl. yeah, i'm not. like. dictionarily a robot in the same way the boston dynamics robot is, but it's a label i choose to assign to my thoughts and feelings that i like! it's good i think and i like doing it and it helps me conceptualize the world. it's also why the question of "what's the cutoff between fictional robots and current ones?" is just as flawed as the question of "is a hot dog a sandwich?" the answer, objectively, is. like. that depends on how you see it. we're not going to get an answer that is completely 100% rooted in total fact with no wiggle room, because everyone has a different labeling system.

but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try! cause like. labels arent bad. when i get hungry i could zoom all the way out and think it doesnt matter because im one tiny shard of the everything and theres not even a me. or i could get up and exit what i think of as my bedroom and do what i think of as walking to get through what i think of as my hallway and arrive in what i think of as my kitchen and open what i think of as my fridge and eat what i think of as a sandwich, which happens to also be what i think of as a hot dog.

this is awesome because hot dogs rock and are delicious. but we can also discuss labels because... like. in the same way that the scientists can make a consensus about a label that isnt 100% objective but a lot of people agree with it, if a label's useful to us, we can make a consensus about it so we can discuss it and how to respond to it. and those labels can be slippery! when i say "i love robots so much. i want to kiss or be kissed by one i think." i am absolutely talking about the fictional robots i love dearly. we're probably thinking of some of the same ones. i also may be talking about some real robots! and maybe we both thought of those nasa robot probes i reblogged a bunch of times earlier that are so cute. i would kiss them. but you can guess i DONT want to kiss the boston dynamics police dog, because right now, my idea of robots that i love does not include that thing. that doesn't mean it's objectively Not a Robot. it's just not in the current definition of "robot" i'm going by when i say that i love robots.

when dennett's thinking about where he is, and whether he's in the jar or not, there's no objective answer because, as he shows very very well, there's no one objective dennett. the scientists think of dennett as yorick, probably, or interchangeably yorick or hubert depending on how they, personally, feel about the aliveness of hubert. anyone dennett's interacted with recently who doesn't know about the whole brain situation thinks of hamlet or fortinbras as dennett depending on who theyre used to. if theyve met both bodies, id guess they probably think fortinbras is dennett and dennett just moved from body to body. the story's such a great demonstration of the lack of the objective self.

personally, i just think the antennae are extremely gender and i want them. and also im surprised dennett thought about the idea of having a clone and didnt immediately think "we would kiss so much" because thats where my mind went. personally

[anaryllis]

the post where i talk about lesbian separatism

this is long and rambley & mostly me admitting to bad prior thinking but. maybe itll be helpful? learn from my mistakes idk. i dont think im anywhere near an authority on this but i think its worth being vocal on this esp for my fellow white sapphic-adjacents

in ye olden 2015 i fell down the rabbithole of political lesbianism & separatism - largely based upon my understanding of "male" and "female" as discrete oppressive categories defined by their power imbalance, wherein the only moral option was to identify out of manhood. i was deeply concerned with finding the best & most virtuous way to identify as a person. i think this was easy to trend toward as someone who is nonbinary and generally perceived as a woman - my lack of attachment to a particular gender & experience of oppression slotted well into that worldview. if being an oppressive party = bad, and that category is one which felt so nebulous to me as identity, why identify as the bad one?

there are a bajillion reasons this is flawed thinking (which i can see now) but part of where this fell apart for me was in unpacking: what do you do when the oppressive identity group is one you cannot identify your way out of (whiteness, ability, etc.)? i couldnt run from the "guilt" of my whiteness (or at least, i could see that that was more harmful than helpful, even in this immature mindset). as a white person i simply need to reckon with what it means to be the best person i can be with my circumstances. so what does that mean for other oppressive groups? are men inherently oppressive and incapable of change? is it actually more moral, or safer, to not be/not be WITH men? (obviously no)

(& then of course the concept which is much better articulated in the last post i rb'd: the position woc end up in in these scenarios, where they end up expected to ally either with white lesbians or with moc, rather than building solidarity as a whole.)

further, i think this essentialist pov honestly lets men off the hook. when we argue that men are inherently cruel and incapable of healthy relationships (with women) - this almost avoids placing the blame of their actions on them. if instead we recognize men as, you know, people - then instead it becomes apparent that plenty of men are kind, compassionate, ethical - and those that arent may be weaponizing manhood, but its not the manhood itself which makes the cruelty.

when all of the separatist thinking fell apart for me, i began more solidly identifying as bi, and more masc on the nb side. my romantic relationship with a man has been incredible for me as a bi and trans person - and i think my 19 year old lesbian separatist self would be shocked. but im glad im here!

last note: i think also, in 2015 the spaces i was in on here were vocally trans(feminine)-inclusive - we were for women after all! but i think it was just a breeding ground for scrutinizing the trans women in these spaces. it meant that anytime a trans woman did something "bad," then therefore she wasnt actually a woman bc women good & men bad. (+ i think any space which discourages trans men transitioning is harmful to all trans people across the board.) & lo & behold, a ton of my former mutuals from that time ultimately fell into TERF social circles. so.

anyway dont be gender essentialist 👍

[ms-all-sunday]

So I'm playing DIE with a couple of mutual friends and some of my childhood friends and im playing essentially pudding if she was a real girl who was a fan of one piece and a sanji fangirl and also playing her axe (who is essentially how she sees sanji from the perspective of him as her favourite character.) and ofc pudding translates extremely well into this format (people dont know what DIE is but the game im playing is essentially pick a character whos a fan of something and then they get inserted into that world. its all very self indulgent) and i love rping as her. and i also love the fact i get to rp as essentially an out of character on purpose version of sanji (not TOO out of character but moreso how someone who really likes him would view him so not ignoring his flaws but softening them a lot and really hammering home his good traits) and its really fun ive never rped sanji before.

its got me thinking about the fact there are two ways to misinterpret sanji.

1. you are charlotte pudding and you love him and so the flaws bounce off of you hard and sometimes the flaws are part of the charm the tone is not dismissive but more just purely admiring of the flaws which arent the focus to you. inherently to YOU sanji is cool because he is a little faggot its not in spite of him being a little faggot.

2. you are a cishet guy and you hate sanji and want him to be an alpha dudebro because liking women is emasculating

exposing myself as 1. not as hard as im making charlotte misinterpret him, but i am one of those people who thinks sanji says "dear". theres a very specific vibe for people who think sanji says dear.

[dekusleftsock]

Rq thought process for later when I go more into detail about it before I forget (in school atm)

The most fundamental part about Izuku’s character is the fact that he is the side character MADE into the mc. That’s the point of ofa; even though Katsuki fits most of the details of being the main character, he never is.

But we all know this right? I mean, this account IS for spreading less well known theories/story/character analysis, sure, putting the picture together for people who don’t fully get that is important. Giving hope, all that junk.

But what it’s REALLY for is spreading my own analysis and ideas of the story to you! It’s all for fun, I love doing this, but it still has a purpose which is letting people know why things are the way they are in mha.

But the fact that Izuku fits the idea of the “side character”, the unimportant character, is still rather common in stories. The mc has a journey of finding their own way of doing the thing everyone else can do and does it. The point of their arc is about acceptance or disability or whatever other allegory junk that story has going on. Toh comes to mind first.

But Izuku’s arc, since CHAPTER ONE, has been about being human in an “inhuman society” if you will. Being born average and having to work twice as hard as everyone else does.

I’ve seen Izuku being the “new symbol of peace” (pretty much all might 2.0) or “the symbol of hope” (even though that fits uraraka more) or literally anything else.

But this doesn’t FIT Izuku. If horikoshi has been showing you how these ideas of being extraordinary is inherently flawed, how hero society itself is flawed, why would he make his main character fit into this same idea of “what makes a hero” that the story ACTIVELY TRIES TO BREAKDOWN AND SHOWS IS WRONG!

Worst part about this is that these people will usually be the same ones saying that hero society is flawed and defend any of the villains because they’re also victims. YEAH, THEY ARE, BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN THEY ARENT GIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY??? EVERY redeemable/atonable character in this story so far has shown taking ACCOUNTABILITY for their crappy actions. But people seem to think the guilt they form is enough and all they get is a slap on the wrist. Like what??? That’s not the point! It’s about accountability for crappy actions and how it’s never too late to be saved or change.

Anyway, Izuku is going to represent being a FLAWED hero, so he can break down the barriers between civilians and heroes, to get rid of this idea that they should treat these heroes like celebrities. He’s not gonna be this new all might, or magically gain public speaking skills, he’s going to be himself. A hero that tries his best, even when he does fail. To realize that suicide doesn’t HAVE TO BE his best.