#and other friends!! not discounting them

[swagbitch666]

.

[drawnfamiliarfaces]

a strange thought - Ben 10 is, in fact, the only one who already has canonical children (14 to be exact) now it's curious to see the reaction of the rest of the HoM to this information

teen!mom Ben & his babies is something I've been wanting to draw for months, but i also just feel tired from thinking about drawing those 14 cute babies lol (maybe some day i will have enough energy for this specific cute thing haha)

but yeah the only thing I keep thinking about is that in HoM AU, if big chill's kids ever be back on earth, Ben will finally have (almost) enough emergency babysitters for them who wouldn't mind that the kids could fly/phase thru stuff/freeze stuff/be big space moth toddlers.

guess who is their favorite babysitters are (to Ben's both delight and frustration)?? Thats right: Danny (for all obvious reasons) and Jenny (because she has cool buttefly/moth themed transformation and can chill with them in space). Least favorite are: Rex (to his great sadness, but he is just not good with kids) and Jun (because she is surprisingly strict, all those years of dealing with Ray Ray's nonsense made her very adept at wrangling unruly kids lol). The others are a mixed reaction/acceptance.

[lamphous]

true boys are out tonight vibe at work today for the first time at this job (at lush it was near constantly good vibes only, until the transfer...) and I have been coasting all day. even the last half hour I was like I am having a ball on this bitch, I made a $700 sale and then had a 20 minute conversation with a funny guy named Guy who worked here in the 80s, both of them very drunk white dads, and it was a BLAST. I am riding this high forever.

[astro-inthestars]

YOOOOOOO WE FUCKIN DID IT!!!! YEAHHH!! We slayed SOOO well!! EVERYONE DID!! The other sections were SO FUCKING GOOD i LOVED it!!! And like, we won first place or whatever i didnt care about that really BUT WE ALL DID GREAT!

Anyways, just got home from my pal's birthday party (more like Hang Out at the mall, we ate out) it was AWESOME! First time inside a Starbucks, and first order ALL ON MY OWN! (HELL YEAH RELIGIOUS REBELLION!!)

[junonreactor]

hm

[heyassbuttlmao]

god ballad of a homeschooled girl HITS

[mattynmarns]

.

[freebooter4ever]

This is 1000% random but came to mind regarding the duck movie. I sometimies watch movies without sound if I think they might ~suck~ like that... so just a tip if you want to see it but not sort of experience it :D hahahha

heh, well. ive already seen it fully so the damage has been done. i bought it even, thinking i would want to rewatch it, but i really REALLY dont think i will. ever. i have watched a LOT of bad movies for my stupid infatuations over the years so honestly im used to it.

[noxtivagus]

IM SO EXCITED FOR WHEN WE FINALLY HAVE OUR SCHOOL FAIR AGAIN .

[zombie-boys]

oh no! will is sad!!!!

now that i've gotten your attention... hello there! there's just a little thing about will and mike i'd like to talk about, if you're willing to read it :D

as most of you know, i love will and mike's relationship. i care about the two of them a lot and i care about how they care for each other - and their bond is not only incredibly important to me, but also incredibly important to the show.

and i can guarantee that most of you also really love will and mike together. in that way i love interacting with those of you who ship byler (which is likely the majority of you), as you value their love for each other just as much as i do.

however, there is one main aspect of their relationship that i approach very differently than a lot of avid byler shippers. and, respectfully, i would like to talk about it. for those of you who choose to read, thank you ever so kindly :)

a lot of bylers whose posts i've read on here take scenes of these two purely from a romantic angle - people often use the phrase 'there is no straight explanation for this' in regards to scenes like 'crazy together' or 'you said yes' (basically anything from st2, really). i won't deny that many of such scenes - especially in st3 and st4 - either are easily interpreted to be or blatantly are romantic in nature.

such bylers use acts of extreme devotion and care and gentleness between will and mike as proof that their love for one another can't possibly only be platonic. mike having a binder full of drawings will's made, or recognizing his favorite song, or sleeping on the floor so he can be close to will and comfort him if he has another shadow monster-related nightmare - many fans look at this devotion and immediately call it romance.

but is it really only that?

i should note how i have absolutely no problem with people reading byler from these scenes. i think these scenes strengthen the ship and that that devotion makes their relationship so much sweeter and so much more loving. my issue stems from people reading these scenes as purely romantic - that their love for one another stems entirely on crushing on each other.

my point doesn't rely on whether or not they do have a mutual crush, because i'm not talking about that, even if it likely plays a major role in some interactions - i'm talking about the definite nature of their platonic love, which can coincide with romantic love. nothing i'm saying is against the ship. it's just that in terms of the strength of their relationship, romance shouldn't matter as much as people make it out to be.

they are friends. they can be more. they might be more. it'd be wonderful if they could be more. but above all, will and mike are friends.

my main gripe about this whole romantic lens stems from how people interpret will and mike's estrangement in st3 and st4. people interpret the fight to entirely be about internalized homophobia and will having a crush on mike and mike shoving him aside. and that is a big factor, but it's not nearly the only one. people interpret the issue to be a purely romantic one, entirely dismissing the platonic aspect out of hand...

...and entirely dismissing the value of friendship itself out of hand.

you can't seriously tell me will's pain in st3 and st4 is only about an unrequited crush when the person you think he has a crush on, and who has basically abandoned him, has been his best friend for almost a decade.

romance isn't necessarily a 'step up' from friendship. sometimes they're on the same level. often a friendship is stronger than a romantic bond. losing a friend can break your heart just as much as losing a lover can. trust me, i would know.

mike said that befriending will was the best thing he's ever done. their friendship is so important - to them, to me, to you, to the show. it would be great if he and will loved each other romantically... will most certainly has a crush on him now, if he didn't prior to st3, and his romantic love for mike being requited would be wonderful...

...but first will needs his platonic love for mike to be requited. mike has begun to breach that gap he created in st3 and truly acknowledge how will is just as important to him as el is - but that gap is deep and wide and dangerous and being best friends with will again is going to take time and effort.

i would love it if byler became canon, but what i need is for will and mike to love each other again. as friends. i just personally think that their friendship, as the two have grown and changed and lived in that friendship for so long, is so much more important than their romance could ever be right now.

i humbly ask you wonderful people of the byler community to step back... and take off your blue-and-yellow-tinted glasses, if just for a moment... because will and mike's friendship is just as beautiful as byler is.

trust me, i would know :)

[anxiously-awaiting]

i need to draw more new york gale hes so sad and wet cat i love him .

[bitchfendi]

ever since i started going back to therapy ive been getting in tune with my emotions but that also means that when i hear certain songs i get flashbacks to TheDarkEra

[musical-chick-13]

The thing is, like...yeah, a lot of times, the Social Exclusion I've experienced has been from people I probably wouldn't have wanted to be friends with anyway. At the very least, if someone is willing to do that, if someone is going to be that judgmental over things that don't actually matter, then any actual friendship with them probably wouldn't last very long.

But...it still hurts. Because regardless of how you actually feel about these people, it's still another instance of somebody telling you that you're too annoying or too much or too emotional or too whatever. It's still one more thing that people don't even give you the choice to have? And if you hear this over and over again, if it happens everywhere you go, then after a certain point it gets difficult to not internalize it at least a little bit.

It's been 30 years of this and it never gets any easier.

[bixels]

Learning that fans hated Applejack and called her "boring" is crazyyy to me because I genuinely, unironically believe AJ's the most complex character in the main six.

Backstory-wise, she was born into a family of famers/blue collar workers who helped found the town she lives in. She grew up a habitual liar until she had the bad habit traumatized outta her. She lost both her parents and was orphaned at a young age, having to step up as her baby sister's mother figure. She's the only person in the main gang who's experienced this level of loss and grief (A Royal Problem reveals that AJ dreams about memories of being held by her parents as a baby). She moved to Manhattan to live with her wealthy family members, only to realize she'll never fit in or be accepted, even amongst her own family. The earlier seasons imply she and her family had money problems too (In The Ticket Master, AJ wants to go to the gala to earn money to buy new farm equipment and afford hip surgery for her grandma).

Personality-wise, she's a total people-pleaser/steamroller (with an occasional savior complex) who places her self worth on her independence and usefulness for other people, causing her to become a complete workaholic. In Applebuck Season, AJ stops taking care of herself because of her obsessive responsibilities for others and becomes completely dysfunctional. In Apple Family Reunion, AJ has a tearful breakdown because in she thinks she dishonored her family and tarnished her reputation as a potential leader –– an expectation and anxiety that's directly tied to her deceased parents, as shown in the episode's ending scene. In The Last Roundup, AJ abandons her family and friends out of shame because believes she failed them by not earning 1st place in a rodeo competition. She completely spirals emotionally when she isn't able to fulfill her duties toward others. Her need to be the best manifests in intense pride and competitiveness when others challenge her. And when her pride's broken, she cowers and physically hides herself.

Moreover, it's strongly implied that AJ has a deep-seated anger. The comics explore her ranting outbursts more. EQG also obviously has AJ yelling at and insulting Rarity in a jealous fit just to hurt her feelings (with a line that I could write a whole dissection on). And I'm certain I read in a post somewhere that in a Gameloft event, AJ's negative traits are listed as anger.

Subtextually, a lot of these flaws and anxieties can be (retroactively) linked to her parents' death, forcing her to grow up too quickly to become the adult/caregiver of the family (especially after her big brother becomes semiverbal). Notice how throughout the series, she's constantly acting as the "mom friend" of the group (despite everything, she manages to be the most emotionally mature of the bunch). Notice how AJ'll switch to a quieter, calmer tone when her friends are panicking and use soothing prompts and questions to talk them through their emotions/problems; something she'd definitely pick up while raising a child. Same with her stoicism and reluctance at crying or releasing emotions (something Pinkie explicitly points out). She also had a childhood relationship with Rara (which, if you were to give a queer reading, could easy be interpreted as her first 'aha' crush), who eventually left her life. (Interestingly enough, AJ also has an angry outburst with Rara for the same exact reasons as with EQG Rarity; jealous, upset that someone else is using and changing her). It's not hard to imagine an AJ with separation anxiety stemming from her mother and childhood friend/crush leaving. I'm also not above reading into AJ's relationship with her little sister (Y'all ever think about how AB never got to know her parents, even though she shares her father's colors and her mother's curly hair?).

AJ's stubbornness is a symptom of growing up too quickly as well. Who else to play with your baby sister when your brother goes nonverbal (not to discount Big Mac's role in raising AB)? Who else to wake up in the middle of the night to care for your crying baby sister when your grandma needs her rest? When you need to be 100% all the time for your family, you tend to become hard-stuck with a sense of moral superiority. You know what's best because you have to be your best because if you're aren't your best, then everything'll inevitably fall apart and it'll be your fault. And if you don't know what's best –– if you've been wrong the whole time –– that means you haven't been your best, which means you've failed the people who rely on you, which means you can't fulfill your role in the family/society, which makes you worthless . We've seen time and time again how this compulsive need to be right for the sake of others becomes self-destructive (Apple Family Reunion, Sound of Silence, all competitions against RD). We've seen in The Last Roundup how, when no longer at her best, AJ would rather remove herself from her community than confront them because she no longer feels of use to them.

But I guess it is kinda weird that AJ has "masculine" traits and isn't interested in men at all. It's totally justified that an aggressively straight, misogynistic male fandom would characterize her as a "boring background character." /s

At the time of writing this, it's 4:46AM.

[heirloommtomatoes]

literally so miserable 😀

[specialagentartemis]

I get variations on this comment on my post about history misinformation all the time: "why does it matter?" Why does it matter that people believe falsehoods about history? Why does it matter if people spread history misinformation? Why does it matter if people on tumblr believe that those bronze dodecahedra were used for knitting, or that Persephone had a daughter named Mespyrian? It's not the kind of misinformation that actually hurts people, like anti-vaxx propaganda or climate change denial. It doesn't hurt anyone to believe something false about the past.

Which, one, thanks for letting me know on my post that you think my job doesn't matter and what I do is pointless, if it doesn't really matter if we know the truth or make up lies about history because lies don't hurt anyone. But two, there are lots of reasons that it matters.

It encourages us to distrust historians when they talk about other aspects of history. You might think it's harmless to believe that Pharaoh Hatshepsut was trans. It's less harmless when you're espousing that the Holocaust wasn't really about Jews because the Nazis "came for trans people first." You might think it's harmless to believe that the French royalty of Versailles pooped and urinated on the floor of the palace all the time, because they were asshole rich people anyway, who cares, we hate the rich here; it's rather less harmless when you decide that the USSR was the communist ideal and Good, Actually, and that reports of its genocidal oppression are actually lies.

It encourages anti-intellectualism in other areas of scholarship. Deciding based on your own gut that the experts don't know what they're talking about and are either too stupid to realize the truth, or maliciously hiding the truth, is how you get to anti-vaxxers and climate change denial. It is also how you come to discount housing-first solutions for homelessness or the idea that long-term sustained weight loss is both biologically unlikely and health-wise unnecessary for the majority of fat people - because they conflict with what you feel should be true. Believing what you want to be true about history, because you want to believe it, and discounting fact-based corrections because you don't want them to be true, can then bleed over into how you approach other sociological and scientific topics.

How we think about history informs how we think about the present. A lot of people want certain things to be true - this famous person from history was gay or trans, this sexist story was actually feminist in its origin - because we want proof that gay people, trans people, and women deserve to be respected, and this gives evidence to prove we once were and deserve to be. But let me tell you a different story: on Thanksgiving of 2016, I was at a family friend's house and listening to their drunk conservative relative rant, and he told me, confidently, that the Roman Empire fell because they instituted universal healthcare, which was proof that Obama was destroying America. Of course that's nonsense. But projecting what we think is true about the world back onto history, and then using that as recursive proof that that is how the world is... is shoddy scholarship, and gets used for topics you don't agree with just as much as the ones you do. We should not be encouraging this, because our politics should be informed by the truth and material reality, not how we wish the past proved us right.

It frequently reinforces "Good vs. Bad" dichotomies that are at best unhelpful and at worst victim-blaming. A very common thread of historical misinformation on tumblr is about the innocence or benevolence of oppressed groups, slandered by oppressors who were far worse. This very frequently has truth to it - but makes the lies hard to separate out. It often simplifies the narrative, and implies that the reason that colonialism and oppression were bad was because the victims were Good and didn't deserve it... not because colonialism and oppression are bad. You see this sometimes with radical feminist mother goddess Neolithic feminist utopia stuff, but you also see it a lot regarding Native American and African history. I have seen people earnestly argue that Aztecs did not practice human sacrifice, that that was a lie made up by the Spanish to slander them. That is not true. Human sacrifice was part of Aztec, Maya, and many Central American war/religious practices. They are significantly more complex than often presented, and came from a captive-based system of warfare that significantly reduced the number of people who got killed in war compared to European styles of war that primarily killed people on the battlefield rather than taking them captive for sacrifice... but the human sacrifice was real and did happen. This can often come off with the implications of a 'noble savage' or an 'innocent victim' that implies that the bad things the Spanish conquistadors did were bad because the victims were innocent or good. This is a very easy trap to fall into; if the victims were good, they didn't deserve it. Right? This logic is dangerous when you are presented with a person or group who did something bad... you're caught in a bind. Did they deserve their injustice or oppression because they did something bad? This kind of logic drives a lot of transphobia, homophobia, racism, and defenses of Kyle Rittenhouse today. The answer to a colonialist logic of "The Aztecs deserved to be conquered because they did human sacrifice and that's bad" is not "The Aztecs didn't do human sacrifice actually, that's just Spanish propaganda" (which is a lie) it should be "We Americans do human sacrifice all the god damn time with our forever wars in the Middle East, we just don't call it that. We use bullets and bombs rather than obsidian knives but we kill way, way more people in the name of our country. What does that make us? Maybe genocide is not okay regardless of if you think the people are weird and scary." It becomes hard to square your ethics of the Innocent Victim and Lying Perpetrator when you see real, complicated, individual-level and group-level interactions, where no group is made up of members who are all completely pure and good, and they don't deserve to be oppressed anyway.

It makes you an unwitting tool of the oppressor. The favorite, favorite allegation transphobes level at trans people, and conservatives at queer people, is that we're lying to push the Gay Agenda. We're liars or deluded fools. If you say something about queer or trans history that's easy to debunk as false, you have permanently hurt your credibility - and the cause of queer history. It makes you easy to write off as a liar or a deluded fool who needs misinformation to make your case. If you say Louisa May Alcott was trans, that's easy to counter with "there is literally no evidence of that, and lots of evidence that she was fine being a woman," and instantly tanks your credibility going forward, so when you then say James Barry was trans and push back against a novel or biopic that treats James Barry as a woman, you get "you don't know what you're talking about, didn't you say Louisa May Alcott was trans too?" TERFs love to call trans people liars - do not hand them ammunition, not even a single bullet. Make sure you can back up what you say with facts and evidence. This is true of homophobes, of racists, of sexists. Be confident of your facts, and have facts to give to the hopeful and questioning learners who you are relating this story to, or the bigots who you are telling off, because misinformation can only hurt you and your cause.

It makes the queer, female, POC, or other marginalized listeners hurt, sad, and betrayed when something they thought was a reflection of their own experiences turns out not to be real. This is a good response to a performance art piece purporting to tell a real story of gay WWI soldiers, until the author revealed it as fiction. Why would you want to set yourself up for disappointment like that? Why would you want to risk inflicting that disappointment and betrayal on anyone else?

It makes it harder to learn the actual truth.

Historical misinformation has consequences, and those consequences are best avoided - by checking your facts, citing your sources, and taking the time and effort to make sure you are actually telling the truth.