#i don't know how to say no or disagree

[jicklet]

Elemental (2023)

[buckera]

some of you might be unhappy to hear this but an interview mentioning that Eddie would want to hang out with his bestie of 7 years and the guy he hung out with at least 3 times a week and who he introduced to his son within weeks of knowing him, when said son no longer lives with (or speaks to) him, especially during a time he isn't dating 2 women simultaneously, being alone bar his coworkers and friends who are clearly very busy with other things...

all of that has nothing to do with one ship or another and maybe for once we could just acknowledge that he is his own character, more than ever before probably and just not act like there is something weird about that or as if it Must Have romantic intentions one way or another

the man is lonely you all, ofc he's gonna lean on the people he's still got left, it's the least surprising thing ever

[ludaroace]

insane over fit's last three streams and how far in denial he still is despite being told by multiple people with varying amounts of proof that tubbo is Dead and not dead .

he watches tubbo Die and people tell him tubbo is Dead but he can't be because it's tubbo and he's just being dramatic he always does things like this . him and richarlyson were just messing around - they do that all of the time

the next day he doesn't see anyone thats not an egg really . a couple of people for like five minutes at a time, but it's really just him and ramon and then dapper which is unusual but it happens . tubbo should be awake by now . dapper tells him tubbo is Dead and he can't be . it doesn't matter that he hasn't seen tubbo since he died because tubbo will come back

sunny is awake without tubbo and tells fit that tubbo is Dead and she wants to bring him cakes like ma lenay . that some creature thing called creation is here to protect sunny because tubbo is Dead and that she needs someone to hang out with/feed her and fit & ramon can do that ! but tubbo is not Dead because the islanders don't Die here for real (ignore dan and maxo and spreen . they were special cases . the islanders don't Die .) . in the letter he writes, he doesn't believe tubbo is Dead . he might have died, but he will come back because sunny misses him (the heavily implied he does too, but if he writes that then it's real)

phil is the first not child fit really gets to talk to after what happens and he tells him that tubbo is Dead but that he can come back and of course he can ? all they need to do is get this computer thing and his purpose data which makes no sense but it's tubbo and he doesn't always do things that make sense and honestly it wouldn't be the strangest thing tubbo has done to gate his respawn behind an item quest . hell, theres a small chance he has part of what he needs by complete coincidence

[screamingwiththewolves]

I generally don't make posts like this, cause I don't wanna start an argument or disagreement, but I do find the "Is Hyde really a person?" discourse, a bit odd...I know it's a comic, and maybe I'll be proved horribly incorrect but...

Does he have emotions, with personality traits and preferences? Yes.

Does he insist he's a person? Yes.

Then he is, in fact, a person.

[gxlden-angels]

Bro I hate fundamentalists and culturally-fundie parents they'll say shit like "spare the rod spoil the child am I right haha yea my parents used to have to beat my ass with a switch almost everyday but I sure did learn my lesson" but like??? no you didn't??? you were hit multiple times for something you very obviously did not, in fact, learn

Like studies about how harmful even lightly spanking children is aside, you're literally contradicting yourself?? Some even admitted they got worse as they got older cause they wanted to see how far they could push their parents before they got punished

And studies not aside, you're gonna get child raising advice from the same book that tells you to stone your wife if her hymen doesn't break on your wedding night instead of the decades of research we have now?? Just say you're a bad parent and move on my guy. Skill issue

[dw-flagler]

In this post, I will attempt to calmly, reasonably, and in-a-good-faith-manner argue all the points raised by tumblr user @library-bat-girl in the following posts. I am starting a new thread so as not to further destroy the original poster, @skitterenjoyer's, tumblr notifications. Worm (+MHA) spoilers ahead. This will be a long post.

Firstly, I would like to apologize on the worm fandom's behalf. We will not engage in ableism of any kind. I sincerely hope that this was a singular incident and @skittersdrippygirlcock will be better about this in the future.

"MHA has better characters,"

My Hero Academia's primary achievement, I think, is managing to make many decently well rounded characters in a fairly short time-span. It certainly has very good visual character design, with easily memorable character designs, like Mina Ashido or Tsuyu Asui. Most of Class 1A is shown to be more than single-note gimmick characters. For a story with such a tight schedule, and only so much page real-estate, that's impressive! For instance, a character decidedly outside of the main cast, Fumikage Tokoyami, is shown to have more to his personality than "is an edgelord," showing a humility and friendliness that is highly against-type. This is very different than a lot of its peers, especially in Shonen manga, where side characters (and sometimes even main characters) are never more than their tropes (see Fairy Tale, One Punch Man*, The Seven Deadly Sins, or Black Clover). My Hero Academia does clear that bar, by making side characters little more than their tropes. This is to say nothing of the primary cast, who, again, is largely defined by tropes and easily slotted into standardized interchangeable Shonen roles. Rival, Love Interest, Rival but Nice About It. Additionally, MHA has an uncomfortably sexualized main cast, for one composed primarily of minors.

This is compared to Worm, in which many characters are fully realized and could have been the protagonist (and often were in older drafts of the story, due to Worm's 10-year development hell). Every character that gets an interlude, and most that don't, all have fully realized interiority, traumas, and wants. In fact, this is one of the major themes of Worm. Every character, from the protagonist Taylor, to characters so minor they're seen only once (see Damsel of Distress, Dauntless), to major antagonists and monsters (see Jack Slash, Bonesaw) all have their own story, even if this is never shown on-screen. There are no "side characters" in the same manner as in My Hero Academia, because every character is a protagonist of their own story, and not in a trite "life is so beautiful" way.

Taylor isn't the center of the universe, there's an entire world outside of her 3-block bubble. The mechanism by which all characters get their superpowers means that the mere fact of having powers implies this about them. Even the seeming exceptions, aren't (see Alexandria, Garotte). Taylor is a good character. I don't even know how to elaborate on that. She just is. Worm does not have the character Minoru Mineta.

"a better plot,"

What... what is the plot of My Hero Academia? For the life of me, I can't seem to recall. I can tell you the general formula of most of the arcs for the first ~2/3rds of the story. Class 1A goes to do a hero high school thing, like do rescue training, or on-the-job training, or on-the-job-training, or on-the-job-training (they do it like 4 times for some reason), the League Of Villains shows up (even when it's seemingly not the league of villains it actually is the league of villains) they fight about it, the class beats all the villains, and Deku beats up strongest bad guy and also breaks his bones. Repeat step 1. But like. What's... the plot? The League of Villains is evil and wants to kill people and do bad stuff. They explicitly do not have greater motivations. There's generally themes of passing-on-to-the-new-generation, so there's Tomura Shigaraki as the arch nemesis to Izuku Midoriya, just as All Might's Nemesis is All For One. Eventually they fight a big fight about it and I stop reading because I find out about Worm. From what I understand (I have not read the conclusion) the series ends without addressing any long-running questions, wrapping up any character arcs, or concluding anything in a narratively satisfying manner. As if severely rushed.

Worm, there are maybe 15 main stories going on simultaneously, which are all tied into the final confrontation with Scion. The most obvious is Taylor's and the Undersiders' story, about taking over Brockton Bay and defeating Coil, which is a smaller part of Coil's story about taking over the bay, until their confrontation with him in arc 17, when it supersedes Coil's story, and then intersects with Cauldron's story, the Traveler's story, the Case 53s' stories, the Wards' story, all of it, in arcs 18-19. This is one example. A great deal of attention is spent making sure the reader knows that Taylor, the Undersiders, Coil, all of them, are bit players in a very large game. Despite this, it's never hard to follow, because Wildbow, while lacking some of the more flowery prose, manages extremely well at making his stories easy to understand.

"I feel like even people who like Worm can agree that Worm is not the most consistent piece of fiction ever written. The disjointed way it was written meant that emphasis was primarily put on 'What Wildbow thought was cool in the moment', [sic] and the story RADICALLY shifts gears every time a new arc starts."

What? Huh? Worm is extremely consistent. Like. 1.1 to E.x. It's, like. Not disjointed? Oh my god, are you talking about interludes? Is that what you mean? The interludes shift gears? Because that makes sense. It's one of the hardest things about worm, yeah. It's gripping! The interludes are a great idea to expand the world of worm, but the problem is that taylor's story is so intriguing that stepping away from it to focus on something else is hard, no matter how individually interesting. I want to read about taylor's escalation spiral, not the travelers! (As opposed to My Hero Academia having random escalation and de-escalation between arcs with no real explanation. We're reading about lives-on-the-line battles with child-slavers and then move to playing on a playground with little kids? Best I can think of is that this whiplash is intentional, but this is never communicated to the reader. Worm does not do this. Any de-escalation is met with the explicit understanding that this is merely a period of calm before things get even worse). Taylor's story wraps up in an extremely narratively satisfying fashion, following her story to its logical conclusion. There were so many ways it could have been avoided, but there was really only one way that it could have ended.

"better worldbuilding,"

This actually offends me. MHA could have had great world-building. It doesn't. Every potentially interesting bit of world-building is backpedaled out of or stopped before it could get anywhere. Or it's just never elaborated or expanded upon. Everyone having a superpower could have been cool, but the implications of this are nonexistent. The reasons for this having no real implications, that being the banning of quirks, also has implications that are also immediately backpedaled out of. It's been hundreds of years since our time, yet life is exactly the same. Nothing ever happens. Endeavor is a cool concept. I like Endeavor. his existence implies such interesting things about the world, how important hero ranking is to these people's lives, that he would create this horrific system of domestic abuse to try and get to the #1 spot. What does this say about this system of heroes that operates like a popularity contest? It could have said a lot. It says nothing. What does the League of Villains, a league of people who call themselves out-and-out villains, who base their ideology in opposing this system of heroes, say about society? Nothing. On purpose. Worm does something with this. One Punch Man does something with this. My Hero Academia puts it in the story, and lets it sit, unused, for a decade.

Worm has... unique world-building. Because it's both good and bad at the same time. Worm's #1 feature is its world. It's brilliant, full stop. Triggers, The Birdcage, the PRT, Exclusion Zones! Why does the status quo exist? what does it say about that society? What does it say about our society? Why hasn't society radically changed from how it is in our world? This is explained. This plays into the themes. The story wants to say something about this world, and so it does. There are characters whose stories explicitly delve into these themes that are set up in the worldbuilding, like Armsmaster, or Battery, or Bonesaw, or Coil, or Piggot or Alexandria or Taylor herself or Brian or Lisa or ANY OF THEM THEY ALL DO THIS. Sorry.

Anyway, the bad part is that the actual world is not well built (and is kind of racist). What's going on in Europe? There's a 3 blasphemies! a 3 what? never explained. What's going on in Asia, aside from Japan? China is a monarchy for some reason. Why? It's never elaborated on. India gets a little bit of elaboration, we're told its different but not how it's different. Wildbow uses machine translation wrong and names some guy caliph of dogs. This is like worm's #2 problem honestly (#1 is Amy). Wildbow tries to make the implication of a well thought out globe without actually making a well thought out globe.

"stronger themes,"

It really doesn't. As I said in the worldbuilding section, MHA makes a point out of not saying or doing anything. I don't know if editors made Horikoshi walk back the more ambitious story beats or what, but there are multiple points in the story where the author pretty much looks you directly in the eye and goes "This Story Isn't Saying Anything At All Even Though It Looked Like It Would. Lmao."

Worm has lots of themes. I think Armsmaster/Defiant's story is my favorite. His entire character arc (which is fully realized despite him being a background character for nearly the entire story) has a point to it. It says something. It's misanthropic and uplifting simultaneously, and manages to feel like it earns both. It's a shared theme with Bonesaw/Riley's story, explored in two different ways.

"Meanwhile MHA establishes an actual overall theme/message right from the start that expands and develops throughout the story. The worldbuilding is informed by the message, which informs the characters arcs and the people they become by the end of the story."

I notice that you never actually say what that message is. What is it? Like, for real. I'm not being confrontational or anything, like what is the message? Cuz' I can't think of one. My Hero Academia, at its very core, is a defense of the status quo. Much like its world-building, but much less forgivable, because it does do something new and unique with its world-building. MHA could have done some extremely interesting stuff with its early implicit critique of heroic society as shown with characters like Bakugo, or Shigaraki, or Endeavor, or Overhaul, or Midoriya himself! It just doesn't! It doesn't do stuff that Worm does do!

Worm does have a message. It has a lot of messages, actually, some that the author disagrees with somehow. Prison abolition, for one. We know Wildbow loves prison. Anyway, the big one is in the subtitle: doing the wrong things for the right reasons. Taylor's constant spiral of escalation, her dwindling attachments to her friends and greater focus on treating herself like a soldier is prevalent, and it is to be avoided. Taylor isn't a sin-eater. They don't exist. From what I remember, this is sort of explored in Deku's character arc for a short period of time, but much like everything else in MHA, it is backpedaled out of.

The funniest is "don't text and drive" though.

"Just on a basic level the way that the audience is meant to feel about Taylor oscillates wildly between being directed to think of her as a misunderstood victim of circumstance, or history's greatest monster."

That's kind of the point. Like. the audience isn't meant to look at Taylor the same way throughout the entire story. It's meant to change as she changes. Taylor's opinion of Taylor changes. The mistake here is saying it "oscillates wildly." it doesn't. It's a slow and steady change for the worse, as Taylor gets more violent and starts throwing away greater and greater parts of herself to become more like a robot and less like a person.

"But a bigger issue in general is tone. It's very focused on being dark and gritty and edgy, and it makes the mistake a lot of consciously edgy media does. IE: it thinks that all it has to do to be smart is be bleak and/or graphic. It doesn't really try to say anything, in fact it contradicts itself throughout the book as I mentioned before, it just throws in extremely graphic scenes and content periodically to remind the audience how fucked everything is."

Did you read the boys and think it was worm? What? It's not being smart when it's bleak or graphic? I actually personally like the endbringers or the slaughterhouse 9, and not because I like watching people suffer. These things exist for a reason. It's not being dark for the sake of being dark. The heroes could stop the slaughterhouse 9. We see that, when they almost stop the slaughterhouse 9 (it's explicitly shown that they are stopped from destroying the slaughterhouse 9). The question then becomes why don't they? It's a grim, brutal calculus, and one that wasn't worth it. That's the point. The Endbringers are different. It's not until arc 27 that they're really explained. You could either read them as a criticism of Eidolon or of ableism, honestly. I mean, it wasn't intentional, he didn't create them on purpose, he needed something to fight, because without that he's nothing. His powers are all he has.

"Worm spends so much time trying to be edgy that as with a lot of edgy media the edginess loses all impact quite quickly and becomes sort of cringe."

I don't really think so, but like. Okay. I don't think this is a reconcilable viewpoint (none of this is really but this especially), so like we're probably gonna have to agree to disagree. The only thing I can really think of as edgy for the sake of edginess is Amy's arc. But even that's not really true. It's meant to be an utterly avoidable tragedy that could never have been stopped because of the people involved. Much like Taylor, actually. Amy could have stepped back from the brink, but she didn't, because Amy could never have done that, and nobody else was willing/able to help. It's supposed to be a thing where you sit back and think of all the tiny ways this could have easily been avoided, but wasn't.

"When body horror happens it still has impact because it's not happening constantly."

I mean, I guess. But like. I never got desensitized to the body horror in Worm. It hit pretty consistently for me throughout. As opposed to MHA, where it was usually walked back by the end of every arc. I never felt much tension or suspense because it felt as if there weren't actual consequences. In Worm, when Brian was strung up on his nerves, it felt disgusting because I was fully aware Worm would explore the ripple effects of this. It felt entirely possible he would die there, or never recover, because Worm didn't pull its punches. MHA did. This is a matter of opinion. We'll just have to agree to disagree about it.

"But most importantly - you root for the heroes because the world actually seems like it's worth saving."

that's just, um. sorry. I'm really trying here. That's just. Uh. Dumb. Do you root for Batman cause Gotham is a nice city? Everything's worth saving, that's, like, at its most basic what the concept of a superhero is about.

"Not only that but MHA simply does villain protagonists objectively better than Worm."

um. No? There straight up aren't villain protagonists in MHA. The villains are the POV characters for, like, one arc? You know what, here's a good spot for it. It's stated throughout the story that Shigaraki and the League of Villains have a goal, beyond just death and destruction. They're here to stop the corrupt society of heroes (that MHA hints at the existence of before backpedaling away from), and bring about a fairer society. But then, and this part pissed me off, one of the characters, I think Bakugo, says: "you're just using that as cover! you just want to kill people, you have no noble goal!" and shigaraki's like "dang you caught me." and then it happens again with Deku! Because My Hero Academia is allergic to saying something. Nope! They're villains! No moral depth here! They're Villains, We're Heroes, Go Put Them In Jail.

This is opposed to Worm, where- "The characters of the villains and their origins are used to highlight the flaws in the Superhuman society"

"Most of the villains are only villains because society failed them in some way, and the specific ways in which that happened become big plot points that then play into the future arc of our heroic characters."

I had to walk away from my computer for this one. It's hard to be civil. It's really hard. Polite and reasonable.

So Worm is about this. To even say this without a shred of irony makes me thing you've never once read a single word of Worm and are doing this purely as bait. Or you've read all of Worm and are doing this purely as bait.

"They're actually extremely complex in a way that ends up being fundamentally important to the overall story - where in Worm the villains are either based heroes fighting a corrupt system or they're histories [sic] greatest monsters... until they're presented as heroes again."

I think I get it now. I really think I do. You're not supposed to agree with all the characters. Like. Worm is inconsistent, in that it follows the perspectives of inconsistent people. Of course Triumph and Armsmaster don't agree on what is right! They're different people, they have different perspectives!

"See. Worm fans keep saying "This is Bait." It's not Bait, you all are simply ridiculous and obsessed with this series to such a degree that you feel compelled to say "This is Bait" instead of just... ignoring it, because you have no actual counterargument."

Perhaps worm fans are inclined to believe you posted rage bait because you brazenly walked into another fandom's post and wholeheartedly proclaimed that the thing they liked was Stupid Idiot Bullshit For Fucking Morons, and refused to elaborate until prompted, at which point you said several things that are demonstrably false about Worm.

"Your only response to anything I've said is pedantry, bigotry, and deflection. If it was obviously just bait why are you engaging?"

Well, I'm engaging because I've been in a foul mood since I woke up this morning. Also because you, again, said some very rude and patently false statements about a story that I really enjoy and find narratively rich, even in its faults.

"MHA's characters do fall into archetypal shounen character roles - but they are all given a solid amount of focus explaining why they are like that and developing them into something bigger."

Again, as I said, it's a genuinely impressive feat to have an ensemble cast like what My Hero Academia has, and give so many of the characters a degree of depth, with such little manga to work with. I think worm does it better, but worm doesn't have to be economical about it. MHA does. The problem I have with this statement is that it becomes a question of scale. How much bigger? They're no longer defined by their tropes, instead defined by their opposition to their tropes. It's still a one-note character, you've merely changed the note from C to C sharp.

"so almost every member of the cast has an arc that either develops them past the person they initially seemed to be or explains why they're like that."

This is probably my favorite part about MHA. They do have arcs! I love ensemble casts! it does a much better job in this than all of its contemporaries, even One Piece. However, they are comparatively simplistic arcs that all follow a similar formula.

"I've heard people say MHA is neocon or pro-establishment but the story literally concludes by showing that society HAS TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE or the same problems that created the villains in the first place will keep happening. The entire time skip specifically focuses on the fact that for eight years the main characters have been forcing change in the world and addressing the issues the villains brought up."

Now, I'm going to be clear. I stopped reading My Hero Academia around chapter 275. I don't know the exact number, but it was the latest chapter in ~mid 2020. I would occasionally attempt to reread, in an attempt to catch up, but give up around chapter 200 out of boredom. I don't know exactly how the story ends, but I have read ~2/3rds of the story. I feel this gives me a pretty good understanding of the general tone of the story, unless it wildly changes tone at the 3/4ths mark, which you have explicitly said it does not, as it is extremely coherent and consistent. Therefore, I believe I can state with some degree of confidence that MHA does not do that.

I would certainly believe that it tries (and fails) to SFP it, but SFP does not promote a fundamental societal change. That's the problem. Strong Female Protagonist was willing to come up and say that Alison lived in a fundamentally unjust world, even if it was never willing or able to offer real change. And hey. You do what you can. I sincerely doubt My Hero Academia is even willing to call its world fundamentally unjust, from the 200+ chapters that I did read.

"In the case of the actual main characters, they have extremely comprehensive character arcs."

Adding this behind the last point just so that I don't have to reiterate I haven't finished the book. I am, however, very much not inclined to believe the actual main characters had extremely comprehensive character arcs.

Which plays back into the initial theory that ANYONE CAN BE A HERO.

man, spider-man did that better (not a real argument, but like, spider-man totally did that better). Not least because midoriya specifically could not become a hero were it not for all might giving him a power.

No, the Villains don't get happy endings,

Why not? Why do they go to jail, even the ones who changed and wanted to redeem themselves? Endeavor never goes to jail. He did some horrible stuff. He's redeemed himself in the eyes of the story, right? Anyone can be a hero, right? So why not them? Why haven't they redeemed themselves in the eyes of the story?

You may wish to turn this back on me and ask why doesn't Armsmaster go to prison? Because he's similar in some respects. But worm never calls prison justice. (for some reason, even though wildbow totally loves prison). Prison is punitive, a tool for those in charge to control those it manages to capture. Maybe some deserve life in the birdcage. Many don't. It doesn't matter. Because the birdcage isn't a tool of justice. It's not meant to be. it's a box to put the uncontrollable capes in, until they can be used as meat shields. So Armsmaster doesn't go to prison because the story says explicitly there is no point to it. But MHA? MHA says there is a point to it. Endeavor needs to go to prison if he wants to atone. He's escaping justice every second he's outside.

I have actually read Worm, and for the first half to two thirds I loved it.

Weird. That's exactly how long I really enjoyed MHA. Not, like relevant, to anything. Just odd. I mean, I don't actually dislike MHA. I think it's fine, actually. It feels like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade to me. Funny (when Mineta isn't around), bombastic, and a good time, even if I don't think it's super thematically rich.

I'm not coming at this from the perspective of someone who has never seen any of the merits of Worm, I'm coming at it from the perspective of someone who really liked it, gave it a fair shot, and was eventually disappointed when it ended up not tying together right.

See, this makes me more inclined to think it's bait, actually. since you said "Oh yeah. MHA is published. MHA's been an ongoing publication with a large following for ten years, in a notoriously competitive industry. Now this might seem kind of unimpressive, it's a very low bar to clear I know. But it's one Worm hasn't, so. I dunno, I'd say that's fairly objective. Now you may think "Yeah, but Trash fiction gets published all the time." And that's true but again - Worm hasn't. The worst piece of fiction you can think of got published and Worm didn't. You wanna be an asshole about this? The thing you love is so mid that it was self published in 2013, couldn't get picked up for professional publishing until 2019 and as far as I can see has stayed in development hell since then." in your previous post. Sure, perhaps we can say you were pissed at the time, but "the thing you love is worse than trash fiction, an altogether nothing piece of literature that isn't even worth the paper it would hypothetically be printed on" does not strike me as the words of someone who "really liked it, gave it a fair shot, and was eventually disappointed when it ended up not tying together right." In fact, going back through your other statements on the story, you seem to have genuinely disliked it from the very beginning, on grounds of being too edgy (which I can fully understand the logic of): "IE: it thinks that all it has to do to be smart is be bleak and/or graphic," thematically incoherent: "It doesn't really try to say anything, in fact it contradicts itself throughout the book as I mentioned before, it just throws in extremely graphic scenes and content periodically to remind the audience how fucked everything is," and utterly devoid of purpose or meaning. "When it does introduce new lore that new lore is almost always overly convoluted and acts as a catalyst for things happening, but not really things happening that play into a wider theme or message. It's just "Oh and here's this team of god-level serial killers who are gonna string a dude up by his nervous system." Like yeah, cool visual, but what is any of this actually saying?" This does not sound like a ringing endorsement of the first half of Worm to me. In fact, this sounds like you hated every second of it.

"And frankly given the number of comments that are just people saying "Bait" - I don't think any of y'all have engaged with this in a fair or honest way"

I'm going to reiterate on my previous statement. I like my hero academia. Capeshit is my favorite genre, it probably always will be. They're my favorite genre of story. While I find the themes—or lack thereof—extremely frustrating, I still think of it as fun. I gave it a fair shake. I would probably really enjoy the ending if I didn't have a reading list that was 300 books long.

[stairset]

I think the portrayal of Spider-Man 2099 in Across the Spider-Verse is in-character in that aside from like Shattered Dimensions he's always been portrayed as a bit of an asshole who slips into anti-hero territory at times and generally has a "needs of the many over the needs of the few" mindset and given his specific circumstances in the movie it's not unreasonable to think he could take the actions he does. However it does kinda suck that since like 99% of moviegoers had no idea who he was before the movie came out their first impression of him is when he's in an antagonistic role and people think "antagonist" and "villain" are synonyms so now I'm gonna have to listen to people who've never read a comic saying he's a villain or isn't a real Spider-Man for the rest of time or at least until he inevitably changes his mind in the third one.

[vse-kar-vem]

from jokeroutsubs

[dennisboobs]

my favourite thing about the always sunny podcast is listening to rcg all say something extremely neurodivergent and then agree amongst themselves and convince themselves its completely normal

[justa-smalltown-gargoyle]

Hey batman/batfam people, I wanted to talk about something. I know this might not be received well, but...this is my blog. So if you disagree with me, feel free to block me! Literally that's what's great about this site. (I've been trying to do so on my end, but I thought I'd reach out a bit.....idk maybe try to form some understanding?)

I have been a batman fan since like...age 13 or something. Batman as a character means so fucking much to me, as does all his kids and massive extended family. (can't forget Alfred, Kate, Lucius, and Jeff Gordon!!) And I know that they mean a lot to you guys too.

In comic book and fandom spaces we talk a lot about misrepresentation of characters in fandom, but even in "canon" or rather published/produced content. I have beef with a lot of live action adaptions of Batman for example.

The thing with comic book characters, even more than some fandoms/pieces of media, is that there is SO MUCH content out there, that two people can say they like this one character but those two versions might be in total contradiction. But does that make one right over the other? does that make one superior?

Now, I hate Ben Affleck's Batman. And to fans of his, I'd say, you want the punisher, not Batman, because to me, that goes against who Batman is fundamentally. I read the comics, watch a lot of the animated stuff, and formed my own opinion and version of Batman. However, and this seems to be a controversial take, i really enjoy Wayne Family Adventures.

I see a lot of hate on here for WFA (and on tiktok but they're another beast), which, it's not for everyone, that's okay! Not everyone has to like what I like. But what I don't agree with, is that people who like WFA are seen as "not true batman fans", "they haven't ever read a comic". "they only like the flat fanon versions of the characters", etc.

These comments I would like to rebut- some comic readers such as myself might enjoy WFA. There might be people that have never read a comic or even watched anything batman related but like WFA. Are they not valid to enjoy that and have their own fandom for that? Are they not allowed to be fans of Batman?

I also would ask, how much of WFA did you actually read? In it's nature, it's suppose to be the bat family on their time off, or more light stories, but it actually addresses things like Jason's trauma, Duke moving in to the Manor, Damian struggling to fit in at school, things like that. Now if you read pretty far and still didn't like the portrayal of the characters, that's fine, I'm not asking you to change your opinion, however I am asking you to make space for those who do enjoy it, or that WFA is their first introduction or only experience with the Batman and co.

WFA isn't perfect, but it holds a special place in my heart, and gives me more content for Not Perfect but Trying and Cares Dad Bruce Wayne which I am grateful for. And tbh I feel like it just shows other sides to the characters we don't see that often!

And again, obvi people have their opinions, I guess I'm just asking for us to be more aware and create a space where people can feel free and excited to talk about these characters that we all love. I enjoy content and discussions I see in the tags and different blogs but then I see the hate for WFA fans and it just puts a real damper on otherwise really good content.

Anyways, thanks for reading!

[apatheticlexicographer]

i'm about to get mauled ALIVE for saying this but here goes:

i think m'leven's relationship should be based on a mutually requited crush. both the implications it would have on their personal development as characters and the message it would send to the audience would be substantially more impactful, healthy, and progressive than if they only dated out of obligation. in fact, the thematic message of their relationship SIMPLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE without a foundation of genuine romantic attraction.

still with me??? okay, good.

when shows deal with romance they tend to fall into the categories of either having pretty much every character shipped with every other character at some point, or of having the endgame ships be the most obviously pushed from the start. byler has definitely been built up from the start, but the majority of the show's audience didn't consider it as an option for canon until s4, when they started making it blatant. hell, a lot of people didn't even realize WILL was queer until s3 (again, when the show started to place heavy emphasis on it), and even then a lot of people thought he might be ace rather than gay.

mike and el, on the other hand, were practically the show's flagship couple for the first 2 seasons at least. it wasn't until s3 that their popularity started to dip and their relationship began to receive a lot more criticism. which makes sense, considering they hadn't actually been IN said relationship in the previous seasons. they had a couple of romantic interactions, sure, but we didn't see how they would interact *as a couple*. people obviously couldn't predict how their dynamic would actually pan out!!! that isn't to say that the negative aspects of their relationship were a bait-and switch, though: red flags were visible since at least s2, but they were far from being the focal point and a lot of shippers interpreted them as being cute (like el's jealousy over max).

having a show acknowledge the fact that the first person you get a crush on (because correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure they're canonically each other's first crush???) isn't necessarily your ~soulmate~ is a great thing. even better when they go a step further, and play with the concept!!! the text of stranger things doesn't actually push m'leven as a paragon of romantic love. if you listen to what the other characters say about their (romantic) relationship, their opinions are entirely neutral/negative???

lucas teases mike about his crush in s1, but calls him hopeless in s3. hopper is out of line with how agressively he acts about their relationship, but the resolution of that character arc for him is about him acknowledging that he's been overbearing and accepting that he needs to let el grow up, and NOT some hammy realization that "what they have is true love, i was wrong to interfere!!!" max thinks their clinginess is sweet at first in s3, but she isn't very close with either of them. once she and el start to bond AND SHE LEARNS THAT EL HAS NO EXPERIENCE WITH ROMANTIC ATTRACTION OUTSIDE OF MIKE she encourages el to assert her own self-worth and dump him. [which... actually mirrors the progression of opinions in a lot of audience members??? 🤔🤔]

and those are just a few examples!!! i won't go on an exhaustive list, because honestly we'd be here all day.

furthermore, m'leven's steady downward trajectory is not the only instance of the show basically dunking on the trite expectation that a character's first love interest is automatically their happily-ever-after, AND the recurring motif that any relationships a character explores before their endgame ship are wrong because the alternate love interest is Bad.

dustin has his first crush (onscreen, anyway) on max in s2, but ends the season happy despite his sadness over rejection and later gets together with a girl who's basically his perfect match. in s3, robin confides to steve about how she was so far gone for tammy that she would cry into her pillow. in s4 she's able to laugh over just how bad her singing is without denying it, and is tentatively flirting with vickie. joyce was genuinely really happy with bob, but after having time to heal from the tragedy of what happened to him she's ready to move on with hopper.

again, not an exhaustive list. why??? because outside of m'leven, the only relationships where the characters ARE each other's first love interest are: lumax, whose entire arc together is about growing up as a couple (you know, the exact arc m'leven shippers pin on mike and el, as if it would make sense for 2 couples to have the same format and message...); stancy, which is only one prong of Love Triangle Hell and the controversy around it speaks for itself; and TED AND KAREN. WHO ARE POINTED OUT EXPLICITLY BY THE TEXT OF THE SHOW IN S1 NO LESS, TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF A WORST TIMELINE FUTURE THAT CHARACTERS DO NOT WANT TO REPEAT.

but if you're reading this, you already know all of that.

the point i'm trying to make is that stranger things shows a consistent palette of themes across all the relationships it portrays. i've obviously been going over the romantic ones, but this applies at least as much to the plationic bonds as well. those themes are of GROWING AND MATURING, of SHIFTING DYNAMICS, and of BECOMING SECURE IN YOUR PERSONAL INDEPENDENCE.

i'm sorry but to present a pair of characters with apparent mutual feelings; to elaborate on how dysfunctional their relationship is; and to ultimately reveal to the audience that actually they were both just confused, they never had feelings for one another in the first place and that's why their relationship didn't work out; sends an extremely mediocre message, to put it nicely. all the characters learn from that lived experience is "don't date people you don't have feelings for, and if you were unsure about how real those feelings were... get good???" meanwhile, all the audience learns from that VIEWED experience is "if the relationship doesn't work, it's because the people involved don't like each other enough." if byler goes on to be canon and is immediately much healthier, that only enforces that shitty message. in that situation the only reason THEIR relationship works while mike and el's didn't is that they actually have feelings for one another!!!

from a show which has explored complex arcs and messages with *LITERALLY EVERY OTHER RELATIONSHIP* they touch on, this would be beyond disappointing. particularly as the central message for the arc of 2 of the mainest main characters in the whole show!!!

on the other hand, to present a pair of young characters at the start of the show and flag them as having an obvious mutual crush; to allow them to explore that crush as a serious prospect; to have them realize that their relationship is dysfunctional; and to have them move on as friends; sends???

a great???

fucking???

message???

they both get to progress and move on as more enriched people than they would have been without their time in a relationship, and that is fucking wonderful.

el has a deeper understanding of romantic interactions based on actual lived experience and not just TV shows. she's able to develop into her fledgeling sense of identity more securely with the knowledge that relationships can change, and that's okay. not everything has to be forever.

mike understands how to process and manage his own feelings much better, and is equipped with a firsthand understanding of how a relationship can become emotionally dysfunctional without proper communication, making him ready to enter a new, healthier relationship. he has displayed the same overprotective behaviours towards will as he has to el, but he's begun to learn how to manage them so that he doesn't stifle his partner. after previously failing to communicate his feelings to both el and will in s3 when he fought with them, he's been making a deliberate point of doing so in s4. this didn't work with el when he tried to open up about his own experience with bullying, but it DID work with will when he admitted to his failings in balancing relationships.

are either of them finished in their personal arcs??? no, of course not!!! they're not even fifteen!!! but they have both grown as people, not in spite of their romantic relationship, but BECAUSE of it. you don't change as you grow up, so much as you start to understand yourself better. but self-discovery and subsequent self-acceptance CANNOT come without self-explaration.

it's okay to try things out, and it's okay if they don't end up being right for you.

meanwhile, the broader message about relationships that this imparts on the audience is an extremely important one. one which gets overlooked continually by storytellers in every industry. one which the show itself has brushed on, but not explored in depth.

one which fandom, in particular, likes to ignore.

ATTRACTION ≠ COMPATIBILITY

(...and that's okay!!!)

[bentacled]

it's been one day and im still pissed when will this end. season 4 had some neat assassination scenes but none of them shined as bright as the writers assassinating the characters like go off monarchs

[raayllum]

it's the callum-jailer, ezran-orphan queen, rayla-aaravos / callum-aaravos, rayla-elarion, ezran-leola parallels for me

[rouge-fauna]

I think you’re talking about these posts [here & here], I don’t know if there have been others.

I'm not gonna say what I did was right, you are correct I should probably just not respond to asks getting me to talk about other people. I will say for these two posts those people had already blocked me I’m pretty sure, so it’s kinda hard to talk directly to them in that case. And I was not doing so anonymously and had not blocked them so I wasn’t hiding what I was saying. I did not follow them, I am not part of the innitor community, and not that that makes it right but I do think it is kinda different. Though you make a good point, perhaps we should stop this pattern of responding to asks about other blogs and such.

Still, the biggest thing to me I realized, back in elementary school when I first dealt with this, was that honestly all the time we talk about people behind their back. Talking about people when they aren’t always in the room is kinda just inevitable and part of socializing, however I think the important part is how you are talking about other people. It’s when you are insulting them, talking negatively about them to people they know, spreading false information and so on that it becomes not okay. Hopefully that makes sense.

In these cases I merely focused on the lore. I didn’t insult them or talk shit about them, as a person, as a blog or say their takes were stupid or they are stupid or speculate about their trauma or mental history. I just talked about reasons why I disagreed, or saw things differently and why we might see things differently. They were also not the only ones I saw to say similar things so I think in my mind I was making more of a general discussion, not trying to target them specifically. I didn’t post beyond that about them. But you are right, regardless it was probably not the right way to go about things.

But just to be clear, if I am a hypocrite it is not my intention. I haven’t vague blog anyone or meant to vague reblog anyone. I think this week is pretty much the first time I’ve ever been not naming, passive aggressively talking about blogs, and even then I’m not trying to insult them, trying to cancel them. I’m just expressing that before you go off about how I’m stupid and unable to have a discussion about it, the very least you could’ve done was give me an opportunity to try.

[squidkidnerd]

Man, with how vague Splatoon is about its lore/plot points sometimes, I’m very wary of people who claim there is One Definitive Interpretation of this that or the other thing. Like no, just because the game uses they/them pronouns for Captain 3 doesn't mean giving them any other pronouns is misgendering. Like, unless you have something from actual canon (ie. the games themselves or dev interviews) to back it up, then I don't think it's fair to expect people to Universally Agree With You or Else. Going "This is how I see things, I really don't like it when people see it this other way" is fine but "This is how I see things, I am RIGHT and anyone who thinks otherwise is WRONG" is not. People have different opinions. You are not obligated to agree with them, but at the same time, they are not obligated to agree with you.

[seventh-district]

not even gonna tag this properly bc i don't wanna get Involved but i do have some Thoughts i need to get out into the void so here we go

(aaa quick edit: CW for mention/discussion of Boothill leaks)