#its not even that opinions here are necessarily bad but

[beneaththemasks]

not to sound socialist, but I think the fact that people defend (not just like) kalim says a lot about why the world has become like this. think about it; kalim (unlike chenya and neige) goes to NRC and not RSA and is presented as someone involved in an overblot case. and while the RSA guys are also presented as characters involved in them, they're only involved as victims (although chenya's case is arguable in my opinion) which makes the whole point of those who go to NRC to symbolize/represent the side of "those who participated in the crime" that was committed in the og stories.

while we do know that this doesn't necessarily mean they're bad/problematic people (ortho, silver, epel, etc etc etc) it does mean that they take (or will eventually take) part in some sort of incident on the side of the perpetrators. sure, this doesn't mean that those who go to NRC are never the victims, but they do have a part in allowing things to get twisted (in other words, their silence or compliance has made room for someone else's downfall). so taking all these facts into consideration, what we players know is that, as far as NRC goes, the students (characters) that belong there are known for making morally/emotionally questionable decisions in contrast to their RSA counterpart (again, chenya's case being arguable imo). and this is why kalim's case, even though he's portrayed as someone with a "sunshine heart", can't be looked through a different glass as long as he remains in NRC.

yana's message is clear here: NRC students represent someone she (the author) considers a perpetrator (active or passive) in the og movies, and ignoring this equals to ignoring both the author and story's intentions. kalim's case is no exception, and the fact that his personality has been used to "redeem" him from what he's done was probably also taken into account by yana when she wrote him (which I think is her wonderful way of exposing all of us, like a good piece of media should do). but precisely because this character (or any character ever) is playing this specific role, doesn't mean we should just let the character be (less we become the active/passive perpetrators) and rather take on a more critic approach in which we recognize and stop trying to sweep under the rug all of its flaws like we would do with a pup that's too adorable to yell at for misbehaving. I know the comparison might seem unreasonable, but I use it because it's simplicity portrays exactly what happens when things aren't addressed and/or are looked over, even (especially) if it's not on purpose. as always, one's good intentions to preserve someone's pure and innocent reputation at all costs (in this case it would be to shift the blame on jamil alone or dismiss jamil's feelings when he expresses his anger for the people that have literally oppressed and robbed him of his freedom since childhood) will backfire and, in time, innocence will turn into ignorance.

I'm aware people will read too much into this so, just to be clear, I'm not saying all of this so everyone hates kalim (or any "evil" character) but rather to bring more awareness on why and where lines need to be drawn

[ithacanradio]

(reads two paragraphs of a political opinion before remembering ha im on tumblr and scrolling away)

[kisskissgotohell]

i just wanna point out that, like. it's okay to disagree with the main character. just because they're the pov of the story doesn't mean they're infallible or that their word is law? you can like that character that tried to kill the mc. you can think the mc made the wrong choice. you can forgive things that the mc would never forgive, or choose not to forgive things that the mc does, because you're not the main character. you are the reader of the story, and just because you can't change it (and it's not the author's responsibility to capitulate to fans) doesn't mean you can't form your own opinions about it. it's fictional! that's the point! have fun with it!!

[snekdood]

Idk why i expect charitability from ppl who probably listen to whatever their staple favorite left-leaning video essayists says about the Other Leftists they dont like and takes it to heart and doesnt form their own opinion with the information provided (or the information specifically and intentionally left out to make the person look the worst that they can) just kinda does whatever that persons says because Its Probably Correct

I mean, theyre "on the left" and uses all the words you like, nevermind what their intentions or long terms goals are or how thatd reasonably be practiced irl or if it'd actually hurt the general cause of progressives and make things even more divisive and worse bc they value being petty more than actually having any values.

[xx-j4nu5-c4t5-xx]

"An ideal Sims game would have Sims 2's gameplay mechanics, Sims 3's open world, and Sims 4's graphics!"

I absolutely despise this take, and I want to explain why. This is a very long rant and it is full of piss and vinegar directed at everything in the Sims 4. I'm gonna try to keep everything kinda professional as much as I can but I can't guarantee an unbiased opinion.

If you'll let me talk your ears off for a moment, I'd like to explain, from my own experience as an artist and a casual player, my issues with the art style and direction of The Sims 4 compared to The Sims 2. (I'm not really going to comment on 3 because I've never played it.)

I want to start off by explaining the difference between better graphics and higher resolution. The Sims 4 absolutely blows Sims 2 out of the water when it comes to textures and polygon counts on sims, no contest. But I'd argue that the graphics themselves... aren't better. They're worse, even, so much fucking worse. The biggest problems come from the stylization and the animations, in my opinion, so I'll explain what I mean.

Have you ever felt like the Sims in 4 just look... weird? Not quirky, not kinda strange, but off. Distressing. Uncanny. Whatever the fuck the kids call it nowadays. When you strip away the packs and the CC and the shaders, the sims in the base game look bad. They're very close to being human; they walk like us, talk like us, have families like us, but they don't look like us, not exactly. There's always something off about them, no matter how close you try to get. Proportions will be a bit off, or your eyelashes will be like three polygons for some fucking reason, and the jig is up. The illusion is gone.

This is one of the instances where a higher resolution and more detailed models and meshes work against you. You aren't making believe. You are beyond the point of pretending that the pixelated shapes are real clothes and bodies and faces, because at this point, they're close enough that you don't need to. There's no gap to bridge. But that doesn't necessarily mean that they're lifelike, at least, not enough to be completely human. In some ways, they're still tethered to being cartoony and plasticky and fake. Just enough to frighten you. Enough to put you off. They're not using it to their advantage anymore, and instead, it's holding them back.

When the Sims 2 came out in 2004, the developers knew that they weren't going to make a perfectly accurate life simulator. They physically couldn't render every wrinkle in the face or fold in the clothing. In some animations, things clip strangely or the facial expressions are sort of janky or there's just some form of roughness around the edges. But that's okay; your brain doesn't need a perfectly accurate representation this time. That's not what you're here for, anyway.

The Sims 4 is basically Icarus-ing itself into disaster. The entire game sacrifices style for complete realism, a goal that was unachievable ten years ago, and is unachievable now.

The Sims 2 never thought of itself as a completely realistic life sim, though. It has cartoony, low poly meshes and exaggerated proportions and wild, raunchy storylines that would never occur in real life. BECAUSE IT ISN'T REAL LIFE. And it isn't like real life, not because it's failing to be, but because it doesn't want to be!

The Sims 4 is not ever going to completely replicate human looks or interactions or dynamics. And if it's trying to, it's doing a shit job of it. That shouldn't be the goal in the first place. If I wanted to watch a lonely college student talk to himself in the mirror to try and get better at interacting with people, I'd close the computer and go look at myself. It somehow highlights the most mundane parts of life without any of the whimsy and goofiness that the earlier installments had. It takes itself too fucking seriously for its own good, and it's killing both the gameplay and the art style.

The other point I'd like to bring up is the animation. The Sims 4 allows for much more customization of both sim and environments, but at the cost of dynamic animations. How many times is that grab animation reused? How many times is the same set of animations used for sims with wildly different personalities? Your sims barely feel alive with how little they express themselves.

Now, look, I'm a digital artist. I've dabbled in animation, but only briefly, and only in 2D. I've got no clue how 3D animation works, much less how it worked 20 years ago, but I can see the passion in every single animation in the Sims 2. The more niche interactions allowed for more expressive animations than in 4. They could afford to have a distinct animation for mean sims throwing the football extra hard to be assholes, rather than every sim using the same generic football-throwing animation to save time and money. I get where they're coming from. I get the idea. But in one move, you've both made the art style stiffer and less expressive, and you've made the personalities of the sims seem meaningless. Everyone acts the same, regardless of what their moodlets or their traits say. It's hollow. It's stifled. It's a waste of potential.

But for what Sims 2 lacks in polygons, it makes up for in smaller animated details. Quality over quantity. The sims have hair physics, they open the door before they get in the car, they take utensils out of the counters when they cook, they jump on the couch and the cushions smush under their weight. When they dance, the weight is realistic, and when they smile, it tugs at every one of the few dozen shapes that make up their faces. The sims are lively. They dance and sing and love and hate just like humans, and rather than being some strange attempt at mimicry, it's almost a tribute. They were made with love. You can tell that they were drawn up and rigged and animated by a bunch of people working together, studying each other and making faces in the mirror for reference and watching their kids and neighbors and dogs and hands for reference. The sims are not human, and not trying to be, but they're taking the most human parts of us and making them their own.

You could never have a game with the Sims 4's graphics and the Sims 2's gameplay. The gameplay and graphics are inexorably connected, and the Sims 2 just has so much glorious detail baked into it, that you could never really make it work underneath the limitations of the later games. The developers of 2 knew what their limits were, and they worked tirelessly to make the game as full and complex as they could within those limits. The developers for the Sims 4 just did not have those guidelines, and thus, the drive to bend the rules was no longer there. They didn't go wild in rebellion because they were never told they couldn't in the first place. They spent the entire time chasing a goal they couldn't meet, and lost sight of what made the series fun to begin with.

It wasn't the realism you came for; you had realism already surrounding you. It was the caricature of it that made it interesting.

[cici-sunshine]

I just had (in my opinion) a fucking amazing idea for a story after looking at this post (which is amazing by the way)

Okay just imagine this… Sukuna x Reader but with the AU in which sukuna is yuijs older brother.

So now there are two different “scenarios”

1. Sukuna and Yuji have a relatively small age gap. You’re one of Yujis closest friends and hang out at his pretty often. Yuji is just such a sunshine, just a positive person in general. His older brother how ever not so much. He’s just a troublemaker through and through. He got his face pierced, smokes and even got some tattoos behind his parent’s back (also may I add he’s 100% a biker or drives an amazing black car). Sukuna and Yuji have a pretty typical sibling relationship. They both care for each other but don’t get along that well (typical around that age I guess). You first meet Sukuna when you have a sleepover at Yujis house. He invited you (and Megumi and Nobara) because his parents were gone for the weekend. At around 2 am you still lay awake on the mattress in the living room, the others are already fast asleep. Suddenly you hear the jiggling of keys in front of the door. At first you’re scared, cause who the hell is at the door at this hour. Then the door opens and Sunkuna in all his glory is standing just a few feet away from you…

The second scenario is 100% inspired by THIS

2. This time Sukuna and Yuji have a big age gap alright. So you’re in Sukunas class. You don’t necessarily get along that well but you’re not on bad terms either. You both just don’t acknowledge each others presence more than necessary I guess. Everyone is living in the dorms except for Sukuna. At first everyone wondered why and some even came up with the weirdest theories as to why. The school year is almost at its end so that means it’s time for a school trip. Everyone is excited except for Sukuna. That wasn’t necessarily weird considering that he never showed his emotions much in general. What made you suspicious is the fact that he stayed behind after class to talk to the teacher (Gojo duh) even tho he’s usually the first one out the door at the end of class. Being the curious person you are, you stay behind too and eavesdrop on their conversations. Sukuna says something about not being able to go to the school trip and the teacher knowing why. To which the teacher only responds with words of understanding and support. That only confuses you even more. You follow Sukuna home (Funking stalker tf) because you’re determined to find out what he’s hiding. You follow him thinking he’ll just go straight home or to some shady place of sorts. But to your surprise he heads to a kindergarten!? You wait outside just to see him walk out of there with a much smaller copy of him. Only problem is that this small copy is looking directly at you. You quickly try to walk away and act like you’re just there by accident, but it’s too late. The little guy is pointing directly at you and before you can really react you can hear Sukuna say “what the hell are you doing here?!”…

Okay so that was that lol. Im so sorry for my grammar English is not my first language.

Do these “scenarios” have fanfic or oneshot potential or am I literally the only one that’s a sucker for big bro sukuna

I’d love to write a whole fic about the second one because I have literally so many ideas but I’m not sure if it would be good or if literally anyone would enjoy it haha.

I’m always open for feedback, suggestions and responses 🩵

[also just to clarify in advance I’m sure this isn’t that much of a original idea but I’d still love to write something like that (maybe lol)]

~Rules~

[antimony-medusa]

Gonna be honest with you though if someone outright says “don’t ship my character with other people” or something to that extent regarding smut or whatever I don’t think there should be any ambiguity

I get your point about the nature of fanfic being inherently encroaching upon people’s images so that levity should be extended to otherwise uncommon avenues but I really believe hardline boundaries should be respected, end of, no discussion. If I see people violating creators’ boundaries for their characters Or themselves (and these can be intertwined, it’s not up to the audience to pick apart their boundaries, cuz I’ve seen people try to do that) I’m not going to judge them fairly and I feel like neither should you.

Lines can be crossed and intimacy (not even necessarily romantic!) is a very different monster than the other avenues of storytelling because of how it involves real life relationships seeping into character relationships. Its’s uncommon for people to be like “I wrote A’s character being tortured because I feel like A is tortured in real life” but they Can and Often do that with ship work. So I don’t know, I feel like you’re not affording this the right nuance.

Alright, so, this is another post I'm gonna slap with a discourse and long post warning right away, buckle in.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying, and this is not an uncommon opinion to have! It's still the opinion of twitter/x so far as I know, and I think it's probably the opinion of the bulk of dsmp fans here, as well. I know my posts get notes once they start circulating in hermitblr, but I don't kid myself that I have the majority view. I am posting to explain my views expressly because I know a lot of people don't agree with me!

And in this case we do have a difference of opinion. There's two sort of points as I see it in your posts— we have hardline boundaries about shipping/nsfw from some people, and everyone in the fandom should be abiding by those no exceptions or be thrown out of the fandom; and we have shipping boundaries but not boundaries for other things because shipping is uniquely boundary-crossing and terrible and invasive, in contrast to anything else we can do in fandom.

Taking the second part first, I just don't think that's true. Let's not forget, boundaries discourse started with SMPLive and SMPronpa, and it was not the shipping that caused the discussion, it was the death games. The first real fandom reckoning we had with the notion of boundaries as mcyt fandom was over gore and murder and portraying people in violent ways. Shipping was barely a blip on the radar. The way the discourse has developed now, shipping is framed as the absolute worst thing anyone could ever do with your public image, and everything else is fine, but that is not the case for everyone. Recently the Pirates SMP creators were asked repeatedly for their boundaries (bothered on twitter, really) until they gave them and thus we saw people being fine with shipping but not wanting family dynamic, or being against both shipping and gore, or being fine with shipping but not wanting to be gender bent or trans headcanoned, etc. Not everyone feels the same way about the same things, despite the us-american cultural viewpoint that romance and sexualization is uniquely bad but gore and torture is fine, that everything else is fine.

Like, if we're looking at DSMP, I think there are a lot of creators who would feel just as strongly if not stronger about fics in which their character died of a terminal illness than they would about a fic in which they kiss someone, for understandable reasons. But I see those tropes in the tags regularly!

I think if we are honest with ourselves, if we are going to hardline boundaries about things that are uniquely invasive or bad to do to a creator's character with the view that we are putting all of this up for the creator's approval, we need to accept that this excludes us from writing anything where a character is abusive or is tortured or dies of a terminal illness or is psychologically broken or is age regressed or is neurodivergent or is queer if the cc is straight or trans if the cc is cis or cis if the cc is trans or straight if they're gay— the list of things that would be weird to do in the face of the real guy is really long. And it has most of our favourite tropes on it!

I love writing autistic philza. It would be really fuckin' weird to go up to Philza and tell him about how I write his character as whumped and autistic. Come on now. (But that's within boundaries, so that's— fine? I really don't think it's fine!)

Which is why my stance is that we should be thinking critically about these things, and keeping the fandom seperate from the creators. Some of these things are just not for the creators. They're fine but they shouldn't go on twitter. Y'know?

The idea that shipping draws uniquely on the real person and leads to invasive behaviour but nothing else does— that nobody does "I wrote A being tortured because I think A is tortured in real life"— Look. I have been in the fandom a long time. I remember how all the abused tommy narratives fed right into people assuming his family in real life were abusive— and talking about this on twitter! Where he and his family could see! People did this with WIlbur and Techno too!

I remember people reading about trans tommy and then truthing that the creator either was transmasc or was going to come out as transfemme any day now, publically, on twitter and in his chat. I have seen people she/her tubbo to his face on twitter, with fancams. I have been in chat when people who have clearly assigned Phil "dad" start asking WILDLY invasive things in TTS. If you think that shipping is the only fandom behaviour that can lead to people drawing directly from the streamers for their work and treating the creators weirdly about it, you simply have not been paying attention.

The way the fandom insists on treating benchtrio as children despite the fact that they're almost twenty and viciously attacking their friends for treating them as adults and chiding tommy and tubbo and ranboo for inappropriate behaviour. The list goes ON.

So. The recieved DSMP wisdom is that we should TTS the streamers to check if it's okay if we write a fic in which they die of cancer. We should DM them on instagram to ask if it's okay if we write them as a gender or sexual identity they don't share. We should show up in their twitter mentions to ask if it's okay if we write them as a physically abusive parent.

No????????

My view on that is that it is frankly bizzare it is that we have decided that "asking creators for detailed instructions regarding porn or gore" (especially in TTS! When they're fucking at WORK and can't step away! Stop doing this to the hermits!) is normal and fine and responsible but "post your shit in appropriate places and leave the creators out of it" will make you a monster.

Once again, the experience of someone coming up and saying "i think of you as age regressed" and someone saying "i found this fic where you're age regressed" and someone saying "can I write a fic where you're age regressed" is not that different. In all cases you know that the person has been thinking about it and putting it out there, and in all cases you didnt seek out this information, it was brought to you. In all cases it's weird. Just do not bring this information up to them!

If you just think about it for a while, you see that there is an entire host of things that would be weird to force into the view of a creator, especially when you consider that half the time we got these clips from TTS information when we have no idea if the person answering knew the context of what they were being asked, if they were specifically aware of the creator/cc divide that the fandom works with, or if they felt pressured into it. Oh yeah, let's take a TTS clip from Tubbo when it was 2 in the morning for him and he was deep in a minecraft mod when someone asked him about alters and delusions and he was like "oh you mean like— when they can't help it? I guess that's fine." That definately counts as freely given, reversible, informed, enthusiastic and specific consent to show him anything we want at all times forever. That's never going to make him uncomfortable.

Think a little here.

So I think there's a lot of the fandom that we should not be putting up for the approval of the creators, and if we don't have a firm answer on if they would like potential edge cases, we should probably be thinking about it and keeping it away from them (and I would err on the side of caution), we should NOT be showing up in the TTS to ask them about narratives in which they're institutionalized, or making them a GOP conservative in fiction, or if Wilbur was canon about seeing them as a bottom, or whatever bizzare thing someone is cooking up now. Honestly if you think to yourself "I don't know if the creator would like seeing this", I would be much more comfortable if the two choices we were picking between there were "simply don't write it" or "write it but keep it away from them", and "harass the creator for an answer on this subject and only write it if they say yes" never entered the equation at all.

And to return to your first point, if we already have a class of fiction that we are keeping away from the creators because basic intellectual curiosity would show that it would be weird to show someone, I don't think it's the end of the world to go "okay, creator doesn't like NSFW, so we also keep the NSFW away from them, keep this shit off twitter, block them if you create it, don't show it to them" and then we archive lock it and continue on our little weirdo on the internet ways.

Now, I don't expect to convince you of this, the phrasing of your post does not indicate that you're open to discussion on this topic. That's fine. Nobody has to agree with me. But I grew up conservative christian, and I have already had people try and get me to throw people out of the community for their perceived sins where I was like "well, I really don't think this is that bad", and I'm really resistant to being forced to do that again. I don't think it's a healthy way to run a fandom, to be shunning people for what they're doing in fiction. Harassing creators in chat? Sure, I will block them from my events as untrustworthy. That's hurting someone in the real world. Writing something that I don't vibe with privately on the archive for an audience of 50 people? That is not doing harm to real people. As long as they're not showing it to the creators, I don't count that as offensive.

How's that for nuance.

[cerastes]

I'd like a little more insight into your opinions about that post you reblogged, which stated that "families are the biggest danger to children".

That post did not include a proposed solution, and I would like to know if you have a solution in mind.

I don't see how it doesn't involve giving the police greater leeway to invade the privacy of homes. Or otherwise putting childcare in the hands of government workers who don't live with the children. Government workers who either never had children and have no idea what it is like, or who do have children and should be spending that time minding their own.

You’re kind of self-reporting when your first and seeming only thought on the matter is “This necessarily means giving police or government more power” and not “the dynamics of power between adults and children are so immensely messed up and the concept of protecting children has been warped into a puritan shield towards any cause except actually protecting children”. That post you’re referring to is not in the slightest a hard read, anon. I’d say it’s pretty darn explicit and clear in its intent, in fact.

If you look up kidnappings, the majority happen between family members. If you ask any child therapist worth their moral salt what it’s like practicing their craft, they’ll tell you that the vast majority of the time it’s mainly grounding work with the child and actual psychological work with their parents, who are the actual reason behind the issues with the kid most of the time.

Most if not all cultures are just not at all kind with children. The most immediate people to a child — often their family — are either their greatest protectors or their biggest threat. Sometimes, it’s both simultaneously, and this isn’t some fake deep philosophical nonsense, either; a lot of times, a parent or the parents might genuinely wish the best for the kid, and yet, they are horribly abusive in ways they don’t even clock as abuse or as treating the child as mere property that they get to order around. Even when that is “for their own good”.

Forgive me if I sound outright insulting here, but if you didn’t even grasp this before wanting to have this conversation, are you at all equipped to have this conversation? This is not even getting to the puritan shield part, just the part where family as both a boon and a threat is concerned.

I’ll also have you know that conversation around and about a problem can exist without offering solutions and merely acknowledging it as a problem. This is known as a “conversation”. Demanding solutions in your conversations necessarily is how you get bad ideas and fringe, often extremist answers.

[toskarin]

what is your hottest, most controversial traditional RL opinion

you know it's gonna be a bit of a bad one when I've gotta qualify that I'm deliberately pulling my hottest RL take for this one

permadeath is less important to a game being a roguelike than the actual spirit (which I'm using here to mean intent+result) behind the game's design, and this cuts both ways

if people generally agree that marathon length roguelikes like Cataclysm still count, and that permadeath doesn't necessarily make a game a roguelike on its own, I'd raise the argument that character loss only needs to be present and not the default mode of punishing death for a game to have the spirit of a roguelike

I think that punishing choices in different ways doesn't necessarily disqualify a game in much the same way that popular opinion seems to agree having a non-dungeon overworld doesn't disqualify it

I'd even go as far as saying that equating permadeath with the genre is a big reason that the rogueli[k/t]e genre line is as muddy as it is now

[donnapalude]

one aspect i really enjoy about the beginning of the maroons arc is the deliberate subversion of the african savage cannibalistic tribe trope that is prevalent in pirate stories.

when flint and his crew land on the island for the first time, the way their capture is shot seems to be leading exactly to that trope.

we first see some inhabitants of the island watching the crew from afar. they are shown in the middle of a jungle, with painted faces, jewelry apparently made from tooth and bones and few clothing items, armed mainly with blades and spears. there is also a menacing and unsettling feeling around them and it is immediately clear that they are not going to be allies to our protagonists.

and of course there's nothing wrong with all of that per se, it's just that in western media those are common indicators that we are encountering an "uncivilised" population, especially contrasted with the mainly white pirate crew.

to be perfectly clear: i think if you see a scene like this in a piece of media and you believe these people are bad ugly beastly savages you have a problem. but there's a difference between this being your personal opinion and you recognizing this is what the show is trying to say through common western cynematic language.

anyway initial impressions seem to get confirmed when flint et al. get captured and imprisoned and they are told that they are going to be tortured and killed one by one. even if it has already been mentioned in passing that these people are escaped slaves and we may feel sympathetic towards them, the setting is still framing them as enemies here. and not only enemies, but brutal, unreasonable people. it matters little that we have already seen brutal unreasonable people in the show that were not members of an african community and were judged more fairly. the cinematic trope is pervasive enough that we clearly recognize its language and what we are (apparently) being led to believe.

the first subversion of our expectations comes when we see the queen. the scene is shot from her point of view as she enters the clearing where the pirates are gathered.

so apart from seeing that the group is organised under a leader, we subjectivize her a bit. however, in any other show this sign of minimal political structure would not necessarily be enough to make us consider the group "civilised" and therefore "good". the same goes for the existence of buildings, which however are shown to be rudimentary for the western eye.

and all of this context does not change at any point. the subversion does not come from the realisation that the "savages" were more "civilised" than expected. and i really believe in other shows they would have gone that route, by slowly revealing that the group was more compassionate or more "advanced" (whatever that means) etc. than initially seen.

the subversion comes from understanding that the idea of western colonial civilisation as a measuring stick for morality is rotten. when we understand that this group of people has escaped untold horrors to create a peaceful society where they can exist only because hidden from the imperial gaze and that they attack whoever arrives as the sole measure to protect their invisibility, we reframe the moral judgement proposed at the beginning.

they still kill and torture people, we have not changed that, but they have fair reasons. they are not beastly boogeymans made to terrorize white sailors. not only they are not the predators here, but the preys. but in typical bs fashion, the important bit is also that they are not the monsters in white people's stories. they have their own story. this is their story. and the monsters are others. and when the menacing fog is dispersed their choices of clothing, buildings etc are now free to be (as they always should have been) neutrally moral choices related to practical circumstances and preferences, that have nothing to say about the group's intellect, capabilities and inherent aptitude for good (whatever that is).

so it's not that they are not considered "savages" anymore, it's that the concept of savage itself is scrutinised and found wanting. and all of this without the text really saying anything explicit about the process of realignment that we are experiencing. show of all time.

[genericpuff]

Why is the art so unappealing in lore Olympus now Persephone looks like a highlighter and maybe it’s just me but the proportions like the fingers in arms are soul over the place I don’t think they used to be this bad. Am I just looking at it with nostalgia or am I crazy ?

Honestly, nostalgia does play a huge part in it, even to this day there are times I look back on old S1 panels and go-

Actually here's a great example that literally just happened yesterday in the ULO Discord that nearly had me on the floor LOL This is from Episode 70:

Like I didn't even believe that that was real until I was told what episode it was from and I was just. Astounded and flabbergasted. The over-shading of the blanket that just makes it look like a really bad edit. Insane.

And yeah, there are a lot of old panels that hit different now that the rose-colored glasses have been removed, crushed, and thrown into the trash compactor.

I think that's why it makes it all the more amusing when people come into my inbox and ask me "wait, why did you like LO to begin with?? It's always been ugly as shit, I think you're just romanticizing it" because like... there's something to be said about art and subjectivity, even if something is ugly to one person doesn't mean it isn't beautiful to someone else. It's why I try not to be too mean towards the fans of this comic for still enjoying it, because while I definitely have strong opinions about how "LO has gotten worse" and what kind of following Rachel has cultivated (cough cough), there are also just as equally valid arguments that LO has never begin good to begin with that I can't necessarily disagree with now that I'm looking back on it with a more critical eye.

That said, there's tons of media that I enjoy that is objectively awful. Like y'all, you don't need to take my opinions about a dumb pink x blue fantasy romance comic seriously, I like Starfox Adventures-

Like yeah it's a badly made rushed piece of shit that was developed right on the ass end of Rare's glory days and was really an original IP (Dinosaur Planet) that got Frankenstein'd into a Starfox game so it could "sell better" for Nintendo, but I don't give a fuck, I love Starfox Adventures and some day I wanna be in the top 10 speedrunner leaderboards for it, which I know doesn't mean much because no one is speedrunning Starfox, but I do and no one can take that away from me dammit-

Anyways. Lore Olympus has, in many regards, always had "bad art". But "bad art" can and should still be enjoyed by those who find joy in it.

And in LO's case, the world it existed in when it launched was a lot smaller than it is now - more specifically, the world of Webtoons. We can look back and see how 'bad' LO looks and reads now because there are genuinely way better comics surrounding it. It was unique and refreshing and experimental back then... now it's just "that stupid blue and pink comic for horny teenagers".

In most cases I would consider that "cringing in hindsight" feeling a good thing because normally it means something has grown and that it seeming "bad" in hindsight would mean that it's outgrown itself and moved onto bigger things. But LO has the more unique problem of "its current stuff is shit and it's making us want the old stuff more, even if the old stuff wasn't good either". In that regard, LO is closer to being like Harry Potter. Remember when The Cursed Child came out at the height of Rowling being exposed for being a TERF and even people who liked Harry Potter didn't like The Cursed Child because it was just objectively worse overall (with or without Rowling's bullshit attached)? It made a lot of people go back and re-read / rewatch Harry Potter with a more objective lens and go "wait a minute guys, I think we only adored these books so much because we were 12 when we read them". Often times it's the good memories we have surrounding certain things that make us have the opinion about them that we do.

Of course, LO is definitely not as politically weaponized as Harry Potter is, so that's where that comparison ends. But my point is that LO is definitely in a situation where it's been riding off the same privileges it had back in 2018 - having an 'experimental' art style while also utilizing tropes and characters that were VERY popular at the time (remember that 2017-18 was when Tumblr was at its height of H x P "Hades was a chill accountant guy who wore socks and sandals and didn't cheat on his wife like Zeus did" fantasizing) - and thinks that those same tricks and tropes will still work today.

Because of this, the art in LO really, really hasn't aged well, even the stuff that we look back on fondly. But I think it's the panels that we specifically think of when remembering "old LO" - the ones that stuck in our memories the most - that are the ones that make us miss or just not care about the panels that don't look good (the panels that make people question why we ever liked it to begin with).

We liked it because of how it made us feel to look at panels like these-

Those genuinely wonderful panels that we think back on the most don't exist separately from the bad panels, they exist in spite of them. Even if we can look back on panels like these and pick out problems in the lineart or the proportions or the color travelling outside of the lines, that can't and shouldn't change how those panels made us feel at some point or another. And that's why when people ask me "why were you even into LO in the first place" I don't have any one answer, because I can't fully explain how something made me feel to justify why it's good to someone who can see from the outside - without rose-colored glasses - that it evidently isn't. It's very much a "you had to be there" type of thing.

Unfortunately, nowadays even the 'best' LO panels in S3 still don't come close to what the S1 panels accomplished - because for many of us, the rose-colored glasses are gone, we can't appreciate the good among the bad because we know now how bad it truly is and so the good just feels like wasted attempts at trying to recreate something it can no longer be. It "came back wrong" so to speak.

LO came back just regular. But our journey to resurrecting it changed us to such a degree that even its closest intimacies are now foreign to us. Sorry dude.

This is still probably one of my favorite panels out of the entirety of S3 for being as close to "old LO" as I've seen since S2, and even it feels like a mistake, an accident, how could a panel like this exist in S3 when so much of it is a dumpster fire? It's like a flower growing in the ruins of an apocalyptic wasteland.

But wasn't that always the case? Isn't that 'always' what LO has been, since the very beginning? A poorly cobbled together mess of writing and panels that, every now and then, manages to leave an impression that makes you feel something? Did we ever truly know LO? Or have we just been relying entirely on an idea of it that we've built up in our heads that when it does do exactly what it's evidently always done (even if not made apparent until looking back on it in hindsight) we think it "came back wrong"?

[thefrogsennaneverfound]

I ask this question from a curiosity standpoint, and don’t mean to seem rude or anything, but why don’t you like Daniel Ricciardo? Am I missing something?

He’s far less offensive than a lot of the other drivers. He has a tendency to awkwardly laugh rather than say “that’s a shitty joke. Not okay”, which is frustrating, but not even in the same universe as something like Lance Stroll physically assaulting his trainer.

Like all F1 drivers, he wants to be WDC and talks a big talk, but he’s still nowhere near as obnoxious as a lot of the other drivers, who all think and say the same.

Maybe my understanding isn’t correct? As far as I know, his only really shit time as a driver was with McLaren in 2022, and words like “scapegoating” and “sabotage” get thrown around a lot. In 2021, he gave McLaren its only win in over a decade, and it wasn’t team orders based, and he hauled Renault back up into the podium as well, for their first time in almost a decade. I don’t think he should have left Red Bull, and I don’t think he’s necessarily an Alonso or Verstappen level talent, but he also made those Red Bulls and Renaults that he drove look a lot better than they were.

It's not just about what a driver's like on the track; it's his attitudes off the track too and Ricciardo has really bad form. As for dragging the Renault into the points, and the Red Bull when it was underperforming - that's his job and the cars weren't that bad. If he'd swapped with one of the back markers at the time, they'd likely have performed just the same. Plus, if he made the Red Bull look better than it was, why wasn't he the one winning championships in it? Why did Vettel get all that action when all Ricciardo got was a handful of race wins?

Anyway, here's (just some of) why I firmly believe that Daniel Ricciardo is every bit as obnoxious as the most obnoxious drivers on the grid. If you don't read right to the end, and I wouldn't blame you, please at least take in the part I've highlighted in red; it pretty much sums up the type of character he is and why I - along with many others - really do feel that he's most definitely obnoxious.

“I don’t watch the news and feel better about my day so I choose not to watch it.” Just one direct quote regarding his complete and shameless ignorance about the extreme humans rights abuses prevelent in some of the countries F1 travels to. What it amounts to is that the “drama and negativity” (his own words) of news reports on out-dated and abusive attitudes to women and LGBTQ people is a buzz kill so he’d rather not know about it, thanks all the same.

His attitude to the sexist objectification of the (now thankfully defunct) Grid Girls: "It's kind of like part of the attraction of the sport, fast cars and fast girls,". In his opinion, because it’s a male dominated sport it’s “a cool thing” so “let’s keep them”. If that's not obnoxious, I don't know what is.

On “Your Mom’s House” (a lowest common denominator podcast aimed at pathetic little boys who think they’re men) he laughed along with deeply sexist, misogynistic ‘jokes’ about women. There are plenty of drivers who would, at the very least, have kept their reactions neutral, making it clear they didn’t think it funny, but not Ricciardo; he was more than content to chuckle away at their vile comments about women.

Tricking Yuki Tsunoda into trusting him to come closer on a boat so he could throw him overboard, because it’s funny to force someone to face a very real phobia of sharks by throwing them into a body of water that’s widely known to contain them. I don’t care what Tsunoda’s reaction was to it (it's common for the victim of bullying to make light of their ordeal) or that Ricciardo threw himself into the water too; it’s still an appalling way to treat someone when they’ve been brave enough to be in such close proximity to one of their greatest fears. It’s the behaviour of a bully and Ricciardo is the worst kind of that particular species – a charming bully. The reason he gets away with so much of his crappy behaviour is because so many people are taken in by a cheeky smile, a twinkle in the eyes, and the friendly disclaimer that it’s just a bit of fun; they’re just trying to lighten the mood and make people laugh. It’s always at someone else’s expense though.

Given he was in a highly competitive Red Bull for all those years, he won precious few races, and left because he wasn’t getting the attention he thought was his right. I know athletes have to have an enormous amount of self-belief but to have looked at a racer like Verstappen and sincerely felt that he was his equal? That’s delusional. But is that really how he felt? Or did he – like so many who can’t face real competition when they know someone else is going to come out on top – jump ship because being a big fish in a small pond is preferable to being outperformed and therefore second best? I don’t know which it is but if he really, genuinely, sincerely thought he was on the same level as, first, Verstappen and then Norris, surely he’s just not very bright?

Monza 2021 absolutely was a team orders win for Ricciardo. Have you listened to Norris’s radio? He was faster; he wanted to pass; he asked if he could pass; he was told to maintain position. Either the team were concerned that the two might take each other out (although I am absolutely certain that Norris could have made that move with ease so was it more a case of Ricciardo taking Norris out if he tried to overtake?) or Ricciardo’s ego was so fragile by that point (Norris had been wiping the floor with him) that they decided he needed the win to boost his confidence and get a few more much needed points for McLaren. Either way, Norris was robbed of his maiden victory because he’s a team player who obeyed team orders rather than saying “screw this; I can win and I’m damn well gonna win”. I respect him for playing the team game but I hate the fact that Ricciardo got an undeserved win at his considerable expense (that’s not hyperbole; a driver’s first F1 win really is huge).

You're probably sorry you asked now.

[elderscrollsconceptart]

This will be a long post but I've been thinking about this since last night.

I get a pit in my stomach when I think about the new Fallout TV show and the chance TES may get a show if the Fallout show is super successful.

I've been hearing the show has been pretty good, but ive also heard some grim rumblings and worries about certain directions Bethesda/Amazon are taking lore-wise in the Fallout show. Apparently Todd has said everything in the show is canon.

I've not watched it myself as I'm not a huge TV watcher in general, but I don't know if I want to see Bethesda or an outside studio make massive changes to TES lore which affect both past and future installments in TES purely for the sake of "making good TV".

I am most certainly not a "modern Bethesda" hater or of the opinion that modern TES/Fallout games are bad. I pretty much love them all. (I even enjoyed Starfield, huge glaring flaws and all!)

I genuinely believe they are trying their best to make fun games. I also understand they have had a lot of struggles over the past decade+, particularly in company direction and budgeting of necessary resources (pre-Microsoft acquisition).

The old Zenimax upper management was awful (Trumps brother was literally on the Zenimax board of Directors before he died). And infamously refused budget allocations towards serious game engine improvements that were desperately needed. Bethesda has had alot of struggles but I feel they have always tried to do the best they can, even if the final result is middling.

I am also not a Todd hater. Even if he's not necessarily the best game designer, he has a lot of heart and passion and seems to genuinely care about Bethesda and its employees. I am glad he seems to have a genuinely good relationship with Microsoft and I have high hopes for Bethesda's future in the long term.

All that said, there are just certain changes that can happen when "Hollywood comes knocking" per se., even if most of the main creative decisions still come from Bethesda. TV shows can be fantastic and lauded with praise but if they are based on an established property with established lore, they often ultimately go in creative directions which negates the lore and other non-TV entries in the series.

Just look at GOT. It started off amazingly, and GRR Martin had a direct hand in all the early series. It was the best show on TV until suddenly GRR was no longer involved directly and the show runners started making their own decisions. They started ignoring established lore and making "changes and improvements" which nose dived the series by the end.

Perhaps I am paranoid, but I can see something similar happening to Fallout if the show is big and keeps getting new series. Furthermore, I hold a deep dread that TES may be next. Just think, how many people talk about GOT anymore? How many people are hyped for the next book(s) in the series? The books didn't get bad right? Only the TV show did.

But that's my point. If Fallout or TES have these big smash initial hits on TV but begin to fail after a while, it damages the series as a whole, not just the TV show. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see TES/Fallout TV shows be nothing but great. I just worry as I've been hearing of major major lore changes being made by the Fallout show. These changes are irrevocable and utterly change the lore of that series, and not necessarily for the better. I'll try to refrain from further judgment on that, but I'll leave with this question:

What if TES had a super quality and popular TV show which negated large parts of pre-Oblivion lore? Suddenly, due to the show, innumerable people/places/things which were iconic to the TES series were no longer around or perhaps not even canon anymore? What if those things were just lost or written off for the sake of a TV show?

As a fan of TES, and maybe even of that TV show, how would that make you feel?

I'm am not trying to stir controversy here, but I think we as a fandom need to have more public discussions about this. We also need to be prepared to not dump on any new changes to the series or lore without giving them a fair shake. Something being "new and different" does mean its awful. Changes can be good or bad but they must be carefully considered.

I hope this new Fallout show's premiere will provide us a good chance to consider the future of TES media and lore outside the games before any changes are announced or made.

[rrcenic]

sorry for posting so much about the neil gaiman thing im very opinionated but heres my general take on neil gaiman (TW FOR S/A AND SU1C1D3!!!!)

good omens fandom please read this. yall need it

i wanna start with: believe victims. it might not be as bad as it was claimed to be bc the reporter was an anti bdsm terf who considers all bdsm 🍇 (including the bdsm w neil), but there was still clearly manipulation, weaponized power imbalance, and dubious consent. even if it wasnt s/a, it was fucked up. neil did some fucked up things

while we dont know if he actually s/ad those women, neil gaiman is clearly flawed

ive seen time and time again that his fans (specifically the good omens fandom) can get so viciously defensive of him that they refuse to see any flaws he has

as someone who was ruthlessly attacked because of neil, i hesitate to give him the benefit of the doub

when i had just turned 13, id just gotten on tumblr. i was thrilled that good omens season 2 was coming out. i was even more thrilled to see neil gaiman on tumblr. so i sent him an ask where i asked if crowley and aziraphale would kiss. i get why that was annoying. he probably got those asks all the time. but i worded it respectfully, and i was genuinely unaware that he was annoyed by this question

he responded to my ask with a multi paragraph callout post talking about how sick of this question he was. harsh, but not necessarily nefarious

the response wasnt the problem. it was that i got so many hate comments and death threats and people telling me i didnt deserve joy and i was ruining neils life and so many fucking anon "kys" asks that i had to quit tumblr. i tried to apologize to neil, i sent him countless apology asks where i begged him to ask people to stop cyber bullying me, but he never responded. it took years before i was able to communicate to him all the hate id received. his response was a basic "sorry for the miscommunication" and that he wished there was a way to convey tone on the internet (someone said "there is! tonetags!!" and he responded with "i dont like those"). the SAME COMMUNITY who told me to kms was suddenly saying "oh neil your such a saint" (THE TERM SAINT WAS USED MULTIPLE TIMES!!!!!) and "this poor ignorant child"

i was a kid and i was bullied off the internet and neil didnt respond to my pleas for forgiveness for almost 2 years. i was also in the most unstable time of my life. i was EXTREMELY suicidal. people telling me to kms deeply affected me

plus he reblogs a ton of "vote blue no matter who" stuff. i dont agree w that statement but i think its okay for people to say if they actively support palestine. but neil gaiman doesnt post about palestine ever other than reblogging posts that say "sure maybe the stuff in palestine is bad but if you dont support biden 100% democracy will crumble!!!" also im pretty sure he never apologized for some older zionist posts

ive seen a lot of stuff where people are saying "hey shhh its okay i see good omens fans getting sad bc of the stuff with neil but its ok!! youre still a good person even if you ignore this issue!!" and like. huh??? i dont think ignoring it makes you evil but its certainly fucked up to not be critical of the media you consume. pretending nothings going on is immature. you all sound like jk rowling fans smh

his general attitude towards fans makes me uncomfortable. ive seen people bare their souls in his asks (all of them start with something along the lines of "oh sir mister gaiman sir i am nothing but a disgusting peon compared to you you saved my life id die for you!!!") and he gives rude cold responses. i mean of course he gets annoyed and of course he gets spam but no one is forcing him to respond to asks. he doesnt seem to care very much??? this doesnt make him a bad person ofcourse but it does give me the ick

summary: even if he didnt s/a those women his fans need to grow up. he is not a pure perfect person. he might not be evil but he makes some extremely damaging choices. hes not a saint and never has been. at the end of the day, hes a rich cishet white man

[tubborucho]

NOT a /neg to op, I just want to talk about it

I would not say Tubbo necessarily cares for BBH specifically. I would even go as far as to say though he does care, it’s a very much normal amount, barely more than for most of the islanders he’d properly interacted with before. And you know me, I am the biggest Soul Sacrificers hyper and supporter in all the internet, so I do not say it lightly.

Tubbo doesn’t care for BBH that much. Maybe he would a bit more if he didn’t have his own thing going on and crippling mental health issues, but it is what it is.

Those 5 hours were for Dapper, not for Bad. If there wasn’t Dapper’s life on the stake and instead it was Bad’s Tubbo though would try to help anyway, it would not nearly be on the same level.

Tubbo yesterday did not care what is going on with Bad and his memory. You’d think he would be more interested in it because of the shared dying/coming back experience. But he literally just wanted his money back and that’s it.

When he told Chayanne he would look into bringing Bad back (though he then proceeded to forget about it anyway), it was because his godson was worried, not he himself.

And so on. If you want, you can just compare his actions and words to Bagi, who cares a lot about practically everyone. This is not the same.

HOWEVER

What Tubbo holds for Bad is just as important: respect. There has always been deep down respect between them. Even when they were at odds with Ron kidnapping and Tubhole, and even when they are more regularly just want to annoy each other or ‘take advantage’ of each other (aka Tubbo asking Bad for cookies quests stuff back on the old island). There always was respect. It is here now.

Respect turned comradary after the Purgatory when Tubbo listened to Bad’s calls during the @v@ interactions.

Respect, when he did not try to scam Bad with this loan, using his memory issues.

Respect, when Bad went along with Tubbo’s Salesman schemes and Tubbo immediately including him properly, WITHOUT trying to scam Bad himself.

Respect turned valuing opinion, when Tubbo was calling Bad over to Tubchunk specifically to have him look at his machines and farms.

Respect turned trust with Bad being 3rd person Tubbo specifically outwardly allowed Sunny to wake up to and Bad being the only person Tubbo didn’t really try to hide the existence of the bunker and its location from (comparing how he acted around Phil about that and before Fit was shown it, after which Tubbo kinda gave up mostly)

I would love for Tubbo to get closer to Bad in a way of genuine and strong care, For him to intentionally try to help him out when needed because of Bad and not because of a kid/Tubbo just being kind and helpful as a person, It’s not the reality now, though.

But what we have is still amazing. I love those two so much.

[hollowed-theory-hall]

thoughts on the hp epilogue? i kinda hate it and don't really consider it canon but im curious what your opinion is.

I'm not a fan, I usually disregard it.

There are things I don't like about the epilogue and things I don't mind. My dislikes range from the usual suspects like Harry naming his son "Albus Severus" to some deeper things actually.

This ended up a bit long, so I'll add a read more here.

So, I'm going to divide this into two parts, things written in the epilogue itself, and the supposedly canon future of the characters that bother me, but technically it's not in the books and therefore easier to ignore.

Thoughts about the epilogue itself:

I actually don't mind the character dynamics between the golden trio in the epilogue, I actually like some of them (like Ron's comments about his muggle driver's test). I like Neville becoming an Herbology professor as well.

Now, for what I don't like...

The existence of the epilogue as a whole bothers me. I don't feel like the books necessarily needed one, at least not one like this. I would've preferred it to end on a hopeful note of rebuilding and changing house stereotypes and muggleborn treatment so there won't be another Voldemort. Not just jump 19 years later to show a society that didn't change any of its inherent problems (more on that in the next section). But the fact Albus is concerned about being sorted into Slytherin shows me nothing changed. House prejudice is still rampant, and the wizarding world still gawks at Harry. Ron mentions casting spells in broad daylight on a muggle for his driver's exam, so clearly muggles and the Statue of Secrecy are still a joke. It's like, complete and utter stagnation.

I also, don't actually want to see the second generation in canon. This is one of those things I think is better off to leave for fan spaces. The whole epilogue feels like a weird fanfic, it doesn't feel like a part of the books. It's even written in a different POV, that same third-person omnipotent that appears in the first chapter of books 1, 4, and 6. It just feels outside the books, I don't know how else to put it. It took me out of the story instead of leaving me satisfied with the ending.

I made it no secret I hate Dumbledore, so having Harry name his son after the two men who made his life hell, as much if not more than the Dursleys, just... it's just really gross. I hate thinking about it even.

I'm not the biggest fan of the names Hugo and Rose either, but that's my personal opinion.

The final problem I have with the epilogue itself is more subjective than the others, but also the most glaring for me, and that's Harry and Ginny. I just really didn't like them as a couple for multiple reasons that I want to make a whole post about actually (it's in the drafts, I'm working on it). But I didn't like the fact Harry married Ginny, I just really don't like them together. It's more of a me thing, and I'm sure fans who ship them together don't mind this, hence why I saved it for last, but it does bother me quite a bit.

And it's not that I dislike all of JK's canon pairings. I like Ron and Hermione, Bill and Fleur, Remus and Tonks, James and Lily — I like all of them well enough. It's Harry and Ginny that I have a problem with.

Thoughts about things JK said about the characters' futures (cursed child and Pottermore and a bit of the epilogue):

I don't like the Harry's and Hermione's careers, I think they are a disservice to the characters.

I go into more detail below about why the Ministry of Magic really really sucks, but with how the final books (5 and afterward) are all about how bad and corrupt the ministry is, it sits really wrong for me than Harry and Hermione go to work there.

And like, with as much as Harry is good in DADA and likes it, I don't think he'll actually enjoy being an Auror. Being an auror is more than just fighting dark wizards. It's filling out paperwork, dealing with bureaucracy, and having to obey his boss. Harry can't obey anyone, I can't see him working well in a hierarchical system that supports authority, it's the antithesis of a character who could resist the imperious curse on his first try because of how much he hates obeying. Personally, I think Harry should've removed the DADA teacher's curse and stayed at Hogwarts. Like, I see him as a DADA professor who often joins Aurors as, like, a special advisor or something. It'll give him more freedom and I think he'll like working with students and staying at Hogwarts.

As for Hermione, yes, she had SPEW, and I definitely think she would spend her life trying to improve creature rights, I just can't really see her becoming a minister. Hermione isn't about strategy (that was Ron), and she isn't about leading (that was Harry). Hermione is compassionate, and I do, as I mentioned, expect her to work for creature rights and improve the state of muggleborns in their society. But she's also a need, who loves reading and studying, I kinda feel she'd be more at home as an unspeakable rather than the minister. She just isn't a politician. Think about them breaking into Gringotts where she literally couldn't lie to save their lives.

Ron, I kinda like the idea of him trying to be an Auror and leaving after two years (honestly, Harry could have done the same and I would've been more willing to accept it). And I don't mind the idea of him helping George at Weasleys' Wizard Wheezes, I understand why he'll want to do it. Both to get out of the limelight, to help George with Fred's loss that they all share (tbh I'm in denial about that), and the chill environment probably would be good for him after the war. I think Ron will have fun in such a profession, honestly. He's the only one where I can kinda see it.

I don't like the way the Wizarding World is portrayed in the epilogue as I mentioned above — like nothing changed.

In the final books in the series (but actually, we see hints of this in books 2 and 3 already) the ministry is repeatedly portrayed as corrupt and inherently discriminatory — both towards magical creatures and muggleborns.

I don't think I need to discuss House Elves and werewolves too much, as the books state the problems in the ministry’s treatment of these groups quite plainly. But what the books don't mention as much is how hard muggleborns who wish to stay in the Wizarding World have it.

While there are private professions like shop owners, broom makers, Quidditch players, authors, and such, most jobs in the Wizarding World are in the ministry. And you can't get a job in the ministry unless you have connections in the ministry. They run on nepotism and who-knows-who and not merit. This places all muggleborns, even ones like Hermione (if she wasn't a war hero) at a disadvantage when searching for a job after Hogwarts.

We see it with Tom Riddle (12 NEWTs, all O's, prefect, and head boy). Yes, Slughorn pulled some strings to get him job offers, but he preferred to work at Borgin and Butkes over the lowly ministry positions they were willing to give a muggleborn who got a recommendation! What do you think happens to the muggleborns without a close relationship with Slughorn or to students who were quiet but still got solid Os and Es. And we don't know if other teachers recommend students to the ministry.

And that's before I talk about how muggleborns are introduced to magic, which is abhorrent. Or the lack of care towards child abuse (cases like Harry, Voldemort, and Snape come to mind). Or wizards' condescension towards everything muggle. Even Arthur Weasley, who supposedly loves muggles, is incredibly condescending towards muggles and ill-informed about them.

This outlook on muggles is why the Statue of Secrecy is a joke. I mean, book 1 opens with Vernon seeing weird people in colorful cloaks celebrating Voldemort’s downfall. They have no subtlety. considering Ron confounded the examiner on his driver's test and Harry and his family walked with owls in a muggle train station, this didn't get better either...

Sorry for my rant about the ministry, but all this is to say, I don't like the idea of Harry and Hermione working in such a corrupt system that they both witnessed the damage of firsthand. And even if they did work there, I kinda expected them to change it. To actually put in the effort to improve the damaged system they had, and JK mentioned they did. But in the epilogue and any other material we see no signs of this improvement. Everything is still corrupt and running on connections and favors. Otherwise, Albus Potter wouldn't be scared of being sorted into Slytherin, that fact alone means the prejudices that are a huge problem in their world still exist.

The ministry's corruption was such a big plot point in the final books that it feels weird to me that it isn't addressed in any way in the epilogue itself. I mean, the reason Voldemort rose to power as easily as he did was because the ministry and their society were built to allow it.

My ideal epilogue will take place maybe a few months after the war, it'll show them rebuilding, and being hopeful for a future that'll now exist. Stop the house rivalries that do more damage than good and cease the discrimination against muggleborns and creatures, or at least take the first steps towards something better. And it'll show the couples together and the golden trio's friendship, but no second-generation stuff. I feel that wasn't necessary to get the point across. Which I don't feel it did. Like, it gave me the wrong kind of catharsis that I wasn't looking for, if that makes any sense. It just gave me answers to questions I didn't ask.

Tldr;

Sorry for my rambling, the epilogue and anything stated after the books isn't really canon in my head.