#not saying she isn’t responsible for anything she’s literally a terrorist etc

[forestfan69]

I stg if in this new ow novel stuff they turn around and say that Moiras some scheming mastermind who actually is the reason behind overwatch’s fall and it wasn’t a massive fuck up on every level I’ll throw away my WiFi and live in the woods

[malsiesdiary]

Starting now, anons will be off. I will also no longer be responding to Nogitsune or Darach. Unlike them, I actually choose peace over dealing with drama on a daily basis. I will be letting law enforcement deal with everything from now until it’s dealt with.

Nogitsune can keep bashing my dog because at the end of the day it just proves to the police that she has serious mental issues to be bullying and bashing an innocent animal. And will draw concern over the care of her own pets, since she is wishing death on my dog by saying for me to sit on it, wishing him to be hit by a car, etc…

I have never sat here and badmouthed her daughter. I’ve only bashed HER parenting skills, (because she smokes weed, drinks, gives her kid meds to make her sleep when she’s “annoyed with her being awake,” etc. Plus I have proof she likes to start drama with other people as well.

I am way more mature than her or Darach will ever be, as unlike them, I do not believe in dragging an innocent animal or a child into an online quarrel. Her and Darach bashing my dog just proves her maturity level and also proves she’s the instigator. As I said last night, I could say things to her in response to her bullying that would make her mad enough she would come to my house. But unlike her, I have enough self control not to tear innocent beings down like she has done to me and Allison

SHE sent anons to MY blog starting all of this when me and Allison became friends and this blog proves that. Not to mention I sent TWO anons and she bashed me about 40+ times over two anons. And Allison isn’t the one sending Nogitsune anons. It’s her friend Darach trying to stir crap up. She’s gonna feel pretty stupid when the truth comes out. Darach is known for doing this. I’ve known her since 2019, and she even has admitted to impersonating myself and others just to watch people squirm and continue to fight.

But anyways. Idc what they say about me. Accuse my boyfriend of cheating. He never has had sex with another girl and that’s all that matters to me. My boyfriend also never sent nudes. You do realize girls message me and tell me shit Zack’s doing sometimes to try and break us up and because of me being cheated on for 7 years by my ex, it’s MY insecurities!

I mean you wanna talk about my dude cheating yet you told me your dude has cheated on you and you have DEFINITELY cheated on him. Nobody’s relationship is perfect. At least my man works to provide for his family. At least my man buys me birthday presents, Christmas presents, etc and takes care of me. At least me and my man have our relationship status posted on FB so the world knows we love each other, while your FB says “single.”

So don’t come at me. I’m not jealous of you or Darach. Both of you live with someone because you can’t afford your own place. Both of you have dumb jobs that I’d never want. (I love my job and I’m going to college soon to become a dog trainer.) You’re both bigger than me. Nogitsune doesn’t drive or have a car. I don’t either but I still afforded an EBike. And I hate driving anyways. So what do you think I’d be jealous of? You both literally have nothing for me to be jealous of. You have no friends irl so you have to call each other “bestie.” Your lives are just sad.

And as for Darach, I’m not blacklisted at any airlines. If I was, my mother wouldn’t have been able to spend $600 and bought me a plane ticket. Also it’s only considered a terroristic threat if I made an actual threat to do something. Making a statement wishing you’d be paralyzed isn’t threatening anything. I didnt threaten you, and wouldn’t. Also you can look it up online, it’s not illegal for me to say that. However, it is illegal to do what you have done. Like let’s be realistic. You sent in false reports and had the swat team at my motel room for bs lies. Not to mention you wishing I’d walk out in traffic (which is just as bad as what I said to you, only it’s a plane instead of a car.) You have told me to “Go Kurt Cobain myself.” Wishing death on my dog. Threatening to eat my dog. And so much more. And sweety go call McDonalds go call Rover. Because you’ll just get yourself in trouble. The only way you’d be able to is if you had photo evidence of me abusing an animal and that’s something I’d never do. And Zack has worked at McDonalds for 2 years. You have nothing on him either. However I have proof that you made a video on Tiktok. I have proof of you posting photos of you in the parking lot of your job, and just two weeks ago you told me what airline you work at. Or did you just forget that? At least I’ve never done anything to you like you have me. I wished you paralyzed so I didn’t have to deal with you and your drama starting friend anymore. And also making fun of breast cancer shows what type of person you are to your job as well. So I think I will in fact show them how you treat me and have treated me for many years. Admitting to making accounts to mess with and impersonate me (which is also illegal.) So get over yourself Darach and stop pretending you haven’t done anything to get me angry enough to say the things I say. I don’t go off on people without reason. P E R I O D

Anyways while I continue to ignore you guys after today, please continue to say whatever you’d like about me to make your insecure self feel better. I will continue to be happy with my life and enjoy being friends with Allison while you two jealous twits keep watching our blogs and having something to say about us.

[mitskiesques]

as an eldest sibling yourself, do you prefer jinx or azula and why

short answer: jinx > azula. long answer well here it goes.

my first instinct is to say jinx no question. it's clearly an emotional response so where do we go from here??: relatability.

they both have very real struggles and problems going on so it comes down to what you personally see yourself more in. golden child vs underdog, rich ppl problems vs poor ppl problems, physical discipline vs creative intellect, sibling dynamic of competitiveness and rivalry vs sibling dynamic of protection and pseudo-parenting, aiming for perfection/fear of imperfection vs aiming for strength/fear of weakness (each that come from what their respective environments value btw), and so on.

since u asked me personally allow me to say this. the years have passed since atla came out and still i have to find a single thing about azula that i relate to on a personal level. not that azula isn’t relatable At All bc you take one look at her deranged superfans and you can tell there’s some projection going on there so she clearly IS relatable, she’s just not relatable To Me bc i have different problems different perspectives different personalities different experiences with siblinghood etc etc.

jinx though i see a lot of myself in her despite the fact that half her personality is also delusional little sister and the fact that half my personality revolves around my eldest sibling status and behavior. and that IS because jinx is poor and oppressed thus anything she does is a bit more justified not in my eyes but in my heart. i love azula and her dyke drama but she’s simply too much of a privileged colonizer princess (tm) to me and my personal sense of empathy and though she is an abused child in mental distress and obviously i feel for azula on a humane level there’s a taint to it that i don’t feel with jinx.

and it’s not about violence either bc jinx is literally a terrorist. but mostly i think it’s because her crimes and general Evil Deeds come from In General her status as a victim to the actions of people like azula. azula feels righteous in her murdering bc of imperialism, jinx feels righteous in her murdering bc she has been screwed over by these people since birth. there’s a political statement that i relate to within jinx’s character that goes beyond what caters to me on a personal level wrt my experiences in life i guess. i can’t really help how i feel about it my apologies to all irl delusional little sister princesses i guess.

from a more objective and actually analytical point of view: they’re both great tragic characters masterfully done and they manage to pull off most of the things they are each meant to achieve and still i do think jinx is slightly superior because jinx is more or less one of the most complex interesting and layered characters written perhaps... ever???? it's definitely not the right post to elaborate too much but where azula is clearly defined as a villainous antagonistic character, jinx has literally a double narrative as hero and villain At The Same Time. where azula is a straight up masterfully written tragedy, even in jinx’s full on corruption and revenge there’s a sense of triumph over her oppressors. it's not that azula is bad as a character it’s that azula is Very Good Very Solid character but jinx is just. mindblowing.

anyway. it’s a fair if a little obvious comparison to make. they are similar in some ways but the differences are just so relevant to their characters and so interesting to talk about as well even moreso than how they are alike so i felt like this mess of text and text and text was worth writing if anything to at least get it out of my brain lmao.

[thechildofstark]

Sympathetic Villains and the Rise of Overt Apologism.

I’ve seen a lot of discourse recently about how being a fan of villainous characters has become polarized, and how the way people treat villainous characters (and people who support them) needs to change. The two main issues seems to be:

a) the classic “if you support this character you support their actions” bs. 

and 

b) “oh no, my character isn’t a villain, they’re just a misunderstood baby who would never hurt anyone”. This, I think is much more worrying, and almost certainly came into practice as a response to point a). 

As has been said many times before, appreciation of a character does not equal agreement with a character. Nobody is accusing fannibals of being actual cannibals ;).  This can often follow on with issues in the source material/with the actors. A great deal of the negative attention on the WandaVision storyline (racism/anti-Semitism/anti-Romanyism/anti-blackness/gaslighting/torture/O***n using slurs/etc.) means that anyone that supports Whitewashed-Wanda (Wendy) is automatically labelled as in agreement with her actions in the text. And to be fair, this version of her is a pretty terrible character. It’s just incredibly bad writing. But this feeds into the second point. Wendy-fans, faced with such strong hatred for their fav, go too far in the other direction, insisting that she did nothing wrong. And there in lies the issue. This is by no means limited to Wendy - so I might as well use another completely divisive example: Kylo Ren. 

Kylie Ron is an objectively terrible character. He is a badly written whingy asshole. (okay that’s mostly on the lack of coherency between films/creative teams - aka a post for another time.) The problem is that his fans behave like he never did anything wrong, ever - and is he is one of the ultimate good guys and was all along, actually. In doing so, they completely undermine his role within the text, and gloss over the fact that: 

He killed his dad

He joined a neo-N*zi organization

He took over leadership of said organization 

He completely screwed the First Order over. A story is only as good as its villain and he is a terrible leader with no core beliefs or alignment to the radicals he leads. 

Yes that last point was literally me being annoyed that he is bad a being a N*zi. I want the evil bad guys to be cool and competent. He is neither. 

He has awful relationship skills

He dies like a newb

He is literally a terrorist

This is a short, totally unbiased list of reasons that I think that saying Kyle is a ‘perfect lovely hero uwu’ just doesn’t work. If you want to be a fan of him, that’s fine and up to you, but if you want to be a fan of him and in the process erase all the bad things he did, you aren’t a fan of Kylo Ren. You are a fan of an aggressively altered and de-problematized oc insert played by Tall Brooding White Man #1785. 

The idea of being a fan of a character that does bad things has become quite heavily judged over the last few years, and I think that this is the response: making it so that all the beloved main characters are good and perfect beyond reproach. So that it is impossible to be judged for liking this character, because they’re such a good person. But in the process, many of the negative and positive aspects of the character are wiped away, leaving a blank slate insert with no culpability and no positive discussion of any of the potentially harmful things that they did in the text. 

Earlier I mentioned Hannibal. I consider Hannibal Lecter to be pretty much a textbook case of liking a character you disagree with. As someone who appreciates high art, good food, psychological discourse, angst, and fun murders, I love NBC’s Hannibal. But I don’t actually condone eating people in real life, and neither does the fandom.  But I can appreciate art as separate from myself because that’s how it works. 

The other classic is Darth Dad himself, Anakin Skywalker. Is he Evil™? Yes. Does he murder children? Yes. Is he also a member of a fascist dictatorship? Yes. Do I love him? YES. Because all of these things are part of his character. Without them, he wouldn’t be Darth Vader anymore. 

TL;DR: Villains are really cool, but once you deny all the aspects that make them villainous it automatically devalues the character and removes the opportunity to learn from their mistakes, and to discuss genuinely problematic things within the text.

also fuck d*sney :)

[crystal-witchiness]

***Okay so I found this in my notes from May 2021 as a reaction to the scenes in the beginning of Endgame when Captain Marvel first brings Tony and Nebula back to Earth, when they first get off the ship, and when Tony yells at Steve a few scenes later when he looks like ‘Death Warmed Over’ in his robe and i thought I’d share -

Every time someone argues with me about my ABSOLUTE 100% belief that Steve and Tony had romantic feelings for each other, I’ll just show them this scene. “And I needed YOU.” He didn’t say “You guys” or “Your help.” Tony looked at Steve with so much pain in his eyes and said, “I needed y o u.” And Steve is just as broken watching Tony. This isn’t the first time this has happened between them. They had MANY scenes like this in Civil War (but I like to pretend that movie didn’t happen cause ‘ow blow a hole in my ship why dontcha?’) I mean technically I could submit that whole movie as evidence of their feelings but there are too many negative emotions wrapped up in it and it hurts. This movie is the first time they’ve seen each other since Civil War and when Tony first gets off the ship he basically falls into Steve’s arms. First of all, Steve fricking S P R I N T S when he sees Tony getting off the ship, then Tony sighs in relief and lets Steve take his weight. AND IMMEDIATELY begins unloading his grief about losing Peter cause he knew Steve would understand and comfort him. You can SEE s e e when Pepper runs up that (Ofc Tony does another sigh of relief that the snap didn’t take her (which I wish it did sorry Pepper your character stopped being interesting in the 2nd Iron Man)) Tony has to pull himself off of Steve and pretend to have it more together than he does because Pepper immediately begins crying and Tony has to comfort her. But Steve doesn’t leave his side. Tony cradling Pepper but he’s turning his body so that Steve can cradle him and ugh. Honestly I would have accepted a polyamorous relationship. Tony NEEDED someone to be the leader. THATS LITERALLY WHAT PEPPER WAS TALKING ABOUT. Tony NEVER rests because he always thinks he has to be the one to do everything, EXCEPT for when Steve’s around. Steve is the Captain and even though they bump heads (a lot, awww couples’ squabbles) Tony ALWAYS defers to Steve when it’s important. And Steve? Steve HAS to be a leader, to be helpful, in a healthy way because he couldn’t be that for most of his life in the past. He was a scrawny defenseless guy who always had to depend on Bucky. So to be able to take care of this group of wonderful people who are so powerful and yet STILL NEED STEVE? It’s who he his. It’s who Tony is too but he doesn’t WANT to be that way, he does it because he has to. He does it when no one else can or he doesn’t want to lose anyone else. This scene right now is Tony feeling helpless and so he lashes out at the easiest person, Steve. Steve is their leader and has saved them many times. Tony saw that picture of Peter and couldn’t handle his own feelings of helplessness so he lashed out to bring down the next ‘leader figure’ of the group. Steve and Tony have always been the parents of the Avengers. Steve is the most dad-est dad ever to dad. Meanwhile, Tony invites everyone to live with him while feeding them, clothing them (armor and civilian clothes) and making sure they have top of the line protection. HE LITERALLY EVEN SAYS THIS IN AGE OF ULTRON. SUCH a mom. So he wanted to make Steve feel his pain because Steve made a promise that they would lose together and Steve wasn’t there on that moon. And OF COURSE Tony knows that Steve was on earth fighting his own battle against Thanos but he wasn’t WITH Tony. And they are always stronger together than apart. (Civil War kinda proved this too) Tony sees Steve’s absence as the reason they lost, because ‘if only they’d been together’ ‘maybe we could have won if we’d only been together.’

ALSO DONT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON TONY LITERALLY GIVING STEVE A REPRESENTATION OF HIS HEART. I know he did it out of anger and to make a point but he took away this piece of him, that he made SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE HE FELT VULNERABLE WITHOUT THE ARC, and gave it to Steve. Once again shedding that responsibility and giving it to Steve. Because even with the residual anger over Civil War, Tony trusts Steve. He says otherwise in this moment out of anger but that “vision” he talks about here? He literally watches Steve die (YEAH THATS RIGHT I SAID STEVE. Not PEPPER, NOT RHODEY, NOT ANY OF THE OTHER AVENGERS.) Wanda showed him his worst fear in Age of Ultron and it was the death of the Avengers, but he didn’t see THEM die. Everyone else, Thor, Bruce, Natasha, and Clint were already dead. Tony watched STEVE die and it was STEVE saying that Tony could’ve saved them that spurred him into creating Ultron. He was so scared of losing them and letting Steve down (and letting him die) that he wanted to wrap the whole world in armor to protect him. And he tries to do it again in this scene. He means it to be spiteful but he gives Steve his armor and tells him to hide from Thanos. WHICH IS ANOTHER THING UGH. Tony doesn’t know that out of all of the people who fought Thanos in Wakanda that day, Steve was the one who engaged in hand-to-hand combat with him. Everyone else had armor and suits, weapons, etc. Steve has his serum strength and he u s e d it. It didn’t help for very long but he used his BARE HANDS to fight an alien-monster wielding 5/6 of ALL POWERFUL infinity stones, and ofc he was never going to win, but even Thanos looked at Steve in incredulity at his bravery and resolve. A human (a super charged one at that but still a human) fought him with his bare hands and wasn’t going to stop. (Steve proved this again at the end of Endgame when he’s the last one standing against Thanos and his entire army and just tightens the strap on his broken shield, (and most likely broken arm, based on the flinch/hiss) and readies himself to fight alone. Steve also gave Wanda time to destroy the mind stone (unfortunately, that didn’t mean anything in the end)

AND YET Tony doesn’t know any of this. He doesn’t know how hard Steve fought, just like Tony did on Titan, to stop Thanos. And I REALLY wish we had seen Tony’s reaction to Steve standing up to Thanos at the end of Endgame OR EVEN WIELDING MJOLNIR, but anyways.

Back to the basics. Boss level stuff most people don’t remember or think about- Tony’s dad very unhealthily IDOLIZED Steve. He canonically compared everything Tony did to Steve. So Tony grew up idolizing this man that he also despised because it fueled his father’s abuse of him. Tony shows this anger in the first Avengers. When they have their argument on the quinjet. “Everything special about you came out of a bottle.” He even says something about how Steve didn’t live up to his father’s hype (I don’t remember Tony’s exact words but that’s the gist) And ofc Steve says Tony’s nothing without his armor. But then they go on the prove each other wrong multiple times, but mainly in their last moments in the MCU. Steve proves it by standing alone against an ENTIRE alien army and later by picking up mjolnir. And Tony? Tony is that ONE factor in a million that Stephen sees. Tony, a beautifully pure human-being, with no powers or serums to help, takes on the powers of the stones. KNOWING it would kill him. He had proof. It nearly killed Thanos and Bruce and they were hulking (pun intended) beings with super strength and all that.

Tony and Steve were always set up to be spoils to one another and that makes them perfect together. They balance each other out. Pepper was a boss b****, no doubt, and I loved their relationship in the first two Iron Man movies, but as their characters grew and Tony’s personality was intrinsically changed through trauma- Pepper was no longer right for him. She was good for him, no doubt, but Tony couldn’t relax with her as he did with Steve. Tony could trust Steve to take over and everything could be fine. Pepper was like that for Stark Industries but not in other ways. Tony always saw himself as Pepper’s protector. I will 100% give her props for telling Tony that he’d never rest until he tried Scott’s time travel theory, but other than that she wasn’t particularly supportive of Iron. Man. What Pepper never seemed to understand, and what Steve didn’t understand when he FIRST met Tony, is that Tony and Iron Man are synonymous. Their is no ‘man outside the suit.’ Tony Stark is Iron Man and Iron Man is Tony Stark. Steve was placed into an already created persona of Captain America. Steve didn’t create Captain America even though that’s who he was. He was literally MADE for the role. Tony on the other hand, MADE Iron Man. He was the one who built the first suit - dying in a cave in Afghanistan. He was the one who took responsibility for Obadiah and his father’s actions and became a superhero to save the countries that were affected by Stark tech. Steve may have volunteered to be a superhero because he felt like he had no one other choice but Tony DIDN’T HAVE TO. He had fame, money, power, ALL OF IT. He could’ve EASILY hidden his company’s dark underside once he found out. But instead, Tony was like “Hey um so my company has done some bad things and instead of delegating aid through my money and power, I’m going to personally handle this with a titanium alloy suit and technology that I helped create in a cave while being held captive by a terrorist cell.”

Where was I going with this? OH YEAH.

I will believe in TonyxSteve (Stony) for the rest of my life and I will use fanfiction to fill the void of their deaths. Basically, if I lost anyone in the word vomit above, what I’m trying to say is that- Steve and Tony completed each other. They provided something the other needed. Tony needed stability and protection. He needed to feel like he could let go. Steve needed an anchor in the present. Someone lively and opinionated, SOMEONE ADVENTUROUS AND FUNNY, who Steve could smile with and protect. But also. Steve trusted Tony to be a leader as much as Tony trusted him. They had their ups and downs. Trauma and the Accords didn’t help their relationship at all, but should’ve been it for each other. And I honestly believe they would have t h r i v e d.

.

.

.

Honestly I applaud anyone who made it this far. I don’t know where this all came from but I will not apologize✌🏻

I rest my case your honor.

[irikahkrios]

why do u hate liara 😭 i don’t mean this in a mean way i’m sure u have valid reasons bc big brain irikah stan but i’m just wondering

i made this post a while ago that goes into it a little more in depth (edit after writing the rest of this post: this post ended up being much longer and more in-depth than that one but i'm keeping the link there anyway lmao), but tldr i think she's creepy as fuck and i hate how the writers portrayed her obsession with shepard as a good thing and didn't even consider that players might be uncomfortable with her.

i already dislike her as a character because of her constant violations of shepard's autonomy: them being forced by the plot of me1 to have creepy brain sex with her (possibly multiple times depending on the order you do the main plot missions in), her becoming obsessed with them and stealing their corpse to give to cerberus to resurrect them (which is even worse if, like me, you play a sole survivor shepard), and the way she acts super familiar and all Oh I'm Your Best Friend And Maaaaybe Perhaps Your Lover :) no matter what dialogue options you've chosen with her. all of that, combined with some truly horrible stuff from me3 (her treatment of javik which is almost as bad as her treatment of shepard, her awful dialogue with jack if you bring her to grissom academy, the way she acts like the war has Finally Actually Started when the reapers attack thessia because non-asari species suffering and dying apparently doesn't count, etc), was already more than enough to make me uncomfortable with her. but i could at least tolerate her from a narrative/character standpoint if all this awful bullshit had actually been acknowledged. stories need villains, and i think the concept of a villain who's absolutely convinced that they're the hero's best friend is a potentially interesting one. hell, if they didn't want to go full villain they could have even had her grow as a person over time and realize that her behavior towards shepard was horrifying and creepy. the character could have been salvaged if they had just acknowledged her faults and possibly let her grow past them.

but what really makes me hate liara is that the writers seem to think she's right about everything. her obsession with shepard isn't supposed to be a character flaw, it's apparently supposed to be endearing and correct. they seem to just straight-up think that all her terrifying stalkery bullshit about being Shepard's Best Friend And The Most Important Person In Their Life No Matter What :)))) is actually....literally the way things are and not just the obsessive ramblings of a very creepy character......like, the divide between liara's in-game actions and the way the games seem to want to portray her is a fucking canyon. she's so creepy and has zero likable or redeeming qualities, but the writers act like she's this amazing wonderful perfect person who's closer to shepard than anyone, even their love interest.

she's forced on the player to the extent that you can't do anything to make her go away. there's never an option to say you aren't close to her or ask her to leave you alone, you automatically hug her on illium in me2 instead of that being a paragon interrupt or dialogue prompt like it really should have been, me3 makes you have all these Deep Conversations where she comes to your cabin uninvited because clearly shepard is closer to her than to any other squadmate and you're not allowed to dispute this, and basically i just. am not allowed to roleplay my shepard as uncomfortable in any way with the person who he was forced to have creepy invasive brain sex with against his will, who stole his corpse and gave it to the terrorists responsible for the greatest trauma of his life because she was so obsessed with him that she couldn't let him go (after knowing him for a few weeks at most; i always get her at the latest point i possibly can so he's only forced to have sex with her once), and who continues to insert herself into his life and claims to be extremely close friends with him despite him not wanting anything to do with her.

so, yeah. when i make liara a villain in my canon, when i almost completely write her out of me2 and me3, when i rewrite the shadow broker dlc to be about fighting her and foiling her plot to become the shadow broker and stalk shepard across the galaxy, it's because it's cathartic for me to imagine a canon where my shepard was allowed to treat her constant creepy advances in a more realistic way.

[clevercorvidae]

BNHA Common Misconceptions

I’ve been seeing wayyy too much bs on my dash lately. So I thought I’d share some of my thoughts on some Controversy™

***Spoilers For The Manga***

1. “What the HPSC did to Hawks wasn’t bad”

A government organization putting a young child through rigorous training so that he can be used as a tool is bad. I don’t know why I have to spell that out

Hawks had to abandon his real name at a very young age. That’s damaging for a kid’s sense of identity. His identity as a person no longer has any separation from his work as a hero. Being a hero is all he is now. I wouldn’t be surprised if (provided Hawks’s wings are gone for good) he has an identity crisis after this arc because he can’t be “Hawks” anymore.

Hawks is based on Lionel Messi, a soccer player recruited at a young age in return for paying for his medical procedures. I’ve seen people say that Hawks chose to be a hero. One, he was a child, young children shouldn’t be making decisions like that. Two, we know based on context clues that Keigo was more than likely living in poverty, possibly with alcoholic parents, and we literally are told that the HPSC payed for his family’s living expenses. Do you really think Keigo had much of a choice here?

I’ve seen people say “it’s just like what UA is doing”. First of all, UA is called out for being irresponsible and endangering their students IN UNIVERSE. Second, Keigo was a young child, the UA kids are 15+. There’s a huge difference.

2. “Mitsuki isn’t abusive”

Honestly when it comes to her smacking Katsuki, I could excuse it as a joke done in poor taste and not hold it over her as a character.

Hitting him WASNT just discipline tho. You should never, ever, under any circumstances hit your kid. Fuck that noise.

What I really have an issue with is what she SAYS to Katsuki. Her guilt tripping him isn’t a throwaway line either. He repeats the sentiment that he is responsible for Kamino during Deku v Kacchan 2. It’s one of the main reasons he fights Deku.

Horikoshi says that Katsuki has a good relationship with his mother. In that case, he did a horrible job at presenting that. What is written in the canon is what should be used as the basis for how we interpret her character.

3. “Shigaraki chose to kill his family/was born evil”

No...just...no. He was FIVE for crying out loud.

He wanted to be a hero, and took extra care to play with kids that had no friends. He definitely wasn’t born evil lmao.

His quirk manifested while he was having an emotional crisis. Decay is controlled by emotion so of course it went haywire.

He didn’t even know it was him doing it at first.

“But Shigaraki said he WANTED it to happen” Shigaraki is an unreliable narrator. What we actually SEE tells a very different story. He reaches out to Hana and his Mother for help. His grandparents are just caught in the shockwave. The ONLY person he killed on purpose was his father.

Now when it comes to his father, he had just beat him and locked him outside. He’s FIVE, and he has no healthy outlet for his anger and frustration. Hell, we see that in his “itchiness”, he only feels like this in the house, because his father makes him suppress his love for heroes and his dream to become one. He takes joy in killing his father because it’s the only release he’s ever experienced.

The fact that you guys forget that this is an abused child with no real control over his quirk that just got beaten and locked outside... Nope, no reading comprehension here.

4. “The League of Villains are justified/are a revolutionary group”

...Shigaraki has stated over and over again that he just wants to destroy everything. He doesn’t care about reform or improving anything. That one panel in Ch. 222, where he says he wants to destroy everything I think sums it up perfectly.

He wants to destroy EVERYTHING good or bad or neither or both. There’s a newborn baby, a field of flowers , Nine, various heroes, the UA kids, etc all varying in innocence.

The rest of the league have very different goals and reasons why they continue to support Shigaraki. Twice wants to protect the only people that accepted him. Spinner just wants to have purpose for his life. Toga wants to live the way she wishes with no consequences. Compress is also here.

The only “revolutionary” is Dabi. But his views are not universal throughout the league.

Even if they were trying to improve things. They have killed countless innocent people, they’ve tried to kill the UA kids too. That’s not ok. And it’s not erased by the fact that they’ve done good. (I do appreciate them for killing the MHA version of the KKK, truly epic of you)

5. “Hawks is abusive”

It’s not abuse to manipulate someone for info when you’re a double agent. It’s kinda shitty, and you could argue that it was unnecessary for Hawks to do so in context. But it’s not abuse.

Y’all need to stop using the word abuse/abusive tendencies to describe all immoral actions

I’ve also seen people say that Hawks has abusive tendencies (as in he’s abusive in all his relationships with other characters) and...do I really need to explain why that makes no sense at all?

6. “Twice deserved to die/it was necessary to kill him”

Feel like I need to remind people that we’ve only ever actually seen Twice kill one guy and that was one of the KKK guys.

Twice isn’t evil, even Hawks admits that he is a genuinely good person. Good people don’t deserve to die.

It wasn’t necessary, and here’s why: Hawks could’ve just knocked him out or even just severely injured him. (Or the HPSC could’ve just grown a brain cell and sent more people to back him up, making it easier to hold back his quirk and arrest him)

Hawks shouldn’t have killed Twice, he only killed him because he’s been raised as a child soldier and I wouldn’t be surprised if what he told Twice about taking out villains was a direct quote from the HPSC

Also, Hawks would’ve killed Twice with or without Dabi’s intervention

Something I do have to say though is that Hawks was right not to just let Twice go. It’s tragic because Twice WAS leaving to help his friends, but the other side of that tragedy it that his friends are terrorists. If he was allowed to leave a shit ton of people would have died (again that doesn’t mean he deserved to die either, don’t get it twisted)

The WHOLE POINT of Hawks v Twice is to make you question who the bad guy is. Both characters are morally gray and the only reason they even have to fight is because of the outside forces controlling their fates. It’s supposed to be tragic it’s supposed to be unclear who is in the right, so stop arguing about it.

7. “Bakugou is abusive/irredeemable” (I know it’s been talked to death but I still see it everywhere)

People are, in fact, allowed to grow past the person they were in middle school.

Most people get hung up on the “throw yourself off a building” line. Which is fair, but again, he was in middle school.

People also say “he hasn’t apologized yet”. Yeah? And? The story isn’t over yet. Horikoshi has already acknowledged that too. I don’t know what you want? People who like him know that his arc isn’t over yet.

I’ve seen a lot of people denying his character development. In the beginning of the series he was a bully and let his ego control him. I don’t think he’s bullied...anyone since Deku v Kacchan 2. He insults people but they obviously don’t take it seriously.

He’s also gone from preferring to fail a final exam to avoid working with Deku, to following him into battle against Shigaraki.

Also, when he actually likes and respects someone he doesn’t mistreat them. This is the same thing with Hawks where y’all NEED to stop misusing the word abuse. He was an abusive friend to Deku when they were kids, that’s it.

8. “Rei was abusive too!”

I’m BEGGING YOU to learn what the term “abuse” means istg

She had a psychotic break. She genuinely thought it was her abusive husband coming through the door, and she acted out of fear.

“Well that’s not an excuse” yes it fucking is. Not to mention that as soon as she realized what happened, she sobs hysterically because she hurt Shouto and tries to use her quirk to help him.

I genuinely don’t understand why people think this

9. “Dabi actually does care about the league”

Listen, I know it sounds harsh, but y’all need to get your heads out of your piles of headcanons.

We know next to nothing about how Dabi feels about just about anything. But we do see that he’s aloof and distant with the league, he doesn’t put in more than he needs to. The rest of the league think of each other as family. Dabi straight up says he doesn’t give a shit about them.

“What if he was just putting up a front for Hawks” Why? Why would he do that? When asked who he was he answered him. He tells him how he feels about hero society and Stain. Not to mention that he was getting ready to kill him. If he was hiding his true feelings about the league I doubt he would’ve so easily said that he didn’t care about them but rather how useful they were.

At this point it’s just wishful thinking. Based on everything we’ve seen in the series so far and everything we know about Dabi, I think it’s safe to say that he doesn’t care about them all that much. If he secretly does care about them, I’d say it’s likely that he doesn’t even know he does.

Idk why all of a sudden villain stans and hero stans are feuding over things that shouldn’t even be up for debate in the first place. Sorry if this came off as super aggressive, I’m just sick of seeing this stuff all over the place. If anyone has anything to add go ahead

[itsclydebitches]

What has Ironwood done that's objectively wrong? Bringing the fleet to Beacon makes sense with 1) Qrow's warning, 2) the presence of Grimm in general, 3) we have security forces for major events on Earth. Blake's trailer shows her & WF stealing dust for terrorist acts used at Beacon and Haven. His embargo makes sense. Penny & co. were fighting grimm in Mantle in vol. 7. Amity was used in vol. 8. I keep seeing people call him a Greek tragic hero and characters keep calling him misguided but why??

Personally, the only thing I think Ironwood has done objectively wrong is shooting Oscar and the Councilman, which is why those actions feels so far removed from the rest of his character — an attempt on the writers’ part to make him really evil when the story started insisting he’s an antagonist. RWBY isn’t interested in portraying Ironwood and Ruby as two heroes who go about saving people in different ways, like it was for Yang and Ruby: “You go save individuals and I’ll tell the world about Salem. We might disagree about how to help, but the narrative presents both actions as helping” (stupidity of the Amity plan aside). We could have easily gotten that with, “You go make a suicidal stand against Salem in an effort to save more people and I’ll take the risk of trying to escape with the people we have” but the show just... didn’t. Nor is the story interested in saying that Ruby was wrong, so the moment she took a firm stance against Ironwood he had to become the objective bad guy. If your story refuses to acknowledge that the hero is in any way flawed, then their opponents can’t have redeeming features that reflect badly on the hero. Which is what we had with Ironwood prior to the Oscar shooting, standing in contrast to Ruby with his practical approach that actually had a chance of saving some vs. her idealism that was going to get everyone killed (and still might). Everything Ironwood did was ABSOLUTELY iffy... but never objectively wrong. He had justified reasons for everything he did and only the best of intentions. Does that mean he was right every time? Wrong? It’s debatable and straddling that line was always the point. But once the story pit Ironwood against Ruby, a Ruby the story refuses to acknowledge as anything other than Pure and Good, that line could not longer exist. He HAD to be villainous in order to exist as her contrast, yet hadn’t acted in a villainous manner. So what do you do? Have him randomly shoot people to establish how evil he is.

As for the tragic hero aspect, I’d say it’s an easy claim to make if you don’t dive too deep into the story. Meaning, we can see a lot of similarities on the surface of Ironwood’s character, yet the actual meat of the story doesn’t support this reading very well. Ironwood is indeed a moral person of good standing whose misfortune stems from some bad luck/mistakes (army getting hacked is the best example), but that’s it. A great deal more of his misfortune stems from deliberate acts against him, both by Salem and (to a lesser extent) by Ruby. Ironwood’s supposed fatal flaw — the hamartia, usually hubris/pride — is not seen throughout the story, despite how much the fandom insists that he seizes power because he believes he’s Remnant’s savior. Throughout the whole series Ironwood continually eschews pride in favor of leaning on others: Let’s listen to Ozpin, let’s welcome new allies, let’s align ourselves with old enemies. It’s just that every time he reaches out, his allies fail him: Ozpin was keeping secrets (I love the guy and support most of his decisions, but I get why Ironwood's trust faltered, far more-so than I understand the group’s), Ruby lies and betrayed him, Robyn likewise betrayed him and helped get Clover killed. Pride is not his downfall, bad allies and an evil witch are! 

Perhaps most importantly, the tragic hero is meant to elicit pity. Sometimes fear too, but mostly pity. The story should be cathartic for the viewer because they’re watching a good person meet a bad end, largely due to what we recognize as inevitable, human error. That’s not who the story now insists Ironwood is. The story wants us to hate him, hence the above paragraph about “He’s evil now and shoots people for no reason.” This isn’t to say that the tragic hero never does things/has characteristics that the audience dislikes — they are still meant to be very flawed — but those aspects should not outweigh our ability to connect with the character and understand them. The emotional foundation here is regret that things turned out this way when they didn’t have to and the character (or at least who the character started out as) didn’t deserve this fate. Is that what RWBY is aiming for with Ironwood? I wouldn’t say so. We, as individual fans, might feel sympathy for him —  largely due to what we recognize as bad writing choices changing our perspective  — but that doesn’t mean the story is actively angling for that response. I’d say RWBY wants us to despise Ironwood and root for his downfall, which flies in the face of the tragic hero. He’s moved into the category of a much more clear-cut villain: a killer, a contrast to the heroes, our protagonist tells the whole world not to trust him. It’s possible that Ironwood may circle back to a tragic hero, but again, I doubt RWBY will succeed in making that move in a persuasive manner. I think they’ll just kill Ironwood off and people will go, “See, that’s what happens to tragic heroes!” ignoring both what the story wanted us to feel for Ironwood this last volume (he’s villainous) and how it failed to get us there in a believable manner (he was a good guy who just inexplicably started shooting when the story needed him to). 

These archetypes are complex and require that they be written with intent and, to be frank, skill. Compare Ironwood to someone like Walter White. Breaking Bad ensure we see from Episode One how Walter’s pride continually leads him down a dark path. His inability to lean on/trust others means that he goes to extreme lengths to do everything on his own, like making drugs to pay for his own cancer treatments. In time this leads to a more overt desire for power and his eventual downfall, wherein the audience recognizes the need for his punishment, yet still aches for the good man besieged by bad luck (cancer) that he once was. Ironwood’s fatal flaw is that he... wants to use military force against an endless army of literal monsters? That he doesn’t want to do everything on his own? Ironwood’s flaw is only a flaw in our world, not the world where magical monsters are eating people, and 99% of his misfortune stems not from his own actions coming about due to a different flaw, but because others are actively working against him. We can’t make broad-sweeping claims about Ironwood’s actions without first considering the actions of the characters around him. Oedipus is a tragic hero because he kills a man (action), ignorant that this is his father and thus fulfilling part of his prophecy. All of Ironwood’s recent, intended actions  — tell the world about Salem, leaving with Amity, etc. — have not come about and his ignorance only existed because others deliberately kept that information from him. It’s like if a friend of Oedipus’ knew all along that Laius was his father but refused to tell him, then stopped him from killing Laius because that’s bad... but then blamed him when someone else killed him instead? I think the fandom forgets that things are #bad right now because Salem is attacking the kingdom with, like, five different evil weapons. The kingdom is falling mostly because Salem is an asshole and a little because Ruby has made awful choices lately. Ironwood’s supposed pride didn’t bring Salem here, didn’t keep people from surviving, is not stopping the group from winning their battle. The tragedies we see in the story right now are not on him. 

[rpbetter]

Hi Vespertine. Sorry to add to the pile, I promise I will send in some writing related things to compensate later. I also misgendered that user in a comment by accident with she/her. I blocked them, but they still looked at my blog, and they made a post that said by using the wrong pronouns, which they thought was intentional and meant to hurt them, I purposefully called them a hysterical woman stereotype. Obviously that wasn't true. I was just going off a comment someone else made on my blog where they used she/her, and I thought I had to correct myself. It was a case where good intentions, even if I was not happy with the user's behavior or expected to talk to them again, I was still going to use the right pronouns, but my intentions were warped by someone with an agenda. I'm sorry to hear you're getting the same heat. I didn't use my rp blog to interact with the user or talk about them because I was sure something like this would happen, either by them or other people like that callout blog, and I think other people had the same idea. I dodged a bullet there, but I'm still paranoid. I'm paranoid I'll hear a notif and see my rp blog in a callout for this, because someone hunted it down, or a callout for trying to talk to the person who started all the drama. Nobody should be scared to talk about someone on their own blog. Nobody should be scared to talk openly, in general. Nobody should be called out for trying to talk with someone either. This culture of fear is so disturbing to me.

Hey there, Anon!

Oh, I would love that, but you totally don't have to, of course. Don't feel bad for adding on, I'm here for anything at all, and honestly, with the job I'm doing IRL right now, it's really hard for me to concentrate well enough on finishing any of the advice posts (at least, to be the quality y'all deserve). It's a hot topic, it's included so, so, terribly many people in the RPC. It's also one that's generating some great, needed conversations. So, it isn't like you're adding to anything bad, annoying or distracting me, or contributing to the inflammatory side of this.

Hell, it's got to be really nice for some of the people in messages I've received to see proof that they weren't alone in this experience. I can keep publishing the hate anons for exactly that reason, and I can promise people they aren't the only ones (in this or in any such horrible behavior), but it's different to see it coming from a third party! So, thank you for that.

Though, I am deeply sorry that you were treated to more than a ringside seat in this debacle.

It's not very encouraging to be thoughtful and respectful of other people when literally nothing you can say or do will result in anything other than more twisting of your words, and that's a big problem I have with this shit. Things like actual transphobia, intentional misgendering, actual infantalization and shit treatment of ND people, actual harassment, etc. etc. etc. matter. It's just more trivializing of real problems for the sake of blowing nonexistent bullshit up, and that is immensely disgusting to me. The fact that you damn well know someone out there has had the reaction to this behavior of, well, fuck you then, fuck trans people is really upsetting.

Like, yeah, let's be real, if you require social rewards to do the right thing, you have some problems lol but at the same time, you know who does require social rewards to develop themselves? Young people. And the RPC is largely comprised of people in their early twenties who, for a variety of possible reasons, are still at that point

Furthermore, no, it's not anyone's job to be good representation at all times, especially when that performance comes at a cost to themselves, but maybe don't go out of your way to be the person that is the necessary push in the wrong direction of someone's formative experience with people of your community. If it's costing you nothing to not clown on serious issues, but is costing the entire world another bigot for you to clown on serious issues, the choice should be a bit obvious here. Whenever you're in a safe place - physically, emotionally - and capable of that kind of logic, exercise it, damn.

It's definitely a better course of action than playing out skewed activism by vilifying innocent people, more worthy of one's effort than losing their collective shit over a very easy mistake. One that I'd say was even less avoidable in your case. AGAIN, how, exactly is anyone supposed to know this shit when they're blocked? When they aren't subverting the blocks they, themselves, put in place? I know for a fact none of them are looking at the information of the people they choose to try to drive out of the RPC, but everyone else is supposed to make zero reasonable assumptions, check and recheck blogs they have made an effort not to visit for good reason. Sounds absolutely reasonable and sane!

So, you know what? I'm going to be even more offensive here and talk for a moment about why these mistakes are reasonable.

When we see a post and reblog it, it's not unreasonable to assume that the OP had knowledge we didn't. Since we blocked the offending party, but they're discussing them. OP uses the incorrect pronouns, we end using the incorrect pronouns as well. This is not malicious intent. It isn't intentional at all, it's just having a discussion. A discussion that wouldn't have even transpired if they hadn't taken it upon themselves to (what a coincidence) take personal issue with a RPer they repeatedly took out of context and decided to shame for it, before proceeding to get an even bigger stick and pot.

When we decide to block a blog, it's our responsibility to stay off of it. Not go looking at it for any reason. That is now off-limits. When someone blocks us, it's also our responsibility to respect that decision, no matter how outrageous it was, no matter what we might need to verify. That's the issue with blocking when we don't exploit how easy it is to get around blocking on tumblr; we've cut ourselves off from any further meaningful communication, including passive communication like rules and posts. Kind of like how you cannot expect an apology to mean a damn thing when you've blocked everyone you harassed, then made that apology in a post on your blocked blog. Don't put up walls you expect people to see through, then get upset when they can't see through them.

As a community, the RPC is primarily afab. That's never a problem to bring up when someone wants to be angry about their female muse not getting equal attention and so on, but it's a problem to discuss any other time, about any other problem. Dealing with the things that we're socially raised to ascribe to as afab people is that problem. It's reflected in our behaviors, interests, and speech. We may not want to live in a gendered world, we may eschew that, but we were raised in a gendered world and it shows. One which has a lot of complications for being that, like almost everyone feeling safer around afab people by default of the All Men Are Bad, All Women Are Harmless bullshit.

We not only know that the RPC is primarily afab, we tend to assume comfort, especially in hostile situations, by assuming those pronouns in others.

And it so does not matter how much any of us like it, some people have more masculine or feminine tones. Even in text. That means neither that someone's gender identity should be disregarded nor that this text-based presentation is correct, but like every other unfair thing that exists, it's a thing. Like you, Anon, you genuinely come across in tone as primarily neutral, slight lean toward masculine. Even if I wasn't inclined to do so, not knowing you and all, I'd use they/them for you instinctively because that's what your speech is giving me. That isn't any more unreasonable than ascribing another set of pronouns based on the same information.

Oh yeah, I know, lurkers, the difference is that they/them is the appropriate choice when one does not know. I know that logically, but people aren't always operating like robots, weirdly enough. We default to a lot of instinctive behaviors, and we aren't always operating at the top rung of cognition either. Being human works like that, it's really that simple and not malicious if you're not reading that into it.

As we're all aware, it is being read into, and your experience is exactly why; you now feel worried every time you get a notif, you've been outed as a supposed transphobe, and while it is incredibly fortunate you stopped this from transpiring on your RP blog, it still transpired somewhere and has had a negative effect. If they find they correct thing or set of things, they can get so many more people to dogpile you over it. Get enough people to do that, make someone miserable enough, especially people who are already going through a hard enough time already, they'll leave.

It is a terroristic act, and it has the effect of all terroristic acts; people are afraid to exist outside of shifting bounds (that shifting is a part of the terrorism). They can't have an opinion, write any muse/topic they wish, be honest on their own blogs, support the "wrong" topics, muns, or blogs. Attacking people for a mistake, not allowing them to address it either, just furthers all of that. It's showing the community what happens when you aren't on the "right" side, even if that isn't even the case. They certainly turn on their own quickly enough.

So, of course, it's a culture of fear and it is disturbing as hell. No one has any right to make someone feel unsafe over fiction or a hobby or a difference of opinion. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want on their own blogs, to talk openly, and yes, to try to talk to others without feeling at risk.

Even if what someone says is genuinely unpleasant. This isn't the way one handles it. By all means, have a problem with something, have a problem with someone, but grow up and talk to them openly, without bringing everyone you can dredge up to join in. I have no issue with people arguing, I have an issue with bullying. If it's your whole goal to harass people without consequences to the end result of deactivation and lockstep behavior from everyone else, that's what you're doing, folks. Bullying.

If you can't win an argument, especially one your own ass began, in any other way than this, you're not engaging in an argument.

[kinnoth]

AVENGERS INFINITY WAR MEGATHREAD

-really doubt i'm gonna be able to finish this movie so we'll just see where i get to

- we already know how i feel about loki and thor, we don't need to revisit this

- ok but if i were going to revisit this, i mean come on, who wants to talk about "hela draws her power from asgard, same as you" cos i wanna talk about that

like what if that's the reason thor, god of thunder, king to a civilisation of warriors, was unable to fend off like, 4 dudes and a big purple dinosaur? the royal family of asgard draws its power from asgard, and without it, they are weak, they are mortal. maybe that's why heimdall is unable to just, you know, bifrost everybody off the fucking ship the minute it comes under attack. maybe that's why loki can't fucking conjure up a swarm of fucking microscopic knives to fillet the invaders from the inside out. MAYBE THAT'S WHY LOKI TRIES TO KILL THANOS WITH A FUCKING DAGGER. BECAUSE TAKE AWAY HIS POWER, TAKE AWAY HIS GODHOOD, WHAT DOES HE HAVE LEFT OTHER THAN HIS WILE, HIS TRICKS AND HIS BROTHER

WHAT IF IN SAVING THE UNIVERSE AND DESTROYING ASGARD, THEY'VE LOST EVERYTHING INCLUDING WHAT MAKES THEM GODS

somebody talk about this

- etc etc what if the reason loki is unable to attack the purple dinosaur with magic is because when he tackled thor earlier, he used whatever magic he had left to spare in order to heal him

checks out cos thor goes from flat on his face to swinging his fists in the space of like 30 seconds and the only thing to happen to him in between is said bit about loki tackling him

- why does heimdall save hulk? i mean, i could understand it if he were trying to aim the bifrost at thor and somebody somehow knocked off his aim and he accidentally saves hulk, but like, we've established that heimdall's loyalty is to the royal seat of asgard upon whom sits thor's mighty ass. thor who, in this scene, has just been incapacitated by a metal eggshell(?) and is at the mercy of their assailants. given heimdall's priorities, it is baffling to the point of inconceivability that he would preferentially save fucking HULK over his own king.

- if this next scene isn't the guardians of the galaxy coming across thor clutching loki's dead fucking body floating through space then i don't know why any of us are even here

- "he sent loki! the attack on new york was thanos!" makes no sense? like, if loki's scepter had the mind stone in it, which we established it did in the last movie when we broke it open to retrieve vision, then.....why didn't thanos just....take the mind stone in the first place? cos rock collecting is and has always been his goal?

what, do you think that just because you assert a thing makes us forget all the shit that happened before?

- i.....am actually with tony stark. why don't they just destroy the stones they have so that thanos can't get to them? oh, you made a promise? well promises change and circumstances change! you tell him tony! you tell that stupid fucker --

oh my god i'm gonna be ill

- i think the only person whose ego can match tony stark's is probably a neurosurgeon so 👍 i guess

-i love how we immediately went back to the "so dark can't see shit" aesthetic after ragnorak because ensuring that one's audience can SEE what is HAPPENING IN YOUR MOVIE is apparently for radical directors like taika waititi

- cannot believe that tony stark staring at captain america's phone number is being played with the same emotional intensity as thor losing his soulmate entire people

- honestly how many times is the mcu gonna invoke 9/11 imagery til someone calls them out for being terrorists

- lmao i know i said this before but peter's spidey senses tingling AFTER the giant alien anus has already started sucking up new york and it is right outside his window is fucking hilarious. that's just called using your eyeballs peter

- "friday notify first responders about the giant alien anus sucking up new york" lol like the first thing somebody did when the alien anus showed up wasn't to fucking call 911 GREAT IDEA TONY

- still can't believe that they let failed neurosurgeon dr strange do more magic than god of tricks and sorcery loki lol

- i know i rag on dr strange a lot about the fact that he's a neurosurgeon it's just that he sucks.

as a neurosurgeon eyy.

- i hate that peter parker has to be here!!!!! leave him alone!!!!!

- tony stark should not be allowed within 100 feet of children or minorities

- it is very weird to me that steve "brooklyn" rogers has an area code from georgia

- since when was hela a half-sister? ODIN'S DAUGHTER AND THOR'S BLOODED SIBLINGS OR BUST YOU FUCKING COWARDS

- i am very disappointed that thor is going to go get another weapon after we spent the whole last movie talking about how he is not the god of hammers

- i just need thor to have much more PTSD than he has right now. fucking hulk has ptsd. maybe they're saving the ptsd for later. one can only hope.

- i am glad that they are letting him be cleverer though

- THEY ARE LETTING VISION DATE A TEENAGER WHY

GOD. FUCKING GROSS.

- wait when did vision turn into a white man again? did i miss that movie?

- i am disappointed that vision the computer techno robot apparently has a penis. like what a stupid limitation to give your computer techno robot, gender. 🙄

- i think that the mass destruction of infrastructure and architecture in the MCU is because of the pg13 no blood limitation that disney has set? like there's no way to show destruction to the body, so one may only show the exponential destruction to one's surroundings. like imagine how much more dramatic intensity you could wring out of a regular fight scene would be if people were allowed to bleed?

- cannot believe that a computer techno robot and a witch are having a punch up with the bad guys. of all people to fight with something not their fists, it's these two

- wanda has no enhanced strength or durability? she's a regular teenager who's a bit witchy. the first time she got thrown through a glass door should have shattered her vertebrae. again i don't understand why we insist that everybody must have the same powers and capabilities when it's clear they don't. think about how much more interesting it would be if some avengers were more fragile than others and had to be given accommodations as such

- IT IS INCONCEIVABLE TO ME THAT FUCKING BLACK WIDOW (regular human), CAPTAIN AMERICA (enhanced human), AND FALCON (regular human with wings) CAN DEFEAT THE CHILDREN OF THANOS WHEN THOR COULDN'T UNLESS THOR (god of fucking thunder carved of steel and stone) WAS NERFED

- still don't understand how we'll lend aliens afro features but not afro hair, like, seriously? you're gonna dream up green aliens with gills who look like black people but imagining them with black hair is a step too far?

- the gap of commentary in this liveblog is simply because i do not care at all for the galaxy defenders

- "earth just lost her best defender" who? who does captain america consider earth's best defender? it's not thor; he doesn't know thor's presumed dead. it's not tony; he doesn't know tony's on an alien anus. who else has died so far?

- love how exhausted bucky looks. have always loved how exhausted bucky looks. love bucky.

- i forgot that tony was with peter parker. god i hate that.

- "i'm peter btw"

"dr strange"

"oh you're using the made up names then. i'm spider man"

ok that was cute, but peter's cute, we knew that already

- i want to fling both strange and stark into space and i'm having a hard time deciding which one to push first

- "you went to bed hungry, scraping for scraps" oohhhh thanos is just anti-poor people, he would literally rather poor people be dead than struggle, i get it nowww

this is on brand for mcu

- oh my god thanos gets 2/6 stones by torturing siblings in front of other siblings, seriously? you couldn't come up with 6 different ways to find his stupid rocks you had to reuse one twice?

- which one of thor's friends was stabbed through the heart....? fandral??

- "if i don't get my vengeance what more could i lose" more like what else is there eh? what else is there for a king of no people but their vengeance?

- CANNOT BELIEVE THEY GAVE HIM BACK AN EYEBALL JESUS CHRIST IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE THOR RAGNORAK JUST SAY SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO FUCKING

VEHICLE FOR AUTHORITARIANISM, NOTHING IS ALLOWED TO CHANGE, FUCK YOUR CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT I GOT MINE

FUCK

- i do enjoy that thor is now science fiction rather than fantasy, i don't think anybody knew what to do with fantasy cos fantasy is again, ultimately about conservatism and the status quo. so i do like that we're embracing the new and boundless for whatever that's worth.

- marvel is a cesspool of toxic masculinity. at no point are characters allowed to actually feel anything because weakness is uncool i guess and therefore unmanful. like thor lost ALL OF HIS PEOPLE. fucking ALL of them. he watched his brother die in order to save him. he is not allowed a single fucking response of mourning. i don't care if he's pushing it back because revenge or whatever, this is the sort of grief that rules you, which will bring all your load bearing structures down to heel, and they let him do nothing; he does not even rage. perfect control. smooth witticisms. why. why aren't we allowed to see his sadness?

- yo i can't believe red skull is a scifi villain now lol space nazis for real

- OH MY GOD THEY WASHED BUCKY'S WIG AND IT LOOKS SO BAD

- michael b jordan was right btw wakanda is complicit in africa's exploitation

- i do LIKE black panther i guess in the way you technically like that cousin you met once when you were like 9 and never saw again?

i like how we have here in wakanda the sears tower (chicago), the batman building (nashville), and the gherkin (london)

- ok but like, presumably not a death cult super technologically advanced wakandans who are deffo made of human flesh and human blood still arm their people with spears

i mean unless wakanda is also a death cult

why is this chicks entire fucking face cgi'd she looks like a fucking cut scene video game character

- oh ok they have LASER spears, ok

so then why did they give bucky a fucking gun

- what is bucky supposed to be able to contribute here exactly, like fucking, again, he's spycraft isn't he? he's a one man, dead of night, operation go loud and then immediately silent kinda operation. why do they have him on the front lines of a fucking lock-step formation battle??

- "it will be the noblest ending in history" WHAT, FIRST COUNTRY TO EVER BE OVERUN BY ALIEN JACKALS??

- stormbreaker is just leviathan axe, somebody's said this already right

- omfg i'm so glad they're finally acknowledging that thor is OP as fuck and does not belong amongst the fucking squabbles of earth

-"titan was like most planets, too many mouths to feed not enough to go around, so i proposed a plan, dispassionate to rich and poor alike" JUST SAY YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE MCU. YOU CANNOT HAVE RICH AND POOR, YOU CANNOT HAVE DISPARITY, YOU CANNOT HAVE SOME WITH TOO MUCH AND OTHERS WITH NOT ENOUGH AND CALL IT EXTINCTION. THAT IS NOT A QUESTION OF OVERTAXED RESOURCES THAT IS A QUESTION OF RESOURCE FUCKING MANAGEMENT. IT IS AN ARTIFICIAL CRISIS IF THERE EXISTS ENOUGH TO GO AROUND BUT SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST HOARDING IT THAT'S WHEN YOU KILL THOSE PEOPLE AND TAKE THEIR SHARE. KILLING HALF THE PEOPLE IS THE KIND OF FUCKING SOLUTION TO INEQUALITY THAT RICH PEOPLE COME UP WITH

GOD. ITS LIKE NONE OF YOU EVER READ

-you've got the big fucking boss in an ambush AND YOU ATTACK HIM WITH A MAGIC SWORD STEVEN STRANGE?????

THIS FRANCHISE HAS NO IDEA HOW TO UTILISE MAGIC USERS FUCKING HELL

- when will somebody please utilise ironman like the one man artillery he fucking is WHY IS HE FIGHTING WITH HIS STUPID FISTS HE IS LITERALLY ONE CONTINUOUS CARPET BOMB JUST USE HIM THAT WAY

cut of his arm CUT OFF HIS ARM YOU BLOODLESS SPINELESS USELESS FUCKING CUNTS . this is a manufactured crisis, KIND OF LIKE THE ONES THANOS LIKES I GUESS LOL

- dr strange could have very easily prevented or stopped quill from punching thanos but he didn't cos i guess even the movie forgets steven strange exists sometimes

- i like that the shield around wakanda has the same weakness as a poorly constructed chicken coop -- you always build into the ground a couple feet to stop the diggers man, come on, what is this, your first energy shield?

- oh disgusting, a girl boss moment. whatever you're all fascists.

- nobody adores martial might like fascists do fucking change my mind

- " avengers: not one person in this fucking cast is able to stomach ANY AMOUNT of personal sacrifice" more like

- "why did you give away the time stone?" "we are in the endgame" THAT'S NOT AN ANSWER THAT'S A FUCKING MOVIE TEASER FUCK YOU

- why didn't strange just trap thanos in a timeloop again? we've already established that is a perfectly acceptable way to deal with planetary annihilation. IS IT POSSIBLY BECAUSE NOBODY ON THIS WRITING STAFF KNOWS HOW TO DEAL WITH MAGIC

- THOR OP BLIZZARD PLS NERF

-CAPTAIN MARVEL SERIOUSLY THAT'S WHO YOU'RE GONNA SEND YOUR LAST PAGE TO JESUS FUCKING DISGUSTING

[pokefarm-q]

firewolf1117 refuckingceipts (it's all been removed now but people archived it)

this bitch:

When you say “All Cops are”, here’s what you’re really saying:

All Blacks are Criminals All Mexicans are Illegal All Americans are stupid, fat, and lazy All Rape Victims are liars All Suicide Posters are Attention Seekers All Muslims are Terrorists All LGBT deserve to die

Are you outraged yet? GOOD.It means I touched a nerve.

You would never, ever, EVER say those things about those groups of people because you KNOW that it’s not true, even in the slightest. There are so very very FEW Cops who are actually corrupt and using their power and position inappropriately.

So what gives you the right to say the same about cops? COPS! Who are practically SOLDIERS! EVERY DAY their family lives with the fear that they won’t return. EVERY DAY they put their lives in danger to PROTECT you! They, as a whole, deserve your RESPECT!!! MOST ALL “Brutality” cases are from the CRIMINAL fighting, disrespecting, grabbing a weapon, etc. If you’d just COOPERATE AND BE RESPECTFUL you’d be treated FAIRLY!! Cops don’t have the time to sort things out. Their snap second decisions PROTECT them AND nearby Civilians. You can’t possibly understand the FEAR AND TERROR they hold EVERY SECOND of EVERY DAY! So don’t you DARE judge them for mistakes.

and here’s the response of one brave user, this legend, this badass mofo, who replied to their bullshittery and got banned for a day for posting in the whiny crybaby bitch’s journal without permission:

Replying to this, because FireWolf1117 is intentionally spreading misinformation and hate. I don’t care if the staff is going to tell me off for this — for once, I care a little more about setting this right than following the Journal rule.

First of all, United States cops are legally not required to save civilians. It’s not considered unconstitutional, according to the case Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981). To keep it short, cops can literally see crimes being committed and decide not to intervene if they feel like it. This has been quite common among police departments if you (objectively) compare the police’s actions during BLM protests and anti-lockdown protests.

Anyways, let’s get to your generalizing logic. I have to agree with you on one thing: generalizing is bad. No group should be generalized because of some rotten apples. However, this doesn’t count for cops. Here’s why not:

The police force isn’t a marginalized group. A police officer is a profession. A job. Cops are public servants. They work for the state, for the civilians. And that’s why they need to be held accountable for any misconduct they commit. Which is, unfortunately, is objectively not the case. According to statistics from https://mappingpoliceviolence.org, 99% of United States cops who have killed citizens have not been criminally charged, because police departments literally protect officers from getting tried. Of the 750+ shootings done by police this year, only four cops are getting tried. So much for “there are only a few corrupt ones”. Black people are also way less likely to carry a weapon compared to White people, while Black people get shot by cops thrice as likely.

What’s more, because the police force is a profession, people can quit being a police officer. This doesn’t count for most of the groups you mentioned: Black people can’t stop being Black, Mexican people can’t stop being Mexican, Americans can’t stop being American (also you including Americans kinda makes you look embarrassing lol no offense), rape victims can’t be ‘unraped’, Muslims (or even just Arabs in general) can’t stop being perceived as Muslims (even Sikhs get seen as Muslims nowadays…) and LGBTI+ people can’t stop being LGBTI+ (unless they discover they’re not). Police officers can literally take their uniform off and be perceived as normal human beings. As soon as they are on duty and take on their uniform, a huge responsibility awaits them. A responsibility that has been abused by them to the point that marginalized people will hesitate before calling the police, fearing that the police will either come too late or escalate the situation. Cops aren’t endangering their own lives. They’re endangering the lives of those they’re supposed to protect. No good person would shoot a man in his back SEVEN times for being 'aggressive’. No good person who claims to protect and serve would kneel on someone’s neck for eight minutes while that person was cooperating with them. No good person would shoot a completely innocent woman in her sleep because they raided the wrong house. (BTW, Breonna Taylor’s murderers are still walking free as if nothing happened.) No good person would shoot a 12-year-old kid for having a toy gun. No good person would kill a man in his car for… picking up his ID to show it to the cop. Just because you cooperate, doesn’t mean that you’re safe.

Your logic is clearly flawed, because you judge cops on their personality, and not on the bigger picture. All cops are “bastards” not because we see all of them are evil killing machines that shoot people on sight — it’s because they contribute to an oppressive system, whether it’s directly or indirectly. It’s more than 'just a few cops’: the government wants bad laws to be enforced, the prison system is getting used as a business model, minorities are forced to live in poor socioeconomic areas on purpose BY the government, gentrification exists, multi billionnaires are exploiting low-class working people even more, there’s a damn pandemic that’s not being taken seriously… And guess who’s at the front of keeping the fragile capitalist system intact? Right. The police. The face of the government, that’s laughing at Black people, people of color, disabled people, LGBTI+ people… No good cop exists, even if they’re nice to everyone. Good cops who speak out against the abuse of other cops get fired, because the police departments don’t want the truth to be exposed. If you truly want to be someone who saves people’s lives, then stop being a cop and get a better job, like a firefighter, an EMT, a psychologist… Anything that isn’t completely corrupted.

Even during the recent BLM protests, cops are showing off their power. They escalate situations without provocation more times than BLM protesters start shit. Also cops are committing literal war crimes by using tear gas and other chemicals against civilians (IT GOES AGAINST THE GENEVA CONVENTION FOR FUCK’S SAKE). Not so protective now, aren’t they? The only thing BLM protesters have hurt are cops’ ego. Trust me, protesters being a little mean to cops won’t ever be as bad as all the innocent lives cops have taken and covered up.

I want to go on forever, because I have a lot more to say (such as why “All Lives Matter” is reactionary and racist, how the police force was formed in the first place, how the effects of slavery and colonialism are still being felt by Black people to this day, how and why 'riots’ can be 'justified’), but I’ll leave it at this. At least I got to give counterarguments to your points. Take care and educate yourself! (Tip: stop watching FOX News and Infowars if you do that, you’re going to develop brainrot! ;__;)

ladies and gentleman of the jury, as you can see, this user not only came into this argument prepared, but they were civil and had links (that aren’t links now oop soz). they gave this bitch plenty of opportunity to learn and grow from this without attacking her.

but your bet your ASS the poor little white girl went crying to her daddy about people ATTACKING HER and BULLYING HER FOR HER OPINIONS!!!! she uses her anxiety as a get out of jail free card CONSTANTLY, bitching and moaning about how, and these are directly quoting from HER own journal:

MAY 29, 2020

I log in to this game to have fun and escape the stresses and problems of real life. I do NOT want to be going about my business, and see “BLM” in someone’s Trainer Card, and have to deal with a surge of overwhelming emotions (whether positive or negative). I simply cannot handle the Anxiety that results.

This is a GAME site. NOT a place to share your political, racial or other stances. PLEASE keep ALL such topics OFF this site. I understand you want to talk about them, and that’s fine. But out of respect for people like me, can you please do so in private with the people you know WANT to see and discuss it?

just admit you’re racist dude.

She uses CSS. SHE CAN FUCKING HIDE OTHER PEOPLE’S FUCKING CARDS. PEOPLE CAN TALK ABOUT WHATEVER THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE ON THEIR OWN DAMN PAGES. THE WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU.

Also! You know she only put “whether positive or negative” to quell any hate she might’ve gotten because ANXIETY is usually not a positive emotion. There’s not even a positive CONNOTATION. and she hopes to be published by the end of the year lmfao yeah right.

and then, on JUNE 16, 2020:

I WAS going to make a post in response to the most recent announcement, but now I’m just too frazzled and upset about it. Still making a post. I’ll just be posting it off site so I can say things how I want to say them, and so I don’t have any in game repercussions.

Honestly, though. I log onto this site to ESCAPE reality. I do NOT want to see ANY stance on ANY “cause” ANYWHERE. NONE OF IT BELONGS HERE. NONE!!!! Because of this “decision”, I’m going to make one of my own. I am gone from this site until current affairs are resolved. Heck. Perhaps even after. I will NOT be a part of a site that allows…Ugh. NOT going to get into this here.

but like… she came back a month later lmao

OH AND!! Earlier this month on AUGUST 6, 2020 she posted this!

It really breaks my heart seeing derogatory remarks against Cops in people’s Trainer Cards. It’s upsetting that you feel that way, and even more so that you make your hatred so vehemently known.

Personally, I don’t know why any of those Cop comments are allowed. If someone had something in their Trainer Card against Religion, LGBT, or POC, I guarantee that statement would be removed. So why is it alright for people to make hateful, vile, disgusting remarks against Cops? Despite it being someone’s personal opinion, it’s still Hate Speech, and shouldn’t be allowed.

this bitch is part of the lgbt+ community. she’s part of a marginalized group.

The “"derogatory remarks”“ she’s talking about? #AllCopsAreComplicit #CopsStinky #AllCopsSuck

which brings us back to Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen! Her equating #AllCopsAreComplicit and #CopsSTINKY to "All LGBT deserve to die” and a Shitton of other stereotypes. Well fucking done.

Despite bitching and moaning about I DONT WANNA SEE ANYTHING, despite there being ways she can fucking hide it HER DAMN SELF she chooses instead to bitch piss moan bitch piss moan bitch piss and fucking moan and then when someone calls her out on her genuinely harmful bullshit, pulls the wounded gazelle gambit, claims she’s being attacked, and puts in her Card that “anxiety attack! again! waaaah!” like anyone has a shred of sympathy left for her ugly ass. She can’t handle looking like the bad guy so she plays the anxiety card. She bitches about never having any friends, only depression and anxiety, and it’s like bitch no fucking wonder.

Both the top posts have been taken down, but the user who responded to her has gotten nothing but love for her mad courage in saying something when no one else dared.

Firefurrywolf made a halfassed apology (August 30, 2020) which I won’t go into but there is one line that sticks out to me because it’s such a goddamn lie:

When I state my opinion, I usually do so with grace and eloquence. I did not think about my actions this time.

… do you?

This is a GAME site. NOT a place to share your political, racial or other stances. PLEASE keep ALL such topics OFF this site.

Do you… really?

I log onto this site to ESCAPE reality. I do NOT want to see ANY stance on ANY “cause” ANYWHERE. NONE OF IT BELONGS HERE. NONE!!!!

I don’t think so. You vile, disgusting, manipulative, obnoxious, PRETENTIOUS, racist, terfy bitch.

Oh, before I forget, yeah. Terf. She looks like one too. All over her insta. Gross.

NOVEMBER 19, 2019

My response to a LGBT post in one of my writing groups.

I don’t know most of these terms within the community. Don’t really care to know either, cause your preferences won’t change my feelings about who you are. I probably should, though, cause the Its and Xes really confuse me.

I knew I was a Demi-Ace for a few years. I’ve also known that I was Poly since I was early teens. But I’m also attracted to beauty and care more about who you are as a person than your preferences, so apparently I’m Panaesthetic as well?

Also firm believer of “True Love Knows NO Bounds”

Her journal got moved to 18+ because there was a post talking about sex. Might’ve even been alluding to rape. On a CHILDREN’S SITE. In her CHILD-FRIENDLY journal. It sat there for at least two months. TWO MONTHS. But I will not be posting that here, but it’s still there if anyone wants to snoop. All of this is public. Well, it was. But at least minors won’t be exposed to this histrionic little whiny whitey who is absolutely drowning in her white privilege.

Just because she changed her pfp from her face to a shitty drawing she did doesn’t hide the fact that she’s white, and the worst kind of person with little to no actual coping skills.

She claims to be an artist, a writer, all this, blah blah, but then why doesn’t she channel any of it into her work so she can get fucking better at them? She says she’s working on losing weight, so do that. Instead of shrieking and stomping your fucking feet like a toddler at the peak of their terrible two’s, throwing tantrum after fucking tantrum on a CHILDREN’S SITE about your shitty stances, go for a fucking walk. Punch a fucking punching bag. Literally anything else. You’ll feel better, you’ll lose weight faster, you’d be keeping your vitriol to your damn self and no one will “attack” you.

“Are you ourtraged yet? GOOD. It means I touched a nerve!”

She fucking wanted a reaction. But couldn’t handle it when she actually got one. I’m so embarrassed. Grow some fucking thicker skin, you’re older than I am. Grow a pair and shut the goddamn FUCK up.

For now, the evil is defeated, and I rest my fucking case.

[honhonluigi]

I say we take a second to appreciate the positive. The writing of DR is a shitshow, yeah, but what are your favorite things about the series?

Honestly, I like some of the writing in DR. If it was all just terrible writing, then I wouldn’t play the game. It’d be the anime all over again-- nothing but terrible writing and horrible characters and I’d just avoid it like the plague. Nah for the most part, I think the writing is pretty good. The plot is a really interesting concept. The lore about Despair is fucking stupid, but the backstory of Hope’s Peak is good, and the Kamukura Project is great. The fact that Hope’s Peak’s own hubris and cruelty and ambition is the thing that eventually brought them down is a really good twist. The individual characters are written well, including the way they interact with each other. There’s just a few characters/relationships that are written horribly that stick out: Maki, Chiaki, KaiMaki, Junko, Shuichi. And they stick out because they’re written so horribly compared to the rest of the game. The same writing is also responsible for characters like Nagito, Hajime, Izuru, Kokichi, Kaede, Celeste, Kyoko, Makoto...And that just baffles me. How can you write characters that are so fun and interesting, and then shove these horrible Mary-Sues down my throat? (Fanservice! That’s how! Fanservice is the devil of all fictional media!) 

But my favorite things about the series-- 

1. The characters. This is DR’s absolute strongest point. If I don’t like the characters in something, then I’m never going to enjoy it, no matter how interesting the lore or plot is. I love the majority of characters in DR, and the ones that I hate vehemently are the ones that actively strive to ruin the story with their awful writing. Other than them, the rest of the characters are good. They’re consistent, they’re solid, they’re interesting, they’re fun to learn about and interact with (even if their backstories are wtf???? sometimes). I hate Byakuya, but he’s written well. He makes sense as a character and he serves his function. Same with Hiyoko. So I still don’t view those characters as ‘negatives’, because they’re well-written, and I don’t dread it when they speak. They’re fun to hate. Every piece of media needs someone you can hate. Most of the characters are super fun and interesting. I love seeing content of them, hearing them speak, learning more about them, etc. I would never have played the games if I hadn’t liked the characters. Plus, I find more and more that I like large-cast media because there’s so much more opportunity for character. You get such a large ensemble of different personalities and it’s fun. Plus, if you have a bunch of completely different people, the odds are more likely that I’ll love at least one. Whereas in most main-character + love interest focused media, I hate both the MC and LI, and so the whole thing is ruined for me. In large-cast media, I can hate the main character and/or their lover, but love the rest of the cast and go through it for them. 

2. The plot. The backstory and plot surrounding Despair is the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard. Completely unbelievable. Outlandish. Ridiculous. But, the plot as a concept is really fun. The idea of the killing game and being trapped there and having nothing to do but make friends or kill each other leaves so much room for character growth and fun drama. It’s like those “mysterious mansion dinner party murder” books but better. And the backstory and plot surrounding Hope’s Peak is actually fairly decent, and interesting, if you take the ‘Despair’ bits away from it. 

3. The moral ambiguity. This might not be DR’s strongest appeal to people, but it is the most important thing to me in any piece of media. I need moral ambiguity. I can’t get interested in a piece of fiction if there’s absolutely no sense of moral ambiguity at all. If it’s just black-and-white “good hero defeats evil villain”! Then I’m going to be bored and angry and I’ll never read/watch/play it. There’s nothing I despise more than black-and-white hero stories. I need moral ambiguity. It’s a theme that I prize above everything else in fiction. I need my fiction to reflect the greyness of the real world. That real people aren’t good or evil, they just have motives and they act on those motives according to their personalities. That no one is good or bad; bad people do good things, good people do bad things, etc. DR2 is literally that theme, tied up in a nice little bow. None of the characters are ‘good people’ after Despair (except the little Mary Sue!!!), but they all are shown to be worthy of life and friendship and love anyway. They show that they can do good things as well. Plus, there’s the theme of all the murders being “for good reasons”, and you have to decide for yourself if that’s true or not. And the question of “are they really evil for committing a murder when they were forced to by threat of Monokuma?” Hajime is the closest thing we get to a morally ambiguous protag, and that’s why I love him. Makoto is definitely a ‘good person’, but his character isn’t used to preach some moral theme about goodness. He falls in love with Kyoko, who’s the second shadiest person in the cast. And he’s best friends with Sayaka, who is the shadiest person in the cast. And he defends them, even when they do bad things. This theme right here, about being allowed to do bad things and have it be recognized by the writing and other characters, is what separated Sayaka from Chiaki for me. It’s why I like one and hate the other. 

This is also why I hate Shuichi. His character is used for nothing but toting around this moral stance of Kaito’s black-and-white good-and-evil “belief”. Shuichi’s character arc outright destroys any of the moral ambiguity in DRV3. And this is a huge part of why I hate Junko. She’s just a purely evil villain with no other personality and no motives. She has no opportunity to show ANY good traits at all. She’s just pure evil, for evil’s sake. Literally. And honestly, this also serves to make Chiaki more obnoxious too. Being the only faultless one in a cast full of ex-terrorists? Fucking lame. And the writing portrays her like she’s a perfect angel hero, who never does anything wrong (even though she does a lot of selfish, shitty things in the game and she’s a horrible person too), because of course! you’re not allowed to hate Mary Sues. There can’t be any such thing as flaws in a Mary Sue, and they can’t do anything wrong, otherwise you’d have a valid reason to hate them! And you can’t hate them because they’re the best character!!!! Anyway, you might be thinking “how come you hate Maki? She’s the definition of moral ambiguity!” Nah bro, she’s the definition of denial and hypocrisy. She and everyone else ignore and deny and cover up all the bad shit she does and insist that she’s a “good person” for absolutely no reason. She never shows any good sides. Then she and everyone else go around talking down to and hating every other cast member for being “bad” when idk?? They’re not fucking serial killers so I’d say they’re better off. And we’re not allowed to acknowledge her flaws or hate her for them, because it’s all part of her tragic backstory!!! 

[judelaw]

The deleted yonvers school scene (that's what I'm calling it now) is giving me thor & loki deleted scene vibes. Loki's deleted scenes were cut because it would have made him less of a villian and more of an antihero, and I think that they cut this scene from CM for the exact same reason

I don’t know anything about Marvel so I can’t compare it to that and while I agree that if not simply to cut down the time the scene was removed to not make him look too nice (even though he still is in the film lmao) but I don’t think Marvel intended to make him look like a villain and rather always meant for him to be an antagonist? The villain is clearly the Supreme Intelligence and perhaps Ronan if you want (though I feel like he isn’t important enough for that in the film) but mainly the S.I.

Yon-Rogg is a villain in the comics but film Yon-Rogg literally only shares the name with him. Ironically he’s pretty much what Mar-Vell was meant to be: he’s kinda responsible for her getting her powers and guided her for six years, being her best friend and mentor etc. Children will probably see him as a villain, yes, but it’s pretty clear to adults he’s an antagonist - unless they want to be ignorant. Talos does as much awful shit as him yet he no one would argue he’s the bad guy and so isn’t Yon-Rogg. He’s as much, if not more, a victim of the manipulation and propaganda by the S.I. as Carol. And just as her (when she was still in the Starforce) believes he does the right thing and is a hero (which once again gets confirmed in the deleted scene but it’s obvious in the film too).

He absolutely hates the Skrulls, yes, like every Kree. But that doesn’t make him a villain; he thinks they are terrorists because that’s what they got taught and that it’s his responsibility to protect not only the Kree but weaker nations as well.

If Marvel truly wanted to make us believe he is some evil mustache twirling villain they would have just let him shoot the Torfans and Carol instead of making him try to avoid killing anyone who isn’t a Skrull. The lying is literally the only bad thing he ever does to Carol (except for shooting Mar-Vell’s ship I guess but that wasn’t against her, she just happened to be in the ship as well which is Mar-Vell’s fault not his). He is nothing but kind to her, supports her, defends her against his own team, and even compliments her when she just killed like 100 of his people. He doesn’t even want to fight her in the end. They could have just made him an abusive asshole or, if you want to make the ~twist~ more shocking, at least simply passive towards her but not as sweet and caring as he is.If Marvel actually meant for him to be a villain they wouldn’t have an entire section in the art book dedicated to the propaganda the Kree are surrounded with on a daily basis, gave us even more cute interactions between him and Vers and an inside of what he is thinking in the books, and not only wouldn’t have let Jude say how much Yon-Rogg really cares about her as a person but especially not print the entire quote in their Official Movie Special book.

As I said I don’t know anything about Marvel but assuming they are not completely 100% incompetend, they never meant to make Yon-Rogg look like a villain. It’s not their fault some people just never paid attention in school and/or don’t know how to use Google and therefore don’t understand the difference between a villain and antagonist.

[douxreviews]

The Magicians - ‘The Serpent’ Review

“Some God of War. He only liked them when they were too weak to fight.”

Library’s become ever-more fascist, Alice splits in two, and big revelations are made, but not on-screen.

I’m going to be honest: I didn’t feel great about this episode after I watched it the first time. And then I watched it again and found I was better able to understand it and appreciate some of what it was exploring. But I still don’t feel great about it.

Here’s what I liked: the Alice on Alice conflict. From the moment she split I was excited. It’s like taking Gestalt’s empty chair technique and making it literal, and the psychology student in me was living for it. Even better, the execution was pretty great. It allowed the show to directly with Alice’s main conflict, which is that there was a part of her pre-niffin who was sheepish and kind and scared, there was a part of her post-niffin who was arrogant and dominant and selfish, and each part hates the other, blames the other for everything that’s gone wrong. But the thing is, they’re all Alice and all to blame. And she needs them both. She needs to be selfish to survive, but she needs to be cautious to avoid blowing stuff up. Both her arrogance and her fear can put everyone in danger. But she can’t lock either part of herself up and manage, and even if she could she wouldn’t be able to survive long.

It’s an interesting issue to explore, because it’s probably come up for a lot of us. It would be nice to be able to erase or at least lock up the parts of ourselves we don’t like. It’s harder to admit we’re more complicated than that and the whole of ourselves is the source of our problems and our triumphs. So we need to learn to better the parts of ourselves we don’t like, to see the good and bad in them, and, at the least, try to cope with them. But what I like best about what the show does with Alice is that she doesn’t really figure out how to do any of this. Both parts of herself work together to finish the spell, but that’s not because of any real epiphany. She (they?) just realized she didn’t have much of a choice. Alice still has a lot of growing to do. And, really, don’t we all?

While this is going on Zelda learns more about the Library—namely, that it’s devolving into a fascist regime. I didn’t appreciate this plot much the first time around. I thought Zelda finally realized the Library was corrupt after the Library kept the killer deweys in circulation and that the revelation that Everett was her mentor was revealed too late. I still somewhat feel that way. But after my rewatch I do feel more interested in the Library’s continued corruption. Throughout the season we’ve seen this grow slowly. They were meant to keep everyone safe by carefully distributing magic. But they unfairly favored trained magicians over hedges, manipulated people into the Library in exchange for magic and education, rewarded people who posted magic-monitors in their homes, the list goes on. Manipulation, indoctrination, invasion of privacy. And finally, faking a terrorist organization to create fear. The Library wants power, it will do anything to fuel that.

This whole idea of obtaining power by any means necessary isn’t new. What’s more interesting is seeing people why people might trust the Library, believe in its cause and believe that cause is just or that helping it would be a good option (Zelda, Fogg). Seeing Fogg struggle with when to cut ties with the Library, whether that would help or hurt, if that’s cowardly or selfish. Seeing Kady and Alice forced to make ethically-questionable decisions while trying to help those harmed by the Library (using Harriet’s vulnerable position as leverage). And seeing the harm that not only fear, but also apathy can have. When considering what to do about the terrorists, Kaylee Frye the Librarian asks if the terrorists are even the Library’s problem. She doesn’t care about the safety of the hedges, it’s likely few librarians do, and that makes her much more likely to go along with whatever the Library has planned regardless of the cost. And then there’s fear itself. While remembering The Monster’s destruction, The Monster insults Enyalius for going after souls too weak to fight. The same can be said for Everret. It seems Everret fears the hedges—he needs their submission to raise the Library up—and he uses fear to keep them down. And maybe this is—in part—what war is.

In Fillory, things go down with the prophecy. But also, not really. Fen doesn’t want to overthrow Margo, Margo has her eyes on Fen for all of a minute before asking (forcing) Fen to dethrone her so she can go off and find something to save Eliot. It’s all resolved pretty easily. That said, I did appreciate that Margo and Fen didn’t act out of character or that just enough information wasn’t kept from them to make things more dramatic. But I just didn’t understand why Margo had to ask Fen to dethrone her at all. The only explanation I can think of is that Margo had to leave Fillory to go to the desert, and that’s not allowed for kings. But I don’t remember being told the desert was out of the realm. And I also don’t know that leaving Fillory is still not allowed. Ember and Umber are dead and Fillory is a quasi-democracy, do the rules even apply anymore? All this confusion messed with the story’s emotional beats. Not entirely—I’m not a monster—I still felt for Margo losing the crown she worked so hard to get for the realm she cares so much for. But enough.

Finally, there was The Monster stuff. There, we almost get information about Julia’s “transition”, but then we don’t; Alice finds the binder but doesn’t open it up. And then we almost get information about The Monster’s plan, but then we don’t; Eliot tells Penny 23 the plan off-screen, Penny 23’s just about to tell Julia and Quentin the plan when the show ends. It all kind of feels cheap, especially the final cliffhanger. The Magicians has ended episodes—entire seasons—in cliffhangers before without it feeling cheap. But something about the multitude of not-reveals, the show looking away at just the right moment, and ending the episode almost mid-scene was too much. I wish the episode ended right after Margo’s last moment instead. Seeing her walk out to the desert listening to 80s music would be a fitting lead-in to the musical in the desert. And it would’ve felt way less cheap.

Bits and Pieces

-- Kady got to use her mad punching skills, which elevates any episode. Sucks for Alice, though.

-- Zelda gets a back-story! She was a hedge, her mom died, she was found in an ally. Zelda’s right, it does sound dramatic.

-- It was great seeing Harriet and getting her back, but I wish she and Marlee Matlin had more to do than just struggle to communicate with Alice while Alice deals with her stuff and share new plot information. Hopefully she’ll be on again.

-- I feel (maybe unreasonably) defensive of Julia. Zelda says she trusts Kady because she was able to try to understand the woman responsible for Penny 40s death (which must be Julia, right?). But that wasn’t really Julia’s fault, both Kady and Penny 40 agreed to help take down Reynard, Julia never asked Penny 40 to go down to the poison room, and it’s not her fault Reynard was evil and raped her and killed most everyone else. And, even so, both Julia and Kady summoned OLU in the first place. It just felt victim-blamey to me and I didn’t appreciate it from Zelda (I wouldn’t from anyone). End of rant.

-- Speaking of Julia, I found it interesting seeing how quickly she offered to shift the focus from her god problems to The Monster problems. Her story has been moving along pretty slowly (probably because if she powered up she would be hard to keep on the show) and maybe this an in-show reason why. Her issues always fall second to The Monster or even the Library issues, because those are life and death.

-- I also liked seeing Penny 23 advocate for Julia (suggesting they try to research the binder while working on The Monster stuff) and Julia advocate for Penny 23 (trying to keep him from putting himself in danger with The Monster, etc.). And they almost kissed! But The Monster cock-blocked them. Maybe now that he’s alive they’ll have that dinner he promised her.

-- Margo found out Eliot’s alive! And immediately had sex with Josh. Fen’s facial expressions were amazing.

The Monster: “Are you aware that there is big money for psychics who are in actually big giant fakers?” I actually did know that, Monster! John Oliver just did a whole segment about it.

Ru, Queen of West Loria: “During the feast you will order the castle doors open where upon my men will enter and chop off—” Fen: “Enjoy the desert course.” Ru: “Did you really think I was gonna say that?” Fen: “Hoped.”

Margo, about Fen: “That false-toed bitch!”

Margo: “Wait! I curse Fen’s name, but if I were you I’d listen to her! And wait! Be nice to her! Your grandkid’s grandkids will fear me!”

Three out of four fascist libraries.

Edit: Thanks to Percysowner and late-ish night reflections I now understand that Margo needed to be dethroned so the Fillory-hating people of The Foremost would agree meet with her.

Ariel Williams

[gws201-blog]

Graduating High School.. Nine Months Pregnant?

20 Pop Culture Stereotypes We Must Debunk (Because    They’re Fucking Stupid)

1.   Race determines class

“White people were equated with richness and land” (Williams, pg. 431). Who’s to say you can’t be a person of color and also be loaded?! Sure, the Real Housewives have women of color who are ~loaded~, but the majority of shows depict non-white individuals and families as poor. Have you ever seen the TV show Everybody Hates Chris? The whole show is about a poor, African American family living in Brooklyn, NY—constantly worrying about money. Their father, Julius, is even so tight on money that he kept a picture of himself in his own wallet to keep as a reminder to not spend money. Shows like this may be hilarious, but continual negative portrayal of race and class hurts those who are included in the stereotype.

2.   Race determines education level

“Members of society are judged, and succeed or fail, measured against the characteristics that are held by those privileged (Wildman & Davis, pg. 111).” Why do we put less pressure on some people to go to college, and others are just assumed they’ll go, or maybe it’s assumed they’ll never even finish high school? How can we look at a 16-year-old black high school student and compare them to a white 16-year-old student, and think that we have enough information to label one of them as academically frivolous, and one as a failure?

3.   Race determines actions

Being white will never make you an angel, being a person of color will never make you dangerous. The media constantly portrays black people to carry guns, Middle Eastern people to be terrorists, and white people to be trashy, yet, more responsible with guns…? However, according to Chris Wilson with Time, mass shootings from the past 35 years were overwhelmingly white, male shooters. So why do we allow the media to make it look as if the white man is innocent in shows and movies, when in reality they’re the ones who are dangerous?  

4.   Race determines where you live

Similar to race determining your class, race also doesn’t dictate where someone lives. For example, in the show Shameless, a white family is actually living in the poor, “ghetto” area of town that they refer to as the South Side. However, back to Everybody Hates Chris as I mentioned prior, TV loves to show people of color living in shitty places as if it’s normal. We can’t let the world tell us you must live within constraint or restriction because of your skin; it’s 2018—love thy [literal] neighbor, dammit.

5.   Class determines your future, or lack-there-of

“Everyone knows that money brings privilege” (Wildman and Davis, pg. 111). Sure, it can. I won’t pretend that money doesn’t make it easier to afford things such as college. People act like student loans don’t exist, that grants don’t exist, FAFSA (even though they suck, but it’s whatever), loans, etc. do.not.exist.But these are excuses. Millions of students who are set up for failure because they can’t afford college or because their parent’s don’t have the money, but that doesn’t stop them.

6.   Class determines your likelihood to end up an addict

Face it—TV either depicts drug/alcohol addicts as either extremely poor, or extremely rich. No one ever seems to care about a middle-class addict. What’s worse though, assuming that being rich or poor increases your likelihood to be an addict, or by not paying as much attention to addicts who are neither of these classes. The rich have money to blow on, well, blow…. and the poor just somehow are expected to be more likely to hang out with the wrong crowd, try a drug once, and then do everything and anything they can in order to get money to keep on getting the drug—none of this is something that we should stereotype.

7.   Class determines the likelihood you’ll get pregnant at a young age

Your class and status don’t determine when you have sex and if you’re using protection, your decision to have sex without protection or situations of birth control failure are how you get pregnant at a young age (I’m leaving out situations of rape from this so I don’t write a novel). According to studies done by the US National Library of Medicine, socioeconomic status doesn’t determine the age you get pregnant at, but may determine to different pregnancy and birth complications due to lack of money to afford things such as healthcare, diapers, medicine, etc.

8.   Being feminine means you’re gay

“The new man is non-sexist, believes in gender equality and relates to women as human beings” (Milestone and Meyer, pg. 116). Apparently, the ‘new man’ is seen as a gay man to many. What even is femininity? A guy isn’t gay for wearing pink, giving a shit about how he looks, having female friends, or for his hobbies—I personally appreciate a man who takes care of his appearance, shows his feelings, ya know, showers and stuff. Kidding—I promise I have higher standards than a guy just showering. But anyways, what I’m trying to say is that none of these surface-level features give anyindication that a man is gay. And if he is, who even cares?!

9.   Being masculine means you’re a lesbian

*See #8*

Kidding, but really. Stop judging people based on how they look, dress, act, whatever. 

10.Gay people are promiscuous

First off, not your business. Second, you can just as easily say something dumb like that girls in sororities are sluts (trust me, I was in one and I got this comment a handful of times). I don’t even know how this stereotype came about, but I know that my gay friends joke about it al the time. If your gay friends make a joke about it, cool, it’s funny to talk about his “dick appointment”, but it’s different between a good friend making a statement, and you being an assumptive asshole.

11.Gay people have HIV aids

Every commercial I’ve ever seen on TV about medical treatment for HIV only show gay couples. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, gay and bisexual males are more susceptible to getting HIV because they tend to have anal sex, sometimes unprotected, which then puts them at serious risk. Sorry not sorry, but these commercials can’t just pretend straight couples don’t have unprotected anal sex. HIV doesn’t discriminate, so neither should we.

12.Gay people can’t have children

I don’t even know where to begin with this one. How do women who can’t conceive have children? Adoption, IVF, surrogate—there’s tons of options, and these are options for gay couples as well.

13.Gay people can’t be religious

There’s this notion that gay people must not believe in God because some people believe that homosexuality is a sin—even though God definitely says to love thy neighbor and that he loves all of his children, aka all of us. Shows such as Modern Familyare great examples of this. A gay couple, Cam and his husband Mitchell, attend church and even take their adopted daughter, Lily, with them. Sure they live in California where there’s more acceptance, but the fact that the show even displays this is great for ending this stereotype by showing it as normalized.  

14.Teen moms won’t graduate

I talk about Shamelessand Teen Moma lot, but hey, they’re perfect examples for a lot of these stereotypes. Shamelesssupports this stereotype by showing a 15 year old named Debbie who gets pregnant and drops out of high school. !!!BUT!!! Debbie eventually gets her GED and becomes a certified welder. Hell yeah. Teen Mom, which is a reality show, rarely shows teens graduating or getting any type of certification to better their education. Girls who are in similar situations may see this and be like “well shit, if they didn’t finish school and they’re fine, I’m not finishing either!”— then the girl and her baby daddy end up relying on their parents for everything. I graduated with a girl who was nine months pregnant, literally about to pop, and now she’s a young mom, yes, but she got to go on and attend college and is almost finished with her degree. By supporting pregnant teens and giving them the push they need, they can attempt to better their future and give their baby a great life (not that it won’t be great without education, but you know what I mean).

15.Teen pregnancy is easy & fun

If you’ve seen Teen Mom, you know that teen pregnancy isn’t easy. Yes, the show does glorify it sometimes by being like “oh, get pregnant at 16, you’ll get on TV!!!!” but they also show the raw, uncut scenes of the girls and couples hardcore struggling. Imagine missing class, missing prom, missing fun experiences you could be having with your friends when you’re not even twenty years old. Imagine the judgment by friends, family, and strangers because they assume you weren’t being careful. There’s a lot more to being a teen mom than being on TV and picking out cute baby clothes—don’t let TV and the media make you think you should get pregnant for fun.

16.Teen parents = unfit parents

I’ll be honest, this is a stereotype that I’ve believed for a long time. Teens are young, haven’t experienced life yet, aren’t fully educated, and aren’t always very mature—so why would they make good parents? Good question. Answer: no one is ever ~ready~ for their first kid. If you’ve never had children before, you’re in the same position as everybody else who has also never had kids. It doesn’t matter if you’ve babysat for years or if you have a college degree, having your first child isn’t something anyone can fully prepare for. You can have money, buy the best diapers, whatever, but you’ll still be learning how to care for the baby day by day no matter what age you are.

17.Trans people are confused

“you’re confused”

“it’s a phase”

“you’re just gay.”

-all quoted from a dumb ass, probably

For this, let’s go back to Linda Alcoff’s “The Problem Of Speaking For Others”. You don’t know how someone realized they weren’t the gender assigned to them at birth. You don’t know how they feel in their own skin every day. You don’t know the hardships and troubles and braveryit took for them to come to terms with being trans and be open about it to others. If you speak for them and try to say “oh, she’s confused” or “he’ll grow out of it”, all you’re doing is demeaning them, belittling them, and you’re lying to yourself and to them. Being trans isn’t easy. Support your trans friends or coworkers or whoever, and let them know that they’re always welcome in your life as they are.

18.Trans people are drag kings/queens

Similar to the last stereotype, being trans isn’t something you dress up in for fun and then change out of later. Anyone can dress in drag, not just transgender people. As Janet Mock discussed in Redefining Realness, drag can empower people and make them feel pretty and good about themselves. However, it doesn’t make you trans just because you partake in drag.

19.Trans people are predators

“Can you be guaranteed to find a public bathroom that is safe and equipped for you to use? (Taylor, pg. 296). Think about it—there’s a higher chance of a trans person being assaulted by someone because of who they are than a cisgender person being attacked in a bathroom by someone who’s trans. As much as I hate to get into this—I’ll be brief. No, trans people aren’t creeps. No, they’re not lying about their identity. No, they do not want to use the female restroom for ANY other reason aside from beingfemale.

20.Being who you are is easy

“We tend to forget the thousands of minute decisions that consciously construct the artificial world that has been created” (Smith, pg. 128). Though this quote is about movies, it’s true for real life. We make decisions every day that can drastically alter our lives. The thing is, we make these decisions in order to please others; we make choices that define us once we think about how it impacts others, what they’ll think, and what the worst-case scenario of these decisions may be. This is where it becomes difficult to be who you are. It’s hard to be yourself when you’re worried about what other people think more than you worry about yourself and your happiness. Put yourself first, worry about yourself, and make yourself proud—fuck everything else.

                                                Citations

Alcoff, Linda. “The Problem of Speaking for Others.” Cultural Critique, no. 20, 1991, p. 10.,       doi:10.2307/1354221.    

Bornstein, Kate, and Evin Taylor. Gender Outlaw: on Men, Women, and the Rest of Us. Vintage   Books, 2016.

“HIV and Gay and Bisexual Men Understanding HIV/AIDS.” National Institutes of Health, U.S.   Department of Health and Human Services, 5 Apr. 2018, aidsinfo.nih.gov/understanding-          hiv-aids/fact-sheets/25/81/hiv-and-gay-and-bisexual-men.

“Making Systems of Privilege Visible.” Making Systems of Privilege Visible, by Stephanie M Wildman and Adrienne D Davis, p. 111.  

Milestone, Katie, and Anneke Meyer. Gender and Popular Culture. Polity, 2012.

Min, Kim. Socioeconomic Status Can Affect Pregnancy Outcomes and Complications, Even With              A Universal Healthcare System. U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institute of                 Health, 5 Jan. 2018, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756361/.

Mock, Janet. Redefining Realness: My Path to Womanhood, Identity, Love & so Much More.       Simon & Schuster, 2015.

Smith, Greg M. “It's Just a Movie: A Teaching Essay for Introductory Media Classes.” Cinema Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, 2001, p. 128., doi:10.1353/cj.2001.0025.  

Williams, Claudette. Gal... You Come From Foreign. McGraw Hill, 2002.

Wilson, Chris. “Mass Shootings in the US: See 35 Years in One Chart.” Time, Time, 2 Oct.         2017, time.com/4965022/deadliest-mass-shooting-us-history/.

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

This post is full of misinformed, misinterpreted and out of context shit.

·         There is NO hard canonical timeline for Peter’s ages for when he began acting as a hero. At best sources stating he was 15 upon getting his powers and ASm #400’s backup strip claiming that he was 16 the night he caught the burglar is how you can arrive at the conclusion he aged into being 16 by the time he began acting as a hero. But it’s vague as fuck and both 15 and 16 are retcons. Originally Peter was written to be a senior in the Ditko run. However it makes more sense if Peter was 15 both when he got his powers and when he began acting as a hero as Mysterio (debuting in ASM #13) claimed in ASM #24 that he’s hated Spider-Man for years implying at least 2 years elapsed between that issue and his debut

·         Spider-Man circa the time this post was written was not 30 years old. He was actually older than that if you do the math properly. Do not be fooled by Learning to Crawl’s assertion he was merely 28 circa 2014 he was actually 30 years old circa OMD in 2007. So no he has egregiously more than 14 years worth of experience.

·         The list of characters Peter’s been active longer than is highly flawed due to the inclusion of Captain America, the Guardians and Jessica Jones.

Whilst the essential sentiment is accurate it’s misleading because Jessica Jones first appearance was not when she canonically began to be active in the silver age (the 1960s). Captain America of course was active in WWII and then put on ice until the early days of the Marvel Age where the F4 debuted meaning he was most experienced by like decades ahead of Spider-Man. And the Guardians debut date listed is in reference to the ORIGINAL Guardians of the Galaxy. These Guardians were not Gamora, Star-Lord, Groot, etc. These were a group of heroes from the far future of an alternate marvel universe.

So great research there.

·         The post states that 5 years real time = 1 year for the MU. Actually it’s 4 OR 5 and more commonly 4

·         Yes Spider-Man was indeed widely disliked by most heroes but the OP idiotically claims it was because he was a jerk.

 No. It was because Jameson slandered his name. Spider-Man’s jerkish behaviour was the result of three major factors.

Firstly it was the fact that many heroes outright disrespected him. for instance the Avengers not only insulted him verbally and antagonized him but they had the audacity to try and test his worthiness to join their team after only recently accepting former criminals Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch and Hawkeye onto their team. As a reminder the former two were affiliated with mutant terrorist Magneto and the latter with Communist spy Black Widow. None of them were ever tested, the Maximoffs just wrote a letter asking to join and that was it.

Secondly in the Silver and Bronze age ALL heroes in Marvel were jerks to one another. It was a conscious effort to differentiate themselves from DC. It isn’t something to be taken too seriously.

Thirdly Peter was well beyond most other heroes straining under immense pressures which would serve to make ANYONE uptight. These were pressures most other heroes simply never dealt with.

·         The OP claims Peter picked fights to prove how tough and manly he was. This is not only ignorant of 1960s societal standards for the time but is also an overly comdemnatory reading of the character

See these for more on that

https://hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger.tumblr.com/post/163322233001/in-a-recent-exchange-i-had-with-somebody-they

https://hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger.tumblr.com/post/168252199132/fyeahspiderverse-ask-me-ask-me-ask#notes

This poster takes an oversimplified and highly pretentious sociological approach to the character that is ignorant of the character’s proper in context psychology or how many real life people would think, feel or act.

Noticably (and this is much later on in the post) she talks about the character revelling in violence when MOST superheroes are just like that and more poignantly the ‘revelling’ involved is a character harming objectively evil people the overwhelming majority of the time.

He gets brutal in the course of a brutal life dealing with brutal people doing horribly brutal things.

Does he lose his temper from time to time?

Yeah...but EVERY PERSON ON EARTH DOES THAT...and most people on Earth are not coping with the insane levels of personal stress being placed upon Spider-Man.

The OP I am willing to bet does not deal with anything CLOSE to the amount of horrible experiences and stresses Spider-Man himself does.

·         The OP paints Peter is a disgustingly negative light. Listing how he is oudmouthed, proud, independent, stubborn, touchy, cocky, judgmental, and he has one hell of a temper that he typically can barely keep under control. He has a firm sense of justice, of what’s right and what’s wrong, and if he’s made up his mind, he will not budge.

This is BS because not only are there numerous instances of Peter having his mind changed but Peter being ‘touchy’ is usually owed a fuckton more to the situations he finds himself in and the stresses he’s coping with. FFS Peter for the first 18 years of his life has no friends and was bullied and ostracised. OF COURSE HE’D BE TOUCHY!

Similarly his’ barely controllable temper’ was a feature more during the silver and bronze age when writing standards for many superheroes was very different from what it’d later evolve into and the character was a lot younger too.

YES Peter has had moments where his temper breaks in later stories but they were situational.

But what’s gross about the OP is that she lists of all this stuff as part of Peter’s personality and then lists nothing else.

Nothing else.

Peter’s kindness?

Peter’s sense of loyalty?

Peter’s sense of you know...responsibility?

Peter’s sheer decency?

Peter’s ‘never say die’ attitude?

Peter’s sense of humour?

Peter’s fondness for learning?

Peter NOT being as judgemental as the OP is grossly pretending he is considering he never once held Flash Thompson once assaulting his girlfriend, Betty cheating on her husband or many other bad things his friends have done against them?

Which showcases an incredibly forgiving nature to the character.

·         The OP claims Spider-Man REVELS in violence and loves fighting.

No Spider-Man loves blowing off steam with action which MOST superheroes do. It’s not a Peter thing it’s a genre convention thing and needs to be properly looked at WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE GENRE CONVENTIONS of the series and Marvel in general.

Does Spider-Man love beating up bad guys?

I think he certainly gets a certain thrill out of it, but he rarely seriously injures them unless the situation is serious or else he’s been pushed hard.

In the 1980s the violence Peter was witnessing in various street crimes actually served to seriously affect him and he wanted to quit.

Shit he’s wanted to quit COUNTLESS times and it’s his sense of responsibility that keeps him in the game.

That is NOT someone who just ‘loves’ fighting or ‘revels’ in violence.

·         “He punches first and asks questions much, much later. ”

Again bullshit. Not only have there been instances where Spidey has asked questions first but this interpretation of Spider-Man is extremely flawed not only because it doesn’t properly contextualize genre conventions of the superhero genre (Daredevil and Batman are as ‘guilty’ of this as Spider-Man) but also because 99% of the crimes Spider-Man ‘punches first’ he catches red handed in the middle of the act.

He doesn’t need to ask questions if he sees someone in a ski mask with a gun holding up someone screaming in an alleyway.

He doesn’t need to ask questions when he sees what is obviously a bank robbery in progress.

He doesn’t need to ask questions first if the Rhino is rampaging in Times Square.

It’s OBVIOUS what is happening so his immediate intervention is neccesarry.

·          The OP claims Spidey “goes out every night LOOKING for people to beat to a bloody pulp. It’s like his therapy, where he works out his many anger issues (I could write a whole essay on where those come from).”

First of all the OP couldn’t write a whole essay on where Spider-Man’s anger issues come from since she patently misunderstands Spider-Man.

Secondly beating up criminals isn’t Spider-Man’s ‘therepy’ it’s Spider-Man’s way of helping people by reducing the crime rate and protecting innocent civilians.

See ASm #50 where he retires briefly and crime rates spike.

See ASm #500 where he chooses to not prevent his younger self from becoming Spider-Man due to how many people wouldn’t be saved by him.

See EVERY SPIDER-MAN STORY EVER!

Spider-Man doesn’t go out every night looking to beat people to a bloody pulp.

I’m a Liberal and even I think that’s overliberalized bullshit.

If you actually pay attention Spider-Man rarely draws blood when going out on patrol let alone causes any serious physical trauma whatsoever.

More importantly going out on patrol looking for ‘people to beat up’ isn’t his fucking hobby. That’s him using his powers to help people by fighting crime...like the kind that got his Uncle Ben killed perhaps. Fucking idiot.

  ·         “He is not afraid of the unsuperpowered criminals he hunts down because they literally CANNOT LAY A FINGER ON HIM AND HE KNOWS IT AND ALWAYS HAS.”

Yeah.

Remember all those times ‘unsuperpowered criminals’ like the Kingpin or the Enforcers or the Foreigner or Captain fucking America never hit him once?

·         “The criminals are terrified of HIM. ”

Some are, some are not.

He isn’t Batman, it’s more they know they have little chance of avoiding capture if Spider-Man’s there. They aren’t actually afraid of him in the way the term ‘terrified’ implies.

They are afraid of him the way they are afraid of Superman. They know Superman isn’t going to hurt them much if at all but they know they’re in for jail if they cross him.

·         “He is unstoppable when he’s angry.”

Is that why Daredevil was able to defeat him in the Death of Jean DeWolff when he was angry?

·         OP uses Peter complaining how normal crooks are boring as an example of Spider-Man inherent personality and as an example to again paint him in a negative light.

This is BS because the issue is premeditated upon building up his pride before Doc Ock kicks his ass and humbles him.

He rarely if ever displays that kind of attitude towards regular criminals again.

This is also a TEENAGER displaying TEENAGE pride. There is nothing damning about that.

Oh but the character must’ve just inherently been that forever more obviously.

·         OP uses Untold Tales #13 as an example of how ‘toxically violent’ Spider-Man is.

Again ignores context.

Spider-Man is a teenager who recently lost his Dad who’s school peer who was his own age violently died very recently and so he was grieving and lashing out.

I knew kids who were children of divorce who lashed out.

That was cause for understanding by my teachers and fellow students.

Peter was dealing with worse but he’s painted negatively and as though this is something inherent to him in this very extenuating circumstance. And he’s comdened by the OP for it. Gross.

Also the OP pretends Spider-Man almost killed the villain in question. He didn’t there is no indication of that. Spidey used too much force after he’d already won but he was never implied to be inflicting any really serious physical trauma.

·         The most disgusting thing in the post so far, OP tries to pretend there is a problematic and inherent ‘pattern’ of Peter’s violence by citing how Peter almost killed Norman Osborn after Gwen died.

First of all there was no pattern because Peter didn’t almost kill the Untold Tales villain.

Second of all Peter was DELIBERATELY trying to muder the Green Goblin.

Third of all both instances involve Peter grieving.

Fourth of all the GG incident was when his almost fiancée had just been MURDERED before his eyes by the target of his anger.

Literally ANYONE would’ve felt the same way Peter did.

The OP treats people becoming violently angry against objectively evil people when they have or are very seriously threatening to do horrific things (like murdering innocent people, particularly those Spider-Man has an emotional investment in)  as ‘problematic’.

It’s problematic in so far as we shouldn’t ALLOW people in society to go around doing that.

It isn’t problematic in so far as it speaks to inherent negative traits within those people who want to or actually do do those things.

Because let’s not lie to ourselves here.

If someone murdered someone you loved...you’d be angry. You’d want to hurt them. And if they were right in front of you shortly after they’d murdered your loved one and you could you’d inflict pain upon them.

Real talk every parent ever would agree if they’re child was hurt or god forbid abused or murdered they’d want to kill the person who did that.

And the OP disgustingly ignores how Peter DIDN’T kill the Goblin and acknowledged how he almost crossed a serious line having already gone too far.

·         OP brings up ANOTHER instance where Spider-Man gets angry and violent to again unsubtley imply it’s so problematic.

Yes in this instance Spider-Man used force unnecessarily whilst angry.

He however inflicted no lasting damage and the person he used it on had just murdered an innocent man who had a family.

·         “ASM #177, where, as you can see, he’s downright contemptuous of other people’s attempts to harm him”

 Contemptuous was an interpretation of the OP, not something hardcore without a doubt the emotion Spider-Man was going with.

Frankly in the panels showcased i’d say Spidey was more surprised and mocking towards the guy who was again...a huge asshole.

He believed it was his friend Harry who was from Peter’s POV betraying his friendship, had tried to harma dn murder him, Aunt May, Flash and MJ in the past, had hospitalized MJ and at that PARTICULAR moment in the story was wasting Peter’s time as Aunt May’s life was hanging in the balance.

So yes Spider-Man mocked him and hit him.

Shockingly you are allowed to hit people sometimes FFS.

Oh and btw the issue number wasn’t even correct.

·         OP uses ASM #189 to further support their case. This is one example where I WOULD agree that the panels legitimately support the agenda they are trying to push.

The problem is that the panels are also OOC.

Spider-Man had never to my recollection ever acted this was towards a doctor before and only particular situations had served to spur him to act this way.

This was part of the Marv Wolfman run where to be brutally honest there was more than a little OOC writing of many characters and an over all regressive approach to Spider-man in particular.

He’s MORE rash and MORE aggressive and MORE of a jerk than he’d been in a long ass time even under Stan Lee’s tenure.

And this made sense because Wolfman pretentiously regarded himself as a Ditko ‘purist’ who believed Spider-Man should never have left high school. And so he wrote Spider-Man in a regressive way to the point where often times, like in the referenced panel from ASM #189 he acted in ways that didn’t make sense for a 22 year old written for 1979 standards vs a teenager written for 1963 standards.

Further proof can be observed in how his writing for Mary jane in her rejection of Peter’s proposal played as though she never developed from the silver age onwards.

·         “ASM #193 – this is VERY 616 Peter. He’s frustrated with his personal life, so he decides to take it out (violently) on a bad guy:”

Again...Wolfman’s run, but in this case he is not doing anything particularly wrong within the genre and societal conventions of the time.

Genre conventions dictated that in superhero comic book land hitting criminals is 100% okay because they are bad guys.

Therefore since Spider-Man does that anyway, venting his frustrations into something productive is also okay.

Societal conventions dictated that this was the late 1970s and early 1980s...in New York.

70s and 80s New York was ROUGH and had problems with street crime that got more violent into the 1980s, at least according to the media.

You know how in the Daredevil Netflix show they said because of the Battle of New York Hell’s Kitchen had gone downhill?

That was because they were trying to justify modern day Hell’s Kitchen resembling the kind of dark crime ridden place it was in the 70s and 80s at the height of Daredevil’s popularity.

NYC was ROUGH and that was attributed a lot to crime and so a crime fighter like Spider-Man getting rough would’ve been regarded as fine as would him doing it to vent anger.

The angrier he gets the more criminals he beats up meaning the more go to jail meaning the streets are safer. So all the better.

That was the logic of the time period.

Remember this was the decade that spawned DIRTY HARRY!

This was a decade where Vietnam wrapped up in abject failure and Watergate broke out. People were fucking angry and disillusioned.

And to add further context Marv Wolfman wrote Superman in the 1980s post-crisis era as getting rough with criminals too because Wolfman was a child of the era where both superheroes and crime/gangster stories involved that sort of mentality. His Superman was the Golden Age one who got rough a lot and it was seen as fine because criminals were bad and therefore deserved it.

Now bear all that shit in mind when reading ASM #189...where Spider-Man in hunting down a dangerous super villain who could endure blows from him and whom he’d need to find and stop anyway...whilst he’s coping with Aunt May being in a nursing home, his relationship with MJ whom he is in love with disintegrating, his relationship with Betty also disintegrating and having just taken a punch to the jaw from Ned Leeds his old rival.

YOU CANNOT REMOVE SHIT FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE TIMES THEY WERE CREATED IN!

·         More of OP being a disgenuous jerk by pretending Spider-Man losing his temper in confronting the man who murdered Uncle Ben is problematic.

“…notice how a mask seems pretty unnecessary here, despite the fact that his opponent is armed. Peter doesn’t even hesitate. He is out for blood.”

A)     The Burglar was not initially unarmed he lost his gun in the scuffle depicted in the panels from the OP

B)      Real talk...who WOULDN’T lose their temper confronting the guy who MURDERED THEIR DAD to the point where they’d come close to seriously injuring them?

C)      Peter believed Aunt May had recently DIED and that it was at least partially his fault

D)     The OP conveniently neglects that the Burglar was threatening Spider-Man with a gun a panel before Peter attacked him and that Spider-Man doesn’t have his powers in this instance. In other words shortly after his mother figure’s death an unarmed and helpless Peter Parker was confronted by an armed known killer who killed his father figure in cold blood and was threatening his life. And he’s ‘problematic’ for assaulting him angrily and threatening to kill him. Can you spell ‘self’defence’?

OP is also disingenuous because she paints Spider-Man’s rage and scary demanor as the fault of the Burglar’s death when it was just the Burglar working himself up.

Spider-Man made it explicitly clear he was NOT going to kill or maim the Burglar but the Burglar was just too worked up and had a heart attack.

·         OP brings up Spec v2 #10 where Spider-Man is beating the shit out of Doc Ock....but conveniently doesn’t include the panels prior to that incident where Doc Ock pointlessly murdered an innocent police officer violently and then threatened to murder someone everyday for a year...after he nearly deliberately instigated a war between Israel and Palestine!  I am NOT making that up Doc Ock nearly set off a war between Israel and Palestine just to force Spider-Man into revealing his secret identity

FFS is Spider-man REALLY this violence revelling brute for punching the shit out of him for that!

Doc Ock took an innocent life, threatened to take more and was willing to risk MILLIONS of people dying in a war that could’ve lasted years because of his own stupid ego and obsession.

Like fuck dude WAR CRIMINALS have been executed for less than that but SPIDER-MAN is a violence addict because he punched Doc Ock a bit and humiliated him?

Look real talk Spidey making Doc Ock ‘ask him nicely’ was OOC (the OP doesn’t seem to realize such a thing could ever possibly happen) but even if it wasn’t it doesn’t prove the OP’s point because the CONTEXT OF THE SITUATION MATTERS.

·         “ASM #522, where he loses his temper and throws Wolverine out of a window:”

Yes.

First thing in the morning after he’s been woken up abruptly by the worrying and mind boggling news that his wife has been sleeping with Tony Stark the guy who’s been insulting him on and off for awhile and who is now very directly insulting his pride and his beloved, long suffering wife (who’s lived through hell for him and has saved his life a million times too).

And he does the equivalent of punching the guy.

How ‘problematic’ and ‘toxic’ that must be.

Gimme a break.

Also remember Spider-Man doesn’t normally randomly punch people, even those who insult him despite the bullshit picture the OP is trying to paint.

·         “ASM #539, the first issue in the “Back in Black” arc where Aunt May is shot on Kingpin’s orders, and Peter PUNCHES, INTIMIDATES, AND THREATENS HIS WAY THROUGH THE UNDERWORLD trying to figure out who was responsible. I would recommend reading this arc for a good look at Peter when he’s beyond furious”

OP disingenuously pretending that Peter when he is beyond furious is Spider-Man’s default setting as opposed to Spider-Man under extenuating and/or exceptional circumstances.

You know like when someone has shot his mother who is now dying and might pose a threat to yet more of his friends and family!

Like FUCK how are you so dense as to not properly contextualize shit.

·         “Notice, again, the lack of a mask. Peter’s not even slightly frightened by the thought of diving into a room FULL of criminals armed with machine guns where he’s outnumbered by what looks like about 7 to 1.”

OP seemingly conveniently ignoring that in Back In Black (the story being referenced here) Spider-Man identity was public so it doesn’t matter that he didn’t have his mask

·         “I find these panels more telling than Peter vs. Norman in #122 – in that one, Peter lost his temper momentarily but quickly snapped out of it and realized he didn’t have it in him to commit murder. Here, he’s completely cool. He genuinely plans to murder Kingpin. He’s thought about it. He wants to do it. He will do it without a moment’s hesitation if the need arises, if that’s what it takes to protect his family – that’s what 616 Peter does. He protects everyone around him. He takes the punishment they cannot.”

I find this part the most mind boggling of all because the OP’s statements here are not untrue but also make no sense in her characterization of Peter as toxic.

·         “I could keep going with this all day, because this is who he is in the comics, but I’ll stop there. ”

Again no.

This is who Peter is at TIMES in the comics under certain circumstances and at particular points in his history. That isn’t what he is like at his regular default setting when horrible or seriously stressful or emotionally triggering things are not happening to him.

He ISN’T like this for instance in the Digger arc of JMS’ run.

He ISN’T like this in ASM #301

He ISN’T like this in ASM #41

He ISN’T like this in the Kid Who Collected Spider-Man

·         “Does this angry, vengeful man who REVELS in violence really seem like he’s scared of, I don’t know, ANYONE? Don’t let the jokes fool you. Peter’s not someone you want to make angry. He is terrifying when he’s angry.”

Again OP speaks bullshit because

a)      Peter doesn’t revel in violence. That’d inply real enjoyment. He at worst vents using it

b)      Peter isn’t scared of anyone huh?

 Sister let me introduce you to Spider-Man’s ex...and her new man.

Their shipper name...is Venom....