#really good statement

[tam--lin]

r/Murderbot mods really said "if you can't use it/its for a fictional character, get over yourself".

[mohntilyet]

i have to be so real. sometimes you have to outright not give a shit what the author thinks. i’m not saying to disregard how a character is portrayed and give into fanon characterisations but sometimes i will see fans be like “(head writer) omggg do you think this character is a good person?” “how would this character react if xyz happened?” as though that’s not a question you can and have to answer for yourself.! any character can contain multitudes and if you keep limiting your perception of them solely on word of god its not fun for the writer or even yourself anymore. THINK FOR YOURSELF. INVENT NEW WAYS TO FUCK YOUR FAVORITE CHARACTERS OVER

[bixels]

tarpit site.

[marciaillust]

I added some colours to her :)

[marisatomay]

Man. He really showed up in all black and made the whole Colosseum at Caesar’s Palace join him in a moment of silence for Val.

[turtleblogatlast]

I think a lot about Leo standing up for his brothers in the things that really matter to them.

Like- Leo is the one who immediately pushes Mikey and Donnie into finding Raph the second it’s clear that their oldest brother is missing because he knows Raph can’t handle being separated like that.

Leo is the one who stands up for Mikey when Mikey wants to go on a solo mission, actively vouching for him and being the one to convince Raph into letting Mikey go, because being independent and proving himself just as capable of standing on his own two feet as everyone else means so much to Mikey.

And Leo defends Donnie’s honor in particular when his brothers’ intelligence is insulted because Leo is well aware of how important Donnie’s smarts are to him - and how important having those smarts valued and acknowledged is as well.

All this goes right into just how well Leo knows his brothers. For as much as he’ll tease or fight with them, he knows them, and he loves them.

[birb-catto]

I love the wholesomeness of this fandom

Cale sacrificing himself:

TCF fandom: YES YES YEAAAH MORE BLOOD MOAAAR

DHB sacrificing himself:

TCF fandom: NOOOOOO baby don't die 😭

[sergle]

man, you know, nobody asked me, but I have such conflicting opinions on some of the fat falin art, where on one hand: it's always nice to see A Fat Body in fanart anywhere + it's being done in positive ways, for funsies and on the other hand, there is something so familiar about how you are automatically The Fat One if you are a woman simply standing next to a more petite woman, bc I've had a 0% hitrate in seeing people change Marcille's body type and keep Falin's, or change both of them. it's just Falin

[mishmash-webster]

no but sock’s overall body language during Jon’s death scene…… the way his eyes dart the way he extends his hands slightly when he starts to fall but hesitates OUUUUGH .

[nicoappreciation]

i get that it’s fun to be a hater sometimes but personally it’s a pet peeve of mine when people get too pessimistic/negative about something when i think it’s not really necessary and i feel like that can apply to a lot of situations on this side of the fandom. like not to be a hater of haters but i started having a lot more fun once i stopped fixating on every plot hole and worldbuilding decision i didn’t like and i think some of y’all could benefit from that

[qiu-yan]

in order to say "wei wuxian is morally good," you must first define what it means to be morally good

though this is by no means exclusive to them, one logical fallacy i sometimes see wei wuxian stans make in their arguments is that they begin their analysis of wei wuxian as a character with the statement "wei wuxian is morally good."

so their argument becomes:

wei wuxian is morally good.

a morally good person would do XYZ.

therefore, wei wuxian would do XYZ.

alternatively, when they're objecting to someone else's argument about wei wuxian, their counterargument becomes:

this argument says that wei wuxian would do ABC.

a morally good person would not do ABC.

wei wuxian is morally good.

therefore, wei wuxian would not do ABC; the other person's argument is wrong.

while this is in fact a valid argument structure to use for other kinds of traits (ie. "brave," "doesn't think of the consequences," even something like "afraid of dogs"), this format of argument in fact cannot be used for a descriptor as vague as "morally good"--because, unlike the other traits, "morally good" is not precisely defined enough for the above argument structure to work.

"morally good" is not a character trait in the same way that "wants to defend the weak," "is angered by innocent people being harmed," and "does not fear consequences" are character traits, because what is considered "moral" can vary significantly from person to person. what a utilitarian considers to be moral, for example, diverges significantly from what a deontologist considers to be moral. if i were to say "wei wuxian is a morally good person," i have frankly said less about wei wuxian's personality and more about what i myself believe to be ethical.

thus, the reason why the above argument pretty much never works in the wild is that the depolyers in question rarely actually define what they mean by "morally good."

consider the case in which two different wei wuxian stans write on their blogs "wei wuxian is a good person." however, the first person follows a moral philosophy that centers courage in the face of certain failure, while the second person follows a moral philosophy that centers reason and pragmatism. thus, what the first person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who courageously chooses the correct path even when he is doomed to fail," while what the second person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is a reasonable and pragmatic person." these are no longer the same statement.

or consider the case in which the first stan follows a moral philosophy that centers agent-neutral harm reduction, while the second stan follows a moral philosophy that centers agent-relative reciprocity. in this case, what the first person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who helps others regardless of whether they've helped him before," while what the second person actually means to say is "wei wuxian is someone who always repays kindnesses done unto him." again, these are no longer the same statement.

in general, if one wishes to argue that "blorbo is morally good," one must first specify what exactly they mean by "morally good," because not everyone follows the same definition of "morally good." many blorbo stans, however, don't actually do this. instead, they write their arguments as if their own definition of morality is already universal law; a reader can thus only reverse-engineer what the op believes to be morally good from their post. and this leads to no shortage of disagreements: two different blorbo enjoyers might find themselves in an argument over what they believe to be their blorbo's characterization, when in reality they are actually disagreeing over what it means to be ethical at all.

on the topic of disagreement, another fact that must be acknowledged is that wei wuxian himself is also a character with his own specific thoughts and feelings. wei wuxian is not an abstract paragon of righteousness whose definition of morality just so happens to perfectly match the reader's definition of morality; wei wuxian is a specific fictional character with his own specific thoughts as to what is right and what is wrong. and every reader has to accept that what wei wuxian considers to be right can in fact be gleaned from the text--and that what wei wuxian considers to be right will not always match what the reader considers to be right. wei wuxian might, in fact, disagree with you.

thus, if you want to make any sort of statement regarding wei wuxian's moral character (whether that be "he is morally good" or "he is morally bad") you in fact have to consider not just one, but four different questions:

what do you consider to be morally good? what moral framework and/or school of moral philosophy do you use to determine what is ethical?

how well do wei wuxian's actions adhere to what you personally consider to be morally good?

what does wei wuxian consider to be morally good? what moral framework and/or school of moral philosophy does he use to determine what is ethical?

how well do wei wuxian's actions adhere to what he himself considers to be morally good?

all of these are different questions! they cannot be conflated with each other.

to write a good analysis, you must accept that [what you consider to be morally good] will not always match [what wei wuxian considers to be morally good]. when such disagreements arise, rather than distort wei wuxian's character to match what you personally believe to be morally good, perhaps consider just allowing wei wuxian to disagree with you instead. even if he's doing something you honestly can't defend, maybe wei wuxian is still striving to live as best he can according to his own ideals, and it just so happens that his ideals do not match your ideals. you really should not distort wei wuxian's motives or beliefs just to make him more palatable to you, simply because you have wedded yourself to the idea that "wei wuxian must be morally good by my own standards."

closing thoughts: this isn't really exclusive to wei wuxian stans. i've seen all sorts of character stans in all sorts of fandoms make this same logical fallacy. i certainly think that some of the jiang cheng analyses i see from fellow jiang cheng stans are born less from an objective analysis of his character and moreso from the op's desire for his actions to align with their moral compass. but, out of all the characters in MDZS, it seems like people commit this logical fallacy when discussing wei wuxian specifically far more often than they do with any other character, save perhaps lan wangji.

[dirtytransmasc]

atwow hot take:

if jake had said his "son for a son" shit out loud and spider had heard him, he would have been so beyond pissed, he would be seeing red.

spider loved his little siblings so much, neteyam included, even after they grew apart. he loved them like they were his own blood and protected them like they were too (we see a lot more of them together in the comics, where spider is the big brother without a doubt). neteyam's death most certainly rocked him hard, even if he hasn't really been able to show it (how could he? he's already going through all the shit with his dad and the RDA and their nonsense, he can't grieve around neytiri, he's just so tired after it all. he doesn't have the room or the energy to grieve yet)

so if jake had the audacity to say that to/around spider not even a few hours after he watched his little brother get shot after coming to save him, after he stared at the bullet hole in his back, after he watched him take his last breaths, after he watched the light leave his eyes, after he watched his little brother die for him; if he said that while his little brother's body lay in a pool of his own blood not even ten feet away, not even cold yet, blood still clinging to his chest, the scent of it still filling the air: he would have lost his shit.

because the disrespect for his brother is wild.

jake was an active player in spider's neglect and abuse for the last 16 years, he let it happen, he helped it happen. he tried to send spider with the humans, tried to take him away from his siblings, from the forests, from eywa to live with his foster family that didn't love him (not to mention Nash was an asswipe of epic proportions) and the RDA of all people. he had referred to spider as a stray animal since he was little. he was the reason spiders life was hell.

and after all that, years and years of putting him in shit positions and allowing him to suffer the fate of being forever unloved and uncared for (by an adult authority figure, cause I love the kids, but they don't make up for the gap left by a parent), this is what it took for jake to care about him? his little brother had to die in front of him first? he had to be traded out to fill the space of a corpse, to fill in the gap left by his little brother's death?

in canon, spider was in deep in shock with nothing to break him from it, he wasn't in the place to really think about any of it, and I'm sure we're gonna see this anger in the coming movies, but if jake had said it out loud, that would have been enough to snap spider right out of it, and he would have given jake a piece of his mind, I just know it.

[smartzelda]

Sorry guys I gotta speak my truth on this one

I'm not kidding when I say that I think that blaming shit media literacy from fans on shipping/shippers avoids the actual root of the problem to throw people you can easily throw under the bus (simply because it's not unpopular to consider people who post about ships or ship characters in media as having lesser or derivative tastes by default)

And here's why.

I think when you blame people who are "shippers" or "consume media through shipping lenses", the true root of it all is a mindset problem.

In actually, putting on shipping lenses can be helpful when trying to analyze a piece of media. When analyzing media you're supposed to approach it through a number of mindsets and put on different lenses (both to deepen your personal understanding of the media, and to pick it apart and see what you can find there (whether intentional or not on the author's part)), and different ships can be some of those lenses

When it comes to ships between main characters (for those who are genuinely willing to see what the narrative is showing with their relationship and what it's doing), there are times when analyzing it from a shipping lens may be helpful. As someone from KH fandom, I have seen people come to deeper understandings and pick canon apart in the process of analyzing a relationship that is genuinely integral to the story (platonic or not). I've also seen people get into rarepairs of characters who barely interact or who just suffer little screen time, and I've seen them come to better understandings of those side characters and how they potentially fit into the world of the media simply because people are now focusing on these characters and how they fit into the narrative.

Frankly, I resent the idea that the only way to truly objectively analyze a piece of media is by turning off the part of your brain that gets excited over relationships and individual characters. Don't get me wrong, that is a way to approach a piece of media and a valid one at that, but the truth is that we cannot be free of bias.

For instance, I was watching House MD with my parents circa last year. At some point I started heavily tuning into what was going on with House and Wilson's relationship. My parents, on the other hand, were largely watching casually. They're not thinking of character relationships or getting heavily invested in most characters, they're watching because they like watching. One of them in particular did try to analyze things that were happening in the show as they happened. However, when it came to the scene late in the series where House threw out Dominika's letter approving her American citizenship, my parents could understand that he was doing that because he didn't want her to leave, but not much beyond that. I ended up explaining to them that House's fake marriage for Dominika was an explicit parallel to when Wilson was living with House in the early seasons. Both situations started with House being none too happy about it but ultimately letting them stay, spending a considerable amount of effort getting them to leave/getting this situation to be finally over so he didn't have to deal with it anymore, and then by the time a piece of news comes through that would mean the person in question actually leaves, House hides this news as long as he can. Because he doesn't actually want them to leave and has grown attached. And by doing this he became a self fulfilling prophecy. By reacting to the truth of Wilson and Dominika leaving him the way he does, he seals his fate and they ultimately leave anyways. Maybe I ship Hilson, but becoming open to how their relationship was handled allowed me to transition to doing character studies and recognizing patterns/parallels that I wouldn't have noticed if I didn't particularly care about the characters or their relationship.

Likewise, I've seen mutuals complain about how people who don't like or don't care about certain characters often overlook these characters (what they're actually like and their place in the narrative), while the mutuals in question (by default) are able to come to deeper understanding of what the writers/story is trying to do because they care about this funky guy

You can't eradicate bias when you're engaging in media analysis, but you can consciously put on a range of lenses and observe the media through different povs with the goal of understanding the media better or bolstering your reading of it. And those lenses/povs can include focusing on specific relationships or the perpective of certain characters

And this is why I say it's actually a mindset problem. Shippers and people who have this one blorbo they like a lot aren't inherently terrible "fandom brained individuals" who are the root of media analysis problems. The problem only arises when people's readings/analysis of a piece of media are inherently restrictive/narrow and self centered. Your problem is with people who view a piece of media through a ship they like but don't keep an open mind about it, and whose "media analysis"/views on canon cannot be split from fanon and their comfortability levels. These are the people whose "media analysis" starts and ends with justifying their fanon as canon, whose views on media revolve around sorting characters and relationships into categories they personally enjoy rather than trying to understand what's going on.

Here's another example.

Here we have a fictional ship we'll call uhhhh...Blanebin. this fictional ship I made up on the spot for characters that don't exist named Blane and Corbin

Person A is super into Blanebin. They're part of the main cast of characters and canonically childhood best friends, so person A (as much as they enjoy fanart and fic) is also enjoying analyzing how narratively important to each other they are. Recently, Corbin started dating another character in canon, but Person A is enjoying watching how Blane is reacting to this. "Is this potentially a tell that Blane is jealous or is having complicated feelings about this? What if he was, how would that contextualize his behavior this season? Here's what I think based on how Blane dealt with explicit jealousy last season in a different situation". It's not impossible that person A is still missing further understanding due to their obsession with Blanebin, but at the end of the day this obsession has allowed them to start picking through the characters both in and outside this relationship. It has allowed them to see potential subtext and theorize on what might happen next with these characters' relationship. Not to mention that with addition of Corbin dating someone else, instead of trying to erase this fact or state that Corbin canonically isn't into that person, Person A is trying to factor in how Corbin's current dating life affects his relationship with Blane (irregardless on personal views on the nature of Corbin's relationship with the person he's dating).

Person B is also super into Blanebin. They really enjoy fanart and fic of the characters, love obsessing over their moments together, and just feel like there's really something between the characters. To person B, every moment between them is just further proof that the writers are ship teasing them. But Corbin getting together with someone else this season? Oh that pissed person B off. They cannot believe that even though Corbin and Blane are CLEARLY gay for each other the writers had Corbin get with someone else this season. Perhaps, they think, it was even a decision specifically made to spite fans. How evil of the writers to tease a perfectly good ship and then have them not get together first? They must have been just doing those teases to get views from Blanebin shippers those scoundrels. To Person B, since Corbin started dating someone when he obviously has some chemistry with Blane (even though the series is far from over) means that Blanebin can never get together now and Corbin x person he's dating is ruining Blanebin by existing. In fact, they think, this is terrible writing for Corbin to be dating someone else because they don't like that relationship and don't see the point. Obviously if the writers were good then Corbin would have started dating Blane instead because this was supposed to be the Blanebin show.

Person C despises Blanebin. Don't get them wrong, they've always enjoyed the character's childhood friendship, but they actually have always thought Blane would have been better off with Victoria. They have a lot of moments too! But they're tired of seeing people ship Blanebin. Corbin just got together with someone else, so obviously that's not gonna work out. Plus Corbin and Blane totally has always given person C bro vibes. In fact, person C thinks, sure Corbin and Blane have a close friendship, but people shouldn't be shipping them. Person C likes Blanetoria and Blanetoria can't be canon if Corbin is in the way of it. So Person C likes to read Blanebin as siblings anyways. Sure they're canonically friends, but obviously their friendship turned into brotherhood. This means that nothing can be in the way of Blanetoria and Corbin can keep dating the person he's already canonically dating. Actually, now Blanebin just straight up makes Person C uncomfortable. Don't the pesky shippers understand that Blanebin are sibling coded because they're childhood best friends and that they're important to each other because they're brothers? It's obvious to anyone with eyes.

Sure, ships are involved here, but is the root of this problem shipping? Character A isn't as knowledgeable of other characters in the plot due to this lens they're using, but at the end of the day they're dedicated to analysis. Their love of the characters is pushing them beyond what they like or dislike to try to understand what might be happening through their lens. Not perfect, but they are slowly broadening their horizons. But Person B and C's problems here are their restrictiveness. What is or should be canon to them is tantamount to what they personally like or find comfortable. Is person C actually analyzing the this fake show when they decide to "read" Blanebin as basically canonically siblings (and this all of their moments are totally a bro thing) just because they don't like Blanebin and the idea of them getting together over Blanetoria makes them uncomfortable? Is person B actually analyzing this fake show when their "analysis" of Blanebin goes only as far as asserting it's being ship teased and deciding anything short of canonizing Blanebin is a targeted attack or "bad writing" because it's not what they wanted personally to happen?

This is what I'm talking about. This is the mindset. Shipping isn't the problem. The problem is when people marry fanon and canon to the point where they have a vested interest in superimposing their fanon over canon as "a reading" and trying to make "collective decisions" on what is canon (or what canon is trying to say) based on what does or doesn't make them uncomfortable. The problem is people being restrictive and centering their own likes and dislikes in the conversation, so they can only interact with canon "analysis" wise by deciding what is canon or should be canon "as obviously agreed on by everyone". You can't simply claim you like media analysis. To be able to analyze media and bolster your views on any given canon, you must be open to looking at it through multiple povs, to studying characters without trying to pretend things you don't like don't exist or do like do exist. There is a balance that must be kept between trying to keep objectivity and putting on specific focus/bias based upon the lenses you're putting on. You have to be willing to try to figure out what a media is doing or saying, not saying you're trying to figure out what it's saying while in actuality trying to define the narrative around what people believe it's saying in ways that suit you.

Thank you for coming to my ted talk.

[slytherinshua]

slowly realizing more and more that the sm boycott effort is gonna amount to nothing in the end, and this is not the way we should be going about the riize situation.

i loved seunghan when he was in the group, and i am still an ot7 fan. but at a point, i think we need to think of how much of our time and energy we're willing to spend fighting for something that has such a small chance of actually happening. sm is gonna bounce back from any stock lost from the boycott because they are one of the big 3. they have like 4 of the biggest groups in kpop rn: nct, aespa, red velvet, riize. there's just no way either boycotting riize or boycotting all of sm would actually be detrimental enough to get a member who's been terminated from the group back in.

and while i don't agree with the ot6 fans who are being unreasonable, i think some ot7 fans have been just as bad. this fandom is so toxic and rotten, every day it just seems to get worse. and i don't like the narrative that most ot7 fans were spreading about ot6 kfans-- how they were just mad that seunghan was dating pre debut. that isn't why they were mad, they really didn't care about that. it's the fact that he took pictures of him with his possibly/alleged underage girlfriend (it's honestly bad enough with/without her being possible underage, which i don't have confirmation on) at what looks like a hotel and presumably sent it to his friends in a group chat (which was how it got leaked). that's why they wanted him out of the group.

personally, i don't believe that a member should get kicked out of a group or put on hiatus without a proper reason why. and seunghan's hiatus and termination is really messy. but there are valid reasons why kfans weren't too big on him. the problem is there have been many idols kicked out for things they didn't do, and others who have been caught doing really fucked up and nasty things and rightfully kicked out of the group, but it's hard to know which idols are innocent or not when there's no organization. and when we jump on a narrative train and blow something super big out of proportion, the facts and proper investigation of the situation gets lost in the mess of things.

what should have happened was things being properly investigated back in october 2023 before seunghan was ever put on hiatus, and a decision made from there whether to keep him in the group or kick him out based on that.

instead, we have the other 6 members who clearly want seunghan back tired of the state of everything (rightfully so), ot7 and ot6 fans fighting a full blown war every day without logical thinking, and misinformation being spread left and right. there's no organization, there's no firm confirmation on anything, all of this is just such a big mess.

now let me be clear IF it's true that there was anything suspicious going on between seunghan and his girlfriend, then i would obviously no longer support him. as it is, i'm not going to stop supporting him until there's firm evidence. i'm tired of kpop stans making rash decisions based on half truths instead of just being patient and waiting for the facts to come out. staying neutral during unclear situations is a valid stance to take. please let's all stop jumping to conclusions from both sides.

[bitchthefuck1]

Tom's line about Shiv being selfish and "find[ing] it very hard to think about me" is actually so telling because while it's absolutely true that she rarely takes his position into consideration, Tom never once thinks about what he can do to help Shiv unless it also benefits him.

Every single time he makes a move or sacrifice that might help her, it's always something that he thinks will give him a leg up. He volunteers to take the fall for cruises, not for Shiv, who is in no way implicated, or even for Waystar, but because he thinks it'll ingratiate him to Logan, and the second it seems like he might have to actually follow through on that, he immediately tries to get out of it and even throws Shiv under the bus. Meanwhile, for all that Shiv disregards his interests, there are a number of things she does that only help him, and she's the one who actually sacrifices something and undermines her position with Logan to beg him not to let Tom go to jail.

It just makes it so clear that no matter how much he might love her (and I think he does, in his own compromised way), for him their relationship was always built on the underlying assumption that it's her job to prop him up, but it's not his job to help her.

[magnuspanoptes]

i'm re-reading all web statements and like. logically i understand that if a desolation avatar can set people on fire, then a web avatar should be able to puppet its victims. i'm going to refer to it as 'mind control' even though it's not quite 'mind control', people tend to describe it as their limbs moving involuntarily, sometimes there's even a conscious recognition that they don't want to do it, but they're still going to do it. but i'm so blindsided every time this happens. the direct unambiguous control aspect of the web really upsets that central thematic tension between the romanticism of being seduced into your downfall (jon's story is partly this, "when has your discomfort ever actually stopped you from walking the path of the beholding?", 152) and being a victim of the gods (jon's story is also this! a guest for mr spider was bad luck. his life was destroyed the moment he picked it up, but it also doesn't negate the choices he made while at the magnus institute). which is where that damned lighter comes in, every time they ask him about it he just point blank changes the subject and you're meant to read them as moments of direct web 'mind control', right. and while i can appreciate (do) the meticulous levels of planning that went into the whole web reveal, i'm struggling to like this. i think that theme of agency works best when the writing just leans towards various mechanisms of control influencing a character with or without their knowledge (sometimes to the point where it doesn't even feel like much of a choice but they still choose to do it.)

mag 92 - "nothing beside remains" // mag 147 - "weaver"

like, they seem to be saying the same thing here? manipulation doesn't have to mean bodily forcing someone to do what you want, it can also be about controlling what they know and/or limiting their options so they'll struggle to understand the significance of their choices. until they do just what you want them to do, entirely out of their own 'free will' and this is exactly how elias manipulates people (jon, most of all) and how the web is generally written, i think. this is simply a lot more compelling and makes the victim feel complicit in their own fate in a way straight up 'mind control' doesn't.