#same old arguments

[littlefankingdom]

How the fandom portrays Bruce and Dick learning Red Hood (not knowing it's Jason) is 19-ish:

Bruce: Don't care, didn't ask.

Dick: OMG, he's just a BABY.

How Bruce and Dick would canonically react:

Bruce: He's still a teen. He's just a kid. OMG, I probably hit him too hard, shame on me. Maybe if I play my cards right, he will accept to be mentored.

Dick: Ok, so he is not a child. I can and will beat his ass.

[acti-veg]

I am honestly finding it hard to take seriously the fact that you advocate harm reduction in the very next sentence to you criticising a vegan on the basis that they aren’t able to cause zero harm. Do you believe in harm reduction or don’t you?

We know that veganism doesn’t cause zero harm, and this all or nothing absolute moral purity = ethical while doing your best and still causing harm = unethical, regardless of your intentions or how much less harm you’re causing, is as juvenile a conception of ethics as I’ve ever seen. Veganism is literally about causing less harm, of avoiding exploiting animals whenever possible and practicable, while acknowledging that it is impossible to never harm anyone while living in a capitalist society.

If we followed your advice and used soil and plastic pots to grow all our food, we’d still be causing harm because as you yourself told us, plastic is bad. Are gardeners buying metal tools that are often produced in unsustainable factories? How was the metal extracted? Is the handle plastic? What fertiliser do they use? What about the increased water use? What about taking up land that could be habitat for insects? Even though growing your own food is causing less harm, it still causes some, therefore gardening is unethical. Do you see how ridiculous that line of reasoning is?

This notion that complete moral perfection is ethical and that anything falling short of that impossible ideal is automatically unethical, is about as juvenile a conception of ethics as I can imagine. The likes of Piers Morgan and Fox News pundits argue like this to every environmentalist they ever interview. If someone strives to make the personal sacrifices required to cause less harm to animals and to the planet by being vegan, it is beyond cynical to respond to that with ‘well ACTUALLY do you garden? What about plastic?’

Besides, while this may be surprising to you, animal skin and plastics aren’t the only materials in existence. You’re fallaciously presenting a false dilemma where there are only two options, animal leather or plastic, when you know full well that other options exist. Have you heard of hemp? Cotton? Linen? Jumping from the fact that we oppose leather to concluding we must support plastic is intellectually dishonest at best.

Even if I personally was shovelling agave into my mouth with a conflict diamond-encrusted plastic spoon, that would not be at all relevant as a critique of veganism. That is also a fallacy, by the way; you don’t know how to adequately attack the position so you’re attacking the person instead, which is pretty transparent.

Why do we have to keep going over these same points over and over; surely we all want the same thing - to encourage people to make choices that cause less harm. So why can you guys not just engage us in good faith, instead of tying yourself in intellectual knots to try to prove that yes, we too are unethical. Does it at least make you feel better about your own choices?

It is ok to be “that annoying vegan.” Veganism isn’t just a lifestyle choice, it is a moral imperative. When you make an ethical decision you aren’t just deciding that this is wrong for you; it isn’t like saying apples are nicer than oranges. People don’t believe prejudice is wrong just for them, or adultery, or abusive behavior. Ethical statements are truth claims; you are professing the belief that this thing is wrong. For everyone. It is every bit of ok to be “that annoying vegan” because that stereotype only exists to silence us.

[jinxed-sinner]

Age gap discourse with Hazbin ships is WILD lmfao. btw the only one of these I've seen personally is Huskerdust age gap discourse but you can literally make this argument for EVERY SHIP IN THE SHOW

"Huskerdust is weird because Husk died when he was in his 60s or 70s and Angel died when he was in his 30s" they've existed for the same amount of time, and Angel's an adult. Let him date the old cat

"Radioapple is weird because Lucifer is thousands of years old and Alastor died in the 1930s in his 30s/40s" THEY'RE BOTH STILL ADULTS.

"Chaggie is weird because Charlie's 200 years old and Vaggie died in the 2010s" Charlie literally acts like a 20 year old, as does Vaggie, and we don't even know if Vaggie dying and becoming an exorcist is still canon???? For all we know she could be OLDER than Charlie lmao

"Staticmoth is weird because Val died in the 70s and Vox died in the 50s" THEY'RE BOTH ADULTS

"Cherrisnake is weird because Cherri died in the 1980s in her 20s and Pentious died in 1888 in his 40s!" NO IT'S NOT THEY'RE BOTH ADULTS.

Literally you can make arguments against any Hazbin ship that amount to "they're both adults but it's STILL WEIRD because of death years" and if you do that, it's bizarre. Every character that's been introduced in Hazbin so far is a whole ass adult (yes even Niffty). Shipping anyone with anyone isn't weird because of age gaps, it's potentially weird because of canon character dynamics lol

i'd also like to point out though that there is a non-zero chance that multiple characters, as they spent more time in Hell, matured more mentally as they gained more (after)life experience. Would their brains change to reflect that? Who knows, but we literally see characters mentally mature in the first season (with Cherri, Angel, and honestly Lucifer being good examples of this)

[the-way-astray]

let’s be super clear: there is zero canon evidence that alden ever pressured or neglected any of his children. zero. if you want to make him that way for fic or fanon purposes, fine. you do you. but the second you try to use that in a serious anti alden argument, you lose credibility

[beepborpdoodledorp]

fnaf fans will look at security breach in the most black and white sense imaginable it’s almost incomprehensible ‘the Glamrocks are soulless AI and Gregory is a poor defenseless child’ ‘Gregory is an irredeemable monster who kills the poor Glamrocks without remorse’ have you considered it’s possible for both sides to be victims. that they can also be a little fucked up too. have you

[thatswhatsushesaid]

stares @ the jgy tag……..

i think some of y’all are just asking chatgpt to summarize our posts rather than reading them for yourselves, because no one is saying this. no one who likes jgy actually thinks wwx is the villain of the story.

[crazy-fangirl2524]

What pisses me off sometimes about aftg fandom is that people are too serious like I get it we love the characters we treat them like real human being BUT they are literally just fictional characters they are flawed and they should not be compared to actual human beings and the arguments are so dumb like

Andrew is so possessive and violent that’s the point

Nicky over steps boundaries that’s the point

Neil has zero self preservation or human sympathy and that’s the fucking point

Kevin is a coward and left Jean and says the wrong thing at the wrong time but that’s he point

Like personally I also love arguing and treating them like human beings and analysing and everything but at the end of the day we should not hold them to actual human beings standards because if we do this takes away the point of it being fiction

[clumsypuppy]

i feel like im not making any sense but does anyone else feel like there are stories that let u run with them and ones that spell everything out for you

[akkivee]

i occasionally say that bat’s colours are an off shade from other characters’ colours and this is what i mean by that lol

[the-great-lolita]

So many of the age headcanon posts keep saying that Papyrus's Undernet username 'implies that he is in his early 20's'- mf his username is CoolSkeleton95, that has literally nothing to do with being 20 lmfao

[alpacacare-archive]

inside you there are two wolfs

[mysterycat-isstillme]

Venting

My mum called me ideologically compromised and claimed tras on tumblr have done it to me. Because i dont like. Call people trannies and think about trans people 24/7 as far as i can tell. I could see a man in a dress and not boil with rage because i assume the best first. She annoys me with how often she assumes things. Because when she sees someone effeminate whos male she just loves to go "look at this ugly tranny! Probably a paedophile!" And when i don't agree because often i don't even know if the person is trans let alone anything else, she acts like im some sort of secret double agent aiming to destroy her life. Because i have a slightly nuanced perspective and don't enjoy random almost homophobic ridicule of strangers, im the problem. How the fuck is this my life.

[smile-files]

guys. i need your opinion of this. because i'm genuinely so confused now

what time period is the professor layton series in?? the prequel trilogy and the main trilogy. when are they supposed to be taking place

i could've sworn one of the games (though i forget which) mentions that someone's been to the moon already which would put them at least in the late 60s into the 70s going by our world's timeline... but i don't know maybe space travel was discovered earlier in this universe???

[idontmindifuforgetme]

the criticism imo comes from how 'girl' phrases reinforce patriarchal views of gender. terms like 'girl math' and 'girl dinner' are appending girl as shorthand for 'i don't know better due to my youth and gender' similar to how 'boys with be boys' uses boys. and all these phrases really translate to 'my actions are in line with societal expectations of my gender'.

Yes and I get that. I can completely get behind being against the “girl dinner” “girl math” trend. But I feel like a lot of criticism about girlhood has gone beyond that, to the point where it’s automatically assumed that girlhood holds negative connotations.

When people refer to Luigi Mangione as a boy and a kid, they don’t do it from a place of “he’s just a boy.” They do it from a place of “he’s a rising star in the tech industry, but let’s not forget that he’s just a kid so he’s free to make mistakes too.” Everyone is literally obsessed w him rn so I really don’t think what’s happening is anything beyond people allowing a man to be young well into his late 20s and 30s.

There will always be other scenarios where girl/boy hold negative connotations, and I respect that and think it’s a worthy conversation. But there’s no denying that no one would be calling a 26 year old woman a kid who’s also a rising star in tech like they would not be embracing her youth in this manner and I think that’s a worthy conversation too

[iwatcheditbegin]

I know I’ve said this before but as an adopted person I’m so fucking sick and tired of pro-lifers using adopted people as pawns in their cultural war.

Stop assuming I’m pro-life just because I’m adopted. No one should be forced to carry and birth a baby. No one.

Stop invalidating the trauma of adoption. And stop with your bullshit “ people would love to adopt the baby” stuff. Bc no that’s largely not the case. And I’ve seen over and over again that society doesn’t view or value non biological children the same.

[parasitoidism]

People with happily married parents will never know the thrill of hearing the insane personal lore drops through eavesdropping on arguments though