#something fundamentally wrong with teh

[upsidedowngrass]

you ever think about how, on top of the other assorted traumas the main cast had to endure, they now have to deal with the fact that they know what the afterlife is like, and it sucks?

i DO and i think about it a LOT!!!

as is. probably expected. i think abt it the MOST wrt liam. because the way i see it, he does NOT like dying at all and he also KNOWS what it Really looks like. he KNOWS that theres nothing actually there, and all he knows of the waiting room is 1. a radio that is basically a device that is most likely to just get you killed, and 2. if you dont use the radio, you are trapped Forever. thats. not a pleasant way to view what awaits you

i actually think that eventually the waiting room would come to look like Something for liam years later once he gets home, and that it just looking as it truly is to him largely has to do with the immediate traumatic experiences he was going through all the times he saw it (something something, the waiting room showing you what you want or something you miss etc, but him not having anything to go off of because hes not thinking of much and is a bit detached from the stuff he COULD be thinking about, blah blah blah. my ideas on what determines if you see smth ARE a bit rough bc its so vague tho i also tend to think it has smth to do with if you were 'supposed' to die at that moment, like how stones knowledge of stuff clearly favors certain events over others. its hard to explain and i dont wanna derail this post. its not completely relevant) and that, once he Dies dies itll be Okay! but i think the fact that he knows what the waiting room can be at its worst would probably assume that, when he dies, everythings gonna suck for ETERNITY and id. imagine that is a very haunting thought process to have. i think death scares him a LOT because of this (he SAW julien, and i think the idea of that happening to him and no one ever helping , since it was so unlikely for julien to be saved anyway) and its. probably one of many things hes gonna HAVE to work out in therapy or smth . the guy went through TWO situations where he was trapped somewhere for Possibly Forever, the idea of that being what hes doomed to experience For The Rest Of Time is probably Not Pleasant and Not Helped by his other trauma

the other characters i think have a very different view of it, but not necessarily in a 'better' or 'worse' way . but its because all of them DID see soemthing in the room (or in amelias case, likely wasnt there long enough to even know WHAT she was looking at, let alone assess it.). bryce eventually saw it for what it was yeah, but he def KNOWS what it Can be. for bryce, then, i think its also. complicated? because it seems to be a tipping point for him in the series. and i think its because, when things go wrong and theres no Direct Person To Blame, hes like. almost sluggish? idk how to describe it, its almost similaar to how liam responds to things being fucked up, but feels fundamentally different, and hes just kinda There. if i had to guess, that has to do with his preexisting trauma and how he responds to it, but he generally comes across as if hes in shock the Whole time. the fact that he Died, For Real is uncomfortable to him, but it doesnt seem to mean Much wrt what the room is Showing him. i think the fact that its 'not real' is irrelevant, and i think thats ALL him. because its the exact thing he would Want to be real. id imagine its very dreamlike. and most people jsut Go Along with things in their dreams

even when he comes to see the room as it is, it seems to have more with the fact that him and liam had to work together for a WHILE. we dont know how long they tried to get to stones world (other than that they were killed More than 20 times), but its safe to assume they Didnt realize theyd be able to get BACK home (given bryces surprise at teh san francisco note). so when they actually find stones world its like. bryce DOES care abt liam, and has the whole time (with him going up the smokestack being the biggest indicator. 'i want my car keys back,' as many have pointed out is. a reason, but an obvious excuse). the notes ARE saying something, texty JUST found something important. but liam is upset to not have gotten ANYTHING out of dying 20 times, and while bryce was mostly just Going Along before, now it seems like theres an Actual possibility they could stop airy because they just DID, and liam DOESNT notice it??? and i think, then, his primary goal becomes something the room cant replicate, not really (side note, that we dont see what bryce sees because its a Show. and i think many people assume Right when texty brought them back that he saw it was. but i think it Stopped showing the suburbs AS he was talking to liam, hence the surprise! i imagine it was visually similar to when a setting changes in a dream. but thats not important to this post). from here, he doesnt seem more OPTIMISTIC, but it seems like hes more. content? determined? which i imagine has to do with 'thought he was dead Forever, and was in shock' -> 'thought he was dead Forever, but might be able to help the other contestants! which is good!' -> 'hes NOT dead forever. but like. he STILL can help them!' which i think is a weird combo of Good News and a New Goal RIGHT after smth Super Fucked Up

anyway, the conclusion that tangent was supposed to visualize is that. i think the waiting room might be. mostly positive to bryce??? but in the same way someone might think positively of something saving them from smth fucked up. like that isnt to say the bryce likes it but i think its a complex appreciation?? im not sure. he talks a lot abt how he doesnt want to throw everything away Again, and i think the waiting room almost Contradicted everything about that? like. dying SHOULDVE been the end of everything. but it??? wasnt??? it ultimately didnt help anything substantially, but like. he went through All That and came out alive, somehow? endorphins were probably also at play

but then also it DID lead to him dying 20+ times. so its certainly not just positive for him. but i think overall this would make how he feels about the waiting room. pretty complex? and probably confusing for himself. given that he saw it as it was for a relatively short amount of time, and the two didnt take too much time trying to figure out WHAT the room even WAS, i dont think itd be easy to connect everything together. and it wouldnt be unreasonable for him to assume that itd be the suburbs if he ever went back, or that if it WAS that orange and pink place, maybe thats not fully bad? but eeither way, itd certainly be disorienting to think about. i think the idea of it not having been Real would be confusing and maybe a bit upsetting, but he doesnt strike me as caring TOO much if its 'real.' though i think the idea of spending the rest of existence in something Fake would also be. unnerving

charlotte also definitely saw Something. its never clarified WHAT, but the fact that she saw something is Clear. and i think shed probably be affected by it in a more subtle way, because she NEVER saw it as it was. as far as she knows, when she died, she was shown something (and likely someone) that she wanted to go to, so i think shed see it as mostly a positive place. a very desirable place to be!!! but that has little to do w how shed feel abt dying itself. because i think the idea of death not being smth Bad would be comforting, but also the act of dying itself would be the unsettling in itself. that, and the fact that she can be brought back Easily, potentially. which ALSO isnt necessarily negative but also i think would be Weird to think about. that you can be somewhere great forever, for the rest of existence, but at any moment that place could be taken away. Really, its not that much different from the trauma of the plane (though, given her life beforehand, the idea of being taken from someplace definitively Good might be more unique to her having died) but its likely smth that would Still impact her

amelia then is the most complicated to figure out out of the four? bc we dont even know how much she SAW. it likely wasnt MUCH but like. she seems to know she Died, at the very least, and knows how temporary it Can be (however unrealistic that may seem) . as such i think her feelings on the waiting room are probably hazy, and what ideas she DOES have are closer to charlottes. most of what she knows about it would likely be based around what the others tell her. really, for amelia, i think the more haunting aspect is the Dying part. i think it affects her sense of self, and that having been brought back partially Didnt happen. that amelia died, and scenty was respawned. as such, i think the waiting room COULD be a negative concept for her, but only on account of it having been the last thing that the idea of amelia probably ever saw. that, or the first thing the idea of where scenty begins starts. just a extremely brief glimpse into somewhere dreamlike, and then a huge shift in self. i think post canon this feeling of having Died lingers a LOT, and what would haunt her about the afterlife has more to do with the idea of ANOTHER loss of self. which would also have to be smth Worked out in therapy or smth of that nature

basically i think they all would have verrry different thoughts on the waiting room , but even those among them that dont have a completely negative view of it wouldnt necessarily see it positively. and i think itd suck for them . SO bad. but i think someday it would maybe suck a little less!

[glorioustidalwavedefendor]

But honestly, it is not to much to ask that a significant amount of pop culture properties "pass" the bechdel test

Aproximately half-ish of humaty falls under the generall umbrella of women

It should be kind of a given that a sensible amount of pop culture offers stories that have characters from those 50-ish % interacting with each other about something other then the other ruffly 50-ish % of humanity

If that is not the case then something is fundamentally wrong wit the way we tell stories or better ... with the storie sthat get to be told ...

Does that mean I think a storie that does not pass teh bechdel test is automatically bad?

No! The lord of the rings very deffinitely does not pass and i love it to bits

The book propably barely passes ... I can't remeber if Eowyn ever talks to Ioreth ... but I feel like that barely counts ...

Same with the Terror (2018) it does not pass the bechdel test at all

Three female charcters only two ever interact with each other and they are here to discuss the men in their live ... (the one that will not take no for an answer and the one that got his silly ass lost in the arctic ... )

Do I love it?

Hell yeah!

I watced that thing until it called my momi

On the other hand you have Loki (2021) that easily passes the Bechdel test ... female characters ... talk to each other ... about plot related stuff that isn't a man

DO I like it?

Ahm ... it's complicated ...

Do I think it is objectively well writting?

No ... I think, independently of wether you like the plot or not, the writting is objecively bad on a purely technical level ...

So, ... the bechdel test is a litmus test about which stories a culture values enough to make them in to pop culture properties and which are confined to the limbo of indie productions ...

And while that says NOTHING about the quality of the indevidual property it says all about our society and where exactly we are standing on all things equality ... and as far as that goes ...

I have bad news ...

-> It also should be noted that kids media is a bit more likely to pass the bechdel test then media aimed at teenagers or adults ... for obvious reasons ...

you people will just. say anything

Keep reading

[fuyumigf]

i know kitty gang DESPISED teh. oh aew was left and right rejecting boys because he was in a relationship and teh just cheated on him... imagine cheating on oh aew???

[mxleahy]

also i went off in the discord about why sam is good imma copypaste that rant too because it was accurate:

ok so like the thing about sam wanting to do good is he is DESPERATE. fundamentally at his core he is desperate to be his own person and to define what that is. he wants to have a single choice in the world and have it respected and he wants that choice to be WHO HE IS. he wants to be good! but the world is constantly telling him otherwise - john fighting with him, dean dragging him along (i love you dean but shh it's sammy time), azazel and lilith and ruby and teh angels all manipulating him in s4, etc etc. and the thing is, also, is that sam is truly alone for the first time in the beginning of s4/end of s3. the entire three seasons before that are preceded by death and loss for him. jess burned on his ceiling. john died for a gun and for dean, and never fixed things with sam. sam himself died and was brought back by his brother. sam lost his autonomy in a major way when he learned about the demon blood in him. he even lost the ideal past he heard about but never had when he learned that mary knew azazel. and he just lost dean! the one thing he had left in the world, he lost. so he's desperate, more so than usual. when you're in sam's position, desperation can come across as naivete, and sam is so, so desperate.

so he's told: here is a thing you can do. he is told: it may seem bad but it could save lives. he is told: this is something only you can do, and maybe it can help you get some peace, get some control, get something back you've craved your entire lonely existence. so he does it, of course he does, if only to keep ruby around because fuck if he can take losing anyone else. jess died because of him. demons are scared of him. john's dead. dean died for him. maybe sam is cursed. he has demon blood in him, after all; mary's died for him twice now, once as a ghost and once on the ceiling of his nursery, her blood dripping in his mouth and damning him just as much as azazel's. he wants to atone for all the wrongs he never meant to do, and at this point, he's desperate and he's desperate enough to try something he never would if a single person who truly loved him was there.

so he tries demon blood. he just wants to save people. he doesn't know what else he can do at this point. it's not him being naive, it's him being so utterly desperate to do a single undeniably good thing in this world that he's willing to damn himself and become a monster for it.

sam has always, always since the very beginning of the show, been willing to give himself up for the world. was willing to be a secretive weirdo at stanford so he wouldn't put his friends in danger. always the first to offer himself as bait on a hunt. scared of his powers but unafraid to use them to help others. refused to kill anyone at cold oak or before, because even though he could feel the changes happening in his very body he just wanted to do GOOD. and it was never enough till now, but there always, always, is something else to try.

so he tried demon blood and it didn't work out but it's not his fault. it's not his fucking fault he just wanted to do GOOD

he's a GOOD MAN with a big heart and so much fear and desperation and determination! he's a good man!!!

[scendant]

THE POSITIVE & NEGATIVE; Mun & Muse - Meme.

fill out & repost ♥ This meme definitely favors canons more, but I hope OC’s still can make it somehow work with their own lore, and lil’ fandom of friends & mutuals. Multi-Muses pick the muse you are the most invested in atm.

tagged by: @zhrets​ aka THE stinky boy, Thank 4 teh Tag-desu uwu *glomps* tagging: @foxcharmed​ / @heroeth​ / @garuvusu​ (do it twice i dare you gabby) / @icarise​

My muse is:   canon / oc / au / canon-divergent / fandomless / complicated

Is your character popular in the fandom? YES / NO / KINDA

Is your character considered hot™ in the fandom?  YES / NO

Is your character considered strong in the fandom?  YES / NO

Are they underrated?  YES / NO

Were they relevant for the main story?  YES / NO.

Were they relevant for the main character?  YES / NO

Are they widely known in their world?  YES / NO.

How’s their reputation?  GOOD / BAD / NEUTRAL.

How strictly do you follow canon?  / I follow canon as much as I can, but it’s important for me to note that Elesis has many versions of herself depending on exactly which time I write her. For the most part, for panfandom interactions, I go for a more general approach incorporating canon into her story (as she did travel solo across dimensions for a hyper-extended period of time), but making it so that it wouldn’t have a tremendous effect on the actual canon of the story (by making her forget every world where she’d traveled, which gives opportunity for plots to revolve around that). I try to follow canon but, the game was a 2008 KMMORPG that was a patchwork mess and character identity is left highly to fandom and individual interpretation. My Elesis is nearly an original character at this point. I’ve thought about what made sense for her for a long time. She is a childhood character that had a significant impact on why I decided to rp, the kind of person I am today, and liking her and maining her in the original game inspire a lot of my love for similar characters.

SELL YOUR MUSE! Aka try to list everything, which makes your muse interesting in your opinion to make them spicy for your mutuals.  / Elesis Sieghart provides a lot of introspection. She is interesting because she is multifaceted. She is a leader---a Savior, going by the way canon sees her. But she’s not. Several times in canon, namely in her background and in an implied alternate dimension, she leans towards revenge over justice. Her goal has been, and always has been, to enact revenge on the villainess who took her father away from her. Her reaction to seeing her father die in front of her is anger, and then a desire for vengeance. In the alternate universe mentioned, she is so overtaken with rage that she transforms into a shell of herself consisting of her determination and her desire to kill----something that isn’t common among characters like her. Likewise, all throughout canon, she forced her way into a leadership position that, gradually, she begins to doubt and resent. She was brash, had an ugly personality, trampled over others’ opinions and yet---she cares about them so much. She’s a leader because she treats everyone she meets as equals, but she isn’t a leader-type because she’d rather seek anger in her friends’ name rather than protecting them in the present. Elesis always, always, looks towards the past for her actions rather than the present and she is fundamentally flawed as a protagonist. Not to mention, she is selfish and she takes her enjoyment of battle to extremes. Rather than being a forgiving and kind protagonist, she is ruthless and nearly totalitarian in her desire to fight over doing the right thing. She would rather die than retreat for the safety of her friends. She is angry, but it’s kept inside. She is lustful for violence, but she has to keep up the image of a good leader. She’s constantly on a breaking point one way or another, and I love that about her and I hope my interactions can spark some of that curiosity to go beyond what she is on the outside.

She’s a character that has a lot of potential for relationships. She has so many experiences that have changed her over and over again that she cherishes and is referred back to often. She’s a lot of contradictions in one woman, and to weasel your way into that takes a lot of effort and it’s rewarding. That’s how I want to portray her.

Now the OPPOSITE, list everything why your muse could not be so interesting (even if you may not agree, what does the fandom perhaps think?).  Elesis isn’t digestible. She’s kind of basic looking and her words are far and few in between. I think she’s a very difficult character to love----she’s an easy character to gloss over because she’s not bombastic like a lot of others are. Speaking not so much from a fandom perspective (because she is very loved in the fandom, namely GC’s Korean fandom, where she’s one of the most popular characters) but from the perspective of roleplaying and seeing the kinds of characters people tend to prefer----Elesis is just not it. She’s not that consumable, and threading with her (and me in general) takes a ton of time and back and forth before she gives way to cuter threads or in-depth things. She’s not really defined by anything outright. It can easily be said that she isn’t anything. Her character doesn’t seem consistent----she’s a lot of things at once, rather than being “a good girl” or “an evil woman” or “a villain” or “sweet and candy-like” or “a sultry femme fatale”----she’s none of the easily definable. She’s a lot of everything, but she isn’t any one of those descriptions. She’s a protagonist but she doesn’t act like one. She’s a warrior but she longs for something more normal, something more regular. She’s a knight but she has never been knighted. She’s not easy to take in and it can seem very pretentious, to make one character absolutely nothing. It’s off-putting and it turns people off. Also, I don’t tend to talk about her until prompted to, nor do I talk on the dash a lot about her, nor do I have many followers in the first place. All of those things make her a character that people might just not want to write with, and that’s 100% okay.

What inspired you to rp your muse?  / She’s important to me. After leaving tumblr for 2-ish years following a lack of interest and seeing how toxic the dashboard was and how toxic the rpc twitter community was, I left and I didn’t look back until now. In the end, though, I want to write. Writing makes me happy. rping Elesis makes me insanely happy. I never brought her to tumblr because I didn’t want her to be ruined for me, and I’ve reached a point in my life where I’m confident enough in my own identity and my love for this character that I’ve been thinking of in silence for years to put it out in public and start writing with old friends again.

What keeps your inspiration going?  / I love one (1) beautiful titty redhead sword woman. 8+ years in my lil’ brain still going strong 3:

Some more personal questions for the mun.

Give your mutuals some insight about the way you are in some matters, which could lead them to get more comfortable with you or perhaps not.

Do you think you give your character justice?  YES / NO

Do you frequently write headcanons?  YES / NO (though I want to)

Do you sometimes write drabbles?  YES (all of my replies tend to be drabbles 3:>) / NO

Do you think a lot about your Muse during the day? YES / NO

Are you confident in your portrayal?   YES / NO

Are you confident in your writing?  YES / NO

Are you a sensitive person?  YES / NO

Do you accept criticism well about your portrayal? / Truthfully---no. Not about Elesis. About any other character, or rather---about every other character besides Elesis, I will accept criticism. But I’ve thought about Elesis for way too long and for way too many years of my life, changing her as I go, so much so that it’ll feel too personal to me to accept criticism. But if it were any other character, I’d readily accept it.

Do you like questions, which help you explore your character?  / Absolutely please please please please---it’s so hard to talk to people one-on-one about her as is, as it is for everyone about their own muses. I love questions. I love answering them.

If someone disagrees to a headcanon of yours, do you want to know why? / I’d be curious, truthfully. But it’s not bad. Anyone can disagree and if that’s the case, but ultimately, my headcanons for Elesis are my own and that’s not going to change even if someone else told me it was “wrong” or “bad”.

If someone disagrees with your portrayal, how would you take it? / I don’t really care. I’ve thought about this stupid meathead woman for far to long to feel offended at someone else’s disagreement of how I write her. Plus, Elesis Sieghart, as well as every single character of the Grand Chase, can have many, many interpretations due to how vague and up in the air their canon information is. It’s just how it is...

If someone really hates your character, how do you take it?  / The only situation where I’d feel upset would be if it were a close friend telling me this after a while of talking about her---and it’s happened before. But overall, it made me sad for a minute and then it was “whatever”. They love her now, and things are good and right in the world. Someone else’s dislike of Elesis doesn’t really effect me outside of close friendships.

Are you okay with people pointing out your grammatical errors?  / Absolutely! If something is off, please tell me or correct it in the reply <3

Do you think you are easy going as a mun?   / I’d hope so. I don’t view rp as my life or as a main hobby, so I don’t tend to be here often and I write as I feel like it. As a mun I kind of just write here as I please because I know the people who are interested will continue to be interested and those who aren’t, I’ll know with time. In terms of friendships and rp, I do like to be talked to if I share my discord because I don’t share it often. I want to be able to develop and write and do all of those fun things I never got to do in the past due to the fact that when I used to rp as a main hobby, I was a minor---shipping back then was difficult for me, as a minor. 3: But now that I’m a lot older and, well, Legal, I can do a lot more things and explore more dynamics that I felt like I just wasn’t mature enough to do in the past. I guess, in that case, I’m a bit more higher maintenance. I hope I come off as easygoing, but I do get very intense about writing, I like it so much.

[obsidianwolfxredux]

Animorphs the Departure...

I've been dreading getting to this book because it is in many ways IMO the book where Cassie's arc becomes fundamentally broken and her static creator's pet status asserts itself. Sure she had her less than stellar moments before but before this book they could have been signs of an arc where she went from a childish form of morality into a more adult one. Because IMO that is the biggest problem with Cassie she has a very immature morality that lends itself to her hypocrisy and making frankly bad or horrific decisions. Then her creator's pet status kicks in and she's shielded from all the fall out. It really shines through in this book because the beginning of this book is just awsome Cassie reaching the breaking point, quitting and some real hard necessary truths are said by the others to her. If she'd had an actual over arching arc then this should have been the pivot point where she began to change. What that change should have been doesn't matter if it was staying idealistic but embracing a more adult view of how to stay that way and interact with the war or learning to set aside her concerns for the greater good.  It doesn't matter just something but instead Cassie's morality doesn't change at all and instead the novels that follow this one constantly excuse it or have the others acting as if her morality is so much more developed then theirs when it is actually very shallow and child like. I'd even be fine with her keeping the shallow and child like morality if the others and the narrative actually called her on it and realized its limitations. That could have been an interesting conflict later in the series Cassie learns the others don't value her opinion and lie to her face to keep her from sabatoshing mission but that never happens. Instead it is plain to see that she is the creators pet espousing the creators views on topics. I mean I have never cared for author tract creators pet characters regardless of my opinion on the views they state. Anyway after a stellar beginning we reach the Aftran conflict and this is where the book gets shaky. It is actually a good idea but it begins to fall apart as Cassie begins making reckless dangerous choices with no forethought and no follow through by the narrative that culminates in the whole Cassie decides to prove her commitment by becoming a caterpillar. The others then decide to let Aftran fulfill her deal with Cassie out of sentimentality and everyone is rewarded with the ass pull of the century when Cassie becoming a butterfly lets her demorph despite going over the limit. Which makes the end of this book in the same realm of bad as some of the worst books of the series. So it makes it a hard book to comment on. I mean there is no real follow through on the Karen situation(I mean how did they free her and keep her safe) and it is abundantly clear that despite this whole victory being mostly luck. Cassie was followed by the only vengeful yerk who was able to convinced to give up the life even the narrative says yerks should be pitied for not having.  There is nothing in later books to imply Cassie every considered doing anything wrong. There are never any moments where similar events happen and it backfired spectacularly making it clear how lucky Cassie was and maybe making her reconsider doing that in the future. None of that and it really hurts Cassie as a character. The static creators pet role the narrative forces her into really hurts her likability. Up next the David trilogy which I will not post about till I've reread all three so it might be a few days.

[gaycey-sketchit]

(Gary anon) Heh, he has more to him, but coming off of Paul's impact hurt him hard regardless. (A handshake between the two is definitely coming soon. And hopefully Gary leaving some mark on Ash again; preferably something different but hits the same as the previous times) They seem to have 'fixed' that by having the baby Cubone join Trace's team in "Let's Go". (Ah, the infamous Coma theory, at least that is not as rampant as it was years ago. Pokemon had quite a lot of)

.

(Part 2) (creepypastas; though the "cockfighting is bad" stems more from outside sources trying to denounce the franchise 'FOR TEH CHILDRENS') It's kinda funny how fans over the years kept trying to put some "traits" {headcanons} from Red unto Ash, but officially, it's the other way around. Red mainly has seniority. (It took a while for Red being mostly stoic to not mean "emotionless with serious eyes to look badass at all times") Probably gave him a voice cause making

(Part 3) him stay mute would've made some scenes difficult to convey or come off in the wrong way. {Though an "inner voice" maybe could have worked}. (Origins Red was more or less Ash with few changes. Blue is just a fun character in general) Yeah, gonna wait until we get more info to properly speculate. (I saw another try to "fix" the screen to include Serena. We know why she was deliberately omitted, but I at least remember there were a few beginning episodes where she didn't)

(Part 4) (join the group yet) Just the fact it's in Goh's possession is a stir in itself; I don't expect it having a HUGE role here other than purifying the water. If it is the Yamper episode. (If this is the last mission for Goh before the trip, I feel like Gary has to show up, even if not the focus. Gotta at least show who got the 3 spots) Oh, Happy Palletshipping Day btw. :D

I'll have to take your word for it because I have not seen much of BW and I don't know when I'll get around to watching it. But Paul was definitely a tough act to follow, rival-wise. I don't think Ash will ever have a rivalry that intense again.

(I keep telling myself I'll watch Pokeani all the way through someday, but I need to enlist someone willing to accompany me on that journey, because if I'm watching alone with nobody to bounce off commentary with, my attention span won't hold out enough to even make it through Johto. I love Pokeani more than just about anything but I am not immune to getting bored during filler episodes.)

Love the significance of handshakes in Pokeani. Especially in regards to rivals. Yeah, hopefully!

Yeah, I remember that--but unfortunately it does not hit the same because of different circumstances. Alas.

I've seen "Pokemon is cockfighting" from the moral guardians who don't really understand what Pokemon is and probably also think it's devil worship because there's a thing called evolution in it, "Pokemon training is slavery" is one that's seemingly mostly perpetuated by a certain notorious FFNet user, who is the most comically bitter and misanthropic person I've ever seen amongst Pokemon fanfic writers (I am talking about Farla). Both show a fundamental misunderstanding of what Pokemon is actually about, and trying to apply takes like those to it is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole or however that saying goes.

But anyway. Yeah, it's a funny situation. All those Ash Betrayal Fics that essentially turn Ash into what the fandom thought Red was (before gen 7 revealed that he's just a nonverbal gay man and he's married to Blue now) meanwhile canon sort of did the reverse. As a video game protagonist, Red was probably originally intended to just be a blank slate for the player to project themselves onto, and he didn't gain his own personality until after the anime and manga came along--so of course even though game Red existed first, who he was as a person was influenced by those (except for him being pretty stoic and completely nonverbal or according to Masters, semiverbal, which is pretty different from his expressive and loud-mouthed counterparts Ash and Adventures!Red; he generally comes across as far more reserved than they do).

It'd be a challenge but I would've liked to see them try. As an autistic person who has difficulty speaking sometimes (often) all I really want out of any adaptation that does something with game!Red is for him to keep a trait I find comfort in--he doesn't talk and people accept it. Another character in the Pokemon games that comes across so strongly as autistic literally gets called a freak without a human heart in-game (albeit by one of the most depraved villains in the series) and like half the fandom speculates he's not even human in the first place, so I have some Feelings on the subject. (That said, I do enjoy that in Origins Red has the same English voice as Adrien Agreste from Miraculous Ladybug, something I can think of a number of jokes about.)

Yeah, Origins Red didn't really bring anything new to the table--he just sort of strikes me as a less interesting version of Ash. But every Blue incarnation is entertaining in their own ways, and Origins' take on him had great moments like "acts all bold and confident about going into Lavender Tower, then sees a ghost and runs away screaming" and that time he was up in a tree waiting who-knows-how-long for Red to come along, probably so he could look cool in front of his rival again after the ghost thing, and we are left wondering how much time he spent climbing up there for that one moment. Origins Blue is a delight.

Very eager to see what the future holds!

It'd honestly be kind of funny if she didn't show up again because her departure made it too difficult for the writers to know where to go from there. But she's probably coming up eventually, and her lack of cameo this time is just because they're saving her for later.

Yeah, though I never really got why people were so mad about that since we knew Goh's goal being to catch every Pokemon would mean catching legendaries eventually, and Suicune's still free to roam. It's really not that different from other characters in the anime who had legendaries on their teams (multiple Battle Frontier people, Tobias... though I suppose people don't really like Tobias either).

But anyway yeah, if it's the Yamper episode the Suicune thing probably won't be too major anyway.

Makes sense! I will be very happy to see him again even if briefly.

Heck yeah, PalletShipping Day!! Despite my valiant attempt I didn't manage to prepare anything I'd currently call passable, but looking at other people's fanart and stuff will be fun!! :D

[silewalshcoach]

The Complexity of Inclusion in Organisations

Inclusion is complex despite the positivity surrounding it and the recent promoting of inclusion within organisations. To develop ways of living and working inclusively we need to start with that standpoint.

An example of this would be an organization that requires its people to be inclusive, with a focus on religious competence and respect. Yet, that can counteract with some religious beliefs, in and of itself. So, it's no longer inclusive of the religious beliefs of the person who’s religion requires them to reject teh religious beliefs of others.

There is a preference for us just to get along sometimes and to “just be inclusive” rather than working with the complexity of being inclusive.

Rather than focusing on respecting each other’s religious beliefs, we can move to not to disrespecting their religious beliefs in the workplace and to respecting them as a person and in that way, it doesn't require us to respect their beliefs or values allowing us to practise inclusive behaviours without accepting or embracing another beliefs/values.

With inclusion, there is this tension.

In order to include everyone, we will inevitably create tension between opposing views or experiences, worldviews, personalities, religious and cultural norms. When inclusion attempts to keep everyone included but ignores the tensions that exist within inclusion then it leaves individuals and organizations with political correctness but not inclusion.

Fundamentally to inclusion is the ability to accept that there are tensions that exist within inclusion, and in the attempt to simplify these tensions often results in unintended exclusion or the devaluing of one person's experience over another.

One of the ways that I believe is most powerful to work with inclusion within work settings is to build in a process of inclusion that allows for tensions to exist without devaluing or dismissing an individual, their values or experiences. This can seem counterintuitive to some of the inclusion movements that have happened before.

In this approach, we are accepting difference and we are accepting that people will experience that difference differently.

 It's inclusive because we don't require everyone to be the same, and instead, we value the difference as it presents in groups, teams or organizations. It's inclusive because we also include the reality that there will be tensions involved in inclusion work.

Some of these tensions aren't effective to simplify and resolve, they must coexist with the practice of inclusion. It acknowledges that inclusion is everybody's business and that each one of us will have challenges with inclusion for different reasons.

 This raises all sorts of tensions and challenges for people, "How do I show respect to a person without respecting their value system?", " How do I manage my microaggressions because it impacts a person negatively?" even though I don't necessarily believe in what they believe in or the challenges that they're telling me they're experiencing.

How do we bring inclusion into our work without naturally excluding people who have a value system that doesn't align with inclusion?

 Here are some of the practices that have emerged in my work and with others:

·Inclusion requires the ability to tolerate a different perspective without othering or rejecting the other person simply because we are uncomfortable with their position or belief system.

Inclusion requires me to have the ability to understand that my worldview is privileged in ways different from others and therefore influences what I can accept and absorb from another person's experience or beliefs.

Inclusion is something we practice and is often something we must commit to when we are working or living with people with opposing beliefs or values.

Inclusion requires us to hold an informed position about our own experience without it needing to devalue another person's experience.

Inclusion requires us to appreciate differences and the value add that they bring rather than be distracted by the frustration that things aren't the way we wish them to be.

Inclusion requires us to self-reflect more than externally evaluate or project onto what other people are doing.

 True inclusion will bring discomfort into our day-to-day lives and that nobody is exempt from this discomfort regardless of our identities or intersectionality stop.

It isn't that we will all agree or that we will always be on the same page inclusion is that we will work with the reality of what is currently presenting in a way that allows these different positions and perspectives to inform the way forward.

Inclusion is a practice that requires me to be wrong and requires me to be able to accept my errors and commit to new and informed changes. It requires us to be comfortable not being the expert and instead of being the committed learner who is willing to challenge our biased privilege preferences and worldview to understand and connect more effectively with others from other experiences.

One of the tools is helped me with this in my work has been taking a humanistic viewpoint and using mentalization as a way to bring me closer to understanding rather than being blocked by my own preferences biases and othering. Inclusion is an act of practice, not a mandate.

If you want help developing inclusive practice in your organisation, email Sile directly to discuss your needs or read more about the inclusion work she does with organisations here.

[whattheaegean]

Tags:

the dog pound is sinister because it's an ordinary childhood event that was twisted into something traumatic that roman has built his entire personality around because his father cemented the idea in everyone's heads that deviant behavior is a sign of personal failure and also fundamental and inalienable from your character like regardless of whether logan knew about the dog pound or not he created an atmosphere where that type of behavior would be punished and then roman retroactively used the guidelines logan raised him with to judge every action he's ever taken to try to figure out what's wrong with him and why logan doesn't love him like he wants him to because it MUST be his fault. it HAS to be something he's done like roman and logan's relationship makes me so fucking sick because roman is SO starved for attention or praise or any type of validation of his existence that even when logan doesn't actively degrade him roman will always have his father's voice in his head pinpointing every little thing he does wrong like imagine looking back at your life and going 'oh. so there was something wrong with me even then?' and hating that thought so much you go 'no no no it can't have been. i was bullied into it. it can't have been me' like REGARDLESS of which of those is true he still internalized both and one idea fucks him up significantly more than the other and it's the one that he runs from roman roy and logan are like. why kick the dog when you can just train the dog to kick itself and have it thank you for the pleasure me spiralling about roman roy YET AGAIN like if nobody got me i know whatever the fuck is happening with roman roy's got me

reading this made me sick to my stomach for some reason i never made the connection that little roman thought it was a GAME all he wanted was for them to PLAY because he's still little enough to want that and then its ''hey rome we'll let you play if youre the dog that's how babies are- because four is a BABY- jesus christ he was so young and then its ''yay! they want to play with me! please play with me! please use me in the game!'' PLEASE USE ME IN THE GAME PLEASE IM THE BEST DOG I PROMISE ILL STILL LOVE YOU WHEN YOU KICK ME AND CAGE ME UP im going to bite someone (thats me talking not him akjvaskvdj) ''why train the dog when you can train teh dog to kick itself'' what the fuck is wrong with you?????? (affectionate) i hate this goodnight

i’m watching succession i can finally reblog this now. tearing my hair out btw csa tw (for the tags) i’ve been thinking a lot about dog pound & i know the obvious conclusion right away is CSA re: the whole ‘you liked it/ you asked for it’ rhetoric + distorted recollection of what actually happened + bedwetting + roman’s issues w deriving pleasure out of sex w/o being degraded for enjoying it + his repeated pedophilia ‘jokes’ wherein he’s always the one being assaulted. it’s all fucking there but i don’t think dog pound itself is the main traumatic event tied to. well. sex. i think it’s more a case of several traumatic events warping into one another— dog pound once was this scary yet concrete thing. whether it rlly was ‘playing’ or not; at one point he could grasp/ understand what was happening despite it instilling fear in him & clearly being traumatic & now we’re moving into the hypotheticals: if he really was sexually abused as a child it was most likely a repeated occurence for him to make such a strong association of smth being taken from him = sexual violence (roman coaxing kendall into assaulting him when all he was doing was trying to take his phone away from him for justified reasons— ‘you’re gonna grab my tit? you like touching me?’) granted; the language in succession is almost always violently sexual but smth about this encounter strikes me as odd. roman associates sex only w smth being taken from him be it smth as small & seemingly irrelevant as his phone or his ability to feel pleasure w/o guilt also the babysitter / camp counselor / mo in the swimming pool / connor.. way too many jokes about too many different ppl & if all that rlly did happen repeatedly then it’s hard for a child to completely process everything so what does he do? he turns to the one traumatic event that he (then) thought he understood clearly. the cage is scary. & entirely too similar to the aftermath of CSA. so he channels all his feelings of being victimized into the one concrete thing & ignores (what was to him) the abstract/ unprocessed sources of said feeling and it becomes less concrete & more fractured & unreliable over time that’s theory 1. theory 2: dog pound was not traumatic for him at all. it’s just a different kind of cage— physical; solid; not logan’s hold over him— but that’s all it is. he enjoyed it because it rlly was just playing. but outside of it & in logan’s figurative cage once again he begins to feel he must punish himself for daring to enjoy himself at all; especially for such a ‘deviant’ thing like this because who enjoys being put in a cage? he does apparently. & logan doesn’t like that kind of stuff. why would he ever do that kind of stuff intentionally? he MUST have been forced to do so. it must have been traumatic. please please please. he didn’t actually enjoy himself. or at least that’s what he tells himself succession and bases his entire worldview & personality around some part of me wants the show to explicitly show us what it is some part of me enjoys speculating about 40yo dicks too much

the dog pound is so sinister i just. you’re 4 years old and your brother plays a game with you. you’re 4 years old and you want to play with your brother. it’s fun. it’s a punishment. you’re laughing. it’s a game. you asked for it. he made you. it doesn’t mean anything, he doesn’t mean anything by it. it’s the blueprint for your entire life. you’re 4 years old and your brother wants to play a game with you, and your entire life is already a game and you don’t know it yet, but you’ve just lost. you’re 4 year old and you’re playing a game with your brother, and your father is in another room, because you father is always in another room, will alway be in that other room, but your brother is here and you’re in a cage and people are laughing. you’re a kid. it’s a game. you don’t know it yet, but you’re a failure. how do you get out of the cage? you like the cage. you can’t have liked the cage, there’s nothing wrong with you. your brother did this to you (you did this to yourself). it was out of your control (you asked for it). you’re 4 years old and all you want is to play a game with your brother. you’re 4 years old and you’re never leaving that cage.

[colorisbyshe]

the two asks were sent by different people but it's not a big deal. but yeah, many mhd personal stories are shared anonymously specifically because of fear of backlash within ace spaces, usually due to previous experiences or seeing someone else receive backlash for that exact reason. and there are so many factors that can contribute to someone not feeling or recognizing attraction, which is why ace/aro experience is fundamentally different from lesbian/gay/bi/pan experiences.

“Asexuality isn’t an illness it isn’t a symptom!!” But for some of us... it is??

It literally is.

Like? I 100% agree that it is wrong to say that asexuality itself is an illness that needs to be fixed or that all aces are late bloomers or the product of trauma but the way they react to it absolutely shuts out that some aces ARE ace because of that and some people who think they are ace aren’t really but just think they are because of illness/trauma/internalized shit/blooming late.

In the ace community, there is little room for nuance. They can’t acknowledge that aceness isn’t some stagnant thing the way gayness/straightness/biness often (but not always) is. Aceness is something that changes with hormones and age and mental healthy and physical health and experience and self discovery. It won’t change for everyone, for some people it is innate. But like... for a lot of people it’s something they might grow out of or realize was never true in teh first place.

:S

[cappuccinocommie]

rebelbaze replied to your post “rebelbaze replied to your post “y’all, i’m not even ace and i’m sick...”

cishet aces still benefit from teh systemic oppression of the entire LGBT community

Sorry, didn’t realize I was arguing with Merriam-Webster, I’ll make sure I only argue with strict dictionary definitions from now on, because they’re never wrong. All of your arguments come purely from semantics, which doesn’t surprise me. 

But fine, since you’re so adamant, we’ll do it your way. (Long post ahead.)

The U.N. did suggest that corrective rape be renamed “homophobic rape.” They did not officially rename it, because guess what, the U.N. doesn’t have Ultimate Power over What Words Mean. Additionally, they didn’t rename it to exclude any particular group, they did so because calling it “corrective rape” in their minds implied that something needed to be fixed. Just because it’s only called “homophobic rape” doesn’t mean it can’t be done to bisexual people trans people, or indeed, cishet aces. 

“Systemic oppression is a network of institutions working to mraginalize a group of people. It is cultural norms combined with legal, medical, and governmental institutions working to oppress people.” --> Yes. That’s correct. However, the way you’re applying this concept makes me think you have a fundamental lack of understanding of how oppression works. It is not a set of boxes to tic off. ‘Am I oppressed by the legal and medical systems as well as the government and society at large? Yay! I get gold in the oppression olympics!” That’s not what’s going on at all. 

Society didn’t pick certain demographics out of a hat to oppress. It happened because of a complex series of beliefs became Societal Truth, and anyone who lived outside of that Truth was seen as an outsider. So let’s talk about the expectations put on people to fit into a gender binary and conform to sex norms, shall we? (This next bit you can skip and read the TL;DR, but I think this will help you.)

Early peoples lived in essentially classless societies. Though tasks were divided, the divisions were egalitarian and sensible, and neither sex was dominated by the other. (I realize this anthropological analysis is somewhat exclusive of nonbinary people, but in fairness our understanding of sex and gender is much more nuanced than it was back then.) Oppression of women essentially started with agriculture, “as the province of men was transformed into something unprecedented: property. With this development, the custom of defining lineage through women proved a serious problem.” Patriarchy was developed in response to this impasse. (If you would like to read up more on this, it’s all in Engels’ “Origin of the Family, Property, and the State.”) 

TL;DR: The concept of patrilineage gave rise to several conceptions that continued through the ages (there are complex socio-religious factors also involved in this, but for the sake of time, I will shorten): 

> women should remain faithful to their husbands, and husbands are essentially the owners of their wives. 

> sex is only for procreation, therefore homosexual interactions should be prohibited. 

> sex is necessary to consummate a “lawful” relationship. 

> a man needs to have sex (in order to pass on his wealth). 

> a woman needs to have sex in order to satisfy her husband. 

Do you see how these concepts – societal “institutions,” if you will (officially defined “an established law, practice, or custom”) gave rise not only to sexism, but to homophobia, and ALSO contributes to the daily oppression of asexuals, regardless of their romantic orientation or gender identity? The fact that asexuals aren’t specifically criminalized is entirely irrelevant to the fact that asexuals are held back by the exact same concepts that cause homophobia and sexism. The fact that asexuality is not criminalized in the same way that homosexuality and transgenderism has been is largely due to a lack of awareness, rather than any lack of connection to the factors that cause our oppression. 

Do you see that your concept of oppression is not only short-sighted, its based entirely in semantics? That instead of understanding the complex reasons that oppression exists, you’d rather nitpick definitions to exclude certain people that “aren’t LGBT enough”? Do you see that it’s really not as simple as you’re making it out to be? 

I hope so. Because I think that your time would be better spent fighting against the people who oppress us, instead of picking on people who are on your side anyway. 

[chroniclesofcelebrity-blog]

Trolling of Celebrities , Online bullying of women

Introduction

The use of social media platforms has elicited many positive tropes in that it allows for people to express themselves in ways that they want and so, gives rise to public opinion and be it positive and negative.  Digital media allowed fans the opportunity to interact with their favourite Celebrities and personalities who most of the times are shown love and support by their fans. This however is not always the case as in life not all things are positive, not all people wish you well or even like you .This has resulted in inferences of hate speech which aim to disturb the person being attacked purposefully. This post aims to critically reflect on the issues around Trolling and how it aims to disrupt celebrity in using digital media to openly criticise celebrities to silence their view.

Trolling

According to Moreau (2017) Trolling is the act of posting inflammatory or rude messages on an online social platform. This can be on an online chat room ,blog or any other social media platform with the fundamental intention of provoking readers or a specific person on purpose. This kind of troll is unique in that their identity is hidden behind the screen of the device in which the person uses to conduct malice activity. This internet troll is said to be an angry character with the express purpose of displaying their anger publicly to humiliate and disrupt a person’s online experience Moreau (2017). The act of trolling is made available due to the very public nature of social media and the ability of anyone  being able to access a person account , making visible all their posts . pictures and other applicable content . Trolling is able to take place on almost all social media platforms including, twitter (the most prevelant), Reddit, Instagram, tumblr etc. The act of trolling is seen to be very popular in the realm of celebrity where one constantly sees it happening to celebrities both by plebs and other celebrities.

Trolling in celebrity culture

the readily accessible platform awarded to people through the digital age has allowed people the right to exercise their right to free speech News24 (2015). Online social media resources and the forums and spaces they provide allow for the ability for people to say what they like when they like without serious repercussions. The anonymity of people’s online presence allows for negative and sometimes hurtful speech to flourish without any repercussions due to the inability to hold a person personally responsible and facing real repercussions or forms of punishment for their hurtful speech as their online identities have been curetted and at times are false identities. This results in teh inability to punish or hold a person accountable, this allows for hate speech and other forms of victimisation and abuse to prevail in the digital space which results in more than good mostly because of the inability to hold perpetrates accountable for wrong actions. News24 (2015).

The case of Nomzamo Mbatha and Twitter trolls.

South African TV presenter and actress Nomzamo Mbatha recently lost her Cool with a fan after the fan insulted her for repeating an outfit more than once. Zikikhipani (n.d). the fan who is quoted tweeting “your still wearing this thing from 2015 nee , girl” The fan is showcasing troll characteristics in that he is mocking the actress for wearing one outfit more than once attacking her brand and public image , he is troll in that he intentionally mocks her in public in order to bring shame to her name. This speaks against feminist tenets in that he is otherizing her and using her celebrity to mock a female bringing attention to what she wears not mocking something meaningless he criticises her looks trying to diminish her image. It is important to note that he does not talk about something constructive like her talent but rather focuses on bringing her down using a weak argument.

Nomzamo however claps backing point to the huge gap between their tax brackets as she is quoted tweeting the words “know your tax bracket” suggesting that trolling should have rules where one can only troll if they are at the same level or stature as the person they aim to publically humiliate.

https://www.zkhiphani.co.za/nomzamo-mbatha-loses-cool-fan/

The ABOVE LINK IS THE ADDRESS TO THE ARTICLE MENTIONED ABOVE 

 Conclusion

In conclusion this blog post has discussed trolling in how it related to cultural life and new media , showing how celebrity has no escape from public scrutiny and are placed under a magnified glass and put in a particular gaze where they are expected to be perfect and uphold ridiculous standards upheld by society that are at times unrealistic. The proliferation of digital media has created a negative attention economy where people abuse digital media to advance evil agendas with express intention of causing , harm and distress.  

Bibliography

Moreau (2017), online bullying in the face of the digital age

News24, 2017. Trolling a new Journalism . accessed online. Retrived 28 Octer 2017-11-02

http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Trolling-A-New-Journalism-20150508

[theskyexists]

i don’t really understand how Luci caring about people makes him less of the devil. After all, isn’t he supposed to be able to judge people on the suffering they’ve caused? And doesn’t that mean that he should understand wrong-doing on an emotional level?

Surely his charming Trickster persona isn’t just a facade? It is an aspect of him? Just like the Punisher is? Anger, hellfire and pain-dealing?

yayyy ex is nice and helpful!!

Hmmm. so i spose. The devil and his demons deal with sinners already condemned to hell. They just deal out the punishment they feel appropriate to the evil. They judge but don’t ultimately condemn. Humans are shitty in Hell and there’s not much use for anything but the punisher aspect of the devil. The trickster is a facade for live humans in the world. The emotional understanding of the devil of wrong-doing was always theoretical and after the fact.

In the world humans are still in flux and condemning them is not the devil’s prerogative... Theoretical empathy is baked into the devil. And so is the lack of it at the appropriate moments so he can cause people suffering (basically always in hell). Now empathy has become practical. He’s dealing with humans not yet condemned, and who are not completely in his power (well, one).

It was never his intention to follow his punisher script and duty in the world, and when he falls back on it he is confonted with the fact that it is not his role to condemn or punish because he is not in power and the humans are not his to condemn.

Clearly Luci has personal attachments (which i think makes sense from christian mythology - something about Love and Lucifer and falling) so it’s not strange that he would ‘care’ for people.

Honestly it’s surprising to me that Maze and the Angel are saying: you’re changing fundamentally !!

Yeah duh he’s changing but he’s changing in worldview, not fundamentally at his core. Lucifer free of duty is not the same in teh world as in Hell. Empathy, love and a sense of eye-for-an-eye justice was always part of him. (so he would never needlessly hurt others, he can care, and he would never randomly kick a puppy like he says). Though he is all about desire and therefore does do things for selfish reasons mainly, all of the above has always been part of him.

good character.