#spongebob is furry media accept it!!!!!!!! now!!!!!!

[velocithea]

The reality of Spongebob being furry media is a thing the world should be ready for. Think about it. Anthropomorphic animals. Yes, sponges are animals, and therefore are furries when anthropomorphized. Spongebob is, in all senses of the word, a furry. Ya'll are just a bunch of pussies.

[0l0x]

People complain about cartoon characters looking like "someone's cringy OC" but i think what they're actually trying to say is that the character is over-designed.

The most famous character designs are simple enough for a child to draw from memory alone. Mickey Mouse, Sonic the Hedgehog, Homer Simpson, Bugs Bunny, etc.

They generally stick to a 1-4 color palette, clothing details are kept to a minimum, and the character can be recognized by their silhouette alone. They have no more than 1-2 "unique" features, if any. (Mickey's shorts and gloves, Sonic's shoes, Spongebob's pants, etc)

Conversely, an overdesigned character has a messy, complex silouhette. The color palette has more than 4 colors, the clothes have more details than necessary, someone couldn't draw every detail from memory.

I'm not saying those complex types of designs are bad, because they're not. They have their purposes. Characters for books or roleplaying can be more complex because they're not being drawn over and over.

And i think that's why people get thrown off about overdesigned characters in cartoons. They don't seem like "cartoon" characters, they feel more like they belong in a book or RP.

These characters are often very personal to people too. People shove their own personal issues on these characters to explore themselves which is acceptable in the professional world to a point, but pass that point and the character just becomes too "real" and awkward for consumers.

So not only are they over-designed, but over-written as well. Generally (I'm using that word a lot for a reason) if you can't tell the audience everything they need to know about the character in 4 sentences or less, it's over-written.

And because they're over-written, they end up being over-detailed. Let's say Bugs Bunny gets a cybernetic arm. Weird, but it works. But then he gets a mohawk. Then he loses an eye and wears a cool eyepatch. He decides he needs a matching leather jacket and 5 piercings in each ear, then dyes his mohawk 3 colors, then he grows horns and wings and...you see where I'm going with this. You know have the average "cringy OC".

Now that character would be badass in like, a book or something. But in visual media, we subconsciously think of every character as their own individual piece of art. Because they are.

Every art piece has a focal point: the thing your eye is drawn to first. It balances the whole design. But in a character with so many jarring features, the eye doesn't know where to go. It appears "messy" and off-putting.

A solid visual character design should tell you what the character is all about with no words, and shouldn't contain more than 3 concepts. Example: Sonic is fast and a hedgehog. His whole character is defined by those 2 simple traits and his design reflects that by making shoes his focal point.

When you have characters that are like, cybernetic furries who are also vampires and happen to be 80s glam rock stars...well, you're gonna need a complex-ass design to reflect that.

And THAT is what i think people really mean when they say shit like "ew that looks like a deviantart character"

Anyway that's my essay thanks

[marysunshine23]

Problematic?

So, I’ve noticed a... popular trend in some of the stuff that I like and follow on Tumblr. Certain series or concepts are being deemed “problematic”. For the fun of it, let’s see what the dictionary definition is for “problematic”:

a: posing a problem : difficult to solve or decide

b: not definite or settled : UNCERTAIN: their future remains problematic

c: open to question or debate : QUESTIONABLE

This is.... not how people are using it. People are using problematic for... oh what’s that word... I’ll leave that for later. Anyway, the people who are defining certain series or concepts are not using it as problematic by it’s dictionary definition. And here’s why I think it’s silly.

Before I begin listing off some examples of series or concepts that I’ve seen be called problematic, I’m going to say something as a general. If a show is not problematic, it’s either uneventful or just... boring. Even these “slice of life” “reality” shows amp up the problems in a story so there is something worth watching. In fiction, the entire point of the problem is for it to be solved near the end. And what’s the first definition? Oh, that’s right, “posing a problem that is difficult to solve or decide upon”.

And what keeps the tension in a story but definition number two, “note definite or settled”. If it were easy to solve the problem, then it would be, again, boring. So saying that anything with a plot is “problematic” is a big “no shit, Sherlock” because that’s the point. The point is for it to be problematic. Tons of shows that are episodic have problematic situations for every episode. Hell, even Spongebob can be defined as problematic.

However, I know I’m gonna have a million people be like “that’s not what we mean!” And I know that’s not what you mean, that’s why I’m pointing out that your choice of words is silly. Saying anything with a plot, episodic or long running is by definition problematic. So why am I bringing this up? Well, I think what people are mostly associating the word “problematic” to is the third definition, “Open to Question or Debate: Questionable”. And not just questionable as in “let’s discuss this”, it’s “this is morally questionable”; or like I like to say, morally ambiguous. Now that I have that established, let’s list some examples! And by some, I mean two.

Hazbin Hotel

Now, I’m going to say right off the bat, no shit is this morally ambiguous. It’s supposed to be. You have the main protagonist being the princess of Hell, then her girlfriend, her friendly acquaintance who is also a lot of morally not so ambiguous things, an infamous radio show host and two of his lackeys. A lot of people have a lot of complaints about this, and I want to address them quickly.

Angel Dust’s Appearance: A lot of people are upset with how Angel Dust looks; wide chested, wearing a mini-skirt and thigh-high boots, and a somewhat defined waist. People are assuming that his appearance is transphobic. And I have to ask... have you guys never seen an androgynous person before? Like... ever? And there are a million discussions about “fuck gender norms”. Yet when an androgynous looking male is wearing a miniskirt under his too tight jacket. Or maybe it’s the whole using the jacket to shove his chest together to make cleavage, but what five year old hasn’t done that after seeing a “voluptuous” person?

Angel Dust’s Career: He’s a prostitute. He’s a prostitute who is also a porn star. He’s a prostituting porn star who regularly gets into turf wars. He’s a prostituting porn star who regularly gets into turf wars and enjoys recreational drugs. Does that make him a sex addict? No. Does that make him a drug addict? No. Does that make him addicted to violence? No. Does that make him the poster child of that life style? Yes.

Vaggie’s “Stereo Type” Personality: Okay, so I didn’t even know this was a thing until I saw posts about it. Like, for real. I thought Hispanic women were all super nice and motherly and “you’re too skinny!” But then again, I’m pretty sure that’s every non-Caucasian mother stereotype. However, I never found Vaggie’s personality to be “overly angry” or “overly protective”. She gets mad that people are underrating Charlie and her dream, but not so much that she will immediately kill anyone who rolls their eye at Charlie. And if she was overly protective, she wouldn’t even let Charlie take this risk of creating a hotel and broadcasting about it.

Over Swearing: They’re in Hell. This show is for adults. An episode of South Park swears more than this. Grow the fuck up.

There’s Homophobia/Transphobia!: Yes. From the antagonists. Who you’re supposed to dislike. So they’re doing their job. Like I said, grow the fuck up.

There’s no LGBTQ+ Representation: Vaggie and Angel Dust are gay, Charlie is bi, Alastor is Ace.

But Vivzi-: Nope. I’m throwing down the “Right to be Forgotten” card from Europe. This says that if a person has made a mistake in the past and then has redeemed past behaviors with present, they have the “right to forget”, meaning that it’s been forgiven.  And because this is the world wide web, I can say I honestly don’t care what Vivzi did or said ten years ago.

TLDR: Everything brought up as “problematic” is, in all honesty, angry people looking for a reason to be angry.

Next!

Beastars!

Now, according to Barnes and Noble, Beastars is rated 12-17 recommended. Generally that’s a teen to older teen rating. On the other hand, Netflix rated it TV-MA, meaning for mature audiences. So it’s weird. Anyway, rather than going by why people have said about Beastars (negatively) we’re gonna use TV-MA’s guide!

D - Sexual or Suggestive Dialogue: Yup. “Breeding” is a very popular topic in Beastars. It’s part of why Haru is bullied so much. And, come on, Legoshi is given a bunny porn magazine to read. Like, for real. But the nice thing is, the conversation is very casual, so it’s easy to miss. So it’s not a huge deal.

L - Course or crude language: Yup, there’s swearing. Moving on

S - Sexual content: Oh yeah, Haru’s got that covered. In fact, there is a lot of sexual themes in this. But is it porn? No more than Panty and Stocking, and that’s a trip and a half. But also, it’s about as sexual as Sailor Moon. Like, in all seriousness, Usagi is banging Mamoru at 12-16 way more than Haru is banging Louis at 18. Just saying. And it’s shown about as much, so. Yeah. While sexuality isn’t a theme in the porn aspect, it is something that brings up a discussion. The discussion of “can sex be empowering?” And the answer is yes, absolutely, that’s why we don’t slut shame on my blog. But also, another discussion is “can sex skew your perspective of right and wrong”, and the answer is, again, yes! It can! And it might be a good thing.

V - Violence: Yup. But it’s less violent than Tokyo Ghoul. It’s not vamped to 100, it’s not bad. But again, its something to bring up discussion. “Should your physical/biological makeup dictated your actions?” In this, we see very aggressive and even violent herbivores, and on the flip side, very passive and very gentle carnivores. And much like other conversations of what’s socially acceptable, a violent aggressive herbivore is wildly more accepted than a mild, meek carnivore. And heaven forbid carnivores behave like the prideful and aggressive herbivores, ‘cause that’ll get them thrown into jail. So yes, there is violence; violence due to biology and social norms.

So, for being as sexual or as violent as other anime in existence, why is it “problematic”? Probably because people hate furries as much as they hate bronies. People don’t like sexualized anthros. The only place anthros are acceptable is in a Disney movie.

Remember that word I “forgot” at the beginning? The word people meant to use instead of problematic? The word is “discomforting”. It makes you uncomfortable. It doesn’t fit into the norm of what has been “acceptable” in media. As much as South Park, Family Guy, Futurama and other “adult” animation has been using “adult” humor and “adult” themes, it’s not adult in maturity. It’s slap stick, and crude.

People are using “problematic” for cartoon media, or media in general, that is taking actual adult themes and creative adult humor and saying “We’re not here to make you comfortable, we’re here to make you think.” People don’t want to think, people want their minds to be numb, and that is problematic. Not the show, the fact that you don’t want to think. And another thing that is problematic is how people push away actual proper representation and label it as “problematic”, and then complain that they aren’t represented at all; let alone properly. (Those who have followed me for a while know what I’m talking about I don’t need more people to argue with me on that topic.)

Quit using problematic to describe things that are discomforting. And quit acting like being uncomfortable is bad. Being uncomfortable means your growing, and your being tested. And being tested isn’t bad either. Long story short, quit acting like everyone has to accommodate to you because you “don’t like it” or it “hurts your feelings” or makes you uncomfortable. Nothing in life is comfortable, and if you don’t like something, don’t look at it. Don’t watch it. Don’t read it. You have free will. So don’t drag everyone down because you think the world should care about your feelings. It doesn’t.