Misty isn't selfish for wanting friendship with toons.
Misty is selfish for her lack of consideration of toons, their feelings, their perspective. She only focuses on herself and how she has been hurt.
She feels hurt by Bessie's actions, claiming "there was no reason" for her to do such a thing. But toons and cogs are at WAR. Bessie didn't see Misty, she saw a COG approaching her and retaliated. She did not see them as an individual, she saw them as the enemy that's been terrorizing and colonizing their land. And rightfully so.
That being said, Misty did not have ill intentions approaching Bessie. Because of this, they feel hurt that she responded in such a violent way. Misty can feel hurt, but they need to understand why toons feel the way they do towards cogs. They are at WAR. And Misty just doesn't seem to realize that.
She feels entitled to play with toons and garner sympathy from them despite their ongoing battle against the cogs.
It's all about "you still tried to hurt me" and "i've done nothing wrong". Misty truly believes she is the victim and thinks she's entitled to sympathy from toons. But she's not.
Misty genuinely wants friendship with toons, which is why she feels so hurt when they reject her, even if they are right in doing so. Much of her dialogue implies she really is oblivious to the gravity of this war and why the toons, obviously, don't want to engage with her:
Misty may want to befriend toons with no bad intentions, but that doesn't erase what the cogs are doing to the toons' land. And the toons are still justified in fighting Misty. She is a cog at the end of the day.
Misty is so focused on her own, personal pain that she is completely disregarding that a WAR is going on. She disregards what the toons endure due to Cogs Inc. and thinks, just because she doesn't personally hate toons, that they owe her friendship.
I think Misty is probably the main reason for the fandom's villainization of toons and woobification of the cogs. But it's not the fault of how she's written, it's the fault of people who feel bad for a character and suddenly think all their morals have to align with that character. Now, they all have to adapt to Misty's way of thinking: that she is an innocent victim who has done nothing and doesn't deserve any of the treatment she's gotten from toons, and that toons are just evil monsters who attack her for no reason.
THIS COULD NOT BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
You can enjoy a character, like Misty, and feel bad for her. It's obvious there is some real suffering happening here, but it does not justify her view or lack of consideration for others. They are so focused on their own pain that they never think of others. They are so focused on being the victim that no one else can be a victim.
This line of thinking is so flawed, and when a big chunk of fandom REPEATS it, it leads to wild mischaracterization and woobification of. colonizers.
You can like characters who are bad people and disagree with their actions. Misty is not a good person. I think they are suffering, they are hurting, but that cannot be the end of the story. There are others, like the toons, who are suffering and hurting as well. And that should not be erased for the sake of your blorbo. You can still love Misty while condemning her way of thinking. I do myself.
There's the opposite end as well, where people acknowledge this character is not a good person but suddenly think they have to hate the character as a whole because they are morally bad.
Misty Monsoon is very flawed as a person and suffering from her own victim mentality, which hurts others as well. But I love this character. They're fucked up and just want a friend, but they're going to need to be more considerate and aware of their own poor actions if they want to earn that friendship and respect from others. Give and take.
126 notes
·
View notes
Obsessed with the death imagery around Sampson btw. Smelling like a dead rat, skulking like a ghost. The last survivor of a dead world, only he's barely surviving, certainly not living. The idea of these cultural ascetics is super cool but feels unfathomably sad to me.
(938 Seconds Per Second)
-slams hands on the table- YES.
YES.
Sampson is a detached limb of a dead body. He's a lopped-off finger dropped in formaldehyde and declared "See! The flesh persists!" of a body that has perished.
There are many ways to be tragically and beautifully dead in metaphor. Sampson is not that. Sampson rots. He's off-putting. He disgusts. He's isolated and alone and just... exists half-dead and half-rotten, has to exist, no one is allowing him the dignity to deboard the ship, and live the rest of his human life, and die a human death as the last death of his culture.
He dies more, rots more, when Carson steals and destroys his tome, because Sampson is nothing but the aimless vestige of his culture, alive only to keep it alive... and what is alive? No one is learning the culture. It's not spreading. It's not growing. It's not being studied and remembered and appreciated. ...It's just Sampson, whose only duty is to persist, and persist as long as long as long as possible... as if infinite persistence is the same as life...
Carson was not joking when he said Sampson would kill himself in the wake of the cargo getting ransacked. Carson was dead-fucking correct to think Sampson would kill himself. Those cultural artifacts are all that Sampson stays half-alive for. They're all he is. If they were stolen on his watch, ostensibly by his own fault... Carson was dead-fucking correct.
120 notes
·
View notes
i also think what a lot of people dont understand about billy - or refuse to acknowledge the true extent of the effect of it all - is that this is a kid who has been taught to perceive everything around him as a threat. to him, his life is in constant danger.
and when youre living under that state of mind you really have one of two choices; harden yourself and BECOME the threat to protect yourself, or make yourself small and fade into the shadows
and its kind of asinine to me that you would fault someone for what option they chose
you know its not okay to berate someone for becoming depressed over their abuse or crying about it, why is it okay to shame someone for how they choose to protect themselves?
and its the way people cant coincide in their brain that you can actually say "hey, your coping methods are kinda fucked lets work it out". because to them all they hear is "this person has never done anything wrong and everything is fine"
but then you wanna call other people stupid .... okay
sorry i can hold multiple thoughts in my head. as if its my fault
43 notes
·
View notes
y'all have lied to me because you always portray shanks as this horrible deadbeat dad but he's actually not as bad as you all say???? like okay he could have made a better decision regarding uta (like taking her with him and protecting her himself) but he genuinely thought she would grow up safer and happier there. like you can blame him for being fucking stupid and making awful decisions thinking his daughter would be okay without him, but straight up calling him a bad dad is just wrong
60 notes
·
View notes