Tumgik
#are actually mutually exclusive
blueskittlesart · 1 day
Note
deeply refreshing to see someone critical of Swift who also like, genuinely likes her. Like i'm neutral to positive on her, but the online discourse has been absolutely rancid. flipping between "Taylor Swift has never done anything wrong ever and she's a fucking genius" and "Taylor Swift is the worst lyricist of all time and also a bad person" is exhausting, so thank you for like. nuance or something lmao
not to make it serious for a sec but i genuinely think that being able to like things that are bad is really important. like I think that it's an important skill to be able to look at something and see what you personally enjoy about it and then take a step back and acknowledge that objectively it's flawed. and to also be able to acknowledge that liking something isn't necessarily an identity or a moral stance. and i think that fandom space in general could really benefit from more people taking the time to learn how to do that. it's okay to like things that are bad
#people ask me sometimes why ill occasionally talk about something i like and then go 'but it's bad' and the answer is usually because it is#i love teen wolf. i love genshin impact. i love detective conan. and i fucking LOVE taylor swift. that doesnt mean theyre good#it just means i like them. and recognizing their flaws actually helps me better identify what i like about them!#it's like. in my mind bad > good is the x axis and i like it > i dont like it is the y axis yk. they're not mutually exclusive#tldr it's not that serious. we can all relax a little#irt taylor swift i do also think she has done some real harm to her fans in enabling them to deflect all criticism of her as misogyny#and i don't think it's fully the fault of these people who are parroting that response bc so much of her marketing has deliberately#reinforced this idea that to be a swiftie is to be a part of a sisterhood and that any attack on taylor is an attack on all of those women#who are in that in-group. when that's obviously not the case. but she's marketed herself as. for lack of a better term. 'girl music'#to the point where it makes her fans feel as though any criticism of the music or the woman responsible for it is an attack on their#personal experience of womanhood/girlhood/sisterhood/etc. and that's how you get all of thess bad-faith accusations of misogyny#i don't necessarily think this was her deliberate goal with her marketing tho because like. on first glance such a strong sense of communit#among fans sounds like a great thing. the friendship bracelets i got at the eras tour movie are really genuinely special to me.#but it does present a problem when your fans are unable to separate how they feel about the community and experience your music has fostere#from how they feel about you as a person. especially when you are a billionaire who absolutely CANNOT be above criticism in this economy#anyway. tldr i love taylor's music and i don't think swiftie hivemind is as deliberately malicious as it may seem#but it's obviously necessary to be able to take a step back and look objectively at what you're participating in.#anyway stream ttpd or don't idc <3#taylor swift
141 notes · View notes
daily-hanamura · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
181 notes · View notes
jasontoddenthusiastt · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Batman Annual #25
Before Talia took him in, before he was dunked in the pit to have his memories restored, even when operating purely on survival instinct, he always split a meal with the other homeless people. It may not have been essential to his survival, but caring about and helping other people when he couldn’t even help himself was just always such an intrinsic part of Jason’s core.
343 notes · View notes
"Nine is homophobic" this and "Classic is homophobic" that
WRONG
They're literally both gay
120 notes · View notes
unopenablebox · 21 days
Text
i admit that i find it a little bit frustrating how Wildly Astonished other antizionist jews act when i tell them my israeli jewish family have lived in the region since [some unknown length of time before 1800 when there start being records about it]
#and then they're like ''ohhh they're mizrahi!'' [connotation nonwhite‚ virtuously indigenous]#and i have to be like. no. it's just that‚ as palestine was in fact ottoman-administered greater syria for most of the last 600 years‚#you could get there from other parts of the ottoman empire. such as the part of now-ukraine your ashkenazi family is also from.#it wasn't actually a hermetically sealed arab-only ethnostate that evaporated immigrants on sight. it was a pretty decent place to live as#a jew by at least some accounts. or better than the front of the hapsburg-ottoman war anyway which is where they were coming from.#i'm not sure who you think it's serving exactly to believe that there were literally no ashkenazim in the middle east before the 1st aliyah#however there were some. and this information does not actually threaten a modern anti-state of israel position like at all.#but since apparently you've constructed your new Diaspora-Centric Identity around the idea that 'palestine' and 'diaspora'#are the two mutually exclusive nonoverlapping regions and the former is ontologically a no-european-jews-allowed zone#i guess i can give you a minute to try to figure it out.#ugh sorry this is nothing it isn't anything. for one thing it's fantastically unimportant#and for another thing i don't know how to like talk about it in a way that doesn't make me sound at least kind of like im trying to justify#myself as being somehow less complicit or something. i mean i think my complicity as an american dwarfs the rest of it honestly but.#i just feel really insanely alienated where the rhetoric of my theoretically most closely politically aligned group is not really built to#like. accommodate the facts of my family history.#sorry. i have honestly no idea why im so obsessed with articulating this concept ive just been chewing on it pointlessly for days#box opener
55 notes · View notes
fromtheseventhhell · 4 days
Text
I also find it funny that fandom will only accept Lyanna being her non-conforming, wild self in the context of saying that Arya isn't meant to be pretty; Any other day we get back-to-back posts about how Lyanna is actually super traditionally feminine cause she sniffled at a song once, so she's actually more like Sansa. Instead of constantly speaking on Arya and Lyanna, how about you guys reflect on why your standards of beauty for women are attached to how well they perform feminity within the patriarchy?
#lyanna stark#arya stark#asoiaf#/Lyanna isn't actually pretty she was a wild tomboy/ Those two things are not mutually exclusive 😭#how you look is not a reflection of your personality and this is also a running theme within the story#we have morally good characters who are ugly and morally bad characters who are beautiful this is like...kindergarten level#Lyanna is idealized in terms of her personality hence /you saw her beauty but not the iron underneath/#and Ned correcting Robert when he said Lyanna wouldn't have shamed him like Cersei had#he's a very shallow misogynistic character and I truly doubt he would've been as attached to the idea of her without surface level beauty#reminds me of people saying that Olivia Hussey is a bad fancast for them because she has a /doll like/ beauty and they're /rougher/ 😭#as though their entire facial structure magically changed once they realized they enjoyed playing with swords instead of sewing sdksdkdsksd#it's giving that one tiktok with the /cat pretty vs doe pretty vs bunny pretty/#even if you wanted to make the case that her beauty is idealized in her death we get Arya described a pretty multiple times?#idk it's just so wild to me to use personality as an indication of looks it just sounds so stupid#Arya/Lyanna can still have /delicate/ features (which is extremely subjective) and still have a wild personality#how about we acknowledge that the perception of both of them is warped by strict patriarchal gender norms instead?#some real analysis just to shake things up idk
50 notes · View notes
simplydnp · 2 months
Note
Sometimes I think Dan and Phil are totally platonic besties and then other times I’m convinced they fuck on the daily. I think they do it on purpose and it’s honestly iconic.
kind of the best thing is that they are that and everything in between. you can tell they just like being around each other. they've made content together for 15 years and the large majority of it was done in the strictly platonic sense for their audience. and they were still having so much fun with it. we're in the 'we know you know' era now so we get to see flashes of different dynamics they have, but they absolutely have more we Don't get to see bc they're not for us.
they like each other. stupidly fond of each other. spending time together doesn't feel exhausting. they're best friends and each others' harshest critics while being the biggest hypeman and also safe space.
dnp's relationship with us, their audience, always has been and always will be different than any other content creators. part of it is how they accumulated it, but another part is just the massive history we have with them. they Get us. they Know us. they're silly goofy sarcastic guys who love us and hate us sometimes. theyre grateful but careful too. they like to rile us up, just like they do each other. it's a love language, teasing, and we've shown positive responses to it over the years. i like to say that my relationship with dnp is antagonistic sometimes--cause i know they're pushing my buttons on purpose. and ykw? it's fun! it's fun for us and it's fun for them because they have the control. i know anything they let out is cause they chose to let it out because they Know how we are. so yes they absolutely adore messing with us. we're a funny bunch.
58 notes · View notes
arcadianico · 10 months
Text
maybe i’m just a hater but i don’t understand where the obsession with qwilbur coming back and immediately realising elq isn’t qq comes from? like everyone else on the island knew something was up too he’s not special
148 notes · View notes
roseofcards90 · 5 months
Text
The fact that people were so willing to completely dismiss what happened in After Pain and Harrow after they saw It's Not My Fault and Deep Cover paint Mu and Kotoko in a worse light really shows that some people don't have literary comprehension 😭
64 notes · View notes
Text
I love autistic baby alien clueless Castiel as much as the next guy but also let him be a manipulative lord of sexual prowess and dominance
102 notes · View notes
discordiansamba · 4 months
Text
concept where Keith abruptly turns Galra while he's still at the Garrison, except he has a roommate. That roommate is Kinkade. This somehow results in three out of the four (future) MFE pilots trying to smuggle Keith out of the Garrison, all while trying to doge both James and Shiro for two entirely different reasons.
kinkade, furiously texting rizavi: sos. keith's purple.
rizavi: what the fuck
kinkade: I don't know!!! Can you cover for him? You've got your first class together.
55 notes · View notes
rotisseries · 8 months
Text
you guys know that one tumblr AITA post about "these two people are always cheating on each other and with the same people but they refuse to try polyamory I think they just get off on this and I'm trying to date them both"? yeah. stoncy au
72 notes · View notes
pochapal · 14 days
Text
got formally diagnosed with schrodinger's cat (chronic superposition of everything/nothing being wrong with me)
24 notes · View notes
jasontoddenthusiastt · 11 months
Note
I think fans want Jason to be a good person or be becoming one. To have a character that is well meaning and compassionate but decided murder is ok and to stand against main heroes who’s beliefs and actions go against the people he cares about and wants in his life. It’s confusing for people. People want their fav characters to be happy. But Jason can’t have his family’s support and follow his moral code. He’s cares about people and Gotham, and he’s an asshole who kills. It’s messy. It’s not black and white. I don’t even think Jason cares about being a good person or in the right anymore. I think he cares about what will save the most people instead.
Oh my goodness gracious I’ve been bamboozled
Batman’s definition of Good is not synonymous with absolute good/right no matter how much dc insists it is. Torture, battery/assault, surveillance, those are all condemnable actions too. I won’t get into the exhausting and frankly dumb debate of comic book morality wrt killing because I’ve already reblogged plenty of posts from other people who explained my thoughts on the matter far better than I ever have the patience to sit down and articulate. I also just think the notion that there’s something to be done about fictional characters who kill nazis and senseless murderers is stupid. Jason’s point is that the “main” heroes’ sanitized definition of right has its unaddressed holes and flaws which ultimately result in more preventable fatalities, and that he’ll work to correct those missing spots.
He doesn’t not care about doing what’s right. What he doesn’t care about (at least during his Winick characterization) is whether Batman thinks he’s right or wrong, because he sees the flaws in Batman’s methodology (and since he has a mind of his own). Batman’s methods alone cannot address Arkham’s revolving door and the rogues that come and go through those doors who have no intention (or capability from the doylist pov) of ever changing or undergoing redemption. Jason knows that he’s minimizing the number of preventable deaths by killing his targets, typically Characters Who Simply Do Fucked Up Shit Just Because, Why The Fuck Not?
Secondly, Jason is compassionate … to a fault. That was his fatal flaw. If he wasn’t so hell-bent on saving his potential birth mother he just met from that bomb despite everything she did to him prior, he could have protected himself instead, however slim his odds of survival were. What about his relationship with his other parents? He was a caregiver during his early childhood years for Catherine, until her death. Even mature adults who are financially stable find being a caregiver to a dying parent to be extremely burdensome on their bodies and minds, but he never complained about it or resented Catherine for being unable to care for him. Despite how none of his parents have really been what he needed them to be, he doesn’t blame them for their failings, and even continues to think highly of them (Bruce included).
And post-death? Enter Lost Days. Despite being dead set on plotting his revenge on Bruce, he constantly sidelines this in order to save other victims who are helpless like he once was. His own anger, trauma, and mission don’t remain his priority. (Sound familiar? Something something my own trauma above my son’s, mission above all else, etc.). Why would he waste precious time and risk his own life to do this if he wasn’t empathetic towards these victims or didn’t care about doing the right thing. He is simultaneously horribly traumatized and full of rage, and also incapable of ignoring what’s happening to victims around him (even as he claims that it’s indeed not his priority). And in that same vein, the entire premise of his rebirth outlaws run was that he doesn’t care if the public views him as a villain, an outlaw, so long as he can protect Gotham. And anyway where is this portrayal of him not caring about being in the right anymore. Almost every modern Jason story is about him grappling with where he stands with Bruce/Batman. During the early 2000s was probably the last time he did not care (hello, tentatodd??).
Jason has very evidently been portrayed as a kind and compassionate character. He is also simultaneously a calculated killer who doesn’t hesitate to kill when he deems necessary, and does so without remorse. It’s called being a Complex Character With An Edge™ that as you said, people so often claim to love. However when he fulfills that latter part, that seems to upset people because “killing bad”, and they then try to shave off and round out all his edges and claim he shouldn’t be that angry. In that case I guess you should just stick to liking traditional one-dimensional characters instead of claiming to like Jason but then encouraging his character assassination attempt by dc. Lol.
Lastly, who said anything about the batfam making Jason happy? Just because he’s written nowadays to want acceptance from Bruce (a shoddy attempt at forcing a non-existent nuclear batfamily), doesn’t mean that it’s a sound decision or that it does his character justice. I certainly don’t empathize with the idea that Jason needs the family’s approval or acceptance to be happy. (And anyway he has enough outlets for angst and pain aside from the batfam hello explore his other sources of trauma and do more deep dives into how he thinks when he’s alone). I don’t want them to magically make up and become one big happy family. This is not disney Lol. Besides, there are plenty of stories from dc that have that type of “wholesome” (hate that word utilization) characterization for Jason (Li’l Gotham, Tiny Titans, wfa, and even new stuff like the brave and the bold mini) and that is sufficient imo. Jason fans who are invested in the character deserve accurate, nuanced characterization and well-written stories, whether they be from his robin days (e.g., Batman: The Cult) or as red hood.
#fellas. ya know what else is wholesome? avenging your own death#you can have moments of ‘reconciliation’ or peace but still maintain a strained relationship which is far more realistic#‘he’s an asshole that kills’ and Bruce is an asshole who doesn’t kill. lol.#you can’t claim Jason’s conflicted and disturbed but go on to say Bruce is perfectly sane those two are mutually exclusive#also please realize that a character acting out of anger does not mean they lack compassion.#implying that he doesn’t care about doing the right thing is saying the same thing that person said;#that he doesn’t actually know what he’s doing. that he hasn’t thought through his moral stance.#‘Jason didn’t put any thought into anything he did in utrh he’s just a poor mentally ill lost soul who needs the batfam’s love to heal 💔’#🤝#‘jokers just a poor victim of society 😔 he just needs someone to understand him and maybe one day he’ll heal and realize he’s wrong’#what they both have in common is that they’re misunderstood in opposite directions#the joker doesn’t have a point to prove. there’s no deeper meaning behind what he does. everything is a joke to him.#he isn’t unaware of right vs wrong lmfao#jason todd#dc#asks#my post#and I think you’re implying that he’s utilitarian based on that last part but I don’t think he is#user mintacle posted a few metas regarding that and again they explain it much better than I prob could#anyway it isn’t difficult to understand his character if you know why you like him and you actually read his stories#that post specifically was from someone who clearly said they did not read the comic so. technically they’re on their own wavelength#edit: grammar
162 notes · View notes
wonder-worker · 27 days
Text
"[Elizabeth Woodville's] piety as queen seems to have been broadly conventional for a fifteenth-century royal, encompassing pilgrimages, membership of various fraternities, a particular devotion to her name saint, notable generosity to the Carthusians, and the foundation of a chantry at Westminster after her son was born there. ['On other occasions she supported planned religious foundations in London, […] made generous gifts to Eton College, and petitioned the pope to extend the circumstances in which indulgences could be acquired by observing the feast of the Visitation']. One possible indicator of a more personal, and more sophisticated, thread in her piety is a book of Hours of the Guardian Angel which Sutton and Visser-Fuchs have argued was commissioned for her, very possibly at her request."
-J.L. Laynesmith, "Elizabeth Woodville: The Knight's Widow", "Later Plantagenet and Wars of the Roses Consorts: Power, Influence, Dynasty"
#historicwomendaily#elizabeth woodville#my post#friendly reminder that there's nothing indicating that Elizabeth was exceptionally pious or that her piety was 'beyond purely conventional'#(something first claimed by Anne Crawford who simultaneously claimed that Elizabeth was 'grasping and totally lacking in scruple' so...)#EW's piety as queen may have stood out compared to former 15th century predecessors and definitely stood out compared to her husband#but her actions in themselves were not especially novel or 'beyond normal' and by themselves don't indicate unusual piety on her part#As Laynesmith's more recent research observes they seem to have been 'broadly conventional'#A conclusion arrived at Derek Neal as well who also points out that in general queens and elite noblewomen simply had wider means#of 'visible material expression of [their] personal devotion' - and also emphasizes how we should look at their wider circumstances#to understand their actions (eg: the death of Elizabeth's son George in 1479 as a motivating factor)#It's nice that we know a bit about Elizabeth's more personal piety - for eg she seems to have developed an attachment to Westminster Abbey#It's possible her (outward) piety increased across her queenship - she undertook most of her religious projects in later years#But again - none of them indicate the *level* of her piety (ie: they don't indicate that she was beyond conventionally pious)#By 1475 it seems that contemporaries identified Cecily Neville as the most personally devout from the Yorkist family#(though Elizabeth and even Cecily's sons were far greater patrons)#I think people also assume this because of her retirement to Westminster post 1485#which doesn't work because 1) we don't actually know when she retired? as Laynesmith says there is no actual evidence for the traditional#date of 12 February 1487#2) she had very secular reasons for retiring (grief over the death of her children? her lack of dower lands or estates which most other#widows had? her options were very limited; choosing to reside in the abbey is not particularly surprising. it's a massive and unneeded jump#to claim that it was motivated solely by piety (especially because it wasn't a complete 'retirement' in the way people assume it was)#I think historians have a habit of using her piety as a GOTCHA!' point against her vilification - which is a flawed and stupid argument#Elizabeth could be the most pious individual in the world and still be the pantomime villain Ricardians/Yorkists claim she was#They're not mutually exclusive; this line of thinking is useless#I think this also stems from the fact that we simply know very little about Elizabeth as an individual (ie: her hobbies/interests)#certainly far less than we do for other prominent women Margaret of Anjou; Elizabeth of York;; Cecily Neville or Margaret Beaufort#and I think rather than emphasizing that gap of knowledge her historians merely try to fill it up with 'she was pious!'#which is ... an incredibly lackluster take. I think it's better to just acknowledge that we don't know much about this historical figure#ie: I do wish that her piety and patronage was emphasized more yes. but it shouldn't flip too far to the other side either.
22 notes · View notes
possessable · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media
he is like a weird toddler to me
Tumblr media
28 notes · View notes