"and perhaps that is the fate of the tormented; saving the world and crawling into obscurity, if all goes well. if not, we die and become martyrs to the cause. they'll love us in death even if they hated us in life."
-taken and edited from a fanfiction i had read at 14
0 notes
So, just curious how many writers and creators will have to be forcibly outed by relentless harassment before we acknowledge that "This queer characters was written by a cishet person and that's why they're bad" is not good criticism.
39K notes
·
View notes
I love how on Tumblr, "media literacy" has become "Um, just because someone writes about this doesn't mean they're endorsing this. I hate all these media puritans ruining everything."
I'm sad to inform you that knowing when and whether an author is endorsing something, implying something, saying something, is also part of media literacy. Knowing when they are doing this and when they're not is part of media literacy. Assuming that no author has ever endorsed a bad thing is how you fall for proper gander. It's not media literacy to always assume that nobody ever has agreed with the morally reprehensible ideas in their work.
Sometimes, authors are endorsing something, and you need to be aware when that happens, and you also need to be aware when you're doing it as an author. All media isn't horny dubcon fanfic where you and the author know it's problematic IRL but you get off to it in the privacy of your brain. Sometimes very smart people can convince you of something that'll hurt others in the real world. Sometimes very dumb people will romanticize something without realizing they're doing it and you'll be caught up in it without realizing that you are.
Being aware of this is also media literacy. Being aware of the narrative tools used to affect your thinking is media literacy. Deciding on your own whether you agree with an author or not is media literacy. Enjoying characters doing bad things and allowing authors to create flawed or cruel characters for the sake of a story is perfectly fine, but it is not the same as being media literate. Being smug about how you never think an author has bad intentions tells me you're edgy, not that you're media literate. You can't use one rule to apply to all media. That's not how media literacy works. Sorry! Sorry! Sorry! Aheem heem. Anyway.
14K notes
·
View notes
0 notes
In my early twenties I know more theology than most men in the churches I've attended who are twice my age. This isn't a boast, I am no scholar. I say this in abject horror and despair.
1K notes
·
View notes
people be like "stop calling mxtx a genius, she's not even the best author in her particular niche",
and i'm like "but have you considered that i don't care if she's not objectively the best author as long as she's able to write characters and stories that make me go Insane for literal years?"
339 notes
·
View notes
(I'm a security guard.)
726 notes
·
View notes
MDZS Disco Elysium AU part 2 - Psyche Skills
Part 1 - Part 3
653 notes
·
View notes
Something I loved from the anime adaptation on episode 5:
They made a summary about Mick's and Kuro's characters and relationship from what they saw in this two panels on the few seconds this scene taked place.
Just this. Kuro and Mick both surprised on the first. Kuro looking at Mick like he's worried about something, and Mick eating bread in silence, looking in distrust at the guy.
The anime makes it so rich on subtle expressions, I'm in love here. They're just on the background of the scene. But what they do says really a lot about them.
When the guy first comes to scene, Mick looks a bit confused but nothing else. "Who tf this guy?" They're not planing on paying him any mind.
When he sits besides him, he gets uncomfortable, you can see it on his face he doesn't want to sit beside a stranger. He wants to get up and change places. "What's with this guy? What does he want? Why is he so close?" Kuro notices this and looks at him. He saw him flinch (off camera because guy is covering him). Mick is scared of this guy.
Mickbell is a naturally untrusty person because of his backstory. He gets uncomfortable when new people starts acting friends because "well that can't mean good, can it?" Kuro knows this because they share a life together and proceeds to try and calm him the best he can in this situation.
Kuro puts his hands on Mick's back. He already has them there when the camera changes angles. "I got you. I'm here. Nothing is going to happen to you. Calm down." Mick now looks confused at the guy, but it's still clear he's very uncomfortable there. He leans towards Kuro a bit "I feel safer by your side and this guy is wierd".
In seconds, as soon as he sees him grab food from their table, he changes his mood. He jumps in surprise at the audacity. He's now annoyed and pissed. That's their food! How dares he... But he isn't the one to say anything, and from this alone you could tell he's quite introverted outside of their friends group (or that he didn't pay for the food idk). Kuro keeps his hands in there, knowing he's nervous.
Mick just looks at him eat, annoyed, maybe angry, and silent. He isn't probably paying any mind to what this guy is saying. He is stealing food. He should go get food somewhere else. Kuro seems to think something alike, but he is a bit surprised this guy has the balls to steal food so openly (he isn't paying atention either ot he doesn't understand)
He thinks a lot of thinks but says none, eating in silence. Kuro is staring with no good intentions behind those eyes. Only murder. Food robber. Mick disturber. Deserves death.
197 notes
·
View notes
Does the mass-murdering criminal Jason "Red Hood" Todd canonically support the death penalty?
No, I can't find evidence that Red Hood supports the death penalty.
There is a difference between murder (illegal) and state-sanctioned killing (legal). Red Hood commits unlawful homicide. The death penalty is lawful homicide. Jason is a murderer. The death penalty is not legally considered murder. Commissioner Jim Gordon is a decorated military veteran, not a murderer.
Committing violence ≠ wanting the government to have the right to commit that violence. Batman and his allies brutalize criminals; they don't necessarily support the state brutalizing criminals. Red Hood kills some criminals; Red Hood doesn't necessarily support the state killing criminals. Catwoman doesn't necessarily support the state committing burglary. Et cetera.
The death penalty is administered by the criminal legal system. Jason does not like the criminal legal system (see some of his run-ins with the police). He grew up as an impoverished child who didn't believe in the system, he was raised by Batman to believe that vigilantes can make a difference that the system can't, and he became an adult criminal who still doesn't believe in the system. He's not interested in using the criminal legal system. He isn't interested in giving more powers and privileges to an abusive system that has wronged him and the people he cares about.
When Jason started up his villain business, the death penalty was legal in Gotham City. (See Detective Comics #644, The Joker: Devil's Advocate, Batgirl 2000 #19, Punchline #1.) The death penalty was also in place during his Robin run. Jason didn't argue in favor of the state having the right to kill prisoners, and the death penalty never addressed his complaints about the status quo.
Jason has rescued people from wrongful* imprisonment and the death penalty. Again, based on his own firsthand experiences, he has many reasons to believe that the system is broken. *Some of us would argue that locking any people in prisons tends to be wrongful and inhumane by default, but we could choose to accept the standard premises of crime fiction as without endorsing it as moral instruction.
Jason Todd is a criminal: a mass murderer, a terrorist, a villain. He does evil. He doesn't represent or support the legal system. He probably has the least political capital out of all the Batfamily-associated characters. He doesn't promote the death penalty. He commits murder—illegally, as a criminal, state-unapproved.
Some recent comics related to the topic:
Gotham Nights (2020) #11 "One Minute After Midnight", written by Marc Guggenheim
Red Hood and Nightwing team up to investigate the case of a man wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to be executed. Both of them disapprove of how the broken criminal legal system botched this case.
Joker: The Man Who Stopped Laughing #8 (2023), written by Matthew Rosenberg
"You familiar with Hannah Arendt's concept of Schreibtischtäter? Desk murderers? It's people who use the state to kill for them, so they don't have to get their hands dirty."
254 notes
·
View notes
dont normally post about drama but this seems relevant:
im seeing a lot of people jump to "james somerton was never good anyways" in retaliation for the hbomb expose, but there's a really fine line to tread there before you get into stepping on the toes of the people he stole from, you know?
some of his videos and analysis did seem genuinely intelligent, thoughtful, insightful, and well-written. yeah, it turns out those are the result of him stealing from other people. but that doesnt mean the original writers WEREN'T intelligent, thoughtful, insightful and good writers. he had plenty of garbage opinions interspersed throughout, but the reason many people (myself included) were suckered in by him is that the queer creators he stole from DID have really important and interesting analysis. the parts of his videos that were good were stolen, but by discounting his essays entirely we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater and insisting those he stole from didn't have anything important to say.
the parts he himself supplied were trash, but he stole the work of some genuinely brilliant and insightful writers and passed it off as his own- and that writing still exists and is still brilliant and insightful; we just know now who was actually responsible for it and who to thank for that work
lets just be careful when we smugly proclaim that we always hated everything he had to say- because a lot of the words we're discounting were never his to begin with, and the last thing those authors need is to have their work trash talked because it ended up in the mouth of someone dishonest
366 notes
·
View notes
WHY DID IT TAKE ME OVER FOUR YEARS TO REALIZE HOW MANY TMA CHARACTERS ARE NAMED AFTER HORROR AUTHORS
135 notes
·
View notes
I really do love your writing and Salvage gets me through when I am sad or depressed. However, I was wondering, how do you cope when someone who wrote a review didn’t like your writing? If you’ve had this before… I had one today and I am dejected. I’m working through my perfectionism and I keep telling myself, “my writing isn’t for everyone and it’s okay.” Any advice?
If it was unsolicited, especially on a fanfic? Delete it, block the person if you feel like, then go do your rage activity of choice before forgetting about it forever. That person is rude and doesn't deserve your time anymore than someone bumping into you on the street.
I've also found it useful to actively think of my fanfic as writing practice, and not even my brain expects perfection from writing practice. It also frees you do Try Cool Things.
Now take this digital blanket and cup of hot chocolate and go reread your nice comments.
179 notes
·
View notes
Are trans women real women?
As opposed to what. Fictional? A mannequin? Unreal in the sense that it's unreal how bomb she is?
(tags V relevant)
209 notes
·
View notes
Every now and then I just get the kind of comment that makes me stop working on a fic and just has me going 'how about you write it since you're so concerned with correcting me on this one tiny thing that doesn't matter because it's fanfiction actually'
And like, I do want to work on this fic, but damn, not today.
93 notes
·
View notes