Deciphering, pages 70-73
[Previous page] [Masterpost] [Next page]
Oh wow, bright colors are back!
And look what we have here... Uh-uh. I think someone blurted a little yet important thing. It might even boost someone's confidence.
Come one, Phoenix, get yourself together. Looks like this silver-haired dork is so awkward and shy in reality nothing will happen without you taking action.
I wanted to post this episode in one pack as it might not be funny being posted page by page :) But I think I can do and post a page a week now. At least I'll try ^^'
Insta - https://www.instagram.com/arainmorn/
DeviantArt - https://www.deviantart.com/arainmorn/gallery
Twitter - https://twitter.com/ArainMorn_art
VK - https://vk.com/arainmorn
285 notes
·
View notes
When Robin was first introduced, she had been working with Crocodile in Alabasta for the past several years, so I could understand her skin tone being a little lighter than it used to be, but not this bad.
It's extremely fucked up. I would understand the "it was an animation error" argument if it wasn't because it happens with all the characters (not only Robin) and they're whiter and whiter each episode (even the characters that should be black).
If we follow irl reasoning as you say, then all of them should be tanned because they're pirates. They're constantly under the sun. But no, they go backward and instead, they lack melanin every episode. It was already bad, but Egghead fucked up big time.
And don't get me started on Usopp because people could use that excuse on any other character, but Usopp?? I truly, really, don't think it takes too much thinking to get that he's black and Toei just keeps making him paler than Sanji. It's ridiculous and racist and people who ignore it or say it's been talked "too much" (because people say it and apparently there's a limit for them as to how much you can complain about racism) always get on my nerves.
What Toei is doing is just disgusting and people defending it are always the ones who refuse to see any mistakes in the things they like. News flash! You can like something and admit it has mistakes.
40 notes
·
View notes
Dean is such a paradox for me because on the one hand, I have been actively triggered by him in the show, there are moments where, intentionally or not, the writers managed to create a portrayal of manipulation and abuse and control issues that it sets off actual alarms for me. And on the other hand, I would not have him any other way. There is something — not comforting, that’s too soft a word — about knowing where Dean’s actions stem from, having seen and learned all that we do about his childhood neglect and parentification and the trauma he goes through repeatedly in the show, and that he doesn’t come out clean. He comes out a goddamn mess who ends up hurting the people around him in reaction to his own pain!
There’s a reality there that’s. Almost nice, actually. Distressing to watch, but it is a fucking mess, it’s a good mess! He’s got zero healthy coping skills and a healthy relationship with say, his brother, is terrifying because it leaves him open to abandonment!
I’m not sure I’m wording this correctly. There is a way to be a good abuse victim. Take the pain, martyr yourself on it, and then, even if you have no support or idea how to, then you have to become a Good Person who never hurts anyone the way you have been learning to your entire life. Simply toss everything that shaped you out the door and emerge a saint with a tragic backstory. And Dean is not that. And that’s so fucking good. Everything that he has gone through continues to effect the way he treats the people around him, and he can’t fight the behaviors he might recognize as harmful because he also sees them as protecting him (or protecting Sam by keeping Sam with him.)
And sometimes, idk. It feels good to see a guy who didn’t heal the “right way.” Who mostly didn’t heal at all, just keeps the wound open because it’s easier that way.
49 notes
·
View notes
no by all means keep judging cartoon villains solely by if they get redeemed in the end. i know some of us like to talk about other stuff like characterization or entertainment value or nuance as something that makes a good villain. but i think the only thing that actually matters is if the villain ends up on good terms with the protagonist at the end. all the Good TM cartoons with Good TM creators make the villains die a Horrible Death for being Abusers or whatever. and all the Bad TM cartoons with Bad TM creators Forgive Fascists by not making them get publicly executed by the 14 year old protagonist in front of the 8 year old target demographic.
i mean im so glad that more cartoons nowadays are subverting the psyop to support fascists that a few queer artists and queer shows definitely invented in 2017. there are so many popular cartoons doing that. it's almost like there are more properties killing their villains now and in the past than there ever were of properties that didn't do this. and it's almost like whether the villain gets redeemed at the end is more about the context of the story and its themes leading up to a narratively sound decision.
but you know. a few queer shows made by trans ppl were popular and they didn't kill their fascists and even had the gall to make them nuanced while also looking into the harm they did. guess it's trendy to forgive your abusers now because like two cartoons said so. out of like 40 other similarly high profile works that just straight up hit their villains with a bus or smth. by all means. keep heaping praise onto that one show about how they "let their villain just be evil" instead of talking about anything more interesting. that's so subversive, everyone's doing it!
24 notes
·
View notes
Adrienette stans wanna gaslight Ladynoir stans who don’t like this plot point and act like Ladynoir was always meant to be platonic from the start and Adrienette was obviously always meant to be the side that would start dating .... No.
My dudes there is a reason Ladynoir has always been more popular than Adrienette among the online fandom. There is a reason the bulk of the fancontent when the show first came out focused on romantic Ladynoir. Hell there is a reason Zag chose for their expensive piece of ship merch to be a $300+ Ladynoir statue. They’re even using romantic Ladynoir scenes to advertise their movie now. Stormy Weather, the pilot episode, the episode meant to introduce us to and sell the show to us and networks, was 99% Ladynoir. Every “Valentine’s” episode (Dark Cupid/Glaciator) has been heavily Ladynoir-centric. Chat Blanc, despite starting with Ladrien followed by an Adrienette dating montage, was heavily Ladynoir centric. “Our love did this to the world" came through Ladynoir. We were shown Ladybug getting upset any time Chat Noir seemed to show interest in another girl. We were given “maybe if Adrien didn’t exist, I’d feel differently about Chat Noir...” in s1. We were given Ladybug explicitly dodging Chat Noir’s question of if things would be different between them if her “other boy” wasn’t a factor. We were given “maybe if I show Ladybug my true self, she’ll fall in love with me,” followed by that very thing happening. We were given a second coup de foudre in Strike Back. The first kiss in this show happened through Ladynoir. The first kiss they were both conscious of happened through Ladynoir in Jubilation. We were shown Ladybug blushing after Chat Noir kissed her cheek in Glaciator. We were shown Ladybug progressively learning that Chat Noir is more sensitive than she thought and not the kind of guy she thought he was and growing closer to and more fond of him over the course of the series -- the plot of like every good romance worth reading (Pride and Prejudice anyone??).
Everyone picked up on the romantic vibes and the depth of their relationship over the past 7 years and now y’all wanna pretend we were hallucinating all along just because your fav side is canon and y’all don’t want to acknowledge the fact that cutting out Ladybug’s feelings for Chat Noir after 4 seasons of development and literally /3 episodes/ of actual visible feelings is an insane choice because it gets in the way of said side being canon. We all picked up on the fact that Chat Blanc and Ephemeral both told us explicitly that Adrienette can’t safely be together as civilians because Gabriel can and will use it to his advantage even without knowing their identities and now y’all want to pretend we’re the ones who weren’t paying attention when even the show was telling us that Adrienette is the side that can’t happen. Apparently the payoff of the 7-year-buildup of Ladybug realizing her romantic feelings for Chat Noir was ... three whole episodes. Followed by her ditching him entirely. Y’all are okay with completely ignoring the insane choice of having Marinette and Adrien not at all worried about abandoning their partners and spitting on “I’ll never abandon you” and every time they’ve ever said “you and me against the entire world” because all you see is weee cute Adrienette scenes <3333.
Like I said I and many others did not watch this show for a generic school romance we watched this show for a Love Square with identity shenanigans because that’s what was being sold to us yet apparently it was never about the "falling in love twice” and the parallels between the two relationships and two loves even though that’s what the past 4 seasons told us it was because it was actually just “adrienette with some obstacles” all along and oBvIoUsLy it was always just meant to be about romantic Adrienette!!!1!!1 I did not watch 7 years worth of romantic development on the Ladynoir side just for Adrienette stans to decide to tell me that I was actually hallucinating that whole time and that Ladynoir was always meant to be platonic
85 notes
·
View notes
Remember when I got into that string of fights a while back because people were exposing their lack of ethics with incredible takes like:
Uther’s persecution of magic was totally justified because magic is dangerous! It corrupts people!
Merlin had no reason to be afraid of Arthur, he was just being irrational! It’s not like thousands of lives were at stake here! He owed Arthur his private information about how Arthur has unwittingly traumatized him!
Simultaneously, there’s no way Arthur could have known that magic isn’t inherently evil because he’d ~never~ seen magic used for good (despite events going as far back as 1x04 or even 1x03)
Merlin withholding personal information from the people who were a constant threat to his life for being “born wrong” was morally repugnant! He should’ve exposed himself with the information his oppressors would kill him for, to give them a chance to change their minds! There’s totally no other way they could form different opinions!
Arthur deserved to know about Merlin’s magic, despite his condemnation of all things magic which threatened Merlin’s safety, because Arthur was kind or merciful in so many things except, noticeably, magic! Merlin should’ve trusted him!
Uther and Arthur are the REAL victims of the people who they oppress, so they have no choice but to slaughter thousands, children included!
Those were certainly times.
I remember saying at one point that if I knew someone was homophobic, I simply wouldn’t come out to them as gay, because they haven’t earned my trust in that regard. Anything they’ve done for me, they did while believing me to be straight. They likely wouldn’t treat me the same if they knew. Likewise, if a gay person had abused them at one point, it still wouldn’t give them the right to stereotype all gay people as abusive, or to support anti-gay campaigns. Homophobia has no justification. It’s just bigotry.
I said this multiple times, but every response was: “Well that’s different! Magic is actually dangerous!”
Here is what I said (paraphrased):
“If the potential dangers of magic were really the problem—and not just Uther’s excuse to justify banning it—then Uther could always just ban certain spells instead of committing genocide. Same with Arthur, really. But these characters wrongly believe that magic is inherently corrupt, because that worldview is easier to swallow than the hard truth.
“Criminalizing magic is like blaming massacres on all tools when they’re only performed with particular weapons: should whisks be considered a danger because some people murder with military grade assault rifles? Clearly, banning whisks doesn’t solve the problem. Likewise, when a sorcerer gets executed for using magic in the kitchen, Uther has effectively equated this harmless act to malicious crimes like murder. Was there ever a problem with magic itself, or does Uther perhaps have ulterior motives for banning it?
“If murder is already illegal, then banning murder by means of magic is unnecessary—all forms of murder, magical or not, are illegal by default. Making magic illegal does not prevent crimes that are already illegal; it only criminalizes innocent magic use, which means that people are prosecuted and found guilty for anything from using magic for chores to simply being loosely associated with a magical person.
“Uther’s laws helped no one but himself, because they weren’t designed to serve any other purpose. Nothing was accomplished, except that dehumanizing crimes such as trafficking and murder became legal as long as the victim had magic.”
To this, I was told that I “wasn’t understanding.”
What wasn’t I understanding? That people genuinely believe the ban on magic was okay? That they don’t have the slightest inkling of how oppression works, or how their justifications for hypothetical scenarios show their gullibility to real world bigotry? Why even bother defending a fictional character’s fictional genocide?
The ban on magic is ultimately a metaphor for the persecution of a marginalized religion (it’s literally called “The Old Religion”). To support Uther’s (and Arthur’s) claims that magic is inherently dangerous—despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary—is worrying at the least, considering the real life ramifications of fiction.
If you’re forsaking your morals to defend the inexcusable actions of a fictional character or two, then you value your entertainment more than real human lives. Likewise, you shouldn’t excuse any form of bigotry just because you like the person who is perpetuating it. If you can’t even stand by your supposed morals when it comes to fictional characters, there is no chance you will stand by them with real people. Most Arthur stans like him because they believe in his capacity for change, but this acknowledges that he is wrong and needs to change. The less like Uther he is, the better! My Gwaine-stanning is also reliant on him changing his views and accepting responsibility for them. We don’t get to make excuses for their unfair biases!
Merlin and other magical peoples are the victims of their oppressors, not the other way around. It really is that simple, and it pains me to see the hoops people will jump through to dismiss this.
156 notes
·
View notes