#most of the points they make are so easily disproven. | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

daughter-of-sapph0 · 1 year

Text

the club q shooter is not nonbinary!

he is not! he is a cishet homophobic transphobic man! his father is extremely homophobic and was more upset at the possibility of him being gay than him being a mass murderer! he never claimed to be non-binary! on all his social media, it's constant hatred and bigotry against queer people! he goes to a homophobic church! he constantly posts homophobic slurs and hate speech online! his lawyer only claimed he was nonbinary to get the hate crime charges dropped! far right reporters and news sources are more upset at the fake rumor that this guy is nonbinary than they are at the fact that he killed five people in what is supposed to be a safe space!

look at what they're doing. for decades they have been saying the most horrific disgusting shit and using nazi rhetoric to spread hate and incite violence against us. they called us groomers, pedophiles, disease spreaders, all with no proof at all. they will literally make up shit, so we have to spend time and energy proving a made up talking point is incorrect instead of actually progressing. and now we've reached the absolute peak of homophobic and transphobic violence. these people have done everything to inspire the killer apart from giving him the fucking gun. and immediately after the attack, they skipped straight over the "oh, this guy is bad we don't agree with him" bs phase because they already know no one will believe them. they went straight into "well actually those five people deserved to die because that bar was hosting drag show... wait... library reading.... kids dancing... uh... something bad.... like grooming... yeah... there's a poster from that bar that says 'we fuck children Wednesday nights 8-12pm'. no I don't have this poster. you just have to trust me" and all this other stupid pathetic easily disproven bullshit. but the far right actually believe it because they can't listen to anyone else. they decide that this made up evidence is grounds for being murdered, and that somehow makes it okay. but now, they're going to deny they ever said that shit even though it's all online and public forever. they're going back to the "oh this was extremely unjustified and terrible and we don't agree" because now they have a reason to hate the killer. they think he's nonbinary. he isn't. they're going to say this is "queer on queer crime" when it isn't. they're going to say this is an issue specifically isolated to the queer community, when it isn't. they're going to blame all nonbinary people for this attack, when they didn't blame all homophobic people for this attack three days ago. they're going to use this stupid made up evidence as another stupid talking point that will inspire more murderers and more hate crimes. don't believe them. nothing the far right says is true anymore. it's all lies. they want to commit genocide on anyone they don't like.

for your protection and the protection of the entire queer community:

buy a gun and learn to use it. defend yourself and your community

#dostxt #homophobia #transphobia #club q

417 notes · View notes

ceterisparibus116 · 10 months

Note

Frank has lied to Karen and even put her in explicit danger by using her as bait in the diner to lure out the Blacksmith's men and lied to her by omission by not disclosing his plans. That's worse than any other shit Matt did so? Easily disproves one of your talking points about how "fRaNk nEveR LiEd tO hEr" 🤪 goofy

Normally, I don't consider it productive to engage with someone who...talks like this...but I do think it's interesting to compare Frank's lies vs Matt's lies.

[First, pro tip: if you're going to say a person's point is "easily disproven," it helps to articulate that point correctly. I never said Frank "never" lied to her; I said: "Frank (for the most part) did neither of those things [lied to her nor put her on a pedestal]." I'm conceding that Frank did lie to her, but suggesting that his relationship with her was not marked by lies the way Matt's relationship with her was. Misrepresenting someone's point like this is called a "straw man fallacy." I encourage everyone who's unfamiliar with the idea to look it up!]

Let's talk about the lies. Frank totally lied to Karen and used her as bait, which I (as a viewer) find pretty horrific. And is that "worse" than Matt's lies? If the metric we use to determine "worse" is "which endangers Karen more," then I think Frank did directly endanger her more than Matt did.

But we have to look at this from Karen's perspective, and I don't think the metric she's using is "which lies endanger me more." Frankly, Karen doesn't much care about danger. She cares about Capital-T Truth. She cares about trust. She cares about honest relationships. And by that metric, I think yes, she believes that Matt's lies are "worse."

I believe this for the reasons listed below, but also because it strikes me that her reactions to Frank's lies vs Matt's are quiet different. Like, was she mad that Frank lied to her? Absolutely. But when I watch it, I don't get the impression that she was hurt.

Mad is not the same as hurt.

With Frank, she was mad.

With Matt, she was mad and hurt.

Why? For several factors.

Depth/intimacy of the relationship. She'd known Matt for over a year (I think; timelines are weird) by the time she realized he'd been lying to her. Not only that, but she'd been working with him for that whole time period. Not only that, but she'd had a crush on him for probably that whole time period (or close to it) (which I bring up because a crush is one surefire way to make a relationship feel intimate, maybe even more intimate than it really is). Not only that, but their relationship was fairly intimate. From the very beginning, he invited her to ask him some very personal questions about his blindness, and she was depending on him to keep her out of jail. Then we have him literally falling apart and sobbing in her arms. Talk about intimate! And not only that, but they also literally dated and she invited him to her apartment to have sex, let's be real. So when Matt lies to her, it's not the same as a guy she's known for a few weeks whom she wants to rescue the way you want to rescue a lost puppy lying to her. This is her coworker, her best friend, and her would-be partner lying to her.

Scope of the lies. The scope of Matt's lies runs deep. A) Him lying (by omission) about his senses clearly hits Karen very hard. It feels like a massive invasion of privacy. Now, I've argued before that it's unfair for characters to punish Matt for something he can't control, and I've also argued that Matt is not required to reveal his senses to anyone. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't still hurt (and shock, and even offend) people to realize that he could smell their breath and hear their heartbeat this entire time. B) He's lying about a huge part of his life and personality. Frank's very up front: he might lie about goals and tactics, but when it comes to who he is as a person, what you see is what you get. Whereas Matt presents himself (as Matt) as a very buttoned-up, reasonable, conscientious, safety-oriented, controlled person...the very opposite, in many ways, of Daredevil. C) Matt's lying about things that could have huge direct consequences for Karen (and Foggy) - namely, their law firm falling apart and Karen and Foggy possibly going to prison. D) Matt lied more to Karen than he did to another person. I don't think Karen's reaction to Elektra was primarily jealousy per se; I think instead she's like: "You won't share this part of my life with me, but you will with Elektra." Not dissimilar to how Foggy was mad about Claire knowing more about Daredevil than he did. It just hurts to find out that your friend has chosen to reveal things to someone else, rather than you.

What the lies say about how the other person views Karen. What does it say about how Frank views Karen that he'd lie to her the way he did? Ehhhh. I guess that he didn't want her getting in the way of his plans? Maybe he thought she couldn't handle something, and that would annoy her? But with Matt, wow, we know exactly how she thought Matt felt about her, based on the lies. She says: "Why didn't you trust me? What, did you think I would judge you?" To her, Matt's secret-keeping was proof that he didn't trust her (ouch) and that he fundamentally misunderstood her by believing she'd judge him when she prides herself on finding the humanity in those others would condemn.

All of these factors show why when Matt lied to Karen, she wasn't just pissed off. She was hurt. Matt's lies struck deep in a way that Frank's didn't.

And listen. I say all this as a giant Karedevil fan. I don't ship Kastle at all. In fact the argument from the first factor (that Karen was so hurt by Matt's lies because of the intimacy of their relationship) is, to me, a pro-Karedevil argument.

But being a fan of a ship doesn't mean we can't evaluate it critically. Evaluating all things critically is one of the aims of my blog.

So, dear Anon, if you're still reading this far (which I kinda doubt lol), I hope this made sense. But if you're just going to send me another ask misstating my positions and calling my position "goofy," then into the trash it shall go!

#karen page #frank castle #matt murdock #karedevil #daredevil #meta #asks #ask me things i'm friendly

81 notes · View notes

rainbowpui · 9 months

Note

I realized that if SJ was selfloving selfish manipulative scum he would've survived so easily in pidw... Imagine if he asked YQY to get him out of prison or told LBH that he was "sorry" for what he did

yeah... that part of what makes him so tragic for all that haters like to call him "evil", its his acts of kindness that doom him. he saves shi wu and shi wu rats him out and has him sold to a sadistic pervert he drags qht to safety and she comes back to accuse him in the trial he tries to save lqg from qi deviating and gets accused of killing him

its like.... lbh has a protag halo where no matter what its impossible for him to fail, but it seems like sj has the absolute reverse. no matter how hard he tries things always come back to blow up in his face and everyone ends up thinking the worst of him there are worse characters in the novel. SQH and MBJ lead to the deaths of multiple ppl with the IAC invasion (AFTER SJ TRIED TO WARN ALL THE OTHER PLS THAT SQH WAS SUS), but no one ever blames them for that or calls them evil. opm is a pervert that lusts after and then ends up killing sxy, but people barely bat an eye at that. people love zzl even though he led to so many deaths in the plague arc and literally murdered gyx..... ive even seen people defending QJL..... the literal SLAVE OWNING SADIST PERVERT.... and saying sj should be GRATEFUL after being horrifically abused by him.... but somehow sj is the character that gets the most hate?

sj... the CHILD SLAVE ABUSE SURVIVOR sj is only set up as the 'villain' at the start of the novel to make a point about how sy is WRONG about him (and therefore, perhaps isnt as much of an 'expert' on everything else in the sv world as he originally thinks) .... like.... the whole POINT is that 99% of his crimes get proven to be untrue or misunderstandings !!!

ironically i feel like if he was an actual unrepentant evil villain people would like him more

instead, hes misunderstood by all the characters in the book AND by the fanbase. just for the crime of being an ACTUALLY realistic survivor

people say they want realistic and complex survivors in fiction, but then when we actually get them they go absolutely insane saying they were born evil and are inherently unlovable. even when mxtx was CLEARLY setting it up for all of that to be disproven... and even gives him his own extra to drive home the point...

like bro... he really was not that evil. hes a traumatized and complex character that tries his best to do good in a world where he absolutely is not rewarded for it

#svsss #shen jiu #asks #my poor meow meow #literally every time he tries to be kind and help other ppl #it ends up coming back to hurt him #if he didnt save shi wu he wouldnt have been sold to qjl #if he didnt spare qht from the fire she wouldnt have been able to accuse him later #even sqh tries to warn him not to try to save lqg bc he knows that trying to help will only make things worse for sj #his kindness is rewarded with more suffering #please let my son have some rest

77 notes · View notes

eukaryotesrool · 6 months

Text

Leucism and Kimba

So this is gonna be real life facts (ones I'd say are interesting) mixed with some fan stuff, you don't need to know about the franchise to understand this, but it will be long and only slightly hinged.

Grab a snack, a drink annnnnnd...

What is a Kimba?

(Kimba (1965) running)

This guy, the titular hero of Osamu Tezuka's Kimba the White Lion franchise (AKA Jungle Emperor Leo(direct translation), Janguru Taitei(untranslated title))

For now, all you folks need to know about him is that he comes from a long lineage of lions with uniquely white fur.

Gee, you know what else relates to lions, white fur, and genetics, oh boy, a segway into the next thi-

What is a leucism?

(Pronounced 'luke-ism')

(Animals with a leucistic disorder, leucistic peacocks look neat, though, they all do)

leucism is a variety of conditions causing a lack of pigmentation in animals.

"Isn't that albinism?"

They're comparable, but seperate, their causes are different, also no leucistic condition removes eye pigmentation, so, Kimba's blue eyes aren't a problem.

(Kimba (1965) running, he does that a lot)

Now I'd like to go over every major leucistic condition and compare/contrast them to what we can note about Kimba.

No, I am not joking.

(OH MY GOD ITS SO CUTE I- er, this is a real life white lion cub, owing its white fur to a leucistic disorder)

Something to remember, most of these conditions don't (or don't to our knowledge) affect lions and could be easily swatted aside as such, but KTWL (Kimba the White Lion) is a work of fiction which consistently does absurd things, for example, Great Mother, a surviving mammoth who lives on a magic mountain and has magic powers or a blue lion (no I won't tell you what makes him blue), so I'm willing to brush aside SOME realism... also I researched them so I want to talk about them.

Yes, there is a condition that causes real life white lions, buuuuut I'm saving that can of worms for later.

Easily disproven

These ones don't work for several reasons, I'll be using only the most glaring issues for the sake of brevity.

Vitiligo & flavism: These two conditions happen over the course of one's life, but we see Kimba near birth, and he possessed his white fur.

Chédiak–Higashi syndrome: Causes symptoms (including but not limited to: peripheral neuropathy) which Kimba almost certainly does not have.

Isabellinism: affects only birds and leads to a golden white, not a snowy one.

(An isabellinistic bird, majestic fellow, eh?)

Xanthochromism: Makes things fucking yellow.

(A xanthochromistic (pictured right) and normal (pictured left) Argentine horned frog, so cool.)

Axanthism: only affects things with light reflecting pigments, and can only make things with normally yellow color have white color.

Amelanism: Meaning lacking melanin, so those black tipped ears and tail would be a no-no, yet we observe numerous pelts of his ancestors all with the exact same ears, and, we have reason to believe, the exact same tail (his father also possessed the same tail)

Okay, that was the bulk of the list, we're making good progress.

Maybe

These ones are harder to disprove, but I'd still say they're obviously not what we're looking for.

Piebaldism: Now, this one seems convincing as it can generate black AND white fur, it is genetically dominant, therefore, could lead to the continous lineage (where at least one of few children seems to always inherit it) but it lacks the uniformity, as I said, every white lion posses the same pattern, with few inconsistently appearing exceptions within the franchise, we'll get to that later on, the point is, consistency is the rule, chaos is the exception, and piebaldism is too chaotic.

(Piebaldistic animals. That squirrel looks so neat! Like his back is covered in snow!)

Waardenburg syndrome: Specifically type two is a strong contender, most notably because it causes bright blue eyes (or a blue and brown eye, sometimes) along with its other effects, HOWEVER, it also causes congenital hearing loss, and in cats (Felis Catus or house cats, technically, but they're the closest comparison I have to lions) said hearing loss is more common and more extreme, I doubt Kimba has that. Type 1 and type 3 cause other malformities that Kimba visibly doesn't posses.

Not sure

I tried, but my research was not conclusive, if you have answers, I'd be glad to hear them.

melanophilin: it is listed, but isn't a disorder, it is a carrier protein, I did some research and disorders with this protein don't seem like they'd make the snow white color we're looking for.

Undisputable

Oh, uh, there's nothing here, we've gone over every major leucistic disorder, there ARE more, but we'd be here all day, and so little is known about them it'd be arbitary.

Well, we're not through with every leucistic condition on the agenda, there's still...

THE CAUSE OF REAL WHITE LIONS

That's right, we've made it.

There's obviously a myriad of similarities, Tezuka was probably inspired by the real life white lions.

For example

(Pictured left, Kimba (1989 anime series) and his love inyerest, Raiya, a fellow lion, but not a white lion. Pictured right, two lionesses, one being a white lion)

The jarringly (among other lions) snow white fur.

(Sorry the images of Kimba's paw sucks, you won't believe it, but it was SO difficult to find a pic online with his paw pads in it, real life white lions? Pfft plenty of pictures in an instant.)

(Yes, pink is the unpigmented color for paw pads)

The pink paw pads

(Pictured left, Kimba's father (2009 movie) pictured right OH MY GOD SO CUTE)

The genetic basis allowing for lineages that share the trait

So then, this is it?... no, no, no, no, sadly, no, not so simple, there is one glaring inconsistency.

Firstly, an aside: I tried researching the specific cause of white lion leucism (it comes from a mutation for tyrosinase) but very little is known about it exactly, though, I gleaned something just by using the oldest tool in the zoology briefcase, me own eyes.

Notice a difference between Kimba and EVERY image of a white lion I've provided? Here, have some more white lion.

(Look at 'em all!)

From male to female, newborn, to cub, to adult, one consistency that Kimba does not share, maybe you already noticed and want me to get to the fucking point, maybe I will, maybe I won't, okay, I will.

(Circles denoting where Kimba posseses the trait, 'x's denoting where the real lion cub does not)

Black fur, Kimba has black fur on the tips of his ears and tail, no image of a real life white lion that I've seen has that pattern, or ANY black fur (wait, did I just retread my point about amelanism? Damn), and I'm lead to believe that does not occur amongst real life white lions, so then...

Kimba is a an anomaly

(From top left to bottom right Kimba's aunt (1989) Kimba's father (2009) and Kimba's father (1989)

In the 2009 version the only white lions we see are Kimba and his dad, and his dad lacks the black fur, in the 1989 series the only white lions we see are Kimba, his dad and aunt, both of the latter lack the black fur, but Kimba retains it in all versions.

Perhaps the cause of white lions is the same as real life white lions, and Kimba is a very rare anomaly within an anomaly, I don't know a whole lot about genetics, but that sounds reasonable enough for KTWL standards.

Buuuuuut, every other version, including the manga that started it all has other white lions retain the same color palette, and even show dozens of white lion ancestors, and a DISTANT white lion ancestor who all have the same palette, so, this anomaly theory is ironically only relevent to anomalies, the 1989 series and 2009 movie, what about for the whole franchise, well...

I don't know

Here's where I'd like to pull something out my hat and save the day with the obvious and true answer... but, there isn't one, at least, not one I found, sooooo, yeah, everyone must come to their own conclusion, maybe you even disagree with some of my reasoning and come to a conclusuon I've disregarded!

I'd love to hear your take away, and what comes next is merely my own personal take.

I don't know (good ending)

i don't know, and that's the point, I like that conclusion, the Kimba franchise contains mystisms, but never delves into them, leaving them as strange mysteries, it is a story about the exotic, it is ever out of reach.

I choose to believe white lions are semi-magical, thus why Kimba's lineage is the ONLY white lions we see in a franchise that stretches from 1950 to 2009, with over a hundred episodes, thus why white lions seem to always produce a white lion cub, but usually only ONE white lion cub, and the rest resemble the mother, because it works by magic rules.

In the 1989 version(and possibly others) Kimba is directly or indirectly likened to the supernatural, the Great Mother, a huge mammoth who can summon powerful snow storms in tropical Africa treats Kimba as such.

Simply, it can't be explained IRL, that's pretty cool, not everything needs to be explained, and MAGIC!

Thanks for sticking around through my insanity, hope you learned something and had fun, I did!

(Normally I'd put a pic riiight here to close things off but I hit the Tumblr image limit, didn't even know they had one)

22 notes · View notes

aingeal98 · 3 months

Text

The part of the Zionists rhetoric I've seen online especially here on tumblr that really... not so much confuses or disturbs me because every part of supporting racism and genocide is disturbing, but the part that makes me nauseous in a very specific way, is how many of these people claim to be leftists. Not the Israeli government or the majority of Zionists obviously, they're proud racist right wingers. But here on tumblr you have people who believe in feminism and queer rights and would agree easily enough with surface level takes on how racism in America is bad. And when it comes to conservatives and red fascists they can easily tell when a right wing racist or homophobe is arguing in bad faith, they can make long posts explaining the harm behind terf rhetoric and how it differs from the actual fight for women's liberation. They can look at the Russia and Ukraine conflict and use critical thinking to call out bad actors with ease.

But then with Israel and Palestine they just... Flip. All the bad faith arguments they criticised before is now their modus operandi. They ignore the ongoing genocide and the Palestinians talking about it and focus on the oppressors, only reblogging the same one or two Palestinian voices once every now and then that say everything they want to hear and nothing more.

I think the most striking example is that "antisemitism bingo" someone made where the ongoing genocide was something to be laughed at and the blog made fun of Palestinian civilians being tortured. And yet when a blocklist went around of people who interacted with that ghoulish blog, clearly explaining why we should avoid them, (Hijt:The racism and dehumanisation of Palestinians) these "leftist zionists" immediately were like "Oh its a block list of Jewish blogs! It's only blocking us because we're Jewish!"

Like it's the most bad faith easily disproven illogical argument that every random 4chan troll can make. It's not my actions it's because I'm white! It's not my homophobic remarks it's because I'm straight!

I still struggle to understand how they're able to flip so easily from intelligent historical and societal discussions of oppression and intersectionality to denial of the Nakba, denial of the apartheid and racism that has ruled the Israeli state since its conception, denial of the Israeli terrorism and colonisation ongoing in the West Bank that Palestinians have been speaking up about for years (The save Sheikh Jarrah campaign and the murder of peaceful Palestinian activists predates October 7th by quite a bit and yet received far, far less coverage by western media) and denial of everything the government and soldiers and many citizens are currently doing to murder as many Palestinians as possible. How do you go from pointing out cult tactics to a Maga style tribalism enthusiast just because it's Palestinians being oppressed and not another group?

The only reason I can think of is that unlike say, white people or straight people, zionists DO have an understandable, real fear that they can use to promote their racist cult. Antisemitism exists worldwide and is a problem in every single country. Unlike ridiculous concepts like "white genocide" or misandry, there is grounded, factual and understandable reasons for Jewish people to want a community where they can feel safe. And anyone who truly cares about equality for all must be committed to stamping out and dismantling antisemitism in every country and neighbourhood, because Zionists sure as hell aren't. The more antisemitism exists the greater their fuel for justifying and promoting Israel as the One True answer to it all.

But the solution of Israel involved ethnic cleansing in order to built their majority Jewish state, and relies on racism and genocide to maintain it. Just like any other coloniser state, it's not sustainabile and is constantly spiralling towards fascism. (America currently contending for loudest spiral) And that is obvious to anyone who reads up on the history or just like. Talks to Palestinians for five seconds. Israel exists due to racism and dehumanisation of Palestinians, and anyone who considers that an acceptable sacrifice is blatantly morally bankrupt. But the tribalism is simply too strong for that sort of logic and understanding, and whatever reasons they may have for falling into Zionism, it's still unacceptable. If you're still on here talking about "demonising Israel and exaggerating genocide (for the woke agenda, is what they're two steps away from saying) then I have no sympathy or time for you. One day you will be forced to reckon with your cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance, and the self righteous racist narrative you cling to will no longer be enough to protect you from judgement. Normal people with their morals screwed on right don't support fascism and racism. Leftists sure as hell shouldn't support facism and racism. (And yes this goes for those who defend Russian and Chinese imperialism too.)

You talk about feeling isolated, about having no one but fellow zionists to rely on. No one else will accept how complicated the situation is, you say over the sound of ten thousand murdered children killed and celebrated by the fascists you're carrying water for. Everyone else is just too antisemitic! You say as the Israeli government and military celebrates Hannukah by bombing Palestinians and joking that they're lighting one of the candles.

I genuinely can't tell if these people are aware they're full of shit or just so scared that they've dived deep into cult mentality with zero critical thought allowed. But either way, there should be no more space for them in our community than a nazi, a homophobe or a Trump supporter. They may have parroted similar ideals of equality and justice for long enough, but when push came to shove and the issues began to hit too close to home, they decided that supporting facism is how they want to cope. So be it. Palestine will be free with or without them and I will mourn the intelligent principled people they could have been, but at the end of the day you have to draw the line somewhere. And supporting genocide is generally a solid line to go with.

#What I've learned in recent months that's quite depressing #Is that many American liberals consider racism an acceptable evil the way they don't consider feminism or homophobia #If Biden adopted and increased Trump's misogynistic policies while being actually good on all the current racist ones #I sincerely doubt that people would be fanatically attacking anyone who criticises him the way they are now #Those that suffer due to both parties racism simply has to suck it up and wait their turn for a good candidate #Vote for the guy who will protect me and people like me even though he's supporting and funding the fascists killing your family #Is not a position I thought liberals would ever be in #And adding “I know it sucks but it's the only way” doesn't actually make it better because OK. So what do you actually propose to help?#Because protesting the current president complicit in the genocide is apparently a no no. Even if you'll vote him over Trump #Idk man all I know is I'm grateful for the people around me with principals and morals who can see everyone as people #And not just those similar enough to them.

15 notes · View notes

ryuzakjis · 9 months

Text

glamrock bonnie theory!

ok hey fnaf fans! my brains been brewing with a theory about exactly what happened to glamrock bonnie for a while so i wanna share what ive come up with !!

now i know theres a lot of people under the opinion that monty had decommissioned bonnie a short time before the events of security breach, but in my opinion most of the evidence people had pointing towards monty being the perpetrator has been rendered prettyyy baseless after the release of ruin.

so now im beginning to point fingers elsewhere.

specifically, fazbear himself.

OK but just hear me out because i know what ur all thinking !!! but a close relationship has been established between bonnie and freddy in both the base game AND in the ruin dlc !!!!!! how could he possibly become suspect to these claims !! and to THAT i say... Motive.

now by no means am i implying that there was malice behind my theory of events, i know freddy and bonnie were obviously extremely close before his decommissioning (gay robots hehe..) but id like to draw attention to how much emphasis was placed on bonnie and freddy throughout the game! i have a feeling that this was intentional.

one thing that caught my attention in particular was the fact that there are now confirmed to be 2 glamrock freddys.

at first glance, a second freddy seems to make sense considering that in the majority of the base game endings, freddy ditches the plex alongside gregory. of course they would need to use a second freddy after all that happened in security breach! but even so, this is easily disproven by the fact that all of the animatronics remain in the state gregory left them in, implying that fazbears immediately went out of business after the events of the game.

this implies that there must be another reason for the existence of 2 freddys.. now i KNOW this still seems a little skeptical considering that prototypes arent often used in the final product, but at the same time it does seem like the prototype freddy had been used as the main attraction before, a clue towards this being the gift in his stomach hatch. and anyways, would fazbear entertainment really spend all that cash on a whole other model after creating a functional prototype..?

but regardless of whether or not u think that theres another reason behind the existence of 2 freddys, there was clearly some emphasis on fazbear - like the graffiti along the vents, the intentional prototype print on the bottom of his paw, the focus drawn to him and bonnies relationship.. this along with monty's origin story, which seems to subtly shun freddy throughout, gives me the feeling that there must be more to it than what we initially assumed.

now to shift our focus to the possible motives of bonnies decommissioning.. what if he had been the first target of glitchtraps virus? this would make more sense now that glitchtrap is basically confirmed to have been the mimic all along because of COURSE the mimic would have a rabbit bias if its basing its behaviour off of afton!! and now that bonnies body has been found in bonnie bowl, monty being the aggressor seems to be off the table. sure his aggressive nature initially would place him under suspicion, but this flaw isnt any different to chicas food cravings and roxys perfectionism, i dont think his temperament is anything more than just another flaw displayed to show off the ai's sentience. under this premise, i have a slight suspicion that monty was simply used as a sort of red herring to cover up the truth of what happened.

so what actually happened?

what if while spending time with bonnie in the bowling alley one day, freddy was suddenly presented with the impossible task of facing off against the first victim of the virus. while attempting to fight off the unknown virus, maybe bonnie had begged freddy to put a stop to it for his own sake in order to save his best friend from destruction during the small moments of clarity he experienced while fighting for his own autonomy. the amount of damage on bonnie suggests a struggle, so maybe freddy was forced to obey bonnies request when he realised it was too late for him, grabbing a bowling ball and following through as a very last resort. perhaps this is why a second freddy had to be built, what if the aftermath of losing his best friend by his own hands, as well as the damage he wouldve sustained in the struggle, rendered freddy beyond repair.

BUT of course this is just speculation based off of the hints given to us, so if anyone has any criticism feel free to share! and even if this ends up being disproven, its at least an angsty headcanon i quite enjoy..

#fnaf #fnaf security breach #five nights at freddy's #glamrock freddy #montgomery gator #glamrock bonnie #five nights at freddy's security breach #security breach ruin #ruin dlc #fnaf ruin #fnaf sb ruin #fnaf theory #fnaf sb

20 notes · View notes

akechi-stole-my-heart · 3 months

Note

i saw ur post abt black star right after reading it and I'd love for u to elaborate lol my biggest problem w it was Akira disliking/not forgiving akechi... like i know it was written before royal and im not even THAT big of a shuake shipper but reading akira as anything other than in love with akechi is just. Wrong. my only other problem w it was how it treated prison like the only other option for akechi besides death, and anyway akechi would have chosen death regardless. It's crazy how both of those huge flaws were disproven in royal and how they're most likely the cause for fan misinterpretation today. still a good plot and i liked the other characterizations but like. the conclusion of akechi going to jail and akira supporting that above all is just so wrong

Oh yeah Akira's feelings toward Akechi were a huge reason why I had to dnf, easily one of the worst aspects by far. And it sucks because otherwise Akira's characterization was SO good. OP understood him but they did not understand Akechi and that extended to Akira, sadly.

And yeah, the jail thing is both baffling and Bad. Akechi does not need to go to jail. Can we please stop believing in punitive justice even when it makes no sense. Akechi doesn't even get what he deserves anyway because he doesn't go on trial for most of his crimes (like, you know, the murder) and then he gets off easy getting to join the shadow ops months into his sentence. After all that set up about him needing to get what he deserves/justice being served only for that to Very Much Not Happen. Because if Akechi DID get what he "deserved" under our justice system he'd get life in prison at best. It's hypocritical.

Possibly my biggest gripe other than the stupid insistence that Akechi go to jail is Akechi's characterization, though. It's alllll wrong. And like, to be fair, it was kind of impossible to know that it was wrong at the time because Royal hadn't come out yet. In black star Akechi is portrayed as absolutely, 100% unremorseful and gets angry at the idea of having to pay for his crimes. Which just. isn't. in character for him.

I kind of went into this with my recent post about Akechi and regrets, but there's another aspect this take on Akechi is completely missing. And that's Akechi and debts. He absolutely recognizes that what he did is wrong. He did it despite knowing it was wrong. But his reaction isn't going to be "how dare you suggest I turn myself in." It's going to be "I should be in jail already and I will do my best to repay my debts as far as I am able." Not in a guilty sort of way (at least outwardly), but a pragmatic one. There's a reason Akechi turns himself in for you, and it's not just about making Shido pay. It's about making things right, both to Joker and the world in general.

Akechi thinks of justice in extremely punitive terms. If you do wrong, you deserve to have wrongs done to you in turn. This applies to both others and himself. It's what leads him to his actions, and why he willingly sacrificed himself and then later turns himself in. It's why he hates the idea of being granted mercy in Maruki's reality. In his eyes, he doesn't deserve anything more than death and/or prison. He hurt people, and so now it's time for him to reap the consequences.

The author of black star has it completely backwards. Akechi's arc shouldn't be learning that he needs to face consequences. He wants to face consequences. He wants to die/go to jail because he thinks he's worthless and doesn't deserve anything better. That's his starting point of any post-canon arc. Giving him jail time is giving him exactly what he wants.

Personally, I think punitive justice as a concept is complete bullshit. I'm not gonna get into the nitty gritty of that here. But my point stands regardless--and whether you believe in punitive justice or not, objectively the more interesting direction to take an Akechi redemption is to force him to live life to the fullest. That is unironically the worst punishment you could give him. Force him to face the consequences of living when he thinks he should be dead, of going through the painful and difficult process of recovery, and being forced to interact with and reconcile with the people he hurt after acknowledging that hurt not pragmatically, but personally.

I don't want to read a story about Akechi learning to accept that he has to go to jail. it's stupid, out of character, and counter to my core values as a person. That's why I stopped reading black star. I want to see Akechi learning to live. To me, that is a far more in-character and interesting concept to explore.

#sera answers #anon #also you are extremely correct when you say akechi would have chosen death regardless lmao

6 notes · View notes

slumber--parties · 1 year

Text

I know many would disagree, but.

I really think we need more media that go against the pervasive narrative that what happens in abusive relationships is never love or at least any form of real attachment. You hear it all the time, on tv and in real life: “if they loved you they wouldn’t act this way!”.

It is for sure a well-intentioned message and I understand what these people are trying to say: that what you are experiencing is not good for you, that you deserve a better, healthier, happier life. All true things. And for sure there are cases in which abuse has different configurations.

But from a logical standpoint, labeling abusive dynamics as universally “not-love” is a fundamental misunderstanding of how a lot of them work and I think - in the long run - it only leaves people confused as to how to recognize and eventually navigate them. Most of the times, the abuse comes from the love. It may be twisted and unhealthy and selfish and ugly, but it is there and it’s usually being expressed the only way it can. If there wasn’t love all the obsession, the love-bombing, the fear of abandoment, would make little sense. One may argue that abusers project these things on different people in their lives and so they don’t really do it because of love towards a single one. But don’t we all do the same with our issues and the people we love?

I am not in any way saying this to justify abusers. I am saying this because I think, as a victim, having your point of view constantly invalidated by people telling you that you are stupid, that what you are perceiving is not real, that love doesn’t look like that, only leaves you feeling even more silly, unsure and completely fucking confused. Because saying that love is always unselfish and pure and beautiful is something so easily disproven. And it’s infantilizing and obtuse as fuck to think that every abuse victim just walked in a relationship that was 100% bad, without having any of their needs (as fucked-up as they may be) fulfilled, had a complete brain-freeze and decided that was the new normal.

The creation of a binary division between almost essentialist cathegories of Not-Abusers - who are capable of Love - and Abusers - who are not capable of Love - is a way for people in society at large to mentally exclude themselves from any hypotetical participation in abusive and toxic behaviours, to convince themselves that there is a Good side and a Bad side, and they are for sure on the right one, without examining their own actions.

Anyone who has interacted with more than two people in their life can see that this is not how it works. Abusive and toxic behaviours in relationships exists on a spectrum and they are strongly correlated with love and attachment and the way we express them. Of course there are degrees to this and I am not proposing we condone or celebrate the worst of these conducts. But what good does it do to anybody to pretend they are some aberration born out of nothing, instead of instincts we all carry within us to some extent and that we all must learn to face and manage?

#iwtv #interview with the vampire #abuse #posting this in the iwtv tag #because these thoughts were triggered by the show #which is doing an incredible job so far in portraying DA imo

75 notes · View notes

wontnotcant · 1 month

Note

Nah but you have a interesting style, why do you need to use AI and kiss AM's ass when you can hone your own skills? I'd really like for you to explain how you get satisfaction from writing a list of traits.

first of all, don't pretend you actually care about my art style or artistic journey in general lol. it's so transparent.

second of all, the tonal shift between telling me my art is interesting and moving to insult me in the very same sentence undermines your message.

third and finally... you demonstrate such a limited perspective of art with this ask that it makes me sad for your sake. my goal in art isn't to develop an appealing style; in fact, i have zero obligation OR desire to appeal to you at all. my goal is to experiment and to provoke some kind of response. that's why my blog contains work made in various mediums and art programs... it's to utilize a wide variety of ways to create some kind of result.

i'm particularly drawn to ai as a medium because of various reasons... i like the results, most simply. it creates a vibe that i enjoy and thus want in my images.

and, of course, i like that it's transgressive— here you are throwing a fit in my askbox about it, so that means my goal is achieved, don't you think?

there's no reason for you to send this besides to prove that point i'm making with my work. the medium isn't harmful; every complaint brought up by tumblr is easily disproven and has been various times by various users. there's nothing visually harmful that i'm depicting— do you see me making bigoted imagery?

so what's happening is you feel justified in being a dick to me about my art because you don't like how i made it. thus, you've expressed an emotional response and revealed something about yourself in the process. i've made an image i think looks cool. i get what i want.

2/10 ask. i'm not sure you tried very hard.

here's some pears from my last set of prompts.

#also i just like to make visual effects i dont have the skill level to create with digital art!#asks #hatemail #my art #its just a different set of brain muscles to exercise. i put in a different kind of effort to get the result i want #and it just looks fucking cool

4 notes · View notes

thorraborinn · 2 years

Note

Good day, I was curious:

Is the idea of Odinn being the leader of gods a historical Pagan concept or is it christian influence on later writings?

Any specific sources on this subject that you know of?

It's complicated. The shortest I can make the answer is: the idea of Óðinn as leader of the gods definitely existed before conversion, but it was most likely only one of many ways that people conceived of the gods; and also the conception of the idea of "leader of the gods" itself almost certainly changed over time, beginning before conversion and continuing after it.

There is a very good paper on the subject called "How High was the High One?" by Terry Gunnell. It's a chapter in Theorizing Old Norse Myths edited by Stefan Brink and Lisa Collinson. Gunnell also made an appearance on the Nordic Mythology Podcast discussing the topic although I haven't listened to it. It's Terry Gunnell's opinion that in certain places, Thor and Freyr were each respectively considered the most important of the gods (which does not rule out that there were other contexts in which yet other gods were the most important). That isn't the only paper that goes into this but it is the one that makes the best case for certain specific social contexts in which Óðinn was likely not the primary deity. Some other works that are relevant for this are Nordic Religions in the Viking Age by Thomas DuBois (this is the book that kind of set the new standard for treating "Nordic religion" as "Nordic religions"), and "How Uniform was the Old Norse Religion?" by Stefan Brink (which is only talking about place-names, and might be the paper most responsible for making heathens think that place-names are the only permissible evidence for determining the presence of a cult of a god, but that isn't Brink's fault).

However, that doesn't mean that the idea of Óðinn as the most prominent god doesn't also occur in pre-Christian times. It's rather that the mythology that we have represents only one out of many perspectives. The skáld Glúmr Geirason used the kenning 'ruler of the gods' for Óðinn in the 970's. As always, it should be remembered that one of the primary demographics of Óðinn-worshipers were the same poets who produced most of the content we use for knowing about Old Norse religion. And there might be more to it than just "our god is the best, therefore he's the king." They probably actually did relate to Óðinn as a king-like figure ruling over human subjects including themselves, during life and after (and over life and death itself in some capacity), before people outside of their context would have, and it's less of a leap to extend that set of relations to include the other gods as well from there.

An interesting paper on the reception of the idea of Óðinn is Uses of Wodan: The development of his cult and of medieval literary responses to it by Philip A. Shaw. This is a great paper for understanding how we arrive at the concept of Óðinn~Woden~Wuotan that we have today, even for understanding the influences that Snorri had (note for example that in the Prologue, Snorri calls Óðinn "Voden" (Woden). Note that Shaw makes a rather extreme error in the paper (he proposes that *Wōdanaz and *Wōþanaz were two entirely separate gods who were later conflated and his argument for it is very easily disproven) but it doesn't ruin the paper, and it's only there to try to reinforce other arguments that he's already making separately on firmer ground.

I do want to point something out, that it's easy to make category errors here. I don't know whether the people who settled Iceland who worshiped Thor and the Vanir more than Óðinn also thought of Þórr as an "Allfather" or creator or what. So I'm hesitant to make too many guesses about specifics of mythology that we don't have pieces of, while being confident that there were things that didn't make it into the written record. I think it's a reasonable guess that some Nordic people thought of Þórr as the world-creator, and we can make guesses about that using comparative mythology, but to me that isn't a replacement for myths that we don't have. I also have absolutely no idea whether "Óðinn is creator" and "Þórr is creator" people would have, like, argued about it or if it would have just been seen as two different equally valid explanations (I tend to agree with those who think that inn almáttki áss was a sort of ecumenical gesture that would allow people who disagreed about who that was to still swear oaths together). Anyway we're getting into the weeds now and there's no end to what we could bring into this conversation so I'm gonna wrap it here.

#ask #oberyndracul

77 notes · View notes

waheelawhisperer · 6 months

Note

Alright so, not my kind to send these kind of asks, but I feel like I have to because I'm genuinely curious.

First of all, what did Rhine Lab, and specifically Saria/Silence fans have done to you to get to this amount of hate? While I agree some are debatably like the satyric description you've made, the majority are not just braincelless idiots. If anything, these people are probably the most invested in character psychology and symbolism in the fandom. Thinking that fans give them no personality trait is outright wrong, and their creator themselves is investing a lot in those characters to make them deep and symbolic. People aren't stupid 6-years old playing dolls like you may think, the reason why they would be invested in these characters is primarily because they are interesting to analyze in a psychological point of view.

Secondly, these characters are bound to get along. This is not even some take from a highcore fan, it's just that it's meant to happen. NoriZC left a lot of hints and their entire relationship is based on family and trust. From their words, "grass and rocks will always compliment each other over time", with the grass being Silence and the rocks Saria. It's not some fanfiction with a long slowburn just to end in romantic cliché, it's a story of trust and healing. It takes time to show your true heart and accept someone within, it's true for these characters and for actual people. While it doesn't have to be outright romantic, these characters undeniably share a really strong familial bond, that "friend" or "best friend" simply can't fit. I agree that there's very low chances that the characters actually end up in an amorous relationship, because gacha game be this way, but it seems very implied by NoriZC that they support this, as they retweeted and liked fanarts of them being shown as a couple, and they already supported wlw couples before.

Lastly, I just don't think you can claim these characters have nothing interesting, and that Rhine Lab has no influence over the entirety of Terra. A lot of things, even in the main scenario - Rosmontis for an example - were caused or a consequence of Rhine Lab's actions. And so much more is to come with Lone Trail, this is simply just one of the most powerful company in all over Terra. And just like the Seaborn, this is a highly dangerous threat slowly building itself up and that will end up being destructive, as Kal'tsit herself wishes to avoid facing Rhine Lab (Mountain's files).

Is symbolism and character building so unknown to you? Is it something only your beloved Nearl can have, or can you actually open your heart more?

Lone Trail releasing reminded me that this was sitting in my inbox lmao

I'm going to do you the courtesy of assuming this ask was sent in good faith and isn't an attempt to troll me, despite the egregious misunderstanding of my position, and answer it accordingly.

To start with, I don't specifically hate Rhine Lab or Saria/Silence fans over any other given group. I dislike/am ambivalent about a large number of other popular ships for precisely the same reason I don't care for Saria/Silence: their fanbases are full of morons who ignore the complexities of the multifaceted characters involved in favor of reducing them to one-dimensional caricatures with no defining traits beyond being another character's girlfriend or uwu cute representation (or, if they're lucky, being "toxic lesbians" in the most milquetoast ways imaginable). I've spent enough time on multiple platforms to determine that most of this fandom is stupid as shit. Saying that "fans giving these characters no personality traits is outright wrong" is objectively incorrect and easily disproven if you spend a little time reading comics on reddit or pixiv or even tumblr itself. If Saria/Silence fans are the "most invested in character psychology and symbolism in the fandom", it's only because there's so little competition. The primary reason most of them are invested in these characters isn't because they are "interesting to analyze from a psychological point of view", unless by that you mean the fanbase wants to psychologically analyze their desire to taste each other's lips.

What the characters' creator invested in them to make them deep and symbolic is irrelevant. They could've packed every instant of Silence and Saria's onscreen appearances full of the deepest possible messaging and symbolism and it wouldn't have mattered because the fanbase would've ignored all that shit anyway in favor of forcing them into simplistic premade character/relationship templates like it actually did and continues to actually do with other interesting and complex characters and relationships. Frankly, nothing in the second paragraph actually matters unless the person saying them actually has influence over or speaks for the people writing the story. Whatever the artist believes doesn't change the fact that a) as of the moment I made the post this ask is responding to*, I felt that it was plausible based on the evidence presented strictly by canon material that Saria and Silence would not reconcile or enter a romantic relationship with each other, and b) the fanbase is stupid and doesn't give a shit about authorial intent if it gets in the way of mashing the pretty anime JPEGs together like dolls.

To address the third paragraph, I can claim whatever I want. I didn't say Rhine Labs lacked narrative relevance and doesn't have influence on the lore, I said I thought its storylines and characters were (mostly) boring. I know it's connected to Rosmontis and Mountain, I know it's a threat, I know more is coming with the release of Lone Trail, I simply do not care. I don't find anything about Rhine Labs besides Saria interesting enough to want a game with a bloated cast and a narrative that already moves at a crawl to allocate its limited resources in that direction. Don't confuse a lack of interest for a lack of understanding.

Yeah symbolism's just for Nearl, glad we're on the same page here

*I got this ask like two weeks ago and Lone Trail released today. I haven't read it. I don't know if I'm going to.

#arknights

5 notes · View notes

acourtofthought · 1 year

Note

I want to start off by saying I really enjoy your posts. They are always so well thought out and written, you've even given more content to support my own theories. I appreciate you.

I just want to go on a bit of a brain dump on all the theories I've seen since I read ACOTAR from Elriels I think ride on too many things to happen for it become true.

False mate bond

• For starter's this is easily disproven by a number of things, starting with the biggest confirmation, which is Sarah already explained to fans why she mated Elain to Lucien, in the same interview she explained why Nesta was better matched with Cassian. She clearly cared enough about Lucien to give him a better match. You'd think this is all the winning argument Elucien's would need, but for the purposes of this rant, let's say new readers have yet to go down the rabbit hole that is watching every SJM interview possible for clues -

Well, it's confirmed in the span of 4 books in a number of ways, but the biggest ones are

1) Lucien pulls at the thread, Elain feels it.

2) Azriel can smell their bond

Forbidden romance

• What is forbidden? Rhys, the most powerful HL offered his protection and safety to Elain should she ever decide to reject the bond and keep her safe from Lucien, if he ever tried anything. He is also Azriel's brother, he knows him best. If he truly believed Azriel had genuine feelings for Elain, he would without a doubt support them. But Rhy's knows Az the best and knows Az is not in the right headspace to pursue Elain and he is not going to stand by and watch Azriel make a mistake that ultimately could hurt his sister in law. Yes, there was some political motives, but again, Rhys said if Elain rejected the bond, he would protect her from Lucien. So why would that change now? It hasn't. So it is very likely Rhy's know Azriel is not interested in Elain for the right reasons.

Rejected mates

• So you mean to tell me, that Azriel, who had hoped for 500 years that a bond would snap between he and Mor, to angrily telling his brother why didn't the cauldron gift him a mate like his brothers, to mopping around watching his brother's find their mates, would turn around and reject his mate in favor for Elain? PLEASE, Azriel has no reservations about mates, he wants a mate, he knows how special and rare it is. The bond means something to Az, he covet's having what his brothers do and neither Elain or Mor can ever give him what his brothers have, but right now he is so desperate for any affection and believes he is not worth of a mate, he is willing to settle. But I strongly believe SJM has plans to gift him a mate and it is not Elain.

And I think a lot of elriels know this because, it leads me to my last point...

Two mates

So the irony in this is, out of all the ignored SJM interviews elriels pretend never exist (about elucien) they hold onto a 2015 comment with a tight grip. But let's take into context that comment, for one it was in response to a TOG book promotion. It had nothing to do with ACOTAR and even if it did, has SJM introduced multiple mates since 2015- I means she's had plenty of time? It seems to me she favors monogamy when it comes to her mates. She had an interview with Stephanie, who asked a similiar question and SJM kinda laughed it off. I think she is still traditional when it comes to couples. I mean, sure she may play around with threesomes in terms of fantasies and sex, but I do not see her writing any poly ships anytime soon, no matter how much I personally wold love that, as I'm a reverse harem fan, but I just don't think that is SJM's cup of tea and that is ok! Not saying she couldn't and wouldn't go there, but I think the purpose of a mate bond it that it is so rare and between TWO individuals. It one had multiple mates, I believe it wold cheapen how special it is.

There are other theories I've seen, but ultimately for Az and Elain to work SJM has to not only rewrite their characters, but I just do not see how their story progresses the series. As much as I love Lucien, he is not getting his own stand alone book. And I think Mor is getting a novella. So if Elain is getting her book and Azriel is getting his own book, then it is obvious neither are each other LI's, as each book follows a different couple.

Thank you so much!! I love how we can all see one another's posts and it helps trigger a new post idea or it helps us add to one we're already writing ❤️ Your thoughts are all on point and the arguments Anti's come up with are extremely frustrating when they're so easily disproven (yet they still refuse to acknowledge what is canon if it leads to their theory falling apart). Along with everything you mentioned in the Mating Bond, Mor also used her gift of truth on Lucien so it's not something he could be faking (especially considering the fact that Feyre went into his mind and saw that he was struggling with the pull of the bond). And the King of Hybern seemed surprised to find out that Elain and Lucien were mates so he's not manipulating it. As far as Koschei tricking them, what purpose would that serve? It would only work if he were trying to trick Elain and Lucien into wanting to be together in order to pull them away from other people. As it stands, they haven't accepted the bond, Lucien is living with Vassa as a friend and Elain has developed a crush on Az, so it makes no sense. Forbidden Love......when only Az was told to stay away from Elain? 🤣 That's not forbidden. That's Rhys not letting Az hook up with his sister in law while Az is still in love with Mor and Az was not willing to tell Rhys anything to the contrary. Not to mention, Elain is not the kind of character (especially after SF) who is going to let anyone tell her what she can and can't do. I really like your point about multiple mates because it does seem unrealistic to give one female two mates in a series where true mated pairs are rare. I understand why this specific group is all getting mating bonds (A. because those are the stories SJM is telling and it wouldn't make sense for one in the group to get a bond while the rest do not especially if they're going to be a main character. B. they are all noted as uniquely powerful so it does stand to reason that fate is pairing them off with other uniquely powerful partners). But why give Elain two Mating Bonds? That's saying she's even more unique and rare and special? That because she got one Mating Bond and decides not to get to know him, she's just given another? And I LOVE Elain. She's my favorite female character but even I can admit that's a little too "special" for my liking. The entire point of her story is she's fighting fate because she thinks fate knowing what's best and her making the choice to accept her fate because it's what she wants can't be the same thing. But there is no way SJM won't eventually show that Elain is willing to let go of her stubbornness and truly see what fate sent her way and when she does she's going to realize that Lucien has always been everything she could have wanted.

Yes, a mating bond can be rejected but that's not way to live for anyone involved. Because Az would then always know Elain had a special connection to Lucien and she'd have to spend her life trying to reassure him that she's not feeling that connection. And Az would always wonder if he had a mate still out there, and what would he do if he met her? It doesn't make for a truly HEA because it continually pop up as an issue for the rest of their lives. Thank you for message and all your wonderful thoughts!

#anti e/riel #elucien

15 notes · View notes

flower-boi16 · 11 months

Text

Lily Orchard’s Takes on Hunter are garbage and here’s why [The Owl House]

I decided to remake this post because there were some things I wanted to add in or change about the original post (and because no one saw the original post lol). So...let’s just get this over with.

I'm just gonna cut to the chase; The Owl House is a fantastic show and I think LO's takes on one of the characters in the series are poorly thought out or just not true and here's why. For those who (somehow) don't know; Lily Orchard is a youtuber who makes video essays on cartoons, she's also probably the most controversial youtube critic I've seen. I'm not gonna cover much of the drama that Lily's been involved in, but I felt like that was worth mentioning. The Owl House is a show that Lily covers quite a bit on her channel, but she has a very certain dislike of one particular character in it; Hunter. I decided to make this post for two reasons; 1) I don't see many people debunking Lily's arguments about Hunter outside of some asks on LO gossip blogs on Tumblr and 2) I really like Hunter. He's probably my second favorite of the main characters right below Luz for me, and I wanted to make this post after finishing the show because...

Lily's arguments about Hunter aren't very good. They are filled with Lily constantly making poorly thought out and false arguments about Hunter that could be easily disproven if you actually watch the show. So I'm gonna cover some of Lily's points about Hunter and why they are false. This post is going to cover some of Lily's major arguments criticizing Hunter and why I disagree with them. Let's begin.

"Hunter Is a Passive Character"

I'll just take this piece of text from a really good article I've found about passive characters right here:

"These characters have goals — from as small as a glass of water to as big as saving the world — and their determination to achieve those goals creates the stakes of the story. Passive characters are, naturally, the opposite. They wait for things to happen instead of making them happen. They’re reactive, not proactive. Whereas active characters impact the story, passive characters sit back and experience the story." -WHY YOU SHOULD AVOID WRITING PASSIVE CHARACTERS (& HOW TO MAKE THEM ACTIVE)

As the text says, a passive character is a character that doesn't contribute to the story in any meaningful way and simply sits back, and watches the story as it goes, often waiting for things to happen instead of making them happen. It's important to define what a passive character is to illustrate my point; that being, Hunter is not a passive character, which is what Lily accuses him of being. To take some quotes from Lily's video on Hunter:

"Hunter's character has been passive from his first appearance, even when he had the trash boy Vanitas vibe going for him. He shows up, does nothing, refuses to elaborate and leaves."

"Typically passive characters aren't a good thing to give this kind of screen time to because the majority of that time will be spent watching them hem and haw and drag their feet. This was the problem with Hollow Mind. It doesn't go through much information that's new to the viewer, and indeed that new information is kept to the background paintings. And that's because 90% of the episode is spent watching Hunter cope and seeth which grinds the story to a halt"

"Most of the time when he's actually in an episode, the story grinds to a halt while Hunter sits there and does fucking nothing and you may as well skip to act 3 because its going to go the same way the last few of them went" -Glass of Water Character Potential Doesn't Excuse Lazy Writing

Lily says that in most of the episodes centering around Hunter, he just sits there and does nothing until the episode's third act. However, this simply isn't true. Let's look at four out of the five episodes focusing on Hunter and why the things he does in those episodes don't make him passive.

S2 EP 6: Hunting Palisman: I don't have much to say about Hunter in this one. This episode basically introduces us to Hunter proper where we get to see him grow a slight friendship with Luz and him deciding to let her take the palisman instead of betraying her. Don't have much to say here.

S2 EP9: Eclipse Lake - This is an example of Hunter pushing the plot forward and him not being a passive character. Here, he disguises himself as a coven scout to go to the expedition led by Kikimora searching for Titan blood in eclipse lake so he could prove himself to be useful to Belos after he says that Hunter is "replaceable". Later in the episode, he gets the Titan blood key and gives it to Belos. This is an example of Hunter being an active character; he pushes the plot forward and contributes to it, which is important because passive characters don't do that; rather, they wait for the plot to happen and react to it rather than actually making the plot happen.

S2 EP 13: Any Sport in a Storm - Now this is where Lily's points about Hunter being "passive" really begin to show their cracks. In this episode, Hunter goes to find recruits for the emperor's coven after being "ordered" by Darius to do, so he could, like in the last episode, prove his worth to the emperor's coven. Here, he joins Willow's flyer derby team and after playing a game he basically kidnaps them and makes them join the emperor's coven against their will. After realizing what he did was fucked he goes to protect them by saying their too weak for the emperor's coven, giving them a chance to escape. Hunter, like in the last episode, is not only an active character by pushing the plot forward, but he also goes through development here as he learns to make connections with people outside of the emperor's coven and is even willing to take a lethal blow from Darius to and sacrifice his status to protect his friends. Hunter, like in his last episode, is not a passive character.

S2 EP16 Hollow Mind - Hey, did you know that Lily thinks Hollow Mind is the worst episode of the show and thinks it's a 1/10? I could cover how bad Lily's takes on this episode are but someone already did make a video on that so I won't touch on her other takes about the episode here, but it's clear from the last quote that Lily misses the point of the episode. In this episode, Hunter gets trapped with Luz inside of Belos's mind and they end up seeing Belos's memories, which challenge Hunter's entire worldview. The episode shows how much Hunter was manipulated by Belos, as he believes that Belos has done nothing wrong and that he is making Hunter do the right thing. As the episode goes on however, and he and Luz begin seeing Belos's memories, Hunter ends up being in denial that Belos is actually evil, making excuses for what he did in those memories, with this line after Hunter and Luz see what the sigils actually do standing out to me;

Luz: You can't deny it now. Belos is trying to hurt people!

Hunter: He was just... perfecting sigil magic! Besides, maybe, he's remembering things wrong. Who knows how mindscapes work?

Luz: I thought you did!

Hunter: Well, maybe I'm an idiot!

Hunter was raised to think that emperor Belos was doing a good thing, and that he loves him. All of that comes crashing down when It's revealed that Belos has killed previous Golden Guards, and the episode ends with breaking from Belos's control and realizing that he was being used and manipulated all along with his whole world turning upside down. This episode has Hunter learn the truth about Belos and shows how much Belos warped his worldview into believing he was doing the right thing. That's the point of Hollow Mind; It's about Hunter realizing that Belos has lied to him this whole time and breaking free from his abusive "uncle". The fact that Lily just labels this episode as another one where he "waffles around about whether to do the right thing again" is just missing the point. Again, he's been lied to his whole life, it's gonna take a lot for him to see the truth.

S2 EP18 Labyrinth Runners - I don't have much to say about this one, but Hunter does still grow as a character here. In the episode, Adrian (The head of the illusionist coven) tries to get the students of Hexside to get sigils for the day of unity, and Gus ends up creating a giant illusion that covers the entire school making many students (and teachers) get lost in the illusion. Before that, It's revealed that after the events of Hollow Mind, Hunter has gone under hiding from Belos and went to Hexside to crash in. Like the previous episodes, this episode has Hunter grow as a character, with him overcoming his trust issues with Gus, but he also saves Gus from Adrian. This is another episode where Hunter grows as a character and actively pushes the plot forward.

So, as we've seen through all of these episodes, Hunter is not a passive character, unlike what Ms Orchard over here would like to tell you. He doesn't spend most of his episodes focusing on him sitting around doing nothing; In all of the episodes he's in he is either actively pushing the plot forward or growing and developing as a character. Lemme take another piece of text from that article I previously mentioned;

These characters have goals — from as small as a glass of water to as big as saving the world — and their determination to achieve those goals creates the stakes of the story. - WHY YOU SHOULD AVOID WRITING PASSIVE CHARACTERS (& HOW TO MAKE THEM ACTIVE)

Hunter starts out as a character that has a goal; that being proving himself worthy to the emperor's coven, and we see him try to work for that goal in S2 EP9 and S2 EP13. So, Hunter is not a passive character, he's a character who either pushes the story forward or is actively growing and developing, unlike what Lily would like to tell you.

And here’s another thing; notice how Lily never sites any examples to her point where she says this:

“The same as the last few of them went”, Lily, please explain how each of Hunter’s episodes go if you’re going to make this claim. Hunter’s episodes don’t have the same structure copied and pasted throughout, if you actually watch them you would know this. I know Lily watched these episodes, so where is she getting this from?

"Hunter is Stapled onto Other Characters"

This is another common complaint Lily has with Hunter, that being he is "stapled" onto other characters in his episodes and that he often overshadows them. I'm just gonna cut to the chase; wtf does this even mean? Lily doesn't specify what she means by Hunter being "stapled" onto other characters nor why it's a bad thing, if anything all she is describing here is Hunter interacting with other characters in his episodes. However, there is another side to this argument that Lily has, that being that she thinks that Hunter overshadows other characters, mainly Willow and Gus, and that they get pushed to the side for the sake of his arc, and that Hunter takes up too much screen time.

The issue with this point is that Hunter really doesn't overshadow other characters as much as Lily says he does. For Gus in particular in Labyrinth Runners he isn’t pushed to the side in favor of Hunter like how Lily says he is; the episode shows both of them working through their trust issues. Hunter isn’t being “stapled” onto Gus here just so he could overshadow him, both characters support each other’s arcs and help them grow. It really feels like Lily hates Hunter for just...being in an episode, regardless of the reason. As for Willow, I don’t think Hunter overshadowed her much either. That being said, I always found Willow to be an underdeveloped character to begin with so maybe that’s why, but like Gus she also does support Hunter’s arc and helps him grow.

She even sometimes says that Hunter is just shoved into an episode for no reason other than Dana apparently liking him a lot which...also no, Hunter is not shoved into an episode for no reason, in his episodes he is interacting with other characters and growing because of them.

So yes, Hunter is stapled onto other characters....why is that a bad thing tho? He’s just interacting with other characters in the show, what’s wrong with that? Why is a character interacting with other characters bad? Like, in her TOH season 2 round up video, one of the cons for the episode Hollow Mind is “Golden Guard is stapled onto Luz to inflate his importance”...so she’ll just list Hunter being there or interacting with the characters as something wrong with an episode...ya. If that’s not another really bad point I don’t know what is.

"Hunter is a superfluous character"

This section is going to be shorter than the other two mainly because this was partially responded to in the first section, but it was a big enough criticism for Hunter that Lily has so it's worth giving its own section to. So anyways, Lily often says that Hunter is an unnecessary character and that you could remove him from the story and nothing would change. This, like Lily's other points about Hunter, isn't true. Aside from how, like I mentioned earlier, Hunter has a connection to Belos, the main antagonist of the series, he makes major contributions to the plot outside of that. He's the one to give the titan blood key to Belos, he saves Gus from the illusionist, he discusses what is going to happen on the day of unity with the other students at Hexside, and he's the one to get possessed by Belos. So no, Hunter is not an unnecessary character, he's a character that makes contributions to the plot , and major ones at that.

Conclusion

So, that was my mini-essay on why I disagree with Lily's points on Hunter. I had never made a post as big as this one before, but hey, at least I get satisfaction out of defending one of my favorite characters in a show that I like from someone who clearly misunderstands it. So ya...bye

#lily orchard #lily orchard critical #hunter the owl house #the owl house #toh hunter #toh #lily orchard the owl house #lily orchard is a bad critic #Owl House

8 notes · View notes

weprywepry · 6 months

Text

Hatred never ends. It's a bit absurd, absurd in the narrative sense of the word. How can we expect a story about the endless cycle of violence to do anything other than perpetuate that violence? Either AOT is wrong, and there actually is some way to prevent people from killing each other, or the series will end up as just another part of the killing.

I remember defending AOT against people that criticized its portrayal of fascism. Some of those criticisms are, still, to me very hollow. Like that one Polygon article which can basically be summed up by *"guys i think there might be fascist subtext to a story explicitly about fascism"*. That much is just a kind of trolling. But there is the more serious matter of whether or not the show accidentally encourages the sort of hatred it displays.

"You can’t choose where the cat sleeps."

"There is no such thing as an anti-war film."

No matter how talented and well minded an artist is, there is no way you can actually *make* your audience react a certain way. I'm sure there are neo-Nazis out there that enjoy watching Schindler's List. If people are stupid enough to actually *do* the things portrayed in media, then why should we be surprised by their reactions to the media? There's no way AOT could kill fascism. But still, for how intelligent the story is, I wonder if that just doesn't even matter.

It is also very stupid at times (like the S1-S2 openings), but those seem unintelligent only by how easily they are taken out of context. I think the narrative structure of Attack on Titan relies on building up expectation and then dismantling them in such a way that is revealing about ourselves. The Titans are presented as an absolute, unifying, and indiscriminate evil. The Titans are actually deeply tragic beings that are the product of human choices. This may teach an audience to not trust such narratives. That sort of "bait and switch" relies heavily on the "switch." If you only ever are exposed to certain parts of AOT (like just the action or overly dramatic AMVs), then its easy to get the wrong message.

But it's hard to blame AOT or Isayama for that. Asking an author to not allow that may as well be asking an author to not tell stories at all. It's inevitable, even more so with popularly. It's hard to tell a truth about propoganda without enabling the spread of that propoganda. Context matters, but people are inevitably lazy. It's just the law of large numbers. That isn't to say there's no use in trying to provide context. An audience can be lured into a critical experience with a piece of media. But there will always be bad actors, and those bad actors will be just as cunning.

But as a more fundamental flaw with AOT itself rather than art in general, oh my god. What the fuck is the ending.

Here's my two cents:

Armin hates himself. Even before becoming a mass murderer, he viewed himself as inadequate and undeserving of respect. That self hatred never left him and never was resolved. Becoming a soldier allowed him to quell it and act rationally according to his objective, but the self hatred was always still there.

For him, to thank Eren is an expression of his self-hatred. He sees himself as at the same level of moral fault and that they both deserve the same fate. Eren is undoubtedly *worse* than Armin (80% of the worlds population), but Armin still considers himself just as culpable. So his friendliness with Eren is a sardonic, cynical expression of his own hopelessness.

This is the most charitable interpretation I can come up with. Even if this *was* an intended subtext, I think the more honest interpretation is that Isayama just got tired and lazy. The theme of "those who can't abandon anything can't change anything" needed to be reincorporated, and this was a giant flashing neon sign indicating that. Eren did certainly change something.

What I want to say is that, by this point in the story, the notion of positive change through sacrifice had been disproven. There is no common enemy to humanity; humanity is its own enemy. So "tatakae" is no longer about promoting a greater good, but promoting one's own interest over others.

"Fight! Fight to survive!"

has a very different tone from,

"As long as we have unbending convictions, a clash is inevitable. There is but one thing to do. Fight."

I wish i could say all that.

But far too much credence is given to the idea that the Rumbling is justifiable. Hange says, "I'll be damned before I justify genocide." But at almost every step, the Rumbling is presented not as a moral apocalypse, but as a solution to a problem. This is absurd. Erwin counsels Levi that, "No one will know how things will turn out." And yet these two outcomes, let Paradis be destroyed or let Eren destroy the world are presented as the only two options. Even worse, that this is supposedly the case is supposedly *the fault* of Hange and Armin and Jean and everyone else. Floch saying that Paradis will drown in a sea of blood is propoganda. This propoganda is treated as if it is the unquestionable truth.

I think Isayama wanted a moral dilemma for the characters to ponder (save ourselves or save the world), but got lazy along the way. That dilemma, "us vs. them," is never true and is used to justify atrocity in the real world. Violence never ends, and the us's and the them's change to fit the needs of whatever cruelty needs justification. I hope that Isayama knows this. It’s present in the work already. But here it vanishes in favor of a simplistic, cliche narrative. Laziness, when dealing with subject matter as sensitive as this, has a real cost. And it's a bummer beyond all other bummers that this is how the story ends.

#attack on titan #shingeki no kyojin #help me

2 notes · View notes

imscaredofsoup · 2 years

Text

This take actually makes zero sense and is dumb and I hate it

I mean, come on. Firstly, why in the world would a Titan need a palisman in the first place. Their magic is clearly VERY different and much, MUCH more powerful than the one of a witch, so there's zero reason why they would need a staff or anything that would forfeit their magic.

Plus, let's not forget that Palismen are carved out of Palisman Wood. And we literally do not know if they grow anywhere outside of the Boiling Isles because it is allegedly the only archipelago consisting of a full skeleton of a Titan, thus it is the only archipelago with SUCH amount of magic focused in one place. It has literally been said multiple times that this is what makes the Boiling Isles unique, that it is soooo full of magic it affected everything and everyone that lives there. Thus, it might be the ONLY place where Palisman Trees grow for all we know. So like. How?

But ok, maybe it wasn't The Titan, maybe it was one of those younger Titans. Maybe it was King's Dad for all I know. But still, my first point stands, why would a Titan need a palisman knowing how vastly different their magic is? Makes no sense to me

Plus, in my opinion, we've already been shown WHOSE Palisman the Bat Queen might've been.

That's right.

Blue Fang.

Because honestly that just makes sense to me. It might be my dumb hot take, but I'm 100% convinced that it's true. Because just think about it - he's 100% a giant, and there might be a high chance of him being a magic wielder and owning a staff, because we've seen demons doing so already (multiple demon students in Hexside) so there's literally NOTHING stopping him from doing so. So my theory is, The Bat Queen served as a palisman to Blue Fang, who died (or, well, kinda was killed by Belos) without her knowing, thus making her distrustful towards witches and demons who own staffs (because as far as we know, Blue Fang's brothers didn't know what had happened to him so his fate still probably remains unsolved by most people). Plus, it just proves the point of Belos aka Philipp being the root of everyone's problems on the Boiling Isles. Just kill the bitch and move on.

But, my theory can also be easily disproven because the Bat Queen... Is kinda huge, ngl, even for someone as big as Blue Fang (assuming that he's around the same size as his brothers)

So like. How did he have a staff this big? And I have an answer for that - I have no idea. Plus Philipp kinda has another palisman AND a blue fang in his bag, so this might be the actual Blue Fang's palisman, and well. There's also the Blue Fang's blue fang. This guy is creepy and disgusting, let me tell you this much

But still, I don't think that The Bat Queen used to be a Titan's palisman. She might've been literally any random giant's palisman and it might not be that deep. But still

#the owl house #toh #the bat queen #phillip wittebane #emperor belos #palisman #blue fang #belos #toh analysis

52 notes · View notes