Hi sorry I need to do some more Pokemon posting bc this is the funniest shit. the cute-looking Pokèmon TCG series is making "TM10" part of its branding. Like, TM10 from the games - its the TM for the move Hidden Power, thats cute! Its reflecting the main character discovering herself in the same way the move works in the game, what a cute little detail!
Except uh. Just one problem.
Game Freak in all their brilliance removed Hidden Power from the franchise four years ago in Generation 8* and its still not able to be used in Scarlet and Violet. Its not just that you cant teach it to Pokèmon anymore, you straight up cannot use the attack even if you trade in Pokèmon from older games who know it. Its like a banned technique.
So then that begs the question – if the TCG show is gonna be referencing TM10 this much, but TM10 *isn't* Hidden Power anymore, surely that means TM10 is another similarly inspiring attack - Stored Power, or Calm Mind, or Smart Strike?
Well, depending on if its Gen 8 or 9, I hope the kids will have fun Discovering Their Own Magical Leaf and/or Discovering Their Own Ice Fang. Truly inspiring words. love how well managed this franchise is
6K notes
·
View notes
Sometimes I think I’ve got a good idea of sans character then I remember deep down I consider him kinder then papyrus and I have to come to terms with the fact that I have also fandom-fied him and it hurts, anyway congratulations on staying true to his character your the strongest soldier out there
lol don't beat yourself up. i wouldn't use "kind" as a qualifier, but i do think papyrus can come across as much blunter than sans. he's loud and banging and over the top in a way that exaggerates his other attributes, and one of those is his social awkwardness. he's shameless! both when he's being positive and uplifting AND when he's being a bitch. sans is more... contained. less vocal. but that's something that applies to his character in general.
more than anything i think—as jaded and more pessimistic as sans has become with time and his reset knowledge—both him and papyrus start from the same core personality. papyrus' kindness is obviously important to his character, but people tend to play it up too much in my opinion. he's just as capable of disregarding people's suffering and unhappiness for his own interests (empress undyne ending, king mtt ending, remaining our friend in spite of our actions) as his brother. he's just... very loud about his positivity and caring for other people and DOES want what's best for everyone... when it's not particularly inconvenient to him. lol.
230 notes
·
View notes
Saw a post making fun of Asexuals in the year of our Good Vibes 2022 so a reminder:
The A stands for the Asexual community and spectrum (it also represents the Aromantic and Agender communities but I’m Asexual so I’ll be talking about that specifically in this post)
Celibacy is a choice to abstain from sex. Asexuality is a sexuality defined by a lack of sexual attraction to anyone, not by the choice to abstain from sex.
Every asexual person has different feelings on sex (an activity, not an attraction) - some are sex repulsed, some are sex neutral, and some are sex favorable. A physically pleasurable experience is not equal to an attraction to parties involved.
The Asexual community has been around since the dawn of the Queer liberation movement, and Asexual individuals have always existed.
Aphobia is real and has done tangible harm to Asexual people. Listen to and learn from their experiences.
If you make fun of Asexuals and their community jokes (dragons/cakes/cards) you are Aphobic. If you’re Asexual and you make fun of these aspects of your own community or consider them ‘cringe’ you have internalized Aphobia.
Sometimes teenagers and young people will identify as Asexual and change their label later in life. This does not mean that all young people who identify as Asexual will change their minds, nor does it mean that all people who identify as Asexual are young.
Seriously what do you people have against the dragons and cake jokes those are classic and hilarious please deconstruct why you have so much rage for harmless jokes that’s not a healthy response to silliness.
Anyways reblog this post if you’re Asexual, support Asexuals, or really want a dragon.
2K notes
·
View notes
Thinking about Jason. I don't know why, he hasn't had a serious turn in my head yet, I guess. Also the half-argument from...Batman 137? where they're yelling about like, death and crime and utilitarianism -- that got stuck in my head.
Anyway it lines up with this other issue I have with DC comics, which is that the way they write Batman sometimes feels...deeply hypocritical? Other heroes kill people and fight violent criminals but aren't enmeshed in a deep dark tragic space where they're always apparently two steps away from turning into a deeply immoral/abusive/totalitarian figure. But future/AU Batmen are routinely stuck in this box. As far as I can tell, the potential reasons are
(a) there's something wrong with Gotham. (This is what's happening in the current 'Tec run, I think, and exists in all the "Gotham eats her children" headcanons.)
(b) Gotham's villain-hero landscape is uniquely disturbing and eats away at the souls of its participants. (??? I guess? This feels silly unless it's explained by (a), and fairly boring as a basis for storytelling, at least to me.)
(c) Bruce Wayne is has a uniquely sensitive empathetic response, and is probably really poorly suited to a life with this much violence, and all of it just hits him harder than it does the other heroes; people like Bruce tend to self-select out, and Bruce is just stubborn.
Wonder Woman kills people and the WW writers don't throw themselves all over the page talking about how Wonder Woman is going to succumb to a life of violence and trauma. (I mean, maybe sometimes they do. I'm woefully under-read on WW, but I'm confident enough in this assertion to put it here. Corrections welcome!)
So like...what's up with Batman? Future!Batman!Tim and future!Batman!Damian get this treatment as well, sometimes, and that's also baffling -- because Bruce Wayne, so far, hasn't succumbed to the kind of deeply immoral/abusive/totalitarian figure that DC likes to portray as just lurking around the corner. Is he uniquely able to withstand the pressure of the role? (Well, Bruce and Dick Grayson, of course.)
And with Jason...I do get Bruce's position. A death is a death is a death and at its heart (thank you Kingdom Come), Bruce is just trying to make it so that no one dies. Jason has a utilitarian point, as is sketched out in Batman 137, but it seems clear the actual issue is simply that his ethical position is different from Batman's. Jason thinks a death can be justified; Bruce doesn't.
(Are there any Cass and Jason comics? Because I would love love to see a Cass "ripped the bat off of Kate's costume" Cain and a Jason Todd ideological clash.)
(Why are Cass and Jason on the same side of Gotham War? DC, did you think this through?)
But, see: Batman works with Wonder Woman. Batman adores Wonder Woman. He may disagree with her methods, but that doesn't prevent Trinity team-up after intergalactic mission after them all showing up in each other's comics. So why are Batman and the Red Hood constantly at each other's throats? / Or -- why does DC seem to act as if there is no solution? / Why can't Batman work alongside the Red Hood? Some thoughts:
(a) The paternalism issue; Bruce considers himself uniquely responsible for Jason's actions, and his stepping aside as condoning them. The feels like an easy solution: Bruce Wayne's kid is not a kid anymore. He can make his own decisions.
(b) Gotham again. What other people do in other cities is their own business, but Gotham is Batman's city and he's not going to stand by and let Gothamites be killed. (Counterpoint: Kate? I haven't read any Batwoman but the extent to which DC keeps these separate is wild.)
(c) Jason refuses to consider a team-up without Batman's concession to his methods/refuses to change his methods in the interests of temporary peace. (Valid as an interpersonal stance but I thought we did this already in Urban Legends? Maybe not.)
Anyway I don't have a solution to this yet but I'm pretty sure Wonder Woman is the key. It'll probably come out as a fanfic by the end of the year; I've got a title already, so it had better.
34 notes
·
View notes
You seem to have misinterpreted my ask.
That wasn't a complaint, it was a genuine question as to why. I was hoping for an explanation of your thought process, and of course, you're not required to give one but there was no need to call it a meaningless complaint.
But the quote is referring to Greek names specifically like Patroklus (in which I have seen spelled as such, specifically in Peter Green's translation of the Illiad), not necessarily every word that is Greek in origin. Cyclops and centaur are both names for creatures in greek mythology but they are not proper nouns. My question is what was your thought process to apply Grote's C->K to every word? It's not a "why should you be able to", it's a "why did you?"
It's also interesting to note in your story the plural you use for octopus is octopi. Not the english pluralization of octopuses or even the greek pluralization (as it is a greek origin word) of octopodes.
I don't think you realize how often I get complaints and questions about me doing k instead of C. It is at the point that's it's very frustrating to get those questions because I've answered it dozens of times in a bunch of different places (including here, if you'd checked the ATLOP asks tag).
And the quote refers to many utilizations of such, as I read the history book I can assure you it uses K spellings far more than C, and only uses C when the author deems it overwhelmingly familiar to the readers. He mentioned names specifically because the chart right before the quote was the Greek vs Roman Gods.
Additionally, I did the C to K long before I read that history book. I was simply very pleased when I read it and saved the quote for those sending such questions in the future, I thought a historian agreeing might make some people back off but apparently they just double down, who knew.
If you want a genuine answer: I am dyslexic, it is easier for my dyslexia to spell the words with K when the sound should be a K.
And yeah, cause Octopus and Octopi are words in two languages, not turning a Greek word into English spelling but otherwise keeping it in the same forms. Octopus is at this point both Greek and English, and I like the way Octopi better and it is considered one of three valid forms. Also, that's a nitpick.
14 notes
·
View notes