need more friends who smoke/drink/get up to general hoologanry

Why are people SURPRISED that Alhaitham is nice???

He IS nice, yes hes cold but not intentionally, thats just how he is but he doesnt mean it in a terrible way

He doesnt flaunt any form of superiority over someone since he even says that he personally doesnt value himself more than others, rather hes stating facts that comes o f f as being cocky when hes just saying what IS correct, hes blunt till the point where people often consider it as rude and arrogant but he sees it as something that is normal because thats literally how he is

Yes, being blunt isnt always a good thing and people should know when to say the truth, not lie but postpone it, but theres also a consideration that not everyone is able to always know social cues and multiple (including myself) struggle to pick them up often, and of course it comes with consequences just like how Alhaitham is heavily disliked by some of the professors or even other students for his "unacceptable" attitude

His entire SQ is also about how he doesnt care how others perceive him but puts his foot down when it endangers others even when he doesnt even know who they are and all he wants is just a simple life

Hes not mean nor a terrible person, hes actually a nice person

Just because someone DOESN'T fall into the *common* character type of being a happy go lucky, always cheerful and smiling person doesnt automatically make them mean

well mark that down as situation 2938489 that I don't know how to handle

so fucking fascinated by how long sindri’s resentment of atreus was building tho like that was written so well. from “we’re sick of hearing about little people’s little problems” to sindri noticing the mistletoe arrows were thrown out to atreus refusing to listen to sindri warning him about freya and odin and tyr to atreus hitting him aside as a bear and finally culminating with brok’s death. yes sindri is mad at kratos too but the primary target of his anger is atreus and why shouldn’t it be when atreus has walked all over sindri since he was 11 years old without a single apology

is it “I take creative liberties with my art designs of other people’s characters because they’re mythical creatures or monsters or animal hybrids or something but look I kept the roleplayers’/streamers actual in game skin AND irl physical characteristics into account because I drew them with colored hair or glasses or I made them short !! !!” or is it “i just don’t want to draw characters that aren’t thin and pale and even though their characters as well as actual bodies are not thin nor pale or blue eyed because their look as a person and their characters they’re playing in game doesn’t represent the idea of a desirable hot design of a person I have in my mind and I’m going to hide my abhorrence to certain facial and body features behind the argument that because they’re fictitious people I can mold them however I want”

“it wouldn’t be realistic to draw an _______ as the way the actual streamer looks” why not? why keep the certain features of certain people into your representations and not others? am I making sense? probably not nvm

i know the Willow Mellow lore gets worse the longer you dig inside of it + it reflects even Worse on the writers when you put the actual words on her situation but let's not forget Darlings she is a child. she is 15 to 17yo depending on what piece of documentation we refer to, too young to consent to sex and therefore does not fit the category of "sex worker", and instead falls under the definitions of "sexually exploited youth", more specifically "sexually exploited child", as UNICEF, UNESCO, Convention for the Rights of the Child, [...] and general common sense all define "child" as "person under the age of 18".

she is the victim of kidnapping by her """adoptive father""" and of sexual exploitation by her (presumably adult) "clients" (as she does not appear to have a pimp, and is instead written saying she loves what she does and such giddy teehee fun. [powerful side-eye through someone in the writing team.] [she's not a Real Person I have to stress, so someone wrote her like this, wrote this kid like this.] [it is all part of a narrative in which she is struggling to shake off her "father's" exploitation, an inherently tragic one, but she still was written that way, and could have been written any other way, with any other "rebellious" act]). calling her a sex worker as a child who is basically the same age as P2 Capella or Grace is putting her in a Grown-Up category especially harmful considering we are supposed to read her as an indigenous girl, member of the Kin (even if her lore is Mysterious and Hazy) and indigenous women and girls are sexualized in racialized ways which often paint them as more ~~~naturally~~~ sexually liberated, or docile, or submissive, or [insert racist x sexist stereotype promoted by colonizers to excuse the mistreatment of indigenous women and girls].

tldr yes it's worse when you actually call her what she actually is, and worse tenfold when you read what the writers make her say about it [even as an inherently tragic situation that we can recognize and put words on (hence this post), she could have been written any other way, with any other rebellious act, but you know.] but you know x2 (SIDE-EYES SOMEONE ON THE WRITING TEAM VERY HARD TIL ME EYES POP OUT ME SKULL)

It's amazing how quickly people can perceive and pick up on other people's trauma but cannot do it for themselves because of how we cope, we can twist our reality into something more manageable for years, and then one day it hits.

🧍

Thesis crisis part ???

something on my mind rn. as you all know i’m a lesbian. applause from the audience. and sometimes it just gets to be like annoying when. well. so i have at least A friend who’s asked me several times over ‘so you don’t have Any attraction to men? like at all?’ and i know they’re not being like malicious but you know. that answer has not changed since like seventh grade. and in the same vein it just feels aggravating when i have the nerve to say Oh i think she seems like a lesbian. that’s giving dyke. etc. and to be met with ‘umm well maybe she actually does like men.’ like. first of all in personal conversations if i’m just saying shit chances are i’m just going off of patterns from my own life or other lesbians i know. i’m not here for Bi Erasure and i promise you in this context your attraction to men is not ever invalidated as much as my lack of it. esp in college with so many people talking about their dating/app experiences and etc it’s 99.9999% of the time about men and i just Can’t participate in that conversation which is yk not the end of the world but a bit isolating and even if i do contribute anything it just feels like… a slight Stiffening like. and even just getting brushed off with Well yeah but you’re not even into guys. like real! i still have eyes though. and esp when my attraction isn’t being celebrated and engaged with in the way theirs is it’s just really fucking lonely! and maybe that’s a gross inner voice of insecurity that i’m projecting onto them but like you must get what i mean right. there’s still this odd air specifically around people who Do Not engage with men at all. and if i do make any kind of joke or comment abt someone maybe just Not being into guys i’m made into the asshole who’s invalidating their experiences etc when like. i’m just saying shit man idk. and it’s like many of these people are bi and claim attraction to women but get so like uncomfortable actually talking about it. i don’t think i’m the one with problems! i think there’s still some internalized shit there. you know. anyway all this to say as much as we’ve had the conversation of invalidating bi attraction some of you need to think about not treating gay attraction as this secondary awkward weird elephant in the room. and on a more personal note on top of the Everything that was getting under my skin last night this was just a cherry on top where i was feeling soo… misunderstood and invalidated lol even tho again i largely think those friends were being very supportive and kind to me. this is just one thing i was like. 😐

why why why do people only consume things in bits. "i haven't heard this album but i've listened to a couple songs" "i've heard of this musician but i only know the song that got popular" "i haven't seen this movie/show but i've seen clips" "i haven't read anything about this political movement but i get the gist" aren't you curious! don't you want to learn! do you only consume whats fed to you?

i mean most abusers do love the people they abuse. abuse isn’t something done with intention or malice half the time, it’s done by people thinking they’re doing the right thing. bruce’s love and need for control are constantly in conflict with each other and that’s why the robins are stuck waging a war against him. i feel like a big part of a dysfunctional parent-child dynamic is feeling trapped by your parent’s love. Even if you hate it, it’s still canon that Bruce has been historically bad with dealing with his kids. Half of them don’t even feel comfortable calling him dad cuz the relationship seems so undefined or shaky. In Dick’s case i feel like he has no grounds to oppose robin and his vigilantism because Bruce (deep down) loved having someone like dick around to fight crime with. They both refer that time as “the good old days” so it’s not like Bruce was truly opposed. It’s only when the actual reality of that negligent and naive behaviour materialises that he realises he fucked up (robin year one eg). Then he treats Dick in such a cold manner that Dick believes if he’s not robin, he’s not wanted. This has been a pattern since the golden days so no it’s not ooc for Bruce. Yes the natural conclusion to all the modern day tension should be for both parties to meet and resolve their issues but Bruce is still the abuser at the end of the day, and even though Dick’s self sacrificing nature might easily forgive him, on a textual level it should be clear that a true resolution between the two would need Dick to dig deeper, and for Bruce to be ready for rejection from his son.

i don’t disagree with that assessment of abuse like it’s absolutely true, but my problem is i don’t think the cold or controlling behavior is really a consistent enough pattern until we move into post-crisis canon. for several decades dick and bruce have a great rapport with each other bc that’s what everyone knows they’re supposed to have. like i don’t think most writers from the golden or silver age if asked that they intended to write bruce as an abuser would agree and say yes, and that distinction to me is impt, bc sure, we can take what we’re reading on a surface level and project our own experience or modern understanding of relationships onto it, but i don’t think that should happen to the extent authorial intent is superseded bc then you start to enter territory where you’re divorcing narrative from genre conventions. if we go by the assumption that bruce is an enabler and abuser for allowing dick to be a hero for so long without purported attention paid to his safety then that establishes practically every hero within the universe possessive of a sidekick as an abuser. and i do get that some people are interested in following that thread like esp in post-crisis we see that exploration a lot but ig for me personally it’s kinda like the thing that breaks the camel’s back and withholds the entire genre from actually allowing itself to explore more pertinent issues. not to say abuse isn’t a pertinent issue, it absolutely is and i do think there’s ways it can still be explored, but the primary reason the genre was established in the first place was in response to fascism. obv the engagement with that wasn’t necessarily complex early on but it’s incredibly impt to the development of the genre and as we can see in a modern context how that response to fascism or lack thereof is conveyed can be incredibly influential in terms of facilitating support or not for fascist government. so my issue is like, yes, it’s impt for bruce’s faults in these relationships to be addressed to a constructive and worthwhile extent, but i also think writers have gone so drastically far in curating those faults in the post crisis era that it’s effectively restricted the scope of the stories they’re allowed to tell, bc they’re more focused on individual instances and relationships within this world than they are on any form of commentary that reflects the operations of the world at large in relation to regulation of crime

lennier can be an incel AND delenn can be a manipulative bad influence and i think the fact that i have dug my own grave dead center in that venn diagram because it's the funnest way to interpret canon is going to eventually get me completely dogpiled by people who passionately only believe one of those things, regardless of which side, if i ever enable anon lol

Soma's bushido summed up:

dating when autistic is like taking a quiz and whenever you’re about to ask a really really easy question it’s like jumping up and down in your seat going “oh! oh! i know this one!”

having a moment about comics again. love those silly little things