Idk man, but I personally think it’s kinda awkward and in not very good taste to ask people random questions about their co-workers semi-nudes on camera but maybe it’s just me

It’s always struck me as weird that NPMD ends with homecoming and not prom, because as a non-American, isn’t prom the quintessential American high school end trope thing??

Because of this I looked up what the actual difference is and holy shit homecoming takes place at the end of the first semester of the school year????? (Correction: turns out it’s actually around September/October which is roughly the end of the FIRST TERM)

So you’re telling me that not only do Steph, Grace and Pete have to process their trauma but also deal with SCHOOL????? FOR ANOTHER HALF A YEAR??????? AS HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS?????

every time queer discourse surges on this site everyone is so quick to jump to “it was actually the evil lesbians who divided us” because y’all heard the term “political lesbian” and never bothered to figure out what that meant

listen im ace and im pro kink at pride and whatever, but the way some of yall are wording your posts in response to the backlash against it is uh. really taking me back to the ace shitcourse era.

yall know theres nothing wrong with being a "virgin", right? that its not inherently shameful to have not had sex, to never have sex, even if youre not ace, even if you do want to have sex someday, like, its fine that you haven't had sex?

maybe if your problem is that theyre trying to police your behavior and shame you for expressing your sexuality, you can say that? instead of resorting to "haha stupid virgin gets no bitches" like my god. do you not hear how fucking regressive that attitude is? i know, i know, youre "joking".

get a better joke

Why I Deliberately Avoided the "Colonizer" Argument in my Zutara Thesis - and Why I'll Continue to Avoid it Forever

This is a question that occasionally comes up under my Zutara video essay, because somehow in 2 hours worth of content I still didn't manage to address everything (lol.) But this argument specifically is one I made a point of avoiding entirely, and there are some slightly complicated reasons behind that. I figure I'll write them all out here.

From a surface-level perspective, Zuko's whole arc, his raison d'etre, is to be a de-colonizer. Zuko's redemption arc is kinda all about being a de-colonizer, and his redemption arc is probably like the most talked about plot point of ATLA, so from a basic media literacy standpoint, the whole argument is unsound in the first place, and on that basis alone I find it childish to even entertain as an argument worth engaging with, to be honest.

(At least one person in my comments pointed out that if any ship's "political implications" are problematic in some way, it really ought to be Maiko, as Mai herself is never shown or suggested to be a strong candidate for being a de-colonizing co-ruler alongside Zuko. If anything her attitudes towards lording over servants/underlings would make her… a less than suitable choice for this role, but I digress.)

But the reason I avoided rebutting this particular argument in my video goes deeper than that. From what I've observed of fandom discourse, I find that the colonizer argument is usually an attempt to smear the ship as "problematic" - i.e., this ship is an immoral dynamic, which would make it problematic to depict as canon (and by extension, if you ship it regardless, you're probably problematic yourself.)

And here is where I end up taking a stand that differentiates me from the more authoritarian sectors of fandom.

I'm not here to be the fandom morality police. When it comes to lit crit, I'm really just here to talk about good vs. bad writing. (And when I say "good", I mean structurally sound, thematically cohesive, etc; works that are well-written - I don't mean works that are morally virtuous. More on this in a minute.) So the whole colonizer angle isn't something I'm interested in discussing, for the same reason that I actually avoided discussing Katara "mothering" Aang or the "problematic" aspects of the Kataang ship (such as how he kissed her twice without her consent). My whole entire sections on "Kataang bad" or "Maiko bad" in my 2 hour video was specifically, "how are they written in a way that did a disservice to the story", and "how making them false leads would have created valuable meaning". I deliberately avoided making an argument that consisted purely of, "here's how Kataang/Maiko toxic and Zutara wholesome, hence Zutara superiority, the end".

Why am I not willing to be the fandom morality police? Two reasons:

I don't really have a refined take on these subjects anyway. Unless a piece of literature or art happens to touch on a particular issue that resonates with me personally, the moral value of art is something that doesn't usually spark my interest, so I rarely have much to say on it to begin with. On the whole "colonizer ship" subject specifically, other people who have more passion and knowledge than me on the topic can (and have) put their arguments into words far better than I ever could. I'm more than happy to defer to their take(s), because honestly, they can do these subjects justice in a way I can't. Passing the mic over to someone else is the most responsible thing I can do here, lol. But more importantly:

I reject the conflation of literary merit with moral virtue. It is my opinion that a good story well-told is not always, and does not have to be, a story free from moral vices/questionable themes. In my opinion, there are good problematic stories and bad "pure" stories and literally everything in between. To go one step further, I believe that there are ways that a romance can come off "icky", and then there are ways that it might actually be bad for the story, and meming/shitposting aside, the fact that these two things don't always neatly align is not only a truth I recognise about art but also one of those truths that makes art incredibly interesting to me! So on the one hand, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to conflate literary "goodness" with moral "goodness". On a more serious note, I not only find this type of conflation unfair/inaccurate, I also find it potentially dangerous - and this is why I am really critical of this mindset beyond just disagreeing with it factually. What I see is that people who espouse this rhetoric tend to encourage (or even personally engage in) wilful blindness one way or the other, because ultimately, viewing art through these lens ends up boxing all art into either "morally permissible" or "morally impermissible" categories, and shames anyone enjoying art in the "morally impermissible" box. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people responding to this by A) making excuses for art that they guiltily love despite its problematic elements and/or B) denying the value of any art that they are unable to defend as free from moral wickedness.

Now, I'm not saying that media shouldn't be critiqued on its moral virtue. I actually think morally critiquing art has its place, and assuming it's being done in good faith, it absolutely should be done, and probably even more often than it is now.

Because here's the truth: Sometimes, a story can be really good. Sometimes, you can have a genuinely amazing story with well developed characters and powerful themes that resonate deeply with anyone who reads it. Sometimes, a story can be all of these things - and still be problematic.*

(Or, sometimes a story can be all of those things, and still be written by a problematic author.)

That's why I say, when people conflate moral art with good art, they become blind to the possibility that the art they like being potentially immoral (or vice versa). If only "bad art" is immoral, how can the art that tells the story hitting all the right beats and with perfect rhythm and emotional depth, be ever problematic?

(And how can the art I love, be ever problematic?)

This is why I reject the idea that literary merit = moral virtue (or vice versa) - because I do care about holding art accountable. Even the art that is "good art". Actually, especially the art that is "good art". Especially the art that is well loved and respected and appreciated. The failure to distinguish literary critique from moral critique bothers me on a personal level because I think that conflating the two results in the detriment of both - the latter being the most concerning to me, actually.

So while I respect the inherent value of moral criticism, I'm really not a fan of any argument that presents moral criticism as equivalent to literary criticism, and I will call that out when I see it. And from what I've observed, a lot of the "but Zutara is a colonizer ship" tries to do exactly that, which is why I find it a dishonest and frankly harmful media analysis framework to begin with.

But even when it is done in good faith, moral criticism of art is also just something I personally am neither interested nor good at talking about, and I prefer to talk about the things that I am interested and good at talking about.

(And some people are genuinely good at tackling the moral side of things! I mean, I for one really enjoyed Lindsay Ellis's take on Rent contextualising it within the broader political landscape at the time to show how it's not the progressive queer story it might otherwise appear to be. Moral critique has value, and has its place, and there are definitely circumstances where it can lead to societal progress. Just because I'm not personally interested in addressing it doesn't mean nobody else can do it let alone that nobody else should do it, but also, just because it can and should be done, doesn't mean that it's the only "one true way" to approach lit crit by anyone ever. You know, sometimes... two things… can be true… at once?)

Anyway, if anyone reading this far has recognised that this is basically a variant of the proship vs. antiship debate, you're right, it is. And on that note, I'm just going to leave some links here. I've said about as much as I'm willing/able to say on this subject, but in case anyone is interested in delving deeper into the philosophy behind my convictions, including why I believe leftist authoritarian rhetoric is harmful, and why the whole "but it would be problematic in real life" is an anti-ship argument that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I highly recommend these posts/threads:

In general this blog is pretty solid; I agree with almost all of their takes - though they focus more specifically on fanfic/fanart than mainstream media, and I think quite a lot of their arguments are at least somewhat appropriate to extrapolate to mainstream media as well.

I also strongly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" which the author, a verified giga chad, actually made free to download as a pdf, here. His work focuses primarily on right-wing authoritarians, but a lot of his research and conclusions are, you guessed it, applicable to left-wing authoritarians also.

And if you're an anti yourself, welp, you won't find support from me here. This is not an anti-ship safe space, sorrynotsorry 👆

In conclusion, honestly any "but Zutara is problematic" argument is one I'm likely to consider unsound to begin with, let alone the "Zutara is a colonizer ship" argument - but even if it wasn't, it's not something I'm interested in discussing, even if I recognise there are contexts where these discussions have value. I resent the idea that just because I have refined opinions on one aspect of a discussion means I must have (and be willing to preach) refined opinions on all aspects of said discussion. (I don't mean to sound reproachful here - actually the vast majority of the comments I get on my video/tumblr are really sweet and respectful, but I do get a handful of silly comments here and there and I'm at the point where I do feel like this is something worth saying.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to defer to other analysts who have the passion and knowledge to give complicated topics the justice they deserve. All I request is that care is taken not to conflate literary criticism with moral criticism to the detriment of both - and I think it's important to acknowledge when that is indeed happening. And respectfully, don't expect me to give my own take on the matter when other people are already willing and able to put their thoughts into words so much better than me. Peace ✌

*P.S. This works for real life too, by the way. There are people out there who are genuinely not only charming and likeable, but also generous, charitable and warm to the vast majority of the people they know. They may also be amazing at their work, and if they have a job that involves saving lives like firefighting or surgery or w.e, they may even be the reason dozens of people are still alive today. They may honestly do a lot of things you'd have to concede are "good" deeds.

They may be all of these things, and still be someone's abuser. 🙃

Two things can be true at once. It's important never to forget that.

LMAO. Here it is, the creed of the anti-kink puritan: "thinking about bad things is bad in itself."There seems to be zero understanding of the distinction between thoughts or fantasies and actual actions in the real world.

Ms. thesituation here, she seems to have a general problem with distinguishing thoughts from reality. There was the time she outright lied about a trans woman to make her into a pedophile via guilt by association, by just making up the association. Thesituation seems to think that because she can imagine a particular trans woman being buddies with pedophile, that somehow makes it reality.

What she is fighting for is not a basic sense of morality, it's the concept of thought crimes.

I attach basically no moral weight to thoughts or fantasies, because they are not reality, it's what a person actually does in the real world that matters. Fantasizing about murder doesn't make you a murderer. When you fantasize about a murder you are not taking the life of a living breathing person, the thing that makes actual murder bad. It is not real.

The same thing applies not just to private fantasies, but to multiple people playing pretend with a particular fantasy. Pretend-murdering someone in a play or a movie isn't murder, because fiction is not real.

And the same applies to sexual roleplay, like cnc. Two consenting adults play-acting rape is not rape, because there is consent. It's two adults playing pretend, not actual rape. Similarly if two consenting non-related adults do fauxcest roleplay, calling their girlfriend their "sister" or whatever. This is all fine, what two or more consenting adults do sexually is none of my business, and when you aren't involved it's not your business either. And I think you are an arrogant, paternalistic, judgemental, moralist asshole for judging them.

But these people never just judge, but launch outright harassment campaigns. And let's be honest here, the kind of callout campaigns against the evils of sexual perversion these people start are usually focused on transfems, and are deeply transmisogynist in nature.

And they have obvious conservative roots too. Anti-kink views spring directly out of sexual conservatism. And the whole "Your private thoughts determine your moral character" bit is drawn directly from the darkest depths of certain sects of christianity.

*gently shakes the whump community by the shoulders*

No no no. Stop that. Put down the morality snobbery. Down! Put it down!

We do not get to throw stones at the other harmless weirdos. We are part of the harmless weirdos.

Do not argue! Whump is weird. It's morally neutral and it is weird, like a lot of other morally neutral kinda-gross-to-outsiders weird things, such as, for example, furry fandom. And yes like furry fandom sometimes it's sexual and sometimes it isn't. Both approaches are just as weird and just as fine.

Embrace being weird and don't attack our fellow weirdos. One person's gross torture porn is another person's catharsis.

(We're the weird torture porn fandom we should know this aaaaaaargh)

I hate it when xtians reduce my religious trauma to "a religious person said something mean to you once so now you're mad at religion".

Like, shut the fuck up. My trauma isn't just someone being a little rude to me once, it was systematic, deliberate manipulation with the threat of possible eternity of suffering in Hell if I didn't obey religious rules and "keep Christ in my heart". It was "Nonbelievers burn in a lake of eternal fire. Tell your friends to convert to our faith or they'll be damned for eternity".

I have suffered from anxiety, ocd and other mental health issues for several fucking years because of this shit. I've suppressed my sexuality and felt terrible guilt just for the 'sin' of having sexual thoughts. I've feared for my loved one's souls, genuinely believing they would go to Hell for simply not being xtians and that I'd never see them again in the afterlife.

These beliefs are sick and twisted. What I went through was sick and twisted.

I seriously don't know what to say to you if you still think telling anyone, let alone a child, that they're going to be damned for eternity if they disobey 'God's word' is totally fine and not abusive.

Know your fucking place and stop speaking over trauma survivors who have been hurt by your shitty religion.

I mean a huge part of the problem is that antis just don't understand that different stories exist for different reasons, and not all stories are supposed to teach you a moral lesson, or any lesson, for that matter, right?

Like the entire plot of The Twilight Zone was basically "Wouldn't that be fucked up? I'm Rod Sterling." This show ran for 5 20-40 episode long seasons in the late 50's to early 60's.

Like yeah, some fiction exists to teach a lesson of some kind, or draw attention to real-world atrocities, or whatever, but not all fiction serves that purpose, nor is it supposed to!

And I know it's a fundamental lack of understanding, or wilful ignorance at the very least, because antis constantly bring up propaganda in this argument, as if propaganda isn't lies presented as fact.

Which is why it's dangerous; because it's not presented as fiction! If propaganda were presented as the lies it is, then it wouldn't fucking work, because the entire reason propaganda works the way it does is because you don't know it's fucking lies!

But if you're over the age of 10 and are watching something that is obviously just a fictional story for entertainment purposes, I would expect you to know better than to emulate everything you see in said story.

There is a Rampant and Vicious Cycle in the Online Left That Needs to Be Addressed

Every leftist needs to understand that not every proclaimed leftist is a safe person or one that is acting in good faith. Many people in this sphere --even if they are minorities themselves-- are Abusers. Let me be clear: they are Abusers REGARDLESS of --NOT because of-- them being a minority. Despite this, many of them have weaponized their standing as a minority in order to get away with their behavior and achieve what they see as some form of power and control over others. Let me be clear. I am referring to those that:

Manipulate and lie about pressing situations (especially when it's to harm another person or demographic)

Excessively use idpol to either elevate themselves to holier than thou levels ("listen to ___ people but only when it's something I agree with, which just so happens to devolve from constructive change to making others grovel and plead forgiveness endlessly before me") or belittle others (ie their skin color, gender, queerness, disability, neurodivergence, religion, age, etc.) in order to discount their point or not treat them as equal human beings; yes, even if their skin tone is white or if they are men, abuse does not have to be backed up by systemic issues in order to be abusive or at the very least harmful (sidenote: this does not apply to people talking about their experiences as a minority that is otherwise not experienced or understood by others, the issue I'm pointing out is when it's twisted to cover everything not directly tied to their identity and proclaim themselves as the only ones allowed to be the voice of reason, therefore shutting up everyone else and to avoid any constructive criticism or discussion)

Act on rage and at times even trauma to bring forth harmful ideals (ex: truly hating every person of a demographic, wishing for a genocide, making actual death or rape threats towards someone or a group, conversion, etc)(sidenote: I'm not discounting those that have trauma and even have harmful thoughts, just please seek help and understand that it is not healthy nor sustainable to paint or alter reality to be in line with what trauma makes you believe)

Actively try to get others they don't agree with to either permanently leave the internet or commit suicide and even celebrate when either happens

Excessively test others on their "purity" on unachievable standards to the detriment of everyone and Leftism as a whole (purity culture is fueled by christian culture in order to disguise doomerism, accepting defeat when change is not possible, of which is the very thing that will kill leftism)

Infight over weird made up issues (remember how divide and conquer is a war strategy? To split hairs and discount others for non-issues is to do the work of conservatives and nazis for them)

Shut down people or discussions over minor slights such as using an incorrect word/phrasing or any numerous perceived mistakes (example I've seen here: berating a person with schizophrenia (or a trans person or any other minority) for using a derogatory term for themselves when they're talking about how everyone else is speaking over them and not listening), ignoring the hypocrisy or not taking into account any number of mundane causes such as non-native english speakers, generational gaps, being in the process of learning (either recovering from harmful beliefs or simple ignorance), using those terms to prove a point (such as that example I mentioned above), neurodivergence, etc.

Not letting others talk about their experiences of oppression when those experiences don't match theirs, instead opting to call those people bigoted for contrived reasons

A rejection of nuance, intersectionalism, and even reality to better suit their goals (ex: claiming that every trans man benefits from the patriarchy and can never experience misogyny)

Misuse of therapy speak and terminology in order to water down those terms and render them near meaningless so they can weaponize them under the pretense of their original use (ex: gaslighting), or to cut off any need to connect or sympathize with other human beings and instead speak to them like a PR message (refer to this video by Zena and Poppy for reference)

They never speak on true leftist/progressive ideals or positive change, they only engage in destructive discourse or any behavior listed above

Making baseless dangerous accusations towards someone they don't like. Before you go harr harr you're doing that, I'm not calling out any specific person and am merely listing dangerous behaviors I've seen people here act out. What I am referring to are when someone casually calls someone specific a predator (or whatever else) with absolutely zero proof and expecting everyone to believe them no questions asked. This has been shown to ruin people's lives

Any other similar behaviors not included in this list (as well as classic logical fallacies), but what I've mentioned above should paint you a good picture

Every example I've pointed out were REAL EVENTS I've seen from people that proclaim themselves as leftists or even just progressive, and sometimes are even minorities themselves (some even infight against their own communities using the behaviors listed above, often out of internalized bigotry)(an example of a real event that happened here recently were when several people were making rape threats towards a trans man by the username of @a-faggot-with-opinions). To be blunt, I'm pointing out exclusionism in practically every form, asexual discourse, transandrophobia, TERFs/radfems, TEHMs, tankies, "cornbreadtube", nationalists and ethnonationalists, and all else I don't have the terminology for For many of the people that fall under that bullet list I would hesitate to even refer to them as leftist or progressive, as they never seem to actually show they act on it or even believe in it, only making an appearance in those communities for their own destructive personal gain; hell, often times they have ideals that directly go against what those communities stand for! Examples include TERFs with white supremacist beliefs, transandrophobes that are misogynistic, ethnonationalists that are antisemitic, puritans that are ableist, the list goes on forever. Once you know what to look for, you can see the hidden or overt bigotry behind their false "progressive" statements

No one is infallible No one is better than everyone else You are not immune to propaganda No one is immune from behaving abusively

These people are dangerous, whether they actually qualify as abusers --as I've been referring to them as such for brevity and impact-- or are people that are engaging in hurtful or fully abusive behavior (use this paragraph as a disclaimer, I of course can't know if someone is an abuser in real life unless there is documented evidence of such). Regardless, they are hurting the left and are letting the right win

If you see any of these behaviors either 1) take caution if you're unsure, 2) block them, or 3) if you have the fortitude, call them out. Either way, use your best judgement and think for yourself (or discuss with good faith leftists if you're uncertain). And remember, often times (albeit not always) they are actually fully aware of their disgusting behavior and are choosing to act maliciously, not ignorantly.

Stay safe, log off, do what you can to support your local community and leftism as a whole, don't let these people distract from the real issues at hand. Have empathy, if you don't have empathy then act in compassion, if you don't or refuse to do either please do not engage in politics. Misanthropy has no place in matters concerning humanity.

And remember: we have to stand together in unity so we can create a better future for all

Stop fucking saying CP. 'Child porn' is not a thing. That's a harmful, outdated term that implies a child can consent. A child cannot consent. Sexually explicit material that exploits REAL children is CSEM (child sexual exploitation material) or CSAM (child sexual abuse material).

Sexually explicit FICTION is not CSEM or CSAM -- it does not exploit real people of any age to create. That's because it's fiction. Reading it also does not exploit a real person, of any age. It might affect the person that chose to read it, in an emotional/distressing way, and that may feel like harm. But it is not the same as the creator causing you harm maliciously. Dealing with coming across things that distress us is something we all have to learn when we grow up.

Reading or writing underage sexually explicit fiction doesn't make a person a pedophile or a predator. (A lot of you don't seem to actually KNOW what a pedophile is, at that. Frustrating. Words MEAN THINGS.) It's not evidence of being one, or having these desires, either. Yes, I mean even when the fiction portrays things that are horrific IRL. Yes, I mean even when something that would be horrible IRL is treated as romantic and consensual in fiction. And yes, I mean even the stuff that squicks you personally.

When you (general) throw terms like this around incorrectly, loosely, or vengefully, you actually do harm by watering down the meaning of words that describe actual, exploitative, illegal, and terrible real life actions. You do harm by making undue accusations and wasting time and resources that should've been spent elsewhere. You affect real people.

Sometimes people write from their own childhood experiences. Some people just have a fucking imagination for how a situation might play out under certain circumstances. Some people look at two characters and their history and fill in the blanks with all the twists and turns they see lurking in the shadows. Some people have a really fucked up idea they want to explore IN FICTION.

People can have their own squicks and boundaries about it, and that's fine. There's certainly fictional underage material that squicks me, even though I write and read tons of underage fiction. This is what tags, summaries, the back button, and the delete from history button are for.

Thought crime is not a thing. Quit equating it with real life.

Kink discourse is so fucking wacky to me. It is just roleplay. It’s a game. It’s make believe. Please calm down. People who play dnd don’t actually want to kill other people with swords, either, since this is apparently hard to distinguish. People who watch horror movies are not secretly serial killers waiting to strike. Watching game of thrones didn’t make people fuck their siblings. Are you listening to me.

being a sexual person isn't a bad thing. having sex isn't a bad thing. having sex frequently isn't a bad thing. if you genuinely think someone engaging in a lot of sexual behavior/activity whether it's watching porn or actually having sex is this debased activity that has an impact on someone's logical functioning ("horny brainrot" or whatever you wanna call it), you're espousing reactionary beliefs around sexuality oft endorsed by the likes of conservative catholics. that's it. that's what you're doing.

this is possibly the worst post ive ever seen

ok trust me when i say i can’t wait for the dramatic fallout of nandor finding out guillermo’s been turned and i love the drama of the others finding out one by one and i think it’s awesome that guillermo took the power into his own hands and i can’t wait to figure out why guillermo’s transformation is taking so long but also. i do miss the alternate sequence of events in which nandor does turn guillermo as a pinnacle of their relationship and the ultimate virginity/gay sex metaphor is realized

Re: Micky Mouse in horror projects apparently getting a bug up people's butts:

I'm not up on whatever projects are in the works, but please understand: some of the impetus for using Mickey in horror projects is a middle finger at the control of corporations.

I don't have any particular beefs with Mickey as a character, but I do have a lot of beefs with him as a symbol. I would love to see him ripped apart by demons or whatever and have someone who isn't Disney make money off it because fuck how out of control copyright is, and fuck how so much of it specifically Disney's fault.

It's catharsis, in the same way as a lot of other horror. It is seeing a Symbol burned in effigy because burning the real thing would be unethical. It's not like we can or should line up the corporate lobbyists, high-ranking corporate officials, rich Disney shareholders, and the like who got us into this situation and execute them. As a group they might be greedy scumbags who are destroying the commons for a single corn chip, but they're still people. Even if I was into the death penalty, and I'm not, "doesn't let people use things that should rightly be the public's domain" doesn't exactly rise to that level.

But there is a lot of real, justified anger at the whole situation with copyright here, and that has to go somewhere. Taking out your intrusive thoughts on fictional characters is a time-honoured and safe way to sublimate anger.

I'm not saying any given project has such high-minded goals in mind, but, like. There is an audience there. Some of that audience is irony-poisoned folks looking for lulz, and some of that audience are folks who want to throttle that fucking mouse because of what he symbolizes. (And some of that audience is just going to be folks curious to see what people do with a new public domain character. The fact that this is where people are going and wasn't particularly when, say, The Great Gatsby fell into the public domain undoubtedly says something interesting.)

If that doesn't do it for you, that is completely fine. I'll probably enjoy more wholesome public domain Mickey Mouse stuff, too. Like I say, I don't have any particular issues with the character as a fictional person. He seems fine.

But for fuck's sake, let people have their chew toy, too. Maybe if Disney hadn't been such a shitty company there wouldn't be this anger to work out, but here we are.