Yesterday toxic milkvans were angry because, according to them, Millie got asked a question about Will at the con, when in reality a fan asked Millie who her favorite character was, with her saying Will…
And now today they’re mad because according to them, Finn only got asked byler questions, as if it wasn’t one question about what his favorite byler scene to film was, with him saying the van scene, followed by elaborating unprompted about Will’s feelings…
If you’re mad at anyone, be mad at Millie and Finn bc they’re the ones bringing up your arch nemesis 😅
263 notes
·
View notes
I dunno man I feel like most statements along the lines of ‘Batman isn’t REALLY x, he’s y’ don’t hold much water because usually, there’s a pretty good chance a number of writers over the years have written him as x, you just didn’t like it or think it doesn’t count for some reason.
For example ‘Batman isn’t REALLY a good parent, he’s actually a bad parent’, when Batman has been written as a good parent by a number of writers, and has, in addition, been written as realizing that he’s screwed up with his children and resolved to fix it by even more. At the same time, stating ‘Batman isn’t REALLY a bad parent, he’s actually a good parent’ is also incorrect, because Batman has been written as a bad parent by a number of writers, either intentionally or not; in addition, the pattern presented by the tug-of-war between writers who believe he should be a good parent and writers who don’t has, over the years, created an unintentional pattern that strongly resembles that of an abusive relationship. So, stating he is a good parent is inaccurate and dismisses a bunch of his canon writing, but stating he is a bad parent also dismisses a bunch of his canon writing and the intentions of the authors that wrote him.
The secret here is realizing that Batman has had so many writers over the years that it’s practically impossible to find a universal truth about him beyond the basic premise and maybe very, very basic characterization keystones. Writers with different beliefs about both the character and the world at large have written him in accordance to their worldview, and sometimes that worldview will align with yours, and sometimes it won’t.
Like, at this point, Batman is more an idea than he is a character. He is the bare-knuckled fight against injustice, but what ‘injustice’ is depends heavily on your worldview, as does what ‘bare-knuckled’ and ‘fight’ mean. Batman has been interpreted in dozens of different ways over the years, and singling out a few of those as the True Batman is largely arbitrary and dependent on your personal taste and belief in what the character should be. The only ‘objective’ measurement you could apply here are the old Golden Age comics, and I think most fans can agree that measuring modern Batman comics by how faithful they are to the Golden Age comics is, more often than not, a little ridiculous.
For the record, I do think that arguing about what Batman should be matters; if right-wing assholes use the character as a mouthpiece for their worldview we can and should critique that, but not because it’s ‘OOC’, but because the worldview espoused by those right-wing assholes is harmful and shitty. Batman should be a good parent, not because it’s ‘OOC’ for him to be a bad parent, but because having your paragon of justice be a child abuser is pretty shitty. Etc.
I don’t really have anywhere specific to go with this, I just think it’s a little strange when people try to view Batman as a character with a clear-cut characterization, rather than a concept that many people have approached in different ways over the years. Can that concept be mishandled? Sure. But it’s usually mishandled for reasons a bit more substantial than ‘a previous writer wrote it differently’.
206 notes
·
View notes
I still think about Edd and May so let me talk about a little thing that i need to get out my head really quick
Yall remember this scene right?? May crying bc she got rejected and stepped on (literally) on her love confession and all.
Besides this being a very sweet act of Double D by giving her a card to not make her feel lonely on Valentine's day, there's something else about it.
Double D chosen the card it was supposed to be for Nazz. You know, the prettiest girl for most of the boys in the show. He gave May something it was meant to be for a girl he actually has kind of a crush on just to make her stop crying. I think that's cute.
34 notes
·
View notes
pjo tv show countdown day four
7 notes
·
View notes
Okay, LOVE your profile picture and the little animation. It looks so cool! Is it from a game, or did you do that yourself?
Oh, thank you! Its from a webcomic called Vast Error! I'm both really into it said comic and also kind of not? Its a very back and forth thing for me, mostly because there's a lot I like and dislike about it
The header is taken directly from one of the pages while my icon is a bit edited. The original drawing its from, the background is dark so the dude's hair blends in to much. So I slapped an orange background to it so you can see his hair better lol
2 notes
·
View notes
𝕯𝖆𝖇𝖎 ; Fandom stuff.
How do I tell the fandom that Dabi was a useless, weepy, ill adjusted little runt ( AFFECTIONATE ) who wasn't allowed anywhere near Shoto and not a tall, responsible but troubled older brother figure who mother hen'd his younger siblings, especially Shoto, and that Dabi wasn't close to Shoto or particularly close to Fuyumi either but him and Natsu had a toxic codependent sibling thing going on hard core and I'm so sick of the Natsuo erasure and/or Shoto being put in Natsuo's place when that makes no fucking sense w/o pissing off the Horny Dabi simps who cant let go of bad/outdated flavorless wooby fanon characterization.
How do I tell the fandom that their portrayal of the Todoroki family dynamic is severely wrong but can be drastically improved by understanding that while Endeavor ( and to a much lesser extent Rei ) were not actually narcissists, the parenting style at the forefront of the family is almost identical to narcissistic parental abuse and looking into this, along with things such as "Narcissistic devaluation" and the "Scapegoat" and the "Golden Child" explains so much that this fandom can't wrap its head around in regard to the extreme emotional / psychological abuse suffered by the Todoroki children without pissing off the Enji simps neck deep in abuse apology cause their fav has fat dilf tits.
Anyway on that subject children who grew up in households that were heavy on the narcissistic parental abuse often fall into "types" with particular traits and heres the Todorokis to a T ( Not including Shoto because his role is very obviously golden child (Masterpiece) and wasn't ever one of the Scapegoats ("failed creations") I mean I could def put him under "Problem Solver" but since he was never actually a scapegoat child its more complex than that for him so heres just my fav little failures ):
Fuyumi - the caretaker
Scapegoated children may provide emotional and/or physical caretaking to one or more parent/stepparent, functioning as a stand-in best friend, spouse, therapist, or nurse. They may be given household responsibilities such as cleaning, cooking, and caring for siblings, while also being targeted with anger and blame for the family's woes. Often intuitive and empathetic, caretaker scapegoats can become powerful healers as adults. But if they continue to prioritize the needs of others over their own they are likely to experience anxiety, poor self-care, resentment, and burnout.
Natsuo - the protector
Children in the protector role step in to defend a parent and/or younger sibling(s) from the dominant narcissist's verbal and/or physical abuse. Such children may be driven to try to protect family members because of their own experience with being scapegoated, or they may become scapegoated in the family system as a result of standing up to the abuse. As adults, children who have confronted the aggression of abusers may become fierce and compassionate advocates for justice and the underprivileged. But they often struggle to recognize their own limits, vulnerability, and need for support.
Toya - the collapsed
Some scapegoated children experience such harsh neglect and abuse, with few sources of support to build resiliency, that they fail to thrive and become mentally unstable, chronically ill, suicidal, institutionalized, homeless, consumed by addiction, and/or incarcerated. As adults, they may experience a trajectory of low functioning, repeated crises, or collapse that ends tragically in early death by illness, addiction, suicide, or violence. Kids who are "different" in some way, such as queer or neuro-atypical, are often targets of extreme scapegoating, both within their family and society at large.
3 notes
·
View notes