TW: Mentions of violence, abuse, mental illness, etc. Hello, fellow humans on the internet (or at least I hope you’re human). I’m pretty sure the majority of us anime fans know what a yandere is—but I’m still going to briefly explain for convenience sake of getting my point across in this piece. I’m going to try my best to explain my thoughts here, but I apologize if they’re poorly communicated. I am by no means a psychological expert nor have I had extensive experience with any of the following mentioned topics. So if you have a feeling that some of this content is going to hit a sensitive spot for you, I highly suggest you click off for your own sake. A yandere is typically defined as a character who takes a dangerous obsession with another character. This character is so obsessed to the point of being willing to murder others and do morally dubious things. And despite the overwhelming toxicity of this trope (that should in no way be desirable or considered romantic in real life), I feel like there’s a lot of missing nuance in the ways how this character trope is typically portrayed—of which I will explain. The word “yandere” comes from two words meshed into one. The first half of the word comes from “yanderu” (病んでる) which translates to “mentally ill” or “to be sick.” The other half of the word comes from “deredere” (デレデレ) which translates to “lovestruck” or “to be in love” (at least roughly). Now, let’s get one thing clear: If someone is so obsessed to the point they’re willing to *murder* others just so they can have another person all to themselves, I think it definitely goes without saying that the person is definitely mentally disturbed. Something’s absolutely not right upstairs. But I think there’s more intricate ways for this trope to be written based on its translation—rather than the classic “oh ho ho, stabby stabby, you got too close to Senpai!” (I’m never gonna type something like that ever again—) Call this a bad take all you want, but I think that by the so-called “yandere” trope being strictly contained to abusive murderous stalkers, I think that’s kind of an insult to many varying different measures of mental illness people can take. The word *potentially* translates to “mentally ill.” For the sake of hypothetical/argument regarding this fact, I think it’s rather distasteful to paint all mentally ill people with the same brush—and it kind of paints this picture that people who struggle with mental illness are incapable of loving or caring about others in healthy ways. That’s not to say that there aren’t mental illnesses that DON’T give people murderous or violent tendencies—but my point is not ALL of them do. If anything, I’d actually be willing to argue that most of them DON’T and that the violent actions come from just how a person CHOOSES to be. So for anime media (or media in general) to oversimplify something as complex as mental illness in this manner I feel is a teeny-bit insensitive. Granted, yanderu also translates to the phrase “to be sick.” So the traditional portrayal of this trope could also very well be justified. Because let’s be honest here: would a person who’s so dangerously obsessed with another that they’d be willing to murder NOT be considered sick in the head? Of course they would. So while in terms of addressing mental illness (should that be the goal of the trope—which I don’t think it is), I believe the traditional handling of this archetype doesn’t do any justice. But when it comes to portraying morally inept individuals that want what they want and don’t care what they have to do to get it—yeah, I’m more than willing to agree the ‘yandere’ trope applies considering how their behavior is often portrayed.
Regardless of what the true English form of the word yanderu could be, there is one thing that’s completely absolute in this conversation—and that is the word “deredere” means lovestruck. So even if yanderu were to completely mean one or the other, the word “love” is still very much in the mix when acknowledging the concept of a “yandere.”
Deredere in itself is also a character trope where a character does not shy away in showcasing their romantic feelings whatsoever. Due to the general nature of their way of doing things in the media, deredere characters typically tend to show their affection or romantic interest in relatively much healthier ways.
Even if we were to search up information on what healthy romantic love looks (or should look) like, these are pretty much the same traits we run into:
⚫ Respect (especially of boundaries) ⚫ Unselfishness ⚫ Honesty ⚫ Compromise ⚫ Good communication ⚫ Empathy ⚫ Desire to protect Another good outlier for what love is supposed to look like is from religious texts. For example, the Bible even says in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 (NLT version), “Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.” We very clearly see here that the traditional handling of yandere characters often include little to none of these characteristics. This is due to the fact that obsession and love are obviously two very different things. So considering what the word “yandere” actually translates to, I can’t say I believe most forms of media have been good at portraying what the concept of a yandere would ACTUALLY entail. At its base core, the word yandere translates to a mentally unwell human being (regardless of the varying degree of mental unwellness they deal with) who is in love or lovestruck with another. Once again, a person would VERY much be mentally unwell if they were murdering people out of obsession (an understatement, really). But the formula of a classic yandere leaves out the ironically most important aspect of their character—their love. And no, not just a passing infatuation, form of lust, or creepy obsession. I mean ACTUAL love. How I think a better way of handling this trope based on it’s translation and translation alone, is that it would be a person who—despite having a disturbed way of thinking—does genuinely love and care for another person to the point where they’d push themselves to commit things they normally wouldn’t have considered doing, but do it anyway because they feel it’s NECESSARY.
Sure, you could argue that a traditional yandere would see it as necessary to kill others for their loved one due to their overwhelming need for control/intense insecurity, but that’s the problem—that’s from THEIR perspective and not an OBJECTIVE reality. By a character killing others JUST so they can keep someone else to themselves (whether it be out of jealousy or just wanting to control the person), it’s still not love or genuine protection due to the fact that their justifications are merely just that—justifications. They’re not actually based on a real-time threat.
And even if they were (like for example, their partner tends to cheat on them with other people, so they kill the people their partner cheats on them with), that only gives more reasons as to why the relationship isn’t love based whatsoever and it would just be toxic from BOTH ends rather than just one like it would typically be. I think a better way of giving justice to the morse-so traditional version of this trope (while somewhat acknowledging the translation due the impending nuance) is to make a character that does genuinely love someone unselfishly and has understandable goals in terms of showing that love, but has messed up ways of going about it. Here’s a character that I think fits what I am trying to explain: There’s a relatively known character within the DC Comics franchise that goes by the title of Mr. Freeze. He’s generally known for going to extremes in order to preserve the life/health of his wife Nora. Regardless of which iteration you interact with, one thing is consistent: Despite his obvious mental unwellness (which is very valid considering the crap he goes through), Mr. Freeze genuinely loves his wife and is willing to do anything for her if it means keeping her one this for longer.
And while that doesn't justify the crimes he commits whatsoever, the franchise he belongs to DOES often showcase WHY he does what he does instead of chalking it up to oversimplified means. Yes, his actions do vary depending on his alternate versions, but I think the idea is rather clear here. This kind of morally gray form of sacrifice or extension of action I think could make for very dynamic and interesting characters where we understand that while they are doing what they do out of a genuine love for another—it doesn’t justify the potentially morally corrupt things or morally gray things they do. I want there to a LEAST be a very real reason for WHY that makes it easier to—at bare minimum—understand the character’s motivations. I think it would give more incentive to place the audience in this character’s shoes since they’re not doing what they do out of a delusional obsession, but are acting based on a very real reality and threat that their loved one is facing. I think that’s what a true yandere should look like.
Sorry not sorry, I will ride the Wanda-ain't-shiitake train till the wheels are worn out. I do not care what her fangirls say. And if you're legitimately going to be so overly offended just from me disliking a FICTIONAL character, I highly suggest you click off, make some tea, and watch a Ghibli movie.
How many times does it need to be said? Just because someone suffers from some form of (small or big) trauma, IT DOESN’T GIVE THEM A PASS TO DO EVIL SH—
I really REALLY sincerely hope there's lore or bits I'm missing here (and if so, PLEASE tell me because I WANT to be wrong so BAD). But from what I know and remember, I feel as though I have every right to be disgusted with who Wanda is as a person.
It frustrates me so much how this carmine-colored narcissist will whine about people being scared of her, but she does stuff only a scary person WOULD do.
Purposefully setting the Hulk off so you could use him as a wrecking ball on innocent civilians in Johannesburg during Age of Ultron? Seems scary as heck.
Literally warping the universe itself to hunt and kill a teenager who did nothing to you during Multiverse of Madness? Seems scary as heck.
Brainwashing an ENTIRE town JUST so you can live in delusion about your man not being dead during Wandavision? Seems DOUBLE scary as heck.
Don't even try to defend what she did in Age of Ultron. Even if she supposedly didn't INTEND to have civilians killed, she sure as HECK didn't seem all too sorry that it happened. She wasn't ‘regretful’ that she did it. She was only ‘regretful' when Bruce confronted her on it. She has the nerve (the utter AUDACITY) to hate Tony Stark for the same CRAP that she does (if not worse, which let's be honest—it’s worse).
At least Tony Stark DIED out of an effort to save everyone, whereas Wanda usually tends to only help others when it benefits HER.
Wanda is nothing more than a Multiversal brat with a god-complex and no one can tell me otherwise. If something does not go 100% her way, she completely acts out and throws a reality-warping tantrum.
“Oh, but she tried to fix everything in Wandavision!”
Yeah, only after finding out she was BRAINWASHING people!
How the FREAK do you reality warp an ENTIRE town (especially at the large radius she used her magic) and expect NO one to be under mind control? Would you NOT try to fly around the premises to see if ANYONE else was there?
Once again, even if this was an example where she didn't INTEND for it to happen, then that proves another great flaw that she has.
Wanda hardly (if ever) thinks through her actions. And then when her actions bite her in the butt, she has the nerve to be surprised. Wanda almost never (and I'm being generous here) considers how her actions harm or affect others until it turns around and affects HER.
She did not deserve Vision, he was too good of a man for her, sorry not sorry.
Just the stuff she did BEFORE Multiverse of Madness ALONE is enough to not like her.
Let's not even get into the fact she never ACTUALLY apologized to Bruce Banner for everything she put him through. All she said at most when he confronted her is, “I know you're angry…”
Oh wow, REALLY? I couldn't POSSIBLY understand why Banner would EVER be angry at you for essentially brain-raping him (going into his mind and memories without his CONSENT) and using his worst fears against him to trigger Hulk so you could use him like a personal killing machine, further lessening the very few support systems he already HAD. She should feel grateful Banner didn't immediately throw her through a wall upon seeing her.
“But she became an avenger and helped them in Endgame!”
I could not give less of a DOOKIE about the fact she did that. Wanda fighting Thanos was literally the ONLY option she possibly had if she didn't wanna turn into dust along with the other half of the population. Sure, she also did it because she was forced to kill her boo BECAUSE of Thanos, but let's be honest—she would've had to fight him regardless. Her handing Thanos’ butt to him (while a very cool scene) doesn't prove JACK about her character.
The fact she ever BECAME an avenger after effectively traumatizing the MAJORITY of them is mind-boggling to me.
“Oh, I'm sorry I weaponized all of your traumas against you for my own personal gain because I wanted to work with a genocidal robot, can I join you guys?”
“Sure, Wanda! Come into the team and we'll pretend like you didn't do a darn thing!”
(The fact this isn't even ALL that she's done is absurd, I can still keep going—)
Don't even get me STARTED on Multiverse of Madness. And before anyone tries to say, “She did it so she could have a reality with her children!”
BRO, HER KIDS WEREN'T EVEN FREAKING REAL—
Wanda Freaking Maximoff wanted to murder a TEENAGER all for some children that were not even ACTUAL people. And when she did have them, didn't she make them FIGHT against the military in Wandavision or am I mistaken (which I VERY MUCH hope I am because what the he---)?
I do not care whatsoever what her reason is or what trauma she went through. Attempted murder of a minor (ESPECIALLY in this case, a minor who didn't even do anything) is inexcusable to me.
There is no way in frog fingers you guys are ACTUALLY trying to justify and/or downplay a grown ADULT trying to murder a CHILD (because that's what America was—a CHILD).
(Her and Miguel O'Hara would get along GREAT, when's the collab--)
And by then, she had ALREADY brutally murdered a whole bunch of people and probably corrupted the multiverse even FURTHER than she already had.
It wasn't until an ALTERNATE version of her (who ACTUALLY had her kids) told her to sit the [BLEEP] down (I'm paraphrasing here, but you get my drift).
Wanda is NOT a victim. Is she a good villain? Yes. But this witch isn't a victim. Not anymore at least. She doesn't apologize for her actions. She doesn't take responsibility. She doesn't reflect on what she does.
And even when she DOES finally do ANY of those things in ANY capacity, the damage is already done. In fact, it's not JUST done, it's also BURNT inside the oven causing smoke to go everywhere.
There is no rhyme or reason you could pull out that will convince me to be anything short of angry with this character and I'm so tired of her fans trying to defend her just because she was a lab rat and lost her man.
Once again, it's not bad to like a character that does awful stuff. But please, for sanity sake, STOP acting like they're a lost little angel BECAUSE you like them. I know they say "hurt people hurt people" but that still doesn't justify doing bad stuff just because bad things happened to YOU.
If you're here because I said something you didn't like, or because you want to spew hateful messages in my inbox, please do something more productive with your time.
Any hate speech and threats will be deleted, blocked, and if it is bad enough--I will report it.
Example:
If my existence truly gets you that upset, you have my full permission to block me. I do not care. I'll do what I want with my blog.
I'll apologize for miscommunication. I'll apologize for being unclear in my speech or opinions. But I will not apologize for using my freedom of speech to state them.
You're allowed to think I'm a villain. You're allowed to hate me. You can even call me the devil. I can't change how you look at me nor do I think it's worth the effort to try. But I am under no obligation to tolerate blatant threats that I know for a fact no sane human being would say to another stranger in real life.
If you've read the title of this, you already know who I'm gonna be crapping on.
I know some of y'all are gonna flame me in the comments, but I do not care. Now, if you’re willing to bring up counterpoints about a FICTIONAL topic in a respectful manner, I’ll listen no problem because I don't mind being wrong (and I actually HOPE I'm wrong about this since I WAS excited about watching Miguel in action because there was so much hype around him). But if you take me having beef with a fictional character as me having beef with YOU, then I politely ask you to spare your mental health and drink some hot chocolate under a blanket after you click away from this post, thank you.
Now back to the topic.
Most of us Spider-Man fans have seen the movie, "Across the Spider-Verse" at some point (and if you haven't, what are you doing? Go watch it, it's on Netflix). Excluding everything that makes it a masterpiece aside, there's one character in the movie who really grinds my gears. Not in terms of how they’re written, but more so just how they are as a person in general.
Miguel O'Freaking'Hara.
I do not like Miguel. I feel pity for him, but I do not like him. I do like him as a character, though. I feel like he definitely adds to the story and makes it interesting. I genuinely feel like ATSV would’ve been really boring if he wasn’t part of it. But I do not like him as a person.
Miguel doesn't JUST have a stick up his butt, he has the whole TREE.
I couldn't care less about the fact this dude looks like a handsome statue because of the stuff he was doing to Miles. I think y’all forgot that this dude THREW A TABLE AT A MINOR UPON FIRST MEETING HIM and then has the nerve to throw away the food Miles got for him like it's trash. If that’s already not a red flag, I don’t know what is.
I don’t care if it was just ‘frustration.’ Miguel's 27 years old, he should know better. Unless Miles was attacking him in the beginning (which he wasn’t), there’s no reason he should’ve done that. But oh…I have much more beef with this dude than just a table.
I understand that his supposed role and whatnot in the Spiderverse is that he has to keep canon events going. He has to get rid of 'anomalies.’ Unfortunately, Miles Morales (from Earth-1610) is an anomaly because he was never supposed to be the Spider-Man of his universe. So, what does Miguel do? He tries to obliterate the guy.
…Ex–freaking-scuse me?
"Oh, but Miguel tried to talk to Miles about everything!"
Yeah. And he did it in the worst way possible. Miguel had absolutely no empathy towards the whole situation, then has the gall to wonder why Miles is running off and not listening to him. No dip, Sherlock. I'm pretty sure if you harshly told any normal person that someone they loved deeply was going to die and that they couldn't save them without any hint of compassion, they'd go against what you said and try to find a way to save them, bro.
Miguel's whole schmo is that Miles becoming Spider-Man was bad because it created Spot and Spot's creating a bunch of problems. As a result, Miguel also tells Miles that saving his dad is not allowed. Here's where I have a problem with that logic. If Miles being Spider-Man is an anomaly in the first place, why NOT save Jeff as a way to prevent more anomalies from HAPPENING? If anything, Miles losing his dad would've just been another canon event for him to continue BEING Spider-Man, even though he wasn't supposed to be. Legit, this dude’s logic irritates the pee out of me.
Miguel's approach to the problem is also hypocritical considering that he lost his own wife and daughter in the universe he belonged to, then invaded ANOTHER UNIVERSE he didn't belong to, which honestly in my opinion makes Miguel look even worse to me. I'm willing to bet that Miguel’s alternate daughter could’ve been that universe’s spider hero, but because THIS vampire edge lord stepped into a universe that was NOT his, it prevented the canon event of the classic “Dead Guardian trope,” leading to that universe’s evaporation.
Another thing that irks me about the whole thing is that MILES IS LIKE 15-16 YEARS OLD. So as far as I'm concerned, O'Hara is trying to eliminate a KID. Even though he knows what it's like to lose a KID. No wonder the multiverse prevented him from being a father—he’s violent, unstable, and completely short-sighted. He’s out here chokeslamming a teenager and calling THEM the mistake. Just because you went through grief and trauma with your own children, it isn't an excuse to take the breath of another child.
(Y'know, considering the events of Multiverse of Madness, I'm kinda seeing a pattern here--)
Miguel, for some reason, refuses to have a smidge of sensitivity for what Miles is going through. Heck, even Gwen and Peter Parker had more empathy for Miles despite them not telling him he wasn't supposed to be Spider-Man because they actually cared about his feelings TO SOME DEGREE.
I hate Miguel’s whole “You’re a mistake!” speech because Miles didn't create the spider. Miles didn't summon the spider. Miles didn’t choose to get bit. He didn’t find it on his own terms. Miles didn't choose to create Spot—the one who’s actually causing them problems. Someone ELSE brought the spider there. Someone ELSE took away a universe’s Spider-Man. Miles is just trying to deal with what he’s been given. So if Miguel wants to go after ANYONE for ‘anomalies’ in terms of Miles’ universe, he needs to track down the person who put something where it didn’t belong.
For crying out loud, he told the boy that HE was a mistake. It’d be one thing if he said “You being Spider-Man was a mistake” or something. But no. He says that Miles IS the mistake.
During that whole speech, it sounds like Miguel is trying to tell Miles that everything is HIS fault as if Miles had a choice in being bit. As if Miles even had a choice in the fact that a radioactive spider from an alternate universe chose to bite him.
There were so many other ways Miguel could've handled the issue and he didn’t do that. I don’t care what his so-called intentions could/would be because it really put a disgusting taste in my mouth.
I still have no respect for the fact that he hypocritically and previously invaded another reality where he was dead so he could be with his family--and here's what I mean by that.
Yes, I understand--Miguel's life on his original earth was freaking sad. He lost his wife and daughter. That's obviously a very tragic thing to go through. But it’s the fact that he's cracking down on Miles so badly despite Miguel LITERALLY being the one to pull a Kingpin vexes me. Miles had ALWAYS belonged to his universe. Miguel’s only in the dump he’s in because he was trespassing.
Don't get me wrong, I feel pity but I absolutely cannot stand the audacity of this man to go after a kid who got bit IN HIS OWN UNIVERSE even though Miguel was the one who contributed to some multiversal disaster in the Spider-verse. You could try to say, "Oh, it's because he doesn't want to make the same mistake again and shatter the Spider-verse or something!" While I could understand that, it’s still not a good reason for Miguel to do and say the stuff he did. I thought at the bare minimum, he'd be at least able to RELATE to Miles considering that he also lost people he cared about.
End conclusion:
Miguel is vexing to me–but I don’t hate the way he’s written. If anything, I think if he wasn’t written this way, the ASTV movie would be very different. Whether that’d be for the better or the worse, I’m willing to bet most of this storyline wouldn’t even exist were Miguel not like this. So even though Miguel absolutely grinds my gears with his mindset and who he is as a character—I’m not mad at his writers. And I honestly feel like that’s just a showmanship of how great the writing for the Spider-Verse movies is. Good writing is when you’re mad at characters for the decisions THEY make, and not at the WRITERS for having them make those decisions.
I’m out.
Something I think anti-abortionists (including myself) need to understand is that when you (rightfully) call out the fact that abortion is murder---or at the very least wrong, you're gonna get push back.
You're asking these women to confront a reality that's gonna force them to rethink every aspect of their life and how they see themselves as person.
Imagine if all your life you were told this thing was fine/okay to do, and that it's empowering for you to do it, only for you to find out you were actually committing evil in the process.
I doubt many people would be willing to face that reality because no one really wants to think of themselves as an evil person (lest they be a legit psychopath). Most people don't like confronting uncomfortable truths about things regardless of how necessary it might be because it's human nature to want to run from things that don't feel good to know.
Imagine if you found out that you were actually committing murder this whole time? Would you be so easily willing to accept that truth? Of course a bunch of these women are going to show major resistance because they don't want to believe what they're doing is horrible because by extension, it would mean they're a horrible person and they would have to wrestle with their self worth and regret because that's what it would translate to for them. No one wants to deal with that.
I'm not saying this erases it, nor do I believe all women who've had abortions are genuinely evil. But really take the time to look from their perspective here. Is it really any wonder that there's so much resistance/division on this topic?
So I have something I want to say, and I think it's something both pro-life and pro-choice people can and should agree on.
It's this: Women deserve better than abortion.
Now stay with me, please. There is this charity that I love, called Let Them Live, and they open their doors and fundraisers to moms in need, raising enough money and giving them all the support they require to confidently choose life. And that's beautiful -- I think people on both sides can agree on that.
The thing is, the stories these moms in need tell strike stunningly similar notes, over and over again.
"I don't want to abort my baby, but I'm so scared of being homeless."
"I would never choose abortion, but my life is too unstable/dangerous because of an abusive partner to choose life."
"I want to keep my baby, but no one in my family is supporting me."
"It breaks my heart to abort, but my partner/family is pressuring me into it."
"I'm scared."
"I'm alone."
"I'm unsafe."
"I'm jobless."
"I'm about to be evicted."
Doesn't it break your heart? What happened to the world that we now look at these women in dire straits, who often have children already and say, "The answer is abortion." Over and over, these women are told by society, by family members, by partners, and by friends that the answer to their problems is to deny every maternal instinct and subject themselves to a dangerous medical procedure that snuffs out the small life growing inside them.
Is this really what the pro-choice side is fighting for? I have spoken to many pro choice people in my time... They hold their beliefs because they see abortion as crucial to women's rights, to feminism, and to female safety. But is it really? Does it empower women at all when we tell them that to be free and on an equal level with men they have to get an abortion -- an invasive and potentially life threatening procedure? Does it keep them safe when abortions are continually used to destroy the evidence of rape, of incest, and of forced prostitution? When abortion itself can be and has been lethal? When the battle for abortion rights contributes to the misconception that abortion is ever necessary to save a pregnant woman's life, to the point where doctors become negligent? Does it further feminism to elevate the rights of one group of people (women) over the rights of another (unborn girls and boys) and create another kind of oppression? I don't think it does. When I look at the stories of the women who come to Let Them Live, desperate and alone, I become more convinced than ever that abortion hurts. It does not help.
The pro-life side often focuses on the unborn's right to life -- as they should! They fight their battles with biological facts about conception and gestation. They bring truth to the table by describing the reality of abortion procedures and laying out statistics regarding abortion that put a lie to many of the common arguments for it. And that is good.
But I think we need to emphasize another facet of the argument.
Abortion is stupid.
Abortion is a stupid, violent solution to a systemic problem. Ask yourselves this: when did we get so lazy and so disconnected from our communities that the main solution to a desperate or frightened mother's unplanned pregnancy was to abandon her to an abortion clinic? To a cold room, to forceps that rip her baby apart, to saline injections that poison her baby, to pills that starve her baby.
Abortion doesn't solve poverty.
Abortion doesn't stop abuse.
Abortion doesn't heal trauma.
Abortion doesn't make society and careers more hospitable to mothers.
Abortion doesn't stop misogyny.
Abortion doesn't prevent rape.
Abortion doesn't spread love.
For many of this things, abortion actually perpetuates them.
We spend so much time as a culture fighting over abortion! One side (rightly) hates it, and the other upholds it as the salvation of women.
And while this disagreement spins on, moms are hurt. Abuse is covered up. Poverty is rampant. Little girls have their innocence stolen. Instead of a culture of life, there is a culture of death.
Abortion is stupid. It is lazy. It is a symptom of the problem; not the solution to it. It gives people an excuse to blame women for their struggles, rather than helping them. Rather than gathering these women into the arms of a community and promising that, yes, of course we will help, abortion lets us believe that the best help we can give is making them an appointment and driving them to an abortion clinic. Don't tell me that doesn't happen. We all know it does.
Do all people refuse to help? Of course not! Pro life and pro choice individuals alike reach out to these women, and that is wonderful. We need more of that.
But society as a whole? It still calls for death. It empowers the strong, not the vulnerable. Imagine a world without abortion gumming up the works, where communities surrounded mothers who needed help. Where workplaces gave adequate maternity leave and better maternal health insurance. Where abortion could no longer serve as an excuse for the people who will abuse their power or make lazy policy decisions.
Companies like Disney will pay for an abortion, but will they shell out the considerably larger amount of money necessary for proper maternity leave and for adequate health insurance? Of course not! Not when they have an easier, cheaper option. Abortion gives them that option. Abortion gives fathers a way to avoid paying child support and taking responsibility. Abortion gives abusers a way to hide. Abortion gives pimps a way to maximize their profits. Abortion gives society yet another way to shuffle mothers aside and disrespect all that they do.
So. Is abortion helpful? Is it feministic? No. We can do better. We have to do better, for the sake of the thousands upon thousands of moms who need our help.
Abortion is stupid. It's a bad solution. Come on, everyone. We're smarter than this.
Sorry not sorry, y'all have got to stop destroying people's property in the name of 'protest.'
I don't care how valid you think you are in hating another person. I don't care what your politics are. I don't even care what the heck you believe or don't believe. You could have the most valid reason ever in the world, and I still wouldn't care because this is atrocious behavior.
By y'all destroying, breaking, setting fire to, and vandalizing Teslas by putting Swastikas on them, you are committing legitimate CRIMES. You are breaking someone's property. And not even because the actual person with the car DID something to YOU, but because you don't like the PERSON who bought the BUSINESS to have the cars made (because Tesla was around before Elon ever had his hands on it).
You say you guys want people to take you seriously, that you're the party of love and acceptance, but then go around and terrorize people doing stuff like THIS. How can people listen to your side when you don't even make your side appealing to listen to?
I don't care what you think is right or not. I don't care what your politics are. Hate MAGA all you want. Hate Elon all you want. Hate Trump all you want.
But that does NOT give you the RIGHT to cause destruction onto someone else's property. It doesn't not give you the right to burn someone's belongings (especially not if those belongings cause toxic fumes to go into the air). It definitely doesn't give you the right on the grounds of politics. Because wanna know what that means? It means you're committing a hate crime. And what qualifies as a hate crime? This:
"Hate crime in criminal law involves a standard offence with an added element of bias against a victim because of their physical appearance or perceived membership of a certain social group."
If politics has you so worked up to the point where you are willing to actively ruin someone's property, do not be surprised when the political party you are a part of all of a sudden has people not wanting to listen to you.
Crap like this is EXACTLY why I don't want to be on this side of politics anymore. The reds certainly aren't the best either (absolutely not). But I can say for darn sure (as a former blue) that y'all have lost your darn minds if this is what you think is okay to do.
I don't care how justified you think are you for doing it because let's be completely honest here:
If the roles were reversed and someone’s property was vandalized with hate symbols because they were left-leaning, because they supported Biden or Kamala, you guys would be FUMING.
The hypocrisy isn't a cute look, babe.
If it wouldn't be okay for someone to do it to YOU, don't do it another person. It's that simple. And if your politics don't or can't agree with that, maybe you need a better outlook on what your politics actually are and WHY you support it. Because something is clearly wrong if you think crimes like this are justified.
I like how Deadpool and Spider-Man's relationship in a nutshell is generally always, "Of course I kiss my homies good night."
Being an artist nowadays is so scary on the internet. Imagine working hard and spending HOURS on your art and then posting/sharing them to the internet only for some unknown entity to call it "AI" as a baseless accusation without actual proofs to back it up. Only for some inconsiderate jerks to steal your art, use it to train AI, use that very AI to create 'art', and then claim it's their 'work'.
If you make a minor and totally reasonable mistake in your art (mostly when it comes to anatomy especially because anatomy is a pretty hard field to grip on in art)? It's AI.
If your art is actually nice and up to your standards? It's AI because it's 'too perfect'.
Not to mention that as if AI 'art' alone isn't enough to fuck with artists, something called AI speed paint exists now so AI 'artists' can back their 'work' up with an 'actual speed paint'.
I feel so terrible for artists that have to go through this kind of bs when they post or share their art online. For artists that have to quit because jerks are either stealing their art for their AI or because people just point and make accusations without evidence nowadays. For artists that are afraid to share their hard work online because of these issues.
I understand spreading awareness about AI 'art' and being cautious, but some people do be calling everything AI at this point.
The bags under my eyes are Gucci. Feel free to simply call me Ben or Bennie.Unapologetically pro-life, plus a superhero and anime fanatic.Have a good day :)Current Age: 20
73 posts