Something I Think Anti-abortionists (including Myself) Need To Understand Is That When You (rightfully)

Well I guess it's my turn. Please pardon my utterly horrible choice in gifs lol

@kenandeliza

ten ships challenge!

Rules: without naming them, post a gif of ten of your favourite ships (any media) and tag as many people as possible to do the same!

thanks for tagging me @b1uetrees <3 hopefully i can come up with ten, let’s see!

(this gif was too good not to use)

tagging: @captainfairygodmother @sarah-sandwich @girlsaturday @professeurm @artisanfuckery

My Take on the Yandere Trope - A Character Rant (kinda)

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.

My Beef with Killmonger - An MCU Rant

I think people struggle to understand that not ALL villains are misunderstood—they’re choosing to be evil and that's it. 

Take Killmonger for example (I’m doing the MCU specifically because I haven’t read the comics—cry about it). 

Besides committing the atrocity of making those half dreads the Frank’s Red Hot for every media with black characters lately, there's aspects I don’t hear people touch on when it comes to Killmonger as a character. And if there are, I sure haven’t heard it yet---so I really hope there's some info on this man I'm missing here. But if no one's gonna call out this man’s BS, I will.

I definitely comprehend that Erik losing his dad was extremely traumatic for him to experience as a child. But Killmonger was only focused on revenge and power alone. Because of the fact that T’Chaka was dead, Erik couldn’t take it out on him and instead decided to channel his anger towards the entirety of the Wakandan royalty—even towards T’CHALLA (even though T’Challa had NOTHING to do with it). 

Even then, T’Challa was MORE than kind enough to let Erik see a Wakandan sunset BEFORE he died. 

“I’m sorry my father was a POS. Here’s a sunset, bro.” 

I get he's played by the oh-so handsome Michael B. Jordan, but let's remove the rose-colored lenses and consider something here.

On top of being a complete narcissist (who killed his GIRLFRIEND by the way), the guy also was just never EVER fit to hold power in ANY capacity to begin with. When the guy did kill (or believe he killed) T’Challa, what was the first thing he wanted to do? 

Did he try to help other poor children in the neighborhood he grew up in?

Did he make a memorial for his dead father?

Did he start a program for fatherless children (like HE was)?

Did he even TRY to do ANYTHING of value that would’ve been beneficial to others in ANY way shape or form?

Newsflash: The answer to all of that is NO.

The FIRST thing this man does as KING is start a WAR between Wakanda and the United States.

Literally his FIRST act as king is to begin an event that could very well have left so many of his people to DIE and cause mass amounts of generational trauma. Meaning there'd potentially be a bunch of children in Wakanda that ALSO won't have their fathers should they die in the war. Is that NOT a major red flag? 

The guy didn’t even DRESS like a king, he just walked around shirtless with a jacket like he was an NYC pimp. 

Even pre-kingship, he already killed LOADS of people before he got to that point. Sure, you could argue that it was in order for him to reach Wakanda or what he planned to do. But does that not raise MORE red flags about his original intent, then? 

Killmonger has a scar on his body for every person that he’s ever killed. The man’s torso is covered top to bottom in scars, meaning he has a major body count. So you’re telling me that this dude's okay with murdering innocent people just to get to a goal that was gonna lead him to kill more people ANYWAY?

Yes, I understand his trauma. Yes, I understand why he's angry at the world. Yes, I do think he's a great villain because every good story needs a good villain. But one thing I'll NOT do is act like this man's actions are justified when they're not. His conquest to create conflict highlights a SEVERE lack of genuine care for the very people he CLAIMS to wanna help.

He's a grown man who had every chance and choice to become better and he never took it because he chose to take his anger out on everyone else since the one who ACTUALLY committed sin against him had already DIED.

And when the “What If” series came out, Killmonger turned on EVERYONE he worked with, took the gauntlets for himself, and tried to reset reality.

Sure, you could say that Killmonger is a representation of black rage and on some level, I'd agree with you in terms of a story telling perspective. But storytelling dynamics don't change the fact this man is a piece of crap.

Don't EVEN try lying to me. The only reason this man has simps on Tumblr is because he's played by someone who's attractive. I bet if he was played by Steve Harvey, you'd all change your tune. 

Trauma never is/will be an excuse to do horrible stuff. Once again, trauma can make a good villain and good villains are necessary. My ONLY issue with Killmonger is that he has a railroad of fans that try to justify his actions.

It's one thing to like a horrible character. And it's another thing to say a horrible character is justified in what they do. The reason why I think it's so dangerous to do that is because it CAN (not that it always does, but CAN) translate into real life instances where people defend ACTUAL human-shaped monsters for things they do as well (ie they're traumatized and/or attractive). That's why we have hybristophilic fangirls slobbering over Wade Wilson (if you know, you know).

But at the end of the day, everyone has choices. Killmonger made his.

Even Killmonger's FATHER was saddened by what his son became while speaking to him on the ancestral plane.

N’Jobu: No tears for me? Killmonger: Everyone dies. It's just life around here. N’Jobu: Well, look at what I have done.

DAWG, WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED—

Reasonable reaction, cuz like what, who wrote the scene? Never let them write again 💀

How dare Marvel Rivals make me obsess over a fictional couple I knew nothing about until a few days ago

So, like. In a society that is deeply misogynistic, does not help pregnant women, and openly shames them when they end up abandoned and unable to support the child. Are you saying women should stop (getting abortions, or in your terms) committing murder anyway? When:

- pregnancy is a health condition that renders people unable to work, some during and most for a significant period after;

- this is true—this is a country where the complication rates for pregnant women and children are actually quite poor for the average wealth;

- there is nowhere near enough support, financial or service based, that helps that clump of cells that was saved to ever become a toddler. Neither foster care systems nor current food banks and support could possibly count, not with the quality they are or amount of time they take away from the day to day.

Like… I don’t understand, why not change the focus from judging women for their choices (one way or the other), pursuing this in the name of feminism, to changing the world first.

Because feminism is great, as a concept. But you can’t eat it. It won’t help you calm a baby who’s been crying for hours. It won’t teach you what you need to know to take care of that kid.

Historically a lot more kids died of various causes, starvation included. Why should anyone accept this as a possibility in the 21st century? If other countries can give new mothers 1-3 year maternity leave and tax breaks, why are we content with living knee deep in misery?

Philosophy is well and good, but we can’t afford it yet.

All very fair points :)

I appreciate that you sound willing to have a conversation instead of resorting to just throwing insults at me, so thank you.

I do think we should change the world first and I'll admit, I haven't done a good job stating that in the past. I'll admit I didn't do a good job at making those viewpoints clear earlier and so because of that I come across as judgmental. Miscommunication (or rather lack thereof), I will always be willing to apologize for.

Everything that I do think about this topic I obviously have not stated on this profile because I do like to talk about other things and not JUST politics. But in regards to the topic itself that you mentioned, as much as I don't like abortion, I don't think it should be banned immediately. I do think there needs to be a gradual shift so that way so-called pro-lifers can earn the trust of women. And also because of economic reasons since as you said, some changes we can't afford yet. I hope these said changes come, but even if they do, I don't have faith they'll come within due time.

I know I have not stated this in the past before but honestly I think it's because I never really thought to do so. I guess it was because no one else was curious to ask but even then, I'm more than willing to accept responsibility for how I come off.

I do have a lot more thoughts and opinions regarding this topic so if you do want to know more about what I think on the topic you can just DM me, send another, or we can continue this conversation (which I'm more than happy to do). I will post more in the future regarding my views so my most recent one most certainly won't be the last because I don't like how both sides handle the issue.

But I completely agree: the world does need to change first in order for abortion to be removed because women rightfully don't trust the world. How can we when it's been harsh to us time and time again?

Because a large reason why lots of women are getting them in the first place is because they don't trust the world to help them out which is WAY more than fair. Hospitals in America don't really do much to help women with Jack and it wasn't until 1993 did women in America start being medically studied, which is so disgusting.

I think one of the things we as a society can do is make sure pregnant women have free (or at the bare minimum, much cheaper) and baby products should not be taxed. Our government has so much money to spend on everything else so I don't see their need to squeeze cash out of stuff.

Obviously there's a LOT more aspects of this but I don't want to run your ear off unnecessarily so I hope it's clear what I'm trying to say. But I'd be willing to continue talking about this :)

Shyte like this is EXACTLY why I left these people

Why is it when I tell people I don’t want to be called cis, because I’m just a woman, they mock and demean me. Yet those same people demand I call trans women real women, and trans men real men. Those same people demand I use their preferred pronouns and gender labels. They demand I don’t label them something they don’t identify with. But not a single one of them respects me enough not to label me against my will.

The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

Why I think Silver deserves to be in the fourth Sonic movie

So off the bat, I know some of you guys are going to disagree with me and that is perfectly fine. I know a lot of people have mixed opinions regarding Silver as a character, and I certainly have my own.

All I ask is that if you do have any disagreements or information I might be missing, that you convey them respectfully since we're talking about FICTIONAL characters---the world isn't gonna end if we think different about a floating psychokinetic hedgehog.

I think he should be in the next Sonic movie, but in order for my points to coalesce properly, there's other aspects of the topic I'd like to address first in hopes you guys will see where I am coming from.

Personally, on top of having his powers being freaking awesome, I think Silver is a good character and is rather underused in more recognized forms of Sonic media. Don't get me wrong, he was in Sonic 06 and could very well have other mediums he was in---but for the most part, I don't see him and it's as if the Sonic franchise forgets he exists.

Now, don't get me wrong---I understand why some people might have an aversion to Silver regarding his appearance in the Sonic 06 game. His boss battle is tough for utterly no reason, he believes Mephiles at the drop of a hat, and then became a (sometimes annoying) meme. But personally, I don't think this makes him a bad character--but rather he had a bad introduction and I'll explain what I mean.

Regarding his trust in Mephiles, I'd be one to agree that it was naive for him to do, but Knuckles the Echidna underwent similar situations with Eggman MULTIPLE times. Especially if we're talking about Sonic X, Knuckles is shown to have believed Dr. Eggman's lies and fight Sonic multiple times. So personally, I feel as though if you dislike Silver for believing Mephiles, you should have similar thought patterns toward Knuckles for doing similar stuff---if not more than Silver.

For me, I interpret Silver trusting Mephiles as desperation to save his world from destruction. Silver---like Sonic---is an adolescent boy who has the weight of the world on his shoulders and is doing the best he can with the information that is given to him.

I'm explaining all of this because I for one, can't exactly agree with the narrative that Silver is a villain or that he's plain stupid (as some---not all, but some---have argued). And even if I were to agree with the notion that Sonic 06 had the worst portrayal of Silver, I still wouldn't agree with the implication that because of his introduction in the game--that it means he doesn't deserve a redesign or rewrite to fit the movie (since that's what Jeff Fowler has done with other characters in the film already).

I think having Silver in the movie could reintroduce a new version of him and considering Jeff Fowler's obvious skills in bringing honor to the iconic characters, I don't see why Silver would be any different.

Some people think Silver wouldn't fit, but I disagree due to a pattern I noticed within the more recent Sonic films (including the end credit scene for the third one involving Shadow).

Granted, we don't know what the fourth movie is about (or at least I don't) so for all I know, Silver COULD not actually fit into the plot. But considering what we saw with the metal Sonics, I think he'd fit right in.

In the second movie, it gave Sonic two allies (Tails and later on Knuckles) and an enemy (Eggman). In the third movie, it gave Sonic two allies (who would later on be Shadow and Eggman) and an enemy (Gerald Robotnik). While sure, they definitely have their differences in how they manifested plotwise, there was still a pattern.

In the end credit scene of the third movie, it already shows us who the new enemy would be [metal sonic] and who the new ally would be [Amy Rose]. So Silver could very easily fit that role of being the second ally. And sure, the whole 'enemy turned friend' thing might be predictable or old for some people, but I don't think it's a case of lazy writing. I think it's more about the franchise showing who Sonic truly is as a character and how at his core, he wants to help people.

In the case of Silver, I think that could work very well. And it's not like Jeff has it happen the exact same way each time. Heck, even if they were to make him an ally for Sonic off the bat without them being enemies first, I believe it could still very much work.

Once again, the fourth movie hasn't even released and so not many of us (at least not me) know know what the plot for it will be. But, if possible (and that's a big if), I think Silver deserves a shot at redemption by being in the fourth Sonic movie.

I'm honestly so tired of how formulaic 'creative mediums' feel now and that social media is honestly one of the very few places where art is appreciated, and even then, it's on thin ice.

Everything has to be written and look a certain way and it's like I'm reading the same thing over and over again.

I understand there's nothing new under the sun but hot dang, at least let people have SOME authenticity.

What happened to the times when art got recognition because it was DIFFERENT? Because of the fact it pushed cultural norms? Because of the fact that it brought problems to people's attention?

I'm not saying this type of art doesn't exist today, but it sure as heck is suppressed and I'm sick of it.

Potentially Unpopular Opinion - A character grieving loss is not an excuse for them to be a killer

I'll further specify my points in the following post.

Now here's the thing--I'm not opposed to the trope itself and here's what I mean by that.

Scenario 1: Character's loved one is killed and they kill their loved one's killer. That's fine.

Scenario 2: Multiple people the character loves are killed by different people and they kill their loved ones' killers. That's fine.

Scenario 3: Character's loved one is killed so the character kills innocent people. That is NOT fine.

Grievance doesn't mean dookie if all that's happening is that the character is using it as an excuse to just go on a murder spree. Now these types of characters CAN make for good villains and/or antagonists and that's completely fine. I'm not even all that upset about the trope itself. More so, specifically what ticks me off is when people try to downplay the behavior of the character simply because they're likable.

It's one thing to like a character who does awful stuff. It's another to like a character who does awful stuff and then try to paint them as an angel who doesn't do anything wrong.

Characters Who Apologize/Change Before They Die - An Unpopular Character Writing Take

I'm so sorry, but characters who do a bunch of awful stuff and then apologize AS they're dying are straight up punks to me. You do not get to raise hell on this planet and then try to act like you learned your lesson now that you're seconds away from meeting your maker. 

Now granted, in some specific (and well done) cases, this can be an emotional or amazing moment for a character or plot line. However, most of the time (to me personally), it's just a lazy or improper way for a writer to make a 'redemption' arc for a character without having the said character put the work in. How on Earth am I supposed to have empathy (sympathy even) for a character that out of nowhere got a change of heart 00000.01 seconds after finding out they're dying?

Congratulations, you realized too late that you were a piece of dookie and can't even do anything to help clean the mess that YOU made. 

For example, I do not like Bakugou Katsuki whatsoever but at the very least HE of all people made the effort to apologize to Deku BEFORE he got murked and on top of that, actually tried to freaking HELP at some points. 

You got me messed up if you think I'm really about to feel bad for a character that did nothing but contribute to the pain and suffering of others around them, and then think they can die an angel just because they apologize or admit they were wrong. You're not slick, I know what you're doing. 

It's one thing to simply have that be a part of the plot and it's complete 'nother for the writers to try and gaslight me into feeling bad that the one who did nothing but cause problems is holding onto their final breath. Of course you wanna make things right now that you realize you're gonna be put to sleep for all eternity with potentially no one coming to the funeral. You had more than enough time, more than enough opportunities, to turn around and be better but you didn't take it. 

When it comes down to villain redemption (or character redemption IN GENERAL), I feel it's a rather delicate process that I feel usually (not all the time, but USUALLY) is written in either the flattest or laziest ways possible. And having a crappy character who did crappy stuff apologize from their last breath or because they were close to it is on that list. 

This isn't to say you can't like evil or horrible characters. You can like a character that does crappy stuff. But it's another thing to JUSTIFY the crappy stuff that they do. Stop acting like an angry 24/7 paid lawyer for this fictional being that I know for a FACT would not ever do the same for you should they be an actual person.