Opinion - Blog Posts

Three?? Are we not allowed to have permissions??

Okay but seriously, (I think) I know what they meant. But long permission lists AREN'T a bad thing! Most just list basic stuff and guidelines. In fact, having set permissions is helpful...

I judge on how strict it is. If you have a long ass permission list but it's all general 'don't draw hateful stuff', 'you can/can't do gore', 'you're allowed to genderbend' THATS OKAY!!

But if someone is acting like I'm on thin ice for even attempting to draw their oc, I'm iffy....the ice shouldn't be cracking already boo 🙇‍♀️ calm down

Its all about the context!

I'm gonna be real if your permissions/ requirements list has more than 3 sentences I'm not touching your oc

.

Maybe I should say something.

There was, a few weeks ago, a debate on censorship in my class. I did not participate, unfortunately, but I just wanted to get my personal opinion out.

Nothing should be censored. Ever.

Because when we censor, we are making censoring things acceptable. Say we make one thing censurable. People will abuse that, expand and twist the definition until it covers everything they want censored.

We are not trusted with the privilege to censor. No one should be.

Little disclaimer, as well: This does not apply to blocking topics or words you find not to your taste from your own personal, private feed. This post refers to the deliberate removal or blocking of content from the public as a whole because one person finds it distasteful.

My thoughts on Teen Wolf season 1

Ok sooo...

I just finished watching Teen Wolf season 1 and I guess here is how I felt about?

Ofc spoilers alert🚨

Ok so first of all the story all together, like it was not good but neither was it all that bad though there were quite a few moments making me question why I started watching it. But I'll see how my opinion changes with the next season. Then there were the fighting scenes idk why but they felt silly? And the whole thing with them running on all fours got me laughing every time, I'm sorry but it looked really ridiculous.

Moving on to the characters. First the side characters I liked most of them.

Sheriff Stilinski (especially enjoyed his relationship with Stiles, he was cool dad all together)

Mrs Mccall (I really liked her character, she was quite charming)

Allison's family (I liked her father the most, hated the mother and then her aunt I know she was bad but I still liked her ngl)

veterinary doctor (he was a chill guy, though Idk why he helped Scott or what he is exactly but I guess I'll see?)

coach (love him, cool guy, fun to watch)

chemistry teacher (Idk I have mixed feelings about him...)

Next the main characters

Derek (the whole time through my mind was going only "he was standing there, ... menacingly" though he got better in the second half plus I like the progression his relationship with Stiles made)

Scott (ok so hear me out, I don't like him and the reason why? Because he can be such an inconsiderate A hole, especially towards Stiles but we'll see how it will turn out)

Lydia (I like her but at same time I was like why would u do that?)

Jackson (ok so I don't like him but he was tolerable when he started acting all weird and nice if u know what I mean)

Allisson (I like her but at the same time WHY is she so gullible!? because if I erased that part she would be so cool)

And the last one is Stiles (omg, I just love Stiles he is such a fun and smart character trying to keep everything together even though he just got hit by a supernatural double decker, he was the reason I was able to pull through this whole season ngl)

And I guess that's it. Overall I kinda enjoyed it though I hope it will get better especially the fighting and some character scenes because yeah sometimes (many times) it was wild

Anyway thank u for reading my Ted talk I just wanted to get this out of my system Idk

All versions of TMNT are great and you can't convince me otherwise, because:

1. It's personal preference.

2. It's none of your business.

3. I'm stubborn and probably too lazy to argue.

Have a great day ladies, lads, people and entities.

Please don’t be afraid to leave feedback! I want to improve for you guys!!!!

AI rant ???

Obviously the age we are alive and able to live in now is amazing, we have so much access to information and connection to others, but anything concerning or connected to the humanities (social, language, etc.) is something that as a society is slowly being removed from the hands of people and being replaced by AI.

As someone who does art (in school and out) it’s annoying to always have to prove that the art you made is yours and not AI. Or the fact that my art teacher last semester used AI to give the class feedback on some of our projects, like what the freak, as a traditional artist is this not something you should be against????

My social studies teacher was more concerned about us using it than the art teacher, and my ELA teacher (who also teaches social studies) brings up how some AI sites are censoring a lot more than others, in connection to certain events in countries like China (Tiananem Square) were when you ask about the event nothing about it comes up, whatsoever.

And the amount of AI being used to post news articles, or using the generative AI on google to get references and information, just put in some work and find the information yourself it will be worth it in the end because you’ll have a deeper understanding of the topic.

What’s worse (it’s not it’s just annoying) is it being used for art and books like wtf bro, those are something used as a creative outlet if you can’t do it yourself have someone do it with you, learn to do it, or don’t do it at all.

This is what started the rant ?? I guess

No, because this is beginning to be an actual issue I have with modern Star Wars. One or two people are often responsible for telling a story, and ignore the works of writers and artists who came before them to steamroll in their own ideas. Star Wars has been a collaborative effort between many different creators since the novels first started coming out. To see the ability to decide what parts of it hold value delegated to one Disney employee is disheartening.

Hey Dave Filoni! There’s this really cool thing called a book, have you ever heard of it? Yeah there’s some really good Star Wars ones. Some new Star Wars books too!!! Not just the legends ones! You should totally take a look at them! And take them into consideration when making new Star Wars things! Please do this!!!!

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.

SpideyMoon/MoonSpider is not a pairing I would've thought of but somehow I could see it working.

"omg spideypool!" "aww spideytorch" "venom is literally a crazy ex gf"

"moonie"

A part of me thinks that Deadpool suggested Parker Industries because he knew there was a chance that Peter would see her on the roof and instantly jump to save her (or at the very least stop her).

Also, I know that Deadpool's the 'merc with a mouth' but that doesn't mean his mask needs one.

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 know I'm gonna ruffle a lot of feathers when I say this, but I think this is something people don't really touch on when it comes to the topic of female modesty (at least not too often).

A big criticism I have when it comes to the topic of female modesty (especially in some ‘Christian’ spaces) is that most who speak on it often approach it from the lens of “Immodesty makes men lust.” And regardless of how true that is, lots of women roll their eyes when they hear it because lots of us have experienced harassment (and a lot of women even sexual abuse) from men REGARDLESS of WHAT we are wearing.

Whether or not the message of “dress this way and men won’t harass you” was your personal intention or not, that is unfortunately the message that has been pushed on a LOT of women from the time we could first walk by OTHER people.

Sure, clothes have an effect on how people perceive us, I’m not gonna pretend it doesn’t. You obviously can’t walk into your office job wearing a low cut halter top and booty shorts—you have to dress for the environment you’re in (durr).

But clothes definitely have not stopped people from doing what they want to do to us at the end of the day. I think the main reason why lots of women roll their eyes when the topic of modesty comes up is because we’re being told the solution to a problem that we know for a fact has not actually worked.

If people kept telling you that wearing a helmet prevents serial killers from targeting you, but serial killers kept targeting you anyway, would you be more convinced to wear a helmet? No, because wearing a helmet didn’t change anything.

Lots of women realize this reality and so I think that’s why a lot of women dress with the mindset of “I’m gonna wear whatever the heck I want because it clearly doesn’t matter what I wear or don’t wear—men are still gonna behave the same.”

I’ve gotten harassed by a male ‘friend’ who bullied me in highschool and snuck around to obtain my phone number (without my permission) so that way he could flirt with me despite me telling him to stop (pretty tame all things considered). And all throughout high school, I wore nothing except big hoodies, jeans, and sometimes sweatpants.

Modesty is important, I agree. But stop promising women that it provides GRAND changes in how men will treat them. So many women have experience that proves it really doesn’t. Because it’s not about the clothes and never will be about the clothes, it’s about the character of the men we interact with. So if the only way a man can respect a woman is if she covers herself head to toe like a box, I don’t know if I can consider him a respectable person.

Sure, modesty can help people respect you more---but stop telling women that it ELIMINATES mistreatment from men---because it doesn't. And to tell something that isn't true is a lie.

I like how Deadpool and Spider-Man's relationship in a nutshell is generally always, "Of course I kiss my homies good night."

Look, I may not agree with all aspects of Catholicism, but the sexualization of nuns needs to stop.

You are actively sexualizing a group of women who dress the way they do BECAUSE they don't want to be sexualized. The sexy nun costumes are not only not cute, but deeply insulting.

Do y'all do this to women who wear hijabs?

You don't have to like the religion but that's no grounds to be straight up disrespectful.

"her body her choice" well these women are choosing their own way how to dress---stop mocking them.

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

Marvel Rivals had no business making Peter Parker look this Chad-like, what the heck 💀

Bro's been taking all that trauma from his writers and converted it into mewing, what the actual freak-- 😭🙏

I personally will never understand why Marvel is so consistently trying to paint Peter Parker as this loser dork when the guy is able to pull beautiful/powerful women on a daily basis.

Mary-Jane Watson Gwen Stacy Gwen Stacy's Cousin Betty Brant Liz Allen Cindy Moon Carly Cooper Debra Whitman Felicia Hardy Captain Marvel Silver Sable Black Widow Hawkeye's ex-WIFE Emma freaking FROST

You've got to be out of your darn mind if you think I'm going to believe that the guy who could pull Emma Frost is a loser.

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?

I personally consider abortion to be anti-feminist due to the fact it allows men to not be held responsible for their irresponsible actions of sleeping with a woman they have no intention of loving or providing for. It allows men to treat women like commodities with no consequence.

One Marvel pairing I'd be interested in seeing in the comics (if done correctly) would be Spider-Man x She-Hulk. I genuinely think with the proper writing and nuance, a relationship between them could work. Spider-Man reads to me like he'd appreciate a woman of her caliber.

As someone who's against abortion, I feel like this needs to be said: Society really doesn't do enough to help women endure pregnancy either. Unfortunately, pregnancy complications are a lot more common than people would originally think, which is also another reason as to why a lot of women today are now opting out of having children. Because more often than not, our society gives them very little support, women are shamed for being pregnant outside of marriage even when it was outside of their control (such as being raped), women often don’t get help and in fact, there’s a very obvious trend of men abandoning the women they impregnate. The trend is so widespread that we joke about it. “Haha, your dad left to get milk and never came back.” You realize how disgusting that is?

In the grand scheme of things and in terms of history, we have only recently gotten out of a system that automatically writes women off as ‘hysterical’ and now listen to their pain or issues—but even then, there’s still countless of stories of women who had complications in their bodies—not just in pregnancy—due to the fact that their doctors just would not listen to them when they told them they’re in pain or suspected something was wrong. It was only until 1993 did women in America actually start to be medically studied.

When you have it all down, it is any wonder why women in this day and age don’t want to bear children anymore when there seems to be little perceived benefit for themselves and the child involved? And I don't wanna hear any red-pillers going, "Oh, females take advantage of the child support---" You're not a rapper. You're not a celebrity. You're on Tumblr. You don't have any gold to dig. And even if you do run into a situation where a woman crappily uses the system against you, it's your fault for not being sexually responsible in the first place. Sorry, she didn't get pregnant by herself, sir.

As much as I don't want abortion to be a thing, I think we really got to show how we plan to actually improve society outside of creating hospitals :l

Not saying that ALL of us are bare-bottoms who doing nothing, but the one's voicing for us could definitely be doing a LOT more.

This is why I don't wanna place myself in either political party because conservatives aren't talking about the concerns women SHOULD have regarding their bodies during pregnancy and/or how it'll effect their lives and what help they're gonna get.

Both sides have things they ignore, but my gosh.

I don't think I'll ever be convinced by the "clump of cells" argument people like to use for abortion. "It's just a clump of cells---" Okay, and what are we? What are we made of? If anything, adults are just giant clumps of cells, so does that mean I can take life from you? "Oh, but we can feel---" So can a tree but you can't hear trees scream when you cut them down with a chainsaw, can you?

I'm just saying, two plus two doesn't equal three, it equals four :/

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 Conclusion about Prince Adam - A Disney Theory

I already know I'm probably gonna make some people disagree with what I'm gonna say, but honestly? I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone else comment on this yet. If you genuinely are going to be offended just from me having my own opinions and observations about a FILM, then I dunno what to tell you, bro. I perfectly understand if you disagree with my theory, but that's what it is---a theory, not fact. You can still like the movie.

Now finally addressing the main point...

So, according to some other fan theories, the Beast/Prince (his name is Prince Adam, don't know why they never mentioned it in the movie, but apparently, that’s his name) was a child when he was cursed by the enchantress since the flower was supposed to die during his twenty-first year.

And the movie specifies that enough time had passed to the point where the rose began to wilt and lose petals—which was the condition it was in before he met Belle anyway. Chronologically, this would mean Prince Adam got cursed when he was eleven. So if that were to be the case, then yes---the Enchantress would be the real villain here for cursing a child that followed the simple rules of 'stranger danger.' And for a while, I also believed this conclusion.

However, there's something else in the movie that I think disproves this theory entirely.

When Belle enters the West Wing despite the Beast telling her not to, she notices a ripped painting of a man. Then when the beast gets transformed back into a human at the end of the movie, he looks like the man in the ripped painting.

In order for that painting to have been made, he was way more than likely already a grown up before he became a beast---hence how the original artist even got the facial reference to know what to paint. You really expect me to believe this is a random painting of someone else who just HAPPENS to look like Adam? I don't think so.

Same creepy wide blue eyes, same length hair, same skin color, etc. And sure, the shading and colors are a bit different, but the similarities are still there.

There’s no way he was around 11 when that portrait was painted. Even if he was let's say in his late teens, he still would not have been young enough for him to be a smaller child. The ABSOLUTE youngest I think the prince could've been in order for that painting to be made and ALSO look like that is at the very LEAST 15.

Even in the beginning of the film, it shows Prince Adam definitely not looking like a kid. He's also wearing a SIMILAR collar to the one he wears in the torn painting.

That dude don't look 11 to me. And keep in mind, the curse said he would die during his twenty-first year if he didn’t find love. The curse very well COULD'VE meant his 21st year of being a BEAST and not necessarily point to his AGE. Considering the controversy around what Belle's ACTUAL age could/might be, I'm not gonna comment on that. But TLDR: I don't think Prince Adam was a child when he got cursed in the movie due to the ripped painting of him found in the West Wing.

You are a genius, this makes so much sense.

This is no longer a headcanon now. It IS canon. Because as you said, there's literally no other way to explain otherwise why she was able to be an avenger.

My Beef with Wanda Maximoff - An MCU Rant

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.

My FAVORITE Ship Dynamics List

Pardon my awful coloration (and writing). What kinda ship dynamics do you guys like? There's probably one that I forgot here.

My Beef with Miguel O'hara Pt.3 - A Spiderverse Rant

“Oh, rancid Miguel, how do I loathe thee? Let me count the ways. I loathe thee to the depth and breadth and height My souleth have no desire to reach thee, and wants to be out of sight For I believe it preserveth mine own grace”

You know the drill by now, if you wanna read the first two parts (Part 1 and Part 2), then click the links because there’s no way I’m retyping everything. Don’t wanna read it? Then in the words of Laila, that’s just not my problem.

We already know by now how this guy has his own agenda and stubborn cult-like way of thinking in terms of how the Spiderverse should work. I had been watching Spider-Man PS5 gameplays recently when I struck absolute GOLD.

In the 2011 game, “Spider-Man: Edge of Time,” there is a specific clip in there and I promise you, when I found out it existed, it made me so happy because it let me know I’m not crazy for thinking Miguel’s way of handling stuff is absolute bullchips. And for those of you that have watched or played Edge of Time, you might already know what I’m talking about.

For any fangirls out there that will defend Miguel tooth and nail, I have a question for you. What would you do if an ACTUAL Spider-Man went up to Miguel and told him he was wrong about everything in terms of his worldview?

Well, don’t worry. You don’t need to wonder.  BECAUSE IT ALREADY HAPPENED.

(Video by @CCGAMING TV on YouTube)

You know it’s bad when a traditional Spider-Man is telling you that not only does your ideology suck, plus you also completely suck at your job.

And even if we were gonna go with the argument of Edge of Time using a different variant of Miguel for the storyline (but I don’t exactly think they are considering their universe numbers are the same—-that being 2099), it certainly goes to showcase that Miguel’s way of quote-unquote ‘heroism’ is pretty consistent (in that he believes innocent people should be allowed to just straight-up DIE).

The only difference between Edge of Time Miguel and Spiderverse Miguel to me (personally) is the fact that Miguel was actually willing to listen to a perspective outside of his own (and infinitely MUCH quicker to do that than Spiderverse Miguel).

But even then, it falls flat when you consider the literal fact that in order for him to do so, Peter had to explain why letting his girlfriend just randomly DIE instead of saving her is a BAD thing. So clearly the lack of empathy is consistent as well (regardless of its varying degrees). 

“Oh, but he said ‘Maybe this'll help even the score for everything the world owes you.’”

Okay? So? We’re just gonna forget that this guy was gonna let Peter’s girlfriend die without telling him ANYTHING and was planning to keep him in the dark the whole time up until that point? I’d have a hard time trusting someone after that.

And on top of that, Miguel ACTIVELY had that information in the ARCHIVES about MJ dying (meaning he didn’t want anyone to find it or be aware of it). He KNEW that Peter would want to save her and that’s why he didn’t tell him. That sure seems manipulative as heck to me.

Sure, you could argue that Peter’s a jerk here for looking through the files, but gosh darn it—I can’t even be mad at him here because he was just looking for information on the problem at hand.

Peter's absolutely right---Miguel doesn't get what being Spider-Man is about. Miguel's not a hero--he's a control freak that wants everything done his way or the multiversal highway.

Granted, I don’t know what they plan to do in terms of Miguel’s character in the third Spiderverse movie. For all I know, he COULD potentially have a change of heart. But like I said before with EOT (Edge of Time), this change of heart would only occur after getting scolded about why it’s wrong to let people evaporate on your watch.

The only reason why I have slightly (keyword: SLIGHTLY) more respect for EOT Miguel is because at least he was willing to save someone's loved one (but once again, it was only after he was called out or confronted, so even then, it's still very slimy).

I already explained the complexities behind Miguel’s so-called intentions, so don’t even try to be like, “Oh, he thinks or does this because of this—-” it’s still not a good justification for telling a teenage boy that his father should die, and that he’s not allowed to do anything.

I’m so glad I found this clip because it’s just more fuel for the fire for me in terms of my passionate dislike for this man. And whether he’s redeemed in the movie or not, there’s no way in fish chips I am ever going to let people forget that this was the same dude hunting down a MINOR. 

“Hey, kid. Sorry I was gonna let your father die for no reason and expected you to just listen due to my inexcusably flawed ways of thinking and the fact I also practically tried to kill you because I wouldn't let your father die, all the while insulting you and calling you a mistake.”

This is what I mean when I say Miguel lacks empathy (or even worse, just basic sympathy). I will never understand why Miguel thinks that because he lost people he loves, that other people should be okay with the same thing. He's like those old people that assume just because they went through traumatic events, that their children should go through them too just because they also went through it.

Honestly, with the way Miguel acts, it's difficult to remember he HAD people he loved that passed away due to the fact he just seems to want people to just 'accept' that it happens. No way, Jose. You would think the guy who lost his wife and CHILD would be thinking a lot more consciously about how he chooses to treat and address people, but he straight up doesn't.

I don't care what people say, Miguel es basura. Muy asqueroso.

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—

Supernatural Romances make NO sense - A Random Opinion

Here's the thing: As much as I enjoy these concepts or tropes, they don't make sense when you take the time to think about it. Don't believe me? Let's go down the list then.

Vampire romances: The concept of a vampire romance really doesn't make sense when you take just five minutes to add all the aspects together.

Sure, it can be intriguing or whatever (especially if there’s a unique way in which the premise is handled), but let's really boil down the contents of its true implications here.

A vampire is a creature that feeds on human blood. Vampire romances USUALLY (not all the time, but usually) involve a vampire falling for a human rather than a vampire falling for another vampire.

Let me say this again. Vampire, which eats humans---then has stories where they then fall for humans.

That's like a chupacabra hooking up with a goat. What sense does it make for a creature to fall in love with something it usually tends to eat?

Even if the said predator of this relationship has no intention of eating their mate or harming them---would you, as a rational person, feel comfortable knowing that your partner has to harm YOUR species and eat them for their own survival? I highly doubt it.

"Oh, I know you kill people and drink their blood, but I know you won't kill ME! I'm just DIFFERENT--"

It literally makes no sense.

Zombie romances: Zombie romances make even less sense to me. Because now instead of a creature that simply wants your blood, it’s a creature that quite literally wants to rip your stomach open and eat your intestines like Twizzlers.

At least with a vampire, you could just have IV blood bags for them to drink to put off their thirst for a WHILE. But when it comes to zombies, they literally rely on eating the WHOLE entirety of the human.

Once again, it’s like a chupacabra dating a goat. Oh, but what if the zombie doesn’t want to eat or harm their partner?

Well, then we get into even more ethically concerning details on the human’s part. Because aren’t zombies walking corpses that eat people? And if a human is willing to date or become uh…'entangled’ with a zombie, isn’t that a form of necrophilia since the zombie is literally just a man-eating corpse? 

Sure, we could argue whether or not zombies are living or non-living. But let's be honest here: the majority of the time, zombies do not look cute. They are rotting parts of their bodies, they look dead, they smell horrible, they’re covered in blood, and sometimes missing a limb or two. If you’re unironically attracted to that in real life or something (not including those who JUST like the stories for the stories), you are mentally ill—there’s no way around it for me. You are attracted to something that looks like a corpse. That in itself is necrophilia and it’s honestly gross from an incredibly literal standpoint.

Even if the zombie were to look like some cutesy/idealistic anime character or something, it still doesn't change the fact that this thing's practically DEAD.

Sure, like vampire romances, it could be interesting depending on the intricacies of the story. But it still makes no sense when you write it down on paper. Wow, you’re dating a creature that looks dead and has to fight off the urge to eat people every single second they're on this planet. How quirky. 

Ghost romances: Ghost romances also don’t make sense on paper. Now, this one is a bit more loose in my opinion since ghost archetypes are often experimented with in terms of what they can do or not do. It’s just one of those things where it really depends on the story world and the premise it's placed in. However, from the very cultural and general stance of how ghosts work, they can’t touch anything (except when it's to conveniently scare people, so even then, their intangibility is transient) and they can’t age. 

I’m sorry, but aren’t the driving points of a romance being able to see the characters display affection and/or get old together? And if a ghost can’t touch anything, what’s the point in being romantically involved with someone you can’t kiss? I get there’s long distance relationships, but if they’re in the same room with you—why would you want that? 

Even if the subject of physical intimacy wasn’t an issue, there’s still the prospect of aging. Because if your boo (pun intended) died young and is a ghost, that means they’re physically stuck at that age forever. Even if they were to be centuries older than you, wouldn’t it be weird to see some elderly person smooching on a young looking supernatural?

Let me put it like this. A human woman at 25 years old is in a relationship with a male ghost. The said male ghost died at 30. Sure, she could get away with dating him for another five or ten years, but eventually, the human woman ages in appearance physically and looks older than her ghost partner. And if she lives long enough, she’s gonna be 80 while her boo still looks 30. You’re seriously telling me that DOESN’T look weird from the outside? Wouldn't you be weirded out if some super old person was smooching up with someone decades younger than them?

At that point, to avoid any oddities, you’d be better off killing yourself in whatever spot they’re stuck to so you wouldn’t have to worry about aging out of proportion in the relationship (and if not aging, then to touch them). That sounds like a lot more work than it’s worth.

Werewolf romances: Werewolf romances are the only sort of supernatural romance I could possibly get behind—and even then, it’s still highly dependent on how the said story chooses to handle the workings of lycanthropy. 

At least with this partner, they most likely can turn humans who won’t HAVE to kill you out of survival. You don’t have to be sorry about some super weird complex age gap. And you can touch them. Sounds like a pretty decent basis so far. BUT there’s always a catch.

A werewolf is (duh) a person who can turn into a wolf (or wolf-like monster). When it comes to these beings, it really is a roll of the dice. Because some versions will make them seem they have no thought process or control at all—whereas others give them complete control. So to call a werewolf automatically dangerous to the well being of their human partner is rather tough to say off the bat. Though, I do know that all of that fur that sheds off of them will be annoying to deal with (and that’s not even counting all of the things they might chew up---like your shoes).

And while I would be inclined to agree that being in a relationship with a werewolf could most definitely be a form of beastiality, at the very LEAST a werewolf can revert back into a human the majority of the time. So as long as you’re only doing stuff with them as a human, you should technically be fine, right?

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I still don’t find much appeal in becoming romantically involved with someone who can become some giant creepy wolf abomination, but at least there’s SOME things in there you COULD manipulate depending on which universe you land into.

Overall, while I do think supernatural romances are indeed a fun concept (and I DO tend to enjoy some of these stories), there’s no way in HECK I think they’re ACTUALLY plausible (unless you add some major--MAJOR--plot armor).

Black Cat is NOT better than MJ - An Insomniac Rant

Listen, I'll definitely make a post about how crappy a love interest Insomniac's version of MJ is for Peter Parker (and when made, I'll link it in THIS post). But there ain't no way in dog drool I am EVER going to say that Black Cat is better love interest for him. If anything, a part of me would like to argue she's a bit worse.

"Oh, I only like her/ship them as a joke---" Congratulations, you can leave the post because I'm obviously not talking about you :)

Maybe I'm off my rocker, but what about this DC Catwoman copycat screams wifey-material to you guys? Felicia has manipulated, lied to, and used Peter for her own advantage time after time with seemingly no remorse. And even if she supposedly did for one millisecond, she sure as heck doesn't atone for it. And even when she apologized for tricking him into helping her, it sure sounded un-genuine.

Whether she truly had a son or not (though considering Felicia's history of being a pathological liar, I wouldn't put it past her), she used that narrative to trick Peter into a sense of false security, only to then trap him in a room after she got what she wanted.

And let's say that Felicia having a son WAS true. Guess what? THAT'S EVEN WORSE!

Because NOW instead of it just being a slimy scheme to get him vulnerable, she's lying to him by omission. Regardless of what her so-called intentions could be, she's still manipulating him which is an absolute no-bueno for ANY type of relationship (romantic or not).

You guys seriously need to stop glossing over how flawed these characters are just because you're attracted to them.

Y'all will complain up and down about how Peter's constantly broke but then want him to hook up with a chick that'd just steal his money without a blink? Make it make sense.

Once again, MJ is DEFINITELY not a good girlfriend for him either, but are we really going to pick a literal criminal as a love interest JUST because she's pretty?

“Oh, but Felicia has a similar lifestyle to Spider-Man!” Uh…no the freak she does NOT.

Spider-Man fights crime. Felicia COMMITS crimes.

Do they have chemistry? Yes, way more than an actual chemistry lab. But Felicia would absolutely NOT be a good long-term partner for Peter—he deserves way better than her.

At this point, if Peter having a love interest MUST (utterly MUST) be a prerequisite, I'd genuinely prefer he at least (at the freaking LEAST) get with Sable or Watanabe (before she became Wraith, that is—don’t even get me started on that mess) because at least those two try to have SOME (not good but some) sense of decent morality.

“Oh but look at her, she's bad–” You don't need to project the fact you're a masochist on everyone else.

If you're the kinda person who likes being manipulated and taken advantage of by people you find hot, that's your problem you need to get fixed in therapy.

But here's what annoys me the most about this whole thing: I know for a FACT that if MJ was the more attractive one and that FELICIA was mid-looking, you guys would then be SCREAMING for her to be with Peter instead of Felicia.

Really think about it. Without Felicia's looks, what kind of person is she? Is she really someone worth being with? Don't worry, I have the answer: NO-

Felicia is in NO way a better love interest for Peter and I'm tired of people acting like she is just because she looks like an Instagram cosplayer.

“Felicia's always been this way in the comics and stuff—”

As if that makes it any better. If anything, all that's doing is giving me MORE proof as to why she's not a good person for him WHATSOEVER.

If the genders were reversed, you'd all be grossed out by Felicia, let's not even lie. If Felicia was a guy doing all of this to a female version of Peter, you'd all be calling him a creep and trying to cancel him on Twitter -_-