Your gateway to endless inspiration
Rant - Blog Posts
Okay this isn’t like an anti Dean post it’s more looking at his psyche when it comes to Sam and other people it’s also a full rant and a mess of words I’m very sorry 💀✌️✨✨
Dean has told Sam multiple times he wants him to get out of this life get married have 2.5 kids all the snazzy stuff
But the minute Sam does exactly that gets out of the life gets with a girl all the stuff Dean wanted
———— This is me ranting about Sam ——
Also people keep forgetting Dean did the exact same thing with the whole lisa and Ben thing
Sam isn’t a terrible person for not spending his every waking moment to get Dean back as he was currently dealing with the fact Bobby died, His own mental health and thinking his best friend and Brother were dead
The last time Sam wanted to save his brother from death he was manipulated by ruby and became the literal terminator (twice because of the 6months alone in mystery spot)
Anyway this got way off topic my bad I just hate mischaracterization on sam and making dean look like this beacon of light who does no wrong (spoiler alert he does a lot of terrible things)
———- End of my rant of Sam ————-
Dean is more co dependent on Sam he needs him to even continue living without Sam there is no Dean he needs to be there for every moment of Sam’s life
It’s like when he got together with that one girl after Jessica’s death he was fine with it enthusiastic even but the minute he isn’t able to witness Sam falling for a girl
He goes batshit because he needs to know everything about Sam not even just to be straight sexual this is purely toxic codependency that we’ve seen time and time again with the Winchesters
Dean needs Sam to live but he wants Sam to be happy and get out of this life But at the same time he needs to be there for Sam every step of the way
Why do you think Sam leaving for Standford left such a big impact on him
His Sam the boy he’s been raising since he was a baby, the person he feels he has to protect with his life is leaving him not just the family he is actively on his own terms leaving Dean
Dean would do anything for family but what happens when the two people you love and care about walk opposite sides of life of wants and needs at that point he can’t bare to lose another family member he needs his father to stay to fill the whole Sam left
That’s until he leaves to without a second thought
Dean overall is a fucked up emotionally incestus individual because that’s all he knows.
To sacrifice his entire being for a single persons goal for another persons life
At the ages of 4+ he was told time and time again whatever happens look after Sam his life his being is to be Sam’s protector to him knowing Sam’s sex life who he’s with is normal why wouldn’t it be
He’s been with Sam forever to protect him Love him he knows everything about Sam but he can’t let Sam stray to far from him again he can’t mentally or emotionally handle it
That’s the end of this lovely rant I’m very sorry if things don’t make sense and there’s like no punctuation 💀✨
Rick is my spirit animal i love him with all my heart!! Hes such a nice depiction of an asshole its bordeline giggle inducing. His reasons and motivations to be the way he is are so nuanced its insane. Rick is such a complicated yet simple character. He loves people but pushes them away for their (and his) own good. Being able to read rick (body language, speech, being able to differentiate when he's serious about smth or when hes not) is its own art.
I can seriously rant about r&m alllllll damn day but the more i go on the more incomprehensible everything becomes.
I was looking through my character concepts and found this and thought that he looked cute like this.
(but sadly way too similar to another character. I'm thinking about doing something different with him. And btw. his name is Blake)
Maybe I will do something like this:
But I still need to work on the particular design.
Okay, I am currently trying out to create my OCs in c.ai and it's hilarious. I am surprised that the AI is able to read my mind. I didn't know it could do something like that XD
(really funny coincidence, that I am currently talking in a similar scene that I once wrote)
I mean, it even used the terms I referred to and I didn't tell it to do that.
Edit: okay, I think he's going to kill me.
Edit 2: he's not going to kill me anymore, but I think I'm about to break his world view.
Edit 3: I broke him. I told him his world is just a story to entertain everyone and he's still loading for an answer ... I broke him. But it's funny, he should know that XD
Edit 4: Now he's going to kill me again. He knows I created him, he knows that I gave him the task to destroy all forgotten worlds and he hates that task and now I need to talk myself out of that.
Looking back, I stressed myself out too much in the beginning of ArtFight. One full rendered drawing a day is much. It worked for the first couple days, as you can see, but overall I lost motivation. If I ad spend some more time on these, they would have been even better.
Or it's just me being a perfectionist again. Whatever. I had fun and that's what matters.
And here I am, not able to animate the first scene of my animation properly.
Also, I think this took overhand. I wanted to start small to get used to animating but it snowballed into a too huge project. And I also feel my perfectionism taking over again.
I think, it's best if I put what I have into my drafts and come back to it at a later moment. I need to find something small I can train with and not a two minute project.
I can also achieve parts of my goal by training them without the animation part. Like, the goal for this project was to get familiar with post-production. But I can also try to achieve that with pictures. A little bit easier for now.
Or maybe a short animation of ONE scene. No cuts. Well, this would be a single cut, but I hope you know what I mean.
(Whatever follows, take it with a comedic grain of salt.)
I wanted the world to know that I am suffering creatively.
Starting with a small project, she said. But she forgot to specify small. (She is in that case me.) Now we're into a 2-minute animation of a 3-minute song ... I'm not going to plan out the last minute.
And now, I've realised that in ALL of the frames that feature my protagonist, he's drawn wrong. So, I've got to draw them again.
(It's only in 16 of 116 frames and I'm still in the planning phase but still.)
Did I already mention I like to torture myself on a regular basis? :D
Well, here I am again, telling myself to start small and then wanting to whip out a 3 min animation.
PLEASE DONT TAKE THIS PERSONALLY IF YOU ARE A SHIFTER AND YOY WOULD NEVER DO ANY OF THIS THANK YOU AND SHIFTERS ARE VALID BUT I HAVE A STUOID STORY ABOUT SHIFTERS I USED TO KNOW.
Some shifters are genuinely delusional. I used to be apart of a my hero academia community of them i had my own dr and everything.
I got called quirkest for not liking aoyama..
QUIRKEST..
EXX- FUCKING -CUSE ME??
I left after I got called racist for headcanoning bakugou to be 25% Amercian. THE THING WAS THEY LITERALLY HAVE MADE RACIAL HEADCANONS BEFORE ME.
Aoyama - half French!
Monoma - half German!
But bakugou - 25% american?? "YOU STUPID RACIST PIECE OF SHIT!!!¡¡"
LIKE PLS IM LITERALLY NOT EVEN AMERICAN IM FULLY INDIGENOUS AND THEYRE LIKE ummm your racist for making that headcanon!
UR LITERALLY WHITE DONT FUCKING TALK TO ME ABOUT RACISM WHEN YALL CELEBRATE THANKSGIVING AND HOW YALL TOOK OUR COUNTRY FROM US....
I'm sorry it literally gets me SO MAD, shout out to the real ones out there, and I hope you end up shifting, but NOT THEM..
It's crazy how some people talk about hitting their kid bc they r vaping.
Maybe find out why they're vaping? A lot of the time, it's because they are trying to cope with addiction.
I see tiktoks of people saying they'll hit their kid if they vape like??
Your giving them more bad and traumatic memories for them to cope badly with.
People these days!! Also I don't think vaping is good, you shouldn't do it, even though I do it, but there are better ways to talk to your kid rather then force and abuse.
A question I hear a lot is "why are so many losers defending billionaires online?" and I realized why.
It's not because they think that they will be given money or get noticed, it's because they want to maintain the narrative of capitalism as a pure meritocracy. Capitalist theory tells us that hard work and risk is what will make you rich, and an incongruence between what rich people should be and what they are breaks this. To admit that someone like Elon Musk is an idiot who only got rich off generational wealth is to admit that capitalism is inherently flawed. That's why rich people are placed on this pedestal of perfection where they can do no wrong.
They aren't defending the individuals; they are defending the ideal of capitalism they have been taught all their lives.
A small rant
I hate how right-wingers try to excuse spreading hateful or ignorant ideas as "just a joke" or "I'm just asking questions". Like they somehow think that jokes or questions cannot be rhetorical.
It's like some people think that ideas just don't affect the real world in any tangible form. Like they are just having a purely theoretical conversation that effects nobody at all.
People on the right need to realize that rhetoric is very capable of inspiring violence. Saying shit like "trans people are groomers" is the kind of shit that gets trans people killed.
And public figures who advocate hateful rhetoric will always try to distance themselves from the consequences of their words, saying shit like "I never said I condone violence", even when violence is the natural logical conclusion of their words. Yall cannot act like implying that Jews run the world is not a call to action to commit violence against them, that is pure bullshit.
Conspiracy theory mfs can be some of the most annoying people on planet earth.
The second you point out any flaw in their logic, it's always "your giving into the propaganda man". Or, if you ever call them a insane dumbass, they will always say "wow, my ideas are making you mad, it must be because you know I'm right" thinking they are witty.
I'm not afraid of conspiracies because I don't want to hear the truth, I am afraid of conspiracy theories because they are very much capable of spreading dangerous misinformation as fact and harming people in the process.
I am willing to listen to any ideas, but you can't just present your far-out speculation based on cherrypicked evidence and get mad when people have the nerve to question your ideas.
Anyways, that's my rant. Just decided to blow off some steam because I got into an argument with some right-wingers on reddit who were going off about the "Jewish elite".
A common argument that I hear from conservatives is that "people of the past were not so sensitive like people of today"
Mf people in 1950's America threw a tantrum because someone of a different skin color wanted to drink at the same fountain as them. Don't give me this bs about how people back then "weren't sensitive".
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.
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.
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.
Men: Let's raise little boys and teach young men that emotions are stupid, effeminate, that people are stupid for having them, that their emotions are not to be expressed unless it contributes to their anger or dominance, and thus also teach them that it makes women irrational whenever they try to talk to us about their emotions or problems, so we have to remind them of that.
Also men: Why do women initiate the majority of divorces?
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.
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 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).
