2:12 she got his ass here, she's right lmfao. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If his audience are at minimum half trolls or two thirds of trolls; then the trolls leaving would force him off by necessity thus getting what they want. And if they leave him be offline, he stays off the internet, we've been through this.
Their own collective admission that they are his audience puts the ball in their court to force him off the internet by depriving him of viewers, but they won't leave because they're just as dependent on the high, sense of power, & attention starved as he is, they get off on this.
The difference is: he needs the internet to make money, majority of them don't (not as badly as he does I'd bet) and yet they're still clinging to wings anyway because they get to feel like they serve a greater purpose in the world, they have an Avengers team assembled, a hideout & everything and they have a supervillain that justifies their righteous campaign.
And more importantly, they have someone that makes their lives (good or bad) seem better by default, wings is a sponge for them, which is a worse look.
There's but so many times they can go in circles with the same excuses they used 3 years ago & beyond. I don't recall hearing the guy she's talking to before so I'll assume he's a new cult member, but even these new cats can use the same taglines but so many times dude.
Then he pulls the usual troll coping mechanism "I have (personally) never said that--" even though we all say it when convenient as a scapegoat.
POV: "If we go, you don't have a career", that's a powerplay they've weaponized often. But here? Now the narrative is different because Mrs. Wings is putting the ball in their court and tbh, Wings himself has conceded to wanting to fail if it would get them to leave him alone.
*You as a GROUP have said it buddy boy, don't act brand new.* 😂
_And then other bro pivots to the camp throw/push & first bro got his get out of jail free card and happily jumped to that topic because he knew she was pinning his ass down by their own logic._
Pathetic.
_*He didn't even address what she said then switched the topic, he immediately jumped at the opportunity to segue, because he knew she was right & then made it about the push; you can even hear how relieved he was for that save*_ 2:27
See Wings did push her, he did. She didn't trip, Wings pushed Kelly, it happened.
*But where these guys go wrong is they can't admit their own faults, so they're dishonest. So why are they the arbiters of accountability? This is why they've somehow become more lolcow than their actual cow. They're hypocrites, in so many ways more entertaining than wings.*
So they have ZERO room to talk about integrity when they can't so much as concede something as simple as what she addressed, and did so very calmly. I have to give her that much.
These dudes are just as sad as their target, I stand on that before, I stand on it now. We have the receipts, these guys are a mess. Hamster wheel logic.
Wings genuinely has mental health issues; soooo what's their excuse? And yet that's all they have to offer: excuses.
The "accountability" narrative needs to be dropped, if they'd just admit they know they're pos, it's not about accountability than it is about the sense of power they feel from the fact that Wings can't stop their involvement in his life-- then they wouldn't be hypocrites but this telegraphed, performative 'we're here to help' vibe. They'll always be the other side of wings' coin.
Can't wait til the next lions den in 15-20 years (if wings is still with us) when these mooks have grandkids & still going vigilante on this same exact fat guy. But THEY'RE the heroes right? Delusional indeed & Kelly even called them out on that too, good.
Kelly is in denial on the push, yet in the same exact breath she is 1000% right, even when they want to pretend she spoke martian on the troll viewership point because they both know she's right. Which is WHY they damage controlled & pivoted from her point.
OP's points were strongest towards the end of the video, but disagreed that it's a masterpiece.
A masterpiece is nigh perfection, and HxH is not perfect. The pacing is brutal at times when it doesn't have to be (Greed Island, Chimera Ant Arc), & the 90s anime's pacing is even slower than the 2011 but the 90s anime actually did a lot of things better in just how it wrote the exact same story (way better character writing). And too much goddamn talking when visual storytelling can do the heavier lifting.
The story decisions regarding the Troupe wasn't the best after York New, Chrollo has been shelved waaaaaay too damn long, & we're in yet another arc (Succession) that has nothing to do with him or the Troupe in premise as a focus. Meanwhile they're off jerking around somewhere.
But HxH is still good anyway, despite it's issues, why? Characters & it's INITIAL story structure bought it enough good will to where later red flags could be afforded. MHA jacked up it's own theme out the gate with contrivances, nepotism, plot armor, dysfunctiona/unhealthy overtones & hypocrisy.
Otherwise, I personally think The Netero & Meruem fight could've been less repetitive and had better choreography but what we got by the shows standards of power scaling, is still pretty dope. Way better than most My Hero fights which is 90% flashbacks & looking at people watching the fight than actual fighting. Meruem actually communicated a strategy while seemingly getting smacked around, even Gungi playing a visual factor into the matter; the talking served a purpose because how fast everything was happening, you'd need exposition just to keep up.
So that much, was pretty good.
Overall, HxH simply what 90% of shonen are not: which is "competent", which means it does the bare minimum, and the bare minimum doesn't mean it's a masterpiece.
That says less about it being a masterpiece, than it says about shonen as medium being a dogshit genre & the bare minimum in comparison seems like a masterpiece.
That says more about the genre, than the show itself.
Watch the first 3-6 episodes of MHA, realize Teen Titans 2003 is better in every way in less episodes (2 minimum) & one movie. Then watch HxH. Then watch Avatar the last Airbender, actual peak.
Gon's quality as a main character? Infinitely superior to Tearsdoriya, leagues more depth & range without the coddling, handholding, being gatekept in that damn school, the one time he went independent he was POLICED right back to being the same caricature, and that babying "you can do it", "do your best", "I'll save everyone" Nick Jr. bullshit. Absolute joke.
Gon is a good kid with a limit, he'll help you in neutral, he'll give you a chance when you push it, he'll threaten you if you get in his way, he'll hurt you when you do get in his way and if you body one of his own, he will kill you. Crying inner child or not, he got two hands for both you & the child crying in your soul or whateverthefuck.
That's an actual person with realistic boundaries, vs some mascot kid who acts more like an emotional support animal than representing an actual person. CHRIST himself is more three dimensional than Deku is, that's how unrealistic & boring izuku the snowflake is.
I finished MHA before I even took HxH seriously (after years of scoffing at it), Gon is an actual main character, a severe breath of fresh air; and when others share the spotlight, it's not spread thin between 20 fucking characters, and one of the characters that got the spotlight was the antagonist Ant King.
Deku is a MC figurehead, brutally and thats being generous.
Deku's concept works better than the execution, Gon's concept as an archetype works with his execution because he's not an ideal, nor ideal as a person. He's written like a flawed human being who's allowed by the narrative to taint his ledger / & corrupt his image vs being protected from having to make tough decisions, thus preserving the character to be the exact same person the entire show, aka a caricature. And just having an edgier design or costume isn't character development.
All in all, HxH ain't no masterpiece; it's got plot armor, it's got too much exposition out the ass at times, contrivances, etc. but most of it can be afforded but it is written worth a damn. So even despite it's problems, for a shonen, it's still competent.
As Macrocreeps will communicate inadvertently through their misanthropic/misogynist propaganda cosplaying as a hobby: women are goddesses apparently, allegedly.
Can do no wrong, above us greasy mere mortals known as men that are here to serve. According to society, women's shit don't stink.
Women are held accountable legally, but in public discourse, rarely. Politically? Academically? Culturally? Gets even messier.
"Equality" is a red herring, if you're not held accountable, you're coddled. A coddled is a liability, not an equality. But equality is fetishized more than accountability & merit when accountability equally is being an equal.
Paradoxically the west wants & advocates what is pushes away.
As a society, we buy into an unspoken and pervasive bias in favor of women: as the fairer sex, they must be inherently more righteous and loving than men. Which is why things get feminized & Ai will admit that the academic sphere adheres to female lens approaches as the masculine are inversely perceived as negative.
Yet we are all human, and capable of being slaves to base passions. Just as men’s, women’s passions can manifest in destructive and ugly ways.
Every toxic manifestation men can do women can do, this is also why toxic masculinity is also a gaslight. Socialized behavior of men doesn't explain why women do it to, so is it a boys are taught to be toxic?
Or is academia trying to make what is a neutral human fault a male problem? Thus giving women yet another false sense of security?
Well this isn't a modern phenomena, bias toward women is in our DNA, they bear the babies. So we associate women with children and babies, it's why we treat women with the same tolerance & lack of accountability we spare for children (culturally & socially), humans don't treat women like children consciously but the double standard is infantilizing.
The western worlds "First woman to (do something a man did already)" fetish does the same infantilism effect. Notice how those headlines rarely share what exactly she did or earned that was so special, you usually have to read the article to find out what she did or if she was useful vs the primary importance being fetishizing her sex in the position. What she actually accomplished, if anything, beyond the position was irrelevant to the headline. And girls are taught to think that treatment of them is normal, a constant inferiority complex.
And others claim women being more emotionally attuned means they can't make sound rational decisions, all lies.
The problem is society has progressed but it hasn't "advanced", this is why standards get lowered, gender roles & norms get uprooted. It's not advancement, the rigidity is what made the empire you suckle off of. Where do you think you can go by getting rid of what got you here in the first place?
Not every tradition is worth upholding (ex. Aztec human sacrifice ) but some traditions you can objectively attribute to prosperity (ex. Nuclear family but this time + upgraded with some egalitarian values vs destroying the trad unit and replacing it with egalitarianism, which is not sustainable)
progression just means you moved in a direction, it doesn't mean it's the right direction.
Advancement is to go in a better vector than previously, to advance is to evolve.
Civilization hasn't evolved, we infantilize women then wonder why some women act weird, or get burnt out when they have no support system because feminism taught them hyper-independence was strength which is more like toxic masculinity than what we're told is toxic masculinity.
we wonder where Karens come from, why young Women are so entitled yet so useless in a utility sense of a relationship. And anything that requires too much of them is the relationship failing them or men being a burden, when she is the weak link that can't perform without reward.
Because raising a child is an asymmetrical duty, a child can't reciprocate. If you're caving inward because you have a scoreboard & according to you, your partner isn't 50/50 on everything. You're not built for cohabitation happiness.
Your era groomed you to be alone forever.
We're raising them to be passive bystanders in their own lives and encourage them to be bosses and produce absolutely nothing.
The same energy we exert to keep men in check we need to exercise it to keep women in check as well.
Because infantilizing women ,giving them trophies for being "the first women to-" [insert thing a man has already done] is just treating women like actual children. Everytime I bring it up to Ai, the Ai concedes every single time. Not because I'm looking for a cosign, I want to be wrong, but this objectively is condescending & women get pounded with this constantly.
Their accomplishments matter less than what are in a position, a token, which is fetishization. Figurehead energy.
They're winners for playing, not actually doing anything worthy of praise. The fact that Valentina Tereshkova contributed to aerosol layer studies within the atmosphere with her observations, atmospheric composition took strides because she paid attention during her space mission but that matters less than her being the first woman in space-- she wasn't the first to a solo space mission, she wasn't the first person in space & she was a woman. She was the first woman in space after men did it first; thus technically proved it was safe for women to do it too whenever one would do it.
And the "first women to" implies we're impressed that she did the bare minimum men did, which implies a contrary attitude that she couldn't do it? And if it isn't that deep, why is that constantly the narrative as if we're still in the 1930s?
When will women doing anything not be worth news, when they're not the first to do it in the first place.
It makes women like Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna's feats look minute despite them being advancers of their field, because the default is women are praised every other week for doing essentially nothing but joining an activity. You rob the exceptional women the shine they deserve & by proxy you make a woman's achievement in the eyes of men look like they never earn it.
The bias isn't the entire issue. It's the hypocrisy, by trying to empower women, you make empowerment meaningless.
Recognizing this doesn’t negate the plight women have endured in a historically male-dominated world, but it being male dominated is why we're not in caves. We can't use "historical" as an excuse forever, it's why you'll remain stuck in suspension.
You want progress while keep the past in your pocket as emotional black mail.
It simply suggests women hold no monopoly on virtue as a bizarre form of social karma.
Women’s ascendance past centuries-old barriers is remarkable and praiseworthy, but it's not impressive when the women who actually took the risk are in rest & their more privileged successor are trying to hijack their struggle as their own when there's less risk. But they talk as if they're one opinion from assassination.
Almost all the men I know look with pride and amazement at the mothers and daughters in their lives, and understand the “Me Too” movement is a long-overdue reckoning for bad men. But why must success for one sex automatically include derision for the other?
The laudable, original objective of the feminist movement urging us to better our traditional manhood has warped into an assault on everything masculine. It strips away empathy for boys, who must navigate a world that assumes the worst of them because they're not woman enough, which falsely presumes womanhood or more women is the answer society needs, the numbers show that is not the case. You need men, the world is male dominated because men have the drive to carry the world, it's why men get blamed for everything.
You blame the authority, not the help. Women aren't held accountable but men are blamed (even if it's women's fault) because male-driven systems is why you have advanced society.
A womans word alone can send you to jail and if she lied well oh well, you lost years of your life and her identity will be protected.
Remember, women are oppressed in first world countries.
And don't you dare tell a woman she looks nice today that's considered violence.
See we drive men and women apart, we don't challenge articles that are doing nothing but inflating the problem, then wonder why society is going down the crapper.
It's a real mystery.
Ostracizing Masculinity
Men kill themselves higher rate than women. They also make up the vast majority of combat deaths; more than 97 percent of American military fatalities in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom were men.
And nobody cares because men suffering is beneath our notice, it's normalized into the culture. So normalized there's a fetish that specializes in emasculating & dehumanizing men to the furthest extent possible as an inferior derivative of the human species and painting women as omnipotent & superior, even actual goddesses.
(overcompensating much?)
Male suffering is all part of the plan baby, it's how you bring a country down to it's knees. Better believe it.
And if it's coincidence, that's even worse.
The quick ascendence of this concept to cultural gospel is reflected by how common the phrase has become.
Although The New York Times has since removed its calculator for word frequency in its coverage, screenshots posted to Twitter suggest the term “toxic masculinity” was basically nonexistent in the media until recently. Though a man did coin the term in the 80s
After that, its prevalence appears on the graph as a slope verging on vertical.
The same is true for related terms like “patriarchy” and “male privilege.” A Google search for the term “toxic masculinity” yields more than 7.5 million results.
Brokenness of Boyhood, listen to that language, the insinuation of inherit defection. I can just taste the venom through my screen. Holy shit.
Imagine it: "The Brokeness of Girlhood"
Now mind you, the inherent toxicity of women manipulating people, their propensity to be passive aggressive, jealous, vindictive, violent, slapping people, & turn people against each other, plot murders, warp a situation by feigning weakness or using tears to turn a situation- which actually makes them smarter predators & leagues more dangerous than men.
Which is why female PDF's I'd argue are not minorities, you just don't catch them.
Feigning weakness are things girls learn subliminally as children to both navigate males & also to just influence the behavior of their parents and then authorities to the best of one's ability. It's a survival technique to navigate communities & even please people. It's women can be convincingly two faced.
A woman manipulating someone isn't inherently malicious, sometimes women use it for for someone's benefit even at her own expense. They did it at work, as mothers, etc.
It even happens in classrooms or parties. Women are not stupid and it's a natural instinct of women , but it's actually very dangerous.
The entire point of GONE GIRL is to show how effective a woman can be if she really wanted to mess someone up without putting her hands on anyone.
See the problem is we've made it so "toxicity" is only defined by what men normally do wrong, not by women's standards too.
So that way when it's time for women to take accountability, it's never time, because there's always an excuse or a phantom patriarchy to blame.
The “toxic masculinity” narrative deepened further in 2019, when the American Psychological Association, for the first time in its history, developed official guidelines for working with men and boys. The document is discouraging, calling for recognition of “the impact of power, privilege, and sexism on the development of boys and men” and casting what it considers “traditional” male behavior as inherently problematic.
When men showing emotions has always been a thing, the problem is they don't express them like women, & we attribute that to negative affects later in life & not the fact that society actively neglects boys & men.
That's the point. That's how you destroy what makes a Country a threat. Masculinity.
North Korea is not shaking in their boots because we have Sensitivity Classes or because THE VIEW has an opinion, hell, this is only an argument if pretend women never start fights, or are stoic, repressed their emotions or cause trouble.
I repeat, men being stoic is toxic, Ai even makes this mistake. But women are enabled to be stoic, to be independent, to do everything, to have everything. Why is toxic masculinity only a good thing when women are told that's the modern woman?
When people say if women ruled the world-
Harnessing electricity would've been postponed, don't kid yourselves. We might be a more cultured world but a less evolved one, civilization wouldn't be anywhere near the internet or sewer systems.
With women on top, it'd likely be more fair, and that's a big if. But our advancement ?Technology? Say bye bye to your vibrators kiddos.
All in all, America is very effeminate, that's partly why it's failing. Partly, more nuanced marriages isn't why American is collapsing, feeling they had to destroy masculinity to install egalitarianism was the mistake.
Where Is the Empathy For Men?
Ignored, Americans have an inclusive, sensitive, tolerant society (Gemini A.I will tell you this bullshit)-- Unless Men or White people are involved in the conversation.
It’s debated whether certain masculine behaviors are born of dubious socialization or are the function of natural, hormone-driven biological traits. Meanwhile, many of the people shouting about toxic men also inexplicably claim there are no differences between the sexes.
Which one is it?
The idea that men can only redeem their fundamental brokenness by acting more like women is not limited to the gated community of elite academia. It permeates the nation’s mainstream reading lists, even therapy's rigid feminized models of care.
Just one example from late 2019 was the book “For the Love of Men” by Liz Plank. On the very first page, we are told toxic masculinity is more dangerous than nuclear war, followed by chapter after chapter of dodgy research in which toxic masculinity is essentially defined as any behavior Plank doesn’t like.
there's legitimate criticisms on women's part, men do commit majority of violent crimes but they also build the cities in full, bridges, die doing it too- are men going to get articles on mass press that fact ? No.
Men are the majority of violent crime perps by 80%+, and 80%+ of men are not violent criminals & sexual violators. In fact they're more so 85-90%+ the reason why your national power grids are still online. Wil feminism admit that while complaining about child labor wage gaps? Nope. Will Academia give men their due respect for doing what women (in all fairness) choose not to help contribute to because they reasonably don't want to? Which is fine, but don't present this specific "toxic masculinity" bullshit doesn't apply to women, then frame the term as if it's male issue when it's not.
Then IGNORE the burdens men shoulder almost exclusively over 80/% while women cruise on their backs and girls aren't encouraged to be self-aware that they are indeed, not the main characters, not perfect, not the solution to everyone's social contentions but part of the solution.
The narrative is brutally, intentionally backwards. How do i know it's on purpose? Who the fuck lies like this on accident, when they're supposed to be the "experts".
#MenAreTrash looks better on a T-Shirt, meanwhile they're out right now building your goddam malls
First world societies need masculinity when matriarchy fails civilization and then in peacetime men need to closely emulate or turn into women or else they're problematic.
When patriarchy is the foundation & matriarchy fits under it, the two (like capitialism & socialism), like meritocracy & equity, like men and women. The two can exist together but cannot, YOU CAN NOT remove the masculine after it's done doing the hard labor, move in the feminine as the upgrade then expect the feminine to be both the feminine & Neo masculine.
Then when things eventually collapse on the feminine watch, women are blamed when they can't be men. When the average women isn't asking for men to go away, women simply want a seat at the table & a voice to speak, and a toolbox to contribute.
Masculinity doesn't have to go away or be redefined in the image of women for that to happen.
That's exactly how it does and doesn't work.
Where is the empathy for men? The question doesn’t require us to disregard women’s historical suffering, but it also warrants that women today are objeectively not the women from 1758.
It's okay to admit women have unequivocally better now, challenges still exist, but women in first world countries are not victims. We can't use "historically" as a shield to get what we want by force, that's being a WEAK-LINK.
Rather, history simply acknowledges that in modernity most men are neither predators nor abusers, and asks the same empathy and sympathy for men that our feminist society demands for women.
"Modern" doesn't have to mean regression, failure, decline, & "mistake" but that's exactly what happened.
"-and asks the same empathy and sympathy for men that our feminist society demands for women."
keywords: "asks" vs "demands"
So we're asking people to exercise equality between men and women......fancy that. Which begs the question, if equality is what we're begging for, what is it people have been dealing with if not a gyno-egalitarianism state? Which is becoming more matriarchal in sensibility despite how many men are still in power. You'd be surprised how many elites & their cabals dabble in goddess worship, matriarchy, what do you think the Statue of Liberty is? A Sun Goddess, that's not Christian. That's paganism.
Better ask somebody.
Anyways, equality is what our foremother's wanted in the first place but their daughters inherited a hybrid of privilege and Platinum First Class Protected Status, damn near ranking above the elders and children.
We're asking Feminist society to do it's fucking job like the good old days, lmfao.
Objectively this is better & less contrived as an ending, especially without the Avengers Endgame crap, his losing the arms, then Eri magically coming in clutch. AFO going lovecraftian but no one of note (usual) no one dies, thus AFO looks more of a joke.
And in this timeline, AFO is not even involved here, so Shigaraki's agency is left intact, I haven't seen many people here mention that yet.
The immediate rough edges is how quickly Deku concedes to Tenko's proclamation of Deku's limits, it's not somethingMidoriya would verbally admit given he's believed his delusion of saving everyone his entire life; he wouldn't just submit to that reality that quickly. But the thorn would stick.
If anything, this is why more people of note should've been killed, namely some students from 1A- so Deku's concession to the reality has more weight.
Otherwise he realistically wouldn't admit it verbally to Shigaraki but as it drags on, he'd gradually have to face facts, Tenko's words would sink deeper, and he'd amp up his tactics to "end" Shigaraki to save everyone else. Resolving that he'd become stronger in the future to "save who he can" because strength is ultimately what determines how much one can do & where the limit is.
But even then, that's no guarantee, if Izuku had Supermans power & outmuscled Shigaraki, & took him to prison. That's still not saving his mind. You can't help someone who not only believes they're right, but that their wrong is justified (thus they feel vindicated as fighting for something) & thus is their ideal, their belief. Which is leagues more dangerous than a criminal with a basic need gap (like a sick wife, the fix is the money to get her medicine or Deku organizing him getting financial support, thus no criminal activity is necessary)
For someone like Shigaraki? You can't just erase that resolve because they're crying inside and you told them so, that's WHY they believe in their ideals in the first place.
That's like accusing a flame for burning something, because fire as a state of energy burns matter. Pointing out that fire burns is not going to put the fire out when that's essentially what it does.
The caveat is: a flame doesn't choose, a person can, but Shigaraki proverbially as an entity is essentially the culmination of trauma into a force of nature, like a flame.
The willingness to find one's actions a problem in the first place is the first step, even the best therapist can't get anywhere if the subject doesn't want to make progress.
Or sees progress as regression from what they perceive as "evolution" or a state of themselves as beyond the average person. These are all gray areas the manga pretends doesn't exist while trying to set a precedent of "saving someone" beyond punching them out (which was 99% of the story anyway, so not only idealistic, unrealistic but MHA is also massively hypocritical. Given his final assault on Shigaraki was a flashy punch anyway.)
This is the issue with making Shigaraki as complex as Horikoshi chose to write him.
But this way, as the video presents the two speaking in an astral plane, Izuku seems more honest & visually it's more digestible to the reader and viewer for Deku to basically 'spell it out' for lack of a better expression. But narratively it lands harder if he had to admit to himself after denying his own limit even existing.
And I personally think Deku should've gotten roughed up a lot more before the final (instant win button) punch, but that's a fight choreography preference than something that holds the sequence back.
Excellent artwork too, those evasion maneuver panels look good. 2:50 And thank op for not having Izuku call out every single move & minute attack he executes. It gives the his callouts more weight. Even little things like are improvements on the original even if OP didn't realize it.
Overall, no need to pre-emptively save face by saying it's not better than the original.
I can say for certain, what you did is better than the original ending.
It's not disrespect to admit KH laid the groundwork, but you improved it best you could within reason and it objectively an improvement. If OP wants to stay in their lane & not state it's better, fine, good on them. At minimum it's an "improvement" but as a third party myself? Rough around the edges, but compared to the canon? It's better. ✅Deku grew tf up, not by abandoning someone, but realizing his ideals are not the arbiter or everyone else's beliefs.
Depends, the original doesn't look as bad from certain angles lol.
But her magic taser crap, dollar tree lois lane-isms, her whiney scream dialogue, awkward scenes, zero presence in her scenes etc. etc.
Another dated, de-feminized, millennial/modern caricature called "MJ". And being MJ, she needs more endowment along with the face upgrade. You can have attractive women without going full Manga industry "piece of meat" treatment but that doesn't address the narrative issue. Her face is just a symbol.
Point being: She could look like Christina Hendricks but the writing is still garbage because the staffs idea of agency is her running around being Bargain Bin Lois Lane with inspector gadgets, which ironically should've been the whackier more fun parts of the game, tbh.
If she looked like that image from jump, the goal post would shift to "mary sue".
Personally, If i had to choose, I'd rather keep the Marlon Jane face in MSm2, and get a better written character, and more importantly: Presence & charisma, which she does not have.
But visually these two pics are upgrades, first one's better but the second one stays truer to the Msm2 model they went with.
Lastly, to get ppl to not "complain-" would be to overhaul the story, instead of the wannabe Kim Possible crap (& yet she's not even 1% the character Kim is in just the first episode) Give her some wit, femme fatale sass & some meme-worthy moments in the cutscenes. More banter moments with Peter so we can build up that chemistry (which they DO NOT have in the game).
Give her one liners, something! Give something the player can enjoy vs the player just watching an industry approved movie with interactive walking simulators & braindead Arkham sequences.
MJ really is just there despite how hard they tried to make her relevant and morally justified; the feminist rigid norm of the overworked careerholic woman in a dry relationship, the man is only one apologizing, and her arc culminates in her insulting Jameson & Peter telling her she's so cool.
Repeat after me: "Just because it's not Trad, doesn't mean it isn't a rigid norm."
Women not having flaws, never being the problem in relationships, overworked- is not flattering, that's not a character written like a human being, that's a talking-point in the form of a character: aka rigid norm.
All that effort & MJ just ended up being a plot device anyway.
That's really the worst part of it, the writer tried too hard because they were limited by the times. Zero nuance & it has nothing to do with her face, That's where the complaints would go if she was pretty from the start.
Mj isn't a source of strength or synergy, levity, or social cohesion. I say why not have her be the nerve center of the squad? And to be as such requires her actually having a personality vs the very feminist gen-trope of being married to her career pursuits to the point of burnout.
Which is where Peter comes in as a masculine warmth & levity, the mild-mannered cushion; so when the Symbiote comes in, there's a vacuum that threatens their bond, that relational serenity & eventually her safety.
But the point I'm making is-- something has to be there in order for something to be threatened in the first place.
Ifbthey have no chemistry & just act like platonic roommates; at worst Symbiote Peter just had a really bad attitude.
And him/Venom attacking her needed to come with ongoing physical evidence of harm to respect the gravity of that situation that builds towards his decision to let the suit go, or have that situation be the last straw.
Have Peter be on top of her, one killshot away from ending her life & then he wakes up.
Or: she tries to physically scratch at the symbiote to claw Peter out in sheer desperation, then wakes him with a calculated punch on his body, to target a wound she knows he had from a previous fight, using pain feedbacl to override the suit which is some serious combat IQ, all without a taser.
Mary Jane almost breaks her punching the symbiote & waking Peter up (meme worthy), then he sees what he's become.
Where's the Watson grit!? The kind that drove her to try to press Morlun of all people just to get her arm broken, that's peak MJ.
The MSm2 we got didn't have the spine to go there; Kraven loses his head, but MJ can't get too roughed up lol.
The story wants to insert her everywhere else she shouldn't be to inflate importance, but Peter coming to from his darkness was because of Morales (?) and not Watson's importance in Peter's life?
But she's his partner, not Miles. Sometimes the feminine approach is the stronger course of action and would make for a better conflict resolution than Miles throwing punches with Parker & hitting him with the Talk-No Deku technique.
Thus winning a fight he had no business winning and should've been written instead as Miles trying to survive Peter.
[Alien Cosmic Horror < plagiarized Jessica Drew powers] ZERO stakes, pure Gary Stu.
TL;DR point being---- whether ppl realize it or not, what warrants the complaints is more than just her face & the missions. I think her profile at this point is just the easiest target as a visual mascot for all the issues combined.
Which makes sense, I get it. But her face is more symbolic, it's not "the" problem.
For Mandom James Watsons face, she could look like Jessica Rabbit but if the writing's still slop, it'd just be a typical shonen anime at that point. All style, zero substance.
But like the Peter face change, it's not the change itself, it's what it was changed into that is the downgrade, on both accounts.
0:18 And here in the Metropolis plains the female asserts claim over the male by orally marking his food she provided, a subtle display of dominance to test his reactions & boundaries; the male, you see, is accustomed to this behavior. Very fascinating, his mannerisms during her responses.
1:40 Ahh, look closely, and here the female further asserts boundaries regarding mating outcomes.
The male has scarcely managed to initiate courtship, but she displays a pre-emptive maneuver of an alpha female, guarding her reproductive intentions with charisma than aggression or dismissal.
And thus reading his reactions, successfully enticing his interest: she leaves the social exchange with feminine alure; subsequently making her quality of value exponentially higher to the male.
Grand, nature is. So grand.
And that'll be all for now, thank you listening to National Date-ographic.
The problem is these moves are female driven but ultimately being made by men that own these entities & women as a group are the mascots for the change.
Which makes women the scapegoat for the failure & the infractions:
ergo: "See ? See?! When you make it female, it fails."
Which is as much a red herring as the forced changes.
Thus the illusion is women are the face of the issue but women aren't driving this entirely, even less so the average woman, because all the men in charge need to do is say "No" & if women are in charge, it still wouldn't have gotten this far if men didn't cave and lower standards.
If women pushed for Girls to be in the Boy Scouts & the answer was "no, period". Women would complain, there would be articles and women would get over it, no choice but to. that's the energy that needs to be had here. This isn't about rights or inclusion, it's about conquest.
*But the gap is the average man can't control that, the men in charge of these IPs do.*
If there's been one million men that did something more impressive for over 100 years and a women does the same thing but mediocre:
She's celebrated because she's the first woman or girl that did it.
Mediocrity is a woman's peak, all she has to do is participate & that's all it takes to be a pioneer now.
Being useful is not required, & the women actually pioneering are swept under the rug. (Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna)
That's the level of stagnation girls are brainwashed to believe is their "modern" destiny, a figurehead, a protestor, a nobody. Why? Because it the work for the most part has been done already by people who actually suffered & took risks to get it done.
But the useful women that actually earned their accolades are damn near myths, not because some Patriarchal enclave of old white men are afraid to get the word out that women did something useful beside make meatloaf in human history; if that's the case, those hypothetical "they" would just wipe the internet of their names, because who reads books anymore.
TL;DR Those women are myths because everyday modern women don't care what women do until some plain jane gets a "breaking boundaries" headline for signing up & being the first girl to do it.
Everything women do is a statement, because they're bored & there's next to nothing to do in their first world countries. Adopting struggles from other countires because you have little to any in your own. Burden of privilege.
The illusion of being exceptional vs the exceptional are almost illusions after their 15 minutes run out.
The loudest ones doing the least, standards lowered, not held accountable as much if at all.
Whatever women want, they eventually get, the world revolves around them, meanwhile they're not building or producing parallel to what they inherit and are given.
Despite how much even the women of merit "contribute" they're still not building much of anything still, they usually repurpose what's been founded already, which is why the hard labor field gender ratio statistics are brutal. Women have pioneered but the vast majority come along after the hard work's been done already & are held up as if they're pioneers.
AI's usual excuses is Historically, women were held back from laying down those foundations. But the truth is, women simply do not think like men. They lack the testosterone to be pioneers to the same extent that men are, that testosterone extremity is why males dominate violent crime statistics, and women dont.
Women simply do not have the drive that men do. And thats not a bad thing, the issue arrives is when women are attributed accolades that they don't deserve and the reality that everything they know and society. And civilization, as a tangible reality, is not because of women and girls are not taught to acknowledge that, but mediocrity is worth praise, that's the problem.
Otherwise: what's womens excuse now? There's no excuses now, we're not in the 1600s. Plenty of women are dwveloping breathroughs via tech, bio-medicine, etc. but what are they building thats equivalent to what they're handed constantly? There's zero excuse.
Gender roles dont require women burn themselves out trying to be something they are not; women can contribute what they can at their own pace without having to be an extremity like males are.
But when we gaslight men that they're falling behind women in some way, the natural inversion of that claim needs to be a question: What exactly are women building equivalent to What men have done? And are still doing without womens help?
When the standard of success is a feminized Lens (therapy, soft skill fields, education), we can selectively paint a tailored reality where women are always ahead and men are always behind. But what women aren't doing is never part of the equation because life isn't just about the comfy luxury of therapy, degrees vs a certification and never getting your hands dirty so the country's lights stay on another 2 days.
That's not healthy.That's not sane, that's not fair to women or men.And it's not functional, and it 's not sustainable. Its a rigid norm.
That is the threshold where women become a blatant weaklink--- when there's no accountability or boundaries, when women aren't ever told "No", and they ignore how much they're not doing in society but they're told they're ahead by selectively chosen statistics, aka bold faced lying by the media.
That is the turning point when women become a liability. And when that's your norm from psychology, to broad academia, to pop culture, to the damn Boy Scouts? You're cooked.
Feminization by itself isn't a bad thing, your mother did it in everyday of your childhood, it's what made you feel safe since infancy, that maternal presence, taking behavioral cues from your mother is feminization.
But the cultural exploitation of it or the lack of the masculine to balance it out, all of which without boundaries is why it's an antagonistic force, same could be said about feminisms current flavor.
Masculinization without parameters is equally smothering, but the masculine builds, the feminine exploits what's already built. One builds, the other mainly consumes and "repurposes".
It's just more acceptable to say men are behind based on selective statistics, than admit women are a blatant societal liability because they're allowed to be.
And girls are shielded from that reality: they genuinely think theft of boys spaces is inclusion but preservation of women's spaces while absorbing everything men have- isn't a double standard. Thus that's a liability, blatantly a burden.
TL;DR A bratty little sister that always gets her way, everything she that goes wrong in her experience is the brothers fault. But while the brother comes to resent the little sister, the actual source of the problem is the people allowing the entire situation & telling her she's an empowered "princess": The parents are the problem.*
*the problem, truly, are the people "allow-"ing it in the first place, & after 15 years+ of decline, profit and efficiency is clearly not the reason.
A female dominated field is progress, anything male dominated is something that needs to change*
It's pure warfare. Women are being set up to be the ultimate weaklink of civilization or at minimum: the face & mascot of decline, when that's not their cosmic design.
It's pure evil, not because of a change to a stupid fictional universe, I could care less.
The good movies we like already exist, just go watch those, just go play those older games, read those comics, watch the good shows that we have already.
So more importantly, the predictable resentment these changes brew in men is as much a calculated outcome as the "mankeeping" term is for womens reactions, it's pure propaganda, it's science. It's machiavellian probing.
People's reactions are the chemical outcome that these changes depend on, and people keep feeding into the formula.
Men's scorn is exactly what these agents want by taking something from men & boys or sharing it with girls & women aka repurposing it for women & girls; and men & boys just have to deal with it. And that's "equality".
But again: who's allowing them to do it, who's allowing women to think that's right? A group? A Political party? An ideology? It's definitely not just women allowing this because women aren't the vast majority of elites that control everything.
Why aren't the men in charge saying "No"? which is my point. Liberalism is not Leftism, Leftism is the radical feather of the liberal wing, it's important to know the difference.
There's a reason why this has been permitted, no boardroom fails their industry on purpose because "progress".
The warning, there are some women that advocate for cultural invasions, but they can't do anything they're not allowed to.
So demonizing "feminization/ Fem" eventually leads to resentment of the association of "fem" to Women. I already see it through what feminism did via "patriarchal/patri" / Father/ Men.
Despite feminisms resources are plentiful because of the father system, feminism has the luxury to poke the bear & not get it's head bitten off.
But that luxury extends to women invading spaces they have no business touching, at least to this extent. (example: girls don't belong in boy scouts, boy scouts should be for boys. What women allegedly were after beit a badge or funding, they should've done the work vs taking a shortcut via invading Boys spaces. But a franchise wanting to shake up a formula by appealing to girls too is not a bad thing. the issue is how you're doing it.)
Speaking out, keeping your kids away from these hypocritical organizations, boycotts, replacement organizations are the best chances you have against this.
Cultural Distancing, put on your mask by not feeding into it with your energy every single time you feel the urge to speak.
You might even have a better response than what would've been your gut reaction if you just wait at least 2 hours to 24 hours before posting your reply.
Because speaking on it alone won't do anything, these organizations can afford & have afforded decades of this: or will collapse trying, because in the end: that's the gambit-
A normal business model takes a chance to change it's target audience if the previous one fails to fund product, to betray the previous audience that never left to actively replace them for a new audience is an ideological decision. And over a decade of failure without admission of mistake or changes to the approach shows it's not about money.
It's collapse for a statement for a gaslight for a red herring, all for no one.
aaand here we go with the gender gatekeeping bullshit. 'Only women can do ABC because in my isolated world I decided as such with no logical argument as to why, none.'
Just pure semantic reasoning. I don't do it, so all men should do the same because i decided as such.
only women can have private profiles.
He says the most dumbass shit so casually., and it's lowkey sexist.
Imagine it, because he decided only women should have private profiles, men doing it is men lessening themselves or stooping to a behavior that's unsightly, or a statement of fragility for a man but thats normal for women; which says what about women having private profiles?
Bro is slick dissing & don't even catch himself. When all this is is he's mad because he's locked out of something & he wants to make it "be a man" situation (which a lot of ladies do when backed into a corner) because he wants to emasculate the people speaking on him.
The way this dude speaks a lot of the time when frustrated I often hear from women when they don't get their way. That "you're the man" or questioning someone's gender integrity/ masculinity rationale because they can't control something in a situation.
The vast majority of ppl i've ever heard or see IRL argue like that are women, which isn't a crack at the ladies in this context (despite that behavior not being acceptable for any adult) more so it's interesting listening to LTG speak on what guys do & how that looks of those men, and yet he sounds more like a sista than a brotha when he makes it about men's choices in life as a regular coping mechanism when triggered-- even down to something like damn private profile. Junior high schoolyard crap.
The irony isn't lost on me, talking shit while private is funny but man or woman how is that in any way a good look?
Why even take it further when the best point you could've made 'throwing shots while private' gets defeated by making it about gender for no reason but ad hominem.
re: "you are not the only one with clone troll channels; jfc, ltg is not special. Wings of Redemption been on that timeline for years now. You think these dudes are gay & thats why they on ya D. At least thats a reason thats remotely flattering albeit creepy (hence troll).
By the "i didn't comm" logic Imagine the strength Wings has by being that ugly, swatted, troll channels, lost gigs, they made actual fake news footage of this dude, Wings has legit mental issues and he didn't comm anyway.
Way more of a testament vs the "average" person, way less to lose than LTG, brutally lower social stakes than LTG but wings is somehow still with us by his own admission---- thus LTG swear he's this unique victim, like what's been happening to these Lolcows started with him & him only or the formula of the harassment is this next level schematic when it comes to Lowtiergod.
"only one", aaaagh come off it already lol.
bro entertains human drama, defends himself, takes pride in "accolades" per human societal standards (meaningless in cosmic macrocosm), is rightfully frustrated when people lie----
that isn't to say he shouldn't feel pride in achievement, that isn't to say he shouldn't feel frustrated when lied on, but this same dude will THEN say he doesn't feel human emotions in the next breath. Total blur.
I 100% believe his arrogance is real, but it's the fake transcendence; thats where he loses me.
If you get into a relationship to be an adult, you're going into it as baggage. Example: To be wise(er) you have to bring wisdom to her life in the first place; to expect reciprocation from him, tally up how often you do exactly that before expecting it from him.
These days a lot ppl are actually grownup enough professionally to try, but but too self-absorbed, intimidated by gender roles & expectation, way too fragile in the face of inconvenience and waaaaay too hyper "independent" focused to remain in a relationship or alternatively: be a proper partner to go the distance; which involves interdependence, not independence.
these days it's the complete opposite, most ppl are grownup enough professionally, degrees out the ass. But too self-absorbed, intimidated by expectation, gender roles & too fragile in the face of inconvenience and waaaaay too hyper "independent" focused to even be a proper partner; which involves interdependence, not independence.
Which is basically any functioning family or community.
The very thing that helps make a relationship work (interdependence), people are taught "independence" aka hyper-isolationism (specifically first world women) which maps out perfectly why too many people claim alleged "loneliness" or being "burdened" when in reality they were groomed to be single & alone and thus have zero stamina for another person's needs, thus by extension incompatible with a relationship:
good luck finding someone with no needs and doesn't inconvenience you ever.
So some see relationships as a status statement (which is natural, because that's how community's use pressure to keep people within a boundary to perform, but it can push people away if the pressure isn't benevolent. If there's no pressure, people end up aimless, which is partly how people end up lonely. Pressure is inconvenient, but it has a purpose.
Think about it: If there's no pressure to meet a standard in any video game you play, why play any video game if pressure alone is always a bad thing? No pressure is more likely to make someone give up, because what's the reward if there's no standard or role to play the game by? And if the risk outweighs the reward, why try?)
Some can manage to maintain relationships still, have kids, all amidst the sociological, economic chaos; but apparently not enough do so to represent a formula of success because the closest to it (while flawed, it worked) was abolished & now a lot of ppl don't know how to get started and or just give up before they get started because of horror stories.
The others are straight up taught by their culture not to be compatible with a relationship & then mask that as "agency".
Some people are built to where they don't see being single as a void, but most people rightfully are legit social creatures in the desire for a perceived intimate missing piece. But for too many, to try is a gamble because the "norm" where everyone understood what it was, was dismantled. Now the norm is equitable uncertainty.
*Just as subjective as a lot of Anime fan criteria of what's "good" anymore. Very egalitarian, very equitable, up to interpretation, no concrete system; unstable, unreliable, no pressures yet no consistency, no point. The result? Low quality options because norms, standards and rigidity became a threat--
yet people live rigid by their own habits & expectations everyday.
So therefore the excuse to abandon the trad ways was a bullshit gaslight. If the habit or expectation you have in question is not trad but consistent? Congratz, that's a rigid norm. Be very afraid, norms are the work of the devil, ooOOooh. And if your norm pressures someone else to perform or else there's consequence of you not liking them? Or judging them for not meeting criteria? Or you actively cut them off or criticize the partner or even resent them for falling short or them being neglectful? Congratulations, you're now oppressing someone under said norm.
Thanks for playing.
But remember, traditional norms are bad because rigidity & oppression. Simply Ignore that they work & cling to the new equally rigid system that clearly doesn't work.*
(which is why egalitarianism, like matriarchy are not legitimate as systems in the same way as the nuclear trad/patriarchal system is in how it builds. The formers are connective patchworks to fit under the traditional).
Not cause they're new, but because they have no structure. You'll find more empires built on meritocracy, utility, & trad values (patriarchal) than equity, subjectivity, & egalitarianism (matriarchal). Not an accident.
(upload version in case the url goes offline, channel taken down later on, hopefully not)
Making everything subjective is why it's so difficult to achieve a working formula, and "progress" is the red herring 'experts' use to avoid saying "We made a mistake".
It's a sick joke.
excellent video, as the social decline increases, it'll only become more relevant, unfortunately.
