7:16 Thorias' take on the c*ck thing is interesting, there's actually plenty of (air quotes) "men" that are into that garbage & far worse, but the thing is, Hollywood bombarding men with this disrespect is actually what helps perpetuates these fetishes to exist in the first place.
when the culture seeds disrespect of men for being men for decades on end, then some (air quotes) "men" will perpetuate it themselves as a coping mechanism.
so it's paradoxical: there's plenty who like it, and yet the environment they lived in (including what they watch) is precisely why they think they like it in the first place.
it didn't just come outta nowhere; decades of this cultural abuse will leave a mark eventually.
And to tie back to the show, it's insane how persistent it is, even plenty of women are tired of men being written like this, jaded, outdated, rugged and rejected.
It's inorganic and unnatural. And so one sided, and men in positions of power allow it.๐๐๐
That homie made a good observation the bob's acknowledging what he did wrong in the imprisonment chamber as Violet got them out simultaneously, didn't demean him when it easily could've & these days? Likely would've been written to do just that likely uncutting his monologue as a joke or something, especially with Helen reinforcing her own agency in the situation telling Dash not to interrupt him, that little detail is so good vs just sitting there passively & listening until Violet does her thing, everyone in those few seconds had something to do, Violet acted, Bob came full circle on his arc, Dash noticed Volet, Helen reinforced Bob's moment. Everyone had a part.
That man is paying attention to the writings nuance, much appreciated. And agreed. 1:31:15 could barely make him out over the others but he voiced exactly what that scene worked. the guy on the 2nd row on bottom, 2nd left box
10:28 That's a false equivalence, basically being gaslighted to letting go of your hobbies sooner than you would have organically has nothing to do with this extreme reaction from this guy.
What this guy is doing is a very performative, or maybe he's a hundred percent dead Serious, but this is not an average reaction no more than the ppl overhyping this movie or nay-saying its quality because of box office. (its a solid movie, saw it twice)
This is a guy with a platform and a megaphone, who knows He's going to be listened to, just like the contrasting camp.
So the personal story is kind of mixed 10:28 , "Growing up" aka caving because someone attacked your tastes isnt growing up, its capitulating.
I would say the exact same If one mocked whatever the girls liked at the time that they likely still like now, or maybe they grew into tastes in their adult years that are actually very childish.
Ladies do so plenty with their romantic novels and fic writing, or blogs taking up whole pages shipping characters, self inserts, age play--- grown women btw with jobs.
Adopting Ocs and junk like they're 13yrs old still. Am I going to make a 5000 character article or a 10-20m in on that because someone said something I dont like about a movie? No, im good.
Point being: kinda more of a waste of time than a kid in 6th grade doodling. ๐ถIt's a false equivalence.
Should they grow up because you shamed them out of liking something? and that's coming from me, the accountability guy. But there's a difference between persecution and accountability. What those girls did was persecution. they weren't holding you accountable because they wanted to help or even less likely because they saw untapped potential. Which a lot of women perceive even that young. The question is "motive?"
When you selectively put what you like into a subcategory of immaturity because someone else convinced you not to like what you like, when what they did in the first place>>>>⛔️ was immature⛔️<<<<, or likely intimidated that you had a passion for anything in your life or you had the audacity to openly display it, that was you getting played brotha.
So I get why rich made that example. The correlation is to not be so married to childish things that you become like that other guy. I agree with that.
Yet those girls saw a target and took their shot, if you wanted to recontextualize that or even at minimum, you saw the good in what they did despite how they did it, cope or no cope, that's fine; but from what the data you provided, don't turn it into something It wasn't after the fact just to fit that into this.
Example: someone made fun of that guy's tastes and instead turned him into what we're seeing right now. It depends on who you're dealing with, just mocking someone's interests isn't helping them.
Good on Op For looking at the glass half full vs declaring war on all women because of that experience, but I would take the lesson but without rationalizing it.
But that has less to do with the example you gave, cause its a stretch. because that growing up together sentiment is all fine and good. but if how what they did wouldn't work both ways. Then how they did it was a problem in the first place.
Essentially rationalizing being gaslighted out of ones own interest, that's where he loses me, we're not talking about a fetish that you would be better off without. We're talking about a simple pop culture staple for its era.
Because while this stuff is made for kids, I could say the same thing about avatar the last airbender, does that change the fact that it's a timeless classic for all ages, or that it completely narratively annihilates tv shows and animated projects that are air quotes more "mature" just in terms of writing.
Or the fact that adults wrote and made the content in the first place? so what do we really saying when we use that talking point?
What is it being made for kids have to do with anything?
I know a grown ass woman right now. Running her own business, sits down and watch the berenstain bears Because she likes the music. She likes the characters. She likes the healthy family dynamics. She even likes the setting itself. How relaxing it is, messages. Because technically, that show is made for a lower age bracket. Same with MLP, she binges that joint.
Despite having a nice phone, She will sit in the day room and watch it on full display.
Should I shame her And mock her for liking it as a grown woman, because technically, it isn't mature? despite the fact that i've asked plenty of questions and have stood by through plenty of episodes myself personally and was frankly impressed with what I saw from memes to pacing & themes.
But because of the age bracket and my idea of peers maturing together, because I'm either intimidated by the fact that she's open about it, or I feel some type of way because she has a passion for something and is open about it, or I have to adhere her to how I do things when what she's doing isn't a dysfunctional fetish behavior---- the question becomes, what was my motivation in the first place versus how she would rationalize what I did about her hobby in order to cope with it.
It's technically more normal for a minor to be doodling a fav IP versus violent tendencies because he has no hobbies or a grown ass woman watching children shows aimed for tots and kids.
Strictly: Thats if we wanted to be consistent to that train of logic.
TL;DR that raging guy in the video either has emotional regulation issues or one heckuva character to play for his content and those young ladies back then needed to mind their own business. ๐๐ฟ
i'd be the first one to say "it aint that deep, brotha snob", but snob has been out here calling this out. He's not obsessing over these people for no reason, let alone obsessing, he's reporting goons and snakes because most ppl wont. I certainly don't have the time or patience for this bullshit, so kudos to Snob.
Fact is--- Chibi is a hypocrite, and I repeat my previous scorched earth rant--- i can only imagine what this dude finna do when he hit 60 yrs old.
*this is quite the legacy he's curating for himself or has curated (past tense).*
Cause if snob has been calling this out for a decade, think about the implications of that--via how long chibi has been at this bullshit.
*We got to witness the internet & otaku culture ruin this kid's/ this mans mind in real time and he argues "foreign culture" as a shield; and when that doesn't work (cause it's not an argument) then he goes to 'fiction doesn't affect reality' clause, when quite literally to possess a fantasy is to translate or mistranslate actual traits of observable reality, then morph it through trauma & experience and thus fabricate a narrative in creative or multi-dimensional fashion aka media fiction aka FICTION.*
TL;DR Fiction comes from the thing that chibi claims it doesn't effect, but somehow despite it directly/indirectly (not interchangeable btw, not all fantasy is created equal) deriving from reality, despite fiction having objective benefits to many people (which he would cosign in a heartbeat) but at the VERY SAME TIME it does NOT affect reality negatively.*
Convenient isn't it? Age of consent isn't the hill to die on, now he's on his "fiction" talking point, every balls to the wall stance this guy claims to stand for, he always defeats himself.
Because that's not how that works.
Fiction is very much married to reality as the state of wetness is correlated with liquid.
And he's some weeb outsider from the west that likely doesn't know the first thing about Japanese culture. The kicker is, he's creating & enabling more young minds to be just like him, hence "Chibitz" or Cheezits or whatever the fuck he creepily calls these cats. That's really the worst part, not his fall, but he's dragging others with him.
Brotha is quickly approach if not arguably has already crossed the threshold of a lolcow.
And all he had to do was just divorce Anime from the pedestal he put it on, that simple stipulation would've prevented most of this shit he's on, not all, not even the worst of his lore, but it would've lessened most of it.
I pity this guy, if someone made a sped up 60 second montage of his gradual corrosion over the years, it'd be a tragedy in motion.
Could he change? Sure, but he has zero incentive to do so. That's what destroys a lot of young men & women today, social media makes it too easy to surround yourself with enablement. ZERO incentive to change.
"There are ICE agents dragging pregnant women in Minneapolis. They shot a praying pastor with a pepper ball in Chicago. You are apparently living the fantasy world."
Re:
The pastor situation 100%. He asserted it was multiple times he got shot (non-lethal bullets, still excessive).
The disabled woman "Aliya Rahman" scenario is messier.
*Apparently (per her testimony) has TBI and Autism๐จ and was not pregnant.*๐จ On her way to appointment (Hennepin County Traumatic Brain Injury Center.), she froze when ordered to move her car by several agents & leave the vehicle, which she couldn't, needed a cane.
Aliya was genuinely at the wrong place, wrong time, she wasn't obstructing on purpose.
And thus was detained because she didn't comply-- because she froze, because of her condition.
*Where ICE went wrong was the excessive force after she asked for her cane & stated she was disabled, and by omission of evidence & her own testimony, she was not pregnant.
She didn't testify as such, and her legal team did not prove as such. *
She needed a cane to walk, ICE did not provide, they confiscated it. Thats bad enough. Their immediate agenda was getting out of the situation via rapid-carry technique, which dragging is standard practice, it looks bad because of the context.
But military do the exact same to the injured when a shoulder carry is too time consuming in a high stakes situation. Dragging her was their method of choice of rapid-carry technique/extraction, but carrying her would've been more humane than dragging dead weigh. Whether it was faster is up to the beholder, I personally think carrying over the shoulder is faster.
The conduct was excessive, but even if a lie or untruth, if you're being told the detainee is pregnant allegedly & she's verbalizing for a cane. You need to breathe deep & think.
However, also understand how yells & screams can blend into background noise in the field unless it's coming from allies you subconsciously whitelisted---- however if she's repeatedly asking for her cane & you proceed to drag instead of hoist or lift or carry, thats neglect.
And while she was granted hospital care, that was only AFTER she lost consciousness; her overall treatment was unacceptable.
Neither of these sources i cite mention a pregnancy, it's a lie. We shouldn't repeat things without sources or drop it on public forums without looking it up first. Then proceed to receive likes for partial misinformation, confidently wrong.
At worst you can incriminate the fact that her being pregnant was possible & the agents didn't care and kneeled on her anyway; assuming they registered the shouts.
*But in the grand scheme, this is why obstruction & "protesting" should not be conflated as the same thing.
Getting in the way of federal officers then playing victim when actions have consequences have set a dangerous precedent for everyone, including the ICE Agents; to where a woman was accidentally in the way on her way to an appointment but the agents were in bulldog mode because they're used to people being in the goddamn way constantly.
Because everyone wants to be a superhero in lack of actual priorities in their own boring lives that could use that same exact energy.*
When if these feddies were allowed to do the operation and leave, they would literally be gone faster. That's the reality.
This is precisely why people need to stay in their place, keep your damn cars parked where they're supposed to be, stay out the damn street, & just record, picket, say your piece, posture on Blue Sky or Twitter that you're changing the world.
TL;DR _The pregnant woman situation did not involve a pregnant woman but it was still excessive; respectfully, this is why research is important._ ๐จ
Minnesota woman ICE pulled from car during arrest files claim against feds: https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/aliya-rahman-ice-arrest-claim/#:~:text=On%20Thursday%2C%20the%20MacArthur%20Justice,damages%20caused%20by%20federal%20employees.
Minnesota woman dragged from car by ICE agents gives testimony in DC:
"I don't agree with everything he says, but he's the sharpest, funniest, most insightful YouTuber out there. He was dead on with the woke stuff years ago, and he's right about the birthday party clowns for the most part. Yeah, he should stop rationalizing his own lateness, but he's right that I would rather have quality than a crap book that's "on time."
And who cares that he's losing subscribers??? The channels that consistently grow are all pandering, crap factories that just hit all the same cynical beats designed to feed the algorithm.
And who cares that he's losing subscribers??? The channels that consistently grow are all pandering, crap factories that just hit all the same cynical beats designed to feed the algorithm. And who cares that he's losing subscribers??? The channels that consistently grow are all pandering, crap factories that just hit all the same cynical beats designed to feed the algorithm."
Mixed bag.
Him losing subs actually has legitimate implications, the main one i'm noticing is his unhealthy obsession with drinker, nerdrotic & the like. Like a bitter ex-girlfriend levels of resentment.
Which is actually playing the algorithm game anyway, controversy & hate videos is sloptubing.
Because he's leaning into an audience that agrees with him simultaneously as people are leaving in greater numbers (hence how ppl are noticing the dip). Thus that "Haha 50yr old manbaby, anti-wokes R stoopid dur" talking point & the comments just echoing what he says Aka he's a pandering crap factory. Just with less effort & production value.
So perhaps he's just a shite youtuber, maybe it's something else.
More importantly, *Zack used to be that rebel, he used to be special, but now he's dancing the fine line of a Lolcow.*
And maybe.....25%/ aka a quarter of his nitpicks are valid. Like Nerdrotic's idiotic tweet about Karen being infront of Matt in a still shot from Daredevil Born Again, stupid, Zack was on point.
_Otherwise, if you're confident in what you say, then how many times do you need to say the same thing? That goes for them and Zack._ (And that's coming from me, the irony isn't lost.)
I'm subbed after 6+ years and STILL subbed just because I'm entertained by his downward spiral. For me it's more noticeable, because I sat on his channel for 3+ years came back and dude is on something different, something slightly off.
If it weren't for his rambling I wouldn't have ever watched drinker or nerdrotic, Im not subbing to them permanently but broadly thats partly why he's losing subs.
I repeat::::::: I actively AVOIDED those guys for years, him raving about them constantly got me curious, im not one of those ppl that just takes your word for it, I scope it out.
And what I heard from them directly DID NOT align with his rhetoric, at least not enough to warrant the vitriol he possesses. He doesn't bring attention to when they praise something, he highlights to his audience only the side of the party clowns he wants to pretend is the only canon event that exists of those people.
And that's not how that works, that's where he's getting this all wrong. ZERO NUANCE.
TL;DR he's like an anti-woke NPC going off an article's title for 30 minutes but for him, he's going off a thumbnail or title for 20minutes and given he's Zack with all his turtles pace verbal eccentricities, a 3 minute statement will indeed be 20- 30 minutes.
It's only now in 2026 that I typed his channel in google to confirm if I'm hallucinating this dude's derailment arc only to find out people 3 years+ prior have noticed the same thing I did. Which is what I didn't want to see.
I couldn't believe it, Reddit posts and everything. Zack used to be that guy--- Underground comics gem, but now he's here, and everyone's asking "what happened?"
Losing subs is very VERY relevant. That rabbit hole is how I found this video. Full circle. This bloat comment of mine is mapping out just one reason he lost subs, just one. Cause he almost lost mine, but I'm curious as to where he veers off to next, he could clean it up over a week and he could bounce back without compromising himself. Imagine the glowup, one of the best character arcs, but he has to want it.
Problem is if he thinks he's the "good guy" & his internal narrative is "Me (Zack) vs Them (Anti Wokes)" then he's really just re-packaging Anti-woke vs Wokes. Othering.
Everyone's got an "Other" that they think it's their job to fight, where Zack goes wrong is not realizing his participation in it or he does, hence the obsession. Creating enemies where none exist, aka purpose, aka content, aka feeding algorithm.
Losing subs is very VERY relevant. That rabbit hole is how I found this video. Full circle.
This bloat comment of mine is mapping out just one reason he lost subs, just one. Cause he almost lost mine, but I'm curious as to where he veers off to next.
So "who cares" is just deflection, it's more about "why?" it's not like he takes 5 year breaks.
So if he's still here and losing subs, there's a reason.
Otherwise regarding the pandering crap factories--- cynical beats, better editing, longer videos for viewer retention, organized playlists, articles/tv clips cited/got receipts, better energy; memes, doesn't take them 20 minutes to get through a damn sentence, bringing up cultural staple moments in entertainment history I never knew existed, they're consistent, i don't agree with everything they say either but they're also not wrong on a lot of beats regarding the cultural corrosion etc. etc. etc.
I don't know everything about these dudes, they're not my internet uncs, their content i turn on and press ESC on when I got better shit to do. So if they're on some crazy shit Zack & only Zack knows about, then he needs to go to Youtube Execs or the authorities; otherwise he needs to calm down.
Because I repeat, if it weren't for ZACK acting like a crazy ex-wife, I wouldn't have ever watched those other guys.
Waaaay more to it than just anti-wokes being cynics and Zack is the valiant Anti Anti-woke here to save us all; Just like there's more to Zack's videos than just him belaboring points, getting lost mid-thought, filibuster and coughing in our damn ears.
Meh, even with Byrne in mind, she was still mediocre. While his run was at minimum "fun" or quirky; She-Hulk's mid in the comics too, some things she did was cringe, like using her strength to muscle people through intimidation or property damage but it played off as cutesy-- dumb, cause the moron's a lawyer, not some street-gal . And yes that was Bryne.
However, the difference is she's likable, but not interesting in the slightest; she's relatable DLC. No different from Kara Bore-El.
Point being- because she's such a safe-mode, bland concept, she's non-offensive, very easy to attach to. So you'd have to put in serious effort to make her insufferable to a normie. But somehow they did it.
All it took was more intersectional feminism when the character was already moderately Feminist as she was in her better runs & it worked, I don't even like She-Hulk but I can acknowledge she works as a feminist character. Because feminism as it's supposed to be is just a woman living her life.
The whole making a statement shit is beyond feminism, because that translates to #1compensatory whining, #2 always justifying oneself, #3always being a burden out of spite because the most empowered always have their hands out but build & contribute absolutely nothing that's valuable to the infrastructure that makes their privileged reality possible. #4 defiance constantly, & the result is they represent progress at the cost of a future-----
That whiney little sister archetype, that isolationist propagandism, that's not feminism. But feminism got absorbed into that shit. So now that's "modern feminism"
Politics turned something objectively good into a gag-reflex inducer. That's what MCU She-Hulk represents, and the writing champions it. It's sad.
You have to try your best to fail an NPC character like Walters lol.
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.
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.
"I don’t think they're trying to make strong female characters. I think they're trying to make emasculating female characters. Making them masculine and overpowered is the least subtle, most obnoxious way to do that. So of course they're gonna." -@jeffjones7108
Agreed, been said this.
The preconception is that these characters are made for women & girls but they're made in spite of women & girls. A true strong female character is not strong, she's well written & thus emulates strength on feminine terms, feminine traits (tomboy or girly) aren't just "soft" they're more subtle, thus not weak, simply the other side of the coin to masculinity.
A true well written female character unifies both sexes, this is why Spider-Man, Batman, Superman aren't for men. They're for everyone.
Fact is, there's no good will in surrounding strong women with weak men and or the common theme of a strong modern woman is being a parody of a man.
One hand it's conspiracy to claim that it's on purpose, but what does it say that peoples definition of a strong woman is she exists in the vacuum of equally competent men, no challenge. What exactly is the conspiracy when it's this consistent & backhanded to women anyway that they're only strong when she has no competition?
And the majority of men in her orbit are weak, so you're signalling to men that not only to be with a strong woman means you must be weak (the "step on me mommy/boytoy/bottom male" aka License to be a burden generation of manchildren that women can't rely on) or the opposite & more likely reaction: Males see a realized woman as a threat.
How else are they supposed to see it when the trope is just as weaponized in fiction as women's dominating talking points are used as a blunt instrument against men in real time.
It leaves the realm of entertainment & enters "tangible message"/ zeitgeist/ culture after the 6th time it's in a movie.
You could just write a stable woman at default: that simply isn't girly, which is a tomboy and is completely valid & different from this "Strong woman" gag.
But they're not doing that are they? It's not about development, it's about message.
It's not about freedom or fluidity of roles. Modern voices that hates patriarchy believes in roles 100% & love rigidity more than anyone; it just has to be on their terms aka "Modern Strong Woman Archetype", the new rigidity, matriarchal supremacy, the egalitarian aka women do what they want and men stay in their place we tell them to remain in. That's the accepted rigidity.
The woman being the modern man at the expense of her own ability to be vulnerable, which leads to burnout, exhaustion, resentment etc. etc..
Elizabeth Comstock wasn't like this
Sarah Conner wasn't this
Katara wasn't this
Toph wasn't this
XJ9 wasn't this
Starfire 2003 wasn't like this
Raven 2003 weren't this
Kim Possible wasn't this
Sandy Cheeks never had to be this & she's a damn squirrel
Marlene Angel, Lois Lane, Cassandra Cain, Balsa Yonsa, Wonder Woman, Mira (Tartakovsky's PRIMAL), Numbuh 3, Numbuh 5, Sally The Car for fuck sake was a strong woman archetype, a Lawyer. etc. etc.
Sally 100% worked because she was allowed to retain femininity while challenging Mcqueen's ego constantly (strength) WITHOUT being a ballbusting mouth piece. She was on the receiving end of embarrassment which humanized her too. That is soooooooo important, these strong women archetypes are never on the receiving end of mockery or deprecation in the narrative or contradiction or held accountable--- so they're NEVER HUMANIZED.
So what it boils down to is: "what exactly are trying to say to us? Dear writers, dear Hellywood, dear academia, dear dear, sweet & rotten current state of feminism."
Decently written characters (girly & tomboy or a combination alike aka reality) aren't written to be parodies of men to be strong, thus not masculinized to dethrone a man or a boy's place in the story---- That is a very important point, because that's what this is really about, second to abolishing women's vulnerability to paint an illusion of strength (but if men do that, that's "toxic").
๐จWhich is the 2nd function of the archetype after mocking women = rendering men irrelevant to the woman, thus he has no stake, dethroned. Thus she's independent, can protect herself, no one to depend on. Which is not healthy for women, even as an overtone because women need a rock to lean on, which is why "burnout" is not a married woman phenomenon, it's not a straight woman phenomenon.
Single women suffer burnout, and so do lesbians. This is a modernity inflated situation.
Which is parallel to the disconnect of sowing resentment in women in realtime, it's all a operation to communicate a divide that men are irrelevant to the modern woman. Women don't need men, men are the side characters, thus it's not equality but the ushering of a new supremacy.
Because notice how how something "male-dominated" needs to be addressed but women being ahead isn't a problem. It's not about equality, it's about replacement, that's also what the strong woman archetype is representative for, that's why she has to be surrounded by weak men.
That's why each generation of male has less testosterone than the last, that's why how men express themselves have to be like women, that's why boys have to sit still like girls; that's why masculinity has to be redefined & challenged until you don't have men anymore, that's why modernity is failing sex relations because egalitarianism (by herself) doesn't work. That's why the strong woman is surrounded by the weak man, that's the creation of modernity, academia & feminism.
I'm not making it about men, this is all part of the picture, you have to look at it 3-Dimensionally, it's just about men, it's just about women. Can't paint half a picture but have a full conversation, it will never happen.
TL;DR That dynamic is the future. It wasn't evolution, it was a design, a rigid norm, a supremacist ideology. Patriarchy (& all it's flaws) still built a nation--
Tell me, in just 30-50 years, what is exactly is any of this "progress" doing?
This is why the people complaining about patriarchy are full of shit. The strong woman archetype is a parody of an obnoxious patriarch & the weak male is the neo-woman. Because notice how one hand it's "equity" this and "equality" that but in this case there has to be someone in charge, and there has to be someone subordinate. That's not equity, that's hierarchy. Hypocrisy.
If it was conspiracy bullshit, your birthrates would prove me wrong.
They can't because the Operation is working.
If it was conspiracy bullshit? I repeat why does this archetype tend to be surrounded by weak males likely to emphasize the illusion of her competence only in the presence of idiotic males specifically? Rarely are women cut down to put her on high.
Men are the standard competence in the minds of these writers, so they have to lessened & shrunk so she can exceed them. Not work with them as an equal, cooperate, uplift, but empowerment is reserved only for her and women--- just like it is in political reality. The men must be corrected, educated and told how wrong they are
Why is lessening of the male necessary to inflate her importance? That's literally the same shit Macrocreeps do in their fetish cult: And if thats the kind of abusive culture they're raised in, I 1000% see why they got infected with such a r#tarded fetish. It's literally a social virus cosplaying as a desire for female empowerment, when it's blatant misandry first, then misogyny, and eventually a death cult of misanthropy worship.
It's a manifestation of the Modern Strong Woman Archetype: A Woman that's simply an out of control, miserable parody of a dysfunctional male- that has to loom, destroy & sow misery through violation and "HIERARCHY" ( a patriarchal, masculine dominant concept).
Because for women to be strong the men need to be handicapped, & lessened women need a crutch to compete or excel. Because according to Macrophiles & modern allies, women are that pathetic they have to dwarf society itself because otherwise she can't make the cut.
And the giant even violates & kills women and children too, sooooo where's the empowerment?
But yeah, keep preaching how Giantess is actually about Feminism & Empowerment (I shit you not, real people with state ID's have said / & tried to argue this. What happened to us?)
All of that lore that you're living in without a care in the world: all ties into this one archetype, this one attitude.
Spoiler alert: WOMEN DO NOT NEED A CRUTCH.
And Femininity for all of history-- didn't need to hijack masculinity to be a strength, humanity needs femininity to NOT be masculinity. That's why Femininity literally, quite painfully and beat for beat, by design-- IS NOT MASCULINITY.
Macrophilia is misogyny cosplaying as empowerment and so is the archetype & gynocentric "ally"/"empowerment" society that birthed it.
Katara is well written & a likable, reasonably relatable character (for everyone) for a reason despite how overbearing she is; she is flawed and an emotionally fortified powerhouse, a warrior.
She's written to be like an actual person because (again) she's held accountable when she's out of control by the boys and girls, and she isn't left behind in power scaling so the boys shine brighter (My Hero Academia):
She doesn't emasculate the boys around her constantly so her agency isn't threatened (#Fragility). Katara is a realistic balance that reflects how a young woman is realized.
In contrast, even when the Strong independent woman archetype is a feminine character, they're the most overbearing, disrespectful, snarky, miserable person. (eg. All's Fair ) Always has the last say, never wrong, corrects men on everything, rarely in stable relationships, "woman-"plains constantly and just an all round horrible existence.
Who writes that, that consistently, from movies to tv to games and believes they're helping girls? Who does that?
Not every woman has to be the same dainty or girly archetype either, fact is, a tomboy doesn't have to be synonymous with a "prick" to be feminine or taken seriously aka "strong", so if anything it's tomboy slander.
(I'm making an active effort to stop saying "strong female-" which is just a masculinized mantra. Propagandists are good at their jobs, but not that good. I'm frankly sick of it before I'm even old enough to be sick of this shit.)
Just like Avatar Aang isn't the most macho male character on Earth but he is an example of masculinity in a male youth that not only is uplifting, welcoming, but unifying just like Katara, Sokka & frankly all of the main protag cast in their respective situations/developments as boys & girls. Young men and young women.
The same especially goes for Teen Titans 2003 cast, I can't stress that enough.
If you think it's misogyny for a woman to be turned into a parody of a man, *imagine how insulting it is as a man to be told that certain traits is toxic masculinity (stoicism, conquest, domination, cutting people off, mistreatment, violation) only for it to be presented as virtues or overlooked only when a woman does it.
Thus it's not toxic masculinity, thus the concept is moronic, it's just dysfunctional human traits: a true mask off moment.*
๐๐ You've been gaslighted again.
Both sides get spat in the face, and that's sold to you as empowering.
The "Strong modern woman archetype" as an accepted concept is a reflection of the independent burnt out woman that's equally expected to emulate masculinized traits to compete & succeed in society.
Not emulate actual MASCULINITY (honor, building, responsibility, achievement for legacy) but masculinization at the cost of her natural birthright power as femininity, a parody.
Saying there's no difference between men and women is how this trend got it's foot in the door decades ago.๐๐ When Feminism pushes for better, legally? You support that. When Feminism starts telling you how to live, tell it to shut the fuck up. That's how you avoid ....the past 30 years of sociological devolution. Feminism failed, because Feminism overstepped, because Feminism wasn't held accountable. That's where these misconceptions came from.
If this is bullshit? Or just baseless conspiracy ? Then naturally your western loneliness rates, your birthrates, your sex relations would prove me 1000% wrong by not being in the toilet right now.
Hell even Japan, South Korea, Germany, NORWAY & Denmark with their parental leave programs thus making efforts to solve this "economic" issue academia swears on God is a driving force for why birthrates are dropping but those same countries that address it are still tanking because the problem isn't economic, it's sociological.
Progress & egalitarianism is inherently flawed and economics & womens education, misogyny are all red herrings to avoid admitting we made a mistake in trying to turn women in parodies of men,
Feminism, Media, Academia, Western hubris, progress-- somewhere along the way: Made a serious mistake. And the "strong woman" , the "giantess" are an easy mascot to point at and say ...."that's not feminism", "that's not female empowerment" that's a symptom of something gone horrifically wrong.
The numbers can't prove me wrong, because consequence requires action. I can't invent the decline of first world society, because where it is now was 100% earned.
That's the crux of my point. It's not conspiracy when the statistics don't show success because masculinity got redefined and challenged until men became a question mark instead of a constant. And in dismantling the male, the female was set up to be the new modern man of the future, with no one to share that future with.
The archetype isn't causing the decline, it's a symptom of it; and the numbers reflect the symptom, the disconnect, because it is a consequence of it.
¯\_(ใ)_/¯ I want to be wrong, trust me. But it ain't that simple, it's a way bigger than just some characters.
This is sociological engineering people, propaganda is not a myth, it is a very real art, very effective science that goes way beyond just your Presidential Elections. This is why I always bring it up at the most random times, because so much of it is bled into everything you digest into yourselves.
Those poorly written mascots represent the modern woman that the current progressive zeitgeists accepted rigid norm of what a woman is or what they want them to be.
But it doesn't reflect reality entirely, but just enough to reflect the decline. Just enough for women themselves to ask "What the hell happened?"
That's why it's not men vs women, that's why I don't buy this "gender war" bullshit. It's a business, not a conflict.
Its really both sexes responsibility to check this, but men can't do it alone forever, they just look disgruntled and will be dismissed & dehumanized via labels as usual.
Thus a feminine perspective is needed because women are the targeted consumers, thus have slightly more weight in the ring in this situation, women 100% have a stake in this conversation.
Males are not the direct target of this propaganda; but men's frustration is a calculated predictability to justify making more of it. Women have been stepping up in the past few years calling it out๐ Good.
๐ But YOU need more women speaking up in order to make the industry sweat and hold the norm accountable. At minimum, represent that sane women are no longer a silent majority.
[I'm Really Tired of All Men in Movies Being Failures, Actually:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1v93ZbeDGk ]
A united front is exactly what they (conglomerates, writers, powers, studio heads, propagandists, puppetmasters, trolls with capital) don't want (hence the constant emasculation of men & masculinization of women).
A united front is something you don't see enough in your media involving these archetypes; so a united front is exactly what needs to happen here against it.
yes, people have been feminized beyond repair. Masculinity isn't a problem until it destroys. Femininity isn't a weakness until it weakens.
women are groomed to be new the modern man by design, & the women themselves can't handle it, loneliness & burnt out. And they shouldn't have to put up with the new norm is basically them being forced to exhaust themselves.
The entire point of attacking masculinity was to supplant men, so women wouldn't have a firm refuge to confide in in men, womens minds are ripe to be beaten with propaganda and society's social defenses would be nerfed with the men being non-threatening.
Non-threatening male, thats the point.
Tell women that sensitive men is what they want 30 years ago, then when they get it, straight women realize dating another woman with testosterone sucks because thats what they get dating a lot of modern men, but thats what men were turned into.
thats the entire point, thats what happens when norms are challenged for the sake of challenge & not improvement of quality of life: Chaos & decline.
the source of healing & resolve is usually the source of the pain itself. And the source of that vitriol for him, was his father. Therapy could've possibly helped the boy see past his father, but what Andrew needed beyond an appointment, was hope & a better father, or a supplant father figure, a mentor, simple as that.
No one needs to sit in a chair, & pay me in order for me to tell them that, common sense stuff.
Therapy is a business, not a charity.
The go to isn't therapy 24/7, it's purpose, it's hope. Something you achieve on your own time.
Andrew needed hope, emotionally available hope.
So much of what we blow out of proportion in our minds can be fixed with our own will, you just need people around you with wisdom. And if you lack that network, then therapy is the way.
But just running to therapy skips the natural resolution process which is two simple things: Purpose & hope = something to live for.
Post Crisis stories really got ppl thinking my mans is a hippie.
Like think about it, killing them is a no no but crippling em for life is A-Ok? Wtf. And I blame Arkham for that shit.
Let's just call it like it is, this is a Batman that realized that no-kill code doesn't work. It was a luxury he thought he could afford as a Year One, he got too old to give a crap, which is the natural direction.
Fact is, he's not Joe Chill. Batman puts down criminals, Chill killed innocent ppl. And Batfleck didn't kill all the criminals, he branded some so that others would take up the fight, which is organized vigilantism, which makes his legend even more powerful.
Even IF Batman kills, he and Chill will never be the same.
The no-kill code was simply a vehicle to make Batman more complex and have more depth as a character & motivations (& if you've seen any of my reviews, you'll know I dig that shit, waaaay more than pretty colors and animation), but it's not necessary for Batman to work.
He's actually cooler without the code. But having it makes him more complex because it's a principle, a rule, a discipline, him having a no killing code makes him more interesting. It's okay to admit that without making this code akin to a religious dogma that Batman has to abide by or else he's not Batman.
He doesn't need it to be Batman, nor to work as a entity. To be fair in reality, him being willing to go to that place but he simply chooses not to at any given moment, makes him more scary. And I thought criminals were supposed to be cared.
Which is why people take Batfleck seriously, and BatBale has the best Bruce (which a commentor has stated before) but his Batman is weak. If that dude was killing people, I guarantee you after everyone was done clutching their pearls, they'd admit he was raw as shit.
Which is exactly the reaction Batfleck got.
That's what people don't understand, SUPERMAN can afford to have that no kill code, he has damn near control of every situation.
He can realistically adhere to it. And he represents something less psychological & more akin to ideals of humanity itself, the condition of mankind. Which is a leagues more impactful message than a rich boy not killing because it's about him than something bigger than himself.
Superman shouldn't be killing anyone but even Superman has to do what needs to be done, and he does so (just ask Doomsday). Superman WILL end you if there's not other way.
The reason Man of Steel's climax didn't work is because there were other ways. What happened there was a contrivance.
But he realistically can choose not to, not only because his concept fits it better, but he's literally the kind big brother of all mankind. Batman doesn't have that reputation, by choice.
Superman is supposed to possess a hopefully hopeless love/understanding/respect for human potential, he doesn't kill because he gives life another chance. Not because if he does it he'll just take the White House next. (That's why Injustice is a stupid take)
Superman's no kill code works better than Batman's because it's about us (Humanity), it's not about Superman being a tipsy psycho. And he doesn't make it about himself, he makes it about us and what we're capable of- THAT'S WHY IT WORKS as a moral.
The same 'criminals escape & hurt more people' fallacy still exists, yes; however the caveat is he makes his code about us. We, you, me, the colony. All of us. We're all involved in his no kill code's mechanisms, because he believes in us, humanity.
That is the consequence of being such a significant ideal to the world, he has to be the example, and he takes that position seriously & respects it, and doesn't take it for granted. (He has something Kara Snore-El lacks here: a stake. Relevance. Necessity.)
For Batman, for his kill code? In most takes, it's not the same.
If anything, Batman abandoning his code overtime, for realistic/practical reasons & Superman being the contrast would make their dichotomy work even better. (Because Wonder Woman has ZERO qualms with executions but no one in the league looks down on her over it)
Which is why despite all it's problems, that was the point of BvS' Batman's brutality, Superman's sacrifice bringing Batman back to humanity after thinking Superman was some morally androgynous demon. As sloppy as it was executed, I like that theme.
It actually makes more sense that Bruce doesn't want to kill people or use guns because he doesn't wanna be like Joe chill and Batman is the one that realizes that that's an idealistic fantasy of a child (not an insult, literally it's Bruce regressed as an 8 year old vowing not to be like the person who created him, when it's not even that deep) because no matter what he does (with the exception of maybe Batman who Laughs), in standard canon, he'll never be what that man was that night if he continues to fight evil. That's the point.
And this idea that if he kills once (Under The Red Hood) he'll never "come back" is stupid, that makes Batman look idiotic. That shit never stopped Rorschach.
So he's willing to sacrifice hundreds more by not killing Joker, because he'll be worse somehow for putting down Joker & thus Batman will just keep killing because apparently he'll get addicted to it or something. (Though Batfleck & OT Batman is an example that he won't lmfao)
As opposed to being addicted to breaking joints & reducing criminals to sipping from straws for the rest of their lives or just repeating the same mistakes.
Because notice how 20 years go by, and crime rates doesn't change. People got used to Unc crashing their party, and bro can't be everywhere at once, he's just a guy.
See, Raimi Spider-man lowers crime rate because he's a positive presence, Batman is the opposite, so he has this code- not because he's like Daredevil & wants to give life a chance (though there's also issues with that that Frank rightfully points out) but instead he selfishly allows evils to escape prison & repeat the same thing/ same cycle because he's too weak to both do what needs to be done and too incompetent to not let it go to his head if he does.
This is the problem with the kill code, it adds depth but poor characterization. You can not have your cake and eat it too. And the ONLY reason we accepted it in Under The Red Hood is because Batman physically beat Jason because of our evolution biases, we conflated his physical might with moral argument also being right.
Jason was/ still is right.
And a lot of casuals that grew up on DCAU & Post- Crisis know no other way, that's the only Batman they know. And they don't use their brains that this guy is literally dressed as Satan's duke of destruction, scaring the shit out of people is fine, handicaps, reversed joints, & casts are fine. But killing the worst of the worst criminals is a no no.
I'm genuinely curious as to how Batman would handle Art The Clown, or The Creeper- if he wouldn't straight up get himself killed.
If Batman kills Joker, he's not justifying becoming Joe Chill because Chill didn't fight for anyone, didn't protect anyone, he preyed on innocent people with ZERO bodycount and killed them anyway.
The kill code means something as far as discipline goes, & Chill being the basis makes sense, logically. But again, that depth holds the most legitimacy in his youth while Bruce is still vibrant.
But as he gets older, Batman holds the light more often & crime gets used to Batman being a glorified tough-love nanny in cosplay, he'll notice it doesn't work and then evolves to match the energy or just keep expecting different outcomes by doing the same thing.
Or? Use Bruce Wayne to change the economic inequities that push the conditions to create more criminals. Or....perhaps Batman likes Gotham rotten so he can plenty of prey to toy with (But imma quit while I'm ahead, cause that's going to go to a really dark place lol)
Either way, the argument with Batman never using guns cause holds up regardless.
But the kill code doesn't. If Zarathos, an immortal, insane spirit of vengeance who's so old he can afford to just wipe out humanity because he'd reason that evil only exists as long as intelligent humanity does; so if Zarathos has the conviction to kill evil without blowing up a school bus for kicks, Batman can put down the extremes just the same.
(one last time on the dark note) Batman doesn't kill, because if he did, he wouldn't have a purpose if his regulars were dead & gone. Let's just call it what it is, Batman knows it's less about them & more about him, all about him, but not for the reasons even he realizes. (Alright i'm done)
That's also why it doesn't work, it's about him, not 100% but solely.
So when we have normies in reaction videos clenching their buttcheeks outraged over Batman killing, making exceptions throughout the fight trying rationalize in their own heads who he killed & didn't kill or if that grenade death as 'oh well, i guess he didn't kill them if their own weapon killed them' jfc dude.
Bro's braincells are in overdrive trying to adhere to his preconceptions, so much so he's driving that poor woman next to him crazy.
So so desperate to keep that norm in tact (& I'm big on norms and standards, no guideline, no standard breeds confusion. If nature abandoned norms, the microorganisms in your bodies would eat you alive vs keeping your bacteria & immune systems in check) but norms that don't work? Are subject to evolution.
Batman (a mortal who walks amongst gods & genuinely loves Gotham) & Chill (a nobody who stood for nothing). They're not the same.
Batman is not so fragile that he'll turn into Pennywise after he gets first blood, I'm not even the biggest Batman fan (not anymore) but simultaneously: I get it, and have more respect for the man's fortitude than that.
First and foremost, Batman protects Gotham, if you wanted to argue that criminals are Gotham too & that's how Batman sees them? Criminals being potential productive members of Gotham; That sounds like Superman than Batman. But that's a way stronger case than the Joe Chill stance.
Yet even then-- if it's about Batman not going crazy than it is about the criminals, then that defeats that better stance.
If it was about him trying to save the criminals, ok, cool. But it's about him.
Batman's motivations have more depth psychologically, but Superman's is less selfish, more meaningful because it's about everyone.
And to what end will criminals being a part of Gotham take priority over the innocents of Gotham long term, if the scum insist on destroying what they're a part of in the first place?
"You want to rule them by fear, but what do you do with the one's who aren't afraid?" - Red Hood
So even then, there's holes in the logic. This is the gray/ the moral argument significance that Post-Crisis made iconic to DC (the same gray that drove mah boi SB-Prime crazy lmfao). It's never just that simple.
That's why the Daredevil vs Punisher debate is so damn relevant.
