people who are so insistent that jason is morally reprehensible for killing are people who believe that death is the worst thing that can happen to someone

Discoholic šŖ©
Sade Olutola
YOU ARE THE REASON
untitled

No title available

PR's Tumblrdome

blake kathryn

tannertan36
TVSTRANGERTHINGS
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

Kiana Khansmith

pixel skylines
$LAYYYTER
No title available

gracie abrams
we're not kids anymore.
Sweet Seals For You, Always
h
The Bowery Presents

No title available
seen from United States
seen from India

seen from Canada

seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Mexico
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Canada

seen from Singapore

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from Vietnam

seen from Brazil
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Nepal
@av-potatogun
people who are so insistent that jason is morally reprehensible for killing are people who believe that death is the worst thing that can happen to someone
The Raven Cycle
we are in the midst of a friday ass thursday. keep your wits about you.
we are in the midst of a friday ass thursday. keep your wits about you.
Both sent to die in space for the sake of humanity...
š JAZZ HANDS! š @castielrisingabove wanted Grace with Eridian jewelry; I had so much fun planning and drawing this! Go check out their amazing fanfic, too!
+ some notes on the jewelry below the cut :3
instagram | tiktok | commissions
people are somehow always having the argument of "jason was an angry robin" and "jason was a violent robin" and whatever.
now, i understand the people who try to lead a horse to water and say things that amount to the idea that reducing a character to just one trait is always disingenuous and misrepresentative of the actual character. i also understand the people who (poorly) try to point out that there are robins who, as a baseline, were more aggressive as robin.
i do not do this, i block people. no one has nuance and everyone will point to the same two instances, and so they don't actually know what they're talking about. if you can only point to aditf and the diplomat's son, then you have failed and should not be taken seriously.
you are making this claim, you must prove with comics of jason as robin that he was exceptionally violent and angry. the exceptionally there preemptively ruins most arguments, you cannot prove him as more violent or angry than the other sidekicks that were being written at the same time, so therefore any violence and anger shown is at a normal level for his type of character (child sidekick).
anyway, i thought it was obvious why those two comic arcs aren't proof, but i ended up getting asked why they don't count. i answered the person, and i will explain here.
the violence and anger in those arcs is not treated like a normal state of mind for jason, bruce does worry about his mental state the whole time he is behaving this way, to the point where he ends up benching jason. that benching is what leads to the rest of jason's plot in aditf, and therefore was nothing more than a reason for jason to get to the rest of the plot.
it is a common tool in writing, a character with a tumultuous backstory gets sudden bouts of violence as a way to open up about a plot related to their backstory. it does not work unless the violence is sudden and otherwise out of character to their friends/family/allies. it is also used frequently with animal characters as a way to show a larger problem is at play, a cat hissing at the disguised villain, a dog growling/snapping at their former owner to show the cruelty suffered, etc.
a robin capable of both pulling back in an extremely emotionally wrought situation (the incident when he finds two face killed his dad and bruce hid it) and capable of pulling others back (stopping bruce from beating the joker to death) is the perfect example of a character where 'random' bouts of violence can be used to indicate a larger issue at hand.
i redrew it + with human skin tones! :)
āCharlie, go grab us a coupleāa beers from the back room.ā
Doodling my Zukka bubus to get out of art blockš
in reference to my last tags, i would like to note that i do subscribe to theory of multiliteracy
1) any and all y'all that paid attention to what i said last, thanks but also you're wild
2) i also have a larger issue with the shit i was complaining about with jason and bruce. cause its not that people just willfully misrepresent characters (which does also happen), it's that they almost can't contend with the idea that actions that seem reasonable from one pov can be completely unreasonable from another.
it would be hilarious if not for the fact that refusing to accept nuance is damaging and indicative of a refusal of critical thought. especially since they are often the ones who begged for the nuanced hero. all those people insisting that batman should be truly dark and gritty don't seem to understand that to have a dark hero there needs to be points where he is genuinely malicious and unreasonable to all those around him even as he internally justifies it.
and that's the obvious nuance they asked for. not even accounting for the prior nuance, like bruce thinking him not calling dick was allowing him to become his own hero without the oppressive calls of gotham and the shadow of the bat. dick saw it as not being trusted, as still being considered as sidekick level, instead of someone who is a hero in their own right and can step up and take over when bruce needs it. that is a nuanced topic, cause neither are wrong, and both are allowed to feel upset with the other for their reactions.
but there is this idea that certain characters can do no wrong (typically the more popular of the set) and that the other character is inherently in the wrong for whatever upsetting thing they did.
bruce and jason is a good highlight for this because so many people only view jason through the lens of angry and unreasonable. that is a lens bruce put upon him, and doesn't crop up in his comics. this does not stop people from viewing him through bruce's lens in his own comics and still calling him unreasonable.
it seems in part an issue with the dropping literacy rates, critical thought and analysis are not basic literacy skills, and it appears to have gotten worse over time. however, i also think that some of the blame lies on the "lower form" arguments that have been made for years. there is no room for subtlety and nuance in lower forms of media, they were not designed to analyze. all that junk people spout.
people have had issues applying the idea that any media can be complex and it is about the story told rather than the mode of deliverance that shows complexity. whatever trouble people have with analysis of novels and arthaus films doubles when it comes to comics and cartoons. hell, enough people couldn't recognize the watchmen or v for vendetta as satirical and alan moore disowned them rather watch people view them as tacit endorsements.
there is something to be said about how little people think to analyze things they consider subconciously lesser or easier, and it shows so often in conversations about comics.
Ambessa: "no! We must distance ourselves, she is safer as our enemy"
Meanwhile Mel Medarda:
"What the fuck"
Turns out you can roll a 7 on a d6
but only once.
he's working hard!
This fucks exponentially no more "good rep" I want exclusively bad evil metal hardcore rep
Hereās how the creator confirmed they were Nonbinary, which might just be the best way to confirm any character as Nonbinary.
Tips if you want to start writing
Rat ultrasound
i know she ate a cheese