He's told me before that it's like a knee-jerk for him. Something he doesn't consciously control. He sees two men behaving romantically, and his body reacts with mild discomfort.
In the 1960s, when he was in high school, most of the boys in his form thought he was gay on the simple fact that he wasn't homophobic. He wouldn't participate in insulting queer people, he didn't care if someone was gay, he wouldn't have a problem hanging out with gay people. So people thought he was gay. That's how prevalent homophobia was in his formative years.
When I was 10, my dad told me very seriously that Holmes and Watson were gay. That it was obvious from the literature and the time period that they were meant to be a gay couple. When I was 14 and I came out to my parents as bi, when my mum was upset my dad ripped into her for it. Told her that she was being stupid, that it was my life to live how I wanted to and that she needed to get over herself.
My dad formed my views on censorship: that being that it was completely ridiculous and thoroughly evil. He didn't believe in censorship of any kind. If I asked him a question about sex, he answered it honestly. When I was 12 and I asked him about homosexuality, still young and uncertain, he told me that there was nothing wrong with it. That it was just how some people were. That there was likely an evolutionary reason for it. And that for some people it was uncomfortable on an instinctual level.
He taught me that just because you're uncomfortable with something, doesn't make it wrong. He also taught me that most people don't understand this.
I see a lot of this on the internet as of the last few years. The anti shipping movement, the terf movement, the anti ace movement. It all stems from discomfort that people have crossed wires into believing means wrong. Really every -ism and -phobia out there stems from this same fundamental aspect of humanity.
The next time you see something and you automatically think it's disgusting, or wrong, or immoral, I invite you to ask yourself: is this actually wrong or does this just make me uncomfortable?
i will never not be proud of this fic
(please heed the warnings)
dead men tell no tales
Jason died. But then he came back.
This keeps happening.
(Not a groundhog day loop, but something slightly worse.)
and the sequel
the living have to listen
Tim and Jason talk in the aftermath of Jason's most recent death, and Tim learns the truth about Sheila and the circumstances of Jason's first death.
So the thing is boobs really do be jiggling. If having breasts has taught me anything it is that the ladies frolic. I don't even have that large of boobs but every time I go down some stairs all I can think about is that stupid quote about boobing breastily down the stairs or whatever it is because God Damn.
But anime and video game boob jiggling is like. The most uncanny valley shit I've ever seen nine times out of ten. You would think people this horny about tits would have actually looked at some but I guess not.
What we really need is some pervert to compile the ultimate visual guide to boob bouncing physics that's just like 500 hours of meticulously organized videos of breasts of different size and shape and under different fabrics bouncing around from a wide variety of physical movements so horny game devs can finally get it right and I don't have to be creeped out by women who appear to have surgically implanted softballs in their chest under skin made of rubber bands.
dammit, I can't find it now but there was a gif floating around years ago with an anime girl running, with absolutely peak ridiculous anime boob physics, literally one boob going up while the other was going down...and then she reaches in her shirt and pulls out a couple of cannonball bombs, suprise those weren't her boobs. It was a great visual joke but I can't find it anywhere
Saying teenager who was murdered "got himself killed" because he made a decision to approach his mother and was tricked "isn't victim blaming". Okay. Sure.
Even if Jason hadn't been tricked, he didn't "get himself killed". A man killed him.
(This is from the same person who hates Steph, and I happened to see it when checking if someone else had blocked me out of curiosity)
This entire ask answer is in order to exonerate Tim from victim blaming, of course. Because Tim is not allowed to have flaws.
For the record, I do think a lot of Jason fans can put way too much emphasis Tim's victim blaming in particular out of their beef with him-- I've seen a claim Tim "does it to Jason the most" which is not true. as someone who went through all the comics that mentioned Jason post death on that doc, no, that's Bruce, followed by Dick.
And I do honestly give Tim the most grace for it too, because 1. He was a kid, while Dick and Bruce were grown men and 2. He didn't know Jason, and only has Bruce and Dick's take on him to go off of. He absorbed what they told him, and took it to heart. That's what kids do. Meanwhile, Bruce and Dick did know Jason and what he was actually like (especially Bruce), which makes their active rewriting of him feel grosser.
But his version of Jason saying "I killed myself, I thought I was [tons of wild inferences] is yeah, victim blaming. It doesn't make Tim a horrific irredeemable person. He's a kid with flaws who's mirroring rhetoric from adults about a kid he didn't know, definitely out of fear he'll meet the same fate as Jason.
(And then he goes and defies orders immediately but it's okay when he does it because DC said so)
It's just a shame DC thinks he's right, so those flaws can't be seriously reckoned with or explored in an interesting way. Tim learning that his impression of Jason has been warped could have been interesting. Dick and Bruce having to face the fact they said awful things about Jason in order to give themselves semblance of control-- that something was wrong with Jason and as long as Tim's a good boy the same won't happen to him-- would be interesting.
And since of course we bought Steph into it- it's not about making Jason or Steph perfect victims. It's about how apparently they need to be perfect victims in order to be children who aren't routinely blamed for their own murders. They aren't allowed to make any choices without having those choices used against them in an argument they were the ones to blame for their deaths.
Shifting any responsibility off the adults in their lives and their actual murderers in order to make it about their choices is wrong.
It's not that Steph and Jason don't have agency. Both of them do. Both of them made choices within the narrative. It's just that their choices aren't given any grace by the narrative, or treated in a normal way.
Jason was doing what pretty much any hero who wanted to save a loved one would do in his situation. Tim and Dick disobeyed similar orders and it turns out okay and is treated as heroic and because the narrative says so. I do not believe either of them would have waited around for their Mom to be in danger from a killer either. I believe they too would try to convince her to come with them.
(And as if to further prove my point some person tried to 'gotcha' Jason with 'why didn't he question why his Mom was allowed to take a smoke break'....why would he? She wasn't being tied up, she was being blackmailed, but she was with one of the most volatile killers on the planet and that could easily change if she stayed, Jason was pretty clearly trying to tell her he could help (as Robin) and they could leave together with him protecting her, And even if it was that Jason didn't put two and two together...how the fuck would that make him any more responsible for his own death. Are you trying to say he deserved to die for not noticing something???)
Stephanie made a reckless choice, and I would never deny that. It was something she should have put more thought into. It's something she regrets in the narrative itself.
(I hate to bring up my stupid fanfic, but that's why I have Steph hate when people to act like she didn't make her own choices in my own work. It's hard to balance acknowledging outside forces and manipulation vs knowing she was not completely helpless against the circumstances.)
But not ignoring how she was failed and mistreated by the adults around her and driven to desperation isn't removing her agency, it's holding a grown-ass man accountable, and questioning the framing of the story and how it treats women.
Because it ISN'T just Stephanie the narrative shifts the blame onto to absolve Batman. It's Leslie too. The narrative throws an important figure in Bruce's life under the bus, going against all previous characterization, to make it so Bruce faces less guilt. We have to make sure only women are responsible for Stephanie's death, and only women face consequences. If that didn't make it clear that the story has a misogynist agenda, that the character's actions are not about telling a good story, nothing will.
And, like with Jason, when similar choices are made by another character- the many times Bruce has accidentally gotten people killed with his plans ACTUALLY going out of control (Failsafe OMAC etc etc infinity)- he's not punished with death, there's no implication he is an irredeemable screwup destined to die for this.
DC doesn't tell these stories with no agenda. DC has reasons to frame these deaths that way, reasons they wrote it that way. They admit to hating Jason and trying to "make Jason unlikable", they now have a need to explain how Tim is better and different.
Steph was going to die no matter what at their hands. They faced pushback like Devin Grayson questioning them why they always kill off female characters and characters of color in meetings they ignore or laugh off. They have Dylan Horrocks report that the meetings were gross and seeing them plan Stephanie Brown's torture and death made him feel sick and he felt vindicated when Girl-Wonder called it out. They made Steph and Gavin the sacrifices for very specific reasons, their choices were motivated by racism and misogyny.
So they need their own characters to justify their hatred. They have them victim blame and the audience is supposed to agree. Analyzing that, saying "what this character says is fucked up but the narrative supports it, let's talk about why that is" it's part of engaging with media. Even when your fav is one of the characters.
Also from a different poster:
Insane thing to say. People victim blame without actively making the culprit less culpable all the time. They can still say the serial killer is culpable while saying 'that kid got himself killed by getting in the car with that killer'. It's a horrible thing to say irl, it is victim blaming. It happens with rape all the time too 'hate that guy but you did this to yourself by taking a drink from him" that sort of thing.
Often the culprit is treated like a force of nature, something horrible that can't be helped and could easily be avoided, like the victim intentionally walked into a hurricane or something, and clearly wanted to die, and that's pretty much like how the Joker is treated. He killed Jason, and we hate him, but he's just what he is, so let's blame Jason for being near him instead.
Gobsmacked by this. Really shows how real life beliefs play into how we talk about these characters.
rest of the ask under the cut so if this gets back to someone nobody can claim its out of context.
He's told me before that it's like a knee-jerk for him. Something he doesn't consciously control. He sees two men behaving romantically, and his body reacts with mild discomfort.
In the 1960s, when he was in high school, most of the boys in his form thought he was gay on the simple fact that he wasn't homophobic. He wouldn't participate in insulting queer people, he didn't care if someone was gay, he wouldn't have a problem hanging out with gay people. So people thought he was gay. That's how prevalent homophobia was in his formative years.
When I was 10, my dad told me very seriously that Holmes and Watson were gay. That it was obvious from the literature and the time period that they were meant to be a gay couple. When I was 14 and I came out to my parents as bi, when my mum was upset my dad ripped into her for it. Told her that she was being stupid, that it was my life to live how I wanted to and that she needed to get over herself.
My dad formed my views on censorship: that being that it was completely ridiculous and thoroughly evil. He didn't believe in censorship of any kind. If I asked him a question about sex, he answered it honestly. When I was 12 and I asked him about homosexuality, still young and uncertain, he told me that there was nothing wrong with it. That it was just how some people were. That there was likely an evolutionary reason for it. And that for some people it was uncomfortable on an instinctual level.
He taught me that just because you're uncomfortable with something, doesn't make it wrong. He also taught me that most people don't understand this.
I see a lot of this on the internet as of the last few years. The anti shipping movement, the terf movement, the anti ace movement. It all stems from discomfort that people have crossed wires into believing means wrong. Really every -ism and -phobia out there stems from this same fundamental aspect of humanity.
The next time you see something and you automatically think it's disgusting, or wrong, or immoral, I invite you to ask yourself: is this actually wrong or does this just make me uncomfortable?
War Games and Under the Red Hood being right next to each other makes me lose my shit. There is no gap between these stories and Judd Winick even wrote part of War Games but he doesn't seem to realise how wild it is to follow that up with UTRH.
War Games is about Batman trying to gain control of Gotham's gangs as harm reduction, not stopping their activities but monitoring and controlling them via his ally, Orpheus, who is propped up to lead all the gangs in a coalition. He is unable to do this and it all ends in disaster.
5 seconds later, Jason returns to Gotham and gains control of most of the gangs real quick and then takes out his competitors. He does what Bruce was unable to do and for the same reason, to reduce harm.
But Bruce's actions are framed as heroic and Jason's aren't. Judd Winick himself said "Along with handing out his own brand of justice, he does believe that crime can be controlled. Batman had said it makes you a crime lord. Jason doesn't think it makes him a crime lord at all. He thinks it makes him a much more effective Batman."
I must ask how is it that this makes Jason a crime lord but Bruce wasn't one when he was trying to control the Gotham gangs five seconds ago. How is Bruce on his high horse like "Jason is a crime lord in denial"? What was he five seconds ago then?
And yeah, Jason is more violent than Bruce was of course, but instead of trying to work with him and get him to his side/to be less violent like he did with the other gang leaders, he immediately goes on the offensive.
Then Bruce slits Jason's throat to save Joker right after firing Stephanie because "We don't use potentially lethal force." What Steph did was markedly less dangerous than slicing someone's throat. The hypocrisy of it all.
It's always the same damn dream. You didn't really escape Coldridge prison that time, Corvo. You get out, you fall into the river. You are unable to move and the hands just keep clawing you back. They pull you under water, drowning you, suffocating you.
And then you just wake up.
Back in that cell again. Dark, desolate, quiet. As if nothing ever happened.
For this year's @dishonoredgiftexchange fugue feast for @endymionatlatmus
Hope you like it!
(i threw a bit of the first prompt in with the second, I hope that was ok)
saw this reel and thought tumblr would appreciate it
og caption: “so there’s this trend going around where you put something “that takes the edge off” between your fingers… but the office kind of ran wild with it 😳 my Japanese salarymen are up to no good again 🙏”
