Roselle (yes like the flower)

My hyperfixations vary day to day but currently they are . . . Sonic the Hedgehog (only watched Sonic Prime don't know anything else) Miraculous ladybug (that show has left scars) Naruto (This was a problem) My hero Academia (don't worry I won't be posting much about this) Frozen (rarely) Disney's Wish: My Au (When I get time I'll develop it trust) ROTG (And just gonna at Rise of the Guardians since it is accompanied with Jelsa) INDIAN CINEMA- gonna post about this occasionally once I get it out my drafts, recommend me movies to watch and I'll rate them Also I got a Desi Rapunzel Au because I hate the live action cast and take everything I said about it before back. Stay for the rants,fanart,fanfics you name it I got it Edit: I changed the desc because I haven't been really posting in a while. Also I need to change my profile pic I drew that like 2-3 years ago.

[rosellerivers19]

@umbrulla The importance of noncanon shipping

I ship Ram and Bheem but the thing is I ship it as a headcanon because it is a headcanon it isn't meant to be canon kind of like Gaara and Naruto people ship them because they see ways they could've ended up together but in the end it wasn't canon.

You can disregard the canon ending from your mind and sit in your fantasies if you want thats fine I'm a sasunaru shipper I know that but the only problem I have with you @umbrulla is that you actively stated misinformation you in the beginning of my reply chain with you stated that Sita isn't Ram's fiancee which is untrue she is his fiancee/lover

Second this post you state that Rajamouli said in an interview that there's a romance/bromance between Ram and Bheem only but thats untrue again Sita is Ram's canonical lover and in an article Rajamouli states that his intrepretation of the work was that Ram and Bheem were meant to be a male FRIENDSHIP. The LGBTQ interpretations are okay I have no qualm with that but thats all they are representations Rajamouli never stated them to be a romance between only Ram and Bheem he gave those two love interests in the movie Sita and Jenny.

Since you can't see the article I will show you

Also to support the fact Rajamouli interpretted them as a male friendship Ram and Bheem in Rajamouli's head were a brotherly bond both Bheem and Ram often call eachother bhaiya or brother in the movie and there's a scene referencing Bheem to Ram's brother before he died when both his brother and Bheem eat with their left hand.

Another piece of mis information both Ram and Bheem are Heroes of the stories its not uncommon for their to be double heroes in telugu cinema RRR is a portrayal of that. People have headcanons and ship Ram and Bheem that is true but Bheem never marries Ram actually no one gets married in RRR and the closest thing is sita being Ram's lover/ fiancee that is why she is sent a letter to collect Ram's body when he is sent to be killed because she is his closest family member and fiancee this was set when they were young.

Also Bheem states Ram to be Sita's fiancee

Further more Ram confirms to Bheem that Sita is his lover/fiancee in this scene

Einthusan didn't translate it exactly but the word can also be interpretted as lover/fiancee.

*Ram nods*

Another thing Seetha and Rama are one of the most popular love stories and reincarnation stories of Lord Vishnu this Rajamouli's way of stating they are true lovers.

Ram marrying Bheem is your interpretation but can also be incorrect. In Hinduism people to get married by tying the nuptial thread around one's neck however in this case Bheem is a reference to Hanuman a sacred servant of Rama from mythology his job is to protect rama and reunite him and Sita this reference is made very openly clear in RRR. Ayyapan is a interpretation that isn't as clearly stated can be used for headcanon shipping material though. Bheem gave Ram the necklace to save him.

I don't have a problem with shipping Ram and Bheem the only thing I have a problem with is you repeatedly stating misinformation to prove that I'm wrong now this might just be that you weren't able to get a clear understanding of parts of the movie because of the language barrier or you don't remember them but I also am allowed to defend myself I hope you read this post and get a better understanding of what I was trying to say, I'm wrong in parts as well during the previous argument I accept that.

Edit: One thing I'd like to add to my response I think Rajamouli made the movie seem straight on the front because he was scared of rejection thats why he added the whole Sita being Ram's fiancee and Jenny kind of being Bheem's love interest. This is because Telugu cinema doesn't openly accept LGBTQ cinema however with the overwhelming support from Westerners about this Cinema being about Gay lovers RRR could be a turning point in Telugu cinema. Rajamouli making Ram and Bheem seem Hetero was for his OWN Protection so his cinema wouldn't flop. that doesn't mean you can't make headcanons.

[rosellerivers19]

hey wow this was certainly a take I had.

see I remember being way more intelligent when writing this but looking back on it now I seem kinda bigoted.

‘Fantasies?’ Bro what I was literally so insufferable 😭😭

I am so sorry to the original creator I seemed to have been watching this movie with a hetero normative mindset in mind and was NOT Open minded at all. If I I actually took a second to look at their takes I should’ve realized that they there was literally nothing wrong with what they said as they backed up their points with evidence and I was just making up drama for no reason.

I am so sorry @umbrulla for thinking I had some omnipotent say on this movie just because I was Indian that was not cool. While I do think that Rajamoili had heteronormative views in mind when making RRR because of where he grew up and some patterns I saw in his other movies ex: Bahubali where the movie forcibly strips Avantika to feminize her that might’ve not been the sole idea and I should’ve not made such a big deal over some shipping.

I am deeply sorry for acting like that and please anyone who sees this post take whatever I said in the past with a grain of salt.

I won’t be deleting my post just because I don’t want to erase my mistakes and pretend I’m this perfect person. I too am unlearning heteronormativity from my societal upbringing and the general white supremacy of current society.

I’m gonna scroll through my posts some more and see if there’s anything else I should rectify when I have time.

again so sorry for my weird discourse

[demaparbat-hp]

This isn't what Katara had in mind when she asked for a taste test (she's not complaining, though).

[18810425]

Legends✨🫶

[18810425]

IT'S SUMMER!!🌴🌺🪼🧊

[rosellerivers19]

The resemblance is literally so uncanny

[rosellerivers19]

Back to drawing Dc girls (WIP)

I love drawing butches

[rosellerivers19]

If you're attracted to masc lesbians Why don't you just date a man? (Answering Stupid Questions)

There was this whole not debate but ill intentioned question going around on tiktok posed by some woman about why women who date masc women don't just date men and have the 'real' think and that question did not make sense to me whatsoever as a cis straight girl myself.

see I love the philosophy that the environment shapes us that no one is inherently evil it is just our surroundings that make is act in more socially acceptable and unacceptable ways this doesn't apply to sexuality however because I believe that to be a genetic or biological thing or something else entirely as proven by how people can grow up in the most heteronormative communities and still end up gay or trans always have a feeling that they're different.

So when I heard this question I was really surprised that some people were actually finding merit in this question. Masculinity is a social construct it is not something inherent it differs from cultures, countries, time periods etc. Masculinity as we know it now is very different from what it was like in the past.

Look at 18th century England where men used to wear make up fake wigs more elegantly presented clothes that kinda even look like dresses. That isn't what we in current day society at least in the USA typically attribute to masculinity yet people still fell in love and were getting married and procreating during that time. Does that mean the women were gay because they were with more feminine presenting men? No right they were still straight because they liked men no matter what they wore or how they acted if they were in to that they were into that excluding the women who were basically forced to marry there were still people who genuinely cared for and loved for each other.

I like to use this next example because it might be a bit more overt and relates to me but the same applies to different cultures if more so.

For example in India royalty wore jewelry even men especially men actually and had certain styles of dress again that might give the silhoutte of dresses.

The princesses and Queens who married into this royalty wouldn't have necessarily married women in the same breath as they married these men because they still in some way shape or form were attracted to these men and gay marriage and courtship was probably not legal whatsoever but that's a different topic.

Korean men's beauty standard is typically to be clean shaven, soft skin etc. something American masculinity rejects more based on facial hair, a strong build with a lot of muscles etc. Totally different ideas of masculinity but both are valid.

Dress, clothing, jewelry, facial hair, hair length, style etc. are contributing factors to what you are attracted to but if you like men no matter how conventionally 'masculine' presenting a women is you won't like her ditto to women who like women no matter how fem presenting a man is you won't like him.

I also want to clarify this also applies to trans people in a way because their style of dress or anatomical attributes does not make them a certain thing. A trans woman could be flat as hell like me and is STILL a woman. They can wear baggy shorts and t-shirts and are STILL a woman. They do not need to be conventionally 'feminine' to be considered women same with trans men they don't need to be traditionally masculine presenting to be considered men.

There is so much wrong with this question being posed at all it masculinity and femininity is a social construct it is not based on genetics what defines it varies a lot taking a history class in high school should inform you of that much.

Sorry if this 'rant' is kinda short but I feel like this is really obvious and I get kinda annoyed when I see these stupid questions being circulated every few weeks on tiktok.

I'll probably have some more stuff to add later about this topic but for now I'm encouraging everyone to please have some critical thinking skills

[rosellerivers19]

Wow this year is something . . . (Alex Meyer's Obsession video)

So I truly wasn't lying when I said this year has been the purge equivalent for youtubers huh?

I watched Obsession after watching the Backrooms and couldn't help but notice they difference in color grading and use of bgm, character dialogue and lighting. And most specifically the message. I would like to argue Obsession is way more direct in their messaging compared to backrooms which is supported by the fact Curry Barker and the rest of the cast has said over and over again that Bear IS the villain of the story while with the Backrooms we're given like a confusing shift in perspective it seems sudden and abrupt to see Clark in the first half then the second for some and it seems to confirm people's initial doubts for others.

Nevertheless where I'm going with this is Obsession didn't require a detective's stamp of approval to know what was going on. Bear was bad everyone could gather that from where they started realizing the true depths of his depravity varies. On a first watch you might not be getting the full picture you might just think that Bear ended up 'turning' into a bad guy.

But if you watch it a second time you can gather that that's not really the case. Maybe I'm biased because I saw some tiktoks before I watched the movie but I thought it was weird how overly defensive Bear was. I found it concerning how he 'repressed' his emotions from Nikki like in the beginning when his cat died. He told Sarah but he didn't want to tell Nikki. He never felt comfortable even as a friend sharing deep parts of himself with her.

A relationship could have never progressed without being honest with each other, and I think he knew that. He desired Nikki yes, he wanted what she represented he wanted her to not just like him but love him deeply without truly getting to know him.

Sure Ian kinda discouraged him from being true to his feelings in the beginning but it wasn't like Bear had only bad influences the waitress in the beginning complimented him on being honest but no Bear only took value from toxic male figures AKA Ian.

Bear didn't know anything deep about Nikki because he didn't WANT to and she didn't either. He didn't know about her relationship with her dad despite possibly knowing her from high school or college nor her true passion for writing.

A relationship would've never worked when the friendship itself was so bad.

These details some people can get on the first watch while others might understand more on the second. When I rewatch movies I always find details I missed the first time that's the kick of it.

See Alex Meyers seems to relate to Bear in a way I think in the video he said something about relating to feeling like an awkward nerd because he was the same way in highschool? I dunno I didn't get to watch the video in full cause I had better things to do but I saw a lot of criticism on it.

The thing is I could see similarities between myself Bear too but that is like on a very surface level. I'm awkward with my feelings I'm kinda an introvert and struggle to make friends but even if I'm upset or sad eventually I recognize the value in sharing my feelings if they're truly important to my relationships with other people.

Bear does not! Nikki asks him if he likes her because it is important to her but still he refuses. Do I admit that's kind of an awkward situation? Yeah but all I would need is a few seconds as she gets to her door to get it together realize the importance of this moment and be true to myself for both of our sakes even if it ruins the relationship (which it was ruined way before that) it would at least clear up things.

And wow it was disgusting trying to compare myself to Bear I think I threw up a little actually but yeah back on to my main point. Alex Meyers has always been not really my taste.

And I know what everyone's thinking yet another person saying they always had a weird feeling about someone after they have a controversy and I would like the clarify no that's not what's going on!

Okay see when I was way younger maybe like 9-10? I was into Miraculous Ladybug watched all the episodes and everything and I came across Alex Meyers video reviewing it. I remember after watching the video I was upset feeling like he didn't understand the show at all and wrote a comment talking about all he does was hate on shows and he didn't seem to like much of anything he watched by looking at the titles of his previous videos.

Years laters I got embarrassed knowing that younger me probably didn't understand the purpose of his channel and had just wrote some illogical bashing on him because I couldn't understand the true depths of what he was trying to say in his video and had begun to dislike some elements of miraculous at that time.

But now looking back on it I think younger me was right. I mean sure I was probably just trying to be mean because he said something not so nice about the show I liked but I also had the right thought process.

Alex Meyers never really goes in depth with the videos he makes just making jokes here and there which i don't even find is really funnY?

I used to watch some of his videos but it was background noise rather than actually enjoying the content I just wanted to know what happened in the movies so I didn't have to actually watch it and he was the only 'certified' youtuber I knew that made them.

I much prefer Danny Motta for reaction videos now because you know he actually critiques the media and makes funny jokes something Alex Meyers was never able to do.

Alex Meyers videos are never meant to be serious but he still uses the label of reaction videos and uses clickbait titles to get views and how he's being popular for this long is astounding.

And I wasn't even a fan of him I didn't care about him much tbh I had forgotten I'd even subscribed to him and immediately undid that.

Thankfully I haven't seen anyone defending Alex Meyers yet unlike Funkyfrogbait because he's not really part of any marginalized group as a cit white man in his thirties? Making unfunny jokes that reek of well it doesn't affect me so it doesn't matter.

I guess I just wanted to warn everyone to check on their youtubers because more of them might be weirdos than you realize. Be wary of the reaction youtubers and commentators specifically something's up with them.

Oh and f*ck Stanzi Potenzi she's always been problematic if y'all didn't know.

Anyway peace ✌️

[vee-nyx]

BACK 🤺 BACK I SAY 🤺 NO BILLIONAIRE BOOTLICKERS ON THIS BLOG 🤺

[lukreziaaa]

Every time I see sometime trying to justify Tony being an asshole, specifically the capsicle thing, I get so mad.

“Oh but Tony uses sarcasm and humor to deal with trauma” he can do that with his OWN trauma. He can make however many jokes he wants about being kidnapped and almost being bombed and all that shit that happened to him, and if they make people uncomfortable it’s not his problem because he is dealing with his OWN trauma and he can do that however he wants (as long as he doesn’t harm anyone of course).

But he CANNOT do that with other people’s. Steve Rogers was frozen for 70 years after killing himself to save a fuck ton of people and now this dude has the audacity to call him a popsicle. That is not something he is entitled to do.

[legalandnotease]

Ugh, seeing them bring up Bucky and Tony and the whole Civil War thing again on X… It all reminds me how irritating Tony Stans can be.

They really can't grasp that Steve and Tony will always have different perspectives on Accords and that Steve can understand something like that from a perspective Tony never will. Tony could hang up his armor at any moment, never wear it again and retire as Iron Man. Steve, on the other hand, would never be able to put aside being a super-soldier, because his greatest weapon is his body, not his shield. Ross literally compared Thor and Banner to nuclear weapons, showing that he sees them as weapons, not people. Because their power came from their bodies, not their equipment. Just like Steve and Wanda. The government will always see them as weapons and Steve clearly understood the risks that entails.

Because Hydra, which controlled the governments of many countries, had turned his damn best friend into a living weapon!

Steve saw what happened to Bucky. Bucky was sent wherever they wanted him to be sent, to do whatever they wanted him to do. The Winter Soldier was a superhuman fully controlled by the government elite, who followed their orders, intervening wherever they sent him.

Steve saw it.

And Steve knew that none of them would ever be privileged enough to get away with breaking the Accords unpunished if they did. No one except Tony, who was a privileged multi-billionaire who would always be able to buy his way out of anything…

Yes. Also don't forget Ross has a very specific history with Bruce. Asking about him specifically is thus - interesting.

Actually IIRC there's a scene after Rhodey's injury where Tony asks Natasha about finding Bruce and she says "you really think he'd be on your side?"

She's right. If Bruce had been in Civil War he'd 100% have been Team Cap simply because of Ross.

But yes, I agree with the rest. Tony Stans are the most sanctimonious, holier than thou obnoxious elitistss you could ever encounter. Simulaneously simping for billionaires and trying to pretend to champion common people.

[sarkylittlemonster]

Sometimes I think "oh! But Tony went to visit them in The Raft" but then I remember he only did that to get information on where Steve and Bucky were.

In that one short visit he:

saw Wanda in a straight jacket and fucking collar

and did nothing. And proceeded to still do nothing even after he left The Raft.

Outed Clint's family to Ross, which not only is a massive security risk for Laura and her children, but also a major betrayal of Clint's trust. Not to mention the way he mentions them, which is to guilt trip Clint.

Oh and he also did not show any remorse for shooting Sam point blank in the chest, after getting Vision to try to shoot him down in the sky :) when he was not wearing armour :) Unlike Rhodey, who unfortunately got hit. Tony Stark does not even inquire about any of that.

[suchusoid]

How it feels being a marvel fan that hates iron man:

[airplanecrashingtowardstheground]

if bruce wayne and tony stark were in the same universe tony would hate bruce because he sees him as billionaire playboy competition and bruce would hate tony because he is a war profiteer

[stegron-and-his-dancing-dinos]

Seeing people comparing Matt’s “I am Daredevil” to Tony’s “I am Iron Man” and saying Matt’s the street level Tony Stark

And

Like

Tell me you don’t get Matt’s character without telling me you don’t get Matt’s character

Matt coming forward at great cost to himself to try and stop a wealthy man and his fascist regime, while also opening himself up to the consequences of the steps he took to stop Fisk, and facing said consequences vs Tony as a billionaire killing people in the Middle East with no jurisdiction or due process, people who were only able to escalate their actions because of Tony’s weapons manufacturing btw, after decades of proudly being a merchant of death and killing god knows how many people, who decides to try and “make things right” only after the “wrong people” gain access to said weapons and he has to personally face some of consequences of the violence he’s benefitted from his entire life, revealing his identity for, idk I’m sure people who like iron man could give a better explanation but imo literally just seems like ego to me, and not only doesn’t face any legal consequences but actually grows more wealthy, and not only does not use that wealth to meaningfully address the material conditions that lead to the violence he’s supposedly interested in stopping, instead he creates a genocidal robot (and then wants to destroy an entire country to stop it), and instead of taking personal responsibility for THAT he wants to create a registry of everyone with super powers (something, mind you, that would not include him) which leads him to locking several people up without due process, in an attempt to make sure the problems HE caused are not repeated

Anyway. Read Chip Zdarsky’s Daredevil run, Matt fucking reads Tony to filth and it’s one of the best things I’ve seen in a comic in years

[suchusoid]

I bring a certain "iron man is a character made originally as capitalist propaganda that has since become and iverrated, annoying, and overly favored character that has done many terribke things that he has yet to truly answer for" enrergy to the party that mcu fans din't like.

[waywardsou2]

I need more people to recognise it, I've never really been able to articulate why Peter's presence was so wrong and this has done it for me.

He was cannonically 15 at the time of this

He'd never even had a proper suit until that moment

He had never left the country

He was coerced to go behind his Aunts back into a dangerous place because his idol asked him to

He was fighting and hurting people he also idolized but also wasn't told what they had done

He had literally fallen prey to whatever Tony had told him about Steve

He got injured, Tony could not guarantee his safety, and Peter was so young he could hardly guarantee his own safety

I don't like Tony for a lot of other reasons and I can start the list from this movie alone but I really need people to recognise what the fuck he did

He's sitll getting people hurt, because of something he wants

He literally has only child syndrome on a super scale.

Steve didn't do what he wanted, so he brought other people who were either neutral, complicated or unsure into his group to basically force Steve to do what he wanted.

It's like if a child wants to play with block, but some of his friends don't want to play with the blocks with him so he hits them because they won't do what he wants

Tony only helped himself, he only did what he did out of guilt because he kept making the wrong choices and he decided that everyone had to be accountable for something that his hands made

[korkiekenobiconfirmed]

steve rogers stronger than me, because if I was operating off a newfound distrust of government agencies (after finding out my employer was infiltrated by nazis for decades) then my coworker insisted that I and several of my loved ones sign our bodies and lives over to the united nations because "we" need to be held accountable (he almost caused the death of the human race like a year prior)...yeah I'd go ballistic

accountability is all fine and good but it's so easy for someone like tony to say. he can hand over his iron man tech and that's the end of it, but for people like steve and wanda whose literal bodies are considered weapons, they'd probably live the rest of their lives under extreme scrutiny and surveillance