Wanna Know What Would Be A Really Messed Up Thing For Alan And His Team To Do?

Having an extremely specific problem after trying a traditional pencil crayon look for an older Tattletale portrait. Somehow, during the slow work from grubby sketch to rendering, she became way too hot. And said traditional art style means I can’t change this with regular digital tools, I have to redraw sections of her face entirely.

That I did with optical colour mixing using hatching and a limited palette.

Do I roll with hot Tattletale or do I suffer?

Ewww why'd you put Scott's Republican face next to Toby? What the hell did Toby do to be put next to him?

Scott Cawthon & Toby Fox

Why are posts from right-wingers so incomprehensible to read? Or are these accounts with the same profile pictures just bots trying to sprinkle urine everywhere like the untrained dogs that they are?

Banshee :(

spin this wheel

you're now this mythical creature, congrats!

Can you tell I don't like the trailer

Another new critique video I mostly agree with, this is made by the same person who made that “How to waste a villain” Stella video. I’m sorry but the female characters just don’t get the proper focus and time the same way the male characters do. They’re all obstacles for the male characters, mainly Stolas and Blitz because the show is fucking revolved around them. Octavia can’t be a character on her own or focused on alone without be attached to her father, Millie has the personality of stale bread and is attached to Moxxie, having absolutely NOTHING going on for her other than being a southern bad ass fighter, Verosika is just a standard tool for Blitz’s “development” to show that he’s a 2 dimensional character who deep down “cares” despite Verosika not even showing up since episode 7, Loona is an unlikable bitch who never changes even when the show tries to give her a sad backstory and have her be “lonely”, and mainly only gets focus when the show wants to dive into her relationship with Blitz despite that never changing either, and finally Stella is a one note boring bland villain who could have been a 2 dimensional character that actually had a relationship with her daughter and still been the antagonist, just EXPLORED more to make her actually interesting, but we can’t have that since the all the show wants to do is suck off Stolas and Blitz and paint them in a godlike light where they never get the consequences of their actions and get praised for being “2 dimensional”.

The funny thing is that I say Millie has the personality of stale bread, but honestly? This is just my opinion but I think almost all of Viv’s female characters have the personality of stale bread, or they’re at least so by the numbers like I said before. I literally don’t blame the fandom for favoriting the male characters more because the female characters are so bland and uninteresting compared to the males, and that’s the writers faults because you can smell the favoritism. They all try so hard to make characters like Blitz and Stolas into 3 dimensional characters that they push the others to the back and only focus on THEIR perspectives and are so AFRIAD to actually paint them as flawed beings that can be in the wrong and do bad things that aren’t excusable. I think that pretty much sums up Viv’s outlook on her male characters as a whole. She tries so hard to make most of them either 3 or 2 dimensional, especially the ones she favors and are her “babies”, she adds so many things to them, once again being an overly ambitious writer, for example look at all the things she’d added to Angel and Alastor’s characters over the years compared to Charlie or Vaggie. Even fucking Husk has more stuff to him than Charlie or Vaggie does. This is why everyone thought Charlie was so fucking boring compared to Alastor or Angel because she is. She only has one thing to her and isn’t developed enough to even be interesting compared to them. While the majority of her male characters are either 3 or 2 dimensional, her females are either 2 dimensional (but flat) or 1 dimensional, having basic labels to them like “the nice but snarky one” or “the edgy mean bitch”.

Viv just clearly enjoys writing and developing her male characters more and that’s been clear even before Hazbin came along. I don’t understand why both her male and female characters can’t be interesting. What’s so hard about creating a female character that’s on part with her males? What’s so hard about putting the same energy and effort she does for writing characters like Angel, Blitz, and Stolas for a female one? What’s so hard about making her females 3 dimensional and engaging? I’ll never get it. In my personal opinion guys, I don’t think the show is sexist nor do I think Vivzie as a person is, but one thing is clear, whenever she creates a female character, she sees a VERY limited option on what they should be like. It’s like she doesn’t know ANY other kind of tropes or character quirks outside of being eye candy or extremely edgy, and that’s the problem. No character should be so damn limited or by the numbers, any character can be many things as long as you put your mind and effort to it, and that’s something Viv and HB writing team hasn’t done. They would rather focus on their male twink yaoi fanfiction soap opera that HB has become, and as for Hazbin? I’m expecting the same thing honestly, just the female characters to be mainly flat and the males being more dimensional and developed.

A far better version of my thoughts on how GCs recruit young people to their hate cult.

I’m not gonna be nice. It’s basically a cult now.

Young queer/LGBT girls, the leaders are working with the Heritage Foundation. They’re not just gonna turn on you, they want all AFABs to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.

Everytime this is reblogged, JK Rowling steps on a lego

I'm showing up to this topic three years late, but the overrall fandom response to Scott's response about his political donations is really strange to me in hindsight.

I guess I'm not super surprised that people took his words of not being racist or queerphobic at face-value, but I am disappointed.

At best, we don't know the guy, and being able to evaluate whether he definitively is or is not bigoted is just something that's hard to do with the limited information we have, especially since we don't know how genuine his online persona is. He doesn't elaborate very much on his political views in his reddit post [link] other than specifically saying he's a Christian republican and pro-life.

But even beyond that, most white, allocishet, able-bodied, and otherwise privileged people will deny any accusations of bigotry without reflecting on themselves first, because acknowledging the bigoted things we are taught and complacent in immediately feels like an attack. It takes conscious work to actually respond in a constructive, repairative way to that, and Scott's post feels really dismissive, especially in that he outright refuses to apologize for supporting the candidates in question. The whole post had a "I'm sorry you feel that way" overtone, which is not a proper apology let alone a solution. I feel that someone genuinely invested in disproving those accusations, i.e. not because it hurts their ego, but because it hurts others, would put more care into their response.

Not to mention, even if Scott genuinely isn't queerphobic, and especially if he isn't racist, it's not enough to not be those things. You have to actively unlearn and fight against them. I will give Scott that he has supported organizing against queerphobia with donations to the Trevor Project, but I'm not sure if he has supported any antiracist organizations or movements.

He states he supported a politician thinking they could help "bring the Black community out of poverty," but doesn't elaborate further. From what I understand, that's not necessarily an acknowledgment of systemic racism, as many racists will acknowledge that Black people struggle, but then deny that it's the fault of systemic oppression.

Regardless, neither of these erase his donations to queerphobic and racist politicians. And his admitted pro-life stance is most definitely informed by some amount of misogyny, which is rampant in American Christian spaces.

That's really a lot of words to say that as much as Scott defined our childhood and seems like a nice guy, we shouldn't take his statements at face value at all. We have little information, and what we do have doesn't seem to paint a pretty picture.

It's been three years and I can only hope his opinions and donation patterns have changed, but without any solid evidence, I don't feel comfortable giving him money or benefit of the doubt.