Do You Ever Think Of Silly Stuff Like What If G1 Megatron Was Suddenly Replaced By Prime Megatron?

I think, from my opinion at least, what differentiates Earthspark from other Transformers shows (more specifically recent installations is) that it took risks and even though its messages may not have been conveyed across to its fullest potential, the intention and direction are still fairly evident and less harmful in comparison to other Transformers media

Earthspark manages to balance darker themes fairly well, whilst not forgetting its primary audience are children. There are both subtle and blatant dark themes throughout the show, there is a lot of exploration regarding one's identity which is more notable (but not exclusive) to the Terran Nightshade

It makes an honest attempt to be inclusive and while it may feel a bit stunted and awkward at times, it achieved its purpose despite what may be awkward handling— I find it odd how beloved Knockout is, despite the fact that he is an offensive gay stereotype (and not really handled well as a character in general) but the scene of Nightshade, an explicit non-binary character, saving Sam in ‘Home’ is apparently too awkward and regarded viewed as good but not enough in terms of representation?

EarthSpark has Black Filipino protagonists! There is casual representation with Mo's hair bonnet and the Filipino cuisine they eat; Alex speaks tagalog at times (although I think I do recall someone on here pointing out that the dialect he used isn't accurate to his geographic hometown in the Philippines?) and there is a whole episode where he teaches Bumblebee his culture as they hunt for the WakWak! I love when Transformers and humans teach each other about their culture, it both humanizes the Transformers reiterating that they are not emotionless robots AND it gives minorities a platform to be represented in a popular franchise

Despite the fact that the Malto children seem to be almost forcibly matured by the narrative and struggling to cope with the fear and anxiety of having their family torn apart, something that BIPOC people are at a higher likelihood of experience in the real world, it doesn't forget that at the end of the day they're all children. I quite enjoy Mo as a character and her emotional maturity, she offers her older brother wisdom and emotional comfort constantly; and when her safety is at risk her younger Terran siblings ensure that they take on a protector role due to the ultimate difference that poses threat to that of a human child and a Transformer child— because the Terrans are CHILDREN!

PTSD and trauma are touched on in EarthSpark, Hashtag's autonomy is violated by Dr Meridian and uses her body to cause harm towards her siblings and damage her environment; he used her body to prove his point that Transformers are dangerous and cannot integrate with society and Hashtag suffers from flashbacks of the experience. Despite the fact that the situation between the two is not expanded on, it is clear that Megatron has hurt Starscream in the past— Hashtag (even though she has no reason to believe Starscream because Megatron IS her mom's friend and kind towards her, "therefore he can't possible have done that") immediately believes Starscream when she confronts the latter's poor treatment towards others. She opens up about her own traumatic experience with Dr Meridian and while the situation may not be the same, she was trying to establish a common ground in the fact that they're both victims

Grimlock from his time at the bot brawls and also from having been mind-controlled by Dr Meridian blatantly suffers PTSD and is triggered several times throughout the respective episode and ineffectively copes by pushing it down. It is a dangerous thing for a Transformer to be mind-controlled, let alone a fire-breathing dinobot; fortunately Jawbreaker realising that he pushed Grimlock too far steps in and manages to calm the panicked dinobot down, assuring him that he is more than just a rampaging dinobot and there is more to Grimlock than meets the eye

EarthSpark gives us a lot in terms of themes and season one was incredibly ambitious, frankly I don't think many of the other previous Transformers shows could've handled it better than EarthSpark. I don't think that EarthSpark is without fault, on the contrary I have a few grievances with it but my issue is that people (perhaps without even realising it) are showing clear bias when they critique EarthSpark. Honestly, I do think that if the protagonists were a white family that people wouldn't mind that they're so central to the story— to be honest, that aggravates me a lot because the point of EarthSpark is that the humans have a central part in the story, it's literally about Earth born Transformers who are created a pair of siblings and adopted into their family. Criticising it centering around family and the respective human family members goes against the entire point of the show...

One of the more common critiques I have seen and I do agree to an extent, is EarthSpark's pacing. However, I absolutely think that its pacing though rushed still manages to deliver a great story that went out of its way to include difficult topics to portray— as opposed to Transformers: Prime and Transformers: Cyberverse. There is no amount of analysis and meta posts that I could read that would convince me that the pacing of those two shows were better than EarthSpark thus far, OR effectively and satisfactorily wrapped up the themes, character arcs and plotlines

It just seems that EarthSpark is taking a lot more criticism at a way earlier stage compared to other previous Transformers shows and that makes me sad because people are treating it as though its shortcomings are genuinely harmful but dismiss the previous harmful depictions in the Transformers franchise... I admire the risks and narrative choices that EarthSpark has undertaken so far and I hope it only improves from here on out, to give it that opportunity the show must continue and be given a chance to fulfil its vision

Woah, woah, woah, I agree with many of the things you bring up here, but if you're going to send me a ginormous essay, could you post it on your own blog, please? Plenty of your points are well thought-out and could stand to be there own posts, and I know I've answered long asks before, but this is way too long for me to respond to everything easily. Two or three of these points would be enough for one ask, so that's all I'm going to comment on:

-The criticism about Alex Malto defining a word wrong is definitely something that should be brought up, and I'm glad people have. I think the issue isn't necessarily the language he speaks, but that he defines "lolo" as a Tagalog word when he'd probably say it's a Bisaya word since he grew up in Bohol? I do wonder if there could be something more to his history that may explain this, especially since given his background he's probably had to switch to Tagalog and English a lot, or if there's something about his family we don't know yet. I don't have the knowledge or background to speak on this though. Also, part of me is a little glad discussing the language politics is even on the table at all for this franchise after like... how TFA handled South Asian representation, which it sounds like you were thinking as well lol

-I'm not sure if you're quoting somebody, but Hashtag (and the rest of the Maltos) ABSOLUTELY had reason to believe Megatron was abusive! Did they not go to that war memorial and hear him talking about how he's done horrible things? Don't the Malto parents often mention how he's been trying to change—the kids all know he's done harm! And Starscream even pointed out how hypocritical it is to think Megatron wouldn't leave people behind when he's locking up his former followers—even kids could get that point! Plus, the show is almost certainly trying to make the point that people who say they've been hurt should be believed and the first impulse shouldn't be to try to convince them it's not true. That's a good message for kids!

If You’re Gonna Make Something Wheelchair Accessible, Don’t Make it a Thing

Here’s some examples awkward accessibility being a thing:

Your at a hotel that has a lift to get you from one sub-floor to another, but the lift can only be unlocked and operated by one specific person that the hotel now has to go find. Sure, they’ve made the entrance to the sub-floor is accessible, but now it’s a thing.

The buses are wheelchair accessible but the driver has to stop the bus, take 30 seconds to lower the goddamn ramp, move passengers out of their seats, hook up the straps and then secure you in the bus. Sure, they’ve made the busses accessible but now it’s a thing.

The restaurant has an accessible entrance, but it’s past the trash room and through the kitchen. Sure, the restaurant is accessible, but now it’s an insulting thing.

Here’s some great examples of accessibility not being a thing:

The train to the airport pulls up flush with the platform. I board with everyone else and sit wherever the fuck I want. Riding the train is accessible and not a thing.

In Portland, I press a button the side of the streetcar and a ramp automatically extends at the same time the door opens. I board in the same amount of time as everyone else. This is not a thing.

I get that it is difficult to design for wheelchair accessibility, but folks need to start considering the overall quality of the experience versus just thinking about meeting the minimum requirements.

why aren't you an avengers hater?

Hi anon!

I do like the Avengers; specifically, the version I got to know in the initial few comics, & their development until the 70s & 80s, and hell, i even appreciate some of what was going on in the 90s. part of this is because i simply have to; most of my favourite characters are majorly affiliated with the avengers, like scarlet witch, the vision, hank pym, wonder man, wasp, hercules etc, so if i didn't like them or didn't learn to appreciate them i'd probably struggle. you'd be hard pressed to find a hardcore fan of wanda, for example, and not have them at the very least tolerate the team, otherwise you'd be missing out on the crucial moments of her development, and this goes for other characters.

so why do i like them specifically? i guess because they offer an interesting place in marvel, in that their dynamics are... weird. like, the x-men have a very clear common cause in that they're all mutants & none of them want to get, you know, murdered, and simultaneously (in the leekirby era) want to keep mutant extremeists contained so they don't take their anger out on a defenceless human innocent. the fantastic four, while heroes, don't have that as their primary job; they're a family of explorers. the avengers are different in that they neither have a common thread really connecting them, except for the fact that they all in some way want to help other people, and recognise that this would be easier achieved with other people supporting them.

there's less strings attached, at least initially. they're a group of weird misfits that have a common cause, but a lot of the time, really find each other intolerable because they all have conflicting personalities & ways of heroing. this is different from the x-men of the era, because they all have broadly similar ways due to being taught by xavier. the fantastic four, while conflicting, balance each other out because of their defined archetypes. the avengers try to do this, but there are complications that make them interesting, and part of the intrigue for me is reading & watching how different writers grapple with trying to have different archetypes met by changing around different aspects. they are a team constantly reshuffling & remodelling, which is sort of frustrating today when a new team means a new volume, but is funner to read for me personally when things just continued as they were.

examples; when thor leaves the team, hank & janet return to the team, and hank becomes permanently stuck at 10 feet tall, because the team needed a new muscular character to act as the tank. around the time when hercules joins the team, hank becomes able to be normal sized again. we see this again when clint barton becomes goliath for some reason; the team needs a tank. janet, intitally a fun-loving, flirty character, matures as writers begin to focus on her marital problems with hank, and so beast arrives and takes on that roll. when he leaves, its not long until starfox joins the team, and similarly plays the role of flirty hedonist that beast did. this continues on & on, and its an interesting source of conflict for me between writer & team. in some ways, they're more free to reinvent & introduce characters more than the fantastic four or x-men of the same era. in other ways, they're more restricted by the very clear rules set up in what makes a superhero team work & what archetypes you need.

this is very well shown in hank pym; writers would constantly change him, his powers & identities, to justify him being there when more powerful characters inevitably came along to do what he did better, because he was only a regular human being. but they kept him around because he was psychologically interesting, which obviously resulted in the trail of yellowjacket arc. an innocuous change to make him seem more interesting had such a strange knock on effect and its interesting!

yes, you get that in other comics, but because they're not as tied together as the ff or the x-men, writers constantly have to justify why is the character there. what are they contributing. for wanda & pietro, it's because they represent a potential safe space, a way to realise their heroism that didn't exactly get much light with magneto, an opportunity to discover their potential. for janet, it's initially a way to get away from the mundanity of being a wealthy heiress, because she's developed a taste for the adrenaline of superheroics with hank, and as she grows it is because she feels a genuine responsibility for others & knows she can make more radical change there than she would as a fashion designer. for t'challa, it's initially because he wants to protect his home from them, and then because they're facing a lot of threats that could harm wakanda, and does develop a genuine appreciation & closeness for the team but his nation always comes first. and so on.

i realise i've gone on a bit and to be honest i don't think i articulated myself well, but those are the reasons i come to; they offer a clearly defined other purpose in the 616 universe, they serve interesting dilemmas for characters in a way that very naturally comes, at least in the 60s thru 80s, while for other teams like the ff it could sometimes feel a bit forced.

now, this isn't to say there aren't flaws, and i'll try to be brief when i say these; they are the team worst impacted by 9/11 and the changes it had on american politics. the change from a mostly indepentant team that actively rebelled against the government & agents put in charge of them to essentially a government puppet hurt them so much. the avengers are supposed to actively fight corruption; vision, beast, and i'm pretty sure sam wilson all try to deck gyrich in the face at least once, but after 9/11 they all listen & argue his arguments.

the change from one or two main titles to multiple also hurts the team. it makes sense; there's so many avengers characters, but having so many has made contemporary writers lose sight of what makes the avengers the avengers. what makes them matter, what makes them work. the first main reshuffle of the team brought three different villains into the team to become heroes. they shouldn't be attacking & arresting superpowered people at random, who've committed very mild crimes. they offer a place for redemption, and that has gotten lost in recent times.

anyway, sorry for rambling, but tldr; avengers mostly good, their characterisation post 9/11 is deeply unfair & needs to be actively looked at by writers if they want to move past it, and i think that most comic readers, especially a certain facet of x-men fans, should read through their earlier stuff to avoid making generalisations mostly based off contemporary event comics, because that isn't the avengers i am thinking of when i talk about them, & i think people should know those avengers before making overarcing statements abt how they're all cops or something lol

Sorry for being negative, I’m just a bit disappointed that after looking through the Earthspark Optimus tags on and off on different occasions weeks apart, it seems like the only thing the fandom has to say about ES Optimus is finger snaps and dad jokes. :/ (And also a handful of people already trying to frame him as a bad person lmao)

Watch for it, when more episodes of Earthspark come out and a conflict with GHOST inevitably arises, people are going to be raging at Optimus for being “stupid” or “self-righteous” or “blind” for working with GHOST and start calling Megatron and/or the Decepticons right about everything because they spent so long focusing on “haha funny dad Optimus” that they forgot about the other parts of Optimus’ character like… idk, not wanting to colonize planets? Not wanting to start wars with entire species that didn’t want to be involved in the war in the first place? Being willing to make compromises even at risk to himself and his own because he wants to treat everyone fairly?

Idk I guess I’m just a bit salty because it genuinely seems like all this fandom wants is “funny dad Optimus” and nothing else. Like you will give them funny dad Optimus who’s ALSO complex and morally gray but people will only ever talk about the former part. And then when Optimus inevitably makes a mistake and bad things happen, people are probably going to treat him as if he’s stupid or an asshole when he ends up not being the Perfect Unproblematic Fave that people seemingly want him to be.

Someone on Reddit made the mistake of saying, "Teach me how this conflict came about" where I could see it.

Let me teach you too.

The common perception is that Jews came out of nowhere, stole Palestinian homes and kicked Palestinians out of them, and then bombed them for 75 years, until they finally rebelled in the form of Hamas invading Israel and massacring 22 towns in one day.

The historical reality is that Jews have lived there continuously for at least 3500 years.

There are areas, like Meggido iirc, with archeological evidence of continuous habitation for 7,000 years, but Jewish culture as we recognize it today didn't develop until probably halfway through that.

Ethnic Jews are the indigenous people of this area.

Indigeneity means a group was originally there, before any colonization happened, and that it has retained a cultural connection to the land. History plus culture.

That's what Jews have: even when the diaspora became larger than the number of Jews in Israel, the yearning to return to that homeland was a daily part of Jewish prayer and ritual.

The Jewish community in Israel was crushed pretty violently by the Roman Empire in 135 CE, but it was still substantial, sometimes even the majority population there, for almost a thousand years.

The 600s CE brought the advent of Islam and the Arab Empire, expanding out from Saudi Arabia into Israel and beyond. It was largely a region where Jews were second-class citizens. But it was still WAY better than the way Christian Europe treated Jews.

From the 700s-900s, the area saw repeated civil wars, plagues, and earthquakes.

Then the Crusades came, with waves of Christians making "pilgrimages to the Holy Land" and trying to conquer it from Muslims and Jews, who they slaughtered and enslaved.

Israel became pretty well depopulated after all that. It was a very rough time to live there. (And for the curious, I'm calling it Israel because that's what it had been for centuries, until the Romans erased the name and the country.)

By the 1800s, the TOTAL population of what's now Israel and Palestine had varied from 150,000 - 275,000 for centuries. It was very rural, very sparsely populated, on top of being mostly desert.

In the 1880s, Jews started buying land and moving back to their indigenous homeland. As tends to happen, immigration brought new projects and opportunities, which led to more immigration - not only from Jews, but from the Arab world as well.

Unfortunately, there was an antisemitic minority spearheaded by Amin al-Husseini. Who was very well-connected, rich, and from a politically powerful family.

Al-Husseini had enthusiastically participated in the Armenian Genocide under the Ottoman Empire. Then the Empire fell in World War One, and the League of Nations had to figure out what to do with its land.

Mostly, if an area was essentially operating as a country (e.g. Turkey), the League of Nations let it be one. In areas that weren't ready for self-rule, it appointed France or Britain to help them get there.

In recognition of the increased Jewish population in their traditional, indigenous homeland, it declared that that homeland would again become Israel.

As in, the region was casually called Palestine because that was the lay term for "the Holy Land." It had not been a country since Israel was stamped out; only a region of a series of different empires. And the Mandate For Palestine said it was establishing "a national home of the Jewish people" there, in recognition of "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

Britain was appointed to help the Arab and Jewish communities there develop systems of self-government, and then to work together to govern the region overall.

At least, that was the plan.

Al-Husseini, who was deeply antisemitic, did not like this plan.

And, extra-unfortunately, the British response to al-Husseini inciting violent anti-Jewish riots was to put him in a leadership role over Arab Palestine.

They thought it would calm him down and perhaps satisfy him.

They were very wrong.

The Washington Institute

From Torch to Tunis to El Alamein: Events 80 Years Ago Made the Modern Middle East

The second week of November 1942 has much to tell us about the region’s geopolitical centrality, its enduring political currents, and its ro

He went on to become a huge Hitler fanboy, and then a Nazi war criminal. He co-created the Muslim Brotherhood - which Hamas is part of - with fellow fascist fanboy Hassan al-Banna.

Al Arabiya English

ANALYSIS: The Nazi roots of Muslim Brotherhood

After years of causing disruption on the streets of Egypt, on 30 June 2012, the Muslim Brotherhood’s leader Mohammed Morsi was sworn i

He got Nazi Party funding for armed Muslim Brotherhood militias to attack Jews and the Brits in the late 30s, convincing Britain to agree to limit Jewish immigration at the time when it was most desperately needed.

He started using the militias again in 1947, when the United Nations voted to divide the mandated land into a Jewish homeland and a Palestinian one.

Al-Husseini wouldn't stand for a two-state solution. He was determined to tolerate no more than the subdued, small Jewish minority of second-class citizens that he remembered from his childhood.

As armed militias increasingly ran riot, the Arab middle and upper classes increasingly left. About 100,000 left the country before May 1948, when Britain was to pull out, leaving Israel and Palestine to declare their independence.

The surrounding nations didn't want war. They largely accepted the two-state solution.

But al-Husseini lobbied HARD. And by mobilizing the Muslim Brotherhood to provide "destabilizing mass demonstrations and a murderous campaign of intimidation," he got the Arab League nations to agree to invade, en masse, as soon as Britain left.

Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

The Aftershock of the Nazi War against the Jews, 1947–48: Could War in the Middle East Have Been Prevented?

This article deals with the after-effects of Nazi anti-Zionist propaganda in the Arab world and the antisemitic campaign of the Mufti of Jer

Question of Palestine

UN Palestine Commission - Acts of aggression by Arab States - Memorandum from the Jewish Agency - Question of Palestine

ACTS OF AGGRESSION PROVOKED, COMMITTED AND PREPARED BY ARAB STATES  IN CONCERT WITH THE PALESTINE ARAB HIGHER COMMITTEE AGAINST T

About 600,000 Arabs fled to those countries during the ensuing war.

Jews couldn't seek refuge there; in fact, most of those countries either exiled their Jews directly, confiscating their property first, or else made Jewish life unlivable and exploited them for underpaid or slave labor for years first.

The Tower

There Was a Jewish Nakba, and It Was Even Bigger than the Palestinian One

The expulsion of Jews from Arab countries, one of the biggest humanitarian crises of the 20th century, is all the more tragic for how little

By the time the smoke cleared and a peace treaty was signed, most of the Arab Palestinian community had fled; there was no Arab Palestinian leadership; many of the refugees' homes and businesses had left had been destroyed in the war; and Israel had been flooded with nearly a million refugees from the Arab League countries and the Holocaust - even more people than had fled the war.

That was the Nakba. The one that gets portrayed as "750,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled!" in the hope that you'll assume they were expelled en masse, their beautiful intact homes all stolen.

Egypt had taken what's now the Gaza Strip in that war, and Jordan took what's now the West Bank - expelling or killing all the Jews in it first.

(Ironically, Jordan was originally supposed to be part of Israel. Britain, inexplicably, cut off what would have been 75% of its land to create Jordan.

Even more inexplicably, nobody ever talks about it. I've never seen anyone complain that Jordan was stolen from Palestinians. Possibly because Jordan is also the only country that gave Palestinian refugees full citizenship, and it's about half Palestinian now.

Israel is nearly 25% Arab Palestinians with full citizenship and equal rights, so it's not all that different -- but the fundamental difference of living in a country where the majority is Jewish, not Muslim, probably runs pretty deep.)

Anyway: that's why Palestine is Gaza and the West Bank, rather than being some contiguous chunk of land. Or being the land set aside by the U.N. in 1947.

Because Arab countries took that land in 1948, and treated them as essentially separate for 20 years.

Israel got them back, along with the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula, in the next war: 1967, when Egypt committed an act of war by taking control of the waterways and barring Israel from them. It gave the Sinai back to Egypt as part of the 1979 peace accords between Egypt and Israel.

Israel tried to give back the Gaza Strip at the same time. Egypt refused.

Palestine finally declared independence in 1988.

But Hamas formed at about the same time. Probably in response, in fact. Hamas is fundamentally opposed to peace negotiations with Israel.

Again: Hamas is part of a group founded by Nazis.

Hamas has its own charter. It explains that Jews are "the enemy," because they control the drug trade, have been behind every major war, control the media, control the United Nations, etc. Basic Nazi rhetoric.

It has gotten adept at masking that rhetoric for the West. But to friendlier audiences, its leaders have consistently said things like, "People of Jerusalem, we want you to cut off the heads of the Jews with knives. With your hand, cut their artery from here. A knife costs five shekels.  Buy a knife, sharpen it, put it there, and just cut off [their heads]. It costs just five shekels."

MEMRI

Senior Hamas Official Fathi Hammad To Palestinians In Jerusalem: Buy 5-Shekel Knives And Cut Off The Heads Of The Jews

Hamas Political Bureau Member and former Minister of the Interior Fathi Hammad urged the people of Jerusalem to "cut off...

(Palestinians were outraged by this speech. Palestinians, by and large, absolutely loathe Hamas.

Newsweek

Hamas Tortured Me for Dissent. Here's What They Truly Think of Palestinians

I thought I'd left Gaza behind, yet all this time, Hamas was planning to expand its extremism and intimidation.

It's just that it's not the same to say that to locals, as it is to say it where major global powers who oppose this crap can hear you.)

Hamas has stated from the beginning that its mission is to violently destroy Israel and take over the land.

It has received $100M in military funding annually, from Iran, for several years. Because Iran has been building a network of fascist, antisemitic groups across the Middle East, in a blatant attempt to control more and more of it: Hezbollah in Lebanon. The Houthis in Yemen.

Iran has been run by a very far-right, deeply antisemitic dictatorship for decades now, which pretty openly wants to take down both Israel and the U.S.

Last year, Iran increased Hamas's funding to $350M.

The "proof of concept" invasion of Israel that Hamas pulled off on October 7th more than justifies a much bigger investment.

Hamas has publicly stated its intention to attack "again and again and again," until Israel has been violently destroyed.

That is how this conflict came about.

A Nazi group seized power in Gaza in 2007 by violently kicking the Palestinian government out, and began running it as a dictatorship, using it to build money and power in preparations for exactly this.

And people find it shockingly easy to believe its own hype about being "the Palestinian resistance."

As well as its propaganda that Israel is not actually targeting Hamas: it's just using a literal Nazi invasion and massacre as an excuse to randomly commit genocide of the fraction of Palestine it physically left 20 years ago.

Despite the fact that Palestinians in Gaza have been protesting HAMAS throughout the war.

this isn't kirby anime slander I swear

"No one remembered my birthday-" Well, but did YOU tell anyone it was coming up and you wanted to celebrate it with them?

"I wish someone would see through it when I tell people I'm fine-" Well, but have YOU considered not lying when people ask you how you're doing?

"I am so resentful of my friend because they keep doing this thing that really bothers me-" Well, but have YOU directly communicated that the thing is bothering you?

"I am burning out because my friend keeps expecting me to help them with serious struggles-" Well, but have YOU tried to establish the boundaries you need to feel okay?

"No one ever asks me about this thing I really care about-" Well, but have YOU brought it up yourself?

"I miss my friend but they haven't texted me-" Well, but have YOU been reaching out to them?

Sometimes people are mean, uncaring assholes, in which case you get to be mad. But sometimes you just need to communicate better. Try communication before you assume someone doesn't care!

IN REGARDS TO BATDR...

I’mma get into Bendy and the Dark Revival.

So a few in-general things.

- The Ink Machine cannot create someone from nothing. It’s said this as far back as the first game. Audrey is said to be the “exception”, but how certain are we of that? Who’s telling us that she’s the exception exactly?

- People, alive and dead, were thrown into the Ink Machine. Both games show this, both in audio logs, environmental story telling, and even shows us an example of how it happens. As of the rule above, all people in the machine, were the real original people at one point. Joey Drew attempts to tell us otherwise, but bear in mind who’s fault this all is, and who’s he’s telling that he did this.

He’s a charmer, remember? He’s duped a lot of people with that charm of his. Take nothing he says at face-value.

- The Ink Machine and its Ink are corruptive. From the Camera Man of the First game, to the main “characters” we meet, to the people in the machine–if your ink form wasn’t made, or if you didn’t fit the form made for you–you lose your fecking gourd.

- Do not Trust Joey Drew (The Creator Lied to Us). Joey is, ultimately and foremost, a selfish lying man. The Entirety of BATIM shows us this first and foremost.

And as many of us with hard family lives know, the introduction of children do not change the minds of selfish, lying parents.

So,,, let’s begin  Bendy and the Dark Revival.

Continua a leggere

Overview of some topics when it comes to drawing characters who are burn survivors.

DISCLAIMER. Please keep in mind that this is an introductory overview for drawing some burn scars and has a lot of generalizations in it, so not every “X is Z” statement will be true for Actual People. I'm calling this introductory because I hope to get people to actually do their own research before drawing disabled & visibly different characters rather than just making stuff up. Think of it as a starting point and take it with a grain of salt (especially if you have a very different art style from mine).

Talking about research and learning... don't make your burn survivor characters evil. Burn survivors are normal people and don't deserve to be constantly portrayed in such a way.

edit: apparently tum "queerest place on the internet" blr hates disabled people so much that this post got automatically filtered. cool!

So the Jews went from being victims of genocide to commiters of it? Weird how the circle of power goes.

okay no, this is not the way it is. jewish people =/= israel. not all jewish people condone israel’s actions, and a significant number actively oppose it.

and jewish people continue to face antisemitism today, so saying something like “Jewish people went from victims to committers” as a general statement is really gross.

(also a lot of jewish people have expressed discomfort with the word “Jews” and prefer “Jewish” btw)