A small comic about what being a disabled artist is like with art as your livelihood. About what drawing is like for me and what art has inevitably become for myself.
lotta people saying “yeah but also 20 year olds also shouldnt hit on 14 year olds!”
yeah, 20 year olds know that, and the 20 year olds who arent shitty people respect that.
but 14 year olds don’t really think to stop themselves from getting crushes and hitting on people way older than them. it makes people like me who are 18+ feel super uncomfortable.
it’s flattering, sure, but it still makes me feel weird.
good lord the ppl fuckin intentionally misinterpreting the point of this post so they can pat themselves on the back for pretendin they’re destroying an act of injustice. lemme break this down for u
here’s what the usual scenario would be
heres what people have been misinterpreting this complaint to be about
there are infinite responses ‘countering’ the post by saying that “it’s the adult’s job to shut the child down,” which is insinuating that 1) we’re talking about adult-child relationships, and 2) that the post is claiming children are at fault for them. except we’re talking about a child engaging in flirting outside their age group, and that they should stop this behavior.
what u seem to be forgetting is that, yknow, context matters. @paper-mario-wiki made this post as someone with tens of thousands of followers, and the event that prompted it was me complaining to him about my own experiences, as someone with also tens of thousands of followers. so its more like this
add onto that that we’re dating, and that a lot of young teen/tween girls really like to latch onto internet personalities AND gay relationships, and u got 2 prime fuckin targets for a lot of unwanted attention. {to be clear: a lot of young teenage girls seeking a relationship.} it gets particularly less tolerable when the kid takes to more drastic measures for attention, like private messaging, sharing photos, and trying to engage in inappropriate behaviors they think will make them be taken more seriously.
a lot of people tried to argue that our concern should be that the kids might do this frequently with other adults and get themselves into serious danger, and that we should be more focused on letting them know it’s wrong. you’re completely right! we should! we should communicate to them that this behavior should stop! here, lemme whip up a quick post about it.
perfect
the point of this was to gently lay the word down on a website that’s particularly popular with that crowd. the fact that so many people are reaching so far as to claim that this is fucking pedophilia apologist is like, gut-wrenchingly awful. shame on you for making such a serious accusation like that out of a post that could not have even mildly insinuated that somehow a child is at fault in an abusive predatory relationship.
im disgusted bc you and i both know damn well that’s not what was being said, and yet you took it as a chance to put those words in his mouth so you could make yourself feel good for berating him.
anyways, i stand by the initial point of the post 100%. if you’re a minor, do not try to appeal to people who are beyond your age group. you are going to instantly make them uncomfortable not only because of the unsolicited attention but also because you are putting them in an incredibly awkward position due to your age and the nature of the conversation.
it’s not their job to have that discussion with a child about what’s inappropriate and why. don’t put that on them. for everyones sake, dont flirt with adults.
My personal top of racist ads this week. Feel free to add your all time favorites
It is crazy these are from 2017 not 1950…but here we are. Don’t you dare say racism is dead.
“This is proof of what happens when there are no black people in the room when these decisions are being made”
The face i’m making right now y’all
What the everloving fuck
I’m not defending anyone here but I know for a fact that Sony advert is from eleven years ago. I’m not saying it was okay then or that they’re surely different now but to correct the misinformation.
I sometimes wonder if people who prefer the Russell T Davies era ever actually watched it.
Wow a Moffat Stan choosing style over substance what a surprise.
“It’s not Shiny and Pretty so it’s bad!1!!11!”
What substance?
Love and Monsters: An episode about a group of people with complex backstories (losing children to drugs, having their mother killed when they were a child) who bond over the Doctor. Manipulated and killed. Subplot about Jackie Tyler dealing with never knowing when her daughter will be home, if she ever comes home, and the shit she has to put up with because of it.
“Let me tell you something about those who get left behind. Because it’s hard. And that’s what you become, hard. But if there’s one thing I’ve learnt, it’s that I will never let her down. And I’ll protect them both until the end of my life. So whatever you want, I’m warning you, back off.”
It parallels Elton (who lost his mother) and even Bridget (who lost her daughter), who got involved with LINDA as a coping mechanism for being left behind.
It’s also got a great ending speech:
”you know, when you’re a kid, they tell you it’s all, grow up, get a job, get married, get a house, have a kid, and that’s it. But the truth is, the world is so much stranger than that. It’s so much darker, and so much madder. And so much better.”
A message that RTDs Doctor tries to convey in almost every episode.
Frequently dismissed by people because “lol monster not scary”. Maybe if he was a stone angel with some pointy teeth…
Space Pig: Clearly not meant to be taken seriously. Designed to be obviously not an alien to the audience, to show the gullibility of humans and their tendency to overreact and act violently when faced with the unknown, as the soldiers did when they shot him to death when he clearly showed no threat. Also, meant as a DISTRACTION for the overreacting humans so that the real alien threat could put the world on red alert and they could get ahold of nuclear weapons.
Scribble: A product of an emotionally disturbed child from an abusive home where her only living family member refuses to give her closure of the abusive part of her childhood.
Slitheen: Skinned human beings and wore their pelt. Intended to use nuclear weapons to destroy the planet to sell for profit. A clear symbol for the destructiveness of corporate greed. But like “lol it fart and green so it bad”, right?
Lazarus: Tried to play god and delay the inevitability of aging and death. It resulted in him becoming quite literally a monster who’s fears and selfishness made him disregard other’s lives.
”It doesn’t work like that. Some people live more in twenty years than others do in eighty. It’s not the time that matters, it’s the person.”
Everything ends. That’s a common theme in Davies work. He’s informing us that death is inevitable but it doesn’t have to be horrible if we make the most of what we have.
Shrivelled Ten: The Master purposefully made the Doctor pathetic and weak to destroy the will of the people of earth. The Doctor is a symbol of hope, and if you weaken him then people give in to their fate.
Max Capricorn: He planned to wipe out London just to get revenge on members of the board. His inability to let go of his anger at the board is paralleled by his inability to let go of life, hence his existence as a cyborg at 200+ years of age. but “lol head on wheals, right?”
The Master: He’s completely physically unstable, because he planned his own resurrection as a means to escape the Doctor and cause the Doctor grief. His physical instability is just a visual manifestation of his emotional/mental instability. It’s symbolism Davies uses to get his point to the audience.
Chloe Webber: Already addressed this a bit, but I’ll continue. Chloe was being possessed by another child who she felt kinship to, because she literally had no one. She had no way to communicate to other children because of the emotional distress her father caused, and her mother also had emotional distress which caused her to not be able to communicate with Chloe about her father. The means the Isolus uses to get to Chloe is hardly relevant when you put it into the perspective of WHY she targetted Chloe.
Tinkerten: This is admittedly a Deus Ex Machina, but it’s a decently executed one, because the story arc is intended to take a backseat to character and emotional one. From a narrative perspective, Martha’s journey is less about finding a solution to the Master and more about her coming in to her own person. Furthermore, the God Symbolism is used for a reason, so it can be deconstructed (as RTD tends to do), as the minute he survives, he’s punished for his hubris. His self-righteousness (forgiving the master) leads to the Master deciding to leave him alone in the universe, and later leads to Martha leaving, as he caused a HUGE rift in her family life.
RTD knew he was writing a kids show. He took serious stories and complex emotional arcs, and buried then under sixty feet of silly to get them accross to the young audience, as he should. Moffat, however, takes silly nonsensical stories and shallow emotional “arcs”, changes the chronological order, ads some scary monsters and flowery speeches, and thinks himself mature.
I read somewhere that RTD’s Doctor Who was a serious show pretending to be silly, and Moffat’s was a silly show pretending to be serious, and I think this all explains it well, and you’re a perfect example of the people who buy into it.
Now, tell me again why I shouldn’t prefer RTD to Moffat?
Pass Through Fire 