This is actually hella interesting, bc in simple terms, tigers are extroverts and lions are introverts. There’s more to it, but that’s the gist.
Whenever zoo’s tried to put lions and tigers in the same enclosures, the tiger would eventually try to groom the lioness and play constantly. The lioness would lose patience and snaps at them
So basically what I’m saying is that you have a regal and refined gf who stands at the edge of a balcony during parties, sipping champagne
Then you have the other girl who drank all of the little flutes on the servers platter, and is now drunkenly pointing at her gf and telling everyone that that’s her gf and doesn’t she look beautiful I love her so much
So I had to draw them in human form???
You drew them in the corresponding ethnicities for their Geographic locations!!! Bless you, you have no idea how sick and tired I am of white human lion king characters.
This post is deemedculturally, historically, or aesthetically significant as certified by the National Shitpost Registry.
This is some of that top-shelf, straight-up, good shit. Bless these big cat lesbians.
I’m getting really tired of the wise serene pacifist trope in fiction. Every committed pacifist, prison abolitionist, antiwar activist, etc I’ve ever met in real life has been vibrating with compressed rage at all times. Do you know what it’s like to believe deeply in your heart that doing harm to others is wrong and the goal of society should be to alleviate suffering for all people and live in the United States of America? IT’S NOT FUN. Show Us The Pissed-Off Pacifists.
Dude there might be a word for the emotion that is forged when someone’s deep abiding love and compassion for all people and living things welds itself into decades of built-up foaming fury at how those people been treated their whole life by those in power to create a sort of alloyed super-commitment to a set of ethical principles but i promise you “tranquility” is not that fucking word
do you think there’s ever been a point in the avatar cycle where everyone was just waiting for them to pop up in one of the water tribes, but instead they reincarnated into one of those waterbending swamp hicks in the earth kingdom? because I really like the idea of a swamp avatar with a little leaf hat and a southern drawl.
so apparently with the tribes that have, like, discrete sites of power, the Avatar would rotate where they were born. Which for Air meant it would go something like Northern->Western->Southern->Eastern, and for the water tribe meant it would alternate between North and South, which is part of why the Southern Tribe had been so depleted; Sozin knew that was where the next Avatar would be born.
but. The swamp is ABSURDLY connected to the spirit world, and definitely should have gone into the rotation, and I’m just. Just imagining. An AU where Aang didn’t make it and Sozin just assumed the Southern tribe was next and anyway twenty years later this goddamn fully realized hick from the sticks Avatar emerges from the swamp and puts the hurting on the fire nation.
Instead of a polar bear dog or whatever, their animal companion is an alligator.
Weiss stumbles a bit. Nora does too, but she hides it well. Penny turns her stumble into a twirl. This was dizzying for all three of them. But Blake? She clings to a wall.
See, one’s sense of balance is determined by their inner ear. Dizziness and vertigo are caused by fluids in the inner ear swirling around because of inertia in direct contrast to whatever motion your body is actually going–a conflict in what you sense versus what is.
Blake… has four ears.
Also this happened earlier:
None of the other characters stumbled out. They coughed a bit, but didn’t stumble.
Blake’s doesn’t easily get vertigo, she’s usually in total control of her movement, but on the rare occasion she does, her brain gets four conflicting statements on which way is up. That’s just so, so much worse for her than other people.
my jewish fandom ass wants to write an essay about how Stan Pines is the perfect deconstruction of antisemitic caricature characters–initially we think he’s this tricky, stingy, money-obsessed character, and that’s played for laughs, but then later it’s revealed that he was forced into that lifestyle and mindset out of a desperate need to save his family. (Echoing the experience of a lot of Jewish people who were historically forced into professions like moneylending as the only way they could make a living, provide for their families, and escape destitute poverty. Which then was weaponized against them in the creation of viscous antisemitic stereotypes and tropes.)
I want to write that essay, but I feel like a lot of people on this website would willfully misunderstand me
Okay so, this is likely not going to be the most formal piece I write, but, I have some thoughts that I want to get down:
Initially we are led to see Stan as this stingy, tricky character obsessed with money. This is played for laughs, and it actually becomes one of his key character quirks early on. To the point that this is how we see him in the intro sequence:
We see this over and over again from the first episodes of the show.
But, as the series progresses, and more of Stan’s backstory is revealed, we learn that that he was forced into that lifestyle and mindset out of a desperate need to save his family, and his brother in particular. In A Tale of Two Stans, he explains:
I couldn’t leave my brother’s house until I figured out how to save him, but I needed to pay his mortgage somehow. For once in my life, people were actually buying what I was selling…By day, I was Stanford Pines: Mr. Mystery. But by night I was down in the basement, trying to bring the real Stanford back.
(Besides which, we learn that those skills originated because he was literally expelled from his home, and was subsequently on the brink of poverty. Sound familiar?)
Crucially, after we learn this about Stan, these behaviors don’t go away. Even though Ford is back, and he no longer needs to “save him”:
But these behaviors are all cast in an entirely different light now. Sometimes they’re still funny…but they’re not only funny.
And, money is not Stan’s top priority (as we now know it never was). This becomes explicit in the last episode. When Stan and Ford tricks Bill into entering Stan’s head so that Ford can erase him, this conversation occurs:
Stan: You’re a real wise guy, but you made one fatal mistake–you messed with my family!
Bill: You’re making a mistake! I’ll give you anything: money, fame, riches, infinite power!
Bill offers, in short, all the things that we might have expected the person we thought Stan was in s1e1 to desire above all else, (all the things that antisemitic stereotypes and tropes say that Jewish people desire above all else.) The only cost for Stanley would be to let Bill go and thereby betray his family.
This is how Stan responds to that offer:
Something that is worth noting is that Stan’s character does not change in this regard throughout the series. He doesn’t lose his stingy tendencies. He doesn’t come to understand that his family is worth more than “money, fame, riches, infinite power.” He’s always known that. It’s our perspective and understanding of those traits in him that change.
That’s why this is effective as a deconstruction. More context shows us that our initial perspective on his character–and therefore that type of character--was incomplete. We see sympathy where we might not have before.
And what do I mean by that type of character? The most frequent place we see this type of character is in the antisemitic trope character of “the Stingy Jew.”
Historically, this trope came out the reality that in medieval Europe, Jews frequently worked as moneylenders (the precursor to modern day bankers), because antisemitic laws prohibited them from working in other other careers. The options were poverty and likely starvation for themselves and their family, or this career path which frequently earned them scorn among their by-and-large Christian neighbors. Ultimately, this reality was weaponized against them; the “Jewish moneylender” became vilified in ways that often led to violence and murder, and “the stingy Jew” became a stock villain in media of the time, and later–sometimes to this day (though in contemporary instances, sometimes the Jewishness is implied.)
Perhaps the most famous English language example of this is the explicitly Jewish moneylender Shylock from Shakespeare’s play The Merchant of Venice, pictured here in an artistic rendering by John Hamilton Mortimer:
In this play, Shylock is about as villainous at they come, (even though Shakespeare fleshes him out a bit more than many of his contemporaries.)
I won’t give a whole plot summary about him or what he does in the play, but I would like to draw attention to one line of his in particular. At one point in the play, Shylock’s daughter Jessica, the only family he has, runs away and steals a great deal of money and jewels from her father when she does. When Shylock finds out, he reacts like this:
I would my daughter were dead at my foot, and the jewels in her ear! Would she were hearsed at my foot, and the ducats [money] in her coffin! (Merchant of Venice III.i)
There’s obviously a lot to unpack there, and none of it is good. But what I want to focus on for our purposes is the fact that Shylock here is literally saying that he would trade his daughter’s life in this moment for wealth. For “money” and “riches.” I bring this up, because to me it seems apparent that, intentionally or not, Stan’s conversation with Bill in Weirdmaggedon is in dialogue with this moment.
Shylock is obsessed with money as an ends to itself, over everything, including his daughter. He makes it clear that he would choose money over his only family member’s life.
Stan is obsessed with saving his family and sees money as means to that end. Bill offers to trade money for his family’s lives, and Stan responds by punching him in the face.
The obvious reality is that the vast majority of Jews, including and perhaps especially the historical Jewish moneylenders, are, like all people, much more like Stan than like Shylock. Stan’s character helps us see that, and helps us deconstruct those very harmful tropes that still unfortunately continue to exist.
One more thing I’d like to touch on. If Stan Pines is going to function as an effective deconstruction of harmful tropes, it’s important that he doesn’t fall into those same tropes himself. And this is why I actually think it’s important that his own explicit Jewishness isn’t mentioned in first level canon, by which I mean the show itself. (I know, Alex Hirsch, the show creator who is himself Jewish, has noted that Stan is Jewish, and Journal 3 mentions that Stan had a Bar Mitzvah, but this is all at the very least second-level canon and word-of-God type stuff, and the average viewer of the show is not necessarily familiar with Alex Hirsch’s twitter account, nor have they necessarily read tie-in material.)
To understand the reason why I think this is a good thing, we have to remember that Gravity Falls originally aired in 2012, well before streaming was a thing. Whole seasons weren’t released at once, and in fact gaps between episodes were so large that each new episode premier was treated as an event. A Tale of Two Stans, the episode in which we learn about Stan’s backstory, was the 32nd episode of the show, and didn’t air until July 13, 2015–over three years since the show began.
Before that, before we have all the context from that episode, we don’t know that Stan’s supposed stinginess comes from any other source than an obsession with money for 30+ episodes…which was 3+ years in real time. If Stan had been explicitly acknowledged as Jewish in that time, what evidence would we have had that he wasn’t just another example of a “greedy Jew” archetype? He wouldn’t have been a deconstruction; he would have been part of the problem.
I don’t think it’s incidental, then, that the only hint we get in the show itself that Stan is Jewish comes in the same episode when we get his backstory, all that crucial context, in the moment in which he’s being expelled from his home:
One of my least favourite dialogue tropes is when a man tells a woman, “You can’t do that” or “I wouldn’t do that if I were you” and she says, “Why? Because I’m a woman and therefore too weak to handle this/can’t take care of myself?” or something to that effect and the guy replies with, “No, because everyone who tried that ended up with a bullet in their brain” or something equally reasonable and not gender-specific that paints him as the rational not sexist guy and the woman as an irrational paranoid feminist who searches for sexism in everything. This whole scenario is built on the idea that sexism is over and women’s fears and suspicions don’t have a leg to stand on. It’s also self-congratulatory pseudofeminism bc it’s supposed to make the viewer/reader/listener feel that in this specific work of fiction women are treated respectfully and as equal with men.
huh.. never thought of it like that
But, what if the male character isn’t sexist? I meam…their fictional sure but…I’m not sure how to phrase this
Its not a question of the character themselves- its how the writers are portraying them. The way this trope plays out, the whole moment revolves around the woman looking foolish for assuming that there is sexism happening. She is characterized as being irrational, jumping to conclusions, even insecure. While the dude is characterized as the calm, rational one.
It is a trope that specifically works by taking a woman standing up to sexism and saying “haha it wasnt actually sexist at all! Isnt calling out sexism foolish and silly. Thats what you get for assuming that men are sexist!”
I have the same reaction with homophobic jokes set up like this. Like the whole “you can’t marry a woman”, “why bc you think its wrong” “no we haven’t found you the right dress yet silly!” Or stuff along those lines.
It feels like someone setting up to punch you and then you duck and the person goes “haha, i wasn’t gonna punch you at all, why would you duck? You shouldnt just assume someone’s gonna deck you because they have their fists up.”
Yes! Can we please agree to leave the “My son wearing makeup is horrifying! The lipstick doesn’t match the shoes!” bullshit behind us?? Making trans and gay folks flinch isn’t as cool as y'all think
THINGS I LOVE ABOUT THIS SCENE BESIDES THE OBVIOUS-
The whole reason this fight happens is because Mark Shepard’s son wanted to see his dad fight Christian Kane. Mark’s family was on set during this being filmed and presumably had a fantastic time.
Mark and Chris went so hard during filming that they actually broken that table and just kept fighting. I’d really like to see the footage please.
The way Tara is just baffled by the whole thing but doesn’t get involved because it’s not really her business? Eliot is punchy and presumably he has a good reason for punching this guy so? Not her problem. Love her.
The way Eliot has to rise up on his toes to get enough leverage (*finger guns*) to throw Sterling down effectively. He’s such a tiny angry man but it’s easy to overlook because he has the soul of a Doberman in the body of a Jack Russell terrier.
Okay I reblogged this before BUT the visual contrast between the first scene and the second one is fantastic. The first sets Peter’s vibrantly multicolored suit up against the black & white colors of the reactor; the second does the same thing, but switches the palettes. Now the background is in reds and blues and Miles’ suit is the black and white. And he still catches the eye in a screen full of moving parts. THIS MOVIE, GUYS.
It’s Miles standing out against the colors of the original Spider Man.
this remains a masterclass in How to Make a Comic Book Movie
I truly feel this is the best comic book movie that’s been made. By a very wide margin. I’m completely done with the mass market bullshit of Disney but the sequel for this is the one Marvel movie I would still watch.