Kids not wanting to kill anybody in a kids cartoon is problematic, according to some idiots
Drax is a rare male member of the Contrived Reasons For Showing Skin Club.
More you might like
Or how about we just accept the premise because there’s nothing wrong with characters who dress that way.
As a side note the part about Kaine from the original Nier is literally made up, it’s an out and out fabrication.
She stated when confronted by Weiss in game that she wears the clothes she does because she likes them, nothing more. This is further expanded upon in other materials which explain that she wears them to emphesise her femininity to combat the dysmorphia caused by her…. unique physiology (which, for an extra bit of Nier trivia, is not caused by the shade she is possessed by). It is also revealed that she has two sets and washes one each day so she can alternate between clean clothes (after rebuking Nier and Weiss who imply she smells bad).
All in all it makes the original poster argument pretty flimsy, that out of all the women in videogames they had to literally fabricate back story for a character in a game i doubt they played to get even three, pretty pathetic.
I didn’t fabricate it. My housemate was playing it and he said that was why she wore lingerie. I had no reason to not believe him as everything else he told me about the game was right. Maybe he just misunderstood something.
“I…. I didn’t fabricate it! It was someone else, i just drew it up into a little comic even though i have no first hand experience or understanding of the source material and published it on social media for hits and ass-pats”
So I assume you’ll concede your point is kind of moot at this point, I mean do you know anything about the characters or their respective franchises?
Looking at the other notes, i doubt it.
op is a rape fetishist but skimpy female clothes bad lmao
SIGN ME TF UP
GreatestSurveys.com is amazing it’s basically this scene in Spongebob
Is this actually real
its legit, just got paid by them the other day
THE MONEY CATS APPROVE OF THIS MESSAGE
This shit my future job..
I will clarify that this is real. I actually do this in my spare time for gift cards and stuff to make online purchases.
Reblog to save a bank account
I’m going to cry at how convenient this is.
![cerastes:
“ nifigiri:
“Why do people do this when explaining things
”
• [blatant lies]
• [misinformation]
• [something that sounds real but a Google search debunks it immediately]
• [personal bias]
• [guilt tripping people for not knowing something...](https://78.media.tumblr.com/4a057e8bce5f5fedf4c35663b0de7784/tumblr_orxep9C55B1rcfw7uo1_500.png)
Why do people do this when explaining things
- [blatant lies]
- [misinformation]
- [something that sounds real but a Google search debunks it immediately]
- [personal bias]
- [guilt tripping people for not knowing something about some other culture they really have no reason to know about]
- “bitches”
- [sassy gif]
💯🌈💯🌈💯🌈💯🌈
Sorry but all I see is white pride. Am I missing something?
Yea, a brain.
When you design a female character who isn’t conventionally attractive, you’re saying “This character doesn’t have to look pretty, they can still be good in their own way,” which is totally fine. I’m okay with people doing that.
But when you take a female character who was originally conventionally attractive, and purposely redesign her to be unattractive, you’re really just saying “I don’t like that this character is pretty, she isn’t allowed to be pretty,” You’re implying that being attractive detracts from a female character’s worth, especially if you consider the ugly redesign “better” simply because it’s ugly.
Yeah it is better you fuck
OP is clearly correct, it isn’t better.
No it is better you fucking plen
Why would you want a beautiful person to be ugly?
Because cishet white male standards of “beauty” are objectively shit
Wow you guys are really defensive over making every female character into a chubby hipster with a broken nose and pit hair. Has anyone hired you yet?
What happened to “let artists draw whatever they want?”
Thats allowed. Just don’t get upset when it gets mocked.
You can’t roast me motherfucker I’m made of asbestos
And you’re giving us all mesothelioma.
can Tankies just go one day without making embarrassments out of themselves?
Making attractive women be unattractive to “get back at straight cis white men” is misogyny in and of itself because you’re basically saying a woman is not allowed to be attractive because ~~men find her attractive~~ despite the number of straight and LGBT+ women who enjoy such characters.
But go off I guess
Functioning Person Who Is Not A Burden On Society: [draws a conventionally attractive OC]
Tumblr:
That screenshot never fails to make me laugh.
Awful bold of you to assume I’m “functioning”
fuck. i remember the post where that screenshot came from. fUCK.
it was criticizing the mercy bcrf skin.
THE CHARITY SKIN.
WARNING
There is a blog out there called:
lovelylittlelittles
PLEASE I beg of any of you who post selfies, body pictures, weight loss progress, if you have an eating disorder, if you use the tags ‘me’ or ‘mine’ to BLOCK THIS BLOG.
He will steal your pictures, he will not remove them even if you ask, and it doesn’t matter if you are underage. This person is a predator. He will reblog your pictures and attach a disgusting and usually degrading caption to them, please do yourself a favour and block him. He will most likely steal multiple pictures if he can, so it’s best to block him before he can steal more or steal them at all. His followers will harass you also, it is very very annoying and not worth the hassle.
Spread the word to any of your friends who post selfies or any form of body pictures. You all deserve better.
SIGNAL BOOST PLEASE! I just had OP message me to warn me so please warn others about this man.
Mr. Rogers had an intentional manner of speaking to children, which his writers called “Freddish”. There were nine steps for translating into Freddish:
- “State the idea you wish to express as clearly as possible, and in terms preschoolers can understand.” Example: It is dangerous to play in the street.
- “Rephrase in a positive manner,” as in It is good to play where it is safe.
- “Rephrase the idea, bearing in mind that preschoolers cannot yet make subtle distinctions and need to be redirected to authorities they trust.” As in, “Ask your parents where it is safe to play.”
- “Rephrase your idea to eliminate all elements that could be considered prescriptive, directive, or instructive.” In the example, that’d mean getting rid of “ask”: Your parents will tell you where it is safe to play.
- “Rephrase any element that suggests certainty.” That’d be “will”: Your parents can tell you where it is safe to play.
- “Rephrase your idea to eliminate any element that may not apply to all children.” Not all children know their parents, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play.
- “Add a simple motivational idea that gives preschoolers a reason to follow your advice.” Perhaps: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is good to listen to them.
- “Rephrase your new statement, repeating the first step.” “Good” represents a value judgment, so: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them.
- “Rephrase your idea a final time, relating it to some phase of development a preschooler can understand.” Maybe: Your favorite grown-ups can tell you where it is safe to play. It is important to try to listen to them, and listening is an important part of growing.
Mr. Rogers Had a Simple Set of Rules for Talking to Children - The Atlantic
Rogers brought this level of care and attention not just to granular details and phrasings, but the bigger messages his show would send. Hedda Sharapan, one of the staff members at Fred Rogers’s production company, Family Communications, Inc., recalls Rogers once halted taping of a show when a cast member told the puppet Henrietta Pussycat not to cry; he interrupted shooting to make it clear that his show would never suggest to children that they not cry.
In working on the show, Rogers interacted extensively with academic researchers. Daniel R. Anderson, a psychologist formerly at the University of Massachusetts who worked as an advisor for the show, remembered a speaking trip to Germany at which some members of an academic audience raised questions about Rogers’s direct approach on television. They were concerned that it could lead to false expectations from children of personal support from a televised figure. Anderson was impressed with the depth of Rogers’s reaction, and with the fact that he went back to production carefully screening scripts for any hint of language that could confuse children in that way.
In fact, Freddish and Rogers’s philosophy of child development is actually derived from some of the leading 20th-century scholars of the subject. In the 1950s, Rogers, already well known for a previous children’s TV program, was pursuing a graduate degree at The Pittsburgh Theological Seminary when a teacher there recommended he also study under the child-development expert Margaret McFarland at the University of Pittsburgh. There he was exposed to the theories of legendary faculty, including McFarland, Benjamin Spock, Erik Erikson, and T. Berry Brazelton. Rogers learned the highest standards in this emerging academic field, and he applied them to his program for almost half a century.
This is one of the reasons Rogers was so particular about the writing on his show. “I spent hours talking with Fred and taking notes,” says Greenwald, “then hours talking with Margaret McFarland before I went off and wrote the scripts. Then Fred made them better.” As simple as Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood looked and sounded, every detail in it was the product of a tremendously careful, academically-informed process.
That idea is REALLY worth learning to talk to the kiddos. Mr. Rogers still has a lot to teach us–especially for our own kids.