Your Analogy Is Flawed Though, Because The Dogs Are Not Raping Children Like Proshippers Do

Your analogy is flawed though, because the dogs are not raping children like proshippers do

I'd actually be so embarrassed if I sent this. I'm embarrassed for you reading this but like. Honestly. How do you actually sit there, type this out, look at it and go 'yeah I'll send it. That's good. That's good shit right there. That's A Point.'

Come off anon and say it again and I'll respect you at least enough to give it a proper answer ❤

Objectively hilarious that a poll was so stupid even non-shippers banded together to make sure the poll option the "impartial" OP hoped wouldn't win won by 52% and counting. Even after they deleted it. Because it won.

Historical. Monumental. Hilarious. Wholesome.

Do not reblog or support content from @cyberdelph.

They're a repost account using stolen artwork and although they include a link to the original content they do not actually have permission to be reposting it and are in many cases violating the original artist's personal rules.

I've reached out personally to several of the artists and they weren't even aware their art had been taken. Artwork has been stolen from DeviantArt, Lofter, Pillowfort, Instagram and Twitter. Cyberdelph is unfortunately not the only "art sharing" (i.e; reposting other people's artwork) account on this platform but they are one of the biggest and have somehow managed to evade being taken down.

I'll be cross-tagging some of the fandoms and ships they use to broaden awareness.

Here's the thing. Derek Hale dying would objectively suck no matter how or why, but character death can have significant meaning and can actually be impactful to the storytelling, the character's development, ect.

As a poorly done but logical example; Billy Hargrove. An abused, terrified boy who, ultimately, chose to be good and chose to willingly sacrifice himself to save people who objectively were just going to happily let him die. Billy went down fighting. Billy, for once, made his own choice out of a lifetime of being controlled by others. Billy, who had no idea about the supernatural, used his last moments to stand up to a terrifying interdimensional creature who'd used him like a meat-puppet in a fight he knew was going to be his last.

Meaningful. Impactful. Relevant to Billy's characterisation and backstory, regardless of if you liked him or not.

But Derek Hale's death means quite literally scant fuck all. It was death for the sake of death. It was solely for shock value and it was two-dimensional and it was nothing short of boring, lazy writing, and one final fuck you to the fans that Jeff Davis seems hellbent on shitting all over.

Jeff Davis effectively ensured that by the end of the show Derek Hale was not a significant character. He wrote him off as basically another pack-adjacent character in the movie too; just a single dad minding his business, trying to raise his son, occasionally helping out his old buddy Mr. Sheriff. He was objectively in the movie solely to die and once again uplift Scott McCall by providing him with a son for his happy ever after and to kick all the Derek Hale fans right up the patoot.

Remove Derek from the movie, and nothing changes. Eli could've just as easily been Isaac's son, or Jackson's. There was no solid basis for Derek's presence in the movie, or his death, other than shock value and the effective culling of the character because Jeff Davis is a tiny little man who physically can't stand when his fans don't fall into rank. And, of course, the pull of having Tyler Hoechlin back and having Derek Hale back. What's a Teen Wolf movie without the DILF factor, right?

He physically only created the movie because he couldn't stand the fact that the potential for one was there, and that someone else could produce it. He couldn't even think up an actual plot for the movie outside of a grossly predictable, flat recycling of previous villains and a frankly embarrassing reincarnation of the original pack.

The villain is recycled and completely voids the logic and lore set out by the show, and when you think about it is actually also just a boring recycling of the Kate Argent Werecreature plot, too. Main villain is killed, somehow comes back X amount of time later as a werecreature hellbent on revenge.

If you want another example of a poorly done, 'just because they can' death, look at Dean Winchester. Look at Eddie Munson. Look at Charlie Bradbury. Narratively redundant, shock value, stick-it-to-the-fans deaths that make me want to chew live wires.

I think we all need to learn that being wrong or undereducated isn't always something that has to be shamed and vilified. I'm going to use AO3 as an example, because its a prominent one.

I am constantly seeing people who don't actually understand the Archive, its history and its functions making suggestions for "improvements" that would actually have adverse effects when you look beyond the surface, because AO3 isn't like most other websites and these people simply don't know/understand that, so their suggestions are based on the assumptions and information of other sites.

And then I also see people who's only responses to these suggestions are insults, demeaning mockery and generally just comments that shame and criticise the person without actually helping them understand why what they're suggesting is the opposite of beneficial.

All this does is create resentment and an unwillingness to understand. Not everyone knows how to research something properly. Not everyone knows how to evaluate and understand information given to them. Sometimes, we do in fact need people to spell out what might seem obvious, because it isn't obvious to everyone.

The way I look at it is this;

Imagine if you're in school, or at home, and you ask the teacher/your parent a question. Let's say you ask them why the sky is blue. Imagine they laugh at you, mean and mocking, they sneer, and they say; what, you don't already know that? If you're too stupid to already know that, I'm not going to tell you. What a ridiculous question why don't you just automatically know why the sky is blue?

How would you feel then? Would you understand any better why the sky is blue? Would you be willing to ask again? Would you be any more motivated to know?

Everyone loves to say if you're uneducated on something, just don't speak about it, but there's not just 'educated' and 'uneducated.' Someone who's studied something for years will know more than someone who's only done a few weeks worth of research. Someone who's better at researching might be able to find information that someone who isn't as good at researching won't. Its not as cut and dry 'simply don't speak' because quite often, we assume we know enough to speak.

The incredible majority of what we know in life is secondary information. Its what we're told. What we witness and learn from other people. All life passes down knowledge generationally. Laterally. One to another.

And its okay not to know stuff. Its okay not to know everything there is to know about something. Its okay for someone else to know something you don't. And often, if you don't even know what you're looking for, it can be hard to learn what you need or want to know.

It also works both ways.

It okay to be corrected on something. Its not a personal attack. Someone telling you your information is wrong and correcting you isn't trying to humiliate you or demean you. They're just correcting your information. Say thank you, absorb the new info, and move on.

If your immediate instinct to someone who is civilly correcting you or telling you your content is incorrect is to lash out, consider why.