♥♥♥♥♥♥

The UK's Sonic the Comic has some of the best art to ever hit official sonic media but in the early years they'd have artists who didnt have the best grasp on sonic style characters

The Tails solo stories are the best example. Why do they look like that

you know they have noses right? you know the stylistic choice to simplify the nose from the front doesnt mean they dont have noses right? you know you can just talk about the common stylizations of anime without comparing them to fucking animals?

what is it with you people? why are you incapable of talking about anime normally? as a fucking normal genre and style of animation? the huge eyes/small nose thing isn't remotely unique to anime. it's just how a lot of animation, in general, chooses to stylize characters, especially to make them fucking easier to draw repeatedly for animation!

would you call any of these characters "pug-faced anime girls"?

they've all got huge eyes and barely perceptible noses. so what exactly is different or special about ~pug-faced anime girls~? why is this always something worth mentioning? girl literally the movie your url is from has this same style because it is JUST A NORMAL WAY TO STYLIZE HUMANS IN ANIMATION. (THE MEN TOO, BTW!)

When age, gender, location was censured like profanity in the name of protecting kids?

But suddenly the Only Way to keep children safe online is to make sure that they have 0 privacy?

"I'm sorry, but there's been a terrible plane crash. the blue and purple Wiggles were both there. fortunately, we put the band in two planes, so yellow and purple can still play for you."

and you cheer for yellow and purple but it still feels kind of bad and then you see a stagehand run out and whisper something and the guy gets back on the mic:

funny: using the name of the show as the character's last name because they don't have a canon last name (adora she-ra)

very funny: using the name of the show as the character's last name even though they have a canon last name (finn adventuretime)

For personal context, before I went to the '98 Burning Man festival, one of the things I'd read from a couple different journalists was that "everybody" runs around naked. Which, fine by me, I'd already spent a lot of time in clothing-optional spaces, I'm not fanatic about it but it's nice.

So I got there early and set up a public shade structure on one of Black Rock City's main roads and spent most of each afternoon just watching the crowds go by. I don't remember seeing more than one actually naked person the whole week. I think a topless woman passed by my intersection maybe every half an hour, sometimes once an hour. So why in the hell were people, normally pretty smart and observant writers, coming away with the impression that everybody was naked?

Then I remembered an unrelated passage from Joel Garreau's great book about the history of the outer-ring suburbs, Edge City. Mall developers told him flat-out that they tried to keep the crowds in their malls less than 5% black. Not because they themselves were racist, but because they had determined, experimentally, that if more than 5% of the people in the mall are black, the median white shopper will wrongly describe the mall as at least half black, as mostly black. And not a few of them would describe it, at 6% black, as a mall where "only black people go." Why?

Because, emotionally, they were still upset over the last one when the next one came into view.

For example:

Black Americans put forth a simple demand that we, and ideally everybody else, not be executed by armed members of the state without trial. In a word: equality. Liberals can't answer that demand because it is antithetical to their project of maintaining the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Instead they give a bunch of shit that nobody asked for which annoys everyone and the right wing of liberalism is able to capitalize on that annoyance to generate a backlash to a demand that was never met.

Instead of dealing with the scourge of killer cops, the democrats kneeled in Kente cloth. This did nothing for Black people and only served to fuel the grievance of white people. Instead of dealing with the effects of redlining, the liberal hegemony got rid of Aunt Jemima. This did nothing for Black people and only served to fuel the grievance of white people. Instead of dismantling white supremacy, the liberals coopted, recuperated, and sheepdogged every movement they could while stoking dissatisfaction and grievance that was then blamed on the "far left"

In essence, the "far left" was blamed for the tactics the liberals used to suppress us.

This pattern can be seen across what are now being attacked by the leadership of the democrat party as "groups"

Whether it be women, queer people, black people, the dreaded "Latinx" (remember that "discourse"?), trans people, disabled people, or any other marginalized group: we asked for equality. Liberals can't answer that demand because it is antithetical to their project of maintaining the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Instead they give a bunch of shit that nobody asked for which annoys everyone and the right wing of liberalism is able to capitalize on the annoyance to generate a backlash to a demand that was never met.

As a result, the left wing of capital can convince itself that it needs to move even further right to win because the spectacle of them fighting against the actual left caused them to do stupid shit that nobody liked that was unpopular and they blame on the actual left whereas the right wing of capital can point at the stupid shit that nobody liked as proof that they are being oppressed by the mere existence of the stupid shit that nobody liked.

The ratchet only turns one way.

Portrait sketch done for @evostrashbin, in honour of Grima Day 🐉!!