Frolicking About

Example: Sometimes I hate talking sounds. That’s usually lower frequency. Brown noise and it’s gone. Blocked out by the brown noise.

Lip-smacking/tongue-clicking in sentences? Mouse clicking? Higher frequency. Blue or white noise. Pink noise usually works too if those two are too harsh

Basic list is like this: Blue is the highest, white is equal, pink is a little lower, brown/red is the lowest. You just kind of have to play around and figure out which work best where and when.

If you have headphones/earbuds that allow you to still hear through them, you might be able to hear what you need to while also blocking out specific triggers. Sometimes.

Happy Of The Devil-ing day!

I’ve let this sit in the WIP graveyard for too long, I might as well let the world see it before it rots.

If it doesn’t look like my style that’s cuz 1. This was my first real animation project 2. I started this over a year ago and 3. Worked on it over about 6-7 months.

I’ve let this sit in the WIP graveyard for too long, I might as well let the world see it before it rots.

If it doesn’t look like my style that’s cuz 1. This was my first real animation project 2. I started this over a year ago and 3. Worked on it over about 6-7 months.

why the fuck do i even need to say this. "it's googly eyes" no, real people look like that. and you know they do. i know you know they do

ID: a graphic titled "strabismus (misaligned eyes) by Cleveland Clinic. there are 4 types of strabismus, each represented by a drawing of a person with it.

Hypotropia: eye points downward.

Exotropia: eye points outward.

Hypertropia: eye points upward.

Esotropia: eye points inward.

this joke when it appears in media is not usually just "hey this person has a weird eye" it's "hey this person is disabled", specifically, 99% of the time, "this person is intellectually disabled and either has or potentially has brain damage". (alternatively, rarely, "this person is mentally ill", such as fiddleford mcgucket and his glass eye, and a handful of cartoon villains i saw growing up for some reason)

strabismus jokes are not harmful because they "wrongly associate strabismus with stupidity", they are harmful because they are making fun of disabled people, especially intellectually disabled people and people with brain damage, who often do have strabismus, because many congenital and neurological conditions cause strabismus, intellectual disability, developmental disability, and cognitive disability. so while they think our eyes "look funny", that is only part of it

the strabismus jokes i see are generally about exotropia or esotropia. i see them on tv in comedy skits, i see them in cartoons both new and old, i see them in just random peoples's fucking art, i see them in reaction images often, i see them in memes often, i see them in emojis in discord servers, i see them in new media like fionna and cake (candy queen) and dungeon meshi (most notably marcille's "if i'm not useful to anyone" scene, laios, and an orc are all portrayed with exotropia as a joke at least once.)

there is a tv tropes term for this: fish eyes. and another! comically cross-eyed. the second even mentions this:

"In Real Life strabismus is a serious condition and poking fun of it is likely to offend some people, as it's a relatively common disorder. Despite this it's still an Acceptable Target in most circles, and mockery of strabismus is surprisingly common even in modern media."

but why are we considered an acceptable target? is it so normalized to make fun of people with visible differences, especially facial differences, that you need someone on a condemned social media platform to tell you it's not ok?

how do you "not know" that people with strabismus exist? stop putting that on my post. how could you not read between the lines when you see characters take a blow to the head and suddenly become cross eyed, speaking and walking like they're drunk? when things fall out of their hands and they drool? i always remember patrick going "wall eyed" and drooling and spongebob snapping his fingers. how could you not see what was being made fun of? did you not have disabled kids in your schools? have you never seen people with strabismus outside, even though there's at least 13 million of us? i just can't wrap my head around it- how could you "not know"?

someone i know recently said that people with visible disabilities are so hyper-visible that we've become "invisibilized". inconsequential. i'm hidden in my house and a shadow at my mother's heels, a flea bitten bad dog who does not speak unless i'm spoken to, does not try to take or want more than i have been graciously offered, and does not challenge the way things are

i refer back to the ugly laws- that unless we were there for the purpose of entertainment (jokes, inspiration porn, "feel good" stories that dehumanize us and shower praise upon able bodied people for being so kind as to take care of us or to take us to prom or to dance with us or to fucking... take us to a strip club, because we are also desexualized, and degendered, rendered entirely fucking inhuman and only existing for able bodied consumption, even in our day to day irl interactions) or reminding people to be repulsed by us (horror, villains, "undesirable" characters like loser nerds or stalkers), we were not to be seen in public.

Loud audio warning?? At least it’s loud to meee

The biggest gripe I have with Scott Goldsmith’s ending is that it’s framed, both in the story and by majority of the fandom, as “redemption.” I mean this as in, Scott “making up for” what he did by being better in the future. However, I don’t think that is redemption. I actually think Scott Goldsmith is completely irredeemable for his past. (To clarify, “past,” as in, before he was put to sleep for hundreds of years. That is what this post is about)

Canonically, he has committed *multiple* massacres in the past, and that’s not something you can just “make up for.” That’s countless lives he took, and what he stole can never be brought back or fixed, no matter what he does in the future.

I think the main takeaway from his ending is not redemption, or “anyone can be redeemed,” but actually is something along the lines of, “not everyone can be redeemed, but people can and should still work to be a better person in the future.”

He is not forgiven for what he did, he will never be forgiven, because again, to put it simply, you can’t bring back those people he killed. You can’t help them or undo what was done. That’s why his story isn’t redemption.

But, he’s open to changing for the better in the future, therefore preventing himself from causing *another* massacre.

Because the way I see it that was the happiest possible ending for Legs. He finally got to rest after decades of emotional turmoil (not condoning suicide, he had already been killed when he became a vampire). And Legs killed thousands. Way more than Owen. The thing is, at the start of the show he’s already well into his redemption arc. He’d already put the work in to change and be better and we’re seeing the results of that.

And Legs’ actions weren’t wholly good in Oakhurst. He manipulated Owen and used his grief and trauma to try and get him to take the cure. He lied to the town. He mistreated Avid when Avid was human, and killed Avid when he was a vampire, leaving him weakened enough for Owen to do the final blow- and Legs didn’t know that vampires would survive at lvl 3 and for a while genuinely thought he’d ended him for good. And he was okay with that.

But was he a good person? Did he deserve to get the ending he wanted?

Legs didn’t think he could be redeemed, but he was still willing to change and make good anyway.

I don’t think Scott ever said he was redeeming himself or that not killing anyone now “made up for” the people he killed. I don’t think I’ve really seen anyone in the fandom claiming that either. He said he wanted to “turn over a new leaf” because he genuinely just wanted to be better, because he cared about people for the first time in a milenia, not because he thought it would “save” him.

So if Legundo deserved to get what he wanted, then why doesn’t Scott?

So far I’ve only seen Scott’s ending, which I did enjoy. The post was mainly (like I said above) how I felt the word “redemption” being thrown around in regard to Scott’s ending just doesn’t sit right.

I think one of my favorite things about vampires is that nobody is ever just “good” or just “bad” all the time. There’s so much to look into with the characters, their motivations, their actions, their words, their goals, etc. and it’s lovely

KNIFE TO MEET YOU