#mick rants

Little baby Charles with his parents, a young Susan, young Hosea and Bessie, but then I found something interesting in that pile of junk down the cliff just behind Arthur's tent-

Some tmc artists are really good at drawing horror but doesn’t mean everyone else has that talent so idk just let people have fun.

It’s not that serious tbh like if someone can only draw Gabriel and six as normal looking dudes who cares?

Not everyone’s artstyles Iike I said before work well with horror.

(People can try to draw them but some people are uncomfortable about it because they’re not confident in drawings horror.)

Before you say that’s the who point of them is too look ugly,yeah you’re right but at the same time not everyone can draw horror.So allow them to still draw the character either way.

The argument for sustainable shopping and ethical consumption is the most one sided, ignorant and glorified topics of discussion I've seen regarding clothes.

"Go thrifting" "Buy from sustainable companies" "Buy from local businesses" "If you can afford to buy from unethical companies you can afford to buy sustainably" "Just travel to find ethical stores" "Consider your personal carbon footprint" "Buying from unethical companies is wasteful" "You are selfish for buying unsustainably"

There are thousands, maybe even millions of people living in circumstances where none of these are available or can apply to them, so here is mine:

I live in a small, (less than 40 people live here) small village in the middle of fuckall nowhere surrounded by endless farmland and nothingness where majority of the people who live here rely on public transport and have to travel hours to go anywhere.

There are no thrift shops near me and the singular one that we found we had to travel way out of town for, it did not have clothes in either of our sizes or reasonable style because it was, majority, donated childrens and elderly clothes, essential items and items available for purchase to help support the charity.

Do you know why?

Because majority of the "thrift shops" where I live are designated charity shops because they're there for people who are less fortunate and are struggling and need affordable clothes and items.

These shops are not an aesthetic

They're not a trend

They're not shops for your mass consumption

I'm sick sick sick sick of the assumption that everybody has sustainable options available at affordable prices.

Everybody being able to live fully sustainable is an ideal that is impossible to achieve for many many people, as good as it would be to live that way.

Small businesses are wonderful but have as many cons as there are pros.

An example would be that, on average, smaller business are limited to only supporting certain sizes that dont accommodate to a majority of people (most usually stopping at size large), whilst frankly being out of budget in comparison to shopping elsewhere.

The difference is spending £30 for a few "ethical" items compared to spending £30 elsewhere and being able to afford enough clothes to cover you for more situations and comforts (not even considering people with material sensitivities or preferences that is).

And that's just about prices.

Travel, availability, individual preferences, disabilities and needs are also things that need to be considered.

Is it worth paying to travel hours out only to be able to afford one £25 shirt because it's "sustainable"?

The phrase "There is no ethical consumption under capitalism" should not be used to justify cases of mass consumption from unethical companies (large £500+ clothing hauls etc) from people who can afford to shop sustainably.

This doesn't mean not being able to afford clothes outside your budget makes you selfish, it means you are only able to afford what you have available.

Clothes are expensive, and I'm tired of people acting like they're not.

The problem of unsustainable and unethical resources being provided for consumption is an issue that is far out of your hands.

Not shopping at certain shops isn't going to stop the unethical exploitation because the problem isn't entirely the consumers fault (I say isnt entirely for the cases of peoples mass consumption from these companies ultimately supports them on a larger scale compared to just doing regular shopping), the problem is these unethical ways being there in the first place.

Obviously clothes are cheaper because of these unethical circumstances, but that doesn't mean clothes shouldn't be affordable.

He looks.. disappointed. Or at least unimpressed, maybe even shaken.

Charles' reactions are the more telling ones in the scene. Unlike Bill and Javier, who are caught up in the spectacle of the fight, Charles is more distant. He doesn't cheer Arthur on or encourage him, he just watches quietly.

It wasn't even Arthur that started the fight, but by god was he finishing it.

Charles didn't say much during the fight, or even after, he never brings it up again. Part of me thinks less that it was because he was horrified by the senseless violence, but more that he was just disappointed in Arthur for the way he handled it.

There's finishing a fight, and then there's what Arthur did to Tommy.

Needless punch after needless punch, beating that man until he was left permanently damaged after each hit. It wasn't about Tommy anymore, it was about Arthur letting the spirit of the fight get the better of him and doing more damage than he needed to amidst the chaos.

Arthur would have gladly killed Tommy, swing after swing until the man wasn't breathing anymore, and he probably would have if it wasn't for Mr Downes.

It's as if it wasn't just about the fight anymore, it was about Arthur’s internal conflict, his rage, and the frustration with his own life that just manifests in moments like these. It's a way of lashing out at something bigger than Tommy, something he doesn't know how to handle. Maybe his past, his regrets, or maybe just the man he’s become.

And Charles probably sees that. He sees Arthur as someone who is capable of more, someone who should know better, and someone who still has room to grow, even in the few months they've known eachother. But in that fight, Arthur isn't showing the restraint or self awareness that Charles values so much. It's almost like Charles is witnessing a man lost in himself, consumed by the very violence he’s been trying to avoid, and that's what brings out his disappointment.

The whole situation is one of the first few painful reminders that Arthur’s journey isn’t just about external struggles, but internal ones too. He’s not just fighting the world around him, but himself too.

In a way, Charles' disappointment could be a reflection of his hopes for Arthur. He sees Arthur as someone who is more than his role in the gang, more than the violence he’s trapped in, and when Arthur falls into that trap again, it’s not just a disappointment in his actions - it’s a reminder of the potential that’s being wasted.

He would have died being held captive any longer, he barely escaped.

Other times, the light will catch his face in a way that makes me seethe.

I get reminded that Dutch got to age, he got to grow grey.

Did Arthur get that chance? Jenny, Mac, Davey, Sean, Kieran, Lenny, Molly? Did any of them get to grow old together?

Why didn't they, Dutch? Why didn't the gang survive? Why didn't they get the promised virgin lands in the west? Why did you outlive them?