obviously these don't apply to everyone

anonymous asked:

As an autistic person I get really upset when people say I can't hc a character as autistic. I hear most of the time "they don't act autistic" or "They would never make that canon." It just me just as upset when people say I can't HC character as LGBTQ. Like I'm at the point where I'm super frustrated. I post one thing on LINE about Yusaku and everyone flips. Sorry I'm frustrated and you post resonated with me.

Absolutely. Everything that I said the other day applies to autistic HCs as well, so fuck how those neurotypicals feel. They’re obviously very confused about something:

A headcanon is exactly what it sounds like: it’s something that’s ‘canon’ in your mind. It’s the lense through which you interpret a character. Headcanons, even when you share them, are ultimately are personal. This is why you need no canon evidence or the approval of the fandom for a headcanon.

A speculation is something that you think has a chance of happening in canon. This can easily overlap with a headcanon, the only difference being that some sort of reasoning is required: whether that be canon evidence, series precedent, or just what you think would make sense for the story. 

A theory is something that you’re betting will happen in canon. This can overlap with speculation, or can even be a headcanon gone wild; but what makes theories distinct is that they require canon evidence, 100% of the time. 

With that said, no one has the right to tell you jack shit about any of your autistic HCs. You can HC Yusaku (or anyone else) as autistic until every star in the sky falls, and they’re just gonna have to deal with that—because the problem is theirs, not yours. It’s only when you enter the realm of speculation/theory that anyone is justified in disagreeing, but even then, the arguments against actually have to make sense lol

Autism is a spectrum. It manifests in a number different ways, and not in the same way for any two people. With that in mind, I fail to see how someone can reasonably argue that the character “doesn’t ‘act’ autistic”. 

Saying “[the creators] would never make that canon” is an argument of precedent, which is one I frequently use myself. Even so, just because something has never been explicitly spelled out in canon before, doesn’t mean it never can be.

The point is: make as many autistic headcanons as you want, because that’s your right. As I said the other day, canon evidence/reasoning is just the icing on the cake for HCs; they are by no means required.

It you want to speculate or theorize that a character is autistic, then you may have to defend your position, but that’s okay. Most of the arguments against are either presumptive or ableist as hell, and therefore need no serious acknowledgement.

Stay strong, anon <3

Originally posted by loe-fi

I guess it’s finished. I’m sorry. I’m so frustrated with this. I was planning on including it in some showcase thing the summer art program I’m going to is having and maybe even putting it up for sale there…? Mostly out of curiosity more than anything, but it’s just not looking good and I can’t save it. Just looking at the mess ups on the face make me want to burn it.
I’ll just go and delete the previous post of this.

anonymous asked:

CAN I PLS PLS WRITE A FIC ABOUT 90S DIET COKE AU DO I HAVE UR BLESSING NOTICE ME SENPAI :):):):):):):):):):) I'd also like to include everyone else's (or some of the, a majority of the) headcanons IS THIS OKAY DO I HAVE PERMISSION (I will OBVIOUSLY CREDIT AND INCLUDE LINKS AND EVERYTHING bc I'm IN ALL CAPS LOVE WITH THIS AU AND YOU AND EVERYONE FOR BIRTHING IT OMGGGGGGGGGAAAYYYY)

WHOA NELLY. You can indeed write whatever you like for the 90s diet coke AU! I’m certainly not holding the idea prisoner - if you feel inspired, then go for it! <3 

Other people already have~ (actually a couple more things have cropped up so I need to do another round-up soon!)

I find it interesting that nonwhite people / people of colour criticising art and literature made by white people, or the cult of personality around that art and literature, is often met with responses of “you just don’t know what you’re talking about / haven’t studied this subject properly / aren’t In Our Club” even when the nonwhite people in question are literally students of literature / art and art history / music and composition, etc.

it’s all in service of the idea that to be Truly Educated you must revere the same “geniuses” that everyone else does and if you don’t worship (literally…. worship) these crusty dead white guys like everyone else does then it must be because you just don’t GET it. and it ties really nastily into the idea that nonwhite people / people of colour are just less educated and knowledgable and analytical about things. as if calling a book racist demonstrates that we lack the capacity to understand context and metaphor or “satire” or whatever, rather than being a result of our own careful analysis and (masterful! obviously!) understanding of how white racism manifests itself

Mike Ribeiro is accused of rape: “lol trashville! They’ve sunk so low they’re signing rapists! What a sick dirty nasty team!”
Patrick Kane is accused of rape: “OMG innocent until proven guilty! Stop making accusations! The girl obviously lied for attention! You’re just jealous cause he won the cup!”

anonymous asked:

Can you give us a rant on sketchbooks? Obviously you do a ton, but I don't seem to have the drive to sketch often. I often focus on assigning personal illustrations rather than going out sketching.

I think there’s a few different parts to this question, so my answer will be in two posts. Part 1 will deal with why I think sketching on location is important. Part 2 will deal with how to apply it to your practice.

Obviously, everyone should have a sketchbook (or somewhere where they collect their sketches) for ideation, writing, doing thumbnails, preparatory drawings, etc. Planning is such an integral part of the illustration process, that I’d be suspect of anyone who claimed to not do any at all. 

Sketching on location is a different animal, although not unrelated. It is still planning, but planning of a different sort.

Keep reading

Okay. So the Sansa scene was fucked up - no argument. And obviously Sansa has had the most traumatizing childhood/storyline out of literally anyone. But idk. I feel like people need to chill with the D&D anger and “not in the books” argument. Because although it doesn’t happen to Sansa, it happens (and more explicitly) to Sansa’s childhood best friend Jeyne Poole, the daughter of Winterfell’s former steward, who was forced to leave behind her own identity to pretend to be Arya Stark and marry Ramsay Bolton. Since Jeyne Poole’s character was eliminated from the tv show and her storyline was merged with Sansa’s (who we didn’t hear from in the books for a total of 10 years) it makes sense that that’s the path that was taken by the writers. I wouldn’t say the scene was for “shock value” because who actually thinks it’s okay to depict a rape just for shock value? If it wasn’t happening to Sansa, it would be happening to someone else. This is Ramsay we’re talking about.  I hated this weeks episode so much because I just feel like Sansa is so precious and deserves so much better. But in the end, we all know that Sansa is a boss bitch and she hasn’t been broken yet and winter is obviously coming for everyone who has done her wrong - including Petyr Baelish. In due time.