Being An Artist Nowadays Is So Scary On The Internet. Imagine Working Hard And Spending HOURS On Your

Supernatural Romances make NO sense - A Random Opinion

Here's the thing: As much as I enjoy these concepts or tropes, they don't make sense when you take the time to think about it. Don't believe me? Let's go down the list then.

Vampire romances: The concept of a vampire romance really doesn't make sense when you take just five minutes to add all the aspects together.

Sure, it can be intriguing or whatever (especially if there’s a unique way in which the premise is handled), but let's really boil down the contents of its true implications here.

A vampire is a creature that feeds on human blood. Vampire romances USUALLY (not all the time, but usually) involve a vampire falling for a human rather than a vampire falling for another vampire.

Let me say this again. Vampire, which eats humans---then has stories where they then fall for humans.

That's like a chupacabra hooking up with a goat. What sense does it make for a creature to fall in love with something it usually tends to eat?

Even if the said predator of this relationship has no intention of eating their mate or harming them---would you, as a rational person, feel comfortable knowing that your partner has to harm YOUR species and eat them for their own survival? I highly doubt it.

"Oh, I know you kill people and drink their blood, but I know you won't kill ME! I'm just DIFFERENT--"

It literally makes no sense.

Zombie romances: Zombie romances make even less sense to me. Because now instead of a creature that simply wants your blood, it’s a creature that quite literally wants to rip your stomach open and eat your intestines like Twizzlers.

At least with a vampire, you could just have IV blood bags for them to drink to put off their thirst for a WHILE. But when it comes to zombies, they literally rely on eating the WHOLE entirety of the human.

Once again, it’s like a chupacabra dating a goat. Oh, but what if the zombie doesn’t want to eat or harm their partner?

Well, then we get into even more ethically concerning details on the human’s part. Because aren’t zombies walking corpses that eat people? And if a human is willing to date or become uh…'entangled’ with a zombie, isn’t that a form of necrophilia since the zombie is literally just a man-eating corpse? 

Sure, we could argue whether or not zombies are living or non-living. But let's be honest here: the majority of the time, zombies do not look cute. They are rotting parts of their bodies, they look dead, they smell horrible, they’re covered in blood, and sometimes missing a limb or two. If you’re unironically attracted to that in real life or something (not including those who JUST like the stories for the stories), you are mentally ill—there’s no way around it for me. You are attracted to something that looks like a corpse. That in itself is necrophilia and it’s honestly gross from an incredibly literal standpoint.

Even if the zombie were to look like some cutesy/idealistic anime character or something, it still doesn't change the fact that this thing's practically DEAD.

Sure, like vampire romances, it could be interesting depending on the intricacies of the story. But it still makes no sense when you write it down on paper. Wow, you’re dating a creature that looks dead and has to fight off the urge to eat people every single second they're on this planet. How quirky. 

Ghost romances: Ghost romances also don’t make sense on paper. Now, this one is a bit more loose in my opinion since ghost archetypes are often experimented with in terms of what they can do or not do. It’s just one of those things where it really depends on the story world and the premise it's placed in. However, from the very cultural and general stance of how ghosts work, they can’t touch anything (except when it's to conveniently scare people, so even then, their intangibility is transient) and they can’t age. 

I’m sorry, but aren’t the driving points of a romance being able to see the characters display affection and/or get old together? And if a ghost can’t touch anything, what’s the point in being romantically involved with someone you can’t kiss? I get there’s long distance relationships, but if they’re in the same room with you—why would you want that? 

Even if the subject of physical intimacy wasn’t an issue, there’s still the prospect of aging. Because if your boo (pun intended) died young and is a ghost, that means they’re physically stuck at that age forever. Even if they were to be centuries older than you, wouldn’t it be weird to see some elderly person smooching on a young looking supernatural?

Let me put it like this. A human woman at 25 years old is in a relationship with a male ghost. The said male ghost died at 30. Sure, she could get away with dating him for another five or ten years, but eventually, the human woman ages in appearance physically and looks older than her ghost partner. And if she lives long enough, she’s gonna be 80 while her boo still looks 30. You’re seriously telling me that DOESN’T look weird from the outside? Wouldn't you be weirded out if some super old person was smooching up with someone decades younger than them?

At that point, to avoid any oddities, you’d be better off killing yourself in whatever spot they’re stuck to so you wouldn’t have to worry about aging out of proportion in the relationship (and if not aging, then to touch them). That sounds like a lot more work than it’s worth.

Werewolf romances: Werewolf romances are the only sort of supernatural romance I could possibly get behind—and even then, it’s still highly dependent on how the said story chooses to handle the workings of lycanthropy. 

At least with this partner, they most likely can turn humans who won’t HAVE to kill you out of survival. You don’t have to be sorry about some super weird complex age gap. And you can touch them. Sounds like a pretty decent basis so far. BUT there’s always a catch.

A werewolf is (duh) a person who can turn into a wolf (or wolf-like monster). When it comes to these beings, it really is a roll of the dice. Because some versions will make them seem they have no thought process or control at all—whereas others give them complete control. So to call a werewolf automatically dangerous to the well being of their human partner is rather tough to say off the bat. Though, I do know that all of that fur that sheds off of them will be annoying to deal with (and that’s not even counting all of the things they might chew up---like your shoes).

And while I would be inclined to agree that being in a relationship with a werewolf could most definitely be a form of beastiality, at the very LEAST a werewolf can revert back into a human the majority of the time. So as long as you’re only doing stuff with them as a human, you should technically be fine, right?

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I still don’t find much appeal in becoming romantically involved with someone who can become some giant creepy wolf abomination, but at least there’s SOME things in there you COULD manipulate depending on which universe you land into.

Overall, while I do think supernatural romances are indeed a fun concept (and I DO tend to enjoy some of these stories), there’s no way in HECK I think they’re ACTUALLY plausible (unless you add some major--MAJOR--plot armor).

Nah, it's fine. We all get upset. Hope you have a better week :)

Does anyone ever learn something new that makes them despair for the human race? Like, I just came to a horrible realization and I’m actually shaking right now with grief and anger.

Reasonable reaction, cuz like what, who wrote the scene? Never let them write again 💀

How dare Marvel Rivals make me obsess over a fictional couple I knew nothing about until a few days ago

How dare Marvel Rivals make me obsess over a fictional couple I knew nothing about until a few days ago

Why I think Silver deserves to be in the fourth Sonic movie

So off the bat, I know some of you guys are going to disagree with me and that is perfectly fine. I know a lot of people have mixed opinions regarding Silver as a character, and I certainly have my own.

All I ask is that if you do have any disagreements or information I might be missing, that you convey them respectfully since we're talking about FICTIONAL characters---the world isn't gonna end if we think different about a floating psychokinetic hedgehog.

I think he should be in the next Sonic movie, but in order for my points to coalesce properly, there's other aspects of the topic I'd like to address first in hopes you guys will see where I am coming from.

Personally, on top of having his powers being freaking awesome, I think Silver is a good character and is rather underused in more recognized forms of Sonic media. Don't get me wrong, he was in Sonic 06 and could very well have other mediums he was in---but for the most part, I don't see him and it's as if the Sonic franchise forgets he exists.

Now, don't get me wrong---I understand why some people might have an aversion to Silver regarding his appearance in the Sonic 06 game. His boss battle is tough for utterly no reason, he believes Mephiles at the drop of a hat, and then became a (sometimes annoying) meme. But personally, I don't think this makes him a bad character--but rather he had a bad introduction and I'll explain what I mean.

Regarding his trust in Mephiles, I'd be one to agree that it was naive for him to do, but Knuckles the Echidna underwent similar situations with Eggman MULTIPLE times. Especially if we're talking about Sonic X, Knuckles is shown to have believed Dr. Eggman's lies and fight Sonic multiple times. So personally, I feel as though if you dislike Silver for believing Mephiles, you should have similar thought patterns toward Knuckles for doing similar stuff---if not more than Silver.

For me, I interpret Silver trusting Mephiles as desperation to save his world from destruction. Silver---like Sonic---is an adolescent boy who has the weight of the world on his shoulders and is doing the best he can with the information that is given to him.

I'm explaining all of this because I for one, can't exactly agree with the narrative that Silver is a villain or that he's plain stupid (as some---not all, but some---have argued). And even if I were to agree with the notion that Sonic 06 had the worst portrayal of Silver, I still wouldn't agree with the implication that because of his introduction in the game--that it means he doesn't deserve a redesign or rewrite to fit the movie (since that's what Jeff Fowler has done with other characters in the film already).

I think having Silver in the movie could reintroduce a new version of him and considering Jeff Fowler's obvious skills in bringing honor to the iconic characters, I don't see why Silver would be any different.

Some people think Silver wouldn't fit, but I disagree due to a pattern I noticed within the more recent Sonic films (including the end credit scene for the third one involving Shadow).

Granted, we don't know what the fourth movie is about (or at least I don't) so for all I know, Silver COULD not actually fit into the plot. But considering what we saw with the metal Sonics, I think he'd fit right in.

In the second movie, it gave Sonic two allies (Tails and later on Knuckles) and an enemy (Eggman). In the third movie, it gave Sonic two allies (who would later on be Shadow and Eggman) and an enemy (Gerald Robotnik). While sure, they definitely have their differences in how they manifested plotwise, there was still a pattern.

In the end credit scene of the third movie, it already shows us who the new enemy would be [metal sonic] and who the new ally would be [Amy Rose]. So Silver could very easily fit that role of being the second ally. And sure, the whole 'enemy turned friend' thing might be predictable or old for some people, but I don't think it's a case of lazy writing. I think it's more about the franchise showing who Sonic truly is as a character and how at his core, he wants to help people.

In the case of Silver, I think that could work very well. And it's not like Jeff has it happen the exact same way each time. Heck, even if they were to make him an ally for Sonic off the bat without them being enemies first, I believe it could still very much work.

Once again, the fourth movie hasn't even released and so not many of us (at least not me) know know what the plot for it will be. But, if possible (and that's a big if), I think Silver deserves a shot at redemption by being in the fourth Sonic movie.

So, like. In a society that is deeply misogynistic, does not help pregnant women, and openly shames them when they end up abandoned and unable to support the child. Are you saying women should stop (getting abortions, or in your terms) committing murder anyway? When:

- pregnancy is a health condition that renders people unable to work, some during and most for a significant period after;

- this is true—this is a country where the complication rates for pregnant women and children are actually quite poor for the average wealth;

- there is nowhere near enough support, financial or service based, that helps that clump of cells that was saved to ever become a toddler. Neither foster care systems nor current food banks and support could possibly count, not with the quality they are or amount of time they take away from the day to day.

Like… I don’t understand, why not change the focus from judging women for their choices (one way or the other), pursuing this in the name of feminism, to changing the world first.

Because feminism is great, as a concept. But you can’t eat it. It won’t help you calm a baby who’s been crying for hours. It won’t teach you what you need to know to take care of that kid.

Historically a lot more kids died of various causes, starvation included. Why should anyone accept this as a possibility in the 21st century? If other countries can give new mothers 1-3 year maternity leave and tax breaks, why are we content with living knee deep in misery?

Philosophy is well and good, but we can’t afford it yet.

All very fair points :)

I appreciate that you sound willing to have a conversation instead of resorting to just throwing insults at me, so thank you.

I do think we should change the world first and I'll admit, I haven't done a good job stating that in the past. I'll admit I didn't do a good job at making those viewpoints clear earlier and so because of that I come across as judgmental. Miscommunication (or rather lack thereof), I will always be willing to apologize for.

Everything that I do think about this topic I obviously have not stated on this profile because I do like to talk about other things and not JUST politics. But in regards to the topic itself that you mentioned, as much as I don't like abortion, I don't think it should be banned immediately. I do think there needs to be a gradual shift so that way so-called pro-lifers can earn the trust of women. And also because of economic reasons since as you said, some changes we can't afford yet. I hope these said changes come, but even if they do, I don't have faith they'll come within due time.

I know I have not stated this in the past before but honestly I think it's because I never really thought to do so. I guess it was because no one else was curious to ask but even then, I'm more than willing to accept responsibility for how I come off.

I do have a lot more thoughts and opinions regarding this topic so if you do want to know more about what I think on the topic you can just DM me, send another, or we can continue this conversation (which I'm more than happy to do). I will post more in the future regarding my views so my most recent one most certainly won't be the last because I don't like how both sides handle the issue.

But I completely agree: the world does need to change first in order for abortion to be removed because women rightfully don't trust the world. How can we when it's been harsh to us time and time again?

Because a large reason why lots of women are getting them in the first place is because they don't trust the world to help them out which is WAY more than fair. Hospitals in America don't really do much to help women with Jack and it wasn't until 1993 did women in America start being medically studied, which is so disgusting.

I think one of the things we as a society can do is make sure pregnant women have free (or at the bare minimum, much cheaper) and baby products should not be taxed. Our government has so much money to spend on everything else so I don't see their need to squeeze cash out of stuff.

Obviously there's a LOT more aspects of this but I don't want to run your ear off unnecessarily so I hope it's clear what I'm trying to say. But I'd be willing to continue talking about this :)

I'm hearing a pro-abortion argument that fetuses 'don't count' as being alive because their lungs don't yet work outside the womb abd they're reliant on outside intervention. Apparently 'functional lungs' are part of yhe definition of a living being.

Ignoring yhe raw absurdity of that statement, I'm in renal failure. My kidneys mo longer function and I have to perform routine dialysis treatments. Withou this artificial intervention, I - and the other half a million Americans with renal failure - will die.

So do we mo longer count as alive? Is it of no moral consequence to kill us?

I'm still pretty young. I've seen people in their teens and twenties in the same position. We have our lives ahead of us. But we can't live without mechanical assistance.

So could someone decide, well, having to deal with your medical bullshit-- that's inconvenient, I don't want to deal with you anymore. Well, you're a permanent patient, you clearly have no quality of life, I'm just trying to prevent your suffering. Your vital organs don't work so you aren't really a living human being anyway.

What about those with pacemakers, or who need supplemental oxygen? They don't count because they can't survive independently?

I know it's just justification to kill a child without having to deal with the moral repercussions. They never think beyond justifying their actions. But what a sick idea.

I'm sorry for the situation you're in and I will be keeping you in my prayers.

Your message demonstrates yet another fatal flaw of the pro-abortion mindset. Any argument they made for killing children in the womb can be used to justify killing a person outside and even if they don't realize it and will deny it when it's pointed out, when they argue that an unborn baby isn't a person because their lungs aren't fully functional, they aren't conscious, etc. they are arguing those arbitrary points are what makes someone a person and if it justifies killing an unborn child then it in turn would also justify killing a person who has already been born.

But of course once you point that out they quickly make up a reason why it doesn't apply anymore once the person is born. But that in itself is just them debunking their own argument because if a fetus doesn't count as being alive because that same line of reasoning doesn't apply to someone who is outside the womb then lung, kidney, or other organ functionality is not the real argument and this new issue they brought up is.

They are hard to debate sometimes because every time you back them into corner they suddenly change their argument.

Pro-aborts do not think about the implications of their preposterous claims at all and they need to understand that when they create those arbitrary standards that they made up, they are revoking personhood from more than just the unborn and justifying murder of anyone who doesn't meet the perimeters they set - whether that person has already been born or not.

So I have something I want to say, and I think it's something both pro-life and pro-choice people can and should agree on.

It's this: Women deserve better than abortion.

Now stay with me, please. There is this charity that I love, called Let Them Live, and they open their doors and fundraisers to moms in need, raising enough money and giving them all the support they require to confidently choose life. And that's beautiful -- I think people on both sides can agree on that.

The thing is, the stories these moms in need tell strike stunningly similar notes, over and over again.

"I don't want to abort my baby, but I'm so scared of being homeless."

"I would never choose abortion, but my life is too unstable/dangerous because of an abusive partner to choose life."

"I want to keep my baby, but no one in my family is supporting me."

"It breaks my heart to abort, but my partner/family is pressuring me into it."

"I'm scared."

"I'm alone."

"I'm unsafe."

"I'm jobless."

"I'm about to be evicted."

Doesn't it break your heart? What happened to the world that we now look at these women in dire straits, who often have children already and say, "The answer is abortion." Over and over, these women are told by society, by family members, by partners, and by friends that the answer to their problems is to deny every maternal instinct and subject themselves to a dangerous medical procedure that snuffs out the small life growing inside them.

Is this really what the pro-choice side is fighting for? I have spoken to many pro choice people in my time... They hold their beliefs because they see abortion as crucial to women's rights, to feminism, and to female safety. But is it really? Does it empower women at all when we tell them that to be free and on an equal level with men they have to get an abortion -- an invasive and potentially life threatening procedure? Does it keep them safe when abortions are continually used to destroy the evidence of rape, of incest, and of forced prostitution? When abortion itself can be and has been lethal? When the battle for abortion rights contributes to the misconception that abortion is ever necessary to save a pregnant woman's life, to the point where doctors become negligent? Does it further feminism to elevate the rights of one group of people (women) over the rights of another (unborn girls and boys) and create another kind of oppression? I don't think it does. When I look at the stories of the women who come to Let Them Live, desperate and alone, I become more convinced than ever that abortion hurts. It does not help.

The pro-life side often focuses on the unborn's right to life -- as they should! They fight their battles with biological facts about conception and gestation. They bring truth to the table by describing the reality of abortion procedures and laying out statistics regarding abortion that put a lie to many of the common arguments for it. And that is good.

But I think we need to emphasize another facet of the argument.

Abortion is stupid.

Abortion is a stupid, violent solution to a systemic problem. Ask yourselves this: when did we get so lazy and so disconnected from our communities that the main solution to a desperate or frightened mother's unplanned pregnancy was to abandon her to an abortion clinic? To a cold room, to forceps that rip her baby apart, to saline injections that poison her baby, to pills that starve her baby.

Abortion doesn't solve poverty.

Abortion doesn't stop abuse.

Abortion doesn't heal trauma.

Abortion doesn't make society and careers more hospitable to mothers.

Abortion doesn't stop misogyny.

Abortion doesn't prevent rape.

Abortion doesn't spread love.

For many of this things, abortion actually perpetuates them.

We spend so much time as a culture fighting over abortion! One side (rightly) hates it, and the other upholds it as the salvation of women.

And while this disagreement spins on, moms are hurt. Abuse is covered up. Poverty is rampant. Little girls have their innocence stolen. Instead of a culture of life, there is a culture of death.

Abortion is stupid. It is lazy. It is a symptom of the problem; not the solution to it. It gives people an excuse to blame women for their struggles, rather than helping them. Rather than gathering these women into the arms of a community and promising that, yes, of course we will help, abortion lets us believe that the best help we can give is making them an appointment and driving them to an abortion clinic. Don't tell me that doesn't happen. We all know it does.

Do all people refuse to help? Of course not! Pro life and pro choice individuals alike reach out to these women, and that is wonderful. We need more of that.

But society as a whole? It still calls for death. It empowers the strong, not the vulnerable. Imagine a world without abortion gumming up the works, where communities surrounded mothers who needed help. Where workplaces gave adequate maternity leave and better maternal health insurance. Where abortion could no longer serve as an excuse for the people who will abuse their power or make lazy policy decisions.

Companies like Disney will pay for an abortion, but will they shell out the considerably larger amount of money necessary for proper maternity leave and for adequate health insurance? Of course not! Not when they have an easier, cheaper option. Abortion gives them that option. Abortion gives fathers a way to avoid paying child support and taking responsibility. Abortion gives abusers a way to hide. Abortion gives pimps a way to maximize their profits. Abortion gives society yet another way to shuffle mothers aside and disrespect all that they do.

So. Is abortion helpful? Is it feministic? No. We can do better. We have to do better, for the sake of the thousands upon thousands of moms who need our help.

Abortion is stupid. It's a bad solution. Come on, everyone. We're smarter than this.

My Beef with Miguel O'Hara - A Spiderverse Rant

If you've read the title of this, you already know who I'm gonna be crapping on.

I know some of y'all are gonna flame me in the comments, but I do not care. Now, if you’re willing to bring up counterpoints about a FICTIONAL topic in a respectful manner, I’ll listen no problem because I don't mind being wrong (and I actually HOPE I'm wrong about this since I WAS excited about watching Miguel in action because there was so much hype around him). But if you take me having beef with a fictional character as me having beef with YOU, then I politely ask you to spare your mental health and drink some hot chocolate under a blanket after you click away from this post, thank you. 

Now back to the topic.

Most of us Spider-Man fans have seen the movie, "Across the Spider-Verse" at some point (and if you haven't, what are you doing? Go watch it, it's on Netflix). Excluding everything that makes it a masterpiece aside, there's one character in the movie who really grinds my gears. Not in terms of how they’re written, but more so just how they are as a person in general. 

Miguel O'Freaking'Hara. 

I do not like Miguel. I feel pity for him, but I do not like him. I do like him as a character, though. I feel like he definitely adds to the story and makes it interesting. I genuinely feel like ATSV would’ve been really boring if he wasn’t part of it. But I do not like him as a person. 

Miguel doesn't JUST have a stick up his butt, he has the whole TREE.

I couldn't care less about the fact this dude looks like a handsome statue because of the stuff he was doing to Miles. I think y’all forgot that this dude THREW A TABLE AT A MINOR UPON FIRST MEETING HIM and then has the nerve to throw away the food Miles got for him like it's trash. If that’s already not a red flag, I don’t know what is.

I don’t care if it was just ‘frustration.’ Miguel's 27 years old, he should know better. Unless Miles was attacking him in the beginning (which he wasn’t), there’s no reason he should’ve done that. But oh…I have much more beef with this dude than just a table. 

I understand that his supposed role and whatnot in the Spiderverse is that he has to keep canon events going. He has to get rid of 'anomalies.’ Unfortunately, Miles Morales (from Earth-1610) is an anomaly because he was never supposed to be the Spider-Man of his universe. So, what does Miguel do? He tries to obliterate the guy.

…Ex–freaking-scuse me?

"Oh, but Miguel tried to talk to Miles about everything!" 

Yeah. And he did it in the worst way possible. Miguel had absolutely no empathy towards the whole situation, then has the gall to wonder why Miles is running off and not listening to him. No dip, Sherlock. I'm pretty sure if you harshly told any normal person that someone they loved deeply was going to die and that they couldn't save them without any hint of compassion, they'd go against what you said and try to find a way to save them, bro. 

Miguel's whole schmo is that Miles becoming Spider-Man was bad because it created Spot and Spot's creating a bunch of problems. As a result, Miguel also tells Miles that saving his dad is not allowed. Here's where I have a problem with that logic. If Miles being Spider-Man is an anomaly in the first place, why NOT save Jeff as a way to prevent more anomalies from HAPPENING? If anything, Miles losing his dad would've just been another canon event for him to continue BEING Spider-Man, even though he wasn't supposed to be. Legit, this dude’s logic irritates the pee out of me.

Miguel's approach to the problem is also hypocritical considering that he lost his own wife and daughter in the universe he belonged to, then invaded ANOTHER UNIVERSE he didn't belong to, which honestly in my opinion makes Miguel look even worse to me. I'm willing to bet that Miguel’s alternate daughter could’ve been that universe’s spider hero, but because THIS vampire edge lord stepped into a universe that was NOT his, it prevented the canon event of the classic “Dead Guardian trope,” leading to that universe’s evaporation.

Another thing that irks me about the whole thing is that MILES IS LIKE 15-16 YEARS OLD. So as far as I'm concerned, O'Hara is trying to eliminate a KID. Even though he knows what it's like to lose a KID. No wonder the multiverse prevented him from being a father—he’s violent, unstable, and completely short-sighted. He’s out here chokeslamming a teenager and calling THEM the mistake. Just because you went through grief and trauma with your own children, it isn't an excuse to take the breath of another child. 

(Y'know, considering the events of Multiverse of Madness, I'm kinda seeing a pattern here--)

Miguel, for some reason, refuses to have a smidge of sensitivity for what Miles is going through. Heck, even Gwen and Peter Parker had more empathy for Miles despite them not telling him he wasn't supposed to be Spider-Man because they actually cared about his feelings TO SOME DEGREE.

I hate Miguel’s whole “You’re a mistake!” speech because Miles didn't create the spider. Miles didn't summon the spider. Miles didn’t choose to get bit. He didn’t find it on his own terms. Miles didn't choose to create Spot—the one who’s actually causing them problems. Someone ELSE brought the spider there. Someone ELSE took away a universe’s Spider-Man. Miles is just trying to deal with what he’s been given. So if Miguel wants to go after ANYONE for ‘anomalies’ in terms of Miles’ universe, he needs to track down the person who put something where it didn’t belong.

For crying out loud, he told the boy that HE was a mistake. It’d be one thing if he said “You being Spider-Man was a mistake” or something. But no. He says that Miles IS the mistake.

During that whole speech, it sounds like Miguel is trying to tell Miles that everything is HIS fault as if Miles had a choice in being bit. As if Miles even had a choice in the fact that a radioactive spider from an alternate universe chose to bite him. 

There were so many other ways Miguel could've handled the issue and he didn’t do that. I don’t care what his so-called intentions could/would be because it really put a disgusting taste in my mouth. 

I still have no respect for the fact that he hypocritically and previously invaded another reality where he was dead so he could be with his family--and here's what I mean by that.

Yes, I understand--Miguel's life on his original earth was freaking sad. He lost his wife and daughter. That's obviously a very tragic thing to go through. But it’s the fact that he's cracking down on Miles so badly despite Miguel LITERALLY being the one to pull a Kingpin vexes me. Miles had ALWAYS belonged to his universe. Miguel’s only in the dump he’s in because he was trespassing.

Don't get me wrong, I feel pity but I absolutely cannot stand the audacity of this man to go after a kid who got bit IN HIS OWN UNIVERSE even though Miguel was the one who contributed to some multiversal disaster in the Spider-verse. You could try to say, "Oh, it's because he doesn't want to make the same mistake again and shatter the Spider-verse or something!" While I could understand that, it’s still not a good reason for Miguel to do and say the stuff he did. I thought at the bare minimum, he'd be at least able to RELATE to Miles considering that he also lost people he cared about.

End conclusion: 

Miguel is vexing to me–but I don’t hate the way he’s written. If anything, I think if he wasn’t written this way, the ASTV movie would be very different. Whether that’d be for the better or the worse, I’m willing to bet most of this storyline wouldn’t even exist were Miguel not like this. So even though Miguel absolutely grinds my gears with his mindset and who he is as a character—I’m not mad at his writers. And I honestly feel like that’s just a showmanship of how great the writing for the Spider-Verse movies is. Good writing is when you’re mad at characters for the decisions THEY make, and not at the WRITERS for having them make those decisions. 

I’m out.