𝓡𝓮𝓷 | phos's version

[POLICIALES] En Santiago del Estero, una menor quedó embarazada tras ser violada y fue llevada a Villa Ballester para parir: la Policía de la Provincia investiga si la clínica buscaba vender el bebé.

Después que su marido la abandonó esta mujer se hizo cargo de sus hijos laburando de camionera. No la vas a ver llorando por los derechos de las mujeres o los pañuelos verdes

I find it absolutely ironic that in a show that is supposedly about SUPERHEROES, about people who are meant to rise above normal human weakness and stand as symbols of hope, one of its central characters, Atom Eve, goes and has an abortion. And from everything that’s implied, that was Mark’s child. His kid. And he didn't even get a say. He was apparently… absent. And her response to that situation is basically, “Well, this is hard, so I’m just going to end it.” Let that sink in for a second. This is a character who is framed as compassionate, empathetic, morally grounded. A HERO. The kind of character we’re supposed to admire, look up to, maybe even feel inspired by. And yet when faced with the responsibility of protecting the most innocent, defenseless life imaginable—her own unborn child—she doesn’t rise to the occasion. She doesn’t fight through it. She doesn’t struggle and overcome. She doesn’t even try to embody that heroic ideal. She folds. Immediately. Because it’s difficult. Because she might have to do it alone. Because it would change her life. That’s it. That’s the line where her “heroism” just completely folds. And I’m supposed to sit here and accept that? I’m supposed to still see her as a hero after that? I’m supposed to root for her like nothing happened? No. Absolutely not. Because at that point, what even is the definition of a hero anymore? If someone who has the power to save lives on a massive scale can casually decide that the most vulnerable life imaginable isn’t worth protecting, then what are we even doing here? What’s the message? That heroism only applies when it’s convenient? That saving lives is optional depending on your personal circumstances? And before anyone jumps in with the usual defenses because I already know they’re coming...save it. I don’t care about the “context.” I don’t care about the “emotional complexity.” I don’t care about the essays explaining why it was “a deeply human decision” or “a realistic portrayal of struggle.” I’ve heard it all before. It’s the same recycled talking points every time something like this comes up. People bending over backwards, twisting themselves into knots, doing Olympic-level mental gymnastics just to justify something that completely undermines the very foundation of what these characters are supposed to represent. And that’s really the bigger issue here, isn’t it? This isn’t just about one character. This is about what modern “superhero” storytelling has become. Shows like Invincible don’t just tell stories—they go out of their way to tear down the idea of heroism itself. They take pride in it. They revel in it. There’s this smug, almost arrogant tone of “Look how mature we are because we’re deconstructing everything you used to love.” And what does that “deconstruction” look like? Ultra-violence. Endless gore. Heads exploding like water balloons. Limbs getting ripped off. Blood sprayed across the screen like it’s trying to win an award for how shocking it can be. And then on top of that, moral decisions that completely gut the idea of heroes being something aspirational. It’s like the show is actively allergic to sincerity. Like it can’t stand the idea of heroes being genuinely good, genuinely selfless, genuinely inspiring. Everything has to be twisted, darkened, or dragged through the mud in the name of being “realistic.” Being cynical doesn’t make something deep. Being brutal doesn’t make something meaningful. And tearing down ideals doesn’t make you smarter than the people who still believe in them. It just makes the whole thing feel hollow. And I look around and I still see people watching this. Still praising it. Still calling it “peak superhero storytelling.” And I honestly don’t get it. I really don’t. Why? What are you getting out of this? Is it the shock value? The gore? The constant subversion for the sake of subversion? The characters making decisions that completely contradict the idea of what a hero is supposed to be? Because from where I’m sitting, it just looks like people have been conditioned to accept this kind of thing as “normal” for the genre now. Like this is just what superheroes are supposed to be broken, compromised, morally inconsistent, and wrapped in layers of blood and cynicism. And if that’s the case, then yeah… I’ll pass. Go ahead. Defend it. I know some of you will. Go ahead and stutter through your explanations. Pull out the think pieces. Do your triple-axel somersaults of mental gymnastics to explain why this is actually brilliant, why it’s “nuanced,” why it’s “important storytelling.” Convince yourself that this is what heroism looks like now. But don’t expect me to buy into it. Because to me, this isn’t bold storytelling. It’s not deep. It’s not inspiring. It’s just another example of a genre losing sight of what made it worth caring about in the first place and expecting the audience to applaud while it happens.

Women like these piss me off so badly

🚨 | TRATARON DE MATAR A TRUMP