>>23467559Charizard in itself falls into collateral damage. Yes, it's one of those designs that fall onto tropes that people would consider popular and likable, but it's also pretty simple and approachable in terms of looks. Dragons were all the rage back then, whether it be among normies or autists. Hell, i guess they still are. But what you face in this case among others is simply a different albeit more noticeable population of so called autists. But the reason why it's more noticeable to most is simply because you are dealing with a herd that is way larger in number.
You might say
>Charizard has an autistic fandomand this actually stands true for all fandoms, but the actual problem here lies not in the quantity of autists, but in the percentage of autists.
After all, if you were forced to drink 5 ml of concentrated poison, would it be straight from the vial? Or would you dilute it in dozens of gallons of clean water first?
Even then, in the end, there's poison in both of them, so there's no point in defending them so vehemently like
>>23467106>>23467119>>23467042this disturbed fellow does. All i was trying to explain is why MOST autists flock onto some pokemon. As said, it's not about mutual exclusivity as much as it is common occurrence and statistics.
If you have a shed of self-awareness you'd know to keep away from fandoms. You know what they say: Too many cooks can spoil the broth.
