#(we're just working on and i can't believe i have to talk about this in therapy)

[khorneschosen]

You're asking to have an argument about Trump's previous term to this one.

When it's quite clear the issue is about which side has the most empathy, common sense, and tolerance.

And when it comes to common sense y'all have none common sense belongs to a philosophy that you no longer practice or believe in.

It's a bumpkin version of rationalism, which Marxist outright deny the existence of. So you guys don't have common sense because you guys aren't rationalist or for that matter rational. Hence why existentialism formed as a reaction to the fact that the prophecy of Marx never came to fruition.

The masses and the proletarian never revolted on mass capitalism didn't become one giant monopoly nor is it really in danger of ever becoming a monopoly where the state is not involved.

What's more the standard living and wealth of the people living under capitalism or even quasi or broken capitalism are still doing better than all the people states of the world Even when those people states have access to a great deal of resources from the rest of the world.

This is by the way why market socialism is the big new hot push, what they really should call it however is modern Chinese socialism.

And however has the exact same problems of a socialist government with fewer tools to be able to deal with it. It's basically the state controls you and you control the factories but we control you so we control the factories anyway. Which is remarkably how national socialism works, you know it as fascism.

And then when it comes to empathy you guys have what can only really be described as transactional collective empathy. If a person or a group does what you say you have a great deal of empathy for them so much so that you'll let them get away with anything however if any member of that group goes against you or is even really just neutral and a way that you can't abide, even a small way you have no empathy for them.

And we've seen that when it comes to cishet white men for a while, and Asians and Jews recently, and even more recently Arabs and Hispanics who do not vote Democrat.

What I'm really describing here is just an in-group preference based on political or philosophical lines, But even then it's more based around whether or not that particular group is useful to you. Because despite everything destiny is one of your guys and y'all treat him like shit, because at times he dares to challenge you guys on some of your worst excesses and on your own terms. In a way that you simply cannot ignore. You can't rightly call him a conservative because the evidence of your own eyes and mind do not allow you to.

This too by the way goes for tolerance, The one axiom that you seem to have in group and outgroup preferences for being your politics and how useful someone is to the cause, you have no tolerance for it.

Meanwhile conservatives come from various different areas of influence. The Protestant and Catholics have long had their doctrine changed to better meet and work with reality. The capitalists are hard realists to the point of irrational pragmatism at times. And the nationalists are operating on a very old form of your system but they do it just for the people within their own nation. Which is just demanding that the benefactors be within their national boundaries.

Oh and liberals have a strong philosophical tradition that goes back to the enlightenment. Of course I mean classical liberals rather than communist calling themselves liberal because it's a lot easier than calling themselves a communist.

So as far as logic goes they're nowhere near as bad.

And as for empathy they are by definition conservatives they are being challenged and at every point of the challenge they have allowed you to challenge them in ways that they frankly shouldn't have. That their own code would have allowed them to crush you at any point and yet refuse to out of empathy intolerance for your kind.

And we're talking collectively right we're not talking about individual examples because if that's the case we'll be here all night but in the broadest strokes conservatives do have empathy tolerance and they're far more logical. I mean even scientific studies have shown that they have more risk assessment which you define is fear for the sake of your propaganda but really it's just risk assessment. Which one we're dealing with the country that is the leader of the free world and if its economy goes tits up, will destroy the free world and an economic collapse from which it will never recover from I don't say that fear or risk assessment is misplaced.

Like baseline conservative is infinitely more rational. Baseline libertarian is infinitely more rational because they at least acknowledge the reality of economics or culture. Y'all routinely ignore the risks or even cost of your actions and policies and ideologically do not believe in rationality.

So yeah leftist and I do mean leftist are less rational, less empathetic and less tolerant.

Also if you want me to get to your second question reword it a little bit, it's confusing how it's currently written.

[jams-sims]

I am home now, I can finally decompress and talk about tonight's episode. I'm going to start with Sam because, she's my girl and then next I'll do Jammer. And yes I'm going to talk about Sam x Evan, if you don't like that I can't help you.

This is the first time, in a hot minute, we've addressed Sam's identity issue. Her lack of real connections outside of her friend base. There's something about that that is worrisome. Everyone has their connections now K has the wolf, Jammer has the fire salamander, Evan has the Bear. We could assume that Sam's is going to be the bat or maybe the goat. What worries me, is that the implications of the next episode, from the misleading trailer at the end. Shows that its going to be about the sea creature and trying to ecaspe that. I have this feeling that something bad's going to happen involving Sam. I could be picking up on nothing but the Vibes Feel off. I feel like that phone scene was just a step.

I feel like we're going to have more scenes, of this lack of connection happening. We have 3 eps left, that just enough time for something to go horribly wrong. Especially with Sam being the heart of the group.

The reason why it weighing on me is because- Sam needed someone outside the group to check on her a few eps back. It was right after Evan killed B. I feel like her friendships are going to come into questions because- How much of her friendship does she believe they love her for her. Evan and her have been having a lot of hearts to hearts. An just like how evan broken down an express those complicated emotions when Jammer got his magical connections.

I can see Sam having a moment where this darkness in her heart. This lack of community comes and tries to swallow her and her connections.

Now onto SamEvan or EvanSam- listen idc if it meant to be friend coded or not. If Sam and Evan do kiss im breaking into the drop off studio dome and stealing tabby. The tension between them is insane!!

It feels like Evan is one minute, alway from decalring his fucking knight like devotion to Sam. EVERYTIME they have a heart to heart, Evan gives off the vibe that he wants to say 'I would kill so many people for you.'

I DONT KNOW WHAT IT IS!!! ITS LIKE CRACK!!! PUMPED DIRECTLY INTO MY VIENS!! I dont even know how a relationship between Sam and Evan would work!? Sam and Evan have the most shittist relationship tracklist. It feels like they could either be the 'we dated for like a week but it fwkt better as friends' type or the 'we've been so casual about our relationship, moved in together and live this very domesticated life even though we arent actually married.'

It also doesnt help Aabira and Erika are bother just as bad as me, their facial jounery gets me acting crazy!!

I just want Sam to get everything, she needs and wants.

[alleiradayne]

I haven't said much personally about Veilguard besides sharing my Rook and a few other silly things, but I do have a couple thoughts now that I'm so very far into my playthrough (halfway at about 50 hours).

I know the music hasn't hit like some hoped it would. I agree that it is not as good as Inquisition. That's still my favorite OST of the series. I understand BioWare wanted a new composer for the next game because each game has had a different composer. But given how very connected Inquisition and Veilguard are, I disagree with that premise and thought they should have stuck with Morris, and not only for that reason. He's a fucking musical genius.

All that said, I do enjoy Zimmer's and Balfe's work on this OST. It's not bad. I was shittalking the main theme for weeks after it came out but when you mash it up with the actual opening of the game, it fits. And I like all the softer versions of it, the less complicated takes with less instrumentation. And there are other tracks that call back to Inquisition. No, I'm not referring to the cameos where Morris's actual tracks were used. I'm talking about Zimmer/Balfe's new content where they threaded callbacks to Inquisition. Once I finish the game, I'm going to do a much deeper analysis of the Veilguard OST, but for now, I'm enjoying it as I play the game (I don't want to listen to the OST before I finish the game itself).

A couple other thoughts in shorter form:

The combat is fun. Compared to previous games, it's dynamic enough that, while there are patterns, you still have to be on your toes. Yes there's the rock, paper, scissors of get rid of armor, get rid of barrier, then spam left click/spells. But you know what, compared to the previous games, I'm enjoying that. It's a nice change of pace. I'm also playing a Mourn Watch Death Mage, so there's some nice flavor there.

Skin texture sucks. It's too smooth. It gives everyone a cartoonist look. I hate it.

Hair is fucking gorgeous. I just wish there were more styles I liked.

The story and quests are fantastic.

I find the dialogue to be a fun balance between seriousness, camp, and exposition.

Now on to my biggest fucking complaint about the game so far and given what I've read (without spoiling anything), I'm ultimately going to be disappointed in the long-run by the romances. My mage committed to Emmrich and I love him. He's wonderful. Read on for some spoilery-ish facets of his romance.

SPOILERS

He's an artist. Both with his magic and his words. He's sophisticated and overly romantic in such a respectful way. Rook's interest in him takes him by surprise because I believe canonically there's an age gap (that I headcanon away), but it's adorable. Plus, graveyard dates. He's very Gomez Addams but without all the public displays of affection (which I also headcanon away because fuck that noise).

END SPOILERS

My last point in the spoilers section about Emmrich's romance is my biggest complaint of the game. There's very little actual romance! And it's because you can't roll up to your companions at any given time and open a dialogue with them. There's no open conversation option. You only get to talk to them if they have a time-sensitive marker or a quest marker on their icon on the map. No free smooches on the ramparts!

And the romance moments we do get are so few and far between in a game that is absolutely massive, not in terms of map size this time, but in terms of content. There is so much good content (as opposed to the shit side quests of collecting 10 bear asses in the Hinterlands of Inquisition). The side quests all feel directly tied to the area's story so they all feel worth doing. We're never doing dumb shit like drawing constellations in the sky or finding shards through tranquil mage skulls (don't ever forget that they used the skulls of mages forced into tranquility specifically for this purpose).

Now I'm not through the whole game yet, but I'm hearing and seeing that there's next to no nudity. Given that on top of the lack of open convos and sparse romantic content, I'm bummed. I still love Emmrich, and I know I'll enjoy the others when I do get to them (because I plan on it). But damn. I was hoping for Desk Scene (iykyk) levels of spice outta this crew.

That's it. Halfway through the game and this is how I feel so far. I'm thoroughly enjoying the game and will continue to binge it. I have Rooks planned for the rest of the companions, too. Femme elf rogue crow to romance Davrin, femme qunari warrior lords of fortune to romance Harding, femme human shadow dragon rogue to romance Neve, femme elf warrior veil jumper to romance Bellara, masc elf mage grey warden to romance Lucanis.

I'd like to see your thoughts!

[hyperlexichypatia]

Yeah, that is definitely a more comforting and hopeful thing to believe. It's also one of the many, many, many contexts in which I, as a liberal socialist, think the dichotomy between "liberals" and "leftists" makes no goddamn sense, but that's a separate issue. Maybe. Perhaps. But sure. It is more comforting and hopeful to believe that a political movement that has all the appearances of being motivated by malice, hierarchy, and domination is actually just motivated by material conditions.

And there is undoubtedly significant truth to this. Polls absolutely show that prices and the economy were a major factor for Trump voters; they weren't looking at any policy positions other than "Biden is president and prices are high, when Trump was president prices were lower, ergo Trump." It's highly likely that if economic conditions were better under Biden, or if Biden-Harris had appeared to have a better strategy for addressing them, Harris might have won the election. That's true! I'm not disputing that!

But we're still talking about a few percentage points -- yes, a few percentage points that could've swung an election in a two-party, winner-take-all electoral system, but still, a few percentage points, not a cultural movement.

The ideological fascism represented by Trump&Co is a cultural movement that has been thriving in the U.S. for decades and is paralleled by similar right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist, and fascist movements around the world, in Europe and India and China and Japan and many, many other countries. It's happening in countries with universal healthcare, and countries without. It's happening in countries with higher GDPs and countries with lower GDPs. It is not connected solely to economic conditions.

Also, right-wing voting correlates positively with income. The people most victimized by economic problems are not making up the bulk of the shift to the right, no matter how many hand-wringing thinkpieces about "the white working class left behind by liberal elitists" get written (you'd think The Hillbilly Elegy Guy becoming Trump's VP would have permanently discredited that theory, but thinkpiece writers have never been able to read the room).

The relationship between the housing crisis and right-wing political movements is sometimes framed as though the phenomenon is "People unable to afford housing vote right-wing on the assumption that right-wing policies will improve their economic prospects," and while there are some instances of that, people who can't afford housing are not Trump's base. Trump's base are housed people who are angry that they see unhoused people panhandling outside their Nice Neighborhood and are angry that Those Damned Liberals won't round them up and put them in debtor's prisons or just shoot them.

And. Like. Again, as a liberal socialist, I think the government should, actually, be guaranteeing everyone housing and healthcare and food and education! Those are policies I support because I think they're the right thing to do anyway! So I would very much like to believe that these policies, that I already believed in for other reasons, would also have the side benefit of making people less bigoted and authoritarian and fascistic, and, I don't know, maybe it would help a little, but for how long?

Because there will always be ups and downs in material conditions, at least until we achieve full post-scarcity. I mean. I absolutely want to abolish capitalism and economic inequality, and want the effects of ups and downs in material conditions to be borne equally across the population rather than the hoarding of wealth we have now, but even in a socialist utopia, there will be shortages. There will be crises. There will be natural disasters. There will be outbreaks at the egg farms (yes even if there are regulations and proper procedures, sometimes these things just happen!), and there will be times when there are no eggs on the shelf. If humanity is going to get hold of our climate/energy crisis before we make the planet entirely unlivable, there will be gas shortages. There will be rationing. There will be reductions in energy and material resources used for leisure travel, and that is the absolute ideal, best-case scenario. And if people's response to being told "Sorry, there's no eggs today" or "Sorry, there's no gas today," or, heaven forfend but completely necessarily, "Sorry, only a limited number of people can own personal vehicles, you'll have to take the bus, oh, and the person sitting next to you on the bus might be queer or Black or Jewish or schizophrenic or another demographic you hate" is to become fascists, then humanity will flat-out not survive. As long as people's culturally ingrained default response to adversity is "Blame a despised minority group, identify as better and more deserving than someone else, divide people into in-group and out-group," fascist ideologies will continue to be a recurring social problem.

And. I mean. That doesn't mean I know the solution! I don't! Scolding does not work! There is some evidence that exposure and personal interactions with actual people one is bigoted against reduces bigotry, as does representation of counter-stereotypical examples, but these are far from foolproof! There was integration in Germany before the Holocaust. There was integration in the Balkans before the Bosnian genocide. "Integration" alone is not sufficient to prevent bigotry nor even to stop it from becoming genocidal. But neither are better material conditions or economic systems, not when Belgium kills disabled children and China is actively committing a genocide (that half the "leftists" on this site are active deniers of) and so is Turkey and I could absolutely keep going.

But not knowing the solution to the problem of authoritarian, bigoted, hierarchical ideology doesn't mean we can write that off as a problem!

I actually think the real solution has to be fundamentally changing education away from hierarchy and competition, changing the system of children beginning in toddlerhood having to "earn" a position of being "better" than other children, but I'm also aware that this is unlikely to happen unless guaranteed material living standards are established for adults, because parents will never support non-competitive education as long as they rationally believe that education must prepare their children to compete for an ever-shrinking number of possibilities for a decent quality of life, because material conditions aren't actually separate from egalitarian liberal values and framing them in opposition is false in the first place.

(I also think a more practical relevance of material conditions to combating authoritarian ideology is not in improving the material conditions of authoritarians to make them less authoritarian, but improving the material conditions of the victims of authoritarianism so that they can better free themselves from their authoritarian abusers. Less "If that domestic abuser had a guaranteed income, he wouldn't abuse his partner" and more "If his partner had a guaranteed income, she could afford to leave her abuser." But for some reason, that isn't acknowledged as much.)

So no, I don't "have the answers" for combating authoritarian, bigoted, hierarchical, fascistic cultural attitudes, but I certainly think acknowledging that they are the problem is better than assuming that bigoted authoritarianism is Just What Happens When High Grocery Prices or Just What Happens When Feminists Are Mean or whatever else. People choose, on purpose, to subscribe to bigoted, hierarchical ideologies. People choose, on purpose, to build a worldview and identity around being intrinsically superior to some other kinds of people. It's not inevitable, and I don't buy that it's unchangeable.

Source

[aibidil]

Ok millennials and parents of Gen Z, huddle time. What are we going to do about our Gen Z and (preemptively) Gen Alpha kids' politics? Especially those of us who are parents to Gen Z men? We've all seen the data showing that millennials aren't getting more conservative as we age. To give them credit where credit is due, Boomers were the ONLY age group to shift left in the 2024 US election. Millennials didn't move much from 2020, but it was slightly to the right. Gen X and Gen Z moved significantly to the right—9 points and 13 points, respectively. Gen Z men shifted 15 points to the right, while Gen Z women shifted 9 points to the right.

Obviously the left as a whole has some work to do here, but I can't help thinking that some of the work might be done by us as parents or friends of Gen Zers and, preemptively, Gen Alphas. (Maybe part of the issue is that most Gen Zers have Gen Xer parents, and we know that Gen X is the other age group that shifted significantly to the right?) These kids are coming of voting age in a really fucking difficult world political moment, and it makes sense to me that they need guidance in this venue like they do in the rest of life.

Clearly parents don't have control over our kids' politics, but we also have a huge ability to influence and help educate them. Some spit-balling thoughts of things we need to be doing:

Talk as rationally as we can about economics and how economic policies affect us. Help them understand what politicians are saying about the economy, e.g. what is a tariff? what causes inflation? If we aren't clear about these things, let's include them in our research trying to figure it out. I can't help but think that most Trump voters simply do not understand what a tariff is and what it will mean for US consumers, if it's passed

Help them learn to play out different scenarios—to think through what will happen down the line if various proposed policies were enacted. That is, help them to think logically about not just what will happen immediately after a policy is passed, but what that would be likely to happen next, and next, and next. This ability to think down the line is so important in so many parts of life, and it's not necessarily something that comes easy to most of us.

On abortion: This wasn't a huge issue this election in the US. That said, I've had really good luck talking with my boys about why abortion is important, and this is a case where the framing of the issue is so important. "Parenting is hard. Don't we want all kids to have parents who actually wanted to be parents? Do you think that someone who doesn't want kids, or knows they can't afford kids, or knows they can't handle kids should be forced to give birth? What would that mean for their baby?"

Talk about it whenever political issues affect you. It's much easier to understand politics when it touches your family, but if we don't talk about it, they won't understand it. For example, I've got a lot of chronic health issues, so health insurance has been a big political concern of mine. I can explain that insurers not very long ago used to be able to deny people coverage if they had any preexisting condition, and that it's only democrats and the pressure of the political left that accomplished getting rid of that. And now we need to make sure we keep that win, because it's the right thing, but also because here is how it would affect us

Talk about all the rights we have that are actually quite new. Lawrence v. Texas (legalizing consensual sodomy) was only in 2003! Gay marriage has only been nationwide since 2015! Explain why gay marriage is important. Not because we believe marriage is some mystical thing, but because it confers legal benefits like the ability to visit your sick partner in the hospital, to be the next of kin, to get spousal health insurance, etc. It's so easy to think these rights have been around longer than they have.

If we're worried about vulnerable people under a Trump presidency, talk about our worries in as concrete a way as possible, because if we aren't concrete, they are tempted to think we're being hyperbolic. "I'm worried that trans folks won't be able to access medical care or their medication because Trump has talked about passing laws to do that. I know that access to gender-affirming care is vital because suicide rates are high among trans folks if they can't access care. When I listen to politicians talk about trans people, it makes me angry and sad because they're stoking fears but those fears aren't based in reality. Meanwhile trans people will actually be hurt by these policies right away." Or about mass deportations: "Trump has promised to deport immigrants, which is wrong—how does he think our country will survive? The people he's talking about deporting are an important part of our society. And aren't we all immigrants, if we're not indigenous? But it's even worse than that because he isn't only talking about deporting undocumented people. The policies he's promised to enact also plan to deport even people who are here legally with visas or temporary protected status, and he wants to use a law from 1798 called the Alien Enemies Act to justify it. That's the same law they used to justify horrifically holding Asian Americans in camps during WW2! I worry for these fellow people because it's inhumane and I also know it would be terrible for the economy, which seems like it would be against the right's purported goals, doesn't it?"

Any time you start a discussion like this, listen to what they have to say in response. Don't shut them down! It's tempting to shut them down especially if they say some nonsense—especially if it seems like nonsense they're parroting from right-wing youtubers. It's so tempting. If it triggers you, buy yourself a minute to cool down by asking them to say more or explain what they mean.

Help them learn to vet news and images, especially in this age of AI. We can talk through our own thought processes when we hear a fact or story. How do you know if something—a fact, an image, a video—is true? What kind of process should you be running EVERYTHING through? We need to help them develop this skill so they don't give up on even trying and become full of despair at living in a post-truth world.

What other ideas do you have? Please add on. I feel such a sense of responsibility over my white Gen Z boys, and I know I can't be the only one who thinks we need a fucking plan. No one has ever parented in this environment before—let's help each other.

[stop-breaking-my-heart-telltale]

if dorian didn't show up, do you think louis would have shot minnie?

I do. I know some people think either he wouldn't have or he would've missed so that's why the writers had him shoot Dorian instead, but mmmmmm no, I don't personally think so. I like to think that if he had taken the shot, his shaky hands would've caused him to shoot her fatally.

Mostly because I'm already so normal about the fact that of the Ericson crew, Marlon and Louis are the only ones with a body count. Well, that we know of, but shown to us in the game, at least. Plus, we know it's Louis' first kill.

Like yeah, Clementine and AJ become part of the crew and they have bigger body counts, and if we're counting indirect kills caused by actions, then Tenn has a count... and I guess everyone has blood on their hands for blowing up the boat... but I'm talking about killed directly with a weapon like....... I lied, I'm not normal about that at all, Louis and Marlon are the ones who have killed someone in Louis' route. I'm also not normal about the fact that Louis kills Dorian and then even as he's clearly in shock, he tries to go with Clementine to get AJ, and then later on when they talk about it, he says it feels like bile but not quite and he's glad he has it in him to do it.... listen, listen, listen... I'm obsessed with that.

Anyway, so if Louis shot Minerva, I think he would've accidentally killed her and can you imagine? He's already enough of a mess after killing the woman who pinned him down and tried to cut his finger off [or succeeded] but he knew Minerva, they were friends before the twins were taken. Even Violet couldn't kill her even though that would've been the smarter thing to do, and we know thanks to meta knowledge that killing her would've saved lives, but Violet couldn't, and I don't think Louis would intentionally either.

Speaking of Violet, if Louis killed Minerva, I hate to think about what that would've done to Vi. I think she might've actually left at that point, like what was planned before it got changed to her being burned. I don't think she would've attacked Louis over it, though, like yeah she attacked Clementine in the cell but Louis? I don't know, but I don't think so just because it's Louis and he'd be a mess about it anyway.

Though if he did kill her, it would be a neat parallel to draw... y'know, because Louis forgave AJ for killing Marlon even though he was pissed and heartbroken, and Violet was annoyed with him the entire time... but could she ever forgive Louis for killing Minerva? Y'know? We already have a similar parallel with AJ shooting Tenn, but still.

If Clementine killed Minerva in that moment, though, then I could see Violet attacking her since in her eyes, Clem proved her right.

So yeah, I get why they added the Dorian kill to his route. It adds another compelling element to Louis as a character, but we also need Minerva alive for episode 4; Louis can't kill her, he can't miss, and he's not going to stay with her because we need Violet to stay on the boat and him to be on shore for all routes.

[yharnamsnewslug]

When I broke up with my ex-boyfriend this year, the true moment that made me stop feeling bad for being aro at all (and ace but the aro part is the one that I struggled with the most) was when we decided for it to be amicable and for us to still be friends. He spent a lot of time doing things for me that he didn't do for anyone else, and it made me DEEPLY uncomfortable and, for some reason, all of my friends decided that it was me exaggerating things. I felt infantilized a lot of times with him, and I also felt like he didn't care at all about my feelings or the fact that I did not want to have sex with him.

I remember when he finally realized that he still had feelings for me, we decided to talk like adults (also bc he just. Didn't fucking listen to ANYONE, not just me lol) and when I said, "And hey, like, I'm aroace, I'm in the spectrum even if I don't really know what exactly it is" and he looked at me and went;

"Do you want me to treat you like someone aromantic?"

And it just. STUNNED ME. On the spot, I felt betrayed, disgusted and like an absolute fucking idiot for having given this guy a single OUNCE of my attention. My friends, who were listening into the conversation from the kitchen bc it was summer and the windows were open - they told me later on that they all wanted to beat him the fuck up right there and then.

They don't fucking believe us. They DON'T. FUCKING. BELIEVE US. And when they do believe that we DON'T feel romantic attraction, it's always, "well, it'll CHANGE. For ME. Because we have a CONNECTION."

And I kept explaining to him - "hey, I'm not gonna treat you like you're the specialest guy ever just bc we're dating, that's not how I work." And he said "yeah okay" but it wasn't 'yeah okay'. He didn't listen to me.

And that's how??? It's been for SO MANY aromantic people I've known in my life, too.

We deserve to have a fucking MODICUM of respect and NO QUEER PERSON ever fucking gives it to us. Aros are disrespected and our boundaries broken WAY MORE than anyone else I've fucking seen, except maybe ace people. And I'd know because I'm both.

The ace part? They're misguided a lot of times and pushy. But they won't force it. The ARO part? They don't give a FUCK.

So at this point there is not a since millimeter of fucking shame in me for being aromantic. Shame on YOU for being a little bitch who can't handle your own feelings.

Fuck off.

one of the hardest things about being aro is that the minute you start explaining your identity (which you may have spent months and years processing, working through internalized hatred and feeling broken, grappling with the constant pressures of amatonormativity) to an alloro person they suddenly decide that no one on earth has ever valued romance more than friendship, that all romance is juat sex + friendship if you think about it, so ACTUALLY you don't need to identify as aromantic or talk about how being aro affects you or ask anyone to change anything about society ever and if you do, you are actually crazy :) and they still don't even know what amatonormativity means

[apoloniaspiegelgold]

All my life I've been told by all kinds of people that they can never really tell what I'm feeling or what's going through my mind because apparently I'm always just hiding everything behind a smile so that I've become rather unreadable. And then he just. Takes one look at me and goes 'Yeah. I know that face, oh here we go again, she's about to unleash her thoughts. She's gonna bash that theory I just showed her so hard. Where's my popcorn?' I hadn't even said anything yet and he was already laughing.

And to be honest. It's quite nice to be known, actually.

[sugah--bee]

okay so this is wildly like, impulse

but I really really really wanna do something with october and I am still posses by the spirit of crafting and not the spirit of art

so instead of trying to draw every day for a kind of inktober, I'm going to work on my wips every day for at least 20 minutes with pics of progress

rules

-have to work for 20 minutes a day and upload pictures with my progress and how much time I spent

-that's it thats all the rules. im not doing anything about finishing a project a day, or even finishing any of them, and if the time ends up being completely me weaving in ends or something that's fine, the goal is make progress not bust out 31 sweaters

literally it's just finish it february, but in October because I usually draw so this seems like the right month to do challenges like that

and I'm making a hashtag so I have some organization, and so people can block it if they don't want to see like, 10 pics of 'the same sweater but it's totally different because there's been an inch added' lol

[sherlock-is-ace]

.

[quietwingsinthesky]

soulless sam was at his best when he was still being written as a version of sam, to accentuate parts of him that normally get held back, and not as 'guess he's evil now'. soulless sam when he's reflecting sam's tendency to lose sight of everything else in pursuit of a goal. soulless sam when he's just kind of rude without thinking about it without his filter on. soulless sam when he's equal parts intent on keeping dean with him and also happy to lie to him and keep him shut out of the things he knows dean won't like so that dean won't leave. soulless sam when he equally recognizes that he is a better hunter now, and also that he probably can't continue to exist without his soul. (you know. before they went along with making him just kind of evil.)

...soulless sam when he's begging for literally anyone to acknowledge his autonomy in this situation and not force him to take his soul back without knowing how much it could damage him and being ignored.

[bobomcfoe]

I SLEPT IN

[sharas-bae]

i have a video call ~*thing*~ with the girl from the wedding on thursday and she suggested playing an online board game since we talked about that on the phone (which i still can't believe i actually did) that one time. so now i finally gotta go check out what steam is all about i guess

[andthebubbles]

reading earlier chapters of my own fic like it's sustenance

[queerstudiesnatural]

ok well. just went to see a neuropsychologist and all she asked me were the standard questions you find in every internet autism test. which i KNOW don't apply to me ("do you find it difficult to infer people's intentions", "do you find it difficult to read between the lines" etc) and like she was literally reading off of her computer and asking me to pick one of the options between "strongly agree" and "strongly disagree" and it's like girl i could have done that at home. sure hope she's not stopping there and that she's not gonna just look at what i said but at the way i said it. idk it irked me that she just pulled up the old (as in outdated and reductive) standardised test on her computer and acted as if those questions would make me question myself like girl i've done this test fifteen times. not only is it not going to tell you anything about me but it's not going to tell you anything about most people. and most autistics. and she did suggest i come back for a more formal and global assessment, but she also kept using the words "cognitive deficit" to describe autism. which i realise is a commonly used term, but it feels reductive idk. so overall i'm not overjoyed with how this went lol.

[doggirlnarcolepsy]

.