#*I guess*

[mari-lair]

I love your sif is out au bc it perfectly demonstrates that siffrin is at all times .5 seconds away from becoming self destructive. Like damn the party is gonna get a first hand lesson in every way that poor rouge can catastrophize.

Mira b4 sif is out: he's never worried about anything

Mira after: oh wtf.

Yeeeeees! Sif cares so much is insane, and the party will constantly be hit by it (be it his stress or his love)

Mira pre-game: Why would siffrin say my super dangerous country ending quest is 'the most fun they ever had'? Was he teasing me? That's... mean :(

Mira, living the sif is out experience:

[vavialdavi]

- Happy yuri

- Midly doomed yaoi

- Extremely doomed straights

Arcane really pulled the uno reversed card and thought we wouldn't notice

[onebizarrekai]

wild life session 6 being unhinged

[delightedchips]

[holy-mother-of-whumpers]

The unmaking is not softer for the desecrators ignorance :(

I feel like this goes the other way round too. We're mortals until the exact point when we're not.

I just hope it's during my lifetime💪

if you’re ever in the position to choose between giving up and accepting defeat, and actually trying to fight the ancient unkillable god that is about to peel apart reality like a string cheese, remember this: scientifically speaking, you might as well give it a shot!

1.there were trees at the beginning of the world! there were trees so long ago that they predate bacteria that causes wood to decay. when a tree fell, it would lie there in stasis and there wasn’t any way of breaking down wood xylem on a molecular level in that way.

2. it seems obvious to say, but wood eating bacteria are literally incapable of comprehending what they’re breaking down. It’s just not information conciously available to a microorganism. they don’t know what they’re deconstructing, where it came from, bacteria have no way to even fathom the existence of a tree as a concept.

3. Regardless of the facts above, the world we live in today is a world where wood inevitably decomposes

it is worth fighting the unkillable god no matter how pointless it seems. it is worth taking the risk even though youre trying to accomplish something impossible. the reality in which you live was also once reality in which trees didn’t rot. You live in a reality that allows for existence before the possibility of destruction. you live in a reality where uncomprehending microbes break down matter that is so far beyond the scope of their comprehension that it feels comical to specify something so obvious. you live in a reality that occasionally allows unshakeable physical truths to be altered with no warning.

It is worth fighting the unkillable god because trees are so old they predate the source of their destruction, and it still did not spare them. It is worth fighting the unkillable god because bacteria rots unthinkingly, because there is room in our cosmos for destruction without comprehension on the part of the destroyer. It is worth fighting the unkillable god because now and then reality retracts the promise of immortality without fanfare, and when that happens there is no mercy for the ancient. the unmaking is not softer for the desecrators ignorance. for all things, existence is endless until the exact point where it ends.

so you might as well try to kill the unkillable god. it doesn’t seem likely, but at the beginning of the world, trees didn’t rot. so you never know! you never know

[starp00k]

Just one last hug.

[pastadoughie]

tuckinghimb inn

[vvhiskeyuncle]

anyone want to suck on batteries

[softness-and-shattering]

Mmhmm. My inner descriptivist wants to talk about meanings changing but also sometimes misunderstandings are incoherent.

Because yeah people use 'male gaze' to mean lust or attraction. We already have a term for that, and instead using 'male gaze' is adding so much unnecessary moralistic and gender essentialist baggage.

Lust is not evil, its normal, without it there would be no people and a lot less pleasure and joy and connection. At the same time, expressing lust where it is unwelcome is very socially tabboo and for good reason. Expressing. Not experiencing. Experiencing is always fine. Expressing is not always fine.

And ofc its not gendered, has nothing to do with gender, and is not only aimed at a particular gender or sex. Its a normal experience. It does not change your gender and does not make you a bad person.

Male gaze is film theory, its about the camera and what it focuses on, what angles it employs at what distance. How it tends to present men as agents of action, and women as sexual decoration. Which can actually imo be separate from lust. Someone can use the techniques because theyre copying what theyve seen without even being horny about it. A woman can shoot something with the male gaze. Its about the filmmaking and the perceptions and characterisation and framing that it creates.

A guy looking at someone a particular way isnt Male Gaze, its lust. If its unwelcome you might call it creepy or uncomfortable or dangerous. If it is welcome you might call it hot. The same applies whoever is doing the expressing and whoever is being expressed to. The point isnt Evil Gender, or Evil Lust, the point is be respectful of others, and remember they are humans who are also sexy, rather than sex objects who happen to be human. If your in a socially acceptable situation to express attraction, go ahead respectfully and if it is reciprocated and everyone consents, have fun! If its not socially acceptable, like at someones workplace or somewhere they cannot leave, do not engage. If the person declines in any way or otherwise doesnt enthusiastically consent, back off and leave them alone. Thats it. Whoever you are and whoever they are.

The idea that lesbians can engage in the "male gaze" is so stupid and we need young lesbians to understand that their desires can't be "male gaze fetishitic" because they are lesbians. You're experiencing lesbian desire. That's by definition not "male gaze fetishitic"

But also. How did film theory concepts get distorted so badly that people think that the "male gaze" is a thing that people can people "do". A man lusting for a woman is also not "male gaze" because that's not what male gaze means.

Why are people using film theory concepts to describe emotions and human experiences. help.

[chemicalbreakfast]

i know this is just a stupid ad they were forced to be in, but. something about it is giving animated kids cartoon. like. they’re giving maisy mouse and pingu in this. it’s very endearing to me.,

[hadesisqueer]

So glad that Maddie got the RWBY redhead treatment

[wrong-turn-ronald]

Get you an ally that’s sick of your shit

[hamletthedane]

Jokes aside, my favorite subtle thematic moment in Wicked is when all the human students are at the ballroom dancing (wearing 20s eque flapper clothes no less), and it cuts from the human-only crowd of students in a human-only venue over to the band….which are all Animals

Animals who are not allowed to be students and are only allowed into this social venue as entertainment for the human crowd.

Reminded me of another excellent movie that made the same (pretty pointed) comparison:

[epiphainie]

the way we could've had such an interesting storyline about buck questioning the role he assumes in his romantic relationships via him trying to navigate the different way gender roles play out in his first queer one. the way we could've had a story where being queer was explored beyond which pond he wants to jump into such as unlearning the implicit heteronormativity which at times held him back from being fully himself with the full spectrum of his needs and emotions. the way we could've peeked into queer culture with buck as guided by tommy. the way we could've had buck just take a moment to take it all in. the way being queer could've been the fabric of his arc in various meaningful ways and not just used for breakup 5: electric boogayloo. only if this show was a little more braver.

[kittycatcubed]

On it chief (we are playing go fish)