#And any institution which doesn't respect that isn't an institution that I want anything to do with.

[cobwebbed-crow]

If your institutionally mandated "diversity survey" doesn't include a 'prefer not to say' option for every single question, congratulations, I now know better than to believe that your institution is safe for minority students.

[just-a-ghost00]

Mini PAC - Connection energy check

This reading is meant for you, whether you are enquiring about a romantic or a platonic connection, no matter the type of spiritual bond you share.

Images made by amariniaa_draws <3

Group 1 - Just the two of us

8 of cups, 7 of cups, Temperance, High Priestess, Queen of pentacles, Hierophant

You and this person may be in a separation or you are not as much in contact as you used to. I feel like for many of you we are talking about a romantic interest. You are feeling dissatisfied with the way things are going and you may be weighing your options, pondering whether you should give them a chance or move on once and for all. On their end, this person is doing their very best to hide the fact that they are already engaged. Either they have a partner that they are hiding from you or they are supposed to be with a specific person, as their family wished. I'm also picking up on the energy of someone being very dedicated to their work, so much so that they cannot see anything or anyone else. Religion / cultural differences may also be a factor here as to why this connection isn't progressing for now. This person does not show any sign of interest for you, though they may be attracted to you. I asked for a clarification to get further information about the High Priestess. I asked spirit "what are they hiding?". And you got the Hermit. So, this person may not be hiding another relationship but rather an engagement to an establishment or an institution. Again, I get religious or spiritual references here. This person may have vowed to remain single and chaste in order to get what they want from life. So it's not that they are not interested in you or that they do not care about you but rather that they made a promise that forbids them from interacting with you any further. Another thing I am picking up on is that they may not be in a very stable place emotionally and mentally. So it is hard for them to give room to their desires or feelings, if they have any. As for you, being left in silence and not knowing what is going on, you feel like this person is toying with you or that they have many options that they entertain. There may be several people interested into them but this person doesn't pay them any attention, for the same reasons as they do not pay you much attention either. So right now, the connection is at a status quo.

I asked spirit to give us clarification as to how they feel about you. We got the following cards : 8 of pentacles, knight of pentacles, 4 of cups. We have someone here that is very reserved and shy. All these cards are earth related cards. Which means there isn't much room for feelings. This person does not allow themselves to feel for fear of being hurt or disappointed. If anything, they view you as someone they wish to protect at all costs and work with. This person wants to be a pillar for you to count on. They want to be able to pave the way for you and keep you from harm. For some reason I took the 4 of cups card for the 4 of pentacles. So maybe this is an indication that this person is confused by you and feels wary of you because they think you are trying to trick them. If this person feels even just a little love for you, they wish to show you through their actions rather than their words. Because words may disappear but the consequences of their actions will remain. They may not know what you represent for them but they surely know they want to work hard to earn your trust and respect, to show you that you can trust them. They want to take their time getting to know you before jumping to conclusions.

Group 2 - Thriller

Cards : ace of swords, 6 of wands, The World, Strength, knight of cups, High Priestess

This is a very good energy group 2. The person on your mind has had an epiphany lmao They are realizing how important and precious you are to them. Their feelings and intentions are getting clearer as days go by. However, they are trying their best to keep it a secret for now. They deeply wish to communicate with you about what they've decided and found out. But they feel like now might not be the best time. They miss you dearly and would like to close the gap between you. On your end, you are also feeling very positively about this person. However you may doubt that the feelings are reciprocated. You do your best to hold on and hope for the best in this connection. In the meantime, as you don't wish to wait on this person, you are taking care of yourself and filling your own cup. You may isolate yourself and keep your doings away from this person's gaze to protect yourself. You also are trying to hide your feelings and pretend like nothing is happening. You don't want to show your vulnerable side to them for fear that they will take advantage of it. But this person only has good intentions and would never do anything to hurt you. At least not consciously.

I asked spirit what is the connecting energy between you and what can you hope for. And you got the Queen of wands, the 6 of wands again and the Queen of cups. I'm so happy for you group 2. You and your person are on the same wavelength and wish for the same outcome. Both of you want to see this connection work out. Both of you feel very lucky to have met the other. What you can hope for is a joyful and passionate connection, filled with chemistry, laughter, sweet moments of bliss and innocence. I don't know what more to say except for congratulations! I feel like many of you have waited for such a connection for years. Your time is now baby. So enjoy the ride. <3

[akajustmerry]

on sherlock adaptations: what do you think of house

I have so Many thousands of thoughts of House as a Sherlock adaptation that I could write a book about it and chapter one would be called: A HOUSE IS NOT A HOLMES© because I don't CARE that they called him House and idc that his apartment is 221b and that he plays the violin sometimes and solves problems, that's not my friend Sherlock Holmes!!!!!

House doesn't work as a Sherlock adaptation because deduction as Holmes practices it in the stories is not SPECIALIST KNOWLEDGE!!! the whole appeal of Holmes is that you read it and you feel like you could also deduce things. Holmes teaches you a way to look at the world and be more observant and use that knowledge to help people.

Holmes isn't a politician or a policeman even, he's a guy who wants to help because he's studied a particular way to see the world and you can too.........House is a SPECIALIST DOCTOR with a typical Doctor's God complex. That's as far as you can get from Holmes!!! The whole point of Holmes is he's not part of an institution!!! He operates OUTSIDE OF IT. House's knowledge base is medically specialist, you can't engage with his deductive reasoning the way you can with Holmes in the stories because to know what he knows you have to go to med school for 20 years. There's never a sense when you watch that you could have figured it out. Also, House's job description is institutionalised and established. He's not doing anything (med malpractice aside) that wouldn't be in the scope of any other specialist.

Thirdly, Sherlock Holmes isn't a guy looking to have power of people. This is the thing that arguably pisses me off most about House which is the interpretation of Holmes as someone looking lord his intelligence over others. I think this comes from the prevailing tortured genus trope. But also people not being able to tell the difference between Sherlock as a character who is just very open about his observations and someone who's an asshole. Sherlock is actually a very honest character which sometimes yeah means he's harsh but mostly he's just truthful. House mutilates this trait beyond recognition to the point of near constant and unrealistic cruelty.

Finally, I think making Holmes a doctor literally means you can't actually have a Watson because arguably the whole point of Watson, other than to be the audience pov, is to add credibility to Sherlock's unorthodox career choice AND to provide a traditional scientific perspective. House being a Doctor means none of that is really needed. Everyone knows, understands, and respects what a Doctor is!!! Wilson as a Watson figure has nothing to do except be the audience's WTF POV. Even the way Wilson and House's friendship is done is simply, like.... they didn't read the source material. Do you get that these men are meant to be at the very least friends who enjoy each other's company?? Also I think people need to shut the fuck up about House MD being a secretly gay show. A show doing homophobia on the regular isn't gay in any way that matters.

I say all this as someone who's watched it and enjoyed it at times. House and Cuddy were literally like one of the first ships I ever shipped. Do you know how weird it is to be 15 rooting for 2 middle aged co-workers on tv to fuck?? Anyways, I have lots of other thoughts about how the show handles House's addiction and disabilities and how arguably these are also taken loosely from Holmes lore. But if House MD must be considered a Holmes adaptation, it's one that mostly just mutilates. Almost every criticism hbomberguy says in his Sherlock is Garbage video essay is also applicable to House MD.

[zombiecakes]

15,17,27,28,29!!,37,49,52,55,59,64 🥺 (sorry lol)

APOLOGY NOT ACCEPTED (srsly tho never apologize for making me gush about my babies lmao 💕)

This is gonna be long tho, so under cut 😂

Also some plotline spoilers in here, for those who haven't done stuff like Nuka World.

15. What is their proudest moment / accomplishment?

After he killed Mason, he got a pat on the back from Nisha. He always saw her as the biggest threat to his personal safety as Overboss, so having her support definitely helps him sleep at night.

17. Do they have a job? How do they make a living?

SHAKIN DOWN DEM FARMERS. Basically, everyone and their mother just sends him tribute now as Overboss, so he swimmin in caps 😎

27. What faction(s) are they a member of / allied with?

RAIDERS. It's actually becoming an issue, because he sees the Institute as a threat, and his own gang isn't equipped to bust their way in there. He just got a vision from Mama Murphy that he should ask the Brotherhood for help, which is probs his only reasonable option. (He's HELLA paranoid of synths and would probably burn down the Railroad if he found it DISCLAIMER I DO NOT SHARE HIS VIEWS LOL and he already alienated the Minutemen soooo yeah…) He also really respects and trust Murphy the Madwoman, so he's probs gonna take that advice… at least until he gets what he wants.

28. What faction(s) do they despise?

Oops, I already answered this one lol. See above.

29. What is their moral alignment / karma?

Not pulling punches here: Zirk is evil. He lets fear and selfishness run his life, resulting in the suffering of others. He has a small handful of people he gives a shit about, but I don't think that redeems him. Almost all “good” things he does are still motivated by selfish intentions.

37. What is the worst injury they have experienced?

Zirk has been thru some shit. He didn't turn into the shitty little monster he is because his life was rainbows and sunshine. I would say, consistently ending up as the lowest rung on the social ladder in any group he was part of, and all of the abuses that entailed (for example, his teeth tattoos), were collectively his “worst injury”.

49. What item(s) do they always have on their person?

His glasses! Boy is blind as a bat (one of the things, along with his smaller/delicate stature, that made him a target for most of his life). Finding nice, VATS-connected spectacles when he was looting Vault 111 a couple years ago was a life-changer for him.

52. Can they swim?

Well enough… although it probs isn't too pretty to watch.

55. Are they past, present, or future oriented?

This is a cool question 🤔 I would say up until very recently, present-oriented, because he was constantly scrounging around for his next meal or hit. Recently, however, his gang has swept across the Commonwealth, and he's had to think further ahead so that he can feed his raiders and maintain his safety as top dog. This is not a task he enjoys doing, so he often leaves the minutiae to Gage 💕

59. Do they idolize anything / anyone?

Mama Murphy. She is the first person he's ever met who truly knows and sees him as he is, and she cares for him anyway. This is more important to him than he could ever say, but she doesn't need him to say it 💕

He's also IN LOVE with Gage (not that he'd ever use those words, even to himself), and he really respects and relies on him.

64. How / where do they generally sleep?

The how/where is actually a similar question for him!! He usually falls asleep wherever he can (bed, sleeping bag, large pile of soft dirt), but often around 2-3am, he tends toward night terrors, and often goes sleepwalking/crawling into the nearest small, enclosed space. He knows he does this, so he rarely ever goes to sleep nearby another person. Gage has only witnessed this a couple times, and while familiar with ptsd (raiders have tough lives and rough upbringings, I suspect), he still doesn't know exactly what to do when Zirk does this shit.

[anomymoussoapbar]

I'm proship/profiction because I understand that the content somebody creates or is interested in isn't a perfect reflection of how they are irl.

I trust that other proshippers understand how to separate fiction and reality.

I'm anti-censorship; I won't make any exceptions because we've seen in history that once you start making exceptions, it can lead to queer media also being demonized and banned (the best I can think off the top of my head is the trans institute that existed in nazi Germany, which had so many amazing trans resources, getting destroyed by nazis).

I believe people should be able to use art as an outlet for anything. Not every single thing in life needs to be censored, and people do often use art to process feelings and experiences.

I'm against harassing people for their art. Not only does harassing some internet stranger sound like a waste of time, it's bullying too. I don't want to be a bully.

I believe in "don't like, don't look, don't interact" (my own variation of don't like don't read). I have tools to block people and hide content I don't want to see. I'm going to use them. I am responsible for curating my own online experience.

I've seen people online who use proshipping as a coping mechanism. I don't understand how that's possible, but that doesn't really matter so long as those people are safe. I wouldn't deny a victim their coping mechanism unless it endangered their life because that's against my beliefs and I'm not a therapist, so that wouldn't even be my place to speak. I've noticed antis don't like these kinds of victims because they don't fit into the antis' perfect boxes of how they think victims should be, so they often harass and bully and claim victims need therapy/need better therapists. I find this ridiculous because in my and many other's experiences, therapy is inherently proship/profiction and antis ignore this/claim it's not true (idk how you can do that if you're not a psychologist but they're too far gone to argue with). And they don't even offer to pay for the therapy, lol.

Thank you for making this blog and being curious, you're amazing. Sorry that this is kinda long lol

Hello!!! :*)

Thank you so so so much for your views.

I find it interesting how you listed it and specifically how you explained "don't like don't look don't interact" [I really like how you phrased it :*)] which I myself see me doing a lot.

When I read through your explanation, I began getting vaguely reminded of those internet safety PSAs they would make kids watch when you are younger, of curating your own safe environment.

How to report bullying, and to not harass others online as well being points that made me think of those internet safety PSAs LOL

Something I find myself thinking about is on how a lot of what fiction can affect reality is a concern long ago that was likely brought by concerns by parents who were against video games saying it promoted violence.

I also find the idea of fictionally dark themes interesting, as I have realized I. Do often indulge in dark medias. In an oddly comforting way.

I really don't like how people harass proshippers, or anyone in general. And from what I have been gathering, not all proshippers indulge in dark thematics. Perhaps the majority, but the proshipping idea is simply respecting even if you dont share it.

Also, when you mentioned people not being exactly how they write or the creations they make, I realized how a lot of mainstream medias follow this. The creator of most Studio ghibli movies is COMPLETELY different from the peppy and cute movies he makes and the creator of popular horror Manga Junji ito makes a lot of horror visuals and grotesque stories however is just a sweet guy in real life.

I know I bring it up a lot in my posts, but a lot of why media can be triggering for me and sickening is when I see what reminds me of my own traumatic experiences [S/A /COCSA and grooming.] And how no matter how much I filter, it will always end up appearing.

As it makes me physically sick, revolted, and sadly reminds me of what I've so deeply buried.

However, I am ONE side of the S/A survivor victim experience and spectrum. The other is people who find comfort in exploring their feelings and it helps them understand on what happened to them.

And I love art. I express myself through art. I used to draw what happened to me and draw out how I felt with characters. But it would make me feel so much worse. As I am and was at the mental point of connecting so hard to the fictional reality which I built to be so much better than I was in.

I don't really know why I'm saying all of this, I guess I just want to lead to the fact that every survivor has their way of coping, and mine isn't the same as everyone else's. And I am still learning to accept that and educate myself on it. Because I do. I really do want to understand and take away my own personal stigmas.

I have so much more I would love to add but I feel I have been rambling for too long LOL

Oh my goodness I'm so sorry for ranting but anyways, thank you so much for the ask and informing me in this much detail. You are so so loved and appreciated. 💞🌸

[pillarsalt]

Wikipedia anon here, i feel SO embarrassed for misremembering so much about that article. the concept of the cotton cieling and the reminder of the sheer amount of institutions/resources that have been taken over by tims/tras makes me so upset i didn't want to recheck the article again, even though i should have. (it was some time ago i saw the rb of your comic and did my first check, then saw your comic again and remembered about doing so, to clarify. yes i'm an absolute mess i apologize)

i appreciate you so much for not only getting what i was trying (and failing lmao) to explain but also looking into and linking the talk page because JFC!!! so sharing differing opinions for a topic (with cited sources!!) on wikipedia is a no-no, but it's totally fine when you and your friends retroactively decide pro-topic views make you look bad and so you delete the entire article and rewrite the definition of said topic to be about generically "being left out of spaces :.-(" instead of being honest about it being homophobic, rapist rhetoric (which is the reason you're trying to hide it in the first place) hoooooooly SHIT

if genderism ever blows over (with how long it's stuck around for, and with no one being willing to talk about objective/legal concerns like the WPATH files and Maya Forestater, let alone even have a conversation with a GC person, at this point i'm not hopeful...) everyone who contributed to the widescale abuse and trauma of women (especially lesbians), girls, gay men, gnc people, and tip (medicalized or not) could spend the rest of their lives begging for forgiveness and it wouldn't be anywhere near enough. not that i'm expecting them to do that, of course. it's not even blown over yet and we can see from the cotton ceiling article that they'll absolutely try to just gaslight everyone and pretend it never happened (and if it did, it wasn't that bad, and if it was bad it was your fault for not doing your research, etc etc)

ANYWAY i'd rather end on something positive, so thank you again for sharing your wonderful art on here!! seeing there's a talented, feminist female artist who's into pokemon and mlp but hasn't bought into trans ideology is so healing for me. hope you have a lovely day!!! :) :) :)

I wouldn't be embarrassed, I mean the article's not completely empty but it's obviously been stripped down to next to nothing compared to what it used to contain, and half the cited sources aren't really relevant at all. They briefly mention the MTF porn actor who coined the term but failed to mention the scores of other popular MTFs who were vehement proponents of the rhetoric (Riley J Dennis is the first one that comes to mind). And yeah that dude in the discussion page saying he's going to be watching the page and reverting any edits he doesn't like, isn't that very wikipedia illegal? I don't edit wikipedia but I'm fairly certain that camping on an article to make sure your edits aren't edited is not allowed.

It's definitely been a trend with "progressives" to flip the script on anything they've done and can see was wrong in retrospect, claiming "no actually YOU said this, not me." It's a very good reason to keep things documented, and I have huge respect for people who keep the receipts so we can hold people accountable for the harmful bullshit they've spread around. (Speaking of which, I think now is a good time to remind everyone that Eli Erlick is a rapist, another interesting fact that has been unsuccessfully scrubbed from the internet.)

Thanks for your wonderful words as well :) Have a great day too!

[eastgaysian]

Idk, I think maybe I'm just having difficulty grasping the points that Caden is making because I'm too detached from those material conditions, since I've never gotten a degree or a job that required one but I've also never really needed it since my family has been a healthy and reliable support system. So to me going back to school really would mostly be about personal enrichment - that is, assuming I would be able to fit it into my life around work and make the investment count, which is why I haven't actually gotten to it. I guess taking some kind of shortcuts could help, but I feel like pulling it off safely would take considerably more effort for me and I'd probably screw it up. That's kind of the story of my life though, following the rules just cos I'm too chicken or small-minded to try anything else.

(Sorry if this is a weird ask btw)

i mean with regards to universities as an institution, there is a certain amount of idealism/mystification around them that obfuscates the material function of universities/university degrees, in favor of talking about abstract concepts of the Joy of Learning and Furthering Knowledge. but the distinguishing feature of universities isn't that they're the only places anyone can go to learn or research something. you can read books outside of school, you can learn from people outside of school, you can have educational experiences outside of school - and odds are these experiences will be more useful and relevant to your personal and professional life than what you learn in a classroom. there are idiots with degrees, there are knowledgable and passionate people unable to complete degrees, there are academics that are wrong, wildly biased, deliberately misrepresenting their research/results, silencing dissenting theories, etc.

like, insofar as a university produces or imparts 'knowledge,' what this means is that the knowledge is understood as valid/valuable because the institution it comes from is respected, well-funded, historic, etc - nothing about the knowledge 'itself,' so to speak. when a parent wants their kid to go to college and get a degree, they may idealistically say that they want their kid to be enriched, personally fulfilled, broaden their worldview. but practically speaking: you get a degree to get a good job and improve (or maintain) your socioeconomic position because that's what degrees get you. that's why you go to a university specifically for a university degree, that's why families have vested interests in a kid who will be the first kid able to go to college. there is a very real, material value to a degree on your wall, and it's the kind of job you can get for it. there is a very real, material cost associated with getting a degree, and that is designed to prevent certain people from accessing those jobs.

what a degree would be 'worth' or what it would signify in an 'ideal' world is an entirely different question and would require an in-depth critique of the university as an institution. Right Now we live in a world where the only thing a degree is in any meaningful sense is a class barrier. academics are invested in defending the idea that what a degree 'really' indicates is something about an individual's level of knowledge, and it's a hard concept for a lot of people to shake, but that just doesn't mean anything!! to the university and to an employer there is no difference between a degree you got by cheating and a degree you got by Nobly Working Hard. that is not what a degree signifies. the difference between having a degree and not having it is not getting a job and the money you need to survive. i believe people should be able to get 'good' jobs that allow them to survive - so people should be able to do whatever they need to get the degrees that facilitate that

[tyrannoninja]

Cultural Appropriation

I am honestly ambivalent about how I feel on the cultural appropriation discourse.

I know that there's a history of White people consuming or profiting from the products of other cultures without actually respecting those cultures or compensating their people. I also believe that, for example, any White person who listens to hip-hop music or even makes their own while being racist toward Black people is a hypocrite since hip-hop has its roots in African-American musical traditions. If you consume something from a given culture, you should honor the culture that produced it and treat its people with respect.

With that said, I am not a fan of telling people that they can't wear, eat, or do anything associated with other cultures. It might make sense if those cultural products have a deep religious or spiritual significance (e.g. Muslim hijabs or Plains Native American war bonnets), but that isn't the case with all products of a given culture. I don't see how a non-Black person choosing to braid their hair in a historically African-American fashion is necessarily doing harm by themselves as long as they give credit to the hairstyle's African-American roots.

Furthermore, I worry that cultural appropriation discourse could attract ethnic separatists and nationalists who want to weaponize the concept to drive wedges between themselves and the groups they don't like. For example, a lot of White supremacists will claim that people of color wearing anything associated with European traditions are somehow guilty of cultural appropriation too. Another example would be "Afrocentric" hoteps harassing White people for wearing or consuming anything associated with Black culture(s) in the name of a Black separatist agenda which can be every bit as racist and hateful as White supremacy even if it doesn't have as much institutional backing right now.

Maybe my White privilege is blinding me, but the discourse has become a complicated mess from my point of view.

[40ouncesandamule]

I'm going to politely push back on this.

While I agree that "We don't get to the top until we are all free to live as we choose without government or societal interference or sanction, and without having to perform an identity for those rights and respect", I disagree with the characterization of people who are more dedicated to liberation than you as "poo-pooing the civil rights advances that the community has achieved through literally decades of work"

For someone who sees all queer people of the world as equal in deserving life and dignity, "gays in the military" is an example of "assimilationist victories." Queer soldiers bombing, maiming, torturing, and murdering queer people is not liberation. Liberation would be dismantling the infrastructure that leads to queer foreigners being bombed, maimed, tortured, and murdered by our military. Assimilation is literally joining the machine that does that.

Similarly, I agree that "marriage is baked into our system of government" and certain strains of liberation ask "should it be?" During the fight for gay marriage, there were many queer people who asked, to paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., should we "assimilate into this burning house?" There are liberationists who ask if marriage as an institution should be abolished instead of assimilated into.

I'm not trying to engage in "poo-pooing the civil rights advances that the community has achieved through literally decades of work" but I am asking that everyone consider the differences between reformist (assimilationist) and non-reformist (liberationist) reforms. I fully admit that people who are more radical than you can seem like assholes and I fully admit that sometimes they are but that doesn't, necessarily, mean that they are wrong. In my experience, liberals tend to be more reformist/assimilationist and believe that the system that they are within can be reformed whereas leftists tend to be more non-reformist/liberationists and believe that the system is working as intended and that the mechanisms by which it hurts people must be abolished.

While I agree that "We don't get to the top until we are all free to live as we choose without government or societal interference or sanction, and without having to perform an identity for those rights and respect", I vehemently disagree that assimilation is the best path to liberation. On the topic of "gay marriage", the assimilationist wants to be able to assimilate into an institution of two partners regardless of gender whereas the liberationist understands that making the institution of marriage "more inclusive" isn't going to do anything for the people who are victims of this institution, isn't going to do anything for the people at the "anarchist trans commune/Llama farm", asks is it just that "marriage is baked into our system of government?", and then seeks out non-reformist reform up to and including abolition/revolution. On the topic of "gays in the military", the assimilationist wants to be able to assimilate into an institution of the military whereas the liberationist understands that making the institution of the military "more inclusive" isn't going to do anything for the people who are the victims of this institution, asks is it just that this institution exists, and then seeks out non-reformist reform up to and including abolition/revolution.

I think that it is rude, condescending, unjust, untrue, and frankly counterproductive to take the words of the people who have a more liberatory view than you as "proof that those people are not actually liberationists in any meaningful way" and denigrate their struggle for your liberation as "we need to stick out."

An important definition of terms:

As far as I'm concerned, an assimilationist is someone who believes that queer people must assimilate in order to advance the cause of queer rights. An assimilationist creates a dress code for marches like the Mattachine Society did, fights against queer self-expression at Pride because "it holds back the movement," and believes that the only way for us to move forward is for all queers to live as cishet people do, but with little rainbow flags taped on.

An assimilationist is not "someone who wants the functions and institutions of cishet society to be available to queer people." It's someone who believes the only way to live is assimilated into cishet society, and anything else "holds us back." It's someone who wants Sylvia and Marsha to march at the back, and who prizes cishet aesthetic over practical liberation.

A liberationist is someone who believes that queer liberation is not contingent upon public performance of identity.

Let me repeat that, so we're absolutely clear: a liberationist believes that queer liberation is not contingent upon public performance of identity. ANY IDENTITY.

That means a sufficiently cishet identity and a sufficiently "respectable" identity, but it also means a sufficiently radical identity. If you actually believe in queer liberation, you don't just believe in liberation for people who look, act, and believe like you. You believe in liberation for people who genuinely want to get married, have babies by IVF and live in the suburbs as well as for people who want to live childfree on an anarchist trans commune/Llama farm.

I hear people use the term "Assimilationist" and "Assimilationist Victories" to dismiss as meaningless those victories that are insufficiently radical for their tastes, and that to me is only proof that those people are not actually liberationists in any meaningful way. In liberation, there must be room for people who actually do just want to get married and live quiet, content lives going to their kid's baseball games.

The difference between Assimilationist thought and Liberationist thought cannot be simply replacing "we need to blend in" with "we need to stick out." It cannot simply replace "we must be integrated into cishet society" with "we cannot ever integrate into cishet society and anything which permits us to do that if we so choose is insufficiently liberationist." That's the organizational equivalent of yelling YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD, and I'm fucking over it, y'all.

My liberation doesn't have to be your liberation. Your liberation doesn't have to look like mine. What matters is that we are helping each other up the mountain and making long-term plans to get to where we can, and that we recognize that every choice we make is going to leave someone behind, and we account for that and plan for that so we don't leave them behind forever.

We cannot regard gay marriage or gays in the military or instituting a nationwide right to transition or any of our future goals as an endpoint. They are only goals part of the way up the mountain.

We don't get to the top until we are all free to live as we choose without government or societal interference or sanction, and without having to perform an identity for those rights and respect. The freedom to be ourselves must include the right to "blue hair and pronouns" but it also must include the right to "your kid's school plays and a duplex in a suburb." The latter is not an assimilationist lifestyle unless you try to enforce it on everyone.

I'm so, so tired of people acting like they're radical thinkers for poo-pooing the civil rights advances that the community has achieved through literally decades of work as "assimilationist victories." That's not clever, cute, or correct. Every. Single. One. Of those victories is written in tears and sweat and blood. Every single one is wrapped in the funeral shrouds of people who died fighting for it. Every single one was achieved not by assimilationists alone, but neither by people who think the only true victories are the ones sufficiently pure in their leftist credentials.

It is extremely possible and indeed likely that if you judge queers by their aesthetic, you will miss partnering with some of the most radical people and shackle your movement to people who cloak regressive politics in radical language. I've heard some truly noxious words come out of mouths framed by snakebites, and I've known extremely radical thinkers who look like your grandma. And I gotta tell you, in those local elections which keep school boards free from Moms For Liberty? The latter are useful people for liberationists to know and have in our camp, those people who think like liberationists but look like your grandma or your auntie.

Enforcement of aesthetic as a condition of liberation is assimilationist thought. It doesn't matter if the assimilation is to pink hair and tattoos or polo shirts and khakis - enforcement of aesthetic and philosophy as a condition of liberation is assimilationist thought. It's just replacing one kind of demanded conformity with another, and when we say "none of us are free until all of us are free," that also means free to be fucking boring if we want to, full stop.

We talk a lot about how much work goes into being disabled, how much work we have to put into making appointments, and fighting bureaucracy, but this is also true of queer life. Freedom comes with ease, with being easily able to update paperwork, with being easily able to find employment and housing, with being easily able to create the family structures we want to live in. When all of us can wake up in the morning assured of security in our beds, food in our bellies, meds in our med trays as needed, and a day ahead of us filled with chosen purpose and chosen meaning, which ends with us back in the bed of our choice at the end of the day, fulfilled in purpose and secure in our homes and chosen families, then we are free, and not before.

You may notice a seeming contradiction in this, in that my liberationist philosophy has room in it for the very people who are currently annoying the fuck out of me by demanding allegiance to a leftist aesthetic over practical liberation (that is, a movement based in harm reduction and long-term strategy over adherence to leftist purity of thought).

This is not a contradiction.

It is not a bug. It is a feature. My liberationist ideals mean that people have to have the right to be wrong without their liberty hinging on being right, that's all. :)

[margridarnauds]

The Review That The Medievalists Don't Want You To See

Well. I never thought that THAT was a title that I'd be putting on a review, given that, as a medievalist, a lot of my public outreach work involves, specifically, disproving the notion that we're all a bunch of old, straight, rich, white men, but...every once in a while...academia proves me wrong.

Some people on medievalbr might be aware of the works of Dr. Mary Rambaran-Olm, a black medievalist who is well known for calling out racism in the academy, especially for her work leading the discussion on the racist use of the term "Anglo Saxon" to describe the inhabitants and period of time in early medieval English history. She has faced a lot of harassment, both from white supremacists outside the field and racists in the field, who get uncomfortable whenever someone comes along to upset a status quo that benefits them

Dr. Rambaran-Olm was recently asked to write a review for an upcoming book, The Bright Ages, by David M. Perry and Matthew Gabriele, which purports to "refute common misperceptions of the European Middle Ages, showing the beauty and communion that flourished alongside the dark brutality—a brilliant reflection of humanity itself." She did as requested and wrote a lengthy review that criticized aspects of how the book dealt with its subject matter, a review that was then shut down, first for "word count", then for "lack of generosity". (Aka "It was balanced and presented critiques as opposed to being uniformly positive"...which is supposed to be the purpose of a professional academic review, we aren't exactly working according to the kudos system here.)

(The full email correspondence is available on Dr. Rambaran-Olm's twitter, here.)

Dr. Rambaran-Olm has published a review on medium, and, in the final few paragraphs, has this to say, as a measure of exactly what the editors of the publication were concerned about:

The Bright Ages may not exclusively be for white readers, but it certainly is for neoliberal readers who want to believe they are progressive and demand superficial fixes to complex problems and issues. For what it’s worth, I don’t think there’s any illusion that the book aims to convert white supremacists with this material, nor would any book really be able to achieve that. Still, it’s a safe book for a receptive liberal audience. It’s not a radical book, but that must be accepted at this moment, because the field is not ready for anything particularly radical.

Terrifying.

It should be noted that "read this with a critical eye" should be part and parcel of reading any book on the middle ages. If they wanted their book to get a shred of the respect they seem to believe it merits, they would understand this. This is intended to be a textbook for a general audience, but it doesn't include footnotes, citations, or, apparently, any room for critical thinking, especially from the people of color that it claims to support. She deserves better, and so does the public.

Since coming forward about her experiences, she has faced a lot of harassment from inside the field. Everyone involved on the other end of this has been very mature about the entire thing, blocking reviews from anyone pointing out what's happened. There have been allegations that she is not really a medievalist, that she's not even really black. (If she isn't a medievalist, neither are any of us, and...as someone who's seen her speak in person, I can say that she is most definitely black, as her various photos suggest. It shows how low they're willing to go.)

For years, a goal of academics has been to say "this isn't who we are as a field." But the system's rotten, right down to the foundation. I can't say that academia as an institution isn't racist and colonialist, it is. However, in that same vein, acting like all academics are a hivemind ultimately only benefits the worst of the batch. Instead, I would urge people to follow Dr. Rambaran-Olm and scholars like her that are trying to tear down the field from the inside.

[dykeotomy]

3. I don't think feminism needs to reconstruct itself for trans women. The overlapping oppression they face is already being fought against by biological women, and simply acknowledging that trans women also face social misogyny isn't reconstructing the framework of feminism. There are problems only biological women face, yes, and no one is trying to demean those. Black women face misogyny differently because they are black, and that overlaps with their femaleness, but that doesn't mean that feminism needed to be built from the beginning to fit them in the movement.

Trans people in general are actually really likely to be raped according to the office for victims of crime ( https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html ), that reported: “12 percent of transgender youth report being sexually assaulted in K–12 settings by peers or educational staff; 13 percent of African-American transgender people surveyed were sexually assaulted in the workplace; and 22 percent of homeless transgender individuals were assaulted while staying in shelters.”

Another study by the williams institute ( https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/ ) said: “Transgender women and men had higher rates of violent victimization (86.1 and 107.5 per 1,000 people, respectively) than cisgender women and men (23.7 and 19.8 per 1,000 people, respectively).”

I think that seeing this is extremely important to include trans people within feminism, because even if they don't face the same type of misogyny as biological women, they still face misogyny and acknowledging that isn't “taking away” or “reconstructing” feminism, because that overlap is already being fought for by biological women and that has been the case for decades.

4. There are quite a few protections in place regarding surgeries, and countless trans people have talked about it. You need to be over 18, a signed letter from a professional (sometimes two of them) & persistent and documented gender dysphoria in all kinds of gender reassignment surgeries (as well as, of course, being deemed responsible enough to make such a decision), one complete year in hormones… And even then, the waiting period (like with any medical procedure) takes ages (furthermore, if you research the topic you'll see that trans women who surgeries like breast implants have it more difficult than trans men, because they need to meet more strict criteria.)

Talking about hormone replacement therapy, many places require a referral letter from a mental health professional, as well a gender dysphoria diagnosis, and the patients are extensively talked through what that means for their body, as well as a health evaluation from the doctor to assure that the person in question doesn't have any issues do to it. Puberty blockers are given to minors until they are over 18 (which are completely reversible) and therefore old enough to make their own medical decisions. The minors that get hormone replacement therapy need their parents' permission too.

5. In that case, then gender ideology isn't inherently upholding gender roles, since simply wanted to be called a word that describes the opposite sex and use the pronouns tied to this word isn't tied to harmful gender stereotypes.

Hi again, sorry for the delay! I'm honestly having so much fun debating these topics, I'm really glad I reached out. Have a good day! -L.A.

3. the problem with the trans women/black women argument is that black women don't have to do anything to earn their womanhood--they are just female. they are equally as female as white women, and it's wrong to imply that their blackness makes them somehow less deserving of feminism. if anything, radical feminism is meant to address every system of oppression that affects women, which includes racism.

nobody is denying that passing trans women face social misogyny. i will be the first to say this is true, but i am also the first to say that trans women who don't pass (the majority of them) face a very distinct, very different type of social backlash, and it is one that is also experienced by gay/effeminate men. a bigot isn't gonna stop a trans woman on the street and say "are you a trans woman or a feminine man?" before deciding to be transphobic or homophobic. the bigot will treat the trans woman as a man in a dress. this is horrible and should be fought against, 100%, but it is not misogyny and it is not female oppression.

the study of rape in trans people has numbers pretty similar to the american national average of women's sexual assault stats (approx. 17% of females are victims of sexual assault). the highest numbers in the study you linked for sexual assault percent are from homeless trans people and trans people in police custody, in which non-trans women are also more likely to be assaulted. adult females, in general, are 90% of all sexual assault victims. not to even mention the amount of daily harassment women face. i get catcalled at least half the time i go to the train station (weekly). i was told to stop wearing shorts in the grocery store at 10 years old, before i even hit puberty, because men would look. this is all anecdotal, of course, but every woman and girl that i know has stories like these (and worse). assault against trans people is abhorrent. but the assault that women face is for different reasons, more ingrained in our pop culture and everyday life, and deserves its own movement.

something i found interesting in your second link was how 1/4 of victimized trans women thought the incident was a hate crime, compared to 1/10 bio women. it wasn't until very recently (this year) that i started to think of rape and sexual harassment as misogynistic hate crimes. we're not taught to think like that. i also think it's interesting that trans men had higher levels of victimization than trans women--probably because they are female. and i'm not sure where this study got it's numbers for bio women, because nearly every other study i've read has at least 80% of all women as victims of sexual crimes (not even including things like domestic abuse or non-misogyny fueled crimes).

i will always include trans men in my feminism. they were raised as girls, have female bodies, face misogyny, etc. trans women are not part of my feminism because my feminism is aimed towards female liberation. i am fighting for a world that does not value males more than females. i can simultaneously be against the violent hate of trans women while centering my feminism around the female sex. my feminism is also about gender abolition and the removal of gender self ID, which is antithetical to trans people's beliefs that gender should be a personal identity.

4. i know two trans people who got top surgery as minors (16 and 17, respectively) and one who started hrt at 15. another one started at 18 but did not need a letter from a therapist--just one meeting with the doctor who would be prescribing the testosterone in order to go over risks and benefits. i think this varies state-by-state and country-by-country; i live in a very liberal area, so of course it's going to be easier access. in the time that i've spent in trans circles i've also seen how a popular belief is that trans medical care should be easily accessible to the point that someone wouldn't even need doctor approval.

i don't have much to say about the medicalization of trans people other than this link, honestly. it's a bit of a long read, but super eye-opening.

5. but what is the point in calling yourself a word for the opposite sex? it is, at best, inaccurate, and at worst, actively upholding the idea that because someone fits the opposite sex's gender roles, then they should BE the opposite sex. in a sexism-free world, the words man and woman would not mean anything other than male and female. masculinity and femininity would not correlate to either sex (and would hopefully not exist as concepts anyways, because they are regressive). "man" and "woman" are not strict boxes that exclude trans people from being themselves. a man can be as feminine as he wants and that does not change the fact that he is male. vice versa for women. transgenderism opens new boxes rather than acknowledging that absolutely nobody can fit into a box, anyways.

i'm having a lot of fun too!! and don't worry about the delays, i know we all have lives outside tumblr lol :) have a good day!!

[manamade]

And to be clear, I don't think religion is unique here.

given infinite time and power, EVERY institution or person will do bad things. Like countries or HOAs. But the problem with a country isn't that it exists with the potential to harm, it's that the patriotism towards one's own country becomes so strong that they're willing to fight wars and shed blood over things against the interest of the common people, and then JUSTIFY it. If a country was nothing but a regulatory body that determined what a historical site is and hired people to collect taxes to maintain roads, then they'd still be bureaucratic messes that don't always represent the masses, but they wouldn't kill people. And maybe after a major fuck up they'd apologize or someone new would take power.

A religion is that stupid patriotism multiplied by 500. Given the monotheistic religion of Christianity, you are to believe that one man is responsible for you, your family and friends, every good thing to ever happen to you, a grand plan for your life that excuses every bad thing that happens to you, your favorite animal, the sunlight on your skin and the universe at large. And ALL they demand in exchange is your loyalty because they are kind and benevolent (ignore the eternal damnation thing for a moment because that's highly variable even within the same religion across time). Given this, and given that you believe it - which you will because it was taught to you at age 3, along with looking both ways before you cross the road and that the stove is hot - you would be insane to do anything against the will of this god. You will do anything against the common good if it is what this god wants.

That's already bad enough. I don't think anyone should have that power. This god may be benevolent but their supposed plan clearly involves some mass death and suffering or else we wouldn't have the world we have today. But there's something even more critical here: God doesn't talk to us. Some say the pope hears him, but that's not us. The average person has to guess what god wants, and anything is on the table because god would stop you if he didn't want it. It is our duty to personally stop the enemies of an all powerful god and we know that's our duty because he hasn't stopped us! And his enemies are gay people! Allegedly. We can't hear him. Translations disagree on if that was in the bible at all but it doesn't really matter. Cuz if god liked gay people he would have stopped us! And if we kill someone in his name and they were actually good but god doesn't save them he'll just bring them on up to heaven early! And then I can just say sorry when I die and he'll forgive me because he is benevolent.

But apart from that bit about the Bible and heaven, this would apply to any all-powerful deity from any religion. There is no way to convince a religious movement in motion that what they're doing is wrong, they will never apologize to the people of the world no matter what it makes them do, and honestly I have a hard time believing a lot of them would even apologize to their god. In their eyes they've done it all perfectly according to his plan whether they were trying to or not, because he's ALL POWERFUL.

You can technically do some good with religion as a base, but it's not unique in that regard. But the volatility of it IS. It's DANGEROUS to have that lack of inhibitions and that belief that you are right at all times, and you don't need to prove these religions wrong for that to be true!

But even the polytheistic or spiritual religions can do this, in a different way. You may not believe you have the backing of a singular all-powerful deity, but if you take them seriously then you will fall into routines and traditions that will one day become dogma. Eventually a simple saying about respecting your local forest spirit will turn into a leftist pagan witch movement protesting 5G waves in their suburbs because the spirits of the nearby woods don't like that. And maybe that motivates some good and they'll plant some milkweed to counter the negativity of modern society but that could have been motivated through a general care for nature instead of a religious care for nature that also leads to reactionary thinking. It's just so easily replaceable...

But of course the human element means it's not really about "just stopping" as if it was a piece of unimportant bureaucracy. Like I said earlier, we need to start culturally weaning the world off of it. No crusades, no camps, no burning friendships to the ground, just a steady stream of weird looks whenever you hear someone thank their lord. Forever.

So apparently a couple days ago a whole ass state mandated the display of the Christian ten commandments In every classroom??

I'm so done with religion. Every benefit it provides is replaceable with much less volatile systems. Culturally speaking we need to start weaning the world off of it.

(And yeah, even the small ones without institutional power. Given a vacuum of power any of them would do the same crusades as Christianity)

[papirouge]

That article you posted about lesbians and pedophiles really resonated with me. Its something Ive observed over the years lurking on gay and lesbian blogs and so on when i was younger and thought i was bi. I remember that gay men would write about their first relationships being with older men on their 20s, 30s, 40s, even 50s when they were young teens, and while some were critical of it, a lot others recalled their memories with nostalgia and longing. And sadly, if someone dared criticize the older man for being a creep, these guys would get defensive and claim that there was nothing wrong with what happened, that the man treated them right and they consented to everything. On the other side, you got lesbians usually sharing about having their first relationships in their 20s and sometimes even in their 30s...

And Im not saying that every gay man was preyed on by an older gay man and that there are no lesbians predators, but one cannot deny that there are obvious patterns, and that is that theres an obvious pedo problem in the gay male community. And it isnt talked about anywhere but some communities exclusive to gay men, and sometimes by lesbians, which i guess its out of fear of being seen as homiphobic.

Some lesbians nowadays seem to try to gloss it over, but i think it's because they don't want gay men to turn against them (because sadly many gay men try to sweep this issue under the rug out of fear of homophobic backlash) due to the fact that gay men have more visibility and higher positions than lesbiana, thus they need their support if they want to achieve anything.

Also a little off topic, but youve been talking lately a lot about misogyny, female socialización and male approval, and i think this seems to be an issue even within gay spaces. Like Ive seen lesbians do the most for gay men while gay men barely even have the same energy for lesbians. Some even spout outright hatred towards them... Like a while ago this gay man said he wished lesbians would get r*ped straight by het men. Super sad.

You nailed it anon. I myself witness this creepy enabling or male abuse on gay relationship on twitter with people sharing their first sexual experience and it was with much older males.

Honestly this inclination to gloss over sex abuse and inappropriate age gap isn't exclusive to homosexual but men as a whole. There's this TikTok of a mature woman saying she hit on a boy who was a just graduating (so barely 18 y'o), and a few years later he came back to her and they hooked up. She had the age to be her mother.... And apparently the only people finding it inappropriate/predatory were women, while males cheered on that groomer and saying how lucky that boy was... Men are inherently more predatory than women / more prone to overlook/enable abuse, and that's the hill I'm going to die on. Sorry not sorry.

You're also right about the weird caping of lesbians towards gay male. I once made a post calling out Alfred Kinsey & his institutional pedophilia, and lesbians started freaking out bc the whistleblower exposing Kinsey endorsed a book which theory is that the Nazi regime used gay SS as a leverage for recruiting Nazi youth. They accused her, and then me of being homophobic... And I was like "girl.... is caping for gay nazi really the hill you wanna die on? 🙄" like, they were so caught up in the fact that some criticism was directed at gay men they totally overlooked the fact that these psychopath were nazi and didn't deserve any respect/defense whatsoever lmao Being gay doesn't make anyone above reproach IDC. I don't get what's homophobic to acknowledge that the nazi regime did weaponize gay men for their recruiting. As far as I know, they did the same for children and women.

I'm not familiar enough with LGB space but you might be right about women/lesbians being afraid of 'losing' men on their side if they started more straightforward in their criticism of their problematic behavior. Once again, regardless of their sexual attraction, females are always catering to males feelings....

I'm not surprised there are gay men being outright verbally abusive about women... I mean, look how 'straight' transwomen behave with women...

[koalatysleep]

I read @ineffable-endearments 's excellent good omens meta discussing why Crowley had such a strong reaction to being called nice in the wall slam scene, and it inspired a lot of thought. I agree that 'nice' is code for Heaven (Aziraphale referred to himself as 'the nice one' at the airbase), and from the perspective of Hell, we can't get anything more four-letter or socially taboo than being 'nice' & aligned to Heaven, the institution that Lucifer & all of Hell rebelled against & Fell for. Hastur once intoned "we are the Fallen, never forget that", so it suggests that being Fallen is a big part of Hell's propaganda and the identity Hell & its demons had crafted for themselves. Their group identity revolves around being the antithesis to Heaven, being better than angels - 'smarter, tougher, more dangerous' as Dagon put it. When you have a group identity that revolves around being the opposite of / the superior to another group, it's especially taboo to want to join the loathed other side.

I also imagine that if Lucifer were to discover any demon who wants to realign back to Heaven, he'd probably see it as the ultimate act of treason & obliterate said demon not just as an example to keep the rest of Hell in line, but also because it's personal (Lucifer obviously has a personal vendetta against God/Heaven). 

The last time Crowley had anything to do with the Tadfield nunnery, Lucifer popped in unannounced when Crowley was having a private "why me" freak out moment in the Bentley, so it suggests that Lucifer has some form of omnipresence, or at the very least can "eavesdrop" without you knowing it. Anyone who's lived under a survellaince state can attest to the fear & uncertainty you'd feel about whether big brother is listening. Worse still, we see that Lucifer can directly place "instructions" in Crowley's mind (creepily & invasively), which rendered Crowley literally without any individual agency when it was happening (he nearly drove into the path of an oncoming vehicle & could only swerve when Lucifer left his mind). Crowley's fear of Lucifer is very obvious & fully justified, and I agree he's partly afraid that Aziraphale might say something beyond 'nice', something explicit about Crowley re-aligning to Heaven that Lucifer might "overhear" and take personal offense to. As Crowley said at the airfield when Lucifer was rising from the deep, they're fucked when it's personal.

In addition to the fear, I think Crowley's reaction is also because he's frustrated/hurt that Aziraphale would suggest re-aligning to Heaven as a "backup" solution, when Aziraphale should know that isn't a valid option because Crowley doesn't want to be on either Heaven's or Hell's side, Crowley wants to be on their Own Side. I think Crowley was hurt because being on their Own Side means giving equal weight & consideration to your partner, and Crowley has been doing that by trying to find solutions that both he and Aziraphale can live with (thus his first solution of raising the antichrist in a neutral way, which gives Aziraphale the plausible deniability that he was just thwarting Crowley instead of the Great Plan, and his preferred backup option of running away together), while Aziraphale is suggesting something (realigning back to Heaven) that Crowley cannot live with (I don't think Crowley would be happy even if going back to Heaven was possible). 

This can hurt because it can feel like Aziraphale is not giving as much consideration/weight/regard to Crowley as Crowley is giving to Aziraphale. It can feel like your partner does not respect or understand that your needs/worldview is different from theirs, which can feel like a form of rejection/lack of acceptance/lack of regard for who you are. It would sting even more if you understand/accept your partner for who they are, what they can/cannot do given the constraints of their external circumstances, and you take all these into consideration in the options you suggest, but you don't seem to get this same consideration in return. Crowley suggesting that Aziraphale prevent armageddon under the guise of thwarting Crowley's wiles instead of outright disobeying Heaven is a brilliant example of Crowley giving consideration, weight & regard to Az's situation/needs as much as Crowley's own. It is an option that both he and Aziraphale can live with, one that is based on common middle ground instead of forced alignment with sides and party lines. (Can anyone tell I love Crowley so much because he is honestly a very good, loving partner? 😍😆)

Anyway the tension & imbalance between the two ineffable partners is resolved at the end when Aziraphale chooses to be on their Own Side. When they're dining at the Ritz, Aziraphale says "i like to think none of this would have worked out if you weren't at heart just a little bit of a good person". He doesn't use the word 'nice' here, he uses 'good person'. I read this as Aziraphale unequivocally voicing for the first time what he knew in his heart all along -- that Crowley, a demon who is unaligned with Heaven (& thus not 'nice'), is good. That one does not need to be aligned with Heaven (or Hell, or any side) in order to be good & do the right thing. That one's capacity for good & evil is not predetermined by the group/party/side they are in. That just because a side claims to be the 'right' one, it doesn't automatically make their actions/policies the right decisions. You can be on the so-called 'right' side and do the wrong things like Heaven did with the flood and Jesus' crucifixion. You can be on the so-called 'wrong' side and do the right thing like Crowley did. At the end of the day, sides don't matter, it's what you actually do that counts. At the end of the show, Aziraphale finally comes fully onto his and Crowley's Own Side, in action as well as in words :)

On the topic of four-letter words, I also found it interesting how Crowley used the word 'real' a few times in the show, to describe how Aziraphale can do 'real' magic instead of the fake one; how it would take a 'real' miracle for Crowley and Aziraphale to escape the bomb dropping on the church unharmed. We also see that when Aziraphale does 'real' magic -- to turn the secret agents' guns into water pistols at Warlock's birthday party (this was regrettably a deleted or unfilmed scene), to miracle Crowley & himself safe from the bomb -- he completely turns around situations that could have ended as disaster into moments of triumph. Instead of leaving warlock with a lame party, or being discorporated by the bomb, Aziraphale gave warlock the best birthday party ever, and mended his relationship with Crowley after their holy water fight. The delight he gave the kids and the relationship with Crowley that was mended - these are all what we humans would describe as magical or even miraculous (mending relationships is not easy) in the real world, the kind that makes a 'real' difference to our human hearts.

In the same way, when Aziraphale decides to get 'real' & outright defies Heaven to stop armageddon, when he pleads with Crowley to 'do something' about Lucifer at the airbase, by threatening to never speak to Crowley again (the hurt this would cause is real, even if it's debatable whether Az would actually follow through on the threat), he completely turns around what could have ended as disaster into moments of triumph. It ties in to one of the key messages of the show about how we can triumph over seemingly insurmountable odds just by choosing to be our authentic, real, full selves :)

Adam triumphed over the greatest adversary Lucifer by simply choosing to be his human incarnate real self instead of what Hell/Heaven expected him to be. Crowley and Aziraphale won their hard-earned Freedom by choosing to be their full selves, on their Own Side, instead of suppressing the parts of themselves that Heaven/Hell does not condone. I think we could all do with more of such real triumphs in our real lives as well :)

[diaphin93]

Thanks that you can respect that and I'm glad that I didn't came off too pushy. I personally can respect your stance as well and I ultimately think that the game is made for each person to have their own perspective on what is the right route. I myself often went hard into argueing for CF being the best in the past, but that also was more of a reaction to just so many people spreading their HC's of how CF's ending will lead to collapse as fact. The devs deliberately didn't include a revalation-esque route after all, because they didn't want to have a true route

But on Edelgard and her attitudes towards Dragons, that a community spread misconception to frame her as some kind of racist and fascist, predominantly by the kinds of people who, in a game where people of color exist and are opressed, make pale-skinned dragon gods their chosen racial allegory. I could be wrong but please correct me, but to my knowledge Edelgard never learns that the Heroes Relics are made out of Dragons. I'm not even sure if Silver Snow Byleth does learn that, it could be actually just Claude. What she knows is that the heroes relics are manmade and the history the church propagates, that Nemesis became corrupted and evil later on, was a lie propagated by the church. Though Edelgards also doesn't seem to care much about Heroes Relics outside of their immediate use and the fact, that the church is controlling them.

Edelgard and Hubert hold negative views on the Nabatheans as inhuman, but that is predominantly out of their limited perspective, where they only know them as immortals who hide among humans to control them and falsify history. Though they also don't seem to see them as a race and more as a divine family of self-appointed gods, which is the role the Nabatheans did play in the past. I think here its kinda messy because outside of the few nabateans alive, there aren't really any other intelligent non-human races and humans don't know anything about Nabateans outside of their myths about the children of the goddess. And ultimately, what they hold against the Nabatheans is their deception and their misrule over humanity. And Rhea does express very supremacist attitudes against humans and considers themselves to be unfit to govern themselves without her guidance, despite herself being as flawed as humans and misusing her power the same they do, with Seteth being an active accomplice.

Ultimately, she doesn't even want to kill the Nabateans, she just wants their control over humanity to end. She expresses herself very harshely with terms like obliterate and striking her down, which I think are supposed to be taken as her exaggerating when talking about her ideals, but otherwise she does express a preference to sparing Rhea. She does give Rhea a chance to surrender before Fhirdiad and even before that shows a genuine interest in capturing instead of killing her.

So she prefers stripping Rhea of power and keep her away from politics and is neutral towards turning the church into an imperial institution, which is to say, a state institution, while actively disliking the idea of killing her if she surrenders. This is consistent with the fact that she does keep Rhea as a prisoner over the 5 years, where Seteth does confirm after finding her that she is left unharmed

Hopes confirms this notion, as during Edelgards support with Claude, she treats capturing instead of killing Rhea as the natural course of action and even questions Claude, if it isn't enough to subdue her enemy and remove her from power. Which is consistent with Edelgard usually giving her enemies a chance to surrender after the battle, as seen in her conquest of the Alliance, which is highly unusual compared to other Lords where routing missions and giving their enemies no quarter is the usual outcome. In VW and SS, Count Bergliez has to sacrifice himself for his soldiers to be spared. And here is how Seteth reacts to the notion of not killing Edelgard.

So yeah. Edelgard does not want to kill the Nabateans, she just views them negatively due to her limited knowledge of them and perceiving them through Rheas actions at the expense of humanity. 3H in general goes a different way of humanizing the Dragons, by emphasizing their human flaws. It subverts the notion, that immortal divine beings are better, wiser or more intelligent than humans.

Personally, I kinda dislike the fact that Flayn doesn't stick along or at least is re-recruitable in Crimson Flower, really. Its one of the flaws of the game I see, especially since I've heard that there are datamines that hint at Crimson Flower Flayn being a consideration at one point. I care less so about Seteth because I like him less, but I also see more of a case where the game may benefit from him not being recruitable, but in Flayns case I feel like it strips Crimson Flower, but also Flayn, of possibilities. I would have liked Edelgard and Hubert to react of the notion of a child of the goddess siding with their ideals, but also how Flayn could develope if she was faced with Rheas deceptions.

More importantly though, I think that Flayn being permanently lost in Crimson Flower kind of devalues her relationship with Byleth and the Black Eagles class. It makes it conditional. We have many students who are pushed into a similar position, where they are are willing to fight against their families, former friends and country for the sake of Byleth and their bonds to the class they joined. In Crimson Flower, Anette and Felix will fight their own fathers. Hell, Caspar basically just stands by and watches as Dimitri tortures his uncle. So generally, I think it was just an all around bad move to make her lost for CF. Especially since I think that one of the interesting aspects of CF for some characters is them emancipating themselves of the control their parents have over their lives. With Seteth being a well meaning and loving but also overbearing father, I think the story possibility of Flayn chosing another side than him and taking a more independent role for herself would have been something worthwile.

Please tell me I'm not the only one who feels like Crimson flower did a terrible job of making Edelgard....not a villain

Like, I feel like IS sort of couldn't find a good way to justify siding with Edelgard to the player beyond liking her as a character and the only way the could sort of doing it was by reducing Rhea to near Duma levels of insane, but even then while I won't condone her actions I can understand why she lost it, from her perspective she just saw someone she allowed into her home, break into the burial site of her dead siblings with the intention of desecrating them and robbing their graves and then watched what is, from her sad, broken perspective, her own mother choose to side with the person trying to take all she has left of her family away from her, I too would lose it under those circumstances. And then there's Edelgard not even being very smart, like, does she really believe her troops would hear "the church has nukes" and not either, question why they only dropped the one on the one location and why only now or just....lose all morale??? And then there's the battle at the Tailtean plains and the good old conversation between Dimitri and Edelgard, "must you continue to conquer?continue to kill?!" "Must you continue to re-conquer? Continue to kill in retaliation?" Like.....it's like even she realises she has no moral high ground over him and is just trying some desperate redirection to not be the villain she knows she is. And also the entire "king of delusion" scene where Dimitri, in his final moments, swears to avenge everyone who died for her, who she killed, to avenge all his fallen friends and family who died because of her and her ambitions and she basically just calls him a nut job.

Like??? Did IS just....give up on trying to make Edelgard look good and just hope that off her fucking rocker Rhea and Edelgards tragic backstory would cover that up???

[vestzmc]

Ok now I did some research and finally fixed the ninjas into how they'd fit into the Magnus Institute so here's the stuff, GET READY FOR A RAMBLE :DDD

I have the notes

NOTES:

This AU's timeline is not the same as the original Magnus Archives' timeline! The ninja boys took over the institute long after Jon and the others passed away so have no fear of spoilers for the podcast aside from the existence of entities! :D

Context:

For those who don't understand the TMA universe it is a world where the supernatural exists and people who experience it goes to the Magnus Institute where they give a statement, via letter or a personal statment to the archivist who mostly reads the stories and records it by a tape recorder (because they're old style).

They put it in the records data and gather more information about the supernatural being on whether it is avoidable or could be solved. Sometimes it doesn't even need to get solved and a statment of a supernatural event is good enough.

This supernatural is tied to 14 entities that manufactures these beings through fears. Avatars are people who are tied to these beings either willingly or unwillingly by ritual which gives them certain abilities. You gotta die for it tho.

I'm not gonna go on full detail what these entities are but I will describe my important ones and their traits to have more context to the characters.

The Desolation: what a bitch this entity is, seriously. It's the entity that feeds on fear of pain, loss, burning, fear of unthinking or cruel destruction. Always has a grill party in the backyard. It has a cult.

The Eye: are you a private person? Well Nord VPN can't save you this time. It feeds on the fear of being watched, exposed, followed, having secrets known, drive to know and understand even if it destroys you. Fun times.

The Buried: feeds on the fear of being trapped, pressured, crushed, drowning, heaviness, and sinking. Kinda cool until you find yourself trapped in a coffin for 2 weeks.

The Vast: feeds on the fear of our own insignificance in this universe, loosing yourself in too much space. Basically 12 year old me.

The Web: you like spiders? Well, this entity manufacturers on the fear of being controlled, entrapped, being trapped and not knowing it, your will not being your own, or being manipulated. It is often seen in the symbol of spiders. *shivers*

The Hunt: i love this bitch, the Hunt is so gucci to listen in action. It is the animalistic and initial fear of being hunted/chased or becoming prey. It's Avatars are called Hunters and gain enhanced health and seem predatory and feral.

Now that the entities are out of the way

ON WITH THE CHARACTERS!

Kai Smith

He was invited by Wu to work on the Magnus Institute as a new archivist. Needing a job, Kai agrees where he meets Cole, Jay, and Zane where they soon become great friends after solving a statment that has been abandoned for dacades. Kai is unknowingly an Avatar of the Desolation, which gives Kai has the ability of sharply noticing things others don't, such as information or sentences that doesn't seem important but actually is. (y'all thought i'm giving him fire, hah! Let's not focus too much on that)

Jay Walker

Worked for the institute with Cole and Zane for 4 years before Kai became the new archivist. He works on finding information in high places such as police records or government files. Jay discovered the Vast entity when he was 14, living in the desert with his parents and kind of became an Avatar by accident because he really freaked out when he was suddenly lost in sand dunes with no one around. He has the ability to paralyze people, locking them in place as if frozen even if they're on air.

Cole Brookstone

I've seen plenty of people put Cole as the Avatar of the Buried but GET THIS: HUNTER COLE. Enhanced strength and health, hunts down mosters and avatars he'd love to kill??? :DDD He did get into loads of trouble that connects to the Buried entity but he never really terrified of it so, maybe it's like a respectable fear for it to Cole. He works as the protector and searcher for the institute, the first person hired unwillingly by Wu by binding but soon got used the institute and Wu. At least he can still freely move from place to place rather than just staying in the institute. He can hunt down people easily with just a place and a name and as a Hunter he has this ability to know where people are by touching the ground.

Zane Julien

Second hire after Cole, so both of them are quite close. Zane is orphaned at a young age and couldn't remember remember anything before that. Was hired by Wu which he accepted. Zane was poorly troubled at the thought of his unknown past that he nearly went to the hospital on how unhealthy his research was. The Eye soon made Zane a Avatar, from Zane going mad by paranoia and fear of where he came from that Cole had to stop his hunting schedules and keep Zane down and help him. Zane and Cole eventually was able to heal from Zane's lost past by jokingly making up stories of where Zane came from when Jay arrived. They sometimes tell Jay he is a emperor from japan, that he is a robot heavyly programed to do good and cook kickass food, that Zane trained in a clan of ninjas before Jay learned not to trust anything the two were saying. Jay and Zane enjoy talking alot since they'te both knowledgeable on tech than Cole and Kai. Zane has the ability to put ideas into people's heads that affect their actions, that the 'victim' would think said actions was their idea, like walking out a door.

Lloyd Garmadon

Not part of the Institute. He's a student journalist that goes around poking into people's business and most especially into the Magnus Institute's records which gave a bit of a bad first impression on the guys when they caught him snooping. Lloyd is however allowed access in because of Wu's influences and soon became friends with Kai first, then the others. Lloyd isn't a Avatar which is great because being controlled by an entity kinda sucks but Lloyd is hunted often by the Web because of his fears of being controlled without his will and him going after people and areas with supernatural encounters because, journalism! Cole babysits Lloyd from afar. He often finds comfort around the ninja crew and likes spending time with them other than in school where he's often avoided and ridiculed by his peers. After several weeks the ninjas have all decided that they are willing to die for Lloyd, who they all treat as a younger sibling. Also! Lloyd is totally trans in this au.

And that's that for now! Might write about the side characters if any of you guys want more. It's kinda OOC about the avatars really because it basically canonically takes loads of years for an entity to charge up enough energy to posses an avatar but eh, creative writing for power using boys.

Also you guys probably noticed I didn't make the boy's abilities as their original elements? weeeellll it's kinda because it has to fit in the tma universe where everything is more subtle than outgoing when it comes to powers.

I also noticed that the only way I can write long ass sentences is when I ramble so that's a thing.

Have a great day! Statement ends.