#I don't care whether or not you agree with me I'm just presenting the concept

[dragonsdomain]

Random Convo: Never learned how to read

AO3

Dark Pit: So... how was the Aurum invasion?

Pit: Oh, it was great! They had such cool jazz music! If only you'd bothered to show up.

Dark Pit: Nobody told me about it!

Pit: Oh.... sorry.

Palutena: We managed without you, but next time there's a world-ending invasion, we'll be sure to ring you up.

Pit: "Managed", huh? That's an understatement. I almost died!

Palutena: I doubt you would've wanted what you yelled as you were falling to be your final words. You might want to workshop that.

Pit: You heard that?

Palutena: You yelled it, Pit.

Dark Pit: What did you yell?

Pit: Nothing important.

Palutena: Aww, are you getting shy about it? Come on, tell him.

Pit: ...I said ...”I never learned how to read.”

Dark Pit: Wh‒ huh?

Palutena: I admit, I was a little confused too.

Dark Pit: You know how to read.

Pit: Yeah. But I wanted someone to teach me.

Dark Pit: But you know how.

Pit: I just wanted to learn it! It sounds nice! Like, practicing making my letters pretty in a book with lines, reading about a girl saying “go, Spot, go!” and getting praised for doing a good job!

Palutena: Oh, Pit! That's so adorable!

Pit: Augh! Stop! Let's talk about something else!

Dark Pit: You don’t want to learn how to read, you want a childhood.

Pit: Well, just lay it bare, why don’t you?

[iliveforyouilongforyouvesuvia]

Hello, my dear friend! 😎

I hope you're having a wonderful day. I've come to fulfill my noble quest, as promised.

So, we've already had pregnant MC, which I adore and cherish, like all your works. What you do is amazing, and I hope you know that. You bring the kind of joy into our lives that I think does wonders for our weary souls. On top of that, you're one of the kindest souls I've ever met, and I'm lucky to have you in my life and be able to call you my friend. Seriously, you're a miracle and you make the world a better place.

But to my actual request. Could you please do headcanons about the M6 being pregnant? Seahorse dads are very much encouraged 👀 I often think about having children with Nadia, but I don't really like the idea of being pregnant myself (although our dear Countess does make me want to consider it every once in a while. The baby fever is very strong with her.) Plus, I'm certain there are other people like myself who prefer not to get pregnant or they simply can't for various reasons.

Thank you! Hugs to you and much love 🤗❤

Ps.: I'll kiss you if you do it (in a friendly but still very gay way)

The Arcana HCs: When M6 get pregnant

@theintrovertbean I'm here to collect my platonic but still very gay smooch, please :3 (In all seriousness though, I keep rereading your kind words and trying not to cry, that means so much to me. I'm so glad I get to call you my friend too!!)

-- CW for mpreg (obviously). for headcanon purposes, all members of the M6 want to have a child with MC and are happy with being the partner to be pregnant. whether this happens by natural means, depending on what reproductive system you headcanon them as having, or by *magic*, said baby is 50% your DNA and 50% theirs. --

Julian

Did the two of you take active steps to make it possible for him to carry your child? Yes. Did he think he would be fortunate enough for it work? No. Is he surprised now, even though it's planned? Yes

The most freaked out about what his body is in the process of doing. Again, this is something he agreed to and genuinely wants, but it's just so surreal to him that he keeps needing to rationalize it

His way of rationalizing things is to study them

This does not help his ever-present anxiety, especially when he has to limit his caffeine intake and his mood swings are even more intense than normal. He is going to bury himself in research

And then completely freak himself out with the assorted random weird facts, unhinged medical theories, and pregnancy horror stories that he encounters. Which isn't good for the baby

Speaking of, he keeps swinging wildly between being hyperaware of the tiny creature he's growing and completely forgetting about his state. Suddenly his self-care directly impacts someone else

Spending nine months with limited caffeine intake and 0 alcohol was actually very good for him. (even if it made him cranky at first)

The overall process was fairly smooth for him - he didn't have a lot of awful symptoms, and the only health scares were his own anxious "what if" spirals after reading horror stories before bed

Kept working the whole way through (though with considerably fewer hours so he could get more sleep), and generally did a great job whenever he wasn't thinking too hard about it all

Asra

They never actively envisioned this happening in their future, but when you brought up having kids in the first place they were already fairly open to the idea of being the one to carry the baby

There was definitely magic involved in the conception. He's too extra for there not to be (plus, a little boost never hurt anybody)

For such a normally chillaxed person, they did not take this decision lightly. Everything from planning, to conception, to preparing to raise a kid is full of intentionality

He wants to ensure that his kid gets a childhood that lasts as long as they need it to and a happy, safe environment to grow and explore. His baby fever wasn't intense but his nesting habits are

They get in several last crazy adventures before they start to feel the pregnancy and then spend the rest of it either sleeping, getting the baby's space ready, or eating the most unreal food combos

Seriously, you expected weird cravings, but considering how unusual his tastes already are you didn't think it could get much weirder. It can get so, so much weirder (he even managed to finally pry open that jar of kool-aid pickled garlic and put it in custard)

Between their parent's enthusiastic support and Nadia and Julian providing full medical backup, they are well looked after

Not to mention the pregnancy glow. He makes it look ethereal

They aren't fond of physical discomfort, though, and it makes them unusually broody and cuddly. Please give them snuggles

They spend weeks creating the most whimsical nursery

Nadia

She was actually the one to bring it up when she started talking about her expectations of marriage with you after proposing

For how strained her own relationship with her family is, she's more excited about starting one of her own with you than you expected. When you tell her that you want kids too, she's all for it

Sets a rule as soon as she tells her family that she won't be accepting more than two visitors at a time. Namar nearly revolts

Her pregnancy was not easy, at all. It was months before she could keep a full meal down, she was in near constant pain, and the fatigue was unrelenting. And she never let on in public, at all

Seriously, the only people who knew how hard it was were her close friends, trusted Palace people, and doctor. From the outside it was as if she couldn't feel it at all and life carried on as usual

The biggest noticeable difference (aside from her growing bump, which she somehow managed to make her draping clothes look even more regal with) was having Portia deliver speeches for her

Towards the final few months, it caught up to her enough that she couldn't be nearly as active as she used to. She turned one of her side chambers into her office and took all her meetings there

It also became evident how much the Palace staff loves their countess - the cooks worked tirelessly to find easy meals for her (and satiate every craving beyond the laws of culinary art)

Not to mention that the garden was immaculately kept

The amount of gifts for the baby took up several small closets

Muriel

He didn't bring it up. No, you brought it up, because of how out of hand his baby fever was getting. He'd gone from begrudgingly letting kids climb on him to actively offering to help watch them

Which turned into a lifestyle - he started spending all his free time carving toys so he could carry them in his pocket in case some shy toddler looked like they wanted one. You're running out of firewood

He offered to be the one to carry the baby, if you didn't want to

The psychological aspect of it is much harder for him than the physical. He knows his own body, he knows his strength and capacity for survival, and he's comfortable with what he's doing

But that is a whole other person-to-be he's growing, they deserve the best they can get, and he's not convinced he's the best

Is this ... selfish of him? Is this greedy? He knows he'll put everything he is into being a good parent, but what if someone else's best is better than his? MC, what are we doing??

These anxiety spirals happen frequently, either when he's gone too long sitting by himself or when the pregnancy insomnia makes it impossible for him to sleep the amount he normally likes to

On the plus side, the mood swings actually make it easier for him to express what he's feeling (and for you to know what's going on with him) so that you two can navigate it together

Asra is so excited to have a nibling that they stop by almost every day with baby gifts (and supplies from Nadia, once she knows)

He full body freezes every. single. time the baby moves

Portia

Oh, she's wanted to have a house full of kids since she was a kid in a house full of kids. She brought this up with you as soon as she started talking about a future together and she is so pumped

Literally nothing about the concept of it fazes her. She's helped with plenty of pregnancies and births, she's seen the good, the bad, and the ugly, and she is fully confident with you by her side

In her mind, this is the first of many (assuming all goes well, which she fully believes it will) so this is her chance to take things as they come and note them down for future reference

Keeps a daily journal with all her pregnancy observations, plus doctor's notes from weekly check-ups and plans for the baby

You didn't know pregnancy could make somebody more powerful but somehow she's done it. You expect it to catch up to her at some point and for her to take time off to rest, but she doesn't

The pregnancy glow is real and it is named Portia Devorak. You've never seen her hair so bouncy and full (shedding increases x10)

The biggest downside is that she can't stand the smell of cooking or baking anymore, which has long been one of her comfort activities. You'll have to manage meal prep (or partner with a chef)

Speaking of, half the Palace is asking for updates on a daily basis (which she happily provides). Nadia's showering her with more supplies and maternity leave than Portia wants to accept

Julian panicked about being the doctor until Mazelinka shoved him aside and took over as midwife. Portia's in skilled hands

Lucio

This was not planned. This was a happy accident. (Though Bob Ross never painted such a surprised, panicked, violent tree)

Whether because protection didn't work, or because Lucio saw a glowing orb in a weird dream and decided to mess with it while he was sleeping next to you, neither of you were remotely prepared

It doesn't really compute for him at first. The growing thing in his stomach is about as real as the tooth fairy - it's a concept that people tell him about before he goes back to daily life

It's a concept he's fiercely protective of and wants the best for

On a practical planning level, you two take advantage of his relatively easy first few months to take on a bunch of high paying jobs and revisit villages that seemed like a good spot to stay in

He's almost symptom-free until the bump really starts growing and his body starts adjusting for the extra weight. Thankfully by then you've found a place to settle down and reliable income

Lucio, understandably, becomes a complete diva once you do

He's pretty darn proud of what his body is doing, and he's relieved beyond words that he's having an easier time than what his mother described, but he does not like the way he looks

Or the aches and pains, or the breathlessness, or the way his whole body feels swollen and sore. (at least his hair looks nice)

You've never had such a hard time keeping him to his intended budget. He sees one (1) baby item and his wallet flies open

His sweet tooth gets 1000 times bigger than it already is

[queerfables]

So following this extremely silly conversation about Maggie being Crowley and Aziraphale's secret love child, @azfellandco and I got to talking about what having children, as a hypothetical concept, would actually mean to Crowley and Aziraphale.

We both agreed that we had very tender feelings about the generalised concept of Crowley and Aziraphale raising Warlock together, but that it was hard to imagine them actually wanting to parents. It's not something they relate to or feel they're missing out on. But like, maybe sometimes they wonder.

I'm posting this conversation with Mir's permission because I felt like we covered some really interesting ground.

@azfellandco: They've had every other human experience together and they have forever to keep having them, but part of the appeal of the raising warlock together subplot to me is that suddenly they both Don't have forever to be with each other and Also they're presented with this child that isn't theirs but (they think) isn't really Earth's either and it's like, what if. What if this Is the end, despite all their work, and what if they never got to have this? Sort of preemptive grief, I guess.

@queerfables: Oh yes, that's such a good way to put it!

I feel very strongly that having kids would Not Be For Them, and that whatever needs they have that might be filled by kids, they meet in other ways. I think there's a lot of crossover with the way they aid humans where they can, for one.

But I can ABSOLUTELY imagine them like. Thinking about it. And the world is coming to an end and they still can't tell each other even a fraction of the things they really want to. But they can have this. Not really theirs, but not really not. The way the world and humanity always was, I think.

@azfellandco: "Not really theirs but not really not, the way the world and humanity always was." Yeah, exactly this.

@queerfables: I definitely think we've hit on something there.

@azfellandco: It's also about like. The way in which the inability to do this preempts the ways in which it would be merely inadvisable. They can't have a serious talk about whether they would be good parents because it's impossible for them to have a child (by circumstances, by their roles in the war, by the oncoming apocalypse, by biology as far as they're aware). So what would be the point?

But the impossibility is also a source of grief. That they'll never have the conversation is a source of grief. And because they can't talk about it seriously, it never gets grounded in anything real. It's something they think about while knowing that the way they think about it is superficial and would dissolve in reality. And so it becomes a stand-in for the way they think about their relationship pre-armageddon, too. They'll never have an opportunity to test it to see if it would work. It remains ephemeral, something to fantasize about. But god, sometimes they want to Know.

@queerfables: Oof.

I think there's something there as well about like. Hmm. They can't love and care for a child the way a human would because they are not human. And yet even asking the question about this is SO human. There's just, there's no concept of parenthood for angels and demons. There's no concept of childhood (although there is perhaps a concept of innocence, and loss of innocence). So where does that put them, if they wanted to raise a child? Like you said, it's ephemeral and impossible.

What sort of child could they raise? There are no children among immortals. Would they raise a human, who might need things they can't give and who is going to live and grow old and die while they're still just - moving through the world the way they always have? The idea of never having a child is, for them, a phantom grief that's largely grounded in their fear of losing the world and each other and all the experiences they could have had. But to actually love a child they'll inevitably lose again, because there's just no alternative for two immortals raising a human, would open them up to real, tangible grief on a scale neither of them has ever truly imagined.

This is why, I guess, Warlock is such a perfect case for them to try it, to have something of what it's like. Because if their plan doesn't work (and maybe there's a part of them that never really thought it would, even though they hope with everything they have) then at least they won't have to live with grief of losing him, really, because they'll be losing everything including very likely their own lives.

@azfellandco: Yes yes yes to all of this, absolutely. And I think in growing to care for Warlock and think of him as theirs, there is this sense of like. Well, what do they want to be true? Do they want the world to go on, and them with it, and inevitably this little family they're playing at having will be something they have to reconcile with the reality of immortal existence? Or do they want (or at least expect) this to be a desperate, futile effort and that the world IS going to end? In a way, growing to love Warlock is the same kind of hiding in a story that Aziraphale's Jane Austen ball is, I think.

@queerfables: YES. I totally agree with you. And that's why I think they would never try to find Warlock again, after the world didn't end. None of it was really real, and it would hurt to be faced with that.

[mdhwrites]

What Do I Mean When I Say I Am Disabled By My Depression and Anxiety?

Yesterday my therapist finally 100% agreed with me on a statement I've made so very many times in the past. That my depression and anxiety don't speak. They don't present the worst possibilities, they don't tell me I'm a failure, they don't present reasons for why I shouldn't do something like how many describe depression. No, instead of weighing a choice towards the negative... They give me no choice because they don't speak. They act.

I am a writer. I adore telling stories. When I go for a walk, 90% of the time I spend the entire time listening to music, going over concepts, refining plot points, stuff like that. I can hear the voices of the characters, see the words I want to use to describe what happens, the narrative I wish to tell. This excites me because it's my passion and it's what I love doing. So I'll get home, excited, and this is the process between me and my brain.

Me: Alright, I'm home, let's get to my computer and start typing.

My brain: Begins constricting lungs and adding pressure to head

Me: Okay, I'm sitting, I'm breathing to help cope with this. Let's turn on the music and open the doc because we want to do this.

My brain: Further tightens grip on airways, add stinging to eyes, put pressure on the front of his face

Me: No. I'm doing this. I'm going to write. Here, I'm at the part of the document I'll be writing on. Reviewing the last... Last...

My brain: Add desire to scream, constrict arms so they don't want to move like they should, begin killing ability to think. Head to the void.

Me: ...Okay. I'll... I'll go to bed then. I'm tired anyways. Maybe it will help.

It won't.

Me: And when that's done, I won't type but I'll have an okay day. Find something to lose some time with, maybe make me smile.

I won't. The damage in these two minutes is too severe. If I try to smile in this moment before resting at all, my chest will collapse and try to make me not able to breathe even harder.

Me: I just... It was the wrong day I guess.

And if you're going "Oh, that's only on the worst days," No. In fact, my worse days are easier because when I wake up and my anxiety is already simmering, or my depression makes me tired, I don't even try. However, this morning, I was feeling good. I put on my music and my brain tempted me towards walking even which I took as a potentially good sign. It was a warning. I wanted to write though. I opened the doc...

And have not been able to leave my apartment since. That was at seven in the morning. It is a bit past two as I write this. I have an in person psychiatry appointment technically in forty minutes. I spent until one desperately trying to normalize. That appointment is now on Zoom.

This is why I'm disabled. It's not that things are just harder. It's that I will try to do laundry and I have two options. I can either listen to my brain and stop immediately when it hisses and have a bit of panic for a little bit but otherwise an okay day. Or, I can try for five minutes, STILL not do my laundry, and be fucked for at bare minimum an entire day. Either way I lose, just one way I don't suffer. The only reason I use my writing as the more common example is because by all means, by every conceivable metric, I should be slamming out chapter after chapter, book after book with all the ideas I have and the passion I have for this craft, but I have no finished a long running story in over two years because I have no control over when I can or can't write. My passion, joy and creativity don't matter. Only whether or not the storm in my brain will abate for long enough for it to be made.

And so I sit, waiting as close to the eye of the storm as possible, praying for a glimpse of daylight so I may move again without being hurt. See you next tale.

======+++++======

Btw, just because I imagine some might care: I am not self diagnosing here. I have been considered to be disabled since September 2018 and was officially given disability by the US Government for my anxiety and depression in November 2019. This was two years after I had psychiatrist tell me not to bother trying because no one gets on disability for depression because he thought I was faking it and just wanting an easy way out. Life has not been kind to me.

Special shoutout before the rest of mine: The last book I finished was actually inspired by and using my experiences with depression and anxiety and the shockingly only time I've been in a Crises Recovery Center. It's also is a sappy, teen romance between two girls who meet in Crises and need help. Is love really the answer they're looking for though?

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

[lich-of-the-golgari]

Wedge Discussions

Inspo goes to @monorayjak, this was such a cool concept I wanted to build off that.

Sultai Edition

Blue: Here we are again

Black: So it would seem.

Green: What could they possibly want?

Black: Who cares? The question of what the user wants is arbitrary, what do WE want?

Green: That's not how we do things. That's not how ANYONE does things.

Blue: Oh stop bickering. Listen, we need to come up with what the user wants.

Green: Fine.

Black: Fine.

Black: What I want is to be in control of my destiny. I don't want to be beholden to anyone and anything. I am tired of life, which tries to restrict me from my ultimate goal. I want to become more powerful and control the world around me, and I don't care how I get to that point.

Blue: I guess I understand. I want mastery, perfection, knowledge, and the means to achieve them. I don't care if I have to use artificial methods, I WILL become perfect.

Green: I can understand your desire to grow, but I can't agree with either of your methods. I think the true method of becoming better is understanding the natural processes of this world, evolving as a person, and becoming stronger through our understanding of our interconnected nature.

Black: Yeah yeah, we all know green, things need to be natural and survival of the fittest, but isn't ambition and trampling on others the way to effectively grow?

Green: Not necessarily. We all are a part of an ecosystem, whether we like it or not. By trampling on all prey, we starve ourselves. By having individuals stronger than us, we are motivated to grow ever still. Being at the top of the food chain doesn't mean we succeded, it just means we have fit in our role.

Blue: Why does it have to be that way green? Not everything has to be about nature and ecosystems and all that. While we are a part of the world to some extent, if we want, we can separate ourselves from that entirely.

Black: I can't believe I'm saying this but listen to blue. With artifice and undeath, we can remove ourselves from the struggle to survive and just focus on ourselves. Why care about the natural order when we can supersede it?

Green: Because no matter how distant you are from nature, no matter how unnatural your existence, life and death exist in a seamless continuum. Even if you were to become a lich, your corpse would still decay, you would still become food for the microbes, mushrooms, and bacteria that are present around you. Even if you become artificial, the forces that power you will eventually be grown over as your power sources decay. Nothing is truly eternal, nothing will truly last forever.

Black: I mean, you are right that nothing escapes death, even undeath IS just another form of death. However, the ego can survive after death. How it's stored is irrelevant, as that can last the tests of time. Look at Yawgmoth. While Phyrexia was a disaster of plane, it did show that the ego can survive an eternity. Yawgmoth was present in the mind of all of Phyrexia.

Blue: Again, I do think that black has a point. Through innovation the mind can last forever. However, I do see green's point. Most of what we do won't be able to last. How do we achieve our goals if our goals are fundamentally separated?

Green: Well what do we value?

Black: Myself. Power above all else.

Blue: Knowledge. The pursuit of perfection through craft and thinking.

Green: Growth. The pursuit of connecting myself to the ecosystem and to fulfill my purpose in the food chain.

Blue: So we all value improvement of the self?

Black: We disagree on the methodology.

Green: So how do we unify our thoughts to become one force?

Blue: The survival of the fittest is inherently self-motivated.

Black: As is the pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake.

Green: And Death is a natural part of life.

Blue: But things don't need to end at death.

Black: We all serve a vital role in our ecosystem. Without death, things can't get fertilized.

Green: And without cultivation, we become stagnant.

Blue: So it's important to find a balance

Black: And it's better that we are the ones to be in control, since we are the ones studying it.

Green: And as long as we keep to our positions

Blue: We all can get stronger

[darlin-djarin]

what are your favourite Din Djarin headcanons? :D

RAHGHHHH YA HABIBI AD-DIN "ABU GROGU" DJARIN

ok so i'm a BIG deaf din truther. that boy is deaf, no doubt. he uses his helmet as an aid and he's learned tusken sign language from the armorer (who i've fully accepted as a tusken raider or something similar). he can read lips, but whenever he takes the helmet off, he can't hear much of anything, which is why he's so confused when the imperial started talking to him, etc etc. i have another huge post about deaf din and all of that stuff, so i'm not gonna go into it, but deaf din is something i hold so dear and close to my heart.

i also definitely think he's autistic, in some way. i've talked about it a lot with some of my autistic and neurodivergent mutuals and we've all come to the conclusion that he's definitely neurodivergent. a lot of people, i've noticed, have found comfort in his character and personality because they relate to him a lot on that sort of level. his mannerisms and his interactions with other people is something a lot of autistic people can relate to, and i think that's wonderful!

another headcanon i personally enjoy is the aroace one. he may or may not seek out romantic or sexual attractions, sure, but i think the most important thing in his life is grogu, and he doesn't really have time to settle down with someone else. even though i enjoy him in certain ships and whatnot, i still thoroughly believe that din should just stay as just a father to grogu, and romance isn't and shouldn't be a main point in the show.

i also love trans/nb din!! whether he's transmasc or gnc or whatever, i like the idea of din, and mandalorians in general, initiating absolute genderfuckery. mandalorians are very gender inclusive and completely neutral. mando'a doesn't have gendered pronouns or terms. i think mandalorians' concepts of gender and gender roles are very fluid, and don't hold a lot of meaning. for some reason, favloni made the women in s3 have y-visors and men have t-visors which is the stupidest fucking thing i've ever seen. like. what. and anyway, i think din and other mandos would be super ambiguous with their gender anyway, not caring how they present because it doesn't matter. there's this little concept me and a mutual enjoy (to poke a lil fun at favloni) that whenever din feels a little more femme, he switches his helmet from a t-visor into a y-visor LMFAOO 😭 anyway, trans/gnc din my beloved

i think one of the last of my fav headcanons would be that din is very arab coded- indigenous as well. i know i project a lot as an arab onto other characters but just something about din gives me the idea that he'd be a very good equivalent to an arab indigenous man, palestinian maybe. the idea is just very comforting to me, even if people don't really agree. i draw a lot of comparisons between his culture and religion to my culture and religion, which is where i guess the headcanon came from. still, it's one of my favorite headcanons that i love to stick by whenever i can

THANK YOU so much for asking me!! din djarin is just my guy 🫶🫶 i love him so much and i love talking about him, esp about his culture and character. so glad you asked!

[anneapocalypse]

I like your post about gray morality in video games! On the other hand I wanted to add that the gray decision-making you're talking about can have its own pitfalls (distinct from the pitfalls of centrist/apolitical "both sides are bad" apathy). I'm thinking of gritty action heroes who are presented as morally gray because they're pragmatic enough to torture and kill in the name of Truth, Justice, and the 'Murican Way, or just in the name of a macho revenge fantasy. To be clear, this isn't an indictment of gray morality, which I love when done well. Hell, the stories I'm complaining about tend not to be THAT gray in practice, as the bad guys are often SO exaggeratedly bad that there's not a real question of whether the hero is willing to Do What It Takes in the end. My point is more just that that's what people often mean when they condemn "gray morality."

Hi! Sorry this has been sitting my ask box for a while, I got busy and didn't want to just dash off a response.

(We're talking about this post, for those who haven't seen it. RIP my notifications.)

Anyway I'll just say here for the record that yeah, gray morality in fiction can be done poorly! While the line for "done poorly" is going to be different for everyone, I can certainly think of examples I've disliked.

(This got long, sorry in advance. 😩 Also, spoilers for Fallout 3 and all the Dragon Age games, if anyone cares!)

My go-to example of one I think is a real stinker is the Fallout 3 DLC "The Pitt" where the critical decision is... whether to free a bunch of people from being enslaved in horrible conditions! But! in order to free them, you have to kidnap a baby from... the enslaver. Because something something the baby's genetics are the key to curing the illness that afflict the slaves from their horrible working conditions... you don't actually have to hurt the baby, though, she'll be fine. She'll just be taken away from her parents. Who are, again, slavers. I promise I'm not making it sound any stupider than it sounds in the game itself. :P Like the whole concept of putting an infant in your video game inventory and making a break for it is just a little too wacky for me to take seriously, but it feels like you're meant to take it seriously, and apart from trying to inject some ambiguity into the decision, I'm not sure why the whole baby plot would even be there. Honestly, Fallout 3 isn't a game about moral ambiguity. (I think both New Vegas and even Fallout 4 do that kind of thing better.) Most of its major decisions boil down to "Do you want to do the Good Person Thing or the Evil Bastard thing?" That's the game. No one is trying to inject moral ambiguity into blowing up Megaton. It's just a thing you can do if you want to roleplay an Evil Character. I love Fallout 3, I'm just saying, that's what it is. And I think "The Pitt" would have been both more thematically appropriate and less stupid if it had just skipped the whole baby plot and been like "Hey! Do you want to be the Good Person who frees the slaves, or the Evil Bastard who allies with the slaver?" It's morally simple, but the thing is the baby didn't actually make that story or the decision any more interesting to me, so it might as well not have been there at all.

But Fallout 3 isn't the kind of thing I was thinking of when I made that post. I was thinking a lot more about things like the decisions in the Dragon Age games, which don't usually fall neatly into The Good Option and The Evil Option, and are more likely to ask the player to make their own judgments. And a common criticism I see of those games is that they're "centrist" and try to "both sides" in-universe issues because the game doesn't explicitly tell you which choice is The Good One, or it doesn't explicitly reward one choice and punish the other, and that's... not really an interpretation that I generally agree with? But that's a much more involved discussion, honestly. At some point, I'd like to write a post about how I feel Inquisition presents the mage rebellion, because it's such a big topic and big game (and by "I'd like to" I mean... I already have a draft started, whoops). That's just more than I have time to get into today!

But I will say this: I find the plot decisions where you're given an obvious "best option" to be the least interesting choices in the Dragon Age games. The Redcliffe decision in Origins is the most obvious one to me, where I think the option to save Connor from possession should at least have been much harder to find, because in the lore, the fact that mages even can be saved from possession and not just killed is widely unknown because it goes against the templar party line, and the fact that Ferelden's First Enchanter is just like, "Oh yeah, sure, we can totally do that, pack up the lyrium boys" just doesn't really mesh with everything else we're told about the Circles and conventional wisdom on magic. Plus, the fact that there's no consequences for leaving Redcliffe for days with Connor possessed just... makes the decision too easy, for me, because in-universe it feels like it shouldn't be that easy. There's also the werewolf decision, wherein the Lady of the Forest just tells you straight out that Zathrian can break the curse with his own death, presenting you with a "best option" that it feels both stupid and sort of comically evil to disregard (like, from a purely pragmatic standpoint why would you fight the entire pack of werewolves or an entire clan of elves when you can just make Zathrian solve the problem here and now).

The ending decision of DA2 is an example that I feel has a really stark moral contrast to it (which I've discussed before), and one that I think does place certain constraints on role-playing, but in that case I think it's appropriate to the themes of the game, so I don't mind it.

But my favorite plot decisions in Dragon Age are things like the Landsmeet, the Winter Palace, and even the Orzammar quest line. Not just because I love fantasy politics, but because you have to work with what you're given in a way that feels realistic to the setting and the story. No matter how much of a hero you are, you can't waltz into Orzammar or Denerim or Halamshiral and brute-force a perfect solution. Unless you're a dwarf yourself, you're an outsider who doesn't know anything about dwarven politics and no one is particularly forthcoming about the situation because everyone has an agenda! and yet you have to solve this conflict in order to get aid against the Blight. You have to make a decision based on very little information and almost none of it concrete. At the Landsmeet, you may want justice, but it's your word against Loghain's with no proof of what really happened at Ostagar, and if you want to win you need provable charges, you need to show the nobles that you support their interests and not just your own, and no matter which butt you put on the throne, you're faced with the very real possibility of another succession crisis a few decades on so congratulations, you've just kicked the can down the road.

And oh, the Winter Palace, my beloved. You cannot make Briala the Empress, no matter how much you might want to! You cannot abolish the monarchy. You cannot force Orlais to relinquish the Dales and re-establish the Elven state. Your options are: keep the empress whose reign overall has been sympathetic to elves and commoners and relatively diplomatic toward her neighbors, but who also may have just done a good old fashioned massacre to crush a rebellion and maintain her power; let her be killed and put the militant expansionist on the throne; get Briala and Celene back together (maybe with the hope that Briala will continue to influence her); help Briala do a blackmail which surely will work out totally fine and not backfire in anyway; or force them all to shut up and play ball for now, basically just kicking the can down the road. None of these options are perfect by any means! There are interesting and believable in-character reasons you might choose to role-play any of them. And every one has the possibility of unforeseen consequences later on, positive or negative.

I made the original post, in part, in response to condemnations of the kind of decisions I enjoy in these games. And at the end of the day, it's okay not to like those decisions, to prefer more unambiguous choices or more room to indulge in the fantasy of fixing everything. But that's not always the kind of story a game is trying to tell, and I think that's fine, and personally I enjoy the complicated decisions more. And I feel like sometimes those complicated or ambiguous choices are read as if they're either presenting all options as morally equivalent when they're not, or that they're "punishing" the player for a choice if it has any kind of negative outcome, and I don't think that's the case! I think it's fine and good in fiction to explore the ways in which trying to change things for the better can be difficult and how a choice with some negative consequences may still be the best one available, and so on and so forth.

Anyway, I hope I didn't get too far afield here, and thanks if you read this far!

[goldenpinof]

Hi. original alienation anon here. I'm happy to report that my fears (so far) are unfounded :)

I'm going to try to explain why I found dd to be alienating as succinctly as possible.

I get that he was basically trying to make the YT version of the Eric André show, but it didn't work for me for a number of reasons. Firstly, YT is not a good platform for that kind of content. The Eric André show is on a network that is known for bizarre, offensive shows. YT is not that. It's a personality-driven platform that runs on the parasocial relationships between creators and their audiences. Dan was also not the best person to pull that concept off. Eric André is and always has been known for his chaotic, rude, unlikable persona. Dan is not. He built an audience by being likable and relatable. So for him to suddenly do a total 180 and become this rude, mean, cold person was alienating to me and other viewers who had built a parasocial relationship with the person he presented himself as in his videos.

Secondly, and this is gonna sound harsh, Dan is not as deep as he thinks he is. DD isn't good satire. He basically just made the content he was supposed to be satirizing and dressed it up in this pretentious concept of a dystopian variety show. He clearly was pressured into making those videos to promote WAD and it shows. His commentary on the concepts he talked about was surface level. he didn't say anything that countless video essayists who are smarter and more educated than him haven't already said. I also agree with the person who said it felt overproduced and cheap at the same time.

My third and main problem with DD though, is how mean-spirited it often felt. I watch dnp for light-hearted entertainment. I don't want to watch someone I usually like being a dickhead to their friends and family for 20 minutes, whether it's joking or not. There were times when you could tell that the guest was uncomfortable, but Dan just didn't seem to care? The worst was Louise. I felt so much second-hand embarrassment watching that video. She clearly felt uncomfortable but Dan just kept pushing it. The cringiest part was when he said that thing about the 2012-2014 YT era being nostalgic and Louise said "it wasn't a good time for me. I had a 2 yr old and was going through a divorce." Yikes! That just made Dan come off like a self-absorbed, inconsiderate asshole to me. Obviously we don't know how Louise really felt or what went on behind the scenes but that video left a bad taste in my mouth and completely changed how I viewed Dan.

Here's my conclusion. I think Dan needs to play to his strengths. social commentary and irreverent comedy are not two of them. People like him mainly for 3 reasons; his ability to relate to others through his own personal struggles, his chemistry with Phil, and his aspirational relationship with Phil (whatever the nature of that relationship is). DD pretty much destroyed all of that in one fell swoop. Even though I think that was entirely intentional, it was a very, very bad move. He can't just toss his entire image in the fire and expect it to work out for him. Not without doing the work to win over a new audience, like say, Joji did when he went from being Filthy Frank to a serious, sad-boy musician. I'm glad he got the chance to try new things, even if they didn't work out, but I think he's smart for going back to doing what he's good at and I hope for our sake and his that he sticks to it.

I said succint and then this turned into a whole essay lol. Sorry. I know some people are not going to like what I said, but that's how I feel.

hi! so sorry it took me so long to get to this!

i agree with some things and disagree with others. just so people won't argue with me because of your perception of dd, i'll list disagreements (and the hardest agreements, i guess). but it's totally cool to feel what you feel, and youtube content is made for people to have different opinions and obviously, we have different reactions to intentional harshness and rudeness. also, i'm so so glad you gave dnpgames a chance! we're back and stronger than ever!!

putting under the cut to not disturb the dnpgames euphoria <3

i agree that youtube , and specifically Dan's main channel, wasn't the best place to put this type of content on. maybe his 2nd channel would have been better, but it would have given even less views. so like, the point? because now his main channel looks all over the place. the usual content flow was interrupted by a video trashing youtube and the whole conceptual series of dd. and even dd was interrupted by the 2nd wad trailer and the memes video. right now it looks, dare i say, ugly. if he ever returns to actual youtube content and not promo videos, he will have to swallow this hard pill.

your 2nd reason - agree. but i don't think it's a bad thing, considering the circumstances (dd being made under pressure to somehow promote wad. with limited time and budget). lots of people comment on the same things and happen to give the same remarks. it's fine, it's still interesting to hear. (ironically, that's youtube and its algorithm for you)

hard agree on Dan (almost) destroying his image, especially in relation to dnp™. but we're still here, he can't push us away no matter how hard he tries.

disagreements :))

i think the video with Louise was good. that comment about 2012-2014 (the prime Brit crew times specifically) being nostalgic - i mean, it IS. for some people more, for some people less. it can be nostalgic and not a good time equally. i have personal examples when it's both. and i rewatched that moment. Louise said, "I loved those years for the most part." Dan went on to question WHAT exactly she loved, and only then she had to specify that it wasn't actually that simple. Dan likes to say how simple life was "back then". "back then" being any time in the past lol. "simpler, better times" is a phrase i still quote, and it was said years ago (i don't even remember where). he was rude in the video, but not ruder than with others. motherhood is a more sensitive topic for Louise than for Dan and, may i say, the majority of us. but they are friends, and at the end of the day, she could literally say "shut the fuck up and stop" and that would be accepted.

i also think that Dan would be amazing at social commentary if you give him more time to prepare scripts and find the right tone. his liveshows are a good indicator of that. he wasn't trying to punch anyone with his words while delivering his thoughts. he was giving his opinions and explaining them. 2017 has so many amazing quotes from his liveshows. and none of them felt like dd, despite touching on politics, sexuality, mental health, youtube as a platform, our community, the internet as a job, etc. he can do that, he can comment and criticise without trying to prove something. dd had a concept though. he was that obnoxious character playing by "youtube rules". "youtube likes this, this and this. so i'm gonna do all of it, and you're gonna see how bizarre it looks thrown in your face at once and deal with it." social platforms' algorithms are dystopian, he's got a point. his version of satire isn't ideal and you can clearly see that dd was rushed. and that's unfortunate!

anyway, thank you so much for explaining your dd experience. i'm sure there are people who relate to it. i'm sorry, if i sound rude, or like, pushy. i'm not trying to be. actually, dd is probably the easiest topic to discuss because of how ambiguous it is (in a good way).

[lazerith]

Attempting to fix The Dawn of Yangchen, Pt. 1: "Okay, but why tho?"

Spoilers for The Dawn of Yanchen, The Rise of Kyoshi, The Shadow of Kyoshi (minor)

Obligatory disclaimer: these opinions are my own and you do not need to agree with them if you do not wish to. I am just a writer who is trying to figure out why I don't like certain pieces of writing and adore others.

Compared to F. C. Yee's other installments in the Avatar: The Last Airbender series, The Dawn of Yangchen is definitely one of his weaker works (I have not yet read LoY). The plot feels profoundly unexciting at times, and I've seen people complain that despite Yangchen's name being plastered on the cover, the book sidelines her in favor of Kavik.

That's not to say this is a completely incompetent book with no redeeming qualities; if you haven't noticed already in his previous works, Yee is really, really good at writing character dynamics. Kavik and Yangchen's relationship is really fun, especially at the beginning. But as the story progresses and these two spend more and more time apart due to plot reasons, it becomes harder and harder to ignore the issues with the larger story.

There are a lot of things I think could be fixed in DoY. But in this post, I'm going to talk about what I think is the biggest issue: character motivation.

Most people are probably familiar with the concept of a character's want. Different writers use different terminology, but to simplify things, in this instance, I will be referring to a character's plot goal; it is the "thing" that they're chasing after, whether it be to kill Jianzhu (Kyoshi's want in RoK) or to capture the avatar (Zuko's want in 1st season of atla).

But when presented with a character's want, audiences often have the urge to ask: "okay, but why tho?"

It's a fair question, because what the question is actually asking is: "okay, but why do we care?"

"Why do we care if Kyoshi succeeds in killing Jianzhu?" "Why do we care if Zuko captures the avatar or not?"

The reason, of course, is because there is a deeper motivation driving these wants. A motivation that we, the audience, can relate to.

Let me introduce you to the idea of a character's Ghost and Lie.

Again, terminology varies, but when I talk about a character's ghost, I'm referring to an event (or events) from the character's past that continues to haunt them in the present.

Zuko's ghost is the event that gave him the ghastly scar over his eye: the Agni Kai against his father.

Kyoshi's ghost (in RoK)……i think is the moment when Jianzhu leaves Yun to die with Father Gloworm? I'm honestly a little lost, because Yee doesn't seem to subscribe to the idea of "ghost", but it's still helpful for us to examine character motivations.

From a character's "ghost", births their "lie".

The lie is a limited perspective that a character holds because of the traumatic event that is their "ghost", which then influences their want.

Think about the relationship between "want", "ghost", and "lie" as such: Ghost -> Lie -> Want, where each creates the next.

For Zuko, his lie is some variation of: "I must regain my honor at all costs." From his lie, he deduces his want: "if I can capture the avatar, I will regain my honor."

For Kyoshi, her lie is some variation of: "Jianzhu is much stronger than me and he will harm me if he finds me." From her lie, she deduces her want: "if I kill him, I will be safe from him."

And though we might not personally empathize with Zuko's desire to regain his honor or Kyoshi's desire to murder Jianzhu, we can understand why. We root for Kyoshi and Zuko because we understand why they are doing what they do, and because they are highly motivated in chasing their want.

Now let's take a look at Yangchen's want, ghost, and lie in DoY.

Yangchen's want: to bring prosperity to the people of the Shang cities.

Yangchen's ghost: Jetsun's death at the hands of the spirits.

Before we even get to Yangchen's "lie", does anyone see a problem with this combination of "want" and "ghost"?

If you said, "they have nothing to do with each other," you're right.

Thus, this creates a situation in which we, as the audience, ask the question of "okay, but why tho" to Yangchen's want, and are unable to get a satisfactory answer.

You can see this play out in the book itself. When Yangchen is in Jonduri, she gets a message from the Saowan clan and immediately jets off to help them deal with their spirit problem. And you, as the reader, is left asking, "okay, but why tho?" Why are we taking this detour?

Sure, she's the avatar and she's the bridge between humans and spirits, but this has nothing to do with her main goal, which is to basically "eat the rich". The detour feels inorganic, manufactured, and it almost makes you question whether the whole thing was just a ploy from Chaisee to distract Yangchen.

Or it's the other way around. While we follow Yangchen around the Shang cities, trying to enact change, we are left to ponder the question of "okay, but why tho?". Why does she care about any of these people, beyond the fact that it's her duty as the avatar to serve them?

But believe it or not, there's an "easy" fix that more or less keeps the events of the novel somewhat the same.

The "lie" is the critical piece that is missing in Yangchen's story. Right now, she's got a clear ghost and a clear want, but no lie that connects the two:

Ghost -> ??? -> Want

I see two different lies that could work here.

Lie 1: Spirits are evil and I must protect people from them as best I can.

Rather than having the Shangs hire head-kickers to maintain control over the cities, maybe have it be rumored that they have some great and powerful spirit on their side.

It kind of seems like Yee was building up to this lie a little bit, considering how the effects of Unanimity are first seen by the people of Jonduri as spirit disturbances, and it is also the official cover that Yangchen adopts at the end of the novel to hide Unanimity from world leaders.

Now it makes sense that Yangchen cares about the people of the Shang cities, not just because she's the Avatar and serves the people, but also because she has a personal interest in defeating the "spirits". With this setup, the detour to the fire nation to aid the Saowan clan makes sense as well.

Lie 2: Jetsun's death was my fault, and I must honor her memory as best I can.

This lie would also work, but is in my opinion much weaker than Lie 1.

Honoring Jetsun's memory would mean that Yangchen would commit wholeheartedly to aiding others in need, pacifism, and other air-nation values. It would give her a reason to get involved in the Shang cities in the first place.

This lie would also somewhat explain why Yangchen jets off to the Saowan clan; they are in distress, and she has dedicated her life to protecting people, believing it the only way to honor Jetsun's memory.

Of course, these lies need not last the entirety of Yangchen's story; after all, for every lie, there is a truth.

Again, terminology varies and there are nuances, but when simplified, the truth is something a character learns by the end of the story, as a result of everything that has happened.

The Truth to Lie 1: People are the real culprits to blame for the world's suffering

DoY kind of suggests this truth during the Saowan outing, when it's revealed that the humans encroached on spiritual territory and violated the deal that Yangchen brokered.

You could very well contrast the honesty that the Phoenix-eels present to Yangchen (however harsh) with Kavik's betrayal (however sweet in the moment).

And though unanimity is not the result of some spiritual disturbance, we still see how it is due to human greed that it becomes a weapon.

Now, does this truth correspond with depictions of Yangchen later in her life? Not really. Especially at the end of SoK, where she admits to siding with the humans over and over again the spirits, and how that was a mistake. But adherence to cannon is a problem for another time.

The Truth to Lie 2: I must carve my own path in the world, believing that Jetsun will be proud of me either way.

The problem with pairing this truth with the current story is that Yangchen is already an unconventional Avatar. Kavik notes this throughout the story: Yangchen uses disguises, hires errand-runners, engages in espionage, and lies to high-ranking officials.

But there is also an "easy" fix (because nothing in writing is ever easy, everything takes set up), which is to take Yangchen back; back before she adopted these tactics, and have her arrive in Bing-er as naive and trusting as they come.

Meeting Kavik introduces her to this world of shady tactics, and while Yangchen might not be as confident as she is throughout DoY, the idea of Kavik teaching the Avatar to spy on people and wear disguises could be really fun, me thinks.

I'm not going to get into Kavik's want, ghost, and lie here because I don't want to make this post longer than it already is, but hopefully, this has given you some food for thought.

[sizzlingpatrolfox]

read your TS post and honestly just find it quite interesting that so many things you criticize when it comes to bts whether some members as people or artists...are all present in TS if not even more, and suddenly when it comes to this white woman that is an awful performer, write the same kind of dull repetitive music always clutching at the same topics, doesn't renew herself as an artist, is full of white feminism bullshit, and a chart obsessed person are all things you never seem to mention. Like the biased perspective when it comes to her is quiet something by all her fans.

Because I don't discuss Taylor Swift in this blog. This isn't a freaking Taylor Swift blog.

And also, because I don't care. She never promised anyone anything, she never set herself up as a role model or beacon for social injustices like BTS did. Taylor fans either aren't running up and down every known platform screaming how much of an activist she is the way armys do with BTS. Taylor isn't called BulletproofGirlz and her fans aren't called Adorable Representative M.C. For Youth. She never went from being Yes I'm the voice of the underdogs and the misunderstood to it being just a concept and god forsaken debut name.

You sound insufferable so I won't really reply to more than this and I won't look for the post myself, but there's actually a post where I make fun and criticize armys who were "disappointed" in BTS because they said something misogynistic or homophobic. I actually think it's on the verge of IDIOTIC to look for artists to stan/like only so you can bring up their "good deeds" and make yourself feel better. Because you're literally the only one cares about this online moral competition.

In that same post I said I don't care that BTS don't speak on feminism because they're not women, and because I have real people, local heroes to look up to.

In fact, the only time I ever mentioned being slightly disappointed that they didn't use a gay couple, was on the permission to dance MV. If anything, most if not all my posts are actually making fun of armys for believing BTS to be, and talking about them as if they were the biggest activists that ever lived. I don't even talk about them, I talk about the perception army has of them.

And if you're that Beyonce fan, let's not even go there. Link me to Beyonce's many acts supporting feminism. Representation is not enough, I mean donations or posts calling awareness to women's isuess. She doesn't write her own music, either, which is something I have repeatedly seen seen pjms/hive call out vkook for.

Also another thing Taylor never claimed to be: a performer. Everybody knows she's not a performer. She knows she's not a performer. She never promised people anything, so why would I expect her to put on a show? Why would I feel cheated and robbed if I went to her concert and she didn't do full choreography when I know she never did?

I don't think she's a bad songwriter at all, and even the moments when she is (because there are songs I don't like and songs I never listen to), I'm okay with it, too. I'm not a fan of people only to say "look at me I'm a fan of this person that makes me so much better than all of you". I've always liked her songs, and I still like them and I do think they're good. If you don't think so, I really don't give a fuck.. like seriously.

You know what, if you wouldn't have had the need to just argue for the sake or arguing, you would've seen me post an ask I have on drafts about her album where I specifically mention that I agree her sound is stale in this album. Because I do like people a lot and still have my own personality and opinions.

I've always liked her for her music, and I still like her music. If I criticize BTS is for things they used to do, but stopped doing. It's about things they used to be, but stopped being. If someone goes from making good music, to doing music I think it's terrible of course I'm going to have an opinion. I love Harry Styles' first two albums but think as it was is ugly and the whole album is terribly wrong - and I've said it. Like two tweeks ago I was here, sharing old BTS songs because I still think those songs are good. Why am I not allowed to say that at some point they started making bad music? Why amd I not allowed to say they used to do great coreographies and now they're all out of synch and dance poorly?? Taylor never did some of that and then stopped doing it, so what exactly am I going to call her out for?

"The things you never seem to mention" have you realized that I just don't discuss Taylor in this blog? Because it's not a Taylor blog, it really isn't deeper than that. We're only talking about her now because of her album, otherwise I've posted about her what - 5 times in the span of years???

I thought Jimin crying in MOTS concert online was kind of silly considering he was paying million dollars for rent at that time while many people were out of jobs. I can empathize with him and it was sad to see him cry because I'd been rooting for him to go on tour and do everything he wanted to do, because I like Jimin as a person and an artist - so I'm simply rooting for him. I can feel all that while simultaneously being aware of how privileged he was, and still is. And that his pain was bad, but when put in the context of the pandemic, his life wasn't on the line. Jimin himself said in an interview that he was thinking about how young he is and how much money he's earning and what to do with it. Not in an obnoxious, arrogant way but as a form of self-reflection. I respect that. He knows that he's got more money than the regular person, but he also goes through hard times mentally.

Jimin donates so much money every year and has been doing it for a long time - I think that's amazing and I share the posts that report on it because I really believe it's awesome and It's exactly what I would do if I had the money. I was particularly moved when he donated money to buy polio vaccines.

But I'm not asking him to do any of it. I'm not waking up every other thinking "I hope Jimin does some charity today so I can yap about it to losers on tumblr." It's simply not something I think about Jimin or ANYONE. If he does, it's good. If he doesn't, I'll still like him.

I bring this up to repeat something I've said about Jimin and BTS a million times: I don't pity them.

I don't pity Taylor either and I'm not asking anything from her.

Likewise, I'm able to read the lyrics "you wouldn't last a day in the asylum where they raised me" and know that it's just a lyric and giggle at the memes that make fun of that because she's lived a fairly awesome life. That's songwriting to you, btw. Not everything is literal.

I've never been interested in Taylor Swift's life, and I've spent literal years not knowing one single thing about it, but if she said "new music this friday" you bet I was going to be there, waiting for it. Same goes for Harry Styles and so many other people I listen to. And I've talked a dozen times about how I'm hoping it'll get to the point where I'll be able to be that kind of Jimin fan, as well. Where I don't care what he does or where he is, but I'll still be always curious to hear his new music.

[moonshine-aqua]

wait how are you actually gonna recommend "i am a transwoman. i am in the closet. i am not coming out" as like a useful pro-trans guide?

the author of that piece is very clearly extremely misogynistic, and recommending that cis women read it is probably not a good idea, because if they are told that this is how trans women think of them they will likely start to distrust trans women. and frankly i couldn't blame them for it lol.

did you actually read the piece? if not you should, it's very dehumanizing towards women while very empathetic towards men. it essentially confirms every transphobic woman's fears of what trans women really think of them. it's not a good idea to recommend cis women read it, or to imply that it accurately demonstrates how trans women think

Reply:

I would have loved to be able to reply to you personally because I think we got some really different things out of that 'article' and I don't think broadcasting your ask is the best way to respond.

But I do feel like I should respond in case this was in good faith.

I didn't consider the (less of an article, more of a diary entry) as a guide at all. It's an experience. I think it's important to read people's experiences even (or especially) when they don't match up with a general consensus. Especially this one, because it exposed flaws in the way I've thought and acted in the past, which is why I recommended it. I'm unsure where you read it as being dehumanizing towards women since I didn't get that at all. I'd love to hear your perspective because without getting to engage with you in dialogue there is just no knowing.

The general sentiment of the post rings true to me. Things like 'men and boys are not inherently Bad, actually'. Or 'the writer's statements and ideas wouldn't be more true if she came out as a trans woman'. But because they present as male they do not get to be taken seriously or listened to and I think that's wrong. I think it's a fine line because many men do speak over people without engaging deep enough and/or are trolls (which the writer admits and discusses as well). But in close friendships I think it's important to let men speak, to listen to them and challenge when (you believe) they are wrong- but in a way that is compassionate and not dismissive. In a way where they get to question you, too. I also agree with the writer that putting masculinity and femininity as opposite forces that cannot support one another and instead cancel each other out is a really damaging idea that the writer of the post rightfully pushes back on. I agree with them also that making fun of and shaming people for any physical trait is wrong and it doesn't suddenly become okay because the target is a man or the feature is generally found in men specifically.

To me the post reads as a perspective of what it's like to be on the 'other side'. It's a peek into the problems with telling men they need to shut up and listen. That's not to say that it can't be necessary to do sometimes, but I think it's important to keep the nuance in mind. Not all people you view as men actually are. Not all women telling men to shut up and listen actually care whether they are a closeted queer person because they wouldn't welcome them anyway. Besides- men also live in this world and thus have experiences with and opinions on concepts connected to the human experience like 'femininity' and those thoughts and opinions are not inherently bad or not worth listening to, in my opinion. The post struck me as a very personal story of someone sharing what it's like to be lectured about your own lived experience because the other person doesn't even consider it might be yours. In a way that got to me and I felt it was worth sharing.

I'm very curious which parts of the article gave you such a different impression than me. Genuinely. Maybe I missed something. Maybe I interpreted things differently. It's hard to reply to you since you sent me this ask anonymously and I'm not sure what you expected me to do. Re-reading my tags I also don't think I implied this single post is 'how trans women think'. I would be very uncomfortable doing so because, like any group of people, they are not a monolith. I kindof trust that people reading the post can remember that for themselves.

If the blog post makes anyone distrust trans women then I don't think the post is the problem. If any single person's experience makes anyone dismiss a whole group of people I would argue that maybe they need to take a step back. Being empathetic towards men is not bad. Sharing a negative experience with cis women (women this person cares about and is close friends with) is not misogynist in and of itself.

Implying otherwise is a bit of a red flag to me. And assuming you're genuine I'd ask you why you are so preoccupied with whether or not transphobes will get more transphobic from reading a single trans woman's experience. Just because- what? it doesn't fall into a narrow definition of what a trans person is allowed to be? That doesn't sound right to me, either.

Link to the post in question, if anyone is curious.

[lesbianwithchainsaws]

sniffs. can we get some will graham character analysis up in here

Gah I love talking about Will but I have the fear that I'm gonna end up presenting you with an entirely inaccurate analysis, and I just don't realise that all my thoughts about him are wrong. I also will admit its been a while since I've rewatched an episode.

Anyway: it seems like the reason Will even connects to Hannibal as quick and as hard as he does is because Hannibal is the first (and honestly only) person that has ever truly seen and understood Will for exactly who he is, and hasn't turned away from it. I haven't read the books so idk if there's anything more said about Will's childhood in those, but I doubt Mr "family feels like an ill-fitting suit and I never connected to the concept" has any positive experiences with family, whether family he was born into or chosen. Even the others around Will seem to find him useful or interesting rather than connecting with him as who he is. So with Hannibal coming along and continuing to connect with Will even after learning those things about him that Will thinks are bad (like when he admits he liked killing Hobbs), it's no wonder Will attached himself to Hannibal in the way he did in the show. Especially when Hannibal treats him with more respect and, to an extent, more care (of course, "care" is used quite loosely here considering Hannibal prevents Will's encephalitis diagnosis from being uncovered, and also frames him for murder. What I instead mean by "care" in this context is that like Jack wants to keep pushing Will to do his job because he's saving lives. Jack doesn't really seem to care that much that it's actively worsening Will's mental state. Jack would still put Will on more and more crime scenes. Hannibal also shows a bit more respect for Will, for example, in the scene after Will tells Freddie Lounds "it's not smart to piss off a guy who thinks about killing people for a living" Jack seems to almost place the blame on Hannibal and wonders why Hannibal let Will say something like that. Even though those are Will's words, not Hannibal's. Jack sorta just talks about Will as if he's not in the room. Hannibal does not. Alana does show more concern for Will, but its pretty clear that those two also are more like "professional" friends than having any proper connection.)

Anyway yeah, at least s1 Will Graham seems to connect with Hannibal quickly because Hannibal seems like the first person to at least try to connect with Will properly.

I've seen a few people make posts using dog motifs for Will and how Will is like a dog that bites. One that's aggressive and barks when he can. And yeah, I agree. But Will also is like a dog who is loyal I think. That's why he does go out of his way to travel to Europe to find Hannibal, and then to find a way to get him out of prison and kill with him.

Before I briefly mentioned that whole "parts of himself that Will thinks are bad" thing. Will himself admits that his "thoughts are often not tasty" and, with his empathy and the amount of serial killers heads he's been in, it really is no wonder his thoughts are like that. But I think Will wants to be better than that. He doesn't like the thoughts in his brain and he thinks all those things about him are bad. What probably doesn't help is how most of his coworkers talk about him, even to his own face. Beverly is the only one who even treats Will like an actual person (r.i.p Beverly, I love her so much btw). Also like in most scenes Will stands away from everyone else, not next to them. And it's because of what Will is like. Hell, there's times where Will says something strange and his coworkers briefly look at him like that one meme of the girls staring. Also, keeping in mind that Will is canonically autistic, it alienates him even further (and also makes him more relatable imo. Like I, too, stand away from everyone awkwardly and can't connect with people. He's just like me fr). So Will is pretty much completely alone in a way. He adopts stray dogs because he himself is like a stray dog. He lives in the middle of nowhere to be truly alone. But Hannibal sees these "not so tasty" thoughts and other strange behaviours, and still chooses to actively be a part of Will's life (and also falls in love with Will because of this stuff. Like Hannibal definitely manipulates Will into killing, but some of those thoughts and feelings were already there are the start inside Will. In Will's eyes, the best person of himself is a version that doesn't want to kill and isn't affected by thinking the way a serial killer does. But in Hannibal’s eyes, the best version of Will is a Will that doesn't deny who he is and the thoughts he has inside his mind, but accepts and indulges in them instead).

Anyway, s2 and s3 Will is when he starts becoming a lot more like Hannibal obviously. In s1, the two are still quite different characters. But, as time goes by, Will starts having similar kind of thoughts and behaviours as Hannibal. He manipulates. He kills. He even enjoys those things. After all, "you and I have begun to blur" (and that holds true for Hannibal too. I think another reason Hannibal falls in love with Will is because, to some extent, Will changes Hannibal just like Hannibal changes Will).

I do think that being away from Hannibal for years kinda slowly got Will to fall into his "old habits" though (as in, there was still a part of Will that just couldn't accept the killing and the "not tasty" thoughts inside him). That's why he married Molly. Molly is basically the opposite of Hannibal. Molly put her life at risk to save her son. Hannibal killed Abigail. With Molly, Will can have the family he's always wanted. But its not the life Will can have or even needs. Because Will still needs Hannibal. He can't live with or without him, but in a way I almost think without Hannibal is more unbearable for Will than with Hannibal.

In the end, Will has embraced those darker sides a lot more. Him killing with Hannibal is more romantic than most actual romance scenes if you ask me. I think that, if they were to survive the fall, Will would eventually fully accept the darker parts of him and, as a result, would also accept the fact that he's just as in love with Hannibal as Hannibal is with Will. The only reason he's not accepting it is because Hannibal is almost like a personification of all the things Will tries so hard not to be at the start.

[eimearkuopio]

Hozier - Nobody's Soldier (Official Audio)

If I am a prophet - and it feels like I am, but I might be wrong - then I am not the only one currently stirring. I have told the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that I am not a prophet for the world, just for them. I have given them my message first, pointing it out to them in every place I found it, taking the shattered pieces of myself that their failures left me with and choosing to remake myself into something that may not be what God intended, but that is at least a sound vessel that can contain something without leaking!

I believe the Roman Catholic Church realised in the 1970s just how wrong they were, but the bureaucracy threw their faith in God out along with their faith in themselves, because if Jesus Christ is not the risen Saviour then their faith is in vain. Mine is not. They declared there would be no further general revelation because they lost faith in general revelation as a concept. I believe Vatican II was their attempt to resolve their issues, but they lacked sufficient enlightenment. I believe the present effort on synodality is an attempt to iterate further into something worth being, to get the world out of this Hell that their good intentions have led us into; but I also believe that it is an attempt to abdicate responsibility without abdicating power, and I will have none of that. If you will not listen to the Word of the God you claim to follow, you will hear me instead. Change, or die. It's a prophecy, not a threat. I spent too long building a life I could bear to live in spite of their best efforts to silence or ignore me to give it up just to save their miserable hides. I have been saying for decades that I am still a Catholic so that, if the time comes when I feel the need to speak to them, I will have sufficient cachet that they will listen. I prayed that time would never come, and yet it has. I have just about survived 40 years of my mentally ill grandmother and the hierarchy of the Church reenacting Two Girls One Cup with their mutual worship of one another. I am sure that disgusting analogy has been going on the world over, as people who have no faith claim to nourish people who believe, without anyone bothering to truly change the system and while children starve because none of the adults can be bothered to check whether they are handing out bread or stones - each of which has their place in our lives, but I think we can agree they are not interchangeable! Just because you got lucky enough to mostly receive bread, doesn't mean the current system hasn't resulted in an unnecessary number of cracked fucking teeth!

I believe that I am, at worst, a livestock guardian sheepdog whose instincts are so strong that I have learned their language so I can teach them to do better even if I can't teach them the true will of the One whose sheep they claim to nurture. I believe that the previous generation of sheepdogs have good instincts, but were trained by bad shepherds and hoodwinked by false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing. I'm not here for the whole world. I'm here to sort the sheep from everyone else, to care as best I can for the domestic animals these shepherds have rustled from other farms and the wild animals they have caged; to give them permission to put down the truly rabid before their disease can spread, and to rehabilitate and release the caged predators whose niche in the ecosystem they failed to recognise when they paved this road.

It doesn't matter if I'm right or not. What matters is, if they believe in God and want to do what He wants, they should listen to what I have to say and then make up their own minds; and if they don't believe in God but they think they know better than everyone else, well, I've read Animal Farm.

[disquiet-dream]

Every time people start arguing again about the terms tma/tme I'm always - well first of all I'm annoyed, because I'm someone who was originally against the terms and have since come around, so like I get it but I can't help but cringe a bit, but I'm also always like… How do I put this…

It's strange to me that the portion of transfem tumblr who are heavily invested in this terminology the the portion who get really really mad at people identifying as femboys is like, pretty heavily overlapping?

Because like, I see people complain about tma/tme by talking about the literal meanings of the terms, i.e. The whole "well, everyone is affected by transmisogyny" argument, and I do get where that comes from, I just don't… Care.

Because no terminology is perfect y'know? I see it basically the same way I see "PoC", it's far from perfect, but it does articulate something meaningful - there are people who are the primary targets of a form of bigotry and people who are incidental targets. Like, an italian-american might get some racism thrown at them - and that does genuinely suck! I'm not discounting that! - but they don't suffer the same structural issues that impact your entire life, so there is a difference here.

(I also like PoC as a comparison point just because like. One of the issues there is also the literal meaning being kinda off - I used an Italian as the example there because a lot of Italians do have skin as dark as a lot of PoC groups, and there are of course "PoC" groups that aren't literally "People of Color", in the sense that they don't actually have dark skin, but they're obviously included.)

(That's not the biggest issue mind - the bigger one is that the whole framework doesn't really work in much of the world (on some level literally just ''outside the US", even), and trying to apply it there immediately causes issues - but it is an issue!)

But anyway, to wrap back around to my original point: while I do think the terminology is useful, I do agree with one point I've seen that's like, "if tma just means transfem why don't you just say transfem?"

Because like… I mean honestly yeah, I don't get the point either then lol. Like, the whole reason I like the term is because it implicitly acknowledges that there are people who are affected directly by transmisogny - and who's interests are aligned with those of trans women because of that, whether they recognize it or not - but don't neatly fit into "trans woman" or even "transfem".

Like, large amounts of amab nonbinary people (i'd argue most if not all tbh), quite a few intersex people, drag queens (''drag bans'' might be intended to attack trans women, but they choose to do it through queens for a reason!), and - the reason for this post - a whole lot of self-identified femboys!

These are all categories that to me are like, yeah of course those are tma. Like, they're not the same as transfems (although there's of course an overlap) nor are they treated identically, but they're subject to the same broad societal hatred in a structural way.

(With that said, I do think the like, image I have of ''femboy'' as a concept isn't the same as people who get mad about it. Although I of course think mine is the more accurate one.

Because I tend to think of what I guess i'd call "lifestyle femboys", which is to say people who present femme as often as is safe (and sometimes even when not), consider being feminine a core part of their identity, may even be on or wish to be on HRT, etc.

Basically, people who in terms of action are clearly on the same wavelength as most transfems, even if they're using different terminology, to the point where imo it's obviously ridiculous to act like they aren't subject to the same forces, even before you get into the ones who y'know, do just identify as both transfem/trans woman and femboy.)

(I'd argue the kind of femboy I'm implicitly contrasting against, who only does it privately and like, as a hobby rather than a lifestyle, is also often affected - if nothing else there's probably a reason it's by default a private thing, eh? Probably the same reason a lot of transfems only present femme in private… - but I at least consider that more ambigious.)

So y'know, if only there were a word for that hatred. And perhaps some sort of supercategory we could use to include everyone affected by this phenomenon. Who can say…

[deviantartdramahub]

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding something and this is culture shock in a kind of way. I'm F14PA, was previously sheltered in an Amish family (still am, but my parents have been lenient about the web), and was introduced to DeviantArt. I posted someone's work and I guess this is taboo on the internet? I don't understand. Someone explained to me this thing called copyright. Treat what I'm about to say as stupid, but I was told I can't do what other people do and to post here if I have anything to talk about. What's going on?

"To every cow belongs her calf, therefore to every book belongs its copy."

~ Ancient Irish King Diarmitt Mac Cerbhaill, right before a bloody war (you might like the Amish friend of mine who posted that, they need friends)

The fact there was a war over copyright in 560 AD only goes to show it is what we might call "divisive", but anyone who understands the importance of honesty will understand where the basics come from. An honest person wouldn't say they invented something when they didn't, wouldn't say they weren't the cause of something when they were, wouldn't steal something they didn't earn, wouldn't cheat in a game whose rules they agreed upon with the other players, and wouldn't say something if they didn't 100% believe it to be true, whether that's because the source is untrustworthy or their own memory is unreliable.

A good way to think about the "concept" of copyright is to compare it to the "concept" of grace. If care over our mortal lives be deemed a gift from God, many see it fitting to acknowledge that, as we sit down for the most universal part of humanity's day, dinner. Of course, our gifts have many sources. The vocables we read were the brainfruit of people whom they came from, so it is reasoned tribute be given, hence the conflict in the first link. You may also be thinking about the second or third commandment (I've seen Amish replicated dolls for one).

There are some who are stricter than Saint Finnian was, unsatisfied with any form of tribute, for reasons also discussed and will be discussed. And there are some who are looser, lenient, unscolding... when it comes to my work, I am close to that.

You may have heard about the AI-related feuds, they are everywhere and have diverged in thought.

If you were to research copyright from past to present, mention of incidences of distortion may commonly come up. It has often been a concern that certain gestures are made to imply that the source was to convey something it didn't. One instance of this, you could say, happened during the Vietnam War. Love or hate the communist manifesto, the United States tried to make modified copies and release them upon the Vietnamese, one of the new "planks" being to line up by the road so it can be seen who is a communist. If it had literate synergy before, the tampering ruined it. History will, of course, tell you that Vietnamese Communists eventually did win over. You could ponder similar stories about the Catholic order of the middle ages when you read about a demon they taught about, a servant of the one true Lucifer you might know as Titivillus. Chinese whispers comes to mind.

You might say it comes off as just another derivative of the classic conflict between the concept of freedom and the concept of etiquette (I'm surprised if, as an Amish teen, you've never encountered a situation with one of you shyly hiding from a camera, the stereotype has even been you all think cameras steal souls), but, as media comes with loads of context, and their presence loads of implications, a question about this never hurts.

[jointspointssolderedtogether]

I'm coming off of anon because I'm frustrated that the only people who agree with me on one thing (the lesbian masterdoc/ "comphet" are bullshit) don't actually read theory and don't understand the origins of the ORIGINAL, SEPARATE TERM "compulsory heterosexuality" and its vast utility. This is a long post. Please keep in mind these things:

1. I think the "lesbian masterdoc" is horseshit. "Comphet" is not real. It is a stupid idea that a teenager came up with that has caused nothing but more stupidity. I don't like it. I don't want it to be spread. I think it does nothing but confuse people.

2. I am a lesbian according to all standards of your blog. Do not call me bisexual.

3. Compulsory heterosexuality, as Adrienne Rich presents it, is the following (I'm quoting a secondary source meant for college underclassmen): "Compulsory heterosexuality refers to the impression, explicit or implicit, that people should be heterosexual else something is wrong with them. Compulsory heterosexuality can also take a direct form, especially for women; each year men and patriarchal economics pressure or force millions of women around the globe into marriage, rape, or concubinage. Even in its implicit form, compulsory heterosexuality costs many people--especially people who favor same sex desire-- great and needless suffering, and it has much to do with the tragically high suicide rate among queer youth. Insisting on compulsory heterosexuality is a way of protecting illusions that the increasing visibility of queerness puts in doubt." (How To Interpret Literature, Robert Dale Parker, pg. 193) (Disclaimer: I don't endorse all of the phrasing here, especially the usage of the word "queer". Do not ascribe those aspects of this quote to me or my beliefs. I'm using it because it is a good summary of the essay.) Notice how none of this says "there is a magical force that makes me want to fuck this kpop dude but actually I'm a lesbian". That's "comphet". They are distinct concepts. Compulsory heterosexuality is a useful term, "comphet" is not.

@sapphic-aesthete See point #1. I don't know for certain what Adrienne Rich's sexuality is and I don't care. The idea that only the in-group can write about the experiences of a group they potentially do not belong to is not useful. If that were the case, there would be no point of anyone talking about anything because the in-group would just be talking to each other in circles. It's actually encouraged for people to engage with things like Ethnic Studies or Disability Studies or Native American studies regardless of your relationship to the in-group because principles of those schools of thought are applicable to all people and matter to all people because all people have the potential to interact with those groups. It is the same with lesbian studies. I'm white and I've taken classes on Native literature because my partner is Native and I want to be as understanding and informed as I can be. I wrote about... you guessed it... Native topics and issues. Also, the essay isn't about exclusively lesbians. Like I just said, and as Parker says, the idea of compulsory heterosexuality is applicable to all women. This is the "universalizing" view that I was describing.

@2uvie See point #1. Nowhere have I said that that lesbians like men. Nowhere does Adrienne Rich say in her essay that lesbians like men, or that lesbianism is a reaction to heterosexuality. Compulsory heterosexuality says that being heterosexual is the default and the only correct way to exist. Adrienne Rich, in response to that idea, posits the idea of the "lesbian continuum". The lesbian continuum does not mean that bisexual and straight women are or can be lesbians. Let's go back to Parker.

"In the 1980s, Adrienne Rich (...) suggested tht there is a lesbian continuum, "a range--through each woman's life and throughout history--of woman identified experience," that fits somewhere on a lesbian continuum, regardless of whether "a woman has had or consciously desired genital sexual experience with another woman". Rich's proposal attracted considerable interest, partly because, by naturalizing lesbianism and seeing it as routine, ordinary, and pervasive, it turns the tables on the naturalization of heterosexuality, and partly because some feminist and lesbian critics find it oversimplifying. They fear that it desexualizes lesbianism or mutes its specificity." (How To Interpret Literature, Robert Dale Parker, pg. 206)

Let's stop here for a moment. The phrasing of "woman identified experience" can be traced to the 1970s essay "The Woman-Identified-Woman" by The Radicalesbians. It's a good essay and is available online for free. It basically means solidarity between women outside of relations to men. A continuum has two ends. Exclusively woman-identified experience is one of them. No woman-identified experience is on the other end. Back to Parker.

"Rich's concept of a lesbian continuum has what the literary critic and queer studies scholar Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick called a universalizing implication. That is, it can apply to all women. (...) A minoritizing view (...) identifies queer or homosexual people as a minority. (...) At various points, according to the needs of the movement, the same people might adopt either a minoritizing or universalizing view.

Either view can be and often is used to defend or attack queer desire. From the minoritizing view, queer people might look like a minority that deserves respect--or, to some people, like one that deserves rejection. From the universalizing view, queer people mightbe anyone, and so deserve respect-- or, to some people, they might be anyone, and so all people need to look at others, and at themselves, with suspicion. Under policies that discriminate against queer people in housing or employment, for example, queer people are a minority with a distinct identity. Whether they participate in same-sex erotic acts or not, then can be denied an apartment or a job in the military or the classroom because of their orientation.

By contrast, under laws that make certain sexual acts, such as so-called sodomy, illegal, the act is the crime, not the identity. Such laws have a universalizing dimension, because any people who commit the act might be criminalized, regardless of how they understand their identity. To notice that distinction, however, is to observe, deconstructively, a Foucauldian distance between acts and identity. It means that acts are not a reliable signifier of a signified identity. That is, some people who identify as heterosexual are not sexually active or engage in (or have engaged in) same-sex erotic acts" (How To Interpret Literature, Robert Dale Parker, pg. 207)

We're not arguing on this point. We agree on it. I disagree with you all about the idea that compulsory heterosexuality is the same thing as "comphet".

See point #2. I'm going to ignore the rest of your attacking comments about my sexuality. I don't know anything about Sheila Jeffreys (?) so I'm not going to speak to that. Adrienne Rich's essay is not political lesbian shit. I don't know if she argues for that in other published work. Please link me to it if so. Regardless, that has nothing to do with compulsory heterosexuality and I don't like that so many of you are disregarding useful theory when you obviously don't have the understanding of it that you claim.

Actually read the shit you're talking about. It's useful. It's actually a pleasant experience to read theory. Don't keep conflating a useful term with its bastardization.

Also u dont understand adrienne rich whatsoever lol her idea of a lesbian continuum doesnt mean that she thinks "exclusively female attracted female" (or what we would call a lesbian) doesn't exist she conceptualized that as a response to heteronormativity and the idea that heterosexuality is a default. it's basically turning that on its head and centering lesbianism as a default. its a universalising and not minoritizing view of sexuality which is sooooo scary to people like u because u have no idea what essentialist and constructivist thought is and u piss yourselves if u have to open a dictionary. I dont even disagree with 90% of the things you say here please keep reading and if you are reading please try some better comprehension strategies. Jesus

Anyway comphet isn’t real. Go fuck yourself <3