#I don't have many outlets to discuss it‚ or at least.. Feel comfortable discussing it

[decepti-thots]

re: meta again (again) - about old fandoms with no/little new input - do you think that there's a point where even though there's kinda more time for meta, the fandom becomes a bit detached from the canon material, maybe partially?

also, you made a really interesting point with developing confidence in one's own taste - I think I (and many others) are used to being graded on media analysis in school, so you'd have to find the 'correct' angle instead of finding the angle that works for you. it feels like it should be obvious that it can be different but I did kinda need you to write it down to get it, so thank you :) also, thank you for the discussion in general - I have actually started to grab screenshots of the comic panels that I've been having thoughts about, but here comes the final boss of writing meta (to me): lack of time, haha

I think it can vary enormously depending on the fandom, honestly. Some fandoms are built up around folks who are there to do textual analysis and as a result, I find that you don't tend to get that kind of "canon drift", because constantly revisiting the text is a large part of the communal fandom experience. (Again I invoke the daddy of all Western acafandoms- book-Tolkien and especially Silmarillion fandom spaces tend to go this way.) They can wind up in their own recursive interpretive bubbles in other ways, mind, but it's in no way a sure thing. I do think fandoms where it is possible to remain engaged without needing to revisit the source material can be prone to it, though. Transformers fandom (including e.g. specifically IDW1 fandom) gives you a lot of avenues for creative fannish outlets that don't need you to revisit the canon material for reference, so it's very possible for fanon environments to... drift away. (I'm thinking of drift here in a way that's a little like semantic drift, honestly.)

I think the idea that it relates to experience with media analysis in school- and I assume you mean school and not higher education here?- is interesting. While my time before dropping out of university wasn't spent in a literature course (I studied linguistics), it was adjacent enough and I spent enough time trying to self-study in it academically that my default understanding of this stuff trends towards my experiences there rather than high school, where I feel like the "right vs wrong" dichotomy is at least less emphasized. But of course those bad educational settings where the idea of "right" analyses are taken for granted bc Teaching To The Test must loom large in most peoples' memories bc it's, you know, the default for most people- like they exist ofc. All I can say to that is that a majority of high school/etc experiences with "media analysis" are so far from what it looks like everywhere else that you deserve to feel comfortable punting it into the fucking sun. Not just in the sense that "academic analysis" doesn't do that in higher education environments (though it shouldn't! i swear to god it shouldn't be like that!!!) but also because so much exciting analysis of art is done fully outside academic environments. ...I just realised that my longstanding investment in artistic analysis of video games as a medium probably helps me here because it ranges from "academic analysis is rejected by the mainstream as Not What Real Games Are About so gamers hate it" to "academic analysis of video games has no room for most indie work and neither does pop culture so it has to exist independently without following convention so academics dismiss it", which means I'm just. Really used to analysis of non-prestigious media that is fully outside "the academy", haha. If you want to get comfortable analysing art when you haven't done it since high school handed you a stupid letter grade, peruse Critical Distance for media analysis that is largely divorced from the idea of consensus among Important People TM, genuinely; critical artistic analysis of video games is a great place to find intelligent, interesting work that ignores a lot of what is conventionally considered "obligatory" for Real Art Criticism TM. (video game crit is like, my default mileau, ngl.)

As for time, I personally write most of my work while doing time theft (this is why you see me on here less at the weekends), but regardless: recommended post on one (excellent) fandom-writer's process. also, take as long as you need. take months if you have to. it's good and fine. write three words a day. write one post a year. or post seven a day, whatever. i will say that folding meta-writing into my 'reading for fun' time helped me a lot, though- meta as an extension of re-reading for fun, rather than something in addition to it, was very helpful to me! don't re-read in addition to planning meta, basically; try and meld the two into one experience. you aren't doing an academia, and you can go off the cuff as you read! make meta into a liveblog, and get meta out of livetweets! same hat!!! etc. but also it's just fine to. take time. yknow.

[breitzbachbea]

1, 3, 9, 11?

OH, thank you very much!!!!

Meta OC Question

What inspired you to create your oc?

Depends on the OC, but there's two reasons at the start of all my OC endeavours in the past, which also intertwine:

I've always been a very creative kid with adhd that makes her daydream all day long, so I've been plagued by visions that needed a creative outlet & writing was the choice.

Since I wrote since elementary school, whenever I liked another piece of media, I'd express it by writing fanfiction, which would usually involve OCs. I'd often spin so hard and so fast out of control that I would make up a whole batch of OCs, often together with friends, who'd interact with the main cast and story, but also spin off into their own storylines.

These days, where I only make OCs and write mostly for my Hetalia Human AU (which is 10% Fanfic, but 90% Orig Fic): The mainer characters come to me because I am plagued by visions and constantly inspired by real life. I have over 250 named characters in this AU, PLEASE stop me from making more. Went to Romania for Erasmus for a week and came back with an OC concept that could have such a dysfunctional and toxic queer romance with one of my underdeveloped Hungarian OCs. I need to be stopped.

However, once mainer characters are established, OCs related to them spring up out of necessity or because I am like 'You know what I didn't do yet and would be fun in relation to these new bitches and also the old bitches?'. OC creation never happens in a vacuum, I am all about how they add to the world I created for the past 10 years and could interact with its inhabitants.

3. What is the origin of the character's name?

Used to go on babynaming sites and look at the most popular options, which is why all my Irish mainer characters have English names (RIP). These days I like to do some research on the cultural background they come from and also take inspiration from public figures from their country/region/city. However, once that is done I usually just visit Behind the Name and spend 15 minutes browsing, talking with friends about options, ignoring their feedback and then choose a name by closing my eyes and throwing a dart at the PC. I do consider nominative determinism to a degree, but I'll tell myself that the parents who named the kid couldn't have known what they will grow up to be and I'll also get used to any name.

I also love to use names I encountered in life, too! Like old classmates or family names of friends!

9. In a group dynamic, what kind of role does the oc usually fill? Are they a worry wart? A troublemaker? The straight man?

I LOVE GROUP DYNAMICS AND I HAVE SOOOO MANY OF THEM. Let's take the Chaos Seven, aka Team Ireland + Soph and Team Sicily as an example.

Team Ireland shares one collective braincell. Paddy, who's twice as old as Harry and Charlie, is its keeper about 40% of the time. Since he helped raise Harry since he was six, is a father figure to Charlie and helped raise Sophie since she was born, he's the Guardian figure of the Group. Hashtag Daddy Paddy. However, he's also a bastard like his own kids, so while he tries to be a good influence, he's not exactly the voice of reason. Just hopelessly devoted to the three and wants to ensure that they don't make choices they will regret without return.

Charlie is the social butterfly, or at least the one who's the most willing to engage in diplomacy and also enjoys working people the most. Do not let that fool you, half of the European underground wants to punch his teeth in for being endlessly annoying, but the other half wants to either fuck him or keep him as a purse dog. He and Harry are brother's from another mother and when Harry is too stubborn and fatalistic to consider anyone outside of himself, Charlie will pick up the slack and care for him and their goals. To Soph, he's the big brother figure with whom she can discuss personal affairs that she feels Harry and Paddy are too close and guardian-like for comfort to discuss with.

Harry's the driving force that inspires the others, since if he is hellbent on something, he'll pull through with it and won't let anyone push him around. He bickers all day long with the rest (especially Charlie, Soph and Harry do nothing but pick on each other), but is also always there to root for the others and take risks on their behalf. Probably the biggest troublemaker, but since Team Ireland as a whole is nothing but troublemakers, it's a bit unfair to single him out. He's got an unmatched love for pranks, though!

Soph is the nestling, the little darling of the family. All the others care for her, and as she grows up, she takes more and more after her brother, for better and for worse. Being Harry's little sister, the two are especially close, but she worries and cares for all three of them, as they do for her. When she's with the other three, she's a troublemaker who's not gonna let anyone push her or her family around, much like Harry.

Michele ... he is the leader and the voice of reason in Team Sicily, the one who raised the twins Marco and Lorenzo together with his mother. Since Marco and Lorenzo look up to him, he's also their guardian figure and tries to be as good an influence as he can - he's also constantly herding cats with these two mischievous guys.

Marco and Lorenzo share their creativity and their analytical thinking, as well as their love for mischief. They're definitely troublemakers, but at the same time problem solvers extraordinaire. And while their devotion to Michele is blind to a degree, they also unite in pulling him back onto the rug at times. It's not often that they need to play the straight man and they aren't good at that role with anyone but Michele, but they can do it.

11. What is your least favorite trait regarding your oc?

I mean it is an Organized Crime AU, so for most it gotta be, among others, the uhhhh ability to justify the horrors to themselves.

But that aside. I don't really think in favourite and not-favourite, since an interplay of traits is what makes OCs so close to actual humans and simply fun as literary constructs.

If I was held at gunpoint, though - That Hugo is so persistent in his quest to be liked/loved/the best that he can't take no for an answer in the long run, to his own detriment and everyone else's. That SK, aka Sri Kadek, is so stubborn in her perceived role as being the fixer of the family that she won't consider someone else's motivation for how they treat her could be genuinely out of caring for her. And most of the OCs are assholes, again because of the circumstances and I am a messy bitch who loves drama, but the Arora twins (Frej and Freja) take the objectification and the prioritization of their entertainment a little bit far even for this crowd. (... but also, that does make them very very sexy <3).

[aboutoneself]

Sex life

I'm trying to figure out what happened. We were very open, talked about kinks, fetishes, we tried a lot of things.

Don't get me wrong.

Lot of sex, or at least enough in my opinion. Or not.

Navigating changes in sexual intimacy and desires within a relationship, especially when you still have a strong desire for sex but don't act on it with your partner, can feel confusing and isolating. Many people in committed relationships seem to experience similar shifts over time, and there are often a mix of factors—psychological, relational, and personal—that can help make sense of it.

Routine and Familiarity: Long-term relationships can bring a deep level of comfort and connection, but they can also lead to sexual routine and predictability. With routine, the novelty that often drives sexual excitement may diminish, and sexual encounters can feel more like an expectation than an exploration.

New Desires and Personal Exploration: My interests and kinks have evolved, and I'm discovering desires that may not align with the sexual dynamics me and my partner currently have. Kinks like femdom, chastity, pegging, crossdressing, or bisexual exploration are intense and often require a high degree of trust and communication to explore with a partner. Many people fear sharing these interests, worrying about how their partner will respond or if it might disrupt the dynamic they have. But I already had that. Don't know what's wrong...

Sexual Shame or Fear of Judgment: When we develop new interests, especially those that deviate from what we’re used to, we may feel embarrassed or hesitant to express them. Sometimes, the fear that a partner may not understand or accept these interests can lead us to keep them private, which may lead to a lack of intimacy if we feel we’re hiding part of ourselves.

Comfort with Solo Sexual Expression: Masturbation, especially with fantasies or preferences I may feel are unique, can feel like a safer, lower-pressure outlet for sexual satisfaction. The solo nature of it allows full control over fantasies, exploration, and pace without fear of judgment, which can be reassuring when your desires feel complex.

Possibly Unresolved Feelings in the Relationship: It’s not uncommon for couples who love each other deeply to experience some barriers to physical intimacy, often stemming from unrelated issues like stress, unresolved resentment, communication gaps, or even small misunderstandings. If there’s any underlying emotional tension in your relationship, it can impact your desire to connect sexually, even if you do feel love and desire for your partner.

Need for Open Communication: If you’re interested in exploring these desires with your partner, opening up a gentle, honest conversation can be powerful. It’s not easy, and it might take several discussions to build comfort on both sides, but open communication about sexual needs is crucial for a satisfying sexual relationship, I'd say. Starting small—perhaps sharing a fantasy I think she might be open to or asking if she has any new desires herself—can create a bridge for deeper sharing over time.

Each of these factors could be contributing, and it might be a blend of them that is influencing my current feelings. Working with a therapist or sex counselor, even if it's just individually, can provide support in exploring these desires and opening up with your partner in ways that feel safe and constructive.

În concluzie, vreau să ne futem iar amândoi

Haide vino înapoi

Să

Fim iar

Amândoi

[nctadoll]

          Aight, so, it’s time for one of these posts.  I make these posts occasionally on my other blogs, so if you follow a few of my other blogs, then you might be rereading a bit— However, quite a bit has happened since my last post regarding this subject. I make these posts as, updates / warnings I suppose, as I feel they’re warranted whenever a new blog of mine gets any kind of traction.

         Intense trigger heavy content below the cut.

      For those not in the know, I’m J. I went by ‘Jake’ for a number of years, but about a year ago I decided to shorten it, it was just simpler that way. I’m currently 21 years old, and I’ve been writing on this platform since I was 13. Which is kinda crazy looking back on it, amazing how time flies like that. 

     Within the last... Five or so years, something started happening to me, something that I wasn’t really familiar with on a self basis, but I gotta go further back to properly provide context. Starting in 2011, making me 11 at the time, my family moved from our first house, this brought along MANY challenges as a move typically does— However, shortly after the move, my father lost his job. This, did a lot to him, severely damaging his mental stability. This continued until 2016?? ( My memory of exactly when is foggy ) When he was kicked from the residence over physical domestic abuse issues. He lived away for a year, and then he returned. Then, almost a year later, it happened again, ending with him hospitalized and kicked out once again ( this took place on my 18th birthday lmao ), where he remains gone till this day. Though, given the state of the things happening, that might be changing in the coming weeks.

      He was eventually diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder, which, is an extremely heavy mental disorder to have. And a few months ago, I was diagnosed with the exact same disorder. Up until the age of about 16 / 17 I never had massive issues with mental health, I was happy and never really felt any downtime. That changed, as mood swings became common, and I found myself combative and easy to anger, which was something that was never the case before. My family just excused it as puberty as they do. 

       For those unaware, BPD causes... Multiple horrid things. Such as fear of abandonment, unclear / shifting self image, impulsive and self destructive behavior, explosive anger, intense paranoia and suicidal tendencies. I can safely say, I see and deal with all of this. Now, this has manifested in multiple ways online, many in ways that harm my friends. What’ll happen, is I’ll grow so intensely paranoid of little things, that things will build and build until I have an Event where I cut myself from friends and delete blogs or accounts. Then, a few hours later, or in intense cases DAYS later, I’ll come down from this hell high, and remember the shit I did, or sometimes I’ll even have no recollection of the things I’ve done- Leading to piecing together why some friends disappeared or why they won’t speak to me.

        One of the most damaging things, can be the warped perception of everything around you. All of this, has wildly damaged my social abilities over the years— And that’s perhaps one of the most difficult parts, what was simple for me years ago, is suddenly a lot more difficult. It’s led to an intense social anxiety and it leads to you just, wildly fearing how you’ll fuck up the good things you have going for you. Regardless of if you want to or not. It’s so, unbelievably damaging and corruptive. It’s caused me to become this, horrid thing in the eyes of old friends, and I can’t apologize enough. It spawned this, desire to fight and feel a rush of conflict, hence the impulsive behavior.

        It’s something in this weird window, it isn’t me, but at the same time it technically is. I’ve lived my life so desperately trying to never bother anyone around me, the stress of the idea of bothering someone often keeps me from doing anything at all. Which is why this is such a problem. Over the last few months, I’ve been put on medication, and it’s really been helping me, more so than I had anticipated... My impulsive moments aren’t really happening anymore, and while I have down moments, they don’t lead to shitty behavior anymore. 

         I bring these kinda things up, because in the off chance I’m WRONG about how helpful the medication is, or something gets fucked up with it— I want people to know ahead of time.. It’s a lot to ask my friends to put up with it, and I’m not saying they have to— BPD is a lot, and I don’t blame anyone that would rather avoid it, it’s intense. I also know a bunch of people that, won’t speak to me over issues like this, I guess I kinda hope that one day they’ll at least be able to see this and understand. I don’t need forgiveness, because at the end of the day, I did the things I did, blocking and isolating, I did it— I don’t know if I deserve it, but I at the very least wanna be understood. I think, for those unaware, it creates this, weird idea of what I am, like I’m purposefully trying to do them wrong, and that can’t be further from the case.

        If you’ve read all of this, I greatly appreciate it. It puts a lot of ease on my mind. This is also open for discussion or conversation, should you wish to know more or anything, I’m completely open to talk.

[gallavictorious]

Random question, but do you have any thoughts about Mickey and his relationship with anger? I think people who are perhaps more casual fans of the show (or just not big fans of his) think that Mickey's major character trait is anger, because he gets annoyed easily and doesn't suffer fools gladly (and obviously scenes like chair debacles 1 and 2), but I don't think it's that simple. Responding to anger in unhealthy or violent ways is sort of a running theme through this show and something I've been thinking about in regard to a lot of the characters lately, not just Mickey (though he does fit the theme). Was interested in seeing if you had any thoughts 😊 Do you think Mickey is the most angry/most violent character?

That’s a very interesting question, nonnie, and not one I'd really considered before. I'll preface this by saying that to make a proper and grounded comparision, I'd need to watch the whole series again and consider all the instances of anger and violence displayed by all the characters, and since that's not going to happen right now this will be a few random notes on the topic rather than a thorough analysis, and I'll focus primarily on Mickey himself rather than Mickey in comparision to others. Okay?

Okay. Now, as far as anger goes, I'd argue that Mickey's relationship with it is the same as his relationship to most other emotions, i.e. he doesn't usually bother to quell or hide it. I don't think this is so much a result of him struggling with affect regulation (though there's probably some of that too, with him as with almost all the other characters) as it is of him just not giving a damn about what other people think. So what if it's not socially acceptable to curse people out or kick down a sign if you get a little pissed? Mickey doesn't give a fuck; if he feels something, he's going to express that, and if you've got a problem with it, that's your damned problem.

That said, there are certainly emotions that Mickey sometimes hides and struggles to express, especially in the past; vulnerability and tenderness comes to mind. (The one emotion Mickey regularly feigns is indifference, primarily pretending not to care about Ian or what Ian does when we know that he actually cares quite a lot.) As much as Mickey is naturally emotional and expressive, he is still shaped by his enviroment, and growing up the way he did anger would have been a safe emotion for him to show. While stoicism is a stereotypical ideal for men, anger is still considered pretty manly and potent; a sign of strenght rather than weakness. I can see him leaning into that, and into other acceptable emotions, a little extra because he is an expressive person, and this allows him an outlet. At this point, I think that's become less of an issue but remains a habit–and now that Mickey doesn't worry about people finding out that he's gay, he's even less concerned than every about what people outside of his circle might think of him.

So, I wouldn't say that Mickey is angriest character, but I would say that he might be the one least prone to suppressing anger or putting up a level front just to please others or be polite. In season 11, which is the first time we've seen a Mickey that, arguably for the first time, feels comfortable and free and safe, he is remarkably happy–and he doesn't bother to hide that either, not even when his glee might seem inappropriate.

Turning to violence–and I do seperate the two, because while violence can often serve as an expression of anger, it can also serve many different purposes, and so you can't necessarily equal most angry with most violent–you are quite right to note that responding with violence to anger is something we see with many of the characters. As just mentioned, violence can serve many purposes but for most of the people on the show, I'd argue it's a way of communicating emotions (primarily anger) when other means of expression are deemed insufficient or too hard. They get angry or hurt; they lash out and punch someone or trash a car–given how often this happens and with as many of our mains as it does, I think it's fair to say that violence is highly normalized in the cultural sphere the characters inhabit. More so with the Milkoviches than Gallaghers, though, and I think it's interesting to note that while the Gallaghers mostly fall back on violence as a response to extreme emotions (which is learned behavior; seeing violence as a possible option when very upset is not given), the Milkoviches tend to do that and be very comfortable with using violence instrumentally, to defend their status and achieve their goals.

Over the course of the show, we see Mickey hit people (well, mostly Ian) when he's overwhelmed with hurt–rather than anger–but also to enforce the rules of his business (going after Mr. Patel), to defend himself or others against physical attack (going after his dad and the army police), to get his way (slamming the head of that bartender into the bar in his quest for Ian), to position himself and defend his position as a criminal badass that you shouldn't cross (beating up Lip in Ian's stead in season 1, wanting to go after Kev after being robbed by him, wanting to get up in Jesús' face in 7x11; sure, there's anger in these instances too, but I'd argue that anger is not the only or primary motivator), and because he's getting paid to (going after cousin Patrick).

Actually, though there are instances of Mickey reacting with violence to anger, that doesn't happen nearly as often as him reacting with violence to hurt or him using it instrumentally. Possibly because Mickey is actually quite good at expressing his anger in other ways; he doesn't often need to resort to violence for that? At least not violence against other people; chairs, signs, and Amazon boxes are all fair game, though. (But in all those instances, I'd argue that the anger is secondary to frustration and, again, hurt/insecurity.)

To summarize, I don't think it's fair at all to say that Mickey is the angriest of the characters, but he is very comfortable with utilizing violence for a number of reasons, and I think that out of our mains he might well be the most violent. That said, that is by no means his defining characteristic; Mickey is hell of a lot more than a violent thug, and to be honest and as I've noted before, it's the juxtaposition of him being genuinely a pretty rough (and not always very good at all) person and him being capable of such devotion, love, caring and tenderness that makes him so compelling. Complexities, baby–we love to see them!

I did really love this ask and had a lot of fun thinking about it, but I did struggle somewhat to organize my thoughts on the topic, especially since I didn't want this to devolve into a ten page treatise on the psychology and cultural construction of anger and violence, so I do hope this made some sort of sense. As mentioned, it's not a thorough analysis but rather a collection of stray thoughts on the subject. A starting point for further discussion, perhaps, if anyone else would care to chime in?

[q--uee--n]

Presenting Part 2 of my Post-Zero Requiem headcanons/notes! I’m so happy the others were well-received, and I hope these will be, too. Enjoy:) 

Nunnally 

• never for a second contemplates hating Suzaku for his role in her brother’s death. Though she was admittedly bitter, those feelings are later targeted toward Lelouch for leaving her behind in a “perfect world”. So long as he isn’t around, the world will never be perfect in her eyes. 

 • is one of the youngest ever rulers of Britannia. This, coinciding with the fact that she actively used  F.L.E.I.J.A. in the past, leads to questions about her competence and fidelity. However, she proves herself an effervescent, warm-hearted empress who is determined to make up for the many, many faults of her predecessors. She starts by improving Britannia’s egregious foreign policy and establishing a stable Parliament. It’s hard work, but that’s how she prefers it since it’s also her own way of repenting for her past sins.  

• never regains her ability to use her legs, and she hates being patronized due to her crippled state. War and politics have hardened her some, so she rarely hides her feelings to make people comfortable when she isn’t and doesn’t hesitate to tell others when they’re acting condescending. In the earlier stages of her reign, she frequently has to remind Suzaku that she isn’t a glass doll or a helpless little girl.   

• her official residence is in Japan. She remained there during Pendragon’s reconstruction, and though she knows she’ll more than likely have to move back to Britannia someday, she can’t help but consider Japan her true home. It was where she and her brother lived and made their first friends, and despite the circumstances, some of her happiest childhood memories are there. 

 • becomes close friends with Kaguya due to their being so young and so involved in the affairs of the world. They meet for lunch whenever they can find the time and host pajama parties where they gossip about their older contemporaries and how nonsensical they behave. The Tianzi joins them once she gets a little older, and she has dirt on everyone. Seriously, the girl has ears everywhere. Do. Not. Mess. With. Her. She will destroy you with what she knows alone.  

• bequeaths hefty amounts of money to humanitarian organizations each month, despite being advised to donate less, and was key in helping Kallen and her mother's charity get off the ground. 

 • develops a guilt complex. It's why she overcompensates to the point that she does, even though she's accepted that no matter how hard she works, nothing she'll do will make up for the lives she's ruined. 

 • goes to therapy sooner or later to sort out her issues, but it's at Kaguya's behest because "my cousin doesn't even vilify himself the way you vilify yourself—and pardon me because he absolutely does. But my point still stands." She's reluctant to share her feelings at first, but once she does, she doesn't stop. She reaches a point where she stops blaming everything wrong with the world on herself, which is a huge step-up from where she started. 

 • takes an interest in fashion. It starts off as a means of distraction from her less pleasant thoughts, but she quickly embraces it. She vigorously designs and sews in her free time, and it isn't unusual for servants to find sketches of gorgeous ensembles in the most random places in the palace. She's also quite efficient at styling, Suzaku being her favorite model due to her finding his fit physique the most fun to work with. 

 • visits her brother's grave once a year, on his birthday. Suzaku and Arthur are her lone companions. It starts off as a morbid affair, but as Zero Requiem grows into the distance, it gets significantly more lighthearted as she allows herself to let go. Her favorite thing to do is "show" Lelouch her designs, as well as update him on the progress the world has made in wake of his sacrifice. 

• never quite accepts Lelouch's death as much as she just moves on because she knows he wouldn't want her to spend the rest of her life mourning him. Still, anniversaries of his death are hard for her to get through since she has to pretend she hates him as much as the rest of the world does. Kaguya's kind enough to let her cry into her lap when it all gets to be too overwhelming. 

 • the first person she falls in love with is a commoner and is unattainable for multifarious reasons. The second person she falls for is more accessible but oh-so oblivious.  

 • her moniker is the "Champion of Peace". 

Kaguya 

• mellows out considerably and loses a lot of her fangirl tendencies. Her straightforward attitude, though, is still intact, and you either like her or you don't—at least that's the case for her fellow politicians. Her charisma and natural appeal guarantee that's she's well-received by the public. 

• figured out Lelouch's motives the second he was killed and is irritated that the world hasn't and likely never will. As a result, she holds the few memories she has of him as a child close to her heart. 

• difficult to work with, but that's only because her adult peers should know better than to underestimate a teenager who runs three-fifths of the planet, and Kaguya never backs down when challenged. The most irking thing is said to be that she does it all with a smile.

• though she's grateful she and Suzaku are on speaking terms again, she is every so often overwhelmed by his affection and attention. She wonders if that was how Zero felt in regards to her. 

• finds every opportunity she can to make Nunnally smile. She can sense the sadness permeating her being and thus makes it her life's goal (one of them, anyway. Never let it be said that the girl isn't ambitious) to maintain her friend's happiness. 

• is a contributing (anonymous) writer for Zero Weekly, because duh. Her articles are popular due to their being quality garbage, and she once wrote a think piece alleging that Zero was the second coming of Christ that generated so much controversy, it was denounced by multiple religious sects. The situation got so out of hand, Nunnally herself had to come out and declare that there were more important matters to discuss than whether or not Zero should be worshipped as a deity. Kaguya regrets nothing. 

• is eventually introduced to Milly, and they hit it off immediately, something made possible due to their peculiar senses of humor and mutual love of gossip investigative journalism. Kallen tries in vain to keep them apart, but they prove too incorrigible to manage. 

• forms an unexpectedly close bond with C.C. Often times she doesn't even understand it, but there's plenty of wisdom to go around, which is why they work so well. She discovers C.C.'s name by accident but doesn't disclose it out of respect, no matter what Kallen does to try to get her talk. 

• remains petite even into her adulthood. Unlike Nunnally, who doesn't grow much in terms of height but does fill out some, she is forever tiny and diminutive. She isn't overly happy about it. 

• fully anticipates Suzaku's reaction the first time she tells him, " I love you". Hence why she ensures they're in private when she says it. 

Milly 

• quits anchoring and becomes a full-fledged journalist. She loves the thrill of research and investigation, especially when it comes to digging up information that shouldn't be accessible under any circumstance. 

• discovers Zero's identity after launching a months-long investigation into Zero in general and the events leading up to Zero Requiem. She's not surprised so much as she is relieved, because she could never quite bring herself to hate Suzaku or Lelouch as she should have, and once she learns the full truth, most of it, that is, she's ecstatic. Confused ("I get making up for his sins and all, but couldn't he have become the Emperor of Justice or something elegant like that instead of, say, using a contrived dictatorship as a means to force the world to unite? I mean, there were other ways to accomplish that") but ecstatic nonetheless. 

• chooses to make Japan her permanent home, defying the wishes of her parents, who wanted her to move back to the homeland with them. She learns fluent Japanese and extensively covers the decolonization of Japan and other states formerly under Britannian occupation. 

• is the proud(ly anonymous) founder of the infamously hedonistic Zero Weekly. It starts as a jocular thing she uses to entertain herself, but when the subscribers come pouring in...Well, she still uses it to entertain herself, but it's a very beneficial source of entertainment. 

• one of, if not the most controversial name in journalism. Her work has sparked outrage from just about everyone, and her most debated project was one that revealed a good chunk of the stories circulated to emphasize Lelouch's wickedness to be false. However, the one thing that people can agree on is that she never excuses his wrongs so much as she puts them into perspective.  

• after revitalizing their friendship, if you can call it that, her favorite pastime is teasing Suzaku. It astonishes her that despite everything that's happened, he can still be so easily flustered if she pushes the right buttons (such as when she brings up Kallen being his supposed "paramour"). Seeing glimpses of the Suzaku she knew reminds her of the short but pleasant time they spent together at Ashford Academy. 

• met C.C., once upon a time. They sat beside each other on a crowded bus, and Milly couldn't shake the familiarity radiating off of the other woman in waves. The incident bothers, even after she's officially introduced to C.C. through Suzaku, because she knows this girl. She just doesn't know how or where from. 

• begins a matchmaking business as a side job—aka what she does whenever she's suspended from the real thing, which is often (some people have no sense of humor). She initially does it because she's bored and nosy and needs an outlet, but she quickly discovers she likes meddling in others' love lives. Unfortunately, no one else seems to be as appreciative of her newfound hobby, but hey, at least Rakshata and Cecile seem happy. 

[stimtoybox]

Do you have any advice for someone who wants to start a stim/fidget toy review blog? I think it will give me a good outlet to talk about them instead of bothering my friends every time I get a new stimmy thing. I just don't know where to start. :(

I am flattered, anon, that you think we can offer advice on this point!

To be honest, I don’t think it’s that much different from starting any creative project, and these are all things folks should consider if they’re doing anything new. So ask yourself these questions, as they’ll guide you, I think, towards what you do next and how you do it.

I apologise for writing … well, an essay on blogging. It’s probably a great deal more than what you’ve asked for, but I’ve learnt a great deal in running this blog, and it all came flooding out on the page.

The main points, I think, I’ll summarise here before going into everything under the cut:

Know what it is you want to do and why you want to do it. It’s very hard to keep going with anything if you’re not sure why you’re doing it.

Hold close to your heart everything you think you can bring to your blog and reviews, because cherishing your own uniqueness keeps you going.

Practice self-care in determining what is possible for you and how much time you can devote to a blog. Look after yourself first. Your followers will wait even longer for responses if you have a mental breakdown.

Blog only if it makes you happy, because blogging is a lot of work!

Regular and consistent updates do result in regular followers and interactions, but the expectation that one updates regularly and consistently is based on ableist assumptions of ability, so you are allowed to be inconsistent.

Practice gratitude for the people who interact with you.

Don’t feel you ever have to take hate or abuse: you are allowed to use the block button.

Do not ever feel as though you need to know everything about your subject before blogging, because your followers like being able to help you.

If you’re comfortable sharing your blog with us, anon, when you have it ready to go, I’d love to see it. No such thing as too much stimmy information or too many stim blogs; we’re all part of a much greater (and fabulous) community working together to help and share information and discussion about a special interest/hyperfixation/passion. That’s a fabulously awesome thing, and I love all the connections with others - something I’m generally terrible at - I’ve made through this blog.

So, if you’re comfortable, come join us in our little network of stimmers, because we want you to be part of it!

What is it you want to do? What is it you don’t want to do?

Do you just want to post your own reviews? Do you want to post/reblog links to cool toys you’ve found? Do you just want to post/reblog photos of toy collections without reviews or listing information? Do you want to do a mix of toys and online stimming videos/GIFs/ASMR? Tutorials? For example, I don’t enjoy videos or GIFs, so I knew this blog would be about toys, and as I like making things, tutorials just happened naturally. Have a think about the kind of content you want to include and focus on that.

You can always widen your focus afterwards, but having a focus in the beginning helps give you direction, and direction is important.

(Additionally, as your blow grows, your followers might push your blog in all sorts of different directions!)

Why is it you want to do it?

Just wanting somewhere to put your thoughts is a good and valid reason! In the case of this blog, I wanted that, but I also wanted to discuss stim toys with a greater international focus. I know it seems odd now, but when I started this blog few stim toy bloggers were listing currencies, discussing shipping costs or providing image descriptions. There were few listings that weren’t focused on US webstores and absolutely nothing about Australian resources. I saw a gap in what was being covered by others, based on my own needs as a stimmer, and jumped right in.

Knowing why you want to do something helps tailor your approach: it gives you that little bit of uniqueness that separates your blog from other blogs. It erases that doubt that surfaces when you wonder why you’re doing this when everyone else is doing this already. There will be something you’re doing that the rest of us aren’t, and if you find that and hold onto it, it’s a lot easier to keep going.

What makes you happy?

What do you enjoy doing? Writing? Photography? Talking about little details? Making GIFs? Collecting listings of cool items you’ve seen online?

Find out what it is you think you’ll enjoy most and focus, at least in the beginning, on that. Happiness is incredibly motivating.

What lies within your ability?

Anon, take it from someone who repeatedly and reliably fails at this point: figure out what it is you can’t do in the matter of a stim blog and push it aside. You do not have to do everything on your blog. If there is something you genuinely cannot do, don’t do it. This is especially important for disabled bloggers, as we generally have limitations in what we can do and how much. Don’t be like me, trying to do everything because it’s good to do without any awareness of how much Trying To Do Everything is breaking me.

There’s a line between Things That Are Good To Do and Things I Can Actually Do, and you’ll be saner and happier (as someone who is regularly driving myself up the wall with my habit of overestimating my ability to function) if you stay on the “actually possible” side of the line.

Things to look at here include physical ability and time for working on this blog, both of which are super important to evaluate. Always underestimate your ability to do things - you’d rather have extra time and spoons than not enough of it!

I’ll acknowledge that regular, consistent updates are probably the biggest thing when it comes to growing a following, but for disabled people this is a very hard thing to do, and all the “how to blog” advice posts never mention this. The goal of consistency is deeply ableist. If you can do this, great. If you can’t? Don’t bother about it. Updating sporadically is better than being burnt out and not updating at all for six months because you’ve set yourself a punishing schedule your life and body won’t allow you to manage.

How are you going to do it?

You know what you want to say and why; the next step is how. How are you going to format your blog? Possible questions to consider include:

Do you want to write short or long reviews?

Do you want to include photos, videos, GIFs?

Do you want to casually talk about your purchases or aim to be a resource?

Do you want to tag everything as an archive? (This is so the thing where I have bitten off more than I can chew, ye gods.)

Do you want to make your content as accessible as you can?

Do you want to accept asks and user submissions?

Do you want to have a moderated/shared blog?

Do you want to be an informative resource versus just talking casually about your stim experiences?

Do you want your blog to be an informative resource versus a blend of stim posts and your own personal content?

Do you want to cultivate connections with other stim bloggers?

This step is thinking about the minutia of how you’re going to do whatever it is you want to do. In my case, it was deciding that this blog is a resource blog, that I’d focus on tags and archiving, that I want to put a lot of detail in my reviews and that I’d be as accessible as is possible for me.

By the way, while personal review blogs and broader resource blogs are different, one isn’t necessarily better than the other. General stim toy blogs that just post and reblog collection photos get a great following because people just want to enjoy the pretty and get to know the collator. They’re also much easier to run in terms of workload, especially for folks on mobile.

How are you going to approach the community?

This is where you think about who your audience is, who you wish to be following you and how you’re going to approach your interactions with others. Tumblr is a curious space in the sense that various flavours of activism often end up in spaces that aren’t really about activism, and that can be a tricky thing to deal with. I’m not always sure that I deal with it well, but I think at the end of the day that if you try to be true to who you are, that’s a good thing, even if others disagree with your approach.

(It’s okay if people do disagree. The number of stim blogs that exist means there’s a space for most of us.)

Things to consider include:

Who don’t you wish to follow? It is absolutely within your right as a blogger to dictate whom it is you wish to follow and interact with you, or what behaviours will result in blocking. My opinion is that it’s good to be polite about expressing it, though, especially if you’re asking blogs that feature behaviour that doesn’t cause harm to vulnerable populations to not follow you/not engage. You’re allowed to put your comfort first, but politeness is good.

Is your blog for a wider community or a section of it? Are you for anyone who stims, for disabled people who stim, ND people who stim or a targeted group like anxious stimmers or autistic stimmers?

How exclusive are you in your community building? Some blogs are completely inclusive, some blogs are largely inclusive, some are very exclusive. Stim blogs often end up being little communities of their own, so it pays to take some time to think about the kind of space you want to build.

Are you bringing other politics or modes of activism to this blog? It often pays to put this somewhere if you are or aren’t. I know that I’ve felt very uncomfortable when I’ve followed a blog only to discover a week later that the owner/mods are exclusionists. By the way, it is absolutely okay to not reveal your beliefs on any of these issues if you keep it entirely off the blog. It is also okay to be open about who you are and what you believe but not make the blog primarily about those beliefs. It is also okay to make the blog all about those beliefs.

How will you approach drama? For example, I have a block policy for hate messages: I block and never discuss the content on this blog, because I feel this is not the place to discuss people who feel the need to tell me how much they hate me for differing activism/identity approaches. I’ve got better things to do than to waste my spoons on that. Other bloggers respond to those messages and discuss them.

How will you keep your followers safe? You can do the AO3 approach of choosing not to tag - as long as you mention this on your blog description, this is entirely valid. You can tag. You can advise that there are certain things you can’t advise for and tag for the rest. You can say that this isn’t a space for discussing politics, activism or problematic content. You can say that you do discuss it. I’ve realised that I need to go back and make my approach to discussion content - that while we won’t discuss abuse or ableism or other awful things that happen to ND people in explicit detail, we won’t pretend they don’t exist or happen to us - more clear. (It’s part of the evolution from stim toy review blog to stim toy and ND blog, and I’m still playing catch-up in a lot of ways.)

I admit that my philosophy in general is to be as inclusive as possible whilst still centering stimming on ND and disabled people, and I personally will never have enough blogs to follow that do this. I am all for community building that is as accepting and non-judgemental as is possible. But this is not the only way to blog, and in the end, you do you, anon. There’s space in the world for people to have differing opinions, and the benefit of a blog is that one can make a community that suits one’s needs and philosophy.

I’ll also note that autistics and issues relating to autism (Autism $peaks, for example) have more of a presence in stim spaces, but if you are not autistic, you absolutely do not have to make your blog about autism. I believe there’s a real need for more allistic stimmers to make blogs that focus on the stimming needs of ADHD and/or anxious stimmers without autism discussions creeping in.

What do you need to do?

This step is for considering all the things you need to do to make the blog go from an idea to a thing.

Please note that this is often more professional in focus than many bloggers consider: I’m a writer, and so it’s habit for me to try and make even my non-writing blogs of a semi-professional standard.

If this feels way too much, pick and choose (remember: you don’t have to do everything).

The name of your blog. Do you have a name? Is it still available? Go and grab it now if so, even if you don’t make your blog for days, weeks or months. I sat on @stimtoybox​ for about three months before I finally made the blog.

The layout of your blog. There’s a lot of custom Tumblr designs out there, but, to be brutally honest, most of them are not user-friendly in terms of accessible and easy-to-read design. Pick a clean theme that’s easy to modify, as that will give non-Tumblr users access to your content. I know everyone thinks we only access blogs via dashboard these days, but if you get big enough, some of your anons may not be registered Tumblr users, and giving them access to your blog via an easy-to-read webpage layout matters a lot.

The avatar/icon and headers of your blog. Many layouts let you custom design these, and this helps give you a little individuality (especially on your webpage layout). You can get lots of royalty-free graphics on sites like Pixabay with no attribution required (although it’s a decent thing to put said attribution on a page). Additionally, your own photos of stim toys work great for this. Having icons and headers that are unique to you is well worth the time it takes to create them.

Bio and blog description. You don’t want an essay for this, but a little information about what you’re doing and why is great.

HTML. If you can add a few HTML links to said blog description, including links to everything people can’t access on mobile (about page, BYF page, submissions info) you’ve made your blog that much easier to use. I am more than happy to write a tutorial on the code I use here on Tumblr if anyone wants it.

Links to your other internet presences. Don’t be ashamed about doing this. You’re providing content, which is a lot of work, so it’s absolutely fair to use it as a way to direct people towards your other work (personal blog, art, writing, whatever).

Before You Follow and Submission information. If you’re allowing asks and submissions, tell people want you want - make a page for this information. (Unfortunately, you’re still going to get people who don’t read before submitting - I’ve had a few submissions that are just GIF images with no informative content, for example, even though we’re a resource blog.) It really does help, though. Likewise with the BYF, if you have folks you’d rather not follow for whatever reason.

Lastly,

You don’t have to know everything about your subject matter. If you don’t know and can’t find it out, admit it. Ask people for their input, because folks genuinely like helping each other out. They like participating; they like offering up information. The majority of your followers are going to be pretty awesome people, and they’re going to want to help, if they can. We have this massive passion in common, and we’re all here, following each other, helping each other, because we like learning and sharing.

In my opinion, there’s also a lot to be gained by being thankful and expressing gratitude to followers’ interactions. (It maybe sounds manipulative put that way, but expressing everything as a social rule makes it sound manipulative, to be honest, and for me everything is a social rule, something I’ve learnt the hard way, not a natural understanding.) Thank you is a pretty powerful word; being grateful is a pretty powerful thing. If there is anything I’ve learnt from this blog, it is that being and expressing gratitude has brought me an awful lot of good will, patience and acceptance, even when I’m absent, screwing up, making mistakes, in too much pain to be helpful or tolerant, being far too emotional or just being too overwhelmed by a blog and inbox that’s gotten bigger than I can often manage.

Be grateful for those who interact with you. You don’t have to accept hate (that gets the block button) but being grateful helps so much.

Good luck, anon. I’m pretty sure this is many more words than what you’re after, and I hope it isn’t too overwhelming for you. We’re all very much looking forward to your unique reviews and insights on stim toys!

- Mod K.A.

[ed-hale]

Talking to a friend last night about how split/fractured the U.S. is at this point in time, how genuinely divisive and disturbing it's become for many of us. Uncomfortable. For both sides. (Especially for those of us who are Independents I would add...). He made several very intriguing comments. (Mind you he's more "left" than most Democrats. So he's no democrat. And I'm obviously not that. I lean both right and left, depending on what we're talking about. But we're okay with that. We don't let it come between us.) We were discussing the obvious mistake in judgement (besides a heinous disregard for basic ethics) that the democratic party made, and the subsequent harm this mistake has inflicted on its party members (AND everyone else in America) by not allowing their party to naturally go in the direction it wanted to, i.e. in support of an outsider, in their case Bernie Sanders, and instead just insisted that their candidate be Hilary Clinton, despite what their members were seeming to call for. Michael Moore called it weeks before the election. Trump would win. Truth be told my opinion is that Trump would have won against Bernie too. BUT many Americans would at least still be part of the system. They'd vote. They'd care. After the shenanigans (that's a very kind label for the crimes and corruption we witnessed) that the democratic party pulled to pretend Hilary was "the legitimate candidate", millions of people, especially the young, went back to their old MO -- "screw both of those parties, they both suck, screw this whole system. I'm out." And of course, many just didn't bother to vote. They stopped caring. But now here we are. Half the people happy with the outcome. And half the people very unhappy. Just like in the Obama years. Totally split. Which has compelled me to start thinking the same thought I think whenever I contemplate the "civil war" or as some people call it "Lincoln's war of aggression". (Their label.... Let's not digress to that yet. There'll be time for it later.) If people in red states are really happy with how things are and the direction they claim to want to go in, why not let them? And why not let blue staters go in the direction THEY want to go? Loads of people are anti-abortion. I get it. I'm pro-life myself. But also pro-choice. Hell, I'll even admit that abortion is murder in my humble opinion. But I just can't bring myself to believe that I have the right to dictate what another person should or shouldn't do in/with their own life. I believe that's a human right. So in that, I am liberal. I get it. It's upsetting to some. Makes sense to others. And frankly I'm okay with that. I'm also okay if half the population of the country wants to ban abortion. Totally fine with it. That should be their choice. Their decision. As my friend said last night, "If the federal government banned abortion tomorrow through all this supreme court stuff about to go down, ten states would hold emergency sessions overnight and pass a law to legalize abortion in their states. That's how it works. So it shouldn't even be an issue." He believes democrats have gotten lost in ideologies that distract them from real issues. He's entitled to his opinion. Just as democrats are. And he's right about abortion. Just like marijuana or gay marriage, abortion will become legal again in at least ten states overnight. Without question. So let's not quibble over it. Truth is, America IS split. Ideologically morally politically split. And it has been for a long time. What many don't quite understand about the ambassador is that I felt bad for republicans during the Obama years. Mind you, I was both a fan of certain aspects of the man -- he was a great orator, patient and thoughtful in his decision making and more liberally minded than the alternative, but I was also NOT a fan of many aspects of him and his agenda. (That's just me and it's not important.) The point is, oftentimes I personally felt empathy for republicans during Obama's years in office because I felt like the country was being pushed too far progressive too quickly for the comfort of many folks who leaned "conservative". And one could feel their pain. It was disquieting and upsetting for them. It wasn't the "America" they were accustomed to. Now I know that a lot of my friends who are democrat would immediately respond "too bad". Which is hilarious. Because that's just what republicans are saying to democrats NOW. But as my friend said last night, "You can't force people to acquiesce to your position. All you can do is make a convincing argument and hope they eventually evolve to your point of view." Totally agree. America was forcing an extremely progressive agenda on a large portion of the population and it was doing so quickly. Hence Trump. Safety. Comfort. Back to "normal" for them. Life feels good again. I get it. I really do. So why not let's just face facts and get real AND do something about this. Rather than all the arguing. We live in TWO Americas now. Maybe we always have. We may be united in our desire to be protected by our military against foreign invasion. And we both want to use the U.S. dollar as our primary currency. And heck most of us probably would all want to stay a democratic republic and primarily capitalist. (My aforementioned friend is the exception. He doesn't like capitalism. And i not only respect his viewpoint, but I can understand it to a certain degree.) But most of us can probably all agree that we are UNITED on those issues. Everything else, we're split. Totally completely split. No wiggle room. So why don't we just make it official and split? Many people may not readily remember that we split India up into two countries, a Hindu one and a Muslim one. It's called Pakistan. It's possible. It's doable. Yes geographically it will pose a few challenges. For the most part, those of who tend to lean more blue live on the coasts. WA to CA and MA down to VA, with a few blue states in the middle, SOMEtimes... Not only do we know WHO we are, we know what we want and what we don't want. And it's about time we stopped trying to convince each other that WE are right and YOU are wrong, and instead just make the split. Two countries. Dictated democratically by the people who LIVE in those countries. Think about it for a minute. Don't shut down. Red staters will ban abortion in their country. And they'll get NO argument or fuss from blue staters. Let them do it. Perhaps they'll close their borders off to immigrants of all shapes and sizes for a while. Let them. We have a labor shortage in America right now. (Maybe they don't get that? But who cares? That's the point. We need to stop trying to convince each other that the other side is "right".) So the blue states will take the immigrants. Red staters want to keep the healthcare system how it is. In fact they want to roll it back to "how it used to be before Obama messed it up". Cool. Blue staters want universal health care. They consider it a basic human right. Who are we to try to convince red staters they're wrong? Let them have monopolistic for-profit companies running their healthcare system and bankrupting them everytime they get sick. Seriously. Just let them. And blue states will switch to a single payer universal healthcare system. Consider "the welfare state" collection of issues. That's a BIG one. But it doesn't have to be. Imagine we just let the red states get rid of all the social welfare programs they want to in "their country". Welfare, gone. Food stamps, gone. Medicare and Medicaid probably reduced or minimized. Cool. We'll keep it in the blue state country. And from what we can tell, a lot of the wealthiest people in blue states don't mind paying a little more in taxes in order to secure a more humane safety net for their neighbors. So yay for them. Let them stay in blue state country. And if they don't like it, they can always move to red state country. They're rich. They can afford it. In the case of religion and religious imagery, let's face it, red staters have been getting the short end of the stick on these issues for years. They're being forced to take down religious symbols in their own hometowns. Forced to not be allowed to pray in their own schools. That just doesn't seem fair. I myself practice a religion. But I just happen to believe in religious freedom AND separation of church and state, and because I recognize that a lot of blue staters are Atheists and though they don't know it, that too is a religion, I don't mind their banning religion from most public things and from government. It makes sense from a strategic logical point of view. For blue staters. Maybe just not for red staters... As long as they let me keep my church and practice freely, I'm cool. And truth be told most atheists and blue staters aren't trying to rip down churches. But do they go too far sometimes? Yes, in my opinion, for the comfort of many red staters they do. So let the red state nation be rid of atheist liberals. We'll deal with them in blue state country. We don't mind. We'll take them. And red states can have whole public schools or towns even named after Jesus or Mary or Christ if they want to. LET THEM. It's their country. Dig? Now, we could go on and on. And what's interesting is that a lot of people are probably reading this and thinking that THEIR country sounds AWESOME. The country they most align with that is... And that's the point. Their country WILL BE awesome. For THEM. No more arguing on social media. No more protests and marches and screaming and shouting in the media 24/7. No more insane tweets from the president. Hell, most blue staters won't even read tweets from the red state president. And why should they? He's not their president. They'll read tweets from their own president. And let the red staters consider FOX News an actual media outlet. As outlandish as that may sound to some, it's their sovereign right as a nation. Just as it is the right of blue staters to consider the New York Times a media outlet (not that I'm equating one with the other. But many red staters do.... Let them.) Of course the blue state country needs to grow the hell up and recognize that MSNBC is NOT a media outlet. Call it what it is, political propaganda or entertainment. But that ain't objective journalism. Chances are it will be easy to get most blue staters to acknowledge that if they got FOX News the hell off of their TV -- except for entertainment purposes, like say you want to just chill and have a laugh after a long day at work. FOX News can be hilarious at times. It's perfect for that. But it just won't be called "news". More like the Stephen Colbert show. It's satire. It's funny. So let's get to the heart of the matter. The REAL heart of the matter. The red states will never allow the blue states to create their own country. And if they were smart, they wouldn't. Because the majority of the economic power of the U.S. presently is in blue states. The big dogs are all in blue state nation. Sound familiar? Yep. Now we're back to "Lincoln's War of Aggression" due to fear of economic collapse, where he ordered the entire force and might of U.S. military to attack the Southern States and force them to NOT secede. Even though they wanted to. Now I'm no Southerner. Nor a confederacy lover. Honestly the site of that flag creeps me out. But I respect other people's rights. And state sovereignty. And if southern states wanted to keep on truckin as they were and leave the Union to do so, so be it. The North was just too scared of what would become of them without the economic powerhouse that the South was at that time. That's the cold hard truth of it. And I just bet that the same exact people who wanted to secede 150 years ago would be demanding that president Trump NOT allow the blue states to secede and start their own country NOW. Think about it for a second. Regardless of which party you tend to side with. Will red staters really allow WA, CA, NY, NJ, CT, VT, NH etc start their own country and separate from the U.S.? Probably not. But not because they don't like the idea... Hell they'll love the idea once they get how awesome their country is going to be. Peace at last. Peace at last. But what would they do economically? Where's THEIR Wall Street? Where's THEIR Amazon and Microsoft and Intel and Apple and Google and Facebook and Twitter etc? That's the real issue, just as it was 150 years ago. Well, I'll tell you what they'd do. First off, a lot of republicans are smart and wealthy people who work on Wall Street. So they're not going to be without brains. Despite what snobby democrats think or say. Red State Nation can either start their own big tech companies. OR the blue state nation can easily draft up a bilateral free trade deal with the red state nation. Trump loves bilateral trade deals. He'll have a field day. Of course, he'll have to move. New York is just about as true blue liberal as they come. (But wasn't Trump a democrat for most of his adult life? Oh yeah, but sssshhhhhh. We pretend that didn't happen. I'm joking of course. Most know I sincerely believe that president Trump has noble intentions for America, is one hell of a hard working machine AND he's WINNING. Big time winning on a lot of fronts. I may not happen to agree with every direction he's going in or wants to go in, nor with his unorthodox methods, but unlike democrats (which I'm not), I don't mind admitting the above. And that's the problem with many democrats. They refuse to even entertain the possibility that Trump loves America and has good intentions. And that's just close minded and wrong. So... LET THEM LEAVE. See? Again and again we arrive at the same place. Screw the democrats and their progressive anti-Trump bs. Let them start their own country. Easier.) (Yes, I know, by now one might be thinking, "well where the hell are YOU going to live mr. ambassador?" Honestly I'd probably go Big Blue. I may not like democrats, especially now. But I do tend to just feel more comfortable in as liberal of an environment as possible. My motto, "if it's not hurting anyone, let us do it." And that goes both ways. Which also makes me align with the republicans a lot. Because in some ways republicans are very "let us do what we have the rights to do". And that's the problem with the country right now as it stands. We just have two very different groups of people who want very different things. So if red staters want guns in every room of every house and now in every classroom of every school, heck, let them have it. In that aspect, I may occasionally be more of a libertarian. Who knows? Maybe we end up with three or four countries. A little Europe. It could be very cool.) Of course there will be some discomfort in the process at the beginning. There always is. As many people will want to move. We have to remember that the red and blue demographics are symbolic. Most states are more purplish... But generalities do exist. Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina etc. aren't about to go blue anytime soon. And why should they? Truth be told, they shouldn't be forced to. Not when we have a simple solution right in front of us. Imagine a world where all the bickering and arguing and right versus wrong is just gone. No more "f*ck trump" signs and social media posts. They're gone. All that is over. For lack of a better way of putting it, we have our paradise and they have their's. And if you suddenly wake up one day and you realize that you don't like the country you live in, you can always apply for a visa to move to the other country. Heck it's just one state over in some cases. And we're still in "the United States". Sort of. And that's really what it comes down to: We'll still be united in many many ways. We'll share the military. We'll share the same currency. We'll share the same financial markets. But socially and politically and perhaps even fiscally we'll just be very different nations. And THAT would be a very good thing for everyone. We'll be less stressed. We'll be happier. We'll be healthier. And best of all we can finally make our own laws and stop this constant see-sawing with the laws every 4 to 8 years. It's maddening for all of us, no? Instead we let it go. We stop the madness. We accept that we are sincerely two very different groups of people at this point. So the question I pose to you on this eve of Independence Day, is not whether you agree with this or not. I've already made up my mind. We either head there and start implementing it now, or we continue to tear ourselves to pieces on a daily basis and keep feeling angry hostile upset sad and stressed. I know which I've chosen. No sense in trying to talk me out of it. And that's the point of this post. Those days are gone. It's a dumb game anyway. And a complete waste of time. My question is this: How do we start the process? How does it work? Where do we start? How did the South start? Where did they go wrong? How can we avoid the same fate? What's the strategy? Are there any legal grounds for states to do this? Or has the federal government gotten so damn big and bloated and fascist that it's made it impossible? (See? I told you I'm hard to peg down... But see, I'd rather try to respectfully convince my Blue State Nation citizens of the importance of smaller government than argue with red staters over gun control or immigration or social welfare programs or universal healthcare or abortion. There are just some issues that neither group is ever going to budge on. But there are SOME that we'll both be able to massage a little bit to make most people in each of our two countries happy. And that's really what it comes down to.) It's time to vote for happiness and health my friends. It's past time. Let's just accept our differences, stop the arguing and create two independent nations that are united on many or at least several fronts. And don't worry... We'll both still have Twitter and Facebook and Insta and Skype and Facetime. So we won't even miss each other. But we sure won't be bickering all the time anymore. Paradise I tell you. Absolute paradise is ours for the taking. All we have to do is take that first step.

Talking to a friend last night about how split/fractured the U.S. is at this point in time, how genuinely divisive and disturbing it's become for many of us. Uncomfortable. For both sides. (Especially for those of us who are Independents I would add...). He made several very intriguing comments. (Mind you he's more "left" than most Democrats. So he's no democrat. And I'm obviously not that. I lean both right and left, depending on what we're talking about. But we're okay with that. We don't let it come between us.) We were discussing the obvious mistake in judgement (besides a heinous disregard for basic ethics) that the democratic party made, and the subsequent harm this mistake has inflicted on its party members (AND everyone else in America) by not allowing their party to naturally go in the direction it wanted to, i.e. in support of an outsider, in their case Bernie Sanders, and instead just insisted that their candidate be Hilary Clinton, despite what their members were seeming to call for. Michael Moore called it weeks before the election. Trump would win. Truth be told my opinion is that Trump would have won against Bernie too. BUT many Americans would at least still be part of the system. They'd vote. They'd care. After the shenanigans (that's a very kind label for the crimes and corruption we witnessed) that the democratic party pulled to pretend Hilary was "the legitimate candidate", millions of people, especially the young, went back to their old MO -- "screw both of those parties, they both suck, screw this whole system. I'm out." And of course, many just didn't bother to vote. They stopped caring. But now here we are. Half the people happy with the outcome. And half the people very unhappy. Just like in the Obama years. Totally split. Which has compelled me to start thinking the same thought I think whenever I contemplate the "civil war" or as some people call it "Lincoln's war of aggression". (Their label.... Let's not digress to that yet. There'll be time for it later.) If people in red states are really happy with how things are and the direction they claim to want to go in, why not let them? And why not let blue staters go in the direction THEY want to go? Loads of people are anti-abortion. I get it. I'm pro-life myself. But also pro-choice. Hell, I'll even admit that abortion is murder in my humble opinion. But I just can't bring myself to believe that I have the right to dictate what another person should or shouldn't do in/with their own life. I believe that's a human right. So in that, I am liberal. I get it. It's upsetting to some. Makes sense to others. And frankly I'm okay with that. I'm also okay if half the population of the country wants to ban abortion. Totally fine with it. That should be their choice. Their decision. As my friend said last night, "If the federal government banned abortion tomorrow through all this supreme court stuff about to go down, ten states would hold emergency sessions overnight and pass a law to legalize abortion in their states. That's how it works. So it shouldn't even be an issue." He believes democrats have gotten lost in ideologies that distract them from real issues. He's entitled to his opinion. Just as democrats are. And he's right about abortion. Just like marijuana or gay marriage, abortion will become legal again in at least ten states overnight. Without question. So let's not quibble over it. Truth is, America IS split. Ideologically morally politically split. And it has been for a long time. What many don't quite understand about the ambassador is that I felt bad for republicans during the Obama years. Mind you, I was both a fan of certain aspects of the man -- he was a great orator, patient and thoughtful in his decision making and more liberally minded than the alternative, but I was also NOT a fan of many aspects of him and his agenda. (That's just me and it's not important.) The point is, oftentimes I personally felt empathy for republicans during Obama's years in office because I felt like the country was being pushed too far progressive too quickly for the comfort of many folks who leaned "conservative". And one could feel their pain. It was disquieting and upsetting for them. It wasn't the "America" they were accustomed to. Now I know that a lot of my friends who are democrat would immediately respond "too bad". Which is hilarious. Because that's just what republicans are saying to democrats NOW. But as my friend said last night, "You can't force people to acquiesce to your position. All you can do is make a convincing argument and hope they eventually evolve to your point of view." Totally agree. America was forcing an extremely progressive agenda on a large portion of the population and it was doing so quickly. Hence Trump. Safety. Comfort. Back to "normal" for them. Life feels good again. I get it. I really do. So why not let's just face facts and get real AND do something about this. Rather than all the arguing. We live in TWO Americas now. Maybe we always have. We may be united in our desire to be protected by our military against foreign invasion. And we both want to use the U.S. dollar as our primary currency. And heck most of us probably would all want to stay a democratic republic and primarily capitalist. (My aforementioned friend is the exception. He doesn't like capitalism. And i not only respect his viewpoint, but I can understand it to a certain degree.) But most of us can probably all agree that we are UNITED on those issues. Everything else, we're split. Totally completely split. No wiggle room. So why don't we just make it official and split? Many people may not readily remember that we split India up into two countries, a Hindu one and a Muslim one. It's called Pakistan. It's possible. It's doable. Yes geographically it will pose a few challenges. For the most part, those of who tend to lean more blue live on the coasts. WA to CA and MA down to VA, with a few blue states in the middle, SOMEtimes... Not only do we know WHO we are, we know what we want and what we don't want. And it's about time we stopped trying to convince each other that WE are right and YOU are wrong, and instead just make the split. Two countries. Dictated democratically by the people who LIVE in those countries. Think about it for a minute. Don't shut down. Red staters will ban abortion in their country. And they'll get NO argument or fuss from blue staters. Let them do it. Perhaps they'll close their borders off to immigrants of all shapes and sizes for a while. Let them. We have a labor shortage in America right now. (Maybe they don't get that? But who cares? That's the point. We need to stop trying to convince each other that the other side is "right".) So the blue states will take the immigrants. Red staters want to keep the healthcare system how it is. In fact they want to roll it back to "how it used to be before Obama messed it up". Cool. Blue staters want universal health care. They consider it a basic human right. Who are we to try to convince red staters they're wrong? Let them have monopolistic for-profit companies running their healthcare system and bankrupting them everytime they get sick. Seriously. Just let them. And blue states will switch to a single payer universal healthcare system. Consider "the welfare state" collection of issues. That's a BIG one. But it doesn't have to be. Imagine we just let the red states get rid of all the social welfare programs they want to in "their country". Welfare, gone. Food stamps, gone. Medicare and Medicaid probably reduced or minimized. Cool. We'll keep it in the blue state country. And from what we can tell, a lot of the wealthiest people in blue states don't mind paying a little more in taxes in order to secure a more humane safety net for their neighbors. So yay for them. Let them stay in blue state country. And if they don't like it, they can always move to red state country. They're rich. They can afford it. In the case of religion and religious imagery, let's face it, red staters have been getting the short end of the stick on these issues for years. They're being forced to take down religious symbols in their own hometowns. Forced to not be allowed to pray in their own schools. That just doesn't seem fair. I myself practice a religion. But I just happen to believe in religious freedom AND separation of church and state, and because I recognize that a lot of blue staters are Atheists and though they don't know it, that too is a religion, I don't mind their banning religion from most public things and from government. It makes sense from a strategic logical point of view. For blue staters. Maybe just not for red staters... As long as they let me keep my church and practice freely, I'm cool. And truth be told most atheists and blue staters aren't trying to rip down churches. But do they go too far sometimes? Yes, in my opinion, for the comfort of many red staters they do. So let the red state nation be rid of atheist liberals. We'll deal with them in blue state country. We don't mind. We'll take them. And red states can have whole public schools or towns even named after Jesus or Mary or Christ if they want to. LET THEM. It's their country. Dig? Now, we could go on and on. And what's interesting is that a lot of people are probably reading this and thinking that THEIR country sounds AWESOME. The country they most align with that is... And that's the point. Their country WILL BE awesome. For THEM. No more arguing on social media. No more protests and marches and screaming and shouting in the media 24/7. No more insane tweets from the president. Hell, most blue staters won't even read tweets from the red state president. And why should they? He's not their president. They'll read tweets from their own president. And let the red staters consider FOX News an actual media outlet. As outlandish as that may sound to some, it's their sovereign right as a nation. Just as it is the right of blue staters to consider the New York Times a media outlet (not that I'm equating one with the other. But many red staters do.... Let them.) Of course the blue state country needs to grow the hell up and recognize that MSNBC is NOT a media outlet. Call it what it is, political propaganda or entertainment. But that ain't objective journalism. Chances are it will be easy to get most blue staters to acknowledge that if they got FOX News the hell off of their TV -- except for entertainment purposes, like say you want to just chill and have a laugh after a long day at work. FOX News can be hilarious at times. It's perfect for that. But it just won't be called "news". More like the Stephen Colbert show. It's satire. It's funny. So let's get to the heart of the matter. The REAL heart of the matter. The red states will never allow the blue states to create their own country. And if they were smart, they wouldn't. Because the majority of the economic power of the U.S. presently is in blue states. The big dogs are all in blue state nation. Sound familiar? Yep. Now we're back to "Lincoln's War of Aggression" due to fear of economic collapse, where he ordered the entire force and might of U.S. military to attack the Southern States and force them to NOT secede. Even though they wanted to. Now I'm no Southerner. Nor a confederacy lover. Honestly the site of that flag creeps me out. But I respect other people's rights. And state sovereignty. And if southern states wanted to keep on truckin as they were and leave the Union to do so, so be it. The North was just too scared of what would become of them without the economic powerhouse that the South was at that time. That's the cold hard truth of it. And I just bet that the same exact people who wanted to secede 150 years ago would be demanding that president Trump NOT allow the blue states to secede and start their own country NOW. Think about it for a second. Regardless of which party you tend to side with. Will red staters really allow WA, CA, NY, NJ, CT, VT, NH etc start their own country and separate from the U.S.? Probably not. But not because they don't like the idea... Hell they'll love the idea once they get how awesome their country is going to be. Peace at last. Peace at last. But what would they do economically? Where's THEIR Wall Street? Where's THEIR Amazon and Microsoft and Intel and Apple and Google and Facebook and Twitter etc? That's the real issue, just as it was 150 years ago. Well, I'll tell you what they'd do. First off, a lot of republicans are smart and wealthy people who work on Wall Street. So they're not going to be without brains. Despite what snobby democrats think or say. Red State Nation can either start their own big tech companies. OR the blue state nation can easily draft up a bilateral free trade deal with the red state nation. Trump loves bilateral trade deals. He'll have a field day. Of course, he'll have to move. New York is just about as true blue liberal as they come. (But wasn't Trump a democrat for most of his adult life? Oh yeah, but sssshhhhhh. We pretend that didn't happen. I'm joking of course. Most know I sincerely believe that president Trump has noble intentions for America, is one hell of a hard working machine AND he's WINNING. Big time winning on a lot of fronts. I may not happen to agree with every direction he's going in or wants to go in, nor with his unorthodox methods, but unlike democrats (which I'm not), I don't mind admitting the above. And that's the problem with many democrats. They refuse to even entertain the possibility that Trump loves America and has good intentions. And that's just close minded and wrong. So... LET THEM LEAVE. See? Again and again we arrive at the same place. Screw the democrats and their progressive anti-Trump bs. Let them start their own country. Easier.) (Yes, I know, by now one might be thinking, "well where the hell are YOU going to live mr. ambassador?" Honestly I'd probably go Big Blue. I may not like democrats, especially now. But I do tend to just feel more comfortable in as liberal of an environment as possible. My motto, "if it's not hurting anyone, let us do it." And that goes both ways. Which also makes me align with the republicans a lot. Because in some ways republicans are very "let us do what we have the rights to do". And that's the problem with the country right now as it stands. We just have two very different groups of people who want very different things. So if red staters want guns in every room of every house and now in every classroom of every school, heck, let them have it. In that aspect, I may occasionally be more of a libertarian. Who knows? Maybe we end up with three or four countries. A little Europe. It could be very cool.) Of course there will be some discomfort in the process at the beginning. There always is. As many people will want to move. We have to remember that the red and blue demographics are symbolic. Most states are more purplish... But generalities do exist. Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina etc. aren't about to go blue anytime soon. And why should they? Truth be told, they shouldn't be forced to. Not when we have a simple solution right in front of us. Imagine a world where all the bickering and arguing and right versus wrong is just gone. No more "f*ck trump" signs and social media posts. They're gone. All that is over. For lack of a better way of putting it, we have our paradise and they have their's. And if you suddenly wake up one day and you realize that you don't like the country you live in, you can always apply for a visa to move to the other country. Heck it's just one state over in some cases. And we're still in "the United States". Sort of. And that's really what it comes down to: We'll still be united in many many ways. We'll share the military. We'll share the same currency. We'll share the same financial markets. But socially and politically and perhaps even fiscally we'll just be very different nations. And THAT would be a very good thing for everyone. We'll be less stressed. We'll be happier. We'll be healthier. And best of all we can finally make our own laws and stop this constant see-sawing with the laws every 4 to 8 years. It's maddening for all of us, no? Instead we let it go. We stop the madness. We accept that we are sincerely two very different groups of people at this point. So the question I pose to you on this eve of Independence Day, is not whether you agree with this or not. I've already made up my mind. We either head there and start implementing it now, or we continue to tear ourselves to pieces on a daily basis and keep feeling angry hostile upset sad and stressed. I know which I've chosen. No sense in trying to talk me out of it. And that's the point of this post. Those days are gone. It's a dumb game anyway. And a complete waste of time. My question is this: How do we start the process? How does it work? Where do we start? How did the South start? Where did they go wrong? How can we avoid the same fate? What's the strategy? Are there any legal grounds for states to do this? Or has the federal government gotten so damn big and bloated and fascist that it's made it impossible? (See? I told you I'm hard to peg down... But see, I'd rather try to respectfully convince my Blue State Nation citizens of the importance of smaller government than argue with red staters over gun control or immigration or social welfare programs or universal healthcare or abortion. There are just some issues that neither group is ever going to budge on. But there are SOME that we'll both be able to massage a little bit to make most people in each of our two countries happy. And that's really what it comes down to.) It's time to vote for happiness and health my friends. It's past time. Let's just accept our differences, stop the arguing and create two independent nations that are united on many or at least several fronts. And don't worry... We'll both still have Twitter and Facebook and Insta and Skype and Facetime. So we won't even miss each other. But we sure won't be bickering all the time anymore. Paradise I tell you. Absolute paradise is ours for the taking. All we have to do is take that first step. via Facebook