#I know this is an incredibly reductive way to look at it but it's kind of weird that that's the catalyst for 50% of the romances in the gam

[centrally-unplanned]

A bonus pre-election thought as I post my way through this week: there is one strain of Trump supporter I will call the "policy gamble Republican". They think Trump is a moron and a shitheel, and generally do not think Kamala Harris is worse in any way on things like character - they know all those arguments are bullshit. Instead, they are just coolly looking at the expected policy outcomes for each and think it comes out Trump.

They focus on markets and tend to be libertarian types - oh sure Trump says that he will do the tariff thing, but he won't, Republicans will back him off that ledge. And meanwhile Harris will continue to double down on the nanny state, and do "price controls", woke DEI stuff, etc. "Given the exponential returns of long-run GDP growth a 1.3% reduction in GDP today is worth approximately 200,000 babies in 2100" type stuff; the kind of people who argue Bush was Good, Actually, because PEPFAR saved more lives than the Iraq War killed.

And I do get this argument, I am mocking them affectionately here - there is valuable policy analysis to be done like this, it isn't a crazy instinct. Obviously to me, my first objection is just "the 5% or higher chance of authoritarian backsliding is not worth any of that", and I think that does carry the day. But there is a second point, which is that they treat the election itself as bloodless vis a vis the wider political currents. That if the Republicans win or the Democrats win that means one of them is in charge, but it won't change the underlying parties and they repeat next year.

I think they don't realize they are making this assumption since when you spell it out like that it comes off as quite naive. When Trump won in 2016 it broke both political parties in the US - the Republican party spiraled into nativist, anti-trade platforms, while the Democrats fought a huge culture war over things like whether America was Irredeemably Racist or if economic populism would carry the day. And as much as people tend to forget it today, losing in 2020 - and Trump's behavior afterward - got quite close to breaking his hold on the party. Honestly he got absurdly lucky, with Biden being such a deeply unpopular president and his challengers coalescing around Ron DeSantis who turned out to be incredibly mid.

It isn't predictable or formulaic ofc, but all of this is to say that Trump winning is very likely to consolidate and expand his hold on the Republican Party, which if you are a libertarian-esque market type is an awful outcome for you. Trump actively endorses anti-market populists for down-ballot elections! The "Free Trade Center" isn't gonna hold forever in the face of someone who keeps winning. And meanwhile his defeat will likely have a positive impact on making the Republican party saner. He is certainly an electoral liability for the cause if you want it to be empowered!

So yeah, independent of any policy bills or actions, elections themselves are important events that shape political culture. I would value that over a good number of specific reforms of this or that market regulation in any EV calculation.

Not the Jones Act though. Fuck the Jones Act.

[holy-reference-in-a-username]

Hi, random comment but Holy shit your half-transformed Monster Tom with the mouth in his chest is so fucking cool! Also, monsterfucker Tord is so real! Can only imagine Tord's reaction when he saw Tom like half-transformed for the first time.

THANK YOU! im like. super happy with how i draw tom, monster form ABSOLUTELY included. i put like. way too much thought into it lmao but ive always been a fan of unique creature designs so what else is new.

RRRAAH RAMBLINGS UNDER THE CUT

so ive been obsessed with the concept since i figured out what exactly happened during PowerEdd, ~2015. tom was kind of already my favorite but i only got more obsessed now that i could draw him with claws and fangs now.

(lmao old art^ lets all point and laugh)

when i finally got back into eddsworld this most recent time and started thinking about how i'd draw the guys i already knew i wanted tom to be trans, so when i started sketching i drew him with top surgery scars... which kind of looked like teeth... and the canon monster design already has a mouth on its chest/head... it just worked!!

...

ok tangent time- i dont like the canon design very much (the combined head/torso is Very limiting for poses. F!!!) but i also have never really liked the popular fanon of just making monster tom a wolf with horns and a single eye. it always feels so reductive!! do you KNOW how many monsters there are out there who are just "big dog/cat plus one fantastical feature"???? MANY!! so i was pretty determined to find a design i liked (one that was both flexible and fairly unique) before putting it in anything.

...and the partial transformation cliche of just putting accessories on a character is SUPER boring to me. so i wanted something that would be an actual halfway point to a fucked up freaky creature that is only barely humanoid.

ok back on track it took me like fuckin forever to finally get the final ~50% design together. i tried mimicking the merged torsohead of the canon monster and it just left me disappointed. :/

the single blank eye instead of the rest of the face was a god damn GENIUS move i am so proud of it im pretty sure the first time i drew the design was the actual draft sketch for the comic. because fuck making reference sheets!! the design's in your mind, right???

oh! as for the second half of your ask, the first time Tord saw Tom half transformed was right here^^!!

then a couple weeks after that i managed to find a 100% design i liked that still looked like a reasonable end point. at which point i actually made a little ref sheet! BEFORE i used the design in a comic!! it hasnt gotten much use but i still like it :)

i took a much more wyrm-like horizontal approach as opposed to the vertical design of the original, but the arms (connected to top of spine, directly behind head) and legs (close to the bottom, optional) allow it to still match the original's body plan, especially from the front view. then extra legs, big spiky scales, even larger mouth... because who wants just a dog with horns am i right!!

ahaha so basically im incredibly proud of how the design turned out so thank u for liking it :))

[toh-aus-coven]

Philip's Story is an Adoption Story... Here's Why That Matters

A few disclaimers before we dive in...

Binary thinking is discouraged here; adoption and its themes are complicated and nuanced. Multiple truths can exist.

This is one perspective and this analysis comes from being in community with adopted/orphan people, research, and misc experience

"Adoption adjacent" includes adoptees/orphans/foster kids (these three groups often overlap in various ways that will be elaborated on)

Please engage with this post in good faith. I know non-adoptees can experience things listed in this post however, there is a different context that underlies the experience of those adopted/adjacent. And of course, I'm not trying to make generalizations either... It's just that the narrative is more complicated than a lot of people want to admit.

Sound good? Let's proceed. THIS POST IS GOING TO BE A BIT LONG!

At the core of Belos/Philip's story is an 'adoption' story. And it's all because of this particular line:

I know what you're thinking "But isn't being an orphan different from being adopted?" Yes, and within the media in particular, adoptee and orphan stories overlap heavily-- in fact, it's almost a circle (although due to his background and his time-period, he'd probably be taken in by someone given the boys' age of their arrival). It’s about the experience of parental separation which is what connects adoptee and adjacent people. So while Philip is not adopted, he is adoptee adjacent and that still matters. Concerning media and the way adopted/orphaned characters are portrayed, it's often presented in a very binary manner. Most people's knowledge of the subject comes from other people's perception of it rather than adopted/orphaned people themselves. And to a degree that makes sense... These stories are often ABOUT [adoptees/adjacent people ] without INCLUDING them. Adoption themes are incredibly pervasive throughout literature, TV/movies, video games, and other media. It's not inherently wrong to have an adoption-related storyline, plot, or character but most people don't do it in a way that is humanizing and avoids common pitfalls within the storytelling.

There's a quick impulse to call Philip 'evil' and 'irredeemable' without actually understanding his character... and when you view him through an 'adoptee-centered' lens his behavior makes a lot of sense. The fact the show treats this specific fact about the character as a plot device rather than something that could be explored is a tiny bit insulting. They only mention it in the exposition which kind of implies that this detail is meant to explain Philip's deep attachment to his brother. Which yes, it does and TOH leaves us hanging -- or actually they just tell us that this man is evil and call it a day.

Which leads me into one of the biggest pitfalls that the show uses for Philip-- he's framed as just evil. The trope of good/bad adoptee/adjacent character is a pretty common see -- even within the same piece of media. If we're going to use TOH we can look at King's character -- King, a young main protagonist who is the last living son of a god. King is young, cute, 'exceptional', has special abilities, etc (there are issues with King's portrayal as well but this post isn't about him). This is an issue because adoptees/adjacent people are more than a reductive good/bad label. Same with concepts such as 'gratitude' -- being grateful or not grateful when the real answer can be a lot more complex than that. It's a binary question that can be a complicated answer. We're the picture-perfect heroes or the irredeemable villains-- nothing in-between.

Taking this into consideration, when we look at Philip you start to see someone who's not 'evil'; you begin to see a man who is coping with separation trauma and abandonment issues. This is unfortunate to hear but research tells us that adoptees are 4x more at risk to 'self-exit', 2x at risk to have substance abuse issues, and generally more likely to be diagnosed with mental health disorders (obviously every individual is different but when talking about adoption many people tend to ignore these types of statistics in favor of more 'positive' ones). 'Negative' aspects that many adoptees/adjacent people experience or try to talk about are often dismissed or worse, they are gaslighted. When you look at Philip and his characterization you see these behaviors in a different light such as:

His attachment/abandonment issues (Caleb, this one doesn't need any elaboration; EDIT- gonna elaborate anyways lol). To be honest Philip shows a lot of symptoms of Borderline Personality Disorder. The hallmark of the disorder is a fear of abandonment — and BPD often stems from childhood trauma. Interestingly enough it’s not uncommon for adoptees (in particular women; there is a misogynistic component to this but i digress) to get a BPD diagnosis. And given that the show portrays Philip in a very stigmatizing way… you can see why this isn’t great…

Difficulty regulating his emotions ('the curse' seems to come out when he's emotionally escalated)

'Substance' use (the palismen; he seems physically reliant on them and they don't benefit him in any way besides sustaining his life. also, he looks like he's huffing something when he consumes one Side note: Some people think that Philip deserved to 'be cursed' (which is a side effect[?] of the consumption) since he “cursed himself”... super not great for adoptees/adjacent people we’re already a misunderstood group of people and it's not uncommon to get insulted or blamed when trying to have a nuanced discussion or share experiences.

His sense of self seems unstable... Most of his identity hinges on his brother, not himself (ex. being a witch hunter, the use of the gravesfield coat of arms for the emperor's sigil, the coat he wears, his name-- Philip Wittebane, etc)

There's a bunch of emotional stuff I would have to guess would be true but they'd more fall under theory or headcanon

It's not that he is 'evil' he is in pain and he is blamed for that. Obviously, he doesn't make productive choices and he does bear responsibility for the harm he caused and he is a creation of his environment. He had to hate to survive. This is where 'this and' can come into play... For many adoptees, we have feelings of not belonging -- even more so for transracial adoptees (those adopted/fostered into homes of a different race than their own). Many transracial adoptees are raised in environments that are racially / ethnically homogeneous (from their own race) so it can be harder to 'fit in' and it can also cause someone to have a complex relationship with their racial/ethnic background when one is essentially assimilated into a community that they stick out of.

edit: In mainstream society being adopted or 'orphans' is deemed to be a shameful thing, used as a comedy device, or through very rosed colored glasses... and there's a problem to highlight here: because adoptee/adjacent are often seen as source material for STORIES we often view their experiences through the lens of A STORY rather than someone's lived experience. It is easier to view a particular thing as a story for entertainment when for someone else it is reality. While Philip is a fictional character many aspects of his behavior are very real and deserve understanding and empathy for real adoptees/adjacent people. We deserve to be more than stories with black-and-white roles and deserve to be seen in color. As full complex people.

Here are some resources if you're interested in learning more about adoptee-centered adoption perspectives:

https://adoptionmosaic.com/resources

https://sidebysideproject.com/11-short-films

http://adopteereading.com/overview/

https://harlows-monkey.com/

https://adopteeconsciousness.com/

this tedtalk is good too: https://youtu.be/jL4lnvQ1wVU?si=HpYASjvvOXnY2faX

Edit: https://youtu.be/Rz3ME8K_zW4?si=CpEQarRbe8VAUqAR (this documentary just came out and you may hear a certain basilisk/gem featured!)

[phoenixkaptain]

Honestly I can’t help but find it a bit reductive the way some fans act like Luke Skywalker is only ever adorable and he’s never intimidating.

Pardon me for saying this, but how fucking rude! This man killed a rancor with all the odds against him. He didn’t kill Darth Vader, but he stood over Darth Vader’s fallen form, a position that he put Darth Vader in himself. He stared down at the collapsed body of the Emperor’s attack dog and he thought about killing him. He considered killing him. Luke’s death count is well over a million people. The blood of well over a million people stains his hands. You don’t think that’s the kind of thing that changes a person? You don’t think that’s the kind of thing that would change someone on a deep, fundamental level?

To his enemies, he’s a spectre, a myth, he’s like chasing smoke through the air. But, he’s a spectre to his allies, too. Nobody knows where Luke is, aside from maybe Leia, because Luke wanders. Whether you’re looking at the extended universe or the Disney universe, Luke spent a long time going to seemingly random places without telling anyone before he left.

Don’t you think that Luke would be terrifying, from either side? This man who destroyed the Death Star, and with it, one million people. This man who can vanish without a trace. This man who wanders the galaxy and smiles in the face of danger. This man who witnessed the death of Death himself, Darth Vader, the only person with a kill count higher than Luke’s. And this man watched him die, and reports vary on whether or not he was the one who killed him.

The Rebels must hold Luke on another level. They must view him as untouchable. They view him as a Jedi of old, but one of the Jedi of old who were more akin to gods than men. Who’s going to speak against a man who could silence you without raising a finger? Even if they know he won’t hurt them, don’t you think there’s always that trickle of fear in their hearts, sending a chill down their spines? Don’t you think there’s doubt? A voice that says, “First was the Death Star. Second was the Emperor. You could be next, but you wouldn’t even rank as above a worm on his list”?

And it goes without saying that he’s a monster to his enemies. He’s on the same level as a kraken to a sailor. They know that he would not hesitate to kill them. They know that being a foot soldier doesn’t mean they won’t die if they get in his way. He’s a man who can break out of traps that are thought to be impossible to break out of. He’s a man who can crumble death troopers like tin cans without strain. He’s a man who is not on the same level as these mortals, and how could they ever forget that?

It’s incredibly reductive of a complex and three dimensional character to act like he can’t be taken seriously. It’s reductive not to take him seriously. If you’re writing something with Luke in it, no matter what role you’re having him take on, you have to take him seriously! Because you have to take ALL of the characters you write seriously!

That doesn’t mean you can’t mock him. Of course, makingn fun of characters is how a lot of people show their love for the character. But you can’t act like Luke Skywalker always fails at being intimidating. That’s reductive to the character, but it’s also rather rude to Mark Hamill, isn’t it? You’re saying that a talented actor is bad at acting. Hamill took the role seriously, and you can feel that when you watch the movies. At the very least, grant him the distinction of being passable. His acting isn’t perfect, sure, but it’s not like Luke never comes across as intimidating!

I don’t know. It bothers me when people reduce the character down to just being cute. He is! He’s hot, I’ve had a crush on Mark Hamill specifically since I was like ten, Luke Skywalker wears clothes that are incredibly flattering despite the fact that they shouldn’t be so flattering and it’s very attractive and sometimes my heart flutters when I see him in his orange jumpsuit, but none. Of. That. Matters. Because you can’t just act like all people who are attractive can’t also be scary. You can’t just pretend that horror monster Luke Skywalker can’t be both intimidating and adorable.

It’s like enjoying Leia only for the way she looks in a bikini. You’re reducing a well-written character down to their looks. And you CAN like a character just for how they look! That isn’t morally wrong!! Thought crimes were made up by the church because they want all human beings to feel as sinful as the lying sons of bitches are themselves!!! If you like a character just because you find them cute or hot or whatever, that’s! Just! Fine!

But please try to remember that enjoying the way someone looks isn’t the only way to enjoy someone. This rule goes for reality and fiction both. And I know I’m coming across as such a weirdo, telling you how to think, but I’m not trying to tell you how to think. I’m trying to help you understand that I am shorter than Luke Skywalker and I have made grown men quake, so seeing a character be reduced to being “cute” fills me with irrational rage at least partially because of the misogeny I faced in my youth.

[dross-the-fish]

I can't find it now but I saw a post where you said Erik's mask isn't a comfort item. Why do you think it isn't? Why would he get so angry at Christine if it wasn't?

Ok, I'm about to get ranty and it's not directed at you specifically so don't take it personally.

I hate the take that Erik's mask is his "security blanket" or his "comfort device" because it's incredibly LAZY.

It's fucking lazy. It's a lazy and reductive take and it almost always comes with the intent of woobifying Erik and villainizing Christine.

Erik does not find his mask comforting, he feels he has to wear it to conceal himself and if anything he gives the sense that he would much rather be able to live without it. He's angry at Christine for a few reasons and I speculate some of them are not even about Christine.

The most obvious and superficial reason is that his carefully laid plan has gone to shit

Erik believed whole heartedly that if Christine didn't know what he looked like that she might be compelled to return to him if he let her go. My guess is that he had planned to try and win her over and wait to tell her the truth after they re-built some of the lost trust...trust lost because he lied to her...and kidnapped her.

Erik is a wee bit unhinged.

But I also think there's more to his freak out. This may be headcanon on my part but I always interpreted this

As being something of a traumatized response. Not because the mask gives him comfort or something like that, but because when someone is deformed, especially back in that time period, people often stared or treated them like a horror novelty. Erik has no doubt endured a life time of people trying to look at his face as some kind of morbid curiosity to be gawked at and Christine snatching it may have put him back in that mindset and he is PISSED.

His bit about "Women being inquisitive" also strikes me as him referencing things that happened before. I almost wonder if Christine wasn't the first person to catch his interest and if he's tried this before with....horrible results.

It reads less like "Oh no! You took my safety blanket! Now I'm exposed and vulnerable!" and more akin to

This specifically is why I hate the whole "mask is his comfort item" take because it makes Erik sound like a toddler throwing a tantrum because someone took his binky and paints Christine as being somehow in the wrong for wanting to see her kidnapper's face.

A thing she had already demanded of him previously which he denied without giving any explanation whatsoever. I cannot stress enough that Erik is the one with the power in this scenario. They are in his house, he has her trapped and he has been the older mentor/protector figure in her life for some time. The scale is tipped in HIS favor, not hers. I've always felt that at this point in their relationship her taking off the mask is, in a way, her trying to level the field because he's had her at such a disadvantage this whole time.

And that's not to say that Christine doesn't have feelings of some kind for Erik. Christine's feelings for Erik are messy and complicated but there is an undeniable fear and discomfort that she expresses over her captivity. She does pity him enough to come back, I think she also feels a lingering attachment to him, despite everything, but Erik keeps making. The. Worst. Possible. Choices.

To be clear, Christine is not in any way to blame for "provoking" Erik. He is a victim of the the time period and the society he lives in but he is not in any way shape or form CHRISTINE'S victim.

Erik isn't to blame for how he's been treated by the world at large and he's clearly been through some shit, he deserves sympathy but that doesn't make his treatment of Christine ok or make it Christine's job to give him affection and companionship.

[dadrielle]

One thing I really appreciate about the Laudna conversations in C3E49 is how much both of them showcase her as a complex, mature, and incredibly emotionally intelligent person.

There's been a tendency since she's been revived - that I fall back into too sometimes! - to expect her to be fragile. I reckon we all expected her to be much more withdrawn much longer than she was, more doubly traumatized? And all fandoms since the dawn of time want to take the angst to the extreme, to explore the most wrenching possibilities. And that's cool and fun but sometimes it sort of obscures the canon? Like sometimes I feel like analysis of her is done through a lens of her being fearful and desperate and shattered in a way that is reductive.

Because while she's obviously not fine about the whole experience, Laudna's not nearly so wrecked as she's sometimes made out to be. Which makes sense! The fact that she survived 28 years alone except for Delilah in her head means that she has a kind of hard won endurance that's almost inconceivable - and this time she woke up surrounded by love, her abuser gone, after having the memories of some of her worst moments suffused with love too*, and while the feeling of debt is weighing on her as she said - I think the love is stronger. She's healing again and faster for having her foundation to rest on this go around. And what's more, she's quietly watching her little family and reaching out to gently mend their cracks as well.

The ways she's done that are different for Ashton and Imogen in this episode because she understands that they respond to different kinds of talk. (God, I wanna talk each of them too, but later.) Neither of those conversations IMO were her being more real or more honest - they're both expressions of care tailored to their recipients, you know? Because Laudna loves her little family, and she's been doing this for them all. Telling Fearne that she supported the decision to do the coin flip and they could blame it on the changebringer. Telling FCG that meaning is something you have to carve out for yourself. This talk with Ashton. Checking in with Imogen always.

God, I just love her so much.

*I know the Hells didn't actually change her past but she said that they made the memory with her creating Pate better when she looks back on it now, and so it stands to reason it's the same with the others

[the---hermit]

Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe

I am not a huge memoir reader, but you can bet that if it's a graphic memoir I will pick it up, plus I want to expand my queer book collection, and this book was an amazing addition, that I know I will reread in the future. The author is non-binary and uses e/em/eir pronouns, which I never had to use before so if I fuck up while writing and editing please let me know. With this being said Gender Queer is a memoir and focuses on the author's journey of getting to know eir own self from a sexuality and gender point of view. But it feels reductive to describe this book as just that. The author does a great job at telling the story of eir life without skipping on all the existential crisis, the confusion and the fear. It's a very raw and honest work in my opinion, and it's amazing just because of that. Em couldn't have done a better job at explaing this complicated journey with all its ups and downs. There's fear and confusion, but also joy in getting to understand yourself more. It doesn't skip on any kind of thought, there's a few points that hit so close to home, ans that will keep sparking thoughts. The way the author talkes about gender and eir way of presenting is incredibly clever. I particularly liked how em used a landscape to talk about gender. It's not easy to put into words how good this graphic memoir is, and the fact that it was banned so much is scary and should be a good enough reason to pick it up. I feel like this could be a great way to let non-queer people understand a little better how figuring these things about yourself is, and how complex it gets. It's a little like being in the author's head sometimes, which is why I feel like this could be a great tool for queer allies to understand some things on a deeper level. As a queer person who is actually pondering a lot of these questions, it was very comforting to read about someone who stuggled just as much, but honestly reminds you of how layered and complicated these things are. Additionally I really liked the illustrations, the colour palette felt nice and overall I just really liked the look of this book (I should mention my edition which is the Italian on wasn't as curated as it should have because a few pages were blurred to a point you couldn't clearly read, which is absolutely unacceptable especially for how expensive graphic novels are. I never had such problems with this publisher, but that was kinda disappointing because I expected a bit more cure on the details, but again that is the Italian publisher's fault).

I read this for the jumbo reading challenge non binary author prompt.

[duplicitywrites]

Hi Duplicity! I’m asking you this with no intention to cause offence, and because you’re a creator in this fandom I like a lot, but how do you balance your content with JKR Rowling’s views ? I keep seeing people say that we should all stop consuming and producing Harry Potter content, because despite the intention, or Hc-ing it to suit our views, any engagement with the source material is bringing it to attention, and thus bring her and her hateful views against Trans people to attention, furthering her platform by ensuring her works remain in the collective mind of many people instead of letting it die out and somehow contributing to her legacy. I know you’re very very supportive of LGBTQ+ folks and seem like a very kind person, and I’m not insinuating at all you support JKR herself, but how do you deal with that implication and the unintentional effects your fanfics may have ? Just because it is somewhat true that fandom fuels popularity that fuels profit and yada yada. Please don’t take this the wrong way! Thank you and bless you for your writing ❤️

no offense taken! i hope you'll take my response the same way 💗

to be blunt, i think people who say that we should cease any engagement with the source material are wrong. the equation of content consumption with someone's personal morals is reductive and ultimately harmful.

this (often literal) armchair activism disrespects and disregards the very real efforts people make on a day to day basis -- whether that be through volunteer work, charitable donations, or simply serving as support to friends/family who are a part of those very minority groups that those naysayers claim to advocate for.

jkr is extremely vocal about her garbage opinions -- why are people not directing their ire at her instead of the random strangers they encounter on the internet? well, strangers on the internet are easier targets. it's easier to get a response. it's easier to ostracize and bully someone who doesn't have the security and following that a public figure like jkr has.

it's concerning to me how the concept of "doing the right thing" has shifted more and more towards "attacking the 'wrong' people". who is the target in these situations? is it actually a transphobic person who is being criticized, or is it someone who just likes harry potter? because in most situations i've seen, it's the latter. moral policing in fandom spaces has only gotten worse as the internet slowly morphs into one homogeneous corporate blob, and this is just another example of it taken too far.

harassing someone for liking harry potter doesn't miraculously make them a good person -- it doesn't make them morally superior. it just makes them someone who likes to attack others to feel better about themselves, someone who often looks for 'acceptable' excuses to do so. i'm secure enough in myself that i don't let this bother me, and i certainly don't accept anyone who thinks this way as a 'better' person than me.

i know i am not responsible for the opinions and actions of my readers. it is insanity to claim my writing harry potter fanfiction is making transphobes be transphobic, just as it is equally ridiculous to claim that writing about murder will turn people into murderers.

personally, i believe the best step is to not financially support harry potter as a franchise. this means not paying for official merch/content. but that's my own business -- i won't judge, insult, or attack the people who do, and that's because it would be hypocritical to hold anyone to this standard.

what about disney? what about walmart, or amazon, or any other company that profits off of the misery of minorities and the disadvantaged? people will say there is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but that is just another black-and-white approach to an incredibly nuanced topic.

the world we live in is flawed, with "problematic" humans involved at every level of society. there is no clear answer for every situation, so at the end of the day, i can't and won't tell you what to do or what to think, other than encourage you to make these decisions for yourself.

as individuals, the best thing we can do is take responsibility for ourselves. think critically about the actions we take and the impact these actions have on others. live the best life we can under the circumstances we've been given.

(much better than dunking on someone for putting their hogwarts house in their social media bio.)

[trans-axolotl]

hi! no rush in answering this and I hope it all works out with your job, sending good vibes. I wanted to ask for some advice as my partner hss AFRID and (probably) anorexia. they've been refered for help for the AFRID stuff specifically and they (for very valid. and obvious reasons) don't feel comfortable opening up to drs about the other loads of eating problems they have. Now they are being monitored and freaked about abt the need to gain weight etc

Im helping them as best I can but it feels very us 2 (and our friends) vs the rest of the world plus that I feel I'm p much winging random stuff that Might help see what sticks. We are trying to find some middle ground were they can make some "progress" so they aren't coerced into something they really don't want to do by drs and so they can have a little more energy etc etc.

We are also both still living at our parents and it's all just not ideal. rn. Any advice at all would help really, is there anything I should do and anything I really shouldn't? just typing it up to someone who won't tell me to force them to get themselves admitted is already a relief tbh thank u for ur work on harm reduction <3

Hey anon! Thanks for reaching out. It can be so hard to find any information about how to support people with eating disorders that isn't just "Go get professional treatment right now," so I will do my best to share some stuff that we've been talking about in my harm reduction + peer support networks!

Correct me if I'm retyping your situation incorrectly, but my understanding of what you shared is that your partner has ARFID and is also having other struggles with eating more related to anorexia in terms of fears about weight gain, body image, etc. Their doctors know about the ARFID and are receiving some sort of treatment for the ARFID, but the treatment is triggering some more of the anorexia stuff because of the increased monitoring.

This sounds like a difficult situation for both your partner and you as a support person, and I can understand how stressful it is to have to worry about coercive treatment on top of trying to figure out ways to cope with disordered eating in the first place. It sounds like you've been doing a really good job supporting your partner and listening to what they need, and trying out lots of different things to see what's helpful for them. I'll share some tips, but as always, what works for one person won't work for another! Asking your partner and collaborating with them to figure out what their exact needs and wants are is always going to be the most important.

@librarycards just made a post about harm reduction in eating disorders that I'm going to link to. I'm not going to restate everything they wrote, but one thing they talk about is identifying what feels like a necessity that can't be changed right now, and what things feel like there could be some wiggle room and space for change right now. If your partner is open to it, it might be helpful to sit down and make a list of what kind of eating disorder behaviors feel absolutely necessary right now that can't be changed, and what things feel more flexible. I think it's really important to be able to do this nonjudgmentally--a lot of eating disorder recovery spaces argue that "recovery" is all or nothing, and that allowing any kind of eating disorder behaviors is a failure. It can be really important to use a harm reduction approach to identify goals that actually feel doable for us, instead of saying the only option is to stop every eating disorder behavior and mindset 100%. That will look different for everyone, but explicitly giving yourself permission to continue some eating disorder behaviors can sometimes help people meet other goals around energy, quality of life, etc that are important to them. I know for me, having both ARFID and anorexia made it incredibly difficult to try to focus on dealing with both at the same time. I completely stopped trying to focus on any ARFID goals in increasing variety or challenging sensory needs, and instead just focused on figuring out coping skills and how to meet the energy needs for my body. Giving myself permission to only eat safe foods, ignore social norms around food, etc, helped me a little bit with figuring out how to cope with some of my restrictive urges. It might be worth figuring out with your partner what goals feel like priorities at the moment, and making a plan together.

Another thing that I found super helpful in my own journey with the ARFID and anorexia combo was learning about fat liberation and discussing it with other people. Basically all mainstream eating disorder treatment doesn't bother to spend anytime talking about fat liberation or fatphobia, and usually actually perpetuates a lot of fatphobia. I think that being able to dismantle the societal ideas we learn about weight gain, fatness, and diet culture is super important for everyone, and I think that for disorderly eaters, it can also be super important to track how that influences our own self-understanding of our eating. This list by Rachel Fox is a great starting point for fat liberation resources. For me, it was super helpful to be able to read through articles and books about fat liberation and discuss them with other people, and build a political understanding of fatness that allowed me to connect what I was reading to my experience with disorderly eating. If this is something that your partner is interested in, having someone to learn + read with can be super impactful.

I think it can also be crucial to think about your own boundaries and needs as a support person. You are not in charge of "fixing" your partner and your partner does not need to be "fixed." You're allowed to not know the answers to things, need to take breaks to support yourself, and to also be going through difficult times. Both you and your partner's autonomy is important, and figuring out ways to support without feeling responsible or trying to control each other can be really crucial. I can tell how much you care about your partner and it sounds like you're doing a really incredible job with all the ways you're providing care. If either of you ever feels like you need a space in your life to talk about this, ANAD offers peer support groups both for people living with eating disorders and for family/friends of people living with eating disorders.

Other than that, there's not a ton I can think of for things you should or shouldn't do, since it seems like you have pretty good insight into major things to avoid (forcing people into hospitalization, making fatphobic comments, reinforcing diet culture, forcing recovery) and are doing a lot of things right (asking your partner what they need, trying things out and being flexible, making room for harm reduction style goals instead of only "recovery.") Keep asking your partner how to support them, collaborate with them on the best ways to provide them care, and continue being there for them through this hard time.

Truly sending you and your partner the best of luck, anon, and hoping that you both can find some care and healing during this difficult time. All the solidarity and please feel free to send any other asks with more questions, vents, anything, <3 <3 <3

[victorlincolnpine]

I've noticed that when people get to the topic of morality, it's defined as this thing that humanity collectively nurtures through all of history. That in our early days our understanding of right and wrong was infantile, but now we today stand as "educated" people who "know better" than those before us.

It's this idea that drives the concept that we as people today are morally superior to those of yesterday, and that the horrific behaviors of people from history are simply "a product of their time".

This to me is an idea that's all at once ignorant, reductive, and to a great extent incredibly fucking racist.

It takes the idea of human morality and how we grow as people through our lives and applies it to an uncountable multitude of people who all grew up and learned right from wrong, doing so in a way that voids all their growth and all that they learned.

"The people of the ancient past just weren't as developed as us" this idea would argue. "Let bygones be bygones, because the vile and the evil were not so evil in comparison to everyone else back then, and the people that stood up to them were defying their times, they're from our time. Our better, more developed society".

Need I mention that the very idea that we as a society are simply better than another society is the root of how imperialism takes root in a society?

It's to the exact same reality-devoid extent that we see people lamenting a past that never was in the form of actual self-proclaimed Nazis lamenting the fall of the Roman Empire.

If you look at history, you do not see a species growing and becoming more kind over time. No, instead we see people in their inflated arrogance proclaiming themselves to be "better" than somebody else. More "developed" than somebody else. We see the same racist shit as from 40 years ago, with absolutely nothing changed except the technology through which they might broadcast their racism.'

In our yesterdays we see genocides and people rallying behind a "superior race" and in our today we see the same things. With some of the names not even changed. And our tomorrows will feature the same old shit unless we cast aside our arrogance and the idea that humanity's growth to a more inclusive and accepting social framework is simply an inevitable factor of time.

We will not see that brighter tomorrow by sitting here and musing about how great things will be. We will of course see the dystopias of our nightmares if we wallow in our self-importance and self-pity.

For no better example, look to Gaza. Look to people being slaughtered like animals, no different than the Holocaust of yesterday.

We got there by pretending the world will get better with time and without our interference.

Those people we look to as examples of how humanity "naturally" trends towards goodness? They're the fucking reason why humanity is a little better than before. And they were ordinary people too.

And those people we deem as less developed socially and morally? They included those heroes we look up to. I would argue that our yesterdays have already seen moral epiphanies that make our current social structures that we hold in such regard look like the actual manifestation of Hell itself.

No, the people in our history were not perfect. But we aren't either. We're no better than them.

And that means if they can fight for equality or wear the boots of tyranny, so too can we.

[puppyboner]

Why do you glorify self harm so much? It's disgusting as someone who's actually gone through that...

Because it's hot and I like seeing people suffer silly!

Because self harm was a huge part of my life, still is, and I'm not ashamed of it. I am covered in scars that many people may not notice at first glance. My forearms, my hands, my shoulders, my thighs, my calves, my stomach, there is very little space on my skin that I have not hurt myself on. And through that, I also developed some, intense kinks. I like to see blood, i like to get cut, i like to cut people, i think self harm (active or scars) is incredibly hot.

i could go on the whole "well i think it's beautiful because it's a sign you chose to keep going with life and you're battling your demons blah blah" which is true! my scars are direct proof that i chose to do harm reduction instead of suicide (well, i do have that kind of scar on my arms too, but i don't hate that scar either. lowkey it's one of the prettiest if it was more centered lol)

but that's not the reason i make these posts. i make these posts because people with self harm scars n people who are still self harming (WETHER THEY ARE GETTING HELP OR NOT.), are fucking hot. they are. end of story. they're fucking hot. i see my girlfriends thighs and i see her scars and i wanna dig my nails into them and bite them and kiss them and make her feel loved and make her feel fucking sexy for them. i want her to know that i see her and i see her suffering and i am not looking away, i am looking at it, i am looking at her, and i am loving it. i am lusting after it. i see my own body, and i see scars i used to hide and be ashamed of, and i feel good. i feel hot. people find scars sexy, why the fuck should self harm scars be seen as different?

im sorry you see it as gross anon. im sorry you went through it, or that you still are. i hope you find peace, and i hope you get clean if that's what you want. but please know these posts are made because you deserve to be seen as attractive, not in spite of the scars, but because of them. i don't expect everyone to see it the way i do, but i'd appreciate it people would at least listen and try.

[zeravmeta]

I try not to be too reductive or assumptive in talking about yugioh, since I don’t play. But it still feels like inevitably any time a boss monster has no limits or super loose ones like “four monsters but just one has to be Fire” it feels like they’re always broken with people calling for bans. Like I swear even back when I was in high school and Xyz Monsters were new this was a trend. Feels weird it’s not something Konami has killed yet.

(and dont take this the wrong way) yeah I can tell you don't play ygo bc thats a very... outsider looking in take. thats the thing with progression in these types of games, powercreep is just kind of inevitable but that doesnt mean it has to be a bad thing.

think about it in terms of how Pokemon does powercreep (its something of a similar scenario), as the game goes on we get more playable pieces that make older ones... maybe not obsolete, but just not optimal to play anymore. These are games of optimization in order to complete your combo/achieve your preferred gamestate, so as time goes on the game developers NEED to make stronger pieces for the players to work with, and there's nothing wrong with that. If the same game and same pieces just kept being remade in the same way then it's just boring (side note this is why I cannot fucking stand goat format or yugiboomers in general defending the launch version of the game)

The issue then comes from when powercreep is too extreme: they become centralizing forces which render niche/unorthodox playstyles COMPLETELY irrelevant, and if you arent using the strongest pieces then youre at an active disadvantage. For pokemon this came in the form of certain centralizing legendaries like mega rayquaza sure, but far more infamously and unhealthily in the forms of gen 8 legendaries like zacian, calyrex-shadow and That Fucking Punching Bear, pieces so powerful that they actively warp game balance around them and render balance mechanics moot

I know you mentioned things about Synchros and XYZ being seen as OP, but that's more in line with yugioh design around that point leaning more into the Extra Deck as a resource: The Extra Deck is an incredibly powerful resource in Yugioh for the singular reason that it's always available, while you may need to search for key combo pieces through your deck via draw and search, you dont have to search for your Extra Deck monsters, they're always available as long as you fulfill the summon requirement (note this is why floating effects/searches are super rare on Extra Deck monsters, the amount of recursion and search power they would allow would be fucking broken. And Look At What Happened With Links Lol). However, the Extra Deck as an actual mechanic to be built around fundamentally improved yugioh as a whole, and the extra deck serves as one of ygos most unique markers among card games. The issue just started with Links being TOO broken

There will always be a crowd of people thinking that a strong monster = a broken monster, but Links as a whole are just so mechanically strong that it sped up the game to an insurmountable degree (which ive already explained before), meaning that now whenever someone whines about a broken boss monster, They're Probably Far Likelier To Be Right This Time

[alltimefail-sims]

In honor of me rising from the dead I think its time I talk about my two(?) fav lore families in the sims franchise the smith-curious and the spector-beaker families and I guess also the singles as well - lore anon

Hello lore anon and welcome back! ❤️

Sorry I took a minute to answer this, it has been a crazy busy couple of days! I'm going to put my whole response under a read more because I have lots of thoughts on this topic!!!

We all took for granted how insane and amazing TS2 lore was. God, I pour one out for her everyday RIP.

Anyway, let's get into this! ↓

Strangetown is my favorite world in TS2 as well! No one is surprised by this I'm sure. I actually ended up tying it (and some of its townies 👀...) into my Strangerville story because I just couldn't help myself. But I'll be honest - the family tree stuff with Lola/Chloe/Jenny/Pollination Tech 9 has always made my brain melt a little. I'm a visual person so I had to reference their family tree as a guide for our conversation. I'll provide the one that I used below!

Lore-wise, you have to start this conversation by talking about alien pollination and normal sim reproduction. You just can't avoid it. For me, I've always seen them as completely separate entities... otherwise Jenny is married to a man who, for lack of a better term, knowingly banged and impregnated her father lmfao. But not only that - if they were the same, that would imply that aliens are abducting people and engaging in sexual relations with them (with willingness or unwillingness not playing a factor; sim abductions can happen to sims who want or fear them) and this is kind of reductive and uncharacteristic of what we know about their species (plus the implications are icky imo). Therefore, I never thought that Pollination Tech 9 would view Lola and Chloe as his children, even though they technically are, in the way that Poli Tech wouldn't view Tycho as his child either (nor would Pascal regard Poli Tech as the father either).

If I'm recalling correctly, I don't think sims are necessarily aware which alien pollinated them in game (even though each sim neighborhood in TS2 has only one Pollination Technician, therefore making all the half-alien babies in that neighborhood half-siblings by default within the limited span of the game). I also don't know that male sims in TS2, from what I remember, are aware they've been pollinated because they're always surprised to find they're "pregnant," meaning there likely wasn't any a-typical intercourse happening that they could connect to the pregnancy (even if, let's be honest, Pascal might have been down for that). I think of pollination as an act similar to cloning, (the wiki says through "advanced technology") or as the name implies it could also just be a consequence of coming into proximity with their species (their name being a reference to reproduction methods of flora by pollination, for example). But realistically... it's a fictional simulation game, and in the case of TS2 it was super campy and a knowingly-leaning-into-the-outrageous kind of simulation game (which I loved and miss). So who knows!

All that to say that I agree; regardless of how the baby process works for aliens, it is still an absolutely crazy family tree lmao. But on the bright side... that at least implies that Pollination Tech 9 wasn't into his wife's father, nor might he be aware that Chloe and Lola are his children. 😅 But I'll stop here because if I think about it for too long, I think my brain might explode lmao. Still, I'm inclined toward the belief that the messiness adds to the flavor! 😂 The Sims team today could never write such a juicy bit of lore. My ass ate their dynamic up.

Also, quick note, JILL HAS EYES IN THE BACK OF HER HEAD?! THAT IS WHY SHE WEARS THE PIGTAILS? WHAT THE HELL?! Gonna look this up -

Holy shit!!! This fact is equal parts incredible and terrifying. Thank you for bringing this my attention. I can't believe I did not know this before this moment. What a (horrifying) little legend.

Oh I loved (and still love) Nervous Subject and Pascal together. Just thinking about that ship makes me giggle because it was one of my first exposures to "shipping" and "fandoms" as a preteen. I always put them together and had them raise little Tycho to fulfill Nervous' family aspiration. (I should note that I was also an avid JRO enthusiast. Johnny has two hands, why should he have to pick between Ophelia and Ripp?) Another interesting layer to the Ophelia/Olive/Nervous family is that Ophelia would be unaware of her direct relation to Nervous (1st cousins)! I loved playing around with this; Olive was a very secretive person who had a dark side for sure, so I'm sure Ophelia would have a lot of questions following her aunt's death (the first being why her aunt's inheritance is going to some rando named Nervous lmao). Plus, who says Ophelia didn't know her aunt was taking people out? She might not have known why, but she had to know all those deaths around Olive couldn't have been coincidental. That's messed up on its own lmao. I like to think that once Nervous and Ophelia meet, they become close and he even helps care for her in a weird-older-brother type way. I just know they would trauma bond lmao.

I didn't care for Loki or Circe (I never played with their household), so I don't have super strong opinions on them. That being said, I love reading people's theories on their connection to the Curious brothers. I think the ongoing feud with the brother's and their connection to Nervous is the most interesting part of their story, but my ideal ending for them would have been being exiled from the town and their careers in general for their shady practices. Pascal seemed like the science antithesis to Loki and Circe who seemed to believe that it was okay for scientific truths to come at the cost of the wellbeing of others. Also, I think Circe is too hot and too evil for Loki AND Vidcund. That's woman commits many crimes, but her taste in men is up there as one of the worst things about her lmao.

Lastly, LAZLO. He's so silly goofy and so chill in comparison to his brothers, and he's definitely the black-sheep of the family. I love how in comparison to Vidcund and Pascal, his personal life is pretty typical and mild. He's just vibing as a third party witness to the chaos. He didn't sign up for any of the drama, yet you know he's a ride-or-die. In my mind, he's also the cool uncle. He'd catch Johnny smoking and be like, "Gotta share little man." He's the best. Little Fun fact - when I watched season 4 of Stranger Things, I couldn't unsee Lazlo Curious every time Argyle opened his mouth.

If you don't see it, that's okay. I can't unsee it though! He's high af, he's precious, he's always has snacks, he will take down the government or transport a dead body for the homies. He should be protected. I totally, 100% agree that Nova is his child!

WHEW sorry for blabbing! Strangetown was a doozy and you're right that the Bella Goth situation adds a whole other intricacy (which I'll definitely be talking about in her specific deep dive post).

So glad to have you back! 🤗

[scoopertrouper]

Would you personally prefer for writers to get stancy together somewhere during season 5 or do you think it's better if we only see them together in an epilogue after a time skip?

the simple answer is that obviously i want to see them together and on screen as much as possible because i need PAYOFF for that incredibly horny upside down bandaging scene.

like, this show is fairly antiseptic when it comes to sex (which is totally fine, know your characters, know your audience etc.) - and then they drop something like THAT right in the middle of the action???

GIVE ME MORE.

but the real answer hinges entirely on whether or not i’m guaranteed endgame. if some sad tack-on epilogue is the only way I get to see steve and nancy together and alive and thriving at the end of the show then fuck it, i have a GREAT imagination and i do not need to see every beat of their relationship.

because more than anything, i fear that my doomsday scenario will play out if we actually get to see stancy get together anytime early on or even sometime toward the middle of s5.

scenario under the cut because it gave me hives just thinking about it. come anon. let’s spiral together.

my doomsday scenario:

since i think it’s been implied that some kind of time jump happens in s5, my nightmare is that they spent s4 laying the groundwork for a stancy reunion so that they can get together in a way that seems organic during whatever kind of interim period takes place during s5.

they’ll give them all the happiness they didn’t the first time around, Steve will have found joy and fulfillment in love and then BAM - when the time comes, they’ll shank him late in the final act of the show for high emotional impact. ☠️

then they’ll either imply or show that j*ncy ultimately found a way back to each other at the end.

at which point I, dear anon, will FINALLY cancel my Netflix subscription and also maybe hurl myself into the closest deep body of water. like completely normal people do.

what i hate so viciously about this scenario (besides the fact that i think Steve death trope is genuinely the worst, most reductive way they could conclude his arc) is that i can kind of sort of actually see it playing out.

i don’t think it’s LIKELY (i honestly believe that if the duffers haven’t killed a main character at this point, they’re not likely to and I’m actually quite happy about that), and i fear the stancy vs j*ncy mutually assured destruction that would result from this moste vile twiste of plot.

but.

they did dangle some serious carrots last season. and this IS a way I could see the writers following them to a conclusion that makes (some) narrative sense without straying from the j*ncy endgame i fully believe they had planned in s1-2.

and I DON’T WANT IT.

anyway I’m sorry anon this went so far beyond what you were asking. in conclusion, give me all the stancy AND give me the endgame i deserve after decades of tv-watching heartbreak. (here’s looking at you how i met your mother. 🫡)

[deathbypixelz]

I had a bit of a revelation today and wanted to share. As it deals with my experience as a woman, I'm going to preface with this: Trans women are women, and this post isn't for anyone who disagrees with that.

Also wanted to say I know pronouns don’t directly correlate with gender. “She/her” doesn’t only mean “woman”, etc etc.

With that out of the way, I wanted to talk about why I, a cis woman, prefer strangers to call me “he/him” and friends/family/etc. to call me “she/her”.

--- ---

Depending on who you are and how close we are, I either use she/her or he/him. If we know each other, and/or you’re queer as well, use she/her for me. If I don’t know you and you’re not queer in some way, I’d prefer if you use he/him. Seems arbitrary, and I guess on an objective level it is, but I wanted to share my thoughts on why I feel that way. Emphasis on feel: this is my personal experience and it has no bearing on anyone else’s.

As a kid, I had a moment when I looked away from my shows and books where the boys and men have emotions, go on journeys, and have character arcs, while the girls and women sit in the back without real emotion, only follow the men on journeys or don’t have journeys at all, and don’t grow as people, and realized “I’m also a person, like the boys are”. The flat, non-people who also happened to be women were who I’d been taught to associate with, but they weren’t like me, because I was a person. Now, I was working within the bounds of a very limited child’s understanding at the time. Obviously we’re all people, but only the men in those stories were allowed to be people. When women were people, I thought “she’s acting like a man”. Maybe the text even outright framed it that way. In reality, they were just given the traits of a person, which I’d been conditioned to associate with “man-ness”.

Later on, this subconscious association came back to bite me. For a time, I thought I was a demigirl or some variation thereof, because I didn’t fully identify with the definition of “woman” I’d been taught. I viscerally hate the idea of children/childbearing, I only very rarely wear makeup (and even then “it’s not the kind women wear”), I don’t dress in traditionally feminine ways, etc. And, well, I’m a person with her own thoughts and dreams and wants and fears. I simply don’t fit into that incredibly narrow, reductive, and specific cisheteronormative definition. I never have. So, at the time, I thought “I must not be a woman then.”

But using she/they and calling myself a demigirl didn’t feel right either. This was frustrating, because I wanted a name to call myself by. And “woman” was right for me… just not this society’s definition. After a lot of thinking I realized I had a different definition of woman, and so that settled that. I am a woman. Just not the kind we (90s/early 00s babies) were taught about.

I did want to say though: Defining “woman” is, I believe, impossible. As is defining “man”. Or any other gender. If you ask me, at the end of the day it’s an attempt to describe something that’s so subjective and variable and ethereal there’s almost no use trying. It’s just a “you know it when you see it” thing. Or I guess “you know it when you feel it”. I can’t truly define the cisheteronormative woman, and I can’t define my own version of woman, but I do know they’re not equivalent in the slightest.

So how does this relate to my two sets of pronouns? Well, when someone knows me, or when a stranger is also queer and thus I can trust already has a different understanding of these things, I can also trust they’re using she/her for me in a way that at least somewhat aligns with how I use it for myself. I use it to refer to my personal definition of “woman”.

But, when a non-queer stranger refers to me, “he/him” feels more appropriate. Because to my ears, a non-queer stranger’s “she/her” refers to a definition of woman that is simply not what I am. And when we must work within the incredibly limiting cishet binary, the cishet “he/him” is actually closer to my “she/her” than the cishet “she/her” is.

It’s like translating languages, if I must compare it to something. There is no true equivalent in “the cisheteronormative language” to my she/her. “He/him” is what comes closest.

For an example: I don’t put my pronouns out there when I’m playing video games, because I’m concerned about opening myself up to harassment; “she/her” in that environment often means “someone to pick on”. That’s less true nowadays than it used to be, thank fuck, but it’s still a concern of mine. By leaving myself undefined, the average cishet male gamer will assume and call me “he/him”, thus treating me as an equal. Because I am. We’re both people. “He/him” is the closest equivalent in his “language” to what my pronouns “actually” are.

…I don’t really know how to conclude this little essay. But I wanted to share, because I’ve never seen anyone talk about this sort of pronoun usage, and I figured it might help someone out there figure things out.

And once again: this is all my personal experience and view of things. You can disagree on every point, and that’s fine. That’s your truth. This is mine.

Gender is made up, pronouns are just words, do whatever you want forever.