#PEOPLE CONTAIN MULTITUDES

[gaypirateslife4me]

My contribution to the Izzy Hands meta drama:

Izzy Hands is an asshole. Izzy Hands is not a bad human.

Absolutist thinking is dangerous and is turning this world into an impossible-to-navigate minefield.

[papermonkeyism]

Been pondering the Arcanth setting, and turns out keeping fantasy races... well, existing, is surprisingly hard if you remove "Wizard Did It" method of worldbuilding.

I'm trying to steer away from DnD style worldbuilding. While magic is a thing in the setting, in a way, it's more of a force of nature, and less a flashy effect show one performs by casting spells, and I refuse to have any sort of One True Religion in any of my settings (hate it. So bad.) so there won't be a "these gods created these races" excuse to it either, and it's proving surprisingly hard to justify keeping different races distinct considering people tend to people.

Considering real life people and our history of interbreeding (I know I have few percent Neanderthal in me courtesy of being European). Like how do you prevent love stories from happening enough to keep things separate?

Arcanth's people and goblins can stay separate by being very distinctly different species far enough removed to not belong to same clades as hominids. Well and good enough...

(Arcanth's people come in three different flavours, one of which got separated enough to be a distinct species in another continent and the other two being separated by basically humans into different ends of a larger continent, though still with enough gene flow between to keep them technically same species. Goblins used to come in myriad of different localised flavours, but they travel a lot and have no issues with mingling with each other so goblins can be basically whatever within the goblin parameters wherever they happen to pop up in.)

Dwarves I guess just have hard time crossing with the other people. Like dwarf/elf crosses CAN happen, but it's more like horse/donkey kind of deal. I can see dwarf/human setup being more likely to function beyond the first generation.

Orcs are technically just human/elf mix people with some magical background radiation enhancement to give them distinct flavour. (They are a people with relatively recent history of basically a bunch of human and elf sailors discovering an uninhabited Iceland island, habiting it for a millenium or few and several generations later are now their own thing.)

But I didn't make my elves eternal and immortal, and they're more distinct from humans by being naturally nocturnal and having harder time tolerating extreme cold and extreme hot environments compared to humans, but they're still hominids. There's nothing really stopping them from mixing with humans wherever they coexist, and why wouldn't they coexist? I'm not really into having large scale eugenics programs in my headworlds either.

I guess 100% "pure" human and 100% "pure" elf are just extremely rare things to happen and most people are just varying degrees of mixed in between?

[wannabelilybriscoe]

sure she looks like a suburban mom going for a morning walk around the neighbourhood but she’s also listening to rage against the machine and imagining gory zombie fights with gay protagonists in the 70s

[gwandas]

divergent was all about how it’s okay to have multiple personality traits

[amygdalae]

Any1 have that video of Steph Curry and Clay Thompson trying (and failing) to topple that famous sumo wrestler. I know i saw it on here

[zmediaoutlet]

🛼 🧃

(Thanks for the ones you sent me! Hoping to get to them after work tonight 🤞)

(thank you, too! what's the point of the bluesite if we aren't high fiving each other!)

🛼 describe your latest wip with five emojis

Uhh. Let me pull up the Windows+. keyboard and stare into the distance for a few minutes...

🏚️🥃☠️😭🛫

🧃 share some personal lore you never posted about before

[that feel when you've been on here for a decade+ and have to remember all the shit you've blabbed about in that time]

When I was little I sometimes went to boy scout troop meetings with my brothers, because my dad was traveling for work just about every week and my mom had to take them to the meetings instead, and I was too small to be just abandoned all night on a Tuesday. My mom had this horrible blue Chrysler van and would ferry like 6 boys 'into town' (we grew up very rural) for the troop meetings. This was the non-Mormon troop in town, which a) meant that they actually did camping and learning instead of just churning badges to Eagle, and b) these kids were fuckin' degenerates, lol. There were lots of pranks and assholery and vicious games of shirts-vs-skins pickup football and also good-natured teasing and showing up for each other and trying their best, sometimes, or trying at all if their best wasn't possible. A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. I don't know if they hit every marker -- I know for a fact that some of those boys didn't grow up to be the best men -- but it was a good thing in their lives, for a while, and sitting in the back of the meetings playing or reading or boredly watching was a good way to learn about the way that boys are. Plus there's this all-time quote, from my mother, after she bought Taco Bell for the neighbor boys and for some reason let Eric get an enchirito: Eric, if you fart one more time, I am throwing you out onto the highway!

[ptolemia]

“Love itself is revolutionary and if you can’t see that then you should replay the game” oh yeah it’s pretty blatant and obvious I mean a fucking blind mole could see it. There’s a difference between playing it and understanding the message and then playing it through a shipping lense in order to make up shit that never happened so you could make mid fics + art while also ignoring the character’s actual traits.

Some people just like to frollick through media cuz the characters are hot and they need some masturbation material.

… yeah? Life is short I hope everybody who wants to frollick and jack off has the opportunity to do both as often as possible.

[unofficialadamtaurus]

Personal experiences does make it harder to talk to children when ur older. Especially with how you grow up or something, it can create some separation. In a way.

That is because people grow up differently.

this is true

[dilsdoes]

i follow so many different dc comics fans and i think they would all hate each other.

[thebookewyrme]

If you like everyone in your coalition, your coalition isn’t big enough.

This. This so hard.

Fran drescher opposes vaccine mandates just fyi

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Hey now, Let her cook!

[wizardofpalmsprings]

Something I wish more people understood is that a character doesn’t have to spell out their queer journey or have it be the focus of the narrative for them to be a valid queer character. It’s okay to want queer focused narratives, but trying to make every story about a person’s journey of self discovery takes away from larger narratives

[sepiamestus]

obviously i love akutagawa with all my heart but i hate when people act like atsushi was horrible for saying 'this is why dazai didnt choose you' to him like yeah it was mean but also akutagawa did kidnap and try to kill him several times. I'm pretty sure atsushi's anger is justified i dont think he's in the wrong for being a little mean there

[seekingxanadu]

I do not understand the meltdown certain sections of Dick Grayson fandom tends to ocassionally have about Dick getting angry. Characters get angry. Characters have the right to be angry. Now we aren't allowing Dick autonomy to feel? Here, I find myself thinking often- if there is a batfam character that deserves to get angry more often, it is Dick. His "father figures" take him for granted over and over and often abandon and ignore him and his traumas. His "siblings" rave and rant at him for every apparent slight but can't be bothered to ask for his side or even ask him "are you okay, Dick?" His "love" is gaslighting him, being toxic to him, but Dick should never ever snap back lest *her* stans accuse him of being toxic to her. Her toxicity towards him is just all right.

Saying Dick has anger issues when he has his rare blowups is, in itself, a form of gaslighting.

Even in fics, it is irritating to see fic authors take Dick to the brink and then have him apologise to others for *them* hurting him and then have him insist again and again he should be the one to apologise. It is plain disgusting.

Just like everyone else, Dick has a multitude of emotions.

Why do we find it okay for other characters to take their anger out at Dick, even for things he has not done?

Why do we find it okay for Dick to swallow his anger at other characters who hurt him, his family, or his hero mantles?

[cherryblossomshadow]

if you were giving a sermon on the good Samaritan in the 1960s to a white church, you should be like "so the policeman walked past, and the pastor walked past, but then a poor black guy saw the injured man, and got him help at the local hospital."

In the 80s, his rescuer is Soviet. In the 2000s, they're a Muslim, from Afghanistan or Iran.

Today? Maybe they're trans.

As an American, there's been many times that "Mexican" would have been the best choice. Maybe even today, especially if you specifically make them an undocumented migrant.

But yeah, the point is that you pick the group of people most hated by the audience you're talking to, and make the point that THEY ARE A BETTER PERSON THAN YOU and ALL THOSE YOU UPHOLD AS PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY if they help their fellow man.

.

People contain multitudes. You might get rescued by the worst person you can imagine, and while this doesn't mean you should rethink your attitude toward their dangerous belief system and actions, it still can happen

Random thought brought on by seeing a veterinarian sign on the drive to Coffee Land, but I think Jesus would really appreciate people localizing his parable of the Good Samaritan.

Because, like, it's a good story, right? When the administrator-guy and the holy man wouldn't help the injured, the Samaritan went out of their way to make sure the injured man was able to get the help they needed, paid out of their own pocket. And that's good and all, but what even is a Samaritan? Do you know?

Well, they're a ethnoreligious group from northern Israel who follow Samaritanism, which split from Judaism sometime around the 11th century BCE. There's only about a thousand of them left. But around the time of Jesus, they were not very popular with your average Hebrew. Remember the Seleucid empire that was oppressing jews? There's a yearly celebration about it, involving a candle that lasted for 8 nights. Yeah. So at the time the Samaritans had taken the opportunity to point out they're not Jewish, they're Samaritans, so they wouldn't be persecuted. So they were seen as, like, selling out their brothers and sisters in the faith. Then by the time the Romans took over the whole area, the province of Judaea contained Samaria.

So basically the Jews and the seen-to-have-sold-them-out Samaritans were stuck in the same province, thanks to some Romans consolidating the areas they'd conquered. Tensions between the two groups were high, and I don't imagine either of them liked each other very much at all.

To a Jew of the first century CE, a Samaritan is basically the worst kind of person you could be, and that's exactly why Jesus used them in the parable of the Good Samaritan!

The parable isn't about Samaritans. It's about how the worst person you can imagine is a better person than the people you idolize and uplift, if that person takes care of their fellow man. It's about how you should love your neighbor as yourself, and who is your neighbor? Everyone. All people are your neighbors. Help them when they need help!

And that's why I say it should really be localized. You should tell this parable differently than it was told in AD 29 or whenever. Do you hate Samaritans? Probably not! You probably barely know who they are, even after I did some explaining up there. So why use them as your example? If Jesus was here, I don't think he would have done that.

So like, if you were giving a sermon on the good Samaritan in the 1960s to a white church, you should be like "so the policeman walked past, and the pastor walked past, but then a poor black guy saw the injured man, and got him help at the local hospital."

In the 80s, his rescuer is Soviet. In the 2000s, they're a Muslim, from Afghanistan or Iran.

Today? Maybe they're trans.

As an American, there's been many times that "Mexican" would have been the best choice. Maybe even today, especially if you specifically make them an undocumented migrant.

But yeah, the point is that you pick the group of people most hated by the audience you're talking to, and make the point that THEY ARE A BETTER PERSON THAN YOU and ALL THOSE YOU UPHOLD AS PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY if they help their fellow man. If your worst enemy is lying injured in the street, you call the ambulance, you pay their doctor, you get them help. That's what Jesus says you should do. That's loving your neighbor, that's the Great Commandment.

And in the Roman province of Judea back in the first half of the first century, when talking to a Jewish audience, that meant the rescuer was a Samaritan helping a Jew. That was just the context for that one particular telling of the story. It shouldn't be told the same way today, or in the future. It should be an evolving parable, always changing, always adjusting the nationalities and situations and genders and everything. It's not a story about a specific event, it doesn't pretend to be history, it's a metaphorical lesson about what makes you a good person.

This parable is basically in the form of an "X, Y and Z walk into a bar" joke, and just like jokes, it should be updated over time. Those don't stay funny though the decades, as cultural attitudes shift. And this parable hasn't been updated in nearly two millenia, so it's long overdue.

[bitchslapblastoids]

Was thinking about how much of a normo I come across as irl, how I’ve felt a lil odd person out at their shows bc of being a bit older (29) and looking so aggressively normal, how generally confused people in my life would be if they knew about my d&p obsession, how thoroughly i mask weirder traits and essentially codeswitch to suit the mainstream, etc.

i feel kind of fish out of water when I imagine how all the people that populate my tumblr phandom ecosystem are likely presenting to the world irl (I.e. more visibly queer, counterculture, and so on). But then I think maybe the most visible phannies are the ones with the most curated, alt, deliberate daytoday lewks/style? So maybe what I’m picturing is off base? But then I’m also basing this off of what audiences look like in audience footage, m&gs, etc.

Sooooooo i would like to know… do you guys feel like you present as someone who may be Deeply Online and obsessed with two gay nerds from the internet? Or do you hide it and fly under the radar, masking as a total normy and living a double life?

(To clarify I don’t mean you’re like out and about wearing the fringes boob sweatshirt lol I more mean vibes and overall lewk yk?)