#also in regards to the no nuance thing: people have reached the point where they genuinely think that if a piece of media does not

[autism-swagger]

I hate the idea that you’re only allowed to like villains that have been redeemed, and if you like villains that don’t join the hero’s in the end, then you’re a bad person. We need to reject the notion that villains have to be redeemed or have some sort of tragic backstory to it to be acceptable to like them. Anti-intellectualism has been on the rise lately (especially on tiktok, oh my god), and nobody has any nuance or media literacy anymore.

[feminist-space]

"Artists have finally had enough with Meta’s predatory AI policies, but Meta’s loss is Cara’s gain. An artist-run, anti-AI social platform, Cara has grown from 40,000 to 650,000 users within the last week, catapulting it to the top of the App Store charts.

Instagram is a necessity for many artists, who use the platform to promote their work and solicit paying clients. But Meta is using public posts to train its generative AI systems, and only European users can opt out, since they’re protected by GDPR laws. Generative AI has become so front-and-center on Meta’s apps that artists reached their breaking point.

“When you put [AI] so much in their face, and then give them the option to opt out, but then increase the friction to opt out… I think that increases their anger level — like, okay now I’ve really had enough,” Jingna Zhang, a renowned photographer and founder of Cara, told TechCrunch.

Cara, which has both a web and mobile app, is like a combination of Instagram and X, but built specifically for artists. On your profile, you can host a portfolio of work, but you can also post updates to your feed like any other microblogging site.

Zhang is perfectly positioned to helm an artist-centric social network, where they can post without the risk of becoming part of a training dataset for AI. Zhang has fought on behalf of artists, recently winning an appeal in a Luxembourg court over a painter who copied one of her photographs, which she shot for Harper’s Bazaar Vietnam.

“Using a different medium was irrelevant. My work being ‘available online’ was irrelevant. Consent was necessary,” Zhang wrote on X.

Zhang and three other artists are also suing Google for allegedly using their copyrighted work to train Imagen, an AI image generator. She’s also a plaintiff in a similar lawsuit against Stability AI, Midjourney, DeviantArt and Runway AI.

“Words can’t describe how dehumanizing it is to see my name used 20,000+ times in MidJourney,” she wrote in an Instagram post. “My life’s work and who I am—reduced to meaningless fodder for a commercial image slot machine.”

Artists are so resistant to AI because the training data behind many of these image generators includes their work without their consent. These models amass such a large swath of artwork by scraping the internet for images, without regard for whether or not those images are copyrighted. It’s a slap in the face for artists – not only are their jobs endangered by AI, but that same AI is often powered by their work.

“When it comes to art, unfortunately, we just come from a fundamentally different perspective and point of view, because on the tech side, you have this strong history of open source, and people are just thinking like, well, you put it out there, so it’s for people to use,” Zhang said. “For artists, it’s a part of our selves and our identity. I would not want my best friend to make a manipulation of my work without asking me. There’s a nuance to how we see things, but I don’t think people understand that the art we do is not a product.”

This commitment to protecting artists from copyright infringement extends to Cara, which partners with the University of Chicago’s Glaze project. By using Glaze, artists who manually apply Glaze to their work on Cara have an added layer of protection against being scraped for AI.

Other projects have also stepped up to defend artists. Spawning AI, an artist-led company, has created an API that allows artists to remove their work from popular datasets. But that opt-out only works if the companies that use those datasets honor artists’ requests. So far, HuggingFace and Stability have agreed to respect Spawning’s Do Not Train registry, but artists’ work cannot be retroactively removed from models that have already been trained.

“I think there is this clash between backgrounds and expectations on what we put on the internet,” Zhang said. “For artists, we want to share our work with the world. We put it online, and we don’t charge people to view this piece of work, but it doesn’t mean that we give up our copyright, or any ownership of our work.”"

Read the rest of the article here:

https://techcrunch.com/2024/06/06/a-social-app-for-creatives-cara-grew-from-40k-to-650k-users-in-a-week-because-artists-are-fed-up-with-metas-ai-policies/

[xclowniex]

Thoughts on whereserpentswalk? I know they're controversial on jumblr and you seem trustworthy

Tagging them as whilst I will answer, I don't like talking behind peoples backs. I also did reach out to get the okay to post as it does deal with someone's identity. @whereserpentswalk

I'm not sure 100% why they're considered controversial as I have never heard of them before. I'm like 90% sure this is in reference to them being a pagan jew aka ethnically jewish and religiously pagan.

Because Judaism is an ethnoreligion, the topic of being ethnically jewish but not practicing judaism and instead another religion is a complicated and nuanced one. Each jew has their own opinion on this, two jews 3 opinions type deal.

Obviously, if you worship or idolize any deity or similar category, besides Hashem, you are not longer practicing judaism. They do not claim to be practicing judaism, so I and hopefully everyone else should have no issue with that specific bit.

In regards to whether or not they can still call themselves jewish.

Overall, I don't really care? Like there are so many other intracommunity topics which matter more than this in my own opinion.

The only thing which doesn't fall into this are messianic jews, because whilst a lot are lead to believe they are ethnically jewish, most aren't. And the religion wasn't started by jews. Like jews didn't start believing in Jesus and that's how it came about. It was started by non ethnically jewish Christians who decided they were the real jews, which is where the misleading of messianics as a whole being ethnically comes from. I'm sure there are messianics who have jewish blood as nothing is impossible when it comes to types of people believing in a certain religion, but the majority of messiancs do not have jewish blood.

But whereserpantswalk is pagan not messianic so like again, doesn't fall into that.

I'm going to be speaking very general here and not directed at whereserpantswalk.

Like besides messianic jews being the exception, I don't super care.

I myself dabbled in paganism when I was a teen and exploring religion. I don't really talk about it much not because I dislike paganism or think it's bad or anything. I just had religious psychosis surronding it as I am a diagnosed schizo so don't really like to talk about that point of my life online mainly for my safety as some people may use it to try to trigger an episode.

Drawing from my own experiences from that time which I am willing to share, my jewish culture was still important. I grew up orthodox and that doesn't all just go away. Same thing if you grow up reform.

I still participated in secular versions of the Jewish holidays. I still held Jewish values. I still did things certain ways because I was raised jewish, and that doesn't really just go away.

To give like a definitive answer, if someone born Jewish and converts out of Judaism, gets rid of all ties to Jewish culture, including secular Jewish culture. Because Judaism is an ethno religion, I personally don't see any point in continuing to refer to yourself as Jewish. It is a tribe. If you turn your back on the tribe completely and cut all ties, then you are no longer part of the tribe. If you still keep some connection then to me personally I do see a point in calling yourself ethnically jewish as you are still connected to the tribe.

Overall, I don't really care. Like I know I've said this a bazillion times already. The majority of jews are either religious or secular. I see no point in kicking up a fuss about a tiny group of jews.

I believe in inclusive judaism, where people with varying attachment to the tribe are welcome as long as they have some or want a connection to the tribe and convert properly.

This isn't like some hard, set in stone opinion I have. There are more important topics at hand right now like genuine jew fakers than someone with jewish blood who practices paganism.

[fullscoreshenanigans]

What if a little, very little, part of Don blamed Ray for have waited Connie's shipment to put his plan in motion. What if he wondered why didn't Ray do it at the previous one? He tries to reason himself, thinking that two months wouldn't have been enough (they had more time between Connie and Ray), that it still wound't be fair for this kid shipped before Connie, but this little part of him poison his mind and he can't stop to wonder:"why couldn't he start his plan soonner".

Ray has not need to know that, because he blames himself enough like that about it. Even if he knows that he couldn't have done more. He still needed a reward to finish his anti-trackers thing, he couldn't have set his plan in motion during the previous shipment.

At a point, they probably spoke geniunely about it together. Because keeping that for themself isn't good aniyway.

I fully subscribe to them talking this out during their search for the Seven Walls with the many months they spend trekking around together (and this is why I can never forgive Shirai for that timeskip; all the bonding moments I was robbed of seeing </3)

Also very serendipitous that @sepiamestus wrote a one-shot titled Beautiful (and a little sad) featuring this topic, although the trigger is Ray asking Don if he blames him instead of the other way around.

A wonderful showcase not only of Don’s nuances and quirks, but also his cordial nature and how he seamlessly integrates the former into the latter, perfectly displaying his aptitude in assessing people’s emotional needs and acumen in easing them toward where they need to be in a way that comes to him as naturally as breathing. Very easy to hear his voice in this with the dialogue.

There is acknowledgment of the anger Don still feels regarding the subject, which is very reasonable given everything that's happened and that he's ten.

But it's acknowledged only after Don has established the intrinsic value of Ray as a person and beloved member of his family, in addition to creating a safe atmosphere where it's clear he's open and receptive to everything Ray has to say and is feeling by getting him to open up about a topic he's knowledgeable about and interested in before transitioning them back to the main topic at hand. He's able to easily discern how the subject has been plaguing Ray’s mind for months, so to immediately start off by expounding upon the full breadth of his complicated array of emotions regarding Conny's death would be in bad form. By establishing that sense of safety and trust, Don is able to honestly talk about his own feelings with a reassurance Ray can genuinely believe: that nothing Don says is meant to be accusatory. Excellent display of his emotional intelligence.

And how that leads into this 𝕆𝕌𝔾ℍ; the beautiful poignancy of ending the main scene with this and how it acts as foreshadowing to Ray’s declaration in chapter 119 to Norman and everyone else present in the room, with Don being an important factor in helping him reach that point.

Love a boy beaten down by circumstances beyond his control resulting in such a thorough self-loathing and sense of helplessness being treated with such gentle kindness and being afforded the time to heal at his own pace. <3

[rocketturtle4]

So I started Not Me... (IT'S SO GOOD)

(@wen-kexing-apologist It took longer than planned but I have begun)

I am watching SLOW with people in rather different timezones from me and I had planned to wait till after OF (cause how much First can I cope with yk) but then @anon451 sent me this gif...

...and did I really have a choice?

I just finished Ep 5, I watched Ep 1 three weeks ago, waiting is torturous but I am excercising patience.

SO while I have been thoroughly distracted by how much I am enjoying this show (It's so ENGAGING), have some notes so far.

THOUGHTS

...uuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh

Why is everyone so pretty in this show for reals????

ANYWAY

Oh My God I LOVE IT SO MUCH

Young boy seperated from half his family takes on his twin brothers persona to find out who tried to have him murdered honestly DOES NOT sound like my thing...and yet...

...I'm starting to think I'm wrong about what my thing is.

Young man goes on journey of self-discovery and exploration where he is exposed to his own privellege and confronts both the extremism that it can forge but also his own self and views and how he is benefiting from the system and how he can fight it...(from the outside? from within?). Told through his own thoughts, his growing relationships with the "friends" of his twin brother and the contrasting conversations with said friends and his father...

I JUST LOVE IT SO MUCH OKAY

AND we have this story explored in a different thread of "rebelling from within" in our newly discovered cop/artist storyline, cannot wait for that to pan out more!!

(Hey Gawin is totally in this picture okay??)

I never really thought friends were the one's who beat Black up so if that ends up being the case I WILL be shocked

EP 5

This ep however I started to feel uneasy about Todd...

(OMG seriously what's with the PRETTY did they put something in everyone's water??)

We got two different convos which seemed a bit more interogatery than I'd like, maybe he just really wants to know who hurt Black, or maybe he's using White to figure out what the friends are up too...

He IS being presented as very rich and privilegedin this show, in ways that the show is making a point of pointing out problems with (mostly in regard to Black/White's privilege but this also applies to our very rich Todd I would think...)

So is Todd being a good friend?

...idk

Is he Blacks emergency contact? I mean he must be if the hospital called him? or was he there for the beat down and then took Black to the hospital and that's why he was there?

What about the mum, what happened with her? Does she know Black nearly died? (discussed more in a mo)

Todd was the one the hospital called when Black nearly flatlined...

Also the beat down happening so soon after White arriving from Russia...did Todd know he had returned?

Also the ENTIRE car convo felt weird

W: Have you talked to my mum? She might be able to help

T: I reached out, she said she would leave it to the authorities. She wan't no involvement

(How bad was this falling out? Does she know White's back?...or is Tod lying??)

W: Todd, should I go see her?

T: You can but I don't think it'll help. The fight between Black and her was huge. It was so bad they decided to cut each other off. You know that Black got involved in some unlawful business, and your mother is a judge. They're on different sides.

(Todd casually starts prying for more info without pause...(left out B's answers))

T: When you said you'd quit, what did those guys say?

T: Do they want to keep going?

T: Do you know what they're next move is? Is it about Tawi?

T: If you're to do something you must learn all about their plan, it's too risky otherwise

T: Are you going to stop them?

It...it just feels like a lot, although given the nuance of the show so far I don't necessarily think they'll go with Rich = Bad so maybe I am reading too much into this.

I certainly WANT him to only be motivated by helping Black and White get to the bottom of whatever is going on.

I mean obvious answer is Tawi sent people to beat up Black, but why Black specifically? did they know he was the ring leader? Have our gang damaged Tawi's properties before?

We also have Eugene the girlfriend, who Eugene thought Black had broken up with...

Plus whatever maybe feelings are going on/have been going on here

(So is White's theory that Eugene made that but never gave it right...or did Black actually give it to Eugene??)

(Also I know they won't but can I at least get one kiss?? Look at this chemistry ugh please please??)

Although this IS working for me too, which I was a bit worried about, OffGun are not really a couple I've responded too before. But I am enjoying their dynamic in this a lot

Summary

I love the visuals, I love the characters, I love the story, I love the growth, (I keep getting distracted...)

Can't wait till next time!!

@plantsarepeopletoo @shouldiusemyname

Don't know when the next update will be...let me know if you want/don't want to be tagged!

Also I know I asked questions but I don't want answers!!

[oriley42]

Tl;dr: here's the chart I made, react at your own time if you'd like<3, sorry for the bible below.

Hello again legend, I present to you my magnum opus relationship chart, updated to where I reached when I started it which was about early-mid s7 (I now finished) and therefore does not feature Park or Addams.

You can probably tell which parts might be inspired by your fics (the og ducklings polycule, House and Wilson married, Cuddy and frankly any woman, 13 and Amber etc), which parts are rooted in canon (Cuddy and House, Taub and Rachel, 13 and Foreman etc) and which parts are fully just me going ham (some friendships and ships with people who never met in canon, some of them sharing homes oops).

I would absolutely love to read a live reaction from you on stuff you agree and disagree with and what makes no sense to you because I honestly think your brain is huge as far as dynamics go. Feel free to add anything you can see I blatantly missed, I for sure didn't include everything here.

I know most of your fics don't venture outside of the earlier seasons regarding characters and dynamics but I've been having brainrot about the whole lot of them, I have loads of headcanons regarding the chart:

- It took Foreman a long time to give up his house but because he literally cannot do casual relationships and is hardcore married to 3 people and dating 13 he just sleeps wherever

- Kutner and Masters have a crazy bonding arc that ends with them sharing a house and they balance each other out

- Stacy and Cameron used to fuck over shared weird ass relationship with House

Anyway seriously ama I can explain everything even why Lin Manuel Miranda's character made it to the magnum opus I'm being so fr

No pressure at all to respond unless this brings you equal brainrot, at your leisure boss

Wahoo! This is so cool! I’ve only seen charts like these occasionally, and never gotten a chance to really dive in. I love how this visualizes the complex network of relationships and their nuances, and crystallizes a particular snapshot of them. And I’m so flattered that my stories could play a role in how you imagine these relationships! I do tend to favor the early seasons, so this is a good chance to think about the later fellows as well, who I also love <3 (Will attempt to put my response under a read-more...if I can figure out how these work...)

Starting with Foreman: I love how he’s his own big nexus! The show has such intense main character syndrome with House, but I totally agree with how you’ve framed Foreman and Thirteen as other key spokes in the bonkers wheel of toxic polycule-ism that is PPTH. Foreman wants to be a responsible homeowner but he’s got marriages all over town! And really he’s married to his job! How’s a guy supposed to manage a mortgage situation like that? 😅 Foreman and Kutner (I almost just misspelled his name as Kuntner, which, honestly…serve) didn’t really get to do much together in canon, and I love to imagine them getting to have a relationship of their own, not just in the context of PPTH. Would they chill and play video games, and it would be a chance for Foreman to just be a person, instead of A Doctor? Would he get to enjoy Kutner’s laid back nature, but because they keep things casual, he doesn’t have to deal with the stuff that would absolutely drive his ordered mind crazy—you know he wouldn’t stand for a fridge that’s empty except for a jar of mustard and one (1) liter of Mountain Dew. Also I can’t believe I forgot about that plot point that Taub roomed with Foreman, oh my god. Yes. And Foreman and Rachel Taub secret pals? Delish!

Thirteen has pulled every young, gorgeous, eligible person in her orbit, as she should. Sampled all the flavors, as it were. Except C&C—I agree, she doesn’t vibe with the blonde twins, especially as a set, though I think there could be something interesting in the whole ‘Thirteen is House’s metaphorical daughter’ vibe that Cameron would just go apeshit over. ‘Oh, it’s House, but he’s a hot, impressionable young girl who’s also dying?!’ ß catnip for that messed up gal! (Sidebar: I am fighting for my life every time I try to make Cameron sapphic because that actress simply reads as unbearably het to me. It took everything I had to write explicit Cuddy/Cameron. I’m so sorry to all the lesbian!Cam truthers out there, you’re stronger than I! Especially considering Jennifer went on to be half of such a powerhouse WLW ship on OUAT…I don’t know why, but the only kind of queer for her that really works in my head is aro-ace. That girl just wants to save lives, she doesn’t have time for any other nonsense!) On that note, love the idea that Cameron/Stacy had a thing. Go girls, the best way to get over House is to get under someone else (who also wants to fuck him!) Cuddy/Amber is galaxy brain, god, let these powerful yet deeply insecure and structurally maligned women try to step on each other, fail, and fuck nasty about it 😭 I’m also glad you fit sweet little Masters in, I’ve only written her as a cameo because s7 is so…Like That…but she’s delightful and deserves the (intimate) attentions of beautiful and terrifying women such as Thirteen and Amber. And Kutner & Masters friendship, what a delight that would be! I think they would both bring eldest sibling energy to it that would turn out to complement one another, as Kutner shows her the ropes of having fun and learning when to bend the rules, and she can help him buckle down and connect with the times when the rules are actually important to follow. Kutner was always the youngin’, so he didn’t get to mentor anybody, and he should have gotten that chance!!

I think Cuddy and Wilson have a Something…that cannot be defined. Is it sexual, platonic, friendly, familial? Are they besties, are they both just good at being social, are they bonded primarily over their UST for House, would they have been the world’s most perfect Lavender Marriage??? (Which raises the point of kids, yikes! That would need to be a whole other chart, of kids had, imagined, and desired…) Similarly, canon implies that Wilson and Stacy are good friends and have been for quite a while (though we don’t get to see it enough!) and I always wonder how that went for James ‘Trips Over Friendship Into Marriage’ Wilson. Was his friendship like Stacy like his relationship with Cuddy? Are they surface level friends who really bonded over House—or over the kinds of things that draw them to someone like House, e.g. the dark unspoken desires they both paper over in their pursuit of appearing “normal”? Maybe it’s like what Bonnie said, if she’d slept with Wilson right away, she could have gotten over him…maybe Wilson slept with Cuddy and/or Stacy and they were like ‘that was fine, but what if we just did brunch once a month and gossiped instead.’

I agree that Cuddy should have gotten to keep Lucas, like a pet. He was delightful! House Lite, a little scamp, but one who could be kind and relied upon when it was important. And totally agree that House should get to keep Alvie, that musical theater freak helped him keep it together in one of the worst times of his life! Those episodes of s6 are a fever dream that I wouldn’t trade for the world. House needs his emotional support boy best friend (there’s that one post that says without Wilson, House flees to the nearest manlet…so real.) It’s so natural, then, for the two manlets to bond. Lucas and Alvie have killer karaoke sessions together that are as humiliating to witness as they are incredible to experience.

Thank you for sharing this inspiring chart (and for referring to me like I’m a mafia don, it makes me feel so butch and famous) 😎🥰 Please do reblog or reply if any of this stream of consciousness sparks clarifications/questions/additions!

[beechicory]

Seb, a few days before his final race, did a fascinating interview discussing many, many things, including:

his decision to retire being for him

the World Cup in Qatar (and when, or if, sports should go there)

sportswashing and flowery words, and

the need for F1 to put its money where its flowery words are in terms of improving human rights

that human rights, and projects to improve human rights, require funding $$$ and actions, not words and photo-ops

that F1 must be be a) transparent, and b) accountable about the money it gets and where that money goes

It's a really good discussion, and he's really thoughtful - I think that even if one were to disagree with his conclusions, you'd leave recognising his logic and sincerity (and moral conviction).

The interview, with Philipp Schneider of Süddeutsche Zeitung, was difficult to get access to (here's a link to it on archive.ph) so I'm posting the google-translated text behind the Read More. (As always when something is google-translated, we're probably missing some nuance, etc)

I really recommend reading it!

Tw for discussion of homophobia, etc.

-----------------

Conversation with Sebastian Vettel

"I want to experience happiness without having to drive for it"

Nov 18, 2022 at 6:51 p.m

Before his last race, Sebastian Vettel talks about the reasons for the end of his career, the driver's dependence on the car and material - and makes demands on Fifa and Formula 1.

SZ: Mr. Vettel, a face-to-face meeting was originally planned. Now we can at least connect by phone. That saves CO2 emissions and should be in your interest, right?

Sebastian Vettel: Absolutely. That's how it works wonderfully.

Your Formula 1 career ends on Sunday with a final race in Abu Dhabi . And a lot of people get excited because they want to know what you're going to do in the future. Does that surprise you?

Luckily, my decision doesn't affect the people, it affects me. And it's not like I got up in the morning and thought: like that! Now is the time to stop. I've been thinking about this for a long time. And even if I can't say exactly what comes after that - I'm looking forward to what comes after that!

Good to hear.

At some point, every athlete reaches the point where their career can no longer continue, for whatever reason, whether self-chosen or not. I'm not super special in that regard. The big task for me will be to find something that gives me the same level of satisfaction as I did in the years in Formula 1. One thing is certain: the big adrenaline rush and the feeling of sitting in the car will no longer exist. But that was clear to me.

We have a theory as to where the keen interest in your post-career life comes from.

How does it look?

We don't know of any professional athlete who has ever pushed his career with so much momentum during his active time. Lately one had the feeling that you are more often in the beehive than in the car and more of a political ambassador than a racing driver!

yes, good Maybe that's because there's not much to celebrate for me on the track at the moment. The sporting success in recent years has not been so outstanding that one could have said or written much about it.

You are not only leaving Formula 1 as a four-time world champion, but also as an important eyewitness. What do you think has changed the most in the past 15 years?

I think the sport, the genetics or what defines the sport is probably unchanged since Formula 1 came along. Yes, cars are changing, and so are people. But the core of Formula 1 has remained the same. I still love this sport, since I was little I've done nothing else, dreamed of nothing else, nothing else has ever really driven me. So what's different? The dimensions of the sport have grown enormously in recent years. So internationally, in Germany Formula 1 has shrunk.

Is that how you perceive it?

Formula 1 was far bigger in Germany when I started. And of course it was greatest when the boom years around Michael (Schumacher, editor's note) were around, in the mid-nineties, early 2000. Then there was another strong wave at my most successful time. But after that, interest in Germany decreased significantly.

Why is that?

On the one hand, because not all races are broadcast on free TV. But there is another important point: I am afraid that Germany is only a pioneer in terms of its view of Formula 1. There are simply more and more important issues that are coming to the fore. And that's why the question of the relevance of Formula 1 arises for many people.

But are you still a fan?

Naturally! I'm totally euphoric about our sport! That's exactly why I see how important it is to look at him critically. The way we deal with resources is not a role model, we should be much more economical. If that is not the case soon, the question will quickly arise around the world as to whether Formula 1 is still viable. And then interest should decrease everywhere, as has already happened in Germany.

Exciting theory. The general perception is rather: Formula 1 is going through the roof everywhere, just not in Germany and Brazil, because people there don't want to spend money on pay TV.

The problem is deeper. We as a society do not want to underestimate the emergency we are in. In the decades to come, we will increasingly have to ask ourselves the question: What is still possible, what can we still afford? And every sport then has to justify itself for the way in which it is played.

So not just Formula 1?

Not at all. Us first, of course, because in our sport we drive around, burn resources and still need fossil fuels. But a football World Cup, the Olympic Games, the Bundesliga too: every major event has to reinvent itself and see how it can leave a smaller footprint.

From ecological to sporting criticism: The season began with a technology amendment that was announced with great pomp and aimed at pushing the field closer together. Why has the season turned out to be the most one-sided in years?

After big rule changes there is often a gap between a top team and the rest. The goal was to make overtaking and the show better and to make it easier for us to overtake. It's gotten a little better, but the big revolution that was announced with the new rules didn't materialize. It would have been better for the sport this season to have left the rules as they were. However, a process has been started that has the potential to bring the field closer together in the coming years. Also thanks to the budget cap, not only the teams with a lot or a lot of money will win in the long term, but also the smaller teams. However, this will only happen in a horizon of five years.

It was far more exciting in 2010: you only snagged your first title in the last race. Has Abu Dhabi been a happy place for you since then?

(laughs) Well, the racetrack and what happened on the racetrack, yes! I have many fond memories of winning the 2010 World Cup. It doesn't feel like yesterday. And a lot has happened since then.

Red Bull boss Dietrich Mateschitz then said that the way to the world championship title in the next few years would only be through you. And adds: Provided he's in the right car. The sentence was prophetic: it included all the titles that followed, but also your sometimes dreary years in worse cars. A driver drives the competition to the ground in the Red Bull and fails to win a title after switching to Ferrari and Aston Martin . Do you understand critics who say: what kind of sport is that?

The dependency of a driver on the team and material is actually enormous. But even in the Bundesliga you don't really have a chance of winning the championship if you're not FC Bayern.

The difference, however, is that while a player can shine on a bad football team, it's much harder on a Haas or Aston Martin.

Formula 1 has always been like this. In the fifties, in the seventies, and it's still like that today. From this point of view, however, the past few years have been very instructive for me. In the beginning, my aspirations in Formula 1 were very much focused on success. And then success came, very quickly and very powerfully. I rode the wave for as long as the wave was available.

A wave called Red Bull , on which you won four world titles...

Well, and then in the last few years the water has been under my board (laughs) ... or the wind has been taken out of my sails. But that doesn't mean my efforts are any smaller. I learned that there is a midfield and a backfield that I didn't bother with that much before because it was too far away. In any case, something interesting also happens there: the efforts are just as great, but the reward is completely absent.

Completely?

I would say yes. And that is of course a very, very hard bread for the motivation of the teams and also the drivers. They bob around in the back for years, go unnoticed and hope that they will take the small chance to shine when they present themselves. They are not only dependent on their motivation, their skills and talent - but also on the surrounding environment. It takes a bit of luck to be in the right place at the right time. The past few years have shaped me in this respect and taught me a lot, including about myself. In that respect, I don't want to do without them, even if I could have given them all away from a sporting point of view.

When we spoke in 2018, you said: your dream isn't finished yet, you still wanted to be world champion in a red car like your role model Michael Schumacher. Do you now console yourself with the belief that you had no chance of winning the Ferrari title?

We did not make it. So I could say: We didn't stand a chance. Or I could torture myself and ask: what was missing from the car? What slowed us down in development? What was perhaps structurally not ideal? You could have recognized some things and saved yourself some mistakes. But it wasn't like that. We tried everything as a team and gave everything. Even in hindsight, it doesn't feel like I left anything behind or that I was completely off track. Yes, I think unfortunately we didn't have a real chance to fight to the end.

Because Mercedes was too powerful?

You have to be fair enough to accept that the Mercedes- Lewis Hamilton package was the best. They had a better pace of development and therefore drove better than us. Which of course is a shame. I think I can live with that now as well as with the question of whether this is the right time for me to say goodbye. Or whether it might have needed another sense of achievement.

The question then arises as to what a sense of achievement in the Aston Martin could even look like.

What is the right time? Do you need a title to finish? A won race? A fastest lap? Any climax? Those are all questions I asked myself. It's not my fault if people expect something just because it would have been a nicer story. Or when they nag because they think my career is not smooth because I drive around the back and quit anyway. I'm the only one who has to live or deal with my situation. And after all these years I know exactly what I can do. I know what it takes to win races. And I know I don't have any of that right now. I'm still so confident in myself that I say: If I'm in the right package and have the right attitude, then I can get back up there at the front. Still.

When Nico Rosberg retired after his only title, not everyone was pleased either: critics said he fled because he felt he would never defeat Lewis Hamilton again.

Even. The length of time after your career is so infinitely long. Definitely wanting to win another title is not a recipe for success for the 40 or 50 years that follow. And I was lucky enough to be able to celebrate so many titles that I don't even know which one was the best. Just because you stopped with a title doesn't mean your career after your career will be 100 percent great.

After all, Nico Rosberg made it into the TV show The Lion's Den. But because you so often talk about your career after your career and recently said in Der Spiegel that you wanted to do it like Stefan Raab: just finish and then go underground. Anyone who has followed your activities beyond the race track will understand: you want to do things differently than Stefan Raab. They create a new stage for themselves so as not to disappear afterwards.

(laughs) Time will tell. I just said that I admire it when someone manages to transform their life in such a way that they say: I don't need any of this anymore! Maybe you can now simply bring your experience, your strengths and also your knowledge, which you have brought to bear in front of the camera over the years, behind the camera. So maybe you still work in the same profession, but you don't need the limelight as much anymore.

Fortunately, more people work behind the camera than in front of the camera in Formula 1 anyway.

Honestly, I wish I could find something I'm happy with. I want to experience good luck without having to drive (laughs) .

But to your legacy as a critic of Formula 1: Formula 1 is expanding into more and more countries where human rights are not respected. Football fans are protesting in the stadiums against the World Cup, which begins in Qatar on Sunday . Are motorsport fans less political?

Good question. In controversial countries like Qatar, football was kicked off ten years ago. There may not have been a World Cup yet, but that's where clubs held their winter camps.

FC Bayern has been going to Qatar regularly for years.

For example. We as Formula 1 have been organizing races in these countries for a long time. I think our world should keep evolving. That's why certain things can no longer be considered okay.

Qatar's World Cup ambassador described being gay as "mental damage" in front of the camera in a ZDF documentary.

That is not how it works! This is outrageous!

The mantra of the Qatari whitewashers that society is becoming more liberal, you just have to keep going there, organize big events and wait a few years - isn't that obviously a misconception?

Might be. But Formula 1 is booming internationally and is opening up to a younger audience thanks to the Netflix series "Drive to Survive". And when these young people come to the races, they may hear from other spectators that unbearable tone that many women, for example, suffer from. Then the young people can raise their voices and say: Hey, that's not possible! And this is how debates may arise that will help society as a whole. What is definitely no longer possible: that someone in a country where there are human rights violations talks their way out; For example with the argument: "That's just the way it is with us. Get over it!"

Isn't it naïve to believe that such a change is taking place?

That's why I specifically demand that sport should give itself a compass, set up a moral code and then stick to it. There it is then precisely determined what the basic political requirements must be in order for sport to be allowed to take place in a country. Certain things and certain countries are simply no longer there. Too much is too much. And then we say no as Formula 1 or FIFA . And don't just nod politely and take the money or help us with any other perks the country might offer.

For example, it could say: Don't drive in countries where critical journalists are cut up with bone saws. Formula 1 has signed a ten-year contract with Saudi Arabia.

Again: homophobic comments like that of the World Cup ambassador are absolutely unacceptable. And it puts the athletes in an extremely difficult situation: us drivers in Formula One, but also the players who will take part in the World Cup. You all have to ask yourself a very difficult question: Can I or am I even allowed to practice my sport in this place?

Your Answer?

You can't expect the players to get together and decide: We're skipping this moment, this unique feature in our lives, playing a World Cup, for political reasons. On the other hand, that would be an extremely good sign. It's difficult for the players, but easier for the spectators. You just couldn't look. I myself really enjoy watching football and I love European and World Cups. But sometimes I think: If I don't watch now, don't I also punish all the players who do their best for themselves and their team and are passionate about their sport? But when I think about it that way...

Then?

If statements like those of the World Cup ambassador are made, then we simply shouldn't go to Qatar! The saying was more than backward-looking. The sport, the whole association should say: This is not the right place to do sport there.

Especially since the ambassador still gets money to show as friendly a face as possible to the outside world. He proves that nothing gets better just because sport is organized.

There's a chance. Even our Western societies have not eaten wisdom with spoons and can now say: Dear country XY, do everything as we do and everything will be fine! We also have things that should be significantly better. But if you want to accelerate change in Qatar or Saudi Arabia, then as a sport we need transparency: we have to publish the unembellished numbers of how much money we collect from the countries. And we have to clearly communicate how much of it flows back into projects that then really drive change there on the ground.

A very large and a very small number.

Allegedly. But as long as these issues remain in the background and are veiled, as long as no one knows how much money is being spent and what is being done with it, we will remain stationary. It also doesn't help if you meet somewhere and take a picture of banging a spade in the ground or planting a tree.

You went karting with young women in Saudi Arabia and published photos of it.

That was only a small gesture, but social change does not come for free. Many important projects cost money. And if a country has plenty of money to attract big sport, then some of it, even a large part, should be used to improve people's lives.

Some problems in Qatar cannot be solved by projects. Homosexuality is forbidden, the ambassador only said what is the law. So shouldn't the code you're asking for it say: don't drive in countries where same-sex lovers are jailed?

Just as. Fifa, Formula 1 and other sports associations should also consistently demand the implementation of the demands that they formulate in flowery words. And then say: You can bid as much money as you want, but we won't come. At the moment it is unfortunately still the case that as an organizer you can get away with it if you take a few nice photos. The fundamental problem is another.

That would?

There is still no authority that can demand consequences if an association does not meet the requirements it sets for itself. Formula 1 has set itself the goal of being climate neutral by 2030. Nice and good. But why can't it be checked by an independent and critical body along the way? To then live with the consequences and possible penalties, whatever they may look like? What happens if Formula 1 takes a wrong turn on the way to climate neutrality and doesn't meet its own demands? Or FIFA on the way to more equality and diversity? Unfortunately, at the moment it's like this: Formula 1 controls Formula 1, and Fifa controls Fifa.

But who should control the big associations?

There are independent instances that deal with all kinds of tests that could be won. But it would help if you didn't just set an abstract goal, but divided the way there into transparent intermediate stages. And then there's the general public, the fans in the stands, journalists reporting on it. And wouldn't that be a very, very broad, international and good control body? So I don't see why a lot of problems can't be solved with transparency.

It's a pity that you drive your last race. Actually, because of your sense of mission, you should be forced to continue to circle until retirement age.

Oh, I do not know ...

With all his love for Fernando Alonso, it is unlikely that he would be interested in anyone other than Fernando Alonso in his old racing days. And there is no one to be seen growing up as a political driver.

Every driver has his or her own issues... Maybe some drivers are still too young. But the climate issue will also come to the fore with them. Even if they don't want to.

After leaving Haas a year ago, Mick Schumacher is without a cockpit in Formula 1. Various driver's seats have become vacant in the past few weeks, but no team boss has thought of Schumacher. How do you explain that his services are not in greater demand?

It would be a shame for the sport if it lost Mick. We talked about the fact that in some cars you can't shine as a driver. And sometimes a driver and his car don't go together at all. Mick has had a difficult year, but has set his highlights and accents. As high as you sometimes fly in Formula 1, you can quickly fall again. Basically, you are never as good as people say you are. But you're never as bad as people say you are. Of course, I wish that Mick stays in Formula 1, because that would be very, very important for Germany's motorsport scene .

Nevertheless: You won your first race in the defeated Toro Rosso. Michael Schumacher amazed the world in a Jordan. How do you recognize a talent? And how do you recognize when a talent isn't that great after all?

It's a difficult subject for me: I know Mick better than most drivers and have known for a very long time. He has a lot of potential. Although he may not be the type to get in the car and run into everyone like some people are. Mick is someone who can always improve. This is his gift. But will it then come to the point where he regularly wins and competes for the title? I don't know that. Mick is still too young for such an assessment. I can only hope he gets the time to find out.

[neonscandal]

Thanks for your posts and metas, @neonscandal .... Before I found your blog, actually I ship tododeku and kiribaku. But thanks to you, I became bakudeku shipper (until now). Your metas are amazing and always based on canon. Sorry, I'm not good with words, but I hope you know how great your blog is (you are definitely one of my favorite tumblr blog). 💐🌷

And WOW these last 10 - 15 chapter, really are the best. Even my mutuals who are anti-bkdk can't deny Bakugou and Midoriya's bond anymore. Also, love Uraraka and Toga's bond....

Do you think it's possible that at the end of BNHA, Bakugou and Midoriya have ambygous relationship (kinda like Tiger and Bunny)....? I know it could be hard to be canon in shounen series.....

P.s Do you think SatoSugu (from JJK) is queerbaiting?

⚠️ Vague spoiler warnings through chapter MHA 410 at best. Covers JJK S2 with a vague mention of a character who pops up later in the manga.

It's funny you say that because I also love a good tododeku or kiribaku situation. Like yea, people have their OTP but... realistically? Characters should be just as messy as people in real life. ✨ They're going to date around before things fit together with that OTP, right? At least that's how I look at it. So I love exploring offshoots.

You are far too kind in these rough times but I appreciate you saying that (and reaching out). The swarm of asks lately have been so funny. I tend to carve out time to address them quicker than some of the other things bouncing around my head (literally, the exact opposite happens with fic updates 🥺) so I'm just happy I'm writing something. If someone else enjoys it then that's the whipped cream and caramel on my sundae.

DUDE. I hadn't read 409 or 410 yet because holiday chaos but I feel like we're beyond allegations at this point haha ALTHOUGH, I didn't see the cliffhanger from 410 coming at all so I wonder what that means for the larger story.. Got any theories?

Regarding endgame... honestly the last two chapters gave me a little anxiety. "This is our tale?" Too good to be true. Especially when we know from chapter one "this is a story of how I became a great hero". Also, I've had some thoughts since 406 about how their connection is being framed up which I haven't had time to write but it feels like a lot of fanservice for Horikoshi (and subsequent editors, etc) to not commit. Additionally, in all the ways this story subverts the typical formula for shonen, it would also feel like a fumbled opportunity to turn everything on its nose with such a wildly popular series. So I'm holding out hope but conservatively preparing for one of them to just... not make it even if we get a confession *shudders in Supernatural flashbacks*.

I hope this makes sense as I struggled to recommend stories where this wasn't the case when asked about BL. In my opinion, good representation in mainstream stories (gender identity, orientation, race, religion, disability, etc.) is when, whatever makes a character different isn't their whole identity. Specifically in the context of more traditional stories (not centered on BL for instance), they should be involved if not just as integral to the plot as any other character wherein their diversity isn't sticking out like a sore thumb. But even that characterization requires nuance which is what makes it so hard to articulate? Maybe it's simpler to say that their character arc shouldn't just be based around identity. As a short answer to your question, I don't think that SatoSugu is queerbaiting. I think they are authentically and intrinsically coded to one another in subtext and out loud straight from Akutami but that, sometimes, relationships don't work out or love is unrequited. They may not have had the same feelings despite their inherent complement to one another and that's okay.

As above, characters should be just as messy as real people and that's what makes what didn't happen between them all the more tragic because it's heartbreaking in how relatable it is (not the cult leading and murder though). Seems like a convenient answer from a delulu shipper unless you take into consideration how Kirara Hoshi's identity is given the same level of subtlety. They aren't defined by their identity nor are the characters jarred by some particularly grandiose reveal nor are they perturbed by the nature of their connection to Hikari. I'm by no means an expert but I think that these characters are executed well in the sense that they have a complexity that doesn't hinge on what would otherwise make them different. They aren't "othered", it's just a fact of who they are and the story continues. It's a facet of who they are without cheaply being all they are. With Gege Akutami's own pronouns not expressly confirmed, perhaps that informs the care around those with differing identities.

I haven't seen Tiger & Bunny yet but now I know what to check out next!

[prettycottonmouthlamia]

So there was a conversation about queer representation in video games, and this got said in response to the perception that lesbians are more represented in video games compared to other LGBT identities (particularly gay men):

"Lesbians are fetishized by straight men, so that's why they're more common"

I'm going to be honest and say it's never really sat right with me from that point on. Not because I don't think there isn't some truth to the matter, but because I think it lacks a lot of nuance and a lot of much more important feminist thought. So let's just, break down my thoughts alright?

What does it mean to fetishize lesbians in this situation?

This is actually something I think is worth examining in a lot more detail, because when you talk about lesbian characters in media, there's usually one of two responses from predominantly cishet men regarding them:

The character(s) in question are vehemently disliked, often getting little attention, or as is common in fandom circles, having their character and the content surrounding them relentlessly criticized.

Strong affirmations that the characters involved are Definitely Not Gay and that it's reaching to insist they are.

This, to me, is kind of strange? It's in obvious contradiction to the idea that lesbian characters are getting the most representation. So what exactly is going on?

In truth, both responses highlight some truth, and to understand this, we need to look at the primary way men fetishize lesbians, which is through porn. When it comes to porn, often there is not an overt need to deal with the people involved as wholly unique individuals with their own feelings and thoughts and what not. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, porn actors are sex workers and that's going to be the result of that. It's just kind of a natural result and porn can handle this either gracefully or not.

But as an interesting side result, this means that it becomes very easy to decouple the actors away from the content. The second reaction becomes a dominant factor here: it becomes very easy to view the women involved as being available and often the primary way this developers from there is the idea of performance: a girlfriend and her friend performing for the boyfriend, or maybe two girlfriends etc. Now, again, there's nothing strictly wrong with that in concept as a sex act as long as everyone involved is aware and consenting and happy with it, but it's how it crops up in regards to how lesbians are viewed.

Lesbians are only tolerated when they're viewed to be available to men, and are often violently disliked when that's shown to not be the case. The world has not stopped oppressing lesbians for being overt in their affections towards other women just because of porn videos. This often has the effect that lesbian characters in media are rarely very explicit in order to preserve that illusion, or the much less comical and honestly perhaps somewhat grosser option I call the IntSys method where you just make your characters all bisexual.

To be clear, I find this really disrespectful and cowardly on principle. It really illustrates the extent that the creatives involved just see bisexuality as a convenience and not actually its own important identity. It becomes a way to still sell your lesbians to men, and frankly, eugh. Lesbians and bisexuals really deserve better than that and IntSys are still in fact tremendous cowards.

Fetishization does not correlate to representation either.

Guess who else is also fetishized by straight men its trans women babyyyyy! This is a very known quantity and its curious how that hasn't also caused a similar explosion in the number of trans women in video games. Actually what it has seemingly actually resulted in is more of the "trap" archetype, the transphobic and homophobic character who exists primarily as a joke.

Which is honestly a nice segway into the next point.

Lesbians do not necessarily represent a threat to masculinity.

If you wanted to know why so many lesbians in media are extremely femme and often conform to straight women beauty standards, this is it. It all has to do with masculinity. In fact, this really ties the knot with the problems with both lesbian representation in media (the absolute dearth of masculine women and butches (sorry that Genshin character is not butch)), the lack of representation of trans women, and the lack of representation of gay and bisexual men.

To transgress against masculinity in general has a habit of making you way more hated in our society which worships masculinity as a golden standard. If a woman is too masculine and is trying too hard to be like a man, she's often virulently hated. For trans women, the rejection of masculinity and the embracing of femininity makes them beloathe, and for gay and bisexual men, having sex with men is embracing what is seen as the female sexual role. We can even circle back here to the fetishization and lesbians and the anger of exclusion: it's okay for women to kiss each other and have sex as long as a guy is involved and enjoying it (and very bad if that's not the case). That doesn't even work with gay men, even though statistically more men are enjoying it.

There's an entire thesis that could be written about the stigmatization of the sexual role of the bottom in homosexuality, or on the eventual estrangement of the femme gay men in queer society. Ideas of masculinity are inextricably tied to straight men's perception of gay men, and unfortunately, gay men are often viewed as directly transgressive. A straight man being hit on by a gay man is often viewed as a direct assault on that straight man's masculinity, and as a result, gay men are just directly hated a lot more. There's a reason violence towards gay men is still staggeringly common. It's not like the video game industry is making any progressive waves in combating any of this either.

But there's one point as well in addition to this I would feel remiss not to bring up:

Are we really laying at the feet of a lot of good, honest queer representation in video games the burden of appealing to fetishistic straight men?

This one in particular bothers me because it is actually worth noting that there is a lot of lesbian representation that has nothing to do with fetishization at all. Not because it isn't sexual in any way, but because its created by queer lesbians wanting to see themselves in the media. So one must ask if there's something else involved.

For me, I have a general pet theory that's called Cluster Behavior of Exclusionary Qualities. The gist of it is that I've noticed that outsiders to a community often do not have one single defining trait that separates them from the majority, but often have more of them. The primary reason for this is that people who are already excluded will generally start to re-examine a lot of the other norms they take for granted. But I think another aspect of it as well is that the more reasons you have for not being accepted, generally the more it just makes you stubborn and angry. What are they going to do, exclude you harder? Ultimately, the industry is still really, really sexist and it's harder for women to even make a foothold in the industry at all to begin with. You're not fighting any less uphill, so why not just make something authentic to yourself and resist a lot of the bullshit?

This isn't to say there aren't gay men in the video game industry, there absolutely are, but I think the pressure to conform is probably a lot stronger, because acceptance really is just right around the corner. Sometimes it is easier to just go with the flow when its beneficial, and I don't judge for that its a bitch of a world and we all gotta eat somehow.

So what do I think at the end of all this?

I think that the fetishization of lesbians actually results in us getting a lot less authentic, well-written lesbian characters and stories, and what it does produce are a lot of ambiguously written characters and token attempts at inclusion that often fall flat. I do think it's likely even then that still outweighs a lot of other representation in video games, but I think there are much stronger factors to explain that.

At the end of the day, we're all fighting for fucking scraps out here. We're not going to get better representation by taking jabs at each other about this. But maybe, one day, we can live in a world where a Final Fantasy 19 has two women absolutely destroying it so I no longer need to see the straight couple from 16.

[whoiwanttoday]

I watched the movie Happening and it’s been bouncing around my brain. I like when movies do that, it usually means there is something of value to them for me if I keep trying to unpack them and I go back to them. It also means I keep going back and forth in my brain if I want to make this post. For those not in the know it's a French movie based on the memoirs of Annie Ernaux. It's set in France in the 1960's when abortion was still illegal and the lead is in search of one. The movie was direct and honest in a way that gave it power. I won't spoil anything here but moments could be brutal and harsh but what most stood out to me was the dread and paranoia that seeped into anything. A person who lacks freedom can't really now who to trust and thus ends up all alone. It's awful to see but it was an excellent movie. I had a friend though who commented that he wasn't sure he needed to see another movie about abortion and I think he's dead wrong. Off the top of my head I can only make a list of a handful of movies about this, at least a handful that I truly think are very good movies but I have seen like hundreds of movies about men trying to find themselves cause they're a little sad as they reach middle age or they are man children who need a woman to help them grow up and like... look I get that people need escapism and things that they can just experience and move on. Art is wonderful at providing comfort to the downtrodden but it is also there to make the powerful uncomfortable and to illuminate the world by showing you experiences outside your own and to force you to think and I guess I think if you think you're tired of movies about abortion maybe you're not looking around. The fact that this is still a debate is the reason we need more. This is not the single greatest movie about this topic I have ever seen (for those making a really depressing list that would probably be 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days. If you want the single most powerful scene in a movie about this I think it might be Never Rarely Sometimes Always' scene from which it draws the title. Both are in my opinion fantastic but the first is certainly held in higher regard) but it is a good movie and I guess the point is that we need to continue to see and tell human stories about things that aren't always pleasant. I really like movies where superheros punch the shit out of bad guys but it can't be the only thing we consume, I believe it is our duty as people to challenge ourselves as well. I know this is tubmlr and I know what direction is skews so certainly this isn't a post about convincing anyone of anything. I have my own complicated history with abortion and I'd imagine we all do, we are products of the world we live in and whatever your life circumstances it's impossible to avoid the everything swirling around abortion. Anyway, that's not what this blog is about or what this post is about really, just the direction it went. This is about Anamaria Vartolomei who is a French-Romanian actress, a pretty solid combo if you are asking me because I have a deep love for French cinema and every Romanian I have ever met is just fantastic. Anyway, she is really quite attractive and I thought she did a great job in a tough role. She gave a nuances performance and I found it compelling and engaging. Today I want to fuck Anamaria Vartolomei.

[femenaces]

i feel like the really complicated part for me about bisexuality as a phenomenon is like the unending nuance. like if we’re being honest there are bisexual people whose experience is functionally basically the same as heterosexuals. and then there are those who come closer to the gay experience, and there are more classic 50/50 bis, etc. like not only is there not common ground with straights and gays, it often seems there’s less common ground than one would assume within the bisexual population itself. and it is the only sexuality where there is an element of choice in what “lifestyle” (forgive me) you pursue. I would say it’s the sexuality that reacts most interestingly to the norms of a particular society/millieu. and none of this can be meaningfully discussed because it’s such a disparaged sexuality that basically any exploratory discussion about these things is fraught to the point of being dead on arrival.

I agree, you bring up an interesting and important point that bisexuals frequently experience "bisexuality" in ways that are so different from one another that two bisexual people might find they don't even have much in common in regards to their internal experience of their sexuality, despite both technically sharing the same label. And I think this is a big reason why many people don’t recognize that they are actually bisexual.

(post-writing edit: I'm about to go on a tangent about some stuff that might make people uncomfortable so if you are not a fan of reading about this topic here is your warning to bail. But if you choose to continue I just want to say that I'm speaking very honestly from my personal experience, and the experiences I've heard from other bisexuals who have reached out to me about this.)

The two main variables I can think of which combine to form very different experiences of bisexuality from person to person are:

(As you mentioned) different ratios of sex preference

Whether or not a person experiences a temporal aspect to this ratio (not everyone does!), and if so, how does it manifest.

The first point is becoming more discussed in recent years but I don't see the second mentioned hardly at all despite it being extremely relevant to many people. I think the lack of awareness and understanding about the temporal aspect is actually a huge factor in bisexual people "misidentifying" themselves. Straight and gay people often assume bisexual people do this on purpose, "pretending" to be straight or gay for personal gain, and while I'm sure that does happen (for a variety of very interesting social reasons too complex to discuss in this response) there's also the reality that if you are a bisexual person who goes through this, especially on the extreme side, you can 100%, truly and honestly, feel like one or the other at different points in your life. And if you go through something like that without the knowledge of temporal changes even being a thing (termed bi-cycling), it is shockingly easy to fall into the trap of assuming you're not bisexual after all, you're gay. Or, not bisexual after all, you're straight. And even when you DO know that this is a thing, it can still be hard to wrap your mind around in the moment and you can still wind up doubting yourself.

This particular concept is one that causes a lot of intense controversy when it's discussed because if you believe people who say "I thought I was (X), but then I discovered I was (Z)" then it could technically happen to anyone, right? And that thought makes a lot of gay & straight people very uncomfortable. I really can't even blame them for it, because in my experience it IS scary and unsettling if you wind up going through it. So a lot of people don't believe it, probably in part because of this, but also in part because it does sound kind of impossible if you haven't had it happen to you.

So to get into a really controversial example, of all those bisexual women who are assumed to have been purposely lying about being lesbian when they wind up dating a man, I'm 100% certain at least some of them are actually being totally honest when they say they never were into men before (Of course the reverse is also true-- ask me how I know-- but isn't usually as controversial for obvious reasons). But if we don't make it more common knowledge that this is one type of bisexual experience, you're going to continue to get a lot of the "I'm gay with an exception" and the "Hang on, I'm actually (a lesbian)/(straight) despite my (sleeping with men)/(women) phase" nonsense that everyone hates.

to conclude:

Why is this a thing that happens to some people? I don't know.

Will this happen to me? Probably not, but I don't know.

How common is it? I don't know. (Like I said, I think many many people are misidentifying themselves because of this and couldn't even be counted in a survey of bisexual people because they don't think they're bisexual!)

This sounds messy. Yes, it is.

[septembersghost]

How do you deal with all the hate directed towards Elvis? He wasn’t a saint but some people are so intense for their hatred for him online that it kinda takes the run out of being a fan :/

hi anon! okay, so the first thing i'm going to do is link you to my love tam's @headfullofpresley reply to this question because she recently answered it very well and more succinctly than what i'm about to write.

i am not on the clock app, which is where i gather a lot of this is coming from? but i know the breakdown of that hate comes in three basic forms - 1. COMPLETELY false and easily disprovable accusations of racism that have somehow spread over the internet for years. (there are countless sources to dispel this, this touches on a mere few.) this has somehow entwined itself with the idea that he "stole" music, which is categorically untrue, and while absolutely there is a factor there regarding the fact that he could succeed differently due to being a handsome white man in a still segregated and tumultuous time, his music and his melding of gospel and r&b was never malicious, it was inspired by absolute love. he also actively supported charities, including black and jewish organizations. his generosity and kindness wasn't limited or biased at all. 2. people victimizing priscilla as if she isn't allowed to speak for herself and tell her own story, one in which she has never claimed that and i don't personally believe anyone else has the right to decide that for someone. (which @bcofl0ve has addressed well here and here). 3. really upsetting and damaging ableism that has persisted in many ways since his death, where people make certain insinuations and judgments about his health and choices with disdain rather than any understanding. this is a problem in that it tends to demonize addiction and weight and other issues rather than approaching that sympathetically.

moreover, i do believe it's a real problem with current social media that we expect sainthood from anyone. demanding unimpeachable behavior and strict nearly puritanical morality from anyone is never going to be attainable. the legendary music, the various iconography and images aside, at the core of it all, he was a person. people have faults and flaws, they make mistakes, everyone is affected by whatever trauma and grief and struggles they may face, and the pressures of that intense, and quite unprecedented when elvis' star rose, level of fame are unimaginable. was he perfect? absolutely not. but being perfect isn't the same as being good. and when you delve into his life and his beliefs, his feelings about other people and reaching out to them, his connection to his music (be it rock and roll, gospel, or anything in between), the way he searched often for meaning, how he had that desire to extend kindnesses to others and to make others happy...there's so much, and the accounts from those who knew and loved him paint a picture of someone who certainly was fallible, but was undoubtedly good. and i think that's an important distinction to make - perfection simply isn't real. human beings are never one thing - we're fragile and resilient and angry and loving and impulsive and kind, and that's never one facet at a time, it's all at once. if you can only look at someone from a judgmental, "this is problematic!," point of view, you're frankly NEVER going to be able to interact compassionately or genuinely. if you look at someone and define them by their mistakes and condemn that without nuance (and you know what i mean by this, obviously we are not speaking of unforgivable actions here), you're never going to be able to embrace the full person, but it also limits understanding and compassion for anyone. i just feel it's vital to look at the entire tapestry of who someone is, and the full measure of their light and heart.

and then i'm just going to reiterate what tam said - haters (of anything) are miserable and tend to be misinformed and thrive on that mean-spiritedness, and that's so antithetical to how i interact with things i love that i don't have time for it and don't think it deserves energy. if something makes you happy, please don't let outside noise steal that! we know and can easily explore what was inherent to his heart and soul. we can hear the beauty and innovation and joy in his music. if that's providing you a sense of comfort and happiness and fun, that's what matters most. if someone doesn't get it, that's their problem. you are always allowed to love things. 💗💗💗

[golbrocklovely]

From what I'm seeing of the fandom today, it's the twitter fans who are in the outlier on this one. Everywhere seems to disagree with them on this issue or at least don't seem to think it is an issue worthy of anger yet. Reddit, multiple discords, instagram, FB, here on tumblr etcetc. In fact all these locations just seem frustrated and annoyed by the twitter stans if I'm honest, none of them are being particularly nice about them. (I think the big issue people seem to have with them is they always seem to be stirring up drama alongside the tiktokers and the Twitter stans have claimed to speak for the whole fandom which seems to have riled a lot of people up)

i don't want to have to repeat myself but i will, just bc i don't want ppl to misconstrued what i think lol

again, i don't want snc collabing with joe rogan either, bc that seems to be where a lot of ppl's contention are with them. understandable. i feel the same. joe rogan can suck my nonexistent left nut. that being said, we can't control snc. they obviously went on his show over a year ago at this point bc it was a business decision. a business transaction so that they can reach a wider audience. and then on top of that, his daughter was a fan, and of course they weren't gonna shoot down a chance to meet a fan just bc her dad's an asshole.

i personally don't believe that snc agree with everything joe has said over the course of his career just bc they went on his show. miley cyrus went on his show once, and she's left leaning, so i highly doubt she agrees with any of his takes. i think some ppl are able to compartmentalize who he is vs what his job is. some just see him as an interviewer, which is most likely how snc see him. i'm not saying it makes it right. i'm just stating the obvious.

and i think that is also where the issue lies: a lot of fans want snc to do the right thing at all times, with no nuance. you're either doing the right thing or you're a bad person. and a lot of ppl, myself included in some regard, don't see their decisions as that. it isn't black and white, but some beg to differ. and that's where problems arise.

but again, in a perfect world, snc wouldn't collab with anyone problematic. i would love for that to be reality. but it isn't.

on top of that, the twitter fandom has an issue of constantly calling snc out, or making a mountain out of a molehill, over things that aren't important. they are the boy that cried wolf for a lot of fans outside of that space. and as someone that is online and follows and pay attention to a lot of ppl that do have the loudest voices, it's hard to take their opinions seriously when every other week they find something else to complain about.

most of which, as of recently, has been about k and m and how they're annoying. or snc are annoying for not "telling us" or confirming they're dating the girls. and it's just like… who cares.

and i know, pot meet kettle. i know i'm one to talk. but i at least do it on a site where snc aren't at. and i know it's not meant to be taken seriously. and on top of that, i know i don't know the whole picture, and i'm not owed it either. but some of these fans, loud voice or not, take it too far. and it ruins the vibes. and that's why a lot of ppl are sick of it.

[reachermori]

I continue to break my tumblr hiatus for this show because I'm so annoyed with this stupidity and feel the need to put my thoughts into words.

Apologies for the rant. It's a little all over the place, but I tried to put it in a coherent order. It mostly focuses on hating James and on how I think Ted and Jamie's relationship and arcs were wasted, especially in relation to one another.

If the ending scene is indeed Ted's dream, I think it's even worse in regards to Jamie and Beard. Essentially Ted's "happy" versions of them have them close to their abusers, who have done nothing to deserve it.

The idea that Ted's happy ending for Jamie is him reconnecting with his father, who seems proud of him, is pure projection. That's what Ted wants for himself, but he's also inserting his own good relationship with his father. (Which, if we were getting more episodes I might be okay with as it would be interesting to explore.)

The first two seasons really built up Jamie and Ted to have a good relationship, or at least be important to one another, and I still think they could have had a really powerful impact on one another.

While Jamie has grown a lot and that had a lot to do with Ted's influence, I think he could have had that talk with Ted instead of Roy about how having a positive male influence is important to his continued growth. Ted however, could have learned through Jamie and his struggles with his father's toxicity that it's okay to let go.

I have always been happy with the idea of the show ending with Ted returning to Kansas, because I thought it was important for Ted to learn that it's okay to leave and move on. Ted's biggest internal conflict is his inability to quit things, and I really wanted him to accept that quitting isn't inherently bad. Maybe even have an arc with Henry in a toxic situation that he's sticking with because he knows his dad never quits anything to reinforce to Ted how problematic that mindset is, and decide that it's okay to quit Richmond to be with Henry where he clearly wants to be. (Also I disagree with the idea that Ted has nothing in Kansas besides Henry. I doubt Ted Lasso of all people has no one. He built a community in Richmond in only three years. He'd been in Kansas the entirety of his life up until then, there's no way he has no one. Also, even if he didn't, his relationship with his son is more important and I don't fault him for prioritizing that)

This is where I think Jamie could have helped Ted's arc. They could have had parallel journeys in deciding their father's actions do not have to define them, and I think Jamie could have reached this point first and be the one to impart wisdom on Ted for once. You could even keep the "forgiveness" talk Ted gave to Jamie, and then have Jamie come back after the game and say something that conveys "fuck forgiveness, he doesn't deserve that. But I do need to let go of the pain or I'll just hold myself back from growing. Because I'm done letting him have any influence on who I am."

Instead of getting anything with any nuance or something different than every other abuse plot in any show ever, we just had the ghost of Ted all season. He was barely in this season! Especially with relation to the players. We only had one scene of Ted and Jamie talking as people (instead of talking about football strategies or Zava when the coaches just assumed Jamie was jealous instead of concerned about the team dynamics) and connecting, and it was for Ted to tell Jamie about the importance of forgiveness.

Sorry but abuse isn't something you should just forgive, especially since James isn't making amends. He's getting sober, and we don't know if it was his choice, it could have been court mandated for all we know. Also I said this in my previous post, but addiction doesn't just make you abusive, and it especially doesn't make you facilitate your child being sexually assaulted. So I don't see any world where just getting clean makes James worthy of forgiveness. More importantly is that Ted and Jamie don't know that James is even in rehab when they have this conversation!

It's bad enough that we had to deal with the cliche "forgive him for you" perspective, but now we know it either leads to reconciliation, or at least Ted hopes/thinks it should. I'm not sure which is worse, but Ted thinking they should reconcile when he lacks a lot of knowledge about the depth of abuse Jamie endured is just insane.

I really wonder if Ted knowing about Amsterdam would have changed how he handled everything, since that is - in my opinion - the worst thing we know James has done to Jamie canonically. (Or if he knew about him trying to murder Beard...) Though knowing this show and how this season was written, if there was any discussion about this they would mess it up even more. Like I can just imagine a tangent about how many sex workers are disadvantaged, and how they may not have had a choice either, and diminishing Jamie's trauma AGAIN!

However it shouldn't matter what he knows, it's not like Ted is ignorant to the abuse, he's witnessed it twice. The first time he just walked away, something else I wish the show addressed at any point. Ted only saw what James was willing to do in public, and doesn't seem to have ever considered it being worse in private or when Jamie was younger. Bringing up the first Man City match would have been a good way for Jamie and Ted to fully open up to one another and relate to each other regarding their trauma and how they've let it hold them back.

For a show that emphasizes the relationship between father and sons, they really decided to abandon all the father figure relationships they had, especially Ted with Jamie & Nate.

I actually think it works with Nate, since it's clear Nate and his father's biggest problem was that they just could never be on the same wavelength, and while they can't fix the past, they can now create the bond they always should have had. His father actually acknowledged his wrong doings and apologized, and that level of accountability is missing from James' "redemption". Also Nate's father had a good relationship with his wife and daughter, so it makes it more obvious that his and Nate's issues are due to a disconnect and not out of malice. James never had a single good character trait until they decided to redeem him out of nowhere in the last two episodes. If we at least had Jamie say something like "my dad was great before drinking" it would have at least made the rehab stuff seem a little more like redemption. But we only have Jamie and his mother talking about how James has always been like this, and will never change.

Just changing a few things to make Ted and Jamie's relationship pay off in this season for both of them, would have done a world of good.

Anyways this has been a little all over so I'll leave it here, but suffice to say, I disliked the finale...

[pvnkshooter-a]

quick update: i think it's still gonna take me a couple of days until i'm ready to write again. i'm processing and collecting all my thoughts thanks to everyone who's reached out to me to chat about the episode ooc. there's always so much to digest and take in when it comes to these episodes but my mind is really everywhere because there's SO MUCH! i wanna be able to focus my energy on nat and her muse better before i can go back to writing anything.

reading through all the sophie t interviews is also helping a lot because i love seeing her perspective on filming/the outcome of the season and having that to comfort me too knowing we'll still be getting young nat in the 96 timeline and having all of what's to come to hopefully add even more nuance to modern timeline nat and the outcome of her life.

i'm gonna do a whole s1/s2 rewatch at some point too because i feel like i need to see it all in context with one another now as well.

anyway i'm still here to chat/plot about stuff but actual writing may be hella slow until sometime next week <3

antler queen spoiler stuff below the cut:

in regards to the whole nat is the antler queen plotline... i DO wanna write this a bit with people, not to make it a whole focus or anything but i do think it's gonna be so interesting to explore this especially early on like immediately after the finale kinda thing but i love the implications of this for nat and i'm so excited to see where this takes us in season 3 but i will of course be picky/careful as i don't wanna write too much and distract away from any potential season 3 plot stuff.

i just think this is SO interesting and will be giving thoughts on it later as like an update from my "nat was never gonna be the leader" meta i posted earlier in the week (haha rip)

[corvuscorona]

officially reached the part of zestiria where things have begun to minute-to-minute Make No Sense. there remains an overarching feeling of intrigue; I continually wonder what Big Facts will later be revealed + how much sense they will force all these Smaller Nonsense Moments to make.

Interesting (!):

the latest No-Sense Event (after the wind trial. have any of you guys played this game? you should play it; i'm not spoiling shit.) put forth a Very Specific Themes Concept that the game hasn't really gotten into at all until now! DOES it immediately strike me as something that's gonna boil down to the perennial Tales favorite "if you exist you have the right to live your life"? ya. WILL it execute this with anywhere near the clarity of purpose of abyss, or with as much nuance as berseria? ABSOLUTELY NOT, I DON'T THINK.

there's a recurring Thing with this game, where. especially having played berseria already! it's STUNNINGLY clear that the Stage of the Writing Process they made it to for zestiria's story is, like. "alpha edits," pretty much. they gathered up all the Themes Characters and Facts they wanted to use and they dumped them on a big table and kinda organized them loosely into like, "here's what the story is pretty much like." + then after that they SUPER ran out of time.

the moment-to-moment character writing (which can be done at like a fully A+ level on-the-fly as long as the characters are coherent + the writer is practiced at it!) is above average in a major way and there are a million beautiful glimmering pieces of what COULD serve as useful and interesting Elements of a larger plot. but so far it looks like they stopped there without using most of those / iterating on what they already had!

(apparently this game was made with the 20th anniversary of Tales in mind as a release deadline? btwn that and how hard they went with overhauling the combat system, it makes a Lot Of Sense that 1. it is kind of a beautiful mess and 2. berseria, which iterated on stuff it introduced, is Way more polished.)

overall this game feels like a. toybox made with some questionable design choices but a lot of elements that make it catch your eye&brain? that's FULL of toys i extremely want to and will play with, but they ARE very much just kind of dumped in there w/ not a whole lot of regard for. organization. kind of a nicely-contained pile of a game. still probably The funniest video game i have ever played. localization & voice direction are excellent; rose is in a league of her own re: characterization-by-manner-of-speaking (THEY LET HER BE SO CASUAL.... SHE TALKS LIKE PEOPLE; I LOVE HER) & they put allllll their Cringe Points into 1 character for containment purposes (tidy!).

the stuff it tried to do w/ the arenas for fights being 1-to-1 with the environment you walk around in actually fucks severely (+ has led to many cherished Comedy Moments, such as "3 elephants stuck in a doorway getting hit by my sword at once") and i wish theyd tried to solve it by making the CAMERA work with it, instead of by hollowing out the overworld environments so there wouldn't be chokepoints to get stuck on anymore (berseria), bc the environment design is ALSO probably the best i've seen in a tales game?

just. not even "rough around the edges" as in "there's good in here but sometimes it Hurts me" but something more like "box of unpolished rocks i love to rattle around and open and pick up and enjoy but if you're expecting 'presentable collection on a shelf' or whatever you will not find it here"..... i like this game!!!