#also they of course love having intellectual debates. LOVE doing that. those usually lead to very hot make out sessions

[lumiereandcogsworth]

hiii!! I was wondering if you had any head cannons about adam and belle when they get in a serious fight ?? may seem silly lol

i’m not gonna lie i’m so bad at thinking about actual conflict dialogue between them. i fully know that they do argue, because they’re both so stubborn, and they’re a married couple and that’s just part of it, but usually when i imagine their arguments, it’s like a silent film sjdksj. but here are some thoughts i have about it!!

the main thing that they argue about is, ironically, lack of communication skills. adam has quite literally never shared his deep feelings with anyone, even himself in many ways, so suddenly having a partner who is a million times more emotionally stable is quite a change! and it’s difficult at first, and at least for a little while. especially since belle is sooo inquisitive, and so enamored with him, she always wants to dig deeper into his mind! but that kind of insistence just shuts him off. and, in the early days, that’s gonna result in him getting angry/defensive and biting back at bit

but belle is, of course, persistent with him. so they have their argument about stubbornness and just not quite being in sync about emotions, and then they have their time to cool off, and then they come together later and there’s quiet but sincere apologies. on both ends! adam is always working on his temper, he understands that she’s just trying to help, he just can’t articulate himself yet. and belle very much needs to learn patience. he’s starting at level zero in vulnerability, it’s gonna take some practice!! she just gets frustrated when she can’t immediately solve a puzzle. but adam is her favorite puzzle, so she’ll keep at it!! <3

over the years though, adam Does get better about sharing his feelings with her. i think i have a silly line in one of my fics set further down the road and it’s something like “after twelve years of marriage, adam was almost certain that belle did want to hear about his problems.” afjskdj. like yeah my guy that’s your wife of twelve years. you traumatized goober. anyway my point is the vulnerability and communication DOES improve! but it absolutely takes time and he’ll still never be as free with his feelings/thoughts as belle is. he’ll always be the black cat of the relationship, lmao. so those bickering matches won’t ever truly cease, but they get less intense.

another thing they very occasionally argue about is work. this is rare because they, in general, do different things. belle, as queen, focuses a lot more on human relations, social structures, the people themselves. i’ve always said that working on improving the education system is her number one priority. so she’s always in that line of committees, community action, local infrastructure. that kind of stuff. adam, as king, does more of the overarching government type of crap. bigger political decisions, taxes, business with allied kingdoms. gosh, he hates it lmao. but he just hates working in general so that’s not gonna change. my point HERE is that, while their lines of work don’t regularly cross, every now and then they do have to collaborate, and i think they butt heads when this happens because they work very differently. (adam is more organized and detail-oriented, whereas belle is. more loosey goosey and doesn’t always get things done on time. and belle says “oh you mean on Adam Time🙄” and he’s like “no i mean ON TIME!!”) but in general their work is kind of separate, which is nice! they have different things to talk about at the end of the day <3

(i can’t help but note though that when there are actual huge big political decisions to make, adam absolutely includes belle. like he intentionally made sure that they were coronated together, and that they’re equals on the throne. and politically speaking they generally agree about those kinds of big decisions, or at least they come to a good agreement after debating each other for a bit. but anyway just had to add that.)

another thing they definitely argue about is founded in adam’s worries about belle. i go into more detail about this here, but when belle is pregnant, adam gets overprotective, to the point of being very annoying to belle. so they have lots of very little arguments about him needing to CALM DOWN and her needing to BE CAREFUL and it just goes back and forth. they also obviously bicker while raising their children, but again it’s nothing more than normal. i think the hardest arguments are when they have their first child, and adam is just so uncertain about how to care for her, and belle sometimes offers too much help, to the point where adam gets insecure and thinks that She Thinks that he’s doing everything wrong. so he gets all defensive again and blah. but they work it out. that’s in the same period of time as him not being able to communicate his feelings well so it’s just all a lot.

the first couple years of their marriage are just insane because not only are they learning how to be a partnership, but they’re also learning how to be king and queen, and not before too long, they’re learning how to be parents. and they’re a great team! but they are different and have such different life experiences that it, of course, will inevitably lead to heads butting and unintentional words. but they’re always just as easily able to apologize and forgive and carry on. it’s difficult to navigate but they love each other so endlessly that it’s never truly hard. even when adam feels at his worst, or when belle feels so out of her depths, they know that they CAN always rely on the other. so while things may be intense in the moment, there’s always love there, and things always get figured out together 💖

[alana-k-asby]

how do you personally go about trying to change someone’s mind—what communication strategies do you use, and have you found them effective?

Well, I don't think I've ever actually tried to do that. In college I debated for fun, and I liked the people who fought back. (That has a limit, though. Some opinions are... just satanically delusional. And at least half the people online disagreeing with other people are 16 years old and they like getting people upset because they feel powerless in their lives. I think it's kinder to just pass over that behavior, assuming they'll grow out of it.)

Now I usually try to avoid debates. I think my spiritual well-being depends on remaining untroubled in heart. Whether I'm in a debate or not, I just try to tell the truth as far as I grasp it. And I always try to remember that even if the person I'm talking to disagrees with me, someone watching or listening might be strengthened in some way if I am kind or at least patient, and of course honest.

I think trying to change someone's mind is fairly dangerous for both parties. People have to change their own minds. That's in their power alone. They have reasons for what they believe, and until they see new reasons, they won't change. Why would they? Changing sucks up enormous energy.

Also, forcing changes in people is what I despise about revolutionaries. To me, it becomes a moral assault really quickly. And I think a great part of the mushrooming of evil we're seeing right now is due to conservatives fighting back too viciously when evil was still relatively small and powerless.

So the most I can do is provide new reasons, to whatever extent those reasons can be intellectual or experiential. I can't change people's life circumstances, which I think is how God probably changes most people's minds. Also, evil beliefs have a way of creating circumstances that change people's minds for them, which is how I've changed over time myself. So if you give people time and don't interfere in their development, and if course help them when you are able, and pray for them, things could work out on their own.

Part of my support for tradition is the belief that living naturally and traditionally creates conditions which, in turn, provide powerful life-reasons for people to believe good things. So I actually think goodness and love and kindness and beauty precede truth.

There are very dangerous people, empty restless angry power-needy people, who have ostensible beliefs and reasons for their actions, which are nothing like their real states of mind. (These people drive all sorts of real-life conditions that lead others to believe dark things.) I don't think it's safe to have anything to do with such people. I would never dialogue or debate with such a person if I could help it. If you find out you are talking to someone like that (or someone completely delusional) I think you just have to be as bland and inoffensive as possible and extricate yourself from the situation as soon as you can. At most, if you aren't in the dangerous person's power, make a few points for the sake of other listeners who might be less experienced and might be confused.

My publishing company is not about convincing people, either. In fact it's the opposite. I just want to provide delightful and improving art and entertainment that doesn't make traditionalists, conservatives, and religious people miserable or offended. That includes publishing things that might not be my own particular viewpoint. But it also includes getting the attention of said conservatives and traditionalists and letting them know I'm here, who I am, how I think, what I'm up to...

What about you? What's your approach?

[bandomslayed]

I’m not saying you should focus more on racism, I’m just saying that that’s something that the community as a whole needs to focus on and try to repair, I’m sure they all already know that people don’t like their ships. If that’s an issue, then groups can have a strict age limit. Easy solve. The other things are things that can be taught and learned but with hostility all that’s going to happen is a deeper divide. You said you wanted to argue with people about the things you don’t like that they do in this community. I’m paraphrasing, but why not instead want to educate them. No one will ever react well to feeling like they’re being ridiculed or patronized. People worth spending your time on are the ones you can talk to without it being a shitshow. We’re having a dialogue. I’ve felt this entire time like everything I say, someone is going to search for one thing to deliberately misinterpret or magnify unnecessarily when, if there’s something that they have an issue with, it could be a perfect opportunity to educate me instead of people being hostile. I’m college educated and can think critically, I’m moderately well spoken, I’m open to instructive criticisms and discussing things that aren’t agreed upon so I’m just sort of confused by the fact that what I’m saying is being picked apart by other anons and to a degree, you. You all want to change my mind about age gaps, despite me being with someone older irl and feeling safe and genuinely valued for the first time in a relationship in my life so why do you think that calling my dead grandpa names, redirecting the conversation and then kinda mocking me when I attempt to understand wholly and agree with some of the things you’re saying? That’s not going to convince me or anyone else. It just makes people feel defensive. Reiterating here that I’m not saying YOU specifically need to talk about racism more, and I’m not trying to diminish your experience or anything like that In just saying that those topics (discrimination of any kind, abuse of any kind) in the community are things we should be discussing instead of ships we think aren’t comfortable. I feel uncomfortable with relationships in real life and in rp all the time but that isn’t up to me to say it’s wrong or bad. It’s no ones right to tell any two consenting adults that what they’re doing is wrong. But it is a human right to tell someone when they’re being insensitive, and that’s a flaw in the community that people can be educated on and learn to handle with more sensitivity and knowledge but we’re never going to reach that point if we’re all just hostile and cruel to one another. Also reiterating that I’m not using personal examples to get cred, I just like examples because I think using them shows where I’m coming from so that any person who wants to have a dialogue can have a frame of reference for why my opinions are what they are on any topic. If I’m wrong, or insensitive, or just kinda dumb I want to know that but simply telling me I’m wrong or insensitive or dumb doesn’t teach me how not to me. And this doesn’t just mean me, I mean the whole community. It will never improve if we all just talk about the things we don’t like and give no feasible solutions.

alright i see what you want so let me switch to my white pleaser voice and deliver since you're so keen on being patronizing and in the same breath, acting like me taking what you say "the wrong way" is the problem. in bullet points so next time u come back to keep going at it u can pinpoint exactly what it is i misconstrued because u will do it anyway.

you're asking the community as a whole to care more about racism but you're talking to me who's leading the conversation in the first place. i understand you didn't imply i specifically should care more about it, but you're still using racism to discredit my point of view on age gap relationships being an important topic to discuss as well, and watering it down to just me not liking people's plots when that is not the message.

nobody is telling anyone how to live their lives. im bringing awareness to the fact that this culture is not okay. it's dangerous to our young. it NEEDS to be uncomfortable to you (you, plural) to invite to this so called critical thinking.

im not saying your partner doesn't have a right to be loving or grandpa and grandma had abuse masked as a good relationship. im saying, since it needs to be spelled out with no room for misinterpretation; the culture behind someone 10+ years older finding it completely okay to pursue someone that much younger — especially when we're talking 18 - 30 age range — needs to be looked at more closely. it's not safe in general. do exceptions exist? absolutely, but the whole two consenting adults point is a terrible one to make when at 18, you're considered that when you're still essentially just a child.

a strict age limit, which most groups adopt now, does little to actually prevent age gap relationships within roleplays. moreso, uneven power dynamics within plots being glamorized. my boss is not over 5 years older than me, but he is my boss. kpop boybands don't have age gaps of 10+ years in groups, usually, but there is a leader most times acting like a father figure, not to mention korean culture is heavy on emphasizing age-related hierarchical order, so a literal still wet behind the ears child establishing a romantic connection with someone who is not their equal? dangerous.

now let's halt. i already told you, i don't give a shit about respectability politics. it is not my job to be nice and educate anyone. and i don't mean just on this blog... most of you whites have come to assume and expect, even, that poc will be subservient, docile, and always willing to switch and nicely explain to you why the very core of the way you think about the world because you grew up sheltered w/e is not the whole picture for everyone. the worst part? most of them do. most of them do put their thinking caps on and write these novel worthy, intelligent, respectful, calculated think pieces only for the white in question to turn around and still deem it aggressive, etc. i don't do that. that is labor that most of you do not deserve.

the implication that there are feasible solutions for these problems that don't require for people to literally rework their entire mindset is naive at best. what am i supposed to do? be like nooo don't be racist, racism is bad BECAUSE it hurts people. i think all of you are old enough to know that by now. you definitely have enough internet exposure to know that, even if you grew up in all white sundown town america.

i explain my points. i actually explain my points more than the average person, yet here we are still saying im not doing enough to educate those around me as if it was my responsibility to change the way people think with sugar spice and everything nice so they feel their hand is held and it's safe to make a mistake that will consequently hurt other people as many times as they need to make it to finally grasp the reality of it and be able to just... not do that in the future. when no. no. when you hurt me, im allowed to react emotionally, not intellectually. when im angry and upset and still explaining why, its YOUR job to swallow it down and listen to what im saying, because YOU hurt me. i don't owe you civility (again; you, plural). i especially don't owe you civility when ive given you nothing but in the past and the end result is still me being an aggro freak who doesn't care for your precious feelings.

you're also assuming things. for example, assuming that im mocking you specifically when i really have not done that. if im going to mock you, im going to reply to your anon and say "okay stupid", then yeah, im mocking you. otherwise? don't assume im directing anything at you.

we're having a dialogue and this whole time all you've done is tell me to stop talking. your messages have all, in essence, said, if people want to date other people who have a shitton of years on them, that is not a problem and you look prettier talking about something else. yes, that's also paraphrased. you didn't say that, of course, but why are we still here if not because you feel personally scrutinized over the reaction to the life examples that you willingly provided?

nobody is trying to change YOUR mind, you're just not willing to consider that your age gap relationships that have been beautiful and loving and safe coexist within a culture that is wicked. a person who's 10+ older than me, 24, has no business seeing me as a potential partner. it's not appropriate. yet if they do, and i also see them as a potential partner, there's nothing inherently evil about that specific instance. it is the circumstances (past), that lead to this kind of thinking in the first place what im asking everyone to analize and understand. and it does matter. it matters as much as racism, abuse, ooc mistreatment of rp partners. again, issues do not queue and wait for something to end so they can begin anew. every conversation i choose to have i consider worth having. you're free to stay out if you don't deem it important.

you're exhausting me thinking by turning my inbox into ap debate we're achieving grand things sooo hope this helps 🖤

[thexfridax]

© Claire Mathon

Translated interview with Director Sciamma

‘We started a culture war‘

Andreas Busche and Nadine Lange, in: Der Tagesspiegel, 29th of October 2019

Additions or clarifications for translating purposes are denoted as [T: …]

Manifest on the female gaze: Céline Sciamma speaks about her period film ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’, MeToo in France and queer visibility.

In France, Céline Sciamma, born in 1978, is already revered as the new feminist and notably queer voice of French cinema, in the tradition of Claire Denis and Catherine Breillat. The director (‘Tomboy’, ‘Girlhood’), who writes her own screenplays, is largely unknown in [T: Germany]. This is most likely about to change with her fourth and most beautiful feature film so far. At the Cannes Film Festival, the period love story between the young painter Marianne and her model Héloïse, daughter of French aristocrats, won the Best Screenplay. Between the rugged landscape of the coast of Brittany and the candlelit interiors of an old villa, the film creates a utopia of solidarity and female desire, in which the characters of Marianne, Héloïse and Sophie the maid overcome class barriers.

Interviewers: Ms Sciamma, ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’ is your first period film, it takes place a few years before the French Revolution. Why is this era important for your story?

Céline Sciamma: My interest in those years came from art history. At the time, there was an unusual number of female painters, hundreds in France and across Europe. It really moved me to discover the biographies of these women, who had successful careers. They supported each other and were very political. There was for example feminist art criticism at the time.

I: Noémie Merlant plays the painter Marianne, who is commissioned to do a portrait of Héloïse, a daughter of aristocrats. There are two main themes: the representation of female painters in bourgeois society and the female gaze – and how this [T: gaze] is reflected in the art world at the time. How are these themes connected?

CS: When I went into more detail about the work of female painters in the late 18th century, I realised how much the female perspective is missing from art history. For me this is the most painful loss, which results from the elimination of the female gaze: this relates to the artwork themselves, but also to what art brings to our lives, the memory of a kind of intimacy.

I: Marianne is not based on a specific female painter. But is she representative of women at the time?

CS: I collaborated with an art sociologist, who did extensive research on this era. All biographical details for Marianne correspond to the time in which she lived. The dynamics of a biopic – a successful woman who defies societal norms – never really interested me. My film is a manifest on the female gaze. But there’s also melancholy in this process, because we have to restore something that has been ignored for a long time.

I: Why melancholy?

CS: It makes me sad, because this perspective was withheld from me all my life. That is why the scene, where Marianne, Héloïse and Sophie the maid re-enact an abortion, is so important for the film. By painting an abortion, the act becomes art and is therefore represented. Art gives women the opportunity to tell their own stories. But it’s not only about the past. The topic of abortion is still virtually invisible in cinema.

I: How do you deal with this lack of female perspectives as a screenwriter and director?

CS: I was aware about the lack of queer and lesbian representation in cinema early on. But it becomes dangerous, when we don’t realise anymore that something is withheld from us. I noticed this again, when I watched ‘Wonder Woman’ by Patty Jenkins. It is hard to express how you feel when you know you’re not represented, and at the same time are oblivious to the power it can give you to recognise yourself in cinema. That was a new experience for me.

I: You were one of the initiators of the 50/50 by 2020 movement, which is committed to gender parity at festivals and in film. What do you expect from Cannes next year?

CS: I’m glad that this topic is finally taken seriously. We set out our target for Cannes and want more transparency in the selection committee. However, to achieve these, you have to introduce quota. The board will be replaced [T: next] year, let’s see how it works. We started a culture war. One of the most important things for me is the work on inclusion. The 50/50 [T: movement] and the film production/promotion agency CNC created a fund for cultural diversity in [T: film] productions last year. There’s usually less budget for films made by female directors, this inequality will be slightly mitigated. More than 20 films have already benefitted from this fund.

I: There is progress on one hand, but on the other hand some things are deteriorating again. Do you see it in a similar way?

CS: We had no MeToo-debate in France, unlike the one in the US. The [T: debate] was quickly hijacked and reinterpreted as discussion about free speech: that feminist film criticism would lead to a new form of censorship. You could feel the backlash in France. A good example: Sandra Muller, who created the French MeToo movement ‘Balance ton Porc’ [T: ‘Denounce your pig’, see here for the evolution of the term ‘pig’ in this context] just lost a libel lawsuit. Action was filed by the man, whose harassing statements she made public. The level of societal discourse is not where it’s supposed to be.

I: You lead by example: There are mainly women working on your sets.

CS: It creates a different atmosphere, that is for sure. But I’ll tell you something: Women only make up 50% of the crew, my crew is probably one of the most diverse in France. Claire Mathon is my cinematographer, but a lot of men work with her. My cutter is a man though. It’s about the right balance. The film world is very much dominated by men, but I don’t want to exclude anyone.

I: In Cannes, you said something similar about your colleague Abdellatif Kechiche, who was criticised for his voyeuristic gaze on women, for example in the Palm d’Or winner ‘Blue is the Warmest Colour’. Do you want a cinema, in which your and his gaze can exist side by side?

CS: We have to be conscious about our perspective. In France, I’m always asked about my female gaze, but no one is ever asking a [T: male] filmmaker about his male gaze. Which is still considered as gender neutral. Of course, you can love ‘Blue is the Warmest Colour’ as much as you love ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’ [T: 😈], otherwise cinema will become a battlefield of ideologies. We just have to learn to read the images correctly. I would like to invite Abdellatif Kechiche to this relatively new discourse. But he should be asked the same questions as me.

I: You call ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’ a manifest on the female gaze. What does that mean?

CS: It starts with the screenplay. I wanted to tell a love story on equal terms. There is no gender-specific power imbalance in the film. That was important for me, especially in a time, in which gender inequality was the social norm. There is also no intellectual dominance between Marianne and Héloïse, they both come from the upper class, are sophisticated and self-determined. Between them, they did not have to negotiate a status.

I: What role did your actresses play in this?

CS: I wrote the film for Adèle Haenel. But it only works if she has a partner who is equal to her. Noémie Merlant is about the same age as Adèle, they are even the same height, which cannot be underestimated in cinema. That’s why shorter actors often have to stand on a pedestal. All these considerations are political, but they are also an offer to the audience: for new emotions, for surprises. Equality creates freedom, because social rules are overturned.

I: As Marianne, Héloïse and Sophie keep to themselves, they are not exposed to the male gaze. They can move freely.

CS: That’s why I don’t think of my film as social utopia. Every utopia is based on our experiences and ideas. You cannot easily find this kind of solidarity among women, you have to create this freedom. That’s why I decided to exclude male characters. What I exclude from the shot also defines what is shown in the picture. That’s the power of cinema.

I: Your film is about the visibility of women. They tell each other, how they see one another – and thus create an image of themselves. At the same time, desire arises from their gazes. How do you create this feeling of intimacy?

CS: We offer a philosophy and politics of love. Even the depiction of queer sexuality in cinema is based on heterosexual paradigms. We first had to learn how to deconstruct this gaze on us. Similarly, it’s also about abolishing the outdated ideal of the muse. There is of course a hierarchy on set, but we tried to transfer the working relationships in the film to our shooting.

I: All your films have queer aspects. Do you ever had any problems to fund your films?

CS: No, but that’s because I don’t need so much money. ‘Portrait of a Lady on Fire’ did cost 4 Million Euros. If I had asked for 12 Million Euros, it might have been different. I can’t complain. I live in a country, in which I can make these kinds of films and be radical. 23 percent of French films are made by female directors.

I: It seems like there were more [T: female directors] recently?

CS: No, the figure has been constant for 20 years. We are just forgotten and then ‘rediscovered’. Think about Alice Guy-Blanché, who made films at the time of Méliès [T: around the turn of last century]. She did everything by herself, used the first closeup. She literally co-invented the cinema. But like all the women, who were active at the beginning of film history, they were driven out, when it was suddenly about money.

Still from ‘Be natural: The Untold Story of Alice Guy-Blaché’ (Pamela B. Green, 2018)

[tonio-dawson]

No Judgement (2/2)

Part 1 here.

A/N: Not a usual storyline. Sorry if you guys don’t like this!

Summary: Y/N works as a lawyer and having a relationship with Antonio could get you into trouble.

=====================

Opposite attracts, they said. So, despite your differences, you two ended up dating anyway. It’s a long road, but after six months of going on casual dates, you both decided to be in a committed relationship.

The relationship does not win the popularity votes. It was shocking to everyone. None of your friends saw it coming. Colleagues, from both sides, are totally against it - they think that you and him are playing for “the other side”.

But you don’t care. Somehow, it works. Even with non-stop debates and arguments, you make it work. The great thing about those arguments - it never affects your relationship at all. You both can be tough critics to each other, but it doesn’t stop you to admire each other too. You know that he’s great at what he does: catching criminals and protecting the city, albeit the team’s debatable methods. Antonio admires how you always stand up for the innocents, to seek justice on a broken system.

He also knows that you’re very selective on who you represent. Most of your clients are corporations, fighting over trademarks and intellectual rights dispute. But you also take smaller cases, usually involving youth around the neighbourhood. Those who got in trouble over small things and don’t have anyone to look out for them. You make sure they get fair trials. 

So, when you told Antonio who you’re going to meet this afternoon, he is very surprised.

“Louis Garrison?! I thought you’re not taking cases involving gang members? Don’t tell me you represent him.” he raises his voice.

“I don’t. I am merely consulting on the case. Harry, my best friend, his firm is representing him. They want Louis to make a deal with the DA testifying against his boss but he’s getting cold feet. As I’m more familiar with how the DA deal works, I need to convince him.” you explain.

“And let me guess, he’s gonna walk?” Antonio asks, rather cynically.

“Why are you so cynical? It’s my job to ensure that the DA holds their part of the bargain. Unlike some half-ass promise you guys always give out at the precinct.” you snap back, “And he is NOT gonna walk, I never believe in the full immunity crap, you know that.” usually your boyfriend gives you a hard time by saying ill things about the police, but not this time.

“I know I said ‘no judgement’ when it comes to our cases. But babe, the South Side Gang are murderers. So I do get to judge over your safety.” Antonio replies, full of worry this time.

“Yeah I know, among other things. Louis is getting charged on distribution though, the DA could charge him with narcotic-induced homicide. So, we want to stop the distribution altogether by going after the big guy.” you reply.

“But you know it’s dangerous, right? That his gang is capable of murder?” Now Antonio put this ever-so-worried look that you never saw before.

“Hey, it’s gonna be fine. The gang maybe is, but not Louis. I’m meeting him at a restaurant and there will be plenty of security.” you hold his hand. He takes it and place a kiss, “I am just saying, be careful.” his raspy voice gets you to a very safe place every time, you pull him into a hug. 

The meeting with Louis runs rather smoothly. Louis has a bad experience with his cousin making a deal with the police that doesn’t stick, hence his hesitation. But you convinced him that the DA is different than the police, that lawyers do everything with paper trails so there’s no way around it. The meeting is almost over when you see Antonio comes through the restaurant door, approaching your table, looking rather upset.

You can sense trouble is coming but don’t know what it will be, so you are staying calm. “Louis, remember that I’m on your side. Here’s my card and if you have any question-” before you can finish your sentence, Antonio interrupts. “Hey babe, what are you doing here?” Antonio smiles and kiss your cheek and conveniently flash his badge on his belt when ducking down.

Louis looks very confused. “Wait, you say there’s no police?” He stands up and walks right away. “Y/N say sorry to Harry. I’ll take the full sentence.” he leaves in a hurry.

“No- Louis, this is not what it looks like, there’s no police at all!” you rushes off to follow him. But Antonio grabs your arm and stops you. Louis quickly disappears.

“Antonio, what the hell?!” you walk out from the restaurant and let Antonio follows you, you don’t want to make a scene inside the restaurant.

So in Chicago chilly winter, you are at it with Antonio, “Babe, listen to me-” he starts to explain himself.

“WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?” you scream, furious.

“We just got a lead that Louis is a suspect for a murder in Pulaski last night. He’s a murderer and I can’t let you anywhere near him.” He quickly explains hoping that you’d understand.

But instead, you’re fuming, “Oh, God. This is why I hate the police so much. How many times do I have to tell you, it’s innocent until proven guilty, Tonio?! Right here, right now, I can disprove your ‘lead’.” You take a breath and yell at him, “Harry was up ALL NIGHT with Louis, trying to convince him to show up to this meeting that you just blew up!” You’ve had many arguments with him, but you’ve never been this angry before.

Antonio looks confused, as the lead puts a car registered under his name in the murder location.

“But the his car was used to-” he tries again.

“Well he does not drive his car, does he? His driving license got suspended last year, so he’s been renting out his car. You didn’t do your homework, detective?!” you scream so loud your voice is cracking. 

The fact is, Antonio runs out so quickly the minute Louis’ name pop up during the investigation. Kim has taken down him as a suspect list when pod camera reveals the people inside the car. No Louis, of course. Antonio was so worried over you, did not even check his phone before entering the restaurant.

“Don’t fuck me up with this.” you shake your head, “You know why I care so much about this case? It’s because the narcotics have been flooding the streets. Lots of kids went to ED because of it. So I want the entire distribution to stop. With the way I know best.” your eyes filled with tears but you try to hold it. It’s anger, disappointment, and sadness, mix into one.

You spent a good time of your life in an orphanage, Antonio knows this. And this is what drives you to help out teenagers and kids who got in trouble because they just did not know any better. Antonio drops his head, knowing how big of a mess he just created.

“Babe, I’m so sorry, I’ll fix this.” Antonio pleads.

“No. I will fix this. You’ve done enough. And if I find out that you are anywhere near Louis, we are DONE. I mean it. And you know how much I hate threats, but there you go, Detective Dawson.” you walk, leaving Antonio.

Antonio knows he’s in trouble when you call him Dawson. But Detective Dawson? It’s the first time he’s hearing this, it means double the trouble. And he does not know what to do this time.

You have not been returning any of Antonio’s call for a week and you haven’t speak a single word to him. The only text you sent was, “Is Leo really your CI?” which you got a ‘yes’ reply along with three paragraphs of apology and questions when can he see you again.

By now, the problem has actually been fixed. Not long after the incident, you came clean to Louis about having a relationship with a detective, but assured him that you never talk about cases as you maintain your professionalism, besides it’s also against the law. Harry found out that Antonio once helped out Leo, who is Louis’ cousin, from getting jammed up by patrol officers. Because of that fact, Louis trusts you and Harry again. He has decided to work on the deal with the DA.

But you’re still angry with Antonio. For fucking things up. For not trusting Louis. For not trusting you and Harry. 

You haven’t been yourself lately, so Harry comes by to your place to check on you. “Hey, how are you doing?” he asks, you just shrugs your shoulder and give him a small smile. After a long pause, he continues, “You know, it’s Antonio who gave me information about Leo.”

“I know.”

“You know that he’s been contacting me three times a day now, asking when he can meet you.” he continues.

“I know. You don’t have to answer him.” you say.

“No, the thing is, I want to answer him. I want to tell him that you’re over it. Hell, we are over it, Y/N. Louis is gonna be okay and you know that. So I want to tell him that you both are okay and things can go back the way they were.” 

“Uh-huh. What do you want?” you know when Harry beats around the bushes, he basically wants something from you.

“Antonio’s downstairs. Said that he wants to drive you somewhere. With me too. At least let him try?” he asks, “Yeah sure, whatever.” you sigh.

You see Antonio for the first time in a week now, you just realized how much you miss his face. But you still give him the cold shoulder, “I’ll take the back seat.” 

The road becomes familiar after 20 minutes of driving. And you know where you are now. It’s the orphanage home that you spent time growing up. You still visit the place once a year. 

“Look, this is not me trying to win you back. But I just want you to show you something.” says Antonio before getting out of the car.

You are greeted by Mrs. Hudson who immediately hugs you, “What a lovely surprise, Y/N! Christmas comes early, I guess?” she smiles and looks at Antonio, “And Detective Dawson, to what do I owe the pleasure?” your eyes look at her and Antonio, confused. 

“Nothing, Mrs. Hudson. I know it’s Friday night and you have movie night with the children, right? So I bring extra snacks and sodas if you let us three join you?” he asks. “Of course! You’re always welcome whenever.” says Mrs. Hudson.

“How did you know..?” you’re still confused, Antonio and Harry quickly disappear to move the snacks and drinks from the car. “Detective Dawson helped us to rebuild the basement here, you know the fire from 8 months ago? His sister and the house were the one responded to the call.”

You remember there’s a small fire there but you were told the damage isn’t big and no one is injured, so you did not visit them right away and only sent some donations to Mrs. Hudson.

Mrs. Hudson leads you to the common room, with all the curtains closed and a bed sheet used as a big screen, it looks like a mini cinema. They throw all the cushions on the carpeted floor and all the children sit down. Harry loves children so he blends right in with them, cracking jokes and playing with them. 

While you sit at one corner and Antonio joins you.

“How come you never told me about this? You know I grew up in this place.”

“I don’t know. I never knew how to bring it up.” he scratch the back of his head, “And these are the kids you’re trying to protect, right? I want to show you how you’ve been cleaning up the street, your way. We got a call from the DA, they warrant all of our surveillance and wire tap request on Louis’ boss. It’s just a matter of time and he’ll be behind bars. And these kids, well, hopefully they will grow up without drugs on the street. So, we celebrate with them tonight.” he raises his eyebrows, slightly anxious, looking for your approval. 

What Antonio doesn’t know is that Mrs. Hudson has explained how Gabby and him have helped her the past few months. Keeping the kids busy and away from drugs - whether it’s movie night, or boxing class, or cooking, or art. “Detective Dawson and the fire house have been volunteering their time here, doing all sorts of things,” said Mrs. Hudson earlier, “And Harry told me that he is your boyfriend? You better keep him, hon.” she grins before walking away.

The kids are enjoying the snacks and giggling with Harry, you smile at the scene. You look at your boyfriend, you haven’t spoken a single word but your eyes have gotten soft on him.

He takes your hand, “Part of my job is to judge people all the time. During interrogations, takedown, and even when questioning a witness. I’m sorry for judging Louis just by looking at his rep sheet. I’m sorry for not trusting you with your job. I should’ve not interfere, I should have known better of you, and Harry.” he says softly.

“You know that you said that this isn’t about winning me back? I think it actually is.” you smile at him.

“It’s for the kids. But I don’t care, I’ll take the win either way.” he hugs you and you hug him even tighter, you’ve missed his scent and his warm body, “Yeah right, I’ve missed you.” 

“I’ve missed you more. Please don’t be this angry again. I almost died this week not hearing from you.” 

“Don’t be so stupid next time.”

“I’ll learn from this. I promise.” he kisses the top of your head.

You spend the rest of the night at his embrace, his arm wraps around you the whole time, he doesn’t let go until your body gets sore. He doesn’t know how to express how sorry he is, so from this day on he’s going to make you feel that he’s got your back, no matter how different you are in your two worlds. 

[hoothootmotherf-ckers]

Overpopulation, Ecofascism, and Covid-19

There’s a lot of posts going around right now about the effects of isolation due to Covid-19 on the environment, ranging from misinformed to really, truly alarming. They are all, to put it mildy, utter bullshit. And since I now have a lot of free time and am just weeks away from a degree in both environmental studies and anthropology, I’m here to shut this shit down.

The “Overpopulation Issue” is incorrect and rooted in eugenics.

So, the idea of overpopulation is frequently touted as the primary threat to the environment. It usually cites birth rates in place such as India, China, and sub-Saharan Africa, arguing that if we want to keep a livable planet, we need to dramatically cut back on human reproduction. This is astoundingly incorrect. 

It’s generally agreed by environmental scientists today that the problem isn’t overpopulation, it’s overconsumption. Overpopulation arguments are based on an idea that everyone consumes the same amount of food, materials, energy, etc, and as a result has the same impact on the environment. This is blatantly untrue. For just one starting set of data, the United Nations Environment Programme states that the United States produces more greenhouse gas emissions than the continents of South America and Africa combined. In a year, the average European consumes seven times as much material as the average African, also according to the UN. The average United States inhabitant consumes thirty-six times as much as the average Indian. Uneven consumption, and the consumption levels in the US and Europe in particular, have much more drastic environmental impacts than the consumption in regions like India with dramatically higher populations. 

But where did this idea of overpopulation as the root issue come from? One starting point is with Thomas Malthus’s “An Essay on the Principle of Population” in 1798. Malthus argued that human population was growing at such a rate that within decades, our rate of food consumption would outstrip our rate of food production, causing widespread famines. The solution to this problem would be a combination of lowering birth rates and increasing death rates. As you can imagine, this didn’t go over very well at the time, and we know now, over 200 years later, that his estimates were absurdly incorrect. However, Malthus laid the groundwork for later arguments.

Here’s the bit where it gets pretty yikes. The overpopulation movement as we know it kicked off in the 20th century - with the rise of the western eugenics movement. The ideas of overpopulation were becoming common, but with a twist; it was not overpopulation in general that was an issue, but the increasing populations of certain ethnicities and nationalities. Does that sound like the Nazis to you? It should, because this is the same ideology that brought them to power. Though targets varied by individual group, the eugenics movement tended to focus on people of color, those with physical and intellectual disabilities, and religious minorities. 

Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb, written in 1968, builds upon the groundwork placed by Malthus, and that created by the eugenics movement. Like Malthus, Ehrlich predicted widespread famine in the 1970s - and was again utterly wrong - but he takes it a step further than his predecessor. Ehrlich’s book focused on specific countries that he believed would be hardest hit by overpopulation - in particular, India, but overall much of the “global south.” Ehrlich believed the United States should lead foreign policy in this regard, and a variety of measures (including refusing food aid in famines to countries that didn’t meet the US’s standards of population control) should be implemented and enforced by the nation. 

Ehrlich’s book was published just two years before the start of the US environmental movement, and shaped a large portion of its ideology. This is where ecofascism comes in. 

The rise and dangers of ecofascism.

Ecofascism, as a concept, has been around for decades. Its formal origins are thought to again begin with the Nazi party’s ideas regarding the link between racial purity and connection to their homeland. Over the years, it has morphed into an ideology formed of a fusion between environmentalism and white nationalism. Though it presents in a variety of ways amongst differing groups, the main takeaway is that lowering the population, specifically by eliminating non-white races or ethnicities, is the only way to save the planet. This is exemplified by Garrett Hardin, best known for his idea of the Tragedy of the Commons but here relevant for his support for Finnish ecologist Pentti Linkola’s idea of “lifeboat ethics.” Linkola’s idea, because I’m nauseated by trying to summarize it, is as follows. 

“What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship's axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.”

Yeah. It’s notable that Hardin was a known white supremacist, and his writing makes it clear exactly who he expects to be in the lifeboat and who is on the sides. 

Ecofascism has had real and lasting damage, especially in the past few years. Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, wrote ecofascist manifestos as his way of justifying his actions. With a fictionalized Netflix series released in 2017, Kaczynski's ideas were brought to the forefront again, and have been growing since. The 2019 Christchurch shooter wrote a manifesto where he explicitly declared himself an ecofascist, again as a justification for his actions. 

How is this relevant to Covid-19?

There have been a wide variety of posts going around in the last few weeks about the results of Covid-19 and quarantining. The one about Venice’s clean canals is a pretty popular one, as well as various posts about animals “reclaiming” cities as people shelter in place. These posts are generally linked with a few key points at the end, including “this is what we could have without people in the way,” “humans are the real virus,” and even “we should let Covid-19 take its course for the good of the planet.” 

I don’t think I need to explain at this point how these tie into overpopulation ideology. However, there are two key details that you should remember. First, especially at its beginning, Covid-19 was heavily associated with China and Asia, a frequent target of overpopulation debates and also, you know, generally populated by not white people. Second, if Covid-19 “takes its course,” the people who die will be the poor, the disenfranchised, those without access to healthcare or with existing medical risks. Based on demographics regarding race and poverty in the US, that primarily means people of color and people with disabilities.  

Okay, so yikes on all fronts. It’s worth noting that a lot of people expressing these sentiments are not aware they’re sharing fascist and white supremacist ideology. The “Overpopulation Issue” is still a very widespread idea, especially within environmental groups. However, it generally exists as the vague idea of “less people is good, maybe.” It takes a bit of research, and the knowledge that you should be looking for something, to uncover its eugenicist roots. 

That is not to say that all people sharing these sentiments are innocent. White supremacists and people with other forms of fascist ideologies are pretty good at sharing mostly innocuous versions of their beliefs, things that your average, non-fascist person might agree with. It’s a quiet way of getting you over to their sides, getting you adjusted to their ideas so that you may not notice or not care when they start to ramp them up to more explicitly genocidal. And it’s very easy for ecofascists to take advantage of the widespread fear right now, to spread the environmental results of quarantine as a spot of lightness in the encompassing darkness.  

Basically, what I’m saying is be careful. Be skeptical of these posts, of the ideas of overpopulation as a danger or mass deaths as a benefit. Read critically, keep an eye out, and don’t fall into eugenicist mindsets. Look for lightness in the dark, but don’t accidentally spread support of ecofascism.

[himbowelsh]

Your writing is amazing! Could you please add David Webster to the valentines head canon list? 💝

valentines day alphabet  ( accepting! )

A   :   AFFECTION.   how does your muse show affection?

He leaves notes around the house. Sweet things, like ‘I’ll be thinking of you all day’ or ‘I wanted so badly to kiss you this morning’  ---  or even something simple as ‘Left you a smoothie in the fridge, love you’.  It’s a silly thing, and a few have gotten crumpled or swept into the trash before his partner noticed, but it’s just a way for them to know he’s thinking of them. He’s not very physically affectionate, and while he can (and has) professed his love a thousand different ways, words just don’t feel like enough. Notes are tangible, something to hold on to and tuck away to look over on a rainy day.

B   :   BOUQUET.   does your muse like flowers? which ones are their favourite?

Please, his family’s had a personal florist for ages. He might not know how to pick out flowers himself  ---  the best he can do is identify them, but he doesn’t know how to take care of them, or which flowers look good together   ---   but he can order up a gorgeous bouquet for any occasion.

C   :   CHOCOLATE.   does your muse like chocolate? which one is their favourite?

He doesn’t mind it. Milk chocolate only, please, and in small quantities, otherwise it makes him queasy. To be honest, he doesn’t trust himself with boxes of chocolate, so tries to avoid them.

D   :   DATE.   what is your muse’s ideal date? where / who with / etc?

Let’s go out sailing! Oh gosh, if a person hasn’t seen David sailing, they haven’t truly seen him. He’s in his element on the water. Never is his grin broader, his eyes brighter, his shirt looser...  he loves being out on the waves so much. Being out there with someone he loves sounds like heaven. God, he would love to show his partner the ropes  ---  literally  ---  to introduce them to his boat and teach them how to sail. If they handle themselves well on the waves, he’ll definitely fall a little in love.

E   :   EMBRACE.   does your muse like hugs? what are their hugs like?

Depends who the hug is comping from. Web can be picky. Sometimes Hoobler just grabs him and he stays there like a spike in the ground until he’s done  ---  David much prefers seeking out the hug first, at least initiating it. His hugs are gentle, not too intrusive, clearly meant to share comfort rather than offer anything. He’s fond of rubbing someone’s shoulders.

F   :   FLIRT.   is your muse good at flirting? how do they flirt?

David is well-spoken, handsome, and can be profoundly charming at the right moments. He’s probably better at flirting after a glass of champagne, but can usually handle himself. Of course, he’s not always great at reading the room, so some occasional blunders can’t be helped.

G   :   GIFT.   is your muse good at gift - giving or do they struggle to get it right?

It’s definitely a struggle, but David wants to get it right  ---  and he puts a lot of effort into it. While he’s not above just asking, to know point-blank what they want, then he has to get the best version of that thing possible. He’ll search for hours to find exactly the right gift...  and even if he ended up getting a hair straightener instead of curling iron, or a the wrong brand of toy, all that heart still shines through.

H   :   HEART.   is your muse quick or slow to give their heart away?

David is...  that really weird type of impulsive where he thinks everything through, until he doesn’t. Those impulsive moments are his greatest successes or greatest failures. He doesn’t mean to fall in love quickly, but the moment he realizes he’s in, he’s all in. His heart isn’t easily dissuaded.

I    :   I LOVE YOU.   does your muse find ‘i love you’ easy or hard to say?

Words are easy; these three particular words, not so much. He’s really got to fight his way to a place where he feels confident in saying them...  and even then, they’d stall on his tongue, because he’s really not sure his partner will say them back. No matter how fiercely he loves them, there’s always that little shred of uncertainty...  and to get past it, Web probably ends up blurting “I love you” at an unexpected time. It’s not how he planned on doing it at all, not half as romantic as it should be...  but once that wall’s been bulldozed through, and his partner says it back, suddenly it’s easy to say all the time.

J   :   JEALOUSY.   does your muse get jealous in a relationship?

Quite. He just...  doesn’t like seeing other people encroaching on the person he loves, and if he has to make that displeasure known, he will. David’s style is subtle and public. He’ll lace hands or pull his partner closer during a night out, occasionally pressing a kiss to their cheek  ---   just close enough to their neck to give a thrill, reminding them that they’re his, and he’s right here. He’s not really vocal about it, but his jealousy sends a message.

K   :   KISS.   is your muse a good kisser? why / why not?

David is… an inquisitive kisser. He likes to test his partner’s limits, exploring their mouth like a born scientist. He charts the groves of their lips with his own, memorized their taste, sucks gently just to gauge their reaction… and the more encouragement they give him, the more adventurous he’s willing to get. Needs to have his partner close, right against him while they’re kissing. If they get too into it, he’ll start grinding unconsciously; god forbid it gets pointed out, cause he’ll turn five shades of red at once.

L   :   LOVE.   who does your muse love?

Sharks, sharks, sharks sharks sharks  ---  EVERYBODY!    (No, okay, he’s the sort of pretentious to say “my first love will always be my craft” while glowering at a novel draft he hasn’t touched in three months, but...  he really does love his family, no matter how often he bickers with them. Web’s the sort of person who absolutely cherishes his friends, and takes them very deep into his heart. He loves whatever he’s passionate about, be they people, things, or ideas.)

M   :   MOONLIGHT.   is morning or night a more romantic setting?

He loves early morning; it’s the epitome of serene tranquility, the point of existence all humans should aspire to. The sun breaking over the horizon illuminates a person’s truest self. Too bad he’s a horrible morning person who resents dragging himself out of bed any time before 9am. If people are their truest selves at dawn, Webster’s a feral rat who just won a fight for the last pizza crust on the subway.

N   :   NAUGHTY.   what is your muse like in bed?

There’s a lot of hip action; David grinds without meaning to, rolling and writhing on instinct alone. It serves him well when he actually puts it to use, hands locked around his partner’s waist as they roll like a ship on high seas. No matter what, David needs to be holding his partner, anchoring himself — it lets him feel in-control, even in a situation where he’s utterly out of it. A very expressive lover — his facial expressions are obscene, holding nothing back — and a furiously intense kisser. During the act, he loves to be working at his partner’s neck, pressing deep kisses into the flesh there… because meeting their eyes overwhelms him too easily. Good luck getting him to keep quiet. He gasps and moans, sometimes going to the effort to muffle himself against the back of his own hand, but usually not bothering. At his peak, his entire body arches, muscles going tense, and he can never restrain a moan as he slowly comes down.

O   :   ODE.   does your muse have a way with words?

Absolutely  ---  though he thinks he’s a lot better at love poetry than he actually is. It’s a work in progress. David is an eloquent and spellbinding speaker, especially when his words come straight from the heart. He’s excellent at expressing what he feels.

P   :   PARTNER.   what does your muse look for in a partner? looks / personality?

He’s drawn to very vibrant people  ---  people who seem to light up a room when they walk in, people with a slight current of energy to them. Like any artist, David craves inspiration...  so he seeks out people who can provide him with it. Maybe someone who enjoys reading, who can carry on intellectual discussions with him  ---  but also someone who can debate and challenge him when he’s too set in his own ideas. Someone with an adventurous spirit. Someone who can play nicely around his parents, and looks great in formal wear. Caring about the environment is a must. Someone who...  will take an interest in the things he’s passionate about, but also has their own passions which they care about deeply.

Q   :   QUESTION.   would your muse ask the big question or expect their partner to?

The problem with David is that...  he thinks. Too much. Overthinker extraordinaire. He wants to consider all the possible alternatives before making a big life decision, which often leads to him not making that decision at all. Pretty much every big leap he takes is on impulse, and he handles the fallout later. He’s never expect his partner too, but, frankly, would be better off it they did. When he does drop the question, it’ll probably be impulsively, with some grand poetic declaration, and possibly a ring improvised with whatever’s onhand. He’s got a rich family, they’ll get a nice diamond later.

R   :   ROMANCE.   is your muse a romantic or a cynic?

He’s got a romantic soul, even if acknowledging it makes him feel like a fool. He knows better, after all. The world is not a kind place to those who leave their hearts open, inviting happiness like sweet deliverance when pain so often disguises itself as pleasure...  but he likes the idea of love. It would be nice. He wants to fall in love, he wants to be in love, and he wants to finally understand what so many writers are obsessed with. He wants the sort of love you fill books with.

S   :   SWEETHEART.   did your muse have a childhood sweetheart?

If you subscribe to the “kids only bully other kids because they like them” line of thinking...  sure. Lil’ David had  t o n s ��of admirers.

T   :   TRUE LOVE.   does your muse believe in true love?

I reiterate: “He wants the sort of love you fill books with.” Maybe it doesn’t exist anywhere outside of fiction, and in the minds of some...  very questionable historical lovers  (Bonnie and Clyde, F Scott and Zelda, Percy and Mary Shelley)  but he’s open to being proven wrong.

U   :   UNREQUITED.   has your muse had their heart broken?

Everyday, by the unrelenting oppression of human cruelty. And the fact that sharks are nonironically viewed as monsters by the general public. And the fact that people don’t see knowledge as the bright light illuminating the path to the future? Or the fact that people don’t realize that if you don’t remember your history you’re doomed to repeat it? Or the fact that some people genuinely like pineapple on pizza  ----     He’s a sensitive boy.

V   :   VALENTINE.   how does your muse feel about valentine’s day?

It’s a capitalist scheme to sell a frightening amount of chocolate boxes and prey on the vulnerabilities of single people. He’s against it on principle. Couples can have romantic dates any day of the year, what’s so special about this one?  (Still, get him roses, he’ll be thrilled.)

W  :   WEDDING.   would your muse get married? why / why not?

He...  goes back and forth. It’s what his parents really want for him, which is almost enough reason for him to never want to...  but he’s got a sense of obligation, too, so maybe. But what if it’s a mistake? What if he doesn’t truly love the person? What if he thinks he loves them, but one day wakes up and realizes it was all an illusion? What if they fall out of love with him? What if ---

He wants to, deep down. Once he finds the right partner, all those anxieties will fade away. It’s really just the not knowing what to expect that worries him.

X   :   XOXO.   does your muse use / like pet names?

He’s not excessive about them   ----   “darling”  and  “sweetheart”  being his biggest offenses   ---   but also isn’t above literary allusions.  “You’re the Hermia to my Lysander” / “The Isolde to my Tristan” / “The Zelda to my F. Scott”, at which point he’s earned any eyerolls he gets.

Y   :   YOURS.   does your muse get protective easily?

Definitely. How willing he is to fight over it is directly proportional to how much alcohol is in his system, or how egregious the offense is   ---   some things will send him feral, alcohol or not. Like insulting his partner outright, or grabbing at them? Web doesn’t stand for that. While he’ll usually try to diffuse a situation just by taking his partner and ducking out, or maybe trying to talk it through, if he sees shit like that, he’ll snap. There’s a lot more fight in him than one would assume at first glance.

Z   :   ZZZ.   how many people has your muse slept with?

Well, he’s had a few girlfriends back in college, but nothing obscene. David really keeps to himself. He’s had maybe… two or three partners beforehand, so it’s not like he doesn’t know what he’s doing, but he doesn’t really know… all the ins-and-outs yet. (Make of that what you will.)

[stardew-imagines-me]

Can you tell us more about the highschool au? I ADORE your work btw

Thank you and of course!

Introduction

Due to rough circumstances, you were unable to keep living with your mother in the city, and had to move onto one of the many properties your late grandfather had owned. Luckily, your grandfather was a smart man and before passing, left you a large amount of savings you could live on for a few years. So that’s how you started your life in Stardew Valley.

Stardew Valley was quite a beautiful town. It wasn’t too big, with only a 100,000 residents, but big enough that it reminded you of certain parts of the city you had come from. Before leaving back to the city, your mother had helped transfer you in Stardew High school, or SDHC where you’d have to call home for the next 3 years.

Stardew high had roughly 2,000 or so students so you hadn’t expected to be noticed transferring in the middle of the year. How wrong were you.

12 special students had taken an interest in you since arriving, and your name became a hot topic around school when you were officially deemed the president of the gardening club the moment you entered. It wouldn’t have been that scary if those 12 students weren’t the most skilled, and popular kids in the school.

Many of them were top in the state, if not the country, for their skills while the others were basically school mascots with overwhelming amounts of school pride. There were only two modest and skilled students who hadn’t a huge part in spreading their name out there like the others and yet, they were still part of the special 12.

These two students were named Penny and Harvey; instead of taking part in clubs, they decided that doing more conventional things like studying medicine or tutoring stuggling students was way more important.

Penny is a very quiet girl; she’s got strong opinions but no voice, which is why she had denied presidency to the debate club her freshman year. Instead, she opted in tutoring students who are a little slower in other subjects — the kids she tutored often excelled after her sessions and wouldn’t need assistance any longer. She would’ve been valedictorian too but again, her voice wasn’t loud enough to earn her the position.

• Penny is a junior

• Penny is often found in the library reading, tutoring or helping the librarians organize shelves

Harvey is a very smart boy; deciding since a very young age that he would become a doctor and help the injured and dying. When Harvey wasn’t studying medicine, he would be in the nurses clinic learning world experiences and medicine measuring. The nurses don’t mind him being in the clinic during classes because he had already learned the material months ahead.

• Harvey is a junior

• He is known around school for skipping a grade and having the brightest future out of the special 12

Then there’s the skilled. The 5 students that had earned that named were naturally gifted kids that often used those to an advantage — they awed everyone when in action.

Shane of the cooking club. Shane is by far, one of the most aggressive and rude people you’ve ever met. But he has a gentle side to him as well. When faced in both cooking and baking competitions, he rises upon all his competitors with dishes that only highest of chefs could succeed in pulling off in such a short amount of time. He’s rude but his peers still adore him nonetheless.

• Shane is a junior

• He raises hundreds for the school when bake sales come around — everyone waits all year just to taste his molasses cookies or triple layer fudge brownies

Alex, star quarterback of the football team. Although Alex isn’t intellectually the most gifted, he is very skilled on the football field when he’s tasked with dodging, swirling and throwing the ball at all costs. He’s very handsome, and a little arrogant, but otherwise, a genuinely kind boy.

• Alex is a junior

• Alex is the high school sweetheart. He wins many games for his school, has been scouted by many different colleges already and has dyslexia

• He gets tutored by Penny when he has the time, Penny always scorns him for being late

Sebastian, the valedictorian. Now, when you think ‘valedictorian’, you see some scrawny nerd that studies constantly and stresses about everything. Well, Sebastian is a little special when it comes to that stereotype. The Stardew valedictorian comes to school in ripped skinny jeans and half combed bed head. He’s got piercings of all kinds, scars and looks that could kill. But he’s very gifted too. Sebastian has never gotten anything below 100%, hasn’t even missed a second of school and actively participates in school events even though he couldn’t give less of a shit about them.

• Sebastian is a junior

• Many kids know that Sebastian and Maru are siblings, but find it quite shocking when they are told that their parents also work at school

Maru, the president of the robotics club. Maru is a very gifted student, a common trait in her family. She’s actually the top student in the country for her engineering projects and robotics creations. She isn’t too fond of going out after school since most of her time is spent making blueprints or organizing competitions for her club, but can’t bare to see Sebastian mope at another pep rally by himself.

• Maru is a junior

• Her and Sebastian had actually created half of the computers in the computer lab. She put them together while he coded them

Leah, the art prodigy. You had actually heard about Leah before coming to a Stardew; her art being displayed in one of the most famous galleries in the world, but were surprised when you found out she had attended a generic high school. Her art is displayed across the banters of the second floor and one of her sculptures is the main piece of the school’s entrance.

* Leah is a junior

* Leah is quite modest about her art, and doesn’t like to talk about it if she isn’t currently working on another piece or really if a conversation doesn’t involve art at all

Then there’s the school pride mascots. The other 5 either deal with special causes, contribute to local communities a lot or are basically just popular.

Haley, the head cheerleader. Haley is quite popular not only in school, but worldwide too. At a young age, she had been scouted for a modeling agency that sky rocketed her reputation and displayed her beauty on many different products and billboards. It only made sense that she would also become head cheerleader for her winning smile and overbearing personality on the field.

* Haley is a junior

* Haley’s personality isn’t really a surprise once she’s done putting up an act. She’s kind when she feels like she can trust you, but otherwise, she bites harder than Shane at times.

Emily, the president of fashion club. Much like her sister, Emily had been scouted out by the same modeling agency, but quit a year or two into the gig to pursue her own clothes line she had been working on since the start. Often, her club is filled with envious kids who adore her modern works and fancy tailoring. She owns her own company, but chooses to graduate school before working on her career right away.

* Emily is a junior

* Emily and her club often make the costumes for Elliot’s drama club when play season comes around. Her clothes are put on display after being worn

Elliot, president of the drama club. Elliot had always had a passion for writing plays and directing them. He was also quite a phenomenal actor, and often attracted people who weren’t even attending the school to his plays. He was adored by the English teacher, no surprise, and had many people swoon over his looks.

* Elliot is a junior

* He’s a famous modern poet, but uses a pen name because he prefers to stay anonymous until he graduates

Abigail, founder one of the human rights club. Abigail is a strong willed girl who is often found preaching about human rights and leading many of the parades in Stardew Valley. She’s a huge supporter of the LGBTQ+ community and runs a women’s shelter during the summer. Her peers adore her and Sam as one of the most well known duos in the school for running courses about abusive relationships and drug abuse as an elective.

* Abigail is a junior

* When Abigail has free time, she usually makes positivity  bracelets that students flash around outside of school for the cool aesthetic4

Sam, founder two of the human rights club. Sam is loud and has such an infectious laugther that it’s hard not to want to be around him 24/7. He participates in quite a bit of funder raisers for certain organizations he’s passionate about and volunteers at a few different preschools to play with the kids and teach basic life skills like stranger danger and saying no. He’s a loud cutie who gets asked out about 6 times a day.

* Sam is a junior

* Sam loves hanging out with Abigail and often helps around school when she’s busy

Farmer:

* You are president of the gardening club because the club had actually been falling apart and only a hand full of students were left since the president had graduated a year prior of you transferring

* What had brought all the attention on you was saving the school’s dying garden in only a week or two. The wilting petals had looked as if they were replaced with luscious, healthy flowers that everyone had stopped to look at at least once a day

* “It was the new kid,” You had heard your garden mates say proudly as they pointed over to you, “The new president, isn’t that neat?”

[drumpfwatch]

The Debate Soapbox

There are so many ways that the Trump Presidency has changed me as a person. One of them is by changing the dynamic of my conversations I have with other people, for better or worse. 

See, I used to love debating. Talking to people and trying to reach a conclusion about the nature of the world together, that we both can agree on. Not just because I’m a confrontational person, but because I like to learn. Debate is a wonderful way to sharpen your wit, practice your improv skills, and learn new things. 

To that end, whenever I would get into an argument with someone, there would be times  when I couldn’t convince them. In part because these discussions would be about opinions - I’ve talked before about how politics is part fact, part opinion, and I’ve also spoken about how solutions are a thing worth talking over, and frankly I could write an entire article about how there are some things that not only don’t have answers that can be considered anything but opinion, but debating those things is actually super important.

To a degree, I still believe that. But it no longer is my primary motivation for starting a debate. I also no longer have debates with people who I know disagree with me on political issues, and the reason why is pretty simple. These people are no longer interested in debates.

They are interested in preaching. 

Let’s ignore the fact that most men who argue do so to inflate their egos. Look how smart I am, intellectually eviscerating this person! That could honestly be an entire post in and of itself. And before you “Not All Men” me, I am aware that not every one of them is like that and there are plenty of women who are the same way - I used to be that way - but it is usually men and there’s something about the way society has gotten men to do it that is especially condescending. The sexism isn’t the point here, the point is something a little deeper.

When a cisgendered white heterosexual man debates about the rights of, say, transgendered people, he has no stake in it. To him, it is an abstract concept. Whether or not GSRM people get put into camps to be “reprogrammed” is more or less meaningless to them because it won’t ever affect them. They may have empathy to the situation, and may be able to put themselves in others shoes (usually because they happen to know someone who is a member of the GSRM community), but they can’t ever really know what it’s like to be in that position. And that’s what leads to the real problem.

To them, debates on politics in the arena of social justice become abstract concepts. The laws and policies they advocate for are just words on paper without real effects. It’s easy to distance yourself from people, and when the government itself is trying to get you to dehumanize those people it gets VERY easy to from arguing about this stuff from a position of ignorance to then be convinced that the “correct answer” is one that leads to pain, and even, if they’re in the right place, to turn them to hate.

At the risk of starting a fight, let’s talk about the ever-loved euphemism of States Rights. Now, I am aware that this is still something that gets used to this day to deny people rights and the what have you, so I ask any travelers from the right side of the aisle to be polite and consider the point being made here. At the end of the day, the history is true, and even if it isn’t, the situation I’m describing works to help illustrate the point I’m trying to make. Because let’s face it, I could write an entire article on any number of these tactics.

So let’s go back to the 1960s and talk about States Rights.

See, Silverwater and his ilk knew that they could garner enough support in their own states to get what they wanted within their own states. Alabamans were never going to vote for blacks to have the right to vote, partly because the people who cared were mostly the black people. Who, you know, couldn’t vote. They also used other techniques to make that happen, but the point is the only way it would happen anytime this century was if the Federal Government made it, and it was getting dangerously close to doing so.

B vaSo instead of just admitting that they’re racists and want to be racists about it, they concocted the argument of “States Rights”. The idea was that if they made it sound like they weren’t being dicks about it, the more people would pick it up. You have to make it sound intellectual, which gives people the excuse. So they went around saying that, “No, we’re not racists! We’re not racist at all! We just believe that votership is a sacred right of the states, and the federal government has no right to be sticking their fingers in the sacred state pie!” 

And people bought it. People still buy it today. The effect of this is two fold. First, it shifts the conversation. The debate we’re having is “should black people be allowed to vote,” not “who has the right to decide who gets to vote.” Or at least, that’s the debate we should be having. Suddenly though, we’re not. The topic has changed. This distracts from the conversation and changes it to a discussion that you’re not necessarily prepared for.

The second effect is not on you, it’s on the one making the argument. They feel like they’re making a compelling point. Whether or not you refute the point, whether or not the point is actually relevant to the discussion, if you can’t address it they feel like they’ve won. And that, of course, leads to them using it again because it scores a point.

From there, it only gets worse. These guys who think they’re paragons of logic suddenly have what they feel is a logical reason for not being hateful - they don’t think they’re discriminatory, they think they’re just being fair.

There are a million guises this nonsense can come in. Another good example comes from the feminism section of the discourse. You’ll hear MRAs talk about how “men in the military are way more likely to die then women,” or how “Men don’t have housing shelters to protect them from spousal abuse like women do” and then use that to argue that feminism is ineffective or wrong. What they don’t realize is that, say, men die a lot more in the army then women because until recently women were actually forbidden from having combat roles, and that even accounting for the underreported statistics of woman on man spousal abuse, men are still far, FAR more likely to be the ones abusing. There also ARE shelters that cater to protecting men, but yes, not nearly as many as there should be.

Or how about gentrification? “They’re bringing in new businesses and fresh market blood to the area, why is that a bad thing? Why is that a racist thing?” This one is actually a really perfect example of this exact problem. On the surface yes, it does seem like by gentrifying a town you’re making life better for the people who live there, but the truth is far, far more complicated. I could write an entire article on it, but the two biggest problems are that the money brought in to the town by the gentrification is great, none of it really goes back into the local area. It all goes into the pockets of the companies and people “improving” the area. The second problem is that because that area of town is suddenly a lot better, the cost of living can go up, and because the cost of living can go up, the poor people who already live there are suddenly in an environment they can’t afford to live in. Oops! So the poor people are forced out of the area. And since America is a late capitalist hellscape built on racism, those poor people tend to be black. So black people are being kicked out of their homes because wealthy whites people want the space for another strip mall. And that, my friend, is racist. 

But, as I’ve already established, you can be entirely ignorant to the surrounding circumstances and think that it’s not. Or you could be familiar with them, but because it was a good-for-nothing liberal who told you, you don’t believe what they have to say. Either way, the argument at this point isn’t about how to prevent racism, it’s about what racism is in the first place. And that shift is one the Nazis and White Supremacists love to take hold of.

See, it doesn’t take much to go from “Logically, it cannot be proven that I am in support of a racist decision” to then go to “These people have been deluded into thinking I am a racist, even though I am just logical.” From there, our hypothetical Logic Boy is susceptible to the infections we’ve talked about before. Those filthy gays don’t want to just be left alone like they say, they want to all the straights to die. They’re out to get you, you have to try and stop them! Here’s the evidence for that!

And then the process is like every other conspiracy, and I’ve talked about that before. 

What I’m saying is that these debates? Maybe there are one or two people left who are actually interested in having them, and maybe there are people out there who seek them out to try and truly find out who’s right and wrong. But most of the people out there goading you into it are not doing it out of a philosophical interest in being morally justified. 

They’re using that debate platform as a soap box to draw other people in, and by arguing back with them, you give them access to your followers. By engaging them, you validate their position as “equal” to your own. Back in my days attacking creationism, this was actually a very interesting debate in its own right I say going on. I remember when Bill Nye debated Creationist Shill Ken Ham(‘n Cheese) a lot of people were telling him not to do it because it validated Ken Ham’s position as equal to that of the scientific consensus. I was on the other side of that debate, arguing that the intellectual evisceration that Ham was sure to receive would get people away from Creationism. I also argued that while Bill is an engineer and a popularly known scientist, he is an aeronautical engineer, not an evolutionary biologist, and he doesn’t even have a doctorate. If Ken Ham can’t beat Bill Nye then he sure as hell doesn’t even deserve to debate with actual biologists. It’s been years since that day, and I don’t know how many people that’s true for - I don’t think even the people for it is tr use would know it, leaving any cult tends to be a slow process that starts with things the person doesn’t even realize opened their eyes until later - but I do know that even on Christian Creaitonist websites, it was pretty unanimous that Ken Ham’nCheese lost.

But I don’t know if I still feel that way these days. Of course, creationism is a different sort of beast then White Nationalism and the other social ills that plague our planet, but I know that for now, at least, I have no real interest in debating white supremacists. I’ll rail on their points, day and night, because they’re wrong and deserve to be railed on, but I will never give them a platform. I will never debate them. I will never give them, personally, access to my followers, and I will never say any of their points without having a refutation immediately following. You shouldn’t either.

[berniesrevolution]

In today’s Washington Post, Elizabeth Bruenig has an article arguing that socialism should no longer be considered a dirty word. Socialists believe that “working Americans deserve a say in how the country’s vast wealth will be used,” and that “more than policy tweaks will be needed to empower everyday people to participate meaningfully in society and democracy.” Since these are sensible positions, she says, socialism is at the very least a reasonable political tendency. She is, of course, completely correct, and all of the common criticisms of contemporary democratic socialism are misleading, unfair, or outright false.

In explaining why it can be difficult to figure out what socialism means, Bruenig notes that “the United States doesn’t have a familiar, established socialist history to look to for guidance on what socialism might mean in this country.” It’s certainly true that the U.S. doesn’t have a “familiar” socialist history, since students generally aren’t taught much about American socialists in school. (Eugene Debs is usually mentioned, mostly as a curiosity.) And it’s true that in the U.S., unlike many European countries, there was never a socialist movement that had mass popular support. In England, for instance, the Labour Party founded by socialist Keir Hardie would become a dominant force in British politics for the entire 20th century and establish the modern social welfare state. In France, socialists took over Paris! (A few things also happened in Russia.) Nothing comparable occurred in America, hence the title question of Werner Sombart’s 1906 book Why Is There No Socialism in the United States?, a question followed up nearly a century later in the book It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed In The United States.

But I also think it’s worth remembering that even though socialism “failed” here, insofar as it never became the kind of political force it was in many European, Latin American, Asian, and African countries, we do have a socialist history, and a rather inspiring one! Delving into that history is a great way to find lessons for contemporary democratic socialists. And in some ways, the successes of American socialists have been underappreciated. As I’ve written before, the list of socialist mayors in the United States in the early 20th century is impressively long, and one reason the Socialist Party fizzled after about 1908 is that the other major political parties actually began co-opting the Socialist agenda. I recommend reading Ira Kipnis’ The American Socialist Movement 1897-1912, which talks a lot about where the socialists succeeded and where they didn’t. Many of the intra-socialist debates were the same ones we are having today: What does socialism really mean? Are particular reforms “socialist”? To what extent should socialists work within the existing political system? Unfortunately, they did not resolve those debates then, and the first thing to learn is that we need to do better this time around.

The history of the American Socialist Party and the IWW are fascinating in their own right. (As well as the histories of socialist publications like The Masses and the Appeal to Reason.) But I’d like to single out a few historic American socialists who I find exemplary. We do have a grand left tradition in the United States, one carried forth from generation to generation by humane and committed activists. We should never forget their lives, struggles, and ideas.

Hubert Harrison

Hubert Harrison is one of my favorite forgotten Americans, period. Known as the “Black Socrates,” he was an important figure in the Harlem Renaissance, renowned for his dazzling streetcorner oratory and the seriousness of his intellect. Jeffrey B. Perry’s excellent biography of Harrison calls him the “voice of Harlem radicalism” and the book summary gives you a flavor of Harrison’s extraordinary life:

The foremost Black organizer, agitator, and theoretician of the Socialist Party of New York, Harrison was also the founder of the “New Negro” movement, the editor of Negro World, and the principal radical influence on the Garvey movement. He was a highly praised journalist and critic (reportedly the first regular Black book reviewer), a freethinker and early proponent of birth control, a supporter of Black writers and artists, a leading public intellectual, and a bibliophile who helped transform the 135th Street Public Library into an international center for research in Black culture.

Harrison is particularly notable for the way he combined “race consciousness” with “class consciousness,” And while considered a “Harlem Renaissance” figure, he was critical of the entire concept, because he felt it diminished previous black achievements. As a brilliant atheist, socialist, anti-racist intellectual, Harrison is a standout figure in the history of the left who deserves to be given his due.

Helen Keller

Keller herself is, of course, well-remembered. But her radical socialist politics are still too frequently neglected. She was a member of the Industrial Workers of the World and a supporter of Debs, an anti-militarist feminist trade unionist who was staunchly committed to the rights of working people. If you read her socialist writings, it can actually be a little surprising to realize just how firm her conviction was. Here she is describing the IWW and why she supports it:

The creators of wealth are entitled to all they create. Thus they find themselves pitted against the whole profit-making system. They declare that there can be no compromise so long as the majority of the working class lives in want while the master class lives in luxury. They insist that there can be no peace until the workers organize as a class, take possession of the resources of the earth and the machinery of production and distribution and abolish the wage system.

I don’t remember hearing that when we watched The Miracle Worker in middle school! In her essay “How I Became A Socialist,” Keller says she is pleased that people seem so interested in her inspiring life story, particularly because it will help get the word “socialism” into more newspapers! (Ah, how she underestimated the power of the whitewashing machine!) She also amusingly recounted how the New York Times asked her to write an article, before immediately printing an editorial condemning the “contemptible red flag.” This would not do, Keller said:

I love the red flag and what it symbolizes to me and other Socialists. I have a red flag hanging in my study, and if I could I should gladly march with it past the office of the Times and let all the reporters and photographers make the most of the spectacle. According to the inclusive condemnation of the Times I have forfeited all right to respect and sympathy, and I am to be regarded with suspicion. Yet the editor of the Times wants me to write him an article!

Nor did Keller think much of the Brooklyn Eagle when they suggested that her left-wing politics were a product of her physical disabilities. Keller’s reply is so deliciously scathing that it’s worth quoting at length:

The Brooklyn Eagle says, apropos of me, and socialism, that Helen Keller’s “mistakes spring out of the manifest limitations of her development.” Some years ago I met a gentleman who was introduced to me as Mr. McKelway, editor of the Brooklyn Eagle. It was after a meeting that we had in New York in behalf of the blind. At that time the compliments he paid me were so generous that I blush to remember them. But now that I have come out for socialism he reminds me and the public that I am blind and deaf and especially liable to error. I must have shrunk in intelligence during the years since I met him. Surely it is his turn to blush… Oh, ridiculous Brooklyn Eagle! What an ungallant bird it is! … The Eagle is willing to help us prevent misery provided, always provided, that we do not attack the industrial tyranny which supports it and stops its ears and clouds its vision. The Eagle and I are at war. I hate the system which it represents, apologizes for and upholds. When it fights back, let it fight fair. Let it attack my ideas and oppose the aims and arguments of Socialism. It is not fair fighting or good argument to remind me and others that I cannot see or hear. I can read. I can read all the socialist books I have time for in English, German and French. If the editor of the Brooklyn Eagle should read some of them, he might be a wiser man and make a better newspaper. If I ever contribute to the Socialist movement the book that I sometimes dream of, I know what I shall name it: Industrial Blindness and Social Deafness.

Mother Jones

I think if there is one thing we can say for certain about Mother Jones, it’s that she wouldn’t think much of the magazine that publishes under her name. She was certainly no liberal. (“I’m not a humanitarian, I’m a hell-raiser!”) She traveled across the country organizing strike after strike and motivating workers to resist the strike-breakers. She led a march of hundreds of child laborers, which ended up outside Teddy Roosevelt’s summer home, where she demanded to see the president to protest child labor. (She was refused.) She went to prison, was released, raised more hell, went to prison again, and then went to meet John D. Rockefeller, spending two hours telling him personally about the conditions in his mines and demanding he improve them. She was generous toward Rockefeller though: “Him raised in luxury, how could he know anything about real things? It isn’t his fault, though—the raising he got is the cause of it.” The woman who reminded laborers “You ain’t got a damn thing if you ain’t got a union!” was one of the most fearless, frank, uncompromising champions of working people in American history.

“I asked a man in prison once how he happened to be there and he said he had stolen a pair of shoes. I told him if he had stolen a railroad he would be a United States Senator.”  — Mother Jones

Peter Clark

Peter Clark is known as the first African American socialist. He was an active abolitionist in the decades leading up to the Civil War, and then afterwards became the first black school principal in the state of Ohio. He ran for office, ran a newspaper, taught black students, supported striking workers. He was once fired by the school he worked at after he taught students about the radical “atheist” thinking of Thomas Paine. Clark’s life is documented in Nikki Taylor’s America’s First Black Socialist: The Radical Life of Peter H. Clark. Here is an excerpt from a talk he gave on socialism in 1877:

Many wise men, learned in political economy, assure us that their doctrines, faithfully followed, will result in a greater production of wealth and a more equal division of the same. But as I have said before, there is but one efficacious remedy proposed, and that is found in Socialism. The present industrial organization of society has been faithfully tried and has proven a failure. We get rid of the king, we get rid of the aristocracy, but the capitalist comes in their place, and in the industrial organization and guidance of society his little finger is heavier than their loins. Whatever Socialism may bring about, it can present nothing more anarchical than is found in Grafton, Baltimore and Pittsburgh today.

(Continue Reading)

[personality-studies]

The Hidden Insecurities of Each MBTI Types

INTP : BEING THOUGHT OF AS BORING OR UNINTELLIGENT.

INTPs derive most pleasure from solitary activities such as research and acts of creativity. Their minds are always bubbling with ideas and  random sometimes hilarious cogitations. INTPs know that if someone were to glimpse the amusing contents of their thoughts it would be clear why they are so absorbed with their inner world.

They do not particularly concern themselves with what people think of them but on some level they do realize that their penchant for being reserved and detached can lead other more extroverted types to assume they are boring, dumb, or arrogant. INTPs are sometimes torn between doubling down on their defiance of social paradigms or coming out of their shell to impress everyone with how witty and funny they can be. INTPs generally don’t feel the need to prove how interesting they are to anyone; it is enough that they know it. But when they sense they are being underestimated or labelled as dull, they may be compelled to unveil some of the brilliance they keep to themselves.

ENTP: BEING DISLIKED BY OTHERS.

ENTPs thrive on engaging in animated debates where they can flex their litigious wit. In the process, they can cultivate the reputation of a quarrelsome troll who will indulge in frivolous arguments just for the hell of it.

Others may quickly learn to avoid messing with ENTPs because of their skill with mordant retorts. ENTPs may sometimes be concerned if those even in their inner circle truly value their friendship. They want to be entertaining and amusing to others and they spend a lot of time trying to be charming and clever conversationalists. They can seem very airy and impersonal but they still desire deep and meaningful connections with people.

INTJ:  SHOWING EMOTIONAL WEAKNESS AND VULNERABILITY.

INTJs are not known for being soft emotional sponges nor would they want to be. Part of this is due to their disapproval of maudlin displays of sentimentality viewing it as a sign of weakness.

Having a bleeding heart does not jibe with the INTJ’s self-image, which in their mind would resemble a pillar of stoic strength built with the blocks of empirical truth. INTJs prize their independence and their sense of agency and self-sufficiency. Despite their phlegmatic demeanor, INTJs do experience a flux of emotions that threaten to destabilize their temperament, potentially sending them into fits of rage or into the pits of depression. They actively suppress the expression of these feelings choosing instead to examine their meaning intellectually. The realm of emotions is to them a messy and troublesome affair and INTJs fear baring too much of their soul at the altar of public scrutiny.

ENTJ: UNABLE TO SEIZE OPPORTUNITIES 

ENTJs are statistically the highest earning of all the personality types; a figure they would undoubtedly take pride in. They are enterprising and always casting their radar out into the ethosphere scanning for new horizons to explore. They are naturally competitive and know that there are always competitors who threaten to snap up an idea or opening before they can.

This is a source of stress for them and something they endeavor to mitigate by optimizing and refining their senses and ability to capitalize on good bets before others can. They can be so busy thinking ahead of the curve, that they overlook unexpected windows of opportunity that suddenly appear in the here-and-now. Being the ambitious high achievers they are, they would not want to miss out on valuable options just because they were too singularly focused on their predefined plans.

INFP: THEIR ABILITY TO TRUST AND FULLY OPEN THEMSELVES TO OTHERS.

INFPs don’t like getting burned but at some point in their lives, it’s bound to happen. When it does, the lesson can have lasting impact on future relationships making them more guarded and harder to get to know well. They can become very suspicious and distrustful of other’s motives for fear of being taken advantage of or betrayed again.Luckier INFPs may never experience the need to develop an emotional coat of armor but for many, it is essential for protecting their psychological balance. People who want to get past an INFP’s emotional barriers will likely first have to pass the battery of ‘character’ tests which the INFP administers through furtive observation of their subject over time.

ENFP: BEING VIEWED AS AIMLESS AND UNMOTIVATED.

Though often very talented, ENFPs at their heart may harbor some insecurities that they attempt to alleviate through achievement. Earning status, fame and recognition in the world may serve as tokens of validation for them and they pursue this end with charismatic chutzpah.

They accentuate their quirkiness and creativity like a peacock displaying it’s plumage. They contribute to the world through their unusual yet valuable and often spiritual insight. It would put a damper on their self esteem if they were viewed as typical or commonplace. They would like to fancy themselves as more than just another crab in the barrel but at the same time desire to uplift and inspire others.

INFJ: BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY.

For all their noble qualities, INFJs are apt to develop a persecution complex in response to criticism leveled against them. Their sensitivity to criticism and conflict can easily render them feeling victimized and beleaguered by others who disagree with their ideas or beliefs.  

In asserting their ideas they sometimes feel their back is against the wall as they contend with what they view as unfair treatment or willful misconstructions of their arguments by opponents. By their estimate, most of the problems INFJs face stem from a failure by others to properly understand them or simply a depravity of good ethical principles on their part. INFJs are inclined to cry foul when they sense the playing field is not level and often, the causes they take up are centered around equalizing it.

ENFJ: BEING ALONE OR OSTRACIZED SOCIALLY.

ENFJs may have the noblest of intentions but their lofty ideals can sometimes set them up for failure. Their desire to be everything to everyone leads them to become charismatic and popular moral leaders but sometimes come across as glib and disingenuous as well.

The effort to maintain the pristine saintly image they have built up can force them to conceal or deny the human flaws they share along with the rest of us. They fear disappointing other’s expectations of them or their idea of what others should expect of them. They want to be a belweather and shining example of decency and likability. ENFJs fear becoming a pariah and being cutoff from the social main and they can be quite officious in their effort to gin up their popularity and esteem within their community.

ISFJ: BEING VALUED AND NEEDED BY OTHERS.

ISFJs want to help others and derive much of their self-worth from how vital a role they can serve in this regard. They feel most secure when they are dutifully fulfilling a support function upon which others depend.

But like a crack dealer, they may go so far as to stimulate this dependence in others by monopolizing their role such that no else may be allowed to conduct it for themselves. In order to satisfy their own need to feel needed they may attempt to make themselves indispensable by performing tasks to such a high degree and standard that others would feel loathe or unwilling to match it. It would be heart-breaking for them to feel that no one truly appreciated or needed them for anything.

ESFJ: BEING APPRECIATED AND LOVE-WORTHY.

ESFJs will go to great lengths to please those around them, sometimes doing too much and annoying others in the process. This is because they want to be appreciated and valued by others and will make gestures to engender gratitude from them.

They may occasionally feel their place in the hearts of others unjustly threatened by someone or something and they may engage in not-so-subtle attempts at winning favor with them. They may particularly engage in shameless self promotion making exaggerated claims about their abilities and qualities. Within a group, they may become stressed out as they are pulled in a million different directions, attempting to please everyone while also becoming extremely sensitive to others’ opinions of them. They are extremely concerned with being accepted and feeling liked.

ISTJ: BEING RESPECTED AND SEEN AS TRUSTWORTHY.

ISTJs are tradition-minded empiricists who look to be a firm and responsible figure in both their personal and professional circles. They seek to position themselves in a place of authority where they can make decisions and assert control.

In order to justify this, they make an effort to maintain an image of high standards, and ethic. They want to be seen as diligent and dutiful and will cultivate this image even to the point of appearing self-righteous and sanctimonious. They will seek respect from their subordinates even if they have to demand it sometimes resorting to dictatorial means. ISTJs may be very fair but strict and disciplined. They view their conservative temperament as essential to being taken seriously as an object of authority and repute.

ESTJ: IMPLEMENTING PERSONAL IDEAS.

ESTJs usually look to their experience and history to guide them in their decisions and methods. They focus on facts and data and value tradition and customs but they also have ideas of their own although they may not always be confident enough to rely on them.

ESTJs do not like being seen as unoriginal  and unimaginative and will at times try to convey an openness to new ideas and possibilities whether put forward by themselves or others. Of course, it would be ideal if they could take as much credit as possible for the ideas that really work. Their sense of pride and self empowerment compels them to occasionally venture outside of their comfort zone when necessary and be more inventive.

ISFP: BEING UNDER OTHER’S CONTROL.

ISFPs have no desire to control other people and simply want to be free to be who they are. They want to express themselves and their unique creativity authentically and unadulterated by arbitrary social constrictions.

A rigid, stifling environment is terrifying to this type. They are insecure about feeling imposed upon or beholden to others particularly within a power structure or hierarchy. They fancy themselves as free spirits owned by no one. They do not like feeling common and lowly and crave the freedom to express themselves like the rest of us crave water and air. This type needs to go out into the world and explore, discover and create without limitations, in order to feel like themselves.  They fear having their self-expression limited in any way.

ESFP: THEIR ATTRACTIVENESS AND SENSE OF SELF WORTH.

ESFPs live to perform, entertain and excite those around them. The spotlight is where they thrive and their idea of horror is a world in which nobody finds them interesting or entertaining. They live to explore people possibilities and the idea of those possibilities disappearing truly scares them. They want to be popular and well-liked and will often blend in to their environment to do so. ESFPs take special interest in their appearance and social image and are very aware of how they are perceived by others. They enjoy being the epicenter of attention and try to gin up excitement when they come around. They also dislike being seen as unintelligent and will take that very offensively. Just because the ESFP enjoys having fun, does not mean they are not intelligent.

ISTP: HANDS-OFF LEARNING

ISTPs  cognitive style lends itself to a more tactile approach to education. They are statistically one of the least academically inclined personality types because classroom settings and literature-based curriculum don’t stimulate or cater to their way of learning. The ISTP lives to understand the world in a direct, concrete fashion. They learn by tinkering, testing, experimenting and meddling. A world in which they are expected to blindly accept how things work is a world that they don’t want to live in. The ISTP needs to get their hands dirty in life – and being held back from doing so is a truly terrifying thought.

ESTP: THEIR PUBLIC IMAGE AND BEING ADMIRED BY OTHERS.

ESTPs are often attention seekers who would be malcontent in a modest life of obscurity. They want to be somebody and can be very ego-centric and arrogant in their pursuit of prestige, adulation and acclaim.

Their actions are often calibrated to achieve this end and their means may range from low brow prat-falls and slap stick-humor to prodigious accomplishments in the realm of academics and business. They fear the prospect of failure and being a disappointment in the eyes of others perhaps especially those of a parental figure. At the same time, it may be that they predicate their personal value on material expressions of value such as expensive property, accolades and titles of rank.

[starduztz]

♐️Sagittarius in the houses

🏠1st house (= your ascendant)

You embrace new experiences and people with optimism and an adventurous/curious spirit

you stand strong in what you think and don’t hold anything back, can be super frank and too honest at times

curiosity and knowledge motivates you! 

can be an amazing leader

you give off/project interested and curious energies 

can be very self centered and restless and sometimes you act cold and unemotional 

you usually perceive the world in connection with yourself and not always how it affects other people

freedom and being able to do whatever you want is super important to you but sometimes you use freedom as a way to avoid responsibilites in life

restless and might have a constant desire for change 

has a desire to learn about the world so that you can become aware of beliefs and values of people around the world, it interests you deeply

you want to experience life fully and discover the truth about everything so that you can then tell people about it, you love sharing your experiences with people but can come off as feeling better than everybody else because you might believe you have more knowledge or life experience than the rest

🏠 2nd house

wants to be financially independent and not having to lean on money to survive, you need to feel free from money and it’s controlling effects

there’s a risk that you make people feel dependent on you and that you control them or treat them as possessions to get ahead in life

you use knowledge to advance, create stability for yourself and to help you create opportunities that will benefit you (which might mean that you don’t get a broad perspective on everything because you only focus on the knowledge which will benefit you personally)

can be too generous and carefree with money and possessions

you’re restless with money and possessions so you can quickly change between saving money to being a crazy spender

you put much value in traveling and gaining knowledge 

you feel productive and more self-worthy when you engage in philosophical and spiritual things

🏠 3rd house

has a broad range of interests and you always manage find something new that you get super invested in

witty and optimistic when communicating

can at times be too blunt and outspoken which can give you negative responses from other people

can be very spiritual when talking with people and almost too deep, maybe not the best person to have small-talk with if you just want to talk about the weather

you love expanding and growing your mind

passion for information!!

not only do you love to learn and know - you love proving to everybody what things you know. so can come off as a smartass or “know-it-all”

might be so stuck on learning that you forget to practice it and use it in real life

super active mind that craves mental stimulation and challenges!

🏠 4th house (IC)

you love being at home! it’s one of your favorite places

has many projects going on at home at the same time

might have a messy home life

wants a comfortable and kind of open home space, you want to feel free and able to move around a lot (maybe a big ass garden were you can roam around? or a lot of open spaces in your house/apartment?) 

can either be one of those people who consider everywhere to be home as long as you’re free or you need a secure and stable home in able for you to be comfortable to go out into the world and explore and take on adventures

the objects you keep at home are usually memories from some adventures/travels you’ve made in life

you can be a bit possessive of people close to you and have a hard time letting go of them

your beliefs and values might start to grow at home or be affected by family at some degree, maybe you have a deeply rooted belief system that is inspired by your home life or you take on the same beliefs and values as your family especially if you are really close with them and they’ve inspired you

🏠 5th house

you love living in the moment!

has a playful and free-spirited approach to romance, you might have partners from all sorts of places in life which will expand your romantic experiences even more

enjoys having an active social life and a lot of different interests and hobbies

loves entertaining people and usually the life of the party

can be overconfident and reckless with love but your generosity and honesty might make up for your uncommitted behaviors in love

whenever you experience something exciting or fun you want the next experience to be even better!! 

with each adventure or fun thing you do you want to learn something new and because of this you can be really up for and open to trying new things in life as long as they sound fun and exciting

you love taking chances in life and hope that the chances and risks will allow you to live life to the fullest but this can of course backfire if you take too many risks in life

you have this underlying worry that you might miss out on things in life or not experience life to the fullest, you always want to get the truest and most authentic experience out of everything, you have a deep desire to explore life to the fullest

the way you express your creativity is usually connected to your spirituality and beliefs and you love exposing the truth or showing the depth of things with your creative expression

🏠 6th house

enthusiastic worker who is curious and excited to take on extra work or learn more in the work place

you want and need freedom in your job without too much supervision from your coworkers or supervisors 

generous and love helping others

you are quite protective of your beliefs and values

you believe that if you help one you help all and that it’s all connected and that’s why you love helping people

positive thinking is something you believe in

always seeking ways to change your daily life that will enrich your mind and experiences and therefore might not always stick to routines or habits they have “established”

you’re a huge problem-solver

you find personal growth when you take on responsibilities and help others

you love teaching people and showing them how to do things from your own experiences

🏠 7th house (Descendant)

wants independence and optimism in a partner

jealousy and possessiveness are huge turn offs for you

might leave relationships because you become too curious and excited thinking of how it would be to live a single and free life instead

could end up having many relationships in life if you don’t control or handle your hasty behavior and never learn to settle with someone

really good at communicating but can talk too much

when picking partners you are drawn to people with the same values and beliefs as yourself

you love exploring with your partner and it can even be less exciting when you have to explore by yourself because the exciting thing about going on adventures is your partner and not the trip or experience in itself

exploring and traveling is a great way for you to get to know your partner and it helps you learn about them and also about yourself

a relationship is dead for you when there’s no longer something new to learn about your partner or from them so you might need a bit of mysterious or independent relationship in order to keep the love exciting and long termed

you might use relationships as a way to gain something in life and then leave your partner when you feel as if you got what you wanted 

could have a hard time being an unity in relationships and only thinking about yourself

🏠 8th house

you love learning about the deep desires of people and the dark truth about humanity 

a smart ass that does not tolerate people that try to outsmart them 

you prove and show off your intellectual talents to others and use your intellect as an emotional defense so that they can’t get deep and get to your deepest feelings and insecurities 

can be very narrow minded because you only seek things that will empower or enrich beliefs and things that you already like and approve of so there’s not really a lot of competition or debate on the subject/belief

can be stubborn af!! 

your passion for the truth and your honesty are great ways for you to succeed and break free from insecurities 

🏠 9th house

very spiritual and thinks education and knowledge are key aspects in life

you seek out knowledge through life experiences and life lessons

you are constantly expanding your mind and love pushing the boundaries of what’s considered normal or the right way to live your life, you’re always looking for the best and truest way to live and how to think

super passionate about traveling, spirituality, philosophies and explorations of different beliefs and values

people might see you as super cultural or as someone who knows a lot about the world 

spirituality comes very natural to you 

you want to show people what is true and the right way according to you but can sometimes forget to learn from other people and from their beliefs and values

🏠 10th house (Midheaven)

knowledge, experiences, exposing the truth and freedom will make you succeed and are the main things that drives you

you have big visions but they aren’t always realistic or practical

you are generous when it comes to professional contacts and coworkers

people perceive you as bold, outgoing, daring and wise or that’s at least what you try to come across as in the public eye

your ambitions and career goals are usually connected to feeling free and independent

can change jobs a lot

you would love to work with something spiritual and philosophical or feel like you have an outlet for these subjects in your career and public life

🏠 11th house

you social circle keeps expanding and it feels like it never stops expanding

you’re an optimistic and an outstanding friend that’s carefree and honest

could be the leader amongst friends or the one that takes the initiative for things, you’re great at creating a sense of unity among people

you are drawn to groups and organizations where you can inspire others and lead but aren’t usually a member of groups or organisations because your need to be free 

you love friends that are optimistic, fun and who inspire you to achieve and improve

makes new friends easily but friends that you have usually come and go

friends help you explore and learn from life

you take part in social activities that you think can help you learn or grow

you might have a sense of “I'm better than everyone else” especially when it comes to friends and you don’t like becoming friends with people that you feel are superior to you or people that know more than you do in anyway

🏠 12th house

can be too optimistic at times which will make you disappointed when your unrealistic promises of life are broken

your dreams can be very far away and are possibly things that will be achieved after a long journey and a lot of time passes, 

you might feel and appear very lost in life, not knowing where you want to end up

by practicing and becoming comfortable with your spirituality it will help you accepting the hard and sometimes too real part of life that might otherwise be too hard to endure for you

you might sacrifice your own personal growth and expansion by helping others, it’s important to not give more than you actually have 

might have to truly examine and get to the bottom of your beliefs and values in order to fully know what you want out of life, some of your beliefs might be hidden from you and are in need of exposing to yourself

when you face problems or dilemmas in life you become very careful with your actions and it’s not until you feel fully comfortable in life that you will be able to explore and enjoy life to the fullest

[largemaxa]

Getting on the Spiritual Path

Our affluent, technologically advanced society offers more options to more people than were available at any other time in history (—at least before the restrictions of the covid-19 pandemic). We have been able to travel to worldwide to both cities and rainforests, have exotic cuisines delivered to our door, experience the novel sensations of jumping out of airplanes and diving underneath the sea, access the best movies and music from across the centuries at a click of a button from digital archives, and experience the thrill of creating unprecedented new technologies to revolutionize communications, logistics, and defense. With all these choices, why would we take the trouble to concern ourselves with a distant, hypothetical, and immaterial possibility like the spiritual path to God?

Our most advanced knowledge and science cannot say anything definitive about God, perhaps no more than was already written in dusty books millennia ago. This science, with its bombs, data centers, and transportation systems, wields all of its power without the need for any appeal to an omniscient being or supernatural agency. Prometheus needed to steal fire from the Gods, but we unlock the gate to technological power ourselves; though we may need to navigate the obstacle course of advanced science and mathematics to get to it, there are no supernatural guardians at the threshold.

In the face of all these manifold possibilities, what could possibly interest us in God? We are no longer compelled by social pressure to show up at churches or other places of worship or participate in organized religion in any way. The secular world does not reinforce the spiritual path at all either—newspapers, television shows, and celebrities usually don't prompt us to turn inward, and it's a curiosity when they do. Only if we feel the call of the spirit will the fruits of the spirit come to us. But what does it take to have this call for the spirit? Is it only the lucky few who feel a need that only God can fill?

The Initial Opening

In truth, not everyone will feel this call. Even those who nominally practice a religion or hold a vague spiritual belief system will not necessarily feel a deep call to seek for and know God. And there are different ways of making sense of this fact—the Calvinists believed that all those who are meant to be found and saved by God are decided in advance, with no role for individual volition; another explanation is found in theories about reincarnation where people spend multiple lifetimes chasing lower, more purely human desires and only in later rebirths do they turn to the spirit. There is no need to consider any explanations here, though the reader may note that the act of reading this essay probably already indicates at least some interest in spiritual matters. Anyone who gets this far and decides to investigate the spiritual path further has made a deliberate choice. So we'll just concern ourselves with the question of what exactly it is that makes someone turn to God and how they do so.

For better or worse, one of the major ways that people are drawn into the spiritual life is through misfortune. In times of misfortune, our external means fail, and our internal means—the way we see the world, our methods of coping—fail as well. During trials and ordeals, those who had never thought about praying to a higher being may find themselves entertaining the possibility of a loving God, a source of infinite compassion who would hear and heal their anguish; those who had believed in God but took his support for granted may find themselves deliberately seeking him out where they hadn't before, wanting refuge. When everything is taken away in the outer life, they may find that God is the only real source of hope, solace, salvation, and stability. God is the great consoler, and this method of finding the call of God does make sense.

Misfortune is not the only route that leads people to God. There is also a positive way—perhaps an individual may not feel that anything is "wrong" with their life, but they have an opening or experience that makes them feel that some greater, vaster, grander possibility opens up than anything they have previously known in normal life—a new intensity of happiness or bliss, a sense of a light or presence. This could be the result of an inspiring concert, seeing the beauty of a national park, or just a deep feeling of connectedness with the world. In truth, these sorts of experiences are miniature spiritual experiences and the right one at the right time can expand our worldview and lead us to the spiritual path.

Then there is also the path of philosophical or existential questioning. For most people engaged with the practicalities of the struggles of life, this does not come up. But for a curious and penetrating mind—one who really questions and wonders—there are not many satisfactory answers to questions like "how did we come to be here having this earthly experience?" and "what is the real purpose of this life?" Why is it that we really need to have the job, the relationship—what is the real significance in the end? Beyond the mere fact of social proof, consensus, and convention, are there any intellectually and psychologically satisfying answers to these questions? The field of philosophy attempts to provide principled answers to these questions—and spiritual philosophy in particular provides its own set of answers that supports the spiritual path. Though spirituality is not the only answer to questioning, nor is it proven by any special airtight logic, the path of questioning can still frequently lead to the spiritual path.

But not everyone who undergoes trials and misfortunes feels the need to open up to God—after all, everyone goes through trials in the course of human life, and many atheists feel that their atheism suits them perfectly well to see them through it. By the same token, everyone has peak experiences and not everyone needs to turn to God. And the path of philosophical questioning could lead us to more mental philosophizing, nihilism, or even a recoil from philosophy and a focus on a simple, rational healthy life—it need not lead inevitably to spirituality. All of these situations may provide initial conditions and circumstances, but none of them are absolutely causally decisive. What is ultimately decisive is the call of the soul, and this can happen within any sorts of circumstances at all, be they apparently positive or negative.

In the face of this call, the powers, pleasures, and distractions of the modern world are not enough. But those of us drawn to spiritual seeking in the modern world are actually not the first people to feel this way: the circumstances of life have left many before us asking questions and yearning as well. There has been no absolutely convincing rational argument found that will suffice to answer this yearning or questioning. If we look at the case like a lawyer, casting around for evidence in favor or against, it's debatable whether there will be an absolute affirmation of God; the structures of logic and thought are not sufficient to prove this on their own.

It is not through the reason, whether pure or applied, that the entry point to the spiritual path can be found. In fact, the only way that the spiritual path will open to you is if there is some sort of opening in one's consciousness—some experience or intuition that tells you that the claims of a higher spiritual reality might really be possible. We won't find the true spiritual vision unless we yearn for it, unless we feel it as a deep need of our being. There are material and emotional rewards that come from life: success, relationships, even a feeling of contributing to serving others; these are not enough for someone who has felt the call of their soul. But while the call of the soul may alter our relationship to some of the world's structures, the call of the soul usually still needs to be met by the world in certain key ways that give the soul the context needed to walk the spiritual path.

The Context of the Spiritual Path

When we enter the spiritual path, we do not do so in a vacuum. We set out on the spiritual path from a determinate place in our lives: the particularities of a life in a certain country on a certain place on the earth, at a time when we are involved with certain relationships, when we are at a certain point in our schooling or career; moreover, these lives are contained within an entire history stretching back from our own life to encompass the history of our culture, the cultures around it, the culture that came before it, stretching all the way back to the entire story of humanity. That means that there is a history and way of understanding that is already known to us before we deliberately enter the spiritual path. And this history will affect how we enter the path.

No matter how modern our thinking, we are led to the question of God at least in part because we have come in contact with a truth that has been passed down from before. In our society we are already embedded in a stream of religious discourse: we have always known that there is a being called God, or at least a hypothesis of such a being, and have known that other people speak about such a being and even take steps to pursue him. We know that it's a possible aim for people to pursue, regardless if we believed in the truth of that aim. It doesn't matter how prominently the message is disseminated throughout society or whether we ourselves believed it when we first heard it—the important and relevant part is that the mind is aware that there is some such thing as wisdom or truth of God and the possibility of finding it. This sets up a latent field of possibility in our mind, and when we ourselves have an opening into the possibility and the desire of spirituality through whatever set of circumstances perturb our stasis, we are able to tap into this stream of knowledge that has already been left for us.

One of the things that this field of knowledge lets us do is enable us to classify our initial spiritual thoughts and experiences as having to do with this domain of human knowledge. Without the preexisting framework of spiritual knowledge, it would be difficult to relate our specific experiences at the time of the spiritual opening to even the idea of spiritual knowledge at all. The experiences that occur at the time of the spiritual opening are usually non-ordinary when compared to the events of normal life: there may be unfamiliar thoughts, feelings, and even unusual sensations like visions, lights, or unusual sensations in the body. But when contextualized and structured by preexisting spiritual discourse, these unexpected individual psychological experiences can be connected back to the larger stream of human experience.

The person who turns to God while going through a difficult experience does not invent the concept of a benevolent omnipotent being from whole cloth. Rather, they have heard about God as a possibility in their past, and perhaps are counseled by a friend who has faith that God will hear their prayers. Similarly, the person who turns to spiritual seeking after a peak experience with nature or art knows that others have spoken of the connection between these experiences and the Divine. Without this knowledge to concretely connect their experience to the spiritual quest, it would stay known mostly as a positive experience with nature and not go beyond that. And then, of course, there many people whose first knowledge of the Divine comes from doctrines of organized religion explicitly handed down from the time of early childhood.

Especially when we are starting out on the spiritual path, it is impossible to separate what we personally know about God from what has been said of God; this remains true for a long time until we have more definitive firsthand experience. Even if we do not believe—or even trust—those who have passed their word onto us, the thoughts and experiences they have left in writing and indirectly through the influences on existing human communities already frame the discourse. For most, it will be hard to stake out a new position among the debates of the theists, the mystics, and the nonbelievers stretching back through millennia. Even the great religious reformers, such as Jesus, Buddha, and Luther, had doctrines that were deeply shaped by the doctrines that came before them.

This is not to say that we are bound to the knowledge of the past without the possibility of exceeding it; rather, I simply mean to emphasize the positive function that the knowledge of the past inevitably plays in the spiritual transition. Early in our spiritual quest, we may have a certain indication, an intuition, a perception of voice or a light. How do we know that it means anything? We know because we have access to spiritual discourse that tells us that these are signs of God—we've heard before that people have been visited by similar experiences, or we hear about a popular book that discusses them. If it was not for the access to spiritual discourse, we might never know to interpret our inner experiences in a spiritual way at all. Perhaps we'd see them as psychological quirks and hassles; perhaps we'd even view them as totally meaningless sensations. Even the experience of God himself pointing us towards the right path could be disregarded; many rational and scientific people may be inclined to dismiss this as a hallucination.

Structurally, getting on the spiritual path can be seen as navigating a juncture between worlds, where some opening experience joins us to the world of spiritual experience. And once we are in the world of spiritual experience, we are inextricably bound up with the history of man's spiritual search for our basic concepts and orientation. This does not mean that we are restricted to only the knowledge and experiences that have come before. But it does mean that that knowledge structures the way we think about the spiritual path. When we enter the spiritual path, we need to figure out how to interpret our own experience in the context of the testimony and knowledge left from the past along with all the other possibilities seen around us—cultural attitudes, philosophical ideas, trends, activities and occupations. It's impossible to disregard this past even if we tried, because our very concepts come from the past. But this past gives us the starting point and context of our possibilities on the spiritual path, rather than serving to simply delimit our horizon.

[nefariouscryptid]

Hm, the character solidifying promt is kinda unnecessary with the first Durante cast, I think. We already know much about them. The second Durante cast is another question, but they may not be that developed yet right? Buuut you promised a Leslie description, haha! So with him... aaand with Marcellious plus Jackie, please!

I’ll do Leslie for right now, but I’m only doing about half, because 50 is a lot. The Rita one took me forever

1. How does your character think of their father? What do they hate and love about him? What influence - literal or imagined - did the father have?

Leslie loves his father. But he often was made to feel like a burden, being constantly reminded at how much Yitzhak gave up for him. He loves his father, and he was a good father, but he’s tired of feeling so horrible about how much of a burden he is, and feeling like he isn’t a good son. Like he’s not worth it. Yitzhak doesn’t want him to feel that way, but it’s inevitable. Their relationship is strained. But Leslie inherited Yitzhaks ability to deeply love other people, and sacrifice things for those he cares about. He’s very loyal to those he considers family. He’s also very smart and stands up for himself.

2. Their mother? How do they think of her? What do they hate? Love? What influence - literal or imagined - did the mother have?

No mother

3. Brothers, sisters? Who do they like? Why? What do they despise about their siblings?

No siblings

4. What type of discipline was your character subjected to at home? Strict? Lenient?

It was more lenient, but he was always pushed to follow the rules of society, especially the new one. He was made to not struggle

5. Were they overprotected as a child? Sheltered?

Was definitely protected, but I wouldn’t say sheltered. He had room to grow

6. Did they feel rejection or affection as a child?

Lots of affection from his dad, but he felt rejected from society. He was considered a societal outcast for multiple reasons.

7. What was the economic status of their family?

Poor. Yitzhak lost everything when he ran with Leslie

8. How does your character feel about religion?

Thinks it’s stupid and just to make people feel better about death

9. What about political beliefs?

Anarchist anprim. Destroy government and society.

10. Is your character street-smart, book-smart, intelligent, intellectual, slow-witted?

Very street smart, he’s got some book smarts. I think he’s very intelligent, despite what his grades said.

11. How do they see themselves: as smart, as intelligent, uneducated?

He thought he was stupid for a long time but no, he just doesn’t do well in school. He is very smart in the streets and socially, and even book smart. He’s good at English and some math.

12. How does their education and intelligence – or lack thereof - reflect in their speech pattern, vocabulary, and pronunciations?

He speaks in a lot of slang, but he has good grammar. He slurs his words sometimes. You can understand him when he’s not high off meth.

13. Did they like school? Teachers? Schoolmates?

He hates school, hates the people and teachers. School kills artists.

14. Were they involved at school? Sports? Clubs? Debate? Were they unconnected?

Never did any of that shit, he’d leave school early if he could.

15. Did they graduate? High-School? College? Do they have a PHD? A GED?

He has a GED, didn’t really graduate highschool but finished the rest online. Plus school in the new world functions differently.

16. What does your character do for a living? How do they see their profession? What do they like about it? Dislike?

No job, but he posts a lot of anarchist posters around town and mainly informs people of what’s going on, the plan, and is in charge of some group gatherings. He’s a vocal protester.

17. Did they travel? Where? Why? When?

Travels all the time with the squat. Train hops, hitchhiked, takes busses, anything. Travels all across country.

18. What did they find abroad, and what did they remember?

He always remembers the people and likes to keep souvenirs. He also tags places he goes to. Had to stop doing that when shit started to kick up.

19. What were your character’s deepest disillusions? In life? What are they now?

He hated being a part of society and feeling like he was a burden for not partaking in it. He hates the world he lives in and desires to change it. He’s a radical anarchist and is proud of what he’s made with his friends and family.

20. What were the most deeply impressive political or social, national or international, events that they experienced?

The revolution. He was a huge part of it.

21. What are your character’s manners like? What is their type of hero? Whom do they hate?

He sways when he walks, often bumping into shit and knocking shit over with his body. He likes hero’s that go against the grain and don’t fight to please. He hates performativism and mfs who are all talk. He hates those who conform and neglect those in need.

22. Who are their friends? Lovers? ‘Type’ or ‘ideal’ partner?

His friends are Morgan, Brenda, Tariq, Aisha, Marcellious, Gwen, and Jackie. He likes those who are passionate, funny, snarky, and those who make him feel wanted.

23. What do they want from a partner? What do they think and feel of sex?

He wants someone who makes him feel desired, one that thinks like him of course, but one who’s passionate about their own things and those that you can joke with and with strong opinions. He likes sex but it feels too vulnerable.

24. What social groups and activities does your character attend? What role do they like to play? What role do they actually play, usually?

He attends riots, food banks, and underground concerts. He’s loves leading and escalating shit. He normally does so, being the life of the riot.

25. What are their hobbies and interests?

He likes to draw, and is pretty damn good at it. He also likes reading and playing baseball.

26. What does your character’s home look like? Personal taste? Clothing? Hair? Appearance?

His previous home was a hidden one story with closed curtains and gates on the windows and door. He has no set home, often moving from one place to the next. He likes things that are cozy and small. He wears a lot of layered and baggy clothing, liking the 90s hip hop street wear fashions. Wears normally jeans like Levi’s, sports shirt, jackets, and work boots. His hair is long a curly, usually pulled back in a hairtie or let down. He looks bulky

[augustwash1]

Effective Guidelines to Love Life More Hiding your Cell Phone

Is incredibly regular for people to use somebody else's phone and be the first time. In doing so , were seeking to replicate that initial feeling of independence a mobile phone delivers. A relative in another point out was in the hospital. It was a Sunday evening, and I have been invited into a party. Instead of being away having fun I was sitting in my own apartment, awaiting the phone to call, troubled for reports. It was an associate who lend me his cellphone to make certain I will understand any news as quickly as possible, and in addition, be able to go to the party. There was no reason for me personally to be connected to my landline. We look back again at that occasion, and in addition for wondering at exactly how gracious my pal was in loaning me his phone intended for the night (who would volunteer their mobile phone away nowadays? ), My spouse and i couldn’t stop being amazed at the freedom this cellphone gave me. I had been able to venture out and be social - while still staying accessible simultaneously. This is the kind of freedom mobile phones give. But today our phones are about a lot more than audio calls, and they are no more an optionally available possession. They are really integrated into existence in ways not really their designers thought possible. However screen period is the new sitting in a desk chair all day at a time, which I happen to agree is a poor thing. I have a standing table and it is been a life changer. Industry when we are electronically connected more than ever, yet feeling alot more detached than ever, we are being taught, even cautioned, to minimize the dependence on cellular phones. To actually limit our time in front of screens, to put the phone down and also have a real discussion with someone, face to face. Prevention of gadgets and screen time has become becoming a extravagance item; being able to disconnect from your phones to get an extended time period bestows a status that a lot of us can’t afford or obtain. Do it, our company is told, for your sanity in the event that not humanity, and also for your neck: regularly looking straight down at your mobile phone strains your lower back, which leads to all sort of physical distress. I’ve also experienced repeating stress affliction with my hand from a lot of scrolling, and I could trust my forearm sometimes is painful in a odd place if I’ve applied my cellphone for very long. However can be using each of our cell phones a lot really so bad? Does being addicted to the phones genuinely disconnect all of us from others as much we think? Are not there positive factors for the activities that occupy all of us while our company is clutched to our mobile phones? Whenever we use our phones, can there be something we are missing that individuals would be carrying out otherwise? We get a great deal out of using my own cell phone, therefore no, Really dont want that will put it straight down. The answer is to not be socially shamed into using my own cell phone significantly less. The answer is to make certain cellphone use is hard to kick and beneficial and amusing, not a distraction coming from boredom or perhaps isolating you from sociable or professional settings. It is crucial to be intentional and conscious of how youre using your cellphone, not if you’re utilizing it at all or perhaps too much. The minds are constantly operating, processing our many thoughts, worries, problems, plans. We require a thoughts from all this, but sometimes, life is not so very clear cut. Take those movies. I go, nearly exclusively, into a movie theater which has a strict zero phones, no texting policy. They will put your rear end out if you utilize a phone in the theater. Nevertheless when I was having a friend, in which theater, who was being forever texted by his better half. As it happens her mother was in critical wellness trouble. He wound up leaving the movie to arrange to go to the international airport. As great as an uninterrupted movie encounter is, this doesn’t overcome emergencies if they arise. Couple of experiences with another individual will be as close and developing as a shared meal. (Hang on, I’ll get to love-making in a small. ) If there was ever before a moment once you’d wish to connect with somebody else, immediately, eye to eye, devoid of distraction, it might be over a meals. But, much like almost everything, there could be exclusions. What if, over the course of the chat, you start discussing going on a trip together, or about countrywide parks, or about endangered species? Looking up photos showing your associate can add towards the talk. Successfully Googling a well known fact or reference point can help within your debate. Writing a social media post you found provocative, interesting or perhaps important can be a launching level of a conversation. In those occasions, anyone is not distancing your self or placing something among you and someone else, you are sharing. ver post Believe me, sharing can be a magnificent point. What I’m not fighting is that the two of you should be taking a look at Facebook, independently, without interesting with one another. What I am declaring is that your mobile phone can be a conduit, a guideline, a personal guide for source materials, to bring and aid your chat. In case the focus continues to be on the both of you, the phone is really a prop. If the focus is definitely centered on the device, the gadget is the central magnet and you have shed attachment. The previous is very good, these is not. Each of our phones are a device. How we choose to use this instrument is what give them their particular benefit. You might think the very last place you’d want cellphone distraction could be the bedroom. On the surface, two people resting in bed next to each other, every single with cellular phones in their hands, all but disregarding each other, sounds like one of the most depressing, heart and soul-hurting displays one can easily think of modern life. But could it be naturally poor? If I’m reading the New York Times, what does this matter in the event that I’m browsing the actual conventional paper or the digital version in the device? In the event that I’m examining email, exactly what does it matter if I have a laptop or cellphone? If I am mastering games or otherwise distracted, how much does it subject if I am browsing a book of mastering some game? And in fact, rarely we sometimes glamorize reading in bed jointly? I love studying books, and locate it kind of hot my own partner truly does too. Carrying out that during sex together, then simply talking about what we’re browsing, is a great intellectual turn-on. So with every due value to several investigators, in this case, the carrier is usually not the response. What is important here is certainly not the device by itself, yet the activity you are involved in, either together or independently. There could be togetherness when two people are on their phones, just like there is once reading catalogs. Usually the problem arises when utilization of a gadget supercedes something, or perhaps causes a break up if a point of attachment could otherwise arise. Might associated with your telephones from bed mean more sex? Maybe. Should likewise lead to someone getting out of bed faster in the day time, or perhaps sleeping sooner at night. Although we’re while having sex, did you know that through your phone, you can view movies? Or look at photographs of…. whatever it truly is that arouses you? Or work with software meant to foster dialog or activity with a intimate spouse? The device is a tool. It exists without inherent judgment, qualities or worth. What we label of it is up to us. Should i really need to tell you this? Obviously there are times when you should absolutely never touch your smartphone, starting, surely, with driving a vehicle. (Guilty as recharged: I frequently use the Roadmaps applications in the phone to help me acquire where Im going. It’s not so straightforward, is it? ) I think faith based services must be device-free areas and specific zones, as should particular spaces, like gym bathroom rooms, exactly where privacy needs to be respected. I have a distaste for those who use their phone at the health club; I don’t need to hear your business calls although I’m strength training. Also, I see plenty of people using exercise and workout software on their telephones, showing the issue, that just as before, these types of mini-computers inside our pockets happen to be what we make of them. Should you be one of those people who attend a concert and require saving video footage and shooting photographs the full time, I actually ask how much of that is necessary. Taking joy in the moment for yourself, not merely through a device, is highly advised. But…. have I at any time watched concert footage online taken by somebody else? Yes, I use. A few years ago I was by a golf ball game with my Dad. I have been in the habit of checking Tweets during video games to follow along with the city of followers and media to help boost my connection with the game, and to know more about that which was going on. And that’s great for when watching at home. However I had been there. I didn’t will need that community - I had been with 20, 000 people, and my father. So I set my phone in my bank. I missed the comments. I skipped the details of issues I didn’t see since live, you miss much more than you think.

Yet I was in a position to soak in the surrounding. I had been able to talk to my Dad about what we thought would happen next. And later, at nighttime, when we brought up the game, we all reflected upon so many different occasions, details I might have overlooked had I looked at my own cellphone even more. So almost always there is a trade-off. You will come across moments when the mobile phone may distract you. That muddiness can be a awful thing (when you should be discussing with a loved one) or possibly a good thing (when you’re sad and alone and want something to cheer you up). It can disconnect you (when you avoid another person by diving into social media) or enable you to get together (if you look up a joke to see or employ your cellphone to turn on music to boogie to). Let us not hold our equipment responsible for your condition. A couple, lovers, let’s say, lying down in bed. In a single moment, they are both on their cell phones, lost within their own sides. In the next, their particular phones will be off, for the bedside table. What happens subsequent? Anything could happen. It’s up to the two people included. That’s true whether you may have your telephone in your hand or not. Of course, if you do, you also choose how to use your telephone: in a disconnecting way or possibly a sharing approach. If you’re sense bad or perhaps responsible about being with your mobile phone, guess what happens you should carry out. You really should trust your gut. Is essential to carry the person having the phone accountable, do not blame the product.

[lunarlooroo]

Psst psst for the prompt: Could we have a jealous!Snape with the twins egging him on?

Seems like jealous Sev is rather popular, this is the second prompt I’ve gotten for him. Sorry for being rather late with this week’s ficlet, was pretty busy with the Lunar New Year. I tried to make it shortish, but well, here, have 2k words of plot with a dash of feels.

“Thanks again for this,” Heather giving Severus a quick peck, “I know how much you hate crowds.”

He sighed, questioning again why he had agreed to this. “A decision I am sure to regret.”

Smiling, Heather shook her head. “Probably, which is why I’m thanking you for going anyway. Now come on, Mrs Weasley is expecting us.”

With a quick turn, they disapparated.

Landing on the soft grass a small way away from the Burrow, Severus kept his hold firm on Heather’s arm. He had long gotten into the habit of steadying her through all sorts of wizarding transport. She had gotten somewhat better over the years. Somewhat.

He could hear the sounds of festivities from all the way here already. The Weasleys were a noisy bunch on any given day, but much more so when they had something to celebrate. And the wedding of self-proclaimed lifelong bachelor Charles Weasley was certainly a cause for celebration.

Molly had mostly given up hope for her dragon-loving son to even go for a date, believing he was simply uninterested in such things. That was, of course, when Charles went to a Sunday dinner with not one, but two partners, announcing his long-term relationship with both. She had been over the moon, of course, fussing over them with the ease of someone used to picking up strays.

Severus himself had never met them, but Heather said that they were very well-suited to Charles. For one thing, they both had the same mad passion for dragons he did. One of them, a witch, was another dragon tamer while the other, a wizard, was a healer for the dragons.

He wished Charles well for his bonding, of course. He had been one of the least troublesome of the Weasley brood, after Percy. However, he was far from looking forward to the loud and messy affair that would be the wedding. No doubt there would be an endless sea of redheads to wade through just to reach his seat.

How was he supposed to have declined Heather’s invitation though, when she looked at him with those wide eyes of hers and asked so earnestly? Quite honestly, she hadn’t even had to try hard to persuade him.

He was going soft in his old age.

“Oh, I see Fred and George!” Heather looked at him questioningly, giving him a choice.

He gave her hand a squeeze before nodding towards the twins. “I shall try to locate the refreshments table and meet you there,” he said, raising his voice slightly to be heard over all the background chatter.

A sweet smile graced her face. “Okay, I’ll see you.” Then she slipped her arm from his and ducked into the crowd. It amazed him that she had even found anyone among the throngs of people. She had probably used her magic to sense them.

Fortunately, the stride he had mastered for the sole purpose of getting students in his path to jump out of his way worked on the various guests and Weasley relatives as well. The forbidding expression he wore only helped speed things along.

“Severus, you made it!” Arthur, standing by the punch bowl, waved him over.

“Arthur,” he said, nodding in greeting, “Quite a party this is.”

“Oh, you haven’t seen anything yet. Wait until Aunt Muriel gets here. She doesn’t know Charlie’s marrying both Darcy and Vance.” The man looked entirely unconcerned that the old woman was undoubtedly going to be stirring trouble as soon as the ceremony started.

Seeing the look on his face, the older man said, “Oh don’t worry, she’s all bark and no bite. Besides, Bill will be around to keep her appeased. He always was her favourite.”

Well, it was hardly his concern. Might even make the whole affair more interesting. He gestured towards the drinks, remembering what he was here for.

“Oh, go ahead! Don’t worry, it isn’t spiked. I’ve been standing guard the whole time.”

He paused slightly at the comment, having not considered it before. Fred and George were in attendance, after all. He also knew that if they were determined to tamper with anything, a watchful eye would do nothing to stop them.

“…Or we have some unopened bottle of Butterbeer in storage, if you would prefer,” Arthur said sheepishly.

At that statement, the twin menaces popped into the scene.

“What trust out father has-”

“-truly, we are offended.”

“Would we really make trouble-”

“-at our own brother’s wedding?”

Arthur looked at his sons in exasperation. “Boys, you would. You have. Or do you not remember Percy’s?”

“Ahh, good times. But we’re changed men!”

“On our best behaviour today, we are!”

“Not a lick of trouble.”

“Except for the hippogriff, of course.”

“Wait, what hippogriff?!” Arthur asked, panicked.

“Not in the shed, that’s for sure,” both chimed innocuously.

The man paled before running off.

Fred and George high fived, cackling as they did so.

“There is no hippogriff, is there?” Severus said, stating the obvious. He merely raised a brow as one of them blatantly emptied a phial of bright red liquid into the punch bowl. They waited for him to comment on it, but he stayed out of it.

“Is Heather not with you?” he asked instead.

“She sent us to come find you-”

“-since you were taking so long.”

“Since my task here was to retrieve drinks,” he said looking at the punch bowl pointedly, “I suppose there is no point dawdling. Where did you see her last?”

“Sorry,” they said with utter insincerity. “Come on, then!”

The unrepentant brats. He clucked his tongue and followed their lead.

They wove through the mass of people with the ease of having grown up in a crowded and cluttered home. Severus noticed that the area they led to had a thinner crowd.

“Oh, eww,” Fred said, stopping suddenly.

George looked in the same direction his brother was. “Damn, who invited him?”

Severus was intrigued by the turn of events. It was rare for the two to genuinely dislike someone, but they seemed quite disgusted by whomever they were referring to.

“Oh no, the slimy git’s gunning for Heather!”

Sure enough, Severus finally caught sight of Heather, and the mysterious ‘slimy git’ the twins were talking about. He was surprised to see that it was a wizard whom most would describe ‘handsome’. He had the classic blue eyes and coiffed blond hair, looking disturbing like a Malfoy, smarm and all.

The two Weasley turned to him expectantly. “Well, what are you doing just-”

“-standing here? Get in there!”

“Before the stuck-up ponce puts his-”

“-moves on your lady!”

Severus scoffed. “Do not be preposterous. They are simply having a conversation.” Besides, Heather wasn’t one to be taken in by simple appearances.

George flapped his arms about in agitation. “You don’t get it! That’s Derek, our cousin-”

“Twice-removed!” Fred added, sneering.

“and he’s the most uppity bastard we know!”

“Including Malfoy!”

“But he can act like Prince Charming when-”

“-trying to woo a girl.”

“He’s a real rake, he is!”

“You are both ridiculous. Heather has too much sense to be fooled by such a man.” He knew for a fact that Heather quite disliked such self-styled Lotharios. Scars from her run-ins with Lockhart, most likely.

Fred’s lifted a brow, pointing in their direction. “Oh, is that so?”

To his horror, Heather and the man were standing far closer than was usual for new acquaintances, in avid discussion. She was gesturing animatedly, clearly interested in whatever they were talking about.

Like grindylows scenting blood, they pounced on his moment of hesitation.

“Come on Severus! Go show Derek who’s boss!”

“You need to rescue Heather from his evil manicured clutches!”

“Perhaps they are having an intellectual debate,” he muttered.

The twins both snorted.

“Oh please. Derek wouldn’t know intellectual-”

“-if you hit him in the face with it then forced it down his throat.”

When the man’s hand snuck out to rest on Heather’s arm was when Severus broke. He made a beeline for them, the anger in his strides making the surrounding people practically apparate out of his way.

Behind him, he could hear the blasted redheads hooting encouragement at him. He realised that he had been baited, but he was much too irritated to care. He would ream them out later.

Heather had her back to him as he approached, so it was the other man who saw him first. The ugly sneer that marred his face showed that he knew who Severus was.

“What is that Deatheater doing here?”

By Merlin, even his voice was grating.

Immediately, Severus could see that line of Heather’s shoulder’s tense. Without looking, he knew her expression would have frozen over, eyes flashing dangerously. She had never liked it when that word was used against him, even, or especially, by himself.

“I’m sorry, what did you say?” Heather asked, smiling coldly, “I couldn’t hear you over all that noise.”

The idiot clearly couldn’t take a hint. He repeated what he said earlier, adding more colourful invective to his diatribe. Severus could practically feel the fury rolling off of Heather, though the other man was not nearly as perceptive. He didn’t bother trying to intervene, knowing Heather wouldn’t be stopped when she got this angry. Severus wasn’t really bothered by such insults himself, but he knew Heather could get rather impassioned about them. He would simply remain silent and watch the show.

“Look, David, was it?” Heather said, cutting him off in the middle of his rant.

“It’s Derek, actually,” he corrected, scowling.

“Dick,” Heather said, mishearing on purpose, “I believe you are mistaken. This is Severus Snape, Potions Master, Order of Merlin Second Class and my partner.”

“Are you sure the likes of him can be trusted with your business? Wouldn’t you prefer a more respectable man?” Such as myself, he didn’t have to say. The man shot Severus a condescending look.

Heather tilted her head mockingly. “I’m afraid I should have been clearer. Severus is my business partner, yes, but he is also my partner in a more personal sense. I understand that someone like you would feel intimidated when faced with a man as brilliant as Severus is, but there is no need to lash out with insults.”

The man was sputtering in outrage by this point, though Heather gave him no room to interject.

“I’m sure you could be a charming enough man, provided you tone down on all your more distasteful character traits, of course. Might I suggest you start with your hubris and ignorance? Of course, your problems of a more intimate nature can be easily solved with a simple Virility or Stamina Potion, both of which we sell at our shop for a very modest price.”

The idiot didn’t seem to comprehend the meaning of those words at first, but he eventually caught on. Severus watched with great amusement as his face grew Weasley red, the only familial resemblance he had seen thus far.

“Well, it’s been a pleasure, Dick,” Heather lied, bald-faced, while smiling guilelessly. Some people in the crowd who had gathered around them during the conversation snickered, not bothering to temper the sound.

Having just realised that they had an audience, the Lockhart-lookalike ducked his head in furious shame and scampered off with his tail tucked between his legs.

Beside him, Heather shook her head. They left the crowd behind, finding a more secluded spot before she started talking. “What an idiot. Can you believe the nerve of that man? You know he tried to explain to me the wonderful ‘new discovery’ of Runic Potions? A very abridged version, of course, since a mere witch like me couldn’t possibly understand the subtle intricacies required.”

“You looked like you were enjoying yourself before I arrived,” he said, as neutrally as he could.

She stilled a little at that, watching him carefully as she said, “Well, I was. It was actually rather hilarious listening to him make a fool of himself. I wonder how he’s going to react at the next Potions Conference when he sees me present my findings. I can’t believe he’s actually an apprentice.”

Severus felt rather silly for his earlier jealousy. “Ah, well, you have always tolerated dunderheads better than I,” he said stiltedly.

“Severus,” she said slowly, “is something the matter?”

“Nothing of the sort. Thank you for your fervent defence in my favour. You needn’t have bothered, however, as such people will think whatever they wish and no words from you could change them.”

Heather scoffed at that. “That doesn’t mean I have to stand there and let him fling insults at you! It’s infuriating that so many people still think the worst of you, even after all you’ve done.”

At this, Severus couldn’t help but smile. He truly didn’t mind what other people thought, so long as the people close to him knew what kind of man he was.

Even as a student, Heather had seen him for who he was. As a spy, he’d rarely been able to be himself, always being careful to check his every action, every word. Time spent in private with Heather, however, had always been when he was the most genuine.

Suddenly overcome with gratitude, he brought Heather close and placed a gentle kiss on her brow. He was not usually one for public displays, but he felt it was due here.

He could tell Heather was bemused by the sudden gesture, but she probed no further. Instead, they re-joined the party, hand in hand.