#and before anyone interprets this whole thing in bad faith this is not me saying that the average dni applies to me

[judithan-xing]

very funny to me the number of people reblogging my art that don't realize their weird DNI's exclude them from interacting with me. Like DNI's are useless if you yourself dont abide by them. Don't want people who are into vore interacting with you? Don't interact with people who like vore (me). Don't like interacting with you that have different opinions on Extremely Subjective Things With No Real Right Answer? Then don't interact with others. Simple. Live in a small bubble and never learn tolerance of others, it's easy.

DNI's really don't work, they're not how boundaries work either. Best case you can broadcast to others that you yourself are not a homophobe/racist/terf and hope that the others around you are also not homophobes/racists/terfs/etc, but theres never a guarantee. You can say 'DNI racists!!!!' all you want but if someones online presence never reflects that they say the N word irl then your DNI is a moot point. (an extreme example but hopefully you get my point)

Not only is it a moot point but if your pinned post is ONLY a DNI and nothing else, all you've done is inform the audience of the negative space around your silhouette and not who you actually are as a person.

Your internet experience is yours to curate, not to leave in the hands of strangers. This is true of myself, and I've blocked the people in question who have made it clear they don't want my ass around.

[qqueenofhades]

https://www.tumblr.com/qqueenofhades/743255237060689920/the-thing-that-confuses-me-about-the-dont-vote

The “don’t vote” left’s point is basically that, if Biden gets a second term, it’ll basically signal that “They’ll vote for us as long as we’re not Republicans, why don’t we do some REAL fucked up shit, if we can get away with it?” It takes the power out of the people’s hands and places it firmly in the party’s.

I can’t completely disagree with that, my caveat is that there’s no real alternative system or party in place, because top-down change is ineffective; a third party president has to contend with a two party congress.

Except no. This whole "Biden just wants to do as much fucked up shit as possible while not being a Republican, and if you give him a second term he'll do more fucked up shit deliberately to spite you" mindset is only possible as an interpretation if you a) deliberately and comprehensively ignore everything he has done to date, and b) you approach the situation with the maximum bad faith possible. Not to mention, the ultimate outcome of this Big Important Teaching Biden A Lesson is that Trump gets back into power and makes everything orders of magnitude worse, because he does in fact want to deliberately do evil shit to everyone and says so at every opportunity. There is not some magical happy alternative that springs into existence by not voting. If you choose this as a year to Teach Biden A Lesson, you are enabling Trump. Trump will be much, much worse. If you don't care about that, I still do not care what your Great Ideology is. You are not helping anyone and you are directly and irreversibly hurting everyone.

I made a post a few days ago wherein I mentioned that I want to assess Biden fairly, taking into account both strengths and weaknesses, but the rampant bad-faith, lying, misreading, misrepresentation, and open sabotage of him (especially by the online left; the GOP sometimes only wishes they were as good at turning Biden's voter pool against him) makes it really difficult to do that. My frustration with those people makes me just want to go "BIDEN IS GREAT THE END." I know he is a flawed old man (though by literally every account of a career spent in public service, he really does care about making the world a better place and any remotely good faith reading of his accomplishments thus far can see that). It is also very likely that he goes MORE left in a second term because he won't have to face the electorate again, he has always gone more left when pushed before, and he's not actually the scheming genocidal mastermind that leftist social media paints him as. Shocking, I know.

I know there are things in the world we don't like and don't want and want to stop, and therefore we blame our own president for not making it stop. But I have zero, no, none, absolutely none whatsoever sympathy for this pseudo-populist "WE NEED TO TEACH BIDEN A LESSON BY ELECTING TRUMP AGAIN, I AM VERY MORAL MUCH ACTIVIST" mindset. There's this funny thing about America wherein it is still (for now) a democracy. If Biden wins a second term, he can't run again. I would take literally anything these people said more seriously if they focused on developing their dream progressive successor for 2028 (and also figured out how to get that person elected and in a place to make real change) rather than cynically sabotaging Biden in the most consequential election year, again, of our lifetimes. If you don't like him now, find a way to make his successor a better option. Throwing a toddler tantrum and handing the country back to a senile, deranged, fascist, revenge-riddled, theocratic Trump HELPS. NOBODY. I still don't know how many times I'm going to have to say that, but yeah.

[barrenclan]

you dont have to publish this ask if you don't want to. but i just wanted to say that im not sure how i really feel about ranger becoming disabled and how it could kinda be read as for audience catharsis. youre a good writer and i dont want to interpret your writing in bad faith, and obviously i dont know your full intent behind the choice to blind ranger. but a lot of the audience reaction in the replies and such made me a bit uncomfortable as a visually impaired disabled person myself. disability as a punishment for evil is a pretty common (and ableist) trope. i dont think you really did it to the extent its done in other media (especially with a character like daffodilpaw as a good guy. like death, disability affects everyone, good and bad) but yeah the audience reaction made me a little uncomfortable that they were viewing it as deserved or cathartic or punishing. it especially didnt sit very well with me when paired up with hacksaw, his partner and another very evil character having lost a chunk of her wing just before. like i said at the start you dont have to publish this ask if you dont want to. i dont know how the story is going to go, and pinepaws injury could very well impact him in the future for example. but i figured i should voice my current in-the-moment discomfort, especially if it helps you in your future writing endeavors. otherwise, i really liked the new issue!

Since this was asked about twice I will go ahead and publish it; and say that firstly, I really appreciate you both bringing up your concerns and going about it in a very polite way. I don't want anyone to feel afraid to bring things up about the story or put me on a pedestal, I'm not a perfect person just because you like my stories.

And in terms of your asks themselves - I honestly do apologize that it came off that way, I didn't intend at all to play into the trope of disability as a karmic punishment for evil. I'm not disabled myself, or at least not in the visual or mobile way, so it is likely just an actual blindspot for me in terms of my writing. Disability is absolutely not a punishment for anything, and if you're blind or missing a limb there is nothing wrong with you at all.

If knowing my thought process helps at all, here's how I came to that story decision:

I want Ranger and Hacksaw to try to attack Pinepaw but both have their arrogance that's been building for the whole story checked. Also, it needs to be in some way that actually hinders them so they don't just keep attacking. -> Well, I don't want them to die, because I have things I want to do with their characters after the event ends. So, what would be an interesting and symbolic injury that takes them off the table? -> Hacksaw's main source of attacking other people is by divebombing them, so losing a wing would really impact her sense of strength. And, Ranger relies on outward control so much that losing his sight would damage a lot of his ego as well. There are some things about the characters I can't talk about just yet which, depending on your opinions, might change how you feel, but those were my general ideas.

I completely didn't realize how easy it to fall into that trope and I'm very sorry that it made you uncomfortable, that was very much not my intention. Like you said it's so normalized in media that most people don't even think about it - and certainly something I'll be more aware of next time I write anything like this.

[valyrfia]

will you please do another tarot pull for charles? his career trajectory in general/ the wdc at some point/ the move anything truly. he is the first sports person i have been so worried about completely getting ruined. no worries if not of course.

I did a pull for Charles asking "what will it take for him to become WDC?" almost a year ago now. I didn't post anywhere about it at the time because it was a heavy reading, and when people asked me later, Ferrari didn't seem to be doing too badly and I think it would have made a lot of people quite upset.

The cards I pulled for Charles and his WDC prospects were: four of swords, the fool, the tower, the death, the king of pentacles, with a clarification card of the ten of wands–all the cards upright. If you know tarot, you get the absolute magnitude of the centre of that reading being the tower, flanked by the fool and the death, but for those who don't know tarot, I'll put a longer explanation of this pull below the cut. I'll also include a screenshot of me talking about it to @tsarinablogs (who bless, puts up with me and my cards) so you know the reading dates to end of August of last year.

Beginning with the Four of Swords, this is a card of overwhelm and signalling that there is a need for rest and regrouping–to not make rash or harsh decisions. In order to prepare for the future, one needs to leave their fears and irrationality behind and plan with logic.

Next is the Fool, which as number 0 in the Major Arcana represents new beginnings, possible innocence, or a leap of faith. It's a card of new exciting opportunities and advancement and being reinvigorated with energy.

At the very centre of the reading is the Tower, and this card is the main reason I chose not to share this reading when I did it. The Tower is possibly the most 'terrifying' card in the whole of tarot and is definitely the one where there's a strange and heavy energy when it comes up in a reading. The Tower represents chaos, destruction, upheaval, disaster, loss, sudden and violent change. It's often a sign that things need to and will be burned to the ground. thetarotguide has a pretty good general round up about it, but it's the card at the centre of this reading.

Following right after the heaviness of the Tower is more–Death. While it sounds bad, the Death card in tarot often indicates a transformation–things needing to die so they can be left behind when one moves on to a better version of themselves.

The last card in the reading is the King of Pentacles–which after all that heaviness is actually a great card. It represents success, prosperity, stability, reaching one's goals–especially through hard work paying off and seeing things through to the end.

I pull a 'clarification' with my reading as well which is supposed to serve as a simple yes or no/round up of the overarching message of the reading, and I pulled the Ten of Wands which, straight from thetarotguide, 'the Ten of Wands represents a situation that started off as a good idea but has now become a burden'. It's about an uphill struggle, losing hope and losing focus.

I'll leave my interpretation of this reading at the time below with the timestamp proving I did this reading before Lestappen Gate was even a twinkle in anyone's eye. I will say take my interpretation with a pinch of salt, as things end up having a funny way of working out which is never how you read them initially but fit better with the cards in retrospect.

[ankles-be-bitten]

i may have fallen victim to the curse of the Bad Aziraphale Take with this post, so i'd like to right my wrongs:

i still agree with this, however i would like to add some insight: the metatron is definitely orchestrating their falling out. he knows exactly what he's doing & he knows that he can't control aziraphale as long as he has crowley on their side--that's emotional abuse 101. the victim is isolated from their real support systems, and the only place they have left to turn is their abuser. i believe that aziraphale knows what he's doing, and that he's just going along with heaven as far as he can in order to protect his demon, but from the metatron's perspective things have to look like they're going according to plan.

i think... maybe this is only half true? not sure what i was thinking when i wrote this; it was late. whatever.

crowley is an optimist, but he clearly had his doubts about how aziraphale would respond, which is indeed based in reality. aziraphale doesn't have a great track record as far as assuming the best of him in the moment (which, i must add, isn't his fault. it is one of his flaws, however). i think the important thing is that he trusts aziraphale to do the right thing in the end.

i still agree with this. however, i want to acknowledge that i felt this was unfair at the time, but in retrospect i was ignoring aziraphale's dependency on external validation that crowley does not have. crowley is far more independent than aziraphale, and i acknowledged this, but i framed it originally as "crowley has an unfulfilled need," rather than what i now think it really is, which is that AZI has an unfulfilled need.

yeah, there it is. different people, different needs.

as far as it being strange that aziraphale didn't pick up on what crowley needed in that moment right away, i do still feel that way--sort of. i honestly at this point just want to pin it down to him being excited.

whatever you have to say can wait--we have all of eternity to say whatever we want, in complete security. we won't have to hide. we can be together. and he wants so badly to be together. that's literally all he wants. he wasn't even a little interested in returning to heaven until the metatron told him that crowley could tag along. this is manipulation 101, people! the metatron knows, or at least can intuit, that crowley wouldn't want to become an angel again. he knows exactly what he's doing to them. this is not a good faith offer.

most of the rest of that post is me rambling about my interpretation of aziraphale's actions and the reasoning behind them. feel free to read the full take if you'd like, but i don't believe it's necessary to break down the whole thing. it mostly boils down to aziraphale needs to see people as people before he can respond properly to their needs. i may or may not still agree with that, i'm on the fence, but if that is the case, it's 100% because heaven has conditioned him to be that way. you need to earn salvation, you need to earn love, you need to earn humanity.

i originally used job as a counter example, but he may actually be a paragon of this interpretation. if anyone deserves salvation, it was job--righteous job, level-headed job, job who lost everything but never, ever lost faith in the Almighty. if anyone has earned aziraphale's sympathy, it's him.

this is just a wonky take. he does care, or else he wouldn't be making the offer. interrupting crowley might have been selfish in the short-term, but to aziraphale, the long-term result is eternity together unhindered. they will have all the time in the world to be an us if they can only get out from under the watchful, dangerous, probing eye of heaven.

i think i was getting close to the point here, but i was still framing it from the perspective that aziraphale had woefully wronged crowley, and that he's not also a victim of the system here. i was in far less certain terms falling into the "aziraphale is naive" trap, when in reality he just wanted to be safe. as archangel, he can do as he pleases without fear of retribution. he has never, ever felt safe before--not safe to ask questions, not safe to be seen with crowley, not safe to run off to alpha centauri with him. blaming him for prioritizing crowley's safety is more than a little silly.

this is just... the ick. it feels like a whole other person wrote this. i am trying so hard to give myself grace for this absolutely rot-gut take.

yikes. yikes yikes yikes. i'm not sure anymore if crowley has ever expressed a pointed distaste for being an angel again; that may just be misguided on my part. somehow i'm victim-blaming both of them here, while also completely misrepresenting aziraphale's intentions. i'm falling into the "he doesn't love crowley enough/the way he deserves" trap, painting him once again as naive, blind, and selfish. oopsie daisy.

i still believe the kiss was an offer akin to the ox rib, extremely alcoholic breakfasts, what have you. it's possible crowley doesn't feel seen--i might even go so far as to say that that's likely--but not in the way i stated originally. he's heartbroken. he's devastated. he might even feel betrayed. but just because he feels that way doesn't make it the truth, and i think a mistake i've made throughout this particular text is mistaking how aziraphale's actions look from the outside for his actual intentions.

i think this was mostly right up until the part about azi being selfish. he's far from selfish, he's not even close to naive. assuming he made a mistake in the f15 at all, he absolutely knows it now. he will do anything it takes to be with crowley.

at the time of this addendum i think he's made a Plan™ and is trying to convince himself he's made the right choice. all will make sense in the end. or maybe it won't. we'll figure it out--some things take time, and we don't have all the information.

i do believe that about covers it. in summary, they are both victims and treating either of them like they're naive or stupid for making the choices they did is unfair because they're both doing the best they can with the information they have available to them. it's heartbreaking, gut-wrenching, and really, really unfortunate. but it's neither of their fault. it's literally all the metatron. if heaven and hell were out of the picture, crowley would've been free to confess and aziraphale free to reciprocate--but that's just not their reality. everything aziraphale does is in order to keep crowley safe, in the interest of us long-term. crowley knows he has a hard time expressing himself, and so he wants to get it out fast, and that's valid; aziraphale having reservations due to safety concerns is just as valid.

it's neither of their fault.

[eddiediazismyhusband]

Hi! A bit of a weird ask here, hope you don't mind. (I swear it's not meant in bad faith)

So, I'm new to the fandom. I'd wanted to watch the show for a while and I finally found time. I did like it, and all the characters, esp Hen and Buck.

Even previous to watching it, I had seen many posts about Buddie. I didn't think much of it until I watched the show. And now I can say... I don't see it. Like, from Buck's side? Sure. But from Eddie's? Not so much.

They both clearly act like Christopher's co-parents a lot, and that's where I'm like "oh, maybe there IS something". But outside of that, I actually see their interactions as mostly platonic. And when I see people talk about it, I see mostly about how Eddie completely trusts Buck with his son (which I agree with and makes a good point), but not much else.

So, what am I missing? Sometimes some characters are harder for me to "read", so I know there could be stuff that I'm missing. What interactions do you see from them that are so clearly romantic (at least more so than they are platonic)? In which ways do you see Eddie showing feelings for Buck?

Sorry about such a long ask. This might be more of a rant (oops). I just really want to understand, bc everyone's so sure... and I'm not. (Also, thanks for reading if you got this far)

So i’m obviously not going to tell you thst your interpretation is wrong- art is subjective and your interpretation of things is completely valid.

that being said, to me i see myself in eddie in a lot of ways:

- only son in the family, so i had unrealistic expectations fixed on me about what my life as a “man” should look like (im not a man, im nonbinary but i was still amab so to my parents i’ve always been a ‘man’)

- raised in a very religious household where there were certain expectations on who i would one day marry and have a family with (because not getting married at all and never having kids was out of the question)

- i was repressed for years emotionally (and sexually) due to pressure from my parents/church and thought there was something “wrong” with me for the feelings i felt

- i often revert to anger as my default defense mechanism because i have repressed my emotions for so long (which is something i am working through in therapy)

so seeing those things i relate to reflected in eddie, it is easy for me to pick up on subtext (whether intentional or not) when it comes to his sexuality/feelings for Buck.

you mentioned eddie trusting buck with christopher— to me this is one of the clearest examples of eddie’s true feelings for buck because he completely trusts the most precious thing in his life with Buck, but he has never even come close to that same kind of trust with any of his romantic partners… even shannon he was apprehensive about letting her back into chris’s life. this means he trusts buck on a level he has never trusted anyone else before— and not to get into psychology, but often when people are repressed emotionally, they find ways to feed those feelings without overtly feeding them if that makes sense. so eddie giving chris (who is practically his whole heart) to buck is essentially eddie offering up his heart on a platter.

so that gets that one out of the way.

as for other examples… i am going to state again that eddie is more repressed than buck and doesn’t show emotion as easily as buck does so Buck’s attraction/feelings are going to be more clear-cut and obvious.

but i am constantly seeing examples of eddie’s feelings for buck interwoven subtly through things:

- crying over buck after the lightning strike when we had only ever seen him cry twice before

- the hurt in his face when buck said natalia was the only person who “saw” him

- the way that he gets overly jealous and acts petty around buck’s romantic partners (the most egregious being Taylor, but we have seen it happen in his other relationships as well)

- the fact that he has never been able to fully allow himself to have feelings for the women he’s dated

- he is looking for a mother figure (second parental unit for chris) but has already effectively filled that role with buck

- he is constantly looking at buck like he hung the stars and the sun and the moon

- he has only started going off the deep end of this fixation with shannon after buck came out to him, and he is onyl actively remembering their relationship as what he wished it had been rather than what it was— something i used to do back when i was still in denial about my sexuality was imagining this dream life where i was happily married to a woman because that is what i was supposed to want, not because it’s what i actually wanted

- eddie is the only one who has shown he understands buck’s recklessness is less him being reckless/thinking he’s unbreakable, but that it’s actually buck seeing himself as invaluable enough that getting hurt wouldn’t affect anyone around him

- one of my favorite scenes is post lightning-strike when eddie climbed the ladder and instead of trying to lower buck to the ground immediately, he initially tries to pull buck closer to him while screaming for him

the list could go on and on and if anyone else wants to leave their observations on eddie’s feelings for buck in the replies by all means please do! but these are just a few ways in which i have personally seen eddie’s devotion to buck portrayed in a light that is much deeper than a platonic level.

i hope this made sense and offers a new perspective for you, and i’m glad that even though you haven’t seen enough evidence in your own interpretation, your first instinct isn’t to jump down people’s throats to tell them they are wrong, but instead reaching out and asking for other opinions to better contextualize why us buddie shippers are so invested in these two!

(and never apologize for a long ask to me… if there’s one thing about me i love to yap lmao)

i hope you have a lovely day, anon!! 💕💕

[antianakin]

People know that Qui-Gon's "repudiation" of Feemor is COMPLETELY fanon, right? Like please tell me people know that that's not canon.

I mean, Feemor himself isn't canon anyway, the ONE THING he's actually appeared in was a comic from 2011 about Xanatos where he appears for TWO PAGES. All we learn is that he's Qui-Gon's Padawan from before Xanatos and that he was the son of a farmer and he seems relatively nice and polite. He and Qui-Gon seem to have a fairly positive relationship and one that's continued beyond Feemor's Knighting, including Qui-Gon asking Feemor to help him train his current padawan. Setting aside the weird timeline problems introduced by Feemor existing at all, the character is clearly there just to showcase Xanatos being a classist asshole and not much else.

That's ALL WE KNOW about Feemor within what little exists for him and he's not even a canon character to begin with. But the whole "repudiation" thing only exists because the writer of the comic, Scott Allie, presumably didn't consider that adding in another padawan before Xanatos would make some of the stuff Qui-Gon says (and doesn't say) in Jedi Apprentice seem really weird. For example, I'm pretty sure Qui-Gon explicitly claims Xanatos was his first padawan, which is a very strange thing to say if Feemor exists. And it makes his massive depression about Xanatos a little more questionable when he HAS an entire other padawan who was successfully trained to knighthood and seems like a perfect example of a Jedi.

I also just think it's kind-of in bad faith to assume that it's in character for Qui-Gon to have done something like this to someone he seems to care about. It's one thing for Qui-Gon to reject taking on a NEW padawan, that's a massive commitment that he's being asked to take on and one he clearly does not feel ready for and the person involved is a total stranger to him so he loses very little by saying no to Obi-Wan. It's a whole different thing for Qui-Gon to reject a FORMER padawan, what does this accomplish? It's not like he's still actively training Feemor, there's nothing being asked of him in this relationship that's a massive commitment on his part. We also don't see him completely reject any of his OTHER relationships from before Xanatos like Tahl or Yoda. And even with Obi-Wan, we see Qui-Gon do his best to let Obi-Wan down gently during the multiple times Obi-Wan tries asking Qui-Gon to accept him as an apprentice, Qui-Gon comes to Obi-Wan's rescue more than once, and he clearly does CARE about Obi-Wan's wellbeing despite how little time they've known each other and Obi-Wan's constant begging for something Qui-Gon has already said no to. So even at his WORST, it still doesn't suggest such a lack of care that he'd literally reject any and all association with a former Padawan he clearly cares about.

So for anyone using "what he did to Feemor" as a reason for why Qui-Gon sucks or is a bad master, please stop. It's not real, it's just fanon, and it's not even an accurate interpretation of the character.

[monstersinthecosmos]

I have no intention of watching the new IWTV show, but I was wondering why you think Armand's characterization was so bad. I kinda hated how Antonio Banderas played him in the 1994 movie (not on its own, just in comparison to the books - I feel like his personality/demeanor was totally different), so it's sad that they still haven't gotten him right... Judging from pictures alone, I did think the casting for him was more fitting this time. Anyway, just curious to hear your thoughts!

Oh man!!!!!!!!! I do wanna say up front, I think Antonio was NOT A GREAT ARMAND but I like those scenes in the movie so much because they feel SO RICEY to me. Like I LOVE Movie!Armand even though he isn't Book!Armand, and if you read IWTV in good faith it's the only book that doens't harp on Armand looking like a smol uwu cherub so like ! SURE. He definitely still brings the calm nurturing mentor vibe in a huge way and the scenes in his room feel the most like the books to me.

I also know from the director's commentary that they specifically wanted Armand to look like that so that the Europe vampires would feel like OLD WORLD SCARY vs like, another twink lol. So he's got a little more of a tropey Dracula vibe going on and I think like as a visual contrast it works really well.

As far as the show; I think Assad is EXCELLENT. And like the whole fandom was joking even when the credits hit IMDB that it was gonna be Armand because everyone was like "OHH ARRIGHT.. LOUIS'S """""ASSISTANT"""""" OKAY !" so like I was one of the conspiracy theorists looking for clues the whole time. And his MANNERISMS are dead on and gave him away before anything else did. I have zero issue with the actor, I think he's so spooky and a complete smokeshow which Armand DESERVES. And I wish I could like the show for him, I really do! But it's just NOT WORKING FOR ME.

I'll put the rest under a cut cause it got lengthy and I'm not trying to like be a downer on anyone's dashboard but TLDR the show is so completely unrecognizable to me and I think it would've been so much better as an original concept, and personally I'm not excited by randos who share names with the books I read. The show is a hit! People really like it! But idk like showing me these two random ass men and saying "Hey this is Daniel and Armand" doesn't excite me because the story they're showing me actually ISNT Daniel and Armand lol. I'm here for the story!!! I'm not here for Easter Eggs!

Here's my main few gripes with how they wrote Armand which I find mega disappointing:

He spends 6.9/7 episodes pretending to be Louis's assistant named Rashid. WHY! LOL. Why would he do that! DANIEL DOESN'T REMEMBER HIM ANYWAY SO WHY???????? I DONT UNDERSTAND. Like Armand is a weirdo but is he THIS WEIRD? idk. idk.

The show also (in my opinion!) horrifically botched Lestat, but there's like this grain of doubt because the show has a theme of memory being unreliable, so the speculation is that maybe Armand planted a skewed version of events in Louis's head? Even the show runner sort of hinted at this? LIKE I HATE THIS?? Because if we get to S2 and it turns out that Lestat's been misrepresented, it then turns the tables and makes it that ARMAND is the one who's horrifically botched????? Like I'm all for silly Armand jokes and memes and whatever but like. sigh idk i just looked really forward to this show and hoped to see Armand on screen and I didn't really want a meme version of him. ((Also as an aside I really dislike the unreliable memory themes on the show the way they're presented because like the books frame unreliable narration as like interpretive and emotional but the vampire lore canonically is that they have like mega supernatural photographic memory? idk. If memory is faulty because they still have that human fallibility it's one thing unless they're saying Armand planted memories in Louis's head??? idk idk.))

And like speaking towards whether or not Armand is a person who would plant false memories in Louis's head; I concede that he psychically influenced Louis to join him in IWTV but like. ARMAND IS A NUANCED CHARACTER WHO ACTS FROM A PLACE OF NEED AND HURT. And idk it's just so fucking clunky I can't imagine the manipulation taking this type of shape. There's just, to me LOL, a huge difference between the mental nudge of "You are lonely and you need guidance please come with me" and "Lestat was a horrific domestic abuser." And like. idk. Just within the package of the whole rest of the season, this team has the subtlety of dropping a fucking piano so I just have no trust in them to write him with any sense of nuance.

AND THE BIGGEST OFFENSE THAT I'M JUST COMPLETELY DISGUSTED BY IS THAT HE'S A DAYWALKER?????????????????????????????????????????????????

I just hate the daywalking shit so fucking much I can't even start. Like the show changes a lot of the lore which is fine whatever it's their show change lore if you feel like it whatever but like. ARMAND'S ENTIRE LIFE IS THEMATICALLY BOOKENDED BY DARKNESS. He grows up in a CAVE. He lives in a CULT BENEATH A CEMETARY. He tries to KILL HIMSELF by GOING INTO THE SUN.

Like. And he's only 500? That's like adolescent for a vampire LOL.

There were a couple times in the season where they had some continuity errors on the show!lore so I got the vibe that the writers didn't really care about all the VAMPIRE STUFF which is kinda disappointing to me bc I'm a nerd lol but it felt like they used Armand in the sun to just give the audience a red herring and it came across as really cheap to me. So I wouldn't put it past this team to kinda be like DAYWALKING SURE LOL and not really take it seriously or think about the larger picture of how that unfolds for the character over more seasons.

IT'S WHATEVER, I JUST. I know it wouldn't make good television but I like VC because it's like existential dread and consuming darkness, I want it to hurt me, I want it to feel bleak, I want Armand's entire arc to be about how much he struggles with the idea that there's no God. It just feels like if you can make it a few centuries and be able to withstand the sun, what's the fucking point? What sacrifice did you make for being immortal? Especially for a character like Armand who so fully believes himself to be damned and would never want to make another vampire, would never subject even an enemy to it.

Especially bc like in the show the vampires can like ? Smoke? And have sex? And they can eat food (even though it tastes like paste but they can eat food). IF YOU CAN SMOKE AND FUCK AND GO IN THE SUN YOU'RE JUST A GUY. Where's the fucking DAMNATION OF IT ALL? Also what's the fucking point of Those Who Must Be Kept if you can go in the sun lol. I just . Ugh what a clusterfuck.

The show turns vampirism into more of a power fantasy than the way the books treat it as damnation or a symbol of being othered so it doesn't really mesh with like, my idea of VC and what I want out of it.

So Armand being a daywalker = Instant Nope From Me. I'm not interested in whatever they're trying to sell me lol.

A few other things that are NOT confirmed but generally just giving me the ick that I worry about:

I really, really, deeply, truly, hated how they wrote Claudia's character and how they wrote about rape, and that gives me a really bad feeling about how they'd potentially tackle Armand's canon background. The two options are: They don't, and he's a completely different character with a different background, with completely different context for his personality/motivations/etc (in which case who the fuck cares he's just some guy who shares a name with the book I like, and not really Armand), or: They GO THERE and it's just extremely heavy handed and insensitive and not fun to watch. I think show!Claudia maybe has more in common with Armand than book!Claudia because they aged her up to be a teenager so it's just, yikes. THEN AGAIN ARMAND IS NO LONGER A TEENAGER ON THE SHOW?

And to that point like. I don't need a bunch of fucking conservatives getting in my face about how I want to see a teenager sexualized because that's not the point; logistically for TV it makes sense that he's older, but again, it changes his backstory so much. imho, Armand being turned as a teenager and looking like a teenager is a huge element of his character! It's important! It just is! And I'm sorry that the show decided that the vampires could have sex, because they invented this problem for themselves! If they kept the canon lore you wouldn't have to see them have sex anyway LOL.

I also was not a fan of the truncated timeline of the show; season 1 takes place in like 30 years I think? And covers from the beginning of the story until Lestat's murder. And I believe Louis will meet Armand in the 1940s; they have the original interview in the 70s and they're together then, and they're together in the present in 2022. Idk I'm just not impressed; humans can get divorced after 30 years too, what's the point of having immortal characters if you're not gonna stretch out the timeline? And so much happens for Armand and Louis in canon and I have no idea what's happened or not happened on the show yet, no one's really sure which events have happened yet in the present day segments of the show. So like idk there's just a lot of Armand/Louis stuff to be smushing into 70 years lol and I'm bummed that they're rushing through the timeline so much.

So I just. Sigh. There's a lot of themes in VC that I really adore that the show doesn't care about, like being VERY OLD and NEVER SEEING THE SUN AGAIN but. I'm in the minority on this one because people love the show LOL. I'm happy for everyone who likes it, but it's not for me.

And like. Just! I knew going in that it would be the Loustat Show, I think everyone knew that, I didn't have huge expectations for Armand/Daniel content but it's such a small part of the books that like it would've been nice to get a couple scenes or some gifs out of it or whatever. It just sucks that like they SET UP the series in a way that the Devil's Minion won't happen on screen. And it sucks that like, depending how long the show runs for or how long AMC retains the rights, this might be the only chance in my lifetime that I had to see Devil's Minion on screen and it's not going to happen.

It's just a bummer man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry to anyone who likes the show lol I just found it to be like mega disappointing and I don't think I'm going to watch S2, I'm too upset about Armand & Daniel LOL.

[neon-moon-beam]

Addressing Ableism In The Submas Fandom And Its Impact Again

The fact that I know multiple neurodivergent people who have bad feelings arise from seeing any content, including official, of Warden Ingo due to an influx people turning the Submas fandom into an ableist playground in the wake of PLA speaks volumes.

Before I continue, I want to stress: I am not calling anyone in particular out.

Unknowingly making ableist content does not make you a bad person. Everyone still has things to learn, everyone has room for change and growth. Self-education and critical thinking are very important here (and everywhere). A desire to correct a mistake, change, and grow from it is better all around than digging your heels in and refusing to budge or listen.

I am not responsible for bad faith interpretations or other potential misinterpretations of me addressing these issues that have personally affected friends, acquaintances, and myself, should people choose to make these interpretations.

I am also not responsible for the reading comprehension or critical thinking skills of others. If you don’t read the entire post and choose to be reactionary towards it, including making assumptions about what was said or putting words in my mouth, I am not at fault.

Bl*nkshippers are not welcome on my content.

I can't begin to forgive the contingency of the fandom that made neurodivergent people feel unwelcome and alienated in their own space, and made them wonder if other Submas fans, or even people in general, even see them as human.

Given that it’s widely accepted that Ingo and Emmet are autistic-coded characters, the fandom could have been a safer and enjoyable space for neurodivergent (but especially autistic) people. It could have even been a refuge for people upset by the uncertainty we were left with due to PLA being incomplete. Instead, a large contingency of fans took one look at Submas and went "how sad/unhinged/angsty can I make the train blorbos?" and decided disability, trauma, and mental illness were acceptable to use as props.

To the people who have been doing things along these lines (but with especially Emmet!);  this tells neurodivergent people that you think they're unhinged, will hurt others if given an opening to do so, and portraying Ingo and/or Emmet as never having been human, turned into something nonhuman (as in Submas is singled out as nonhuman, and NOT in something like a Pokemon Mystery Dungeon AU or other AU where everyone is not human), or otherwise being not in control of their own actions is telling neurodivergent people that you don't even see them as human. And yes, you can be sending this message even if you yourself are neurodivergent!

Because of all this, I now know multiple people who do not want to see any content involving Warden Ingo, or PLA at all due to the negative association from the fandom, and even some who have stopped engaging with Submas in varying degrees.

I've made it very clear in other posts that I don't like how fandom is on tumblr for many reasons and that I do not consider myself part of the Submas fandom. But the Submas fandom has further turned me off to fandom as a whole, and I currently do not wish to engage with PLA content outside of making reassurance posts compiling evidence Ingo will or has gone home.

My roommate barely posts Submas art anymore because the pervasive ableism got to be too much. This is saying something considering she’s the author of the Submas primer many people, probably including many of those making ableist content, reblogged. She’s also the author of a post detailing Submas as autistic-coded characters. She’s been alienated from a community that she had provided a ton of research for! Please think about that for a second.

Other people don’t want to see Submas interacting with certain characters ever again (namely Volo), because of the ableist content created around their interactions, or even ships.

And if you’ve been around since at least PLA, you may have noticed that there are a few people who frequently posted about Submas as well as the ableism, who haven’t engaged with Submas content in a long time.

Fandom shouldn’t become an alienating or even hostile space for people who just want wholesome or comforting content, or simply want to see characters they like or even find representation in NOT being treated as ableist puppets or being so ooc with angst and ableism they’ve essentially become the artist or writer’s OCs. But unfortunately that's the track the Submas fandom seems to frequently head down in the wake of PLA.

If you’d like more info about the ableism that has been going on in Submas fan content, there is a list of posts here, but this is by no means exhaustive.

This is a post I previously referenced in one of my posts about the ableism about the issue of making Emmet violent and traumatized for entertainment purposes and why it’s problematic to use trauma as a prop.

And here is a post I made (with my roommate’s addition) addressing the issue of people thinking ableist portrayals aren’t harmful or don’t have an impact on real people.

And if you’re going to continue to make ableist content of Submas (or any other fandom) without any regard as to how your work impacts others, then there isn’t much anyone can do. But don’t be surprised if people choose not to engage with you or your content.

Thank you for your consideration.

[chocolatepot]

2.06 rewatch let's gooooooo

Okay, this is such a nitpick, but Jane Austen's novels don't actually use balls/dancing as big romantic events that make people realize they're in love, on the whole. To her, evening parties with dances were just another type of social event - it's modern people who don't have these events or this type of dancing anymore who've romanticized them. It's the movies and pop culture that have romanticized them. And if there's anyone who is immune to pop culture and faithful to his own interpretations of classic lit, it's Aziraphale.

Crowley knows ducks. He knows bees.

How would Shax know that Maggie's in love with Nina? She and the other demons - and angels! - are also generally so stupid about understanding human nature that I can't really see her sussing it out ...

I love that the bunny-ear-haired demon is always just there to be killed by someone higher-up.

Crowley's angel look is sooo bad, why did they do this to our eyes. "Let's make it worthwhile," though - he knows! he knows it can be worth it to get in trouble with Heaven!

"Crowley used to be a high-up angel" is such good fanon, I said this before and I'll keep saying it, I'm glad it's canon. It's sexy TO ME. (Wait, was Crowley a "prince of Heaven"?? Even sexier. How did I miss that on the first watch.)

Do they have angelic Zoom meetings? Is that what this is, or is it just the way that the actual meeting is recorded? I prefer the former. Just another way that Heaven isn't so heavenly (because Zoom meetings are hellish, not because they're human).

His clothes being deemed "inappropriate" for his new low station seems like a back-formation to make the "naked angel walking down the street" thing work logically. It's just a suit. They all wear super bland, pale clothes in Heaven ... Also, where did they go between the shot where he was carrying the box in a singlet and trousers and when he was suddenly naked?

Metatron is so shady. I said this before but I'm really looking forward to his treatment in fic.

The halo thing is out of nowhere but I liked it as a concept. I like it when fic does something with the halo, so. Like the miracle blocking, though - it seems overpowered and it's pulled out with no foreshadowing or sense of "WHOA, this is BIG." And it's immediately solved as just a way to get all the other characters there, so it's pointless.

Beelzebub casually punishing Shax for actually putting Gabriel in danger!

Golde Diggers of 1589 (in Jim!Gabriel's box) is also a Discworld reference, I think? Or is it from the book? I recognize it from somewhere - a joke on all the revues and films like Gold Diggers of 1933 and such. (Child!Colin Robinson-coded of me.)

Fly burrowing into eye = too much. Why. Couldn't it crawl into his ear for a bit less body horror?

The first G/B date-meeting is good, they feel like themselves. The second, where Gabriel suggests Nomageddon ... why is he suggesting that? How did they both get from "we have to have a war so we can win" the "the status quo is okay"? It's so abrupt and there's no suggestion of more meetings in between. Why not have multiple meetings and then Gabriel realizing he doesn't want a war with Hell?

LMAO Gabriel does go look at the statue of himself, as Crowley suggested.

David Tennant loves The Proclaimers, the band playing on the jukebox at The Resurrectionist, btw. ("Bigger on the inside" about the fly, too.)

I think pacing-wise, the battle should have ended at the end of 2.05 and then the Ineffable Bureaucracy meetings should have been written with a bit more breathing space. Maybe a few more to show them getting closer. Maggie and Nina have more time together and yet we're supposed to agree that they don't have enough to build a relationship on, but Gabriel and Beelzebub abandoning the people they've spent millennia with for each other after a handful of meetings and having complete personality transplants is supposed to make sense and seem romantic? I WANT to like this because conceptually it's my sort of thing, but ...

Furfur has been absolutely pointless through this whole season. We didn't need to replace Hastur and Ligur with new idiot demons, rly.

Aziraphale's sad little face when he's being threatened with punishment yet again.

Why wouldn't Michael and Uriel recognize Metatron? They've been on divine Zoom calls together!

Other people have written about Metatron's manipulation and they were right and excellent.

"Us time". 😍

Why bother to have Mrs. Cheng there again to say "we're going out" to? Why is this poor character extraneous in every scene she's in?

Awww, Nina calls Maggie "angel". Maggie insisting that she will be there when Nina's ready kind of undercuts the whole "we're being realistic and real relationships can't be set up like this" thing ...

The book Crowley tossed at Muriel is The Crow Road. Looked it up on Wikipedia to see if anything significant jumped out at me, and while there's something about a relationship to God in it I can't really tell if the contents are relevant or if it's just an Easter egg because it's a book Gaiman or Finnemore or somebody likes.

Watching Aziraphale gear up to tell Crowley his "good news" is so painful to watch again. 😭 He's so happy. Crowley is so done even before he starts because he knows it's going to be some angelic abusive pull-you-back-in bullshit, but Aziraphale really thinks he's going to fix everything. Crowley, don't yell at him, you can't yell someone out of being in a cult/toxic relationship. But Tennant is really killing this monologue. No no no no no when he puts the glasses back on ... "We could have been us."

I am still not over Amazon Prime using that heartbreaking, bittersweet kiss for rainbow capitalism marketing. Effervescent. But I think "A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley Square" is the absolute most gutting part of it all to me. His face when he hears it.

I'm kind of annoyed that I have so many OFMD wips because I really want to write some GO fic now. I'm still kind of 🙃 about the inconsistencies in characterization between the seasons and my issues with the writing choices and that might trip me up at first, but if I just started writing I know I'd get over it.

[my-mt-heart]

To my “piggyback” anon. Thank you for taking the time to get all of that off your chest. You were very thorough, and because of that, I hesitate to post it. Yes, it’s your speculation, not mine, but I’d still be held responsible for sharing, so I’m going to try to answer your questions here without getting into the story too much.

Is it really just for shipbaiting or something more?

It is really just for shipbaiting, and by shipbaiting, I mean trying to convince viewers that a relationship is going to become canon, whether through explicit writing choices or purely through marketing, without any real intention to follow through. In this case, it seems obvious to me that the writers are not behind it. AMC wants Caryl fans to watch, but through every fault of their own, they can’t actually give us Caryl, so they have to find other ways to hold our attention. The first is by trying to appeal to our "feminine" side i.e. hoping we’ll gush over Daryl’s bond with yet another kid. The second is trying to scare or anger us into assuming the worst without pushing too far (because then they’d lose us), and later alleviate those fears so that we think “okay, that could’ve been worse” or “that wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be.”

That’s how they’ve gotten away with shitty storytelling in the past. It is gross. It is manipulative of viewers who are expected to pay for that shitty storytelling. And, it’s a huge gamble considering how badly they broke faith with their viewers. The smartest way to get our attention would’ve been to keep Caryl spiritually connected, but they never did that in S11 and based on what we’ve seen so far, they don’t seem to be doing that this time around either. Even if they did, we’d still be getting significantly less than what we wanted and I say fuck that shit 🤷🏻‍♀️

Is there any chance of Ikklesa or Lighteneverything or anyone else with spoiler info jumping in to provide some story-related reassurance here? I would love to be talked off the ledge haha. Melissa/Carol coming back was winning a battle, but far, far from winning the war.

I agree. Getting Carol back is a HUGE win all thanks to Melissa McBride, but AMC still needs to be held accountable for its storytelling. That means no more marketing ploys. They can’t call it a Caryl show and then deliver separate arcs. They can’t leave canon open to interpretation and hope that it’ll satisfy everyone. It won’t. We saw how mixed the reactions were to the series finale.

The only reassurance I can give is AMC seems to be leaning into desires to market S2, which could mean they’re more confident about what they’re delivering. I don’t know what the story is ultimately going to look like. I don’t think anyone does. As @ikkleosu explained before, we can get tidbits on certain things, but it’s highly unlikely anyone will be able to give us the whole picture. I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but if you have concerns, don’t jump in with both feet just yet. The show should be catering to your needs, not the other way around.

[gay-otlc]

Hello I'm tired as shit but the Disk Horse is stressing me out so I am going to make a post about it. Cultural Christianity. Let's fucking go. Fair warning this is very long and rambly but whatever.

For context I am an atheist(?) Jew.

I can honestly see both sides of the argument. I definitely see how some people might abuse the term to invalidate atheists' struggles. On the other hand, it's a useful term to describe the way many (not all! not even a majority!) atheists still carry harmful beliefs from their Christian upbringing, which often results in bigotry towards non-Christian religions.

Also, I've seen a few too many posts criticizing the term that end up just criticizing Jews for me to be entirely comfortable hearing "'Culturally Christian' is a bad term and anyone who uses it is bad!"

I don't really think "culturally Christian" should be applied to an individual solely based on the fact that they're an atheist who wasn't raised with a different religion. Definitely not as a "gotcha" or like they have an irredeemable moral failing. But I don't think it's bigoted to tell an atheist "Hey, this comment you made was insensitive and likely influenced by your Christian upbringing, perhaps you should educate yourself more on this."

For example, someone in my class told me he thought religion was stupid because it teaches people to unquestioningly believe in something. As a Jew who went to Hebrew school and was allowed- sometimes even encouraged- to question my beliefs from at least as young as eight or nine (possibly before, I just can't remember), that was laughably false.

I told him that wasn't true, he just thought it was true because Christianity had been his only exposure to religion so far and he saw all other religions as basically identical to it.

I had every right to say that to him. He was an asshole for telling me my religion was stupid, especially considering this conversation started because I mentioned reading Maus.

However, if I told an atheist that no matter how much they educated themself, they would always be a bigoted, watered down version of a Christian? Than I would be the asshole.

I'm not sure cultural Christianity is really the best term, just because of how broad it is. There's no clear, agreed open definition*- some people use it to mean someone who actively believes Christian values minus the god part, some people use it to to mean people who secularly celebrate Christmas, some people use it to mean anyone who was raised Christian, regardless of whether they've unlearned those beliefs. *of course there's no clear agreed upon opinion, it's commonly used by jews and we can't agree on anything ever lmao

And "culture" can include so many things. I generally prefer to pinpoint what aspect of Christian culture I'm talking about rather than just saying "cultural Christianity."

For example, if I'm talking about atheists who were only ever really exposed to Christianity, I might say "atheists who think every religion is basically the same as Christianity," and talk about how this isn't much different from Christians who want other religions to assimilate and want us to be exactly like them or close enough that they can pretend we're exactly like them.

Or if I'm talking about, like, moral purity and sex negativity and whatever, I might say "atheists who otherwise still hold/haven't unlearned Christian beliefs"

Or if I'm talking about aggressive atheists who want everyone else to be atheist too, I might say they copied and pasted Christian proselytizing and just changed a few words. "Everyone must believe in my god (or lack thereof) to be a good person, and everyone who believes in a different god (or lack thereof) is an immoral sinner/bigot."

And I don't think any of those descriptions could be interpreted in good faith as an attack on atheism in general.

"Culturally Christian atheist" just doesn't give a whole lot of specific information on someone's beliefs, what beliefs are harmful, and how they're harmful. Two people might both fit someone's definition of culturally Christian, and be wildly different in how they view religion and the world in general.

My friend has Christian parents and went to church as a kid, has been an atheist for about as long as I've known him, and is really cool about other religions! He's interested in hearing me talk about Judaism and thinks our customs are neat, he just doesn't personally follow any religion. And I have another friend with Christian parents who went to church as a kid who makes "sky daddy" jokes and mocks the idea of prayer.

Both of these friends would qualify as culturally Christian, but it wouldn't make much sense to lump them together when describing how their beliefs affect minority religions.

Not every single religious person has to specify the exact type of culturally Christian atheist they're referring to every time they mention the topic. It functions to get the point across, and I don't see a problem with someone complaining to a friend saying "I hate it when I meet queer people and all the culturally Christian atheists hate me for being an observant Jew." But in a more serious discussion, I think addressing the specific issue is more helpful than just saying "cultural Christianity."

And if the specific issue is that you think someone is inherently bad for being atheist, or for being non-[insert your religion here], you're being a dick. Don't use "culturally Christian" if that's the only thing they've done wrong.

Also. I know this discourse has been around for a while but it seems to have really exploded today (technically yesterday in my timezone. January 27. Whatever) and it's kinda shitty that there are so many people attacking this term, often used by Jews to talk about antisemitism, on Holocaust Remembrance Day. The timing kinda pisses me off idk.

These are my thoughts. I'm open to hearing other people's thoughts but refrain from being an asshole.

[alphaketoglutaricacid]

an anon from one time before. I really wasn't asking in bad faith what kind of microagressions Toshiro has experienced from Laios and the rest of the party. I just know that Laios a)interrogated him about the Eastern Archipelago and b)misheard his name and seconds later introduced him with that name to his party. (I think Laios heard his name like that bc Toshiro was so exhausted from having to talk for five hours and could only speak quietly (and he even could not speak the whole word at once. Relatable) so he said To... shiro, so the To could have been interpreted as the hesitation word eto with nonexistent e, and when spoken without much vocalisation, shi sounded like shu as in japanese the u is rarely strongly vocalised, so he ended up with that nickname for 2 years). He couldn't confront anyone about his name so he had to endure it, unfortunately. I get him, although it's not about racism in my case, as people like using the shortened more childish version of my name, and I don't like it, but as I'm also very non-confrontational, as demanding to call me by my full name would be seen as arrogant, I've just become used to it.

So back to the topic, I just want to have a better view of all the characters and I might not be the only one who might have not noticed some obvious things.

Oh i didnt take offense to it! I’m just lazy abt citing but I will get to it. But informally; Its a little hard to explain micro aggressions but like imagine ur minding ur own business and some guy u dont know approaches u says u look weird, asks where ur from, asks if theres elephants where ur from that shits crazy. And he keeps doing it and treating his culture like a funny curiosity. Thats weird. Somewhere in the manga laios is like rice was shuros favorite food (insane thing to say). Maybe its a little hard to explain it but the interactions ape a lot from like the experience of being an asian person in a predominantly white country… ppl rlly do act like this w no self awareness and its frustrating and dehumanizing. Does that make sense?

[svsssartreblogs]

sorry, but i have to agree with the prev anon who mentioned that tagging art of a character who has prosthetics as body horror is ableist. i already knew about the au from the op and when i saw that tag on your post my feelings were hurt. even though the character lost their limbs in a violent way i don't think that necessitates tagging their body afterwards as body horror when the body horror itself is not being depicted. i really respect what you do to help share fanart but your overly aggressive response to that person feels off the cuff this time. you don't have to publish this btw, you can do whatever you want on your blog as our opinions don't control you et cetera but i wish you'd take a step back and re-examine your initial defensive response and maybe consider changing your mind some day

Prosthetics aren't body horror and aren't why I used the tag. I tagged body horror because Shen Jiu's arms were violently ripped off and that was explicitly mentioned in the text of that post. If someone posted art of someone with prosthetics with a sword through their chest, I'd tag that body horror too, cause I always tag artwork with "weapons actively inserted in someone's body" as body horror, just as I've always tagged "canon Shen Jiu dismemberment" as body horror, in a standard I've used for three years running this blog so that people can avoid content referencing dismemberment, a pretty major trigger.

I can, and do, apologize that my decision hurt feelings.

But I will not remove a tag for body horror from a post that shows a character emaciated from starvation and explicitly says their limbs were torn off. That's. That's body horror.

You want to know what I did that was ableist? I wrote that whole other post, and after I hit "post" I read it again and I'd said something like "when Shen Jiu got his body back but scars show where the damage was..." and I was like wow. Fuck, me. That's some bullshit way to phrase that, losing his limbs doesn't mean he lost his body. So I immediately edited the post. Because ew. I hate that I wrote that, that I thought that, before I checked myself. I can be ableist, as can anyone, and I can admit that I've said and done ableist things, and correct myself when I'm wrong, and I do and will continue to do my best.

But I can't do anything about people interpreting my behavior, actions, and explanations in bad faith. There was body horror in that picture with the depiction of starvation and in the post text where Shen Jiu having his limbs ripped off was mentioned. There's not in this gorgeous art of the same au, and so I didn't use the tag. Nor did I tag this other lovely art of prosthetics on Shen Jiu by a different artist as body horror, because it didn't directly reference the act that led to the loss of limbs. Because, as I said, prosthetics aren't body horror and aren't why I used the tag.

I really can't help what assumptions others make about me, and I especially can't help you persisting in that assumption in the face of my explanation. The moment you and the other anon came at me with "you did this because..." instead of "why did you do this...?" I was put in an impossible situation. I can't dispell your views of me without sounding defensive, even tho you've both ascribed motives/explanations to my behavior that are demonstratively false.

Yeah. Idk really know what else I can say. Alluding to having someone's limbs ripped off is body horror.

[statementlou]

I'm not gonna lie, Louis referring to his queer fans or the fact the he has them as "weird" would be pretty disheartening. one thing was to do that in 2014 around the great gay war, with so many indicators that they were actively fighting. another is to do this now, in 2023. and even a straight artist not for one second to consider his lyrics could resonate with queer fans regardless of larry would be a bit shitty. I'm just saying that whatever he says is gonna be VERY hard to believe he was forced to. And if he openly shits on Harry it's safe to say his career - as the chance of 1D ever reunite even for a quick photo - is over.

well I absolutely agree that he will not have been 'forced' to say anything that he says in this movie. And I hear where you are coming from, but I just think the catastrophizing is unnecessary. First of all, we have ONE (1) almost certainly made up and definitely purposefully shit stirring anon (and a slow news day) to thank for all this discourse, we have no idea yet what will be in the movie, and it is always weird to me that people are so ready to believe the worst when I, personally, feel like Louis always comes through for me and gives me the BEST. Have FAITH in LOUIS!! WHEN does he let us down like literally WHEN???? (Unless all you care about is him coming out/ ending it/ confirming larry, in which case, IDK, get your priorities right and appreciate what's in front of you? Cause those things are not happening.) But anyway...

I can completely imagine a scenario in which Louis says he thinks it's weird that so many queers feel inspired by him and it makes me want to hug him forever- because I think he does find it weird and remarkable. It makes me think of that one 1D days receipt where someone said they met him on the street and told him he inspired them as a gay and he was like "I don't see how with the way things are but that means a lot." I think that was probably made up, but also it rings true to me, I feel like he does find it wild that with the public face of everything we still are here and love him so much and see what we do in him and think he's brave. As for the Harry thing, anything he says about him will be taken wrong and distorted and picked on by everyone, if he says anything at all less than "he's my husband and has never done anything wrong in his entire life he is perfect" people will say he's "shitting on Harry"; but that said, Louis is an intelligent media trained person, why are people seriously debating whether he's gonna get on screen and talk shit about Harry Styles?! also literally when in Louis' entire life has he ever said one single bad thing about Harry come on It's not fucking realistic and that alone should tell you that that anon either made all that up or it's just a really bad interpretation of whatever was actually said because the person, like everyone else around here, was so busy expecting the worst that they couldn't just chill and listen to Louis. Like, worst case scenario, let's say he does say that Harry was being offered some really incredible opportunities and he wanted to take them and Louis hadn't really thought about what he would do after the band and so when that happened he felt blindsided and adrift by suddenly not having his ever waking moment scheduled and accounted for (as Liam has also talked about experiencing), would that be so horrible??? That sounds like real life stuff and I don't personally think anyone is the bad guy there or it's horrible to say, but also I BET HE DOESN'T SAY THAT. IDK man, I just think we should all calm down and wait and see, but I'm REALLY not worried that the bombshell of this movie will be Louis coming out as being against Harry or talking shit about his fans, you know?! Come ON. I expect that with the premieres before the release we're going to get a whole lot more overwrought interpretations of things but I don't buy it; I look forward to hearing what Louis has to say and I will be real surprised if it isn't reasonable and interesting and probably mostly NOT THAT BIG A DEAL

[saint-ambrosef]

I normally would just mind my business and not butt my nose in, but i feel like maybe you would be open to hearing this so im giving it a shot. As someone who really appreciated and respected you, the way you just kind of threw out "evangelicals are wild" and encouraged blaming a Christian denomination on a post that didn't even identify the person being weird as that denomination was kind of a shock to see from you.

I've really enjoyed your content (thats saying something, im actually an athiest, lol) and found you really reasonable and wise in a lot of ways. I liked learning about catholicism from someone who genuinely cares about and defends their faith. I've always grown up seeing catholics as the epitome of traditionalist hypocrites who pick on everyone else, but you and a few others really began changing that for me. Because of that, I'm a litle taken aback how easily you and a few other catholic blogs I've followed just slap the evangelical label on any sort of Christian thing you find cringe. It comes off mean spirited and disingenuous as an outsider with just enough understanding to know what you're doing isn't all that fair. Evangelicalism is pretty broad movement that contains an extremely broad spectrum of people and "personal" ideaologies. Given the breadth of actors in catholicism as well, it seems like if anyone would understand why branding people by their worst actors is unfair, it would be you guys. It's probably distressing to see people so quickly bandwagon on and identify catholicism as the pedophile priest people or what I said about my original thoughts about catholicism earlier. I know I hate it enough with cringe reddit atheist edgelords being the first thing anyone thinks about when they hear athiest. So, I find it a little disappointing to see so many of you guys do to others what I'm sure you hate having done to your own worldview because who doesn't hate being misrepresented?

It's one thing to have some friendly jabs back and forth and to be open and honest about agreeing on worldviews, but purposefully reducing the opposing argument seems so underhanded. And to be clear, I think that woman is a nutjob and I laughed at how ridiculous what she said was, I'm not saying you can't agree she's crazy or laugh at someone for being insane or just plane wrong. It's using the extreme to identify thr whole that's where I'm finding myself disappointed.

It's not your responsibility to cater to your audience, I'm well aware. And I'm trying not to come off as someone nitpicking you for blowing off steam or having a laugh. I just felt like maybe I could bring up to you what it looks like as someone outside of faith and how it really jars the opinion I was forming on catholicism to see that. I'm not scandalized or unfollowing or anything, I just figure maybe it's worth saying that this wasn't a moment where I felt like catholicism was more then it's stereotype, and I'd rather you be aware and maybe give you a chance to respond before I let it become foundational.

Thank you for your time, and sorry for your long post.

I understand what you're saying and appreciate the respectful rebuke, but I can't say I agree with your conclusion.

When someone calls out a specific bad actor as an example of Catholicism, the vast majority of the time they are not actually modeling Catholic beliefs. They're straight up expressing heresy that is objectively contrary to an approved theological belief of a formally organized religion. So propping it up as an example of legitimate Catholic belief is factually incorrect and invalid.

As you say with Evangelicalism, it's a "pretty broad movement that contains an extremely broad spectrum of people and 'personal' ideologies". There isn't a set of definable beliefs. That's the exact problem - and the criticism implied in my original comment. Because of Evangelicalism's belief in personal interpretation without a central organized authority, any and all personal ideology is theoretically acceptable. Wack opinions like that lady are a direct result of mainstream Evangelicalism. Her beliefs are technically as valid as anyone else's under Evangelical understanding, even if 90% of other Evangelicals think her incorrect. She does validly represent Evangelical beliefs whether they like it or not.

Again, I appreciate the respectful rebuke, but I honestly think you are over-analyzing a tongue-in-cheek tag comment. There is no "reducing the opposing argument" (?what argument?). I certainly don't think she represents all or most Evangelical Christians. I think she's the unfortunate but inevitable result of the shaky theological reasoning that undercuts the Evangelical movement. This is not me "slapping the Evangelical label on any sort of Christian thing [I] find cringe", it's a legitimate criticism.

I guess I could have initially explained all that more carefully, but I confess I did not expect someone would draw so many conclusions regarding my intentions and meaning from such a simple three word comment.