#and i mean like it's valid

[foolofatook001]

She’s not stupid, okay. She knows that no one trusts the Traveler—Artagan, whatever— no matter how much they all say We’re with you, Jester. She’s seen them in their little worried huddles off to the side, Beau and Fjord and Caduceus, and she knows when they’ve been talking about her and the Traveler because they all have That Expression on their face. That pursed-lips Mmmm I don’t like this but I am keeping my mouth shut right now expression. That Mmmm my god is a real god and a lot better than Jester’s fake god expression. (And of course the Traveler is still basically a real, almost-god, even if he doesn’t want to be as much of a god anymore! Jester just knows that that’s kind of what they’re thinking when they have That Look on their faces.) 

And they’re her friends, and Jester loves them, and she knows they love her and they want her to be safe. 

But. But. The Traveler was Jester’s first friend, and her best friend, and for a long time her only friend, so it hurts that the rest of Jester’s friends don’t… see that.

And Fjord’s one to talk, too— wasn’t he doing stupid things for Uk’otoa (Uk’otoa) not too long ago? But he follows the Wildmother, so obviously he knows everything now!

All right, Jester knows that’s a little mean. She remembers him promising her Mama that he would protect her. He just wants to keep her safe, and he’s said as much; he’s been burned by his own experiences and he doesn’t want her to get hurt the same way. 

(And she has been hurt. Is hurt. There are a few things that she’s never going to draw out in her sketchbook, the kind of things that she just wants to cry out while curled up in her Mama’s lap like she’s little again. The kind of things that she can’t even tell the Traveler, because right now he needs her help, so he needs her to be strong and he needs her to be happy.)

But even so, she KNOWS the Traveler, knows him better than Fjord ever knew his stupid snea snake, even if she didn’t know him as well as she thought she did. He may be tricksy, but she still trusts him, because he’s promised time and again that she is his first, his favorite, and he will not leave her, not forever. And none of her friends seem to believe her when she tells them this!

“I’d like to be there to help you walk the path you’re on, and…keep things from getting out of hand,” says Caduceus’s slow, deep voice.

“Sure, Jester,” says Beau, “but you know you’re the one who does all the amazing stuff, right? Not him.” 

“Arch means evil, doesn’t it?” Nott’s worried, reedy voice says. “It’s only used in bad things!”

The silence from everybody but Caleb after the Traveler says, “As long as you have her around, you’ll have me around,” speaks volumes and volumes. A whole Cobalt Soul library. 

And that hurts just as much. 

If Artagan told her, right this second, that he was going to go off to travel through the planes and he wanted her to come with him… 

She isn’t sure she would tell him no.

[noodles-and-tea]

Little Stan getting manipulated by Bill has excellent angst potential but consider.

Stanley just, keeps tricking Bill. Because Bill would definitely massively underestimate Stanley and how far he’ll go to protect Ford (like in the actual show). We also know Stanley has the street smarts between the twins and could absolutely tell Bill is full of it.

And because Bill would absolutely loose his mind if he kept getting foiled by a snot nosed eight year old that isn’t even supposed to be here

I like to think that he doesn’t even try that hard he just does not even care about bill

[thriftdyke]

it really does bother me how no one can seem to answer the question “what even is romantic attraction, really.” like some people are like “it’s who you wanna kiss and cuddle <3” and I’m like ok well kisses and cuddles can be either sexual or platonic depending on context. “It’s who you feel passion/desire/arousal for��� well that just sounds like sexual attraction which you can have without even knowing somebody so I fail to see how that’s romantic. “It’s who you want to go on dates with” I go on dates with friends all the time plus “date” is a social construct anyway there’s really no innate difference between a date and hanging out. “it’s who you have deep feelings for” great news for you that can be literally any type of relationship. my friend told me she defined it as “who you wanna give roses to” and I’m like do u hear urself??? like the more I talk to people the more I’m convinced romance and romantic attraction is an elaborate socially fabricated illusion that has no real defining characteristics. and like there’s nothing Wrong with it being a constuct but why people are so attached to defending the supremacy of it is something I cannot for the life of me figure out

[bigfatbreak]

Birds of a Feather previous / next

[cube-cumb3r]

while im at it neopronoun opposition is weird to me as a swedish person.. the whole debate is so anglocentric that they assume every language landed on the same solution they did, to reuse a plural pronoun as a gender neutral one and then they think any other solution is absurd or unheard of. what do you mean you just made another pronoun up you cant do that!! etc

coz its like here in the 2014 the swedish academy accepted 3rd person pronoun "hen" (as opposed to hon/han) like officially into our word list after it gained some popularity in the 2010s. like that is a NEOPRONOUN that someone just Came Up With in like the 60s and then people just started using it and now its just a recognized part of our language. sure we could've also reused our plural pronoun "de/dem" as a gender neutral one but we just made up a new one instead. and to like imply that mainstream use of a neopronoun is just UNHEARD OF and that neopronouns is something the mainstream could NEVER GET USED TO EVER!!! is... your perspective is very limited to the english speaking world is all i can say

[anghraine]

It's interesting (if often frustrating) to see the renewed Orc Discourse after the last few episodes of ROP. I've seen arguments that orcs have to be personifications of evil rather than people as such or else the ethics of our heroes' approach to them becomes much more fraught. Tolkien's work, as written, seems an odd choice to me for not wrangling with difficult questions, and of course, more diehard fans are going to immediately bring up Shagrat and Gorbag.

If you haven't read LOTR recently, Shagrat and Gorbag are two orcs who briefly have a conversation about how they're being screwed over by Sauron but have no other real options, about their opinions of mistakes that have been made, that they think Sauron himself has made one, but it's not safe to discuss because Sauron has spies in their own ranks. They reminisce about better times when they had more freedom and fantasize about a future when they can go elsewhere and set up a small-scale banditry operation rather than being involved in this huge-scale war. Eventually, however, they end up turning on each other.

Basically any time that someone brings up the "humanity" of this conversation, someone else will point out that they're still bad people. They're not at all guilty about what they're part of. They just resent the dangers to themselves, the pressure from above, failures of competence, the surveillance they're under, and their lack of realistic alternative options. The dream of another life mentioned in the conversation is still one of preying on innocent people, just on a much smaller and more immediate scale, etc.

I think this misses the reason it keeps getting brought up, though. The point is not that Shagrat and Gorbag are good people. The point is that they are people.

There's something very normal and recognizable about their resentment of their superiors, their fears of reprisal and betrayal that ultimately are realized, their dislike of this kind of industrial war machine that erases their individual work and contributions, the tinge of wistfulness in their hope of escape into a different kind of life. Their dialect is deliberately "common"—and there's a lot more to say about that and the fact that it's another commoner, Sam, who outwits them—but one of the main effects is to make them sound familiar and ordinary. And it's interesting that one of the points they specifically raise is that they're not going to get better treatment from "the good guys" so they can't defect, either.

This is self-interested, yes, but it's not the self-interest of some mystical being or spirit or whatnot, but of people.

Tolkien's later remarks tend to back this up. He said that female orcs do exist, but are rarely seen in the story because the characters only interact with the all-male warrior class of orcs. Whatever female orcs "do," it isn't going to war. Maybe they do a lot of the agricultural work that is apparently happening in distant parts of Mordor, maybe they are chiefly responsible for young orcs, maybe both and/or something else, we don't know. But we know they're out there and we know that they reproduce sexually and we know that they're not part of the orcish warrior class.

Regardless of all the problems with this, the idea that orcs have a gender-restricted warrior class at all and we're just not seeing any of their other classes because of where the story is set doesn't sound like automatons of evil. It sounds like an actual culture of people that we only see along the fringes.

And this whole matter of "but if they're people, we have to think about ethics, so they can't be people" is a weird circular argument that cannot account for what's in LOTR or for much of what Tolkien said afterwards. Yes, he struggled with The Problem of Orcs and how to reconcile it with his world building and his ethical system, but "maybe they're not people" is ultimately not a workable solution as far as LOTR goes and can't even account for much of the later evolution of his ideas, including explicit statements in his letters.

And in the end, the real response that comes to mind to that circular argument is "maybe you should think about ethics more."

[short-king-enthusiast]

The most irritating thing, is that if you watch season one and then immediately watch season two, everything makes perfect sense. It's a great story. Characters that are vessels for very real emotional storylines and symbolism, but at their core, are silly pirates on a silly pirates show.

However if you watch season one, then spend a year obsessing over the characters, obsessing over characteristics, traits, relationships that are not actually canon but convincing yourself they are. Getting so wrapped up in fanon that your version of the characters and the actual written canon characters are two completely different things. Yeah of course you're gonna be pissed.

Most of the backlash from season two is because people have been reading fanfics for a year and had wildly unrealistic expectations. It's actually fucking fascinating and should be studied. It just keeps happening over and over again in every new fandom and nothing changes

[a-scary-lack-of-common-sense]

My real time reaction of watching an American influencer spread straight up lies about my country because they lived/visited there at some point

[tiredandoptimistic]

I finally broke down and made a youtube video essay!

It's about Community, Saw, autism, horror, and queerness; because I've got a lot of shit to say on all of those topics. If you're interested in literally any of those subjects then you'll probably have a good time and I'd really appreciate if you check it out. It should be perfectly understandable even if you're going in with zero knowledge of either of the fandoms, since it's fundamentally about the sense of alienation that comes from being neurodivergent and having weird interests.

This has been like all I've thought about for the past month, I taught myself video editing for this shit. Also there's captions available for the entire thing (which was somehow the hardest part because youtube has some fucky funcitonality), if that's something that's important for you.

[normal-nightmare]

[drdemonprince]

people who are obsessed with passing are gonna be the death of our community i swear

[dykedvonte]

You ever just see a Mouthwashing take that makes you want to bang your head into a wall? I literally just saw someone claim Curly couldn't have been emotionally abused by Jimmy before the crash because he was in a higher position of power than Jimmy.

-Shrimp Anon

The mouthwashing fandom has shown me that people genuinely do believe that certain types of abuse are not as detrimental as other types especially when they deem those immune/resistant, ergo, believing one is objectively worse no matter how it affects the person nor the intersections of power, history and dynamics at play.

Get ready cause this is a yap session:

Cause like it's heavily implied that Curly and Jimmy's friendship was toxic and abusive, pointedly in the direction of how Jimmy uses Curly's belief/comfort in him. Curly wasn't forced to enable Jimmy but he was emotional and mentally on edge around him in almost every scene in some way. Mental and emotional abuse are not contingent on what positions you have at work. Yeah, he's Jimmy's boss but he was Jimmy's friend first and it's like getting into Psych discussion to talk about how social power tends to overshadow any perceived organizational power in the human mind. People are concerned about their jobs ofc but they tend to hang onto and put more value/investment into their personal relationships, hence why there tends to be laws and restrictions around mixing the two.

I always see the sentiments that "Curly is a grown ass man", "Curly is bigger than Jimmy", "Curly is Jimmy's boss", "He just needed a backbone" as criticisms of Curly and while I do agree that on the surface level all of these to be true and viable ways Curly could've taken more control of the situation, I often look at the parallels of Anya and Curly as victims of Jimmy pre/post crash.

The way Jimmy talks to Anya post crash is how he talked to Curly in the pre-crash segments. It's hard to pin-point mainly because we know he hates and wants nothing to do with Anya compared to his contrary but similarly handled obsessions with Curly. It's a weird sort of "honey-moon" effect of abuse Jimmy does in terms of emotional and mental victimization. He is always horrid to Anya, always talking down or questioning her abilities and thoughts in a situation, this of course includes the harassment and assault. However, he has a moment of attempted gentleness/conditioning when he question her about the mouthwash when she's contemplating drinking it at the table. The key difference is he has no personal investment in Jimmy outside wanting nothing to do with him, meaning there is no sort of romanticized version of him that he can condition her off of. He knows this, hence, why he always reverts to trying to make her to scared to oppose him.

This sort of give and take of "kindness" doesn't work on her because she knows he is just doing it to take more from her than whatever he could possibly give but it reflects even the "softer" scenes between him and Curly where he always rewords or rephrases Curly's sentiments and concerns to sound more shallow. He is feigning a deeper understanding by reworking Curly's emotions into something bad and needing to be hidden. Everything is laced with envy and resentment, an outburst just around the corner, I mean he even slams the table in the birthday party scene, a tactic in emotional manipulation to set the victim on edge and cloud their ability to respond. Even if Curly knows Jimmy won't get physical in that moment, the physical actions is intended to make him back down in the confrontation in case it does. This is something that is just not person specific. It ingrains itself into how you interact with the world and life and it shows in major and minor ways with Curly.

Post-crash, the abusive nature is more in tandem to the physical victimization Anya went through and the stripping of voice and autonomy we see take place. Like the parasite in HFIM, Jimmy speaks for Curly most of the time and puts words in his mouth, similarly to how he takes Anya's plans as his own. He very commonly, with the both of them mind you, supplements the worst aspects of himself into them; pettiness, selfishness, lack of understanding... And tries to cover himself with their best qualities; kindness, planning, initiative, etc...

These parallel are just to say that positional power has little to do with if a person can be abused and how it can even be flipped to further the abuse. There is no doubt that Curly could've picked up on Jimmy's envy of his position hence another reason he never confronted him as a Captain but as a friend as doing so would immediately put Jimmy in a space to be confrontational/combative.

I think the disdain some people have when they talk about the heavily implied if not implicitly stated emotional/mental abuse Curly experienced being Jimmy's friend is when treating it as an excuse to why he didn't do more. I can understand that completely because it is not an excuse to why he didn't do more but is a very real reason people in his position in these scenarios can experience whether in the context of a work or social environment. However, I also think the way people talk about it really does demonstrate a bigger problem when talking about abuse when somehow who is/was abused is either part of the issue or enabled it.

Harkening back to the sentiments about Curly's inaction regarding Jimmy, I think the exact phrases I used/have seen show how there is an inherent belief that it is easier to overpower the effects of emotional/mental abuse that go in tandem with the perception of Curly as someone who should be able to. There is not an age you suddenly stop being susceptible to abuse nor a set point or low where you realize how it has affected you. You don't suddenly know to stand up or put a face on to face your abuser nor admit that you inadvertently enabled them to subjugate someone else to the same treatment. Maybe it's my psych brain but their is this growing belief that direct action is somehow easy or always the best method with the game shows you instances where it is not always the case. In real life that rings true too. He should have done more, but it's not impossible to see why he struggled to find a way or didn't even if it makes us mad.

It's not easy to suddenly gain a "back-bone". You don't immediately want to resort to aggression, especially if it mirrors the type you were a victim to. You don't want to believe you allowed yourself to be treated this bad, let it get that bad or allowed something bad to happen to someone else. It is easy to be in denial, to retreat to your thoughts or make excuses to avoid the painful truth. It's frustrating but in a way we know is relatable. It why we both hate and love Curly for it. We know we'd be better, we think we'd be better, we like to think we wouldn't falter in the same ways but it's always easier to say that from the outside looking in. It's easy to see what he was doing wrong because we are seeing it, not him, but the game really does make you picture what you would do if this was your raw reality and it's why this debate about Curly seems so never ending/contradictory. We can all say what we'd do but bottom line is that's much different when you're in the moment with all the emotions and human feelings attached.

I personally think Mouthwashing tackles the themes of rape culture, enabling, toxic masculinity, types of abuse and patriarchy in ways that are meant to deconstruct the typical straightforward views we mostly have of these concepts and how little subtilities of them are just as, if not more, detrimental than the overt/obvious parts. The game deals with the idea of little details and bigger picture in a way to show that sometimes the bigger picture is not the issue but the little details that make it up. It's why I have a personal dislike of depictions of Jimmy as the typical horrible person who would of course do something like this because the game is about noticing the little warning signs, the foreshadowing and foresight.

It's why I dislike the typical discussion of "bro code" and "boys will be boys" for the game because the game makes a point to avoid the standard depictions of such. It is about the type of men who still enable despite not condoning, agreeing or even perpetuating harmful beliefs because they can't see the little details or the ways it seeps into their everyday. The severity is not obvious to them as it was not obvious to Curly, Swansea or even Daisuke the way it was to a woman like Anya. There are little details about Jimmy that should ring alarms but if you are too naive like Daisuke, too distant like Swansea or too conditioned like Curly, they are just off markers.

There is 100% more constructive/concise ways to say "Curly was a victim of Jimmy's abuse on an emotional and mental aspect that clouded his judgements and perceptions in the scenario" while also critiquing on the side of "Curly still had a responsibility to protect Anya as a crew mate and Captain that he failed to do due to biases and stigma's he failed to surpass" without the weird condemnation people give him about should've knowing better than to let himself be manipulated by a person he considered a close, if not family/best-friend and had his own reasons to trust initially. Also stop being weird about victims of abuse in general with this fandom, like sorry not everyone has a like social epiphany the moment someone's nasty to them. People are treating it like you immediately know when you are in a toxic relationship immediately or comprehend when a person is actively dangerous and either it's your fault for not knowing how to leave/cut them off or you deserve it. Like the hypocrisy of people believing how certain fans treat the story reflect their irl views but not their own is crazy.

End statement is: I honestly don't even know man, I've been writing this too long and just like no man on that ship was perfect or really helped Anya when it mattered and I feel like pitting them against each other in discussion on who did the least or most or how it was justified sucks cause in the end Anya always did the most and best thing for herself.

[manwiththemagic]

Sam Winchester is such an interesting character like wdym you didn't tell your family you were hallucinating Lucifer and getting tortured because you "had bigger fish to fry" had "more important things going on" HELLO??

and he legit never talks about the true extent of what happened until he briefly mentions smth to Rowena in like S12?? S13?? S14??, to make HER feel better bc Lucifer traumatized her too. (Not for 200 years but still. Yikes.)

"I saw his real face to. It's still haunts me." OR SMTH. AND THEN HE GOES ON TO SAY HE DIDN'T TELL ANYONE BC THE WORLD JUST KEPT ENDING, AND THAT IT'D "BEEN TOO MUCH TIME" SINCE THEN??? HELLO??

SAM WHAT ARE YOU DOING BRO.

[the-judicial-assistants-notebook]

not enough discussion about the gavins' complicated relationship with feminine-coded/beauty products, i don't think.

[krazieka2]

Assassins!! They’re friends!!!!

[jonsnowunemploymentera]

ASOIAF discourse would be a lot more fun if we all realized that every single person who has been put in a position of leadership/rulership fails in one way or another. Jon and Dany failing is not an indictment on their abilities to lead or rule. They’re kids, they still have shit to figure out. Given “what was Aragorn’s tax policy”, I doubt GRRM will write a story that will feature the appearance of a most perfect ruler ever who will be a total success instead Jon and Dany who were tOtAl FlOpS. Especially if this person has no previous experience that has been detailed within the text itself. That’s not only antithetical to the series, but also not how you write a narrative.