#and it's such a fucked up dynamic to me

[fayevalcntine]

The whole "Claudia is now his sister"/Louis' sibling comparisons are never gonna sit right with me because that's never going to erase the fact that Claudia exists as a vampire partly because of him. Their relationship will never have this clearly defined role of siblings in the same manner Louis had with Grace or Paul, even if he was their older brother and was implicitly given the role of providing for them as the successor and manager of his family's estate. Because Louis was never responsible in part for their creation, the reason why they existed the way that they do in terms of behavior and life itself.

It also makes his betrayal of her all the more heartbreaking in ways that him and Grace drifting apart never will. He was her father, and didn't provide emotional support for her. She had to turn the tables and try to assume the role of being on an equal level because of this failure but this doesn't make him not choosing her any less painful than it did the first time. Even as they shift roles, take or give emotional responsibility one has towards the other, the fact that Claudia exists the way she does because of him and Lestat will always be there.

[mipexch]

I WAS MADE FOR YOU // YOU WERE MADE FOR ME

[iveneverbeenmorestressedinmylife]

[lotus-pear]

lore accurate teen soukoku. the worsties ever

[hypertechnica]

THE LOVE TRIANGLE

ford, fidds, and bill are living in a late 70s/early 80s sci fi psychological horror film that was buried upon release due to its explicit gay themes but quickly became an underground cult hit

numerous associations would decry its depiction of homoeroticism between its principal characters, but nobody could deny the surrealist film had its merit. “it’s like someone concocted an unholy combination between the shining and space odyssey and then died of the instantaneous nuclear fallout. why would anyone make this? are they stupid?” one reviewer said.

more alternates + sketch under the cut

[crnl-chicken-tots]

Something something fate bound enemies to lovers slow burn 10k blah blah blah

[grison-in-space]

I'm genuinely sorry, I was really tired and couldn't think of the word that mad pride movements use. I'm new to all of this. I thought you would be more open to it because you've reblogged from radical leftists (anarchists and communists both) within the past couple of weeks and they're all for Veganism afaik. The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different. I'm not spamming people with it, but I was inspired by an ask by a nonvegan and started asking popular bloggers why they weren't vegan to open up conversation and potentially change people's views on animals. If I've made you uncomfortable I'm sorry, though I admit I'm really confused by your standpoint. You do know that the only reason communism hasn't succeeded is because of America? Anyway, sorry again, I'm also autistic and I didn't mean to dismiss your legitimate dietary needs. Can I recommend acti-vegan's posts? While I understand that you can't go vegan, perhaps their blog will at least help you understand our points, they're much more well-written than my asks and they have plenty of legitimate science resources at hand. Thanks for listening, I'll take your advice into account. I'm not trying to not listen, it's just frustrating because so many people say they get it but they don't change, and if they truly got it they would, you know?

Okay, I get that you didn't mean to be offensive, and fuck knows I shouldn't throw stones when it comes to forgetting specific words. (This happens to me fairly frequently; it's a thing.)

The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different.

So yesterday I actually wrote out and then deleted a whole paragraph to the effect of "part of my deep, deep frustration with animal rights activism hooks into my commitment to the phrase 'nothing about us without us,' because I frequently see the same kinds of emotional projection without making the effort to listen to animals on their own terms from animal rights activism groups."

The first thing I need to make clear to you is that this--veganism and animal rights activism (ARA) more generally--is not new to me. I am in my mid-thirties and I have never had a job of any kind that did not revolve around animals in some way, I've spent time in rescue spaces and vets and universities, I'm queer and I have spent most of my life in leftish progressive circles, so it's kind of hard to miss.

Essentially, you are proselytizing to me as if you were a newly baptized evangelical convinced I had never heard of Jesus, because if only I had heard and understood his holy word, I would be converted instantly to his light! It's not any less irritating when the belief system isn't explicitly a religion.

More under the cut, because this one is long.

Disclaimer one: Veganism isn't synonymous with ARA ideology, but it's deeply entangled with it, and ARA ideology drives the movement of veganism as a (theoretically non-religious) ethical decision. And I object very strongly to the framework imposed by ARA activists. When I say I am not vegan, I am saying that I have considered the ethical framework that underpins veganism as an ethics movement and I have deliberately rejected it.

The second piece of context you should know that when I talk about being a behavioral ecologist, I mean that I'm a researcher who works on animals and that my framework is rooted in trying to understand animals in their own natural ecological context, without necessarily comparing them to humans. There's a lot of ways to study animal behavior you might run into, including attempts to understand universal principles of behavior that transcend species (animal cognition) and attempts to understand how to better treat animals in human care (animal welfare). You know Temple Grandin? Temple Grandin is an ethologist (the field that gave rise to behavioral ecology, also focused on animals within their species context) who worked on animal welfare (finding ways to make slaughterhouses less stressful to livestock, among other things).

Third point: my profession also means is that I work directly with animals--in my case, currently mice--and that I do not think research with animal subjects is wrong as long as all efforts are made to ensure maximal welfare and enrichment for the animals involved. This is another major bone of contention politically between my entire field and ARA groups, and you should know that I have also spent my entire professional career under the shadow of, well, people who care strongly enough about those ideas to invade my workspace and potentially seize my animals and "free" them into a world they do not have the tools to survive in.

So there's where I am coming from. Let's get back to what you're saying. Here, I'll quote again in case you have the same crappy short-term memory I do.

The argument that all brains are different but equal and should be treated the exact same is a primary aspect of mad pride from my understanding, and that speaks to me about animals just having different brains, and that they don't deserve to be exploited and killed for us just because they're different.

Point the first: Even within humans, I don't think that all brains should be treated the exact same. Especially in a disability context! After all, what is an accommodation if not an agreement to treat someone differently because they need certain things to access a space? Accommodations by definition fly in the face of this "treating everyone the same" understanding of fairness. I think all (human) brains are equally valuable, and I think all brains are worthy of respect, but I do not think that it's wise or kind of me to assert that everyone should be treated in the same way. For one thing, I teach students. If there's one thing teaching has taught me, it's that a good teacher is constantly assessing and adjusting their instruction to meet students where they're at, identify failures of understanding, and keep the attention of the classroom.

Point the second: animals do have different brains from humans. That does not mean that animals are inferior, but it does mean that they are alien. There's a philosophy paper, Nagel, What Does It Mean to Be a Bat, that you might find illuminating on this front. Essentially, the point of the paper is that animals have their own experiences and sensory umwelts that differ profoundly enough from humans' that we cannot know what it is like to be a different species without experiencing life as one, and therefore we must be terribly careful not to project our own realities onto theirs. That is, our imagination cannot tell us what a bat values and what it experiences. That is why we have to use careful evidence to understand what an animal is thinking, without relying on our ability to identify with and comprehend that animal. I have watched ARA groups deliberately encourage people to shut their reasoning brains off and emotionally identify themselves with animals without considering within-species context for twenty years. This is a mainstream tactic. It is not an isolated event and for that reason alone I would be opposed to them.

Point the third: there is a definite tendency in lots of people to care deeply and intensely about both animals and people who are seen as "lesser" in status--children, poor people, disabled people, etc--just as long as those groups never contradict the good feelings that come from the helper's own assessment of themselves and their actions. In humans, when the "needy" point out that some forms of help are actually harmful, the backlash is often swift and vicious. This is why animals are such an appealing target of support and intervention. They can't speak back and say "in fact, you are projecting my love of this frilly pink tutu onto me, and I think it's uncomfortable and prevents me from walking." They can't say "I kind of like it better when I don't have to worry about getting hit by a car, actually?"

(By the way: this is also why it's offensive to compare disabled people to animals, because this is generally done at least in part to silence the voices of disabled people speaking for our selves and our communities. We have access to language, and we use it, thank you.)

All forms of animal welfare intervention going right back to the founding of the first RSPCA have been incredibly prone to being hijacked by classist, racist, and otherwise bigoted impulses. This is because animals offer an innocent face for defense that conveniently cannot criticize the actions taken by their champions, and they therefore provide a great excuse for actions taken against marginalized members of human society. Think about the very first campaign the RSPCA ever did, which was banning using dogs as draft animals: a use that is not inherently harmful to dogs, which many dogs actively enjoy, but also one that was specifically used by poor Londoners and which in fact immediately resulted in a great butchery of the dogs that Londoners could no longer afford to feed rather than allowing poor people and their dogs to continue working together. No one was, of course, challenging the particular uses of dogs or any other animal favored by the wealthy. This kind of thing is so, so, so common. Obviously it doesn't mean that all interventions to prioritize animal welfare are inherently bigoted, but it does mean that we have to be critical about our choice of challenges.

On top of everything, the animal rights activist movement's obsession with "exploitation" is a function of the idea that humans are sinful or otherwise Bad in how we interact with animals by definition. For example, take the chicken rescue near me that is so obsessed with the possibility that some human somewhere might benefit from an animal in their care that they implant every hen they adopt out with hormonal implants such that the hens no longer lay eggs--a function that is normally a natural byproduct of a chicken's reproductive system, fertilized or not. A mutualistic relationship involves both parties benefiting, and that is the case for an awful lot of human relationships with animals. In general, the idea that associating with animals is a thing that can only harm animals rather than being a trade between two species to enrich one another is all over these groups. It's just so myopically focused on human shame that it prevents practical interventions that might benefit everyone, and often promotes interventions that don't directly benefit animals but sure do make humans miserable. For example, this kind of thinking is why groups like PETA are absolutely awful at effectively rescuing unwanted dogs and cats: they think pets living in "bondage" with humans are an essentially sad outcome, rather than one that might be mutually enjoyed by all parties.

I'm tired and my meds haven't kicked in, so I'm not currently going to handle the communism thing except to point out that while the US absolutely did destabilize a number of leftist regimes in South America and Africa, Russia and China between them have certainly not treated their own people kindly, either (and more so their own client-nations, as with the former members of the USSR). Please do some reading about the Holodomor and Lysenko in Russia (and frankly all of the details of Stalin's regime) and the Cultural Revolution in China in particular. Khmer Rouge might be worth looking into, too. I am not saying the US's hands are clean, you understand, because they are not; they're as steeped in red as anyone else's. What I am saying is that for people living on the ground, communist revolutions have this nasty habit of turning into bloodbaths and arbitrary slaughters. Do not let your distaste for the US's bloodsoaked imperialism (which, yes, is and was bad) let you fall into the trap of becoming a tankie.

And if you don't know what a tankie is, you really, really should take some time to learn.

[temporary-tats]

Drew a little comic today!

Viz, let Blake be a little shit to Raven in v10 and my life is yours.

Per usual, do not reupload without credit/permission. Thanks folks!

(My ko-fi, should you wish!)

[altschmerzes]

if the only time you bring up A Secret Third Thing is when someone has suggested generally celebrating or uplifting platonic/queerplatonic fictional relationships in spaces that ordinarily obsess about romantic ones to the exclusion of all else perhaps consider why you’re doing that and also stop.

[froggerland]

No thoughts just sojoplittle challengers dynamic

[katabay]

desmond & friends modern day assassin sequences…..I miss you……..

[hilsonamore]

i don’t get people who don’t ship hilson because like- what more evidence would you want to convince you that they were in love with each other? Seriously, apart form the kiss and the canonical sex etc etc, what more is there? Love confessions? Done. Over-protectiveness? Done. Self-sacrifice? Done. Longing, loving stares? Done. Everyone else being aware of the tension between them? Done. Taking care of each other during difficult times? Done. Being silly and cute only around each other? Done. Always, even after the worst of scenarios have taken place, coming back together? Done. Literally not being able to function normally if the other is unwell/ there’s a rift in their relationship? Done. Being protective of each other when someone dares insult them? Done. Giving up their EVERYTHING just to be together? Done.

Like, WHAT MORE IS THERE?

[vaguely-concerned]

'varric's vibe when you pick the 'I'm worried' option after he asks you how you feel about having solas in your head is so fucking funny. the very careful 'so, uh, just... out of casual interest why -- why aren't you putting wards on yourself and your mind to keep him out, and incidentally exactly how might you do it if you did. no reason why I'm asking just. curious. I have no stance on this' probing of it all (that should be the giveaway in itself, really, in hindsight I think real varric would be a lot more freaked out on rook's behalf about this even if he might still have reached the conclusion that the connection to solas was worth the risk, he's got kirkwall blood magic trauma to fill a telephone catalogue). that and the '>:) then I see you've made a choice (so this is basically a little bit on you now, you got fairly outsmarted etc., I don't have to feel as guilty thank you for having youthful hubris that will be your undoing so I can feel less bad about my role in it). honestly if anything I'm doubling down on my previous 'mind!varric is directly controlled by solas the majority of the time and rook's mind is mostly a collaborateur' post. this conversation is transparently solas gathering intel and giving you the 101 on leadership while you're building a small focused rebel force.

in solas' defense... this whole situation is very very funny in an extremely dark kind of way he is nothing if not on brand. the stuff he says about himself in this conversation is like. he's both reading himself for filth AND he can't read all of a sudden he can't uh......... he has plenty of self-insight (a single flower with blackened petals) and it helps him exactly not at all in breaking his patterns lmao

also it makes the relationship between solas and rook so. so much. what an insane intimacy in grieving for someone so much you both conspire to raise him from the dead together, just for a little while, because neither of you can bear to let go. what a violation in being the only knowing party in that. solas can hear rook following through on relaying his apology to 'varric' no matter what else they think of him. and he still does what he does to them in the end. he's feeding them affection (some of it even real eventually, I think, he clearly respects rook as a pure agent of chaos on some level and has some incredulous amused fondness for them no matter how you end up in your relationship with him) and confidence with one hand, and readying a knife in the other the whole time. solas my love my friend my genuine darling I think I will have to strangle you unfortunately

[gunstellations]

In the world I love

_

In a different world

[coldblooded-angel]

Why do I not see people talking about how angry Patrick got when Tashi asked him to throw the game??? How insulted he was on behalf of Art, that Tashi no longer believed in his own ability to beat him??? How he saw nothing wrong with her fucking him but that he drew the line at cheating Art out of a fair win?? What about the difference in how he reacted when Art asked the same from him vs when Tashi asked ????

[yudol-skorbi]

and what if i go insane