#and their debatably homosexual tendencies

[holly-tea]

missing odyssey today. have a sleep deprived emperor and an isolated templar

[jestersarts]

tfw eternal statue torture prison

[gd-dollopole]

Merlin follows Arthur everywhere, but Arthur follows Merlin everywhere too (what I believe was a possible Camelot’s Golden Age)

Do we talk about this enough? I don’t know (obviously we do), so here I am, because I need to get this out of my system.

But before I get straight to the point, you’ll need to bear with me and listen to my ranting about Freya.

I genuinely don’t know why and maybe I just read the wrong fanfictions, but why does there seem to be a collective thinking about how Merlin wouldn’t have gone with Freya because he couldn’t abandon Arthur?

Are we talking about the same Merlin?

Whatever someone believes Merlin and Freya loved each other platonically or romantically, my man was ready to flee:

Merlin didn’t think about it one second, before he went back home to Ealdor to save his mother and the villagers. “Oh, but it’s his mom”, and Freya was a poor, tortured and outcasted girl, traumatised and oppressed by the same system that oppressed Merlin, who had been finally understood by a girl who was ready to love him and live with him. And my babygirl Merlin was ready to have that, ready to live as himself and run away with someone who cared enough about him to wait for him.

Merlin never thought about the consequences of helping someone, especially in the first seasons. I could argue the point that he didn’t care about Freya (much like he didn’t care about a lot of other people) with season four/season five Merlin, but in the second season, Merlin still had the faith and hope of doing what was right, and even if very dangerous, didn’t care about his actions to the point even Gaius didn’t know what he was up to.

The following up seasons are a contradiction to the first two, because Merlin and Arthur had began to finally change. We see them talk back to both Gaius and Uther, siding with Morgana and her plans, and try to do what was right in the best of their capacity (and it makes even more sense that Merlin couldn’t still do much, since he was starting to understand his powers and their extent only then)

And even in season four, with no one by his side, not even Arthur, and barely Gwaine, Merlin didn’t think about it twice to go save Gaius all by himself, against people he didn’t know, Agravaine and Morgana.

So for those who has stayed, here comes my point:

Arthur has a tendency, if we don’t want to name it an homosexual calling towards his manservant, to follow Merlin almost everywhere:

Even if Merlin and Arthur had already tested their limits, and by this, I mean for how long they could stay more than one inch apart from each other, Arthur followed Merlin to Ealdor. My man had two heads, and for a moment longer than what was considered not gay, he thought more with one than the other, and we all know which one I’m referring too. But jokes aside, Merlin had already drank poison for Arthur, and yet, he loved more people than just him, like his mother, and did what he felt was right;

With Freya, Arthur would have resisted two seconds without Merlin, somehow found out that the idiot had had to protect the fourth magical creature of the week, and after rolling his eyes and debating his heterosexuality for the umpteenth time during the last hours, would have packed his things and followed Merlin, to hell with the kingdom (and if we want to be romantic, what’s a kingdom to Arthur without his best friend, court sorcerer, lover, Merlin? Consequently, Arthur would have even followed Freya, and the three would have been followed by Gwen and Morgana, and together start the revolution we deserved to see).

And if it hadn’t been for Agravaine, with his horrid, yet somehow successful manipulation, (I blame this on Arthur’s stupidity and his lack of affection), Arthur would have believed Merlin’s thoughts about Gaius and followed him there, too.

And I’m not even talking about the times where Arthur blindly followed Merlin on quests because of his ‘funny feelings’, didn’t think about it twice to bring Gwaine with them on a quest that was supposed to be a secret, followed Merlin around the castle, because he needed him either for practise or to clean his things, or to polish the bloody armour (it should have been the other way around, Merlin following Arthur around because the chores were literally his job, but fine) and whenever Merlin mysteriously disappeared, Arthur questioned the entire castle about him, following not Merlin, but those who could have seen him. If we were given the show we deserved, now we would have scenes of Arthur walking all the way down the lower town in nothing but breeches, a tunic and bare feet to haul Merlin by the back of his collar and bring him back to the castle, with a grumpy face on, because: “How could you abandon me, Merlin?” (he had been gone away for one hour).

We often talk about how much Merlin goes around Arthur, because he is literally his destiny, but if we are talking about two sides of the same coin, two halfs that cannot hate the other, very heterosexual endearing names they have given each other over the duration of ten years…

Then,

Merlin is Arthur’s destiny.

It’s balanced, even with their relationship:

One is a servant, the other is a prince/king;

One is oppressed, the other oppresses him;

One is rich, the other is poor;

One is awful at fighting (with anything other than his magic), the other is one of the best warriors in all Five Kingdoms;

One is literally magic, the other doesn’t have it, but was born of it;

In the first part of the series, one has a father, the other has a mother;

One is good at and likes hunting, the other isn’t good at and dislikes hunting;

One is an idiot, the other is… Alright, this is fair, at least.

One is gay, the other isn’t.

The differences are there, but Merlin and Arthur have one goal in common:

Bring peace to Camelot, and unite all of Albion.

Aside the obvious fact, which is that they both didn’t achieve the goal, and when trying to do just that, they were both shite at it, the Golden Age they had to bring was literally each other.

Merlin and Arthur are balanced by character and personality, behaviour and station, but there was only one thing they really cared about:

each other.

Merlin had to bring out Arthur’s love and respect for those unlike him, show him that magic was not the fault of people’s crimes, but their actions, help him distance himself from Uther and everything that is Uther, and build a new reign of prosperity and equality, and therefore peace.

Meanwhile, Arthur had to help, by being a king, bring out Merlin’s voice, powers, true self, and by listening to him, following him, and liberating all who were like him and make actual peace.

Okay, both didn’t do shit, but we can say they tried (?)

All of this to say that Arthur and Merlin did things the same, but differently. The story described them as two sides of the same coin, and did show exactly that (even if, at times, poorly).

If they had the chance to truly loved each other, in the right way, the Golden Age would have arrived for everyone.

And the Golden Age was meant to first make Merlin and Arthur see who they really were, show their true feelings, and finally fuck each other’s brains out, and then to bring prosperity to the kingdom of Camelot, and therefore all of Albion.

We can say:

Merlin’s Golden Age was Arthur, and Arthur’s Golden Age was Merlin.

And this implies that Albion’s greatest need is Merlin, and Arthur will rise again when Merlin will need him the most.

[she-is-ovarit]

By Sean Coughlan

BBC News

A diary written by a Yorkshire farmer more than 200 years ago is being hailed as providing remarkable evidence of tolerance towards homosexuality in Britain much earlier than previously imagined.

Historians from Oxford University have been taken aback to discover that Matthew Tomlinson's diary from 1810 contains such open-minded views about same-sex attraction being a "natural" human tendency.

The diary challenges preconceptions about what "ordinary people" thought about homosexuality - showing there was a debate about whether someone really should be discriminated against for their sexuality.

"In this exciting new discovery, we see a Yorkshire farmer arguing that homosexuality is innate and something that shouldn't be punished by death," says Oxford researcher Eamonn O'Keeffe.

The diaries were handwritten by Tomlinson in the farmhouse where he lived and worked

The historian had been examining Tomlinson's handwritten diaries, which have been stored in Wakefield Library since the 1950s.

The thousands of pages of the private journals have never been transcribed and previously used by researchers interested in Tomlinson's eye-witness accounts of elections in Yorkshire and the Luddites smashing up machinery.

But O'Keeffe came across what seemed, for the era of George III, to be a rather startling set of arguments about same-sex relationships.

Tomlinson had been prompted by what had been a big sex scandal of the day - in which a well-respected naval surgeon had been found to be engaging in homosexual acts.

Historian Eamonn O'Keeffe says the diaries provide a rare insight into the views of "ordinary people" in the early 1800s

A court martial had ordered him to be hanged - but Tomlinson seemed unconvinced by the decision, questioning whether what the papers called an "unnatural act" was really that unnatural.

Tomlinson argued, from a religious perspective, that punishing someone for how they were created was equivalent to saying that there was something wrong with the Creator.

"It must seem strange indeed that God Almighty should make a being with such a nature, or such a defect in nature; and at the same time make a decree that if that being whom he had formed, should at any time follow the dictates of that Nature, with which he was formed, he should be punished with death," he wrote on January 14 1810.

If there was an "inclination and propensity" for someone to be homosexual from an early age, he wrote, "it must then be considered as natural, otherwise as a defect in nature - and if natural, or a defect in nature; it seems cruel to punish that defect with death".

The diarist makes reference to being informed by others that homosexuality is apparent from an early age - suggesting that Tomlinson and his social circle had been talking about this case and discussing something that was not unknown to them.

Around this time, and also in West Yorkshire, a local landowner, Anne Lister, was writing a coded diary about her lesbian relationships - with her story told in the television series, Gentleman Jack.

But knowing what "ordinary people" really thought about such behaviour is always difficult - not least because the loudest surviving voices are usually the wealthy and powerful.

What has excited academics is the chance to eavesdrop on an everyday farmer thinking aloud in his diary.

Tomlinson was appalled by the levels of corruption during elections

"What's striking is that he's an ordinary guy, he's not a member of the bohemian circles or an intellectual," says O'Keeffe, a doctoral student in Oxford's history faculty.

An acceptance of homosexuality might have been expressed privately in aristocratic or philosophically radical circles - but this was being discussed by a rural worker.

"It shows opinions of people in the past were not as monolithic as we might think," says O'Keeffe, who is originally from Canada.

"Even though this was a time of persecution and intolerance towards same-sex relationships, here's an ordinary person who is swimming against the current and sees what he reads in the paper and questions those assumptions."

Claire Pickering, library manager in Wakefield, says she imagines the single-minded Tomlinson speaking the words with a Yorkshire accent.

There are three volumes of Tomlinson's diaries at Wakefield Library

He was a man with a "hungry mind", she says, someone who listened to a lot of people's opinions before forming his own conclusions.

The diary, presumably compiled after a hard day's work, was his way of being a writer and commentator when otherwise "that wasn't his station in life", she says.

O'Keeffe says it shows ideas were "percolating through British society much earlier and more widely than we'd expect" - with the diary working through the debates that Tomlinson might have been having with his neighbours.

But these were still far from modern liberal views - and O'Keeffe says they can be extremely "jarring" arguments.

If someone was homosexual by choice, rather than by nature, Tomlinson was ready to consider that they should still be punished - proposing castration as a more moderate option than the death penalty.

Tomlinson's former home was still there in the 1930s (bottom left), but has since disappeared beneath housing and a golf course

O'Keeffe says discovering evidence of these kinds of debate has both "enriched and complicated" what we know about public opinion in this pre-Victorian era.

The diary is raising international interest.

Prof Fara Dabhoiwala, from Princeton University in the US, an expert in the history of attitudes towards sexuality, describes it as "vivid proof" that "historical attitudes to same-sex behaviour could be more sympathetic than is usually presumed".

Instead of seeing homosexuality as a "horrible perversion", Prof Dabholwala says the record showed a farmer in 1810 could see it as a "natural, divinely ordained human quality".

Rictor Norton, an expert in gay history, said there had been earlier arguments defending homosexuality as natural - but these were more likely to be from philosophers than farmers.

"It is extraordinary to find an ordinary, casual observer in 1810 seriously considering the possibility that sexuality is innate and making arguments for decriminalisation," says Dr Norton.

Who was the writer of this diary?

Matthew Tomlinson was a widower, in his 40s when he wrote his journal in 1810 - a man of a "middling" class, not a poor labourer but not rich enough to own his own land.

"I try and imagine how he would have looked," says library manager Ms Pickering.

There are no pictures of Tomlinson, who is thought to have lived between about 1770 and 1850.

"Very dour," she suggests. And a "bit of a hypochondriac".

There are thousands of pages of handwritten journals - but some volumes appear to have been lost

"I imagine if you stopped him at his gate for a chat he'd talk about his gout more than anything else.

"I'd love to have a conversation with him about what Wakefield was like at the time," she says.

No-one knows how these private diaries, covering 1806 to 1839, ended up in Wakefield Library, but they were there by the 1950s and are presumed to be part of an earlier acquisition of old books and local documents.

There are three surviving volumes and at least another eight are missing.

But they show vivid detail about life in Wakefield in the early 19th Century.

Tomlinson, from his home at Doghouse Farm, recorded the life of nearby Wakefield

During elections, Tomlinson was appalled by the corruption, the rum drinkers having to be carried home in wheelbarrows and the "hired ruffians".

And at Queen Victoria's coronation he was sceptical about expensive ceremonies and celebrations, calling them all "humbug".

This was not a closed world. His social circle seemed to be avid readers of books and newspapers, following reports of revolutions abroad and riots and insurrections at home.

They saw elephants marching through Wakefield in a circus parade and military bands who had competed to hire the most talented black musicians.

We know where he lived - Doghouse Farm in Lupset, because he carefully wrote it on the front of his journals.

The farm, at the edge of the landowner's estate, is now under a housing estate and a golf course. All that survives are his diaries.

[markerofthemidnight]

🏳️‍🌈 as many as you want.

🏳‍🌈 do you have any headcanons (lgbt, race, neuro, etc) that are important to you?

Oh, shit! No specific fandom in mind or anything?! HOLY SHIT YOU BET I’M GONNA MAKE THE MOST OF THIS!

(warning: rant incoming (under cut))

Hatchetfield (specifically The Lords in Black)

I’ve already talked about my headcanons for their sexualities on a different ask, so let me just run through any specific mental stuff I think they may have…

Tinky definitely has ADHD or something similar, Pokey probably has some kind of antisocial disorder which is why he’s… Like That™️, and maybe autism too (noise sensitivity). I’ve also called Wiggly a narcissist a few times, and while I stand by the fact that that could be the case, I don’t want to make a statement like that about a disorder that I don’t know all too well.

They all go by he/it mainly. They’re fine with any pronouns, though.

Project: Eden’s Garden

I’m not going to give any disorder to Tozu because I think it’s much more fitting for him to just be… straight-up insane rather than having any undiagnosed mental thingy (though ADHD is a possibility, short attention span and all.) He’s definitely somewhere in the ace spectrum, if you ask me! I’d personally like to say panromantic and asexual. And obviously, his race is British.

Mara is also somewhere on the ace spectrum, though I haven’t decided where. I’m not sure what kind of mental illness she might have, though probably something trauma-related like PTSD knowing the kind of story the devs will probably give her.

Other than that, lemme run through the students really quick… Eva is also also somewhere on the ace spectrum, Eloise has an inferiority complex, Damon has DEFINITELY had some very non-straight thoughts that he’s in denial about… oh, and Kai goes by he/they, though wether that’s just for the clout or if they’re genuinely genderqueer is up for debate!

Chonny Jash (GOD it’s been a while since I mentioned that name huh?)

You will pry my headcanon that the Headspace is just the result of a really weird plural disorder from my cold, dead hands. Other than that, Heart and Mind are both autistic, just in different ways (Heart has sensory problems, Mind is antisocial with a tendency to take everything literally, and both have special interests). Soul definitely has something too, but I’m not sure what.

They’re all gay as shit, but to different extents (Soul is straight up homosexual, Heart is pan with a preference for men, and Mind is grey-homoromantic aseuxal).

Finally, they all grew up in Australia but moved to the states at some point in their life (hence their accents. Their old one comes back sometimes depending on their emotions.)

Dreams of an Insomniac

Alex is gay. So gay. I don’t know why they just give off those vibes.

Dr Lankmann is aro/ace, and doesn’t understand people who feel any kind of attraction at all. As in, some of his closest followers have had to talk him out of dissecting the brains of allo people multiple times.

We already know that all Veldigun are aro/ace, and mainly go by he/it pronouns, but if I were to add to that: The Flock goes by they/it, and Simon goes by he/they and is only referred to as “it” by those who don’t trust him.

And, while you’ve given me the opportunity… eh, why the hell not? SNG&D HEADCANONS LETS GOOOOOO (spoilers ahead but honestly I don’t think you care)

SNG&D

(JJ and Ricky are from SpiffyNeedleGeeks’ now-cancelled Curse of Strahd campaign, and played by Lettersent (or Dion, he’s fine with either))

First off, they’re both aro/ace. Like, SO aro/ace. These are children we’re talking about, after all.

We already know they have OSDD canonically, but a very specific headcanon I’ve had for a long time is that they’re also autistic! Mainly because generally their vibes remind me of my own autistic ass, but also because LOOK AT THEM. LOOK AT JJ’S BLANK FUCKING AUTISM CREATURE STARE.

JJ’s autism manifests mainly in the way he acts. Again, the blank stare he canonically does 99% of the time, his tendency to stay futher away from the group (especially before he really learns to trust the rest of the party), the sort of silent nervousness he has around strangers contrasted by the rabid little bastard he becomes when he’s around people he dislikes (in a different way to Ricky taking control) all give me a lot of autistic vibes.

Ricky, however, is a bit harder to categorise. Mainly because most of these are just my headcanons, but… eh. I like to think that he’s, to an extent, a bit noise-sensitive (part of the reason why he doesn’t like social situations besides just being terrible at them), we already know he’s touch-averse canonically, and he’s got a big aversion to certain tastes and textures (though that’s less due to the autism and more due to the fact that he’d literally never eaten before in his life until like a week ago).

This also adds a much funnier layer to why he’s so overprotective of JJ. It’s not just because, y’know, he was born specifically to protect him, but also because it’s literally his special interest. Whenever someone asks him something about him, it probably takes all the strength he has to resist the urge to ramble for hours.

Aside from that, the brothers also both gained PTSD from everything they’ve been through. While I’m fairly sure it’s canon that Ricky has PTSD from their death, I like the idea that JJ has some too that he more or less got over in the years between their death and meeting the party. (The sight of a Displacer Beast still puts him on edge, though.)

…Sorry, I just- I had to get that off my chest.

I could talk about my headcanons for some of their other characters more, but I think I’ve been ranting on too much (besides, it’s mainly JJ and Ricky I have headcanons for anyways, as they are by far my favourites).

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Margaret McCartney, GP, Glasgow

Published: May 30, 2024

Publication of the Cass review in April 2024 was a seminal moment in contemporary medicine. Hilary Cass, a consultant paediatrician, was commissioned by NHS England to report independently on “the services provided by the NHS to children and young people who are questioning their gender identity or experiencing gender incongruence.” The background was an increase in referrals—of mainly “birth registered females in early teenage years”—to gender identity clinics from 2014 at an “exponential rate.”

The conclusions of the Cass review should not be surprising to anyone who has watched the promotion of medical interventions as necessary or curative in young people with gender dysphoria. As Cass states, there is a “lack of evidence” on the long term impact of hormonal prescriptions in young people, for example. Work now begins on how to design better, more evidence based, holistic services. The conclusion that services “must operate to the same standards as other services seeing children and young people with complex presentations and/or additional risk factors” is astonishing, in that it needed to be said. We need, says the report “a different approach to healthcare, more closely aligned with usual NHS clinical practice.” In other words, this suggests that the approach the NHS has taken with respect to gender dysphoria has been at odds with the usual, evidence based approach taken elsewhere. This should be deeply discomfiting. As the dust settles, and we reflect on the report’s conclusions, we should ask why this has happened.

There are multiple potential explanations. One is alluded to clearly by Cass: “the toxicity of the debate is exceptional,” she writes. Indeed. I know many senior medics who were concerned about the lack of evidence for interventions, but felt their reputation and job would be under threat if they spoke up. Anonymous personal attacks online is one thing; personal abuse from senior medics for raising clinical concerns is quite another. When considered in the context of whistleblowing more broadly, medicine clearly has an ongoing problem.

But when it comes to large, well funded, professional medical organisations, there is even less excuse. The job of medical institutions is in large part to remember the mistakes of history. These organisations should respond with care, consider evidence, uncertainty, and the recurrent tendency of well meaning medicine to do harm with good intentions. Popularity should be resisted over the need for evidence and caution. This requires strong leadership. Shutting down, or trying to shut down debate about serious clinical uncertainties—as has happened—is unacceptable.

This has not been helped by the multiple lobby groups, welcomed by many institutions to influence their policy making in this area. The same rules that we would normally use to guard relationships with any other pressure group—be it promoters of disease “awareness campaigns” or party politicians looking for support—seem to have dissolved against social pressure to achieve a compliance badge on a website.

The other explanation for what has happened that I think pertinent is this. Doctors, quite rightly, have been afraid to make the same mistakes as medicine did when homosexuality was treated as an illness in the 1950s. Then, electric shocks, desensitisation, hormones, and psychotherapy were attempted to be used to “treat” homosexuality—shamefully. What medicine did then was to intervene—ineffectively and harmfully—in something that was not a disease and should not have come under a medical purview. As Cass states, for most young people experiencing gender dysphoria, it is temporary; it is often associated with neurodiversity; it mainly resolves over time, and medical intervention does not benefit the majority. There is a comparison, but it is in favour of medicine backing off from prescriptions and surgery, and understanding why a phenomenon might be happening, why it is being seen in a medical context, and what is the best and least harmful way to respond to such expressed and profound distress.

I urge major medical institutions to treat the Cass review as a significant event, and consider what they have contributed, both negative and positive, to the damning conclusions. Was speaking up in their organisation possible, and welcomed? Did people raising concerns have fair hearings, or were they attacked or dismissed? Did the organisation enable rational debate, or instead attempt to shut it down? Did the organisation acknowledge uncertainty and the potential for harm in current practice? I don’t expect any of that to be easy. But without understanding what has happened, we will only be ready to make the same mistakes again, just in a different set of circumstances.

[magicandotherstuffienjoy]

Romantic Relationships in 2024

This topic often dominates conversations and debates. Though seemingly simple, rooted in feelings, it becomes complex when shared and typically leads to a relationship.

Many still emphasize the importance of maintaining heterosexuality as the "norm," often for pragmatic or cultural reasons. However, society is increasingly embracing homosexuality, particularly because this "norm" has historically resulted in loveless marriages dictated by societal expectations. This has driven a shift in attitudes. That said, sexual orientation remains a significant initial barrier to forming romantic relationships, as everyone has their own limits and attractions that need to be acknowledged and respected.

In 2024, forming relationships goes beyond mutual affection. Values, ideals, and backgrounds heavily influence dynamics. Prejudices often label individuals before any conversation begins, a tendency amplified by the internet, creating rigid roles. However, people evolve, as do their relationships.

The Role of Past Experiences in Shaping Partner Preferences

Our familial and environmental upbringing profoundly influences how we perceive traits in potential partners. In childhood, parents or caregivers serve as our first models for relationships. Traits that made us feel safe, supported, or valued may later form the foundation of qualities we seek in a partner. Conversely, behaviors that caused discomfort or fear often create aversions or "red flags."

For example, an individual who grew up in a nurturing household might value empathy and patience, prioritizing these traits in relationships. On the other hand, someone from a more tumultuous environment may unconsciously gravitate toward traits that either replicate or compensate for past experiences. A person with a domineering parent may seek a partner who is gentle and non-confrontational—or alternatively, one who exudes confidence and control, as a way of rewriting the narrative of their past.

Similarly, unresolved childhood dynamics can create a vulnerability to unhealthy patterns. For instance, someone raised in a volatile household may struggle to recognize toxicity, having normalized chaos as a form of connection. Conversely, such individuals may actively seek stability to heal from their past.

This interplay of past and present forms the subconscious "template" many bring into relationships. While this template isn't destiny, acknowledging it can lead to more conscious partner choices and healthier dynamics.

Ego is another challenge. Relationships based on appearance or status often stem from insecurity. These "trophy relationships" differ from "sugar" arrangements, where expectations are clear. Yet, imbalanced relationships, where one partner is instrumentalized, can leave lasting scars.

The Influence of Media on Relationships and the Perception of BDSM

Media—whether films, series, or novels—plays a complex role in shaping our understanding of relationships. On one hand, it tends to romanticize certain dynamics that might be toxic in reality, leveraging emotional and psychological expectations. A common trope is the idea of the protagonist’s romantic partner being both mysterious and intuitive, seemingly able to "read minds" and understand unspoken emotions or desires. This creates an unrealistic expectation in real-life relationships, where explicit communication is vital for establishing boundaries and ensuring consent.

However, this influence can also have positive effects by encouraging introspection about personal desires and expectations. A fascinating parallel can be drawn to the growing popularity of BDSM, particularly among women. BDSM relationships are built on implicit yet carefully considered consent, where clear boundaries and rules are negotiated. Much like media narratives, BDSM requires a deep understanding of a partner’s inner world to push limits while maintaining mutual trust. Therefore, while the influence of media may initially seem problematic, it indirectly reflects and supports a quest for connection and understanding, which is vital in intimate relationships.

Ultimately, a healthy relationship relies on a few key principles:

Ensure consent.

Be honest about the relationship’s nature.

Genuinely care about your partner’s needs.

[clumsyartish]

OMG IT'S OUT, IT'S OUT IT'S OUT!! Yes I watched it immediately after it came out in the middle of the night and I'll have to be up in like 4 hours but here it is.. My favorite

Rwrb quotes THAT MADE IT!! (And movie-only moments I'm still dying 4)

PS: DON'T READ IF YOU DON'T WANT ANY SPOILERS (everything is out of context tho)

"Yes and I can assure you that making it was one of the most depressing moments of my career"

(Alex, it's good to see you... Sober) -OMG HENRY SLAY

"HRH PRINCE DICKHEAD💩"

"but we were ever so careful dear"

The turkey /cornbread knows my sins Henry [sort of]

"he's named after Bowie"

"Do you ever wonder who you'd be if you were some anonymous person in the world?... You're as thick as it gets"

(I totaly... Privately called that)

"here's what we're gonna do... You're gonna stay atleast 500 feet away from me..."

"As gay as a maypole"

(I have no idea what a maypole is... Are they known for their homosexual tendencies?)

(there's two things I've been dying to ask you)

(Who says make love anymore? Are we gonna like... Listen to Lana del Rey while we do it?)

[Alex faceplant on the bed after the Texas montage, Cuz lmao same]

(and I told my sistaaah... She was really happy for us... Tihi)

"everytime I see you it takes another year off of my life"

(we're gonna need some pizza)

"you need to figure out if you feel forever about him"

(dad what is this music? It's so not the vibe)

[ALEX READING ONE LAST STOP OMFG]

"please, have a little more faith in your old man"

"sometimes you just gotta jump, hope you're not standing on a cliff"

(I seriously doubt that x2)

(it's like there's a rope attached to my chest and.... *aaaaaaah*)

[I'm sorry, I know it's really emotional and all but the way Alex is just standing right up like 🧍‍♂️ while Henry swims away had me laughing to tears]

"if you want me to leave you'll have to tell me to leave" {aaaaaaahh}

(The dancing... THE FUCKING DANCING)

(WHEN THEY WRITE THE HISTORY OF MY LIFE I WANT IT TO INCLUDE YOU. And my LOVE FOR YOU!!)

"HISTORY, HUH?

BET WE COULD MAKE SOME"

(and I'm not gonna get any work done until you let these lovesick homosexuals on the phone with one another)

((hurry, please)I'll break the sound barrier for you)

(I HAVE, read your emails HENRY!)[I'm sorry I can't bahaha]

(Beca-Beca-Because)

(homosexssssiual)

(I think that's up for debate)

(Oh shut up your majesty)

[simslegacy5083]

🎮In Detail: Luigi Lawbourne💚

I debated doing a side character but figured folks would be most interested in my main. He's still new enough to being the heir I thought it could be interesting!

[ PERSONAL]

Financial: wealthy / moderate/ poor / in poverty - or at least his family is!

Medical: fit/ moderate / sickly / disabled / disadvantaged / non applicable

Class or Caste: upper/ middle / working / unsure / other

Education: qualified / unqualified / studying / other

Criminal Record: yes, for major crimes / yes, for minor crimes / no / has committed crimes, but not caught yet/ yes, but charges were dismissed

[ FAMILY]

Children: had a child or children / has no children / wants children

Relationship with Family: close with sibling(s) / not close with sibling(s) / has no siblings/ sibling(s) is deceased

Affiliation: orphaned / adopted/ disowned/ raised by birth parent/ not applicable

[ TRAITS + TENDENCIES]

extroverted / introverted /in between

disorganized / organized/ in between

close minded / open-minded / in between

calm / anxious / in between

disagreeable / agreeable / in between

cautious/ reckless / in between

patient / impatient / in between

outspoken/ reserved / in between

leader / follower /in between

empathetic / vicious bastard / in between

optimistic / pessimistic / in between

traditional / modern / in between

hard-working/ lazy / in between

cultured / uncultured / in between / unknown

loyal / disloyal / unknown

faithful / unfaithful / unknown

[ BELIEFS ]

Faith: monotheist / polytheist / atheist/ agnostic

Belief in Ghosts or Spirits: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care

Belief in an Afterlife: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care

Belief in Reincarnation: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care

Belief in Aliens: yes/ no / don’t know / don’t care

Religious: orthodox / liberal / in between / not religious

Philosophical: yes / no

[ SEXUALITY & ROMANTIC INCLINATION ]

Sexuality: heterosexual / homosexual / bisexual / asexual / pansexual

Sex: sex repulsed / sex neutral / sex favorable / naive and clueless

Romance: romance repulsed / romance neutral / romance favorable / naïve and clueless / romance suspicious - specifically he identifies as grayromantic like his papa before him

Sexually: adventurous / experienced / naive / inexperienced / curious

Potential Sexual Partners: male / female / agender / other / none / all

Potential Romantic Partners: male / female / agender / other / none / all

[ ABILITIES ]

Combat Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

Literacy Skills: excellent/ good / moderate / poor / none

Artistic Skills: excellent / good/ moderate / poor / none

Technical Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor/ none

[ HABITS ]

Drinking Alcohol: never / special occasions / sometimes/ frequently / alcoholic

Smoking: tried it / trying to quit / quit / never / rarely / sometimes / frequently / Chain-smoker

Recreational Drugs: never / quit / special occasions / sometimes / frequently / addict

Medicinal Drugs: never / no longer needs medication / some medication needed / frequently / to excess

Unhealthy Food: never / special occasions / sometimes / frequently / binge eater

Splurge Spending: never / sometimes / frequently / shopaholic

Gambling: never / rarely / sometimes / frequently / compulsive gambler

tagging @sharona-sims, @tedsies

[liskantope]

The topic of sexual orientation being a choice or how much it's a product of genetics or otherwise, and the whole debate around it that peaked around 15-18 years ago, has happened to come up a number of times in my posts/discussions here lately, so I might as well lay out how I feel about it.

It seems most likely to me that sexual orientation is probably largely genetic or at least somehow wired in people from birth, but not entirely and not in all cases. I think environment almost certainly plays a significant role for many though far from all people. And in some moderately exceptional cases, someone might be able to consciously choose their sexual orientation, not as in snapping their fingers and making themself attracted to a different set of people, but as in deliberately self-modifying over a prolonged period (I've seen some talk of "bi-hacking" in the rationalist-sphere, for instance.)

(I would imagine that it's pretty much the same story for transness, but I don't want to get into that here.)

Back at the final hurrah of the gay rights movement's prominence among the culture wars, during the mid-00's (this is the part I remember the best, maybe a lot of this was going on earlier as well), one of the main planks of the gay rights side was "not a choice" and "born that way". Many younger progressives nowadays tend to see this as a misguided perspective that both misleadingly oversimplified the situation and wrongly prioritized the question of choice -- why should it matter whether homosexuality is a choice, when the real point is that it's harmless? -- and lament how much this is ingrained into the victorious perspective of gay issues adopted by society, even if it was clearly good political strategy and may have been instrumental to changing hearts and minds.

I count myself among this camp: I vividly remember my high school self circa 2004 angrily insisting that all gay people were born gay and nothing whatsoever can influence someone's sexual orientation after they're born (or probably almost nothing -- I at least had some sense of epistemic caution at that age), and now I see that perspective as naive and misguided.

But, while the "not a choice", "born that way" thing was certainly overplayed in the mid-00's to the point of probably having some indirectly harmful aftereffects, I think we need to be careful about dismissing it as a totally irrelevant distraction in the debate. There are reasons it was probably crucial in our success at changing hearts and minds, and some of them do point to valid motivations.

Several arguments come to mind which mostly boil down to the fact that a low-agency model of someone implies they deserve sympathy. First of all, it seems worse to pick on a group of people for a trait they can't help, or (analogously) to rail against them developing that trait and however others are supposedly to blame for them developing it if in fact it's a trait people are born with. Relatedly, a lot of the anti-gay side's attitude came from a pervasive religious belief about homosexuality displeasing God. This kind of conviction obviously doesn't hold up very well if homosexuality is a trait that someone was born with or otherwise can't change about themself.

"But," many conservatives have said, "we're not denying that a tendency towards the 'wrong' sexual orientation is out of some people's control; we're just saying that people have enough control to be able to modify their orientations through certain types of therapy. It's just like a tendency to alcoholism: with enough work, an alcoholic can learn to not feel an overwhelming craving for a drink." Okay, but if it's evident that homosexuality is of a more deeply ingrained nature than an active addiction to alcohol, then that argument doesn't really work either. And on some level such a thing appears to be the case: at least it's pretty widely agreed that various therapies pushed by conservatives for changing someone's sexual orientation rarely work. And the "born that way" narrative, if only a rough and naive approximation of the truth, has certainly helped to explain why conversion therapy is a bad idea and should be discouraged and certainly not pushed on people.

And then there's the fact that if some marginalized trait is entirely a choice, there seems to be less moral imperative for protecting those who possess it. If being attracted to people of the same gender is something that a person can just change, sure, we might be opposed to someone having a problem with it on the principle that an attitude like that is incorrect and somewhat restrictive, but at least gay people would have the option of changing their orientation to straight even if in principle they shouldn't be required to do so. Homophobia would still be wrong, and of course any kind of violence or direct coercion in its name would be very wrong, but we might be rationally justified in focusing our priorities on people who are oppressed for being in situations they truly have no control over.

So, it's good to recognize that it's not as simple as "To tell you it's okay / You were just born that way / And hey, it's in your DNA" and super important to recognize that homophobia would still be wrong even if sexual orientation were totally under everyone's control. But I don't think the truth that sexual orientation is mostly out of people's control and probably somewhat genetic/innate should be regarded as entirely irrelevant to gay rights either.

[sasaofastora]

The BOLD THE FACTS tag by @helenofsimblr

The Rules are simple! Tag people and name a character you want to know more about! If you want to let the person you tagged decide who to showcase, then don’t name a character and they can pick somebody. The person who is tagged will then bold the remarks below which apply to their character &, if they want to, include a picture with their reply!

I was tagged by @aheathen-conceivably for...

~ 🍂 Ruth Finch 🍂 ~

[ PERSONAL]

$ Financial: wealthy / moderate (the Finch fortunes have improved slightly since the 30s) / poor / in poverty

✚ Medical: fit / moderate / sickly / disabled (she is autistic) / disadvantaged / non applicable

✪ Class or Caste: upper / middle (university educated, research and coding work) / working / unsure / other

✔ Education: qualified / unqualified / studying (nearly finished her degree in mathematics) / other

✖ Criminal Record: yes, for major crimes / yes, for minor crimes / no (she wouldn't dream of it) / has committed crimes, but not caught yet / yes, but charges were dismissed

[ FAMILY]

◒ Children: has children / has no children / wants children

◑ Relationship with Family: very close with sibling / not close with sibling(s) / has no siblings / sibling(s) is deceased

◔ Affiliation: orphaned (her parents died in a boating accident when she was 3, raised by her grandfather Moshe) / adopted / disowned / raised by birth parent / not applicable

[ TRAITS + TENDENCIES]

♦ extroverted / introverted / in between

♦ disorganized / organized / in between

♦ close minded / open-minded (as long as she can find a logical explanation for something) / in between

♦ calm / anxious / in between (here having the meaning of both, depends on how overwhelmed she is)

♦ disagreeable / agreeable / in between

♦ cautious / reckless / in between

♦ patient / impatient / in between

♦ outspoken / reserved / in between

♦ leader / follower / in between (she sort of just does her own thing)

♦ empathetic / vicious bastard / in between

♦ optimistic / pessimistic (though she would call it being realistic) / in between

♦ traditional / modern / in between

♦ hard-working / lazy / in between

♦ cultured / uncultured / in between / unknown

♦ loyal / disloyal / unknown

♦ faithful / unfaithful / unknown

[ BELIEFS]

★ Faith: monotheist / polytheist / atheist (though she was raised Jewish and does love the traditions of it, she's not religious) / agnostic

☆ Belief in Ghosts or Spirits: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care

✮ Belief in an Afterlife: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care

✯ Belief in Reincarnation: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care

❃ Belief in Aliens: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care

✧ Religious: orthodox / liberal / in between / not religious

❀ Philosophical: yes (she would love to debate and discus theory with you or just talk about logic problems) / no

[ SEXUALITY & ROMANTIC INCLINATION ]

❤ Sexuality: heterosexual / homosexual / bisexual / asexual / pansexual

❥ Sex: sex repulsed / sex neutral / sex favorable / naive and clueless

♥ Romance: romance repulsed / romance neutral / romance favorable /naive and clueless / romance suspicious

❣ Sexually: adventurous / experienced / naive / inexperienced / curious

��� Potential Sexual Partners: male / female / agender / other / none / all

⚧ Potential Romantic Partners: male / female / agender / other / none / all

[ ABILITIES ]

☠ Combat Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

≡ Literacy Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

✍ Artistic Skills: excellent / good / moderate (she plays a little piano) / poor / none

✂ Technical Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor (our girl isn't great at those practical skills) / none

[ HABITS ]

☕ Drinking Alcohol: never / special occasions (she doesn't like it much) / sometimes / frequently / Alcoholic

☁ Smoking: tried it (it's the 1940s, of course she tried it. she didn't like it much either) / trying to quit / quit / never / rarely / sometimes / frequently / Chain-smoker

✿ Recreational Drugs: never (I don't think she would have any idea where to get it if she wanted to) / special occasions / sometimes / frequently / addict

✌ Medicinal Drugs: never / no longer needs medication / some medication needed / frequently / to excess

☻ Unhealthy Food: never / special occasions (she may not be religious but she'll absolutely have some sufganiyot around Hanukkah) / sometimes / frequently / binge eater

$ Splurge Spending: never (only because I can't imagine what she would possibly want to buy- also war rationing would definitely put a stop to overspending) / sometimes / frequently / shopaholic

♣ Gambling: never (not because she has a moral problem with it, just that she doesn't see the appeal) / rarely / sometimes / frequently / compulsive gambler

I’ll tag @antiquatedplumbobs, @antiquatedsimmer, and @scythesms, as well as anyone else who wants to give this a go!

[creepypastaessays]

An analysis of Jay's treatment in fan media

Marble Hornets, an acclaimed web series, flag-bearers the domain of the supernatural, enthralling the audience with its enigmatic characters and labyrinthine narrative arcs. One such character that arouses avid discourse is none other than the series' primary protagonist 'Jay'. Within the realm of fan interpretation and fanfiction, a common occurrence which arises is 'shipping', where characters from a story are perceived to be in a romantic or sexual relationship. Notably, various sections of the Marble Hornets fan base have engaged in heterosexual shipping of Jay. However, compelling evidence indicates that Jay is a gay character, thereby rendering any heterosexual shipping inapplicable.

The basis of this argument predominantly relies on interpreting Jay's interactions, relationships, and behaviours within the context of the show. A fundamental requirement for 'shipping' is a plausible foundation of romantic or sexual chemistry. Nonetheless, when assessing Jay's character, a striking feature is his noticeable lack of intimate relationships or romantic inclinations towards female characters. He shares platonic friendships with them, exhibiting care and concern as a friend should, but refrains from showcasing any explicitly romantic or sexual interest.

Moreover, Jay's interaction and deep emotional connection with his male counterparts suggest a pattern of homosexual incline. An instance further validating this claim is his bond with Tim, another significant character of the show. Their attachment transcends the boundaries of mere friendship, strongly hinting at romantic undertones. Throughout their tumultuous journey, laden with supernatural threats, they remain each other's consistent pillars of support, leaning on each other in times of duress—an indication of deep affection that might lean towards romanticism.

It's essential to clarify that these instances do not explicitly label Jay as gay; nevertheless, they hint towards his potential homosexuality. Representation is a critical factor in storytelling, and LGBTQ+ representation is especially significant in a heteronormative society. The depiction of a character like Jay, whose masculinity doesn't hinge on heterosexuality, is a notable stride towards normalization.

However, it is not uncommon for fans to interpret characters through their lenses and derive conclusions that might not be an explicit part of the narrative. This liberty of interpretation plays a significant role in the fan culture surrounding Marble Hornets or any other show. Although, assigning a heteronormative narrative to a character displaying otherwise might be tantamount to reductive stereotyping.

Consequentially, it leads to the erasure of potential representation of non-heteronormative relationships and identities. This imposition of heterosexual relations does a disservice not only to the character's authentic portrayal but also curtails an opportunity for diversity and inclusion in the series.

Furthermore, in a society grappling with acceptance of non-heteronormative identities, dismissing the possibility of a character like Jay identifying as gay can inadvertently contribute to the perpetuation of heterosexual normativity, which is antithetical to the principles of inclusivity and acceptance.

The argument against heterosexual shipping of Jay from Marble Hornets is indeed a contentious issue. Nevertheless, this debate extends beyond merely the realms of a web series, acting as a microcosm reflecting societal tendencies of heteronormative imposition and the subsequent erasure of non-heteronormative identities.

In conclusion, the idea of Jay from Marble Hornets being gay serves not merely as a token for representation but as an interpretation that aligns with his characterisation within the storyline. Thus, a deliberate heterosexual shipping of Jay with female characters dismisses the substantial indications of his potential homosexuality, contributing to the erasure and silencing of diverse narratives and identities. This explicit disregard towards Jay's potential sexual orientation can, inadvertently or not, reinforce harmful stereotypes and blinkers that have long plagued storytelling. Therefore, it is crucial to reconsider the heterosexual shipping of Jay and embrace the diversity of his characterisation.

[1-million-interests]

American Psycho - almost my favourite book of the year

American Psycho (2000) by Bret Easton Ellis is one of the most revolting, terrifying, thrilling and humorous books I have ever read. It was genuinely the first time I have ever had to put down a book and hold back spew as I let my mind wonder too far from the written word on the page and into imagining the horrifying murder and torture that occurs within the plot. This book had me laughing, gagging, transfixed, and being the most annoying person with my friends, constantly spouting "oh my god... I'm actually so Patrick Bateman", and not for the reasons you would think.

Bateman is so hilarious in the way that any little thing will set him off, yet he is able to kill and torture with ease. Examples of this can be seen when Bateman and his posse are sat at a table too close to the bathroom, or when the posse spend 3 hours deciding where to go over the phone and end up having no reservations for the night, or when himself and the posse have their infamous business card debate. In the book we are given an entirely new insight into Bateman's character as our narrator, and through these scenes we can see just how much of a panicked pussy Bateman is. During these small, unplanned disturbances in Bateman's expectations, Bateman internally loses his cool, describing how he feels like he's going to cry and breakdown and vomit all at once... just because Paul Owen was able to get into Dorsia before him! These minuscule anxieties and internal meltdowns act as a contrast between Bateman's character and his psychotic tendencies, which brings humour to the text while also shedding light on the hyperfixation on materialism Bateman possesses as an embodiment of capitalism. Really, if you think about it, these anxieties can be seen as an insight into the evolving concerns of the upperclass, as with growing wealth and need for possessions, their anxieties become more contemporary and focused on what they don't have and why they need it.

One of the most noticeable parts of the text for me would be just how homosexual Bateman and all of the men he knows are. Bateman and his colleagues frequently use the f-slur and show obvious disgust towards gay bystanders, but on top of this hatred and disgust of homosexuals is also a fear of them. In fact, the first time we see Bateman truly afraid is when Luis Carruthers relentlessly pursues him. Ironically, Bateman and his crew are able to list every luxury brand, thread count, material type, and year of production just by looking at it. (In fact, my sister told me that she started and never finished this book because the constant and nagging labelling of brands, companies, materials and facts bored the shit out of her. I, however, loved it.) They spend achingly long periods of chat just discussing how to wear a certain tie with a certain vest and which watches suit which arm hair etc. They spend extreme amounts of time throughout their weeks going to the hairdressers and the nail salon and the facial spa and so on and so forth. While this both creates irony in the finance bro's behaviour (which in turn, creates humour) it also acts as a greater reflection on both Ellis' background and beliefs, as well as the hypocrisy of yuppie culture and overly-masculine ideals.

Something that I felt like I had to briefly mention is the torture/porn that comes in frequent bursts throughout the novel. As I previously mentioned, never before have I actually physically gagged while reading a novel (hell, I don't even gag while watching Saw) but there is something truly disturbing about the way Ellis describes it. For a moment we are taken out of the claustrophobic and panicked mind of Bateman, only to be confronted with torture that is best faced with your eyes on the page rather than left to imagination. The torture is spontaneous, misogynistic, deliberate, sexual, and aggressive. It. Is. Horrifying.

In conclusion... I loved this book. The pathetic nature of the character, the unexpected laughs, the insightful and horrifying look into capitalist and yuppie culture of the late 90's... all of it. I highly encourage everyone to read the book, especially after watching the movie, as the movie acts as a great taste-tester for the gore that is very much watered down compared to the novel. As well as this, the movie leaves out, censors, and changes some surprising small details (most notably of which being the timeline of events) which causes a lot of Bateman's depth to be lost when adapted.

[kriskalutz]

BOLD the Facts!

The rules are simple! Tag people and name a character you want to know more about! If you want to let the person you tagged decide who to showcase, then don’t name a character and they can pick somebody. Easy! The person who is tagged will then bold the remarks below which apply to their character &, if they want to, include a picture with their reply!

I was tagged by @faelegacy - thank you for the tag! I debated picking Lucky or Mauve for this, but they're still teens, so instead I'm going to go with their cool mom/aunt Audrey!

I'm just going to use the model from faelegacy's post which includes a few extra options.

[ PERSONAL]

$ Financial: wealthy / moderate / poor / in poverty

✚ Medical: fit / moderate / sickly / disabled / disadvantaged / non applicable

✪ Class or Caste: upper / middle / working / unsure / other

✔ Education: qualified / unqualified / studying / other (qualified inventor, unqualified time traveler lmao)

✖ Criminal Record: yes, for major crimes / yes, for minor crimes / no / has committed crimes, but not caught yet / yes, but charges were dismissed (abuse of time travel technology)

[ FAMILY]

◒ Children: had a child or children / has no children / wants children

◑ Relationship with Family: close with sibling(s) / not close with sibling(s) / close with some sibling(s) but not with other(s) / has no siblings / sibling(s) is deceased

◔ Affiliation: orphaned / adopted / disowned / raised by birth parent(s) / not applicable / ran away from home

[ TRAITS + TENDENCIES]

♦ extroverted / introverted / in between

♦ disorganized / organized / in between

♦ close minded / open-minded / in between

♦ calm / anxious / in between

♦ disagreeable / agreeable / in between

♦ cautious / reckless / in between

♦ patient / impatient / in between

♦ outspoken / reserved / in between

♦ leader / follower /in between

♦empathetic / vicious bastard / in between

♦ optimistic / pessimistic / in between

♦ traditional / modern / in between

♦ hard-working / lazy / in between (brave and couch potato)

♦ cultured / uncultured /in between / unknown (internet culture specifically lol)

♦ loyal / disloyal / unknown

♦ faithful / unfaithful / unknown

[ BELIEFS]

★ Faith: monotheist / polytheist / atheist / agnostic

☆ Belief in Ghosts or Spirits: yes / no/ don’t know / don’t care (she was born a ghost)

✮ Belief in an Afterlife: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care

✯ Belief in Reincarnation: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care

❃ Belief in Aliens: yes / no / don’t know / don’t care (*points to Mauve*)

✧ Religious: orthodox / liberal / in between / not religious

❀ Philosophical: yes / no

[ SEXUALITY & ROMANTIC INCLINATION ]

❤ Sexuality: heterosexual/ homosexual / bisexual / asexual / pansexual / doesn't know yet

❥ Sex: sex repulsed / sex neutral / sex favorable / naive and clueless

♥ Romance: romance repulsed / romance neutral / romance favorable / naive and clueless / romance suspicious (aromantic)

❣ Sexually: adventurous / experienced / naive / inexperienced / curious (Cyber Woohoo Expert lol.)

⚧ Potential Sexual Partners: male / female / agender / other / none / all

⚧ Potential Romantic Partners: male / female/ agender / other / none / all

[ ABILITIES ]

☠ Combat Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

≡ Literacy Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

✍ Artistic Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor/ none

✂ Technical Skills: excellent / good / moderate / poor / none

[ HABITS ]

☕ Drinking Alcohol: never / special occasions / sometimes / frequently / Alcoholic

☁ Smoking: tried it / trying to quit / quit / never / rarely / sometimes / frequently / Chain-smoker (weed and cigs, didn't care for either)

✿ Recreational Drugs: never / special occasions / sometimes / frequently / addict

✌ Medicinal Drugs: never / no longer needs medication / some medication needed / medication frequently required / medication consistently required (pain/arthritis meds)

☻ Unhealthy Food: never /special occasions / sometimes / frequently / binge eater

$ Splurge Spending: never /sometimes / frequently / shopaholic (Second Life)

♣ Gambling: never/ rarely / sometimes / frequently / compulsive gambler (do lootboxes count cause that's something she would do XD)

I'm gonna tag @simstryingtheirbestok and @minty-plumbob but only if they want to do it! No pressure!

[thatonepersonfighter]

4 chans best export, a particular form of yaoi not naturally found anywhere else on the internet. tests to find why it only grows in this climate have so far been inconclusive but many attribute it to the mix of complete anonymity and the odd homosexual with homophobic tendency (or vice versa, its an ongoing debate subject to fluctuation). many worry an overhunting of such posts for exports have lead to a flooding of the market with low quality fakes but a select few notable figres claim the pioneres in this field started out as fakes, later going on to coax real stories out of the native populous. whatever the case, it remains an important industry projected to continue to grow well into the future.

[bluepurpleviolatte]

The Perils of Blind Consistency in Political Correctness

It is a curious fact of human psychology that we fear being perceived as inconsistent more than being seen as ignorant. Books like Get the Truth (P. Houston, M. Floyd, S. Carnicero) and Robert Cialdini’s Influence highlight this tendency: our desire to maintain coherence in our words and actions can sometimes lead us to defend positions that are demonstrably wrong. For politicians, this often means doubling down on mistakes. Take Sarah Palin, for instance, who famously insisted on errors in historical narratives rather than admit she misspoke. It wasn’t ignorance she was protecting but her reputation for consistency.

This drive for coherence is not limited to individuals; it is equally pervasive in ideological movements. Consider leftist activism, where supporting a cause like environmentalism can come with an implicit expectation to adopt an entire suite of associated stances. Back in 2023, when Greta Thunberg’s environmental advocacy extended into critiquing Israel and even veered into subtle mockery of Jewish people in a specific instance, it raised questions: does being an environmental activist inherently require wading into fraught geopolitical debates? Why does protecting the environment become linked, almost automatically, with certain political alliances?

The problem partly lies in the assumption that ideological positions come as a package deal. Once we embrace one cause, we feel compelled to adopt others that seem to align, sometimes without deeply reflecting on their individual merits. For example, some LGBT activists in the West blindly align with communism, despite the poor record of many communist regimes on LGBT rights. The Soviet Union criminalized homosexuality, and even today, several communist or socialist states have mixed or outright hostile attitudes toward LGBT people. Yet, the ideological framework of resisting capitalist oppression can lead to uncritical support for systems that may not share the same values in practice.

This uncritical alignment stems from more than just a need for coherence—it’s also rooted in tribalism. People naturally seek to belong to groups where they feel understood and supported. In many cases, ideological positions become markers of identity, and challenging one’s own group’s assumptions can feel like a betrayal. For movements that rely on collective action, shared narratives are essential for mobilizing people, but they also carry the risk of oversimplification and groupthink.

However, movements cannot afford to sacrifice truthfulness for the sake of consistency. The world’s challenges are too complex for us to view them through the lens of pre-packaged slogans or rigid ideological baskets. Environmental activists don’t need to weigh in on every geopolitical conflict. LGBT advocates don’t need to align with economic systems that may fail to protect their rights. True advocacy requires a willingness to question, to reflect, and to engage with nuance.

There is also a deeper issue here: while ideological consistency might make movements feel unified, it can blind individuals to the diversity of human experience. Not every cause is naturally linked to another. Ecology, for example, is not inherently anti-capitalist, though the critique of capitalist exploitation of resources has become a dominant narrative. Similarly, opposing military violence against civilians is not synonymous with endorsing one side of a geopolitical conflict. To remain truthful, individuals must be willing to hold positions that occasionally seem contradictory.

This is not an argument for abandoning collective action but for improving it. Will movements that welcome dissent, self-reflection, and critical thought ultimately be stronger than those that insist on uniformity? I'm not sure. But by embracing the complexity of the world and resisting the urge for blind consistency, we can better serve the causes we care about—and avoid the pitfalls of shouting slogans we don’t truly understand.

In the end, what we stand for should emerge not from the fear of being labeled inconsistent, but from a genuine commitment to truth, even when it is messy and inconvenient. The courage to reflect and recalibrate is what makes advocacy not only effective but also authentic. Blind consistency may feel easy and comfortable, but it’s truthfulness that makes the change.