#anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously incorrect

[holy--milk]

as much as i respect mxtx's word of god and generally include it into my personal interpretations of her novels and into my headcanons, if one day she decides to explicitly confirm SJ's soul being gone with no chance of retrieval post-transmigration, i'll just go.

nope.

never happened.

[apas-95]

I've been getting more into ML groups recently, but keep noticing I get called a "moralist" when I speak about where my anticapitalist views stem from. If "moralism" and morality aren't good arguments against capitalism, then are there ANY "good" arguments against it? Capitalism has resulted in unprecedented increases in science, technology, and living standards across the globe. And yet people are still fed up with it, decrying how exploited the lower classes are, and protest against the cruelty involved. Those are all reasons to be anticapitalist, but they're fundamental moral arguments, and I genuinely cannot think of how I can argue for communism/socialism/anticapitalist otherwise, at least in a way that Fully abandons moralism.

I can't speak to your precise situation, but the key point to understand here is that morals and systems of morality are all socially constructed, and all serve the interests of one or the other class in society. It's not to say moral arguments can't be made, but your analysys and basis of thought needs to be deeper than morality, because morality isn't something that exists in itself. If you are making an argument founded in bourgeois morality, you will produce bourgeois errors; if you make an argument founded in proletarian morality, you won't make those errors - but obviously, to be able to determine what moral system you're using in the first place, you need to have a deeper theoretical understanding and understand why these things are against the moral system of a given class, why they are against their class interests. More importantly, moralist arguments aren't the basis for an actual movement to destroy capitalism. Marx and Lenin didn't just write 'capitalism sucks!!! people suffer!!' - any worker living in their times could have said as much - they analysed how capitalism works, how it benefits or harms given segments of society, and how it was inevitably driving towards its own collapse and replacement. Being 'anticapitalist' is not enough, and it is not the same as being communist - again, basically anyone who isn't well-off is going to be anticapitalist, is going to have moral critiques of capitalism of one sort or the other, but that doesn't translate into an actionable and correct understanding of what is to be done about it, and will often have harmful and incorrect ideas due to not analysing their own morality.

[doberbutts]

(Some other guy entirely here) I do think there's not much of a reason to be so against the terms tma/tme though, and I don't really understand why some people are? Like, in the same way we want a word to describe our experiences so do transfems, and while I do believe that all trans people are affected by transphobia and misogyny, it's obviously also true that we're affected by it differently depending on how we present, cause otherwise we'd all be satisfied with just the term transphobia (not saying anything new here so far)

So, since it just so happened that the term transmisogyny was coined to mean specifically the oppression transfems face (regardless of what anyone might feel on the matter, that is what it means in practice), what's really so wrong with having terminology to specify whether you're affected by it or not in online discussions of specifically transmisogyny? I'd think that would be relevant enough information, and you're not obligated to share it unless you want to.

I think what's really bothering a lot of people is that these terms exist for half of our community but there's no acceptable equivalent for the other half, and there's constant backlash against attempts to fill that void in the language. But that's not the fault of anyone who advocates for the use of tme/tma, or rather, they are separate issues that I don't believe should be conflated even if the proponents of tme/tma are the same people who are against specific terms for transmasc oppression.

When we do this, from the pov of trans women we are the ones rejecting their terminology and trying to silence them when they talk about their discrimination, and since we know exactly how that feels, I think we as a community should take a step back on the matter and just let it be.

Just because we feel dismissed when it comes to a similar matter doesn't mean we should dismiss in turn.

Not that anyone needs my permission or anything for this but:

I don't really have any problem with the words transmisogyny or trans-misogyny, as I think they are valuable labels to discuss a specific intersection of transphobia and misogyny.

I am not sure I necessarily have a problem with the terms TMA or TME themselves, outside of that I think it is not possible to be exempt from oppression because it will apply to you even if the label itself is wrong. This is also how hate crime and discrimination law works in this country- it is both your label and what the offender thinks of you, not just one or the other.

In other words, the guy who screamed at me about how I'm a Mexican is incorrect because I'm not Mexican, but it is still considered to be discrimination against Mexicans because it was his hatred of Mexicans that fueled the attack. It doesn't mean that actual Mexicans aren't the actual targets or this, but it does mean that it's not possible for me to be exempt from anti-Mexican sentiment. It doesn't mean that hatred of Mexicans doesn't exist, it does mean that if I want to stop getting screamed at for saying non-English words while visibly brown (I said pate, which is FRENCH and not Spanish, in reference to a can of dog food he was buying), then I need to ally myself with Mexicans and see what I can do to help decrease this hatred of Mexicans within my country.

What I do have a problem with is how these words are used and applied.

Caster Semenya is a "TME" intersex woman who was caught by transmisogynist Olympic rulings intended to hurt trans women, and to this day is still not recognized as a woman. How is this exempt from transmisogyny? She is literally being affected by transmisogyny- and interphobia, and misogynoir, and lesbophobia. And there are more examples than that, but this will already be a long enough post.

Moreover, I'm finding a lot of hypocrisy in the theory itself, labeling certain instances of oppression as things only TMA people experience and then refusing to listen when TME people say that they experience it too. I don't really care what or how people talk about their own experiences, but I do think it's a little ridiculous to be told that someone else who is not me can tell me what I experience better than I can. And then refuse to listen when I say that I have felt the hurts they're saying don't apply to me.

If TMA/TME had stayed within the limits you've set, being about descriptors of your own personal experience rather than trying to apply theory to entire demographics in a way that very little other theorycrafting does, I wouldn't have cared. Unfortunately that's not how it's being used and I don't like that.

[butchsophiewalten]

I'm annoyed by some of Martin's hypocrisy regarding Felix Kranken. He claims that there're no clearly evil or clearly good characters in twf, the show has a gray morality, etc. But at the same time, he refutes the fact that Felix was abusive towards Linda and makes their conflict much less dramatic and far-fetched. Like, abandoning a sick person who needs you simply because he said a few harsh words to you while drunk? Sorry, but in this situation the last thing I want to do is empathize with Linda.

And I understand why Martin did it: Felix is obviously one of the main characters, if not the main one, and the audience should sympathize with him. Martin probably doesn't feel comfortable making the wife-beater likable to anyone in any way, it probably violates his moral principles. But then why does he write a story with a GRAY and AMBIGUOUS morality with a child murderer antagonist at the center of the plot, if he can’t stand the everyday dirt that exists in real life?

I answered this ask with a lot of text. I've put it all under a cut, because it's long.

I really want to seem levelheaded and thoughtful in my response to this, because I never want to assume more than is absolutely necessary from a careless message on the internet. Y'know, It's just nice to be thoughtful when talking to people. It's good manners. I don't want to say anything needlessly incendiary. But before I respond to any of this, I really can't ignore just the legitimately vile misogyny in this message.

You think Linda is in the wrong for "abandoning" her husband over "a few harsh words" after she tried for TEN YEARS to salvage their marriage? And she only left for her own sake after a relationship-defining argument that made her realize she couldn't emotionally contend with the way he was treating her anymore? I'll get this very clear right out of the way: activism for addicts is something that I take incredibly seriously. People who are suffering with life-ruining addiction absolutely deserve networks of support, and they deserve respect and kindness, and they deserve easy access to social programs that are equipped to provide those things. Even the worst addict in the world, who's done the most terrible shit a person could imagine, deserves such a level of care that should be afforded to any human being. What none of that means, is that you, as in individual, in an interpersonal relationship with a person suffering from addiction, need to submit yourself to a life of flagellation for the sake of that person. Because that person is sick, and you aren't. No man's downward spiral is the fault of the woman who left him because he took it out on her.

Okay. With that out of the way, I can respond to the walten files part of this ask now. I'm not sure if you read my recap for the twitter space where he talks about Felix and Linda's relationship, and I don't remember exactly how I did or didn't summarize what he said, but my opinion of what he talked about there was that he personally doesn't think of Felix and Linda's relationship being abusive, but that he doesn't think it would be necessarily incorrect to interpret Felix's behavior as emotionally abusive or neglectful, (he says this much almost verbatim,) which makes a lot of sense to me. To him, the problem with their relationship was that they were kind of fundamentally romantically incompatible beyond the point of reconciliation, but that they (primarily Felix,) weren't willing to recognize that and dial back their relationship to just being friends (because they are, he says, incredibly important to each other. It's not like their relationship was completely torrid and loveless. They loved each other.) He compares that to Charles' relationship with his (ex)wife, where they came to a mutual understanding that they weren't right for each other as husband and wife, but they stayed friends, because they cared about each other and otherwise their relationship was good.

I don't understand how that's less realistic or nuanced than. Felix beating his wife? So much of The Walten Files is about mourning things that could have been. It's about peering into times when things were good, and watching those gears turn and those mechanisms of tragedy fall into place, and seeing it come apart in a way that makes you ache. I think it's much more in-keeping with the narrative interests of The Walten Files that Felix's relationship with his wife wasn't some trite misogynist horror story, where he beat her and she left him and now he has Manpain about it, but as this much more human (as in, humanizing) sort of thing wherein there was such a clear path to improvement, but Felix sabotaged it in his lack of willingness to adopt agency within his own life. It rings alike to every other time he was has been and will be faced with the opportunity to do the right thing, and how he rejects it every single time, in his own unwillingness to help himself.

I don't know how any of that is in any way ignoring or sidestepping the consequences of real-world tragedy. Just because Felix isn't the terrible violent misogynist you seemingly want him to be, doesn't mean that he, as a character, doesn't reflect any aspects of reality. I think, in fact, Felix is meant to embody a lot of the worst tendencies you see in a lot of people, even you or I, who fail to help themselves out of situations they are objectively capable of improving. Out of a fear of action or consequence or upsetting the status quo. But in a way that is exaggerated and more suited to a narrative.

That, and I feel that Martin means more specifically that there are no "completely good" or "completely evil" characters in The Walten Files, which I feel is self-evidently true. Nobody is Evil Incarnate, and nobody is a messiah, or a perfect victim. Felix is terrible and his actions are condemnable, but you feel for him when you see his flaws as a human being, and there's meant to be a part of you that always hopes he'll eventually do the right thing. even if he doesn't and never will.

We're already seeing the reverse of that in characters like Charles and Susan, where they gossip amongst themselves about their friends' tragedies and thus far refuse to be proactive about Felix's shitty behavior, with Susan even saying outright that she wants nothing to do with it. It's really easy for me to imagine a version of these characters who see something like Felix trying to hide Rocket from Jack and Rose, and who immediately go "This is wrong! I'm going to tell them right away!" and I really do like that they don't do that. There's a degree of complicity. They're just done with getting wrapped up in Felix's shit, even if it means they end up a bystander to something really shady, and I like that it makes them more nuanced as people, instead of being so perfectly virtuous. There's a balance of this. The Walten Files' interest in the morally gray doesn't just mean that the villains get off easy, but rather that the people in it behave as people do, and are sometimes flawed or self-interested. And I think this sort of thinking is going to become a clearer pattern as the series goes on.

[eldritch-nightmare]

Mk, so, how about Liu, and any other characters of your choice with an S/O who has selective-mutism, but one day they just randomly decide to say something, but it’s in a completely different language. Idk where I got the idea from.

a/n: i saw liu's name and i couldn't restrain myself. i'm monolingual so i had to use various translation sites so if these are incorrect then i am so sorry. nd i opted to just have the reader randomly say 'i love you' because that seemed like an easy phrase to not butcher. except for liu. with what i wrote, i did have to give a full phrase other than 'i love you' and i put it through multiple translation sites so uhm fingers crossed that it's accurate uhm if you speak danish and it isn't then first off i am so sorry and second off can you please tell me what the actual translation is anyways this is a long note sorry fdhjfh hope you enjoy!!

with a selectively mute s/o that speaks in a different language.

includes: homicidal liu, the doll maker, nurse ann, and clockwork.

warnings: gn reader, it's honestly mostly just sappy, liu downplays a stab wound but that's really it.

HOMICIDAL LIU.

Liu doesn't really think about your selective mutism. You'll talk to him whenever you're comfortable, and if that's never then that's fine with him. All he cares about is your comfort.

Besides, if you ask him, he does enough talking for the both of you. At least... he thinks he talks a lot. It definitely feels like it. And who knows, he probably just teaches you morse code so you two can communicate like that.

And little did either of you know, today was the day you'd speak to him for the first time. And not for good reason, sadly. You see, Liu... isn't necessarily a careful person when it comes to his own safety.

So he may or may not have gotten hurt. But it's not like it's a life-threatening injury or anything like that! Besides, he's taught himself how to treat minor wounds like this. Really, it isn't that big of a deal.

You think otherwise, because, uh, he was fucking stabbed. Who the hell considers a stab wound a 'minor' injury?!

So when you saw him cleaning and stitching up a stab wound, this obviously led to some bickering between the two of you. Liu is telling you that he's okay, while you're aggressively telling him via morse code that he's been stabbed and that he needs to get professional medical attention. But Liu was fine. He's gone through way worse than this, so you really don't have to worry.

But him saying that just leads to you throwing up your hands in frustration as you say, "Dammit, kan du ikke se, at jeg er bekymret, fordi jeg elsker dig?!"

And... well... Liu doesn't really know what you just said but he feels really bad knowing that this is what made you speak to him for the first time.

He'll sigh and apologize for not taking his injuries seriously, and he promises to get professional help rather than just treating it himself. He... is legally classified as dead, so he can't go to a hospital but... I mean... he knows a guy who was studying medicine. And a very suspicious doctor.

THE DOLL MAKER.

Vine's native tongue is Russian, so more often than not he'll mutter to himself in his mother tongue rather than any other language.

He doesn't really care if you speak or not, mostly because he feels more comfortable in the silence. He's not the best at holding conversations.

He was busy making a doll with non-human parts this time around. And you were roaming around his little workshop, inspecting all his half-finished projects and sketches of future dolls he planned on making.

Vine trusts you to be around his work, so he's not worried about you accidentally making a mess or breaking anything but he does find himself feeling a little nervous.

Dollmaking is his passion, it's something he loves doing. And he loves you as well and values your opinion more than anyone else's. What if you think he's not doing a good job? What if you think he could make something better?

You've never given him the impression that you dislike dolls or find his creations and passion to be 'childish' but it's still a thought that lingers in his mind nonetheless. Thoughts like this constantly plague his mind.

But when he glances away from the doll he's working on to see you gently straightening out the dress of another one that's on display, a small smile gracing your lips as you admire his creation...

"Я тебя люблю." The words just sorta slipped out of his mouth, and it took him a moment before he went to repeat what he said in English but you spoke before he could even open his mouth.

"Я тебя тоже люблю." And oh. That's the first time he's ever heard you speak, he thinks.

NURSE ANN.

She too is selectively mute, though she doesn't speak because it physically hurts to more often than not, and also... she sees no real reason to talk, to be honest.

You two probably communicate via sign language or writing, though she'll quietly whisper to you if she has to.

Ann doesn't care if you talk or not. She gets it, even if you two have vastly different reasons for your selective mutism.

She's not going to have that big a reaction when you do talk, though she will tilt her head to the side a bit when you speak in an entirely different language.

It'll probably happen while the two of you are spending time together in silence, Ann doing her own thing while you're sitting nearby.

She was caught up in her own little task, mind empty. She was vaguely aware of your gaze on her, but she only really came back to reality when she heard you sigh and softly murmur to yourself.

"Ich liebe dich."

She blinks, taking a moment to process your words. She... doesn't understand German, but the way you softly spoke the words, and the way you were looking at her with such fondness... well, she had a vague idea of what you said.

And very quietly, she whispers back, "Love you too."

CLOCKWORK.

Natalie seems like the type of person who wants to learn a new language, and even begins starting to, but her motivation for it just evaporates two days after starting and she stops trying to learn. And it's just a cycle that rinses, washes, and repeats itself.

Anyways, she overthinks a lot and needs constant reassurance more than she would like, so at the beginning of your relationship, communication was probably a little rocky.

But you guys manage to come up with other ways to communicate rather than vocally.

She'll catch herself wondering what your voice sounds like, and she'll sometimes wonder if you'll ever feel comfortable enough around her to speak but she doesn't push you to talk.

She understands, trust me.

But she's definitely surprised when you wake her up from her nap just to look her in the eye and bluntly say, "Anh yêu em." and you don't even give her a chance to process it before you walk away.

She's just baffled and confused. What the hell did you just say to her? You just spoke. What the hell did you say? Is she dreaming? She feels awake. She's definitely awake.

Natalie has to dig around for her phone to try and search for the translation of what you said, and it takes her a few tries before she finally manages to type it out correctly. She definitely buries her face in a pillow when she reads the translation. And she ends up falling back asleep.

It's only when she wakes up again that she'll go and find you. She'll wrap her arms around your waist and rest her forehead on your shoulder before placing a gentle kiss there and tiredly murmuring, "I love you too."

[luckyladylily]

So a bit ago there was a post going around saying Tumblr were scabs for advertising One Piece. That post now has reblogs off, but from that there is something I think still needs to be addressed. To summarize, I made a reblog saying that is incorrect and the strike did not call for tumblr to not advertise, to which someone responded this:

I think this kind of thinking needs to be addressed, because it is happening a lot and its a bit of a problem. This is the response I wrote but was unable to post, it illustrates my point:

So, near the start of the strikes some people who were not the leadership of either union started calling for boycotts of netflix, disney plus, etc. The leadership of the guilds actually had to come out and say that this is not what they wanted, that boycotting these companies was not part of their strategy and could hurt their strategy depending on how things developed. They left the possibility of boycotts in the future, but not now.

Obviously, this is not directly applicable. But it does demonstrate a point: We should look to the leadership of the strike for direction on what action should be taken, not our own guesswork as to what is best for the strike, because we may inadvertently hinder the strategy currently in play.

Now, I can see why you assumed the position you are taking. It seems obvious at first glance that if they don't want actors or writers creating advertisements, then they probably don't want anyone creating advertisements.

Except that might not be the case. I can think of one major possibility off the top of my head, that they want to show that actors and writers specifically are invaluable to the advertising effort. If Netflix tries to advertise without guild members and they can see how badly that effort fails, that gives them leverage in negotiations. If we prevent Netflix advertising at all, they don't get that leverage.

Of course, both of us are purely working off of gut feelings and guess work. We don't know the details of their strategy and frankly there is little reason for them to give it to us, especially since that would tip their hand to the studios. Our part in this strike is to follow the guidelines they have given us, not second guess those guidelines, extrapolate from them, or otherwise come up with our own ideas about what is best.

Now I know we are all really excited about this strike, we all want it to succeed. Because we are excited we want to do things about it. But our part in this strike has been very clearly laid out. So the second they call for a boycott, I'll be canceling my subs. The second they want me to give shit to tumblr for advertising One Piece I will be writing some very strong feedback messages. But until then I am going to assume that the leadership of the strike are making certain moves (and not making certain moves) for a reason.

[ai-the-broccoli]

hmmm. tbh I wanna talk a bit about why I see misa as having bpd and how it ties into her comphet (or, even through an interpretation where she is not a lesbian, how it strongly affects her attachment to light), but I know that some people understandably don't like personality disorder hcs, so. I wonder if I should do it?

(some thoughts about nd hcs under the cut)

alright ofc I do know why personality disorder headcanons for characters - especially if they are villains or antagonists - are controversial. since, if it's someone without those doing this based on entirely incorrect, stereotypical conceptions of what the disorders entail, that would be very ableist and demonizing. (and then obviously there are also people who are either under the conscious impression that or hold the unconscious prejudice according to which PDs make you inhumane and evil, which they don't want to hear about their favourite characters)

but personally, speaking as someone who is cluster b themselves and has indeed done a decent amount of actual research on this, I wanna say that (aside from light, who def has cluster b traits imho but is more controversial in this regard. maybe I'll talk about it some other time) misa does def read as having bpd to me, even though I'm sure it's not the authorial intention, and I do think that's a point worth considering when we are analyzing her character.

... anyway. I strongly disagree with the idea that this kind of character hcs (especially when it's about, for instance, a disorder that is often formed and/or triggered through a person's experience and/or trauma to begin with, like personality disorders are) automatically make for reductive interpretations of a character, or in any sense automatically take away from other intriguing aspects or angles of analyzing the character.

those things do not have to conflict with each other at all, and sometimes may even complement each other; it's only a problem if someone does do it in a reductive way (like, it's bad if someone slaps reductive, inaccurate ableist stereotypes on a character and call it a day. and then also, if someone's hc that a character has X neurodivergence prevents them from analyzing the character in any meaningful sense that is not just a plain "they have X" and nothing else beyond that, not even about how having X influences the character and connects to their behaviour or themes etc., then I see the problem. but if they're able to analyze the character while having the nd hc then I don't think there's anything wrong with it at all).

e.g. "Light has OCD, autism, and/or a PD" and "Light initially became Kira because he simply can't otherwise accept the fact that he has killed two people" and "Light's story is a cautionary tale about xxx and how this can happen to anyone under his circumstances" are three interpretations can very well coexist, imo. see, I don't vibe with the idea that's like 'no he has to be neurotypical because the point of Light's character is that this can happen to anyone under his circumstances bc he is "normal" for someone in his circumstances', because... see, I don't think it's NOT normal to have one or more of the disorders mentioned above, when you're in the circumstances he is in?? like, that IS very much an 'anyone can be like that' thing to me. idk. anyway. pls tell me if you'll be interested if anyone's still here lol

[transgenderpolls]

I also want to say this as a transmasculine nonbinary person that I’ve seen a LOT of trans men be uncomfortable with the term being universalised to include them. Transmasculine started out as a nonbinary label (I think, I could be mixed up) that described enben who were transitioning to a more masculine point instead of a neutral one. Obviously trans men can use transmasculine if they feel like it fits, but still I think it’s best to not just lump us together with the label because there are so many trans men who aren’t comfortable with it (I’ve actually seen a lot of people saying that it straight up makes them dysphoric because they take it as being seen as less of a man)

Same goes for non-transmasculine afab nonbinary people— there’s actually a lot of people calling to just get rid of the terms because they see it as just an indicator of agab. I’ve actually encountered more transneutral afab enben who hate being called transmasculine than I have trans men who hate it. It makes sense, the entire point for transneutral enben is transitioning to some sort of complete middle, or outside of gender alltogether, and aligning them with a specific gender is not only just incorrect but also very uncomfortable and dysphoria inducing for a lot of them. A lot of people also really don’t like the idea of t being ‘transmasculine transition’, which I totally get because I feel the same way when someone says that t is inherently ‘male transition’

(btw this is all stuff I’ve heard from these groups, I’m not just saying what I think goes through their heads or anything)

On a personal note, I also don’t like the universalisation of it because it feels like aligned enben can’t really have a term to describe ourselves— like, being a transmasc or transfem nonbinary person is a very complicated experience, most of us really struggle with this sort of balancing act of androgyny and maleness/femaleness, we’re like an in-beteeen of an in-between and it’s really fucking hard to deal with. It would just be nice if we could have our own label and space to discuss it and help each other with it. But I also get that now a lot of trans men resonate with the term and it would very much be a dick move to just say ‘nope, you can’t use this anymore, fuck you lol’, like, no

idk, I think about this a lot and the topic comes up quite frequently so I have a lot to say on it, but I can’t exactly articulate it, so I hope this made sense sorry

if anyone has sources to show otherwise i'd be happy to see them but i've always been under the impression that "transmasc(uline)" and "transfem(inine)" were umbrella terms first and foremost, with origins in the world of medical transitioning, particularly HRT, that sought specifically to include non-binary people and therefore not imply that everyone going through [medical] masculinization or feminization necessarily identifies as a man or a woman. whether the end goal is conceptualized by the individual as a masc/fem role, it's just a matter of having useful, succinct language to describe shared experience. i really don't see it as denoting agab any more than the term "trans man/woman" does. like if you really are not comfortable denoting your agab at all, it sounds like you're not comfortable talking about being trans period.

as for the binary trans men who hate it i'm gonna be real, i cannot comprehend being mad about someone using an umbrella term simply to address you and others who have significant things in common with you in one breath. i'm a binary trans man and i won't lie, i have had my phase of whining about being "lumped in with non binary people," but like... that's what it was. it was a phase that i'm over because i've grown up and now realize that it doesn't actually dilute my identity to simply have things in common with other people. it would be like a square being mad about being called a rectangle because "you're erasing the fact that i am SPECIFICALLY a square!" literally no, no one is erasing anything. especially not in the context of a poll that's just trying to not draw really arbitrary lines, and which you also literally don't have to answer.

i think it's completely valid to be made dysphoric or uncomfortable by any terminology, but there's a point at which you kind of have to accept that that is a you thing? if a term's literal function is to be inclusive and you feel excluded somehow bc you don't like that you're not being acknowledged as fundamentally different than the others who that term applies to... like i'm sorry, that's kind of ridiculous. you have to accept that it's ridiculous and not anyone else's problem.

also i truly think that if it's coming to contentions such as "just because i'm a man doesn't mean i'm masculine" or ppl otherwise trying to draw hard lines between masc and man/male as definitions... i truly think you are just trying to make this more complicated than it is. like we do need words to describe things, lol.

in any case my thing - at least on this blog - is always gonna be in the context of making polls. firstly i'm working with a character and option limit. secondly, the questions being asked make it sometimes relevant to use some terms that lump groups together, denote agab, etc. the more i think about it, i don't think there's going to be a solution that satisfies everyone, and i also don't think that there's a huge problem with that.

(btw none of this is directed at anon, you articulated yourself fine, i'm just jumping off of your talking points)

edit: irt anon not liking the universalization of "transmasc" - it just occurred to me, would "transmasc nonbinary" not simply work? like it seems to me that you just need to add the word nonbinary and now you're gucci

[fromtenthousandfeet]

"...[Jimin's success] which makes everyone's peaches burn..."

Well, what a lovely--and satisfying--image.

Thank you for sharing posts like these from Twitter for those of us who don't use/avoid it. (like me!)

I don't know about other platforms, but I've noticed this is how the discussions go down on Reddit:

A. Person brags about JK's dominance. Everywhere, including SK and the U.S. Shades Jimin's success, because of the freefall after the #1 or because Spotify isn't a reliable indicator or because JK has gp name recognition.

B. 2nd person points out that JK did receive a lot more promo than anyone else, particularly Jimin. Lists all the things Jimin did NOT receive.

A. 1st person (pre-SGMB) That was Jimin's CHOICE. He wanted a traditional SK roll-out. He was on Beat Coin, so that proves they received the same amount of promotion!

1st person (post-SGMB) But it got more promotion than NGL! And Scooter had NOTHING to do with Seven! (He has a BB award that says otherwise.) Taylor Swift gets SO MUCH more promotion! (huh?) OMG, you are an akgae!

I think the scandal surrounding NJ, the company mismanaging the launch of RM's album, and then obviously doing next to nothing to promote MUSE has broken a dam. No BTS fan or solo needs to take this sh*t anymore. I can guarantee you that I won't.

The enemy here is not any single member. The enemy is the guy who built a freaking empire off their hard work, their sacrifice, and their talent. The petty little man who uses them as a cash cow to fund his projects and thinks they can be easily replicated with the right "formula."

Furthermore, we need to ask ourselves why Jungkook fans are so insistent that we disbelieve the evidence of our own eyes and instead parrot their claims that JK didn't receive any special help from anyone--least of all Scooter! Why do they defend the company so hard? Why are they so dismissive of the other members--particularly Jimin--as to deny them a fair shot?

We get accused of being akgaes against one member. But aren't they akgaes against ALL the members?

#JiminStrong #Jimin

It's a pity the term gaslighting is used so frequently and freely, to the point of being meaningless. But what's going on with pushing JK's solo career so hard, combined with the absolute insistence by JJKs that he hasn't received every possible advantage to succeed is gaslighting. And the fact that both the company and fans engage in this gaslighting with equal glee is enough to make a person mad. If you've ever been on the receiving end of gaslighting/narcissistic abuse, then you know what I'm talking about.

This is a good video about gaslighting, even though it's a bit long. Recognizing the signs of gaslighting can save you so much pain (don't ask me how I know!), Many of the behaviors she describes will sound familiar.

There's tons of evidence to show that Jimin has stood out from the start - Gallup polls, brand reputation rankings, solo songs charting on US Spotify charts, and so on. The proof is everywhere, and yet fans are told that it was and always will be Jungkook who is the superstar. Gaslighting is a tactic used by narcissists and cult leaders to control people. Usually the best and only true solution to this abuse is to have no contact with the abuser. The second best thing, as she mentions in the video, is to find supportive people who haven't been swayed by the abuser - people who still understand reality.

This platform is a place to find people who haven't fallen for the lies. And increasingly, as we see on Twitter and other platforms, more people are waking up to Jimin's unequal treatment and saying so publicly. I think you're right that we're seeing a critical mass of PJMs and few ARMYs standing up for what's right. Or maybe I'm delusional because I've got damn near every JJK blocked on Twitter.

If anyone feels compelled to engage with JJK gaslighters, the less said the better because no amount of evidence will sway them. One word response like "incorrect" or "no" are more effective than long explanations.

We know HYBE uses a number of techniques to gaslight fans into believing Jungkook is miles above the other six members, but it's strange how many fans are equally committed to denying reality and tearing solo fans of the others members down. The armchair psychologist in me thinks this has to do with a group of people who have low self esteem and get a vicarious boost of confidence from Jungkook's supposed success/dominance. People with a good self image/mental health aren't going to spend their days on the internet trolling others and insisting that Jungkook is second coming of Michael Jackson.

At some point we need to talk about how Big Hit has actively cultivated codependency within the fan base and how they use that to milk fans out of their time and money. I really want to dig into this more, because it's unfair to BTS fans and to the members themselves.

[brionysea]

Question for you: How do you think a one-on-one convo between madwheeler pre-s4 would go from Mike's pov?--like how do you think he would treat/talk with Max, who's isolating herself/depressed? Because I've seen a lot of fics with that premise, but it always seems to be them only talking about their relationships (whether it be Byler or Mileven in Mike's case, or Lumax with Max. Which I don't have an issue with, it's just not always the main focus I want on Madwheeler), but rather how Mike perceives Max post s-4. Sorry if this is rambly and doesn't make sense, I'm struggling with getting in Mike's head, and you're obviously very good at interpreting his character.

answer for you: according to the one (1) season 4 episode where max and mike were both in hawkins, the dynamics with max and the party pre-s4 seem to be as follows:

lucas chases after her at school and tries to get her to talk about her feelings and/or go to his basketball games. she's not into it, but she listens to the games on the radio at home anyway

dustin chases after her at school and tries to get her to hang out with the group (hellfire) (max doesn't seem to like eddie) (it's a d&d group - a game she had no interest in before she lost all capability to care about the things she previously enjoyed). she's not into it, makes fun of him for missing her sarcasm, and skates away

and mike, instead of doing any of that and making her feel cornered (or worse, pitied) when high school is already bad enough, leaves her the hell alone.

some people (non-madwheeler understanders) would think that means that mike just doesn't care or their friendship isn't Like That. those people would be incorrect. bothering each other and cheering each other up while they're in the Mental Health Trenches is what max and mike do. just look at the skateboard scene

madwheeler always have their Friendship Moments when no one else is around. the gym scene, the conversation in the byers kitchen, when mike called max's house and nobody else could hear both sides, when max radioed mike at the sauna, watching el get a coke can out of the bin together, after they both got knocked out by billy. it's a very private friendship, so playing into the "there's more here than meets the eye" concept and having them possibly share things with each other that they otherwise wouldn't share with anyone makes a lot of cohesive sense - even if it's just in a "distracts you from The Horrors until you blurt it out in a fit of annoyance" way, like what happened when max first heard about el from mike

people just think it's all fighting because that's all they see, but even that is always in an attempt to make each other better. and it always works eventually (although if we're being technical, the dynamic is max trying to make mike better, while mike tries to keep max safe). mike wouldn't fight with max when she's depressed though, i believe that's only a yearly occasion for the single week we jump back into these people's lives when tensions are high as a kite. if he was around during season 4 he would have fought with max over her willingness to self sacrifice (you know, like a hypocrite)

simply put, mike doesn't push because he gets it, which is exactly why max tolerates him more than the other two - she pushed through the crowd to stand next to mike at the pep rally while she ran away from the others when they seeked her out later - and might even open up a little. s2 mike and s4 max, both dealing with the trauma of witnessing a death (where the person's last words were directed at them) and feeling responsible for it while the world moves on and nobody else seems to care, are the same. mike knows that max doesn't want to hang out like everything's normal or talk about her feelings and admit that it's not. especially not with lucas, who has plenty of reasons to hate billy, and max is selfless enough to not want to add her own messiness into it. max's mother's distance would resonate with mike too

the thing about mike interacting with any of his friends is that he's the most persistent person who's ever lived. he called el every day for a year; he probably did the same for will after the byers moved; he wouldn't stop radioing lucas in season 1 until he answered; he would not shut up about trying to get in contact with dustin in season 3. mike doesn't give up. what this means for max, is that once he's sure she won't mind him being there (and even if she does, a little bit, but that might just be the Performatively Hating Each Other part before they get back to enjoying each other's company, so he's gonna stick it out regardless), he'd kinda just... be there. and continue to be there. they might talk, they might not, but he knows that it sucks to be alone like this and he's not gonna let that happen to max if he can help it

this last bit is kind of just a headcanon of mine, but i like to imagine that if mike ever searched for an Activity that max actually enjoyed (dustin's got the right idea, but at the same time the wrong idea), he would try to bug her into teaching him how to skateboard. their conversation in the gym was heading in that direction before el interrupted, so there's the connection to the Mental Health Trenches and implicitly returning the favour of that kindness and moment of connection (even though mike really wasn't doing great pre-s4 either, but whatever), and something about the "bambi on ice" line in lenora makes me think it could be something max said to him when he fell over once

[lovelightandbonemagic]

dont really care about the discourse but are we not in agreement that people can have any boundaries regarding sex for any reason — even if it's discriminatory or politically incorrect —otherwise it's rape apologism? i am latina and wouldn't be mad (???) if someone didn't want to sleep with me because of it and i also wouldn't want to sleep with that person in the first place. who cares if a lesbian (or even a bisexual woman) doesn't want to sleep with a woman who slept with men before. a lot of your anons are deranged but there's nothing wrong with this boundary by itself. as long as she is not disrespectful this is a fine line to draw in the sand

My entire issue with it is seeing women as tainted by dick. I would never advocate for forcing anyone to have sex with anyone they don't want to - but I'd ask people to be more aware of the weird shit they're using as their reasoning. I don't care if someone doesn't want to sleep with me for that reason - I think that would mean we're obviously no match in views at all and I wouldn't want to sleep with someone that thinks my vagina is tainted by past sex. It's the degrading way they've talked about women that gets me.

Like these people talk about women who've been with men like they can still see the cum dripping out of them. It's monstrous. I will absolutely fight against spreading this message about women. And then I'd suggest those women never ever ever sleep with someone who would look at them that way.

(Also all of this started because gold stars are going around telling lesbians they're not lesbians because they've ever had a past with men)

[gregrulzok]

So Okay, Massive props to my boyfriend (<3) for pointing this out because I doubt I'd have this thought without him, but now that it's in my head I can't stop thinking about it.

So here is: Why You (The American/Western European Reading This) Don't Understand Griffith, and Maybe Never Will.

TL;DR, details under Cut (v long): Berserk is an allegory for the struggle between Collectivism vs Individualism, which to very Indicidualism-Centered Westerners makes the Collectivist Griffith very unsympathetic.

And obviously, spoilers ahead, as well as a TW for death, violence, and sexual violence.

To put it very directly: Griffith is a Collectivist (someone who is focused on the well-being of the collective above the well-being of one's self or other individuals), whereas Guts is an Individualist (someone who is focused on the well-being of one's self or other individuals above the well-being of the collective).

Griffith has individuals he cares for, wants by his side and wants to see succeed, but in his mind, nothing and no one is above the Collective. That collective is, initially, the Band of Hawks, and then his own Kingdom, and presumably eventually the whole world. Griffith's primary and sole desire is to improve the broken world he grew up in, and there is no one he won't sacrifice for that goal, because he thinks that by achieving it he will be making a safer and happier place for an immesurable amount of people. And by no one, I do mean no one - he puts his own health and well-being on the line as well, physically, mentally, or otherwise. Most notably, the time where he, still as a child, allows a grown man to sleep with him to win his favour. Griffith is not above the collective, he's not above putting himself at stake if it means a safer future for more people. He won't let himself /die/, but that isn't because he cares about his own life more, rather because he thinks he's the only one who can achieve that ideal future, and so his survival is linked to the survival of the collective.

And Guts eventually becomes aware of this. Whether consciously or not, he realizes that however much Griffith may care for him, he would also sacrifice him for the greater good if need be. Guts is not above the collective, and he so desperately wants to be. He wants to be someone who will stand out to Griffith, who will be more important to him than anyone else (and it makes sense - Griffith is the first person that ever actually treated him as an individual, and the knowledge that he's still beneath the collective must be painful), and he thinks that the way to achieve it is to pursue his own individuality. That if he chases his individual growth, he will eventually become bigger than the collective.

Thing is, you can't pursue individual growth in a collective. You can't focus on yourself and the collective at the same time. That's why he wants to leave, and that's why Griffith can't let him - however hard Guts may try, you can't become a big enough person to outweigh the collective. Doing that is tantamount to destroying the collective, and Griffith can't let that happen. He can't let Guts become so big that he'll destroy everything he works so hard for, and so however much he cares about Guts becomes irrelevant. By just trying to become bigger than the collective he is threatening the collective, and so he must be killed.

(Note here that this scene has multiple meanings and this is only one of them. The other and much more obvious meaning is that he is outright in love with Guts, and can't bare to watch him leave. This analysis is NOT trying to argue against this, I am a staunch believer that any non-romantic reading of Berserk is outright factually incorrect. Do NOT use this to justify your weird homophobic erasure).

Here's where the Western part comes in: A lot of western countries, and particularly the U.S., are extremely radically individualist. For a lot of Americans, though of course not for every individual (ha) one, the idea of having to sacrifice yourself (whether literally or metaphorically, in a "Give Up On Your Dreams" sense) is absolutely unacceptable. And so seeing this character who will destroy anyone for the sake of the collective is immediately perceived as a threat to their very way of thinking.

Japan, meanwhile, is extremely radically collectivist. To a detrimental degree. Individuals sacrifice their dreams and health and mental well-being for the sake of making the country thrive. This is why this conflict is so important in the manga.

It shows collectivism at its natural extreme - but it doesn't villanize it. Everywhere that Griffith ends up ruling thrives. People love Griffith, they worship him, they consider him a saviour. Collectivism works, it does make the world better for the whole, objectively this is true even with the individuals left behind. But this doesn't erase the crimes committed, the lives ruined or lost. It doesn't absolve anything - it looks pretty and peaceful on the surface, it's happy and kind as long as you're not in the way of it, and as soon as you are it crushes you underfoot.

Individualism, on the other hand, it portrays as free and brave - but also selfish, lonely. Guts is an asshole to most people he comes across, he's extremely self-serving, and even when he cares about people he's very selective about them. He has to be, he has to draw that distance, because ultimately he HAS to focus on himself first. That's what makes him "greater" than the collective he wants to dismantle. And isn't that evil, too? Sure, it's revenge for what's been done to him and his loved ones, but in exacting it he'll be burning down a peaceful utopia, one which was built on the corpses of the ones he cared for.

There is no easy answer.

Guts is not a hero. He's a selfish loner, one who is free and cares fiercely for those he loves. He's the protagonist, because Japanese people need to see that individualism is an option.

Griffith is not a villain. He's a peacekeeper, a visionary, one who masks and justifies his horrible crimes and cares fiercely for everyone in the world, but never quite enough. He's the antagonist, because Japanese people need to see that collectivism can be taken far too far.

So this idea that Guts = Good and Griffith = Evil is just far, far too narrow a worldview, one affected by very western ideas of morality and justice, and one that, for a work as complex and beautiful and interesting as Berserk is just quite frankly not nuanced enough.

[munkeeyz]

cole and gwen’s relationship is so unique because, in their world, people measure morality by whether you have a set of horns or a halo.

halos are commonly associated with children, as with growing up comes a loss of innocence and people become more self-serving. while not impossible, it’s quite rare for an adult to have a halo.

horns ( around 2-3 inches ) are incredibly common and associated with almost all adults. they aren’t “bad people” in the way that everyone is committing egregious crimes and what not, but the general self absorption and lack of care for others is enough.

halos are lost around the ages of 16-19, and horns grow in during a painful process lasting about a week, almost as punishment. there are painkillers strong enough to suppress this pain, but they’re only used around the time horns grow in, or for the very rich and famous; there are procedures to remove horns, but they are incredibly expensive and the public generally treats anybody without them with wary. horns are an understandable science - a sort of bone compound that is strong enough to exist outside the protection of the body. halos are something else entirely- basically pure light, with anyone besides the halos owner touching it getting burned.

cole and gwen’s situation is unique because gwen is an adult with a halo, which while rare wouldn’t be too out of the unordinary, except for her profession (SW, mainly dancing. this is something she does before the start of the comic and for a little while during, but ultimately is able to pursue a job in the arts). in public she’s usually assumed to be a child, and constantly has to prove her ID is real. people talk down to her, thinking that she’s naive or stupid. she also takes advantage of this in her job, as the juxtaposition of what she does vs how she looks is enticing.

cole, on the other hand, was born with an extremely rare (condition? disorder? i don’t know medically what it should be referred to) that caused him to never have a halo, instead growing long, gnarled horns a few days after birth. this rarely ever happens, and in the past has been seen as a “sign from above” that the baby would become a catastrophic monster, with the assumption that the baby should not be allowed to get that far. with there being the same tragedies in their world as in ours, this is obviously incorrect. cole’s mother fought furiously for her son, knowing that’s not something he would become, and if it was what he was supposed to be, then she would teach him otherwise. through this, cole was able to grow up, learning that his horns are actually attempting to destroy themselves, very slowly, due to the fact that they just shouldn’t be there. cole strives to be the best person he can be everyday, and although he sticks with it it’s unrewarding due to how people see him. he’s beat down and ostracized from basically everybody. this, combined with a horrible bullying incident, is why his horns are sheltered in adulthood than they are when he was a kid.

cole and gwen are on the opposite ends of the same spectrum, and are drawn to each other due to being the only people who can ( and are willing ) to understand the others situation. gwen has no reason to trust cole, but does so anyways because she believes it’s right to give him that chance. cole doesn’t necessarily understand how gwen’s halo could be a problem, as it’s something he’s wished for his whole life, but listens to her troubles and realizes it’s not all it’s cut out to be if it sticks around.

anyways. they kiss a lot and i love that for them

[cloudyscreams]

aikatsu stars 2nd season rant

ok im couple of episodes in now and its a good thing im working while watching because i would rage quit otherwise

have to preface this with wow this is even gayer now with elza being so open with actions and words...

there is a fatal flaw to that though, i cant claim it 100% since im obviously not very deep in the story but she seem manipulative as fuck to me and i would take it if it wasnt so...yucky i guess

like despite me hating edgworth at first manipulation was the fun part with his character and dont even get me started on nahyuta because im playing aa6 rn, i love the guy

elza is just...weird. she is the out of touch rich kid who made fun of you in school. she is regina george of aikatsu (how fitting for her to be in a trio too lmao) ive seen a comment saying its because of her mothers approval but i feel like there were so many ways to set up and develop her character even up to this point that doesnt do....whatever this is. im not the greatest writer (barely one at all) but i personally would make these changes:

dont make hime and some other older and/or experienced characters acknowledge elza to the extent they do. with aikatsu so heavily revolving around feelings and intent i cannot fanthom how anyone would say that perfect but soulless perfomance (and focusing on perfection in the first place) is truly perfect. elza cant be the worlds "greatest idol" because she doesnt really break through, she just maintains the status quo (as a rich person i guess it is in line with her character) to perfection. her brand does look amazing and i think admitting that and her perfomance skills is good and neccesary; but i think its weird for hime to refuse her yet somehow not see that she lacks the fundamentals aikatsu likes to preach about (friends/rivals, individuality, emotions and all that which dont get me wrong i love)

following point 1, i would love to see elza perform more and actually break overtime (maybe it will happen and i will be glad if so). similar to yume's power the perfectionism WILL destroy you and eat you inside (if we are talking about some realism here but even in terms of simple childrens lesson), it would make so much sense for her to one day collapse and have to build up all the fundamentals from the ground up (which is not even that hard to do, she is obviously surrounded by people who genuinely like her and she *is* passionate, just in the wrong direction)

no way people actually like her. skills aside, she is nasty to people she perseves as worse than her...personality is a staple thing for an idol, she doesnt even hide being a mean girl??? if even two cases of her being rude got known i feel like she would lose a lot of fans (happened irl at least in k pop several times!!). maybe its too realistic of an approach for aikatsu but it would make sense for her to be two faced, at least

thew thing i hate the most about aikatsu - they dont commit to the antagonists being antagonists at all. the stakes in dreaka arc were so high (according to the show itself!! they literally set it up as a job competition situation) and then it was just a big nothing because wow dreaca idols are actually good and we all get jobs. i get that being a bigger person for mc is the route they take (and with ichigo it genuinely made sense, she is just like that with everything) but no one being even a little hesitant about their supposed rivals?? not even mentioning how mary sue most of dreaca episodes were (again, especially seira) where they got the jobs just because they were the new characters. the conflict was set up and then not developed at all!!!!! either make them so evil im allowed to hate them and not cheer for them or dont make them so mean spirited in the first place, esp now with eliza. i hate that they make it seem so serious but then you are supposed to be like wow i love these new girls. LOUD INCORRECT BUZZER

ambiguous and morally grey characters are great dont get me wrong, but what aikatsu does is just inconsistent with what they themselves set up the show to be. i loved the first season of stars because the rivalry and conflict was there with yume and laura but it wasnt showed as laura just being a rival and nothing else. even if they werent friends with yume (or more from what i see lmao) i would take it because her growth arc is amazing. there were no antagonists but the stakes were still high and it was interesting to watch. i think the most beautiful aikatsu arcs come from similar place: admiration, chasing someone out of reach, battling yourself and *friendly* rivalry. i love akari's story even though its a weaker season compared to the first one because it was mirroring ichigo's arc so much

all of that yapping basically to say that antagonists in aikatsu are always inbinsible somehow: no matter how good the mcs get, no matter how many "thinking" mistakes that were already overcome by mcs they make they never fail and it pisses me off because its just not following the universe?? world logic?? rules. i get that power of love cant make you sing better irl but fuck its such a central theme in aikatsu that i refuse to believe they suddenly decided not to apply it to elza for any reason other than "she is better because we said so"

[minheeskitten]

Some of my opinions on kpop.fandoms and general fandoms as well:

-You can't call yourself the parent of a fandom if only a few people call you that. Don't force it. No one can say you are part of any family without you consenting to it.

-Fanwars are stupid and have no place in kpop. And fanwars in other fandoms make people who are in multiple fandoms feel bad. Stop starting fanwars. They're useless.

-Making idols act like you are family is gross and creepy Especially if you try to get them to call you 'mom' or 'dad'

-People who collect album versions instead of photocards deserve just as much a chance to show off.

-Fatshaming any idol is wrong. Even Sh*nd*ng. No matter how much you hate anyone. Do. Not. Fatshame.

-Titles mean nothing. "It girl" and "It boy" are useless terms. This isn't high school.

-Anyone under 18 is a child. Don't make *any* sexual comments about them. Its gross.

-"S/Hes so fine' Is a sexual comment. As is anything of the sort. If you think otherwise, block me.

-If an idol says they're uncomfortable with something, a specific photo set or something else. Stop using it, and spread the word.

-Stop asking idols to marry you. They *can't*. And they likely don't want to.

-If you're creepy/ making an idol uncomfortable in a fancall you should get banned from fancalls with them.

-If you call anyone in their 20s 'old' you are factually incorrect as well as obviously a young teen or preteen, and you shouldn't be interacting in fandom until you learn to interact. Fandom has no age limit, but there shouldn't be any age shaming.

-No amount of bullying is okay. Don't be ableist, or rude. Or racist. Kpop has no space for that. Fandom in general has no space for it.

-You shouldn't be ableist. Fans have disabilities, and you not allowing those fans into fandoms, is why you're toxic. Not everyone who is disabled has a 'visible' disability.

-Dont make fancams, if you don't want people to use them. Fancams are gonna be used. If you don't want others to use them, don't make them.

-If an idol wants to ruin their reputation by doing stupid things, then let them learn it the hard way. Trying to teach an idol who doesn't want to learn is stupid.

-If an idol wants to ruin their reputation by doing stupid things, then let them learn it the hard way. Trying to teach an idol who doesn't want to learn is stupid.

-Defending islamophobic idols is stupid. And it only proves you yourself are islamophobic (if you are, gtfo my page.)

-Stop making every little thing a scandal so quickly. It's pointless and just gets more unrightful hate.

-Stop blaming groups for things when the company is the one in the wrong. Most of the time, it is the company in the wrong, not the idol

-Hold your idols and companies accountable for their mistakes.

-If you see a scandal or issue, do your research and look into it, instead of just spreading it around.

-Don't overreact to scandals or problems. It's pointless and just becomes hysteria.

-Idols shouldn't be made to feel ashamed of needing glasses to see. Or any sort of aid like that.

-Purposely ignoring a boycott of a group is wrong, and oftentimes will make the groups situation worse. (i am begging you, boycott e'last rn)

-Calling any group a 'flop' is rude. It's even more rude when they clearly aren't.

-Stop acting like you know the idol personally. You're a fan to them. Yeah they want to know fans, but there's no way you'd know them personally from fancalls.

-If you say an idol is being problematic. Show us your source. Where did you hear it from. Tell us.

-Don't tell people who are using a fancam to source the fancam. They're not always going to source it. It's only appropriate if you're asking so you can use it as well. And do it nicely.

-If you are incapable of basic human decency, you shouldn't be interacting with idols or other big figures in your fandom.

-Don't shame someone based on how many albums or photocards they have. Their worth as a fan is not based on those things.

-You don't need everything an idol ever suggests they like. Don't waste your money on something you won't use.

-You don't need any merch or anything at all, to call yourself a fan of someone or something. Saying otherwise, is rude and classist.

-Don't bash fan creators. They're doing this for free. This includes, editors, artists and fic writers. Even if you don't like the content, don't bash the creative behind it. Block them and move on with your day, it's that simple.

-Stop being so fucking judgmental. Not everyone is going to be like you, accept that.

-Every fandom has toxic people. No fandom is free of it. Stop focusing on outcasting other fandoms for having toxic people and start outcasting those who are toxic within your own fandoms.

[nicos-w101-liveblog]

Had too many classes and too much homework today so have some Nico ask game answers because I don't wanna wait for people to ask.

1. what is their song?

I may have to say "The Seed" by AURORA. I've been obsessed with her Sky: Children of the Light concert, recently, and that song goes hard lol.

2. what is their cafe order?

Something simple, like hot chocolate with whipped cream and some peppermint. If it's really hot out, though, they'd go for any sort of lemonade. They really like Blue Raspberry flavor.

3. what is their color palette? or what colors do you associate with them?

Purple and Black, and only when it's those two colors together. Otherwise, as a single color, they are so very red. A burgundy, maybe.

4. do they have a favorite food or drink?

Anything chocolate. Except cake/cupcakes. They don't like the texture. They do love a good muffin, though.

5. name a time of day that reminds you of them.

Dusk. As the moon is rising and the sun is setting.

6. sun, moon, or stars?

Stars. They shine and burn. They are admired, but eternally imploding.

7. what other universes would you like to see them in?

My current hyperfixations, obviously. Stardew Valley, where they could heal. Sky: Children of the Light, where they'd get their childhood back. Gravity Falls, maybe. The Owl House. They can fit into many situations.

8. do you ship your oc with canon characters? why or why not?

No. Not only is Nico a child for a good chunk of their story, but they're also very AroAce.

9. do you like to ship your oc with other ocs? or are you open to it?

Also no. They're AroAce. But if someone else thinks their OC and Nico would click well, they can be friends or in a qpp.

10. does your oc have a scent specific to them?

Autumn. Warm and crisp, pumpkin and spice.

11. name 3-5 things that you associate your oc with.

Heavy rain storms (no lightning/thunder) | A flame that you cannot tell whether it's a Pyre or a Bonfire | A peace-tied rapier or scimitar | The galaxy itself | A flower crown.

12. do you have a playlist for your oc?

Not yet, but I'm gonna get started on one sooner rather than later.

13. is there a saying or quote you associate with your oc?

"An eye for an eye and the world goes blind" -Mahatama Gandhi

14. what would their favorite movie be?

They greatly prefer books over movies, because they can read while they walk. But probably something by Studio Ghibli. Like Kiki's Delivery Service.

15. how long have you had them?

I've only had Nico for a day and a half but if anything happened to them I will kill everybody on this site and then myself /reference (it's me, I make the things happen)

16. do you make memes for or of your oc?

Not yet. I do eventually plan to put Nico's name in an incorrect quotes generator.

17. if they don't have one, would your oc have a pet? if so, what kind of pet?

They already have their Familiar, a Blaze Fox. His name is Remy, after their favorite fandom-named character (it's not the rat). Anyone who guesses who it is gets my approval.

18. is your oc afraid of anything?

Not really. Theyre just tired. Bugs/Spiders give them the creeps, though.

19. does your oc have siblings?

They do! A pair of younger twins, five years younger. They were seven when Nico disappeared. I wonder if they even remember their older sibling?

20. is your oc like you in any way?

I kinda base all OCs around myself, so yeah. I imagine we have the same body type and the same life experience up until Nico was summoned to the Spiral.

21. how many ocs do you got?

One for just about every fandom, if not multiple per. So... a lot. Possibly uncountable.

22. do you have an all-time favorite oc or a current favorite?

Obviously, my current favorite is my son Nico.

23. do you have a mood board or a pinterest board for your oc?

Unfortunately, no. And I likely never will.

24. does your oc have a favorite color?

Purple. After so much time, they still love purple.

25. what is their comfort item?

An old jacket that came to the Spiral with them from home. Its a comforting texture and covers their arms when their robe doesn't.

26. do they have a comfort place?

Mortis and Blossom let Nico rest in their branches. They ask for permission every time even though the trees insist they don't need to. Nico also enjoys sitting on the roof of their House and staring into the stars.

27. do you have any AUs for your oc?

My other Death Wizard, Moira. They're the result of being born earlier, and thus being given more time to find themself. They're a high school graduate when Ambrose summons them to Ravenwood. They're able to shoulder the responsibility of holding the fate of the Spiral in their hands. Not that Nico was incapable. But Nico's a child. They never learned healthy coping mechanisms. Basically, Moira is able to keep smiling, while Nico gave up on it.

28. is there an aesthetic for your oc?

Enderman from Minecraft lol.

But on the pseudo-official list, Dark Academia, Alternative (that is, if they weren't basically a celebrity and created fashion trends), Cryptidcore, and other similar ones.

29. does your oc have a self-care routine?

The only self care they perform is knocking back a potion when they're injured. Other than basic hygiene and some magic tricks they learned to prevent acne, they are the worst at taking care of themself.

The only self-care practice they have is reading a book in Mortis' branches

30. what is your favorite thing about your oc?

I've never written a cynical character before. Theyre always optimistic, chaotic and proud, and ever-smiling. I'm excited to try and write a child's whimsical imagination turn into exhaustion and pessimism lol

Credit: oc asks by @justbeingbuck