#because I have a lot of people I like on this account

[eclipsen-smiles]

I doubt any of you want to know but I love talking about them so-

Eclipse’s version (I’ll do Chai’s on my art account.)

Any variation of “I’m fine” or “it’s fine”

Basically never. They’re/we’re SHIT at verbal affection.

Also practically never, unless around either their world’s family or the bloodpack.

Childcare.

Yes. They don’t think of anything. They just can. Their human form is small and pathetic looking, they use it for pity. (I do. I’m tiny. I look young. It’s so so so easy to get idiots in trouble.)

Favourite show: ever after high. They will never mention this. Ever.

Fuckshit. Probably. Or just “GET YO ASS OVER HERE.” With their gf…… the SpongeBob theme. Eclipse is still childish at heart.

There’s actually a list.

Nothing= anon

Friend= distant.

Name = talked once or twice.

Nickname= close

Hun/bud/pal/pet names= family or extremely close. Or if they’re concerned.

It depends on the situation. It’s a weird mix. They can be very rough, but they’re usually gentle at the same time.

Random facts about mental states. Usually things that make people feel better. (Ie; fun fact, you’re face is distorted through your eyes, so how you see yourself isn’t what other people see.)

Trust me. You’ll tell. (They’re already behind them.)

People being dumb. Or people trying to insult them. (Please. Try to. It’s hilarious.)

Always. I don’t think they know how to smile naturally at this point.

With their finger. Or hand.

Home: kinda dull, calm. Work: silent, disassociated. Friends: HYPER. ABABABA. MISCHIEF. PRANKS. alone: no facial expression.

Idiots.

Memories. Others, idk.

Luna. Believe it or not, but their version of lunar is almost MORE psychopathic than them…

Panic. Not because of the person, but because they’re trapped. (One, that shouldn’t be possible. two, agoraphobia.)

1:Unknown. 2: the astals. Specifically the higher ups.

Uhh.. eye contact, I guess. They’re fine with it, but they know others aren’t.

Hilariously, normal work hours. And taking breaks.

OHHH BOY LET ME TELL YOU- (reminder: luna is a ghost.)

Bold of you to assume they only took one.

Uhh.. random facts from plants and animals to history to cooking. They’re 600+, they’ve had a LOT OF FREETIME.

Laughter.

A “dont do drugs” pencil. Responded with heavy laughter.

A break. I pled the fifth (death.)

“Your funeral”

Heavily different because of the topic of their work. Personal= eh whatever. Work= oh fuck oh shit

.. seeing luna happy actually causes the most guilt.

MONEY PRINTING. WHO NEEDS A JOB WHEN YOURE GOD?

Silence and a glare

Family/not super close friends/people who look up to them: very calm but visibly happy. Close friends/people close to them/people who don’t necessarily hold them highly: ABBABABABABABAB

…so…many

Tartarus. “Can’t kill him yet. He still has use.” But DAMN DO THEY WANT TO. (Tar is a corrupt ass in their au btw.)

Actually nothing serious. Like… nothing. Besides secrets others have told them.

Hahehakfjkwnf. One that I have. Juggling.

Excluded. They hate having people include them just for pity. Though that’s if they know. (Same philosophy as me. Just being invited is enough. Even if I can’t come or I don’t have to actively participate.)

Depends. If the person looks annoyed it’s “what an ass.” If they look neutral or uncomfortable, it’s quickly “are they okay?” or “am I too imposing?”

Unknown at the moment.

Guilt and tragedy coping. Self explanatory

They’re quick to assume people being uncomfortable or afraid is because of them. They will not mention this.

Any. Since built in language processors, but probably Spanish since is such a direct translation language.

Shoes/socks in the house. What’s the fucking point. Take em off.

Listener. Make them talk? They’re autistic. You. Will. know.

EVERYONE FROM THIER ORIGINAL WORLD. EVERYONE. they either are still on the “glad they’re dead” bandwagon or the “holy shit he(moon) killed a mostly innocent dude.” Wagon.

Girlfriend. Friends. Family. Literally anyone they know. Hey, who coulda guessed, the person grappling with their past is a people pleaser!!

Nope. Politely decline

Hhhhhh….. past morals I guess? The old belief of corporeal punishment? (they don’t now.)

“Hun” when they’re concerned.

Self explanatory (mod is a lawyer…. Eclipse is at heart..)

The blood pack or their gf. (Too much shit has happened for them to NOT believe the pack. They’re safety is top priority)

Freeze to fight in normal situations. Straight to fight in dangerous situations. Freeze to “JEESUS” in safe situations.”

Destroying worlds. It’s their job, sure, but they’d much rather stop what’s CAUSING it.

Gf usually. But she’s back on the “hub world” so probably no one.

Eating. Sleeping. Drinking…. Self care.

ALL OF THEM.

WEIRDLY SPECIFIC BUT HELPFUL CHARACTER BUILDING QUESTIONS

What’s the lie your character says most often?

How loosely or strictly do they use the word ‘friend’?

How often do they show their genuine emotions to others versus just the audience knowing?

What’s a hobby they used to have that they miss?

Can they cry on command? If so, what do they think about to make it happen?

What’s their favorite [insert anything] that they’ve never recommended to anyone before?

What would you (mun) yell in the middle of a crowd to find them? What would their best friend and/or romantic partner yell?

How loose is their use of the phrase ‘I love you’?

Do they give tough love or gentle love most often? Which do they prefer to receive?

What fact do they excitedly tell everyone about at every opportunity?

If someone was impersonating them, what would friends / family ask or do to tell the difference?

What’s something that makes them laugh every single time? Be specific!

When do they fake a smile? How often?

How do they put out a candle?

What’s the most obvious difference between their behavior at home, at work, at school, with friends, and when they’re alone?

What kinds of people do they have arguments with in their head?

What do they notice first in the mirror versus what most people first notice looking at them?

Who do they love truly, 100% unconditionally (if anyone)?

What would they do if stuck in a room with the person they’ve been avoiding?

Who do they like as a person but hate their work? Vice versa, whose work do they like but don’t like the person?

What common etiquette do they disagree with? Do they still follow it?

What simple activity that most people do / can do scares your character?

What do they feel guilty for that the other person(s) doesn’t / don’t even remember?

Did they take a cookie from the cookie jar? What kind of cookie was it?

What subject / topic do they know a lot about that’s completely useless to the direct plot?

How would they respond to being fired by a good boss?

What’s the worst gift they ever received? How did they respond?

What do they tell people they want? What do they actually want?

How do they respond when someone doesn’t believe them?

When they make a mistake and feel bad, does the guilt differ when it’s personal versus when it’s professional?

When do they feel the most guilt? How do they respond to it?

If they committed one petty crime / misdemeanor, what would it be? Why?

How do they greet someone they dislike / hate?

How do they greet someone they like / love?

What is the smallest, morally questionable choice they’ve made?

Who do they keep in their life for professional gain? Is it for malicious intent?

What’s a secret they haven’t told serious romantic partners and don’t plan to tell?

What hobby are they good at in private, but bad at in front of others? Why?

Would they rather be invited to an event to feel included or be excluded from an event if they were not genuinely wanted there?

How do they respond to a loose handshake? What goes through their head?

What phrases, pronunciations, or mannerisms did they pick up from someone / somewhere else?

If invited to a TED Talk, what topic would they present on? What would the title of their presentation be?

What do they commonly misinterpret because of their own upbringing / environment / biases? How do they respond when realizing the misunderstanding?

What language would be easiest for them to learn? Why?

What’s something unimportant / frivolous that they hate passionately?

Are they a listener or a talker? If they’re a listener, what makes them talk? If they’re a talker, what makes them listen?

Who have they forgotten about that remembers them very well?

Who would they say ‘yes’ to if invited to do something they abhorred / strongly didn’t want to do?

Would they eat something they find gross to be polite?

What belief / moral / personality trait do they stand by that you (mun) personally don’t agree with?

What’s a phrase they say a lot?

Do they act on their immediate emotions, or do they wait for the facts before acting?

Who would / do they believe without question?

What’s their instinct in a fight / flight / freeze / fawn situation?

What’s something they’re expected to enjoy based on their hobbies / profession that they actually dislike / hate?

If they’re scared, who do they want comfort from? Does this answer change depending on the type of fear?

What’s a simple daily activity / motion that they mess up often?

How many hobbies have they attempted to have over their lifetime? Is there a common theme?

[quasi-normalcy]

I do think that the rise of fascism is directly tied to the decline of communal values.

So on the one hand, you have capitalism, which relentlessly tells you that everything is a competition, your value as a person can only come at someone else's expense, some people are just intrinsically better than others, and your position on this hierarchy is determined by what's in your bank account. On the other hand, individualist liberalism can only answer this with a sort of weak-tea "self-esteem" discourse, which at best amounts to "try your best! Do what you love! It doesn't matter!" and at worst amounts to shouting "Everyone's a winner!", a position that even children automatically view with cynicism.

Never is there any discussion that maybe value shouldn't be intrinsic to the self. Maybe your value is in how much you make life better for other people. Like, do you make a worthy and necessary contribution to society that helps other people? That adds to the net happiness of the world? Then congratulations, you should take pride in that. Someone who plants a bee garden for free is worth more than a hedge fund manager who only contributes misery to the world, even if he makes a lot of money doing it. Someone who uses their body to block, however temporarily, the export of weapons or the laying of pipeline is infinitely more valuable to society than the skilled engineer who makes his living designing them. Even simple activities like telling jokes or doing chores are worth infinitely more than developing advertising software that only makes people annoyed and parts them from their money!

Like the moral of that movie It's A Wonderful Life wasn't that the guy should go on living because he really tried his best and maybe he'll finally get to do what he wants with his life once he saves up his pennies; the moral was that he should go on living because he'd made life materially and spiritually better for his community. We need that energy!!

[baphometsss]

I don't wanna sit here and act like I'm a professional or anything, because I'm not, but as someone who has had to do a lot of work to overcome trauma and reconfigure my brain more or less from the ground up, there's a lot I have to say about Solas's mental state

We know that Solas was essentially used and abused by Mythal for millennia. Even if he wasn't under a geas, he was twisted from his purpose by being made to fight, and then created the Wolf's Fang which was used to make the Titans tranquil and started the Blights. He made those choices himself, but it's important to understand that no choice is ever made in a vacuum. She took advantage of his vulnerability when he was given a body after however long as a spirit semi-existing peacefully in the Fade, and moulded him into a weapon.

He is broken, because Mythal broke him. I'm not incapable of seeing why she did what she did because like I said, no one makes choices in a vacuum and I could write about her for a long time too (in a similar way to how I have had to do myself in my own life in understanding why others abused me). He was so traumatised by everything that happened and he was trauma bonded to Mythal pretty much from the minute he gained a body. Trauma bonds are not about love. He definitely interpreted it that way, as most people do, but that's the weapon abusers use to keep the victim under their control. Abuse abuse abuse show a scrap of love and then abuse some more. If I just take it, I'll get the love/attention I need. I will earn it, because love is suffering, and I have to suffer to earn getting my basic needs met from my family/friends. Mythal, as his creator, was the one who he would've attached to in a similar way to spirit Cole/human Cole.

Trauma bonds are pathological. Mythal made him believe that if he did as she asked, and kept supporting her, then eventually he would gain her favour and they would be able to free all the elves, and he'd be able to live according to his true nature, which is one where he doesn't have to fight. (Remember his personal quest in DAI? He actually kills the rebel mages for corrupting his friend--another Wisdom spirit--into Pride.) In reality, she was just using him. She always kept the bone just out of reach for her lapdog. The line from Rook where they say (paraphrasing here) 'you know, I was actually excited about getting your approval... That's how you do it, isn't it? Keeping giving little scraps of approval to keep someone loyal, and then you turn around and betray them' is so telling too.

Where--or from whom--do you think he learned to do this?

It literally reeks of a pathological trauma bond and honestly, with how isolated, 'grim and fatalistic' Solas is, it is not a surprise that he's so broken.

Solas, essentially, is little more than a lap-dog to Mythal. He followed her like a lost puppy, because especially in his early days, that's kind of what he was. You have to remember that most of the insight we get about Mythal is from Solas's perspective, and he is not a reliable person when it comes to her after so long being repeatedly terrorised and twisted and manipulated. There are several instances where he describes being betrayed by her, and mentions some of the things she did, but he never quite holds her fully accountable and ends up directing his rage elsewhere. (The parallel between Mythal/Solas and the rebel mages/Wisdom is important here.)

This awesome post by @mythalism only reinforces this. He is so messed up in that scene, he is broken, he is holding the Wolf's Fang up, trying to give it to her because it symbolises the burden he has carried for thousands of years trying to avenge her death. He never wanted the Fang, like he never wanted a body. Mythal just stands over him, fully aware of what she did to him, and only getting him to stop because Rook petitioned her successfully, and the reunion with the more benevolent Mythal within Morrigan tempered her anger. She was a goddess, with the unequal power dynamic, right to the end.

As a side note, on the potential romance element between Mythal and Solas, I read an excellent breakdown of it on Reddit a while ago about how out of character it would've been for Solas to keep something like that from a romanced Lavellan, especially in Trespasser when he comes clean about his plan/past. I can't find it now because it was pre-Veilguard release, but it made a lot of sense to me. Solas and Lavellan never have a love scene in DAI because Solas didn't want to 'lay with them under false pretences'. Lying about who you are when sleeping with someone is nonconsensual. You can't consent to sleeping with someone if you don't know their true identity, and someone who knowingly lies about who they are to get into your pants is a sexual predator. For someone who led a slave rebellion (no doubt many of them being sex slaves), and a former spirit of Wisdom, Solas would've been well aware of this. In the unsent letter from Solas to Lavellan he says he came so close to breaking and desperately wanted to stay with them as Solas, with the implication being that that is where he planned to sleep with them once he'd come clean. But because he stops, because he's still unable to forgive himself or release himself from his trauma bond with Mythal, he breaks away, and they never have sex.

Bottom line: Solas would've been honest about it. Especially that. As the Inquisitor says, he can't lie about his heart.

And it's why the Solas/Lavellan romance is so powerful because quote, 'you change everything'. Solas thought he knew what love was, that love was loyalty, devotion, worship, etc. It's not just his plans or worldview that Lavellan changes. Lavellan sees him for who he is, without the mantle of Dread Wolf, and because of that he's able to express his true nature to her, even if he's not being totally honest in Inquisition. Lavellan got much closer to the real him than most, as he says, and changed his understanding of love completely. Unfortunately, he has unfinished business, an unresolved trauma bond, and his crushing sense of duty to the past is what keeps him from taking that final step towards letting go of it entirely. Trick also says Solas doesn't think he deserves love, which tbh is kind of a hallmark trait of people who have survived abuse.

And honestly? Call me a simp but I think he really was trying to get the Inquisitor to stop him. He saw himself being unable to let go because he was so broken and burdened by his guilt, and knew he couldn't save himself--was too proud to admit that he couldn't, because how pathetic does it make him look? And how could he stop now without rendering all the damage he'd wrought pointless? Yet here was someone who had changed him right down to his core, who understood him in a way few people ever had, whom he trusted, whom he loved in a way he hadn't loved anyone else before. It took him 'centuries' to build up rapport with the members of his rebellion. The man doesn't not know how to form attachments without trauma, and suddenly he forms a strong one with someone who loves him completely and without condition. It's a jarring change.

Lavellan says that maybe they're being prideful themselves, refusing to see their own folly. But I think in admitting that they might be wrong, that it might be wishful thinking borne from misguided love to a truly terrible person, they've rendered the point moot. It shows self-awareness, which isn't folly.

If anyone can make Solas understand true love, it's Lavellan. Lavellan loved him when he was being his true self. Lavellan loved him after his betrayal was revealed. Lavellan loved him when his guilty conscience and terrible actions almost destroyed the world. Lavellan loved him because they knew the real him, and knew that his heart and spirit were broken, and knew that their love would endure, that their love would heal him.

And that's exactly where they end up. Healing the past, soothing the Blight, and loving one another completely.

[kaelmcdonald]

Gonna RB this again because it's precisely the point missed by so many people who get outraged when someone dares to have a nice house or travel or just own things that make them happy. That whole "You can't be trusted to eat the rich because you'll execute dentists or some shit" refers to exactly this. If you consider wealth as just having things and not the power exerted over others due to the money you control the distribution of, then you're missing the whole damn issue. This is also why it means fuck-all whether Bezos has said money in actual cash or 1000 accounts or in "investments" because regardless of the form it takes that man decides what happens with a staggering, unthinkable amount of wealth by sitting on it like a dragon hoard. I simply do not care if some rando has their own home bigger than mine. I want everyone to own a home! I care if that rando owning said home is deliberately "renovating" to leverage that neighborhood's housing costs, to force the community to move away because of increased costs of home ownership, only to buy up everything and either rent out shitty AirBnBs or pave it over for overpriced parking lots.

[helslastangel]

RANDOM ASTRO OBSERVATIONS #10

Nobody's safe. That's it. That's the disclaimer.

Libra Jupiter in 11th house can indicate having many opportunities in life that come through friendships and connections with others. People with this placement can often get very far in life simply because they talked to the right people at the right times. This is especially true if they also have Libra in their big 3 or Libra mercury.

Capricorn suns with Sagittarius mercury are surprisingly chill compared to the usual stoic reputation of Capricorn and energetic rep that Sagittarius has. My favorite friends and colleagues have this combination of placements and they are quite easy to get along with and fun to be around.

Very much like Virgo suns with Libra mercury, they can appear quiet and reserved at first, but become lively and chatty once they know you and have decided they like you. However unlike Virgo sun/Libra mercury people (who usually censor their words/tone and think out loud or form their opinions by talking through them first), not only are they a lot blunter (or straightforward, when older), they are more sure about where they stand, or certain of what they want to say on a topic before they say it.

Libra Mercury in the 11th house can have a lot of friends or just make and keep acquaintances very easily. These are the people who always "know a guy" or can say "my homegirl does that!" almost no matter what problem or need you have. They just know someone who can fix it. They are popular people, or at least seem that way to others.

They can sometimes appear to have a much larger network of friends and connections than they do, which is why many of them tend to either keep their friend/friend groups separate or may prefer to maintain superficial/lightweight connections with others over deeper and more intimate connections that would reveal more.

Capricorn Venus in 8th house people can go through a lot of one-sided relationships before landing the right person. They are probably the most caring and attentive of all the Venus sigs, but from my observations they are taken advantage of a lot and often treated very poorly by the majority of their partners.

My childhood friend has this placement (as well as a few of my relatives) and for over a decade I watched her pour so much love and care into men who ended up treating her like an afterthought. I never understood why, as she was very much what you'd think most males would consider wifey material.

She cooked, baked, was organized, and very clean. Motherly instincts intact, had a good job in healthcare and her own place. Knew how to kick back and have fun but could also be appropriately authoritative in the sense of managing a household. Like you could just tell she would be a firm yet loving mother, or even if she did not have kids, you could tell she would be the kind of wife where the husband could hand her his entire paycheck if he wanted and not have to worry for a second that she would blow it on anything foolish. Very capable and responsible woman. I used to get so angry at the way men would come into her life and enjoy all the things she would do for them, including having her manage their money. It was a bit surprising for me how quickly and easily men would put their finances in her hands, only for them to abruptly leave - usually for a woman who was chaotic and stressful too. I did not understand it then, and despite hearing all the talk about how men go for who they are passionate about even if they are the least productive, responsible, or capable person ever, I still don't get it now.

Capricorn in the 8th house can lead to a lot of situations where the native ends up handling other people's money because people can sense their stable energy and innate responsibility. But it can lead to the person feeling like they are nothing but a personal assistant or sentient savings account to others, and over time they can become (100% understandably) bitter if they do not meet someone genuine and kind in time to avoid this.

Aquarius in 6th house can have unusual or eccentric daily routines, or little quirks in the way they go about day to day tasks and responsibilities. I knew someone with this placement who could only brush his teeth in the morning and shower at night. He couldn't really bring himself to do it the other way around and would simply not do the thing at all that day if something disrupted that routine. He also had a job where his # of hours was consistent but his actual shift times weren't and he liked it that way "for the variety." He hated the thought of a schedule where he would have to arrive and leave at the same time every day.

Cancer Lilith in 1st house women can often run into situations where men string them along for a very, very long time. These men sense the stereotypical "nurturing/motherly" essence of Cancer but Cancer Lilith women display a unique twist on this essence where it is very clear to onlookers that her individuality and sense of self cannot be watered down or blended out into others.

Cancer Lilith 1H (and to a lesser extent Taurus Lilith 1H) women are the type who can have a husband, kids, work and manage the home without losing a single ounce of who they always were.

From my observations, they usually don't experience the fate many women meet, where they wake up one day and realize that they haven't even heard their first name in weeks because they're only remembered and referred to in terms of who they are to someone else ("Mom," "John's girlfriend," "Mr. Jones' wife").

Unfortunately, this rubs some men the wrong way, who will then subconsciously try to hang on to the parts of the Cancer Lilith women they like, while searching for other women who don't trigger their fear of women who retain their personality after marriage/children.

Gemini Sun Virgo Rising people can appear put-together and organized in public but could have very messy rooms or just have trouble keeping things in order at home.

People with Pisces in their 7th house might feel torn between going after people they are genuinely attracted to and people they perceive to be a better match, for whatever reason. They could also end up confusing the sense of security they feel with someone for love, or feeling more secure with someone than they should because of love.

Gemini Mars in 10th house does not mind going out of their comfort zone to further their career. They may even set aside their own values and morals if they believe that doing something will produce a good return on their investment (of time, effort, money, etc.).

Taurus Mercury in 9th house enjoys talking to people from other cultures about the foods they eat and what their daily routines and special/holiday ritual are like. They enjoy learning about other cultures on a more down-to-earth level, so they might be less interested in other philosophies and more into sensory differences.

Cancer Moon in 11th house identifies VERY strongly with their friend group and can become depressed or ill if there is too much discord between themselves and their friends, or between their friends with each other. They do not take kindly to any kind of abandonment from friends, real or imagined. If they decide you have left them or betrayed them one too many times, they will simply never speak to you again.

Virgo Mars people can be extremely picky when it comes to partners. One of my childhood friends has this placement and despite being a Sagittarius Sun & Mercury (along with having Venus in 9H), she barely has a romantic interest in anyone. She's not aromantic or asexual; she just gets the ick so easily that it is difficult for her to like anyone enough to date them for long. She didn't go into detail most of the time. She was the furthest from the kiss-and-tell kind of person, she would barely tell anyone even the name or age of anyone she was interested in, much less give details about her specific icks.

I tend to attract Virgo Mars people platonically and romantically quite often though, so I have other examples of the same trait.

My ex-husband is a Virgo sun with Virgo Mars and Leo Venus and the smallest things would throw him off. Like if I made scrambled eggs and all the pieces weren't perfectly yellow (if any got slightly browned, he would consider the entire pot as "burnt" and would ruin his day). If I did laundry and did not strictly separate the colors (I will wash black, dark grey, and bold colors clothes together. He will separate them all. I will wash off-white and very light grey or beige with white clothes. He would look at me crazy and ask me to just do a different household chore and leave the laundry to him. Hea

He also apparently got the ick from my frugality? Lol. I had cheap sneakers and dollar-store headphones when we first got together. A few weeks later he asked where I was and I told him I was at the mall with a friend. He showed up and wordlessly gave me brand-new Samsung Galaxy earbuds before driving home lmao. Then a couple weeks after that he bought me new AirMaxes and made it a point to tell me that my existing sneakers were so cheap. And that he got good ones for me in a style that "makes your feet look smaller." I guess my foot size was not to his liking. Lol. I'm almost 6 feet tall and wear size 9.5/10 women's shoes (for males reading this, that is around 8/8.5 in your sizes, so don't start, pls

A previous ex of mine (Cancer Sun) also had Virgo Mars (and Venus) but he had the opposite ick - he didn't like that I always wore nice jeans and blouses even if we were only going to Walmart or his friends' houses. Apparently, it was "off-putting" for him that I was "too fancy, never just dress down and look comfortable, even in the house." I was like... but I am comfortable? And he would be like, "Nah you're so fancy all the time, it's kinda weird, like do you even own any sweatpants? Your hair is never messy? It's like you're never just relaxed."

Um, as a Scorpio Venus/Jupiter, Libra Mercury person, messy hair will never be in the same room as comfortable for me but we are broken up for a reason, LOL.

Yeah Virgo Mars are just really, really picky. Idk how else to put it. They might be bothered by very different things, but they're all bothered in general! Love 'em regardless, they're also attentive and will know what you like and also what you need.

Leo Mars in 2nd house can have a hard time feeling satisfied with what they own or with their level of skill in certain areas. They don't usually express envy outwardly though. They will happily gas up their friends and colleagues, but implode on themselves in private.

They can have frequent pity parties or episodes of extreme self-loathing that only their closest friends or partners ever witness. It can be difficult to pull them out of these moods as they tend to feel like they either don't have enough or are not enough in some way.

Aquarius Eros men and masculine people are often attracted to women and feminine people with strong or eccentric personalities. They lust after the kinds of people who didn't even bother rocking the boat and jumped out to swim upstream and chill somewhere else.

However, unless they have Juno in Aquarius, Aquarius 7H or some other placements that support long-term relationships/marriages/longevity with unusual people or non-traditional elements, they eventually abandon such love interests for someone who fits better into societal expectations. Ask me how I know. :(

[hemipenal-system]

In a world where werewolves exist and are normal members of society, a major goal of the labor movement is probably paid time off for werewolves during the full moon: wealthy werewolves or those with salaried jobs and an allotment of vacation time can afford to take the time off, working class werewolves can’t afford to and so they have to try to do their jobs while shifted. When the werewolf unions finally achieve this goal (perhaps by massive strikes shutting down some of the more werewolf-dominated sectors of the economy such as astronomy and heavy manual labor), it probably has economic ramifications since there’s a lot of jobs just not getting done during the full moon. Possibly some people even try to become werewolves just to get the time off.

…and now I’ve committed the cardinal sin of horny worldbuilding: trying to make it make sense.

i imagine the werewolves actually get their PTO relatively easily just on account of how werewolves are scary as shit. like yeah with human protestors in the streets you can just call the cops or whatever but what do you do when the protestors are strong enough to flip cop cars by hand and basically entirely immune to most conventional weapons? you shoot rubber bullets at them and they're just gonna brush it off and then yeet a manhole cover at your head at mach fuck you

you ever had a group of 6 nine foot tall beasts show up to your house at 10 pm while you're in the pool with your wife and delicately remove all the exterior doors from your house with their construction tools because you keep sabotaging their unions? what are you gonna do, stop them? no you aren't. you're not gonna say SHIT to a werewolf with a sledgehammer. you're just gonna let them take your doors off and then let the union meet the next day

as for after the PTO, i like to think werewolves with decent control over their urges and decent enough jobs to justify going would just go in and get really good overtime pay, especially ones who work with people. it's kinda heartwarming to go to the store and get fitted for a suit or have your ice cream made by a dapper lil wolf i think

[basicallyranpoedogawa]

Okay! Batman fans whining about this! Let's see who keeps their rights during a trump presidency!!!

Bruce Wayne! He might have a decent time because he's rich and white. He might get slack for CANONICALLY being jewish.

Dick Grayson, nope! Romani and from a travelling circus? There's no way he'd have a good time, he'd be hatecrimed. And that's not including the few instances of him being canonically bisexual!

Okay, what about Jason Todd? Nope, he lived in crime alley. He was poor. Both Dick and Jason would be tormented by right wing people even after being adopted by Bruce. Dick especially, again Romani heritage.

Tim Drake is one that would normally be a he'd be fine. But he wouldn't. He's canonically bisexual. So despite being a white man from a well off family, he'd be hatecrimed. He wouldn't have a good time at all due to the prevalent homophobia. He likely would not be able to marry Bernard either.

Next, let's see Stephanie Brown. Not well off, she is a woman, and then there was the teen pregnancy. Yes, steph gave the baby up for adoption, but she still wouldn't have had a good time due to sexism and them just hating non rich people. She would be pressured to keep the baby in an America with trump in power.

Damian Wayne would also have it rough. He's not fully white. He'd have an awful time. Racists are comfortable in a trump run America.

Cassandra cain would have the same issue but she's both not white and a woman. She would have to deal with racism and sexism.

Barbara Gordon, like Stephanie and Cass, would have to deal with sexism. She's also disabled so she'd deal with ableism too.

Duke Thomas is up next, and he'd deal with racism. Again, under a trump Presidency, racists run rampant.

Finally, Kate Kane. Batwoman! Jewish and a woman and a lesbian. She'd deal with antisemitism, sexism, and homophobia.

Now, taking all of that into account, would Bruce Wayne be one of those "leave politics out of this" guys? No. He'd like his family and his family's friends/partners to have rights. Because he's literally Batman. Now do you see how it'd be hard to write heroes? Because you lot sure aren't behaving like heroes.

My qualifications for stating all of this is that I'm a 17 year old trans man that is a aspec bi, and Indian. British Indian ethnically! I also read comics frequently and have read enough about Batman and his kids and his kids' partners and his other relatives to know enough to say this. I'm not American but you know when the British aren't laughing at American politics, it must be really bad.

The amount of comic fans, hero fans, I've seen supporting trump or being apolitical and mad politics gets spoken about is insufferable. Do they read with their eyed closed? Comics have always been a political media! Why do you think Batman exists? Because his parents were killed and nobody stopped it. Why is Batman still a thing? Because there's so much crime that gets pushed aside because said criminals are wealthy or high status.

[quantomeno]

I've been following this matter for a while now (a quick search of newspaper articles showed it's been floated since mid last year, and I remember having to use my passport to verify my age on my gmail (it's not the account I use for tumblr, the account has my name in the address, so it's already pretty clearly me, so I was begrudgingly okay with it but am still annoyed my other account now can't watch age restricted youtube videos unless I tie it to my identity)). It's a vexed issue.

The first thing I'd like to point out is that the person quoted in the above post ("I am 100 percent etc") is Keith Pitt, a member of the Nationals who was resources and water minister under Morrison. I feel this is important because while he'd definitely be someone who'd vote in support of the measure, he's not a member of the party in power, let alone a Cabinet minister. His opinion is not necessarily that of the Prime Minister ― Anthony Albanese ― and it makes it seem like what he's talking about is what the government is planning to do.

What is the PM actually saying they'll do?

To be honest, I don't think the government knows yet. From what I can gather, there has been no suggestion by the PM that they would force people's accounts to have their real names. The Age a few days ago reported this:

"Australia’s eSafety commissioner has instead recommended a “double-blind tokenised approach”, whereby information would be provided to a verifying third party that would certify the user’s age to social media platforms without revealing details about the child. The details of the plan are being worked through by a trial of age-verification technologies."

(the "instead" is in reference to the current practice of social media platforms asking people if they over 13, which I'm sure most people realise would stop pretty much no child)

In that same article though they also said "the government has not unveiled key details, including the technology that would be used to keep children out". So I think there is quite a bit of time before anything is going to be written into law.

While I don't think your name will be "slapped onto your tumblr account" (if that does end up being what they do I would actually delete my tumblr, I really do not want that), there is still the question of privacy being invaded in that the government would (I think? I'm not a tech expert in the slightest) be able to connect you to your account.

Keep in mind that we are close to an election (there's been whispers it could be May next year), and this is an issue that (as the Keith Pitt quote shows) both of the major parties seem to mostly agree on. A cynical view is that the PM is talking tough to neutralise the issue so it can't be attacked by the opposition for not protecting children. The fact that both are talking about it does however suggest it will eventually come to pass (unlike other complicated legislation that was touted as 'essential' but then got shelved after being too hard to get through (naming no names i.e. Scomo's religious discrimination bill).

The other point to discuss is that while I really do enjoy people not knowing who I am on tumblr (and people in my life not being able to know I'm on tumblr), I also don't really think kids should be on social media (or at least not in the way they currently are). I avoided social media (I only had a facebook account I barely touched) until I was an adult (and even then I waited a while) and I'm quite glad, mostly because I think I'm a lot more mature. On the other hand, while I didn't interact with people, I grew up in a time when you could browse most platforms without an account, so it's not like I wasn't exposed to things on the internet. And then there's a bit of a moral panic about the internet, which can be a bit overblown at times. But then I'll hear a 14 year old I know mentioning stuff that makes me think he's kind of obsessed with growing muscles and I wonder if he's seeing these sorts of things online. I mean, there's a lot of garbage on the internet. But there's a lot of really useful things too... it's complicated and I'm not settled on an opinion yet.

Kids really do need to learn better internet practices and behaviours, but there are also kids in primary school with social media accounts. I mean, what does a 12 year old do in their life that they need the world to see? (don't answer that it's rhetorical, I'm sure there are plenty of 12 year olds doing interesting things worth showing off, but I mean, beyond messaging friends, 12 year olds don't really need to be communicating with strangers on the internet). Note too it's specifically social media (the definition is given by OP but it's anything where the main purpose is share content or talk to a wide audience of people. Things like games with chat stuff are also being looked into.

I'm also a bit of a luddite and think kids should read more. I'm not actually trying to convince people the ban is good, I'm just thinking aloud here. The whole thing feels rather heavy-handed, brute-force, and there's every chance kids will still find ways around it. I don't think this is the ideal solution, but I do feel there is a problem to be addressed.

But yeah, do tell your local member that you are concerned and want to make sure your privacy is kept safe. Just be aware of who your member is and their/their party's stance (all Labor MPs vote with the party, Liberals and Nationals can vote against their own party, so they may not all be in agreement). The Greens are opposed to it. I am not sure what the teal independents think of it.

You may also want to contact some senators from your state, not just your MP.

As for the contents of the letter, maybe something like:

Dear Mr/Ms/Dr (whatever title they use) surname MP,

I am a resident of your electorate (electorate name). (Maybe say a little bit about yourself, just what you think is relevant to the letter or your arguments).

I am writing to you to discuss the proposed social media ban for children. I am concerned (explain what/why you are concerned).

(Try to keep it brief, but also try to be personal)

State what you want your MP to do. Ask them to reply to your letter.

Sincerely,

your name.

You may want to mail the letter rather than just emailing. This page from Oxfam I just looked up five minutes ago has some nice tips.

Hey Aussies, do you want your real name and ID slapped on your tumblr account? If the answer is fuck no, our gov’s got a upcoming legislation for banning 16 year olds and under from social media even WITH parental consent. And by “Social Media”…

The code defines social media as electronic services that meet the following conditions:

The sole or primary purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between two or more end users

The service allows end users to link to, or interact with, some or all other end users

The service allows end users to post material on the service

Such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules.

So. You know. Just the entire fucking internet. They even named youtube as banned, god forbid kids out in the bush get access to LGBTQ+ communities online when they could be watching adds for sportsbet.

I am 100 per cent supportive of eliminating bullying and fake information from online platforms. The easiest way to do that is to be able to utilise existing laws, and the easiest way to do that is to ensure there are no fake accounts. Your digital, online life is your real life. If you want to make comments, that's fine, but it should be as you, as a verified account. This means everyone knows who it is that makes those comments, that you can be found and prosecuted under existing laws, just as you would if you express those opinions in a newspaper, for example, or you went on to a television station and said something similar.

Contact an Aussie senator about this shit. They’re trying to slide it under all the USpol news.

[mymegrokosmos]

biker wonwoo brainrot anyone? just a quick mention. i was left unsupervised at 4am again. enjoy.

if anyone had told you that wonwoo was just a silly little nerd when you'd first met, you might not have believed them. that is to say, if this grown up version of your boyfriend was the one you'd met nearly ten years ago now. unfortunately for them, the wonu you knew wore big wire-rimmed glasses, lived in mis-matched sweatsuits, went through novels like water and spent most of his free time in the spare bedroom you'd helped him turn into a gaming den.

The version of jeon wonwoo you knew dog-eared the pages of all his books, scribbled notes in margins of anything and everything, liked to lay sprawled out on your lap while you watched romance kdramas together and loved when you ran your fingers through his hair. your boyfriend was often quiet and when he did speak his voice was always soft, even when he tossed out sarcastc remarks sharp enough to cut glass with that mischievous little cat smile of his. he was the definition of a homebody and an introvert.

he had walked into the busy coffee shop where you were working on a paper during finals week and asked if the seat across from you at your small table of two was taken because every other seat in the place was full. you'd seen him every week after that. it had taken him a month to actually speak to you and two to make small conversations a regular thing between you.

despite all that, he did have a bit of a hidden bravery about him. you wouldn't call it adrenaline junkie behaviour but he wasn't scared of a lot of things. where mingyu tended to jump at his own shadow wonwoo was often a steady, practial, stable person it took a lot to throw off balance. he expected everything. prepared for every scenario. it made him hard to surprise, or pull one over on, and often you were grateful for the constistency he provided.

so, when he pulled up outside your office on his motorbike and made a little show of hopping off to come kiss you, you couldn't help but shake your head a little.

"showoff."

"why shouldn't i be?"

you couldn't care less if any of your coworkers was watching as you let wonwoo store your purse in the compartment under the seat and, with a familiarity that came with lots of years of practice at it, strapped on the helmet he handed you. maybe you stared a little as he climbed back onto the bike, who could blame you when those jeans did great things for his ass and the leather jacket only served to highlight how broad his shoulders had gotten since he'd started joining gyu and cheol in the gym more often.

no one could see you ogling him from behind the tinted visor but he didn’t need to see your eyes to know they were on him. the smirk he flashed you before sliding his own helmet's visor back down spoke volumes.

you didn't waste time swinging a leg over the back of the bike and hopping on behind him. and if your grip around his waist was a little tighter than usual, well maybe it would deter that creep from accounting who you definitely hadn't told wonwoo about to stop flirting with you every time you stayed late and got stuck taking the elevator down to the lobby with him again.

if he was watching, and you couldn’t dismiss the possibility that your boyfriend had planned his timing just right to ensure that he was, you'd leave him wondering about just what exactly it was that wonwoo did for a living. let him make up his own scenarios. you were kind of partial to the race car driver guess if you had to pick one, or maybe the pit crew suggestion, that one had made you both laugh last week.

it was a privilege to know you saw a side of your large, intimidating, softie of a boyfriend that not many other people outside of his close friends and family did. surely you could gatekeep that part of him just a little, right?

[inumbrapugnabimus-maybe]

A link design!!! For a story that’s solid enough in my head to possibly become a comic ehehe

some notes:

Link has been Heroing for some time now, with minimal success. He’s a bit grumpy.

he also has a bulky brown overcoat, but I haven’t figured out what it looks like yet so i didn’t draw it lol

the gloves are to hide his scar, but also help in the cold. Because this Hyrule is rather cold :)

The overtunics are both pretty new, which is the only reason they aren’t torn to bits. The same person who made them mended his pants and made his hat, which is why the patches match cloth in other parts of his outfit.

the scar on his face is from a lizalfos. I figured, if the Dilophosaurus in Jurassic Park gets to spit acid, then shouldn’t a lizalfos get to too? So it’s an acid burn. He’s lucky he dodged most of it!

I’m still figuring out how to accurately depict the scars, so they don’t look quite right yet! With research and practice I’ll get there!

the other scar I will not get into for plot reasons hehe

This is the same story the above Zelda design is for!! I’ve posted her design in varying stages before, here, here and here, but the story in the previous posts has changed a bit since!! There are also some really old doodles of Link if you (hehe) follow the links.

the above is Zelda’s formal dress. I designed it with a girl a little younger than her in mind, because she loses most of her wardrobe when she’s about 12! So I really ought to draw this on her younger self XD

Finally, scrapped Ganondorf and Link designs!!!

don’t look into these too much as I’m only putting them here because I’ll never post them otherwise; they do not fit the story at all lol

Ganondorf is gonna be… really hard to design… I made him a very complex character and his personality is so intertwined with the story there is a lot to be taken into account XD

ummm that’s all for now!!! I doubt many people will read all this but feel free to send asks if you have questions nevertheless :D

[sharticleaccelerator]

First, know that statements in my above reblog such as 'Clearly women don't care about them.' were rhetorical examples of the things that a young man influenced by conservative ideas might think, and so are not representative of how I think we should discuss the modern sex dynamic. This talk about men, women, and the dynamics between the two often times devolves into "Men (should do) this, women (should do) that, it's men's/women's fault" as if that's not a deluded way of talking about a society-scale problem. If a demographic underperforms in a sector, the sensible approach is to analyze that sector, determine how what may be contributing to the performance differential, then figure the best social change to restructure that sector to be more fair. It can be tempting to want to assign blame, but blame does not exist on this scale. No individual is solely accountable. The idea of holding a demographic accountable (blaming women/men at large) is just absurd. We cannot assign responsibility to a sex to solve a problem—men must participate in women's issues and vice versa. We need each other's efforts and votes.

So thinking about how the education system disadvantages men, you say that men generally hold the positions of power responsible for the structure of the education system, but that is not necessarily true. Women have always represented a greater proportion of teachers (at least since ~1890), but for nearly 8 years now have represented over half of public school principals (no data found for other administration staff). I can't find an official statement about the split in the U.S Department of Education, but independent sources estimate that over half of its employees are women. Women representing a larger proportion of teachers and staff likely accounts for the underperformance of boys in school, as students tend to do better under a teacher of the same sex—it might be tempting to say that means more men should go into education and so it is 'Men's fault', but as stated in my first paragraph such a thought is delusional. Men and women are not distinct factions.

I didn't say that the right wing is the fault of women. I said that the significant amount of vitriol towards men has had a role to play in pushing young men away from leftist politics, and that the pattern of overt hatred towards men in leftist spaces dissuades men who witness it from participating, but I didn't assign that to women. I assigned it to misandrists. It just happens that most misandrists are women.

We can absolutely fault sexist women who are hostile to men only because they're men. We must fault sexist people. You would ask the same of me, who should fault men who are remorseless about how they hurt the women in their lives. You said it yourself, 'someone who will get hate spewed at them, to try and reach out is a lot to ask.' You can't expect men to participate in progressive discussion if that discussion is accepting of open hostility toward them on the basis of their sex.

I'd like to challenge some of the ideas you hold about the ways you think that society advantages men. The gender pay gap is very coarse data, and often used in ways that reflect a poor understanding of what it actually represents. That women have to earn a greater degree to receive the same pay from the same job comes from a misinterpretation of the Department of Labor's data. The Department of Labor's data does not consider position, only sex and education level. I won't say that a pay gap for the same job doesn't exist—I simply don't have the confidence to say—but the reality that men on average value income more than women in choosing a career likely contributes to what the data actually represents—a reflection of pay differentials between the fields of careers that men and women are respectively more likely to pursue. This still is sexist—it has roots in the devaluing of 'women's work'—but if you pursue a particular career, the difference between your pay and the pay of your male peers will be much less than the gender pay gap indicates. That's assuming it exists at all; some places women out-earn men by the same metrics. It's a good point you make about women suffering greater loss of earnings with children, but in the cases where having children—and more so taking upon themselves the greater burden of child-rearing within their relationships—was a choice, I have a hard time rationalizing this as unfair to women who willingly made that choice. In the cases where children aren't a choice, you're right.

Men are not over-represented in higher education. You give that there are some isolated cases where they are, sure; those are exceptions. In the larger picture women are representing a greater percentage of college graduates each year, and have outpaced men in this regard for the last four decades.

Much of what you hear about the ways women are victimized are played up by people who want to be victims because they're drunk on justifying their hate. This isn't for some radical take like 'sexism is fake', just a reminder that solving real problems requires being rooted in reality. All the more reason to block the detached, chronically-online radfems you see. I wish I'd realized I was replying to one, but then I suppose wouldn't have had this dialogue with you. Silver lining.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[b1asho]

Say hello to Azel, a muttreazik who i designed randomly a while ago and then got brain rotted with. Here, I wanted to figure out what he’s looked like through the years (and kind of draw what he looks like now ha) ; it’s pretty much been downhill from his illegal natural birth on a small remote farm.

Azel is what happens to most E congruency muttreazik, meaning that he's an outcast that many people find frightening and dangerous.

Many muttreazik like him have similar life experiences, but his was a lot rougher and took a sharper turn into the “I will play the part of the monstrous outcast” thing because of his body plan, which is uncomfortable at best and freakish at worst (an X-ray of what his internal organs look like would not be pretty, stuck between the layout of a bird, human, and some type of canine) , with the cherry on top being his massive size and capacity to throw a large chunk of metal at you with his mind

Other fun facts:

he has a sword that he carries around that he made in the ‘forest beast 20s’ era, only because he didnt know how to make a gun)

His wings are completely useless for flight (not that the rest of his body is adapted to that anyway) and can only make his jumps a little more impressive.

Up until recently, he had never really seen or even heard of the xenos before. It was a bit of a shock running into someone that wasn't a human or muttreazik (and in the case of Prectikar, someone who's as tall as him)

He doesn't specifically use "he" as a pronoun, but he arbitrarily likes it better than she or they.

Due to several factors (namely his muzzle, tongue, and dog-like airway) he can't actually speak human languages well, if at all.

He's an obligate carnivore, which with his current living situation is like a sqeamish wolf trying to survive in the suburbs

His best friend is fellow low-congruency societal reject Lewis, who he calls coyote on account of his face's uncanny resemblance to one. They met when he saved Lewis from getting mugged, and after which Lewis helped him out with the pesky gunshot wound he'd sustained from a farm a couple miles over. You can see the doodlebob Lewis right at the end there.

[crow-caller]

I read a lot of YouTube comments, and I respond to a lot of them too. I don't know if this is... uncouth or whatever, but I do.

Sometimes, I get comments which are wrong. Sometimes they're abrasive. People who think trigger warnings are excessive, or that something I've called racist/ableist/antisemitic, Isn't. I do talk back to comments like this. And you know?

A Lot of the time, it works.

Most people who reply back consider what I say, and I've changed their minds. It's not that I'm some great writer, it's often that they are genuinely... confused.

A lot of people simply do not know Why trigger warnings matter, because their only context is mockery and extreme examples.

A lot of people don't know what institutional racism is. If you talk to people about things they don't understand, you won't have a scholarly debate— you'll have an argument where both sides thinks the other is an idiot. I had this recently.

I come at people with sympathy and then, gently, advise them. Do not talk to them like they're idiots or scum if you want to change anything. The above comment is saying "ableism isn't real", but what they unintentionally mean is "I don't know what ableism is so I don't think it's real." This is the case a lot of the time, because people's only context for what these terms mean is increasingly mockery, memes, and political ploys.

I was once a mod on the discord of a large gaming youtuber, a phenomenally half-toxic place— most regulars chill, most random lurkers posting the most atrocious memes and not getting why it was a problem. The head mod understood protecting lgbt+ people in the rules, but didn't Get nonbinary people — he was under the interpretation they were real, but the majority were attention seekers. He cited an account on tiktok, whose schtick was gathering and reacting to "blue hair pronouns" cringe. This was his only context beyond the moral instruction "our rules should protect lgbt+ people". He would have put that rule up either way, but only through discussing it did mods realize this was his opinion, and could explain why it was wrong.

I'm not advising everyone has to talk to everyone this way, I'm saying if you're going to engage, consider trying rather than venting.

[lemotmo]

No clue if you've received this one yet but I like this one a lot.

Q. You can hate him but you really don't think that breakup came out of nowhere? It was insanely fast. And weird and just strange overall.

A. The pacing of the entire episode was fast. But that's because they tried to work in too many calls amongst the personal stories and they shouldn't have done that. The only reason they used the cut call from 7x4 was because without it Athena wouldn't' have been in the episode at all. There is no other explanation for why they had to use that call. There were too many calls. That was the problem. Sometimes a character driven episode is needed and good and that should have been a character driven episode only. But for whatever reason they're trying to work in all of these calls that call back to bigger Buck or Eddie calls. They're doing it again next week. With the lightning and rollercoaster callback. What we don't yet know is why. But you all are trying to find depth in a breakup for a relationship that had no depth. It was a relationship in name only. It existed only to get Buck out. The entire point of Tommy's character was his dialogue in the breakup scene. Everything else in that scene was irrelevant. But even Buck's part of the conversation made sense for Buck's character. He's not sure what he feels so he decided to overcommit and just jump instead of trying to figure out what it is he really feels. That's relationship Buck through and through. Nothing about him was weird in that scene. Most of us have said from the beginning that all Tommy is is Buck's male Abby. The show allowed Buck to confirm that. They literally had him say she was a transformative relationship for me and so are you. Abby was his introduction to adult relationships. Tommy was his introduction to male relationships. That's it. It's not deeper than that. So there's no need for their breakup to be deeper than that. Buck only sounded crazy because there are only two people in the world who speak Buckense and their names are Evan Buckley and Eddie Diaz. So even though what Buck was saying made perfect sense to him, and story wise, it sounded insane to Tommy and the audience.

It feels more like Tim extended the Tommy part longer than he should have or meant too and they reached a point where they ran out of later. I feel like they're headed towards a particular story point and for whatever reason they needed some time between Buck being single and whatever is coming in the mid season finale. But the breakup has been signposted since day one. So calling it rushed is incorrect. The anniversary date was a disaster. The writing was on the wall. There was no need to drag it out.

Thank you Nonny! 🤗

Yep, all of this makes perfect sense. Nothing to add here.

IMPORTANT! Please don't repost this ask and/or a link that leads straight to my Tumblr account on Twitter or any other social media. Thank you!

Heads up! For anyone who is giving me the shifty eyes for reposting Ali's updates instead of reblogging. Read this.

Remember, no hate in comments, reblogs or inboxes. Let's keep it civil and respectful. Thank you.

If you are interested in more of Ali’s posts, you can find all of her posts so far under the tag: anonymous blog I love.

[saltineofswing]

I’ll also say — as a Californian who is, maybe not aghast or surprised but definitely angry and disappointed about how sideways the voting went in California re: progressive outcomes on the propositions at play this cycle — a big problem with this specific instance is that there is a massive propaganda effort in this state, specifically, to trick people into thinking one way or another about progressive causes. I feel that in my experience, the ‘powers that be’ know that if the language used to describe an issue is too empathetic (or, honestly, just straightforward), a measure will quickly get a lot of support. So, advertising for propositions is severely curtailed in spaces where they know younger and more motivated demographics will be watching, and counter-ads often use extremely oblique and sometimes outright misleading language to make the progressive goal of the proposition sound like a Bad Thing, Actually.

This is the Associated Press’s google tooltip that I got from googling California Prop 6:

I’ll get back to this in a second. For now, here is a link to the full text on Prop 6. It’s kind of a fucking slam dunk in my opinion! The section at the end is particularly interesting to me.

Nobody even bothered to submit an argument against. Why? Because nobody reads this stuff, and the people who didn’t want Prop 6 to pass knew that. I bet if you look into No On 6 campaigns, the rhetoric is probably highly divorced from the reality of what the proposition actually does, and is designed to trick people into thinking that it’s something completely different.

(It’s also very closely connected to the ‘return to tough-on-crime policy’ Prop 36, and they work nicely together to subjugate petty criminals.)

But I think that it’s important to remember that a lot of people just. Didn’t vote. California has something like 38 million citizens, and even if you take the above numbers as 55% of counted ballots — as per the implication in the screenshot of the AP’s tallies — that still accounts for less than half of CA’s population having voted in the first place. So, realistically… like, a quarter of the population voted No on this. Yes, that’s one in four people being OK with treating criminals however the fuck they want… but it’s a dramatic minority of the overall population.

All that said: I agree with OP, that most people don’t think twice about it and allow themselves to be carried by the cultural current. Before I really dug into it with my dad, he expressed the basic sentiment of ‘Well yeah indentured servitude is bad, but they did something wrong, so I don’t know that I mind’; but it took extremely minimal effort to point out how fucked up the situation really is (which is partially because my dad is a reasonable man, but I don’t think that most people would be that much harder to convince.) I think that cultivated apathy is easily cut through, as long as the individual in question already has a decent ethical base.

And I do believe that when it comes California’s denizens, at large, apathy really is their biggest problem. It sucks so, so bad that so few people bothered to vote down-ballot, if they voted at all, but I would rather work with the apathetic than with the outright malicious.

i've been seeing a lot of californians aghast at the proposition to abolish prisoners being used as slave labour getting voted down and i have no idea how to fix this on a societal scale but after having enough conversations with people you really do start to realise that a massive percentage of the population sees prisoners as subhuman and therefore believes that once someone is in prison for any reason then everything bad that's done to them is simply their just desserts

[chillicoded]

Lando Norris is NOT an underdog.

This is NOT Lando hate. I don't endorse or tolerate hate towards ANY driver. This is just an opinion.

I had a conversation with somebody on Bumble about the Norris/Verstappen championship battle this season. I was for Verstappen, he was for Norris - no problem whatsoever in itself. After Max's absolute dominance last season, I really can't blame anyone for being bored of Max winning and wanting to see a new driver succeeding. But what Got My Goat is that he said the reason he wants Lando to win the WDC is because "he's an underdog". I sent a (pretty lengthy) message back on why I really don't think Lando qualifies as an underdog, and he never got back to me to defend his position. Maybe I scared him off, or maybe he just wasn't on Bumble to debate the nuances of what it means to be an underdog. Either way, I figured the topic would make a good first opinion post because I'm more likely to get a discussion out of it here, plus I have extra thoughts to add.

To me, an underdog is somebody who is disadvantaged because of the external resources available to them, in comparison to those they are competing against. For an F1 driver, that's the car, the team, the strategy, the experience they have in F1, the track (not just condition, but whether or not it suits their car) and momentary bursts of luck, among countless other variables. A good "underdog coming out on top" narrative comes from a person or character (in this case a driver) performing well or succeeding despite lacking the ideal resources to do so.

It's important to note that I don't think skill counts as an external resource. I also think skill is hard to measure. I personally would measure it in terms of results, consistency and versatility, but even within that, I feel like you need to take all of the external factors into account. For example, DNFing or dropping way back because of a collision, bad luck with the car or a botched pit stop would make a dent in a driver's consistency and results, but it doesn't mean they're less skilled.

Underdog narratives do exist in F1. The Alpine double podium in Brazil was a great underdog narrative. The Alpine car is hardly competitive most of the time. At the start of the season it was an absolute tractor. I don't know enough about the team, strategies, pit stops, etc. to comment on those, but regardless, I don't think anyone was expecting a double podium from them this season because Alpine just hasn't been competing at the front of the field. Yet, despite all that, both drivers finished on the podium and scored mad points in easily the most unpredictable race of the season.

Franco Colapinto performing well and scoring points, despite being dumped into Williams mid-season with a firmly midfield car and no experience, is also an underdog narrative. He's far outperformed Logan Sargeant already and has been battling with some of the most experienced drivers on the grid, and coming out on top. I don't think anyone was expecting all this from him when he was first brought into F1. Personally I saw a lot of people saying that they were booting out one underprepared F2 driver, and replacing him with another underprepared F2 driver. I was part of that crowd too. Sorry Franco. I was not familiar with your game.

Even Carlos Sainz's win at Singapore last year could be considered an underdog narrative. Sure, he started on pole and he's an experienced driver, but everyone was an underdog compared to Red Bull (mainly Max) last year, and Ferrari didn't have a great car or great strategies. He did have the luck of Max being practically out of sight, having been outqualified by Liam Lawson in an AlphaTauri (another great underdog moment, by the way), but it still takes skill to keep the lead, and his strategic use of Lando goes to show that even further than just the win itself.

These are just a few recent examples. Think about them. Seriously deep them. Revel in how they make you feel.

Now think about Lando's performance this season.

His first win in Miami was great. At the time, I was still a hardcore Lando supporter and I was absolutely thrilled. A few laps before the end of the race, when it became apparent that he was almost definitely going to win, I was already celebrating for him. It had been a long time coming and it was amazing to see him realising the potential I knew he and McLaren had. He's won twice more this season so far, and both times he was ahead by a country mile at the chequered flag. Aside from that first ever win, though, his other impressive performances this year haven't quite evoked the same emotion as my previous examples. That sense that he's overcoming disadvantages and delivering even when the odds are stacked against him just isn't there for me. Why is that?

There's no denying that he's a skilled driver. Three wins in a season with 7 different race winners (6 of whom have won multiple races) isn't too bad at all. He's also been relatively consistent throughout the year, never finishing a race outside the points. He's even been able to adapt to a range of tracks and weather conditions. For example, he finished P6 after the rain and chaos of Brazil, which threw off even some of the other skilled drivers mentioned above like Sainz and Colapinto.

But we're not here to discuss whether or not he's skilled. We're here to discuss whether or not he's an underdog.

Honestly, did you even read the title?

Anyway. Skill doesn't make someone an underdog. I established that earlier. If skill makes someone an underdog, Max Verstappen is probably the underest dog on the current grid, and that's obviously not the case. We need to look into those external factors I mentioned above: things like car, strategy, luck and experience, in comparison to what other drivers have had to work with this year. The less he has, the more of an underdog it makes him.

First and foremost, McLaren's strategies this year have been pretty abysmal. The terrible calls made in instances like the Hungarian Grand Prix and the lack of calls made in instances like Monza lap one have been enough to make me stop supporting McLaren as a team altogether. They insisted that they weren't prioritising the drivers' championship, but with the constructors' practically secured, I honestly find that hard to believe. If it is true, they've been doing a disservice to both drivers: to Lando by not giving proper attention to his very real championship chances, and to Oscar by ordering him to give up positions for Lando and act as a second driver at certain points, apparently for no real reason. Overall, McLaren's strategies have been in Lando's favour at times, but they've rarely been good. It's hard for me to compare McLaren's strategy calls to other teams, though, simply because I don't know enough about other teams' strategy calls. Maybe all the teams have been equally rubbish with strategy this year, so it technically hasn't been putting Lando at a disadvantage. I wouldn't know. If you have any insight on this, let me know and I might make a second, more definitive post about this.

As for luck, Lando has had bouts of both good luck and bad luck so far this year. He had some good luck in Miami, ultimately facilitating his first win, and he had some hard luck in Austria with his collision with Verstappen and Baku with qualifying. I'm not at all suggesting that Lando didn't deserve his first win (honestly, I don't believe that "deserving" matters in this sport at all), but I don't think he would've won that first race without the luck of the safety car, and I'm not sure he would've performed as well as he has without the confidence boost from that first win. With the car he's had this season (and I'll talk about that next), it would've come eventually, but I really do think that momentary burst of luck has been a really important factor in shaping this season for Lando. It has definitely had more of an effect than his moments of poor luck. I think few other lucky instances have had as much of an effect for a team or driver, except maybe Alpine's performance in Brazil.

His car has been a seriously influential factor, too. Of course, no driver's success is all because of the car; the driver and the car always go hand in hand. A less skilled driver can't properly handle a good car (see Pérez) and even a good driver can rarely drag performance that isn't there out of a tractor (see Bottas at Sauber). But, like his luck, the MCL38 has massively facilitated Lando's ability to perform this year. It's a car that has been capable of winning races by over twenty seconds, creating final laps that are reminiscent of Max's dominance last season. That alone begs the question, why has Lando not been performing consistently at that level? Where exactly does the balance of success lie between Lando and his car?

It's definitely worth taking into consideration that top teams this year have certainly given Lando a lot of competition to deal with this year. Even with a dominant car, with around six other drivers able to put up a fight against Lando, he's not in as dominant a position as Max was last year. But there is a difference in skill in certain areas, and it shows in moments like Lando's first lap bottles from pole compared to Max's perfect starts last year, for example. Lando is just not as polished a driver as some of his competitors, and that is something that naturally comes with more experience.

It's hard to say Lando lacks experience, though. 2024 is his fifth season in F1. He's not always had a great car, but now that he does have one, it's clear to see that he knows how to handle it decently well. Compared to Oscar Piastri, though, it doesn't look like his experience is giving him the competitive edge you'd expect. With four years of experience over his teammate, you'd think Lando would be performing at a much higher level, but that just isn't the case. As a quick example, Oscar's average finishing position this season is 4.9. Lando's is only 0.8 higher at 4.1. With that difference in experience, you'd expect a much higher gap in performance... or at least I would. Maybe I'm wrong for that. Let me know.

Overall, I really don't think Lando is at any kind of serious disadvantage that would make it fair to call him an underdog. He has issues thanks to McLaren's strategic blunders, sure, but the rest of his problems are pretty much skill issues. Call me back with the notion of an "underdog narrative" when Ollie Bearman is in the championship fight in a Haas next year.