#believe it or not there are a very few who don't condemn you to hell for loving who you love or wanting to be the gender (or lack thereof)

[tabl3]

being a gay vegan in the bible belt is an experience

[waitmyturtles]

THE MORNING AFTER: ONLY FRIENDS, EPISODE 11 -- 1 OUTTA 3 AIN'T BAD

Preamble! I had a HELL of a day yesterday, woof. So if this comes out garbled, y'all will know why. I'll try to keep this short, but... I'm likely lying to myself, let's see.

TW: FORCEBOOK -- I'm going to say a few words about ForceBook below, so if words about ForceBook are not your thing, please move along!

I'm gonna start this post with thoughts on the three main pairs, and then get some last little thoughts out at the end.

a) I have a feeling that I don't need to write THAT much, because the lovelies @lurkingshan (here), @neuroticbookworm (here), and @chicademartinica (here) all covered the top points of this episode nicely: this episode was a BostonNick WIN. On Nick, dear Chica nailed it so hard that I will have to link AND screenshot her m'fucker:

And Boston, BOSTON, MY MAN! MY MAN! MY MAN!

(Nick says the first line below, with Boston saying the second:)

Fuckin' a. There are two reasons why I STANNED BostonNick in this episode.

1) First of all, as you see above, Nick still had to be a tiny bit of a shit. Nick was in Atom's shoes once. Nick remembers the feeling of having feelings for someone who didn't have feelings back for him. So Nick took a little passive aggressive dig at Boston by calling Boston's sex and predilections "terrible."

And Boston shot back at Atom -- and maybe indirectly at Nick -- with his perspective on sex: "[h]ow can you love me after sleeping together just once?"

I've written before (and forgive the foggy mom brain, but I believe @emotionallychargedtowel has also written on this), that the hormonal experience of sex can impact people in incredibly different ways. Some people, like Boston, feel no connection with the person he's slept with after sex; other people, like Nick and Atom, catch feelings. All of it is normal.

What happened in the dialogues that we were privy to earlier in the series vis à vis Nick and Atom was that WE, the audience, heard THEIR perspectives, and the narratives allowed US to contemplate sympathizing for them -- by playing off of a general assumption that an audience would JUDGE people like Boston for having casual sex. Boston's positions on sex (heh) pissed off people like Nick and Atom! So Boston got fuckin' wiretapped and smeared by these dudes.

However: BOSTON REMAINED CONSISTENT, CONSTANT, AND ACCOUNTABLE to his position, AT ALL TIMES, that he wasn't someone who caught feelings after casual sex. I am sure for many sectors of the Only Friends audience, that this may not have been easy to parse, especially considering the very early and popular judgements levied against Boston. (For the record, I never took Boston as a predator, and I established my thoughts early in the series run on this as rhetoric about Boston's "badness" around sex was flying around. I'm a Khai girlie. Boys, girls, and non-binary friends can be playas, too, and deserve to enjoy their sex lives without judgement.)

What I UTTERLY admire about the pace of this series vis à vis BostonNick is that it took its TIME in establishing Boston's AGENCY to be able to LEVY his position on sex SO STRONGLY and CLEARLY, with Nick's support. While much of the series allowed the popular and condemning rhetoric to swirl around Boston, this scene put a fuckin' NAIL in that coffin. I believe this scene said: you can't only listen to one side, the crying, sobbing side of a person who wants another person after a one-night stand. You HAVE to listen to both sides. The hormonal aspect of wanting to be close to your sex partner is valid, but also -- if the other side is talking, you MUST listen to what the other side is SAYING.

Boston was always clear about his position -- and Nick and Atom HAD to take responsibility for their unreasonable demands from Boston after their one-night stands with him; unreasonable, because Boston CLEARLY stated to the both of them that he wasn't a relationship guy, and would not be forced into it. And both of them ignored those statements, and all hell broke loose, TWICE.

2) HOWEVER! Boston realized, after spending more time with Nick than with any other sex partner, and after he lost his friends, that he HAD caught feelings for his fave, his Nick! Remember last week, when I got all mewdy that MONOGAMY might be the dramatic device that the show would use to "redeem" Boston? BLECH.

DAMN, did this episode SPIN THAT AROUND for me. GOD, I LOOOOOOOOOOVED THAT CONVO WITH NICK AND BOSTON ABOUT FIGURING OUT THEIR STATUS!!!!!

Paraphrasing! "I want to spend the next few months loving on you," or whatever Boston says?! FUCK, YES! Nick, all OVER this, setting boundaries, allowing himself TIME and SPACE to figure out what's best for him, with both Dan and Boston! SHIT, MARK PAKIN SHOWED UP! Omg, BostonNick for the win.

My head's spinning, because that was seriously one of the BEST conversations I've seen written in a drama about the consideration of a relationship and a status check. That impressed me as much as Pharm asking Dean for a break in UWMA -- and then Pharm straight up LIVING HIS LIFE, BBQ pork grills and all, without Dean for a few months.

And. Boston was cool with Nick's boundaries and thoughtfulness. Boston knows what he wants, but he's not gonna push Nick into anything. Boston knows time is ticking, but will wait for Nick's answer.

It was so cool to see. My heart was full.

So that pairing, the NeoMark/BostonNick pairing -- SOLID.

b) Moving on! Thanks to @lurkingshan, I got clarity on what the fuq was happening with Sand and Boeing. At first, I thought Boeing was a little SHIT for showing up to Sand and stirring unnecessary drama in his ex's life after getting rejected by Mew. (Mond, though. 🤤)

But, as Shan pointed out to me in my insane day yesterday: Sand has a problem saying no to dudes. (Homey, RELATE.) So like, then they all go back to Ray's place, and Ray KNOWS that Sand has trouble setting boundaries and saying no, because that's what Sand's mom said to Ray, but also, that's the way Sand's been engaging with Ray himself, and Ray will DEF know what will be up if Sand gets closer to Boeing again, and Ray's like, uh, come into my pool so we can nip this in the bud?, but no, we know what Jojo's thinking, so.

I mean, have sex already, you three, chop chop. I see the FirstKhao gworls on my dash not happy about not having a complete episode of SandRay peace, which I get, but also, this continues to reiterate my bleh on Sand, which like -- get a backbone, Sand. You have a literal boyfriend now, and you're still not saying no to dudes? What if Mild strolled in for a foursome? (NO, DON'T TURN THAT DOWN, SAND, DON'T.) But I'm just saying -- maybe listen to a person in your life, like your mom, to set some boundaries, like your roommate. I'm throwing my hands up in the air on this one, but at least we may get our threesome, and, Mond.

c) Okay, last pair! TopMew. For a hot second, I was impressed with Top.

I liked this, ::waves index finger in a circle::, this worked.

But I have decided. I'm done with ForceBook. I just -- please remember the TW, FB girls. I'll get back to TopMew in a second as characters, but this was my first ForceBook show, and it might be my last. Watching them is as exciting to me as breaking down Amazon boxes.

We have seen Mew waffle this whole dang series. (WELCOME BACK, THE ONLY FRIENDS VENGEFUL WAFFLE! HEART YOU, @starryalpacasstuff!)

And there was more Mew waffling, more talking to moms, and Top is just like, I'm gonna peace out, DEUCES, and then, OF COURSE, HE COMES BACK INTO THE KITCHEN, LIKE HE NEVER LEFT THE HOUSE AFTER SAYING HE WOULD (I cackled), and then they're together in bed. And now they'll move in together.

This was a BIT of a storyline ride. But -- and I HAVE TO ADMIT, part of this is my tiredness talking -- I'm just kinda bored of ForceBook at this point. Do I actually get the sense that Top is *excited* about Mew moving in? Do I get the sense that Top and Mew *love* each other? I.... don't! Is it the chemistry between ForceBook? I.... I think so? I think so!

And, so... Mew will try to convince Ray to accept Top in the next episode? I dunno. (Episode 12 previews, we've learned to distrust them.) As much as I want to try to sit here to analyze TopMew at this point, I kinda just wanna throw my hands up in the air and be like, I'll leave these characters to fiction. And I think it's because I was unfortunately spoiled by the FANTASTIC chemistry emanating out of Neo, Papang, Mark, First, and Mond in this episode (MARK! MONNND. PAPANGGGG.).

I have to admit it, and I'm sorry to admit it. ForceBook do nothing for me, acting-wise and chemistry-wise, and I am done struggling with analyzing TopMew. I'll let 'em be.

d) Last thoughts! Bye, Cheum. We haven't had enough of Nonnie in this series, and I wanna see Nonnie as April dump Cheum's ass and break shit in episode 12, the way Nonnie's real-life brother goes and breaks shit on social media. Way to hold no one, including yourself, truthfully accountable, Cheum.

(What in the. I would love a Soonvijarn episode on Jojo's thoughts on Cheum one day.)

Anyway, bye, B.

THAT'S ALMOST IT! Ephemerality? I hope Boston makes a whole bunch of righteous new homies in NYC. This whole series has made me sick and tired of proximate friends, lol. We'd better see Mond suck face with Khao and First. Andddd, bleep, bloop, that's all I got!

HOME BASE NEXT WEEK, FAM!

[EPHEMERALITY SQUAD, second-to-last weekend meta for ya! @slayerkitty (SK... I am so tired, lol), @ranchthoughts, @chickenstrangers, @twig-tea, @neuroticbookworm, @lurkingshan, @distant-screaming, @clara-maybe-ontheroad, @thatgirl4815]

[lily-alphonse]

for the rare pairs, did you ever get one with marlon and rasmodius? i haven’t been able to stop thinking about them together 👀

Old man yaoi is such a crowd favorite fr lmao

Ok you guys aren't ready for where I'm going to take this (except Human) because I had an idea for vampire!Abigail that involves Marlon and Rasmodius getting together. Cuz you know, like, 2 dads or whatever. (Technically 3 but Pierre? Ugh. He’s wimpy comic relief in this only)

For the purposes of this fic, Abigail is the wizard's daughter and only him and Caroline know.

Anyways I'm trying to do A LOT with this one so maybe I just do bullet points this time to give you the idea

There's no farmer, instead Marlon takes Abbie under his wing as a young adventurer

Rasmodius (because he watches everyone, like a creep) sees this and is like UGH not that THAT GUY, because Marlon is essentially his annoying coworker. Marlon tries to be buddy buddy with him and Ras is not about it. Like bro do your job protecting the valley and shut up pls.

Abbie stumbles on something she shouldn't in the mines, accidentally unleashing an ancient evil vampire and getting bit. It's very important to me that she turns into a bat. It happens automatically when the sun touches her skin, as a defense mechanism. She can survive in the sun as a bat.

So shit hits the fan obviously. Caroline goes to the wizard's tower screaming and freaking out because her daughter is missing and she is certain he has something to do with it (she hadn't known about Marlon) and Rasmodius pieces together it probably has something to do with the ANCIENT EVIL now on the loose. He assures her he is going to take care of it and has no choice but to team up with (ugh) Marlon.

Marlon doesn't know about Abbie. Ras is keeping all his secrets close and being careful about which info he gives to who. They go on an adventure of bonding. Important features of which are homoerotic wound dressing, and Marlon getting serious with Ras about his past and stuff. So he sees another side to him and starts to gain respect for the man.

A lot happens next that I don't have worked out yet sue me its just a concept rn. I have a few different ideas for how Abbie's side of things can go. She could potentially get out of the mines and turn into a bat which leads to her flying to the tower bc who else would believe her? Or she could be trapped in the mines with the original vampire and be like his spawn under his control or something.

Either way, we end up at a moment of truth where Marlon realizes Abbie has turned and feels like they need to kill her or otherwise trap her for eternity or something. And Ras is like tf no Im not condemning my daughter to that and Abbie and Marlon both are just [shocked pikachu face]

BATTLE OF THE DADS. DAD DUEL. FATHER FIGHT where they are physically fighting but also arguing about who knows best for her since the wizard has literally never spoken to her in her life but is also the one trying to save her, while Marlon actually did become a strong father figure for her but wants to kill her (only to end her suffering ofc)

Imagine they are fighting and Abbie just calls over them like "Not really suffering a whole lot, to be honest!" because this is a dark comedy as well as a romance.

Ras wounds Marlon badly enough (owie, it hurt his heart to do though, what is this, FEELINGS?) that he is subdued. Abbie and Ras take on the ancient vampire and nearly DIE but Marlon comes back and saves the DAAAY

He has the opportunity to also kill Abbie and doesn't, he's come around to compromise his morals for the sake of the ones he loves

Potentially even more homoerotic wound dressing and then they KISS with their old scruffy man beards and Abbie pretends to vom

The End

If you want this one to exist be sure to reblog and vote for it in the poll! This would be a hell of a fun one

Send me any Stardew Valley rarepair and I will tell you how I would make them work! (Even non-marriage npcs) If youre lucky you may get a mini fic out of it. Check the list below to see if Ive already answered yours

Rarepair Masterlist

@totallyhumanexe @chikoxiko come get ur old men

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

Sorry if this is a heavy question but I don't know where else to go. Is it true that you will go to hell if you commit suicide? And if not, how can I be sure? Completely sure?

I don't ask for bad reasons, just that I have a degenerative disease and there will eventually come a point when i'm still alive but can no longer live at all. Hopefully that's still a long ways away but I want to have a choice when that time comes, rather than existing for potentially years with severe pain and no joy. But can I do that without condemning myself to an eternity of the same?

CW: suicide, hell, degenerative disease, euthanasia

Hi there, anon. I fully believe that a just and loving God would never condemn anyone who is going through the kind of internal and external struggle that leads to suicide.

I have a long article on Medium where I explore instances of suicide ideation in scripture that I recommend to you. Overall, I conclude that condemnation of suicide is not present in the Bible: the few instances of completed suicide are presented pretty neutrally; and the many instances of suicide ideation elicit God's compassion, not condemnation.

Throughout scripture, God’s response to depressed and suicidal people is not condemnation, but

validation of their experience;

removal of the factors that make them depressed/suicidal; and

helping them access a more abundant life.

When it comes to your degenerative disease, that second point might sound absurd or even offensive. I do not tout cureism; I'm absolutely not telling you to put on rose-colored lenses and pretend your disease will magically go away. While it's possible that medicine may advance in your lifetime to help prolong your life or ease your pain, it sounds like you're very aware of the realities of your disease and the more likely path it will take.

But while I don't believe in a magical genie God who vanishes away all pain and illness in our lives, I do believe in a God who enters into our suffering. A God who, when removal of pain is not possible, endures that pain with us; and who guides us into community that will support us in all that we go through. And who, yes, ultimately brings us into abundant life — partially in this life, fully in the next.

___

Along with biblical support for God's compassion for suicidal persons, Christian denominations that used to promote the idea that suicide leads to damnation have since revised those views.

As our collective understandings of mental health have developed over the last century or so, it's become more obvious even to the most traditional groups (e.g. the Catholic Church) that claiming that people who die by suicide go straight to hell is an extremely callous and unjust view and frankly, a grievous form of victim-blaming.

Instead, while emphasizing the seriousness of suicide and urging suicidal persons to seek professional assistance, most churches now assure the loved ones of those who have died by suicide that God's mercy and love cover all things. And those churches with a solid social justice mindset invest their resources in removing the societal factors that lead someone to suicide, rather than blaming the suicidal.

___

I hope this helps ease your fears somewhat, anon. You may also find encouragement in my #hell tag, where I frequently talk about how I don't believe in hell at all. God's will for all of us is relationship and thriving; and when I believe anything at all I do believe the words Jesus taught us: "thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." Suffering and death will not have the last word; punitive "justice" will not have the last word; God's restorative justice and all-embracing love will.

Wishing you as slow a progression in your degenerative disease as possible. And no matter where this life takes you, I pray that you find your people, who will support you and advocate for you, laugh and weep with you, learn and live and love with you; and that you feel God's deep, abiding love, holding you close through all things.

[apollos-olives]

thank you for answering my ask. i didn't want to make any assumptions nor did i want to harm or offend you or anyone who is queer by sending it.

I myself am Muslim and I have met Muslims who are queer, trans, part of the lgbtq+ but i never really understood their understanding when it came to Islam and homosexuality as few of the Muslims I've met were practicing and most seemed to deny many parts of Islam to justify being queer which didn't make sense. Your response has made me understand it though and I do appreciate it as the concept of homosexuality and Islam is almost 90% discussed by people/scholars who are not queer.

I am by no means trying to turn this into a religious discussion because I am not learned but what you said about a singular sin being a singular did stand out to me. Although I've always known that as a fact, I've never actually took into consideration what it meant in it's entirety, although Islam does have the concept of major sins and minor sins, so wouldn't that have an impact?

But again while I was reading your answer, I found myself nodding because your response was very much logical and made sense to me. You mentioned that everything that is a sin has a particular reasoning behind it and that homosexuality being a sin has no real reasoning behind it and I don't have anything to refute your point with. But I will bring lgbtq+ activists who discuss things like being queer, homosexual, trans, etc to children as children can be influenced easily (btw I'm speaking specifically about people like Jeffery Marsh) into the discussion as something I disagree heavily with.

Many scholars have also discussed story of prophet Lut (AS) which really is the only story where homosexuality is ever mentioned and while I do agree that the homosexuality aspect of the story is focused on more than what is necessary, if the homosexual part wasn't important would it then be put in the Quran. And if homosexuality was not a sin, then shouldn't their be examples of homosexuality in the Quran or hadiths? I don't expect this to have a concrete answer as even I will admit that I can use this "what about" argument for literally everything that is not directly mentioned in the Quran.

The one thing I do disagree with is the transitioning of trans people - not because I don't believe in gender dysphoria or that I disbelieve in people being transgender - but I do believe that the permanent altercation of a person's body is haram because although you stated that perhaps transitioning might be the best option for people who are trans and you compared it to people who are disfigured (as an example) to me it still seems as an act that goes against God's will because doesn't Islam have the concept, that the more difficult the struggle, the better the reward? Forgive me if this is a terrible assertion to make as I am speaking from a heterosexual point of view and my understanding of your struggles will not be the same as actually experiencing your struggles.

At the end of the day we all are Muslim and I am a firm believer that as long as no one purposefully tries to harm Islam and spread misinformation, only God can judge. I do not agree with majority of Muslims who deem it appropriate to condemn people to Hell simply for existing as I do believe that people who are not heterosexual 90% of the time are not making their struggles up, nor are they making false claims. Regardless of my opinion on whether or not homosexuality is a sin, I admire your attitude towards it and I do believe that Allah loves all. Allah is All-loving after all and Allah does not make mistakes nor does He intentionally do things to harm anyone.

Thank you for your perspective and for teaching me something I genuinely did not know. I hope that this ask does not come across as hostile because these are simply my thoughts and I am more than willing to open my mind to different perspectives.

i'm glad you're being very respectful with your disagreements and i'm happy to answer anything as long as it's in good faith. thank you for being so kind :)

i will say that yes you are right that many queer muslims are not practicing and often stray away from islam to justify their queerness, and i've seen it happen from a lot of queer muslims around me. i do believe it's not because their faith is weak or that they purposely are doing it with the intent of malice, but i think it's because a lot of people have trauma when it comes to religion. religious trauma affects many people in the world, even outside of islam. almost every queer muslim i've ever met has been religiously traumatized, and therefore are afraid of islam and the people who practice it out of the concern that they may be harmed again. while islam is beautiful, the people who practice it can harm those who do not follow it properly in their eyes. i personally have religious trauma that my parents gave me over being queer, but i've moved on from it and have accepted myself regardless. unfortunately that is not the case for every muslim, and queer muslims especially are targeted and harmed more and more as of recently. because of that religious trauma, queer muslims are likely to stray away from allah and islam because they associate islam with their mental, emotional, and bodily harm. and i absolutely understand it as well. not everyone will get it, but it's understandable how you will want to stray away from religion when it has only harmed you. i believe that is the biggest factor when queer muslims deny parts of their islam in order to "justify" being queer.

you are right in that islam does have major sins and minor sins. of course, i am not a scholar so anyone could correct me if i'm wrong, but while there are major sins and minor sins, i still believe that sins are singular. to me, a major sin would affect like... a persons own moral judgement about their actions, if that makes sense? like a major sin would weigh down on someone's chest more than a minor sin would, and would therefore make the person want to repent even more. while all sins count the same, some have more of a guilt to them that may affect a person and their relationship with allah. me eating gelatin isn't going to be as heavy of a sin on my shoulders as, for example god forbid, me stealing from orphans, right? they're both sins and equal in count, but not equal in weight. if that makes sense? that's how i view it. a major sin affects a person more personally and affects their relationship with their deen and their relationship with allah, rather than count as more or multiple sins on their shoulder. you are, of course, allowed to disagree with me, this is just how i view it. alhamdulillah god gave us all our own minds to think and make decisions and beliefs and values for ourselves.

i personally don't know who jeffrey marsh is, but i do understand your concern about children. the thing is, children can be queer too 🤷‍♂️ i found myself being attracted to the same sex as young as 3 years old. i, of course, did not realize there was a term for this until i was 11 where i fully came out as queer, but i felt horribly repressed and did not know what those feelings were until i was told that they were normal to have. so i do believe that at least exposing children to the fact that "hey, queer people exist and that's okay :)" is... okay 👍 yk? and of course, exposing children to stuff that is sexual and inappropriate is wrong, no matter if it's heterosexual or homosexual, but i don't believe any queer person is advocating to harm any children by telling children about basic queer education. there IS a lot of queer discourse over this within the lgbtq+ community, and discussions about whether or not children should be involved are still happening to this day. you can feel free to have your own opinions, but you must respect others beliefs as long as they aren't harming anyone. personally, i think it's okay to expose kids to queer media and reality, as long as they are not forced to. kids are naturally curious 🤷‍♂️ let them explore. if more queer media was available when i was little, i would've for sure have come out as queer when i was muchhh younger even. and 11 was pretty young anyway lol. the thing is, being queer isn't inherently sexual. there are different types of queerness and a lot of it isn't sexual at all. there's romantic love, platonic love, aesthetic love, etc etc etc. implying that being queer is solely sexual only harms the community more. i'm asexual (as a general term), which means i do not want to have sex. ever. i just look for romantic relationships instead. there are different types of queer love and not all of them are sexual. is sex a big part of queer history and liberation? yeah. but is being queer just about sex sex and more sex? absolutely not. being queer is about accepting yourself for who you are. and why not show kids that? why not allow kids to explore and accept themselves for who they are as well? the moment people realize that the queer community isn't inherently sexual and that queerness is for everyone to feel accepted in, that's when we become more and more liberated. and the thing is, you don't see heterosexuals get the same problem with children though. heterosexuals always get to kiss in public, hold hands, get married. they dominate the whole world. no one has ever been discriminated against for being a heterosexual. heterosexuals see a boy baby and a girl baby play together and be like "oh my god they're boyfriend and girlfriend lol!" ... like... is that not forcing children into romantic situations and possibly implying sexual stuff too?? how is it fair that heterosexuals get to "force" their children into being heterosexual but god forbid a homosexual holds hands with their partner in public while minding their own business, yk? no one is forcing children to do anything. we are just trying to expose the reality of what we are facing to the world so they can realize we are normal and can accept us. no one chooses to be queer or trans. no one chooses to live a life of pain and struggle and oppression. we feel love the same way everyone else feels love. do heterosexuals get to choose who they fall in love with? no. love isn't a choice. love just happens. you can't force and choose someone to love someone else. love is unconditional and free.

as i said before, homosexuality was never mentioned in the qur'an. the word used in the qur'an does not mean homosexuality, it was talking about the indecent and horrific acts of rape, pedophilia, premarital sex, infidelity, etc that the people of sayedna lut (as) were doing. and while we've already talked about how homosexuality is not a sin, i do want to mention that the swana region has a very rich queer history to it! i personally am not very knowledgeable about this but i'm sure if i ask the right people, if you want me to, i can give you resources to learn about queer history around the islamic countries. before colonization and western ideals had been spread through the land, swana was a very queer place. so while homosexuality was never mentioned in the qur'an or in the hadiths or whatever else, queer people have been existing for thousands and thousands of years. we have always existed and will continue to. i'm not sure if this story is true but i believe prophet muhammad had an experience with some trans or "femenine men" during his time? in any case, i think looking more into queer history would be great to learn more about how islam and queerness are related to each other.

your concern over trans people transitioning is understandable. while i've already explained it before, i think the best way to think about it is like. trans people are often suicidal. the percentage of trans minors who commit suicide each year is genuinely horrific. if transitioning is the only thing that can help them become healthy again, then allah will allow it. allah wants the best for us and wants us to be happy and healthy. being trans is a health and science related issue. i don't really know how to explain it to you since you are not trans yourself, but please try to understand that you honestly might never actually understand what it's like. being trans is a type of experience that differs for everyone, and if you aren't trans yourself, you may never understand what it's like to feel the need to transition. transitioning is hard, it's long, the process is incredibly expensive. no one is doing it for leisure. people do it for their health and to become healthy again. isn't it haram to not eat pig if you're starving and on deaths door? didn't allah say it's haram for you to not eat or drink something, even if previously told not to, if it'll save your life? didn't allah say that you can do anything to your body and break any rule as long as it's for your health so you survive? being trans is like that. often, transitioning is something that is for health, not for leisure. i can't explain what dysphoria feels like, but it's miserable. it's always being afraid of calls because you are afraid of speak with your voice because it sounds wrong to you. it's wanting to dig your nails into your skin and tear off your flesh because you hate it you hate it you hate it. it's wanting to grab a knife and chop off parts of your body. it's wanting to scream and sob and rot. it's wanting to wear extremely unsafe tight clothing to try to look the way you want to. it's wanting to vomit every time someone calls you the wrong gender. it's the horrific feeling of utter dread hearing your deadname from people you love. it's the urge to just end it all. it'd be so nice to just end it all. if no one will give me what i need, the best option is to end it all. it's horrible and awful and there is nothing to fix it. it only gets worse and worse in most cases, to the point where people start harming themselves and many trans youth end up killing themselves. is it not haram to forbid people from getting treatment? no matter how much that changes them? isn't it all in the name of health and safety? yes, allah said that the harder the challenge, the more rewards you get, but allah did not make us to suffer. allah is already challenging us by making us trans in the first place. that challenge is lifelong, even if we transition. discrimination is still a challenge and still kills people every day. allah loves us and wants the best for us. i don't expect you to completely understand, since you aren't trans yourself, but this is how much it affects us. transition is necessary and it MUST be available for people to receive. and even if you still don't agree... so what? who are you to judge and decide who and who doesn't get to do what they want with their own body? everyone owns their body and ONLY their own body. no one should judge or condemn anyone else for doing what they want with their own body as long as it's not harming anyone else.

we are all muslim, and we all must support each other, no matter how different our views are, because allah loves us all and wants the best for us. thank you for asking, this is a great discussion to have :)

[odinsblog]

Innocent civilians, or colonial settlers?

I mean, the justification that those people who were killed, or, I mean, listen, do you think everybody there, for example, children who were there, teenagers, even some young people, young adults, even adults, do you think everyone there realizes the politics of it?

I mean, this would have been, I think, viewed differently if this happened during and targeted, an actual eviction of a Palestinian family or demolishing of their home, and this was a blowback to that, in that moment. I think people would look at that very differently. But to attack people at a concert? I'm sorry, everyday average people don't understand the intricacies and the policies.

I mean, hell, I think whoever decided to host and promote and create a concert, miles from, just a few miles outside the Gaza border, the Israel Gaza border, at the very least, bad taste. At the very most, should probably be sued and lose a lot, pay out families lots of money for a pretty disgusting idea, honestly. But the attendees of the concert? I'm sorry, no, they are innocent parties in this.

They put a concert at the border of an open air prison. Yes, I think it's extremely dumb, stupid, disgusting, horrific for someone to do that. I don't think every attendee of the concert understood exactly that. I mean, people don't, the vast majority of people do not pay attention to these sort of things. I'm sorry. They just don't. And I don't think that their ignorance is a death sentence. I'm sorry, I just don't.

I just don't.

Again, I think the people who set this thing up should pay consequences here in terms of payouts to the family. I don't know, something - eternal shunning from the entire music industry, I don't know. They certainly have blood on their hands, I think. But the innocent people who attended this concert? I'm sorry, no.

Also, going back to the disinformation spreading about all this, there was the disinformation that was spreading, that Elon Musk even tweeted out, that this was some sort of concert for peace, “A music festival for peace. It was attended by peace activists, and it was a pro-Palestinian unity peace festival,” I mean, that all came out. It was all bunk, it was all bullshit.

It's a Brazilian rave, EDM, electronic, whatever, rave party that travels the world, and they do these shows. It was not any sort of festival for peace.

And the reason I'm bringing that up is not to say, “Oh, that makes it okay,” because I just told you exactly what my feelings are, that no one at that concert is deserving of any sort of, whatever your position on holding a concert outside of Gaza is, no one there deserved death. They're all innocent.

But that disinformation, which turned out to be debunked and bullshit, was specifically put out there to basically knock the idea that you should be pro-Palestinian, or sympathize with the Palestinian people.

Because by doing that, that does not mean anything in terms of people who are dead. But what it does do is say, “Oh, look, these people were doing something for the Palestinian people, and this is how they're repaid?”

It’s to delegitimize. It is to delegitimize anyone who'd be pro-Palestinian liberation, or the anti-occupation, or just believing in basic human rights for 2 million people, half of whom are under the age, I believe, of 19. I think the median age is 19 in Gaza.

So the whole framing of it as a pro-Palestinian peace activist, festival for Peace and Unity, it's basically so they could pretend that, “Oh, look, these people were even on their side, and look what they did to them. They're savages and animals.”

That's what that whole thing was about.

It's gross. It's gross.

It’s using people who were killed as political tools, to further ostracize the most downtrodden and poor, in the world basically, in Gaza.

We saw a lot of these reports that it was an unprovoked attack. An unprovoked attack. You can say it was an unjustifiable attack. It was wrong. You could condemn it in whatever way, but unprovoked, that means that it started there, that there was nothing that came before it to lead to it. And that's just wrong.

That's just wrong.

It's basically saying the history of Israel - Palestine began on Saturday, and that's obviously not the case. I mean, before Saturday, before Hamas's disgusting attack on innocent Israeli civilians, what has been the news out of the region for the past couple of years?

It's literally been just time after time, every time there was a story out of Israel, regarding Israel - Palestine, it was Israel, once again kicking Palestinians out of their home, settlers moving into homes, Israeli settlers moving into homes, homes being demolished. That's been all we've been hearing.

And then you'll get some missiles from Hamas, which I'm sure that the Iron Dome intercepts, but when all the news does hit your feed, or your phone, or wherever you get the news, that's what it's been. That's what it's been.

And there has been no call for anything to be done, no call of solidarity to Palestinians, no call on Israel to actually not, just no call on Israel, no call on Israel to pull back or stop what they're doing and actually putting something behind it to show that you mean it.

When something happens to the Palestinian people that's brought upon them by the IDF or the Israel's right wing government, we don't hear anything. We don't hear anything. You hear it from left wing activists and human rights activists, but governments are silent. The media is silent. Other than the very few media outlets that actually just report what's going on, you don't hear anything.

It's been decades since there was an attack anywhere like this from Hamas, or any group in Gaza. And what happens is, what ends up happening. Just like it happens in so many other places across this world. But again, in this case, it happens to the most downtrodden people on Earth. You get the deaths of innocent Palestinian men, women, and children, and then you get the deaths of innocent Israeli citizens and civilians. And this keeps going in a circle.

It goes in a circle.

Goes in a circle.

And the people who pay the most, the biggest price, are the most powerless. And we keep putting our thumbs on the scale every time. We keep saying we want peace in the region. We want to… there's something we need to do. We need to do something, right? But we show a clear bias. We show we're not neutral in this. We show we're not seeking what's best for the Palestinian people, or really the innocent Israeli civilians, either.

No, we back Israel's far right wing government and Netanyahu. We decide our allegiance with them is more important, and then we demonize those who decide to speak up, the people who do actually want the deaths and the killings to stop over there.

Who think the Palestinian people, the 2 million, half of those under the age of 19, who never even knew a time before Hamas, never knew a time when there was even a legitimate movement on talks to actually create a Palestinian state, officially recognized by Israel and Western governments.

—Matt Binder

[aquaburst3]

One debate going around on TWST Tumblr is about the OB boys and how the narrative handles them. On one side, we have someone saying that the OB boys' actions towards Yuu are shitty, horrible and traumatizing, so that the game should take time out to have Yuu lash out at them and have the boys "compensate Yuu for their actions". Some people agreed with that OP. One person in the replies of that post even went as far as to say that they quit playing the game based on that fact. On the other side, we have a person replying to that take basically rebutting that statement. They believe that the game shouldn't condemn them for their actions, and that we aren't meant to read their actions as scaring. Another portion of the fandom agreed with them. (No, I'm not tagging anyone for obvious reasons.) Personally, I'm somewhere in the middle between those extremes.

On one hand, we all came into this game knowing that they are based on Disney Villains, right? So, what the hell do some people expect? The NRC boys to be lovable Disney heroes with a heart of gold? Of course, they are gonna be morally grey anime pretty boys, who do some questionable actions. That's the whole fucking point of the game. xD

I also agree with that second OP that expecting "compensation" from people who were dicks towards you is not how life works. Sometimes people are just dicks towards you and you have to move on. Hell, I think characters like Vil compensated Yuu to a realistic amount where they acknowledged their actions, apologized and tried to make it up to them. I don't know what else some people want here.

On the other hand, I think this is one example of a HUGE flaw with the writing —the static characters and them having zero consequences for their actions, including their fucked up ones. Something I noticed in the game for awhile now is that most of the time, it completely brushes off the boys' actions and they get only a slap on the wrist. It's not just in cases of OBs either, it's in general. Almost Thanos Snap your friend? He instantly forgives you. Almost suck out the magic out of people and want to do it to the world? Nothing happens other than "forcing you to live with your guilt". Almost turn people into living puppets? You are allowed to get away scott free without anyone being the least bit mad about being almost subjected to a fate worse than death. You see what I mean? It's fucking laughable and unrealistic. Actions always have consequences, and so should theirs', whether they are based on villains or not. To be blunt, it's shitty writing. Plain and simple. Unless you are writing a flat arc, characters need to change and develop. It can be for the better or worse. But there has to be...something. Otherwise what the fuck is the point of having a story?

You can have both. You can write morally grey teen/young adult characters in a coming of age story AND have them have realistic consequences for their actions and grow and change. The Crows prove that.

The Crows from Six of Crows parallel the NRC students in a lot of ways. They are both in the same age range. (Even though, I think aging them up to be in their 20s and early 30s in the show was a smart move, since you can buy a guy in his late 20s being a powerful gang lord over a teenager. I think that's part of the reason why aging up the NRC boys to be 20-somethings in university is so popular in this fandom. It's much easier to buy Azul as a 20-something owning the lounge, for example. But that's besides the point.) Both have morals and care about a select few while being rather questionable. Both have done some VERY fucked up actions. For example, Kaz pulls out a guy's eyeball at one point. One key difference is that the Crows are more dynamic as characters and have actual consequences for their actions.

For example, Kaz is a hardened criminal who only shows his softer side to a select few. However, at the end of Crooked Kingdom, Inej, the woman he endlessly simps after and cares about a lot, says that she needs time away from him, joining a crew to find her lost family. The reason why he did this? Because he was emotionally constipated and needed to work on his issues more before getting into a relationship with her. That is a very real consequence for his actions and how he treated others. Hell, the way I interpreted that bit is that whenever she came back, she would be more ready to be in a relationship with him. (We would've gotten that in a SOC series. Thanks a lot, Netflixs!) There are plenty of other examples like that in the series. The group doesn't instantly let in Mattias into the fold thanks to him hunting down other Grisha before, tension forms between Jesper and Wylan thanks to the love triangle between them and Kuwei, etc.

The game could've done something like that. Have them still be morally grey people, but have fallout for some of their actions and have to earn their redemption. Do more things like what happened to Vil in Book 6...but have it actually make sense and not a stupid deus ex machina to make Malleus look like a Gary Stu. (God, the whole "Vil turning into an old man thing was fucking stupid.)

Plus, these guys are based on VILLAINS, so you'd think that characters like Ruggie would be more angry and want revenge. The fact that they quickly forgive and forget makes no sense in that regard as well. Hell, I'm still surprised that Ace, Leona and Vil never got mad at Honest Fellow or called him out in the new event. I thought they would try to kill him for what he did given the fact that they are based on villains. That's what the Crows would've done.

While, yes, I think part of this is due to the game's design as a gatcha. Plus, they want to make the boys as appealing to the player as possible in order to entice them pay more, so that includes not focusing on some of their deeds. However, I also think part of this is due to Yana herself.

During the 2020 guidebook interview, Yana said that she honestly believes that the boys' only appeal is that they are "bad" and they should always remain that way. So part of the reason why the game doesn't focus on that is because calling them out and having them change would go against her own mentality as a writer, because "character development=bad" to her, which hampers the story on all levels. That's why I think the light novel was able to dive into this aspect—Yana's not behind it, somebody else is. So, yes. Yana shares a chunk of the blame as well as the head writer, and is yet another example of her being a terrible one.

Another problem is that Yuu's lack of presence and blase attitude towards everything. The aren't phased by anything that happens to them in the narrative. It's not just the OBs either, but in general. On the first night, they have a GOOD night sleep despite being thrown into another world. When their home is destroyed in Book 6, they simply don't care. Like...what? Who acts like that? They have no impact on the events and mostly act as an observer, being more like the Crew in The Office than a fucking character. Hell, my toothbrush has more of a presence then Yuu! Again, it's shitty writing.

So, yeah. I think the side wanting these guys to be paragons of virtue or to make them repay Yuu for their actions is asinine. But at the same time, I think that Yuu's unrealistic responses to things, the character stagnation and them not having any real consequences to their actions is holding the story back. While I don't think the characters should beg for forgiveness from Yuu or go to rehab or something stupid like that, I think they should have some setbacks as a result of their actions that they have to work overcoming instead of moving on to the next boy. This should be a coming of age story, so that's a basic requirement that Yana is intentionally not meeting thanks to her own stupid mentality.

[anyoldfandom]

Why are you anti-Israel as a Jew? genuine question, I'm just curious as a non-Jewish person bc all my irl Jewish friends are pro-Israel

Okay so normally I don't really,,check my inbox so sorry for the late response anon, but thank you for the genuine curiosity! I'm glad you're coming to the table with an open mind.

I am going to put a disclaimer here, however: Jewish people are not the only people impacted by Israel's actions. We're not even the most impacted. I am going to give my perspective because it was asked for, but my biggest suggestion is to listen to Palestinian voices the most before you draw any conclusions, as they are the real victims in the center of Israel's actions.

As for my opinion, however - quite frankly, my dislike of the Israeli state comes from a few places. Yes, it is true that Jewish people lived in Israel in the past, and yes, it is a holy land - but I genuinely do not believe that the Israeli government has Jewish interests in heart. The common narrative that I've heard in a lot of spaces is that Israel is a safe place should the world turn against us again, but quite frankly...it's unrealistic. Not every Jew in the world can move to Israel. Only the wealthy Jews (and I can tell you, many Jews are not wealthy at all) would be able to flee, and the rest of us would be stuck where we are.

And that would be if Israel was not already filled with Palestinians. A phrase I and other Jews have used is "Not in our name".

The Israeli state is breaking international laws - yes, Hamas has also been condemned for breaking international laws, but the Israeli government is also a state. It is a government. A government that has a history of committing genocide - so much that South Africa is trying to sue them for war crimes.

And, to be frank, and I will admit my language is about to be very harsh - please know my anger is directed at the Israeli government, anon, and not you - but I do not want a fucking genocide in my name. I do not want other peoples to suffer because my people have in the past - Israel is not the answer, fighting real, actual antisemitism is. Making the entire world safe is the answer. I also hate that the government is claiming any criticism of Israel is antisemitic - I've spoken out against antisemitism in the past, consistently. I've written in concerns that people will use criticism of Israel in a way where they simply attack Jewish people, which is absolutely antisemitism, but holding a state responsible for their actions is not bigotry.

And, one more point - I do not think the allies of Israel are the allies of Jews. I can only speak as a US citizen, and not for any other country - but I do not, and have never, believed that my country is an ally of the Jewish people. I am constantly hearing antisemitic conspiracy theories being spread by politicians, and I heard the president claim that Israel would be the only safe place for Jews - supporting another genocidal country over the citizens he's supposed to be protecting, by suggesting the only place we will be safe is far away from America.

So, I don't support Israel. I don't support the murder of innocent Palestinians, the killing of journalists and children. I don't support the removal of people from their homes - and I'm frankly disgusted at those who would imply that I must run from my own home to be safe, because they refuse to be the change to keep my people safe.

I hope I explained my position well, anon. I really appreciate it when people, especially people not in the groups centered in a conversation, try to speak to both sides to at least understand all of the issue - though, don't just listen to me. As I said at the beginning, listen to Palestinian voices, as well - listen to the people living through these horrors. While Jews are centered in the conversation, it's important to remember that there are other victims here, who deserve to be listened to a whole hell of a lot more than me.

[human-souls-buy-dopamine]

Idk why I'm suddenly wanting to post a bunch of random unrelated shit but eh. Here we go I guess, under a cut because idk how long this'll get 😭 also tw, heavy discussion of religion (christianity) and religion-based homophobia/transphobia

So like. Love our grandma to death right. Never will stop loving her. Just GOD sometimes she frustrates us so much 😭 (for context we live with her, she's our parent)

I can't tell if she's trying to be accepting or if she's not sometimes? It's so confusing. She let us have a pride flag, let us get a binder, she sometimes tries to use our pronouns and stuff. But then on the other side of things she just. Also tries to slip stuff about Christianity and whatnot into a lot of conversation about it

Like. Okay, she has a right to her own religious beliefs, just like we have a right to our own religious beliefs. None of our business. But it's so difficult when she claims to accept us and then spouts blatant transphobia and homophobia, votes for the guy literally trying to take away our rights, tells us that "God only made man and woman," etc—

Also the fact that, during our stay at the children's home, we briefly had a period where we genuinely tried to believe in christianity (as opposed to pretending bc you basically had to there) and so we read some verses on those topics + others. And unless there's proof of it being some translation error, homosexuality is mentioned both in the new and old testament!! I can't recall if the word itself is used for Soddam and Gomorrah, but in the NT there's a few that are just. Way too direct to ignore

"(9) Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

"(9) We also know that the law is made ... for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, (10) for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality..." (1 Timothy 1:9-10, omitted some parts for length but I kept the meaning)

With that being said, you can't exactly cherrypick here. It's very explicitly stated, and while it very well could be a 'translation error', I haven't seen anything that supports/points that conclusion. (Not to say it doesn't exist, just we personally haven't)

So like. It's difficult to not feel frustrated, especially since she wants us to go to church— Like, you can't claim to support us as we are and then believe the thing that says we're condemned to hell for it?

And, maybe I'm making shit up here, but in our years of being in a conservative Christian town and listening to sermons, the way that sin is talked about is very much framed as a choice? Like, obviously in Christianity it's believed that humans are inherently sinful/unworthy (which is a whole nother can of worms), but you *commit* sins. You *commit* murder, you *commit* idolatry, you *commit* sexual immorality, etc— Gramatically I can't frame everything in that language, but you get the idea. While humans are apparently predisposed to sin, it's never implied (to us, at least, and from what we've read) that some people just ARE murderers, ARE idolaters, ARE cheaters, etc— people choose to commit these acts while having the option not to.

Therefore, using that logic, in Christianity, being anything besides straight would be a choice. Which we know from experience isn't true— Like, sure, we love our identity, but stars, dude, wouldn't it be a hell of a lot easier if we could just be cishet?? Why would we continually CHOOSE to be something that puts us at risk of being the target of a hate crime, of being murdered, of being harassed?

We've brought up these points, but it's like she just. Doesn't acknowledge it? Or she'll just go "I don't know why" when we bring up the last point, as if she thinks we ARE faking it somehow ???? It's like.,.,,,., ma'am. I love you. Please realize that while I'm fine letting you have your religious beliefs, as any decent person should be, if I were to be insistent about my own the way you are about yours you'd say I'm persecuting you. Your stance is inconsistent and we are rhe ones who have to live with the knowledge that under your beliefs we are a sinner condemned to hell for something we cannot control. That sucks. Like, I love you, but it sucks.

Idk man I'm just. Agh. I love her and she's a great parent, she takes care of us and loves us and provides honesyly a LOT for what we have available, don't get me wrong!! it's just this specific topic that bugs me aghhh

[ink-flavored]

🐉 Dragon - is your character lucky? do they believe in luck or fate?

🐍 Snake - is your character wise? do they use their intelligence and wisdom for good or evil? are they cunning or kind?

🐴 Horse - is your character elegant? do they care about their appearance or what others think of them?

For any OC !

~MJ

thank you! i'm gonna do this for a character from Pride & Justice i haven't talked about much, merely mentioned in passing, but i love her: Justice's sister, Kindness!

🐉 Dragon - is your character lucky? do they believe in luck or fate?

I think it depends on what you consider "lucky." Kindness was lucky enough to be an angel who melds perfectly to her role, blessing humanity from Heaven with gifts of affection and gentleness. She's lucky enough not to get lumped in with her more revolutionary brother, even after defending him, even as a small garrison gears up to bring him back. She's lucky enough to have to opportunity to save his life (twice), and she's lucky enough to survive with her wings intact.

She believes in fate, because God knows everything about the past, present, and future, but whether her fate is a lucky one is a bit of a subjective question.

🐍 Snake - is your character wise? do they use their intelligence and wisdom for good or evil? are they cunning or kind?

Kindness is very pragmatic, and doesn't let it get in the way of the virtue she embodies. While she empathized with Justice and his beliefs, she wasn't so brash as to help him break a demon out of prison. She was cunning enough to get put on the search team to help bring Justice back to Heaven, with the hope of smoothing things over with Honesty and getting her brother home safe. All she wants is for her family to stay together, and for as few people to get hurt in the process as possible. Her goal to end this as quickly as it started, heart truly bleeds for everyone impacted by Honesty's rampage.

Except maybe when it comes to Pride. Pride is an afterthought in her mind because... since when is an angel obligated to be kind to a demon, a traitor? Her purpose is to bring kindness to humanity. Genuinely, all she wants is for Justice to come home, because if he doesn't, he'll be killed or condemned to Hell. But Justice is completely devoted to keeping Pride safe now. She wants Justice home, but she can't figure out how to do it because she knows he won't just leave Pride to Honesty, who will kill him, and that was the whole reason he fled Heaven. Justice will not go down easily, and it's in clashing with his stubbornness that her pragmatism falters. It's difficult for her to extend virtue to a demon. Someone she doesn't believe is deserving of it, at least in the beginning.

🐴 Horse - is your character elegant? do they care about their appearance or what others think of them?

Elegant is too serious a word for Kindness, I think. She's loud and smiley and likes bright colors. If she wore human clothes, it would be swishy skirts and pastels and baggy overalls with pattered shirts underneath. She's flouncy!

Being an eternal being with a fixed appearance, she's never... had to care about what people think of her? Angels don't have beauty standards or anything, so she's genuinely just... Some Lady in Heaven. From answering prayers and doling out blessings, she knows about beauty and stuff from us humans, but she only comes down physically to Earth briefly, so doesn't really have a chance to get worried about all that nonsense.

[send me a zodiac ask!]

[bobgoesw00t]

I wanna take a moment to talk about a few things in regards to the comments and discussions this post on twitxter has brought up, as basically 99.99% of the comments are all the same thing over and over and over again.

A. First off, if you plan on boycotting the final season because of the various things Noah Schnapp has been up to in his personal life/social media when it comes to the conflict in Gaza...don't even fucking bother. Stranger Things is on its final season now so there's literally NO POINT IN BOYCOTTING IT AS IT'S ALREADY AT THE FINISH LINE!!!!!!! If this happened even before the last season, then I would understand the need to boycott it, but we're not...we're on the FINAL SEASON....so if you don't want to watch it, please SHUT THE FUCK UP, DON'T WATCH IT, AND LET THOSE OF US WHO WANT TO SEE HOW IT ALL ENDS ENJOY IT!!!!!

B. Seeing as how all of this "boycott the final season" crap is stemming from Noah's stance on the Gaza conflict and that he's a Zionist, all of you dumb fuckers are forgetting one VERY CRUCIAL ASPECT: THE CONFLICT IS ONE OF THE LONGEST (if not THE LONGEST) TUG-OF-WARS BETWEEN RELIGIOUS GROUPS IN THE HISTORY OF OUR PLANET!!! This debate over which religious folk deserves the land has been happening for centuries now, and there are SO many layers to it that it's gotten to the point where unless someone builds a time machine to go back to when the core issue of the conflict happens, witness it and bring back irrefutable proof for all to see...the only real "answer" (if there even is one right now) is that both sides are neither right nor wrong...just in some sort of weird purgatory. Hell, even if someone DID use a time machine to go back and bring proof, there would be a good chunk of people who would disagree with what was brought forth.

C. Noah Schnapp isn't a god...HE'S FUCKING HUMAN AND HUMANS ARE NOT PERFECT!!!!!!! Everyone, AND I MEAN EVERYONE makes mistakes and has their own thoughts on various things that are a part of the world we live in today. Just because ONE PERSON says or does something you don't agree with, and/or their friend/s agree with them or remain friends with them, doesn't mean it's the end of the world. In the event it happens to be a celebrity of a wildly popular show on Netflix, feel free to say your stance on the issue, then please SHUT THE FUCK UP!!! No one is FORCING YOU TO WATCH THE SHOW/MOVIE OR SUPPORT ANYONE WHO WORKS ON IT. Not to mention EVERYONE IN ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINION.

My personal stance on the crap that's happening in Gaza is that as someone who doesn't have all the facts but believes humans should learn to accept one another regardless of any differences we may have...I don't actually have a stance, rather I'm very neutral and find both sides to be at fault. Same thing with Noah Schnapp, I don't know him personally, and the only time I really hear anything about him or other celebs is if they're trending on tumblr and I just randomly happen to check that part of the website. Therefore, I can't agree with his actions, but I also can't condemn them as I don't have all the facts and I really don't care that much about what he does in his personal time.

More people need to learn how to separate celebs from other aspects of life and remember that they're human just like the rest of us, they make mistakes and either learn from them or don't. ...I also feel like people need to avoid social media more often as it tends to be a place where negativity festers into something that can consume you until you're nothing but a toxic husk of who you once were.

Now despite what I first said, feel free to boycott the final season of Stranger Things if you want to, I won't stop you just like you can't stop me from watching it to see how the journey all these characters have been on concludes. Let people make their own decision on if they want to boycott or not, and if they decide not to, respect their decision and don't harass them about how, "THEIR SUPPORTING GENOCIDE" especially when BOTH SIDES ARE GUILTY OF THAT!!!

[caxycreations]

You know what I'm tired of seeing? I'm tired of seeing this phrase:

This was tagged on a post regarding transgender rights and awareness.

You know why I'm sick and tired of seeing it?

Because I want every single person who uses it to define a man to me, and they never will, because they judge me based on my appearance, on the flesh I was born into.

What is a man? Is it anyone with a dick? Well there goes your whole "support women" schtick, cause not all people with a dick are men.

Is it anyone who identifies as male? Well there goes your whole "support trans people" schtick, cause some men are afab.

Is it anyone who is a cis man? Well there goes your "acceptance and love" schtick, cause some cis men are allies who are fighting just as adamantly about our right to live and love and be ourselves as we are.

Is it anyone who LOOKS like a man? Well there goes ALL OF THE ABOVE, because then you're judging based on outward appearance, assuming their identity, and generalizing that they must be awful and horrible, because they look like a man and therefore they are one and should stay away from you, which is EXACTLY what the homophobes and the transphobes say about US.

Do you have deep-rooted trauma surrounding men from a majorly traumatic moment or a series of them throughout your life? Alright, I get that, I can respect that, by all means, continue, build your safe space and do it your way.

Or do you just hate "men" (whatever the hell you define that as) because you had a couple annoying experiences or you met a few bad apples and let them dictate the entire rest of your life by allowing them to live rent free in your head as eternal reminders to be hateful?

"men dni" which men? trans men? transfems that look male? People with both parts that present as male, willingly or unwillingly? Non-Binary folk who present as male?

What men aren't allowed to interact, and why?

And I know, I know, asking why is a huge faux pas, but it's fucking important to ask why in this case.

It's stupid as hell for Taylor Femgal or Alex Boyfella to be a bigot against all men and male-presenting individuals, trans or not, while simultaneously saying "Trans people should be loved and respected!" because then it's ultimately not about trans people, because what Tammy is actually saying is "The trans people I LIKE should be loved and respected!" which is fucking AWFUL as a platform.

On the other hand, it's completely justified if Riley Ladygirl or Jamie Mascdude went through hell for six years solid at the hands of a man (or group of men) and now has a legitimate ptsd response to seeing/interacting with men or male-presenting individuals.

I'm sorry if that's a hot fucking take but I don't see how someone can preach acceptance and love and tolerance while simultaneously alienating an entire extremely-hard-to-define group of the human population, WHILE ALSO condemning and demonizing the people they're alienating FOR ALIENATING OTHERS.

You don't get to be an ally and a hypocrite at the same time. You don't get to say "We deserve to exist" when you're telling another group they don't deserve to exist.

We don't fucking trade fascists for fascists.

So let me make this VERY fucking simple.

If you have "men dni" in your dni list, just fucking block me. Because you're either saying "No men, not even the allies that risk their lives right alongside us at pride events in dangerously anti-lgbt cities", or you're saying "No trans masc individuals, if they identify as men they're just as bad", or you're saying "No trans fem individuals, they were born male so they're bad", or you're saying ALL of these at once.

And I for one will NOT fucking sit here and see more of that absolute horse-shit on my dash.

Still here? Cool, one last thing to say.

ALL TRANS PEOPLE ARE FUCKING VALID, AND I FULLY BELIEVE IN TRUE, COMPLETE GENDER EQUALITY, WITHOUT ALL OF THIS STUPID "MEN SUCK" "WOMEN SUCK" BULLSHIT.

We're all just people trying to do our best, so stop fucking ADDING to the piles and piles of hatred. Even if you're one of the people with "men dni" in your dni list, know that I still support your identity, I still love you as one human to another, and I will still advocate and fight for your right to exist in a state of life that is comfortable and joyous to you.

But I cannot and will not sit here and see more and more people telling entire genders not to interact simply for being the gender.

Isn't the entire point of fighting for trans rights and gender equality so that EVERYONE, regardless of sex or gender or identity, can stand on the same level footing as equals, interacting and loving and being free side by side?

Stop fucking saying "I advocate for trans rights" when you're literally turning around and saying "Unless they're a man".

[bethanythebogwitch]

I'm not too fond of the Forgotten Realms as the default D&D setting for a few reason, but one big thing that really keeps me from liking the setting is the wall of the faithless. In the Forgotten Realms, the souls of the dead go to a place called the Fugue Plane where whoever the current god of death is judges them. Most people are taken by whatever god they worshipped but those who worshipped no gods are instead stuck in the wall of the faithless where they will slowly and agonizingly fade away unless a demon or devil comes and rips the soul out to turn them into a new demon/devil. The god who set this up was an evil one named Myrkul but when he was overthrown by a neutral god named Kelemvor, the wall was kept around.

I see this as absolutely pointless cruelty on the part of the writers and it really hit home when I was playing Baldur's Gate 3 in a conversation with Wyll where he says he doesn't really care about the gods. Wyll is a selfless, kind, and genuinely heroic person who will be condemned to a fate worse than death for not actively worshipping a god. Meanwhile some of the most vile and evil people in the Realms will get a perfectly pleasant afterlife because they worship the right god. And nobody doing the writing seems to think the wall is a bad thing because they came up with a pretty pathetic excuse to keep it once Myrkul was overthrown. Kelemvor took down the wall and immediately everyone across the world stopped worshipping the gods and they almost starved to death until Kelemvor put the wall back up. That's simply an absurd excuse to keep singling out nonbelievers as deserving the worst possible afterlife. Notably, Myrkul was not the first god of death and this didn't happen before he put the wall up in the first place. In addition, other D&D settings don't have this problem either, there's no mass starvation of gods due to non-belief and atheists are simply sent to whichever outer plane most fits their alignment. It really reads like someone, I don't know if it was Ed Greenwood or someone else, hates atheists so much that they needed to punish them in their fantasy world so much they'll create ridiculous excuses to keep doing so even when they no longer have a conveniently evil god to do it.

This kind of belief that atheists are the most evil possible people and deserve the worst fates is real and very common in real life. I will note that the Forgotten Realms uses atheist to mean someone who believes in but doesn't worship any gods while in real life an atheist is anyone who doesn't actively believe that at least one god exists (agnosticism is a form of atheism). The real-life definition of atheism doesn't really work in a world like the Forgotten Realms where gods can grant people magic and the goddess of magic has to die every time a new edition rolls around to explain the changes to magic rules. This does bear a lot of resemblance to the common lie about atheists that we believe in God but refuse to worship him. Someone who had that belief would, by definition, not be an atheist. Atheophobia or hatred of atheists is very common in real life. There are places where you can be jailed or killed for being an atheist. Even in places that aren't that extreme, atheism can make you a social pariah or have many other negative outcomes. Just look at the number of people who think atheists aren't trustworthy, wouldn't vote for one, or don't want their kids dating one. Having this kind of hatred infused in what should be a fun escapist fantasy world drags the while setting down for me and even makes me actively dislike it. It's really not that different from having a fun fantasy world where there's this background detail that all people with the wrong skin tone will go to hell no matter how good of a person they are and this is portrayed as something necessary or even good rather than as an evil for the player characters to overcome. Overthrowing the wall of the faithless would be a great story for player characters if the story of the Forgotten Realms hadn't already made it very clear that atheists are so dangerous and wrong that sending them to a fate worse than death no matter what actions or beliefs they hold is necessary and right. I do not want to play a game in a setting that has that kind of hatred baked into it. And before someone says it, yes, I can headcanon the wall of the faithless out in my home games, but that doesn't work for official Forgotten Realms material like BG3. Wyll is going to the wall in canon (unless he has some conversion later in the plot) and I can't just make believe otherwise unless BG3 is decanonized.

[demonic-shadowlucifer]

Being Queer and my relationship with Religion.

(Content Warning: Anti-queer rhetoric and discussion of religion). (Additional disclaimer: This post mostly talks about Christianity, however there will be mentions of other religions as well).

In light of some *recent* events going on, I think I should make a discussion about how being Queer has an affect on my relationship with Christianity.

For starters, I am not a religious person. And I don't go to Church very often. However, I'm lucky to have gone to a Church that welcomes everyone (In fact some members of my Church are actually queer themselves!). I was also raised by parents that have different religious beliefs (My mom leans towards paganism, and my dad is a straight up atheist). So being queer hasn't really strained my relationship with Christianity. However, the Christian community has a huge problem with being anti-queer. Many so-called "Christians" believe that being gay is a sin, and use the bible to prove that there's "only two genders". However, something doesn't add up with that. And no it's not because of the bible being misinterpreted or mistranslated. And no it's not because most of the other so-called "Christians" ignoring the other "sins" (No working on sundays, no tattoos, etc etc). What I don't get is this: Why does committing a sin make you a bad human being? Why is it believed that if you commit even one minor sin you'll go to hell? We all sin at some point of our lives. Hell, Jesus himself died for our sins. If we didn't sin, Jesus would've died for nothing. And what then? Also, the Bible seemingly only mentions male homosexuality. There isn't much on lesbianism or any other sexuality. And honestly, I don't think everyone in the bible was straight. In the Hebrew Bible (which is used in both Judaism and Christianity), there is the relationship of David and Jonathan. While the relationship has been interpreted in several ways (it is especially heavily debated among Christians), many people interpret it as the closest to a homosexual relationship between two men in the Bible. And honestly, it's not hard to see why. Judaism from my understanding acknowledges the potential love between David and Jonathan. And it makes sense on why some Christians interpret it the same way. But wait. Whatever happened to the Bible condemning Homosexuality? Well, here's how I look at it. I and a few others tend to interpret most of the Bible's objection to Homosexuality as, well, not actually objecting Homosexuality, but rather objection of abusive relationships. Plus, the objections of Homosexuality are usually in reference to sexual relationships (and even then they're usually based on misinterpretations or mistranslations). However, the Bible doesn't say anything about healthy non-sexual homosexual pairings being bad. Then again, the interpretations are all over the place. So I can't say for certain that's what it really means, however that remains my personal interpretation. In terms of gender, there is the mention of the Eunuchs in Matthews 19:12, where Jesus says the following: "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can." (NRSV) While the above text likely indicates castration, I and a few others tend to interpret the first line ("For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth") as a nod to intersex people or even a third gender. And it genuinely would not surprise me if some eunuchs avoided using "male" or "female" altogether. And while people tend to reference Deuteronomy 22:5 as an argument against crossdressing and Trans people in general. But that only gives me more unanswered questions. What falls under male and female clothing? Does this apply to trans people or intersex people? And I wonder if Jesus himself thought the same way, as he seemingly abolishes the law in three different verses. Those verses being Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:28 and Luke 12:22.

Lastly, people interpret Genesis 1:27 as there being only two genders. However, let's look at this quote even further: “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them”. While people interpret it as there being only two genders, I tend to see it as much more broad. This is where Religion and Biology overlap in a way. God created a variety of animals. And some animals have unique features in regards to gender; For example, male seahorses can get pregnant and male calicos and torties exist due to Klinefelter Syndrome (which is an Intersex condition that occurs in humans and animals!) and many other animals have intersex traits. And humans are technically animals in a way. So why would God not create them in a spectrum either? Lastly, let's focus on this verse from Galatians. “There is no longer Jew or Greek*, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28, NRSV). (*in some translations, "Gentile", a word that describes non-Jewish folks, is used instead of "Greek".) While this isn't inherently queer-related, it has been hugely referenced in queer theology. Outside of queer context, it has also been used in Christian Abolitionist movements and is also seen as a stance against the patriarchy. The first line is sometimes considered an antiracist message, however I also like to see it as a stance against antisemitism. Then again, it can be interpreted in 10000000 different ways. But I think the clear message of that verse is that, regardless of whatever differences there are, we're the same one and one. TL;DR: Being Queer isn't inherently against the Bible. And being "sinful" isn't entirely bad either. The Bible itself is complicated and has many interpretations. Furthermore, being queer and Christian (Or queer and religious in general) isn't as contradictory as many people think it is.

[lillybearrie]

Wanna say this outright. This is not (trying not to be at least) an Icarus apologist post you can read it however you would like however they are in the wrong they never should have gone after Jamie they shouldn't be listening to Fable there was no logical reason to kill anyone the should not be fighting for the sake of "daddy said it'll be ok in the end" this is simply how I see where they're headspace may be and how that influences their actions because for one i go abababa and for 2 o think it's important to see their logic however twistedand flawed and just factual incorrect it may be. This us also not me condemning Rae's actions today quite frankly I applaud his restraint it was admirable

Now back to your regularly scheduled Icarus psychoanalysis:

Icarus feels out of control and when they don't have control in their life they act erratically because if they have nothing else then they can have their identity as The Lunatic who kills an tortures for the hell of it and they lean into it because well they're already in the hole might as well keep digging maybe then when they're down so far those at the top will stop shouting stop throwing down rope stop begging them to come back up maybe at some point they'll see it's worthless to try and pull them out they aren't worth it they've never been worth it.

"You not worth another reset"

Rae his brother his friend his family the one who has always always cared when no one else did when no one else would who saw hope were there wasn't any the man who has held him and he has held so many times on some of the darkest days no longer believes in him. And why should he? They killed his nephew for fuck's sake! He finally realized what everyone has always said is true. Icarus is the unsalvageable insane monster who has convinced themself that death is temporary can be temporary will be temporary if they just kill a few more. They're erratic They're dangerous and they don't care who they're hurting in the process. And now Rae knows it. But it's ok they don't need Rae and his soft words and gentle touch they don't need his kind smiles or open doors they have fable they have their dad the man just like them the man whose going to fix everything the mortal with the power of over half the pantheon in the palm of his hand Their dad will fix everything they don't need anyone else...yeah they... they don't need anyone their perfectly fine on their own.

But you know who does need someone? Vanda yeah Vanda needs help she's injured and that wing isn't going to heal at all is she keeps flapping around like that. So Icarus sits out in the rain calming her speaking gently as they coaxed her into their hands holding her gently against their chest as they make it back inside and they take a look at that wing giving her seeds when she cooperated. Icarus wonders how long she's been like this out in the rain all alone with a broken wing. Icarus stays awake for longer then they have been in recent past because Vanda needs the attention and maybe their being a bit to careful but better safe than sorry especially with wing like that you have to be very gentle. Icarus knows how take care of their birds

(This is not about the birds)

[lottieurl]

17 anon here - Hi hello I'm back! I stopped watching for a bit because life and such got busy but I just caught up, I think I'm also just vibing with this season less than season 1 (still good though). But I do wanna say to Queen Of Good Takes Lottieurl that I'm so with you on the whole 'the amount of emphasis on Shauna being maternal and loving her baby is weird' thing. It feels very interjected to me when you compare it to everything re: Shauna we've seen so far. And I think a lot of people are confusing it with the protectiveness over the baby that we saw from Shauna early this season, but on that subject I feel as though her protectiveness and defensiveness is being misinterpreted as traditional maternal instinct. When to me, it's always been about Shauna's autonomy. Especially when it comes to the divide between her and Lottie.

Nearly every other person in the cabin has given their belief over to Lottie by early s2 and we saw so many signs of Shauna's isolation as a result. She's the one dealing with a pregnancy, terrified of what happens when she gives birth. When Lottie starts referring to the baby as communal, as 'ours', as belonging to the group, Shauna lashes out. She's angry when she wakes up to find Lottie whispering to her baby in-utero, and I didn't personally interpret Shauna's argument (whispering to the baby supposed to be so he can recognize his mother's voice, with the implication that Lottie is not his mother) as jealousy or maternal instinct.

I found Sophie's performance in that moment very illuminating of the idea that even though Shauna wasn't maternal and didn't want a baby, she understood and took comfort in the fact that the baby was *hers*. Hers in the way that by that point in the narrative, so few things are anymore. Hers in a way that she gets the final decision regarding, or at least she **should**. That's the way societal norm says it's supposed to work - Shauna is the baby's mother, she's supposed to be the one who gets the final say in how to take care of him. Whether to let Lottie 'bless' him or include him in her rituals. And I think she's terrified because hell no she doesn't know what's good for a baby or how to raise one, and she desperately needs support, but she knows what Lottie and the others will think is good for the baby, and she wants the authority to say no to that. To keep something private for herself, under her control, within the boundaries she's lost quite literally everywhere else. She's a teenager who doesn't have the luxury of those privacies and boundaries anymore, even her journal became public group knowledge (which also led to Jackie's death). And it's pretty chilling to think about how horribly that could have translated into an attempt to raise a child?? I don't think it's wrong to say that Shauna grieved the baby, but I think it's a lot more complicated than simply 'she's a mother who lost her child' and taking that angle is the easy way out.

Of course this is my own analysis and you know I won't be offended if you disagree with any of it, but it's been brewing in my brain for a couple days now so I wanted to offer it up. None of this is meant to be a condemnation of Shauna btw, I genuinely sympathize with her and her fears in s2 especially. She's alone in a group of people who have pretty much all decided to believe in something she doesn't/can't. That's terrifying in any scenario.

oh i love quite literally everything you said. that's very much how i interpreted her attitude towards lottie the last couple of episodes and now that i think of it.. i think that's actually the root of her attitude towards their rituals and everything else connected to it so far in season 2. i got an anon awhile back that asked for my thoughts on shauna's attitude towards the supernatural and i couldn't quite figure out what to think and i think that is because her behavior has not much to do with her belief or lack thereof and is instead a reaction to how those beliefs - centered around lottie - affect her and her pregnancy and her autonomy. SO thank you for making that click in my head!