#but also sometimes we have to remember that people engage with things differently

[samueldays]

You mean me, @feotakahari? I'm not part of Rationalist Tumblr.

I will accept "-adjacent" because at least one of my mutuals is a rationalist.

Fourth point to the above about data collection: data can be interpreted both ways even in a single source, like Ella Cockbain's demographic count of offenders found in British police operations against grooming gangs, from Offender and Victim Networks in Human Trafficking. High evidence threshold, but low N=55.

I saw the same study used by different people to argue for two contrary theses, briefly summarized as:

This is a native problem, because over 3/4ths of them had British citizenship

This is an immigrant problem, because over 3/4ths of them had Pakistani ethnicity

Personally, I find the second point more weighty, because the second disproportion is larger (only about 2% of people in Britain have Pakistani ethnicity), and the first point is a legal fiction. But I can see why some other people might put more weight on citizenship than on ethnic background.

I think it is hard to move people with data here. This is veering into being a values question of which personal attributes one prefers to emphasise.

feotakahari wrote:

“We’re not punishing sex offenders as hard as the government says we are” is not a question, it’s a statement that requires evidence.

Drop the word 'we' here. My stance is more like "Britain's government* has admitted not punishing Pakistani sex offenders as hard as it should", asterisk because the government is far from unified, evidence comes from other parts of the government, sometimes there's for example an Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham commissioned by the Rotherham Council, and it says things like:

By far the majority of perpetrators were described as 'Asian' by victims, yet throughout the entire period, councillors did not engage directly with the Pakistani-heritage community to discuss how best they could jointly address the issue. Some councillors seemed to think it was a one-off problem, which they hoped would go away. Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.

and

In two of the cases we read, fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be arrested themselves when police were called to the scene. In a small number of cases (which have already received media attention) the victims were arrested for offences such as breach of the peace or being drunk and disorderly, with no action taken against the perpetrators of rape and sexual assault against children.

and

Child A (2000)6 was 12 when the risk of sexual exploitation became known. She was associating with a group of older Asian men and possibly taking drugs. She disclosed having had intercourse with 5 adults. Two of the adults received police cautions after admitting to the Police that they had intercourse with Child A.

Police cautions.

This sort of thing keeps happening. Failure, directives to not notice, non-response and mis-response, noted well after the fact.

Then a repeating pattern of the government going 'well we convicted some people and wrote about it, done now, shut up' despite the convictions being far fewer than the victims report and inquiry estimated the number of offenders at, and then another "Asian" meaning mostly-Pakistani grooming gang gets exposed, and another, and another, and ten more, and it's evidently not done. Telford:

It would in my judgment be wholly wrong, and undoubtedly racist, to equate membership of a particular racial group with propensity to commit CSE; That said, on the papers disclosed by key stakeholders, it is an undeniable fact that a high proportion of those cases involved perpetrators that were described by victims/survivors and others as being “Asian” or, often, “Pakistani”. The Inquiry has itself also heard such accounts from victims/survivors. In considering the evidence, and in particular the disclosed material, I have been cautious not to infer too much from names, which may indicate wider geographical background and indeed religious heritage, but are wholly unreliable indicators of national background and (in particular) religious belief. Even bearing that in mind, however, the evidence plainly shows that the majority of CSE suspects in Telford during my Terms of Reference were men of southern Asian heritage, including all the men convicted in Chalice, and Operations Delta and Epsilon.

More on Operation Chalice.

Ahdel Ali was found guilty of one charge of rape, 11 charges of sexual activity with a child, three charges of controlling child prostitution, one of inciting child prostitution, a charge of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and meeting a child after grooming.

He got a nominal eighteen years for that, the longest sentence of the group, and was released after serving eight years. Even when the government manages to secure a conviction, it seems half-assed.

Again, I think the data question bleeds into a values question about process and severity, and a wider epistemics question: when does one infer that a set of convictions is "got most of them" vs "tip of the iceberg"? A similar question applies to complaints against the police, as with the Independent Office for Police Conduct doing an investigation into failures at Rotherham.

An eight-year investigation and report by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) identified examples of officers turning a blind eye or ignoring the plight of girls as young as 11. In one case, they failed to investigate an older man who was found undressed in a bedroom with one of his victims. In another, they did not act when a perpetrator handed over a missing girl as part of a deal not to arrest him. One victim’s father was told by a senior officer that nothing could be done to help his daughter because of “racial tensions” surrounding the investigation. In another case, a victim reported that a police officer had bought illegal steroids from her abuser. When victims tried to report cases to the police, they were often ignored or in some cases even blamed for being abused. After the scandal was exposed in 2014, the police watchdog carried out 91 investigations covering 265 separate allegations against the police, made by 44 victims of abuse and exploitation. Out of the 47 police officers investigated by the watchdog, eight were found to have a case to answer for misconduct and six for gross misconduct.

Is this a bad sign of the system having such failures, a good sign of the system noting its failures, or a false good sign of the system noting its failures without moving from "noting" to "fixing"?

But the final report, published on Wednesday, confirmed that not a single officer had lost their job or been prosecuted as a result of the scandal.

Again, [a part of] Britain's government says [another part of] it is not doing the job of punishing sex offenders properly.

My enemies are soft on child molesters.

My enemies are soft on child molesters for race reasons, according to government reports. The next question is whether this is softer on child molesters than "normal" - the British government's apologists still have the option to say that Britain is just a pedo state in general, don't let your kids out of sight.

[ @feotakahari ]

Okay, I found the point where I was confused. I didn’t realize coming down hard on sexual predators was supposed to be a change. I mean, isn’t that what courts do already?

As Americans, we keep getting reports that the UK are giving short sentences to violent criminals, letting them out early, or prosecuting "hate speech."

The problem with reduced trust is that the distance information can travel on the graph collapses. Someone will say, for instance, that "the critics are racist" because "there isn't enough data." Well, of course, the government can decide whether to create that data, can't they? And if they're still concealing the scale of the problem, they might use the bureaucratic tactic of just deliberately not creating the data, and then claiming it doesn't exist.

A defender might point to one example of an offender getting a long sentence, and that would help (it's a far sight better than just shouting "racist!"), but if someone on the outside thinks the defender would omit information about other offenders not being prosecuted or getting shorter sentences, then the defender can only establish that >0 offenders were properly prosecuted, and not that the problem has been "solved" and is no longer relevant to other politics.

Someone can demand infinite evidence as a political tactic, but this goes in both directions - someone can also say "he's just demanding infinite evidence!" (when the demands are not actually infinite) as a means not to do the work of being trustworthy.

This is a good reason not to exile people from the coalition for not being highly conformist. People who are a bit more disagreeable and independent-minded, who have a history of sound or at least reasonable criticisms of coalition leaders, can establish a path of trust to reach people who could not otherwise be reached.

Politics is about coalitions, margins, and thresholds.

If there were only one right-winger in the UK and he had 50% of the vote, then he could just refuse to cooperate. However, opposing political coalitions are composed of a large number of varying people, and not only are their personalities and life experiences not identical, but their beliefs are not perfectly inflexible.

People are human beings, not merely political units. There should be a focus on cooperating to create good policy, not merely building temporary engines of power, and where it is too difficult to cooperate, it may be necessary to first step back and see how it might be made easier.

[biocrafthero]

If you guys (ambiguous) don’t start engaging with media properly and critically and thoughtfully I’m gonna start hitting you over the head with hammers

[kittykatninja321]

On both a watsonian and doylist level Dick Grayson is white passing

[peapod20001]

When I love a song, I’ll love it forever

[magerightsmagefights]

I know people tend to forget Wyll a lot in this fandom (I wonder why. What Could Possibly Be Different. Can you spot the difference?/s) but I'm genuinely surprised at the lack of Durge x Wyll content. Especially if you're going Redeemed, there's that inherent flavor of "My lover cannot know the truth, I am horrible and they would hate me, they would be correct to hate me." And with Wyll it's just... so juicy, he's so pure and shining, and Durge is so filled with filth and misery that there's barely a person left underneath.

Idk, as a femme romance reader I've spent so many years reading the "love redeems" arc where a FMC plays beauty to an MMC beast, in every genre, medium, budget, etc. I'm not here to yuck anyone's yum, but beauty and the beast as a story structure has never done it for me.

until it's reversed, apparently, because Wyll as the beauty to Durge's beast needs to be injected directly into my veins like yesterday. All the other companions are good and sweet, don't get me wrong, but their reactions are coded like 'i accept you,' where Wyll to me comes off much more as 'we will heal you.' He doesn't have any funny little quips about you trying to bite him, no innuendos, no "I Will Put You Down" a la Laezel, he's just... so good, and he believes in your inherent goodness, he so easily sees "you" and "your urges" as wholly seperate entities he would step between if he could.

Speaking of which!! The coronation scene, when everyone finds out you're Bhaalspawn? I never see anyone talking about Wyll's reaction compared to other companions getting angry (even Dark Shadowheart will yell at you) because Wyll seems to be the ONLY PERSON who immediately separates you(the person he knows) from you(the person you used to be). Astarion isn't angry, he even appreciates your scheme freeing him from Cazador, but he also kinda falls into the whole "I will talk to you as if you are the exact same person who did these things, this is Your True Nature and I feel positive about it."

Wyll's reaction feels like the only one saying "You WERE that," instead of "You ARE that." It also feels like the only one that kinda-sorta acknowledges Durge's actual amnesia, because he doesn't treat this revelation like a betrayal the way the other "good" companions do. They be saying "The real evil was hiding within our ranks all along" like wym hiding? Durge didn't know either, how tf they supposed to tell you?

Wyll doesn't even blink. Once he knows what you are, his No.1 priority is reassuring YOU about it. The fact you're Bhaalspawn isn't a betrayal; it's a Horrible Burden and he's sorry you have to bear it, but there have been others like you who were good, who overcame, and your blood isn't who you are. His first instinct is to offer hope, to reassure you that there's a way out, he believes so hard that your urges are a defeatable enemy and he's ready to fight them with you.

(I also fall into the Durge And Gortash Fucked camp, and I cannot overstate the tastiness of Durge waltzing into the coronation of their ex, the Worst Man Alive, while bringing along their new boyfriend, the Best Man Alive)

Idk, I've just never engaged in a romance where I played the part of the Beast. As much as people rag on pure, princely archetypes, I don't actually see them that often. I genuinely don't remember the last time I read/saw a male lead behave like Wyll, but I've seen plenty of Astarions, Fenrises, Rhysands, etc. Romance loves a fixable MMC, but so rarely an MMC who wants to do the fixing.

Anyway. Justice for Wyll or whatever. I can only cross my fingers that future DLC will include more romance content, because we all deserve to have a Beauty for our Beast sometimes.

[chronicallycouchbound]

Intelligence Doesn't Equal Morality

Intellect is rooted in ableist systems and stupidity and intelligence are pointless social constructs that don't relate to morals or character.

I try to be a pretty good person, I fight for human rights, I regularly engage in mutual aid, and I care for my community. I try to do the right thing and support causes I care about and make positive changes in the world.

But I also am not very smart. I have several neurodevelopmental disorders, as well as cognitive disabilities. I can’t do simple, basic math, it’s hard for me to remember facts or algorithms, I rely entirely on spellcheck and speech-to-text to write, I failed many classes in high school and I barely passed with a low GPA, I had low pSAT scores and I never took the SATs. I moved around a lot all through school starting in third grade, and I missed a lot of basic fundamentals in learning (like how to do division and multiplication) so when I went to a different school they had already passed it and expected me to know. After my TBI, I could barely read AFTER I was cleared from my “concussion” symptoms because letters and words would flip around and I’d get headaches. Which still happens sometimes.

A lot of people see me as smart because I've learned a lot of academic language and can formulate thoughts into cohesive posts. But I lack a lot of necessary skills and rely on my caretakers to assist me. Things like budgeting and planning are extremely difficult for me. If I need to do simple addition or subtraction, even with a calculator, I quickly get confused and struggle. I forget basic information about myself all the time, let alone other subjects. I'm talking, has to check my ID for my birthday type confused. Doesn't know my name or address or what year it is confused. It happens daily, sometimes multiple times a day. Being able to type out posts like this often takes weeks and many adaptive tools to get there. Focusing is extremely difficult on many fronts, severe chronic pain, ADHD, dissociation, fatigue, migraines, and TBI, are just some of the contributing factors. I struggle daily with many things because of my lack of intellect.

I’m also privileged in the fact that I had some access to education as a homeless youth, that I had some supports in place to help me (towards the end of school), that I was somewhat able-bodied at the time and could walk or bike to and from school when the school system didn’t provide transportation. I was fortunate to have a chance to succeed, and I’m proud that I graduated high school because it was a difficult task for me, and others often aren’t offered that chance or get accommodations. I almost didn’t and I dropped out many times before graduation. I passed on sheer luck and what little privileges I had. 

That all being said, me being stupid (reclaiming it here) doesn't make me a bad person. I don't hurt people because I can't do math. I may mess up things or get confused but it doesn't make me want to harm others.

We often (wrongfully) equate morals with intellect. Being ‘stupid’, ‘dumb’, or an ‘idiot’ doesn’t automatically make someone a bad person. Plenty of evil, awful, and abusive people are extremely intelligent. 

I see this most notably with people advocating for IQ tests to be able to vote. Often from left-leaning people, in hopes it'll make the right (that they view as unintelligent), unable to vote. The reality is, it just hurts some of our most vulnerable members of the community while not actively doing anything to restrict some of the most dangerous members of our community-- those who know what they're doing to harm others and deliberately doing so. My voice matters, and I speak up against injustice and participate in dismantling oppressive systems. Taking away my right to vote won't make the right stop oppressing minorities (which also puts a lot of faith into the two-party voting system, which is a post for another day).

Additionally, legislative measures that discriminate against intellectually disabled people such as IQ tests for voting are also rooted in racism and classism. 

Yes, education can be a vital tool when it comes to addressing discrimination and creating safer communities. But the kind of education that is measured with an IQ test (or any test) isn't the same. Building compassion and caring for others can (and should) happen at any IQ level. We can all practice this, we can all participate.

It harms our communities and stagnates our progress when we equate intelligence with high morals.

[perkeleen-lavellan]

I feel like with any sincere discussion of Veilguard we should start off by establishing that there are multiple forms of 'fun' as it were, to be had from video games. The main purpose of a video game is, after all, to be fun. To entertain us.

So. With Veilguard I feel the problem is this; Veilguard succeeds at being fun. It succeeds at the kind of actionable fun. Veilguard is fun to actively play for most people. The combat is fun, the level design is fun, the main storyline is fun whenever we get to it. Veilguard offers fun that is quick and instant. I think it was no small feat that BioWare has finally managed to design levels and combat for a Dragon Age game that feels complete. Although I will go to my grave defending the tactical combat of DAO, it is a different more gripping kind of fun that Veilguard's mobility and systems can offer.

But there is another form a fun. The kind of fun you might be more used to associating with a good book. The fun of a story you can't wait to see the end of. The fun of fantasy world building, of seeing the marvel that is an author, or a collection of authors, who know what their vision is, and who are subtle enough to communicate that vision through fiction. The joy of seeing the result of experts building their craft. Environmental clues, implications in dialogue, tone in atmosohere. Seeing a good story unfold is fun, and with video games, which are an interactive audio visual medium how much moreso?

A book is just words, a show on tv is always linear and restricted to what the camera shows us. A video game has a whole three dimensional world that you can move inside of, witnessing the story and world building both passively and actively. A video game has dialogue and characters, who can both drive and narrate the plot for you. A video game can put you inside the world the story is happening in and immerse you in it.

And I feel that Veilguard fails to take advantage of the full breadth of the vast collection of storytelling tools a video game has. The fact that the companion quests and companion writing seems to have been left incomplete, pieces wilting on the cutting room floor when the companions are meant to be the emotional core of this story? The fact that all the factions are presented as unambiguous good guys which leaves them with no depth, their stories woefully superficial and unwilling to engage in any deeper ideas? The fact that vast amounts of world building and lore have been essentially discarded? That is all severely unfun.

So I think it's fair to say that Veilguard is fun and disappointing and not fun. The fun that I had while playing this game was always followed by a collection of things that were not fun. And the most annoying part is the parts about Veilguard which are fun are the parts that are fleeting. That I can find combat in a video game entertaining, extremely entertaining sometimes, is nothing when compared to the staying power of a gripping story with not just good set up and pay-off, but also an immaculate structure supporting that all the way throug.

When I am 80 years old I will not remember fondly the fact that Veilguard was the first Dragon Age game to finally have an actual dodge mechanic. There are always going to be games with fun combat mechanics, Veilguard isn't special for that. But I will remember Solas turning into a dragon sized wolf in a desperate bid to fight a dragon ten times his size, to help the hero he became a villain to. I will remember what it felt like to have a protagonist start off by treating Solas with suspicion, knowing there was no reason to trust Solas but choosing to give Solas a chance to prove himself trustworthy anyway, and Solas breaking that trust. And I'll remember what it felt like to have that protagonist then face Solas again, and make a choice to either be kind or to be just like Solas.

You will sometimes see gamers who say they don't really care about the writing in their games that much, but then their favourite games are things like The Witcher 3, God of War, The Last of Us. The reason they say that is because the writing is so integrally a part of the gameplay experience they don't even realise how much work it's doing. Fun gameplay doesn't matter if there is no reason to continue it.

Do you know what I remember about Dragon Age Veilguard? I remember dreading opening the game and seeing the list of companion quests in my journal that I had no interest in doing, because I had already realised how nothing a lot of them were. And I'm not talking about the gameplay of those quests, I think we've established I enjoyed smacking the bad guys and moving through the levels quite a bit. Oh no. I'm not even talking about the dialogue, not really. It was the stakes. Why were these characters doing these things, and why should I care? There was so little emotional conflict in those early to mid game companion quests.

Do you know how plot structure works when you really boil it down? Conflict is set up -> tension rises -> conflict comes to a head -> tension releases. This is why you need conflict and this is why you need characters to have flaws that they will not self psychoanalyze to a resolution within the first 5 minutes of the story. The realisation of those flaws is the plot! The character overcoming those flaws is the plot. You can't have a story without plot! What are we doing here????

That's how those quests felt. They felt like all the actually meaningful things the writers of these sub-plots had to say got crammed into their final quests. With a couple exceptions. And that's why doing most of the companion quests felt like a chore.

So, anyway, in summary. Remember that a video game contains within itself multiple forms of fun. As many forms of fun as there are ways of interacting with a game.

[anghraine]

Despite my occasional gripes with Tumblr Austen fandom, sometimes I get recommended or linked to something and remember what Austen fandom off Tumblr is like.

I was checking a message from my mother on another platform and immediately was recommended a group discussing what were essentially headcanons about Lady Catherine. The OP was fine; her question was interesting and she kept gently pointing out that a lot of widely-held fandom opinions are neither stated nor implied in the book. But a good 80-90% of the fairly numerous comments were the same old "Lady Catherine is lying about her relationship with her sister" "she was jealous of Lady Anne for being sweet and beautiful" "she probably wanted to marry Lady Anne's husband herself" blahblahblah.

It wasn't complete consensus, but so near to total agreement that it was kind of astounding. Especially given that, for instance, the fanon of young Lady Catherine being jealous of Lady Anne is wholly fanon with zero evidence in the book or even the major adaptations. The insistence that Anne de Bourgh was not actually in her cradle at the same time as Darcy and should be significantly younger than him, that he wasn't really intended for her from the moment of his birth, that Lady Catherine saying so is further proof that she's exaggerating and/or lying, and that Lady Anne must have been completely different in personality, so much sweeter and prettier than Lady Catherine and Lady Catherine was super jealous and mean towards her—it's all entirely manufactured by fandom.

And while Lady Catherine is a flawed, petty, snobbish, deeply obnoxious, and rather silly person, I've always found something strange and unpleasant about this propensity for inventing so many more, and worse, reasons to hate her and frame her as an antagonistic polar opposite to her sister (a sister we know very little about). And I'm especially weirded out by the kind of desperate straining to dispute the Lady Catherine-Lady Anne marital scheming backstory that is a fairly minor element of the plot that no character in the book has any difficulty believing.

Here's Elizabeth's response to Lady Catherine trying to leverage the planned engagement against her, for instance:

"But what is that to me? If there is no other objection to my marrying your nephew, I shall certainly not be kept from it by knowing that his mother and aunt wished him to marry Miss de Bourgh. You both did as much as you could in planning the marriage. Its completion depended on others."

So it's like ... it's not just that I think there's no canonical basis for disputing this bit of backstory. The thing I've always found much weirder is why so many people want to dispute it. Where is all this discomfort arising from? A pair of aristocratic women married to wealthy, powerful landowners in 1770s/1780s England informally arranging the marriage of their only children is not particularly strange. Yet there is a ton of fannish discomfort around it and around the possibility that Lady Catherine and Lady Anne got on well enough to make such an arrangement.

The discomfort is even more conspicuous because we know so little about the sisters' relationship. It's like:

1) Lady Catherine's daughter and only child shares her sister's name, Anne.

2) Lady Catherine claims that she and Lady Anne planned their children's marriages when both were infants; Wickham also mentions the planned engagement in passing, apparently to reinforce his claims to special knowledge of the Darcys' concerns.

3) Lady Catherine is the only person in the novel who specifically mentions Lady Anne on more than one occasion.

4) more tenuously, Lady Catherine believes daughters, in general, are never all that important to their fathers, an opinion presumably encompassing herself and her sister wrt their father the earl.

The only other quality about Lady Anne suggested by anyone in the novel is Darcy's very carefully-phrased suggestion that his father (rather than Lady Anne) was extremely amiable and benevolent, more than his mother, though both were good people. So the idea of Lady Anne as this sweet and pure ideal mother figure who couldn't possibly have been on genuinely good terms with her awful sister or been party to dynastic scheming while Darcy's father was more reserved and standoffish like him is pretty much entirely manufactured by fandom as well.

I guess my feeling on seeing this still going at full throttle in 2024 is that the "Lady Catherine must have been mean to and jealous of her perfectly sweet sister who of course never agreed to any of this nonsense or was just trying to get her to shut up" thing is such a weird takeaway from pretty much every single thing we hear about Lady Anne and Lady Catherine. It seems completely non-intuitive as a take on what little we do know of this backstory and how the other characters react, and the version suggested in the novel is neither shocking nor central to the story, yet there's this palpable fannish discomfort about it and about Lady Anne potentially being fine with Lady Catherine and less of an idealized icon than her husband.

I know I've talked about this many times over the years, but running across it still going at full force in July 2024 was pretty surreal.

[ao3-shenanigans]

I have a confession, and a question. I have rewritten my longest fic to-date a total of six times and have an entire extended universe planned. The problem is, I only make progress if I'm writing it out by hand. The slower pace of writing with a pen or pencil forces me to pause and think far more often than typing and makes it much easier to deal with grammar and spelling errors down the road. It also has the great side effect of helping to keep Writer's Block from taking hold. How do you deal with writer's block?

Ah man, writers block hits me so hard!

Some tips and tricks I’ve heard that help:

1. Make a short-term outline

- maybe not the whole plot but rather a short scene or set of scenes. Ex:

(1) Character A picks a fight -> (2) Character A looses fight -> (3) Character B finds them and takes care of them

2. Make a list of things you would want to read in a fic

- be self indulgent! This is your fic after all!

- listing moments you’d like to have can sometimes get the creative flow excited again

Ex: Jon and Martin kiss, someone calls Elias a Saucy Minx and he has to put up with it, Sasha gets to stab Peter, Tim gets to have a sick day where people take care of him

3. Write scenes out of order!

- write that sappy epilogue first if you want!

- stab that sad little man! Figure out why it happened later!

4. Write a few sentences or scenes from a different perspective

- can be that of a different character, an animal watching, a passerby or even an inanimate object! 

5. Write with a friend! Co-authoring a fic or even parallel writing can help with motivation

6. Write a one shot while taking a break from Your main project!

- sometimes something short and sweet can get the dopamine flowing again

7. Write by hand!

- the old notebook trick!

- or even changing the font sometimes helps!

8. Don’t allow yourself to edit or fix typos!

- let yourself ramble on to the page for a bit! You can’t edit what’s not there!

9. Read someone else’s work!

- fanfic or traditionally published work! Mix it up!

10. Re-engage with the source material!

- remember your roots!

11. Change the weather!

- maybe the fight isn’t working in the rain, but how about sleet or snow? Searing desert heat?

12. Change the format of the fic

- try writing it in second person or as a screen play

13. Leave bits out

- start with only the dialogue or only the setting descriptions

14. Talk it through with a friend or fandom buddy!

- explain the story and ask them questions, brainstorm answers together

15. Remember that it doesn’t need to be perfect!

- getting fixated on plot holes or mischaracterization can be detrimental to enjoying the act of creation that writing is

- as fanfic readers, we genuinely don’t mind that much; its the whole “Holy shit two cakes!!” situation, the fact that you’re willing to share this thing you’ve written and labored over with us for free is a gift in and of itself

- have fun! Be silly! Don’t fret about it!

[doberbutts]

You mentioned in response to another ask that you don't use "transandrophobia" because the trans theory you were taught by trans women told you that "transmisogyny" covered those things and that is a total revelation to me. I've been thinking for a long time that it seemed to me that the idea of transmisogyny *does* cover transandrophobia, it just impacts trans femmes and trans mascs differently a lot of the time. But I had no idea that there has been theory/discussion that says this. I'm more used to the idea of "TMA" with the implication that only trans women are affected by transmisogyny. Is that more of a new thing and transmisogyny used to be considered as a more broad term? And would you trace that change to the same issue you're talking about with a lot of current feminism forgetting how feminism is also a "men's issue"?

Idk if I would call it "new" per say. The word trans-misogyny was coined in 2007 and did not include trans men, but the book in which it was coined did mention that language was likely needed to describe the trans man experience as well. There have been a number of different attempts, but none have really stuck.

I went to college starting in 2010, so roughly 3 years after Serrano coined the word. While in college, my school's GSA wanted LGBT elders to come and talk to all the scared freshly-minted adults who were trying to figure out this being gay thing. The woman who ran my GSA found a Trans woman who was willing to be my mentor and sponsor, she wrote my letters for me back when that was still necessary for medical transition, and we met frequently for her to teach me more or less how to be trans safely. Some things she did not know- how to bind safely, how to attach a semi-permenant packer, etc. But others she knew very well, because she herself dealt with both being seen as a man by society as well as the effects of testosterone on her body for decades before she transitioned.

Anyway. This woman was great, and is a significant portion of the reason I'm still alive to this day. And she is who taught me the word transmisogyny, and that it should really cover all trans people because all trans people experience an intersection of transphobia and misogyny. Whether that was popular theory at the time or not, that is what us young kids learned directly from the mouths of trans women at my college, which to me means that others were also learning this particular version of transfeminist theory.

Unfortunately by the time I dropped out of college in 2013/2014, online trans spaces were having stupid arguments such as "transtrenders are bad" and "neopronouns are bad" and "nonbinary people are cis people who want to feel special" and "trans men should be hunted for sport" and "trans women are incel nazis" and. Well. I went "wow this place is a cesspit and I feel like no one here has actually talked to another transgender person face to face" and then did not engage with the online community. So I don't really know how common or popular the understanding I was taught was at the time, though it certainly seems quite rare now.

(As a caveat I don't really think trans people of any gender have anything that isn't similar with each other when it comes to oppression, outside of certain bodily things that can't be helped because that's literally the thing we're transgender about, and I think we all experience very similar oppression but sometimes with a different hat)

As for what caused this particular defining to fall into obscurity? I really can't say. I don't know how popular the transfeminist theory the trans women who spoke at my GSA meetings taught us actually was in the broader world. Every once in a while I meet someone who lived through that same time who remembers that theory, which tells me it had gained at least some traction if it was being discussed in multiple parts of the country, but... that's really it. And it's pretty unpopular theory nowadays, I get people calling me a scumbag and claiming that I say transmisogyny doesn't exist just for mentioning that the theory I was taught includes trans men in the discussion.

But I don't think it's specifically the whole TMA/TME thing. I think it's a lack of understanding of what oppression and what intersectionality are, how they operate, how they work, how we define things through them. There are many people who believe that men do not experience misogyny. But, they do, that's why it's an insult to a boy to call him a girl during a moment of femininity or vulnerability, as a means of calling him weak because girls are believed to be weak. There are many people who think intersectionality turns oppression into additives, as though stacking marginalizations like dnd buffs. This also falls apart because oppression is not like quick math where you add a +5 to every roll if any part of your identity is privileged and a -7 if any part is oppressed.

I've had people get mad at me for saying that straight people experience homophobia while we also have sitting politicians that make jokes on live TV about how they'd drown their (presumably straight) children if they found out their kids were gay. For saying that GNC cis people experience transphobia when butches are getting kicked out of bathrooms and drag queens are getting jumped in bars. For reminding people that when Sikhs are killed due to being mistaken for Muslim in this country that hates Muslims over a national tragedy our Muslim population did not cause, it's still considered and called Islamophobia, because just because Americans are too stupid to tell a Sikh from a Muslim doesn't mean they weren't spurred into that hate crime by their rampant hatred of Muslims and the sight of a turban and long beard.

[amourdivine]

୨ ♡ ୧︰ TAROT 101: developing your intuition.

Hello lovelies, welcome to the first post of my Tarot 101 series! After receiving a few questions, I decided to incorporate a series of tips and tutorials for other self-taught readers. Today, I'm answering a follower's asks sent in my DM's. I'm tackling it separately, so it makes more sense to other people to read it. PS: Since this is a major work in progress and I'm not an all-knowing, almighty entity, please provide feedback, comments or concerns you might have! Thank you.

☁️ ˚ NAVIGATE ༉ ‧

INSTAGRAM ୭ YOUTUBE ୭ MASTERLIST ୭ PAYHIP

How you develop your intuition and psychic abilities while reading tarot?

There is not one size fits all. While many readers recommend connecting to oneself, that's just the basis of it, really, but the main concept is to look at yourself, compassionately. Without the judgment of our everyday lives and the chaos of getting things right in the first attempt. You cannot be honest with yourself (or your intuition), if self-denial is the state you're living in. Or worse: if you view the truth as punishment.

It's always going to be a journey of discovery, and the first thing about spirituality is that you need to keep an open heart to the magic. Skepticism may get you far ahead in your career or financial matters, but when it comes to intuition, you can't grasp onto logic all the time.

With tarot, it's a little more practical: learn and lean into the cards. Notice I didn't say memorize, because many of us are busy enough with our everyday schedules. Just tap into them. Look at them. What does The Lovers remind you of? Maybe it takes you to the story about the Garden of Eden. Or- maybe it reminds you of your parents, their golden youth before marrying.

Again. No judgement. Let your stream of consciousness free. A huge part of reading tarot is allowing your imagination to run wild. Although the Devil card can symbolize obsession or addiction at first, take into account the spread, the topic. The context. What is your body telling you about the images you see?

We often underestimate the symbolism behind the cards. Without considering the traditional meanings,take one card out of your deck and just look at it. What colors are prominent? What do these colors represent in modern society? Do these people look happy? Are there any people at all? Where are they? Let your mind weave a story.

As a tarot reader, what you do on daily basis for intuition and tarot reading? What practices, book, or some kind of information which help you for tarot readings?

There are many things that have helped me, personally, but I'm going to mention some of the best practices I've seen, both for myself and for others.

› Stay creative. If it means drawing, writing, or painting, then stay creative. Find whatever little (or big) ways you can express your creativity. Remember you don't have to be "good". You can just be. Creativity exists in a lot of ways.

› Engage with other readers. Observe them. You can find a tarot reader that deeply resonates with you and watch how they read. Test if it works for you. Remember this is your practice, it's your sacred space, so you don't have to follow someone else's rules.

› Read, if and when you can. I personally recommend the book "History of Tarot" by Isabelle Nadolny, but not everyone can afford books or the time to read them. There are plenty of Youtube tutorials and free guidebooks on Biddy Tarot, for example. I also love Servant of The Fates' blog. They're both different and great, reliable sources.

› Start small. You can pull one card a day. Get a journal, write its meaning (or what it means to you) and record your progress. In a few months, when you return to it, you might find it surprising.

› Let yourself not know everything. No one does. Sometimes, you'll need to pause, go back to a guidebook and read the meaning all over again. Other times, you'll look at the spread and feel nothing. That's okay too. We're not meant to know all the answers.

Is meditation really important for reading tarot? Why? How much time do you spend daily for tarot readings and spiritual practices?

Since this is more of a personal matter, I'll be talking about myself. I don't meditate as often as most readers. Three times a month, maybe? I have a busy schedule and I can only meditate before bed, if I'm not too sleepy. Many people find that meditation makes them anxious or they're not able to fully let go. Other people find it that being in silence or taking a walk is more useful to them. Relaxation and meditation come in many, many forms. The important thing is to nurture your body and soul more than to adhere to rigid rules.

However, when it comes to saving time for readings or spiritual practices, I don't set rules for myself. It never works for me.

I let it flow. Sometimes, I go weeks on end without really consuming tarot content and I bond with my decks occasionally. And other times, I'm reading daily, journaling and trying to improve my skills. Since I have a billion other things to care for, I'm not always able to prioritize tarot as much as I'd like, but the important thing is to stay passionate, stay curious and get back to it. Better late than never.

When you're getting started, let yourself try. If you get it wrong, at least you'll be one step closer to getting it right.

amourdivine. 2021 - 2024 © do not copy, redistribute or edit my content.

[lurkingshan]

Love Sea Final Thoughts

I have been trying to wrap my head around my overall feelings about Love Sea, a show that is undeniably flawed but somehow charming anyway, that drops so many threads but does such a good job with a few of its core points that it's hard to be mad. I can't really say that this is a great drama, but I can say that I enjoyed it a lot and I think it's a good watch if you go in understanding some caveats.

Let's start with a few things I really loved about this show:

Mahasamut. A great character, he will be going on my shortlist of Thai bl favorites. He's smart, honest, patient, giving and forgiving but he also knows himself, his limits, and his worth. On top of all that, he actually looks like a normal person, with a healthy body weight and beautiful imperfect skin. So rare in dramas.

Smart class dynamics. I appreciated how much this show grounded Mut and Rak's relationship in their class disparity, how wealth and lack of same was a constant issue between them that was never forgotten, and how its effect on their power dynamic shifted over time as their relationship grew.

Very well-executed sex scenes. The sex in this show is tied to character development and relationship arcs, and every sex scene mattered to the story. We watched the shifting power dynamics between Mut and Rak play out via the sex they had together and by watching their intimacy we learned more about them.

Ridiculous chemistry. The main love story was supported by truly excellent emotional and sexual chemistry. I always believed in the attraction and the feelings between these two, and that helped a lot when the story didn't quite take me where it needed to.

Rak and Vie's friendship. I really loved that we spent time with these two as besties, and that they were genuinely so supportive of each other. Vie was a real MVP in kicking Rak's ass when he needed it.

Meena, the best child ever. What a delightful character who brought a lot of fun and lightness to the story. Her scenes with Mut were a true highlight.

And here are some things that didn't quite work for me:

Uneven focus for the main characters. Once we left the island to go to Bangkok, the entire show was about Rak, his backstory, his issues, his ongoing problems, and his needs, and Mut was kind of subsumed in his story instead of having one of his own. I was glad we got back to Mut's life at the end, but they really should have kept it present throughout so everything didn't feel so one-sided.

Shallow engagement with family trauma. And despite the fact that the story was so much about Rak's issues, the story never actually went deep on them. I still don't really understand a lot about his family dynamics. The show used his dad and cousin as villains and then his mom as an easy out to solve everything at the end, but we never dug into how all these people ended up this way in the first place. It was a real missed opportunity.

Rak's emotional journey. I was on board for much of it, but other parts felt a bit haphazard and all over the place. Sometimes it felt like he was suddenly progressing out of nowhere, and others it felt like he was backsliding just because the plot demanded it. I liked where the story took him a lot but the path to get there was pretty bumpy.

The side couple. WOOF. I have no idea what happened here, but that was a fail on just about every front. Mook was a hard character to love from the start, Vie felt like a completely different person with Mook than in all her other scenes, there was so much lying and manipulation for no good reason, and in the end they were left completely unresolved. If you are on the lookout for great gl pairings, you will not find that here.

So there you have it. This show is absolutely a mixed bag on its execution, so how much you end up liking it will probably depend on how strongly you connect with what it did well and where it dropped the ball. For me, it was a good experience and one I'll remember fondly. I'll definitely be watching the special when it's released and I hope to see this cast again.

[qqueenofhades]

https://www.tumblr.com/qqueenofhades/751102464296665088

*Puts on old man costume*

"Back in my day, we used to cheat and procrastinate like real people! With copious amounts of bullshitting and pulling things out of our asses at the last minute! Secretly sneaking in little things written on our hands or in our phones fer tests and shit! Heck, maybe we didn't even NEED to cheat because it turns out we actually knew stuff, we just didn't know we knew stuff until our last minute papers got a good grade anyways because our shit actually had some analytical relevance borne from deep in our psyche, but we just didn't realize it because we had massive cases of imposter syndrome where we thought everyone else was smarter than us, while overlooking our own abilities!

Now these newfangled ChatGPTs are just taking the easy way out of the easy way out! What's up with that!? These new procrastinators and cheaters make us look even worse than we already do, cuz they ain't even doing the work of not doing the work! And y'all can't even say that you can learn from it in the art of bullshittin', cuz that's not even YOUR bullshitting, it's someone else's bullshitting mangled up with hundreds of other peoples' bullshittin'!

Feh, kids these days!"

*Takes off old man costume*

Addendum: old man anon griping about cheating with ChatGPT does not endorse cheating or procrastinating. I'm just being silly.

I mean... at least with regular old-fashioned cheating, also an academic tradition since time immemorial, at least you're engaging with the material somehow. You are putting your own two god-given eyeballs on that and using your own ickle brainikins to do SOMETHING with it, even if that something is morally questionable. We've all seen the elaborate cheat devices where someone managed to engrave all the exam answers onto a pen or a pair of socks or whatever -- at least that person went in and used their initiative to remember information SOMEHOW, and to do it under their own power. Now, yes, it will get you into trouble, and yes, there are plenty of conversations to be had about accessibility and the fact that not everyone learns by sitting in a room and being lectured at and then having to regurgitate it all from memory with no notes in a final exam, which is why there is a whole thriving field of educational pedagogy and best practices and how to accommodate students with different learning styles and etc. etc. I sometimes see AI framed as "uwu accessibility issue :(" and like... cmon. There are educational professionals who spend their whole lives and careers working out how to shake up the traditional learning format and present material in an engaging way and teach students how to think and write and otherwise be academic and rigorous. And like, if you're voluntarily in this space, then we presume you WANT that instruction! Not to just sit around and whine about how we aren't catering enough to you personally and this means you should get to use the Bullshit Plagiarism Nonsense Machine to never ever think at all!

Now, I will say that the naivete around AI is not only limited to students. I was in a department meeting yesterday where the literal associate dean of the college seemed startled to discover that AI might not be a) totally reliable b) able to totally replace lesson planning and evaluation/grading by an actual human professor (after several faculty members pushed back, shall we say, briskly on the idea that it could). Plenty of people still think it can just magically solve Academia (or /insert field here), and those are not just limited to clueless undergraduates. And yes, undergraduates are clueless in different ways and for different reasons in every era of the world; it is likewise an academic rite of passage. But I still cannot for the life of me understand why you, in ye olde benighted 21st century, would pay tens of thousands of dollars and/or accrue it in debt to go to college, to learn nothing, to whine and blame your professors for "not designing assignments well" (when again, every remotely decent educational professional agonizes for eons about how to do a good job of this for all kinds of students), to insist it is your entitled right to use the Bullshit Plagiarism Nonsense Machine, and then presumably be /shocked pikachu face/ when you don't learn anything and spend your time posting idiot takes on the internet. I mean. The state of critical thinking is /waves hand/ Already So Bad, and the AI craze plays directly into that by fulfilling the insidious fantasy that the hard things in life aren't actually hard and don't have to be learned by patient and careful practice. And that is just. Yeah. C'mon.

(I realize this was a funny/lighthearted ask, but yeah, we can consider this one old man turning to another old man on the park bench and making a joke, and the other old man bellowing YOUTH THESE DAYS!!! and scaring all the pigeons and/or passersby. Ahem.)

[howlonomy]

in all the 'trauma siblings' stuff with Clover & Kanako, I keep coming back to thinking about how Flowey engages with this

Like, here's someone who went through an at least similar ordeal of getting a human soul mixed into a monster body, leading to a lethal, traumatic injury, into a rebirth into a new body whose physical and emotional state are all way the fuck out of wack

Except Flowey was shaped a lot by having to go through the traumatic aftermath alone, and lives in the weird space of having experienced unknown years of resets but also is still mentally kind of a child

So I have to think that Flowey sees these kids and that little Asriel part of him is screaming "don't let them wind up like us", but being Flowey he also has no idea how to really comfort anyone.

Leading to sweet moments like Clover collapsing somewhere and before anyone else in their family can even pick up on something being wrong, there's already vines springing up to catch them, because of course Flower would know how to spot weakness in people after years of doing that, but now there's a productive positive use for that instinct and it's nice

But also moments like "Gee how do I cheer up Kanako about that appointment with Alphys... I know! We'll torment her! What a wonderful idea!" Because hey, a little bit of sadism always cheered him up when he was suffering

And he'd probably settle toward a crass & hyperbolic style of comforting people with hit-or-miss moments, like a sort of "Wow clover you ate SHIT just now", trying to get them laughing at the misfortune instead of crying, but obviously sometimes It's Not The Time For That or he reverts a bit back to thinking something really fucked up like "Man, that person was really rude just now, we should kill them and everyone they love" and the kids look back at Flowey like "dude what the fuck"

And everybody's different ways of processing trauma are constantly both helping and clashing with each other as these kids help each other figure this shit out because as much as the adults want to help nobody but these 3 can really come close to understanding how it feels

this has been a big ramble for an ask and not really an ask but I wanted you to have this

THIS IS SOOOO GOOD BECAUSE YOURE 100% RIGHT

flowey struggles with knowing the concept of empathy and compassion but not really. KNOWING it. i imagine he can at least remember how it feels being asriel and during the final boss but. its easy to know what it is and harder to put it into practice when you dont actually feel it

i think youre right in that he would try his best to help but not really know HOW. like it takes him a bit to realize that oh, i can see the weaknesses in people, whatdo i do with this information now that i cant use it to exploit them? what can i do to help instead of harm? what is objectively the GOOD thing to do with this information?

hes still an asshole and a bitch but he cares. hes learning to anyways. even if he missteps a lot the people around him are forgiving and willing to help him on the right path and correct him. i love…. flowey :[

[thepastisalreadywritten]

Prince Edward has paid tribute to his wife, Sophie, as his ‘absolute rock’ as he discussed his family life with Alan Titchmarsh during an appearance on Love Your Weekend.

The episode, which is set to air on March 10, the Duke of Edinburgh’s 60th birthday, will see the Prince sit down with the presenter and open up about his wife, the Duchess of Edinburgh, and their two children, Lady Louise, 20, and James, Earl of Wessex, 16.

Speaking of how much Sophie means to him, the Duke called his wife ‘critical, absolutely critical.’

He continued:

‘She's been an absolutely brilliant rock and I'm incredibly lucky that I found Sophie and that she found me. Hopefully, we've been a really brilliant partnership.

We're very lucky, we’ve got two, of what we would think are particularly brilliant children, who are forging such different paths for themselves. I think that's also equally fascinating.’

Elsewhere he spoke about the significance of Mothering Sunday and described what the celebration means for his own family.

Prince Edward said, ‘Always and it's doubly so when you've got your own children - your own family is very important.’

‘Those days were [important growing up], and these days are really important to remember some very, very special people in our lives.

There should be several times in the year when we make a special sort of effort and Mothering Sunday was very much one of those where you made a special effort just to say ‘thank you.’

So it goes on and that's the lovely thing about it. That's the lovely thing about families and that's what it should be.’

During the discussion, Prince Edward also revealed the lasting memories his grandchildren have of the late Prince Philip, including teaching his daughter Lady Louise to drive a carriage.

It's a hobby, which was a passion of the late Duke’s, and has since been adopted as one of Lady Louise’s.

He said, ‘It was entirely off her own bat. I mean, you know, just one day, ‘Can I go out with you and go sit on the boxes?’

He was like, ‘Absolutely.’

'He never was going to say no! He took her out with the team and I think it was only the second time, he was driving along and he said, ‘Do you want to have a go?’ and she didn’t have time to even answer the question, he just handed the reins across.’

Elsewhere in the discussion, Prince Edward spoke about how much it meant to him to be bestowed the title of Duke of Edinburgh. He said:

‘It was a huge privilege but also quite a lot of weight of expectation as well. I mean, there's an awful lot of legacy that came with that title and everything that my father had done. Especially when you're not inheriting it, this is a choice… that comes with all the expectations that people have.

It's just the weirdest and strangest feeling. You walk into a room and, particularly still today, there are name places on a card and I still look around going ‘Yes, but where am I sitting?’

Explaining how he would describe his father Prince Philip, The Duke called him an ‘extraordinary mind’, adding:

‘He was the Prince Albert of our age. He had an extraordinary mind. He loved design, he loved innovation, he was brilliant with all sorts of people.

Sometimes it didn't necessarily come across that way, but he was actually brilliant with people. He was always, always encouraging everybody. You sort of needed to get to know him.’

The interview comes after Sophie gave her own touching tribute to Edward during a royal engagement earlier in March.

The Duchess gave a rare, gushing tribute to her husband, calling him ‘the best of fathers and the most loving of husbands.’

Prince Edward looked deeply emotional throughout the speech, putting his hands over his face, as Sophie spoke about their love, saying, ‘I am so proud of the man he is.’

[vickyvicarious]

hey, wtf is physiognomy and why does it keep being brought up in dracula for seemingly no reason? it sounds like one of those racist pseudosciences but i've literally never heard of it anywhere else. why was it a thing some characters engaged with?

Your instinct to call it a racist pseudoscience is spot on.

Essentially, physiognomy is the 'science' of figuring out a person's true personality/nature based on their appearance. Ideas like this been around in various forms for a long time. A super simple example that springs to mind is the way that, in fairytales, people often can tell someone is royalty because of how good-looking they are. But of course it goes the other way too, and assigns criminals and villains "ugly" features. Eventually, people inspired by Darwinism latched on this idea and proposed that certain people were, essentially, less fully evolved than others and thus were destined to be savages/criminals. This might be meant in a larger sense against a whole race of people, but also often used individually on specific persons.

Both physiognomy and phrenology (a similar concept but based on interpreting the bumps and shape of someone's skull) were quite popular in the late 1800s. For example, I distinctly remember one Sherlock Holmes story where he speaks to someone who is a phrenologist (or at least, a hobbyist at it) and really wants to measure his head. He believes that someone with such an incredible mind would show it in the shape of his head. Though you may not have seen the word elsewhere, if you read classic lit (at the least, classic Western lit), you've probably unknowingly run across it in a few character descriptions. Specific descriptions of characters would make a point to mention features which contemporary readers could pick up on as signs to their character. For example, Jonathan tells Van Helsing, "you don't know what it is to doubt everything, even yourself. No, you don't; you couldn't with eyebrows like yours." The Professor recognizes his meaning and puts a name to it ("So! You are physiognomist."), but while we modern readers might not see the link without this line, many people probably would when it was published. Both Jonathan and Mina make detailed descriptions of Dracula and Van Helsing, respectively. (Actually, Mina also describes Dracula.) These descriptions can be seen at least partially as a code to readers in the know about what type of people they are and how they will likely act. I personally don't know many specifics about what traits were supposed to correspond to what features, but I believe that eyebrows, foreheads, and noses (both size and shape) were pretty commonly emphasized, and those are all mentioned for both men. I know there was a post that talked more specifically about what these were likely intended to 'mean', but I haven't been able to find it for you, sorry. (I do have descriptions of all main characters collected here, but the post includes spoilers.)

So that's what physiognomy is. As for why the characters are engaging in it... well, it's another way to show them being cutting-edge and scientifically minded. In fact, Mina later namedrops Cesare Lombroso, who was an important figure in the 'science' of physiognomy. He is sometimes called the father of criminology and had influential theories (and even, I believe, guides) as to what features said what about criminals. He also had theories about the different way criminal brains work. So by showing certain characters having an interest in physiognomy, the association is built between them being on top of new science and psychology, being interested in criminology and perhaps even having a detective's mind. Themes of modernity are quite prevalent in this book, and this would probably fit in that category because of the more recent emphasis on it as a science.