#but also the younger folks even if they don't agree will kinda... consider it at least

[nikxation]

One thing I find eternally amusing is that if I say the statement "Discounting the toxic crybabys, most people who were mad about what Luke became in the sequels are the older generations who grew up with the OG trilogy and spent 30 years headcanoning him as their perfect special uwu boy"... I can group people in the area into age brackets based on how annoyed they get at the statement... Bonus points if the phrase "but the EU/books!" is spoken.

[nvrcmplt]

SHIPPING INFO. answer the following for your muse(s) so people know how shipping works on your blog.

What’s your OTP for your Muse(s)?

Being mostly OC based, to be faaaaaaaaaaaair - It's not something fixed in place but I can say with my whole ass that my ships with @intcritus and @avaere are most likely OTPs. Due to the length of time of knowing these two and just how deep our claws go into each other it's almost hard not to think about my muses that I ship with them / without them being mentioned, Muse-wise for sure. Like a part of my muses is made with them in mind, or they've made their corresponding muse unbelievably integral to my muses life and creation as a whole so it's like, yin and yang honestly. A few others are on that road too; eg; @asinusxdomi and @bonesofchaos

What are you willing to RP when it comes to shipping?

Everything to be fair, ain't no limitations when we're consenting adults, imo. Obviously nothing agreed on will happen and nothing plotted out for darker themes will be just like forced on people cause that's just shitty but also I know what I'm getting into when I go for those types of ship wants.

How large does the age gap have to be to make it uncomfortable?

I personally don't feel comfortable in reading about muses having any thoughts about children muses in that way and that's a hard no for me personally. I couldn't write it even to test the waters like I have with a few dark topics, ( dub con / non con etc ) It's just up there with those kinda of topics that I can't personally say 'yeah I'm comfortable with writing this for an experiment', not for me, so yeah long story short, no.

It's just common sense to not ship adults with children muses / characters, it's a big no thank you.

The youngest I could possibly ok in terms of just passing, is the 18-19 with someone in their 20 - 23 space - tops but even so, it still makes me wrinkle my nose a bit.

I think anything younger isn't something I'm looking for to read or write. Younger writers of that age can do what they want but like I'm 31, 32 next year, I ain't got that young-mind leeway anymore mentality and I cringe at the idea of making younger muses like below 25 to ship.

Are you selective when shipping?

Nah - I try to be to limit my needs to just swarm the dash with my shit but I ain't got much of a tick list or wall to climb over when it comes to wanting to ship w/ me. Like I make tags in a blink if I see us interacting a lot outside of just one or two asks a month thing. Like if I feel the vibe of actual interest towards my muses, then yeah I'm gunna return that interest if I get that spark and want to explore that dynamic ship in whatever way we're going.

How far do steamy moments have to go before they’re considered NSFW?

I will send you a BJ ask if you ask for it. So, whenever and whereever. I don't use readmores, so if someone finds sucking fingers too sexual, it'll just be there in the open. If we're going mating press on a Tuesday morning, so be it.

Who are other muses you ship your muse with?

/points at my mutuals./ These bitches suffer with me.

Does one have to ask to ship with you?

Talk to me? Lol, not hard. Forceship if you want, I'm game if we've got something going.

How often do you like to ship?

All day every day - you can't stop me and my mind.

Are you multiship?

Yes yes, I can singleship but that's only for 11+ year friends on here.

Are you ship obsessed or ship more-or-less?

Yeah, I ain't gunna lie. I just love having ships and tags and a continuous plot going with folks and sometimes you gotta bag the muse to keep it going. Even if it doesn't end up a lovey-dovey or we plot a break up, I'm all for it.

What is your favorite ship in your current fandom?

Me and my mutual muses. I am the favourite ship, thank you.

Finally, how does one ship with you?

Love me and my muses with all your heart and send them your muses first born, ofc. But mostly just communicate with me, I ain't gunna be able to guess through jokes / vague tags or the occasional meme, like full on talk to me, spam my inbox with proper interaction between muses, if you don't feel the same is being returned, talk to me in DMs or Discord. I can't read minds.

tagged by : @avaere tagging: All of y'all.

[scholar-for-christ]

M'kay time to edjumacate some folks in Da Religies. @cheetochild989 has called upon me and I shall now gleefully FaithInfodump on y'all!

First off : I can understand @sarathrwizard 's frustration and hurt at watching a broken world become more and more broken. I absolutely understand the pain that can cause to a faithful heart. AND I agree with @wenzie76aster that this is not the way to live your faith. We need more love, not more hate.

TLDR: Both posters are technically correct. Like, yes, the rainbow did originate in the Bible as an expression of God's covenant with His people. But it is also absolutely VERY NOT OKAY to use religion as a reason to be unkind or downright cruel in any way.

Okay. Let's get into this:

Regarding Sarathrwizard's post:

Much of what Sara says regarding God is factually correct, but not in the spirit of the faith. God DID create us Man and Woman and that WAS the intended way for things to stay, but because we are indeed in a broken world, things that were originally in place become difficult or even impossible to maintain for our broken souls. (Note: ALL souls are broken in some way, myself included)

"I do not hate the person, I hate the act" is the correct mindset but it's not playing out here. It can be very hard to watch these things happen in our society. I agree that we are becoming FAR too sexually focused nowadays. There should never be any question of whether a five year old wants to be a boy or a girl. Just let them be THEM and they can decide about sexuality themselves when they're old enough to understand the implications, consequences, and potential health risks of that choice. Love the sinner, hate the sin distinguishes between the hurting person in need of help and the broken action they are choosing to do. In order to love the person but hate the sin, we must love the person, i.e. act in an accepting, loving manner that welcomes all people in to a place that was meant to be a hospital, not an exclusive club. We love the person, and avoid committing the sin, while showing the person, through our own lives, actions, decisions, etc... a better path. You won't change anyone's minds by ranting at them. If you want to change a person, change their heart first, and that can only happen through love.

It is true that 81 genders may be a bit much, lol. I think what we're headed towards is the realization that each human is unique and that we can never fully represent the person by placing them in any category/box. Yes, society IS trying to make LGBTQ (plz let me know if a new phrase is preferred, I feel like I'm behind on the whole 81 genders thing, lol) more "normal" which really just means less shunned and persecuted. I personally think it is wrong for any child under the age of 18 to be offered 81 different genders and allowed to begin physically altering medications, hormones, or procedures before they are adults themselves. You may disagree with me now, but you don't even know who you ARE before the age of, like... 20! And we should let kids be kids. Sure let htem play with and do what they're interested in (boys can be FANTASTIC at ballet and girls can DESTROY in sports, let them do what makes them happy) but leave out the sexual side of it until they're old enough for that stuff. Anyone younger than 18 shouldn't be having - and preferably shouldn't even be exposed to and actively exploring - sex.

(This message is endorsed by Chris Hansen)

The rainbow was created as a sign of God's covenant with humanity. But it has also taken on a different sort of meaning. As it's been used to teach colors and to represent diversity in personalities, emotions, and many other things (think Inside Out), it's become a social symbol as well and has a somewhat secular use. It's an odd one. Kinda stuck between a religious symbol and a social one. More research is needed to determine if it would be considered disrespectful to the faith to have this symbol represent LGBTQ communities.

ON THE OTHER HAND

Wenzie makes these points: 1. "There is no 'I respect your opinion but' in this when real people are disowned, tortured, killed, just for being themselves..... I'll NEVER respect you if you use your religion as a shield to spew hatred against a minority" - SO TRUE. Religion should NEVER be used to harm others. It goes against the absolute most basic, preschool level, foundation of the Christian faith, which, at its core, is "Love one another as I have loved you." Love is the source and summit of all we should aspire to. Because that little feeling we call "love"? That IS God. It's a little connection with God's spirit, the tiniest taste of His love for us and it should be our ultimate goal to show that love to anyone and everyone we meet, regardless of their beliefs, actions, or qualities. This does not mean to turn a blind eye to sin. Murder is murder and boundaries must be firmly set. But it is possible to love a killer as the broken, hurting child they are inside, and still consider their deeds horrible, tragic, and unacceptable. That's a more extreme example. In the case of LGBTQ communities, we should meet every person at the level they are at. It's not practical or even possible for someone to change core beliefs like these in the course of one argument. A better route is to be kind, show love, and display in your own actions and character, the life God wants us to strive for.

2. "There is no space in the fandom for people like this. Keep these hateful opinions to yourself..." - ALSO TROO. If you don't like the thing... don't engage with it. Not to turn a blind eye, but if a fandom of any sort makes you feel some type of way, just steer clear and go about your day. Find other blogs that share your ideas or build your own community of headcanons. Ranting at people will not change their minds. It's actually more likely to drive people away and make people see religion and Christianity as exclusive and unkind in general.

IN SUMMARY

The world IS broken and that hurts us all in many different ways

If you don't like the fandom, or certain parts of it, don't engage with those parts.

If you can't meet someone where they are with love and kindness, step away and consider your own heart until you can. Don't try to push, argue, or rage your way into convincing them because it won't work. Hearts change with love, not hate.

Just my thoughts as a Catholic trying to put a little more God/love into the world.

I rarely make posts like this, but I'm fucking serious when I say I'm gonna need you to unfollow me if you support the hateful things this person has said. Not only was she in hot water months ago with the comic where she drew a light skinned April and was met with comments asking her to change it and reacted with racism, but to have these views not just in general but in a queer-majority fandom based on a show that supports queer dynamics characterisations and headcanons, is disgusting.

There is no "I respect your opinion but" in this when real people are disowned, tortured, killed, just for being themselves, and trying to find happiness through that.

I'll NEVER respect you if you use your religion as a shield to spew hatred against a minority that spent decades fighting and dying to do something as insignificant as hold hands on the fucking streets, and they're STILL TARGETED AND BEATEN FOR THAT.

There is no space in the fandom for people like this. Keep these hateful opinions to yourself, or make some private account out of reach from queer fans who might stumble on your blog since it's clear no one can change your mind.

[orcinus-veterinarius]

I need to preface that i genuinely dont want to be argumenative or come off as snarky or anything so i hope it doesnt seem that way, i know its easy to misidentify tone over the internet n such

Im just wondering if you're pro captive cetaceans entirely, or just pro "people are going to keep them Regardless so may as well advocate for the best we can for them"

I can't say i'm an expert on those animals in the slightest, but my personal surface understanding is with how large, intelligent, and complex they are, i would immediately venture to guess there's no way to totally ethically keep them in captivity. I could be totally wrong! I will openly admit i watched blackfish when i was younger and while it's stuck with me, i recognize now it's a lot of unnecessary fear mongering and a disgusting play by play of an innocent woman's death. I don't want to say my knowledge wholly comes from that "documentary" especially considering we briefly studied whales in school, but that could also be obscuring my view?

I'm just genuinely curious about your take since you're so passionate about these animals specifically. I can kinda find parallels considering i have a few small parrots, and knowing what i know now i can't agree with the breeding and sale of those animals for profit, but i do advocate existing parrots get the best care they possibly can in households fit for them seeing as you can't just throw them back in the wild.

Don't worry, you're not being snarky! I really appreciate your reaching out. I love to yammer on about whales!

At this time, I do believe it's possible to ethically keep certain cetacean species in human care (for example, bottlenose dolphins). As for others (namely orcas), I think it's a more complicated issue. Many of the facilities housing cetaceans, even ones I support and consider "good zoos," are not all they could be, and I hope to use my future position as a veterinarian to advocate for better, more enriching habitats and more natural social structures. I don't approve of capturing any animals, particularly cetaceans, from the wild, except in circumstances where the animal will die if not taken into human care (i.e. stranded dolphin calves, problem bears and sea lions, cull elephants) or for conservation purposes if a species is in imminent danger of extinction (as was the case with California condors and American red wolves). I think the original orca captures were undoubtedly wrong, but I also believe clamoring to "free" the few remaining wild-born whales and their descendents is very foolish. I do support breeding in accredited zoological institutions, not only for maintaing a viable population in human care, but also since reproductive and parental behavior are extremely important to cetacean welfare. Here's a link to Dr. Holly Muraco speaking informally on the topic.

However, for all the public awe and outrage dolphins inspire, very little actual scientific work has been done on captive cetacean welfare. Folks just seemed to jump straight to "let's release them into dubious sea pen 'sanctuaries' run by people without any practical marine mammal experience" rather than "how do we improve the situations the animals are currently in," the latter of which is a cause both "pro caps" and "anti caps" can and should unite on. Dr. Isabella Clegg is a PhD scientist who's already done a lot of fantastic research into dolphin welfare... you can look at her website here... and I hope future animal advocates follow her example.

Although I don't expect to, I'm always open to changing my mind as I gain more experience and new information becomes available, and I completely respect people who come to a well-informed conclusion against cetaceans in human care and are willing to accept my point of view as well. Thanks for the ask, and I hope this helps!

[uselessheretic]

mmm i don't think people over a certain age are incapable of learning or are cut off from discourse completely, but i do think it's worth considering the context of his age since queer discourse and the language we use is rapidly evolving. so i think it's unfair to lock him out of the community based on his language where people's hesitance towards it is informed by arguments over phrasing from the last decade.

i mean, ten years ago "labels are for soup cans," "i was born this way," "sexuality is a fluid," "hearts not parts," etc were all well accepted phrases who've since then have been examined closer with varying degrees of "yeah, that's not actually that great..." a lot of that discussion happens on an online forum and is largely inaccessible to people not in those circles (which do skew a lot younger)

along with the fact that some of this language that might be problematized can often be addressing predominant viewpoints from a person's generation which people can kinda just? skip over taking an empathetic lens towards the person's context of growing up and how that shaped their language. like someone who grew up 20 years earlier was likely exposed to ideas that there's only two sexualities, gay and straight, and that gayness is an affliction. considering that binary thinking where words like bisexual weren't spoken of much, "sexuality is fluid" is a pretty logical disruption of that.

with taika especially i think people kinda... ignore that he is older and the context of him growing up where i think people also often assume that everybody in new zealand is just like him djdjejdndn but like? he is older? and he's always been an ally and always had exposure to queerness, but it's still very possible (and likely) that some of the openness, especially around queerness and not requiring labels, are concepts that just weren't available to him even ten years ago. so i think it is worth examining the way language is imposed on people, assumptions that our understanding of the current discourse is the only correct way, and continue to meet people where they're at because it's not like he said anything offensive, it just doesn't neatly fit within the context of queer discourse's current evolution.

also i keep thinking about this interview he did a few weeks ago because i just nddnnddn feel like it makes a lot of sense?

like yeah of course taika was exposed to a bunch of weird artsy people since he was a kid and that informed his worldview. but also like... yeah he still grew up in new zealand though and still had to live under those standards of masculinity and cisheteronormativity? and weirdly enough because of the way he's associated with queerness i think people forget that (convenient when you wanna call him a homophobe!) so it's just like... i feel like we can allow for some grace. not as an excuse for holding bigoted views just because someone's older, but a reminder that our understanding of queerness is heavily influenced by how we grew up and that we shouldn't just assume a perspective held by majority younger folks is automatically more correct and valid.

(also agree on the "sexuality is fluid" isn't inherently queerphobic! i'd argue that homophobes don't view sexuality as fluid, they view queer people as people lead astray in need of correcting. for many people sexuality is fluid and that looks like lots of different things!)

Watching the reaction to Taika saying "we're all a little bit queer" has been fascinating because of the chunk of people that read that and immediately assumed he's a cishet man evilly appropriating queerness when there's the much more solid possibility that he said that because. He's a little bit queer.

okay mood tho. like again i dont wanna speculate on peoples sexualities, but i would just... assume hes a bit queer before i assume hes straight. insane that the more he aligns himself with queerness and avoids publicly iding as straight that the more people want to assign him homophobic cishet