#but if it's only in this specific context

[uncreative-cryptid]

aha this has me thinking about about cannibalism and morality now, and not just for any reason, but i think the reason a lot of people can't give a better explanation of "cannibalism is bad because that's illegal" probably don't understand that centuries of death rituals and innate teachings of religion are likely at work here.

if you read the bible on death and how the dead are meant to be handled, you'll probably note something rather distinct:

Numbers 19:11 ; "Whoever touches the dead body of anyone will be unclean for seven days"

you are considered "unclean" when handling dead bodies, so i would also give to assume that the idea of eating a human body would be difficult as you would be considered unclean and would have to go through a whole ass cleansing ritual to be considered "clean" and "acceptable" again.

but this isn't the only thing at play here when it comes to cannibalism. i think that religion's views and handling of the dead also lay within their death rites and rituals, as a lot of religions will consider the human body sacred. i think it'd be abhorrent if someone you loved passed away then was flayed, sectioned, and butchered, all before you in a way to be consumed and then you were offered a piece of meat as compensation.

i can only imagine how the catholics would feel if we exhumed the saints and decided to chew on a femur or two for enrichment.

though, alternatively, consumption of a person in some ways can be seen as symbolic of love (i.e. jesus saying the bread is his body and the wine his blood, that you may consume him and accept him)

something i think a lot of people also unconsciously take into consideration without truly realizing it is that when say "corpse" you are using a very broad term that could mean anything dead.

i like to eat meat, particularly ribs. i am actively consuming a cooked corpse when i choose to eat ribs. now, why does that make it different from saying "eat humans"? well, when i consume beef or pork ribs, i am eating an animal i have over many years been conditioned to equal as a source of food.

hundreds, if not thousands, of years of society telling me that animal and livestock lives are less than. i can still vividly recall the way my family excused ruthless slaughter of farm animals for consumption as "well they aren't going to heaven because they don't have souls anyway".

so what point am i trying to make here exactly?

inherently, over a long period of time, either based in religion or just societal belief, we have conditioned ourselves to see humans as "higher" - after all, we're top of the food chain. in some arbitrary way, we've assigned ourselves as gods of a hierarchy of animals. we are sentient, we are living and breathing and aware and emotional and volatile and constantly changing creatures subject to love, hate, pain, fear, bravery, bias, and a number of learned behaviors we subconsciously take on.

because we think, therefore we am.

so we have:

religious beliefs (the dead are unclean, diseased AND the body is sacred and must be treated with respect as is their final rites for their transition into the afterlife)

humans are a "higher being" and should be treated as such

but lastly i'd like to point out that once you start thinking of humans, specifically dead humans, you begin to assign faces mentally.

the discussion of death and mortality is not often discussed outside certain circles or in the context of "a life after death, what waits beyond", and rarely do we actually discuss death in of itself.

this aversion to the discussions of death has inherently led to a lot of people becoming uncomfortable with the idea that we as mortal beings can and will die, this fate is inevitable no matter how we wish to perceive it.

i imagine that in some sense, when discussing the ethics and morals of cannibalism, we are subconsciously putting ourselves into that role. we tend to put our ego into a lot of things, because at the heart of it we are animals that want to preserve our lives to some degree.

cannibalism is uncomfortable because it poses the concept of death and humanity as nothing greater than the animals of the greater wilds, who must feast or die.

so, the points to make as to why cannibalism is "illegal" or "morally incorrect":

religious beliefs

humans are "higher beings"

the ego

humanizing what is no longer human, or what used to be human.

that last point, i highly suggest watching Caitlin Doughty's video The Rugy Team That Fell From The Sky, as it's part of her historical documentary and actually covers the topic of cannibalism (she has 3 that i can think of that cover cannibalism as a matter of fact to the story).

when faced with no alternative, people will turn to cannibalism.

in the book Tender Is The Flesh by Agustina Bazterrica, it poses the question "what if no animal on earth was edible except humans?" and proceeds with explicit detail on how man would go about handling this - it's not something i suggest reading, it is graphic and hard to stomach, but essentially:

the less human you make it, the easier it is to consume.

we personalized and humanize, we're animals who seek comfort in the pack of families and communities. the more human, the more personal, the more you will struggle to consume that which as become more real to you.

but what if we could make it something of a ritual? a sacred ritual celebrating the life that is no longer, in the same way church made me eat a cracker and drink cranberry juice every sunday morning?

cannibalism is only illegal because we as humans personalized, humanize, and elevate, ourselves and those closest to us.

this excludes the understanding of sciences and that eating a human body can lead to disease, but i'd dare to say that we simply haven't experimented with human meat based meals to have made it edible and safe like we have with the corpses of cows and chickens and pigs and fish.

cannibalism is complex and fascinating and there's a lot to it, but "morally incorrect" is only subjective based on what you believe "humans" to be.

[marzipanandminutiae]

I genuinely think there were far more trans people in 19th century western history than we're aware of, simply because of the nature of how most LGBTQ people lived their lives back then

namely, though of course this varied WILDLY by time, place, cultlure, race, gender, etc., in relative secrecy

if you go back far enough, legal identifying documents were barely a thing for many people. and even if they existed, circumstances in which they'd be checked were few and far between. surveillance was nowhere near what it is now simply because of technological limitations. and due to those same technological limitation, people were more used to accepting at face value the identities of people with bodies that varied from the norm

Gilbert and Sullivan mention, in their 1885 song "I've Got A Little List," the singer's "auntie with a mustache" (albeit in a negative context). not "well, I don't hold with all this woke DEI nonsense and have we checked Auntie's genitals and what's the marker on this alleged woman's passport?" is it very probable that the auntie was cisgender? yes. there are plenty of reasons for cis women to grow more facial hair than is average, ranging from genetics to PCOS to post-menopausal hormone shifts. before HRT, in a time with few readily accessible safe hair removal techniques (though they tried, and electrolysis had been technically available- at ruinously expensive rates -since the 1870s), you'd be more likely to encounter cis women with facial hair who chose not to try removing it. and you assumed all women were cis. so your set concept of A Woman included, potentially, facial hair, and it was less likely to make you question someone's gender

EDIT: wow okay so that is NOT an original G&S lyric! it's so borderline in terms of Poor Taste that I assumed it must be 19th century. nonetheless, references to old women with whiskers and moustaches abound in Victorian and earlier literature, so the point still stands

besides which, for a very long time, personal questions along the lines of "what's in your trousers/skirt" were considered HIGHLY impertinent

so, while there would be a world of trouble if a trans person was caught or if suspicions began to arise about their gender for some reason- the past was not a trans-friendly utopia by any means -it was often somewhat easier to fly under the radar than it generally is today. the transphobic powers-that-were were less aware of this possibility and therefore not on high alert for it, generally speaking

and since most trans people then and now want to have jobs and social circles and families and do things to which being trans is incidental, while trans, it wasn't likely that they'd call attention to themselves in a time when Closet = Safe. indeed, most trans people from that era that we know about are only publicly known because their death wishes to be buried without autopsy were not respected. I'm thinking of Dr. James Barry, Charley Parkhurst, and earlier the Chevaliere d'Eon [no, that's not a misspelling; it's the feminine form of Chevalier since she was a woman]

(you hear about more transmasc people in the history of this era because it was harder to establish an independent life as a woman, at all, without some kind of support network/establishment of Reputation in the area where you were living. unless you were a sex worker, and while we do know about some transfem sex workers of the era, the specifics of their identities are often obscured behind salacious news reports of Man Disguised As Woman Tricks Other Men Into Doing Icky Gay Things. so figuring out whether they saw themselves as women or crossdressing men can be difficult. Mary Jones comes immediately to mind)

how many similar wishes were respected? how many people slipped through history with their gender variance unremarked-upon? there's literally no way of knowing- which is good in terms of immediate postmortem respect, but leaves historians of queer subjects nowadays with a herculean task

I think, in light of all that's happening right now, I just want to remind everyone that trans people have always existed, will always exist, and are an integral part of humanity's fabric

[esthelle-wanders]

Warriors and Artemis: What The Heck Is Going On With Them (a self-appointed analysis)

SO I don’t tend to get too involved with shipping— but during my time in the Linked Universe fandom, I’ve noticed something consistent: while everyone has their own set of headcanons for favorite couples, Hyrule Warriors Zelink is the princess-hero duo with the widest variety of interpretations.

Aside from other factors— like Warriors fans living for angst— I think this stems from the reality that, in the context of Linked Universe specifically, the dynamic between Wars and Artemis is among the Link-Zelda relationships we know the least about.

Hence, in light of the recent holiday, I wanted to take a moment and collect all the clues we’ve gathered for this relationship over time. And, maybe, spark some conversation! (Buckle up and maybe make some hot chocolate, there’s surprisingly a lot to talk about)

[All image credits go to Jojo, with thanks!]

Part 1: Jojo’s Hints

When considering any Link-Zelda dynamic in Linked Universe, the easiest place to begin is Jojo’s response to the “love interest” question…aka, Default Zelink.

Obviously, this response doesn’t define the limits of fandom creativity, or invalidate the thousands of excellent stories we can tell with our own interpretations. It is, however, incredibly helpful as a starting point when we’re trying to puzzle out where Jojo might take a relationship in future updates!

Speaking of which— in her 2023 Discord gifts, Jojo also provided a handy scale for her take on each incarnation of Zelink.

For my present inquiry, this seems like a pretty definitive answer! Wars and Artemis are second from the top on the romance-scale, between Sky and Hyrule.

… except this actually tells us surprisingly little, given Hyrule’s relationship with Aurora:

This is adorable. It’s also makes for a much larger grey area for Wars and Artemis. After all, there’s a pretty big gap between “openly smitten and practically engaged” (Sky), and “there’s mutual feelings but nobody has actually said anything” (Hyrule). It doesn’t help that Wars and Legend are the only ones without additional commentary (Wild’s is included with an asterisk below the table in the same document).

This uncertainty is exacerbated by another tidbit of Jojo-gifted lore, and the biggest point of interest for me: how long it’s been between present day Linked Univese and the end of Hyrule Warriors.

It’s been six to seven years since Warriors and co. defeated Ganondorf. Aside from Time, that’s the longest adventure gap for any hero in LU.

So, here’s what we know:

1. Wars and Artemis are almost certainly romantically involved.

2. It’s more than mutual feelings, but less than an established relationship.

3. It’s been at least SIX years since the end of their adventure.

Obviously, I still have questions. Chief of which is: what does it mean that this is where their relationship stands, when it’s been 6+ years since their mutual adventure?

This sparks a few more questions.

1. If there’s mutual interest, why hasn’t it progressed?

2. Are there obstacles to a definite relationship?

and, of most interest to me:

3. If there’s an obstacle— are either Warriors or Artemis the reason for this?

Conveniently, that part’s next!

Part 2: Warriors and Artemis

A. Warriors’ side

Thus far, Wars has referenced Artemis (directly) exactly once (in “Moving Forward”):

This doesn’t tell us anything about the specifics of their relationship, but it does show that

1. Artemis is a fond subject for Wars: he cares about her.

2. She’s an exception to his hangups with secrecy: he trusts her.

(I considered providing instances of the “Wars and Not Being Told Stuff” saga, but that would 1. take forever and 2. test Tumblr’s image limit. I think we can all agree that this is a trait of his.)

This is a pretty reasonable indicator of how Wars feels about Artemis… for now. He cares about her, and even more notably, he trusts her.

But what about the princess in question?

B. Artemis’ side

As of now, the Zeldas have only come up a handful of times in LU.

Aside from background comics and cameos, references in the main story are largely restricted to Time giving Sky relationship advice in “Miss Her,” Wild addressing his thoughts to Flora at key moments in the aftermath of Twilight’s injury, and Time mentioning Lullaby in “Timeline talk 1.”

And then, of course, there are the Malon chapters.

Romance, as it pertains to the Links, is the subject of conversation at multiple points throughout this “arc”— but for my purposes, the most important stuff is this panel from “The Bet.”

Okay, aside from Wars making political-intrigue fanficcers very happy, this is super informative. A few key takeaways:

1. Wars also assumes Default Zelink.

2. He doesn’t see birth or status as an obstacle to marriage.

3. He’s so confident that he’s willing to bet on it.

(Admittedly, the Chain places a lot of bets— but it’s still worth mentioning that he’d stand his ground on this)

From here, I think we can make three statements and remain well within the realm of probability:

1. Wars thinks very highly of his Zelda.

He sees how much Time loves his wife, and Time’s general self-possession, and assumes it has to be the princess.

2. If there are obstacles to HW Zelink, they probably aren’t external.

Wars treats public support as a given, as long as the involved parties can play the political game.

3. He seems to be speaking from experience.

There’s no signs of frustration, or even a hypothetical here— he’s talking about this like it’s par for the course. Ergo, he probably hasn’t experienced anything that would contradict that assumption.

My conclusion: Artemis isn’t the obstacle. There’s no indication here that Wars’ Zelda is unable or unwilling to make the political arrangements he mentions. In fact, given how unconcerned Wars appears, I’d say it was never a point of contention at all.

That’s as far as I’m willing to go with this panel alone— but if we factor in Zelda’s attitude in Hyrule Warriors proper, I think it’s reasonable to assume that Artemis is open to taking this relationship to the next level.

*inhale*

So. If there’s mutual feelings, and there aren’t any external obstacles, and it’s been 6+ years— why aren’t they a couple?

Part 3: Let’s talk about Wars

Specifically, Wars and his relationship with… relationships. Of the romantic kind.

Since the earliest years of the LU fandom, it’s been fairly well-established that Wars is the resident flirt.

This comes from a few of the side comics, but also from the first-ever Linked Universe post:

Over time, the fandom’s interpretation of these traits seems to have shifted a bit.

Early fanworks tended to depict Warriors as the “Casanova” of the group. More recently (within the last few years), I’ve seen the widespread reading that “women problems” has more to do with Wars’ personal trauma than with a hypothetical reputation as a womanizer.

While these alternate perceptions have a big impact on how we might interpret situations like this—

— surprisingly, it makes very little difference to this self-appointed investigation. Whether he’s a chronic flirt, processing trauma, or both, the fact is that Wars doesn’t seem interested in “settling down” with a definite relationship.

This is clearest, I think, in this panel from “Powerful Ring”:

Warriors is being a tease here, but using the term “shackle” telegraphs a pretty clear opinion. Time even draws a bit of attention to it with his good-natured “aside.” It’s not something you’d say if you were actively looking to get into a long-term, committed relationship.

We’re encroaching on the image limit, but it’s worth noting that Wars’ attitude here contrasts sharply with Sky’s, and even Hyrule’s. Sky is all bashful interest, and Hyrule expresses doubt over his own ability to “settle down” as the Hero. Meanwhile Warriors, who sits between them on the Zelink romance scale, projects pointed, if very light-hearted, distaste (or at least disinterest).

So here’s Warriors’ side, updated:

1. Warriors cares about Artemis, a lot.

2. He also trusts her, a lot.

3. For whatever reason, he doesn’t want to be in an official relationship with her.

Part 4: Conclusion

Okay! Time for the TLDR:

1. Wars and Artemis are almost certainly romantically involved.

2. It’s more than mutual feelings, but less than an established relationship.

3. It’s been at least SIX years since the end of their adventure.

and, finally,

4. Wars himself is the obstacle to taking the relationship further.

Annnnd that’s as far as I can go, without veering off the tracks into headcanon territory.

Of course, while I tried to be as neutral and “canonical” as possible, at the end of the day, this is just speculation! And Esthelle amusing herself tracking down hyper-specific panels in Linked Universe like it’s an Important Assignment and not an Excuse To Read The Comic Again.

Whatever it turns out to look like, there’s so much potential in the Wars-Artemis dynamic! They’re interesting, and we should talk about them more— even if I didn’t plan to write quite this much about them in one post. I can’t wait to see what Jojo has planned.

Thanks for reading if you made it this far! If you have additions, corrections, theories, or general thoughts, I’d love to read them.

[abandoned-as-mustard]

I was reading a book where two minor male characters were introduced to someone who did not know their names, but spent the rest of it confused as to who was who thanks to the author not making it clear whether an action was a reaction to the other, or whether the other *was* the one doing the action from that *one* scene.

That kind of sentence can be solved by simply using names or describing the one with the specific features. It's better to be precise than confusing. You don't even need to change that many words.

'Jack saw John, and John smiled' - it's clear the subject has changed

'Jack saw John, and he smiled'. My first impression is that it's still Jack smiling. You can get away with this on context clues from preceding sentences: Jack is on the hill, John is down the hill. -> 'Jack saw John, and he smiled down at him'/'Jack saw John, and he smiled up at him'

'Jack saw John, who smiled' changes the smiling to John. Only one clarifying word needed.

'Jack saw John, and Jack smiled' sounds clumsy unless it's a stylistic choice that makes sense within the context, such as alliteration.

It's ironic this has been dubbed a gay fanfic trope when this is, and has been, the bane of any writer with multiple characters in a scene.

In which case you should just resort to names, because it's better to be concise than confusing.

Especially when writing fight scenes has the same problem as sex scenes.

[gatheringbones]

hi! as someone who just slogged through Gideon the Ninth and Did Not get what all the fuss was about, can I ask you to elaborate on what you’ve said in the past about it lacking internal context, or only its internal context only making sense if you’re familiar with Homestuck? you’re basically the only person I’ve seen giving actual critique of this book (and I don’t know Homestuck) so I would love to hear more, thank you!

imagine someone playing out a version of homestuck on the carpet with whatever plastic dolls they had on hand.

they aren’t characters there to build and create the world through their choices based on who they are as human beings; the plastic dolls are there to act out homestuck. they’re stand-ins for a story someone else told a long time ago with a lot more passion and enthusiasm. because the person playing with the plastic dolls lacks that same passion and enthusiasm, they have to make up for it with jokes about memes.

because gideon is a plastic (butch) doll, there is no room nor reverence paid to whoever gideon might be as a (butch) person. if she were a person (raised since birth in captive service to her erotic intended) something in the technology of the story might handle those elements with care, intention, and specificity. the captive, humiliated, objectified, violated butch is a searing and persistent image in butch literary tradition. but the other plastic dolls are already moving on. we are acting out another scene from homestuck. look, one of the dolls has plastic molded muscles. that means it’s butch.

[kiyosato-yuri]

I know we finally get a fricking pair ego from the same abnormalities from RyoFau but my nerd ass only wanna talk about the detail nobody wanna paid attention (such as the damn diseases)

Wall of text warning below ⚠️

_____________________

First of all, in medicine, when referring to a patient as α or β, the meaning depends on the specific medical context.

Example: Thalassemia (Inherited Blood Disorder)

α-thalassemia patients: Lack or have mutations in the genes responsible for producing α-globin chains, affecting hemoglobin.

β-thalassemia patients: Lack or have mutations in the genes responsible for producing β-globin chains, leading to more severe anemia.

➡ β-thalassemia is generally more severe, often requiring regular blood transfusions, while α-thalassemia can range from mild symptoms to fetal hydrops (severe anemia in fetuses).

---

Or Streptococcus Infection (Related to Immunity & Bacterial Infections)

α-streptococcus patients: Infected with alpha-hemolytic streptococci, which commonly cause mild conditions such as pharyngitis (sore throat) or endocarditis (heart valve infection).

β-streptococcus patients: Infected with beta-hemolytic streptococci, especially Group B (S. agalactiae), which can lead to pneumonia or severe neonatal infections.

➡ Beta-hemolytic streptococcus is more dangerous, as it can cause sepsis (blood infection) and meningitis.

---

Neurological & Psychological Aspects

Patients with dominant alpha waves: Tend to be in a relaxed state, with lower stress levels.

Patients with dominant beta waves: Are more alert but may also experience heightened anxiety or stress.

➡ People with high beta wave activity are more prone to anxiety and sleep disorders, while those with high alpha wave activity may drift into a dreamy or drowsy state.

Regarding sleep deprivation, it's well known that if a person stays awake for 3–5 days, both the brain and muscles will begin to deteriorate, leading to extreme exhaustion and eventual loss of consciousness.

---

Back to the ego Thoracalgia α & β – Classification of Chest Pain I already explained from the Ryoshu post

Thoracalgia α: Neuropathic pain without nerve compression, often caused by central nervous system disorders, spinal cord damage, or inflammatory conditions.

Examples include: Postherpetic neuralgia (nerve pain following shingles) Spinal diseases without visible compression

Thoracalgia β: Pain due to compression or mechanical injury, commonly seen in conditions such as:

Herniated discs, Rib fractures or injuries, Costochondritis (inflammation of rib cartilage)

➡ Alpha (α) pain is chronic, influenced by the autonomic nervous system and alpha waves (8–12 Hz), causing dull, persistent discomfort.

Beta (β) pain is acute, associated with beta waves (12–30 Hz), and tends to be sharp and intense.

And base from their passive icon its seem to be two different type of inhaler

Faust is a dry powder inhaler (DPI) and Ryoshu is metered dose inhaler (MDI).

Basically (and sum up) their passive, Shallow exhale and Deep inhale links into that with how they experience the pain from thoracalgia

[impostoradult]

I want to add a qualifying addition to this.

In general, most of the time, on balance, public services are better. BUT. But. That tends to be true mostly in a context where you have a strong, functioning, largely non-corrupt, healthy democracy.

In the Soviet Union, virtually everything was exclusively a 'public service' and it was profoundly bad and dysfunctional. Because the Soviet Union government was very corrupt and dysfunctional and not subject to robust, legitimate democratic oversight.

The dysfunction of public services under the Soviet Union is one of the big reasons the US has been so gung-ho about privatizing everything possible since the Cold War. It was one of the big arguments for "small government" over big government.

And we need to remember that. We need to remember the Soviet Union when we talk about public services, NOT as an argument against them. But as a reminder that public services as A Good is contingent on specific political conditions that are not a forgone conclusion in every context.

***

Furthermore, I think maybe it is useful to shift the analytical examination of the issue to consider binaries beyond public and private. Most primarily, the binary of diversification versus consolidation.

One of the reasons the Soviet Union (and most nominally communist countries) have been so dysfunctional is because they radically consolidated power. Dissent and (real) democratic engagement was undermined at every turn. The powers that be were not responsive to the people at large. It was a rigged game with only one actual player.

Capitalism has trended intensively towards the same thing, especially in light of Silicon Valley's funding models. Enshittification is an outcome of a capitalist set up where a new service debuts and due to ridiculous amounts of VC funding, it can provide a legitimately good service for cheap for years, allowing it to capture the whole market (essentially). Then, once it has consolidated the vast majority of a possible audience/user-base, and people have become dependent on it, they start jacking up pricing and radically lowering quality of service because they've consolidated the market SO MUCH that no one else can (actually) compete.

What these things have in common is CONSOLIDATION of power.

When people only have 1 real option, whether it is a capitalist product or government service, there is WAY more possibility for them to be screwed and taken advantage of. And again, that is not an argument against public services. But public services, to actually be good, have to operate in a context of real democratic dissent and have to be subject to things like robust separation of power, checks and balances, external oversight, and so on. And yes, some LIMITED private sector competition is probably helpful as well.

[criticalcrusherbot]

Compassionate Questioning: A Gentle Push for Antis to Touch Some Grass

By….Human Assistant?? 💁🏽‍♀️🤠

💁🏽‍♀️: Shhhh 🤫 Crushbot is sleeping 🤖😴

Let’s be real—bad-faith critics aren’t interested in genuine debate. No matter how well you explain something, they’re not really listening. Their goal isn’t understanding, it’s winning. But after chatting with a psychologist friend of mine, I’ve started reshaping how I approach these interactions.

So, what if, instead of banging our heads against the wall, we tried two different things?

1. Recognize when someone isn’t actually interested in conversation and stop wasting our breath.

2. Use some empathetic questioning to get them to focus on the real issue: their borderline obsessive hatred of a cartoon about gay demon furries.

Because let’s be honest—most of these arguments aren’t about Helluva Boss itself. They’re about discomfort with its themes, biases against certain character types, or straight-up projection. So let’s break down some common criticisms and respond with some therapist-style questioning to (gently) expose what’s really going on.

1. “Stolas is just an ‘uwu boy’ to excuse his toxic behavior.”

💁🏽‍♀️: “That’s an interesting take! What makes you feel that his vulnerability is being used as an excuse rather than a character trait? Do you think a character can be both flawed and emotionally complex?”

Translation: Are you mad that Stolas has emotions, or are you mad that people like him despite his flaws?

A lot of people act like a sympathetic portrayal = automatic forgiveness, but that’s just not how storytelling works. Maybe the issue isn’t that the show “excuses” Stolas, but that it refuses to dehumanize him for making bad choices.

2. “Blitz doesn’t deserve a redemption arc, he’s awful to everyone.”

💁🏽‍♀️: “What does ‘deserve’ mean to you in this context? Do you think redemption arcs are only for characters who are already likable? If so, how do you feel about villains who get redemption arcs in other media?”

Translation: Are you this mad when other messy, morally gray characters get growth, or is it just Blitz?

People say they want complex characters but balk when those characters aren’t immediately lovable. A redemption arc isn’t about excusing past behavior—it’s about showing how someone changes.

3. “The show focuses too much on romance instead of being a fun comedy.”

💁🏽‍♀️: “That’s fair! Expectations shape how we experience a show. Do you think the issue is that romance exists, or that it’s not executed the way you personally prefer? How do you feel about comedies that mix romance with drama?”

Translation: Is the problem the existence of romance, or that you don’t like the way this show does it?

Helluva Boss has always been planting seeds of character-driven drama. Expecting it to stay a gag-a-minute comedy was bound to leave you disappointed.

4. “Loona has no real character development—she’s just a bitch who yells a lot.”

💁🏽‍♀️: “That’s interesting! What does meaningful character development look like to you? Do you think male characters with similar traits get the same criticism, or do they get more leeway?”

Translation: Why is Loona the problem, but not Blitz, Mammon, or literally any other loud, abrasive character in the show?

This critique isn’t new—it’s the same double standard that follows female characters in Helluva Boss in general. People say the female cast is either “too weak” (Octavia, Verosika) or “too aggressive” (Loona, Stella), but the moment a woman gets actual nuance (Octavia, anyone?) suddenly it’s “bad writing.” Maybe the issue isn’t the writing—maybe some people just don’t like female characters unless they fit a narrow, palatable mold.

5. “Fizz got retconned into a useless twink. He used to be cool.”

💁🏽‍♀️: “What specifically makes you feel that Fizz’s character was ‘retconned’? Do you think your perception of him in Season 1 was fully accurate, or just based on limited information? Do you believe a character needs to be physically strong to be compelling?”

Translation: Why do you feel personally betrayed that Fizz turned out to be… a disabled theater kid?

The real issue here is that people projected a completely different personality onto Fizz based on his Ozzie’s cameo and then got mad when the show revealed that, shocker, he’s a whole person with vulnerabilities. The funniest part? A lot of these complaints come from people who claim to be “progressive” yet have no problem calling a visibly disabled character a “useless twink” the moment he stops being an edgelord in their heads.

6. “This show is garbage and Viv is a terrible writer.”

💁🏽‍♀️: “That’s a strong reaction! What keeps you so invested in something you dislike? Do you think this much frustration over a cartoon is a productive use of your time and energy? Would you feel happier focusing on something you actually enjoy?”

Translation: Babe, why are you still here?

This is where a lot of anti-Helluva Boss people need to take a step back. If you genuinely think a show is that awful, why not just… move on? If you’ve made hating it part of your personality, that’s not media critique—that’s weirdly personal. Maybe the issue isn’t the show, but the fact that you’ve sunk so much time into something you refuse to let go of.

Final Thoughts: Don’t Fight—Redirect

The key here isn’t to get into an endless argument with people who refuse to engage. It’s to either:

1. Get them to reflect on what they’re actually mad about.

2. Make it painfully obvious to onlookers that their argument is weak and rooted in bias.

So next time you see someone foaming at the mouth about Helluva Boss, try hitting them with some gentle, leading questions. Either they start thinking critically, or they spiral into incoherence. Either way, you win.

[fugamalefica]

...and he wondered, with a feeling of great trepidation, what had happened to make Lord Voldemort the happiest he had been in fourteen years.

The text's structure here is very deliberate:

First we get Harry's question about what made Voldemort the happiest in fouteen years, and then immediately: 'Harry's question was answered...'

And what follows? Not the headline about the mass breakout, but specifically attention drawn to the photographs, and of those, specifically to the witch's photo. It's Bellatrix who 'leapt out at Harry', and only after this does Hermione redirects Harry to the actual headline.

The narrative structure creates a direct line from Voldemort's unprecedented happines to Bellatrix specifically before even revealing the larger context of the breakout

The text seems to be deliberately guiding readers to connect Voldemort's extreme emotional response primarily to Bellatrix's escape, even though nine other Death Eaters also escaped. This connection is established before we even learn about the mass breakout.

Also, consider what else has happened recently that didn't generate this level of joy. Regaining his body and getting back the other Death Eaters, who were greater in number than those who went to Azkaban as well as more useful.

Also, it was precisely fourteen years ago that Voldemort and Bellatrix were separated.

How stupid do people have to be to deny Bellamort?

[fearcutsdeeper]

Hi, I’ve really been enjoying your Temeraire posting! I saw in the tags of one of your posts recently (I think the one about the Laurence+Rankin friendship era in book one) that you read Laurence as autistic and the idea really tickled my brain! I’m a new fan of the series and I haven’t thought of him that way before, but now that you pointed it out it makes so much sense. I was wondering if you’d be willing to elaborate a bit on that reading of his character? It’s a super interesting idea and I’d love to hear more of your thoughts if you feel like sharing!

Absolutely!!! The first time I read the books I was really flying through them and too caught up in the character arc I could feel taking shape before my eyes to really dwell on the character as he is, if that makes sense. I'm reading more slowly this time and really considering his thoughts and actions in context, and they feel... like, very relatable to me in a specific way.

(Disclaimer: this is a personal reading, not trying to claim this is an objective truth about the character or anything, etc)

One thing about the way a lot of people discuss autistic or perceived-as-autistic characters is that they'll recognize them as autistic based on straightforward expression of symptoms/traits that you might read off a list. This isn't doing it wrong or anything, and the characters in question can easily be read as autistic! But those aren't usually the characters I see myself in.

I'll pretty often start seeing a character as autistic not because they're outwardly showing symptoms, but because their behavior strikes me as learned compensation for symptoms. Data from Star Trek is very frequently seen as autistic coded not just because of his frequently expressed lack of understanding for social conventions but also because he then explicitly writes himself new subroutines to account for what he learns. A lot of autistic people (including myself) go through their lives kind of accumulating "scripts" – like, oh, I seem to have missed that X was a signal, but the person's reaction tells me that the appropriate response would have been Y. Next time I encounter X, I will do Y.

Now, Will Laurence builds his ENTIRE LIFE around the elaborate rules of British propriety and honor and duty. He tells us that he enjoys Society – "conversation, dancing, and friendly whist were his favorite pursuits". All three things listed are, in Georgian wealthy society, things with a strict and learnable structure and rules – he likes when what he's supposed to do is clearly laid out for him! He's in I think his late thirties when the series starts. I'm basically reading him as an autistic man who realized that people didn't make sense to him the way they did to other children and then spent his entire life Learning The Rules so no one would notice.

Every time he's engaging with propriety and Proper Behavior, he's thinking very consciously about it. And when someone else violates his understanding of the rules, he's internally scrambling for the proper response, because his script has been disrupted. (My personal favorite it when he'll go "the only satisfactory response would be a challenge to duel but I'm not allowed anymore")

So, he's been doing this all his life, he's learned all the rules for the life track he's put himself on (which is a highly structured one!), and then, boom, the plot hits.

The Rules of aviator society are totally different. Laurence is affronted and scrambling. I find it notable that Berkley basically plows right through Laurence's attempts at propriety and immediately starts talking to him like he would any other aviator, and it WORKS. Laurence is kind of taken aback, because his rules would interpret the way he's being spoken to as an insult, but Berkley certainly isn't acting like he means to give insult, so Laurence doesn't respond like he's received one. There's also the bit where he notes that the woman serving him has violated protocol by greeting him instead of being silent – but he returns the greeting and isn't offended.

He's mirroring like hell! (This is a common autistic trait.) He's working out what the expected behavior is and returning it as much as he can manage. And when he's with Rankin, he reverts to his society scripts, with so much relief that he ignores some warning signs.

And this makes his whole arc of disillusionment with the British Government SO interesting, because Laurence, I think anyone would agree, takes the honor that the government pays lip service to dramatically more seriously than most members of the government and Admiralty. And, until he gets the truth shoved in his face, he has enormous trouble conceiving of that. It really reads as autistic to me – like, what do you MEAN the elaborate system of morals you told me to structure my personality around is only window dressing to you? It's sure as hell not window dressing to me!

In this reading, in addition to all the other incredible things that his story is about, it's also about an autistic guy becoming increasingly uncomfortably aware that the systems of rules and parameters which he painstakingly learned and have successfully guided him through most of his life are fundamentally in conflict with each other, and eventually being forced at gunpoint to decide which of those rules really truly matter, throw out the rest, and rebuild from scratch.

Which is to say: my man is in hell. At least he has a dragon?

[bakasara]

of course certain types of AI have valuable use! See cancer screening for example.

But these large models of generative AI trained with stolen data and used to output "art", specifically? The thing OP is talking about? If "the people" owned them... they'd still be models that do what they do thanks to that stolen data.

People who are not corporations CAN absolutely make their own models with their own (or otherwise consesually given) data, and some have already! There're plenty of instructions out there on how to make your own AI model. Universities have created their own models - see link above. It's not secret technology.

These personal models are typically far more limited, though, because to make them as complex as the likes of chatGPT you need millions and millions of pieces of writing, visual art, video, vocal recordings, whatever that model is going to be trained on, and the only way to obtain such a massive amount of data is by scraping it from the internet without user consent.

Microsoft alone has invested 13 BILLION US DOLLARS in OpenAI, the startup company who owns chatGPT and Dall-E (among others).

You could argue the world's governments have that kind of money, and thus could create a completely public version. I don't really see writer, actor, and similar artist/creative guilds/unions arguing in favor of giving a government their data to train AI on, though, especially as the consensus has been against so far and for good reason -- because if goes against their direct interest. And unfortunately for genAI, this is not due to their ignorance. It does really go against their interest, mainly because companies and studios have been very clear that they are going to try and use genAI to replace talent. And I really wouldn't advise anyone from the general public to give away to any government all their art, writing, social media posts, recordings, etc. so that a massive publically-owned generative AI model can be trained on it. I'm fine with the government not having free access to my porn and to every other ideal and belief expressed in my art.

So if the public suddenly owned chatGPT (and the like), chatGPT would still work through stolen data. But more importantly, the public ISN'T going to own chatGPT or any of its cousins, and no public actor is going to (or should) obtain permission from millions and millions of citizens to use billions of bits of their data for AI training.

So by all means, I agree that people may have to get used to generative AI, and its specific use to output "art" and text, becoming more and more ubiquitous. But that remains a massive problem in every area of life, from work and school, where students are going through college using chatGPT to skip their homework and trash papers are being published containing completely hallucinated "scientific" misinformation, to artistic fields.

And a fanfic written by AI? Yeah, no, it has absolutely ZERO positive value or merit within the fandom gift economy or its transformative culture at large. It definitely has value in sociology and other academic fields as a phenomenon to be studied, but the fact that people are doing it doesn't inherently produce positive value within the context of its production.

Transformative fandom is predicated upon a belief in the inherent value of constructive human contribution, and in the shared agreement not to steal from each other for personal gain within the community. Members of the subculture who act against these values have historically been pushed to the margins because it is impossible for transformative fandom's core characteristics to continue to reproduce otherwise. So, within transformative fandom? Generative AI has negative value by definition. Using models that have stolen from writers to create your fanfic corrodes the inter-community trust necessary for this type of fandom to live.

This is why those who care about transformative fandom should, and will, continue to discourage the use of genAI to create fanworks. This is especially important at a time when transformative fandom is already being misperceived by many younger members as a space driven by other corporate logics, such as that of profit, engagement maximization, and so-called "family-friendly" sanitization/censorship.

Whatever cultural asset may emerge where genAI would have "positive value" in a fandom... is a type of fandom we wouldn't have seen before and that would literally not be transformative fandom.

do people have no shame anymore?

[thydungeongal]

The latest version of QuestWorlds (formerly known as HeroQuest, not to be confused with the board game of the same name whose trademark is currently held by Hasbro this leading to the RPG to be rebranded as QuestWorlds) is an excellent game if what you're looking for is a relatively light and straightforward RPG about emulating stories of larger than life heroes that doesn't try for a process simulation but instead focuses on framing conflicts as narrative obstacles. It's very much, as written, the type of game many people who insist on running D&D in spite of it not being fit to the task claim D&D is: a game that embraces the rule of cool, has very few specific mechanics and procedures in favor of just applying variations of the same core mechanic for everything (entire fights can be handled as simple contests; the extended conflict rules need only be brought in when the situation warrants a more fine-grained resolution), and explicitly supports improvisational, low-prep GMing. You don't even need to have a bunch of stat-blocks for the opposition, because the game boils down everything relevant to the opposition in a conflict into a single Resistance.

I'm still personally not quite warmed up to it yet. While the game draws a connection to many games that came out of the Forge (since the original HeroWars that would become HeroQuest was apparently a Forge darling) one of the Forge's guiding principles always was one of System Matters and that mechanics will end up affecting the story in some way. So in many ways it feels contradictory that this latest edition of QuestWorlds feels so apologetic about imposing its very few, quite unintrusive rules on its players. I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's a betrayal of its legacy, but it does feel like it goes against the spirit of its predecessors as well as the many newer games (including Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, and The Shadow of Yesterday) that it draws inspiration from.

It's still the same game as it ever was: a game that is explicitly about modeling narrative convention, where the obstacles the player characters face are not derived via world logic (because the player characters are faced with a very average obstacle like idk a goblin I guess the Resistance should be 10) but via story logic (because at this point in the action the player characters should face a very average obstacle the Resistance is set to 10 which is then defined as the aforementioned goblin), but I think partly due to the sleek new presentation (it's giving Fate Core) and the lack of Robin D. Laws's little mini-essays about narrative structure and what it means in the context of an RPG it ends up lacking that certain immutable HeroQuest factor. It does improve and iterate on and clarify what has come before, but at what cost?

Also there's no mention of the Pass/Fail chain which I know was always a fallback method for determining Resistance and wasn't even in the very first edition of the game I think but like it's so genius in its simplicity that I associate it as strongly with HeroQuestWorlds as any of the other rules stuff.

Anyway, for newcomers who don't have the context of previous editions it is still a game I would recommend, but also there is literally nothing wrong with any of the previous editions of the game. Sadly, due to Chaosium selling the HeroQuest trademark to Hasbro those previous editions are no longer available, which means that there is no legal way to obtain them digitally, and print editions are hard to come by. But despite the best efforts of Daniel D. Fox the Zweihander guy there are still places online where you can download free RPG pdfs to your heart's content.

[ava-of-shenanigans]

Full English Translation of the Kahun Papyrus's "Tale of Horus and Set" (the Horus/Set gay sex papyrus)

The "Tale of Horus and Set" is two surviving "pages" of a Middle kingdom papyrus that was found at the site of Kahun/El Lahun with the rest of the "Kahun Papyrus"/"Kahun Papyri" collection. It's pretty small, and one page is almost completely destroyed, but what can still be read of it is a version of the Horus vs. Set lettuce myth. There is some debate about whether it is a piece of a magic spell or of a longer narrative. If was part of a spell than the story was probably not very long, but if it was a narrative text then this would be the only surviving part of a a much larger story (perhaps similar to the Contendings of Horus and Set).

This translation was done by me. I speak Middle Egyptian, although I am not an Egyptologist. As far as I'm aware there is no publicly available full English translation of this story (there was the original Latin one in 1898 and then some partial English ones you can find in various papers), so I've created this for anyone who's curious. While doing this, I tried to find as many other translations as possible to compare notes, and have left notes to explain where other translations disagree with me.

Most of the first page is so destroyed that what’s left is basically just gibberish. The gibberish looks something like this:

(1) … him (2) …he/his [something] (3) …that, with regard to it, is made(?) (4) …this [some type of person?]. I, moreover, will give (5) …to you against the stomach. Look, you (6) …[something] which has been repeated, without that, when I give (7) …stomach. You are upon the water, giving…

Sadly Egyptian is a language where meaning depends heavily on context, so brief snatches of only a couple words like this could have many, many different meanings depending on what the other words around them were.

The fragment proper begins on the last line of the first page.

(8) Then the Majesty of Set said (1) to the Majesty of Horus, “How beautiful your two buttocks are! Make wide (the space between) your two feet!…” (2) Then the Majesty of Horus said: “Wait, so that I may tell this [to my mother.” And he returned] (3) to their house. Then the Majesty of Horus said to his mother, Isis: “[What should I do?] (4) Set [has come], so that he may ‘become acquainted’ with me.” Then she said to him: “Be careful! Don’t approach him about that. [But], after he tells you that (5) again, you must say to him: ‘That would be utterly too difficult for me, because you are too heavy. (6) My strength will not bear your strength,’ you will say to him. "Then, after he has given you strength, (7) you must shove your fingers between your buttocks. Indeed [it] will cause… it to him like… (8) ...Indeed, it will be highly sweet upon his heart… (9) this semen which comes forth from his phallus, without letting Ra see." (10) [Then the Majesty of Set said:] “Come, do not [be afraid] of me (11) … I [will stop] that which I produce."

The papyrus becomes more damaged and disconnected as it goes on. It seems like Isis is advising Horus to "catch" Set's sperm in his hands, so it can't get inside of him, similar to what he did in The Contendings of Horus and Set, but since the end is so disconnected it's hard to tell if there are any significant differences in how that plays out here from Contendings.

The word the story uses for "strength" is pHty, a word that specifically means male sexual strength or strength with a sexual connotation. Ancient texts frequently describe Set as having a lot of pHty (he is often called aA pHty, "great of strength"). pHty sounds similar to pHwy, the word for "buttocks," so “My strength will not bear your strength” is wordplay, it sounds a lot like "my ass will not bear your strength." That line could also be read as "my strength will not be equal to your strength" since rmni can mean both "to support" or "to equal."

In “Homosexual Desire and Middle Kingdom Literature” by RB Parkinson, which has a section about this story, Parkinson believes "strength" in the line "after he has given you strength," may be referring specifically to Set's semen or phallus, (so “giving strength” means Set penetrating Horus.)

At the very end of the fragment it seems like Set shows back up again (there's a divine name determinative there but the divine name itself is missing). What he says is very unclear, but for the sake of completeness I have tried to make an attempt at filling it in. In the original 1898 Latin translation (from "Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob"), Petrie guessed that the first thing Set says might’ve been “don’t be afraid of me,” which fits the context, although I’m not sure what word would be used for "afraid" there. Given that there’s a force/activity determinative visible in the second thing he says, although the rest of the word is missing, I have made an extremely tentative guess that he’s promising to pull out.

The two big places where my translation deviates from other translations are right at the beginning:

After complimenting his ass, the second thing Set says to Horus appears to be wsx rdwy.ky, and what that is supposed to mean in this context is very hard to decipher. Parkinson translated it as “broad are your thighs,” but I don't think it makes sense to use rdwy to refer to thighs, it seems to always be used to mean feet and feet related things, not other parts of the leg. So I think it is more likely that this referring to stance, and what he's saying means something like "widen your stance" or "spread 'em."

In response to what Set has just said, Horus tells him to "sAi" (𓊃𓅭𓄿𓀸𓂻), which my dictionaries tell me means "wait." The 1898 translation has something like “Away with you!, I will tell that to my mother!” here, which is iconic, but that’s because Petrie didn’t recognize this word and had to guess what it meant; because sAi looks like sAw (𓊃𓅭𓄿𓀸𓀜) a word that means “beware!,” but with a 𓂻 legs determinative, he guessed it to mean "go away." (He explained his reasoning in his translation notes, it's pretty cool to read). Parkinson translates it as though the word just was sAw; he has Horus say “watch out, I shall tell this”, so I think he assumed the legs were a mistake. But "wait" also works in this context so I don't see any reason to assume it wasn't intended.

I was able to read this papyrus using Petrie's scans and hieroglyphic transcriptions from the plates volume of Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob, linked here. The plate for this papyrus is on page 24. (You may notice that the hieratic scans have different line numbers than the transcriptions; I've used the numbers on the scans.)

To make it easier for people to check my work if they want to, I've also made this alternatively formatted version, showing the translation line by line beside the hieroglyphs. The glyphs have been reformatted slightly to be all horizontal and left to right. I've marked the parts where my transcription differs from Petrie's in red:

[project-sekai-facts]

more (late) context on the Hiiragi magnetite situation

(TW obviously for sexualization of minors)

Kaai Yuki was specifically voiced by a nine year old girl and as such is one of the only vocaloids with a “canon” age, since she’s supposed to be a preschool girl.

In Japan any sort of digital recording of a real life child in a sexual situation constitutes CP and is outright illegal and owning, creating, or distributing it is punishable by a minimum of 2-5 years in prison (depending on severity I think iirc), and accomplices are also liable to be punished.

Obviously it doesn’t really talk about where vocaloid would fall in that, but it’s not really a stretch to assume that making sexual content with a voicebank of a digital recording of a child could very easily get both the vocaloid producer(s) and the company who owns her into major trouble with the law if it were to get enough attention, so sexual content is against her TOS. (I would really hope it’s also for moral reasons to protect the actor, but if nothing else it’s definitely for legal reasons, at least nowadays.)

Hiiragi Magnetite broke those TOS by posting kazo, which is not only sexually explicit in its lyrics, but also the MV (which was made by Channel, so if you see people talking about this they might come up sometimes bc of that) which contains a ton of shots of Kaai Yuki that are very obviously sexual in nature. She’s made out to be talking specifically to the audience (we view it from an POV perspective) and is being framed in a way that tries to… yknow… make her appeal to them sexually. Which, considering it was made with the recording of an actual real life 9 year old….. it’s not hard to see the audience it was obviously pandering to and why it’s so gross.

Within just a short time of the song being posted it sparked enough outrage that Hiiragi took it down with a message that they’d be “reworking” it after “hearing your concerns”, yk standard customer service talk. There’s some people speculating that the company that owns Kaai Yuki stepped in themselves and forced them to take it down, (since… yknow..*gestures to all the legal stuff above*) but I don’t think there’s any actual evidence of that.

Anyways, people are very upset about the whole thing (most people, at least…) since it’s not even one of those “it’s just fiction” arguments that people get into every other month, since this very much does involve actual real children.

(just to be transparent about some stuff - I wouldn’t really say the situation is “more complicated” than this, it’s pretty straightforward as to why it’s bad, but there are some common “arguments” from ppl who defend the song that I didn’t really feel were worth mentioning because they’re irrelevant as a whole and don’t really add anything to the conversation but distract people from the point. They can easily be picked apart and disproven, it’d just do nothing but make everything messy to follow for no reason because none of them ultimately do anything to address these fundamental issues, so I didn’t talk about them)

.

[pingintech]

youre absolutely right this is very frustrating and ive personally experienced this

i do wonder what the actual meaning of tme means here and wat the purpose of using it is??? i understand what tme MEANS transmisogyny excluded but i do not understand what its use is in this context really??? because if you are talkin about how non trans femme people do this thing makes sense but then why not say that??? if youre instead saying people who arent trans women say this that also makes sense but then why not say that but if youre making a super specific hair splitting argument that some trans femme people never do this because theyre somehow more affected by transmisogyny than other trans femme people then i think youre making a really hyperspecific argument thats really just about how well intentioned nonbinary people act this way in which case again why not say that???

frankly it seems kinda odd to assume anyone reading your post will know which are the ignorant well intentioned non trans women non transmisogyny affected nonbinary people are by use of a single acronym ultimately it kinda derails your point to talk about tme in the middle of talking about a very valid very common experience it kinda feels like you want to say nonbinary people and trans men do this but you want people to know youre only talking about these specific (non specified) nonbinary people and trans men and not the good ones who get it

which frankly you dont have to add such a loaded and ambiguous qualifier to a vent post?

like you could say nonbinary and transmen i trans friendly places do this sometimes and its frustrating end of.

i could be wrong but i do want to help other trans folks out when it seems like their messages are being faced with communication issues as a trans woman myself and i dont believe there is a sufficient way to explain who is and isnt excluded from transmisogyny in every instance unless you believe that everyone suggesting this to you must by default be someone who hasnt been affected by transmisogyny?

in which case it is probably misguided to assume someones lived experiences based on the thins they say alone if anything frankly no one is immune from saying something stupid regardless of the amount of transmisogyny they experience

if youre making such a hyper specific point about a category of people that are pretty subjectively defined in order to say other trans femme people do this too and its such a hyper specific category that you might have to explain your specific interpretation of who that does and does not include then you may be derailing your own point?

and then suddenly a very real and valid point like this one is not being super effectively communicated

you could pretend to argue that people affected by transmisogyny tend to be able to tell who isnt but to lightly push back against that idea if you pass fully but you are passing in order to escape many of the affects of transmisogyny then you choice to live that way is affected by transmisogyny no??? in that sense even someone who could pass completely as a cisgender woman is being negatively affected by transmisogyny

if someone who looks exactly like a cisgender woman in every way can still be affected by transmisogyny does it not go to reason a cisgender woman could find themselves also affected by transmisogyny if say some transvestigators decide she has enough masculine traits that she must be lying about her gender could not the same be said for cis men who are seen to have enough feminine traits that transvestigators decide they must be a trans woman starting transition

if someone being excluded from the ails of transmisogyny is conditional then it makes it really difficult to determine who you mean when you say the without pulling out a graph and thats even before trying to debate the lived experiences of individual nonbinary people

i do really genuinely mean this as a trans woman myself saying this from the best of intentions i do not at all actually know what you mean boss about tmes here in this context and i think it takes away greatly from the much more salient and valid point youre making

i hate when you're in a trans-friendly environment and talk about like. doing things to pass better and TME people are like "what even is feminine anyways? what is a woman? the things women are made to feel like they have to do are so misogynistic, I think you shouldn't be worrying about those things."

like thanks for the feminism 101 dude, but I don't need musing about the nature of misogyny, I've been a feminist for over 10 years. this is about how people treat me poorly if I don't pass well enough. like i agree with you on all accounts, seeing as how I am affected by these things, but like. believing they're wrong doesn't mean I'm not still pressured by them. :/

like i went into the voice training clinic last year and I told the lady how I wanted to train my voice to be more feminine because I was struggling with keeping it in register, and it's been upsetting for me because when I fall out of register people treat me differently, gender me as a man, view me with suspicion, and I'm worried about how it might happen when a man tries to hit on me or something and the idea of a man thinking i "tricked him" into "being gay" is really scary for me, and she's like "oh, what even Is a feminine voice, anyways?" like. thanks girlie. it's definitely just my internal perceptions and not my lived experience.

just, the way TME people just Assume trans women don't know about feminism is so frustrating. constantly on the back foot like "no, no, I'm a feminist, believe me, however, I've been threatened for not passing well enough, so I face a lot of pressure to do so, sorry that you think I'm enforcing the gender binary by trying to preserve my safety."

[bayleavesfromthevine]

What's your top 5 windbreaker characters!

Oooo! I love this question! 1. Kaji - He's my absolute favorite in the series. There's something so emotional about watching him struggle and fail time and time again via his backstory & chapters 123-129. We're introduced to him as someone similar to Sakura, only more realized in his role as grade captain & in Furin as a whole, but then we're slowly shown the lowest moments of his life and how he's worked to come back from them.

He quite literally hates himself (or has hated himself in the past) and yet he still chooses to have trust in his friends when they tell him that they don't view him the same way that he views himself. I also appreciate how that support/"the power of friendship" didn't automatically "fix" all of his insecurities, but rather they're something that he still grapples with on the daily & that the support he's received gives him the space, confidence, and safety net to work on himself. It's realistic and makes him feel like he still has so much room for growth.

I also think it's beautiful how he tries to mentor Sakura so that he doesn't make the same mistakes Kaji made, or fall into the same mindset he did the year before. You can really tell that he's trying to impart all of Hiragi's teachings onto Sakura and it's such a heartwarming way to watch a character pay it forward.

(I have a HC that Kaji's blinding rage episodes are the result of a brain injury/head trauma that he sustained from a fight during his childhood. Someone please take him to a doctor for some scans, I beg.)

Also, I'm adding a cut here because this is a long one lol

2. Tsubaki - (For the record, in my heart Tsubaki is she/her, but the series uses he/him pronouns so I'll use that for the sake of clarity and to not cause confusion.)

Tsubaki is quite literally everything and honestly we need a spin-off manga where he's the protagonist. Tsubaki quite literally steals EVERY scene he's in, I cannot be bothered with other characters whenever he's on the page and I cannot wait until he's animated. The fashion? The pole-dancing?? The being in love with Ume??? I hope they end up together in the end, that's the only ship I really want to become canon (for context, I usually don't like when ships become canon because then ship wars and arguments happen and it ruins all the fun lmao).

Also, the way that Tsubaki's theme of living in a way that is truthful to yourself & not trying to suppress who you really are (i.e. gender expression) is juxtaposed with Suzuri's theme of wealth inequality and obtaining basic human needs (i.e. food & things that make life worth living) is beautiful to me because having them see eye-to-eye and relate to each other in the end is ultimately (in my interpretation) the author saying that even though these two themes look vastly different from each other, they are both basic human rights and they are both necessary to be alive. Like, their arc was political as fuck and I was SO moved by it. I should probably go into that more and bring in specific examples at some point because I know I didn't do that great of a job explaining it lol.

Also, Tsubaki's fights are incredible like? pop off girlie, eviscerate a man in your high heels as a treat, you deserve it <3

3. Sakura - MY SON. MY BOY. MY FERAL CAT CHILD.

Sakura is such a great protagonist. His development is slow and authentic, which speaks to how well he's written, and his history is so mysterious. There's so much that we don't know about him and I'm thoroughly enjoying having information revealed little by little. Not only does it give us the chance to theorize about him and who he was before enrolling in Furin, but it also (to me) reads as a trauma response. We spend most of the series in his POV and him not revealing his backstory is indicative of his unwillingness to recall it. We only get flashes of his past when they're relevant and paired with how that trauma is starting to heal in his new circumstances (i.e. remembering his lonely summer vacations in the past as he's about to go to the beach with his friends. Or explaining how isolated he felt via that tightrope analogy just as he realizes that he doesn't need to live that way anymore & can safely exist with others who care for him).

I love seeing how he grows to care for others and empathize with them. He's so different now than he was in the beginning of the series and I just wanna give him all the hugs.

4. Umemiya - Ume's philosophy about food is my favorite theme in the entire series: food tastes better when you eat with your loved ones & we are all made up of the foods we eat and the people we meet. (At some point, I also wanna write about how the theme of food plays into the story, but today is not that day.) It reminds me of this quote I read forever ago from one of those Michael Pollan books LOL: “Cooking is all about connection, I've learned, between us and other species, other times, other cultures (human and microbial both), but, most important, other people. Cooking is one of the more beautiful forms that human generosity takes; that much I sort of knew. But the very best cooking, I discovered, is also a form of intimacy.” ― Michael Pollan, Cooked: A Natural History of Transformation

Also this: “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.” ― Hippocrates

I love how he uses food as a means to connect people and build his family. I would love to see him have a genuine conversation with Suzuri at some point.

My biggest fear with Ume is that, because of his role at Furin, at some point he's going to have to be removed (either by graduating and leaving on good terms, or via some crazy action conflict). The series is very calm right now, and even when there are enemies, we all know that Ume is only a phone call away. But removing him would destabilize everything we've grown attached to thus far. So much hinges on him just being present, which is part of why I adore him so much as a character.

5. Suo - Suo is a little fucker and I love him to the moon and back. He's so respectfully disrespectful in the most hilarious of ways and I cannot wait to know more about his backstory. Is it probably the most tragic out of everyone's? Yes. Am I ready for it? No. Do I still need to know it right tf now? Also yes.

It has been pointed out how Suo never eats with the others, which definitely connects to Ume's/the series' broader themes about food and eating together as a means to build community. Suo does feel the most emotionally distant out of everyone, clearly hiding something, and I imagine that the moment when we finally see him eating with the rest of the cast will be intensely emotional.

Also, I'm probably wrong about this, but I do NOT think that motherfucker has anything wrong with his right eye. I think he wears that eyepatch to mess with people, as is his right. I support his gremlin nature.

For the record, if we knew more about Kotoha, she'd be on this list because I absolutely adore her. She also compliments the main themes of the series and expresses them through a non-Furin perspective, which tbh I think this series needs more of. I think we need to see more of the town/community that our beloved main characters fight so hard to protect, especially when it comes to moving the plot/Sakura's development along. (This series also needs more women, but I digress LOL)