#can we not act like it?

[aemonds-sapphireeye]

Sometimes this fandom makes me feel like I'm back in high school when there was apparently huge class drama happening and I had no idea what the fuck was going on because I'm awkward and unpopular.

[gayvampyr]

asking people to be mindful of others when sharing a communal space (especially one you cannot just up and leave from) is not selfish or misanthropic. come on now

[batcavescolony]

Katniss is such an unreliable narrator. She says "Then something unexpected happens. At least, I don't expect it because I don't think of District 12 as a place that cares about me" girl you deliver strawberries to the Mayor, you hunt and trade for the district, when you fell at Prim being chosen someone caught you, when you went to Prim people parted for you, when you volunteered EVERYONE stopped. Idk how to tell you but I think you're a pillar of the community.

[amalgamezz]

ALT

[bacchuschucklefuck]

no more fan-ta-sizing about it! everything's already changed~

[ruporas]

your love returns in tragedy (ID in alt)

[itseghost]

very straightforward redraw because this quest and this whole scene have been ON my mind.

[rasairui]

"The bigots up top think we're ALL fucked up! They want us ALL dead!" Hey that's cool dude you're right! Now are you saying this as a genuine expression of solidarity and community, or do you only bring this point up when the acknowledgement of intersectionality makes you uncomfortable? Is it a rallying cry, or a way to shut down people affected by intercommunity bigotry?

[mettywiththenotes]

Jayce and Vi "its always two dumb headstrong bitches with a sense of justice telling each other exactlyyy"

Viktor and Jinx "its always two smart bitches acknowledging each others work but being intimidated by their power telling each other to fuck off"

[inkskinned]

even 2 years ago people still said autism with a whisper. it was also how people sometimes whisper lesbian, like they're afraid of uttering a slur. autistic was either an insult or it was something terrible, a horrible burden only select people endure. "select people" were usually 9 year old boys and skinny white men.

they are not hispanic young adults with a dog and a life and friends. i can make (sustained, calculated, painful) eye contact. with certain people, i don't even have to count how many seconds i am holding their vision - i can just look at them. i can wear clothes that bother me, i will just have a worse day than usual. i might cry about any changes to my schedule - but change is scary! this is normal!

when i was 16 it was OCD. i mean that was the thing everyone said. i totally have ocd. they would arrange 6 colors of gel pen in rainbow order (no worry for indigo feeling left out) and they'd be "so ocd" about it.

if you struggle with intrusive thoughts, be careful at this next paragraph, but. at 16 i developed a compulsion that involved self-harm. my ocd was convinced i was simply forgetting that i'd hurt someone terribly - a thought that persisted for no clear or delineated reason.

at some point i will probably write about how the idea of "morally pure thoughts" was hell for me and others with ocd, but this was the odd dichotomy for many of us: they liked our "aesthetic", but were genuinely repulsed by our lived experience. "intrusive thoughts" now means "cutting your hair in the sink" instead of talking yourself down from believing horrible things. "so ocd" is a label without any true understanding.

it's something i've talked about before - in multiplicity - but i firmly believe in the veracity and necessity of self-diagnosis. i think it saves lives and it saves tragedies from occurring. as someone raised in a house that wasn't safe, self-diagnosis was, for many years, the only viable option. 15 and honestly googling: am i depressed or are there demons affecting my behavior.

but it is not genuine self-diagnosis anymore, most of the time. it is a strange, blanched version of that whispered word autism. now certain traits are constantly seen as "autistic" - any passing intense interest. any flubbed social interaction. people say it while laughing - a touch of the 'tism.

and i like the acceptance! i do. i like that people are talking about it. i like that if i self-identify, more people speak up and say me too, bitch. but there is something-else quietly happening, the way it happened to OCD. the quirky, "fun" parts have been washed and sanitized and removed of all suffering. now it is just something that makes you "a little bit silly."

it took me 27 years on this planet before i learned to make friends. something about me just seems incredibly odd, i guess, some kind of radiation monitoring. someone once (in a way that was almost friendly) told me i am doing the right things, but in a way that's off-putting. i have scoured myself raw attempting to be charming.

someone on tiktok does a deep dive into their particular passion. the top comment says "what kind of autism is this lol". like we are a breed of animal. like it has no influence on our experience. like our life is a fresh breeze, an open meadow.

more often for me, life was a drowning.

[angry-kid-with-no-money]

"Nora doesn't know anything about the things she writes about" "aftg is terrible queer rep" "the queer characters in aftg are so problematic"

Idk guys maybe the book series abt problematic ppl set in 2006 and written in the mid 2010s shouldn't be expected to hold up against scrutiny of what we consider to be moral and correct now, in 2024

Idk tho, idk

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Council of lovefools.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[fangsnclaws]

I think people who are talking about the nonhuman packer discourse, but use "packers aren't sexual" as their primary defense of and reason why nonhuman packers are okay, are actually entirely missing the point of why this discourse is a problem.

Even when people do consider packers sexual, it does not change the fact that a nonhuman packer is still just as acceptable and harmless as a human-shaped packer. Something being nonsexual does not put it on the "morally acceptable" side of the argument. A lack of sex or sexuality does not make something inherently more acceptable and morally "pure." Sex and sexuality is morally neutral. Kinks are morally neutral. A lot of people, alterhumans included, are sexual beings, and genitals are (usually) a part of that equation - yes, even when they are tentacles or have a knot.

Thinking that weird things are only acceptable if they are nonsexual is a harmful puritanical and anti-queer mindset. Just because something is not your particular cup of tea does not mean it is harmful; yes, even when sex is involved. Especially when sex is involved. This is the exact same discourse that happened in the furry fandom; which has historically been hated because of how queer the community is. Considering the altH community is overwhelmingly queer, why the hell are we okay with bending the knee to anti-sex puritans as soon as something is more involved then missionary PIV sex with the lights off?

Nonhuman packers aren't okay just because "packers are nonsexual." Nonhuman packers are okay because there is literally no harm being done, regardless of if it is sexual or not. And worrying about what strangers do with their genitals is unhinged. Analyze your own disgust reactions I promise you that you will be better off for it.

[silvermoon424]

I'm so fucking sick of amatonormativity dude. Someone on Reddit left a comment that was basically like "the majority of people need a romantic relationship to be happy, it's how we're wired" and I responded saying that I disagreed and that more and more people (especially women) are finding fulfillment in other relationships and are happy being single.

I got heavily downvoted.

Of course most people like being in a committed relationship, but you don't have to be aromantic or asexual to enjoy being single. Maybe more people would like being single if we as a culture stopped pushing the narrative (especially on women) that being single is lonely, horrible, and depressing and that you need a romantic partner to be a complete person.

[captainjonnitkessler]

Just deleted the ask I was trying to respond to, but re: "skeptics always die in horror movies" - I have mixed feelings on that trope!

On the one hand I think it sets the tone and helps the audience suspend their disbelief - people are always complaining about horror movie characters being idiots, so this can be a way to be like "see? We DID consider rational explanations, and then someone immediately got murdered very supernaturally, so stop asking questions and accept the premise."

On the other hand, I think it definitely contributes to the idea that skeptics are close-minded killjoys who are too stubborn to accept reality, which is a very common and incredibly annoying mindset. Shane Madej did not spend the last eight years marching into haunted houses and loudly demanding that the demons inside kill him for me to still be hearing shit about how "if you don't take the supernatural seriously you will Attract Evil Energies And Die".

[egophiliac]

so on the subject of the "Crowley is secretly Revaan/Laverne/Levin/please Twst give us his name" theory, I think my feelings are best summed up as "I don't really buy it, but it's funny". like, in all seriousness, I'm not opposed to it; I have enjoyed the writing in Twst so far and I'm willing to trust that whatever happens will, you know, make sense and not be terrible. but I'm just not really convinced by the current evidence! maybe that'll change once we learn more, we'll see!

with that said, may I propose a few alternate theories about the possible Crowley/Revaan connection: