#certainly not coined a term specifically to talk about it

[aristoteliancomplacency]

Someone reblogged the Aristotle post again and I actually went and looked at some of the reblogs which I’d stopped paying attention to last time and one of them is someone saying that Aristotle and Plato are the most misunderstood philosophers of all time, even more so than Rand and I cannot even alfjahfkahfkahs.

And then the analysis is like… a fairly common analysis for super obvious reasons. I promise you most people understand Plato’s allegorical meaning. Like. Just Google it.

I Just. I… what? Whaaaaaaaat?

Oh, also, fuck Rand.

[spxllcxstxr]

Being a Tully and in an Arranged Marriage with Tyrion Lannister • Headcanon

(Gif not mine)

Request: hi!! Would you consider writing headcanons for a Tully!fem!reader x Tyrion Lannister in an arranged marriage? you don’t have to & take your time if you do :)) — anon

Warnings: canon divergence - the timeline isn’t exact but oh well, fem!reader, derogatory names used for Tyrion (sometimes by reader until she learns to love him), drinking, no reader description as per usual

A.N: I hope these are alright!! I’m actually a Tyrion Lannister simp so I found this little thing pretty fun! Hope you all enjoy!!

•

“Absolutely not, father.” You say, your face screwed up in disgust, hands clenched into fists at the dinner table

He sits there, unfazed by your outburst

“Anyone but the imp, father, please!”

While you absolutely hated the idea of your father arranging a marriage for you, it certainly wasn’t a surprise; Catelyn, your older sister, had been married to Eddard Stark for a few years, and now it was finally your turn

You had never met the Lannisters but the stories you have heard of them throughout the Riverlands frightened you to your core

Their endless amount of riches and vast power was somehow overshadowed by the evil and danger that surrounded them

“It is final, daughter. You will be wed at Casterly Rock and from there…I do not know,”

It takes you time to really process this

You being married off to some wealthy lord is your duty, something you had come to terms with years ago

But marrying a Lannister?

Marrying the unloved and disgraced son of Tywin Lannister specifically?

You spend days in your room, writing letters to your sisters, crying about your loveless marriage

You do not see him until you arrive at Casterly Rock, he waits for you draped in red

You’re shocked to find that he’s not grotesque at all like you were led to believe…he’s actually quite…handsome

His Lannister blonde hair shines in the afternoon sun and the slight smirk on his face is quite attractive as well

But looks can be deceiving, you remind yourself

"My Lady, it is nice to finally meet you,"

"It is a pleasure, my Lord,"

"Please, call me Tyrion...since we are soon to be wed..."

He certainly does not seem excited about this marriage either

The two of you don't really see each other in the few weeks leading up to your wedding - Tyrion was frequently drunk and you were mostly left to your own devices

The wedding is beautiful, you must admit, the Lannister's loved flaunting their coin

Your family does not make the long journey from Riverrun to Casterly Rock and Tywin Lannister makes only a brief appearance

The dreaded bedding ceremony

Tyrion actually forbids anyone from touching you; he stays sober enough to get you back to your now shared quarters

"I will not bed you, my Lady wife, you should not be subjected to someone such as me"

"Tyrion, that is not why I wish not to bed you…” You’re nervous, his kindness out of the ordinary for men. “I simply wish to keep my maidenhood for someone…for someone I love.”

Your marriage starts off…well, actually

You and Tyrion start off getting to know each other, becoming friends first

You admire his quick wittedness and intellect, his jokes always land and you always laugh

He never pushes you to do anything you’re uncomfortable with and neither do you

You teach him about Riverrun and the streams you grew up by

And your sisters

He tells you about his childhood and his brother Jamie

You have quite a lot of differences in terms of upbringing and power, but you find it easy to laugh at each other’s childhood plights

You think you can learn to love him

After spending a few months at Casterly Rock you and Tyrion are moved to King’s Landing, which you absolutely dread

The entire ride there you and Tyrion talk in hushed tones about his family, he prepares you for the worst

The entire time he’s holding your hand, thumb slowly rubbing across your knuckles

Of course when you arrive you have to meet everyone in the Throne Room

The Iron Throne looking as menacing as the writings say it does

Cersei looks at you skeptically, before turning her calculated scowl towards her brother

“Back already brother? I was hoping your wretched little body would stay over at Casterly Rock.”

Unknowingly your hand tightens into a fist, disgusted with Cersei’s words

“Yes, always a pleasure to see you, sister. Now can me and my Lady Wife retire to our quarters?”

After brief introductions, you and Tyrion are back in your wing on the castle, resting on the bed

“She should not speak to you like that.” You tell him, your hand grabbing his. “It isn’t right.”

“Since the day I was born into this cruel world I was a wretched thing, so take no offense, I have not for years now…” He smiles at you.

“But Tyrion, you are not wretched or monstrous or any of these foul things…I do not see that. I see your kindness and bravery…” You smile, lifting your hand up to caress his face. “And quite handsome too, I must admit…”

“(Y/N)…May I kiss you?” He asks softly, his eyes glimmering

“I would love that, my husband…”

Your heart beats as you kiss him, and you know for sure that you could very easily love Tyrion Lannister

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

Would you call Adrien “Gary Stu”?

Overuse of the terms "Gary Stu", "Gary Sue", and "Mary Sue" has created a bit of a semantic shift, turning a very specific concept into a catch-all pejorative for characters people don't like, but that the source property portrays positively. Because of this, let's start by going over the the actual definition of what it means to be a Gary/Mary Sue:

The Mary Sue is a character archetype in fiction, usually a young woman, who is often portrayed as inexplicably competent across all domains, gifted with unique talents or powers, liked or respected by most other characters, unrealistically free of weaknesses, extremely attractive, innately virtuous, and generally lacking meaningful character flaws. Usually female and almost always the main character, a Mary Sue is often an author's idealized self-insertion, and may serve as a form of wish fulfillment. Mary Sue stories are often written by adolescent authors. Originating from fan fiction, the term Mary Sue was coined by Paula Smith in the 1973 parody short story "A Trekkie's Tale", as the name of a character standing in for idealized female characters widespread in Star Trek fan fiction.

Zoe is the only character in Miraculous that fits the archetype of a Mary/Gary Sue. Adrien and Marinette are just poorly written non-sueish characters who get slapped with these labels under that general pejorative issue I was talking about before.

Adrien is talented in many areas, but he's implied to have been training in them since he was a child, so those talents are earned. Same goes for Marinette. Her skills may be overblown for her age, but that's normal for shows aimed at kids and it's not like she just started sewing yesterday.

Whether or not the story wants to address them, Adrien has legitimate character flaws and he's certainly not portrayed an "inexplicable competent." The show has gone out of its way to portray Adrien as weak and incapable of facing his father, things that would never happen for a Gary Sue. I don't think anyone looks at Adrien and wants to be him, but that's basically a defining trait of the Gary/Mary Sue!

If you want my two cents as to why we've seen a semantic shift in these terms, it's because of the feelings evoked by the characters. When a character has flaws that aren't addressed (Adrien) or gets roles that really should go to other characters because the writers are obsessed with them for some reason (Marinette), that can be extremely aggravating in the same way idealized self-inserts can be aggravating when you're looking for a more realistic character. However, the feelings being the same doesn't mean that the issue is the same. Adrien and Marinette are well designed characters that could be used to tell a story without any major changes. If you want to tell a story with Zoe where she reads as something other than an idealized self-insert fantasy, then you have to change her character. You can't work with the core version because Zoe is just a collection of cool skills with no flaws or depth.

(Quick reminder that Mary/Gary Sues are FINE!!! They have real value and are popular in many genres. I will defend them even though I rarely enjoy stories that feature them. Zoe being a Mary Sue is only a problem because Miraculous' story is ill suited to a Mary Sue.)

[corrupted-creatures]

Ugh okay I need to talk about Swatch and Spamton again because they make me insane. Long post under the cut

Been thinking about how Spamton and Swatch talk about each other (specifically in Swatch's in-game dialogue and the Q&A from the Spamton Sweepstakes) and how it reflects their thoughts and feelings on Spamton's downfall and eviction, the NEO body situation, and each other. I am absolutely reading too much into this but I think about them a lot and their dynamic fascinates me.

So during the Spamton Sweepstakes Q&A, Spamton says this in response to a question regarding Swatch:

I'm specifically referring to the second paragraph here. Spamton claims that Swatch only pretended to be his friend (and a close one at that, what with the "shoulder to cry on" statement), and that they only listened to Queen in the end. It is clear just in this statement that Spamton holds some degree of anger towards Swatch.

Personally, while I don't subscribe to the Acid Theory myself, I do think that Swatch may have been at least somewhat involved in Spamton's eviction (beings that they're a high-ranking employee of Queen and all). Perhaps they were the one to deliver the news to Spamton, perhaps they helped gather his things in preparation, I'm not sure. Regardless, they didn't do anything to stop it (that Spamton knew of, at least) and Spamton likely felt betrayed by this. After all, someone he viewed as a close friend (or if your a swatchton enjoyer like me, romantic interest/crush) wasn't there when he needed them most. With how catastrophically his life was falling apart, who could blame him for being upset?

Then there's the issue of the NEO body. We know that it's a very closely guarded secret that nobody is to mess with, and I wouldn't doubt if Swatch or the Swatchlings thwarted at least a few of Spamton's attempts to reach it. To Spamton, though, that is his one ticket to freedom/Heaven, and he needs it. Being denied that ticket in favor of upholding Queen's orders undoubtedly hurt Spamton and led to the anger we see, however justified you may believe it to be. His past experiences with the Addisons certainly don't help. From Spamton's perspective, I can see how he might think that Swatch only pretended to be his friend, though I don't think he fully believes that himself personally.

On the other side of the coin, we have Swatch. In their shop dialogue, they refer to Spamton with far more impersonal terms than Spamton uses to refer to them (see: "valued customer"). While it's easy to conclude that they simply didn't view Spamton as a particularly close friend based on their language, I don't believe that to be the case.

We know that Swatch has a personal connection to the NEO body. They helped turn the Lighter's hopes and dreams into a reality in creating it, after all, which is something they speak of quite fondly. We also know that it is powerful, dangerous, and most importantly, corrupted data. It is locked away in the basement due to the risk it could pose if it fell into the wrong hands. All of this to say that Spamton's repeated attempts to break into the basement to steal the NEO body, even going as far as impersonating Swatch to do so, was almost certainly a massive breach of Swatch's trust. The fact it wasn't a one-time offence would only further worsen their perception of Spamton (which is what I believe contributed to the vitriolic tone Swatch has when you talk to them after defeating Spamton NEO).

I don't think that a major betrayal of trust is the only reason for Swatch's total disconnect when talking about Spamton, though. If we are to believe that Swatch was genuinely close with Spamton (which I do), then it would make sense that they hold a lot of guilt regarding his situation.

For as high up in Queen's mansion as they are, Swatch could not prevent Spamton's eviction, nor could they disobey Queen's orders no matter how much they may wish to (something I would like to get into in another post). They did not- could not- stop any of the terrible things that happened to Spamton. Then they had to kick him out of the mansion over and over again, denying Spamton what he sought because of a desperation Swatch did not understand. And then, when Spamton finally succeeded in acquiring the NEO body and was quickly defeated by Kris after, Swatch had to grapple with that guilt as well. I think they feel like they failed Spamton above all else.

Both Swatch and Spamton feel the other has betrayed them. At the same time, though, they both care so deeply about the other that these betrayals (perceived or otherwise) have wounded them in terrible ways. There is a lot of guilt there, too, mainly on Swatch's end. Spamton's downfall, and especially the NEO body, have torn such a massive rift between the two that repairing it would take a lot of time and patience. I do, however, feel that it's not only possible, but feasible that they could as they certainly still hold the other close to their hearts in their own ways (and I've seen some fics that explore that mending beautifully).

Anyways yeah that's my thoughts about a couple of simple lines of dialogue said by characters I think about way too much. If you want to know more of my thoughts on these two, be it individually, in a ship sense, or otherwise, feel free to drop me an ask! I would love to share more of my thoughts about Swatch and Spam <3 Thanks for reading!!

EDIT: Reworded a couple of things for clarity

[actuallyfallen]

Archetropy and Personal Choice

I had heard the word "archetrope" around the alterhuman community before the OtherCon (the biggest convention for alterhumans) 2023. Although in vague terms, I had heard of it. I sort of got the vibe from the word, so I never felt the need to look into it. A vague sort of, "Identifying with an archetype, or a trope from media," vibe. What came to mind for me was tropes like the knight, the prince, the rogue. Classic roles. The stuff you'd see on tarot cards or such. The alterhuman community is known to look down on "newer" sources of identity, after all (see the long-standing hesitancy to accept fictionkin).

So, when I joined the panel being hosted by someone named Vyt (who can be found on tumblr, as @thelightfluxtastic) all about archetropy, I thought I knew what to expect.

Vyt described their archetype as "the right-hand man".

Well, Vyt mostly talked about "the paladin" as their main tropetype. But that was the sort of archetype I expected. "The right-hand man" may not be considered a "modern" archetype, but the specific phrase of "right-hand man" for it feels rather new in comparison to how I viewed archetropy before.

My mom was a pastor.

She was in charge of a very large building, which acted as a place for church services on Sundays, and as a kindergarten during the day. I remember watching my mom being up on the church's stage. I didn't learn until I was an adult that she actually had stage fright. I remember stalling whenever I went to the principal's office, because, of course I went to my mom's school for kindergarten. And going to the principal's office when your mom is the principal is certainly… a time, of sorts.

I was a good little Christian kid, though. I was a trouble child due to my undiagnosed autism making me seem "rude" to everyone around me, but I followed what my parents taught me to believe. One could hardly say I was doing so on purpose, though. I didn't even know there was any other option, after all.

Vyt went on to define archetropy as looking at an archetype or trope or such, and saying either, "I am that," "That's want I want to be," or both. Though Vyt also makes a point to say that "archetropy", as a term, was coined specifically to be both linguistically flexible and very broad in definition. It can be involuntary, voluntary, intrinsic, extrinsic, 'identify-as', 'identify-with'…

Vyt also discussed connections to kintypes for archetropal reasons. For example, being dragonkin because one identifies with how the trope of dragons are shown in media.

I can trace multiple kintypes of mine straight down to the same root. This Christian upbringing of mine. Surrounded by it. Suffocated by it.

My mom would often work late, so, as she locked herself in her office, I would be left alone in this huge building. I often stayed in the auditorium during those times. I didn't like the big, open area, so I'd often hunker down in one of the two more closed-off areas. Those two areas were surrounded by walls, but were very small and had no doors, thus, considered a part of the auditorium. One was decorated in green and black. It had beanbags, a step to sit on, and a chalkboard that covered the entirety of one of the walls. The other was pink. It had two chairs and a whiteboard. Covered with sparkly materials, it was hard to leave without some of it sticking to you.

I hated the pink room. Specifically, I hated the texture of everything. Almost everything had this god-awful fuzzy texture that was almost feather-like. The chairs, the rug, the walls. Even the pens there had a grip made of this texture. I couldn't stand it.

But every time the church children my age were there, the boys would go to the green area, and the girls to the pink. The teachers and other officials would call them "the girl room" and "the boy room". The boys and girls would often have one person standing guard near, or in, the door, just to make sure nobody of the opposite gender even got close to their room.

Even when I was alone, in that huge auditorium, I couldn't bear to enter the boy's room. It was wrong. But the first time I did, and I layed down on the beanbag, I exclaimed to my little brother, "It's no fair that you guys get these!" I was so much more comfortable there.

But, still, I rarely came in, even after the barrier was breached. I stayed away on purpose. I made my brother promise to not tell anyone I was there.

I was supposed to be a good girl. Never mind my intersex condition – a good GIRL. One who likes pink, who likes my church dress, and who likes the fuzzy, feathery textures with a smile, for the sake of how others see her. For the sake of fulfilling my God-given role.

As Vyt talked more and more about archetropy, it became clearer to me that modern tropes and archetypes were absolutely included. "The mad scientist" was named as an example. TV Tropes was named as a place to find a list of tropes and archetypes in media.

The TV Tropes page for "The Pastor's Queer Kid", describes the trope like this: "[The pastor's] kids seem to be every bit as perfect as they are, and have the perfect relationship with them. Well, except for one. You see, this one has a secret they're not sure about admitting to their parent. The secret being… Well, this kid isn't heterosexual (and/or cisgender, etc., as the case may be)."

I remember finding the page for this trope and lighting up. Scrolling right down to the "media" section, to see if there were any pieces of media with this trope that I would be interested in. Seeing one of my already-present kintypes there and giggling a little bit to myself. Oh, I'm so predictable! Of course I'd already have a character like this as a kintype.

I realized I was queer very young. Too naive to think better of it, I came out to my parents too soon. Not even a teenager yet, I had to comfort my mother as she cried over me being queer. One of the biggest God-fearers around, I was struck silent when my mom expressed that she feared me going to Hell, and her going to Heaven.

She phrased it as, "What will I do without my child in Heaven? You have scared me so much. I have given you a role to fulfill, and you have failed. Now, I must watch the one I love be punished."

She told her child that they would go to Hell, and be separated from everyone they love for eternity. Poor her.

(Pay no attention to the child, parentified and afraid. Do not look at the way its breath hitches when she says this. The look of disbelief on its face. She really thinks I'm going to Hell…?)

(Look at her, now. She is the victim. This is her spotlight.)

It took me years of purposeful work to undo the toxic mentality that I was taught. About purity, about martyrdom, about the flames of Hell licking every queer's feet. And I still get nightmares sometimes, but I'm proud of how far I've come. When I feel a surge of queer joy, when I see a queer person's smile, when I experience gender euphoria, I know this is it. This is what I've been fighting for. And I know that it's worth it.

I searched TV Tropes for other tropes that fit me, halfheartedly picking up a few more. I wanted an excuse to list "my tropes" on my website's 'about' page, just to add "The Pastor's Queer Kid" on it. I didn't care about the other ones I listed – I just wanted them to be there so I could feel like I had a reason to put that one in particular.

When the archetrope panel was coming to a close, and taking questions, I typed into the chat, "If people are certain archetypes or tropes in real life, would someone like that be able to identify as an archetype? Even if they technically just are it?"

I am my mom's child. I am queer. I struggled against the religion I was suffocated by, and came out the other side damaged, but alive. I try to let people know the sort of harm this upbringing can cause. I am purposefully open about this aspect of myself.

Vyt answered my question. "My default answer is gonna be, ‘Sure.' Like… I think there's something powerful in embracing something, on purpose."

On purpose, I am The Pastor's Queer Kid.

[the-fox-collective]

This is the personal account for @coining-system-terms and @saltyfoxes-artist I'm gonna talk about whatever I want here but here's some things you should know:

Basic:

We're 18, we mostly use singular first person pronouns to refer to ourself but sometimes use plural to reduce confusion about collective vs individual alter.

We use the terms alters, headmates and sysmates for Most of the system. There are certain areas where the inhabitants are parts but do not refer to us as parts by default.

We have medically recognised dissociative disorder and plurality but a diagnosis is a struggle to get and we're working on it. We are physically disabled and will complain about it.

Stances:

Literally couldn't care less if endos exist or not. I'm not them, I have no idea what their life has been, I'm also not a psychologist specialising in plurality, and certainly not their psychologist. I do not want to talk to endos about their plurality because I will not be able to relate to them, so I don't want them adding things to my posts. It's easier to say anti endo.

I believe endos exist, I am against fake claiming, I believe there are ways to have a CDD and also be endogen (for example having spiritual plurality as well as DID). I do not care if pro endos, anti endos or endo neutrals interact with me but I must ask that those without a CDD do not interact with my posts specific to having a CDD. I will make a banner for it. I don't want created systems interacting under any circumstance, or followers of Sophieinwonderland.

I believe everyone should access therapy/counselling about their mental health, even if they have had bad experiences because not all professionals are evil incarnate. I think these are good first steps into introspection and can lead to getting the right support when needed. Pro recovery, psych critical (institutions should be improved with the actual well being of patients in mind, nonconsensual "support" is more harmful than good).

I believe transmisogny and transandrophobia are both real and I believe that when people of a marginalised group coin terms to describe their OWN oppression you should use their words instead of making your own FOR them. Intersexism is also real and therefore using AGAB and TME/TMA is not useful in a majority of discussions. They're also not identity terms.

I don't hate anyone based on their identity, but I believe some identities are used ignorantly. This means I am pro contradictory labels, pro mspec monos, pro multigender, pro xeno, pro neoprns.

I am neutral mostly on radqueer stuff because it's a complex issue, for example transrace being used by POC adopted children who were put into white families and felt they had to rebuild(?) or reconnect with their race are obviously fine; a white person claiming they are transitioning to japanese is not. I think there could be better terminology that doesn't end up conflated transitioning and reconnecting though. Again, it's complex.

War shouldn't happen and in the current political climate is a tool of capitalism and imperialism. Be nice to all people. Prison abolition. Harm reduction. Socialism. Pro abortion. Anti censorship. Libertarianism is fucking moronic. Literally "Treat people with kindness and let them do as they wish to their own body." Government as it is is corrupt but more democracy could lead to big governments, high taxes and support for everyone. Adult takes for the adult in the room.

I use the term OEA (organised extreme abuse) instead of RAMCOA and the term ITBC (intentional torture based conditioning) instead of mind control/programming.

ITBC is not about "sleeper agents" or whatever, it's about being severely conditioned with torture to associate trigger with action or face pain.

[canmom]

Animation Night 164: Yaoi, Yuri

The fashion on Tumblr lately has been to divide everything in the world into yaoi and yuri, hasn't it? Well, tonight we don't need to make any abstract stretches of the imagination: it's time for anime where boys kiss boys and girls kiss girls.

So. Five minutes ago, before Tumblr deleted it, this post was off to a pretty good start! I was happily explaining about the differences of nuance between 少年愛 shōnen-ai, 耽美 tanbi, ジュネ june, やおい yaoi and ボーイズラブ bōizu rabu on the one hand, and on the other, why 薔薇 bara (rose) isn't a genre title but nevertheless the editor of 薔薇族 Barazoku ('rose tribe') magazine coined 百合 yuri as a distaff counterpart, the 'lily tribe', and that really caught on.

I was starting in on a brief sketch of some history, how Tokugawa Japan was super gay and had a defined set of social rules for gay relationships in the form of 男色 nanshoku, but this was squashed by the Meiji restoration, and thus gay manga became a subgenre cultivating its own specific otaku audience.

So then I was gonna tell you about how the early shōjo manga focusing on gay relationships, taking the old term shōnen-ai [which originally referred to pederasty], were quite nerdy and literary, but the subgenre rapidly grew in the 70s and 80s, cultivating an otaku audience of its own - primarily women termed, somewhat disparagingly, 婦女子 fujoshi but this demographic breakdown is certainly not absolute and there is a term for male fans, which is 普段し fudanshi. We coulda gone into the whole world of doujinshi, of the massive convention comiket; I coulda cracked open Kimi Rito's History of Hentai Manga for some interesting tidbits about how certain images become encoded as symbols and then reused routinely in manga.

And you know, I might have talked about how this is distinct from manga aimed at gay readers in gay magazines (like the above mentioned 薔薇族 Barazoku) which might be termed ゲイ漫画 gei manga. Perhaps we might mention here the upcoming adaptation of gay manga meme sensation kuso miso technique:

I was maybe gonna talk a little about some of the older genre conventions of BL; the masc top or 攻め seme and the effeminate bottom or 浮け uke; maybe a little about how yaoi fandom got exported into anime fan culture in the West and the strange phenomenon of the 'yaoi paddle'.

...well, it looks like I managed to skim over all that anyway. Spite works wonders for typing speed, it turns out. But believe me, that's really just surface level stuff. We're working on a followup to the legend of Animation Night 69, so we'll be able to get in a lot deeper in a few weeks~

Anyway, even today, BL and yuri works rarely get adapted into anime in a particularly high profile way. But 'rarely' is not never! In Animation Nights past, well: on Animation Night 69 we watched the delightful 風と木の詩 Kaze to Ki no Uta (The Song of Wind and Trees), an OVA adapting the seminal (ha ha) shōjo manga about a French twink at boarding school. That was the direction of Yoshikazu Yasuhiko, known also for Venus Wars and definitely the subject of a future Animation Night, it was as moving and melodramatic as you could hope from 70s shōjo. Sayo Yamamoto (AN36) brought us the incredibly charming figure gay skating series Yuri on Ice; and then of course Kunihiko Ikuhara (AN155), bless his heart, made his always bold statements on yuri with Yurikuma Arashi ('Lesbian Bear Storm') and BL with Sarazanmai, which I will surely cover if we ever reach the point where we're like 'let's marathon a TV anime' again ;p

Tonight though? We'll be looking at a couple of relatively recent films on both sides of the fence.

For the BL wing, we have the film 海辺のエトランゼ Umibe no Étranger, aka L'étranger de la Plage or Stranger by the Shore. Kanna Kii, the mangaka, had previously worked as an animator at Studio Hibari, a small anime studio that dates back to the late 70s and broadly seems to specialise in shōjo. Kii returned there to design characters and supervise the film, and evidently Hibari were very excited to adapt the work of their alumnus, because they absolutely spared no effort.

The story centres on orphaned highschooler Mio and his neighbour Shun, an aspiring gay novelist on a remote island in Okinawa. The pair grew close three years before the start of the story, but Mio had to leave Okinawa; we join him now as he returns to that same shore, still holding feelings for Shun.

I'll admit, I don't know a ton about this movie - but it comes highly recommended by kvin who described it as one of an 'oasis' of strong BL works released around 2020. And the clips I've seen - well, they're the gifs used in this post, really nicely drawn scenes of affection. So I'm pretty excited!

Our yuri wing... well, there's a few good choices for yuri TV shows I could show you, but tonight it's late and we need something short and sweet, and that really narrows the field! What I have is あさがおと加瀬さん。Asagao to Kase-san [Kase-san and the Morning Glories], a one hour OVA adapting the manga 加瀬さん Kase-san by Hiromi Takashima. The OVA starts partway into the manga, when plant nerd Yui Yamada has already started dating her crush, the athletic Tomoka Kase. It follows the trials of the girls' relationship as they are coming towards the end of their time at school - relatively low-key, slice of life first relationship typea thing.

The animae was adapted by studio Zexcs under the direction of Takuya Satō, who you might remember as director of the first part of Armitage III [AN153]. Zexcs spun out of JC Staff at the end of the 90s, and they've been pretty busy since then - for me their most notable creation is Aku no Hana (The Flowers of Evil), a truly unique rotoscope anime with an incredibly engaging, tense story about teenagers and the imp of the perverse... which sadly never got the love it deserved! yes I'm still beating this drum!

Anyway, while I have not been able to find a ton of production information, I am told at least that Kase-san was a passion project for Satō - evidently a yuri fan given he also took on the adaptation of Otherside Picnic. It began first with five-minute web adaptation Kase-san and the Morning Glories in 2018 that's more of a musical montage of moments from the series, which was then able to be expanded the next year into an hour-long OVA...

A lot of romance stories focus on the characters getting together, so it's interesting that this one skips right over those chapters of the manga and gets going once the characters are already together, focusing more on the trials of an ongoing relationship between two goofy hormonal kids trying to figure out if this is just a class S thing or something that they want to last. A great deal of effort is put towards character animation, intimacy, the little flinches and reactions. You can read a little discussion about it here on ANN.

So! With apologies for the late start once more (T_T), it's time to begin! Animation Night will shortly be live at twitch.tv/canmom, and I hope you'll join me for a gay old time~

[racefortheironthrone]

Do you think the term 'fridging' has become overused, and if Brienne does sacrifice herself for Jaime, would that not count?

I think that one of the useful things about the term fridging is that the website "Women in Refrigerators" is still up so we can know exactly what Gail Simone wrote when she coined the term back in the 90s. To quote her:

"Hi. This is a list I made when it occurred to me that it's not that healthy to be a female character in comics. I'm curious to find out if this list seems somewhat disproportionate, and if so, what it means, really. These are superheroines who have been either depowered, raped, or cut up and stuck in the refrigerator. I know I missed a bunch. Some have been revived, even improved -- although the question remains as to why they were thrown in the wood chipper in the first place. I know I missed a bunch -- I just don't know my comics deaths the way I should. I'm not editorializing -- I'm just curious to find out what you guys think it means, if anything. The preceding letter was written and sent by me when I realized one day that most of my favorite female comics characters had met untimely and often icky ends. The history of the idea and this site are listed here, and the responses from various comics professionals are listed here. An important point: This isn't about assessing blame about an individual story or the treatment of an individual character and it's certainly not about personal attacks on the creators who kindly shared their thoughts on this phenomenon. It's about the trend, its meaning and relevance, if any. Plus, it's just fun to talk about refrigerators with dead people in them. I don't know why.

In Simone's original meaning, "fridging" specifically applied to superhero comics, it involved a spectrum of violence from depowering to sexual assault to physical assault to mutiliation to murder, and it was disproportionately gendered. Notably, the qualification that "fridging" is done in order to motivate the (disproportionately male) protagonist rather than as part of a heroic character arc for the woman being fridged, came around a little later, mostly from those creators who were responding to Simone's initial provocation. However, you can see that this particular qualification was an idea floating in the aether at the time Simone was writing her first foray.

Do I think the term has become overused? It's certainly spread to more genres outside of superheroes, but I don't think that's an over-extension, since we're usually talking about the same phenomenon happening in "heroic" subgenres of fantasy, sci-fi, romance, etc.

Does this apply to Brienne sacrificing herself to save Jaime?

No.

Brienne's self-sacrifice is the logical and emotional climax of her own character arc, one rooted in chivalric romance in which Brienne seeks to play the role of the tragic knight. She is introduced as an existential true knight, someone who finds life in Westerosi society a constant trial and humiliation but who longs to escape into a world of song and story through glorious deeds:

"Because it will not last," Catelyn answered, sadly. "Because they are the knights of summer, and winter is coming." "Lady Catelyn, you are wrong." Brienne regarded her with eyes as blue as her armor. "Winter will never come for the likes of us. Should we die in battle, they will surely sing of us, and it's always summer in the songs. In the songs all knights are gallant, all maids are beautiful, and the sun is always shining."

As in real-world chivalric romance, the structures of Westerosi chivalric romance are built around tragedy: the Dragonknight doesn't get to settle down with Naerys, but gives up his life to save King Aegon IV, and it's the doomed chaste romannce and the stubborn attachment to duty that makes it all so damn chivalrous.

Thus, from Brienne's introduction to now, we see Brienne looking for someone worthy to sacrifice her life to save:

she starts with Renly, except that she can't save him from the magic (although that does mean that she doesn't learn how unworthy he was) and becomes blamed for his death instead.

then she shifts to Catelyn, except that she can't save her because Catelyn sends her away so she's not there during the Red Wedding.

Jaime and Brienne's ASOS trek across the Riverlands, from the revelations of his backstory to him jumping into the bear pit to his quest-giving at the end, is entirely about setting him up as the third of three lord/lady-coded characters that Brienne could sacrifice herself for. And lo and behold, we have a situation where Jaime and Brienne are about to come face-to-face with Lady Stoneheart, a scenario we've already seen be grounded in questions of sacrifice and honor.

So unless GRRM somehow fucks up and makes the conclusion of Brienne's arc more about Jaime than Brienne, it's not a case of fridging.

[cardentist]

Context: [Link] (highly recommend reading even if it’s long) I debated where I should put this, but with the length of this post I want to put @nothorses master post about transandrophobia right at the top [Link] if this post is too lengthy for you or you'd like to read more after chewing on this then I Implore you to open that link and hold onto it.

I don't want to call out this person in particular, I'm certain they don't mean any harm by it and it's not within our best interests to pick fights with people who have (in this commenter's words) Nearly all of the same beliefs with some minor squabbles who are willing to support each other anyways.

but it's exactly Because I'm certain this person means well that frustrates me.

years ago I would've said something along the lines of "this is no different from saying 'I'm not homophobic because I'm not afraid of gay people.'" that it's nitpicking Accurate terminology by breaking it into pieces and judging the words its made up of individually when they're obviously intended to be seen as a whole. trans Men face oppression for being trans Men in a way that cis men do not, just like trans Women face oppression for being trans Women in a way that cis women do not.

but that was a long time ago, the perspective has changed.

"trans men can't have this term because it's too close to affirming cishet white men when they say that they're oppressed for being men" was a talking point back when "transmisandry" was the terminology that was landed on. and while my thought process about that was the same I Understood the kneejerk reaction. because there Was a concerted effort by certain cishet weirdos to make "misandry" a term that made them systematically oppressed by women, and more specifically was used to Deny the existence of misogyny (very ironically from how they acted).

(that said, I have my own reasons for liking that term even if I do see the problems with it, I understand why it was chosen at the time. which I get into here [Link])

"transandrophobia" was coined Specifically to avoid that connotation, to Denounce the association and address that frankly (on the surface) Reasonable kneejerk reaction while still being recognizable and serving the same purpose.

but the talking point about it remained Exactly The Same, completely unchanged despite the change in association. because the point was never About it evoking something unpleasant (though that certainly helped with swaying bystanders in the conversation) it was about the absolute refusal to believe in the concept of people being hated For their manhood. in masculinity intersecting with oppression More than just as a neutral trait.

now, what I'm Not going to say is that the concept of androphobia is a systemic oppression that's upheld by the majority or any governmental body. not mine and certainly not any that I've heard of. but I will Also say that conflating the Recognition of a sentiment that real people express With systemic oppression is not only unhelpful (there's a lot of things that aren't systemic but still matter) but has Also been used to gate keep minorities by exclusionist groups Plenty of times before.

such as when people stopped being able to insist that asexuals don't experience trauma for being asexual At All and instead insisted that it wasn't Systematic and therefore they didn't belong in the queer community. no amount of studies, no amount of personal accounts, no examining of actual law and actual acts of oppression from governing bodies or places of work would sway them. because as long as they could say "It's Not Systemic" they could dismiss it out of hand. when, really, even if they were right it shouldn't matter. if someone experiences trauma they deserve to have the source of that trauma taken seriously no matter the underlying cause. they shouldn't have to Prove that it's important enough to justify caring about.

but to get to my point 9 paragraphs in from where we started, the idea that anti-masculinity or androphobia or anti-man sentiment or Whatever you want to call it Doesn't Exist is pretty ridiculous coming from within the trans community for Several Reasons.

terfs hate trans women because they're transphobic, but they Also hate trans women because they're radfems. a core tenant of radfem ideology Is The Demonization Of Men And Of Masculinity. they think trans women are dangerous Because They See Them As Men Trying To Infiltrate Women's Spaces. and Yes that is obviously transphobia, but the way they talk about trans women is Not magically disconnected from their view of manhood or masculinity or Men As A Group. though Undoubtedly they will side with cis men if it gives them the opportunity to attack trans women, in part because it Is that intersection of Both anti-man sentiments And transphobia And misogyny that has them frothing at the mouth to hate trans women.

(see this: [Link] for a more in depth discussion on radfem ideology as a whole)

and the thing is, someone might be tempted to say "well their hatred of masculinity is Obviously tied to trans women, so there's no point in acknowledging it as anything But transmisogyny." and in fact, that's not a hypothetical at all, it's the default relationship people have with this concept.

but this mindset affects everyone, Especially otherwise marginalized groups.

radfems seeing men as Inherently And Biologically Violent, as rapists and unthinking monsters, Absolutely And Undeniably affects how they treat people of color (Especially black people). white women stalking black men and calling the cops on them because they see their existence as Dangerous has been a Thing for as long as cops have existed (it's the Reason that cops exist) and has been Documented as a current issue in the wake of black lives matter and the murder of black men by the cops. it is an attempt from white women to have black men murdered, to cause violence to them without having to physically implicate themselves, all while using the perception of themselves as inherent victims (small and docile and innocent) with the perception of black men as monsters.

and it Should go without saying, but this Obviously Is Not Saying that black men inherently have it worse than black women. recognizing the oppression of one demographic within an oppressed group Should Not Inherently Mean pitting them against other demographics within that same group. we should just be allowed to point out an experience that some people can have and let that be a neutral (if important) statement. the things black women go through because of Their intersection of racism and misogyny are well and truly Horrific, I certainly don't need to prove that.

and In Fact, black women are victims of that Same intersection of racism and androphobia that we see both from terfs and from white people everywhere. because "womanhood" Almost Without Question means "White womanhood," to have black traits (or to have Non-White traits) is to be closer to masculinity in the eyes of racists.

when terfs post a picture of a cis woman and harass and mock them for Clearly being a trans woman who will Never fool anybody it's universally because the woman in the picture has traits that aren't traditionally upheld as the standard for white women. it's misogyny, it's androphobia, it's transphobia, it's racism. because these ideas Aren't Inherently Separate. they Build on each other and they affect Everybody, because people who think this way don't just turn it on and off like a switch when they're attacking the "intended" target.

and All of these ideas come together and inform the situation with trans men, both on this issue specifically and As A Whole.

just the same as we see that intersection of transphobia and misogyny and androphobia with how trans women are treated (combined, of course, with other relevant aspects of an individual) we see much the same with trans men.

the difference is that people inherently Recognize that what's happening to trans women is more than Just ideas of transphobia (more than Just wanting people to stay the gender that they were assigned at birth), but they recognize Only the misogyny aspect. so when the same conversation is turned onto trans men people don't know what to do with it, Especially when combined with the (unfortunately common) denial that trans men experience Misogyny either.

that complex web of interlocking concepts, and in some cases the Idea Of intersectionality At All, are Denied to trans men. who are then minimized For the perceived lack in complexity (in their oppression, in their identities, and in their lived experiences).

"why not just call it anti-transmasc sentiment then? people might take it more seriously." even Ignoring Everything I've mentioned so far, the Reason I'm not happy with this is because trans men Are attacked (harassed, oppressed, however you want to phrase it) Specifically For Their Identities As Men. and as much as I Also want to establish that behavior and sentiment As stemming from transphobia, I Also don't think we benefit by erasing or softening that idea to make it more palatable to people who don't want to believe it.

this was a response I got to that post I linked at the very top of this essay. I trust that anyone reaching this point has an idea of how silly this is in context, if they haven't read that context themselves. and in fact I wasn't going to acknowledge it at all (I only have this image on hand because I took it to have a laugh with friends). but it's a Convenient and Simple illustration of this exact issue.

the hatred of trans men in trans, queer, and activist spaces is informed and Justified by the hatred of men as a whole. because If you can convince people that trans men are Inherently a privileged group you can justify presenting anything they do as attacking those less privileged than them.

Men are violent, Men shout down women, Men are misogynists, and so a trans man pointing out the existence of his own oppression while actively acknowledging the oppression of nonbinary people and trans women (Only making the point that it's unhelpful to try to quantify this oppression as a tier list and use that to inform how you treat individual people) that trans man is Actually just a Typical Violent Man Exerting His Privilege To Oppress Poor Women.

it's, very ironically, a silencing tactic to avoid addressing the oppression of a minority group to the benefit of the person doing it.

a trans man's manhood is a weapon that is Constantly used against him, and I Might (Might) be willing to call that "anti-trans masc sentiment" if I didn't know where it Stemmed from.

the relationship between radfems and the queer community is, to understate it, Fraught.

for most people who consider themselves to be trans allies, it's Easy to see that terfs are, you know, Bad. to understand that they're a transphobic group and Therefore dangerous. but by-and-large that'd Main and Only thing that that's understood about them.

and to an extent, that's because people believe that that understanding is Enough. that it's Enough to dismiss it out of hand and refuse to look at or Think about what terfs have to say. which is Understandable.

the issue is that no matter how much they Believe that terfs are bad and wrong, they're Still Vulnerable to being influenced by radfem ideology, talking points, and Active Intentional Manipulation if they don't actually know the Details of what it is they believe and how to spot them.

as a Very basic example, people who Believe "terfs are bad because they hate trans people" but Don't understand "radfems are bad because equate men and masculinity as being Inherent Violent and therefore inherently harmful to women" can see something like "men don't belong in women's spaces" and Not Understand that something they may be genuinely trying to consider or understand Is Radfem Rhetoric.

that specific example is, at this point, commonly understood as a terf dog whistle. but it's largely Only understood as a stand in for trans women and called out as transmisogyny.

which is a problem when, say, someone looks at a trans man talking about his experiences is oppression and trauma and says "this Man is shouting down women! this Man is being misogynistic and stealing spaces away from women! this Man doesn't Belong!" and Not Understand That It's The Same Idea. Because the person being targeted Isn't being misgendered (Most of the time), the exact Same silencing and othering tactic is used Effective against trans mascs while not being Recognized as that At All by the majority group.

sometimes these things happen because people passively absorb radfem rhetoric, integrate into their own way of thinking, and then use it against other minority groups without understanding what they're doing. sometimes this is done Very Intentionally by terfs trying to spread their own ideology and break up and cause rifts between groups.

this is not a hypothetical, this is Repeating History that we see over and over again with exclusionists in queer spaces. masterposts at the time had Dedicated Segments talking about the ways these groups shared ideas between each other, between radfems, even when the individuals Don't hate the same people [Link 1, Link 2]

there were Documented Instances of terfs Admitting that they had secret aphobe accounts that they were using to try to indoctrinate ace and aro exclusionists into their beliefs. there's documented instances of terfs admitting that they got to that point By Being indoctrinated through ace and aro exclusionist beliefs and talking points. we had terfs Openly comparing their ideologies to exclusionists Explicitly to recruit them. [Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4, Link 5]

Because if you're Willing to accept that these ideas Are True, that the Logic that terf ideology is based on is Sound, then you're More Likely to accept when that same logic is pointed at another group. they target people that you're more willing to hate to pull you into their beliefs entirely.

and some people will go on never hating trans people (or never hating trans Women or trans Men or Nonbinary People or Binary Trans People, whatever the particular poison they're drinking), but it doesn't suddenly become Okay when radfem ideology is being used to hurt groups that aren't common sense associated with it.

what's more, these exclusionists groups Hated when you pointed out that connection. would spit and yell and call you bigoted for Daring to make the connection, even when (at it's peak and Most Ridiculous) they were quite literally taking posts originally written by terfs and replacing "trans women" with "ace people." Word For Word. which means it Never got addressed, no matter who pointed it out or how obviously wide spread it was.

and it's Tiring to have to say "if you can't care about how this affects trans men then at Least consider how perpetuating this idea puts trans women in danger" But It's True.

if you let people perpetuate the idea that trans men are Violent, that they're Oppressive, that they don't Deserve to have their own spaces, that they Inherently talk over and erase other oppressed groups by talking about their own issues and asking for compassion, if you Let people say "this group of trans people is Inherently Lesser" Because They Are Men, Because Of Their Closeness To Masculinity, Because Testosterone Or Maleness Is Inherently Corrupting

the jump between Which trans group you think of this way is not as difficult as one would hope. and if we're Never able to address it for what it is, address it As radfem driven androphobia And transphobia And exclusionism then we're going to Keep creating spaces where people are vulnerable to indoctrination. to radfems, to terfs, to exclusionists, to Extremist Reactionary groups of all kinds.

and beyond all of That, as alarming and Important as it may be, it's Also worth noting that radfems (and even Terfs Specifically) Do use androphobia against trans men, even as they force feminine labels on them.

Yes there are the obvious direction that terf oppression of trans men takes. treating them like confused women and trying to indoctrinate and detransition them to Save them or Fix them (which, in itself, is a type of violence). and there's the Resentment of "the frigid uncaring woman trying to identify out of her oppression to instead oppress other women," which isn't a sentiment totally Removed from the issue with how trans mascs can be treated in queer spaces (quite the opposite really, punishing trans men for daring to Be men by equating them with privilege and thus treating them as both an outsider and a threat).

but there Are instances of terfs treating trans men as outright Predatory. as a threat to Them and as a threat to the "poor confused women" that get "manipulated" into "the trans cult" by the trans men they Couldn't indoctrinate.

trans men are vulnerable little girls that are too stupid to know what's good for them and have to be converted Saved, they're the poor lesbians being stolen away from the beds of Deserving radfems women, up until they're Too masculine. until they have beards, until their voices are deep, until they stop wearing makeup, until they're balding or their waste changes or or or-

then they've Mutilated Their Bodies, then they're Frightening, then they're Aggressive and Invasive and Need To Be Dealt With, then they're Ugly Men even as radfems try to deny it.

the feminine trans man is a mark, he's a damsel in distress that radfems want to isolate and indoctrinate. the masculine trans man is Frankenstein's Monster, he's an ugly brutalized image of masculinity, the picture of what radfems hate othered away from what they're a Picture Of by radfems' transphobia. Uncanny and hated just the same.

this isn't "worse" than what terfs do trans women, it's not "better" either, It's The Same, It's The Same.

transphobia, misogyny, and androphobia in a Melting Pot to create a horrific buffet of oppression and abuse. manifesting Differently in different situations and between different people, and yet Fundamentally Connected through the beliefs and ideologies at play.

taking away one of these terms used to Describe this phenomenon doesn't Help, it obfuscates the fact that these things Are connected. which Worsens our ability to Understand them and Address them.

these ideas are Important, not just for trans men but for All Of Us.

and while I'm here, I'd like to address the Other issue I have with proposed alternatives like "anti-trans masc sentiment," Even when proposed in good faith.

if we were to go back and reexamine the terminology for the queer community as a whole and assess if these terms are the most Efficient they possibly could be, would we change them? would we stop using a term like "homophobia" if softening it could make it more palatable? make it easier to introduce the concept to people on the fence? make it easier to ask people to address their own biases without alienating them? if we did away with terms like "internalized homophobia" and instead asked people to address their "complex relationship with gayness" would we be able to get More people to listen?

maybe we could, Maybe softening the term would instead lead to people taking these ideas Less seriously exactly Because it's less direct, Because it's soft, Because it deliberately seeks to Not draw a reaction from a reader. I genuinely couldn't say how this would play out in practice, though we'd probably see both reactions to a degree and thus endless discourse about its effectiveness as a term.

but that's ultimately overshadowed by the Bigger Picture (though, more accurately I could say that it also Informs that bigger picture).

and that's Unity. Cohesion. Communication. Community.

the point of creating terms like this is, of course, in part to give minority groups the vocabulary and perspective necessary to convey their experiences to people outside of said group. and this purpose is endlessly important of course.

but More than that it gives a Community the ability to open a conversation with each other, to take their experiences as Individuals and create a melting pot where they can get a bigger picture of what We As A Group, As A Community, Experience.

this is completely invaluable in every way. it's what allows people to find each other, to know they aren't alone. it allows people to move conversations forward, to unravel complex ideas in a way that Can Acknowledge a vast array of often conflicting and yet Connected experiences. to be able to Build a community together, when lacking a physical space to inhabit, we need Words to connect us. both in passing as neighbors and to Find as Strangers.

when you take a community that already has established terms and you try to popularize an alternative, Especially while encouraging people to Stop using the previous terms, you Split Up that line of communication. people who congregate around one term Won't be in conversation with people who congregate around another, which inhibits the community's ability to grow and deepen.

people who Dislike a term (because it's trying to take something away from them, because they've been told that it's morally reprehensible) Won't engage with it, so posts that are tagged with Only that term will not be found. and even If that term is (unrealistically) universally adopted over time There Will Be A Period where people are simply ignorant of it.

and this is Very Much So used as a weapon by people who Don't want these communities to unify. who Don't want them to talk to each other and Get Ideas. and the smaller, more tentative, less supported a group and term is the more Vulnerable they are to this tactic.

this was and Is used Regularly by exclusionists, though I'm most familiar with how it was used by ace and aro exclusionists Specifically.

they would argue Endlessly about how Anything the ace and aro groups coined for themselves was Bigoted Actually. "aphobe" was attacked by Insisting that it was a term used by autistic people to describe their oppression (a lie, and a ridiculous one at that. there's nothing bigoted about the same term being used for multiple purposes). and "Allo" faced An Endless Barrage of never Ever accepting any term, no alternative, because They Didn't Want Ace People To Be Able To Define The Group That Oppressed Them, because they didn't Believe in that oppression.

Exactly in the same way that transphobes tried to argue that "cis" was really an acronym for something bigoted and so "cis" should be abolished as a term. Exactly in the same way that people argue that "transandrophobia" is offensive Specifically Because they don't believe that trans men are oppressed for being Trans Men.

the point is that they will never accept a replacement term, no matter what. if there Isn't an issue with it (by coincidence or from a certain angle) they will lie to invent one. it's Already Happened with transadrophobia being the intended replacement for transmisandry.

because the Point is double. First to break up the intended target community to hinder conversation around an idea that you don't want to exist, to make it harder and harder for it to be found and (by extension) Understood and expanded upon. and Second to prevent communities from being able to solidify In The First Place.

this wasn't the only tactic that was used to hurt ace and aro people, but it Can't Be Denied that the affect that it had as a whole was devastating. it's been Years since this whole thing started, since it died down even, and the ace and aro communities have yet to recover.

it's Easy to fall into the trap and say "well if we just get the term Right this time then it'll be okay ! if we Fix It then they'll stop!" but it Is exactly a trap. the point of phrasing it like this, of making it about bigotry or about the term being Problematic, is Both intended to demonize the group for having the Audacity to create a term for themselves at All, And to take advantage of well meaning people within the targeted community to do the leg work for them.

it's about silencing, it's about destabilization, it's about Breaking Apart communities so they can't Grow.

"Meet me halfway," they say. you take a step forward, they take a step back. "Meet me halfway," they say.

[nerdasaurus1200]

Time to delve a little deeper into what I was talking about the other day cause this is where it really gets heavy into the topic. Just a heads up I’m gonna be treating Eugene’s prequel as canon compliant here.

So I can absolutely understand where both Rapunzel and Eugene are coming from in this scene. Eugene was a thief and that’s hardly the most positive career choice. And it is quite selfish of him considering he arguably not only dragged Lance into it but kept thieving even after he was pardoned. It is absolutely not okay that he stole things just so he could get a thrill out of life. Especially such important sentimental things like what he stole from the royal family. Considering that it was Arianna of all people who pardoned him, that is a HUGE betrayal on his part to steal from her.

However, I do think Rapunzel’s being unintentionally insensitive here. It was more than just a thrill for Eugene, being a thief was how he survived. It put as much bread on the table for himself and for his orphanage whenever he had the time. He grew up thinking prison foods were a delicacy, facing a lifetime in jail if not worse during one of the worst times in Corona’s history to be a poor person. And I think that specifically is something that never really clicks for Rapunzel, Eugene grew up pretty much hunted during the crime crackdown. And even before that he was living in Vardaros which aside from Captain Quaid was hardly even governed. He’s been scrapping coins long before he became a thief. And the way he saw it, Flynn Rider was a an escape from that. It gave him an identity and a way to help his found family.

And in terms of just the book character Flynn Rider, Eugene has every right to call it his legacy. He got Flynn Rider from Edmund, and one day he’ll pass it on to his and Rapunzel’s kids. Flynn was all he had, and although Rapunzel’s certainly not scorning his past out of malice I think she refused to see the nuance of it and understand that it’s not all black and white.

[tricksterkisses]

I can’t send asks off anon without revealing my main which I do not use, and I wanted to reply in a comment directly but your replies are off. It is trans-androgyne and you can ask me elsewhere if you need confirmation. I cannot reveal which specific island my family is indigenous to for privacy reasons, but we were colonized in the 1500s and are still treated as a colony today.

You literally called it a “buzzword of the colonist’s discourse,” no words are being put in your mouth on that one. Anyone can say anything at any point, especially on the internet it’s extremely fucked up of you to accuse people of lying about their ethnicity or other minority statuses.

I care immensely about how you were being treated and was defending you about it, and agree with you that that specific person would have believed you if you were transfem in a way that was palatable to them. But if you talk about things in a way that contributes to other people’s marginalization you are causing harm, and nothing excuses that. Nobody likes having to clarify things. But being hostile towards a respectful request for it is asshole behavior and that is putting it very lightly.

So you misread my post and assumed I was talking about my opinions on a word I have no equivalent for in my native language and cannot even properly translate in my head because I do not think in my third language. Got it.

I wasn’t talking about my opinions on the word Powerjacketing. I don’t have opinions on the word Powerjacketing because I literally had not heard it before today and I do not have an equivalent in my language to have an opinion about. My opinion on it is loosely ‘yeah that’s a really good thing to have a word for’

What I WAS talking about and DO have an opinion on is people misusing social justice language to harm or disregard oppressed people. And no word is immune to that. Any word can be used as a buzzword in a colonialist way. Any. Word. If anything using a word coined by an indigenous person to accuse another indigenous person of lying or thinking something they don’t genuinely reinforces to me the point I was actually making.

Sorry I said it ‘wrong’ but again this is my _third language_ so maybe I would be a lot more amicable if instead of people who (and do forgive me genuinely if I am wrong) speak English as their first or near first language jumping on me to accuse me of being ‘horrifying’ I was asked for a modicum of context or what my opinion actually is.

So yes, you did put words in my mouth and if not words you certainly put intention there. You assumed I was saying something about a word I didn’t even have a translation for and did not have any opinion on as a term in a vacuum. Cool.

This is the actual last thing I’m replying to before I start leaning on the block button.

[sonnifera]

TikTok Killed the Video Star

I’ve been thinking recently about how we see so many different silhouettes of jeans being worn around nowadays. Previously, in decades where they were prevalent, we could associate certain silhouettes to certain decades: 

The 70s (my personal favorite)  saw the iconic bell bottoms/flares.

The 80s had the “mom jeans,” loose through the thigh and calf, tapering slightly at the ankle.

In the 90s we saw big loose and baggy jeans, kind of synonymous with the booming hip-hop culture of that decade .

The 2000s were characterized by their low waist and slimmer fit, again associated with the popular music of that time. Britney Spears is a particular artist that comes to mind. 

The 2010s saw the rise of the skinny jean, something quite unique to that decade. 

However, when trying to pin down a specific silhouette for the 2020s, I find myself at a bit of a loss. The only thing I can sort of pin down is that “high waisted” seems to be a preference of this decade. However, this doesn’t really even hold true, because we’ve seen the resurgence of lower waisted jeans in certain circles, but it’s prevalent enough to be worth talking about. Perhaps we can say that this decade prefers baggy jeans, like the 90s. I certainly see a lot of those around campus. But when I cast my mind back to 2021/2022, I can remember how prevalent the “mom jeans” of the 80s were, and even the flares of the 70s. And, I still see these around campus. It would do a disservice to this decade to discount them in the conversation of popular jeans of the 2020s. But then, how do we characterize the jean silhouette of this current decade? Simply, we don’t. 

I’ve seen people online declare that we’ve reached a sort of “jean democracy,” where everybody simply wears the jeans they want to wear. There’s less of an overarching silhouette that lasts for the majority of that decade, and more of a “whatever makes you comfortable” attitude towards the entire thing. Which is a great thing, as this allows people to have the freedom to explore different kinds of clothing without worrying about being “trendy.”

But how much freedom do we really have? There are still trends within jeans, as previously mentioned, mainly in the resurgence of jeans from earlier decades. If you wore them at the time they were trending, then you would be considered trendy, mirroring the sentiments of the past decades in regards to jeans. We still see these early 2020s silhouettes around nowadays, but certainly in less quantity, and certainly outnumbered by the 90s baggy jeans that are currently having their moment now. It makes you wonder: how many people that are wearing the current trending silhouette have a pair of flares they bought a few years back collecting dust in the back of their closet? How about a pair of old mom jeans? 

How free are we to explore fashion, really?

—

Fashion has been one of the mainstays all throughout history, and in nearly every culture, the term “fashionable” has been associated with the elites of that culture. And what was considered “fashionable” to the elites was often what was considered “exclusive.” Look no further than purple being a symbol of royalty. The dye for the color was hard to obtain, and therefore expensive, so it became a status symbol for those who could afford it; mainly, royalty. As time went on, fashionability became less associated with royalty, we started to see the elites of the fashion world in movie stars, politicians, businessmen, artists, and musicians. These are people who are still affluent, so they could afford the exclusive designer styles, of which would run the average person a pretty penny. In a study done by R. T. Horowitz, this phenomenon is aptly named “elite fashion.” Three additional terms are also coined by Horowitz in the same study: “mass fashion,” “non-fashion,” and “semi-mass fashion.” These are all used to describe the motivation of why people tend to engage in the act of fashion.

In essence, elite fashion is what the everyday person seeks to emulate through mass fashion, which is much more affordable and less exclusive than elite fashion, but is still based off of the styles of elite fashion. Mass fashion is what we might describe today as “fast fashion,” it’s the cheap, trendy clothes that mimic the styles of the popular “in” clothes at a fraction of their price. 

The elites of today have also taken on a different name. No longer is elite fashion dictated by the royal, or the rich, or even the famous celebrities. Now, what someone might consider an elite could simply be their fashion influencer of choice. There are still less that are participating in elite fashion than there are those who participate in mass fashion, but there are far more elites than there were when this study was conducted back in the 1960s. 

With more elites also comes more variety. No longer is there one overarching fashion style that defines a decade. Christian Dior’s “New Look,” with its cinched waist and voluminous skirt, which dominated basically all of the 1950s, is not something that could happen today. We have trends now, and as time goes on, they are becoming ever more speedy. These trends all tend to originate from different niches of the online fashion community, because with more freedom to explore different fashion styles comes a smorgasbord of different styles of dress pushed by the elites of a certain culture that a consumer could decide to emulate. These different styles are packaged and sold as “aesthetics,” and different aesthetics also have the ability to trend. Think “strawberry girl,” “clean girl,” “goblincore,” and “balletcore,” just to name a few aesthetics that come to mind. More often than not, these aesthetics are linked to products. Clothes of course, but skincare, makeup, accessories, and even diets. These aesthetics don’t try to just emulate a style, they seek to sell a lifestyle.

An example of "balletcore."

And it can be fun! I don’t seek to discredit how fun it can be to play around with identity, to try on different clothes, wear different shades of lip gloss, try new foods and new recipes. It can even be helpful in trying to get a routine down in one’s life. But is it really just harmless fun? What’s the goal in all of this? Fashion is often an important aspect of one’s identity, and it can take years to cultivate a style that speaks to the individual person. Years of trial and error, of seeing what works and what doesn’t, of trying to connect what you look like to what you are. When trends like the ones mentioned come into play, do they help or do they hinder this process? With so many different styles of fashion that come and go, and when you want to try them all, in an effort to keep up with elite fashion, or even for some other intrinsic purpose, how can you ever find your style?

—

Fashion, plainly, is the way you dress yourself. It’s the clothes you wear and the accessories you put on. Fashion, less plainly, is the way you communicate yourself to the world.

Fashion has always been associated with culture. And it’s through fashion that an individual can associate themselves with a specific culture. Through style, a person can communicate their values, identity, and personality. If you saw someone with a distressed oversized leather jacket, spiked hair, studs, and denim, you would think: biker. If you saw a man wearing a tailored navy wool suit with a long woolen jacket, you might think: businessman. This is a language that I feel is getting harder and harder to access with the current state of fashion online. 

Oftentimes, fashion is linked with identity. When you put on clothes that are associated with a certain culture, and you also feel like you associate with that culture, through values, inclinations, or the like, you will feel most comfortable and most like “yourself” in those clothes. Fashion and style should be about presenting yourself to the world, not presenting an aesthetic to the world that you might have seen online. More often than not, that aesthetic will make you happy for about three months, then something else will trend, and those products linked to that aesthetic will be shoved in the back of your closet, and something newer, prettier, trendier, will replace them. I suspect this is what is fueling the ever growing fast fashion industry, this sort of “crisis of identity.” People don’t know who they are, they don’t know who they want to be. So they keep buying clothes according to the trends of the time, but they never feel right. And they never will, unless the consumer takes a step back to really examine themselves. 

Who are you? Once you land on an answer that feels right, start dressing like that, and you might start feeling a whole lot more comfortable. 

Works cited:

Aspers, Patrik, and Frédéric Godart. “Sociology of Fashion: Order and Change.” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 39, 2013, pp. 171–92. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43049631. Accessed 28 Nov. 2024.

Buckley, Cheryl, and Hazel Clark. “Conceptualizing Fashion in Everyday Lives.” Design Issues, vol. 28, no. 4, 2012, pp. 18–28. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23273848. Accessed 28 Nov. 2024.

Bramley, Ellie Violet. “Goblincore: the fashion trend that embraces 'chaos, dirt and mud.'” The Guardian, 30 July 2021, https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2021/jul/30/goblincore-fashion-trend-embraces-chaos-dirt-mud. Accessed 27 November 2024.

Cacciatore, Bella. “Glazed Skin Is Spring’s Yummiest Trend—Photos and Tutorial.” Glamour, 21 April 2022, https://www.glamour.com/story/glazed-donut-skin-trend. Accessed 27 November 2024.

Gibson, Pamela Church. “‘To Care for Her Beauty, to Dress Up, Is a Kind of Work’: Simone de Beauvoir, Fashion, and Feminism.” Women’s Studies Quarterly, vol. 41, no. 1/2, 2012, pp. 197–201. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23611781. Accessed 28 Nov. 2024.

HOROWITZ, R. T. “FROM ÉLITE FASHION TO MASS FASHION.” European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie / Europäisches Archiv Für Soziologie, vol. 16, no. 2, 1975, pp. 283–95. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23998604. Accessed 28 Nov. 2024.

“How Jordan Peterson's Suits Taught Me Fashion.” YouTube, 16 October 2024, How Jordan Peterson's Suits Taught Me Fashion Accessed 27 November 2024

“The History of Jeans: A Detailed Look at Denim Over the Decades.” Byrdie, 14 August 2024, https://www.byrdie.com/the-history-of-jeans-2040397. Accessed 27 November 2024.

Mark, Joshua J. “Ancient Greek Clothing.” World History Encyclopedia, 13 July 2021, https://www.worldhistory.org/article/20/ancient-greek-clothing/. Accessed 27 November 2024.

“The Balletcore Aesthetic Has Gone Viral—Here's What It Is | Who What Wear.” https://www.whowhatwear.com/balletcore-trend.

Resnick, Ariane. “The Clean Girl Aesthetic: Why This Trend Isn't Harmless.” Byrdie, 3 October 2022, https://www.byrdie.com/clean-girl-aesthetic-critique-6744031. Accessed 27 November 2024.

Turner, Elle. “The ‘Strawberry Girl’ aesthetic is the cutest trend taking TikTok by storm.” Glamour UK, 4 August 2023, https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/strawberry-girl-aesthetic. Accessed 27 November 2024.

Van Paris, Calin. “The Viral 'Latte Makeup' Trend Is a New Take on Bronzed Goddess Beauty.” Vogue, 20 July 2023, https://www.vogue.com/article/viral-latte-makeup-trend-bronzed-goddess-beauty. Accessed 27 November 2024.

[oddevan]

Reintroducing Smolblog

I recently made a ~20 min. video essay about Smolblog. The video is embedded here; the transcript follows.

Watch video

Hi, neighbors; I’m Evan. For over five years now, I’ve been working on a project called Smolblog. It’s not ready to use, but it is far enough along that I need to start talking about it. So, if you’re interested, I’m going to talk about why Smolblog exists, what I’m hoping to accomplish with it, and, finally, how I’m building it. Let’s get started!

So, I want to start off with one of the most important questions any project can ask. Really, a question every project should be asking not just at the beginning, but at every point along the way: why. Why are we doing this? Why are we doing this now? Why are we doing this and not something else? What is the problem we’re trying to solve? Is it a problem worth solving?

I won’t name specific names, but I’m sure we can all think of some widget or tech where there never seems to be a good answer for “why?”. At best, they’re solutions in search of a problem. I don’t have money to waste on that; I certainly don’t have time to waste on that. So why Smolblog?

In a word: Enshittification; or, in more polite terms, “platform decay.” It’s a term coined by Cory Doctorow to describe the arc of internet platforms and venture-backed startups. To explain it is a whole essay in and of itself, but to sum it up, it goes a little something like this:

In a capitalistic system, you have producers who make products and consumers who use them. For example, a musician’s product is music, and the consumers are the fans that listen to them. And in the middle of this relationship is a platform, something to enable the relationship. It could be a coffee shop that hosts an open mic night, the social media site that lets the two interact, or the example that we’ll use: a music app. This app comes out and tells musicians they can upload their music and get paid for it, and it tells fans they can listen to their favorite artists for free. Everyone wins, right?

Well, almost. See, the platform is operating at a loss; they’re losing money every time someone listens to a song because they have to pay the operational costs to get the song to the fan, and they have to pay the musicians for the rights to the song. The only reason the company is still running is because they have investors willing to pay this massive upfront cost in order to get everyone using the platform. Once everyone’s locked in, the decay starts as the platform now controls both supply and demand.

It might start by the platform paying less to the musicians. Then maybe they introduce a “premium tier” to fans–it’s no longer free. They might make a “premium” service that gets musicians' music in front of more people, which means advertisements for fans. As the cycle goes on, at every step, the platform pays less to producers, gets worse for consumers, and pockets more money for itself. That’s enshittification in a nutshell.

And this is happening to social media. This has been happening to social media. Think of how many more advertisements are in your feeds. How hard it can be to actually see the things you want to see versus what the site wants you to see. How we hear so often that they’re making things better and then they… don’t.

Imaginary Anon on Tumblr put it well when they said:

will people please stop walking into my house (websites that i use often) and moving all my furniture (giving them new layouts that i hate).

And while they were talking about a reference website, I’ve seen—and felt myself—this same sentiment used to describe changes to social media websites and apps. But here’s the thing…

We can mess with our social media profiles. We can change with the titles, paint the walls, draw on them, even put up some posters. We can make the space our own, feel a sense of ownership, but at the end of the day, this is not our beautiful house. In reality, it never was. That sense of ownership only lasts until the platform decides to start making the money they promised their investors.

By now you might be thinking, “Okay, that sucks, but it’s just social media. Why does this matter? It’s just the internet. It’s not real life.” Here’s the thing, though: the internet is real life. What we do online matters. Who we are online matters. The things we do on the internet are real actions with real consequences because we are all real people. It’s always been easy to forget that, but it’s always been true.

So let’s talk about who we are online, our identities. For the sake of brevity, I’ll boil this down to our names, our presentations, and our actions. In physical space, we usually have a given name and a family name. We choose our presentation with haircuts, makeup, the clothes we wear, buttons, stickers–all of that. And our actions are how we respond to whatever is around us, usually driven by whatever circumstances we happen to be in.

In online space, our names are our platform handles, our presentation is basically our profile pic, and our actions are limited to what the platform allows, and that’s typically tied into its algorithm.

So why Smolblog? Because online life is part of real life. Which means our online identities are an increasingly important part of our real identities. And every aspect of these identities passes through the platforms we use. Our names are subordinate to theirs, our presentation is limited to their parameters, and their algorithms reward actions that benefit them even if it’s harmful to us, because these platforms exist solely to make their owners money at our expense. That’s why.

So now let’s talk “what”. What is Smolblog specifically going to do to help solve the problem of online identity? The short answer is: blogs. Making places on the internet that people can set up their own identities with as little influence from platforms as possible.

But that’s kinda old news, isn’t it? We’ve had blogs since the early 2000s and they’ve never taken off like people want. When modern social media came along, everyone flocked to that because it was so much easier and more fun.

Here’s the thing, though: blogs never went away. If I were writing a dictionary entry for blogs, I would start by calling it a system for displaying content on the internet. What makes it a blog specifically is that it displays your most recent content in reverse chronological order at a dedicated address.

For example: WordPress, the most popular blogging engine out there. Here’s a site I haven’t updated in forever, but you can still see recent posts in reverse chronological order at a dedicated URL. Tumblr actually calls them “blogs”, and it fits: my most recent posts in reverse chronological order at a dedicated URL.

But what about my Facebook profile? I don’t have as much here, but it does have my most recent posts in reverse chronological order at a dedicated URL. YouTube: Most recent posts in reverse chronological order at a dedicated URL. Instagram: Most recent posts in reverse chronological order at a dedicated URL. Mastodon! Bluesky! LinkedIn! Ex! Medium! Soundcloud! DeviantArt! Twitch! TikTok! SOCIAL! MEDIA! IS! JUST! BLOGGING!

(Deep breath)

Social media and blogging are–at the heart–just about putting content onto the internet for others to enjoy. But if that’s the case, why did social media take off when blogging… didn’t? There’s a few major factors at play, not the least of which is the rise of the smartphone. But I think social media did well at addressing two things: barriers to entry, and barriers to participation.

Now, of the two, barriers to entry is the easier to address. What are the barriers to entry? I’m going to pick on WordPress here because it is by far the most popular way to set up a blog. And by running the open source version, you have complete control over the platform–you decide what to install and run.

Except the process for actually installing and running WordPress is… not easy. Here’s their download page with two options: “Download and install it yourself” and “Set up with a hosting provider.” If you’re not familiar with installing and running software on a web server, if you have no idea what web hosting even is… you’re stuck. This is the single biggest barrier to entry for blogging. The good news, though, is we’ve “solved” it for a couple of decades: let people sign up for an account. This makes it easy to get started, but it also means that we cede a lot of control to the platform. We’re trying to avoid that.

Two examples of a better approach are Laughing Squid and Micro-dot-blog. Laughing Squid is one of many web hosts that handles installing and running the open source version of WordPress but still lets you customize it. Manton Reece’s Micro-dot-blog–what I use for my blog–offers inexpensive blog hosting with built-in apps and services. Both of these are ways to set up blogs that take care of all the little technical details but still give us control. Both of these cost money, but by paying for them, we get platforms that aren’t as at risk for enshittification. So that’s barriers to entry pretty much handled.

But what about the barriers to participation? What happens after people sign up? Take a look at the post editors for WordPress and Medium. They take up most of the screen, WordPress has some extra menus to the top and side, and they’re mostly just a blank canvas. That’s great for some instances, but let’s compare that with social media: Here’s Instagram, X, and Tumblr. These don’t take up the whole screen; they’re small and focused. Instagram I couldn’t even get to this part until I’d picked a photo! They prompt for content, and they don’t ask much. Just a picture. Just a link. Just one sentence about what’s happening. Social media understood something incredibly important: The hardest part of blogging is blogging. It’s coming up with the words to say, learning to be confident in your own voice, finding things to post about.

In short, with blogs we have platforms that we control, but it can be a little complicated. With social media, it’s easier and more fun, but we’re subject to enshittification. So let’s take the freedom of blogging and bring in the fun of social media. Let’s take the overwhelming parts of blogging and focus them in to what we really want and need.

But what about our communities? We’ve spent years, maybe even decades building up relationships on these platforms, whether through interactions or just following and being followed. And as a lot of us have seen over the past few years, a lot of these communities don’t survive changing platforms. So how do we keep these relationships alive?

First, we cross-post. Social media loves to do this to get people on board, and we can use it to our advantage. We connect our blogs to our social media accounts. Then, we post to our blogs. Our blogs know what the content looks like, what each field means. And they’re able to take that information, translate it into content for other social media sites, and post it automatically. We keep our content in a place we control and syndicate it out to other sites where our communities already are.

That takes care of the “now,” but what about the future? If everyone’s on their own blog, how do we interact with each other? For that, we have standards. The World Wide Web Consortium, or W3C, is the organization that sets standards for HTTP, HTML, and other technologies that the web needs to run. And there are new standards being developed to enable the social interactions we’re used to—such as likes, replies, or follows—but with independently-run blogs that don’t need to pass through a central platform.

Some of these standards are newer, like ActivityPub, and others are older, like RSS. But the easiest way to explain this is a standard older than the web itself: email. If Bob has an email account at gmail-dot-com, he can still email Alice with an account at hotmail-dot-com. Or I can set up my own email server at oddevan-dot-com. Even though we’re using different servers—and probably different software on those servers—they can all speak to each other using this same standard.

Let’s start with this foundation of open standards that gave us email and the web and podcasts, build the social interactions and tools and connections we’ve formed through social media, cross-post to our old accounts to keep our communities, and present it in an experience that lets us use our tools, not fight against them. That’s what I want to do with Smolblog.

So let’s talk “how.” How is Smolblog going to be a better blog? How is it not going to end up like every other enshittified platform that came before it? How am I actually going to do this?

The first part is admitting that, well… I can’t. There’s no special algorithm, no hack, that will absolutely stop enshittification. Any code in the software, any bylaws in whatever company this ends up being, all those can be changed, and there’s no way to guarantee that they won’t. And even if there was, the biggest risk here is that Smolblog just… fizzles out. We could easily get to a place where I can’t maintain Smolblog on my own, and no one else is around to pick it up.

We can’t stop entropy… but we can certainly try. We can set things up so that when it happens, we’re ready. So here’s my plan, and it looks an awful lot like WordPress:

The source code to Smolblog is and will be Free Software. Free as in price, but also free to run, study, modify, and distribute. Anyone that wants to can download and run the software on a web server. The only requirement is that any modifications also have to be available to anyone using it.

For those that don’t want to download it themselves, I’ll be running a paid service at smolblog-dot-com. As much as I want it to be free, I’m not going to do that unless I can do it sustainably. It’ll be running the exact same software that’s available for download, so anyone is free to set up their own service and charge for it.

But no matter what, any user will be able to download their data. I want to make this as simple as possible for everyone, so I’m planning on using the Blog Archive format. It’s a proposed standard that packages all of a blog’s pages, posts, images, everything in one tidy archive that can be imported to another server or uploaded as its own static website.

All this gives protection against enshittification, but it also makes it easier to do content moderation, particularly when it comes to the hosted service. As everyone from bored teenagers to eccentric billionaires know, there are limits to free speech. It’s not just the big ones like hate speech and harassment but stupid stuff like… spam. We can set up things like word filters, flood control, account verification, but at the end of the day, sometimes we just need to wield the ban hammer.

Now, there’s been a lot of hand wringing lately about freedom of speech and banning people. I agree that a ban is not something to be taken lightly. If we have these open platforms and encourage people to put their life’s work on them and build these audiences, it can feel like a breach of trust to then take that away. But before we get too dramatic, data portability means there’s a backup of all the content in a standard format. Free code means there’s a way to keep using the exact same Smolblog. And using open standards for interactions means that the audience doesn’t disappear, despite what people may say.

Having this freedom in place neutralizes the debate. Instead of questioning whether certain speech should be “allowed to exist”, we have the ability to say that it’s not speech we want here. It’s freedom for users and for administrators, because they both have the chance to say “this isn’t working, it’s time to leave.”

So we’ve talked enshittification prevention, and we’ve even talked business model a bit. But this is a software project, so let’s talk code, just for a second. I’m starting with the core domain logic, the things that are intrinsic to the app, what makes Smolblog Smolblog. Things like the content workflow, or what accounts are allowed to make changes. What’s not part of that are things like how the data is stored, handling image uploads, interfacing with other services, making sure people are who they say they are. By building a modular, adaptable system, I can swap these parts out without having to change the core. I can even build registries that can store different parts of the same type and swap them out on-the-fly.

That flexibility extends to the Content model. It’ll have a few intrinsic details like publish date and primary author, but most of it is going to be this box we’re calling the content Type. This is the structured information that really determines what the content is: a picture and caption, an embedded video, or just 140 characters of text… that word we don’t say anymore. Each piece of content can only have one type, but there can be many extensions. These are things like tags, syndication links; things that apply to multiple–if not all–types of content.

Once we have our complete Content object, we can push it to a channel, which is just a place to put content. It can be your website, but it can also be an account on another social media site like Tumblr or LinkedIn. It could even be a feed using an open protocol like ActivityPub. We push the content and send it on its way.

A flexible content model with diverse channels, powered by adaptable code, protected by Free Software and Data Portability, and sustained with a business model used by multiple Open Source projects. That’s how I’m building Smolblog.

Now, here’s the part where I really should show it to you in action… but I can’t. Not reliably. I got 95% of the way to a working product and… burnt out. This video is what I’ve been doing to get back into the project and refocus my efforts. Because I really want this to happen.

Smolblog represents everything I want for blogs and the web. I’ve been working on this for over five years now, and I’ve been chewing on the ideas my whole career. And as more and more of our lives are lived online, it’s more and more important that we build environments that are good for us, or at least don’t actively harm us.

Steve Jobs once called the computer a “bicycle for the mind,” a force multiplier that lets us do more than we could previously. Personally, I want to build things that let us create more, express ourselves better, put more art out into the world and let it connect us. Lofty and pretentious? Definitely. Sharp rocks at the bottom? Most likely. But I gotta try.

Take care of each other; I’ll see you next time.

[edzephyr]

@actordougjones is a beautiful person

And seriously, there is point of note here that is coincident and perhaps quite relevant. He is genuinely (and not only for being kind and supportive to fans and fellow (much more lowly!) professionals) one of my favourite actors, and a lot of that is to do with what he does - he coins it in an interview when he says "dialogue comes in visuals and verbal". Doug Jones speaks wonderfully through physical language - it's a significant part of what he does; and how he does it, in all the nuanced flavours of his many different characters, is delicious to see/hear/sensorially absorb. It is something I identify with as an actor in my own work, even (perhaps surprisingly) regarding Kirk and portraying him in a holistic sense - because Kirk is so specific and recognizable in body; in physical language that is part of the expression, the 'dialogue' of his character.

I noticed from the start of this journey some years ago that a lot of fans talked about and expressed artistically how important Kirk's body and physicality was to them, and when you start to really feel out the character, it hits you how integral to his character it is; how a significant proportion of who he is is communicated uniquely through that embodiment and expression. I allude to this in "The Making of...". This character was born on screen and is so loved, so iconic, because of this entire package. It's what makes Kirk himself, and not another character - and indeed, not easy to play fast and loose with and still convey the same thing.

In terms of encapsulating that specificity in the physical sense, it is certainly not about practicing and performing superficial mannerisms - you can, but in order to work with a different physical 'accent' and for it to not seem 'put on' and fake, you have to make it make sense as a truthful expression of the character. A lot of the physical language of Kirk I find comes from the inner life of the character, and understanding that to a sufficient degree the physicality naturally/subconsciously follows. It's also true that people sometimes spot gestures or expressions in my everyday life and say 'you just did x or y like Kirk' - so some or maybe a lot of it is just how I am; being so similar in build also, I likely (as also pointed out) walk and move similarly. A close casting does help - it's taking a good start point and bringing to bear the work of the actor to fine tune it. I feel quite blessed and fortunate to be able to bring the two together. I'm glad I've been able to show it in some way now on film.

And friends/fans - don't miss out on the 'Making of' video - I talk about the above; the characters, their arcs and a lot of episode/movie meta-analysis. For fans of the Kirk-Spock arc, it's essential viewing...!

THE MAKING OF STAR TREK INFINITIES TEST FOOTAGE (FAN FILM) ⬇️⬇️⬇️

[bloodsworn-marshal]

Writing Prompt: Fair Word Count: 1619

Changes had begun in earnest in recent months. As peace would preside over all of Eitherys following the Final Days, the realm had begun to install measures in place to ensure prosperity amongst its people and any remaining contempt between they and their neighbors. The realm over wished to draw in a breath of respite at long last. 

No more war. No more loss. No more summonings of the eikons.

What busyness there was to be had came in the shape and form of improving their cities, their laws, the dividing gap between the social classes. Job opportunities arose at every corner. Refugees were able to choose to return to their homelands or find their place without remaining beggars on the street. Little by little, piece by piece, the Sultanate would work together to find the line that make all fair for each and every person.

Pipin, for one, had become a vital piece in terms of keeping the peace between monetarist and loyalist. His bargaining chip came not only with control over their military, but also with his negotiating and connections with the local tribes that was once held sour thanks to old monetarist’s laws. For his blood and sacrifice with keeping the talks at peace, he held much leverage when directing the discussions to a point without contention.

With his help and growing attention amongst the populace, his name had become commonplace on the average citizen’s tongue. For at long last, it would seem things were being pushed in favor of the little people. Lauded and praised, his presence gave rise to welcoming smiles and expressions of gratitude.

But also did it sow the seeds for those who would use his name for their own gains with ill intent…

---

One man in particular had begun to take advantage of Pipin Tarupin’s name. In his own visage, presenting himself as the flame general’s true father and kin. Begging for money and pity on the street-side, that his own son had abandoned him. Visiting the Hall of Flames daily to demand audience with said son for his share and acknowledgements. Each time denied or put off for a potential next, with each dismissal giving further fire for the lalafellin man to besmirch Pipin’s name further.

One thing was true: They certainly was his biological father. And nothing more. Was being the key word.

The only thing that man truly desired at this point was taking advantage of his son’s rising fame for his own use, getting coin to further fund his gambling addictions and worse yet—fund latest criminal schemes that Pipin already had a hunch was being performed in the background.

Either way, Pipin was wary to ever meet him in person nor alone without some safeguards in place. Else he’d go off something fierce against the man—he loathed him with every fiber of his being.

He knew he’d have to take care of him someday. Once and for all. And hopefully behind the bars of a gaol cell. In the deepest pits if he were lucky.

---

Just one’s luck though. No matter how hard Pipin tried to snuff out the man’s existence from his thoughts, he ended up crawling out regardless. Snaking his way in to a point where a fight would soon be had between the two.

He caught him today giving the same spiel to some passerby’s. But not just anybody of a passerby… but his eternal bonded wife of all person’s. 

Adede stood there talking to him. Clearly looking uncomfortable. His bio father happened to recognize her and was currently trying to win her favor. Give his pity party of woe is me, abandoned by prosperous son who forgot all about him, that he was successful and leaving his kin to rot. The usual rhetoric he gave to others. But specifically did he target Adede, watching her movements, laying his woes on thick.

Pipin was livid upon witnessing it from far, striding right forward to intervene before it got further out of hand. He would be having none of this.

“You are disrupting the peace of the streets yet again.” He warned as he approached, sliding up and putting himself between he and Adede. To the point where the guy could only face Pipin now.

The man groaned and whined about this and that, making excuses, that he had done nothing of the sort… same old same old before eventually walking away with a look of disdain. Pipin made certain that Adede was alright, that nothing happened in particular. To which she assured him all was fine..

…But it was not fine. And it was high time Pipin came to blows with his biological father with a heavy hand.

…

When next the man attempted to be granted meeting with the flame general, Pipin allowed for it promptly. If only to be able to get his hands on him in close quarters, where none would interfere. Not only that, he had given the order for the man to be brought in soon regardless. He was suspected of a new recent criminal investigation.

And this time they had proof.

Minutes passed and soon he was brought to Pipin’s office quarters. Huffing and raving that the soldiers had manhandled him, how dare they treat a citizen as such, so on so forth. Pipin merely gave him a look and told him to be seated. This would not take long.

“Have no mistake. I did not call you in here to listen to your prattling. I’ve heard your sob story enough times as it is. Do not try it with me.” He steepled his hands together, folding his fingers in between one another and resting his chin on the bridge. Not please at all from the looks of it.

“Then what did you call me in for, huh!? And here I thought you were finally going to accept me! Your wife sure appeared accepting, sympathizing even. Have you even told her the full truth, how you left me alone so you could cling on the coattails of another.”

“You dare assume I don’t know the actual truth?” Pipin’s eyes flared, roiling in flame. “How you sold my very name and papers for a bag of coin that wouldn’t last longer than a week’s worth of drink?”

“Don’t act as though I haven’t done the same many times over. I gave you jobs! And if trouble ever happened as it did, you always came crawling back and we’d do the same all over again.”

“Ah yes. The scams you put me up to, hmm?” His eyes were narrowing in at this point. “And you assumed I’d do the same again. Except you sold my everything to the Bloodsands. There was no coming back after that. I would have perished a pitiful death, if not for the luck of the Twelve that I was claimed before that time.”

He’d done him a favor in fact. For if that had never happened, Pipin never would have met Raubahn and bonded as they did. But that would not save him from the fact that he had sold off his son for death.

“But you didn’t!” The man crowed, acting as though it were no big deal. “And in fact, you earned much from the experience! You should be thanking me!”

At this point Pipin looked right ready for murder. Until the man had the gall to switch topics.

“Fine lady you have there, hmm? I cannot wait to meet my soon to be grandchildren. That’s my grandchild she’s got inside of her.”

“There will be no such meeting.” Pipin slammed a fist upon the desk. Glaring daggers at the other. Though Adede was yet to be showing all that much, he must have seen the signs and how she covered her stomach. “That child will have nothing to do with you. Nor will you be around for too much longer.”

“Eh? And what the hells do you mean by that!? I have my rights!”

“The rights that you sold off a long time ago?” Pipin held up a finger at this point and produced a stack of papers. “Well now it is my turn. After repeated defamation of my name and investigation upon your person, we found that you are guilty of extorting large amounts of sum from the populace. Not only that, one of your compatriots squealed on your recent ongoings. Throwing your lot in with a criminal organization wasn’t your most brightest of ideas.”

“How did you—You have no proof—”

“Witnessed by my own men and admitted by those you’ve conned in hopes of a lesser sentence. You’ve been outed.”

The man jumped out of his seat, panicked and rushing for the door. But beyond the door, two troops lie in waiting. Taking him by either arm and lifting him into the air to keep from running.

“Take him away. I have heard enough and will not suffer his face any longer. You will be given a fair trial before ere long, so make sure to write up your next pity act before then.”

“You’ll pay for this! You will be founded for corruption and putting behind bars your own kin for your own gain!!”

His cries would fall on deaf ears however. For today Pipin would be ridded of the one final piece from the past that continuously haunted him. No longer would he have to face him on the streets. And full well did it lighten his heart to know that neither would his family.

They would grow in this new era of peace. And never will they need to worry about where their next meal would come from, nor fear for their lives as he once did.

[turgidscum]

As another native, genuinely I suggest that you try to learn about what gender looked like pre contact. Idk what tribe you’re from but my tribes entire creation story and beliefs includes and respects who we now call 2spirit. Talk to 2spirit people from your tribe, talk to your elders. I get why you’re a transmed, trying to survive in a colonial system and worldview is hard and it makes us always put our energy into survival and respectability politics, but we need to be putting our energy into challenging that system and worldview, not just trying to live within it. And also you can be indigenous and have anti indigenous beliefs, (most of us have at least some, at least subconscious, that’s colonialism for you) I’m not erasing who you are.

my tribe has no history of two spirit individuals, as the term was only coined in 1990 by myra laramee, who was an elder of the fisher river cree nation. the cree nation is on the opposite side of north america from my nation. we have never had any contact, any trade, nothing. the language of our nations is as vast and changing as any other nation, and my nation has a negative history with anyone not cis or straight.

my tribe only permits same-sex marriage as a result of federal ruling under the cfr. my tribe will not reissue my card despite by name and sex being changed legally.

i suppose you could chalk this up to colonialism, and i wouldn't blame you. when i asked my elders about this, they said that lgbt people were generally cast out in our tribe... though, again, whether this is colonialism, i'm not sure. but i can almost guarantee that none of the elders of my nation at present are welcoming of lgbt people and do not stand behind the idea of two-spirit. i personally don't as i have no connections with such a term. i am a man and always have been.

my nation being southern certainly hasn't helped. while some of the other members i grew up with are lgbt, i have long-since left them behind and moved on with my life. maybe they're more accepting than they were ten years ago... who knows. considering they won't reissue my card, i doubt it. (perhaps i shouldn't say i have my card if it's not my name, right?)

i am proud of my native heritage. i am not proud of how my nation, and my tribe specifically, treat people like us.