#dig the truth or don't

[astrognossienne]

notes on cancer women

Cancer women don’t run down men. We MAKE them come to us with our lunar pull and when they’re with us we treat them better (sexually and otherwise) than almost any other woman in the zodiac. We’re the first water sign and as such, our pussies stay wet and we know how to get dicks hard as well as wet. We’re the best sex in the zodiac and men are hooked on us. We’re also the most feminine. We’re the women who can best intuit our man’s needs and desires. We’re the ones that can hang with his (guy) friends. We’re the ones who can even chill with other women, if they’re secure enough. We’re the ones he takes home to mom. Other girls are for a good time, we’re here for a long time. We’re the types that a man marries. We’re literally every woman. However, we’re also independent af so although we love to be with someone, most times we know how to be alone. My friends are constantly asking me when I will get a boyfriend and I have no intentions of dating right now (plus most relationships are shallow af so I don’t want to be part of that drama). Single life is lit.

Our personalities are so kind and deeply caring that they may look manufactured to a lot of people who don’t understand us, but trust me, they are REAL. We are THAT crazy lol. We HATE being fake and we hate fake people. I literally don’t understand how someone can be fake and live with themselves. Also, we get it, as the emotional creatures that we are, our personalities can go from one extreme to the next but WE CAN’T HELP IT. I sometimes don’t even understand my own goddamn self and I find myself doing shit I didn’t even think I would ever do the day before.

Depending on who you are and how you treat us, we can be the sensitive sweethearts you love, or we can be the sensitive sweethearts you love to hate. Whether we (or others) like it or not, most Cancer women generally express their feelings so openly and it makes all sorts of people get involved—and unfortunately it’s usually the wrong people.

As to the degree of emotional transparency we have…it depends on the moon sign of the Cancer woman really. As a Capricorn moon, the only, ONLY other person who can spot that something is wrong with me emotionally is my mother. I actually care about certain things, I have a really big heart to the few that deserve it, but I don’t really show it.

About the selfish thing, yes as Cardinal signs, we may come off as selfish human beings who have no regards for anyone but ourselves but when you get to know us, we really have one of the biggest hearts of the zodiac. We actually care for people, but we are a very cautious sign and we gotta know each other first before we care THAT much.

Oh and we let you walk out of our lives, so the “clingy” stereotype really needs to die. We’re loyal and we don’t give up on people, but we don’t really run down people either (at least not for too long). Just make sure that if you decide to walk away from us, be sure that you are REALLY done with us, because if you decide to try and come back in, it is 1000x harder the first time (if you’re accepted back at all).

We may come off as rude, but the truth is, we see bullshit before ANYONE else does. Our intuition is head and shoulders above ALL of the other signs. I remember two years ago, people wondered why I was constantly giving this girl the side eye whenever she was right beside me, two years later they FINALLY understand. Sometimes we really do say things that can actually hurt others (we sometimes don’t understand it because we’re the type to want people to like us) but most times we don’t mean to hurt anyone. We would go home and feel guilty about it and internalize it and feel bad for days. Well…that’s in my case.

I see a lot of utterances on here and elsewhere about how Cancers aren’t smart and aren’t regarded for their intelligence. Alan Turing? Helen Keller? Nikola Tesla, anyone? And again, we’re smart enough to see bullshit before anyone else does, so how tf are we dimwitted???

I also hear and read that we’re “followers”. Followers? Are you sure you are looking at the right zodiac sign? Because if anything, the unpopular truth is that folks follow us. We’re cardinal signs and we’re the leaders of emotion, as such, we make it okay for others to be kind and to care and to be nurturing and empathetic. We do our own thing, roll our own way and we like being uniquely us. We aren’t the ‘follow the crowd’ type of sign. If you are looking for that, head on over to Libras and Pisces.

Reading about how salty everyone is towards Cancer women, just goes to show that we are VERY misunderstood. We’re the shit without having to shit on anyone. I guess that burns people up, lol.

Also, if any of you people have any problems with a Cancer in your life (and by the way Cancers are talked about/not talked about/willfully ignored/written about/dismissed it seems everyone and their grandmother’s dog does lol), talk to them, be REAL with them. PLEASE tell them how you’re feeling. Tell them EVERYTHING. Vent it out. Even if it hurts. At the end of the day, we do not like fakeness and we are DEFINITELY not the sign to deal with that.

We can be earnest and genuine to a fault and we find it really annoying when confronted with someone who isn’t; we’ll try to deal with you to an extent, but the more evolved among us won’t even bother, we’ll just give up and walk away. If we just someone, the more evolved among us will take our actions into consideration since unlike all the other signs, we truly don’t like hurting anyone, ESPECIALLY the people we actually care about. Again, depending on the moon sign (since we’re lunar creatures), we may or may not show it, but we do care.

If we have a problem with a friend or lover, we have the rare ability to articulate it without sounding accusatory. But if we’ve done something wrong, we take the blame rather than blaming them. We are never jealous without reason, and no matter how badly someone wrongs us, we never fall into the trap of self-pity. We calm others down rather than get them riled up. Despite the unfortunate name of this star sign, we are the cure for relationship cancer.

I’m dying to know the date and time you fell to earth from heaven. Do you have pictures? You’re almost too good to be real, but in a world of fakes, you’re the real deal. You’re that good, and anyone who doesn’t realize it the moment that they meet you is going to cause you trouble. Whenever someone has a problem with you, I don’t even need to hear the details. I already know that they’re in the wrong. Did you ever hear someone say, “It’s not you—it’s me”? Trust them when they say that. It’s not you. It’s them. It’s never been you, and it’s ALWAYS been them.

[beforethepoison]

[hunxi-after-hours]

collecting some of the thoughts in The Disappearance of Rituals on performance, communication, and authenticity:

Chapter 1: "The Compulsion of Production"

"Digital communication is increasingly developing into communication without community. The neoliberal regime encourages communication without community by isolating everyone as the producer of him- or herself. Producing is derived from the Latin verb producere, meaning presenting or making visible. Like the French produire it still carries the meaning of presenting. Se produire means 'to play to the gallery'. The colloquial German expression sich produzieren probably has the same etymology. Today, we are constantly and compulsively playing to the gallery. This is especially the case, for instance, on social media: the social is coming to be completely subordinated in order to garner more attention. The compulsion of self-production leads to a crisis of community. The so-called 'community' that is today invoked everywhere is an atrophied community, perhaps even a kind of commodified and consumerized community. It lacks the symbolic power to bind people together" (13).

Chapter 2: "The Compulsion of Authenticity"

"The society of authenticity is a performance society. All members perform themselves. All produce themselves. Everyone pays homage to the cult of the self, the worship of the self in which everyone is his or her own priest" (16).

"Taylor's moral justification of authenticity ignores that subtle process, within the neoliberal regime, by which ideas of freedom and self-realization are transformed into vehicles for more efficient exploitation. The neoliberal regime exploits morality. Once it is able to present itself as freedom, domination becomes complete. Authenticity is a neoliberal form of production. You exploit yourself voluntarily in the belief that you are realizing yourself. In the cult of authenticity, the neoliberal regime appropriates the person himself and turns him into a highly efficient site of production" (18).

"With the rise of the cult of authenticity, tattoos have also become fashionable again. Within a ritual context, they symbolize the alliance between individual and community. In the nineteenth century, when tattoos were very popular, especially among the upper classes, the body was still a surface onto which yearnings and dreams were projected. Today, tattoos lack any symbolic power. All they do is point to the uniqueness of the bearer. The body is neither a ritual stage nor a surface of projection; rather, it is an advertising space. The neoliberal hell of the same is populated with tattooed clones" (20).

"The culture of authenticity goes hand in hand with the distrust of ritualized forms of interaction. Only spontaneous emotion, that is, a subjective state, is authentic. Behaviour that has been formed in some way is denigrated as inauthentic or superficial. In the society of authenticity, actions are guided internally, motivated psychologically, whereas in ritual societies actions are determined by externalized forms of interaction. Rituals make the world objective; they mediate our relation to the world. The compulsion of authenticity, by contrast, makes everything subjective, thereby intensifying narcissistic tendencies" (23).

[jacksmusesdrv3]

Parallels: Maki tries to get the truth from the Killing Game Busters at a critical point for them, regarding the situation. Neither can - or will - oblige

(Context note: it’s possible that Ouma genuinely does not know anything, but it’s just as possible that he’s been playing dumb for the same reason as Gonta- it all depends on what it is they know, about the secret of the outside world)

[allycat75]

Advice from a successful (personally and professionally), age-appropriate couple in Hollywood:

[demetrius-haggarty]

The lion, brave and might,

What is it that he sees,

When walking in the candle light,

Under the beautiful Christmas trees?

I am... sorry, what?

*Meech has to read the poem twice, thrown aback by the format. Somebody spent time writing poetry? For him? About... Christmas presents?*

We all know that it's the family members and sometimes friends that lay gifts under a Christmas tree. Uh, not lay, why did I say lay, you're not ducks or chickens...

*He groans and frowns.*

You get the idea. I don't have many friends and my family is rather small. Perhaps my parent will come visit but the kind of jobs they have are especially difficult this time of year. So if there's anything I'd wish to see under a tree this year, it'll be something practical. New robes, socks, sweater, shirt... Writing supplies, I am so short on parchment and ink... Listen. I don't even have a wand of my own, this one was just given to me by... er, my great aunt.

I don't have much. But I also do not need much. Do not worry about it.

[ladycatofwinterfell]

people who defend everything about lestat and insists he did nothing wrong because he says so in his books and that louis is either blatantly lying about all lestat put him through or mind controlled by armand into saying what he’s saying are so annoying… partly because it’s simply not true he insists he did nothing wrong in the books, he admits to wronging his fledglings and understands why claudia wanted to kill him. but also because lestat abused louis and claudia and he’s also interesting and i enjoy him as a character and it’s fine to do so. he doesn’t need to be good for you to like him, i promise you, you don’t need to justify it with that actually he’s a good person. no one in this show is entirely good and never in the wrong, they only have different perspectives on what happens and excuses for themselves. every single character becomes less interesting when you take their motivations and use that to completely justify or vilify their actions instead of seeing it as a reason for why they acted as they did. because lestat is neither an angel nor evil incarnated and for a show that explores cycles of abuse and patterns of violence so effectively you'd think people would understand that

this sort of defence of lestat also leaves a bad taste in my mouth because the violence he enacts on louis and claudia is so gendered and racialised, he's the white patriarch in the family and his gender nonconforming manners and at times progressive beliefs do not change that. he can be a flamboyant bisexual who does drag and still uphold patriarchal structures within his family. it just becomes weirdly racist and misogynist to completely disregard it.

for me the bad things about lestat can very much coexist with that i'm sympathetic to what he's been through and how that shaped him, that i believe he has good sides and that i think he's fun. because he is fun! it's a treat every time he's on screen! it can also coexist with that he loved both louis and claudia very very much. and that louis especially loved lestat very much in return. it's a very intense love, love to the point of hatred.

maybe next season we'll see him grow in the modern timeline, become a better person, be better to those around him than he was to louis and claudia during their time in new orleans. maybe his backstory will provide clarity on why he behaves the way he does as it did in the books. maybe we’ll see him still be toxic and abusive in ways. sam reid himself said he believes there needs to be a toxic masculinity to lestat for his queen of the damned arc to work

[mynameisbillandimaheadcase]

That was the last fucking time

I'm never expressing distress again

[amethystina]

For the weird questions for Writers ask

13. What is a subject matter that is incredibly difficult for you write about? What is easy?

I'm almost tempted to say sex scenes because, man, do they exhaust me sometimes x'D But the truth is I just find them tedious, not difficult. And not tedious as in that I hate writing them or anything. Just that, during sex scenes, the timing and build-up has to be just right and that takes a lot of time and effort. Which is kind of annoying

(also, I'm pretty ace so I spend most of my time squinting at the screen going "... is this sexy? How to sexy? What IS sexy? I am so confused.")

I think, in the end, the most difficult subject matters for me to write about are things I have truly no experience of that are also incredibly sensitive or important. Like, I would find it incredibly difficult to write a story focusing on contemporary racism because I'm a blonde, blue-eyed white girl. What the fuck do I know about being subjected to racism? I would be SO uncomfortable writing about it because it's not my story to tell and I would, no doubt, offend a lot of people when I inevitably got something wrong.

I would rather write a story about things that outright trigger me than a subject I have no right to be talking about where my insensitivity and lack of experience might harm or offend people. So the "difficult" part wouldn't be my lacking skill level or that it hurts me, personally, but that I would feel so uncomfortable and afraid of hurting other people that I just wouldn't be able to do it.

That's not to say I only ever write things I have personally experienced (the stories would be kind of one-note if that was the case) but there are certain subjects I would definitely think twice about writing about without doing A LOT of research and interviews with people who could teach me more about it first.

And what's easy?

People.

How they behave, their emotions, their quirks and habits — even the dark, unruly parts. I like being able to write characters who feel human, with both good and bad sides. Which comes naturally to me in a way that's difficult to really describe. I rarely, if ever, have to plan the characters' reactions during a scene before I write it — everything usually just flows on its own as I write it, intuitively and with ease.

And, apparently, I get it right pretty much on the first try?

So yeah. People. They're incredibly easy, even when they're being assholes or little shits.

Weird Questions for Writers

[thenotoriousscuttlecliff]

Many of the Chibnall trolls on twitter seem to delight going around mocking or attack other fans often for harmless things like choosing to headcanon Spy Master before Missy, but as soon as someone calls them out for their own bad behaviour they go on as if they are the offended party and its unacceptable for you to use the words "attack" or "offend" to describe their tweets because making fun of people in what is clearly a malicious way is in no way attacking them.

[c4rdsharp]

I hope I didn’t offend you, Luck! You are very Italian, yes. So…is Gandor an Americanized name, or your mother’s name perhaps?

He couldn't help but feel that was a little patronizing . . . but, it was a small enough offense that he was willing to not acknowledge it and let slide. Besides, it'd be rather tasteless to throw threats at someone who was merely just curious about the Gandor family's history. " it was Americanized, yes. from what, i wouldn't know. our father was . . . not an overly talkative man. " Whether that was because of a personal quirk or a lack of certainty of the English language, Luck also couldn't say. " at the very least, that was never disclosed to me personally. big brother Keith may know, but . . . well, he seems to share our father's reserved countenance. it isn't a bad guess, though, stranger. a number of immigrants who pass through Ellis Island tend to have their names misunderstood & misprinted by those acting behind the registry. knowing our father came here at an young age and was slightly more verbal in his mother's tongue, it could be assumed as much. " as for our mother's last name . . . i'm afraid i know even less of her than of our father. she had passed away when i was young. all i could tell you was that her given name was Riona. whatever her previous surname was, only our late father may have known. "

[unsolicitedadvicecatlady]

Shower thoughts:

Perception does not define objective reality, only the perceiver's experience of it.

Intellectual consistency demands exclusivity in truth.

This Universe is finite and irreducibly complex. It has a beginning. Since it has a beginning, it must have a cause, and it must be an uncaused cause, otherwise there would an infinite regress and that is absurdly illogical and a dishonest rationalization.

[immortalsins]

i've now told my pat (personal academic tutor; supposed to look out for you) twice about how my home environment has impacted different pieces of work i've tried to complete there (an important group project and a whole internship), not asking for help or considerations, just explaining myself when necessary. he's ignored both emails and this faculty is acting surprised at their legal problems surrounding sui/cide prevention

[kindacreepy-kindaugly]

For the rare coherent, rational thought: it's pretty unlikely this is actually about him or even me. He's sure as fuck not helpin but it's just a smokescreen.

[juneiper-art]

I just rewatched Contact and that film is so sacred and profane coded to me. I could write so much about it. Alas. Whomst has the time.