#discourse adjacent sorry

[mirefireflies]

i hate this account i’m sorry. duh he abused her so did louis so did armand and relationships can be complicated delainey herself said that claudia looked to lestat in this moment because he’s her father and she was scared.

[sunflowrdyke]

i dont caaaare if you dont like the word “queer.” thats your own personal thing. filter it if seeing it upsets you. but the MOMENT you tell me i cant call myself queer, the MOMENT you tell me i cannot call other queer people queer, you are out of line. if you dont use the label, i am not talking about you when i say “queer people”!!!!! you are not included in “queers” if you do not identify as queer!!!!! we will NOT be erasing the identity of myself and thousands of other people just because you dont like it.

[inchidentally]

okay prefacing that this is only referring to a small but loud part of the community... to follow up on the thing of supposed Lily Z fangirls turning around saying how she's "better than other wags" (????) bc she's "silent and has no public communications and doesn't take up space apart from looking beautiful" (???) (bc apparently we're not even internalizing the misogyny anymore it's just right out there saying a woman should be seen not heard, publicly beautiful but only serve her man and not want attention for herself) but then after praising that she clearly does not want a load of public attention, proceed to freak the fuck out IN. ALL. CAPS. in comments sections everywhere that she appears even in the background and draw attention to a woman who's clearly does not want be in the limelight....

so yea speaking in that vein can the other incredibly obvious fake fangirls of wags please stop using AI beauty filters on these women's pictures and posting them where they can see ?? that is not Lily Z's real jaw or mouth shape, that is not Alex's real nose and that is not Lily H's cheekbones or eye shape. guess what you aren't selling the whole I'm only here for the girls claim when you make it blatantly clear you don't think they're naturally pretty enough and have to run them through digital plastic surgery and yes we can all see how blurred and weirdly smooth it all looks when you do it so I guarantee the women themselves will go 'yikes that's me but... not me'

and reminder that a woman's college degree is not a Barbie accessory nor is it a "selling point" for her boyfriend that's rly disgusting to talk about it that way !!! pls just leave a like on the original photos of wags posted by official accounts if you're unable to inadvertently demean women whenever you post about them (and yes I know a lot of ppl aren't being weird but it's getting way too comfortable in very public spaces !) and also no she doesn't believe you when you claim you hate Oscar and think he's ugly and stupid and wish she'd just... randomly walk where he is but somehow not have him present when how would that work when you never even see her if she's not with Oscar like wtffff are ppl even doing anymore can we calm down and be normal and actually respect women and not treat them like commodities wow

[fourspiceblend]

Man I love Dimitri to death but it will always piss me off how he's allowed to heal during the actual story and become sympathetic to the audience once again while Rhea doesn't get the same privilege even though their stories are basically the same, everyone loves it when the young troubled man gets a redemption arc and gains back everything they lost but when it's an old hag whose trauma isn't easily digestible and who doesn't cry pathetically over being rejected by the player she doesn't get the same privilege and she either unceremoniously dies offscreen or her healing is relegated to an ending story blurb. I love how intsys treats women!!!

[lunaticamic]

“they clearly favour sainz” my man didn’t get the seat for 2025. why would they favour him??? “so he can go and have options for other top teams” (something i read with my fucking eyes on this hellsite) i don’t know how to explain it to you that ferrari doesn’t care😭 it’s not like they owe sainz something. he was faster and he went for the gap. y’all wouldn’t have survived f1 pre 2000

[vitrines]

every day i thank god that i wasn't on here to be annoying back in 2021

[cirrem]

also please please please i need more fanart of non-lifer hermits

like i just posted about how i was looking to watch people like beef and jevin and currently watch zedaph welsknight and hypno and its a pretty barran wasteland.

like, search any of them up on tumblr and tell me, how much of the fanart and posts are about them, and how much is just "i did something for all the hermits" or "they interacted with grian/scar/mumbo and i made fanart"

welsknight is an exception bc helsknight i think and people really like the "good knight vs evil version of himself" sorta dynamic i think. which do whatever you want and yay welsknight fanart! but when was the last time helsknight appeared outside of being a playing card? i know i only watched some of his season 9 stuff before watching s10 consistantly but i feel like theres a lot of focus on very few things

[frogtrenchcoat]

i really cannot take seriously any argument along the lines of "transmascs have male privilege". like, okay, had you said trans men i would consider it quite the overgeneralization but it would be a thing that makes sense to say to an extent. but, transmascs? really? the group that extremely explicitly includes people that are not men? that extremely explicitly includes people that do not want to be seen as men? that extremely explicitly includes people that do not transition in ways that will make them be seen as men? really? we're being for real? we're having an honest discussion? we know what the words we're using mean?

[solidwater05]

Here's a link: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GFcyHDkW0AA_SFm?format=jpg&name=900x900

It's from NGL

Mandatory 'don't harass anyone in this story' disclaimer

[ID: An image with the header "send me anonymous messages!" and the text "do you know who this guy keter guy (@solidwater05) on Tumblr is? he's been shit talking you for some reason". /End ID]

Alright so. I talking about this with an acquaintance and she tracked down the tweet (link), so this is real

Now, I don't know this person, and I definitely didn't shit talk him or anyone else for that matter.

I have an idea of what's going on but I'm too tired to explain it. It's not really a big deal, just minor internet drama, so don't worry about it

[transmutationisms]

If you have the time and don’t mind answering, what do you think about “body dysmorphia” as a diagnosis? Sorry if that’s too general of a question, but I’m just beginning to dip my toes into anti-psyche stuff, and I thought this topic was at least adjacent. It’s always been my suspicion that “body dysmorphia” is the diagnosis we give when somebody who “shouldn’t be” insecure is insecure anyway, as in a thin person who is insecure about and obsesses over their weight has “body dysmorphia” but if a fat person does the exact same thing it’s just like, well of course you feel that way about your body and obsess about it like that - it’s fat. I don’t know if I’m making sense, but if you’re up to answering, I’d be curious about your thoughts.

it's a bit more complicated than that & body fat / weight concerns are specifically exempted from dsm body dysmorphia as a standalone dx because they're siloed under eating disorders but -- yeah in general the concept of dysmorphia is conceptually flawed by the fact it's an individual psychological complex and therefore can never really grapple with the relationship between how one sees oneself and how one is perceived socially. eg like the bdd dx specifies the imagined flaw is not noticeable to others or appears insignificant to them. which means essentially the psychiatrist is deciding what constitutes such ugliness that distress over it is normal and expected, versus what constitutes a pathological response to a non-aberrant appearance. also even the way i'm talking about it here is insufficient because of course discourses of beauty are more complex than one designation of ingroup/outgroup, and the way people respond varies and affects the social reactions dialectically etc etc. mess but yeah diagnostic concept inextricably tied to the normal appearance category. assigned hot or not at psychiatry

[gudvina]

one of the things i hate most about thg as a whole (og trilogy, the prequels) is that sc never NEVER confirms or denies the ethnic background of her characters, not even in her interviews, and this leads to all this fandom discourse and civil wars about district 12 population and now the covey. “the seam is made of poc” “the coveys are meant to be romani” yes okay, but what the author meant with her characters descriptions? why she never answers this questions? and most important: did she really wrote this characters to be poc or she just chose to let the fandom decide for her? because we're in 2025 now, so what's stopping her. the movieverse, where almost everyone is white? i'm sorry, but i'll never fully buy into the notion that she wrote the characters to be poc as a woc myself. yeah, i can see some evidence in the text, but it's not enough (to me). katniss mentions that they're from appalachia and haymitch tells us he's from the mountains but never acknowledges his appearance, not even once he mentions his black hair, “olive skin” and grey eyes. same as lenore dove .. and mind you, i've already seen some fans declaring that whitney peak has her looks. and i'm like: where? where in the text does sc describe her as a black woman? because all i can recall of lenore dove's physical description is haymitch telling us that she has some red in her hair. that's all. and yeah i'm not saying that i'm against peak or unsatisfied with her casting, but sc could have done something great and give us the ethnic background of lenore dove; maysilee, after all, has been described as white both in cf and sotr. and i wanted her to give us some undeniable proof because when i think about the covey i don't see them as romani, but as hippies, the ones from the 60s and 70s (and we could talk about romani representation and how it's done by authors that are not romani and what really is a good representation of them but that's another whole discourse to have) and for the seam .. fans from appalachia says they're melungeon coded and that could mean a lot of different backgrounds and looks and also features because melungeon people are basically a mixed ethnic group with native, black and white ancestry. so who's gonna win the civil wars? apparently no one, because author's too coward to acknowledge race and the meaning she gave it in the books with merchant people being blonde and white and seam people being .. probably poc? and also. why and how come has district 12 come to this racial parting? guess we'll never know!

I do agree with all of this!!!

Now, I think the intention Suzanne Collins had behind the books was to make a commentary that was adaptable to other contexts other than the strictly American one, even though- of course- her book being based in America does not help this. The original trilogy does have multiple physical descriptions that tells us what the characters look like. In fact, I'd dare say that during the three books Suzanne Collins' writing of characters is fairly descriptive; not only does she tell us their looks "bright, dark eyes and satiny brown skin" (Rue) , but also their stature, or their body type (Peeta's stocky build).

In Catching Fire Katniss gives us this description of Haymitch: dark curly hair, grey eyes, strong and "a looker".

But as you have said she has never been brave enough to specify their ethnic/racial background beyond these ambiguous descriptors.

Sunrise on the Reaping, though, is intentionally vaguer. We don't get a single cameo from District 11's Victors, even though it would have been completely justified by what was previously established of Haymitch's character, but the only characters that are afforded an actual physical description seem to be Maysilee and Louella/LouLou. It's true that we already do have a physical description of young Haymitch, but Suzanne Collins omitting Haymitch's looks from the book feels a way to make the character more adjacent to the movie portrayal, and while I did enjoy WH's portrayal of Haymitch I won't lie when I say that the casting of Sunrise on the Reaping upset me very badly.

I think that the Covey problem stems mostly from the fact that, unfortunately, Suzanne Collins has no idea what to do with them. They are based on barebones stereotypes about Rromani people, but otherwise we don't see their culture in its entirety because we never get to see it from the point of view of someone who is actually Covey. The only descriptions of the Covey we get are from outsiders who interact with Covey girls (Snow and Haymitch), and most of these descriptions are... limited, at best.

I feel that the choice of casting Lenore Dove as black, despite the lack of physical descriptions about her apart from her auburn hair, was a way for both Lionsgate and Suzanne Collins to raise their hands in defense to what they knew would be the casting criticism. As far as we know about her character, Lenore Dove's actress could have had a perfectly irish look and it would have still been accurate to the book as long as she had red hair. The retconning of Haymitch's look, who in Catching Fire had been given a more detailed physical description, was already in the plans during the books' writing.

I feel like all of these problems are only accentuated from Suzanne Collins writing new installments, and never truly sticking with a clear vision of anything. And, if Sunrise on the Reaping is going to be followed by others, I am sure the vision is going to get further blurred. The Hunger Games trilogy is a very good series of novel, and its merits and flows balance each other out. TBOSBAS was also a very good installment, though not as balanced as the trilogy. I fear that, with Sunrise on the Reaping, we are seeing the start of the end for the serie as we have always conceived it.

[rookflower]

alsooo on ivypool again, bc twitter is discoursing the "my child is deader than yours" line right now, I wanna clarify that that mindset is simultaneously an understandable and fairly realistic grief response adjacent to experiences that I'm sure a lot of real people have, while also being an objectively unfair and cruel thing to say to someone else. It's very in character and it's nuanced and I would love it for the drama if not for the fact that being unfair to dovewing is like, one of ivypool's biggest character traits and not one the series tends to keep her in check for literally ever. im seeing people say things like "logically here ivypool is totally correct though" or acting like this is some sort of epic own and im sorry im pretty sure you can acknowledge this one in-universe as a byproduct of grief that shouldn't be outright demonised and also as an interesting effect of what death and grief is like culturally within the warrior cats universe while also not actually defending it in any capacity or acting like dovewing deserves to just suck it up lol

[aliusfrater]

(TW incest, rape and SPN discourse) Feel free to ignore this ask if it makes you uncomfortable. But what’s your thoughts on the idea of Soulless Sam losing his inhibitions and so giving into his darkest desires, and sexually assaulting Dean (which is how the vampire turning scene is read). I often see this tied to the idea that because of the incestuous deal and Azazel’s blood, Sam’s tainted and has this inherent darkness, specifically playing around the idea Sam’s sexuality is dark and perverse, and he harbours these feelings towards Dean and desires to assault him but feels shame and guilt for it. But as Soulless Sam he doesn’t. This reading always felt a little weird and uncomfortable to me but I couldn’t put into words why

okay first and foremost, fundamentals: i'm always going to dislike interpretations of canon that involve anything adjacent to ideas that 'because of the incestuous deal and azazel's blood, sam's tainted and has this inherent darkness' because much of my own interpretation of canon surrounds the idea of breaking down the hunting dichotomy of monstrosity, us vs them/innocent or hunter vs monster that subscribes to the idea of 'inherent evil' or 'unknowable darkness' as the imaginary dichotomy that it is and sam as the original monstrous character of the narrative that represents both 1) the inherent falseness of said dichotomy and 2) how the structures (patriarchal, familial, hunting, abuse etc.) surrounding this dichotomy are fundamentally rotting and are, themselves, the perpetrators of power dynamics that promote the same violence they allege to want to put an end to through the motivations and actions of his character and characters who mirror him. to think of sam as having any kind of inherent monstrosity rather than as a victim to a (quadfold, because samuel, mary, and john were victims here as well) violation of autonomy, or even within the context of sam as a victim, is to uncritically subscribe to this false hunting dichotomy that gets disproven over and over again within canon with sam at the centre (then mirrored within other characters as well) of how this hunting ideal both initially crumbles but reinforces itself. to be frank, sam's motivations are pretty transparently laid out within the arcs that he uses his monstrosity as agency (seasons two, four, six and eight) and the exploration of his motivations and actions in conjunction with other characters ideas and ideals about him as well as how they clash/contrast is majorly important to the falseness of the dichotomy. the usage of the word 'tainted' especially tickles me—this perspective is so unsubtle about its roots in purity culture and how it connects to the us vs them dichotomy, 'us' as the innocent to be protected and the noble/righteous knight that does the protecting. i'm sorry but that's just dipping your toes in the same usamerican fascism that's evident in the show. unfortunately that's not picked up, i guess. anyway the uncritical subscription to this dichotomy also results in the same thought and emotional reaction criminalisation to abuse (in sam's case, largely perpetual autonomy violation) that the narrative utilises within dialogue or filmic/cinematographic techniques within attempts to attribute sam to some kind of unknowable evil that runs in stark contrast to what the same narrative portrays sam as reacting to and what his motivation and literal actions were within these agencies. the dichotomy of monstrosity is also, an entirely unsubtle yet unexplored mirroring of actual bigotry—sam's character easily becomes an allegory for queerness, for brown people (in the context of supernatural as post-9/11 usamerican reactionary media), for other people of colour, Othered people within specific corners of societies, etc. i'm always going to view sam's character from outside of this box.

second of all, 1) this idea sounds like it's coming from a place of interpreting the show through a perspective that intends on finding aspects of canon that align with an idea of sam and dean as a ship which is something i don't like doing because it often hinges on omitting singular explorations of characters and their respective relationships with people within the way that's explored within canon in favour of what is not a canonical relationship/a cononically explored aspect of a relationship. soulless!sam's sexuality and how it differs from sam's is just as canonically explored as sam's motivations about his letting dean get turned and manipulating him about it through a lack of information. the differences between soulless!sam and sam's ideas of their sexuality is so fundamentally different and contrasting due to the 'lacking in inhibitions' factor that it becomes part of soulless!sam's monstrosity which does amount to the deciding of his (functional) execution but the way in which it works is already laid out—it fundamentally includes an aspect of satisfaction that lines up with soulless!sam's Task To Be Conquered/Completed + Self Preservation view of the world and himself. there's the misogynistic aspect/belief of Getting The Girl and/or pleasing her as an accomplishment and, further, sex as pleasure, release, and/or convenience (6.03, 6.09, 6.13, and later mentioned in 7.19) regardless of the contextual relationship between sam and his sexual partner or even consideration for the partner themselves (outside of the sex of course). sam's idea of sex is loaded with both implications of autonomy and while there’s the aspect of what He (believes is his fault) Has Done, as the interpretation seems to imply wrt how it frames the way his shame and guilt complexes work¹, but because what's been done to him and the resulting fates of the people he's had sexual relationships with (sam does believe these deaths are completely his fault and they’re fundamental to his guilt and shame complexes). there's that fundamental difference. while soulless!sam and sam are aspects if the same identity, and have the same memories and abilities—their ideas of themselves, the world around them and their values are drastically changed by a fundamental difference within their metaphysical being—the literal lack of a soul—and it presents within their differences in agencies and where they prioritise those agencies. soulless!sam’s concern was less so his brother and more so the completion of The Job and therefore the usage of his brother as the opportunity presented itself became a viable option, which is something sam with a soul would not have, and is shown to not have (3.15), executed without dean's consent. i'm just checking but we all saw the scene happen, right? sam and dean were working together, they split up, sam got there as it was happening and didn't attempt to stop it.²

2) this interpretation is just also, plainly, inconsistent with sam's character and how he changes as soulless!sam. getting off tangent but i’m poking hole here: even within the assumption of the narrative's dichotomy of monstrosity and how it manifests within sam's sexuality, there's been no expressions of these factors of his sexuality within the actual arcs that related to the usage of his abilities within his agency. his relationship with ruby Could Have worked here if not only for the fact that it represents the further extension of azazel's deed as an autonomy violation within the abusive dynamics of their relationship, down to the fact that a) she raped him and b) twas without his being under the influence of demon blood as well as the idea that their abusive dynamics perpetuates, within sam's perspective, beyond filling dean's role within his life during his grief. if sam's 'darkness' is inherent i don't think the expression of it within his sexuality would only be evident within the singular instance of his monstrosity that is unrelated to the demon blood. further connecting the idea of sam's autonomy violation as a baby to the idea of an inherent monstrosity that manifests within his sexuality then within this same idea of applying azazel's blood as a childhood sexual assault allegory, victims of csa do not inherently inhibit a sexuality that is dark and perverse as a result of what had happened to them. anyway, soulless!sam has been seen to take initiative before both on his own behalf either personally or to serve a hunt (and will be seen doing so well past his time in 6.22) as well as in his sexual relationships; there's the idea presented here that sam wants to assault dean and that the evidence is within the fact that soulless!sam, who has less inhibition than sam, lets dean get assaulted by someone else through nonaction, which just isn't canonically consistent with how soulless!sam's agency works. i think that if sam truly and deeply had a desire to rape dean and he was within a position where he lacked the moral compass³, shame, and guilt that we're assuming is the rasson for which he has not with a soul, he would have quite literally done so or at the very least initiated it himself rather taking advantage of dean being turned into a vampire as it happened. in 6.05, soulless!sam didn't set that up, he didn't time anything perfectly just so that he could get his rocks off at... watching dean be metaphorically raped when he indeed really wanted to do that ?? ²he took advantage of the situation as it happened and his reaction ties back to the idea of dean's violation + The Job as a Task To Be Solved. supernatural is also a show that loves mirrored and foiled circumstances/characters; if there was an intent to explore soulless!sam’s character as harbouring those feelings about dean then i think that there would've been a circumstance directly or indirectly involving soulless!sam, or maybe even sam after his ressurection, that narratively mirrored dean's forceful ingesting of vampire blood as metaphorical rape that places sam within the role of the abuser. back to the point, i do think the boundary crossing aspect of sam literally watching it happen and using its result is the point and ultimately a part of the gothic horror framing of the show and their relationship, but i just don't think the aspect of it being what sam 'secretly desires' is canonically supported but it does comes from an incredibly shallow or straight up noncanon assessment of soulless!sam’s character, intentions, and motivations for the purpose of (and this circles back to point numero uno) placing him within a specific role within a shipping interpretation of sam and sam and dean's relationship despite them literally being laid out for you in the show both within dialogue and action.

the thing about this interpretation is that it could be really interesting to me, especially regarding the mention of azazel's deal as 'incestuous'. i'm generally a fan of interpreting azazel feeding sam his blood + other aspects of the way it's narratively framed both regarding the inital event as well as how it perpetuated through sam's life—especially regarding azazel and john as foiled patriarchs and how the existence of the dichotomy of monstrosity within the hunting as existing synonymously with the winchester familial dynamic and how what hunting meant to sam within his childhood and how that itself is also framed by the narrative—as child sexual assault and the idea of sam allowing dean to have his own autonomy violated, despite not making the decision himself but ultimately indeed weaponsing his nonaction and omitting information (another instance that breaks the dichotomy btw. dean is a victim and he is still quite simply treated as dean both to be saved and as the saviour (which i'm not mentioning to negate him as a victim but the framing of his monstrosity is important to me)—in stark contrast, sam's identity is compartmentalised into the monstrous soulless!sam vs the sammy that needs to be saved, which is exactly what the interpretation you've described also does) could have been seen as a perpetuation of the abuse he was subjected to, much like how ruby herself as a perpetuation of azazel's autonomy violation and much of her relationship with sam runs concurrently with how sam's relationship with azazel worked—granted that dean is cured by the end of the episode and sam does admit to using dean's violation for the job one episode later. the thing is though that this perspective isn't particularly canon compliant either because, again, we're already privy to sam's what motivations were in 6.05 both in terms of knowing how soulless!sam's ideas of other people have changed with his lack of a soul + how his agency works as well as his literal confession lining up with how the audience knows his agency works.

i don't really know else to convey my ideas without just eventually regurgitating the episode in words.

there's also a hint of an uncritical adoption of dean's and the narrative's dean skew perspective in here somewhere that i can't put my finger on. like the attribution of sam's— the monstrous body—sexuality as something inherently Wrong and inherently having ill intent is very much how sam's sexual endeavours are treated by characters within the show that subscribes to the dichotomy of monstrosity, namely dean, as well as audience members who uncritically adopt his perspective + attribute it to sam's 'inherent (unknowable potential) darkness' (ultimately false ideology ->) despite the linear and canonical events including surrounding sam's character exploration. there's also that aspect of dean's rational canonical distrust of sam that translates into ³dean's re-assumption of authority over sam's autonomy that starts out as a teamwork effort while hunting but quickly snowballs (and soulless!sam lets him until it presents as a threat to his self-preservation)

as well as the careless yet somehow popular audience attribution of dean's facade to sam in an attempt to understand sam's character. there's the application of sam' soullessness outwards and onto aspects of sam's character that are crucial when he Does have a soul and the assumption that soulless!sam is what sam is 'truly like' when despite the obvious missing metaphysical factor that is a lack of a soul. there are other examples of characters without souls on the show and it's very easy to acknowledge how it might change a person. quite frankly i think it's kind of funny that they had sam be the most inherently capable soulless person on the show because even he channeled his 'lack of inhibition' into surefire agency rather than descending into a version of himself completely without agency. tbh the more i think about this answer, the more it becomes that thing where through applying an understanding of dean's character and how dean's character supposedly works to aspects of sam's character, and certain factors, his motivations in particular, are attributed to other factors of his characteristics unfaithfully, thereby flipping the roles of their relationship and woobifying the version of dean that's actually presented to us. like this perspective of sam is impossible to unravel because they have the ingredients but they're putting them together with the wrong combinations.

just quite fundamentally, this version of samdean just isn't canonically compliant which is like fine and cool and fun. if subscribing to the dichotomy of monstrosity within your interpretation of samdean as a ship makes you hard then go right ahead <3 but the pretense of canon compliance is what really irks me as usual

¹hilariously i've never seen this one in a samdean interpretation before. an uncritical adoption of sam's own guilt and shame complexes ?? usually people have the ability to see right through these even if it's not all the way to how dean affects it lol

[littlest-bugz]

intro post

welcome to my blog!!!

My name is BUGZ! I'm a bodily 22 y/o multiply disabled, queer polyfrag DID system! My pronouns are they/he/she, and I prefer masculine or neutral terms :]

This blog serves as my main hub for everything I like and do- art, memes, fandom stuff and more! This blog is really a collection of a bunch of random posts, and for that reason, it's really cluttered! I also will post about DID and CDD adjacent posts!!!

get to know me more below the cut!

[byf also below cut]

before you follow. . .

Our account may not be fully SFW, but we never reblog or post pornographic material! I have a bad swearing problem, struggle with """adult""" issues [such as addiction], and due to my trauma, I have a hard time telling what is socially acceptable in regards for entirely being SFW. It's something I'm working on actively! The most explicit posts you will see are likely surrounding drugs and addiction. I prefer minors do not interact personally, but liking and reblogging is okay!

I do not engage in any sort of discourse. I seriously cannot be bothered, and a lot of discourse is chronically online anyways [sorry, not sorry]. If you really need labels to feel comfortable, I am anti-misinfo and anti-harassment. Anyone is allowed on my blog as long as you don't promote misinfo, harass others, partake in ANY form of bigotry, and are not a gross person [subjective to me].

Following that; I block very liberally! This is the reason I removed my DNI, actually. If I notice you're partaking in spreading misinfo, bigotry, spam me, or anything I just don't like, you go straight to the block chamber! I curate my space for me! Not to mention my old DNI didn't work entirely anyways.

BPD/NPD/HPD/ASPD havers are all welcome on our blog! If u believe in [any disorder] abuse, leave!!

WE ARE PRO-EDUCATED SELF DIAGNOSIS!!!

about us !

As I stated before, I'm a polyfrag DID system! I state this pretty openly due to the fact it affects every aspect of my daily life- even my posting! PLUS I talk about my system a decent amount. On top of that, I also have AvPD, OCPD, OCD, Autism and ADHD! A total mouthful, but you'll see posts centered around these experiences! I also have a physical disability, and I complain about it often.

You can find our frequent fronters on pronouns.cc !! [link]

In terms of my queer Identity. . . We collectively identify as transmasc, bigender, panalterous, omni oriented aroaceflux, and ambiamorous! This is an agreed upon identity the entirety of The Crew and Co. and is essentially for the body itself! Most of the time, I just say I’m queer! Names, pronouns, genders and sexualities all vary from alter to alter individually.

On our page, you will find. . .

Lots of reblogs on random topics and hyperfixations

SOME political content [your warning]

System Content [mostly text posts and half-baked, lazy memes]

Rambling and Yapping

Cat and Bunny posts

Web weaves

Userboxes and Flags

. . . and a ton more!

i have sideblogs!

Wow, I never had thought I would have more than one blog, but I DO. AND IT'S MORE THAN JUST TWO..... Here they are!! :

@sum-silly-bugz -We make Weirdcore and Dreamcore edits!! you can find all of those here

@into-the-bugverse - Writing and Original Character blog! While I reblog my art to this account, this is where it's posted first!!

. . . and probably more to come!

tags!

#important - important posts to us!

#fresh from the insectoids - my original, non-yapping posts,,, may not be very original tho LOL

#the bugz speak- my ramblings on stuff going on my life- can range from goofy things to long and drawn out talking in circles.

#reblog time - My reblog tag!! Everything that gets reblogged should be under this, but I don't always remember.

#you asked we answered - My ask tag! Feel free to send in asks at anytime

#original userboxes/layouts/flags/ect - All of our original content divided into specifics! [ note: they are not all lumped together like that, just putting them all together for the sake of space, you can find most of them tagged in this post ]

#system posting - Our experiences on system hood as well as reblogs and other stuff! Was formerly 'system stuff', and I am notorious for not using this tag

#lps posting - I am/was an avid lps collector!! I reblog fanart and post original content [sometimes,,, but usually text posts]

#cat posting - I reblog a lot of cat pictures and art!! cats r a huge comfort for me

#bunny posting - Same reasoning as cats tbh!!

#writer posting - where I post all the writing content, such as memes and text posts,,, mainly memes, but also resources and ect

#art posting - where I put all the art text posts, especially memes, but also just general art we make

#vent posting - vent posts- block this tag if you aren't interested in seeing my vents!

#the hoard - I hoard and collect deco. If the links don't work for some reason, just click this tag

#sorry for yearning on main - sorry for yearning on main

more tba . . .

links!

deco collection - A hoard of all our deco, which includes stamps, blinkies and userboxes!! WARNING; FLASHING IMAGES, BRIGHT COLORS, AND MORE! PROCEED WITH CAUTION

pronouns.cc - has all of the alters that want to be public for our tumblr specifically. There are less on our website than here, so if you want to know everyone, go here!!

our website - has our frequent fronters, digital diary, art and comms, and more! It is still a WIP but it's to a point where I am comfortable sharing :]

art comms website - two of our hosts are artists and take comms- this is their site! comms are currently open, alwyas including these funky chibi heads

my ko-fi - consider donating to the cause of... me! I'm multiply disabled and unemployed [hopefully not for much longer]. If you like any of my original content and feel inclined to, drop a dollar or two here!

[fancifulplaguerat]

was re-reading your additions to that post about having played classic hd/daniil is bad discourse and since you mentioned it i’d like to ask what are your main issues with his p2 characterization? as someone who also hates it (so far, i am giving him the benefit of the doubt since his own route is not out yet. even as an npc he was so much better in p1 though.)

Tbh it’s mostly my subjective taste; I don’t think Daniil’s character is inherently “bad” in P2, but I am inevitably going to contrast it with PHD Daniil and. Well. Essentially I think Daniil is a caricature of himself in P2 and is less thematically interesting because of it.

Sorry this will be long bc I have many Thoughts and Opinions.

I immediately found P2 Daniil unnecessarily abrasive. Like “I was blessed with a naturally high intelligence,” Patho Classic Daniil would not fucking say that. Or at the very least that would be an inside thought. Plus how he discusses Rubin with Artemy: “Oh, I doubt it. I’m much more cautious than you. And attentive. And heedful. For example, I’ve managed to establish a friendly relationship with Rubin, your so-called friend.” This is just dripping with condescension in the very structure of it. He undermines Artemy’s ability and doubles-down on his presumed superiority, which he punctuates with further assertions that he knows better. Maybe it’s crazed behavior to consider the syntax, but seriously, ‘And attentive. And heedful.’ are more forceful because of the full-stops, like he either A) purposefully spoke in this staccato for emphasis, or B) couldn’t help himself from adding even more ways that his authority outweighs Artemy’s. He also rubs unnecessary salt in the wound by exemplifying his supposed authority via a connection with an individual Artemy has history with; like the ‘so-called friend’ is so dastardly for no reason.

And he KEEPS GOING.

“Allow me to sum up. Rubin told me he’s the only decent doctor in town, but you’re a competent surgeon! I need you alive, healthy, and quiet. Close at hand. Spare me any wild improvisations—I’ll be the one handling the situation. Medicum morbo adhibere. […] [Rubin’s] gone to carry out my orders! From now on, your Rubin does what I tell him to do. He entered my service of his own accord. I suggest that you do the same. It will help everyone.”

This makes me want to choke him the fuck out, he sounds so ungodly arrogant. ‘I need you quiet’? He is treating Artemy like a child at best, a tool at worst, and him suggesting that Artemy fall in line like Rubin grosses me tf out.

I know I’m preaching to the choir, but for the sake of tediously stating my opinion, compare this with some rough equivalents in HD.

First:

Bachelor: Master Rubin, who doesn’t trust me and is concealing something important, has an unusual source of infected tissue. […] You’re closer to him than I am, though; perhaps he’d be willing to share with you the information that he is concealing from me. > Rubin hates me. Bachelor: He absolutely doesn’t. Last time we talked, I described your feats in detail and proved that his suspicions were completely baseless. You’re his hero now, and he’s deeply ashamed of his tantrum.”

Daniil is being a little devious here, ostensibly trying to use Artemy/Rubin’s friendship (?) to get information he wants that Rubin won’t give him. But he acknowledges that Artemy is closer to Rubin and went to bat for him. I find this interesting because it raises questions about his character—what exactly was Daniil’s motivation to clear Artemy’s name? Was it just to this end, or did he personally care because his central character trait is justice? We also know that he hates lies above all else, and it was a lie (injustice) that Artemy committed patricide, so this action could reinforce the centrality of justice/truth to his character. What does the adjacent P2 exchange suggest? That Daniil has a superiority complex? That he is collaborative only in the sense that everyone he deems ‘useful’ should defer to his authority unquestioningly? What theme does it suggest/support in his character? Obviously, not every word a character utters has to have thematic significance, but I’m throwing it out there anyway.

To compare the second part:

“I heard a rumour of a man who is well-equipped to both dissect the dead and gut the living. […] I’m sure that whenever they find him, he will prove to be very helpful indeed. This is, after all, his line of occupation. He’s bound to do a better job than I ever could. As for me, I’ve had enough of that already.”

PHD Daniil recognizes Artemy’s utility like P2 Daniil, but doesn’t treat him like a tool. He outright acknowledges a deficiency in his own ability, though the final sentence expresses frustration which could arguably read as Daniil thinking he is above “that.” I still think (again. this is my arbitrary opinion not like. objective textual analysis) this reads more like snark than smug superiority. And to your NPC point, I think Daniil is at his lowest asshole capacity in the Haruspex Route, which is why the “Daniil is an ass in P2 because it’s Artemy’s perspective” falls flat to me. Not that that isn’t true—it very well could be, given Daniil’s characterization in The Marble Nest.

Also, I feel P2 Daniil aligns more with the Cold Selfish Academic archetype than PHD Daniil, who is pretty willing to work with others. He clearly cares about people, and his connections with them at that. Trust appears critical to him, and honestly he seems to trust people pretty quickly. He mentions “mutual trust” to Victor and Rubin, and then there’s his reaction to Aglaya’s betrayal; it still keeps me pacing my study that IN HIS OWN ROUTE Daniil’s central deciding factor for the Polyhedron’s fate is that Aglaya betrayed him and he is hurt/angry. He is lashing out because she hurt him—that’s the crux of Artemy’s argument in the Cathedral. Aglaya being a liar is also part of the rationale Daniil uses on Artemy in the Haruspex Route in the Polyhedron’s favor. So, his value of trust suggests that he cares about his relationships with others, and expects them to care back. He also generally establishes reciprocity, rather than trying to be the authority, as P2 Daniil.

Quick tangent: I think this apparent importance of trust connects to his central tenet of truth/justice. When an Herb Bride asks him “What makes you think [lies] have to be dark?” he can reply, “Because they replace the true state of affairs with a false one to profit from someone else’s suffering.” He sees lies as inherently malicious bc they involve a person’s suffering, *unjust* suffering at that.

PHD Daniil also often assumes responsibility for others’ safety (trigger-happy episodes aside, but I think those can be relegated to the Daniil Dankovsky Justice Complex), even those who aren’t his nearest&dearest like his Thanatica colleagues. There are two instances I can recall off the cuff where PHD Daniil changes his refusal to do something he considers “beneath” him—acting as Rubin’s ‘errand-boy’ and talking to Griff in the Haruspex Route—explicity because he is told his not doing those actions will result in someone’s harm/death. Likewise his replies to “Take care of [the Utopians], Bachelor. Let them live” are either: “I’ll do everything that’s in my power,” or “Huh, and let the others die, I suppose?” The second particularly suggests an intention to protect everyone possible. I’m not claiming P2 Daniil is a complete misanthrope, but his superior attitude departs from PHD Daniil in a way I personally dislike.

Part of the issue here is simply the difference between how PHD and P2 handle their themes. On that note. If Daniil is able to manipulate time, his character loses what I consider most poignant about him. For instance, his dialogues like “There is always hope,” “Hope lives forever,” are more impactful to me in his PHD characterization because it’s so entwined with PHD’s themes about futility/how endeavoring for the impossible is part of being human. Particularly since Daniil’s PHD victory functionally comes down to the achievement of people who are basically demigods (which nobody talks about but. that’s a whole separate post I might make one day). If Daniil has successfully broken the laws of nature, it just takes some of the resonant aspects out of his character for me.

[thebisexualwreckoning]

Confessions from a fandom insider; or how people will do anything to believe rich white men who pretend to be 'nice guys' over survivors just because said white guy tweeted 'gay rights' or 'women matter'

Aka: a post revealing the reactions of the good omens fandom when the orignal allegations against Neil gaiman came out.

***Edit: someone pointed out to me referring to those who gaiman assaulted as victims emphasizes gaiman's control over them and keeps them in a state of powerlessness and asked me to refer to them as survivors to emphasize their healing instead of keeping them in the same space that they were under gaiman. I will edit the post to reflect the correct language but for clarity's sake and because I believe in holding myself to the same standard I would others, I'm staying accountable for using harmful language and taking note of the fact that I was wrong and am so sorry for referring to these women as victims when they are in fact survivors

***Edit edit because I forgot this is Tumblr: by referring to these women as survivors I don't mean to erase the experience of those who didn't survive or mean to participate in a society that is uncomfortable with allowing people to be victims so that it can pretend we don't need changing on a structural level. No I don't support the idea that a person needs to be a survivor and is required to be resilient or whatever the fuck else for their trauma to be valid. I am still keeping my previous edits however because a. These women survived. That is factually correct. And b. This post is not about those that did not survive but rather about these specific women. So I will use language tailored to these specific women.

Post under cut

I've been a long time member of fandom communities on the internet. So I'm in general familiar with fandom drama and how people react when their favourite authors get exposed as being awful people. I was there when terf lady was exposed and as you can guess, I was there when the allegations against Neil gaiman came out.

Now, I'm not ashamed to admit I was a fan of certain gaiman made media. I enjoyed the adaptations of good omens, sandman, and dead boy detectives but that was mostly it. We ran in the same circles and I reblogged fanart on Tumblr and went about my merry way. So I was adjacent to the gaiman fandom when all this went down. And my god it was hell opening up under their feet. People were denying the allegations, finding strawman reasons for why gaiman couldn't possibly be a predator or have sexually assaulted those women. They were genuinely running smear campaigns.

People were talking about how the reporter is actually a terf and this was all a smear campaign against gaiman by conservatives who wanted to destroy 'the only genuinely non-disingenuous ally the queer community has'. Nobody was talking about why this behaviour might have been exactly the reason scarlett might have gone to a terf in the first place (note: I am not defending terfs. As a trans person I condemn all terfs and this is not in any way meant to be taken as a pro terf post).

There was more discourse about what this meant for good omens s3 rather than how gaiman must have completely ruined the lives of the survivors. it was some of the most unsympathetic self absorbed behaviour I have seen in fandom in all my years in fandom spaces. People were using neurodivergence as an excuse for both why they couldn't give up the material and for gaiman. People called it an anti bdsm campaign (note: this post is NOT anti bdsm or autistic people who don't understand social cues).

For a fandom that had modelled itself after having an accepting and diverse community that most of all supported women's rights, it was surprising to see people so quickly turn against survivors just because it went against their viewpoint of their favourite author. These very same people who would go to bat against amazon for cancelling their favourite show about white gays would not do the same for actual real life breathing women who aren't fictional characters they can read fanfic about.

What's my point with all this? Im talking about a bigger fandom wide trend about forming parasocial relationships with creators of media, especially when they espouse liberal ideology. gaiman's entire shtick was that he was this approachable goofy dad-like figure who openly supported a marginalised community leading many vulnerable people to think that he was that guy in real life. People searching for any form of connection found it when he lovebombed them before revealing his true colours

This doesn't mean we should be forever paranoid of any public figure we come across on the internet but should learn to form firm boundaries as people and fandom with the knowledge that this person could always be revealed to have been bad actually. And we should do this in a way that doesn't shatter our whole worldviews. If giving up his creations is uncomfortable to the point of making you sick then you need to seek out therapy for these parasocial dynamics you form.

Having to rearrange your world view to accept that the persona gaiman created (because at the end of the day interacting with fans is a part of his job, a part he abused, but still a job for which he uses a persona and not the real person he is) is not real or that your favourite show might be cancelled might hurt you but I ask that you explore those feelings in private instead of coming online and yelling about it to the point it overshadows the voices of the victims.

Because this is not normal behaviour. Gaiman sees vulnerable fans as people to exploit and perpetuating fan culture surrounding his work just opens the doors to more people falling prey to his insidious charm. Please, think why you feel the need to defend him instead of the survivors, people we should actually empower.

Because it's always about believing survivors isnt it? Well, at least until it's someone you know (who being cancelled will result in you being sad)