#doesn't mean it's true

[ikuneko]

Just because your drawing, writing, sewing, or general crafting/art isn't as good as someone else's, doesn't mean it isn't good. You can still make great art without being the best.

[loo-nuh-tik]

You do realise that at least half of your followers are here for your selfies?

Are you sure? 😅

[mythicalcoolkid]

You don't wish your disability was worse or more visible, you wish your disability was taken seriously. Please stop confusing the two, I guarantee you would not get the support you need JUST by being more severe or more visible. Please listen to visibly disabled people when we tell you it isn't better on our side

[bixels]

this is coming from the position of a student, so don't take my word as gospel, but i want to strongly encourage people to prepare for the coming years and look outward to find communities in real life. this can be big like getting involved in fundraisers or organizations or small like going to poc/queer/art social spaces and talking to people. making friends and connections will help you and others build support networks, something you will need as we enter the new term. i know talking to strangers in real life can be scary, unfamiliar, or difficult (depending on where you live especially) and it may take a lot of compromising and work –– and i don't want to condescend –– but we have to try starting now. this is about your safety and welfare, as well as the most vulnerable people's.

if leftists/progressives/minorities want to survive and beat back what's coming, we need to do our work offline too and take up space. an example of getting involved would be (if you're an artist) reaching out to fundraising organizers and making prints of your artwork to donate for raising funds.

[palominocorn]

[Image description: a screenshot of Buster Baxter, the rabbit from Arthur, edited so that he's saying "you really think writers would do that, just make fictional characters tell lies?" End ID.]

it never fails to surprise me how some people will simply take every single thing in a story at face value and assume that what the characters are saying or doing or thinking must always be true even when all of the context clues are screaming the opposite

[lucabyte]

Perceptive kid, I wonder just how much they pretend not to overhear.

[egophiliac]

still absolutely losing my mind over Lilia

[ilovedthestars]

A thought I’ve been having: While it's important to recognize the long history of many current queer identities (and the even longer history of people who lived outside of the straight, cis, allo “norm”) I think it's also important to remember that a label or identity doesn't have to be old to be, for lack of a better word, real.

This post that i reblogged a little while ago about asexuality and its history in the LGBTQ+ rights movement and before is really good and really important. As i've thought about it more, though, it makes me wonder why we need to prove that our labels have "always existed." In the case of asexuality, that post is pushing back against exclusionists who say that asexuality was “made up on the internet” and is therefore invalid. The post proves that untrue, which is important, because it takes away a tool for exclusionists.

But aromanticism, a label & community with a lot of overlap & solidarity with asexuality, was not a label that existed during Stonewall and the subsequent movement. It was coined a couple decades ago, on internet forums. While the phrasing is dismissive, it would be technically accurate to say that it was “made up on the internet.” To be very clear, I’m not agreeing with the exclusionists here—I’m aromantic myself. What I’m asking is, why does being a relatively recently coined label make it any less real or valid for people to identify with?

I think this emphasis on historical precedent is what leads to some of the attempts to label historical figures with modern terminology. If we can say someone who lived 100 or 1000 years ago was gay, or nonbinary, or asexual, or whatever, then that grants the identity legitimacy. but that's not the terminology they would have used then, and we have no way of knowing how, or if, any historical person's experiences would fit into modern terminology.

There's an element of "the map is not the territory" here, you know? Like this really good post says, labels are social technologies. There's a tendency in the modern Western queer community to act like in the last few decades the "truth" about how genders and orientations work has become more widespread and accepted. But that leaves out all the cultures, both historical and modern, that use a model of gender and sexuality that doesn't map neatly to LGBTQ+ identities but is nonetheless far more nuanced than "there are two genders, man and woman, and everyone is allo and straight." Those systems aren’t any more or less “true” than the system of gay/bi/pan/etc and straight, cis and trans, aro/ace and allo.

I guess what I’m saying is, and please bear with me here, “gay” people have not always existed. “Nonbinary” people have not always existed. “Asexual” people have not always existed. But people who fell in love with and had sex with others of the same gender have always existed. People who would not have identified themselves as either men or women have always existed. People who didn’t prioritize sex (and/or romance) as important parts of their lives have always existed. In the grand scheme of human existence, all our labels are new, and that’s okay. In another hundred or thousand years we’ll have completely different ways of thinking about gender and sexuality, and that’ll be okay too. Our labels can still be meaningful to us and our experiences right now, and that makes them real and important no matter how new they are.

We have a history, and we should not let it be erased. But we don’t need a history for our experiences and ways of describing ourselves to be real, right now.

[jessmalia]

Dear Bonnie, I’m a coward. I should be saying this to your face, not writing this letter, but I know if I do you’ll talk me out of running away from all my problems. You’re gonna make me face a future without Elena and you’re gonna help make me the best man I could possibly be, the same way she did. And I’m absolutely terrified of failing you both. So, I’m leaving. Because I’d rather let you down once, than let you down for the rest of your life. And I hope it’s the happiest life. Because you, Bonnie Bennett, are an amazing woman, a mediocre crossword puzzle player and my best friend. 

With great love and respect, Damon.

[khattikeri]

it's amazing to me that lan xichen isn't gay according to word of god, because what older brother (especially in homophobic xianxia universe china) instantly realizes his little brother is gay and in love just bc he's high strung and irritable lately thanks to a mischievous new boy in his class. it's one thing to tease or jokingly ask if there's a crush involved. it's another to Know.

and because what guy insists on a sworn brotherhood with two other men whose relationship with each other is publicly fraught, unless he really likes them both and is compromising because he knows he can't have them any other way? because a sworn siblinghood relationship is treated similarly (though not exactly) like a family via marriage?

lan xichen you are not slick no sir i know what you are

[fortheloveofexy]

it's a pet peeve of mine when ppl frame Andrew as hating Aaron and being needlessly cruel to him... bc while yes, their relationship is fractured and strained, Andrew genuinely cares about his brother and wants the best for him, he just doesn't know how to show that in a normal way.

like he might not know how to express it in a healthy manner but Andrew LOVES Aaron, like he truly just wants Aaron to be healthy and safe. It's like, his whole Thing. Aaron is one of the most important people in his life. Andrew wants him around. He'd do anything to protect him.

I guarantee Andrew wants to be emotionally close to Aaron too, he just doesn't have the tools to do that and the thought of letting someone in terrifies him. He also has no concept of what a healthy sibling relationship looks like, so he has no frame of reference to work from.

[gayhenrycreel]

we got to talk about this bizarre... pressure to be non binary coming from certain people.

honestly, i think its rooted in exorsexism/enbyphobia, which may seem counterintuitive, but hear me out.

when i came out as a binary guy, i wanted to test what i was comfortable with in gender presentation. i tried on some nail polish, and then my mum tried to say i was non binary... which im not, im a guy.

ive also heard of butches going through the reverse.

certain cis people learned that non binary people exist, and dont even know that its an umbrella term that has no set definition. a seemingly cis masculine guy could use he/him pronouns but not care about gender and so consider himself non binary. but some people dont understand how this is possible.

some cis people think non binary = androgynous or gnc, resulting in attempted allies thinking feminine men and masculine women have to be non binary.

these people of course also are weird about non binary people who are not woman lite. its its own form of exorsexism.

in my experience, certain queer spaces find masculinity to be frightening, and will pressure masculine people to be more androgynous, or even feminine. id guess that theyd probably find too much femininity to be annoying.

gender is a social construct, but no one is obligated to break it. i enjoy masculinity because it feels natural to me. pink is also a social construct, itself being light red, but people can still like pink more than darker reds.

gender is a bit silly, and you can join in if you want. if you don't like it you can opt out.

cis folk trying to be supportive need to understand that sex, gender, and clothes are entirely separate, unless you personally like joining them for yourself and no one else.

[violinsandblood]

why is lestat's turn of events more truthful than louis'?? like, no doubt about it that louis is an unreliable narrator. which he also does admit to himself, he is very aware that he is speaking from his perspective and he doesn't know everything and time does change memories and views of those memories.

but why do so many people in the fandom believe lestat over louis? why is he automatically more reliable and truthful than louis?

[fiyero3305]

I just wanna make sure everyone knows you can headcanon absolutely anything you want post-finale and it wouldn't even require retconning or fixing anything in canon.

Five said they would be wiped from existence, but guess what? His word is not law. He knows almost nothing about Marigold, let alone Daruga or whatever the thing in Jennifer was called. There's no reason to believe that his speculation is true.

Do you wanna believe they reunite in the afterlife? You can! Wanna imagine they're reborn in the new timeline and find themselves pulled to those 8 marigolds blooming under that tree? Perfectly valid.

The writers & showrunner wanted to make this finale feel like it was the unequivocal end and no one could try to continue the story, but they don't have that power.

[bibliophilesince2003]

Narnia Incorrect Quotes (1)

Peter: I have a plan. Susan: We're going to die. Lucy: I believe in you, Peter! Edmund: *leaves*

That's it. That's their dynamic.

[alphataurifan]

if the stars don't align and we can't have logan sargeant in f1 next year, i hope he signs to an indycar team that pays him bank and treats him super well and that he has a successful and happy indycar career