#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

[lucabyte]

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

[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

[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.

[peace-hunter]

tfone au where OP is created as the last of the primes but way after them, a sparkling born at what were thought to be the last days of the war against the quintessons, the beginning of a new generation of peace after eons of war. a child meant to be loved and raised knowing nothing of war nor sacrifice.

he's kept mostly out of the spotlight by his siblings, who don't wish to expose him to everyone's optics so young, and want to wait until the war is done and over to properly introduce him to their people.

except of course the primes are betrayed and murdered by sentinel, the war is lost and everyone who knows and cared for the truth is either banished or outright killed in order to suppress it.

and the high guard, the ones the primes trusted the most, the ones that were supposed to protect them, the ones who failed in their most important duty, have to make a choice. to take the last prime, their last hope, with them to the surface, a hostile environment where there's little to no supplies and where they'll be hunted down by both sentinel and the quintessons as the biggest threat to their regimen.

or hide him in plain sight. place him where sentinel won't think to look for him. one more sparkling among many. and hope it will be enough to keep him alive. pray to primus that he'll protect his last child long enough for them to come back for him when it's safer (even if most of them have already lost their faith on him when he allowed the rest of his children to be massacred like that)

they almost lose their resolve when they realize they will have to take the little one's cog away in order to make him blend in with the rest of the newborns (and oh do they burn with murderous intent when they see what sentinel has done to their people but it's not the time yet-) but in the end they decide an impaired little prime is better than a dead one.

and so in the chaos of thirteen dead primes and a sudden energon crisis, a little sparkling who very few mechs really knew about and even fewer had seen completely vanishes. and in the depths of iacon a mech in charge of a new batch of newborns scratches their helm in confusion as they realize they must have miscounted the first time.

optimus prime is quietly erased from any official records by sentinel, written off as dead when they find a sparkling's frame mangled beyond recognition after an attack on the base of those rebels that insist on being a thorn on his side. killing the sparkling hadn't been precisely in his plans, he probably could've found some use for it after all, but he's not particularly upset about it either.

and orion pax grows up with an ache on his spark that tells him he's missing something far more important than a t-cog and dreams of gentle and loving hands, cradling him against the frames of mechs he cannot recall the faces of.

[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

[starleska]

psst, hey, fellow selfshippers and lovers of fictional characters!! something i want to share and reassure folks on as a person who gets character crushes super easily: don't be embarrassed by whoever's making your brain light up 🥰💖 i see some lovely folks get really in their head about this. perhaps they've always crushed on a specific kind of character, so when they get one who's a little different, they feel like they can't talk about it. maybe they've touted themselves as having one crush and have been super dedicated that whole time, so feel like it's a betrayal somehow, or makes them less of whichever label (e.g., yume, selfshipper, etc.) they've identified with. i'm here to tell you that's all nonsense!! 💖 this is fandom. you're not an influencer and you don't need to keep up a specific 'brand'!! if you see a character who makes your heart all gushy, don't think up an imaginary critical audience who is going to yell at you for not fixating on the 'right' thing. life's too short to deny yourself happiness 🫂

[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.

[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.

[phantomsofmyformerself]

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.

[impactrueno]

i forgave but i'm never gonna forget how a beetlejuice superfan touted their superfan-ness by saying that only true fans hated BJBJ, then later amended with "jk you can be a true fan, you're just a little confused" and they were referring to me, specifically.

am i confused? i don't feel confused.