#irresponsability

[kentonralphtoews]

[ckret2]

I'd like to think Bill was projecting in the paragraph on hibernation.

(fun fact! every color in bill's clothes, breakup recovery objects, and furniture were color picked from ford's body! yes bill did get a leather couch the same color as ford's flesh!)

[grillesscheese]

Obvious is obvious but I think people sometimes forget that Stan didn't just ignore any warnings or assume that the world Wouldn't end with the portal he knew it would. There's non stop jokes about him burying gold and stocking up on supplies like brown meat. It's not at all like he didn't know better he was actively preparing to cause the apocalypse and telling people about it 😭

[mxmarsbars]

pride month is temporary clock duo is forever

here’s the goofy ref ^_^

[mostly-natm]

A little continuation!

[ranuunculus]

monument to guilt

[kindykotik]

Joke drawing that got out of hand

[ihatebrainstorm]

messy megop yuri sketches bc this song for some reason keeps reminding me of them (and also bc i've been thinking on revisiting my humanformer designs lmao)

potentially? suggestive stuff below?? (idk if it counts, maybe? doing this just in case lol)

accidentally got so carried away last night that I ended up in Narnia whoops

[dukeofthomas]

"Are the Robins child soldiers" It depends. If the story is super serious and into exploring complex morality and grounded from reality's standards, then yes. If the story is lighthearted, made for children, fluff, etc., then no. If it's somewhere in the middle, it might depend.

If an author wants to write a story seriously delving into the fucked up-ness of children fighting criminals, they can, and if you don't like it, you can read something else.

If an author wants to write a fun story about villains and heroes featuring Robin in a world where that's not an issue, they can, and if you don't like it, you can read something else.

If an author wants to write a serious story but not apply IRL-logic to Robin, they can, and if you don't like it, you can read something else.

[deadmaidclub]

my only complaint about data is i wish he was worse

[alwachart]

Raphael text posts (2/?) Extra inspired by @tellmeallaboutit Knock Knock:

[lucabyte]

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

[embracing-the-ineffable]

Beware clickbait accusations

Hi fandom, here's what happened yesterday: A reporter named Rachel Johnson, who is the sister to Boris Johnson and a big terfy supporter of JK Rowling, released a 4-part true crime podcast featuring two women accusing Neil Gaiman of SA. Yesterday. The day before the UK elections. This post explores the possible political links in more detail.

CW: this post is free of graphic details, but if you follow these links, there may be explicit descriptions of sex, kink, and bdsm, plus mentions of mental illness and suicidal thoughts.

I want to believe and support survivors, and I also want to base my thoughts and actions on facts. I thought the xitter livestream commentary from Not Becky for all 4 episodes was very insightful. There's also a first episode transcript without extra commentary. (Edit: released after I wrote this post: the full audio plus transcripts for all four episodes of the podcast are now available to download here, or you can read all four transcripts in your browser.) I have since concluded (pending more time to think and read and learn, or any new information, of course):

This seems like the worst kind of clickbait, an unjustified mess that will hurt everyone involved (except possibly a few politicians who might benefit somehow, we'll see). The evidence the "reporters" present directly contradicts their accusations. They're counting on people reading headlines and not digging any deeper.

They tried to make something sinister where there was apparently consent and a caring relationship. Have they exploited one or both of these women? S, in particular, is described as vulnerable and with a history of unspecified mental illness. They have all of the message history between S and Neil, and her messages make the sexy stuff between the two of them sound enthusiastically consensual. There are even messages (multiple!) where she specifically says everything was consensual. Here's one:

They're playing horror music in the background to try to make us feel horrified, even as S reassures us that things were consensual. It's emotional manipulation by the reporters.

The times S sounds upset during the interview are the times she talks about Neil leaving her behind or not paying attention to her. Not the times she talks about consent violations. Her stories during the interview are inconsistent, and they contradict her messages with Neil and with others. Maybe we'll get better information from a more reputable news source, or maybe not, I don't know. I also don't know why anyone who cares about her would have advised her to do this interview.

Then they tracked down lots of other women who know/have dated Neil and they all had glowing things to say, except one other lover from 20 years ago, K. She described some bad sex, and then pointed to a time in their 2-year relationship when she felt something wasn't consensual and he thought it was. And after their breakup, they continued to text and flirt, for decades.

This podcast "exposé" feels like explosive clickbait with political ramifications. The evidence here doesn't support a pattern of poor conduct so much as establish Neil as a fellow well-meaning human with imperfect judgement. That doesn't mean the accusations are all made up; intimate partner violence is complicated, and the responsibility for checking in and getting regular enthusiastic consent from partners is very real, especially when kink or bdsm are involved.

I don't know what the right balance is here between supporting survivors, thinking critically, assuming good intentions, and waiting for better information, but I feel confident that this podcast alone is not enough to condemn anyone aside from the irresponsible journalists who inflicted it on the rest of us.

PS/edit: I'm tagging my relevant posts (mostly reblogs) with #ineffable grief, and you can see all of them here.

[triona-tribblescore]

Parenting is hard ok??

OKAY BUT LIKE. LEO DEEEEEFFFINETLY LOST CASEY IN THE CAMP BEFORE-

[mumblesplash]

unfortunately for cleo they accidentally met all of the criteria

[quazies]

the many states of a pootis..