#it doesn't mean the people are inherently prey

[shadesofmauve]

I want to step away from the art-vs-artist side of the Gaiman issue for a bit, and talk about, well, the rest of it. Because those emotions you're feeling would be the same without the art; the art just adds another layer.

Source: I worked with a guy who turned out to be heavily involved in an international, multi-state sex-slavery/trafficking ring.

He was really nice.

Yeah.

It hits like a dumptruck of shit. You don't feel stable in your world anymore. How could someone you interacted with, liked, also be a truly horrible person? How could your judgement be that bad? How can real people, not stylized cartoon bogeymen, be actually doing this shit?

You have to sit with the fact that you couldn't, or probably couldn't, have known. You should have no guilt as part of this horror — but guilt is almost certainly part of that mess you're feeling, because our brains do this associative thing, and somehow "I liked [the version of] the guy [that I knew]", or his creations, becomes "I made a horrible mistake and should feel guilty."

You didn't, loves, you didn't.

We're human, and we can only go by the information we have. And the information we have is only the smallest glimpse into someone else's life.

I didn't work closely with the guy I knew at work, but we chatted. He wasn't just nice; he was one of the only people outside my tiny department who seemed genuinely nice in a workplace that was rapidly becoming incredibly toxic. He loaned me a bike trainer. Occasionally he'd see me at the bus stop and give me a lift home.

Yup. I was a young woman in my twenties and rode in this guy's car. More than once.

When I tell this story that part usually makes people gasp. "You must feel so scared about what could have happened to you!" "You're so lucky nothing happened!"

No, that's not how it worked. I was never in danger. This guy targeted Korean women with little-to-no English who were coerced and powerless. A white, fluent, US citizen coworker wasn't a potential victim. I got to be a person, not prey.

Y'know that little warning bell that goes off, when you're around someone who might be a danger to you? That animal sense that says "Something is off here, watch out"?

Yeah, that doesn't ping if the preferred prey isn't around.

That's what rattled me the most about this. I liked to think of myself as willing to stand up for people with less power than me. I worked with Japanese exchange students in college and put myself bodily between them and creeps, and I sure as hell got that little alarm when some asian-schoolgirl fetishist schmoozed on them. But we were all there.

I had to learn that the alarm won't go off when the hunter isn't hunting. That it's not the solid indicator I might've thought it was. That sometimes this is what the privilege of not being prey does; it completely masks your ability to detect the horrors that are going on.

A lot of people point out that 'people like that' have amazing charisma and ability to lie and manipulate, and that's true. Anyone who's gotten away with this shit for decades is going to be way smoother than the pathetic little hangers-on I dealt with in university. But it's not just that. I seriously, deeply believe that he saw me as a person, and he did not extend personhood to his victims. We didn't have a fake coworker relationship. We had a real one. And just like I don't know the ins-and-outs of most of my coworkers lives, I had no idea that what he did on his down time was perpetrate horrors.

I know this is getting off the topic, but it's so very important. Especially as a message to cis guys: please understand that you won't recognize a creep the way you might think you will. If you're not the preferred prey, the hind-brain alarm won't go off. You have to listen to victims, not your gut feeling that the person seems perfectly nice and normal. It doesn't mean there's never a false accusation, but face the fact that it's usually real, and you don't have enough information to say otherwise.

So, yeah. It fucking sucks. Writing about this twists my insides into tense knots, and it was almost a decade ago. I was never in danger. No one I knew was hurt!

Just countless, powerless women, horrifically abused by someone who was nice to me.

You don't trust your own judgement quite the same way, after. And as utterly shitty as it is, as twisted up and unstead-in-the-world as I felt the day I found out — I don't actually think that's a bad thing.

I think we all need to question our own judgement. It makes us better people.

I don't see villains around every corner just because I knew one, once. But I do own the fact that I can't know, really know, about anyone except those closest to me. They have their own full lives. They'll go from the pinnacles of kindness to the depths of depravity — and I won't know.

It's not a failing. It's just being human. Something to remember before you slap labels on people, before you condemn them or idolize them. Think about how much you can't know, and how flawed our judgement always is.

Grieve for victims, and the feeling of betrayal. But maybe let yourself off the hook, and be a bit slower to skewer others on it.

[renthony]

On "Consuming Content"

Every now and then a post crosses my feed that follows the vein of, "you have to do things other than consume media or else you'll be a dumb person who doesn't know anything about how the real world works and does nothing but pointless fandom stuff."

I hate those posts for three major reasons, not counting the inherent ableism and classism of "you must have approved Smart People hobbies or else you're worthless" rhetoric:

You don't know what people do or talk about outside of what you see on their social media. Responding to fandom communities on a fandom-driven website as if all these people are one-note cardboard cutouts of people is asinine. In many cases this genre of post feels like repackaged 2012 tumblr "not like other girls" and hipster discourse. Yes, yes, you think you're better than everyone else on this website because your hobbies are less mainstream, more morally pure, and have greater intellectual merit, we get it.

What do you even mean by consuming content? As someone who purposely avoids using the phrase "consuming content" because I find the term too vague to be useful, please be more specific. Are you including every single form of media engagement and art enjoyment? Are you just talking about mainstream TV and film? What about novels? Plays and scripts? Nonfiction books and instruction manuals? Do you mean to imply that going to a book club is a worthless non-hobby? Are you including academic reading? Are you including going to the art museum? Going to the theatre, concerts, or other performances? Taped liveshows? Watching sports events on TV? Are you including news media? Are you including YouTube tutorials about how to do various tasks, crafts, or other hobbies? Are you including trade magazines? Are you including industry publications in various fields? What constitutes "content," and what constitutes "consuming" in this discourse? Define it. "Consuming content" is a nothing phrase that people use to mean multiple different things depending on what they, personally, judge as valid media. It's a buzzword at best, and when the same buzzword can be used to describe both "idly scrolling social media" and "reading and discussing a book," it's a meaningless phrase.

As an artist and author, if engaging with media is bad and worthless, am I supposed to conclude that making it is equally worthless? If "consuming content" is a bad, lazy, worthless, fake hobby, what makes creating art a worthwhile pursuit? If I am constantly being told as an artist that engaging with media isn't a worthwhile pursuit in its own right, and the people who want to engage with my art are just brainless fandom losers, what incentive do I have to make that art anymore? Furthermore, to everyone reading this paragraph and thinking, "that's not what content creation is," I refer you to bullet #2: If the phrase "make content" can be used to mean "low-effort posts made to advertise cheap and useless products" as well as "being a novelist" or "getting a gig as a writer on a TV show," it's a meaningless phrase.

None of that is even getting into issues such as the way influencers are preyed on by both brands and targeted harassment from trolls. Influencer culture has major issues, but boiling those issues down to "stupid vapid young people who are too lazy to make real art or get real jobs" (which is a mindset I see frequently online) is unhelpful. So many people pursue influencer deals because they're living in poverty but are skilled at various social media and advertising related tasks, and just like any worker, they're being exploited because they need to eat. Labor rights for influencers are a huge topic that entertainment industry unions have been actively discussing and working toward. (Related links for further info: [x] [x] [x] [x])

"Consuming content is not a hobby" is a worthless statement unless you define what you mean by both "consuming" and "content." Quite frankly, you also need to define "hobby," because if you're putting requirements on what is and isn't allowed to be a "real" hobby, you mostly just seem like you're moving goalposts and defining "worthwhile hobby" as "hobby I, personally, think is good." Use more specific language to articulate your actual problems with the entertainment industry, the art world, influencer culture, or whatever else you're actually upset by.

Media and fandom can involve any number of enriching, satisfying hobbies that take up a perfectly acceptable and healthy space in someone's life. If you aren't into it, go find hobbies you do like and stop policing how other people spend their precious free time in this nightmare hellscape of a world.

[tavtime]

There is something skittering around in my brain tonight about the way that BG3 intends the audience to view mind flayers as individuals vs as a species, and the way that plays out in the player's relationships with Omeluum and the Emperor.

I mean, one of the primary gears upon which the story turns is that when a person becomes illithid, the soul they previously had is destroyed (but not their memories of the person they were). This is presented as an insurmountable wrong - literally socially aberrant - and it certainly is so from both the point of view of the gods concerned with mortal souls, and illithids' mortal prey concerned with keeping their brains in their heads.

The Emperor's storyline takes this to the conclusion that the condition of being soulless is, in and of itself, a complete destruction of the individual; that whatever it was before, the illithid will be invariably manipulative, inherently untrustworthy, and unable to reconcile its needs and desires into peaceful coexistence with non-illithids. It's certainly the conclusion you're intended to draw from Duke Stelmane's story, as well as numerous supporting texts, most notably from the creche.

But then... Omeluum offers the refutation to that. Here he is, leading a peaceful life because he just... wants to. Absent a soul or comprehensible mortal desires to operate as a moral compass, Omeluum still chooses to contribute to the Society of Brilliance. He voluntarily and at personal cost researches alternative food for himself so that he doesn't need to feed on sentient beings. He helps the player character multiple times, despite the fact that doing so carries variable risk with little promise of reward.

So clearly, being illithid in and of itself is not what makes someone manipulative or untrustworthy: it's not a baked-in species trait. The Emporer isn't Like That solely because he's a mind flayer; he's like that because... he's like that. That's who he is as a person. That's what he has become, in his current incarnation, and yes, some of it is certainly due to his transformation (having your soul shredded and your will broken would screw most people up pretty badly, I imagine), but not all of it! If something about his circumstances had been different, maybe he could've been different as well. Maybe his moral compass would have pointed in a similar direction as Omeluum's.

[velvetvexations]

@trans-androgyne made this lovely post that spurred me to have thoughts about how their second point also applied to transfems but I didn't wanna derail theirs so I decided to make my own post.

Transitioning being a pro-feminist move applies to trans women as well. Gender abolitionists want to get rid of gender but in practice mostly seem to want to just go back to not considering it separate from sex and otherwise keeping such clear lines between one or the other* that gender would be the only possible result. Like, the feminist future is one where anyone can undress in front of anyone, not where we recognize that women are weak prey animals that need to be kept separate from their natural predators.

So like, it's said that trans women further the patriarchy because they associate things like the color pink with womanhood. This is an understandable perspective that appears logical on the face of it, but dig deeper. When you say pink is a woman's color, and liking the color pink - to vastly simplify the many things that goes into recognizing a desire to transition - means you must be a girl, the implication is that there is an inherent link between womanhood and the color pink. But you're missing the forest for the trees, because the actual idea at play here is that whether or not you're associated with the color pink is no longer decided for you at birth!

Naturally the counterargument is that plenty of women throughout the world and history is that plenty of women have gotten by without liking the color pink, yet not categorizing themselves as a man. GNC cis women have a long, storied history, and in this modern age are especially prominent. They are not men, or non-binary, simply because they dislike pink.

However, cis women that are gender conforming exist literally everywhere you look. Performing femininity is not at all a trans thing, and radical feminism has had a ton of conflict with cis women who shave their legs, enjoy makeup, and things like that.

But cis women, you might say, have expectations of femininity thrust upon them. Isn't it uniquely bad of trans women to choose to define their womanhood that way?

That might be the case except that a lot of trans women are also GNC as well. Literally if you saw me you'd be like "that's a gender conforming man."** It's not only about separating gender from sex, but rendering it a totally meaningless form of personal expression. That doesn't mean erasing, trivializing, or appropriating anything about cis women, but I think it feels that way to many because they have a hard time getting away from terms like "woman" meaning what it traditionally has in the past. TIRFs*** take a stab at the linguistic evolution, at least, but otherwise still see everything the same way, and will often use words like "male" and "female" to directly refer to sex specifically despite the synonymous associations they have that make trans people still reject that kinna labeling**** even before you get into the actual ideological stuff that most trans people of either assigned sex reject.

But I think you need to have both. I think a gender conforming woman who has a penis goes to show that that gender role is not defined by having a vagina, nor is having a vagina defined by that gender role. Then, on top of that, you have GNC trans and cis women alike doing whatever the fuck, breaking down the idea that a woman is one thing in particular not only regarding sex but also in how they exist in society.

*ignoring for now that even sex isn't a binary; I would love if an intersex person could please add on addressing that if they felt they had anything to add

**until I get my breasts, anyway, after which I'll look like an otherwise gender conforming man with breasts

***distinct from TRFs, TIRFs are the ones who reskin TERF frameworks with trans validating language

****I consider myself male and specifically because of my body, but this is personal to me because my identity is based heavily in a lot of archetypical stuff that doesn't play a factor in the identity of others; one way to view it is that I like to use a certain shade of purple because it was used in a lot of paintings that inspired me, but other people use other shades of purple because they were inspired by different things that come at their self-portrait from a different angle

[genderkoolaid]

Oh my God, now I'm seeing people claim that trans men loosing their titles through the new FIDE regulations and only getting recognition back when detransitioning is good actually, because it affirms their gender. Will this argument never end? They just want to keep trans people from competing and having success, plus reaffirming that girl brains are weaker. Nothing about this is good.

AAAAAAAAAAHGHGHGHHGHGHG

Look taking away trans men's titles is 100% an extension of the patriarchal protectiveness over women as a category. And of the way transphobia views trans people as "really" whatever gender makes it easiest to attack us. Trans men are told they're "really" women because they need to go to a gyno, and then alienated from "women's" health clinics and women's shelters because they're too male.

The secret thing about trans people is that the patriarchy doesn't want any of us to be considered real women as we are. It wants to force transmascs into women's bathrooms and then beat the shit out of them for being trannies preying on women all the same. If you act like the beating-the-shit-out-of-them part is good because its "validating their gender" then you are supporting transphobia. A trans woman getting arrested for public nudity because she isn't wearing a top may be being treated like a woman, but that doesn't mean what's happening is good.

But because people believe that being seen as a man must always be a benefit, it means that even when being seen as a man is actively putting you in danger, they will still say its a benefit because being seen as a man is inherently beneficial. And that's transphobia for you. Its the same thing whether its being said to a transfem or a transmasc.

[cackled0g]

I think a lot of people on here fundamentally misunderstand the TMA/TME dichotomy. TMA or TME isn't a label you are designated based on how you look, it's an identifier of the forms of oppression you face. It's no different to me that using terms like "person with a penis" or "person who can get pregnant."

Do some people use the terms in bad faith? Yes. People can use neutral terms in bad ways. If I say "all people with penises are horrible creeps who prey on others", that's clearly using a neutral term in a bad faith way to invoke a mental image based on a history of bigotry.

But that doesn't mean the term is inherently useless or bad.

[ceasarslegion]

Honestly don't know why people are so grossed out by the idea of things like nuggets and hot dogs being made out of the animal parts we don't usually eat in roasts and such. I mean it's all just meat, just because it's a different part of the animal doesn't mean it's gross. What makes a shoulder haunch or pork belly inherently less "gross" than an ear or a snout? I think I would rather the whole thing be used than just to cut out the parts we consider "choice cuts" and discard the rest. That seems so wasteful to me.

Same with organ meat. There's nothing gross about organ meat imo, it's actually very healthy for you because it's full of all the most dense nutrients in the animal's body. Yeah it has a different texture because it's made of different kinds of muscle and it's not for everyone but there's nothing more gross about eating a liver than there is about eating the muscle. We are truly omnivorous animals and the predatory animal of your body does not know the difference between a beef tongue and a rib rack. It's all prey food to it

[stormsbourne]

The most baffling thing about the Kotaku article, besides spewing out typical Edelstan talking points, is how it thinks Claude wants the "status quo" and has an "us vs them" mindset. I'm sorry, but what?! Have they actually played the game?

it doesn't make any sense for dimitri either, who says time and again that he finds the current system abhorrent and wants to cultivate an era where the strong aren't able to easily prey on the weak who can't defend themselves. the entire point of fe3h is that it's four different takes on what needs fixing in a fucked up world. some of the takes are wrong and some are ill-informed, but every "lead character" of each route (edelgard, claude, dimitri, and rhea) have a different view on what fodlan really needs to become a better place.

and in regards to saying edelgard is the only right one, or even the most right one, I think it's just a western thing to view conquest as inherently productive and I think it's an instinct we should interrogate! not to mention that fire emblem is traditionally about either recovering conquered land or defending your home, eventually taking the fight to the invaders but only because you got invaded first. so crimson flower is trying to tell us something by nature of it being a route where you are doing conquest. you are on the side of the initiator. all of the lords in 3h pull from very distinct archetypes (dimitri is a combination of a classic lord and the swordsman/nobleman with a dark past, your ravens and such; claude is a combination of the wyvern riding noble/prince -- often villainous -- and the wandering/itinerant prince like lewyn or joshua). edelgard pulls from the red emperor, an exclusively villainous archetype very, very strongly and has little else to her.

all of this is also without getting into that japanese game writers are just going to have a very different outlook on this shit than online western leftists in their 20s. I find it happens with a lot of non-american media specifically, where people have a hard time understanding, say, japan's relationship with the aesthetics of christianity or catholicism, because they've got the american viewpoint on those religions and what they mean embedded so deeply that it doesn't occur to them.

anyway I don't know how anyone playing through cf watches dedue Do That on tailtean plains while a dour war march plays, and thinks to themselves, yeah, I'm the good guy here

[l0stfoster]

I wanna know more about the harpies they interest me so deeply ‼️

HARPIES TALK TIME!! They're some of my favorites to think about. I'm gonna re-post the little bits of info about them from the original post ab Cursed here, just so this can be like a little collective master list of Harpy info :D INFO BELOW THE CUT BECAUSE I'VE LEARNED MY LESSON!!! If I add more info about harpies I'll likely edit this post

- All the greaser Harpies look out for one another. It doesn't matter if they're not from the same gang, or if their gangs have tension; you look out for one another. They may necessarily not be each other's flock, but it’s natural for them to stick together. - They flock together as much as they do because a harpy escaped Tulsa once, completely disappeared, and it set all the east side harpies into a panic. They can't leave Tulsa, so it's better to always have a connection to ensure you won't HAVE to leave. - The harpies love to play fight. They will absolutely beat the shit out of each other and then grab lunch as if nothing happened. All of the harpies have bird habits too. Most of them sleep on their stomach because catching your feathers underneath yourself when sitting up hurts. - Gifting culture and flock marking with feathers is a huge thing for them all. Almost all harpies have feathers from other harpies, though the symbolism with those isn't for flock marking and stands more as a general display of loyalty. - All harpies have an inherent aversion/fear of cats since felines are a pretty big predator to birds. Even harpies of birds of prey or the birds you'd traditionally see that go for cats have that built-in instinct to avoid. (Little fun fact, they're not fans of Umbra, and Paul abuses that. He has let Umbra gnaw on Tim's feathers before out of spite) - Not a single harpy can see glass, they're all victims to the DX windows. - Pretty much all of them can enter torpor willingly as well. Some do it more often than others, it's a preference thing. - Most of the harpies can't fly well in rain, it's just difficult in most weather conditions that aren't clear skies. However, bad weather doesn't stop them from trying; it just means there's an increase in broken bones and hurt birds for a day. - All of them can chirp, coo, whistle, copy voices, etc. Certain harpies are better at it, as the kind of bird they are makes it either easier or harder. The Shepards are a good example, being black vultures and all. Vultures don't have voice boxes and usually make low growling sounds instead of other noises. But since the shepherds are harpies and not full birds, they can make normal bird chitters and such but it’s raspy because they’re not really supposed to be able to make those noises. - They're very territorial by nature. - They generally don't eat bird meat for cultural reasons, but every now and then the birds of prey and scavengers do. It's sort of in their nature to be uneasy about it, though, and they're not fond of watching people eat bird meat either. - They all have hollow bones, so they're pretty damn light. - A lot of them affection bite. - One baby harpy gets adopted by pretty much any harpy in the proximity. Two's sister was a victim of every Harpy taking the chance to fly with her, preen her, etc. It's like that motherly thing where moms will whip around if they hear any child yell "mama", only it's that the harpies will be up and arms the second a baby harpy makes a sound. - On that note, though, the babies get bulled (lightly) for their goofy-looking wings. Mostly the ones who look like blended cotton balls as babies. Some baby birds are REALLY ugly. - They have a really good sense of smell and even better eyesight. I would not want one of them hunting me down. - Their talons are hella sharp and their nails usually get sharp as fuck too.

[what-the-actual-wizardry]

Wizards: A Controversy

I acknowledge, full well, that I am going to step on some toes with this one. Some of what I'm about to say will definitely rub people the wrong way. Before I begin, I want to say that I agree wholeheartedly that my stance is uncommon, morally questionable, and faithless. I am not here to question your faith, nor your validity, however- only to express how I have coped with my own. I've said before that I self-identify as a wizard. Not a magician/magickian- ceremony isn't my tallest teacup. Not a witch- the line that determines what makes a witch can get shaky when you examine the claims of influential witchcraft figures. Not a sorcerer- my magic isn't inherently malfeasant. Not a druid- I love nature, but I fear the wild. I am a wizard, which to me, means two things: I am really good at knowing things that other people don't bother to learn; and I live in a world where idea and analogy are inherently tied to matter and action. I have a saying: "Wizards are not good con men- con men are just bad wizards." The reason I say this is because I don't believe in magick. I use the Crowleyan spelling here because for as much as I believe that I can affect the world tangentially, through symbolic words, art, and rituals- I know that's a result of interpretation. I am only using magic because that is what I have decided to acknowledge this practice as. And if I can get consistent results in that mindset, I don't need to look at it any deeper than that- most people will see the results and accept, at least, that "The Wizard Did It Somehow". And that's that. The public doesn't care how Granny Fitz makes her famous apple pie, it's still the best damn pie they've ever tasted. We magic-users all talk in a kind of advanced, unspoken-of code, I've found. Aphorism, analogy, and fable all blend to create this rich landscape of phrases that are all too easy to take literally. Running around the forest with friends to restore dopamine becomes 'a moonlit coven ritual.' An anxiety episode or a deep depression that we cannot explain becomes a 'spiritual attack.' Problem solving or brainstorming with a visual aid becomes 'divination.' Therapy is shadow work. Cleaning and airing out our homes is consecration. Doing arts and crafts to deal with a break up is cord-cutting. Stopping to acknowledge our needs for rest and a warm drink is meditation. Our hopes, ambitions, fears, and loves are gods. (Deity work primer post) It never stops. And just in case you're frothing at the mouth with rage that I would dare reduce your spirituality to this- I don't ever want it to. I don't ever think it should. We live through analogies and ideas, and they have re-enchanted our lives, uplifted our mental and physical health, and improved us as people- all because we give enough to ourselves and spaces that we are able to take back from them when we need to, in the form of comfort, and reminders, and something to do with ourselves when we have nothing else. Please know that I am making this post for the little magi, the reluctant wizards, the beautiful curious enchanters- it is so easy to fall prey to pseudoscience and cult behaviors, and equally easy to dismiss this entire thing as a LARP or a farce because "that's not how the world works." Be reasonable, with yourselves and others, I beg you. Let the magical live alongside the mundane, because the 'us and them' is exhausting for everyone involved. It is magic. It is amazing. It is real, valid, useful, moving, empowering, and beautiful. It is not a substitute for the world around you.

Blessings, with love from this long-winded madman.

[baphometsss]

will the haters' patronisation of solas enjoyers ever end

for some reason people feel like hating a character who starts off with a shitty outlook and then has it challenged and unravelled in the story makes them morally superior. it's purity culture at its finest. we're literally at the point of these people accusing solas enjoyers of being racist/xenophobic/manipulative/abusive/insert whatever hatemongering buzzword they can think of as if it somehow bolsters their argument, when it actually just makes them look childish and willing to reduce very real and painful struggles to a metric in point scoring for petty online squabbles

i have actually seen people accuse critics of the veilguard as a game to nazis. i wish i was joking. like this is the point that we're at and it's so unbelievably dumb it's kind of funny

one of the reasons arguments based on this logic don't really achieve anything is because they frame every single thing around victimhood and a false dichotomy of victim/perpetrator. like t/erfs for example. they're a fringe movement within feminism for a number of reasons but one of the fundamental reasons is that they heavily focus on reinforcing victimhood rather than empowerment. they seek out and prey on traumatised women, take their trauma and twist it into hate by validating victimhood repeatedly until there's nothing else left but piss and vinegar for other people who aren't exactly like them. in fact, this formula is straight out of the radicalisation playbook used by neo-nazis, terrorists, and similar pieces of shit

instead of reinforcing self-actualisation, self-belief, hope, communion with other people, and understanding of the vulnerability inherent to all human beings (the things trauma survivors actually need), they focus on biological essentialism and other claptrap to explain why more segregation and hate is necessary. it makes this messy, complicated world more digestible for people with cognitive distortions that are so extreme. all under the guise of 'women's safety/rights'. it's unsustainable, because at some point we become perpetrators too and this ideology doesn't make room for that. hence why there's truth to phrases like 'scratch a terf, find a racist'. they flatly refuse to acknowledge intersectionality, because that requires accountability for oneself and by the time they're radicalised they can't view themselves as anything other than victim. and once you're radicalised, you can't connect with people who haven't also been radicalised, so it becomes a vicious cycle.

it's something that's so insidious but it's made its way into every part of our lives. you're not perfect. no one is perfect. everyone is a clusterfuck of bullshit mixed with beauty and love and the potential for pretty much unlimited evolution. that's why i love solas. he's an absolute fuck up in so many ways, but he's also a victim of eras-long emotional abuse, he's suicidally depressed, he's a monumental failure, he's a sad wet cat in elven form and he's one of the most interesting characters i've ever seen. i would take that over some morally 'pure' but flat, one-dimensional and boring companions who talk in therapy speak all day long.

but while we're on the topic of 'fixing him'... what exactly is that even supposed to mean? people can't be 'fixed'. all you can do is heal. and love is nourishment in its purest form. lavellan doesn't 'fix him', nor do they try. they try to help him because they love him, but they're not trying to 'fix' him. the use of this phrase only reinforces my belief that people are falling for the radicalisation in online spaces even more, because it screams cognitive distortion. if you play a high approval inky, they're trying to help him grow and learn and understand. it's sad that so much of social justice has become divorced from love when love is the most important aspect of any kind of justice. people hand-wave and piss on love as if its a bad thing. it's not. and it's certainly not a bad thing to love a character who's fucked up, because they're the hardest ones to love, and therefore the ones who need it most.

[disabledtranshellagay]

Intellectually disabled people are allowed to have relationships

My partner is intellectually disabled. She doesn't have the highest support needs, but they are still there. I am both her partner and a kind of parental figure. She is kinky and she wants to kind of mix the two together and that is her active choice, but for the most part I am platonically her parental figure. She is 27 i am 30. She has a history of csa. I am one of the only people she's had that has helped her to genuinely improve her mental health. She is a person. She is allowed to have relationships. I am not inherently predatory for dating her. And I am not a predator. She just has support needs that I can fill. Don't tell me she can only be helped by a therapist, and I shouldn't support her. She is going to therapy. When you see an intellectually disabled person dating someone, don't assume that they are being preyed upon. Actually see if they are and then act. To assume because someone is mentally disabled that that means they cannot have relationships is just abelism. To assume intellectually disabled people are puritan and cannot have kinks, INCLUDING THOSE THAT INVOLVE THEIR DISABILITY is abelism and infantilizing. Intellectually disabled people who have a younger mental age ARE NOT CHILDREN. Look out for them, protect them, care for them, stop them from being preyed upon, but do not overwrite their decisions unless you actually see someone prey upon them.

[yournewlodger]

I think the self-built criminal empire "drag yourself up by the bootstraps" ification of Oswald Cobblepot is indicative of a larger problem with Batman that refuses to address that hey, maybe billionaire politicians who hoard all the wealth with a refusal to relate to or in any way help the less fortunate, are bad maybe. Like of course the Penguin is a self-made criminal immigrant mob boss, because these days you can only be a Batman villain if you are 1.) Mentally Ill or 2.) An Immigrant. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with characters being immigrants. Before you say "how dare you piss on the poor" please understand I'm talking about intent when you see these characters always presented as villains.

And I'm all for reimagining characters for the modern lens, and I fully understand the inherent problematic nature of a character like The Penguin, and maybe I will be Bobo the Fool when The Penguin (the show) comes out, but I think reframing the Penguin as something out of The Godfather severely misses the point. Not only because never more have I wanted superhero media to critique billionaire criminal politicians running for public office (historically, the Penguin's whole bit), but because we don't need the Penguin to be something out of The Godfather. We have someone for that already. And clearly they know that. Because his name is Carmine Falcone.

I think that this notion that the only crime in Gotham City has to be drugs, prostitution, human trafficking, and domestic terrorism severely misunderstands the inherent whimsical nature of superheroes, and historically the Penguin. I mean we are circlejerking into infinity a self-hatred in superhero media. His name isn't even Oswald Cobblepot anymore. When's the last time the Penguin had an umbrella?

And here's the thing. I like Gotham (2014 - 2019). I do. But that universe at least understood that the Penguin is aesthetically ridiculous. Try as they may to present him as a threat, but he will always be a guy who calls himself Penguin.

I do think this problem started with Batman Returns. I'm not here explicitly to critique that version of the Penguin, but I do think it's where we began to lose the plot. Because once again the Penguin is presented as an underdog, a minority, an outcast. And again I ask you to think about intent when the Penguin is a villain and Batman is not. But that movie had Max Shreck to balance it out. What do we have now?

They are so, so allergic to presenting the rich as villains, because they'd be calling themselves out. Because calling the Penguin what he is, a cartoonish portrayal of a wealthy Gilded Age capitalist who preys on the less fortunate to further and further elevate his own wealth, doesn't align with their messaging, which is "billionaires are so awesome, and more importantly, infallible." The Penguin is meant to be an antithesis to Bruce Wayne, who is also generationally wealthy, but most importantly a philanthropist. Bruce Wayne is supposed to be someone who dedicates all he has to making Gotham City a better place, which also includes helping reform Gotham’s villains. But these days we see a man who more and more seems less like a hero, and more like a Penguin. Because if Bruce Wayne cared about Gotham City, really cared, beating every one of his villains to a pulp, just shy of his "no kill" quota, would be less of his focus. I mean how does a man with near unlimited resources allow institutions like Arkham Asylum to exist, let alone send his bad guys there?

And yeah, I know. The answer is the Batman mythos has turned it into The Good Place. His world is too complicated to do any real good. And yes, I know, it mirrors our world too. But why is it that the people who are pointing out that corruption, these We Live In A Society types, the villains? Why are they always the one presented as "insane" for pointing out what's right in front of them? And when's the last time Bruce Wayne did charity work, anyway? Tell me, who are we supposed to be rooting for in the end?

Anyway, the summary is this: The Penguin isn't a Capitalist anymore. The Penguin isn't even a Cobblepot anymore. Who is he? Because he isn't the Fine Feathered Fink I know. And we all know why. And personally, I'm sick of it.

[skrunksthatwunk]

yyh cast pet type headcanons!!

i am thinking about them and i am giving them animals to hang out with. yeag

hiei - falcon

falconeers don't really own their falcons. it takes a long time to build trust with them, and they can fly away at any time. they are wild animals

i think hiei would appreciate that untamed quality, and the speed, sight, and skill of them. i think he'd want a capable animal companion, if any at all

note: kuwabara would be freaked out by the emphasis on competence/functionality as well as the impermanence of it. he views animals as creatures to be protected and cherished, while hiei would rather spend time with something capable, self-sufficient, and useful (stealing this idea from my eikichi fic bc i think im right)

the closer an animal or an animal-owner relationship is to a baby/baby-parent relationship, the further he wants to be from it. it grosses him out a Lot. to him, it's like adopting an adult and then babytalking it

most peer-like relationship with animals

kurama - chia pet lol ferret/rat

i think he'd enjoy small, clever troublemakers

there's some tension inherent with kurama owning any prey animal (i think they sense his foxness), but if he finds one that isn't bothered by it, i think they'd get along just fine

enjoys training them

could keep them in his hair lol

somewhat used to short lifespans relative to his

relates to them and how they feel as animals to some extent, but he's much more likely to take control via a caretaker role than treat them as peers, like hiei

botan - chinchilla/sugar glider

i just think she'd like something soft fluffy and exotic. just seems like it'd suit her :)

pretty strong anti-reptile anti-bug bias. they freak her out

open to birds of a certain flavor. i think she'd like doves and pigeons for their dumb sweetheart-ness

also most likely to get something like a mini pig or a pygmy goat, though i think she would feel quickly overwhelmed by them

kuwabara - cats

obviously. *gestures to canon*

if i had to guess at a reason for it i'd say it's a matter of feeling appreciated. you generally can't get cats to do anything they don't want to do, so that means when they show you love, it's extra special. and i think his perseverence with challenges could help him win over even the most reluctant of cats, as well as his gentleness and unconditional love towards those critters

i think kuwa likes winning animals/people over and feeling chosen and seen

strong preference for very social animals, particularly mammals (so not, like, hermit crabs). i think he'd like dogs too

hates mice, so kurama's rats would be a bit weird for him

not huge on fish or reptiles, but willing/able to admire the coolness of them after freaking out for a bit. not huge on bugs and usually doesn't get over that

yusuke - it's complicated

i hate to say it but i don't think yusuke's really an animal person

HOWEVER. i do see him having a 50-year love-hate relationship with a sassy parrot. idk why i just think he'd argue with a bird

less used to short lifespans relative to him, would probably do better with something that lives longer, i.e. a parrot, while he's adjusting to that reality

bonus points bc he's kind of a bird (puu bird imagery)

though i think he'd appreciate feeling wanted and loved, i don't know that the responsibility of a pet would make him feel grounded and secure (i.e. kuwabara), but more anxious and constricted.

his carefree lifestyle would conflict with high maintenance pets, so he probably avoids them for a long time until he's ready to settle down

i think he likes dogs like he likes kids. they're cool to spend time with, but he's probably not gonna feel ready for them until they get dumped on him. i can see him dogsitting for keiko.

shizuru - cats, but for different reasons

a bit like hiei, i think she appreciates self-sufficiency and independence

not huge on kittens, see above

would really like a very chill very lowkey cat

yukina - hear me out. it's not birds

ok. i know birds are probably everyone's first thought bc of her bird friends at tarukane's, but i have a counter-proposal:

i think yukina loves birds but wouldn't want to trap them. she strikes me more as a feeding-birds-at-the-park type + knows what it's like to be trapped (and resents it)

she would be very willing to take in a wild bird that, due to injury or illness, could not be re-released. i think she'd love that

instead, i propose: hermit crabs and brine shrimp

yes im making her be into sea monkeys

my justifications for this are pretty limited. i mostly just think she'd be really into little guys. and i think she'd have a bit more interest in pets that would be considered weird or boring by others (i.e. cockroaches, beetles, tarantulas), especially if they come from non-icy climates. i can picture her holding everything from an iguana to a maggot with similar enthusiasm. but i think she'd likely start with small aquatic guys

plus, she feels a lot less bad about the trapping thing because they need to be in water to survive. it feels more right to her

anyway i just feel like she'd enjoy aquatic stuff. maybe because it's novel, if the ice world was too cold for them to be accessible

i like to think there's ponds on genkai's property that she could put koi or turtles in

oh dude can you imagine her with a frog terrarium bc i can

likes mammals as well, but fascinated with cold-blooded creatures due to novelty

keiko - hamster/gerbil/dog

i also struggled with her a lot, but i think she'd be a dog person

AND i also think she'd be into those small rodents, i.e. hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs (for smth bigger). maybe she had a few as a kid and never really got bored with them like others did. quite passionate about their value as pets, very upset about how they are treated by broader communities

part of me says she'd want a little dog and part of me says she'd want a huge rowdy dog (a bit like yusuke), so maybe she can have both. as a treat :)

though if i had to place anyone as interested in raising farm animals (as livestock or as pets), it'd be her. idk why but i can see her caring for geese and pigs and stuff. she wouldn't mind the hard and often dirty work of it

genkai - tortoise

i think she'd appreciate a slow-paced, low maintenance kinda guy

long lifespan bonus

it's really easy for me to imagine a big tortoise on her compound just free roaming

or perhaps little turtles in ponds around the property

plus turtles kinda inherently have old lady swag to me

toguro - snake

he's used to things kinda climbing all over him

also appreciates the low maintenance aspect

would probably look at a snake dislocating its jaw to eat something whole and go "would you look at that,, you're pushing your limits to feed yourself,,, for you it's a matter of survival. truly i have much to learn" or some shit

sensui - chickens

uh. i don't have an explanation for this one. i think he and itsuki would raise chickens that's all

i think he would carry them under his arm and he'd like watching them walk around

koenma - dwarf hamsters

just the tiniest little fit-in-your-palm types. makes him feel bigger

i can just imagine one of those wire cages behind him in his office idk vibe checks out

[velvetvexations]

wasg going to send a more coherent ask but it became. this. thanks for listening if you do and have a nice day :)

i really really dont want to assume anything but sincerely a lot of the gender discourse sounds really really fuckin american. like im not trying to say that everyone dismissing t-androphobia is american but it is sincerely kind of breathtaking how many people think bigotry is this kind of inherent brainworm that transcends culture, context, and all physical boundaries

when sometimes it is literally necessary to understand that a lot of this Is just a distribution issue. the world and people's lives are massively narrow and patchy. posts like "you never see x happening" drive me bonkers because literally doesn't mean anything? it's the black swan paradox all again. i feel like it's done me a world of good to realize that i could run around at a speed of 10 mph for the rest of my life and still not be able to see 90% of what people experience and know to be real

also a huge part of this debate leaves me scratching my head because there's this assumption that someone who does not experience some sort of oppression is forever unable to understand such oppression...and then as this idea evolves we get all sorts of fun varieties like "trying to relate to some sort of oppression with your own experiences is presumptuous appropriation" (odd to me because at least as i've been taught sometimes this can be helpful to comfort and connect to people) "doing so means you're jealous of the perceived attention oppressed people get" (this one is silly to me) "everyone different from you can never actually ever be your friend because your oppression is central to your identity and if they don't understand it they will tear you down" (just downright not true, in my experience, though of course, it's also entirely possible that for someone else's experience, it HAS been true.)

i don’t necessarily think that anyone who buys into the tma/tme divide is just someone who has never experienced oppression before, though. honestly, some of the blogs vilest towards transmascs are, from what ive seen, run by people who are struggling or isolated currently. i can’t help but feel like this rhetoric is preying on people who feel alone and perceived as an animal by everyone around them by telling them that this is true, but that this time their isolation can be self-imposed to keep all those enemies out. it all leaves a really fuckin bad taste in my mouth that it especially targets vulnerable people.

(failed coherent ask anon) more rambling idk if this would have fit into one asks’ wordcount. people are bringing up past ace discourse and i agree. almost all of the posts are also phrased in a similar way, just kinda funny to me. anyways, it’s actually a really cowardly maneuver every time. it goes like this: we have determined group A is mathematically less oppressed than the umbrella group we have determined that us, group B, are mathematically oppressed more for a multitude of reasons, we bully and belittle group A bonus steps: find discussions that are naturally happening around the oppression of group A and convince people that these discussions are silencing, proof of jealousy of oppression, proof of some uniting whinyness/cringyness/personality defect of the whole group, or proof of oppression towards group B people react to us bullying and belittling group A no matter how vile the bullying, no matter how harmful the bullying proves to be, no matter how much proof of real oppression group A may provide, you can brush it off because of the main mantra, “group A is not oppressed but group B is.” we can structure every conflict between the two as inherently oppressive because A are always the oppressors, and B are always the oppressed. final step: if anyone from group A calls out the bullying, we can again go to bonus step 4 and use this as proof that A are trying to make themselves out to be oppressed, which is ridiculous, because A are and always have been oppressors it’s such a lazy, automatic argument. ace attorney would eat those chucklefucks up. (i know nothing about ace attorney)

My Ace Attourney fan friend probably agrees lol. Such circular fucking logic.

[pinkpastels113]

I'm holding up my hands like a little kid waiting for candy and am asking for some more vamp!chloe beale headcanons pretty please

PHEW the way i saved this ask for last bc i am READY to give you a lil treat rolo (im so glad there's people also feral for vamp!chloe):

inspired from cheapthrillsbeca's fic(s)

chloe can tell how the person that she's drinking the blood from is feeling. like if they're scared, horny, on cloud nine, etc

chloe can walk in the daylight. "evolution" is the best response HAHA cuz like dude it's the 21st century come on now-

(but maybe she would need like high spf sunscreen or an umbrella or shades or something if she has a beach day or anything like that where she would be in harsh direct sunlight for long periods of time, otherwise she would get vampire sunburn/major headache if not)

she CAN drink human blood and it DOES taste amazing to her but she usually drinks animal blood unless someone specifically requests to be bitten and drank from (but more about this below)

they def (bechloe) have HEAVY make-out sessions/rut when she drinks from beca ADFGHJSK and beca is desperate/horny for it

chloe doesn't need human food to survive. i think it's kind of like. a snack sorta thing for her. like a kitkat. like you cant get full from it but you can enjoy the taste and share the activity (eating human food) with friends and catch up w them

OKAY MY OWN

vampires are inherently sexual and hot. i personally believe that in order for them to "allure" their "prey" they have to have some kind of strong pull of attraction radiating from them, almost magnetic, esp towards people that they also find attractive, so that it makes it easier to... yknow :)

even tho it was mainly for pp spookfest my fic implies that chloe has this. like. hunger on halloween every year for human blood. bc like that line from hocus pocus: "halloween is the one night of the year where the spirits of the dead can return to earth", and like. y'know? the one night of the year where chloe feels particularly inhuman/undead ig. she becomes a tiny bit feral (kind of like the vampire version of hangry for us)

(beca counts the days down till halloween for this reason^^)

her fangs don't exactly retract? or protrude. they just sort of sit there in her mouth. but they extend and become sharper when drinking human blood. or when she wants to. (bc just bc she won't until she gets consent or when it's halloween and she needs it doesn't mean that she doesn't crave it from time to time lmao.) like basically her fangs are just sharper than her surrounding teeth (i have two teeth that are sharper than the others lmao so this is not that farfetched) but it's not super noticeable until you get really close but they will become even pointy-er and longer when she's drinking/thinking about drinking (for those hazbin hotel watchers out there this is the same concept as charlie shifting into demon mode whenever she's super mad, upset, frustrated, and im assuming Excited as well :))

oh also her eyes kind of shine when the whole fang thing happens

havent decided when she's Turned yet but hmm 1970s? during the wars? what do we think yall

super flirty bc "they won't last anyway so might as well as fun while they do" and "i'll outlive them so might as well fill every second with love" kinda thing. but then beca comes alongg teehee

that's it for now!! but open to thinking more about it :33