#it doesn't necessarily mean it was ok

[dearloonies]

Do you think that Allen's wish was to die by his own terms

[thedreadvampy]

The thing is I am definitely not happy or chill in the Immediate Sense lately but I am, big picture, so fucking happy with the person I am.

It's like. My brain was made by and for consistent trauma and since that trauma stopped about 5-7 years ago, it is incredible what the amount of resilience and cleverness and flexibility and thoughtfulness I developed to survive can do when it's not being all spent on surviving. like I had a hundred ton weight on me so I had to get REALLY STRONG to stay in the same place and not get 100% crushed, and when that weight came off I found I can use the strength it used to take to stand up and I can leap tall buildings in a single bound.

I was talking to my mum the other day and she said, "you've got the 'fuck it' energy at 30 that most women don't find until their fifties at least" and I'm like yeah man. Imagine how unstoppable I'll be in 20 years.

[nero-neptune]

maybe i’m just easily annoyed (and the news is depressing), but i feel like people on here (or the internet in general lbr) are more willing to criticize/dismiss (even label unrelated things as) “white feminism” (even if it’s bringing up important/relevant issues) than talk about feminism at all. sexism exists in every community you can think of, within every race, ethnicity, social class, religion, nationality, sexuality, what-have-you. it’s easier and more entertaining ig to point out how feminism is lacking or who’s doing feminism “wrong” then attempt to bridge/fill the gaps and actually, Seriously Talk about sexism in detail (and not like it’s some sort of 2nd tier, we’ll circle back to this much later, type of oppression which i Really get the impression of, even within supposedly-progressive spheres) on the regular and not as a series of gotcha posts that get enthusiastically reblogged for a blip in time and then. crickets. like as far as the patriarchy’s concerned (like if i’m looking at this from their perspective), this nitpicking appears very divide-and-conquer. nothing goes anywhere. and things just keep slipping backwards. maybe i’m crazy (maybe i’m way off base), but isn’t feminism meant to help All women, even the ones you dislike? even the ones you hate? like what’s going on here? am i missing something?

[boycum3000]

"well every bi girl I've dated ended up being straight/going back to guys after >:(" omg really ☹️ does this indicate to you at all that maybe ... some self reflection is necessary? do we think that maybe this is a you problem ☹️ ? do we think that maybe this is telling us something not about bi women but... about ourselves ? :((

[leatherbookmark]

oh god okay i understand that maybe not everyone is as indecisive/comfortable with saying "it depends!" as me, but like, i'm sorry, i'm sorry, but i just can't take people who call izzy a villain seriously

[martritzvonmercie]

do you guys want to see my p5 aroace opinions... (everyone says no) okay since you guys insist i'll show you :))

[saintedbythestorm]

Not dad trying to tell me about some big fallout news he heard about from some work colleague 😂 oh what the poor man just subjected himself too.

[shyyren]

Andrew Ryan is bisexual and deeply unaware of this, i know everything though

[wheucto]

[antirepurp]

watching a video while working again and the narrator mentioned that anasui's design changing in the manga was bc of editorial reasons over him being jolyne's designated love interest and heaven forbid that be a woman so whether this is the true reason behind it or it was just araki having fun messing with people im now obsessing over this and lowkey debating of incorporating this into something somehow

[carriesthewind]

So I just finished season 2 of Wondery's Suspect podcast, and if you enjoyed season 1's thoughtfulness and interrogation of the injustice and biases of the criminal legal system, ughhhhh....maybe skip season 2. I'm usually chill about subsequent seasons of podcasts departing pretty far from the original season's premise/presentation, but this was such a refutation of the original season that even though it was technically just (high production-value) true crime drek, I feel honestly betrayed and disguised at the end.

Season 1: educational, nuanced, thoughtful and thought-provoking; takes pains not to demonize anyone involved (even people that it presents as doing/having done incredibly harmful things) and to try to understand their motivations and pov; explores how past/other criminal (even unarguably atrocious) behavior is not sufficient evidence that someone committed a separate criminal offense (and how our human brains and biases will overweigh such "evidence"), and also how weird/unusual/bizarre behavior - behavior that seems bizarre or inexplicable to "normal" people - isn't sufficient either (and the dangers of how our human brains and biases might overweigh such "evidence"; presents contrasting juror viewpoints from a trial that highlights how hard "beyond a reasonable doubt" is to actually apply and what it looks like to wrestle with that standard, while also highlighting how real jurors absolutely do decide based on impermissible biases and assumptions; bluntly and explicitly refuses to provide (or even try to provide) an answer to the viewer about whodonit; and wrestles with how sometimes we can't actually know who committed a horrible offense and get justice for a victim (and their surviving friends and family)

Season 2: standard bog-issue true crime (just with a high-end production value and presentation); cops are great and let's not interrogate at all when we hear them explicitly lying to the Criminal, we've got real clear Good Guys and Bad Guys here; presents a narrative (and uncontested statements from speakers) suggesting that previous criminal/atrocious behavior is 100% evidence that a person probably also did the murder; weird/unusual/bizarre behavior is at minimum justifiably suspicious, and at maximum absolutely evidence that a person did Crime, and there is no need to interrogate our reactions and assumptions; interviews a single juror who (without any pushback or interrogation of her position) presents as unreasonable and unethical the juror who came in with a list of all his (reasonable) doubts and didn't think the prosecution presented a strong case - to the point of stating that he violated his oath/pretrial statements that he could convict based on circumstantial evidence (b/c he wasn't convinced by the particular circumstantial case presented) (meanwhile the interviewed juror was being 100% reasonable and Correct in being convinced he was guilty when she admittedly had no idea why he might have done it until she wrote a bunch of true crime fanfic "figured it out" after the trial); presents a narrative clearly intended to leave the listener with the impression that yay the cops clearly got the right guy, justice has been served, the gross/creepy/abusive dude really was the one who did it; and we all get to sleep at night with the certainty that the world makes narrative sense and justice can be wrapped up in a neat little bow and the only problem is how long it took the system to get there :)

Just, incredibly disappointing.

[chiefmauskateer]

<3

Sometimes I say self loathing things to my therapist and he looks at me dead in the eyes before saying “You fucking moron.” and tbh same

[worldwright]

GWEN BOUCHARD?????

[kuiinncedes]

feel mid abt that interview lol :|

[thedreadvampy]

I mean sure, I can understand this perspective, but I'm not sure whether most people feel less shaken to be thrust into conversations about "self-unaliving" than conversations about "suicide"

and I for one as a survivor would much rather unexpectedly encounter somebody talking about "rape" than somebody talking about how funny it is to have sex with somebody when they don't want to, a normal thing that doesn't need to be named because it's So Normal.

which is to say. this is a post about words. the words are not the distressing thing about the discussion. the distressing thing is the distressing thing about the discussion. sugarcoating, dodging or renaming the distressing thing doesn't make it less distressing but it DOES often make it harder to have a frank discussion about it or address it in serious terms.

[pinch of salt: solid probability from their blog that this person is a Literal 14 Year Old and the perspective from 30 and 14 are very different. I do stand by all the points I'm making but I think this conversation lands a lot different for people at different life stages - there is something to be said for the general issue that the internet has flattened social groups to the degree that I as a 30 year old can make a post to my audience of largely adult millennials that immediately enters the same conversational space as people half my age and still in school. that seems. ungreat. as the primary way we engage in conversation. but I don't have solutions to offer.]

you gotta be able to say "die"

you gotta be able to say "suicide"

you gotta be able to talk about "sex"

they're uncomfortable topics, YEAH for SURE

because LIFE is uncomfortable. Death and suicide and sex and pain are straight up going to happen. not having words for the way it discomforts you doesn't make it more comfortable, it just makes you less able to reach out about it.

even more vital, you gotta be able to say words like "rape", "abuse", "queer" or "racist". cause we fought fucking hard to name those experiences. to identify "rape" as distinct from "sex" and "racism" as distinct from "acceptable behaviour" and "queer" as distinct from "invert"

like the function of communication is not to minimise immediate discomfort. we gotta be able to talk about stuff that's hard or sucks or causes difficult conversations.

[kindacreepy-kindaugly]

I should rewatch the first season of made for love probably