#it’s never my intention to start discourse

[johnsspacesuittight]

I am so conflicted on people using she/her pronouns for gerard, cause like yeah it Feels right, but because he has only ever stated that he’s good with he/they, it is technically misgendering and that’s never okay, like I think they’d probably be okay with it? but since we don’t know it could actually be a really shitty thing to do

[zouisalmightie]

It's not a bad thing you're not hated that's awesome for you but it feels like you're bragging, which feels like bullying to say that maybe it's all in people's head when that's definitely not the case for most women who are autistic, so many of us have all been bullied and unliked since childhood. It's definitely not in our head when there are 100's of instagram/ tik tok and reddit posts about it all made by women who have experienced it. Just comes off exactly how most women have made us feel our entire lives.

okay so i asked a specific question because i have not experienced the same thing that you and apparently other people have experienced and i used myself as a point of reference because my lived experience and understanding is the only thing i can confirm or deny. and i said it with a joking tone because this is tumblr.com and its so not a serious place. what the op said isnt something i have experience the only context that i have to go with is my own.

i very clearly said in my previous anon that i didn’t realize it was a common thing and then i said thanks for the clarification. im not on tik tok. im not on reddit. the only instagram posts i see about autism are black folk talking about how they aren’t accepted/believed to be autistic because of their blackness; not because of their neurodivergence which was not the point of the post i put my tags in. so this experience you’re talking about most autistic women have doesn’t line up to mine nor does it line up to what ive seen in my media and i asked something for clarification. i never said those feelings at times were in anyone’s head but my own! i literally said in my experience ive felt xyz, so i wanted to know what was what. and that’s literally the end of it.

also me saying im liked? that’s not bragging? you’re being in your feelings. those feeling belong to you. and you’re going to feel what you feel and im not going to hold your hand because you want to try and make a problem with my words when i was very clear with what i said. like idk how to be clearer. like it sucks that people have made you feel bad in the past present or future, but i don’t know you, i haven’t said anything like that to you. don’t put words in my mouth. and don’t try to accuse me of bullying when you came to me on anon talking shit.

[catboybiologist]

The year is 2030.

At the Cincinnati stop of her "world tour", Taylor Swift ends her set. As she walks off the stage, she leans into a nearby mic and says "oh by the way, I'm lesbian".

She's still milking a public relationship with a man named Chett Whitesman, so this is met with a combination of cheers and confusion. Immediately, the media mobilizes. They have to intercept her before she gets onto her private jet, and ambush her for an interview. Luckily, this has become much easier these days. Since the release of her 2027 album, "The Carbon Emissions of my Heart", T Swizzle has performed a ritual sacrifice of an endangered species on live camera every time she boards her jet, a #girlboss way of saying that her emotional pain can only be healed by the tortured screams of drowning polar bears.

(Since this practice started, a devoted faction of Swifties have started a carbon negative algae farming commune, with the express intent of negating taytay sweezie's contributions to climate change. Apparently "her tortured soul deserves to pollute without guilt". They haven't even come close to their goals.)

Taytor Twift is intercepted after this ritual, as she's walking up the steps of her plane. When asked what the lesbian statement was about, she nonchalantly says "oh, I thought it was clear that was a joke. Anyways, G T G!" , before biting into the still beating heart of an emperor penguin.

During her flight, discourse on the newly renamed twitter-X-ElonIsExtremelyVirile Corp goes nuclear like it never has been before.

There's a camp of swifties thoroughly convinced that her relationship with Chett is all a beard so that she can still keep touring in the New Christian Republic of Florida, and the interview at the plane was deepfaked.

A different camp of Swifties feels insulted and betrayed that she would be anything less than a paragon of allyship. To them, this is the worst slight the queer community has ever experienced.

A third camp of Swifties insists that she *is* dating Chett, and is also a lesbian. They get insulted that anyone would police Taylor's labels. Comparisons to the Boulder, Colorado shooter are made.

A group of non Swifties tries to point out that everyone is fucking insane and that 'ole taytay regularly tear gases pride rallies to make way for her promenade to stadium venues, and who the fuck cares about this shit and point out that what a billionaire celebrity does for five minutes of PR is not worth your attention or discourse, nor does it warrant harassing other people for the labels *they* use, and isn't it really fucked up that Taylor is making a joke of how people describe their identities? They are promptly doxxed, harassed, and banned.

Bi lesbian discourse is off the charts. Nothing Taylor said has anything to do with it, but it happens anyways.

A lone transsexual who actually goes outside once in a while tweets "hey guys isn't it kinda fucked up that 2.4 billion people have been displaced by mega storms this year that her jet contributes to and is also specifically designed to fly over" and is promptly doxxed and harassed off the platform.

After an exhausting 9 minute plane ride, Tailing Swiffer lands in Columbus for the next performance of her world tour. She unveils a new single that contains the line "ride my horse after dumping him, stepping up onto my SAD dle".

All is forgotten. All is quiet. The Swifties continue as usual, moving on to the next discourse about these lyrics.

[medusas-daughter]

"how dare Sabrina do this album cover in the current political climate" do you not see how getting this outraged at a sexually charged photo is in fact very conservative and a symptom of the current political climate? I've read dirtier things on ao3. Hell I've written dirtier things on ao3. It's really not that scandalous.

"it's the same thing as those ads in the 50s that degraded women she's setting us back decades" she doesn't actually owe us a perfect critical gender theory essay on every album cover but it's also not the same?? The man is faceless she's center stage it's her sexuality on display not his desire. Also, and this is so fucking important, Sabrina is not just consenting she's the author of this. This is has nothing to do with women being forced on all fours to sell a car, this is a woman staging a fantasy with some anonymous body that happens to look male. I don't actually know if she means it a satire or just as a healthy expression of her sexuality and I'm not gonna project my own shit to pretend to know her intentions, but either way if you see it as degrading you're the one degrading her.

"if men enjoy it then she's pandering to them men are gonna enjoy men are gonna use it to degrade us" girl men have been known to "enjoy" anything from animals to babies, are you gonna accuse little girls of pandering to the male gaze? Men have been sexualising and degrading women whether they're covered head to toe or buck ass naked. But what you're saying sounds suspiciously like rape culture, so maybe check your own damn self on that.

"she's been using the lolita aesthetic she was never a feminist" she's been performing in full on lingerie what do you mean lolita? Just because she's short and hot doesn't make her a lolita have any of you actually read lolita??? Lolita is a twelve year old described by Humbert as being skinny boyish looking and her youth and innocence and lack of sexuality is what entices him the most about her. I beg you to stop associating lolita with sensuality and lingerie and bows and pink and to start actually reading books and if you have in fact read the book and fallen for the "nymphet" épitaphe Humbert gave her and ignored literally everything else then you're dumb and you need to stay out of every discourse ever until the end of time.

"if an incel would hang it in his bedroom then you've failed" let me tel you a story from the time a guy I went to school with watched a hijabi woman walk by and told me "I find hijab so sexy cause it's like she's teasing me and wants me to imagine what's underneath it" there's nothing you can do to make men or incels not desire you but you're choosing to attack women for it thinking you're better than that incel when you're literally just repackaging slut shaming.

Following the Sabrina tag and listening o her music means the algorithm is bombarding me with such rancid takes about her now that the general public has decided it's time to knock her down a peg and they're assigning morality to them just disliking her like just say you don't like her and stop listening to her it is that easy but don't use it to perpetuate even more misogyny. It doesn't make you sound smarter it makes you sound like a radfem and I mean that with all disrespect.

[epic-curious]

The thing to understand about Amy Dallon is that she's an incel. You'll make so many mistakes in trying to understand her character unless you start from this lens.

She has:

An abusive home life which encouraged emotional repression and resentment

An inability to change for the better, despite being socially and economically suited to do so (by virtue of being a parahuman)

Most importantly, a strong belief in the just-world hypthesis; in her mind, bad things only happen to unjust being, good things happen to good people, and doing good things regardless of intent/sincerity entitles you to a reward

These are all traits she has common with incels based on how they describe themselves and what they believe. There's this belief in the fandom that her sexually violent behavior came out of nowhere, but I posit that these character flaws, combined with Amy's knowledge that Victoria would never willingly reciprocate her feelings, provide the perfect setup for her to do what she did.

I don't think was an accidental writing decision either, like Taylor's attraction towards women. It really feels like Wildbow purposefully wrote Amy's downfall to parallel stories about "nice guys" who fly into meltdowns or become crazed stalkers after finding out that no, basic decency doesn't entitle the object of your affections to fuck you. Men who, despite real challenges, have the resources to become well-adjusted but refuse because they completely lack an internal locus of control. Just like them, Amy had resources outside of her abusive family in the form of the PRT, who despite their own issues would have moved heaven and Earth to make sure they didn't lose a valuable cape like her. Instead, she continued to hide her deteriorating mental health and continued to harbor feelings she knew wouldn't be reciprocated until she finally messed up like she'd always been meaning to:

"Do you know how many hours I’ve spent awake at night, wishing my powers would just go away, or that some circumstance would come up where I’d make some excusable mistake where they would eventually forgive me, but where I couldn’t visit the hospitals anymore?”

Another commonality with incels and "nice guys"; not wanting to actually get better, but waiting for a reason to let their worst impulses loose.

I also think this was the reason Amy's character drive Wildbow so crazy. Imagine, you write a character whose mental illness and entitlement cause her to rape and mutilate her sister, who has clear parallels to an incel's violent reaction to being rejected. The response by a not insignificant part of the fandom is accusations of bigotry, because they have invented a version of your character in their heads that has all of her identity markers but none of the characterization you wrote. Coincidentally, most of this part of the fandom hasn't read your work to completion, if at all. Some of them even blame the sister for being raped! This isn't helped by the fact that you are a bit homophobic, that you wrote your protagonist to be bisexual but didn't realize it, that you described the sexuality of one of your bisexual characters as "hedonist", that you inexplicably wrote a character who canonically looks butch, is obsessed with your female protagonist, but is somehow straight. Maybe you could have done some of that better, but the fact that your biggest detractors are fans of your incel rapist is confounding to say the least. Combine all this with the inkling suspicion that this discourse wouldn't exist if you had written Amy as a man...yeah, I kinda get why Wildbow went insane about her.

Now, I'm not writing this as some sort of callout for a fictional character. I love evil women and seeing Amy actually lean in to being an incel crashout would have been fun as hell. But I really hate this idea that Amy was a poor little meow meow whose character was assassinated by the author. The pieces are all there, you just understand this character less than Wildbow which is really saying something.

[langernameohnebedeutung]

there's a lot of valid takes on why Gen Z is becoming radicalised at the rate they are - all that misinformation, tiktok, red pill, the pandemic - all have good points. But I think another factor is that even politically, their sense of normalcy is entirely different to the one of prior generations. The spiral of the last 15 years, the way the Overton window has moved, the change of style and tone in political discourse, the normalisation of anti-democratic ideas, the obsession with people's private lives, the topics that are front and centre during elections these days, the changing concept of the respect and dignity expected in a public office (god I sound like a boomer) - all of that was shocking to us.

the three generations of my family, all born and raised in VERY different time periods from one another, we've all just been equally shocked and horrified again and again these last 15 years - not just by what is happening but how it is happening and by what is possible and how easy it is to make a total mockery of the democracy and the rule of law. For all of us, that was a feeling of realising that something we implicitly trusted in to the point that it didn't need talking about ... just falling away. Or proving to always have been an illusion to begin with. To someone who grows up right now, this safety and security has NEVER existed.

But for these kids - the window of their life where they start becoming politically and culturally aware basically coincides with this downward spiral and I think that makes many of them blind or numb to it. I think for many of them, that's just their understanding of how things naturally progress and politics works. That the way previous generations evaluate the current situation - this framework of intentional manipulation and misinformation and radicalisation - is just fair and acceptable behaviour and that of course politicians manipulate the discourse to get what they want and of course it is normal to tell brazen lies and spread panic if that gets you what you want and if you're loyal to the party, you parrot those lines whether you really believe in them or not. (And let's be honest with ourselves - the seed to that has always been there)

And others, who I imagine intellectually know that things are going downhill, are really stuck in this extremely mind-numbing fatalist mindset (climate change is gonna kill us all anyway, haha) which makes you hopeless and desperate. And being hopeless and desperate also makes you vulnerable to all kinds of manipulation and radicalisation - because the offer you a perspective. Or meaning.

If you think about the trad-wife and redpill stuff or generally christian nationalism but also any movement that instrumentalises history with ideological narratives, you notice that their narratives place periods of stability way back in time in periods that match aspects of their idelogy e.g. their fetishisation of the 1950s. Then they come up with some horrible bad evil enemy that destroyed that paradise and created the 'degenerate' misery we live in now. Authoritarians and ideologues and cults have always done this. It's part of constructing the mutual enemy.

Beause this way, they can create their illusion of this kind of mythical, unreachable utopia (the past) that fascists love and attach all kinds of conditions to reaching that - with no pressure for them to ever actually deliver: women staying at home, racial segregation, christian hegemony, eugenics, absolute exclusion of gay and trans identities etc. This doesn't just have the benefit of pushing their politics on a confused youth (though that's a big benefit) - it also helps them hide from young people that these last 15 years, they literally created the chaos that these kids are living in. They sowed this situation and right now, with the radicalisation of the youth, they are reaping the rewards.

And the thing is, we can blame the Tiktok or whatever but I also think it is important that we let younger people know and feel that what's happening right now - is just not normal and not sustainable.

And yes, we need to let go of the naive illusion that "the kid are going to save the world". We should never have had that. But I also don't think a radical heel-turn vilifying all of Gen Z is going to help anyone or do justice to the situation.

[mechanical-sunchild]

Reasonable doubt versus fakeclaiming (or just being a jerk) RE: physical nonhumanity

{Long, no 'tl;dr'}

My first exposure to the general idea of otherkin and therian was through 'antis'. It's easy to paint anti's as people who simply do not like us, or do not like to believe in things outside of a narrow scope of realness. Ineloquent and without any thought into what they're against. They hate us because they think we are 'cringe' and that's that.

"If anti's just tried to understand us, they'd agree with us!"

The fact is, as someone who was in antikin etc circles as a lurker, these anti's do in fact look into otherkinism and therianthropy before they decide they disagree with it. Many do not start discourse about it, but some feel it is their duty to do so either in an hostile and calm manner (which amount to much the same thing, fakeclaiming the entire concept of nonhumanity or even alterhumanity in a broader scope, though the concentration is usually on otherkin and therians) due to the perceived 'dangers' of nonhumanity and how even we must be protected from ourselves or the idea that the illogical must always be corrected or they are helping us in some way etc etc.

I have seen essays - well thought out essays against nonhumanity. Ones that pull upon logic, science, sociology, potential 'dangers' of nonhuman identities as well as events in our community that have been negative or shown dangerous behaviours and mindsets in order to portray their case. This is what got me, because it seemed completely founded in genuine concern and facts. It was especially compelling when against fictionkin, whose existence is still debated amongst some due to the 'fantastical' nature of being something which in this world has been created by another person and therefore 'was never real' etc.

The same essays, with many of the same emotional and logic appealing points, I can now find against physical nonhumanity.

The only difference is that for antis to the general concept of otherkin/therian etc are usually not part of those communities (or closeted and self-hating like I was). The majority of pressure against physical nonhumans is instead being applied by those within the community itself. This hurts a lot more, and some would argue that our feelings don't matter in the grand scope of things. Personally, I feel that the happiness felt by physical nonhumans for embracing that part of our identity is infact invaluable. But I digress.

I think the issue is that we never really sat down as a community and discussed what kind of behaviour is acceptable and not acceptable when it comes to casting reasonable doubt on a new (or newish/usually not talked about) topic and there is little to not reprecussions to being a huge dickhead to anyone who is part of a niche 'out' group which it is currently popular and acceptable to fakeclaim and insult as incorrect and potentially dangerous (for that emotional ploy).

Science and logic can in fact be applied to nonhumanity of any kind, but it gets to a point where using it to completely dispprove the lived experiences of a group is using it as a bludgeoning weapon, not as a tool to better understand a new phenomenom.

Of course it is natural and understandable that one sees claims of others being physically nonhuman and doesn't understand how this can be so. Our physical self is, generally, observable or at least testable (in terms of DNA, which is not visible but can be tested). But if your intention when engaging with 'the discourse' is just to prove without a shadow of a doubt that physical nonhumans are bad eggs -who are not experiencing anything actually real - and therefore should not be included within the community. Even insofar as changing how we define certain things to include them - you are just fakeclaiming and perhaps being a dick about it too. No matter how much you think you are being a decent reasonable person.

I have also observed behaviour from the physical nonhuman community which will, also understandably, cause many to go on guard (a rise in those claiming to be physical shifters for example). Sometimes the way a physical nonhuman might express what they mean or reply in defence to what is or is perceived to be an attack can result in them acting stubborn, illogical and seemingly subversive for the sake of being subversive which rubs some people wrong. Just straight up hostile to even polite questions sometimes, whilst they say things which seem to make absolutely no measurably logical sense even by nonhuman standards and thus would prompt curiousity.

In other words, I'm not saying that physical nonhumans are perfect conversationalists on the topic either! Many of us do not or can not deal with being relentlessly questions and it is much easier to simply get defensive about it or dismiss what others are saying even when they're being polite. With the level of hostility that usually occurs colouring our expectations, the conversations become fights in no time.

Example conversations!

A. "Woof woof I am literally a dog right now! I am literally physically a dog, I literally have paws and a tail rn lol woof arf!" B. "Um you actually can't be physically a dog. A physical dog would not be able to type or post on Tumblr and if someone looked at you they would see a human not a dog. Being a therian means NON-PHYSICAL belief in being an animal, you are either delusional or spreading dangerous p-shifting ideas. How can you possibly have actual paws and a tail when that is impossible? If you don't mean it literally then don't use that word, the word literally and physical have actual meanings which cannot possibly be applied to you right now. You should call it {this} or {that} instead which is more accurate. Failure to agree with me means you exist in an echo chamber and are trying to be more special than other nonhumans." A. "I am physically a dog though, you hater, why are you trying to exclude me? I am biting you with my literal muzzle and teeth and there's nothing you can do about it, you anti. Everyone block this guy they hate physical nonhumans!"

Result: In both of these cases A and B are not opening a good conversation here. B was way too hostile and has clearly already made their mind up that physical nonhumans are unintelligent and incorrect about their identities. The questions therefore are insincere. They are obstinate and therefore just looking for an argument. A in the same way may be tired of being told they aren't what they say they are, and in being provoked to reply has decided to fight fire with fire whilst still maintaining a silly and illogical seeming persona. This gives the impression to B that they are right and B would likely go on to express how 'rude' physical nonhumans are and how 'just being curious and wanting things to make logical sense' got them insulted.

Let's see an alternate version in which A replied differently:

A: "Oh I was mostly being silly in this post! I am physically nonhuman though. I use that term because I/'m {specific physical nonhuman reasoning/origin/belief}. What that means to me is {detailed explanation of what that means} and I experience it like {explanation of how it feels}. Other terms do not accurately describe my experience, so I use the words which do."

They might also say: "I don't really know how/have the spoons to etc explain physical nonhumanity to you, but if you look in the tags you might find something which explains it to you or maybe someone else on this post can - sorry!"

Or some combination. In this case, they're doing their best to explain their side of the story. They shouldn't have to add that they 'know it's not real' or defend themselves against being called delusional or dangerous, but might do so which also might give B more fuel. In fact, B may very well still reply with hostility and continue to rehash what they've said before until A is either equally rude or quits the conversation entirely - both options resulting in B still feeling right.

Alternatively, B could listen to A and even if they don't personally believe what A said, thank them for explaining it and move on possibly checking out what more physical nonhumans are saying to gather a better wider picture of why people identify this way and what it means to them.

A really great conversation might go like this:

A: "Woof woof I am literally a dog right now! I am literally physically a dog, I literally have paws and a tail rn lol woof arf!" B: "I'm genuinely curious because I was always told that being physically your theriotype is impossible and it doesn't seem logical to me, what do you mean when you say you're physically a dog? What does that mean to you? I would like to learn more about physical therians." A: "I'm physically nonhuman because {personal reason going in to as much depth as they please}. There are other reasons too, if you check the tags you'll find a lot of physical nonhumans talking about themselves which might help you understand the wide scope of experiences." B: "Cool, thanks, I'll do that. Can I just ask how this is different from p-shifting which I know has led to-" The conversation could go on a long time, providing that A has the knowledge and energy, with B asking the questions they're more curious about. B might also want to go to other physical nonhumans with their questions to continue establishing a bigger picture. It also could be more polite for B to ask if it's ok to ask questions first before proceeding to do so. B could also make a post asking physical nonhumans if it's okay to ask them some questions. A must also endeavour to take B's questions in good faith until B actually starts being aggressive, and not reply in the defensive immidiately.

The key is that the questioner should be receptive to the topic and not merely trying to dispprove that one can be physically nonhuman. They might have to accept that the term 'physical' is being applied to experiences which also edge on the mental and spiritual but are so wrapped up in the physical for those who experience it that this is their chosen word. The questionee must also accept that not everyone asks questions with tact, that questioning an experience you're unfamiliar with is natural and not hostile by nature and that others will only understand us if we endeavour to explain. In fact, explaining to others and talking amongst ourselves can help solidify and evolve what physical nonhumanity is/is understood to be.

In other words, like how antis may come around to the idea of otherkin and therians etc despite not really understanding or believing us, because they at least understand why and how we experience our identities and that we're actually not harmful to ourselves or others - so can the community start to understand physical nonhumanity. The effort to get there comes from both sides. 'Grilling' is not a good tactic. Polite questioning and leaving someone be if they don't want to be questioned is.

Yes, absolutely cast doubt on anyone saying they can teach others to shapeshift, are shapeshifting themselves (especially if they say they are particularly special for some reason) or are trying to act like physical nonhumans are some elite group better than or different from everyone else.

And yes, absolutely do not just blindly believe anything you hear. Be curious, but learn to ask questions not make accusations. In return, hopefully physical nonhumans will react less defensively as they feel they are yet again just being told that they are not real and perhaps shouldn't talk about their experience because of it.

I'm sure someone else could give a much better example of the difference between reasonable questioning and just being a dick and if you can please do add them here.

Thank you if you got this far.

[tommykinard6]

Indulge me in a little throwback will you?

Now, you all may not know this. But I used to not like Buck. I know, I know. Shocking. First season, I couldn’t stand him. Now, if I watched it back, I might see it from a different lenses. Especially being closer now to his age in the first season. But I truly, could not stand him most of the time.

Also, I think it was the fandom obsessing over him for me. Turned me off before I felt like giving him a chance.

Eddie arrived in season 2 and boom. Favorite character. I adored him. And through him, I started to like Buck more. I felt like he helped bring out the best of Buck. That’s probably why I fell into the Buddie shipping so hard.

I was an avid Buddie shipper for years, until season 7. And y’all, I could write a long post on the problems in that section of the fandom that have existed for years. Very particularly, in fanfics.

But that’s not this post. Maybe another, if you want.

Believe it or not, this isn’t actually a shipping discourse post.

Something has really rubbed me ever so slightly the wrong way since the start of season 8. Now, not to see this hasn’t happened in previous seasons, but it just felt like everyone just didn’t…care about actually listening to Buck.

Even Maddie, the ever loving and listening sister. Feels a bit like she hasn’t had time for him and then also makes a tasteless and sort homophobic joke when he wanted to talk about Tommy and Abby.

Eddie has been crumbling since season 7, and I’ve been hating what they’ve done to his character’s storyline, but to hear him talk to or about Buck sometimes, I wonder if he knows or likes him much.

Buck is lashing out, sure. Saying things he shouldn’t. But this is his family. His family who knows damn well he has bad abandonment issues, who has seen him struggle with his self esteem for years, but they don’t think to look past what he’s saying to the meaning behind it?

I relate to Buck. And I know Buck’s been a favorite of mine now since season 4, but I never realized that I related to him so much. Because I too am used to people thinking they know me more than I know myself. That they know my intentions better than me. I’ve never felt so seen and I’ve never felt so mad to see him getting brushed off by anyone and everyone around him.

I’ve run out of steam, but I’m just gonna say. I need this narrative to start changing. Buck is an adult. Not only that, he’s a 33 year old man who has gone through therapy and life altering realizations about himself and his past to discover the root of his abandonment issues and openly acknowledges that he has them. It doesn’t take any genius to see he lacks some perception of his own worth.

Yet people continue to refuse to give him any grace.

The 118 really pulled together in the last episode as a family. I really need them to pull together to rally for Buck because he’s floundering. And also, someone smack Eddie across the head.

[doberbutts]

What I never understood is like... I thought we all agreed that past trauma doesn't justify abusive behavior, and that intent isn't as important as impact. So when the people who say stuff like "I hate all men" and "All men are trash" try to justify that by saying that they've been traumatized by men, I really can't get behind that reasoning? I mean, I can empathize with wanting to vent about past abuse, but I just don't think it's ever cool to generalize entire groups of people in the process. If a man was abused by his mom and started going off about how much he hates all women, we'd tell him to go to therapy. It's just so blatant to me that they want to avoid seeing the impact their words have on the people around them & they don't want to see how their man-hate interacts with racism, ableism, transphobia, etc etc.

Anyway, thanks a bunch for speaking on this! While I have not read Bell Hooks myself, I agree with all the snippets I've read through Tumblr, and I'll be looking up The Will To Change during my next library visit so I can become officially acquainted with her work. Thank you for leading me in that direction, and thank you for making such thoughtful, informative posts. You're a delight, and I hope you have a lovely week.

I think as well that often times people confuse venting- which is good and even therapeutic- with political and/or actionable discourse.

Person who was attacked, assaulted, and now traumatized by men talking about how they have an inherent distrust of men and at times wish they could live in a world without men is speaking from the darkest place of their fear and is working through their trauma.

Person who then takes these opinions and turns them into actual theory and pushes for this to become the new social norm, however, is no longer venting nor are they acting in a therapeutic manner. This is where it begins to harm people, and thus where it begins to be a problem.

There's been people- feminists, even- a lot smarter than me who have discussed at length the difference between the two. How we need to make space for one, but need to ensure the other is not being used as a bludgeon to harm those who just happen to be in the same demographic.

[joyswonderland1108]

Not Everything Needs Your Western Lens (or Your Loud Opinion)

You know what really pisses me off? People running their mouths online like they’ve been personally blessed with the divine knowledge of the entire K-pop industry, Korean culture, geopolitics, sociology, and Jungkook’s group chat. Like. Be serious.

If it was a cultist flapping their gums, I’d roll my eyes and scroll because we both know their brain has left the galaxy — no brain cells on board. But Jikookers? Some of you? I thought we were smarter than this. I believed we were above this holier-than-thou, chronically-online, context-deprived clownery.

Y’all are out here tweeting like you own the archives of reality. Spoiler: you don’t even own the basics.

You don’t know how things work in Korea. You don’t know who’s connected to who. You don’t understand the culture. You don’t know how K-pop — no, not "pop with Koreans in it," but the K-pop industry — functions. But you sure love westernizing everything with confidence levels unmatched.

I'm still thankful some actually used their brains and, in doubt, decided to stay silent and watch for more context and more information, "I don't know, so i won't jump to conclusions". THANK YOU!!

Let me be clear: Sometimes, things are obvious. Context or not, wrong is wrong. But sometimes? You need the full picture before you open your mouth and start swinging. Not everything is a specific color, especially when viewed through the lens of your extremely limited experience as an international fan who’s barely scratched the surface of the culture you claim to engage with.

I don’t know if it’s because many of you are new ARMY, or if you’ve never even attempted to understand the industry past wevserse posts and bubble messages. But what’s clear is this: You’ve made it impossible to hold any meaningful discourse without someone screaming through their echo chamber, treating their assumptions like facts and their ignorance like gospel.

And you wonder why so many thoughtful, well-informed ARMY have dipped off this hellsite.

It’s not just leaks and rumors. It’s you. The ones who don’t listen. The ones who refuse to learn. The ones who think every issue must bend to your personal moral framework without question.

I had every intention of making a full, well-informative post today. A post explaining how many things worked. I really did. But I’ve seen too much stupidity in too little time, and honestly? I’m not wasting my brain cells trying to talk to people who move like horses with blinders on.

So yeah — I’m pissed. I’m frustrated. I’m exhausted. And I’m done catering to people who don’t even try.

[astrologicaldreamin]

The Duality of Synastry

Stemming from my own personal experiences, there is this very stark and compelling similarity between prominant 4th-7th house synastry and 8th-12th house synastry, which touches upon karmic intent and purpose of the relationship. It is also the reason why I think so many people begin to get swept up into dissociative connections, assuming it is the premise of something entirely else. Which, I have a ton to say about.

Everyone understands or at least has heard of the compel of 8th house synastry and the illusive nature of the 12th house. It creates this profound, cosmic-level idolization and fascination within a connection. It is something that typically starts or begins as an intense spark or form of recognition. The person brings out a side that is contrasting to your usual self because of the weight of the connection. Within the 8th house, it brings out more transformative and destructive/intense qualities and events surrounding your life. You meet your recognition through there. However, within the 12th house, it brings out more unknown yet familiar qualities and events surrounding your life. It reminds me of the poetic imagery of two physical manifestations constantly circling around, but never yet reaching. You meet the recognition through whatever you feel you are seeking or lacking; the longing of something. However, nobody understands that the 4th/7th house creates, in another form, that same "profoundness." As someone who attracted a ton of relationships with 8th house dynamics, I thought I had to build a life of adhering to the occasional destructiveness of those connections. I was used to the upheaval and rebuild, never quite fully being able to encounter another one's space. It isn't always good or bad, but it is almost entirely sacrificial. Meanwhile, 4th and 7th house synastry can be described as walking into a place that has a scent that peaks your interest, making the place feel more welcomed and at home to you, and then leaving to discover that it is because that scent reminds you of something so closely intertwined to your own soul. 4th house synastry mimics the call of comfort and the home dynamics that you were raised upon, touching both the good and bad. Meanwhile, 7th house synastry touches upon the romanticization of those comfort qualities. This can also be good and bad, which is why the 7th house is also linked to open enemies - because the discourse of wanting something so much, of being assembled into the picture of desire, can be so overwhelming and bitter. Therefore, the duality of it all, invites an entirely different reason but all these houses stem at the core of a person.

The trending reason of finding the one is through the words, "when you know, you know." Which, in this case, I think is very valid. There is an innate soul calling, but there are a multitude of soul callings that we do actually experience. In the 8th house, it is in the space of our darkness. In the 12th house, it is in the literal space. In the 4th house, it is our soul. Meanwhile, in the 7th house, it is the accumulation of our soul's desires.

One thing I had to finally come to terms with is that 4th House and 7th House synastry is triggering. In some forms, I may even want to open the argument that it is more so than the 8th and 12th house, because those houses are feeding and bonding with the "ego." Therefore, we feel more at ease despite the instability. Meanwhile, the 4th and 7th house cannot have the ability to feel the ego because it goes beyond surface-level desire and manifestation. It is, entirely, triggering to the core and within equal balance/intensity to yourself. Unfortunately, we are also predominantly an ego-driven society and have been trained to necessitate those responses and needs. Therefore, when encountering the opposite, the 4th/7th house synastry, we feel off-guard and unfiltered and become triggered because we believe we should be a filtered society. It is not feeding or giving into the satisfaction of a higher game or goal - it just is. There is often a hard time of accepting what just is and we either stray away from the predictable, comforting, and peaceful to equate onto a higher need to always pursuing more - the 8th house/12th house.

We turn down or hate on the things that we exactly want, because there is a collective drive to never feeling adequate enough to have or be exactly "it." We "always" have to be in some form, progressing, which is why so many seek the constant movement of those alternative forms of synastry. Depending on who you are, there isn't a right or wrong answer, but simply just an understanding of what you individually are searching for. It is the breakdown of our belief systems that bring us the most peace and space for awareness.

[avelera]

I have seen some discourse going around about how Mel never manipulated jayce. Do you agree? And what are your views considering mel?

I say this because I think that she did kind of manipulate jayce in the beginning but genuinely ended up falling for him in the end. I mean she had to genuinely care and love him if she ended up subconsciously saving him with magic.

I think that a lot of people from what I have seen were pissed at season 2 ep8 when jayce got into the argument with Mel but I thought it was quite understandable that he reacted the way he did especially after what he went through. That being said I still felt bad for mel because she literally lost everything and was ready to open up to him.

Sorry for the ramble

I think a lot of the Mel/Jayce discourse is being done in bad faith right now, mostly by people who are anti-Jayce/Viktor rather than pro Mel/Jayce for whatever reason. I would point out, that canonically Mel and Jayce are not together at the end of the show and they also canonically (in my opinion) break up. So it's fine if you just really like the ship or wish things had gone differently, but it should be acknowledged that any Mel/Jayce fic outside the brief time they're together in the show is as much an AU as any Jayvik fic where they got together earlier.

As for the manipulation, I mean yeah, it canonically happened. There shouldn't be a debate. Jayce calls her out on in it 2.08 and Mel doesn't deny it, she just gives her reasons for why she manipulated him. Ostensibly it was to help him and Hextech too but she absolutely used sex as a tool of persuasion with deliberate intent to use it for those ends, she absolutely flirted with Jayce to ingratiate herself to him, she absolutely called him an investment (though there is a slight plothole on how he knows that, it was never said in his hearing), and even if she poses it to herself as helping him she also used those persuasive power to nudge him towards Hextech weapons which he categorically did not want to make, so her own ends superseded his benefit or preference in canonical instances.

For those who deny manipulation took place, go back and watch the opera house scene in S1. She plays him like a fiddle. Indeed, the expert violinist on stage (playing an actual Stradivarius irl, btw) is symbolically depicted as Mel's counterpart, showing how expertly she is manipulating the situation, and Jayce.

Now, I think you can chart how much Mel was with Jayce for her own ends vs. affection for him by her support for Hextech weaponry. When she's pushing for it, she's using him for her own House's goals. When she drops Hextech weapons as an issue and instead supports Jayce's vision for it (in S2) that's when she's acting out of affection for him. It's tragic that her affection for him grows while his declines so sharply as a result of his ordeal and finally realizing the early manipulations (kinda like that trope where someone dates another person for a bet, then falls for them, and then the other person learns about the bet and breaks up with them, only this one without a happy reunion after).

Their relationship is tragic. It's a tragedy. And it ends tragically with them apart and us left wondering if they could have made it together under other circumstances. "What could have been?" is an overarching theme in Arcane, and it is our own choices, our own ambition and greed that get in the way of getting what we need instead of what we want. Every single character is built around these principles, with the happy endings being those who get what they need instead of what they want, and the tragic ones (like Mel) getting what they want (power, to be an official Medarda as she says in her first scene) and not what she needs, which is anyone around her to share it with. You can feel the loss but you have to also acknowledge how she ended up there and why she narratively can't earn Jayce's love after what she did at the start of the relationship.

[ratttgay]

waking up to phandom discourse is crazy

anyway i just wanted to add my two cents as a person living in singapore, one of the countries that dan mentioned in his explanation. because i'm seeing a lot of talking from people of other countries like america and not here LOL

i certainly can't speak for hong kong, but i have also lived in indonesia for an extended period of time and having been a queer person in both these countries, i can safely say it is not easy. (i won't talk about indonesia because i don't know much about their legislature but from my personal experience, being there and gay wasn't a walk in the park)

it has gotten better, for sure, but in both countries we are nowhere close to getting basic marriage rights etc. in fact, singapore has only RECENTLY overturned 377A (essentially a bill that made homosexual sex illegal). don't even get me started on trans rights, it's a whole other thing itself. we have extensive censorship in singapore (which, of course, extends to homosexuality and transgenderism), one of the highest in the world.

this is not to say we don't have a flourishing queer landscape in singapore. we have drag shows (RIOT! is a big one), we have pride festivals (pink dot), we have queer artists perform during national day (though their queerness isn't acknowledged. but they are still there, and it's worth mentioning).

both of these truths can coexist. dan is not wrong in saying that the government in singapore is homophobic. it is true.

it's okay to be hurt by what dan said, especially coming from his position as a white man who ultimately lives somewhere with more gay rights than us. both dan and phil make mistakes. it is okay to say that the "no homo" comment was insensitive.

i, however, think it is unreasonable to claim that dan was "stereotyping" asia as anti-gay. he was talking about governments. he meant governments. even in his first reply, he was talking about governments specifically. it was never about asia, or our culture or our people. saying that he is stereotyping is a clear sign of misreading intentions and his message.

i must add that this is a queer issue, and dan has experience with that. though he is not speaking as a person who lives in asia, he is speaking as a queer person being censored. it sucks. it sucks for him, it sucks for all of us. i probably will never be able to see TIT live, but at least i can rest in the fact that it wasn't for lack of trying.

it's something emotional for all us SEA phannies, i guess. but this is for the phannies who don't live in SEA that don't really understand the situation here. as a person who lives here i find the way dan acted reasonable and though phrased insensitively at first, didn't say anything untrue.

again, this is a sad thing. feel free to come into my ask box and talk to me, i'd love to connect with more phannies in SEA!!! and if you disagree with me, then go ahead and reply to this or whatever. but this is just me speaking as a person who lives in singapore. yea

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for breaking up with my boyfriend suddenly and lying about why?

I (21M) broke up with my boyfriend (18M) a few days ago. It was a painful decision that I already somewhat regret.

We met in uni and have been dating for about 3 months, and our relationship had been going extremely well, but I started to worry about our age gap. I was concerned about it when we first started flirting, but when he confessed to me I was so happy he felt the same way that I forgot about my worries for a little.

I'm VERY chronically online so I'm familiar with age gap discourse, and 18 and 21 seems to be a very grey area. The more I thought about our age gap, the more I looked into peoples' opinions on it online, and these opinions often didn't seem very positive. It made me super nervous about how people might view our relationship and also made me worry that I might be doing something predatory despite my intentions being pure. People in particular seemed to have issues when the girl was older (which I think is fucking weird, but anyway!) I'm a guy, but I'm FTM, only out to my boyfriend, and everyone around me knows me as a girl, so this was pretty worrying.

Our relationship wasn't a public thing - we're both private people and we wanted to date for a few months before going around parading it. But my boyfriend was getting more eager to show us off, which I was happy about before, but all my doomscrolling online had made me worry.

The breaking point for me was a youtuber from my country saying in a video that he found 18 and 21 creepy. Prior to that I'd tried to reassure myself with the idea that while people from like, the USA, might find the age gap weird, people from my own country (England) wouldn't care. But that video destroyed that safety blanket.

I became disgusted with myself and started to see myself as a bad person. I was also worried that when our relationship became more public, people would hate me. I've never had many friends, university is the happiest I've been by a mile in regards to my social life - I didn't want to lose that. Plus, I live at university and can't really move out right now, so I didn't want to be trapped with people who thought I was a creep.

So, after a particularly bad breakdown, I broke up with my boyfriend. I told him that I was struggling to juggle the relationship with my studies and was starting to become tired, and felt it was best for the both of us to end things. It was a believable reason because in general I have very little energy, so he completely bought it - but he was devastated. He kept apologising for not seeing the signs and kept saying he thought things were going so well, and he was right, because they were! I felt awful.

I feel really guilty about what I did, but I was in a state of panic. I don't know whether I did it more to 'cleanse' myself or for the sake of my reputation, I don't even know if the age gap is wrong, I don't even know if people would have reacted badly! I was just scared, but now I feel like a shitty person for what I did. I don't know if the reasoning behind my actions can justify completely blindsiding and lying to my ex like that. I thought I loved him, but maybe I don't if I was willing to do that!

So, tell me honestly, AITA?

[heycarrots]

There’s been a lot of discourse about the nature of James and Miranda’s relationship. There’s even been a lot of discussion on my podcast about it. One thing I want to make clear is that my podcast is a platform for discussion on all points of view. I’m not going to agree, 100%, with everything that’s said, but it makes the views of my guests no less valid. There’s no right or wrong, here, because this is art and therefore, it is subject to interpretation.

My intent, however, is to attempt to get as close to the original intent of the actors as possible because we look at a show or a film or a play as going through several layers of distillation. Each level purifies the intended narrative leaving its truest essence.

When we make a reduction sauce using an alcohol of some kind, let’s say a red wine, the heat applied to it burns off things we don’t need for flavor. You’re never going to get drunk off of red wine reduction because there’s almost no alcohol left in it. That all gets burned off, leaving only the flavor components, which is what we wanted all along, anyway. We want that extra element that enriches the flavor of the steak, by adding nuance.

So let’s take apart that meal.

We start with the birth of the idea. The story kicks around in an author’s head, trying to get out, growing bigger and more persistent until it outgrows the confines of the mental box inspiration is stored in and has to be let out. That idea, that’s the cow.

The author raises that idea, feeds it, watches it grow, and then, ultimately slaughters it. That sounds awful, but once you have that idea pulsing, growing, evolving and then finally commit the final draft on paper, it is a kind of death. The life of the story comes to an end and it becomes memorialized in a mausoleum. Readers will come to visit, spend time with it, lay down flowers, cherish it, and mourn its passing.

The next level is adaptation. That’s the steak. There are many ways you can slice the story, large roasts encompassing the whole story or a smaller, hyper-focused character study fillet mignon.

A writers room gets hold of the cow and carves it up. They choose what gets cooked and what gets tossed. A GREAT group of writers saves the bones. They take in the entire supporting structure of the piece and while the whole story may not make it onto the screen, they will have slow roasted the bones for a stock. When you watch a show like Black Sails, where themes are introduced that won’t fully be explained or explored until several seasons later, that’s what that is. It is the stock being used to flavor the whole dish. You’ve distilled the entire cow to its purest essence and so every scene, every line of dialogue, every acting choice, encompasses the entirety of the story. A line from episode one is defined by knowledge of the finale and in regard to dialogue, defined by an actors’ knowledge of a character’s backstory. There are many writers rooms who are creating the bones of the story as they go, which means they aren’t starting with a rich stock. You can’t trace back character motivations or choices to begin with because those motivations changed throughout production.

Black Sails, again, isn’t one of those shows. Steinberg and Levine came into the writers room with their stock pot full and sloshing, spilling story everywhere. The richness of the details they were laying can make season one a bit hard to consume unless you are ready for a story on that level. Viewers need to come to the table with some bread to sop up all those character details because we WILL need them later.

Over the course of finalizing scripts and blocking out episodes, the steak is cooked. Like any great steak, this story is medium rare. More juice comes out with every bite. It’s what makes the show infinitely rewatchable. It continues to cook on the plate, but because it wasn’t overdone, it never dries out.

When the actors get ahold of it, that’s the reduction sauce we were talking about. That sauce provides nuance and flavor. That’s the emotion. A line of dialogue on a page is just ink. It’s nothing until it’s spoken aloud. And like any bit of language in this world, it’s subject to interpretation. In this case, it’s the actor who does the interpreting.

I spoke on the podcast about the art of subtext and how huge a role it plays in Black Sails. One example we used is Jane Eyre. It’s one of the most frequently adapted novels in the English language and with each adaptation, we get a new version of our characters. The most volatile and subject to change is Rochester. There are MANY versions of Rochester that I find appalling (including the original beast in the book), but each actor has formed him into something else, based on their performance. Toby Stephens takes Rochester and turns him into a silly tragic romantic, broken many times over by a society he never really fits into, despite the status of his birth. He connects with Ruth Wilson’s Jane because she fully and happily inhabits that space on the fringes that Rochester thinks he needs to climb out of. Jane takes his hand on the outside of the wall, turns him away from the guarded palace and shows him the wild world that was at his back this whole time.

This is what Toby Stephens, Luke Arnold, Louise Barnes, Zethu Dlomo, and really all the actors for whom their subtextual choices make them reflect like prisms, have done with their performances.

In the final distillation, character motivations and emotions are finalized by the actor. Writers can pontificate, the source material lies dead in its lovely tomb, but stories live and breathe by their storytellers.

What we’re left with is Toby’s face telling the world how deeply Flint loves Silver. Every single choice tells this story.

We’re left with Luke showing us how much Silver is repressing in his feelings for Flint. Luke’s face shows us an incredible depth of feeling and a door slamming shut.

We’re left with the incredible intimacy between James and Miranda, which speaks of a decade of shared physical intimacy. There’s an openness, a freeness to it until the moment in episode 3 when Miranda learns that James has found the Urca and is leaving soon to pursue it. She gives some of it away when she says “I thought I’d have you all to myself”. She is mourning the loss of intimacy that she only gets in short windows of time. They aren’t strained because James isn’t attracted to her, but because he’s rarely there. She has him for a few days at a time before he’s off on another hunt. The coldness starts from the moment he tells her he’s leaving in a few days because I believe she thinks he won’t be coming back, that this is the hunt he won’t survive and she’ll finally have lost both James and Thomas. From the moment Richard Guthrie darkens her door, she’s looking for a way to weaponize him and get them out. For her, it’s a race against the clock and she’s willing to sacrifice a bit of her relationship with James in the present to secure happiness for them in the future.

This is also why James still has sex with her before leaving, even though he’s furious for her reading Meditations to Richard. This is how they connect. They connected through physical intimacy in the flashbacks, as well. Him stroking her thumb in the carriage before the kiss. Tactile contact to seal their understanding of each other. Miranda bracing her hands on his chest during important moments in the Hamilton’s home, something she also does to Thomas, to show physical connection, physical intimacy. Miranda thrives on physical touch.

To think that, for 10 years, James is lying there like an object for Miranda to use, is, to me, short sighted. To think that James doesn’t love Miranda outside of a group, is also ignoring the fact that, 10 years on, James will not leave on a hunt (angry as they both are) without physically connecting with her, trying so hard to reach beyond his anger and the wound freshly opened from sight of that book he’s chosen not to look at for probably the better part of those 10 years. The way his hands hover over her back after she comes and he desperately wants to be with her in that moment, like the best of their moments, but he just can’t, speaks to the depth of his love for her.

So many fans of the show point to this sad sex scene as one of the most important character moments for James and Miranda, but I consistently come to the opposite conclusions about WHY it’s important and what we learn from it, because I’m taking my cues from the actor’s choices, not the director or the writers. On the page, in plain ink, he hates having sex with her. Toby and Louise show us, however, that they are trying to recapture a thing that is fleeting, reaching out to each other to patch up an old wound from which the scab has been picked off, leaving it seeping and raw.

From Toby’s performance, regardless of the words he uses years later to describe it, we see not a character who “loves men” or a character who “loves women”, but a character who LOVES. I don’t see Flint defining that love in terms of boxes and parameters. He’s a character who must be coaxed out, but then loves without reason, without a safety net, as he proves with his love of Silver. As was also referenced by a guest on the podcast, he places a sword in Silver’s hand and says “do it”.

Anyway, this post got away from me and took several turns, but the love between James and Miranda being dismissed by so many in the fandom has been bugging me for a while and I just needed to emotionally vomit on tumblr.

[brawlingdiscontent]

I've been seeing a lot of Armand discourse lately about different interpretations of him and which are wrong and unreasonable and why - and one thing I'm not seeing reflected is the utter ambiguity of his character as presented by the TV show.

We start off thinking he's a totally different dude and then all of a sudden he's like "PSYCH I'm the vampire Armand!" and Louis' like: "you know that guy I've been mooning about for the past seven episodes? The love of my life is actually this other guy!" What does the audience do in this case? Do we believe Louis? Do we mistrust him given his false memories that Daniel's just exposed?

The show doesn't give us Armand's POV, we only see other characters' perspectives of him, including Daniel's one of suspicion, and Louis' which fluctuates and is defined by inconsistencies. We know what he says about himself, but also from the moment he appears as Armand, in the very act of appearing the show frames him as a liar (or at the very least, someone who may engage in deceptive practices/be withholding something)! And this confusing ambiguity is only validated by the story as it goes on, including 2.5 and the twist in 2.8. Did Armand mess with a significant chunk of Louis' memories without his consent? Possibly! Did he only alter the end of the 1973 altercation and only because Louis asked him to? Also possibly! Did he always love Louis and never intended to manipulate him and this was all an unfortunate tragedy? Could be! Was he hung up on Lestat and insincere and manipulative with Louis from the start? OR pining after Daniel all of these years? Maybe!

And bringing out evidence to support any one interpretation of Armand's motives or beliefs is complicated because as the show (and 2.8 in particular) has demonstrated, this evidence could be later redacted/invalidated!

Absolutely there's an argument to be made for nuance, which the show tends to present us with, and for duality, the "both and-" which rings true to the complexity of the characters it constructs: Armand could be manipulative AND traumatized AND sincere in his intent all at the same time!

While some outcomes are less likely, there's so much about Armand that we simply can't definitively confirm until/unless the show more explicitly addresses this from Armand's and/or a detached, 'objective,' third-person POV. Sometimes folks have extra insight from the books/behind the scenes, but I also think it's a totally fair viewing experience to take what's being presented to you at face value without doing extra research (and in this case the show presents multiple possibilities).

I'm obviously not talking about racist takes here (and things get trickier when we're talking about patterns of responses that may be strongly informed by biases), and the most extreme takes can feel a bit far-fetched, but in general there are so many interpretations of the character that can't be definitively claimed to be wrong.

'How can you interpret him as x?' Pretty easily, actually. He is ambiguous! inscrutable! (And while this runs the danger of an Orientalist framing, I think the show avoids this as it seems to argue that he's not these things because he's Asian-- but because he's Armand! - and also because of the vagaries of the show's particular chosen storytelling devices).

TL;DR: Re: Armand, there is so much that the show has yet to clearly define about the character, making many possible interpretations valid. In the meantime, maybe the only thing we can agree on is that he didn't give a shit about Claudia!

(P.S. that last line is a joke!)