#it's the same old difference between 'acceptable' and 'radical'

[pikahlua]

Uh oh, it's sleepy grumpy Pika. Y'all know what that means, right?

It means I have no filter for my opinions.

If you're dissatisfied with the way Katsuki's bullying of Izuku is handled in MHA because you expected him to be confronted by someone else about it in some way, it's probably because you are unaware of the difference between bullying and attitudes towards it in Japan versus in your country of origin. I believe everyone would benefit from researching bullying in Japan. They do NOT view it the same way the west does, y'all.

And I guarantee when you learn about it, you're gonna find some stuff that makes you uncomfortable and horrified, because it's gonna take a while for you to get enough information to give context to a lot of the history and attitudes you'll find. AND EVEN THEN, EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE THAT CONTEXT, you're still definitely not going to like it.

However, with any luck, you'll see how MHA's portrayal of Katsuki's bullying is shockingly sympathetic and heartwarming to many people. It's because, from the perspective of a Japanese audience, Izuku was not targeted and bullied by Katsuki in the way we're used to seeing such situations portrayed in the west. Izuku was bullied by everyone. His classmates, his teachers, the pro heroes he encountered, and society in general ALL participated in the bullying of Izuku, because societal pressures to conform in Japan are MASSIVE, and that can often manifest as one form of bullying or another.

Katsuki's bullying is just the one that the story chooses to flesh out. It's the one that Horikoshi develops. Katsuki is the bully that changes his own perspective first and drastically, the one who realizes the greatness in Izuku and accepts that and comes to his side long before the rest of society can catch up. It is largely understood by the Japanese audience that Katsuki in middle school didn't seek Izuku out and follow him home every day to beat him up; Katsuki mostly ignored Izuku until Izuku would do something to remind Katsuki of his insecurities, and so he would lash out. And no one else at let's say Izuku's middle school would understand the true reason why Katsuki would lash out because what he does resembles what all of Izuku's bullies do to him: pressure him to conform. Pre-One For All Izuku stands out as different and constantly tries to rise above his position to become something society decrees he cannot be. Therefore, a significant part of Japanese society will generally approve of attempts to make him conform, even when some of those attempts are harsh and cruel and unreasonable and reactionary. MHA presents a caricature of that in the form of Izuku's middle school.

The fact that Katsuki identifies this toxic behavior in himself later in the story and decides to actively do something to change it IS the radical part. It's the piece that fits into the themes of MHA. It highlights a generally-accepted behavior in society that maybe society should rethink. It's asking for society to reconsider how it pressures people to conform, that sometimes nonconformity is good or at least should be tolerated to some degree. That's why Katsuki's story focuses so much on how his old behavior stems from fear. From the perspective of a "properly-functioning" collectivist society, pressure to conform should be done for the good of everyone in the society, not out of fear and misunderstanding. Katsuki's character arc provides one potential map for others in society to see the light and get to where he does.

And that's to say nothing of how Japan's versions of confrontation or retribution often look different from how they do in the west, that many of the forms of confrontation some people in the western fandom cry out for with regards to Katsuki sound absurd to an audience in the know. The karmic punishments Katsuki endures throughout the story are often overlooked by western readers, and is it any surprise? That readers from some societies--societies that laud nonconformity, tolerate counterculture, openly criticize the systems that be, preach about individual freedom and responsibility and justice and fairness, and watch and make movies and TV shows and other media about how victims of bullies achieve their righteous revenge--often miss how MHA doles out subtle, divine, poetic, karmic consequences for Katsuki's actions? That such readers often don't feel satisfied by MHA's dramatic ironies which serve more to guide Katsuki in a harmonious, productive direction rather than vindictively punish him and rest on its laurels as it laughs at his deserved misfortune? I don't blame anyone for feeling unsatisfied when their own societies have built up their expectations in such ways, but I do hope to draw your attention to it.

Now, does that mean you have to like and accept the Japanese attitudes about bullying? That you have to agree with the framing of pressure to conform as beneficial and productive? That, if you're triggered by the lack of overt condemnation of bullying in the story, you still have to like MHA? That, if you have personal traumatic experiences with Japan's bullying situation, you should shut up about it and accept that it's a good thing? No! In fact, I personally would hope that you don't! I think everyone should always have their perspectives on ANYTHING challenged so they can rethink and improve them, and Japan's attitude towards bullying is no exception! (And MHA actually does that in its own way!)

(And even saying that, I will always acknowledge that my perspective and opinions on this issue are heavily colored by my own experiences in life and the society in which I grew up and the ideas to which I've been exposed. This is and always will be my bias.)

But the question of what's the correct take on bullying is an entirely different beast. The question at hand here is about understanding the story and its characters as presented in MHA. If you don't come at this with a basic acknowledgement of how Katsuki's story reads to a Japanese audience in-context, you're going to be upset about what you see (which is a reasonable reaction). But I think if you're going to read a story, it's only due courtesy to understand the context surrounding its creation before you try to hold it to far-removed, foreign standards. There's a reason literature classes go over the history and context surrounding the older works they study. MHA is a Japanese story written for a Japanese audience. To focus on how it does not adhere to the typical western narrative of a bully's character arc is to miss the point entirely. If you are reading the story outside of Japan in a language other than Japanese, it is being translated so that you can read a Japanese story, not a story from your own culture. It's rude and self-defeating to expect stories from other cultures to suddenly cater to your own.

TL;DR Understanding the social context that informs bullying in MHA just might actually make the story more comprehensible and enjoyable for anyone who dares to learn about it, what do you have to lose?

[nobodysuspectsthebutterfly]

I read GRRM’s interview regarding book vs show canon and I thought the way he was approaching an adaptation of his own story, and fiction as a whole, was very interesting. I do wonder though - does the concept of having a separate show canon kind of become like a cop-out? Because in that case, any TV/film adaptation can just decide to change the plot as they see fit and go “oh, well, that’s our canon, the book is a different canon.” Doesn’t it cease to be an adaptation after a point, or at least become a loose one? In the HotD context, a lot of the changes being made I actually quite like because I can see them fitting in the canon, because there’s nothing suggesting otherwise.

But say, Sansa marrying Ramsay (or, alternatively, the moment that show was dead to me) we can say with absolute certainty did not take place and will almost definitely never take place. D&D knew that too but they went ahead with it anyway; it’s not quite like the Scarlett example where it makes no difference to the story because this change does. I feel like the whole point of adapting written words into something visual loses some of its sanctity if we just accept TV changes a whole separate canon, as opposed to simply a change made by the writers (good change or bad change is up to personal opinion).

I have followed your blog for almost a decade so I’m really curious to hear your thoughts on the subject.

GRRM's "Scarlett example" -- his question of "how many children did Scarlett O'Hara have?", because in the book Gone With the Wind she had three, one with each of her three husbands, whereas in the movie she only had one -- has been his go-to when asked about the difference between book and show canon since at least 2012. Or to quote him from 2015,

How many children did Scarlett O’Hara have? Three, in the novel. One, in the movie. None, in real life: she was a fictional character, she never existed. The show is the show, the books are the books; two different tellings of the same story.

This is IMO one of the most sensible ways for an author to look at adaptations of their work (even if I have gotten rather tired of GRRM using the Scarlett example specifically, pick something different George, we've seen it before lol). There is book canon and there is show canon. They are different parallel universes. They're separate canons because they contain changes made by the writers, and also because the very process of moving from the written word to visual media must involve some kind of change.

And this applies to all adaptations. That's why I brought up X-Men comics vs the Fox X-Men movies vs the X-Men cartoon (original 90s and 2024's '97). For example, there's 4 different versions of the Dark Phoenix Saga between those canons, at the very least. Wait, sorry lol, I forgot the Ultimate canon version. And the various in-comics alternate universe versions. And god knows when they finally bring the X-Men into the MCU they'll probably do yet another DPS there too. And that's only one of many storylines that are radically different between the various canons.

Or look at the various Interviews with the Vampire. Is the new tv show "not an adaptation" because its Claudia is a teenager rather than 5 years old as in the book or portrayed by an 11 year old as in the movie, thus resulting in extremely different relationships and a reshaped plot? (Among many other changes?) No. IWTV has book canon, movie canon, and show canon.

And I can't speak that well about Transformers since it's not a major fandom of mine, but go take a look at their various continuities if you want some more perspective about just how very far the meaning of "adaptation" can stretch.

Or hell, look at Stephen King, where among his many many many adaptations, some of which just barely resemble the original text, the only one he sued to have his name removed from was The Lawnmower Man, because they literally used an entirely different story and just slapped his title on it.

And then there's the movie Adaptation, which is a wildly meta-adaptation of the non-fiction book The Orchard Thief (it's a story about the process of adapting that book and involves a fictional version of the writer, the screenplay writer, and an entirely invented screenplay writer's twin brother)... and it was nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay for multiple film awards (and won a few times), and the original writer even said it kept to the book's themes.

Suffice it to say, HOTD has a long, long, long way to go before it could ever "cease to be an adaptation after a point". Changing the timeline to make Alicent and Rhaenyra the same age, or doing Blood & Cheese differently, do not even compare to what some book-to-visual media "loose adaptations" have done. Even GOT, as wildly terrible as their non-book storylines could be, both their changes to the text and after they had no actual text to work with, never became a "loose adaptation". Certainly it became a less than faithful adaptation -- and let's be real, it always was unfaithful for both themes and the essential elements of so many characters -- but it also always was a remarkably accurate adaptation of the whole span of Westeros (in geography and breadth of characters) and the general (not specific) book plot. (Consider previous attempts at adaptation that GRRM rejected, such as a single 2 hour movie, or eliminating Jon and Dany for being "irrelevant", or only making a Jon movie with none of the other storylines, etc.) Which is why, when GOT was different (and awful) it was such a betrayal, like a zombie or evil alien wearing the skin of your best friend or beloved child, and worse, that this twisted lookalike was the only version millions and millions of viewers ever saw and believed to be true.

But again, this just underlines what GRRM has said. "The show is the show, the books are the books." There is book canon and there is show canon. They are separate things. Parallel universes -- very close parallels, often touching in many places, but sometimes they're quite different. Sometimes the differences in adaptation enhance the themes of the original canon; sometimes the author may even consider certain adapted characters (Shae, King Viserys, Helaena) to be better than his original canon; sometimes you know there's only those tricky NDAs (and payments of lots of money) that prevent him from expressing his disappointment in more ways than dropping the Sansa TWOW preview chapter only days before the release of GOT S5. But perhaps if we're lucky, maybe one day we'll have yet another parallel canon to compare to the others.

[heterophobicdyke]

hiii it's that one trans anon again <3

i saw your responses, and really think you fundamentally misunderstand what being trans is. nobody's going "well I'm feminine, that must mean I have to be a woman!" or the other way around. gender identity and gender presentation are two very different things. there are plenty of butch trans women or trans femboys, for example.

there is no fundamental blueprint that makes someone a man/woman, in any way that actually matters, as gender is a social construct. sure chromosomes exist, but in terms of gender they literally just affect what genitals (and therefore hormones) are received. and obviously, genitals don't define gender (as i assume you must have heard dozens of people explain the concept of Being Intersex before, and I won't get into that) and hormones, in their very easily replaceable nature, don't either.

there's parts of the brain that do determine what hormones need to be in the body and what gender the body "should" be - but shockingly enough, the brain doesn't always line up with the body. that's fundamentally the cause of being trans. in layman's terms, the brain is one gender and the body is another. this causes severe stress and discomfort in most cases.

trans people, once they figure out this is happening to them (if ever - society doesn't exactly make it easy), attempt to correct this by making the body align with the brain. hormones, surgeries, etc.

so you are technically correct - "inverting a penis" (which isn't even how bottom surgery works lmao, the tissue from the penis atrophies and becomes a clitoris under oestrogen, with a new hole opening up just below via surgery) wouldn't turn a man into a woman. in fact, if you took a 100% cis man and forced him to undergo a transition, he'd suffer just like a pre-transition trans man would. however, trans people never were their assigned gender at birth, and gender affirming surgery only serves to correct an incorrect body.

i will admit i was wrong in my "definition" of radical feminism, it's not as simple as that and i definitely made it sound weirdly bloodthirsty and naive. i am willing to accept that i am (i hope quite obviously) not very involved in radfem spaces. are you willing to accept you have no clue what being trans is?

Well, that was a mansplain if I’ve ever read one.

While you might not value or acknowledge that humans are a sexually dimorphic species—where intersex is a medical condition that affects less than 0.5% of the population and therefore does not disprove male/female exists—that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

Brain-sex has been disproved so many times. It’s old misogyny. There are no notable differences between male and female brains. To suggest there is is just neurosexism. Read Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine.

Male and females are different physically. “Just chromosomes” is such a reductive, delusional thing to say. Chromosomes dictate every cell in our body. “Just reproductive systems.” Bro the reproductive systems aren’t a footnote of the human body but interact with every part of it.

Your self-identity does not change reality, sorry to say. Wish it did because then I’d self-identify as living in a peaceful world without straight men or their guns and bombs.

Males have no idea what it’s like to be female, or women—which are just adult females—and vice versa. In the same way I don’t know what it’s like to be a cat or a dog. I simply am not that thing/animal/sex.

Nobody actually believes male and female don’t exist or matter, they just place less importance on it for trans-identified people’s feelings. They’re too scared to “cause someone’s suicide” because Big Trans convinced everyone they’re Literally Murdering People if they verbally acknowledge basic scientific facts about the sexed bodies.

I don’t hate individual trans-identified people, unless you’re a male attracted to females and identify as a woman. Then I hate you because you’re not a victim to heteropatriarchy just trying to survive through a gender identity, but are just another straight male lesbian fetishist.

[david-goldrock]

You are my age. I haven't had the horror of seeing a wall erected as a border, but my country has one too. There are so many people suffering. The people's front for the liberation of palestine is one of the widely supported resistance movements that existed long before hamas. The british mandate of palestine was cruel, and immigration laws from britain are what prevented jewish immigration. A hundred hamas members in one huge city does not make every child in that city not innocent. It is Israel's government that is choosing to drop bombs. Self defense is not the same as aggressive destruction.

The nabka is not trivial. how as a victim of violence do you dare trivialize pain? haven't you seen an old woman with the key to a house that was razed? haven't you felt that powerlessness knowing a US funded destruction is waged against an entire region?

aren't you angry that anything anyone is trying to justify this?

Look friend, I just frankly disagree on a lot

I haven't seen the wall being built, I am too young, but I know the difference it made. My mother was next to several terrorist attacks in a few years. Had she been early or late a few minutes, neither her not I would be alive today. The wall erected stopped nearly every infiltration, and radically decreased terror from Judea and sameria.

What do you think the Arabs there are "resisting" dear? Over 80% of them, when asked on a poll, answered that the only solution they'd accept is a 1 state for their people "solution". They aren't resisting neither occupation not hardship, only the presence of Jews.

And with all due respect, I'd prefer a hundred innocent Palestinians will die for this war before I will send 1 solider to sacrifice himself for them. Even today, 70% of Palestinians support hamas and their actions on Oct. 7th. Many of the people who die aren't much different from the terrorists in their intentions nor in what they'd do were I to be strapped to a chair next to them, the only difference between them is that one chose to be a salesman and the other, a terrorist. Not ideology, only a career choice. And please, seriously, if we don't bomb their facilities, we send a clear message to them, and every other terrorists, that human shielding works and is good. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't take precautions, and make sure we give every chance possible to civilians to evacuate and save their souls. No intentional killing of civilians either. But I don't have any hard feeling when a building with 10 terrorists and a family of 5 is taken down.

The "nakba" is a virtual event. You start a war, start to lose, go away from your homes to return when the Arab forces kill all of the Jews, and you cry when you aren't allowed back? Not to mention that the ammount of evacuations and deportations in that time was insane. This is after WW2. Millions of Germans and poles and Russians and many more displaced from their lands to others, they all integrated and were fine. "Palestinians" (they weren't called that back then) got citizenships in Jordan, and Lebanon, and america, and many other lands. By any definition except for UNRWA, there are almost no more "Palestinian refugees" alive that were considered so even a year after the war. That is not to say some innocent villages weren't rekt, but this is a wildly exaggerated event, especially when it serves as the "Palestinian people" story of origin, as before the war, these people were all different flavours of arabs from different tribes. The same ammount as that of people who got out of Israeli land in the war is that the ammount of Jews that fled the middle east at that time because of pogroms all over this land. Billions of dollars worth of land and property was lost, do you see Israelis complain for 75 years? We built what we could with what we had, like Jews do.

And please, if I have a criticism of the US's actions in the middle east is that it does not agree to wage war in here. It does everything it can to avoid a war here, even sacrificing every value we had in our relationship, only so that Biden can get reelected in November. If the US was what you claim it to be, it'd have given Israel a green light to do whatever it wants, and the war would already have been over.

[ludi-cerealia]

Spring! Sprang! Sprung! Spring Forecast 2023 (PAC)

Collective energy: This spring season the collective is coming into their own power as Aries itself would have it; embracing the compass of one's inner wisdom as one steers one's own destiny, divinely guided towards inspired action. The collective will have no more illusions about where their power lies, the time has come to wield one's power as one sees fit, without fear. Pick a deck for your spring cycle forecast! Take what resonates and leave the rest. Piles are left to right : Pile 1, Pile 2, and Pile 3. Channeled songs: Lana Del Rey - Lust for Life // Qveen Herby - On God // Smoke Season - Opaque// Lapsley- Silverlake Collective Bottom(s) of decks (s): Seven of Swords, Athena~ Knowledge, The King Decks used: Wild Unknown Archetypes, Children of Litha Tarot, Goddess Power Oracle

Pile 1

(Cards: 7 of cups, The Star, The Hermit, The Comic, Nyx ~ Secrets)

This pile may be in a place of indecision for having too many options, such that you are at a pivotal crossroads as to how you're moving forward in life. The seed you've sown this spring season is one of many hopes and dreams, you are investing in joy and embracing whatever form bears fruit come harvest time. You're realizing regardless of what you choose you will make the best of your circumstances and overcome whatever obstacles come your way— No one is getting between you and yourself ever again. You are nursing this seed by trusting in the divine (I heard 'ineffable plan', so Good Omens may be significant or have messages for you) because you are beginning to see its vision unravel before your very eyes. This spring season is about you discovering who you are, a union of shadow and light married by radical honesty. Come summertime you will begin to love how every version of you has become who you are now; each a spark your own lighting your way out the woods into the clear. You'll look back and see that the monsters were just trees (Taylor Swift's Out of the Woods started playing in my head), and your laugh will be lighter and brighter than the morning breeze. Arm in arm with your inner child, now what they always hoped to be.

Pile 2

(Cards: 6 of Pentacles, King of Cups,Judgement, The Box, Mother Gaia ~ Earth)

For a select few of you, this spring is about embracing parenthood in all of its highs and lows; the cards flew out explosively as if with uncontainable excitement. You’re rising to a long-awaited occasion that will irrevocably change life as you know it. You’ll be looking back wistfully at your past trepidation realizing how far you’ve come and how much more life has to offer you on your journey ahead. Something here is eager to blossom and break out of its shell, I heard a spring return. For those of you who have lost a child before, this may be the emotional redemption you’ve been waiting for.

For most of you, however, you may have recently been thrust into a more nurturing role in life, taking something vulnerable under your wing (eg plants, pets, or juniors at work/school). You’re feeling overwhelmed and even a little weary accepting this responsibility. Despite your deeper knowing that you’re more than prepared and that there’s no better time than now, emotionally you fear making the same old mistake of getting ahead of yourself at the cost of something dear; for others of you this pertains to getting too attached to let something grow apart or away from you. Come Gemini season you’ll realize you’re more than supported in this undertaking, if you had pets or plants before, they remember you fondly in their heart of hearts. Call on them for support when you feel small, they’re just a beacon away. (I had a lot of frustrating false starts using my usual browser to finish this pile, until I switched to a different one. Perhaps that alludes to the perspective change you need to see this commitment through, you won't regret it Pile 2!)

Pile 3

(Cards: The Emperor, Ace of Pentacles, Knight of Pentacles, Benzaiten ~ Beauty, I forgot to record your Archetype card Pile 3 :,) Apologies)

You're manifesting a glow-up, Pile 3; it's happening and coming in hot for you this spring! You're glowing up body, mind, and soul, I heard; be prepared! You may have only recently cemented your resolve to fully commit yourself to your best interests: standing in your power without letting pride get in your way again. You may be restarting a fitness journey, or even getting back into creative pursuits like drawing or dancing; but this time allowing yourself to truly begin again as a novice. You're allowing yourself to be curious with grounded expectations, affirming to yourself that what you know won't hurt you as long as you keep your head down and mind open. You're grounding this summer shred into reality, if it's the last thing you do, I heard; take what applies! You're letting yourself take things slow and steady, because this is a change you want to make last; as you mold a version of yourself that will see the next summer and many more to follow, even if its not ready by this particular summer. You'll see the fruits of your labor by the end of spring season, and it will not be just a single bud.

I hope you enjoyed this PAC! I’d really love to hear how it resonates for you. Any and all feedback is welcome. If you liked my work, do consider tipping me .

[koops19]

Just finished Weak Hero Class 1 and wow this was such an excellent story about abuse and self destruction. I binged it all so-

I liked this show mainly because of how Sieum and Beomsuk’s characters are handled. Both are pure reflections of each other who essentially had the similar circumstances of being bullied/abused, being lonely, and then shutting people out as a result. Suho’s whole character was there just to break down their defense mechanisms and show them what real connection is like when you aren’t constantly a target of abuse.

The difference between them is that, when faced with a threat, Sieum’s response is to fight while Beomsuk’s is to give in, and you can see the root of that from their home life. Beomsuk grew up under the abuse (and basically imprisonment) from his dad, so naturally he’s been conditioned to just take the beatings. Sieum has always felt on his own due to the lack of presence from his parents, so knowing that, he thinks no one is gonna save him so he has to save himself, thus he fights.

Like I said earlier, Suho’s presence is to break down these walls the other two have, so when he starts to stand up to the bullies for (and with) them, his presence relieves the burden of abuse at *school*. That helps Sieum feel safer and less alone as we see him start to open up, but on the other hand, Beomsuk’s abuse at *home* is ever present. The romantic feelings come into play here because Beomsuk’s relationship with Sieum and (more specifically) Suho becomes almost like an escape, and his feelings for Suho grow stronger the safer he feels. He tries so hard to feel accepted by paying for everything, but that doesn’t solve anything because he isn’t being vulnerable and truly allowing himself to be *seen*.

That’s why when Yeongi shows up, her presence is perceived as a threat to the safety he now has, and his jealousy turns into anger. That anger mixes with the resentment he already has for his abusers (past bullies and his dad) and boom, he explodes.

Beomsuk starts indulging in all this self destructive behavior because not only does it give him the illusion of social acceptance, but it also gives him the illusion of power. He’s now “friends” with those who once bullied him, and now with the support of his “friends” he can beat up his old bullies, never having fought the battles himself, or addressed the real problem: his dad.

At the same time he falls out with Suho who, not understanding this radical change in behavior, responds with frustration. Sieum seeing this, responds with compassion, but those compassionate efforts consistently fail to reach Beomsuk because Beomsuk doesn’t want it from him, he wants to receive it from Suho. He wants to be *seen* by Suho, but that’s not possible when he doesn’t allow himself to be vulnerable to begin with. So the more he quarrels with Suho, the more he starts to view him as “just another one of the bullies” who took advantage of his feelings and looked down on him. This is further exemplified by Suho beating on him just like he beats the other bullies. Beating is what abusers/bullies do, so Suho must be one of them. At the end of the day, all of it is just Beomsuk’s repressed desires of wanting to be accepted and wanting to love (and be loved) knowing he’s safe to do so. But he doesn’t know how.

That’s why, and I cannot stress this enough, Suho tells him to stop blaming other people. Beomsuk’s problems *outside of the home* ARE caused by his self destructive behavior, and THAT is what Suho sees. What Suho doesn’t (and couldn’t possibly) know is that Beomsuk is being abused at home. He would only know that is Beomsuk became vulnerable and finally let his walls down. Even if he had only told Sieum, it would’ve made an impact in some way. He might’ve felt *seen* for the first time. He might’ve finally felt less alone. But once again, Beomsuk doesn’t know how to do that because he’s only ever been exposed to abuse. When that’s the case, it’s hard to open up to anyone. That is exactly how abuse works and THAT is not his fault.

And by the end of the show, Beomsuk is finally confronted with the consequences of his actions, yet it shows he still didn’t learn this lesson of vulnerability because he immediately got out the car and blamed Yeongi when she yelled at him to apologize. He wasn’t accountable for his actions in the slightest and once again deflected all his resentment for his dad and circumstances towards that poor girl. He didn’t even try to fight his dad’s plan to send him abroad, but his dad had already conditioned him to run and hide when things get dicey, as evident by: where he hides in the house, him wanting to keep the first police incident a secret from his dad, and him changing schools when he got bullied the first time. Him being sent out of the country is no different, especially when you already are alone to begin with. This is how abuse works.

The one person who had been trying to show him compassion, Sieum, responds with anger and violence at the end. This scene is so important because when asked why he did what he did, Beomsuk says he doesn’t know, yet also says Sieum should understand. He may not fully and consciously understand why he did what he did, but he knows subconsciously that everything he did was rooted in his status as a victim and the lack of an ability to be vulnerable created from that. Sieum’s response “you should understand too”, highlights their roles as reflections. Sieum allowed himself to be changed by Suho. He allowed himself to be vulnerable and do things he wouldn’t normally do. He allowed himself to receive help and change on a fundamental level. Sieum no longer felt alone. Beomsuk was there for most of this process, and had he allowed himself to, he could’ve done the same. Sieum knows that, but that’s not what happened. He knows that’s not his fault, but he also knows he had to watch helplessly as someone he held closely self destructed right in front of him. That’s why he never punched him. He knows how it feels to be a victim, which is an experience Beomsuk took and turned into fuel for the flames of resentment and anger.

I genuinely enjoyed this show because I saw so much of myself in these characters and the story was well written. Being an abuse victim is one of the hardest things, and I feel like this show conveyed that perfectly. It really does feel like a room with no exits. What else can you do but fall apart when you fear every hand might slap you? That is never the victims fault.

[apperception]

Grasping for a new type of relationship

Three years into non-monogamy and I’m still falling into old patterns; reminiscing and yearning for the boredom and frustration of monogamy, rather than the free-floating anxiety of freedom.

I thought being non-monogamous would be the best way to undo my old rancid patterns, to cut me free of my over reliance on others, my hunger for a parent-like partner who cares for me like a child - unconditionally - but still finds me wildly fuckable.

And in realising that I have once again fallen into this old groove - wanting my partner to care for me, be my backbone, make my decisions for me, be there for me 24/7, or at the very least when I want them to be there for me - to lick me when I want, to cradle me when I want it, to be in the mood I want them to be in - I recoil, realising that they are their own separate person and I do not own them and cannot control them. And in realising that they cause me stress, perhaps more stress than the pleasures of the relationship are worth, I withdraw, imagining breaking up with them, carving out a new kind of life (but yes, a life with a different partner — not alone). Thinking of this is already a kind of liberation. In the morning, or late in the evening, when I am anxiously waiting on a text from them, I think: but just imagine, to be free of this anxiety you could break up with them. Instead of being anxious, you could be sad about this gaping loss, this loss of ALL texts. And so, waiting for a text or not being texted at all times when I want to be, seems preferable to breaking up, and then somehow I am not as anxious any more, and I am able to sit back and get back to my own life. *This is preferable to nothing,* I can tell myself.

And that’s either a very depressing message - accept the scraps you are given - or it’s a realistic one, and one I have to learn in every single relationship I’m in, realising that they have a life beyond me (just as I do them, and should have more of). Stop waiting on their texts and get on with your life. Be appreciative of what they do offer and stop wanting ever more, more, more - wanting them to always be exactly what you need in that moment.

Because the partner and life I fantasise about wouldn’t be always there for me either. That partner would also have a job, and they would be out. And if we lived together we’d be stuck arguing about the dishes and I would want more quiet time to read and write and stretch and do things along, without them being around all the time. And I’d be exactly back in the same situation that made me yearn for freedom and independence.

And so I oscillate. It’s the tension between freedom and security, being the creator of your own life or being able to depend on a stable presence at all times. The former feels scary; the latter feels like reverting to a childlike state.

And I often fantasise about other couples I see, the ones with ‘good’ relationships, the ones where the woman (my avatar) can lean on her partner, where they are her rock, where their embrace dissolves her pain and frustration and stress, where they are her refuge, a salve, a balm.

I had partners like that; partners whose very smell was soothing, whose hugs could cure all ills, with whom I felt an animal sense of safety with.

But they were boring. They didn’t go out, or they’d spend days on the sofa, or they’d be too shy with friends and others, or too insecure to send off a job application, and I’d end up doing their admin and managing their life relationships for them. I’d go out by myself, but they would disapprove of my activism, my radical activities, my going breakdancing too late at night. They’d lie depressed on the sofa while I went out dancing, being tempted by a new friend who promised excitement (and with whom I’d eventually cheat).

And so I wanted to try a different kind of relationship. One based on adventure, and fun, and sexual freedom. Where we could fuck other people, sometimes in front of each other, sometimes separately. Where we live in different cities and never aspire to live together, where we can go on holiday with different people, where we see our friends separately and live separate lives. Where we go out dancing and to museums and the cinema and we feed off the fizz of the other one’s energy.

But you can’t always be out, and excited, and running at full pelt. At some point you need slowness and stability and care. You need softness and affection and cuddles on the sofa. You need both, and which are you going to choose? Because so far, in the partners you’ve had, you’ve had one or the other, but not both.

What was the dream? What was I aiming for?

A queer non-monogamous life — in which I rely on myself, but have a revolving coterie of partners, lovers and friends to fulfil my needs - in which I don’t *need* anyone? Or perhaps I need lots of people, but I’m distributing those needs? Or perhaps I’m getting used to being alone and focusing on my craft and my art, and instead of leaning on the illusion of an eternally-there monogamous partner who is loyal (because they signed a piece of paper saying they would be)… I rely on someone who *chooses* to be there, but that means that they sometimes might not be? Accepting freedom instead of stability is a hard deal indeed.

[desultory-novice]

Do you think the reason why Kirby is kind is because they were prosecuted for being related to Galacta Knight so acted kind to others to be accepted until it became natural? Why else would Meta Knight one of the most powerful people in Popstar wear a mask 24/7 on top of Popstar being considered a heaven amongst planets?

Awww....

That's such a sad (/pos) idea, Anon...

Puffballs being considered enemies of the greater galaxy because of what Galacta Knight went down in infamy for...

I do think such a connection between the aggressively friendly Kirby and aggressively...aggressive Galacta Knight is an interesting one. 

I guess it depends a bit on one's personal Kirby? I grew up with Kirby years~ and years~ ago, so my personal Kirby often skews a bit older than most (frequently past their teens) but even I don't see them as being as old as the Ancients! Although... that doesn't mean they couldn't be?? Especially if puffballs age differently than other species?

Although I guess Kirby doesn't have to have existed in the same era as Galacta Knight to be related either! That just got me thinking fluffy thoughts about the two of them knowing each other pre-Galacta getting crystal'd. (*)

...I know that no one supports this anymore, but there's still a part in the verrrrrry back of my brain that likes to imagine Galacta as being - surprise!! - a much much much older Kirby. Maybe one thrown back in time, centuries past?

There's no good reason to think this, of course, but the fact that Galacta is sitting next to Marx and Magolor during TDX's Kirby Master video makes me think about the Kirby > Galacta possibility a little more than I might otherwise. Probably just because I personally HC Kirby, Marx, and Magolor as being shockingly close friends. ^^;

A-ahem! Now, I've seen a variety of reasons for Meta Knight to wear a mask (personally, I'm huge fan of the transmasc/mask Meta Knight theory!) but that's another good one!

--

--

(*) Okay, okay. I have to talk about a spoiler for the new game for a second, because I'm pretty sure I haven't seen it talked about elsewhere? I'll try to keep it BRIEF and VAGUE - that is, not mention any radically new content, because if you've played the game, I think the implications of what I'm about to say will explain themselves. If you haven't, well, it hopefully won't mean MUCH.

--

--

--

[THERE ARE SOME KINDA PRETTY SPOILERY THINGS FOR THE NEW GAME IMPLIED BY WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY HERE!]

[NOTHING DIRECT BUT...]

[...IF YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW.]

[THIS IS THE LAST PART OF THE POST BTW]

[SO YOU CAN JUST BACK AWAY IF YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO HAVE IDEAS PUT IN YOUR HEAD - AGAIN, BECAUSE THE "SPOILER" IS VERY VAGUE]

[READY?]

--

--

--

Alright! So, you see, I always thought Galacta Knight was sealed "in crystal." Like, the word they would use for that is "crystal." Either "suisho" or "kurisutaru"

But when I snapped a pic of Galacta's new arena lore screen in Japanese? They used the word "gem seal" - the exact same "gem" (spelling and everything) as Magolor's gem apples!!

Okay, now go do some thinking on that!

[animalcopingnewhorizons]

A little bit about my ACNH Gameplay/Posts

The first time I played Animal Crossing was New Horizons in 2020.

My younger sibling gave me their Switch Lite when they upgraded to a Switch.

My island is called Praxis.

It is set up organically with what I thought a radical commune of villagers with different backgrounds would create on their own island.

We have one side of the island set up with campsites for visitors.

The other side is for the townies, and all but the Four Corners villagers live in a row up the East beach, including my rep's house.

There's a bamboo garden, farming area, cemetery, trash/recycling/repair area, orchard, hangout spot in the deep woods, restaurant, gym, market, laundromat, bar & arcade, and the burned-out remnants of a jail.

I don't have a DA not because my island isn't finished (it's full!) but because the content might not be acceptable for general audiences.

My museum is 100%.

I started this profile to not only keep a visual record of what I have created in ACNH but to share those creations in the hope that someone else will get enjoyment or inspiration from them.

All my loans are paid back, and my storage is maxed.

I have the HHP dlc, and I'm a GOAT Designer.

All my villagers' homes are redecorated.

My Tumblr is relatively new, but I've been posting my old ACNH content from whenever I got my SD card.

I spent 2,735 hours of my life playing ACNH. (so far!)

The current posts on my profile are from April 2022, and I have everything between then & now still to post.

I create a queue every Friday of 3 posts a day for a full week.

My spouse recently got me a full Switch because my Lite is almost unplayable where my joysticks are thrashed, and I almost couldn't hit the same button 3 times in a row to start the game the other day.

Sometime in the near future, I will be starting a new island on my new switch and sending in my old one for repair.

Stay tuned for that journey...

[redemptioninterlude]

💍 propose (marceline & pb)

let's go on a date meme ( accepting ) + @killjoysanonymous // bonnie

The second time, they say, IS THE CHARM. Marceline wonders if that’s still the truth when they’re thousands of years old and have lived through so much of the beginning of Ooo, and too, had seen its near downfall, how many times now? It layers like a scar, it covers so much of the themness that exists between them. For them. That understanding that things are ever so radically different with who they were today versus back then. When they’d been star-crossed lovers, the punk and the princess, before Bonnie’s responsibilities grew, before Marcy’s emotional rage broke. And in all the ways, Marcy things, they’ve changed, what matters is that it’s a change that counts for something.

And she could have drawn this on. She thinks about fighting the vampires, and the things she sees when riding a poisoned high. The them that was forever, where she’d age and die, then, but, she wouldn’t now. How pretty and pink Bonnie was, how in that dream, FOREVER didn’t seem like such a terrifying idea, given all the good that could come with it. Was that why she was thinking about the ring she’s found again? The one she gets from Simon, when he talks about his princes and his once upon a time. How she gets the reminder of it, which used to make her sad, or feel lonely, but lately, when she thinks about it... she considers that she’s so lucky to have found her love, so close at hand, however many bumps in the road there had been in delivering them there in the first place.

How long and hard she needs to think about it. Her first instinct being to do it at a concert, why not make it like the time they met? Just her on stage, throwing out her heart to a girl - but no. The pressure, the public-ness of it all, Bonnie would hate that. She needed a more intimate touch... something where it made her feel safe, but excited at the same time, it’s an orchestration of CIRCUMSTANCE AND THE RIGHT MOMENT, calling Bonnie on the phone, with that breathlessness behind it. “Come out tonight? I want to show you something.”

There, there! Where the sky looks like dancing lights, over there, at the yonder edges of the Ice Kingdom. They used to watch them when they’d first started to date, with Bonnie always telling her about the scientific reasons for why the sky bent and coloured itself so beautifully, the words usually going in one ear and out the other from a comprehension standpoint, but OH did she love to listen to her. All fumbling nerves, and her usually pliant tongue left died, she takes a moment, her hand held tightly within Bonnie’s own. “Hey Bon Bon..? I have a question for you-”

[gravelilyaufgehoben]

I might never post here again. The reason is that I started this blog to write about yuri manga, and aside from trope analysis and reviews, there were only two real problems I could have had: "What is Yuri?" and "What is the Villainess genre?" These two questions are something like "What is it in general, and what is this latest development?" And I genuinely believe I have the answer to both of these now. The answers are given on this blog but I consider them incomplete (the former much more than the latter). I have a (currently) ~5,200-word rewrite of my villainess essay sitting in a google doc, and a few thousand words answering the other question somewhere else. I do not have much interest in finishing or posting either of them. As I have not perceived any new developments (though I imagine this new development would be the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Japan and the death of the genre — and perhaps its revival elsewhere and in other forms) I have no third topic to write about at present, and probably for some time.

I think what I wrote about visual novels is very correct and cool, but all the rest is so-so, and my other interests are, I think, not appropriate for this medium (not that my kind of thousand-word essays about manga were appropriate in the first place). The idea in posting here was just to mobilise the threat of an audience to motivate me to write (this particular kind of thing). Having gotten the answers I wanted, this mechanism is no longer useful. I am not really interested in fandom or debate/discussion. I still like the name because it's so clever (GraveLilyaufgehoben) but I would not want to use it for anything other than a theory of GL. Let me be clear though: I never intended to write to anyone. Even this post is just a taking-account-of for me — selfishly.

Regarding gender, I used to be of a typically liberal opinion. Some years ago, I heard about (or took seriously for the first time) someone, who was, for instance, not a man say something like "I want to be a man" (or vice versa for a woman). This did not make sense to me, because to me gender was a social construct, something simply contingent and a question of free choice. For me: wanting to be a man or a woman specifically or in particular was nonsensical because there was nothing real in it. What this clarified for me was that there is a real problem here and that the disengaged, free love and freedom of choice (which I think is still the most popular) position was not strong enough.

I have seen (unfortunately for my eyes and mind) others who drew the opposite conclusion: they think they are anti-gender (rad-libs) and perceive transgenderism as a regressive movement. Not I. I simply took the claim seriously, and this entailed certain consequences. Let me be extremely clear — the goal has always been the eradication of sexual difference. In fact, I cannot imagine a more radical position than mine (and I do not mean in a loud "kill everyone/destroy everything!" sense, which is itself only a way to avoid the problem). Those who accept a [sex=biology, gender=social] division are compromisers and traitors: you will be swallowed whole by reaction. Nature itself must be destroyed; I consider those who want only a normal life and acceptance compromisers and traitors — not only because they are conformist by definition, but because this dream is doomed to fail — either for themselves or whichever marginal they will have to sacrifice in order to worm their way into hegemony. What I believe is that in order to destroy something, you have really to get into the guts. This cannot be done from a disengaged or safe position. We can only embrace danger. Perhaps these arguments are decades old at this point, but I, at least, have certainly not been inspired by popular opinion lately. Then again, I try to stay as far away from popular opinion (indeed, I am an elitist) as possible, so maybe I indeed do not know.

Yuri is not simply "a story about love between girls". To anyone who understands this, may the eternal Light of Reason bless you.

[oflgtfol]

god also i did my internship in my senior year which was also the peak year of my depression and it had a noticeable impact on my personality to where like doing my 1:1 weekly meetings with my supervisor had been me really quiet the whole time and just taking notes and shit. like i did my work i just kept my head down and only ever really interacted with my supervisor and not really the other interns in the office, because they were all already friends and were much closer with my supervisor so i just felt like an outsider idk. plus with the mental health at rock bottom its like i literally am not a human being right now so i just was so out of it all the time i literally could only do my work and that was it i could not socialize like a human being.

so now im one year post grad and nearly one year medicated and ive had a noticeable change in my personality to where my mom comments like once a week that im so much more energetic and outgoing and talkative. so like if i do talk to my internship supervisor again, and if i do accepted into this program and go back to volunteering at the place, and interacting with her face to face, its like. how do i reconcile the personality of me she had known, and my new one. its part of why i hated interacting with my former high school classmates who went to the same uni as me, like i had a noticeable change in personality between high school and college as well, so its like. You Know The Old Me. i hate having to navigate like easing them into this new version of me. and now, the difference between me back in february 2023, and now me in february 2024, is RADICALLY different, like 50x more intense than the difference between me in high school and college. and this was my supervisor. im just kinda like, ahhhhh, at the idea of interacting with her again, because it's like, ahhhhh, im a totally different person now and im so sorry but the version of me you met and worked with during my internship was like the worst version of me. so sorry for all that. also can you write me a letter of recommendation

[denimbex1986]

'When words fail, there's always the Pet Shop Boys. In All of Us Strangers, their song Always on My Mind bridges decades of distance between Adam (Andrew Scott) and his parents (Claire Foy, Jamie Bell).

They're decorating a Christmas tree, hoping the Hallmark activity erases the awkwardness, when the song comes on. Adam's mum begins to sing along, the lyrics subbing for a full apology for absence. You were always on my mind.

After all, it's been a while: Adam's parents died when he was 10. Now in his 40s, he wanders around his old hometown to find his mum and dad in their family home, furniture and faces unchanged, as if no time had passed at all.

Catching them up on his life includes coming out as gay – his mum, surprised, says all the wrong things. Reality creeps in, even in this reunion between the dead and living: It's not how either side dreamed, even if the dream is so potent they've willed the impossible into existence.

"I think for so many people, particularly queer people, you can feel like a stranger in your own family," says Scott, who is gay.

"Even if they haven't directly rejected you, you just feel slightly different… [But] discomfort within a family and love within a family can coexist. It's pretty common."

Scott stars alongside fellow Irish actor Paul Mescal, who plays love interest Harry. He and Adam are two lonely hearts living in the same newly built London apartment tower, an ultra-modern space that is less haunted, than devoid of life.

"What's going on with Harry's family is actually slightly more insidious [than Adam's situation]," says Mescal.

"He's come out to his family. [They'd] say that they're very proud of him, but they actually don't truly accept him. Their acceptance of him is lip service, but they don't check in on him."

Written and directed by Andrew Haigh (Weekend; 45 Years; Looking), All of Us Strangers adapts Strangers, a 1987 novel by Japanese author Taichi Yamada, situating it within his world.

Japan is swapped out for contemporary London, the gay British filmmaker drawing out his repeated themes of modern loneliness and disconnection. While Adam and Harry are haunted to different ends, together, they try to push past pain and into something new.

An everyday, real romance – even with the ghosts

Chances are, many who see All of Us Strangers will enter the cinema with pre-conceptions of Scott and Mescal.

Both have become internet heart-throbs through zeitgeist-shaping roles on hit TV shows: Scott as the Hot Priest in Fleabag; Mescal as Connell in Normal People. Clearly bruised, Adam and Harry might not be as easy to crush on as viewers, but the characters soon open up to each other.

"It starts as a physical attraction," says Mescal. "They both want to have sex. But what I love about their relationship is that it feels very attainable to me from a real-life context. There are no big sweeping romantic gestures. And yet, the film is absolutely romantic.

"All these characters do is listen to each other and are there for each other. And that on paper sounds so simple. I think that's what the film was trying to say, that to love with courage sounds so simple on paper, but it's utterly radical and requires a huge amount of bravery. What they give to each other is their company, their total focus and attention."

Scott says the characters really see each other, and that leads to a lovely sense of intimacy.

"The most pleasurable things to shoot were where you see them enjoying the small things in life. Just having a shower or being asleep [together] – the tiny things that are so beautiful and wonderful to experience," he says.

"And that's even more of a balm for them because they haven't had it before."

Good grief

With this new intimacy, what flows out is the chance to express their hurt; for the first time, they both articulate a shared sense of grief.

Scott notes that grief comes in many forms, but we're not often taught about the minutiae of it, or given the tools for dealing with the trauma, agitation or feeling that you've been betrayed by the universe.

"Grief is such a… it's such a difficult thing to quantify and to categorise in some ways. I don't think necessarily that grief is always related to death or the loss of life," he says.

"We experience grief much more than we can recognise; the end of a relationship or the end of a phase of your life, or just something where you think, 'I don't have that anymore, and I can never get it back'.

"I think that's how I would quantify grief over sadness, something that is a place to which I can never return…."

Adam's ability to return home (filmed in director Haigh's childhood home, the current owner's décor luckily frozen in amber from the 80s) is enviable to anyone who has lost a parent. It's a mystical healing fantasy, where he's able to tell his parents the things he never got the chance to before they died.

Despite the immense pain of losing both his parents as a child, the film has a visceral hope that's threaded throughout; catharsis and grace can be found through connecting with others.

Mescal had first-hand experience with pain, fear and grief while filming when his mother became very ill and was then diagnosed with cancer.

"I wasn't able to process it at the time, but my body was processing it in kind of real-time," Mescal explains, adding that she is in remission and "is doing great now".

"Like in the scene when Andrew talks about the death of his mother — I was just going to work thinking I was fine. But something that I've learned about grief is that it's a physical thing and you can say that you're fine in your head, but it has to manifest itself."

Scott adds: "It's the expression 'the body keeps the score' — that's so true."

At one point, his character's grief does overwhelm his body, in a dancefloor release that becomes a nightmare as bumps of ketamine open the valve. He aches for days afterwards, less a comedown than an emotional hangover.

"Say whatever you want, but your body will tell you the truth."'

[butchwheels]

i think many people will judge strangers yet do the same behavior themselves. if you are trans/nonbinary, think back to the past couple times you saw a gender conforming person and talked about them, and conceived them in your mind. did you refer to them as they/them? gender neutral language? did you hesitate before you said sir or ma'am or lady, guy, woman, man, etc? why not? because they conformed enough for you? because they were too old for you to think they're trans/nb? because they didn't look nonbinary/trans? where do you draw the line? because i'm fairly sure you draw the line somewhere, even my nonbinary friends admit it. this isn't an accusation or a way to shame anyone, but that line is important to keep in mind and discuss. it's unfortunate that english is a gendered language, but the lgbtq community does need to work within it and talk through these issues.

if you demand that people use they/them pronouns and gender neutral language the second they see someone as too androgynous to be binary, that means there's now rules on who is conforming enough vs who is too different to be a man/woman and it reeks of sexism. it others masc women and feminine men. it tells them "hey you don't look man/woman enough to me, what are you?" and while that may be validating to some nonbinary people, it's also othering for people who are trying to normalize gender nonconformity in society, and expand what is accepted within manhood & womanhood. it also erases nonbinary & trans people who aren't visibly androgynous. what does that mean when our goal as leftists is to free people from restrictive gender norms? there's going to hopefully be more and more gnc people, and they shouldn't all be assumed trans. many people in the trans community reinforce this behavior in both trans & cis people they know, to ask anyone too androgynous their pronouns/gender but no one else. and i think it can be harmful for everyone.

and if you say there's no way to identify a nonbinary person in a crowd, what does that mean in circumstances that aren't a relative/friend/coworker being purposefully shitty, going against your preferred pronouns/gender? there needs to be a talk about what the trans/nb community wants cis strangers to do, and consistency in it. a lot of the transphobia going on is frustration born out of confusion, because all of the sudden the english language is being used in a radically different way than its original sex-based usage, and interactions between strangers are forever changed, at least in more progressive circles. she/her and he/him were initially invented for convenience to refer to sex. now that there's more knowledge of trans issues and they/them pronouns in society, where do we go from here? how do we do this without reinforcing sexism & misogyny?

[xianjaneway]

The Loss of Rev. Bubba Copeland, Part 2

(Content note: we're going to address topics like suicide, child sex abuse, graphic descriptions of sex & abuse in fiction, fundamentalist & conservative hatred towards LGBTQIA people, & the Southern Baptist Convention's cover-up of child sexual assault within its leadership. This is a cry for justice, & it's not going to be pretty. If any of this is unhealthy for you to read about, please use the back button to save your sanity.)

Conservative Christianity showed its face today, & it is dirty.

The response of the church to the passing of Rev. Copeland has been outrageous, confusing, and filled with both misinformation & bigotry.

I need the queer, trans, fanfic, dead dove, & any other affected community to see what's happening here:

They're saying his works of fiction are indications that he's a danger to the community.

They're saying that, because he wrote about a murder, using the name of a real woman, he must have secretly wanted to murder her.

I don't know how to explain to non-writers, "Fiction isn't reality. Copeland wasn't going to murder that woman, just like I'm NEVER going to be an military intelligence analyst in witness protection."

I wonder if they think reality TV is real.

Even worse, they're attacking those of us who brought stories of systemic child sexual abuse into the light, saying, "BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS GUY?? HOW CAN YOU DEFEND HIM?"

My friend @CoffeeYall said it best: "We will never ever deal with church abuse, when we view a queer adult man as having the same amount of evil, as a pastor who grooms and rapes underage girls."

The church fundamentally does not understand the difference between "sin," or violating their commandments, & "abuse," the act of harming another person, taking a person's agency away, controlling them, violating them, & destroying them. They view sin as a type of abuse against God, the church, & society, & seek to banish it.

They don't understand consent, which is why the fact that Rev. Copeland's wife had full knowledge & consent of their online life doesn't matter to them. When we became Evangelical, we were supposed to give ALL of our will & ambition & sense of self over to God.

They don't understand that people have a right to exist without their approval. They literally see themselves as a type of authority that should be on equal footing with the government.

Here's the laziest example of this type of thinking. It's an excerpt from James Dobson's book, "Marriage Under Fire," page one:

Does Dobson justify this claim in any way? Of course not. That would take work! Evangelicals like him just accept that their views should be taken as default. They don't understand that protecting the rights of people who disagree with them eventually protects their own rights as well.

You might ask, "Why then would Rev. Copeland stay in such an environment? He was only harming himself?"

Sadly, Rev. Copeland was 49 years old when he died. I turn 44 in a couple of weeks. I can tell you, as someone just five years younger than him, who also grew up in a rural community, that we didn't grow up with the internet, or strong technology literacy, or any diversity of media.

The only difference is, I was taken away when I was 16, & was exposed to a new world of ideas. If I'd stayed?

The most radical or diverse ideas I'd have seen would be at the solitary Catholic church in a 30 mile radius. Maybe I'd have been a crazy Apostolic or Methodist Lady Pastor!

People who discover truths about themselves late in life often face a very difficult choice:

Hide who you are for just a FEW more years, until you can comfortably retire.

Don't hide who you are, & lose everything you've spent the last 20-30 years building. Your community, your financial security, your dignity, & your life.

I know a pastor who successfully navigated 3 short years before retirement. I could tell when the topics & language of his sermons changed, that he was struggling. He's now living happily, about 2500 miles away.

I wish Rev. Copeland had been given that same chance.

[dracademy]

General Organic Chemistry

General Organic Chemistry- General Organic Chemistry introduces students to the core concepts of organic chemistry. A solid comprehension of the principles covered by GOC is essential for studying more advanced topics.

General Components of an Organic Reactions- Organic reaction reactants are categorized as follows:

Reagents- Chemical species that cause a reaction by attacking another species. 

Substrate- In an organic reaction, the species that are attacked by a reagent.

The location of the reagent attack can differ depending on the type of the reagent-

Electrophiles- They are species that lack electrons and assault the substrate in an area with a lot of electrons.

Nucleophiles- They are species with lots of electrons that frequently give away their electrons. In general, nucleophiles attack the reagent at an area with low electron density.

In most chemical reactions, old chemical connections are broken and new ones are created. A covalent bond can break in one of two ways: homolytic fission creates species known as radicals, and heterolytic fission results in the production of an ion pair consisting of a positively charged cation and a negatively charged cation and negatively charged anion.

Inductive Effects- A carbon chain is transformed into a permanent dipole when an electron-deficient molecule is added. The difference in the electronegativities of the atoms in the molecule is what causes the dipole, which is why this effect is known as the inductive effect. Down the carbon skeleton, the partial charge's magnitude decreases. From the fourth carbon atom in the chain, its size can be avoided.The inductive effect is a long-lasting phenomenon that depends on distance and is transmitted via sigma bonds. Inductive effects can be divided into two categories: +I (raises acidity and reduces the basicity) and -I (reduces acidity and raises basicity).

Electromeric Effect- The whole transfer of pi electrons to one of the linked atoms in an organic molecule causes the electromeric effect. Because there is an attacking reagent present, it has a temporary effect.The electromeric effect disappears when the attacking reagent is removed from the system. There are two types of electromeric effects +E, the pi electron moves towards the attacking reagent when it is an electrophile, which then attaches to the negatively charged atom that still has the bond pair and -E, The pi electron shifts away from the attacking reagent when it is a nucleophile, which attaches to the negatively charged atom that lost its pi-electron.

Hyperconjugation- Adjacent sigma bonds that provide empty p-orbitals with electrons stabilize carbocations. Hyperconjugation is the term used to describe this impact, which is permanent. 

Mesomeric- The delocalization of electrons through a network of pi bonds is a component of the mesomeric effect. The polarity that emerges in organic compounds as a result of interactions between two pi bonds is caused by the mesomeric effect. Consequently, both negative and positive charges can be stabilized. Two different forms of mesomeric effects exist- +M, electrons are donated by a pi-system in this process, and they usually travel away from these groups, -M,Since electrons usually advance these groups, it involves a pi-system accepting electrons.

Resonance Effect- Pi-electrons and lone pairs over molecules are delocalized as a result of the resonance effect. As a result, various speculative molecular configurations called resonance structures are produced. Two distinct resonance effects exist: +R, it happens when a single pair of electrons enters a molecule, -R, It generally happens because of species that lose electrons or species with empty p or d orbitals.

Isomerism- Multiple compounds with the same chemical formula but different chemical structures are said to exhibit isomeric behavior. Isomers are the names for chemical substances that exhibit isomerism. Stereoisomerism and structural isomerism are the two different types of isomerism.

General Organic Chemistry is a vital topic of chemistry for NEET aspirants, it is as tough as well as important to clear NEET. To understand it better, everyone needs guidance from the Best NEET coaching in Bangalore, they provide notes, full guidance, PYQ, and mock tests for students to clear and strengthen their base for NEET and upcoming syllabus.