#it's the underlying assumption that any of this matters

[spacemonkeysalsa]

Somebody (okay like a lot of people) said being attracted to a character makes it hard to be objective about them. So, for science (eh, for fun) I have interviewed a lesbian with nearly 3000 hours in Baldur's Gate 3 with questions about Astarion:

Q: Hi. I know you are a lesbian, but that doesn't preclude being attracted to Astarion, so let's also establish objectivity according to the experts. Are you attracted to Astarion at all?

A: No. It's kind of devastating to me because I love vampires. But apparently they do have to be lady vampires.

Q: Perfect. Have you ever tried to romance him anyway?

A: I started a couple of games with the intention of romancing him. It never worked out. I always end up with Shadowheart. Or Lae'zel.

Q: Do you like him, as a character?

A: Yeah. He's great.

Q: Ever kill him in any of your playthroughs?

A: Only to resurrect him, to see his lines. But I've never permanently killed him.

Q: Why not?

A: Because I like his story. I don't always enjoy talking to him about his story, because he's a bit much. But I want him to have that development and see it through. Be happy and free! Fuck Cazador. What a bitch.

Q: Is he an asshole?

A: Yes, but he's a lovable asshole. As much any of the others. Well, some of the others. Let's be fair.

Q: What's his alignment like?

A: I don't understand DnD alignment.

Q: For the record, have you played DnD?

A: Yes. I still don't get it. I have played for years now and this is all I know: lawful tends to equal "the worst in your group." There are exceptions though, like obviously I love Shadowheart, even though she starts off pretty strictly obeying Sharran dogma. Chaotic means "fun." Most party members in any given campaign say they are one thing but then act as true neutrals. And if you participate in a torture session with a DM controlled NPC and you forget to ask any questions, then your alignment will get shifted mid campaign. I learned that recently.

Q: I have no comment on that besides that maybe you should have listened to the bard in your party telling you this was stupid and pointless?

A: I wasn't running the torture session, I just held her still! I'm an accessory. I'm a barbarian, I can't be expected to think shit through or pay any attention to you when you speak.

Q: ...So can Astarion fall in love?

A: He's perfectly capable of that.

Q: If you had to guess his sperm count...?

A: Why would anyone ever care about that? Even if he were a real person? Why would anyone give a shit? Is this really a talking point? Fuck. I hate you guys. Just play the game.

Q: Whose your favorite companion?

A: Shadowheart.

Q: Tell me what you like about her?

A: The process of getting to know her, delving underneath that shell of secrets. She's so strong and sweet even through she can't easily show it right away because of all the bullshit she's been taught. In early access, when I couldn't get her out of the pod, either because that wasn't an option in the game yet, or I was too stupid, I've never figured it out, I was devastated. I didn't even know her yet, but I was so in love from the very beginning.

Q: Aww, that's really nice. What character do you think you are most like?

A: Karlach and Lae'zel. Maybe more Karlach, but definitely both. Not that Karlach isn't great, but I wish I was more like Lae'zel.

Q: And I should probably end on an Astarion question again since that was kind of the point. What about him do you find relatable, assuming that's anything?

A: I totally relate to wanting to put up a front to protect yourself. Can't relate to the method at all but the motivation is solid. Also, even though I have never romanced him, I have seen his DTR dialogue, and I really love it. I love how honest he is about his feelings. It's not romantic to be uncertain, but he doesn't care about that anymore, because he's just being totally transparent. It might seem weird that I would say that while being down bad for the least transparent character in the game, but that's a trait I personally value in myself more than a partner. Don't get me wrong, it would be nice, but for me I really try to be honest about what I am feeling. You can't DTR with Shadowheart really, the equivalent would be the stupid "you've never been in a relationship like this have you?" dialogue option which is never what I would say irl, but it's all I get in the game, and I think she's telling the truth when you have that conversation. With Astarion, it's so obvious. He's so obvious. I'm like that. I think it's very cool that you see that development in him, going from lying to survive to just being totally readable. Whether you're romancing him or not, by act three you know exactly what he's really about. Or if you don't, you haven't been talking to him, or like failed all your insight checks or something.

Q: Thanks! You were great. Anything to add?

A: Shadowzel forever.

[communistkenobi]

I believe it was the work of legal scholar Florence Ashley where I first encountered this term (it might have also been Serano), but I’m becoming more and more committed to saying “degender” as opposed to “misgender.” like I think the term ‘misgender’ fails to properly identify the mechanism behind the process it describes: misgendering is not an act of attributing the wrong gender characteristics to a trans person, it is an act of dehumanisation. I think the term ‘misgender’ especially gives people much easier rhetorical cover to argue that trans women are hurt by misandry by being ‘mislabeled as men,’ or that they are in fact ‘actually men’ and benefit from male privilege, because the (incorrect) assumption underlying this is that when trans women are ‘misgendered’ they are being treated like men - to follow this line of thinking to its natural conclusion, this denies the existence of transmisogyny altogether, because any ‘misgendering’ of trans women is done only with the intent, conscious or otherwise, to inscribe the social position (and the privileges this position affords) of men onto them, as opposed to stripping them of their womanhood (and thus, their humanity).

The term degendering, however, I think more accurately describes this dehumanising process. Pulling from the work of both Judith Butler and Maria Lugones, gender mediates access to personhood - Lugones says in the Coloniality of Gender that in the colonial imaginary, animals have no gender, they only have (a) sex, and so who gets ‘sexed’ and who gets ‘gendered’ is a matter of who counts as human. She describes this gendering process as fundamentally colonial and emerging as a colonial technology of power - who is gendered is who gets to be considered human, and so the construction of binary sex is a way of ‘speciating’ or rendering non-human the Indigenous and African people of colonized America, justifying and systematising the brutal use of their land and/or their labour until their death by equating them to animals. Sylvia Wynter likewise describes in 1492: A New World View that a popular term used by Spanish colonizers to describe the indigenous people was “heads of Indian men and women,” as in heads of cattle. By the same token, white men are granted the high status of human, worthy of governance, wealth, and knowledge production, and white women are afforded the subordinate though still very high responsibility of reproducing these men by raising and educating children. Appeals to a person’s sex as something more real, more obvious, or ‘poorly concealed’ by their gender is to deny them their gender outright, and therefore is a mechanism to render them non-human. Likewise, for Butler, gender produces the human subject - to be outside gender is to be considered “unthinkable” as a human being, a being in “unliveable” space.

Therefore the process of trans women going from women -> “male” is not “being gendered as a man,” it is being positioned as non-human. when people deny the gender of trans women, most especially trans women of colour, they invariably do this through reference to their genitals, to their ‘sex,’ as something inescapable, incapable of being concealed - again, this is not a process of rendering them as men, it is the exact opposite: it is a process of rendering them as non-human. there is not a misidentification process happening, they are not being “misgendered as men,” there is a de-identification of them as human beings. Hence, they are not misgendered, they are degendered, stripped of gender, stripped of their humanity

[metanarrates]

escapist media in general is an ongoing fascination for me. media written with escapism as a main priority typically requires very little thought from the reader - the whole point is to kick back and live vicariously through a fun story, after all. they're narratives written to prioritize reader comfort.

but because they are written to be as unchallenging as possible, they often come with a set of underlying assumptions that can be just fucking fascinating to unpick. like yeah, why IS it assumed to be escapist and indulgent to enjoy colonial wealth without thinking about it in regency fiction. why IS the self inserty female protagonist, who is assumed to be as universally relatable as possible, written to be sweetly naive and sexually inexperienced. why does this "queernorm" contemporary world replicate patriarchial structures exactly but just with Gay People Allowed. why are these ideas assumed to be easy and comforting? can the writers not imagine anything better than the status quo but except maybe with more gay people and poc if you're lucky?

the fact of the matter is that "unchallenging" fiction tends to just simply replicate dominant cultural narratives as a point of comfort. we won't challenge the reader, so we won't think about the way we write certain things. everything we think of as comforting and safe are, of course, universal, and could not be founded on any harmful ideological assumptions. there is nobody who could be alienated by this.

and that's the sticking point to me, in terms of escapist fiction: it's always necessary to ask whose comfort is being prioritized. you've got to interrogate who gets to escape and the mechanisms by which that escape happens. escapism can be good and necessary to survive the current world, but it does not exist in a vacuum separate from the real world, even if it pretends it does!

[aro-barrel]

one of the first things any aro wants to know on their journey of discovery is, “what the fuck is romantic love?” so we end up reading alloromantic accounts of romance, just so we can try to understand. and it’s often a failed journey, simply because people describe different experiences or describe sensations that don’t necessarily equate to romantic attraction. sure, people get a warm fuzzy feeling when they look at their spouse, but alloplatonics might describe their platonic feelings the same. and sure, people are struck with a desire to hold someone close and kiss them, but is that really exclusive to romance? after a while, it becomes clear. love filled with subjectivity.

the question then becomes, what do we do with subjectivity? it’s the first step in disassembling "love." when we choose to investigate further, we may come to realize the subjectivities are (too often) conveniently erased to suit popular notions of love—these stem from dominant depictions of love that don’t reflect reality or practice. put simply: people are told how their love is. yes, they're told how to love, but there is the very real assumption that the same feelings underlie every expression of romantic love, no matter who you are. it's in all the tv shows and books, it's parroted by well-meaning people who wish for your happiness, it's sliced ragged until it's a narrow, "correct" form. but no one loves that singular way, even if they warp their own experiences to fit the narrative. if "love" is pared down, concentrated into an impossibly specific expression, we get awful tunnel vision when we try to conceptualize it. the lived, subjective experiences of love elude us.

so as aromantics, we take the abandoned subjectivities and play around with them. we might attempt to separate components of "love" and poke them with a stick, dissect them, take parts out, Frankenstein them. we might heave "love" into a jumbo garbage bin forever or build our own thing from scratch. when people write of love as a law of nature, we tear it to fucking shreds. there are no rules, it's not a sacred thing, not immutable. we fuck around with "love" on purpose. we carve our own space in a society that insists on myopia.

[eamour]

method · using subliminals

today, we are talking about subliminals. believe it or not, subliminals are what actually brought me to the law of attraction and later on the law of assumption. they are already used by a large number of people, even those who don’t necessarily believe in any law.

definition

subliminal (adjective) refers to something that cannot be recognised or understood by the conscious mind but still manages to influence the subconscious. a subliminal message, for example, can only be perceived by you without you having notice or being aware of it.

in a spiritual context, subliminals (noun) signify sounds, often music with underlying positive affirmations.

intention

the purpose of subliminals is to sway your beliefs in a certain direction or change them entirely. a subliminal that purposely tries to persuade you subconsciously into believing something which you find hard to believe in consciously. in short, listening to subliminals helps you "reprogram" your mind.

how to listen

you can listen to a subliminal with your headphones, your earphones, on your phone, on your laptop, on your tablet,… all variants are just as influential.

when and where to listen

when and where you listen to a subliminal is entirely up to you. it depends on your beliefs. the moment you think you need to listen to them for them to help you manifest or materliase your desire, that’s when you should listen to them. there is no fixed time or place. you can listen whenever you want, wherever you want.

how often to listen

how often you listen to a subliminal is also entirely up to you. you can listen to one subliminal the entire a day, two subliminals at the same time, listen overnight, while doing your chores, make a playlist for the day, create a time frame for when to listen or listen to it only once — you decide! again, there is no fixed amount of times. you listen as many times as you wish to.

what to listen to

you can find subliminals on various platforms! mostly, they are free and on youtube. there, you can follow your favourite subliminal channels, create playlists and listen/loop them. you may also find subliminals on spotify, apple music, soundcloud, etc.

why it works

it doesn’t matter how many times you listen to a subliminal, how intense you listen to it or where you do it. the only thing that matters is your overall mental attitude. while listening to the sub, all you have to do is to accept its promised results to make it "work" for you. keyword: belief. belief creates and helps creating. your only job is to decide you have your desire and persist in that. for example, you could assume that you get your desires while listening to the sub and full results after listening to the entire playlist. or maybe you get full results by just listening to the first second of the sub? your rules apply only.

with love, ella.

[familyabolisher]

you said that you don’t take lines of questioning / thought about “romanticizing” dark topics (SA, incest, etc.) seriously. would you mind elaborating on that? what does it mean, if anything, to romanticize? i think i get why it’s a fundamentally reactionary (or just silly?) thing to be concerned about, but would you mind elaborating on why?

thanks! your posts have been very illuminating on this sort of thing.

okay so let's talk about "romanticise" as a literary discourse for a second because there are a handful of things happening with its usage:

is the assumption that there exists a state of non-'romantic' discursive matter from which something 'romantic' is being created, and the content of the text in question is the process by which that creation is happening;

is the use of 'romantic' to describe something that appears to the viewer as desirable and attractive, thus obscuring the ways in which it is harmful/abusive/violent/&c.;

is the idea that this 'romantic' state represents something morally odious due to the ideas it might impress upon the audience about the nature of the discursive matter made 'romantic' in question.

i think it's worth breaking each of these assumptions down because i don't believe that any of them actually hold water, and i find that they in fact telegraph some pretty reactionary paradigms around literary criticism.

first is the idea that there exists discursive matter that is not "romantic," here to mean suffused with cultural narratives that render it desirable, and that the matter in question only takes on these desirable qualities after undergoing this process of "romanticisation." by this logic, the matter is in fact prediscursive; the onus of constructing a “romantic” discourse lies solely with the cultural response. when in practice, normative cultural assumptions and the media that interacts with them exist in a feedback loop relative to one another, and it surely makes more productive sense to engage with the apparently objectionable material not as an object that creates or even necessarily reifies a normative cultural standard, but that interfaces with that standard in what could potentially be any number of variant forms. this widens the scope of our response as an audience—we might well say that a depiction of XYZ was tasteless, clichéd, voyeuristic, lacked interest in the interiority of its subjects, &c. &c., just as easily as we might say that it engaged with extant cultural narratives in compelling, thoughtful, meaningful ways. we're not taking the cultural object as the didactic “creation” of a social norm—we're situating it within the norms from which it already emerged.

the second is the idea that this ‘romantic,’ aesthetically desirable construction must necessarily obscure the ways in which the subject matter is harmful (however we define ‘harmful’). i find this position v condescending, towards creator and audience alike—one way of crafting horror that can be really exceptional when done right is the total sealing-off of the narrative from any didactic intervention, any suggestion that what's being depicted is morally “wrong.” the dissonance between subject matter and audience—and/or between subject matter and creator—can be brilliant when you can have faith that that dissonance exists. audiences aren't little babies who learn our morals from our media; we're prepared to critically engage with and respond to a discourse presented to us. as i said above, doing away with this whole “romantic” sheen as an obfuscator of violence opens us up to new, more precise, more compelling readings.

the third – and imo, the most damnatory – is the suggestion that the narrative itself represents a potential site of harm due to the underlying ideology that it imposes on those who engage with it. like, we're still adopting this approach whereby we construct and engage with narratives for instructive purposes; if we see a depiction of sexual abuse that renders the abuse pleasurable, aesthetically pleasing, desirable, then we absorb this idea that sexual abuse is pleasurable and aesthetically pleasing and desirable and thus covet the position of the subject in question. i don't think this is necessarily true! i'm obviously not suggesting that we don't absorb and reproduce our cultural narratives in media – as i said in the first point, there exists a feedback loop between the two – but i think we as audiences and critics ought to think more highly of ourselves than to imagine that we are incapable of seeing some fucked up shit given an aesthetic gloss without asking why the aesthetic gloss is being used, how the creator is making use of perspective, how we might respond to it, etc. and i just don't think narratives ought to be instructive or didactic; nor do i think creators bear responsibility for how their work is received to the extent that they are obliged to orient their discourse towards a presumed impressionable individual for whom every action or aesthetic contrivance is a categorical imperative. this is the oldest and honestly the most boring debate in the book; the question of "moralism" in fiction has been done half to death by now, and i don't see any use in rehashing it to any significant extent. suffice it to say that the “moralist” approach is stultified and limited and intellectually dull.

note that nowhere in this did i say that there are never narratives that ought to be called into question for their depiction of X, Y, or Z; just that i think we need better, more precise language to defer to do when we do so. simply put, i think it's possible to make a piece of art that holds these “romantic” qualities, and doesn't have a guy walk in midway through and go “by the way, abuse is Bad/age gaps are Problematic/mental illness is Unsexy,” &c., and still greatly compel me wrt its subject matter. & that is a statement which exists in straightforward contradiction to the idea that the term “romanticise” communicates anything necessarily and inherently condemnatory about a text, so, i don't use it.

[the-warlock-syndicate]

You may not like to hear this, but Cruelty Squad is the best cyberpunk game out there. All your Cyberpunk 2077, and Stray, and Deus Ex games, plated in shiny chrome, don't grasp the core essence of cyberpunk nearly as well as Cruelty Squad, a game made of filth and disease. It's barely even cyber as well, it honestly leans into biological augments more than cybernetic ones.

But that doesn't matter. Because the absolute core of Cruelty Squad, is that the world is a sick, corrupt festering thing, twisted by greed, corruption, and unrestrained capitalism. Human life has no value, and this is explicitly seen in the narrative and in the game mechanics. And the thing that really stands out is that it deliberately tries to shock and disgust the player.

Sure, many cyberpunk games purport to engage in those themes, of greed, corruption, etc. But there is a dissonance. We are told narratively that this world is horrible, but visually, we see a cool, technologically advanced world, where people are badasses. And the problems in these settings are close enough to our own, real life problems, that a slightly enhanced dystopia might not seem so bad, when it comes with such technological advancement.

Cruelty Squad does not do that. There are no badass characters in the game, rather a series of pathetic, pitiable wretches who act in despicable ways, lacking empathy or humanity. The augments are horrific in such a way that the player does not fantasize about having them in real life. All of the textures are disgusting, and deliberately so. The sounds are abrasive and offputting. Even the UI is hideously ugly. It isn't poorly designed of course. But rather, designed in such a way that the player should never develop a hint of sympathy, longing, or good feelings for any aspects of that world. The underlying assumptions underpinning the cyberpunk genre are not to be romanticized, but rather exposed as a viscerally loathsome thing, which makes one reluctant to touch any part of a world tainted by it.

There aren't a lot of games which linger, and occupy headspace. But Cruelty Squad is one of them.

[femmefatalevibe]

Femme Fatale Guide: How To Handle Rude People & Insulting Comments With Class

Table of Contents:

Stop taking things personally

Seek clarity, not competition

(Calmly) Share your truth when necessary

De-escalate, disengage, and/or redirect the interaction

How To Handle Insults & Rude People With Class:

Stop taking things personally. Other people's hostility is a coping mechanism for their lack of inner work and healing.

Seek clarity, not competition. Most of the time, people's insults are intentional. They usually want to get an emotional reaction out of you. They want to feed their ego and underlying needs for validation rather than seek to add value or facilitate connection through their words and conversations. Rather than get defensive, call out the behavior by asking the perpetrator of the negative comment to explain the implication of their statement. Play a little dumb and ask "What did you mean by that?" Allow those with bad intentions to tell on themselves. Most people with some degree of self-awareness will either try to gloss over and move on from their comment after seeing that you're too secure with yourself to entertain these low-value comments. Individuals who use this desire for clarity as an opportunity to overexplain their rude commentary almost always tell on themselves – their motives, insecurities, and deep need for self-acceptance and social validation.

(Calmly) Share your truth when necessary. If someone is trying to spread lies about you, discredit your reputation, or defame your character, state the facts about the situation without bringing emotions into the discussion or conflict. Remember: Remaining unbothered does not equate to being a doormat. Stand up for yourself –speak using a neutral tone and only state facts about yourself, your actions, conversations, or any logistics related to the given situation. Do not make accusations or assumptions about the person or the rude commentary they've made. Present their words and actions in a clinical, matter-of-fact manner to show the faulty of their logic rather than firing back with an equally-detrimental attempt to defame their character or give them the social spotlight and attention they're looking for in the moment.

De-escalate, disengage, and/or redirect the interaction. Don't allow their rude behavior to affect your external presence. Try your absolute best to not appear frustrated, raise your voice, or throw back any negative comments. Agree to disagree. Express the pettiness of this conflict. Either walk away or move on to another topic of conversation. Remind yourself that you're dealing with a wounded person. Feeding into their rude commentary is only deepening the cracks and encouraging these negative patterns of behavior.

Validate your emotions. Seek emotional support if necessary. Dealing with combative people can be draining, so remember that it is okay to feel hurt, depleted, sad, or any other negative emotions after the interaction. Schedule a therapy appointment or confide in a trusted member of your support system if you need to talk these matters out to release some of the emotional stress or tension.

[divinearchitect]

looking within: the root substance of all manifestation.

✧.* I know we don't wanna hear this, but sometimes you really have to evaluate your underlying negative assumptions and look within in order to feel worthy of your desires.

I'll use myself an an example. I want more followers on social media, specifically Twitter. Throughout my time on the internet I never had a lot of followers, but with my knowledge with the law I decided that I have thousands of them.

But in the process of deciding I have more followers, I realized that it's not necessarily the number that I seek. It is the desire to be seen.

I wanted to feel validated. I craved connection. I wanted to be noticed and acknowledged.

Growing up, I had a deep-rooted belief that I am "slept on," as in unworthy, invisible. Very little friends in real life and on the internet. I used to go on social media and complain how I was lonelier on there than I was in my everyday life. And unfortunately, because that is what I believed to be true, it became my experience on social media.

I would have accounts that amassed no more than 100 followers, majority of which were inactive, and it made me insecure and messed with my self worth. It sounds pathetic because it was. I would even delete accounts because I was miserable. It was a blow to my self-esteem.

It made me think: if I woke up tomorrow to having over 1k followers on social media, how would I feel? With the awareness of being unworthy, I would likely feel a momentary excitement, but it would not last because of the beliefs I still held. I wouldn't know what to do with myself after that. I wouldn't feel fulfilled. It's like feeling lonely while being surrounded by others.

But because I looked within and found the true root of my desire, I began to affirm that I am valued, I am enough, I am worthy with or without the followers. I sought validation within. Not only did it change my awareness, it also changed the way I manifest, because I'm not holding myself back and I am giving myself permission to have what I want simply because I know I am worthy of it.

This can apply to all aspects of your desires. It is often our own ego and deeply rooted feelings of insecurity holding us back from truly living in the end. This is not a limiting belief — it is a silent and pervasive unconscious state that needs to be addressed so you can call upon your desires effortlessly.

Because sometimes we desire things but don't understand why it will truly fulfill us, or we desire out of a place of insecurity. We want the material fruits of our labor, but a rotten seed grows rotten fruit.

When you affirm worthiness, of being enough no matter what, you are planting seeds that grow into fruitful trees. Its branches are the extensions of your feeling of being worthy, and you may find that manifesting SP, money, followers on social media and all of your desires are seamless because your root substance is able to sustain it well. Within, so without. Right?

While this isn't necessarily groundbreaking and can be lumped in with self-concept, I truly believe this will help those of us who might have manifested something that didn't last, or they're not seeing their outer world change even after affirming for it. While yes, you can manifest in any state, in order to truly become that which you decide to be, you must free yourself of any inner feelings of doubt and unworthiness. It takes a certain amount of self-examination to detect these beliefs and renounce them to make room for what you desire.

Sometimes what we truly need —that is, evaluating and altering how you really feel towards yourself— is in the way of what we want. And addressing the first makes receiving the second a million times easier.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Mary L. Trump at The Good in Us Substack:

Normally, my issue with the corporate media is their failure to shine a light on stories that matter. But in this case, it seems some segments of the corporate media, primarily Fox, is hellbent on helping Donald interfere with his trial through jury intimidation. It’s a disturbing reality that we must confront. Last night, Donald Trump posted the following on social media: “They are catching undercover liberal activists lying to the judge,” Jesse Watters.

Lawyers and legal analysts like Ryan Goodman and Andrew Weissman made it clear that this was a serious breach, the most serious to date, of Judge Merchan’s gag order – one that should be dressed immediately.  The fact that Donald was quoting somebody else is irrelevant. This seemed to be a blatant case of jury tampering, especially since, at the time of this was posted, five jurors and all six alternates remained to be chosen. I fully expected today’s proceedings to begin with the judge announcing that the so-called Sandoval hearing, which he originally scheduled, would be held today before any other court business. This seemed to be a reasonable assumption considering the purpose of that hearing was so the judge can rule on the prosecution’s contention that Donald should be held in contempt and sanctioned accordingly.

Juror Number 2 dismissed

It’s not uncommon for a juror to be chosen and subsequently let go during the selection process. That was the case with Juror Four after the prosecution discovered the man may have been untruthful in some of his answers. Juror Two’s circumstances were different. She was excused after telling the court that she’d become concerned that her identity might be discovered after her family and  friends questioned her about her possible involvement in the trial following media coverage. The fact that the judge felt the need to keep the identities of jurors anonymous is a damning indictment of the criminal defendant. And clearly the jurors understand the inherent danger of being seated on this jury. 

To put this in perspective, my friend and former U.S. Attorney, Joyce White Vance explained, “Typically, you would only see that happen in a case involving violent organized crime.” Following the juror’s feedback, Judge Merchan reprimanded the press for reporting far too much information about the jurors. [Out of an abundance of caution, I deleted the section about the jurors from last night’s post.]

[...] In a disturbing display of media influence, Fox host Jesse Watters went through the list of jurors, with identifying characteristics like employment, gender, place of residence, and commented on each one. 

Watters then singled out any jurors who didn’t align with his idea of what a juror should be (pro-Donald) and cast doubt on their ability to be fair and impartial. This is not just unethical, it’s dangerous. Fox, on Donald’s behalf, is actively helping Donald create an atmosphere of fear among the jurors. In a just world, Watters would be fired for his irresponsible behavior, but Fox has no interest in justice. Consider what Josh Kovensky of Talking Points Memo, pointed out: “Instead of operating within the process of jury selection, which assumes that people are capable of setting aside whatever political beliefs or biases they may have in order to render a good faith judgment on the evidence, it casts the assumptions underlying that process as Trump’s enemy to be defeated, implying that the jurors themselves are incapable of both being impartial in their judgment of him and participating in a political system in which he is a main actor.”

[...]

Donald amplifies Fox, scares a juror, and breaks his gag order

So far, here’s the pattern: A Fox personality attacks the judge or jury, and then Donald shares it on Truth Social as a way to give himself plausible deniability: He can distance himself from the quote by saying it doesn’t represent what he actually believes. This is exactly what he did last night when he quoted Jesse Watters. Regardless of Donald’s attempts to pretend otherwise, this is a clear violation of his gag order and shows a blatant disregard for the legal process. He needs to be punished or this will spiral out of control quickly. We’re already seeing that his disrespectful behavior in the courtroom and flouting of norms — like refusing to stand when the prospective jurors enter the room or using his phone when nobody else is —has already gone too far. The gag order was imposed to prevent Donald from publicly speaking about witnesses, jurors, court staff and their families outside of the courtroom. Donald has run out of chances and his downfall will be of his own making.

[...]

Judge Merchan must lay the smackdown on Donald

Prosecutors have accused Donald of violating the court-imposed gag order SEVEN times since the commencement of the trial. And they will have a chance to make the case for Donald to be held accountable during a hearing next week. They have pointed to public statements and social media posts made by Donald over the past few days as evidence of these violations. They have described the situation as “ridiculous” and have called for it to stop, expressing frustration over Donald’s repeated breaches of the order. Former federal prosecutor Shannon Wu has now called on Merchan to strengthen the gag order to any communication about the trial beyond Donald saying he’s innocent and plans to defend himself. At the very least, Judge Merchan needs to be unequivocal in telling Donald and defense counsel that enough is enough. The repeated violations of the gag order and Donald’s attempts to interfere with the trial warrant serious repercussions. He cannot keep getting away with it.

Mary L. Trump writes in her Substack on how right-wing media outlets (esp. Fox's Jesse Watters) and Donald Trump are conducting witness tampering on the jury for the Trump falsification of business records trial. Trump Trial

[bimbinis]

the trouble with critiquing transandrophobia and associated tendencies as a trans man is that what it feels like is that you’re being put in the position of arguing that you’re defending yourself from accusations of Not being privileged, that you are in fact privileged, which in a discussion that is explicitly a matter of oppression olympics is automatically a theoretical lost position. how do you even express the fact that transandrophobia is an incredibly lackluster category, that not only relies on incorrect, hurtful underlying assumptions about how the oppression of other groups work, but on top of that doesn’t even actually speak truth to your actual goddamn lived experience, when you’re the very person it purports to be about, when saying “my life does not look like this bc I’m viewed as a man by society” sounds like bragging?

and because the ghost of transmedicalism yet looms high over the land perpetually haunting us all, it very quickly gets warped by transandrophobia truthers into us saying that they’re not really trans bc they don’t take hormones or men bc they don’t pass (even though to me their tendencies towards 1. transmisogyny and 2. making those godawful, out of touch positivity posts reassuring men they’re allowed to be masculine or whatever, both tendencies I frequently observed in my circle during my time as a transmed, seem just as worthy of the accusation). meanwhile they impose on us a false ubiquitous experience of living in a world where people view us as women and measure us by the standards set for women, and any oppression we experience has nothing to do with being viewed on some level as men bc you see, cis men don’t experience oppression for being men but we very much do, we’re the specialest non-toxic boys in the world who will redeem masculinity bc we’re not actually subject to true social existence as men. if you suggest you are that’s you saying that you wanna be just like a cis man which is transphobic and misogynistic bc cis men are misogynists and trans men aren’t. so stay in your lane and let us speak about your experiences for you :)

it’s just such utterly exhausting shite. and bc these people always have these insufferably woobified personas, these performatively inoffensive, “pure cinammon roll”-esque public identities, that makes it all the more infuriating when they engage in such blatant imposition of their own outlook on other people and act like they’re not doing it. but if you call them out on it and tell them to at least have the decency to own up to it they start whining that you’re a toxic male telling them to man up. these people will say to your face that everyone in your life will always view you as a woman and there’s nothing you can do about it but if you reply with “ok aiden” or smth they’ll cry that they’re being hatecrimed. deeply unserious people

[rosetintedchainsaw]

Name: Courtney Hazel Dellian

Username: courtneydarkangel6 (the L is an i on Roblox, I made an acc with an L but I forgot the pswrd because my brain turned to mush)

Nicknames/Aliases: Court, Witch-hazel, Rosalyn

Age: 21

Birthday: October 31st, 1995

Pronouns: She/Her

Sexuality: Pansexual (“As long as they know how to hop a fence, I’ll keep them around.”)

Gender: Female

Species: Human

Addictions: (“Whenever something stops working, I try something else…”)

Religion: Atheist (“He never saved me when I needed him.”)

Lives in: Seems to never stay in one place for too long. (“Nowhere’s safe enough…”)

Occupation: (“Whatever I can find.”)

Weapons: Keeps a taser, gun, and various axes hidden in her van. (“I have to.”)

Alignment: True Neutral

Text Color: Orange

Main Hobbies: Painting, Playing her guitar, Joyriding, Taking care of her cat Daze, Blasting shitty divorced-dad rock on her MP3, Stargazing near the ocean (“Only on good days.”)

Favorite Food: Jimmy John’s (“When I can afford it.”)

Favorite Flower: (“...”)

Scent: Avril Lavigne's Black Star perfume (“I’ve made it last.”)

Handedness: Ambidextrous (“As long as they both work.”)

Blood Color: Red (How could I forget?)

Themes:

Playlist:

Fun Fact: “I’ve been banned from every single bar in Wisconsin all in one night... And no, I don't remember why.”

Special Interests: Creepypasta, Medieval Torture, Biblical and Pagan Imagery, Cryptids, etc. (“I’d list more, but these were all from so long ago… I haven't had time to get into anything new.”)

Stims: Pacing, Fidgeting with whatever object she can get her hands on.

Stimboard: WIP

Moodboard: WIP

Fashion Board: WIP

Comfort Objects: Her guitar, The few CD’s she has left, her MP3 player, her weighted blanket, a giant caterpillar stuffie she won at a carnival ages ago, and her daisy chain bracelet. (I can't stand to look at it, but it's always there on my wrist. It feels like I’m punishing myself forever.)

Family: Sandra Dellian (“Mom, but not really.”), Leonard Copeland (“Pig bastard who left us to rot.”), Lindsay Dellian (“...I miss you.”)

Friends: Daisy Daisy Bell (...I'm sorry I failed you.), Alex Davis (“I don't know why you still try.”), José (“I learned a few basic words for him. He was nice.”)

Romance: (“I’d rather not talk about any of them.”)

Enemies: (sighhhhhhhhhhh “Well I have one constantly on my trail. All the time. No matter where I go. So that's something.”)

Pets: (“I had two cats, but my baby Alexander’s gone now. Now all I have is Daze. I don't say her name out loud often. I just snap my fingers and she comes up to me.”)

Brief Personality: Courtney may seem like a jaded, exhausted, and terminally troubled person. And that assumption would be correct. Nowadays, she barely speaks unless it's to Daze or one of her few old friends online. She goes through life in a dreadfully slow and dazed stumble, and sometimes doesn't seem all the way there. When she isn't in a depressive and almost bitterly-mournful state, she’s usually caught up in some sort of trouble, usually her previous ex, who has been stalking her and sending her threats for quite some time. She tends to move around often, mostly to escape him, but he somehow always manages to track her down. There’s also the underlying feeling she may be subconsciously searching for something.

Backstory: Courtney and Lindsay Dellian were both born on October 31st 1995, their parents being Sandra Dellian and Leonard Copeland. Early on the family had been stricken with turbulence. Sandra had been smoking and using drugs during her pregnancy, which therefore caused complications that endangered both her and her unborn children’s health greatly. Her husband, Leonard, had also been battling a long line of addiction for most of his life, but had been twelve months sober before the twin’s birth. The two had been in deep financial debt, and were both dreading having to take care of their children once they were brought home. They knew they couldn't.

It soon became clear with the twins that Courtney was the brash and defiant problem child, while Lindsay had been born mute. She never spoke or played with any other children, while Courtney lashed out at the other kids, and regularly mouthed off at her teachers and parents. Despite their differences, Courtney was wildly protective of Lindsay, and would keep her out of any trouble she herself caused.

Both children were severely neglected by their parents, mainly left to fend for themselves as they grew up. Eventually, Courtney’s parents had started taking her to various child psychologists, after her behavioral issues had become “too much” for them to handle. When Courtney had turned eleven years old, Sandra and Leonard filed for divorce, and Leonard took Lindsay with him. Leonard simply couldn't deal with Courtney’s attitude, and had started regularly snapping at both his wife and children. His addiction had finally returned as well, causing him to spiral. Courtney suffered a horrible nervous breakdown after being separated from her twin sister, and soon her mother placed her into the Morning Star Institute for the Homeless and Troubled Youth.

After being released for “good behavior”, Courtney spent the rest of her adolescence causing more problems, and overall growing more and more reckless and defiant. Around that time, her mother had started dating a new boyfriend, who quickly became abusive to both Courtney and her mother. After attempting to run away from home multiple times, Courtney soon became involved with various friend groups as she went through middle school and eventually transitioned into high school. For her, sneaking out with them late at night to the skatepark was her only escape. It was around that time when one of her friends introduced her to online websites, one of them being Roblox.

Courtney mainly saw the sites as fun and stupid distractions, but soon her attitude changed when she met a user named Daisy Bell. They almost reminded her of Lindsay in a way. Her and Daisy soon grew close, and Courtney developed an almost “older-sister” attitude towards Daisy, fending off anyone that messed with her. She started growing more and more addicted to the Internet, using it as a form of escapism as her home life fell apart rapidly. Eventually, Sandra and her boyfriend got into a violent altercation, and Courtney herself had to physically restrain her mother’s boyfriend from attacking them. Courtney soon mentally spiraled, and her drug addiction, which had already been bad before, soon became out of control, to the point of nearly overdosing in her room numerous times.

Daisy Bell eventually stopped coming online, and Courtney grew desperate, putting up posters around town and making posts on forums asking anyone if they knew anything about her online friend, but no information came about. Courtney soon suffered a complete mental breakdown, and started ripping out her own hair before her mother’s boyfriend called the police, claiming she had physically attacked him. Courtney spent a few months in a juvenile center, before being released. A few years had passed, and Courtney eventually graduated high school.

Courtney kept in touch with a few of Daisy’s old friends, but eventually disappeared off the web for a while after her mother’s boyfriend threatened to shoot her and her mother, which caused Courtney to finally snap and run away from home. She began couch surfing with a few of her skating friends, before moving in with Toby Bayers, a friend of hers who she soon began dating. She and Toby began experimenting with drugs, before she eventually became pregnant with his child. She unwillingly kept the child, but soon left Toby after he became physically violent towards her. She arranged one of her closest friends from school to look after the child, and help her possibly file a restraining order against Toby. She continued to couch surf with many of her friends, before eventually stealing all of her mother’s money and fleeing to Italy under the pseudo-name Rosalyn to remain safe after Toby relentlessly stalked her after their breakup.

Around 2015, Courtney eventually sent a message to Daisy’s inactive account. Even after five years, Daisy remained a deep and dark subject in her mind, that tirelessly haunted her every waking moment. If only she had kept in touch. If only she had done something. She knew Camilla was responsible. Either partly or fully. The thought that something horrible happened to Daisy ate away at her, and continued to chip away at her psyche. Courtney soon moved out of Italy after one of Toby’s friends who lived over there had located her. She moved back to America, and has spent pretty much then up until now moving from motel to motel, and sometimes even opts to sleep inside of her stolen van, which has pretty much become her safe haven. She had been taking care of two cats she had adopted in Italy, one of which she named Daze, after her old friend, and Alexander, after the stuffed dog toy her sister Lindsay used to always carry around with her.

Courtney spends most of her time nowadays either doing various odd-jobs to keep herself from starving, or keeping herself on the move from Toby, who still attempts to contact her to this day. Despite her life being one long string of misfortune after misfortune, she feels she cannot give up, no matter how much the option tugs at her each day. She still regularly keeps in contact with Alex Davis, and Toby can't chase after her forever. One day, everything will get better.

It couldn't get any worse, right?

[apompkwrites]

Fluttershy!Younger!Clover (Based on Equestrian Girls Fluttershy)

Fluttershy!Clover is meek, shy, and sweet. A timid human, Fluttershy!Clover might not be too self-assured, but their friends know to rely on them in a pinch. More than any of their friends, Fluttershy!Clover is willing to see the best in everyone, a trait that has won over many enemies. Fluttershy!Clover has a deep adoration for animals; they instantly opens up to Yuu once they sees Grim for the first time, they regularly sneaks their pets to Heartslabyul in their backpack, and they volunteers at an animal shelter.

Toji!Crewel

Toji!Crewel is a cool-headed, confident man who makes a living using his skills and does not sweat the small stuff. He appears to enjoy insightful conversation with others as long as it somehow pertains to himself and can trade witty banter. Upon meeting, Crowley asked Toji!Crewel if they had met before. Toji!Crewel, on the other hand, reassured him that he was not the type to recall a random man either. In battle, Toji!Crewel has a crazed expression as if he's lost in the thrill of the fight, but he's always maintaining a cool and calculated head and plotting his next move. Toji!Crewel is proof that you don't need Magic to be successful and that something he teaches to Yuu when he decides to train them.

Punk!Peach!Hunt

Despite their punk appearance, Peach!Hunt is sweet, classy, kind, clever, sociable, and adventurous. They have a warm heart and often acts unselfishly, putting their friends, loved ones, and other students ahead of themselves, and apologizes excessively for getting into trouble with delinquent. While gentle by nature, Peach!Hunt is also strong-willed and can hold their own in sports competitions and battle. Peach!Hunt is slightly more flirty, mischievous, and have a confident attitude. Peach!Hunt transferred from Pomefiore to Ramshackle due to Vil's outrageous Beauty standards and the fact that they had to cover up their tattoos. In comparison to Ramshackle, they actually felt more freedom as a result.

(What they looked like during their First Year)

(What they look during their Second Year)

Alhaitham!Trappola

Alhaitham!Trappola is a scholar who is fueled by a desire to understand the underlying principles of the world around him He greatly values the pursuit of knowledge and dislikes meaningless noise and matters that distract or divert him from his chosen pursuits. To this end, while he is unambitious and enjoys leisure, he will do what he deems necessary to maintain a comfortable life. As a result, he is not fond of being a leader, refusing the position of Heartslabyul's Dorm Leader and became a permanent Ramshackle dorm member. Alhaitham!Trappola focuses greatly on himself at all times. However, he does not do so out of a disregard for others; instead, it is a result of his rationality. For example, he believes that as it is impossible to save everyone, it is important to focus on one's own well-being first. As a result, he frequently squabbles with Ace due to their contrasting ideals and personalities. Contrary to what his peers think, Alhaitham!Trappola does not look down upon anyone and tends to give equal weight to everyone, be they human or god. He also places great importance in the value of humanity and has astute insight into human nature.While he does not keep this a secret, he rarely bothers to correct others' unfavorable assumptions unless it would prove more troublesome to allow them to persist.

Oh, Trey would 100% do his best to protect Fluttershy!Clover from Riddle's anger about bringing their animal friends. As much as he respects Riddle and the rules in Heartslabyul, family comes first. Trey's room probably smells like animals since that's their second home if Fluttershy!Clover needs to hide them.

Oooh Toji!Crewel who sees Yuu as the child they couldn't keep safe..... Thinking about that scene where Toji recognizes Megumi, mhm mhm.

Rook would definitely support Punk!Peach!Hunt in whatever they choose to do. It's their own unique beauty after all ^^

And I am LIVING for the idea that Alhaitham!Trappola and Ace fight all the time. And everyone on campus is like "how are they even related" BAHAHAHA

[dykedvonte]

I really do like character design in mouthwashing

Anya is obvi inspired by Shelley Duval (who was also verbally abused by Cubric, if I recall correctly), the Shining protagonist. Curly is your typical captain America style charismatic leader, he is even canonically a gym bro (although I recall you mentioning that if Curly's pre-crash face wasn't revealed, you would've headcanoned him as black, so I am a bit curios, what his dynamic w/ Jimmy would've been. Like, I think this little piece of sht would be casually racist towards him, he is just that sort of asshole. If the story was set at our times he would've def vote for Trump and complain abt immigrants eating dogs or something equally rediculous lol. Also, his dynamic w/ Anya - being marginalised himself would've he been harder on Jimbo's bullshit? Or would that not matter at all in their particular situation? So many possibilities.)

Daisuke is a bright spot in an otherwise dull and grey space. Swansea is simply perfect, 10/10😁

-💀

I don’t think Jimmy would be racist towards Curly or anyone for that matter.

Like I don’t see Jimmy as a misanthrope. He’s not hateful just to be hateful, he’s spiteful. All of his envy and resentment of others comes from his own projection of shared aspects he feels inferior by. I think the biggest difference is it adds a little more ire to Jimmy’s sentiments as it takes away an easy aspect of Curly’s life. I assume Mouthwashing operates in a similar social history and structure as our world so Curly likely faced prejudices based on his race in this scenario. He had something extra outside of his control weighing him down and yet he still reached that highest rung.

For Jimmy it’s infuriating. It feeds that delusion that Curly has it so much easier, that he doesn’t have to do the real work to get to that space. He should’ve struggled more, he should be more bitter but he isn’t. He’s not like him still and he’s pissed about it. He still wouldn’t understand the underlying and systemic issues Curly would’ve faced cause he can’t. He wouldn’t try to because in doing that it’s an admission he’s just not trying like Curly is. Any comments that could be seen as racist are less targeted at Curly’s ethnicity but just at him. Jimmy’s issues are with Curly as a whole, being so idealic compared to him and everything around him. It’s not just one facet of him physically, mentally or emotionally that makes Jimmy so envious. It’s why he’s obsessed, it everything about him.

As for Anya, this is no anger toward you, but there’s this perception in fandom spaces with intersectionality that sharing a minority status creates an equal understanding of what exact struggles the others go through. You can understand the feeling of oppression but certain aspects of certain systems will still be misunderstood if they don’t apply to you. Curly is still a man and Anya a woman. Perhaps she is a woman of color, it think he may have been a bit harsher to Jimmy as he would be aware of the racial factors at play when it comes to the dehumanization and sexism perpetrated towards WOC but he still wouldn’t get it as a man.

It’s like apples and oranges to where they are both fruit but being categorically the same doesn’t make them identical. I can not describe to you the taste of an apple by using an orange. Anya would no more understand Curly’s struggles being black than he would her being the only woman on board. Of course they share the similarity of being the only one but even in this case we do work off the assumption everybody but Daisuke is white. He’d inherently have more solidarity with him on that aspect than her.

[thenightfolknetwork]

Im a nypmh. A forest nymph specifically. My days are spent dancing and singing and existing in the forest I was born to. Its great really. My forest is even protected so I dont need to worry about any sapios coming in an bothering me!

But Im also trans. Im a guy. But nymphs are supposed to be feminine and Im. Not. Ive already felt myself loosing connection with this forest as I begun transitioning. Im scared that if I fully transition, Ill lose it entirely. Can that happen? Or is the forest just disappointed in me?

Should I stop my transition? Ive tried to communicate with the forest but she wont respond to me when I bring it up. Im just not sure what to do

I'm sorry your forest seems to be struggling with your transition, reader. However, I think there is plenty of reason to stay optimistic here. You know as well as anyone that, if a powerful nature spirit really doesn't want you around, you'd know about it. The fact you still have a connection with her means she still wants you to have a connection with her.

You're correct in saying that nymphs tend to be female, but my understanding is that this is a linguistic matter rather than a biological one. The word we use for females of your genus is “nymph”, while males with similar cultural identities tend to be referred to as “satyrs”.

Your feeling of disconnect are very likely more related to how you perceive yourself rather than how the forest is perceiving you. The fact is, you cannot simultaneously think of nymphs as inherently feminine, and of yourself as a nymph, while also respecting and celebrating your own masculine identity.

Your forest can feel that inner conflict. She can see you're no longer comfortable with your identity as a nymph, but doesn't have the tools to help you through that discomfort. All she can do is try to give you space, loosening her hold on you and allowing you the freedom to make your own choices.

So, what are those choices, exactly? For one thing, I certainly don't think stopping your transition is a good idea. Your gender is not defined by your body, and a lack of medical transition won't make you any less male.

It also won't solve the underlying issue – that you, as a man, do not feel able to identify as a nymph. In fact, I suspect it will serve to disconnect you even more from your body and your forest, with the pain of dysphoria acting as a constant reminder of the authentic, masculine self you're trying to hide.

Instead, I recommend either unpacking your gendered assumptions around being a nymph, or embracing a positive, male alternative identity for yourself. Do you feel able to say of yourself, “I am a man and a nymph and these do not contradict each other”? Or would you be more comfortable identifying as a satyr or some other identity that feels more affirming?

There isn't a right answer here. You need to find something that works for you. But you do need to make that decision, and try to heal this conflict inside you.

As you do, I feel certain your connection with your forest will bloom anew – different than it was, perhaps, but also more authentic, connecting not with a mere idea or aspiration, but with the man you truly are.

[For more creaturely advice, check out Monstrous Agonies on your podcast platform of choice, or visit monstrousproductions.org for more info]

[velvetvexations]

It’s so disheartening to see how transradfem rhetoric spreads so quickly and easily on here. I mean, not beyond my expectations and not surprised, given how much our feminist movements have historically fallen prey to white supremacist notions of gender (all misogyny being inextricably linked to racism). Understanding womanhood as a form of exclusive, targeted victimhood is where every issue with incomplete feminist takes and theory arises. Subconsciously we understand femininity to be synonymous with passivity. Even those who arent fully versed in transradfem beliefs will find themselves incidentally nodding along with some of their points, because they’re difficult to counter given our collective underlying assumptions about how gender functions. I think the best way to overturn this is by restructuring how we understand the functions of gender in society entirely. Men are typically propped up as a monolithic and unchanging force against the more dynamic, diverse, and intersectional nature of Women. Sincerely, i dont think discussing the institutional privilege of men over women in gendered contexts is in compromise with the notion that manhood comes with its own unique baggage of problems than women typically dont face, all of which is in service of a societal network that is ultimately destructive and harmful to everyone subject to it. So, you know, even in the narrow range of cases where trans men do have access to greater male privilege, it’s not really an effective counterargument in the sense of it being helpful and adding interesting ideas to work with in our discourse.

I guess my point is: Compassion is political. If you are making the personal choice to participate in these discussions as an autonomous individual with autonomous beliefs, then you need to include compassion in your analysis to get to the root of anything at all. Now matter how well you articulate your own oppression, if that is the primary focus of all your feminist activism, you are trying to bite your own tail. And it skeeves me that people attempt to deflect from this point by pointing out how progress is achieved through violence/being greatly outspoken and uncompromising or whatnot and it’s like, but that’s not the context OUR issues are happening in. Intracommunity dynamics arent a 1:1 replica of wider society.

It really should be possible to talk about men's issues without taking away from feminism of any kind but it gets one labeled as a TMRA because there's this pernicious idea that the suffering of women is the root cause of all societal issues and men will always benefit from that suffering.