#just ignore the historically inaccurate fashion

[pensandsofas]

and then he did :)

[crossnamara]

probably shouldnt be posting this yet but. its a part of a bigger piece im working on and i really like it. we are. ignoring completely historically inaccurate fashion its okay shes just serving cunt

[ruibaozha]

I saw how some people use historical figures from Chinese mythology, folklore and religion for NSFW, literally, turning them into their own OC's, and I was wondering, what do you think of that? Because it seems like they just took them, and didn't do more research asking the question of "is that right?"

As per your second question for me I will leave that unaddressed and instead invite you to discuss those matters properly in private, especially if this answer is dissatisfying.

I personally do not care much if NSFW or suggestive content of such deities exist (except for the child Nezha, leave his child form out of this.) or that it’s being produced in the first place. The numerous Chinese social media sites like LOFTER, Douban (豆瓣) and Xiaohongshu (小红书) feature fan art of Daoist deities like Nezha and Er’lang in these kinds of situations. Fan fiction of these deities are similarly of the same attitude. It has nothing to do with if proper research has been conducted, especially in the case of Er’lang Shen who cannot act on romantic feelings even if he wanted to.

It feels to me that there’s an exception regarding Chinese deities and folk heroes when deities of other religions have been sexualized. This screams of not only hypocrisy but of ignorance in being offended on behalf of the Chinese. In the few months I was active in the LMK fandom I’ve come to realize a majority of the other Chinese in the fandom are either adopted or second generation immigrants with no real cultural background; and as a consequence have severely inaccurate biases on matters like this because they aren’t aware of how insignificant this is.

I’m admittedly not active within the LMK fandom anymore and as such I don’t know what’s happening there unless someone is compelled to talk about what is going on. But it feels to me that as per usual people are holding Journey to the West as the be all end all on numerous fronts when the books really cannot and should not be heralded as such. Moreover, it’s strange that the fandom is completely okay with sexualizing Sun Wukong, the Six Eared Macaque, and the Golden Winged Peng while any other character is unacceptable.

I assure you that numerous derivative works feature Chinese deities in relationships and sexual contexts, even Tang Sanzang is featured in movies or television shows with a romantic partner despite relationships of that nature betray his Buddhist faith.

I’ve been considering making a post about the cultural dissonance that’s happening here and various attitudes or opinions other people have because they lack the cultural context to realize how insignificant and misinformed a lot of this “discourse” actually is.

What is it about Chinese mythology that sets it apart from Nordic or Greco-Roman mythology in these ways? Why is it perfectly acceptable to sexualize Loki or Achilles, but not someone like Muzha (who was a very real person that became deified, in the same fashion as Guan Yu, as who he was studying under was seen as an incarnation of Guanyin)?

I don’t think this type of thinking will ever make sense to me as a true testament to how different the fandom (especially on Twitter) and myself feel about this matter.

[impishglee]

i think the issue w corset warriors is like there is a sort of pervasive and inaccurate narrative around corsets that can portray historical women as stupid/vain/helpless/etc. and that can be misogynistic in it of itself. it’s just also insane to ignore that policing women’s fashion and appearance and (sometimes Legally) enforcing beauty standards that demand women’s time and money and restrict their freedom and comfort have persisted throughout history and continue TODAY!!!!

[marzipanandminutiae]

Been thinking abt that blue silk dress from the met for 2 days. The second pic (w long sleeves) is fine to me, normal day dress, perhaps a bit fancier than most but normal. But. The first pic. With the short sleeves. It’s just… it’s so t-shirt. I can’t stop thinking abt it. I’ve never seen ANYTHING like it before! Tee-shirt navy silk dress…… who made you…………….. who wore you…..

there are three stages of one's relationship to dress history:

You know very little about dress history. You live in blissful ignorance that Br*dgerton is not a documentary on Regency fashion. You have inner peace.

You know enough to know when something is Historically Inaccurate. Um, excuse me! Corset-looking garments on the outside? A young debutante in all black outside of mourning? Earrings on men? A WOMAN with SHORT HAIR before 1920, and she's NOT EVEN ILL?!?!? What is this nonsense?!

You know enough to know that history is constantly trolling you and it needs to Fucking Stop. You've seen Edwardian cold-shoulder evening gowns. You've seen the 18th century Jrock Coat(TM). You've seen 1920s dresses with literal actual panniers underneath. Sure, there are nuances- or Big Glaring Anachronisms -that clearly make something modern vs. [insert time period here], but with sufficient documentation, you'd believe pretty much anything of extant garments at this point. the Tiffany Problem is your drinking buddy

the 1850s t-shirt bodice is squarely Category 4 Fuel

[flameraven]

Was reading a period* arranged marriage story and had to give up because it was just TOO historically inaccurate.

(*Which period was unclear. I think they were aiming for Victorian but it was so vague it could've been any time from 1800-1915ish)

Like, I am all for hand waving historical accuracy for a good story, especially if you want a queer romance or just don't want to deal with period racism. Bridgerton does this and while I think there are some issues with their approach, overall it works and it's clearly very appealing to a lot of folks.

No, the thing that really got me about this story was that the character was said to be quite wealthy, but lived in a relatively small house with no servants. There was mention of a cook who came in one or two days a week. That is where my suspension of disbelief just gave up.

Because like, even if you're going to ignore the social aspect of this wealthy person not having servants and the gossip that would create, even a small household, without the benefit of modern appliances, involves an enormous amount of labor to keep up. You need servants. Not just A Cook, but a cook and several kitchen maids to assist her to do the hard labor and menial tasks, because you can't just pop into the kitchen and cook something up quickly. There's no just turning the stove or the oven on, you have to build a fire and manage to to get the right temperature and keep it even. Household heating, too. You need people to clean and also to manage fires or your house is going to be freezing. Someone needs to change out the linens and also help you dress! A lady's maid or valet weren't just for prestige, the styles of the time meant you genuinely needed help getting in and out of clothing.

Also the characters' ideas about consent and levels of sex education were all jarringly modern. Again, I don't mind some of this but on top of all the other stuff it was too much.

Overall the story felt like it was a modern setting where people were wearing period fashions. And if you're not going to engage with any of the details of the period... why are you even writing period fiction?

[yaltghoul]

I'm about as unhinged as Colin Bridgerton about this

I just rewatched s3pt1.

The number of times Colin is like, out and about in polite society without a cravat is insane.

Do you know how improper it would have been for an aristocratic man to appear in public or attend any event without wearing a cravat?

We're going to ignore how historically inaccurate the wardrobe and hair choices are in the entire show, because until season 3, Colin has always dressed the part of "well bred English gentry".

During the Regency period, the standards for dress code were strictly adhered to, especially among the aristocracy. The cravat was an essential component of a gentleman's outfit and showed that the wearer belonged to the upper echelons of society. Wearing a cravat was a mark of a proper and respectable upbringing.

For formal events, or really any social gathering, wearing a cravat was non-negotiable. Even in less formal settings, an aristocratic man was expected to maintain a certain level of decorum.

Not wearing a cravat would have been seen as a blatant disregard for fashion norms, and possibly (definitely) seen as a sign of rebellion at best, and ill-refined manners at worst.

So Mr. Colin "I'm gonna fit into society and be the man everyone expects me to be" Bridgerton not wearing a cravat 24/7 would have shown he did not care about the society he was desperately trying to squeeze himself into.

Yet, he does so much to try and make himself seen as the man society expects him to be. Even though part of that act is to pretend to be cavalier about society, his "friends" are never seen without their cravats. Only Colin.

It's almost as though it's symbolic of his innate desire to say fuck it to societal expectations and just be himself.

[thesinglesock]

Heya! Sorry for the random message but I was looking through the bunad tags on tumblr and saw your post on fantastistakk? (I hope I’m spelling that right!!) i was wondering if you had any good resources on learning more about them or could share any more information on them! I’ve always loved norwegian bunads and I’d like to depict them + reference them more in art/writing but with further fantasy themes (hence the even greater fascination with fantastistakk) and have worried about coming across as ignorant when the last thing I want to do is do these wonderful dresses and their history a disservice! (I additionally ask just because when I look up fantastistakk specifically I get a lot of results in norwegian which is fine I just don’t want to end up with inaccurate info putting it through a rough translator online so i thought I’d ask!)

Thank you so much!

Hi and thanks for the ask! Please don't apologize I love talking bunad and fantasistakk :D

I really wish I could paste in a link to the Definitive Guide to Fantasistakk (English Edition), but unfortunately no such thing exists.

Mainly because this is what I would call a Folk Fashion Movement, in the sense that there is no big fashion house or designer* behind it, it consists of regular people digging up their mothers' sewing machines and having fun with learning traditional techniques in a new way. The closest thing you can get to valuable literary resources would be people's personal blog posts and the occasional news article, but they're all written in Norwegian, like you discovered. And while I get that machine translation can be awful, it wouldn't be the end of the world if you used it to research this topic, since most of the time the explaination of a fantasistakk essentially boils down to "I made it like this because I think it looks cool". (*there are a couple of notable fashion houses that do fantasi-stakk, like Eva Lie and Embla Bunader, and while they contribute to the trend, they don't control or own the movement.)

There are several ideals tied to the fantasi-stakk trend, so the reason someone might choose a fantasistakk instead of a bunad can vary. Some people make theirs from thrifted curtains because they're saving up for a "proper" bunad later, while others commision a carefully researched and deeply personal subversive tailor made piece of art based on their local dress tradition. In any case, the fantasistakk wouldn't exist without the traditional bunads, so you might want to look into those as well.

Luckily, you can find a lot of international resources on the traditional bunads, because they've been around for longer and one of the core ideas behind the bunad-movement was to document local dress traditions to prevent them from fading into obscurity. If you want to learn about the history of bunads I highly recommend this video by Kristine Vike, that takes a critical look at the idea of the Bunad. It really digs into the historical and political context that the bunad has and the history of how it evolved into what we know it as today.

I cannot overstate how well researched this video is, and also if you want to learn more about Norwegian dress history and textile arts in general, go check out her channel, it's a real gold mine.

But if you want resources for art inspiration, I'd encourage you to look up specific bunads to base your fantasistakk on. Each bunad has its roots in a geographical area and is made with the traditional techniques unique to that place. Some areas have more variety than others, but there's enough to write several books on each and every bunad.

Here's a handy list of pretty much every bunad (with a few Sami gakti as well), sorted by province:

Very few of the costumes in this list have English wikipedia articles attatched, but some of them have Norwegian articles, and I'm sure every single one of them has plenty of pictures to use for reference (pro tip: instagram hashtags. people love to tag their bunad pics with the name of their dress). And if you find one you're interested in, but you can't find any accessible information, I'd be happy to help you learn more about it :D

when it comes to being respectful and coming up with fantasistakk-designs, I'd say try not to worry too much about it, and just have fun! some people get mad when they see a teenager using a "non-traditional" shirt with their family heirloom vest, while others applaud them for showing both their heritage and their individuality. Doing your research is important if you want to depict historical dresses (and to give you more ideas of what a bunad can look like), but in contemporary norwegian culture a lot of us are mixing it up with modern garments and borrowing from other cultures and just making clothes we want to wear (just like our ancestors used to do before the standardized national costumes got popularized)

And on that note, I'll wrap this up with the banner picture from Embla Bunader's home page for inspiration:

(btw I'm officially rescinding the statement I made in the fantasistakk post, that Embla is "less extravagant", cause this past year they've Really been Cooking)

I wasn't really sure where to even begin answering this ask, since it's such a massive topic, but I hope I at least some of this information is useful :P

[arbitraryreveries]

Bridgerton & Deliberate Historical Inaccuracies

Bridgerton is not historically accurate. We know this. We don't care. I think it's fine. And who cares, really, if they fudge a thing or two? It's a fantasy. There's no need for it to be accurate about fashions, society, race, language, etc.

But the biggest category I, a Regency scholar, notice the historical inaccuracies in is not about annyyyy of the above.

It's about repression.

Specifically, ignoring very real repression or choosing to reframe it (race and a woman's place being examples) and adding in repression and ignorance that is easier for the audience to swallow. The kind of repression that makes us roll our eyes OR be scandalized ... not the sad, cruel, evil kind that actually happened.

My two biggest examples?

The ignorance about sex.

WOMEN OF THIS ERA WERE NOT IGNORANT ABOUT SEX TO THIS DEGREE.

This is because, like today, Regency women talked amongst themselves ... and because it wasn't that taboo of a subject. (You're thinking of the Victorian era with the "that was taboo" stance, and even then, everything kinky just went underground and therefore got more alluring. The Victorians were freaks.)

Have you read Jane Austen? Or like, any Gothic fiction? Or like ... books? Have you read books!?

If nothing else, there would be a series of discussions in an upper class household with daughters as they became teenagers in a "and that's why men are pigs and you should wait until marriage and then only think of Scotland" kind of discussion.

But even if there was a very sheltered (usually very religious or something like that) young woman in the Regency era who had not learned of sex, that is not the Bridgerton girls. I mean, they have THREE older brothers who are all RAKES.

In season 1, literally what does Daphne think "rake" means? Like, he ... goes and gardens? "Ah, yes, my brother Anthony, GARDENING with that OPERA SINGER how horrible." Like, in the setup the show sets up, SHE CANNOT BE THAT NAIVE.

Now, this one I do not think is purely the decision of the directors. It's a common (inaccurate, annoying) trope in historical erotica because for some reason, historical erotica writers have a kink about being all innocent and deflowered by a hunky rogue who you can't resist because you just CANNOT and it's his fault not yours you are innocent you're just a baby. (Y'all coming off purity culture or something? How's the therapy coming?)

2. The period thing.

Women in the Regency era did not just bleed all over their sheets/clothes/etc. Especially not upper class Regency women with means.

They had menstrual products. Granted, made out of cloth, and granted, probably not as effective, but they had systems set up.

And further, they probably were more aware of their cycles than we are today because it was a valued thing to have a period. Because it meant you were (probably, somewhat inaccurately) fertile and could bear children for your husband. So, sexist as that reason is, this idea that women a: didn't know much about their periods and b: didn't manage them in a sustainable way is hogwash.

Further, the fact that these chicks HAD PERIODS means they know why they're bleeding, right? 10/10 they do. I am not taking criticism here.

3. The corsets

*sigh*

We've all heard the corset drama.

And that's fine. I don't care. But I can't help but feel like the reason they WERE using inappropriately-sized, uncomfortable corsets that were more modern or Victorian in style is BECAUSE they wanted the actresses to get uncomfortable (or even injure themselves) and complain and get the media riled up about it.

Because if they had just used period-accurate stays (or even period-accurate corsetry), they wouldn't have ever had this conversation in the first place.

I am somewhat confused, though, because every chick on Bridgerton that I've seen get undressed was not wearing a corset or stays, but that's a conversation for another day.

Just ... I feel like Bridgerton chose its inaccuracies very carefully to craft a specific type of society, and that's fine. Again, it's a fantasy. Really, if you care, you're giving this far too much energy (and I already have given it far too much energy lol). But ... it just is something to be aware of.

[butchladymaria]

not sure if you’re referring to my analysis essay, but at the risk of nudging into “make your own post” territory i do want to address your points here just for fun! this got long, so under the cut it goes —

Firstly, I do agree with the interpretation that he wouldn’t dress Doll in hunting attire. The thing is, there’s a vast ocean of nuance between “dressing doll in hunting clothes” and “dressing doll in hyperfeminine gender conforming clothes”, and Maria’s taste isn’t as mysterious as many make it out to be if you look closer at her attire. Maria’s homeland of Cainhurst allowed its citizens to be knights regardless of gender, but gave visually distinct uniforms for men and women. As you can see below, despite of the fact that she could have modeled her attire on either a masculine or feminine outfit, Maria’s hunting clothes far more closely resemble the masculine knight’s set.

I can’t speak for everyone, but when I point out how Gerhman feminizes Maria through Doll, it doesn’t really have anything to do with hunting attire vs civilian attire. I’m talking about how Maria’s garb shows that she was gender nonconforming by her own cultural standards, yet Gerhman omitted that in making Doll. Regardless of his presumed motivations, it’s inaccurate to just ignore that completely. In any case — just because we only see her hunting attire in-game, why should we assume that her masculine taste in fashion was solely the result of the hunt? I don’t think most folks imagine that other characters who dress masculine such as Gascoigne would be dolled up in a dress if not for the hunt (although it’s a great concept lol, good for him if true). It’s also not as if masculine civilian clothing doesn’t exist — plenty of corpses wear button-up shirts, waistcoats, and coats that fit the bill.

I don’t know how much canonical basis there is to prove that Gerhman “did love/care for Maria because of who she was and not what she looked like”, as in all my research there was nothing which points to that decisively one way or another. If that’s your headcanon, that’s totally cool! However, I will say this: people, especially parental/guardian figures as Gerhman was, as far as we know, to Maria, can care about a deceased loved one and still erase their GNC identities after death — and for a whole host of reasons. The specifics are a very complex issue for another day, but suffice it to say that those things aren’t mutually exclusive. The existence and memory of gnc people is complicated by a society that doesn’t want their memories preserved accurately — just look at any lgbt+ historical figure for that one.

On your point of mourning dolls — if you do look them up, you’ll actually find that they were only made for very small children, usually infants or toddlers at the oldest, and Maria was obviously well out of that age range. What’s more, other forms of mourning art were used for adults. post-mortem photography, hair art, etc were all common (and its actually a super interesting rabbit hole to go down, highly recommend). If you’re still going to claim that Doll was made as a mourning doll, it implies that Gerhman saw Maria as his daughter (which is decently in line with canon), but it also brings a whole lot of somewhat unsavory baggage along with it. To summarize: the mourning doll represents the culmination of the Victorian obsession with the inherent innocence of white children, and their emphasis on those children as paragons of untainted purity. I highly recommend you check out Eternal Innocence: the Victorian Cult of the Dead Child if you’re interested in learning more — you’ll see what I mean about that baggage being unsavory.

Either way, it directly implies that Gerhman was trying to make Maria in effigy as pure, innocent, and untainted. Maybe that’s okay on paper when it’s a baby we’re talking about, but Maria was a grown adult. Unlike an infant, she did have thoughts and opinions. It also puts the attire he chose for her in even more unflattering light — possibly implying he saw her gender nonconformity as impurity to be expunged…? Rather historically accurate, if nothing else. It gets even more uncomfortable when you consider that purity was heavily connected with obedience, dependence, and lack of personhood in this time period. The obsession with preserving purity seem in mourning dolls was the same variety that argued women did not belong in politics or the workplace lest they become “tainted” by the outside world (and protest being considered the wards and property of their husbands the same way children were of their fathers, among many other things). In other words, the infantilization of women was a key part of Victorian era misogyny that equated their “purity” to that of children — which must be preserved at any cost, even after death. Making a mourning doll of Maria would have been out of place even in Victorian times, but it only gets worse if you do follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion in the historical context mourning dolls come from.

To conclude, my larger point that I develop more in the essay is that it’s a bit of a lapse in logic to point to the historical existence of, for example, mourning dolls while overlooking the historical context of possession when it came to women and children that contributed immensely to their existence in the first place, and the deep prejudice that existed against GNC people at that time period as well. It isn’t accurate or logical to take a cultural and historical artifact like mourning dolls and completely remove the complex web of contextual meanings they were bound up in. I’m 100% in favor of acknowledging the historical influences of the Victorian Era on Bloodborne — in fact, I think it’s crucial to a complete understanding — but that’s a lot more complex than face-value comparisons. More broadly, I think we do Bloodborne a disservice by ignoring that broader historical context and womanhood, especially given how the themes of the game focuses on women, motherhood, and childbirth.

I saw this post the other day that I can't seem to refind, but it mentioned that when Gehrman created the doll, he makes her in the image of Maria but strips her of a lot of her non-gender conforming appearance. But if you think about it for a while, it makes a lot of sense why Gehrman wouldn't put the Doll in a hunter outfit. Because Maria being a hunter is what led to her experiencing the awful Fishing Hamlet, and eventually dying. Gehrman probably regrets ever teaching her, or letting her come along on that mission. It's also worth mentioning that he did love/care for Maria because of who she was and not what she looked like. When the Moon Presence brought the Doll to life, it didn't act or think like Maria because the Moon Presence can't just take her out of the Nightmare (or doesn't want to, but trying to analyse the actions of Great Ones will give you a headache). Also the whole Mourning Doll thing. Seriously, just look them up.

TLDR: Gehrman was a Personality man.

[star-anise]

The costumes on Bridgerton are postmodern masterpieces. This and Enola Holmes have broken my allegiance to the cause of strict historical accuracy forever. They’re very deliberately playing with our ideas of history, how we remember history, and they’re in active conversation with the Internet communities of historical costumers, makeup and hair artists. This ain’t your momma’s historically inaccurate costumes back from when we didn’t know better. These costumers KNOW.

Like, when Bridgerton opens with a mother standing over her daughter demanding her stays be laced tighter, this isn’t a sign that Corsets are Evil and Oppress Women. The show KNOWS that women didn’t really tightlace during the Regency. Frankly, it’s relying on either its audience’s ignorance (this is totally what the past was like) or outrage (they’re being historically inaccurate!) to keep them from thinking too hard about what it means that these characters in particular are doing it, and the loaded freight of that tiny moment, in terms of character and theme and plot, isn’t going to pay off for AGES.

But I won’t get into everything tonight. I’ll just look at one aspect in depth right now (and stick it behind a readmore because this got LONG) which is how amazing these costumes are at expressing character:

Like, here’s Violet Bridgerton and Lady Danbury:

Violet is a warm and loving mother, but needs to waffle around for a bit before finding strength or decision; she’s in a pale, polite, wan colour, though with a bit of panache in the ornamentation. Lady Danbury, meanwhile, is formidable, independent and opinionated. Before this, she’s tended to wear the fashion’s simple silhouette in dark, dramatic colours (usually red or purple) that echo her to-the-point, indomitable personality; but as she’s seeing her protégé begin to thrive, she’s softened a bit with lace embellishments (though the costume is still unified with a theme of regal purple and set off with a grand-looking ruff that rather reminds one of Queen Elizabeth I)

Even their hair reflects their personalities; Lady Danbury’s hair is severely swept up into a regal braided coronet with a tiny spray of flowers, while Violet’s head is covered with a froth of curls and feathers.

Or the Featheringtons. Like, Lady Featherington’s dresses are so weird and disturbing that you can just TELL what she’s like:

She is the LIVING EMBODIMENT of Trying Too Hard. While everyone else’s skirts drape and sway loosely from their high waistlines, her dresses all hug her from bust to hip, and lo indeed, she has Control Problems. When the fashion calls for relatively plain, unembellished gowns, small patterns, and cohesive colour schemes, her dresses are way too overdecorated, in large, loud prints. While everyone else has a nice square Regency neckline, her dresses have a high Queen Anne back that comes over her shoulders and looks like it’s trying to strangle her. Her hair is twice as tall as anybody wearing the current fashion, but half the height of anybody still wearing the previous generation’s hairstyles. She just looks OFF.

Her daughters wear her colour scheme and their dresses are so delicate and over-embellished that you know that they are that bad ON PURPOSE. Someone (read: their mother and every servant she can wring work out of) has put HUNDREDS OF HOURS into making them look as bad as they do!

God, what a family.

When Miss Thompson finally gets dressed “in the family colours”, her gowns are obviously crafted much more quickly, and she benefits so much from the lack of over-attention; she might be in fabric pulled out of Lady Featherington’s stash, but she rocks the clean, classic lines the style was known for.

These costumes are doing SO MUCH WORK. I love them so much.

[thenightlymartini]

Special Headcanon Week! (#70) APHRarePairWeek

@aphrarepairweek2021​

Day 6: Traditional Outfit

I’m not fully versed in traditional clothes, and based the pictures off of details I was seeing in general, so if they are inaccurate or something, feel free to let me know.

Headcanon #70

Kimchiburger: America had been on a historical K-drama kick for a bit and decided to ask South Korea how accurate the clothes were for their time periods. South Korea regaled him with various stories of how often he pushed so many social norms by his clothing and hairstyle choices, such as trying to put his hair in styles signifying he was married when he wasn’t or always being on top of the latest fashion trends, no matter how obscure or weird. At one point, America asked him if he still had the old outfits and if he could see them. Luckily, SK managed to find one or two still in good condition that he somehow managed to keep, and did a little fashion show. America loved how unique the clothes looked, since he knew more about kimonos (Japan) and cheongsams (China), and liked how they seemed a nice in-between; not overly complicated, but still regal and each part holding meaning.

Plus, he thought SK looked really handsome and mature. Like, he’s reminded of how SK is actually a lot older than he lets on, and the clothes bring out the intelligence only centuries of living as a nation can provide.

RusNK: When they first saw each other’s traditional clothing, they were shocked at how both of them seem to go the colorful and patterned route.

Like look at these Russian clothes:

Then Korea:

Seeing each other in their respective traditional outfits? NK really liked how simple yet formal Russia looks in his clothes. Like the colors just really suit him and he hardly ever sees him in anything that isn’t huge or extra padded due to the cold. Russia loves how regal looking NK is in his clothes. Like, the patterns and colors, can be both simple yet loud but balance so well, and NK looks so divine according to Russia himself and almost dignified, which was a big reason why he fell for him in the first place. Like, he loved how NK could be so dignified and refined yet approachable at the same time when wearing his traditional clothes.

Commieburger: America had become really curious as to what NK wore way back when, as he seen South Korean clothes. NK didn’t really understand why America was interested in such a thing and merely gave vague details, like he worse mostly plain clothing that still looked presentable and had braided hair. America vaguely remembered that NK had longer hair when they first met, and questioned why he cut it. NK simply put it as “needing to cut ties with the past” and refused to answer more.

America later found a picture in South Korea’s possession of the two Koreas in their traditional attire dating years back. He was shocked at how different NK looked, but more so at how genuinely happy the older twin was. It made him question what NK meant by “needing to cut ties with the past”, and got depressed thinking NK was forcing himself to forget because he may have believed that there was no way to go back to those times.

Later, NK questioned him on his traditional attire, since he was “trying to reciprocate”. America explained that he didn’t really have a traditional dress. Sure, some of the more typical styles were influenced by Europe, but he technically didn’t have a style that was uniquely his own. He explained that it was due to him technically being a nation set up by ideals and beliefs rather than a nationalistic identity like most other nations. His people were so diverse that he really couldn’t say something represented his people without effectively ignoring a part of the population. He admitted that he kind of felt lonely and different from everyone else due to that, since he couldn’t really connect on that level. Like, he sees everyone have these unique, meaningful clothing and he has nothing and feels like a leech when he borrows certain elements or traditions from others.

That’s when NK goes and fetches a measuring tape and starts taking America’s measurements, much to the absolute confusion of America. Few weeks later and America receives a package from NK that contained a custom tailored joseon-oth (called a hanbok in South Korea), and a note. The note basically stated how NK decided to get him a hanbok that represented him and how America should try making a collection of different traditional attire but with elements that represented the American ideals and people. What was unsaid was what truly made America emotional. The joseon-oth was white with a blue jacket, white meaning purity and blue more associated with the moon and the heavens (often more feminine), kind of like a dreamer, with a pattern more closely related to the idea of unity. This, seemingly what NK was trying to get at, was America as an idealist country where the dream was to live in unity despite all differences. This was NK’s way of showing America he can have a traditional attire and it still represent himself.

He later wore it the next time NK came to see him (he mostly got it right with only a minor detail or two out of place), and was shocked to see NK had brought his old joseon-oth for him to see (he didn’t actually wear it, but the thought counted). He also blushed when NK whispered that he looked really good.

[markantonys]

literally thank you for criticizing internet « fashion historians » these people BOIL MY BLOOD

SAME and i’m glad to do a public service hdjfg i once took a class about film/tv adaptations of ancient rome and on day 1 our prof was like “we’re not here just to point out historical inaccuracies, that tells us nothing. we’re here to think about WHY the creators made those changes and what their effects are” and ever since that class i’ve had absolutely no patience for the crowd who’s quick to cry HISTORICAL INACCURACY to show off how smart they are yet never attempts to go any deeper than that. don’t just tell me how it’s historically inaccurate, tell me why the creators made the change (i promise you 9 times out of 10 you’ll be able to think of an explanation other than laziness/ignorance, contrary to popular belief creators of historical fiction DO do research, and then they may choose to deviate from it in certain places for specific storytelling purposes) and tell me what the effect is. if you can’t come up with a solid answer for either of those, then guess what, the inaccuracy is a minor thing that doesn’t matter! and if you can come up with a solid answer and it turns out the effect is actually positive, then the inaccuracy is a good thing. for costumes specifically, sometimes it’s as simple as taking creative liberties in order to create costumes & hairstyles that are more aesthetically pleasing to a modern audience (historical inaccuracy hating crowd, you may want to watch shows where everybody looks like they only bathe once a year, but i for one, and i daresay the general audience too, certainly do not).

other times it can be much deeper. positive costuming example: hollywood often shows corsets as being painful when historically they weren’t (so people say, i’ve never studied it so idk). why is this inaccuracy made and what’s its effect? corset-induced discomfort scenes are often used in cinema as a shorthand way of showing how the expectations and beauty standards placed on women in the time period were very restrictive and oppressive (think of in pirates of the caribbean when elizabeth passes out from her corset at the same time as she’s being pressured into a marriage she doesn’t want). which in my opinion is a good and important thing to show, therefore i think this costuming inaccuracy is a good change.

negative costuming example: cleopatra is usually portrayed onscreen with stereotypically “egyptian” (and slutty) fashion despite the fact that historically she typically dressed in greek-style clothing (aside from special occasions such as egyptian religious ceremonies). why is this inaccuracy made and what’s its effect? it’s feeding into augustan propaganda that attempted to paint cleopatra as the enemy by making her the egyptian other in contrast to the roman self, and by continuing to perpetuate this idea (and often showing egyptianness as synonymous with excess, depravity, etc.), hollywood also perpetuates that same us vs. them mentality as well as a whole host of harmful orientalist ideas and stereotypes (hbo rome is the first example that comes to my mind, i did a whole project about it for my roman movie class, and also the portrayal of the persians in 300 is absolutely horrible for similar reasons)

[constantly-reading31]

Meilin of Zhong [Spirit Animals] Doodles

A doodle session of Meilin from Fall of the Beasts in really inconsistent art styles. (And an unnecessary story below about her clothes)

According to Google, Zhong (Meilin's country if you're unfamiliar) is based primarily on China and a few other Asian influences. While looking at the cover art on some of the Spirit Animal books, I've determined what Meilin is wearing kinda resembles a white cheongsam under a blue puffy parka looking thing.

(I'm not an expert on clothes, just a rabbit hole diver)

Looking up what dynasty would have their women wear cheongsams and blue parkas, Google says that women apparently wore cheongsams in the Ming Dynasty. So I said great, I'll base off her clothes off of the hanfu (Chinese historical clothing) from the Ming dynasty.

But then I got deeper into the rabbit hole and thought, "Wait... The Tang Dynasty looks pretty cool and pretty accurate to her outfit in the beginning"

You know the fancy ceremony outfit that Meilin wore for her Nectar ceremony? According to the book, she applied gold flakes, rouge, and white face paint among other things to her face. Tang Dynasty women wore gold flakes on their faces too (I looked up Ming Dynasty and their makeup seems totally different)

Tang Dynasty is also more accurate to what I imagine Zhong was at the time, open to the other three countries and flourishing in trade. It reflects in the fashion, as women's fashion became more diverse with so many different influences. I've also read articles that the fashion was seen as more aggressive, which suits Meilin.

However, I cannot ignore that the cover art Meilin's fashion was most likely made in the likeness of Ming Dynasty clothing. (As it turns out, the not-cheongsam is actually an ao)

And that's how I ended up deciding that (headcanon) Zhong's fashion is mainly inspired from the Tang Dynasty, especially the outfits popular in the imperial court, but there's Ming-esque athleisure I guess. (Conveniently ignoring that women wore pleated skirts and preferred pastel colors)

For her court outfit, I decided on a qixiong ruqun, which uniquely has the waistband above the chest paired with a scarf. As for her casual Hero of Erdas outfit I have her wear a double layered top called an ao (well, ao is the shirt in aoqun the word, so I'm assuming it's just called so), which is worn untucked above the waist over a skirt or in this case a pair of pants.

Obviously I took artistic liberty in literally everything, so please forgive me if I am inaccurate in anyway in the explanation. Just looked up a bunch of stuff and tried to piece everything together, so don't take this explanation too seriously.

Note: @ziseviolet is a good source for those who want to learn more; I simply browsed through their stuff this time, but I plan on reading more cuz it's super fascinating

[scripttorture]

Do you have advice on portraying mental disorders to the public in a way that makes sense? How does one portray multiple disorders at once while making it clear they’re the result of torture? Do you usually name them in the story? I can portray disorders + symptoms that come with mental health problems resulting from torture, but I feel like I’m battling public ignorance before even getting to debunking myths about torture. I have the information, but I don’t know how to portray it organically.

I can tell you what I do, but I think that whether that will work for you or not partly depends on how you approach writing.

 If what I say doesn’t fit with your writing style that isn’t a failing and it doesn’t mean you’re ‘doing it wrong’. I don’t think there is one sure fire way to write a complex topic well. And honestly the fact that you’re putting in the time to research and practice is probably more important then any advice I have to give.

 I don’t always name mental health problems in my stories. I appreciate that some people think you always should. Usually because they say if you name a disorder the readers can’t deny it or pretend it’s something else.

 I have a friend in one of my writing groups. He’s writing a wonderful adventure story with a Deaf protagonist. He repeatedly describes the character as Deaf and all of her communication is in sign language.

 He has still had feedback from people six chapters into the story saying they did not realise the character was Deaf.

 Here’s my take away from this: While it is important to try your best with anything you portray it is also important to accept that some people just Will Not Get It despite your best efforts.

 Shout out to the person who thought I was discussing trans people when I spoke about historical pre-pubertal eunuchs.

 Start by thinking about who you’re writing for. What does your ideal reader look like? Whose feedback do you hope for?

 Because I think there’s a big difference in how we approach the story/conversation when we’re expecting to talk to people with experience vs people without.

 Most of the time I’m writing for trauma survivors. I hope I’m writing stories that other people will enjoy. But I accept in the writing that a lot of people without experience of these things might not… quite connect the dots.

 It sounds like you want to write for people who aren’t survivors. To educate. That is just as valid and valuable. It’s a very different approach though.

 When I think about naming a mental health problem I think about how that name fits into the story. The main character in my current story is about 11-13. She’s spent a fair amount of time with two adult survivors. But I’m not sure if she has the knowledge or vocabulary to label what she’s seeing and I’m not sure if anyone else would say it to her.

 So I put those mental health problems in to the way these characters behave and the way their daughter talks to her friend about her parents.

 That approach may not work if the majority of your intended audience have no knowledge about mental health.

 And for me in this story that’s part of the point. I expect that a lot of readers will be taken aback when they find out what these characters have lived through and realise that what they’ve seen up to now are symptoms not ‘quirky character flaws’. I expect that to prompt some thought and questioning*.

 Linking these illnesses to torture was easy in this particular set of stories because the readers will (eventually) see the characters before and after torture. The change happens in front of them.

 Generally I think that’s a good way of establishing the link: explicitly showing the character before and after trauma and highlighting the changes. That can be directly as part of the story, but it can also be done through other characters talking about the past (which can help establish relationships and characters) and by having the survivors themselves reminisce about ‘before’.

 It’s also important to remember that you can show symptoms developing without showing torture itself. There’s nothing wrong with choosing to show quiet moments with the character in a cell, even if we’re told they’re cliché. Use every moment that you can make powerful.

 There’s also nothing wrong with jumping around in the time line and telling a story in a non-linear fashion. My general point here is that there are a lot of ways you can bring up the character’s past and how they’ve changed.

 You can also have a character explicitly state that these symptoms are expected, normal responses to a horrendous situation. Any characters who are doctors, mental health professionals or some types of social workers would be good fits for that. Depending on how you structure the story religious figures (who may be involved in anti-torture work or helping survivors) could work.

 If there are other survivor characters then having a discussion between them about what it changed could be a good organic way to bring that up while bringing the characters closer together.

 Circling back to writing mental health problems- I do think sometimes a lack of an explicit label can help communicate the experience. I think sometimes people get so caught up on the diagnosis and what they think it means that they don’t engage with anything that goes against that preconceived notion. But… whenever you don’t make something explicit in the text you’re leaving it up to the reader to decide how to interpret it. You’re taking a risk to trust this stranger who picked up your story.

 I get the feeling the main thing here is writing it all organically and the fear of messing up.

 That’s understandable. Any writing already asks that we juggle. Adding in torture and mental health problems and committing to doing them well adds a lot more implements into the air.

 And I guarantee that practice will help. It always does.

 Personally I’ve been writing mental health problems for so long that a lot of it has become instinctual. It’s an ingrained part of how I write (for better or worse). Making symptoms an organic part of the character is about making them a part of every aspect of a character’s life.

 Which sounds harder then it is. It’s about thinking things through and filtering them through the character’s personality/motivations.

 Because as much as we can hope to get a message across primarily we are telling stories. And everything needs to serve that.

 Let’s have some examples. I’m going to use two characters from two different stories, Kibwe and Ilāra. Kibwe made a full physical recover from torture. Ilāra ended up with a single below knee amputation. And while there is some overlap in the symptoms I chose for them they’re very different people.

 Kibwe’s long term symptoms are memory loss, intrusive memories, hypervigilance and chronic pain and I’m toying with the idea of adding in inaccurate memories as well.

 His memory problems are an integral part of his character arc and motivation through the stories he’s in. Despite knowing intellectually that they are a normal response to trauma Kibwe sees them as a personal failing. They made it impossible for him to bring charges and that fed into feelings of guilt and self-blame.

 Which is what drives him to stand up for other people.

 Every heroic action he takes in the story, every time he puts himself between someone else and harm, is coming out of his own experience of memory loss and possibly inaccurate memories. It’s all because trying to do the sensible thing and report what happened to the police left him feeling useless, powerless.

 His intrusive memories feed into this as well. They serve as constant reminders that strengthen his resolve.

 In the parts of the story from his perspective all of these memory problems and the effect they have are obvious and there inclusion is natural. Because they colour every single thing he does.

 In the parts of the story that are from other perspectives it’s less obvious what the problem is but there is still clearly A Problem.

 His intrusive memories are pauses in the middle of doing or saying something. They’re the moments when he screws his eyes shut and breathes deep and has to ask the other characters to repeat themselves. They’re the way he flinches at ordinary things and the way he flies off the handle anytime someone brings beer into his workplace.

 His chronic pain is in the days when he can’t do his job. When his hands shake and he snaps. When he takes his frustrations out with the wrong words to the wrong people. And in the distant, awkward way he tries to make amends afterwards.

 Internally he barely acknowledges his hypervigilance. But externally he always positions himself so that he can clearly see anyone else in the room. He can always see the exits. He twitches, he turns his head a lot to keep other people in view. And if he can’t see everyone, can’t see a way out then his speech starts to get biting, his anger leaks through.

 In contrast Ilāra is very very aware of their own hypervigilance.

 They track the people around them and the terrain and rationalise it as sensible. As a precaution. As keeping themselves and others safe. So a portion of any part of the narrative from their perspective is about that: Ilāra's internal paranoid risk assessments.

 They also have learning difficulties, which are more obvious from outside perspectives. Because Ilāra has a proud streak; they’re not stupid, they can get by just fine. They’re just letting their friends/found-family help out because it makes them happy. Ilāra does not actually need help.

 Contrast with the perspectives of the other characters who are very aware that Ilāra can’t manage a budget. Without help they really can’t manage their own money well enough to keep themselves fed, housed and clothed. Because they never learnt how.

 And again this comes up organically because it’s a big part of Ilāra's relationships. There’s a strange push-pull: Ilāra's hypervigilance internally rationalised as protecting these few valued people and those same people stepping in to do the things Ilāra can’t.

 They also experience chronic pain. Though I’m unsure whether this is primarily because of torture or because they lost a limb. And in a way the distinction doesn’t matter. Regardless of the cause it is there.

 They’re actually a lot better at dealing with it then Kibwe, because they’re much better at lying, acting and disguising their own distress.

 Ilāra's other symptoms are less immediately obvious in the narrative but again, they underpin everything.

 Ilāra struggles to relate to people, to really value them as people and they are incredibly socially isolated. Their entire social circle is essentially their family and their work colleagues and there is a lot of overlap in that Venn diagram.

 They don’t know how to honestly relate to other people. They play parts, putting on masks to get by.

 And this comes into the story with every interaction they have. It’s the contrast between their attempts at calculation around outsiders (and how often they’re rejected/dismissed) and their incredibly intense attachment to this small circle of people.

 I’m not sure what the end point of Ilāra's character arc is yet. But one of the things that keeps coming up is the question of who they are away from this small circle of valued people. And whether they can value their own life when they can’t ‘protect’ the people they love.

 Writing all of this out has made me realise something: it’s a lot easier to bring up symptoms organically when those symptoms become an intrinsic part of the character.

 And that can be difficult to grasp at the first attempt. Or the tenth. Or the hundredth.

 We are taught to assume health, be it mental or physical. That people have two legs and functional pancreases and don’t relive violent attacks every time they smell beer.

 Part of writing these things organically (for me anyway) is breaking that internal image. It’s… building a mind that’s a different shape.

 For both of these characters their symptoms are tied to important parts of the long term plot as well as their everyday experience.

 Kibwe would be a different person without his memory problems. They inform what he values, how he acts and the ethical lines he draws for himself. His intrusive memories impact his daily life and so does his chronic pain and hypervigilance. And this in turn impacts his relationships with the other characters, some of whom are more forgiving/understanding of his ‘moods’ then others.

 Ilāra is driven by their isolation and struggle to connect to others. It leads to them putting incredible weight and value on the few relationships they do have. And that drives them to act, to take risks. Fundamentally they fear loss and however calculating and cunning they can be that fear makes them do some idiotic things. Things that effect the plot and every other character.

 Hypervigilance and learning difficulties are their everyday experience. The tension they feel in crowds. The way they assess unfamiliar environments. The way they’ll hand over their pay check to a daughter-figure with a joke and tell themselves that she’s just fussing. The way they’ll get up in the middle of the night and count every item of food in the house.

 Writing mental health problems in an understandable way is like writing any other disability. It’s making it part of the character without it being the whole of the character. It’s recognising how any condition limits a character and having a clear view of when those limits are internal (ie the condition itself) versus external (societal, behavioural expectations, other people etc.)

 Including these things naturally means constructing scenes that are working at multiple levels. If symptoms impact how the characters relate to each other then they fit naturally into any important relationship moments. If symptoms impact the character’s everyday life then it’s natural for the character to consider them before taking an important action.

 When symptoms are related to a character’s long term motivation then it doesn’t feel jarring that they’d come up over and over again. In the same way that bringing up a character’s big-brother figure feels right when you’ve established they have an important, character defining bond.

 It takes practice. Writing is work and it takes a lot of skill to make it look effortless.

 Right now I think the most important thing to take away is this: keep trying. Write and write and write. Don’t let the fear of getting things wrong stop you from getting better.

 I hope that helps. :)

Available on Wordpress.

Disclaimer

*Yes I expect a lot from my readers.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

I go to a Christian school,and we are discussing something against humanism. Our book reasoned out that everything is so complicated that it cannot just be made at random. It asked that if the DNA is a program, who designed it. It said that we atheists believe that man is supreme. It justified that the Bible is real since some events in it are seen on history. It defended that the bible doesnt support the flat earthers by citing Isiah 40:22. It said that atheists abort, cuss, are gay, etc.

everything is so complicated that it cannot just be made at random.

This is a form of argument from ignorance. Because they don’t understand how cosmology, astrophysics, biology and many other disciplines and natural processes work, it must be literal “magic”. 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuning

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/195/Appeal-to-Complexity

This argument is a failure instantly, because it has an infinite regress:

If everything is too complicated to exist naturally, then is the Creator more complicated or less complicated than everything else?

Neither answer is satisfactory to the believer. Less complicated, for obvious reasons. But if the Creator is more complicated, then they’ve violated their own premise, as the Creator itself requires a Creator.

If the Creator doesn’t require its own Creator, why does the universe? This, of course, leads directly into Special Pleading, which is another type of fallacy.

By the way, things aren’t the way they are randomly. It’s not “random” that bats have echolocation, or that giraffes have long necks. These adaptations have developed over time and benefited their survival in their respective environments.

It asked that if the DNA is a program, who designed it.

Only reality deniers creationist believers claim DNA is a “program.” It’s a natural material and functions in a natural fashion. We have a very good understanding of it. The idea of it being “information” or a “program” is a convenient analogy to help humans describe it. It’s descriptive, not prescriptive.

we atheists believe that man is supreme.

This is classic Xtian false modesty, given they believe they speak for, and have the ear of, the eternal master and creator of the universe as their concierge, answering their wishes and desiring of their praise. It’s a humble-brag.

Humans are a unique species of animal. There is no atheist ideology or dogma that claims this “supreme” nonsense. We are uniquely positioned to both help and destroy each other and our planet.

On the other hand, Jealous, the Xtian god of the bible, has (supposedly) already committed several waves of genocide. Being “supreme” doesn’t make you good.

the Bible is real since some events in it are seen on history.

Then the movie Titanic is true. And so is Gone With the Wind. And so is The Simpsons. Fictional stories and characters can be, and are, set against the backdrop of historical events. That’s what the entire Historical Fiction genre is all about. What matters is that we verify and substantiate each of the events and characters that are claimed to have been contemporaneous with this established history. Especially the extraordinary ones.

Some bible “events” not seen in history: the bible’s claim of the Jewish enslavement in and exodus from Egypt never happened, the Tower of Babel never happened, the Noahic Flood never happened, the Garden of Eden did not exist, and there’s nothing but urban legends about this “Jesus” character; his supposed crucifixion is historically inaccurate.

It is, of course, theist standard operating procedure to refuse to account for all the evidence, and instead cherry-pick out the “hits” while ignoring the “misses.” For reference, this is called “confirmation bias,” and its how we know they are neither serious nor genuine about their claims or beliefs. Everything in the bible should be a “hit.” It’s not.

What’s interesting about the bible is that the New Testament stories were stolen and invented to fulfil Jewish prophesies parsed from the Tanakh, in order to fabricate a prophet that fulfils them. It’s like if I take a couple of handy Nostradamus prophesies and then write a movie where Iron Man fulfils those prophesies. By biblical logic, it must be true!

the bible doesnt support the flat earthers by citing Isiah 40:22

The bible is explicitly clear that the Earth is flat.

Psalm 33:14-15

From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth.

He fashioneth their hearts alike; he considereth all their works.

Psalm 75:3

The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.

1 Samuel 2:8

He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the world upon them.

Job 9:6

Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble.

Isaiah 5:26

And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly:

Daniel 2:35

Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

Daniel 4:10-

4:10: Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great.

4:11: The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:

4:20: The tree that thou sawest, which grew, and was strong, whose height reached unto the heaven, and the sight thereof to all the earth;

Matthew 4:8

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Luke 4:5

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

Revelation 1:7

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Revelation 7:1

And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.

A spheroid has no corners, and there is no place on or above it where you can see the entire surface at the same time, or where everyone on it can see the same thing. Anything that “fills” the Earth would have to reside inside it, not on it. And it certainly doesn’t rest on pillars. And it just gets worse:

The model of the Earth depicted in the bible is exactly what you would expect of ancient superstitious humans who lived in the desert - well away from the learned scholars and scientists of the time who already knew differently - rather than information conveyed from an all-knowing entity who created it all in the first place. The bible is devoid of scientific accuracy (it’s okay, so is the quran).

But the most flawed thing of all this fallacious “reasoning” is that literally NONE of it gets to their specific god. At best, at absolute best, they can argue - but not prove or demonstrate - that an uninvolved creature of some sort kicked stuff off. They can’t demonstrate it still exists, which one it is, that it is still involved or even interested in us, or that it gives a damn what we do with our genitals.

It said that atheists abort, cuss, are gay, etc.

That’s a really weird thing to say considering the world is getting more secular, religiosity is decreasing in the west, and it’s this mentality of demonizing people that is helping to feed it. I say good on ‘em. Demonstrate that venomous, spiteful, hateful Xtian “love” and “kindness” and let’s see what happens, how many more generations will put up with being treated like dirt for daring to be human.

Cussing is just words and doesn’t invalidate someone’s point, regardless of how fragile the listener’s feelings might be - offence is taken, not given. As the spread of marriage equality and the societal decrease in giving a shit how grown adults pair up demonstrates, this attitude will only work against them if they’re trying to recruit.

Abort, cussing and gay, huh? Well, atheists are humans, so you would expect us to do these things too. Just as Xtians do:

https://www.salon.com/2015/11/30/our_protesters_came_in_for_abortions_fear_slut_shaming_planned_parenthood_and_the_truth_about_right_wing_religious_hypocrisy/

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/01/24/catholics-are-just-likely-get-abortion-other-us-women-why

https://www.gaychurch.org

http://www.gaychristians.org

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_affirming_LGBT

On the other hand, atheists are less likely to conduct worldwide institutionalised pedophilia rings without remorse or guilt than the Catholics, less likely to conduct institutionalised sexual assault coverups than Evangelical Xtians, and don’t have the luxury of an imaginary friend to both authorize and absolve any deed imaginable, no questions asked.

I don’t feel any obligation to justify my life or my choices to humans who have sold out their humanity to tacitly defend these atrocities by their continued employment in the organisations that conduct them. That is, I might swear, but they still work for Child Rape, Incorporated, and Sexual Predators ‘R’ Us.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/3-big-us-churches-in-turmoil-over-sex-abuse-lgbt-policy

I’m pretty comfortable about holding the moral upper hand here, and that any existent god who was not a supervillain needing to be hunted down and destroyed by humanity, would side with me on this, and care significantly less about my honest skepticism and disbelief than about the monsters perpetrating, supporting and excusing these abominable acts in its name.