#like we are not making it as a society if we can't be civil in such a basic way even on such a small scale 😭

[lastoneout]

I keep thinking about all of the disabled activists and people before me who stranded themselves on the 4th floor of buildings for weeks and crawled up stairs and fought with airline staff and schools and doctors and refused to stop existing in the face of injustice and bigotry no matter how big and scary and hopeless it seemed. Every time I get angry and scared the protests that lead to the creation of the ADA pop up again and remind me that disabled people are so much fucking stronger than anyone has ever given us credit for, and I can't help but be proud of that. And I know not all disabled people feel like we should take pride in our disabilities and have flags or whatever, but I think not just living, but thriving, in spite of a world that wants us dead and gone, in the face of both illness and persecution, and how we've not only bought ourselves forward, but uplifted the disabled people around us, secured more equal futures for everyone who will come after, and truly changed the way so many abled people have seen us for the better is something to be damn fucking proud of.

We have always been here and we always will be, there will never be a world without disabled people because being disabled is not bad, it's a natural part of the human experience and yeah it sucks some times but even when it sucks we have fought to build beautiful, unique, happy lives with people, both like us and not, and that should be celebrated.

The first sign of human civilization is the healed femur. The body of the profoundly disabled person who would have needed help to even just eat being carefully laid to rest after decades of a full, happy life. The medicinal plants showing even before we were entirely human we were doing what we could to not just survive, but alleviate suffering while we're at it. Above everything, evolution selected not the baby who can walk and eat and be quiet, but the one that can ask for help.

Disabled people are not just angry cockroach motherfuckers who refuse to die, we are proof of humanity's HUMANITY. Proof that natural selection selected a species that takes care of each other. From healed femurs and medicinal plants to vaccines and IVs and insulin to now, we are driven to help one another, we are at our strongest when we don't leave our most vulnerable behind. And I am living proof of that. My mother is living proof of that. Every disabled and chronically and/or mentally ill person I know is living proof of that.

And I don't know about the rest of you, but will carry that shred of humanity's true nature inside me like it's my fucking soul. I am scared and angry and hurt, but I have a lifetime's experience being scared and angry, and I can shake off the kind of pain that would make Atlas crumble to dust like it's nothing but a stiff fucking breeze. Disabled people have always been here, turning fear and anger and pain into joy and beauty and connection, and I'm not going to let everyone who came before me down. I'm not going to give up. Not now, not ever.

It's okay if you're disabled and you've hit your limit, you're too scared and tired and hurt, I won't blame you. But I won't abandon you, either. I might not be able to right all of the wrongs in the world, but I'll be strong, I'll carry all of you with me, I will not give up.

As I've said before, society hates a cripple who won't die, so we must spite them and live anyway.

Please, live anyway. I know if anyone can, it's us.

[weirdmageddon]

the original post i want everyone to see is way out of my hands now, so i’ll repost this again here as new but separate post. it touches on things i want to go into more depth about.

@wasabikitcat gets this idea. this reply—thank you so much for not just understanding what i was going for, but putting my exact thoughts into cleaner words on the bad reading comprehension site.

i can't believe how misunderstood my point was about “spirituality” (i didn’t know it was that much of a loaded phrase!), but thank you for putting what i meant into more nuanced terms.

it's something that can be hard for me to put into words, and maybe i gave people the wrong impression by using the word "spirituality", since words mean different things to different people. i just haven't seen people discussing it so i wasn't sure how to really put it. but regardless of terminology, this reply is exactly what i'm getting at. and this is coming from someone who has a very scientific mind. i wouldnt even consider myself a traditionally “spiritual” person in the normal connotation of the word.

edit: this one as well!

i see this as a cultural/political factor that we shouldn’t ignore, because this sense of meaning has driven people's motivations since the beginning of human civilization.

there's a primal aspect that hasn't really left us but there seems to be no room for it in our modern culture because half of these “guides” seem to be driven by “i cant wait for civilization to collapse so MY ideology can rise from the ashes" and the other half of it seems to be driven by greed. and often they are hand in hand.

i would really like to see actual enlightening ideas stemming from buddhist thought, analytical psychology, collective unconscious, and archetypes to take off in the public consciousness. (completely divorced from jordan peterson. just the original jungian stuff)

i am especially supportive towards getting people interested in carl jung's works. his idea was to get people to understand, "what myth am i living?" based on the same archetypes and symbols that recur time and time again throughout human history that we can all collectively recognize regardless of culture. so it's a sense of meaning based in the self. i don't want people being sent down reactionary paths when looking for meaning in their lives.

i think it would benefit people to who feel lost especially in uncertain/unprecedented times like, with those “there's got to be more to this, something deeper,” insinct. i see that people are looking for this but get taken advantage of or manipulated.

but on this deeper sense of meaning in life thing, the Left isn't doing a great job at providing an option for “lost” people looking for meaning that the Right seems to be having no trouble with. i wonder if this is why we've seen so many of these lost young men flock to reactionary commentators?

this reminds me of an excellent point contrapoints made in her video about jordan peterson, saying,

“The last thing I like is that you talk about deep shit. I was watching a video where you and a couple of zany goons were talking about Plato and Aristotle and the meaning of life. And I thought, ‘Huh… on the Left, we don’t really talk about that kind of thing. All we talk about is how society oppresses people.’ And that might not be enough. Because people need to have a positive purpose in life. I mean, personally, I don’t give a shit. I’m pretty happy to sit here watching the same three seasons of Strangers with Candy until I die. But other people, like Dostoevsky, Camus, other white guys who talk about lobsters…they have this need to have purpose in the face of suffering, and like, not just complain about patriarchy. I guess it’s easier to not complain about patriarchy when patriarchy isn’t the thing that’s making you suffer. But I do think that an education that only teaches people about oppression is inadequate. We spend four years teaching undergraduates why capitalism is bad, and then we say, ‘Well, you’re educated now. Good luck getting a job under capitalism, bye!’ …And that really kind of sucks! But you know, I think that’s a point that can probably be made without comparing transgender activism to Stalin.”

speaking of her, this is a related post i wrote earlier on young men being radicalized and how to approach communication

and by the way, if you are interested in learning jungian psychology and want to see what it’s about, here are some resources to get you started:

i think the jung subreddit has a great collection of resources on its about page.

i highly recommend Demystifying Jungian Psychology to start. it’s meant for beginners. it is available in english and spanish. you can currently find the book in the comments section here. since sometimes these links lead to a 404, i don’t want to link directly to the google drive page. i want you to have a link to the original thread in case it gets broken.

[lebensmudewing]

"yes, hypothesis, it literally is not proven and therefore cannot be stated as a fact, I will kindly remind you."

I recognize that it's an hypothesis, but my message is the same. My point is that feminists discard any discussion on sex differences being influenced by genetics, not by studying them, but by discarding them as "a myth" or "is stupid".

The other day I was on a feminist subreddit and this hypothesis was mentioned like an alien thing that is not discussed in academia but is a product of obscure male forums, when it has been an idea on academia for decades.

Such kind of ignorance of the state of the discussion regarding male and female differences clearly can lead to irrational beliefs around sex and gender.

"and is supported only by psychological studies, aka studies of the status quo"

I don't know what are you trying to say with this. I don't discard entire fields only because they support "the status quo". Science should not be prescriptive. People supporting or not certain things because "a paper says it" doesn't equal that an entire field support a certain position.

"Also, since when males were supposed to be an "experimental sex"? Are you trying to prove greater male variability with your own philosophical interpretation of nature?"

No, such hypothesis has been summarized by that idea. And I said that males seemed to be that, not that they are that.

Another way it is summarized is "men are extreme, women are average".

"You are right that feminists should pay more attention to this peculiar theory, but not for the reasons you suggest. We need to critisize this hypothesis because it is clearly a product of coping male mind, that is eager to justify all the social engineering that goes into producing male geniuses, successful CEOs and such, and also erase the deliberate lack of control over deviant males (when people say there are more male idiots, they don't really mean disabled people after all, because they would say "sick" otherwise - they are just talking about their life experiences), presenting it as a "natural thing" instead."

Like, you are conflating men coping in their stupidity by saying that "there are more male genuises, so therefore I'm a genius" with what IQ science says.

Low IQ impplies learning disabilities and overall is correlated with low academic achievement. There are plently of retarded moids in the world, women thriving on school and getting better grades is a proof of that. Men can't sit still quietly for hours and entertain themselves in civilized ways.

I have seen those same moids that insist they are geniuses losing it when they discover that High IQ means you actually thrive on life, you get better grades, you sit still. They get crushed because they can't relate.

The fact that such difference is not publicly stated or constantly repeated is not on science, is on people who want to push the idea that men are better or superior by clinging on a few male outliers with high IQ. And I think that feminists ignoring such science for fear of these people is what makes the fact of men being more retarded obscure and unknown.

"Oh, and, of course, it erases the fact of obvious genetical female superiority and male dysgenic genome by presenting their lack of genes and higher mutation rates as something more desirable (that's really funny how mutations are framed in society as something good and to strive for lol - nature has never had any lack of spontaneous mutations, there is a reason why all the systems that exist concerning it are those of mutation rates reduction, including sexual reproduction."

"Higher mutation rates" but also "there is no genetic evidence of male greater variability". I don't know but something tells me that you want to discard any support of this hypothesis because it could suggest that men have certain advantages over women.

I don't know who is portraying such mutation rates as something better or "More than". It makes men more prone to diseases, I don't see it as an advantage or a good thing.

"I am very sad that this idea is so uncritically supported by many women. And frankly I don't understand why. Isn't it obvious that they are just justifying male privelege at least? After so many years of feminist analysis it should be evident why women are less likely to be considered geniuses and occupy more prestigious positions, even the papers that find evidence of greater male variability admit that the amount of female high-achievers is still much-much less than what is predicted by those findings. I really hope you reconsider your position on this question, because I am frankly very frustrated by this bland spot of many women, by the fact that this harmful idea so easily lands into their minds."

I don't know in what part of my original post I said that or suggested something like that. I mean, I think it's clear for any honest person that IQ distributions don't match with the number of male and female genuises on history. There are more female genuises than women in STEM, or women in college if we take into account all countries in the world.

The fact that on average male and female IQs are the same is the proof that women are oppressed and that men prefer to lose half of society assets only to favor themselves. Such an idea is present on male supremacists texts, for example the father of MRA, Ernst Belfort said that women should not vote at all, and it didn't matter if a woman was more educated than a male.

radblr hot takes? 🔥

what nuanced take do you feel easily shamed for on radblr?

[daz4i]

you ever see a callout post or w/e where it's like. yeah okay when i see these (hopefully not faked) screenshots i can see why you'd interpret it the way you did. BUT this is also like the worst possible way you could read it if you don't give op any benefit of a doubt because you already decided they're awful. like sometimes someone isn't evil they're just not good at phrasing themselves and if you dedicated even 30 more seconds to reread what they said without attaching your own expectations you will likely be way less angry about it

[elumish]

I've been reading Iron Flame by Rebecca Yarros, and it's gotten me thinking about how worldbuilding is multilayered, and about how a failure of one layer of the worldbuilding can negatively impact the book, even if the other layers of the worldbuilding work.

I don't want to spoil the book for anyone, so I'm going to talk about it more broadly instead. In my day job, one of the things I do is planning/plan development, and we talk about plans broadly as strategic, operational, and tactical. I think, in many ways, worldbuilding functions the same way.

Strategic worldbuilding, as I think of it, is how the world as a whole works. It's that vampires exist and broadly how vampires exist and interact with the world, unrelated to the characters or (sometimes) to the organizations that the characters are part of. It's the ongoing war between Earth and Mars; it's the fact that every left-handed person woke up with magic 35 years ago; it's Victorian-era London except every twelfth day it rains frogs. It's the world, in the broadest sense.

Operational worldbuilding is the organizations--the stuff that people as a whole are doing/have made within the context of that strategic-level world. For The Hunger Games, I'd probably put the post-apocalyptic nature of the world and even the existence/structure of the districts as the strategic level and the construct of the Hunger Games as the operational level: the post-apocalyptic nature of the world and the districts are the overall world that they live in, and the Hunger Games are the construct that were created as a response.

Tactical worldbuilding is, in my mind, character building--and, specifically, how the characters (especially but not exclusively the main characters) exist within the context of the world. In The Hunger Games, Katniss has experience in hunting, foraging, wilderness survival, etc. because of the context of the world that she grew up in (post-apocalyptic, district structure, Hunger Games, etc.). This sort of worldbuilding, to me, isn't about the personality part of the characterization but about the context of the character.

Each one of these layers can fail independently, even if the other ones succeed. When I think of an operational worldbuilding failure, I think of Divergent, where they took a post-apocalyptic world and set up an orgnaizational structure that didn't make any sense, where people are prescribed to like 6 jobs that don't in any way cover what's required to run a modern civilization--or even to run the society that they're shown as running. The society that they present can't exist as written in the world that they're presented as existing in--or if they can, I never could figure out how when reading the book (or watching the film).

So operational worldbuilding failures can happen when the organizations or societies that are presented don't seem like they could function in the context that they are presented in or when they just don't make any sense for what they are trying to accomplish. If the story can't reasonably answer why is this organization built this way or why do they do what they do then I see it as an organizational worldbuilding failure.

For tactical worldbuilding failures, I think of stories where characters have skillsets that conveniently match up with what they need to solve the problems of the plot but don't actually match their background or experience. If Katniss had been from an urban area and never set foot in a forest, it wouldn't have worked to have her as she was.

In this way (as in planning), the tactical level should align with the operational level which should align with the strategic level--you should be able to trace from one to the next and understand how things exist in the context of each other.

For that reason, strategic worldbuilding failures are the vaguest to explain, but I think of them like this: if it either 1) is so internally inconsistent that it starts to fall apart or 2) leaves the reader going this doesn't make any sense at all then it's probably failed.

[taeyongdoyoung]

lobos, we cannot stop hunting

summary: the full moon comes and you insist on staying with your best friend despite his valiant warnings to make you run away from him... pairing: werewolf!chan x reader genre: smut, fantasy, best friends to lovers warnings: *takes a deep breath* heat suppressants, hugging, werewolf transformation, kissing, making out, hair-pulling, eating out, begging, fingering, overstimulation, consent is established multiple times, slightly mean dom!chan but overall a sweetheart, praise+degradation, size kink (duh), unprotected sex on the floor, knotting, breeding kink, mating *exhales* author's note: happy halloween, baby stays!!! 🐺 make sure to get some yummy treats and always remember to say the magic words please and thank you 😈 but ESPECIALLY please as the king of the wolves taught us 😉🛐 word count: 1.8k

"It's a full moon tonight," your werewolf best friend Chan says.

"So?" you murmur, not even bothering to look up from your phone. Those F1 reels that keep popping up on your feed are so interesting! "You've got your pills and stuff? You'll be fine, same as always."

"I ran out, actually," Chan scratches the back of his head nervously.

You put down your phone. Sorry, sexy F1 guys, you can wait.

"Can't you get more?" you ask him.

"No, my doctor is out of town. It's his anniversary with his wife and his phone is turned off."

"Goddamnit, Chan, and you tell me that now?" you are immediately worried about your best friend.

Before he started these pills, Chan told you that the full moon was like really bad on him. As in, he was completely out of control and had these...urges that he had to take care of by himself. Basically, he was in a lot of pain. He's been using these pills for the last two years and they've been working miraculously. Chan was pretty much like a human during the usually dangerous for werewolves full moon. Thankfully, his doctor has been very helpful in giving him plenty of these amazing pills.

"I'm sorry...I thought I had one left but I must have miscalculated."

"Chan, I keep telling you to write these stuff down in advance," you shake your head. "What are you going to do tonight?"

"Suffer through it, I guess. I was just giving you a heads-up so you can get out of here...like right about now."

"What? No way I'm leaving you alone!" you argue passionately. "What if you die?"

"Uh, I'm pretty sure I won't. But you don't get it, without my pills, I could unwittingly put you in danger. My best chance to make sure I'm not a menace to civilized society is to lock the door and tie myself up or something."

"That sounds horrible!" you cry out, feeling intense sympathy for your best friend. "I don't want to leave you alone."

"You have to!" Chan insists. "I would hate myself if I hurt you."

"You won't!" you keep trying to persuade him. "I trust you more than anyone else in the universe."

Chan shakes his head, still hesitant.

"Please, you should leave before the moon comes up."

Little does he know it has already begun to rise...

"No, I'm not leaving you," you keep saying and wrap your arms around him.

Chan desperately tries to push you away. But it is too late.

As the moon's power grows, so does his. The only thing that prevents you from continuing to embrace him is his oncoming transformation. Your arms fall weakly to your side as you witness the impossible. His generally tender, adorable features quickly turn into sharp, wolflike and kind of intimidating ones, if you have to be honest. But this is your best friend, your Chan, you keep reminding yourself. And all the fear disappears from your body. As you kneel down next to him, you run your hand through his soft fur, trying to pet him.

He initially snarls and tries to scare you off but the more you insist, the more he relaxes under your gentle touch. God, you can't believe he was afraid he'd harm you. He's just...a big puppy.

You can't resist the temptation and you hug him again. He's so fluffy you're gonna die! And then, the unimaginable happens. He fucking purrs! Oh dear, if you had already been having a hard time trying to hide your feelings for your best friend, then seeing him like this would surely be your demise.

Then, unexpectedly, he shifts back to his human form, taking you by surprise. One, because that was faster than you'd expected. Two, because he's entirely naked, but doesn't seem perturbed by it. You try your best to look him in the eyes because uh...you're still not sure where this is going.

"Please, go, I don't think I can control myself any longer," Chan begs.

"Control what?" you're so confused. "I already witnessed you in your wolf form, you seem pretty chill."

"It's not my wolf form you should be scared of," Chan warns darkly.

"What do you mean?"

"I mean, if you don't get out of my sight in the next ten seconds, I'll fuck you until you pass out. And maybe even after that."

Oh? Wait...OH!!!

"Was that supposed to be a threat or a promise?" you quirk your eyebrows at him.

"Hold on, don't tell me you're actually excited by the prospect?" Chan wants to make sure.

"I mean...don't threaten me with a good time," you shrug calmly.

Chan kneels next to you, grabbing your hands tightly.

"I'm serious right now, don't play with me."

"What makes you think I'm not serious? I trust you, I want you, I lo- Uh, I like you a lot, whatever you do, that won't change," you mentally curse yourself for almost saying the big L-word. You hope he didn't catch that.

Judging from Chan's expression, he seems pretty satisfied with your statement.

"Well, don't say I didn't warn you," he whispers and kisses you harshly, biting your lips and making a mess.

Your mouths are linked by an unending streak of saliva, but honestly you couldn't care less as he claims you, pushing his tongue deeper down your throat, gripping your hair with his fingers for better access. You are already melting. You spoke too soon. You are definitely not ready for this. But you wouldn't be able to make him stop, even if you wanted to.

"Last chance," Chan breaks the kiss to give you the opportunity to back out. To get out of here while you still can.

"Do your worst," you challenge him recklessly and he kisses you again, even harder than before if that is possible.

You know that your best friend, despite his shy and cute demeanour, is physically stronger and bigger than you, but seeing him like this, completely losing control is such a thrill you make sure to commit the picture to memory as vividly as you can.

Chan takes off your clothes in a hurry and just like a hungry wolf, attacks your pussy. And starts devouring it as if it's his last meal on Earth. He doesn't even make the effort to get to the couch, which is so close. He just takes you right there, on the floor. You shake uncontrollably, but he grips your thighs to stop you from moving.

"Please, please, please," you keep repeating even though you have no idea what you're asking for. For him to keep going? For him to stop? You don't know anymore.

"I like it when you beg," Chan smirks against your folds and dives back in, swimming in your water.

It doesn't take you long to burst, completely letting go for him.

"Fuck, you're so beautiful," he praises you, not giving you time to recover and tracing circles around your entrance with his big fingers.

"No, you," you whisper weakly, trying to make him slow down by pushing his hand away. Needless to say, your efforts are in vain. "I'm s-sensitive."

Chan laughs cruelly.

"You can take it," his words are meant to be reassuring but they're not, as he sticks his finger inside of you.

It's just one but it's already so thick you are beginning to lose your mind.

"C-chan, p-please," you cry for him.

"What is it, sweetheart? You want another?" he mocks your lack of coherence and adds a second finger without waiting for your approval.

"N-no, I c-can't," you shake your head desperately.

"Yes, you can," Chan seems fully convinced, adding a third finger. "You're so tiny, gotta stretch you up real good to be able to take my cock next. Don't you want that, babygirl?"

"Yes, I want it," you are quick to agree and do your best to relax for his big fingers.

"Gonna let me take this sweet pussy with my wolf cock? Claim you as mine? Give you my pups?" he asks gently, his unrestrained actions in complete contrast with his sweet words.

"Yes, yes! Gonna let you breed me like the stupid bitch I am," you answer, degrading yourself in the process.

"That's what I like to hear, darling," Chan praises you and makes you come again on his fingers.

You are almost about to pass out. But somehow you manage to hold on for the next part. You want to feel it. Every second of it.

"Are you sure?" he asks once again, melting your heart.

"I've never been more sure about anything in my life," you reaffirm your belief in him.

Chan doesn't wait for a second offer and slides his cock inside of you. Fucking hell, if you thought his fingers were pretty huge, his manhood is on a whole different level. You try to adjust to his monstrous size and focus on his beautiful eyes instead. He's still your Chan, your sweet-

"Fuck, your pussy's so small, gonna rip you in half," Chan grunts loudly.

Okay, not so sweet after all.

"Please, don't. Or do, it's fine by me," you attempt to make a joke.

He laughs and kisses you again, going in deeper. You wrap your hands around his neck in a tremendous effort to ground you, help you remain conscious through it all.

"You'd like that, wouldn't you?" Chan keeps talking meanly. "Want me to ruin that tiny pussy of yours?"

"Yes, yes, I want it all," you repeat mindlessly, not caring about the consequences anymore.

Then, as if by some miracle, you feel his cock growing even more while inside of you. Is that even possible? You thought it was just a myth.

Luckily, you're wetter than ever and your pussy easily swallows his knot.

"Gonna fuck you full of my cum, make you my mate, is that okay?" Chan wants to be sure.

"It's okay, Chan, I'll be your mate," you promise, not even sure what that means. But whatever it is, you're fine with it, as long as it's with Chan...

Then, he releases his wolf seed inside of your pussy, making you feel so full, so warm, so complete.

"Take it, baby, I know you can," he reassures you and you do your best to accept his overflowing victory.

It is a total mystery how you still haven't passed out. But you're grateful for it. You'd like to treasure this moment forever.

"I don't think I'll be able to let go of you anytime soon," Chan chuckles softly, still inside of you.

"That's alright, I think I can get used to this," you respond happily, kissing him again.

"Great. 'Cause I don't plan to ever stop hunting you, my sweet little prey," Chan vows.

"I am but a willing victim to whatever it is the full moon did to you," you smile contentedly.

"And if it's not just the full moon?" Chan asks, biting your earlobe playfully with his sharp teeth. "What if I want to have my way with you every night?"

"Who needs sleep anyways?"

The End

[excellentia-per-dolor]

Forgive me if I am mixing your arguments with arguments of more pessimistic people, I am just sleepy.

What makes search for biological sources if misogyny fruitless is that it's far from the only ubiquitous forms of oppression. Institutions of slavery and nobility also emerged all over the world, and definitely independently, so to make the argument consistent you would have to argue that there is something biological that makes nobles better at rulership. But we know that it's not true - it's just that people who dedicate their whole lives to warfare are actually better at being warriors and can kill everyone who disobeys them.

That was me shadowboxing with other people.

To your post specifically - while we don't have records of women rebelling, it's because we don't have any records from that era. It doesn't mean that it was inborn - we saw hierarchies emerge in historical times.

It just happened for material reasons, and slowly over many generations, so most women didn't even notice it.

I am ardent adherent of agricultural theory, specifically that taxing mechanisms of pregnancy made it so that over the lifetime women worked slightly less than men, and over generations accumulated male property created chain reaction that resulted in patriarchy that still exists today. I am even brave enough to suggest that it may be not a feature of agricultural civilization but rather a remnant of very early days of civilization that wasn't stomped because of absence of effective communication technologies.

And we very much know fully egalitarian societies! Majority of hunter-gatherers have sexed division of labour, but it's not absolute and not oppressive. Native people of North America were as close to matriarchy as possible - Sioux people considered land ownership a privelege of women. There are also some nations like this in South Africa and Middle East that I can't recall out of my head.

Not to mention that even existing patriarchal societies were different in their nature and not all of them restricted women's right to property or sexual freedom

Ik this isnt a data based question, but what are the main theories on patriarchy’s origin? There’s the marxist feminist one where agriculture was the main instigator, but most hunter-gatherer societies are not completely feminist and gender equal either. Is it a matter of physical strength + motive + opportunity for men? I was just wondering what you thought about the literature on this topic (of course much of it is purely speculative).

Hey! Okay, so I want to start this out by acknowledging that history is not my field. I am in awe of historians because they're essentially making coherent theories out of a patchwork of surviving evidence. Add to that the language barriers (so many modern languages! exponentially more extinct languages!) and the fact that people just lie (in translations! about primary sources! in! primary! sources! I cannot fathom having to figure out whether or not a primary source is reliable or not because Ancient Guy #24232 lies – but only sometimes) and I am amazed the field is as coherent as it is.

(Yes I am aware many of these things apply to both "hard" and "soft" sciences. The difference is I know how to identify the problems in the sciences :'))

So, with that disclaimer, here is some information! (All sources at the end, this time!)

---

The theories:

I found a bunch of different theories about the patriarchy's origins, but it's unclear to me the extent to where these fall on the "vague possibilities" to "generally accepted as fact" scale. They include:

Agriculture: The theory that the invention of agriculture led to permanent human settlements, at which point hierarchies including the patriarchy emerged. Often connected to the ideas of land rights and defense of land rights (warfare) and the ideas of property rights and inheritance of property (i.e., male control over resources and/or the treatment of women as property).

Fire: A similar theory as the agriculture theory, but centered around the invention of fire. Connected to the idea that the movement of women started being restricted around the time fire/cooking was invented (i.e., that women "stayed at/close to camp" to cook while men left to hunt).

Mobility: A theory emphasizing the differences in freedom of movement (i.e., that the division of men hunting and women gathering). Connected to the invention of fire and agriculture, both of which likely restricted women's movement further than before.

Reproductive capacity: The theory that the differential amounts of investment in reproduction (i.e., men need to ejaculate sperm and women must grow the child, give birth, and nurse the child until weaned) resulted in the patriarchy. Sometimes linked to Marxist feminism, by the suggestion that men regard and treat women as a "means of (re)production". Either way, this theory emphasizes the exploitation of women as a resource.

Physical dimorphism: Linked to the reproductive capacity theory but focused more on other physical differences (e.g., men tend to have greater absolute strength, be physically larger, etc.). Focuses on the fact that men have the physical capacity to assault and control women. Often supported with comparisons to other mammals.

Choice: The theory that men (or some men or multiple groups of men) intentionally started the patriarchy to obtain individual benefits and have since (intentionally and/or passively) perpetuated it out of a desire to maintain those benefits.

Others: Some people may divide out theories in different ways. For example, some may contend that the patriarchy followed the invention of a private property/a class system, in which men controlled these resources. (I have lumped this in with agriculture.) There are likely other theories I am unaware of!

Poking holes in these theories:

All of these theories have inconsistencies and challenges that challenge their explanatory and (particularly) predictive validity. Here are some:

Agriculture: If this theory is true we would expect pre- and non-agricultural societies to be consistently (or at least mostly) egalitarian. But, (as anon indicated) this is not necessarily true. There does appear to be/have been at least a partial division of labor by sex (i.e., men hunt and women gather), although it very likely is not as strict as it's been made out to be (i.e., women sometimes did hunt). Further, the idea that land-rights emerged with agriculture ignores the possibility that early societies formed gathering/hunting "territories", as many animals do. The aspects concerning and effects of land-rights (and possibly even property-rights) could then also be applied to pre-agricultural societies. And, indeed, there is some evidence of warfare in pre-agricultural societies. An even bigger outstanding question is the recent evidence suggesting complex societies/social structures prior to agriculture (Gobekli Tepe). That is, if the theory is that agriculture led to complex social structures which led to the patriarchy, how does one account for evidence of complex social structures prior to agriculture.

Fire: A lot of the same criticisms from the agriculture section can be applied here. But in addition that, this theory neglects to consider the fact that, in at least some of these societies, the majority of calories were provided from the women's gathered food. In addition, it doesn't consider how cooking was the (potential) impetus for advancements in human intelligence and society. I'd then ask: if both of these vital components (food source and food modification for further optimization) were being provided by women, why would this social structure result in patriarchy? Another good exercise is to try and see if you could apply this same argument to the opposite outcome. In other words, if (in some other timeline/reality) society was structured around matriarchies, could this theory be used to explain that? I'd argue, yes, it could (and would arguably make even more sense than the current theory). For example, one could argue: "because women were the primary providers (i.e., provided most calories and tended to fires that allowed for further optimization of resources) in early human civilization, while men's contributions (i.e., hunting for meat) often separated them from the larger group, early human societies developed around women's relationships naturally resulting a matriarchy as these society's grew larger/more complex." The fact that this same theory could be so easily applied to the opposite outcome suggests it may be a post hoc fallacy.

Mobility: I'd apply the same criticisms here as I applied to the agriculture and fire theories. In addition to that, it seems as though this may be conflating a current observation ("patriarchal cultures limit women's movement") with a prehistoric explanation ("differences in men's and women's movement resulted in the patriarchy").

Reproductive capacity: The biggest contradiction to this argument is the fact that we don't (always) see this pattern in non-human animals with complex social structures. As much as 43% of primate (lemurs, monkeys, and apes) species exhibit either female-dominant or egalitarian social structures. The most commonly referenced example of this is the bonobo; this considered significant because humans and bonobos are as closely "related" as humans and the male-dominated chimpanzees. There's a number of other mammals (where the female always carries the young) where this is true, including: elephants, hyenas, orcas, lions, and many others. It's true that these social organizations appear to be less common than male-dominated species, but this challenges the predictive value of this theory (i.e., if reproductive differences were the origin of the patriarchy we would not expect there to be female-dominated mammals). (There is an important note here, that any attempts to categorize animal behavior by humans standards runs the risk of anthropomorphizing. That being said, it would also be biased to completely disregard this evidence.) Again we could also try the "applying this theory to the opposite outcome" approach, and again, I'd argue that the resulting theory is even more logical. Consider, for example: "in early human civilization women's natural control over reproduction afforded them disproportionate social power; as societies grew more complex this natural division of power was codified into society, with women's influence over the family unit ultimately being reflected in, first, cooperative social groups and, later, governments." (Again, this exercise demonstrates that this theory may be an example of a post hoc fallacy.)

Physical dimorphism: The criticism for this theory is almost identical to the one for reproductive capacity. In particular, for primates, sexual dimorphism "does not necessarily constrain intersexual power relationships unless it is substantial". This is notable, because modern (and probably early) humans are considered to display – relatively speaking – limited physical dimorphism. Other matriarchal species (e.g., elephants, orcas, lions) also display physical dimorphism despite having larger males.

Choice: One of the biggest holes in this theory is that patriarchies appear to have emerged independently of each other in various locations. Even if you could conceivably imagine a scenario where one group of men in one location intentionally created a patriarchy, it's difficult to imagine this happening many, separate times, without some other influencing factor. I think this theory also falls victim to the current observation ("many men actively and/or passively uphold the patriarchy") for a past explanation ("a group of men chose to create the patriarchy").

Others: There's likely some other issues/counter-arguments for these! (There's probably also counter-counter-arguments as well!)

---

Conclusion:

So, where does this leave us?

I'd argue that it's most likely that some combination of all these factors ultimately led to the patriarchy. I doubt, however, that we'll ever know exactly what factors were involved or how we got from "there" (i.e., some biological and social differences between the sexes) to "here" (i.e., with a complex social organization favoring men and oppressing women).

It's an interesting thought exercise to consider how these factors could have interacted. I'd like to provide and example, but to be explicitly clear, I am not suggesting that this is the "correct" theory (or even a necessarily likely one) this is purely an example of one way these factors could have, potentially, interacted:

The biological differences between women and men (i.e., reproductive capacity and physical dimorphism), resulted in a generalized, but not completely restrictive, division of labor by sex in early human societies (i.e., men tended to undertake long hunts over large areas and women tended to remain in a smaller area, gathering and cultivating plants and hunting/trapping smaller animals while tending to children). In addition to this, men's greater-on-average strength meant they were primarily responsible for defending early territories (i.e., from animals and/or other groups of male humans). These factors advantaged men who were disproportionately inclined towards aggression (i.e., increased the personal survival and mating success) of such men. However, these differences did not ultimately result in organized social oppression of women (i.e., the patriarchy) until these early civilizations started to grow in size around the advent of agriculture. Once this additional factor was added, women's previously reduced mobility became even more restricted and more formalized. Defense of territory (now agricultural land with far denser resources) and the increase in private property (as increased food production allowed for diversification of labor) also resulted in increased warfare. Again, men inclined towards aggression tended to survive longer and have more success in finding a mate, due to the expansion of conflict over land/property. In contrast, women were increasingly treated like the property of men, as something that provides a resource (e.g., babies) and requires protection from other men looking to obtain that resource. This status change was realized in laws and religions restricting women's movement and behavior (i.e., which also indicates a degree of choice in the process – some men, at some point, must have decided to (unfortunately, successfully) try and codify the policies). As time passed these laws and social norms became more and more ingrained, ultimately leading to the patriarchy we know today.

Again, please recognize that I am not suggesting that this is the "correct" theory of the patriarchy's origins. I add this primarily to showcase how many factors may have interacted, but also to demonstrate how any theory will have problems. For example, holes in the above theory include:

We know women have been, and are, involved with the defense of their families and homes. So, why hasn't this also favored women with naturally high aggression? If it actually has, then at what point did society start emphasizing docility in women? What factor resulted in compliance with this new norm? We also know that men are primarily "protective" of women they consider "their own (property)". So if men were primarily protecting "their" women from other men ... then men were already thinking of women as a resource, implying evidence of a patriarchy prior to this initial time point. If this is the case, then what factor came before this?

Further, if women were treated like a resource (i.e., for reproduction) following the invention of agriculture, what is to say they were not also treated this way prior to the invention of agriculture? If they were treated as such, why are there are other species in which this does not happen? What factors result in these differences?

How was the codification of women's oppression successful when there was, presumably, a point in time in which these norms did not yet exist? We can only assume that early women – as fully realized, independent people – would resist obvious attempts at such restriction, so how were these laws initially created and proposed? To assume there would be no resistance implies that women were either already oppressed en mass prior to the codification of such policies or that they generally supported such policies. Both of these assumptions are likely erroneous: how could there be organized, ubiquitous, oppression of women in complex societies without any centralized organization, and why would one assume early women were any less likely to advocate for their own self-interest than early men?

What degree did choice play? If the patriarchy truly did emerge independently in many different places, and the creation of the patriarchy included at least some element of choice, why do we not have strong evidence of any societies fully rejecting patriarchy? Alternately, do we have any evidence of societies fully rejecting patriarchy (either implementing a matriarchy or true egalitarianism)? If so, are there any other factors that differentiate these societies? Was men's choice to codify laws the ultimate factor? If so, what made them so inclined to codify such laws? If it was purely self-interest, then why were no early resistance movements successful?

Those are only a portion of possible critiques, so clearly the proposed scenario is flawed. My central point is really that any theory will be flawed.

To me, the more important question is what perpetuates the patriarchy now (e.g., patriarchal religions, patriarchal laws, commodification of women's bodies, gender stereotypes, etc.) and what we can do about these factors (e.g., legal opposition, gender abolition, etc.). Most importantly, in modern society, the patriarchy is perpetuated by both active choices (e.g., men choosing to pass laws that restrict women's bodily autonomy, men protecting sexual predators, etc.) and passive actions (e.g., compliance with restrictive gender stereotypes, ignoring sexist rhetoric in organized religions, etc.). It is therefore these choices that we must work to shift.

I hope this helps you! It was an interesting topic to research!

References below the cut:

Hansen, C. W., Jensen, P. S., & Skovsgaard, C. V. (2015). Modern gender roles and agricultural history: the Neolithic inheritance. Journal of Economic Growth, 20, 365-404.

Lerner, Gerda, and Gerda Lerner. The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford Univ. Press, 1987.

Saini, A. (2021). The patriarchs: The origins of inequality. Beacon Press.

Kraemer, S. (1991). The origins of fatherhood: An ancient family process. Family process, 30(4), 377-392.

Wrangham, Richard (2009). Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. Basic Books.

Potts, M., & Campbell, M. (2008). The origins and future of patriarchy: the biological background of gender politics. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 34(3), 171–174. doi:10.1783/147118908784734792

Goldberg, S. H. (1974). The inevitability of patriarchy.

UCL. “Analysis: How Did the Patriarchy Start – and Will Evolution Get Rid of It?” UCL News, 20 Sept. 2022, https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2022/sep/analysis-how-did-patriarchy-start-and-will-evolution-get-rid-it.

Engels, F. (2001). The origin of the family, private property and the state. Wellred Books.

Venkataraman, V. V., Hoffman, J., Farquharson, K., Davis, H. E., Hagen, E. H., Hames, R. B., ... & Stibbard-Hawkes, D. N. (2024). Female foragers sometimes hunt, yet gendered divisions of labor are real: a comment on Anderson et al.(2023) The Myth of Man the Hunter. Evolution and Human Behavior.

Kaufmann, J. H. (1983). On the definitions and functions of dominance and territoriality. Biological reviews, 58(1), 1-20.

Allen, M. W., & Jones, T. L. (2014). Violence and warfare among hunter-gatherers. Left Coast Press.

Curry, Andrew. “Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?” Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/.

Gibbons, Ann. “The Evolution of Diet.” National Geographic, http://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/evolution-of-diet/.

Novak, Sara. “Females Dominate Males in Many Primate Species.” Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/females-dominate-males-in-many-primate-species/.

Lewis, R. J., Kirk, E. C., & Gosselin-Ildari, A. D. (2023). Evolutionary patterns of intersexual power. Animals, 13(23), 3695.

Novak, Sara. “Females Dominate Males in Many Primate Species.” Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/females-dominate-males-in-many-primate-species/.

Pare, Sascha. “6 Animals Where Females Reign Supreme.” Livescience.Com, 4 July 2024, https://www.livescience.com/animals/animals-where-females-reign-supreme.

“In Real Life, Simba’s Mom Would Be Running the Pride.” Animals, 8 July 2019, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/lion-pride-family-dynamics-females.

Larsen, C. S. (2003). Equality for the sexes in human evolution? Early hominid sexual dimorphism and implications for mating systems and social behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(16), 9103-9104.

*Please note that some of these sources are books that I have not read in their entirety. I also don't necessarily agree with all/any of the content, as I am merely presenting them as sources for the various theories/counter-arguments. They should all be read critically.

**Please also remember my disclaimer ... I did my best, but there are probably more/other/better sources on these topics out there.

[bongosinferno]

A devastating and confusing thing about the Fallout setting, when you explore the pre-war aspects, is what the creators think about pre-war America. In the first games we only get hints of the pre-war world, but they seem to be some sort of wild fascist nation invading Canada. In Fallout 1, the first thing we're introduced to of the pre-war society is seeing a soldier shoot civilians and laughing.

Now, for the first 2 games and New Vegas we don't really know much. What we know is that there's a fascist military group known as the enclave who were a sort of US deep state even before the war, and that the government teamed up with corporate interests to preform vaguely MKULTRA-ish experiments with the Vaults. Basically, the government was an extreme version of the 50s American jingoism and McCarthyism.

This is well and dandy, I guess issues come up more when we get to the later games, especially 4, where it seems like none of this extreme plotting and societal civil unrest which would exist is seen. The society as presented in 4 also seems quite progressive, gay people are featured in the opening, and none of the baggage of say, civil rights not existing are included. Now on a baseline, I don't want settings to be more conservative, homophobic and sexist etc., but it becomes a very confusing setting when it's displayed both as this jingoist extreme thing with fascist tendencies aswell as a progressive place where everyone is seemingly equal. If you're focusing on the 50s as your setting, and American nationalism in the 50s, then you can't have McCarthyism spoofs and anti-communism as a societal paranoia norm while also general equality is the norm without misunderstanding why McCarthyism and nationalist jingoism is bad. A massive harm done in anti-communist paranoia is how it degrades and vilifies any progressive movements (women's rights, civil rights, homosexuality) as being morally un-American and therefore connected to communism. To ignore this just makes any critique of MacCarthyism and jingoism weird!

Basically, pre-war America in Fallout 4 becomes this both sides thing where America is both pure and equal and white fences in every instance that we see as the player (the intro), while also supposedly being this dystopic MacCarthyist hellscape that's broadcasting gladly about their war crimes in Canada, and wants to root out communism. I guess the only fix for this issue without getting into the fine print like they had to do is just not to focus too much on the pre-war world.

[txttletale]

Can you elaborate on what you think would be the minimal needed changes to fix what you see as an issue in Civ? Civ has done fairly large shifts in some mechanics before, and "civ like" is still an interesting game space that can scratch certain itches

yeah i mean as i said, the baked-in racism arises from a certain set of core assumptions that i think lock it into that position, which are that civ is a

1) symmetrical

2) 4X

game about

3) 'real world civilizations' (deeply loaded terms ofc but that's how civ envisions them)

4) trying to 'win the game'

5) with a global

6) and transhistorical

scope

so, in its role as a symmetrical (1) game with victory conditions (4), civ as a text has to take positions on what constitutes a 'successful civilization'. as a (2) 4X game this definition also has to include some variation on the profoundly loaded eponymous Xs, 'explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate'. furthermore, as a (1) symmetrical game with a global, transhistorical (5, 6) scope, it has to necessarily create a model of what 'a civilization' looks like and apply it to every 'civilization' it wants to include, at all points in their history.

this all kind of naturally leads into civ being a game in which the colonial european imperialist powers are the default 'civilizations' and all other cultures are basically just like them -- a game where technology progresses linearly and innovations are made in the order they were in european imperial history -- a game where all cultures fundamentally work in the same way and hold similar values, a game where all religions are based on christianity (i mean, just look at civ vi's system, where every religion has a 'prophet', 'apostles', 'missionaries' and 'inquisitors'), a game where not only do cultures have teleological overarching 'goals' but where these goals are shared and these goals are fundamentally based on imperialist visions of 'victory'.

to drill into some specific examples: you can't play a game of civilization without founding cities. you will constantly be founding cities. when you're playing as 'the mongols' or 'the cree' or 'scythia', this makes no sense! these were peoples who historically had rich culture, science, arts, and certainly a notable military history, but were (to varying degrees, at varying times in their history, i don't mean to create a new and similarly heterogenous absolutist category here) nomadic!

similarly, to advance in civilization you must invent 'the wheel'. 'the wheel' is necessary to many later innovations, while of course the andean peoples represented by the playable 'inca' never made significant use of the wheel because the lack of suitable pack animals and environmental factors meant that it did not, in fact, prove a suitable tool for transporting large quantities of heavy goods. for an even more glaring example, a lot of early military technology is locked behind 'horses', which is pretty absurd considering that several of the game's playable civilizations, in the real world, developed plenty of military technology despite living on a continent without any horses!

so having established what i mean by 'the issue', which is that the game's core assumptions lock it into imposing a eurocentric, imperialist vision of 'civilization' onto cultures where it doesn't make sense, here's a few different jenga blocks you could pull out to resolve it:

SID MEIER'S EUROPE

the pillar you knock out here is #5. keep the game engine and core assumptions just as founded on eurocentric imperialist societies as they are now, and just make it about european empires doing imperialism. now, i think we can immediately spot some problems in there -- how are we going to represent the rest of the world? after all, this kind of just creates a situation where, either as NPC factions or as outright exclusions, all other cultures in the world are deprived of any meaningful agency in "history". this one just kind of gives you a new problem and also from a gameplay standpoint results in a game that just Has Less Stuff On It. i think this is a bad one

SID MEIER'S ELYSIUM

now here's one you can get if you knock out pillar #3. keep the same assumptions and gameplay and transhistorical global narrative scale, but remove the 'real-world' aspects. you can get real silly with it and add fantasy stuff to it, or you can be a relatively grounded 'our-world-but-to-the-left' situation. now to some extent this already matches a lot of the features already in civ games: after all, unless you specifically load in a 'true start location earth' map, you're usually playing on a strange parallel world with semiplausible but wholly original continents! now, you also need to get some fucking Nerds and Geeks working at your company to build out your fictional world, or you'll just end having pointlessly pallette swapped a bunch of factions that are now just Schmance, Schmina, and the Schoman Schempire, and not really have avoided the issue. but if you do that, and invent a deep and rich fictional history to riff on, then you could create something really cool and incorporate alt-tech or fantasy or retrofuturistic elements or all sorts of cool shit.

the downside of this is that it makes your game less accessible and appealing to a lot of people. a big part of (at least the initial) appeal of civilization is pointing at the screen and saying 'hey i recognize that thing!'. it is instantly more accessible to someone who isn't super invested in strategy or fantasy dork shit to say to them 'you can be BRAZIL and nuke FRANCE while at war with CHINA and allied to BABYLON'.

more importantly than that, i think some parts of the historical theming (because let's be honest, it is ultimately theming, i don't think civ is interested in 'history' in any serious way) serve a pretty load-bearing role in the game's information economy. it's a pretty tall order to ask a player to remember the unique abilities of dozens of factions and unique wonders, and the historical background makes it a lot easier. e.g., it is a lot easier for a player looking at wonders to remember 'the pyramids need to be built on desert' or 'broadway will help me make more culture' than it would be for them to remember the requirements/effects of 'under-eusapia' or the 'wompty dompty dom center'. i think this is one of the number one things that, if subtracted, would meaningfully create something that is no longer 'sid meier's civilization'.

SID MEIER'S ALPHA CENTAURI

now if you cut out #3 and #5 and #6 on the other hand... sid meier's alpha centauri is not technically an entry in the civilization franchise, but i think most people correctly consider it one. it has similar 4X gameplay to the series, and its (very bad) spiritual successor beyond earth was an official entry. instead of 'civilizations', the playable factions are splinters from a colony ship that fell into civil war as soon as it landed, each one representing a distinct ideology. now, y'know, this doesn't mean it's free from Some Problems (the portrayal of the Human Hive in particular is some of the worst apects of 90s orientalism all piled together) but i think they're problems it's not at all locked into by its design!

SID MEIER'S THERMOPILAE

by cutting out #5 and #6 -- making a civ game about a particular time and place in history you could achieve something much more richly detailed in mecahnics while also being able to handwave a lot more homogeny into it. giving the same basic mechanics to, say, every greek city-state in the peloponnesian war is far less ideologically loaded than giving them to every 'historical civilization' someone who watched a few history channel documentaries once can think of. it also lets you get really into the weeds and introduce era-and-place-specific mechanics.

the scale needs to be smaller conceptually but it doesn't really have to be smaller in terms of gameplay -- just make maps and tech trees and building more granular, less large-scale and more local and parochial and specific. this also gives you the advantage of being able to do the opposite of the last two options and really lean hard into the historical theming.

if this sounds like a good idea to you, then good news -- old world does something pretty similar, and it's pretty good! worth checking out.

SID MEIER'S LOVE AND PEACE ON PLANET EARTH

what if we take an axe to #2 and #4? instead of putting all these civilizations into a zero-sum game of violent expansion, make it possible for several civilization to win, for victory goals to not inherently involve 'defeating' or 'beating' other factions. now, that doesn't mean that the game should be a confictless city-builder -- after all, if you've decided to be super niceys and just try and make your society a pleasant place to live, that doesn't mean that the guy next to you isn't going to be going down the militarist-expansionist path. hell, even if all you want to do is provide for your citizens, a finite map with finite resources is going to drive you into conflict of some kind with your neighbours in the long run.

to make this work you'd have to add a bunch of new metrics -- 'quality of life', for example, as a more granular and contextual version of the 'happiness' mechanics a few games have had, or 'equality', game metrics that you could pursue to try to build an egalitarian, economically and socially just society where everyone is provided for. after all, why shouldn't that be a goal to strive for just as much as going to mars or being elected super world president or whatever?

SID MEIER'S DIVERSE HISTORICAL CONTEXTS

ultimately, all cards on the table, if i was made god-empress of The Next Civ Game, this is the option i'd go for: jettison #1 as much as practically possible, introduce as much asymmetry into the game as you can. some civilizations keep the established settler-city model -- others are nomadic, building their units in movable 'camps' -- maybe the 'colonial' civilizations, your USA and Brazil and so on, can be like the alien factions from the alpha centauri DLC, only showing as NPCs at the appropriate point in the timeline when other civs are colonizing other continents, or putting you into an accelerated-forward version of the game if you choose to play as one.

you could combine this with a more interesting version of humankind's civ-choosing system, where you lock certain civilization choices behind specific gameplay events. this would let you do crazy shit with the balancing -- imagine an ostrogothic kindgom civ with crazy strong abilities and units that you could only choose to play as if your capital is overrun by barbarians, or a hungarian civ that requires you to have started as a nomadic civ and invaded somewhere, or a soviet union civ that requires you to lose a revolution, or a usamerican civ that requires you to split off all cities on a foreign continent from your original civ -- you could add so much variety and so many new and bizarre strategies into the game with this!

as for the universal aspects of tech and the narratives of linear progression contained within, there are lots of approaches that already solve this! stuff like stellaris' semi-random branching tech paths, or endless space 2's circular tech web, could allow civilizations to take tech paths that make sense for them, rather than imposing one single model of 'technological progress' on the wole world.

obviously there's limits to this, right -- civilization isn't going to be a detailed historical materialism simulator any time soon. but i think abandoning the idea that every faction has to play fundamentally the same and introducing some severe asymmetry as well as choices that you can make after starting the game would work wonders to wash out some of the racist and colonialist assumptions built into the game's foundation, while also (imo) creating a more fun and interesting game.

[shera-dnd]

I have decided against my better judgement to be weird about the Dawntrail MSQ

and we can't talk about an expansion set in the fantasy americas without talking about

COLONIALISM

oh yeah, we're going there baby

So disclaimer that I may be brazilian, but my ass is white as hell, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. Also if any native americans have made posts on this please let me know so I can boost their analysis as well

Also also I'm more than happy to delete this post if I mess up. I'm genuinely trying to make a thoughtful analysis, so if I fuck up just say the word and this thing is gone from this website

Oh also also also, Dawntrail MSQ spoilers ahead!

So FFXIV has had a... messy relationship with colonialism over the years

The fact that the major antagonists for the first half of A Realm Reborn a literally called "beast man tribes" is absolutely not a good start to this story

Add to that the fact that The Twelve (Eorzea's gods) are shown to be kind all powerful deities, while the Primals (the tribal gods) are evil spirits summoned to bring destruction to the world

and yeah no ARR is not good with that shit. It's EXTREMELY not good. If I hadn't been told it got better later on I would have dropped this shit before I got to Titan

But they have been taking steps to unfuck things. First we're shown that even the "civilized societies" (in this case the catholic elves) can summon Primals, then that Primal summoning isn't an actual native custom but was introduced by foreigners with malicious intent, and that not all "beast man" practice that

Then they changed the names of the "Beast Man Tribe Quests" to "Tribal Quests" and then finally to "Allied Society Quest"

Which would have been an empty gesture had like half of the post-Shadowbringer patches, as well a lot of Endwalker, not been about forming alliances with those people and working together with them, recognizing that they have as much right to the land and to life as any Eorzean, this all culminating on the Primals being summoned with the express purpose of helping you protect the world you all share

I guess they realized that they couldn't have their big bad for most of the game be the evil expansionist empire, if they didn't like actually reflect in their own imperialist fantasies they were propagating

Then the teaser trailer for Dawntrail drops and everyone in the fandom is like "wait... are we gonna do a colonialism?"

And memes were abound of how all those lessons from before don't apply to the "New World" of Tural

THANKFULLY the actual questline leading to Dawntrail helped to settle some of those worries

We're not going to Tural to explore a new uncharted land, but are actually being invited over by the local royalty in order to aid them with their right of succession. We get introduced to the nation of Tuliyollal and how it's a thriving land with its own culture and not just a "terra nil" waiting to be colonized

Still there are some worries that this is gonna turn out poorly and that we're just gonna end up being white saviors

But I think they managed to avoid that pretty well

For starters neither the Scions nor the Warrior of Light are the protagonists of this story. You're all simply supporting character's in Wuk Lamat's story

A story that centers her people, her culture, and her family

And it's not even one culture. They don't portray Tuliyollal as this monolithic mish mash of every single native american culture

No, the lands of Tural are in fact comprised of multiple different people's and nations, each of them with their own customs and traditions which are informed by their history and the lands they live in

In fact learning about their cultures and partaking in their customs is the whole point of the Rite of Succession. It's all set up so that the next Dawnservant would be someone who understands and respects each of the peoples that comprise Tural

(I could, and probably will, write about what Dawntrail has to say about what makes a good ruler)

And our girl, Wuk Lamat, is shown to be the rightful heir because she really goes out of her way to understand each of the nations and show her appreciation for their customs

Putting her well above her Sharlyaboo brother Koana, The King of Unresolved Daddy Issues Zoral Ja, and whatever the fuck is going on with Bakool Ja Ja

(I joke, I love my two headed traumatized dumbass)

Tho I will admit that this does end up giving the tribes a somewhat "planet of the hats" vibe. Like their named NPCs are diverse and interesting, but you can just assume that most random NPCs of any given people are gonna act according to the stereotype

Which is unfortunate, but I have hopes that with the next few patches and the addition of Dawntrail's own Allied Society Quests, we'll get to see more to them

But that... is only up to lvl95 and the end of the Yok'Tural (southern Tural) segment

because then we get to Xak'Tural (northern Tural) and holy shit does it feel like they drop the ball there

Like they really COULDN'T keep themselves from making Shaaloani a fucking Wild West map

Instead of doing anything with the actual cultures and histories of Native North American people, they just do wild fucking west

Because there's ceruleum in them thar hills! And apparently Koana turned most of the region into Sharlyaboos too

So we get a bunch of Wild West frontier towns mixed with native american tribes and mud brick cities. We have trains and guns and a sheriff and a duel at high noon, but now everyone got native american names

At least there's one group off to the northern side of the map who seems to stick to tradition and live in harmony with nature, and that group is shown respect by the other people of the region

so we at the very least avoid the "cowboys vs indians" crap, but my god does that region just feel bad compared to everything else they had done so far

Then we get to the big twist: THE CYBERPUNK PORTION OF THE GAME

because yes, we go full fucking cyberpunk

so turns out that a whole segment of Xak'Tural got colonized by the kingdom of Alexandria, including the lands of the Shetona (Erenville's people)

And I feel like this is the most poignant section of the MSQ when it comes to colonialism

Because here we have Alexandria, an empire that has reached the limit of what it can do sustain itself on its own world, and so has decided to spread out and colonize others in order to gain resources

We see the Shetona and other natives of the region being separated from their families and kept in isolation from the rest of their people

And tho Queen Sphene is shown to be a kind and caring ruler who gives people a choice when it comes to joining the empire, WELL SHE'S STILL THE QUEEN OF A FUCKING EMPIRE

Like her form of kindness and just stagnant peace is put in stark contrast with Wuk Lamat's own love for her people and more proactive pursuit of happiness and harmony

(again with the "what makes a ruler theme")

Also the people that choose to be assimilated into the Alexandrian Empire? Yeah, they're doing so because Alexandria has advanced medical technology and you can only receive their aid if you're a citizen

Not only that, but you have to be a working citizen. We see later on a character being denied medical aid, because he lost his job, thanks to the King's decision and at no fault of his own

yeah this is cyberpunk, not just sci-fi

ALSO can we talk about how the technology used for that medical aid and the little gizmo they give you to signify you're now a citizen, will literally erase the memory of the people you lost

So the Turali who are assimilated into Alexandrian culture not only lose ties to their culture and their loved ones, but are not allowed to grieve their loss, because what they once had is slowly being erased

How their choices add up to survive on their own OR be assimilated

How this all takes place IN NORTH FUCKING AMERICA!

THE CYBERPUNK CITY IS LITERALLY SET IN THIS WORLD'S EQUIVALENT TO THE UNITED STATES

So yeah, I don't think is is accidental. I genuinely thing that they're making a point about the realities of imperialism and colonialism, as well as taking some shots at the US while they're at it

Of course this part is still centered around Wuk Lamat, and instead of having a moment of "the only ones who can stop the evil white europeans are the GOOD white europeans", we have Wuk Lamat be the one to save the day, defeat Sphene, and save her people from the colonizing empire

So I would like to argue that everything that happens from lvl97 onwards is them picking up the ball again and making a real point

buuuut that comes at the cost of us being unable to engage with the native peoples of Xak'Tural outside of the context of colonialism

Which genuinely fucking sucks, and I hope it will be remedied with the post-Dawntrail patches

As well as handling the whole shared land situation they ended up with and how this might end up in a Land Back sort of movement, and oh boy can they mess shit up royally there

So in conclusion FFXIV has had a messy relationship with colonialism and imperialist fantasies and tropes, but the devs seem to be making a concerted effort to undo their mistakes and show respect in their depictions of american natives

They still fuck up

boy do they

but they're at least trying, and I'd say Dawntrail so far has been quite well executed

so yeah, look forward to more insane rambles like this one I guess

[weirdmarioenemies]

Name: Mino

Debut: Tetris Worlds

While researching for last week's post, I discovered something amazing. Something I haven't been able to stop thinking about. No matter what, my mind always comes back to

Tetris Lore

Now, I'm not going to act like Tetris has an overarching story, or that the story of one game is at all relevant to the other games. Tetris Worlds is just one game, and its story is self-contained. But the fact that this Tetris game has a story at all is really incredible!

What would you expect from a Tetris game with a story? Maybe something like, the Tetriminos are all best friends living in Block World, but one day, wuh woh! There's a Bad Guy who's a sphere who hates cubes or something! Luckily, with the power of our friendship and Tetris skills, we can teach him a lesson and banish him once more... or perhaps make a new friend? :)

Please watch the introductory cutscene of Tetris Worlds.

These are the Minos! Minos, in this canon, are a species of cycloptic cubes with fascinating cycloptic faces on their forward-facing faces. I absolutely adore them already. And wouldn't you know it, their sun is going supernova and they are all going to die if they can't evacuate their planet in time. HUH???

This story is so fascinating! I am SO happy that someone came up with this when tasked with making a story for a Tetris game. There was a creative vision, and it appears to be fully realized in this short but unforgettable intro to what could have easily been just another Tetris game!

You get to have a Mino as an avatar! This could be YOU! You can make them wear a funny hat as they hover and squash and stretch on the sidelines while you play Tetris!

The game's manual explains even more about the Minos, most notably that they are MECHANICAL! These things just keep getting better! Living, cycloptic cubes, with an entire futuristic society, and they're machines. The manual also feels the need to remind us that they were probably made by organic beings, as "most" mechanical beings are. And I find that suspiciously specific...

Look at this fish! This mechanical, cycloptic Mino fish. This was not in the Xbox version's intro, but it was in the PS2 one! For whatever reason, the two had unique animation in their intros, despite using the same voiceover. This fish is shown emerging from water onto land, where it beholds the Tetrions, the sacred and powerful portals in which the game of Tetris takes place. The visual of a fish coming onto land is such in-your-face evolution imagery that I am ENTIRELY convinced that these fish were ancestors of the Minos who would later form civilization! Natural, evolving robots!

...and then this intro goes on to depict the Minos as having TWO eyes. Yeah ok. Sure. I will confidently declare these binocular blockheads as non-canon based on everything else we've seen, ESPECIALLY because the actual gameplay even depicts cycloptic Minos!

Some of them seem to be established characters. This is Izabela. Hi Izabela!

Are you on the edge of your seat, hoping our friends the Minos survive? They do! Savvy Tetris skills allow them to activate the Tetrions (which were left behind by an ancient space-faring civilization. In case you were wondering) and teleport to other planets. Minos live! Hooray. And now you know the Tetris Lore, and can think about it constantly like I do!

Lastly, I made this little image of the Mino leader from Worlds, in the style of a Tetris Friends avatar! I like to think some cross-promotional avatars could have been added if Worlds came out during the lifespan of Tetris Friends. I can only hope that at least someone at The Tetris Company remembers this incarnation of the Minos, and that they could possibly appear in a game once more!

[whereserpentswalk]

Choose a slightly diffrent version of our world to escape to

Weather you're transferring yourself to another dimension or you’re retroactively changing our world is a matter of perspective. Either way, only you will remember the change, and all your loved ones will still exist with as minimal a change to everyone's lives as possible. Transplaner security does not allow the finer details of this process to be understood by mortals.

1- ritual magic and deities are scientifically proven to exist. The exact details on it all are still ambiguous but people know for a fact that these things work and are true. Religious conflict is down, and it's a fact that there's something out there to answer your prayers.

2- the earth is flat and infinite. The seven continents we know are lit by the sun (which is small and goes out at night) which rotates over the equator (the north pole is the center of this map projection). But there are other suns beyond Antarctica, and 21st century civilization is working to contact these other continents. We will never be done expanding our trades routes and exploring for better or for worse.

3- dragons exist. They split off from a difftent fish than other land vertebrates hence the six limbs. There are all different kinds of dragons, living throughout the world. There's nothing magical about them, they just exist.

4- the six continents we know of with humans are just six islands in a vast ocean. Most of human history is the same or similar, just much higher density, thought the same cultures and civilizations developed. Because the population is the same human territory is a single massive city, using unquine technology to harvest food. What exists on the rest of the earth is just starting to be known.

5- necromancers exist as a valid field of art and science. Zombies, ghosts, vampires, liches, shades and other such creatures all exist as functioning members of society. Everyone accepts this as good and normal.

6- humans are capable of using willpower to change their physical sex after completing puberty. The process takes about six months to complete, and is mostly painless. Alongside swapping your sex it's also possible to mix and match traits or completely get rid of the traits of either sex. There is stigma around this, but it's slowly gaining more acceptance as time goes on. Body type and eye color can also be changed similarly, and how old you look is somewhat fluid based on your desires.

7- every rocky planet in our solar system and most large moons have sentient life. We are slowly making further and further contact with those civilizations.

8- the world is slightly more progressive on basically every issue. It's far from perfect but our world looks like an exacerbated parody of their world's political and social problems.

9- humans don't make contact when they mate, like fish or scorpians. Nobody has sex or desires sex in any way, and human bodies have a lot less sexual dimorphism. Gender is more fluid, sexual assault and harassment can't happen, and physical affection is way more common.

10- humans live longer (the oldest people are in their 900s) and resist illness much better. They have stronger mote athletic bodies, and have appearances that resemble closer what they individually think is pretty. They also need to sleep a lot less and have higher pain tolerance.

11- gender as a concept doesn't exist. People are biologically the same, they just don't have any social construct of male and female. People generally dress similarly to what we'd consider masculine, and he is the default pronoun, but feminine things aren't rejected, or even categorized as feminine. Relationships also aren't considered platonic romantic or family, people are just close to eachother and there's no special word for certain kind of close relationship that's different from others in a socially enforced way.

12- there's a whole new complex set of social constructs that didn't exist in the world you know. This is bad mabye.

Reblog to begin the transportation. Like to awake one of your freinds to the reality of the changes.

[jennelikejennay]

It's odd to me how negative most humans in Star Trek are about the Vulcan way of emotional control. You mean you've never wished you could control yours a little better? You think getting angry a few times a day is actually important for your mental health?

I put it to you that your childhood, and every human's childhood, was a grueling process of learning to control your emotions. Once, it was natural to melt down in the grocery store if you didn't get a cookie. Gradually you learned to keep that upset feeling inside and not scream and cry, because it's socially unacceptable. And finally, as an adult, you probably learned enough internal control over your feelings that you genuinely don't feel that upset about the cookie; you instinctively practice self soothing behaviors like "remembering you have cookies at home" or whatever.

That level of emotional control makes civilized society possible. It's not unnatural or harmful. All Vulcans do is take it a little further than we do.

Sure, all sapient beings have feelings and those feelings are the main way we decide to do the things we do. Vulcans don't deny that. They just think it's important to master those feelings, and they're able to do so to a very high degree.

Would smiling from time to time get in the way of controlling negative emotions like anger or jealousy? Probably not. But, like human etiquette rules, remaining impassive is a visible sign that you're doing the work and won't fly off the handle.

I don't think the Vulcan way would necessarily work for humans. But is it wrong that I kinda wish it did? I would love never to lose my temper with my kids, never cry over confrontation, always keep my wits about me in an argument and be able to focus on the issues at hand.

The main cost would be not being able to use emotions to connect with other people. But, being telepaths, I doubt Vulcans have that issue. And since I am already bad at connecting to other people, I can't help feeling like being the only unsmiling Vulcan on a ship full of humans wouldn't be the worst thing in the world!

[thehorrorsoftheblackbunnymask]

We need facts about YANDERE CREEPYPASTA ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE AU!!! Only if you want to and take your time. I just got really excited hearing this as I love zombie movies

Something Short (Zombie AU Introduction)

Author's Note: I've had this AU idea for months, but I just never got to it.

Warnings: Murder, Torture, Sexual Harrasment, Kidnapping, Human Trafficking (Mentions), Mental Abuse, Sexual Abuse, Human Experiments, Gore, Physical Abuse, Manipulation, Dehumanization, Sadism, Being Held To Extremely High Standards, Dictatorship, And Obession

Ok, so. I picture the virus that caused the whole outbreak to be a mixture between the walking dead zombies, and the Train to Busan zombies, you know.

Now, you're pretty much one of the few who survived the outbreak. You and your two brothers are wondering around looking for a permanent place of residence. You found one society, but it was destroyed soon after you got there.

In this AU, EJ is the leader of a cannibalistic city. They live in a heavily fortified town somewhere in Pennsylvania. EJ is the doctor and leader of this colony. One day you and your brothers get kidnapped by a few of their members, and you only survived because EJ took an interest in you. Your brothers were kept alive as a way to keep you in line, but you knew they were barely surviving.

One day, your brothers escaped, leaving you behind. Once you escape, your main motivation is reuniting with your brothers, or at least find out what happened to them.

You were trapped with EJ for about 8 months, and those months were hell. Unlike my other AUs and Canon were EJ puts up a fake mask of kindness and care, Zombie AU EJ is heartless right off the bat. It's the end of the world, you either do what he tells you, or you're tonight's dinner. So, you're now labeled as his pet, even the other civilizations know about you, the poor pet of Cannubal King. You would constantly be a victim to his twisted experiments, but after each one he'd comfort you. His constant switched in personality and behavior is what makes you have a blurred perspective of him. In this AU, EJ is the one you're most terrified of, not the Proxies.

Now, the Proxies are opportunist. They are the people in the apocalypse to kill, kidnap and sell people as a way to make it buy. They're the most dangerous to look for because they're doing anything to survive. After 8 months past, you're able to escape. You end up wondering around for about 3 days before you find a little shed in the woods. When you get there, the shed is filled with a decent amount of food and water. However, as you inspect a small can, you're whacked in the head with a crow bar. When you wake up, three men are standing in front of you. They all discuss what their going to do to you before they agree to keep you. The Proxies are no stranger to keeping pets, but each one of them have died in someway, and you're just another replacement. Out of all the proxies though, Toby ends up becoming completely in love and obsessed with you, while Masky and Hoodie have a more possessive, sexual obsession with you.

Ben is the leader of a tech society. His society was able to keep electricity and tech running, making the most advanced civilization. However, getting in is extremely hard, and being a citizen there sucks. Ben is a dictator. If you hold no use to him, you're getting sent out into the heard. You disobey or betray him, sent to the Cannibal Colony. And not to mention, he had eyes and ears everywhere. Everyone in the city has to do their part if they want to stay, and if you don't, Oh well. Also, being one of Ben's favorites sucks even more. If he likes you for your skill or talent, he holds you to an impossible standard, and he enjoys to watch those people try so hard to meet it. No one is ever good enough for him, and he'll gladly torture those who can't obey. If he likes you for his sexual desires, you're running on his schedule. He expects you to do your own work, and fulfill his desires.

So, how do you two meet? You actually met back when you were with EJ. Just like in every AU, Jeff, EJ, and Ben are all really close friends, and EJ paid a visit to Ben in order to collect new Tech. There you caught Ben's eyes. Ben joked with EJ, saying that if he ever got bored of you, he'll gladly take you. He would never hide his stares, and always made his intentions with you painfully clear. He would never do anything to you physically since he likes and respects EJ to much, but he meant what he said when he told EJ that he'd take you if he didn't want you anymore.

LJ is a loner, but what he does is kinda weird. LJ stays in a abandoned fair ground. Rides and attractions are still up. Thanks to Ben, LJ is able to keep the tech working, and it often attracts wonders. LJ collects walkers and uses them for his circus shows. Anyone who stumbles upon his grounds are welcomed to stay. So, there's often people hanging out there because, 1, free food, 2, fun rides, 3, protection from walkers, and 4, entertainment. Once there's enough people, LJ holds a circus show. In this show, LJ summons a gas that drugs everyone for a short period of time. During this time, LJ takes some members of the audience, steals everyone's weapons, and ties them down to their chairs. Then, he uses the people he kidnapped for his twisted little show. Some people would be eaten by walkers, others would be forced to do extremely dangerous stunts, and the rest would just be brutally tortured. But at the end of the show, everyone in the tent would be dead. Now rinse and repeat, and that's what LJ does.

You and your brothers came across LJ's circus, but you guys left after a short while, not aware that you almost lost your lives.

Liu are kinda like mercenary. Liu gathers Intel for other groups, kidnaps people, and sells people just to get by. He's never in one place for too long, and many fall for his charm and charisma. His most consistent client is Ben, and Ben considers him a member of his city, even though Liu begs to differ.

How did you two meet? Jeff had dragged Liu to the proxies place due to the Proxies not keeping the end of a deal they made. You were watching from a top the stairwell when Liu noticed you. Liu is a hard-core sadist and doesn't really care about love or sex, violence his thing due to Sully's influence. But I can see him instantly falling for you. I feel like before Sully manifested, Liu was such a lover boy, but I can see him always being a blunt and manipulative bastard. Despite Jeff being Liu for support, Liu just stared at you as you sat ontop of the stares quietly, hoping that he would take his eyes off you.

Jeff is another wonderer. He could deadass care less about the apocalypse. He's normally by himself, in a cabin, either getting high or murdering people he comes across. He's deadass chilling.

Just like Ben, Jeff met you through EJ. Jeff doesn't really have any feelings towards you at the moment since he doesn't pay much attention to you, but that will slowly change.

QNow, last major plot idea. Since EJ is a doctor, and Ben is the tech guy, I can see the two of them looking for a cure to the virus. But, they often use random people as experiments for these. Back when you were with EJ, you were forced to witness them, and in one test, the person starting to develop sores and bumps all over their body, and it got so bad that they ended up swelling up like a balloon.

[batboyblog]

hey thanks for not being super doomer over these anti-trans bills. i kept on seeing so many people being defeated over them and it messed up my mental health for a while, like nothing could be done. but you did bring up some good points and shed some light onto people who are actively fighting for us so i thank you again

The queer movement, in the US any ways, has always been cyclical, we make big gains and push forward, then there's a super scary backlash. We're right now at the hight of a really scary backlash thats focused on trans people in particular but is anti-queer more generally. It's intense but its important to remember these backlashes don't generally last very long, they are scary, but each time they've happened, the mid to late 1970s, the 1980s, the early 2000s, the tide has gone out and gay rights, LGBT rights, and society's acceptance of LGBT people has been farther along than before they have never ever managed to turn us back in the years since Stonewall.

And as intense and scary as this is in some ways it's better than last time, when I was a gay teenager. in those days... in 2004 and 2008 the Democrats running for President were uniformly against gay marriage (the big issue of that time) they were trying to get us to settle for the not marriage alternative of civil unions. Only a handful of Congresspeople (some of them gay themselves) in DEEP! blue districts dared to support gay marriage outright. Today the Democratic Party is the most pro-LGBT major political party in the world, you had the President and every Democrat of any note making statements for TDOV a few days ago and you're not seeing even red state Democrats back down and agree to be "a little transphobic" for votes. It felt a lot more lonely last time when it was us and a handful of allies fighting the backlash with most of the Democratic Party on the side lines handwringing and saying "well can't you wait?"

any ways this movement is and will always be a struggle, the rights we've won, the acceptance we've received has never just been given, it's been won, through hard work. Everyone has to dedicate themselves to work in their corner of the earth to the best of their abilities and to push themselves past what they think they can do. That means hooking up with LGBT rights groups on the ground to protest, to rally, to try to support and comfort those queer people who are down and out in whatever way right now, it means digging deep and having hard and awkward conversations with the people in your life, if you're gay or trans or whatever and you got that one aunt/uncle/cousin/whoever in your life that loves you to bits but you know still votes Republican and you just don't bring it up because you don't want to hurt the relationship... have the talk keep having the talk as many times as you need to. Tell your grandparents if they don't know, tell your parents (if its safe or if you don't need their money any more) tell co-workers who don't know etc, they vote for us 2 to 1 if they know they know one of us. Finally register to vote, make sure all your friends particularly if you're young are registered and vote, vote in every election. Trust me it's AMAZINGLY easy to find the email of candidates for school board or city council and it's amazingly easy to ask questions. Last election I emailed every school board candidate about Holocaust education, and the state rep candidate about trans rights, she wrote me back a lovely note and mailed be a sticker she'd picked up from a trans rights group. It's amazingly easy to get involved, I volunteered with my local democrats for one election and they offered me the #3 spot in their local party, I have the phone numbers of my state rep and state senator without trying really, you can get in the room with these people, with candidates for governor, congress, I have my picture with 3 US Presidents? its not hard to do, and you can use chances like that to talk to them and show them your humanity and leave an impression that really matters in the long run.

sorry to RAMBLE but it's important that everyone do their part, pick a little something, a project to push this thing forward, people doom scrolling, particularly posting about how its hopeless does not help, posting in general doesn't help much even if its not doomerism, I think in the years after the anti-gay marriage Bush backlash we got very online and we got very "progress just happens" and a lot of people fell out of the habit or came of age without the habit of protest and without a local queer community or local progressive community and its very important in the face of this to find or build those and also understand in some places its gonna be years of work to get where we want to go, but we will and it'll be worth all the work.

[onebizarrekai]

Kai don't be shy and tell us the lore abt fatal flaws pretty please :3

sorry I'm too shy… I can't do it…

jk. which lore? I can give you some of my ideas I've been brainstorming. I don't know how many of these are repeats though.

fatal flaws is not exactly modernized; it's very possible they're in an ambiguously semi-post-apocalyptic setting, one that's rebuilt but it's been long enough that people don't remember. their country doesn't have any relationships with the outside world. even if there are other people out there, it's likely believed that there are no other civilizations out there, that the mainland is a barren wasteland.

"being a sorcerer" is the kind of rumor that makes you an immediate outcast. it's not illegal to be a sorcerer, but society has turned against them due to prejudice and the sorcerer parasite. the parasite basically kills sorcerers and turns them into 'zombies', like fungal hosts. it's a contamination; they're not born with it. but regular humans think that they're born with it.

miles and arthur lived in a poor sorcerer district in the countryside that existed under the radar, they hadn't been found by the government yet, but the parasite got in. miles lived with his single father and arthur may have possibly never known his parents. (note the big maybe) when the parasite hit, the military found them. the two of them had to escape.

vick grew up in the capital city and was taught in school that the military is infallible and that sorcerers are dangerous. growing up getting into fights and getting in trouble, she eventually went to training camp and got a job in the city guard due to it being well-paying, but it wasn't a particularly good or welcoming job. they eventually told her she "had to quit" due to her badly representing their government with her temper. she didn't start changing her mind about sorcerers until adulthood.

blue is just Some Guy, there is definitely nothing weird going on with him, nope, totally nothing weird. he definitely isn't trying to hide his backstory or anything. he is just a regular delivery boy.

arthur has very confused opinions about sorcerers. he grew up seeing himself as a normal human, and eventually became ashamed of being one once he realized what it meant. he thinks justice is very important, and people should be punished for wrongdoings, but his desire to take crime more seriously just perpetuated the laws that hurt sorcerers. he's not opinionated like miles about it. part of him thinks, "wouldn't people be happier if everyone was the same?" and the machine happens, "why don't we use people's magic to power the city and make it a better place?" he's… complicated.

hacker's a regular guy, but he lives upstairs in randy's restaurant like miles does, and he works for randy. he does Computer Shit. he did used to be affiliated with a gang and his stupid ex still tries to get his attention sometimes.

bunny is a sorcerer kid who likely lost her family to the parasite. I haven't picked apart her story yet, but randy took her in while vick was working in the guard. he worries a lot about her schooling; he and hacker try to do it themselves because randy's afraid of sending her to public school, since bunny's a sorcerer and she's autistic. vick is sort of jealous because she feels like she never got any special treatment growing up.

crystal comes from a surrounding island where people aren't known to live at. she keeps her identity on the down low, because while she's not technically a sorcerer, what she actually is would freak people out even more.

Once Upon A Time™, Charles L'bard the First arrived on the island we now know as our home. With his Big Might and Big Charisma, he smote the cursed monsters and their henchmen that resided there and became a hero. The people crowned him the Island's Hero, the Lord of the Sun, and he became the first king.

many generations later, the populous demanded an elected official instead. this did not make the royal family very happy……