#marketplace of ideas

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Helen Pluckrose and James Lindasy

Published: Apr 7, 2018

There is a troubling misunderstanding of the principle of freedom of speech gaining momentum right now. It fundamentally misunderstands two central concepts of the principle — individual freedom and the “marketplace of ideas.”

Before these can be discussed, it will be necessary to explain what we mean by “freedom of speech” or more precisely, what we do not mean.

We are not talking about the legal aspect of freedom of speech such as specific laws or constitutions of specific countries around the principle of freedom of speech, e.g., the US First Amendment. These legal structures relate to the principle of freedom of speech, but they are not the principle of freedom of speech. That principle is much, much broader and extends much further than how governments may or may not interfere with public speech.

We are also not talking about some non-existent right to make any words at all with one’s mouth or keyboard. The “speech” defended under “freedom of speech” does not refer to literal verbal utterances. Some of these are rightly illegal — commissioning a crime, perjury, fraud, false accusations, breaking confidentiality laws, and espionage, for examples. Defenders of freedom of speech are not attempting to change this.

We are talking about a principled defense of the free exchange of ideas on many levels of society; an acknowledgement that this is a basic human freedom and an understanding that viewpoint diversity and the whole process of arguing, questioning, challenging, doubting, refuting, and revising ideas is essential to the advancement of knowledge, to social progress, and to liberal democracy itself. In short, we are talking about what Jonathan Rauch describes as “liberal science,” the development of which in Western modernity has a long and multi-faceted intellectual history. It includes key liberal philosophers such as John Stuart Mill but also thinkers and political activists as diverse as Puritans and secularists, Marxists and Libertarians. Though rarely seen this way, it is, in fact, an advanced social technology. Establishing the “marketplace of ideas” as the most positive model for a successful and progressive society took hundreds of years and much hard work.

The principle of freedom of speech is often misunderstood. Lately, seemingly following the democratization of information and communication via the Internet and social media, the misunderstanding of the key tenets of the principle of freedom of speech most often takes the form of an accusation, which we might call the Fallacy of Demanding to Be Heard. These accusations can be broadly paraphrased like this:

“You say you are an advocate of free speech, but then you don’t allow everyone to talk to you. You advocate for the ‘marketplace of ideas’ as a way to advance knowledge and say that it must be open to everyone, but you don’t allow everyone to engage with yours. Therefore, on the one hand, you are saying that shutting down speech is wrong but on the other you are shutting down speech. This is, at best, inconsistent, and at worst, downright hypocritical.”

This is very confused on two central concepts of the principle of freedom of speech and these work on an individual level and on a societal level.

On an individual level, the Fallacy of Demanding to Be Heard misunderstands the concept of freedom.

Within freedom of speech, there are four essential freedoms:

The freedom to speak — Individuals may express all ideas without hindrance or punishment.

The freedom to listen  — Individuals may listen to all ideas without hindrance or punishment.

The freedom not to speak — Individuals must not to be required to express any ideas or speak to any person.

The freedom not to listen — Individuals must not to be forced to listen to any ideas or any person.

Given that, alarmingly, so many of the people who seem confused about freedom of speech in this way describe themselves as secularists and skeptics and have long fully understood and argued that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion, perhaps a direct comparison with the freedom of religion will be helpful here.

Under freedom of religion, people are free to believe any creed they want to, and they are also free not to believe that creed or any creed at all. People are free to practice their religion but not to compel others to practice it, observe its obligations, participate in its rituals and customs, or accept its dogmas, doctrines, or premises. Freedom of religion entails the freedom to worship and to believe in accordance with one’s community or conscience, and it also contains freedom from being compelled to worship or believe any particular thing at all. A secularist mentality understands this, and only those who reject liberal secular values — that is, fundamentalists — feel others should be compelled to believe or worship in any particular way.

In the same way that it is clear that a defense of freedom of religion does not equate to a commitment to allow everyone else to impose their religion on you, it should be clear that a defense of freedom of speech does not equate to a commitment to allow everybody else impose their speech on you. Nowhere within freedom lies the right to be heard. You have the freedom to speak, yet every other individual has the freedom to ignore your speech by whatever means are necessary, including by removing themselves from the vicinity of it. Being ignored does nothing to infringe upon your right to speak, to hear, not to speak, or not to hear. Your freedom of speech remains fully intact because nowhere in that is the freedom to impose your speech upon others. The right to decide what one listens to remains as inviolable as the right to decide what one believes.

This is the “freedom” bit of freedom of speech.

On a societal level, the Fallacy of Demanding to Be Heard misunderstands the marketplace of ideas

Some people concede that freedom from speech should be a right even for people who defend freedom of speech but add that they think it is clear that those who argue for the importance of viewpoint diversity to advance knowledge and then refuse to listen to (certain) other views are not putting their money where their mouth is. That is, they are behaving hypocritically because they fail to consistently hold a principled line on viewpoint diversity.

This would certainly be a just accusation of hypocrisy if an individual who argues for this then refuses ever to engage with any different ideas. This is not a just accusation, however, if they merely refuse to engage with every idea and every proponent of every idea. Far too often, the criticism “You refuse to listen to other ideas (or your critics)!” means “You refuse to listen to me.” That may be, and there could be a number of reasons someone who is committed to freedom of speech might not be listening to you.

First, your ideas could simply not be within their area of interest or knowledge. We all have to be selective in what we discuss. People have approached me (Helen) recently to discuss economics, drug laws, and adoption policies. I am not well-informed on any of these things, neither do they interest me to the extent that ideology and psychology do. I declined to discuss because my opinion would not be worth much.

Second, they could find your ideas foolish, tedious, or unsupported by evidence. We have recently declined to discuss whether women should be able to vote, metamodernism, metaethics, certain framings of the issues with firearms, and the claim that God exists. We have discussed all these in the past and find such discussions fruitless. You might think we are wrong to think so but again, we all have to be selective, and we retain the right to decide what is worthwhile to give attention to.

Third, you could be personally rude or dishonest in your style of conversation. We are simply not going to enter a conversation with someone who is gratuitously abusive, snarky, insincere, misrepresents our position, or deliberately misses our point. You could be giving off every signal of discussing in bad faith, particularly in wishing to prove yourself right more than to discuss the issue with someone you know disagrees with you. There is no point in pretending that what follows from such a situation is going to be a conversation. At best it is a winding debate, and at worst it’s just a frustrating monologue from the effective equivalent of a street preacher. Conversation requires give and take, and ideally, when there is disagreement, it requires both participants to be willing to change their minds about some or all of the issues. When this condition is not met, there is no onus placed upon us to participate or to listen because, again, we all retain the right to decide what is worthwhile to give our attention to,

Fourth, your ideas could be being presented much better by someone else. We have often been accused of refusing to engage with disagreement when, in fact, the person disagreeing with us is just doing so badly whilst other people are doing it well and presenting us with a much more challenging and therefore interesting and potentially productive conversation. It is quite possible to have highly intellectually & ideologically diverse discussions by choosing to talk to and listen to the most thoughtful, reasonable, knowledgeable and honest proponents of a variety of ideas and not to engage with the abusive, the incoherent, the ignorant and the dishonest.

This last point is particularly important to note. There is a terrible sense of entitlement to insisting that someone must listen, not only to counterviews but your counterviews. We are small social and political commentators and writers, and we already have to be selective with the views we engage. If the person you seek to disagree with is a prominent public intellectual, realize that they will be receiving vast amounts of critical feedback, some of it of a very high quality and much of it off-point and downright rude. If you want yours to be one of the ones they engage with, you’ll have to earn that. It’s nothing personal; everyone faces this same difficulty in being heard by busy and prominent figures.

This is the crucial element of the metaphor called “the marketplace of ideas,” which is being so badly misunderstood. The metaphor appeals to a marketplace. If you were to show up at a farmer’s market with your tomatoes, it doesn’t matter if they are the best tomatoes in the world; it is still your job to attract interest in purchasing them. You cannot force people to buy them. You cannot force prominent individuals to try your tomatoes and then promote them.If someone is allergic to tomatoes, doesn’t like them, or isn’t in the mood for them — or yours, or you — at the time, they have every right to pass your tomatoes by, and you have no standing upon which to demand that they change their mind.

Within the marketplace of ideas, the responsibility is on each vendor to present his ideas to the public by showing them as best they can and hoping people will want to “buy” them, that is, take them seriously and engage with them. No one is obligated to buy any product they believe is inferior or, in fact, any product they are not interested in — for any reason — in a real marketplace in a free society, and it is a blatant infringement of their rights to attempt to force them to buy something they do not want. Likewise, no one is obligated to listen to, engage, promote, or be interested in any ideas within the marketplace of ideas, and it is a blatant infringement of their rights to attempt to force them to do otherwise. Furthermore, people can refuse interest for any reason, which includes any bad behavior on the part of the vendor, regardless of the quality of the product.

This is how the marketplace of ideas works, and it works well. There is no point complaining that your stall has been shut down if people decline to buy from it. It remains open, but it is your responsibility to improve your product by making your argument strong, your evidence substantial, your point clear, your ideas engaging, and your sales pitch courteous. In this way, even if any individual is genuinely badly motivated to avoid your justifiable and insightful criticism, other people will still hear it and your ideas will ultimately win out over theirs in the marketplace.

Conclusion

The Fallacy of Demanding to Be Heard is often leveled in terms of freedom of speech accompanied by gleeful (and reckless) accusations of hypocrisy. Not only is this a misunderstanding of the freedom part of freedom of speech and the marketplace part of the marketplace of ideas, it is a form of entitlement which can even lead to harassment and bullying. It is an attempt to insist that someone who isn’t interested in you or your ideas is somehow failing to uphold critical liberal, intellectual, or academic virtues and then, often, using that against them. This can create a vicious spiral in which the entitled and insulting behavior of someone demanding to be heard will encourage the other person to ignore them even more leading to the former becoming yet more intrusive and defamatory. A better approach for advocates of freedom of speech is to speak when you have something to say, listen when there’s something you want to hear, stay silent when it’s better you don’t speak, and be selective about what ideas and individuals you listen to in a way that upholds your belief in the productivity of viewpoint diversity.  Allow people who want to talk and listen to each other do so and you will uphold the principle of freedom of speech. Don’t think you can force anyone to talk or listen to you.

==

I sometimes get people who insist that I need to hear their argument for the existence of gods, or that I should debate them. No, I don't. I've heard dozens of arguments, but more importantly, none of these people understand how pointless an argument for a god is, as opposed to evidence, and act hard done by in the refusal.

[negative-five-diopter]

What I haven’t seen anyone speaking about is the new twitter policy (and everything else that musky boy has changed about twitter) is really indicative of how “capitalists” view the concept of the marketplace of ideas.

Despite a lot of flaws with the concept, the “marketplace of ideas” is a concept that everyone gets to shout their opinion, and that the “correct” take will be accepted by everyone because it’s the most popular. (Simplified greatly)

With these changes, you see what insecure man children like elon do when they’re not “winning” the marketplace. Unlike what billionaires and those weird fans think, people don’t like to pay money for previously free things. People also generally don’t enjoy blatant hate speech, or billionaire dick riders be boosted in their dash, or even just every 3am thought elon has show up first on their homepage.

Weirdos like musk genuinely believe in the concept of the marketplace of ideas, but are so up their own ass that they cannot fathom that their shitty ideas are not going to flourish in said marketplace. They’re so deluded in the idea that wealth is indicative of intelligence that they don’t know how stupid they are. When thrust into the marketplace of ideas, a place where they (hypothetically) are equal for the first time, their ideas fail.

So what do capitalists do? They buy twitter. They force their employees to boost their tweets. They ban anyone who dissents. They fundamentally change the marketplace.

Again, the ideology of the marketplace of ideas is not super great, like fascists and people who do not want to be killed by said fascists shouldn’t have equal voices, obviously, but it is a commonly accepted idea in western culture, particularly by capitalists. It’s seen as an extension of the “free market” idea that they like to tout (often in defence of monopolies or price gouging, ie “it’s fine, the free market will have someone undercut them! we don’t need government intervention!���).

But there is something deeply ironic that these capitalists, when given a true “free market” / true “marketplace if ideas” they feel the need to change it so much so they they will always be on top.

Not only does it further reveal how much these people are losers, it reveals how their system is so flawed that they need to cheat at their own system that they prop up. They’re not popular, they’re just losers with money.

[scouse1g]

I think we need to start regulating the free marketplace of ideas. This whole "good ideas float to the top" theory clearly isn't working.

[mentalisttraceur]

"You lost in the marketplace of ideas."

Oh so you recognize that a worse idea will win if there is enough supply and demand for it.

[jabronibaloney]

They're not out of ideas. As folks beg for more & more proper representation, they would just rather feed us the same old, same old over and over again. There's tons of stories that aren't being told that we could start telling.

fucking constant reboot remake reboot remake reboot remake reboot remake!!!!!!!!!! the tv has only been around for like a century you literally cannot be out of ideas already

[mushygreybrainmatter]

I'm taking a class on freedom of expression right now and it's only just started, but we're talking about First Amendment theory and we got into the Marketplace of Ideas and I can't stop thinking about it in conjunction with Ace Attorney and it's actually a problem and actively hindering my ability to get my homework done 😅😅😅

[catofsecurity]

The social component of my free fitness app encourages posting but not interacting, which leads to bizarre letters like this one, to no one and everyone.

[adamthealien]

Tasty

The "marketplace of ideas" argument that good ideas will be popular ignores the fact that, in an actual marketplace, we love to buy things that are bad for us. Bad ideas, like unhealthy food, are VERY popular. They taste so damn good, even when we know what they're doing to us.

[priveetru]

I think we should encourage people to be educated and advocate for what they believe is right.

I will also advocate against things I disagree with.

I hope that when a celebrity would like to use their platform to advocate change, they do so responsibly and intentionally.

letting celebrities think they can and should "use their platform" to speak on all current events and political issues regardless of how educated they are on them was a grave mistake

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

"Perfect is the enemy of good."

Utopianism is a form of extremism. For a good example, just remember Xian conceptions of heaven.

[starry-bi-sky]

Danielle and Danyal's meeting... very, very quickly goes very sour from, basically, the moment Danny steps into his room and finds Ellie sitting on his bed (strike one) and reading the comic books Tucker introduced him to (strike two). By the time she's looked up to address him, Danny has the door locked, and a hand hovering near the knife hidden under his shirt.

She gets her third strike when Danny, in a voice that could make the mountains tremble, demands to know how she got into his room, and she lies (with uncertainty of her decision growing in her chest) that Jazz let her in. Danny's hand shifts closer to his weapon, and he turns towards her fully, and says that Jazz would never let someone he didn’t know into his room, and who was she.

(Vlad Masters had underprepared Danielle for her meeting with Danny -- not out of any completely direct malicious intent, but he failed to mention just how... 'touchy' Daniel could be -- he failed to mention the scars littering up his arms, unhidden by the hoodie tee he meets Ellie in. He failed to mention that along with those scars, that Danny was visibly lean, capable of doing very real damage without the use of his powers.)

(He tells Ellie that he’s adopted, and that he is observant and clever, but ungrateful and has a bad attitude.)

Her final strike occurs when Ellie, trying to keep her facade of cheeriness, tells him that she’s his third cousin once removed. Immediately, Danny has his dagger pulled out, and Ellie finds herself with the cold metal of a blade pressing against her throat.

Danyal 'A.G' Fenton hasn’t killed since he arrived in Amity Park. At first it was because mother told him to keep a low profile, and killing would do the opposite of that. But, he's been slowly learning from his sister and friends over the years the value of human life. So it's become a combination of keeping his head down, and also that life has value to it.

But. That doesn’t mean he can’t kill, nor is he opposed to doing it if the situation calls for it. It just means that he doesn't do it. And ‘Danielle’ is an unknown in his room, claiming to be family to him, and appearing uncannily similar to him and his family. Either someone hired her and she was trying to pass herself off as a relative to him because that someone realized Danny was the biggest threat, or, his false death has been compromised, his mother was unable to tell him, and the league was aware he was alive.

No matter how he looks at it, this Danielle was a threat to him, his sister, his friends, to Damian, and to the Drs. Fenton. Danyal Fenton doesn't kill, but he has no problems doing so.

(Ellie, pinned under Danny’s knee and the blade to her neck, is too terrified to think of phasing out of his hold. Not that it would help, he would just chase after her.)

“You have broken into my home, dared to lie to my face, and when I demanded to know the truth, you dared lie to me again." Danny's scowl could cower even Skulker, his glacier blue eyes burning. "Your continual breath has been a favor from me, that I have graciously allowed, from the moment you entered my room, dahkil."

"So I will ask one more time," he hisses, "who. are. you."

Danielle, only a few months old, unprepared for the ice storm that is "Daniel" Fenton, and his clone in only flesh and blood, and not memories, immediately breaks. And tells him that she was his clone, that Vlad sent her to come capture him, and to please not kill her.

Danny's face twists with anger, Ellie thinks he's going to kill her anyways. Instead, he withdraws his knife and gets off her, stringing out curses in Arabic as he sheathes his weapon back into its hiding place faster than Ellie can blink.

He switches to English as she is collecting her bearings (and contemplating fleeing), and Danny paces the room like a tiger in a cage. "--of course that wretched, arrogant, peacocking little ingrate would do something so infuriating. I should have driven my sword into the shrivel of his heart when I had the chance--"

Ellie, for a moment, thinks of leaving while he is distracted. And starts to slowly creep away. But Danny notices instantly, and whirls on her. His too-bright eyes bore into her head: "Where do you think you're going."

"...I'm leaving."

And Danny scoffs at her, "Why? So you can fly back to Masters and tell him that you failed to capture me, and that I know that he cloned me?" He says, and Ellie remains silent -- that's exactly what she was going to do. "He will destroy you within seconds."

Of course, Ellie rears back in offense, and she finds the footing to glare at him. "He would not! He's my dad, he loves me!"

Danny gets in her face, glowering back with an equal intensity. "He does not." He snaps, "Vlad Masters has not a soul in his body nor a heart in his chest. He would sooner cut off the hand that helps him stand, than to take it along with him."

"If you're really made of my blood, then I will teach you only this: we bow not our heads nor our hearts to anyone." Danny's too-blue eyes narrow, and his voice dips into a hiss, "Especially not to a conniving snake like Masters. Your heart: cut it off, or cut it out. He will sooner leave you to bleed."

Then, he unlocks the door and drags her out before she has much time to act. And as he drags her down the hall he shoots Sam and Tucker a text, and they meet up at Nasty Burger. Ellie is a spitfire, but Danny has her too intimidated to leave.

"This is Danielle," he tells them bluntly as he corners her into the booth, "she's my clone. Masters created her."

Ellie is with them for a week, and somehow throughout that time, Danny manages to actually get her to like him throughout that time. He's callous, blunt, and full of sharp edges that you can cut yourself on. But when he's not spitting venom, he's fretting.

When he drags her back to the house after being with Sam and Tucker, he pulls her to Jazz's room and opens the door to tell her the same thing. "This is Danielle." He says upon abruptly opening the door, interrupting Jazz's studying as he pulls Ellie inside. "She is my clone, Masters created her. She needs clothes."

Then he turns and leaves, shutting the door behind him. Ellie, in that moment, thinks that now's her chance to flee. But Jazz then squeals, and she is trapped in new arms, shaken around by Jazz Fenton, excited for a sister.

(Ellie finds herself complaining to Jazz that night, shoved into old pajamas. She's in utter disbelief that Jazz could care about a jerk like Danny.)

("He's rough around the edges, but Danny does care." Jazz tells her, combing through her hair with her fingers. "We've been working on it ever since he joined the family, but Danny warms up slowly. He's usually less stoney; I think your arrival spooked him.")

("Spooked him?" Ellie repeats, she doesn't believe it at all. "He has a funny way of showing it, he threatened to kill me!" And she turns around just in time to see Jazz's press her lips into a line.)

("He's... very protective. He'll deny if you ask him, but he worries a lot." Jazz's fingers find her hair again. "What I do know for certain though, is that he wouldn't have kept you here if he wasn't worried about you at least a little bit.")

(Ellie doubts it.)

But Ellie is indeed there for a week, and the day after her initially rocky introduction with Danny, he is a little bit kinder to her. Still kinda a bitch, but he's less harsh to her, if... almost uncomfortable around her. Flighty, kinda.

Whenever she gets mouthy at him though, he looks oddly smug about it and, infuriatingly enough, praises her attitude. He is very, very annoying. And still kinda terrifying. But hearing him shout insults via puns at someone during a ghost fight that happens that week lessens the intimidating factor,,, a little bit.

Things go about,,,, relatively,,,, similar to canon. In the sense that it ends with Ellie defecting from Vlad because she finds out that Danny was right and that Vlad didn't actually care about her. (And that Jazz had been right too; Danny, in his weird, mean way, had been worried about her as well)

Danny looks out of his depth as she talks about how he was right, and he cuts her off with a vaguely uncomfortable clearing of his throat. And gives her the most awkward, but genuine apology he can muster.

"I should've used more tact when telling you about Masters, and I... apologize for threatening you when we met. I was..." he makes a face like he's sucked on a particularly sour lemon, "worried. First about my family, and then later about you."

(Ellie will be damned: Jazz was right)

Before Ellie leaves, Danny puts a hand on her shoulder and tells her: "I wasn't kidding about what I said to you when we first met: you are of my blood, and as such, you do not bow your head nor your heart to anyone."

Ellie looks at him, thinks about the last week, and smiles like she's caught him in a trap. "What about Sam and Tucker then? And Jazz?"

Danny smiles, it's awkward and tilted, like his face isn't used to the gesture. "We bow not our hearts, but that doesn't mean we can't share."

[sellerbeaver]

a general online marketing strategy

Here is a general online marketing strategy that can help increase income:

Define your target audience: Understand who your potential customers are, their demographics, and what their pain points are.

Develop a content strategy: Create valuable and relevant content that addresses your target audience's pain points and positions your business as a solution.

Optimize for search engines: Use keywords in your website and content to improve your search engine rankings and make it easier for potential customers to find you.

Use social media: Use social media platforms to promote your business, engage with your customers, and drive traffic to your website.

Utilize email marketing: Build an email list and use it to keep in touch with customers, send them promotions and other valuable information.

Use paid advertising: Utilize platforms like Google AdWords, Facebook Ads, and Instagram Ads to reach a wider audience and drive more traffic to your website.

Measure and analyze: Use analytics to track your progress and see which strategies are working and which aren't. Use that information to make adjustments and improve your overall online marketing strategy.

Keep testing and experimenting: Continuously test and experiment with new strategies and tactics to see what works best for your business.

Remember: the key is to be consistent and persistent, if you keep working on it, you will see results.

[hotluncheddie]

angel

(i bring u the usual girl dinner chubby steve but this time in steve POV - for the festive goblin season :3c)

for the December @steddiemicrofic prompt 'pine' !

wc: 508 | rated: T | cw: none | tags: chubby steve, pre relationship, mutual pining

⋆｡˚❆˚ ｡⋆

The big, old, ugly porcelain faced angel is almost in the perfect spot atop the tree, if only the box he’s on was a little taller. Steve reaches his arms higher, feels his shirt ride up but he almost has it. Just has to stretch a little further.

Finally getting the angel in place, Steve grunts as the breath he was holding is released. ‘Perfect’ he pants. 

He expects some fan fare, or at least to distract Eddie enough from his light detangling to earn some kind of reaction. But bellow him is silent. 

Steve looks down and Eddie is sitting motionless, hands wrapped in Christmas lights, which look more tangled than when he started.

Eddie’s staring, but not at his face. Steve glances down at himself, noticing that his shirt is still hiked up from stretching. A sliver of his belly exposed, sitting new and soft and prominent above the waistband of his jeans. 

His cheeks warm, ‘ah.’ He readjusts himself, tuning away from Eddie to step down onto the floor. 

See, Steve knows he’s gained weight, because he had to get these jeans in a bigger size. 

But, thing is, he likes it, makes him feel sturdy, more himself. His legs are thicker but feel strong, same as his arms, his chest. A little voice in his brain likes saying that maybe he feels more protected, his body more of a shield. 

Plus, he thinks his ass looks great.

But, just because he likes it, doesn’t mean Eddie wants to see all that. Steve pulls at his shirt again, touches his hair. 

‘Uh, what d’you think?’ he asks, trying to break the tension. Eddie’s still staring, mouth slightly open. 

‘Looks really good.’ Eddie says, voice rough and serious considering it’s about an ugly angel Robin found at Good Will. Steve huffs. 

‘I mean it.’ Eddie stands and looks right at Steve. ‘Looks really really good.’ Steve watches Eddie swallow thickly and reach to place a gentle hand on Steve’s thicker waist. 

Oh. 

Steve’s heart rate increases, he stifles a grin. Steps closer, tentative. But relishes in the blush that blooms over Eddie’s features, the way his eyes widen. ‘Yeah?’ 

‘Yeah.’ Eddie whispers. 

Steve’s stomach brushes up against Eddie’s flat one and he almost misses the little squeak Eddie lets out. 

Steve moves his hand up slow, notes the flutter of Eddie’s eyelashes. He pulls a pine needle from Eddie’s curls, flattening the displaced wisps back down. 

‘That’s better.’ Steve murmurs, holding the bit of green up for Eddie to see. 

Eddie glances at it, looks back at Steve. Eddie’s eyes dip down to Steve’s mouth. Steve swallows, leans in a little further. Feels Eddie’s breath fan over his face, Eddie’s other hand on his hip.

Steve lets the needle fall and cups Eddie’s neck. Fingers brushing the soft skin of his nape, thumb stroking lightly along his jaw. Eddie’s pupils are blown wide. 

‘Boo! Gross!’ Robin heckles from the doorway. 

Eddie’s head whips around. ‘Shut. Up.’ He hisses and Steve laughs, big and real and happy.

[nataliewynn]

I know you’re all very busing inventing the genders, but I posted a new video uwu

[hey-scully-itsme]

got the bed set up! ft. the massive blanket i knitted last year

[stil-lindigo]

patreon's twitter icon is genuinely the worst logo i've ever seen. like, at least the silhouette version looks kind of like a p, but i straight up could not figure out what the icon was

it almost looks like some kind of weird brain mass face. very baffling

in case you missed it back when it was A Thing TM, patreon's ceo came out in favour for NFTs then quickly backtracked when literally everyone on twitter started threatening to leave if he dared to incorporate it into Patreon. So, y'know, his ties to brainless tech bros and their grifts are pretty well documented.