#neither one of those labels is even accurate for my own views so like

[tuesday-is-a-good-day]

FWIW: If you're uncomfortable with someone who is just "ship and let ship, regardless of what ships I personally like" (proship), that's not a good thing. Proship is a response to the word antiship, which means "against shipping whatever people want." Anti=against. Pro=in favor of. It's basic english.

If you think it means "problematic", please block whoever told you that because it's not true. Just go into any space for fandom olds or AO3 and ask them.

FWIW, i really don’t care what you — a stranger — has to say about my boundaries. I know what proship means, I know what antiship means, and I do not care.

My stances on fiction are not dictated by reductive and distorting labels. I recognise that there is an area for moral exploration in fiction, I know that fiction and reality are seperate places which interact in a number of ways, and i know that liking something in fiction doesn’t mean that you support it in reality.

There’s a more complicated discussion to all of this, about where the line between fiction and reality lies and just how clear it is, but at the end of the day the way I interact with fandom and what I am comfortable with is up to me to decide and enforce, thanks lol.

[dilfsonic]

Okay so, unpopular take that applies specifically to my Service Animal AU: Shadow and Maria are not siblings/“sibling coded.”

If you’ve read the notes on the original lore post describing them, you probably already know what I mean. While they can and will have moments of inspired ‘sibling’ like love for each other, that’s simply too disingenuous a way to describe them. They’re so much more. They’re each other’s only friend, they’re charge and ward, they can mimic the attitudes of siblings but never fully understand them, they have no romantic interests (until sonic shows up) and so mimic certain attitudes in that way with each other as well. But all of these are mere approximations and mimicry without fully encompassing any of those relationships. Shadow’s “affections” can be easily misconstrued for holding more weight than they actually are intended, as gestures such as hand holding/cuddling/purring are all utilitarian expressions meant to ease Maria’s physical discomfort or anxiety in accordance to his job as her service animal. Nothing more, nothing less. Maria knows this, but others can and do easily make their own assumptions.

I’ve been a little nervous to express this interpretation as I feel it can be really easily misunderstood, and I don’t want to give people the idea that even the immensely “”romantic”” or affectionate gestures or affiliations applied to them are actually meant to be shippy. Their love is an all encompassing one, and to call it sibling-like or romantic are both incorrect, as they’re neither. Ultimately applying any real world label to this au will be incorrect and a little too extreme in either direction; the closest possible relationship that may most accurately describe them is that between a service dog and their owner, if such a service dog was as intellectually capable of their human.

They’re what you get when you’re the only two people in your whole world. They’re what you get when you pair together someone who’s indebted to the other for their existence, which goes both ways. And by normal relationship standards, I would disagree to consider it a ‘healthy’ dynamic, but it also cannot be judged by the milestones of what a normal and healthy dynamic even looks like.

Shadow is nothing without her (in his own mind), and this lends itself to an inability to conceptualize a ‘self’ to even express. Maria hates how Shadow views himself — a tool, a trained dog, a guard, a companion of necessity — but she also can’t avoid using him accordingly. That means having no choice but to treat him not as a person, but as her crutch. Shadow is little aware of her internal struggle with the dehumanization of him because they communicate this almost never. Nor does he mind being dehumanized, he has never been a ‘person’ since the day he was created anyway.

Maria would love nothing more than to call Shadow a little brother, her best friend, someone who she could’ve had take her to prom because nobody at her school wanted to indulge the sickly child, nor did anyone even know her well enough considering she spent most of her time out of school than in it. She’d love to call Shadow these normal things, but she can’t. Not yet at least. Sonic will slowly change them and the way they can view friendship and the world and what it means to belong to each other, but it’s hard work on Shadow and Maria’s part.

They are something that can’t be easily defined, because it’s complex, and messy, and while there are bright moments of wonder and joy, is also overwhelmingly dark in its implications, and they can feel utterly alone even when standing right next to each other. Shadow owes Maria everything, and Maria owes Shadow everything, but each underestimates the full gravity of how their own existence touches and expands the other. They consider themselves worthless compared to the other, and that’s what gets in the way of them truly being able to open their hearts to each other. The way Sonic later teaches them HOW to open their hearts.

So yeah. I hope this concept of blurring the lines doesn’t scare too many folks, but this is based on my personal interpretation of how I feel a continued existence between them in canon or a canon adjacent world might have been like. I know it’s easy and delightful to see em like wholesome siblings — which is also an interpretation I wholeheartedly endorse and adore, particularly the way my bud @ratrrriot draws them (please go follow them if you don’t already, their shadow and maria artwork is to die for!) — but this is just a slightly different and admittedly darker take on them that I hope won’t ruffle too many feathers. Sibling coded relationships between characters are so wonderful, but in this case doesn’t feel satisfying or like it can possibly cover the scope of them for this particular au. I dislike labeling them or comparing them to another dynamic, like Sonic and Tails who are very explicitly brotherly with one another.

I may make a separate post on Sonic’s impact in this world and how he touches the lives of Shadow and Maria, Helen (when she comes along), and this world’s version of Robotnik (Julian) if people are interested in that. I take a lot of inspiration from his characterization in the Adventure games and Sonic X for this AU, as he’s most closely canon-aligned compared to Shadow and Maria who are a little different; though I’m gonna try my best to fit their “canon” personalities into a completely different scenario. Such as, Shadow lacks the innate hatred he has for mankind as he never loses Maria, but he will retain the “my body is a tool” mentality and the general uncaring of others opinions of him, etc.

[qqueenofhades]

Hi, I’ve been tasked with researching Richard Plantagenet for a paper and thus far found extremely negative accounts of the king, his religious bigotry being a reoccurring theme (his treatment of Jewish dignitaries attending his coronation and his reasoning to join the third crusade etc)

I stumbled across your wonderful tag for Richard at the weekend and wondered if you wouldn’t mind sharing your informed opinion of Richard and his views on religions ? Your writing seems very well balanced regarding his attributes and flaws. Thanks :)

Oof. Okay. So, a short and simple question, then?

Quick note: when I was first reading your ask and saw "Richard Plantagenet," I briefly assumed that you meant Richard Plantagenet, father of Edward IV, or perhaps Richard III, both from the Wars of the Roses in the fifteenth century, before seeing from context that you meant Richard I. While "Plantagenet" was first used as an informal appellation by Richard I's grandfather, Geoffrey of Anjou, it wasn't until several centuries later that the English royal house started to use it consistently as a surname. So it's not something that Richard I would have been really called or known by, even if historians tend to use it as a convenient labeling conceit. (See: the one thousand popular histories on "The Plantagenets" that have been published recently.)

As for Richard I, he is obviously an extremely complex and controversial figure for many reasons, though one of the first things that you have to understand is that he has been mythologized and reinvented and reinterpreted down the centuries for many reasons, especially his crusade participation and involvement in the Robin Hood legends. When you're researching about Richard, you're often reading reactions/interpretations of that material more than anything specifically rooted in the primary sources. And while I am glad that you asked me about this and want to encourage you to do so, I will gently enquire to start off: when you say "research," what kind of materials are you looking at, exactly? Are these actual published books/papers/academic material, or unsourced stuff on the internet written from various amateur/ideological perspectives and by people who have particular agendas for depicting Richard as the best (or as is more often the case, worst) ever? Because history, to nobody's surprise, is complicated. Richard did good things and he also did quite bad things, and it's difficult to reduce him to one or the other.

Briefly (ha): I'll say just that if a student handed me a paper stating that Richard was a religious bigot because a) there were anti-Jewish riots during his coronation and b) he signed up for the Third Crusade, I would seriously question it. Medieval violence against the Jews was an unfortunately endemic part of crusade preparations, and all we know about Richard's own reaction is that he fined the perpetrators harshly (repeated after a similar March 1190 incident in York) and ordered for them to be punished. Therefore, while there famously was significant anti-Semitic violence at his coronation, Richard himself was not the one who instigated it, and he ordered for the Londoners who did take part in it to be punished for breaking the king's peace.

This, however, also doesn't mean that Richard was a great person or that he was personally religiously tolerant. We don't know that and we often can't know that, whether for him or anyone else. This is the difficulty of inferring private thoughts or beliefs from formal records. This is why historians, at least good historians, mostly refrain from speculating on how a premodern private individual actually thought or felt or identified. We do know that Richard likewise also made a law in 1194 to protect the Jews residing in his domains, known as Capitula Judaeis. This followed in the realpolitik tradition of Pope Calixtus II, who had issued Sicut Judaeis in c. 1120 ordering European Christians not to harass Jews or forcibly convert them. This doesn't mean that either Calixtus or Richard thought Jews were great, but they did choose a different and more pragmatic/economic way of dealing with them than their peers. This does not prove "religious bigotry" and would need a lot more attention as an analytical concept.

As for saying that the crusades were motivated sheerly by medieval religious bigotry, I'm gonna have to say, hmm, no. Speaking as someone with a PhD in medieval history who specialised in crusade studies, there is an enormous literature around the question of why the crusades happened and why they continue to hold such troubling attraction as a pattern of behavior for the modern world. Yes, Richard went on crusade (as did the entire Western Latin world, pretty much, since 1187 and the fall of Jerusalem was the twelfth century's 9/11). But there also exists material around him that doesn't exist around any other crusade leader, including his extensive diplomatic relations with the Muslims, their personal admiration for him, his friendship with Saladin and Saladin's brother Saif al-Din, the fact that Arabic and Islamic sources can be more complimentary about Richard than the Christian records of his supposed allies, and so forth. I think Frederick II of Sicily, also famous for his friendly relationships with Muslims, is the only other crusade leader who has this kind of material. So however he did act on crusade, and for whatever reasons he went, Richard likewise chose the pragmatic path in his interactions with Muslims, or at least the Muslim military elite, than just considering them all as religious barbarians unworthy of his time or attention.

The question of how the crusades functioned as a pattern of expected behavior for the European Christian male aristocrat, sometimes entirely divorced from any notion of his private religious beliefs, is much longer and technical than we can possibly get into. (As again, I am roughly summarising a vast and contentious field of academic work for you here, so... yes.) Saying that the crusades happened only because medieval people were all religious zealots is a wild oversimplification of the type that my colleague @oldshrewsburyian and I have to deal with in our classrooms, and likewise obscures the dangerous ways in which the modern world is, in some ways, more devoted to replicating this pattern than ever. It puts it beyond the remit of analysis and into the foggy "Dark Ages hurr durr bad" stereotype that drives me batty.

Weighted against this is the fact that Richard obviously killed many Muslims while on crusade, and that this was motivated by religious and ideological convictions that were fairly standard for his day but less admirable in ours. The question of how that violence has been glorified by the alt-right people who think there was nothing wrong with it at all and he should have done more must also be taken into account. Richard's rise to prominence as a quintessentially English chivalrous hero in the nineteenth century, right when Britain was building its empire and needed to present the crusades as humane and civilizing missions abroad rather than violent and generally failed attempts at forced conversion and conquest, also problematized this. As noted, Richard was many things, but... not that, and when the crusades fell out of fashion again in the twentieth century, he was accordingly drastically villainized. Neither the superhero or the supervillain images of him are accurate, even if they're cheap and easy.

The English nationalists have a complicated relationship with Richard: he represents the ideal they aspire to, aesthetically speaking, and the kind of anti-immigrant sentiment they like to put in his mouth, which is far more than the historical Richard actually displayed toward his Muslim counterparts. (At least, again, so far as we can know anything about his private beliefs, but this is what we can infer from his actions in regard to Saladin, who he deeply respected, and Saladin's brother.) But he was also thoroughly a French knight raised and trained in the twelfth-century martial tradition, his concern for England was only as a minor part of the sprawling 'Angevin empire' he inherited from his father Henry II (which is heresy for the Brexit types who think England should always be the center of the world), and his likely inability to speak English became painted as a huge character flaw. (Notwithstanding that after the Norman Conquest in 1066, England did not have a king who spoke English natively until Henry IV in 1399, but somehow all those others don't get blamed as much as Richard.)

Anyway. I feel as if it's best to stop here. Hopefully this points you toward the complexity of the subject and gives you some guidelines in doing your own research from here. :)

[song-of-oots]

Fuchsia Groan: my (un)exceptional fave

A while ago a friend of mine was asking for people to name their favourite examples of strong female characters, and my mind immediately leapt to Gormenghast’s Fuchsia Groan because it always does whenever the words “favourite” and “female character” come up in the same sentence. In fact scratch that, if I had to pick only one character to be my official favourite (female or otherwise) it would probably be Fuchsia. There are not sufficient words in the English language to accurately describe how much I love this character.

The issue was that I’m not sure Fuchsia Groan can accurately be described as “strong”, and until my friend asked the question, it hadn’t even occurred to me to analyse her in those terms… 

Actually this isn’t completely true; Mervyn Peake does describe Fuchsia as strong in terms of her physical strength on multiple occasions. But in terms of her mental strength things are less clear cut. She’s certainly not a total pushover, and anyone would probably find it tough-going to cope with the neglect, tragedy and misuse she suffers through. In fact, this is something Mervyn Peake mentions himself – whilst also pointing out that Fuchsia is not the most resilient of people:

“There were many causes [to her depression], any one of which might have been alone sufficient to undermine the will of tougher natures than Fuchsia’s.”

Anyway, this has gotten me thinking about Fuchsia’s other traits and my reasons for loving her, going through a typical sort of list of reasons people often give for holding up a character as someone to admire:

So, is Fuchsia particularly talented?

No.

Is she clever, witty?

She’s definitely not completely stupid, and her insights occasionally take other characters by surprise, but she’s not really that smart either.

Does she have any significant achievements? Overcome great adversity?

Not really, no.

Is she kind?

Yes. Fuchsia is a very loving person and sometimes displays an incredible sensitivity and compassion for others. But… she can also be self-absorbed, highly strung, and does occasionally lash out at other people (especially in her younger years).

So why do I love Fuchsia so much?

Well, I’ll start be reiterating that I don’t really have the vocabulary to adequately put it into words, but I will try to get the gist across. So:

“What Fuchsia wanted from a picture was something unexpected. It was as though she enjoyed the artist telling her something quite fresh and new. Something she had never thought of before.”

This statement summarises not only Fuchsia but also the way I feel about her (and for that matter the Gormenghast novels in general). Fuchsia is something I’ve never really seen before. On the surface, she fits the model of the somewhat spoiled but neglected princess, and yet at the same time she cannot be so neatly pigeon-holed. It’s not just that her situation and the themes of the story make things more complex (though that is a factor); Fuchsia herself is so unique and vividly detailed that she manages to be more than her archetype. She feels like a real person and, like all real people, she is not so easy to label.

Fuchsia is also delightfully strange in a way that feels very authentic to her and the setting in general (which is particularly refreshing because it can all too often feel as though female characters are only allowed to be strange in a kooky, sexy way - yet Fuchsia defies this trend).

She’s a Lady, but she’s not ladylike. She’s messy. She slouches, mooches, stomps and stands in awkward positions. Her drawing technique is “vicious” and “uncompromising”. She chews grass. She removes her shoes “without untying the laces by treading on the heels and then working her foot loose”. She’s multi-faceted and psychologically complex. Intense and self-absorbed, sometimes irrational and ruled by her emotions more than is wise, but also capable of insight and good sense that takes others by surprise. She is extremely loving and affectionate, and yet so tragically lonely. Simultaneously very feminine and also not. Her character development from immature teenager to adult woman is both subtle and believable. She has integrity and decency – she doesn’t need to be super clever or articulate to know how to care for others or stand up for herself.

Fuchsia is honest. She knows her own flaws, but you never catch her trying to put on airs or make herself out to be anything other than what she is. She always expresses her feelings honestly.

She’s not sexualised at all. I don’t mean by this that she has no sexuality – though that’s something Peake only vaguely touches on – but I don’t really feel like I’m looking at a character who was written to pander to the male gaze (though her creator is male, I get the vibe he views her more as a beloved daughter than a sexual object).

Finally, I find her highly relatable. I am different to Fuchsia in many ways, but we do have several things in common that I have never seen so vividly expressed in any other character. This was incredibly important to me when I was a teenager struggling through the worst period of depression I ever experienced – because she was someone who I could relate to and love in a way I was incapable of loving myself. Her ability to be herself meant a lot to me as someone struggling with my own identity and sense of inadequacy. It didn’t cure my depression, but it helped me survive it.

What am I trying to say with all this?

I love Fuchsia on multiple levels. I love her as a person and also as a character and a remarkable piece of writing. I mention some of the mundane details Peake uses to flesh out her character firstly because I enjoy them, but also because it’s part of the point. Her story amazes me because it treats a female character and her psychological and emotional life with an intense amount of interest regardless of any special talents or achievements she happens to exhibit. She doesn’t fit the model of a modern heroine but neither does she need to – she’s still worth spending time with and caring about.*  To me the most important things about Fuchsia are how different and interesting and relatable she is – and how real she feels.

* To be honest, this is part of the point of the Gormenghast novels in general. The story is meant to illustrate the damage that society – and in particular rigid social structures and customs – can do to individuals with its callous indifference to genuine human need. Fuchsia is one of many examples of this throughout the novels. These characters don’t need to be exceptionally heroic in order to matter – they just need to exist as believable people. And despite how strange they all are, they often do manage to be fundamentally relatable.

Why am I talking about female characters in particular here?

The focus on “strong” female characters and the critique against that is pretty widely acknowledged. Growing up, I definitely noticed the lack of female characters in popular media and the ensuing pressure this then places on the ones that do exist to be positive representations of womankind – someone girls can look up to. It’s very understandable that we want to see more examples of admirable female protagonists, given that women were traditionally left to play support roles and tired stereotypes. The problem is that the appetite for more proactive female heroines can sometimes lead to characters who are role models first and realistic human beings second (characters who I mentally refer to as Tick-All-The-Boxes Heroines). It’s not a problem with “strong” proactive heroines per se, but rather lack of variation and genuine psychological depth (not to mention a sometimes too-narrow concept of what it even means to be strong).

Male characters tend not to have this particular problem because they are much better represented across the whole range of roles within a story. You get your fair share of boring worn out archetypes. You get characters who are meant to represent a positive version of heroic masculinity (and now that I come to think of it, having a very narrow and unvarying presentation of what positive masculinity looks like is its own separate problem, but outside the scope of this particular ramble). We don’t usually spend time obsessing over whether a piece of fiction has enough examples of “strong” male characters though, because we’re generally so used to seeing it that we automatically move on into analysing the work and the characters on other terms. And because there are often more male characters than female, they don’t all bear the burden of having to be a positive representative of all men everywhere. They exist to fulfill their roles, and often exhibit more variety, nuance and psychological depth. They are also often allowed to be weird, flawed and unattractive in ways that women usually aren’t (which is a damn shame because I’ve spent my whole life feeling like a weird outsider and yet this perspective is so often told primarily through a male lens).

Tl:dr; Fuchsia Groan is a character who feels like an answer to so many of those frustrations that I felt growing up without even truly understanding why. A large part of why I love her is simply because of how much I relate to her on a personal level. I admire her emotional honesty and her loving nature… But there’s also a part of me that was just so relieved to find a female character who exists outside of the usual formulae we seem to cram women into. She is unique, weird and wonderful (but non-sexualised). Psychologically nuanced and vividly written. She isn’t exceptionally heroic or talented or a high achiever – but she does feel like a real person.

Female characters don’t need to tick all the right boxes in order to be interesting or worth our time any more than the male ones do.

[a-lil-perspective]

I have been silent for some time now. I have refrained from exhibiting any plaguing thoughts that might warrant me the label of “that person”, but I’m at the point where I’ve had my fill.

Ramble under the cut so as to not... offend or inconvenience anyone. There’s absolutely no obligation to read this. It’s Tumblr. You can block/ignore me. The option to do so is readily accessible.

I’ve been a Bad Batch fan since day one. While I didn’t start creating that very same day, it was relatively close. Point being, I’m a long-time dedicated fan. As the premiere to their series draws closer, I feel like there is going to be a great shift, rift here. That being said, I figured now is as good a time as any to make this post.

I love those boys beyond words. They’ve been the one constant in my life amidst a rapid and debilitating change. I love getting to give them life, even if my interpretations aren’t the most accurate.

Yes, I am a new Writer and yes, I am new to Tumblr, as I am sure both of those things are painfully apparent.

I get that it is impossible to please everyone. It’s something I’m learning more and more with each passing day. It’s something that gets harder to swallow, even more so.

I’d like to say that being here has been a largely positive experience, with all of these great connections and opportunities. But honestly? It’s been more isolating than anything. I’ve actually never felt more isolated than since I joined a year ago.

As a content creator or even just a general blogger, I don’t ask for much. I don’t ask for anything, in fact. I consider myself very low maintenance. I don’t demand/harass/play the martyr for reblogs. I have never mentioned it once, and never will. Some people on here are so damn passive-aggressive about it, and quite frankly, it’s embarrassing. It’s very stigmatizing. While I completely understand the frustration surrounding the like-to-reblog ratio, I think it’s neither tasteful nor reputable to threaten to call people out for not reblogging your fics. I wish I could say I was joking on that one. But I’ve seen it profoundly. Not cool.

And yet, no one says anything or raises any concern there.

Yet I make metas, harmless rambles, and I get shot down? Seriously?

—I need to “chill”, it’s “overkill”, I’m “overthinking”. I and my content are apparently just so damn arduous to interact with.

If you don’t like me, please just move on. There are plenty of other Bad Batch creators for you to enjoy. You know that. My work is absolutely not the final say, and I’ve never claimed it to be.

What is so wrong, with sharing one’s thoughts? Why do people inherently have a problem with other’s creative efforts? I see it time over again. Why do I feel like if I was making a bunch of smutty posts it wouldn’t be as much of a problem, that it in fact would be infinitely more welcome? (Absolutely NO shade to people who create smut, okay? I’ve made my own share. I admire those bold enough to do so regularly. I absolutely love them. Please teach me your ways).

This ramble really has nothing to do with the most recent event regarding my contributions. Rather, it’s a culmination of experiences over the past several months that have brewed and festered to the point where I can no longer keep downplaying it.

Social media, at its core, is one big popularity contest. It always has been, it always will be. But I’m not here to win. That’s never been my objective. That’s not what I’m about. Surprise (or not), I am not a popular blog. Not by a long shot. I’ll never claim otherwise.

I don’t ask people to view/interact with my content, I’m not an activist, I can’t even fathom exuding that kind of confidence. Even though I, admittedly, crave it. I suspect I crave interaction as much as the next creator. It’s a nice feeling. Yet there’s never been any obligation for it, especially with me, so I don’t understand what the problem is. As I’ve said, there are ample ways for you to block/avoid me. It’s the internet. In this day and age, there’s no excuse for viewing anything you don’t want to.

I came here in the hopes of finding like-minded individuals, uplifting and interacting, and exercising some otherwise stunted creativity.

All Tumblr as taught me is that creating and contributing is largely a thankless, empty endeavor. You can give and give and give and be reduced to nothing. There’s a profound imbalance between “giving” and “receiving”, and in regards to both ends of the scale, it’s became apparent to me that if you don’t cater heavily and in unreasonable degrees or get “noticed” by a popular blog, you get nothing, and your efforts are null and void.

Truthfully? I constantly feel like I walk on eggshells here, and it’s all I can do to not crack under the pressure, even though it’s my blog and my headspace. I should feel comfortable and free to express myself here, and I don’t, and I’m unsure of how to achieve that sense of stability. To be completely honestly I feel like a constant bother and a nuisance. When I post, I literally feel like there is a collective eye-roll that comes with people receiving a notification from my blog. Even though I know, rationally, that can’t be true, that’s an absurd level of thinking. I can’t say I can pinpoint exactly where it stems from.

But regardless: I hardly ever talk about/create the things I actually want. I only recently just got ballsy enough to share some metas, and we all know how well that’s going. I try not to have smut out of respect for my asexual/minor mutuals, even though the tag to blacklist is very much an option. I try not to bring up conflicting topics, Tumblr, political, or otherwise, even though with proper tagging I could. But I try not to even bring that into existence. Even though it’s my right to, I don’t.

I don’t actually feel like I fit into any narrative here, especially in the Bad Batch fandom; even though we are all basically the same steadfast group of bloggers. We all know who we are. We all coexist in the same space. It’s nearly impossible to be unaware of each other, at this point.

And yet, I’m not in a bunch of Discord servers or backed by a team of beta readers and all that jazz. It’s basically just me talking to myself out here. It’s very isolating.

Part of that—most of it—is my own crippling social anxiety, and the genuine belief that I don’t deserve to be in the same space/servers as all of these brilliant creators. Because I’m just me, and there’s not a whole lot of value there. With that mindset, it’s hard to actually feel like I belong anywhere. I know that is a mindset I have to conquer alone.

My excitement over my creations has largely dwindled into nothing. I seldom ever bounce my ideas off of others—another issue that stems from the fear of presenting as a burden—and even though I try to write for myself, even that fire has pretty much died out. I’m not even sure how or if I could even reignite it, at this point. It’s really quite sad. It makes me very sad, actually. All I wanted was to safely ramble, project all my thoughts and creativity that has otherwise been repressed through prolonged detrimental circumstances.

More than anything, I wanted to find and hold onto something that makes me feel useful, meaningful, happy. More and more I wonder if that’s even possible. I don’t think it is, not here. I often wonder if joining and sharing on Tumblr was a horrible mistake. I miss the innocent joy of when I first started creating. It was so simple. I’m trying to find that simplicity again.

But I’m burned out. I’m running on fumes. I have been for some time.

At this point it goes beyond just “taking a break” from Tumblr. It’s the fact that it all feels like this meaningless, monotonous cycle. I wonder every day if I am an isolated case in experiencing these emotions.

And yet, come tomorrow I will still be here, business as usual.

I’m not asking for sympathy or playing the victim or attacking anyone or trying to guilt-trip into more interaction. I am very aware of my shortcomings and incorrect mindsets. I’m just trying to make sense of it all. I feel very disconnected from everyone here and it’s lonely. This took a lot for me to share. I will most likely delete this because anxiety will eat me up, as it does with everything I post. Yes, everything.

[lilflowerpot]

Soulmate AU where the marks on one person's skin show up on the other, but obviously they can't understand each other's writing, so Keith mostly just tries to express himself through art instead. So naturally, when he starts investigating the Blue Lion he starts drawing THAT too. Which is why, when Voltron shows up, Lotor is Dead Certain that the blue paladin is his soulmate, and he desperately tries to force himself to fall in love with Lance even while he's like "... Really? THIS guy?"

Lotor’s soulmate is not illiterate, but they may as well be. He’s compared their careless scrawl against every language in the Imperial data banks - thrice! - and it’s simply... not there.

“They’re a primitive,” Ezor nods sagely from where she’s half draped over his shoulder, eyeing the illegible lettering on his wrist with an entertained curl to her lips, “must be. Guess the universe wanted to counterbalance all your insufferable braininess.”

When Lotor shrugs her off with a snarl, she has the audacity to laugh.

Acxa’s kinder, or she tries to be, comforting him with the notion that if his soulmate is a primitive, they’re at the very least an educated one, or better yet of a more evolved society wherein knowledge of scripture is commonplace, so... they’re not feral.

Zethrid seems to half wish that they were, if only for the thrill of it.

“And the sex,” Ezor tacks on with an evil little grin, “the sex would have been fantastic.”

Her soulmate’s raucous glee drowns out any further discussion of the topic.

-

So they can’t communicate, not with words, but if Lotor’s soulmate is anything it’s tenacious (and the Prince can’t help but admire that). They come to the conclusion that pictures are the way to go, painting Lotor’s forearms with a veritable rainbow of quadrilaterals, each containing varying stripes and symbols, and then a series of dotted squiggles that Lotor is beginning to recognise as their approximation of a question.

The problem being he doesn’t actually know what it is that they’re asking.

There’s one rectangle - the majority of which is striped red and white, with a one contrasting quarter of stars in a blue sky - that his soulmate keeps coming back to, and Lotor realises it must be a clan symbol of a sort, indicative of their own people and culture, but... once again scouring Imperial logs turns up nothing of import. Frustrated, Lotor practically carves the hateful Imperial emblem into his palm with jagged lines of ink - Vrepit Sa - and turns in for the night.

In the morning, his arms are wiped clean.

They stay that way for a quintent.

Two.

On the third, he hears back, and it rocks his entire world view.

Kraliept Sa.

The lines are careful, deliberate, as if someone unfamiliar with the old scripture had taken great pains to transcribe that singular character, and Lotor quite simply can’t believe his eyes, because that would mean... that would mean that the only two things he knows of his soulmate are in direct contrast with one another: the first being that they are completely isolated from the Empire, and the second more impossible yet, that they have ties to the Blade of Marmora.

-

They continue this way for almost a decaphoeb, and it’s not perfect, but it’s something.

Lotor sends renderings of the stars, his ship, Kova, and in return his soulmate replies with sketches of the animals and sunsets and vast expanses of desert on an alien world.

One evening, they blur blues and greens into a perfect little marble on the inside of Lotor’s knee, an arrow pointing to one of the green patches labeled with a sequence of characters that the galra Prince is beginning to recognise as his soulmate’s name - though he can’t so much as begin to guess at how they might be pronounced - and so on the opposite knee Lotor paints Daibazaal, and then, because that feels inadequate, smears his thumb through the centre of the planet he no longer calls home, doodling a battalion of ships leaving the wreckage in a mass exodus, the children of an orphaned world.

And once more, his soulmate falls quiet.

-

It’s almost a full phoeb until they reach out again, and when they do Lotor finds them franctic, frightened, their little blue-green marble only the beginning; an entire solar system follows, complete with details such as what Lotor assumes must be an accurate number of moons on each planet for how deliberately they’re marked out, and then-

A ship.

It’s small and unassuming and positively archaic in design, but it’s a ship nonetheless, and as Lotor watches, his soulmate draws and erases and re-draws that same design until it’s traveled the length of his leg - thigh to ankle - and ‘lands’ on an unassuming moon of the most distant planet. They circle it with agitation, jabbing whatever implement they’re using to mark their own skin so violently that Lotor’s quite sure they must bleed under the force of it, but he doesn’t know what to say, let alone know how to say it if he did.

The next morning, his soulmate’s mural has gone.

The phantom ache of it remains.

-

They call him Champion.

Lotor only takes interest because of the timing, because of the circumstance, because it’s Sendak’s fleet that located these new lifeforms on a desolate moon in some distant corner of the universe, and of all Zarkon’s commanders he most of all has something of a reputation for toeing the line between cruelty and outright sadism.

The odds are one in a million, but that’s not a risk Lotor is willing to take.

He paints an obnoxious criss-cross of colour onto his own face that will be impossible to hide or mistake for anything other than what it is, and sends his generals to ascertain whether the Champion or either of the two lifeforms that accompanied him - soon to be subject to the work camps - share the mark.

They don’t, not one of them, and so Lotor chalks it up to coincidence and moves on.

Finding what could almost be mistaken for the legendary Blue Lion on the back of his hand only for Voltron proper to re-emerge into the universe after thousands of decaphoebs with the Champion himself allegedly at the helm, is not so easily written off.

And this time, when his soulmate abandons him to cold silence, it feels final.

-

Thayserix was very much a spur of the moment decision, but Lotor has never been so glad of such impulsivity as he is now, with the blue Lion of Voltron having been stolen from the thick mists and safely in his grasp.

Though, it’s not the lion that interests him.

Yes she’s a beautiful beast of considerable power, but in this case it is quite literally what’s on the inside that counts, that being of course Lotor’s soulmate... or so he’d thought.

Princess Allura of Altea cannot be them.

At least he certainly hopes not.

She’s lovely, in theory, but they’ve been in a stalemate for the past varga with her sullenly refusing to so much as consider entertaining Lotor’s attempts at hospitality, let alone conversation, and instead quite stubbornly standing with both her guard and weapon raised.

“I really would simply like to speak with-”

“Release me.”

Her end of things has consisted solely of those two words, and the monotony of it all really is growing rather tiresome.

Narti saves him from another repetitive bout, slinking into his mind and whispering that the rest of Voltron have located them far more quickly than Lotor would have thought possible.

The worst part is he’s almost grateful.

“Very well,” he growls, temper wearing thin, “your friends are here to collect you Princess, perhaps they will be more amenable to a little tête-à-tête, hm?”

They are not.

“Release Allura,” is the first thing to pass the dark-haired Paladin’s lips, teeth bared and tongue sharp, and it takes everything Lotor is not to simply concede on the spot.

“Frankly, I would love to,” he spits, gratified by how completely this blindsides the lot of them, every face on the holoscreen struck blank by his immediate compliance. “I do not believe she is the individual I am looking for, nor does she seem inclined to assist me in locating whosoever is. Answer my questions, and you are welcome to her and the blue Lion both.”

“We... We are?” It’s an older gentleman who speaks up, the only other altean among them.

“Absolutely,” Lotor hisses, and then graciously concedes: “the mistake was mine. I simply wished to open a dialogue with who I had assumed to be the blue Paladin, but as she is of a background that would doubtless have allowed us to communicate in galra script, that no longer seems the case.”

Their group look like they’re going to ask him to further explain what must sound to the lot of them nonsense... all except the black Paladin whose eyes have gone wide on some personal revelation, whispering “you,” as if he can’t believe his ears, only to spit out an obscenity before repeating himself with all the fury of an imploding star. “You!”

There are several exclamations of “Keith-!” as those violet eyes narrow to slits, the man smacking his hand down and cutting their com-line dead.

Ezor, helpful as ever, mumbles: “Well that went well,” quiet enough that it’s almost as if she doesn’t mean for everyone in the otherwise silent cockpit to hear her.

-

For the first time in ten thousand decaphoebs, the black Lion is - technically - in Imperial hands.

Lotor couldn’t care less.

The man who strides out of her is a veritable firestorm, all dark brows and snarling lips, and in a heartbeat Lotor knows, he just knows, who he is.

What he is.

Galra, for one, almost certainly a hybrid like Lotor - it’s the eyes that betray him, half luminescent with rage - and there’s a gorgeous poeticism to that.

Reckless for another, and behind him from where she’s been brought to stand witness, Princess Allura is clearly horrified to see her companion step from Voltron’s keystone and leave it completely unprotected, but the Paladin doesn’t seem to care, and neither does Lotor.

“Release Allura,” he growls again, voice like thunder and just as electrifying as he storms across the landing bay without hesitation, not even stopping to glance in his fellow Paladin’s direction and affirm that Zethrid has, in fact, released her as instructed.

No, Lotor’s soulmate simply fists pale fingers into paler hair and hisses, “fuck you,” into his mouth before kissing the Prince senseless.

-

Later - much, much later - Lotor is pleased to report back to Ezor that the sex is, in fact, fantastic.

[hamliet]

I think your blog is one of the best out there. Maybe becuase of this , maybe because of your awesome takes... I find it hard being in the fandom. And I wanted to share this very unpopular opinion. The more it goes on the more I wonder : how did Enji turned into this? Most of all in fandom tends to justify touya because he’s the result of Enji’s abuse. However Enji isn’t a natural born abuser. I’ve read and saw plenty: he has not manias of control. He accept easily his wife to leave him (he wanted to build an house for her and since Shoto’s accident he hadn’t forced himself on her). He wanted an heir, true and he was more neglecting (which is a form of abuse). But many time were found evidences in studies neglecting parents have issues of their own. Which can be found in their original family and / or society (if no mental illnesses are implied).

This made me wonder. I love Japanese culture , novels and society. And one of the most recurrent theme , especially some decades ago, is the high pressure people are exposed. It was and sometimes still is a nichilist model in which you die or fly and sometime you can’t hope to Rise once again when you fail. For example the concept of “you need to go at a go prek to get in a good university and find a good job” is often depict and put to extreme in many media. This inspire even books in which families are up for anything to push their children and they are under great pressure. Since Enji seems a not so bad man per se, has no mental illnesses , the only thing left is his immense obsession that must come from something. And the fact that in society a man must be successful... I think here it is.

The fact he can’t express his feeling correctly for the most of MHA , neither he can’t read them at the point of being perceived “with no compassion at all” comply the stereotype of the father with way too high standard , this can’t come from nothing. It’s not hard unreasonable thinking he was most likely pressured as much when younger , and that broke him at some point (which is a recursive theme in many others novels). This doesn’t justify him, but it might explain why he ended up like this.

But while everyone seems to be able to... forgive dabi , justifying his doings becuase of how he was raised while condamning 100% Enji. However the lingering theme of my hero’s villains is that they aren’t a monster , they’re turned into one; and society played a huge role. I don’t stand for Enji’s actions (who would) but ultimately? If all villains were broken by society at some point (being AFO the only exception for now) why can’t be him too? Broken by a society that demands from heroes to be perfect , to never be weak, even through total desperation? Society even made a joke of all might who gave his life entirely and part of his organs for Japan. Rather than only condemning Enji for his doings , much like is doing with Dabi, the spotlight should be society again.

He did wrong. Terribly wrong. and now everyone is ready to crucify him. But how society taught him better ? How society perceive heroes as humans , how far they can be weak and fails and not be blamed? Like father , like son. Touya is the result of his family , I think it should be considerated Enji was the product of a corrupted society. Which never correct itself , never tries to change... they just discard heroes and villains alike just for not being “perfect”.

Hi! Aw, thank you for your kind words <3

So, I’ll break this down a bit, because I think this discussion needs a lot of nuance. I agree society affected Enji, but I don’t quite think that a victim of society is remotely comparable to being a victim of parental abuse.

To start with, I fundamentally disagree with the notion that abusers are born, and hence don’t buy that Enji is somehow different (or better) because he wasn’t born that way.

To note, I talking specifically about physical/emotional/spiritual domestic abuse, not about sexual abuse (and I don’t wanna talk about that because it’s not relevant here, so no one send me asks about it, thanks).

Abuse is a description of an action and its affects. I’ll quote @linkspooky’s meta on Hawks last week: abuser is not a bad word, it’s not just something that bad people do. It’s an unhealthy relationship dynamic that even good people, even sympathetic people can participate in. It’d be great if we could just do a genetic test and determine if someone is an abuser (actually it wouldn’t be great; it’d be dystopian and terrifying), but that’s not how people work.

However, “abuser” is seen as a bad word, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing (nuance/abuse is horrific and takes such a toll on people that I’m glad it is given serious weight in some respects, although imo it’s overemphasized in fandom places and underemphasized in real life) and I’m not getting into good/bad/pluses/minuses of linguistic connotations here.

Hence, I would actually categorize what Rei did to Shouto as abuse, and I do think the story indicates she was neglectful towards her other children. However, I have never labeled her an “abuser” because of the negative connotation as is clear she is not a repeat offender and Shouto doesn’t even blame her--he blames Enji, and I don’t think that’s an incorrect assessment either. It’s complicated. Abuse victims can be abusers at the same time as they are victims (ask many a kid of an abusive dad what their mom was like; at best if they didn’t intervene it’s usually neglectful and often people go no contact with both parents). People we love and care for can participate in abuse.

Mental illness is also complex in its relationship to abuse. Mentally ill people are far more likely to be victims of abuse than perpetrators, and  mental illness doesn’t make someone predisposed to being a bad person. Mental illness does affect how I see Rei’s actions, because she was clearly out of her mind at the moment she burned Shouto’s face; at the same time, mental illness doesn’t erase harm done even if the person can’t be held super culpable. Enji on the other hand was not mentally ill in the same way; he was able to think logically and separate right from wrong even within society (because society clearly still views beating your kids as bad).

It’s actually not really accurate to say that Endeavor didn’t try to control Rei and just let her go--he put her in the institution to keep her away from Shouto, which may have been motivated of course by trying to protect Shouto, but was more likely “trying to protect his masterpiece.” Rei instantly regretted what she had done; Enji didn’t show regret until after Kamino. Also, Shouto himself views it as taking their mother away, not as protecting him. In fact, he sees it as removing his protector and leaving him with just the abusive dad. Plus, Rei’s doctors probably wouldn’t have let him see her. So I absolutely do think Enji is a control freak.

For Enjii, there’s no indication of prior trauma besides just not getting what he wanted. But, as you say, I do think Enji was absolutely a product of society--culturally, though I’m not qualified to comment on that, and within the manga’s own framing of that culture. However, while Enji is a product of society, he is not framed with the child framing that is present around Touya; hence, why he’s not a victim in the same sense. He was an adult when he started doing bad things, capable of reason, as far as we know and there’s no indication this isn’t the case. He was ~20 when Dabi was born, so that means he was looking for a quirk marriage at the very latest by 19. That’s like starting your career as an administrative assistant and being pissed you’re not CEO like, a year after starting! That implies that he had a sense of entitlement at a very young age, entitled to the point of believing kids were not full people but instead extensions of himself to ignore, beat up, and cast aside as he pleased. Every aspect of Enji’s personality screams of toxic masculinity as well.

Also, almost every person who has ever done something wrong (and those who haven’t!) is a product of their environment as well as of their genetics, but I wouldn’t classify everyone as a victim--even though technically I suppose they would be, but the connotations are just not particularly fitting--and I wouldn’t call Enji one. Enji might be a product of society, but his kids are victims of a deliberate choice he had to be a terrible parent. Society sucks, but we don’t choose it and it doesn’t choose us in the same sense a parent chooses to treat their kids a particular way.  So, rather than saying Enji’s a victim of society, I think it’s more of society reaping what they’ve sown in terms of their #1 being revealed as a mass abuser; it’s karmic.

So to return to his character and Enji is also a representation of toxic masculinity--that is why for me personally, his crying this chapter  actually resonated. Like, I think it was well-framed in that his victims didn’t feel sorry for him and he cried before he knew they were coming, and while I get that people think he has no right to cry (as Rei and Natsuo said!). I see why people interpret that as manipulative, and while I absolutely think it was self-pitying, I also personally see it as human and realistic, and perhaps as a slight chipping away of the toxic masculinity that he embodies. We’ll see. I’m still no fan but that was the first moment in his redemption arc that struck me as sincere.

[realitista]

It may be a cult, but we should know what they want.

Conservatism (big C) has always had one goal and little c general conservatism is a myth. Conservatism has the singular goal of maintaining an aristocracy that inherits political power and pushing others down to create an under class. In support of that is a morality based on a person’s inherent status as good or bad - not actions. Of course the thing that determines if someone is good or bad is whether they inhabit the aristocracy.

Another way, Conservatives - those who wish to maintain a class system - assign moral value to people and not actions. Those not in the aristocracy are immoral and deserve punishment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk

https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html

Part of this is posted a lot: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288 I like the concept of Conservatism vs. anything else.

*****

A Bush speech writer takes the assertion for granted: It's all about the upper class vs. democracy. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/06/why-do-democracies-fail/530949/ “Democracy fails when the Elites are overly shorn of power.”

Read here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism#History and see that all of the major thought leaders in Conservatism have always opposed one specific change (democracy at the expense of aristocratic power). At some point non-Conservative intellectuals and/or lying Conservatives tried to apply the arguments of conservatism to generalized “change.”

The philosophic definition of something shouldn't be created by only adherents, but also critics, - and the Stanford page (despite taking pains to justify small c conservatism) includes criticisms - so we can conclude generalized conservatism (small c) is a myth at best and a Trojan Horse at worst.

*****

Incase you don’t want to read the David Frum piece here is a highlight that democracy only exists at the leisure of the elite represented by Conservatism.

>The most crucial variable predicting the success of a democratic transition is the self-confidence of the incumbent elites. If they feel able to compete under democratic conditions, they will accept democracy. If they do not, they will not.

And the single thing that most accurately predicts elite self-confidence, as Ziblatt marshals powerful statistical and electoral evidence to argue, is the ability to build an effective, competitive conservative political party before the transition to democracy occurs.

Conservatism, manifest as a political party is simply the effort of the Elites to maintain their privileged status. One prior attempt at rebuttal blocked me when we got to: why is it that specifically Conservative parties align with the interests of the Elite?

*****

There is a key difference between conservatives and others that is often overlooked. For liberals, actions are good, bad, moral, etc and people are judged based on their actions. For Conservatives, people are good, bad, moral, etc and the status of the person is what dictates how an action is viewed.

In the world view of the actual Conservative leadership - those with true wealth or political power - , the aristocracy is moral by definition and the working class is immoral by definition and deserving of punishment for that immorality. This is where the laws don't apply trope comes from or all you’ll often see “rules for thee and not for me.” The aristocracy doesn't need laws since they are inherently moral. Consider the divinely ordained king: he can do no wrong because he is king, because he is king at God’s behest. The anti-poor aristocratic elite still feel that way.

This is also why people can be wealthy and looked down on: if Bill Gates tries to help the poor or improve worker rights too much he is working against the aristocracy.

*****

If we extend analysis to the voter base: conservative voters view other conservative voters as moral and good by the state of being labeled conservative because they adhere to status morality and social classes. It's the ultimate virtue signaling. They signal to each other that they are inherently moral. It’s why voter base conservatives think “so what” whenever any of these assholes do nasty anti democratic things. It’s why Christians seem to ignore Christ.

While a liberal would see a fair or moral or immoral action and judge the person undertaking the action, a conservative sees a fair or good person and applies the fair status to the action. To the conservative, a conservative who did something illegal or something that would be bad on the part of someone else - must have been doing good. Simply because they can’t do bad.

To them Donald Trump is inherently a good person as a member of the aristocracy. The conservative isn’t lying or being a hypocrite or even being "unfair" because - and this is key - for conservatives past actions have no bearing on current actions and current actions have no bearing on future actions so long as the aristocracy is being protected. Lindsey Graham is "good" so he says to delay SCOTUS confirmations that is good. When he says to move forward: that is good.

To reiterate: All that matters to conservatives is the intrinsic moral state of the actor (and the intrinsic moral state that matters is being part of the aristocracy). Obama was intrinsically immoral and therefore any action on his part was “bad.” Going further - Trump, or the media rebranding we call Mitt Romney, or Moscow Mitch are all intrinsically moral and therefore they can’t do “bad” things. The one bad thing they can do is betray the class system.

*****

The consequences of the central goal of conservatism and the corresponding actor state morality are the simple political goals to do nothing when problems arise and to dismantle labor & consumer protections. The non-aristocratic are immoral, inherently deserve punishment, and certainly don’t deserve help. They *want* the working class to get fucked by global warming. They *want* people to die from COVID19. Etc.

Montage of McConnell laughing at suffering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTqMGDocbVM&ab_channel=HuffPost

OH LOOK, months after I first wrote this it turns out to be validated by conservatives themselves: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/16/trump-appointee-demanded-herd-immunity-strategy-446408

Why do the conservative voters seem to vote against their own interest? Why does /selfawarewolves and /leopardsatemyface happen? They simply think they are higher on the social ladder than they really are and want to punish those below them for the immorality.

Absolutely everything Conservatives say and do makes sense when applying the above. This is powerful because you can now predict with good specificity what a conservative political actor will do.

*****

We still need to address more familiar definitions of conservatism (small c) which are a weird mash-up including personal responsibility and incremental change. Neither of those makes sense applied to policy issues. The only opposed change that really matters is the destruction of the aristocracy in favor of democracy. For some reason the arguments were white washed into a general “opposition to change.”

* This year a few women can vote, next year a few more, until in 100 years all women can vote?

* This year a few kids can stop working in mines, next year a few more...

* We should test the waters of COVID relief by sending a 1200 dollar check to 500 families. If that goes well we’ll do 1500 families next month.

* But it’s all in when they want to separate migrant families to punish them. It’s all in when they want to invade the Middle East for literal generations.

The incremental change argument is asinine. It’s propaganda to avoid concessions to labor.

The personal responsibility argument falls apart with the whole "keep government out of my medicare thing." Personal responsibility just means “I deserve free things, but people more poor than me don't."

Look: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U

*****

And for good measure I found video and sources interesting on an overlapping topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymeTZkiKD0

*****

Some links incase anyone doubts that the contemporary American voter base was purposefully machined and manipulated into its mangle of abortion, guns, war, and “fiscal responsibility.” What does fiscal responsibility even mean? Who describes themselves as fiscally irresponsible?

Here is Atwater talking behind the scenes. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/religion/news/2013/03/27/58058/the-religious-right-wasnt-created-to-battle-abortion/

a little academic abstract to lend weight to conservatives at the time not caring about abortion. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-policy-history/article/abs/gops-abortion-strategy-why-prochoice-republicans-became-prolife-in-the-1970s/C7EC0E0C0F5FF1F4488AA47C787DEC01

They were casting about for something to rile a voter base up and abortion didn't do it. https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/02/05/race-not-abortion-was-founding-issue-religious-right/A5rnmClvuAU7EaThaNLAnK/story.html

The role religion played entwined with institutionalized racism. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrisladd/2017/03/27/pastors-not-politicians-turned-dixie-republican/?sh=31e33816695f

https://www.salon.com/2019/07/01/the-long-southern-strategy-how-southern-white-women-drove-the-gop-to-donald-trum/

Likely the best:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133

I'll leave it at that. Anyone who can read these and come away doubting the architecting of the contemporary American Conservative voter base is a lost cause (like the Confederacy).

Via Gray Idolon on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/kxtuwh/its_no_longer_a_political_party_its_a_cult_former/gjci4ua/?context=5

[scionofchaos]

A Series on Witches - Part 4

This is the fourth in a series of posts on the nature of witches and magic practitioners as I have witnessed, as well as some notes on common spiritual practice, and the nature of humanity. Lots of broad material to cover, so I'm going to go ahead and get started. If you get to the end of this post, and you find you have things to say, I welcome you to please comment, reblog, however you feel appropriate, or private message me if you'd prefer, and let's get the discussions started!

Last time, I expanded on my "natural lawn" and "picket fence" dichotomy. I also elaborated on why certain ways of interacting with the spirit world are not in the best perspective. Today, I would like to break down the middle zone into three territories. In case it is confusing, the following descriptions may sound like I believe them, but I do not take any of these middle paths.

a) The Land of the Dead vs. the Land of the Living b) The Realm of the Olympian vs. the Realm of the Chthonic c) The Four+ Realms

LAND OF THE DEAD vs. LAND OF THE LIVING This view I consider to be closest to the "natural lawn" side, segregating the spirit world into two domains. You might think of them as "Seelie" and "Unseelie," or living and dead, or however you like. The "Land of the Living" includes humans, their gods, and all spirits actively participating in the natural environment of Planet Earth. Whether the cosmic spirits of the stars are to be included in this group sees some disagreement. The "Land of the Dead" is the Other World, the place where foreign spirits live. It is where human spirits go where they die, and where the spirits living in that place return to when banished from the "Land of the Living." In this framework, there is only a single boundary, a "Veil" if you will. It is the boundary between "our world" and "theirs." There are native spirits living in "our" human world, though they may be hidden or live in a spiritual alter aspect of it. All other spirits of all types and motivations are thought to live in "that other place." Not here, not among us. When a person dies, they "depart." They transmigrate to the other world. In this framework, the gods either live here, in a higher spiritual sense, or they live in the other world exclusively. There are not types or factions.

THE OLYMPIANS vs. The CHTHONIC This view I consider to be somewhat middle, but leaning toward the ceremonial. While it has the initial appearance of a two-way split, there are gradients. That gradation comes in the form of humanity. This framework sees us as distinct and special. Those of us who inhabit the "Land of the Olympians" are the living, those living in active service to the prevailing, ruling class of gods, spirits, what have you. When we die, we leave the service of "the Olympians" and depart into the world and the service of the Chthonic gods. Some also believe that the current class of Olympians has cast down their predecessors, who are now among the Chthonic by default. People espousing this framework distinguish between the living spirits and the deathly ones, and between the lesser spirits and the divine. The divine occupy a level of existence utterly inaccessible to us, though they may cross the perceived line freely.

A big way this second framework differs from the "Living/Dead" distinction is who owns which domain. In the first framework, we are all spirits of the "Living," and the gods are just dignified spirits living among us. They don't rule us so much as they are powerful and must be kept content. But in this second framework, the "Land of the Olympians" is explictly their property, which we living humans occupy. It follows their rules, and if we do not, then they will punish us for it. Typically, punishment by death is a more formal affair, because it transfers Olympian property to the Chthonic domain. Better to punish mortals by maligning them in some way that does not kill them. In this framework, the three natural boundaries are these: the border between the divine Chthonic and the human Chthonic, the border between the human Chthonic and the human Olympian, and the border between the human Olympian and the divine Olympian.

However, smaller, more arbitrary boundaries can be formed on a temporary basis. These are formed by humans to invite divine influence. Boundary 2 can be caused to allow the Chthonic spirits to intrude, obstructing Olympian influence until the Olympians assert themselves with enough power. Alternately, to call Olympian influence into the Chthonic realm, resisting Chthonic influence over its natural territory so the Olympian authority has more agency there than normal. Boundary 1 can be caused to invoke Chthonic gods against lesser Chthonic spirits. Boundary 3 can likewise be caused to invoke Olympian gods against lesser Olympian spirits.

To be clear, I am using the Hellenic term "Olympian" for simplicity and not to exclude. By it, I simply mean the gods who rule over "this world," rather than the rulers of the deathly world.

THE FOUR+ REALMS This view I consider to range between "very Ceremonial" and "less Ceremonial," but generally being on the high end. I call it Four Realms because the simplest adaptation is divided into four: The Realm of the Gods, The Realm of the Spirits, The Realm of Man, The Realm of Death. The Realm of Man is the "natural" world in a scientific sense, also referred to as the Mundane. It is a place where spirits are not seen, where the dead do not remain, and where the gods tend not to intervene (they absolutely can, but often deign not to). The Realm of the Spirits is a parallel existence outside Man's world and Death's world, but thinly veiled from both. It is a natural place of life, but one where physical life does not walk. When the spirits of that place leave it for Man's world, they must take a form capable of interacting with physical things, or else exert great spiritual essence to compensate.

The Realm of Death is very similar to the Realm of the Spirits, but is far removed from the living. Those which occupy the Realm of Death have only the memory of living essence within them, being neither of Spirit nor of Man anymore. In terms of my spiritual framework, such a being would (if they existed) have to be conscious, psychic, and causal, while lacking physical and vital essences in almost entirety. The Realm of the Gods is utterly unlike any of the other three. It is a higher and more perfect existence full of abject magical gifting, which few if any mortals will ever enter. The very act of entering and being allowed to stay means one has achieved honorary god status (see for example, Dionysus, Psyche, Heracles).

In versions of Four+ Realms with more than these categories (necessitating the + symbol in my labeling), they tend to be versions or gradients of the listed categories. For example, a "Realm of Dvergar" might be a variant of the Realm of Man, of Spirits, of Gods, or even of Death. In the Yggdrasil model, Asgard and Vanaheim are two separate "Realms of the Gods."

In the Four+ Realms framework, there are 5 natural boundaries: a) Border between Gods and Death b) Border between Gods and Spirits c) Border between Gods and Man d) Border between Death and Spirits (Death and Man are almost entirely separated by the intervening Realm of Spirits) e) Border between Spirits and Man

As in the second framework, the occupants of a realm can flex these boundaries from inside. They cannot easily break through an entire realm from one boundary to the next. The asset possessed by the gods is not that they have zero boundaries, but that their realm directly borders all realms. This means they do not have to expend the significant strain of breaking two boundaries, as described. They can bear on the border to any "lower" realm with equal ease, again, according to this way of looking at it. The same is not the case for Man, who can commune with spirits with relative ease, but not with the dead. To facilitate that, they must work through living spirits, having them buckle the spirit/death boundary closer to Man, while Man pushes the Man/Spirit boundary in as well, forming a meeting place.

That being said, this is all based on studying multiple different groups with varying beliefs. So what I have presented here is unlikely to be seen as entirely accurate...by any one group.

[suitov]

Komaegi Week: Garden

“I’m sorry it’s not a normal kind of date.  I just remembered I’d agreed to help Shikiba and I didn’t want to cancel on you outright...”

“For all the experience I have, this could be a completely normal date!” said Nagito cheerfully.

“But do you know what Celeste said when I told her?  She said ‘Well, I wouldn’t trust you pair of submissive lambikins around any kind of tools’...” ��Makoto unlocked the garden shed.  “But then I asked if she meant she wanted to come help, and she said ‘That’s what I have men for, dear’.  Like, make up your mind!”

“It’s not as though we’re doing anything dangerous,” said Nagito, picking up a trowel and giving it an uncertain heft.

“He even labelled them for us, he said.”  Sure enough, Makoto found the small sack marked Early Onions without difficulty.

Nagito had found some gardening gloves; he handed Makoto a second pair.  See, they were off to a great start!

“All right.  He said it’s this bed over here, the one under the cherry tree…”

Nagito followed him with the rest of the gear, sparing the tree a wry look.  It was bare, of course, being February.  No blossoms for Makoto’s birthday.  But maybe there would be for Nagito’s!  He could take Nagito to look at them.  Yes, they’d go together and they’d hold hands—Nagito would finally agree to let people see they were dating, he’d realise he was worthy of Makoto—better yet, he’d realise there was no such thing as worthy, and then maybe… maybe they’d kiss!  In front of the trees and everyone!  Now there was a hopeful thought.

Makoto tripped over his feet in excitement and planted his face in the bare earth.

“Are you inspecting the beds personally?” asked Nagito with all that subtle irony he displayed sometimes.

“Yeah, something like that.”  Makoto picked himself off, brushed off his nose and the knees of his uniform pants—on reflection, he should’ve done like Nagito had and changed into something more casual before heading off to grub around in the dirt.  He’d been too excited to think about details.  Cute guy and all that.

Nagito smoothly folded his long legs into a kneel.  “Ah… Shikiba really didn’t leave much to chance.”  He held up a hand-drawn diagram of a bulb, tiny feathery roots and all, firmly labelled PLANT THIS END DOWN.

They set to work.

“I guess everyone thinks we’re that hopeless,” said Makoto with a rueful grin.

Nagito’s laugh was gentle, as if apologising for its audibility.  Makoto wanted to hear it more often.  “Then they’re wrong.  It’s never hopeless with Makoto around.  By definition.”

“Are you talking about—ah, Nagito, you know Ultimate Hope is just a nickname my classmates came up with!  Now I think about it, it must have been after I tried cheering Toko up one too many times…”

“That many Ultimates can’t be wrong, that’s what I always say,” said Nagito, who was capable of digging in his heels on certain topics every bit as effectively as he was currently digging in the onion bulbs.

Makoto stuck out his tongue, but he continued in Nagito’s wake, patting down the soil and giving the bulbs their first watering-can baths.

It looked as though, in spite of certain people’s expectations, their task would soon be finished without any disasters at all.

“I wonder how long until we see them growing,” said Makoto.  Dim recollections arose of the time he’d planted an acorn and checked back hourly on its progress, before running to his mother at dinner time in tears because it hadn’t become a tree.  Hey, he’d been five, all right?!

“Assuming my accursed presence hasn’t poisoned them somehow,” Nagito offered cheerfully.  “Knowing my luck, they’ll all wither and the soil will go completely barren, or they’ll grow into homicidal monsters, or…”

“Or,” said Makoto, before the ball of hypothetical horrors could really get rolling, “what if it’s good luck instead, and they all grow big and beautiful and tasty in stir fries?”

“Oh, no, I think I’ve already identified the good luck in this situation,” said Nagito with hooded eyes.

“Really?  What’s th— Nagito, why’s your bag glowing?”

Nagito followed his eyes.  He took off his gloves and opened his book bag.  “Ah...” he said.

Makoto realised what it was just before Nagito produced his wand.  The weird, dark metal wand, one of the pair they’d found by accident while out walking together.  Glowing, which was why they’d originally seen them, but hadn’t happened since then.

“Do you think it senses danger?”

Makoto picked up his own backpack.

“Ha!  So you don’t want to be far from yours either?”

“I feel all uneasy and lonely if I get too far away from it, a little like when I’m away from… um, from home,” Makoto quick-thinkingly unadmitted. Ha, and to think Kyoko had called him an open book!  “But mine isn’t glowing, look, so either it doesn’t mean that or… heehee… I’m the threat.”

Nagito gasped dutifully at Makoto’s fierce face and intimidating flex.  But he did grin a little.  “If I ever find the Ultimate Hope is my adversary, I’m switching sides.”

Makoto zipped his backpack up again.  “So maybe yours wants you to transform.  You could try it.”

“I don’t even know how it happened the first time.  Do you?”

“Um, no.” Makoto frowned and touched his chin with a knuckle, a gesture he’d unconsciously picked up from Nagito.  “Maybe wave it around?  Twirl with it?  Is there a magic word written on it…?”

“No, no and no,” said Nagito dizzily.  “I don’t even think I was thinking anything special that first time.  All I remember was—um, well, that surely wasn’t it.”

Makoto leaned forward like a puppy seeing a ball.  “What?  What?”

“Oh, nothing… um.”  Nagito squirmed.  “I was just feeling very… extremely ga—”

It happened immediately.  Nagito’s formerly quivering fingers clamped firmly around the wand and he struck an unlikely pose, spine bent such that somehow his chest and his rear were in view at once.  Blood-red ribbons of light spilled out and cocooned him.  Makoto even thought he heard a faint theme song.

Nagito’s high heels touched the ground again.  He looked down and smoothed his slinky red cocktail dress.

Makoto choked on a giggle.  At the questioning look, he said, “They’re back…”

“What are—oh no.”  Nagito reached up and tugged at one fuzzy cat ear. “Magical girl and catboy now?  How is this reasonable?”

“I don’t know about reasonable, but it’s cute.”

“Yes, but we didn’t even turn into cats… dog… animal people on the same day—they were completely separate incidents!”

“Maybe your magic wand found it cute too.”

Nagito’s fluffy white tail lashed.  He started to lick a hand, then thrust it embarrassedly behind his back.  “And what was even the point of this?” he demanded of the magic wand.

“Ooh…” said Makoto.

“…just trying to have a normal date with a very adorable boy and you go around glowing and, and giving people hairy ears willy-nilly…”

“Um…” said Makoto, who was all squeaky inside after being described as very adorable.

“…appreciate some idea of what you want me to do here.  I mean, magical girl powers aren’t exactly something the guidance counsellor can help with, and I’ve asked her…”

“Nagito, look!”

“…said it wasn’t even the weirdest thing she’s been asked by a student at this school, which is saying somethi—yes, Makoto?”

Makoto mutely pointed.

“…oh,” said Nagito, accurately.

The onions were growing.

The onions were growing big…

“Nyaow!” Nagito hissed and swiped his wand at a waist-high bundle of leaves.  The leaves took no notice, neither to attack him nor to quail away from his indignant hiss.  The bulb at the base of those leaves, half submerged in soil, was massive, more like the size of a pumpkin.

The onions stopped growing with a self-satisfied chlorophyllic creak.

“Uh,” said Makoto.

“…Yeah,” said Nagito, slinking farther away from the garden bed before anything else could happen.

“So that was…”

“It sure was…”

“Do you think that’s your magic power?  Nagito, that’s such a cool power! They’re blooming like crazy!”

“I don’t think onions bloom, do they?”

“I have no idea, but I’m pretty sure they don’t normally do that, either.”

They stared at the vegetable garden a little more.  Then, both at once, they started laughing.

“Onions, right? Pungent and making people cry.  Perfect imagery for me!”

“Nooooo, onions are good!  They’re good in cooking, they give things flavour, and… they have like, circles.  What’s the word?  Like layers!  They’re complicated, just like you!”

“You think I’m good?”  Makoto realised Nagito had stopped laughing.

“Yes, silly catboy, I think you’re very good.”  He stuck out his tongue, just to be extra convincing.

Nagito wordlessly reached out and brushed a petal out of his hair.

“And I’m not sorry we’re dating, even if weird stuff like this happens every time.”  A falling petal tickled his nose.  He rubbed it with the back of his gardening glove.  “At least I get to experience the weird stuff with you.”

Nagito shuffled his feet.  Or maybe he was just trying to keep the heels from sinking into the grass.  He rubbed the back of his neck, trailing the red veils that formed part of his distractingly alluring outfit.  They looked kind of nice, spangled with pink petals.

“Wait a minute,” said Makoto, looking up.

At the riotously blossoming cherry tree.

They gawped at each other, framed in falling flowers.  Then one of them reached for the other’s hand, and later on neither remembered who it had been.

They did remember the kisses, though.  So it was a pretty good date after all.

[bi-lesbian]

when i have a VERY slight attraction to men, it makes the bi label not feel extremely accurate for myself. it has nothing to do with "internal biphobia," i know since my attraction crosses more than one gender at all it means bi bc bi spans across a bunch of different percentages of attractions- but thats exactly the issue here.

when bi can mean SO many different attractions, its hard to have it feel specific enough to describe my identity well. things like "bi with a preference" doesnt feel right either bc it sounds more like around 25% men when my attraction is more like 1 or 2% men. but i also dont want to not use bi at all bc even tho my attraction to men is So Extremely Small- and i probably wont even date/want to date any men in the future- i dont want to exclude my attraction to them completely.

i feel so much more strongly attached to the lesbian label bc i feel like it describes a lot more of my identity better than just bi does, but since i do have that tiny portion of attraction to men, lesbian by itself doesnt feel accurate to use either.

so, i went with bi lesbian! putting them together for me means something different and more specific than either word means individually, so it just felt like an "in between" identity to label a very specific attraction! where neither word is a descriptor for the other, and im not using either on its own, it feels like it puts my identity down way better! i found something that feels right!

but then, people started to attack me for using this label. not even giving my side a single thought, people would shout me down and say that any amount of attraction to men i have means im just bi, say im a lesbophobe/biphobe/transphobe (?? bc other ppl have apparently used the label shittily against trans ppl when i dont at all???), and constantly push me away from the lesbian label when That one is the one i felt more accurate with if i had to use just one label or the other. ppl try to force me out of a label that feels most comfortable to me, for reasons like "men use the label to harrass lesbians" when those men arent even respecting any womens boundaries in the slightest to begin with ?? why am i being attacked and said to not be able to use my identity when some men out there think they have a chance/can force a woman to like them regardless of their identity? why are the actions of shitty men having the blame forced onto me?

so then, im just left here in this sort of limbo of not really feeling like i belong to either side of my bi lesbian identity. i either dont feel like i fit or made to not feel like i fit. and its really upsetting. ive been having axiety here n there the past few days and i just labeled it random anxiety, but i still figure its probably actually bc people wont leave me alone on my own identity and keep attacking me when i just want to exist and be happy. i dont want to force anyone into accepting my identity, but everyone seems to think its okay to yell their views on my identity at me when i never asked for it. its stressful.

i even made a positivity blog to try have a nice space for myself and people still just dont let up. seriously how can yall see a positivity blog and think its okay to be a dick to the person running it? try to excuse it all u like, its super fucking shitty. if someone has a positivity blog its probably bc theyre having too much negativity in their life. if you dont like the things theyre showing positivity for, hit the fucking block button. leave. them. the. fuck. alone.

im so fucking tired

[thelittlehansy]

Why i despise despise Hans being saw or headcanon as having narcissist personality disorder and be a narcissist.

- first because people call very quickly person to be a narcissist and throw the world as if it was a potatoes really ! without looking at the actual symptom in my country we call them pervert narcissist and girls like to label very easily their ex based only on their view on them when the disorder is a true a psychiatrist disorder. ( this is the same thing we did when we act as if hans is one because of his relationship to an only person ....anna) so just hearing “ hans is narcissist because what he did to Anna....bla bla bla”.

- because here is the symptom of it : not there is not just “lacking of empathy” and ‘having a high image of himself/herself”

Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration ,  Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it , Exaggerate achievements and talents , Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate , Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people , Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior , Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations , Take advantage of others to get what they want , Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others , Be envious of others and believe others envy them , Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious , Insist on having the best of everything — for instance, the best car or office have trouble handling anything they perceive as criticism, and they can , Become impatient or angry when they don't receive special treatment , Have significant interpersonal problems and easily feel slighted , React with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make themselves appear superior , Have difficulty regulating emotions and behavior , Experience major problems dealing with stress and adapting to change , Feel depressed and moody because they fall short of perfection ,Have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation

Taking advantages is the only one accurate. All the others we just dont know !

we are NOT in hans head or We dont have enough evidence and he even show some contradictory behavior to several of them. So now hans cannot be said he is a narcissist based on the movie. because goooooosh he said "i m the hero who is gonna save arendelle from destruction" and lack empathy to anna. lack seriously i read somewhere he was one and was the definition of the disorder because he said “ i m the hero who is gonna saved arendelle from destruction and exploit anna in the movies.

- people who had the headcanon i believe dont know how the disorder is create in real life.i read because he was abused years in his childhood when he was unproblematic and therefore some people headcanon him to have disorders like narcissistic personality disorder later in his life. (Same for anti social personality disorder )

the thing is   : Narcissist, just like sociopath and psychopath ( ASPD) dont "turn into one" at 23 years old because of years of abuse. All this disorder begin in early , very early childhood between ( 1-7) years old this not for nothing that we said narcisist are child in adult body. So hans will show tendencies early and be a little demon almost all his life at 8 years old ( thats the age give by the researcher) 9 , 10 , 11, 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 years old and later diagnostic as one.

Also Taking into consideration the reality of the disorder. I find that unbelievable that a queen and a king will send their 13th son with that behavior as a diagnatery. an official diagnetry to an important political Event such like Arendelle coronation.

Really i really strongly believe that if Hans was neither a narcissist, a sociopath, a psychopath if we want to be the most faithful to the reality  of those disorders Hans would have never be send as a diagnetry to such events. the movie will not have even take place even more i believe if he had anti social personality disorder since some of the trait is failure to plan ahead.

- a frozen heart : this book exist ! This is published by disney and yes we can have question about his canonicity to the movie. but to the franchise ? The book is very much canon to the franchise ! and they confirm with very rare product about Hans things that actually are faithful to the book.. 

In this book , who is actually great , because we are in his head unlike in the movie where a lot of thing are let to the interpretation of the audience. (too much) hans dont have the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder at all only again only the manipulative part.

but the The king him was write as one not only because in the site “tv tropes” they mentioned it but also because he really does show strong tendencies in very few chapters. He is arrogant , dont have empathy , he dont takes criticism , Everyone should obey him , he exploit Hans during 3 years without guilt or shame , He ask all his sons to reflect on him , he has a high opinion of himself  believe he is special and could only be with special people : westergaard are Lion not mices., he ask his sons to be obedient and he is  very controlling , he  marry every single of his sons who are unhapilly married  and if he had decided that hans is not gonna marry someone he is not gonna marry someone , as Hans saw him as jailer , even when he said yes Hans to go in arendelle he has the need to remind him to go immediately home to babysit his niece and nephew. He totally ignore his sons need and belittle Hans during the whole chapter we have about him in the beginning of the book. He is very manipulative , the one who talk to Hans about the mirror theory. He is manipulative to all his sons as he has brainwashed all of them in his social darwinism survival of the fittest way of life. He has problem regulated his emotions He is according to Hans thousand more scary than marshmallow when he is angry. He monopolize Conversation and talk only to Caleb his oldest sons during his wife birthday who is quiet during the moment ignore on her own birthday. he had a big big need of admiration he had no problem with his sons looking constantly for his approval ( thing present in the first chapter of Hans in the book) and and he specially asked Hand do not disappoint him. He except everyone to agree with him just because he is the King., he has no empathy for his citizens and burn a farm one day as “solution to a problem”. He is tyrannical father and tyrannical King who believe he has a right to pick on a the weak because he is superior to them.

So having this book and hans being called one when he is not one but the victim of one is frustrating. so yeah not everyone knows about the book , not everyone is gonna analyze the king of course but still....that’s very frustrating ! 

[dramionediscussion]

Thanks Lisa and Anon for answering! I don’t think I really disagree with either of you. I think, we share quite similar views, or at least something quite close to each other. Those answers got me thinking, and gave me a lot of food for thought. It’s not exactly the first time, I’ve pondering this. It always happens, when I am trying to find AU Dramione fics (semi-regular occurrence. I especially enjoy regency Dramione, which compliments HP and the pairing marvelously. As I see it, HP is unconsciously reminiscent of and models certain aspects of wizarding world after Victorian and Edwardian Great Britain). I just cannot help myself with stuff like this.

I imagine, there aren’t many people who find something like this riveting to think about or discuss, so thank you for indulging me. After all, people get by splendidly, without ever considering what is the formal definition(s) of AU. In almost anything people can operate exceedingly well by just going with their their gut instincts (kind like, I know what AU is, when I see it serves people well).

I’ve seen roughly three different main interpretations for the term AU, each with some internal variations and nuances. Differences are mainly on how encompassing they are, as they tend to overlap and include each other, because they are formed from common basic principles. They are just applied differently, or more accurately it goes from broader to narrower, but broad definitions also include narrower ones.  

Also, there are more possible definitions, which could be derived from same principles, if one would on look at them entirely divorced from how they are actually used anywhere in the fandom. Just by looking at the word AU totally atomized, and then forming principle from it, and applying deductive-logic.

The first principle is canon divergence. Whatever AU is, it’s clearly related to divergence and alterations from canonical events, characterizations, and universe. The differences are mostly about how widely or narrowly this is applied. Sometimes also what exactly counts as canon, or what is believably canon compliant. The second principle seem to be avoiding redundancy, though this is applied a lot more randomly, and its usage seems to based mostly on conventions and popularity of certain tropes.

By redundancy I mean, that certain more commonly used tropes and descriptors often don’t use AU, because they are well-established terms by their own right, and they obviously by their own definitions are AUs. Like mentioned 8 Year, EWE, time travel, Marriage Law, creature fics like werewolves and veelas, and many others. Sometimes all non-canon pairings intrinsically are omitted in similar manner, but sometimes they are not. Like said, this seems to be more up to fandom conventions and mimesis, rather than applying logic rigidly from first principles.

By using these foundations, one could establish quite many similar but slightly different definitions, depending how HP universe / canon is understood. People seem to go with mostly with 2-4, but logically one could use 1 or 5 as well, but it’s impractical for other reasons. First one is broadest, and fifth is narrowest, and first includes all others within it, second everything except the first, and so on.

1. All fanfics are AUs. If HP universe / canon is understood very stridently as single chain of events and singular universe, which is authored only by JKR. Every fanfic forms its own universe, which will be slightly different from JKR’s one, by adding literary anything what wasn’t already in it. Even if a fic doesn’t contradict JKR directly in a knowable way, but it still won’t be the same, because we cannot know if events or characters would’ve taken that exact particular path, or if any description or characterization would exactly match the one true timeline and universe. We can only asses whether something is more believable or likely to happen in canon, but we cannot ever ultimately confirm them, because the final reference point is JKR’s works.

As an example, saying that Harry Potter drinks a cup of tea at Burrow at midday 2.10.2015 might not be exactly contradicted by anything in canon, but the event itself isn’t canonical, and it is contradicted by saying that Harry Potter drinks a cup of tea at Grimmauld Place at midday 2.10.2015. Both are equally true and likely to happen canonically, yet neither is canonical event. They are differing alternate universes, despite being about equally compatible with canon. If canon is understood as single non-contradictory universe with single timeline with exact properties, then all fanfic is AU.

2. All fics which diverge from or directly contradict canon are AUs. In this definition antonym for AU is canon compliant, and every fic can be classified as either AU or canon compliant. This is quite common definition out there. It certainly is workable and there’s nothing wrong in using it. However, like with all definitions it’s not entirely free of problems and ambiguity, especially how it’s applicable and to what it fits exactly. Some say that adding anything to already covered timeline is AU, even if it could believably happen between gaps not covered by canon. So, in order to not be AU, it has to set before or after HP heptalogy*. You could say, that we cannot know anybody else’s inner-voice or mindscape except Harry’s, thus anything written from any other perspective is AU.

Most people can agree that certain events are canon, and that’s fairly uncomplicated (Sirius dies at the end of OftP, Bill and Fleur have their wedding at Burrow, etc), but almost everything else gets quite murky very fast. So, if this definition includes anything beyond those canonical events, like characterizations, descriptions and mechanics of how HP universe functions exactly, then it can be fairly difficult to determinate whether a fic is AU or not. As almost everything except those canonical events are easily contested and ambiguous to being with. Usually there’s multiple equally plausible interpretations for almost anything not covered explicitly or in great detail in canon (sometimes even when they are covered extensively).

Personally, I am not too found of this definition. Not because aforementioned difficulties, but because it’s too broad and encompasses too much. All non-canon pairings are AU as an example is just too large portion of fanfics, because we only use AU in context of fanfics, thus it’s better that the terminology reflects and helps us to distinguish and categorize fanfics. Multitude of fanfiction has grown so much beyond canon, and spiraled so far and wide, that terminology which is so pivotally anchored to canon is more detrimental than helpful.   

3. All fics which diverge or contradict canon in some major or significant way are AUs. This is something I see used a lot, and I believe this definition of AUs was what the person in Dramioneasks was referring to. Typically this means absence of some major characters, such as Voldemort or Dumbledore, or that major canonical events are changed, such as Wizarding Wars are have starkly different outcomes, or that golden trio never became friends, or main characters are sorted into different houses. Also, widely different characterizations (Evil Harry or Hermione, or good Voldemort) are counted as well.  

I found this to be quite solid definition, and this is my personal threshold of what I consider to be AU. Ofc, its not unproblematic either, because what exactly counts as major or significant is very open-ended. There probably is very strong inter-subjective consensus on certain matters, like everybody probably agrees that Harry, Voldemort and Hermione are major characters without any doubt. Also, they’ll probably agree that Oliver Wood is a minor character, but what about Draco, Neville or Luna? How about if or when Harry joins the Gryffindor quidditch team. Does alterations in stuff like that count as AU? Can many minor changes create a cumulative effect, in which the fic in question is so different from canon universe, that despite no major changes, it should still count as AU, because so many little things are different.

Quite a lot of characters, details and events fall into that gray zone, so often it can be quite difficult to determinate AU by this definition, because so many things fall into that gray area of what is exactly significant change and what isn’t, and from what perspective. The only way to really determinate something like significance is an inter-subjective consensus by the fandom, and that might be either uncharted or too arbitrary for some people.

4. Only fics which change canon or the established universe in some foundational or fundamental way(s) are AUs. These are fics, which are not set in a same timeline at all (at the end of the 21th century UK), such as medieval, regency, prohibition, and they might only have slight parallels to canonical events. Also if some common defining elements such as presence magic or muggles are entirely absent, or changed beyond recognition (everyone’s magical, or nobody is, or muggles are aware of wizarding world, and actively hostile towards it). No Hogwarts at all, or the entire wizarding world is modeled differently, etc.

I see this used quite a lot as well, and these tend to be automatically labeled as AUs by almost everybody. It’s quite narrow and specific, thus it’s not very problematic, except it borders of being too narrow or rare to be really useful. Personally, this is mainly what I am seeking for, when I look for AUs, but I can see that it doesn’t cover enough ground for many. This is what I am primary thinking, when I see tag AU, but I can see why including previous definition is necessary. Problems are quite similar as in previous, the similar ambiguity of what is foundational or fundamental, like in beofre. But I believe there’s way more common ground and shared understanding with this one. It’s very rare to see a fic, which would qualify as something like this, but what isn’t described or labeled as AU.  

5. Only fics which change some determined core component(s) are AUs. This is merely taking similar logic one step further, and saying that some specific element(s) is absolutely crucial and at the core of HP (like the presence of magic), and as long as a fic fulfills that condition, it isn’t AU. Nobody actually uses this definition, but I added it as more as demonstration of logic and principle, and how it can be applied further, exactly like the first definition (logically totally sound and sensible, but empirically mindless and useless).

Ofc, one could use this logic even further to either direction. Sort of logic ad absurdum, to a point in which, either every Harry Potter text out there (even those published by JKR) are actually AUs. or nothing is. Already not everybody considers everything JKR has said or published as canon, and by restricting what counts as canon one could get to a point that nothing actually written is really canon (something like real canon is what JKR intended HP to be, but failed to accomplish by her writing). Or that only one particular fic counts as AU, or that no fanfics are AUs, because by labeling them HP fics in some manner is meaningful enough to consider them just as a re-interpretation of multifaceted canon.

The first and fifth definitions are closing into the absurd territory, and I’ve not seen anybody using them. Words are more than stiff logical proposition, and there’s other considerations, which sometimes overrides internal logical consistency (reasons relating to things like aesthetic, social, and utilitarian concerns). Like the first definition would be totally unproductive and redundant. AU is always used in the context of fanfiction, in order to distinguish different fics from each other, thus a term which contains all fanfiction is tautological and useless for that purpose. Also, too narrow or specific terms are not useful either, because they pile on unnecessary accurate and too specific information, which ends up distracting people by cluttering them with overabundance of details and needless complexity (human mind is nothing if not finite after all).

*What are canonical texts of HP is can of worms I am not touching. Most agreed consensus is probably that at least HP heptalogy is canon, so for purposes of this that’s what I am sticking by. There’s some differing opinions about CC, Fantastic Beasts, her online commentary, Pottermore stuff, interviews, and QAs. I’ve only met one person who didn’t consider the whole HP heptalogy as canonical (because he was convinced that books 5-7 were written by a ghost writer, and they didn’t count). Everything else seem to be quite disputed.

[erinptah]

Super Drags review (tl;dr Show Good)

The post where I do my best to spread the Good News, that there exists a saucy gay drag-queen magical-girl animated comedy and everyone should watch it.

Okay, not everyone -- I'll give some caveats at the end -- but definitely a heck of a lot more people than Netflix has bothered to advertise it to.

Look at this! Why did nobody tell me about this??

What is Super Drags?

Fast facts:

It's a 1-season, 5-episode adult animated comedy series, released in November 2018

Here's the official page, with a free-to-view trailer

It packs more explicit, unashamed queerness into those 5 episodes than any other cartoon I can think of

The only possible competitor would be if you took the whole 5000-episode run of Steven Universe and pared it down to a supercut of Just The Gay Parts

This in spite of being produced in Brazil, which (in my broad understanding, as a total non-authority on the subject) is more oppressively, dangerously homophobic than the US

The original is in Portuguese

There is an English dub, fabulously voiced by contestants from RuPaul's Drag Race

It's wrapped in "for adults only!" warnings, not because the content is any less child-friendly than (say) your Bojacks Horsemen or your Ricks and Mortys, but because Brazilian authorities tried to get it shut down on the grounds of this much gay being Harmful For Children

It was (heartbreakingly) not renewed for a second season

Here's a promo video, in which the main characters (Portuguese, with subtitles) play Drag Race judges for Shangela, who ends up voicing Scarlet in English.

And here's a beautiful flashy music video of the big musical number! (Also Portuguese, no subtitles, but the melody and the visuals stand on their own.)

Plot and worldbuilding stuff!

The elevator pitch is "What if Charlie's Angels, but also drag queens, with superpowers, because magical-girl transformations?"

In this universe, all LGBTQ people have magical energy. The Big Bad is an evil magical-drag-queen nemesis who tries to drain our energy for her own purposes. It's like if Ursula from The Little Mermaid was a first-season Sailor Moon villain.

...sidenote, in case you were worried, the representation isn't "cis gay men and nobody else." There's a butch lesbian in the recurring cast, a genderfluid person (in that specific word!) as a one-off love interest, and all the ensemble scenes are wonderful collages of different races, body types, and gender presentations.

Our heroes also fight non-magical everyday homophobes, who get written with scathing realism.

The moment I knew the show wasn't pulling any punches was in the first episode, where a newscaster complains about being Silenced by the Law of Political Correctness, then chirps "however, we have a special guest who is thankfully above the law!"

According to the reviews I've found from Brazilian viewers, it's also pitch-perfect when it comes to local queer culture, community dynamics, slang and speech patterns, even memes. All of which flies right over my head, so here's a post (with no-context spoilers) about one viewer's favorite details.

The handful of reaction posts on Tumblr have a dramatic split between "Brazilian viewers fiercely defending the show as culturally-accurate, uplifting, and brave in a terrifying political moment" and "American viewers complaining that the show is problematic because it's a comedy about drag queens with no perfect role models and lots of sex jokes."

As the Super Drags tell their nemesis (and this is also in the first episode): "How dare you try to turn the LGBTQXYZ community against each other? We do enough of that on our own!"

In between missions, our girls work sitcom retail jobs and deal with other everyday problems. All of which are written in amazingly nuanced and thoughtful ways for a show that also features "defeating an orgy monster with a lip-sync battle."

Detailed character stuff!

Our heroes are Color Coded For Your Convenience!

The Super Drags themselves go by "she" in-uniform, and a lot of the time when out of it. Like the Sailor Starlights, only more so. I'll roll with that.

In blue: Safira Cyan, or Ralph by day, an excitable college-age kid who's built like a football player and squees like a fangirl. (She's an anime fan in the original, and for some reason all the otaku references were replaced in the dub, but you can see them in the subtitles.)

Ralph lives with her younger sister (they play video games together!) and their dad, comes out to them mid-series, and is very shippable with another young guy who starts out reciting the homophobic beliefs he was raised with but whose heart clearly isn't in it.

Safira's weapon is a classic magical-girl wand that casts protective force-fields. Which are shaped like condoms. Because of course.

In yellow: Lemon Chiffon, aka Patrick, the oldest of the group and generally the smartest/most strategic. In most cases, the other two treat her as the de facto team leader -- unless she pushes it too far.

By day she's a single guy with thick thighs and thinning hair, who has some body-image insecurities on the dating scene. And this show has Things To Say about unrealistic beauty standards within the community...not to mention, about masc guys who look down on anyone too flaming or femme because straight people disapprove.

Lemon's weapon is a fluffy boa that can be used as a whip or a lasso, especially when there's a bondage joke to be made.

In red: Scarlet Carmesim, also Donizete, the loudest and most aggressive teammate with the most cutting insults, who refuses to suppress that attitude in an attempt to appease racists. (But will give it a shot when trying not to get fired.)

Donny still lives in her religious/homophobic mom's apartment, and I'm pretty sure it's because neither of them can afford to move out. Her rock-solid sense of fierce self-confidence is the reason it doesn't bring her down.

Scarlet's weapon is a fan that she uses to throw shade. Yeah, you knew that was coming.

The Charlie to these angels is Champagne, who runs operations from a cool magitech compound and breaks the fourth wall at the end to petition for viewers' support in getting a second season.

...we let her down, folks :(

So here's a thing. The show never draws a sharp line between "people who become drag queens because it's a way they're driven to express themselves as gay men" and "people who become drag queens because they were trans women all along." That's consistent with how South American LGBT+ culture works. (Again: best of my knowledge, not personally an authority on this, etc etc.)

Many of the characters, including Champagne, never describe themselves in ways that translate to one of our sharply-defined Anglo-USian identity categories. And I'm not going to try to impose any English labels on them here.

But I can say (in contrast to Safira, Lemon, and Scarlet), Champagne never switches out of her "drag" name/voice/presentation, not even in the most candid off-duty scenes, and still has the same bustline when naked in the tub. Make of that what you will.

You Should Watch This Show

If you have a Netflix subscription, watch Super Drags!

If you ever do a Netflix free trial month in the future, make a note to yourself to watch Super Drags!

It's one of their original productions, so there's no risk of missing your chance because the license expired. But it's absolutely not getting the promotion it deserves. Which means potentially interested viewers won't find it, which means Netflix will think there's no interest, which means they'll keep not promoting it...etc etc etc.

No idea if there's any chance of getting it un-canceled, but maybe we can at least convince them to release it on DVD.

And the sheer gutsiness it took for a group of Brazilian creators to produce this show in the first place -- that deserves to be rewarded with your attention.

In spite of various anti-discrimination laws that sound good on paper, the country has serious problems with homophobia, transphobia, and anti-LGBT violence (warning, article has a violent image which is only partly blurred).

Maybe the creators could've gotten a second season if they made this one softer, less sexually-explicit, more restrained...but honestly? I bet that wouldn't have helped.

Consider Danger & Eggs, an Amazon original cartoon. It was made in the US, thoroughly child-friendly, and restricts its LGBT+ representation to things like "characters go to a Pride celebration...where nobody ever names or describes the quality they're proud of."

And it didn't get renewed past the first season either.

(Note: it had a trans woman showrunner and a queer-heavy creative staff, so I blame all that restraint on executive meddling, not the creators themselves. The showrunner even liked the tweet of my review that complains about it.)

So there's something very satisfying about how Super Drags went all-out, balls-to-the-wall (sometimes literally), all the rep explicit and unapologetic, packing every 25-minute episode with all kinds of queer content that would be censored or muted elsewhere -- but here it's exaggerated and celebrated and just keeps coming.

(...as do jokes like that, and I'm not sorry.)

Okay, there are a few legitimate reasons to not watch this show

Some caveats.

None of these things are Objectively Bad Problems that the show itself should be shamed for...but maybe they're genuinely not your cup of tea.

It does have actual Adult Content beyond "the existence of gay people." This show loves to swing barely-clothed cartoon genitalia in your face. There is, as mentioned, an orgy monster. If that kind of humor is going to bother you too much to appreciate the rest of the show, give it a pass.

I wasn't kidding about how realistic the homophobes are. Opening of the first episode has a guy trying to murder a busload of people while shouting slurs at them. If that level of hatred on-screen is gonna crush your soul, even in a show about sparkly queens flying to the rescue with dick-shaped magical weapons, don't push yourself.

Any fiction with this much crossdressing and gender-transgressing is going to hit some trans viewers in a bad way. Because trans people are such a broad group, with so many different experiences, that Every Possible Trope Involved pushes somebody's buttons. (See also: "some trans readers complain about a storyline that turns out to be drawn from a trans writer's actual life experience".) If this show goes does gender things that turn out to be personally distressing for you...or even just distressing for this specific time in your life...don't feel obligated to keep watching.

It has aggressively-sassy queer characters making jokes and calling each other things that are affectionate in-context, but would not be okay coming from straight/cis people. If you can't wrap your head around that, go watch something else.

Other Than That, Go Watch This Show

For all its big heart, big ambitions, and big gay energy, Super Drags is tiny enough that I've binged the whole show 2 times in the past 2 weeks. Thankfully, it's highly re-watchable -- lots of fun background gags and subtle foreshadowing that you don't catch on the first round.

(Pausing one last time to appreciate that a show with elements like "the high-tech robot assistant is called D.I.L.D.O." can be subtle at all, let alone be this good at it.)

I've also paged through all the fanart on Tumblr and Deviantart, looked up the single fanfic on the AO3, and started brainstorming plans to request it in Yuletide next year. Someone, please, come join me in (the English-language side of) the itty-bitty fandom for this ridiculous, glittery, over-the-top, fabulous series.

[absolxguardian]

My Italy Vacation Photos Recreated in Assassin’s Creed

I’m putting them under the cut since they’re fairly large. I tried my best. A lot of times it’s not 1:1 because proportions were played with due to memory limitations. Oftentimes the piazzas certain monuments are located in aren’t large enough for me to get the same distance from the camera in the game as I did in real life. Also, the lack of a photo mode kept kicking me in the ass. Still, I’d like to think they returned out pretty well. I hope it captures the feeling I had when I was there in person, a feeling of familiarity.

FLORENCE 

The Basilica of San Lorenzo, home of the Medici crypt. The street the basilica faces in-game is much thinner than it is in real modern life.

A view of the river Arno and the Ponte Vecchio. In the time of the game, houses bordered the street parallel to the river on this side. Ezio is actually standing in someone’s yard. The bridge itself had too much foot traffic for me to take a photo crossing it.

The Mercato Vecchio, Florence’s market. The covered area still acts as a market place today for street vendors catering to tourists.

The Duomo/Basilica di Santa Maria del Fiore. The Baptistery near the Duomo is missing in the game due to technical limitations. The lack of detail on the facade is a combination of technical limitations and that some parts of the decoration had yet to be added.

Palazzo Medici. While the game sizes the palace down, a lot of interior decorations were only added in the preceding decades as the Medici increased in power.

The Palazzo della Signoria. While the shrunk down piazza was one factor that limited my ability to recreate the photos, the gallows that executed the Auditorie family prevented me from standing in the correct position. And that isn’t just something left in the game world from a story event, but historical accuracy. Public executions were held in that square, standard for the time, but a fact I had forgotten and my tour guide didn’t mention.

The Loggia dei Lanzi. In Ezio’s time, it was a public meeting area. With the rise of the Medici dukes, it became an open-air museum of statues. The originals of those (most of) same statues remain there today.

MONTERIGGIONI

Oh yeah, Monteriggioni is a real town, if you were just as surprised as I was when you found out.

Monteriggioni sits at the top of a hill, one that’s barely replicated in-game.

For safety reasons, large sections of the walls of Monteriggioni were removed and the overall height of the walls were lowered. They are still very impressive in person.

Tourists can walk on a small section of the wall. For some reason, walking on metal slats with gaps in them is more terrifying than centuries-old stone.

Modern Monteriggioni feels a lot more open than it’s depicted in the game, even in the modern parts of Brotherhood. Speaking of which, there’s no equivalent to the Auditore Villa, historically or in modern times. And while in the game, Monteriggioni is focused around a main street with all the shops for gameplay reasons, the real center of the town is this piazza. I figured out the game equivalent based on the location of the church.

 Attached to the church is a very nice small museum containing replicas of medieval weapons and armor for you to attempt to wear and wield. There are also some dioramas of medieval warfare. And since the town knows that a lot of Assassin’s Creed fans are going to be visiting the city, a good third of the merchandise in the museum gift shop is Assassin’s Creed merch.

There’s also this. Because while the Assassin aesthetic is copyrighted, Templars are not.

SAN GIMIGNANO

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to visit San Gimignano myself and take pictures. I had to use the photos taken by my extended family members.

San Gimignano’s very iconic city skyline. Except for the highways, the rolling hills and valleys of Tuscany and the Romagna in the game remain accurate to the real world. Riding from the Rome airport to Rome on my first day. This was the first time I felt a sense of Deja vu thanks to Assassin’s Creed.

The church Santa Maria Assunta.

Some of San Gimignano’s famous towers. Since I didn’t take the photo myself, I have no idea which specific towers these are supposed to me. I just ran around the city in the game until I could see a similar amount and height of towers.

L'AQUILA

Yes, L’Aquila isn’t a town depicted in Assassin’s Creed, but it should have been. Just look at the name! If AC lore doesn’t have Assassins using it as a base in its very early days, I would be very surprised.

The Basilica Santa Maria di Collemaggio. Why are my photos of it included here? Well according to my relatives who live in L'Aquila, this church was actually built by Templars (hence the red and white facade). At least in English, I can’t find anything online supporting that, so I have to assume it’s just local folklore. Said folklore also says that the Holy Grail is buried under it. In the ACverse, there has to be a Piece of Eden under the church. With the earthquake in 2009 damaging the building and several companies helping to fund the restoration efforts, it’s now my headcanon that Abestergo was one of them and they grabbed the piece.

VENICE

Again, I had to use my extended family’s photos for this. I was only able to use a few of the ones they gave me, simply because neither I nor reverse google image search could even figure out what the rest were, and checking several of the monuments in the game gave me nothing.

The Doge’s Palace, the Basilica di San Marco, and the Campile San Marco. Despite not being there myself, from trying to recreate the pictures, I got the feeling that the piazza is much bigger in real life. And just like with the Signoria, the gallows got in my way as well.

The Ponte di Rialto. Before construction began in 1588, the bridge was made of wood. Today you can see it in its full stone glory.

ROME

The Colosseum. For game design purposes, the Colosseum is circular while the real Colosseum is ovular. The drastic difference in the inside of the arena is due to the fact that archaeological work to uncover the lower levels is currently ongoing.

The area around the colosseum, the forum, is quite different from how it was in 1500. That’s because Rome is built on Rome, and while it was a prime area for grazing in the renaissance, most the classical architecture remained buried under the ground. Archaeological work has drastically changed the elevations of the forum. The last photo isn’t even of the same place, strictly speaking. It’s just a random place in the countryside to demonstrate what was under Ezio’s feet.

It was taking these photos of the Pantheon that inspired me to start this photo project. The obelisk on the fountain was a later edition. Perspective is extra wonky for this one because of my own carelessness. Which I’ve only just realized typing this out as I remembered that the obelisk was on top of a fountain.

“Apparently, most gods had this building constructed in their honour. I, however, recommend worshipping at the modern-day espresso bars surrounding it.”

The piazza around the pantheon didn’t actually seem to have much in the way of espresso. There was a sign for a McDonald's directly across from the pantheon, and that was some cool contrast.

The Pantheon is still an active basilica, and as such, I wasn’t allowed to take photos of the inside.

Ponte Sant’Angelo. Unfortunately, I don’t have any other photos of Castel Sant’Angello because I hadn’t had the idea for this project yet. My dad took this photo for me because I’ve never been able to cross this damn bridge in Brotherhood because of all the guards (I’ve fully beaten the game now, so I just killed them to get the screenshot, but when I needed to get to the Castello I couldn’t).

This was the only photo I was able to recreate from the Vatican, and even then it’s very rough. That’s because most of the Papal complex, museum, and apartments (now Vatican City) was built under later Popes.

So instead have pictures of things I saw in the Vatican that look like Apples of Eden

(The last one is a modern art installation that the artist has refused to explain. It also spins around. Several versions of it exist around the world)

And one last thing is a painting I saw in my hotel in Rome that looks like Maysaf. The label was in Italian and reverse google image search can’t find it, so I can’t tell you what it really is or give you a better scan

[neopronouns]

hi! i was just wondering if you could suggest a better category name for my gender? i identify as truscum, but i feel like the "scum" part is completely wrong, since scientifically proven facts arent really scum. i dont want to basically go around saying im scum, but i cant find a better title for the life of me! i was thinking maybe something that surrounded "correct" or "not ignoring and denying obvious evidence." thanks! uwu

awwwww, i can totally help you out nonnie!! although, i think you’re headed in the wrong direction with this new label.

considering that truscum are scientifically inaccurate about most things*, i’d go with something more akin to...hmmmmm... how about ‘parading disproven ideas around as facts and ignoring when you’re proven wrong’, ‘disregarding what both medical professionals and leading trans rights groups say is fact’, and ‘harassing people who don’t fit your mold of transness’.

well, ‘scum’ DOES fit the bill pretty well, but if you want an alternative, might i suggest ‘asshole’, ‘science denier’, or ‘historically inept’? those sound pretty accurate to me!!

*sources for some shit y’all get wrong or ignore under the cut uwu!!

first off, here is a good explanation of how one can have dysphoria and not even realize it. a person could believe they simply are experiencing symptoms of depression and are nondysphoric, but they’re actually dysphoric and not able to recognize it due to how it’s often insisted that dysphoria is simply bodily distress. someone who says they’re nondysphoric could very well BE dysphoric, and you wouldn’t know, and you’d drive them out of a community that you believe they need.

there is no definitive difference between male and female brains currently recognized (additionally, a source i see many truscum throw around had a sample size of roughly 80-90 people. sources with sample sizes as large as 2500 have disproved that one).

there aren’t only two sexes and, in fact, our bodies are often made up of ‘patchworks’ of sex characteristics, meaning that almost nobody experiences their sex the same as someone else, which can affect gender identity.

peruse through this wikipedia page of historical third-gender identities - this is a indicator of how humans have never experienced gender as simply male and female, as we’ve always found words for those who fit into both or neither.

this is a very good explanation as to why people coin xenogenders and other labels that seem nonsensical.

this page not only has some wonderfully informative and helpful information (for both cis and trans people alike), but it sums up the ‘tucute’ point of view (cough the correct view cough) very well: “Not all transgender people have gender dysphoria. On its own, being transgender is not considered a medical condition. Many transgender people do not experience serious anxiety or stress associated with the difference between their gender identity and their gender of birth, and so may not have gender dysphoria.”

here is a lovely video with lots of informational sources in the description that i definitely recommend you read! they’re mostly about nonbinary genders. the video also has a wonderful quote somewhere near the end that i feel sums up my feelings very well: “...it doesn’t hurt you or inconvenience you in any way to respect someone else’s self-identification."

sex and gender are social constructs!

more sources on this post!

this lists some of the many reasons why medicalization of transness is a horrible thing for trans people, and how societal treatment is far more distressing to trans people than their actual trans identity

yet another article about how societal pressure causes dysphoria rather than a person’s transness itself

demedicalizing transness does not demedicalize dysphoria, because dysphoria is a diagnosable mental disorder and being transgender is simply an identity.

“Apparently, distress and impairment are the two essential characteristics of a mental disorder, and they found transgender people can experience some distress but not because they are transgender, but because of social rejection and violence.”

“Not all transgender people suffer from gender dysphoria and that distinction is important to keep in mind. Gender dysphoria and/or coming out as transgender can occur at any age.”

this is a great article about how the term ‘transtrender’ is harmful and how policing the gender identities of those you don’t think are really trans is transphobic

gnc trans people face more discrimination than gender conforming trans people

annnnnnd that’s only a few! you see, if you take the time to listen to others’ experiences, search through some scholarly articles, and otherwise just look through lgbt+ history, you’ll find that your pov only serves to harm our community and the young trans people who need the community to live and thrive.