#nightmare society

[louisdotmp3]

i can tell we're not built to work in the summer because we're all wandering around aimlessly for part of the day. my coworker came downstairs and was literally drawn outside by the sun saying i just have to go see what if feels like for a minute....

[minimal23]

TL; DR: People who rent should VERY MUCH have agency over their own spaces. Everyone is so desperate for a living space now that keeping shit magnolia and neutral and bland to 'appeal to all tastes' literally makes no difference. Decoration can be changed.

As long as you're not making a space NSFW (and therefore also not safe for anyone's kids who may have to live there after you) or unsanitary, you should be able to decorate or improve your space without forfeiting your deposit.

My first flat, we had a garden with a totally rotted patio. My then-partner was a landscaper, so we offered to remove and replace it at no cost so that we could have family members with small kids over. Our landlord lived in "Africa" (thanks estate agents...) and the managing company would only hear from him infrequently, and when they finally did...? No. Not allowed. Which was RIDICULOUS as we were literally looking to improve his investment FOR HIM while paying money TO HIM.

Context ramble below.

Having rented for 10+ years and then moved back to my mother's, I am now staring down the barrell of owning (and thus decorating) my own house. (It's only a tiny flex - I inherited when my dad died, so technically, the bank of dad is funding my purchase. It feels real weird.)

But wait! Surely, I redecorated my tiny box room at my mother's???

No.

My mother hasn't redecorated since buying this house 9 years ago.

I have been living in a room that is pastel blue, decorated with cartoon trains, cars, and castles (all also various shades of blue) which the previous owners obviously decorated for their young son.

I am also on my old, single bed that I last slept on a good 15-20 years ago. And surrounded by all of my mums paperwork and filing cabinets.

Whilst I am SUPER EXCITED to move out (again. At the age of 36.) I am also TERRIFIED - I've not had agency over my own living space since I was a teen.

I'm sorry, but does the thought of renting your living space from someone else for the rest of your life not fill you with unbridled rage?

I'm an adult, but I can't decide which color my walls are gonna be? I can't hang anything without fear of it leaving minor damage that I will later be charged hundreds of dollars for by someone who doesn't even live there?

That's bullshit, people deserve more agency than that!

[zip-sketchbook]

New Colors!

[satandoesntwannabehere]

erm hallo 👋👋

have some doodlez !!

[knifearo]

being aromantic is like. hey btw you're going to live a life that is the culmination of most of society's worst nightmares. sorry lol ✌️ but then you turn around and take a really good hard look at it and it turns out that living in that nightmare is fucking awesome and you get to wake up every day and take that fear that other people have and laugh and hold it close until it's a great joy for you instead. and being happy is a radical act that you define instead of someone else. and you're sexy as fuck that's just a fact of life i don't make the rules on that one

[butchwink]

they should have five testosterone classes for each gender and only fund women who juice

My only sport opinion is that men with high testosterone should be banned from men's sports.

And the definition of high should exclude most men.

I wanna see only the most frail and impotent femboys competing against eachother. Boys who can barely support their own weight.

[chloelovesu]

[fumifooms]

I don’t like minimizing the importance and gravity of Laios and Toshiro’s fight into just being a childish squabble, even if to a degree it is framed that way, because to both of them it has a lot of personal significance and emotional weight and runs very deep to their characters… The fight isn’t nothing it’s a LOT, they made up but it’s not something easy to express and to get over for either of them which makes it all the more meaningful! I’m on both sides but there very much are sides, there’s no "they’re both having a ball, Toshiro and Laios hand in hand yay" side to the fight, that comes after

The fight with Toshiro WAS very scary to Laios, almost existentially so, but it’s moreso the "I thought I’d made a friend!!" bit and my god. My god actually

Like it’s not "just" about oh his friend liking him less than he thought, THAT IS SO MUCH. It’s a bond he thought he had being a lie it’s all the time and moments spent together either being a lie from his perspective or marred now looking back. It’s not only being upset at Toshiro for lying but upset at himself that he’s so easy to fool, it’s being upset that there’s something so wrong with you that you can’t even tell if your "close buddy" even actually likes you or not, it’s like. Holding my head. He can’t trust his own vision of events that happened do you see. There’s always this film of distrust that it could be a lie that should be there when he interacts with people there’s always this sense of cloak and dagger to expect backstabs out of nowhere because you CAN’T see it coming you CAN’T you CAN’T there’s something about you which makes it impossible so you CAN’T-

He’s so scared of not being able to read people. He knows it’s a weak spot he has, he’s always known. All of these bits are centered around social expectations and betrayals, the assumption that he doesn’t belong either in society or with other humans.

And Laios’ level of awareness is actually sort of complex to analyze, but it’s there, there’s how out of him and Falin he was the one sensitive to the ~aura of hatred~ he felt from the townspeople, there’s of course his nightmares whispering to him about the mocking looks, and how yeah actually he realizes that his gold stripper coworker was taking advantage of him. There’s of course the Winged Lion speech about his trauma and how he fundamentally mistrusts/dislikes humans to some deep seated degree, this distrust that he still keeps under control always. There’s how pre-canon he often wanted to suggest eating monsters but never worked up the courage to bring it up with the others. There’s how he gets across as stoic when he isn’t being enthusiastic…… We don’t know how aware and wary he is exactly in the moment but we do know he has some anxiety around social stuff, and looking back he does notice and aughh augh, the sense you have to hide yourself to not get hurt and be on your guard and shit and.

When you don’t know what to look out for and when to look out for it, the general ‘common sense’ of not always trusting people or noticing when someone’s messing with you becomes hypervigilance in social settings

"Man they really know what you hate huh". Being socially unaware literally plagues him, he knows, he knows it so well.

It’s so quick that it’s almost hard to digest how literal and blatant Laios summoning his monster to crush all the people who’ve hurt him is. His literal go-to coping mechanism for comfort in his literal monster-induced emotionally intense nightmares, saving him by taking away the upsetting element (the humans)

"Monsters are his coping fantasy, where they can whisk him away from humanity, all the hurt it’s caused him and its arbitrary rules" with the subtlety of a brick. Monsters are his comfort safe zone "because they kill humans" yes but no it’s because he pits them as the guardians against humans who to him are in the role of the agressors. To him they represent freedom from the shackles of what it means to be part of humanity, a fundamentally social species

[gay-jesus-probably]

Okay so I have a lot of thoughts about the whole thing of the Gerudo being a race of entirely women, with the only exception being one man born every hundred years, and that man automatically being their king. Now this worldbuilding comes from Ocarina of Time, and there's obviously a metric fuckton of unfortunate implications there, because it was 1998. And it seems that Tears of the Kingdom is sticking with the lore of Gerudo men being extremely rare and becoming the King of their people, which once again has a metric fuckton of unfortunate implications because it's 2023 and Nintendo has somehow gotten even worse about this shit.

But let's set aside the whole... everything, and look at this from just the in-universe perspective. How does it work? I mean, it's pretty clear that there is no overlap between the kings; the old ones are normally long gone by the time a new one is born, but the Gerudo manage to take care of themselves during the hangtime. So they must have an established system of government and leadership that doesn't involve a king, and somehow that system is set up in a way that does a smooth transfer of power once a new king is born and old enough to take the throne. But why bother always declaring a random guy to be your King when you already have a perfectly functional system in place?

I mean again, the whole thing has a lot of sexist implications, but we're not looking at this from a real world context, we're examining it in-universe. And we could just go the lazy route and say that their king is in charge just because he's the only man, but I don't like that. I mean come on, the Gerudo are a race of entirely women, and most of their outside problems come from Hylian men being creepy about it. They are entirely a matriarchy; there is literally no reason for their culture to have an inherent respect for men, even if the man in question is one of them. And they're desert people; they live in an extremely harsh and dangerous landscape, if they don't have their shit together, they will die. By sheer necessity, their culture needs to put a lot of value in being practical, because if they're stupid about things, people die. They really can't afford to have a shitty leader take over, and just letting some guy take the wheel doesn't really fit with the way their culture must otherwise work.

So again, why the fuck do they bother having a King?

I think it's mainly just a ceremonial position. Yes, if the guy is a good leader he'll be in charge, but if he isn't good at being a King or isn't interested in the job... fuck it, they've already got a functional government system that's been leading their people the whole time, why fix what isn't broken? The title of Gerudo King isn't about leadership or power. I think it's more about belonging. Because the Gerudo are a culture where every single one of them can be defined in the same way... and there is exactly one exception once a century. Men are considered to be inherently outsiders at the best of times, and more often they're enemies. A man born into this culture is a natural outsider; he is completely unique, and that means he doesn't really fit into his community. And well... when someone is fundamentally different from the rest of their community, they tend to be ostracized.

So I think that's why the position of Gerudo King exists. It isn't about them needing or even wanting a man to lead them. The title of King doesn't need to involve any leadership at all. It's about giving the man born every century a place in their society. It's a way of saying yes, you are one of us, you are a Gerudo, you belong here, you are wanted and you are loved.

The Gerudo know that every hundred years, one of their children will be fundamentally different from all of his peers. And so their society is built to ensure that a child who is completely different from them will still be loved and accepted. He will always have a place in their society. He doesn't need to earn their love, he has it just for existing. These are his people.

The title of Gerudo King isn't an inherent position of authority. It's a promise of acceptance.

[piraytoro]

I also think these discussions make the mistake of taking 'anti-natalist' arguments at face value and ascribing to them their stated function rather than their actual function. I don't think that forced sterilization is actually any more about preventing the potential existence of a child than anti-abortion sentiment is about protecting it; it's about controlling the bodies of marginalized people—largely women—with the specific intent of furthering the infantilizing idea that they can't be trusted with the care of their own children; this is also the function of the welfare policies mentioned above. The system of child removal is a force of assimilation that also ultimately powers the prison industrial complex and other forms of slavery. Cutting these kids off from their communities both accustoms them to state control and shows that people like them have no recourse against the system.

I don't think eradication is really the end goal because eradication undermines the functions of the system as it exists and removes the source of labor. The incredibly loud minority who actually call for complete eradication are necessary even if that end goal is undesirable because. well. they're a minority. They don’t really have the power to push through the extremist ideal. The existence of these extremists is greatly beneficial to those for whom the current status quo is desirable and who need things to stay as-is: both because their rhetoric increases the number of people who are ambivalent or hateful toward disadvantaged groups and because they make this quieter majority seem reasonable and even generous in comparison, allowing them to push the narrative of unfitness as a gesture of apparent benevolence.

Again, the system wants marginalized kids removed from their communities. And so, the narrative must be upkept that marginalized people should not be allowed to have children, because they WILL have children, and then the people who benefit from this system can argue that, since these people are unequipped to and therefore shouldn't have children, it is in the best interest of the child to take that child away. They want marginalized people to have children because the subjugated class is necessary for the survival of the system that profits off their labor—they just want you to think they don't want those kids to exist. Because, if they can get you to agree that those kids shouldn't exist, then you've already dehumanized them and then they’ve won. Which is how the infantilization of people of color leads to their unchilding—another thing that seems 'contradictory' until you look into the mechanisms behind it.

If the system was really after eradication, marginalized groups wouldn't be disproportionately affected and targeted by abortion laws. Under capitalism, it's not ultimately about wanting to get rid of certain bodies; it's about wanting to be able to control them and their output, both in terms of children and in terms of labor (the former just to assure the latter). If the average white middle/upper-class person thinks marginalized people are a burden on society, no amount of forced or underpaid labor will seem unjust. And this forced and underpaid labor is what allows not only billionaires but also the middle/upper classes to live in the manner to which they have become accustomed. And everyone knows it! Everything I’ve just described is what allows them to know this and yet not see it as wrong, so that they’re never moved to do anything about it. They’ve been fooled (and incentivized) into seeing a meritocracy, and ultimately a just world, where none exists. This process underpins the entire system. It’s always been there, by design.

hiii caden, any chance you could simplify/reword this post? as written it is rather difficult for me to parse. <3

hiya, sorry, stuck this in drafts and forgot it was in there 🙈 let me try to rephrase

there's a common issue i see (not just on here) where people try to make blanket statements about how motherhood / parenthood / children are valued socially, but they're thinking only in terms of individual attitudes and misunderstanding why the relevant politics result in statements that might seem contradictory at first. so for example, someone observes that there is, broadly, pressure to have and raise one's biological children. however, someone else points out that this logic doesn't apply to all people equally: in particular, racialised people and poor people are actively discouraged from having children, including by overtly eugenic means like forcible sterilisation (this still happens today!) and welfare policies.

what i was saying in the post was that there is not actually a contradiction between these two positions, despite one appearing 'pro' natalist and one appearing 'anti'. the trick is that the politics that drives both positions (the state's efforts to manage and exploit its population; a politics of human beings as biological resources; hence, what foucault termed 'biopolitics') demands not just the reproduction of a labour force and military reserve, but also the designation of subaltern populations who are considered as a biological threat to the nation / race / national future, and who must therefore be discouraged from reproducing and ultimately eradicated. the politics that highly values one population (eg, the white / 'native born' / able bodied / straight / cis couple and their biological children) is the same politics that inherently also devalues all others (indeed, the attributes that are valued are defined in part through the process of comparison/contrast; these are political designations in the first place).

it's just a common frustration of mine that people try to discuss this as a matter of personal attitudes and are therefore unable to connect natalist and eugenic policies to the biopolitical logics that drive them. it leads to really pointless conversations where people just kind of throw up their hands and act like these attitudes are contradictory or internally inconsistent; they're not. the consistency is not in a uniformly 'pro' or 'anti' position wrt childbearing; it's in the logic that demands and prizes certain bodies and populations, and scapegoats and attempts to eradicate others.

[mortallypurpleshark]

I want to go home, but it’s not a place—it’s a feeling of knowing it’s over, and that you are safe. It’s no longer waiting for hope; it’s knowing that you are at peace. It’s no longer cupping the future in your palms, watching it fall through the gaps between your fingers. It’s knowing that you’ve reached the end of the tunnel, enveloped by light, clean, and free.

[regheart]

there's something i find particularly annoying in this fandom and it's the way purebloods are written as highly sophisticated extremely rich and straight up a rip off of regency period novels

i understand the choice of this specific portrayal, i can see it as an approximation to historical drama, where the social restrictions are compelling and are relevant to the story, and a good writer can make any concept believable and good

HOWEVER as much as the worldbuilding on wizarding costumes (and a lot of other things) is extremely inconsistent and gets progressively worse towards the later three books, the implications that i see don't point towards this version of a sophisticated performatic elite who interacts only with itself

while i tend to see the blood status in the harry potter universe as a distinction of class and not at all a distinction of race, i don't think the difference is, in practice, as marked as it is in real world contexts, mostly because of how numerically small and insulated the wizarding community is

this post is part of my personal vendetta against purebloods as charming aristocrats & what appears to be the necessity of writing each and all of them as so very well spoken and politically savvy and never-caught-dead-speaking-to-a-half-blood

for once, the sacred twenty-eight is extra canon information and is disputed IN UNIVERSE, because it was anonymously published and received backlash for the inclusion (weasley, ollivander) and exclusion (crabbe, goyle, potter) of certain names

the malfoys are the only extremely rich family we see in canon. extra canon information tells us they made money before the statute of secrecy by trading with muggles

compare that to the potters who are also very rich (there's no scale to tell us who is the richer family), but made most of their money from the invention of sleakezy in the 20th century

the blacks are also implied to be wealthy: sirius manages to live off his inheritance after buying harry an expensive broom, and he says his grandfather likely paid for an order of merlin

there's a lot to be said about the blacks (e.g. they should have at least a couple more properties other than grimmauld place), but the big picture and the similarity with the gaunts (not about the incest, stop fixating on that) suggest they were a family in decadence by the time sirius was growing up

i believe that the implication is that neither of them had a proper job, which creates a similarity with gentry, but gentry lived off rentals and while it is possible they had a country state i don't think grimmauld place was making a lot of money

lucius malfoy also didn't work and spent a portion of his time being a school counselor (and obviously not being paid for it, as it was a way to exercise his political power over the main learning institution in his community)

it's also extra canon that the nott family had equal footing with the malfoys, so we can assume that crabbe, goyle, parkinson and bulstrode were slightly beneath them, either in social standing or money, despite the later two being part of the sacred twenty-eight (or it could appear to be so because pansy and milicent are girls)

the weasleys are obviously the main example of a poor sacred twenty-eight family, as were the gaunts

the crouch family was most like rich (they could afford a house elf), but it's likely that most of that money came from mr. crouch having a high level ministry job. his family and connections were probably an advantage to getting the job, but it's possible he wouldn't be able to maintain the lifestyle without work

longbottom, prewett and macmillan are families that appear to be very traditional, but not remarkably wealthy

other working members of the sacred twenty-eight are: horace slughorn (school teacher, but it can be argued that teaching hogwarts is a prestigious position), garrick ollivander (wand maker and shop owner, but, again, the only wand maker, which holds a certain prestige in itself), mr. burke (shop owner), arthur weasley (ministry employee), frank longbottom and kingsley shacklebolt (both aurors). amycus and alecto carrow are also temporary hogwarts teachers

the blacks married out of the sacred twenty-eight many times (max, gamp, crabbe, potter)

all of these people and every single muggleborn goes to the same school, buys magical supplies at the same place, drinks from the same pubs, etc. that alone should serve as evidence that there aren't many exclusive pureblood hangouts around

the only place that seems to attract the malfoys (arguably the richest and most important pureblood family in the 90s) and not most other people, is the knockturn alley, which is hardly a high brow sophisticated spot

except for malfoy and flint, no slytherin quidditch player during the 90s is in the sacred twenty-eight, so that's hardly a criterion for making it into the team

mulciber is not a sacred twenty-eight name, they could very well be half-bloods

tom riddle and severus snape were half-blood students who formed ties with purebloods while in school and held blood supremacist views, assimilation to a certain level was possible

[queen0fm0nsterz]

So, (sits down at the table) (lights up cigarette) are we all ready to discuss how Six's lack of gender conformity in the beginning of the franchise can be read not only as an expression of her nonbinary identity but also an inherent refusal of what their assigned gender requires of her, which is why they are put in contrapposition with the Lady, whose name and role is inherently tied to her identity as a woman, and by refusing to abide to that standard Six challenges not only the structure of the Maw but also the basic concept on which the Lady based her entire life and identity on

[superbat-lmao]

Jason Todd gets blown up, resurrected, and after regaining his skills and control from Talia, goes back to Gotham and goes back to school. He leaves vigilantism entirely.

He’s taking literature and philosophy classes and just about anything to do with writing.

He makes friends, he’s on his way to normalcy.

And then he sees an opening for an opinion writer for the school newspaper.

Clark Kent gets sent the same newspaper article to read in both his civilian and superhero personas. If that’s not concerning, he doesn’t know what it.

It’s an opinion article on the state of vigilantism and hero work by a student in the next town over. And it’s a problem.

Because it’s good, too good. It feels like someone had sat in the watchtower during those first few months where everyone had been trying to work out how to function with so many different stances on morality and ethics. Should any of them really be doing this? What were the lines they couldn’t cross? If we’re working outside the law, what moral credibility do we have otherwise to justify our actions?

And sure, Clark’s written more than a few pieces criticizing Superman, but there’s a point to that. He has his own reasons. This kid, well, Clark isn’t sure of their reasons exactly. Because his gut reaction is thinking this kid is just making heroes and vigilantes look bad.

And there’s a reason that all of his and Bruce’s debates on ethics happen behind closed doors. Because to be self critical is to try and prevent hubris, but to allow public criticism at this level is to lose the faith of the public.

So Clark is torn. Because if he responds, he gives credibility to what could remain a largely unknown article. And if he doesn’t, he can’t control the reaction of other people start responding to it.

He’ll have to talk to Bruce.

[zip-sketchbook]

Demons and the fear of fire ∆. Acryl on Bristol-Karton - 30x21 cm.

[ofswordsandpens]

"so you think that a society that functions around a child military instead of the entire city of literal adults might be indicative that their attitudes and ideals are a bit off ? and that by moving to New Rome Percy is not actually escaping his life as a demigod but instead is just giving himself a whole new set of problems to deal with? "