#not that i don't think these differences are worth talking about it's just a lot of the conversation seems to be really loaded

[gingersnapwolves]

so I had some thoughts on the burnout post but didn't want to hijack it so this is just my own rambling attempt to process the feelings I've been struggling with for two days which obviously not everyone wants to read, thus my putting a read more

I've been crying off and on for the past couple days which is really no surprise, and I've been trying to avoid political news and political posts. In fact, after this I plan to hide the political tags for a while, heavily curate my Reddit experience, and then do I don't even know what with all my new free time

because I don't talk about it a lot here, this is my fandom space, my casual space, and I'll sometimes post about personal stuff but almost never politics, but I am actually very political. 'member of multiple political mailing lists, have marched in many protests, write postcards to swing state voters' political. and I want to talk a little about why this defeat feels different. because this crushed me in a way that 2016 did not.

the thing is. over the past few days I've seen a lot of people talking about how if you didn't realize Trump was going to win, you live in a bubble. and I think to a certain extent that's true. we all have our little echo chambers. but for me, at least, and a lot of the people I know, it wasn't just that. it was this core certainty that Trump would not win, could not win, because surely our country wasn't like that. surely our fellow Americans were not like that. it wasn't about competency or about policy. it was about basic human decency. and that's what I feel like we lost. not an election. but any remaining belief we had that people are basically good.

because it seems they're not. at least not around here. the cold hard fact at the end of the day is that the majority of our country looked at a senile, racist, fascist criminal grifter [eta: how could I forget rapist in that description?] and either actively wanted him to hold the highest office in the land, or just didn't care whether or not he did. they know exactly what he's going to do, and they're fine with it. and that hurts so much that it is nearly unbearable.

how do you move on from that? how do you cope with the fact that there's something so deeply rotten at the core of your fellow man? how do you deal with that? how do you fight back?

I am full of so much grief that I literally don't know where to put it.

so I don't want to fight anymore. I'm tired. I'm nauseated. I'm angry. But most of all, I'm sad. I can't do it right now. and I think that's probably okay. I think in six weeks or six months I'll feel differently. but right now I just can't do it. and I think the most important thing really can be to take a step back and focus on something else. because I know these feelings are not productive. I know that there are still good people out there and there are still things worth fighting for. but right now, all I feel is this aching chasm where my faith in humanity used to be.

so I'm unplugging - not from fandom or tumblr, but from politics and news - for at least a little while. sometimes that's the most important thing to do if you want to still be able to get out of bed in the morning.

[ot3]

pretty long meandering post here just talking through some thoughts about the late game arizona progressive endorsement for kamala

i find it really fascinatingly racist the way certain people took the letter from local arab/muslim leaders in arizona endorsing kamala's campaign and decided that mean they now had 'palestinians want you to vote for kamala' as a hammer they could deploy in a world full of nails. to be clear i don't think this endorsement was meaningless at all and the opinions of these people are certainly worth considering. especially for swing state voters, who were the target audience here.

but i saw people responding to fucking bisan's on-the-ground video of people in gaza saying the election results made no difference to them with sentiment along the lines of 'don't believe this video,, its disinformation, palestinians want you to vote for harris' and i can only assume it's because none of them actually read the letter. they just saw headlines like this one and decided that absolved them of any need to own their own decisionmaking at this time

now clearly the palestinian people are not a monolith, and palestinians currently living in gaza and suffering through a genocide vs those living in the US in a swing state are going to have different priorities vis a vis this election. i don't think acknowledging that in any way diminishes the validity of either group's opinion, and it's absolutely not my place to critique the way these various communities are choosing to respond to kamala's stance on israel. so it really disgusts me to watch mainly white liberals act like this specific group of people discussing the specific political context they currently exist in represents the complete and collective will of the palestinian people, just because doing so happens to support their political goals. i don't know man i think the second you start talking about an entire nationality of people as if they have the same political opinions you've already lost!

the reason i say i don't think most of these people read the letter, beyond the fact that i've yet to see anyone discuss the specifics of it, is because the letter does go out of its way to acknowledge potential strategic benefits of 3rd party votes in the 43 other states that aren't going to be the deciding factor. i know this is not sentiment that the average voteblue liberal agrees with.

anyway. there's not really a conclusion to be had here other than i think we're going to see a lot of vitriol directed towards third party votes in the immediate future. we saw similar sentiment after the 2016 election; people were INCREDIBLY quick to say that the reason donald trump won was because not enough people showed up for hillary. people are still saying that, as a matter of fact.

as i and many other people have been pointing out for the past eight years, hillary won the popular vote by a margin of several million, and still lost. at that scale you simply can not blame things on voter turnout. i don't really know what to say at that point. trump's 2016 victory really just pitch perfectly illustrated in a way too blatant to ignore that the US presidential election does not represent the will of the public. but people will do literally anything to keep viewing the state of US politics as a result of people Voting Wrong and Being Too Stupid To Understand What's At Stake

as always, we are not allowed to hold the democrats accountable for delivering nothing to their constituents, but we can hold the constituents responsible for not showing up like loyal dogs to beg for whatever table scraps harris's campaign vaguely pretended to offer us. surely this strategy will work in 2028! see you all then.

[firstkanaphans]

That one ask/reply shitting on THK and GMMTV in general is really.... something. 🙃 I think you and @invisiblegarters already expressed most of my thoughts on that but I just want to add that based on every Jojo interview I've ever watched (and I've watched a lot of them during Only Friends), I never once got the impression that he's being forced to worked with branded pairs and, as you pointed out, it's actually kind of insulting to suggest he's having these pairs forced onto him and has to write stories he actually doesn’t want to tell just to suit those pairs. During OF I saw a lot of talk (from the same circle of people who are now criticising THK before a single episode has even aired) about this too (about Jojo probably being forced to keep SandRay and TopMew together just because the actors are branded pairs) but everything always pointed to the opposite being true: Jojo (along with the other OF writers) wrote a script where 2 of the couples are together at the end and one is not. And he chose the actors according to that story, NOT the other way around (he chose branded pairs to play those 2 couples because he always planned on them to be together and therefore felt branded pairs would fit that kind of a story/ending).

Not to mention I thought Jojo being a simp for Khao was common knowledge, but I guess not? But yeah, uh, anyone that has ever watched any of the Soonvijarn videos knows this. It was only a matter of time before Jojo got to work with Khaotung tbh (and clearly wants to keep working him and First, given he chose to work with FK immediately after he already worked with them). Directors have faves and it's very clear Khao is one of Jojo's.

The only thing I will agree with that original post on is the fact that it'd be nice to see some of these branded pairs act in projects solo or with a different partner. However, that doesn't have to mean they should stop working with their branded pair altogether. I don't see why they couldn't do both. Though honestly, for me the main determining factor is what the actors themselves feel happiest doing. There are certain actors who definitely do not/did not enjoy being stick in a branded pair and that was visible from the moom. I'm glad for those of them who are no longer in branded pairs, since that's obviously not something they wanted. However, FK are not one of those pairs. From everything I see of them right now, they both feel happy and fulfilled working with each other. The moment they stop feeling that way, I will stop wanting to see them act in shows together as a couple. People seriously need to stop being so vehemently against branded pairs as a whole. (There's also a lot of hipocrisy going around: Branded pairs are totally fine if it means these people will get to see a pair like MaxTul play a couple in multiple series, but as soon as a GMMTV branded pair acts in several BLs together, branded pairs are suddenly bad and are holding the actors back. Double standards much?)

[This ask was sent in response to this post, but I would just skip down to @invisiblegarters addition because it's the only part worth reading]

Yeah, there’s an anti-GMMTV branded pair movement going on here on Tumblr and I don’t understand where it came from or what its purpose is considering early GMMTV pairs such as OffGun and TayNew are exempt from criticism. 

It seems to come down to just a fundamental misunderstanding of the genre. In romances, the two main characters end up together. If they do not end up together, it’s not a romance. It does not matter if the two main characters are played by a branded pair or not. This is just how romances work. 

Not to mention that these shows are conceptualized way before they are ever cast and are oftentimes based on novels, so the casting has literally no bearing on the story at all. In the case of THK specifically, Jojo has been working on that script for at least two years. FK weren’t even a branded pair back then!

To suggest that queer characters are only getting happy endings because a company is trying to sell fan meets is incredibly insulting to not only the queer creators who make these works, but also the queer viewers who want to see a happy ending for themselves on screen.

[buddiebeginz]

I'm really happy that Buck and Tommy are finally over (thank god) but there was so much I didn't like about this episode. Not only does Tommy have a history of racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc but he was simply not a good boyfriend. And like not just not a good boyfriend to Buck (which he was that) but like not a good boyfriend in general. Like look at how he talked about Abby (and I'm no fan of hers).

I know some of the stuff with Tommy was probably due to Lou's terrible acting but some of it was definitely writing choices. I don't get the point of writing a character to be a lackluster love interest at best and dismissive patronizing jerk of a boyfriend at worst if it's not leading somewhere in the story. It just feels like bad writing. A lot of the stuff with Tommy does. It's why I'm still amazed at how much that fandom acts like they're the greatest romance of all time.

There's also all that stuff that happened in 7x04 that I fear is never going to get brought back up again. I mean it might when Buddie goes canon (which I still believe will happen) but it might not just because if Tommy's gone they might not feel the need to address it again. But it was clearly Eddie's attention that Buck wanted in that ep (I wrote a whole thing about it here). You also have the fact that Tommy was showering Eddie was all this attention and gifts and the only time we saw him do anything remotely like that for Buck was in tonight's ep on their anniversary and it was tickets for a game Buck didn't even like so clearly Tommy wasn't that invested.

It's just this show has a habit of Buck staying in these relationships where he's not happy. Not knowing his worth and not speaking up to people who hurt him all so he can feel like he's loved. And I know a lot of that goes back to the stuff he dealt with as a kid but I'm just really sad they did this to him again. I get that Tim probably wanted Buck's first relationship with a guy to end on a positive note but then like I said why write Tommy the way they did since s7? If you take Buck and Tommy's relationship just as it played out on screen then Buck definitely should have been the one to break up with Tommy.

They wouldn't have even needed it to turn into a fight or this bitter angry thing it could have been a matter of Buck realizing that him and Tommy were just too different. That Tommy didn't really get him as a person and that could have been further made clear by having a moment where Buck calls Tommy out on always calling him Evan. I also don't get why they decided to have Tommy call him Buck in the breakup scene but then never address it any other time. Like they never really explained why he only ever called Evan and then didn't explain why he switched it up.

Like I said I'm happy they broke up but I just feel like in some ways I can't enjoy it. In both this ep and 805 there was scenes like at the graveyard where Buck acts like Tommy is this amazing important person in his life and I get that some of that is Buck trying to make his relationship with Tommy into something more than that is. And really connecting his excitement and newness of coming out with Tommy. But it still hurt to see him asking Tommy about moving in when I know Buck deserves so much better. He deserves a partner who will love him and see him for exactly who he is.

Connected to all of this I didn't like the scene with Josh, Maddie, and Buck either. I know some of that was probably the shows way of trying to make us think about Eddie and his coming out in the future but they were also talking about Tommy. Tommy doesn't get a pass for being a misogynist or racist or a homophobe just because he was in the closet. Also whatever happened with him and Abby in the past he was still talking shitty about her when he was on the date with Buck (in present day) so clearly his attitudes towards women haven't changed.

I like a lot about Josh as a character and he doesn't even know Tommy or about his past so I feel like he was just trying to educate Buck on some queer history. I don't entirely blame him for that speech he gave. I do blame Tim and the writers though. If they wanted Tommy to be seen as a guy who made mistakes in the past and had grown they should have put the work in to show him as such. The couldn't be bothered to do that even in his relationship with Buck. Truly hoping this is the last we'll see of him and also that not much time is spent having Buck mourn that awful relationship.

[applesauce42069]

Genuinely talk about cultural christianity, while I 100% acknowledge that I'm one there are still different forms of it like for example I was raised as a catholic in Latin America so lots of our traditions are very different from other cristians because they were mixed with the native population traditions and I do like those traditions because they are part of our cultural identity. I acknowledge the colonial source of them and I now all the christian denominations are build in antisemitism but those traditions are rooted so deep into me I don't think I will ever not be a cultural catholic.

Hello. My girlfriend was raised Catholic in Brazil, and her family is Catholic. I've learned how much Catholicism has influenced Brazilian culture and learned a lot about the traditions and I think it's so cool!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with being culturally Christian. It is completely neutral. and Christianity has definitely had a massive impact on a wide variety of beautiful and interesting cultures.

Christianity is built on supersessionism and that sucks! At the same time, that doesn't mean that every Christian is bad or that Christianity needs to be destroyed. What would be nice if:

more people recognized that Cultural Christianity is a thing

many people deny this, especially in North America, because Christianity and its traditions are SO "neutral" to people. then, when we try to describe our experiences in the society we live in, to describe our oppression, they shut us down because in their mind: if they don't go to church, they have nothing to do with christianity. but the reality is that religion is so deeply ingrained in our cultures.

2. more christians recognized that supersessionism is a problem and learned to recognize Jews as worth of respect, not for any reason but that we're human and we deserve to be respected and considered in our own right

it would also be nice if more christians recognized that some of their texts are literally just appropriated. but i feel like that creates a deeper theological problem, idk.

my point is: cultural christianity isn't bad. it just is. but people have to decide how they are going to approach this dimension of privilege that most don't even recognize yet.

[fatedtime]

I know there’s a lot of people talking about the culture conflict between Toshiro and Laios, but I think it’s important to acknowledge the class conflict between them too. Mayor’s child or not, Laios is still from the boonies, while Toshiro is waited on hand and foot by a flock of women his family employs to serve his needs. This has 100% stifled Toshiro’s ability to communicate with others, to the point where acknowledging his retainers and thanking them for their efforts is shown as a huge point of growth.

Meanwhile, Laios’s bumbling nature towards Toshiro’s boundaries is very much informed by his lack of knowledge of other people and places. He knows how much it hurt him to see his sister rejected by people whose insular attitudes made her powers frightening to them, so he tries to express overtures of friendship towards Toshiro by being so interested in him that it comes off as frightening instead. While he means well, his lack of knowledge on how to interact with people who are different from him puts Toshiro in a weird spot, and this lack of knowledge isn’t just the autism — it’s where he was born and raised. And it’s something real kids from rural areas go through when they enter more urban spaces. The sorts of social manners that are appropriate there aren’t appropriate elsewhere, and they get seen as… well. Inelegant. Pushy.

If Laios had gotten Hien’s name wrong, she would have decked him. But because it was Toshiro, whose upbringing didn’t give him any conflict resolution skills (because he’s around people who have to bend to his needs*) he doesn’t know how to sort things out with Laios, and grows to resent him. It’s not just the culture, it’s the place he occupies class-wise.

That’s part of why I love Toshiro’s arc — if this was just a culture conflict where Laios commits microagressions against him, as I’ve mostly seen it put, him ultimately learning a lesson would be pretty weird. But it’s not. His upbringing as a noble lord’s son in a BONKERS family has given him certain issues… and Laios helps him confront that, so he can live without regrets.

(*please note, this is a massive oversimplification of what the hell is going on with Toshiro Nakamoto. i just didn't want to write a book.)

[kindnessoverperfection]

Lately, when I talk about someone I strongly disagree with, I think about my friends.

When I interact with someone who regularly rants about people, and tends to take things in the worst ways (without any attempts at self-reflection or grace), I feel more on-edge. I'm nervous to voice opinions. I'm always over-thinking everything I send them, worried about how they'll receive it.

On the other hand, I feel much safer during conversations where someone is speaking neutrally about those they feel at conflict with. When they feel upset about a situation, but without talking aggressively about the other person. Because I know that if we're ever in a disagreement, or have some sort of conflict or misunderstanding, they won't hurt me or suddenly hate me*.

I used to speak much more aggressively about people. My personality disorders, combined with online toxic environments, were big factors in that. I was stressed and angry constantly, and I felt justified, and I felt afraid and ashamed to respond with anything but anger. But to make a long story short, I had several big painful interpersonal experiences where I realized how my attitude was impacting my friends.

I remember the nervousness in my friends' eyes. I remember the people I've met who are much older and never grew out of that reactive communication style, and I don't want to be that person. I want my loved ones to feel safe around me.

So nowadays, I do my best to speak compassionately (or at least neutrally). Because I want to signal to my friends that I'm not going to be cruel to them, or to automatically believe the worst of them, during a conflict or misunderstanding. I try to vent about situations and my fears instead of people.

I wish I'd realized this before.

*(I discuss splitting in the tags)

[clotpolesonly]

Mister Impossible ch 19 // Greywaren ch 25

[autumnoakes]

man... rhoam's "redemption" in aoc really sucked, huh?

like botw SHOWED us, several times, how much pressure rhoam put on zelda to unlock her powers, despite her telling him, several times, that it wasn't working. he got angry and banned her from doing not only something she saw as useful, but something that she was clearly very interested in and passionate about because she "wasn't dedicating enough time to her prayers." yes, his diary expresses regret for it, but at the end of the day, if zelda saw that it wouldn't mean much to her. the actions rhoam took, and the way zelda grew up under so much pressure that she nearly died as a child in one of the springs (this is in urbosa's diary, iirc) mean so much more than his regrets and his intentions. it took him nearly 10 years to realize that he fucked up, and by that point it was too late. the calamity had returned, and rhoam had lost any chance he had at making things right with zelda.

meanwhile, in aoc, all that's there is some half-hearted scene in the temple of time that's supposed to make everything better? yes, aoc had a very different and arguably better outcome than the calamity that led to botw, but the damage was still done by rhoam. it's still the same hurts and abuse and trauma that he put his daughter through all because of the prophesized calamity.

[butts-bouncing-on-the-beltway]

Do you ever read a post where someone is explaining a pokitical thing and from the way they're saying you know with absolute certainty 1) they got their info from a tumblr post and have never actually followed up on how feasible that information actually is to act upon (they may not even have checked if it was CORRECT, but when they do they have clearly not looked into how easy or hard it may be to follow those instructions with a positive outcome), and 2) you know WHICH tumblr post they're quoting because it is basically a copy/paste of it, and 3) it was YOUR goddamn post and the thing they are saying is entirely counter to the point you were making when you said it to the point that you genuinely wonder if they just like. Memory-holed the entire context once they saw that one itty bitty point.

It's like the motherfuckiny dating apps all over again. I do not want people to love my words if they are not actually willing to do the work of understanding them! Didn't your kindergarten ever make you play Telephone to teach you how heresay falls out????

[graham--folger]

okay the thing about alien 3 is it's so grimdark in comparison to the other two. there's no real sense of hope. ripley's convinced she has to die. all the prisoners have no way out and their best possible ending is in taking the alien with them. just thinking back to alien 1979 and how even though nearly everyone was dying there was still a chance for ripley (and jonesy) to escape and get a "happy ending". in aliens there was a chance of ripley surviving alongside hicks and newt. but alien 3 erased that possibility and took all the hope with it. idk it just feels so resoundingly hopeless even though ripley "wins" by killing herself and the alien with her. but even then we know that wasn't successful either because of alien resurrection. it's just kind of funny how they like to totally throw away the previous movie plot for the sake of a reboot but in doing so thematically butcher the franchise

[hua-fei-hua]

as soon as it's summer and i'm medicated again i NEED to write a series of essays covering my experiences switching from the broader social sphere of fandom which predominantly ships m/f ships to the social sphere of fandom which predominantly ships m/m, because i feel like a lot of what we say about the other social sphere is simultaneously true and false at the same time, and i've literally never seen anyone talk about it ever

[petrichorpetals]

Due to a series of circumstances, I ended up going through my old Facebook and I really don't get how I managed to not change in ten years lmao. I made the exact type of posts I would make today. Really expected to go back and find myself cringy but nope. RIP to those of you that found your younger selves cringy but I'm built different. 😅

It's weird but I'm strangely glad that I haven't changed. I even remember ten years ago going through some of my old stuff and remarking the same thing. I've never deleted any of my old stuff to try to let it be a mark of progress and I'm glad. Yeah my writing and interpersonal skills have improved, but I've not fundamentally changed as a person. I might not have gotten everything right the first try, but I did my best with the information I had at hand. At the end of the day, I'm still recognizable as me.

[readymades2002]

genuinely it is difficult having cultivated the like. taste in fiction that i have now that i am in a place where i'm trying to talk to people more and make friends and so on and so forth and this is the field i'm having to play on with them. i don't think anyone has to be critic-brained (i do think its good to recognize that media is Authored and to look at things with both eyes open but some people simply enjoy things in other ways and i may get irritated by that but i don't suppose its Wrong) and i have in fact met people who Will meet me in that field but it doesnt change that the field i like to play in is much different and no one is expected to meet me there in the same way i am expected to play ball with marvel fans

[emeryleewho]

I used to work for a trade book reviewer where I got paid to review people's books, and one of the rules of that review company is one that I think is just super useful to media analysis as a whole, and that is, we were told never to critique media for what it didn't do but only for what it did.

So, for instance, I couldn't say "this book didn't give its characters strong agency or goals". I instead had to say, "the characters in this book acted in ways that often felt misaligned with their characterization as if they were being pulled by the plot."

I think this is really important because a lot of "critiques" people give, if subverted to address what the book does instead of what it doesn't do, actually read pretty nonsensical. For instance, "none of the characters were unique" becomes "all of the characters read like other characters that exist in other media", which like... okay? That's not really a critique. It's just how fiction works. Or "none of the characters were likeable" becomes "all of the characters, at some point or another, did things that I found disagreeable or annoying" which is literally how every book works?

It also keeps you from holding a book to a standard it never sought to meet. "The world building in this book simply wasn't complex enough" becomes "The world building in this book was very simple", which, yes, good, that can actually be a good thing. Many books aspire to this. It's not actually a negative critique. Or "The stakes weren't very high and the climax didn't really offer any major plot twists or turns" becomes "The stakes were low and and the ending was quite predictable", which, if this is a cute romcom is exactly what I'm looking for.

Not to mention, I think this really helps to deconstruct a lot of the biases we carry into fiction. Characters not having strong agency isn't inherently bad. Characters who react to their surroundings can make a good story, so saying "the characters didn't have enough agency" is kind of weak, but when you flip it to say "the characters acted misaligned from their characterization" we can now see that the *real* problem here isn't that they lacked agency but that this lack of agency is inconsistent with the type of character that they are. a character this strong-willed *should* have more agency even if a weak-willed character might not.

So it's just a really simple way of framing the way I critique books that I think has really helped to show the difference between "this book is bad" and "this book didn't meet my personal preferences", but also, as someone talking about books, I think it helps give other people a clearer idea of what the book actually looks like so they can decide for themselves if it's worth their time.

Update: This is literally just a thought exercise to help you be more intentional with how you critique media. I'm not enforcing this as some divine rule that must be followed any time you have an opinion on fiction, and I'm definitely not saying that you have to structure every single sentence in a review to contain zero negative phrases. I'm just saying that I repurposed a rule we had at that specific reviewer to be a helpful tool to check myself when writing critiques now. If you don't want to use the tool, literally no one (especially not me) can or wants to force you to use it. As with all advice, it is a totally reasonable and normal thing to not have use for every piece of it that exists from random strangers on the internet. Use it to whatever extent it helps you or not at all.

[kaijutegu]

Aug ABSOLUTELY deserves the praise, @ryukikit. St. Augustine Alligator Farm is one of my favorite animal facilities, hands down. It's a pretty zoo, doable in an afternoon if you kinda like crocodilians, or an all day affair if you REALLY like crocodilians. Here are my favorite things about it and why I think it's worth supporting.

1. They keep animals in interesting social groups.

Crocodilians are heavily involved parents, but most places that breed them don't have the enclosure space to let the babies stay with the parents. St. Augustine does. One of my favorite groups was their crèche of slender-snouted crocodiles. They had the parents and then a yearling cohort and a new hatchling cohort. This aligns with how these guys live in the wild- the babies stick around longer! They have the space for it, and they are very in tune with the social needs of their animals.

Very, very few zoos can keep their baby crocs with the adults and still perform maintenance and animal health checks safely. This doesn't mean these facilities are bad- it just means that they have different management practices. And frankly, a lot of these species aren't frequently bred elsewhere. Your average zoo doesn't need a setup where you can have a multiyear crèche for slender-snouted crocodiles. Some species have better success when the young are pulled early, and some zoos are better set up to raise out any offspring separately or behind the scenes. Every facility's practices are different, and this just happens to work well at St. Augustine and be really enjoyable to see as a zoo patron.

Crocodilians are exceptional parents and very protective. It's a sign of incredible animal management practices and animals that feel very comfortable with staff that St. Augustine can do this with nearly every species they breed.

2. They understand the social needs of their animals.

Some crocodilians are social. Some are solitary. Some can live happily with a member of the opposite sex but get territorial around members of the same sex. St. Augustine pays incredible attention to their social groupings to ensure that they aren't just meeting the animals' physical health needs but their social needs as well. They do continuous scientific research about social structures in crocodilians, taking blood samples to test stress hormones and observing stress behaviors to see how group dynamics change.

For example, St. Augustine is home to one of the world's largest known living saltwater crocodiles, Maximo. And his comparatively tiny mate, Sydney. During the educational presentations with these two, they point out that even their monster of a croc needs his social group- he won't eat if she's not around and he is calmer during medical checks if he can see her. These animal share a deep and special pair bond, and they make sure to talk about how the social aspect of these animals' lives is integral to their care. It's a unique aspect of the way they talk about these animals, because he IS a spectacle and he IS a sensation, but they don't talk about him like he's a mindless killing machine- they talk about him like he's a big, complex predator with social needs like any other animal. Aug is the only facility I've been to where the emotional and social needs of crocodilians is part of the education they provide guests- and speaking of education...

3. Their demos and presentations are extremely good.

The presentations at St. Augustine are some of the best I've ever seen, and I've seen literally hundreds of animal talks on everything from aardvarks to zebras. But as you... can probably tell from my blog content, I've spent a lot of time learning about and working with reptiles. I really enjoyed all of their presentations because they are very scientific about things and avoid sensationalism. They really want you to be fascinated by these creatures and love them- but more than anything else, they want you to respect them.

Also, they do a really good job handling their ambassadors. I really enjoyed something as simple as watching an educator tell us about snakes. Throughout the whole presentation she made sure that most of the snake's body was looped in her hand. The snake was always supported and was very calm. She gave the snake plenty of head room so that it didn't feel constricted- it was just good handling all around.

But also, the presentations made it clear how much the park cares about the animals' well-being. When they do the feeding and training presentations, they make it very clear that the animals' participation is entirely voluntary. They do things differently for their 9-foot saltie and their 16-foot saltie, because the 16-footer is so large and heavy he actually struggles walking on land sometimes. They adapt their programs and his care to ensure that he's completely comfortable- and he didn't actually participate in the whole feeding when I was watching! At no point did they try to push him into anything uncomfortable; they offered, he didn't engage, and they moved on. It was a clear expression of his boundaries, and I really appreciated how much his caretakers respected that.

4. Ethical Interactions

I've been to... a lot of tourist locations in Florida that have animals you can hold. Almost always against my will! Many of them are pretty terrible, and you don't actually learn much, if anything. But I really found that to not be the case at St. Augustine. Every single animal presentation and interaction opportunity was accompanied by education about the animal's biology, habits, and- crucially- their conservation status.

When I held a baby alligator at St. Augustine, the proctors- there were two, one to ensure I was holding the gator correctly and the other to educate- were very informative about the role alligators play in their ecosystem and their conservation history. The animals were all properly banded, and one of the two proctors was there to ensure that none of the baby alligators were uncomfortable. As soon as they started getting squirmy or tense, they were removed, unbanded, and taken to an off-exhibit area to relax. And when the babies age out of petting size, they just go in the lagoon to live with others of their species. I saw one upset alligator the entire time I was there, and he was clearly upset that his escape attempt was foiled by a keeper during my nursery tour.

Even though he's restrained in this shot, you can see that his full body and tail are supported, and the grip, while firm, is gentle. He's distressed, but after I took this picture, she put him in his enclosure and he calmed down immediately.

Sometimes when you have petting attractions with baby animals, those animals... don't have a happy ending. (See: cub petting.) But St. Augustine's program is fine- the gators are all aged out of wanting to have mom around, there's no declawing/defanging, and they're handled with care. And it's worth it, because people love what they understand. St. Augustine was integral in raising public awareness about alligators back in the 60s when they were endangered, and now they're thriving- largely in part to programs like St. Augustine getting people to care.

And speaking of getting people to care, let's talk about their research.

5. Shared Research Results

St. Augustine is also home to more species of crocodilian than anywhere else in North America- all of them, usually. (They didn't have a Tomistoma when I visited- that may have changed.)

Because of this species diversity, it's an incredible research resource. Having every species means that you can do a lot of work comparing their behaviors, their growth patterns, and more. They've been a major research site for crocodilian biology since the 1970s. Today, they're one of the key sites for studying crocodilian play and social behaviors. They actually maintain a blog where they post copies of papers that were written using their animals, meaning that you can actually see the results of the research your admission helps fund. You can see that right here: https://www.alligatorfarm.com/conservation-research/research-blog/

All of this adds up to a zoo that provides a unique experience, tons of actual education, and transparency about what its research and conservation steps actually are. St. Augustine's come a long way since its opening in 1893, and they really do want you to leave with a new respect for the animals they care for. Ultimately, if you're a fan of reptiles, you can feel good about visiting the St. Augustine Alligator Farm- their care and keeping are top of the line, they do a ton of innovative conservation research and support for conservation organizations, and you can see this animal there:

(Gharial from the front. Nothing is wrong with her that's just what they look like from the front.)