#perspectives of people unlike yourself etc

[oakgreenoak]

the sea of human emotion and experience is too vast for you to limit yourself to only certain genres or mediums

read a comic book, watch an anime, read a romance novel. read classic lit, watch an arthouse film, listen to an opera. read fanfic. read shakespeare. the distinction between highbrow and low art is time and marketing

[restlesssinner]

Hey listen. A bunch of people will now try to convince the public that the killing of Brian Thompson was ethically wrong. They will try to use the same old tired arguments: that murder is always wrong, that we should stand against political violence in all forms, that CEOs are people too, etc.

Now, you probably won’t fall for all that bullshit, but a lot of people might. Here is what you need to tell them in return - it’s not guaranteed to change their minds, but every time you offer someone a chance to accept the truth you’re making it ever so more likely to take it.

In philosophy, the idea that people should never do certain “bad” things (e.g. killing) is called deontology. The thing is, unlike utilitarianism (which states people should choose actions that create the most wellbeing in society), deontology is inherently flawed as a morality system.

See, only through deontology can people end up finding themselves having to choose outcomes that will lead to more suffering in the world; think, the trolley problem. Now, ask yourself, what kind of morality system expects its followers to selfishly pick the choice that ensures their own moral purity, even if it dooms the wellbeing of possibly hundreds or millions of others?

Understanding this, you might ask yourself: who benefits from having deontology be the crux of understanding morality for so many people? Who benefits uplifting rules like the Ten Commandments as the ultimate guideline to ethics, as opposed to what it was in the original context of it’s religion - a simple list of base laws meant to instruct a small group of escaped slaves several thousand years ago?

The answer is twofold. First, there are the authoritarians, who wish to instill obedience by making people believe that breaking their rules, no matter how justified, is wrong. Secondly, there are the bystanders, who watch nervously as the world crumbles around them, but excuse their inaction by latching onto a false belief that they are still somehow better than the people who are doing something about it in a way they find aesthetically displeasing.

Therefore, it is imperative to look at the world through a utilitarian perspective, and judge every incident like so. Brian Thompson is part of a very exclusive club; he had wronged so many people so severely that the suffering caused to him and his loved ones by his murder is still innumerably outmatched by the joy his unlikely retribution will give the literal millions of people he’s wronged.

Remember, by similar logic it is still very unethical to kill 98% of people, so think of all the choices Thompson had to make to put himself in the top 0.1% of the 2% of people who’s murders can be justified. In a better society, a society that prevents and punishes exploitation, it would be hard to even conceive of a murder that could ever be so righteous.

In fact, in a society that uses classism and bigotry to block people from achieving their fullest potential through non-violent means, we must celebrate those who risk their lives and legal rights to push humanity forward, bringing to justice the true criminals of decency.

TLDR: Brian had it coming.

[kutputli]

Louis the "Pimp": A Rebuke and Rebuttal

OK, IWTV fandom, I have been made aware that some (many) of you are genuinely not aware of some of the anti sex work implications of your statements around Louis and pimping, so -

First of all, some ground level assumptions: I am assuming we are all pro sex workers here. Which means that we all believe in the right for adults to consent to commercial sexualised labour, and to demand ethical working conditions just like any other worker. Sex work is work etc.

Now, that stance can and must coexist with the acknowledgement that sex work has both historically and currently been coerced from marginalised communities. In my part of the world, hereditary caste based sexual enslavement is an on-going atrocity, and similarly, in the United States Black enslaved people was disproportionatey victims of commercialised sexual abuse. (This is RELEVENT to Armand and Louis so it behoves everyone to inform themselves about these realities.)

What I'm saying now comes from the scholarship and testimonies of sex workers themselves, who have always been at the forefront of advocating for themselves as communities and unions. You can and should read through the publications of the Global Network of Sex Work Projects to ground yourself in these perspectives.

The idea that its ok to be a sex worker, but that a client or a pimp or a brothel owner deserves contempt, shaming or derison is an old one, associated with the dichotomy of pitable fallen women vs dispicable emasculated men (emasculated because of the patriarchal shame of a) paying for sex and b) living off of a woman's labour). This has manifested in what is known as the Nordic model (or, hypocritically, the Equality Model) of Prostitution, where sex workers themselves are deemed nominally free to practise their trade, but clients and third parties (pimps, managers, brothel owners) are criminalised. There is unambiguous peer-reviewed data showing the failure of this approach to protecting sex workers from harm, and almost every sex worker union has denounced it.

So now let's talk about this cultural and legal contempt and criminalisation of the third party, and specifically, the pimp figure. Unlike the brothel owner, the pimp is more often from a similar class and identity as the sex worker, often sharing the same living and working spaces. Pimps are often sex workers allies and collegeaues. They provide an interface between the client and the sex worker that can help screen them for safety and security, and the remove the additional burden of soliciting and marketing from the sex worker's labour.

And because it is important to talk about specifics, a pimp in marginalised communities of sex workers is often a brother, a father, or a lover to the sex worker who faces the same casteism, racism and classism that she does. He is often the father of the sex worker's child. In India, for example, even though prostitution itself is not criminal, any adult male living with a prostitute is assumed to be guilty of being a pimp unless he can prove otherwise, and can face imprisonment of up to 2 years with a fine. One of the demands of unionised sex workers, including those in India, has been to decriminalised pimping along with sex work, not just because pimps make it safer and easier for sex workers to get clients without having to actively solicit, but also because such criminalisation actively harms family units.

Of course, there are pimps who can be abusive and exploitative. This is true of any professional relationship, and this is also true of people in romantic and sexual relationships (like marriage). But to deem a pimp inherently as an abuser carries a lot of anti sex work and racist and classist baggage with it.

Why racist (and classist and casteist etc)? Because the men with capital were (and are) not often pimps. They are landlords and investors, who ran brothels and saloons and massage parlours and dance bars and other sites where sexual labour was commercialised. To denigrate a man for being a pimp as somehow worse than being the owner of a sweatshop or farm is a way of jeering at the men who have not been able to buy themselves the luxury of distance from the exploitation they profit from. And the men of capital were and are, overwhelmingly, those from the dominant identity (White. Savarna. etc.)

So NOW, with all that necessary context in mind, let's talk about Louis and what it means when fandom firstly calls him a pimp, and then second sneers at him for his perceived behavior as one.

You know who first calls Louis a pimp?

Daniel Molloy, a white man being the brash, confrontational journalist that he has the luxury of being.

Louis accurately describes his profession managing and operating a diversified portfolio of entireprises. This translates to investing his family's sizeable trust into real estate (he owns 8 out of 24 buildings on Liberty Street) and running establishments that make money from selling liquor, organised gambling and sex work. Just as not many Black men would have been in a position of power to make a profit from a sugar plantation as Louis' great grandfather did, not many Black men would have had the capital (and the business acumen) to own and operate a series of businesses that included sex work. Infact we see him collecting his profits from a white man who was closer to the pimp role - Finn.

Reducing this to calling him a pimp is the first of many racist microaggressions we will watch Daniel make. As someone who indulged in some kind of sex work himself, one might say some of Daniel's hostility is self-loathing. Nonetheless, there is a racialised element in his contempt towards both Louis and Armand that, I would theorise, comes from the distinction made between a white, educated man choosing to recreationally whore himself for drugs, and a Black man who earned a living from other people's sex work, or a Brown man who is perceived as a rent boy.

We then get to the idea of denigrating Louis' pimp-like behavior. First of all, let's look at Louis as the employer and manager of sex workers. Everything we have seen about him shows him to be courteous, considerate, and professional. His guilt at the entire situation of how sex work operates aside (and we can agree that it must have been exploitative and even abusive in general, and that he was complicit in such a system, as any capitalist is) - MOST importantly, we never see Louis doing the thing that patriarchy really resents a pimp for - sampling the goods for free. We never see him use his power over the sex workers he employs to get favours.

In fact he makes it clear that he visits Miss Lily precisely because she is part of a different establishment, and that both of them being Black in a majority white situation places them on a more equal footing. Watching Louis with Miss Lily, both is how he is with her sexually as well as socially, gives you the clearest evidence of how he behaves around sex workers he is having a relationship with. (Contrast that to Lestat, who buys her time and body as an act of one-upmanship with no concern for her preference, and then who kills her out of jealousy.)

So - Was Louis a pimp? No. Was Louis an abusive pimp? Also No.

Then why does the fandom continue to deploy this term in relationship to him?

It's racism, your honour. (The answer is almost always racism.)

To unpack this, lets jump forward from the 1910s where, again I remind you - very very few Black men in the United States were in any position to operate as fashionable brother owners with wealth to spare.

We now move to the 1980s, when one (but not the only!) sub-genre of rap was evolving - gangsta rap. In this sub-genre, Black musical artists like Too Short and Ice T were creating and more pertinently making accessible to white America, the signifier of the Black pimp figure. This drew from 1960s Black culture-making around West Coast pimps like Iceberg Slim, but also from an older storytelling tradition that linked the figure of the pimp with the archetype of the trickster. I'm not going to cite the wealth of literature you can find that theorises this, (nor defensively provide the mass of nuanced critique that Black feminists have offered) because the limited point I wish to make is -

When white America began enjoying (and appropriating) rap and hip-hop culture, one of the tropes it started perpetuating with the shallowest of understanding of its origins, was that of the specifically Black pimp. A figure who displayed wealth, but without (white-signifying) class, who was sexually active in a racialised hypermasculine way, but both a threat to women and contemptibly a leech off them.

THIS is the pimp archetype that is being evoked when fandom talks about Louis's 'pimp'ness.

It is racist. It is ahistorical and canonically unfactual.

It is also needlessly contemptuous of the sex workers (labourers and third parties alike) who are part of the community here on tumblr, so often praised as one of the spaces that is friendly to them.

Maybe think about all of that the next time you choose to use the word 'pimp'.

[writingquestionsanswered]

I feel like I can write pretty good dialogue between characters, and come up with great plots. But my writing lacks depth and character growth because I struggle with writing descriptive internal dialogue. I feel like this prevents my story from moving forward, even though I have a planned plot and character arcs. Do you have any suggestions for exercising my skills in writing internal dialogue?

Writing Internal Dialogue Monologue

Monologue vs Dialogue - First, I think the labeling is important here.

Dialogue = a conversation between two or more people Monologue = one person talking

Most internal thought is going to be monologue... a person's inner voice processing thoughts and observations... rather than a conversation between a person's inner voice and their opposing inner voice.

When you think of it as "internal monologue" instead, it's sometimes easier to understand what types of things belong there.

Not Everyone Has an Inner Voice - Internal monologue can be tricky for some people to write because not everyone has an inner voice. Some people get mental images instead of an inner voice. Luckily, internal voices aren't hard to understand even if you don't have one yourself.

What Does an Inner Voice Do? - Our inner voices are an ongoing, often subconscious, mental commentary there to help us focus, process, and organize our thoughts and feelings related to our experiences. Internal monologue can include observations about the people and places around us, self-reflection, self-criticism, self-praise, self-motivation, planning/strategizing, processing feelings, recalling memories, and daydreaming.

What Does Internal Dialogue Do? - Internal dialogue usually happens when a character has a mental debate with themselves, such as when they're trying to solve a problem, make a decision, or consider more than one perspective.

What Inner Voice and Internal Dialogue REALLY Do - Inner voice and internal dialogue are both used to convey the character's thoughts to the reader. In third-person, the narrator will do the bulk of the expository work--things like describing people and places, relaying character observations, etc., but character thoughts can be added in italics to give the reader a glimpse inside the character's mind.

The house was dappled with shadows and golden light from the setting sun. It was beautiful and haunting, and it was home. Or it will be, as soon as I move my stuff in...

Alternatively, you can skip the italics and leave it to the narrator to tell the reader what the character is thinking...

The house was dappled with shadows and golden light from the setting sun. It was beautiful and haunting, and it was home. Or it would be, as soon as she moved her stuff in.

In first-person, the POV character is doing all the work... describing people and places, relaying observations, processing thoughts and feelings, recalling memories and having flashbacks... anything that happens inside the character's heart and mind.

The house is dappled with shadows and golden light from the setting sun. It is beautiful and haunting, and it is home... or it will be, as soon as I move my stuff in. My heart fluttered with the joy of possibility, and I aimed a hopeful smile toward the house before climbing back into my car and starting down the driveway. In the fading light, the surrounding woods no longer feel enchanting. I drive a little faster to escape the long shadows and reaching branches.

Don't Overthink It - Too often, the thing that stumps writers about writing inner monologue is feeling like, "I don't sound like this in my head. I wouldn't walk into a room and mentally describe it to myself." And that's fair, because even most people who do have internal monologue don't exactly do that. But remember: you're writing a story. Unlike other mediums, you can't rely on visuals to show the reader what a character is seeing or what a character is thinking about. The only method available to you is to use words to describe those things. Again, in third-person you can rely on the narrator to do the bulk of it, so it doesn't feel as awkward. But in first-person, the POV character IS the narrator, so if you want the reader to know what the room looks like, your primary choice is to have the character mentally describe it to themselves. You can also do a little bit of showing... for example, instead of noting that there's a red velvet couch, they could sit on a red velvet couch, which shows the reader it's there. But, again, mostly they'll mentally describe things to themselves, and as weird as it may feel, it's a necessary part of writing fiction.

I hope this gives you some ideas about how you can use internal monologue (and internal dialogue) to explore your character's thoughts, feelings, observations, problems, etc. to go deeper into who they are, what they want, and what they need.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

I’ve been writing seriously for over 30 years and love to share what I’ve learned. Have a writing question? My inbox is always open!

♦ Questions that violate my ask policies will be deleted! ♦ Please see my master list of top posts before asking ♦ Learn more about WQA here

[maxdibert]

some of these people are a little silly when it comes to this Snape hatred thing. There is a reason that there is a such thing as a reformed white supremacist, one who grew up like that but not anymore. (Derek Black, Tony McAleer, Christian Picciolini) People can have epiphanies about their beliefs and change them. There are plenty of activists who used to have Anti-... views but have figured out that their views were wrong. Being groomed into the system, you need to account for why a person would feel the need to do that. Going into a gang, for example, to protect yourself or your family/friends/etc. Would this be something you would do no matter what? No. There is always nuance and it is really detrimental to simply say, well but he was a racist. Okay, why though? No one is born anything. The fact that he was able to take a look at himself, regardless of the reasoning and change his viewpoint is something that is really nice actually. Also the Marauders gang and their 'pranks.' The one prank that we got to see is idk pretty evil, and for this I'm thinking of the books not the movies since I remember the former better. The nuance of the good guys bullying someone would probably make that person go more down that rabbit hole. A cornered animal bites, just like a cornered human will twist and claw at any chance to get out of the situation. Add in an ego that is actually very common for guys (in terms of not wanting to be saved by a girl of all things), and you have Snape saying a slur to the girl he likes. Objectively bad, but again with nuance. People need to not be taking things at face value I fear, its the same kind of energy that would have us without a self-defense exception and treating all types of murder the same, 1st degree to involuntary

This is one of the main reasons why I don’t like or believe in the validity of a jury trial, because jurors lack legal knowledge and tend to view things without a clear perspective.

First, as you said, a crime is not just a crime. Not all crimes are the same, nor do they have the same level of severity, and they cannot be judged legally or ethically in the same way. There are aggravating and mitigating factors based on intent, cruelty, mental state, and the individual’s context. Manslaughter is not the same as premeditated murder or incitement to homicide. Theft is not the same as robbery or armed robbery. Belonging to a terrorist group is not the same as committing a terrorist act. These are different things and must be judged accordingly.

In Snape’s case, he joined a terrorist group but became an informant for the “good side,” which, in a real-world legal context, would likely exonerate him from previous crimes. Even people who have committed heinous crimes and murders receive deals from governments if they become informants during wars. Beyond that, the worst thing he did was insult someone. We could argue hate crime, but in court, I would claim his prejudices stem from trauma caused by his abusive Muggle father and his upbringing in extreme Muggle poverty. I would request a psychiatric evaluation from state-appointed experts to confirm that not only are his potential biases rooted in trauma, but also that he shows signs of antisocial behavior and emotional and cognitive underdevelopment due to years of abuse and bullying at school. This would be a strong defense in any trial, making prison time unlikely with a judge. If a jury convicts him due to bias and a lack of understanding of how the legal system works, that’s not my problem.

Honestly, I judge James more harshly than Snape because James had no reason to be a bully or an awful person. He had everything, including a loving and caring upbringing. Nothing in his life was violent. No one taught him that violence was acceptable (unlike Sirius, for example), and yet he still engaged in it. I can understand children struggling to distinguish between right and wrong when their role models have been dysfunctional, but I can’t forgive a boy who had everything — including supportive parental figures — and still turned out to be a sociopath. The only explanation for his behavior, in my opinion, is that he was simply a terrible person who enjoyed causing pain and exerting power over others.

[hero-israel]

just seen a palestinian auntie post about her niece being born w red hair and she constantly fans over it and goes on about how it’s a blessing and the comments are other palestinians and arabs fanning over the white pale skin and blue eyes and blonde/red hair of some of their relatives. even going on to call those relatives swedish/russian/white as nicknames.

but when jews esp israeli jews talk about their natural fair skin, or blue eyes/light hair (which is a minority in the jewish world, majority of jews do not have light features the same as arabs) in the slightest, they are called hitler 2.0 and it’s used as ‘proof’ that we as a whole can’t possibly be indigenous. like these features have always existed in the levant. they weren’t as prevalent in the levant as some ppl think, but they were there.

i see the same happen w black jews. despite black ppl being in the levant for a very long time, pre-enslavement and after, due to migration, pilgrimage, intermarriage etc etc etc, they are told they can’t possibly be native. while some afro-palestinians who came just a few decades before are native? and i��m not talking about those that are the descendants of enslaved people, if you are trafficked from you land and assimilated/forced into a new ethnicity due to that you have every right to consider yourself a native bc you were literally forced to be one. i’m talking about those that are the descendants of migrants and pilgrims, who set up shop in jerusalem during the ottoman empire and are now supposedly more native than black jews who in most cases are there bc their ancestors were expelled or had to flee and bc they have an actual cultural, genetic and historical link to the land even before that.

Don't be shy about citing this:

My grandfather, born on an actual shtetl in Poland, was the spitting-image lookalike for Hafez Assad. Speaking of Syrians, here's pro wrestler Sami Zayn. Hajj Amin al-Husseini famously had blue eyes and red hair, which might have helped him befriend Hitler. As bad as colorism is in any context, it is all the more infuriating from an I/P perspective when so many people just accept from the outset that people like you, people who look like you, have no right to live in certain areas (even though we always have). Read long enough in Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese communities to see their perspectives on Jews and Israel and you can't help but notice the fairly frequent comments about (and I swear I have seen this quote near-verbatim) "We Syrians have such beautiful white skin and beautiful blue eyes, we are not at all like those Saudis or Yemenis, who are as dark as Indians!".

Afro-Palestinians are pretty much always used unfairly and tokenistically by pro-Palestine outsiders; in their daily lives they are regularly called "abeed" (slave) and sometimes even with their neighborhoods known as that. It's not unlike how goyim only ever bring up Ethiopian Jews to spin yarns about "sterilization" while also cheering for groups who want to kill them alongside the rest of Israel.

[liquidorcard]

Hey fam we're gunna inact in some sinful behavior again and get real for a sec here on the shitposting blog so TW: Discussion of substance abuse, mental health issues, SA, etc.

You may have noticed I took a bit of a break from posting for a bit. It wasn't entirely due to Lily's "junkie" rant here, but it was partially responsible.

A lot about Lily high key cheeses my biscuits, I've made that pretty clear. Lily and I have a . . . Strange amount in common in some regards. I'm a trans person myself, I come from a similar, shall we say, "dysfunctional home environment" Lily does. We're even both Canadian, close enough in age I grew up with a lot of the exact same regional-specific media she did. We've had some other life experiences in common.

With that said, Lily's almost like the evil funhouse mirror version of my life. I was sexually assaulted for the first time at basically the exact same age Courtney was. Lily reminds me very much of my first partner, who physically, emotionally and sexually abused me. Unlike Lily, I am from an actual multi-racial family and have had the somewhat unique experiences and gotten the somewhat unique perspective of being a white person partially influenced and organically adopted into more predominantly POC culture. I've had to come to terms with my own white privilege and the ways Western colonialism has influenced me on a level far more personal than it would be for someone from a more monoracial and monocultural family than mine. While also coming to terms with and accepting the ways my family has been judged and discriminated against for being so blended.

There's also just the fact that Lily seems to (I wonder if, on some level, intentionally) act like the alt-right caricature of a progressive leftist in the most performative way imaginable, while also clearly not actually being left-wing at all. My pet theory is that the only thing stopping Lily from going full Blaire White MAGA butt monkey is that her pride can't take it. Being treated like a useful idiot for the right to "prove" they're not bigots while treating her with open hostility in every other regard. So she's as "leftist" as she needs to be to get the 12 year olds she's trying to court on her side because they don't know any better. While being profoundly anti-labor, pro-capitalist. Even though the only reason why the alt-right hyper focus on identity politic bullshit like that is becayse it's a wedge issue that allows them to skirt around talking about actual policy.

There's also just the fact that someone can be so, confidently, shit-eating levels of wrong and stupid about the most asinine things. I actually work professionally in the fields Lily has decided her opinions are worth vomiting out into the ether. Fields people in general are way too comfortable speaking with authority on shit they know absolutely nothing about-- but Lily is for sure a special case.

Point is: I'm very used to Lily making me go into turbo big upsetti spaghetti mode. I've been aware of her for YEARS. I'm over it . . . Until I'm not.

I've alluded to it a few times already: I'm a recovered drug user, though I've struggled with general substance abuse and impulse control issues for longer. Particularly because of untreated mental health issues like C-PTSD, a dissociative disorder, gender dysphoria and ADHD. Particularly because of untreated physical health issues that just a few years ago almost killed me. Issues that caused me significant pain, mental distress, and slowly worsening disability since I was 11 years old. Went totally untreated until they came close to taking my life. It's no coincidence that I started stealing my parent's booze when I was around 12 or 13 years old.

The worst, ugliest, most humiliating aspects of yourself? Addiction will put them front and center. It will cause you to do things, act in ways, find out things about yourself you're never going to be able to unknow. You have to live with for the rest of your life.

You're aware of it-- the whole time. What a fucking creature you've become. How you are hurting the people closest to you. It's not fun. The whole time, you want to stop. But you can't. You don't know why you just can't control yourself, what you're supposed to do. You're afraid of asking for help out of fear of judgement or punishment. Drugs are mostly decriminalized in Canada and still, if someone just took access away from my poison of choice and sent me on my way with no further help--- I would have just walked into traffic.

The worst of my issues happened due to some absolutely insane levels of medical irresponsibility that I won't fully get into because they're too long to explain. But I will tell you that, already aware I had substance abuse issues, I *explicitly warned* the doctor who prescribed me the medication that I didn't feel I could be responsible to be put on anything addictive. She assured me it was not. Spoiler altert: it was addictive. A lot of addicts descent into rock bottom beginning with something they were prescribed.

Drug companies will put in these "anti-abuse" measures into otherwise addictive substances that it takes half a brain cell to circumvent. Just take my word for it.

I overdosed at least once, maybe twice on the drug I was originally prescribed. Alone. By some insane luck I survived both times without getting further medical treatment. But as I built up a tolerance what I was originally prescribed wasn't the *only thing* I ended up abusing in that period of my life. I was going to die if I didn't do something soon, and I knew it.

I was lucky. My sister drove two cities over after a night shift to my rescue and quite literally set me on the road to saving my life. My doctor was compassionate enough to allow me to get off of what I was originally addicted to at my own pace, and correctly identified I needed a medication overhaul to do so. My older brother made sure I wasn't dying of dehydration or starvation during my detox period and made sure to do the daily tasks I didn't have the mental capacity to do at that time aswell. Without them I wouldn't be here today.

NOT EVERY DRUG USER IS AS FORTUNATE AS ME, HOWEVER. And even then, recovery is not a straight line, or as simple as having certain substances kept away. It's a demon you'll be fighting the rest of your life, in many instances. Mine included. Part of getting off the harmful substances I was was getting a prescription to Adderall, as I was partially self-medicating for. Something my doctor still monitors me with to ensure I'm not falling back into bad habits with. Something Lily is CURRENTLY bitching about not being able to get a prescription for-- I wonder why, Lily.

I have now gone through THREE surgeries without painkillers. And in one particularly awful incident, was treated rather cruelly by the medical staff over refusing to take them. To quote, of all things, fucking Crooked Kingdom by Leigh Bardugo, "if you live with pain long enough, you learn to enjoy the taste." But nothing is like the nightmare of chemical dependence. Pain is immaterial to that kind of hell.

I know Lily is saying this bullshit just to vaguepost about Courtney, but I don't care. Fuck her. Fuck her for daring to judge me, and those like me. That she was that comfortable being this vile about the matter publically should give you a good indication as to how comfortable even other people are to talking down to addicts.

She wouldn't have survived the shit I went through. I dare her to try. She's way too much of a little piss baby to crawl her way out of that kind of suffering.

I know this is a meme page, but I refuse to be ashamed of talking about it. If anyone would like some more information about my experience or has questions as to why Lily's opinion on the matter is dogshit and vile, feel free to dm me or send me an ask. I'll make it clear why Lily is fucking scum for having the balls to say this publically. I'll make her regret it.

[paula-of-christ]

so from what i understand the catholic church doesn't have divorce. but are catholics like allowed to divorce in a secular way and then live apart and just not get married to other people because they're still seen as married in the eyes of the church

There is not divorce in the Catholic Church, that is correct. If someone gets a civil divorce, they are still seen as being married by the Church, and so would not be free to either get married to someone else or join a religious order. However, where things cannot be reconciled, whether that be abuse of the spouse, abuse of drugs or alcohol, or some such other grave reason, the Church does allow and encourage separation, and in some instances (especially in cases of abuse) civil separation in the form of divorce. Ideally both parties will want to become better in order to make it work, ie going o marriage and personal counseling, going to rehab where appropriate, etc. But, if the abuser is unwilling, it is lawful in the eyes of the Church to separate legally from them. Spiritually you are still married to that person, but if they are not upholding their vows of loving you by abusing you, you have the right to separate yourself from that.

This is lawful only for a few things, and more dubious reasons would be: infidelity (non-chronic, ie if it were only once), financial infidelity, things along those lines, where societal its seen as normal and good to divorce someone, but the Church says it should be taken very carefully, and only if these issues are chronic problems should separation be entertained, and only with spiritual and counselor supervision.

Reasons one cannot get separated: "we just don't like each other any more", marital problems that arise because of infertility, those sorts of things. Fundamentally these reasons are selfish for wanting to get a divorce, unlike the above reasons because it puts your wants and desires above your spouse's. In the cases of abuse, chronic infidelity, and the like, it is their unloving actions towards you that is causing the separation, as well as to protect yourself bodily (in cases of physical abuse).

These should also always be done under spiritual guidance (ie with a priest) as well as with a therapist, because they can help make things more clear from an outside perspective, and because a priest will know of parish/community social programs that can help people get out dangerous situations.

[sea-buns]

not really, but I suppose that’s just a difference of opinion. I do think that gorgug’s nightmare sequence was one of the weakest, especially with how it shifted topics (being dead, small spaces, not being able to escape a stereotype, because if any of these had been expanded on that would’ve been great), but I do think a lot of gorgug’s character revolves around feeling in-between, or too much one thing and not another and trying to close that gap. The best one for me was deffo the sphinx tho, I interpreted it as not *just* about him being dumb, but rather like. You’re big and dumb and strong and your main job is getting angry and hitting shit with an axe. You went to a community of gnomes and they gave you a better axe, and you loved it. You are uniquely dumb, unlike those who have come before you, because you cannot solve a specific kind of puzzle while a sphinx talks at you. You are the reason your parents cut contact, and from the beginning you were unsuited for their home. Your extended family predicted that you would grow to know only rage, and here you are, a barbarian. You, from this perspective, are not proving them wrong.

I do think that that whole sequence does reveal that he’s afraid of like. Being that stereotype? And then going yeah sure I’m stupid eat me, then moving forward and clawing your way into understanding anyways

Ahhh I see. Yeah I think I did misunderstand your first ask a bit lol

I did really love a lot of the topics his sequence brought up. Like I've read some incredibly well-written fanfics that covered the ways that claustrophobia, and imposter syndrome, and being dead have affected him. But like you said, if they had just honed in on at least one, rather than hopping back and forth, it could have done so much for that section. Cuz, personally, I don't feel like we saw Gorgug be significantly affected by any of those. At least not in a way that felt complete and satisfying.

I really like what you said about his character being "in-between". I totally agree. Kinda circles back to how his parents trying to help him calm his rage was actually stifling him.

Your family needs you to calm down; you've broken another bedchairdoorappliance. Your teacher wants you to rage; he says anger is good but you don't understand. You sing to try and calm yourself, you're always trying to be kind to others; they only use it to hurt you more and all you can do is get angry back. Your friends need you to rage. You don't have the power to protect them socially, but this you can do. You try not to rage outside of a fight, but.... they don't seem to be that bothered when you do. In fact, you watch them provoke physical confrontation when they're mad on many occasions.

(Oops dipped a biiiit into the pot of how important friendship is to his character. Did not mean to lol it's just one of my fav things about him so it's kinda subconscious I guess)

But yeah! He's also in such a limbo this season as well! You can't do this you're too angry, you're not smart enough for that, you don't rage right.

Also realllyy like your interpretation of his trial. The angle you described it at was really interesting.

I don't think stereotype is the right word, though. I would say... he's afraid of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy? I'm assuming based on your own "stereotype?" that you weren't sure about the word either.

I don't think Gorgug is, or would ever be, afraid of being a "stereotype". Like I don't think he gives a shit about the stereotype that orcs/half-orcs/barbarians only know anger and destruction. I think he's afraid of being a self-fulfilling prophecy of all the things people say that he is. Stupid, mindless, destructive, etc. To pull from what you said here (which it wont let me copy paste on mobile god fucking damnit)

"Your extended family predicted that you would grow to know only rage, and here you are, a barbarian. You, from this perspective, are not proving them wrong."

"Stereotype" for sure applies to his racist extended family. They fucking breathe stereotypes like oxygen. But the bit where his afraid of becoming what everyone says he is, I think "self-fulfilling prophecy" suits that much better. He believes he can be more than that, he knows he can, but it doesn't change the fact that they are technically right.

Okay and the giving in but then "clawing your way into understanding anyways" actually goes so hard lol. Anon, you are so right. From that pov, it's not so much a give up as it is an acknowledgment before he essentially puts the subject on ice.

Rings back a bit to the start of fhjy to me. That dread of seeing the email of school starting back up again, and the terrible sinking pit in your stomach of avoidance, because the time has come to really unpack all that. There was something specific Zac said in his little Gorgug recap before the season started that was about, like, the dread of having to figure out who the fuck you're gonna be when everyone around you seems to have their shit together. That. That hit hard lmao but the experience that he's covered is very true to Gorgug, I think.

I totally misunderstood your first ask! Though I'm happy you sent another cuz I understand a lot better, I think. And tbh I've never had the opportunity to discuss that section of fantasy high with anyone? I wasn't on tumblr or watching d20 when it first aired so I missed these specific topics. Always been v interested in what others thought of his part. Maybe I should put the vods on in the bg next time I'm play sdv. Give em a relisten. And man. The fact that I'm out here quoting your message brings me back to english class so hard. Shocked I don't hate it. Actually having a topic you give half a shit about does wonders huh lmao

Thanks for the ask! You have altered my perspective and I appreciate it. It's like how sometimes you gotta read something out loud to understand it. If all I have is the walls of my own skull, I can only get so far.

[grumfield]

what do you mean Will is an apex predator? curious about your perspective.

Here i'll just post a meta about it i never put up on tumblr from like, 8 months or so ago about this question...I basically think of him as like a wild animal:

Will is interesting to me because I see a lot of memes/videos/posts about Hannibal being horny/falling for Will etc. (sparkle eyes, turning himself in, etc.) but I realized there wasn’t much of this kind of thing for Will other than his sort of calculated seduction attempts or incidental, vaguely sexual moments like the ladder scene. There is not much casual dialogue online about his internal workings or motivations, or affection. And I was like…huh. And I just had this realization where I looked at him in my head and just felt like…white noise, the way I would if I was trying to understand the thoughts of a wolf or something. I’ve watched this show going on maybe eight times and had never really given much thought to how little I actually knew about him or his motives/desires, and I was just kind of hit with the feeling that this guy is very, very unlike me and exceptionally dangerous.

For a show all about profiling and understanding people, it's interesting how little we are allowed into our main character’s inner thoughts. Hannibal as a show is thought of a lot as like, the seduction of Will Graham and the pull between Hannibal and Jack, but really I feel like I’m watching Hannibal and Jack in a bike race while this random beautiful guy stands off to the side and is trying to pick which bike he’d rather put a stick between the spokes of. And you ask him why and he just stares at you with his big blue eyes and you're just kinda like alright whatever you say gorgeous.

We’re given emotional closeups to Jack and Hannibal, but Will, much like he is with other people, is kind of kept at arms’ length. We don’t need an exposé on who Hannibal is because of the mythology around him. We know who he is, but the first stated theme of the show (which Will says in S1E1) is “Tell me who you are”. 

We know Hannibal, we know Jack. Aside from building off the audience’s knowledge of these characters and their morality, Hannibal’s motivations and emotions have always been apparent in the story. All of them can be sort of summed up as curiosity, eating the rude, loneliness, and love. 

We know a lot about the other killers he profiles. Their motives, their pathologies, their wants. He takes them on, but every time he does, we know less and less about him.

We don’t know who Will Graham is. Alana mentions making an effort to not be alone with him, and we aren’t ever really alone with him either, especially early on: there’s always dogs there, or hallucinations, or actual people to reflect off of. And because his empathy disorder sort of makes him a vessel for the wants, desires, and thoughts of others, we only ever see a construct a person suit that looks person-shaped, potentially caused by being in proximity to other living things.

We know things about other people and can kind of construct an idea of him based on what others think about him--fine china Will, wounded bird Will. And when Hannibal goes to his house we learn the same things he does about him: he lives far from society, in the woods, the outdoors, etc. We are privy to the real Will as much as anyone else is, including himself.

A lot of Hannibal’s dialogue with him can be summarized as that. It’s about getting Will to understand what he is outside of the influence of other people. Who are you?

In the way that Hannibal is a fallen angel and makes a lot of choices due to his emotions, I find him to be as human as it gets in a lot of ways. He’s a killer but he’s exceptionally relatable and kind of hosts the most extreme versions of wants and desires--wow, this person sucks, I totally get eating them! Wow, turning yourself in out of love! And if we’re running with that, Will on the other hand, I feel like is the opposite. 

I never once was like “wow, you’re doing x because of y”. He just does things. There’s logic and calculation to them, but especially later, beyond revenge or whatever, I feel like trying to understand their reasoning is a futile effort. It’s a very scorpion/frog parable thing: just as the scorpion stings the frog, so too does Will have the urge to kill. It’s in his nature. Which we hear a lot, but viewing it not as “a deep desire to kill” (because he arguably embodies the desires of others) but as some kind of integral element of his existence is interesting. He even goes outright and says it in Season 2: "I've given up good and evil for behaviorism"

He is extremely inhuman and reminds me more of an apex predator than an actual person. Where Hannibal’s perspective towards killing has a certain level of civilized dialogue to it (ie. people as livestock) Will’s definitely strikes me as something different, and wilder/less cultured, in that he seems to view people more as prey--it’s not that they aren’t equal to him like for Hannibal, but more that they are weaker than him. He hunts/fishes/lures, he uses his hands, his teeth. And Will’s urge to kill seemingly has no true motive other than a primal instinct.  His empathy disorder then started striking me less as a disorder and more as an angler fish’s light—it’s a hunting mechanism.

Another thing I think is interesting that kind of plays into this whole hunter Will is that I never really got the sense he had an explicitly “save people” but rather a “hunt killer” instinct which kind of plays into him being a predator. If he really cared about saving people he would’ve given a shit about the people Hannibal killed. But, like, he liked Beverly but his motivation to proving Hannibal was a killer wasn’t like “I need to stop this man from killing and avenge Beverly”, like it was for Jack (who very explicitly has a save people instinct, it’s kind of reflected with his wife’s cancer) it’s, “I need to give him a taste of his own medicine”. He has a hunting drive like a bloodhound—truly, when the fox hears the rabbits scream, he doesn’t come to help

Like an animal, he brings Hannibal his “prey” to the table (Randall Tier, another person who thought he was a predator and paid the price going up against a real one) the way a cat brings dead animals to the people it’s bonded to. 

It’s why it’s kind of impossible to know what he’s going to do at any given time. I think he makes decisions for himself not really in any conscious logic path (today I will x and y) but kind of the way an animal might: he just does it, because he does it, and everything stopping him is outside influence. Sure, if you muzzle a wolf, it can't bite, but that doesn't mean it's not in its DNA to.

I could never really articulate Will’s feelings towards Hannibal in any way that really felt like it encapsulated his character until I kind of thought of him more like a predator than a person. Hannibal very explicitly loves Will in a recognizable way, and shows moments of sexual desire (feeling paternal?) but Will’s feelings towards him kind of seem abstract and unknowable. He certainly feels something. But it always felt more like some kind of pack bonding thing than explicitly an “I love you”. 

People always kind of poke fun at the whole “is Hannibal in love with me scene” but I actually think the way Bedelia’s frames her response is super interesting for how Will is portrayed. Will knows what Hannibal feels, he’s a profiler, but the actual conversation says a lot.  Bedelia frames love not in the same way she talks to Hannibal about it (with Hannibal she uses the words love and extrapolates on his emotions). When she talks to Will, she presents what he feels not as love the way me and you might say it, but in primal language: hunger, ache. Things that he would understand. Both Bedelia and Hannibal are kind of the only ones to recognize this (Hannibal calling him a mongoose).

Anyways. That’s it.

[gaia-prime]

op turned off reblogs because she didn’t like what @she-is-ovarit had to say in response:

I am not saying this with the intention of stirring controversy, but this is similar to being gender critical while having trans-identifying friends, except where you consider for yourself to be a lack of relating to or understanding gender identity, for me it is this plus a lack of belief in it.

"Gender ideology" being a term for the mainstream belief system currently within trans populations and "LGBTQ+" groups surrounding gender identity.

I do not "hate trans people". I simply do not believe in gender ideology or some concept of an ethereal, metaphysical gender identity. It reminds me of astrology or zodiac signs taken to an extra level. Sex-based stereotypes and fashion aesthetics internalized. A person doesn't even need to believe in gender identity (how the term is commonly used today anyways) at all to consider themselves trans or transition, technically. I've even met a few trans-identifying individuals who go by the pronouns associated with their sex.

no like I genuinely believe you that mcwilliamsburg kids are posers and forrester-smith-tailor students are snooty potheads, but I have no way to apply and no reason to internalize this information

If snooty potheads and posers represented gender identities, aka someone's interpretation or meaning they placed on the "vibes" of certain schools, I don't believe that McWilliamsburg kids are posers and Forrester-Smith-Tailor students are snooty potheads, because that's your own perception of your reality (royal "you", not you personally OP). That's the lens in which you see your world and the meaning you place on it. I believe in material reality that these schools themselves exist (aka, biology/sex). I believe that your emotional experiences are real (feeling discomfort or a lack of relation to sex-based norms, stereotypes, roles, aesthetics; or feeling more of a kinship with people of one sex or the other). However your truth isn't mine, and I simply do not see or define people as snooty potheads, posers ("non-binary", "transfemme", "cisgender") etc. I don't believe that a student from McWilliamsburg can call herself a "Forrester-Smith-Tailor" student and this makes her one. It's an imperfect example because transferring schools exists or whatever, but unlike transferring schools as a biologist I have learned it's not actually possible to change one's sex.

I have no way to apply and no reason to internalize this information, and this all makes me feel like I'm in some sort of church. If I were to say, "well, I perceive reality differently and I don't think god exists and I'm homosexual and I won't be having sex with men ("AMAB/OMAB") regardless as to what they believe in and how they perceive themselves", the response is generally, "She's evil ("terf/bigot"), she's a sinner ("genital fetishist"), she's going to hell".

"Gender critical" is just gender ideology atheism. And then in addition to this I just believe in women's rights and gay rights and these two things inform my perspective/lens in which I view my own world in addition to my own experiences. Just like how as an atheist I don't want to "kill all Christians" or think "Christians don't exist", I don't want to "kill trans people" or think "trans people don't exist". Sorry - the astrological gender identity belief system doesn't make sense to me, I already tried unsuccessfully to brainwash myself into believing in it, and honestly it's built off of concepts and beliefs I personally consider homophobic and misogynistic. The threat of persecution, name calling, or the fact that this belief system is considered status quo or the pathway to heaven acceptance doesn't change that I don't believe in this. I can't make myself believe in what I don't believe in.

[horizon-verizon]

What’s Elia’s legacy, lmao ? GRRM belittled her himself by giving her four sentences in 5 books and zero characterization. Barristan is also a bitter incel because he called Elia a “kitchen drab” while comparing her unfavorably to Ashara Dayne ??

A)

(A Dance of Dragons -- "The Kingbreaker")

Barristan is not really "bitter"; he is tired & anxious for Dany to return in the wake of Hidzhar's attempts to undermine her, and that inevitably went to his past with the Targaryens' fall. To reiterate, because he was already thinking about how he didn't want to fail Dany, his thoughts go to his years as a Kingsguard and tasked to protect the now dead Targaryen family.

This is how we end up in his regrets over Rhaegar, which, just like in real life with real people, ors into a semi-related "tangent" about his crush on Ashara Dayne. It's supposed to be very candid flow of his thoughts between the past and the present. And nearly every adult character in this story are haunted by what happened before said war that up-ended everything, whether they were more or less really sound, questionable, or pretty morally bankrupt, there is a gamut. Jaime, Cersei, Catelyn, Ned, Barristan, Jon Con, etc. Esp those who were the closest to those who caused or were triggers for said war. All reflect on how they did not or did perform their duties or how limited they felt they could do when they were performing their duties.

This series is about people, who are products of their world, and this world is pretty sexist (understatment). Ned Stark has thoughts similar to Barristan; Catelyn has words about how thick or wide-hipped a certain girl should be before she marries as she inspects her like some sort of broodmare with a sort of coldness because she herself was anxious about getting her brother, father, uncle, etc. to help her and Robb in the war and wanted things to fall through for them; Jon Snow has frequent resentments against his sister Sansa; she does about him and his bastardry pre-Ned's death (she shouldn't be exactly blamed but it is till an indication how this world runs on classism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. and is built into many character's perspectives). We really need to remember that these PoV chapters are almost stream-of-consciousness, which means we're getting their unfiltered immediate thoughts, reactions and longer thought processes to problem solve. All of which, if you can imagine, are not ever guaranteed or CAN BE morally pristine, esp under stress.

I also ask that you think about even the "nicest" dude around you or that you trust and dare yourself to actually believe they also did not think some sexist or otherwise pretty unfair shit? Or even some woman around you whose actively and verbally non sexist...we, too live in a pretty sexist society, we're not going to have great reflexive thoughts or realize that something we think is sexist until we think about it more.

I'm not saying, again, this is wasn't unfair of Barristan...but what did you expect? Barristan, unlike many other people we could have PoVs of and we know are twisted, demonic people (Craster, Ramsey) or those we do have PoV chapters of and are not really that moral (Cersei, jon Con, Jaime, Tyrion) are not at Barristan's "level" or morality...the man is at least trying to make up for his greater failures and is not trying to oppress Dany in the way Jon Con definitely would. And why? Because unlike Jon Con, Barristan hasn't totally lost himself to his own guilt or developed what another anon describes as extreme "tunnel vision". And thus he is far more useful for Dany, which is a win. Like her bloodriders, who themselves can't have shunted every single prejudice they have developed from childhood once they joined her, but they are still her bosom and most trusted people for very good reason.

Finally, it's unfortunately part of the deal with Westerosi to compare the beauty of women and put it to a hierarchy.

Even outside of Barristan's crush on Ashara, though Elia was recognized as pretty and many of us modern readers would just say she is beautiful to not entertain this idea of a hierarchy of beauty...that very hierarchy of beauty that I'm describing some modern readers are actively trying to delegitimize when they refuse to score a woman's beauty is unchecked in this society/universe! And their diction or vocab is going to reflect the classism, sexism that exists-- "kitchen drab" (female servant of the kitchens who is not as attractive bc she works manually and is thus not going to be able to maintain her appearance like a noble woman can) is used metaphorically for that purpose as much as we might say "look at what the cat dragged in".

Women like Catelyn Stark, Cersei Lannister, Ashara Dayne and men like Jaime Lannister, Rhaegar are at a league of their own/the "top". Ellaria Sand is described implicitly as "sexy" by Sansa, but she is still as "beautiful" as Arianne Martell. Thus "the most beautiful" both bc of pleasing features and those features matching the beauty standards Westerosi Andals have. Elia was, to them, low-tiered and "fell behind" Ashara, Cersei, etc. because she didn't immediately present those ideal physical features. Elia was also constantly told to us as not being as remarkable as other women by other people.

So it's really not just Barristan who is doing stuff like this; he's not uniquely sexist and he's not actually dangerous or evil as you are trying to make him to be. We must remember that he was talking about appearance.

B)

"legacy": the long-lasting impact of particular events, actions, etc. that took place in the past, or of a person’s life

In general and not even talking abt Elia herself, "legacies" don't have to be positive; it's certainly what you want and the point of having one is for a society to remember you positively and have a positive meaning. But it's really about leaving an impactful enough impression of your own importance on the rest of society in some way. You can have a legacy (what people remember you for and why/how you matter) while not having done much, like many women in Westerosi history who are remembered for being good passive queens, tragic queens like Helaena, for being so "patient" and charitable, etc.

The ideal "legacy" for women within the world we're talking about is usually not so much about what she did or what sort of person she is unless it deviates from the rigid definition of "good woman". The you got cultural legacies of Rhaenyra's that was itself botched/inherited from the sexist lens many used to assess this war and her actions.

The kind of "legacy", anon, that you are talking about is the impression more made on the reader than the one made in the world and in this society. If Rhaegar had lived, become King, and ascended the throne for Elia to become Queen, perhaps Elia would have made some some of impact the way consorts typically do...perhaps not as she was severely ill after her pregnancies. Also, Queen Rhaella--Aerys' own sister wife and Rhaegar's mother--doesn't really have a "legacy" that isn't dependent on Daenerys or Rhaegar? More women before her have not really had a strong political legacy so much as a dramatic one if they were silent, more or less. And that is kinda the point: women were/are shunted in the pursuit of all these political stuff, whether purposefully or as a consequence of their extant role as subsidary heir-givers for men. Elia got the shortest end of the stick, yes, but that doesn't negate every other bad end for women in this world and it coming from the same place. (And no she nor the Dornish are "PoCs".)

So women's "legacy" is, as I said, very pre-determined and rigid.

The primacy of Elia's (Watsonianly) legacy is how she died, her kids, and being consort to a prince; the other parts, like with Lyanna with Ned, have to be brought up by a brother or some other living and active character because she herself is dead. Both her and Lyanna can only be remembered and characterized through the memories/thoughts and quick words of their brothers, and only through them do we get personality.

Is it unfair she got then end she got, yes, that's the entire point; she is also a secondary character who is serving her purpose as a 2ndary character whose gender is going to inform her narrative role.

I do agree GRRM could have not made her so ill OR leave her ill and still somehow be more active as to "take her out of the action" so to speak, to accrue more influence in court and through that we get to hear/witness what sort of person she was a little so we could have that love vs duty, Rhaegar-Lyanna storyline that is meant to support Dany, Jon, and basically the entire pathos AND logos of this entire series. At the same time, even if she did, we'd still have a dead Elia who got cheated on & likely still have her slighted at a tourney, so...

And as I said in a post about Rhaegar and Lyanna:

not that he used Lyanna for it, but that these two things AS WELL AS HIS KIDS, likely came at odds in terms of "what can I do to make these two things happen without compromising the other"...perhaps, after a life of performing "duty" towards his family, dynasty, the "world", Lyanna is the "love" that NARRATIVELY becomes his "weakness" in a long career of putting "duty" first [embodied by the marriage to Elia]

Is that fair to Rhaegar, Lyanna, or Elia...fuck no, that's pretty much a point. Elia is in a place where her body is used against her in a a marriage arranged for her where she'd have to be faced w/the possibility of a husband who doesn't love her in the way she could have and she "sacrificed" her health entirely to produce heirs for "the prince"/the dynasty/her own Martell family's interests. Rhaegar and Lyanna have a love that causes strife instead of staying "good", an "impossible" one because of how marriage (a political institution made for resources) works against them. And especially women--Lyanna would have been in Elia's place except worse, as Robert once more would have never respected her and even abuse her. Rhaegar's gender doesn't produce as as dire consequences being a man and esp being a good warrior, but he also found a grand purpose within those duties as a prince, grew up with a man with a lot of power and insanity behind him who abused his mother yet still obligated to him as his king...again not "comparable"...but...compelling.

The Rhaegar-Lyanna thing is not really meant to be purely moral and not in the way some people have convinced themselves it is (Elia was a PoC wife Rhaegar hated and chose a white woman to love instead; he abandoned his kids for her; he's to blame for Elia's death bc he didn't make sure she and the kids were at a safe location; Rhaegar kidnapped and r*ped Lyanna).

This relationship was grand and a (Watsonianly) true and born from pure affection and authenticity on both their parts...it was ALSO still was a trigger for the war that ended a dynasty, foreshadowed by at least 3 other broken engagements in Westerosi history (Duncan, Shaera, and Jaehaerys II). Elia was "stuck" in a way that is different but immediately more obvious than how Rhaegar was and much more similar to how Lyanna was. Like how the saying in the books goes, love is the "death" of duty; and "duty" can be a thing of love like how I feel an obligation towards a sibling, but duty can also limit one towards prioritizing an undeserving family member...then is it love? (Elia was not undeserving, but we don't know enough what happened or what their relationship was like AND the point is that this world is...morally questionable.)

That also doesn't mean you have to like it or GRRM's choices. It also doesn't mean that there isn't something to the Rhaegar-Lyanna relationship that is worth noting and liking, either, or to make as if it isn't a reflection and a different take/aspect of a core thing in the book that does illustrate it simultaneously.

[femefetalelevelingup]

Saw the viral question roaming from youtube tiktok and elsewhere on the debated topic "Bear vs man"

I will choose the bear . The creature will avoid me unless i do harm to it which thats not my intention they stay away from humans than attack them randomly unlike men....the ones who have malicious intent or not its better to be armmed with tazzors that cops and nurses use as protection when guns arent available along with be fit enough with self defence skills to run or escape them.

Its usually in secluded places men*( insecure and malicious men) will cause harm (stalking , murder, hold ups and r**e etc) comming from a south east asian country much to how we are able to solve the crime its still there and whats sadly present is gun for hires .

Its best to be in places with people(and caution) then when you have time and money or great internet connections please take self defence classes, arm yourself with self defence weapons (from tazors , keychain with spikes or High pitch alarms etc), send locations where you are to trusted freinds , family members , spouce ad more.

have a mini notebook with numbers from your hospital emergancy, police services etc and in my specific country Women and childrens protection, protection against abuse etc .

To the ladies in south east asia ... As much as you find the passport bros "intresting" and want to be with them...its not worth it you will end up as their S*x slave , mother he can f**k , an incubator the rest is history , they will take advantage of our no divorce laws and no abortions to trap you (to the filipinas out there)

Never listen to any pickmisha and bitter betty family and family freinds who pressure you to have a man (local or Pp bros) they want you as miserable as they are . You can take the warning or not im only posting a psa as i care about the women from thoes places

When you do want to date someone , choose generosity and he provides for you and future children(its not golddigging , the people who say it is projecting your inacesable to be used and abused) , if he shows any red flags from negging, comparisson, gaslighting etc Prepare your leave Do not give your two weeks notice including Block and Delete contact .

Secretly take or sabotage anythin he holds against you either record action/words etc , secretly memorize his passwords to take out pictures/videos he uses as black mail.

Always ALWAYS have your trust best friend on contact and never betray her to have a partner/man

Focus on yourself even decenter men when needed

Have a bank account you contribute 10-30+$ or in my country 50-300₱ (fr the filipinas) the others you can add from small amount (lets use a round up of how much will it cost to exchange for an american dollar to 2x the amount start small and work your way up :) )

Do not Combine or have shared bank accounts (financial matters) many are wreckless and Will use financial abuse aka control what they allow you to buy or recive in cash . Your Money Is Yours to use(brush up economics audiobooks even frm youtube or try channels like these ladies from what pov you like to hear

The financial diet(from basics to daily life and relationships

One big happy life (personal, relationships and family finances

YourRichBff (pov from a previous wall st trader , investment , personal and perspectives from a poc from asian decent)

Always always know your home , cooking and leaning skills when living alone

Seek therapy (or freind n relative you trust) road to recovery dose take time and effort You got this :)

[fabrickind]

How do you become a professional cosplayer? Thnx :)

Hello there!

Short answer is: you don't lmao

Long answer is: it's complicated and incredibly difficult, and depends on what you mean by "professional."

If you mean "someone who judges contests and/or gets invited to cons," the VAST majority of those aren't professionals. They may or may not get an appearance fee, even, depending on the con. (Note to cosplayers: don't let cons take advantage of you by not paying you for your work for them! Always get per diem, travel, and hotel at BARE minimum, and preferably also an appearance fee.) This isn't that hard to do, but you need to have a portfolio that backs up why you would be a good guest, and a good reason why you'd be a good guest. It's just a matter of emailing and/or applying to cons. I've only guested once, but if you want tips, I can give them.

However, based on the phrasing, I'm assuming you are a newer cosplayer who isn't ready for that yet. I assume this because if you've been around a while, you know that this isn't a question. Not "this isn't a question you ask" (as in, we don't talk about it in polite society), but that this isn't really a *thing* in the way that people outside of the cosplay community seem to think it is.

(Side note: I remember this question being asked for at least 15, 20 years online lmao it's easier to make money cosplaying now than it was then, but it's still incredibly difficult to make a living wage and fully support yourself on cosplay.)

There are professional cosplayers out there, as in, people who make the majority or all of their income from cosplay. They tend to be few and far between, and one of the open secrets of the community is that some people who try to make a go at it are supported by a partner or family with money.

But! There are ways to make money as a cosplayer. It's difficult and unlikely, especially with how saturated the market is, but there are ways.

This is all from a USA perspective, which I assume you're from or at least a similar culture, since you're asking me and not, say, someone living in Japan.

Do commissions. This works once you have a high enough skill level to have a client base that wants to pay you for those skills. It's difficult to both get enough commissions and finish enough commissions to have a living wage, though, so it's really only recommended if you are fast at it and/or are okay with it being a side gig.

Start a business selling resources. Patterns, 3D models, resin kits, etc. You'll be operating on thin margins, there's competition out there, and you'll need to be good and fast at these things, but some business prowess, skill, and a bit of luck, and people have done it. Some people also sell tutorials and such, but I don't know how much they make.

Sell prints. This is going to be the hardest of these to make a living wage on. You can couple this with other things on this list to add supplemental income. Basically, sell pictures of yourself online and at cons, start a Patreon, become a booth babe (there isn't enough in the way of "official cosplayer" jobs to make a living on, and usually you aren't paid much and still have to make the costume), etc. This bullet point usually goes with the next two.

Become an influencer. Confession: I don't know quite how this works, but your money would be coming from sponsorships, paid posts, youtube ad revenue, etc. This is also a lot of work, and you would basically be hustling 24/7. Think of the direction you would want to take this and what specific thing you would offer that sets you apart, and.....figure out how to become an influencer lmao. idk if there are cosplay influencers that make a full living off of it since it's a somewhat newer field and far from what I do, but the margin of success is also pretty small, I'd imagine.

Sex work. This is even further from what I know about, so I have NO idea how much money you would make or how to get into it. I'm sure there are guides online. You can do anything from the extremely soft (think gravure modeling: sexy clothes, lingerie, sexy poses, light nudity) to harder stuff (depicting sex acts, whether solo or with toys or partners, catering to fetishes in addition to cosplay, camming, etc.). This is going to be difficult as well and while all of these are not for everyone, this one especially. (Honestly not my thing at all but so much respect for people who can handle it.) You'll want to keep yourself safe online for SURE if you go into this, and it will require stricter safety measures than the rest of these (which also require strict safety measures). Also think long and hard about whether you want the stigma following you: unfortunately, our society still stigmatizes sex work, and you can lose jobs, friends, etc. if people find out, and it'll be hard to physically get and keep your money because of banks and credit card processors not accepting sex work money. This isn't to say "don't do it" but it's something to really think about and look into. IDK where to get advice on the cosplay specific side of this, but Slate's How to Do It column has had a few letters about sex work generally over the years -- here's a few -- and usually Stoya points the letter writer to further resources. (Also tends to be only cosplay adjacent from what I've seen? You'll be dressing up but won't be wearing much in the way of costumes lmao)

There might be more ways that I can't think of, but these are the main ones you will encounter. Again, being a professional cosplayer isn't really like....a thing. Most people who have done it have had a long and difficult career of carving out space for themselves and finding income streams. There really isn't something, at least here, that is having someone pay you to exist in cosplay, unfortunately.

I'm also assuming you aren't talking about costuming generally as a career, which is a whole different ballpark. Actually, that might be something to look into as a career to fund your cosplay hobby (and possible cosplay side gig) if you are interested. Otherwise, enjoy it as a hobby, slowly build a business if you think you are up to it, and see where it takes you. :]

I hope that helps! Good luck

[inkdragonworks]

What would be for tips on designing characters?

This is kind of a complicated topic.

I think the first tip is to identify what the character design is for. like is it for a school project, a prompt, a parody of something else (and is said parody meant to be a tribute, or satirical), etc. Is the purpose going to be making them heroic, cute, cool, sexy, intimidating, scary, goofy, etc. Is this just for fun, experimenting, or something to represent yourself? Is this a member of a species/cast of characters, and if so, what traits are common to the species/cast, and what traits are unique to them? Knowing that beforehand can help set your expectations, and give you some direction to work towards (or away from? if you're really trying to experiment...)

The next step I'd usually suggest doodling ideas off the top of your head. it's unlikely to be "good" but it does help establish your current perspective that's been built up subconsciously over the years from exposure to media and your own tastes. It's a good point of reference to start off with imo. Sometimes that might be all you need, if you really like what you came up with and it speaks to you in some way.

Typically though, especially if you have a specific goal in mind or are learning character design or are trying to venture out of your comfort zone, it won't look that good/unique yet. That's when you'd begin researching: take a few characters that come to mind that fit your idea of goals established. If you want to make a cool character, what are traits that stick out to you as "cool"? Is it certain accessories, their shape, personality, or what they do? Those are things worth considering. If you have an art style established, how can you translate those aspects? If there's real-world or other references you can bring in, that's always good too, and has a better chance of coming up with something that feels more personal/unique.

Along with researching is when you'd start experimenting with this stuff. Trying out different body/head proportions, eye shapes, how hair looks. A really important thing to consider is how often you expect to draw this character. If it's something you know you'll draw hundreds or thousands of times, then you really need to weigh in what parts of them are fun to draw versus not fun, whether you can simplify parts of them into easier shapes, is the difficult aspect something you're willing to get better at overtime, what aspects lend itself to a wider range of expression (unless the goal is to make them NOT expressive, or w/e).

This is also where I'd start thinking more about stuff like personality and how they think. Maybe you have an idea already that's part of your overall goal, but now you should be trying to figure out how to convey that in the design. What's their history? What people do they interact with regularly and how do they interact with them? What's their long term and short term goals? Who is their favorite my little pony character? You don't HAVE to answer all of these, and you definitely don't have to commit to them forever, but it's the kind of stuff that will help inform your design more, and maybe even aid in world-building (if that's part of your goal).

I think the final "tests" would be trying to make some kind of reference stuff, arriving at a consistent draft of your findings. This can involve doing some turnarounds, seeing what they look like at different angles, or minor details. Expression tests involving the face, or body.

If it feels like something that appeals to you and hits on the goals you've established, then I say that's good enough... but I also think you should be open to experimenting on them further too, when inspiration hits. Character design is something most people change their tastes or get better at, and it's good to be open-minded about trying new things to see if that works out. It can be as complex as a whole redesign or just changing the color scheme. And while I described the process linearly, sometimes you'll get to the reference part and realize the goal itself ought to be changed. That's fine too, it's good to bounce back and forth all the steps if that's what helps you create something you like.

Of course we don't really design stuff in a vacuum and post stuff for others to look at, so I think another important aspect to temper your expectations is to know that not every character is created equal. Your concept could be an android-samurai that is haunted by math problems and maybe you can pull off that concept the best anyone ever could... it's not likely to get as many notes as "bunny girl with big boobs #35279". That doesn't mean you failed, just that your potential audience will be more niche, and likely their connection to a character idea, if presented well, might be deeper.

Of yeah, presentation. People aren't going to always know every single aspect of your character at a given moment: it's good to keep in mind what the themes of a character are and at least try to be consistent with that. It's totally okay to draw them in silly memes all you want, but don't blame other people if they have trouble taking them seriously when you suddenly put them in a dramatic trauma web series (you would have to pace your transition into it thoughtfully). You should try to present them in ways that make sense for their character. But sometimes you discover that maybe you don't like that anymore... it's fine to shift them into a new direction, I think that's part of the artistic discovery process.

That's all I can think right now that's broad. I think anything else is more just specific to my own preferences.

[cruel-hiraeth]

my opinion is that you're a very talented writer, but seem hard on yourself for not writing more, writing "better," etc. i think you bring a unique perspective and a very poetic writing style to everything you make, and i'm just appreciative that you share it with us, no matter how frequently or infrequently. ❤

thank you so much for your kind (and honest) words. i am—like many others here—a recovering perfectionist, which naturally spills over into my hobbies, and can make them less enjoyable. i’ve always taken my writing seriously, but i’ve never been as hard on myself as i have since i started posting my work on tumblr. even when i had my creative writing workshops in college, i didn’t fret and stress as much as i do now. i know i put an unfair amount of pressure on myself when others are going to see and read my work; with tumblr specifically, i think the nature of vying for attention on the dash/compelling people to read what you write is the hardest part—something that isn’t unlike writing professionally. and of course—in a space filled with endlessly talented and creative individuals—i do fall into the trap of comparison. i know i’m not alone in my struggles, but it’s also not popular to talk about things like that on here, so i really try to put my head down and push through with the knowledge thay i’m not alone. i’ve found that breaks from tumblr (no matter how brief) help me ground myself—and my writing as a byproduct. ultimately, i’m working on being kinder to myself, which is easier said than done. i do derive joy from sharing my writing with others, and i hope to continue to do so for a long while. so, again: thank you for being here, and thank you for sharing words of encouragement ❤️