#relevant for both in this case

[grimalkinmessor]

The way that I—

[penofwildfire]

Ninjago Pilots: Teenage girl gets kidnapped by skeletons

Ninjago Dragons Rising Season 2: Teenage skeleton gets kidnapped by girl

[hmmbo]

im back! wanted to redraw my first finished ultrakill fanart to celebrate being in this fandom for a year. god i love robots. thanks for your time

[penny-anna]

sharing this info in case it's of use to anyone else: i had a root canal recently & due to chronic issues w nasal congestion had an absolutely Hellish experience w the dental dam due to it covering my nostrils.

anyway i'm now in the process of having a 2nd root canal treatment and figured it was worth asking if there was anything they could do to help and it turns out YES they can cut back the dental dam so your nose isn't obstructed & they treated this like a perfectly normal request.

[curiosity-killed]

*crawls out of 2 yrs’ silence on mdzs* in a modern au Lan Wangji’s reliance on structure and rules could closely mirror the way some students advance immediately from bachelors to masters to phd without taking breaks because it is a “safe” route that allows them to fulfill family and societal expectations of success and intellect in a relatively familiar environment without the perceived higher risk and greater volatility of success in the workforce, particularly where there is a family business in which such education is not necessary but still rewarded. His protection of Wei Wuxian could similarly play out as him dropping out of his studies before being pulled back by his family, and his growth across the 13 yrs supported by completing his degree but shifting his dissertation focus or concentration to a less theoretical and more highly applied vein of the same field. In this AU, I—

[neversetyoufree]

Wait hold on I just noticed something really funny.

I'm sure we all remember the incredibly gay moment of Domi quoting her father at Jeanne to talk about "enjoying her beauty:"

But! I just realized that this line was changed a bit from the real de Sade quote. The real life version that's usually quoted is this: "Sexual pleasure is, I agree, a passion to which all others are subordinate but in which they all unite." To be really reductive, it's essentially saying "everything is about sex."

Which like. This line as written was already a lot. But so long as there was no translation weirdness, we can assume that Mochijun picked this line out for this scene based on the "sexual pleasure" version. Hello lesbians.

[seaweedstarshine]

Sometimes I think of Amy Pond, who grew up being called mad by those who wielded the word as a tool of exclusion and shame —

Amy Pond, who though forced into the hands of four psychiatrists, still clung to that which they called madness until those systems which elevate psychosocial conformity above humanity stripped it from her —

Amy Pond, whose imaginary friend reappeared for a single hour after twelve years and reignited that faith before disappearing for two more years —

Amy Pond, who spent those those two years under the same implicit threat ingrained in her through psychiatric violence, and thus began to believe the man who stopped the invasion was “just a madman with a box,” only for him to agree, and to also call her “mad, impossible Amy Pond,” reframing madness as non-negative for the first time in her life —

Amy Pond, who ignored the disembodied voice of her imaginary friend even as she ran away with him for real, who still lived each day with the traumatic internalization of deviancy dictated upon her by the psychiatric-industrial complex that shaped her from childhood —

Amy Pond, who wouldn't acknowledge the Doctor's voice, such that it took an Angel in her eye that was literally killing her to ensure she couldn't reality check herself —

Amy Pond, who stood before a room which muttered about “the psychiatrists we brought her to,” and though afraid, escaped their rigid parameters of acceptable existence.

[wondercourse]

if your "pro-CDD" advocacy involves fakeclaiming pwCDDs who are pro-endo, it's not pro-CDD. it's just anti-endo. please stop pretending it's for all pwCDDs when so many of you are willing to catch them in the crossfire because clearly they're having it INCORRECTLY and FAKELY (/sarcasm) due to them believing that... [squints at paper] ...plurality and CDDs are two separate concepts that have heavy overlap, rather than a singular entity with two aspects that are inextricable from one another.

it's not about caring about people with CDDs. if it ever was, it's not anymore. it's just about hating endos.

btw this goes the other way too (i.e., yes you hate anti-endos but are you normal about pro-endos with CDDs and non-CDD plurality, including outside of western cultures), it's just that the initial example is more common in my experience + it's fresh on my mind

[mqfx]

question: how do you come up with OC interactions that aren't yours? I'm curious as to how you fit them into the story

a lot of trust, back and forth, and inducing madness in my subjects (the OC handlers aka @dragonji and @yanqings) and letting their brain do most of the work for me :3

I basically treat the OCs as I would canon characters but with the special bonus that I can immediately ask the handlers like "hey is this the vibe" and they will check / revise / discuss with me. sometimes I also just ask "so in this given scenario, what would OC do" bc I'm not always 100% accurate so it's important to check in w them!! then I'll write up a scene and show it to them at every stage of revision. this means that they both have greater access to the sacred texts (my outlines) bc the story actually depends on the actions of their OCs to some extent. and in exchange I bear the holy honor of helping bring their OCs to life 🥰🥰 it takes a lot of trust and coordination so let's take this time to clap and thank our OC handlers for their infinite patience 👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

[leupagus]

So I'm sure there's different versions of this

But the one my cantor* told us when we were in Sunday School was this one:

Two rich men go to a cloth merchant's shop. This merchant is known for having beautiful silks, even though he has but a small humble store in the outskirts of town — so small that his infant son is sleeping on one of the chests!

These rich men want to buy these silks, so they demand to see them at once.

The merchant says, "I am sorry, they are not for sale today. Come back tomorrow and I would be happy to show them to you."

The rich men, knowing that this merchant is a Jew, think "ah-hah, he wants more money!" So they offer him a tremendous sum.

"I am sorry, they are not for sale today. Come back tomorrow, good sirs."

The rich men are puzzled, but they double their price. Quadruple it. Anything this merchant wants, they can give him.

"I am sorry, they are not for sale today. Come back tomorrow, if you please."

So, the rich men leave, annoyed, but they present themselves the very next day and sure enough, the merchant goes to a chest and pulls out the most beautiful silks that these rich men have ever seen. And when they offer to pay, he will only accept the price that he himself has deemed fair — many times less than even the first offer these rich men made.

"But why would you not give us these silks yesterday?" they ask, happy but baffled as they (or more probably their servants, but the cantor didn't get into that) pack up the silks to leave.

Just then, the merchant's wife comes in from the back, carrying their infant son. The merchant smiles and says, "Because my child was sleeping on that chest, and I did not wish to disturb his slumber. His peace is more precious to me than all the money you, good sirs, could ever provide."

[fideidefenswhore]

Anne's ability to hold the king off for seven years is part of her legend. The brilliance of her strategy was to cast herself in the role of the courtly lady, requiring Henry to play to perfect knight. Henry was nothing if not dogged in the pursuit of all the roles in which he cast himself—philosopher-king, warrior, even husband—and 'this persona of courtly lover...was fully formed in Henry and had been signaling...for an answering adept to come and lift its latch. In Anne, he had her: she was the mistress of Petrarchan contraries [...] the perfect [player] for the king's tender interest.'

Renaissance Prince: Elizabeth, Lisa Hilton

[nexus-nebulae]

love watching weather science videos but like. why am i 1000x more interested in tornadoes over hurricanes. they're both spinning air

[ojirocardigansniper]

ouguhhh just read the summary and article from this post about alexandre baril's work on suicidism (oppression of the suicidal) and the opening paragraph of the conclusion in the full article. thoughts. rotating

i was thinking about the. thick white gloves. while reading. remembered that one post about how csa being horrifically taboo to talk about compounds survivors' trauma and shame and went Maybe something similar re: suicidality and suicide... the suffering multiplied by the silence, the risk of dismissal or instant change in perception in anyone you tell... and even in 'mental health' spaces the perception that suicide as a topic is dangerous to talk about- that it could be triggering instantly and automatically- is like. i think there's some paternalism there and there's some shamefear and there's some oversimplification and there's the fact that it plays well into the existing well-taught impulse to avoid the discomforting. but like. this post also about how getting through suicidality is maybe only possible by considering the option thoroughly. i am just thinking. idk. yall know me yall know i think about this topic a lot

[sage-nebula]

I've decided to make my own post because I am not an idiot, but full disclosure that this post is 50% based on thoughts I was having while I was driving home from the auto repair shop yesterday and 50% a response to a post I saw just now that conflated "redemption arcs" (things fictional characters go through in fictional stories) with "community support" (things real life people offer to other real life people in real life) and how this relates to "fixing people" (making someone who mistreats or abuses themself or others not mistreat or abuse themself or others anymore).

Read my words very carefully.

In fiction, it is more than okay to like whatever type of toxic or fantastical relationship you want. If you like to read stories about toxic, codependent people who are absolutely horrible to one another and will never, ever change, you read those stories. If you like to read stories about a tortured man who just needs The Right Person to teach him to be better, and then he is, sometimes exclusively only to them though, then you read those stories. Sometimes you want to read stories where the main character says "I can fix him" and fails spectacularly, and sometimes you want to read stories where the main character says "I can fix him" and succeeds spectacularly, and either way, you read whatever stories you want, whatever makes you happy, I'm sure it's somewhere in this vast Archive that we call Our Own.

However, in real life?

First of all, "arcs" aren't things real life people have. An arc is something that has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Real life people don't have those, because our stories don't end until we die. Unlike a character, whose life presumably continues even after their story ends (except in circumstances where they die at the end but you know what I mean), we have to keep living day by day, with all the rises and falls that come with it. Now, this does not mean that a person cannot change, or that a person can't get better and learn from their mistakes; but it DOES mean that we can't have a "redemption arc" where we complete a checklist of story beats and then suddenly we're a better person who has experienced the necessary growth to be forgiven. First off, no amount of growth or change ever requires any victims to forgive. And second, that's just not how life works. That's not how change works. Change and growth are baby steps taken each day, and sometimes you go backwards, and you get angry with yourself, but then you pick yourself up and you try again the next day, and the next, and the next. It's an ongoing journey that does not end until you die. That's life.

But second and more importantly, the real idea that I think the original post was trying to get at, but missing the mark on was . . . okay.

So, the original OP of the post (and the person who replied to OP) got angry at the idea that the strawman they had invented (the person who had theoretically said "you can't fix him!") would deny support to someone who needs that help to grow and change as a person. The person who had replied in support of OP added that the strawman clearly believed in punitive justice over rehabilitative justice as well. On the surface, I can see where they are coming from. After all, on the whole humans are a social species and do need support networks in order to not only thrive, but survive. People such as drug addicts need support and assistance in order to get into better places in their lives, and the prison system has been proven to be far less effective at preventing repeated offenses than rehabilitative programs. This is all true.

However.

The reason why "you can't fix them" is still true, and needs to be said and understood particularly by those who are susceptible to falling into abusive relationships (e.g. people who have been abused before, particularly in childhood or adolescence) is because of free will. Specifically, the free will that each of us has, but specifically the other person. Person A can want so, so, so badly to "fix" Person B so that they stop being an abusive alcoholic 75% of the time. But if Person B doesn't actually want to stop being an abusive alcoholic (even if they say they do during the 25% of the time they aren't smacking Person A around), and refuses to put in the work that it takes to become sober and be a better person, then guess what? Nothing Person A does will ever make them be a sober, non-abusive partner. They will be unable to fix Person B. It doesn't matter how much time, energy, money, or commitment they pour into that person. It doesn't matter how much they genuinely, honestly, earnestly love them. Because unless Person B wants to change, and will put the work into doing so, then they will not change, and Person A, for their own health, safety, and sanity, needs to exit that relationship.

Now, does that mean that if, ten years down the line, Person B decides they are ready to put in the work to get their alcoholism under control, no one should help them? Of course not! They should absolutely be put in touch with sober counselors, support groups, medical professionals, friends and family who can help them. Person A could potentially forgive them, if Person A chooses. But that willingness to change and put in the work has to come from within Person B first.

I've been in the position where I've seen people in awful situations just tanking their lives, people I loved and cared about, people I begged to just listen to me and get help, only for them to not . . . and ultimately I had to accept that I couldn't fix them. I could be there to offer support when they were ready to fix themselves, but the core work that needed to be done had to come from within themselves. I couldn't provide that. Not because I was inadequate, not because I didn't love them, but because I couldn't force them to do anything they didn't want, or weren't ready, to do.

So at the end of the day, "you can't fix them" isn't about not giving support. It's about recognizing your limitations as a human being. It's about knowing that:

You cannot force someone to do something they do not want to do.

You cannot force someone to do something they are not ready to do.

Not being able to help or save someone is not a moral failing of yours.

Not being able to help or save someone does not mean you do not love or care about them.

Providing support should never come at risk of your own health and safety, physical or otherwise.

When you love someone, it can be really hard to accept this. You think, "I know I can make them want to try. I know I can inspire them to want to change. I know they love me, so if I just love them a little harder, they will want to change." Nine times out of ten, though, that is just not true. And if someone is abusing you, it is not worth the literal risk to your life to keep trying. You are worth more than that. You are more than just someone else's band-aid.

Keep yourselves safe in 2024.

[raggydollsscreenshots]

Posting screenshots from The Raggy Dolls every day until ITV puts it on ITVX: Day 123:

[desperatepleasures]

for months I've been thinking about how whatever my next fic ends up being is going to introduce the Chubby Kantarou tag into the ao3 ecosystem but now I'm strongly considering just. not tagging it at all and just acting as if readers should expect it. do you think I could gaslight pple into thinking that that's widespread fanon and not just my own personal headcanon? do you think I could gaslight readers from outside the fandom into thinking it's canon? not tagging it could grant me unspeakable power....