#so many people don't know the history or anything

[genderqueerdykes]

absolutely off the rails behavior when cis lesbians become enraged when you tell them that it's butchphobic to exclude butches who are transfemme, trans women, transmasc, men, take testosterone, have penises, and/or get top/bottom surgery from the butch and lesbian community. like the fact that we have historically always belonged to the lesbian community has been coming from the mouths of gnc and transfemme & transmasc butches for decades but everyone plugs their ears and doesn't listen.

the lesbian community has such a long and rich history of being a safe place for transfemme, trans women, transmasc, masc, intersex, genderqueer, non binary, and male presenting people who take testosterone and get top and bottom surgeries. before the rise of lesbian separatism and political lesbianism, transmascs & transfemme butches in lesbian spaces were not an issue. also in the past there just wasn't anywhere else for us to go. we were shoved into lesbian spaces by force, but also wanted to stay there because it's a community that's dear to our hearts and still means a lot to us

lesbians were the ones who made it safe for us to be there in the first place.

it's unfathomable to see people who say you should respect butches when it comes to their pronouns, identity, etc., to not invalidate their genders, to not assume anything about what gender they identify with- but the second they find out that some butches who are transfemme, trans women, or take T and still identify as lesbians and dykes they police our identities and bodies and insinuate that we can't be real butch lesbians for x, y and z reasons.

it's just insidious to exclude transfem butches and butch trans women on so many levels. i see this constantly and it's never called out as a form of butchphobia as well as a form of transmisogyny, especially when that person does not want to get bottom surgery. to call any MtF butch a man that's invading the lesbian community is to admit that one knows nothing about the complex gender identities and struggles transfemme butches and butch trans women face. to identify this way is one of the most prolific and powerful expressions of butchness, and what it means to be a butch lesbian. to deny these people the right to call themselves butch is inherently, inarguably butch and lesbophobic as well as trans/misogynistic.

to chase any of these people out of butch, lesbian, dyke and sapphic spaces is inherently butchphobia. yes, butchphobia affects perisex cis butch women, but it also affects so many more people. it affects transmascs and men. it affects genderqueer and non binary people. it affects bigender men. it affects transfemme lesbians and trans lesbian women. it affects trans girls and mtf lesbians in general. it affects intersex people. it affects lesboys. it affects boy/guydykes. it affects queer people of color. it affects studs.

it affects dykes, lesbians, and sapphics in general. this is a form of lesbophobia, trans/androphobia, intersexism, and especially butchphobia, no matter what. we have to accept ALL butches who don't fit into a neat little box of what a masculine queer person should be like.

[cloudraker]

What would the tfp autobots (your pick) reactions would be if their neutral NB cybertonian ally goes, "Oh? You didn't know? I have a Conjux now :)" and brings the motherfucker predaking.

But hey! Atleast the predacon is a green flag. The man would do anything for the reader, respects them, and is utterly smitten. At that point the autobots wouldn't have to worry about him anymore since reader is their ally

This has been rotting in my inbox for so long,, anon if you see this thank you for your patience

TFP Preadaking with a Neutral S/O

Under the cut :)

Setting this after the war/the return to Cybertron

Assuming you didn't fight in the war, you're probably the most normal person he knows. You're probably the most normal person on Cybertron at this point. The others don't think much of it when you start spending more and more time out by yourself- there's a lot to take in now that the war is over and cybertron is so different

Your little adventures start at a few hours, then it's half a day, and before long you're gone for days at at time. That's when they start asking questions

Where have you been going? What could possibly be so important that you go missing for days at a time when there is- what do you mean you met somebody?

Having to explain that yes you met somebody and yes they're on Cybertron and well you don't know if it's a good idea if they all met him. It's all very "he goes to a different school you don't know him"

They eventually get you to agree and when you actually bring him around the Autobots are.. well they sure are there and that sure is a guy you've brought home

Predakind, to his credit, is on his best behavior. He's standing behind you (a respectable distance away from them) as you talk the others out of shooting him then and there

He doesn't stay long, much to your disappointment. A few conversations with both sides reveals their past history, leaving you caught in the middle.

The overall consensus on the Autobot side is "you're an adult, we can't stop you but it's also a really bad idea-"

Ratchet would be the most understanding- which isn't saying much. He's upset but he also knows you don't have the same feelings towards Predaking as he and the other Autobots do- to you, he's just some guy you met. While he makes his many grievances known, he also makes it clear that if anything happens you'll still have people supporting you

Magnus is.. conflicted. On one hand, part of him is glad that there's some sense of normalcy for somebody- a hope that things will be okay. On the other hand, he doesn't have an other hand

He doesn't count as an Autobot but Knockout would warn you against the predacon, calling him things like dangerous and a brute while also trying to dig any gossip out of you. Will begrudgingly make sure you're polished and shiny before you go out if you ask him for help. Very "you're going out dress like that?"

Once they get more familiar with the idea, Predaking starts making the occasional appearance

At first it's just flying by overhead, letting you know he's still around even if you haven't been able to see each other much lately. Then it's coming to meet you when you've got plans and then he's making very awkward small talk with Bulkhead while he waits for you to come out

Everybody starts to relax a bit when they see just how good he is to you. This hulking beast of a robot, built for fighting and dragged into a time not meant for him, bending to take your hand and kiss your knuckles whenever he sees you. How you never come back with a so much as a scratch on your pain and only with good things to say

He gets some serious side-eye when he enters the base for the first time, and everybody is a bit tense, but it (thankfully) all goes well

He's eventually asked to help with some repairs or some mundane task and- while somewhat reluctant- he complies. For you, of course, in an attempt to make life just a little bit easier

It's a very, very slow journey to having both your partner and the Autobots start to build even a semblance of trust, but you're willing to put in the work and Predaking is willing to put in the work for you

[read-marx-and-lenin]

heyo- a friend is trying to get me to read 1984 because 'it'll totally change your worldview on government and anarchism', but i've heard some bad things about the book itself/george orwell. should i read it? is there anything similar/more theorylike i could read instead?

thank you! your blog rocks <3 <3

Go ahead and read it if you want. It's a classic entry into the genre of dystopian science fiction and it has spawned many imitators since its publication. However, if you're looking for actual theory or history, you won't find it there. I would recommend Pat Sloan's "Soviet Democracy" or Anna Louise Strong's "The Soviets Expected It" and "The Stalin Era" if you want real accounts of the Soviet Union under Stalin.

Orwell never actually visited the Soviet Union, and 1984 is based not on his own personal experience with the country but instead on Western propagandistic views of the country and his own displeasure towards the fact that during World War II, when the UK and the USSR were allies, the British press was much less keen to publish anti-Soviet works right at the same time he was trying to get Animal Farm published. You must also understand that his wife worked for the UK's Ministry of Information as a censor and Orwell himself worked at the BBC producing wartime propaganda. It is not a coincidence then that the main character of 1984, Winston Smith, is a censor and propaganda official working with the fictional "Ministry of Truth" and eventually finding himself battling against state control of information.

Ironically, after stylizing himself so much as a defender of liberty and freedom against the "totalitarianism" of the time, Orwell would write up a list of alleged subversive writers for the British Information Research Department, a secret department tasked with publishing anti-communist propaganda during the Cold War. Some of this propaganda would end up being a comic strip version of Orwell's Animal Farm. There is a significant throughline in both Animal Farm and 1984 that clearly betrays Orwell's political views. In both works, the proletariat are depicted as nothing more than idiots and sheep who follow the orders of anyone willing to give them work and are easily duped by intellectuals. In 1984, he phrases it as the proletariat being more "free" simply because they're so insignificant as to warrant no government surveillance.

In 1984, the fictional society of "Oceania" is a far cry from a dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat have no political power, they all live in slums and are mollified by bread and circuses. How is the building of the slums organized? Where does the money go when one buys their bread? We are not told anything about this except that the process is slow and inefficient. The story isn't interested in material concerns. The "proles" do their work, we are told, but we are never shown much more than informal labor. We don't know who is telling them to work or how they are getting paid. The "Outer Party" is supposedly the white collar "middle" class of Oceanic society, but despite the amount of focus the story has on this class, we are never shown a single Party member managing a workplace or poring over receipts. We are to believe that the proletariat are simultaneously left to their own devices and unmolested by the state, while also completely under the control of the state through invisible mechanisms that are never elaborated upon. While Winston will complain endlessly about his own quality of life, not once does a single prole gripe about their job. The cost and quality of goods come up sporadically and only to illustrate the deterioration of English society under Party rule, never to illustrate any material basis of said rule.

Even more at the periphery are the colonized peoples (although never described as such) within the war-torn areas never under the permanent control of any world power. All three of the global superpowers are said to be in a constant struggle over the control and enslavement of these super-exploited workers and the resources of their nations, which are said to make up a significant proportion of the material resources of each superpower, however at the same time they are not considered to be part of the proletariat and are dismissed as entirely disposable and unnecessary for the maintenance of any of these superpowers. To Orwell, it seems, colonialism is simply a thing the colonizers do out of habit and not a phenomenon with an actual material basis or actual material effects. In turn, the colonized are not actual people who might take umbrage with the constant conflict imposed upon them, but rather chattel that is perfectly content to be traded back and forth among the colonizers.

The importance of the middle class in society is a recurring theme in 1984. For example, the Trotsky-esque political treatise Winston reads within the story, "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism", begins with a twist on Marxist historical materialism - while it recognizes the role of class conflict in human history, it asserts a transhistorical narrative of the eternal existence of three separate classes within society since "Neolithic times": the upper, middle, and lower classes. It is then asserted that it is the middle and only the middle class that is ever revolutionary, and that when it appeals to the lower classes it does so only to use them as a cudgel against the upper classes and never out of a genuine concern for their wellbeing. The treatise, idealistic as it is, provides little definition of these classes. The lower classes are described as "crushed by drudgery" and in a constant state of servitude that places them incapable of achieving political consciousness, something reserved solely for the upper and middle classes. The upper class is defined simply as the "directing" class, and the middle as the "executive" class. The identity of the middle class within Oceania is made clear: they are the "Outer Party", the white collar intelligentsia and managerial class which Winston and Julia belong to. One must assume Orwell viewed himself as a member of the middle class as well. If this section of the book is at all reflective of Orwell's own views (and to be clear no part of the book refutes this outlook,) then Orwell's rejection of Marxism-Leninism is rooted in his view of the vanguard party as simply a mechanism for the intelligentsia and bureaucrats to trick the stupid proles into overthrowing the bourgeoisie, rather than as a genuine means of proletarian liberation.

The politics of the Party are entirely idealistic in nature. "Big Brother" dominates through control of ideology and speech. The goal of Ingsoc, the ruling ideology of Oceania, is to make dissent impossible through the thorough alteration of language and the removal of words which could represent ideas that are not in line with Ingsoc, a process called "Newspeak". It is explicitly stated, however, that none of this ideological control is directed towards the proletariat, which is said to make up 85% of Oceania's population. The proles are not expected to learn Newspeak, they are not monitored by the telescreens, because as is stated quite frankly in the book, "the masses never revolt of their own accord, and they never revolt merely because they are oppressed." That this line is given by the villain of the story is unimportant, because the story never refutes it.

While Winston routinely repeats his belief that "hope lies in the proles", he is consistently met with scenes that challenge his faith whenever he winds up interacting with the proletariat. His conversations with proles reveal their total lack of concern with politics or history. He hears a crowd erupt into chaos and briefly hopes it's the proletarian uprising he is waiting for, only to find it's simply a riot over consumer goods. They are more than once compared to animals. While it is said in exposition that intelligent members of the proletariat who might end up fomenting dissent are eliminated, this is never actually depicted. We don't see Winston meeting with a single intelligent and politically conscious prole. The most intelligent prole he meets turns out to be a secret member of the "Thought Police". And so, the concept remains theoretical.

Winston is depicted as an ardent materialist, desperately defending the notion of external reality against deranged idealists who believe that through control of thought, control of reality becomes possible. But the world he lives in is not material. It is fictional, of course, but more than that, the fictional world described operates on idealistic principles even from Winston's own perspective. Winston's worldview is a faith based one, appealing not to any material basis for liberation but purely to emotion. It is love and the spirit of humanity that is the basis of freedom, and material freedom springs forth from it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is merely a trickster trying to control the masses.

Orwell rejected the material basis of history because he rejected the idea of a revolution on a material basis. To him, the revolution must be an ideological one, and the problem lie not in how society and the economy are organized but in the existence of hateful "authoritarian" ideologies governing the world. He believed the material basis was already here, that industry alone was the solution to material inequality, and so we must concern ourselves now only with the idea of equality and freedom, and from an abstract and universal viewpoint to boot. It is intolerable to him that a revolution be fought against an actual enemy in the real world. The problem is not that the capitalists are in control of the means of production, the problem is that the workers are too stupid to disobey them. A real revolutionary class would spontaneously throw off its own shackles through thought alone. It doesn't matter that Orwell was a lackey and a snitch, because in his mind he was freer and smarter than everyone else.

The bravery of Winston Smith was in recognizing the existence of a material reality that lies and propaganda could never destroy even while being tortured into believing such absurd notions as "two plus two equals five". But Orwell was never tortured into any of his incorrect beliefs. His incorrect beliefs stem purely from accepting the official narrative that he was fed and refusing to investigate its veracity for himself. Orwell's writing was used as propaganda against the designated enemy of the UK throughout the Cold War, adapted countless times in the forms of radio plays, TV shows, movies, and comic books. He never made an effort to actually travel to the Soviet Union to find out if what he was told about the country was true. All the other upper middle class "left-wing" intellectuals he hung out with seemed to be just as concerned as he was with the rising tide of "totalitarianism" and the supposed excesses of the Soviet Union, so why shouldn't he agree? He was in this regard no different than the Western "socialists" of the modern day who have no shortage of vitriol towards China or North Korea. Yes, he might performatively rail against chauvinism and nationalism, but only enough to ensure that he wouldn't be seen as a conservative. He still knew in his heart that his country was surely better than those barbarous communists in the East.

Yes Orwell was sexist and homophobic, and despite his best efforts he remained plagued by racist and antisemitic attitudes, but in addition to all that his books promulgated a view of the world entirely in line with British bourgeois values, which is why they were so eagerly used as propaganda by the British government. The Nazis were bad and the Soviets were bad because they were both authoritarian, and the differences between them were negligible and unworthy of mention. The references 1984 makes to the shifting alliances in Oceania, "we are at war with Eurasia" becoming "we are at war with Eastasia" and vice-versa, are most likely allegories for the shifting alliances of Britain at the time, how they viewed the Soviets as an enemy before the war, as an ally during the war, and as an enemy again once the war was over. Orwell viewed himself as above all of this simply because his view of the Soviets never changed at any point throughout this.

[solisaureus]

Seeing people compare Will and Nico to Achilles and Patroclus is always weird for me because like. First off, Clarisse and Silena are the obvious intentional parallel. Secondly, there is a very specific reason why Riordan actively chooses NOT to compare Will and Nico to Achilles and Patroclus- way too much bad blood between Apollo and Achilles. I feel like most people are only familiar with Achilles through TSOA and the Hades game, and as such often understate WHY Apollo killed him. And why likening him and Patroclus to Will and Nico is in bad taste.

(Hint: Achilles had been warned in advance by his mother that he would die at the hands of Apollo if he killed Apollo's son. He didn't listen and killed TWO of them: Tenes because he intervened when Achilles tried to rape his sister, and Troilus was a twelve year old who Achilles tried to rape, chased into a sanctuary of Apollo, and beheaded/mutilated him at the altar- it's widely regarded as the worst crime Achilles ever committed. So Apollo killed both Patroclus and Achilles, to avenge both of the deaths. I don't think Will is a fan of Achilles, guys.)

ive never been a fan of fans comparing solangelo to patroclus and achilles either, mostly because it just kind of smacks of....idk, reductionism? just the fact that both couples are greek and gay? beyond that their parallels are incredibly limited and usually kind of a reach. and yeah, skimming over the fact that silena and clarisse are the canon patrochilles parallel never sits right with me either.

disclaimer that i did compare will to patroclus in my fic Solace, as a way to illustrate the role of healers in a conflict, not because it has anything to do with his romance with achilles.

the bad blood between apollo and achilles is also a factor. while i do like the song of achilles as a piece of fiction, it does irk me that it's become defining to many young peoples' understanding of achilles and the iliad. I know it's because it's a lot more readable and accessible than classical texts or academic analyses, so i'm not trying to come off as elitist or condescending. but it does bother me that most young people have this one specific view of achilles as a figure (that he's a sensitive lover who met a tragic fate) when there are eons of history and propaganda surrounding him. I believe that in writing tsoa, Madeline Miller wanted to humanize Achilles by expanding on his love for Patroclus in the Iliad, which is a bit ironic considering that that's now become the dominant view of his story. But tsoa is just one interpretation of the myth of achilles, and it's become regarded as the true, canonical one in pop culture.

I think that what bothers me most is that the popular conception of achilles now is as a fictional character, when what he is is a mythical figure. the difference being that a fictional character is sourced from one canon story and is written by only a few people who determine their canonical traits. a mythical figure is sourced from a culture, and in this case the whole world, and cultural portrayals and interpretations of that figure evolve and change over time to reflect the values of the culture telling their story.

For example, achilles was vilified (and hector glorified) by the ancient romans, because achilles was a young soldier who refused to obey his commander and fight because it conflicted with his ideals. this is something that the romans detested and found dangerous (territory can only be conquered with loyal legions). similar discussions about achilles are had in modern militaristic societies like the united states.

I'm going off on a huge tangent here. I guess what I mean to say is that it bothers me too when solangelo fans make this comparison, because i think it is not fitting with will and nico's characters, and because i have a lot of complaints with the fandomization of mythology. And I know that's rich coming from a percy jackson fan, but there it is.

On the other hand, I recognize that the historical and academic texts written about greek myth and achilles specifically are not nearly as accessible as highly-readable fiction books like tsoa and percy jackson. so while this does personally irk me, I don't think the people who do it are stupid or wrong, because like...realistically, I can't expect the average 14 year old solangelo fan to know about the murder of troilus.

[queerprayers]

I’m unemployed dropped out of school before I reached high school and am unbaptised. Does God care about someone like that

Welcome, beloved, to the blog of a high school dropout who walks dogs (but has never actually been employed anywhere), and was baptized as a baby and so did not have any choice in the matter! God cares about both of us, and has given us ways to serve Them in our own lives, as we are now.

Your employment status can obviously matter quite a bit in terms of survival, because of the world we live in, but itself has no bearing on your relationship with God. Whatever the reason you don't have a job, you have a life worthy of care, from those around you and from God. Being employed has never been a Christian focus--devoting your life to God has. Capitalism has changed so much, but please know that the ways the system (and those misled by it) shames you do not reflect the will of God. No human system can decide your worth.

Your level of education, similarly, doesn't say anything about you that God cares about. I dropped out of school for health reasons--whatever yours are, even if you don't feel they're good, whatever! High school was invented like 200 years ago, and has nothing to do with God's care for you. Education is holy--reading, talking to different kinds of people, learning about history and the natural world, thinking about God. This knowledge is in schools but it's also everywhere else. I'm not telling everyone reading this to drop out of high school, but I am saying that there are so many beautiful paths without it. I would also point out that in many places, there is support for people who left schooling early--my city, for instance, has free GED (high school equivalency diploma) programs. If that's something you want to change (of your own volition, not because God will care about you any differently), it's very possible that you can.

Baptism is the most easily changed thing on this list, if you seek it. Most churches require some discussion beforehand, maybe a class to learn about the denomination, but there aren't huge barriers (and there is no test of worthiness). If it's not in your future, for whatever reason, I can still tell you God cares about you, fully, as you are. Baptism is lots of things for lots of people--a symbol, a physical manifestation of grace, a welcoming into a Christian community, a sealing of a covenant--but it has never been the first moment of care from God. That has already passed--it was the first moment you existed. To say you need to be baptized for God to care about you is to say that God doesn't care about anyone from any other religion, or about those who die before baptism--what a sad life that would be. What a limiting belief.

I don't know you, but I have faith you treat others well. I have faith you wouldn't tell me God didn't care about me because of my job or schooling. So don't do that to yourself. I hate to break it to you, but you have no say in the matter. It doesn't matter how worthy you are, or how much you're succeeding by our current society's standards. God is love, a love which keeps no record of wrongs, a love which does not weigh with the measures of this world, a love which cannot be contained in the rituals of an institutional church, a love which does not require knowledge or action or belief to surround us. We are saved by this love, not by a diploma or paycheck or a pastor's words.

Go in peace, beloved. Glorify God with your life, not with someone else's. And anyone who tells you that there are limits on God's care is not talking about the God of the Bible--who works through the underdog, who turns any idea of worthiness on its head, who picks the younger son and the tax collector, the unwed mother and the poor father. God comes to where we are, and takes us by the hand.

<3 Johanna

[lemotmo]

I'm not sure how you feel about getting these anymore but I thought this was hilarious so wanted to share for you at least to read even if you don't want to post. 😊

Q. I really was trying to hold onto the belief that the show wasn't going to make Eddie gay but it's really hard to see what other storyline is possible given those latest Ryan interviews. I would love to say gay or not the show would just keep Buck and Eddie as platonic best friends but there is zero chance of the show not pairing them together. They really did just use my man as filler until they were ready to tell the Eddie story. That's so gross.

A. Well, anon that's the point of a plot device. Their only reason for being is to move a larger story forward. By definition their filler characters. They have no individual significance or purpose. Their purpose is the story they're being used in. I've been telling you this for months now. Many of us have. He was never going to be anything more than a plot device. The show wasn't subtle about it either. It's been pretty much a connect the dots picture of plot device usage. Go back and watch his scenes in season 7 with this new found realization and I promise it will not be hard to see. And I agree, especially with the context the latest Ryan interviews gave, there's really not any other story it could be. He also confirmed they're not turning him into the new Bobby, and he's not siding with Gerard. So it was nice of him to debunk the latest round of ridiculous takes during the interview. If I could offer you a suggestion though I would encourage you to give the story a chance. If you pay attention to Eddie, and not your fandom people telling you to hate him, you will like him. After all there's a reason you all tried to hijack his entire backstory and history for Tommy. Let yourself enjoy the character those things actually belong too. Let yourself enjoy the actual story.

Oh Nonny! I feel joyous and happy whenever I get another of these posts in my ask box. While I'm asking people to not ask Ali any questions through my blog, I'm still perfectly happy posting her asks here. 😋

Especially since, for most of us, this is the only way to read Ali's posts and we do love her posts very much. So don't hesitate to drop something in my ask box. The only things I don't post about are the direct posts about the BT fandom, but Ali has told me she isn't replying to those posts anymore anyway, so that eliminates that problem.

As for the ask itself...

Yeah, so many of us have been saying this since day one. Tommy was only ever there to help Buck out of that closet. He was never really meant to be anything more than that. Sure, the change of the storyline because of the early renewal, gave Tommy some more time on the show, but that's where it ends.

So yeah, going back to rewatch the previous seasons, knowing what you know now? It will change the way you see Eddie and Eddie and Buck's friendship and maybe you'll find some joy in them. Just let it happen.

IMPORTANT! Please don't repost this ask and/or a link that leads straight to my Tumblr account on Twitter or any other social media. Thank you!

Heads up! For anyone who is giving me the shifty eyes for reposting Ali's updates instead of reblogging. Read this.

Remember, no hate in comments, reblogs or inboxes. Let's keep it civil and respectful. Thank you.

If you are interested in more of Ali’s posts, you can find all of her posts so far under the tag: anonymous blog I love.

[ghouldtime]

Random Rant on Fanfic Pet Names

Let me say this is more me screaming into the great unknown because it's something that I KEEP seeing and it keeps irking me and causing me to cringe out of my skin. Putting it under the read more, it's just a rant mainly about the COD fandom, you're not missing anything if you don't read this

Disclaimer: I mean absolutely no hate to the writers who do this. Because you should be writing what makes YOU happy and what YOU like to write. Writing is unique and independent to each individual and just because I don't like something doesn't mean that it's inherently bad or shouldn't be done. You do you, you go on your own journey - just cause we both like hiking doesn't mean we have to take the same trail or that one path is better than the other. Judging people like that who write different than you is nasty and policing harmless writing over little things is stinky sock sniffer behavior. Just cause it's my yuck doesn't mean it is everyone's and I don't expect everyone to agree with me nor is my point meant to be an objective truth or statement. It's literally just my feelings and I need to yell about it

The COD fandom in particular I've seen is atrocious for doing this. But I abhor when they make the characters use pet names like "pet" and "little girl" or "little boy".

Especially when they've literally JUST met

Every time I see it I immediately have to exit off the fic as I gag. I swear it's instinctive at this point. You know those videos of cats who do the extremely dramatic gagging when they smell something they slightly don't like? That's me. 110%

It comes up and I look at the page like this

It just feels so so gross to me and has this icky undertone that I cannot stand. And I don't know if I'm reading into it too much or if this is just me a me thing but I swear to any gods above this keeps happening. It's done so much I have tried putting filters on specifically to avoid it

It strikes me as so odd??? Like why that out of everything. Why something emphasizing age/maturity or treating the reader like they're a possession when it's a regular ass fanfic.

It makes my skin crawl and the possessive/dismissive undertones there are NOT cute. It always reads as ignoring reader's autonomy and treating them more like an object or thing instead of a person. When they just met too or the relationship really doesn't call for it or where it would be weird, it's just shoehorned in and I reallllly really really hate it oh man.

Like if it's established and is a fic where it's like "hey, this is what this is going to be! We're doing a nsfw/bdsm-y undertones here! That's the vibe!" Then great! Fantastic! That lines up, you're expecting that. Not when it's like a fluff fic or supposed to be super causal

I see this mainly with Ghost in fan fics. For some reason, he seems to be numero uno when it comes to calling reader "pet" as a form of endearment. I'm so sorry but I can't ever see him doing that. The guy who has extensive trauma with animals from his childhood, who would take an IMMENSE amount of time forming a close bond with someone to ever get into a relationship (following the comics for his history anyhow which is what I've seen most people do, Ghost has literally seen his family killed and has been through so so much trauma it's wild and the dude has a lot going on mentally), calling someone he cares about a pet??? I just don't see it happening. I sure as shit don't think he'd do that to near strangers either. Even if you ignored that past history for him or write Ghost different -that's just a flat out weird thing to call someone you don't know and has the implications of ownership/subservience on that person's part. Doing that to someone you REALLY do not know is insane

And the little girl/boy one used in conjunction with an age gap??? No??? That's just. So many shades of ew to me and is really putting emphasis on the wrong thing there (at least how I see it and in the context of the fic. I've never seen it used appropriately unless the reader is meant to be a literal child and it's a platonic fic. Context matters). ESPECIALLY when they emphasize reader is young (as in, barely legal, just turned 18/19 or heck even 20). Which I also keep seeing too when it is used. I'm not here for that reallllly creepy vibe that sounds like something you'd eventually hear about on Dateline or in a youtube exposé video

Like y'all. Anyone being shipped with them should be a grown ass adult because THEY are all grown ass adults. For me the little is never emphasizing size when paired with a gendered term, it's emphasizing how small their age is and that's wacky. Maybe that's just a me problem but when I hear "little girl" or "little boy", I'm thinking of a kid. Because girl/boy are most commonly used for children and when you're pairing it with little there, that's what you're emphasizing and you're practically guaranteeing that image.

Be real, if a guy you JUST met who you don't find attractive sneers and says, "Be quiet, pet." or "hush little girl/boy, " you wouldn't find that hot, you'd find that creepy. It's only excused because you're attracted to the character and find them hot. I'm picking a fight, I'm throwing hands if that's dropped on me in the real world out there. Probably not because I'm too non-confrontational but you bet im cringing and giving him the most:

look I can absolutely muster.

Maybe this is just a me thing and I'm losing my marbles. Or maybe it's the fact that I've had that happen to me where a dude I barely know called me "little girl/boy" (despite me being older?? and like the same height?????) and I just died on the inside viscerally that day

For the record if someone pulls the 'pet' card, I'm living up to it. I'm puking on the carpets somewhere in the dark at 3am, I'm yelling at the mailman and doorbells, I'm doing parkour off the couch when you're trying to sleep. Why the absolute hell are you calling someone you JUST MET that when it isn't even supposed to be that kinda nsfw fic.

It's one thing if the vibe is established and the tags are there and you know what you're getting into. But I lose my mind when it's a casual fluff or meant to be romantic and then all of a sudden, BAM THERE IT IS AGAIN.

It makes it so hard to read fics because it's like roulette, I swear I'm always suddenly hit with it and there goes my interest in trying again 🥲

To anyone who read this i admire your courage and akbwdbkawd im having a moment over here

(And hopefully everyone is having a snazzy day! 💚💚💚 my inbox is always open if you ever need to vent or need someone to talk to or want to join me yelling into the void)

Rant over,

Ghoul out

[radicheart]

so...some updates.

i had to quit my job due to the physical toll it was taking on me. right now i'm still struggling to walk due to my lower back feeling really sprained. i think i pulled a muscle or something and my recovery is slow.

i do feel better than i did a week ago, though. i could hardly move at all without the pain being so overwhelming that i wanted to cry. now it's still there and i can't bend over very well, but i can at least move around.

physical pain aside, i've been struggling to write or talk to people in general due to my mental health taking a bit of a nosedive. i've had some pretty bad history over the years with trying to talk to people (both online and in person) and having what i say either be glossed over or outright ignored. i also have a constant worry that i'm bothering people whenever i do get comfortable and start sending a bunch of messages to them. as a result of both points, it's become really hard for me to approach anyone.

i do think that it's partially my fault for not trying harder. and i do understand that people are busy, or aren't in the mood to talk/write for whatever reason. it just feels like everyone i know is going through that communicative rut, so i don't have very many people i feel comfortable approaching on my own.

i've been writing on discord, though. at least a little. i know not everyone writes on discord, and that's okay too. it's just easier for me to write on there than it is here since it doesn't make my anxiety flare up nearly as badly.

as of right now, i'm not too sure what my stance is on being more active. i know i made that post a while back about approaching people in dms, and it got a pretty big response (which i am very grateful for!). but i'm not sure if i have the drive to do much of anything on this site at the moment. i feel pretty drained in general, and coming on here just to experience a constant fomo (fear of missing out, for those that don't know), as well as feeling insignificant/replaceable, doesn't help in the slightest.

so, for right now, i'll be sticking to discord. if you have me on there already, feel free to give me a nudge if you like. and if you don't have me on there, feel free to add me. my username is sunibuni. you don't need to ask me if it's ok to add me. you have my permission per this post.

thanks for reading and being patient and understanding as always. i hope y'all have a great day/night. <3

[chimerafeathers]

there's an essay jumbled up in my brain about dunmeshi's beginning and how clever and deceptive it is as a sleight-of-hand trick that distracts the audience from the depth and scope of the worldbuilding and foreshadowing that's being set up the entire time by dangling zany characters and wacky dishes and biology fun facts in front of us, and how that serves to catch invested viewers off guard when those elements come to the forefront, but also how it works against it with other viewers wanting "more" and not seeing it because the plot bait isn't laid out up front

how people getting frustrated with the characters "not taking things seriously" is mirrored and refuted in the confrontation between Laios and Shuro. how the characters' attitudes aren't just a result of shallow low-stakes "comedy rules" where nothing matters, but are an extension of their personalities (Laios's nonstandard expression of emotions being offputting even to people he knows) and the world and social environment (adventurers being desensitized to death and injury because resurrection magic is commonplace). the way the party refers to "saving Falin" instead of "retrieving Falin's corpse," indicating that they still see her with full personhood, and how that phrasing leads to some readers/viewers believing that Falin is alive in the dragon's stomach, conscious of being slowly digested while the party carelessly fucks around "wasting time." how the weird tonal dissonance makes sense in-universe and yet is deliberately challenged more and more the deeper the party goes

all the character building and pieces of lore slowly weaving together the shape of the larger world, laying the groundwork for the major themes that will surface later. so much is right there in the "low-stakes" early episodes if you know what you're looking for (or pass the perception checks).

it can be so satisfying to see new viewers/readers pick up on the clues even in the earliest "simple" episodes, or notice new things and make connections yourself....and it can also be frustrating to see people dismiss oddities and dissonance as shallow or bad writing because they don't expect a "cooking anime" to have depth like that. why try to question and understand and peel back the layers when you don't expect there to be any layers?

why can't laios take things seriously for once?

[thrilling-oneway]

whenever people want to hate on d4dj why do they jump straight on "It's queerphobic bc..." as if it doesn't have the best queer rep of any rhythm game out there.

1757 words about queer representation in D4DJ and other rhythm/gacha games below cut

Like there are actual valid reasons to not like d4dj. There's definitely an issue with sexualising the high schoolers, I've made posts talking about it before. But at the same time, if you as someone who plays other of the major gacha/rhythm games is going to say that, you should probably address that SIF, bandori (and maybe enstars? it's been a while since I played) have some dodgy cards as well. Admittedly these cards are mainly old whereas D4DJ is still producing these, but you shouldn't act like your preferred game is perfect either.

But especially saying that D4DJ is queerphobic is so weird. To say that just proves you have no idea what actually happens in the game, and you're just taking screenshots out of context.

Firstly hayakoko. Okay so in the flashback where they get together they said "but we're both girls". Yeah, it's a cliche line that screams 'written by a hetero person', but within the context of the story it's not that bad if a little cringe. Neither Hayate or Kokoa had liked a girl before they started dating, this is literally stated on screen: Hayate says that she was a little surprised to realise that she had a crush on Kokoa. They're baby gay at this point in time. I think Kokoa's an interesting one to point out as well, because she's the one who said the line in the first place, and even after she admits that she likes Kokoa as well and they start dating, the True Love Kiss side story shows her being insecure about PDA in school. It reads a lot like she's had a very heteronormative upbringing, which is very common for queer people. It's probably more common in Japan where they still don't have equal rights for queer people (they don't have marriage equality, same-sex couples can't marry, the exception being if one is trans and hasn't legally changed their gender. and after they're married they can't legally change their gender). Not to mention she goes to catholic school, and as far as I know there's some issues there. So I don't see anything wrong with Kokoa not wanting to be out publicly, and being a bit insecure when she and Hayate confess. You gotta remember they are 15 as well (and ~14 when they started dating). Their relationship isn't going to be perfect, and that's normal.

And then Aoi and her gender presentation. Aoi has always been a very masculine presenting character, and is explicitly GNC, so I can understand that some people were disappointed with her wearing long hair and a ballgown in the Aoi & Haruna Relations event. But the anger some people hold towards this. Come on, how badly can you miss the point? Aoi's gender presentation has been a part of her character since her initial card story. She says she actually used to dress more feminine and have long hair in high school, but decided to change her look because she thought she suited the shorter hair. She also mentions that when she presented fem, she would be told she looked like a cross dresser, which obviously offended her. It's not hard to see that Aoi just wants to be seen as Aoi. It's not about how she presents her gender, she's still Aoi no matter how she dresses - Tsubaki mentions this in the A&H Relations. Nothing was retconned or de-canonised when Aoi wore hair extensions and a dress, it wasn't a sudden unnecessary change. The event explores the fact she wants to try different looks outside of her usual 'princely' one, but she's a bit of a people pleaser and is unsure about it because people associate Aoi with "androgynous good looks". There was no pressure from anyone to be feminine, there was actually pressure the other way. She wore a dress and had long hair for one (1) event, and 2 illustrations. Her most recent card has her in trousers with short hair again. Like you don't have to pounce on it being erasure because Aoi wanted to dress more feminine one time. She doesn't hate being GNC now, she's not permanently feminine now - Aoi being GNC is a part of who she is. Aoi being fluid with her gender expression is a part of her queerness and I don't get how you can miss the point so badly to call it erasure.

D4DJ is genuinely one of if not the best mainstream gacha/rhythm game for queer rep. There's so much more than just this: Tsubaki and Aoi are canonically in love with each other and there was even an attempted confession (they got interrupted), KyoShino have implied romantic feelings, same with NagiHiiro and RinMuni (mainly from Muni's side). Haruna was pretty much confirmed as lesbian during the A&H relations, and has had crushes on two separate characters. Saori's sapphic as well (there's one or two implications that she's bisexual). Having Hayate and Kokoa in a relationship opens the doors to more ships becoming canon in the future. The only negative representation I can think of in this game is Noa, so if you really want to go out of your way to say D4DJ is queerphobic, there you go. Noa likes cute thing, cute girls, and flanderisation took hold quickly to the point of her being creepily obsessed with the ri4 girls and a few others, and literally stalking them. Yikes. Her writing is improving though, especially in All Mix where she just occasionally comments on how cute they are without taking it too far, and they actually let her have other personality traits expressed that had pretty much been forgotten.

My point here is that if you're going to say D4DJ is bad rep or homophobic, you're admitting that your game is worse for representation. I'm not saying that the games in the "Big 3" (proseka/bandori/enstars) are bad by any means (idk about enstars actually I didn't play for very long), but D4DJ has definitely taken some big steps in queer representation that those games are seemingly too scared to make. Having a canon sapphic couple is a game like this is a huge deal, I'm not even sure if it's been done before. And before anyone says "but anhane and minoharu went on a double date in Buddy Funny Spend Time", neither of those pairs are stated or even fucking implied to be in a relationship outside of that event. It kinda just happens in one event, and even then it's still a bit vague on whether either of the couples are actually dating in the event. It's definitely heavily implied that anhane/minoharu have mutual romantic feelings, so they are arguably canon in that sense, just not in an established relationship sense. Bandori has done this as well with PareChu, have them go on dates and be clearly romantically interested in each other, only to never actually be a couple (I know tsumutsumu and reochi have called parechu an official couple, but that's word of saint paul rather than word of god, so take this how you will). Hayakoko is HUGE for this genre, and could mean good things in the future of other rhythm games (especially other Bushiroad ones).

--Break here where I went on a tangent about non-D4DJ queercoding--

Outside of schroedingers dating, both bandori and proseka have characters who are implied/canonically queer. I'll make this short because this is getting really long now and I apologise to anyone who's still reading.

For bandori, Arisa has a crush on Kasumi, Kaoru can be considered as canonically lesbian just from how she's presented, YukiLisa has a lot of implications for romantic feelings, as do MocaRan. Himari is also an interesting case, as she could be read as bisexual or comphet lesbian, it's never really made clear (at least as far as I know, I stopped playing bandori a while ago, and am not up-to-date on story, so anyone who's still reading feel free to add to this or correct me). There's probably some stuff missing here as well.

As for proseka, it actually has quite a lot of queercoding. I already touched on anhane and minoharu earlier, but Kohane and Minori are both heavily implied to be lesbian, An as well (although there's like one or two hints that she could be bi. I can cite them if needed). Mizuki is canonically transfeminine (their gender is unconfirmed), and they have been shown to be attracted to women. ShizuAiri and AkiToya have a lot of romantic implications in their relationships, EmuNene has gradually been getting more and more actually (Amidst a Dream). Ena is implied wlw and Rui is implied mlm okay I think I got everything tangent over.

--End of break--

Regardless of my criticisms, all of the games I've mentioned definitely show how much queer rep has grown and become a lot better in the last decade or so. While not focused on the rhythm game, the first generation of Love Live (2010-16) queerbaited* a fair amount. To give one example, there's an 'interview' with Honoka from 2015 where she heavily implies that she's straight, despite having ship tease with other female characters. Compare that to what we have 8 years later, and you can definitely see improvement. However I think it still needs to be addressed that what we have isn't perfect, and it probably will take while to get to a point where we can have more openly queer characters/couples, especially considering Japan as a country (and american/else localisation teams). But I think more people need to recognise how important D4DJ is for queer representation within this genre. It's really not common to have queer romance and gender presentation be directly addressed and frequently shown, and not just for the sake of making money.

I'm bad at ending essays.

* Queerbaiting - intentionally and maliciously leading a queer audience to believe they will receive representation which is then not provided. Whether the rhythm games mentioned do this or not is... debatable? It's done for the money which ticks the intentionally malicious box, queer people aren't for capitalising on. But a good amount of the time it's done to bait straight people who like yuri/yaoi. I do think it's queerbait though like heavily ship teasing a couple and then throwing in a line to imply one of them is straight definitely queerbaiting. april edit: it took me over a month to realise that there were words missing in that last sentence sorry about that. hi anyone who's reading this in the future

[musical-chick-13]

Regarding the previous post, I think the way I approach trying to evaluate a piece of art is asking "Do I think the positive things I get out of it outweigh the parts of it that I don't like?" And when I call something a "guilty pleasure" song/show/book/piece of media/etc. it's really more in the sense of, "Given who I am as a person, the flaws I've found in this should be complete dealbreakers for me, but somehow they aren't, and it makes me feel like I'm having an identity crisis."

[rawliverandgoronspice]

Hello.

You and gay-jesus-probably have successfully made me question everything with your view that Tears of the Kingdom is imperialist propaganda, so that's been fun.

Anyway, I decided to share this discussion with the Zelda fans on reddit, and perhaps unsurprisingly, a lot of them disagreed. Here is what they said (I'm Alarming_Afternoon44):

So what do you think? Have I and all these other people just been duped by the game's manipulative framing? Or do they actually have a point?

And if you'd rather not answer this, or would prefer if I censored the usernames, just tell me and I'll delete this.

Hey! Thanks a lot for reaching out, and I'm glad it made you think stuff through!!

Honestly, as I mentioned in this post, I am not super interested about in-world conversations about who oppresses who, because what can be assessed from the game is super vague and more vibes-based than evidence-based. Within the text, of course that the Good Zonais are good and the Bad Ganondorf is bad! But that's my whole point! The narrative has been deliberately crafted so that the zonais and Rauru (and Hyrule) are as blameless as possible (and it's not doing a great job at it overall to be frank; we would not be having these conversations about how offputting it all feels for a non-zero number of people if it did do a great job). More importantly, I want to focus on what sort of real-life narrative it all parallels. Because people make stories, and people live in the real world.

Not going after everyone's throat here, gamedev is hard and the hydras that are AAA game production do end up doing super weird stuff, especially since the thematic ramifications are absolutely never prioritized (and it's also always the same kind of people who make the final calls and push out what can and can't be talked about also). And as fans, we tend to have trouble stepping outside the lens of lore and take a look at the bigger picture sometimes; not as an attack on any individual part of that decision-making process but to just pause, stop, and question our standards, our priorities and the kind of reality (or skewing of reality) the stories we tell each other reflect.

Again: do we want to take videogames seriously or not? If we do, then we need to accept they are a vehicle for ideology, just like any other artform. And sometimes, you push out questionable ideology, sometimes without meaning to, because you didn't unpack your own biases as you did. And it's even fine to do it, nobody is perfect, a 300+ people team spread over 6 years certainly will not be that. But that it wasn't prioritized is, in my opinion, a problem. As a narrative designer, I want games (at least the narrative side) to be held to a higher standard than this. It's literally my job to work with the industry so it can hold itself to higher standards of quality --so the whole TotK situation is quite frustrating to witness from a very pragmatic, work perspective where I already spend my days trying to convince people that things mean things. I have a vested interest here in not having the companies I work for being given a free pass by gamers to do literally whatever as long as it's fun, especially when we're talking about a billion-dollars company suing its own fans left and right for any perceived slight. Nintendo are not underdogs here. It's fine to point out they cut corners and maybe promoted messy ideologies, voluntarily or not.

So long story short: no I don't believe anyone here has a point in regards to what I think is actually important, which is why these choices were made in the first place. If you look at an imperialist text expecting the text to tell you that it's imperialist instead of recognizing a framing used for propaganda by yourself, you're never gonna find any imperialist text ever, obviously not!! I'm sorry if I sound a little gngngn here, but I don't know why audiences have, at large, this feeling that lore and story beat decisions materialize themselves already formed and without any human bias, meddling, intervention, internal politics or approximations (it seems that people can only conceptualize this part if they have actual names to attach to the story, but without clear authors it's like there are no authors and so no bias, which is... a very strange bias in itself). I can promise you that it does not work that way in practice: every narrative department on every big game is a battlefield --some nicer than others, but all of them very emotionally draining either way.

So yeah, I guess that on these grounds, I disagree with every point raised here. Sorry Reddit :/

But thank you for the ask and sorry if I didn't go more into details as to why. The big Why I Dislike Rauru Post and the Gerudo Post might have some more specific rebuttals, but I am not super interested in debating small detail stuff tbh. I feel like it's no use if the frame of reference isn't being understood in the first place.

[transillusionisms]

wait is. is zionism just the belief that jewish people should have a place to go should the world decide to kick us out and/or kill us all again. is that all it is. i haven't had the spoons for this for months so i haven't actually looked up the definition but like. is that seriously all it is

[spookyjudgement]

I cannot overstate how much easier it is to live day-to-day when I don't have to go into a european dominated space every day.

[nonokoko13]

Rollo Flamme is autistic. I had suspicions about it but after reading his vignette I heard a voice in my head confirming it. God has told me the truth and I must spread the word

He would also be ok with Batman, if he's not his most favoured hero. Oh and he also probably has PTSD and depression. Thanks for coming to my ted talk

[weareuniqueandimportant]

I LOVE MURDER... I FIND THE TOPIC VERY INTERESTING... I ALSO BELIEVE ALOT OF ABUSERS WERE ACTUALLY NEGLECTED... AND THEIR "VICTIMS" ONLY REPEAT THE LIES THEY ALWAYS HAVE... OUR ABUSERS ALL CERTAINLY LOVE TO PAINT SUCH A PICTURE... DON'T WORRY... I HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING... YET <3...