#something something normal vs being different

[muttthecowcatridesagain]

Yes this is all true. HOWEVER, as someone who does sew - fabric quality and fabric sources were drastically affected by the pandemic. And as far as I'm aware have not fully recovered (and may never fully recover).

Most of the fabric for the entire world is produced in china. Especially for more uncommon fabric types, if something happens to the factories (or in some cases factory singular) that make them, it affects the supply for the entire world. There are certain fabrics that have become much more difficult to source due to this reason. For instance, I've had a particularly difficult time sourcing gobelin (or tapestry) fabric. You see the same 3-4 patterns of tapestry fabric used for anything new recently because those are literally the only patterns being produced in that fabric period. And this is just one example.

Even Joann's mentioned above closed many of their stores in the last year. I don't really have a real fabric store anywhere in my area anymore outside of the local quilting shops. But the fact of the matter is that plain cotton, especially quilting cotton, does not look good for many clothes. Making thoughtful fabric choices when hand making clothes can make the difference between something looking amateur vs professional. For most clothes, quilting cotton does not do the trick imo

The other factor in this is that a downstream consequence of making most of the textiles for the whole world in just a few places is that certain textile techniques and individual fabric types are gradually lost over time. This has already happened to many fabrics and will continue to happen as the majority of the world's population relies on buying clothes rather than making their own.

And there's not really a good solution to any of these things.

In summary, if you have decided to make your own clothes, try to source used/second hand fabrics. There are many available if you look for them and are normally going to be higher in quality in general given all the above reasons. Obviously, this isn't a strategy that will last forever, but in recent years this has been my preference at least. I'm still hopeful that quality will slightly increase again as everyone gradually recovers from the pandemic

so many articles about Fast Fashion, not enough articles about what the hell is happening to the quality of clothes

Like okay. People own more pieces of clothing nowadays and they wear them a lesser number of times before throwing them out. BUT.

Why do we pretend like this is pure vanity or careless wastefulness, rather than forced by the qualities of the clothes themselves?

The other day, I was going through boxes of old clothes in the basement in search of fabric to practice sewing on. The difference in quality of the fabrics themselves is shocking! The worn-out old jeans from twenty years ago are MUCH thicker and tougher than anything more recent. My old baby clothes are made as sturdy as my work clothes from today.

In the past couple years, I have had entire seams rip out of clothes on the first wash. That's not normal!

Polyester blend shirts that feel cozy and soft when they are new, become scratchy and rough after 20 washes or so. I am trying to avoid polyester, but it gets harder and harder; the other day i couldn't find a single pack of crew socks that was 100% cotton. SOCKS!

Also, pilling is out of control. The newest pants I bought developed pills within a single day of walking around campus with a backpack.

These companies are trying to frog-boil us but touching clothes from twenty years ago, the useless crap of today would stick out like a sore thumb...

[lasandra]

Super Massive End Game Veilguard Spoilers Under the Cut!

Seriously. If you haven't finished playing Veilguard, DO. NOT. READ. So I finished DA:tV and I have been really trying to sort out my thoughts... And well...

Sdlkajshdfklajhsdfklajhsdflkjahsdklfjhaskldfjhaskldfhj I CAN'T!!! My dudes I am SO conflicted!!! Solas is the only character I have ever come across that I both love to pieces and want the best for him but I also want to beat him until he is a puddle of bruised yolk and cracked shells. This dude KILLED VARRIC FOR REALSIES! I am not okay with that. My Hawke's GOING to hunt him down when she finds out. If the Tevinter Magisters can get into the Black City then dammit so can she. And when she does, I am not sure even Lavellan can save him. Amelia (My Hawke) has lost so many of her friends/family/loved ones she can't handle this anymore. He also killed God's gift to elves Felassan. It's been over a decade since I read The Masked Empire but I don't remember there being a great reason other than him being upset that Felassan failed. Dude has GOT to stop killing his friends lol. Especially the hot ones. Like. Come on. As if that wasn't enough, he manipulated Rook. I love my first Rook (Carwyn de Riva) so much that I am STRUGGLING to play another playthrough with any of the other Rooks I had planned. To see that he manipulated her with blood magic... Stopped her from being able to mourn Varric with the others properly.... AND tricked her into that prison??? He didn't think she'd be able to get out. Luckily she had plot armor because if she hadn't gotten out I would find a way into Thedas to rip him apart myself. *Aggressive breathing noises* I feel very normal about this, obviously. Seriously though, guys, I came THIIIIIIIS close to tricking him with the fake dagger even knowing that Lanaya (my Lavellan) wouldn't have gotten her happy ending. JUST so I could see the LOOK on his face when he realized ROOK outplayed him at his own game! At the SAME time however... The idea of sending him into the Black City alone... hurts me lol! I don't want him to suffer. Dude has suffered a lot and honestly, I'm not entirely sure his being a friend-murdering ass is *entirely his fault... The longer I sit with everything, the more certain I am that Solas didn't really have a choice. Seems very much like he was sort of bound to the will of Mythal. Maybe I've missed something, I'm not as lore-savvy as I once was. But in the end when Mythal tells Solas that she releases him from her service and only THEN (NOT when Lavellan BEGS him to stop) is he willing to do the right thing? I don't know. It just reminded me SO much of his personal quest in Inquisition where his Wisdom Spirit friend had been bound and twisted against its purpose. If it works anything like what we saw in Inquisition with whoever drank from the Well of Sorrows, who's to say when something was him vs the will of Mythal? It could be a bit of a stretch but, there's certainly room for that interpretation, I think. And if that's the case, then he doesn't deserve the hell that awaits him. It's also the only interpretation I can really accept Lanaya still wanting to be with him. Varric was her friend too. While forgiveness is something I give freely, I cannot imagine reconciling with a man who did what Solas did without him having been essentially forced into doing it. *Sighs deeply* I saw the different versions of his endgame images... Shit man. The only way this man gets a happy ending is with Lavellan. Dude looks so miserable and gloomy in all the other endings. Moire (Trevelyan) was Solas' friend. She wouldn't want to send him off to be alone in such a terrible place. That would seriously eat at her. (Rook wouldn't care. Her give a damn was busted after he betrayed her for the twenty-billionth time.) It can never be anything but a complete and utter rollercoaster with this man! I do think that the ending I got with him was as good as it possibly could have been though, given everything. Sorry for this really poorly written rant. I needed to get this out of my system and it's almost 3am lol.

[nikoniclove]

Whole List of "Ace in the Hole" Prompts Pt 2

For anyone who is interested in reading the WHOLE MASSIVE list of prompts people have sent in via private messages, AO3, or tumblr, here it is broken into numerous posts because it's so long.

One Shots (con)

i want more little things that make them tick! doesn't have to be a super kinky thing, something small. maybe they notice jj gets all hot and bothered whenever ace handles the sniper guns. or emily likes it when ace's hair is in a bun. something small like that and the teasing conversation they have once they figure out why the other person is so horny lately. (Mcdoesit)

LOVED the jewelry kink for jj, would love to see that revisited. (Mcdoesit)

i would pay so much money to have them somehow make a stupid bet about "well yeah i bet i could last longer than you could" regarding sex/orgasms. knowing them it would probably be jj vs emily or ace vs jj, but it could be all three of them. they would try to tempt each other but it would probably backfire and make them super horny. maybe ace playing the mommy/daddy card or jj/emily trying to leverage her praise kink or subspace? i just know they'd play dirty. (Mcdoesit)

would love to see ace teasing Em and JJ somewhere they can’t fuck her (maybe on a car or something) by calling them mommy/daddy when people can’t hear? Feel it would drive them wild haha. (Tumblr anon)

Ace being in a depression (Emily and JJ not having caught onto it yet) and trying to have sex with Emily to help her ‘feel’ better. However Emily decides she not in the mood or just too tried from a case and how it affects Aces depression. Specifically with feeling not good enough for them, or maybe Ace thinks they’re no longer attracted to her. (Jo_Mamaz)

Episode 11x14 - ace reaction, JJ reaction 

the first time Ace sees Emily go super rough and intense on JJ (quite early on in their relationship so it feels shocking to her), both the live event and then the aftermath of how she processes her trepidation and arousal around that kind of roughness/intensity in bed as it’s all still quite new to her (Tumblr chaotic-pyro)

Ace being on the giving end and JJ or Emily on the receiving end as top Ace is sort of a rare occurrence. They do happen to be on call but they’re trying to reacquaint with each other’s bodies since it’s been so long with all the cases. A phone starts to ring (it could be work, family, etc.) but Ace encourages one of them to answer, yet whoever answered isn’t the person the caller is looking for - whoever is receiving is the wanted one - and they try to push Ace away but she’s insistent on the other person just continuing conversation as normal.  (Tumblr anon)

JJ or Emily in some sort of life or death predicament where either JJ or Emily rashly put their life on the line to save the other leaving Ace in a state where both of her loves are at risk where she can’t do anything but wait on the sidelines and not knowing how to cope with the fear of potentially losing them both? (Tumblr anon)

considering all the gun kink stories out there, would you possibly write something along those lines with the three? thinking about it being jj or emily’s unexpected turn on (Tumblr anon)

One where they argue for the first time, jj and Emily learn that they can’t shout at ace because she isolates due to her past (Tumblr anon)

maybe a follow-up to "A Bad Day" in Different Kinds of Firsts pt.2. Where Ace is having another bad day and JJ and Emily are almost tripping over themselves to help her feel better to make up for last time. And their effort itself is so endearing and loving that it helps lift her spirits as well. Maybe JJ actually brings up that they want to do better because of how much Ace has adapted for them - possibly bringing back a conversation from "Learning to Top" about Ace swallowing down certain things so that she gets to stay with JJ and Emily (Tumblr theysaythejobisjinxed)

silly story in which emily tries to fix the kitchen sink or something but the problem she doesn’t know how to fix it so she ropes ace into it but she doesn’t know how to fix it either so they end up making it waaaay worse and the kitchen floods and everything and they’re like “jj is gonna kill us” and in fact when jj comes home she’s mad but amused nd she ends up fixing it ? and it’s just all funny fluffy goodness?? (Tumblr anon)

Ace has a fight with Emily and JJ (thinking serious but not as bad as Emily telling Ace she is a burden) before going away for work alone, maybe solo consult or testifying or something, and there is bad weather and Ace looses communication with the team. Emily and JJ are freaking out cause they are worried about Ace and can only remember that the last thing they said to her was mean and what if they don't see her again, and such. Ace is worried and trying to figure out how to fix it but the lack of contact with anyone (other than the reason she is where she is) is getting to her and it makes her miss her peoples even more (EmilyJenniferJareauPrentiss)

Ace takes JJ to a rock gym, sweaty muscles are observed, JJ’s libido is in overdrive, and then when they get home, JJ gets to enjoy the muscles up close (Nerdy_Mama)

JJ dominating ace and emily chapter.. it's been too longggg. Not just dominating in bed but also teasing them and edging both of them the whole day and then finally showing them who is boss.. something like this pleaseee (Ao3 guest JJEM)\

Where JJ is very upset with ace over something very stupid like ace ate her last piece of favourite pie of something (not really upset like getting mad but upset enough to ignore her for a bit ) and ace is going out of her way to make it up to her... going full girlfriend and sending her flowers and giving massages and stuff. And emily is empathetic towards ace but not really helping and staying out of it (Ao3 guest JJEM)

What if Emily and JJ teased and worked Ace up as they are wont to do, and when they are finally ready to let Ace come, maybe even have her tied up and begging already. Bam, either they or Ace get called away. Maybe there's a failed attempt to get Ace of over a video chat while they are away, but that too fails. And when they are all finally reunited, or maybe just Ace and Emily. Ace pins Emily down and makes her get her off because she is just too desperately horny to be shy anymore. (Attempt_137_at_finding_a_user_name)

Emily and Ace off on a consult that turns into them helping on the case. Early on in an established relationship. A local detective (who is similar to Emily in dominance and looks) is flirty with Ace. Maybe Ace has to go undercover with this detective for a small thing and play the role of a date. She plays into the part and keeps calling Ace ‘love’. Emily can do nothing but just boil in silence. Ace teases Emily a little but quickly sees the mask drop and there is lingering insecurity. Very smutty hotel moment. (Ssskeptical)

early days are good to see. Speaking of…have you done much - or anything - with the firsts before that first girls night where they actually did stuff for the first time? Because I think you said they’d been flirting with Ace for months at that point and Ace was kind of clueless in an adorable way. It could be fun to see some of the firsts even before that first girls night. Maybe the first time JJ flirted, the first time Emily flirted, the first time Ace realized they were flirting - if she even realized it? Maybe the first time JJ touched Ace in a casual, friendly way BEFORE they were anything to each other and Ace being all weird about it because she’s not used to that. Maybe the first time they got jealous of Ace before they had any reason or right to…like they’re nothing to each other but they have a thing for her and she innocently talks about finding someone cute at a bar or gets flirted with during a team outing, JJ gets all jealous, Ace has no idea what’s going on. (Ao3 Guest)

[imadhatt3r]

I've been trying to nail down what exactly Aoba's problem with Koujaku's fangirls is. It's not like he feels emasculated by not having a gaggle of girls following him around- Aoba actively doesn't want to draw attention to himself; Rather, I believe that it's something slightly different: he's jealous.

Aoba always seems annoyed by the way they crowd Koujaku whenever he's working, how they throw themselves at him, how they invite him on dates... Because he want to be like that too, but he can't. He wants to be someone that Koujaku pays this romantic attention to, he wants to tell him about how cool he thinks he is, how much he means to him... But he can't. Aoba's very private, unassuming, and has much too much restraint to do something like this. He feels annoyance towards these girls, maybe even anger sometimes, because they get to do all the things he wants to do, and the worst part is that it works- they're the ones who get Koujaku's attention, affection, and time.

And sure, Aoba knows sides of Koujaku that nobody else does, so he takes refuge in that; He might not get the kind of attention he wants, but he gets a special kind of it that only the two of them share. I think that's the part of the reason as to why he was so shaken up by the Platinum Jail situation- because he realized that the bond they share might be a lie, and that he doesn't know Koujaku after all- so the fleeting tenderness they shared untill now might've been a lie after all too.

This sense of inadequacy doesn't even go away after they start dating. In the re:connect scene, Aoba mulls over how he still has a suspicion that Koujaku is inviting clients to his house. He also thinks about how the fangirls would eat him alive if they found out that Koujaku's dating him, like he is somehow a worse pick than any of the women who are infatuated with Koujaku. Among his reasons he lists his gender, which opens up a whole can of worms on how queer people are treated in-universe. We don’t see any overt queerphobia, but there clearly is some sort of a difference in how queer vs cishet relationships are treated if Aoba sees his gender as a reason he might be a "worse" pick. It's hard to say how much of it is based in actual in-universe queerphobia, and how much it's just something Aoba's blowing out of proportions due to his anxiety. I think that it's more of a "he could've had a normal, more standard/traditional life with a woman" kind of thing.

I think that he mostly just needed time, as in the drama CD that takes place after re:connect he approaches the fangirls more like mild inconveniences, and not reasons to put himself down. Perhaps he finally saw that Koujaku was serious about him and he started to trust him more as a romantic partner?

I guess I just like this slight background arc Aoba has in this route. It's presented at first as if he's annoyed about Koujaku being a flirt, but really, it's just more that he wants Koujaku for himself, and he doesn't like the idea of sharing him with anyone else, even if he isn't fully aware of it.

[shizucheese]

So...Him using "western" names here and kinda taking things from a "western" context doesn't bother me so much because it's intended for a Western audience. It's important to be mindful of the fact that when you are speaking to a particular group about something you need to speak their language, specially if you are trying to educate those people about a particular topic. It's no different than calling it "Passover" vs. "Pesach." People outside of the Jewish community are going to have a way easier time connecting to what you're saying if you refer to it by the first name vs. the second. It's easy to take for granted that things that were normal or common knowledge for us isn't necessarily normal or common knowledge for people who didn't grow up within our culture (and this applies to anyone, especially people who grew up within a minority group, not just Jewish people). I grew up in a mixed secularish-religious family (I got Chanukah and Christmas and Pesach and Easter), and the Catholic school I attended made a point of teaching about other religions, including at least one year where we had a Seder during class. It wasn't until I was an adult and outside of the bubble I had grown up in that I came to realize and appreciate the fact that I had friends who hadn't grown up under the same circumstances and had no idea what a Seder even was. All of this to say: I don't think using western names that westerners would be familiar with, when westerners are the intended audience, is as important as you make it out to be, and being upset about it honestly feels like it distracts from the bigger issue that Hank Green made a video about Judaism and didn't consult a single Jewish person/ include any Jewish sources. Because it points to one of two possibilities that imo are equally worrying. Either 1) they singled out the Judaism video as the one time they didn't include sources/ voices from within the religion/ culture, or 2) they never include voices from within the religion or culture they're making a video about, and they're equal opportunity when it comes to trying to "educate" people about religions or cultures they are not a part of without including sources or voices from within those religions/ cultures. I'm not sure which is worse/ more worrying, honestly.

Remember folks: the best source is a primary source!

So, the other day, Crash Course uploaded a video in their Religions series, about Judaism. Now, I haven't watched any video other than this one, but if this one is any metric to measure by.... well, it's bad. Really bad.

To start, the introduction starts with "shabbat toothbrushes", where John Green describes to us how (some) jews will brush their teeth on shabbat, while ensuring to not break any of the melachot, or prohibited actions. This, in my opinion, as an orthodox jew, is.... quite a framing to start with. Especially since immediately after that introduction, John Green let's us know that there are other jews! who don't do this! and just... sir, I'm an orthodox jew. Sure, I don't do follow that rule on the shabbat- sorry, the sabbath which you then explain is the shabbat to jews (the word Sabbath comes from the hebrew Shabbat), but I follow a lot of rules that folks find strange! And I do not appreciate a video talking about jews sidelining orthodox jews. Framing the video in that way is clearly an attempt to make Jews seem more "mainstream", but it erases, estranges, and (this happens more later on) villifies orthodox jews. Which isn't fair.

But we just started this 13 minute video. At this point last night, I sighed and figured this was going to be just your regular old "Orthodox Jews are strange and bad" sort of video, and resigned myself to that. And then I looked at the sections of the video. One of which included Zionism in it. And I immediately got more worried, because John and Hank donated through Project For Awesome to UNWRA which are.... very linked to Hamas, including there being evidence of UNWRA employees participating in the Oct. 7th Massacre. But okay. Maybe this video will be fine.

Spoiler alert: It wasn't. It was so incredibly bad. John Green admits at the start of the video that Judaism is complex, great! Now explain tha complexity correctly! no. So he starts off his history with... Ya'akov Avinu, sorry- Jacob. Who's a descendant of Avraham Avinu, sorry- Abraham (John uses the english names and not the hebrew one and it just bothers me). Which like... no, Jewish history starts with Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel. In addition, a large majority of his sources are non jewish sources which is just. Why. There are so many jewish sources on Judaism!

As this is getting long, I'm gonna put a tl;dr here and then a read more cut. The tl;dr is this - the video is a horrendously western view of Judaism video, that seems to be written by non-jews who don't have any expertise in Judaism. It is filled with misrepresentation of jews, especially religious ones, is severely lacking pretty much all of jewish history, doesn't mention MENA/SWANA jews at all, and is quite frankly a disappointment. I'm mad and sad and upset and most of all disappointed with crash course for creating this video.

Still with me? great. I'm wordy and I have twelve minutes of this video to go through still. To make this a bit more organized, I'm gonna go according to the sections that John Green himself gave, and give a summary of what he said and what is wrong or misrepresented there.

The Many Versions of Judaism (aka, somehow not our history nor our story) there are a few things wrong/upsetting here. First off, as I said above, the fact that he uses the English names. Second off, the fact that he, bafflingly, starts the story with Ya'akov getting the name Yisrael, aka when Ya'akov fights with the angel. John then takes this to explain that Jews today still wrestle with Hashem in our own way, but in a... shall I say tumblr style reductionist way. Y'know, the "jews shake lemon at gd angrily behind a denny's" way. This chapter is the only one that will ever mention the ancient Israelites, and never the tie to the land of Israel itself. In addition to this, he describes Judaism as monotheistic, but that "half of religious jews today believe in some other spiritual force, and not the gd of the Hebrew Bible" which had me going what in the what. Just. No. like, sure, i'm a vaguely agnostic-atheist religious jew and uh, no? And I found his source, and well, if I had to guess - the jews who responded assumed that the god they were being asked about was the one in the xtian bible - and so answered no, while John assumed said jews meant the gd of the tanakh, aka hashem. Third, his "devil's advocate" scene is just. Once again, putting down Orthodox Jews, and compares without change Jewish Religious Institutions with Xtian ones. To quote "for a lot of jews, it's more about action than faith", I'd argue, personally, that that line is correct for most jews, as our religion is not really one of belief (orthodoxy) but of action (orthopraxy). And also, I'll paraphrase "many jewish people consider following Jewish law to be the most important thing" yes! yes we do! and not just many, most, that's! the whole! shtick! for us!! (and yes i'm aware this is a simplification). He also manages to vaguely describe Judaism as an ethnicity, and explain that some Jews are connected to the ancestral history (without explaining what that is, no connection to Israel here no sirree), which I guess is fine-ish? (it does not)

The Written Torah So here he starts off with saying that we'll focus on the torah and not the tanakh, as the torah is how we jews conceptualize our relationship to gd and each other. Except that... we also use the rest of the Tanakh for that! (minor kudos to him for saying that the tanakh was written by the ancient israelites. Just no mention of why there were ancient israelites and then we had to come back). The torah gives us most of our rules, but the tanakh expands on them, and teaches us how we choose to treat hashem, how we treat each other. When Jews say the written torah, we do oftentimes also mean the rest of the tanakh. Frankly, going through his sources, I can't figure out what source he used for this claim, except that he uses a lot of non-jewish sources (like the britannica), and very few Jewish ones which is just... why, you can clearly see these jewish sources exist, why not use them? I understand that this is meant to be lighthearted, but he compares the five books of the torah to seasons of friends, which is kinda eeeh. And added to that, his descriptor for bamidbar or numbers is "the ancient israelites wander and suffer through the wilderness" (paraphrased). First off, it was the desert, and second off this is exactly where in the torah we get all of the mitzvot and how to treat each other and hashem. This is it!! why name the book/"season" wrong?? He then continues and talks about how the themes of exile and return are common in the torah, and continue to resonate today, and yet doesn't... explain... the history of us being exiled. Instead, we take a tangent into antisemitism, specifically the plague related kind. Which... fine, I know he's got a liking for that aspect of history, but there's so much more. Of course, he also mentions that the Pope was one of the influential people who pushed back against it and... just... sigh. We're talking the catholic church here. The same catholic church WHO BLAMED JEWS FOR KILLING JESUS TILL THE NINETEEN SIXTIES. If the pope pushed back against it, it was because us jews had more value alive, not because he thought we had inherent value as people. Of course, since we're talking antisemitism, John only talks about xtian antisemitism. The "happy dhimmi" myth is alive and kicking in this video, as there is absolutely no mention of antisemitism within the non-western world. IN ADDITION, by framing the antisemitism the way he did - that the "dumb europeans" attacked the jews but their religious leaders were against it, John inadvertently erases antisemitism by non religious people, and by religious leaders. Both of which are and were alive and well.

Zionism (aka, I had to put this in here otherwise the tankies would yell at me, and I made a mess of it) And then we have this digression, which makes zero sense in the context of the story John is attempting to tell, into Zionism. There is no reason for it, and if it had to be in the video, it should have, quite frankly, gone in at the end. But that is only the start of the woes that I have to say on this section. To start, the amount of sources here are negligeble as compared to the other sections (note the numbers, all previous sources were for the other two sections)

48. Encyclopaedia Britannica | Zionism 49. University of Michigan | Zionism  50. Ben-Israel, Hedva. “Zionism and European Nationalisms: Comparative Aspects.” Israel Studies 8, no. 1 (2003): 91–104. 51. Ghanem, As’ad. “Israel’s Second-Class Citizens: Arabs in Israel and the Struggle for Equal Rights.” Foreign Affairs 95, no. 4 (2016): 37–42. 52. Halpern, Ben (2004) [1990]. "The Rise and Reception of Zionism in the Nineteenth Century". In Goldscheider, Calvin; Neusner, Jacob (eds.). Social Foundations of Judaism (2nd ed.). Eugene, Or: Wipf and Stock Publ. pp. 94–113. 53. American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise| Zionism: Anti-Zionism Among Jews

[copied from the source sheet]

I haven't read the sources, so I'm not going to talk about them, but the fact that only half of the sources seem to have been written by jews is... not great. At all. And then there's how John introduces and talks about the topic. John compares the themes of exile and return in the Torah and Tanakh to the narrative told by Zionists, and mentions Zionism being a political movement. All of this is correct. However, what John is very obviously missing here is the history of Jews within the land of Israel. He talks about how we wanted a state for Jews run by Jews, but doesn't explain that we wanted it in the land where we came from, a land where we have mitzvot, commandments, that are specific to it. A land that our holidays and calendar center. The fact that this is missing is one of the glaring issues in the whole video. He also mentions that Zionism views Judaism as a nationality, which is true. Judaism is viewed as a nationality in the modern sense through Zionism, but it's also a nationality, or nation, in the older sense, regardless of Zionism. In addition to that, while Zionism is the idea of having a Jewish run state for Jews, it does not preclude the existence of other, nonjewish, people in this state. Which is important for the next bit. He then adds that, quote "this is complicated for lots of geopolitical reasons, but suffice it to say, Jewish people are not the only people with roots or a current presence in the modern state of Israel." Which, I guess does mention our roots in the land, but it also completely flattens the whole story into, what feels to me, "Jews Zionists bad for wanting a state because there are other people". He then mentions the Druze and Xtian and Muslim Palestinians, which is fair but also why specifically the Druze? And if the Druze, why not also the Bedouin? Both are minority groups within Israel, and if you want to talk about minority groups, the Bedouin are equally as important for this discussion! (another friend later pointed out that the likely reason is that the pbs source John uses mentions the Druze (but as muslims, and not as their own religious group which. sigh. Druze are not Muslim), but not the Bedouin. And of course, we get a "not all jews support the zionist movement, but many do" yeah. a huge womping majority. For a reason. At the end of this section he says you can find "much much more" on the topic in the sources and I just have to raise an eyebrow, because I do not count these 6 sources as "much much more" information.

Then, finally, we're off of this ill-placed and wrongly done section, and back to actual religion things. You know. Like how John had said we'd be talking about.

The Oral Torah and the Talmud We start off strong, with an accurate description as to what exactly is the Oral Torah, and what its place within Jewish society and Judaism is. And then... John tells us that there are "two guys who started it". Huh? Who? Hillel and Shammai of course! what. so, to explain to all of you who have somehow read till here and don't know, Hillel and Shammai are just one pair in a long lineage of those who were, according to tradition, in charge of the oral torah. Even more so, they weren't the first in their generation of pairs! (this is the time known as the Zugot, or pairs). Hillel and Shammai are the seventh generation in those who lived during the time of the mishna being slowly worked on and getting codified, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the one who did all of the codification, FIVE GENERATIONS AND A TEMPLE COLLAPSE AFTER THEM. So I chose to go into the sources to figure this one out, because frankly I'm baffled. And as far as I can tell, this comes from the encyclopedia britannica (again, why) saying that Hillel and Shammai were the last of the Zugot and that they taught the Tanaim (those who ended up writing the mishna), but just. What. Why. John then continues on to explain who Hillel and Shammai are, describing them as "Shammai, the rules are rules type" and "Hillel, the gentle, caring, impossible to anger type". I just- again with the putting down of one side (the stricter side) for the not so strict side. In addition to the fact that that isn't even an accurate description. It would be more accurate to describe the divide and debate between Hillel and Shammai as realistic and unrealistic. Hillel's school of thought, also known as Beit Hillel, worked with and around torah with the understanding that those who will be following it are people, and will make mistakes and need leniency. Shammai's school of thought, known as Beit Shammai, on the other hand, wanted people to strive to following the Torah in the most idealistic way. We follow Beit Hillel nowadays because they were better at taking day-to-day realities into account, but we remember Beit Shammai's halacha because we want to be able to fulfill our mitzvot in that way, and if human life didn't get in the way, we would do so. John Green stop putting those who keep stricter (or more idealistic) halacha as "bad" challange: level impossible. John Green then says, as is correct, that at around 200ce we started writing things down, but once again, he neglects to mention why we felt we needed to shift from oral to written (the answer is the Romans wanted us no longer jewish and we had lost our Temple and were going to be expelled from our holy land again, see, that's two sentences, is that so hard to say?) John Green then correctly explains that they way the Talmud was written down was by layers upon layers, "literally circling each other" however, that's only one portion of the halachic debate, and frankly, the Talmud is definitely not the central rabbinic text today. That's the Shulchan Aruch, which is based off of the Talmud, but collates all of Halachic debate into a masterpiece of a lot of books. It, too, has the layers upon layers thing, because why waste good paper space??? There are more mistakes here, in understanding that the Talmud is The Central Halachic thing, which again - look above I corrected it. I'll also happily admit that he's correct in saying that when we refer to the torah we mean both the written and oral ones. But we still have two sections to go, and I am still as wordy as ever.

Branches of Judaism Here is where I started to go from mildly annoyed at how he treats orthodox jews, to flat out mad. See, instead of explaining the differences between branches in a neutral way, John brings up differences that will make people feel things. He gives examples of questions - can women be rabbis - which will have listeners biased towards those communities that allow it (and yes, it is an issue within orthodox communities, but guess what! these communities are also trying to work within their framework of halacha for women's equality), or "can you push an elevator button on shabbat using electricity when the law says to refrain from creating fires and sparks on that day", which is an extreme oversimplification of the whole argument and discussion about electricity on shabbat, which will lead viewers to, once again, view those who do those things as backward, strange, and weird. And trust me, there are so many other halachic questions that can be used (such as can one heat food on shabbat, considering fire and heat, or how you deal with the dietary laws of kashrut), and idk. Maybe at this point I'm nitpicking, but as an orthodox not exactly a woman, it bothers me! It alienates me from the discussion, and it's really frustrating. He comments that the options you can choose are "unwavering, flexible, or somewhere in between", which to me shows a complete lack of understanding of what the orthodox framework of working with halacha is (too long; don't have time to explain - we can't strictly disagree with stuff but we can slowly push for change that may eventually end up disagreeing with something or another). He then explains Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism. His way of explaining is, while technically correct, missing an understanding of how we different streams of Judaism practice. John describes the differences as ones of strictness vs openness, lack of change vs flexibility. In reality, the difference between the streams is one of precedence. How much weight do we put on something that was written 2000 years ago? How much weight does our current way of living have? Orthodox Judaism will answer that what was written all that time ago has significantly more weight, that they knew more about halacha than we do, to Reform halacha, which takes halachic rulings from 2000 years ago under advisement, but sees how much the world has changed, and makes the rulings accordingly. I won't touch on his specific examples, and suffice it to say that they were in line with what I said earlier about his examples. They're there to make you feel something about these strange jews he's talking about, and that something is not always particularly nice, especially to Orthodox Jews. He then mentions a few other options, which is fine (though I wish he expanded on the "people who say 'I'm Jewish' but don't identify with any particular branch" as, with everything going on, and his sorely lacking explanation in how Judaism and conversion works, may lead to people deciding to just say they're jewish). After that he says that there "are jewish atheists". Yes. There are also orthodox jewish atheists, I thought we covered the fact that Judaism prefers action over belief at the start? I'm confused as to why he felt the need to add that here near the end of the video.

Next, he talks about the different physical branches of Judaism, and mentions that due to persecution we got to many different places. Of course, he once again neglects to mention the ur-persecution, or ur-reason that we are so spread out - our expulsion from Israel, and the beginning of the Jewish Diaspora (he mentions the Diaspora by name, but not the first reason for it). It's a glaring miss, but not as glaring as what is to come. He then talks about three diasporic communities, and I quote "...unique communities emerged in each new location: Ashkenazi Jews in Eastern Europe, Sephardic Jews in Spain and Portugal, and Beta Israel in Eithiopia". One nitpick and one incredibly important correction. Ashkenazi Jews were originally from ashkenaz, ie France and Germany and eventually got to Eastern Europe as well - the name of the general European tradition is, however, Ashkenaz. The second, and more pressing issue, is that he says that Sephardic Jews are in Spain and Portugal. Those communities haven't been there in a Hot Minute, ie since the Spanish Inquistion. They've been in the SWANA or MENA region, with some exceptions for some Dutch, American, and British Jews. I had to look at his sources, because are you kidding me. Both (all three, if we include Beta Israel) sources are from britannica. Again. My first instinct was that maybe the issue was with the source! I was wrong.

The source for Ashkenazi Judaism (emphasis mine)

Ashkenazi, member of the Jews who lived in the Rhineland valley and in neighbouring France before their migration eastward to Slavic lands (e.g., Poland, Lithuania, Russia) after the Crusades (11th–13th century) and their descendants. After the 17th-century persecutions in eastern Europe, large numbers of these Jews resettled in western Europe, where they assimilated, as they had done in eastern Europe, with other Jewish communities. In time, all Jews who had adopted the “German rite” synagogue ritual were referred to as Ashkenazim to distinguish them from Sephardic (Spanish rite) Jews. Ashkenazim differ from Sephardim in their pronunciation of Hebrew, in cultural traditions, in synagogue cantillation (chanting), in their widespread use of Yiddish (until the 20th century), and especially in synagogue liturgy. Today Ashkenazim constitute more than 80 percent of all the Jews in the world, vastly outnumbering Sephardic Jews. In the early 21st century, Ashkenazic Jews numbered about 11 million. In Israel the numbers of Ashkenazim and Sephardim are roughly equal, and the chief rabbinate has both an Ashkenazic and a Sephardic chief rabbi on equal footing. All Reform and Conservative Jewish congregations belong to the Ashkenazic tradition

As you can see, britannica does in fact mention that Ashkenazi Jews were first in the Rhineland valley (germany) and france, and later moved to Eastern Europe. I have some nitpicking on that as what I said doesn't match but regardless. Ashkenazi Jews aren't in Ashkenaz according to John, they are in Eastern Europe

The source for Sephardi Judaism (emphasis mine)

Sephardi, member or descendant of the Jews who lived in Spain and Portugal from at least the later centuries of the Roman Empire until their persecution and mass expulsion from those countries in the last decades of the 15th century. The Sephardim initially fled to North Africa and other parts of the Ottoman Empire, and many of these eventually settled in such countries as France, Holland, England, Italy, and the Balkans. Salonika (Thessaloníki) in Macedonia and the city of Amsterdam became major sites of Sephardic settlement. The transplanted Sephardim largely retained their native Judeo-Spanish language (Ladino), literature, and customs. They became noted for their cultural and intellectual achievements within the Mediterranean and northern European Jewish communities. In religious practice, the Sephardim differ from the Ashkenazim (German-rite Jews) in many ritual customs, but these reflect a difference in traditional expression rather than a difference in sect. Of the estimated 1.5 million Sephardic Jews worldwide in the early 21st century (far fewer than the Ashkenazim), the largest number were residing in the state of Israel. The chief rabbinate of Israel has both a Sephardic and an Ashkenazi chief rabbi. The designation Sephardim is frequently used to signify North African Jews and others who, though having no ancestral ties to Spain, have been influenced by Sephardic traditions, but the term Mizrahim is perhaps more properly applied.

As you can also see, the britannica also mentions that Sephardi talks about North African Jews. What is that? SWANA Jews exist? and experienced persecution? Couldn't be. Surely all Jews are actually European and are colonizers in the land of palestine (heavy sarcasm and cynicism). I've got to say, I find the fact that using where Jews ended up for Ashkenazi Jews, and where they "originated" (in quotation due to the fact that only the name originated from there) for Sephardi Jews rather disingenuous, as the story being told erases the existence of SWANA jews to an upsetting and worrying degree.

Review and Credits Almost done. Just have to get through the review. John finishes up the story with something that I have mixed feelings about. He describes Judaism as a religion, but that being Jewish doesn't require a religious identity. I find the but annoying. It's not "judaism is a religion but doesn't have to be", it's "judaism is a religion and a people, and a culture, etc etc". Judaism is older than the concept of religion, we're a people, who can also have a set of belief and behaviour, but not doing them does not preclude you from being part of the family (unless, of course, you actively leave the family but that is a nuance not for here). The rest of his review is fine in my opinion. And now, the credits, which have a list of names that don't seem to be Jewish, but I can't find that about all of them (i know at least one of the people in charge of information for either this video or the series in general is definitely not Jewish)

I don’t know how to finish this, other than… Do better, Crash Course, do better @sizzlingsandwichperfection-blog.

[chirpsythismorning]

Will has someone to tell him that he doesn’t have to like things just bc people tell him he’s supposed to. Mike does not.

Despite countless girls liking Will, he never pursued them. The only time he did was when Mike pushed him to.

A million girls could ask out Will and he would be like nah. AKA he’s going to do things he likes and not do things he doesn’t like, regardless of expectations.

Mike on the other hand, started dating the first girl that wasn’t grossed out by him after having others around him insist that he liked El so much he wanted to marry her, before he could even process the trauma of what was happening in that one week of Will’s disappearance when they found El in the woods.

In s4 Mike is finally beginning to accept himself after repressing the previous season, and it’s why he just can’t follow through with telling El he loves her, because it would break his #1 rule friends don’t lie.

One of the most common unrequited tropes ever is when a love interest is unable to say I love you to the other, even when confronted about it. And so the fact that this is happening on Stranger Things simultaneously while Will is trying to get over Mike under the assumption he will never feel the same because it’s not Mike’s fault he doesn’t like girls, is very convenient to say the least.

The tragic part, is when Mike is finally trying to be true to himself, hopeful that Will feels the same, Will is now the one pushing Mike to conform, under the assumption that this is what Mike wants and he’s just merely insecure and needs his friends support bc friends will be friends. But the problem is, Mike can’t successfully keep up this act anymore, hence the earth cracking and hell taking over.

The gate (closet) is now open. There’s no going back.

[the-lightless-flame]

i think what i find really interesting about priscilla is that she is still like the other mcalisters. lines like 'its no way to win a game, and why else would a person play?' to me make it seem like she has a very similar mentality, particularly to edgar and byron.

so the reason she makes her sacrifice is not because of her nature, but how she was raised. while edgar likely learnt his objectification of the dolls in his mother's notes, and byron grew up with jasper in the house treated as an object, priscilla always knew jasper as a friend. her compassion is not necessarily a part of who she is- its very possible that if given the chance, she could be as bad as those who came before her- but a consequence of a childhood spent with jasper nurturing compassion in her.

[thirdtimed]

unfortunately if i ever developed the lifeseries orv au in my head in earnest i would in no capacity whatsoever manage to be normal about it at all and like. i mean it

[bananacakepie]

No, but I love this because that does make so much sense and would be such an interesting character interaction, not only in terms of fae vs shadowhunter, but also in character comparison(for Izzy vs Dru, but also in how we see the characters now vs in 2007).

I’ve heard before of Izzy being a mentor figure to Dru since Clary was kinda one to Emma, and the token of protection is something that I remember Izzy mentioning in the immortal instruments. When we read about Izzy for the first time, she was very impressive and seemed so mature. And she was kinda-dating Melihorn, which was the basis for some information about the fae. Although it’s not strong, I’m seeing a correlation between Izzy and Melihorn, and Drusilla and Ash; both a shadowhunter with a half-fae, and the half-fae has protected their partner from a traditional fae trap.

The comparison of Izzy/Melihorn and Dru/Ash, is also a look at time. When we first read about Izzy, most of us were teens who were impressed by her outgoing personality (but she was only 16). Now as we see Dru go through similar motions, she feels too young for that kind of relationship. Maybe she seems too young because you just started reading and still she her as a 13 year old from the last series. Maybe you’re still remembering the 8 year old she was in The Mortal Instruments. It feels different because we saw her grow up from child to teen, and this might be an accident, but it is an interesting way to show how our views of characters change depending on what ages we see them turn, and what age we are as we read.

But back to my first point, Dru having gone to a revel, even for a short period would be a clever parallel, and would also make sense considering that when she comes to her senses three days later, she describes herself as aching. It could also just be a normal protective charm, and we would still have that parallel.

So I finally found out what the poppy flower Ash gave Dru really was.

A token of safe passage to faerie as described in Codex is;

A faerie can be convinced (or bargained with) to give a human a token of safe passage usually something like a leaf or a flower. And a faerie who voluntarily brings a specific human to the revels can offer his protection and guarantee the humans ability to leave.

Second sentence is not necessarily about the token but I found it relatable since Cassie previously shared this image from Faerie previously for Halloween 2021;

They seem to be in a relatively lifeless area probably in Wild Fae but her dress suggests they could be going somewhere, I think in this case a revel to find someone or do something to help rescue Jaime?! Also if tokens are mostly used to return home after revels maybe just maybe token was the reason Dru forgot he met Ash in Chapter 1 and not some other crazy magic coz humans forget fae revels after returning in most cases (I am ignoring Dru’s memory issues with Ash and closing my eyes and ears to sense with this bit of info I made up about tokens lalalalala)

This is as far as my theorizing goes for today :)

Date posted: 02/08/2024

[arundolyn]

its really interesting to me how the resident vampires in general of gg and bb have such completely different ideologies. mostly in reference to slayer and rachel but i think this somewhat extends to clavis also bc iirc he wasnt an observer but still kinda played by the same rules. theres at least a plot reason for rachel not to stick her nose into anything plotwise but she still kinda does anyway and i think even if she didnt have the bystander restrictions she wouldnt deign to interact with anyone all that often. i like the dichotomy of the alucards' general attitudes towards humans being at least moderately scornful and superior to some extent even if not actively despite still ultimately wanting to help out (mostly rachel tbh but theres still elements of the typical fiction vampire superiority complex type shit just in general vibes wise for all three of them, esp in relation to like. fuzzy) and slayer's attitude that humanity is a beautiful thing and wanting to help the people he comes across despite having no particular incentive to do so aside from personal fascination and goodwill. rachel already built in having some level of scorn for humans as lesser and also having ample incentive to never interfere with the main storyline as it carries out but doing it anyway because despite these things she still cares despite the active threat to her Literal Existence vs slayer having no skin in the game either way if he does or doesnt help anyone out but still deciding to try to help others find their way regardless just because if nothing else its the most interesting thing to do from his perspective. he has no external motivation TO or NOT TO interfere with anything, its just essentially long term people watching and hed rather do good than do nothing

[weeb-cheese]

I've always tried so hard to not be one of those old pretentious anime fans that primarily watch/read old titles, but alas my favorite art style on the planet is the common styles found in 70s shoujo manga. My favorite manga are around the same age as my parents.

[corvidclub]

Ok so ik that fanfiction often requires characters to act ooc but I've seen multiple (tbf like 3) accidental pregnancy fics in the bear tag....and I just want to have my own 'he wouldn't fucking say that moment' and say that there is not a single universe in which Sydney Adamu would ever carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If the concept of abortion didn't exist my girl would invent it to not have to do that shit lol.

[nono-bunny]

Idk what fandom the first post is about, so obviously this is only conjecture but uh. If I had to guess, it's very likely that the conversation about ships being so different in different fandoms is in part due to the difference in how canon and the creators treat ships

ATLA has built in mockery (as ineffectual as it is imo) for Zutara in it via The Ember Island Players, with Bryke also shaping the conversation around ships outside of the show by openly deriding fans who disagree with them for years. It created a very "us vs them" mentality, with people feeling very strongly about whatever side of the shipwars they land on because they either have "god's grant" to mock the noncanon ship or a history where they have to defend it because of said "god's grant".

Like, genuinely I don't think it can be understated that the amount of vitriol in regards to ATLA ships is like. Not normal? Of course shipwars happen, of course they get nasty sometimes! But like?? I genuinely can't think of a single other fandom I've ever been in where it truly felt this much like there were two completely different fandom spaces you'd find yourself in, essentially all depending on whether or not you like the canon endgame ship... And those two spaces are for some reason also in eternal war rather than each existing peacefully in their own bubble.

Idk, maybe I've just been blessed to have mostly been in chill fandoms or something, but. It doesn't feel like a coincidence to me, that the show where the creators actively participated and encouraged the shipwar by taking sides is also one where the fandom has a tendency to be vicious about it. Fandom culture is always intrinsically linked in some way to the source material, and. Idk, I just feel like the ATLA shipwar wouldn't have been this brutal and longlasting if the creators never got involved and fanned the flames both in and out of the show itself.

Today on Reddit: Two non canon-ship related posts on two very different Subreddits.

The first post, where the hero is shipped with another woman than his canon partner (in the books and thus in the OG source), is filled with peaceful conversations.

The other one in the A:TLA sub where the woman is shipped with someone else than her canon hero-boyfriend—so, Katara with Zuko—, people shipping them being ashamed and insulted, because how dare they question canonicity?

Now that I have this comparison, I have to ask myself if it's more often than not misogyny, bc the hero gets the girl, right? It also doesn't help that people worship this hero like some kind of prophet who can do no wrong.

[thornsent]

all I rly want to do actually is insane inaccessible niche drag routines.

doing a drag king Bit as some sort of fucked up faith healer to The Laying Of Hands The Speaking Of Tongues by the pAper chAse would FIX something in me

[sysig]

Giggles (Patreon)

[unproduciblesmackdown]

it's not about that you "have" to get to exercise your autonomy. b/c like, yes you do, but not in the way that "if i don't get to do that Now i will explode & evaporate (& die)" which is what people keep leveraging to be like "so you don't have any valid argument for getting to act out your own choices"

therein is another issue of "why do you need a 'valid argument' to get Exceptions as ruled by this person to exist autonomously, unpunished" like why's this person an authority who gets to punish you. nonrhetorically, why do you have to appeal to their maybe possibly deciding to Let you be a person. should you "have" to.

and if you don't get that Permission that you supposedly "have" to get, you also will not immediately explode and die if you do that unpermitted thing, but shocking how "you don't Haaaave to" is only invoked re: things you want to do for yourself, and not what they want you to do for them....because it's Not Really About "Literally literally Haaaaving to"

the alignment between people getting on one for years about asexuality, and while doing so maxing out the saturation on their bullshit on any & everything, b/c you're just getting into anti autonomy, so ofc you're also just stoking & expressing "arguments" against autonomy that are deployed in plenty of other contexts, including against other queer identities....and that particular resonance with biphobia & transphobia, and how either groups are theoretically thwarting the Truest Gays because how will we have a valid argument against the truest cishets agenda if we can't convince them we haaaaaave to be like this instead of that no, we won't explode & die if we have to be repressed or at least closeted another day, and another, and you won't explode after another, either, etc. rather than thee point of "asexuality autonomy = queer autonomy = Your queer autonomy = Anyone's Autonomy" and "why do we 'have' to Convince anyone to go 'oh alriiiight' abt one's choices about how they express their identity, what decisions they make about having sex"....it's about anyone having the power to preclude & restrict others' autonomy & constrain their existence between one kind of more imminent, immediate harm/death & a more drawn out one where you exist as a resource for others' use but at least you aren't Literally dead today. so what if someone's saying "well i don't think your gender/sexuality stuff is Real" so long as they can't get in the way of other people living that out anyways. so what if someone's supposedly like "well, but everyone could be bi" (which they don't. just like ppl were never 'pretending' to be asexual to nefariously stand around in the queer space that never rigorously vetted everyone anyways? Making Up A Guy To Get Mad At) to supposedly argue that if all of you are bi you can just restrict yourself to the Cishet Appearing manifestations (which they don't) where what's that even matter if this [guy to get mad at] can't make that anyone else's problem? if he can, why can he. should he be able to. that's the problem, not "have we all tried the constant biphobia wherein they're always thwarting & sabotaging the rest of us?? like how trans people are keeping us from being legitimate?? with the opportunity for some trans people to also try declaring other noncis people Not Legitimately Trans?? well the cishet agenda loves asexuals, actually, they want everyone to never have sex ever (they don't want that, and that's not what being asexual is)"

using the "you can't Know through Direct Perception or extrasensory phenomena what someone else's Thoughts And Feelings are" both ways; wherein their assertion of their intentions, true or not, gets to be treated as an assertion of Reality, meanwhile b/c Your intentions/thoughts/feelings can't be directly observed, you're just lying or exaggerating or misremembering or failing to Express yourself correctly b/c they would've surely interpreted it correctly otherwise, or [anything else] re: your inner experiences that you can't "prove" are one way or another, so this other person gets to always decide for themself what they must be (why?) and if they just so happen to decide they Must be in alignment with what they want (good) or unacceptably, evilly, incorrectly Against Them, they also get to flex their control over the entire situation via their Authority / control over resources / the person's lack of other options b/c of isolation & that, say, breaking away from a family, job, marriage or just deemed correctly romantic relationship, is punished by the larger system of How Things Are, through a lack of resources that makes you more vulnerable in general as well as vulnerable to further punishment in how you might try to respond to that situation, through the general stance that maintaining cohesion of a Unit like the nuclear family, the "romantic" "man"/"woman" couple, is good, so breaking from it is deviant........anyways it's like. if you're like "well i'm having sex b/c i want to" and someone is like "well i say YOURE LYING" like, what? "isn't there someone you forgot to ask" shit. why should that get to affect things. whether you're like "oh no. what if they could say 'you're lying...b/c how do i knowwww you're not BI. where you could want to have sex with someone BESIDES this one person rn?? or ACE??? if you Don't have sex rn and you Don't explode and die 5 min later we will Know you Could Be Asexual" like, this isn't how it works anyways obviously but theoretically if it did: we would not be like "oh sorry guess that's what matters" unless what mattered was some people's being lower on a hierarchy and at the quite literal disposal of those with more power than them. what would the crisis be of someone going "well i think. every gay person? is bi" or someone going "you've just told me your name is gloria but i think your name is actually tetris...." or "i'm so embarrassed i wish everyone but me was dead" if none of these things can hinder the existence of people having sex w/autonomy for all involved or people getting to tell you their name or all other people being alive

the banger quote on my imdb page was saying "no, i don't 'Have' to, but i'm going to" to an authoritarian in my life, concluding several minutes' "negotiation" of [i 'have' to hang up on this call now b/c the movie i'm standing in this movie theater to see is about to start. no i won't explode and die if i don't. i also won't explode and die if i don't keep "talking" to you (being Talked At / lectured & upbraided from afar)] funny how that works. i also Know this was a checkmate b/c that person gave up on responding (or, technically, switched to The Silent Treatment, which worked even worse via phone than in person) and i did hang up rather than miss the movie i showed up for and then they had to resort to Other Methods: telling someone willing to take on the enabling cop mode that i had Essentially said Go Fuck Yourself. like well that's right, and the fact that it's a "go fuck yourself" to get to say "i am going to end the call b/c i choose to do something else" and then actually do so is a real testament to this relationship. and if one had said "i can't keep talking, i have to go" and someone's like "sldfj you mean thou MAY not keep talking" teehee i don't know, CAN you have the peas????? it's like this obviously doesn't matter. i can choose to do shit and choose to not do shit without exploding and dying right this very second, except for taking 5 sec to eat a deadly bomb with a timer set for 5 sec. This Is Not The Point. why is autonomy off-limits to Anyone.