#sorry if any misunderstanding caused me to misrepresent this

[inkstainedfanfics]

Breathe

Request: Hello! I simply adore your imagines. Could you do a NewtxReader where the reader has severe anxiety but Newt doesn't know until he finds her in the middle of a panic attack. And he calms her down and loads of fluffy moments. (Ps. I love your angst imagines. They make my heart ache, which apparently I like. Who knew?)

Word Count: 1,325

Pairing: Newt x Reader

Requested by @aceandawkward but also tagging @red-roses-and-stories @dont-give-a-bother @caseoffics @myrtus-amongst-the-stars @ly--canthrope @thosefantasticbeast2 @benniesgalaxy @whatinbenaddiction

The world works in facts, standards. X + Y = Z. Multiply 5 by itself and you’ll earn 25, no matter the circumstances. Throw something solid in the air and it will come back down regardless of its weight.

It’s comforting, this certainty, to know that if X happens, Y will follow without fault.

You wish as you sink to your knees that humans worked the same way. That every situation resulted in only one outcome, one feeling. You know it’s impossible – emotions are messy – yet as you land on the cool tile of the bathroom floor, your last coherent thought is about how nice it would have been to know that watching seven strangers and three friends walk in that door would be the terror’s invitation, that only minutes later some unseen antagonist would waltz on up from its nest in your gut and take over everything.

You lie down, the cool tiles a welcome break from the sweat beading up on your face, ordering yourself to breathe.

Breathe.

Breathe.

Merlin’s sake, just breathe.

A knock at the locked door interrupts you. “Love, did you want me to put the chicken in the oven now or in a few minutes?”

Newt.

You suck in air and muster the last of your strength. “Now.” A lie. It’s not supposed to cook for ten more minutes, but saying that takes far more breath than you can draw in.

“At 425?”

You drop your head onto the ground, gulping in breaths as the world spins around you, a whirling mess. “Yes.” The word’s quiet, little more than a whisper, as you shut your eyes.

Oh god, what are they thinking out there? You shudder. They expect a hostess, not a mess. You should be out there, should be serving the chicken, should be setting the candies in the little bowls Newt bought, should be preparing the dessert and making sure the pudding is setting properly. There’s so much you should be doing, yet you’re here, choking on the anxiety that never leaves. God, you should be used to it, shouldn’t you? It’s been here for years, how the hell can you not leave it behind? You squeeze your eyes shut.

Your heart slams against your ribs. Dread, terror, inexplicable horror course through your veins:  all guests far more familiar than anyone currently milling in your kitchen.

Breathe. You need to breathe. You know it, know as you try to sit up that you should begin your grounding technique, but instead you accidentally bang your elbow against the gold claw of the bathtub. You know that taking deep breaths and focusing on something, anything, will help, but it’s hard, near impossible.

Another knock at the door. “Love, are you all right?”

Newt’s voice again. You try to say yes, to tell him you’ll be out in a few minutes, you just need to apply some makeup, but somewhere between your chest and your mouth, the words get lost, stumble off on a path of their own and nothing comes out.

You search for them, eyes shut tight, but they’re nowhere to be found. There’s nothing but a rush of fear there. You can’t think, and you sway, feeling as though you may pass out.

Then there’s a body kneeling next to you, tall and warm and worried.

“What is it; are you hurt?”

You gulp, shaking your head. The words. Where are the words?

“What’s wrong?”

You shut your eyes, quelling the nausea in your stomach. “I can’t breathe.” An understatement. It feels like you’re dying.

Newt’s brow furrows. “Can I help?”

You nod. “The faucet.”

“Turn it on?” When you nod, Newt stands and a gentle rush of water sounds in the small room. “What else?”

His hands flutter uselessly around you, so you grab one, holding it tight, squeezing it. Newt stops then, lets you grip his hand as tight as you need to.

“I’m here, love, you’ll be all right.” There’s a quiver of nerves in his voice, but it’s rough and low and the perfect distraction.

“Breathe with me.” You murmur, the words returning.

If Newt is surprised by the request, he doesn’t show it. He just slows his breaths, takes deep ones, tries to match what he must assume you need. Tears swell in your eyes at the sweet gesture, and you reach up to wipe them away.

Newt laces his fingers with yours as your grip loosens. “Anything else I can do?”

You nod, taking breaths that feel deeper, that seem to fill your chest with more air: not enough, but more. “Senses. Things to see, feel.”

You zero in on the things he silently points out, examine the gleam on the side of the tub, the cobweb in the corner, the missing scratch of paint on the wall, the way the brown lace of his boot just grazes the tiles, the knot in the wooden cabinet. You listen for his slow breathing, for the rush of the water draining in the sink, the slow tapping of his foot, the low scratches of Newt’s voice as he murmurs comforting words every few seconds. You continue the exercise, finding three things to feel (The calluses on Newt’s hand, the thin lines between the tiles, the soft fabric of your clothes) and two things to smell (the chicken cooking, the disinfectant you’d sprayed all over the apartment earlier).

Then it’s over, leaving nothing but a shadow of the fear and exhaustion behind. Everything else retreats back into your stomach, ready to pounce the next time. You do your best to ignore the strange residue.

Newt shifts next to you, noticing the change in your demeanor.

“Thank you.” You mumble, staring at your interlocked hands.

“May I ask what that was?”

A beat passes before you answer.

“A panic attack.” You shut your eyes. “I have issues with my anxiety. It can be… too much, sometimes.” You know you should explain more, but tears of shame block your throat.

Newt, though, noticing the rise in your voice, squeezes your hand gently. “Nothing to be ashamed of, love. We all have our struggles.”

“Yes,” you say, cheeks hot, “but mine are ridiculous. I know I’m safe, that I’m not dying, yet it still happens.”

He’s quiet, thinking.

“I don’t know how to stop it, prevent it.” You continue.

“Well,” Newt says, comforting smile curving his lips, “you have me, if you’d like my help.”

“You’re not, you know,” you swallow again, fingers tapping a quick rhythm against the tiles, “bothered by it?”

“Why would I be?”

“I’m being ridiculous. There’s no point to this.”

Newt shakes his head. “How can you consider yourself ridiculous for something you can’t control?”

You shrug casually, but your voice is a whisper. “I wish you didn’t have to deal with this.”

“Love,” Newt says, lifting your chin so you’re looking straight at him, “I will always love you, no matter what happens. If you need my help, you need only ask. It’s no bother whatsoever, and you will never be anything less than wonderful to me.”

You lift his arm, wrapping it around your shoulders as you snuggle against his chest. “Thank you.”

He kisses your hair. “Of course, love.”

You sit there for another minute before breathing in a final deep breath. “We’re supposed to be out there serving our guests.”

Newt shrugs, arm tightening around you. “They can wait.”

The world works in certainties, people don’t. That’s a fact, a rule of the world, but every rule has an exception, and you find the exception to that rule right here in this moment as you find your own certainty in Newt’s steadiness, in the calm resolve he has about staying by your side. A surge of gratitude hits you as you lean against him, and you promise yourself as he kisses the top of your head that you’ll be here for him as long as he’ll have you.

[skaldish]

Hi!! So I'm honestly not sure if I've asked you this before, (incredibly sorry if I have and you didn't want to answer because it was disrespectful or if you did and I didn't see it cause I'm pretty sure it was on anon) but I'm writing a book where one of the Norse gods is a love interest (specifically Hel) and in a wlw relationship with my main character, and I was just wondering 1. If you think witches who work with her would take offense, or 2. If you think she herself would take offense? Or if you think I should try and ask her myself? I've been practicing witchcraft for about 7 years now but I never got involved with deity work because up until about a month ago I was a minor and I just didn't like the idea of committing to a pantheon before I was able to vote, plus I sort of jump around different types of agnosticism constantly, so I'm not really sure what proper ettiequte would be. I wanna think that it'd be fine because people write stories featuring the gods all the time a lot of which they aren't portrayed 100% text accurately in, but I also don't want to hurt anybody or risk pissing off a death deity that I will most likely encounter eventually and who (I believe) has reached out to me in the past. If it's easier I could just change her name of course, but I also want more people to know about her in a more positive light cause she's been one of the few goddesses I've actually considered getting into deity work for even though she scares me a little sometimes tbh (in like, a disappointed mom way, but like, a disappointed mom who's the principal of your school and WILL expel you if you act up way, you know?) and I've had a love for Norse mythology and myths about her for a long time that I want to spread. And I'm not like, anticipating that everyone in the world will read it obviously, it'll be the first thing I've ever published, but still, it'd suck to do it and have a few people read it and feel misrepresented or hurt by how I've written her. Sorry, this is very long and very rambly, but I'd really appreciate your input.

Thank you for reading, sorry if this is weird and gross, I'm not great at picking up on social cues online

It's one of those things I grapple with these days too, using deities as characters. And honestly I'm still figuring out where the line is too.

But speaking solely from my experience, I've yet to meet a deity who's monogamous and strictly heterosexual. Gods represent the human experience taken to a highly-curated level, and that includes our magnitude of sexualities. (If you're that old and that cultivated why would you limit yourself to just one partner?)

I definitely have had gods correct me about how I portray them in literature, but only because they knew I wasn't understanding who they were and that misunderstanding was reflected in the work. They didn't want me to give myself the wrong impression of them. But this usually was in regards to their personality and motivation as opposed to, like, their sexual orientation.

I mean I'd ask Hel because it's the polite thing to do, but I highly doubt your question will incur any insult from her.

And if any witches who work with Hel get offended at any genuine (i.e. non-satirical) portrayal of Hel in a wlw relationship, their opinions are hardly worth the while. I have no idea why anyone would treat gay or lesbian relationships as a bad thing in paganism.

[hellomynameisbisexual]

5 Ways That Bi Erasure Hurts More Than Just Bisexual People

December 2, 2014 by Milo Todd

This year, Bisexual Awareness Day/Celebrate Bisexuality Day was on September 23rd.

That same day, the National LGBTQ Task Force thought it’d be a good idea to post an article entitled “Bye Bye Bi, Hello Queer,” in which leadership programs director Evangeline Weiss said “she is ready ‘to say bye bye to the word bisexuality.’

She said it does not describe her sexual orientation, and she encouraged readers to cease using the word as well as she felt it reinforced a binary concept of gender.

Let me drive that home a little more. The National LGBTQ Task Force not only thought it would be a good idea to publish an article insulting, misrepresenting, and forsaking the bisexual letter in their own name, but did so on Celebrate Bisexuality Day.

Rude.

And a fantastic example of the constant, ongoing erasure bisexual people have to deal with. This one just happened to be incredibly blatant.

What happened as a result of that article? People got pissed.

People got so pissed that the Task Force not only removed the article from their website, but posted in its place this non-apology (it keeps being referred to as an apology, but I’m not so easily pleased): “Having listened to a wide array of feedback on the timing and content, we recognize that this blog offended people. For this we sincerely apologize. It has been removed.”

In other words, “Sorry you got pissed off. Hopefully you’ll shut up if we take it down.” Which, as far as I can tell, isn’t much of an apology for a blatant disregard of an entire community of people.

Misunderstanding of the bisexual community has been the crux of biphobia’s history and the ongoing battle to erase bisexuality from the LGBTQIA+ community.

It’s a scary time to be bi, especially when your lesbian, gay, pansexual, and queer siblings and allies are calling for your blood simply because they’ve fallen victim to the mainstream agenda without realizing it. (Say what?! Jump to #5.)

It’s time for a change.

It’s time for all of us to properly understand one another and to — hope of hopes — become allies for our incredibly similar endeavors. To help initiate that friendship, I ask you, dear reader, to go through the following three steps.

Step 1: Look below. If I’ve played my cards right, virtually every reader should find at least one category with which they identify.

Step 2: Approach your designated section(s) with an open mind, an unprejudiced heart, and a desire to further enhance your own community/ies. It’s difficult for people to learn new things and see different views if they automatically approach them with resistance, which is often the case with bisexual topics.

Step 3: See how bi erasure hurts you as a person and, while you’re at it, likely hurts the people you care about. Because it really is happening.

So here are five ways in which bi erasure is hurting people of layered identities.

1. Female-Identified People and Feminists

Bisexuality is one of the only non-monosexual* identities currently recognized in the English-speaking world. If bisexuality is kept underground, it suppresses our limited, precious resources for open discussion about non-monosexuality. This hurts female-identified people and feminists regardless of their sexual orientation.

To this day, female-identified people can’t get a fair shake. Pay is unequal, birth control access is limited, and objectification is a daily thing. Non-monosexual women in particular are often not taken seriously because they’re seen as sluts, greedy, or unable to make up their minds.

Also, the general fetishizing of women is particularly intensified in the bisexual realm by (straight-identified) men, turning the very act of women’s sexual freedom, empowerment, and self-expression into nothing more than something for male gazes. (This is most often seen through the relentless prompts for female-female-male threesomes and masculine catcalls in bars when two femme-appearing women make out.)

By participating in or casually allowing bi erasure to happen, we’re ignoring the specific plights and abuses of bisexual women, thereby contributing to the ongoing problem of female inequality, objectification, and silence.

As feminists, we can’t pick and choose which women to fight for. The complexities of womanhood — and all of its cultural suppressions — are an all-or-none deal.

*Note: Non-monosexuality usually refers to someone who is interested in more than one sex or gender. (In other words, somebody who isn’t gay, lesbian, or straight.) Another way to say “non-monosexuality” would be “polysexuality” to help keep it from sounding negative.

2. Male-Identified People and Male Liberationists*

Just like with female-identified people and feminists, bi erasure hurts male-identified people and male liberationists regardless of their sexual orientation.

Allow me to make this pretty basic: Men continue to be fed the message that being gay is bad. Being gay means you’re not really a man, which means you lose your dude membership and the bulk of your male privilege. And since gayness equals the slightest shred of attraction to or intimacy with another male, all manners of bromance must be squashed.

In short, many guys live in a state of silent terror in this regard.

Bi men are afraid of being banished from the world of lady-loving, gay men are worried about losing all of their connections to hetero land, and nothing is worse for a straight man than being called a fag.

Constant monitoring, constant filtering, constant stress: Is this really the kind of world we guys want to keep living in?

By being able to talk about bisexuality — remember: one of our only non-monosexual identities — male-identified people can begin to break free from the masculine ideal.

Bi talk helps bridge the gap between being a man (straight) and not being a man (gay) and realizing, hey, having some manner of attraction to or intimate interaction with another guy is totally okay, masculinity unscathed.

Gay men can begin to regain their identities as men, bi men can finally start coming out, and “fag” will lose its strength as an insult from one straight man to another.

*Note: Male liberationists are more or less seen as allies to feminists and vice versa. Both will argue that patriarchy is bad, but while feminists talk of how it’s bad for females, male liberationists talk of how it’s bad for males. Examples include the inability to romantically or sexually love another male, the emasculation of men of color, and the physical, verbal, and mental abuse that comes from society’s expectations to be stereotypically masculine.

3. People Who Identify as Trans Sexual, Trans Gender, Genderfluid, Genderqueer, or Gender Non-Conforming

This one’s pretty easy. Some people on the trans spectrum identify as bisexual. But then they’re told they can’t or that it’s an insult to their trans siblings because bisexuality is believed to be trans-exclusive.

The problem with bi erasure is it adds to the ongoing problem of cis people — LGQ or not — telling trans people what to think. Cis people have a bad habit of thinking they need to speak for people on the trans spectrum even when trans people are quite capable of speaking for themselves. This is even more frustrating when it comes from a community supposedly meant to support them.

Despite the personhood for which they’re continuing to fight, trans people can receive backlash from the lesbian, gay, and queer communities as their identities and bodies are turned into political battlegrounds.

Sometimes, they’re used without consent by some cis individuals so that points can be made for non-trans-specific agendas, and sometimes they’re ironically used in the attempts for cis identities to help better the trans worlds.

For instance, automatically dismissing bisexuality as trans-exclusive and guilting any person on the trans spectrum that wants to identity as bisexual, if I may make so fine a point.

As blogger Aud Traher writes, “If you want to support trans people like me, don’t erase me or speak over me or cause me harm out of self-righteous biphobia. Look into yourself and deal with that internalized biphobia and then help others get over theirs. Don’t advocate for the destruction of a community in the name of ‘saving’ it. And, especially, don’t do it in my name.”

4. People Who Identify as Gay, Lesbian, or — Yes — Straight

Quite simply, it makes gays and lesbians (and straight people) look bad, too.

Bisexual people get a bad rap for apparently upholding the gender binary by saying they love only (cis) men or (cis) women, but isn’t that pretty much exactly what gays, lesbians, and straight people are saying when they identify as gay, lesbian, or straight? That they’ll only love either (cis) men or (cis) women?

But where’s their rampant backlash from the rest of the community for upholding the gender binary? I’m just sayin’.

Even when these groups extend their definitions to include trans people and people on the gender non-conforming spectrum, it’s often still as long as those trans people exhibit some manner of gender representation that falls into the lover’s category of desire.

Now, I’m honestly not trying to rag on gays, lesbians, or even straight people. They have as much right to identify how they want as anybody else. And there’s nothing wrong with feeling primarily attracted to only, say, cis or trans men if your brain simply tells you that you only like guys. That’s fine. Go ahead and do that. I’m not saying you can’t.

What I am saying is you can’t be spewing bi hate or letting bi erasure slide because 1) it’s incredibly one-sided and unfair, and 2) in the end, it’s making you look bad, too.

What do you think will happen if bi erasure is a success? You’ll be next, dears.

*cue Jaws theme*

5. People Who Identify as Queer, Pansexual, or Another Fellow Non-Monosexual

In late October, Lizzy the Lezzy — who I quite enjoy, by the way — shared a photo on her Facebook timeline explaining sexuality in terms of guests at a BBQ.

This would be all well and good if it didn’t include a glaring misconception about bisexual people, especially when compared to pansexuals. While bisexual people were defined as getting both hot dogs and hamburgers, pansexuals were defined as getting hot dogs, hamburgers, “and a salad.” Oops. What year is this again?

I’m going to make something very plain to you, dear reader: Bisexual people don’t just love (cis) men or (cis) women. That’s not how the ballpark definition goes. The “bi” in “bisexual” does not indicate a binary. Well, okay, it does indicate a binary, but probably not the one you think.

Instead of “bi” meaning a love for only cis men or cis women or otherwise putting men and women at two opposite ends of a spectrum, “bi” means a love for identities bisexual people identify with themselves and identities that they don’t.

Or, as the popular Robyn Ochs definition goes: “I call myself bisexual because I acknowledge that I have in myself the potential to be attracted – romantically and/or sexually – to people of more than one sex and/or gender, not necessarily at the same time, not necessarily in the same way, and not necessarily to the same degree.”

Look at that very closely. That’s still a binary. That’s still “bi.” And there isn’t a thing wrong with it, no exclusion to be seen.

When compared with the general concepts of pansexuals and queers, our orientations suddenly sound pretty darn similar: We love everyone.

Bisexual people get a bad rap for apparently being transphobic. While we’ve already seen a little bit in #3 as to why we aren’t, I want to further drive the point home here. A large portion of the transphobic accusations toward us come from the queer and pansexual communities, which in turn seem to derive from some serious misinformation and misdirection by the mainstream.

For the record, queers and pansexuals are cool. I like them. But the fact of the matter is that the misconception of the “bi” in “bisexual” as meaning an attraction to only (cis) men or (cis) women — and therefore upholding the gender binary — was created and imposed upon bisexual people by the mainstream. You know, the people that want the gender binary to stick around.

And some queers and pansexuals ate the propaganda they were fed? That’s terrifying. It starts to show just how large and sneaky the mainstream’s gender binary monster truly is.

By defining and erasing bisexuality on the grounds that it upholds the gender binary, pansexuals and queers are not only reinforcing the binary they so sorely wish to dismantle, but they are losing important focus on where the problem actually resides: the mainstream’s insistence to force the gender binary on non-mainstream groups such as bisexual people.

Further, holding bisexual people responsible for the abuse they’ve suffered is simply wrong. All that’s doing is blaming the victim. But, by recognizing and respecting bisexual people as they truly are, bisexual people can not only help dismantle the gender binary and put a new definition on the concept of the spectrum, but finally be allowed to team up with pansexuals and queers to crush mainstream abuse on non-mainstream identities.

Doesn’t that sound nice? I think it sounds nice.

TL;DR

Dear non-bisexual identities, please stop shooting yourselves in the foot and then wondering why you’re missing toes.

We’re here for the same reasons you are: for the right to love whoever we want and for the right for others to do the same.

So let’s finally be friends. We’re never going to get anything done if we keep spending our time putting each other down.

[mimzy-writing-online]

Hey!! I was wondering if you had any advice for a character concept I've been playing with? :) long story short, my character wasn't born blind, but throughout the story she progressively becomes blind from cataracts- cortical vision impairment to be exact. Is this inherently a bad concept? I really don't want to misrepresent this, and the last thing I want is to make people mad about it. Is there a way I should go about this? Thanks!!

Later message from same Anon: Hey! Just following up on my ask of writing a blind character in the Victorian era- sorry if I missed it

Note: in a message between the first and third, anon added that this story takes place in the Victorian era.

You certainly did not miss it, I’ve just been lazy (struggling) with blog maintenance and have been procrastinating answering several asks.  Historical fiction is out of my area of expertise, so this required more research than general advice.

Also, my first and second attempts at an answer were eaten away by computer/tumblr difficulties, so I had to rewrite a lot.

I think it is a fantastic idea to have your character go blind slowly over time. It is also ambitious, so it is something you need to be careful with, but it’s totally doable.

So the era throws me a little because I’ve never had much practice with historical fiction and history wasn’t a fave subject of mine. Most of my research into blind history has been after World War I, because the sudden surge of blinded veterans changed the course of history for the blind community. This and technology overall led to those huge changes.

So I did a little reading up on the recent evolutions of blindness and the world’s general understanding of it in the 1800s.

Conclusion: society was shit with disability, but I already knew that. There were some remarkable inventions and innovations for blindness in this century, which I will get to later.

 So this post will be: 1. The more personal aspects of going blind over time (instead of all at once) such as acceptance vs denial, life changes, and internalized ableism. 2. Speculating on society’s perception of the blind. 3. Innovations for the blind in that era and what comes after.

 So, part one. The Emotional…

As someone who has slowly lost vision over the course of years and has no idea how far this will progress, I can tell you that it’s an agonizing process of realization, denial, understanding, acceptance, adaption.

Realizing you’re going blind comes in small pieces that eventually add up to become a puzzle. And for this reason, adaption follows a similar pattern.

You identify a problem, feel conflicted about this change, wonder if you should ignore or investigate, and regardless of which path you take, you find a new way to adapt.

I’m going to use an example of my process through this, so you can see the actual thought patterns and how they circle between “this isn’t a problem” – “wait this is a problem” – “no I’m fine!” – “this is a problem.” – “I’m fine, what am I complaining for” – “I made this change and now my life is 100x easier??? Who knew? Why didn’t I do this sooner?”

Example from my life: Light is bright. That hurts but I’m fine. I get sunglasses. The pain with bright light is getting worse. Okay, that’s concerning, maybe I should talk to a doctor. Doctor says I’m fine but now I’m thinking I’m not okay. Why are my eyes doing this? Why do I hurt? Oh, and now bright lights at night are becoming a problem, and I get more headaches associated with light. I could wear sunglasses at night and indoors, but society has given me a negative and judgemental opinion of that, so I don’t want to do it. Best friend pushes me to give up on that negative view for the sake of my health. Finally I listen and life feels much better, but I’m still a little uncomfortable with this change. I feel very blind with my sunglasses, but that’s the only way to not feel pain. And now I feel blind when I’m not wearing any light protection, but I’m in pain this way. What’s wrong with me?

And this is just my internal argument with sunglasses and light sensitivity, from age 17-22. On the other side is my struggle with “do I need a cane” from age 21-22, which goes like this-

It’s August and I’m walking through a semi-familiar but gigantic and ridiculously crowded park with a group of friends. It’s bright out and I need to wear my sunglasses. And now I’m realizing there is a dilemma. I can’t see. My sunglasses are too dark to see. But going without is painful and just as bad vision wise. BUT I CAN’T SEE! I’m scared, I’m going to run into someone or something, I’ll get lost or separated from my friends and not be able to find them. I can’t see curbs or pillars or people and the only thing keeping me safe is holding onto K, who knows my current vision situation when no one else does

And I think to myself- this day would be so much easier if I had a cane.

But I haven’t needed one before, and I don’t ‘normally’ need one. Just every time I go outside on a sunny day. I don’t need it all the time, so I can’t have one, I’m fine.

But these things keep happening, where I’m outside and terrified but I think I’m still “sighted” and my only problem is some light sensitivity and not-super-great sunglasses. My glasses let me see 20/20 (or they did, which they did not a year later) so I definitely don’t need a cane at all.

Young past self, you were so wrong. You needed that.

Eventually I had a breaking point when one year later I’m seeing 20/50 with best correction (so, by legal definitions I’m not even visually impaired yet) but I’m terrified of leaving my house and can’t travel alone and am a literal danger to myself because I can’t see and can’t tell people I can’t see because of social anxiety and internalized ableism-

And the breaking point was that I finally got seriously hurt because I was in a situation where I couldn’t see and wasn’t brave enough to ask my current company to be a sighted guide. That’s the day I ordered a cane, and when it came two weeks ago, I finally remembered what it’s like to not be so terrified for my life every time I left my home.

Your character will over time find problems with her daily life that she didn’t have before, and she’ll deal with each one individually, but with all of them will usually be a repeating thought pattern that is unique to her. It depends on her internalized ableism and society’s ableism (and that era is full of it) and accommodations available to them at the time (also not great).

She’ll solve each problem at a different point that may coincide with other problems and yet still seem like entirely separate problems to them. Like how I wouldn’t relate my need for sunglasses and my need for a cane at the same time because they felt like separate battles to me with their own timelines and similar but still different thought processes.

You will have to decide on a case by case basis what accommodations or accessibility she can have at that time.

 Society’s view on blindness:

It’s shit.

It’s not great now, in the world of information available at your fingertips. It’s desperately worse in history.

 (TW: abuse of disabled people mentioned -thoroughly- in the next two paragraphs)

Everyone with a disability was treated like shit. Sensory disabilities (Deaf or Blind or Deafblind people) and mental illness were treated the worst. There is historical religious persecution against them, saying that they were made ill by the devil or a vengeful God. Which lead to abuse. They were seen as helpless or unproductive, defective, and so were treated as burdens upon their family and society. Because of this, abuse from parents and family members was horribly common for disabled people. Disabled people were often left in asylums by their family members because they were seen as a burden, where there was usually still more abuse to come.

There are still children with disabilities who are abused by their parents, families, care givers, or any facility they’ve been placed in. The cases of abuse are less, but by no means over.

 Ableism in general is just rampant and it’s only cured through the distribution of information. Most people (today) have never met a blind person in real life, had a conversation with one. Through the internet they can find information, but in pre-internet and media eras I can’t imagine how much ignorance runs about.

Most people think blindness is something that only happens with old age, birth defects, or tragic accidents. Or that blindness is obvious in a person. Not the case, as we both know, but certainly a cause for many misunderstandings.

 This section is where the development of technology and understanding of blind people begins, but there’s still some ugly history involving abuse of the disabled to come.

Technology and History

 (TW: abuse towards historical disabled people in next paragraph)

In 1785 the Institut National des Jeunes Aveugles, the world’s very first school for the blind was established in Paris, France. It was opened internationally to children who society had previously deemed unteachable. Valentin Haüy witnessed acts of bullying and cruelty done to blind hospice patients and it inspired him to attempt teaching a blind beggar. He taught the boy to read through raised letters (because Braille was not yet invented). The school he founded could better be described as a trade school, because its primary purpose was to teach work skills like letter press and weaving (going back to Valentin’s childhood, whose family worked as weavers)

Due to criminal activity (he was labeled as a terrorist related to the French Revolution and was a member of the Panthéon Club) he was forced to leave the school in 1802. He later moved to Russia (1806) and began a new school upon the request of Alexander I of Russia.

(TW: child abuse mention in next paragraph)

After his leave, the school had a change in leadership and location, and subsequently quality. Sébastien Guillié became the new director and was later forced to leave because of the inhumane conditions of the facility and welfare of the children. Those children lived in a French Revolution prison that was refurbished as an asylum/school for their education. It was cold and dirty. They were kept in the dark, only allowed to bathe once a month, and poorly fed. This went on until 1821 when he was forced to leave.

Louis Braille (the inventor of Braille) was a student of the school until Guillié’s reign of terror.

The school was later moved to Boulevard des Invalides, and it remains there today. Information with this school is hard for me to access. It doesn’t have the prettiest history, so I can only speculate how much was left out of the books to save the school, and what information I could access is in French.

However, back to Braille.

Braille was invented by Frenchman Louis Braille in 1824. Before his invention, he was taught to read through raised lettering, and he concluded that raised lettering was impractical because-

1.       It is difficult to read, the letters had to be printed in huge font to be fully felt out and printed on thick paper.

2.       Thick paper means higher quality, more expensive. Larger font means more paper is needed for a single text.

3.       This made it inaccessible due to expense and the sheer volume of a text.

4.       If today’s Braille books are hard to access and giant compared to traditional books, I can’t imagine how inaccessible those raised letter books really were

 Five years later The Perkins School for the Blind was founded in America, making education accessible to blind and deafblind children, and this time it focused on reading and mathematics, more education than trade school.

Though it would not have been possible for your character to attend the school herself, it could be possible that she became acquainted with a teacher or former student of either school, who might have passed on some O&M skills to her or some not so pleasant tales.

Side note: the Perkins Brailler (a typewriter machine for Braille) was developed by a wood working teacher at the Perkins School for the Blind – in 1951, so not applicable to your character’s time period, but I didn’t know this, so I must info-dump

 This is before the eugenics movement of 20th century America, when the belief that people with “poor breeding” should be prevented from breeding. The eugenics movement targeted not only the disabled, but lower class and people of color.

  The white cane as an accessibility tool was not “discovered” until the 1930’s by Philip Strong, who painted his walking stick white to make himself more visible. This piece of history is a little flimsy in my opinion. Techniques are discovered and lost and rediscovered all the time. You can’t prove he was the first person to “wave a stick” in front of him to find obstacles.

But he is credited for making the white cane something that could be a standard identifier to tell people (moving obstacles) “hey, I’m blind, don’t hit me with your loud vehicle” and made a movement of other people getting white canes to identify themselves.

I very much thank him for it, seeing as I’m so sighted-passing sometimes. If white canes weren’t standard everyone-must-know-what-this-means sort of thing, I think people would just watch me “wave a stick” around and think I’d lost my mind.

(TW: suicide of disabled character mention in next paragraph)

So when you see something like in Downton Abby (season 2) when Thomas and Sybil are trying to teach a blinded soldier how to use a cane to navigate… it could be possible, something that actually occurred to some people then. Although, now that I think about it, that character killed himself by the end of the episode and that still upsets me.

Downton Abby got the period-typical ableism right, I will give them that. Both the internalized ableism as well as how strangers treat you, they got that right. What they did to their disabled characters still bothers me (i.e. death and cure subplots)

(TW has been lifted, you made it past.)

But with World War 1, there was a huge number of blinded veterans entering the world and that did make way for big changes in the world of blindness-

Within a few decades guide dogs were being trained, white canes were becoming a thing, Schools for the Blind were thinking, “hey, maybe we should teach adults these skills too!” and life continued on until it eventually reached out modern world. Which, not applicable to your era, but I think it’s important to know what wasn’t available or common knowledge for your character.

If anyone has other information about historical fiction, the Victorian era, and historical ableism and disability, please feel free to reblog with your input and I’ll reblog it.

As always, this post can be found on my blog through the tags: reference, blind character, historical fiction

[neuroglitch]

It was ages ago but i remember you posting something that made me really annoyed/angry. IIRC you said that misdiagnosis isn't really misdiagnosis, and that false diagnoses shouldn't be removed because symptoms of disorders that can be confused are pretty much the same anyway or it could be an 'identity'. I'm sorry but as an autistic person, who has been faced with ableism and misinfo my entire life, this is the stupidest thing ever. A childhood schizophrenic that has been misdiagnosed w autism/1

does not have the right to ‘identify’ as autistic. An allistic person is not autistic. A psychotic mental illness is not the same as a neurodevelopmental disorder such as ASD and should not be accepted as such. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that autistic brains develop/perform differently than allistic brains, and to imply that this fact doesn’t matter or is not true is AWFUL. Misdiagnosis is real, and v harmful. ASD is literally who i am, thats why its my identity. It’s not a choice

Hi there,

I’m sorry you feel like whatI said was hurtful, I never intended to hurt anyone with my musings. I stand bywhat I say, but I feel like you misrepresent my opinion slightly, whichindicates to me that there are some misunderstandings here, that I would liketo clear up.

A misdiagnosis can obviously be a misdiagnosis, but a change indiagnosis does not necessarily mean that a previous diagnosis is no longer “valid”,which does depend on the individual situation.

I’m going to make a thought experiment, that might illustratethis for you. If you start having psychotic symptoms one of these days (I prayyou won’t), then it’s likely that a psychiatrist is going to remove your autismdiagnosis and change it to one of schizophrenia.

This is a relatively common practice.

Why?

Because schizophrenia, much like ASD and ADHD is a type ofneurodevelopmental disorder, and people with schizophrenia often exhibitsymptoms of autism and/or ADHD from an early age – way before they have anypsychotic symptoms.

This has caused massive confusion on the difference betweenautism and schizophrenia, particularly, bc historically the two terms areclosely linked, and there’s a lot of evidence that autistic people are more atrisk of developing psychosis than the general population. And whether todiagnose a person who exhibits symptoms of psychosis and autism with autism andpsychosis, or with schizophrenia, will depend in large part on the personal judgementof the psychiatrist who sees that person.

So say you start to develop psychosis, and your diagnosis waschanged to schizophrenia. How would you feel?

I suspect that since autism is “literally who you are, youridentity” you would be pretty confused and probably a little upset. What wouldthis mean? Are your autistic experiences no longer valid? Do you no longerbelong in the autistic community?

Your argument is that you would no longer belong, because thename of your condition has changed. My argument is that you would still have aplace in the autistic community, because your experiences so far have beenautistic experiences: The symptoms themselves, sure, but certainly also theprocess of identifying with that label and that community, and the experiencesof ableism.

The implication that being schizophrenic is somehow a choice, andthat schizophrenic people don’t develop/perfom differently, and that this is whatmakes it different from ASD, is upsetting to me. I wonder if you can understandwhy? Do you see how you are being ableist towards psychotic people in your ask?

Why is it so upsetting to you, that there is an overlap in schizophrenicand autistic experiences?

To very shortly address the point of the childhoodschizophrenic. I guess you don’t know the context of the original series ofasks/posts. My friend that I was talking about is not a childhoodschizophrenic, she became psychotic in her late teens which is relativelycommon, and before that she exhibited all the symptoms of autism and was diagnosedwith that.

Hope this clears things up 😊

Cat

[setaripendragon]

So, Thousand_elf over on Ao3 asked for a The Light of Pole Star drabble about Fiametta and Lucia. Idk if this is exactly what you had in mind, but since I had originally planned to have Roy tell their story the same way Ed told Proteus and Huang’s, I figured I could do that much, at least.

“Once upon a time, in a far away land, there was a poor down-on-her-luck artist. She travelled from city to city, looking for a patron who wouldn’t ask her to paint anything boring. One day, when she was minding her own business in the market, the most beautiful creature she ever laid eyes was so engrossed in a book on biological alchemy that she walked right into her. Somehow, in the ensuing chaos, the artist’s sketchbook got muddled up with the other woman’s alchemy book, and the woman took one look at it, and asked the artist if she would illustrate something for her.

Of course, the artist said yes. Not only did she need the patronage, but she was also certain that she would never deny the woman anything if it was in her power to give-”

“You did not, you giant sap.”

“I did, actually- Never mind. I’m trying to tell a story, Edward.”

“Well, sorry, jeez. Go on, then.”

“Thank you, dearest. As I was saying; The artist agreed to the work, and together, the two of them embarked on a project to write, illustrate, and publish a book on the principles of biological alchemy, for the knowledge of the time was severely misguided. The artist had never had more fun while working than when working with this woman, who she soon learned was no less than the daughter of the local nobility.

As you can imagine, the artist chose to stay, even after her work on the book was complete. She picked up commissions from others who had heard that even the discerning young Lady had employed this artist’s services. But the work was boring. Stiff portraits and dull landscapes and nothing at all worth the effort she was required to put into it.”

“You’re such a melodramatic bastard, you know that?”

“It’s not melodrama, it’s the truth!”

“Lemme guess, if the models of those stiff portraits had been modelling for you naked, you wouldn’t have complained at all, huh?”

“I… probably would have complained about a few of them. And besides, Edward, you know it’s not about the amount of skin they were showing.”

“Yeah, yeah. Carry on with the story.”

“As my love commands. Eventually, the artist’s Lady returned - reluctant, this time - requesting a stiff, boring portrait for her family’s gallery. Instead of doing as requested, the artist goaded the Lady into talking about her work, and painted her at her most beautiful, alive with the passion of discovery. The Lady, upon seeing the finished project, confessed that she had never before understood why the people around her called her beautiful.

The artist, of course, was outraged that such a perfect creature should ever think herself lacking in any way-”

“I didn’t. It just didn’t fucking matter, did it?”

“I know, Edward. You did tell me that at the time, remember?”

“Well, yeah, but you’re misrepresenting me! I can’t be having with that!”

“I’m trying to tell the story accurately from my perspective!”

“So, you’re a dumbass, is what you’re saying?”

“Love makes fools of us all.”

“Oh, gag. Shut up and finish the story.”

“I can’t do both of those at the same ti- Okay! Okay! So, after a passionate debate in which several misunderstandings were cleared up, the artist and her Lady fell into bed together, and from then on, they were inseparable. And after many, many complaints from the artist, and half-finished portraits of the Lady in certain indecent poses, the Lady eventually suggested a solution to the artist’s eternal problem.”

“It was kind of obvious.”

“It was not.”

“Oh my god, really? Is it that hard to think, hmm, if I want to paint people in the throes of passion, maybe I should hire professional sex workers to put on a show for me to paint?”

“Well, first of all, before you, dear, I hardly had money to spare, and second of all… it would have been gauche to suggest it myself.”

“So it was obvious, you were just being chickenshit.”

“You have such a way with words.”

“I’m right. You know I’m right.”

“Yes, yes. So the artist finally had the wealth and freedom to paint what she wished thanks to her Lady’s generosity and open-mindedness, and willingness to, ah, pose for many, many paintings through their long and happy lives.”

“Well, sex is fun.”

“And happy people are beautiful.”

“You are such a sap.”

“Are you complaining?”

“Well, yeah, cause every time you’re a sap, it makes me want to throw you down and ravish you, and it turns out, that’s not really acceptable in public.”

“…We’re not in public now.”

“That is very true.”

[lampsofcuties]

Sorry my theme is shite lmao, thank u for the ask! (Also cause u seem to like HS a lot i will do both that and my current fandom)

😑 (HS) A really popular one that im kinda indifferent to is JohnDave, I like the ship but it isnt really something i look for. (RWBY) Im kinda indifferent to seamonkeys even tho i do ship it, i am just not into it right now even tho i love those good bois.

✌️(HS) Now this one is tough because as my description suggests i am a multishipper thru and thru so i ship pretty much every homestuck ship. I guess I could count Grimdorks in this cause tho i do ship it sometimes, its very conditional. (RWBY) Same problem here buuuuuut i guess we can throw in Lancaster here cause i do think its cute but not my cuppa.

💚 (HS) MMMM GUILTY PLEASURE SHIP IS CROFEF IDK Y DONT @ ME LMAO (RWBY) secretly ship yang♠️neo NOT TO BE A FUCKINNNN HOMESTUCK BUT thats some good shit

💘 (HS) GamSol, EriAra, DirkJane, i could go on... (RWBY) Hmmm, not sure about this one, Probably Bumblemeleon, mostly cause i dont think people think about ilia and yang interactions enough yet lol

👀 (HS) maaaan ive seen em all at this point but like i guess i am curious about legit any ship from the hiveswap friendsims cause i havent played any lmaooo (RWBY) i guess i am cutious about any ships that dont center around the main cast cause ive pretty much explored all those ships, maybe like whats glynda up to ya kno?

💖 (HS) TERIDAN, MOTHERFUCKER, ITS SUCH A GOOD SHIP, go spam @vantasarcastic about it, we love teridan so much lmao. (RWBY) LADYBUG IS SO UNDERRATED, THAT SHIP IS SO HECKIN CUTE.

💢 (HS) Honestly? In my experience Karezi is almost always simplified or misrepresented, even by fuckin hussie his goddamn self, who wrote about it a while ago and completely misread his own two characters lmao i have no idea what he was thinking. Karezi is always seen as this “low hanging fruit” type of ship, the “main guy character falls for quirky girl character” trope. And although it definitely started out that way, by the end of the comic (besides the lack of interaction after [s] game over) the characters grew and changed and their relationship would have also had it been explored more in the story. NOT TO START MYSELF ON A RANT HERE BUT: the retjohn and “you dont need him” was not the “end of karezi” it was just poorly handled and because hussie has clear favorites in his own story and was out to write mindfuckery, not an exploration of characters and their motivations. APPARENTLY. ANYWAY. (RWBY) Whiterose. As my favorite (non-polyamourous) ship, i CONSTANTLY see whiterose misunderstood and mischaracterized and honestly its super painful cause i fuckin love both of those characters and it pains me to see some people just not get like any of it. I saw a post recently that described the misunderstanding as people taking the ship and shoving it into the “genki girl/tsundere” category, which is exactly what i hate most: simplifying characters into their most base concepts, and then literally stopping there. Makes me ANGERY.

[gncrevan]

dear m.,

i write this in case you still check my blog (i'm sorry i checked yours, i was acting on paranoia, but i have stopped) and i have unblocked you for that reason. i hate to be misunderstood more than anything. i spent my whole life with my actions being misinterpreted and it breaks my heart. i really hope you read this.

from my perspective, here is what happened: we both were triggered by things the other did. when two traumatized people interact, this is something that can occur. i don't believe it's either of our fault and it's normal that we acted irrationally.

you wanted distance, which i respected. i didn't like not being told what happened/what i did wrong, and i didn't like the way you told me you wanted distance. this is also something that can happen when you have different needs. it reminded me of bad situations i had been in, which wasn't your fault, and i think i made it explicit that i didn't think it was your fault.

i was not in a good place when you offered to talk about it, and coming at it with questions about my intentions, whether my personal recounting of trauma was about you, didn't help. i should have told you there that i wasn't ready, but i failed to do that, as i didn't quite realize that this was the case. instead, i reacted flippantly at first and i apologize for that (i think i also apologized back then). your reaction, telling me to check my attitude, was unfortunately extremely reminiscent of things my father said, and further triggered me. you couldn't have known that, and i don't blame you. i realized in the moment that you couldn't know these things, and i took a breath. i did my all to calm down, look at it rationally. i told you that i didn't understand what was going on, i still don't really understand. i'm sorry if that sounds bad to you. it's not that i don't believe you or don't try to empathize. i have huge problems understanding what goes on in other people's heads. it helps me if they explain. my best guess is that i played into your hypervigilance by mistake and i'm really sorry i made you feel unsafe like that. it's hard sometimes to find the balance between expressing yourself and not stepping on other people's toes. i do think we could have talked this through and found a solution.

in the moment, I felt very lost and confused. i tried to explain myself to you and hold myself accountable. i admitted that seeing you say things that upset me meant more than seeing some random person say those things, cause i had related to you, and this might be why i overreacted. i apologized. i felt very exhausted and overwhelmed when you did not respect my request to not tell me what i didn't want to hear. i frankly also didn't agree with it. i think i gave you time and respected your boundaries. looking back, i can only interpret that me trying to explain myself sounded like i was accusing you. this was not my intention and i deeply regret that i wasn't able to convey what i intended. i have a thing in my brain where i think i need to explain myself and this will make things better. evidently, that's not always the case. maybe i should have asked you what you wanted to talk about, what you were feeling, and have you lead the conversation. i was tripping over myself trying to explain where i was coming from because i was scared of being misunderstood, and in the process i only made the misunderstanding worse. back there, you said you understood where i was coming from, but i'm not sure you did.

this is what happened next from my perspective: we both tried to process our feelings. i didn't know where we stood and i didn't know how or when to ask. the reason i looked at your blog was to see if there was any hint i could ask you. i should have just asked you and i regret not doing that. i thought asking you about your post was okay because you did the same thing before. i did my best to be friendly and not upset you, but i probably just shouldn't have lead with that in the first place, maybe not do it at all. i was acting out of hurt over being misunderstood and misrepresented. that's not an excuse, it's an explanation. i thought i was being diplomatic but i probably wasn't. when you told me off, that didn't make sense to me. i had said i could leave you alone but you never told me if that was what you wanted. from my point of view, i had offered and then never received a confirmation. that's like genuinely a problem for me, i can't infer meaning from vague sentences. and again, i realize i should have just asked, and not asking is on me. i'm still working on my hang-ups here. you seemed angry and i felt hurt. i still think we should have negotiated this better. i am not good at setting my own boundaries until it's too late, i'm mostly reactive. i should have told you earlier that i wasn't ready to talk, or that i didn't like you reading my blog after you unfollowed me. my defenses are weak and i never know when to enforce them. i enforced them too late, and in a manner that was fuelled by anger. i apologize for being indignant.

after that, i tried to sort through my thoughts. i realized that i had set a boundary at one point, albeit weakly and possibly not clearly enough (by trying to appeal to your pity in a way that was probably really pathetic). it's possible that i expected you to understand and realize things that you couldn't know about me because you cannot look into my head. i still felt like my boundary was disrespected and that i had thought that your boundaries would equally apply the other way around. i should have communicated that more clearly, i guess, but that's where my hurt was. that, and being misunderstood, and failing to clear up the misunderstanding.

background info: that is genuinely one of my biggest fears, being misunderstood. it has lead to so much shit in my life. i've done so much therapy focused on that and i still can't figure out what happens in those situations. i think it's because i'm autistic, that's the only explanation i have because listen, i really have tried to change this, i've tried so hard, and it just doesn't work! and i know my brain works in a weird way, and i'm assuming that's the problem. that's why i can't get it right. i told you before i don't know what i'm doing wrong when communicating with you, or others for that matter, and it's not me trying to just be "oh it isn't my fault, you have to pity me, i'm such a poor autistic", it's a genuine fucking problem and it has ruined my life and i wish i could stop it. i overexplain myself in hopes that this does the trick, and it works with some people, like people close to me, but i get that it can be overwhelming. if we ever talk again, i ask you to just tell me if i'm being overwhelming. i know i often talk too much. it's my brain.

back to the topic: i actually think we both made mistakes. i don't think either of us was acting maliciously. it can be hard to convey tone over the internet, and we both apparently pressed the wrong buttons. i accept that you are hurt and that you weren't feeling good and that we both clashed in a situation where we were feeling vulnerable, and proceeded to do things that unfortunately were triggers to the other one without knowing it. that sucks! what's done is done. it's ok if you're angry at me. you can do what you must to protect yourself emotionally, and i guess if that means i don't get my closure, then i must live with it. i'm trying to get closure inside my head, with myself.

the only thing i want to clarify is that i never saw you as my bff or therapist and never projected that onto you. i was actually often intimidated by you and exasperated by how much i was failing to convey things to you correctly. as you might recall, i wrote asks and messages to you about this sentiment. i felt a certain attachment because we related over trauma stuff, that's what i meant when i said projecting. i actually realised a long time ago you weren't exactly like me, and that's an experience i go through every time i relate to someone, and it just happens, it's neutral, it's only in my head etc. but yeah i want you to know that i never wanted to put pressure on you and didn't expect you to carry me or whatever and that i really didn't overestimate how close we were. people online are often really just concepts for us and it's complex to interact. i can relate to a concept, but i don't know that much about you, the person. i know that and i never meant to infer anything different. it's important to me that you don't think i'm like that, because i really don't appreciate people like that, i've had my fair share of them.

i hope that this can bring clarity and peace. i truly never want to upset people. i strive for better understanding and a kinder way that we treat each other.

[granpris]

Please listen for once.

Hello, I'm Granpris. I'm known as the current leader of Team Switched and the TS:Underswap project on Gamejolt. For several days drama has been going on on Tumblr, Gamejolt and wherever.

I'm quite sick of it having it cause me to become very ill recently and stressed, my team alike, due to the amount of false accusations and attacks directed towards me and my team.

I'm here today to debunk several popular claims and accusations that have been made towards our team, and hopefully end this mess. Please do not see this as an attack. I simply want to debunk some claims, as I’ve previously stated, and get my thoughts out there.

Before moving on to read my own post i highly recommend checking out the following posts as well for they also contain vital information and are a bit less opinionated than mine:

http://megaderping.tumblr.com/post/165903415711/regarding-the-drama-over-team-switched https://emeraldheck.tumblr.com/post/165910458062/hey-everyone-i-know-this-isnt-what-you-would https://gamejolt.com/games/undertale-underswap/160094/devlog/the-sans-dillema-jiagyb7p https://gamejolt.com/games/primus-underfell-official/249907/devlog/regarding-the-recent-team-switched-drama-mc9frvdb

- "You have/had a GoFundMe and have been scamming us for a year!"

No.

Back when the team was first founded, some members expressed wanting to put up a crowdfunding for the game, one having made a private page for it even. However, this was taken down, as it went against fangame policies. The same person later tried to get funding through Steam gifts, as receiving money directly wasn't allowed. However, none of this was ever shared with the team, and this member was booted off of the team. This project is free, and will always be free, no matter what. If we had a GoFundMe, Ko-fi, Kickstarter or anything of the sort, we would have likely been taken down ages ago, and we would have been called out for this way earlier. Long time fans can confirm we have not had any form of a crowdfunder.

- "This isn't Underswap! You're falsely advertising your game!"

Also no.

Underswap is a community owned AU now, meaning it has no set-in-stone owner and thus, everyone can do with it what they want. Not everyone has to stick with what has been introduced, and this was the case even before the original creators abandoned the AU.

The original creators had always encouraged different interpretations of the AU, even ones where personalities do not swap like with our project (As is clearly evident here). (I recommend right about now checking out Megaderping/Dorked’s post i linked earlier if you haven’t for it adds to what follows after this sentence.) 

And that's what it is! AN INTERPRETATION! I think this is something a lot of people misunderstand; it isn't meant to replace Underswap, or Blueberry, or Carrot, or anyone! This is just how we would've tackled the Underswap AU, using the base concept of characters having their roles swapped. If you don't like it, that's totally fine! If you don't like our designs, that's fine too! However, what isn't fine is making hate art, rant posts, and launching attacks and campaigns at us, all because we do not obey your every whim and make what YOU think our game should be, rather than allowing us to have the creative freedom this fandom has been given as well.

We have been very transparent about our project for well over a year now, having stated numerous times what our intentions are. We aren't doing personality swaps, we aren't going to have Sans be a sugar rushed childlike character wanting to be in the Royal Guard, nor will we have Papyrus be a lazy, honey chugging smoker, we won't have any of that. It isn't true to the characters so many of you and us fell in love with, and robs them of their character. We find it more interesting working with characters who retain their personalities in different scenarios rather than personality swapped characters who you can expect to just respond and act the same way towards situations as the character who had the role prior would have.

I find it honestly quite offensive when people tell us this is not Underswap, and that we aren't doing things how they were meant to be, when looking at Underswap's current state in hands of the fandom, that's exactly what's been done to it now. Underswap used to have a canon, and it was disrespected with people misrepresenting the AU and its characters, primarily Sans; he was made into a super smol, star eyed, sometimes if not permanently cat mouthed character with a personality nowhere close to either  Sans' or Papyrus'. There is nothing to their character besides just being and acting cute.

If you are looking at this from, let's say, a fanartist's perspective, that doesn't matter much. It's just a cute character you enjoy, right? Which is perfectly fine! However, try looking at Blueberry from the perspective of a writer, or a developer... you can not work with this. It's a flat, 1 dimensional character. They have barely any personality, and as previously stated, they're just meant to be cute. They aren't relatable or appealing at all. This is simply not something we want to work with.

I've gone on long enough here, so I'll end it off with something my co-worker and friend Kalin had to say:

We are trying to focus on making a game that tells the main story of Underswap. But let's just pretend all the unique art and music doesn't exist for a second. If we truly did it like that, we'd be telling the exact same story but all the names are switched and some objects and phrases would be switched around as well. Anything we could salvage out of that would be violating copyright of the original work, which Toby has explicitly stated before to not dis-encourage people from buying UNDERTALE, which would not only rob Toby of money, but also generally just be really disrespectful.

If you wanted Underswap to go the way it did, it would've been shut down by now.

Blueberry is only really meant to work in really short comic form or fan art. Our Sans, on the other hand, is written with more long-term stuff in mind; with the original Sans' character being placed in a different scenario, the outcome of the story can be different. Think of it like this: Would you rather have a game where you can predict everything that's going to happen, as in, Blueberry acting exactly like Papyrus, or would you rather play a game where you don't know what is going to happen?

- "One of your members used a ableist term to describe Blueberry and insult us!"

Yes, this member used an ableist term to describe Blueberry, and they are terribly sorry for it. However, he should not be the one getting hate. He showed me the message he was going to reply with containing the slur before he posted it, and I didn't point out the slur. If you have to be mad at someone, be mad at me. Do not get mad at them, and do not put my entire team in the same boat.

I, too, am sorry, for I approved the message knowing the term was used in it. It was unprofessional of me and I should have pointed it out when I could. I'm sorry for anyone offended by this.

HOWEVER.

It was never used to insult real people. The member used it to describe the current representation of Underswap or otherwise known as Blueberry Sans. No real person was meant to be targeted with the word.

- "You've been very rude to fans and have been bashing the fandom!"

Yes, this is somewhat true.

There have been occasions where some members have been kind of rude, and while I do not speak for them besides myself, we are sorry for our behaviour to some people. Working on a game for over one and a half years without any form of income and scraping for time to work on it, combined with other factors such as bad personal lives and impatient fans pushing for a demo/full release, may cause us to lash out sometimes. We're only human, after all.

As for bashing the fandom, this is also true to a degree.

Some of us, including myself, have been making several remarks towards the fandom and some of the people in it. I apologize for my part in that at least, for I can not speak for any of the others. I'm not going to try and justify my actions when it comes to this too much, but most of this originates from some things like Blueberry Sans that I've seen in the fandom and have a strong disliking towards. Yes, I apologize to the people I've possibly offended, but I shall not apologize for the bashing of any fictional AU characters and such. I am allowed an opinion on these things, and while I can be rude and extreme with this at times, which again I do apologize for to a degree, it is, nonetheless, an opinion. One of our members recently has gone a bit wild mocking several people and bothering them. I was not there when this happened as i was paying attention to our Tumblr at all times. Know, however, i do not approve what they did. I told them to stop and i hope that nothing more comes from this. I’m sorry for the long LONG post but I’ve been stressing out, throwing up, breaking down and whatnot because of this situation and needed to get my word out there. I just pray this drama can just end already because it’s not necessary at all and frankly quite petty.

[restoringsanity]

Like I'm not even an anti anti. I'm not interested in being part of this discourse -- but when I see anti-esque thoughtbits making their way onto my dash because they seem innocuous, it's nice to have a reminder that i didn't imagine or misunderstand the bullying that went on behind it, or when i'm worried about exploring a concept through shipping, it's nice to know that there's sound, logical reasons why that's okay and doesn't make me bad, and just . . . I dunno. Sorry. . . .

Sent after my first response,

You're right, sorry -- that's definitely a lot of responsibility to place on someone - I shouldn't have sent that anon @_@ You do what you need to take care of yourself!

No, no, you’re fine. It’s all good. Look - I wasn’t interested in being part of this discourse, either. At no point have I ever enjoyed this. Especially not the research I had to do on certain topics. I cannot emphasize that enough. I’ve always been reluctant to disclose any part of my identity publicly (I do it rarely still), because I don’t think it has any bearing on what I have to say, but trust me when I tell you that reading about and researching certain things made me more uncomfortable and caused me more pain than any type of fiction ever has, ever. All of that research I did was for ‘antis’ and ‘anti antis’ both, only to eventually realize that most ‘antis’ don’t give a singular considerate fuck about science or law (unless it supports their own position, and then they still manage to misrepresent both). If who you’re arguing against insists on staying misinformed and miserable, then - why bother? ‘Problematic’ content isn’t ever going to go away, as long as people aren’t lobotomized at birth. (Oh, ‘antis’ - watch the movie ‘Equilibrium’ (it’s not a good movie, but it illustrates your ‘utopia’ well) and read ‘1984′.) All I ever wanted to do was to tell ‘antis’ hey, look, here’s why this thing exists, and why it’s permissible, and here’s what you can do to protect yourself from it, if you do need protection. But - they don’t actually want that. Anyone is free to prove me wrong that ‘anti’ rhetoric isn’t just about moral policing and control. So, no. I’m not going to bother doing research on that subject anymore, or indulge in endless debates that end in people calling me names, because I’m wrong, bad, and disgusting. ‘Antis’ cause me real, actual, measurable grief. And some that side with ‘antis’ are likely just regular trolls. Being logically consistent demands that I protect myself from it.I’ll say I made some connections with nice and good folks so far, and that made me happy. It also made me happy to find that there’s many people who have a similar approach, and who share my ideals and principles. So, I understand where you’re coming from. Also, please don’t think I’m lecturing you, or that I’m mad at you. Not at all. That couldn’t be further from the truth. I appreciate your words, and your support.The sole reason for why I made this blog to begin with is, well

but when I see anti-esque thoughtbits making their way onto my dash because they seem innocuous, it's nice to have a reminder that i didn't imagine or misunderstand the bullying that went on behind it, or when i'm worried about exploring a concept through shipping, it's nice to know that there's sound, logical reasons why that's okay and doesn't make me bad

this.

[writersriot]

The Outsiders Queer Subtext ft. Jally - Part 19

Wednesday, June 14, 2017

Okay, so this time we’re taking a look at Ponyboy’s relationships with Darry and Johnny. This comes on the tail of the last part, with Cherry and Marcia’s boyfriend Socs rolling by the group walking home. The car passes by and the boys are relieved they don’t need to fight.

So then Cherry asks Pony about Darry, since he’s already said a lot about Soda. It’s a long quote, but here we go.

I tried to think of something to say about Darry, and shrugged. “What’s to talk about? He’s big and handsome and likes to play football.” (Pg 41)

[. . .]

My face got hot as I bit my lip. Darry . . .what was Darry like? “He’s. . .” I started to say he was a good ol’ guy but I couldn’t. I burst out bitterly: “He’s not like Sodapop at all and he sure ain’t like me. He’s hard as a rock and about as human. He’s got eyes exactly like frozen ice. He thinks I’m a pain in the neck. He likes Soda -- everybody likes Soda -- but he can’t stand me. I bet he wishes he could stick me in a home somewhere, and he’d do it, too, if Soda’d let him.”

Two-Bit and Johnny were staring at me now. “No. . .” Two-Bit said, dumbfounded. “No, Ponyboy, that ain’t right. . .you got it wrong. . .”

“Gee,” Johnny said softly, “I thought you and Darry and Soda got along real well. . .”

“Well, we don’t,” I snapped, feeling silly. I knew my ears were red by the way they were burning, and I was thankful for the darkness. I felt stupid. Compared to Johnny’s home, mine was heaven. At least Darry didn’t get drunk and beat me up or run me out of the house, and I had Sodapop to talk things over with. That made me mad, I mean making a fool of myself in front of everyone. “An you can shut your trap, Johnny Cade, ‘cause we all know you ain’t wanted at home, either. And you can’t blame them.”

Johnny’s eyes went round and he winced as though I’d belted him. Two-Bit slapped me a good one across the side of the head, and hard. “Shut your mouth, kid. If you wasn’t Soda’s kid brother I’d beat the tar out of you. You know better than to talk to Johnny like that.” He put his hand on Johnny’s shoulder. “He didn’t mean it, Johnny.”

“I’m sorry,” I said miserably. Johnny was my buddy. “I was just mad.”

“It’s the truth,” Johnny said with a bleak grin. “I don’t care.”

“Shut up talkin’ like that,” Two-Bit said fiercely, messing up Johnny’s hair. “We couldn’t get along without you, so you can just shut up!” (Pg 42-43)

There’s a lot to parse here. So at first, the only nice thing Pony has to say about Darry is that he is tall, handsome, and plays football. That’s very...unfamiliar, you know? A stranger could probably say the same about Darry. But when pushed, Pony spills his true thoughts. That Darry is cold, nearly inhuman, and more than likely would get rid of Ponyboy if he could.

This is an important moment because it again shows Pony’s unreliability as a narrator. His friends apparently don’t even know the feelings Pony is struggling with over his family. I don’t know about anyone else, but my friends know how I feel about my family, about our relationships. And I know the same about them. That might not be true of every friend group, obviously, but it strikes me as odd. Like, if Pony genuinely thinks that about Darry, he’s obviously mistaken since we see that’s not true throughout the book. I think Darry is hard on Pony because he wants the best for him, wants him to succeed despite all the setbacks they’ve had. Yet Pony sees that firmness as Darry not liking him and not wanting him around. But again, that just goes toward Pony being an unreliable narrator, as this is not the only time he misunderstands or misrepresents other characters and their situations.

And even though Pony can recognize that his situation isn’t bad compared to others in the gang, especially Johnny, that doesn’t stop him from being emotionally volatile and lashing out at Johnny. Who does not deserve that from a close friend because even though Johnny would probably like to think it isn’t true that his parents don’t care about him, it is something he believes and wishes were different. So Pony playing on that specific fear of a a kid stuck in an abusive household, it just breaks my heart. And of course Pony apologizes because he doesn’t want to hurt his friend, but the damage is kind of done already.

I love that Two-Bit sticks up for Johnny. And not in a “pet” way but in the way that he sees Johnny as being legitimately one of the gang, one part of a whole. Even if Pony doesn’t always see it in that way. Two-Bit telling Johnny not to talk like he’s not wanted because the gang wants him around just simultaneously warms and breaks my heart. He says they couldn’t get along without Johnny and I just want to cry because of what happens. Foreshadowing? Bleakly, yeah. 

Johnny feels neglected and unloved at home, and the gang is the only true family he has, but you can tell it’s almost not enough for him. It’s hard for a kid who just wants to feel loved by his parents, and no matter how great your friends are, at this age it’s just not the same. The gang treats him protectively but it’s not the same as parental love. These boys just hurt my heart so much.

Now, Pony keeps lamenting the unfortunate situations of the whole gang. Which, this paragraph is about the most information we get in that respect.

“It ain’t fair!” I cried passionately. “It ain’t fair that we have all the rough breaks!” I didn’t know exactly what I meant, but I was thinking about Johnny’s father being a drunk and his mother a selfish slob, and Two-Bit’s mother being a barmaid to support him and his kid sister after their father ran out on them, and Dally -- wild, cunning Dally -- turning into a hoodlum because he’d die if he didn’t, and Steve -- his hatred for his father coming out in his soft, bitter voice and the violence of his temper. Sodapop. . .a dropout so he could get a job and keep me in school, and Darry, getting old before his time trying to run a family and hold on to two jobs and never having any fun -- while the Socs had so much spare time and money that they jumped us and each other for kicks, had beer blasts and river-bottom parties because they didn’t know what else to do. Things were rough allover, all right. All over the East Side. It just didn’t seem right to me. (Pg 43)

Just break my heart some more why don’t you. Johnny’s parents are gross people who shouldn’t be parents. Two-Bit’s mom works to support them, which kind of surprises me that he’s still in school and apparently not working. In that situation with a sister to support as well, you might think he would do as Soda did and drop out to start working, especially since he’s the oldest of the gang. Steve hates his father, but we don’t know why that is. Steve being soft and bitter with a temper should probably tell us his dad at least isn’t a great guy either. Dally’s family isn’t even mentioned but I believe he is with his father out here, but at least Pony acknowledges that Dally didn’t have any other option than to be how he is if he wanted to survive. (Also, I love the description of wild and cunning for him)

All these boys have shitty situations they have to live with. But Johnny is still treated as this innocent who needs to be protected and loved in place of his family. I feel like this is another parallel drawn to Dally, who never had a chance to be anything but a hoodlum, with his innocence being stolen early on in life so he could survive. Johnny and Dally again are two sides of the same coin, and it’s instances like this that solidify that for me.

So what do you guys think about the home lives of the gang? And what about Pony’s simultaneous empathy and understanding of the gang alongside his self-oriented outlook that almost highlights his unreliability as a narrator? 

Until the next part~

[phantasyprone]

i'm in love with your blog and your Restlessness fic, Ive legit cried because of it. i hope this doesn't sound weird but yours is like one of the only phanfics Ive read where the sex is vers which was kinda weird to read at first no offence, but it wasn't by the end if that makes sense. i just wanted to ask why because its like rare to read in the phandom?

awww thanks anon! I’m so glad you like it and I’m sorry for any feels i may have caused. It gets angsty at points but if you’ve read up to the recent stuff i hope that has healed you, and if not then dw it gets less angsty.

And dw it’s not a weird question, but it’s kinda hard to answer. I think when writing sex into phanfics is really difficult because personally, as a writer, i have to draw a line between the fictional representations of actually real people and real people (dnp). So for the rest of this ask know that I’m referring to fictional people (even if they are based on real people) rather than real people. I feel kinda uncomfortable in speculating about the sex lives of real people because… well, for me that’s a bit too far. So in this response this is me discussing the characters within the phanfics.

I find it incredibly interesting how some sections of the phandom focus within their discourse and fictions on the idea of tops (t/) and bottoms (b/). I’ve seen many people delineate clear binaries between the two and in fictions and discourse there isn’t much representation of sexual versatility which I understand, however don’t necessarily agree with. 

An important thing to think about is why people draw such clear lines and how they make the decisions of which characters will be t/ or b/. Sometimes I fear that these decisions are based off heteronormative ideas of power, masculinity, and femininity. For example, some people tend to over-focus on aspects of D such as his curvier body (which is beautiful btw), him being slightly more ‘drama’ one might say, him being more overtly emotional. Then for P, they focus on aspects of him such as his strong arms and broad shoulders, his emotional stability, the fact that he’s older. It can be quite clear in some fictions that writers assign their fictional representation of P as being t/ and D as being b/ because they associate the societally constructed feminine or masculine traits as justification for the way they write sex. Of course, within the gay community this clear delineation is not necessarily the case, and there seems no grounding to assert these clearly defined roles onto the writer’s characters. Sometimes by being so averse to writing vers fics readers and writers aren’t challenged to think outside more heteronormative constructs of sex. Moreover, the implications of sex and power within some fics further defines the idea that femininity=submissiveness=submissiveness in sex. 

Gay relationships are gay relationships. There is no need to write them in accordance to straight tropes, especially if the male characters aren’t overtly feminine or masculine. The abundance of non vers fics misrepresents the gay community where many men identify as vers ( see here, here, here). Studies show (as well as my experience talking to friends) that particularly with couples who have been together for a while, and couples who are of similar ages, versatility within sex is far more common. So if this is the case, why is this so underrepresented within fandom communities who still tend to write the more ‘feminine’ character as b/ and the more ‘masculine’ character as t/? Even if the fictions play with the ideas of sub tops and power bottoms they still could be analysed as writing characters sex preferences through the heteronormative gaze. I would assume these fictions are written in such a way through a misunderstanding on behalf of the writer, or because there are not enough male gay writers, or writers who don’t do enough research, or writers who don’t converse and try to understand sex within the male gay community and are too influenced by heteronormative ideas of sex or by portrayals of gay men within the media.

The great thing about gay sex is that it doesn’t conform to straight sex. Versatility is great and enjoyed by many gay couples. Gay sex is not confined to heteronormative concepts and can break the boundaries of the binary between feminine/masclune, top/bottom, dominant/submissive. Studies have also found that vers men have a psychologically healthier approach to sex: ‘ Versatiles seem to enjoy better psychological health. Hart and his coauthors speculate that this may be due to their greater sexual sensation seeking, lower erotophobia (fear of sex), and greater comfort with a variety of roles and activities.; (source). 

I think writers need to start thinking beyond the tropes of presenting clear lines between tops and bottoms. I think there should be more representation of vers relationships in fiction as this will help deconstruct heteronormative ideas of femininity and masculinity being translated into clear power dynamics within sexual relationships that have the capacity to transcend such binaries. And even if a character is more societally ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’, why does this have to have a clear correlation to roles within sex? The answer: it doesn’t. 

Sorry, this is so tl;dr, and I’m sorry it took so long to answer, but yeh, i hope this helps everyone especially those who don’t have straight sex to think more openly about roles within gay and lesbian sex, because deconstructing ideas of heteronormativity and power dynamics can lead to a more sex positive way of thinking, a healthier sex life, and more sexual pleasure and sexual experiences to have :) 

[goldeagleprice]

Yesterday’s blog gets a response

Bernard von NotHaus is not happy with my blog yesterday that was written after I had received an email from him to announce a new cryptocurrency project.

Here is his full email to me:

“How in the hell could you misrepresent my post in the Liberty Dollar Newsletter? LD2 is NOT my project.

“I clearly state: ‘Even more amazing is that the new “crypto Liberty Dollar” is the work of my son, Extra, who grew up in the Royal Hawaiian Mint, and Steven Brendtro, who was an outstanding Regional Currency Officer in the original Liberty Dollar organization. I must confess LD2 came to me as a complete surprise. I am a shocked, pleased and an amazed parent.’ [This] confirms I didn’t even know about. And that is the truth!

“Plus LD2 is a hell of lot more than an ‘idea’ it is functioning crypto currency, complete with a warehouse, CPA audit report and sales! I am shocked at your quick to shoot, unprofessional behavior. Why would you do such a hatchet job on a new project? Please correct the damage you have caused to Extra and Steve Brendtro’s LD2 project.

“I say it again… LD2 is NOT my project! I was not involved with it nor did I even know about it until just before they launch it.

“I posted it so the thousands of Liberty Dollar supporters and collectors knew that I was aware of it and that it was a genuine business that could be trusted.

“Your article went a long way towards misrepresenting the project.

“Please make this right.

“Bernard

“PS: I think a genuine article including an interview with Extra and Steve is in order to correct any misunderstanding in the collector community.

“PPS: In your hasty attack, you even misspelled my name, capital ‘H’ please.”

That is the full text of his email to me in my morning inbox.

Did I misrepresent anything yesterday?

I was working from his email to me, which was titled, “WOW! Liberty Dollar LIVES!”

He signed it:

“Bernard von NotHaus” with “Monetary Architect” beneath his name.

My blog said:

“He credits two people for its creation.

“The first is his son named ‘Extra.’

“The second is Steven Brendtro, whom Von Nothaus said was ‘an outstanding Regional Currency Officer in the original Liberty Dollar organization.’”

I also read the one-page report from the website about the new venture and referred readers to it.

You can read the full page here.

I will refer you to the part of the one-page report that reads this way:

“As a pre-issue to the publicly-available LD2 cryptocurrency, a ‘version zero’ will be issued as an ERC20 token on the Ethereum blockchain. This very limited token will be offered only for private sale, by invitation only, and will help ensure/fund full operational functionality prior to larger issuances.”

Is what I wrote yesterday a misrepresentation?

That was certainly not my intent.

If the effect of the full blog was somehow to mislead instead of to alert collectors to a new gorgeous silver round that will become part of a series that is avidly collected in certain numismatic circles, for that I am sorry.

Again, go to the official website and take a look at it.

And yes, I somehow managed to not capitalize the “H” in the von NotHaus name.

The home page of the official website is here.

Buzz blogger Dave Harper won the Numismatic Literary Guild Award for Best Blog for the third time in 2017 . He is editor of the weekly newspaper “Numismatic News.”

Like this blog? Read more by subscribing to Numismatic News.

  The post Yesterday’s blog gets a response appeared first on Numismatic News.

[anautisticdragon-blog]

"You want me to wear WHAT, mate?"

The Chainmail Bikini Bias Experiment

I feel that the alt-right is basically staffed by the kind of short-sighted neurotypicals I've been talking about on this blog. I admit, part of it is the discussions I've had with an acquaintance whom I know is NT. There's something about the incredibly nonsensical way their brain works, claiming-rationality-whilst-not-using-rationality (SKEPTISIZM). Anyway, there's a fairly simple thought exercise you can use to find out whether the people you know are rational, sensible, egalitarian, and most likely on the autistic spectrum, or crazed loonies with self-contradictory views who could only be both NT and alt-right. I'll show you a little exchange I had so you can get a feel for how it goes, yes? We'll call this the Chainmail Bikini Bias Experiment (or CBBE). Autistic Dragon: So you don't believe that there's any relevance to Sarkeesian's claims of unequal treatment of the sexes in video games? I don't agree. Let's look at an example. What of chainmail bikinis? If you're the kind of person who proposes inclusivity and equality for all, I would surmise that you're against enforced chainmail bikini armour in video games? Neurotypical: Why would I be against that? AD: Would you support chainmail jockstraps for men? NT: No, that's covering a sexual organ. AD: The chainmail bikini isn't??? NT: No, that's a reproductive organ. It's different. AD: So it's necessary to cover a sexual organ but not a reproductive organ, then? NT: Yes. AD: So, what, vaginas aren't sexual organs? NT: Not exactly. AD: That's a bizarrely sexist viewpoint from you. They're both, well... both. NT: No, they're not. AD: Right, instead of going around in circles, let's just call them 'private parts.' What's wrong with offering that? NT: No one wants chainmail jockstraps. AD: You don't. I do. It'd be entertaining to see chainmail jo-- NT: Guys don't want to see chainmail jockstraps. AD: Am I not a guy??? NT: You're not saying it because you want to. AD: Okay, let's look at it from a completely different angle, then. Okay? NT: Okay. AD: Women want chainmail jockstraps. NT: No, they don't. AD: Okay. Then women don't want chainmail bikinis. NT: Yes, they do. AD: Okay, that's very contrary of you. Anyway, there's a lot of evidence on the Internet that says they don't. [I link to a web search about chainmail bikinis, every result overwhelmingly supports my position.] NT: Most women don't. AD: Do you have any evidence to support that? NT: Most women don't. AD: Instead of going around and around in these circles you love, do you have any evidence? NT: Most women don't. AD: This is getting nowhere. I'll say that every woman I've spoken with doesn't want it. NT: Most women don't, I've spoken with more women than you have about this. AD: I'm sorry? I beg your parden? NT: I've spoken with more women than you. AD: [I'm tempted to remind him that I'm involved with art communities which have more women than men in them, whereas he barely knows any women.] And that means that all of these other women on the Internet are wrong? All those search results are wrong, somehow? All those women, right there, are wrong? NT: Yes. AD: About themselves??? NT: Yes. AD: [I'm taken aback here for a moment as there's a long pause, I'm absolutely lost for words at this point.] Okay. Let's just say for the sake of equality... NT: No one wants it. AD: Please. Explain the Saints Row series. NT: That's fine for those games. It's not good for games with different demographics. AD: So you're saying that the largest demographic consists of women that want to be seen in skimpy clothes, and men that want to be seen as fully clothed and non-sexualised? NT: Yes. There's a difference between men and women. AD: Errr, yes, but it's mostly voice and body shape if anything. And that's not even taking into account how one might gender identify... NT: There's a difference. AD: I know, I said there was. I just think that we have different opinions on what that is. You seem to think that there's a biological factor causing gneder roles which leads to someone wanting to choose a chainmail bikini or full platemail. I don't agree. So, just for the sake of argument, let's say I'm a woman and I don't want a chainmail bikini... NT: You roll a man. AD: I'm sorry? NT: You roll a man. AD: I don't think I understand what you're saying, here. You're telling me that my only option to avoid chainmail bikinis is to roll a man? NT: Yes. AD: [There's another pause, here, as the sheer sexist arrogance on display here has my mind reeling. The sheer illogic and lack of ethics is startling, so it's becoming tricky to keep my cool.] What if I don't want to roll a man? NT: Then you have a chainmail bikini. AD: And if I don't want a chainmail bikini? NT: Then you roll a man. AD: You said yourself that there's differences between men and women. So if someone identifies as a woman, they should roll a man? I have to ask at this point: Is your view of gender dimorphism is that it's separated by chainmail bikinis versus full body platemail? What of other factors? NT: Such as? A woman in full platemail is no different than a man. So they roll a man. AD: [There's another very long pause here as I rest my face in my palms and take a very deep breath, followed by a soulful sigh.] The difference in voice and body shape that would allow them to represent what they identify as, perhaps? Hip size, torso length, breasts, et cetera. What I'm getting at here is gender dimorphism... NT: If they're in full platemail, does it matter? AD: Yes??? It's about their identity, they should be allowed to identify as they want, and wear what they want (or don't want). NT: Most women would just want the chainmail bikini. AD: Why did we jump back to this? This is just an opinion you have that there are biological factors enforcing gender roles, so that all women would choose a chainmail bikini. NT: I'm not wrong. AD: Reality wouldn't seem to agree. Still, for the sake of argument... this is set in stone, then? The woman would want the chainmail bikini? NT: Yes. AD: Let me tell you what you've said so far. Okay? NT: Okay. AD: A female character must have a chainmail bikini because they're biologically a woman, their biology informs a gender role that would have them always make that choice. A male character must have full platemail because they're biologically a man, their biology informs a gender role that would have them always make that choice. Anyone who doesn't like this is wrong as these gender roles are set in stone. Men shouldn't be allowed to waer a chainmail jockstrap because they don't have a reproductive organ and that is the most representative feature of a woman, biologically. Women shouldn't wear full platemail because they don't have a sexual organ and that is the most representative feature of a man, biologically. This doesn't sound like logical objectivity, this sounds like insanity! NT: You're misrepresenting me. AD: Am I? I'm just repeating what you've said. NT: You're misrepresenting me. AD: Then tell me what you're saying. NT: I'm just saying that no woman wants to be in full platemail, and no man wants a chainmail jockstrap. AD: And they feel that way because of reproductive versus sexual organs? NT: Yes. AD: Isn't that what I claimed you said??? NT: No. You must be misunderstanding me. You're misunderstanding my point. You just can't understand my point. AD: What is your point? NT: Like I said. There's no demographic that supports chainmail jockstraps for men, or a large enough one to support full platemail for women. Developers have to prioritise one over the other. AD: Wouldn't maximising the number of people playing be the most apt priority? NT: Yes. That's why they go with what people want. AD: And you're the absolute authority on what people want, not them? NT: I didn't say that. AD: Okay. So what if they run a survey. What if the survey says that people want both? NT: I've seen surveys. They support my view. AD: I'd love to see those! Can I see them? NT: I don't want to get them right now, it's late. AD: At this point, I'd be inclined to posit that you haven't spoken with any women about this, nor have you seen any surveys. You just want your preference pushed on everyone. NT: No. I don't. it's what everyone wants! AD: I don't think it is. You have no proof to support these illogical assertions, no matter how often or how irritably you repeat them. You have nothing to back it up with or you would've shown me by now. I invite you to prove me wrong. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that's in support of your arrogant assertions? NT: You're misrepresenting me again. AD: How??? NT: You're misrepresenting my position. AD: How? How am I doing that? NT: You're misrepresenting me. AD: You can say that, but you realise it's meaningless if you can't tell me how I'm misrepresenting you? I've given you every chan-- NT: You're misrepresenting me! AD: I've given you ample opportunity to show me proof. I've given you every chance to reiterate and explain. I want equality. As an empath and an ethical person, it's really all I want. What do you want, exactly? NT: I want what people want. AD: Weasel words. Who are these people? Where is your evidence? NT: You have no evidence. AD: Well, yes, i do. And let's look at that, shall we? Saints Row has moved toward providing these options. ESO recently changed to provide these options. Why would this have happened if my position is flawed? It appears that these developers have chosen to support-- NT: Anita Sarkeesian is manipulating them! AD: How? NT: She's manipulating them! AD: How? All she's doing is talking to them, and us. NT: She's manipulating them. AD: How? Do you have any evidence to support that accusation? NT: She's manipulative, she has influence, and she's changing things! AD: Can you give me an example of a developer who changed something due to something that Anita Sarkeesian said? NT: She has influence. She spoke in the UN! AD: So you think that Anita Sarkeesian is the only one with influence? NT: Yes! AD: Why do you think that is? NT: She's more manipulative. AD: You think that she's the only person who can be manipulative? NT: She's a psychopath. AD: That's not relevant. The only reason that people would listen to her overall is if there aren't any valid counterpoints to her arguments. NT: Here, look at this video of VidCon. You can see she shouted at a guy at this panel, this proves she's a psychopath! AD: Er... First of all? Shouting at someone doesn’t make you a psychopath. Secondly, I'd say did it because he was openly heckling her in the audience, or did you not notice that? So why did she shout? Oh, I don't kow, perhaps because she has feelings? Okay. Nevermind. Let's drop Anita, you're too obsessed with Anita Sarkeesian. So, let's just say, if only for the sake of argument, that the audience is 50/50... NT: Okay, but it's not. AD: I'm going to ignore that, we don't want to get back to being stuck in another loop. Let's continue with this exercise, okay? NT: It's still not. AD: Aaanyway. I'm arguing for equality. I want both options or none. I'm saying that both can have chainmail underwear, or none should. The option should be inclusively available for both of the parties, or neither. NT: That's not what people want. AD: [I sigh, then continue.] So I'm saying that it'd be nice if X could be 0 or 1, and Y could be 0 or 1, because options are great for everyone. NT: Developers need to prioritise. They prioritise based on what people want. AD: And what they want is both or neither, as is evidenced by recent game development, such as ESO changing its armour options as I mentioned. NT: That's Anita Sarkessian manipulating them. AD: Oh god, not again. Anita Sarkeesian isn't capable of mind control. NT: She's manipulating them. AD: What I'm arguing for is X can be 1 or 0, and Y can be 1 or 0. You're arguing for X should be 1 only, and Y should be 0 only. Why? NT: It's what people want, the developers prioritise according to the demographic. AD: I could say we've disproved that, but it'd just turn into another loop about how manipualtive Sarkeesian is again. NT: Sarkeesian is manipulative. AD: I know. I know. You've made your opinion painfully clear. She's a sociopath, a psychopath, a Machiavellian puppet-master. Can we move on? NT: You're misrepresenting me. AD: Okay, just a liar and a psychopath, then? NT: Yes. AD: And manipulative? NT: Yes. AD: Okay. NT: Okay.

AD: So I'm arguing for X can be 1 or 0, and Y can be 1 or 0, and you're arguing for X is 1 only, and Y is 0 only. I think it's because you have a sexist prejudice you're not aware of, one that you're desperate to back up with cognitive dissonance and fallacies. Your cognitive bias is showing, here. NT: You're misrepresenting me. AD: [I breathe in and out, deeply. I give myself pause before I continue.] Now... I finally, fully understand the meaning of filibuster. I can't show you your sexism. I can't argue with a sexist prejudice. It's not logical. NT: Especially when it's a phantom prejudice that doesn't exist. AD: Alright. NT: So can you see that it's not what people want? AD: I've had enough, we'll have to agree to disagree. After this, the NT in question takes it as though they've 'won' something by using a filibuster (or sheer, oblivious, wilful ignorance), and walks off all proud as I don't want to waste my entire life on this. I've yet to see a solid, logical, calm, patient, well researched argument from any of these NTs who seem to love to align with the alt-right. It's all a big, steaming pile of crap if I'm honest. It's about domination, hierarchy, supremacy, and tribally hoarding the best things for one's own and ensuring that no others can enjoy equal time in the sun. NT-ran hate movements like the alt-right aren't at all interested in equality, they're interested in suppression, oppression, and power. That's all their movements are about, they feel their power slipping away. Oh, the poor NT mans who'll have less chainmail bikinis to look at. Oh, the humanity. Why, clearly this is a case of gender inequality at all, it's meant to victimise men! It's a plot! A conspiracy! This is precisely why Anita Sarkeesian is so well liked. This is why alt-right NTs are seen as nothing more than an arrogant circlejerk of incredibly irrational simplists. And just for the record? I did actually do some research and ask in some gamer communities where women hang out whether they enjoyed chainmail bikinis. Every person there vehemently said that they did not, including the men, funnily enough. But oh! This is a conspiracy! Clearly these men are emasculated, they're being manipulated by the vile, devious Mastermind Anita Sarkeesian from her Central Control Chamber on Jupiter, brainwashed by her Womyn Mind Beams! The sky is falling, Chicken Little. Still... Go figure, eh? A lot of reasonable men dislike an element that's only there to misguidedly appeal to a minority of sexists, breaking immersion and ruining the game of anyone who isn't a sexist. Big surprise! Have i mentioned that I don't like NTs?

[goldeagleprice]

Yesterday’s blog gets a response

Bernard von NotHaus is not happy with my blog yesterday that was written after I had received an email from him to announce a new cryptocurrency project.

Here is his full email to me:

“How in the hell could you misrepresent my post in the Liberty Dollar Newsletter? LD2 is NOT my project.

“I clearly state: ‘Even more amazing is that the new “crypto Liberty Dollar” is the work of my son, Extra, who grew up in the Royal Hawaiian Mint, and Steven Brendtro, who was an outstanding Regional Currency Officer in the original Liberty Dollar organization. I must confess LD2 came to me as a complete surprise. I am a shocked, pleased and an amazed parent.’ [This] confirms I didn’t even know about. And that is the truth!

“Plus LD2 is a hell of lot more than an ‘idea’ it is functioning crypto currency, complete with a warehouse, CPA audit report and sales! I am shocked at your quick to shoot, unprofessional behavior. Why would you do such a hatchet job on a new project? Please correct the damage you have caused to Extra and Steve Brendtro’s LD2 project.

“I say it again… LD2 is NOT my project! I was not involved with it nor did I even know about it until just before they launch it.

“I posted it so the thousands of Liberty Dollar supporters and collectors knew that I was aware of it and that it was a genuine business that could be trusted.

“Your article went a long way towards misrepresenting the project.

“Please make this right.

“Bernard

“PS: I think a genuine article including an interview with Extra and Steve is in order to correct any misunderstanding in the collector community.

“PPS: In your hasty attack, you even misspelled my name, capital ‘H’ please.”

That is the full text of his email to me in my morning inbox.

Did I misrepresent anything yesterday?

I was working from his email to me, which was titled, “WOW! Liberty Dollar LIVES!”

He signed it:

“Bernard von NotHaus” with “Monetary Architect” beneath his name.

My blog said:

“He credits two people for its creation.

“The first is his son named ‘Extra.’

“The second is Steven Brendtro, whom Von Nothaus said was ‘an outstanding Regional Currency Officer in the original Liberty Dollar organization.’”

I also read the one-page report from the website about the new venture and referred readers to it.

You can read the full page here.

I will refer you to the part of the one-page report that reads this way:

“As a pre-issue to the publicly-available LD2 cryptocurrency, a ‘version zero’ will be issued as an ERC20 token on the Ethereum blockchain. This very limited token will be offered only for private sale, by invitation only, and will help ensure/fund full operational functionality prior to larger issuances.”

Is what I wrote yesterday a misrepresentation?

That was certainly not my intent.

If the effect of the full blog was somehow to mislead instead of to alert collectors to a new gorgeous silver round that will become part of a series that is avidly collected in certain numismatic circles, for that I am sorry.

Again, go to the official website and take a look at it.

And yes, I somehow managed to not capitalize the “H” in the von NotHaus name.

The home page of the official website is here.

Buzz blogger Dave Harper won the Numismatic Literary Guild Award for Best Blog for the third time in 2017 . He is editor of the weekly newspaper “Numismatic News.”

Like this blog? Read more by subscribing to Numismatic News.

  The post Yesterday’s blog gets a response appeared first on Numismatic News.